m Im

1

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

1936

VINDICATION Of the
SACRED BOOKS
AND OF
JOSEPHUS,
tSPECIALLY THE FORMER,
FROM VARIOUS
MISREPRESENTATIONS and CAVILS
OF THE CELEBRATED
M. DE VOLTAIRE.
liVho is this that darkeneth counfel bywords without know*
ledge? ' Job xxxviii. 2.
B Y
ROBERT F I N D L A Y, A. M.
ONF OF THE MINISTERS OF eLASGOW»
GLASGOW:
PRlKtEt) BY ROBERT AND ANDREW FOULIS,
AND
SOLD BY J. GILMOUR AND SON, J. BARRY,
AND THE PRINTERS.
M.DCC.LXX.

M^v+7 770^

PREFACE.

TO give a fliort account of the rife and progrels
of this work, while it gratifies the curiofity
of the reader, may at the fame time fuggeft fome
apology to thofe, who are difpofed to cenfure the
vanity of the publication, or perhaps the prefump-
tion, of attacking fo diftinguifhed a writer. It is
therefore as follows. When the Authors of the
Monthly Review for July 1765 gave a tranflati-
on of the whole forty ninth chapter of Mr. Voltaire's
PhUofophy of Hiftory, as a fpecimen of that work,
I perceived fo many falflioods in it, fmall as its com-
pafs was, that I wrote out a detedUon of them in
difpleafure at fuch an attempt to miflead the
world; and having done this, I tranfmitted it to
London, with the view of its being made public,
if fome able judges there, to whofe examination it
was fubjeded, fhould upon p6rufal approve it. For
fo I hoped, that the Author himfelf might be taught,
fhould it fall into his hands, to be more honeft and
cautious in his future details from antient books ;
and at any rate, that others might be thereby
guarded againft blind and implicit reliance on his
accounts for the time to come, becaufe it exhibited
to them fome glaring inftances of mifk-eprefentation
in him. Thefe perfons were fo far pleafed with it, as
to efteem it worthy of a place in a periodical mi feel -
a 2

iv PREFACE.
lany, and for this reafon procured its admilllon into
the Unlverfal Mufeum for the month of December
in that year, with the running titles which they ap
pointed for it.
Towards the end ofthe year 1 7 67, again, when
1 firft read the book, 1 formed a more extenfive
fcheme; even that of fliewing, the Author had*
through it, been many times guilty of a. girofs difre-'
gard to truth and candour, both in his recitals from
Jofephus the Jewifti hiftorian, and in his quotations
or narratives from the facred writers, which I confi-
dered as one good expedient for defeating the irreli
gious tendency of his compoiitions, with all who
made any pretenfions to fair and equitable procedure
in their way of thinking ; and the more requifite,;
that it could not be fuppofed he had confined his un-
juft dealing with thefe authors to that work, but had
taken like unjuftifiable liberties with them in other
treatifes, where he made any mention of them. And
foon after, in profecution of this defign, I prepare<i
fome remarks upon his injuries to Jofephus, for
the fame monthly coUeftion, into which they were
alfo very readily received, by thofe who had the direc
tion of it for January and February 1768.
Thus I was going on with the execution of my
plan, happy in the thought, as the Mufeum was re
ported to be in very great demand, that the obferva-
tions were likely to fall in- the way of large numbers,.
and among thofe, of fome who, however much they
might need a caveat againft unreferved confidence iu
Mr. Voltaire as their guide upon religious fubjecls,
would be apt to negleft any volume profefledly writ
ten to fliew hewas very difingenuous, and unfaithful

PREFACE. y
is his relations about fuch matters. But I foon
found, that material mftakes, through which the
fenfe would be deftroyed or altered, would be un
avoidable, on account of my diftance from the
prefs, notwithftanding all reafonablecare and at
tention on the part of the editors.  T likewife
forefaw, that the animadverfions concerning his
treatment of the fcriptures, would become too learn
ed and critical for that channel of conveyance into
the world, confidering the fafliionable tafte among
readers of Magazines, unlefs I would fatisfy myfelf
with a more flight and fuperficial examination of fome
points which occurred in the piece, than I efteemed
neceflary for anfwering my end. — Finally, 1 loft in
the fucceeding fummer, my long kind and much
honouredfriend Dr. Lardner,fojuftly famous through
the Chriftian church, for his Credibility of the Gof-
pel Hiftory, and his Jewifti and Heathen Teftimonies,
and thereby, the great advantage of his judicious
perufal of my remarks, ere they were communicated
to the public ; as indeed fome of them were in his cuf-
tody at his death, but fince that, were obligingly re
turned, at my defire, by his executor, a nephew in
law, Mr. Jofeph Jennings. The effed of thefe things
was, that I determined to break ofFpublifliing in that
mifcellaneous and monthly performance, nay almoft
quit thoughts of doing it in any other ftiape.
Having been, however, toward the conclufion of
winter 1-769, more fully convinced, partly by my
own obfervation, and partly by converfation with
others, who neither wanted difcernment nor oppor-?
tunity for making remarks, ofthe mifchievous influi
ence of Mr. Voltaire's writings upon the religious
a 3

vi PREFACE.
principles and manners of the age ; underftanding
likewife that perfons at a diftance, to whofe o-
pinion I paid refpedl, were perfuaded it would
be a real and important fervice to mankind, to ex-
pofe the more flxiking inftances of his errors,andmifre-
prefentations in matters relative to our Chriftian fyf-
tem of faith; and, withal, confidering, that a new edi
tion of his whole works had been lately advertifed here
herein Scotland, by which their baneful efficacy would
be more generally diffiifed in this corner, where Pro
vidence has ordered my fituation, I fo far began to
think it might be ufeful to execute the fcheme, which
I had hitherto but in a comparative light entered up
on, in a feparate treatife, as to impart the idea to
fome worthy friends at home, who all agrted to
commend the intention as excellent, while one of
them, more efpecially, animated and encouraged me,
amidft fome hefitation, to the undertaking.
Since that time, therefore, I have been more re-
folved upon this meafure ; mean while, 1 much en
larged the manufcript beyond its original fize. For,
to omit other * additions, whereas from the begin
ning I had confined my animadverfions to the Phi-
lofophy of Hiftory, I hereon took notice of feveral
paflTages in fome f other of Mr. Voltaire's literary
produftions, which were liable to like exceptions;
• The additions in the firft part, which treats of Mr Vohaire's
injuries to Jofephus, may be perceived by any perfoD ¦who compares ijC
•with the papers printed in the Mufeum,
¦|- The other works of Mr. Voltaire, in which I have cenfured fome
paffages, are, his Treatife on Toleration, his Philofophical Diftiona-
ry, his Dialogues and Bflays Literary and Philofophical, his Ignorant
Philofopher, and his Letters od eminent Writers.

PREFACE. vU
nor only of fuch as had a refemblance and agreement
in their turn and language, with thofe in that treat
ife which I at firft propofed to confider, (though
thefe are not few, becaufe he repeats the fame falfe
accounts or unjuft gloffes, in different pieces, again
arid again,) but even of fome where the abufe was
wholly new and diftindl from any I had there met
with. Befides, upon this determination, I afligned to
his injurious reflexions and cavils againft the authen
ticity of this or that canonical book, in general, a fe
parate place, and beftowed upon them a more fuU
and accurate examination than before, when only
fome flight attention had been fliewed to two or
three of them, in laying open his unfair reprefenta-
tions of the fenfe of Scripture.
1 have been abundantly fenfible, while employed
in meditating this criticifm on Mr. Voltaire's works,
that 1 could not write in his entertaining and fpright-
ly manner ; far lefs enliven my fubjeft with his ftrokes
pf humour iand raillery : neverthelefs, I have not
been difcouraged by the flrongeft confcioufnefs of this
inequality. For it feemed to me, that it was a man's
duty, to ufe fuch talents of reafon and learning as
God had conferred upon him, for promoting the
caufe of truth and piety, though he might fall flioft
of an adverfary to it, in a lively and animated way
of expreffinghis fentiments : the more, that numbers
of mankind will hearken and yield to found argu
ment, tho' it may not be recommended by elegance in
its delivery. It occured to me, likewife, that if 1 want
ed abilities for ridicule and wit, I would be more likely
to efcape the charge which hath been brought a-
gainft fome advocates for Chriflianity, of wandering
a 4

viii PREFACE.
far from the mark, and be lefs in hazard of irritat*
ing Mr. Voltaire's admirers to fuch a degree, as to
fteel them againft the force ofthe evidence I offer, to
evince his great negled of veracity and fairnefs where
religion is concerned.
I have further been aware, that fome perfons who
may exceedingly need a caveat and prefervative a-
gainft the pernicious tendency of this author's writ
ings, are apt to be difgufted when they fee a. book
written in oppofition to thefe irreligious fallies which
he hath interfperfed in his publications fwell to fuch
a fize as the prefent, and merely on that account
to treat it with contempt. For, impatient of much
attention of mind to moral and fpiritual fubjefts, and
equally averfe to much expence of time and leifure
upon them, however lavifli they may be of both
about fome things that are trifling and infignificant
when laid in ballance therewith, they would always
have the defences for truth and Chriftianity as fliort
and concife as the fneers and objeftions that are
fquirted out againft them. But neither have 1 here
by been dilheartened from giving the offenfive ar
ticles in Mr. Voltaire, upon the heads abovemen-
tioned, a more ample and large difcufllon ; though,
indeed, I have had a fovereign regard to perfons of
that caft of mind in ftudying brevity upon every
iingle exception and mifreprefentation, and, where
the fame could not be obferved in confiftence with
the juftice 1 owed to the matter in hand, in providing
paufes, or ftops for them, within the extent of a fee-
tion, where they might reft, if tired, till they were
dilpofed to proceed with frefh fpirit in the perufal of
it. Such perfons Ihould refled:, if they would be guid-

PREFACE. i3!
«d by fober intelligence, that a cavil may be propofed
with eafe in a few words, either againft the genuine?
nefs of a book, or the truth of a hiftorical fad, or
the equity of a ftatute, efpecially if they are of great
antiquity ; and yet, a juft refutation of it, far from
being capable of being brought within the fame fmall
compafs, may require a great number of pages. In
like manner they fhould attend, a difadvantageoufly
falfe account of a writer's meaning may be couched
with facility in a fentence or two, wherein his words
are either mifquoted or mifinterpreted ; and yet it
will be needful for his vindication to be much more
prolix, at leaft in the latter cafe, becaufe it muft be
fliewed from fuch circumftances as there is reafon to
take in, that the fenfe put upon his words is the re-
fult of a wild and perverfe explanation of them ; and
that another conftrudion, which furnifhes no handle
to derogate from his praife and worth, is the only
true and genuine one which they can receive. They
ought not therefore to be prepoffeffed againft an an-
fwer on the fide of religion, purely becaufe ic occu
pies more room than the objedion or mifreprefenta
tion to which it is oppofed 5 and the lefs, becaufe the
words thereof muft be recited, that there may be
no complaint of wrong done by the apologift, which
muft always increafe in fome meafure, and often ve
ry confiderably, the length of his performance. Be
fides, I herein intend a fervice to many who are of a
much nobler and better temper. Being fatisfied up
on good grounds that the fcriptures contain a reve
lation from God, they are defirous, according to their
ability, to acquaint themfelves with the vanity and
weaknefs of the pleas of fcoffers, that they may be

X PREFACE.
better fortified againft any bad impreffion by the al
legations of fceptics, into whofe company and con
verfation they may fall, or into whofe works they
may caft their eyes ; nay, they even wifh, by fuch
knowledge of their futility and fallhood, to be ena
bled to put to filence gainfayers, who deride the au
thority, or traduce the contents of the facred books.
Hitherto I have not feen any pubUcation which
could fuperfede the propriety of this attempt to
fliew Mr. Voltaire and the public thefe capital
faults which I have prefumed to accufe him, and
thereby to fruftrate the aim of the pernicious parts
of his writings. Only in the Chriftian's Maga
zine, or Treafury of Divine Knowledge, for No
vember, 1766, and four fucceeding months, I met
with ' A Confutation of thofe Paffages of Scripture
* produced by Mr. Voltaire in the i 2 th and i 3 th
' chapters of his Treatife on Religious Toleration,
* whence he endeavours to prove that idolatry was
* tolerated by God amongft the Jews.' But here, as is
plain from the title of the piece which I have men
tioned, the defign of its anonymous author, even in
reference to the juftification of fcripture from Mr.
Voltaire's abufe or wrong expofition, was far more
contraded and circumfcribed than that which I had
formed. Nor did fome of the paflages which he
wrefts to fupport his affertion feem to have re
ceived fo accurate and thorough a confideration
there, as they merited ; for which reafon I have
alfo beftowed my care and pains upon fixing their
real import, where they fell within my plan. And
as I have not feen any publication which could ren
der the prefent improper and fuperfluous, no more

PREFACE. xi
have I learned from any literary journals which I
have looked into, that any work hath been print
ed againft Mr. Voltaire, at home or abroad, of fuch
a nature as to afford any argument for fuppreffing
it; though I have endeavoured to get informati
on *, that I might forbear troubling the world, fo far
* The refult of my enquiries here is Ihortly this. In Bibliotheque
des Sciences et Beaux Arts, tom. i8. 1762. is mention of a book,
entitled, Obfervations fur les Savans Incredules, &c. that is. Remarks
on Learned Infidels and fome of their Writings, by Francois de Luc,
But all I find there is, that this author attacks Mr. Voltaire among fe
veral others, upon fome hiftorical articles, but chiefly upon that of Ju
lian the apoftate, and, after expofing the faults of this emperor whom,
he obferves, fome modern unbelievers have idolized, prays Mr. Vol
taire to reconcile his own afi!ertions concerning him in different places ;
feeing in one place he hath pronounced him falfe to faith, faithful to
reafon, (infidele a la foi, Fidele a la Raifon;) and in another place he
hath affirmed, that he difgraced or difparaged his reafon by his attach
ment to Theurgy or fiiperftition. — In the Appendix to the 3 6th volume
ofthe Monthly Review, which ends with June i 767, is an account of
another foreign book, whofe French title fignifies, ' A Supplement to
' the Philofophy of Hiftory ofthe deceafed MonCeur L'Abbe Bazin (a
' fi(flitious name for Mr. Voltaire) neceifary for thofe who would read
' that work with advantage,' and which was printed at Amfterdam ia
the beginning of that year. But, according to the authors of that Api-
pendix, while he depreciates Mr. Voltaire as unacquainted with any of
the learned languages except the Latin, as one of the greateft plagia
ries that has appeared fince the revival of literature, as ignorant ofthe
firft principles ofiriticifm, as guilty of falfe citations, he leaves the de
fence of religion exprefsly to thofe whofe bufinefs it is to watch over
the precious depofitum of the faith, and confines himfelf profefledly,
where he produces his proofs of thefe reproaches with which he hath
loaded Mr. Voltaire, within the bounds of erudition. In the Appendix
to their 3 Sth volume, again, it is faid, there was publiftied at Avignon,
in the fame year, the Antiphilofophical Dictionary, which is intended
as a commentary upon, and antidote againft, Voltaire's Philofophical
Dictionary, ^nd other works againft Chriftianity. And the reprefenta-

m PREFACE
as I was anticipated or prevented by earUer writers
in the caufe.
To fome, however, it may appear too late to op-
pofe any thing now to the irreligious paffages in Mr.
Voltaire's writings. For they will fay he hath made
a pubUc recantation of them aU ; and in proof of
this, they will appeal to his Letter to the King of
Pruffia, in which he exhorts him, ' Support, by your
' edids, and example, religion as a revelation derived
* from heaven, and fqunded upon a thpufand proofs;
* prevent the prpgrefs of evil, and form youth fo as
* to be able to withftand the impreffion of incredui
* lity and libertinifm ;' and, after having beftowed
many praifes on religion for its ufefulnefs and im
portance, concludes thus, ' You have nothing left to
* defire in this world, Sire, but the auguft title of
* Chriftian Hero. My wiihes for your majefty have
tion there made of it is, ' It contains a (hort view ofthe evidences of
' our religion, and an anfwer to objections againft it. The zeal of
• the author is often without knowledge and difcretion." Laft year,
alfo, as I think, there was advertifed in the London Chronicle, The
Philofophical Dictionary for the pocket, from the French of Mon-
fieur Voltaire, with notes containing a refutation of fuch paflages as
are any ways exceptionable in regard to religion : but I have not ob
ferved in either of the Reviews hitherto, any account of its nature ;
nor am I even fure, though I wrote to a friend about it, whether any
fuch confutation as the title boafts of is really there attempted. If any
other pieces have been publiftied which might be fuppofed to be di
rected to the fame end as that which I propofe, I am unacquainted with
them. However, fince this (heet was fent to the prefs, 1 have learur
ed that there were printed at Paris before the beginning of the prefent
year, ' Letters from fome Portugueze and German Jews to M. de Vol-
* taire,' in the French language ; wherein the authors point out ma
ny miftakes, inconfiftencies, contradictions and mifreprefentations in
what he has advanced concerning the Jews and the writings ofthe Old
Teftament. Appendix to 41ft vol. of M. Review, pag. 562.

PREF A C E. xiii
* a more extenfiv^ objed thari tranfitory happinefs.
• May you. Sire, give the world the magnanimous
* example of the fublime virtues of Chriftianity, and
* pubUcly difavow, as I do at prefent, thofe erroneous
* principles, and impious opinions, which will other-
* wife be tranfmitted with your writings to pofterity ,'^
But, to omit that there is reafon to queftion whether'
this letter be genuine, of which neither the place nor
the time are mentioned, fince it was furnifhed only
by an unknown D. L. to the authors ofthe Town and
Country Magazine, who fays again, he received it
from a foreign nobleman in England, but does not
reveal his aame, (although indeed he avers he was
certain of its authenticity ;) and that there is the great
er reafon to make this doubt, becaufe, accordingto the
frefheft and moft credible accounts from abroad, Mr.
Voltaire is bargaining from time to time with bookfel-
lers about new editions of his works, without evercor-
reding, or cancelling any offenfive parts in them. —
To pafs further, that where he recommends religion
in it, he feems to ufe the term in a very narrow
fenfe, feeing he defines the deift, whom he contrafts
with the religious man, not to be a perfon who de
nies the fcriptures ; but a perfon who, ' In admitting
* the exiftence of a fupreme being, creator of the u-
' niverfe, maintains that this firft being is too great,
* and too high, to caft his eyes doWn upon earth, and
' attend to the works of a creature, fo mean and in-
* digent as man ;' which looks as if, under religion
* This Letter, to which I refer, was printed in feveral periodi-<
Cal mifcellanies, and may be read in the Scots Magazine for Nov. 1 769,
PP- 576* SI 9- where it was republiflied from the Town and Country
jyiagazine.

2dv PREFACE.
there, he comprehended no more than the beUef of
a God, the diredor of all events, the witnefs of each
individual now, alid the judge of men hereafter. —
To wave remaiking, finally, that he does not ac
quaint us what are thofe principles and opinions,
which he brands with the difgraceful name of <?r-
roneous and impious, when he profeffes publicly to
difavow all fuch, (unlefs it be thought a fufficient
evidence of his extending it to all antifcriptural
notions, that he advifes his Pruffian Majefty to
give the world the magnanimous example of the
fubUme virtues of Chriftianity, that he may acquire
the auguft title of Chriftian Hero,) wherefore a reader
muft remain ftiU uncertain how far he rejeds or
retains thofe that feem to him of this nature in his
writings. Not to infift, I fay, on any, or all thefe
things, it muft be plain to all, though he had in the
moft explicite and formal, the moft diftind and par
ticular manner, openly retraded before the end of
this laft year, all the mifreprefentations of fcripture,
and cavils againft its genuinenefs and credibiUty, ei
ther in part or in whole, which are fcattered through
his treatifes, ftiU it Would have been expedient to
have ihewed how reafonable fuch condud was in
him, left fome fhould harden themfelves agsunft all its
efficacy to make them difcard the prejudices they had
once imbibed from his pen, or to caufe them refiA for
the future the tendency of his writings to infinu-
ate into their minds the maUgnant poifon, by a-
fcribing fuch revocation to the dotage of decUn
ing years, or to accidental panic and terror, through
that melancholy and depreffion of fpirits to which,
it hath been laid, he hath been fometimes fubjed, ancj

PREFACE. XV
from which, it is certain, perfons even of the great-
eft inteUedual abiUties have not been always exempt
ed. Much more then muft this detedion of Mr. Vol
taire's difingenuous treatment of the facred books
be proper, when the retradation which is urged,
is fo general and vague, as well as of fo fufpicious
and dubious credit.
This vindication therefore of Jofephus, as a wri
ter of no fmall ufe to Chriftians, from his falfe ac
counts of his meaning,, but efpecially of the facred
books, from his unfair reprefentations of them, and
dangerous cavils againft them, is ftill offered, not
withftanding that pubUcation, to pubUc attention
and confideration, as an antidote no lefs neceflTary
and requifite than before, and muft accordingly un
dergo the judgment of the world. If it either prove
of fervice to prevent the feducement of any by his
artifices into a difbelief or contempt of their Bible,
and a violation of its holy rules, by riotous excefs,
wanton lewdnefs, and other vices ; or be of advan
tage to recover any who have been already intang-
led and^nfnared into infideUty, fo as inwardly to
efteem, or openly to pronounce, the fcriptures a
cheat, an impofition, an idle and fabulous legend,
and their wife precepts and reftraints an oppreffive
yoke to which no man of fenfe or fpirit fhould
ever fubmit, whence, as was naturally to be exped-
cd, they are indulging themfelves in proffigacy and
wickednefs of Ufe, of one form and fpecies or ano
ther ; or turn out ufeful to eftabUfh them who be
Ueve in Jefus,. in the faith of the facred volume, and
to increafe their knowledge of it, and acquiefcence
in it, by Uluftrating fojse paflages of it which were

svl PREFACE;
before dark and obfcure to them, by refcuing froltf
the exceptions, or fcorn of fceptics, fome which they
have objeded to, or derided, and by explaining the
genuinenefs and authenticity of any of its parts more,
fully and fatisfadorily, whUe they proceed under the
animating power of fuch religious perfuafion to a-
bound more and more in the fruits of righteoufnefs ;
(for which ends I fincerely defii'ej arid pray for the
divine bleffing upon it,) I will think my labour here
well laid out, and richly rewarded, and may then be
more eafy and unconcerned under the cenfures I
fliaU fuffer, either with regard to the motives of this
work, or to defeds in the manner of its performance.
If not, I will at leaft have the fatisfadion which arifes
from a confcious fenfe of having aimed well. Nor
will they who may difallow or doubt this reditudc
and purity of intention, deny that I have been em
ployed agreeably to my office and profeffion.
As to the Appendix which is fubjoined, it is a de
fence of the credibility of the gofpel hiftory againfl Mr.
Voltaire's exceptions to its tvuth, on account of the
omiffion of the murder of the infants, and the prodi
gies, and miracles, by Jewifh and Heathen writers ;
whieh I thus confider apart, becaufe the cavils I exa
mine and refute in the work itfelf, againft this or that
facred book, as hath been already intimated, are fuch
alone as immediately and chiefly affed its genuine-*
nefs or authenticity. — From the firft, it was intended
to have printed an appendix of another nature con
cerning that falfe account of the treatment of the
firft Chriftians by the Romans, which this fame au
thor gives in different places of his works, but efpe
cially in the Sth and $)th chapters of his Treatife on

PREFACE. xvii
toleration ; where he alfo pretends, that among this
people, from the days of Romulus to thofe in which
the Chriftians began to difpute with the priefts of
the empire, there was not a fingle inftance of any
perfon bdrtg. perfecuted on account of his fenti
ments, but all religions were permitted. But as, by
examining fo many paffages in his other compofi-
tions, befides all thefe which were originally propo
fed to be remarked on in the Philofophy of Hiftory,
this work hath increafed under my hand to its pre
fent fize, it feemed more expedient to drop that de
fign, and the rather, becaufe the fubjed would have
been completely diftind from that which is here
handled. Throilgh the whole, I hope, it will be found, that
I have not treated Mr. Voltaire with any undue fe-
Verity and fharpnefs of expreffion* I am fure I in
tended to avoid this, whatever provocation there
might be to it on many occafions, by the ftrongefi
proofs of a bigotted and blind zeal for infideli-'
ty. Far from wifhing him any hurt, I wifh he
may enjoy all happinefs ; and for this end, that he
may become a firm beUever of Chriftianity upon
thefe rational grounds on which it challenges our afi
fent, and with diligence Obey its holy precepts*
June 30, 1770*

b

THE
CONTENTS. PART I.
\^ F Mr. Voltaire's injuries to Jofephus. page i
SECT. I.
Of his faying in chapter twenty-fourth of his Phi
lofophy of Hiftory, that the Jews called their city
Herfhalaim, and that the Greeks altei'ed it to Je-
rufalem, according to Jofephus. 2
SECT. II.
Of his faying in chapter twenty-fifth of the fame,
that Jofephus owns Minos received his laws from
a god ; where alfo Dr. Middleton's aflertion, that
he does not infift on any divine authority of Mo-
fes, nay, that he had no inward convidion of it,
is confidered.' 5
SECT. m.
Of his lame and defedive account of Jofephus^s pre-
didion to Vefpafian in chapter thirty-firft. 1 4
SECT. IV.^
Of his mifreprefentations in chapter forty-fifth;
where he affirms that Jofephus makes Daniel go
vernor of three hundred and fixty provinces, and
Zorobabel a Jewilh flave, an intimate friend of the
king of kings, and very imperfedly relates his ac
count of Darius's queftion, and of the anfwers of
his academy of wits. 1 6
S E C T. V.
Of his falflioods in his detail of Jofephus's flory of
Jaddua and Alexander, in chapter forty -fixth; to-
b i

XX THE CONTENTS.
gether with his unjuft refledion on RolUn. 2 3
S E C T. VI.
Of his aflfertion, that Jofephus does not include the
book of Job among the writings of the Hebrew
canon, in chapter forty-feventh. 30
S^E C T. vn.
Of his concluding, in chapter forty-ninth, that the
Jews did not call Jacob, Ifrael, nor themfelves
IfraeUtes, till they were flaves in Chaldaea, from
a paffage of Philo. — And of his faying, that Jofe
phus owns the pradice of circumcifion was leam
ed from the Egyptians, agreeably to the teftimo-
ny of Herodotus. — That he afcribes their being
unknown by the Greeks, to their omiffion to cul
tivate letters. — That he makes the tranflatorS of
the law into Greek, tell fome ftories to Philadel-
phus, which he does not. — And of his wrong in
ference from thefe ftories. ' 2.5
PART IL
Of Mr. Voltaire's mifreprefentations of the facred
books. A^
CHAP. L
Of his mifreprefentations of fcripture, for which he
may plead the authority ofthe Vulgate verfion. 5 o
Sec. 1. Of his faying in Chapter thiity-fourth ofthe
Philofophy of Hiftory, that the fecond temple is
reprefented in the book of Efdras, to have had
only three rows of rough ftone. h j
Se c . IL Of his reprefenting in chapter fortieth of the
fame, and in other pieces, that Mofes command
ed the Levites to kfll twenty-three thoufand, on
occafion of the golden calf.

THE CONTENT S. xxi
Sec. III. Of his making, in chapter forty-third, God
dired Ezekiel to cover his bread with human ex
crement, and thereafter wit^ the excrement of
oxen, 58
Sec IV. Of his faying in the fame chapter, that the
Lord threatens by Amos, that the cows of Sa
maria fhall be put into the caldron. 64
Sec V. Of his inference from certain pfalms, that
the Jews were of a fanguinary difpofition ; and of
his mifquoting one paffage, and perverting another,
in their Pfalter, to prove that they were a carnal
people, in chapter forty-fourth, 66
Sec vi. Of his affirming in his Treatife on Tolera
tion, that Ezekiel fpeaks of pigmiesi, perfons not
above a cubit high. 80
Sec. vii. That the Vulgate tranflation favours thefe
accounts, which Mr, Voltaire hath given, is no
fufficient apology for his fairnefs and candour. 8 3
C H A P. IL
Of his mifreprefentations of fcripture, for which he
cannot plead the authority of any tranflation. 8 9
Sec. L Of his faying that the Jews are reproached
for copulation with he and fhe-goats in the de-
fert, and forbidden the fame,, in chapter fecond
of his Philofophy of Hiftory. pa
Sec il* Of his making Jephtha and Jeremiah ac
knowledge the divinity of Melcom and Chamos,
in chapter fifth of his Philofophy of Hiftory, and
in other works. 98
S,EC III. Of his aflferting there and elfewhere, that
the Jews, for forty years in the defert, worfhipped
no other God than idoJ. deities. 105
Sec. IV, Of his faying alfo, in chapter fifth of the^
b 3

xxii THE CONTENTS.
Philofophy of Hiftory, that the Jews borrowed
their reUgious rites, in particular the red cow,
from the Egyptians. — And that Mofes efpoufed
the daughter of an idolatrous Midianite.- — That
the Jews called Nabuchodonofor, and the idolater
Cyrus, the anointed of the Lord. — That Jonah
went to the idolater Ninivus, — And that Elifha
aUowed the idolater Naaman to go into the tem
ple of Rimmon, therein contradiding their own
law : upon moft of which things he likewife touches
in other places of his works. 1 1 1
Sec V. Of his reprefenting the Jews to relate, that
they had the exprefs order of God to flay feven
or eight fmall nations, fparing none but the little
girls, in the thirty -fixth chapter of his Philofophy
of Hiftory, as alfo in his Treatife on Toleration . 125
Sec VI. Of his aflferting in different treatifes, that
the Jewifli law required human facrifices. 137
Sec Vll. Of Mr- Voltaire's faying that Jephtha fa-
crificed his daughter, and Samuel Agag, by vir
tue of the law in Leviticus, in feveral places of
his works ; and of his affirming that Ezekiel pro-
mifed, the Jews fliould feaft upon human flefh, in
his Treatife on Toleration. jja
Sec VIIL Of his affirming that the Jews immolat
ed thirty-two Midianite maids ; and his throwing
out feveral afperfions upon Jofliua, in the thirty-
fixth chapter of the Philofophy of Hiftory. Where
alfo his infinuation againft Rahab, as if flie had af-
fifted the Jews to furprife Jericho, and his reflec
tion that human facrifices were rarely pradifed a-
mong the nations, in other treatifes, are occafion-
ally animadverted on. , g 5

THE CONTENTS. xxiii
Sec IX. Of his calUng the Jews one of the moft mo
dern nations, and his argument in fupport of it
from I Sam. xui. 19, 20. together with his fay
ing, that Saul fwore he would facrifice to the Lord
him that fliould eat during the conffid with the
Philiftines, in the thirty-eighth chapter of his Phi
lofophy of Hiftory. 196
Sec X. Of his making Mofes facrifice 24000 men
of his nation under pretence that a Jew had been
found lying with a Midianite, in chapter fortieth
of the fame work. 201
Sec XL Ofmifreprefentationsinhis forty-firft chap
ter, relating to the paffage of the Jordan, and to
the plea of the Jews about their right to Canaan. 206
Sec XII. Of mifreprefentations in the fame chapter,
with regard to the ftate of the Jews under the go
vernment of the judges. 214
Sec XIII. Of his accounts, in the fame chapter, of
the number of Jews exterminated by their own
brothers, or by the order of God himfelf, from
their entering the wUdernefs tiU Saul's eledion tb
be their king. 218
Sec XIV. Of falfhoods in his account ofthe Jews
after SaUl, in chapter forty-fecond ; .as, that Da
vid delivered up feven grandfons of Saul to the
Gabonites, only to be perplexed. — That he order
ed Solomon to put to 'death Adonij ah. — And that
the ten tribes were enflaved or difperfed for ever,
except fome hufbandmen who were kept to cul
tivate the land, &c. 22 4
Sec^ XV. Of mifreprefentations 'in his' forty-third
chapter, ' Of the Jewifli prophets ;' as, that Balaam
b 4

xxiv THE CONTENTS.
was the prophet of another God, — that Jeremiah,
Ifaiah, &c. were ill-treated, becaufe it was difficult
to diftinguifli between falfe and true pretenders
to the prophetic charader, — that Hofea declares
the prophets fools, — that the prophets treated
one another as vifionaries, there being no other
method to feparate the true, from the falfe, but
by waiting for the accqmplifhment of the pre-
didions. . 229
Sec XVL Of his ill-founded reflexion in the fame
chapter, that Eliflia's reply to Benhadad's fervants
was equivocal, ' That he might recover, but that
¦ he would die,' 237
Sec xvii. Of his faying that ' little innocents' were
devoured at Bethel for words which they faid to
Elifha in " laughing.' — That Ifaiah walked three
years quite naked in Jerufalem.'.— That Jeremiah
was only fourteen years old when he was em
ployed as a prophet, and that he prophefied in
favour of Nebuchadnezzar. — And ofa miftake in
his account of God's order to Hofea. 2 44
Sec XVIIL Of his enumeration, in chapter forty-
feventh, of popular prejudices, to which the facred
writers conformed,— That the Scripture caUs the
rainbow the ark of God,— That Mofes ereded a
brazen ferpent, a God whofe look cured,-  That
Chrift fays, new wine fliould never be put into
old caflcs,— That Paul fays, the feed is not quick
ened, except it die, — and that Chrift grants, the
Pharifees difpoffeffed devUs. 2 <r 2
Sec XIX. Animadverfions on his forty-eighth chap
ter, where he writes, that Satan appears in Job
mafter of the earth, fubordinate to God ; and that

THE CONTENTS. xxv
Satan is a Chaldaean word, and the Arimanius of
the Perfians. 260
Sec XX. Of his aflerting in the fame chapter, that
fome have imagined Enoch left a vsrritten hiftory
of faUen angels, — That the falfe Enoch is cited by
St. Jude, — and that the book of Enoch and Ge-
nefis agree perfedly in the copulations of the fons
of God with the daughters of men, and in the
race of giants their iffue. 266
Sec xxi. Of his faying in the forty-ninth chapter
of the fame work, that the Jews, according to
their own confeffion, were not circumcifed till
the time of Jofliua ; upon which occafion alfo,
the affertion by this writer and others, that the
Jews borrowed circumcifion from the Egyptians,
is examined. 277
Sec. xxii. Of his affertion in his Philofophical Dic
tionary, that it was cuftomary among the patri
archs to ufe an obfcene rite inmaking apromife. 325
Sec xxiii. Of his mifreprefentation of Paul and
Peter's condud at Antioch, in the fame work. 327
Sec xxiv. Qf his falfe relation there of Peter's
behaviour to Ananias and his wife, and his cen
fures thereof, together with the obfervation he a-
fcribes to Erafmus, that the head ofthe Chriftian
reUgion began his apoftlefliip by denying Jefus
Chrift. 332
Sec xxv. Of his account, in the fame piece, un
der the artiqje Refurredion, of James's advice to
Paul about obferving all the ceremonies in the
temple, that he might perfuade every perfon he
ftill continued to^ conform to the law, and of the
effed of it. 34a

xxvi THE CONTENTS.
Sec XXVI. Of his remark, under the fame article,
upon Paul's exclamation before the council, ' Of
' the hope and refurredion of the dead I am cal-
* led in queftion.' 347
Sec xxvii. Of his afferting in the fame place, from
I Theflf. iv. that the firft Chriftians made them
felves fure they fhould fee the end of the world ;
and of his faying, that Lukq adually foreteUs it as
what fhould happen in his life-time, 365
Sec xxviii. Of his faying in the Ignorant Philo
fopher, that Chrift's words. Mat. xviii. 1 7 . were
the caufe of all perfecu tions among Chriftians. 373
PART III.
Of Mr. Voltaire's falfe refledions on fome of the fa
cred books, . 389
SECT. I.
Of his faying, that fome thought the firft book of
Samuel a compofition fo late as the monarfchy of
the Greeks, in his Philofophy of Hiftory. 389
SECT. 11.
Of his charge againft Daniel's prophecies, as forged
after the deftrudion of the Perfian empire by the
Greeks, in the fame Philofophy of Hiflory. 394
SECT. III.
Of his calling, in the fame work, our book of Job an
Hebrew tranflation of an Arabic original, and de
nying it to be a Jewifli book. >oy
SECT. IV. ^jr
Of his refledions, in his Philofophical DicTionary
againft the genuinenefs of Solomon's writings 44c
S E C T. V.
D£ his infinuation that Matthew's Gofpel was not

THE CONTENTS. xxvii
written till after the taking of Jerufalem by Ti
tus, from the mention pf Zacharias's death. 477
SECT. VI.
Of his calUng Toldos Jefchut quite contrary to our
gofpels, and making it a mpre antient writing. 487
The Conclufion, 515
APPENDIX.
Concerning Mr. Voltaire's remarks upon the filence
of cotemporary writers about the majfacre of the
infants, the ftar, the mir3.cles of Chrift, the dark-
nefs and other prodigies at his ^eath, which are
recorded by the evangeUfts, 537

ERRATA.
Page 32.1. 20. after thefe nuords, have done, add, and might fancy
that Job lived when that "calamity was at no great diftance, as fome
others have thought, among whofe arguments, &c.
Page 65. 1. 22. for J~in read nJll.
Page I 80. 1. 6. from the foot, in note, for objeCt, read {\3!o]t&.
Page422. 1. 13. from the foot, yar many, readrasrcy.

INTRODUCTION.
IT Is not the intention of the following fheets, to
detrad from Mr^ Voltaire's real exceUence. He
is indeed, I acknowledge, a moft elegant, eafy, and
fpirited writer j who abounds in many juft and noble
irefledlons, conducive to banifh ignorance, perfecu-
tion, and ferocity of manners out of the world, and
to fpread knowledge, Uberty, and civUization among
men. Accordingly j his works are read with great
avidity, and holden in high efteem by all in the pre
fent age, who make any pretenfions to tafte and re
finement. Neverthelefs, amidft all thefe agreeable
and ufeful quaUties, he appears to me often charge
able with a difregard to truth and candour, up
on fome interefting fubjeds which he handles. In
particular, I think, he frequently fhews a want
of veracity and fairnefs, where he fpeaks of the Jew-
iffi hiftorian Jofephus, whofe works, notwithftanding:
feveral things In them liable to exception, are of much
fervice to us Chriftians. For, as they confirm the truth
of the accounts of his nation contained in the Hebrew
fcripture^, fo they acquaint us with the civil and reli
gious ftate of Judea, at the time of our Saviour's ap
pearance ; they inform us, there was then a genial
expedation of a great perfon to arife among the Jews,
bmlt upon prophecies in their facred books, whence
many afliimed the charader, promifing to beftow up
on them thofe advantages, which they fondly wifhed
to receive by him. And, which is a principal advan
tage we derive from them, they bear very large and
sopious teftimony to the fulfilment of Jefus's predic-

kix INTRODUCTION.
tions,concerning the deftrudion ofthe city and temple
of Jerufalem, and the great afflidlons and diftreffes
that were coming upon that people, together -w ith
their difperfion through other countries, without any
mention, or knowledge as appears, of thefe prophe
cies. Negligent, however, as he feems of truth and
ingenuity, in his treatment of this valuable writer, he
indulges himfelf far more, according to my appre-
henfion, in falfhood and perverfe comment, where
he introduces the facred books of the Old and New
Teftament, which, at almoft every turn, he dlfco-
vers a difpofition to ridicule and vilify.
Nor can I doubt that his pieces derive hence, much
of their pernicious influence to promote fcepticifm
and infidelity In the times we Uve In ; an influence
which is the greater, becaufe he is in other views a re*
fpedable author, and becaufe they fall into the hands
of many,who are altogether unarmed againft his artifi
ces, fometimes perhaps through want of opportunity,
but chiefly through negled of due attention, in the
ufe of the advantages they enjoy, to the evidence
and import of divine revelation.  It appears there
fore, an attempt very becoming any friend of Chrif
tianity, and any well-wlflier of that purity of man
ners, and happinefs of life, which it advances, to de-
ted his difingenulty and want of good faith upon
thefe matters. I propofe then here to convid him of
fuch a variety of glaring mifreprefentations on thefe
heads, as may ferve to fill every prudent reader with
fufplclon and diftruft while he perufes him, if not al
fo to awake an honeft and virtuous indignation a-
gainfl: him, as a writer who aims to impofe on the
more unlearned and unwary,thathemaycorrupt their

INTRODUCTION, xxxi
principles and pradice. And is there not much
reafon for an eflay of this nature, whatever imper-
fedions may accompany it? There is undeniably a
ftrong byafs in multitudes, efpecially of the younger
fort, feduced by his fame in the poUte world, his
ftrokes of wit and humour, his fliow of eruditlouy
and his Uvely and charming manner, if not alfo, by
the favourablenefs of his fentiments to the Ucentlous
Ratification of their appetites, and to the too prevail
ing prejudices of the age againft religion, to rely up
on him throughout as a fure and faithful guide, or
to yield impUcIt credit to all his detaUs andaflfertions,
and fwaUow, without examining, every fentence
from his pen, Uke fome inconteftible oracle of wif-
dom. Yet in proportion to this deference and vene
ration for him, muft his, attacks on: things facredy
whether in the way of open cavU or fly infinuation,
make a deeper impreffion upon their minds, and bd
produdive of more abundant mifchief. What need
then of fome antidote againft the poifon his writings
convey !
That I may proceed with method in my cenfure
of him, for his negled of the great and important
rules of truth and equity, which every writer ought
to adhere to; -
i will firft obferve fome injuries which he hath
done the Jevrifh hiftorian Jofephus, in the accounts,
he would be thought to bring from his J works, there-;
by difparaging him Without caufe.
X The only works of Jofephus, of which I here vindicate fome paflages'
from his abufe, are thofe two. His Jewifti Antiquities in twenty books,
which contain the hiftory of the Jews, from the creation of the world to
the beginning of their fatal and ruinous war with the Romans, in the
twelfth year of the emperor Nero, or the fixty-eighth year of Chrift, and

xxxu INTRODUCTION.
Thereafter, I wIU point out far more numerori^
wrongs he hath done the facred writers^ by mifquot-*
ing or mifinterpreting their words ; which may ferve
to refcue them, together with fome perfons whofe
charaders they celebrate, from that unreafonable
fcorn and difpleafure, Which he Intended by thefe arts
to excite againft them.
Finally, I wiU confider and refute fome unjuft re
fledions, or innuendos, which he hath thrown outa-
galnft different canonical books, in order to preferve
due honour and regard for them.
And, furely, every impartial judge will agree, the
more aCdurate in his refearches, the more Upright in his
narratives, and the more candid in his conclufions
Mr. Voltaire fhall be found, upon the whole, abouC
other matters, the lefs excufe and apology muft re-*
main for an oppofite ccmdud and behaviour, where
he treats of things generally revered, yea of things
in their nature and confequerices fupremely Important,
fince,uponfuchfubjeds,the greateft attention and can
dour ought in all reafon to have been manifeft and
confpicuous.
which were finlftied by him in the twenty-fixth year therfeafter, being the
thirteenth yearof the reign of Domitian, and the fifty-fixth of his own
life. And his later treatife, in two books. Concerning the Antiquity of
the Jews againft Apion, in the firft of which te eftablifiies the early rife
of his nation, from the writings ofthe Phenicians, Chaldeans, Egypti
ans, and even of the Greeks themfelves, and confutes the calumnies caft:
upon them by Manetho, Chaeremon, and others ; and in the fecond he
proceeds to difprove the flanderous charges of Apion himfelf, againft
them and their rites. This Apion was an Egyptian" gramraariani and one
of the commiffioners on the part ofthe Gentiles in Alexandria to Cali
gula the emperor, when the whole Jewifli people living there fent an em- '
bafly to Rome, to complain ofthe injuries they bad received, buthfi
was dead ere Jofephus wrote.

VINDICATION OF THE
SACRED BOOKS
AND OF
JOSEPHUS
Against mr. voltaire.
PART I.
Of Mr; Voltaire's Injuries to JosephuI;.
I BEG IN with the injuries done by Mr, Voltaire
to the Jewifli hiftorian, and I take them all from
his Philofophy of Hiftory, though 1 bring my
proofs of the fucceeding parts of my complaint a-
galnft him, not only from this, but from feveral o-
ther of his literary compofitions.
It requires greater pains to juftify the reproach of
dtGngenuity and bad faith againft our author here,
that he feldom obliges his readers with any diredlon
in what book and chapter of Jofephus's works, the
paffages are to be feen which he profeffes to cite or
build on. But with chearfulnefs I fubmit to the addi
tional trouble which this vague and loofe manner of
reference creates, that 1 may convid him of unfair
dealing, and furnilh an effedual caveat againft a
A,

4 AVINDICATION P- 1'
city into lerofoluma, that they might not, in its ap
pellation, furnlfh any handle to upbraid them for
fuch facrlleglous plunder. The falfhood of that tale
however. Is eafily manlfefted by repeating Jofephus's
obfervation with a view to confute It : ' This fine
' writer*, fays he, through his too keen defire to
' calumniate us, did not confider that we Jews do
' not exprefs robbing temples by the fame word as
' the Greeks, for what more need be faid againft one
' who lies fo impudently?' And, In like manner, a-
nother of thefe writers whom Jofephus quotes, A-
g^tharcides, exprefsly affirms f , ' That the natives or
' Inhabitants ofthe country, caUed the city lerofolu-
* ma ;' as the attentive reader muft have obferved
Ariftotle fay, that the Jews called the city lerufalem,
in the paffage itfelf which Voltaire is thought to al
lude to.
i
* SeCt. 3 J. Edit. Hudf. 'O Se yivydio^ uVo itoaakc rv Koitopeir
anfaiTia; v (tvhikiv ori UfoauKeir v xara tw oj/thv favnv Ivla^oiTciC
Ekkhijiv ovoixtxlpfxiy, &c.
¦{: Ibid. feCt. 22. Hk xaAw If poaoMi^a (ry/<C«/ca 7»f tyywpiwft

f.l. O F J O S E P H U S. 5
SECTION II.
Of his faying in Chapter twenty-fifth of the fame^
that Josephus owns Minos received his Laws from
a God, where alfo Dr. Middleton's Affertion,
that he does not infift on any divine Authority of
Moses, nay that he had no inward Convidion of
it. Is confidered,
BU T let us now proceed to the detedion of a
falfhood more Important. Says Voltaire, chap.
xxv. * "¦ Flavian Jofephus does not hefitate faying,
* that Minos received his laws from a god. This is '
' a little ftrange In a Jew, who, it fhould feem, ought
' to allow no other god than his own, unlefs he
' thought Uke the Romans his mafters, and like all
* the firft people of antiquity, who allowed the exift-
' ence of all the gods of other nations.' With the
fentiments of the Romans, and other idolatrous na
tions, on this point, I have at prefent no concern.
My bufinefs now is only to enquire, whether Jofe
phus hath allowed fuch divine authority to the law
giver of Crete. This I confefs would appear to me
not a Uttle ftrange, as Voltaire pronounces it : but
altogether inconfiftent ^yith his charader as a Jew,
who profeffed to believe that Jehovah, the God of
Ifrael, was the God of the univerfe, and that there
was none befides. But there is no reafon for imput
ing fuch an abfurdity to him. What he fays is ' Our
< lawgiver, Mofes, was not a juggler or impoftor, as
t they fay, reviUng us unjuftly, but fuch a one as the
• See page 1 1 8.
A 3

6 AVINDICATION P-1-
* Greeks * boaft Minos to have been, and after him
' other lawgivers ; for fome of them faid their laws
* were of divine original, Minos at leaft referred his
* laws to Apollo and his Delphic oracle, they either
« thinking It was fo in reaUty, or fuppofing they
' would eafily perfuade the people of it :' which is no
more an argument that Jofephus thought Minos re
ceived his laws from a god, than it would be an evi
dence that a Chriftian judged Mahomet to be a dir
vine meffenger and inftrudor, if he fhould fay that
Jefus was fuch a perfon as the Turks believed Maho
met to have been.
So much for Voltaire's refledion. But the recital
of the paffage furnifhes a natural occafion to obferve,
that Dr. Middleton hath from it imputed fuch fentir
ments to Jofephus concerning Mofes, as are too de
rogatory to his honour to pafs uncenfured; for he
maintains, -j- ' That Jofephus here does not infift on
' any fupernatural or divine authority of Mofes ; but
' afcribes all the great things done by him tp his own
' perfonal fkill and management, putting him on the
' fame footing with Minos, and the other old law-
' givers of Greece, and giving him the preference on?
* ly on the comparifon, for the fuperior excellency
* of his laws.' With what injuftice he does fo, is evl-^
dent In part already ; but to obviate further any bad
impreffions which his affertion may make, I add, that
as Jofephus often fpeaks of the divine Infpiration and
miffion of Mofes, fo he does In that very place, ac-^
* Contra Appion hb. 2 feft. 16. page. ,376. A^^' 'coy rrccf^l
VOii: EhhKiTiy cui^VTiv Tot MiYa yiyoyitcci, &c.
+ See Middleton's works vol. 3. 8vo. Defence of Letter to Dr.
Waterland, page 95.

p. L OFJOSEPHUS. 9
cording to all MSS. declare his convidion of It ;
while Middleton, In preference to their authority,
follows the reading ofthe old Latin tranflation, which
the learned * Jofeph Scallger hath cenfured as the
work of a moft unfkUful and ignorant interpreter;
nor can the accufation be denied to be weU founded*
The hiftorian's words are, ' There being In Mofes a
' virtuous intention and great atchievements, we
* reafonably concluded, that hef had a divine leader
' and counfellor, and being perfuaded himfelf that
' he aded and meditated all things according to his
' will, he judged it behoved him efpecially to Infpire
' this opinion into the multitude, for they who be-
' Ueve that God infpeds their lives, do not allow
' themfelves to negled any duty.' ;|; If he fay, afterthe
• See the preface to Hudfon's edit. * Jolephus Scallger, recenti-
' orum doCiilfimus, veterem Flaviiinterpretemimperitiflimum appellat,'
f Edit. Hudf. 1376. EtxoTUi; lyojuti^o/xiv nyi/Aova re aai cri;^/3«-
hcf 3-eii>ri)^eiv, Middleton with the old tranflator reads fko^/^eK, which
makes Jofephus declare only Mofes's own conceit in the matter.
$ Thefe the DoCtor hath reprefented thus, ' Such an one,' fays
he, ' whofe intentions were 10 juft and noble, might reafonably pre-
' fume that he had God for his guide and counfellor ; and having once
' perfuaded himfelf of this, he judged it neceflary above all things,
'' to inftill the fame notion into the people, that every thing he did
¦ was directed by the will of heaven, not aOing herein the part of a,
' magician or impoftor as fome have unjuftly accufed him,-but like the
' famed lawgivers of Greece, who, to make their good defigns the
' more efFeClual, ufed to afcribe the invention of their own laws to
the gods, and more efpecially like Minos, who imputed all his infti-
• tutions to Apollo and the Delphic oracle ' Letter to Dr. Waterland,
f:ontaining fome remarks on his Vindication of Scripture ibid. p. 29.
But every one who is able to read the original, will fee he hath
taken unjuftifiable liberties in this tranflation which he hath here git
ven, for befides making Jofephus only tell ftjofes's own belief, that he
A 4

8 AVINDICATION P-I-
paffage a Uttle ago produced from him, and intro
duced by the words juft now recited, ' Who of them
' conftituted the beft laws, and entertained the juft-
* eft fentiments concerning the deity, all may learn
*¦ from the laws themfelves, comparing them with
« one another.' This is no proof that he imagined
Mofes had no claim to fuperior honour and refped,
as alone of the two vefted with a commlffion froni
the Creator of heaven and earth ; It is only an appeal
to the world about the equity of his pretenfions, tha^
he had a divine teacher. '
I am aware the fame great man, though he f owns
Jofephus fpeaks of the Infpiration of Mofes where the
Scripture does It, frorn which he profeffes to copy,
hath contended alfo that he had no invvard convidi
on oi' it, becaufe he varies remarkably from the Mo-
faic account in his narration of many fads, againfl;
his own folemn declarations of ftrld and rigorous ad
herence thereto. But does not Fabricius \ hirnfelf, to
was under a divine conduft, where, by all MSS. he exprefles this to
have been the fenfe cf his' nation, of which above, he omits what
he hath about his great aClions, and about his thinking it a duty in
cumbent on him from his knowledge of God's attention to his behavi
our, to imprefs the people with a perfwafion of his divine miflion. And
he difguifrs his plain meaning, that Mofes was fuch in truth and reali
ty, as the Gre ks faldy boafted or bragged Minos to be. With the fame
view further he reftrains the term rendered impoftor, to fignify one
who pfed the pretence of miracles, to cheat and deceive for his own
advantage. Defence of b.s Lttter, ibid. p. 102. when yet it denotes
a perfor, who puts a trick or fallacy upon another, from any prin
ciple, and wilh any dtfign whatever.
t See Remarks on the Riply to the Defence of his Letter. Ibid. p.
200. X See f abricius's Bibl. Graeca, lib. 4 cap. 6. or Hudfpn's editi«>

p. I. OFJOSEPHUS. ^
whom he fends us for proof of thefe deviations from
it, guard us againft drawing this conclufion In his
anfwer to Bayle, who from the fame topic, had ar
gued Jofephus's opinion of the fallibility, and by con-
fequence, of the non-infpiration of Mofes? His re
fledion here feems to me very fenfible, and removes,
or at leaft greatly leffens the difficulty ; on which ac
count, as I do not recoiled to have met with It In
Englifh, I fhall here tranfcribe it. ' This notion, that
' Jofephus did not believe Mofes's divine authority,
* Is not probable, fays he, and Is confuted by his owii
* moft exprefs affurances. I would rather hold, that
* beihg a Pharifee, he did nob think he contradided
' the facred writers, when he moft interpolated their
' accounts according to the traditions of his nation,
f or even wrote things repugnant to their true and
* natural meaning. How riiany are there among
* Chriftians, who, while they have expounded the
* facred books according to their own preconceived
' opinions, have done the fame thing, and ftill do it?
' Yet there neither was, nor is any doubt in their
* minds, concerning the divine infpiration of their
* authors. I will not believe that either Peter Co-
' meftor, author of the Scholaftic Hiftory * ; or that
* Xavier the Jefuit, author of the EvangeUcal Hiftory
' for the ufe of the Perfians, had-ariy hefitation about
' the truth ofthe divine oracles, or that they can be
pn of Jofephus, who hath cppi^d the whole chapter 9f that worl^
into his preface.
* This contained an abridgement of the Scripture faCls from the be
ginning of Geoefis to the end of the ACts of the Apoftles, and was in
great efteem and ufe from the twelfth century when it was publilhed,
till the Reformation. ' ¦ •

IO A VINDICATION P- I-
' convided from their own writings of entertaining
' any fufplclon concerning this point, though they
' are not more accurate and exad than Jofephus, in
« reprefenting the facred hiftory.
He moreover appears to found * his opinion of Jot
fephus's infidelity upon thefe many paffages in his
Antiquities, where, having given a relation of fome
fad agreeable to Scripture, he fubjoins, ' But about
' this let every one think as he pleafes.f' Or, ' But
* if any one will think otherwife about thefe things,
' let him poffefs his diverfity of fentlment without
' blame.' But will thefe paffages bear all that ftrefs
which he lays upon them? It Is evident Jofephus ufes
this form of expreffion where he cannot be fuppofed
either to have difbelieved or doubted the truth of
the matter he writes of. To give an example or two,
after refuting || their ftory, who affirmed that Mofeg
and the IfraeUtes were expelled from Egypt on ac
count of the leprofy, by this argument. That then
he would neither have fubjeded thofe who might
labour under this difeafe to fuch incapacities, nor
have impofed upon them fuch burdenfome ceremo
nies as he has done in his law for their recovery from
them ; efpecially, as in fome countries, perfons in-^
feded with this malady, were crowned wi[h honours
both civU and religious: he adds, ' But apout thefe
* things let every one think as he pleafes.' Again
having mentioned + fome more recent inftances of
the great reverence of the Jews for the la-^ of Mo-
* See his Defence, p. iq3, 109; and Remarks in reply to his De
fence, p 201.
f See his \ntiq. 2. 18. j. and 10. 11. Fin.
II Ibid. 3. 11.4. i ibid. 3. 15. 3."

P.L OFJOSEPHUS. tl
fes, and one which happened only a Uttle before the
war broke out with the Romans, in the reign of
Claudius and pontificate of Ifhmael, about their ab?
ftlnence from ail ufe of a, fiipply of corn which ar
rived at the paffover, though the famine was fo fe-
vere before, that an aflar ^ had been fold for four
drachmas, in order to fhew the credibility of the
Scripture accounts of the refped paid to their leglf-
lator, by the Immenfe numbers whom he led through
the wildernefs, feeing the ftatut^s deUvered by hiru
had ftill fo great force and authority, that their ene
mies themfelves confeffed a divine eftabllfhment of
their polity by Mofes, he, in like manner, fays, ' But
every one wiU receive thefe things as to him feemeth
fit.' The true key therefore to thefe phrafes appears to
be, not that he rejeded, or even fufpeded, the di
vinity of the Mpfalc rellglDn, but that he was de^
§ As I could not find this ancient meafure in any tables of Arbuth-
Bot and others, I was a while uncertain about its capacity, though
defirous to explain it to the reader. I have, however, at laft difco-
vered, that, Jofephus tranflates by this term the Hebrew word gno-
tner, which we turn omer, as mdeed his Greek word a.<risa^at is eafily
formed from the Hebrew gnajharon, which is ufed as equivalent tq
it, Exod xxix. 40, &c, for the omer is declared to have been {asgnar
fharon fignifies) the tenth part ofthe ephah, Exod. xvi, 56. thug, An
tiq. 3. I 6. he ufes it tp exprefs the meafure of manna which was tq
be gathered for every man, which all know to have been an omer;
now an omer is reckoned equal to J 7^ pints of Englifh corn
meafure, being the tenth part of the ephah, which made three pecks,
three pints, or a bufhel and a half, fixteen pints going to compofe th^
peck, and two pecks to form the bufhel. By confequence, Jofephus's
meaning is, that a meafure of meal, containing about a, third part of
our peck, was fold at half a crown, the drachm being about fey^?^
pence half-penny of our currency. A great dearth indeed!

S2 AVINDICATION P-^f
firous to obviate the prejudices of the heathens a-
galnft it as unlbclable, and againft himfelf and his
countrymen who embraced it as turbulent ; and to
wipe off the imputation, frequently caft upon them^
as If they required that all men fhould renounce
their opinions for theirs, and would not aUow the
world to live in tranquillity, without fuch a change
in their faith f . And this point he might think more
important to be accompUihed, as they were then In
a flate of diftrefs and afflldlon, through the belief
which the Romans entertained of their reftlefs and
perverfe temper.
As to the quotations which Dr. Middleton fur
ther brings from Philo, Clemens Alexandrinus, and
Eufeblus, to juftify his hyppthefis. That Mofes had
recourfe to the fidion of having received his law
from God, that he might give it greater force and
authority, every one muft be fenfible it would
require a long digreffion to examine them ; the hy-
pothefis which he urges them to fuppprt, miift in
deed feem very ftrange in one who profeffed himfelf
a fincere friend to Chriftianity, and was vefted with
the charader of a pubUc teacher of it, after the clear
declarations by Jefus, Paul, and Stephen, that Mor
fes was a prophet of God ; and the more ftrange,
that, notwithftanding thefe, he pronounces the op
pofite fcheme only a fenfelefs + prejudice, which it
becomes rational apologlfts for the gofpel to deftroy
f The fame account Dr. Warburton gives of thefe expreflions in
the Jewifh hiftorian, which have a fceptical or libertine air, while in
other pafl'ages, he h^th all the marks of a zealous believer, as I have
lately obferved. Div. Legation, vol 4. book 5. p. 274 and 280
± See Dr. Middleton's Defence, &c. p. 71.

P.L 6 F J O S II P H U S. i§
in this age, when it is fo vigoroufly affaulted; even
as a fldlful engineer demoUflies the weak outworks
of a place he would defend, that ferve only for a
flielter and lodgement to the enemy, whence to bat
ter It the more effedually. Neverthelefs the accurate
difcuffion of his arguments for It, as 1 aim at brevity,
cannot be now undertaken. 1 will only therefore re
mark concerning Philo's * words, who is the fole
Jewifli evidence he offers after Jofephus, ' Whatever
* Mofes didated to them, whether he had invented it
' himfelf. or received it from the deity, they imputed
* it all to God.' That they can never afford any good
ground to conclude fuch was his creed, as he repre-
fents, fince he muft be reafonably thought there to
exprefs himfelf according to the principles of thofe
enemies of their polity, with whom he had been ar
guing, when he fpeaks of Mofes's having contrived
his ftatutes himfelf, as an numberlefs other places of
his writings he afferts his divine miffion and guidance.
And I refer to Pearce f for full fatisfadion about the
reft. If this article hath been more prolix, it is hoped tfie
* Philo, apod Fufdb Praepar. lib. 8 cap. 6.
f He at that time curate of "^t Martin's in the Fields, and fince
bifhop of Rochefter, was, if I miftake not, author of the Reply to
Dr. Middleton's Letter to Waterland. and ofthe Reply to his Defence
of it, and fhews, according to my information, (for I have not been
able to procure a fight of thefe pieces,) that Clement of Alexandria,
where he makes him fpeak of the Greeks borrowing from Mofes the
practice of lying, to ferve the ends of government, intends no more
than the ufe of ftratagems of war againft enemies ; and that Eufebius
Pracpar. lib 2. where he fays there are infinite examples of fictions
for the benefit of mankind in the books of Mofes, only means meta
phorical reprefentations oi God, as fufceptible of human pallions.

t4 AVINDICATION P- 1-
plaufibiUty of Dr. Middleton's pretences for think
ing that Jofephus fuppofed Mofes only to feign a di
vine conimiffion, together with his diftinguiihed re
putation for literature, and the moment of fliev/ing
there was no foUd foundation for fuch an inference!
about his fentiments, wUl abundantly vindicate it
from any blame. SECTION IIL
Of his lame and defedive Account of JoSEPHtJ^'s
Predidlon to Vespasian in Chapter thirty-fil-ft.
THE next example I will mention of Vdltaife*S
mifreprefentation ofthe Jewifh hiftorian, is front
his thirty-firft chapter^. Having related jofephus's
predidlon to Vefpafian, in the name of the God of
the Jews, that he and Ms fon would become empe-'
fors, and obferved that hereby he ran no rifque, he
goes on, ' Vefpafian Informed this Jofephus, that, if
* he were a prophet, he fhould have foretold hira*
(Voltaire fhould have faid, himfelf) ' the lofs of Joto-
' pat, which he had ineffeduaUy defended againft
* the Roman army. Jofephus repUed, that he had In
* fad foretold it ; which was not very furprizing.
* What commander, who fuflalns a fiege in a fmall
* place againft a numerous army, does not foretel
* that the place vrill be taken?' But Is this a juft ac
count of Jofephus's reply ? far from It ; though I
mean not to defend the truth of the ftory about his
prophecy, only to corred Voltaire's recital of the
fad. • Page 139, 140,

P.L OFJOSEPHUS. 15
The hiftorian's j narrative runs thus : ' When Jo-
* fephus had foretold the advancement of Vefpafian
* and Titus to the imperial dignity, Vefpafian feem-
* ed at firft to give him no credit, and fufpeded he
* fpoke thofe things craftily, to fave himfelf. But
* by degrees he was induced to believe he would be
* raifed to the government by divine providence — He
' found alfo Jofephus true in other things : for one
* of the two friends, who with Titus was prefent at
* this private conference, faid he wondered that he
* neither foretold to the Jotopatans the taking of their
' town, nor to himfelf his being made a prifoner, if
* thefe things were not fidions from a defire to avert
* his difpleafure. But Jofephus anfwered, *' That he
*' had predided to the Jotopatans, that they would
" be taken after the forty-feventh day of the fiege,
" and that he himfelf would be taken captive by the
*' Romans." Thefe things, upon private inquiry of
* the prifoners, Vefpafian learned to have happened,
* and began to believe his prophecies about his own
' preferment-' Indeed Jofephus was too wife to reft
Vefpafian's faith of his predidlon, that he would be
exalted to the throne, upon the fulfilment of another
prophecy by him, about the fate of that poft, which
he was employed to maintiin againft the Romans, fb
general, vague, and indeterminate, as that which
Voltaire mentions. He eafily faw it behoved him to
make it more minute and circumftantial : he there
fore reprefents himfelf to have fhewed, that it would
baffle and difappoint all the efforts ofthe enemy for
forty-feven days ; but that at the expiratioH of this
• De Bello, 3. 7.^.

it6 AVINDICATION P- ^^
term, it would fall under their power: and farther
he fays, he pointed out his own fortune at a diftance,
that he would not be flain, but taken alive. Yet none
of thefe particulars Could any one divine from Vol
taire's detail, important as they are, to give any fha-
dow of reafonablenefs to Vefpafian's reliance on his
predidlon of his future grandeur, amidft the appear
ances whieh it had of artful and interefted flattery.
SECTION IV.
Of his Mifreprefentations in Chapter forty -fifth;
where he affirms that Josephus makes Daniel
Governor of three hundred and fixty provinces,
and Zorobabel a Jewifli Slave, an intimate Friend
of the King of Kings, and very imperfedly relates
his Account of Darius's Queftion, and of the
Anfwers of his Academy of Wits.
IN O W pafs over to Voltaire's forty-fifth chapter.
This will furnlfli feveral inftances of grofs mifre
prefentation. I might obferve, that he has no author
ity from Jofephus's book againft Appion, to affert,
as he does, that his hiftory of the Jewifli nation met
with a fmaU number of readers, when It appeared at
Rome. For he fays in his preface, or dedication to
Epaphroditus, ' That he wrote his anfwer to Appion,
* becaufe he* faw many gave ear to flanders, which
* were thrown out by fome through hatred, and did
' not credit his Antiquities ; and ufed as an argu-
' ment that their nation was of a later rife, that the

P.L OFJOSEPHUS. t?
' illuftrious Greek hiftorians were fUent about them:*
which leads rather to fuppofe, that he had a great
number of readers, fo far as it juftifies any conclufion
about the matter: — But I do not dwell upon this.
He goes on a Uttle after*, ' Jofephus relates, that
' Darius the fon of Aftyages, had appointed the pro-
* phet Daniel governor of three hundred and fixty
* cities, whom he forbade, upon pain of death, to
* pray to any God for a month.' But is this a fair ac
count? The Jewifh hiftorian writes thus: ' That f
* Daniel was one of the three prefidents whom Da-
* rius fet over three hundred and fixty provinces;
* for he made fo many.' He is therefore filent ibout
the number of cities, and does not reprefent him to
have been vefted alone with the government and fu-
perlntendency of fo many provinces, but to have
had two others joined with him In rule over them.
It is even probable, that the provinces are here fwel-
ied to three hundred and fixty, through a miftake
of fome tranfcriber, or, according to Hudfon, through
a flip of memory In Jofephus himfelf, fince Daniel,
from whofe book the relation here is In general plain
ly borrowed, intimates, that the empire was divided
only into one hundred and twenty provinces. ' It
* pleafed Darius to fet over the kingdom an hundred
* and twenty princes, who fhould be oVer the whole
* kingdom; and over thefe three prefidents, of whom
* Daniel was firft, &c.' Further, Jofephus himfelf
makes the number ofthe provinces only one hundred
and twenty-feven, in the reign of Darius tHyftafpes,
about eighteen years after; when yet\jthe empire had
• Page 216. t Antiq. 10 II. 4.
$ lb. IX, 3. 3. Compare Daniel vi. t,
B

i8 AVINDICATION ^-t
been enlarged by additional conquefts through thtf
interval. It follows, ' Jofephus feems to Imagine afterwards,
' that aU the Perfians turned Jews.' But where is-
the foundation for this ? For my part I can fee none.
It Is true, that after mentioning Daniel's deliverance
from the lions, and the deftrudion of them who ac
cufed him, laying fnares for his life, Jofephus writes,
* King * Darius fent through the whole country,
*¦ praifing the God whom Daniel worfhipped; and
* faying that he alpne was true, and poffeffed aU
* power.' But furely eVery one muft be fenfible this
is not enough to fhew, that the hiftorian entertained
fuch a conceit, as is here imputed to him,^
Mr. Voltaire proceeds : ' The fame Jofephus gives
^ the facred temple of the Jews rebuilt by Zorobabel,
' a fingular origin. " Zorobabel, fays he, was the
" Intimate friend of king Darius." ' A Jewifh flave
* an Intimate friend of the king of kings ! This is
* much the fame as if one of our hiftorians fhould tell
' us, that a fanatic of the Cevennes, releafed from
^ the gaUIeS", was the intimate friend of Lewis XIV.'
How unjuft this refledion, let every reader judge.
Jofephus indeed, when he begins to inform us how
the fecond temple, the foundations of which were
laid under Cyrus, was at laft completed in Darius's
time, (the progrefs of the work having been flopped
in the Intermediate reigns, through the artifices of
the Samaritans, and other enemies,) fpeaks in this
manner: ' This f Darius, fon of Hyftafpes, while he
* was a private perfon,, had vowed to God, If he
* fhould be raifed to the kingdom, that he would
* Antiq. I a II. 7. I lb. II. 3. K
I

p. L OFJOSEPHUS. If
* fend all the veffels of God, which were in Babylon,
' to the temple in Jerufalem. But about that time,'
(the time of his being made king) ' Zorobabel, who
' had been anointed prince of ruler of the Jewifh cap-
* tives, came freim Jerufalem to Darius, for he had a
' friendflilp of a long ftanding with the king ; where
* being accounted worthy to be a body-guard to him.
* alfo with two Others, he fenjoyed the honour which
' he hoped.' Now where Is the abfurdity of this ac
count of his firiendfhip with the. Perfian monarch?
Zorobabel, though a captive In war, was not ad
judged as a pubUe criminal and malefador to fome
ignominious punifhment, Uke Voltaire's fanatic con
demned to the gaUies. Befides he was a man of high
birth in his own nation, and of exalted rank : for
in Cyrus's decree^ which granted Uberty to the Jews
to return, fie is lOng before denominated governoi?.
or leader of the Jews, and hath a joint commlffion
with MIthridate, the keeper of the king's treafure,
to rebuild the temple in Jerufalem ; and a joint truft
given him of the veffels which had been carried away
to Babylon, though of immenfe value. His Intimacy
moreover with Darius, is not reprefented to have
commenced after his elevation to the throne, but
faid to have been many years previous to it ; for it
Was * a ' friendflilp which had been of old, or of long
' continuance,* fays the hiftorian, fpeaking of the
time when he was chofen king, after murdering vrith
the affiftance of others, Smerdis the mage, who u-
furped the crown as Cyrus's fon, through the weU
known ftratagem of his groom. As incredible then
as it is, that a fanatic releafed from the gaUies, fhould
* JlecAo/ yafi ijr aura himx jtpo. Tor fiemiMoi.
B z

20 AVINDICATION P- 1
have been an intimate friend of LewisXiV. who fuc-
'ceeded to the throne of France, in right of his de-
fcent from a long race of kings, there is no Impro-
babflity at all, tbat there fhould have been a famiU
arlty between Darius a Perfian nobleman, before his
eledion to fway the Perfian feeptre, and Zorobabel
a prince of the Jews ; efpecially when we confider
that we are certain fome captives of this nation dwelt
about Sufa or Sufban, where that nobleman's father
refided as governor. Have not perfons, who have
been prifoners by the fate of war, been often admit
ted to a familiarity and friendfhip with fubjeds ofthe
moft diftinguifhed parentage, fortune, and ftation, in
the country where they were detained ? The fad can--
not be denied. — It were therefore needlefs to beftow
more words on expofing the futUIty of Mr. Voltaire's
feoff here'.
' He goes on : ' Be this as it may, according to Fla--
* vian Jofephus, Darius who was a very fenfible
* prince, propofed to" aU his court a queftion worthy
*" of the Mercure GaUant ; namely which had the
' moft power, wine, kings, or women? The perfon
' who gave the beft anfwer, was to be recompenced
Avith a flaxen fhead-drefs,- a purple robe, a golden
necklace, &c. Darius feated himfelf upon his gold
en throne, to hear the anfwers of his academy of
wits. One entered Into a differtatlon In favour of
wine, another was for kings, Zorobabel was an ad-
f- So mlapy Cuc<r,ym is turned ; but the expreffion denotes a tiara
of fine linen. Now the tiara was a kind of turban rifing up with afliarp
point without bending, which was a drefs peculiar to the Perfian kingsj
for the other Perfians wore their turbans bending downwards to their
foreheads, in token of fubjeCUon. See Ant. Univ. Hift. vol. 5. p. i zi.

v.l. OFJOSEPHUS. 2r
* vocate for women. " There Is nothing fo powerful
>*' as they ; for I have feen, faid he, Apamea the mlf-
*' trefs ofthe king my mafter, give his facred majefty
*' gende flaps on the face, and take off his turban to
" drefs her head with." Darius found Zorobabel's
^ anfwer fo fmajrt, that he immediately caufed the
* temple of Jerufalem to be rebuilt.' But no more
does Voltaire give a fair and candid relation here,
than In former Inftances, The queftion was not pro
pofed to all his court, but to his three body-guards.
' When the king,' fays * Jofephus, ' could not fleep
* any more, having foon awaked, he enters Into con-
* verfatlon with his three body-guards ; and promlfes,
* that upon him who fhould give him the moft true
* and judicious anfwer to his queftion, he would be-
' ftow gifts, — as a reward of vidory. — Having pro-
* mifed that he would confer thofe gifts upon them,
' he afked the fixft if wine had greater power; the
' fecond if kings; the third If women; or more
' than thefe, truth. After afking thefe things of them,
' he went to reft; but in the morning, having
* caUed the nobles and governors of provinces, and
* other rulers of Perfia and Media, and having feat-
* ed himfelf in the ufual place, he commanded each
' of the guards, in the hearing pf all, to declare his
' judgment about the queftion propofed:' and having
told us the anfwers of two of them, he adds, ' when
* thus the fecond was filent, Zorobabel the third, be-
^ gan to fpeak-T-and having finlfhed about women,
* he began to fpeak about truth, faying, " I have
*' fhewed how much power women have: they,
*' however, and the king are weaker than truth, &C,*
* See Antiq. xi. 3. 2 — 8,
2 3

22 AVINDICATION P- I-
* And when he had done, and the multitude cried
* out that he had fpoken excellently, and that trutl^
' alone hath power unchangeable, and which wax-
* eth not old, the king commanded him to afk fome-
* thing befides thefe things he had promlfed. — After
* he had fpoken thefe things, he put him in mind of
* the vow which he had made, if he fhould receive
* the kingdom, that he would build Jerufalem, ^ncj
* repair therein the temple of Gpd, and reftore the
' veffels which Nebuchadnezzer had plundered and
* brought to Babylon,' " And this, fays he, is my
*' requeft, which thou now fuffereft me to afk, whom
*' thou haft judged wife and intelligent." Where-;
* upon he gave orders to promote the work.' This Is
a fummary of Jofephus's hiftory about this affair;
whence every one muft fee, upon the llighteft atten-:
tion, how different Voltaire's account is from It. In
this writer's reprefentation, there Is not one fyllabl^
about the king's inquiry concerning the power of
truth, nor about Zorobabel's decifion in favourof itg
fuperior virtue and efficacy, which won him the ap-;
plaufes of the audience, and gained from the king
the tendered prizes, together with the invitation to
afk fomething additional. Nor is there in him any
mention of the monarch's vow while in the ftatloq
of a fubjed, probably through the ardour of his
friendfhip to the prince of the captivity ; which, to
gether with this man's preference of truth to wine,
and kings, and women, are fet forth by Jofephus, as
the caufe of his favourable edid concerning the temple
in Jerufalem. In aU which, the author of the firft
book f of Efdras agrees with him.— May I not then
t See firft Book of Efdras, chap. 3. and 4. Such, however, i?

P.L OFJOSEPHUS. 23
fay, how falfe and defedtive is his detail! how injuri
ous to Jofephus ! and how wilUng to be deceived muft
they be, who rely upon him as a fafe guide in antient
:^ds, which have any connedipn with reUgion !
SECTION V.
Of his Falfhoods in his Detail of Josephus's Story
of Jaddua and Alexander, in Chapter forty^
fixth; together with his ynjuft Refledion on
RsLLIN,

L

ET us next examine his forty-flxth Chapter,
in which he is angry with RoUin for copying
from Jofephus, that romance-writer, as he calls him,
the ftory of Jaddua's proceffipn to meet Alexander;
and his exhibition of prophecies to him, which clear
ly indicated that he would conquer the kingdom of
Perfia; ftiling the fame abfurd, and confidering it as
framed to raife his nation. But Is he fatisfied to pro-
du(:e this flory as it ftands In the Jewifh author, and
to dweU upon the real difficulties with which it is
incumbered ? No. He alters it ; and then propofes
the pronenefs of fome men to mifreprefent things here, for the fake of
a laugh, that I have feen in a foreign gazette, the fame lame and de
fective account of the anfwer of the three officers to his Majefty Da
rius from this author, as Mr. Voltaire hath given us thereof from Jo-,
fephus : while a poetical tranflation of the arguments of orator Zoro
babel to prove the fuperior ftrength and power of the fair fex is con-
clude4 thus, ' Thus far the eloquent Zorobabel. Be dumb ye modern
• orators ! Neither lord Mansfield or lord Chatham ever fpoke fuch
• a fpeech.' Virginia Cazette, printed by Purdie and Dixon, May ^^th,
1769.

24 A VINDICATION P-I»
vain and groundlefs cavils againft It. ' Jofephus *,
* fays he, pretends that Alexander had. In a dream
^ at Macedon, feen Jaddus the high-prieft of the
* Jews;' (fuppofing there was a Jewifh prieft whof^
name terminated In us) ' that this prieft had encou-
* raged him to undertake his expedition againft the
* Perfians, and that this was the reafon that Alexan-
* der had attacked Afia.' But how fenfelefs this objecr
tlpn, from the termination of the high-prieft's n^me
in the narrative! Be It that us is not the termination
of any man's name In the Hebrew language,, does
not every perfon, who is at all acquainted w^ith Jofe
phus, know that he varies the termination of the
names of other perfons, from what it is In that tongue
in the fame inanner? and yet againft their real exift-:
ence, there never was, on this account, the fmalleft
exception. Thus, f Jofliua fon of Jofedec, is, with
him, Jefus fon of Jofedecus ; Abiud Is Ablus, &c. why
then might not Jaddua be alfo with hjm Jaddus,
vrithout creating any fufplclon of his genuinenefs ?
Nor does he affirm that this high-prieft fuggefted tp
Alexander the {iefign of fubduing Afia, as Mr. Vol
taire's readers may naturaUy Imagine: what Jofephus
makes Alexander fay, is, | ' That, when he was de-
' Uberating with himfelf how he would become maf;
* ter of Afia, he commanded him not tp delay, but
' with confidence to pafs over, for he would lead his
* army, and give him the empire of Perfia.' Mr.
Voltaire goes on, ' He could not then avoid going
* fix or feven days march out of his way, after the
* fiege of Tyre, to vifit Jerufalem-' This is by way of
*? See the Philofophy of Hiftory, pag^ 220.
i Antiq. ,1. 3. 10. and 3. 8. i. J ibid. i,. 8. 3. 4. j.

P.L OFJOSEPHUS. s>
/arcafm, for he had faid before, ' It was neceffary,
* aftj?r having made Tyre fubmit, not to lofe a mo--
' ment before he felzed the poftpf Pelufium; fo that,
' Alexander having made a forced march to fjirprife
* Gaza, he went frojn Gaza to Pelufium In feyen
* days. It Is thus faithfully related by Arrian, (^Curr
' tins, Diodprus, and even Paul Orofius himfelf, ac-
* cording to the journal of i^lexander,' But Is there
really fuch caufe for fcoffing? Jofephus, whofe rela
tion Voltaire means to ridicule, does npt carry Ale-
?:ander from the fiege or conqueft of Tyre to Jeru
falem, which, as this city ftpod at no great diftance
on the left hand of the road from Tyre to Gaza,
would have been more favourable for the ftory of
his interview there, with the Jewifh high-prieft ; on
the contrary, his narrative Is, ' That, having fettied af-
' fairs at Tyre, of which he became mafter after a
' fiege of feven months, he marched tp Gaza, and
' took It after fitting two months before It ; and, that
' having deftroyed this place, he haftened to go up
* to the city pf the Jerufalemltes | ;* which is mak
ing him turn backwards for feveral days ; and, being
inconfiftent with that quick progrefs from Gaza to
Pelufium, In which other hiftprians agree, creates
much embaraffment to thofe critics who maintain
the truth of that vifit. Why then does Mr. Voltaire
lead his readers Into a beUef, that Jofephus places his
journey to Jerufalem before his attempt on Gaza?
We may, however, eafUy forgivf this mifreprefenta
tion of Jofephus's fenfe, fince he has probably been
betrayed into it by foUowing fuch modern writers
^s inake this arrangement of it. For many think il;
:j- Jofephus's Antiq. j j, 8. ^. Sf^.

*6 A VINDICATION P-L
more reafonable to fuppofe Jofephus was miftaken
about the order of time in which the journey to Je
rufalem was executed, th^n to conclude the whole
an idle fidion, merely becaufe It Is omitted by the
few heathen authors now ej^tant, out of the great
number that wrote Alexander's tranfadlons, who,
they obferve, muft In general be thought to have en
tertained too much averfion and hatred againft the
Jewilh nation, to preferve and perpetuate the memo
ry of a fad in Its circumftances and effeds fo honour-f
able to them, whatever Information they might havp
of its certainty. They conclude, therefore, Alexan-^
der went thither while his troops were employed in
the fiege -ef Tyre, pr after it was finlfhed, whilp the
main army was refrefhing ; rather than that he firfi
paffed fo confiderable a for trefs, and then went back
from Gaza to take it In : which is making Jofephus
only guUty of an error in a circumftance, while they
admit him a good voucher for the principal fact.
Nor Is this fliewing him greater refped than is often
paid to the fingle teftimpny of hiftorians of approved
credit. For upon fuch evidence we often aUow th^
truth of a fad about which others are filent. Efpe-,
daily we do fo when it is corroborated or fupported
by any appearances which are beft accounted for
from it, and of that kind is the prefent one. For Joi
fephus Informs us, that Alexander granted to them
extraordinary privileges, the ufe of their own laws,
and freedom from tribute every feventh year,
as in it they did not cultivate and fow their lands,
And Hecataeus,*a contemporary of this prince, at
F * His words, as he is cited, by Jofephus againft Appion, 2. 4. are,

P.L OFJOSEPHUS, 27
fures us, appeaUng to Alexander's letters, and other
pionuments In teftimony of it, that he alfo beftowed
upon them the country of the Samaritans, after they
]bad mutinied, and murdered Andromachus their go
vernor, with an immunity from taxes for its poffef-
fion: which are indications they muft have ftood
high in his favpur.
After this, Voltaire having related Jaddus'^ or^
der from God tp falute this king, and his obedience
to it, with Alexander's perfuafipn, that he was the
fame man who had inftruded him feven or eight
years before to come and conquer Perfia, which h^
communicated to Parmenip, proceeds, thus : ' Jad-
^ dus had uppn his head his cap, ornamented with
^ a plate of gpld, upon which a Hebrew word was
? engraved. Alexander, who was doubtiefs a pro-
* ficient In the Hebrew, immediately difcovered the
-f word Jehpvah, and prpftrated himfelf with humi-
* lity, knowing very well that none but God could
* have this name.' In this manner he laughs, and
leads his readers to think Alexander confidered the
high-prieft as the Divinity. But Jofephus having ob
ferved, that the name of God was infcribed on the
plate of gold, (without marking whether It was He-^
'brew or Greek; though I fuppofe it was the former,
wherefore Alexander would need to receive an ex
plication of its import from others,) only fays, that
* hereon hef worfhipped the name, and faluted the
^ high-prieft.' So that he plainly diftinguifhes be
tween his behaviour toward Jehovah, and toward
his prieft, Accordingly he acquaints us, that when
f Antiq. xi. 8. 5. To rv ©e« ove/u.a iytyfifTrro, Trpoftti^at ^o?
fOC TTfCf^KVl^at TO ^.yof^ci, Kdi roY Uf^li^M ¦TT^UTOf KSTTMr^rg,

98 AVINDICATION P- ?.
Parmenlo, as the king and he were alone, aflted why
he whom aU men worffiipped, worfhipped the Jewifh
high-prieft, he repUed, ^ I did not worfhip this man,
* but the God with whpfe high-priefthood he hath been
« dignified;* and that thereafter having gone up into
* the temple,- he offered facrifice to Gpd according tp
' his diredlon, and beftowed upon the high-prieft and
' the priefts fultable honours.' Further, whereas Vol
taire adds, ' Jaddus inftantly difplayed prophecies,
' which clearly indicated that Alexander would con-r
* quer Perfia, prophecies that were ever made after
* the event had happened;' Jofephus fays no more than
this : ' The book of Daniel having been fhewed him,
' in which he declared that a certain perfpn among
' the Greeks would deftroy the empire of the Per-
' fians, thinking himfelf was the perfon fignified,
* he with joy difmiffed the multitude ; and having
' called them to him on the fucceeding day, he com-!
' manded them to afk whatever gifts they pleafed.'
And then adds, ' In confequence of this, he indulged
' them in the ufe of their own laws, and in freedom
* from tribute every feventh year, as In it they did
* not cultivate their land.' As to his charge, that the
prophecies in Daniel concerning the deftrudion of
the Perfian empire by the Greeks, were forged after
its adual overthrow. It does not now fall under my
confideration, unlefs it be to remark, that it hath no
foundation In Jofephus, left any perfon fliould fufped,
ftrange as It may feem, that it was his fuggeftion, when
it Is whoUy Voltaire's own fenfe of things. So much
for the mifreprefentations pf Jofephus in his fortyr
fixth chapter.
I cannot, however, fprbear hqre to vindicate fg

P.L OF JOSEPHUS. aj
agreeable and profitable a writer, as RolUn, from a
refledion which he hath thrown upon him in it. It
is this : ' RoUin indeed fays, that Alexander took
* Tyre, only becaufe the Inhabitants fcoffed the
* Jews, and that God would avenge the honour of
* his people; but Alexander might have had flill
* other reafons.' By his manner of expreffion, a per
fon is incUned to beUeve, that RoUin made Alexan
der to be aduated by a defire of chaftifing the Tyri-
ansj for their Injuries to the people of God. But
does RolUn afford any reafon to impute this fentlment
to him ? Far otherwife. He fays In his Antient Hifto
ry, ' Tyre had now fiUed up the meafure of her ini-
* quity by her impiety againft God, and her barbari-
' ty exercifed againft his people ;' and having recount
ed her Infults over the ruins of Jerufalem, and her
violence to the Inhabitants of the land, and her fei-
zure of the moft precious things from the temple of
God there, to enrich therewith the temples- of her
idols, he remarks, ' This profanation and cruelty
' drew down the vengeance of God upon Tyre.' But
though God had this intention in profpering his ef
forts againft Tyre, he always fuppofes Alexander to
have been animated by other motives, fuch as, his
refentment at the affront the Tyrians put upon him,
in refufing him entrance into their city when he afk
ed it, that he might offer a facrifice to Hercules its
tutelar god, and the importance of his poffeffion of
it to his intereft. For he thus expreffes himfelf,
fpeaking of the above-mentioned Indignity: ' This
' conqueror, after gaining fo many vidories, had too
' high an heart to put up fuch an affront, and there-
* upon was refolved to force them to it by a fiege/

3«S AVINDICATION* ^- L
Again, ' Alexander imagined that there were effen-*
* tial reafons why he ffiould poffefs himfelf of Tyre,
' *&c.' Indeed while RolUn had fuch veneration
for the Jewiffi fcriptures, as to acknoSvledge the in-
terpofition of Providence, In his determination t6
lay fiege to the place. In fplte of all tbe difficulties of
the work, when according to the rules of war, aftei'
the battle of Iffus, he ffiould have purfiied Darius
vrith vigour, becaufe God had therein denounced its
ruin for its pride and other vices, he was too wife not
to be aware, that Alexander, who knew riot God
and his oracles, was wrought upon by very different
principles,;
SECTION vl.
Of his Affertion, That Jofephus does not includ^
the Book of Job among the Writings of the He
brew Canon, in Chapter forty-feventh.
TO retum fr6m' this digreffion, which, it is be*"
Uevedi was due to fo excellent a writer's me
rit, as nothing occurs In Voltaire's forty-feventb
chapter that requires animadverfion,, according to'
my prefent defign, I go forward to his forty-eighth
chapter f where is a fentence too material ttf
be overiooked, viz. That Jofephus does not include
the book of Job among the writings of the Hebrew
canon. After affirming, that the book of Job wa»
firft written by the Arabians, his words are : * Flavian
* Jofephus, who does not include it among the writ^
* See Rollin's Ancient Hiftory. Book XIV. Seft. vi. pages 16$/
167. 183,184. f Page 331.

P.L O F J O S E P H U S. 3t
* ings of the Hebrew canon, removes all doubt upon
* this head.' Accordingly he again afferts in the fame
chapter, that 'It is not a Jewiffi book,' * The
fame thing I know faid cardinal Pezron, though I
have never been able to fee his book, or the argu
ments by which he contends, that it Is omitted in
the catalogue of the facred books by Jofephus.
But does there appear any fufficient evidence,
that Jofephus did not aUow it a place in the facred
code of his nation? I apprehend not. It is furely of
no force at aU to prove this, that he makes no men
tion of the calamities which befel Job, and his deport
ment under them, and his deUverance froni them,.
in the great work of his Antiquities ; for herein he
propofed only to write the hiftory of the Jews from
the earUeft times, and to give an account of the con-
ftltutlon of their ftate. He niight therefore be filent
abput his fortune and behaviour, who was of a dif
ferent people and country, as appears from the be
ginning of the book itfelf, ^though It was a part of
the Jewiffi canon, and hpnoured by himfelf as fuch*
And of as Uttle weight muft it be to evince this, that
he does not touch upon his charader and affairs in
his book againft Appion ; fince here his fole aim was
to vindicate the honour of his own nation, to which
as hath been faid, Job did riot belong.
It Is true, he I reprefents Mofes to have written no
more than five books, comprehending their fyftem
of laws, and the feries of events and tranfadions from
the formation of man untU his own death. And he
malces the prophets after Mofes, to have written the
ads and occurrences of their own times, from his
• P^ge 236. % Contra Appion, lib. i. cap. 8.

st A VINDICATION. P- 1-
death tUl the reign of Artaxerxes, the fucceffor of
Xerx,es upon the throne of Perfia ; which is unfa
vourable to their hypothefis, who reckon Job to have
been older than, or contemporary with Mofes, and
the book which derives Its name from him, to have
been compofed by this perfon while he abode fn the
land of MIdlan, or while he led Ifrael in the defert,
or even amidft his refidence In Egypt ; fince none
pretend to count it among his five books, which have
been defcrlbed. And an equaUy unfavourable afp'ed
it hath upon their fcheme, who have looked upon
it as the produdion of Jofeph, or any other of fupe
rior antiquity to Mofes. Neverthelefs all this affords
no evidence, that the book of Job was not a part of
the canon of Scripture among the Jews. He might
notwithftanding know it to be fo, and judge it to
have been written, either by fome prophet In, or near
the time of the Babylonlfh cap^Vlty, as Grotius, Ca-
durcus, Le Clerc, and the learned biffiop of Glocefter
have done; among whofe arguments, it may feem-
none of the moft contemptible, that though he is'
twice mentioned by Ezekiel, as a perfon of diftin-
gulffied piety and virtue, with Noah and Daniel,
he is always mentioned after the laft ; whUe the!
other, as the order of time required, hath the prece^
dency in the honourable band. Or, he might fup^
pofe it. If not vsritten in fo late a period, to have
been penned by fome prophet, who was raifed up af-'
ter Mofes in the Hebrew nation, and coeval with
the ftranger, whofe viclffitudes and patience are the
fubjed: of the piece. And in this view it may not
be unworthy of obfervation, that Jerome in his let
ter to Paulinus, after finiflnng his account of Dsu-

P:L OF JOSEPHUS. 33
teronomy, and faying, ' So far Mofes, fo far the Pen-
* tateuch,' introduces Job as an example of patience,
ere he proceed to fpeak of the book of Joffiua thd
fon of Nun, and the reft. If Indeed Jofephus had faid,
that the prophets after Mofes wrote the affairs of the
Jewiffi nation, between his death and Artaxerxes's
reign, as Mr. Whifton gives his fenfe, in his fupple-
ment to his effay towards reftoring the true text of
the Old Teftament p. 2 8, there could have been no
room for this fuppofition; unlefs we ffiould have
laid, he was to be underftood to declare the theme
of their writings In general, and not to exprefs him
felf with rigour and ftridnefs about the fubjed of
them ; fince even In thefe books of theirs, which
are unqueftionably authentic, there are predidibns
and hiftories of the fucceffes and difafters bf the E-
gyptlans, Babylonians, and other nations, where
the Jews were not parties to the quarrel, as weU as
prophecies and hiftories relative to their own coun
try and people. But there is no need of fuch foluti-
bn, for Mr. Whifton's account of his meaning isun-
fair — the import of the words being no more than
this, That they wrote the ads of their own times ;
as every fcholar may perceive, by cafting his eye to
ward the foot of the page, where he will find the
original text. Agreeably, the book of Job may be
counted among the facred books of the Jews, with
out fweUing their number beyond twenty-two,
which the hiftorian has given as the fum of their
code in whole ; Yea, without Increafing the books
of their prophets that arofe after Mofes beyond thir
teen, which he makes, in the paffage tranfcribed J be--
1 Ubi fupra, ' Af^e it rr; Miii/irewf riMiTKt (^-^Xf '"''f ^P'^'
c

34 AVINDICATION P- ?-
low, the amount of them. This is done by making
the books of Judges and Ruth, the two books of
Samuel, the two books of Kings, the two books of
Chronicles, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the
books of Jeremiah and Lamentations, and the books
of the twelve prophets ftand only for feven books
in his catalogue. For thus Job's book is eafily intro
duced among the thirteen books of the prophets,
and no pretence left for faying, ais Mt. Whifton has
done, that the Canticles muft be excluded from the
Old Teftament, to make room for its admiflion a-
liiong the four books of hymns and iriftrudions for
the condud of human Ufe, which Jofephus mentions
as, with thefe thirteen, and the five books of MofeSy
conftituting the canon of his nation. But upon what
juft and reafonable grounds, fuch a method- of nu^
meration I« to' be ufed', cannot now be explained,
though the matter appears to me of great moment;
¦for if we are once affured that thefe books, whicb
now compofe the Old Teftament, were the received
holy fcriptures among the Jews, and neither more
nor fewer, during the mimftry of Jefus and his a-
poflies, the inference vrill be certain and irrefiftlble,
that they are of divine f authority ; becaufe they who'
' ?VS« — ^PX"'^, 01 fA.ira MauamvpofyiTdi roi Kur oj/rvi; TTjxix^a-
' TO. (Twiy^s^av ir rpmi ko/ lt>ia fiiShioK.'
t It is from a perfuafion, that thefe books, which compofe the
Old Teftament canon, had the fanCtion ofour Saviour and his apoftles',
as the oracles of God, and that there are other evidences of their in
fpiration, that ChHffians treat them vvith fuch refpeCl, not merely be
caufe they were written by Jews. How injurious then is Mr. Vol
taire, when he reprefents this as the foundation ofour reverence for
them, and faith in them, and then proceeds to accufe us of the molt
mparaklled mconfiftcncy: ' We defpife a.id abhor th-^ Jews; an*

f . L OFJOSEPHUS. 35
bore a commiflion from heaven, and gave fatisfadory
jTToofs of it, appeal to them as fuch upon all occa
fions. Yet I do not know that it hath been ffiown
hitherto, with that fulnefs of evidence which it al
lows. I only obferve farther, ere I difmifs this ar->
tide, that * PhUo a Jew of great learning In Alexan
dria, brother to the Ala-barch, that is, the chief ma-
^ftrat-e of the jewiffi peopie there, and of the race of
that nation, who Was cotemporary with Chrift and
his apoftles, quotes the words of Job, in the fame
manner in which h^ ^oduces paffages from other
books of the Old Tcftamenit, which he fpeaks of in
the moft T-efpe-dable terms, calling them the facred
word, the divine word, the prophetic word, the fa
cred fcriptures, the 'holy oracles, and the llkcj that
be may confirm his own opinions by them. Thus, in
his treatife concerning the change and alteration of
names, ' Who, as Job faith, is free from defilement,
' though Ufe be one day ? For there are innumerable
' things which" pollute the foul, &c.' So indeed. Job's
words run very much in the Greek verfion, accord
ing to the Alexandrian MS. for they are, chap. xiv.
4. ' Who is pure from defilement? Not one, though
' even Ufe be of one day.' Ihftead of which, we have
in our tranflation, ' Who can bring a clean thing
* out of an unclean ? Not one.' Upon the whole
' yet we infift, that all fuch of their writings which we have collefted,
* bear the facred ftamp of divinity. Never was fuch a contradiction
' heard of!' See his Philof. Diaionary, Article Solomon , p. 331.
• Philo, Demutatione nominum, page lojii Paris Edition 164O.
T/f y-^-f, <^S « IfiiC fmi, y.<n^otf>0Q airo dvttv, jcav /uia. yi/utfa Kir tt
?i'H ; &c. In Alex. MS. T;t yap en y.a&xcsf «to / y^ra ; vh eJf, *«»
¦f-v-l uici^ nui^a; yn-.-ire^ i jliog.
C 2

36 A VINDICATION P- 1'
then, Voltaire had no good caufe to fay, that Jofe
phus did not include the book of Job among the
writings of the Hebrew canon.
S E C T I O N Vlt.
Of his concluding, in chapter forty-ninth, that the,
Jews did not call Jacob, Krael, nor themfelves
IfraeUtes, tlU they were flaves in Chaldaea, from
a paffage of Philo. — And of his faying. That Jo
fephus owns the pradice of circumcifion was
learned from the Egyptians, agreeably to the tef-'
timony of Herodotus. — That he afcribes their be-'
ing unknown by the Greeks, to their omiffion to
cultivate letters. — That he makes the tranflators
of the law into Greek, tell fome ftories to Phila-
delphus, which he does not. — And of his wrong
inference from thefe ftories.
ONLY further accufe him' of injuries to Jofe-'
phus In another chapter of this treatife. It is in
the forty-ninth, where he difcuffes this queftion,
* Whether the Jews were Inftruded by other nations,
' or other natipns by the Jews.' Here I find him guil'
ty of fuch a number of mifreprefentations, as perhaps
can fcarce be paraleUed In fo few fentences.
As it Is my profeffed intention to ffiew that Mr.
Voltaire gives falfe accounts of Jofephus, 1 might
omit animadverting upon his firft paragraph ; where,
from Philo's telling Us, 'That Ifrael Is a Chaldaean .
' word, that it was a name the Chaldaeans gave to'
' the juft who were confecrated to God; that Ifrael
' HgvARcd, feeing God-; he concludes, ' That this ^'

P.L OFJOSEPHUS. 37
* lone feems to prove, that the Jews did not caU Ja-
* cob, Ifrael; that they did not take upon themfelves
•* the name of IfraeUtes, tUl fuch time as they had
' fome knowledge of this Chaldaean tongue, which
* could not be but when they were flaves in Chal-
* daea.' And the rather that here indeed I cannot
blame him for virrong quotation. Neverthelefs I can
not forbear obferving, that there is in it very falfe
reafonlng. For Mofes reprefents, not the Hebrews,
as Mr. Voltaljre fuppofes, but God himfelf, whofe
knowledge of aU languages will not be difputed, to
have beftowed the name of Ifrael upon their great
progenitor, whlch'^agaln gave rife to the natipn's be
ing called IfraeUtes. He alfo makes God to have fub
joined * at the fame time, a very different interpre
tation of it from that by this dreaming allegorlft,
and an interpretation which hath its foundation In
an Hebrew etymology. Nay Philo himfelf, in his
treatife concerning drunkennefs, fets forth God al
tering Jacob's name into Ifrael, and produces the ve-
* Thus Moles acquaints us, that the perfon who wreftled with Ja
cob in human form, faid unto him, ' Thy name (hall no more be cal-
' led Jacob, but Ifrael ; for as a prince haft thou power with God
' and with men, and haft prevailed.' Gen. xxxii. 28. Wherefore If
rael muft be derived from the Hebrew words, "11^1^ do'minari, princi-
pem ejfe, et 7{< Deus. How ftrange is it then that Philo's explication
of it ftiould have been adopted by fo many fathers in the Chriftian
church, as Origen, Eufebius, Didymus of Alexandria, and even Jerome
in one place I though indeed he argues againft it in another, at confi
derable length, as violent and unnatural ; it being neceflary for de
fence of it to fuppofe that it is an abridgment of three Hebrew words,
¦with the alteration of fome of their letters, 'and the fuppreffion of o-
thers. Compare his Treatife de Nominibus Hebraicis, Bened. edit.
torn. 2. p. 536, and his Commentary upon the paifage io GeucCs,
C 3

38 AVINDICATION P- I-
ry words of Scripture, quoted below, concerning
the caufe of that change, accordliig to which it muf^
have happened many hundred years before the cap
tivity by Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans ; tho'
there Ukewife he propofes his own idle fancies about
its fignlfication. ' When God was about (fays he)
* to make him fee thofe things which he had before
* heard, for the fight is more faithful than the ears,
' the oracle founded. His name ffiall not be caUed
' Jacob, but Ifrael ffiall be thy name, becaufe thou
' haft prevailed powerfully with God and with man.
* Jacob then Is a name of learning and proficiency,
* depending upon the powers of hearing, but Ifrael
' of perfedlon, for the name denotes the fight of
' God.' And agreeably he introduces Mofes calUng
his people in Ills time, by the name of the children
of Ifrael : "^ ' For it is rightly faid, the children of If-
' rael groaned on account of their labours.' Since
then God was the author of the name of Ifrael, both
according to Mofes and Philo, were the unacquaint^
ednefs of the Hebrews, who however had their ori
ginal from Ur of the Chaldees, as great as Mr. Vol-
taure fuppofes, till they were carried into that coun
try by their enemies, his inference from the paffage
of Philo, In the beginning of his Hiftory of his MiA
ibid. p. 2 1 J. The fame glofs is alfo to be found in the Apoftoliq
Conftitutions, lib. 7. cap. 37. and lib. 8. cap. i j. But when Daille
brings this as an evidence, that thefe Conftitutions were a later pro-
duaion than the third century, as he does in his Book de Pfeudepi-
graphis Apoftolicis, lib. i. p. 188. edit. Harderovici, 1683; faying.
Their authors muft have borrowed it from the fathers in that age of
the church, he muft certainly have forgot that Philo taught the expli
cation long before.
• See Philo, p. 333. and compare Exod. ii. 23. 24.

P.L OFJOSEPHUS. 39
fion to CaUgula, muft fall to the ground. I give
now a Uteral tranflation of It, tfiat every reader may
judge how far it vrill bear his fuperftrudure upon it;
' That fort of men,' (he is fpeaking pf the fupplicant
pr devotional kind, to Uinyior ytyoi) ' is called indeed in
' the Chaldaean tongue, Ifrael ; but, the name being
* interpreted into the Greek language, feeing God.'
But let us now confider his grpfs roifreprefenta-t
tions of Jofephus here, which muft be ftUl mpre in-
jexcufable than his falfe reafonlng. ' Flavian Jofe?
' phus, fays he, in his rgply to Appion, Lyfimachus,
* and Mplon, plainly acknowledges, that the Egyp-
f tians taught pther nations cireumcifioi^, as Hero-
? dptus teftlfies.' But does Jofpphus confefs, that the
pradice of circumcifion was learned by the Jews
from the Egyptians, which is evidently Voltaire's
meaning, fince otherwife he acknowledges nothing
to his purpofe ? I think he dpeg It npt, either In ex
prefs terms, pr by juft dedudipij. Let us examine
the paffage. To confute Appjon's charge, that the
Jews were an upftart rape, he obferves, * ' Neither
* was Herodotus the Halicarnaffian, igrio^ant ofour
' nation, but appears to have mentioned it after fome
* faffiion ; fpr writing about the Colchlans in his fe-
f cond book, he f^ys, " The Colchlans, and Egypti-
" ans, and Ethiopians, do alone of all men pradife
" circumcifion from the beginning: for the Phoeni-
^' clans and Syrians in Paleftlne, confefs they learned
f ' it from the Egyptians ; but the Syrians about Ther-
*' modon, and the river Parthenius, and their nelgh-
^' hours the Macrones, fay they learned It lately from
f ' the Colchlans : and thefe are they who only of a^
'^ See Book I. againft Appion, SeCt. 2 2. Hudfon's edit,
C 4

40 AVINDICATION P- ^
" men are circumcifed; and they feem to do fo in
" the fame manner with the Egyptians. But I can-
" not tell as to the Egyptians or Ethiopians, which
" of thein learned it from one another." Thus far.
Jofephus quotes Herodotus, then follows his own re-?
fledion. ' He (meaning Herodotus) ' hath faid there-
* fore, that the Syrians in Paleftlne are circumcifed;
* but the Jews only, of them that inhabit Paleftlne,
' are circumcifed: he therefore hath mentioned this,
' knowing about them.' Now Is there here any plain
acknowledgment by Jofephus, that the Jews learned
circumcifion frpm the Egyptians? Herodotus Indeed,
according to him, relates that they confeffed it; but
he himfelf does not in terms own the truth of that
account. Nor can it be argued from his filence, that
he thought it juft : for that he makes no objedion
to Herodotus's affertion, that they confeffed they de
rived the cuftom from the Egyptians, can never be
a proof that he beUeved it had its rife from them,
when he only produced the paffage againft Appion,
who had not reproached the Jews with having bor^
rowed that ceremony from the Egyptians, but mere
ly dpnied that the Greeks had any knowledge of them.
Every one muft perceive, it was enough againft his
adverfary, to ffiew that Herodotus had mentioned a
pradice prevalent among the Jewiffi nation ; nor had
he any bufinefs to^ difcufs whether he gave a right
or wrong account of its introdudlon, as there was
no controverfy between them upon that point. There
are even ftrong reafons againft putting fuch a con-
llrudion upon Jofephus's omitting to contradict He
rodotus about the original of circumcifion among
the Jews; becaufe he cannot be fuppofed, without

P.L OFJOSEPHUS. 4t
great Inconfiftency, to approve every thing in this
paffage of the Greek hiftorian, although he hath
pot found fault with him. For how could Jofephus
beUeve with Herodotus, that the people he enume-
arates, were alone of aU men circumcifed, when he
tells us, * ^ That the Arabians circumclfe their chiU
* dren,' who are a different nation from any in his
catalogue of them that pradifed that rite? Nay, how
could he believe the very thing which Voltaire makes
him to confefs. That circumcifion prevaUed among
the Egyptians before it obtained among the Jews,
when he tells us, ' That God gave unto Abraham the
' command of circumcifion, becaufe he was wiUing
' his pofterity ffiould continue feparate, and dlftin-
* guiffied from others |.' Surely he who fays this,
ffiews his opinion that it was, at the time of its in-
ftltution, peculiar to them, and unpbferyed by the
reft, of the world.
We will now try the author upon another point,
whether his reprefentations of Jofephus are agreeable
to truth. Says he, * The fame Jofephus acknowledges,
' that his nation, whofe credit he endeavours never-
* thelefs to enhance, had for a long time no commerce
* with other nations; that It was in particular un-
' known to the Greeks,who however were at the fame
f time acquainted with the Tartars and Scythians. Nor
' Is it furprifing,' fays he, meaning Jofephus, ' that a
* pe<M)le fo far removed frpm the fea, and negleding
* the cultivation of letters, ffiould be fo little known.'
* Antiq. i. xii. 2.
J Jofephus's words are, Antiq. I. 10. 5. TljiiKsirai.i \l (5 ©tsf)
ftvkoftiyoi TO ctTT avTV ytyo^fitnir roi( a.\\>i( f*>t (!v/,ifvjOfiiycY, ¦7r%t
jfTiftyit^sif ra. atlotx.

42 AVINDICATION P- I-
But where does Jofephus give this account ? I might
infift he does* not mention the Tartars at all, as a
nation known tp the Greeks, for he fpeaks of the
Scythians and Thracians; but the Thracians will not
be allowed by any, who are fldlled in geography, to
have poffeffed the fame trad of land with the Tar
tars: They are rather thought to have been fettled
about Confiantiopple, and through that country
where the Turks now Uve, as indeed Jofephus men-.
tions their being knowu to the Greeks, on account
of their neighbourhood, which fults that opinion very
well. But tp pafs this, Jpfephus does Indeed attribute
their Ignorance of his nation to thefe things, * To
' their want pf a country upon the fea-cpaft, and to
* their negled of trade, which things were chief
^ caufes of intprcourfe with ftrangers ; for their tpwn?
* were diftarit from the fea, and they -^ere employ-
* ed in cultivating their good land. Above all, they
' were Intent upon educating their children, and
' obferving their laws, and the religion delivered ac--
' cording to them, which they reckoned the mofi
' neceffary work of their whole Uves.* He imputes
it further, ' To their pecuUarity of diet, and to their
' fathers not being addided to war, through defire
' of more extenfive territory, though their country
> abounded with many thoufands of brave men :' and
he ffiews that other nations were alfo long unknown
to them, for like reafons, as the Romans and Spani
ards, &c. But he does not fay that their Ignorance
of the Jews, proceeded from this people's omiffion
to cultivate letters, as Voltaire alledges. So far is he
from affigning this reafon, that he contends the Py-
9 See Jofephus's firft book againft Appion, p. 1 3.

P.l, OFJOSEPHUS. ' 43
thagoreans * had taken fome pf their leffons'from
them, and that divers ftates hsjid imitated their
cuftpms. He goes on : ' When the fam,e hiftorian relates
5 with his ufual exaggerations, the manner equaUy
f honourable as incredible, in which the king Pto-
* lomy Phil^delphus purchafed a Greek tranflation
' of the Jewiffi books, ^ done by Hebrew writers in
* the city of Alexandria; Jofephus, I fay, adds
'that Demetrius of Phalereus, who ordered this
* tranflation for his king's Ubrary, afked one of the
* tranflators how it happened, that no hiftorian, no
' foreign poet, had ever fpoke of the Jewilh books ?"
The tranflator replied, ' As thefe laws are all divine,
* n^ one has dared to undertake fpeaking pf them,
* and thofe who have thought proper to do it, have
' been chaltifed by heaven.' Now here again are
two miftakes ; for whereas Mr. Voltaire rqakes De
metrius afk the tranflators, Jofephus reprefents the
king to have done it : and whereas he makes one
of the tranflators reply, Jofephus tells us that De
metrius anfwered hiii). His words are, ' PhUadel-
' phus rejoiced, feeing his fcheme ufefuUy finlffied;
' but efpecially he was pleafed with the laws read to
' him, and was aftoniffied at the wifdom and under-
' ftanding of the lawgiver ; wherefore he began tp
i' hold a converfation with Demetrius, how, the le-
' giflation being thus admirable, none of the hiftorl-
* ans or poets had mentioned it. But Demetrius re-
* plied, that none dared to touch the writing of thefe
* laws, becaufe it was divine and venerable, and be^
' caufe fome were hurt by God who attempted it. j-'
• See the fame book, SeCl. 22. f See Antiq. 12. 2. 13.

44 AVINDICATION P-L
Voltaire after this, cites the ftories about TheOT
pompus and Theodedes, as related alfo by the fame
tranflator, fpr he continues them all as a part of his
j-eply to Demetrius, ere he fliut up the period which
he had begun, vi^Ith the requifite mark, ' The-
* opompus being incUned to infert fome part of it
* (the Jewiffi law) In his hiftory, loft his fenfes for
* thirty years ; but being acquainted in a dream, that
* he had become an ideot for wanting to penetrate
* into divine things, and to acquaint the prophanc
' therewith ; he appeafed the wrath of God by pray-
* er, and recovered his fenfes. Theodedes, a Greci-
* an poet, having Introduced fome paffages, which
' he had taken from our holy books, in a tragedy,
* became blind ; and did not recover his fight', till
' after he had acknowledged his fault :' But neither
were thefe ftories, which to many feem Incredible,
told by one of the tranflators of the law unto Greek,
or indeed by any Jew, according to Jofephus, but by
Demetrius himfelf; fo that he muft anfwer for them,
as well as for the account to the king, of the caufe why
the hiftorians and poets were filent about the legifla-
tion of the Jews, with which he introduced them.
So much for the mifi-eprefentations of Jofephus In
this chapter. Yet it may be proper to fubjoin. In
confequence of the detedion of falffiood here made,
that the cenfure with which he finiffies it is Ul placed,
* Thefe two ftories of Jofephus,' fays he, ' which are
' unworthy of a place In hiftory, or of being related
* by a man that has common fenfe, are In fad con-
' tradIcT:ory to the praifes he beftows upon this
' Greek tranflation of the Jewiffi books ; for if itwas
^ a crime to infert any part oi them in another Ian,

p. L OFJOSEPHUS. 45
* guage, it was a far greater crime doubtiefs to e-
* nable aU the Greeks to underftand them. Joftphus
' in relating thefe tales, at leaft agrees that the Greeks
' never had any knowledge of the vialtings of his
* nation.' But how does this follow ? The ftories are
Demetrius's, not Jofephus's, for they are only men
tioned as a part of his reply to the Egyptian mo
narch, without any affirmation of their truth. And
was it inconfiftent with fuch recital of them, to com
mend the tranflation of their facred books into the
Greek language? Surely not. He might even, I
think, have beUeved them himfelf, and averred their
reaUty to the world, and have praifed that work,
without incurring any juft blame for felf-contradic-
tion. For the inftances of divine vengeance were u-
pon them, who mixed and blended paffages from
their facred books, with prophanc fables or relations,
placing them on a level. Here, their holy volumes
were exhibited pure and unaUoyed. StUl plainer it
is, that in perfed confiftency with his Infeftion of
thefe ftories of Demetrius, In fo Indifferent a man
ner, he might fuppofe the Greeks to have had know
ledge of their affairs, either by converfation with Jews,
or by a verfion of their fcriptures In whole or in part,
into a language which they underftood. But our de
fign was not to defend the truth of Jofephus's
narrative, but only to convid Voltaire off grofs mif-
f Thele remarks, upon this forty-ninth chapter of the Philofophy
of Hiftory, were all, except the laft, publifhed in the Mufeum, fo long
ago as December 1765. Npr had I then any intention of taking any
more notice of Mr. Voltaire, for I concluded them thus, ' I leave it to
* every unprejudiced perfon to judge, whether any confidence can be
'^^epofed in fuch an author's account of faCls. It cannot be thought,

46 A VINDICATION P- 1-
reprefentations of his meaning upon different occafi
ons, in his Philofophy of Hiftory, which I hope is
fufficiently done.
Upon the whok, from thefe numerous detedions
of Mr. Voltaire's falffiood, with refped to Jofephus,-
to which more inight have been added, muft not his
admirers be rendered more dlfkuftful of his detaUs
from antient writers in general, and more cautious
of giving their affent to them as genuine, without
examination ? or if they fuppofe him' more honeft
and faithful In his recitals from heathen authors,
muft they not acknowledge him to have been fo car
ried away by prejudice and partiality, to violate the
rules of truth in his accounts of the Jerwiffi hiftorian,
as wUl leave an indelible and perpetual reproach up
on his charader for difingenuity, and upon them
felves for raffinefs and creduUty, if they ffiall hereaf-*
ter rely upon them, as juft reprefentations of his
fenfe? ' that his violations of the great rule of truth, are pectvliar to this Chap-
* ter. May thefe remarks through the channel of your Magazine, put
' the public on their guard againft being mifled by him, till fome per-'
' fon of greater leifure and ability, more fully expofe him 1' Nor did
I form the fcheme ofthe prefent detection, till a confiderable time af
ter, upon reading repeated wiflies, that fome perfon would animadvert
upon the abufe with which he had treated religion ; and upon feeing
that his works were printed with eagernefs.  If any reader obferve
any difference between the quotations of Voltaire's words in the Mufe
um for Dec. i 765, and here, the plain account of it is, that the re
marks were then drawn up, on reading the tranflation of that chapter
by the Monthly Reviewers for July of that year, I hope in an honeft
indignation, at feeing fo many mifreprefentations in fo few fentences ;
whereas they arc now accommodated to the Englifh tranflation of t-hff
whole treatife.

PART n.
0 F
MR. VOLTAIRE'S
MISREPRESENTATIONS 0 F T M £
SACRED BOOKS,
HAD this author been fatisfied with fcoffing at
fuch paffages of Scripture as feem offenfive in
themfelves*, or appear inconfiftent with o-
thers, while at the fame time he religioufly governe<i
himfelf by the didates of truth In their exhibition,
and recited them as they flood, without aggravat--'
ing difficulties; nay, had he even given Us a falf^ ac
count of fome unimportant fads, and of fome tri
vial circumftances in more material and weighty
tranfa(3ions only, which might have been Imputed
to forgetfulnefs and inadvertence, there would have
been lefs caufe of complaint againft him ; but when
• That there are paflages of this kind in SCriptilfe, efpecially in
the old Teftament, cannot be denied : but it does not therefore fol
low, it is not of divilie authority. There are, notwithftanding, folid
proofs tif this, even as thefe afe fufficient demonftr&ions, that thfe
courfe and conftitution of nature proceeds from God, though fome
parts of it appear to tis liable to objeCifions. And indeed, why fliould
it be expected or required, that a book, which challenges a divine ori-
fmal, ihould ba clear of things rrhich create exception^ more th<)si

4* AVINDICATION^ P- H.
he throws out many invidious refledions, without
all fupport from the Bible, often advances propofitl-
ons as contained in it, which are repugnant to the
moft exprefs letter thereof, yea repeats the fame no
torious falffiodds, on different occafions, as unquef-
tionable truths, mifinterprets texts which he cites td
prOve his calumnies in a moft unjuftifiable ma,nner,
perverting and vTcftlng words to a fenfe which they
were never intended to convey, and fcarce ever ima-
the mundane fyftem ? fince, by this very circumftance, while there ie
no want of argumeiits that it has fuch a' fourc4, it hath a greater fit-*
tosfs to be a touch-ftone of mens chiraCters, or a trial of the candour
and integrity of all to whom it is propofed. Now, in confideration of
the fuperior ftrength and validity of thefe proofs, that the Bible is the
word of God, every perfon is bound to admit it as fuch, inftead of
being left at liberty to rejeCt it, and perhaps alfo treat it witli fcorn
and derifion, in fpite of their force and energy, becaufe there is there
in an intermixture of fome matters that difpleafe him. And every im
partial Theift, or unprejudiced believer in natural religion, will aft
conformably : for he will refleCl with himfelf, that there are alfo dif-
ficulrieS in the order and frame ofthe univerfe, which yet he holds, up
on prepollent evidence for it, to be the workmanfliip of God, and the
fubjeCl of his providence and government. And he wifl farther confi'-
der, that it is not to be wondefed at, if fome points create offence o^
entanglement in the Sacred Oracles, particularly in' thofe which were
committed ro the cuftody of the Jewifli (ihurch, Whfen their great anti
quity, and the form and language in which they are written, aVe recoil
leCled. — The hiftory of many requirements andaClions in them, isve-
fy concife and fummary, unaccompanied with an explication of the
grounds on which they were founded. — The cuftoms, both public and
private, in ages fo remote, and countries fo diftant, as thefe which are
there treated of, were widely different from the ufages of our time
and place, which yet there is an unreafonable difpofition to make the
ftandard in eftiraating the propriety and decorum of every fpeech ot^
pradice related in the Bible. — There may eafily happen a niiftake a^-
boat the true meaniDg of fome vocables or phrafes that otoar^ tk

t.lt. THli SACRFD BOOKS. 49
gined to bear ; In ffiort, employs the bafeft arts, that
he may make the Scripture furniffi more abundant
matter for ridicule, and more plentiful occafion of
UnbeUef, what cenfure can be too fevere for him with
aU honeft and unprejudiced perfons? So criminal
and inexcufable however, 1 truft, his condud wUl ap
pear to be. In expofing him for this unfair treatment
of the Sacred Books, and vindicating them from his
ihore that the Hebrew hath long ceafed to be a living tongue, and
that the volume which alone is extant in it, is of no large fize; where
fore there is lefs room for the difcovery of their genuine fignification j
by comparing their ufe in different paffage^]: as indeed not a few terms
or idioms of expreffion are riiet with only once.— ^Noris it impoffible,
according to the opinion of many perfons of found judgment and
real piety, that errors may have been permitted to creep into' the text
here and there, through the careJeflhefs or unfldlfulnefs of tranferibers,
in a long fucceffion of centuries, about affairs flight in their nature,
and uneffential to the great end for which the Scripture was penned ; I
mean, the length of a pe'rfon's life or reign, the number of an army,
the multitude of the killed or prifoners in a battle, the quantity of
fpoilfeized, the fum of treafure accumulated or expended, and the like.
For thefe, and other caufes ofa fimilar nature, he will not, I fay, think
it ftrange that fome points difgaft or perplex ; but ftill will think him
felf obliged, from a regard to the nlany excellent rules of virtue and
happinefs, which the Bible contains, and to the other reafons which e-
»ince its divine authority, to make light ofthe objections arifing thencci
<vhich is no niore than making the fame allowances for fhOrtnefs of de
tail, fof diverfity of manners in a long interval of ages, for obfcurity
and intricacy of ftile, and for vitiations or corruptions in copying,
which are thought equitable every day to the writings of Heathensj
through which there runs a vein of good fenfe, that they may be freed
from the charge of abfurdity, and the impiltatioti of felf-contradiClion.
And thus will he be enabled to ftand faft in his veneration for the
Scripture, againft the attacks of infidels, their moft boafted cavils ort .
thefe pretences proving impotent efforts to overthrow, at even fliafeeV
his belief of its 13

50 A VINDICATION OF T.lh
abufe, I will firft confider thefe inftances of mifre
prefentation of their fenfe, fof which he may plead
the authority of the Vulgate Verfion ; and thereafter
thefe far more numerdus inftances of the fame, for
which he cannot pretend the authority of this, or
any other tranflation ; at leaft, if he may alledge this
in two or three cafes, cannot juftify the meaning he
adopts as agreeable to the origlnal.-

CHAPTER I.
Of his Mifreprefentations of Scripture, for which ii6'
may plead the authority of the Vulgate verfion.
'O the Vulgate verfion of the Bible, this VTlter
hath paid a peculiar deference. From it, in his'
recital of the affairs of the Jewiffi- nation, are derived
many names of perfons, which, at firft fight, amaze
and confound an Engliffi reader, famiUar as the ac
count of them in the Old Teftament maybe to him:
for in that verfion, as in our author, we meet witli
Phaceiah for Pekahlah, Romeli for RemaUah, Ofes
for Hofea, Aod for Ehud, &c. — Further, upon a falfe
fenfe given In the feme, or a wrong inference from
its mode of expreffing the import of the original, his
feoffs and cavUs at the Sacred Hiftory, and his cen
fures and reproaches of the people of Ifrael, who are
the great fubjeds of It, are fometimes wholly found-'
ed. Of this I mention thefe examples. Let the reader
judge whether the charge is not juft.

P. IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 51

SECTION I.
bf his faying^ in chapter thirty-fourth of the PhUo*
fophy of Hiftory, that the fecond temple is repre
fented in the book of Efdras, to have had only
three rows of rdiig;h ftbhe.-
SAYS Mr. Voltaire, in hi^ Philofophy of Hiftory,
chap. * thirty-fourth, ' We learn in the book of Ef-
' dfaS, that the Walls of the fecond temple had only
' three rows of rough ftone, and that the reft was
' of wood only. It was rather a barn than a temple.'
Now fuch indeed was the order about buflding
it in Cyrus's decree, according to the copy thereof,
which was recovered upOn feafch through the repo-^^
fitories at the royal palace, in the province of the
Medes, as the Vulgate verfion relates it, Ezra, vi. 4;
' That thef^ be three rowsdfuripoUffiedftones.' And
fuch alfo was the execution of the work by the
Jews, according to the information, which It makes
to have been fent to the Perfian monarch Darius by
TatnaL, and other enemies, when they fblicited him
to ftop the progrefs of it, Ezra, v.' 8 . "^ Be it known
* to the king, that we went into the province of
* Judea, to the' houfe off th6 great God, which is
' built with unpoUffied ftone.' But, mean as the fe
cond temple was in cdmparifon of Solomon's, has
the Vulgate verfion reafon on its fide here ? By no
means ; In this reprefentation, it differs frOm all In
terpreters; For the Septuagint have in the latter paf*
fage, choice jftones, and in the former, ftrong, that
• Page 162^ f EK\exro;f, x^etrfljo/f,
¦D 2

S2 AVINDICATIONOF P. H.
i's, ponderous and maffive ftones. Bochart J turns the
term, marble ftones, adding that Jarchi, Kimchi,
Aruch, EUas, and other Jewiffi Dodors, after the
Talmudifts, put the fame meaning on the original.
The Syriac tranflation again, with the tranflations
of Junius and TremeUius, of the Zurich divines, of
CaftaUo, of Pifcator, and of Munfter, make it, very
large or heavy ftones, asours hath, great ftones ; whUe
* Jofephus, who dOes not tranfcribe the letter of the
adverfaries of his nation into his Antiquities, but on
ly the Imperial edid, calls them, weU poUffied Or weU
fmoothed ftones, and the author of the apocryphal-
book off Ezra fays, ' The wall was of hewed ftones,
' of great coft or expence.' The truth is, the Chal-
dee vocable here leads us to think of ftones fo vaft
in fize, and enormous in magnitude, that it behoved
to roll rather than cany them, conformably to the
acceptation of the fame Word in the Hebrew tongue.
At the fame time, if we have regard to the ufe of
the root ghelal, which anfwers it In the Arabic lan
guage, we may fuppofe it denotes ftoUes, exceUerit
for their nature and kind, and not merely for their
bulk or quantity, by § confequence, ftones of high
price and value. Eftius therefore, a Romiffi divine, as
much Interefted as he was, for the honour pf his
church, to maintain the Vulgate verfion, renounces it
X Hierozoicon, par. 2. lib. 6. cap. 16.
* Antiq. 11. 4. 6. Ev^iroiy.
t Cap. 6. 9. A/a A.;8a^ ^v7oy wowriKay,
§ To this purp6fe the learned Michaelis explains it in his notes ;
while it is remarked in the margent of our Bibles, that the Ciialdee
lD V7J galelim, denotes ftones of rolling.

P.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 53
here, and obferves upon Ezra, v. 8. ' That || the word
* in the original does not fignify, unppfiffied, but
' great either in dimenfion, or in coft.' And Houbi-
gant,§a prieft ofthe fame communion, hefitates not
to render it, huge ftones. So much is Voltaire's ri
dicule here, of this temple's being more like a barn
from its rough ftones, built upon the fingularity of
the Vulgate verfion, and a fingularity without any
good foundation ; perhaps even owing to the miftake
pf a tranfcriber. SECTION 11,
pf his reprefenting in chapter fortieth of the fame,
and In other pieces, that Mofes commanded the
Levites to kill twenty?three thpufand, pn occafi
on of the golden calf,
I N chapter fortieth, however, he hath committed
a ftUl worfe fault. For he reprefents Mpfes to com
mand the Levites, ' tp^maffacre indifcriminately
' their brothers, to the number of twenty-three thou-:
• fand, to fcreen his own brother, who ought rather
* to have died, than made a golden calf to be adored,,
' And, ftrange -to relate, his brother is after this
f ftameful adipn created high-pontiff, and thirty
* three thoufand men are niaffacred.' And afterwards,
II Vid. Pol. Synopf. in loc.
§ Vid. Houbigant in loc. who at the fame time expreffes his afto-.
(lifliment, that Le Clerc fliould make it, fquare ftones, forafmUv.<»i as
fhe verb which conveys the idea of turning over, would rather fuggefl
a round, than any angular or cornered form,
• Phil, of Hiftory, page 186, 187.
9 I

54 A VINDICATION OF P- H-
in the t next chapter, when he gives a fummary of
the Jews exterminated lay their own brothers, or by
the order of God himfelf, he fays, ' The Levites af-
* ter the adoration of the golden calf, caft in a mould
' by Mofes's brother, maffacjed twenty-three thou-
* fand Jews.' In his PhUofophical Didipnary alfo,
he introduces learned men making an objedion to
thofe, who hold Mofes to have been the author of
the Pentateuch, from this t ftory, ' Thgfe murmuring
* Jews might have faid to Mofes — Inftead pf puniffi^
* ing your worthlefs brother fpr the golden calf, anc}
* fetting it up for us to worffiip it, you make him
' our high-prieft, and order your Levites to flay ^
* twenty-three thoufand of your people; Would bur
* fathers have tamely fuffered this ?' ' '
But what reafon has he for affirming, that twenty-
three thoufand were flain ? For as to his making
them thirty -three thoufand in one claufe of the paf'
£-a.ge firft quoted, I fuppofe this to be an accidental
error ofthe pen or prefs, as it fwells the number ten
thoufand beyond what it ftands in his own account
t Page 194. I Page 393, Article, IV^ofes.
* The fame account he gives of their number too in his Treatife of
Toleration, chap. 12. page i 53. where he fays, * Many deceived by
' the goodnefs and humanity of their heart, cannot believe that Mofes
' flaughtered three and twenty thoufand fouls, to expiate this crime,'
viz. of worfhipping the calf. And what a pity Mr. Voltaire, by this,
and many other inftances of affeClation to mifreprefent and ridicule the
facred books, particularly thofe of the Old Teftament, fhould have
difparaged this work, which otherwife might have procured him laft-
ing honour, as a noble diffuafive from religious perfecution I How hath
he, by thefe fallies of profane wit, filled a great number with prejudices
againft the principle of forbearance he aims to inculcate, who bul foT
them might have become profelytes to it !

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 55
jof the order there, and of the execution in other
places. There is truly no gi-ound for calling them
twenty-three thoufand at aU, but the Vulgate tranf
lation. For the Hebrew text reprefents only thr^ee
ithoufand to have been kiUed, Exod. xxxu. 17,' Mpr
.* fes faid unto the fons of Levi, thus fayeth the Lord
¦* God of Ifrael, put every man his fword by his fide,
* and go In and out from gate to gate through the
^ camp, and flay every man his brother, and every
' man his companion, and every man his neighbour ;
' and the chUdren of Levi did according to the word
' of Mofes, and there fell of the people that day about
' three thoufand men.' And In this number of the
flain, whom Lp Clerc, and other commentators reckon
to have been the a^ivifers and leaders In that defedlon
from the pure worfhip of Jehovah, by fetting up the
calf as his fymbpl, the Samaritan copy, Chaldee,
Greek, Syriac, Arabic, and all verfions, do agree, ex
cept the Vulgate, or fuch as may have tranfcrlbed it.
Philo moreover, who was contemporary with our
Saviour and his apoftles, makes three thoufand only
to have loft their Uves uppn that offence ; ' The Le^
' vites, fays ^ he, receiving the charge moft readUy,
* becaufe they were difpleafed almoft from the mo-.
f ment they knew the tranfgreffion was committed,
* kill in a hafty (or brifk and youthful) manner three
* thoufand of them, who were a little before moft be-
' loved by them.' As to Jofephus, he makes no men
tion ofthe extent of the havpck at all, having omitted
the idolatry which gave rife to it, like fome other in
ftances of bafe and diffionourable behaviour, in the
* vid. De Vita Mofis, lib. 3. pag. 679. Par. Edit. 1640. — Vi.'H'^
fVTiY n^tiity et; rpiis^iMv; ror Trfo fjLDCfg fihrO-Tay.
O 4

$6 A VINDICATION OF P. IL
progenitors of his people, fo that we can receive no
light from him at all here. Moreover, which is very
worthy of attentipn, even the manufcript copies of
the Vulgate verfion Itfelf do not accord about the
number of them who periflied on the occafion, if we
rnay credit thofe who have had accefs to their in-
fpedion. For they f Inform us, that fome of them
read, twenty-three thoufand, and fome, thirty-three
thoufand ; wherefore many eminent divines of the
church of Rome, difregard its account thereof alto
gether, looking upon it as corrupted here, among
whom are Arias Montanus, Cajetan, and Vatablus.
Nay, in the Complutenfian and Paris Polyglotts,
which were printed under the diredlon of the learn
ed in Its communion, the Latin text itfelf exhibits
three thoufand, as the total amount of thofe that;
were deftroyed, either from a reverence of the ori
ginal, fupported as the genuinenefs of its reading is,
in the manner already mentioned, or from a prefe-*
rence ofthe authority of fome manufcript of the Vul
gate which did read fo, but Is now loft or unknown.
This Bochart J obferves, who alfo conjectures, that
the old Italic verfion which Jerome reformed, read
three thoufand, becaufe Ambrofe of Milan, who
f Pol. Synopfis Criticorum, in locum.
X Hieroz. p. i. lib. 2. cap. 34. But his opinion about the reading
of the Italic verfion appears very uncertain, fiiice Ambrofe might bor
row his account from the Septuagint, as it is plain he underftood Greek,
from his appeal to the Greek copies pf the New Teftament, againft
fome who pretended that the Latin ones were falfified and vitiated,
which the excellent Dr. Lardner hath remarked, Ciredib. part 2. vol.
9. page 2 J J. And any other Latin writers, whom Bochart quotes for
a like reading of the text, lived after Gregory the Great, who read
twenty-three thoufand.

fAl. THE SACRED POOKS. 57
flouriffied about the year of Chrift 370, In his letter
to Regulus, calls the flain for the calf no more.
Upon the whole, Voltaire hath no authority for
thus fweffing the number pf the perfons that were
killed by the Levites, in obedience to Mofes's order,
but the Vulgate verfion, in oppofition to the Hebrew
and Samaritan texts, and ^ all antient tranflators,
although that is likewife various in Its readings here,
inftead of uniform and cpnfiftent, and therefore a-
bandoned by Popiffi writers themfelves, of the great-
eft name and reputation. And is not this very dif
ingenuous dealing, tp cavil at the facred books upon
the credit of this' one verfion, which is modern in
comparifon pf fome others, differs In its own repre
fentation pf the fad in the manufcript copies which
are extant of It, and is fo undeniably confuted by
pvery critical argument which can have place here ?
Whether the number of twenty-three thoufand was
firft introduced Into this tranflation by an accident
al miftake of fome tranfcriber, pr whether it was firfl
* It may be proper to take notice here, that the authors ofthe An
tient Uhiverfaf Hiftory, Svo. vol. 3. page 414. fay in a note, '^ome
copies of the Vulgate and Seventy read twenty thoufand, and others
' thirty-three thoufand.' while at the fame time they juftify the num
ber three thoufand, by this among other reafons, that it is hardly prob
able the Levites could make a greater flaughter in fb fhort a time, viz.
hefore Mofes, by fys interceffion obtained the pardon ofthe guilty. But
as there is a typographical miftake' in the number twenty thoufand here,-
which accordingly is in the folio editiop twenty-three thoufand, fo I
fuppofe it muft be admitted an error in thern altogether, to mention tho
Seventy as reading either ofthe ways. At leaft. Bos has marked no dif
ferent reading in the Greek copies from the received one Tj>io-;^/M«f
three thoufand, except rpeic ^'^iixlac, which hath the fame meaninpj
with that other expreffioi^. - ' • >

^6 A VINDICATION OF P- IJ.
foifted In with intention, by fome warm zealot, as
certain critics have ingenloufly conjedured, that he
might make the number pf the flain here, quadrate
vrith the Apoftle's nuniber, i Cor. x. 5. I do not now
inquire, it being foreign to thp work before me. He
however, I think, is fpeaking pf the njifchievous ef
feds of God's wrath againft Ifrael, not for making
and Worfhipping the golden calf, butfpr cpmmlttlng
whoredom with the Moabitiffi women ; for with the
account of the fame by Mofes, he may, without any
violence, be in diffef.ent ways reconciled.
SECTION IIL
Of his making, in chapter forty-third, God diredj;
Ezekiel to cover his bread with human excre-.
ment, and thereafter with the excrernent pf oxen,
ANOTHER inftance of mifreprefentation, in which
Mr. Voltaire hath, at leaft feemeth tp haye, the au
thority of the Vulgate, occurs in the forty-third
chapter of his Philofophy of Hiftory. Speaking of
Ezekiel,hefays,f ' He is to eat bread made of wheat,
* barley, beans, lentUes, miUet, and to cover it with
* human excrements. Thus, faid he, wUl the chU-
' dren of Ifrael eat their bread befmeared vrith thofe
' nations among whom they ffiall be driven. But af-
' ter having eat this bread of forrow, God aUows him
' to cover it with only the excrement of oxen.' And
he dweUs on this again in his PhUofophical DIdio-
nary; fo delightful is tht? fubjed to him, and fo con-,
fident is he of the truth of his account! +' Severa^
t Pageaqp. J Page 163. article Ezekiel,

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 5j
^ critics cannot be reconcfled to the order given him
• by the Lord, that during 390 days he ffiould eat
* barley, wheat, and miUet bread befmeared with
* man's dung. Then faid the prophet, " Ah Lord
*' God, behold my foul hath not hitherto been pol-
« luted." An4 the Lord anfwered, " WeU, Inftead
" of man's excrements, I allpw thee cow dung, and
" thou ffialt prepare thy bread thprpwlth." As it is
* not cuftomary with us to eat bread with fuch rnar-
* malade, thefe orders to the generality of men ap-
* pear unworthy of the divine majefty.'
That ^j^zekiel fliould be commanded to mjx much.
of the coarfer and meaner kinds of grain, with a
little of the finer and richer fort, by which mean^
the ftock would continue longer unexhaufted, to
fignify the fcarcity which the inhabitants of Jerufa
lem ffioijild labour under, and the unpalatable fare
they ffiould be reduced to fubmit to, during the
fiege, we wonder not. But we are ffiocked at his be
ing bid Cpver his bread with human excrements, to
reprefent that the childreji of Ifrael ffippld e^-t their
bread befmeared with thofe nations among whpm
they ffiould in their captivity refide; and at his be-;
Ing only Indulged, upon his importunity againft thq
ufe hereof, with the excrements of oxen or cows in
their rpom, after he had ate fo abominable and loath-
fome food, which is Mr. Voltaire's tale, at leaft in
one place.
Is this, however, the neceffary or reafonable im
port df the divine diredlon at firft, and aUowance
afterward, to the prophet, that he ffiould feed upon
bread Ijaviqg either fuch an ingredient in its com
pofition, or (for the reader muft pardon the offen?

6o 4 VINDICATION OF P. IL
fivenefs of .the idea as Voltaire's) fuch marmalade
fpread over it ? Not at all. The Vulgate ^ indeed
favours It: and it is^ perhaps, the moft obvious fenfe
even of our EngUffi verfion, f that ordure ffiould be
wrought into the mafs or dough from which the
cakes were to be made : but the original may, nay
ought to be interpreted, only to denote, that excre
ments ffiould be ufed for fuel, in baking his bread,
inftead of coals, wood, turf, or like things. For as
J1J7 gnug fignifies not to cover, but to bake, whence
its derivatives are always rendered, cakes, fo it is
certain the prefix 13 beth in >'7^J3 begaleli, may be
turned upon, as it is with frequency \ ; in which
way the command of God will run, v. 12.' And as
;* to it, (the cake) thou ffialt bake it upon human ex-
* crements ;' the fame being dried, fhall be employed
to make a fire, over which thou ffialt harden thy
bread. And this again wUl agree to verfe 15,
where the word "py gnal occurs, which fignifies moft
commonly upon, || and Is fo rendered by our tranfla
tors themfelves, where there is mention of the fuel
* Vulg. verf. Ezek. iv. 12. ' Et ftercore— -operies illud. — v. i j.
' Et facies panem tuum in eo.'
t It ftands thus, iv. i 2. ' Thou fhalt bake the bread with dung
that cometh out of man iti their fight. — v. i j. ' Lo I have given
thee cow's diang for man'? dung, and thou ftialt prepare thy bread
therewith.' X In this way it is turned in Gen. xxxvii. 34. • He put fackcloth
' upon his Ipins.' Levit. xx. 9. * His blood ftiall be upon him.' Neh.
ji. 12. ' The beafl upon which I rode.' Pfal. cxix. 135. ' Make thj?
t face to fhine upon thy feryant.'
(I See Gen. xix. 23. xlvii. 31. Levit. xvi. 2 1 . Num. iv. 1 1. ix,
J5- Judg. vii. 6. 2Sam<iv. 7. 2 Kings, ir. 34. Pf. xxix. 5.

P.IL TilE SACRED BOOKS. 6t
appUed to prepare bread in a § conftrudion exadly
fimilar to that in the paffage before us. Or if this
does not pleafe, the fame prefix 3 beth, may be tranf-
lated witb, in the fenfe which with often bears when
it denotes an inftrument of adion, or mean of ope-
tatldn, as in thefe forms, he wrote with a pen, he
kiU^d with a fword, and the like. So to bake bread
¦N^Ith excrements, is only to do it making and feeding
a fire with the fame tO dry the cake, and fit it for
ufe at the table : fuitably to which we not only read,
ye ffiaU roaft the paffover with fire, 2 Chron. xxxv.
I j. but that EUffia took a yoke of oxen, and flew
them, and boiled their fleffi with the inftruments of
the oxen, i Kings, xix. 2 i . -j- where no one ever un
derftood the meaning to be, though the -with there
is the tranflation of the fame prefix as here, that he
boUed the utenfils of hufbandry with which he had
been plowing, as weU as the oxen, but that he em
ployed them as fuel for dreffing the viduals which
he gave unto the people ^. And indeed if the bread
had been either to be formed of, or fpread vrith ex
crements, it feems Ezekiel would have remonftrated
§ In Ifaiah, xliv. 1 9. where the words' of the original are, r\N T
Dn'? T^rj ^y TI'DN Ve aph aphUht gnat gehalav lehem. Yea
• alfo I have baked bread up'on the, coals thereof,' viz. ofthe afh'tree.
As here they are, rUphy ^vb Tli* 7^^"$ T ^e gnafiiha eth^
lahmecha gnalehah.
t The Hebrew in that plaCe is, tl^'^ "IpDH h"^ 3 t U ie
cheli habMar btfhlam, as here it is, Q^^5^ DNX ''"TiTJia J^Tll
PJfyn Vehi begeleli tzeeth-haaddm tegnu^enah; literally, ' Et quod
'ad ipfam placentam curri cylindris, five voluminibus excrementi hir-
* mani coques ipfam.'
* According to this acceptation of <iuith, though, as intimated
above, it does not moft readily occur to the reader, our Efiglift» tranP'
fation is uoexeeptionab}e<

«a A Vil^DtCATION OF P- 1^^
againft the injundion in ftronger terms than he has
done, from the antipathy and reludance of natur^
to fuch diet, inftead of pleading exemption from o-'
bedience to it, merely becaufe he had never ate
things legaUy unclean, yi^at had died of itfelf, or
been torn in pieces, as' he does, v. 14. Accordingly
I find very aljle judges have: underftdod no more to
be intended, as MichaeUs, Bochart, f Le Clerc, Dr.
Taylor. Nor let inj be furprifed that the prophet
ffiould fpeak of excrements as conveying ]^oUution<
and deprecate the Ufe thereof even for fuel; vs^hoevef'
confiders the charge given by God, Deut. xxiU. 12,
13, 14. wUl foon be fenfible, that uneafinefs and
difquietude muft have fprung up in his mind on the
prefcription to prepare his bread in this manner.
I conclude; then, that Mr. Voltaire, after the Vul^*'
gate, hath given a falfe fenfe here. Nor is this the
alone fault of Which he is guilty in his profeffed re-
f It is obferved by Michaelis', that the Chaldee and Syriic turn
^ ieti, in the 12. verfe, vpon. ' Thou flialt prepare tliy bread upon
' it:' and himfelf (oUov/s it. — Bochart, in his Hierozoicon, torn, i.
p. 329, fays, ' Non exigit Deus apropheta ut panera comederet hu-
' Hiano ftercora co-opertum, quomodo Hieronymus videtur accepiffe;
" tantum vult, ut panem pro carbonibus humano ftercore coClum come-
' dat, quo miferi hotnines quandoque pro ligno utyntur, ,idque fymbo-
* lica de catifa. — ^Bublilum ftercus hodie in Fnfia ad Kgni raateriam
• ficcari teftatur Erafmus in proverbio, Boliti poenam i. e. bubuli fter-
* coris.' To which I add, fo did the Gallb-Graeci ufe cow's dung for
fuel of old, according to Livy, xxxviii. 1 8. ' Fimo bubulo ad ignem
' pro lignis utuntur.' And fo do the inhabitants of this country in fome
corners ftill. — Though Le Clerc turns the 1 2th verfe, ' Eamque fter-
* core excrementorum humanorum coques,' which is ambiguous : he
renders v. i 5. ' Panemque fuper eo parabis,' which fixes the fenfe to
}'i$ what I have contended for. — Taylor, finally, in his ConcordawV

p.n. THE SA'CRED BOOKS. 6^3
cital of the itranfadion from the book of Ezekiel.
He hath made fuch a reprefentation, as is not only
againft the original, but againft all verfions without
exception, that he might expofe Scripture to derifion
with greater fuccefs : for God doth not fay, accord
ing to either, ' Thus ffiaU the chUdren of Ifrael ea't
* their bread befmeared with thofe nations among
* which they ffiaU be driven,' as he expreffes it, (up-
6n which no reader can need a commentary) but that
they ffiould eat defiled bfead among them, fignifylng,
that they ffiould not have it in their power to obferve
the regulations of their law about food, for aU forts
of which, the term, briead, is often put by the He
brews, as in Gen. xix. 3. xliU. 3 1 , &c. but that thro'
want and other caufes, they ffiould be conflralned
in Bab;^lon, to partake of fuch meats as God by Mo
fes had prohibited f . — No more is God Introduced
allowing him the excrements of oxen in room of hu
inan, after he had eaten bread fpread over with them,
as our author hath it; he indulges him to fubftitute
the one for the other, previous to his preparation
and ufe of any bread In conformity to his firft or
der altogether. And after aU, fome think the whole
was tranfaded in vifion : wherefore, though the pro
phet objeded to the order, as Peter did to the com
mand, KUl, and eat, when the ffieet defcended in
fuch a vifionary fcene, full of unclean animals, there
was never any participation of food upon it by him,
more than by the Apoftle of thefe creatures that
tnder the word y\y giiug, citing this place, fubjoins, 'The dting dried
' was to be fuel put under the gridiron to heat it.'
f See Hofea, ix. i, 2, 3. aixl Daniel, i.S:

64 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
were preferifed td him. How unfair then tliis writer'
here ! J SECTION IV.
Of his faying in the fame chapter, that the Lord
threatens by Amos, that the cows of Samaria'
ftaU be put into the caldron.
A SIMILAR inftance of riilfreprpferitation fup
ported by the Vulgate verfion, we meet with, in my
opinion. In this fame f chapter, when he fays, ' The
' Lord, in the prophecy of Amos, threatens that the
* cows of Samaria ffiall be put into the caldron, chap;
' vi.' As ntrfuch ex:prefUon occurs in the fixth chapter^
I fuppofe he Intended the fourth, for it begins thus,
' Hear this word, ye kine of Baffian, that are in the
' mountain of Samaria, which opprefs' the poor,
' which cruffi the needy, which fay to their mafters,
' (thofe to whom they have fold them for ffiver)
* come and let us drink ;' The grandees Of Ifrael be-i
ing thus denominated, ori account of their infolence,
by which they refembled fuch wanton cattle, fed in
the luxuriant paftures of Baffian, according to a fi
gure ufed elfewhere, Ezek. xxxix. i 8. Pf. xxU. 30.
Then follows the word, to which their attention was
by this ad;irefs~awakedj ' The Lord God hath fworri
* by his holinefs, that lo the days ffiall come upon
X Yet thus alfo, in his Treatife on Toleration, he had fet forth the
matter, chap. 12. p. 181, where he fays in the note, ' The prophet
' Ezekiel eats his bread covered with excrement,'
t Page 210. Philof. of Hiftory.

-pAL THE SACRED BOOKS. 6j
' you, that he wUl take you away vrith hooks, and
* your pofterity with fiffi-hooks.' In room of which.
the Vulgate hath, ' Levabunt vos In contis, et reli-
* quias Veftras In olUs ferventlbus. They wUl lift yoit
* on polds, (or perches) and your pofterity in boffing
* pdts,' where every one fees the reafon of his cal-
drons.^ — But Our tranflation appears far preferable.
In other places of Scripture alfo, we find the inva
ders of a country compared to anglers or fifters, Jer.
^vi. 1 6. Habafc. i. 1 5. Then the word /TiJK tzanoth
by us turned hooks, in the former claufe properly
fignifies thorns, as in Prov. xxU. 5. Job v. 5. From
which fenfe the tranfition was eafy and natural to
this, as the ffiarp extremities of thorns were ufed in
fifhing, Iri the more rude and unimproved ages of the
world, inftead of the Inftruments we call hooks. And
though -y^fir, is often turned, a pot or caldrOn, and
TTC^'Dftroth pots or caldrons, yet D'-TDf rim is tranf-
lated thorns In three different places, Ifa. xxxiv. i 3 .
Nahum I. 10. Ecclef. vU. 6 . Nor can there remain
any doubt, but it ffiould bejfo rendered here, wheri
it is joined with niT dtigdh, as the participle Q'^jn
dugim i% ffhers, Ezek. xlvU. 10. Jerem. xvi. 16.
God therefore threatens to draw the IfraeUtes out
of their tow-ns, by their Affyrian enemies Tiglath-
PUefer and Shalmanezer, as fiffi out of their watery
clement, the one removing thofe whom the othei^
had left. And where is there rn this image of their
Captivity any thing blameable or which deferves to
be fcoffed at ? There was no intention | here to ftate
X I confefs however the Targmti hath, fi(her- boats', inftead of,
thorns of fifliing.
t Father Houbigant 's note, who fuppofes the women of San:sris
E

66 A VINDICATION OF P- IL
a lUienefs between the treatment they ffiould receive,
and that of wanton cattie, by giving them the ap-
peUation oiklne ofBafhan. Though elfewhere indeed,
the oppreffion of the people by the princes is called,
flaying their fliln and breaking their bones, andchop-^
ping them in pieces as for the pot, and as fleffi with
in the caldron, Micah Ui. i, 2, 3. itwas only de-
figned by that expreffion, in the paffage under con-'
fideration, to deUneate their criminal charader, for
which God was provoked to puniffi them, in the
manner the prophet defcribes.
SECTION V.
Of his inference from certain Pfalms, that the Jews
were of a fanguinary difpofition ; and of his mif
quoting one paffage and perverting another in
their Pfalter, to prove that they were a carnal
people, in Chapter fourty -fourth.
I P A S S on to another inftance. It Is to be found in
Chapter fourty -fourth of the PhUofophy of Hiftory,
which he intitles ' Ofthe prayers of the Jews.' Here,
without giving them any honour on account of
many pfalms in the coiledion, which are full of the
living in pleafure, to be fignified by, the kine of Baflian, and the de
nunciation to be, that tbey fhould be dealt with as fifties that fport and
friflc in a pond, which the fifhers draw out with poles and hooks, and'
throw into their boats, is worthy to be tranfcribed here.
' Nee mirura videri debet, talem fimilitudinem adhiberi, poftquanr
' mulieres iftae appeliatae funt vaccae Bafan, quia hoc erat nudum cog-
*¦ nomen, ut tauri Bafin ff. xxii, non autem fimilitudo.' Vide Houbig.
Bibl. in locum.

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 67
moft fublime and manly piety, and of the moft ex
alted and pure moraUty, he produces a few paffages,
feleded here and there, to ffiew that they were a
carnal and fanguinary people, that they wiffied the
death of a finner rather than his converfion, and re
quired of God all terreftrlal bleffings.
Now in proof of this charge about the fanguinary
temper of the JewSj he quotes fome of the prayers
againft enemies^ which are fcattered through the
book. Nor do I accufe him of falffiood In reciting
them. But are they a fufficient ground for the re
flexion he throws upon that people ?
In the opinion of many learned men, the paffages
which In our own and other ^tranflations, are turn
ed as requefts that God would fend evU upon ene
mies, ffiould be rendered as predidions Or declara
tions of David's affurance through the fpirit, that
God, in the courfe of his adminiftration, would in-
* Some I antl aware hate underftdod the clisth Pfalm, to contain
David's recital of his enemies curfes againft himfelf, rather than an ac
count of his own imprecations againft them. And to this purpofe they
have urged, that the wifhes of hurt there are prefaced with an affertion^
that the mouth ofthe wicked was opened againft him, while he fliewed
Ihem love and kindnefs. — - That they, are levelled againft one perfon^
inftead of being pointed againft many perfons, and fhut Up with this ob->
fervation according to the original, v. 20. ' This is the work (or be-
' haviour) of my adverfaries, with (or before) the Lord.' Finally,
' that there follows upon them this petition, which looks as if the curfes
preceding were aimed at himfelf, ' Let them curfe, but blefs thou :'
Neverthelefs, though this fliould be allowed the true interpretation,
(which however is not very probable, fince we cannot well fuppofe the ,
Pfalmift would have repeated the impious fpeeches of his enemies, to
fuch number and length in a devotional office ; or that tbe apoftle Peter
tvould have cited fome claufes thence, which yet he does, to authorize
E 2

68 A VINDICATION Of P- H-
ffid it upon them. For example, fay they, PL Ixix.
2 2. ffiould run thus, ' Their table ffiaU become a
' fnare before them, and that which ffiould have been
' for their welfare, ffiall become a trap ;' and In likt
manner the other exceptionable places of the fame
kind. But if this expUcation be juft. In favour of
which it may be obferved, that for the moft part the
Hebrew ^ verbs are In the future tenfe, they afford
no handle or pretence at aU for the imputation of
our author.
Left this however f pleafe not, I add, though they
ffiould be admitted to be prayers Inftead of prophecies^
the filling of Judas's place in the A poftolic college, by the nominatioff
ofa fucceffor,- ACts i. i 6. — 20.) it would be but a fmall relief from
the objeCKori. For there remain many other pfalms to be accounted
for, where is no room for fuch an evafion of the difficulty ; and if they
can be reconciled with a moral and religious charaCler, fo may that cixv
Pfalm. though it fhould, according to the common interpretation, re-^
prefent David's words againft his adverfaries, and not theirs againft
him. • It is true, imperative forms are alfo intermixed. But they are'
lefs frequent, as 1 have faid •, nor is it without example, that even fuch
receive a future fignification elfewhere, as Gen. xx. 7. xlii. 18. Deut.
xxxii 50. Ifai. liv. i . &c. Is the authority ofthe Greek and Vulgate
verfions oppofed to this explication ? to omit, that Jews wri'ting Greek,
dp fometimes employ the imperative for the future form'of verbs, as in
Matt. X 13. John ii. 19. and Matt, xxiii. 32. wherefore the Seventy
may be fuppofed to do fo here, there is little weight in the argument.
For who knows not, that the Greek verfion is in many places faulty and
erroneous ? yet upon it, (as will be hereafter takeii notice of) the Vul
gate in the Pfalms was very much formed.
f It may be objected, 1 obferve, that the verfion which makes thefe-
fentences prayers, inftead of prophetic denunciations, is to be preferred,
becaufe the future tenfe is' frequently ufed by the Hebrews in forms of
intreaty, as well as the imperative, becaufe it is unnatural to make Da-

p.n. TIfE SACRED BOOKS. 6^
iliU the author may be vindicated, from aU reafonable
blame and cenfure, for a cruel and vindidlve fpirit,
and uppn like principles, the people who gav.e'them
a place in their facred volume.
For, firft, we may fuppofe the penman of them
fo fituated and circumftanced, as to juftify the effu-
fion of his heart in fuch language before God, againft
the perfons whona he defcribes, fpr his own fafety
or the fafety pf the ftate. It is undeniably lawful, to
pray for deliverance from enemies, not only by infa
tuation of their counfels, defeat of their enterprizes,
and Uke methods, but even by deftrudion of their
lives, when this is needful to our own, or our coun
try's freedom froin their oppreffion and unjuft vio
lence, in the fame manner as it Is lawful to kUl them in
pur own, or the nation's felf-defence ; now It cannot
be proved, that any of the prayers ofthe Pfalmlft ex
tend beyond this unto their final damnation, what
ever * air fome expreffipns inay have of fuch dreadful
lid in a direCt addrefs to God, enter into fo long a detail of the calami
ties that would befall his enemies, — and in fine, becaufe .the apoftles
Peter, ACts, i. i 6.  20. and Paul, Rom. xi. 8. 9. though they do
not always cite according to the Seventy, do quote fome of the claufes
of Pf Ixix. and Pf. cix. conformably to their tranflation, which by
its ufe ofthe Greek verbs in the imperative and optative moods, ex
hibits them, moft obvioufly at leaft, in the light of fupplications from
David to Jehovah, that l^e would fo and fp punifli his, and the nation's;
enemies. * Thus what we render Pf. Iv. i j. ' Let th,em go down quick in-
* to hell,' is only, ' Let them go down quick or lively (while yetheal-
* thy, and free from difeafe) into the grave or invifible ftate.' Let
them die fuddenly, as happened to Ahitophel, 2. Sam. xvii. 23. which
punifhment however, he is alfo content fhould happen to himfelf, if thei^>
ibul charges againft hinj were not falfe, Pf. vii. 3. — j.

-yo A VINDICATION OF P.IL
fenfe, according to our verfion. Why then might
not David pray under fuch preffmg neceffity, for the
cxcifion of enemies, and the Hebrew people receive
thefe prayers Into their facred volume, without be^
ing accufed of a fanguinary difpofition ? Is it afked,
where is the^evldence that David's condition was
fuch, that he could not be faved unlefs his enemies
were cut off? I anfwer, to grant fuch was his appre-
henfion or view of the matter, feems to be no greatr
er indulgence to his charader than what a very mo
derate degree of candour didates. For he Informs
, us in one place, he felt a moft tender concern for thp
miferles of his foes, and became a moft fervent in-
terceffor with God for their welfare ; Pf. xxxv. 1 1,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16. ' Falfe witneffes did rife up;
' they laid to my charge things which I knew not,
' They rewarded me evil fpr good, to the fpoiling of
' my foul. But as for me, when they were fick, my
* clothing was fackloth : 1 humbled my foul with faf-
* ting, and my prayer returned Into mine own bo--
* fom. I behaved myfelf as though he had been my
* friend or brother : I bowed down heavily, as on?
* that mourneth for his mother, &c,' And his hifto
rian has recorded fome ftriking inftances of his gen-<
tlenefs toward thofe who had given him the higheft
provocation ; I mean, Saul, 1 Sam. xxiv. and xxvi,
Shimei, 2 Sam. xvi. 9. Abfalom, ibid. xvUi. 5, 3 3. and
even Nabal, whom he fpared after aU his rudenefs and
ingratitude. In compliance with Abigail's requeft, ad
vanced as he was to take vengeance on him, and enga
ged as he was by what fome men count ties of honour,
in purfuance of his oath to do fo, i Sam. xxv. With
al, it is to be attended to, that thefe enemies, againfi

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. -jt
whom he prays, were not only immoveably deter
mined to accompUffi the ruin of him and his friends,
but were perfons ofthe moft proffigate charaders, har
dened* againft the fear of God, and deftitute of all re
gard to truth, juftice, and humanity; by confequence,
they were proper objeds of the divine difpleafure, and
ofthe inffidion of thefe puniffiments which he foUcited,
in order to the protedion of his oppreffed and perfe
cuted Innocence, and to the fupport of that form
of reUgion which God had eftabliffied among the
people of Ifrael, according to the threatnings which
were contained in the law itfelf. David, therefore,
did no more than wiffi, that the divine conftitution
ffiould operate for his own and his country's wel
fare, when he poured out his foul in fuch requefts
againft them. Thus his prayers for evU upon ene
mies, are not prayers flowing from fpite and refent
ment on account of injuries and affronts which he
had received already, and further feared from them,
though the common fource of like petitions in men ;
but were prayers direded by reafonable care of him--
felf, and his righteous caufe, together with a be
coming zeal for the honour of the Deity, in the
fandions by which the obfervation of his ordinan
ces was enforced among them.
Or, fecondly, we may fuppofe the penman of
thefe pfalms, to prefent the prayers which he offers
to God for various judgements on his wicked and
impious enemies, under an impulfe of the fpirit, or
upon a revelation of God's abfolute purpofe and de
cree to inffid them. Of this fort were EUjah'sf pray- V
* See Pf. X. 2. — ly. xvii. 2. — -14. Ixviii. l.&c.
•j^ Se? Morris's Sermons. Accordingly, the expreffion of the A*
: E 4

fl A VINDICATION OF P- IL
ers for the fufpenfion of rain, James v. 17- ^nd
for the defcent pf fire from heaven, to confume the
companies difpatched to arreft him, 2 Kings I. 10.
Of the fame kind alfo were Eliffia's prayers, for thq
bUndnefs of the Syrians at Dothan, and for the de
ftrudion of the fcoffers at Bethel, 2 Kings, vi. 18.
U. 24. As indeed it is abfurd to fuppofe thefe ex
traordinary calamities would have foUowed on the
fuppUcations of thofe prophets, unlefs they had been
agreeable to the wiU of God, with whatever ardoi;
and earneftnefs they were prefented. And why may
we not add thefe of the Pfalmlft to the number ? In
the cafe of fuch a difcovery from God to him, as I
have mentioned, it became his duty tp wUl the arrival
of thefe puniffiments, againft all the workings of his
own pity and compaffion, toward the guUty and
criminal objeds, as a meafure which the all-wife
and righteous Governor of the univerfe faw requi
fite to be purfued, for the vindication of his glory,
and the fupport of his authority.
To one or other of thefe honourable fources, as
feems to me, it ffiould be admitted by all Chriftians
at leaft, that thefe prayers are tp be traced, when
it Is confidered, that the apoftle Peter, being about
to produce fome of thefe execratlpns and curfes, as
they have been called, that he might perfuade the
other apoftles and brethren to find Judas's place va
cant, and to chpofe a fit perfon In his ropm, to be
a vritnefs with them of Jefus's refurredipn, ftUes
them, ' the words ofthe Holy Ghoft;' for he intro-
poftle James, which we turn, ' the efleClual prayer,' is properly, the
inwrought, the infpired prayer, irt^yv/myn ; and it feems neceffary tq
admit this tranflation, both for the fake of confiftency in his remark,
and from a regard to his fcope and defign in introducing the faCl.

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 73
duces * them thus, ' This fcripture muft needs have
' been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghoft by the mouth
.* of David fpoke before concerning Judas. — For it
* Is written in the book pf Pfalmg, ' Let his habita-
," tion be defolate, and let no man dwell therein,
" and his office (or charge) let another take." Which
is faying in effed, that the pfalmlft uttered thefe
words not from his own private motion, but as mo
ved by the Holy Ghoft : he therefore leaves us no
room to fuppofe, that they exprefs any irregular
workings of human paffions, though from fuch,
doubtiefs, the hearts pf good rnen are not all times
wholly free, even when they are employed in devo
tional exercifes. Nor do I fee how the argument can
be evaded, unlefs it be pretended, that Peter, not
being yet InfalUble in his reUgious declfions, becaufe
this difcourfe was deUvered by him, before the de
fcent of the Spirit which Chrift promlfed to lead him
and his companions into all truth, was herein mif
taken, as In his rempnftranpe againft our Saviour's
dying. Matt. xvi. 2 3 . — But even then, there would
be evidence for the fame origin of them, from the
declarations In the New Teftament about the infpi
ration of the Jewiffi Scriptures in general, and the
appeals by the apoftles to different paffages of the
Ixix Pfalm In particular,, after the fame manner as
to other texts the moft authoritative. See John U.
17. Rom. xi. 9. 10.
Now by either of thefe folutlons, which the reader
may think is to be preferred/ David's piety Is main
tained, the imputation of rihcour and revenge upon
}iim for prpnoiincing fuch words, and of cruelty up-;
^ See ACts, i. 16 — 20. and compare Pf. Ixix. 25. cix. 8,

74 A VINDICATION OF P. H,
on the Jews for giving thefe compofitions, wherein
they occur, a place among their facred books. Is
refuted; and afl encouragement is alfo taken away
from us who haye not the extraordinary communi
cations about the fchemes and intentions of heaven,
which he, by one hypothefis, here had, to pour
out requefts to God for the deftrudion even of our
•vtdcked enemies, unlefs when this appears the fole
expedient for felf-prefervation, or thd fafety of the
ftate againft their machinations and efforts.*
But it is time to proceed to the other part of Mr.
Voltaire's accufation, That the Jews were a carnal
people. To fix this charge upon them, (the truth of
which 1 mean not to deny however, though I believe
it wiU be difficult to fliew they merited this opprot
brious appellation beyond their neighbours, as much
as fome perfons, unfriendly to revelation, ftigmatize
• About thofe imprecatory pfalms, whoever would be more ful-:
ly informed of the reafonings of the learned, may confult Sykes's In
troduction to his Commentary on the Epiftle to the Hebrews, Kenni-
cott's Examination of the Hebrew text, Hammond and Merrick's An
notations on the Pfalms, and Chandler's Review of the Hiftory ofthe
Man after God's own heart, feCt. 22. I had once refolved to omit
taking any notice of them, as Mr. Voltaire's account of them was ai
greeable to all verfions, as well as the Vulgate; while, moreover, it
feemed a faithful enough tranfcript thereof. But, on maturer confide
ration, I judged it better to make thefe remarks concerning them, as
they have been frequent matter of offence to believers, and triumph
to infidels, and have real difficulty in thejn. And though I fliould be
found to have faid little new, if I have explained the feveral opinions
pf able and inquifitive divines about them, to thofe who have not ac
cefs to perufe their writings, and thereby brought into view any thing
fatisfaCtory, in which their minds can acquiefce, for folving the objecr
tions which haye thence been raifed, the pains beftowed will be anipljf
recompenced,

P.IL THE SAC'RED BOOKS. 75
them diftlngulffiingly or eminently by It ;) he Is, I
think, guilty of veiy unfair condud; for he profeffes
to quote thefe words from the evil, pfalm, f Judah is
' a kettle fuU of meat. The mount of the Lord is a
¦* congealed mount, a fat mountain. Why do ye look
* upon the congealed mountains?' But the firft
claufe I cannot find at all. There is, indeed, in the
Vulgate verfion .of this pfalm, accorffing to the me
thod of numeration, which it follows after the Greek,
by joining the ninth and t^nth pfalms o^ the Hebrew
pfalter together, and counting them only one, but
according to the Jewiffi, and our manner of comput
ing, the cviU. a fentence which hath fome refem
blance to it; J ' Moab is the kettle of my hope.' And
in like manner, in the Ux. of that tranflation, which
Is vrith us the Ix, It is faid, ' Moab i| is the pot of
* my hope,' But no where in it have I been able to
difcover Mr. Voltaire's fcrap, npt even among the
various readings gathered from different manufcrlpts
thereof, by the divines of Louvaine, and publiffied
by Plantin at Antwerp. Befides, our tranflation of
it is far more juft than any fuch rendering would
be, did it at all lurk in fpiue copy of the Vulgate ;
and it cannot be pretended it is to be met with in
any other verfion. ' Moab is my walhing pot,' § fays
f Page 212. X ' Mpab lebes fpei meae.' [j ' Moab ol-
la fpei meae.'
§ The Hebrew in both places, runs, '^m "I'D DWD Moai
Jtr rahatzi, of which the literal import is, ' Moab is a pot for my Wafti-
ing.' Which is excellently illuftrated in Gataker's Cinnus, lib. 2. cap,
19. by a ftory from Herodotus. Amafis, king of Egypt, finding him
felf defpifed for the meannefs of his extraction and breeding, contrived
to break in pieces a golden bafon in which he and his guefts had been
ttccuftoraed to wafh their feet, aiid to make it into ap ima^e ofa god.

n6 A VINDICATION OF P. II,
David, to denote the redudion of the Moabkes by
his arms to the moft abjed and ignominious fervi;
tude. As to the reft of the paffage which he produces,
1 fuppofe it is his tranflation of the words of the
Vulgate, in Pfalm IxvII. (with us, as with the He^
brews, the IxyUi.) for they run thus, ' Mons Dei mons
' pinguis, mons cpagulatus, mpns pinguis. Ut quid
' fufpicamini monte? coagulatos ?' And I allow they
were alfo intended to exprefs the fenfe of the Sep
tuagint; as indeed learned men know, that the tranf
lation of the Pfalms, in the Vulgate verfion, is Je
rome's tranflation of them from the Greek, inftead
of that which is caUed his itranflation from the He
brew: for a regard tp inens prejudices of education,
which would not admit, any great variation here,
from what they had been accuftomed to read and
recite, or to hear read and recited in the church,
perfuaded to continue the public ufe thereof wIthT
out thefe improvements which his fuperior know
ledge of, and acquaintance with, the original lan
guage of the Pfalter, qualified him to make In it. —
Neverthelefs, It may even be queftioned, whether
Mr, Voltaire hath giyen § the true and genuine mean-
And having found hereon, that all exceedingly honoured it, he admo-
niflied his people, that in the fame manner they fliould have refpeCted
him when raifed to the throne, though he was of low original ; thus
comparing himfelf, in his humble ftate, to a veffel or pot to wafli the
feet in. See Herodot. Euterpe; or, lib. 2. cap. 172. edit. Stephan.
p. 177. § Whereas the: epithet of ' congealed,' added to ' mountains,'
awakes in the mind of an Englifti reader, only the idea of their being
(Covered with ice and fnow, which is not very fuit^ble to the other
auality of richnefs and fruitfulnefs, if fuch be their general vefture;

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. it
ing which its expreflions were defigned to convey.
Be this hoy(^ever as the reader pleafes, is that Latin
verfion itfelf here, juft ? It were eafy to prove, though
it were, it Would not authorize the accufation againft
the Jews, in fupport of which it is brought, as much
as they might deferve that charge on other accounts.
For, may not a people celebrate the fertffity of any
part of their country, and praife God for it, with
out incurring the cenfure of carnal? But this is not
my prefent fcope. What I now infift on is, that the
Vulgate does not exhibit the true fenfe of the He
brew. Neither can I think that our own tranflation
does it, which Is, ' The hUl of God Is as the hill of
f Baffian, an high hlU as the hlU of Baffian, Why
' leap ye, ye high hlUs? this Is the hUl wliich God
' defireth to dweU in, yea, the Lord wUl dwell in It
' for ever.' And the reafons of this judgment wUl
appear immediately.
It Is remarkable that Pere Houbigant himfelf,
hath departed far from the Vulgate here, for he *
turns the paffage, ' The mountain of God is a fat
the appellation beftowed by the feventy interpreters, upon the moun
tain of God, nrvpa/jiiyoy, and upon the hills in general, nrufafura,
feems to have a relation to cheefe, according to the conftant ufe of
the verb, and to denote a likenefs in fhape or figure thereunto : and
,«iayitnotbe thought this refemblance was alfo defigned bythe-au-
thor of the Vulgate, fince coagulo fignifies, to thicken milk, or turn it
into a curd.
* vide Houbigant Bibl. irt locum. He reads "jU71 twice over whicb
fignifies, fat, rich, inftead of ^TtO upon no better foundation thaa
this, that the Seventy, and Symmachus, and Theodotion, and the A-
rabic, which is very riiuch a tranfcript ofthe Greek verfion, have/a^
in thefe places ; and he fapplies '^^ in the beginning of the 1 7(h verfe
without any authority at all, apprehending the copiers to have paffed

78 A VINDICATION OI^ P. H-
' mountain. The mountain of heights, (that is, the
' lofty mountain,) is a fat mountain. Why do yc
' mountains enVy the mountain of heighths ? The
« mountain -which God hath defired that he might
' Inhabit, whieh alfo God wUl inhabit, for ever.'
And he fuppofes the pfalmlft to celebrate Zion, which
was more raifed by Its fummit, under the name of
the mountain df God, on account of its fertiUty,
from the timfe of the fettiement of the ark there,
through the fame divine bleffing which fo fignally
profpered the famUy of Obed-edom, whUe that fym«'
bol of the Deity abode with them. And then to re
buke the circumjacent or ambient hiUs, for cafting
an invidious eye Upon it, becaufe it was honoured
with the prerogative of God's refidence upon it above'
themfelves ; while in this reproof, he alfo fancies, he
alludes to the uneafinefs of the neighbouring kings,
at his own fuccefs in war, and the rifing glory of Je
rufalem through his civil and military atchievements,
wherefore they prepared to cruffi it.^ But though
the fenfe he gives be very elegant and beautiful, t
cannot adopt It as the juft one. For to fay nothing
at all of his giving a wrong tranflation of one phrafe
over and ovef, of which afterwards, he takes fuch
unwarrantable liberties in altering and adding to the
text, as are with me a fufficient argument for rejec-'
ting his interpretation. While we retain the prefent
Hebrew text, we may, I think, provided we read the
paffage as an interrogation, (which may be done with-i
out any change of its Original form, fince in all pro-*
babiUty no punduation was ufed at fii-ft,) and pror
it, when they faw it in their MSS, as a faulty and nfsiefs repetitkifl
if the firft fyllable ofthe initial word there rm^-^ri

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 7^
vided we give to every word its proper fignification,'
explain it to have a meaning very fpirited and
worthy of the occafion, after this * manner. The
pfalmlft firft propofes a queftion, ' Is the hUl of God
* (the hiU which God hath chofen to inhabit, by the
' ark,) the hlU of Baffian ? Is it the hUl with Its crag-
* gy tops, (or eminences,) the hill of Baffian ? Why
* look ye with envy, ye craggy hUls ?' On Zion, he
means, as having the pecuUar privilege to be the fix
ed feat of the divine fymbol. Then the pfalmlft
fpeaking of mount Zion, fubjoins ' This is the hill
* which God deffieth to dwell In. Yea, the Lord wUl
* dweU in It for ever.' And fo I fee Dr. Chandler
hath interpreted it, who beautifuUy imagines thefe
laft words to have been fung in view of mount Zi
on, and even at the beginning of the afcent of the
proceffion with the ark Into It. Now, how appofite
to the folemnlty of the introdudlon of the ark thi
ther ! how confonant to the original this verfion, in
oppofition to the Vulgate, which our author follows,
* I reckon the term ^1Z?3 Bajhan is a proper name, in which
fenfe it occurs v. 22. and often elfewhere ; a mountainous ridge to
the eaft of the Jordan being fo denominated, which belonged formerly
to Og, but was afterwards conquered by the Ifraelites, and affigned ta
the half tribe of Manaffeh, Jofliua, xxii. 7. xxi. 6 It is celebrated
in Scripture for the goodnefs of its paftures, and the excellency of its
catde, Deut. iv. 5. Pf. xxii. 13, Ezek. xxvii. 6. Micah, vii. 14.
&c. As to C J J!3J in in the 1 6th verfe of the Pfalm, it feems t»
denote ftriCtly and literally, a hill with craggy fummits or gibbous pro
tuberances, while more hills of this kind are mentioned in the fucceed
ing verfe. So the famous Schultens hath obferved in his notes on the
Arabic conference of Haririus, that the ?'JJZ3J C"in ^- ' 7- ^"'^
to be turned ' Montes gibbofi, edito vertice praediti' Harir. Confefs.
J. pag. 2. And having remarked in his Key to the DialeCts, that

«d AVINDICATION OF ^.I^.
but perhaps Ul expreffes Its intention at the famtf
time ! and how far from affording any handle to re-*
vUe the Jews as a carnal people !
SECTION VL
Of his affirming In his Treatife on Toleration, that
Ezekiel fpeaks of pigmies, perfons not above i
cubit high.
T O thefe Inftances, I only add another from hli
Treatife on Toleration, where he is, I think, very in
jurious to Ezekiel, foon after the paffage concerning
him quoted thence in a foriuer fedion. ' Ezekiel,
' fays Mr. Voltaire, fpeaks of pigmies, {gumadim) not
nJ'3J is, cheefe, properly milk coagulated and gathered into greatef
dodders, from the root OJ Av^h. ghaban, he adds that ^^ J is, gib
bous, and that the original expreffion v. 17. fignifies, gibbous moun
tains, mountains rough and unequal with tops, as the correfpondenf
Arabic term is, rough, fcabrous and uneven ground, and thence, a
church-yard, a burial-place Clav. DiaLCl. page 196, 197. In this
fenfe too, Pagnin, TremelliuS, and Geierus,' do very much agree, a^
indeed Aquila the Jew, who is allowed to be no mean jiadge of the im
port ofthe Hebrew, turns it in his Greek tranflation, browed hills, a-
(ffVifAiyix.. Then the verb which is rendered in the Vulgate and Seven
ty, to look upon, and by us, after good critics, to leaf, is properly ufed
of a wild beaft lyirtg in wait to catch its prey, upon which it looks with
an oblique eye, and hence fignifies, to envy, fnch a caft ofthe eye be
ing a natural indication of this temper; and the addrefs is not to men,
as the Seventy and Vulgate make it, but to the furrounding hills by s"
Tr^ova'TTOTToicC Yet it will make little difference, though with the GhaN
dee we tranflate it, ' Why leap ye V viz. with over-valuation of your^
felveS ; or with Aquila, ' Why ftrive ye ?' viz in point of dignilf
and honour. Compare Chandler's Life of David, vol, 2. p. 73.

1P,IL THE SAGRED BOOKS. 8i
* above ^ a Cubit high, who fought at the fiege of
' Tyre.' And he undoubtedly alludes to the i ith
verfe of that prophet's 2 7 th chapter, where the Vul
gate has, ' Sed et pygmaei, qui erant in turribus
' tuls, pharetras fuas fufpenderunt In murls tuis
* per gyrum ;' but we have, ' O Tyrus, the Gam-
* madims were in thy towers ; they hanged their
* ffiields upon thy walls round about.
But Is there not the fame caufe of complaint here,
as on other occafions ? I acknowledge indeed, fome
like him have underftood pygmies, perfons of a cu
bit's helghth, who were dextrous at ffiooting with
arrows, to be here intended. They are not however
(£ven all who adhere to the Vulgate verfion, for fome
of them make the -fenfe of Its -f pygmaei to be, not
men of fo low and puny ftature, but men ftrong
and robuft, able at fift, or fit for combat. Nay the
notion of pygmies is not only oppofed by Proteftants,
who pay lefs regard to that tranflation, as Junius
and Grotius, the laft of whom pleafantly J ridicules
the choice of fuch defenders as only proper In a war
againft cranes, but alfo by writers of the Romiffi
church who reverence it moft, as Cornelius a Laplde,
who obferves, that aU the ftories of Homer, Ariftotle,
• I fuppofe every reader knows the Jewifli cubit was twenty-one
inches or thereabouts.
t As Menochius and others, who derive the word from the Greek
TTuyjun, in the fenfe of, fight or fift ; which feems alfo to have been
Jerome's explication, who framed that tranflation. Vid. icapul. Le
xicon, VOC. TVyiAAjUl,
X ' Bene' fays he upon the text, ' fi cum gtuibus beliandum fuit»
* Alioqui quorfum ad militiam deligere eos,
* Quorum tota cohors pede non eft altior vrno.
F

8'2 AVINDICATIONOF V.tl
Ovid and PUny, about nations or tribes of fuch hu
man beings, black and hairy aH over, fituated on
the Ethiopic ffiore of the Red Sea, had been confuted
by * Aldrovandus, GelUus and Cardan, as unworthy
of any credit. Why then does Mr. Voltaire attempt
to pafs it upon us as the inconteftable and true niean-
ing of Ezekiel? It feems moft probable that the term
¦\-Gammadim, if It be the genuine reading, was the
* See Pol. Synopfis in loc. The falftiood of thefe tales hath been'
alfo fliewn by Julius Caefar Scaliger, Jo. Voffius, Ifaac Cafaubon, and
more lately by the learned Fabricius, profeffor of divinity at Hamburgh,
whatever fports of nature, if I may ufe the expreflion, there have been
through different countries, in refpeCt ofthe extremely diminutive fize
of this or that individual ofour kind, even as fuch may be found alfo
among the brute fpecies ; See fabricii SyHoge Opufculorum, &c. where
he hath a differtatlon ' De hominibus orbis noftri incolis, fpecie et or-
' tu avito inter fe non differentibus,' in oppofition to Peyrerius's book,
who endeavoured to prove from the variety of figure. Colour, and fta
ture among mankind, that all were not fprung from the fame common
parent; by which topic, Mr. Voltaire fikewife endeavours to difcredit
tKe Scripture accoflht ofour Common originat, Phil, of Hift. chap. 2.
page 5. &c.
t Q'lDJ Mr. Hallet, ih tha third volume of bis notes on Scripture
texts, dlfallowing the notion that a nation is meaned here, fuppofes
the Jewifli tranferibers have mifpelt the word, writing iII3'~iD.]1 '»¦
ftead of CII}'1Q'J' as it muft have been in the more correCt Hebrew
copies, from which the Greek, Arabic, and Syriac verfions were madey
aird renders the whnle verfe thus, ' The men of Arvad, with thine ar
my upon thy walls round about were the guards in thy towers ;' The
rather that tlie Syriac feems to have been made in this place direCtly
from the Hebrew text itfeli', fince if does not here follow the Greek,
as the Arabic does. But this t am irtclined to think too bold an emen
dation upon fuch authority -alone, the more that the Chaldee has Coji'
fadoces, Symmachus M'uSo;, and Theodotion ra^u^aSejiM. Nor do
tlie copies even ofthe Seventy concur to fuppnrt the reading he woulil
fubftitute. For the Coitiplutenfian edition disjoins- this fentence fioM
X

P.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 83
name of a people in Phenicia, or in fome adjacent
cOuntiy, tho' they may be now unknown, fince they
appear among other foreign foldiers who were au
xiliaries to the Tyrians, as the beft critics + do agree.
SECTION vn.
That the Vulgate tranflation favours thefe accounts^
which Ml". Voltaire hath given, is no fufficient
apology for his fairnefs and candour,
THUS, to name no more examples under this
-clafs; hath Mr. Voltaire detraded from Scripture,
mocked at its relations, and reproached the Jewiffi
prophets and people, upon the authority of the Vul
gate chiefly or folely. And is It not diffionourable
in him, to have thrown out fuch feoffs and cen
fures as he hath done, where he h"ad no better foun
dation for them?
the preceding, and turns it, Awa fccq Mriho! ir rot; mpycic av twoLY
fu\aKic, ' But even the Medes were guards in thy towers.'
X So Michaelis underftands the word in his Bible : for had the
Medes been intended, they would have been introduced fooner with the
Perfians and others, at the fame great diftance ; and refers to Pfeiffer
in his Dubia Vexata, and Ludolf in his Hiftory of Ethiopia, as ftrong-
ly fupporting it. — It is an ingenious conjecture of Grotius, that the
inhabitants of Ancon, in Phenicia, are fo called, as aynay in the Greek
tongue fignifies a cubit like IQJ in the Hebrew, Judges, iii. i6. 
Vonder Hardt, in his DeteCta Mythologia Graecorum, underftands
the inhabitants of Megiddo, a town belonging to the Manaffites, on the
eoaft ofthe Mediterranean fea, as does the anonymous author of Ob-
fervationes Philologipae et Geographicae, printed at .'imfterdam, 1748;
but, fo far as I can judge, without any probability. Indeed, who they
were, cannot, in my opinion, be afcertained. Only they feem to ha7e
F 2

84 A VINDICATION OF P. It
It may be pled in his behalf. The council of Trent,
whofe decrees are received with profound refped by
the church of Rome, in the ceremonies of which our
author-, if we may credit public accounts, ^ at times
joins, declared this tranflation authentic, and prohi--
bited the ufe of any other, either in the difputatlons
of the fchools, or In public worfliip, upon any pre
text whatfoever; wherefore, he cannot be blamed
for unfairnefs and difingenuity, in making it his
guide. But I anfwer. It can fcarce be imagined, that 1
man of fo free a fpirit as our author, ever under-'
ftood this councU by the term, authentic, to fignify,
that It was exempted from all faults and miftakes,
and entitled to an entire fubmlffion through aU its
parts, as if it was the pure and uncorrupted origlnaL
For fuch a fenfe hath been exploded and difclaimed
by the moft able Papifts themfelves, as cardinal Pal-
lavicini, Pere Simon, and others, f who contend it
been people of Phenicia, or the neighbourhood, as Arvad or Arad,-
\vhofe men are mentioned in the fame verfe, was a maritime place in
Phenicia. beeReland. Palaeft. p. 137, 216, &c.
* London Chronicle, May 16, — 18. ofthe laft year, page 2.
column 2. ' Mr. db Voltaire, not content with performing the cufto^
' mary ceremonies obferved at Eafter, by the church of Rome, made
' a kind of fermon, containing his confeffion of faith, during the ho-
' lidays, to a very numerous congregation, and took two notaries pu-
¦¦ blic, to witnefs to the orthodoxy of it.'
I See Simon's HKfoire Critique du Vieux Teftament, liv. 2. feCt.
19. The fame hath bien -alio the interpretation of the decree by later
writers. Towards the end of laft century, there was publiflied by Na'
tails Alexander, a Parlfian divine, and regent of a college of preach
ing friars, ' A Differtatlon concerning the Errors which ftill remained
' in tbe Vulgate verfion, after its corredion by order of Clement VIU,''

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 85
was only the Intention of the councU to affert, that
it was, in general, a good and faithful tranflation,
though not without its errors and flaws ; wherefore
they obferve, the fame council, which pronounced
the decree in favour of its authenticity, ordered aL
fo Its corredion and amendment. But fuppofing Mr.
Voltaire interpreted their words In that high fenfe,
which Is only embraced by the greateft bigots of the
Romiffi church. It can never be thought that he did
not look upon the claim as abfurd and ridiculous,
Efpecially, when fuch variations are to be found be
tween the two editions of that verfion itfelf, which
{of this prefently) ' and which might be rectified by authority of the
f church.' ' Differtatio circa Sphalmata,' &c. Being attacked for this,
as inconfiftent with the decrees ofthe council of Trent, which appointr
ed the Vulgate verfion to be received as authentic, he defended him
felf, faying. He ftill' revered thefe, as the council's meaning only was,
that it was to be preferred to every other tranflation ; not that it wa>
to be efteemed beyond the original Hebrew and Greek text : which he
endeavoured to fhow by the teftimonies of Alphoqfus Salmero who was
prefent at it, and of \ndreas Vega, and of other theologians of the
Romifli church.-- — .\Q. Krudit. Decemb. 1682.
In like manner, about the fixteenth year of this century, Paffini,
doctor in theology, and leCturer on the Oriental languages in the col
lege of Padu^, hath declared his fentiments about the import ofthe de
cree ; for, fpeaking of the Vulgate verfion 's being approved and de
clared authentic by tlie council of Trent, feff. 4. can. 2. he has thefe
words, ' Non ut fontibus Graecis et Ebraicis fit praeferenda, fed aliis
* Latinis verfionibus, reliCtis exemplaribus in eodem authentiae ftatu
* quo prius fruebantur.' And fb concludes they never intended to re-
ftrain their induftry, who,through greater skill in the original languages,
were able to propofe a fenfe more commodious and juft than that which
it expreffed, however it might be no way contrary to faith and found
mojals. Differtatio Polemica de praecipuis S. S. Bibliorum Unguis el;
verfionibus. Apud Suppl. ACl. Lipfiae, tom. 7. anno 1721.
F 3

86 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
have been patronized by their fupreme ecclefiaftic
authority. For the edition by pope SIxtus V. (though,
in his bull prefixed, he approved It by the apoftolic
power, which the Lord Jefus Chrift had committed
to him, and enaded Its unlverfal ufe as true and In
conteftable, forbidding to change any, even the fmal
left particle, and declaring that fuch alteration ffiould
have no faith nor weight,) and that by pope * Cle
ment VIII. his fucceffor, in the year -1592, do
often differ; whUe this pope again In his preface, af
ter all his redifications of it in feveral places, and
fome pf them important ones, owns there was ftiU
room to mend and improve the tranflation, Accord
ingly, we know many dodors of that church have
been endeavouriqg in later times, to render it more,
perfed and accurate. Nay, father Houbigant with
in thefe few years hath given the world a new Lat-r
in verfion of the whole Old Teftament from the He
brew; an evidence he thought there might be a jufter
one than it was ; as indeed, though he counted it more
exceUent than any of the former tranflations, he hath
npt fcrupled tp depart from its fenfe | frequently^
* This edition by Clement, was only three ye?irs later than Six-
tus's. The varieties between thefe two editions, were collected and
publiflied by Thomas James, Bodleian library-keeper in the year 1600,
in a fmall book thence ftiled helium Papale, that he might expofe to
contempt the claim ofthe pope to infallibility. And fome of them are
Bianifeft inconfiftencies and contradictions, as thefe. Exodus, xxiii. ig.
Sixtus's edition has tuae, Clement's meae. Deut. xfii. 8. Sixtus's
has inter lepram et mn lepravi, Clement's inter lepram et lepram.
Jofliua, ii. \'i>.&:f..'hi.%fignum non fuerit s dX&xa.'hs.t Jignum fuerii',
&c. X See his Prolegomena to his Hebrew Bible, and notes paffim.

P.n. THE SACRED BOOKS, 87
and even to reafon againft It In many Inftances.-—
Befides, Mr. Voltaire himfelf, though he hath fome
times laid hold of the fenfe of the Vulgate as the fure
and infallible one, where it gave him any colour or
pretext to laugh, hath at other times given a fenfe
very different and contraiy, where fuch defertion of
it was needful to anfwer his view, and gratify him
with the pleafure of deriding the facred writings. So
that he wUl with a very * bad grace alledge its authen
ticity to be an article of his creed, either in the more
rigorous or moderate fenfe which hath been put up
on that term pf the councU, in excufe for his mlf-
leading his readers by adherence to it. In the paf
fages which I have cenfured. Of this we have feen
an example or two a little before. But I produce be
low, fome others to juftify the remark more fully.
The rather that I aqi fcarce to take any more notice
pf them, 1
• Thus in the forty-third chapter of his Phil, of Hiftory, 'Micaiah,*
fays he, ' having prophefied misfortunes to king Ahab and Jofaphat, a-
' nother prophet named Tzedekiah, fon to Cana, gave him a flap on
' the face, faying, " The Spirit of the Eternal has paffed from my
" hand upon thy cheek." pag. 204. But were thefe his words accord
ing to the Vulgate ? ' No. They are there, ' Hath the Spirit of the
* Lord then forfaken me, and fpoken to thee ? Mene ergo dimifit Spi-
' ritus Domini, et locutus eft tibi !' 3 Reg, xxii. 24.  In the for
ty-eighth chapter again, he fays, according to the Jews, ' God walks
¦ in the garden at mid-day.' pag. 230. But in the Vulgate it is, ' At
' the breeze after noon ; Ad auram poft meridiem.' Gen. iii. 8. vvhich
agrees much with our tranflation, ' In the cool ofthe day.—  Once
more, in his Philofophical Dictionary he writes, ' Ezekiel, in the 28.
• chapter of his Revelations, gives the appellation of Meffiah to the king
'. of Tyrus, whom he alfo calls, Cherubim.' But is this account of tha
.addrefs, which the Lord bids the prophet make to the king of Tyrgs^^

S8 A VINDICATION OF P- 11,
So much for his mifreprefentations of Scripture,
on the authority of the Vulgate verfion. And muft
it not appear a great want of candour In him, to have
cavilled at its accounts thereof, when it Is acknow
ledged to labour under many Inaccuracies and mlf^
takes, by the moft learned of that communion where
it is moft admired, ^nd is in fad difagreeable to the
original. In the paffages which he ftudies to expofe
from It to ridicule? Is not this condud alfo the more
inexcufable in him, that he himfelf difcovers fo fmall
deference and veneration for it, as not feldom tp
give a different view of the meaning pf the Sacred
Books from that which it exhibits ?

agreeable tothe Vulgate tranflation ? Far otherwife. Whereas he make?
the prophet fay to him, ' Thou waft the feal of the likenefs of God,'
The Vulgate hath no more than, ' Thou waft the feal of likenefs. Tq
' fignaculum fimilitudinis ;' which is expounded by moft commentator^
that allow the juftice of this rendering, of his having the perfection of
the likenefs or fimilitude ofa king, though deftitute of extenfive terri
tory.  And whereas he reprefents the prophet to continue, ' Thoii
' waft the Lord's garden of Eden.' It hath, ' Thou waft in the delights
' ofthe Paradife of God.' In deliciis Paradifi Dei fuifti.' — And, not
to point out all differences there, whereas he makes the prophet fay,
• Thou haft a Cherubim, a Mefliah.' It hath notone fyllable of Meffi
ah or Anointed, but runs, ' Thou art a foreign Cherub,' or as fome
would read it, ' Thou art a Cherub ftretched out and covering. Tu
' Cherub externus (ut alii, extenfus,) et protegens,' on account of the
defence and tuition the prince of Tyre afforded toother cities and ftates.
See the Dictionary, article Mefliah, page 265. and compare Ezek.
xxviii. 12, 13. in Vulgate verfion. — But it were endlefs to enumerate
all his deviations from it, in his details from, and profeffed citation?
of Scripture, and to conviCt him thereof, by inftituting a comparifon
betwixt the one and the other. Enough muft ftrike every reader in the
next chapter.

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. d^
CHAPTER n.
pf his mifreprefentations of Scripture, for which he
cannot plead the authority of any | tranflation.
HAVING now pointed out feveral falfe ac-
' counts of the meaning of Scripture by Mr,
Vpltaire, fpr which he had, as feemed candid to ac
knowledge, the authority pf the Vulgate verfion ;
I proceed to his far more numerous mifreprefentati
ons thereof. In which he Is unfupported by any tranf
lation. And certainly he muft be here much more
criminal. I do not however Intend to produce aU in
ftances of this kind that might be coUeded, even
from thefe treatifes of the author which I critlcife.
Nor can I think it neceffary. It may be fufficient to
ffiew, that he Is with great frequency guUty of fuch
difingenuous condud. For muft not this fatisfy eve
ry perforj, that he ought to be very cautious about
receiving his accounts of the Bible impUcitely, who
appears fo keen to.'traduce it, that he pays little re-r
gard to truth in his details from it, wherever to ne
gled this, can ferve his end of expofing the Sacred
Books to ridicule ? and by confequence, guard him
¦)• This feems to me the character of all the inftances I mention ex
cept two or three, and I have thought it needlefs, as they are fo few,
to ufe any reftriCtion in the title of this chapter. 'What pretence there
is of the authority ofa tranflation, ftiall be taken notice of upon thefe
articles, as they occur, when I hope it will alfo appear, that the
meaning he affixes to the words thereof is unreafonable, and that a-
nother fenfe is to be preferred to that which he hath chofen amidf^
fome ambiguity.

9* A VINDICATION OF P. IL
againft being impofed on, through a flothful omiffion
to read and examln.e the fame,
SECTION I.
Of his faying, that the Jews are reproached for cor
pulatlon with he and ffie-goats in the defert, an4
forbidden the fame, in chapter fecond of his Phi-.
lofophy of Hiftpryf
IN chapter fecond of his -^ PhUofophy of Hiftory,
Voltaire having obferved, ' Herodotus in his fecond
« book fays, that in his voyage into Egypt, there
« was a woman In the province of Mendes, who pub-
' licly copulated with a he-goat; and caUs all Egypt
' to witnefs the truth of it.' He fubjoins, ' It is for-
' bidden in Leviticus, chap. xvU. to commit abomi-
' nations with he and flie-goats. Thefe copulations
' muft then have been common,' &c. Again in chap.
5lxxv. f having affirmed, ' The Jews carried on the
' trade, (of magic,) as foon as they were difperfed
.' over the world. The forcerers fabbath is an evident
f prpof of this.' He adds, ' And the he-goat with
^ which the forcereffes were fuppofed to have copu-
' lated, is derived from the antient correfpondence
' the Jews had with goats in the defert, with which
' they are reproached in Levit. xvUi.' And the fame
thing he had faid in his Treatife on Toleration, with
fome enlargement, as wiU appear prefently.
According to our author then, the Jews were cen-,
fured for this deteftable crime in particular, and a,
fpecial caveat againft it was contained in their laWcj
• Page 7. — 8, t Page 166.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. or
fiut in the xviU, chapter of Leviticus, which is th^
place referred to for proof that the foul charge was
brought againft this people, I fee no colour for the
affertion at all. For fure it implies np fuch accufation,
that in the tWenty-third * verfe there is a prohibition
of aU mixture with brute animals, whether of the
male or female fex, as one of the many abpmlnati-
bns with whicl> the Canaanites weredefUed, and for
which the Lord did determine to extirpate them frorn
their land, to mak^ ropm fpr their pwn fettiement in
it, '
I fuppofe, therefore, that his intention vas to fen4
us to chap, xvu. for evidence that the reproach wag
caft upon them, as he does for pur convidion that
the ffiocking vice was forbidden them ; and that tq
fupport the heavy imputation, he tranflates ver. 7 tl;
thus, ' They ffiaU no more offer their facrifices tohe-
' goats, after w^hich they have gone arvhprin^. This
' ffiall be a 'ftatute for ever unto them, thrpughout
* their generations.' Inftead of which we haye, ' They
' ffiall no more offer their facrifices to devils, &c.'
And thus I fee In the Treatife on Toleration he fays,
' The Jews in the book of Leviticus are commanded
* no more to offer their facrifices to goats, with whom
* they haye gone a-whoring.
But Jiere let it be obferved, though the Hebrew
m^yyi'tiJ ffgnirim, were to be turned goats, as it is
indeed in Levit, xvi. 7, 8, and other places, there
would be no fufficient grpund for his refledion, that
* Yet Voltaire in his Treatife on Toleration, chap. 1 2. pag. 259.
refers to this text as a proof, though by miftake he calls it Levit. xviii.
22. inftead of Levit. xviii. 23. as he -'does to the words next cited,
though he names chap, yii- for xvii>

92 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
the IfraeUtes copulated with thefe creatures. For to
go a-whoring after the gods of the nations, to go a-
whoring after wizards and fuch as have famiUar fpl-
rits, are common expreffions In the Old Teftament
for the defedlon of the IfraeUtes from the worffiip
and obedience of Jehovah, to ferve idol deities, and
to confult forcerers, where no gratifications of lewd
nefs obtained at all, as may be feen by Exod.
xxxiv. 12. — 1 6. Deut. xxxi, i6. Levit, xx. 5. &c.
and the phrafeolpgy appears very natural, when it
is confidered, that therein they violated that fideU
ty and duty to God, who was pleafed to affume the
charader and relation pf a hufband to them, for
which they had undertaken. It would therefore on
ly foUow, that they are warned againft the oblatioR
of facrifices to goats in time to come, and upbraided
with the pradice of fuch worffiip to them in time
paft. Nor have there been wanting fome, whp have
propofed this as the true fenfe in part, while they
have been of opinion, that the worffiip of thefe beafts
in Egypt was fo antient as the days of Mofes, and
gone Into by the Jewiffi people during their refidence
there, in imitation of their mafters. So Bochart men
tions It as one interpretation of the paffage, that it
might "'^ relate to the hairy deities In general, fuch
as oxen, dogs, monkeys, wolves, and goats, which
the Egyptians adored, and in favour of it, remarks,
that -^¦^^fagnar is to be rough, and lylD fegnar is
rough, hairy. Gen. xxv. 2 5. Pf. IxvUi. 2 i, Zach.xiii.
4. For he has no doubt, that among them this
ftrange worfhip had its original, though our au
thor. In the Treatife on Toleration, fpeaks with um
* Bochart Hierozoic. p. 1. hb. 2. cap 53. pag. 648,

P,1L^ THE SACRED BOOKS 93
certainty about It, ' We cannot fay, whether this
' ftrange worfhip came from Egypt, the country of
' forcery and fuperftition, as much as Greeks and
' Romans treat it as Its peculiar extravagance and
' folly,' It deferVes attention however, that the Samaritan,
Chaldee, Syiiac, Arabic, and Vulgate verfions, to
gether with all the Hebrew dodors, as the fame
Bochart * confeffes, have underftood the word to
fignify daemons, or wicked and mifchievous beings
of a fuperior order, who might be fo called, becaufe
they were believed to appear in a rough and hairy
form, or becaufe they created terror and perturbati
on of mind to mortals, fo as to make their hair ftand
on end, fuitably to which "n^'iT? Is ufed not only con
cerning the eredlon of the hairs in the body, but
alfo concerning the paffions of fear and aftonlffi-
m ent in the foul, of which that Is a natural indication
and frequent attendant. And in this way Ukewife
will the Seventy be acknowledged to go, by thofe
who refled that thefe malevolent fpirits were concern
ed in abetting the abfurd and Immoral devotions ofthe
GentUes, fince they tranflate the term both here and
2 Chron, xi, 14. by tok ^aTo/oif vanities. Even Le
Clerc, who prefers the fenfe of goats here, fays, that
cacodaemons In general are intended, becaufe they
were worfhipped by the Egyptians under the figure
of a goat, for certain myftlcal and fymbolical reafons.
But whatever doubt there -j- may be, whether the E-
* Bochart Hieroz. pag. 643.
I The learned Dr. Warburton contends, that the adoration of li
ving animals did not yet prevail in Egypt, but only of their pictures
er images, from the tenor of the fecond commandment, and from the

^ A VINDICATION OF F. it
gyptians' worfliipped goats fo early, by confequence,
whether the IfraeUtes had been contaminated with
this monftroiis fuperftition, after their example, at
the time of Mofes's legiflation, there can be nb
room to pretend, that both had not been guilty be
fore this period of Idol-worffilp In other forms, and
the chUdren of Ifrael in Imitation of the Egyptian^,
If we look into Joffi. xxiv. 14. Ezek. xx. 7, 8. E-
zek, xxUi. 1,2. which is a good reafon for the pre
ference of the laft Interpretation.— There Is therefore
no ground to affirm, that copulation with he and
ffie-goats is forbidden the Ifraelites, except as this
falls under the general prohibition of lying with brute
animals, which does not ferVe Mr Voltaire's purpofe.
Nor yet will this fliew, that the fin of beftiallty
was then very common among them. So Indeed he
reafons' iri the laft mentioned treatife, while he alfb
fays with fhamelefs impudence, that ' Their lawgl-
' ver contents himfelf with fimply prohibiting thefe
' Infamous and unnatural pradices, which deferved
' puniffiment at leaft equal, to that which bcfei them
* for worffiipping the golden calf.' For,' he goes on,
' the fin of beftiallty muft certainly have been very
* common amongft themy finte they are the only
* people we know, among whom there was a necef
* fity for any law to prohibit that crime, the com- ,
* miffion of which was not even fufpeded by any
erection ofthe goWeff calf itiftead of a living oiie, which \frould haVe
been a lefs expenfive fymbol, and other arguments. Div. Leg. vol. 3.
p. 204. So do others reckon it more recent'than Mofes's days. In the
tnean time they might religioufly abftain from killing, from reverenc*
«f thefe images, which muft account on this hypothefis, fSV Exod. viii-*!
'24.

iP.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 95
* other leglflators.' And then fuppofes, * the female
' fpecies, which Is always the weakeft, to have faUed
' amongft them through the fatigUes and diftreffes
• of the defert.
But is not this vice exprefsly made capital in eve
iy individual who ffiould commit it, by the founder
of their polity, while the brute alfo, to infpire the
greater horror and deteftatlon of it. Is devoted to de
ftrudion; Levit. XX. 15, 16. 'Ifa man Ue with a
* trefcj he ffiall furely be put to death, and ye ffiall
* flay the beaft, and if a woman approach any beaft
' to lie down thereto, thou ffialt kill the woman and
' the beaft ; they ffiaU furely be put to death ; their
' blood ffiall be upoft them/ And is not national
corruption, in refped of this as well as other enormi
ties, threatened with ejedlon from the land of Cana
an ? Says Mofes, ' Defile not yourfelves In any of
' thefe things,' after naming^is abomination laft, —
' that the land fpue not you out alfo when ye defile
' it, as it fpued out the nations that were before you.'
AddIng_alfo, ' Whofoever ffiall commit any of thefe
' abominations, — -ffiall be cut off from among their
' people.' Levit, xix. 24, 28, 29. Farther, how un
reafonable is it to argue, it was pt-eValent and epide
mical among them at the giving of the law, in the
manner he does ?--- Would Mofes then have been fi
lent about their pollution with it, whofe frequent
tnanner it is, as of the prophets who fucceeded him,
whUe he warns them againft the future pradice of
Climes, to reproach them with their paft commlffion
of them ? Is not the diforder declared to be prohibi
ted, becaufe it reigned among the Canaanites, whofe
¦territory they were to be introduced into ? ' Define

96 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
' not yourfelf in any of thefe things, for in all thefe
' the nations are defiled, which I caft out before you,
• wherefore the land vomiteth out Its inhabitants, &c.'
Levit. xviU. 24, 25, 27. And was not its common-
nefs with them a fufficient reafon for its difcharge,
though the IfraeUtes were hitherto untainted, efpe
cially as they ffiewed a pronenefs to form their man
ners upon the cuftoms of their wicked neighbours ?
Finally, where is any evidence of fuCh a faUure of
the more deUcate fex, as he fuppofes ? of this^|here
is not one word in the facred hiftory, under all the
toUs of the defert, though upon other occafions,
where a great lofs of this fort happened, there is a
clear and fuU account ; and as to their being up
braided for fuch coiTcfpondence with goats in the
defert, in Levitic- xvU. we have feen there is no foun
dation for his affertion of it.
I ffiall only fubjoir.i^ ere I leaVe this article, as td
the teftimony of Herodotus ; though he had faid,
thefe bafe pradices were common in his time among
the Egyptians, it would have been no folid proof, that
they prevailed among them fo early, for there was
an Interval between Mofes and him of almoft 900
years, according to Voltaire ^ himfelf, which makes
him travel in Egypt much too late, to be a good wit
nefs of the cuftoms thereof, whUe the Jews abode in
• This I make out in this manner. In chap. 38. of his Phil, of
Hiftory, pag. 18. he reprefents Hefiod and Homer, and the firft Ar-
chons of Athens, ro have lived nearly about the time of Solomon. Bu^
Herodotus tells us, that he reckoned Hefiod and Homer four hundred
years older than himfelf, fib. 2. p. 124. Solomon again it is certain^
flouriflied about 480 years after the departure ofthe children of Ifra-'
el from Egypt, i Kings vi. i . By confequence, the Greek liiftori^*

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 97
it, from what he faw or heard to have been done in
his own time. But Indeed he does not exprefs him
felf about the fad, which Is quoted from him, as a
thing ordinary; but caUs it a prodigy, an unufual
and Unprecedented phaenomenon, and may be
thought tp intimate by his form of expreffion, that
it was rather owing to violence , on the part of the
*brute. The fame obfervation about the length of
time which Inteivfined, may be appUed to Pindar's
account of fuch hateful pradices among the Egyp
tians in his age, with ftill greater force, ffiould any
be inclined to urge the paffage quoted from him by
¦j- Straho, in fupport of their fo great antiquity there.
For Pindar was ftUl later than Herodotus, being for
ty years old when Xerxes paffed over Into Greece,
whofe march is placed 520 years after Solomon fuc
ceeded to the throne, by Uffier and other chronolo-'"
gers, on very fatlsfying evidence.
would flourifh at no lefs diftance from the Exodus, than almoft 906*
years. The words of Herodotus before referred to, rttn thtis, 'Hct/oSok
KOj Ojurjfor viKiKim nrfcLKoisioiai iriai ooKtco /:,i.ttj ^fitSurijivc ytytir^o(f,
Ko/ V TTKiairi, ' I reckon Hefiod and Homer older than me by 400
* years and no more.'
* Ibid. pag. 121. Eyiyiro it — -itt ijuiv rvro ra re^ac" yvvof-
m rpayoc tju.i<Tyiro xya.<paybot' rvfo et; ctwoiet^'r ay^iaTrar ciTfiiCtlt,
f Strabo Geogr. 17, 551,

G

98 A VINDK^JATION OF P. IL
SECTION n.
Of his making Jephtha "and Jeremiah acknowledge
the divinity of Melcom and Chamos, in chapter
fifth of his Philofophy of Hiftory, and in other
works.
TO proceed, in chapter fifth of his Philofophy of
Hiftory, our author writes, ' This idea (that every
* people was really proteded by the divinity they
* had chofen) was fo deeply rooted in men, that m
* after-times it was adopted by the Jews themfelves.-
* Jephtha faid to the Ammonites, "Do you not pop
*' fefs, by right, what your lord Chamos has given
" you ? Suffer us then to poffefs the land which our
" lord Adonai, has promlfed' unto us," There are
* two other paffages equally ftrong, which are thofe
* of Jeremiah and Ifaiah, where It Is faid, " What'
*' reafon had the lord Melcom to take poffeffion of
*' the land of Gad." It is evident by thefe expreffi--
* ons; that the Jfews, though fervants to Adonai, ac-
* knowfedged, neverthelefs, the lord Melcom and
' the lord Chamos.' Affd he both cites and reafons
much in the fame way, both in his PhUofophical
Didionary -]-, and in his Treatife of Toleration, as
wUl be feen In our progrefs ,-
But Is- there not here again a falfe reprefentation*
©f Scripture, as there Is alfo an unjuftifiable conclu-'
fion from It ?
The former, I think, cannot be denifcd as to Jeph--
f Philof. Diaionary, article Religion, p. 310. and article Tolt-'
ration, p. 34.9. and Treatife on Toleration, chap. 12. p. 172^175^
I

p. It. THt: s Acred BOOKS. ' 9^
tha's words; for Jephtha,* in his meffage to the Am
monites, neither ufes the expreffion, our lord Ado
nai, at all, nor contrafts with ChemOffi's grant of the
country which the Ammonites poffeffed, the God of
Ifrael' s bare promife^ that he would bring tliem Into
the enjoyment of the land df Canaan, No, Though
Mr. Voltaire would make Us believe, that he only
called him Adonal, he fpeaks of the God of Ifrael
under the namfe of Jehovah, which >V^as the diftin-
guiffiing appeUatlon by whith the Creator, Preferver,
and Governor Of the world, revealed himfelf to the
Jews, and under which alfb he was worfhipped by
them, in dppofition to idol deities, in the times of
Mofes and the prophets, whatever difufe of pro-
houncirig It, fuperftition may have introduced among
their pofterity fince. See Exod. Ui, 15, 16. xv, 2-
&c. Joffi. xxiv. 2. Judg. xi, 31, 35, 36. Pf. IxxxUi.
1 8, Ifaiah, xiv, 5^ 6. In like iriannfer alfo, elfewhere^
Mr. Voltaire wduld perfuade us, his votaries gave him
no other title than Addnal ; I fuppofe, becaufe he was
foUcitous the God of the Jews ffiould be looked on
as the fame with the contemptible divinity of the:
Phenicians in their neighbourhood, whofe name was
Adonis. But there is equal falffiood in theaUegation.f
Moreover, the Jewiffi general oppofes td Chemoffi'9'
donation to the Ammonites of the land vrhich they
* Judges, xi. i 2, &c.
f In Phil, of Hift. chap. 25. p. 119. he fayS, In EJtodus we
* read, " Honour thy father and mother, that Adonai may prolong
'' thy days upon it ;" but it is, ' That Jehovah thy God may prolong,'
&c. Treat, on Toler. p. 1J9. he makes the people fay, Jo(h. xxiv.
'-We will ferve the Lord our God {Adonai),' when there is no fuch
ftxprefficto as Adonai there,- biit, ' We will ferve Jehovah our God.-'
G i

160 AVINDICATIONOF P.IL
occupied, this Jehovah's bringing the IfraeUtes in
to the fruition of Canaan, by enabling them,
through his vidorious power, to defeat and extir
pate the old inhabitants, inftead of his mere engage
ment that he would do fo, as our author fets forth.
That every one may fee this to be the truth, the
paffage ftands thus, Judg. xU. 2 9. Jephtha faid unto
the king of the children of Ammon by his meffen-
gers, — ' WUt not thou poffefs that which Chemoffi
* thy god giveth thee to poffefs ? So whomfoever the
' LORD our God, ffiall drive out from before us,
* thetti wUl we poffefs.' Where Jehovah, as generaUy
in our traUflation, is turned LORD, in capital let
ters; as it is faid juft before, v, i 5. that this ' LORD
' God of Ifrael, had difpoffeffed the Amorites from
' before his people KraeL' '^
As to the other words indeed, which Voltaire pro
feffes to quote from Jeremiah and Ifaiah, but which
are to be found in Jeremiah alone, xlix, i , ' Why
' doth Melcom Inherit Gad?' (though ftUl wUling to
have two authorities for them, he fends us. In his
PhUofoph, Didionary J, to Amos as weU as Jeremiah,
in vain fearch of them,) I find no fault with him for
unfair dealing. It is perhaps true, Q^D^^D ffiould ra
ther be tranflated their (the Ammonites) iing, as in
our verfion both here, and v. 3. and in Amos, i. 1 5.
where is mention of CDD'7D and his princes going
* Agreeably, Voltaire hirnfelf thus ftates the oppofition in his Phi
lofophical Dictionary, ' You lawfully poffefs what your god Chamos
' has made you conquer, and you ought to let Us quietly enjoy what-
' our God' has given us by his victories.' Pag. 310, 349.
X ' Jeremiah and' Amos t)oth ask, " Wherefore has the god M^-^
• loch feized on the country of Gad.' Page 3-1 a.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. lor
into captivity together. But I am aware, that the
fame vocable, beyond controverfy, denotes the Idol
of the Ammonites, 2 Kings, xxUi. i 3, and is inter
preted the fame way by many perfons of good learn
ing, in this place of the prophet.
Why, however, does he deduce an inference both
from Jephtha's and Jeremiah's words, which they
wUl not authorize? Jephtha's application to the Am
monites, is no more than an ' argumentum ad ho-
inlnes,' as logi(;ians caU it; it being as if he had faid,
* You believe you have a right to hold whatever Che-
' moffi your god beftows upon you ; in like manner,
' we think we are entitled to occupy and retain,
' whatever Jehovah our God gives us.' To this pur->
pofe fpeak two commentators § of very oppofite cha-r
raders, whofe words I place below, the rather that
our author fometimes appeals to them : nor can Jeph
tha be reafonably underftood in a different manner,
fince it was altogether inconfiftent with the principles
§ Le Clerc in loc. ' Hinc liquet Chamofum Ammonltarum numen,
* de quo ad Num. xxii. i8. diximus. Haec autem ratiocinatio Jeph-
' this eft ejufmodi argumentum ad hominem quod dicitur, in quo ex
' dogmatibus adverfarii, non ex noftris ratiocinamur. Alioquin ho-
' mini Hebraeo non licuit ita de diis gentium loqui, quafi Di^inae Pro-r
' videntiae partem, rerumque humanarum uUam adminiftrationem iis
' tribuerit.' Calmet again on the place fays, ' Jephtha reafons according to the
' idea of the Ammonites, or rather Moabites, in faying that Chamos
' their god, had given them this country ; he believed not in this god,
' but by a figure of fpeech, which is called Concefiion, he is willing
' to fuppofe that which his enemies pretended.' And then fays, ' Cha-
' mos is every where fpoken of as the god of the Mpabites in Scripture.'
Nflmb. xxi. 29. I Kings, xi. 7, 33. 2 Rings, xxiii. 13, JotWB.
^Iviii. I3> 46. Sphe.
G 3

102 A VINDICATION OF P. II,
of a Jew, to aUow any of the gods of the nations a
ffiare in the difpofal of human affairs.
Mr. Voltaire Infifts I own, in his Treatife on To
leration ^, that ' Jephtha's declaration, who was in-
* fpired by God, is, at leaft, an evident prpof, that
* God permitted the worffiip of Chemoffi. For the
* words of Holy Scripture are npt, " Thpu thinkeft
" thou haft a right tp poffefs that which thy god
" Chemofh giveth thee to poffefs," but exprefsly
" Thou haft a right to poffefs," &c. For that is the
* true interpretation of the Hebrew words, " othq
f thirafch." But we do npt read of any infpiration of Jephtha,
tiU after he had fent this meffage to the king of the
Ammonites ; where probably alfo the expreffion,
' The fpirit of the Lord came uppn him,' Judg. xi.
2 9, denotes pnly that he felt a ftrong impulfe frorn
heaven tp fight againft thefe oppreffors of the coun
try, and was endowed with requifite flrill and bra
very, for the fuccefsful performance of the work. —
Befides, our author falls here into a very grofs mif
take fin making ' otho thirafch' fignify j ' thou haft
' a right to poffefs;' every perfon pf moderate ac
quaintance vrith the Hebrew tongue knows, that
thefe words in that language, denotp no more than
* thou wUt poffefs it,' the verb TZ/T iarafch, whofe
future tenfe occurs In the phrafe, being indifferenti
ly applied to poffeffion by unlawful J force and yi-
* Page 172, 173.
t Perhaps this was owing to a too fecure reliance on the Vulgate
verfion, which hath ' Tibi jure debentur.'
X of its being ufed concerning ufurpation or unjuft poffelEofl,
Judges, xix. I 5. i Kings, xxi. 1 9. are inftances.

P, n. THE SACRED BOOKS. io|
,olence, and to poffeffion by rightful title or juft
.daim. — Further, fuppofing that Jephtha had en
joyed infpiration In the fenfe that Mr. Voltaire in-^
tends, and that the meaning of the original expref
fions was fuch as he reprefents, it would ftill remain
to be proved, that Jephtha could not reafon with
the idolatrous prince whom he addreffed, accordlng^
to his falfe notions about Chjemoffi, unlefs he himfelf
had alfo bpUevpd his divinity, which I fancy would
be np eafy tafk. |
With relation to the paffage in Jeremiah again, if
Melcom, the idol of thp Ammonites, and not their
king, be there defigned, Jehovah is indeed introduced
fpeaking about their Inyafion aud feizure pf the di-
ftrid which belonged tp the tribp pf Gad, after it
ffiould become defplate through Ifrael's captivity by
the Affyrians, as if they had bepn without defcend-?
ants who could opcupy it, In the farrie manner in
which thefe bllndpd Ammonites themfelves would
think and talk concerning it, ' That their god inhcT
' rited the land pf Gad,' But how abfurd to inter
pret this, though it were the true fenfe, to be an ac-t
¦f- I cannot but remark, that Mr. Voltaire feems inconfiftent with
Jiimfelfupon this fubjeCl. In his Philofophical Dictionary, page 310.
he fays, ' The Jews and Moabites had outed the natives with no q-
' ther right than force, and one fays to the other. Thy go.d bath fup-
* ported thee in thy ufurpation, allow iny god likewife to fupport
' mine;' yet \ye haye feen, in his Philofophy pf Hiftory, he fpeak;
pf the Moabites or Ammonites, as he c^lls them, their poffeffing law
fully what Chamos gave them, or their holding it by right. And he
muft allow the fame aboxit the Jewifh poffeffion ofthe conquefts which
their God gave them, upon his own interpretation of UH' iarafch,
becaufe this word is alfo ufed with regard to their acquifitions. Bu^
could their pofTefHon be at once lawful and unlawful, j^uft and unji^ft .'
" ¦ ' G 4

104 A VINDICATION DF P.IL
knowledgement by Jehovah or his prophet, of his
real power and Godhead, when the vanity and in-
fignificance of the idols of the heathen, among which
this was one, is every where declared by them ; and
here alfo it Is afferted, that this Melcom, to whom
they attributed their poffeffion of that territory, would
ffiare the fame calamities and diftreffes with them,
unable to deUver himfelf more than his worfhippers?
For it foUows, verfe 3. ' Melcom ffiall go into cap-
' tivity, with his priefts and his princes together.'
Our author then, has mifreprelented Jephtha's ad
drefs, and argued ill both from his words, and thofe
pf the prophet, while he imputes to the Jews an opi
nion, that every nation was proteded ^ by the god
they had chofen. So far were they from entertaining
this principle, and from believing in a multitude of
deities. In purfuance of it, as they did who held the
exiftence of local gods, of circumfcribed dominion,
and confined power, and limited prefence, each pre-
fiding over his own province or territory, that they
reprefent their God as the alone God of the univerfe,
whofe prefence was without bounds, whofe ftrength
was uncontrollable, and from whofe empire and fo-
yerelgnty , no creature was exempt ; as may be ob
ferved, Pf. cxxxix, I, — 12, I Kings, vUI, 13, 27,
2 Kings, xviU. 34, 35, xix. 16, — 19, &c. Moreo-
* So, however, he does alfo in his Philofophical Dictionary, ar
ticle Religion, page 310. for after quoting the words from Jeremiah
iand Amos, above-recited, he adds, ' Thefe paffages ftiew that antiqui-
* ty attributed a guardian god to every country.' ' Yea,' fays he, page
349, article Toleration, ' the Jews worfliipped their God, but never
' were offended at, or fo much aS thought it ftrange, that every nation
' had its own deity.' What grofs mifreprefentation is this? and how
impoffible to be reconciled with candour and ingenuity ? '

P, n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 105
ver, they fpeak every where vrith fcorn and contempt
.of the gods of the nations, and cenfure their votaries
on all occafions for extreme folly and ftupldlty, Pf.
xcvi. 5. CXV. 3,-— 8. CXXXV. 5,-18. Ifaiah, xiv. 8,
— 25. xlvi. 5,-T-io. Jerem. X. i, 16.
SECTION in.
Of his afferting there and elfewhere, that the Jews,
for forty years in the defert, worffiipped no other
God than idol deities.
IN the next paragraph of the fame chapter,|faysMr.
Voltaire, ' Jeremiah, Amos, and St. Stephen, affUre
.' us that the Jews, for forty years in the defert, ac-
' knowledged no other God than Mploc, Remphan,
' and Kicim; that they made no facrifice, and pre-
' fented no offering to the lord Adonai, whom they
' afterwards adored. It is true that the Pentateuch
' fpeaks of nothing but the golden calf, which no
' prophet mentions: but this is not theplace to clear
f up this great difficulty : it is fufficient, they equal-
* ly revered Jeremiah, Amos, and St. Stephen, who
* feem to contradid one another, and yet are recon-
' cUed.' This is a favourite topic with him, where
fore he touches It again in the thirty-fourth chapter;
I ' We have already feen, that when the Jews inha-
* biled the eaftern'deferts of the lake Afphaltides,
* they carried the tabernacle of the god Rempham,
' of the god Moloc, of the god Kiam, according tq
* Jeremiah, Amos, and St. Stephen.' And before the
pubUcation of this piece, in his Treatife on Tolerar
X Phil, of Hift. page 17, f Page i6o.

jo^ A VINDICATION OF P. 11^
tion, he had difplayed it thus, § ' Several able com-
* mentators have been greatly puzzled to reconcUe
* thefe book? of Mofes (where are rigorous laws and
* fevere punifliments In relation to reUgious worffiip)
« with feveral paffages In the prophets Jeremiah and
? Amos, and v^th the famous difcouffe of St. Ste-
' phen, as related in thp Ads ofthe Apoftles. Amos
' fays, " That the Jews conftantly worfliipped in the
" wildernefs Molpe and Cliiun, gods whom they had
*' made to thernfelyes." Amos, v, 2 6. And Jeremiah
' exprefsly fays, " That God commanded not their
" fathers concerning burnt-offerings or facrifices. In
" the day that he brought them out of the land
'"• of Egypt." Jerem. vU. 2 ? . And St. Stephen, In his
' difcourfe to the Jews above-^mentioned, fays, " They
" worffiipped the hoft of heaven, and that they nei-
-" ther offered facrifices, nor flew beafts, for the fpace
" of forty years in the wildernefs, but took up the
" tabernacle of Moloc, and the ftar of the god ReniT
^' phan." Ads, vU. 42.
But is this account fair? it muft be evident to
every one who will examine it by his Bible, that he
appeals to Jeremiah as a voucher fpr a fad, about
which he Is wholly ffient ; and that he makes Rem
pham and Chlun (whom he twice mifnames Kicim
^nd Kiam) different idol deities, whom the Jews ac
knowledged In the wUdernefs, when Rempham i^
pnly the fubftitute for Chlun by the Seventy, whoffe
tranflation of the Hebrew Stephen foUows, whereby
he has fwelled the number pf their idols from two to,
three, vrithOut any ffiadow of authority. The great
point however remains. Does he give us a true aC"
J Chap. 12. page 149, 150.

p.n. THE SAGRED BOOKS, 107
count of the fenfe of Amos and Stephen, with refe
rence to the behaviour pf the Jews toward Jehovah,
and their treatment of the two divinities Moloc and
Chlun, or Moloc and Remphan, whom they menti
on them to have honoured, while they abode forty
years in the wUdernefs? I apprehend far from it,
' Indeed it Is not likely, that the Ifraelites fliould
have forbore to prefent facrifices to Jehovah their
God, through the firft forty years after they were
prefcribed by him with fuch awful folemnlty ; far lefs
' that they ffiould have worffiipped Moloc and Chlun,
iand carried their tabernacles or images in public
proceflions continually through that period,. wliU-e
they were under the gmdanpe of Mofes himfelf, the
vifible founder, and zealous guardian of their law,
which in fp ftrong a manner prohibited all idolatry,
- And as it is not Ukely this ffiould have been their
condud, fo it is Inconfiftent with the Mofalc hiftory
to accufe them of it. For, though they gave too of
ten into the worffiip of the gods which their old
mafters the Egyptians had fer\'ed, and of the gpds
which they faw in the countries through which they
"^paffed, it is manifeft frpm the narrative, as much
as we muft fuppofe it does not ^efcend into a detaU
pf their pradice in conformity to the lufHtuted ri
tual, that they offered facrificgs to Jehovah in the
defert, on various occafions, as at the confirmation
of the covenant between God and them, Exod, xxiv.
4. at the confeeration of the altar and tabernacle,
Num, vU. and at the celebration pf the paffover. In
* This muft be confeffed from Jofliua xxiv. 14-; — 23. Num. xxv.
Ezek. XX. 5-5^26. and xxiii. 3 — 8. And for it, in conjunction with
their other wickedneffes, they fuffered fevere judgm^ts.

io8 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
the fecond year of their pUgrimage, Num, ix. It can
not then be reafonably thought, that it was the in
tention of Amos and Stephen, to charge them with
a total and uniform negled to offer facrifices unto
the Lord through their refidence there, which is fo
improbable to have happened, and fo formaUy de
clared not to have been the cafe, in their own facred
books, which profeffedly give a relation of their man-:
ners during that interval.
But perhaps the words of Amos and Stephen are
incapable of any other fenfe, than that which is fo
contradidory to the writings of Mofes, and fo repug
nant to probability in their circumftances ? quite o-
therwife. Wherefore I do not perceive, that any
commentator ever put fuch a meaning upon the
queftion, which they introduce God afking the
people, ' Have ye offered, or did ye offer unto me
*ifacrifices and offerings in the wildernefs forty years,
* O houfe of Ifrael!' Indeed it is fufficient to juftify
the queftion, (which according to the moft common
f ufe at leaft of fuch interrogative forms In Scripture,
implies a more ftrong and pathetic denial,) to fay,
that they are upbraided by it vrith not bringing their
f I fay, the moft common ufe, 2 Sam. yii. 5. Zechar. Ifai. 1. 2.
Jer. ii. 14. &c. For lam aware, that in fome inftances, thefeinter-
rogatories are thought to contain a more vehement affirmation, by an
ellipfis of the negative particle, wherefore oiir tranflators themfelves
have fupplied it, that they might convey this meaning in Job, xx. 4.
Gen. xxvii. 36. 2 Sam. xxiii. 19. antl accordingly fome have turned
^he queftion here, ' Have ye not offered to me ?' or ' Did ye not of-
' fertome?' as Grodus after the Seventy, as if it was God's defign
^o admonifti them by it, how plain it was he laid greater ftrefs on mo
ral virtue and fubftantial holinefs than on pofitive rites, fince amidfl
all their exaClnefs and accuracy in them in the defert, they hjd peri?

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. lo^
vidlms^and oblations to him alone, or with not bring
ing them to him vrith a perfed and obedient heart,
through that period, which was a ftrong proof of
their perverfenefs and depravity, as the ordinances
of God were then fo recent, and the evidences of his
fuperintendency over them were then fo numerous
and ftriking, both In the way of mercy and judg
ment. And then In the next fentence, they are re
minded how they paid homage to certain falfe gods
in his ftead through that fpa^e, as in the manner
fpecified, which was a ftiU higher pitch of wicked
nefs. I fay, through that fpace; for I allow, as much
difputed as it hath been, that the fenfe is, they had
fuch proceffions then in honour of Moloc and Chlun,-
and not merely in later ages, the rather that Stephen
quotes this text of Amos, ere he fpeak of their cor
ruptions after their fettiement' in Canaan. And why
might they not happen, efpeciaUy in fome parts of
the camp, which was large and extenfive, as well
as other diforders of GentUe worfhip, which Mofes
exprefsly affures us were pradifed amidft all his vi
gUance and zeal ? If he has not recorded fuch pro
ceffions, this may have been, becaufe they did not
fall within thefe three years of their fojournings, the
tran^a-dions and occurrences of which he chiefly re
lates ; or if they did, becaufe he ftudied brevity and
conclfenefs: But that they did make fuch proceffi-
fhed there in great rtiultitudes, or to fet before them a great aggravation'
of tbeir defection to ferve their idols, that they had been long difciplin-
ed in. and inured to his worfliip But the hiftory contradicts' fo clofe
and inviolate adherence to Jehovah through that fpace, as this" fenfe
fuppofes, and fuch ufe of the interrogative form, as what it proceeds
upon is fomewhat uncertain and doubtful.

iio A VINDICATION OF' P. it
ons, is no more an evidence that they did not Offer
facrifices to Jehovah in the wUdernefs, than their
Worfhipping Baal-peor there at one feafOn, is a de-i
monftration of it.
Should it be objeded, it is ah unnatural and vi
olent reftridlon of the queftion, to expound the
words as above ; I anfwer. It is no more putting
force upon them, than It is to interpret God's words
to the reftored Jews, Zechar. vU. 5, ' Did ye at aU
' faft unto me, even unto me ;' as a denial only, ^
that they had folemnlzed their fafts with right prin
ciples and difpofitions.
* 1 have hitherto takeii no ndtice of the paffage quoted from Jere
miah; I remark therefore, it is literally true, that God did not pre-^
fcribe the Mofalc ritual, till fome time after their departure from E-
gypt, and their entrance into the Wildernefs. Befides, God may only
intend therfe his preference of obedience to the rules of morality, above
accuracy and regularity in aninial facrificeS, as Prov. xxi. 5, &c. For
it is the manner of the facred writers, tO introduce God denying one
thing, and afferting another, When the meaning only is, that he values
the former lefs than the latter, Hofea, vi. 6. as it is their way alfo to'
forbid us one thing and enjoin us another, when their defign is only to'
inculcate lefs follicitnde and earneftnefs about the former than the lat
ter. Matt. vi. 19, 20. John, vi. 27. Coll. iii. 2. Either way, the'
text is of no avail to prOve the point which Mr. Voltaire aims at iri
this Treatife, an unlimited toleration among the Jews, I can fcarce be
lieve, ferioufly. Indeed if muft appear a moft wild imagination to every
ferfon who recolleCts the tenor of God's grant bf Canaan to them, hii
penal laws againft idolatry, and againft the feducement of others to
h, and the judgments which he executed from time to time upon na-*'
tional guilt, this way, Exod. xx. 3-^-^6. Deut. :!dii. l-^^^m &c.-

p.n. THE SACRED BO OICS, ui
SECTION IV.
Of his faying alfo, in chapter fifth of the Philofophy
of Hiftory, that the Jews borrowed their reUgious
rites, in particular the red cow, from the Egyp
tians.— -And that Mofes efpoufed the daughter of
an idolatrous Midianite. -'—That the Jews called
Nabuchodoriofdr, and the idolater Cyrus, the
anointed of the Lord.— -That Jonah went to the
idolater NInivuS-. — And that EUffia aUowed the
idolater Naaman to go into the temple of Rim
mon, therein contradiding then' own law: upon
moft of which things he likewife touches in other
places of his vi^orks.
IT does not fall within my prefent vie^ to examine
Svhether any ceremonies enjoined the Jews, were irt
antecedent ufe among the Egyptians, in their wor--
fhip of idol deities : only whereas Mr. Voltaire fays,«
* Like the Egyptians, the jews aecuftomed them-^
* felves to make a diftindion * of meats, and bor"
' rowed from them ablutions,— ^The hazel (fcape)
' goat and the red cow,' which feems to imply, that
the pradice of thefe rites among the Jews, was whol
ly founded in their own humour and caprice, thaC
incUned them to imitate their late mafters, it Isjpro'-^
per to remark, that this Is by no means the Scrip
ture Account of their obfervation thereof. For hence"
it is undeniably evident, that they were matter o£
divine requirement and prefcription to that people.-
Acordlngly it Is confeffed by all, vrithout exceptioi*,^
' Philofophy of Hiftory, page 18.-

112 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
fo far as I know, who give any credit to their facred
books,* whatever controverfy there may be, whe
ther God did not adopt into that form of religion
which he eftabliffied for them, various ceremonies
which obtained among heathen nations, efpecial
ly the Egyptian, in condefcenfion to the prejudices
and prepoffeffions under which they laboured, in
their favour, even as he indulged them in divorce
for more frivolous reafons, from confideration of the
hardnefs of their hearts. Nor can It be improper to
add, while there Is no fuch refemblance between
the Mofaic ordinances, in thefe other articles above
enumerated, and the Egyptian cuftoms, as to autho
rize Pur concluding the former were an imitation of
the latter, (though we could have that full fatisfac-
tion about their fuperior antiquity which we want,)
it is above all ridiculous in him, to pretend the IP
raelltes borrowed the, red cow or heifer, about
which we read God's order. Numb, xix, i , from the
Egyptians. For what reafon can there be to perfuade
us, that they copied the oblation of this in facrifice
from them, when Herodotus -j- exprefsly affures us,-
' They all held it unlawful to facrifice cows of any
* colour, becaufe they were facred to Ifis, and objeds
' of worfhip or veneration ;' and no other author in-
f Lib. 2. p. II 8. edit. Steph. T«c fiiv yvy xa^dpv; ifo-iyccc ruf
fioay, KCX.I rvc f^Od-yyi at Trayrii; AiyU7r]ioi fli/ao-/' raf Se 6«Atac « (rf(
t^t(/ji Sueiy aKKa Ifai etisi rw Ui'^o';.  Ta; (iv; rot.; Bma; AiyvTT-
lioi ¦Tra.yrt; a-tQurruf, &c. In order to a likenefs here, therefore the Jews
Ihould not have offered a heifer, which when grown Up is a' cow, but
a bull or bullock : for only the males of cattle did the Egyptians lay
upon the altar. In particular, with one of them entirdy red, flain as a
viflim, they were wont, we are told, to appeafe Typhon.

P:IL THE SAGRED BOOKS. 113
forms us, that in the earUer period, when the law
was deUvered from mount Sinai, a contraiy ufage
prevailed. — If then there was In God's appointment
of this vidim, any reference to the fentiments and
manners of the Egyptians, It muft have been infti-
tuted in the way of oppofition to them, for their
greater feeurity from the contagion of their idola
try, lild all its attendant viceS,
The author goes on- — ' MofeS himfelf efpoufed
* the daughter of an idolatrous Midianite.'-
But vC^hefe learhdd he this? It is true the nor
thern Midianites were addided to the fame Idola-*
trous pradices as the Moabites, on whofe confines'
they dwelt : for they joined with them in their en
deavour to feduce the children of Ifrael from the
worfhip of Jehovahj to that of Peor, But how does
it appear J that Jethro, Mofes's father-in-law, who
was a prieft or prince of the fouthern Midianites^
that bordered on the Red fea, was involved in the
fame corruption of prbflcTples and manners? Does'
not his whole language and behaviour, at his vifit
unto Mofes in the wildernefs, rather ffiew that his
religion was pure and rational, whatever reafon there
may be, from the Incident recorded at Mofes's return
from his houfe Into Egypt, Exod.-iv, 2 5, 2 6, to think
that he difliked circumcifion.^ — He rejoices for all the
goodnefs which the Lord, or Jehovah, according tcf
his fon-in-law's report, had done to Ifrael ,-^He blef-
fbs Jehovah, who deUvered them out of the hand of
Pharaoh and his people. — He profeffes his belief, that
Jehovah is greater than aU gods, becaufe in the thing
•wherein they dealt proudly, he was above them. — -
He offers a burnt-offering and facrifices to this Godv
H

114 A VINDICATION OF V.lh
And when he proc'eeds, ere he take leave, to advife
him to eafe himfelf of his too heavy burden, by ap
pointing fubordinate rulers and judges for fmaUer
matters, he direds him to chufeout of all the people,
not only able men, but fuch as fear God. Exod.xvui.^
8,— 2 3-
Is this to fpeak and ad like an idolater ?— If he
fay, ' Now I know that the Lord' (Jehovah) ' is
" greater than all gods,' it no more foUows frc«n-this
expreffion, that he was formerly a votary of idol
deities, than from the words of the angel. Gen. xxU^
1 2 . that he was formerly unacquainted with A-
braham's fuperior and prevalent fear of God, — Or
from the words of the widow of Zarephath, unto'
EUjah, on his recovery of her fon to Ufe, i KingSy
xvu. 24. ' Now I know that thou art a man pf God,
' and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is
' truth,' that ffie was ignorant before of his prophetic
charader, which none can imagine, who recoiled
the comfortable proof ffie had enjoyed, ofthe truth
of his afliirance. That the handful of meal in the bar
rel ffiould not wafte, nor the crufe of oU fail, tUl the
Lord would fend rain upon the earth, and put an
end to the famine.
In the fentence which fucceeds, he cenfures the .
Jews as ' Inconfiftent, whUe they made an outcry
¦^ againft ftrange worffiips, yet called in their faered
' books, Nabuchodnofor, the anointed of the Lord,
' and the idolater Cyrus alfo, the anointed of the
' Lord.' But I cannot difcover, that they any where be
ftow this appellation upon Nebuchadnezzar; though
I know Jeremiah introduces God himfelf, the founder

1P,IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 115
of their law, ftUing him his fervant, Jerem. xxv, 9.
xxvU. 7. xlUi. 10, whence this fame author, elfe
where ¦^, very wifely fcruples not to affirm, that an
idolatrous prince is declared the favourite of God :
as If God could not make him the rod of his anger,
aiid the ftaff of his indignation againft wicked nati
ons, the Inftrument of his providence to chaftife
and puniffi them for their vices, which is all the im
port of that name, and at the fame time difapprove
his idolatry, his thirft of conqueft and other crimes,
as it Is certain he did his pride and infolence, Dan.
iv. 37.
As for Cyrus, if ever he was an idolater, he feems
to have been no more fuch, when he pubUffied his
edid for reftoring the Jews, and rebuUding their ci
ty and temple. For herein he profeffes his beUef,
that Jehovah God of Ifrael, was the only true God,
who had given him all the kingdoms of the earth,
Ezra, i. 2 . It is true, he might have been brought
to entertain this opinion, by Daniel's difcovering to
him how this God had foretold clearly by Ifaiah, his
fuccefs againft Babylon, through his altering the
tourfe ofthe great river Euphrates, an hundred years,
before he was born. And it may be thought an evi
dence he only embraced fuch fentiments on that event,
that God himfelf, addreffing this monarch, fays to him
' I have firnamed thee though thou haft not known
* me.* Ifaiah, xiv, 4. But even this is not fufficient
* Treatife on Toleration, ehap. l 2. p. 181,^182, 183. Having
quoted thefe words which were to be fpoken to five kings in the n.-me
of the Lord, ' I have given all your lands into the hand of Nebuchad-
' nezzar, king of Babylon, my fervant;' he adds, ' Here then we have
' God declaring an idolatrous prince his fervant and favourite.'
H 3

n6 A VINDICATION OP' P. It
to convid him of having been an idolater, fince the
whole meaning may only be, that he was uninftruded
in the Jewiffi difpenfation, and unacquainted with
the name Jehovah, by which he manlfefted himfelf
to the nation of Ifrael^. Neverthelefs, though he
had been an idolater, the Jews might have caUed
him, God's anointed, without any Juft blame for
contradiding their law and profeffion. But indeed
they do not. It is God himfelf who fo names him,
Ifaiah, xiv, i , ' Thus faith the Lord to his anointed,
' tp Cyrus,' &c. and he might very well do fo, whUe
he was difpleafed with his religion, tliis being no
more than a declaration, that he had raifed him to
the kingdom which he poffeffed, as It was a knowK
cuftom to Inaugurate kings in thefe times and places,
by pouring oil upon their head; inthe fame manner,
as afterwards he fays, he had anointed Jehu, the fon-
of Nhuffii, to cut off the houfe of Ahab, 2 Kings,
ix. 3,7. 2 Chron. xxu, 7. whatever was his diflike
of him for his vanity, and other faults.
He proceeds, ' One of their prophets was fent td
' the idolater Ninivus. EUffia allowed the idolate:^
' Naaman, to go Into the temple of Remnan. But,^
' to avoid anticipation, we know well enough, that
' men conftantly run counter to their laws by their
' manners.' But though I know Jonah Was fent about 800
years before Chrift, to threaten the king and people
of Niniveh, with the deftrudion of their rity, I knew
no ffiadow of evidence for this king's being called
Ninivus, There is no fuch name even in the long;
tables of Affyrian kings,, which Eufebius and Syn-^
* Antient Unlverfal Hiftory, chapter 5 . page 3.9 1 .

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. ny
ceUus giye us, though thefe are looked on as forge
ries by the learned ; far lefs does it occur In any
credible catalogue of them, preferved till our times.
On the contrary, it is fuppofed by the moft able cri-
-tics, that the prince who then reigned over Nine
veh, was called Pul. And if God extended his care
to him and his fubjeds, in the manner which the
Scripture affirms, favouring them with a miffion of
one of his prophets to reform themj and prevent
their ruin, how ridiculous is it In our author to cen
fure the Jews for it, ' as conftantly running counter
' to their laws by their manners.'
Nor is the fame charge agaiuft EUffia, of contra
diding the law by allowing the idolater Naaman to
go into the temple of Rimmon, well founded. Ma
ny, I may obferve, have underftood Naaman rather.
to afk pardon of his paft attendance in the temple
of Rimmon, than indulgence to his future appear
ance there ; hy confequence the prophet Eliffia's an
fwer, to contain no permiffion to repair thither there
after, but only an affurance of the forgivenefs of his
former criminal condud. So in particular thefe two
eminent perfons, Bochart ^nd Calmet, expound the
paffage, 2 Kings, v. 18, 19. for t|iey tranflate the
Syrian general's requeft thus, which is alfo faid to
be the verfion of it in Luther's German Bible, with
notes, printed at Weimars, ' In this thing the Lord
* pardon thy fervant, that when my mafter went in-
' to the hpufe of Rimmon tp worffiip there, and he
f leaned on my hand, 1 bowed myfelf in the houfe
' of Rimmon. The Lord pardon thy fervant In thi?
^ thing, that I bowed myfeff in the houfe of Rimmon.'
Thig rendering, fay they, the original wUl bear, with-
H 3

ii8 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
out any infringement of the rules of grammar; and
in favour of it they add, that it Is far more reafon
able, to make Naaman aflc pardon of idolatry which
he had committed, than of idolatry which he ffiould
commit thereafter, to the grant of which his prefent
refolution of committing it, the more aggravated
that he had newly declared his fenfe of the evU of
it, ought to have been confidered by him as an un-
furmountable obftacle. The prophets reply, there
fore, they go on, relates to the remiffion ofNaaraan's
fuperftitlous behaviour In time paft, as this was the
thing afked, inftead of excufing him in any future
"worffiip of the idol.
But though this explication cut off all handle and
pretence for Voltaire's reproach againft EUffia, I can
not think it ought to be admitted as the genuii^e
one. Be It, that the Hebrew is capable of fuch a
fenfe, and that fuch a fenfe is even preferable to
that, which fuppofes him to demand pardon of fu
ture Idolatry, with a full purpofe and determination
to be guilty of it, many circumftances do reclaim
againft it, on which account it ffiould be rejeded.
For if Naaman had Intended to defire forgivenefs of
his paft idolatry, it is inconceivable he ffiould have
mentioned only his bowing In the houfe of Rimmon,
when the king bowed, as different falfe divinities
¦were worffiipped in Syria, the country where he was
born and refided. Judges, x. 5, and as his whole
behaviour, both before and after the cure of his le
profy, ffiews him to have been vfery free from the
efpritfort, which fcorns all religious offices, as marks
of a weak underftanding. It is natural to fuppofe,
he muft have attended their temples^ and paid ho-

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 119
mage to them univerfally by the oblation of facrifi
ces, upon the ufual occafions, and by the perform
ance of Uke cuftomary rites ; and indeed that he
had thus honoured a variety of Gods, may feem
hinted in his declaration of his refolution to reform,
' Thy fervant will henceforth offer neither burnt of-
' fering nor facrifice unto other gods.' ver, 17, At
Jeaft, if by fituation it was inconvenient to him, or
by prepoffeffion it was difagreeable to him to enter
into other temples, he muft have been often prefent
in that of Rimmon, and have frequently bowed him
felf there, at other times than when the king was
there, whofe fupport in his adorations required he
ffiould then attend and ftoop, fince he could not
have been always Invefted with this office about his
perfon; and he muft alfo have brought vidims to
•his altar in their appointed feafons, thefe being efteem
ed indifpenfible teftimonies of devotion. He would
therefore, if he had meant here to afk pardon of his
by-gone idolatry, have fpoken of his bowing before
idols, or at leaft of his bowing before Rimmon in ge
neral, without throwing in the circumftance of his
waiting upon his fovereign then, and ufing that poft-
ure of body that he might lean upon him, which
looked like an IncUnation tp. extenuate and palUate
the guUt of his idol-fervice, inftead of difcovering a
difpofition to aggravate It after the manner of a fin
cere penitent ; and he would likewife. In all proba
bUity, have introduced the mention of hisfacrificing,
feeing he fpecifies this exprefsly as a rite which he
would forbear, when he profeffes his defign to cqafe
from the worfhip of falfe gods in the words before
quoted. Neverthelefs he does not; but comprizes

fz.o A VINDICATION OF P.IL
all his former wickednefs under the expreffion of his
bowing in the houfe of Rimmon, when his inafter
.,Tc;ut to pay his homage there, and needed to lean
up :n his hand, an expreffion much top narrow and
iiiv.u /d, and far too foft for his antecedent idolatry, if
he was wiffiing its remjffion. Fpr thefe reafons I con-
clade, uu^ Naiaman's words in ver. i 8, relate to his
futue condud, and not tp his paft deportment,
-which i:.rdy is a fenfe no lefs confonant to the He
brew, and that the prophet's anfwer carries a concef;
lion of the tolerance thereafter which he defired.
But does it therefore foUow, that EUffia ran couur
-;ter vO tLc law by his manners? or, as pur author
ffiiv-zs his meaning more fuUy in another of '^^ his
-'->, is, where h.e recites this hiftory as an evidence,
.th.ii God tolerated eveiy pther religion among the
]c^rc_ chat he gave Naaman permiflipn tp woi-fliip
t "" idol? By no mean§. Indeed, thpugh this were
ll tt. fe o; Eliffia's reply, fprafiuuch as Naaman
.3 a Syrian returning intp his own coui^try, an4
.^1 i-i Ig diredion about his carriage there. It would
•j^i n.> more a proofof the point he labours to eftabUffi,
tha.i it would be a proof of a Chriftian prince's tole
rating the wprffilp of Mahomet among his fubjeds,
f< .r one of his fervants tp fay to a Turk making the
inquiry, he might pay religious honours tq that falfe;
prophet in a mofque at Cpnftantinople. But is it re
ally the fenfe, that Naaman folicits and obtains leavQ
from the prophet to pradife idolatry at home, for
the time to come? Not at all. He had already de-,
clared his perfuafion, that there was no God In aU
the earth but in Ifrael ; and he had alfo vo^yed, that
? See his Trpatjfe og Toleration, ch. i^, p. 177, 178,

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 12 r
he would thenceforth offer neither burnt-offering
nor facrifice to other gods, but only to Jehpvah,
which was a gOod preparation for the pardon of his
preceding idolatry: Why then would he crave fi
cence to worffiip Rimmon, when he had juft proteft-
ed that he looked on him as no God, and promlfed
he would never prefent to him any vidim or oblati
on, which was faying in effed he would never wor
ffiip him at all ? Sure it is Very unreafonable, to make
him contradid himfelf in this grofs manner, fo fpeed-
ily ; nor could he, one wpuld think, have any temp
tation to adore him, againft the didates of his con-
fcience, that he was no Gpd ; fpr as there is no ground
to fuppofe his prince, to whom he was moft dear,
would be difpleafed at him for his preference of Je
hovah, who had freed him from fo maUgnant and
inveterate a diftempcr, or would moleft him for it,
neither does any fufplclon of it feem to have enteredin-
to his breaft, fince before his retinue, he requefted two
mules burden of the earth of the land of Ifrael, be
caufe he would from that time make no offering to
other Gods but Jehovah, and after avowing his in
tention in their prefence, carried it home pubUcly
into his o-wn cpuntry, to be ufed for his fervice. He
then only begged, he might be indulged withput in
curring the difpleafure of the God of Ifi'ael, to acr
company his royal mafter into the temple of Rim
mon, according' to the duty of his civil ftation, and
in fulfilment of it to bpw*down when he bowed, as

• The verb tranflated ' to bow down,' is often ufed to denote tho
pofture of civil homage, ps well as of religious worfliip. Gen. xxiii^
y, xxxiii. 3. xliji. 6,

122 AVINDICATIONOF P. n.
it behoved him to lean f upon him in ftooping and
rifing up.
Which confirms this interpretation, every word
Naaman ufes, appears upon it proper and perti-
tinent, and no term is fuperfluous; for hereby,
we fee why he mentions the circumftance of his maf-
ter's entrance into the temple of Rimmon ; becaufe
namely, for the future the execution of his office a-
bout him would be the fole end of his appearance
there: — why he fpeaks only of bowing the knee; be
caufe thereafter he was tp take no part in the wor
ffiip of that imaginary divinity, by offering facrifice,
but merely to pradife genuflexion, which was need
ful to affifi the king more conveniently. — And final
ly, why he is fUent about every other temple than
Rimmon's ; becaufe his fovereign did not frequent
any befides this, it being, if I may ufe the expreffi
on, as it were the cathedral of Damafcus, where
"^ Rimmon the great deity of Syria was ferved, with
the moft magnificent and ffiovi^y forms,
f A like auxiliary or affiftant officer in walking, feema to be men
tioned in the court of Joram king of Ifrael, 2 Kings, vii. 2.
• There is only mention of the name and temple of this idol here.
Some have explained the word to fignify high, the more that Stepha
nus quotes Philo faying, Vajuay ytx^ ro v^o;, in vocab. AaoiDteiu;
and have fuppofed the fun was fo denominated, from his elevated fta
tion in heaven, and extenfive empire. Compare Calmet on the place, and
Selden, De Dis Syris Syntagma, 2. cap. lo. I ftiall however lay before the
reader a conjecture, many years ago communicated to me by a learned fo:
reigner, and which I fee hath been fince that time propofed, by the au
thors of the Ada Eruditorum Lipfiae, 1742, p. 536. It is this, that it
xyas the fame with the Jupiter Caflius ofthe Greeks. For as llDlin He
brew fignifies, a pomegranate, Exod. xxviii. 34. Num. xx. 5. Hag,
ii. 1 9. &c. So Jupiter Caffius's ftatue in the temples on mount C^flj:

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 123
Such therefore was the matter, abput which he
was foUcitous, and with refped to it, EUffia granted
him his | freedom, or agreed that it ffiould not be
imputed to him as a fin : in which I pray, what was
us, and in Pelufium, that were confecrated to him, had a pomegranate
inits hand for fome myftical reafon. So Achilles Tatius lib. 2. TIi>ot
QiQKnrcn oe rm X^f"^' ""^ '/t^ f"""'' '"^ oivrt]' rue at foiaf 0 Koyc;
i fiUf-jKo;. In like manner, had Juno's ftatue near the ruins of Mycenae,
as Paufanias Corinth, cap. 17. tells us, though he declines telling th^
import of the pomegranate, as what was to be buried in filence.
f That Eliftia's reply ' Go in peace,' fignifies his ac(juiefcence in
bis petition, or his confent unto it, cannot be doubted I think, what
ever fome have faid, if we compare the ufe of the phrafe, Exod. iv. 18.
Judg. xviii. 6. I Sam. i. 17. 2Sam. xv. 9. Mark, v. 34. Luke, vii.
50.  Father Houbigant reafons largely in his notes upon the place,
againft them who interpret Naaman's demand to have a retrofpeCt to
his paft idolatry ; becaufe, fays he, pardon of this fliould have been aflc-
ed of Jehovah, whom he now knew, not of Eliftia his fervant, though
he might with propriety inquire at him, whether the ufe of fuch a pof
ture in the connection he declared, would be innocent or criminal.
Then he adds, which feems a reflexion better founded, becaufe if ha,
had meant to folicit pardon of falfe offences, he would have made ei-
prefs mention of that which was moft culpable in his behaviour, his fa-
crificing to Rimmon, or fliewing the like mark of religious refpeCl to
the idol, not merely his fupporting the king in the temple, and his bow
ing there when he bowed, which none can confider as the chief in
ftance of his iniquity. And he alfo gives the fame interpretation of Na,
aman's requeft as above, with which view he renders ( t 111 nHI/
leddaber hazzeh, in the beginning of ver. 18. ' For this caufe, or
* this thing, Jehovah pardon, &c.' That is, according to him, ' For-
? afmucb as I declare, I will not facrifice but unto Jehovah, let not
' my bowing down in attendance on my duty to my prince, fubjeCt
' me to any punifliment.' And in this manner, I obferve our tranfla
tors themfelves have turned a like expreflion, Jofliua, ix. 9. ' From
* a very far country are thy fervants come, becaufe of the name of
' the Lord thy God, mH' 1 — l't7.7 7 Le Shem Jehovah, as they migh?

124 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
there amifs or contrary to the law of Mofes ? This
was not to encourage hypocrify In him, or his mak
ing a ffiew of veneration and refped for the idol a-
midft inward contempt thereof, to deceive tfie world.
For how could bowing In the temple, fo reftrained
in Its time and occafion, ever be underftood by the
Syrians as a token and mark of his honour fpr Rim
mon, amidft his uniform forbearance to offer facri
fice to him, and after a public profeffion that he ne-:
ver would prefent fuch oblation, there being no God
in all the earth but In Ifrael ? public I call it, becaufe
aU the Syrians heard It who accompanied him, and
who in all likelihood were not few, confidering Na?
aman's rank and dignity, together with the vanity
and affedation of pomp in eaftern grandees ; nor can
it be thought they would be wanting to make I^
have done alfo inftead ofyJr, Levit. xix, 28. Num. vi. 7. Job, xxx«
25. anAfrom, Ezra, iii. 13.
Monfieur Rocques alfo, paftor at Bafil in Switzerland, to omit We-
renfels and others, in his Difcours Hiftoriques, Critiques, Theolo-
giques. Sec. on the moft memorable events ofthe Old Teftament, be
ing a continuation of Monfieur Saurin's work, hath largely written u-
pon the fame fide, to whom I have been obliged upon this article. —
Nor can it be improper to obferve, as it is at once an argument both of
the ftrength ofbis arguments, and ofthe candour of the authors of a
foreign Literary Journal, that after they had attacked his hypothefis,
upon a lefs perfeCt and full explication of his reafons for it, (being in the
fame fentiments with Bophart) they upon his addreffing a letter to
them, with a more copious defence and vindication of it, even adopted
it in oppofition to their former opinion, and Were not aftiamed to own,
that they thought Bochart himfelf would have done fo, upon fuch fu-^
perior evidence.  Whoever woifld become acquainted with his reafone
ings in fupport of it, and his anfwers to objections, may look into Eil
^lioth. Raifonee, Tom. xv, p. 439. and xvii. 105.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 125
known being under no prohibition, more than to
declare the miracle which gave rife to it.
As Uttle was it to promote the fedudlon of o-
thers to idolatry; for how could Naaman's bowing
there, qualified as it was, be a fnare to any of the
Syrians to worffiip Rimmon, when he had acquaint
ed them by his own mouth with his real unbelief in
him, having renounced aloud all veneration for any
Gods but Jehovah, the God of Ifrael, upon an occa
fion whence the news of this change would foon
fpread abroad, and when his notorious omiffion of
bringing any facrifices to another god, while he of
fered them to Jehovah upon a new altar, pubUcly e-
reded with materials from the land of Ifrael, would
from time to time proclaim it to his countrymen .-^-
Voltaire then had no juft caufe to fay, the prophet
allowed Naaman to go Into the temple of Rimmon,
to worfliip there, nor to draw fuch Inferences from
the hiftory, as he does, of God's tolerating Idolatry
among the Jews,
SECTION V.
Of his reprefenting the Jews to relate, that they had
the exprefs order of God to ftay-feven or eight
fmall nations, fparing none but the little girls,
in the thirty-fixth chapter of his PhUofophy of
Hiftory, as alfo In his Treatife on Toleration.
I N O W pafs over to the thirty-fixth chapter of his
PhUofophy of Hiftory. Here he makes ' the Jews re-
' late* in theu holy books, that they had the exprefs^
• Page 171.

126 A VINDICATION OF P. IL
' order of God, when tiiey were fugitives from E-
' gypt, to immolate feven or eight fmall nations
' whom they did not know, to flay without mercy
' all the women, aU the old men, and even the chUd-
' ren at the breaft, referving none but the little girls.'
And he had expreffed himfelf very much to the fame
purpofe before. In his Treatife On Toleration chap.
12. ' It fis certain that the Jews were greatly in
' want of women, fince we find them almoft always
' commanded, when they conquered any town or
* village, to the right or left of the lake Afphaltes, to
' put all the inhabitants to the fword, excepting on-
' ly the young women who were of an age to know
' man.' But no more may we rely upon his account in
this, than In other articles. For according to Scrip-^
ture, the Jews had no fuch general diredlon to favc
the little girls among the nations of Canaan, as he
fpeaks of in the former paffage, or the young women
that were marriageable, as he defcribes them in the
latter place,— It is true. In the war with the Midian
ites, God' gave them a charge to preferve alive all
the women that had not known man, while they
flew the reft. But then this difcrimination in the
treatment of their females, by which the maids were
to be fpared, was not enjoined for the fake of fup-
plying fome great want of women, under which they
laboured, as he fets forth, for fuch defed would
have led to fave the fex more promifcuoufly ; but
becaufe the other women among the Midianites had
feduced the chUdren of Ifrael, by the advice of Ba
laam, into whoredom and idolatry. Thus we read,
t Page 1 6 1. Note,

P.IL THE &AC RED BOOKS. 127
it was upon this account God's pleafure, declared to
them by his fervant Mofes, that they ffiould be uni
verfally cut off. Num. xxxi. 15. &c. ' Mofes faid
' unto them, — Behold thefe women caufed the chUd-
' ren of Ifrael, through the counfel of Balaam, to
' commit trefpafs againft the Lord in the matter of
' Peor, and there was a plague among the congre-
' gation of the Lord. Now therefore, kiU every male
' among the little ones, and kill every woman that
' hath known man by lying with him ; but all the
' women-chUdren that have not known a manbyly-
' ing with him, keep aUve for yourfelves,'
Befides, the Midianites "\vere not one of the nati
ons of Canaan ; by confequence, they were not one
of thefe feven or eight fmaU nations, which our au
thor appears to intend, when he fays, the Jews relate
they had the exprefs order of God to immolate fo
many, with the fingle exception of the little girls, as
we have feen above. For this he himfelf ffiould be
aUowed to be a fufficient voucher, fince he tells us,
* Midian was not * included In the land of promife.
' It is a little canton of Idumaea, in Arabia Petraea,
' beginning to the northward of the torrent of Ar-
* non, and ending at the torrent of Zered, in the
* midft of rocks, on the eaftern border of the lake
' Afphaltes.' But If any require original evidence,
that Midian was a diftind country from the land of
Canaan, they may be fatisfied about it by looking in
to Judges, vi. 4. vU. 12, 24, 25. Exod, Ui, i. Deut-
* Treatife on Toleration, chap, i 2. p. 1 66. 1 do not however think
this defcription ofthe land of Midian altogether juft, for it was a diffe
rent country from the Edom or Idumaea of Scripture, and lay to the
fouth, not the north of the torrent of .-irnon.

123 A VINDICATION OF P; It
i. 2. Exod. IU. 12, I 8. V. 3. I Kings, xi. i8. From'
comparing thefe places together. It wiU appear it
ky even to the fouth of Moab, and to the weft, per
haps alfo the fouth of Edom, and ftretched unto
mount Horeb, which w^as' no more than three days
journey from the frontier of Egypt, whUe again this
mount was eleven days journey from Kadeffi-bamea,
a town mentioned as the fouthern border or termi
nation of the promlfed land, Num, xxxiv, 4. Joffi;
XV. 3 ; as indeed the fpies were fent thence to exa
mine it, and bring a report of its nature and ftate,
Num, xxxii. 8. Joffiua, xiv, 7,
Why then did Mr. Voltaire take this ftrange licencie
of affirming, that the Jews according to their facred
books, were commanded by God to preferve the little
girls of feven or eight fmall nations, which they
were otherwife to deftroy without mercy, that they
might be furnlffied for population, amidft their own
great lofs of the female fpecies, by the fatigues and
diftreffes of the wildernefs, when the order to referve
the damfels, and Irill all the wonien that had known
man, was only given In the cafe of the Midianites,
who were riot among the nations of Canaan, and gi
ven for a very different reafon from that which he af
figned ? and is it not ftill more inexcufable in him,
to write as if they were to deal thus by eveiy town
or village to the right or left of the lake Afphaltes,
that Is, the Dead fea, when we find them exprefsly
forbidden to ufe any hoftUities againft the children
of Efau and Moab, or to difturb them In their poffef
fions, Deut. U. i — 9. who were fituated immediate-'
ly on the right, that is, on the eaft fide of the lake
Afphaltes, Or as it is commonly called, the Dead fea?

f.tl THE SACRED BOOKS. 129
But further. Is It true that they were command-
ded to kill every living male and female, young and
old, at all events, even in the nations of Canaan, a§
he hath faid by their dWn hiftory they were, with
exception only of the little; girls, an exception for
which it hath been already obferved there was no
ground ? in this way 1 confefs many, under whofe
authority he may ffielter himfelf, have explained the
divine diredion to the Ifraelites. Nor do I rejed their
fenfe, from any apprehenfion of the impoffiblUty of
defending' the juftice and wifdom of that order;
for might not Jehovah, the beftower and therefore
the fovereign of Ufe, with equal righteoufnefs cut
off thefe finful nations and their pofterity, by the;
intervention of human agents, as deftroy them by
peftUence, famine, inundation, fire from heaven,
or any fimilar judgment? and might it not feem ex
pedient to God, to prefer exterminating the Cana
anites, among whom the moft cruel idolatries, and
the moft abominable vices were come to a great length,
by the fword of the Jevsrs, to their exclfion by ano
ther method? thus, at the fame time, that there would
be a manlfeftation of his difpleafure againft them for
their heinous crimes, there would alfo be a vifible
triumph of his own pure and unrivalled worfhip as
the true God, (which he had lately eftabliffied among
this people who were the minifters of his providence,
with fome very aftonifhing marks of his fupreme and
uncontrollable dominion,) over the wicked and cor
rupt forms of reUgion to which they were enflaved,
that fuffered, in the execution done upon them, his
Wrath and vengeance. And a triilmph which, ufeful
as the fame might be to infpire an abhorrence of idoh-
I

130 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
try, it was likely, would not be foon effaced, either
from the minds of the neighbouring nations, or of
the conquerors themfelves.
Neverthelefs, though I do not find fault with the
interpretation which makes God enjoin the Jews to
deftroy the nations of Canaan abfolutely without
regard to their future behaviour from any opinion of
its Irreconcileablenefs with the divine perfedions, I
think another and mUder explication is rather to be
chofen. For it feems to me, that God direds them
to proclaim peace to every city, whether more near
or more remote, and to admit the inhabitants upon
their acceptance of the conditions which they ffiould
offer to them to live under tribute, and that he on
ly commands them to proceed to extremities upon
their refufal of their terms. But here again they
were, according to his regulations, to make a dif
ference.- For where cities were more diftant, they
were, in the cafe of obftinacy, to deftroy none but
all the males with the edge of the fword, leaving
the women and the little ones alive: but when cities
were more near,as were thefe ofthe nations of Canaan,
they were, in the like cafe of Inflexiblenefs, to cut off
eveiy thing that breathed, without Umitation or re--
ftridion. The words upon which I buUd tills account
of the matter, it will be neceflary to recite. They
ftand thus in Deuteronomy, xx. lo — 18. ' When-
' thou comeft nigh unto a city to fight againft it,
' then proclaim peace unto it. And it ffiall be, if it
* make thee anfwer of peace, and open unto thee,
' then it ffiall be, that all the people that are found
' therein, ffiall be tributaries unto thee, and they
' ffiall ferve thee. And if it wUl make no peace with
I

P, n. THE SACRED Books. 131
* thee, but wUl make war againft thee, then thou
' ffialt befiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath
* deUvered it into thine hands, thou ffialt fmite every
' male thereof with the edge of the fword. But the
' women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all
' that is in the city, even all thereof ffialt thou take
' unto thyfelf: and thoU ffialt eat the fpoil of thine
' enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
' Thus ffialt thOu do unto all the cities, which are
' very far off from thee, which- are not of the cities
'of thefe nations. But of the cities of thefe
' people, which the LOrd thy God doth give for
' an inheritance, thou ffialt fave aUve nothing that
' breatheth : but thou ffialt utterly deftroy themj
* namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Ca-
* naanites, aUd the Perizzltes, the Hivltes, and the
' Jebufites, as the Lord thy God hath command-^
' ed thee: that they teach you not to do after aU
' their abominations, which they have done unto
' their gods, fo ffiould you fin againft the Lord
' your God.' And as there is fome controverfy
about their meaning, the reafons why I expound
them as above, Inftead of confining the charge about
an offer of peace, and about the mercy or feverity
which ffiould be exercifed upon agreement to it, or
j?ejedion of it, to the cities which were very far
off, and excluding, by confequence, the nations of
Canaan from any intereft or ffiare in it, may be briefly
declared as follows. Concerning the force of them
every one muft judge for himfelf.
FIrii:, where the order about the exclfion of the
nations of Canaan runs In the.ftrongeft terms, the
reafon given for it is, ' That they might riot turn
I 2

132 A VINDICATION OF F. If,
' them away from worffiipping Jehovah to ferve o-
' ther gods.' Exod. xxiu. 33. Deut. vU. 2 — '^. Or,
as it is, Deut. xx. 18.' That they might not teach
* them to do after aU their abominations, which they
' have done unto their gods.' if therefore, they re
nounced their idolatry, and its attendant wicked
neffes, the reafon for deftroying them ceafed. By
confequence, on this change of pradice, the com
mand to cut them off, which proceeded upon the
fuppofition of their adherence to their hateful fuper
ftition, did not oblige.
Secondly, it is exprefsly faid in the book of Jo
ffiua, xi. 1 9, 20, ' There was not a city that made
* peace with the children of Ifrael, fave the Hivites,
' the inhabitants of Gibeon : all other they took in'
'' battle ; for it was of the Lord to harden their hearts,
' that they ffiould come againft Ifrael in battle, that
' he might deftroy them utterly, and that they might
' have no favour, but that he might deftroy them
* as the Lord commanded Mofes,' And does -not
this plainly Imply, that if they had not been fo ob-
ftinate as to make war upon the Ifraelites, and to ap
pear in arms againft them, but had fubmitted to-
their propofals, inftead of being put to death, they
would have been fpared, in a confiftency with the
divine precept and ordinance about their excifion ;
as Indeed whoever aded fuch a part were ? — To make
the meaning, not that the Ifraelites would have been
obliged, in this cafe of compliance with their over
tures, to fave them aUve, but only that then their
compaffion and pity would have wrought fo ftrong-
ly, as to have difabled them from executing God's
order about their extirpation, though peremptor}'

P.IL THE SACRED BOOK'S. 13^
and irrefpediye to any alteration of manners, does
not anfwer the natural import of the expreffions.
Thirdly, It is not conceivable how the covenant
.of the elders, and Jofliua, and the princes of the
congregation, with tlie ambaffadors of the Gibeo-
nites, to fpare them who were a part of the Hivites,
(one of the feven nations) even after it was ratified
by oath, ffiould have been at all binding upon them,
had they been laid under a divine prohibition to ffiew
favour and indulgence, in regard to life, to fuch of
thefe nations as ffiould fubmit; and It is the lefs
fo, as there had been the ufe of fraud or trick
on their part. In order to procure the ftipulations
they wiffied, fince they perfuaded the rulers of L
frael, that they dwelt In countries very far off,
when yet they were. in the midft of them. For how
abfurd, I pray, to Imagine we can be loofed from the
authority and force of a divine ftatute by any pro
mife or oath, efpecially when we have been drawn
into it by their lying and falffiood, whofe intereft
and fafety are thereby promoted, their affertion hav
ing weighed fo much with us as to. determine us to
believe a thing to be fad which was not, but which
unlefs we had looked upon as true, would have whol
ly prevented our engagement? Indeed, upon what
principles can the validity of the tranfadion. be main
tained, but upon fuch as are pf the moft dangerous
nature? I mean that the Interpofitlon of a promife
or oath, although men have been infnared into It by
fallacy and deceit, will make that to be duty which
God hath forbidden, or that to be finful which he
hath commanded. Neverthelefs, we find Joffiua and
^11 the princes thought this covenant which they

134 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
had made with the GIbeonites binding. Though the
children of Ifrael murmured after the detedion of
the artifice and ftratagem, aU the princes faid unto
aU the congregation, Joffiua, ix, 19.' We have fworn
* unto them by the Lord God of Ifrael: now there-
* fore we may not touch them- This wUl we do to
* them; we wUl even let them live left wrath be up-.
' on us.' Wherefore they preferved them ; only made
their condition harder than it would have been, ex
cept for their falffiood. Nay, God himfelf accounted
the covenant fo facred, that he fent a famine of three
years continuance upon the land in the days of Da
vid, becaufe Saul and his houfe had flain the defcen-
dants of thefe GIbeonites with whpm it was made,
in oppofition to the tenor thereof, 2 Sam. xxi. 1,3,
— Is their having recourfe to the pretence of diftant
fituation urged as an argument that, the Ifraelites
would not fpare any whom they knew to belong
to the feven nations of Canaan ? I anfwer. It only
proves that fuch an opinion prevailed among them,
but not that the Ifraelites were bound by a divine
command to ad in that manner. Again, are the
men of Ifrael's words to them, when they faid,
* Make ye a league with us,' infifted on as a de*
monftration that themfelves were fenfible they could
not fpare them, if they were In the number of
the Canaanites : forafmuch as they run thus, ' Per-
adventure ye dwell among us, and how ffiall we
make a league with you.' Joffiua, ix, 7. I replyj
Thefe words may very well be underftood to de
note no more than this, that they could not make
•A. pa6ium fociale with them, that is, receive them as
aUies and friends, or admit them to a league of equal

fAl. THE SACRED BOOKS. 135
right and privUege, fuch as one ftate enters into
with another, which they might fuppofe to be their
defire and requeft; and therefore ffiould not be ex
plained to fignify, that they could not fuffer them
to live In a ftate of tribute, upon their fubmlffion to
their terms, if they dwelt at hand.^ — To alledge that
God confirmed this oath by a particular revelation,
left the violation of it, as an oath was univerfally
efteemed a facred and inviolable bond, ffiould have
given the nations around a difadvantageous opinion
of Ifrael and then- God, which Mr. Barbeyrac hath
done to account for the regard paid to it, when there
is a total filence about fuch interpofitlon from heaven
In the hiftory, though upon it alone could that pro
mife, which was null from the beginning, become
obligatory, feems to be making too bold, and taking
too great freedom with the Sacred Books, Nor is
the hypothefis at all fuited to infpire that piety and
veneration for the Deity, which it is profeffedly in
tended to advance. For, however, the parties that
were gainers might be pleafed that the rigour and fe
verity of the command to exterminate th^m was dif-
penfed vrith, in what a ftrange light does It repre
fent God to ad, while it introduces him giving his
fandlon to a covenant, which was entered into in vi
olation of his own order, through negled of due in
quiry on the one fide, and brought about on the o-
ther part by the moft fedate and deUberate prevari
cation? There muft theu have been room left by
the divine ordinance, for fuffering fuch of the feven
nations, as confented to the conditions propofed by
the Ifraelites, to Uve under tribute, forafmuch as, on
account of this treaty, it was fo folemnly pronounced
M

il§ A VINDICATION OF P.IL
unlawful to cut off the GIbeonites who belonged tq
one of them.
But finally, the fame thing may be argued fron^
the lenity promlfed without any divine licence or
authority, and afterward exercifed toward Rahab,
Joffiua, iU. 12, 13, 14. and vi. 22, 23. alfo frorri
the forbearance pradifed toward the inhabitants of
Gezer, Joffi. vi, 10. and toward the family In Bethel,
Judg, I. 25. together with others, whofe pofterity
we read of in the land In Solomon's, and even in
our Saviour's time, i Kings, ix. 20, 21. Matth. vui.
2 8 , while yet it is faid, Joffiua faUed not to do every
thing which God had commanded in relation to this
conqueft. For with ¦what truth could this have been
affirmed, had fo many of thefe Canaanites been
fpared, when they were required to be cut off ab-;
folutely, and without any reftridlon or referve?
For thefe reafons I prefer that interpretation whicli.
1 have given. If I am right in it, Mr. Voltaire ought
not to haye faid, that the Jews relate in their facred
books, they had the exprefs order of God to flay
thefe nations of Canaan without mercy, as he hath
done, with exception of a fpecial privilege to the
little girls, which Is wholly fidltious. Even wherg
they piay npt conyince, it fhould be owned, it would
have been more fair and candid in hjm to have taken
notice, that his fenfe of the order was difputed, con
fidering how many eminent perfons *, both Jews
* Among the Jews, I mention Maimonides, Samfon Micofi, Mo-
fee de Kotzri, and Ben Naqhman ; among the Chriftians, Junius, Cu-
naeus de Republ. Hebr. Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, 2. i 3. 4. Pla-
cette Traite du Serrnent, 2. 9. Selden de Jure Naturae et Gentium, J,
12. and 6. 13. 14. To whoi^i I only add Le Clerc, whofe autho-

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 137
and Gliriftlans, have rejeded, it, and adopted the
fame explication which I have endeavoured to eftar
bli^. SECTION VL
pf his aflerting In different treatifes, that the Jewiffi
law required human facrifices.
I N the next page of the PhUofophy of Hiftory, our
author obferves, ' The * Jews have a law, whereby
' they are exprefsly ordered to fpare no thing, nor
' any man devoted to the Lord, " He cannot be
',' bought off, he mtift die,'' according to the law
' of Leviticus, chap. xxvU.' And then he goes on
to tell us, as we will fee in the next fedion, that one
of their judges, and one of their priefts, offered each
a human facrifice by virtue of this law. In like
manner, but more plainly, he -writes in his Philofo
phical f Didionary, ' It -w^as exprefsly enjoined in the
' Jewiffi law, to facrifice all who had been devoted
f to the Lord. No man ffiall be redeemed, but fliall
' be put tp death without remiffion :' The Vulgate
has it, ' Non redimetur, fed morte morietur,' Levit.
xxvii. 2 9 , And then, having mentioned that Samu
el hewed Agag in pieces in confequence of this law,
he fubjoins, ' Here is an evident proof pf human fa-
.' crlfices.' To thg fame purpofe very much, he alfo
rity may feem the greater, th^t having, in his Commentary on the
Pentateuch, contended for the other fenfe, he, in his Notes on the
book of Jofliua, difcards it, and juftifies this which I have chofen.
* Page 172.
f Article Jephtha, or Human Sacrifices, p. 22^. 227.

138 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
explains the law, in his Dialogues and Effays Litera
ry and Philofophical, But I forbear at prefent recit
ing the paffage, as I wUl have occafion to produce it
foon In a note. J
But is there not here alfo mifreprefentation ? to e-
vince this, let us examine Mr. Voltaire's interpreta
tion ofthe ftatute in Leviticus, referving his accounts
of the human facrifices, which he fays were offered
according to it, tUl afterwards,

Thefe interpretations of the law, which make it au
thorize human facrifices , or even the deftrufltort of
the lives of chUdren and /laves at pleafure, refuted;
Now to affirm as he does, that it required the ob
lation of a man, as a facrifice upon God's altar, whenT
ever he was devoted by another, appears extremely
abfurd and unreafonable. Jehovah, the God of Ifrael,
hath in this fame code of laws, moft exprefsly forbid
den his people, to do unto him according to the cuf
toms of the Canaanites, which he hated, and for
which he expeUed them, in prefenting human vic
tims to their idols. Deut. xii. 2 9 — 31.' When the
' Lord thy God ffiall cut off the nations from before
^ thee, whither thou goeft to poffefs them, and thou
^ fucceedeft them, and dweUeft In their land, take
? heed to thyfelf, that thou be not fnared by foUow-;
^ ing them, after that they be deftrpyed before thee,
' and that thou inquire not after their gods, faying,
^ How did thefe nations ferve their gods ? even fp
? •will I do Ukewife. Thou ffialt npt do fo unto the
' % See I^ote, page 141,

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 139
*¦ Lord thy God. For every abomination to the Lord
* which he hateth, have they done unto their gods,
* for even their fons and their daughters they havfc
* burnt in the fire to their gods,' And fuitably to this
earneft prohibition he iifp, by his prophet * Ifaiah,
facrlficing a inan to him, as a proverbial expreffion
for doing a thing moft odious and offenfive to him,
' He' faith God, ' that killeth an ox,' viz. as a facri
fice to me, while he chufeth his own evil ways, and
delighteth in his abominations, ' is as if he flew a
' man,' and offered hini upon mine altar: Ixvi. 3.
Neverthelefs, according tp our author, he in this
paffage of Leviticus direds them to vow, and prefent
thefe very facrifices which he fo peremptorUy dif-
charges, and fo ftrongly declares ]m abhorrence of;
at leaft, he leaves them at their jfreedom and liberty
to devote fuch to him, and in purfuance of the de-
votement enjoins them to offer them. But what hu
mane lawgiver ever fo contradided himfelf? How
unjuft to impute fuch an oppofition of ordinances, as
this glofs fuppofes, unto God? efpeciaUy when there
is fo Uttle pretence for it, there not being one fylkble
about facrificing In the requirement ; for it only runs,
' He who is devoted pf men, ffiall furely be put to
* death ;' and there npt being pne clear or incon
teftible example of the oblation of a human facrifice
among the Jews, through their "whole hiftory, as
plain as this pradice appears, in the annals of the
• That the phrafe in ifaiah is thus to be expounded, and not to
be underftood of murder in general, is plain from this confideration,
that killing a man here ftands in conjunction with other religious cere
monies which God deteftedi the oblation of a dog, and of fwines|
jjlood, See.

140 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
GentUe nations. I pafs other arguments againft the
fame fenfe, as its making it lawful, nay incumbent on
a perfon, to lay upon God's altar, the moft innocent
and ufeful of all his brethren, whenever he had been
malicious or wanton enough "to utter a vow about
it, and the like ; for thefe wUl be touched on Immer
diately, to confute a fimUar hypothefis, Nor can it
be requifite to dwell upon them here ; the cpnfidera-
tlons already mentioned, by themfelves feem fuffici
ent to fliew the meaning, put uppn the ftatute by
our author, to be altogether groundlefs. According
ly, it hath uot been propofed by any of the Scripture
critics *, nor indeed by any writer fo far as 1 know,
if we except the enemies of revelation, who have
* I once thought, I ought to have excepted the learned Capeli
here, becaufe in his Differtatlon on Jephtha's vow, he reprefents the
notion of the heathens, that the more heavy difpleafure of their god?
could not be averted, but by human facrifices, to have been derived
from this ordinance, and ufes fome expreflions, which look as if he
had interpreted it of offering men on God's altar. But on a more care
ful examination, I find he efpoufes not this but the next fcheme. For
having turned Jephtha's vow thus, ' Whatever cometh out of myhouf?
' ftiall be the Lord's, (facred to him by a curfe,) and I will offer it for
' a burnt offering,' if it be fit for it ; and having contended he put his
daughter to death, in purfuance of his devotement according to this
very ftatute, he adds, ' It is not neceffary to maintain, that flie was
' offered on God's altar for an holocauft or burnt offering. It is enough
' if ftie was put to death, according to the law of the Hherem or curfe.
' Such a curfe his vow was, by which, when any living, creatures were
' dedicated, they were offered in facrifice, if fit for the altar, as clean
f beafts, flieep, oxen, goats, &c. If unclean beafts, as horfes, camels,
' &c. they were only killed, in the fame manner were human perfonS
' dealt with, whom the law orders to be put to death, not to be effere4
f in facrifice.' Again, ' By the law in Leviticus xxvii. it behoved that
' Jephtha's daughter ftiould die, not that ftie ftiould be offered in facri;

l».n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 141
laid hold upon the paffag^, to declaim againft the
Mofaic law, as appointing human facrifices.
It is probable however, I may be here reminded,
that whether the law in Leviticus commanded hu
man facrifices or not, is a mere f logomachy , or fight
about words ; If It did not authorize the oblation of
men In facrifice, it certainly prefcribed the deftrue-
tion of their Uves by violence, upon the Interpofition-
of a vow to that purpofe; this is the obvious i and
natural conftrudion of the ftatute, and as fuch hath
been contended for, by perfons of diftinguiffied Ute
rature and acutenefs.
In anfwer, I own this other expofition hath had fome
very eminent advocates, (though not In all the lati
tude which the objedor gives It, while he fuppofes
the ftatute authorized to devote, and deftroy the
lives of all perfons indifcriminately,) in particular,
the celebrated Lewis CapeU, in his Differtatlon quoted
in the former note, hath fo Interpreted it. He ima
gines that God here provided, that when a man had
devoted any perfon to him, over whom he had power
or right of life and death, as a mafter over his flave,
' fice.' Seethe Diflert. feCi. 26. and 27. in vol. ii. of Sacred Critics,
on Judges, chap ii.
-j- Says Mr. Voltaire, in his Dialogues and Effays Literary and Phi
lofophical, and there, Effay of the Jews, p. 58. ' It hath long been
* matter of difpute among the learned, whether the Jews offered human
* facrifices to the Deity, like other nations ; but this is merely a contro-
* verfy about words. Thofe it is true, whom they devoted to death,
' were not butchered upon the altar with all the parade of religious
* rites. But they were neverthelefs facrificed, without its being law-
* ful to fpare fo much as a fingle perfon. In the twenty-ninth chapter
' of Leviticus, ver. 27. the Mofaic law exprefsly forbids to ranfpin
' thofe, whom they had devoted to deftruCtion,'

1^2 A VINDICATION OF P. It.
or a parent over his chUd, he ffiould put him to
death; yet without approving this condud: juft -as
when a man would not cohabit any longer with his
wife, becaufe ffie had become difagreeable for fome
matter of uncleannefs, he direded to give her a bill
or writing of divorcement, and to fend her away
with it out of his houfe, but herein rather permitted
a wanton feparatlon on account of the hardnefs of
their hearts, than approved it. — That ftill parents?
and mafters were Uable to check and controll, in this
exercife of their authority and jurifdidion, by the
priefts, who he thinks were conftituted final and ul
timate judges in all cafes of hherem or curfe ; becaufe
it is faid. Numb. xviU. 14^' Every thing devoted
* in ^Ifrael, ffiaU be the priefts.' So^ fays he, all abufe-s
of the liberty granted by this ftatute would be re
medied, and the execution of unreafonable vows,
about the deftrudion of the lives of Others, would
be prevented j— children and flaves would, from the
ordinance, have an additional motive to treat their*-
parents and mafters with moft profound reverence,
afraid left through an oppofite carriage, they ffiould
irritate and provoke them to devote them to death;
and at the fame time, parents and mafters would be
rendered more cautious of pronouncing raffi and paffi-*
* The term here is the fame as in the text under controverfy, e-
very hherem or every thing accurfed, devoted. See his Differt. feCl. 8,
and as to the fequel, fee feCt. 9. where he obferves, God has fometimes
ratified the rafli curfes of parents, fending calamities upon them accord
ing to their tenor, in righteous punifliment thereof, that he might put
them on their guard againft fuch ; and thence infers, God might enafl
this ftatute to prevent cruelty, even as thefe ftatutes about not feething
a kid in its mother's milk, and not taking a bird with its young.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 14^
onate curfes againft the lives of their chUdren and
flaves, as they would be fubjeded, unlefs 'the prieft
forbid and diffolved the obligation of the vow, to
lofe all that comfort and advantage they might have
received, from the longer cpntinuance of their lives.
Thus that very able and learned writer ; and I know
he was herein foUowed by the famous Mr. Albert
- Schultens of Leyden, when he treated this fubjed in
his ledures on the Jewiffi Antiquities, which no doubt,
with all who are acquainted vrith his eminent repu
tation, muft add greater weight to that account of
the ftatute.
But with all due deference to thefe great names,
I muft alfo rejed It as inadmiffible, fince it neither
proceeds upon true principles, nor propofes a-fenfe
confiftent with other rules of the Mofalc law, and a-
greeable to the appeal which God makes, concern
ing the tranfcendent juftice and equity of the whole,
Deut. iv. 7 , 8 , For it does not appear, that parents
and mafters had fuch power over the lives of their
children and flaves by that law, as is here pretended.
Be it, that a parent had a right by It, to devote his
fon to the fervice of God about the tabernacle or
temple all his days, (though there is lefs force in the
inftance of Samuel to prove this, becaufe he was him-
ffelf a Lcvite,) how can it ever be thought, he had a
right according to it, to vow away his life at his plea
fure, when we fee, it did not permit his puniffiing hira
with death, even on the commlffion of grofs crimes, tiU
there was a formal convidion of him before the ma-
giftrates, within whofe diftrid they were done, and
their concurrence to fuch treatment, Deut, xm, 6.
xvU, 7 . xxi. I &? and again, be it, that a mafter could

144 ^ VINDICATION OF P. ff.
devote with vaUdity a GentUe flave, whom he had
bought with his money, Levit. xxv. 44. &c. unto'
attendance about thtt fand-uary through lUe, (for as
to a Hebrew flave, it is evident, his title to difpofe of
him could only extend to the feventh year of his
bondage, oi', upon his refufal of his Uberty then, td
the accompliffiment of the jubUee, Exod. xxi. 2. &c.
Levit. xxv. 39.) how can it ever be imagined, that
he had power to fubjed him to a neceflity of dying
by a vow, when he was required to abftain, even
from fmlting out an eye or a tooth, under the penal
ty of giving him his difmiffion and releafef yet it
might have been done through a fudden fally and
tranfport of paffion, and not by cool contrivance aild
fedate premeditation, fee Exod. xx. 20 — 27, Ac
cordingly, the Jewifli mafters, as'^ Selden affures us,'
agree that parents and mafters had not the power of
life and death over their children and fei^vants.
* Selden, De Jure Naturae et Gentium', lib. 4. cap. 9. Maimo
nides in particular obferves, mafters could not devote Hebrew flaves
through life, only Heathen ones, lad Chazakah, part 3. lib. 6. cap.
4. entitled, Eftimaliones et Devota ; whence it follows, they could
riot take away their life. And in Miftina, v. 212. it is faid, ' A man
' may devote (a part) oCff of his flock and herd , out of his men and maid-
' fervants that are Canaanites, and out of the field of his poffeffion.'
' But if a Jew were to devote his foil or daughter, man or maid-fervant
' that were Hebrews, the devoting would be void, becaufe no man can
• devote what is not his own, or what he has not the abfolute difpofal of
' the hfe of.' R. Manaffeh Ben ifrael moreover, in his Vindiciae Judaeo-
rum, where he is refuting the ftory that the Jews killed fome Chriftian,
that they might leaven their dough with his blood about the time ofthe'
paffover, after fpeaking of the prohibition to kill, takes notice of the
law, Exod. xxi. 20. and reafons excellently to our purpofe thus, 'The
' text' fays he, ' fpeaks of a Gentile flave, for only of perfpas of

t.n. THE SAC,RED BOOKS. 145
Farther, v.hereas Gpd aft^r -the flood had made
mUi^der capital, faying, ' W.hQfpeyer,ffieddeth man's
* blood, by man ffiall his blpodbe ffied,' Gen. ix. 5.1
and by Mofes had repeated the awful fandlon, to
deter from the pr3.dice qf fo enormous wickednefs,
' Whofo killeth any perfon, ffiall be put to deatli ; ye
* ffiall take np fatisfadion for the .life pf a .murderer
' ,who is guilty pf death, .but he ffiall be furely put
' to death,' Numb, xxxv, .30., 3 i , Ho.w vain all thefe
meafurcs, and how ineffedual.tp preyent.it, if a per
fon by a-cherem or cprfe and deyptement againft a
chUd or fei-vant, who ,had incurred his difpleafure
however uudeferyedly, could .r-,nder it innocent to
take away his life, and evade every penalty. What
indeed would fuehan eftabUffiment have been, as
thefe we pppofe make the la.'w in LeviticUs, but
.givlng.a licence to parents and mafters to deftroy by
avow any under them, whom they wiffied cut off,
tho' moft harmlefs, yea moft ufeful, without hazard
of puniffiment for it. — It is faid indeed, the priefts
' this original can it be faid, that they are the money ofa Jew, who isl
¦* their mafter, as Abenezra obferves on the place; God orders, if he
•' die under his hand, the mafter be put to death, becaufe it is to be
' prefumed, he inieo.ded to kill him, (although if he lived a day or two*
' the mafter was free, upon the prefmnption he had no defign to kill
* elfe he would; have done it on the fpot ;) how then can it be lawful'
coticludes he, ' to kill a ftranger.' See this paragraph quoted in the ac
count of the piece, Bibl. Raifon. tom. 12. p. 182. and compare Phae-
tiix, article 24. vol. 2. I only fubjoin, for obviating any impreftions
'by the note from CapeU, about God's fometimes executing the paffion-
.ate curfes ofa parent or mWler, that fuppofe he had done fo as often as
hath been imagined, this is very different from his obliging men by a
public law to proceed in their treatment of others, accordingto thertf,
,,«yen umo blood. -K

146 A VINDICATION OF V.ll
could prohibit the fulfilment of the vow, where it
Was unreafonable: but, to omit that it is fuppofabld
their confent might be procured to the moft unjuft
and tyrannical effufion of blood, by various artifices,
all this about the right of the priefts tO annul a vow
for the deftrudion Of human life, is pure invention,
neither founded iii Scripture, (for the paffage recited
from Numbers tO prove it Only declares the priefts
property or Inteteft, in fuch devoted things as are
there enumerated, whence he might Ufe them for
his fuftenance and comfort,) nor countenanced by aqy
commentaries ofthe Jewifli dodors upon It, nor fup
ported by any example of fuch interpofition, in the
hiftory of the nation.
Finally, as to the ftatute's having a tendency, ac
cording to the interpretation which I oppofe, to fe
cure greater refped from children and flaves, I would
afk, did not parents and mafters on their part alfo
need fome reftraint froiU Unkind and inhumane be
haviour toward them, inftead of beillg left free id
take away their lives after a vow, without becoming
obnoxious to fuffer for it ? and as to its being a mean
of preventing, raffi and paffionate vows, or curfes ra
ther, to be affured, that after they were pronounced,
there was no refiUng; it behoved the unhappy per
fon who was the fubjed thereof, to lofe his Ufe, how
ever reludant and averfe his devoter might be to
deprive him of it, in more calm and fober hours ; it
is granted, it might operate this way, where was
any diffuafive from natural -affedion or accidental
tendernefs, or profped of fecular advantage; but
what bloody work would the ftatute as explained
open a wide door unto, wherever any i'njury real oT
I

'E':iL THE SACRED BOOKS. 147
imaginary -was received, and any difpleafure kindled
on account thereof, and no fuch friendly Or intereft-^-
ed reftralrits againft eXcIfion ? Befides, as one obferves,
it was a ftrange way of deterring men from the
'wickednefs of raffi curfes, to decree by a folemn and
pubUc law, that the treatment of the innocent ob
jed thereof ffiould be anfwerable unto them ; the pro
per method to hinder and dlfcoutage fuch paffionate
vows of deadly import would have been, to have decla
red them null, and to have Inffided fome fine or puniffi
ment upon the maker thereof, inftead of dooming
the guiltlefs perfon againft whom they were level
led, to periffi.
May I not now then upon the whole infer, that no
more is this than the former^ the true fenfe of the
law, ' That whatever chUd or flave belonging to him
' a man ffiall djvOte, ffiall furely be put to death?'
far lefs then can theintention be. Whatever man,wlth-
out reftridlon and limitation, any ffiaU devote or
curfe, ffiall be put to death ; which yet would be Its
fcope, according to fuch commentators, unlefs the
words ' which Is his,' are repeated from the for
mer verfe. For fuch a ftatute would have been ftill
more; unreafonable, as it would have placed every
man, ho'vvever independent on another, and exempt
from his jurifdidion in other matters, at his mercy
as to life or death, and would have afforded an eafy op
portunity to any perfon, to rid himfelf of another,
even the moft excellent, who ftood in the way of
the accompliffiment Of his feheriies, under cover of
piety, without Incurring any evil for it. Who there
fore can entertain the opinion, that fuch can be the
meaning of the ordinance in a body of laws, where
K 2

148 A VINDICATION OF P. IL
the lives of others are fo ftridly guarded, and fo fo-
Ucitoufly preferved from unjuft violence ?
In vain furely is It pretended, becaufe God here
fuffered a hufband to put away his wife, who was
become offenfive in his eyes, upon giving her a bUl
of feparatlon, in confideration of the hardnefs of the
hearts of the Jewiffi people, he may alfo have enaded
fuch a law as Capeli and his foUowers vriU have this
to be, for the fame reafon ; for whUe It is obvious,
that by fuch indulgence In the cafe of their wives,
(which yet was not granted, without a caveat againft
the precipitate ufe of it on fudden quarrels, by de-'
daring they ffiould be free to marry other men, and
could never be readmitted to the houfes and beds of
their former hufbands, though their affedion and
defire fliould return,) greater evils and inconveni
encies might be prevented, what greater mifchief
could be avoided by this ftatute, than that which,
upon their interpretation, it introduced? Even the
deftrudion of the devoted, without any poffibiUty
of redemption.

The conneElion in which this law (lands opened, arid
the merit of feveral interpretations which take away
all pretence for faying that it authorizes human fa
crifices, or the arbitrary deflruciion of the lives of
men, examined.
Wh.\t then fliall we fay is the true defign Of the
ftatute? Perhaps we wiU derive fome affiftance to
ward the difcovery of it from the connedion. Let
us therefore confider how it is introduced.

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 149
In the former part of this chapter, rules are laid
xiown concerning thofe things which were matter ofa
neder '^IJ that is, of a bare or fimple vow, ffiewing on
what conditions, and at what prices things confe-?
crated to the Lord by it, in confequence of a man's
full power over them, and right in them, might be
recovered for his own ufe and fervice. — Then Mofes
proceeds to fpeak of things which were matter of a
hherem tZ3"l?Tor curfe, that is, which were devoted
to the Lord by any perfon, with an imprecation, or
wiffi of mifchief to himfelf, if he did not fulfiU the
engagement ; as we call them fometimes in our tranf
lation, ' which 'were accurfed to the Lord.' And he
fays, by way of exception from thefe things that
were redeemable, becaufe the fubjed only ofa neder
pr fimple vow, ' Notwithftanding, no devoted thing
' which a man ffiall devote to the Lord, of all that
' he hath, both of man and beaft, and of the field
^ of his poffeffion, ffiaU be fold or redeemed; every
* devoted thing is moft holy to the Lord,' ¦^ Verfe 2 8.
'* This expreffion, ' Holy to the Lord,' does not always imply a
facrifice, wherefore it is vain to argue fron^jt, that the man fo devoted
was to be facrificed. A field Cpqld not be facrificed. No more could a
beaft which wa^ of the unclean kind ; or which, though it was of the
clean kind, laboured under any defeCt, difeafe, or blemiffi ; while yet
if fuch was the fubjeCl of a hherem, it was irredeemable, fo tbat no
other could be bought with its price, and fubftituted in its room on
God's altar. Neverthelefs, it is decreed both field and beaft, as well
as man, fo devoted, fliould be holy to the Lord. Why then fliould
any infer from the phrafe, that a man was to be facrificed J-^-i'^dd to
this, from a beaft's being made a burnt offering, a prieft coulrl receive
no benefit ; for no part would be faved from the^altar for fuftenance
to him and his houftiold. 'With what propriety then could it be or-.
dained, ' Every devoted thing in Ifrael ftiall be the priefts.' Nurab
K 3

150 A VINDICATION OF P. II.
Neither field, nor beaft, nor man fo devoted, by 'a
perfon who hath the in tire and independent difpofal
of the fame, ffiall be bought off, but continue fepa-
rated unto the Lord f , that Is, unto facred and reU
gious ufes. A field fo devoted, fliall abide the pof-
feflion of the priefts forever, according to the exprefs
determination in verfe 2 i . And in like manner, a
beaft, or even a man fo devoted, as a Cananaean or
other GentUe flave might be, ffiall be appropriated
always to the ufe of the priefts about the taber
nacle, inftead of returning to their original propri
etors, or being applied to common fervices. Then
follow the words which have been fo eagerly laid
hold of by fome, to evince that God authorized
the Jews to deftroy the Uves of their fellow crea
tures at their pleafure and caprice, after devote
ment of them ; ' ' None devoted, which ffiall be de-
' voted of men, ffiall be redeemed;' or, more Uteral
ly, but with the fame meaning, ' Every ^ devoted,
' which ffiall be devoted of men, ffiall not be redeem-
'¦ ed; but ffiall furely be put to death.'
xviii. 14. ifa beaft, upon 'its devotement, was to be made an holocauft,
and confumed to afties \ Neither it is true coqld an unclean animal be
ufeful to him for food, but it might for carriage and labour. — The
reader may obferve alfo, that the phrafe of * Holinefs to the Lord,' is
ufed concerning the filver and gold, and, like fpoils of Jericho, which
Were to be brought into the treafury, Jofliua, vi. j 9.
f Thus do all the learned Jews underftand the 28 th verfe, ofa
voluntary confeeration to religious ufes, whether of flave, or besft, or
field, by the owner. See Selden de Jure Naturae et Genuum, lib. 4.
cap I o .
* Verfe 29. j^V tm^n ^J 'zjtn' iwi* tzj-in ^3
t~.C' """ia ("115' Col hherem' ajher iahharam min haadfim k
iippadeh moth iumath.

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 151
Now fuch being the coherence of the words, it
feems unreafonable to pretend that they fpeak, not
pf a devotement by man, but merely of a devote-
nient by God, through which thefe perfons, that
were the objeds of it, were invariably to be cut off,
as the Canaanites, in the event of obftinacy, Deut,
yii- 2. Joffi. vi, 17, the Amalekites, Exod- xvU. 14.
I Sarn. xv. 2, 3. Deut. xxv. 17. and others. Thus
indeed, there would be a commodious fenfe of the
ordinance, and no handle Iqft fpr faying, that it 11-.
penfed the wanton flaughter of men ; fince the mean
ing would only be, ' No man who ffiall be feparated
by God's order and appointment, unto deftrudion,
ffiall be redeemed or bought off, but ffiall furely be
put to death ¦*^,' But then it is fo wholly unfuitable
to the feries of the chapter, which is filled with re
gulations about humane vows, to fuppofe no inters
pofal of human devotement here defcrlbed, that this
glofs cannot, I think, upon any plaufible grounds,
gain our approbation.
Is there then any explication, which, while it is
morcj agreeable to the context, by making a hu
man devotement intervene, does not countenance
a man's kUling another after fuch devotement, as
inclination or intereft might didate, in order, to be
rid of him, and Is at the fame time, in other refpeds,
unexceptionable? In this view fome have interpreted the ordinance
* It may be urged, I am aware, for this interpretation, that the
claufe, Afyer iJh iehharim Lahovah, which a man fliall devote to the;-
Lord, is not here inferted, as in the preceding verfe. But the omiffioix
does not carry fuch weight as to juftify that interpretation againft tl;p,
difficulties with which it ispreffed.

<

152 A VINDICATLON O'F P.IL
as foUows, ' No devoted beaft, which fliall be de^
voted by men, ffiall be redeertied'; but ffiall' furely
' be put to death,' But their interpretation appears
inadmiffible for thefe reafonS. Firft, th'ere is no term
in the Hebrew text, to which that of beaff, in- this
tranflation, Correfponds ; that running without any
limitation or reftridlon, ' None devoted, which ffiall
be devoted  ffiaU be redeemed;' or, according to'
the moft ftricT: verfion, ' ¦•".very devoted, which ffialf
* be devoted  ffiall not be redeemed, ^c- Se
condly, although it be true that d^Kn 'JQ min haa^
dam, (by us turned, of man') abfolutely confidered',
may fignify the agency of a man, both according to
the analogy of the Hebrew language, and according
to the acceptation of the phrafe itfelf elfewhere, it
is extremely violent and ftrained to underftand it
lirith relation to the author, and not the fubjed of
the devotement here, when It occurs in the verfe
immediately preceding, beyond all difpute, concern-^
ing the. matter thereof; and there is no other ternj
in the original, to afcertain and fpecify what the fame
is, unlefs iti>€ this. Since, therefore, the ftatute can
not be fuppofed, with any probabUity, to treat* of
a brute animal, but of a human creature as the fub-
• I lay no ftrefs upon a remark which hath been made by fome
againft the interpretation here rejected, ' That if min haadam related
' to the maker of the devotement, and not to the matter of it, the
• words would be fuperfluous ; forafmuch as the lawgiver cannot be
* thought to treat of any other vows of this kind, ^han vows made by
' man.' For it is obvious to reply, that fuch an unneceffary claufe, tq
judge by this criterion or teft, is to be met with frequently, and even
in the foregoing verfe, ' No devoted thing, which a man ftiall devote
' unto the Lord,' &c.  But on the other hand, as to the argument
from the Vulgate and Seventy tranflations in its behalf, befides th*?

P.IL THE SACRED- BOOKS. 153
jed of devotement, we muft tiy whether we can,
iipou this hypothefi^, find out any expofition Which
dbes not m^ake the law gi-ve every Jew power to kUl'
a neighbour, not even a m'after to kill his flave, and
much lefs a parent to flay his chUd on a previous'
arbitrary devotement, and yet afcribes to it a fenfe
free from other objedions, fnch, at leaft, as are of
fufficient force tp dlfcredit and pverthrpwit.
The late Dr, Sykes \ explains the m~eanlng, of it tp
be no more than this, '^ That every perfon who is
' devoted or confecrated to the fpecial fervice of
* Godlrreverfi'bly, orfor ever, by one ha'ring a right
' to do fo, inftead of being redeemed, ffiall die in
' that devoted ftate ;' or, as he dxpreffes it more ful
ly, ' Shall not be facrificed, nor be put to death in
' an urinfuai and unnatural manner, by any method
* of violence, but ffiall only continue In that condi-
' tion, till death, ^'n the courfe of nature, put a pcT
* riod tp his life.' In favour of this fenfe, he alfo of
fers thtie arguments, which being fo fpecious, and
proceeding frpm a writer of fo diftinguiffied abUitieS,
well deferve pur careful attention,
Firft, he obferves. That hherem fignifies pnly an ab
folute giving to God for ever, a donation of a thing
their authority is no way decifive, there appears to be no fure founda
tion for it, becaufe the expreffions which they ufe in rendering min
haadam, are ambiguoy)s, and may fignify man's being the fubjeCt of
the devotement;, as well as its author. Thus, the Vulgate hath here,
' Omiiis confeeratio quae oftertor ab hoinine,' vphile, for the fame He
brew phrafe, it ha?, * Exhomine,' iff the 28th verfe. And the Seventy
have here, Ajro a.y%^Q7ray, ^yhich is ufed by them undeniably in that
pther verfe, to declare a man's being the fubjeCl of the vow.
X See his Connection of Natural and Revealpd Religion, chap. 53,
pfpecially pages 313, 318.

154 A VINDICATION OF P, IT,
or perfon to him, with an intention that the fame
ffiould never return to be a part pf his own proper-,
ty, or employed for his own ufes, but be God's in
perpetuity. This he concludes from vCrfe 20. of this
fame chapter, ' If he that fandified or vowed the field,
' will not redeem It, or, if he hath fold It to another
' man, it ffiall not be redeemed any more ; but the
* field, when it goeth out in the jubUee, fhaU be ho-
* ly unto the Lord, as a field devoted, DIP ni'ZO
' kefadeh hherem, the poffeffion thereof ffia}} be the
priefts.' Likewife from Numb, xviU. 14. where it
is faid, ' Every devoted thing in Ifrael ffiall be the
' priefts,' that is, ffiall be Irrecoverably fet apart for
the benefit of the facerdotal order. Nor may more
be included in the expreffion of the matter of the
hherem or devotements being holy to the Lord, in
the 2 8th verfe of this chapter, fince tithes are ftUed
holy which were affigned fpr the maintenance of the
priefts and Levites, Levit. XXVU. 30, 31. Th? read
er, moreover, may compare Ezek. xliv. 29. together.
'with Micah, Iv. 14, where we have the full phrafe
of confecrating or devoting fubftance unto the Lord;
fpr, fays God, in prediding the fuccefs of the Jew^
againft the nations that ffiould be gathered to annoy
them, and their pious care to expend the fpoils they
ffiould feize frpm them in his fervice, ' Arife, threffi,
^ O daughter of Zion, for I wiU make thine horn
' iron, and I wUl make thy hoofs brafs, and thou
* ffialt beat in pieces many people : and I wiU con-
' fecrate, 'flDinm Vehehharamti, their gain unto the
' Lord,' &c.
Secondly, he remarks, That there is no word in the
original anfwering tp the adverfative particle but, ini

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 155
Our Verfion ; while, through this fupplement of our
tranflators, the words which follow, are readily fup-.-
pofed to ftand in way of (jpntraft or oppofition, and
to denote the taking away ofthe life ofthe perfon de?
voted, in a hoftile and forcible manner. For the Her
brew runs fimply, ' Every one devoted,whD ffiall be de
voted of men,ffiallnot beredeemed ; dying he ffiall die.'
Thirdly and finaUy, he contends. That though
there were a word in the original, anfwering to the
particle but, yet the Hebrew expreffion In the laft
jclaufe,doth not neceffarily fignify a death by human
agency and inftrumentality, but is applied to the
extindion, or lofs of life. In a natural way, upon
different occafions ; its import being no more than,
dying he ffiaU die ; or, he ffiall furely die. And to
eftabUffi this ufe of the phrafe, he appeals to thefe
paffages of Scripture, as containing examples of It,
Gen. ii. 17. where God declares to Adam, ' In th?
' day thou eateft thereof, thou ffialt furely die.' Num.
xxvi, 65, where he denounces to Mofes concerning
the rebelUous Ifraelites, who had arrived to twenty
years \ of age and upwards, ' They ffiall furely die.'
2 Kings, vUi. i o . where fie returns this anfwer by
the prophet Efiffia fp Hazael, whom the fick Ben-
hadad had fent to enquire whether he ffipuld reco
ver of his difeafe, f He ffiall furely die.' To which
he alfo adds his threatnings againft the wicked by
Ezekiel, UI. 18. xxxUi. 8. xyiii. i 3. For in all thefe
places, according tp him, the fame form of expreffion
which occurs here, does not ftand for being put to
death, but for dying a natural death through difeafe
or cafualty. % See Numb. xiv. 23.

15*5 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
Such is Dr. Sykes's view of the ftatute, and fuch
are his reafons in fupport thereof, who withal feems
to think it might relate to the cafe of a mafter's de-
Voting to God a Canaanite fervant, in whom he had
a property, for ever; or to a parent's devoting a fon
or daughter to the Lord in perpetuity, with their
own confent, as happened in the cafe of Samuel by
Hannah, i Sam. i. ii — 28. For otherwife, he fays,
the devoting was void in itfelf, becaufe a parent had
no property in his chUdren for ever. And certainly It
is an advantage upon tha fide of his Interpretation,
that it continues the fame fenfe of the hherem or
devotement, Avhich is agreed to take place in the
former verfe, inftead of altering it from the accepta
tion of feparating unto facred ufes. Into that of fe-
parating unto deftrudion or lofs pf life, which it is
commonly thought to require here. At the fame
time, it affixes to the ftatute a meaning, rational in
itfelf, and agreeable to the genius of the Mofaic oe-
conomy. On thefe accounts, together with the ar
guments above-mentioned, many may be difpofed
to receive It as the genuine explication of the ordi
nance. And if they do fo, it muft by confequence
appear to them, that there is no foundation for any
cenfure or blame of it, as giving a fandlon to human
facrifices, or to the -wanton and arbitrary excifion of ,
men. After aU however, if I can judge, there Ue un-
anfwerable objedions againft that hypothefis, which
makes the fenfe of the law to be no more than, that
a devoted perfon ffiould continue feparated from
common' to facred ufes, by fervice about the taher-.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 157
nacle, tUl in the courfe of nature he died, but thefe
I throw into a note. "^
* The objections which chiefly prefs Dr. Sykes's fcheme, are thefe.
I, If the ordinance in ver. 29. treat only of the devotement of a
man to the fervice of God for ever, as the preceding verfe is allowed to do,
it might have been omitted altogether, being fuperfluous; for what more is
declared here, when it is faid, a man devoted to the fervice of God for e-
Ter fliall abide in tbat devoted ftate till he die, than had been faid there
already, in terms free from all obfcurenefs and ambiguity, ' He ftiall
' not be fold or redeemed, but be moft holy to the Lord.'
2 . If it was neceffary to add any explication of the ftatute in the former
claufe, about the unalienablenefs of living creatures which were devoted
for ever to facred ufes, it is unaccountable upon Dr. Sykes's principles,
that there is no particular determination here, with regard to the treat
ment of brute animals, that were the fubjeCts of fuch devotement, as
well as about the fate of men, that were in this manner given to the
Lord for perpetuity. Were not beafts as well as men that were dedi
cated to God for ever, to continue in a ftate of feparatlon from com
mon to religious ufes, till they died .¦" Why then have we not TQ
("lOrQ min hehemah repeated here from ver. 28. as well as iQ
U>J l.sn 'min haadam?
3 The verb QID haram, which occurs only in the conjugations
hiphil and hophal through the Bible, feems almoft invariably to
imply the violent death ofa living creature, whether man or beaft,
where it is ufed with relation to fuch a fubjeCt, and not to inanimate
things, as houfes or fields, filver or gold, &c. Hence in hophal it is
turned ' to be utterly deftroyed,' Exod. xxii. 20. compared with Deut,
xiii. 1 2 . &c And in hiphil it is tranflated ' to deftroy utterly,' Numb.
xxi. 3, 4. Deut. ii, 34. iii. 6, 7. xiii. 15. xx. 17. Jofliua, ii. 10.
vi. 2 1, viii 26 X. 28, 35. 37, 40. xi. II, 12. Judges, i. 17. xxi. 3,
II. 1 Sam. xiii, 9. xv. 3, 18. and in' many other places. And that
is faid to be ?in hherem a curfed or devoted thing, which being
alive was fet apart abfolutely to deftruCtion and death. Deut. vii.
26. ' The graven images of their gods ye ftiall burn with fire, neither
• ffialt thou bring an abomination into thine houfe, left thou be hherem
' a curfed thing like it,' that is ' feparated to deftruCtion.' Deut. xiii.
17. ' There fliall cleave nought ofthe hherem or curfed thing in the

158 A VINDICATION OF P. rfi
lAnother expUcation of the ftatute, which alfo frees it
from all imputation of encouraging the wanton and
capricious deftrudion ofthe lives of men, propofed and
juflified. As therefore I am diffatisfied with thefe accounts
of the ftatute, I will propofe another interpretation
of it, and fubmit it to the candour of the reader.
city linto thee,' that is, none of the perfons or cattle feparated unto
death therein, as appears from what goes before, fince all the inhabit
ants and cattle in any city, which had apoftatized to the worfliip of o-
ther gods, were ordered to be utterly deftroyed with the edge of thS
fword, ver. i j. Jofliua, vi. 17 ' The city Jericho ftiall be hherem,
' even it and all that are therein,' that is, ' The living creatures there-*
' in ftiall be feparated unto deatli,' for it follows, ' Every livi'ng flefh'
' fliall be put to death, fave Rahab and her family.' 1 Sam,' xv, 28.
' The people took ofthe fpoil ofthe Amalekites, ftieep and oxen, the
' chief of the things, which fliould have been utterly deftroyed,' literal-^
]y, ' Vi'hich were hherem or a curfe, feparated to irretrievable dcftruc-
' tion,' about which fee ver. 3. ofthe fame chapter. Indeed this ob
fervation concerning the acceptation of hhdram and hherem, where they
occur in connection with living fubftances, holds fo conftantly, that I
do not know any exception from it, unlefs it be in the verfe which pre
cedes that under our confideration, where \<'e are fufficiently guarded
againft taking it in that fenfe, by its being added irtimediately. The
man who is devoted, inftead of being fold or redeemed, ftiall be holy
to the Lord, which is never affirmed of any man, who was to be cut
off from his people; and again in Numb, xifiii. 14. where after it is
appointed, ' Every hherem or thing devoted in ifrael, ftiall be the
• priefts;' it follows, ' Every thing t'hat openeth the riiatrice in all fleflt
' which they bring unto the Lord, whether it be of men or '-e'ifts, fliall
' be thine.' But then to prevent any miftake, it is forthwith fubjoined,
' Neverthelefs, the firft born of man flialt thou furely redeerfi.' This
iiuft therefore create a prejudice againft Dr. b) kes s interpretation of the

p.n, THE SACRED BOOKS. 159
To make way for this I remark, that the Jewiffi
mafters very generaUy * underftand this twenty -ninth
ftatute before us, where no fimilar expreflion to thefe is thrown in, ta
hinder our error about the meaning of the phrale.
Laftly, and chiefly, the examples which he brings for that fenfe,
which he puts upon the expreffion in the laft claufe r>DT rH/S moth
iumath, ' He ftiall furely die,' are no way fatisfaCtory. In one of the
paffages, where is God's anfwer by the prophet to Hazael, concerning
Benhadad a death by violence was unqueftionably meant ; wherefore it
hath been mentioned by him with great impropriety. And in all the reft
of them, though not dying by human ftroke, yet dying by a divine fen
tence, inthe way of ptiniftiment forfome tranfgreflion committed by the
fufferer,and in teftimony of difpleafure againft him for his offence, is fpok
en of, which dying but for that fault would have been avoided, either alto
gether as in the cafe of Adam, or in the way of its infliction at leaft, as
in the cafe at the rebellious ifraelites ; fo that they fall ftiort of being
good authorities, for the meaning he affixes. Befides, which is efpeci-
' ally to be attended to, here the verb rilD is in hophal, in which con
jugation it is always rendered by us, except in one paffage, of which
afterwards, put to death ox Jlain, Exod. xxi. 29. xxxv, 2. Levit.
xix. 20. XX. ii. 2 Kings, xiv. 6. &c. yea, is fo turned with equal
uniformity, in that very tenfe, number, and perfon, conftrued with the in
finitive which occurs in this place.though fuch fenfe be oppofed here. For
fo the reader will find by comparing our verfion with the original. Gen*
xxvi 1 1. Ex. xix. 1-2 xxi. 12, i j, 17. xxii. 18. ixxi. '14. Lev. xx.
2, 9, 10, I J. xxiv. 16, I 7. to omit other places. Nor is there room
io difpute the juftice of this tranflation; whereas in all the paffages^
fave the one above excepted, that are referred to by Dr. Sykes, the o-
riginal eXprefiions being niQil tamuth, or HID' iamuth, or IFnO'
iamuthu, thd verb is in kal and always with reafon turned die. Even
as to that one Ezek xviii. 13. where the verb is in hophal -^Ith the in-^
finitive as here, it cannot be queftioned, but it would have been a more
exaCl tranflation ' rie fliall be put to death.
Such are the objections which perfuade me to rejeCl Dr. Sykes's ac-"
count ofthe ftatute, whatever attachment I may have once had to it.
¦* I exprefs myfelf thus, becaufe fome of them, inftead of adopting
afcis fenfe, imagine the law regards men under capital fentence by it ci-

i65 A VINDICATION OF t. IL
verfe to treat of a very different kind oi hherem or
devotement, from that intended in the former verfey
even one by which perfons were feparated, not to
fceliglous ufes, but to excifion or Jofs ofillfe. And it
wUl feem lefs ftrarige, that the meaning of the term
ffiould vary in fuch manner here, when we confider
that the fame expreffion upon other occafions, com
prehends under it both a feparatlon to facred fervi-
,ces, and a, feparatlon to death, according to the diffe-' <
arent fubjeds to which it is applied. Thus it is incon-
¦teftably taken, Joffiua, vi. 17, 18. ' The city Jericho'
' ffiall be accurfed, ordevoted, as it is in the margin,
' hherem, even it and all which is therein to the Lord;
' only Rahab the hai'lot ffiall live, ffio and aU that
* are with her in the houfe, becaufe ffie hid the mef-
' fengers that we fent ; and you In any wife, keep
* yourfelves from the accurfed thing ¦-^i^MCT'^OT, left
* you make yourfelves accurfed (deftroy yourfelvesO
* tdhharimu, when you take of the accurfed thing:
' hahherem.' For here, all living creatures, whether
of the human or brute fpecies, with the exception of
Rahab and her famUy, were by divine order to be'
kUled; butthe gold and fUver, and like thIngs,,to be:
Til magiftrate, and provides, that no price ftiould be accepted as a ran-
fom for any perfon's life, who was in that fituation, under pretence
that he had been devoted to religious fervices, however it might anfwer
the rules for eftimation laid down in this chapter, ver. 2^-8. Such a
perfon was to be cut off notwithftanding, according to the decree ofthe
judge. So Selden ubi fupra p. 550, reprefents their notion, if I appre
hend him aright, and fpeaks of it as found inthe moft antient Jewifli-
bOoks, the fiabylonifli Gemara, and the Siphra, an antient commentarjf
on' Leviticus fo named ; atid as embraced by feveral Rabbis of great re-*
fmtatioh in later times, as Mairaonide*, Mieotzi^ Jflrshi, ®ech*i/ amrf
-¦rttbers.

I».IL THE SAGRED BOOItS. i6i
feferved unto pious ufes. Accordingly, it is faid ver.
1 9. after the general declaration now recited, ' All
' the filver and gold are confecrated, more ftridly
* are holinefs, to the Lord,' which is the very phrafe
in ver. 28. of this chapter; and When the Ifraelites
became mafters ofthe city, we are told ver. 21,' They
* utterll- deftroyed iahhdrimu all that was in the ci-
' ty, both men and women, young and old, and ox,
* andffieep, andafs, -vrith the edge of the fword,' ver.
2 9, * And thfey burnt the city with fire, and all that
* was therein ; only the filver and the gold, and the
' veffels of brafs and iron, they brought into the
' houfe of the Lord,' This chafige of fenfe moreover,
from a feparatlon unto religious ufes, to a feparatlon
unto the abfolute lofs of Ufcj is fufficiently Intimat-'
ed by the finiffiing claufe in the paffage under our
confideration, (which if 1 am not miftaken hath been
manifefigd in the laft note to be incapable of any 0-
ther interpretation than ' He ffiall be furely flain,'
or ' He ffiall be furely put to death,') fince it ffiews
that the hherem defcrlbed In it, inferred an exclfioit
by 'Violence from the land of the Uving, "whUe the
hherem fpoken of in the foriner verfe, only iffued In
a perpetual and unaUenable fiate of hoUnefs unto the
Lord. But though the Jewiffi dodors have commonly
interpreted, as hath been faid, the hherem or devote
ment here, of a feparatlon to be cut off, they never ,
fuppofed it was the Intetition of the law to fay, that
a man with validity might devote, and with acceptance
before God kiU another, according to his fancy and
humour ; No. How indeed could they lodge a right
«»f this kind in any Jew, when, as was ffiewed, they
L

i62 A VINDICATION OF P.H.
do not even aUow to a Hebrew mafter^ the power of
life and death over his GentUe Have? Now, a de
votement Is only made with binding force, to the ex
tent of a man's title of difpofal ; and procedure ac
cording to it Is only juft, in the fame proportion,
thefe rights being exadly paramount or equal to one
another. They therefore limited and reftrained this
ftatute about devoting unto death, with a legal ef
fed of exclfion, in refped of the perfons who were
the -f fubjeds of it ; and fo would I, though with
fome little alteration. For I fuppofe it to relate to
none but thofe, whofe Uves were appointed by God
to be deftroyed. Thus the Amalekites, and aU the
Canaanites who woul4 not confent to terms of peace,
were to be put to death by God's exprefs command^
f Thefe Jewifti commentators make enemies and contemners of pu
blic authority in general, the proper fubjeCts of devotement, and alfo, for^
moft part at leaft, make it neceffary the devotement ftiould proceed from
perfons vefted with magiftracy and rule, or from the whole congrega
tion of Ifrael ; I fay for the moft part, becaufe if I underftand Abarbi-
nel in Pirufli Thorah, foi. 27 J. col. 2. as qiioted and commented up
on by Selden, De Jure Nat et Gent. 4. 10 page J49. he expounds
it even of an individual's devoting unto death a perfon whofe life was
forfeited. For he fpeaks thus, ' In priori commate devovens fit, qui de-
' vovetid quod fuis effet in bonis, (n pofteriori commate devovens fit,
* qui vovet homines qui fui quidem non effent, tametfi ita in devoven"
' tis poteftate haberentur, ut ex jure belli feu militia fingulari fuum for-
' tiretur effeClum devotatio ipfa ' Again, ' Hujus fpeciei erat anathertia
* Hierichuntis. Si nempe inciderit in poteftatem cujufpiam Ifraelitae vi-
' ta homlnis, ex iis qui ibi caper^-ntur, non poterit redirai, fed omnino
' morti tradendus erit ; nihilorainus, quod ad anathema illud, quo fer-
' vum fuum quis Domino devoverit, attinet, is morti tradendus non eft.
' Tantum is donarium eft, ut ligna difcindat, aquam hauriat, et facer-
' dotibus minifterium praeftet. Atque hie eft literalis loci fenfus.' Sff
likewife Bar Nachman, and others. I

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 163
Deut. vU, 2. xxv. 17, 19. I Sam. XV. 3. In the
fame manner, whoever ffiould Ue with a beaft, facri
fice to an idol deity, or commit certain other atroci
ous crimes, againft which capital puriiffiment was
denounced in the law, were to be cut off. They
therefore, who belonged to thefe claffes of men, or
who perpetrated thefe enormities, might be devoted
unto death without any injury or 'wrong to them.
And on account of the conformity and agreeablenefs
of fuch a meafure to the will of God, they might here--
on be faid to be devoted, or as the phrafe is in the book
of Joffiua, vi. 1 7 , about the Inhabitants of Jericho,
' To be accurfed, to the Lord.' And * concerning
fuch, when they had been devoted to death, I rec
kon the ordinance here to be enaded, ' None de-
* voted who is devoted of men, ffiall be redeemed,
* but ffiall furfely be put to death.'
Is it objeded, that where was a divine command
to deftroy life, a devotement by men would be need
lefs, wherefore it cannot be thought the ftatute be
fore us hath any reference to fuch a cafe ? I anfwer,
this does not follow ; Even where was an obnoxi-
* To reftriCt it to them, feems to me far more reafonable, than to
extend it as the Jews do, to all foes ofthe ftate, and to all who might
have incurred a fentence of death by the violation of fome public e-
diCt, whether of the king, or ofthe fanhedrim, or ofthe whole con
gregation, to which a capital fanCtion had been annejied ; for might
not perfons engaged in war againft the ftate, have fometimes right on
their fide ? and might not fuch edicts be fometimes foolifli and injudi
cious, tyrannical and oppreffive, fo that the tranfgreffion of them would
not merit the lofs of life ? and can we fuppofe God would ratify a
TOW of deftroying men in thefe circumftances ? Surely not. The hif
tory of Saul and Jonathan will very well ilJuftrate the fentiment here,
and evince the abfurdity ofthe interpretation to which i: is oppofed.
L 2

1^4 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
oufnefs to fuffer death, through a previous order of
God to kill men, or an antecedent declaration by^
him that they ought to be flain, a devotement might
be ufed, the more effeduaUy to fecure obedience to
the divine 'wUl, againft all temptations from motives
of pity or confideratloUs of intereft to tranfgrefs it,
by fparing their Uves that were under fuch doom ;
for do not men often bring themfelves under additi
onal- obUgations by vow, to pradife what is already
duty by God's- requiremeiit, who is their fupreme
fovereign, the better to fecure their perfOTmance of
it amidft inducements to its negled ?- Whichis more,
and fuUy expofes the 'weaknefs of this reafonlng, we
firid in fad, a human vow of deftrudion fometimes
interpofed, where was an adual liablenefs before to
be cut off, from God's antecedent diredion. Thus Ifra
el vowed a vow unto the Lord, and faidl, ' If thou
' wilt indeed deliver this people' (the people of Arad
the Canaanite,) ' into my hand, then I will utterly
* deftroy hehharemti them, and their cities.' And
they aded fuitably hereunto, for ' When the Lord
' hearkened to the voice of Ifrael,' in this vow of kil-' ,
Ung thefe Canaanites, which the reader muft perceive"
was only a vow to ad as God had enjoined them,
' And delivered them up Into their hands, they ut-
' terly deftroyed iahhcrem them, and their cities;
' and they caUed the name of the place Hhormah,'
a curfe and devotement, or a curfed and devoted
thing. Numb. xxi. 2, 3. Nor may it be Improper'
to compare the hiftory. Judges, xxi. 5. where we'
read, ' The congregation had made a great oath con-
' cerning, him that came not up to the Lord to MIz-
' pehy Upon the public authoritative fummon's to

P.IL THE -SACR.ED BOOKS. 165
arms, that they might puniffi the tribe of Benjamin
for refufing to animadvert on the men of Gibeah,
after their barbarous ufage ofthe Levite's concubine,
' Saying, " He ffiall furely be put to death." jthe bet
ter to guard againft indulgence to the offenders, tho*
xUfobedlence to fuch fummons muft have been by
the conftitution capital.
Is it urged farther againft this interpretation, that
Mofes muft he thought here to intend the devote
ment of perfons who were private property by their
owners, which thofe Amalekites and Canaanites, and
thofe malefadors that were fentenced to fuffer exci
fion by God, were not? I reply, It is very true that in
the preceding verfe Mofes fpeaks concerning that
which an individual ffiould devote to the Lord, or fe
parate for religious ufes, out of his fubftance and pof
feffion, whether field, or beaft, orman. But it cannot
hence be concludedj that in this verfe alfo he fpeaks
concerning an individual's devotement of a man to
death that belonged to him, or made part of his e-
ftate. For no mafter had a legal right to take away
the Ufe of his flave when he inclined; far lefs there
fore a parent to take away that of a fon or daugh
ter at pleafure: and leaft of all, a citizen to take
away that of a neighbour according to his conveni
ence or inclination. Befides, the words are not re
peated here which are found in the 2 8 th verfe J, and
which require us to underftand the fubjed of de-
ptement therein mentioned, to be private property.
X Guffetius, that celebrated critic, (who having been forced to
quit France, like many other learned Proteftants, by the repeal of the
edict of Nantes, was firft njinifter ofthe French church at Dort in Hol
land, and afterwards profeflbr of theology, and ofthe Greek language,
L 3

i66 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
Once more, is it infifted on, that it is taking too
great Uberty and freedom to introduce fuch a limi
tation of the fubjed of devotement here fpoken of,
as ' Appointed or doomed to die by the wUl of God,'
and the like ? It is eafy to anfwer, fome refhidion
muft be admitted by all, unlefs they wiU make this
ordinance of Jehovah, to fignify that every man de-
votedto death by another, however innocent and
ufeful, yea however independent upon him, and
exempt from his jurifdidion and authority In other
matters, ffiould hereon fuffer exclfion without reme
dy or prevention. But this is a fenfe fo fubverfive of
all order and happinefs in fdciety, and fo repugnant
to that found wifdom and underftanding, in general
confpicuous through the Mofaic fyftem of legiflation,
in a word, fo wild and abfurd, that methinks any
perfon ffiould be affiamed to maintain it as the ge
nuine one. Since then fome Umitation muft be ad
mitted, why not this, by which the meaning of the
ftatute becomes rational, and all the Inconveniencies
of that interpretation are avoided? Are we not often
obUged in like manner to acknowledge fome elUp-
fis ? or, which is the fame thing, to fupply fome word
in other laws delivered to the Jewifh natipn, that
we may render them equitable in their nature, and
in the univerfity of Groningen, till his death) in his Commentary on
the Hebrew tongue, builds fo much on the omiffion of thefe words,
•ivhich is his, in this 29th verfe, when they occur in the former, as to
exprcfshimfelfthus, if I may rely upon Michaehs's quotation of him
upon the place, " Omne devotum," omne fcilicet aliud quod non eft
• de propriis viri, ut erat ver. 28. quod anathema fit fecundum voca-
' bulum Dei.' And perhaps from thefe laft words I may have taken
the hint of my explication.

p. IL THE SACRED BOOKS. ^6^
confiftent with the peft? For inftance, what ftrange
contradidion woiUd foUow, and what inffidion of
death, where it was not deferved, would be enjoined,
without having recourfe to this In Numb, xxxv, 30.
'¦ Whofo kUleth any perfon, by the teftimony of wlt-
* neffes ffiaU the killer be kUled,'? For fo runs the
original UteraUy, though our tranflators have pru
dently fubftituted, for the term killer, the wprd mur
derer, whl(ph word always carries In it the idea of
atrocious guilt. Both common fenfe, and other re
gulations of the legiflator, ffiew (hat not every per
fon who takes away the Ufe pf another, which may
be done, in fome fituations and circumftances, very
innocently, nay commendably; but a perfon who
deftroys the life of another, unjuftly and prefump-
tuoufly, is here alone defigned, Neverthelefs, we do
not fall into any miftake about the fcope and import
of that ordinance, nor raife any perverfe inferences
from the general form of it, whatever handle there
may be, from the application of the term elfewhere,
to kUUng according to demerit, Pf IxU. 3 . and to kU
ling unawares and by chance, w^ithout any ill inten
tion, Deutfiv. 42. xxv, 26 — 28. xix. 4-6, &c. Why
then wUl we not exercife the fame fairnefs and candour
here, and admit alfo a reafonable Umitation of this
determination? ' None devoted, who Is devoted of
* men, ffiaU be redeemed, put Ihall furply be put to
* death,' Thus I have laid before the reader my expUcation
of the ftatute, which, thpugh it hath fome refem
blance to that which many learned Jews have given
pf it, is in reality different. And if the light in which
J have placed it be a juft one, how plain muft it bo
1^ 4

i68 A VINDICATION OF P,IL
there is no reafon to fay, that Mofes by it enjoined
the deftrudion of mens Uves whenever any fhould
make a vow to that purpofe? and how evident there
is ftUl lefs ground to complain, that he ordered thenj
to be facrificed? For there Is npt Pne word concernr
ing oblation upon the altar here at all. Nor is there
any appearance, through the whole hiflory of the
nation, that any human creature, upon fuch devote-
rnent as is called hherem, was eyer prefented to God
as a yldtim, On the contrary, rnen that were the
fubje£J:s of it, were flain with the edge pf the fvyord,
as the inhabitants of Jericho and Amalek, Joffi. vi.
1 7 — 2 I , and i Sam. xv, 2 i . The difquifition about
the meaning of this law, hath indeed been long. But
1 could not well ffiorten it in confiftence with my
aim, which 'was to overthrow the invidious gloffes
that have been affixed tp it, and been matter pf tri
umph to infidels and fceptics, as well as of trouble
and grief to beUeverg, — tp examine the merits of
other explications, which have been propofed for
preventing the Jnfults pf the enemies of revelation',
and removing the difquietude of its friends, — and to
open and fupport in the beft manner I could, what
feemed to me a more dextrous and unexceptionable in
terpretation thereof;for which reafon, Ihope, theread-
er wUl excufe its prolixity. If he approve my hypothec
fis, he wUl not think this labour ill beftowed. If not,
as indeed about points of this nature, a diverfity of
critical judgment may ftiU be expeded, he wiU have
here rqet with an account of the various folutlons
of the difficulty created by this law, which learned
and thoughtful men have advanced, and may put of
them aU choofe what feems preferable; as it muft,.

F.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. i6p
from what hath been faid, appear moft unreafonable
to put upon It the fenfe of our authpr, and other
fcoffers at the Sacred Books.

^ refledion upon the differences of opinion among learned
men about the meaning of this law,
I WILL only add, by way of conclufion here ; that
there are difficulties in afcertalnlng the original in
tention and fenf^ of this ftatute, and thence a varie
ty of opinions among divines concerning it, need
not be much wondered at. In like manner, there are
intricacies in fome of the laws deUvered by the de
cemvirs to the Roman people, and, on this account,
a wide difference between the fentiments of cl-rillans
and critics about their import. That I may not ap
pear to throw out this affertion without reafon, I
will mention two examples. But I doubt not that
they are, who are better acquainted with publications
at home and abroad, relative to thefe laws of the
twelve tables, as they are called, can eafily produce
other ftatutes among them which are obfcure, and
as to their meaning much controverted.
The one is thelaw about puniffiing theft,upon fearch
and difcovery of the ftolen goods, by the lanx and li-
cium, ' Sifurtum lance licioque conceptum efcit, atque
* uti manifeftum vindicator,' * For about Its fenfe
the learned have been much divided, fonie with Fefr-
* See Aulus Gellius, lib. 2. cap. 1 8. who alfo informs us the in-
Yeftigation of thefts, by the method here defcribed, was gone in»u
jdifufe in his time. i6. 10. ' ftjrtorun? quaeftiones per lanceja et lici-*
' pm eraniierunt,'

170 A VINDICATION OF P, IL
tus, making the licium the cindure of any perfijn
who entered another man's houfe, to try whether
goods, which had been clandeftinely carried away
from the proprietor, were lodged in it, whUethe lanif
was fome plate which he held before his eyes, from
refped tothe females that might dwell there; others
judging the licium the habit of the priefts alone when
they went upon the errand of deteding a thief, and
the lanx fome plate, in which, for ceremonies fake,
they concealed bread feafoned 'with the ftone caUed
f aetites, with intention of Offering it to any fuf
peded perfon : and many explaining it ftill different?
iy, as Gothofred mentions J no fewer than four no^
tions about it, and fince his time mpre have been
ftar ted.
The other law is that about the treatment of the
infolvent debtpr, which is alfp preferved to us by the
fame author *, And it may be thought more appo-i
fite, as, like that of Mofes, it hath received an inter
pretation very cruel and inhuman. This -writer firft
tells us, that any perfon who owned, or was con
vided of the debt for which he was fued before the
magiftrate, had a truce of thirty days for paying it;
— that if he did not offer the money , pr give feeurity
and baU to find it, at his citation before the praetor,
when thefe days were ended, he luight be carried
away to the creditor's houfe, as to a Bridewell, or
f This ftone was fo named becaufe faid to be found in every ea-i
gle's neft : ^nd it was believed, as Diofcorides tells us, to have the
extraordinary and peculiar virtue of difcovering and catching thieves.
X Gothofred ad Itiftitut. lib. 4. tit. 1. De Obligationibus ^«ae es
delicto nafcuntur. 1
* A«1hs Gellius, lib. 20. cap. 1.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 17.1
houfe of corredion, and there be bound with fetters
not below f fifteen pounds weight, where he might
Uve at his own expence if he pleafed, but, if not,
could only claim from his mafter a pound of flour
in the day, which was the allowance of flaves ; and
in this ftate he was to continue fixty days, unlefs he
made an agreement or compofition with his credi
tor: — that during this interval he was to be brought
forth into the comitium, before the praetor, three
fucceffive market days | ; and proclamation was to
-be made what fum he was fentenced to pay. Then,
.adds GeUius, I ffiould rather fay Sextus CecUIus the
la-wyer, who is introduced by him as interlocutor in
a dialogue -with Favorinus the phUofopher, through
the whole account of the regulations upon this head,
' Tertlis autem nundlnis capite poenas dabant, aut
' trans Tigrim peregre venum dabant. — — Quod fi
* pluribus fuerit judlcatus, fecare fi veUent et partiri
' corpus addlcti fibi homlnis, permiferunt. Et qui-
' dem verba Ipfa legis dicam ne exiftimes Invidiam
' me iftam forte formidare. " Tertiis, inquit, nun-
*' dinis partis fecanto ; fi plus minusve fecuerint fe
" (i. e. fine) fraude efto." But thefe words of the
law have given rife to great difputes ; for fome ex
pound them to fignify, that the poor debtor was to
be put to death ; and if he was adjudged to feveral
creditors, to be quartered into fo many, parts as were
-^qual to their number: for which indeed they have

f Some read the text, not above i j pounds weight,
. X Thefe nundinae, or market-days, returned every ninth day. So
-Dion Gaffius exprefsly tells us, lib. 40. cap. 47. edit. Reimar, H
ttyofx nlioc ruy Wia net rjni^m uyopnya. Page 251.

172 A VINDICATION OF P. II,
the authority of this Cecilius*, of QumtUian, and of
TertulUan, But others, anxious to vindicate the
Romans from that charge of barbarity which this
interpretation tends to fix upon them, explain the
terms of the ftatute only, to denote that he was to
be degraded from the ftate of a freeman into that of
a flave, and to labour for the benefit of his creditpr j
or, If he had feveral creditors, to be fold for their ad
vantage, and they to ffiare the price of his perfon
among them. If any, however, did not put in his
claim, he was to blame himfelf; the intereft of the
reft could not fuffer through his negled. So Bynker-
ffioek, Helneccius, and Dr. Taylorfof Cambridge, to
omit others.
Now furely. If there are not wanting perplexities
and difficulties in the laws pf the decemvirs to the

• That Cecilius underftpod it fo, if it be not plain from tho ]
recited, is abundantly manifeft by thefe his other words, which I o-
mitted after ikant, ' Sed eam capitis poenam horrificam atrocitatis
* oftentu novisque terroribus meluendam reddidit ;' and by the reflec
tion he fubjoins, ' Nihil immitius profeCto,' though he acknowledges it
was never executed in one inftance. The fame thing appears concern
ing Quintilian, who, in his Inftit. Orator, lib. 3. cap, 6. writes thus,
* aunt enim quaedam non laudabilia natqra, fed jure conceffa, ut in du-
* odecim tabulis debitoris corpus inter creditores dividi licuit, quam le-
' gem mos publicus repudiavit.' And fays TertulUan, when he is de
claiming upon the changes which the Roman laws had undergone, A-
polog. cap. 4. ' Sed et judicatos retro in partes fecari a creditoribus le-
• ges erant. Confenfu tatien publico crudelitas poftea erafa, et in pur
' doris notara capitis poena converfa.'
"t" See Bynkerflioekii Obfervationes, and Taylor's Commentarius ad
L. Dtcemviralem de Inope Debitore in partes fecando, Cantab. 1 742.
where he contends for this fenfe from the gentlenefs of the Roman laws
in general : the obfoletenefs of the words in which the laws of the
twelve tables were expreffed, together ^ith the difufe of fome of th«ii^

P.lli THE SACRED BOOKS. 173
Romans, it is not furprifing fuch ffiould be found to
attend this, as weU as fome other ordinances in the
Mofaic code, when we confider that the Jewiffi law
giver Uved in times much more remote, and that
there are ndt equal affiftances for inveftlgatlng the
real defign of every ftatute promulged by him, as
there are for difcovering the intention of thefe other
leglflators, by thd many Roman authors, whofe writ
ings are conveyed down to us ; and who, if they lived
not while their regulations were in daily execution,
lived,one would think,when the remembrance thereof
could not be altogether loft and obliterated. I needed
not, however, to have gone fo far back as the laws of
the decemvirs. — There are, I beUeve, in ftatute books
far more modern, paffages which are dark and ob-
fcure^ fo that thofe who are beft able to judge, are
not agreed about the certain and determinate mean
ing of them, but have much debate concerning it.
Nor is it a circumftance pecuUar to codes of laws ;
but common to aU antient writings whatever. This
perplexity therefore, in the ordinance about devote
ment, and thefe different comments and expofitions,
to which the fame hath given rife, fhould not offend
us, far iefs lead us to form any conclufion to the pre
judice of the authority of that body of laws in which
it occurs. Of the divine original hereof there may
be good evidence, whatever claufes may be therein
found ,that are hard to be underftood in thefe later,
ages, and occafion difputes among us about their fenfe
lUce the prefent one,/ even as there may be fufficient
before the times of Gellius and Quintilian : and the milder acceptatioa
which the terms admit, caput being often put for a man's liberty, and
partes for a (hare of his fabfl;ance-or fervice.

174 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
proof of the eftabUffiment of a ftatute book in any
kingdom or realm, though there are obfeurities in it^
and therefore controverfies about its expofition.
Meantime, they exercife our diligence, try our can
dour, and ferve to abate our pride and vanity.
SECTION vn.
Of Mr. Voltaire's faying, That Jephtha facrificed his
daughter, and Samuel Agag, by virtue of the law
in Leviticus, in feveral places of his Works ; and
of his affirming. That Ezekiel promlfed the Jews
ffiould feaft upon human fleffi, in his Treatife on
Toleration.
IN the fame page of thd Philofophy^ of Hiftory^
which gave rife to our difcuffion of the fenfe of the
law in Leviticus xxvU. Mr Voltaire adds, as was al^
ready hinted, ' It is by 'rirtue of this law, that we
' find Jephtha facrifices his own daughter, and the
' prieft Samuel cuts into morfels king Agag,' This
remark he repeats, both in his PhUofophical f Didi
onary, and in his Dialogues and Effays JLIterary and
Philofophical : and he had propofed it before with an?
* Page 172.
f Article Jephtha, or Human Sacrifices, p. 226. 227. where hav-*
ing faid, ' Jephtha vowed his daughter for a burnt-offering, and per-
' formed his vow,' and then expreffed himfelf about the Jewifli law irf
Leviticus, in the words before quoted p. 137. he fubjoins, ' In confe-
' quence of this law it was, that Samuel hewed king Agag in pieces,
' though Saul had fpared him.'
X Effay, of thejews, p. 58. after the paffage produced p. 141.
il follows, ' It was in confequence of this law, that Jephtha vowed and

P»IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 175
additional argument to prove that the Jews took de
light in human facrifices, in his Treatife on Tolera
tion, § thus, ' It is evident that the Jews offered hu-
• man facrifices to God, witnefs that of Jephtha's
' daughter, . and of king Agag hewed in pieces by
' the prophet Samuel ; and we find the prophet Eze-
' kiel promifing them by way of encouragement^
* that they ffipuld feaft upon human fleffi, " Ye ffiall
" eat of the fleffi of the horfe, and of his rider, and
" ye ffiall drink the blood ofthe princes ofthe earth,"
' Ezek. xxxix. 49.' There alfo he obferyes In a note,
' The death of Agag king of the Amalekites may be
* looked upon as a real facrifice. Saul had made this
* prince a prifoner of war, and had admitted him
* to a capitulation, notwithftanding that the prieft
* and the prophet Samuel had charged him to fpare
* no one, faying to him exprefsly, " Go, and fmite
"Amalek, and'utterly deftroy all that they have,
" and fpare them not, but .flay both man and wo-
" man, infant and fuckling, ox and ffieep, camel
" and afs. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before
" the Lord." In this melancholy adventure, we have
' a vow, a prieft, and a vidim, confequently it Is a
' real facrifice.'
But is there not here alfo much caufe of com
plaint againft Mr, Voltaire, for unfair deaUng with
the facred 'Writers?
As to Jephtha's daughter, whofe hiftory is record
ed Judges, xi, 2 9 — 40. it is ftiU a great queftion a-
mong learned Jews and Chriftians, whether he vow-
' butchered his daughter, and that Samuel the prophet hewed king A-
* gag Saul's prifoner in pieces,'
§ Chap. 12. page 167.

176 A VtNDICAtlON GF P.IL
ed to kill her on the altar, or to confecrate her to
attend the tabernacle through life in a ftate of celi
bacy; by confequence, whether he difpofed of her in
the one way or in the other. Nor do 1 think it need-'
ful here to decide the point, as it would require a"
long difcuffion. I am wUling to fuppofe at prefent,'
that Jephtha treated his daughter in like manner as
he would have done an animal from the herd or the
flock, which was an holocauft or burnt facrifice.
Nor indeed could deftroying her life in a different
form than with the rites and ceremonies of fucli an
oblation, ever be called deaUng with her according
to his vow, upon ^ that tranflation of the vow,
' Whatfoever cometh forth of the doors of my houfe
' to meet me, ffiall furely be the Lord's, and I will
* offer it up for a burnt-offering;' which for argu
ment's fake is now admitted to be the true one. Ne
verthelefs there is ftUl no reafon to blame the law in
Leviticus for his behaviour. For it hath been ffiewn
* Every one who is acquainted with Scripture commentaries, knows
that the words ofthe vow are otherwife rendered, fo as to make it
corifift of an alternative, ' V^^hatfoever cometh forth to meet nie —
* ftiall furely be the Lord's, or, I will offer it up for a: bur'ntf-offering.'
In purfuance of whicb disjunctive fenfe ofthe particle, (Exod; xii. 4.-
xxi. rj, 17. Deut. xvii. i. 2Sam. ii. 19.&C.) many imagine Jeph
tha referved to himfelf the liberty of feparating any member of his
family that ftiould meet bim to attendance about the tabernacle, and
only engaged to make a holocauft or burnt facrifice of a brute ani
mal, if that ftiould firft occur to him at his return. Accordingly, they
think Jephtha fet apart his daughter to fuch mmiftrations, inftead of
laying her as a victim upon God's altar, and that he was fo afliiCted
in the profpeCt of it as he appears to have been, becaufe hereby he
was cut off from all hope of pofterity ; withal, they adopt our mar'
ginal verfion of Judges, xi. 4a.

T.lh THE S'ACRED BOOKS. 177
that law was never intended to convey to parents a
power of taking away their chUdrens lives upon de
votement, at pleafure. If therefore he was aduated
by a regard to it, it muft have been after a perverfe
and wild Interpretation thereof; in this way how
ever, his criminal condud can no more 'with juftice
be charged upon it, than the fierce animofities about
dodrines among Chriftians can be imputed to the
gofpel, -which are only the accidental effeds of it
through their own evU paffions, or than the difeafes
of furfeiting and excefs can be imputed to corn and
wine, which are only the cafualrefult thereof through
mens intemperate and foollffi ufe of them. As theii
it would be ^vrong to cenfure Chriftianity and the
good creatures of God, for thofe things Of which
they are but the innocent occafion, fo Is It to arraign
and accufe the ordinance In Leviticus, for Jephtha's
butchery of his daughter. But indeed why ffiould
it be thought, that the recoUedion of that ftatute had
any Influence upon him at all? It does not contain
one word about putting the man or woman to death
in the ffiape of a burnt-facrifice, that ffiould be the
fubjed of devotement, as he is fuppofed to have done
her; befides, the word CD^in hherem, which Is the
term in the law for that devotement j or vow with an
execration and curfe that was Irredeemably fatal, ne
ver occurs even once through the whole hiftory of
Jephtha's forming and fulfilling his engagement ; and
yet it is unreafonable to think this would haVe hap
pened, had a reverence for it and a confideration of
its tenor and purport been the fource and fpring of
his procedure: ~)1J keder, which is the expreffion
jn the ritual for a reaeemable vow, is the word unl-
.M

T78 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
formly and invariably employed in t^e nan-ative of
the tranfadion ; fo that for any thing which appears,
he might if he had pleafed, notwithftanding his pro
mife, have faved his daughter's life, without any vi
olation of the rule ' Whoever is hherem devoted of
* men ffiall be put to death,' even although it had gi
ven power to a father upon a hherem or devotement
to kUl a fon or daughter, which it did not, becaufe
no hherem had been uttered or pronounced by him
about her. But it feems by fome principles he was led
to think it honourable to lofe her, as ffie herfelf, ac
cording to the hypothefis we reafon upon. Was -vril-
ling to be flain. Why then ffiould it have been faid
by Mr. Voltaire, that by virtue of the law in Leviti
cus Jephtha facrificed his daughter, when If ffie was
put to death, which I leave undetermltied, this law
never authorized it, and Indeed never feems to have
' been thought of through the ^ whole affair. Did not
* Some who have feen the learned Dr Randolph's ferrtron on Jeph
tha's vow before the univerfity of Oxford, June 8, 1766. or the ab-
ftraCt of it in the Reviews, may be of opinion I ought to have availed
myfelf of his explication. He turns the vow thus, ' Whatfoever com-
' eth forth ofthe doors of my houfe to meet me, ftiall furely be the
* Lord's, and IwiU offer to him (i e. to the Lord,) a burnt offering.' And
he underftands that Jephtha vowed two things, to dedicate whofoever
fliould come forth of the doors of his houfe to meet him to the fer
vice of the Lord, and likewife to offer on occafion of his victory a
burnt-offering to the Lord of fome clean beaft, fuch as the law allow
ed and God would accept, both which, he adds, he religioufly ptr-
formed ; that is, he deJi^oted his daughter to wait on the tabernacle
in a ftate of perpetual virginity, and brought fome brute animal fit for
facrifice from the fold or the ftall to God's altar. And the fame inter
pretation feems to have been formerly propofed in the Mifcellanea Gro-
ningana, publiftied under the care and direction of Dr, Gerdes, profe^
I

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 179
fuperftition often carry fome of the Jews to do vio
lence to the ftrongeft affedion of nature, I mean the

for of divinity at Groningen, though I do not fuppofe that Dr. Ran
dolph borrowed it thence ; for in the account given of a part of that
collection by the ACta Eruditorum Lipfiae, I739. are thefe words,
' Pag. 347. Judic. xi. 31. verbum Ip.TT'r'ym Vehagnalithihu, no-
' va interpretarione fie redditur, " Et offeram ipfi (i. e. Jehovae,) ho-
'¦ locauftum." Ac ita rrtagna hujus loci tollitur difficultas.' I will there
fore briefly mention thefe reafons, which have offered themfelves to
me againft adopting it. Firft, it affords a ftrong prefumption that Jeph
tha's vow did not confift of thefe two branches which he attributes to
it, that the hiftorian, inftead of mentioning one fyllable about his offer
ing a brute facrifice on God's altar in conformity to it, fpeaks only of
his dealing with his daughter according to his vow, as if this was all
that was requifite to accomplifti it in its full extent, and no more had
remained to be done, in order to approve his fidelity therein. Nor would
it be a fufficient anfwer to this remark, to fay, ' The facred writer
' might negleCt to record his performance of his vow in this branch of
' it, becaufe every one would conclude his carefulnefs to fulfill it here,
' from his diligence to aCt agreeably to it, where it could not be veri-
' fied without offering the greateft violence to nature, by depriving his
' only child of life, or at leaft of all hope of iffue through his confignment
' of her to perpetual celibacy.' For it is the manner ofthe facred writ
ers to be more minute in their details, and to give us a particular re
lation how perfons of unfufpeCled piety obeyed God's commands in more
eafy inftances, after fliewing us their compliance with them in more
hard and difticult cafes, where were ftronger diffuafives from affeClion
and intereft, as may be feenby looking into the account of Abraham's be
haviour, Gen, xxii. i, 13. and into the ftory of Gideon and others.
But fecondly, the chief objection againft that explication is this, that it
affixes a fenfe to Jephtha's phrafe Vehagnalithihu, which is totally repug
nant to its conftant acceptation in the Bible. It is true, an ellipfis of the
prepofition which denotes the dative cafe between a verb and its fuflix
is not unufual, as indeed his examples of it are all right, except the
Jaft from Ezekiel, xxiv. 3. for here there is no fuflix at all, but a noun
following the verb apart, and the prepofition of the dative cafe aCtu:.l-
M 2

1 86 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
parental one, in dired contradidion to the moft per-*
emptory prohibitions of God's law, and the moft fe-
Iy intervening between them, fo far is it from being omitted. 7l[7Q
""IDn r\''3 ^N Majhel el beth hamori, ' Parable thou to the re-
' bellious houfe.' But then there is no inftance at all of fuch an eUip-
fis after the verb P\Py gnalah in a like ftate of conftruCtion through'
the whole facred book, though it occur fo often as ten times with the
fame fuffix which it hath here, and more than thirty times with other
fuffixes inits pages. Accordingly, its fuffixes, that is, the pronouns fub
joined to it, have always an acculative, and never a dative fignificatioBj
being turned refpeCtively us, thee, ine, him, or ;/, and them, as the
fenfe evidently required, inftead of /a us, to thee, to me, to him otto
it, and to thein. The DoCtor urges, I am aware, ' That if the pro-
' noun in hu had related to the perfon or animal who was to have
* come forth to meet Jephtha, and who was to have been offered up,
' the next word fliould regularly have been expreffed X~Wyf7 legne*
' lah, whereas now there is nothing in the Hebrew to anfwer the word
'for in our tranflation.' But there does not feem to be any folid foun
dation for this critical obfervation. For there arc not wanting inftances
where the fame viorAgnolah is undeniably introduced after averb,with
a nouti following- or preceding it, which expreffes the matter of the
burnt facrifice, without any fuch prefix as that which he makes neceffa
ry. Thus after ("""fWJJ gnafah, Levit. v. i o. xiv. 3 1 . xv. i j, Num,
viii. 12. XV. 8. where however our tranflators have inferted yir, as
if the prefix had been in the original, fo likewife after j''"lpin hikrib.
Numb, xxviii. 19. and even uRergnalah the verb here, I Sam. vi. 14.
for what we render, ' They offered the kine for a burnt-offering,' is
in the original Eth happaroth hagnalu gnolah lahovah, inftead of leg-^
nolah, and Ezek. xliii. 24. where what we turn ' They fliall offer theiB
' up for a burnt-offering to the Lord,' is in Hebrew, Hagnalu otham
gnolah (not legnolah) lahovah. Why then might it not be without the
prefix here alfo, though the pronoun hu, which makes the fuffix, mark
the object ofthe oblation, as in other places. Gen. xxii. 2. 13. i Sam.
¦vir. 9? Certainly every argument to the contrary from the analogy of
the language is hereby deftroyed. But which muft be ftill more deci
five, we have the fame verb with the fame fuffix conftrued without any
prefix ¦with gnolah, in the very fenfe beyond all controverfy, which our

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS, i8r
vere denunciations of his prophets, by burning their
fons and daughters to Molech ? and might not Jeph
tha alfo have purfued the meafures we fuppofe him
to havg taken from wrong principles, though not
countenanced by a divine precept ? But it feems un
neceffary to fpend more words in confuting the ca
vil. With regard again tp Samuel'^ hewing Agag in
pieces, or cutting him to pieces with a confecrated
cleaver, as-^he calls it, i Sam. xv. 33. there is ftill
lefs pretence fpr faying that It was done by virtue
of tfie law in Leviticus; for here there was no vow
pr devoting to deftrudion by Samuel or any other
man, which could oblige to cut off Agag in compli
ance with that requirement, though it had bore the
rneaning which our author afcribes to it. There was
only a divine order to fpare none of the Amal&kites,
but to flay thena utterly, -which Saul difobeyed in
faving their king's life, but Samuel fulfilled by tak
ing it away, as in verfes i - — 3 . and 18, 1 9 , If Sa
muel's adion be thus expreffed, " He hewed, or cleft
* him in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal,' It does
not Intimate he was made a vidim to pleafe him ; it
only fignifies that his life was deftroyed by Samuel
in zeal for the honour of God, and in follcitude for
verfion gives it in the place we h^ve been confidering. Thus it is faid
2 Kings, iii. 27. ' The king of Moab took his eldeftfon, and offered
* him for a burnt-offering upon the wall,' Ve iegnalehu gnolah, not le
gnolah; but I muft not enlarge. Thefe are principally the reafons, why
I tould not admit Dr. Randolph's ingenious explication, whatever ad
vantages in other refpeCts attend it.
* Philof. E)iCtionary, p. 223. for he touches the fame ftrings ovey
^nd over,
M 3

i82 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
his approbation and acceptance: neverthelefs this
inight not be by his own hand, but by the hand of
his fervants, as it is common In all languages to at
tribute to men thefe puniffiments which others in
ffid by their order, as well as thofe which themfelves
are the immediate inftruments of. Be it, that there
was an altar ereded to the Lord in Gilgal, the place
of Agag's death, i Sam, xi. 15. wUl it follow he
was offered upon it, though no facrifical term at all
be introduced in the account of his fate? It were
ridiculous to pretend It. Withal, it is to be remark
ed, there was no capitulation, as this denotes an af
furance of Ufe to Agag upon his furrender; for what
room for this, when he did not come into Saul's
hand voluntarily, but was a mere prifoner of war?
Nor indeed could Saul have made any promife of
that nature wliich would have been binding, fince
it would have been in oppofition to God's com
mand. It remains only to take notice of what our au
thor fubjoins about Ezekiel ; but what a proof is it
of his ftrong Inclination to traduce the Jewiffi people
•without any ground, as much as a carelefs reader
may be profelyted to his opinion by the found of
the quotation! It appears that the prophet in the paf
fage recited, (which however Is to be found not in
Ezek. xxxix. 49. but xxxix. 17.) introduces God
commanding him to addrefs, not the Jews, but the
carnivorous birds of the air, and ravenous beafts of
the field, and to invite them to a plentiful entertain
ment, after foretelling the overthrow of Gog's im
menfe army in the land of Ifrael, ' Speak thou fon
' of m^an, unto every feathered fowl, and to every

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 183
' beaft of the field, Affemble, affemble yourfelves
' and come, gather yourfelves on every fide tp my
^ facrifice that I dp facrifice for you, even a great
' facrifice upon the mountains of Ifrael, that ye may
* eat fleffi and drink blood. Ye ffiall eat of the flefli
' of the mighty, and drink of the blood of the prin-
' ces of the earth,  Thus ye ffiall be filled at my
* table with horfes and chariots, -with mighty men,
* and with all men of war, faith the Lord God, And
* I will fet my glory among the heathen, and all the
* heathen ffiall fee myjudgment that I have executed,
* and my hand that I have laid upon them,' How
ftrange malice to call this a promife that the Jews
ffiould feaft upon human fleffi ? How unaccountable
perverfenefs to alledge it as an e-ridence they took'
delight in human facrifices ?
SECTION vin.
of his affirming that the Jews immolated thirty-two
Midianite maids; and his throwing out feveral
afperfipns upon Joffiua, in the thirty-fixth chap
ter of the Philofophy of Hiftory, Where alfo his
infinuation againft Rahab, as If ffie had affifted the
Jews to furprife Jericho, and his refledion that
human facrifices were rarely pradifed among the
nations, in other treatifes, are occafionaUy ani
madverted on.
IN the fame pagef pf his Philofophy of Hiftory, Mn
Voltaire reprefents ' the Pentateuch to teU us, that
^hirty-two of thefe Midianite maids, whom they laved
t P?ge 172.
M 4

J §4 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
alive, were immolated,' The fame thing he has in
timated in his Treatife on Toleration J, but more
cautioufly, ' Several commentators wUl have it that
thirty-two of the young women were facrificed to
the Lord-' ' The Lord's tribute was thirty and two
perfons ,' Numb . xxxi .40.
But as I know no commentators who have given
this interpretation, fo nothing can be more injurious
to the facred hiftorian than to affirm, that thefe thir
ty-two maids were immolated, whether he means
by this phrafe that they were facrificed to the Lord, or
that they were put to death in any different form. It
is true the Lord fpake unto Mofes, Numb. xxxi. 1 5,
faying, ' Levy a tribute unto the Lord of the per-
* fons that conftitute or compofe the prey which be-
' longs to them that went out to the battle, and give
* it unto Eleazar the prieft, for an heave-offering un-
* to the Lord.' And, In purfuance of this order,
the hiftorian informs, that of the 16000 virgins
which were their portion that took the war upon
them, the Lord's tribute was thirty and two : and that
they were given, as the Lord's heave-offering, unto
Eleazar the prieft. But it does not follow they were
ilain as facrifices. At this rate it behoved us to main
tain, that the threefcore and one affes, which were
the Lord's tribute from the thirty thoufand and five
hundred of thefe animals that fell to the men of war
as their half of this article In the booty, were alfo of
fered as facrifices to Jehovah, becaufe they were like-!
wife given to Eleazar as the .Lord's heave-offering,
according tp the divine cpmmandment unto Mofes,
in the fame manner as the thUty and two maids wer^
X Chap. 12. page 166,

P, n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 185
given him: but how abfurd this, fince affes were iln-
elean creatures, which could not be prefented on
God's' altar at all? wherefore their firftlings were to
be redeemed, Exod. xIU. i 3. and Numb, xviii, 1 5,
Nor does it even foUow they were to be put to death
in a different ffiape, for things are faid to be a nQTin
terumah or heave-offering, which had no life to lofe,
as the firft cake of their dough, and the firft corn of
the threfliing-floor. Numb, xv. 19. and the Uke.
Moreover, heave-offerings were things and perfons
beftowed by God upon the priefts, for the fuftenance
^nd comfort of themfelves and their families, amidft
the difcharge of their facred office. See Numb. x-riU.
12 — 26. and Nehem, x. 35, xUi. 5, in which two
l-aft paffages, the word mfJIlD terumoth, tranflated,
the offerings of the priefts, ffiould have been, ftridly
turned, their heave-offerings; as again, it appears they
•were things depofited and lodged in certain chambers
about the temple for their ufe. Here then we arejuft
to underftand, that the Midianite girls were confe
crated to the fervice of the facerdotal order in their
fundions about the tabernacle. Fpr thus they were an
heaye-offering to the Lord, as the Levites were a wave-
offering to him, when deypted and feparated to its
minlftry in their province. Numb. viU, 11. So Ul
founded is our author's affertion that they were im-^
molated. *
* Mr. Voltaire, juft before the words here quoted from his Phir
lofophy of Hiftory, concerning the fate of thefe maids, calls this coun-.
try of Midian, where the Ifraelites are faid to have found 675000
ftieep, 72000 oxen, 61000 affes, and 32000 virgins, * a little cpun-
' try, which contains about nine fquare leagues,' with an evident defign
to perfuade his readers, that it was impoffible fo prodigious a booty
. Ihould be met with there, and thence to deftroy the credit of the fa*

1 86 AVINDICATION OF P.IL
In the next pagef, but the fame chapter ftUl, he
writes, ' That Joffiua made all the inhabitants of Je-
' richo periffi in the flames.' Is not this, however,
cred hiftory. But upon what authority doth he fix the dimenfions of
the country, againft the inhabitants of which the Ifraelites, under Mo
fes, now waged war, in the manner he hath done ? Midian, in the
larger fenfe, feems to have reached from the coaft ofthe Red fea to the
river Arnon, on the eaft of the Dead fea, or Afphaltic lake, as was ob
ferved already. Accordingly Jofephus places the Midian where Je
thro dwelt, and to which Mofes retired when Pharaoh fought to flay
him, Exod. ii. 13. on the border of the Red fea. Antiq. 2. 11. I,
Ef Ti TTo'Kiy MaS/Ki'Hi' a(pi>io/,i.iyo;, rrfo; rvi fiiv ipv^pa. ^aKatcn xei-
juiyny. Sec. But furely Midian, in this fenfe, which ought to have been
Mr. Voltaire's, from his afligning Jethro a refidence in it, as will be
feen immediately as well as the people by Arnon, was a country which
contained many more than nine fquare leagues ; for fo many are in a
country which is only three leagues, or nine miles broad, and three
leagues, or nine miles long, but the length and breadth of this far ex
ceeded. Even in the narrower acceptation again, which, I believe, is
that of the term Midian in Numbers, it furpaffed thefe dimenfions he
hath given it more than a little. Suitably, we find it was divided into
a kind of pentarchy then, or comprehended five kingdoms ; for fo ma?
ny kings of Midian are recorded to have been flain in the war^ Numb.
xxxi. 8. Joftiua, xiii. 21. He fubjoins alfo to the paffage recited, this
reflection, ' The remarkable part of this acknowledgment is, that this
' fame Mofes was a kinfman of Jethro, the high prieft of the Midian-
• ites, who had done him the moft fignal fervices, and heaped kind-
' neffes upon him.' And thus he would infinuate, that in the fevere
treatnient of the .Midianites, Moles aCted againft all the ties of grati--
tude and natural affedion. But befides that Mofes, ic the havock if
rael made among the Midianites, was only the executioner of a divine
order, which, wherever it is interpofed, fuperfedes all private obliga
tions to tendernefs, let it be obferved there was no fuch near con
nection between Jethro, whofe daughter Mofes had married, and thefe
nprthern Midianites, that is, thefe inhabitants of Midian in the more
¦j- Philofophy of Hiftory, page 173. '

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 187
in flat contradidion to Scripture, which relates that
the Ifraelites utterly deftroyed all Uving in the city,
except Rahab and her friends, with the edge of the
fword? Joffi. vi. 2 I. It Is true it Is faid afterwards
they burnt the city with fire, and all that was there
in ; but this muft be underftood, not with refped to
the inhabitants, of whom it is already affirmed they
were flain, but with refped to the houfes and fur
niture, under the reftridlon mentioned, ver. 24, 25.
Accordingly himfelf, In his Dialogues -[-, fays, ' The
* Jews put all to the fword in Jericho, having previ-
' oufly devoted them to deftrudion, except Rahab a
' harlot, who had affifted them in furprifing the town.'
Yet even here, where he ftates the fad aright, how
confined meaning ofthe word, with whom the Ifraelites fought, as our
author would lead us to fuppofe. It is true both dwelt in that region
which bore the general name of Midian ; but then this region was an
immenfe trafl of land, in which were feveral principalities or fovereign-
ties, with feparate, and, no doubt, fometimes jarring interefts. It may
be true alfo, that the progenitor of the fouthern Midianites, in the
neighbourhood of the Red fea, among whom Jethro prefided in fa
cred, or as others, from a different verfion of the title of his office,
think, in civil matters, and the progenitor of the northern Midianites,
whom the Ifraelites deftroyed, was the fame perfon, even Midian, a fon
of Abraham by Keturah, as from him the whole territory had its denor
mination. This union, however, iq Midian, as their common father,
as it was a thing which took place about 400 years before, would, by
this time, have loft all infliience upon their mutual conduCt, or reciproi
cal behaviour toward each other. — Jethro and the people, whpfe prieft
or ruler he was, were at a great diftance from the Midianites that were
fubdued by ifrael under Mofes ; and remote as they were from then^
in refpeCl of their feat or habitation, they were no lefs removed from
them, as was fliewed before, in their religious fentiments. See feClion
v. of this chapter, page 127. t Page 58.

i88 A VINDICATION OF P, JI,
unfair is he in defcrlbing Rahab's fervice ? For pne
would Imagine from his expreffion, that ffie had into
xicated the centinels, thereby difabUng them to found
an alarm, or that ffie had bribed them to fuffer their
enemies advances without giving any fignal of dan
ger, or that ffie had received up fome of the Ifraefite
foes at the back windows of her houfe, which feems
to have been contiguous to the wall pf the town,
or that ffie had in fome other bafe manner contri-;
buted to their becoming mafters of the place. The
cafe, however, was far otherwife. She had indeed
concealed two fpies whom Joffiua had made choice
of to go and examine the condition of the people in
the land, and fecured their efcape to the camp of the
Hebrews, which was ftill beyond the Jordan, againfl
all the attempts of the king's fearchers to intercept
and feize thein: but then then- getting poffeffion of
the city was not by any aid from her, but altogether
miraculous. For at the circumvedion of the ark the
feventh time, on the feventh day, while the princes
founded with rams horns, as had been done once
during each of the preceding fix days, and the be-
fiegers gave an unlverfal ffiout, the city wall feU, fq
that every man entered at the breach which was
next before him. See Joffiua, U. and vi. chapters.
He further adds, in his Philofophy of Hiftory f,
' That Joffiua devoted to death 12000 inhabitants
' of the city of AI.' But I dp not read of any vo-w
of their deftrudion at all, which muft be the fenfe of
devoting as his ad. And though hie had bound him-;
felf and his people thus tp their excifion, there W011I4
have been no fufficient ground for tliinking it prq^
t Page 173,

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 189
ceeded from a vindidlve temper, or from the rage
and hatred of an enemy. It might have been em
ployed from a pious principle, as an additional feeu
rity, amidft the reludancies of nature, for their ful
fillment of God's general order with reference to the
feven nations, upon their non-acceptance of their of
fers of peace, which was above in its fubftance pro-*
duced, and to his particular charge in this inftance,
Joffi. viii. 2. even as we fuppofe him aduated by
this motive in devoting Jericho, vi. 17. All that Jo
ffiua did in this cafe, was only to declare the divine
pleafure to the army, as a fubaltern officer carries to
his corps the mandate and diredion of the com
mander In chief, in confequence of which, all the
people of Ai were cut off, even 12000, Joffi. vui.
25527- Mr, Voltaire fubjoins ftill another charge | againft
him, ' He facrificed to the Lord thirty and two kings
' of the country, who were aU anathematized and
' hanged.' And he renews it in thefe terms, chap.
41,1 where Indeed, as appears from Joffi. xU, 2 4, he
gives a jufter account of the number of kings that
loft their Uves by his means, ' He hanged up thirty
* kings, and one of the principal burgeffes, who had
* dared to defend their firefides, their wives, and their
* chUdren.' Of this explication I cannot however make
4ny fenfe, unlefs we read thirty-one principal burgef
fes, as to be fure thefe kings could not have autho
rity over any extenfive diftrid ; which Mr. Voltaire
himfelf owns to have been the cafe with kings in an
tient times : for in this fame treatife, fpeaking of the
Ilomans, he fays, ' Their territories, in the time of
X Page 173. I Page 192, 193.

I90 A VINDICATION OF P. II.
' theu- kings and firft confuls, were not fo extenfive
* as thofe of Ragufa. We muft not, by the title of
' king, underftand a monarch fuch as Cyrus and his
' fucceffors.' And how ufeful would it be to recoi
led this when perfons read of feveral kings in a fmaU
country in Scripture! But why does he fay fo ma
ny kings of Canaan were anathematized and hanged
by him, as thirty-one? In the Bible it is only faid
concerning fix of them, that he hanged them on
trees ; of the reft it is affirmed, that he fmote them
and flew them with the edge of the fword. Nor were
any of them all anathematized by him, that is, de
voted to death by any vow or curfe on his part, fy
far as we know, except the king of Jericho, though
they were all fubjeded to lofe their lives. Why far
ther does he fay, they were facrificed to the Lord by
him? Though they were deftroyed In obedience to
his command, they were not laid as vidims upon
his altar. It was ffiewed before, that fuch human fa
crifices to him were moft ftridly prohibited, Deut. xii.
29, 31. with which alfo xviU. 10. may be compar
ed ; and there is not one phrafe In the narrative which
authorizes to conclude, that the effufion of their blood
and extindion of their life was confidered In'this light,
I may even produce Voltaire | againft himfelf here, fof
in another work he afferts, ' Jephtha's daughter and
* king Agag, are the only two human facrifices we
* meet with among the Jews,' which ffiould be re
membered whenever he fpeaks, as in the paffage un
der confideration, of more of our fpecies being facri
ficed by them ; there being a plain inconfiftency here.
Should any in his defence fay, his meaning is, that
X Philofophical Dictionary, article Religion, page 320.

P,IL THE SACRED BOOK'S. 191
thefe two only of the Jewiffi nation were facrificed,
wherefore he might, 'without Incurring any charge
of felf-contradidion, reprefent the Canaanites to
have been facrificed by Joffiua here, as he does
afterwards the GIbeonites to have been facrificed by
Dayld, they forget that, according to this fenfe of the
expreffion, Agag could not be called a facrifice among
the Jews at all, becaufe he was a foreigner as well as
thofe kings of Canaan, for he was king of the Ama-
leldtesi Whereas, however, he adds in the work*referred
to, ' Human facrifices have been introduced almoft
* among all nations, but very rarely were they prac-
' tifed, — The Grecian ftory of Ipbigenia is not tho-
' roughly verified. Human facrifices are very rarely
* heard of among the Romans. In a word, very Uttle
' blood has the Pagan religion ffied,' It may not be
improper to obfei-ve, that this account feems to be
far from a juft reprefentation of the fad. It will be
found on the contraiy, that there was much effufi
on of blood this way. He himfelf -writes elfewhere in
the fame-)- piece, ' At Hierapolis in Egypt, Porphyry
* tells us It was nothing extraordinary to facrifice
* men. In Tauris ftrangers Were facrificed, but this
' favage cuftom being known, the priefts of Tauris,
* it Is to be fuppofed, did not much bufinefs. This
* execrable fuperftition prevailed among the antient
* Gr'eeks, the Cypriots, the Phoenicians, the Tyrians^
' and the Carthaginians, The Romans themfelves
' gave into this religious guUt, and according to Plu-
¦* tarch, facrificed two Greeks and two Gauls, to ex-
• philof. Diction, ibid. 320.
'J- Ibid. Articles Idol, Idolater, &c. p. 932^

192 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
' plate the incontinence of three veftals. Procoplus,
* who was cotemporary with Theodobert king ofthe
* Francs, fays that the Francs facrificed men, on their
* entrance into Italy under that prince. Thefe hor-
* rid facrifices were common among the Gauls and
' Germans.' And yet even here, where he is more
full and particular, he does not at all give his readers
an adequate view of the prevalence of human vic
tims in the heathen world, and of the quantity of
human blood thereby ffied* He makes Porphyry on
ly teU US, that it was nothing extraordinary to fa
crifice men in Egypt ; but that phUofopher informs
us from Manetho, that there three men were facri
ficed every day to Juno, if * Eufebius underftood
him aright. Again, he leads to think, that none were
facrificed in Tauris but ftrangers that appeared there
of choice, who he rightly fuppofes would be very
few, after the barbarous cuftom was known, the
love of Ufe being natural to every man ; but it Is cer
tain it was alfo the fate of fuch as were ffiip-wreck-'
ed on their coaft, or forced to take ffielter there
through any misfortune, — ^He omits further iii his
catalogue, many nations who pradifed this cruel
mode of worffiip, as the Rhodians, the inhabitants
of the iflands Chios and Tenedos, the Lefbians, the
lonians, the Syrians in Laodicea, the Dumatians id
Arabia, the Indians, the Arcadians, the Albanians^
the Thracians, the Scythians, the Britons, &G, Fi-^i
nally, he neither ffiews us the meafure of frequency
with which human facrifices were offered by the
people among whom he owns they obtained, nor
* Praep. Evang. 4, i6. throughout. Clem. Alexand. ProttegU-
eon, five Exhort, ad Centes, p. 27.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 193.
what number of vidims -vVere brought by them td
the altar, Neverthelefs, it is plain from the moft clear
teftimonies concerning fome nations, and probable
from the manner of expreffion which Is ufed about
the pradtice of others, where fuch human vidims
were introduced, that they immolated them once e-
very year on the return of thefe different anniverfary
feftivals, which their various fuperftition had thus
dreadfully confecrated. — That in feveral places, mpre
perfons than one, vrithout exception ofthe moft inno
cent age or the moft elevated rank, had life deftroy
ed by a pubUc ftanding ordinance or law on the hor
rid folemnlty, — and that in times of general danger
or diftrefs, through war, peftUence, or fimUar caufe,
great multitudes were flain by fome nations, to a-
vert and appeafe the anger of their deities. So we
read, that the Carthaginians, when they werebefieg-
ed by Agathocles tyrant of Sicily, about 315 years be
fore Chiift, facrificed two hundred of their moft diftin
guiffied and Uluftrious,and thereafter an equal or fupe
rior number of their meaner and J poorer youth. Even
among the Romans, it was an antient cuftom to throw
thirty men bound hand and foot into the Tiber, as a
i^erifice to Saturn, though in room hereof was fub-
X Ibid, and Diodorus Siculos, &c. By an antient law, they were
enjoined to facrifice to Saturn, only cbildren of noble birth ; but for
^ome time paft, they had been accuftomed to fubftitute in their room
children of mean parentage, fecretly bought and educated for that pur
pofe; fo ineffectual had Gelo of Sicily's treaty been, who made it a
term or condition of granting them peace more than an hundred years
before, that they ftiould abftain from offering human facrifices, — and
now, to make atonement for this crime, they prefented that immenfe
number of victims. See Plutarch. Apophthegm,N

194 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
ftltuted afterwards, the annual ceremony of cafting fo
many images of men in the fame drefs or habit, into
theftream of that river, about the time of half-moon in
the month of May, which Dionyfius f of Halicarnafs^
who flouriffied In the reign of Auguftus, andf Plu
tarch, who Uved fo late as 150 years after Chrift,
both report to have been ftUl obferved In their days.
— The facrifice, moreover, of two Greeks and twd
Gauls was not offered merely once by them, as one
would be led to imagine from ©ur author's words,
but renewed year after year from the era of the pol
lution of thefe veftal virgins, (whether they wer6 three
according to Plutarch^ or two according to Livy, is not
very material,) and of the public calamities which
fucceeded it, tUl a century and a half after our Savi-*
our's birth was paft, as appears by the fame ¦'^^ Plu
tarch's telUng us, that fuch perfons were buried aUve
in the ox-market, during the month of November,
in his time.-^There was alfo a man facrificed every
year in Rome on the feftival of Jupiter Latiaris, id
late as the age of Porphyry + and LadantiuS, if we
may credit the accounts by them, and other inter
mediate or cotemporary writers, nOt now to infift on
the facrifices offered by the Romans, as weU as by
others, to the infernal gods, upon funeral occafions*
Indeed it is obfervable, that PaUas who wrote about
the myfteries of Mithras, as cited by Porphyry in 1
-f- Dionyf. Halic. apudEufeb. Praep. Evang. 4. 1 6. Plutarch. Rom.
Quaeftion. vol. 2. p. 285,
* In Marcello, tom. i. p. 299. and Rom. Quaeft. vol. 2- p. 283.
ij: Porphyry's teftimony, who wrote about A. G. 253. may be feen
in Eufebius ibid, and LaCtantius's, who flouriflied about A, C. 30'4.
may be feen in his Treatife, ' De falfa Religione,' i . 3 1.
I

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 195
paffage preferved J by Eufebius, does not fay that hu
man facrifices were altogether, but only that they
were almoft aboliffied among aU men under Adrian
the eniperor, tho' this prince died fo late as the i 3 8 th
year of the Chriftian era. For this reafon, together'
with the inftances abovementioned of human fkcrifi-
ces of a more recent date 'vrithin theRoman empire, I
conclude, that the decree of the fenate of Rome faid
by § PUny to have been enaded A, U.'6 5 7 , (which was
almoft an hundred years prior to the appearance of
Jefus,) that no man ffiould be immolated or facrifi
ced, though it may have been real, muft have been
ineffedual to reftrain and fupprefs wholly the fa
vage and barbarous cuftom. The entire abolition of
them therefore, was not owing to mere civiUzation,
as Mr. Voltaire in his Treatife on ''<' Toleration, and
Others of his turn, would perfuade us, but to the in
fluence and progrefs of Chriftianity in the world,
fince it is manifeft they were pradifed among the
Romans in their moft improved and poUffied ftate,
till this reUgion quite extirpated them. — But to give
a more minute hiftory of the prevalence of human
facrifices, to produce the antient authorities by which
their great fpread, and number, and frequency might
be fupported, to fix the period of their total difufe
and ceffation, even in countries ofmore refined man
ners, and to evince our obligations to the gofpel, for
putting end to a rite fo ffiocking and fo pernicious,
X Praep. Evang. ibid,
§ Pliny Nat. Hift. lib. 30. cap. i. p. 54 j.
• Chap. 12. p. 172. * Men laid them afide only in proportion
' as they became civilized. So true is it, that civilization is the nurfe.
* of humanity,'
N 2

196 A VINDICATION OF P.II,
would affiard abundant matter for a pretty long dif
fertatlon. The reader then muft at prefent be fatisfi
ed with thefe ffiort remarks^ for prbving that our
author dlmlnlffies too much, when he fpeaks of their
being rarely pradifed, and of very little blood's be
ing ffied by the pagan religion, and that the world
owes more to the light of the gofpel, on account of
their baniffiment out of it, than many of its ene-'
mies and contemners are wUling to aUow.
$ E C t I 6 N IX.
Of his calUhg the Jews one of the moft modern na-'
tions, and his argument in fupport of it from-
1 Sam, xiii. 1 9,-2 a. together -with his faying, that
Saul fwore he would facrifiee to" the Lord him^
that ffiould eat during the conflid -with the Phi
liftines, in the thirty-eighth chapter of his Phi-'
lofophy of Hiftory.
LET us next take notice of fome mifreprefentations^
in his thirty-eighth chapter. Speaklngfof the Jews,
he fays', ' This is one of the moft modern nations,
* confidering them- as other people, only from the
* time they formed a fettiement and poffeffed a capi-"
* tal. They feem- to be confidered by their neigh-
* hours only in the time of Solomon, which was near-
*' ly about Hefiod and Homer,, and the firft Archons
' of Athens,'
But to omit obferving, that Sir Ifaac Newton'
places Solomon's reign nigh 150 years before Hefiod
flouriffied,- and x 15 years before Troy was taken^
t Phil, of Hift, page 1 8l.

f.H. THE SACRED BOOKS. €97
svhich makes it much more antient; it is far from
¦being true, that the Jews began then only to becon-
sfidered by their neighbours. For what was the em-
baffy from Hiram king of Tyre, to congratulate So
lomon on his acceffion to the throne, but the effed
of his alUance with his father David, i Kings, vi, i ?
and do not we read of David's -vidoiies over the
Philiftines, and Moabites, and Edomites, and Hada-
dezer king of Zobah, and the Syrians of Damafcus
who came to fuccour him, whereon Toi king of Ha-
math fent Joram his fon to falute him, becaufe this
Hadadezer was alfo his enemy? nay, how could
they fail to be regarded by their neighbours fooner
than David's time, fince we read of their frequent
wars with fiame of them, long before his advance
ment to the throne? it Is true, it was feven years
after his elevation to the kingdom, ere they became
finaUy poffeffed of Jerufalem, and the ftrong hold of
Zion : but it by no means follows from this, that
they had no capital; much lefs that they were alto
gether overlooked by the nations on their borders,
when their own hiftory declares the contrary, which
ought to be the more credible, that they have not
made thefe abfurd claims, and ridiculous pretenfions
to extravagant antiquity, which fome other nations
have vainly done.
He fays ^ alfo, ' The Jews before Saul, appeared
' only Uke a band of Arabs of the defert, of fo little
' power, that the Phenicians treated them nearly in
* the fame manner as the Lacedaemonians treated
f the Ilotes. Thefe were flaves who were not allow-
f gd arms, they had not the privUege of forging iron.
• Phil, of Hift. p. j8 1.
^ 3

T98 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
* nor even to ffiarpen their plough-ffiares, and the
* edge of their hatchets. This is fet forth by the Jews
' in the book of Samuel, and they add, that they
* had neither fword nor javelin, in the battle which
* Saul and Jonathan gave at Bethaven againft th6
* Phenicians or PMUftlnes, an adion in which it is
* related of Saul, that he made an oath of facrificing
* to the Lord him that ffiould eat during the con-
* ffid.' To the fame purpofe. In his Dialogues, fpeak-?
ing of the firft king of Ifrael, ' This king could not
' poffibly be powerful, for in the firft battle which
* the Jews under his command fought with the Phi-;
' Uftinesf their mafters, they had neither fword nor
' fpear, nor a fingle weapon of iron.'
But is all this according to truth ? how could the
Phffiftines look upon the Jews as a band of wild Ai
j-abs, when they had been fettled in their neighbour
hood about three hundred years? for fo long mufi
the period have been, between their entrance into
the land of Canaan in Joffiua's time, and Saul's in-
veftiture with the kingdom. They had Indeed been
permitted by providence to prevail againft them, ifl
puniffiment of their wickednefs, and they, had Im
proved this advantage, to difable them from giving
them any future moleftation, by ftripping them of
their arms, as their enemies appear alfo to have done
before. Judges, v. 8. and by removing their artifir
cers who might fupply them with others. So fays
the hiftorian, ' There was no fmith found through-
* out all the land of Ifrael, for they (their conquerors)
* faid, left the Hebrews make them fwords or fpears,
' wherefore all the IfraeUtes went down to the Flu-
t Pages 59, 60.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS, 199
* Uftines, to ffiarpen every man his ffiare, and his
¦* coulter, and his ax, and his mattock.' i Sam. xiU,
1 9, 20. by which we muft underftand perhaps, thai;:
they repaired tp their ftrong-holds in the land of Ifra
el, rather than to their dweffings in their own coun
try, this being too remote for the refort of the na
tives of the other in thefe neee^ties, which would
occur every day. Neverthelefs, that they wereredur
ced to fo naked and defencelefs a ftate, is no proof
that they were not a refpedable nation. It is rather
an argument, that by their valour and bravery they
were very forinldable; for ^yhy otherwife would they
have taken fuch precaution againft their ffiaking off
their yoke? in the fame way It deferves attention,
did the Chaldaeans long after carry away all the
fmiths to Babylon out of the land, that there might
be lefs danger pf their revolt yrho continued in it,
when certainly the Jews Ijad been long above con
tempt, 2 Kings, xxiv. 14. And does not Pliny ¦'^ in
his Natural Hiftory tell us, that Porfenna king of E-
truria, impofed upoi^ the old Ilomans this cpnditipn
' in his treaty with thgm, after the expulfion of the
Tarquins, ^ that they fhould ufe no iron at all but for
* tiffing the ground ?^ farther, it is not true, that they
had neither fword, nor fpear, nor weapon of iron. In
this battle with the Philiftines ; for it is exprefsly re
corded, that Saul and Jonathan were armed with
fword and fpear : and though we ffiould allow that
|he people, among whom neither of them was found
that day, means the whole people, inftead of the fix
* Lib. 34, cap. 14, victor, edit. p. 6i6. 'In foedere, quod, es^-
? pulfis rggibus, populo Romano dedit Porfenna, nominatim con^pr^-
f lienfum inveniqus, ne ferro, nifi in agriculture, uterenti^r,'
 N4

20O A VINDICATION OF P.IL
hundred men with Saul, who are mentioned, i Sam.
xUI. 15. (as unlikely as it is, that none of the nati
on would conceal their arms, amidft the attempt to
bereave them thereof, and that none in more diftant
parts from the PhUiftines, w6uld procure them by
money from the Syrians and others on their borders,
before this engagement,) ftiU it is plain, they were
far from being without a fingle weapon of iron. For
they had tools for domeftic or rural ufes, which were
made thereof, even coulters, ffiares, mattocks, axes,
forks, and goads, as they had alfo left a file to ffiarp
en them. And might they not gain a vidory over
the Phffiftines, through the bleffing of heaven, when
furnlffied with fuch inftruments, together with flaUs,
elubs, ftaves, (fome of which they might harden in
th|;*fire,) and likewife flings, bows aiid arrows, at
managing which, we read the men of Gibeah werq
very dextrous, long before this. Judges, xx. 1 6 ?
As to Saul's making an oath, that he would fa
crifice to the Lord hiiri that ffiould eat tluring the
conffid, he did indeed doom to deftrudion whoever
fhould tafte any food untU the evening, (probably
upon feeing the confufion and ffight of the Phili
ftines that no time might be loft from their purfuit
and flaughter, in care of refrefliment, i Sam. xiv, 24.)
and herSn he aded a part very imprudent, and un-
* This was the manner in antient time? ; \yhencp Virgil fpeaking
of thp Trojap yoijtli, f^ys, — UT"— Non jam ccrtaminp agrefti,
* Stipitlbus duris agitur, fudibufve praeuftis,
• Sed ferro ancipiti decernunt.-

And Quintus Curtius 3. 2. giving an account of the armour oi
the Derbices in Darius's array, fays, * Quidam lignum igni duraverant,'

F.IL THE SAGRED BOOKS. 20 1
worthy of a wife captain, for the people became un
able to follow with fpeed, their ftrength being fpent
through long abftinence from meat; but that he
made an oath to facrifice to the Lord whoever ffiould
eat before night, is not afferted by the hiftorian
at all, nor is there any fliadow for the imputation on
Saul, unlefs one wUl maintain, that whenever a man
makes a foollffi inconfiderate vow to cut off another
upon fome offenfive behaviour, he vows to facrifice
him to the Lord, which were moft glaringly abfurd
and ridiculous,
SECTIONS.
Of his making Mofes facrifice 24000 men of his na
tion under pretence that a Jew had been found
lying with a Midianite, in chapter fortieth of the
fame work,
I FORBEAR to remark upon any accounts in the
thuiy-nlnth and fortieth chapters of his PhUofophy
of Hiftory, except one; where, after mentioning
Mofes's obligations to Jethro, high prieft of Midian,
and his intermarriage with his daughter, he thus ex
claims f , '> What cruelty, contrary to all policy, (to
' judge according to our feeble notions) muft Mofes
f have been guilty of, to facrifice 24000 men of
* his own natipn, under pretence that a Jew had
* been found lying with a Midianite? and how Can
' it be faid, after fuch aftoniffiing butchery, that Mo-
* fes was the moft gentle of all men?' In his Trea-i
^ife on Toleration,' he had fwelled them to Soooq^
¦j- Page 187.

?02 A VINDICATION OF P.n,
faying,! ' Many ftart ^fficulties concerning the 8 o o o o
* Ifraelites who were flain by order of Mofes to atone
* for the cringe of a fingle one of them, for being fur-
* prifed vrith a Moabite woman.' Here, however, he
Jiath reduced them to almoft one fourth of that num-
ber; and fo far his account of the fad is agreeable
to Scripture.But is his reprefentatioi^ of it, in other refpeds^j
juft? Far from it. According to the Sacred Hiftory,
it was God himfelf who deftroyed thefe men, Num,
xxv. 9. ' And thofe that died in the plague^, were
* twenty and four thoufand.' Nor was this calamity
fent, as he pretends, on account of a Jew's lying
vrith a Midianitiffi woman ; for Phinehas's ad of zeal
in foUowing them intp the tent, and thrufling them
through, amidft their commlffion of the crime, was
the mean of flopping its devaftation, Numb, xxv, 7,
Pf. cvi. 30. On the contrary, it appears to have
been inffided ere this wickednefs -was perpetrated,
for the whoredom of the people with the daughters
of Moab, their refort unto the facrifices of their gods,
and their worfhip of Baal-peor their idol, Nuntib. xxv,
I, 2,3. Deut. iv. 3. Joffi, xxu. 17. Suitably, there-!
f pre, we find, all the affembly of the chUdren of Ifrael
were weeping before the door of the tabernacle for
the great lofs of lives by it, when thefe perfons, Zimr
ri and Cozbi, went in to gratify their luft; which,
X Chapter 12. page tJ4,
* It is the fame word which occurs. Numb. xi. 33. :;iii. 37. xyi.
48, and is in all thefe places tranflated //<7^«i? ; and fo Jofephus uni
derftood it here, E^9a/»;irai' Se a-acrsf koli hei/^a, rwrm m»>l-.
•^olytq; lu^Toi; r» 06« fw votrov.

P, IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 203
together with the notoriety and opennefs of it, was
a great aggravation of the fin.
It is true, w^ are told, that upon the people's prac-f
tifing thefe enorrnitles, Mofes gave this order to the
judges of Ifrael, * Slay ye every one his men, that
* were joined unto Baal-peor,' Numb. xxv. 5. in
purfuance of a diredion to him from the Lord, whofe
anger was kindled againft Ifrael. But about the im
port, nay, about the very tenor of this diredion from
Go4, there is no fmall diverfity of opinions. Even
they who read the fourth verfe as our tranflators,
' The Lord faid unto Mofes, Take aU the heads of
^ the people, and hang them up before ^ the Lord
^ againft the fun, that the fierce anger of the Lord
' may be turned away from Ifrael,' explain it vari-
Dufly . For fome of them underftand God's intention
to be, that Mofes fhould gibbet all the chiefs of the
congr^egatlon, becaufe they had been guUty with
greater aggravation; after putting them to death,
namely, which the law, Deut. xxi. 2 2 . required pre-
vipufly to be done, whenever any man was to be fuf-
pended on a tree. And fome of them make God on
ly to fignify, that he ffipuld ered a court of judica-?
turef , confifting of aU the heads of their famUies, and,
by their intervention, hang indifcriminately thofe
that had been offenders in the matter of Peor; upou
which he gave unto th^ni the charge above recited,
* It is, according tp the original, ' Hang them up to the Lord,' as
in 2 Sam. xxi. 6. in vindication of his honour whom they have de
fpifed, in deraonftration of his juftice whom they have affronted. So
Rafchi explains it in that place.
f This IS the fenfe adopted by the Targura of Qnkelos, Rabbi So?
lomon, Fagius, and others.

«04 A VINDICATION OF P. U,
pf flaying every one his men, that were joined untq
that idol. Nor dp thefe 'whp efpoufe this laft inter
pretation, faU to urge fome fpecious arguments in
its bel^alf. For fay they. It is not probable that the
heads were all delinquents, either by adual de-;
bauchery and idolatry, or by ffiameful negligence
and remiffnefs in their ftation to prevent the fame ;
which yet the former glofs fuppofes. And further,
if thefe heads or princes among the people were all
criminal, what judges could Mofes find who would
be avengers of the enormity? — —However, others
again, with Houbigant +, contend that the text ffioulc[
be amended by the help of the Samaritan thus, ' The
* Lord faid unto Mofes, Take aU the heads of the
* people, and let them kUf every man, (in his own pro-
* vince and jurifdidion, viz.) thofe that have beenjoin-
* ed to Baal-peor, and hang them up before the Lord.'
But whatever may have been the precife form and
true fcope of the divine injundion to Mpfes on this
occafion, by which he was led to caU the judges tq
flay every one the apoftates or rebelUpu's under his
X Though Houbigant plead, in fupport of this emendation, that
hereby NIofes does not order the princes to be hanged, but the guilty ;
jior even fhefe to be hanged alive, which was contrary to the ftatute
of God, and to the cuftom of the Hebrews, (fince they killed perfons
ere they hanged them up) yet it appears too bold and licentious, a^ ,
pur reading of the IJgbrew text is confirmed by all MSS. which have
fieen examined hitherto, and all verfions, except the Samaritan, This
indeed hath, ' "The Lord faid unto Mofes, Command that they kill e-
' very man, thofe that haye been joined to Baal-peor, arid hang theiq
f up,' thus fiibfliituting another claufe inftead of ' Take all the head?
f of the people.' And from this, and the Hebrew blended together,
that learned' man frames his text here, which I have traoftat^d ^t
ffove. '"

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 205
own authority, there is no evidence at aU from the
Bible, that any of them proceeded to obey it. 1 con
fefs jofephus I makes many to have been flain by the
Valour of fome virtuous young men, who were ftl-
inulated with zeal from Phinehas's example, as well
as by the plague ; and PhUo § mentions no other caufe
but that of the deftrudion that happened, though he
makes the number of them that periffied the fame
as the Scripture does. But what credit and deference
are due to them, in comparifon of the author of the
facred book, which, according to all copies and verfi
ons, reprefents fo many to have died by the plague?
How difingenuous then in Mr. Voltaire to fay, that
~Mofes facrificed 24000 *men of his own nation up-
X Antiq. 4. 6. I f .
§ De Vita MoCs, Hb. i. page 648, 64 9^ edh.fa.ni.
* i am aware that leveral Chriftian commentators have thought'
a thoufand were flain by the judges at Mofes's command, and that on
ly 23000 fell by the hand of God, that they might vindicate Paul's
account of the puniffiment which God fent on the ifraelites for their
lewdnefs, i Cor, x. 8. as confiftent with the hiftory here. But as Mo
fes is exprefs tliat 24000 died of t'he pfague, according to all Hetfl-ew
MSS. and all antient verfions, it feems beyond controverfy more eligible
t'o allow, thai: an error hath crept into the Apoftle's te}fct, fince Oecume-*
aius, who flouriflied about the year 950, tells us fome copies ofthe E-
piftle in his rime, read 24000 ; or to fuppofe, with Alberti, in his Ob
fervationes Criticae irt N. Teftamentum, that Paul gives us only the num
ber' that fell in one day, which he might learn by tradition, as he did
the names ofthe magicians Jannes and Jambres,forhis words run thus,
' Neither let us commit fornication, as fome of them committed, and fell
'Jn one day three and twenty thoufand,' while Mofes gives us the fum
total of all that periftied by the plague. Nor is it difticult to conceive,
that the j.udges might delay the execution of the order, intimidated by
the number ofthe tranfgreflbrs, a,nd the diftinguiflied figure and rank of
.fome of them. Such pufiUanimity hath been often incident tomagiftrates.—

2o6 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
on this occafion, and that he did it under pretence of
a Jew's lying with a Midianite woman ? Neverthe
lefs, he hath not been affiamed to repeat the falffiood
fince, in his PhUofophical Didionary, as an objedion
of learned men to Mofes's being author of the Pen-
tateudh ; ' You farther tell Jus, that another time you
* ordered 24000 of your poor foUowef-s to be maf-
' facred, becaufe one of them had lain with a Midia-
' anite.* At the fame time it may be obferved, it is
ratherfuited tobe an objedion, like many others in-'
troduced with itj to the credibffity of the hiftory,
than to its genuinenefs, that is, to its being worthy
of belief, rather than to its having him for the writefw
But the truth is, it is of no force at aU, either to dif-'
pfove the one or the Other.
SECTION XL
Of mifreprefentations in his forty-firft chapter, re-'
lating to the paffage of the Jordan, and to the
plea of the Jews about their right to Canaan.
LET us now look into his forty-firft chapter. Here
are many paffages which demand our anlmadverfion.
I take them in the order in which they appear there.
* I do notf, fays he, endeavour to difcover why }o-
For as to that folution, that there were a thoufand perfons of ftation,
and twentyrthree thoufand ofthe common people, and that the apoftle
fpeaks of the lofe of lives among them only, as much as it would have
ferved to make the judgment more awful and influential, to take notice
that no worldly wealth or grandeur were a fanCluary and proteQioB
from ruin by it, it feems very untenable.
X Article Mofes, page 393. f Page 191 =

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. ic*j
* ffiua or Jofuah, captain of the Jews, in making his
' tribe* pafs from the eaft of Jordan to the weft, to-
' wards Jericho, ffiould want God to fufpend the
* courfe of this river, which is not, at that place,
* forty, feet -wide, when it was fo eafy to throw a
• wooden bridge over, and when it was ftill more
* eafy to ford it. There were feveral fords to this ri-
* Ver, which is proved by the Ifraelites flaying at one
* of them the 42000 IfraeUtes, who could not pro-
* nounce the word Shiboleth'
But does the hiftory make Joffiua at all foUcit
God's miraculous interpofition here? or ffiew him
fiUed with anxiety how he -with his army ffiould pafs
the Jordan? No. It reprefents God to have affured
him, without any importunity on his part, that as
foon as the foles of the priefts feet, who were di
reded to bear the ark of the covenant at the diftance
of about 2000 I cubits before, ffiould be dipped in
the brim of the waters of Jordan, the waters coming
down from the head ffiould be fufpended or flopped,
whUe the waters below ffiould run down their bed,
toward the Dead fea, and that the ground ffiould
hereby be left dry for their paffage, that they might
know their God was the Uving God, and be con
vinced he would make good his promife of driving
• It is well he does not here repeat the polite name of his herd, which
he had before beftowed on them, chap. 40. page 173. • The fame
' book tells, us that Joftiua, the Ton of Nun, having pafled the river
' Jordan with his herd, dry footed. Sec.
f By fo great an interftice between the ark and the firft line of
the camp as this, which makes more than 3000 feet, or 1 000 yards,
the whole hoft might pefhaps fee the miracle before they entered the
Jordan, firom the neighbouring hillj.

2o8 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
out their enemies ; as indeed; upon its happening, it
could not fail to fpread terror among them. See
Joffiua, IU. 7, &c.
Again, why does he call the river at the place of
paffage, ' only forty feet -wide,' fo that it was eafy to
' throw a wooden bridge over it' ? To pafs the more
general * accounts of antient -writers, Adamnano, an
author of the feventh century, fays, ' It was the
* breadth of a fione's cafl from a ffing,' a« he Is cited
by Relandf. Maundrel, who travelled into the Eaft
in the year 1697, and is In unlverfal credit, makes
its breadth in the neighbourhood of Jericho, from
which it was almoft | eight miles diftant, about fixty
feet, or twenty yards, while, at the fame time, he
defcribes its rapidity fo great, that none could fwim-
againft it. Dr. Shaw again, in later times, gives it
thirty yards in breadth, and remarks its depth to be
three feet at the very brink. While Potock, in his
travels, fatisfies himfelf with calling its breadth much
the fame with that of the Thames at Windfor. Be
fides, whatever was its natural breadth, it was, when
the Ifraelites needed to pafs it, much increafed be-
.yond its common magnitude, for it overflowed all
* Strabo Geogr. chap. 1 6. page 755. (edit. Al'melov. io^5.)giVb»
It the appellation oithegreatefl river. Butit feepis'to be upon com
parifon only with ths rivers of that country. -Wherefore we cannot
form any conclufion from it, till we know their dimenfions. There is
more force in Pliny's defcription, tbat it was ' Amnis arabitiofus, &c,
* A river which fpread much wherever the fituation of the ground did
• allow it.' Nat. Hift. j. 15.
¦f Reland. Palaeft. lib. i. chap. 43. page 278. Compare alfo
Univ. Hift. chap. 2. page 430.
X Jofeph. de Bello, 5. 4.

t.m THE SACRED BOOKS. 209
its tanks, it being then the firft month Abib ||, dr
barley harveft, at which feafon it annually rofe with
out the. bounds of its channel, through the melting
of the fno-w in the neighbouring mountains, efpecl*
ally In Lebanon, at the foot of which was Its fource
or fountain, and through the early rains which at
that time feU. Compare Joffi. Iv. 18, 19. i Chron.
xii, 15,. Jerem. xlix, 19^ 1. 44. and Ecclefiafticus,
xxiv. 29. Nor Is this fad to be denied, or even
doubted, becaufe we do not hear of its overflowing
now. This miy be owing to its having -wrought it
felf a deeper bed, or J to Its having acquired a broader
J That Jordan fwelled in this month, is certain ; for it is ex
prefsly remarked, that the people came up out of Jordan (which had
been before obferved to have overflowed all its banks, Jofli. iii. 1 5.
iv. 1 8.) on the tenth day ofthe firft month, iv. 1 9. And, in i Chron.
kii. I J. to inhance the valour of the fons of Gad, it is faid, ' Thefe
' are they that went over Jordain in the firft month, when it had o-
' verflown all its banks, and piit to flight them of the vallies.' It ap
pears therefore very ftrange, that the anonymous atfthor of a Dif
fertatlon in Maflibn's Hiftoire Critique de la Republique des Lettres,
tom. 2. page 215. fliould have contended for tranflating the words,
which we turn * Jordan overfloweth its banks all the time of the har-
' veft,' ' Jordan dverflowefh its bants after harveft,' fince there is fo
clear evidence for this increafe of its waters early, io Abib, aboUt the
ftiiddle of which month only harveft began in Judea. And it is the
more ftrange furely, becaufe, to fiipport this verfion, he needs to have
/ecoarfe to an ellipfis ofa prepofition. But it would fwell the note too
much, to give a full detail of the pretences for that opinion here,
and then to attempt a parucular confutation of them.
X Thus the lofs, in a confiderable degree, of the navigation of
<he Tiber, from Penlfia to Rome, which bad been fuflfered for ages
with much inconvenience,, was- imputed to the too great fpread of its
channel ih the end of laft century. Wherefore when Meyerus, a Dutcb-
tlan, was employed firft by Pope Clement X. and then by his fuccef-
. O

2 10 A VINDICATION OF P. It.
channel, or perhaps to fome of its waters being diw
verted another way. For, through thefe caufes, like
changes in the height to which rivers rife have of
ten occurred. Now how different an idea do thefe
accounts of its general widenefs, by gentiemen of
charader who were upon the fpot, and this circum
ftance of its periodical inundation at the time of the
Hebrews arrival there, give us of its ftate then from
our author? As to his blaming Joffiua for neglect
ing the eafy expedient of a wooden bridge, what evi
dence is there that this method of tranfporting troops
had been in that age contrived ; or that their enemies
would have allowed them to carry fuch a fcheme
into execution, upon its being formed? If he -will
pay any regard to Jofephus, from whom alone he
feems to have borrowed his imputation of anxiety
to Joffiua, he fays | ' He was afraid becaufe the river
* was great in Its ftream, and it was not paffable by
* bridges, for none had been laid over it formerly,
*' nor did they think, had they been wUling to thro-w
*" bridges over It, their foes would have fuffered them,
^ and there were no boats for navigating acrofs it.'
But be thefe things as a perfon pleafes. It is a fuffi
cient anfwer to obferve, that the ufe of any artifidal
help here, would not have ferved the purpofes of
providence, to affure the nations that the Ifraelites
-were under the fpecial care of heaven, and would,
for pope Innocent XI. to reftore that navigaSon, he propofed to
ftraiten the channel by driving ftakes into the ground along the fides,
where the waters were ftiallow, and interweaving them with twigs, at
the diftance of three or four hand-breadth from one another, as ap
pears by his book on that fubjeCl, publiftied in i 68 j.
t Anriq;. 5.. I,

P.IL THE S,A CRED BOOKS. 211
by divine power, be enabled to expel them for their
wickednefs. Finally, whereas he fpeaks of feveral fords, by
which it was eafy to pafs the river, if he mean here
by places where it might, without danger, be crof-
fed on foot, which Is the only fenfe that fults his in
tention, I afk, what proof hath he that there were
fuch, and that there were fuch In the neighbourhood
bf Jericho? If we read of the paffages of Jordan to
ward Moab, Judg. iU. 28. and of the paffages of Jor
dan where the GUeadites ftopped the Ephraimites,
Judg. xii. 5. how does It appear that they were not
ferrying places ? Is it not even more Ukely that they
were, when we confider the teftimonies of travellers
about the depth ofthe river, and its dimenfions from
fi.de to fide? So the learned Reland underftood them,
* For, fays he, it is probable J that It was the cuftom,
* in antient times, to pafs the Jordan at different
* places in a boat, and there are fome indications of
* this in the Sacred Books, as in Judges, m. 28.* In
the fame manner alfo, Dr, Lightfoot f explained what
we read about David and his company's paffing over
Jordan, in the neighbourhood of Jericho, 2 Sam, xix.
17,' This, fays he, was a moft known and frequent
* paffage from Jericho, which we often read of in
* Scripture, yet it feems rather to have been by boat
* than bridge*;' as indeed we are exprefsly told,
X Pal|eftina, lib. i. cap. 43. page 278, 279.
f His Works, vol. 2. page 492.
* So far as I know, however, there were never any bridges over
the Jordan but two, the one betwixt the lake of Samochon and Gen-
nefareth, tfirough both vvhich lakes it flows, the other near Tiberias,
at the very efilux of it from the laft lake; both far diftant from Gil-
O 2

2 12 A VINDICATION OF* P. if.
verfe i 8. that there went over a ferry boat to tar
ry over the king's houfliold, and to do what he"
thought gobd. And, in confirmation of this, we may
remark, that the place where John baptized, is fup
pofed fo have been named Bethabara, the houfe of
paffage', becaufe there' perfons were commonly car
ried in a veffel over the Jordan, JOhrr, i. 2 8 . Befides,
though there had been places where it was fo ffiaP
low, in Its ordinary condition, that peopfe -were ac-*
cuftom ed to walk through it on foot, and theft alfd
at no confiderable diftance, they could be no way
ferviceable to Joffiua and the IfraeUtes at this time,
becaufe it Was fWelled to an unufual height *, and
paffed all it's banks. Even if there had been a ford,
it would have fignified little, If the hoft of Ifrael paf*
fed over in fuch breadth as to' occupy fe-veral mileS^,
which the Jewiffi' dodors fuppofe from Numb. xxxilL
49. ' And they pitched by Jordan from'Bethjefimoth',
* even unto Abel-ffiittim, in the plains of Moab.'—
Though the middle of the hoft, or thofe that carried
the afk, paffed over right againft Jericho; Jofliua,
in. 1 6.
gal and Jericho, tiear which the ark entered ks ftream. See Ligb^
foot, ibidem.
* An antient church hiftorian hatK defcribed this riiatter con-
cifely, but happily; ' Jordariis fluttieii validiflimum ti-arifitnmprohi-
* bebat, quia neque navium copia pro tempore erat, neque vadari fluvi-
• us poterat, qui tum pleno alveo ferebatur.' Sulpic Sever. Hift. Sa
cra; Kb. I. cap. 22. I know indeed, De Prado would read vadoffi-
mum, as the epithet ofthe river, inftead of validifimum, which would
riiake it 'full offordSof flikllow places,' inftead of, mighty and impeto-
ous. But this is witliout ail authority of MSS Nor is there any like
lihood it was the original' expreflion, fince validum is no ilnufual cha^
raCtfcr' of riverSj andAT'a'S fiiitable to the Jordan.
I-

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS,. 21 j
In the fame chapter f, our author introduces the
^ews thus plej^g their right to Canaan, againft its
antient inhabitants, ' The Jews, faid they, defcended
' from Abraham, Abraham travelled among you a-
* bout 400 years ago, therefore your country be-
' longs to us, and we ought to cut the throats of
* your mothers, wives, and chUdren.' But where
did they ever employ fo weak and foollffi an argu
ment? they were entitled to reafpn thus, ' TJie Lprd
* hath giyen us ypur land by cpvenant with our prp-
f genitor Abraham, and he ffieweth himfelf to be with
f us, by drying the river Jordan, and by other mi-
* racles ; ther^^ore we haye a right to poffefs it in
f -virtue of his grant, -Viffio is univerfal Lord and Pro-
' prietpr, for his is the earth and the fulnefs thereof.'
But to put fuch an argumentjjinto their mouths did
not anfwer Mr. Voltaire's defign, whp ftudied to
jnake them ridiculous. "^

t Page ipr.
• As to the objection of Fabricius and Holftenius, who, he fays, com-
j^red the Ifraelites to Norwegians pretending a title to Germany, be-
icaiife about 200 years ago, apountryman pf theirs, who was the fon ofa
porter, travelled ijear Vienna, p. 192. 1 wifti he had told us where it was
fo be found. Though I have nqt beep able to difcover how the matter
Aands by a fearch into their works, I will venture to be pofitive, that
they thought the claim of the Ifraelites very dififerent, fince it appears
from Voltaire's own words in the next page, that they looked on the
Jews as commiflioned by God to drive out thepofleftbrs of Canaan, and
to d^ell in their room, for he lays, ' The fame authors particularly
f confider, that God had a right to punifli the fins of the C^naaniteg
? by the hands ofthe Jews.'

214 A VINDICATION OF P. IL
SECTION XII.
Of mifreprefentations in the fame chapter, with re
gard to the ftate of the Jews under the govern
ment of the Judges.
I PASS his recital, ' That ^ the Jews facrifi?e(i to
* their God, the inhabitants and animals of Jericho,'
which can only fignify, in confiftence 'with truth,
that they put them to death by his order ; and his
cavU at the miffion of the fpies ' as ufelefs, becaufe
* the walls were to fall at the found of the trum-
* pets,' which muft appear foolifli, as there was no
foreknowledge In the general of their iplraculoqs
fubverfion and ruin, to fuperfede fo prudent a
meafure for difcovering the fituation and ftrength
of Jericho. But I muft beftow greater attention on
the many falffioods, which are found in his repre
fentation of the ftate of the Jews under the goverp-
ment of the judges.
Thus, after^telUng us ' They were In bondage to
* Cuffian-Riffiathaim eight years,' he fays, ' They
' remained -ffixty-two years upon the fame fpot.'
which is furely a very odd paraphrafe of the hiftori
an's words. Judges, IU. 1 1 . ' That the land had reft,'
continued In a ftate of tranquiUity and peace ' forty
* years,' neither giving difturbance to others, nor
receiving moleftation from them, through this inter
val. — And he adds, ' Thefe J fixty -two years,' he
ffiould rather haye faid, thefe forty years, ' were a,
' fpace of fervltude, as they were commanded by
' the law, to take aU the country from the Mediter-
* Page 192. t Page 193, J Ibid,

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 215
^ ranean to the Euphrates, all this vaft extent of
* country being promlfed to them ; and they -W^ould
* doubtiefs have been tempted to feize upon it, if
' they had been at liberty.' But 'syhere is the con
fequence? muft a nation be in a ftate of fervltude,
whenever they do not enlarge their borders accord
ing to their juft title ? may not a fear of fuperior
force reftrain fuch an attempt? may not mere indo
lence and floth prevent it? and yet a people enjoy
their liberty ? So it was here. The fervltude of the
Ifiraelltes terminated with eight years. Judges, HI. 8.
but they did not proceed to drive out the natives,
through a love of eafe, and an averfion to the toils
pf war amidft their own fufficient accommodation In
the country. They were content to allow their con
tinuance in the land, upon payment of tribute, which
proved a great fource of misfortunes, as by inters
marriage -with them and other methods, they were
led away to worfhip their idols, -yvhence God was pro
voked to forfake them, and to permit their enemies
to opprefs them.
Again, having related they were eighteen years
in bondage under Eglon king of the Moabites, ' who
^ was affaffinated by Aod,' that is Ehud, why does
he fubjoin, ' They were afterwards f for twenty-eight
' years flaves to a people of Canaan whom they do
* not name, till the warlike prophetefs Deborah der
* Uvered them ?' for had not the land reft eighty
years after ffiaking off Moab's yoke. Judges, IU, 30 ?
Are not the people who next oppreffed them in effed
named, when it is faid, the Lord fold them into the,
haqd of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazq? f
•]¦ Page 193.
04

£i6 A VINDICATION OF P.n.
whofe feat appears to have been about the coaft of
the Mediterraneau fea, by comparing Joffiua xi. i,
IO, and Joffiua^^v, T. where for ' Kings of Canaan-
' ites,' the Seventy have, ' Kings of Phoenicia.?
And is it not exprefsly obferved, that his tyranny
was of ffiorter continuance by eight years than he
calls it, Judges, Iv, ? , 3 ?
It folio svs, ' Gideon^ held them afterwards for
' feven years in bondage ;' but is it not plain he fliould
have written Mdian inftead of Gideon, forafmuch
as Gideon freed the land from thraldom to the Mi?
dianites, after it had lafted for this period, and fubr
dUed them fo completely, that they lifted up their
heads no more, but the country was in quietnefs un?
der his government and adroiniftration forty years,
Judges, vi. I , viii. 28? '
He goes on, ' They were for-j- eighteen years flaves
* tp the Phenicians, whom they call Philiftines, till
* the time of Jephtha ; they were then for forty years
* more, Uaves to the Phenicians till the time of Saul.f
But had he reafon in this manner to make his read
ers think, they continued in a ftate of flavery from
Jephtha's till Saul's time ? No. From Jephtha's death
•who fubdued the children of Ammon, into the hands
of whom and of the Philiftines God had fold them
before his appearance, and who judged Ifrael fix years,
we do not read of their enduring any pppreflion at
all, during the government of his three fucceffors
Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, though this filled the fpace
of twenty-five years. V^e are pnly told after Abdon's
exit. Judges, xm. i . ' And the children of Ifrael did
* evil again in the fight pf the Lord, and the Lord
* Page 194, t ^bid.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 217
? delivered them into the hands of the PhUiftines
* forty years,' which plainly intimates they had re--
covered their Uberty from them, as well as from the
Ammonites before; nor did even this new redudion
of them under the power of the PhUiftines laft tUl
Saul's time; for, without en tring into the nice de
bates among chronologers here, whether the fervi*: '
tude that begun now had not been removed fooner,
is not Samuel exprefsly recorded to have fmitten and
difcomfited them, fo that they returned no more in
to the land of Ifrael, all the days of hi§ magiftracy ?
yet it was not till he had refigned his power into the
hands of his fons, who were men of a very oppofite
charader, that Saul was raifed to the throne. See
X Sam. vii. and fucceeding chapters.
Such -are his deviations from the Sacred Hiftory,
with relation to the ftate of the Jews under the
judges. At the fame time let It be obferved, that
the fervitudes which the Jews now underwent, were
the puniffiment pf their idplatry and other fins.
Judges, Ui. 7,8. xu. i 3, 14, iv. 1,2. vL i, 2. x.
7,8, not the effeds of the hatred of the neighbour
ing people againft them, as an execrable banditti,
which is Mr. Voltaire's account ^ of them ; for this
would have operated their dominion over them in pure
^nd religious, as well as in degenerate and wicked
times, which it did not. Farther, let it be remarked
thefe fervitudes, whatever figure they make in our
author, did not extend through a third part of the
interval between Joffiua's death and Saul's promotion :
wherefore when the different feafons of their durati
on are coUeded into one fiim, they only luake pAq
• Phil, of Hift. p, i^i."

ai8 A VINDICATION OF P.n.
hundred and eleven years. And finally, let itbecon--
fidered, that they were not exclufive of aU comfort
and happinefs, which is the idea we annex to flave
ry, for asf Perizonius takes notice in his Egyptiaca,
it was common among the people of the Eaft to fay
a nation or king became a fervant, when they were
(Compelled for the enjoyment of peace and tranquil
lity, to pay tribute to ftrangers, efpecially when thjg
was heavy, and levied with rigour.
SECTION XIII.
Of his accounts in the fame chapter, of the nuniber
of Jews exterminated by their own brothers, of
by the order of God himfelf, from their entering
the wildernefs till Saul's eledion tp hp their king,
T O W A R D the conclufion of the fame *forty-firft
chapter, he propofes ' ftopping a moment to obferve;
' how many Jews were exterminated by thrir own
* brothers, or by the order of God himfelf, from the
* time that they wandered In the defert, tiU the time;
* that they had a king eleded by drawing lots.'
And who would have expeded, after this prei
amble, he would haye taken them into his catalogue,
f Page 465, ' Dicebant illi fervire alteri eum qui tributum modo
• illi pendgbat, et rebellarequandoidnegabat. ItaEzekias, 2 Reg. xviii.
* 7.' Grotius's note on Judges, iii. 14 ' Servierunt ei,' is 'id eft coac-
• ti funt pacem gravibus tributis redimere.' So Jofephus, Antiq. p. i JIj
explains their fervitude to Eglon. Compare Vulgate verfion. Gen. xlix.
1 J. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6. Pf. Ixxii. 8. ii- 2 Reg. xvii. 3. 4. It!
all which places, the Hebrew word which denotes, being a feryant, is
interpreted by, being tributary,
*Phil. of Hift. p. 19 J.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS, 219
who died without any intervention or interpofition
pf man at aU, as by fire from heaven, by peftilence,
or other divine judgment ? fo however he does ;
for he introduces Into the lift the two hundred and
fifty that periffied by fire from the Lord at Korah'g
mutiny and revolt, the fourteen thoufand and feven
hundred that were deftroyed by the plague on the
f^me occafion, the twenty-four thoufand that were
confumed by the fame calamity, for their whoredom
¦with the daughters of Moab, and their joining them
felves to I Baal-peor, and them that were ftruck
dead for looking into the ark at Bethffiemeffi, But
this may be apologized for as mere Inaccuracy
of expreffion, for which he afterwards makes amends,
when he fubftltutes the phrafe ' exterminated by
* the hand,' inftead of ' exterminated by the order
• pf God.'
What however admits no excufe is, that he fome-»
times fwells the numbers of them whofe lives were
.deftroyed, -without any authority, and gives a falfg
account of the caufe pf their death.
Thus I he fays, ' Slain at the ford of Jordan, for
* not being able to pronounce the word Shiboleth,
* forty-two thoufand.' But this vvas not the caufe
of the flaughter of thefe Ephraimites by Jephtha. The
Ephraimites had threatened to burn him and all hi?
X Thefe two laft he denominates, * Put to death for Korah's re-
* volt, and put to death for haying correfpondence with Midianite girls«
p. 194. but very unfairly.
f Ib. Perhaps our author borrowed this from MonCeur Lignon's Dic
tionnaire de la Bible Portatif, who upon the word Shibboleth fays
' -Word which the fephraimites could not pronounce, faying Sibboleth,
* and which Coft the lives of forty-tviro thoufand men,'

g20 A VINDICATION OF P, II,
had, on pretence that he had fought the Ammonite?
without fiimmpnlng them to his ftandard, Never
thelefs, he had called them to arms, if npt at going
to battle after he had coUeded his forces, at Jeaft
when he was making pr,eparations for the war ; and
they had declined to anfvver his charge, probably
through fear of refentment and vengeance by thefe
enemies. Now furely this was a very atrocious crim?
in itfelf, and would be reckoned the more fuch, that
he had given the Amm.onites battle with fo great
fuccefs, as to put an j:nd to tfieir oppreffipn of the
country ; he therefore, full of indignatipn at their
ungrateful .flander, gathered the men of Gilead, anc}
fought with Ephraim, and fmpte them ; and there-?
after the men of Gilead tpok poffeffion of fhe paf
fages of the Jordan before the Ephraimites, and ftop
ping all that arrived there, flew as belonging to that
tribe, every one that could not frame his mouth to
found Shibboleth, but faid Sibbolpth, ' And there
* fell at that time pf the Ephraimites, forty-two
' thoufand,' Judges, xii, i — 6. Thefe -were probabr
ly all among the tribe of Ephraim, that loft their
Uves upon this occafion, and not merely the fugi
tives who were kUled at the fords. For hp-w ftrange
to fuppofe, either that none periffied in the engage
ment, or that the hiftorian, omitting all account qf
their number, only recorded the fum of them that
were deftroyed in their ffight after the adion ? but
thpugh It ffiould be otherwife, it is evident, the not
being able to pronounce Shibbole(h, (which accord
ing to fome fignifies, an ear of corn, but according
to others, floods of water, fuch as they wanted to
grpfs, as in fi, Ixix. 2.) was nPt the reafon of tjieir

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS, aai
being killed ; it was only the criterion or teft, by
which thofe of that tribe were diftinguiffied from
other Ifraelites, that they might be put to the fword
according to their demerit, for their falfe refledions
and infolent menaces againft the vidorious general.
For It feems fuch could not utter Shibboleth, but on
ly Sibboleth, as indeed -we may fee the Uke at this
day, among the inhabitants of different counties-,
where all fpeak the fame language.
Again he makes, ' Of the tribe of Benjamin kU-
* led by theother "tribes 45000,' whereas they were ac
cording to the hiftory only ^5100; indeed it was im
poffible there could be fo many kUled as he reprefents,
fince the whole number of the Benjamites, in con-
jundlon with the men of Gibeah before the battle,
according to the Hebrew and Chaldee, amounted
only to 26700, Judges, xx. 15. but, according to
the Vulgate, whofe reading our author fometimes
prefers, and to many^eoples ofthe Seventy, fell ffiort
even of this fum t^ one thoufand. Accordingly, it
is faid, Judges, xx. 35, ' The children of Ifrael de-
' ftroyed and fmote ofthe Benjamites that day, twen-
* ty and five thoufand, and an hundred men,' And
to this account agrees the particular detail of their
loffes in the field of battle, and In the paths of ffight,
together \Vith the general combination of both into
* Bos in his edition of the Seventy from the Vatican MS, has on
ly 23000, as the whole number ofthe Benjamite forces. But the
Alexandrian and Oxford MSS. have 2 jooo, befides the 700 of Gi
beah ; and theirs muft be the true reading, becaufe all copies have the
numbers killed, and the numbers furviving, as above. Jofephus makes
'the number of the troops 25600, and the flain only 25000, AritB|,
5. 2. II.

222 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
One number which follows, ver, 44J 45, 46. allow
ance being made for the omiffion of the odd hun-"
dred, who are evidently fuppofed to have faUen fome
where in this war, as it is faid only 600 men re
mained of their whole multitude at the rock Rim
mon, ver, 47.
I have no right to find fault with his article about
the|Bethffiemites, who were ftruck dead for looking
into the ark, as difingenuous. For the text, i Sam.
vi. 19. Is commonly read and tranflated in fuch a
manner, that his ftate of the kUled here 50070 men
is perfedly exad. Yet it is well known to aU who
are acquainted with facred criticifm, that Bochart,
Le Clerc, and others, explain the original, eVen as it
ftands at prefent, in fo different a way, that the whole
number which periffied on this occafion makes only
feventy men. And Dr, Kennicot, upon the autho
rity of two Hebrew MSS, which have only one num
ber in this place, inftead of two numbers, fo reforms
the text, (how juftly I cannot now examine) as
to be capable of no other fenfe than that feventy
were all that died. But why does he defcribe their
offence by looking at the ark, a thing which, on its
return, appears natural and innocent, and In fome
degree unavoidable, when the fault feems, both by
the Hebrew and all verfions, fo far as I know, to
have been undeniably their opening its cover, and
infpeding it ? Surely as none of the priefts themfelves,
or at leaft none of the common Levites, were by the
law allowed to touch this facred fymbol of the di
vine prefence, this renders their tranfgreffion high
er, and, by confequence, the puniffiment more de-
X Philolbphical DiClionary, page 1 94.

P,lL THE SACRED BOOKS. ii^
fenfible^ See Numb. iv. ^i 5 — 1 9 . and compare Exod*
:xxiv. 1 5. with the paffage about the fate ofthe Beth-
ffiemiteSi a little before referred to.
To finiffi my animadverfions on this chapter, where
as he caUs the Jews, exterminated by the hand of
God himfelf. Or by their cIvU wars from the time
that they wandered in the defert, tUl the time that
they had a king eleded by dravring lots, 2 39020,
without reckoning thofe that died in the battles a-
gainft the Canaanites, or that periffied in the defert,
(by which laft he muft fignify, that fell by natural
difeafe and fatal accident) there muft be deduced from
this number, no fewer than 39900; for, that he fwells
the Jews, whom the Levites kiUed after the adoration
ofthe golden calf, 20000 beyond the truth, was
ffiewed before; and now it hath been evinced, that
Tie increafes the flain of the tribe of Benjamin, 19900
l>eyond the hiftory. And It follows alfo, there would
fall to be fubtraded ftill 50000 more, if either Dr.
Ken'nicot's -J- reading of the text in Saniuel be the
true one, or the expUcation of the text, in its prefent
form, which thefe learned men, Bochart J and Le
Clerc, have propofed, as 1 incUne to think it ought,
ffiould be preferred.

f See Kennicot's Obfervations on i Sara. vi. 19.
:|: Bochart Hierozoic. p. i. lib, 2, cap, 36. Le Clerc Comment.
in locum.

224 A'VINDICATION OF P. H.
S E C T I O l<f XIV.
Of falffioods in his account of the Jews after Saul,
in chapter forty-fecond; as, that David delivered
up feven grandfons of Saul to the Gabonites,
only to be perplexed. — That he ordered Solomon
to put to death Adonij ah. — And that the ten tribes
were enflaved or difperfed for ever, except fome
hufbandmen who were kept to cultivate the land,
&c.
MR. VOLTAIRE, in the forty-fecond chapter of
his Philofophy of Hiftory, profeffes to treat of the
Jews after Saul. But it will not detain us long. For
he is very ffiort in his relation of their affahs and
tranfadlons, through that part of this period of their
ftate which the Scripture comprehends. And we
now aim only to expofe his' mifreprefentations here-
ef. StiU, however. It affords additional proof that
he is a very unfaithful guide.
Thus, he teUs us, f ' David delivered up feven
* grandfons of Saul t-a the Gabonites, only to be per-
* plexed,' when, from the facred writer, we learn they
were only his five grandfons by his eldeft daughter
Merab, whom Michal his daughter had brought up for
Adriel,and his two fons by his concubine RizpahyNor
was his delivery of them the caufe of his perple^dty.
It was Indeed antecedent to It. For, having inquired
of the Lord what offence gave rife to the famlite
"Which afilided the land three years, and having been
anfwered that it was the murder of the GIbeonites
t Page 196.

p.n. T H E S A C R E D B O O KS. 2 2 5
by Saul and his bloody houfe, he fent to know what
fatisfadion they demanded for the -wrong. They, in
ftead of defiring filver or gold as a compenfation, re
quired that feven of his fons might be given into
their hands to be put to death by them. Upon this
only he appears to have been reduced to fome diftrefs
how he ffiould gratify them, and fave Mephiboffieth,
the fon of Jonathan his friend, from gratitude to his
father, and regard to the oath of amity between them.
And he extricated himfelf from itby feeking out and
conveying to them thefe males of the family above-
mentioned, whom It was the more Inexcufable in Vol
taire to call Saul's feven grandfons here, as in the
former fentence he had faid, ' Iffiboffieth and Me-
' phiboffieth, Saul's fons, were affaffinated;' for this
Mephiboffieth was the very fon of Saul by his con
cubine Rizpah, who was deUvered to the Gibeoiutes,
and by them killed. See i Sam. xxi. i — 9. and com
pare I Sam . xviii. j 9 . — I ffiall only add, how unrea
fonable In infidels to make the whole of this an ar
tifice in David for fecuring himfelf and his famUy in
the poffeffion of the crown? For this accufation there
is no handle, fince he fpared all the male branches
of Saul's houfe who had the firft claim, particularly
Mephiboffieth the next heir, as Jonathan's eldeft
fon, whofe fon Micah again had a numerous pofte
rity, 2 Sam. ix. 12. Perhaps thefe very men who
were put in the power of the GIbeonites, had bedn
employed in murdering and plundering them, that
they might enrich themfelves with their fpoils.
Again, he fays, ' David ordered J Solomon his fon
* to put to death Adonijah his other fon, and his ge-
X Page 196. P

226 AVINDICATIONOF P. II.
* neral Joab.' And it is true, that he gave fuch a
charge about Joab, who well deferved to be cut off
for his infolent behaviour to himfelf, and his trea
cherous ffiedding of the blood of his two brave ge
nerals, Abner and Amafa, i Kings, U. 5. But where
do we read that he declared any defire to have Ado*
nljah flain, as criminal as his condud was in affum-
ing the royal dignity without his authority, and a-
gainft his intentions? Solomon himfelf, who fuc
ceeded David on the throne by his exprefs direfti-
on, affured this Adonijah, when he had taken fanc-
tuary at the horns of the altar through confcious
guUt, that he ffiould not fuffer any puniffiment for
his attempt to feize the kingdom, if he approved
himfelf, for the future, a worthy or honeft man,
I Kings, i. 50,53. and he only proceeded, after fome
interval, to take away his life when he prefumed to
make ufe of Bathffieba's interceffion, that he might
obtain his leave to marry Abiffiag, the Shunamite
virgin, who had been the cheriffier of David's old-
age, at the fame time Intimating, that this was but
a fmall rccompence for the furrender of the cro-wn,
which belonged to him by the right of primogeni
ture, amidft the univerfal attachment of the nation
to him, I Kings, U. 24. which was furely a veiy hei
nous offence.
I complain not for his faying, in the next page,
that ' King Afa put part of the people of Jerufalem
* to death ;' for, though our tranflators fay in the
text only ' He oppreffed fome of them,' that Is, he
gave them fevere and rigorous ufage, 2 Chron. xvi.
I 2 . (-whence the Targum paraphrafes It ' He enflaved
them,') they have placed in the margin, ' He cruffied,'
I

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 227
and others expound it, ' He flew fome of them.* So
Houbigant, who makes the caufe to have been their
difpleafure which they teftified againft him for in-
.carcerating the prophet HananI, on account of his
free cenfure and reproof of his condud in applying
to Benhadad king of Syria for help, when, by di
vine favour, he had been fo lately vidorious over
the immenfe hoft ofthe Ethiopians; and to this pur
pofe he, by a fmall variation, reads and renders the
whole verfe thus, ' Then Afa was wroth with the
* feer, and put him in a prifon-houfe, though in the
• indignation of his people about this,' (that is, though
his people were angry at fuch confinement of him)
* and he flew fome ofthe people at the fame time.' But
wrhy does he affert that ' Jehu affaffinated Joram and
* Jofias, feyenty fons of Ahab, forty-two brothers of
' Achafias, and all their friends?' The Scripture calls
the perfon whom he flew after Joram king of Ifrael,
not Jofias, but Ahazlah king of Judah, who had
been his auxUIary, in his attempt to recover Ramoth-
gUead from the Syrians, 2 Kings, ix. ^ 7 . and whUe
it relates, that he klUed all the brethi'en of this A-
haziah, whoever* are meant thereby, 2 Kings, x. i 3,
14. makes not the leaft mention of his butchering
all their friends.
* The reafon of this qualification is, while fome underftand ' his
* brethren' in a ftrift fenfe, others interpret the word ' of his kinfmen,'
according to that more lax and extenfive fignification of it, whichis
not unufual in Scripture ; wherefore. Lot is called Abraham's brother,
though he was his brother Haran's fon, and Zedekiah uncle to Jehoi-
akin is called, his brother. See Gen. xii, xiii. 2 Chron. xxxvi. i o,
and 2 Kings, xxiv. 17. Indeed this laft explidation is thought more
probable, partly becaufe there is mention of his finding his fon's fons,
P 3

228 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
Finally, whUe it is not very material, that he re
prefents Zacharias to have been flain by Menahem,
whereas according to the facred hiftorian, he was
put to death by Shallum the fon of Jabeffi, as he a-
gain was affaffinated by Menahem, 2 Kings, xv. 8,
It is furely of fome importance to animadvert on his af
fertion ' That the ten tribes who were carried off by
' Salmanaffar king of the Babylonians, were enflaved
' and difperfed for ever, except fome hufbandmen
' who were kept to cultivate the land ;' For how
glaring his falffiood here ! Not to mention that a
greater number of the ten tribes feem to have conti
nued in their own country from 2 Chron. xxxiv.
6 — 9. it Is plain, thefe with the other two tribes,
had a ffiare in the promife of being recalled, and
dwelling again in that land, Jerem. xxxi. &c. It is
certain alfo, that Cyrus and Artaxerxes Invited all
the Jews indifcriminately, as they were all under
their government, to return into the country of their
fathers, and laftly, it is evident, that multitudes ofthe
ten tribes, taking the advantage of thefe royal edicts,
went back, as well as their brethren of Judah arid
Benjamin, to fettle there, though perhaps but a finall
part in comparifon of thofe that chofe to abide in the
territory where their enemies had planted them, hav
ing been reconciled to it by a refidence of almoft
two hundred years, and having acquired property
therein. See Ezra, I, 3, 2. 70, vi, 17, 21. vii. 13,
28, vm, 35, I Chron. ix, 13.*
partly becaufe his brethren, literally fo called, appear to have been car
ried captive by fome enemies, who made a fuccefsful incurfion into
Judah before this ; nor do we read of their being releafed and fent home,
2 Chron. xxi. 17. with Patrick's notes.
• Compare Ant. Univ. Hift. 4. 317. and 10. 180, 1 81. 'T

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 22,

SECTION XV.
Of mifreprefentations In his forty-third chapter, ' Of
' the Jewiffi prophets,' that Balaam was the pro
phet of another God, — that Jeremiah, Ifaiah, &c.
were Ill-treated, becaufe It was difficult to diftin-
guiffi between falfe and true pretenders to the
prophetic charader, — that Hofea declares the pro
phets fools, — that the prophets treated one another
as vifionaries, there being no other method to fe
parate the true from the falfe, but by waiting for
the accompliffiment of the predidions.
MR, VOLTAIRE'S next * chapter, which is ' Of
' the Jewiffi prophets,' furnlffies us with more nu
merous proofs of his negled of truth.
Notes. Agreeably, not only is there mention of Anna ofthe tribe of
Afer at Jerufalem, when Jefus was prefented to God in the temple
there; but the ten tribes are fpoken of as fexifting in the times, of the
apoftles, as well as the two, by whatever name their pofterity are now
called, and in whatever places-they are at prefent fituated. Says Paul
before Agrippa, ' I ara judged for the hope ofthe promife made of God
' to our fathers, unto which promife our twelve tribes inftantly ferving
* God day and night hope to come,' Adts, xxvi. 6, 7. James infcribes
his epiftle to fo many, ' James a fervant of God, and of the Lord Je-
' fus Chrift, to the twelve tribes which are fcattered abroad.' i. x.
And Jofephus himfelf is exprefs, that as the two tribes were fpread
through the Roman empire in Afia and Europe, fo when he wrote, the
other ten tribes inhabited the region beyond the Euphrates, and were
fuch multitudes as could not be computed, Antiq. 11. j. 2. to lay
nothing ofthe ftories ofthe Talmudifts, which are fo full of wonders
about the regularity and fplendor of their government, as to deferve no
credit. * Phil, of Hift.' ch. 43. p. 103.
' P ^

230 A VINDICATION OF P. II.
W^hen he fays, ' We know that God did not com-
* municate himfelf to the Jews, except In fome par-
* ticular Cafes, as for example when he infpired Ba-
* laam, the prophet of *Mefopotamia, and made hira
' utter the contrary of what he was to have been
* made to fay,' I fuppofe there is a flip of the pen,
or an error of the prefs ; for the connedion requires
he ffiould have denied, not God's communicating
himfelf to the Jews, but his communicating himfelf to
others than the Jews, except on rare occafions. But
when he proceeds, ' This Balaam J was the prophet
* of another god, and yet it is not faid that he was a
* falfe prophet,' it does not admit fuch an apology.
Does the Scripture teach us to view Balaam in this
light ? No. It neither calls him the prophet of an i-
dol-deity, as it does others, nor affords any good
reafons for forming this judgment concerning him.
On the contrary, it ffiews us, that he addreffed Jeho
vah inftead of a fidltious divinity. Therefore Mofes
reminds his nation, ' Jehovah thy God would not
* hearken to Balaam, but Jehovah thy God turned
* the curfe into a bleffing, becaufe Jehovah thy God
* loved thee,' Deut. xxUi. 5. And Jehovah, God of
Ifrael, mentions this by the mouth of Joffiua, among
* A learned foreigner, Harenberg, by the Mefopotamia or Aram
Naharaim of Scripture, underftands not the country between the rivers
Euphrates and Tigris, but that between Jordan and the river Jaboc ts
its eaft, even Baflian or Batanaea. See A<fta Erudit. Lipfiae. 1 740, p.
270. &c.
X This fame Voltaire, when it fuits his purpofe, fcruples not to fay
elfewhere, ' Balaam though an idolater, was his (the living God's) pro-
' phet, to fliew that God takes as much care of idolaters, as of his-«h8-'
' fen Jews.'

p. II. THE SACRED BOOKS. 231
other favours which he had beftowed on them, ' Ba-
' lak fent and called Balaam, the fon of Beor, to curfe
* thee, but 1 would not hearken to Balaam,' Joffi.
xxiv. 2, 9. It reprefents him alfo as well acquainted
with this name of the God of Ifrael, by which he
was diftinguiffied from all the Gentile gods. For when
the . elders of Moab and Midian firft afked him to
curfe the IfraeUtes, he anfwered, he would bring ac
count -what Jehovah ffiould fay to him, in relation
to their errand and affair. Numb, xxu. 8. and when
he learned his determination, he reported it unto
them with this preamble, ' Muft I not take heed to
* fpeak that which Jehovah hath put in my mouth?'
xxm. 10. 'Perhaps Indeed they were more ready to
afk his affiftance, becaufe he was looked on as a pro
phet of the fame Deity whom the Ifraelites worffiip
ped; for they might thence hope, they would by his
interceffion more eaffly draw him off from his care
and protedion of them, and Incline him to favour
and profper themfelves. Accordingly, I do not re
member to have read of any divines who denied him
to be a true prophet but Gifb. Voetius, who built
his opinion on this principle, that no true prophets
refided at any time among the GentUes, that is, any
other nation than Ifrad.
A Uttle after, he attributes the bad treatment of
Ifaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, to the difficulty of dif-
tlnguiffiing true and falfe pretenders to the prophetic
charader*, ' It was difficult to diftinguiffi the falfe
* prophet from the true one. Wherefore Manaffeh,
* kingof Judea, had Ifaiah fawn afunder. The king Se-
* decias could not decide between Jeremiah and Hana-
• Page 204.
P 4

2 32 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
' nlahjwho foretold contrary things ; and he Imprifon-
* ed Jeremiah. Ezekiel was flain by Jews his feUow-
' captives.' That Ifaiah was fawn afunder by Manaffeh, our
author without any hefitation here afferts ; and in
deed it hath been eagerly believed by the Jewiffi doc
tors, and moft fathers of the Chriftian church. Ne
verthelefs there are many circumftances, which ren
der it very doubtful; for it feems probable Ifaiah
was dead before Manaffeh fucceeded to the throne,
fince he is not mentioned among the kings In whofe
reign he prophefied, Ifaiah, I. i — It appears unac
countable fuch murder ffiould have been omitted by
the facred writers of * later times, who yet haverecord-
ed the deftrudion ofthe lives ofprophets, lefs famous,
by royal mandate, as of Zechariah, by the order of king
Joaffi, 2 Chron. xxiv. 2 i . and of Urijah, by the
command of Jehoiakim, Jerem. xxvi. 20 — 23.
— Though Jofephus fay Manaffeh killed all righteous
men among f the Hebrews, and fpared not the pro
phets, he is filent about Ifaiah's periffiing by violence
under him, as natural an occafion as he had to finUh
his account of him, by commemorating his martyr
dom, and as particular as he is, in his mention of Ze-
chariah's being ftoned to death in the temple under
Joaffi. — The traditionary | ftory related in the Gema-
* Juftin Martyr indeed, in his Dialogue with Trypho, hath charg
ed the Jews with erafing Ifaiah's cruel death by Manafleh out of the
Old Teftament, p. 349. Edit. Paris. But I fuppofe this meets with
no credit now, more than his accufation of them for taking away
• from the tree,' after ' The Lord reigned,' Pf. xcv. ibid. 298.
f Antiq. 10. chap. 2. 3. and 9. 8. 3.
X See this cited in Vitringa's preface to his Commentary on ifaiahi

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 233
ra about his death, hath many things in it evident
ly fabulous and incredible ; for inftance, that a cedar
tree opened and inclofed the prophet to ffielter him
from the wrath of this prince, that the king caufed
faw it, that the faw was of* wood, (a ftrange inftru
ment for the fervice!) and that Ifaiah expired as foon
as the faw reached his lips : which things create a pre
fumption that the whole is an Idle legendary tale.
And as to the words of the writer ofthe epiftle to the
Hebrews, in his recital of mens great atchievements
through faith, ' Some were fawn afunder,' which
have been often urged, in confirmation and fupport
of this tradition about Ifaiah's fate ; it may be ob
ferved, that they afford no fure evidence of its truth,
fince he fpeaks of feveral who with courage refigned
their lives in that form, and does not authorize us
to conclude, that he alludes to the fufferings of holy
men under Manaffeh, more than under other wicked
* Some however explain this wooden faw, with which ifaiah is faid
by feveral antient fathers to have been fawed in two from the head
downward, to fignify by an Hebraifm, not a faw made of wood, but
a faw with which wood ufed to be fawn, a faw prepared for cutting
timber. So Authors of Ant. Univ. Hift. 8vo. p. 133. I fuppofe they
mean that Trfiuy ^ukv, a faw of wood, might by the idiom of the He
brew tongue, receive fuch fenfe, becaufe the genitive after a noun, is
fometimes employed to exprefs the final caufe, that is, the defign or
purpole to be ferved by the thing or perfon which that noun denotes ;
of which Glaflius mentions ' ftieep of flaughter, Pf. xliv. 23. fons
' of death, Pf. cii. 21.' as inftances, thefe phrafes ftanding for,
flieep and men deftined to lofe their lives. But befides that the fathers,
if I am not miftaken, ufe the adjedlives ^u\iro; or ligneus, according.
as they write in Greek or Latin, fuch examples of the fenfe of the ge-
¦itive will fcarcely be admitted to be altogether parallel.

2 34 A VINDICATION OF P, IL
i'ulers,and particularly under Antiochus Epiphanes,by
whom the Jews that were tenacious of their law,
were treated in a moft barbarous manner, and fub
jeded to the moft unexampled miferies and pains in
dying. Compare Heb. xi. 37. and the books fof
the Maccabees.
But admitting that Ifaiah had an end put to his
life by Manaffeh, in the -way our author relates, (as
indeed it cannot be queftioned, whether he was ca
pable of committing fuch a crime, when the heinous
wickedneffes are confidered, which the writers ofthe
books of Kings and Chronicles inform us he prac-
tifed, 2 Chron. xxxiU, 3 — 10. and 2 Kings, xxi. 2,
9.) and likewife that Ezjeklel was flain by his feUow
captives, though about this. Scripture is filent, while
it acquaints us with Jeremiah's Imprifonment, muft
the account Voltaire gives of the groimd of their
cruel ufage be the juft one ? certainly it does not
follow, that it was hard to difcern between the mef-
fengers of God and Impoftors, becaufe thofe who
bore that honourable charader and office, were fome
times incarcerated and kUled ; for men often ad in op
pofition to the cleareft evidence, nay to the general
fenfe and perfuafion of their own minds about duty
and intereft, through the impetuofity of wicked paffi
ons, whence the poet makes Medea fay,
 ' Video mellora, proboque,
* Deteriora fequor,'-

Might not the Jews then deprive one prophet of his
liberty, and two others of their Ufe, amidft the moft
fatisfadory and convincing proofs of a commlffion
from heaven, provoked by their free cenfure of their
t vid. Rocque's Difcours, &c.

P,IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 235
vices, and their plain denunciations of divine judg
ments for obftinacy in them? to deny they might. Is
in effed to maintain, that no divine teacher who
brought fufficient credentials of his being fent from
God, hath ever been abufed, and put to death as a
deceiver, which is as unreafonable, as it would be to
affirm, that no excellent man hath ever been condem
ned by unjuft decrees, and executed as a malefac
tor unworthy to Uve, when there have been good ar
guments for the truth of the principles he held, and
the obligation of the duties he inculcated ; a pofition
which is contradided by the hiftory of the world in
different ages and countries, as might be ffiewed by
many examples.
Not to repeat what hath been already obferved,
about his rnifreprefentation of Zedekiah's reply to
MIcaiah here, he adds in fupport of his affertion, that
it was difficult to diftinguiffi the falfe prophet from
the true one, * Ofeus,-*chap, ix. declares that the
' prophets are fools, " ftultumprophetam, infanum vl-
" rum fpirltualem." But how abfurd this quotation'
to prove the point? It rather eftabUffies the contrary ;
for the fenfe is, that the nation of Ifrael would be
conftrained by the arrival and prevalence of their e-
nemies to confefs, that thefe perfons who boafted
authority from God, and endowment with his fpirit,
while they promifed them fafety in their idolatry
and other crimes, were themfelves under the Influ
ence of a deluded imagination ; wherefore, they had
finned in hearkening to fuch affurances from them,
in oppofition to that fcheme of reUgion and fyftem
of laws, which had been introduced among them'
• Page 204.

-3^ A VINDICATION OF P.IL
with the moft InfaUible demonftrations of a divine o-
riginal, ' The days of vlfitation are come, the days
' of recompenfe. Ifrael fliall know the prophet is a
* fool, the fpiritual man is mad, for the multitude of
* thine iniquity, &c,' So runs the verfe Hofea, Ix. 7.
' The prophets' he* goes on, ' treated one ano-
* ther as vifionaries and Uars ; there was no other
* method then of feparating the true from the falfe,
* but by waiting for the accompliffiment of the pre-
' didions,' But as true prophets never treated one
another as vifionaries, but on the contrary ffiewed
each other the greateft mutual refped, fee Daniel, ix.
2 , fo It is no wonder they all endeavoured to expofe
the falfe pretenders to a divine commlffion, fince thefe
thro' their promlfes of profperity to their countiymen,
while th ey continued in their notorious violation ofthe
law of Mofes, hardened them againft aU their attempts
to humble, alarm, and reform them by their remon-
ftrances and threatnings in the name of God. Indeed
they, on the other hand, were ready to caU them
deceivers, vexed at the lofs of their credit and repu
tation by their Invedlves againft them pbut this was
no more than was to be expeded. — Is it however a
neceffary confequence from this, that there was no
other teft or criterion of righteous and unrighteous
claimants to a miffion from heaven, but the accom
pliffiment or difappointment of their predidions, and
that contemporaries had no other poffible method
to difcover whether fuch as profeffed themfelves his
meffengers were to be honoured or negleded, but
to wait the event of their oracles ? No. They might
affuredly pronounce aU were impoftors, whofe decla-
* Page 204.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 237
rations tended to feduce them into, or confirm them
in the fervice of idol-deities from Deut. xm. i. and
be fuUy fatisfied without delay, that they were au
thorized by Jehovah, who while they purfued the
purpofes of Mofes his fervant, were enabled to work
miracles uncontrolled, to reveal the fecret thoughts
and adions of men, or even were countenanced and
favoured by others that had fuch irrefragable attef-
tations to their prophetic charader.
SECTION XVI.
Of his lUrfounded reflexion in the fame chapter, that
Eliffia's reply to Benhadad's fervants was equivo
cal, ' That he might recover, but that he would
* die.'
IN the next paragraph, we meet with a reflexion
on EUffia very* ill-founded, ' That he might have
' juftified himfelf from any imputation of fallacy, if
' the king of Syria had not died but been cured of
' his difeafe, through the equlvocalnefs of his reply
' to his fervants, " That he might recover, but that
" he would die." For is it not plain to every atten
tive perfon, that the one claufe of his anfwer only
fignifies, that his recovery was a thing poffible to hap
pen, but that the other declares that death would be
fall him ? Suppofe a man ffiould fay to another in the
name of God, ' Thou mayft become rich, but thou
' ffialt be poor,' would there be any juft reafon to
blame him for ambiguity of expreffion, or any good
caufe to accufe him for leaving his fortune uncertain,
* Pages 204, 205.

238 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
fo that he might vindicate the accuracy of his fore
knowledge, whether he ffiould be in opulent or
ftraltened circumftances ?
Thus the prophet's anfwer, according to the ac
count which our author himfelf gives of It, is eafily
defended againft his charge of equlvocalnefs. Yet it
may be proper to beftow a fuller confideration on
this paffage of Scripture, for the cenfure may be paffed,
with greater juftice it ffiould feem, upon his reply
as it runs in the original 2 Kings, viii. 10. fince In
the former part pf it, the verb which fignifies ' to five'
is employed in the future tenfe, and in the latter
part, the verb which fignifies, ' to die,' is alfo ufed
in the fame tenfe, each with its own infinitive, by
which jundion of the infinitive to the verb, the He
brews are accuftomed to exprefs in a ftrong manner
the certain arrival of any event mentioned, whether a-
greeable or difagreeable, in Its feafon. It may there
fore be tranflated thus, according to the reading and
punduation which the authors ofour verfion foUow
ed, ' EUffia * faid unto Hazael, Go, fay unto him,'
(I. e.to Benhadad the king of Syria, who fent thee) ' In
* U-ring thou ffialt live; howbelt the Lord hath ffiew-
' ed me, that in dying he ffiall die,' that is, that he ffiaU
furely die. And fo there appears to be greater ground
for the imputation of ambiguity than our author
perceived, at leaft than he urged. I may rather fay,
there is a ffiew of contradidion in the anfwer, for it
* The original runs thus, according to the text ^7 1QK "^
niD"' nin o mn- 'JMrn nmn ri'n Lech emar i*
bhajohtihhieh veherani Jehovah ki moth iamuth. But accordingto mar
gent or km it is ^ inftead of i^7.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 239
may be contended, he at once affures that the king
ffiaU recover, and that he ffiall die.
What then ffiall we offer in the prophet's behalf?
to prepare tiie way for folving the difficulty it may
be obferved, that EUffia had already given many
proofs of extraordinary power and knowledge ; of
extraordinary power I fay, as in curing Naaman's
leprofy, in reftoring the Shunamite's fon to Ufe, in
increafing the pot of oU, and the loaves of barley, in
making the fpring of water falutary, and the mefs of
pottage wholefome, and like works ; of extraordinary
knowledge I added, as in revealing thefe meafures
which the king of Syria planned and executed with
the greateft fecrecy againft Ifrael, and in foretelling
future contingencies, the miraculous fupply of water,
for inftance, to the combined armies of Ifrael and
Judah, together with their falvation from the Moab
ites, the Shunamite's conception and delivery of that
fon, for whofe revival ffie afterwards needed and ob
tained his Interpofitlon, the fudden change from ex
treme famine to great plenty in Samaria, the lofs of
all ffiare In this rich provifion to that courtier, who
rejeded the predidion of It as of an event Impoffible
and incredible, and fimUar things. Indeed, he had be
fore this afforded fo many demonftrations hereof, as
leave no reafon able room to doubt his being a prophet of
God. A very moderate degree of candour therefore,
wUl make us unwilUng to fuppofe, that he now pre
dided inconfiftencies concerning Benhadad, and fent
away Hazael his meffenger, uncertain whether that
prince would have his life prolonged, or ffiortened
and cut off: and happUy there Is no neceffity for fix
ing a declaration fo full of contradidion upon him.

240 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
The common expUcation is, that in the firft claufe
he ffiews the event according to the natural opera
tion of the difeafe under which the king laboured^
* Go fay to him, thou ffialt furely live,' in anfwer to
his enquiry, ffiaU I recover of this difeafe: and that
in the fecond, he declares the event through the ap
plication of human force and violence, by which the
cure would be prevented, and the extindion of life
effeded, ' Howbelt the Lord hath ffiewed me that
' he ffialF furely die.' In the fame manner, on the
other hand, Ifaiah firft predided to Hezekiah his lofs
of life according to the natural energy of the diftem-
per with which he was feized, ' Thou ffialt die, and
' ffialt not live.' 2 Kings, xx. i . And thereafter,
upon his humble and pathetic addrefs to God, that
his life might be prolonged, he foretold his fpeedy
recovery through the exertion of a divine power to
controll the native influence of his malady, and hin
der its fatal iffue in the courfe of phyfical caufes.—
Agreeably, we read that Hazael, having, on liis re
turn to Benhadad, who lay fick on his bed, reported
that the prophet had direded him to acquaint him
he would recover, next day ftifled him with a thick
cloth dipped in water; thus executing the fcheme
which he had formed of raifing himfelf to the klng-^
dom, as indeed he had been anointed unto it by the
order of God, many years before, in EUjah's time,
I Kings, xix. 15. and reaffured of his enjoyment of
it by this prophet ere he went away, after confulting
him concerning Benhadad's indifpofition.
If this account, however, pleafe not, we may fup
pofe that the prophet In his reply to Hazael's quef
tion, on behalf of Benhadad, ' Go teU him thou ffialt

P,n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 341
* recover,' makes ufe of the figure or trope caUed
Irony, by which a perfon expreffes a contrary mean
ing to the literal fenfe of his words, as appears from
his manner of pronouncing them, or fome other cir
cumftance. As there are frequent examples of this
in other writings, fo there are fome remarkable in
ftances of it in the Sacred Books. Thus, in Micalah's
fpeech to Ahab, ' Go up to Ramoth-GUead, and pro-
* fper:' i Kings, xxU, 12. And In Solomon's apoftro-
phe to young men, * Rejoice, O young man, in thy
' youth, walk after the fight of thine eyes, and after
* the way of thy ''^ heart,' Ecclef, xi, 9. — And in
Chrift's addrefs to his difciples, ' Sleep on now, and
' take your reft.' Matth. xxvi. 45, For In all thefe
cafes, the fpeakers intended a fevere prohibition of
what they feem, by their words literally confidered,
to permit or Injoln, And this anfwer to Hazael may be
added to the number, as if EUffia had faid, ' Go, tell
' him he ffiaU recover, difpofed as you are, like a cour-
' tier, to flatter him, and encourage his hopes; never-
* thelefs, the Lord hath ffiewed me he ftall die, inftead
* of ever being reftored to health and foundnefs, and
* releafed from his confinement.' Nor might he be in
any fufpence, it was the prophet's defign to forbid
him, from his air in uttering the words, more than
they who heard the words of the other fpeakers juft
recited upon their different occafions. It is true, upon
this hypothefis, Hazael muft have told a lie to his maf
ter, when he affirmed, at going home, The prophet
told file, thou ffialt furely recover. But this cannot
be any vaUd objedion to fuch fenfe, fince it can never
* The latter claufe in Ecclefiaftes, xi. 9, begins with vau, thet$
turned, hut, here, honubeit.

242 A VINDICATION OF P. II.
be thought the man who fcrupled not to fuffocate
and fmother his prince, would hefitate to relate to
him a falffiood that he might render him more eafy
and fecure, and, perhaps, facilitate the fuccefs of his
own wicked machinations againft him, by giving rife
to greater negligence and remiffnefs in attending up
on him.
It wUl make little difference. If we reckon the
firft part of the anfwer, not a prohibition, in the way
of irony, to carry affurances to Benhadad of his re
covery, but a predidlon that he would do it, for his
own purpofes. Hereby, as Jefus's words'*^ to the Jews,
when they afked from him fome evidence of his au
thority at purging the temple, John, xx. 19. Deffioy
this temple, &c. were equivalent to his faying. Ye
ffiall deftroy this temple ; fo Eliffia's words wUl be as
if he had faid, ' I know -f thou wilt go and buoy him
* up with expedations of recovery from his difeafe,
* through thy fawning temper and difpofition. But
' the Lord hath ffiewed me that he will die.' There
after, adds the hiftorian, he fixed his eyes upon Ha-
* So in Virgil's Eclogue 7. ver. 36. * Aureus efto,' is for ' Aureus
ens ,' where Thyrfis fpeaking of the effefl if the young fliould recruit
his flock, tells the god Priapus, he (i. e. his ftatue) ftiould be of gold
inftead of marble,
' Si foetura gregem fuppleverit, aureus efto.' ,
"t This interpretation is adopted by Houbigant, as well as by fome
others. ' In his verbis, fays he, "Dicei, certifiime vives," contineri
' Elifaei exprobrationem tacitam, cum non nefciret Elifaeus hominem
' de aula regia fuo regi adulaturum.' And feems much more eafy than
Schmidins's, who would read the firft claufe by way of interrogatory,
' Say to him, flialt thou live ? Shall this favour be granted to thee,
' who haft fo oppreifed and vexed my people ? by no means. For
' God hath ftiewed me thou flialt furely die.'
I

P.U. THE SACRED BOOKS. 243
zael tiU he was afhamed, confcious, probably, of his
own black contrivance |.
In any of thefe ways of interpretation, all ffiadow
of charge againft EUffia, for contradidion and equl
vocalnefs, is taken away. If, In one of them, we muft
X Thefe explications do all proceed upon fuppofition that the iert
ar marginal reading, is the true one which hath v to him. And in
deed, it appears very probable to have been the original one here, as well
Js in Ex. xxi. 8. Lev. xi. 21. I Sam. ii. 3. 2Sam. xvi. 18. and fome
ather places. For the authors of the antient verfions, the Chaldee, Sy.
riac, Greek, Arabic, and Vulgate, have all tranflated Eliftia's anfwer
to Hazael, as having that pronoun inftead of the negative particle. Jo
fephus alfo appears to have founded his relation of this interview be
tween Eliftia and Hazael on the fame ftate of the text, for he fays,
Antiq. 9. 3. 4. 'He commanded Hazael to fay nothing difagreeable
' to the king,' which he could not have faid with juftice, had the ne
gative particle J<7 been in his copies. — The change, moreover, might
:afily happen. For how readily might a tranfcriber write N"? not, for
f? him, miftaking, through the famenefs of the found, that which
vas didtated. And, indeed, I would rather conjefture this to have been
he caufe ofthe corruption, than that any ignorant perfon, from a pious
teal for the honour and credit of Eliftia (that he might not be thought
:o direft Hazael to utter a falftiood to Benhadad, in bidding him fay.
That he would furely live, when yet he had life foon cut off") wilfully
vitiated his copy, and wrote the particle of negation inftead ofthe pro-
loun,-— -Houbigant obferves, in confirmation ofthe marginal reading,
hat the verb, with its infinitive conjoined as here, excludes the negati-
>n ; for fuch a form of writing never occurs but when fomething is af-
Irmed. — There are not wanting, however, learned men, who, after all,
[ive the preference to the cethib or textual reading J<7. though they
ire not agreed about the tiieaning. For fome, joining it viith fay, tranf-
ateyjy not, and fuppofe Eliftia to forbid Hazael to give Benliadad any
.fluran;:e of life, becaufe God had revealed to him his death. ' Go,
fay not to Benhadad thou ftialt furely live, for God hath ftiewed me
he fliall furely die.' And others join it with tive, and make Eliflia
lireft him to carry the melancholy tidings of his fpeedy diflblution.
0^2

244 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
fuppofe a certain tone of voice In fpeaking, or fome
other circumftance of which the hiftorian makes no
mention, this is no more than what we think equi
table to admit in reading paffages, both of antient
and modern authors. Why then ffiould we walk by
different rules here?
SECTION XVIL
Of his faying that ' little innocents' were devoured
at Bethel for words which they faid to EUffia in
' laughing.' — That Ifaiah walked three years quite
naked In Jerufalem. — That Jeremiah was only
fourteen years old when he was employed as a
prophet ; and that he prophefied in favour of Ne
buchadnezzar  And of a miftake in his account
©f God's order to Hofea.
IN the fame pagef of the PhUofophy of Hiftory, we
have his recital of the tranfadion In the neighbour^
hood of Bethel. But no more is this altogether fair
' Go, fay, thou ftialt not furely live ; for God hath fliewed me he (hall
• furely die.' Such is Junius's and TremeUius's verfion, fuch too is the
tranflation ofthe Dutch divines, of Lyra, and Toftatus, and fome Jew
ifti Rabbis. And a third fort make the negative particle ftand apart,
and contain Eliftia's order to Hazael about his anfwer to the kings in
terrogatory, whether he would recover of the difeafe ; after which, ac
cording to them, he proceeds to declare what would be his own fate,
and what would be the king's. ' Go fay, not. Thou flialt furely Ii'e>
' but, the Lord hath fliewed me he fliall furely die.' This is the ex
plication, given by Rafchi, that is. Rabbi Salomon Jarchi, and by Guf
fetius, who thinks there is a fimilar ufe of i<^ not, 2 Kings, vi. lo.
and I Kings, xi. 22.
\ Page 20-5.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 245
when he fets forth, ' That fo many little children
' faid to EUffia in laughing, Mount, bald-pate. Mount,'
and mentions ' the prophet's vengeance thereupon,
' in caffing forth two bears who devoured the little
' innocents.' For the original denotes that they fpake thefe
words, ' Mount,' or rather, ' Afcend, thou bald-pate,
' Afcend, thou bald-pate,' In derifion and mockery,
away with thyfelf to heaven, after the example of
thy mafter EUjah. Agreeably, even the Vulgate ver
fion, of which he is fo tenacious, as we have obferved,
when at any time it furnlffies him with a handle to
infult and cavil at the facred writers, or the heroes
they celebrate, has here, ' They fcoffed at him, fay-
' Ing, Afcend, thou bald, Afcend, thou bald,' where
as he, by his manner of expreffion, would lead us to
think they threw out thefe words in mere unexcep
tionable gaiety and pleafantry of fpirit.
Again, the Hebrew word Qnyj nagnarim, tranf
lated children, occurs, as is well known, concerning
perfons arrived to years of difcretion : for Iffimael
when he mocks Ifaac, and could not be lefs than fif
teen or fixteen years old; Ifaac, when he carried the
«vood for the burnt-offering, and difcourfed fo rati
onally with his father in their journey to mount
Moriah; Jofeph, when he was feventeen years old,
ind kept the flocks of the famUy in the field; nay,
ivhen he interpreted the dreams of his fellow prifo-
aers in Egypt, and was not much fhort of thirty ;
md Rehoboam, when he rejeded the requefts of his
iibjeds, about granting an abatement of their bur-
lens, in oppofition to the more prudent advice of
lis father's old counfellors, are each called nyj nag-
0.3

246 A VINDICATION OF P.U,
nar or child, as our tranflation turns it often. Gen.
xxi, 12. xxU. 5. xxxvU, 2, xU. 12, 46. 2 Chron.
xiu. 7.  The fons of Eli alfo, when, by then ra
pacious and oppreffive behaviour, they made the of
fering of the Lord to be abhorred; and Daniel, with
his three companions, when they decUned defiling
themfelves with the king's meat and drink, requeft-
ing that they might be tried with the ufe of pulfe and
water for ten days, and then be examined whether
their countenance and form was not equal to theirs
who partook of the deUcacIes of the royal table, are
called tunyj or children, i Sam. U. 1 7 , Daniel, i.
17- It is true, there Is a term here added, which -we
render little. But even this does not fo reftrain the
meaning of the word, as to warrant the ftiling thefe
perfons, who cried out after EUffia, ' Innocents,' as
if they were fo young, that they could not dUHn-
guiffi between good and evil, right and wrong, nor,
by confequence, be chargeable with having contracted
guilt before God. For the damfel who waited on
Naaman's wife, and informed her of Eliffia's abili
ty to cure perfons of the leprofy, has the fame epi
thet oi Uttle, 2 Kings, v. 2 . ' The Syrians had brought
' away captive out of the land of Ifrael a little maid,
' and ffie waited on Naaman's wife.' Solomon af-
fumes this appellation of a ' little child ' to himfelf,
after his fucceffion to the throne, and his marriage
with Pharaoh's daughter, which could not be before
he was twenty years of age, when he made fupplica-
tion to God for wifdom and underftanding to go
vern his people, 1 Kings, iii, 7 . — Finally, Benjamin
is caUed a ' little one,' Gen, xUv. 20. when he muft

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 247
have been the father of feveral chUdren, Gen, xlvi. 2 i .
Thefe therefore whom the prophet caUed two ffie-bears
to deftroy, might be far above the age of Innocence,
and be prompted by their own profanenefs and im
piety, to ridicule him, inftead of uttering expreffions,
of which they did not underftand the meaning and
intention, at the inftigation of their parents^.
It fcarce merits our attention, that he fays In the
next page f , ' The melk or petit king of Samaria,'
whUe he does not give this name to the king of Ju
dah, or to the king of Syria ; only it is not eafy to
fee the reafon of his diftindion, as the name ppu
melech, which he pronounces melk. Is common to
them all In the Hebrew language, and the dominion
of the king of Judah was rather lefs extenfive than
that of the king of Samaria, whom he graces ^ith.
the title of melk or petit, that is, pitiful, puny king,
as charaderiftic of him alone. — But furely it is of
irnportance to examine his reprefentation concern
ing Ifaiah, when proceeding to the confideration
of thofe cuftoms of the Jewiffi prophets, which ap
pear to us extravagant, he writes thus J, ' The fame
' Ifaiah walks quite naked In Jerufalem to fignify
' that the Egyptians ffiall be entirely ftript by the
* I am fenfible a late writer, Worthington, in his Evidences o^
Chriftianity deduced from fafts, hath explained the word, here rende
red 'little,' to mean ' bafe, deteftable,' in Gen, ix. 29. arguing it
might be taken in this moral fenfe, from its being ufed to fignify littls
in quality, aa well as quantity, Jerem. xlix. i j. and Obad. 2. But this
does not appear of weight to perfuade fuch an acceptation of it, where
fore I do not adopt it here.
f Page 206.
:j: Page 207. Thus alfo, in a note on his Treatife of Toleration,
chap. I 2. page 180. ' We find the fame prophet walking naked and
0.4

S48 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
* king of Babylon. What? wiU it be faid, is It pof-
* fible that a man ffiould walk quite naked in Jeru-
* falem -without being taken notice of by juftice?
* Yes, certainly.' And after" this, he compares him
for effrontery with Diogenes, with a fet of Brach-
mans in India, and others, both in antient and mo
dern times.
Now here, it is true, that Ifaiah Is faid. In purfu
ance of a divine order, to have walked naked and
barefoot three years, for a fign that the king of Af-
fyria would carry away. In fuch condition, the Egyp
tians and the Ethiopians captives, Ifai. xx. 3. But
is our author's comment juft? To omit that many
have thought this and like things were aded in vi
fion, not in reality, it Is by no means reafonable, on
the literal fcheme, to imagine that Ifaiah appeared fo
long deftitute of all raiment and apparel on his body.
It is not likely God would enjoin an appearance
thus indecent and unbecoming, who in his law had
taken fuch care to prevent even the cafual difcovery
of the nudity of his minifters during their religious
offices, Exod. xx. 26. — Farther, it does not feem
that fuch abfoliite nakednefs would be neceffary as
an emblem or hieroglyphic of the difgrace to which
thefe people ffiould be fubjeded in their long remo
val ; for it was never the cuftom for conquerors in
war, to lead away captives into their diftant ter
ritories, ftripped of cloaths altogether, as indeed it
was not confiftent with their intereft: fince this re
quired they ffiould ufe every method to preferve
' barefoot, to fiiew that the king of Aflyria ftiall lead away the Egyp-
' tians and Ethiopians captives, without their having wherewith to co-
' ver their nakednefs.'

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 24^
their bodies found and healthful, inftead of expofing
them to the hazard of difeafes by a tedious march,
without any cover, amidft exceffive cold or immo
derate heat, and likewife that they fhould guard the
females In their number, from the wanton abufe of
their foldiers and fellow-prifoners, inftead of invit
ing by fuch attitude the gratification of their lufts.
Finally, among the Jews it was ufual to caU perfons
naked, who wanted the ordinary habit of their rank
and ftation, though not wholly deftitute of fome
robe or garment; fo David is faid to have danced
naked before the Lord, at the folemnlty of transfer
ring the ark to Zion, yet It is recorded exprefsly,
that he was clothed -with a robe of fine linen, and
had upon him alfo an ephod of linen, 2 Sam. vi. 14,
20. and I Chron. xv. 27. of which the former
was an entire * veftment thk reached down to the
feet, and the latter according tof Jofephus a garment
that came down the length of a cubit from the ffioul-
ders. The meaning therefore of David's being na
ked, is no more than that he uncovered himfelf as
a king, or laid afide the habit which he was accuftom-:
ed to wear according to his quality. Nor was the
phrafeology peculiar to the Jews, but common alfo to
the Greeks and Latins, as may be argued from the
diredions of Hefiod | and VirgU, to plow naked, to
fow naked, to reap naked; from Aellan's faying
that § Gelo went forth naked into the market-
* Hence the Seventy Exod. xxxix. 23. and Jofephus Antiq. 3.
7, 4 — -6, have tranftated it roMj TTolyifiti;.
f Vide Jofeph. ibidem.
X Hefiod Op.et Dies, v. 392. ' rvfitvcy <r7reifeiy,yvpiroy 01 ^ouretr.'
Virgil Georg. i. ' Nudus ara, fere nudus.'
§ Var, Hift, 6. 11, ' Eirx ih.5-uy et; rtjy a-yopur yv/^YOt,'

250 A VINDICATION OF P. Jl.
place, when he declared his readinefs. to abdicate
the empire, which in another || paffage is explained to
have been with his tunic loofe or ungirded ; from
Aurelius || Vidor's account, that when the Romans
fent to Cincinnatus, to bring him to be didator,
their meffengers found him naked at his plough, fince
this appears only to fignify, that he had thrown offhis
toga or upper-garment, wherefore iLivy fays merely,
he called for it, as indeed they had defired no more
than that with his toga he would accompany them,
and fo he proceeded to wait on the fenate; and to name
no other authorities, from Suetonius's telling us,
that when the people urged* Auguftus with much
earneftnefs to accept the didatorffiip, he kneeled
down, and throwing off his toga or gown from his
ffioulders, deprecated It with a naked breaft. For
thefe reafons we ought not to imagine, that Ifaiah
walked ftark naked, but that he put off his upper
garments as a token that the Affyrian monarch
would carry away the Egyptians and Ethiopians
-without fuch a garb and habit, which indeed was an
ufual -f treatment of captives.
II Ibid. 13. 37. ' if a^ura yjravi.^
II De Viris lUuftribus, ' Quinftius diftator diftus, ad quem milli
' legati nudum eum arantem trans Tiberim offenderunt.'
\ Lib. iii. 26. ' Ibi — operi, certe id quod conftat, agrefti inten-
' tus, falute data invicem redditaque, rogatus ut, quod bene verteret
' ipfi reipublicaeque, tegatus mandata fenatus audiret, — togam prope-
' re e tugurio proferre uxorem Raciliam jubet, qua fimul, abfterfo pul-
' vere ac fudore, velatus proceflit &c.'
* Auguft. c. 50. ' Diftaturam, magna vi offerente populo, genu*
' nixus, dejefta ab humeris toga, nudo peftore deprecatus eft.'
f Inftances of like ufe of the term naked, are thought to occur
John, xxi. 7. and Ads, xix. 1 6. Every one muft alfo have obferved,

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 251
As to his I affertion, ' That Jeremiah 'vt^as only
' fourteen years of age when he received the Spirit,'
it hath no better foundation than his plea, that he
was "lyj nagnar, a child, when he would excufe him
felf from being employed by God as a prophet to
the nations, Jererti. i, 6. but it hath been already
proved, if I am not miftaken, that the term was ap
plied to perfons of ftill more mature age, in many
places of Scripture ; to which I now add Exodus,
xxxUi. 1 1 . where Joffiua Is fo defcribed, though he
'was twenty years old and upwards at the egrefs of
the children of Ifrael from Egypt, Numb, xiv, 30,
When he fays* again, ' Jeremiah direds the neigh-
* bouring kings to fubmit to the king of Babylon
* Nebuchadonofor, in whofe favour he prophefies ;'
How apt is this to convey to his readers a wrong I-
dea ! It is true, he foretells his prevalence againft them,
as he was the chofen inftrument of divine providence
for puniffiing their Iniquities. But does he not alfo
predid terrible judgments upon him, and the feat of
his empire, and the people of his land, after the feven
ty years of the captivity of the Jews ffiould be ac-
compUffied ? See Jerem. xXv. 1 2 . &c. alfo chap. 1, U.
that nudus in Latin, and yv/xYo; in Greek, are ufed concerning perfons
\ifho are ill-cloath'ed, or whofe raiment is worn out and tattered, as in
Tacitus De More Germanorum, c. 26. Curtius, 9. 3. Matt. Xxv.
36. James, ii. 15. hence Seneca's obfervation, De Beneficiis, lib. 5.
c. 1 3 . ' Quaedam etiaimfi vera non fint, propter fimilitudinem eodent
' vocabulo comprehenfa fiint ; Sic — illiteratum non ex toto rudem,
* fed ad literas altiores non perduftum. iSic qui male veftitum et pan-
' hofum vidit, nudum fe vidifle dicit.' And indeed we ufe the term
naked with the fame latitude in our own language,
Ij: Phil, of Hift. p. 208,
* Phil, of Hift. p. aoS.

252 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
He was then far from prophefying only things con
ducive to the king of Babylon's intereft, and agree
able to his -wlffies, as one hired and bribed by him
would have done.
In the laft paragraph of this 4 3d chapter, which hath
detained us now long, we meet, I think, -with a mif
take about God's J order to Hofea, ' He commands
* Hofea to wed an adulterefs, who was beloved by
* another, as the Lord loves the children of Ifrael, who
' pay refped to foreign gods, and who love the fkin
' ofthe grape, chap. 3.'
For the genuine fenfe appears to be, that he ffiould
exprefs love to a woman, 'beloved' not by a ftranger,
but, ' by her friend' and companion, the affociate of
her bed, that is her hufband, as yi rang Is taken
Jerem. IU. 2 o. Cantic. v. 1 6 . ' yet an adulterefs,' not
withftanding this additional engagement, from ten
der affedion on the part of her hufband, ' according
' to the love of Jehovah toward the children of Krael,
' who turn to other gods, and love,' not the fkin, as
Mr. Voltaire has it without any authority, but, as
the word Is turned every where elfe, ' flagons of grapes,'
2 Sam. vi, 19. i Chron. xvi, 3, Cantic. U. 5, that
is, off 'wine, the juice thereof; by which defcription
is fignified in general, their affedion to thofe idola
trous feafts which were celebrated In the idol-temples
upon their facrifices. Judges, ix. 17, Amos, ii. 8.
I Cor, X, 7 — 21, The prophet then is bid ffiew kind
nefs toward a woman, probably his own fpoufe, from
whom he had for fome time fequeftered himfelf on
X See Volt. Phil, of Hift. page 211,
•j- So Virgil ufes grapes for "wine. Georg. i. 9.
' Poculaque inventis Acheloia mifcuit uvis.'

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 253
account of her adultery, againft aU the ties and ob
ligations upon her to fidelity, arifing from his ardent
attachment ; and this he is enjoined to do, to denote
God's tendernefs for the people of Ifrael, notwith-
wlthftanding their falffiood to him, and violation of
their covenant with him, by the worffiip of falfe gods,
¦which is often ftUed adultery in Scripture, by aUu-
fion to the conjugal relation, it reprefents to have
fubfifted between them.
But though this feem the genuine fenfe, as his
interpretation of the former part of the verfe hath
fome learned advocates, we do not accufe him therein
of maUcious mifreprefentation. ,
SECTION XVIII.
Of his enumeration in chapter forty-feventh of po
pular prejudices to which the facred writers con
formed, — That the Scripture calls the rainbow
the ark of God, — That Mofes ereded a brazen
ferpent, a God whofe look cured, — That Chrift
fays, new 'wIne ffiould never be put Into old cafks,
— That Paul fays, the feed Is not quickened ex
cept it die, — and that Chrift grants the Pharifees
difpoffefled devils.
I NOW pafs over to his forty-feventh chapter, 'Of
* popular prejudices, to which the facred writers have
* deigned to conform through condefcenfion.' Here
there is room for many animadverfions ; but I fatisfy
myfelf with the foUo'wing.
He* fays, ' The Scripture calls the rainbow the
' ark of God, the fign of alliance.* But where does
¦* Page 223.

254 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
it receive this title? God Indeed is Introduced faying,
* I do fet my bow in the cloud, and it ffiaU be a to-
* ken of a covenant between me and the earth,' viz,
that I will not deftroy it any more with a flood, which
is in the Vulgate ' Arcum meum ponam in nubibus.'
But how ridiculous to pretend the Scripture calls
this rainbow the ark of God, which every one kno-ws
denotes that cpffer wherein the tables of the law
were depofited, and over which the Shechinah or
fplendor, that was the fymbpl pf the divine prefence,
refided firft in the tabernacle, and afterwards In the
temple? Fpr this there Is no better hancUe, than that
the firft is in the Latin tranflation ftiled arcus, and the
\2&.\arca, while the names ofthe one and the other, are
as different In the original as JT^p kefheth and 1l"iX
aron. What fcholar muft npt be amazed at fuch mif
reprefentation !
Again fhow inexcufable his affertion, ' Mofes e-
' reded a god, a brazen ferpent, whofe look cured
' thofe who had been bit with ferpents ;' For what
is there in the hiftory to countenance this wild charge?
There we read, that Mofes interceded with God at
the requeft ofthe people, that the fiery ferpents which
wounded them to death In great numbers, mi^ht
be taken away ; hereon God direded him to make
the likenefs of one of thefe ferpents in brafs, and fet
it upon a pole, with a promife that whoever ffiould
after any hurt from thefe animals look upon it ffiould
recover. In conformity to this order, Mofes framed
X Only it may be obferved, the word for the rainbow in the French
verfion is arc, apd the word for the ark of the teftimony, the ark of
Noah, is arcie, X Page 224.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 255
and ereded it in the camp, and it had this expeded
virtue and efficacy. But what reafon did that give
our author to fay, he ereded a God? None at aU
furely. — If the people In a fucceecUng period of great
corruption, when Mofes was long dead, worffiipped
or burnt incenfe to this brazen ferpent, 2 Kings, xviU.
4. (for the fame was it feems ftUl preferved among
them, as might be fuppofed indeed, concerning fuch
a monument and mean of divine mercy toward their
anceftors,) it is moft abfurd to impute, by fuch an
expreffion, this abufe of it to. him. In whofe writings
we do not read either the requirement or perform
ance of fuch honour to it, but on the contrary, the
moft exprefs prohibition of making any image of any
objed whatever for worfliip, and this enforced by
the moft tremendous and awful fandlon. — Mr. Vol--
taire himfelf * is fo honeft elfewhere as to fay, ' Tho'
• We have had occafion to obferve already, that he is fometimes
a little inconfiftent with himfelf. In this Treatife chap. 30. page 138,
he fays, ' Solomon placed two cherubims in the temple. But thefe che-
' rubims were not look'd upon as Gods,' which is very true ; yet it»
his eflay ' Of the Jews,' whichis to be found in the book called his
Dialogues and Efl^ays Literary and Philofophical, p. 62. he reprefents
* The two cherubims at Jerufalem, to have been confecrated like the
' two calves at Sichem;' though it is faidof thefe very calves at Sichem,
that Jeroboam on their ereftion faid unto the people, ' Behold thy
- Gods (thy God) O ifrael ! which brought thee up out ofthe land of
* Egypt,' and facrificed unto them, 1 Kings, xii. 28, 32.
In the fame manner chap. 42. p. 1 98. he fays, ' Never were the
• Jews more attached to their law, than under the kings of Syria. They
' no longer adored foreign divinities,' yet in two lines after he fays,
' They were neverthelefs more unhappy than ever, always' in expefta-
¦ tion of being delivered by the promifes of their prophets, by the aflift-
' ance of their gods, but abandoned by Providence, whofe decrees are
' unknown to man.' What contradiftions are thefe ! What fliaraefu!

25(5 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
' this ferpent was made to cure the bite of real fcr-
* pents, it was not however adored.' It is true in the
place juft|quoted, he leaves alfo ground for complaint
of his difingenuity ; for he infinuates, that making
this ferpent was a violation of the cUvine law, ' Mofes
' not'withftanding the divine law, which forbad the
' making the reprefentation of m en or animals, ereded
' a brazen ferpent, which was an imitation of the iil-
* ver ferpent carried by the Egyptian priefts in pro-
' ceffion ;' But how foollffi the cavil ! To omit, that
whatever Mofes did here, he did by order of Jehovah,
who could not be under any reftraints from the rules
he had prefcribed to his creatures, it is plain from
the general fcope, and moft natural conftrudion of
the fecond precept in the decalogue itfelf, that the
making an Image or figure of any thing was only con
demned by itin this precife and determinate view, of
making it to be worfhipped; and the reafon annexed
* 1 am a jealous God,' doth only fuit with this expo
fition of It : for where is the conclufivenefs and force
of the argument againft making images for other
purpofes, though it has irrefiftlble energy againft
making them to be proftrated unto, and to receive
religious adoration ?-j-
marks of carelefsnefs ! The cherubims not looked upon as gods,- and
yet confecrated like the calves which Jeroboam ftiled gods,^ — Tbe Jews
no longer adoring foreign divinities, and yet looking for deliverance by
the afliftance of their gods, though Jehovah was their alone God, fo
that any on whom they relied, befides him, muft have been ftrange gods,
X See Phil, of Hift. chap. 30. p. i 38.
¦J- As to his fancy, that it was an imitation of the filver ferpqnt,
carried by the Egyptian priefts in proceflion, I wifti he had given uS
a particular account what led him to entertain it; I do not believe

P.IL THiE SACRED BOOKS. 257
Farther, is it not moft fpiteful and malicious in
him to rpprefent, that the Saviour himfelf, in con
formity to vulgar prejudices, fays, ' That new wine
* ffiould* never be put into old cafks?' Does not al
moft every perfon of any literature know . that his
lie hath the aiithority either of Sir John Marftiam ot Dr. Spencer
for it, as ingenious and fertile as each of thefe learned perfons was,
in difcoveries of this fort. Probably he borrowed it from Dr. Middle-
ton, who after he hath faid that ' The m-aking the golden calf was no-
' thing elfe but recalling the worihip ofthe Egyptian god 4pis, repre-
' fented always under that form,' adds ' And the fetting up the brazen
' ferpent ffcems to have been done in condefcenfion to the fame humour ;
' being an Objeft they bad been ufed to reverence in Egyot ; where
' from the ifiac table of Bembo, the obelifl<s and other Kgyptian mo-
' numents, it appears that the image of a ferpent erefted in that man-
' ner on a pillar, h<id extraordinary honours and a fuperftitious vene-
' ration paid to it ;' and then refers us to Pierius Valerianus in his Hi-
croglyphica, lib. 14. afld to Eufebius in his Praep. Evang. lib. i.
cap. 10. for the truth hereof. See his Works, vol. 3. Letter to Dr,
Waterland, page 33. Still however it muft be regarded as an idle con
ceit, for all that is in Eufebius to the purpofe is a quotation frorn Phi
lo Byblius's tranflation of Sanchoniatho, (an author whom Dr Middle-
ton himfelf hath pronounced little worthy to ground any conjefture up
on, ibid, page 27.) ' That the Egyptians after Taautus afcribed di-
* vinlty to ferpents, and called a figure ofa ferpent which had a hawk's
' head joined to it, cneph, and offered facrifices, and celebrated fefti-
' vals thereunto ;' and as to his other authorities, all that looks favour
able to his hypothefis either in the brazen Ifiac table of Cardinal Bembo,
(as it is engraven in Pignorius's book,) or in Pierius's volume, is, that fer
pents are there reprefented to receive worfliip. But furely there is no
teafon hence to afiirra, that the ereftion of the brazen ferpent to cure
the ifraelites, was an imitation of an tigyptian rite, whatever caufe there
may beaffbrdt'd forfufpicion, that this people in fucceeding times, when
they begun to burn incenfe to it, were tainted wi h Egyptian manners.
See Pignorii VIenfa ifiaca, and pages 23, 26, 69, of his Commentary,
* Page 225. R 1

258 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
obfervation is, ' Neither do men put new wine into
' old botties, elfe the bottles break, and the wme
' runneth out ?' nor can the truth of this be queffi-
oned, when it is confidered that the term -j- tranflated
bottles, did not fignify In thofe ages and countries,
veffels made of glafs, fuch as we denote by that
name, but budgets or bladders made of the hides of
animals for containing liquors ; for fuch old leath
ern budgets would be apt to rend and burft by the
fermentation of new wine, to its entire lofs and effu
fion. — No more is it difficult to defend the pertinence
of It to our Saviour's defign^ which was to ffiew,
that weak and feeble virtue, ffiomld not have the
moft burdenfome taffis, and difficult fervices impo
fed, left it faint and be difcouraged.
As little juftice is there in his producing St. Paul's
expreffion there, as a condefcenfion to vulgar errol'S,
or prevailing falfe opinions, ' That the feed which
' thou foweft is not quickened, except it die;' for
there is enough In the common appearance of nature'
to vindicate the remark, together with his appUcati-
on of it, for fliewing it was poffible that the diffolu-
tion of the body might be fucceeded by its revival ;
fince the grain we throw into the earth feems to rot
f The word acitoc is properly itter, a bladder ; hence we read of
a(r)to/,or bladders made of goat flcin, ox-ftcin, &c. So Athenaeus Deip-
nofoph lib. j. p, 199. Ipeaks of an oi<sy.o; or budget holding 3000
ftiTf',iraci, (each ofwhicb, according to Arbuthnot, contained two En-
glifli gallons, and two pintsyfewed of panther- ftiins, m TrotflaMY oef-
ftdray e^pa/z/zevof. And Homer's Iliad, iii. 246. 247,
 ' oircv ivf^iroL Kctf:roy atovori;
' Atko} ly ccfyeia.'  ¦
To name no more inftances. By this account of tbeir materials, lighf
sa thrown upon Joftiua, ix. 1 3, and Pf. cxix. 83.
I

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 259
and putrefy, to wafte and wither away, the external
ffiell moiftening and corrupting, ere it produce per
fect corn, whatever vegetative quaUty may fUU lurk
in it.Finally, ffiould not Mr. Voltaire* have confidered,
that there are Chriftian cUvInes, who neither allow
that the Pharifees In fad drove out devils like our
Saviour, nor that he fuppofed them endowed with
fuch an energy, in conformity to the popular preju
dices of his place and day, when-t-he faid, ' If 1 by
' Beelzebub caft out devUs, by whom do your chlld-
*¦ ren caft them out? therefore they ffiall be your
' judges.' Be it, that it would be doing violence to
his words, either to explain them of the expulfion of
evU fpirits by prophets of their own nation long dead,
becaufe he feems to fpeak of the prefent difplay of
fuch virtue, or to interpret them of the ejedion of
demons by his difciples, when he fent them before
that, through the cities and villages of Judea, with
power to difpoffefs them. In order to awake attenti
on and procure credit to their dodrine, becaufe it
is not likely they would attribute fuch operations in
them to a divine affiftance, more than in their mafter,
though indeed each of thefe fenfes hath its advocates ;
ftUl we may very well fuppofe that our Lord, with-
* Page 227. The paflage alluded tq, runs thus, • The Jews were
' at length fo skilful in driving out devils, that our Saviour, who, accord-
• ing to St. Matthew, was himfelf accufed of driving them out by the
' power of Beelzebub, grants the Jews the fame power, and asks them
' if it is by means of Beelzebub, that they triumph over evil fpirits ? —
' If they had not this gift, Jefus conformed himfelf to the popular pre-
' judices, indei^jning to fuppofe that his implacable enemies had it, aqd
' prevailed over demons.' J Matt. xii. 27.
R 2

26o A VINDICATION OF P.n.
out granting that any of the Pharifees really freed
the bodies of men from the oppreffion of evU fpirits,
argues here with them upon their belief that they
did, whUe they did not pretend that they owed this
abUity to Beelzebub, but looked upon it as the gift
of God, and on this account tells them, that fuch
men would furniffi matter for their condemnation,
by their fo favourable opinion and honourable treat
ment of them beyond himfelf.
SECTION XIX.
Animadverfions on his forty-eighth chapter, where
he writes, that Satan appears In Job mafter ofthe
earth, fubordinate to God ; and that Satan is a
Chaldaean word, and the Arimanius of the Per
fians.
IN the chapter which fucceeds, our author treats
of angels, genu, and devUs of the antient nations,
and amongft the antient Jews. He faUs not however
here alfo to afford reafon for various cenfures of his
work. ' Satan,' fays* he, ' appears in Job to be the ma-
* fter of the earth, fubordinate to God.' But is this
true? aU which appears from this book is, that he
roves through the earth,— that he is difpofed to de
trad from the virtue or excellence of a holy perfon,
—that he can upon God's licence, for the wife pur
pofes of his government, bring ruin upon a good
man's famUy and eftate, and inffid difeafes upon his
body, — and that he cannot work any hurt, or pro-
* Phil; of Hifli. chap. 48. p. 2jr.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 261
duce any mifchief without or beyond fuch allow
ance. But furely this is not to make Satan mafter
of the earth, fubordinate to God, any more than
it is to make a perfon mafter of Britain, fubordinate
to Its monarch, to reprefent him rambling through
it, and thereafter thro-wing out a malicious or fpite
ful infinuation againft the honour and reputation of
one of his loyal fubjeds; and then to exhibit him
hereon permitted to create diftrefs to him. In fuch
and fuch articles, for the trial of the fincerity of his
attachment to his fovereign : in confequence ofwhicb,
he does, in thefe refpeds, and fo far only, moleft him
without varying or exceeding. See Job, firft and fe
cond chapters f.
He goes on, ' But is there a man a little verfed
* in antiquity, who knows not that Satan Is a Chal-
* daean word, that this Satan was the Arimanius of
* the Perfians, adopted by the Chaldaeans, the evil
' fpirit that prevailed over men ?'
Yet tjhat Satan written with a fin li^ltf, under
which form alone it Is the fubjed of our enquiry,
becaufe in this only does It occur through the Bible
Concerning the prince of fallen angels, is a Chaldaean
f Was it not then very feandalous in Mr. Voltaire, when he con-
fefles as here, ' Satan feems to be in fubordination to the Lord,' af
ter he hath faid, ' This book — -reprefents Satan — as wandering o-
* ver the earth, and asking permiflion of the Lord to afflift Job,' al
moft with the fame breath to add as an inference from it, ' That fo-
' much of the univerfe as was then known, was in fome meafure Ma-
' nichea,n,' yet fo he does in this fame treatife, chap. 7. p. 25. But
does not every one know, that the Manicheans held two uncreated
independent principles, of contrary difpofitions, the one good, the. ft-^
ther evil, but of equal power and coordinate force. J
R 3

i6i A VINDICATION OF P.IL
word, there is no evidence ; as plain as it is that It is
fuch when written with -^famech, 'JCDD. It is, indeed,
inconteftably an Hebrew noun, which fignifies an
adverfary or enemy in general. Hence, a human op-
pofer Is often called Satan, i Kings, v. 4. xi. 14, 23,
25. I Sam. xxix. 4. 2 Sam. xix, 22, Yea, the good
angel, who withftood Balaam's profecution of his
journey to gratify Balak, king of Moab, by impre
cating evil upon Ifrael, hath this name given him,
Numb. xxu. 22.' The angel of the Lord ftood in the
' way, for a Satan or adverfary unto him,' and again
ver, 3 2 . ' I came out, fays he, to be a Satan or ad-
' verfary unto thee ;' as the root again or verb from
which it Is derived, denotes to oppofe, to refift, to
withftand, Pf. xxxviU. 20. Ixxi. i 3. cix. 4, xx. 29.
Zechar; IU. i. — Very naturally, therefore, might
that malignant fpirit, who is the great enemy of the
glory of God, and the happinefs of man, receive this
appellation in an eminent manner. Accordingly he is
marked by It, not only* in i Chron. xxi. i. and
Zechar, ill. 1,2, which books were written after
the captivity, but even in Pf. cix, which was com
pofed, according to the title in our bibles, and the
teftimony of the apoftle Peter, by David, con-
quently, fome hundred years before It ; for in
the fixth verfe of this pfalm, as Mr, Voltaire liim-
* ' And Satan ftood up againft ifrael, and provoked David to num-
' ber the people,' Le Clerc turns it, ' An enemy rofe up againft Ifra-
' el,' an evil counfellor, one who had a malicious intention, or at leaft
who gave hurtful and pernicious advice. But there is no example of
fuch an acceptation ofthe word Satan, while the perfon's name who
is fo charafterifed, is fupprefled ; for ^s to 2 Sam. xix. 22. and Malt.
xvi. 23. they do not come up to this.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS.. 263
felf fets it down, in , his forty-fourth chapter ' Of
' the prayers ofthe Jews,' we have thefe words, ' Let
* Satan ftand at his right-hand;' and indeed his cha-
fader is defcribed, though the name Is not recorded
in Ahab's time, 1 Kings, xxii. 2 i. &c. Not to infift
that the term Satan is found again and again in this
meaning in the book of Job, becaufe its age is ftUl
much difputed.
As to ' Satan's being the Arimanius ofthe Per-
' fians, adopted by the Chaldaeanss' I own the Per
fians had an evil daemon, whom they called Ahari-
man or Ahriman, and the Greeks Arinjanius; but
that, about the time of the captivity, which our au
thor makes the era of the Jewiffi faith in devils, they
held the fame notions concerning him which are de
livered In the facred books, is not fo clear. Accord
ing to Plutarch* and Theppompus, they maintained
there were two principles in the univerfe, the one
the author of all good, the other the original of all
evil, who had no beginning of exiftence more than
the former, thpugh he would at laft periffi, and who
continually produced vice and mifery in the world,
in oppofition to his benevolent purpofe and plea*
fure, through an equal and co-ordinate ability.
And though we ffiould admit, that herein they
departed from their primitive fentiments, viz. that the
* Plutarch, de Ifid. et Ofirid. page 369. No/.(;^ao-; yap ot juiv
S^'iv; etyxf ivo, KoSsftrif ecyriri^yv;, rov /uiv yap aya^av, roy ae pav-
yay S'niA.iv^yoy, &c. Ibid. 370. ®i.owo/jL7fa; ae (pmi, scara. rv; jucc-
yv;, r^iiT^ihix irn fMC^lixSoif, Kolf 7roXi/A.&tv, KcqctvaKijeiv ra. rv in-
fv Sek roy'iTipov, &c. In like manner, Laertius fpeaking ofthe Per
fians fays, Prooem. Segm. 8. p. 6. Ai/o k«,t' ot.urv( etyoj oLp^a;, «-
R 4

264 ^ VINDICATION OF P.1L
evil principle was created, and dependent, and liable
to controll, as the Perfian hiftorians would lead to
think, ftill this corruption in belief muft have been
prevalent among them about the time of the captivi
ty. For Zoroafter* or Zerduffit, who, they pretend,
correded the errors that had crept f into their reUgi
on, and taught that the good principle alone was
felf-exiftent, and fupreme In might, and that Ught
and darknefs, happinefs and mifery, virtue and vice,
were continually mixed in this fcene, not through
any impotence in him to reftrain the evil being, but
becaufe It was his will they ffiould be fo blended,
lived only in the reign of Guffitap or Darius Hyftaf
pes, after the Jews were releafed from bondage, and
gone back to their own land ; yea, he is even repre
fented to have been fervant and difciple of Ozelra
a Jewiffi prophet, by whom Dr. Hyde underftands
Ezra ; and fuitably to this we may obferve, that God
in the prophecy concerning Cyrus, who was to pro
claim liberty of return to the Jewiffi nation, declares,
as aiming to corred and extirpate fuch erroneous
and falfe opinions prevalent among his fubjeds, ' I
' form the light and create darknefs, I make good and
• There may indeed have been two Zoroafters, one long prior to
Darius Hyftafpes, another coeval with him, as Prideaux granted, thro'
the weight of Mr. Moyle's arguments, when he attacked the account
he had given of Zoroafter, in his Connexion of the Hiftory of the
Old and New Teftament, and as Pliny judged, many centuries before,
Nat. Hift. 30. I. However, while the former was the founder ofthe
magic feft, thelatter, the reformer thereof, and the Zerduffit of the Per
fians, flouriflied inthe reign of that Darius, about A. M. 3490.
f See Pocock in Specim Hiftoriae Arabum, p. 147, 148. and
Hyde Hift. Religionis Vet. Perfarum, cap. 9. p. 163. and 22. p. 299-
and compare Univ. Hift. i. 66. and 5. 387.

P,II. THE SACRED BOOKS. 26$
' fend evil,' Ifaiah, xiv. 7 , How contrary therefore
the faith which reigned among the Perfians In this
period, whether it was their original one or not, to
the dodrine of Scripture, that Satan does no hurt or
mifchief without God's leave !
Whereas, he fays farther, that the Chaldeans had
adopted notions about Arimanius, fimUar to the
Scripture ones about Satan, from the Perfians, they
could never learn them from them, when they were
themfelves unacquainted -with them. The moft pro
bable feafon of their deriving any religious fentiments
from the Perfians, is that in which they fubdued
them, and became their mafters ; which was not till
the eve of the Jews difmiffion from Babylon, But
then they could not receive them from them, and
inftill them Into the minds of the captive IfraeUtes,
for thofe very Perfians, it now appears, were ftrangers
to them tUl long after.
From the whole, the reader may perceive, how
ill-founded Mr. Voltaire's affertion here is, and how
groundlefs alfo another paragraph fome pages after,
but in this fame chapter, is, when he vmtes, ' It is
* therefore certain, that the Jews acknowledged no
* devils, tUl about the time of their captivity in Ba-
* bylon. They borrowed this dodrine from the Per-
' fians, who had It from Zoroafter, Thefe fads caU-
* not be difputed, except by ignorance, fanaticifm,
* or want of candour.'

2<56 AVINDICATIONOF P, II.

SECTION XX.
Of his affertmg in the fame chapter, that fome have
imagined Enoch left a written hiftory of fallen
angels, — That the falfe Enoch is cited by St. Jude,
— and that the book of Enoch and Genefis agree
perfedly in the copulations of the fons of God
with the daughters of men, and in the race of
giants their iffue.
T O proceed with our detedion of falffiood, Mr. Vol
taire in the fame* chapter having quoted a paffage
from the epiftle of Jude thus, ' And the angels which
' kept not their firft eftate, but left their own habi-
' tation, he hath referved in everlafting chains un-
' der darknefs, unto the judgment of the great day,
' Wo unto them, for they have gone in the way of
' Cain; and Enoch alfo, the feventh from Adam,
* prophefied of thefe faying. Behold the Lord cometh
' with ten thoufand of his faints ;' Ixe adds, ' It has
* been imagined by fome, that Enoch left a written
' * hiftory of the fallen angels.'
But who are thofe fome, who have expreffed fueh
a fancy about Enoch, and what arguments have
they offered to perfuade us of it ? Indeed Jude pro
duces Enoch's words at fo great a diftance from the
account he gives of the puniffiment of rebelUous
angels, that I ffiould wonder much If any have pre
tended to buUd this conceit, that Enoch -wrote a hif
tory of the lapfe of angels before the formation of
man, upon his epiftle. For, though the relation ofthe
• Page 233.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS, 267
vengeance exec\ited upon thefe difobedient fpirits,
and the mention of tlus antediluvian patriarch's pro
phecy are by our author quoted from It, as ftanding
in moft clofe and intimate connedion, there do
reaUy Intervene between them feven verfes, in which
the apoftle reprefents the deftrudion of the inhabi
tants of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire from heaven,
defcribes the evU pradices of fome corrupt Chriftians,
in defpifing dominion and fpeaking evU of dignities,
feproves them by Michael's temperance of fpeech*
when he contended with the devil about the body
of Mofes, and to omit other things^ denounces a wo
unto them, for their refemblance unto Cain, Bala
am, and Core. When therefore he fays at laft', ' And
' Enoch alfo, the feventh from Adam, prophefied of
* thefe,' it Is manifeft froni the coherence, that the
perfons againft whom he affirms him to have pro
phefied, cannot be faUen angels, but muft be Ucen
tlous profeffors of the gofpel ; nor can it create any
difficulty, that the apoftle fays Enoch prophefied a-
gainft them, fince his words, though fpoken at firft
concerning the ruin of the ungodly world by the
flood, are applicable to the puniffiment which will be
inflided upon fuch wicked Chriftians, at the final ap
pearance pf our Lord ; and it Is agreeable to the
ftile of the faered writers upon other occafions to
ufe fuch phrafeology, where a prophet's words may
be accommodated to an event, though it was not in
tended by him at the time of pronouncing them.
So little reafon is there for buUding an opinion, that
Enoch left a written hiftory of the fallen angels, up
on any thing which Jude hath faid concerning liim
in his letter.

268 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
A Uttle after, he takes It for granted ' That the
* falfe Enoch is cited by St. Jude ;' but I fee no
reafon to allow, that Jude quoted the prophecy from
that book which is called The Revelation of Enoch,
though fome antient Chriftians thought fo, and made
it a reafon for rejeding the authority of this epiftle,
as the book appeared an idle romance. Is it pleaded,
though the book appear evidently fpurious, both be
caufe it is too exprefs about many Chriftian principles
and fads for Enoch's age, and becaufe it contains a
variety of ffiameful and ridiculous trifles, unworthy
to have proceeded from him, Jude might have quot
ed it, aware that in this point of the prophecy It con
tained a true relation, without giving any fandlon
or authority to the whole, juft as the apoftle Paul
cites fome fentences from Aratus and Epimenldes
heathen poets, without approving the entire pieces
from which they are brought ? Be it fo ; but then
there is no other evidence that this book under E-
noch's name was extant in the days of the apoftles,
and it Is certain that Jude's expreffion here wUl ne
ver prove it ; for he might have ufed it, though the
oracle was neither committed to writing by Enoch
himfelf, nor recorded in a book by any other perfon,
but only conveyed down by oral tradition, as the
names of the two magicians Jannes and Jambres are
fuppofed to have been, when Paul mentions them
in his fecond epiftle to Timothy. At the fame time
it is not unlikely, that the apoftle took them* from
* See Sherlock's firft Diflertation after his Difcourfe on the Ufe
and Intent of Prophecy, p. 189. Lardner's Credib. vol. 10. p. 1331
1 38. ^nd Fabricii Codex Pfeudepigraph. Vet. et Novi TeftamenJJ
torn. 2.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 2^^
fome Jewiffi book fiUed with ftories about Enoch,
but foon after -j- loft, which might give rife to fome
Chriftian's forgery of that book under Enoch's name,
that was known to Irenaeus, Origen, and others
who were their contemporaries, and may be feen,
fo far as it hath been preferved, by confulting Fabri
cius. In a note again, upon his conceffion ' that the
' falfe Enoch cited by St. Jude, is acknowledged to
' be forged by a Jew;' Mr. Voltaire obferves, ' This
' book of Enoch muft neverthelefs be of fome anti-
' quity, for we find it frequently quoted In the tef-
* tament of the twelve patriarchs, another Jewiffi
* book, correded by a Chriftian of the firft century,
t The fame account may be given concerning the pafl'age of Mi
chael's quarrel with the devil about the body of Mofes, which we read
in JuHe s epiftle ; concerning which Mr. Voltaire fays, ' It is only in
' an -ipocryphal book, intitled. The Analyfis of .Mofes, quoted by O-
' rigen in the third book of his Principii,' Phil, of Hift. page 237.
he fliould have faid, the Analepfis or Anabafis of Mofes, which is men
tioned by Origen in his treatife ITEp; OLp-^oiy, or ' De Principiis,' 3. 2.
and by others after him. Origen there, according to Ruffinus's tranf
lation, fays, ' I own, the apoftle Jude quotes this book,' ' De quo, in
' afcenfione Mofis cujus libelli meminit in epiftola fua Judas apoftolus,
' Michael archangelus, &c.' But the apoftle might in like manner have
it from fome Jewifli book, or fome tradition about things which hap
pened to Mofes \\. the fame time we can fay little about the age of
this "inalepfis or ,A nab.. fis, becaufe we have fcarce any fragment of it
befides. Dr. Lardner however is of opinion, that Jude refers in this
pafl'age about Michnel, to the vifion in Zechar. iii. i, 3. and might
call the J.;wifli people the body of Mofes, as St. Paul calls Chriftians
the body of -' :hrift. See his Supplement to his Credibility, vol. 3. page
340, &c. where he alio animadverts upon the bifliop of London's o-
pinion, that fome paflages in Jude's epiftle and Peter's fecond letter are
taken from fome Hebrew writers.

270 AVINDICATIONOF P.U.
' and this teftament of the twelve patriarchs is even
* quoted by St, Paul in his firft epiftle to the Theffa-
* lonians, if repeating the page word for word can
* be caUed quoting It, In the fixth chapter of the
' patriarch Reuben we find " The fcholar of God at
" length feU upon theiti," which St. Paul fays ver-
' batim.' But how inconclufive any quotation herein, for
evincing that the book under Enoch's name had a
being in Jude's time, though with this view the re
mark feems to be made ! — Moft learned men are of
opinion, that this piece, the Teftaments of the twelve
patriarchs, which is juft a coUedion of their dying
words, confifting partly of predidions of future e-
vents, and partly of rules of holinefs, is a work of
the fecond century, as Dodwell, Lardner*, and o-
thers. If therefore their hypothefis be true, the quo
tation of Enoch's book herein, comes much too late
for proving its exiftence during the life of an apoftle.
But let it be fuppofed, according to our author after
Grabe, that it was written by fome Jew before our
Saviour's time, and afterwards interpolated in fome
places by a Chriftian of the fii'ft century, fooUfhly
zealous to verify, by fome clear paffages, fome things
faid In the New Teftament, which were not found
in the antient books generally received by the Jews
as canonical, ftUl it wUl not eftabUffi the being of E-
noch's book fo early ; for fuch references to Enoch's
book, for any thing he can tell, may not be among
the genuine and original paffages of the book, but a-
mong thofe which are allowed to have been foifted
in to ferve fome turn : as this adulteration or corrup-
* See his Credib. part 2. vol, 2, p. 741.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 271
tion of the work again may have happened after the
death of our apofUe, which is placed many years be
fore the firft century expired. Indeed no fure con
clufion can be drawn from the ufe of Enoch's book,
in the, piece Called, the Teftaments, &c. to its ap
pearance in Jude's time, but upon the fuppofition
that it is the pure and unaltered produdion, if not
of Enoch himfelf as Mr. Whifton contends, yet of
fome Jew who wrote before the apoftle; than which
what more unreafonable, fince It fpeaks with a ful
nefs and clearnefs upon the fubjeds of the New Tef
tament beyond all the writers of the Old ?
And as to the affertion that ' This Teftament is
* quoted by St. Paul in his firft epiftle to the Theffa-
' lonians, if repeating the page word for word can
* be called quoting it,' I find no fuch agreement as hei'
fpeaks of. Yet, if there was. It would be more reafon
able to think the author borrowed from St, Paul, than
he from him, as thefe Teftaments were evidently
written, or at leaft interpolated, by fome perfon who
lived after the publication of the Chriftian religion in
the world. Even the alone expreffion he profeffes to
produce out of the work in the fixth chapter of Reu
ben, Is not to be met with either there or in any other
parf of it, fo far as I can perceive ; I only obferve in
the fixth chapter of Levi's teftament a fentence which
occurs in the firft * epiftle to the Theffalonians, and
which hath fome likenefs to that which Voltaire here
recites. For it is there faid, ' And the -wrath of the
' Lord came upon him to the uttermoft.' But if this
was intended, I muft think it a very poor fupport of
his affextion : for If It is needful to fuppofe it cppied
* I Theflf. ii, i6.

'572 A VINDICATION OF P.fl,
at all, it is more likely the author tranfcrlbed it from
Paul, whofe epifties he certainly had feen, than that
Paul took it from this book, which there is no evi
dence he was acquainted with. On the other hand,
were the words ' The fcholar of God' there, they
might feem rather an allufion to Ifaiah, liv. i 3. ' All
' thy children ffiall be taught of the Lord,' than to
I Theff, Iv, 9, ' Ye yourfelves are taught of God to
* love one another.'
There ftill remains one paffage in this chapter to
be confidered. Mr, Voltaire having quoted * Genefis
chap. vi. ' There were giants In the earth in thofe
* days ; and even after that, when the fons of God
* came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore
* chUdren to them ; the fame became mighty men,
* which were of old men of renown ;' he fubjoins,
* Both the book of Enoch and Genefis perfedly agrfce
' in regard to the copulations of thefe angels or fons
' of God with the daughters of men, and alfo as to
* the race of giants their iffue.'
But Is this fair and candid ? It is true the apOcry*
phal book of Enoch fays, ' The watchers, (fo the an-
* gels of God are there called) lufted after the daugh-
* ters of men, and went aftray after them.' For which
reafon, had I been fure this was all he intended above,
where he faid, ' Some have imagined Enoch left a hif-
* tory of the f fallen angels,' I ffiould have made no
* Pages 235, 236.
f How confiftently he adds after the place laft quoted, p. 236.
' But neither this book of Enoch, nor any one of the Old Teftament
' mentions a fyllable of the war of the angels againft God, their de-
' feat, their defcent into hell, nor their enmity to mankind,' let the
reader judge.

P.IL TH^ .SACRED BOOKS. 273
objedion to It; but the account In the book of Gene
fis bears only, ' that the fons of God CD'il'PN 'J3 Be-
' ne Elohim faw the daughters of men that they were
' fair, and they took them wives of all which they
' chofe,' This indeed Jofephus and Philo Judaeus uut
derftand to fignify, that the angels (who, it is own
ed, are fometimes ftiled, fons of God, in Scripture,
Job, I. 6. ii. I, xxxviii. 7.) had intercourfe with
women, and procreated children by them ; — fo do
alfo Juftin Martyr, Irenaeus, TertulUan, Clemens
Alexandrinus, Ladantius, and other fathers of the
Chriftian church, interpret It. Nay one copy of the
Septuagint tranflation of the Old Teftament, the A-
lexandrlan 1 mean, reads In the text, the angels of
God, inftead of the fons of God, which probably had
much greater influence than the authority of PhUo
and Jofephus, with thefe antient Chriftians, to make
them * adopt this fenfe as the true one, (if at leaft
the copy in common ufe among them did fo exhibit
the text,) as all of them held that verfion in .great
efteem, and few of them underftood Hebrew, Ne
verthelefs, It Is not reafonable to put this meaning
on the words ofthe facred hiftorian, whether they be
fuppofed, according to fome, to relate to the condud
of the angels, who had already loft their Innocence,
and rifen in rebellion againft God, or whether they be
fuppofed, according to others, to relate to the beha
viour of the angels that continued pure and holy,
till they were guilty of this enormity, having been
fent down by Jehovah the common creator, to guard
* The authority of the book of Enoch, might alfo promote, with
fome vyho regarded it as canonical, this interpretation, as it related
the ftory of the commerce of angels with women.
s

274 A VINDICATION OF P.I!.
and proted mankind. For as Scripture teaches on
ly one fall of angels, which was previous to the
tranfgreffion of the firft pair of our race, Adam and
Eve, and to their expulfion from Paradife, fo it is
utterly repugnant to the notions we have of thofe
beings, bad as well as good, who are of a fpiritual
and immaterial nature, to fubjed them tofenfual de-
fires, and to make them faU in love and lie with wo
men. Add to this, that the univerfal deluge, in ex
plaining the moral caufes of which, this fad of the
intercourfe of the fons of God with the daughters
of men is. introduced, is never reprefented to have
been fent for the puniffiment of wickednefs in an
gels, but In men.
The expreffion, therefore, fons of God, hath
by aU in latter times or almoft all, a different
interpretation given of it. Somef, as Q^I^K Elo
him, is a noun in the plural number, and often taken
for rulers, judges, or any great men, Exod, xxi. 6.
f This is Dr. William Wall's interpretation, in his critical notes
on the old and New Teftmaent, who obferves, that the word Hp^
h ufed of taking by violence, Genefis, xxxiv. 2. Job, v. 5. (Compare
Gen. xii. 1 5. xx. 2.) It was alfo the lenfe of Aquila, who has victTm
fleuc, and of Symmachus, who has vtoi ray luvu^ivoyrar, the fons of
the princes or powerful. It is alfo the glofs of Onkelos, Ben Uzziel,
Jarchi, Abenezra, and other Jewifli doftors ; the Samaritan and A-.
rabic verfions, finally, to omit fome modern tranflations, do embrace
it : nay, Mr. Voltaire himfelf declares for it, in a note on his Treatife
of Toleration, chap. xiv. p. 221. where he fays, ' In the fixth chap-
' ter of Genefis, we find the fons of great men called the fons of God,'
and confirms this fenfe, ' by the ufe of cedars of God for tall cedars,
' fear of God for violent fear, wind of the Lord for a great temped,
' among the Hebrews,' to which it were eafy to fubjoin many fimi
lar examples. I

P.IL THE SAGRED BOOKS. 275
xxU. ^. 9^. 28. Pf IxxxU. 1. &e. a.nd u^m ^dam,
on the, other hand, ftands for mean men, men of low
rank and condition, Pf. xUx;. 2, Ifaiah, ii, 9. ex-f
pound, the fons of Gpd, or, rather, the, fons of gods,
to denote the fpns of powerful and. wealthy men,
and, the daughters of Adam, to fignify the daugh
ters of perfons In humble circumftances ; and fay,
thofe are related tp haye taken unto themfelves the
daughters of men, becaufe they raviffied or feized
by force and violence the daughters of the Inferior
fort pf people, and cohabited with them in a difor-
deriy promifcuous way; thus becoming examples
and leaders in debauchery and lewdnefs, they brought
on with a quicker pace that confummate iniquity
and degeneracy for which God fent on the earth the
general flood. Others again, thinking this account
makes the caufe of the flood too narrow and par
ticular, (for by it the guilt Is altogether on the
fide of the grandees or princes) underftand the fons,
pf Gpd, to exprefs^ the male defcendants of Seth's
Une, and, the daughters of men, to exprefs the fe
male defcendants of Cain's race, each being thus
denominated and diftinguiffied from the piety or
wickednefs which prevailed in their refpedive fa
mUies ; fo the fenfe wUl b?, that the Inter-marriage
of the godly family fprung from Seth, with the wick
ed pofterity of Cain, was one caufe of haftening that
univerfal proffigacy and licentloufnefs of manners,
for which God fwept away all living with water,
they themfelves being foon corrupted by the con
verfation pf their new relatives, inftead of reclaiming
and reforming the perfons with whom they thus
contraded affiance. And this, indeed, is the expofi-
S 2

2T6 a VINDICATION" OF P.fl.
tion moft received: in favour of which it is urged,
it Is exprefsly remarked In the Bible, that fo long
before as the days of Enos *, Adam's grandfon^
men began to call themfelves, or to be called by,
the name of the Lord, Gen. Iv. 26. that is, the fa
mUy of Seth, who adhered to God and his worfliip,
began to have a denomination fignificant of their
regard to him, in oppofition to the irreUgious fami
ly of Cain.
Now from this mixture and conjundion of the
fons of God with the daughters of men in the one
fenfe or the other, according to Mofes, fprung a ge
neration of men of enormous violence and rapaci-
oufnefs, if not alfo of extraordinary ftatuce and
ftrength, who acquired to themfelves, by their op
preffion, a remarkable name. And they were a fecond
race of this fort, for indeed Mofes's words feem to
imply, that there was fuch a race antecedent to this
affinity and intercourfe between the fons of God and
the daughters of men which he fpeaks of, Gen.vi. 3.
And is not either fenfe much more rational than that
which Mr. Voltaire hath propofed as the certain and-
uncontroverted meaning of the paffage, whUe,at the
fame time, It is very agreeable to the idiom of the
Hebrews ? He hath not then here dealt candidly
and honeftly.
* See Taylor's- Scriptare Divinity, page 176. Aquila turns this
fentence. Gen. iv. 26. Tan np^^ti rv jiaf^einda^ ly oyo//.ot.rtK.vfi\i.-
And the lame phrafe is ufed for calling by name. Numb, xxxii. 42.
Ifaiah, xlii. 7. xliv. 5. Ixv. i. Pf xli^c. 12. There is, however,
a great variety of fentiments about the import of that text, which t
may not confider. — Compare Univ. Hift, vol. i . page i 60, and 1 70
——178. upon tbis feftion.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 277
SECTION XXI. ,
Of his faying in the forty-ninth chapter of the fame
work, that the Jews, according to their own con
feffion, were not circumcifed till the time of Jo
ffiua ; upon which occafion alfo, the affertion by
this writer and others, that the Jews borrowed
circumcifion from the Egyptians, is examined.
MR. VOLTAIRE'S forty-ninth chapter confifts
chiefly of fome details from PhUo and Jofephus,
which have been examined already. There Is then
only pne affertion In it which falls now to be expofed,
as a mifreprefentation of the fenfe of Scripture. —
Having -|- faid ' And would it really be probable that
' the antient and powerful nation of the Egyptians
' ffiould have adopted this cuftom' (of circum
cifion, he means) ' from a little people whom they
' abhorred,' he fubjoins, ' And who, according to
' their own account, did not pradife circumcifion
' till the time of Joffiua ?' But what ffiamelefs fal
ffiood here ? to tell the world that the Jews, accord
ing to their own confeffion, were not circumcifed
till the time of Jofliua, when their facred hiftorian
informs us, ' That all the males that came out of
* Egypt, and afterwards periffied through difobedi-
' ence to the word of the Lord, were cii;cumclfed,
' though their children that were born in the wil-
* dernefs by the way were npt circumcifed ;' on which
account the Lord commanded Joffiua to circumcifc
them, after their paffage of the Jordan, Joffi. v. 2 — 7 ,
And it is the clear fenfe of the writer, according to
t Page 239. S 3

578 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
all manufcrlpts and verfions, without exception.
For what reafon the ceremony was omitted In
the wildernefs. We cannot fay, unlefs it Was becaufe
it would * have been dangerous to have traveUed
chUdren, uneafy by their recent wound of circum
cifion, when yet againft a fudden i:all to move from
place to place, in fuch fituation, there could be no
feeurity ; and becaufe the ufe Of it would then be
lefs neceffary, as there was fmaUer danger of inter
mixture with other nations, during their abode in
the defert. But whatever was the reafon of its ne
gled then, it Is certain It had been before pradifed
by them, and was now only revived and renewed
after forty years Intermiffion or difcontinuance, on
their arrival in Canaan, at the approach of -the
* Maimonides Moreh Nebochim, part 3 . cap. 1 9. having faid, ' Cir-
' cumcifion was a rite of fuch a nature, that no perfon would perform it
' upon himfelf or his children, but on account of religion,' gives this
reafon for his judgment, ' Nam non eft levis aliqua cruris laefio, vel
' brachii aduftio, fed res durilfima et difficillima. For it is not a flight
' hurt of the leg, or burning of the arm, but a thing moft harlh and
* uneafy.' Though, afterwards, to fticw the propriety of circumcifing
in infancy, rather than in more mature age, he obferves, that then the
pain was fmaUer. So likewife Philo de Circumcif. page 810. fpeaks of
circumcifion as an operation attended with grievous anguifti, Mtza ¦)(_(!.•
KtToiy aKyxloyav. It may even feem to have been hazardous to life. For
Lightfoot, in his Exercitations upon i Cor. vii. 19. (fee his Works,
vol. 2- page 760.) produces fome paflages from Rabbinical writings,
in which mention is made of a man ' whofe brethren had died of cir-
' cumcifion.' Nay, one from the Jerufalem Talmud itfelf, where R.
Nathan fays, ' There was a woman in Cefarea of Cappadocia, who
' had loft three fons fucceflively by it.' And he himfelf aflerts, that in
fuch a cafe, the ceremony was omitted upon thofe that were born af
ter. We may therefore be lefs furprized that its obfervation was laid
afide during the pilgrimage of Ifrael in the wildernefs.

PilL THE SACRED BOOKS. 279
paffover, unto which' feaft no unclrcumclfed per
fon might come at any time by their law, under
pain of being cut off; as indeed it had, in the Inter
val betwixt their departure from Egypt, and their
entrance into Canaan, been, among other pofitive
rites, re-injolned, Levit. xU, 2 , So far Is It from be
ing true that it was then firft begun or introduced
among them, as our author would perfuade his
readers. What moved Mr. Voltaire to give fo palpably /falfe
an account of this matter, is not eafy to perceive.
It Is true, he fuppofes the Hebrews firft pradifed this
rite, in imitation of theu neighbours^ For he fays,
in the fifth chapter f of this fame Treatife, ' The
' Jews themfelves, though they Ipoked with horror
' upon the reft of men, which deteftatlon increafed
' with time, imitated the circumcifion of the Arabs
' and Egyptians.' And, as he Intimates, they learned
it from the Egyptians, in the chapter before us, where
he likewife reprefents Jofephus to affirm, that the
Jews themfelves confefled It, (how unjuftly* hath
been already ffiewed) fo he dwells upon the conceit
at greater length in his Philofophical Didionary, For,
having quoted a paffage from Herodotus, of which
prefently, he adds | ' It is clear from this, paffage of
' Herodotus, that feveral nations had taken circum-
' clfion from Egypt, but no nation has ever faid, that
' they derived it from the Jews. To which then muft
* the origin of this cuftom be attributed, to that na-
* tion, from whom five or fix others acknowledge
' they hold it, or to another much inferior in power,
t Pa^e 18. * Part i. feftion 7. page 41.
X Article Circumcifion, page 128.^
S 4 \

280 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
* lefs commercial, lefs military, hidden in a nook of
* Arabia Petrea, and which has never been able
' to introduce the leaft of its cuftoms in any na-
' tion? The Jews fay, that they were firft received
* into Egypt by way of compaffion and charity;
* now. Is it not very probable, that the little people
* adopted a pradice of the great people, and that
* the Jews joined In fome of their mafters cuf-
* toms?' But, notwithftanding this was his hy
pothefis, that circumcifion was of more antient ufe
among other nations than among the Ifraelites, he
might, in perfed confiftency with It, have aUow
ed, as well as Sir John Marffiam, Lord Shaftesbury,
and others who embraced It, that the Jews pradifed
that rite long before the days of Jofliua, and their
entrance into the promlfed land under his conduct.
And, indeed,! one would imagine this previous ob
fervation of it by them was too manifeft to be de
nied. For, we are told, Gen. xvU. 23 — 27. that A-
braham circumcifed Iffimael his fon, and all the males
that were born in his houfe, or bought with his mo
ney of any ftranger, at the fame time fubmitting to
the rite himfelf; and again, Gen. xxi. 4, that he cu'-
cumcifed his fon Ifaac : all which muft have been
tranfaded confiderably more than 400 years before
his pofterity paffed the Jordan. Further, we read that
Jacob's fons reprefented to Shechem, who had de
bauched their fifter Dinah, and to Hamor his father,
that every male of them was circumcifed, when they
pleaded, that thefe princes and their people fliould
alfo undergo circumcifion, ere they would agree
to their propofal of inter-marriages with them;
and that they, on the other hand, reafoned upon

p.n; THE SACRED BOOKS. 281
their account of the fad as juft, that they might
reconcile their fubjeds to it. Gen. xxxiv. i 3 — 24.
which converfation feems to have been held more
than 200 years before Joffiua fucceeded Mofes as
leader of the Jews. — And, finally, we faw from the
words In the book of Joffiua, a little ago produced,
that all the males that came out of Egypt to go in
to Canaan through the wUdernefs, had endured this
ceremony ere they removed thence. For which wc
may even bring Mr. Voltaire as a voucher *, as much
as he contradids himfelf in it.
Be the caufe, however, what It wUl, of his grofs
mifreprefentation, when he fays, ' The Jews, accord
ing to their own confeffion, were not circumcifed
till the days of Joffiua, ' It may be proper, upon this
occafion, to ffiew, that the opinion of which he and
* Thus, in Philofophical Diftionary, fame article, page 129. he
writes, ' The book of Jofliua fays, that the Jews were circumcifed in
' the defert.' Of which I cannot perceive the truth, unlefs he admit,
that the males of the nation born in Egypt were circumcifed ere they
left it. For the book of Jofliua is exprefs, that none of them, born
during their pilgrimage in the defert, were circumcifed. It cannot be
denied, indeed, that thus Mr. Voltaire contradifts his own aflfertion in
the forty-ninth chapter of his Philofophy of Hiftory, which we have
made the fubjeft of this feftion. Nay, his own words a little before,
in that very place of the Diftionary. For they run, ' The Jews ac-
-* knowledge that they continued in Egypt 20 j years; they fay that
' in all that time they were not circumcifed.' But this cannot be
helped. We have feen he does not fcruple to fay and unfay things,
as well as that he dbes not hefitate to throw out aflertions concerning
the Jews, in flat oppofition to their own accounts in their facred books,
which is the cafe in the laft cited claufes ; and again a little after,
when he fays, page 130. ' The circumcifion of Abraham terminated
•* in himfelf; it was not till Jofliua's time his pofterity underwent that
' ceremony.

2 82 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
fome others are fo fond, that circumcifion prevaUed
more early among the Egyptians and neighbouring
nations than among Abraham's defcendants, is deffi-
tute of all good foundation.

tdccount of the Heathen evidence upon which it is pre
tended, that circumcifion among the Jews was ofE-
gyptian original^ with obfervations for defiroying th
force thereof,
B Y all who have contended, that the Jews bor
rowed circumcifion from the Egyptians, Herodo
tus's words * are much urged ; who tells us, ' That
* the Colchlans, and Egyptians, and Ethiopians, are
' alone, of all men, circumcifed from the beginning.
* That the Phenicians and Syrians, who are In Pa-
* leftine, themfelves confefs they learned this rite
* from the Egyptians. But the Syrians who are about
* Thermodon, and the river Parthenius, and the Ma-
* crones, who are their neighbours, fay they learned
* it lately from the Colchlans. For thofe alone are
' circumcifed among men, and they appear to do it
* in the fame manner with the Egyptians.' And then
adds, ' But as to the Egyptians and Ethiopians, I
* cannot fay which of them learned It from the other,
' for it feems of antient ftancUng, Neverthelefs, that
* it was introduced through intercourfe with Egypt,
* this is to me a great proof, that thofe Phenicians
' who have commerce with Greece, do not imitate
* Lib. 2. cap. 104. (Edit. Steph. page 143.) the expreflion air
ttpX^'^' which I have rendered ' from the beginning,' Mr. Voltaire
tranflates, ' from time immemorial.' Phil. Dift. page 1 27..

-P.IL THE Sacred BOOKS, 285
* the Egyptians in circumcifing their children.' Di
odorus SIculUs \ alfo affigns to the fame cuftom a-
mong the Jews an Egyptian original ; for having
ronfidered the Jews as an Egyptian colony like the
Colchlans, he obferves in fupport of this account,
* Therefore, among both thefe races, children were
* circumcifed-, the rite having been brought with
* them from Egypt,' In like manner I ffiaU aUoW,
that Strabo * bears teftimony to the dierivation of
f Lib. I. page 24. Edit. Rhodom. Ajo Kcii Traps, rot; yinirt
rvroi; t)c ¦mxKo.jv ^Ta^aoiooirS-a/, ro ¦^i^iri/iyeif rv; ytvyafniyv; ttui-
s«C, i^ AiyvTTTV juiTiyttyiyjUivv rv yojjtifAV, and again in the fame book
fpeaking ofthe Colchlans, On oe rvro ro ytyo; A-iJU7rrio!.nor Ki trtj-
ftiioy eiroj ro ¦pripirifi.ni^'aj rv; aydpu'rv; ¦fm^aifhyiijioa; roi; nixra,
AifuTTToy, iiapityorTo; rv yo/4iju.v ¦na.pa. rot; aTotnoi;, xa^aTTip nof
¦n'apa. rot; Ivt'cLfoi;, ' That this race is Egyptian, there is an evidence
' in their circumcifing men in like manner with the Egyptians, the
' cuftom continuing with the colonifts, as alfij with the Jews.'
• Lib. 16. p. 760, 761. He indeed fpeaks ofa prevailing report,
that the Egyptians were the progenitors tt^oFovv; ofthe Jews ; yet he
there reprefents circumcifion to have been only introduced among
them, through the influence of fujierftitious men, who came into the
priefthood long after their fettiement in Judea, and the death of Mo
fes and his fucceflbrs, inftead of making it to have been carried with
them from Egypt. Again, however, p. 824, treating of the Egypti-
.ans he fays, according to Xylander's Latin tranflation, ' Id de maxi-
' me laudatis eorum moribus eft, quod omnem prolem educaht, circtim-
• cidunt etiam mare's, et feminas excidunt, quod Judaeis eft legitimum,
' qui origine funt Aegyptii, — K«/ ro •ssi^in/jiyeiy, nofra S-yiMcc ik-
rijUyeiy, OTrif xa/ rot; Ivla^oi; yo/ji.ifjioy, xai iroi %i etoiv Aifvprrioi ro
avitici^iy. Should any think he intended to fay, the Jews had derived
the j)raftice he attributes to them with relation to females, from their
Egyptian extraftion, rather than circumcifion, fince he had before faid,
it was brought in by fuperftition in a later age ; it may be anfwered,
perhaps he meant by o^ep here that TTipinpLynr, as well as tx-rifA,-
rety 9nMx was lawful to the Jews, and the fruit of their being origin-

254 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
this ceremony among the Jews from the Egyptians,
becaufe he makes them their defcendants, whatever
room there may appear for difputing it, Celfus, a-
gain, two centuries after, is exprefs that the ceremo
ny was pradifed by the Egyptians ere it was receiv
ed among the Jews, and then f remarks, ' They were
' not more holy through the ufe of It, than other people
* who in like manner performed it,' To the fame
purpofe, finaUy, fpeaks | JuUan, ' Thofe men, (Abra-
' ham, Ifaac, and Jacob,) being Chaldeans of the fa-
' cred and prieftly race, learned indeed circumcifion,
* having fojourned with the Egyptians.' Such is the
heathen evidence from which it is concluded, that
circumcifion was In previous ufe among the Egyp
tians. But furely the authority of thofe writers ffiould
not be fufficient to perfuade us, that it was an Egyp
tian rite, antecedent to God's appointment of it un
to Abraham and his pofterity, as a token of the co
venant between him and them, and to its Immediate
obfervation among them thereon ; for they are all
of an age much too late to be depended on as fafe
guides about the point, fince Herodotus flouriffied
almoft a thoufand, and the oldeft of the other four
more than 1400 years after that event. What tho'
the moft antient, and In this refped the moft credible
of them, had fuch information as he gives us, from
the priefts of Egypt ? (for from them he declares he
ally Egyptians, becaufe he had mentioned both among Jewifli cuftoms,
I have therefore ranked him among the heathen witnefles to the rife
of circumcifion among the Jews from Egypt, p. 761.
f origen adv. Celf. lib. 5. p. 259.
X Cyrill. adv. Julian, lib. 10, p. 254.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 285
received all his knowledge f of thq affairs of that
country,) it doth not therefore follow, that the E-
gyptians, with the Ethiopians and Colchlans, were
the only people on earth who pradifed circumcifion
from the beginning, and who taught it the reft of
mankind ; for the heathen nations in general, and
the Egyptians in particular, were Teady to arrogate
a far higher antiquity * than in truth belonged to
them, and that they might juftify fuch pretenfions,
to reprefent certain ufages as of very long continu
ance among them, which had been but of recfent e-
ftabliffiment. Yea, what though he committed no
miftake, in affirming as he does, that the Syrians in
Paleftine owned they adopted circumcifion from the
Egyptians, which yet all will not admit ? Might not
thefe Syrians In Paleftine be the Samaritans, who,
notwithftanding they conformed in many things to
- the Mofaic ritual, in order to avert the difpleafure
of the God of the land, were always unwUlIng to
be thought to have any connedion with the Jews,
when this people was in diftrefs ? for thro' this tem-
pei* it is eafy to fee, they would be ready to derive
their performance of the ceremony from the Egyp
tians or any GentUe nation, rather than confefs It
was borrowed from the Jews, however falfe fuch ac
count of its rife among them might be in fad : and
is it not the more probable, thefe Syrians in Paleftine,
whom he mentions, were that mixed people, (com
pofed at firft partly ofthe remnant of the ten tribes of

f Herodot. lib. 2. cap. 46.
* What lies they told about this may be feen in the fattie book
of Herodotus, for inftance, they faid that from their firft king to Se-
thon was an interval ofmore than nooo years.

286 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
Ifrael, and partly of the heathen colonies which the
kings of Affyria planted there from remote parts o^
their dominion,) if it be confidered, that they occupied
a greater portion ofthe country than the Jews, whon:^
he never j fpeaks of by name at all ; and that it is al'
together unlikely any Jews * would ever make fnch
an acknowledgment as he afcribes to thofe Syrians,
that they learned circumcifion from the Egyptians? ¦
Moreover, many other things concur, to leffe^
the weight of thefe teftimonies, in favour of the more
early pradice of circumcifion among the Egyptians
than among the defcendants of Abraham, and to e-
yince that we cannot reafonably argue from them,
¦]: It is allowed by Sir John Marfliam himfelf, that Herodotus, (who
was born about the beginning of Xerxes's reign,) fcarce knew the name
of the Jews, they having only returned, a fliort time before his travels,
from being captive in Babylon, Canon Chronic. 4to. p. ijo. Suppo-
fing therefore the Jews, ftriftly fo called, had been intended by him
where he fays. The Syrians in Paleftine confefs they learned circum
cifion from the Egyptians, (as indeed Jofephus applies the pafl'age to
them without fcruple, becaufe it ferved his purpofe againft Apion ; See
part I . feft. laft,) much regard could not have been due to his relation
of their accounts about the original of the rite, when his acquaintance
with them is allowed to have been fo lame and imperfeft.
• Diodorus Siculus makes the Jews, on their expulfion from Egypt
and fettiement in the country about Jerufalem, to have enafted rites
wholly different from the reft of mankind, through their abhorrence of
them, as will appear afterwards ; which muft particularly hold with re
gard to theEgyptians, who he fays drove them out of their country as
impious a,nd hated by the gods ; now this does not look like borrowio^
circumcifion from the Egyptians, and then acknowledging it. Tacito*
likewife fays Hift. j. 4. ' Mofes, that he might attach the nation to him-
• felf for ever, appointed them new rites, contrary to the reft of men;
' there all things are profane which we efteem facred, and all things on tbs
' other hand are permitted among them, which to us are unlawful,*

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 287
that the Egyptians were examples and inftrudors to
the Jews in the ufe of it.
The Greek and Latin hiftorians univerfally, even
they who lived after gireater freedom of intercourfe
with the Jews was opened by the fuccefs of the Ma
cedonian and Roman arms, and after greater advan
tages were thereby enjoyed for more accurate and
exad information about them, have fallen into fo,
grofs blunders, when they treat of the affairs of this
nation, as forbid our implicite and fecure reliance u-
pon them, when they pretend to fay how or whence
circumcifion obtained among them. For the truth
of this, 1 may appeal to aU who are acquainted with
Trogus Pompeius as epitomized by Juftin, with Stra
bo, Diodorus Siculus, and Tacitus, to omit others.
For, are we nottoldby one or other fof thefe authors,
that Mofes was an Egyptian prieft, and that he buUt
jerufalem with its temple, having taken poffeffion
of the country fince called Judea, which was at that
time wholly defolate; that the Jews pradifed excifion
upon* their females ; that Ifrael having ten fons di
vided his people over whom he reigned Into fo ma
ny kingdoms, and beftowed one upon each of them,
the people being all called Judaei from Judas one of
his fons, who died after the cUvIfipn; that Mofes
arrived vrith a number of thofe men, who were ba-
niffied from Egypt for the leprofy by the advice of
an oracle, at mount Sina, in the country of Damaf-
f See Juftin 36. 2. Strabo ubi fupra, Diod. Sicul. edit. Rhodom.
p. 901. TacitiHift. j. 2. &c.
* Enrcjuotf. Strabo, p. 7 6 1 . and compare Note above page 283,
but iiiropLia, was exprefsly forbid the Jews; See Levit. xxii. 24. a-
ptid Sept,

288 A VINDICATION OF F, II.
cus, after enduring hunger feven days in their paffage
through the deferts of Arabia ; that he ftole the facra
or gods ofthe Egyptians; that after Mofes's death,
hisfon Arvas, being prieft to the Egyptian y^jcra, was
immediately made king ; that the Jews confecrated
in their temple the effigy of an afs. In memory of
a fervice which they received from a herd of fuch
brutes, when they were in the utmoft diftrefs through
thirft. In that journey, by ffiewing them fprings of
water ; that Mofes gave the priefts greater ffiares
in the divlfion of the lands, that, receiving more am
ple revenues, they might give more affiduous and
clofe attention to reUgious offices ; and like things,
which I believe none wUl now maintain to be rea-
Uties ? Withal, the accounts they give of the Jewifli
affairs, ate contradidory and inconfiftent with one
another, of which Inftances f may be feen below.
•j- I cannot point them out all. Juftin makes Mofes fprung from
Jofeph, Ifrael's youngeft fon, who was a ftranger in Egypt, but Strabo'
reprefents him to have been one of the Egyptian priefts. Juftin, Di
odorus, and Tacitus, fpeak ofthe Jews as expelled from Egypt, be
caufe they laboured under the leprofy, which was indeed a very com
mon charge, wherefore Jofephus takes great pains to confute it, in his
firft book againft Apion, feft. 2 5 . &c. (and this by the bye is an ad
ditional argument no conclufion can be drawn to his fcepticifm and
infidelity, from thofe modes of expreflion that have been made a handle'
for the charge, as was befofe obferved, part i. feft. 2. fince about
their being infefted with the leprofy, and therefore driven out of Egypt,
he alfo ufes one of them, ' But about thefe things let every one think,
as he pleafes.') But Strabo makes the departure of Mofes, and of
thofe who under his conduft removed from Egypt into the country
where Jerufalem afterwards was built, to have been voluntary, and to-
have proceeded from his diflatisfaftion with the Egyptian eftabliflied rites,
and his fuccefs in perfuading not afew well-minded perfons ivyvu/jLofci:;
«>6^a^wf, that the Egyptians erred in likening the Divinity to beafts

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 289
Why then ffiould any take up with Herodotus's
ftory, that the Egyptians were the authors of cir
cumcifion to aU other nations, and that the Syrians
in Paleftine, or the Jews themfelves, confeffed they
had learned It from them, as fome oracular affertion,
who wrote when the Jews were lefs known to the
Greeks, — or truft to thefe later writers Diodorus
and Strabo as Infallible here, who have been led in
to fo egregious miftakes concerning them in other
points ?
Further, I might obferve that Herodotus's man
ner of expreffing himfelf ffiews fome uncertainty
where the pradice of circumcifion firft prevailed,
fince he fays, whether the Ethiopians or Egyptians
ufed it fooneft he could not tell, though for the rea-
both wild and tame, and the Libyans and Greeks in reprefenting gods
under the fimilitude of men, for there was only one Deity called Hea
ven, which comprehended the earth, and fea, and all things. Juftin
makes the people who went out of Egypt under Mofes, to have been
originally from the country of Damafcus, where Damafcus, Azel, A-
dores, Abraham, and Ifrael, fucceflively fwayed the feeptre, though
they afterwards fettjed in Egypt ; but Strabo makes them defcendants
from the Egyptians themfelves, as Tacitus tells us fome were of this
opinion, and faid they poured out, on account of the immenfe numbers
in Egypt, into the neighbouring lands, under the command of Judas
and Hierofolymus. Juftin fays that from the time of Arvas, Mofes's
fon, the royal and facerdotal offices were among them united, Dio
dorus, Eclog. 40. that they never had a king, Strabo, p. 762. that
Alexander, whofe fons Hyrcanus and Ariftobulus Pompey only fub
dued, was the firft who made himfelf a king inftead of a prieft. And
to add no more, whereas fome affirmed, (as Plutarch we know has
done,) that the Jews worfliipped Bacchus, Tacitus denies this, and
applies himfelf to refute it. — And fliall we leave the Sacred Books, to
follow perfons who are at fuch variance and oppofition with one ano
ther, in our ideas about the Jews ?  ~

290 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
fon he mentions, he inclined to think it was earUeft
received among the Egyptians ; therefore, there is
more room to fufped he might be deceived in fome
of his accounts about the place of its rife, and order
of its propagation. — But, to pafs this. It is eafy for
us to explain how Diodorus and Strabo were led to
affirm the Jews learned circumcifion from the Egyp
tians, for we difcover in them an imagination that
the Jews were a colony from Egypt, or a people of
Egyptian extradion and pedigree, Uke the Colchlans
and others who migrated from that country. Now,
upon this fuppofition, it was very natural for them
to derive any fimilar cuftom which prevailed among
them from the Egyptians, and to pretend that in it
they followed their example, whom they looked on
as their progenitors. But that notion being a mif
take, fince the Jews were not fprung from Egypti
an anceftors, although they refided long in the land
of Egypt, and went out thence to fettle in Canaan,
it is evident little deference can be due to the affer
tion of thefe writers, that they borrowed the pradice
of this ceremony from the people of Egypt, as it was
only a native effed of their error about their origi
nal. Again, though the Colchlans, who are fuppofed •
to be the Cafluhim of Mofes, are faid, by Herodo
tus, to have been circumcifed from the beginning,
being a * colony from Egypt, there arifes a ftrong
prefumption againft their pradice of this rite at the
time of their fettiement, and, by confequence, againft
'* Lib. 2. 104. ^vovroj /aiy yap iovn; 01 KoK)(oi Aiyv^Titi.
Diodor. Sicul. fupra, and Dionyf. de Situ Orbis, and Euftathius,, agree
with him in calling them a colony from Egypt,
I

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 29;
its prevalence among the Egyptians, when thefe emi
grants quit their native feat in their country from the
following circumftance; that it appears, by a facred
hiftorian ftill more antient than that Greek writer,
that the Phlllftlm, who again were the defcendants
of thefe f Cafluhlros, as they were of the Egyptians,
were unclrcumclfed fp late as Saul's reign, i Sam.
xiv, 6. and xvU.. 26. For Is it not probable, if cir-;
cumcifion had been of fo early ufe among the CoU
chians and Egyptians as Is pretended, even from the
period of their being each a nation, that thofe fons
of the Cafluhim, or Colchlans, would have been as
their fathers and progenitors when that prince fway
ed the fcepter over Ifrael ? Nor does it Indeed feem
more likely, that the Syrians feated on the banks of
the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, and their
neighbours the Macrones, would have only learned
that cuftom from the Colchlans a little before Hero
dotus's age J, which yet, he fays, they acknowledged
to have been the cafe, had it obtained among them
from the era of their fixing their refidence on their
border, and been brought with them out of Egypt
as an eftabliffied rite there, when they Iffued, as a
hive from it, fo foon, that the Phlllftlm, who are
reckoned to have fprung from them, are mentioned
as a feparate people in Ifaac's days. Gen. xxvi.
But, lafily, to all thefe things, which difcredit not
a little the accounts by Herodotus and others, of
the great antiquity of circumcifion among the Egyp
tians, we can add, that we are able to oppofe other
Gentile writers to thofe who make circumcifion to

f See Gen. X. 6, 13, 14. and Bochart. Phaleg. lib. 4. c. 31.
I Ajto Kf^p^fii))' fa.7iY yiuari pn/ia^Kiyaj. Ibid.
T 2

iqi A VINDICATION OF P.U,
have been derived to the Jews from Egypt; and to
Herodotus, who Uke-wife reprefents the Ethiopians
and Egyptians, or, rather, the Egyptians * alone, to
have been the authors of it to all other nations. For
Tacitus I plainly fuppofes the ceremony was pecuUar
to the Jews at its firft inftitution among them, fince
he fays, ' They appointed circumcifion, that they
' might be known by the difference ;' which is alfo
agreeable to the general affertions of others about
* As this is Herodotus's fenfe in the pafl'age before tranflated from
lib. 2. p. 143. fo it is exprefsly affirmed by him in a preceding page '
ofthe fame book, ' Others leave their members as they were formed,
• except thofe who have learned to do otherwife from the Egyptians,
• for the Egyptians circumcife them.' p. 117. edit. Stephan.
f Hift. lib. J. c. 5. ' Circumcidere genitalia inftituere, ut diver-
' fitate nofcaotur.' Diodorus, as before intimated, fays that Antiochus's
friends when they perfuaded him to deftroy the Jewifli nation, reprefented
that their laws were totally different, through a defire to perpetuate hatred
againft the reft of men; Aiarvro oe koj yojuif/.oc waynKa; fg)^^^a)'-
fxtva naraaet^of, &c. Eclog. T. Kb. 34. And he himfelf, in his ac
count ofthe nation, and their laws, fays Eclog. i. lib. 40. that Mo
fes appointed facrifices and rules of living different from other nations,
Ta; at %<sia; i^nK>^ay/uiyot; (SiirK>iira.ro ray 7ra.^a. rot; a.>^Koi; i^il-
<ii, Kai ra; KO/ra roy fiiov ayaja;. Compare Strabo in the place a-
bove referred to, and Tacitus ubi fupra. By thefe words of Tacitus,
and the other paflages quoted about the contrariety of the rites eftabliflied
among the Jews at their being formed into a body pohtic, to thofe which
obtained among other nations, the reader may judge whether Dr. Middle-i
ton is well-founded in faying, ' Thofe who affirm circumcifion to be of
' Hebrew original, and thence propagated to other nations, have no one
' author of antiquity to fupport their opinion, but fuch as take up with it
' on tbe credit ofa tradition, derived from the Scriptural account of its
' antiquity,' Letter to Dr. Waterland, p. 3 i . At the fame time, we
cannot reafonably wonder, that the Gentile writers were very fparing
even to infinuate, that rhey had the honour and credit of being firft in
pofleflion of a rite, which Egyptians and others afterwards praflifed.

P.IL THE(SACRED BOOKS. 293
the contrariety of their rites at their becoming a na
tion, to thofe of the reft of mankind. And Artapa-
nus I, as quoted by Eufebius, In exprefs terms af
firms, ' That the Ethiopians borrowed it from the
* Jews through their veneration for Mofes, inftead of
' learning it, as Herodotus fancied, from the Egyp-
' tians ; yea, that all priefts every where derived it
* from the Jews.' As Diodorus again Informs us,
that the Ethiopians fupported their pretenfions that
the Egyptians were a colony from them by this, a-
mong other arguments, ' That their || cuftoms and
' ufages. In general, were copied from theirs ; they
' who left their abode with them to fettle In Egypt
' having retained their original and paternal rites.'
It feems then, on the whole §, very raffi to contend
upon the teftimonies of perfons fo remote In time
:j: This Artapanus was a more antient writer than Alexander Po-
Jyhiftor, who flourifhed fo far back as the I 7 3d Olympiad, when Pto-
lomy Lathyr was reigning in Egypt, and Sylla was making war in
Greece; for Polyhiftor has quoted a pafl'age from Artapanus, with re
lation to the patriarch Jofeph, as may be feen Eufeb- Praep. 1^ vang,
lib. 9. cap. 23. His words, as recited by the fame Eufeb. ibid. c. 27.
on the fubjeft before us, are, Ovro it rv; A/9<o^a?  trref^o/ rov
MuxrUK, itXTTtKOLi mv 7npiToj/.m rav atioiay Trap a.vrv /Aa^ety' v /a.o-
foy oe rvrv;, a'KKot. KOtt rv; hpei; a.7rot.yra;.
[| Lib. 3. p. 175. Edit. Weffeling. Ta %i 7rKei7roL rm yo/jLi/:t.ati
toi; AifvTTTioi; xnrap-^ar Aiho'^iKd, rnfv/^iiyyi; rn; ¦procha.ia; a-uyti-
veiac TTOLpoi rot; ccroiKicriettn.
§ I have formed no argument againft Herodotus's affertion,
' That the Phenicians were taught circumcifion by the Egyptians,' from
Sanchoniatho's Hiftory ofthe Phenicians, where we are told Chronus
was circumcifed, apud Eufeb. Prep. Evang. lib. i p. 38- partly be
caufe the whole work is of doubtful credit, and partly becaufe it is
Tery uncertain who Chronus was. Befides, if he were the Ham of
Scripture, as many think, at the fame time that it would fliew the Phe-
T 3

294 AVINDICATIONOF P. II.
from the firft introdudlon of circumcifion among
Abraham's pofterity, fO miftaken in their relations
of Jewiffi affairs, fo repugnant in many things to
one another, and fo contradided about this very
point by other -writers, that circumcifion was prac-
tifed by the Egyptians before Abraham's age. And
it appears the more raffi, becaufe it is moft reafon
able to beUeve that, when God appointed It to this
patriarch and his feed, to be a mark or token in
their fleffi, of his covenant with them to beftoW
upon them the land of Canaan, and to be their
God, it was a rite of difcrimination from the reft
of mankind, inftead of a rite common to thofe na
tions from whom they were Intended by Providence
to be kept feparate through this covenant, left they
ffiould be Infeded with their idolatry, and other
vices. Agreeably, therefore, as we faw already, Jo
fephus * fcruples not to affirm, ' God commanded it
' to Abraham, defirous that his pofterity might con-
* tinue diftind, and not be blended with other people-.'
And Origen, when he finds fault with Celfus for
faying, that the Jews learned circumcifion from the
Egyptians, expofes his folly thus, ' He rather f be-
' lieved the Egyptians than Mofes, who fays, Abra-
* ham was circumcifed firft among men.' So diame-
trlcaUy oppofite did he think it to the Scripture ac
count of the inftitution of this rite, to fuppofe It of
previous ufe any where before it was enjoined by
nicians did not learn it from the Egyptians, it would prove that one
prior to Abraham praftifed it, which 1 do not fuppofe the truth.
* See part i, feft. 7. page 41.
X Origen adv. Celf lib, i. p. 17.  Mnjo-ei — Kifoyri Trportt
iy OLt^pa-iToi; TiipTijAyw^xi rot A^fx/A,

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 295
God to Abraham. Some arguments, however, have
been brought from the Sacred Books themfelves, to
conyince us, that circumcifion was in earlier ufe a-
mong the Egyptians. I wUl, therefore, next confi
der them.

^Arguments from Scripture in favour of the fuperior an
tiquity of circumcifion among the Egyptians, confidered
and refuted,
\. It is, urged by fome, in favour of the high an
tiquity of circumcifion among the Egyptians, and
its derivation from them to the Jews, that the Lord
faid unto Joffiua on the day that the circumcifion of
all the people was finlffied, after their paffage over
the Jordan, and their entrance into Canaan, ' This
* day I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from
' you, Joffiua, v. 9,' for, fay thefe writers, this ex
preffion ffiews, uncircumcifion muft have been at
that time a difgraceful and ignominious thing in the
opinion of the Egyptians, But, I anfwer, though
this were admitted to be the genuine fenfe of the
expreffion, and therefore that the Egyptians were
at that time circumcifed, it would by no means prove
that they were fo, before Abraham was enjoined the
ufe of this rite, which is the point contended for,
fince the command to pradife it was given to him
more than four hundred years fooner ; and among
his defcendants, in conformity thereunto, its obfer
vation had been continued, till it was fufpended du
ring their pilgrimage In the defert, as is plain from
theu- hiftory in the book of Genefis, aisi from the
T 4

296 AVINDICATIONOF P.n,
words of Joffiua, In that very chapter formerly quot
ed. Accordingly, fome have fuppofed, that it was
introduced among them in Jofeph's time, through
his great influence and authority, or adopted *ffiort-
ly after his death, from a conceit that the great in
creafe f and profperity of the Ifraelites was owing to
it. In order to fecure the fame valuable bleffings to
themfelves : for, as they were a fuperftitious people,
it was very natural for them, fay they, to infer, that
its effeds would be no lefs beneficial for promoting
their own fertiUty and fuccefs, and from this motive
to Imitate that once defpifed people in It, however
their pride and haughtinefs might afterwards hinder
their acknowledgment that it had its rife from them,
left this ffiould refled glory and reputation upon
them. And thofe perfons, who thus grant circum
cifion Avas pradifed by the Egyptians, antecedently
to the paffage of the Jordan, think the meaning of
* Diodorus, however, fpeaks of them as ufing very different reli
gious rites, before their expulfion from the Egyptians, Eclog. I . lib.
40. K.ai SiriKKoi.fiJLiyoi; i^miy ^^a/niyay mpi ro hpoY x-O-i roL; 61;-
tsia;. f To this opinion the authors ofthe Ant. Univ. Hift. feem inclin
ed ; for, having mentioned Le Clerc's argument, ' Abraham's family,
* at his firft coming into Egypt, was fo inconfiderable, and his pofte-
' rity afterwards fo hated and defpifed by the Egyptians, that it is by
' no means probable that proud nation ffiould have received fuch a ce-
' remony from them,' They fay, but might not this be the very mo
tive that determined them in favour of it ? was it not natural for the
Egyptians, no lefs fiiperftitious than haughty, to infer, that fince it pro
cured fuch great and valuable bleflings to that defpifed people, it could
not fail of proving more fuccefsful to them, if once they admitted it
amongft them ? Might not Jofeph's time be a proper crifis to recom
mend it to them? &c. vol. 3. p. 258, 259. Note.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 297
God's words to the Ifraelites, upon occafion of their
circumcifion after their entrance into Canaan, may
be allowed to be, ' I have this day removed fCom
' you that part which the Egyptians do think igiio-
' minious and difgraceful,' -without giving counte
nance to the Imagination, that it obtained among
them, before Its appointment to Abraham.
But are we indeed fure, that we ought to conclude
from thefe words of God, that circumcifion took
place among the Egyptians, ere Joffiua led Ifrael in
to Canaan? we might indeed with certainty affirm
this, if the words could bear no other expUcation,
than that the Egyptians upbraided the Ifraelites with
their uncircumcifion, looking upon it as a thing full
of ffiame. This, however, is by no means the cafe;
for, though they* may receive that interpretation,
* I have allowed that the phrafe DH^D TQ'^T\Hherpathmitz-
raim, may denote the reproach which the Egyptians caft upon others,
for fo, reproach of men, ifaiah, li. 7. reproach of heathen, Nehem.
V. 9, reproach of people, Ezek, xxxvi. 5. ftands for, reproach caft
by the perfons feverally mentioned in thefe places upon others. Never
thelefs, the reproach of any perfon fpoken of, occurs far oftener in the
other fenfe for reproach thrown upon that perfon ; fo the reproach of
Job's youth, xxix. 4. is not the reproach which was in that ftage of
life caft by him upon others, but the reproach which was in that period
deferved by him, fo that it might have been thrown upon him by o-
thers. In like manner, it occurs, where we read, the reproach of God's
fervants, Pf. 1 xxxix. 50. the reproach of God's people, Ifaiah^xxv.
8. Micah, vi. 16. the reproach of Ifrael's widowhood, liv. 4. the
reproach of Ifrael's youth, Jerem. xxxi. 1 9. the reproach of the
daughters of Syria, Ezek. xvi. 57. for reproach caft upon the fub-
jefts named. And the fame way, it is generally taken with the pofl'ef-.
five fuffixes, my reproach. Gen. xxx. 23. i Sam. xxv. 39; Job,
xix. J. Pf. Ixix. 19. cxix. 39. 2 Sam. xiii. 13. our reproach.

298 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
they may alfo fignify the reverfe or oppofite; that
uncircumcifion was a circumftance with which they
had upbraided the Egyptians, and for which they
had contemned them as impure, efteeming it a ble
miffi in them, in the fame manner as they account
ed It In the Phffiftines afterwards, and defpifed them
by reafon of it, i Sam. xiv, 6. and xvU. 26. Nay,
it is agreeable to the more frequent and common ufe
of the phrafe ' the reproach of a perfon,' in Scrip
ture, to expound it in this way rather than in the 0-
tlier. And there are Uke-wife other confideratlons,
which turn the fcale much on this fide. For although
the IfraeUtes might throw out cenfures againft the
Egyptians, while they dwelt among them, upon the
fcore of their uncircumcifion, it does not appear how
the Egyptians could ever difparage them on that pre
tence. They could not do It while they fojourned
in Goffien, for there circumcifion was undergone by
Ifaiah, iv. i. Lament, v. i . thy reproach, Pf. Ixxiv. 22. Ifai. xlvii. 3.
his reproach, Prov, vi. 33. Hof.xii. 10. Dan.xi.i8. their reproach.
Lam. iii. 6 1 . Only,his reproach,is applied to fignify, the reproach ofiered
by the perfon defcribed in the former claufe of Dan.xi, 18. while inthe
latter, it is the reproach thrown upon the perfon introduced ; and in Ne
hem. iv. 4. Pf. Ixxix. I 2. their reproach, is reproach caft by thofe
fpoken of, inftead of reproach endured by them. It cannot then be
queftioned but it is fuitable to the moft general acceptation ofthe term
reproach in fuch a conftruftion, to underftand the reproach of Egypt
of the reproach thrown upon or undergone by the Egyptians. After
this, furely it were fuperfluous to prove, that the Greek and Latin
terms which exprefs reproach, in a fimilar fyntax, mean what may be
or is imputed and objefted to the perfons fpoken of, as a difgrace and
foul ftain, though it might be eafily done, as Horat. Carm. lib. 4. ode
12. ' Opprobrium Cecropiae domus, &c.' And In the Septuagint
tranflation, Qye^o; fKn Gen. xxx. 23. &c.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 29^
the Jewiffi males, as hath been already feen : and as
little could they do it during their refidence in the
defert, for here they faw their faces no more. It mUft
therefore follow, that the reproach of Egypt, is the
reproach which they caft upon the Egyptians when
they dwelt in their land, Inftead Of the reproach
which the Egyptians caft upon them. Efpecially we
muft think fo, if we judge it moft probable, that cir
cumcifion, even when it did take place among the
Egyptians, was never univerfally pradifed by them,
but Confined in its ufe to the priefts and minifters of
reUgion. And of this there Is fuch * evidence,
* Philo de circumcif. p. 810. having remarked, that circumcifi
on was obferved with zeal among other nations, efpecially the Egypti
ans, who were eminent both for numbers and wifdom, fpeaks as if cir
cumcifion was peculiar to their priefts, inftead df common to all. For
he fays, ' One reafon of it is cleanlinefs of body, that it may be fit for
' the priefthood or prieftly order raga hpa/jnyti. Hence thole Who ex-
' cell among the priefts in Egypt, 7r^o;v7n^Qa.\Koyri; hi ec AtfvTrra
' hpi'ay, ffiave their bodies, becaufe there are gathered both by the
' hairs and the prepuce fome things which ought to be taken away.' —
In like manner, Jofephus feems to reprefent circumcifion as a fite ap
propriated to the priefts among the Egyptians. The paffage, as I tranf
late it, runs thus, it being neceflTary to tranfcribe the Whole, thoiigh
fomewhat long, ' The reft of the articles, in Apion 's accufation, itwerfe
' reafonable to leave without any apology, that he may be an accufef
' of himfelf and other Egyptians, for he blames us, becaufe we facri-
' fice living creatures, and do not eat fwine's flefti ; and he ridicules
' the circumcifion of the parts which nature teaches to coWceal ; as to
' killing of tame animals, it is indeed common to us with all other men,
' but Apion, in condemning them who facrifice fuch, hath fhewed him-
* felf to be an Egyptian by birth. For he would not have found fault,
' had he been a Greek or a Macedonian, fince thefe men vow to ofter
' hecatombs to the gods, and ufe facrifices for feafts. Neverthelefs, it
' hath not happened, that the world hath been made defolate of cattle,

300 A VIN Die ATION OF P.U.
as hath induced feveral learned and inquifitive per
fons to conclude it was always reftrained to the fa
cerdotal order, who were to ftudy greater purity and
• as Apion feared ; whereas indeed if all had followed the manners of
' the Egyptians, the world would have been laid wafte of men, and
' been filled with the moft fierce beafts, fince thefe are by them accounted
' gods, and for this reafon carefully nouriffied and preferved. But if
' any one ffiould aflc him, whom among all the Egyptians he efteemed
' the moft wife and religious, he would readily own they were the
* priefts, for they fay they were enjoined thefe two things by their
' kings from the beginning, the worffiip of the gods, and the care of
* wifdom. Now, they all are both circumcifed, and abftain from fwine's
' fleffi, nor doth any other ofthe Egyptians facrifice with them to the
' gods. Apion, therefore, was fooliffi, when he refolved to reproach
' us for the fake of the Egyptians, yet blamed them who not only ufe
' the cuftoms which he reviles, but alfo taught others, according to
' Herodotus, to be circumcifed. On which account, he feems to me
' to have fuffered the becoming puniffiment ofbis blafpheming the laws
' (or rites) of his country, for he himfelf was brought under anecef-
' fity to be circumcifed, an ulcer having been formed about the parts,
' and having received no benefit from circumcifion, but mortified, he
' died in grievous pains.' Contra Apion, lib. 2. c. 13. And upon it
I obferve, Jofephus takes no notice of Apion's having undergone that
rite of circumcifion, which he had reviled in the Jews, though it can
not be thought he would have omitted to do it, having fo fair an op
portunity, and to improve it againft his reafonlng, had he underftood
it to have been in univerfal ufe among the Egyptians ; he only turns
againft him the praftice of the priefts in his country, and a chirurgical
operation wherein was fome likenefs to the rite, which he had been
forced for the cure of fome diftemper to fubmit to. — Origen again,
in his fifth homily on Jeremiah, as Huerius reads the text, after fay
ing that many befide the Jews were circumcifed, only fubjoins, ' The
' idol priefts among the Egyptians are circumcifed,' without making
it the cuftom of that whole people, Tui' AiyvTsriay ei\to7^ot; 01 hfei;
TTifiri/jLvoyraf. And in his fecond book on the epiftle to the Romans,
he reprefents, not that every Egyptian was circumcifed, but that among
the Egyptians who were counted the moft antient, and the moft learn-

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. ^ot
perfedlon, notvrithftanding the expreffions of fome
writers are fo general, as to lead every reader natu
rally to fuppofe circumcifion was in common ufe and
ed in religious rites, fo that from them almoft all others derived their
facred ceremonies, none ftudied aftronomy or geometry, none was a
prieft, a diviner, or a minifter of any divinity, none even learned the
facerdotal letters of the antient Egyptians called Hieroglyphics, none
was a hierophant or prophet as they called hira, unlefs he was circum
cifed. vide Origen. Opera, Edit. Huet, and Conf. Not. p. 5, i 3. —
In the fame manner, Epiphanius Haeres 30. when he reproves Ebiort
for glorying in circumcifion, does not fay that the Egyptians in general
fuffer circumcifion, as he does with relation to the Saracens, Samari
tans, Idutneans, &c. but, ' Ihe priefts ofthe Egyptians undergo cir-
' cumcifion, 'O; hfet; ray AtyvTrriay TripirofAKr e;^«(r^. Finally, Ho-
rapollo in his Hieroglyphics, lib. i . cap. 15. when he is declaring the
emblematical ufes ofthe cynocephalus, does not afcribe to all the Egyp
tians, but to their priefts alone, a zealous or careful obfervation of it.
 ny KOf 01 li^et; i7nryiiivv7t ¦^ipro/uny. Such is the evidence, fb
far as 1 know it, for circumcifion's being peculiar to the priefts, or per
fons employed about facred funftions in Egypt, inftead of being prac-
tifed by the nation univerfally ; and in confideration of it, many have
been of opinion it was never in general ufe among the Egyptians. To
this purpofe in particular, fpeak the authors of the Antient Univerfal
Hiftory, vol. 3 p. 258. Note. ' It is certain that neither they (the
' Egyptians,) nor any other nation we know of, the Jewiffi excepted,
' did praftife circumcifion univerfally. The priefts were indeed obliged
' tp be circumciled, but the reft of the people were left wholly at their
* liberty.' Even Dr. Middleton himfelf, is fo imprefled with the argu
ments for its being reftrained to the priefts, in his controverfy with the
prefent biffiop of Rochefter, though he maintain ftill, itwas common
ly performed by all the Egyptians, that he owns there may poflibly
have been fome diftinftion between the priefts and the people, in refpeft
of its neceffity, and the former may have been under fome peculiar ob
ligation to comply with the rite, together with all who defired admit
tance to their religious myfteries ; wherefore it is recorded, that Pytha
goras fubmitted tobe circumcifed, on account of the Egyptian prophets,
that he might enter the adjita, and learn their recondite and fecret phi-

302 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
obfervation among the nation. There is not then
any fure ground to infer from that language, which
God held to the IfraeUtes upon their circumcifion,
lofophy. See his Defence of his Letter to Dr. Wateriand, p. 89, p«}.
and compare Clem. Alex. Stromat lib i p 302.
It is true, Herodotus, who is a much older author than any of thefe
writers already mentioned in this note, reprefents circumcifion as a cnft
tom which prevailed among the Egyptians in general, far from giving
any hint it was confined to the facerdotal order, or men occupied in of-;
fices of religion, as they who have ability and inclination may further
fatisfy themfelves, by looking into him, lib. 2. p. 117. and 143,
Agatharcides alfo, who is placed under Ptolomy Philometor, as he is
quoted by Photius in his Bibliotheca, p. 1358, makes circumcifion,*
praftice of all Egyptians promifcuoufly ; for he fays, it is the cuftom
of the Troglodites (with exception of thofe whom he mentions,) to be
circumcifed, even as it is of all the Egyptians, Ta de ailoia roi; jjlu
awoi; Tpayholurixi; t^ty eihc-f^nyov ¦npiTt/Atia^of, KOfOa^ep A/yw?
Tiv; -irarra.;.  And on account of their teftimonies, it might be
thought, that the Egyptians were generally circumcifed in more anti
ent times, when their monarchy flouriffied, whatever reftriftion there
may have been of its ufe in later ages, when their kingdom was dif
folved, and the country converted into a Roman province, according
to thofe otber authors, as indeed fome have attempted, by fuch an hy
pothefis, to explain and reconcile the oppofite accounts. But when we
confider, that Diodorus Siculus and Strabo, who wrote about the age
of Auguftus, ufe as general expreffions about the Egyptian praftice, aj
thofe earlier writers, though there feemi tobe a fuperior weight of tefti
mony, that the rite was then confined to the priefts, and when we re
member, that there is no intimation to be met with of any change and
revolution in their cuftom, through the interval between the differept
periods wherein Herodotus or Agatharcides wrote,andthat wherein thefe
^vitnefiTes for the limited obfervation of it lived, there is room to fufpefl
that there muft have been fome mifapprehenfion about the extent of
jhe rite by thofe men, and that they have been by fome means or other
Jed to conceive it greater than it in truth was. If the reader ffiall alfi?
think this moft probable, he will be hereby confirmed in the interpret
tation I have given of God's words in Jofliua, v. 9. for the Egyptispj!

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 303
after they croffed the Jordan, ' This day I have rol
led away the reproach of Egypt from you,' that cir
cumcifion was in that age pradifed by the Egyptians ;
for from what hath been faid, It Is more natural to
interpret God's meaning to be, that he had taken
away that, for which the Ifraelites* had abhorred
the Egyptians, than that for which the Egyptians
had ffighted and decried them, as much as |Mr. Vol-
would never upbraid the Ifraelites with their uncircumcifion, when fuch
was the ftate of all among themfelves, except their priefts,
* To take away a reproach from one, is, to leave no longer occa
fion or pretence for cafting a flur upon a perfon, as may be feen by com
paring Genefis, xxx. 23. ifaiah, iv. I. and Pf. cxix. 22.
f Thus he paraphrafes the words in Joffiua, * I have delivered you
' from what was a reproach to you among the Egyptians,' and then
proceeds, ' Now what elfe could' this reproach be to people hemmed ir»
' between the Phenicians, .Arabians, and Egyptians, but that for which
' thefe three nations defpifed them ? how is this reproach removed ?
' by taking away a little of the forefltin. Is not this the natural import
' of that paffage ?' Philofoph. Diftion. p. 1 29. Article, Circumcifion,
But how juftly the reader may determine, after perufing with attention
what is above oflTered.  I am aware fome have explained God's ex
preffions, on which Mr. Voltaire and others build fo much, to have no
reference to uncircumcifion at all, and by confequence have deftroyed
all inference from them, in favour of the then practice of circumcifion
among the Egyptians. But they differ much in fixing their fenfe. Thus
Dr. Delany, in his Revelation examined with Candour, makes the mean
ing, that God, by imprinting that mark in theirfleffi which diftinguiffied
them from the people of Egypt, had taken away all handle for branding
them with the charafter of vagabond and fugitive Egyptians, vol. 2. p.
.121. Schmidius underftands it, of God's removing their reproach a-
gainft himfelf about Egypt, that it ;would have been better he had al
lowed them to tarry there, and not brought them into the deferts, for
afmuch as he now granted them an happy iflTue from all their toils and
difficulties, by introducing them into a rich and fruitful land. See Num.
xiv. 3,4. Others again fay, the declaration fignifies, God's taking a-

304 A VINDICATION OF P, II.
taire triumphs In this fenfe, as If it were the only ge
nuine one. And if thefe words of God -will not prove
that circumcifion prevaUed among the Egyptians in
Mofes's age, far lefs can they furnlfli any ffiadow
of argument for afferting, that they were circum
cifed -in Abraham's time, who fojourned in their
countiy feveral hundred years fooner.
II, It is argued further, that the Egyptians muft
have been circumcifed earlier than the Jews, be
caufe they are mentioned by God before the Jews,
when he threatens, to puniffi the circumcifed and
the unclrcumclfed nations together, Jer. ix. 25, 26.
* Behold the days conje, faith the Lord, that I will
' puniffi all them who are circumcifed with the un-
* circumcifed; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and
' the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that
' are in the utmoft corners, that dwell in the wil-
* dernefs,' But there feems to be little ftrength in
this reafonlng. For, ffiould it be granted, that God
in this enumeration, recited firft the circumcifed,
and then the unclrcumclfed nations, upon whom he
-w'as about to execute vengeance, it would by no
means foUow, from the preference of Egypt to Ju
dah in the catalogue, that the Egyptians were in pof-
way the reproach which the Egyptians caft on them, as if they had de
parted, relying on vain promifes ofa fettiement in Canaan, which would
never be accompliffied, from Numb. xiv. 1 3 — 1 6. and Exod. xxxii.
12. And there may be authors, who propofe a fourth or fifth in
terpretation. Befides, to expound it of uncircumcifion, appears the
moft eafy and obvious fenfe, from the occafion and context. I do not
therefore embrace any of them. Nor is there, if I am not deceived, any
need to prefer any of thofe more violent and ftrained comments, thatfo
we may wreft it from their abufe, who thence argue circumcifion obi
tained before among the Egyptians.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 305
feffion of the rite of circumcifion ere it was injoined
to the Jews. For they might be named firft for a
very different reafon than the more jiintient poffeffi
on of it ; even becaufe they excelled in power and
wealth among the people who obferved that cere
mony, and, accordingly, were the frequent truft and
confidence of the Jews in feafons of danger and dif
trefs, fee Ifai, chap, xxx. and xxxi, Ezek, xxix, 6,
7, &c, — Is there, however, any ground to believe,
that God Intended here to mention fii-ft circumcifed,
and then unclrcumclfed nations, who would be the
fubjeds of his wrath? It rather feems, that he num
bers nations promifcuoufly, fince he adds, at the
end of his detail, this refledion, ' For all thefe nati-
* ons are unclrcumclfed, and all the houfe of Ifrael
* are unclrcumclfed In heart.' For hence we are na
turally led to conclude, that the nations he had
fpoken of befide the Jews, the Egyptians whom he
had introduced before' them, and the Ammonites
and Moabites whom he had brought in after them,
were unclrcumclfed In a different fenfe from the
Jews, in their fleffi namely, and not merely in their
heart. Agreeably, the Egyptians, under the appella
tion of Pharaoh and all his multitude, are elfewhere,
in the -writings of this prophet, defcribed as unclr
cumclfed, Ezek. xxxi. 18. ' Thou ffialt lie in the
* midft of the unclrcumclfed, with them that are
* flain by the fword :' for, ' to Ue in the midft of the
* uncircumcifed,' is the phrafe ufed by him concern
ing the deftrudion of the Edomites, xxxii, 2 9 , who
were, in his age, ftrangers to the rite, fince Jofephus
tells us, they only fubmitted to it on Hytcanus's
conqueft of their country, which happened long af-
U

^o& A VINDICATION OF P.IL
terj.' Hyrcanus, fays he, having fubdued the Idume-j
* ans, granted them permiffion to continue in their
* territory, If they would confent to be circumcifed,
* and conform to other Jewiffi laws ; they, thro' their
' affedion to their native country , fubmitted to under-
' go circumcifion, and to live In other refpeds as Jews,
' and from this period they were Jews.' The paffage
then in Jeremiah, upon which the plea for the fuperior
antiquity of circumcifion among the Egyptians is
buUt, inftead of eftabUfhing that point,rather confirms
our opinion that circumcifion was of earUer ufe ar
mong the Jews than among them, if it was ever at all
a national rite with them. Nay, may be improved to
increafe the fufplclon that Herodotus, and others
after him, were miftaken* in relating it as fuch.
Ill, Once more, it is infifted on as a ftrong pre
fumption, that circumcifion was earlier known in
Egypt, that it was not injoined by God to Abraham
till he had refided in that country. To this purpoft^
Mr. Voltaire, having obferved that Abraliam had
been circumcifed before the Jews fpoken of in the
book of Joffiua, (though, as was remarked, he made
his circumcifion terminate in himfelf, and not pafs
t Antiq. 13. 9. I.
* If Suidas be appealed to in behalf of its general ufe among the
Egyptians, becaufe he, under the word -^aKo; in his Lexicon, hath
thefe words, Oi Se Atyvwrnt •IfaKai Kifoyrcq eiya/, rvr tart TrtfiTtl* [
jiiri//.iyoi. It is eafy to anfwer, he may defcribe their ftate in his own-
age, through their obedience to Mahomet. As heathens, it had ceafed.
to be univerfal among them long before his time, according to Mr,
Voltaire himfelf, who rightly obferves, Phil. Diftion. page 131. 'The
' Latin Authors gave the Jews the epithets of Curti, Jpellae, &C. ani
• not the Egyptians.' So Horace, Catullus, Martial, Juvenal, thereby
demoting, theyalone in their days were circumcifed ina national capacityr
1

p;iL THE SACRED BOOKS. ^07
to bis pofterity tUl Joffiua's time) proceeds and fays,
I ' Abraham, baving traveUed into Egypt, which
* had, for a long time, been a flouriffiing monarchy,
'governed by a powerful king, circumcifion may
' not improbably be fuppofed to have obtained in a
• kingdom of fuch antiquity, before the Jewiffi nation
* was founded.' And the author of the Charaderif-
ticks had led the way to him here, for he expreffeth
himfelf thus, I' Abraham had been a gueft and inha-
*¦ bitant of Egypt, (where hiftorians mention this to
' have been- a national rite) long ere he had received
* any divine notice or revelation concerning this af-
* fair.' But, befides that there is reafon to look upon all
a* arrant fidion, which we are told about Egypt's
being the feat of a powerful monarch for many
ages before Abraham, and that there is fome appear
ance, circumcifion, when it obtained there, was on
ly a facerdotal rite, inftead of a national one, upon
which fuppofition, the ufe of it would be lefs catch
ing to ftrangers that were not of prieftly rank, it
cannot at aU be juftly concluded, from God's not
inftituting circumcffion tUl after Abraham had been
Ml Egypt, that he had feen it there, and on feeing
it, contraded, as is pretended, a fondnefs for it; for
why then ffiould its injundion have been delayed
for twenty years after his return from fojourning
there, and not have been commanded while he ftayed
in the country, or foon after he came back ? The
natural account of its appointment at that feafon
plainly is, not that he was then difpofed to pradife it
¦f Phil. Dift. ubi fupra, page 129, 130.
X Shaftesbury's Charafteriftics, vol. 3. page 52, 53.
U 2

3o8 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
in Imitation of the Egyptians, (for condefcenfion in
God to fuch a weaknefs would have operated the
injundion of it fooner, as the biafs and propenfity to
it muf^ have been ftronger, the ffiorter the Interval
from his communication and mtercourfe with the
Egyptians) but that then God revealed his Intention
of beftowing on his pofterity, by a fon whom Sa
rah ffiould bear to him, the land of Canaan. Upon
this account, he at that time, and not before, ap
pointed circumcifion to be a token of his covenant
with him. Gen. xvii, 5 — 14. There Is then no caufe
to think circumcifion was ordered to Abraham from
a regard to fome prepoffeffion he had imbibed in its
favour during his abode in Egypt, — This hypothefis
of our author, however, is alfo liable to other diffi
culties befides fuch as arife from confidering the di
ftance of time between Abraham's refidence there,
and God's Inftitution of the rite to him and his fa
mily. For Mr. Voltaire roundly afferts, ' That die
' Egyptians at firft circumcifed both male and female
' children, though he makes them, in procefs of
' time, to have difcontinued this operation en * the
' females, and at length to have limited it to priefts^'
* aftrologers, and prophets.' I may therefore afk him'
if God gave the command to Abraham becaufe he
was Inclined to tread In the fteps of the Egyptians,
why did he not order the ceremony to be performed!
upon his female, as well as upon his male Iffue, and
upon his domeftics of the one fex, as well aS the
* Philof. Dift. page 131. Yet Strabo, who wrote in the age of Au-
gtiftus, fpeaks of it as the manner of the Egyptians in his time, as was
obferved above. And Ambrofe, Bp. of Milan, whofe words are produced
in a following note, fpeaks of it as their praftice almoft 400 years after.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 309
other? As God did not injoln it fo extenfively In
regard of its fubjeds to Abraham, as, accorcUng to
our author, it was pradifed In Egypt, here certainly
is a difficulty which preffes his fcheme, though it
may not embarrafs that of others, who, while they
attribute the original of circumcifion to the Egypti
ans, do not fuppofe any but males were fubjeded to
it, becaufe Herodotus, Agatharcides, and others, o-
mit all particular mention that others underwent It,
and ufe only a general expreffion*. To this alfo I
may add, how will he explain, upon his principles,
the variation in the time of performing the" rite, that
whereas the Egyptians circumcifed their children In
the thirteenth or fourteenth year of their age, Abra
ham was direded to circumcife his. Gen. xvU, (as
the Jews In like manner were commanded after
wards, Levit. xU. 3 .) on the eighth day from their
birth, under the pain of their being cut off from the
land of the living? For If this difference, as to the
time of their pradlfing the rite from that fixed by
God's ordinance to Abraham, which fome f have af-
firnied,be admitted by him. It muft ftill more ftraiten
him, who makes God to have prefcribed circumci
fion to Abraham and his feed, in Indulgence to their
propenfity to imitate Egyptian manners, Neverthe-
* Thus Herodotus, page ^17. AiFvTrrioi Tn^tratfjiyoyraj. — Tot,
,7t «yOo/a 7npira.fA.voYrot/, &c.
f Thus Ambrofe, who flouriffied about .^. D. 382. is pofitive
that the fourteenth year of childrens age was the time ofthe operation.
' De Abrahamo, lib. 2. feft. 11. Aegyptii anno decimo quarto cir-
' cumcidunt mares,-etfoeminae apud eos eodem anno circumcidi fctun-
' tur, quod ab eo viz. anno paffio virilis flagrare incipiat, et feminarum
' menftrua furaant exordia.
U 3

310 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
lefs, though more antient writers may feem to ex
prefs I themfelves in fuch a manner as to lead us to
think that the Egyptians, as well as Jews, did per
form it foon after the birth, he, if I do not mifappre-
hend him, adopts that oppofite notion, thai tliey
did it at the diftance of thirteen or fourteen years
from it. For he fays, ' The Jews imitated the cir-
* cumcifion of the Egyptians and Arabs;' as if thefe
two nations had obferved the fame time for it, when
yet the Arabs, as we will learn from Jofephus jMrelent-
ly, did not perform it tUl about that more mature fea
fon of life. There is then no foundation in Scripture
for f faying, that circumcifion prevaUed among the
X I intend Strabo, who, fpeaking of the Egyptians, fays, lib. 17.
p. 824. (Almel. edit. 1180.) Ka/ rvro Se ray l^yiKv/A-ivay /AaKm
' r ' ^
Trap aurot;, ra Tayr.a rpapeir ra Jiyyafitva Traioia, xa/ ro irtfi-
rifiyeiy, x«/ ra ^n\ta iKri/xyety, &c. Diodor. Sicul. edit. Weflcling.
lib. I. p. 33. (Rhodom 24.) after mentioning that the nation of the
Colchlans in Pontus, and the nation of the Jews between AraUa and
Syria had gone out of Egypt to feek habitations, adds, Aw v.ttf to..
pa roi; yinai nroi;, &c. as ip page 283. Alfo, lib. 3. page 198.
(Rhod. 115.) he fays, ' All the Troglodites are circumcifed in tbe
' fame manner, Haf aT^^J(r;af , as the Egyptians, except thofe of them
' who are called Kom/Sd/, for they alone of all who dwell within thofe
* ftraits, have all the part, which in others is circumcifed, cut off with
' razors in childhood, tx yriTriv. To the fame purpofe, Photius hath
preferved a pafl'age of Agatharcides, in his Bibl. p. 1358. for he gives
the fame account ofthe Troglodites in general, as was feen before, and
then fays, the KoM/fo/, as the Greeks called them, were treatedinthat
manner when they were children, yynriay orruy.
f Dr. Delany argues from Genefis, xvii. 3. where it is faid, ' Ab-
' raham circumcifed all in his houfe that were bought with his money,'
that circumcifion did not prevail in Egypt then, becaufe if it had, fonift
of them would have been circumcifed before, even fuch as he had ac-
<l,uired in Egypt, Gen. xii. 1 6. alfo from Exod. ii. 6. that circum-

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 311
Egyptians, ere it was inftituted to Abraham and his
pofterity. Let us next fee, whether any counte
nance is given to fuch an opinion by Jofephus and
Philo, who have been alfo quoted to ferve the caufe.
The vanity of thofe pleas which are taken from Philo
and Jofephus to fupport the claim ofthe Egyptians,
expofed.
It hath been further remarked by the advocates
for the fuperior antiquity of circumcifion among the
Egyptians, that PhUo would never have omitted af
ferting it belonged originally to the Jews, In* his
treatife on the fubjed, unlefs he had been confcious
the Egyptians, whofe pradice he mentions for the
vindication of his countrymen, had been examples
to them in it. But furely PhUo's filence upon this
head can have no force to perfuade any impartial per
fon, that the Egyptians were firft in poffeffion of it,
as indeed arguments taken from the filence of au
thors, in general, are of a more dubious and uncertain
.nature, wherever the fame niight proceed from a va
riety of caufes, Philo, though convinced Iris own
nation ufed the rite earlier than any other, may very
reafonably be fuppofed to have avoided taking any
notice of it, left it ffiould give offence to the Egyp
tians, among whom he lived, they being beyond
cifion was unknown to the Egyptians at the time of Mofes's nativity, for
how unlefs circumcifion had been peculiar to the Ifraelites, fliould Pha
raoh's daughter have immediately concluded on feeing the child in the
cofier, and the fex thereof, ' This is one of the Hebrew children,^
1\& force of which obfervations the reader may confider,
* See Philo de Circumcif, ubi fupr^.
U4

312 A VINDICATION OF P, ft
meafure jealous of their honour, about the orlginaU
ty of their cuftoms civil and religious, and to have
fatisfied himfelf upon this principle, with giving fuch
an explication of the reafons which were affigned for
the rite, and the ufes to which it was thought fub-
fervient, as tended to juftify it both in Jews and
Egyptians. — It may even feem, on the other hand,
had it been his judgment the Egyptians led the way
herein, he would not have failed to obferve it, fince
it would have been much to his purpofe of defending
circumcifion, to have faid, not only that the Egyp
tians, who excelled in nunibers and wifdom, were
circumcifed as well as the Jews, but that they, who
were fo famous and renowned a people, fet a pattern
of it to them and the reft of mankind.
With the fame view Ukewife of ffiewing, that cir
cumcifion obtained fooner among the Egyptians than
among Abraham's pofterity, it hath been obferved,
that Jofephus does not confute Herodotus's affeition,
* That the Syrians in Paleftlne acknowledged they
' learned it from the Egyptians,' when he quotes jthe
fame. But the weaknefs of this argument from his
f Says Dr. Middleton, Letter to Dr. Waterland, page 28. ' Jofe-
' phus, who in his Defence of the Jews againft Apion, takes occafion
' more than once to mention this teftimony of Herodotus, inftead
' of cenfuring or attempting to confute it, argues from it as from a
' thing granted;' /.nd then quotes his words againft Apion, lib.
2. c. 13. which have been already tranflated in a former note on this
feftion, making Jofephus fay. ' The Egyptians are all circumcifed,'
where he only fpeaks of their priefts. But though Jofephus takes it for
granted, that the Syrians in Paleftine fpoken of by Herodotus were
Jews, there is no colour for faying, he takes for granted the truth of
the f»ft which Herodotus makes them own, that they had learned cir
cumcifion from the Egyptians,

P, n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 313
work againft Apion, hath. If I am not miftaken, been
already * difcovered. Only it may be proper to add,
it is the more unreafonable to draw fuch an inference
as Is here done, (1 mean, that Jof^^phus approved Hero
dotus's account of its being derived to his nation
from the Egyptians, from his omitting to cenfure
himjin patriotic zeal for their Credit,) becaufe Jofephus
himfelf labours elfewhere to imprefs men with a be
Uef that all the rites and ceremonies of the GentUes,
which bore any fimUitude or likenefs to the ufages '
of the Jewiffi people his countrymen, were borrow
ed from them. For, fays -j- he, ' Of old many have
' had a great forwardnefs to Imitate ourrellglous rites ;
* there is no city of the Greeks or Barbarians, no na-
' tion where a regard to the feventh day, on which
* we reft from labour, hath not reached ; and where
' faftings, and burning of lamps, and abftinences
' from many kinds of food, are not obferved, &c,'
Befides, is Jofephus ffient, when he recites Herodo
tus's words which make the Egyptians authors of
circumcifion to them, as to the reft of mankind ? So
is Origen in one place, when he mentions Celfus's
reproach J, tliat the Colchlans and Egyptians were
taught circumcifion by the Jews ; but did Origen there
fore efteem Celfus's refledion juft ? We are fure he did
not ; for in another § paffage, as we have feen, he
ffiews his convidion, that Abraham was circumcifed
firft among men. As therefore Orlgen's affent to the
ftory of the Egyptians in Herodotus, when it comes
* See part I . feft. laft, p. 40,
f Contra Ap. lib. 2. c. 39.
4: Ubi fupra, Origen adv. Celf. 5. 259.
' 4 I^'d. I. 17.

314 AVINDICATIONOF P. II,
from Celfus's pen, cannot be gathered with truth
from his forbearing to contradid it, at his introduc
tion of it, no more is Jofephus's acquiefcence in the
juftice of his tale, to be coUeded merely from his
negleding to deny and oppofe the fame, where, he
brings It in ; and the lefs, becaufe it dlci not faU in
with his view then, as was faid, to call him to ac^
counts for it: not to repeat what was alfo before ob
ferved, that he hath fufficlentiy difcovered his fenfe
elfewhere, that at God's inftitution of the rite to A-
braham and his pofterity, its ufe was pecuUar to
them.* § See part i. feft. laft, p. 40.
• I arn aware. Dr. Middleton urges alfo Jofephus's words, Antiq,
8. 10. 3. where after quoting Herodotus's account about the con
feffion ofthe Syrians in Paleftine, and remarking, ' It is manifeft none
' others of the Syrians in Paleftine are circumcifed, but durfelves a-
' lone;' he adds, ' About thefe things however let every one fpealc
' as he pleafes.' For would Jofephus have expreffed himfelf in this
manner, if he had not looked upon circumcifion as of previous ufe a.
piong the Egyptians ? But I anfwer, thefe words muft relate chiefly
at leaft, if not folely, to the ftory of Shifak's plundering the city and
temple of Jerufalem, and to the queftion, whether Herodotus referred
to that tranfaftion or not ; for Jofephus having related the hiftory con
tained in 2 Chron. xii. and i Kings, xiv. adds, ' Herodotus the Hali-
' carnaflian hath mentioned this expedition, only committing a miftake
* about the name of the king, (he intends, it hath been thought, he
* calls him Sefoftris, lib. 2. p. 145.) for he tells us, ,that he invaded
' many other nations, and reduced to fervitude Paleftine in Syria, hav-
* ing taken its men without fighting a ftroke. Now it is plain he meant
• to declare, that our nation was fubdued by the Egyptian, fince he
• fays, he left pillars in their country, who furrendered to him without
* any battle, with a figure engraven on them which was expreffive of
' their effeminacy, a^oioi, ywainay lyypa-^a.;; and Rehoboam our
* Jcing yielded^the city to him without lifting an arm.' Then he goes

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 315
Upon the whole then, I apprehend, I may con
clude without incurring any blame either for want
cf underftanding, or candour, or moderation, that
Mr. Voltaire and others have had no fufficient reafon for
affirming, that the rite of circumcifion was introdu
ced among the Jews in imitation of the pradice of
on, ' He alfo fays, that the Ethiopians learned circumcifion from the E/-
' gyptians, for the Phenicians and Syrians in Paleftine own they learned
' it from them,' and concludes as above in the beginning of this note.
Kow hereby every one muft perceive, what Jofephos writes about the
teftimony of Herodotus to the circumcifion of the Jews, is only brought
in to ftiew, that this hiftorian, by the country nf Paleftine in Syria
which Sefoftris conquered fo eafily, underftood their country; and
therefore, that the indulgence which he gives to every perfon to fpeak
about thefe things according to his fentiments, muft refer chiefly, if
not only, to the fubjeft which gave rife to that epifode, if I may fo call
it, for the confirmation of his opinion, that Herodotus defcribed t^e
fame expedition of the king of Egypt againft Jerufalem, which was de
fcribed in their facred books. Dr. Middleton indeed contends, that
his allowance of this freedom of Ipeech, regards what he had faid a-
bout circumcifion, not only in part, which may be granted, becaufe the
mention of circumcifion immediately precedes the words which contain
it, but principally, if not folely; and he gives this reafon for faying it mud:
be thought to do fo, ' That though Jofephus ufes the fame refleftioa
* very often, he never applies it but to fome faft or point of great mo-
• ment to the truth oreffential charafter of the Jewifli religion. There-
' fore, as the ftory of Shifak is of no confequence to the Jewiffi nation
' or religion, it is rational to think the refleftion here is to be applied
* (he ffionid have faid, efpecially,) tothe cafe of circumcifion, which,
' is of confequence thereunto.' See Middleton's Remarks on a Reply to
the Defence of his Letter to Dr. Waterland, Worits, vol, 3,p, 187.
But whoever takes the trouble of examining all the places where Jofe-
"phus ufes that mode of expreflion, will be lenfible that he does not al
ways confine his ufe of it to matters fo important. Here in particular,
of whatever moment it was to a Jew to be circumcifed, it was a thing
which no way affiifted the tnnth or eftlntial charafter ofthe Jewiffi re
ligion, whether Herodotus took notice that the Jews praftifed the ce-

3i6 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
the Egyptians. I have examined, fo far as I know,
all their authorities for it, and they appear to me by
no means any good foundation for the fuperftrudure
they raife thereon, which I hope wiU be now alfo the
judgment of the reader.
Mr. Voltaire'' s affertion, that the Jews imitated the cir
cumcifion ofthe .Arabs examined, and fume refleBions
upon the manner and time of the Egyptians beginning
the ufe of circumcifion, which conclude this article.
As to Mr, Voltaire's faying. In the fame fentence
which was already produced, that the Jews Imitated
the circumcifion of the Arabs, it is a pofition which
cannot detain us long ; for I do not know any anti
ent writer who affords any handle for pretending
they took It from them. Indeed, I know no author
of this clafs at all, who mentions the prevalence of
circumcifion among the Arabs by name, except Jo
fephus, who, in a paffage *before quoted, teUs us,
* That being Iffimael's defcendants, they circumcUe
' their children in the thirteenth year,' But it is
remony, which is all Jofephus aimed to eftabliffi. At any rate, whether
thefe words relate to circumcifion chiefly or not, they cannot authorize
us to conclude, that Jofephus thought the Jews derived circumcifion
from Egypt, or that his countrymen owned it, after what hath been ob
ferved on the import of fuch phrafes, part i. feft. 2. p. 9, lo. &c.
* See part i . feft. laft, p. 4 i . Antiq. i . 12. 2 . A^aQi; li /(era
tro; rfi;Kai\iK«.roy (e9»f ^X^"') '"'"^'^'^ ra; Tnpiro//.a;' lis/iartKo;
yap 0 KriTn; rv thv;, ACfa/jta yiyo/jLivo; m rn; Tta.KKa'x.yi;, » rvra
TTipirijinrajra XJi'^^'-^' "-'f *' ^"^ Travra Koyoy tK^nco/uioii /jtira ttoK-
>.yi; atipiQeiot.;. This treatife of Jofephus, however, concerning cir
cumcifion, if ever he wrote it, is loft, fo that no light can be derived
from it.

P.IL TIIE SACRED BOOKS. 317
plain he furnlffies no pretence to affirm, it was ob
ferved by them antecedently to its appointment un
to Abraham : for he makes their being fprung from
Iffimael, who was his fon by Hagar, and circumcifed
in the thirteenth year of his age, becaufe he was fo
old at the time God enjoined his father this rite, the
ground of their circumcifing their children at the
fame time of life, though Mr. Voltaire f-wffi have
them alfo to have learned the ceremony from the E-
gyptlans. It is true, the Arabians fometimes come
under the natne of Ethiopians with the antient s, as
Arabia Is fometimes called Ethiopia by them. Even
the Jewiffi hiftorian himfelf, is fuppofed to ufe this
ftile fometimes : for he fpeaks of a war | with the E-
thlopians, in which Mofes commanded the Egypti
an forces againft them, and befieged Saba a capital
city of Ethiopia. Now here the word. It is faid, muft
have that meaning, Saba being-]- metropolis of Ara
bia. And upon this hypothefis, that the Arabs are
called Ethiopians by the antients, there are many au
thorities for their having obferved circumcifion, as
muft have been remarked by every attentive reader
of this fedion, and among others, the paffage con
cerning the Troglodites, fince they were a people of
f Phil. Diftion. p. 1 30. ' Where is the improbability ofthe He- ¦
' brews havinig imitated the Egyptians in circumcifion ? It was no more
' than their neighbours the Arabs had done.'
:j: Antiq. 2. 10. 2,
"l" So Diodorus Siculus, who in his fecond book appropriates the
name of Arabia to the country between Syria and Egypt, makes Sa-
bas, or, as others read, Saba, the metropolis ofthe Arabians, Hb. 3.
feft. 47. Edit. Rhodom. p. 126. Weffeling. 215. Tk Se i^yv; rvT*
ynrpoTTou; i?iY viy naKviri 'SiOt.Qy.; iTT opv; uKiT^m,^

31 8 A^ V I N D I C A T I O N 0 F P. IL
eaftern Ethiopia, or Ethiopia on the Arabic guif.
But ftiU there is no fhadow of teftimony, that the
Jews borrowed circumcifion from them, unlefs the
meaning of our author be, that they learned it from
the Egyptians, who had themfelves been taught it
by them, as indeed the Ethiopians muft be fuppofed
to have given out. And in this fenfe, it coincides with
the affertion of their taking it from the Egyptians,
which hath been already confidered, and ffiewed to
be Ul-grounded ; there being no proof it was known
to them fooner than to Abraham and his pofterity.
We may then reft fatisfied, that circumcifion was
commanded to Abraham and his pofterity, and in
purfuance of the divine injundion pradifed by them,
ere it was in ufe among the Egyptians and other na
tions; as indeed I believe this opinion will of its o-wn
accord arife in the mind of every unbiaffed and un
prejudiced perfon, who reads the relation of Its ap
pointment by God, and obfervance by them, whkh
we have in the book of Genefis, inftead of the con
ceit, that it was then common to others with them.
Should any now enquire, whence or when the E-
gyptians began to obferve circumcifion, as a nation-.
al, or at leaft as a facerdotal rite, fince they were not
in poffeffion of it before the Abrahamic famUy ? I re
ply, it is difficult to fay. About this point, liearned
men have gone into very different fentiments, there
being fuch a defedivenefs of evidence for one ac
count of Its entrance among them beyond another.
For fome have afcribed it to the influence of Abraham
himfelf; fome to the credit and authority of Jofeph,
while in reward of his eminent fervice he had fu
preme rule over Egypt next to the king, together

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 319
with the example * of his father and brethren, who
fettled there during his adminiftration of public af
fairs ; fome to the obfervation of the prodigious fruit-
* To this opinion it hath been objefted, that ' It was an abomi-
¦ nation to the Egyptians to eat bread with the Hebrews,' Gen. xliii. 22.
qnd-that 'all ffiepherds (fuch as they Were) were an abomination to ihe
'• Egyptians,- Gen. xlvi. 34. How then can it be thought theEgyptians
would copy the-, rite of circumcifion from them in that age? But it!
may be anfwered, fo were the Greeks an abomination to the Egypti-
aiis : for neither would they falute a Greek, nor ufe the knife, or fpiti
or kettle of a Greek, left they ffiould be defiled by his embrace, af-'
ter he had been partaker of food which they counted unlawful,, of which-
fort were cows, and with many of them ffieep, or by the touch of thef6
utenfils, after they had been employed about the fame prohibited vic-
tu^s. See Herodotus, 2. cap. 41, 43, and Diod. Sicul, (Rhodom.'
77.) WeflTeling, 97, But will it follow therefore that the Egyptians
never borrowed any cuftom from the Greeks .'^Strabo gives the Jews
^ good charafter at their departure from Egypt, and fettlementinPalef-i
tine, -which, though it relate to them in a later period than Jofeph's go-
ternment, I fliall-gtve at once here, for he fays, ' That Mofes, one ofthe
* Egyptian priefts, poffefling a certain diftrift of the country, departed
*. thence^ having difliked the appointed rites, and many who honoured
' the Deity went put with him, ttokkoi ri/Jtayri; ro ^ov avra a-uKe^--
* yifay, for he taught them, &c.' as above quoted, p. 288. ' And perfua-
' ded not a few well-minded perfons to accompany him ; that he founded'
*; no contemptible kingdom in the country where Jerufalem now ftands,'
'; all around having eagerly joined him, as he promifed to eftabliffi'
' fuch a worffiip, and fuch a priefthood, as would not be uneafy by ex-
* pences or ^lofoftcq, proceffions with images of the gods, or other ab-^
';. fiird priifticeSf and aflured that thofe who lived foberly and righte-
'. oufly ought to expeft always fome gift from God, but they of an
'i -oppofite. charafter ought to look for no benefit. — -That they who
' iiicceeded, continued fome ages in the fame fentiments, doing juftly
'¦ and being truly, pious, till firft fuperftitious meOj and afterwards ty-
' rannical men intruded into the priefthood, when from fuperftition
'. proceeded abftioeoces from meats, which the nation ufes ftill, and
'. circumdfioos, and.excifions, and fuch cuftoms, and from oppreflions,.

§20 A VINDICATION OF P. II,
fulnefs and increafe of the Ifraelites who ufed it, and
the undeniable difcoveries of divine favour toward
them, at their removal thence ; and fome to the frlend-
ffiip f that was eftabliffied between the Jewifli nation
• robberies : for they who revolted, harafled both that country and
' the neighbourhood, but they who took part with the rulers, plun-
' dered what belonged to others, and fubdued a good part ofbyriaand
' Phenicia. 'Oi St liali^a./A.iroi ;;(fov»c /uir rira; tv roi; auroi; In.
' fitetyor Imaio'irpayvyri; (ta/ dioiiSet; a; ahrj^a; oyn;, &c.' Thus
Strabo, lib. i6. p 761. edit Almel. 1104. and what an honourable
account is it of the Jews, in the beginning of their ftate ! Juftin too
fpeaks well of them ; for having faid, ' That after Arvas, Mofes's fon,
' was made king, the Jews had the fame perfons for priefts and kings,'
he adds, ' The juftice of thefe priefts and kings mixed with piety, ac-
' quired them an incredible power, ' Quorum juftitia religione per-
' mixta, incredibile quantum convaluere.' 36. 2. Were thefe Jews
then fuch in earlier times, as to be thought unworthy of imitation in
any of their cuftoms? — Befides do not we ourfelves know a nation,
which is ready to imitate the faffiions of another nation, tbough to this
nation, there is, on many accounts, a ftrong averfion an an-ipa hy.
f It is eafy on this fuppofition to anfwer Dr. Middleton's query,
with whatever air of triumph he has propofed it ; Letter to Or. Wa
terland, ibid. pp. 30, 31. ' Which then is the more probable, ihat
a people great and powerful, famed every where abroad, and valuing
themfelves highly at home for their wifdom and learning, fhould
borrow fo remarkable a cuftom from a nation they always hated
and defpifed, or that the lawgiver ofa petty infant ftate, ffiould copy
that as well as many others of his conftitutions, from the praftice of
a great and flouriffiing kingdom ?' for the Jews were not fo abhorred
and contemned by them in thofe days, as appears from the intercourfe
between the two kingdoms, mentioned in Scripture, 1 Kings, iii. I . and
X. 28, 29. 2 Kings, xvii. 4. xviii 21. 24. Ifaiah, xxx. xxxi. E-
zek. xxix. 6, 7. Nor will Dr. Middleton's quotation from Jofephus
contra Apion, i. 13. prove they were always hated and flighted by
them againft fiich proofs ofthe contrary ; for Jofephus never intended
his words, which run thus, ' All the Egyptians in common were efpeci''

?'.fl. tItE SACREDi feOOKS. ^ii
knd the Egyptian, upon Solomon's marriage unto
Pharaoh's daughter, and cultivated to a confiderable
degree under the reign of different princes in both
countries al intervals, by traffic and commerce, by
leagues Or treaties, and by affiftance againft enemies.
feut they aU fuppofe, that, after learning in one or o-
ther bf thefe channels to circumcife their children
within a ffiort time ofthe birth, they altered the fea
fon of it In procefs of ages tb the thirteenth or four
teenth year of Ufe, (if indeed this was ever the period
for it With them,) the more effedually to hide their
having borrowed the cuftom from the Hebrews, who
were a nation much detefted in later times, fof Impie
ty toward the gods and unfociable manners , Or to ferve
fome different purpofe . O thers again,Inftead of fuppof
ing they took circumcifion from Abraham's defcend
ants by Ifaac, who circumcifed their children on the
eighth day, have been Of opinion they learned It|from
his pofterity by Iffimael, among whom Jofephus menti-
' ally ill-affefted toward Us. Ma^/^a Trpo; n/ua; Shtsfjiiya; hari^tynz
' Koiyij/jaya-rrayri; AifvTrriot.' ffiould be Underftood with fuch rigor,as
to imply, that this was their temper through all ages. They are intro
duced by him only to ffiew, that it would, be unreafonable to arraign the
Egyptian writers of falffiood, whom he was about to bring as vouchers
for the antiquity ofbis nation.  He ufes the fame expreffions there
concerning the Tyrians among the Phenicians, when he would fecure
credit to their evidence in behalfof the fame point; yet furely the Ty
rians were not unfriendly to the Jews in the times of David and Solo
mon, I Kings, V.I, II. He himfelf hath recorded proofof the refpeft:
of both people toward the Jews in that period. Ant, 8. 2. 6. and ibid.
6. 4". 5. and Contra Apion. i. 17. 18.
X Of this opinion is Bochart in his Phaleg. lib. 4 . cap 3 r . p. 3 2 y.
and Huetius, if I miftake not, inhis annotations on Origen's works u-
bi fupra. X

322 A VINDICATION OF P.E
ons the Ai'abians as pradifmgit in the thirteenth year of
Ufe, after the example of their father Iffimael. To this
purpofe they may obferve, that the Ethiopians, accord-^
ing to Herodotus, ufed that ceremony fo far back,
that i£ was hard to teU whether they or the Egypd-
ans were firft in poffeffion of it, though he inclined
to beheve the Egyptians had the precedence, as
we faw above,--They may urge alfo the affertion
of the Ethiopians, with aU the reafons in fuppOrt of
it related by Diodorus, that the Egyptians learned
their laws and cuftoms from them, together witb
Ambrofe's account fikewife already mentioned, that
the Egyptians fubjeded their children to it in
their fourteenth year. And, finaUy, they may
remark, that thofe Ethiopians were called Arabs
by the * antients fometimes, or, however if they
were diftind from them, Uved juft on their bor
der, as they were alfo neighbours to the Egyptians*
Eafily therefore, fay they, might the cuftom be com-
* Artapanus, in a pafl['age preferved by Eufebius tn his Praep. E-'
vang. 9. 27. fays, ' Mofes fled from Egypt into Arabia, Sf A^aSw,-
' and lived with Raguel the ruler of the country, and married hij
' daughter.' Jofephus, giving an account of the fame faft, Antiq. 2.
II. 1 . 2 . after he has told us he fled to Madian, a city on the fliore
of the Red fea, fo named from one of Abraham's fons by Keturah,-
fays, ' He met R-aguel's daughters, taking care of their father's flocks,
' for it was the fervice which belonged to the women in tbat country
" of the Troglodites, d/a ro ravrtfy VTsv^yiay ety.of it.a^. yvra^iv vtri-
' ¦)(a^ioy Tra^a roK TpayKoturat;.' So that he corrfidered tbe inhabi-'
tants of that country as Troglodites, wbo were indifpntably reckoned
a people of Ethiopia. Elfewhere as he tells us. Ibid. to-, i. That
the Ethiopians were neighbours, Trpo;(moi, to the Egyptians, he fpeaks»-
ibid. 9. 5. 3. ofthe Arabians, as thofe who dwelt neareft to Etllio-
pia, ApaCuy rm iyfis-a, rn; AtSnoTrta; HureiKVYTUY.
I

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 323
riiunicated-f to them.— A third clafs, in fine, though
they cannot admit Herodotus's account of the reafon
of this pradice of the Egyptians as very probable,
that they performed circumcifion for the fake of
cleanlinefs, apprehend fuperftition might didate it to
f Dr. Middleton, Letter to Dr. Wateriand, pp. 31. 32. fays,
''Though all thefe opinions, (he means thefe which derive circumci
fion to the Egyptians from Abraham, or Jofeph, or Jacob and his fons,
or the friendffiip with the'jews in Solomon's time, for all thefe he had
tnentioned,) '' are wholly groundlefs and irrational, yet none feems fo
' improbable as that which you embrace, that this cuftom was carried
* into Egypt by Abraham's pofterity, the Arabian Iffimaelites ; for how
' can it be imagined, that a fet bf wild Arabs, or wandering ffiepherds,
• an occupation abominable to the Egyptians, (Gen. xlvi. 34.) of all
' men the moft barbarous and illiterate, could have authority enough
' With a polite and learned natiooj to eftabliffi fo odious and painful a
' cuftom among them I' But not to repeat any former refleftions, do
we not fee th^t the Ethiopians were a powerful people in Mofes's time ?
Jofephus, Antiq. 2. 10. I. reprefents, that tbey made incurfions into
Egypt then, and carried away much fpoil, that they defeated the E-
gyptians in a pitched battle, penetrated even to Memphis and the lea,
no city being able to refift them, and over-ran the whole country, fo
that the Egyptians were reduced to great diftrefs ? And do we not fur
ther fee, that they brought immenfe armies into the field in following
ages, againft Afa king of Jadah, 2 Chron. xiv. 9. and xvi. 8. ? 
My late worthy friend Mr Brekel of Liverpool, hath fuppofed the
ftiepherd- kings, who, aCccordingto Manetho in Jofephus, fubdued E-
gypt, and reigned over it feveral hundred years, to have been Arabi
ans, who invaded it foon after the children of Ifrael left it, when, be
ing in a weak and broken ftate, they would be an eafy prey to their
enemies, and hath thought they impofed the rite of circumcifion on
their Egyptian fubjefts, while they again more readily fubmitted to
their requirements in the matter, from their knowledge that it had been
obferved by the IfraeKtes, whom God had fo lately honoured with mofl
peculiar tokens ofbis favour. See his Diflertation on Circumcifion;
and if his notion be true, it opens an eafy account of its prevalence a-
aiong the Egyptians.
X a

524 A VINDICATION OF P. IL
them, as well as other rites to an equal or greater
degree painful ; and indeed what might not fuper
ftition, in that meafure In which they were under
its fway, make them do or fuffer, though no others
were confidered as a model or pattern to be follow
ed in It ?
But it feems to me of lefs importance, to fix the
era and mean of the entrance of this J ceremony a-
mong them, than hath been pretended. It might very
welt be of later ufe among the Egyptians and Ara
bians than in Abraham's family, though we cannot
tell at what time, or by what caufes, it was begun,
to be ufed by them ; this is nothing, if I am hot de
ceived, but what hath happened fince with regard
to many civU ufages, and Is in this cafe lefs ftrange,
when fo many books are periffied, frwn which we'
might have received infoiTnation.
This fedion hath been f long, but if the reafonlng
X Dr. Middleton ibid, feems to lay great ftrefs on this, that they.
who think circumcifion was propagated from the Hebrews to other na
tions, cannot agree either on the perfon who firft introduced it, or the
period of time when it was firft brought into Egypt ; and fo do others.
— I may obferve here, though the Ifraelites difcovered a ftrong incli
nation to imitate Egyptian cuftoms in making the golden calf, after an
abode of 200 years in Egypt, as fuch writers remind us, this can be
no evidence that God commanded it to Abraham 400 years before and
upward, to gratify fuch- a byafs in him, who had made but a ffiort vi
fit there, about 20 years befiDte; nor can it even be any proof that he
re-injoined it to the ifraeHtes, in compliance with fuch a temper in
them after they left Egypt. For it-is certain he appointed many rites op
pofite to thofe which prevailed among the Egyptians, the more to pre
vent their apoftacy from his pure worffiip. Why therefore might not
this be in that number ?
-|- Indeed I had once and again thrown afide this difquifition for
its prolixity, yet it appeared to me beft upon the whole to canvafs the
m:it(cr, as .Mr. Voltaire returns to it ffgain and again.

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 325
hath been folid, and the reprefentation of fads juft,
1 flatter myfelf the. reader will think his labour well
fpent; fome great writers have maintained the fupe
rior antiquity of circumcifion among the Egyptians,
and from them all our infidel writers almofi, after
Tindal, have -with an air of triumph difplayed it.
SECTION XXII.
Of his affertion in his Philofophical Didionary, that
it was cuftomary among the patriarchs to ufe an
obfcene rite in making a promife,
I N many or moft 'of thefe mifreprefentations of the
fenfe of Scripture, which have been cenfured as they
occured in Mr. Voltaire's Philofophy of Hiftory, I
have remarked any agreement which was between
them and the accounts in his Philofophical Didio
nary, There follow fome inftances which are pecu
liar to this piece, fo far as I am acquainted -with his
works, or do now recoiled them.
In the article of Ezekiel here, having afferted,*
* That it was cuftomary, on any Important promife,
' to tduch the genitals of him to whom the promife
* was made,' he adds, ' We have thought proper
' to render the genitals by thigh. EUezer put his
* hand under Abraham's thigh. The like Jofeph
* does to Jacob, This had been a cuftom of great
^antiquity in Egypt,'
But where Is there any record of fuch a ffiameful
ufage of long ftanding in Egypt, as he affirms ? Or
what evidence is there that the fame was pradifed
* Phil, Dift. page i66.
X 3

326 A VINDICATION OF P,1L
by EUezer and Jofeph ? I am aware, indeed, that
fome commentators, of no mean abffities and fame,
have fuppofed an allufion to the covenant of circum
cifion in the ceremony of putting the hand under
the thigh, which Abraham f enjoined his fervant,
and Jacob direded his fpn to ufe, and which they
afterwards refpedively obferved when they fwore
to fulfil their defires, Neverthelefs, though the con
ceit be pious, it hath no fure foundation. Nor did
even they who propofed this notion of it, ever ima
gine fuch a filthy adion was done as our author de
fcribes. As the rites of fwearing have been various in
different ages and countries, what hinders us to fay,
that it was then the received form among the He
brews, for the perfon who fwore that he would do
any thing according to the requeft of another, to
put his hand under his thigh, for whofe gratification
the promife was made, and with the greateft folerfi-
nlty ratified. And, indeed, this was an eafy an.d na
tural fymbol of being under his diredion, wherefore
he would be pUant and obfequious to his wUL The
original word unqueftionably fignifies thigh.—'' There-
* fore the children of Ifrael eat not of the finew that
* ffirank, which Is upon the hoUow of the thigh, un-
* to this day : becaufe he touched the hollow of Ja-
* cob's thigh, in the finew that ffirank,' Gen. xxxu.
25, 32, ' Thus faith the Lord, Gather — every good
' piece, (into the pot) the thigh, and the ffioulder, fill
* it with the choice bones,' Ez. xxiv. 4. as it is ufed
of the part from which the fword hangs down.
 ' Thus faith the Lord God of Ifrael, put every
* man his fword by his fide.' — — Exod. xxxu. 27.
t See Gen. xxiv. 2, 3. and xlvii. 29, 3^0.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 327
So alfo Judg. IU. 16, 21. Pf. xiv. 3. Nor does Jo
fephus intimate that he underftood it in a different
fenfe on this occafion- For, reprefenting the ceremo
ny to have been performed by both Abraham and
EUezer, he fays, ' Abraham * fends the oldeft of his
* fervants to afk the daughter of Laban, having
* bound him by great promifes. And thefe were In
* this manner. Having put their hands undel- one a-
* nother's thighs, they afterwards caU upon God as
' a -witnefs of things that ffiall be.' About the ftlpu-
lation which Jacob exacted in this manner from Jo
feph, he is filent f.
SECTION xxn.
Of his mifreprefentation of Paul and Peter's con
dud at Antioch, In the fame work,
LET us next fee how injurious he Is in his repre
fentation of Paul and Peter's condud. ' St. Paul,
* fays he, keenly reproached him (Peter) for eating
* prohibited meats, as pork, puddings, hares, eels,
* Antiq. I. 1 6- l.-^  Eytntra/jtiyo; (Ue/axo/c Tntsriatr' ytvoy-
T«/ tl ojurai rvrov roy rpoTtoy. 'tTro rv; f/.npv; oLKKnKoi; ra; X^f *f
(TToifafoyri;, iTretra tTinahvyrctf roy ©eoc juafrvpa. ray iiTo//.iym.
\ I know, a foreigner, famous for many Angularities of opinion,
would underftand the Hebrew word ^~1' ierech in Gen. xxiv. 2. and
xlvii. 29, 30. to fignify the right hand, in particular the luriji there
of, and produces many examples of fweariflg by the right hand froni
ancient writers. Von der Hardt ' De Juramento per Dextrae carpum
commentatio. But it feems to be a fenfe altogether unfupported. In^
deed, in Ezek, xxi. 1 2. where we have ' fmite on thy thigh,' the fe-.
tenty have * fmite on thy hand :' but, probably, this Was through mif
take in reading "1 refch for 1 daleth.
X 4

328 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
&c. ' Peter, in juftification of himfelf, alledged, that,
* upon the fixth hour, he had feen the heavens
* opened, and a large table-cloth full of eels, beafts,
* and birds, defcending from the four quarters of
* the heavens, and that the voice of an angel caUed
' out, Kill and eat,' f The only place of Scripture
oh which he can found this reproach by Paul a-
gainft Peter, is Gal. U, 1 1^-17. There we are told
Peter feparated himfelf from the GentUe Chriftians
at Antioch, after free converfe with them, on the
arrival of fome difciples from Jerufalem, who were
zealous for impofing the ritual ordinances of Mofes
upon them, as needful to be obferved, in order to
their enjoyment of the favour of Gpd, and the blef-
fednefs of heaven. Moreover, we read, that, by the
influence pf his example, in declining intercourfe
with thefe Gentile believers, contrary to inward
judgment, through a mean compliance with the
principles of the zealots for the Jewifh law, in or
der to ingratiate himfelf with them, others were al
fo drawn away to carry with Iffie diftance and ffiy-
nefs toward them, an4 among others, the excellent
Barnabas, who had been very adive and fuccefsful
in bringing uncircumcifed heathens Into the fellow-
ffiip of the gofpel, and Its privUedgeg. Paul, therer
fore, did hereon, in a pubUc manner, addrefs Peter
thus ; ' If thou, being a Jew, llveft after the manner
' of the GentUes, and not as do the Jews, why com-
* pelleft thou the GentUes to live as do the Jews?'
That is, If thou, who art a Jew by defcent, haft
lived in the fame way as the GentUes do, not prac-
tifing thefe abftinences and other ceremonies, which
f Article Peter, page 297,

P, IL THE SACRED BOOKS, 329
the Mofaic law requires In Jews, why doft thou now
by behaving as if the GentUe Chriftians were un
worthy of communion, and were not yet the people
of God, lay them under a neceffity of conforming
themfelves to all the appointments of that law, and
Uving according to all the rites and ufages of the Jews,
about food, days of reft, waffiings ofthe body, &c. ?
Now, this may indeed Imply, that Peter had ate pro
hibited meats, as pork, puddings, hares, eels, &c. be
caufe his living after the manner of the Gentiles,
may comprehend, among other Inftances of confor
mity to their cUftoms, his free ufe and participation
of them when they were prefented at table.Yet certain
ly Paul never meant to reproach him for it, but
only for ffiunning the Gentile converts, who made
no fcruple nor hefitation to feed on them, as if they
were thereby polluted and defiled, and rendered un
fit for acceptance with God, and fociety with Jewiffi
believers, after he himfelf had been a partaker of
fuch diet. To have upbraided Peter for the ufe of
thefe meats, or the negled of other Je-v^iffi ordinances
fimply, would have been to have blamed him for what
was his own condud among the Gentiles, For he
complied with their pradices in things innocent and
indifferent, of which fort was his eating food forbid
den by the law of Mofes, after its obUgation ceafed ;
aild he efteemed It to be his duty to do fo, in order to
fave them : as again he fhewed like condefcenfion
toward the Jews, In following their rites, and thought
himfelf bound to it, that he might gain them. Why,
therefore, does Mr, Voltaire, without any reafon, re
prefent hjm thus inconfiftent? — Befides, which may
be ftUl more decifive, for Paul to have found fault

3 30 A VINDICATION OF P, IL
with Peter for taking this Uberty, of paying no re
gard to Jewiffi rules of abftinence about meat, would
have been to defeat the end he aimed at, and to juf
tify Peter in that very feparation from Gentile Chrif
tians which he intended to cenfure, and to confirm
him in that very eftrangement from them -yvhlch he
ftudied to corred. For it would have been telUng
him In effed, that he ffiould be tenacious of thefe
reftrldlons about meat which the Jews obferyed,
and the Gentiles defpifed. And who can fuppofe
Paul fo imprudent, as to talk In this manner? — As
to the reply wliich Mr. Voltaire puts Into Peter's
mouth, in vindication of himfelf, it hath no founda
tion In the hiftory. For he made no apology for. his
behaviour at all, but fubmitted to the rebuke, and
acquiefced, fenfible he had been in the wrong. It is
true, Peter had fuch a vifion pf a table-cloth, or ra
ther ffieet, as he fpeaks of, not, however, defcending
from the four quarters of heaven, which Is his de
fcription, but knit at the four corners, and let down
from heaven to earth, full of aU forts of animals, and
he heard fuch a voice as he mentions. But this was
a confiderable time before this Interview with Paul
¦* at Antioch. Nor did he bring any argument from
it to excufe his pufiUanimous and cowardly proce
dure there. The attempt. Indeed, of a defence from
it, muft have been vain. For to have recited it, would
rather have made againft him. The defign of that
* This vifion, together with Cornelius's converfion, Afts x. is fupi
pofed to have happened in the forty-firft year ofour Saviour's nativi
ty, according to the vulgar computation, and the interview at Antioch
to have been no earlier than the year forty-nine or fifty, and after the
ineeting of the council at Jerufalem, Afts xv.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 331
¦vifion and voice, being to prepare him to go to un
circumcifed GentUes, and to difpofe him to receive
them Into the church, and treat them as heirs of the
fame bleffings with beUevers ofthe circumcifion, up
on their faith in Chrift, -without any requu'ement
of obedience to the ftatutes of Mofes.
How contrary to truth then Mr. Voltaire's ac
count of this tranfadion!*

* It is to be carefully obferved, there was no dift'erence of prin
ciple or fentiment between Peter and Paul, about the freedom of the
Gentiles from all obligation to obferve the Mofaic rites, that they might
be faved. The fpring of Peter's conduft was not a perfuafion of the
neceffity of their obfervation of them, unto the bleflednefs of heaven,
but a dread of the difpleafure of the Jews which hurried him to aft
againft his inward fenfe and judgment^ about the liberty of the Gen
tiles from that yoke, as he had declared it, Aftsxv. 7—11. For,
¦ot to infift that v^eo-TeXAei' might be rendered fo as to denote his
difguifing his real opinion by his behaviour, more than in our verfion,
which runs, ' He withdrew,' it is exprefsly remarked, ' That the reft
* of the Jews diflTembled together with him,' ^uyvTrmpiSnisay cu/ro,
which implies, that he firft, and they after his example, in fcrupuloufly
avoiding the Gentile believers as unclean, difavowed their inward ap<>
prehenfions, through fear of the circumcifion.

332 A VINDICATION OF P.IL

SECTION XXIV.
Of his falfe relation there of Peter's behaviour to A-
nanias and his wife, and his cenfures thereof, to
gether with the obfervation he afcribes to Eraf
mus, that the head of the Chriftian reUgion be
gan his apoftleffilp by denying Jefus Chrift,
A LITTLE after, and in the fame * page, he goes
on thus, ' Cafaubon could not approve Peter's behar
* viour to Ananias and his wife, who were a good
* fort of people ; What right, fays he, had a Jew, a
' flave under the Romans, to order or allow all who
* believed in Jefus to fell their fubftance, and lay the
' produce at his feet ? Were an Anabaptift preacher
* at London to order his brethren to bring him all
* their money, would he not be taken up as a mover
* of fedition, a robber, and as fuch fent to Tyburn?
* Was it not a horrid thing to ftrike Ananias dead,
* only becaufe out of the money for which he had
* fold his eftate, he fcarcely referved a few pounds
* againft a rainy day, bringing the far greater part
' to Peter, Scarce was the breath out of Ananias's
* body, when In comes his wife. Peter, inftead of
' kln41y informing her that he had juft killed her
* hufband for keeping a few pence, and teUing her
* to take care of what ffie had, allures her Into the
* fnare. He affisher whether her hufband had brought
* in all his money for the faints ; the poor woman an-
* fwers. Yes, and inftantly drops down dead. Some'
' thing hard tliis !
* Philof. Diftion. Article Peter, page 297.

P-.IL THE SAGRED BOOKS. 333
But what caufe to complain of difingenuity and
unjuft cenfure here !
Whether Cafaubon dlfapproved Peter's behaviour
to Ananias and his wife, and expreffed his difappro-
bation of it in fuch terms as Voltaire makes him ufe,
I will not be pofitive. Had our author given me a-
ny diredion in which of his works I might have
read his fentiments upon the fubjed, I would have
endeavoured to know exadly how the fad ftood,
and to fatisfy the world whether he ffieltered him
felf with juftice under his authority. As he has been
ffient about this, I muft leave the tale upon his cre
dit with the reader, who perhaps may with myfelf
much fufped fome aggravation in it. Be It however,
that he hath tranfcribed his account of the fcripture
hiftory, and his cavUs againft it, from this author
¦with exadnefs, Inftead of paffing upon us under his
name a produdion of his own mint, either in whole
or In part. StUl he muft be anfwerable for the fame,
fince in copying he ffiews manifeft tokens of com
placency and approbation.
Now Is there not here a great deal of mifrepre
fentation? In Luke's account. Ads, v. there is no
mention what proportion of the^urchafe money A-
nanias and Sapphira agreed to withhold ; it Is only
faid, ' that Ananias, with the privacy or knowledge
of his wife, kept back from the price of the lands
which he had fold, and having brought a certain
part thereof, laid it down at the apoftles feet.' Ne
verthelefs, Mr, Voltaire is pofitive, that he prefented
the far greater part to Peter, and referved the far
leffer part of it to himfelf againft future exigencies ;
yea, that he kept only a few pounds againft a rainy

J34 A VINDICATION OF" P.lt
day, pr as he has it ftill more diminutively, only a
few pence. — Farther, he makes Peter to have afked
Sapphira, whether her hufband had brought all the
money for the faints ; which is caufing him propofe
a very abfurd queftion, fince having been abfent froni
him for fome time, ffie could not anfwer Yes or No,
without a previous account of the fum he produced:
whereas according to the facred hiftorian, he only
inquired ' Whether the land had been fold for fo much
' money,' mentioning the quantity he had offered as
its entire price ; which was what ffie could tell at
once, as ffie had concurred or joined with him in the
alienation of the property. By confequence, he no
more allured her into a fnare, according to his accu
fation, than one perfon may be faid to deal fo by a-
nother, who examines him about a plain and recent
fad, about which there Is no room for mifapprehen
fion or forgetfulnefs, without giving him infoi'mati-
on that a perfon concerned hath already fuffered for
the denial of the truth, — Finally, there is no Intima-'
tion through the narrative of any * apoftolical order
to fell the land, as our author is wUling to fuppofe j
on the contrary, Peter, in reafonlng with Ananias,
proceeds upon this principle, that he was under no
obUgation to difpofe of his eftate, but that it was
free to him to retain It; for, fays he, ver. 4. ' WhUe
' it (the land he means) remained -with thee, was it
' not thine own?' Was it not altogether at thy
* To Peter, who is faid to have given this order, the epithet of
Jlave which Mr. Voltaire hath beftowed on him, belonged in no fenfe but
this, that he was a fubjeft of Judea, which had been reduced to the ftatrf
ofa province of the Roman empire, the inhabitants ftill living according
to their own laws, and enjoying their own property as before.

P.lt. THE SACRED BOOKS. 335
choice and pleafure to feU it, or not ? And indeed
we read of no injundion upon any of the Chriftian
converts to fell houfes or lands, and bring the mo
ney which they received from them into a pubUc
fund for the ufe of the church.
Again, as there is fuCh mifreprefentation here, is
there not alfo unjuftifiable clamour againft the a-
poflJe, for punifhing this man and his wife with fud
den death on account of their condud. To vindi
cate their being ftruck dead, I need not labour to
fweU their fin, by fiixlng upon them a convidion of
facrUege, that is, of converting to their own pur
pofes whit they had devoted and confecrated to a
reU^ous ufe. This, I am aware, fome have contend
ed to be their crime ; they have ima^ned, that up
on feeing the UberaUty of others, and particularly
of Bamalms, they had uttered with their Ups a vow
to God, or a promife to the church, at leaft formed
in their hearts a folemn refolution of equiv^ent force,
to fell their land, and to beftow the produce of its
fale for the benefit and advantage of the members of
Chrift ; that it was no longer therefore in their
power, either not to difpofe of the eftate, or not to
bring in tiie fuU price without being guilty of facri-
lege ; an iniquity, which though it migbt be ex
piated or atoned iot by the facrifice erf a ram -without
blemiffi, according to the law of Mofes, where it
ts^as committed through ignorance, upon reftitutioa
of the thing, and the addition of a fifth part beyond
the eftimation or v^ue of it, Levit. v. 15, 16. yet
¦where it was done wUfully and prefumptuoufly as
here, expofed to be cut off from the congregation
of the Lord by the fword of the magiftraite, or the

3 3^ A VINDICATION OF P. it.
hand of heaven, without remedy. Numb. xv. 30 j
Deut. xxUi. 2 I — 2 3. Accordingly, they urge, that
the Greek word which we render here ' to keep back,'
but Titus, U. ID; ' To purloin,' fignifies, to takefur-
reptitioufly, or feize in a clandeftine manner for our
ufe what does not belong to us but to another, whence
the Latin in both places tranflates It by fraudare, td
defraud ; and that It is applied by the Greek interpre
ters ofthe book of Joffiua, to Achan's taking ofthe ac
curfed thing, that is, of the fpoUs of Jericho which were
devoted to the treafure of the houfe of the Lord,
Joffiua, vU. I , and by the author of the hiftory of
the Maccabees, to Menelaus's ftealing veffels of
gold out of the temple in Jerufalem, 2 Macab. iv.
32, Arid they explain Peter's interrogatories to him
in a fuitablenefs to this hypothefis, ' While itremain-
* ed with thee, was it not thine o\vn?' While the
land was unfold, hadft not thou tiie right of property
in it, wherefore thou mighteft lawfully dedicate it
for the poor? Waft not thou the rightful owner of
it, and fo thy vow to difpofe of it binding, when 0-
therwife.it muft have been null and void? -And af-
* ter it was fold, was it not Ih thine own power?'
Didft riot thou receive the full price of it Into thy
poffeffion, fo that thou mighteft haye performed thy
vow in all Its latitude and exteiit, when otherwife,
had part of the purchafe mortey beeh withheld from
thee by the buyer, it would not have been poffible
for thee to accompUffi It ? — But though I am not
fenfible of any biafs to extenuate their wickednefs,
I cannot adopt this account. To me it feems Inadmif
fible, partly becaufe there is no mention of any fuch
vow or promife about felling the land, and bringing

P.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 337
its price Into the pubUc ftock or fund of the church,
(to which It hath been doubted, whether an Inward
determination of it, was it recorded, could impofe or
conftitute an equal obligation,) and partly becaufe it is
inconfiftent with the natural fenfe and obvious mean
ing of Peter's words, which is, that he was at liber
ty to difpofe of his eftate or keep it, and after the
fale to beftow Its price for common ufe, or referve
it for himfelf. For this excludes all Imputation of facri-
lege in detaining any ffiare of it, there being no room
for fuch a charge, but upon the fuppofition, that it
was no more his, as already given away by a vow to
God, or a promife to the Chriftian foclety. Nor is
there any neceffity to have recourfe to that fcheme.
Even without the accumulated and additional guilt of
facrilege,there appears fufficient demerit on the part of
Ananias and Sapphira, to vindicate the righteoufnefs of
their fate. For what a compUcation of deliberate and
premeditated vanity, covetoufnefs, falffiood, fraud
and Impiety here ! When there was no law requiring
them to part with their land, and beftow its price
for the fupport of the church, and therefore no ne
ceffity laid upon them to take fuch a meafure, they
of their own motion and accord, profeffed to employ
the whole money they acquired by Its fale this way,
that they might feem inflamed with as vehement
an affedion to Chrift, who for mens fake became
poor, and animated with as liberal a temper toward
their feUow-difciples as others; and that they might
enjoy the fame and reputation of thofe, who conferred
all their fubftance upon the community of beUevers.
But amidft all this fpecious ffiew of zeal and public-
fpiritednefs, ftimu-lated by avarice they kept back, for
Y

338 A VINDICATION OF P. H.
their own occafions, part of the price. Nay, being
interrogated, whether the fum for which the Jand
was fold was brought In, they had recourfe to a
grofs lie, and averred it was, againft inward fenfe
and convidion, in hope their falffiood would be
UndlfcOvered, that they might poffefs the praife
of being very bountiful, and eftabliffi the fame
felalm to a ffiare in the diftrlbution of the chari
table fund of the church for theu maintenance,
which thofe had, who had depofited all their
fubftance in the hands of the apoftles, and left
nothing in their own private purfe, though a-
gainft all juftice, as they had detained part of
their wealth fecretly for themfelves. This alfo
they did at a time when themfelves acknowledged,
Upon the moft ftriking demonftrations, that thefe a-
poftks had received the Holy Ghoft in his miracu
lous and extraordinary powers, fo that they could
not attempt to deceive them, without putting au.
high indignity upon God himfelf, who thereby re
fided in them, as if their real behaviour might be
concealed from, his obfervation, and elude his know
ledge. How equitable then, that fo heinous and atroci
ous an offence, which, by Its being fuffered to pafs
¦with impunity, or ¦with gentle reproof, might hav6
eafily fpread, ffiould be puniffied in the awful man
ner It was, that the authority of the apoftles, inftead
of falling Into contempt, might become more vene
rable, and the dignity of the Spirit of God, inftead
of being expofed to the ridicule of unbeUevers as a
merely human Spirit, which could be impofed on by
falfe appearances of piety and liberality, to the great

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 339
hindrance of the fpread of the gofpel, might be more
convincingly difplayed, to Its propagation and fur
therance ; and that all the nominal difciples of Jefus
might be rendered more cautious in offending againft
the facred and eternal rules of fincerity and uprlght-
nefs ! And how fuitable to the method of dirine admi
niftration, to animadvei*t upon this firft inftance of
the crime with fignal ffiarpnefs ! For fo under the oeco-
nomy of Mofes, God ordered the man who firft gathe
red fticks on the fabbath, and the man who firft ftole
of any accurfed thing, to be ftoned to death ; in like
manner, the man who firft burned incenfe with com
mon or ftrange fire, and the man, who, 'being nei
ther a prieft nor a Levlte, firft touched the ark, he
ftruck dead upon the fpot : * as indeed it Is the prac
tice of wife and prudent leglflators among men, to
puniffi in an exemplary way the firft trefpafs of
any kind after the enadment and pubUcation of a
law, that It may not multiply and increafe.
For thefe reafons, in perfed juftice and con
fummate ¦wifdom i^nanias and Sapphira fuffered
a fudden death ; he, becaufe he kept back part
of the price of the land, and Ued about it, not unto
men, but unto God ; and ffie, becaufe ffie affirmed he
had fold thelandforthefumhehad brought, when ffie
knew the matter was otherwife, having agreed with
him to tempt or try the fagacity and difcernment of
the Spirit of the Lord.— Yet they were not fubj ec
ted to this fwlft deftrudion, upon any imprecation
of Peter, or any requeft of his, that this calamity
might befaU them, but only upon his annunciation
* See Numb. xv. 3.! — 36. Joftiua, vii. 25. Levit. x. i, 2,
3 Sara, vi, 7.
Y 2

540 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
of It by the fpirit of prophecy, that the event might
appear not cafual, but defigned for the warning and
admonition of all. There is therefore no ffiadow of rea
fon for blaming the apoftle.
Mr. Voltaire fubjoins, ' Corringius affis, why
' Peter, who thus demoliffies thofe who brought him
' alms, did not rather go and kiU all the dodors,
' who had a hand in putting Jefus to death, and had
* fcourged himfelf feveral times ;' And then he makes
Corringius, whoever* this is, exclaim, or cries out
himfelf, for I pretend not to fay which is the cafe, ' Fie
' Peter, to kUl two Chriftians who had brought you a
* good purfe of money, and they"who crucified your
' Godyou allow to Uve !' But,tO'0mit that Peter ,when
this fraud of Ananias and Sapphira was puniffied, had
not been once chaftifed with ftripes by the Jewiffi-
dodors, far lefs feveral times, how unreafonable this
refledion! Thofe men who put Jefus to death, did
• I am ready tOi think he intends Conrlngius, who wasaprofellor
©f Medicine and Politics at Helmftadt, and a counfellor of feveral
German princes, about the middle of laft century; but, though his
works make feveral volumes, I am altogether unacquainted with thenir
and therefore cannot fay whether the queftion and exclamation here
agree to Him or not. I have reafon to think, he counted it no dan
gerous opinion t« allow the Hebrew text was here and there corrupted,
when a fcheme was formed of a new German tranflation of the Scrip
ture, by authority of Auguftus duke of Brunfwick and Luneburgh, in
his time ; but that he exprefled himfelf in the manner Mr. Voltaire re
prefents, about Peter, I do not know any other evidencfe. I have feen
an account of an edition of Grotius on the truth'of the Chriftian religion,
with his notes on the firft and fecond books, among thofe of other learn
ed men. And if they were in defence or confirmation of Grotius's rea-
Ibning, as I fuppofe, it is unlikely he fliould have wrote in fuch lan
guage, as Mr. Voltaire here reprefents.

P.IL THE SACHED BOOKS. 341
it ignorantly ; they were not aware that they fin
ned, but thought they did God fervice ; for they
looked upon him as a ialie jH'ophet, and a deceiver of
the nation, whofe Ufe was forfeited to his country,
as this fame ipoftle himfelf declares. Ads IU. 17. and
his brother Paul owned long aftei-^ivards. Ads xUL
2 7 . Whereas Ananias and Sapphira could not beUeve
it was innocent to withhold part of the price of their
lands, Avhen they pretended to beftow the whole up
on the church, and to endeavour to put a fallacy
and trick upon the apoftles about this matter, who
w^ere, according to their own profeffion, the fervants
of God, commiffioned and authorized to fliew his
wiU to the world, and endowed with fupernatural
abUities for perfuading the world of it.
Farther, as to what our author calls a pretty fin
gular remark of Erafmus conceming Peter, ' That
' the head of the Chriftian religion began his apoftle-
' fhip by denying Jefus Chrift, and the high-prieft
' of Judalfm began his minlftry by making a golden
' calf, and worffiipping it.' I need not give myfelf
much trouble with it, Eveiy reader may eafily per
ceive, that Peter's denial happened long after he was
made an apoftle, while it was alfo only a ffiort and
momentary prevalence of fear, fucceeded vrith deep
forrow and contrition for It, and a long life of fted-
faft adherence to, and adivity for the gofpel of Jefus,
amidft all the evUs and Inconveniencies which Jewiffi
and GentUe enemies threatned or inffided upon him.
¦ — And that Aaron's tranfgreffion was committed a
confiderable whUe ere he was vefted with the facer
dotal office, or made high-prieft to the Ifraelites, and
brought under the additional obligation which it in-
Y 3

342 A VINDICATION OF P.U.
ferred to oppofe fuch a flagrant corruption in their
principles and manners. See Exod. xxxii. and xl.
Nor is it unlikely, fince the falffiood of the remark
is fo glaring, that he hath injured that great fcholar
in afcribing to him what was only his own fuggefti
on. So himfelf teUs us *, in a paffage above cenfured,
that Aaron was only ' Created high pontiff after the
ffiameful adion of making and worflUpping thecaffi'

SECTION XXV.
Of his account, in the fame piece, under the article
Refurredion, of James's advice to Paul about ob
ferving aU the ceremonies in the temple, that he
might perfuade every perfon he ftill continued to
conform to the law, and of the effed of it.
UNDER the article Refurredion, again, Mr. Vol
taire writes thus, f ' The Ads of the Apoftles men-
* tion a very fingular tranfadion, and well worthy of
* notice, St. James, and feveral of his companions,
* advifed St. Paul, though fo thorough a Chriftian,
* to go into the temple of Jerufalem, and obferve aU
* the ceremonies of the antient law, to the end aU
' may know, fay they, that every thing which is faid
' of you is falfe, and that you ftill continue to ob-
' ferve Mofes's law. St. Paul, accordingly, went in-
' to the temple for feven days; but being kno^wn on
* the feventh, he was accufed of having brought
' ftrangers into it -with a view of prophaning it.'
* See above, part 2. chapter i. feft. 2. page Jj.
t Phil. Dift. page 322, 323.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 343
But is this a juft account? Quite otherwife. Nei
ther did James, and the elders of the church at Jeru
falem advife Paul to obferve aU the ceremonies of
the antient law,but only to pradife conformably to It
in a particular Inftance. ' We,' fay they. Ads xxi.
21, 24. ' have four men who have a vow on them j
' them take, and purify thyfelf with them, and be
' at charges with them, that they may ffiave their
* heads,' and offer the appointed facrifices, Num, vL
14, Nor did they defire him to do this, to the end
aU might know that every thing which was faid of
him was falfe, which would have been very wUd and
ridiculous ; but only that all might be thereby fatlf-
fied, more than they would be by any verbal decla
ration of his fentiments and dodrine, that the infor
mation they had received of him was falfe, viz. that
he taught all the Jews who were difperfed and fcat
tered among the GentUes, to forfake the law, faying,
' That they ought not to circumcife their children,
' neither to walk after the cuftoms,' that is, that it was
offenfive to God, and unlawful or criminal for them
to obferve the Mofaic rites, wherefore they were
bound in duty to forbear their ufe. And indeed this
was a principle which he never held or inculcated,
tho' he affirmed It was unneceffary to fubmit to them,
in order to attain the favour of God,and thebleffednefs
of heaven.^It is true they add. In explaining thein
tention of their counfel, ' But may know that thoa
* thyfelf walkeft orderly, or regularly, and keepeft
* the law,* Neverthelefs, their meaning cannot be,
that all might be perfuaded, that he did, at aU times,
and in aU places, ad according to its prefcriptions,
but only, that they might be convinced that he did,
Y 4

'344 "A VINDICATION OF P.IL
at fome feafons, and upon fome occafions, obferve its
inftltutions; which was the cafe, where he found the
fame expedient to remove prejudice, and fecure more
extenfive ufefulnefs,Inftead of abftalning from all con
formity to them as in Itfelf finful and forbidden. — The
term in the original, uroijei;, which we tranflate here,
•walk orderly, as If an Invariably even and uniform a-
greement in behaviour to the appointments of Mofes?:,
was thought of, is by us rendered in aU other placesf'^
fimply, walk. With the fame limitation or reftridlon
words as general are alfo underftood. Gal. U. 1 4. when
Paul tells Peter, *• That he, being a Jew, lived after
* the manner of the Gentiles, and not as did the Jews.*
For the aUowed fenfe Is, not that he lived conftantly
according tp the cuftoms of the Gentiles, about
meats and days, &c. but that he did fo at fome times.
.befides, Paul's compliance here, could not prove any
other thing, than that he reckoned it innocent to
pradife thefe Jewiffi ceremonies ; for how could, it
be an evidence that he judged it his duty, or necef
fary to avoid the difpleafure of God, and the penal
confequences of it? Finally, It cannot be reafonably
fuppofed that his friends aifned to prove more by his
adion now, fince it could not but be notour to mul
titudes In Jerufalem, at the feaft of Pentecoft *, that
f See Rom. iv. 12. Galat. v. 25. vi. 16. Phillip, iii. 16. And
the Greek here is, ' Thou thyfelf walkeft keeping the law, "Zrofxet;
Ken cwTo; roy vo/Aoy <pi/ha<T(!ay,
* It is well known this was the fecond of the three grand fefti
vals on which all the Jewifti males were required to appear before the
Lord at Jerufalem. rhe length ofthe days, as it fell in the fummer,
made it more commodious for the Jews to gather thither then from
the different places of their difperfion. And what a concourfe there
might be now from the countries where Paul had preached, may be

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 345
he often lived as a Gentile in refped ofthe ordinances
of the ritual law. As this was the cafe, to have pro
pofed to e-rince that he judged their obfervation
incumbent on him every where, and requifite to di
vine acceptance, would have been extremely fooliffi,
a% it would have given his and their enemies, a fine
handle to triumph and infult over them, by an eafy
and clear confutation of his having held fuch an
opinion. Such was the nature and defign of the advice to
which Paul yielded ; very different, therefore, from
Mr. Voltaire's reprefentation of it ; tUl, not on the
feventh day, as he fays, nor, indeed, when the feven
days were almoft finlffied, as our verfion hath it, but,
probably f, foon after thefe feven days of purification
commenced, wliich were to run before the oblation
of the facrifices, that ffiould clofe the vow upon
which he aded, he was interrupted, calumniated,
and traduced, and violently apprehended by certain
Afiatic Jews in the manner which Luke relates. —
And in Paul's faffing in with this counfel, what was
there blameable? We are not under an obligation to
juftify Paul's adions at all times, more than Peter's,
as Dr, Lardner *hath obferved, Neverthelefs, it Is dif-
judged from the enumeration we have of the ftranger Jews and pro
felytes, at that feaft of Pentecoft, in which the Holy Ghoft was poured
down on the difciples, Aftsii. i — i 2.
f The Greek is literally, ' When the feven days were about
• to be accompliftied. Thefe feven days, it is plain, commenced only
the third day after his arrival in Jerufalem. And it is likely, it was not
¦ear their conclufion, that his arreft happened, from his words in his
apology to Felix, which was at leaft feven days after the tumult in
the temple. Compare Afts xxii. 3 o. xxiii. i 2. 3 2. xxiv. i — ¦ 1 1 . and
•oddridge on the Afts.
* See his Remarks upon Dr. Ward's Differtations, page 1 64, &c.

346 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
ficult to ffiew there is any reafon to grant he was at
prefent criminal. Was it not agreeable to his own a-
vowed condud on other occafions, even when there
was no recommendation and importunity of any to
obferve the Mofaic ceremonies, that he might ob
viate offence, and promote the fuccefs of his minl
ftry? So he declares, i Cor. ix. 21, 22, 'Unto the
' Jews I became a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;
' to them that are under the law, as under the law,
* that I might gain them that are under the law.'
And particular examples may be feen of this conde
fcenfion, for the furtherance of the gofpel. Ads xvi.
3, 4. xvm. 1 8 — 2 I.— Was it not alfo according to
his own moft excellent rules, of brotherly love and
charity, that they who were ftrong, or underftood
their liberty from the obligation of the Mofaic ap
pointments, ffiould forbear the ufe of that liberty
when It might offend, and be a ftumbling block to
weaker brethren, that is, caufe them fall Into fin,
and Into difquietude of mind and punifliment, and
fo create evils to them far fuperior to any inconve
niences, which reftraint and felf-denial would bring
upon them who had no fcruple or hefitation about
the lawfulnefs of departing from thefe abrogated
rules? Thus he -writes, Rom. xiv. i 3 — 15. ' Let us
* therefore, judge this rather, that no man put a
' ftumbUng block, or an occafion to fall, in his bro-
* ther's way, I know and am perfuaded, by the Lord
' Jefus, that there is nothing unclean of itfelf, but to
' him that efteemeth any thing to be unclean, to Iiim
* it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with
• thy meat, now walkeft thou not charitably, Deftroy
* not him with thy- meat, for whom Chrift died.'

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 347
and verfes 19, 20. ' Let us therefore foUow after
* the things which make for peace, and things where-
* with one may edify another. For meats deftroy
* not the work of God,' And he exhorts, i Cor. x.
32, 33. ' Give none offence, neither to the Jews,
' nor to the GentUes, nor to the church of God :
* even as I pleafe all men in all things, not feeking
* mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they
• may be faved.*

SECTION XXVI.
Of his remark, under the fame article, upon Paul's
exclamation before the councU, ' Of the hope and
' refurredion ofthe dead I am caUed in queftion.*
MR. VOLTAIRE proceeds, " Now Paul percelv-
' ing that fome of the croud were Sadducees, and
* others Pharifees, he cried out in the councU, " Bre-
" thren, I am a Pharifee, the fon of a Pharifee ; it
" is for the hope of another Ufe, and the refurredion
*' of the dead, that I am in danger of being con-
" demned." AdsxxIU. 6. InaU this affair not a word
* had been faid about the refurredion of the dead ;
' but Paul's drift in mentioning it, was to raife a
quarrel * between the Pharifees and Sadducees.*
* Here Mr. Voltaire plainly fuppofes that the Pharifees believed
a refiirreftion of the dead. For, if they had not maintained it, how
could Paul's faying he was in danger of being condemned for that te
net, have created a quarrel between them and the Sadducees who de-
Jiied it ? Accordingly, he goes on to quote Luke's account of the
itrift which arbfe upon Paul's declaration, ' Secavife the Sadducees fay

348 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
Why, however, does he make this obfervation,
unlefs to infinuate, as Orobio the Jew Is faid to have
maintained, in LImborch's conference with him, that
Paul here behaved in a manner unworthy the cha^
* there is no refurreftion, neither angel, nor fpirit, but the Pharifees
' confefs both.' Afts xxiii. 7, 8. He next obferves, ' It has been af-
• firmed that Job, who, doubtiefs, is of great antiquity, was acquainted
• with the doftrine of the refurreftion ;' and in proof of it, the fol
lowing words are quoted, ' I know that my redeemer liveth,' &c. but
he explains them to mean no more than his recovery from his diftem
per, page 324. Finally, after a ftiort paragraph about the date ofthe
feft ofthe Pharifees, he fubjoins, ' Many of thefe Pharifees believed
' that it was only the Jews who were to rife again ; and that as to the
* reft of mankind, they were not worth while. Others affirmed that thte
' refurreftion would be only in Paleftine, and that bodies buried in 0-
' ther parts would be fecretly conveyed to the neighbourhood of Je-
' rufalem, .there to be united to their foul.' Nothing then can be more
evident, thgn that, according to our author in this paflTage, the Pha
rifees held a refurreftion of the dead, at leaft a national one. Never
thelefs, inhis Philofophy of Hiftory, he is pofitive that they rejefted
this principle, chap. 37. page 176. 'As for the Pharifees, they a-
' dopted the meteropfychofis, and not the refurreftion.' And the fame
thing indeed hath been aflerted by others, that they embraced the
opinion of a prefent tranfmigration of fouls into different bodies at
death, like the Pythagoreans and Platonifts, and not the notion of a
refurreftion ; while it hath been alfo thought, that traces of that fen
timent are to be feen in the accounts, which fome of Jefus's contem
poraries are reported to have given of him, ' That he was John the Bap-
tift, or Elias, or Jeremias,or one ofthe prophets,' Matth. xvi. 14. and
in the inquiry which his own difciples- made concerning the man that
was born blind, John ix. 2. ' Who did fin, this man or his parents,
' that he was born blind.' Yea, that veftiges of it appear in the book
of Wifdom, which is a more ancient Jewifti compofition, the author
whereof fays, viii. 20. ' Being good, I came into a body undefiled.'
But though this may have been faid by others, in confiftence with
themfelves, certainly he does not appear confiftent with himfelf here.

"P.U. THE SACRED BOOKS. 34^
rader of an upright and generous perfon, in order
to avoid perfecution ? But is there indeed any ground
for fuch a charge upon the apoftle? I think not. To
evince this, It deferves attention, that Paul himfelf
had pleaded in defence of his own condud, on the
preceding day, before the Jews, at the bar of whofe
fanhedrim or council he now ftood, Jefus's appear
ance to him in the road to Damafcus, and rebuke
of him for perfecuting his difciples, and his diredion
to him at another time to depart from Jerufalem,
becaufe the Jews would not receive his teftimony,
to preach the gofpel to the GentUes, Ads xxU. i — 21.
Now aU this fuppofed the refurredion of Jefus from
the dead, after he had been crucified at the foUici-
tation of their rulers ; whUe again it was an article
of the gofpel which Paul every where taught, that
becaufe Jefus was rifen, the dead alfo would, at a fu
ture period, be reftored unto Ufe. Further, there is
reafon to think he was in part brought into judg
ment, and fubjeded to the prefent profecution for
publiffiing the dodrine of a future refurredion. It
is true, there were other things which raifed the in
dignation and fury of the Jews againft him, viz. his
perfuading the world that Jefus, whom they had flain
and hanged on a tree, was the Meffiah foretold by
their prophets, and his inviting the heathens unto
the favour of God, and the bleffednefs of heaven,
by faith in him, without conformity to their ri
tual law. Neverthelefs, it is probable his zeal in pro
pagating that principle, that the dead would rife,
had alfo its ffiare here. For how natural was it for
the Sadducean party, many of whom were In places
of dignity and power, to become, on this account.

^So A VINDICATION OF P.IL
his ¦riolent and unrelenting enemies, as the tendency
of his labour was to overthrow entirely their favour
ite tenets of no future exiftence and retribution. Ac
cordingly, the fame hiftorian, who records this attack
upon Paul, in an earlier period difcovers that the
chief perfons at Jerufalem were exafperated againft
all the apoftles, and threw them into prifon, becaufe
they were averfe to their fpreading the beUef of a
refurredion of the dead, as exemplified and confirmed
by the refurredion of Jefus, ' The priefts, fays he^
* and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees,
* came upon them, (the apoftles) being giieved that
* they taught the people, and preached, through Je-
* fus, the refuiTedion from the dead, and they laid
' hands on them, and put them in hold,' &c. Ads Iv.
1 , 2 , 3 . And ffiortly after, when they were treated
with like rage and feverity by the high prieft, and aU
them that were with him, he takes particular notice
that they were the fed ofthe Sadducees, Ads v. 17.
thereby leading us to conclude, that their notions
gave them a greater prejudice againft the gofpel, and
made them to be provoked In an eminent degree,
by the induftry and fuccefs of its minifters. But this
being the cafe, where was Paul to blame for infin-
cerity and deceit? He had not denied he was a Chrif
tian by faying he was a Pharifee, as indeed his be
ing fuch, was a fad too notorious and public to be
denied with any expedation of credit. He had only
declared he agreed in opinion with the perfons de
nominated Pharifees, whlph was true, it being a chief
dogma of Jewiffi Pharifees, as it is of Chriftians, that
good men will be raifed to a life of happinefs. And
when he fubjoined, ' Of the hope and refurredion

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 351
* of the dead I am caUed in queftion,* or brought
into judgment, as the word properly fignifies, he ftUl
told the truth, his attachment to the dodrine of a
bleffed refurredion for holy men being a fecret fource
and fpring of the moleftation that was now given
him. Indeed he did not tell the whole truth, for there
were likewife other caufes of his being thus haraf-
fed. But under what obligation was he to do fo in
his circumftances ? Surely it is lawful for us to con
ceal a part of the truth, when fuch referve does no
injury to others, and Is conducive to our own bene
fit. So Grotius, Cumberland, PuffeUdorf, and other
able moralifts, have decided; and fo the beft men
have pradifed, without incurring any cenfure for
want of Integrity and uprightnefs. For Mofes men
tioned only to Pharaoh, that he and his people would
go three days journey into the wUdernefs, and fa
crifice to the Lord their God ; not that they would
proceed toward Canaan, Exod, vIU, 27, And Jere
miah told only to the princes one fubjed of his con
verfation with king Zedekiah, when they inquired
concerning it, namely his requeft that he might not
be put into cuftody in Jonathan's houfe ; he was fi
lent about the chief topip thereof, which was to af
fure him, that, if he would fuirender to the Babylo
nian monarch, his city ffiould not be burnt, nor his
own life be deftroyed, Jerem, xxxvUI, 24 — 28. Nay,
the prophet Samuel, by God's own diredion, ffiewed
the elders of Bethlehem only one of his errands, in
his journey to their town, ' That he came to facrifice
to the Lord ;' he forbore to fpeak of the other, which
was to ancant Jeffe's fon unto the kingdom, aware
that it would irritate Saul, i Sam. xvi. i. Thus far

352 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
then the apoftle was no way criminal, but altoge-,
ther Innocent, And If he was, it wIU fcarcely, I be
lieve, be pretended, that he merits any reproach for
aiming, by the profeflion he made, while It exprefled
the truth, though not the whole truth, to divide his
foes, that he might extricate himfelf from their ma
lice, untU a more favourable opportunity, inftead of
proceeding to open to them all the reafons of his
change from Judalfm to Chriftianity, and of his con
cern about the liberty of the GentUes from Mofaic
ceremonies, when they were In no difpofition to give
him a patient and candid hearing,
I have here fuppofed, that the Pharifees believed
a refurredion of good men unto a life p/ happinefs.
For this St. Luke himfelf may feem a fufficient
voucher, fince he appears, through his hiftoiy in ge
neral, well acquainted with the affairs of the Jews,
and the principles of their feds. Left however Mr.
Voltaire's affertion produced in the laft note, ' That
* the Pharifees adopted the metempfychofis, and not
* the refurredion ;' together with the reafonings
there mentioned, in fupport of that opinion, and
the appeal that hath been fometimes made to Jofe
phus In its behalf, ffiould incline any to think, that
Luke hath fallen into an error, where he fays the
Pharifees held a refurredion, and reprefents as above,
that there arofe, upon Paifl's avowing his faith of
it, a contention between them and the Sadducees,
which proved advantageous to him. It wUl be proper
to beftow a fuUer confideration on this point.
The inftances then which haye been alledged from
the New Teftament, and the book of Wifdom, do not,
I think, prove that the Pharifees held the dodrine of

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 353
tranfmigration, that is, of the paffing of fouls from
body to body one after another in fucceffion. For as
to the queftion propofed to our Lord, concerning
the man born blind, ' Did this man fin, that he was
* born blind?' it is only an evidence, that it was a
notion entertained by fome, that fouls * pre-exifted,
and that they were fent Into bodies more or lefs per
fed and commodious, according to their condud in
that antecedent ftate of being. The fame obfervation
may be applied to the paffage from the Apocrypha,
where the writer fays, ' Being good,^ — I came into
* a body undefiled,' WIfd. vIU, 20, as indeed the
Greek tranflator of the book of Job hath alfo made
God himfelf, in his addrefs to Job, fpeak upon this
notion of the previous exiftence of fouls ; for he turns
his words. Job, xxxviii, 2 i , thus *, ' I know thou
' waft formed then, (when thelight was made, name-
* ly,) and that the number of thy years are many,*
And as to the conjedures made about Jefus Chrift,
that he was one of the Jewiffi prophets, or John the
Baptift whom Herod had lately beheaded, (befides,
that they afford no light what was the belief of the
Pharifees, or even of the perfons themfelves that pro
pofed fuch gueffes, about the ordinary and eftabliffied
courfe of nature,) they feem to be grounded rather
On the fuppofition of a miraculous refurredion, than
of a tranfmigration. For it does not appear how Je
fus could be any more EUas, or Jeremias, or one of
the antient prophets, becaufe the foul of EUas, or Je
remias, or another of the old prophets, dwelt in his
• So indeed, thought Philo, De Somniis, pp. 586, 592. and,
De Gigantibus, p. 38$.
* Qjix otpa 071 ron iyiyiyyvKsi^, apS/Ai; oi tmy iv ttom;,
z

354 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
body, than fome others had been fuch, whofe bodies
their fouls muft have inhabited, upon the hypothefis
of a tranfmigration, in the interval of ages fromtheur
refpedive demifes. And further, it did not at aU a-
gree to that fcheme, to pronounce Jefus, who was
at this time more than thirty years old, John the.Bap-
tlftjOn account ofthe refidence of John's foul in his bo
dy, when he had been only IdUed, and by confequence,
his foul only fet free to remove into another body
at its formation, but a few months or weeks before.
Accordingly, the Evangelift Luke relates the reply
of Chrift's difciples, when he affied them, ' Whom
' fay the people that I am?' in this manner, ix. 19.
' They anfwering, faid, John the Baptift, but fome
* fay Elias, and others fay that one of the old pro-
' phets is rifen* again.' And fuch a refurredion of
John, was the fuggeftion of Herod's mind, on hear
ing the fame of Jefus, inftead of a tranfmigration,
' He faid unto his fervants. This is John the Baptift,
' he is rifen from the-]- dead, therefore mighty works
' do ffiew forth themfelves In him.' Matth. xiv. 2,
No more, in my opinion, do the accounts which
Jofephus gives of the fentiments of the Pharifees,
concerning the fate of fouls after death, authorize us
to fay they taught the metempfychofis, or fucceffive
tranflation of fouls from body to body, as Mr, Bafnage
in I his hiftory of the Jews, and others contend. 1
* AvirM.
-]- Avro; nyif^n aTTo ray yixpay.
X Book 2. chap. 11. page 122. ' Jofephus's authority, who
* fpeaks clearly about that matter, ought to prevail over the filence
' of the Sadducees, who db not reproach them with holding tranf-
' migration, and even of the gofpel, which does not tax them with

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 355
readUy Own, that he ufes expreffions, in declaring
their perfuafion, which are capable of fuCh a fenfe.
For -when he fays, it is their beUef, ' That virtuous
' fouls § have a power of reviving,' It cannot be de
nied, that his words, taken apart, may be underftood
of returning to life by immediate tranfmigration ;
and when he Informs us again, ' They are convinced
' that the foul of good men — paffes into another
* body f ,' this, it will not be queftioned, might have
been faid. If they held it paffed into a body, to which
it never before bore any relation, as indeed it hath
been much infifted on in favour of fuch an union,
whatever inclination there may be to doubt or difal
low its applicablenefs, if he intended their faith of Its
re-entry into the body which It formerly aduated.
Neverthelefs, there is nothing in the Jewiffi hiftori
an's language here, which neceffitates us to expound
' this error. He affirms that the Pharifees believed ' That the fouls
" ofthe wicked were fliut up in prifon, and there fuffered eternal to'r-
" ments, whilft that of good men found an eafy return to life, and
" went into another body.' This return ofthe fpirit into life cannot
' be explained by the refurreftion, for the immortal foul ftiall never
' die, nor rife again. Neither can it be faid, that ftie fliall go into ano-
'. ther body at the laft day, for, befides that ftie fliall put on again, by
' the refurreftion, the fame body that flie hath animated in this life, and
* that its qualities only ftiall be changed, the Pharifees did thereby
' reprefent the different ftate of good and wicked men immediately af-
' ter death ; and, therefore, to make Jofephus point at the refurrefti-
' on, is to father too quaint a thought upon him ; a hiftorian, who re-
' lates the opinions ofa feft, fpeaks more naturally, and expreffes him-
' felf with more perfpicuity.'
§ T«;f Se (a/f xftrn; iTrirntiwi; ec ra (ita ytyovi) pa^ayny rv
ayaSivv. Antiq. i8. i. 3.
-j- MtraSaiveiy It ei; Wipoy natAO. my (^"X*"') '^'^^ «7«t8«K. De
Bello. 2. 8. 14.
Z 2

356 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
him to mean, that the Pharifees were in the fcheme
of a metempfychofis, or tranfmigration, and not of
a refurredion. For that a foul revives, may be affirm
ed of it, when It is reunited to its former body, a3
well as when it animates a new body, Aya^aa is- ap
pUed thereunto in the New Teftament itfelf, Rom.,
xiv I o , Rev, XX, 5 , on which account, it is need
lefs to mention examples of that ufe of it in ecclefi-
aftical -writers, otherwife it might eaffly be done;
Why therefore might not AyaSioa, which is Jofe^
phus's word? as indeed it is fo taken In a paffage
hereafter quoted, Maccab. vii. 9, And ' that afoul
' paffes Into another body,' is true, when It goes in
to a body altered and changed in its qualities, though
the fame, in regard of its fubftance and general fi
gure, with that to which it was in a paft period
joined, as well as when it goes Into a body, total
ly different from that which it before refided In, and
ufed as Its inftrument of operation ; inpoy being a
term which occurs where is merely a circumftanti
al, as well as where there is an effential variation, as
may be feen * Luke, ix. 29,
Is there then any thing in Jofephus, to deUver
us from hefitation and' uncertainty, whether he
teaches that the Pharifees held tranfmigration, that
Is, the tranfition of fouls from body to body, in fuc
ceffion, as they were diflodged, and to guide us as
a clew into a more precife difcovery of their prin
ciples? 1 apprehend, there is enough to fatisfy us,
that fuch tranfmigration was not their hypothefis;
for in the paffage whence the firft qutatation is taken,.
* K«; «/«; rv 7r^o(t07rv avrv iri^oy.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 357
he declares, ' There are rewards under f the earth for
' fouls that have in this Ufe been careful to pradife
' virtue,' ere he fpeak of their power of reviving.
Further, where he acquaints us, thathediffuaded fome
of his country-men froin kiffing themfelves in the
cave, into which they had fled with himfelf for con
cealment, after the taking of the city Jotapata by
the Romans, that they might not faU into Vefpafi
an's hands, he tells us he urged this confideration
upon them, ' That pure and obedient fouls continue
' to exift, having received a moft holy place In hea-
' veil, and thence, after the revolution of ages, are
* again houfed in clean bodies ; but that the fouls of
* thofe who have offered violence to their bodies, are
* lodged in the darkeft* Hades.' Finally, in his fe
cond book againft Apion, he writes thus, ' That
' their lawgiver had foretold, (and God had afforded
' the ftrongeft proof of It,) that God granted to them
' who have obferyed his laws, and died if it was ne-
' ceffary with chearfulnefs for them, to be born a-
* gain, and to receive a better Ufe in a Jfuture period ;
where the term rendered ' to be born again,' is fi
milar to that which In Mat, xix, 2 8 , Is interpreted by
Mede, Capellus, and others, to fignify, ' the refurredi-
' on of the dead,' andis unqueftionably tobe fo § undeiv
f Ttto ¦^ovo; iiKOiiaisei;,
* KaSupcq tl KoLf iTTnxooi jUlYVtrty ai ilu^a/, yupoy vpayv Kaxv-
wa^ roy a.fio>raroy, ly^iy ix TTiptrpoTrn; ofayav afyot; ttcc^iy ocyrtyoi-
mi^ovrai <raf/.airiy. Sec. De Bello, 3. 7. 5.
X  FectoS-a/ n TraKty x«/ ^loy ay.etya KaQety ix Trifir^oTrn;
feft. 30.
§ Thus Eufeb. Hiftor. Ecclef. 5. i . fub fine. Say the churches
of Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, in their letter to their Chriftian bre-
Z 3

358 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
ftood fometimesin other authors. Herein, however, Jo
fephus muft have reafoned, and declared Mofes's
dodrine, as a Pharifee, being himfelf of the fed of
the Pharifees, according to his own narrative; for
he * teUs us, that, after making experiment or trial
of the different feds among his nation, he embraced
that of the Pharifees, in the nineteenth year of his
age. Now, thefe obfervations being laid together,
it feems clear. It was not his intention to reprefent
that the Pharifees, who maintained the immortaUty
of fouls In general, taught the tranfmigration of rir-
tuous fouls, or their paffing from body to body in
continual train. For, according to his profeffed ac
count of their creed, compared with his expUcation
of the lawgiver's dodrine, and of his own fentiments
in his addrefs to the companions of his concealment,
good fouls were happy after death, in a ftate of fe
paration from body, inftead of being appointed im
mediately to aduate other bodies on earth one after
another, and after the revolution of ages, they were
born again, they entered another body, and they
then lived a ftUl m ore excellent and bleffed life. There
is then no fufficient reafon, from Jofephus's repre
fentation of ths principles of the Pharifees, more
than from the places of Scripture and Apocrypha a-
bove produced, to fay that the Pharifees believed a
metempfychofis or tranfmigration, and not a refur-
thren through Phrygia and Afia, ' The enemies burnt the bodies of
* the martyrs, and threw their afties into the Rhone, as able to over-
• come God, and to take away from them a refurreftion, xa/ aipt-
' ^£oS^IV auray my Tia\iyyin<siay.' Nor are other inftances of fuch
acceptation of the phrafe wanting, Epiphan. Haeref. 37. i.&c.
* • Vita, feft. 2.
Z 4

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 359
redlon : nor, by confequence, to infinuate, that Paul
advanced a falffiood to gain friends, when he faid,
I am a Pharifee, viz. by the hope of a refurredipn
of the dead; and that, Luke gave a vrong account
of their opinbns. In writing they confeffed a refur
redion.
It is true, he does not fay, thefe bodies, which vir
tuous fouls vriU at a future diftant feafon inhabit,
ffiall be their old ones, in reference to their materi
als redeemed from the grave, and fitted up again in
to a manfion for them in that happier life which
ffiall then commence ; nor even that they ffiall be
immortal bodies, in exprefs words. And, perhaps, he
chofe to be on the referve, both becaufe there was
fome variety of fentimgnts among the perfons who
followed this fed upon that point, as we may learn
from Philo's writings, and becaufe there was no fmall
danger of fcorn and ridicule from the Greeks * and
Romans againft the Jews, by an explicit mention of
their faith In the refurredion of the dead. But,
though for thefe reafons he may have fpoken more
generally, and accommodated more his phrafeology to
that which heathen people and philofophers employ
ed, he hath faid nothing f which wUl authorife us
to fay they did npt hold the refurredion, efpeciaUy
* The refurreftion ofthe dead, was an article peculiarly ofi^enfive
to them. See Afts xvii. 32. Pliny ranks it among impofllbilities, in
refpeft ofthe power of God. Nat. Hift. lib. 2. cap. 7. ' Nee poteft
• Deus revocare defunftos.' Confer. Ibid. lib. 7. cap. 5J. Et Mihut.
Felix, page 10.
f Such appears to me a juft reprefentation of Jofephus's fenfe,
though Grotius and others have fuppofed him to fay, the Pharifses, be
lieved a refurreftion,
Z 4

36o A VINDICATION OF P.IL
after fo credible an author as Luke hath affirmed
they confeffed it. Moreover, we have other pofitive
evidence that the Jews, in a former age, though ftill
fo late as to leave Uttle room to doubt that the
fed of the Pharifees was then known, believed a re
furredion of the dead. For in the fecond book of
Maccabees we read, that the fecond of the feven
brothers, when through torment, becaufe he would
not eat fwines fleffi againft the law of God, he was
at the laft gafp, faid to the king, (Antiochus) ' Thou,
* like a fury, takeft us out of this prefent life, but
* the king of the world ffiall raife us up, who have
* died for his laws, unto everlafting life*.' After him
w^as' the third made a mocking ftock. ' And when
* he was required, he put forth his tongue, and that
* right foon, holding forth his hands manfully, and
* faid courageoufly, Thefe I had from heaven, and for
* his laws I defpife them, and from him 1 hope to re-
* ceive themagainf.' The fourth, when he was ready
to die, faid thus, ' It Is good, being put to death by
* men, to look for hope from God, to be raifed up ja-
* gain by him. As for thee, (the king) thou ffialt have
* no refurredion unto life.' And the mother exhorted
every one of them, — ' Doubtiefs the Creator of the
* world — will alfo, of his own mercy, give you breath
' and Ufe § again,* In particular, ffie encouraged her
youngeft fon, inftead of diffuading him, as the king
exhorted her, and afterward told the king ' they were
* Chap. vii. 9. ATrodayoyra; ny-a; — et; ofuytoy ayaQiautY ^mt
itya; ayasrnvei,
f Ibid. 10. II. Tojura — TrahtY xofii^ia^ai,
X Oawi' aKafTKtrto-fla/ mtt ojjrv — uatsraai; et; IfinY.
§ Ibid. V, 23. To jrcey^a x«/ my \my ftTreWei vfin^ Tttt\fi,

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 361
' all dead, under God's covenant off everlafting life.*
Again, in the twelfth chapter of the fame book we
read that Judas caufed offer a fin-offering in Jerufa
lem for fome, whom he fuppofed flain for the ¦viola
tion of the law, ' Doing therein very well and ho-
' neftly, in that he was mindful of the refurredion,
' for if he had not hoped, that they that were flain
* ffiould have rifen again, it had been fuperfluous
' and vain to pray for the* dead.' At the fame time
it may be obferved, that Jofephus (which confirms
our account for his more cautious manner of expref
fing himfelf on the fubjed,) whenhe relates the forti
tude and conftancy of the fame perfons in fuffering,
in his treatife concerning the Maccabees, or, the go
vernment of reafon. If that piece be in reaUty his,
is far more fparing in his reprefentation of their
faith. For, though he makes them all fay, ' they would
' receive the reward of virtue, and be with God, for
' whom they fuffered, while Antiochus would en-
' dure eternal torment from divine juftice, and that
' when they were dead, Abraham, and Ifaac, and
' Jacob, would receive them into their bofoms, and
' all the fathers would praife them ;' and though he
dfefcrlbes one of them, to fpeak of the glorious life
of the pious, whereas another of them told the
king, divine juftice referved him to more vehement
and eternal fire, which would not leave him for e-
ver; and though- he himfelf fays, that the mother
preferred piety, which would fave to eternal life, to
f Ibid, ver, 24, 36. — Atvyoiv {an; vtto ttahxny ©ta TriTrruxa-
fi. • Ver, 43. 44.  Xvip aya^aaia; tta.Koyi^oy.iYO(, Et yaf
/tn Tv; TrfOTrivruxora; aya.rnr»f 7rpo;itoxa, &c.

-62 A VINDICATION OF P.IL

0

the temporary deliverance of her fons ; and affirms,
that they for their patience now ftand by the divine
throne, and lead a bleffed life ; that thefe fons of A-
braham, with their vidorious mother, are gathered
together into the chorus of the fathers, having re
ceived pure and immortal fouls from God-]-; he never
ufes the terms which diredly fignify a refurredion fd
much as once, as often as they are found in the fe
cond book of Maccabees. Now, thefe fufferings are
placed 1 6 8 years before Chrift, when there is ground
to think the Pharifees exifted, at leaft, that many
entertained their opinions, as may be feen in J the note,
f De Maccabeis, &c. feft. 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20.
:j: Mr. Voltaire gives much too late a date to the rife of the feft of
the Pharifees among the Jews, into whofe notions about a refurreftion
we have been inquiring, when he fays, Phil. Diftionary, p. 324. ' Act
* cording to St. Jerome, the feft of the PharifeSs began but a very
* little time before Jefus Chrift. Rabbi Hillel is accounted its founder,
' and he was\cotemporary with Gamaliel, St. Paul's mafter.' And wheii
he fays, Phil, of Hift. chap. 11. p. 52. ' They (the Perfians) were
' without contradiftion the firft who framed thefe ideas of a God,
* (he means, a devil, a refurreftion, a paradife, and hell ;) this was the
' moft antient fyftem, and which was not adopted by other natio-ns till
• after many ages; finee the Pharifees among the Jews, did notftrong-
' ly maintain the immortality of the foul, and the dogma of rewards
' and punifliments after death, till about the time of Herod.' For,
without examining, whether his reprefentation of Jerome's fentiments
I here be juft or not, and whether his aflertion, that the Perfians firft of
all men entertained ideas about thefe objefts he enumerates, be well
or ill-founded, it is plain he is in a grofs miftake about the firft appear-«
ance ofthe Pharifees among the Jews. It may not be eafy indeed to
afcertain the exaft era when they fprung up, as fefts are often gradual
ly formed ; however, they were known long before the time he fixes
for their rife ; they were fo powerful about eighty years before Chrift,
that a fenfe of their hatred to king Alexander Jannaeus made his queen

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 363
The Jewiffi Pharifees then, at leaft a number of them,
exprefs great anxiety about herfelf and her children, when he was up
on his death-bed, whereupon he advifed her by every method to carefs
them, fince that would fecure to her the bulk of the nation, they be
ing altogether revered and believed by the common people : the advan
tage of which counfel ftie afterwards reaped, in the eftablifliment of
the power of the family ; Jofeph. Antiq. ij. 5. and i 6. i. Nay, as
they had been, by evil flanders and furmifes, caufes of open aflfronts
and infurreftions to king Jannaeus himfelf, during his pofleflion of the
crown, fo they were fo confiderable, in the time of John Hyrcanus,
prince and high-prieft of the Jews, who died in the year 1 07 before
the Chriftian era, that, we are told, he endeavoured to win them to his
intereft, by cajoling them, and inviting the heads among them to an
entertainment, ' for they had fuch influence with the multitude, that
' they immediately believed whatever they faid againft the king and
' high-prieft.' Ibid. 13. 10. 5. 6. Indeed, Jofephus having fpoken
of the battle of Jonathan with Demetrius's generals, and his viftory
over them, which is placed 144 years before Chrift, (Ant. Vniv.
Hift. vol. 10. p. 320.) introduces the mention of them thus, ' About
* this time there were three fefts among the Jews, the Pharifees, the
' Sadducees, andthe Eflenes; xara oe roy Xf*"* rvroy, &c.' Ibid,
13. 5. 9. and refers to his more accurate account of them, in the
fecond book ofthe Jewifli War. He alfo, on occafion ofthe difturban-
ces that were raifed by Judas the Gaulonite, about the cenfus or valu
ation of the eftates of the Jews, that there might be levied from them
a tax proportionable to every man's fubftance, which happened after
the banifliment of Archelaus, reprefents the feft of the Pharifees as
one of the three philofophical fefts, which had been among his country
men from antient time, ix rv Trayu oipx^'v. Ibid. 18. I. 2. and
elfewhere he aflirms, that the Pharifees introduced the firft feft, rnv
TT^ar-iiY tTrayoyri; d-ifioiy. De Bello, 2. 8. 13. The Pharifees then
muft have been a feft long prior to Hillel, if by Hillel be meant the
Pollio of Jofephus, as is thought moft reafonable, who is fuppofed to
have flouriflied only 27 years before Chrift. Indeed if they were not
more antient than the feft ofthe Sadducees, which the laft quoted
words of Jofephus feem to imply, (as much as many learned men have
overlooked them, while they make their rife later than that of the

3^4 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
held a f refurredion ,as Indeed none but thofe of this fed
houfed fouls in bodies after death. I do not however
mean, that they held it exadly according to our i-
deas. That they did not extend it to the wicked, but
confine it to the righteous, Jofephus is clear ; for he
fays they affirmed ' the fouls of wicked men were ffiut
up In an eternal J prifon,' and ' that they were fubjeded
to eternal puniffiment under the earth, but that the foul
of good men only paffed into another* body.' Nor,
indeed, do Paul's words here require we ffiould fup
pofe he had the refurredion of the former in his eye,
which wasnot, ftridly, an objed of hope. They fup
pofed alfo In part, if not all, as would feem, that the
refurredion of good men would be a refurredion to
a capacity and enj oyment of fuch animal pleafures as we
here partake. If we may judge from the cavU of the
Sadducees which puzzled § them. Matt. xxU. 2 3, 3 i.
Perfons of this fed therefore interpofed, fays Luke,
in Paul's vindication, upon his profeffing himfelf at-
Sadducees, upon a very uncertain and precarious argument,) they muft
have been coeval with this feft. Now, this feft received its denominati-.
on from Sadoc, who was fcholar to Antigonus of Socho, a perfon who
flouriflied almoft 300 years before the birth ofour Saviour. The learnt
ed Reland fays, there is mention of the Pharifees in Jewifti writings,
from the time of Simeon Ben Shetah, who, with Jehudah Ben Tabbai,
makes the fourth link in the chain of their Mefchnical doftors, while
Hillel appears only as one ofthe fixth link. Antiq. part 2. cap. 9. feft,
13. Now this Simeon made a figure in Hyrcanus's time.
f See Reland Antiq, Hebr. part 2. cap. 9. feft. 14,
:j; Antiq. 18. I. 3.
* De BeUo, 2. 8. 14 Compare 3. 7. j.
§ Ofthe fame grofs notion, the exclamation from Luke, xiv. I j.
may be thought fome evidence, ' Blefled is he that ftiall eat bread io
I the kingdom of God.'

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 365
tached to their fentiments, in the article of the re
furredion, from zeal for their own dodrine in op
pofition to that of the Sadducees, who denied aU fu
ture exiftence, and faid that fouls periffied with the
body at death. And indeed it is credible they ffiould
have done fo, upon the fuppofition themfelves be
Ueved the refurredion, confidering the fiercenefs of
the two feds againft one another, and their readi
nefs to take oppofite fides in a caufe. Whereas It is
otherwife altogether unaccountable how they ffiould
have expreffed any favour towards him ; for who can
think they would ever have efpoufed his caufe, on his
claiming an agreement in opinion with them, which
was wholly without foundation, (as muft have been
the cafe, if they did not admit a refurredion at all,)
or that Luke would have given them the credit of
appearing in his intereft, if there had been no ground
for it?
SECTION xxvn.
Of his afferting in the fame place, from i Theff. iv.
that the firft Chriftians made themfelves fure they
ffiould fee the end of the world ; and of his faying,
that Luke adually foreteUs it as what ffiould hap
pen in his life-time.
IN the next I page of his Didionary, he hath thefe
refledions concerning St. Paul and St. Luke, ' St.
' Paul tells the inhabitants of Theffalonica, that the
' fecond coming of Jefus Chrift is for them, and for
' him ; and that they ftaU be witneffes of it.* After
1 Page 32J.

366 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
which, having cited his words i Theff. iv. i6, 17.
he goes on, ' Does not this Important paffage evi-
' dentiy prove, that the firft Chriftians made them-
* felves fure, that they ffiould fee the end ofthe world?
' and St. Luke adually foretells it, as what ffiould
' happen in his life-time,'
But though Paul fay to the Chriftians at Theffa
lonica, to whofe eminent faith, and charity, and pa
tience, he beareth exprefs teftimony, that it was a
righteous thing with God, to render unto them who
endured perfecutlons and tribulations, for truth and
duty's fake, reft or refreffiment with himfelf, and Syl
vanus, and TImotheus, his companions In the king
dom of God, when the Lord Jefus Chrift ffiould be
revealed, 2 Theff. i. 6, (for to this paffage I fuppofe .
our author alludes,) he never fays that this final ap
pearance of Jefus Chrift is for his or their delive
rance and confolation, exclufively of that of others
of the fame excellent temper and condud ; or that
himfelf and they alone would be partakers of eafe
and joy by it: far lefs, that they would be fole wit
neffes and fpedators of It,
As to Mr, Voltaire's affertion again, that ' the
* paffage .1 Theff. Iv. 16, 17, evidently proves, that
' the firft Chriftians made themfelves fiire that they
* ffiould fee the end of the world;' there is no foun
dation for it, except that the apoftle, while he fpeaks
of their portion who are aUve, and continue until
that event, ufes the firft perfon plural, ' This we fay
* unto you, by the word of the Lord, that we who
* are alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord,
* ffiall not prevent,' anticipate In any advantage,
* them who are afleep, for the Lord himfelf ffiall

P, U. THE SACRED BOOKS. 367
* defcend from heaVen with a ffiout, with the voice
* of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God.
' And the dead In Chrift ffiaU rife firft. Then, or
* thereafter, we who are aUve, and remain, ffiaU be
* caught up together with them in the clouds, to
' meet the Lord in the air, and fo ffiall we be ever
* with the Lord,' But how weak a foundation this, for
the fupport of his charge ! by the fame kind of argu
ment, one may prove the oppofite propofitlon, viz.
that Paul believed that he and his fellow-labourers,
together with the Chriftians at Corinth, ffiould all
die before that time, and be then raifed out of their
graves by the power and agency ofthe Lord Jefus ; for
fays he to them, 2 Cor. Iv. 14.' We know that he who
' raifed up the Lord Jefus, ffiall raife up us alfo by
* Jefus, and ffiall prefent us together -with you,' And
I Cor. vi. 14. ' God hath both raifed up the Lord,
* and wffi alfo raife up us by his own power.' — Yet,
he could not believe two contradidory propofitions
at once. Farther, to infer from his words here, that
he expeded to be found aUve at the day of judg
ment, is not only to put a fenfe on them, inconfif
tent with the declarations he makes, that he looked
to die, and to be abfent from the body, and to be
facrificed upon the fervice of mens faith. In his e-
piftles to the Phffippians, i. 2 3. to the Corinthians,
2 ep. V. 6. and to Timothy, 2 ep. iv. 6. (for thefe,
I am aware it may be remarked, were written after
a confiderable interval, in which he was cured of
the miftake,) but is to give them a meaning, con
trary to his own expUcation of his fentiments up
on this fubjed, in his fecond letter to thofe Chrifti
ans of Theffalonica, though addreffed to them only

368 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
fome few months later than tliis firft epiftle, from
which Voltaire labours to fix the erroneous principle
and tenet upon him ; yea, a meaning which he him
felf there difclaims as the genuine and true Import
of any expreffions he had ever ufed, either in difcourfe
or -writing. For it is remarkable, he there guards
them, not only againft entertaining the imagination,
that the day of Chrift was juft at hand, but againft
entertaining it, upon the pretence of any word which
he was reported to have dropped, or any language
which he had employed in any letter; which is cer
tainly difavowing. In the cleareft manner, his inten
tion to fuggeft fuch a thought, either by fpeech or
epiftle before. Says he, 2 Theff. U. 1.2.' We befeech
* you,brethren,by the comingjof our Lord Jefus Chrift,
' and by our gathering together unto him, that ye
' be not foon ffiaken in mind or troubled, neither by
' fpirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as
' that the day of Chrift is at hand. Let no man de-
' ceive you by any means.' And then he proceeds
to acquaint them with the rife of a great apoftacy in
the Chriftian church, and with the appearance of a
very corrupt and tyrannical power therein, before
that day ffiould come, the prevalence and deftrudi
on whereof is evidently fpoken of as a work of time.
But how then, it may be faid, can his manner of
expreffion here be reconciled with his knowledge,
that he ffiould be dead before the day of judgment ?
I anfwer very eafily by obferving, that he ufes the
firft perfon plural, becaufe he confidered Chriftians,
through all ages, as one body or fociety, and knew
fome of them would be aUve at Chrift's defcent from,
heaven, though aware he himfelf would not be a-

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 369
mohg that number, to whom what is here faid
would agree, and in whom It would be verified.-^
Nor is this any figure of fpeech but what is com
mon in Scripture. The Pfalmlft having faid, Pf.lxvi.
6. ' God turned the fea into dry land. They went
' through the flood on foot,' adds, ' there did we
' rejoice In him ;' though certainly neither he him
felf, nor any of his cotemporaries, had expreffed joy
on that miraculous paffage ; only their anceftors,
from whom they were fprung by a long feries of
intermediate generations. And In the fame man
ner, the author of the eighty -firft pfalm, having men
tioned an ordinance or appointment of God, when
he went out through the land of Egypt, fubjoins,
' where I heard a language I underftood not;' when
yet he was not In exiftence at the date of the fad
referred tp, nor indeed came into being for many
ages after. Once more, the prophet Hofea ufes the
fame latitude of fpeech, when he fays, ' Jacob found
' God in Bethel, there he fpake with us,' chap. xi.
4, attributing thus a privilege and honour to him
felf, and thofe of that age, which was only enjoyed
by their very remote progenitors. Now, as the fa
cred -writers of the Old Teftament, regarding the
Jews, through all periods of their ftate, as one na
tion and community, afcribe to themfelves, and thofe
co-eval with them, paffions, perceptions, and advan
tages, which, in ftridnefs, only belonged to thofe
of their nation, in times long previous and an
tecedent ; in the fame way, Paul regarding Chrifti
ans, from the formation of the Chriftian church till
the conclufion of this probationary fcene, as one bo
dy, attributes to himfelf, and thofe pf his day, things,
A a

g?o A VINDICATION OF P.U,
which in ftridnefs, would only be the lot of thofe
that ffiould foUow long after. Nor Is there any vi
olence in fo interpreting the phrafeology of the one,
more than of the other.-
Whereas he fays, moreover, ' St. Luke certainly
* foretells it as what ffiould happen in his life-time,'
viz. the end ofthe world, and the fecond coming of
Chrift, I do not well underftand his meaning, un-
kfs it be admitted, that there is fome inaccuracy of
expreffion here. For St.^ Luke, fo' far as I recoiled,
hath not recorded any predidion by himfelf, either
about this, or any other futurity ; he hath only com*
mitted to writing fome prophecies fpoken by the
Lord Jefushimfelf, andby fome others of his foUowersv
1 fuppofe then our author intended to affirm, that
Luke hath conveyed down to us feme propheey or
predidion, in which Jefus, or a difciple of Jefus, fore*
told that the end of the worid ffiould come to pafa,
ere he himfelf died and was laid in his grave. Never
thelefs^ I cannot think he hath any more fpecious
argument for this, or Indeed any other handle at all
for it, than fome of our Saviour's expreffions which
he hath recorded, in anfwer to the queftion which
was put to him, ' When ffiaU the temple be thrown
* down, and what fign wUl there be when this ffiall
*^ come to pafs,' Luke, Xxi, (fee Matt. xxiv, Mark, xui.)
But, thefe have been vindicated again and again
from fuch mifconftrudion, and ffiewed to relate, to
the deftrudion of JeruMem with its fanduary, and
^e overthrow of the Jewiffi poUty civil and religi
ous, and the wide pubUcation of the gofpel by the
apoftles and other fervants of Chrift. Indeed, this
would have been manifeft, beyond all poiSbUity of

P.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 371
mift^e by any, had they attended In what lofty and
bold figures the entire ruin and fubverfion of ftates
and kingdoms Is foretold by the Je-wiffi prophets, fuch
as, the fun's being darkened, and the luminaries of
heaven ceafing to give their light, &c. Compare I-
faiah, xxiii, 10. xxxiv. 4, 10. Ezek, xxxii, 7. 8.
Amos, viii, 9. &c. Had they obferved farther, that
the original w6rd turned earth occurs frequently,
not for the terraqueous globe, but for a particular
country, or re^on in it, as Gen. xin. 9. i Sam.
xiu. 3, Jerem. iv, 20, viii. 16. Luke, iv. 26. to
which I hefitate not to add, in all probabUity, Matt.
XxvU. 45. with the parallel places in the gofpels of
Mark and Luke, though many have concluded thence,
that the darknefs at Chrift's paffion was fpread over
Our hemifphere, and appealed to the* fabulous le*
gendary tale of Dionyfius's exclamation in Egypt
in proof of It.— And, finally, had they confidered,
that the Greek term tranflated in our Bibles there
tti}gels, fignifies no more than meffengers, and accord
ingly is the name, by vvhich the preachers bf the go
fpel are fometimes called, 2 Cor, viU. 2 5. Rev^l, U, i.
&c. It is even amazing, that any Chriftian commen
tators ffiould ever have maintained another fenfe, who
did not fuppofe that Jefus himfelf (concerning whom
far be the thought from us !) was himfelf under the
influence of a fpirit of error and delufion about the
fpeedy end of the world, fince he hath added, by way
* I call it (o without any fcruple ; fuch is my judgment of it,
upon an examination of the evidence, into which I was led by feeing
my late learned and candid friend Dr. Lardner, in his Jewifti and
Heathen Teftimonies, rejeft it fo peremptorily, without entering iaio
a detail of his reafons for it,
A a 8

^TZ AVINDICATIONOF P, ff .
of caveat againft fuch Interpretation, this decla
ration,, ' That this generation ffiall not pafs away,
* tUl all thefe things, which he had before fpoken
' of, be fulfilled;' for the only natural fenfe here
is, that that race of men, which was then upon the
earth, ffiould not be fwept away from it by death,
tUl all thefe things which he had predided had come
to pafs. To explain It to fignify, that the Je-wiffi na
tion ffiould continue a diftind people through all ages;
inftead of being blended with, and loft in other nati'-
ons, Uke the Affyrians, Greeks, and other people fa
mous of old, though it may be to build on them a
propofitlon true in itfelf. Is to offer force and violence
to theterm generation, which according to its uniform
acceptation, denotes what we call, a race of men,
who come into the world and die out of it within a
certain period, nor this- of very great extent.
There is therefore no fufficient reafon for this
imputation, which Mr. Voltaire throws upon Paul
and Luke, that they foretold the end of the world
would be in their time; ner, by confequence, for
alleging, as fome have done, that they allured- per
fons to Chriftianity, b-y the falfe and deceitful hope
of being taken up alive -without tafting death, to the
glories and felicities of heaven, like Enoch and Eli
jah, and that they engaged them to fuffer chearfuUy
the lofs of worldly goods, and facrifice their earthly
fubftance for its fake, by pofffeffing them with the
vain conceit, that, in the revolution of a few yfearSj
all thefe things would periffi in an univerfal confla^
gration, and be irrecoverably loft.

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 373

SECTION XTVm. '
Of his faying, in the Ignorant PhUofopher, that
Chrift's words, Matth. xvm 1 7 , were the -caufeof
all perfecutlons among Chriftians.
I SHALL only take notice of another mifrepre
fentation of the fenfe of Scripture ; and it is in his Ig
norant * Philofopher. But it is not the paffage where
he afferts, ' That the Holy Scripture,' where it In
troduces God faying, " He wUl require the blood
*' of mens lives at the hand of every beaft," ' manifeft-
' ly fuppofes In beafts a kno-nledge of, and acquaint-
' ance with good and evil,' For I think I may fafely
leave his conclufion to be judged of by every man's
own unaffifted fagacity. The paffage I would exa
mine, is In the article entitled, ' The Effeds of the
* Spiritof Party andFanaticifm,' After obferving^there
is room for mutual reproaches among Papifts and
Proteftants, on account of religious cruelties, he goes
on f thus, ' Compare feds, compare times, you will
* every where find for one Ithoufand fix hundred
* years, nearly an equal proportion of abfurdity and
* horror every where amongft a race of bUnd men,
* who are deftroying each other in the obfcurity
* which furrounds them. What book of controver-
* fy is there written without gall? And what theo-
* logical dogma has not been the caufe of fpilling-
* blood?' and then adds, ' This was the neceffary
* effed of thefe fenfible words ' Whomfoever liftens
** not to the church, ffiall be looked upon as a Pa-
? Articl?, Of Beafts, p. i 8. Glafg, edit, p. 1 45. t .^^g^ ^4 S-
Aa 3

374 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
*' gan, and a pubUcan.* Each party pretended to be
* the church, each party has therefore conftantly
* faid. We abhor the officers of the cuftoms, we are
* enjoined to treat whoever differs from us in ojplni-
• ons, as the finugglers treat the officers of the cuf-
* toms when they have the fuperiority. Thus, the
* firft dogma every where eftabliffied was hatred,'
Here, every one fees, he pronounces the perfedu*
tions, which the different fe6bs and parties of Chrlftl-'
ans haye carried on againft one another, even to the
deftrudion of life, the effed of Jefus's words, Matt.
xviU. 17 . and not the cafual or accidental effed of
them, through their abufe by the paffions, and their
perveriion by the weaknefs and foUy of men, but
the neceffary effed of them. — By confequence, he
places them all to the charge of our Saviour himfelf,
as the author and advlfer thereof.
But what can be more injurious than fuch a re
fledion founded on this text ? Indeed, I am not able
to recoiled, that it hath ever been pleaded by any of the
patrons and advocates of feverities for difference of
opinion, as much as they have tortured and wrefted
fome paffages of the New Teftament to juftify the
iame. They have argued from Chrift's command to Peter
to feed his ffieep, that this muft convey a power to his'
fucceffors to kUl heretics, fince ffiepherds have a pow
er to kUl wolves, and other beafts of prey, which
feek to devour their flocks ; thus building a dodrine,
which we ffiall fee to be moft oppofite to Scrip
ture, as well as to reafon, on a figurative expref
fion. They have urged the order, which Chrift in his'
parable reprefents the lord, who made a great fupper,

P.IL THE BACHED BOOKS. ^75
but whofe in-vitation to partake of It had been ffight^
ed by great multitudes, to have given to his fervants
when he fent them into the highways and hedges ;
' CompeU them to come in, that my hpufe may be
* fiUed,' As if our Saviour had meant^ they wer«
to employ force and violence for procuring a fuffi-?
cient number of guefts ; when the oecafiom ffiewS,
as weU as the appUcation of the word tranflated com
pel elfewhere, that^ only perfuafion, importunity, fol-
llcitation, and fuch methods could be intended,-^:^:-
Henry Stephen even intimates. In his preparatory
treatife* to his apology for Herodotus, that fome
of the Papifts, who have been the uniform and a-
vowed friends of perfecution for confcience f^e, had
recourfe to the expreffion in the Vulgate veriion,
* Haereticum devita,' Titus, IU, i o . and contended,
although it fignifies in truth only, ' ffiu-n or avoid an
' heretic,' that it was an injunffion to hurry him out
offlife. But amidft all the ftrange pretences that have
* This is a book, which hath undergone more than twelve editions.
It was written by bim, on occafion of the artifices lufed by the monks
to depretiat-e Herodotus as a hiftorian, who abounded in incredible fto
ries, after he iiad printed that book at great charge ; and its intention
was, to expofe them for impofing on the world tales equally or more
improbable, for their ftupid ignorance, and grofe vices.
f As Henry Stephen hath been blamed for exceeding the truth, ia
his reprefentations of the' Papifts, it may not be improper to obferve,
that Schoelhorne, in a book whofe title in the German tongue fignifies,
Araoenitates Hiftoriae Ecclefiafticae, or, Pleafantries of Church Hif
tory, hath given us a letter written by Ferdinand king of Arragon ;iti
141 5. to Sigifmund, the emperor of Germany, whidi was never be
fore printed, wherein he exhorts him to put to death John Hus, main-*
tains that no faith was to be kept to heretics, and fliews it was necef
fary to deftroy their lives, by thefe words of St. Piwil, ' Haereticum
A a 4

376 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
been ufed for fpilUng mens blood, on account ofa dif-
agreement in fentiment,never till now I beUeve was this
text Infifted on ; which yet our author makes the caufe
of the religious wars, maffacres, and executions
which have happened among Chriftians. It was re
ferved to himfelf to make this difcovery, and to find
the dogma of deadly hatred between the feveral par
ties that ffiould arife in the Chriftian church eftabU-
ffied here. But 1 hope it will appear very foon, that
he has no reafon to triumph in his interpretation.
As perfecution for confcience fake Is a thing moft
¦unjuft in its own nature, becaufe a violation of the
great rule of equity, to do as we -would be done to,
and moft pernicious in its tendency, becaufe It ferves
to make men affume a hypocrltliial ffiew of that
faith which they have not, inftead of producing a
change of judgment in favour of principles which
they before rejeded; fo it is moft repugnant to the
* hominem poft unam et fecundam correptiortem devita' for he ima
gined that devita was ' De vita tolle. Take out of life;' See Bibl,
des Sciences, torn. 1 9 page 117. Erafmus moreover informs us, that
the fame fine interpretation was put on it by an old and grave divine
in the council of Conftance, who urged it to prove, that by canonical
Scripture an heretic was to be capitally puniftied ; as he had it from
Coletus, a man of known integrity, who prefided when the thing hap
pened. The paflage being curious, 1 give it in his own words, Erafm.
Annotat. in N leftam. ad Titum, iii. lo. ' Hie locus eft, quem fe-
' nex quidam theologus et imprimis feverus in concilio produxit, cum
• veniflet in quaeftionem, num quis eflet locus in Uteris canonicis qui
' juberet haereticum affici fupplicio capitis, Devita, devita, inquit, pu-
• tans devita Latinis efle de vita tollere. Id ne quis fufpicetur meum
' eflfe commentum, accepi ex Joanne Coleto, viro fpeftatae'integritaris,
* quo praefidente res afta eft. Eamus nunc et negemus periculofum efie
' crrare in verbis.'

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 377
precepts of Jefus and his apofUes. When two of his
apoftles asked leave from him to command fire from
heaven to confume the Samaritans who had expref
fed their difpleafure againft them for their different
belief, by refufing to fupply them -with provifions in
their way to Jerufalem, how did he rebuke them
ffiarply, faying, ' Ye know not what manner of fpi-
* rit ye are of. The fon of man is not come to de-
* ftroy mens lives, but to fave them?' Luke ix. 53
— $6. Yet certainly fuch a miraculous defcent of
fire from heaven muft have contributed much more
to make all thofe profelytes to their place of folemn
worffiip that ffiould be fpedators of this puniffiment,
or hear its fame, than any killing by the fword, or
like human Inftrument of death. And how does he
exhort to love and blefs, to pray for, and do kind
offices to all men, without exception, urging It at the
fame time, by the example of God's extenfive good
nefs and beneficence, Matth. v. 44— -48? In the
fame manner his apoftles teach, ' That the fervant
' of the Lord ought not to ftrive, but to be patient
* toward all men, in meeknefs inftruding fuch as
' oppofe themfelves, if God peradventure will grant
' them repentance.' 2 Tim, U, 24, 25. ' That the
* flxong ought to bear with the weak.' Rom, xv. i .
Why, however, do I dwell on particular precepts?
It is even inconfiftent with the whole genius and fpi
rit of the gofpel, which was intended to enUghten
mens minds in the knowledge of truth, to bring
them to a chofen and voluntary obedience of it, and
to unite them by thefe ties in the bonds of recipro
cal kindnefs and charity. It were very ftrange then
if in this paffage there was a diredion to apply all

37 8 A VINDICATION OF P.IL
the terrors of the lofs of life, or, indeed, of any cor*
poral chaftifement, tp bring men to foundnefs in
faith. Thefe circumftances afford the ftrongeft prefump-.
tive evidence that a rule of this nature is not con-l
tained here, even before we examine it more clofely.
But when we proceed to confider the occafion and
import of the words themfelves, we are fatisfied of
it beyond all fufpence and hefitation. For it Is plain
our Lord is not here fpeaking of errors in fpecula-
tion, or miftakes in opinion, but of injuries betvveen
man and man as to fubftance, or reputation, and
good name, or fome fimilar intereft. ' If thy brother
* ffiaU trefpafs againft thee, go and tell him his faults
* between' him and thee alone,' expoftulate with
him in the moft private manner about it : ' if he
* ffiaU hear thee,' yield to thy remonftrance and ad
monition, by undoing of what hath been amifs, or
repairing the injury he hath committed, as far as he
(:an, ' thou haft gained thy brother,* recovered him
to his duty, reftored him to be thy friend, re-efta-
bUffied harmony and peace between you, and pre
vented his continuing under the divine difpleafure
by perffverance in the wrong. ' But if he wiU not
' bear thee, take -with thee two or three more, that
* in the mouth of two or three witneffes, every, word
* may be eftabliffied,* that there may appear fuffici
ent voucliers for thy friendly application to him, and
thy fair reprefentation of the injuftice he hath done,
and that the fame may have greater weight and in
fluence through their concurrence in it. ' But if he
* ffiall negled to hear them,' or be ftill refradoiy, not-
tvithftaiuli(iag their advice, inftead of altering his be*

P-.IL THE SACRED BOOKS, 37^
haviour, ' and making good, as far as in his po"wer,
the thing wherein he hath trefpaflfed againft thge,
* tell it unto the church,' f to the affexnbly or con
vention ; fay fome a civil convention Or affembly^
aUuding to that which the Jews are declared by fome
to have had in their fynagogues for arbitration of
controverfies and difputes; fay others an ecclefiaftic
affembly, the fociety of woifhipping Chriftians, with
which the offender has communion and feUOwffiip.
* And if he negled to hear the church,' the aflembly
whether of the one or the other kind, omit to (com
ply with their pleafure and diredion, and will not be
brought to reafon and juftice by all thefe niethods,
* let him be unto thee as a heathen mau and a publi-t
•f It is certain the word ixxMisia, here rendered church', fignifies
any number of men called or gathered together, whether upon fecu
lar, or facred occafions. It is ufed of a civil aflembly in the New
Teftament itfelf, Afts xix. 32, 39, 4c. and in this fenfe fome have
interpreted it here. Mr. Bourn, in his Sermon on the Parabfe of the
generotjs Monarch, or the Duty of Forg'venefs,,ma^es it feme court of
arbitritioo, t\4ich was in tlie Jewifli fynagogue, without a cpmpulfive
authority of law. Bp. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, expounds it to fig-i
nify a private meeting of feleft friends, book 2, chap. j. as Selden
had done before him, de Synedriis, lib. i. cap. 9. But, as it is taken
commonly in Scripture for an aflembly on aocount of religious pur
pofes, others think it here denotes the congregation, or meeting of
Chriftians to which he belongs, whofe duty it is to cenfure him in
proportion to his fault. Bafnage, however, in his Hiflory of the Jews,
page 465. underftands. not the church, in a judicial capacity, or as
having a tribunal erefted to take cognizance of faults, and to punifl*.
them ; but as an aflembly of ferious Chriftians, to whom the name and
trefpafs of the offender was to be pwU-iftjed, for his fliame and dif
grace, for ' It was cuftomary among the Jews,' fays, he, * to deal fo
* with faulty perfons in their fynagogues, I mean to proclaim tijeff be*-
' haviour four fabbath days.'

380 A VINDICATION OF P, It.
can.' Who now can have any doubt that our Saviour
is treating here of offences againft neighbours, and not
of herefy or heterodoxy of fentiment ? and that he in
tends not a brother's having any difference vrith a man
about truth, but a brother's violating fome of thofe
rights which belong to him, whether in property, or
Uberty, or charader, or the like? And as to the man
ner of behaving which he prefcribes, or allo^vs to
ward the injurious party who is obftinate and unre-. '
claimable, that the injured perfon ffiould treat him
as a heathen man |, or a pubUcan, it can never be
reafonably explained to fignify that he ffiould put
him to death, or kill him. For how abfurd to make
Chrift give an injundion, or even a permiffion to
put a period to the life of another, whenever he is
incorrigible In his fault, or continues not convinced
of having done wrong, and by confequence, not difi
pofed to make reparation for it, be the fault ever
fb ffight, the wrong ever fo inconfiderable? efpecl--
aUy, after his own leffons of patience under fmaU
violations of property, and honour, and freedom.
Matt. V. 38 — 41. Befides, when was It ever heard,
by what antient writer is it at all recorded, that the
Jews were accuftomed, whenever they were equal
to the work, and favoured with an opportunity for
X Mr. Voltaire cites the text, ' as a pagan man ;' but the exprefli
on ' an heathen or gentile man,' muft be much more fit and proper. For
the name of pagans was not given to the worfliippers of idols till Chrif
tianity prevailed, when they who continued attached to falfe gods, were
chiefly fuch as dwelt in the country, or inhabited the villages inftead
ofthe cities : thofe, as might be expefted, being more tenacious ofthe
prejudices of education. ,See Libanius's Orat, pro Templis, and Ant,
Univ. Hift. 16. 385.

p.n. THE SACRED BOOKS. 381
it, to difpatch a heathen or a pubUcan ? which, it
feems, is the manner of the fmugglers dealing with
the officers of the cuftoms in Mr, Voltaire's country.
What then Is the rational and Ukely meaning of
the words of our Sa-viour, ' Let a brother who is deaf to
* rebuke In aU thefe methods, be to thee as, a heathen
* man, or a pubUcan ?* It appears to be this ; that he
whom he had injured, ffiould confider. him as un
worthy of aU tenderer affedion, and more intimate
fociety, and carry at a greater diftance from him, as
the Jews did to heathens or pubUcans. We are fure
the Jews defpifed the heathens, giving them at the
fame time names expreffive of this contempt, and
decUned famUiarity with them, ' Ye know,* fays Pe
ter to CorneUus and his friends. Ads, x. 28. ' how
* that it Is an unlavpful thing for a man that Is a Jew,
* to keep company, or come unto one of another
' nation ;' an evidence It was criminal, according to
their eftabliffied maxims and ufage in that period,
for Jews to converfe with Gentiles In near and clofe
fociety by eating with them, entring Into their houfes,
and the like, as the word properly fignifies. For, in
deed, the obfervation is not to be extended to all
deaUng and intercourfe with them. This, as many
of them refided in, or travelled through heathen ci
ties, was in fome degree unavoidable. The fame way
they feem to have been affeded toward the Samari
tans ; though they fcrupled not to buy provifions from
them, more than their fathers did from the Tyrians
in Nehemiah's time, Nehem, xUi. 16. yet they had
no deaUngs with them as friends, infomuch that they
would not afk or receive the fmaU courtefy of a
draught of water, John, iv. 9. We are likewife cer-

§52 A ViNDICAttON OF P.IL
tain, that the Jews had a great averfion to the pub
licans, i. e; thofe that were employed to colled taxes
and duties among them for the Romans, who were
now their mafters ; There had been a great rebeUion
raifed among them by Judas the Gaulonite, on oc
cafion ofthe redudion of Judea into the ftate ofa Ro
man province, and the enrolment of their eftates by
CyreniuS, after Archelaus was depofed by Auguftus^
and baniffied into Gaul, upon pretence they had no
fovereign or king but God, and were not bound to
pay tribute to any ftranger, becaUfe it was faid, ' One
* from among thy brethren ffialt thou fet king ovef
' thee t thou mayft not fet a ftranger over thee, who is
* not thy brother,' Deut. xvU. 1 5. And there was unde
niably ftUl too much of this leaven or evil principle
among them. Hence It is natural to conclude, the
payment of taxes to the Romans wOuld be to them a
heavy grievance, and the colledors of them would
be to them very difagreeable, as the tools and in
ftruments of IUegal and Iniquitous oppreffion. More*
over, it appears to have been veiy common with
men who poffeffed the office of tax-gatherers, to be
guilty of rapine and undue exadlons, that they
might make It more lucrative and profitable to them
felves; On which account, when fome perfons, who
followed this employment, came to be baptized by
John, and affied what they ffiould do to be faved,
he cautioned th^m particularly againft the vice of
extortion, ' Exad no more than that which is ap-
* pointed you,' Luke, ffi, 1 2 , And this muft have In"
Creafed the abhorrence of them by the Jewiffi peopkj
as indeed their too frequent * cuftom of oppreffion,
* That publicans' were in antient times very much addifted to op-

?, IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 583
in levying the revenue, raifed hatred at them through
other provinces. Further, they may be thought, at
leaft among the Jews, to have been general!^ per
fons of a loofe charader, and irregular condud, who
indulged their appetites beyond all bounds of otder
and decency, finee we find them ufually reckoned
with harlots and finnersj i, e, enormous offenders,
in the New Teftament, which muft have alienated
the hearts of aU the ftrld and reUgious part of the
nation from them ftlU more, and have raifed their
diflike of thein to a yet higher pitch. Accordingly,
We find the Jews took exception at Jefus's eating
with them, as all their coun try -men who made a more
reUgious profeffion, difdained and fcorned fuch free
and friendly Intercourfe with them, Mat, ix, 1 1 , Luke
Xv, 2, xix, 7, &c, and Dr, Lightfoot f hath quoted
this as a maxim among their Rabbis, ' That a religif
preftion, in the exercife of their ofiice, cannot be denied. Theocritus^j
according ta Hammond on Matt. ix. i o. fays, ' that amongf the beafts
' ofthe wildfernefs, bears and lions are the moft cruel, and among
* the beafts of the city, the publican and parafite.' Other teftimonies
of the fame thing may be feen in Grotius on Luke, iii. lo. I fpeak
dot, however, ofthe head-farmers, or thofe who rented the levying;
of the taxes through a large diftrift ; for if we believe Cicero, they
Were men of good morals, as well as of equeftrian rank, that is, of
the order of knighthood, Orat. pro Plancio, feft. 9. and Epift. Faiiiil.
Kb 13. feft. 10; but of the common receivers and gatherers ofthe
taxes. That they were alfo generally odious and unpopular, is evident
from Cicero ag^nft Verres, lib. 2. cap. 3. n, 7. where fpeaking ofthe
inhabitants of Sicily, he fays, ' Sic porro homines noftros diligunt, ut
' his foils neque publicanus, neque negotiator, odio fit. They arc fo
' attached to us, that to them alone, neither a publican nor a faftor
' is odious.'
¦f Hor. Hebr, on Matt, sviii. 17. Works, toL 2. p. 2 i j.

384 A VINDICATION OF P. H
' ous man who becomes a publican, is to be driven
* out of the fociety of religion,'
On thefe accounts, an advice, (or permiffion, as fome
reckon it,) to treat an offender, who would not be per
fuaded by all gentle methods, to acknowledge his
injury, and make reafonable fatisfadion for it, as an
heathen man or a publican, was very proper, to fig
nify, that fuch a perfon ffiould be dlfapproved and
avoided, inftead of being admitted to friendffiip and
intimacy ; for this was the temper and deportment
of the Jews toward Gentile Idolaters, and alfo toward
pubUcans, though-[of their own nation ; but it could
f It feems to be implied here by Chrift's mode of expreflion, that all
publicans were not heathens, — TertuTlian, as many after him have
done, thought that no Jew was a publican, De Pudicitia, page j6i.
chap. 9. 'Si quis dubitat ethnicos efle publicanos apud Judaeam, u-
' furpatamjampridem Pompeii manu atque Luculli, legat Denteronomi-
' um, non erit veftigal pendens ex filiis ifrael. Nee tam execrabile eflet
' nomen publicanorum apud Dominum, nifi extraneum, &c.' But his
argument for this opinion was ill-founded. For, (befides that a prohi
bition, was it to be found, would be no proof that all declined the
employment, fince too many things forbidden in their law were prafli
fed by them,) there are no words in the original, Deut. xxiii. i 7. an
fwering to thefe which he quotes from the book of Deuteronomy,
' There fliall be no tax-gatherer of the children of Ifrael.' Nor in
deed in the Chaldee paraphrafes, either that of Onkelos, or that af
cribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, nor in the Syriac and Vulgate tranflati
ons. There are only fome words in the Septuagint verfion after ' There
' fliall not be a whoremonger (a fodomite, we fay,) of the children of
' Ifrael,' wbich feem to come near them, Oux era/ riKKsfopo; utto flu-
yoiripay lapanh, xotj vx itcii riKifxofAiyo; aTro viayl(ipan\. Here how
ever riMdipofo;, which commonly fignifies a publican or tax-gatherer,
denotes a perfon wbo proftitutes herfelf for hire,as many women did io
honour of Venus, initia ferens, as riKvsxof/.iyo;Yi initiafut ; andthe
whole claufe feems to have been at firft a marginal comment 00 the pre«

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 385
fignify, that it was Incumbent on, or lawful to him
who fuffered the -wrong, to fend the doer of It, though
unreclaimed, out of the world by fome method of
violence. *

ceding words, afterwards adopted by fome tranferibers into thd
text; fuitably, the copies vary in exhibiting it. Compare Cafaubon.
Exercitatlones, 1-3. 36. and Le Clercin Deuteronomium. That Jews
were publicans, appears from the New Teftanaent itfelf: for Zae-
cheus and Matthew, otherwife called Levi, as their names ftiew*
were ofthe Jewifli nation. Jofephus is alfo fuppofed tb mention John
the publicaii, as a Jew of iilfluehce and figure, De Bello, 2 . 1 4 .4 J . and
perhaps rightly. He indeed fays, ' The powerful among the Jews*
' together with whom was John the publican, perfuade Florus to a cer-
' tain meafure by eight talents of filver, 01 tvyaroi ray Ivhaiav, ovy
' 01; 0 riKuyn; laayyn;, Trei^vat roy ^hapoY apyvpiv rAhayroi; oxra ; .
which manner of fpeaking appears to me confiftent enough, with his be-
iiig a heathen. But when I confider he exprefles himfelf afterwards j
as if the favour was fold to Jews only, and as if they were all Jews*
who, upon ill-ufage by the people of Cadfarea, coniplained to Flori/s,
putting him in mind bf the eight talents, while he again orde'red them
to be arrefted and bound, blaming them for the removal of their code
of laws out of Caefarea, it feems moft probable this John was alfo 3
Jew, it tl TTioi roy laayyny tuydroi tallxat Ttfo; ^Ka^oy i\^oyri( —
KTratvpoyro Tripi rav TtiTrpayfjiiyar, &c.
* Though Mr. Bourn, in his Sermon above tjuoted, paraphrafes
thefe words, ' Let bim be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican,*
' Have no further acquaintance with hira, Confider him as unworthy
' of your regard;' he fuppofes they alfo authorized him to carry his
caufe before a Roman magiftratCj as the Jews held it lawful to pr»fecute!
a heathen or a publican in the Roman courts, however many of them
fcrupled profecuung a brother Jew there. And the fame explication had
been given by Efaftus and Dodwell, p. 261 . De Jure Laicorum. But
What evidence is there, that the Jews fcrupled to prrofecute their bre
thren in theRoman courts, where they had received injuries from them,
«)f which fuch courts only could take cogni-zanee ? and how few
injuries comparatively would k be needful to trouble the Roman
B b

jS6 A VINDICATION OF P.H.
The perfecutions, therefore, of the different fed&
and parties of Chriftians againft one another, could
never be the neceffary effed of thefe words of Jefus J
nor indeed Were they in any fenfe the effed of them
at all, becaufe we do not find they ever concluded
thence, that it was lawful to kUl every perfon who tref-^
paffed againft them, in the manner Mr, Voltau-e re-^
prefents. Even Mr. Chubb could not fee here the
church' s power of excommunication . For, having con
tended, that Chrift hath given no power to paftors
to excommunicate wicked Chriftians, or thofe who
appear fuch, but rather exprefsly forbid it, feft they
ffiould root up good grain with tares, or through igno
rance, miftake, intereft, and paffion, hurt truly faithful
and pious perfons, he explains thefe* words under
courts with I fince the Jews, both in the coantry of Judsa, and in thefe
provinces of the empire where they lived, had councils and magiftratet'
of their own, vefted with fufiicient power and authority to chaftife fucH'
wrongs as did not merit capital punifliment, by the lefler penalties of
imprifoning, fcourging, Ssc- '-Moreover, Chrift could only in agree-.
ablenefs to his rules Matt. v. 38---41. give advice or permiflion jo
profecute in civil- courts fuch as had committed more intolerable in
juries: Accordingly, Mr. Bourn himfelf, finds it neceifary to throw
HI a limitation or qualification, about the importanc& of injuries; 'if
' the injury be'fuch, that it appear requifite to your own fafety, or the
* ends of public juftice, to make an example of hira; or reduce bim to
' reafon by compulfion, religion by no means forbids you from fecur-
' ing yourfelves, or executing juftice upon hira, by carrying your caufe'
* before the Roman magiftrate.' And how neceflary fuch a limitation,
when feeking redrefs of wrongs fuftained from Chriftian bi^thren be
fore heathen judges, was ready to give them iH impreftions of Chrifti
anity, and to create prejudices-in tbeirminds againft reHgion, therebjT
hurting its caufe and intereft--! See i Cor. ri. i'.-"8.
* See his two Letters, the firft of which contains an inquiry
eoBcerning church-difcipline. But that the church- is respired to ex-
I

P.IL THE SACRED BOOKS. 387
our confideration, thus, 'If any one does not behave
' fuitably to the principles of Chriftianity, (by what-
' ever name his fault may be caUed,) and, after be-
• ing admoniffied at different times by his neigh-
* hour, and at laft by the church, I. e. the Chriftian
' fociety of which he is a member, does not amend or
' reform, he ought to be no more regarded as a mem-
* ber of that fociety, but as a wicked man.' And then
^dds, ' This is all the excommunication which Jefus
• Chrift hath authorized. Every individual ought to a-
* void intercourfe -with the man who continues in his
* vices ; but the Chriftian fociety hath no right to ex-
* elude himfromits body, by a formal and judicial ad.'
How ftrange therefore our author ffiould have difcove
red here a precept of Chrift to his followers, to deftroy
the Uves of all who differed in opinion from them,
though they ffiould alfo own Jefus as their mafter, and
his gofpel as the rule of their faith and manners! This
hath been left to be found out by his fagacity and
penetration alone. Chrift's words, however, continue
ftill a very fenfible and wholefome prefcription in the
cafe of injuries between man and man, after all his at
tempt to burlefque and ridicule them.
But it is time to finiffi the fecond Part of this
Treatife. A fufficient number * of inftances hath, I
elude from communion all vifibly wicked and flagitious members, is
evident from the apoftle's reproofs and orders, with relation to the
incefluons Chriftian, to the church of Corinth, i Cor. v. throughout,
and 2 Cor. ii. i-— — ii, aod in reality, it is only exercifing fuch
power as is fit, for its own credit and honour, and for promoting regula
rity of manners among its members,
* If other mifreprefantations of Scripture are remarked in his works,
it is tobe obferved, I only propofed to animadyett oofomf of them,
Bb 2

383 AVINDICATIONOF P, H.
I think, been produced to verify the charge againfl}
Mr. Voltaire, of mifreprefenting Scripture fometimesy
upon the mere authority of the Vulgate tranflation,^
but far oftener without any ffiadow of fupport from
that ©r any other verfion at aU ; and if the reader
fhall alfo be of opinion, that the accufation is made
good, muft it not follow, that he ought to be per^
ufed with fufplclon and diftruft, inftead of impUcit
faith, where he profeffes to give an account of what
is contained In the Sacred Books? nay, that he isde-
fervlng of our difpleafure, whatever may be his fine
talents and eminent abilities in fome refpeds, becaufe
he difcards that ingenuous probity, and ftrld regard
to truth, which is the moft effential of all qualificati
ons in one, who profeffes to write with an intention
to lead us into the knowledge of antient principles--
and fads ? Muft not alfo, by confequence, our ve
neration and efteem for the facred oracles be reftored
and juftified. In fo far as his falfe recitals thereof, and
falfe comments upon them, have tended to diminiffi
and Impair the fame, or to expofe it to the world as
weak and Injudicious ?¦
as a fpecimen of his difregard to fairnefs and veracity. As to cavils a-
gainft the truth of this or that particular faft, and the propriety of this
or thar law enjoined the Jews, and charges of contradiftion in the nar"
ratives of the writers, which have any real foundation in the Sacred
Books as they now ftand, they did not fall within my plan in this-
work ; I- have hinted the principles, by one or other of which fuch-
objeftions may be in a great mealure folved, in the note at the begin
ning of this fecond part, page 49. and anfwers to them may be met
with perhaps univerfally, in good commentators, or in apologies for
Chriftianity againft Tindal, Morgan, and others. Yet perhaps it would
be no fmall fervice to rhe caufe of religion, for fome perfon of learn
ing and leifure to confider diem in the foran in which Mr Vol taire batln
propofed them.

PART IIL
O F
MR. VOLTAIRE^S
FALSE REFLECTIONS
ON SOME OF THE
SACRED BOOKS.

MR, VOLTAIRE hath not fatisfied himfelf
with giving unfair reprefentations of parti
cular paffages of Scripture ; He hath even thrown out
injurious affertions, with regard to feveral of the books
that compofe our facred volume. To the confidera
tion, therefore, of fome of them at leaft, in purfuance
of the fcheme propofed, I now proceed ; and they
^chiefly relate to theii- genuinenefs. or authenticity. •
S E C T I O N I.
Of his faying, that fome thought the firft book of
Samuel a compofition fo late as the monarchy of
the Greeks, in his PhUofophy of Hiftory.
I BEGIN with his remark, in the thirty-fifth chap
ter of his * PhUofojphy of Hiftory, ' The Pythonefs
* of Endor, fays he, who raifed the ghoft of Samuel,
* is very well known. It is true there is fomething
• Page. 1 6 J.

390 A VINDICATION OF P. IIL
* ftrange, that the word Python, which is Greek,
* ffiould be known to the Jews, in the time of Saul.
' Many learned men have concluded from hence,
* that this hiftory was not written, tlU the Jews
* traded with the Greeks, after the time of Alexan-
* der. But this is not the point in queftion here,'
Very fine! I wiffi he had favoured us with a lift
of his many learned men, who have judged that
book of fo recent a date, upon the reafon he men
tions. For my part, I do not remember to have heard
or read of one ; and I ffiould be much furprifed, if
any who merited the charader, ever entertained the
moft ffight fufplclon of this kind, on that account.
For how does the cafe ftand? The woman whom
Saul wiffied to confult about the event of his ap
proaching battle with, the army of the PhUiftines,
is denominated once and- again In the Vulgate ver
fion, ' A f -woman having a Python,' in our tranfla
tion, ' A woman having a famUiar fpirit;' and when,
upon Information from his fervants about the place
of her refidence, he came to her houfe, he is faid to
have defired fatisfadion from her in the matter which
raifed his anxiety, thus, ' I pray J thee divine tome
* by the Python,' in our verfion, ' Divine to me by
' the famUiar fpirit ;' therefore Mr. Voltaire infers,
f I Sam xxviii. 7. ' Mulier habens Pythonem'. This is very
much the delcription of the maid at Philippi, who brought great gain
to her owners by divination, Afts, xvi. 1 6. for flie is alfo ftiled in
the Vulgate verfion, ' Puella habens fpiritum/^/ziow^w?;' and there in
deed the Greek runs, •^oiiti<rxn lyytra TrnvjA.a. Ili/Otursf, which laft
word is, according to Hefychius and Suidas, equivalent to A«;/<ci';i»
ftayrixv, a prophefying Daemon.
X Ibid. V. 8. • Divina mihi in Pjthene*

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS, 391
though in the original Hebrew there is no fuch term
as Python ufed, either in the defcription of the art
which the woman profeffed, or in the difguifed king's
application to her to inftrud him in the iffue of the
fight, by the power ffie pretended to have, or in
deed through the whole hiftory; but a term fo re
mote in found from it as 21N Ob ; nay, though e-
ven in the Greek verfion of the book, which was ex
tant feveral hundred years before the Vulgate, no
fuch word occur as Python, but one fo different from
it as f tyyar/>;^i;9(jf ; that the Hebrew record of thefe
tranfadlons of Saul with this woman muft be a pro-
\ This is the expre/Eon in the Septuagint verfion for ^IK Oh
Levit. xix. 31. xx. 6. 27. Deut. xviii. 11. i Sam. xxviii. 3, 8,
9. I Chron. x. 13. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6, and for 31N n^^D bag-
nalath ob, two different times in the feventh verfe ofthe chapter where
this hiftory lies. Deylingius, in his Obfervationes Sacrae, feems to
have thought thofe perfons vvere ftiled lyyaTpi/XM^oi by the Greeks,
who pretended to the art of evocating or bringing up the fouls of the
dead, and exhibiting them in vifible form, that they might anfwer
queftions and folve doubts, from their ufe of a veflel filled with pure
water, called by the Greeks yarfn, wherein were feen the images ofthe
deceafed ; and that therefore this word was with propriety employed
to turn the Hebrew here, fince I'l^N obah, is a bottle. Job, xxxii,
1 9. whence the Latin obba is a kind of wooden ciip. But others think
they were fo called, who pretending to have a familiar fpirit, made
their bellies fwell like bottles or bags to a great fize, and then fent
forth a fmall obfcure voice, which feemed to come from thefe lower
parts of the body thus fwollen, where the divining fpirit was believed
to abide, and to diftate refponfes, themfelves all the while not fo muclj
as moving their tongues or lips, from yarnp the belly. And indeed
in many copies of the Vulgate verfion, i Sam. xxviii. 3. there was
a claufe, as Lucas Brugenfis tells-us, though it be now expunged, which
direfted the reader's attention to this fpecies of belly diviners ; for af
ter thefe words, • Et Saul abftulit magos et hariolos de terra,' there
B b 4

392 A VINDICATION OF P.III,
dudion or compofition fo late, in point of time, as
the commerce of the Jews with the Greeks, after
the time of Alexander, And by the fame medium
he might have argued, that the books of Leviticus
and Deuteronomy were alfo written after Alexan
der's vidories : for there Ukewife in the Vulgate tranf
lation the obnoxious term Python is Introduced, Lev.
XX, 27. Deut, xvIU, 10. So would he have deftroy
ed at once the genuinenefs of that part of the Hebrew
code, which the Jewiffi nation have ever efteemed the
moft facred and venerable ; by confequence, have
ftruck a blow at the root of all revelation.
But can any reafonlng be more ftupid and ab
furd, If a man is fincere in It, or be more perverfe
and petulant. If he is not ? Vf ith much greater juf
tice might a perfon contend, that the book of Joffiua
•was only compofed after the irruption and fettiement
of the Gauls In Afia, that is, about 260 years before
Chrift, becaufe in the Greek tranflation of this book,
which was long prior to the Vulgate verfion, the
name fa.i<To; is given to a fpear, chap. viU. 8. 26.
which being of Gaullffi qrlglnal, could not be adop
ted Into the Greek language till after that fuccefs
ful invafion ; and indeed it hath been urged by Dr.

.was added in them, ' Et interfecit eos qui Pythones habebant in ven-
• tre.' See his ' Romanae Correftionis in Latinis Bibliis EditionisVul-
? gatae, juflu Sixti V. Pont. Max. recognitis, loca infigniora.' In the
Septuagint alfo, there is exprefs mention of this fort of diviners, for the
Greek interpreters have Efai. viii. i 9. Tv; xiyohoyvyra;,oi ix rn; xolhi-
a; <fayiv(siy. The prophetic daemons themfelves were alfo called lyyci^p-
pLv6oi, for their agency in the onepr the other way. Plutarch deDefeft,
Oracul. p. 414. Compare Potter's Greek Antiq. p. 301.

P.ffl. THE SACRED BOOKS. 395
Hoddy*and others, to ffiew that that verfion of
this book was not framed in Ptolemy PhUadelphus's
time, like that of the Pentateuch, but under the
reign of Ptolemy Euergetes the younger. But how
ever fuch arguments may be appUed -with ftrength,
to afcertain the date of a tranflation, it Is plain, they
can never with any intelligent and confiderate per
fon affed that of the original. Of this the unlearn
ed may be very foOn lenfible, when he is Informed,
that upon the fame principles upon which Mr, Vol
taire reafons here, a perfon inight -with fuccefs un
dertake to prove, that the Hebrew book of Genefis
was not written till the Saxons invaded Britain, be-
caiife many words whieh are ufed in the Engliffi
tranflation of this book are of Saxon etymology or
derivation. For why ffiould not the Engliffi verfion
have weight in deciding the era of a Hebrew book, as
well as the Latin one ? But who can forbear fmUing at
,the philofopher here, and pitying their underftand-
ings, who are caught by fuch cavils at the genuinenefs
and authenticity of the Sacred Books as this ? Very
inattentive they muft be, upon whom a-f ffingof thi^
fort makes any hurtful impreffion,
* See Hoddy, De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, verfionibus, &c.
pp. 178—196.
f if there could be any apology for fuch a refleftion by Mr. Vol
taire, as this which we have been examining, it would be, that he ima
gined Python was the term in the Hebrew. But for this defence there
is no room. For in his Treatife on Toleration, chap. xiii. p. 1 9 1 . in a
note, having obferved there is but one paflage in the whole Mofaic law,
from which one might conclude, that Mofes was acquainted with the
^opinion ofthe foul's furviving the body, Deut. xviii. where it is laid,
' There fliall not be found among you a confulter with familiar fpirits,
? Python,' he adds, ' But what is very ftrange and worthy of obferva^

394 A VINDICATION OF P. UL

SECTION IL
Of his charge againft Daniel's prophecies, as forged
after the deftrudion of the Perfian empire by the
Greeks, in the fame PhUofophy of Hiftory.
L E T us next confider his accufation againft the
prophecies in Daniel, that they were forged after
the overthrow and fubverfion of the empire of the
Perfians by the Greeks. Fpr, fays Mr. Voltaire in
a paffage above produced from the forty-fixth chap
ter of his Philofophy fof Hiftory, ' Jaddus inftantly
* difplayed prophecies, which clearly indicated that
* Alexander would conquer the empire of Perfia;
* prophecies that were ever made after the event had
' happened.' And it is the ftale calumny of Porphy
ry, who, in the twelfth book of his work againft the
Chriftian religion, according to Jerome, affirmed,
' tion is, that the word Python fliould be found in Deuteronomy, fo
' long before that Greek term was known to the Hebrews. And in-
' deed the term is not to be found in the Hebrew, of which we have
* a good tranflation.' So that he himfelf confefles it was not read in
the Hebrew bible. There is indeed fomething unaccountably incon
fiftent here ; for, if it was not in the Hebrew, how could there be a
tranflation of it either good or bad? but let Mr. Voltaire and his ad
mirers explain this. If Python had been ufed by the Greek tranflators
who were Jews, which however is not the cafe, there would have
been nothing ftrange in it at all upon Mr. Voltaire's own hypothefis, be
caufe it is allowed that even the five books of Mofes, which were earli-
eft tranflated into the Greek tongue, were not fo rendered by them,
till after the ereftion of the Macedonian empire through Alexander's
conquefts. t Page 231. See Part i, feft, j. p. 28.

p.m. • THE SACRED BOOKS. 395
* That the book of Daniel * was not written by him
* whofe name it bears, but by another who Uved
* in Judea in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; and
' that it does not foretell things future, but relates
' things which had already happened.' In this, how
ever. Porphyry aded as unreafonable a part as a
man would do now, who ffiould deny the Aeneid
to be a poem of the -f VirgU who lived in the
days of Auguftus, after It hath been acknowledged
for his produdion through all the intermediate cen
turies from his age to the prefent ; for, in Uke man
ner, it appears the book of Daniel had been reckon
ed the book of Daniel the captive, who flouriffied
in the fucceffive reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belffiaz-
zar, and Darius the Median, and not of any Daniel
who was cotemporary with Epiphanes, through that
long period which preceded Porphyry's attack up
on the genuinenefs of it.
Of the fenfe of the Jewiffi nation to this purpofe,
Jofephus, who virote about two hundred years before
Porphyry, muft be allowed a good witnefs. Now he
every where, -\rithout any hefitation or doubt, fup
pofes it to have been written by the famous Dafliel,
who was carried away from Judea to Babylon in the
* ' Contra prophetam Danielem duodeciraom librum fcripfit Por-
' phyrios, nolens eum ab ipfo, cujus infcriptus eft nomine, efle com-
' pofitum ; fed a quodara, qui teraporibus Antiochi, qui appellatus eft
• Epiphanes, fuerit in Judaea. Et non tam Danielem ventura dixifle,
' quam ilium narrafle praeterita.' See Jerome's preface to his Com
mentary on Daniel, tom. ^. p. 1071.
f So however did father Harduin, and thereby expofe himfelf to
univerfal ridicule; as alfo by contending, that none ofthe pieces which
are printed under Horace's name were genuine, except the fatires and
epifties.

396 A VINDICATION OF P.m.
third year of Jehoiakim, and on this account to have
been a great while extant before the wars of Anti
ochus Epiphanes. Thus, he tells in one place, after
mentioning the honours which Daniel received from
Darius upon his miraculous prefervation in the den
of lions, ' The f books which he wrote are read a-
' mong us untill now; and we have been confident
' from them, that Daniel had intercourfe with God.'
And having quoted from them the predidlon about
the ram and the goat, with the interpretation there
of. In which it makes a part, that a certain king
w-ould arife from the Greeks, who ffiould conquer
the Jewiffi nation, overthrow their laws, deftroy
their poUty, plunder their temple, and make the far
erifices ceafe to be offered three years, he adds,
' Thefe things indeed our nation J fuffered under An-
* tiochus Epiphanes, as Daniel wrote and faw would
' come to pafs many years before.' Again, he makes
Jaddua to have produced the book of Daniel to At
lexander*the king of Macedon, at his vifit to Jeru
falem, which muft haye been i6o years prior to
Antiochus's time, ' The book of Daniel having been
* fUewed to the king, in which he difcovered, that
* one of the Greeks would deftroy the empire of the
* Perii-ans, he rejoiced, imagining himfelf was the
* perfon intended.' Once more he acquaints us,
f Antiq. IO. i r. 7. T« fdp SiCkix o<s«. tn <rvyfioc-dia./tivo; xa-
TctKiKoiTTiy oiyafira^xiraf Trap n/Jiiy iri xa/ vvr, &c.
X Ibid. Koy tn ravra n//.ay irvyiCn ra dyet Tra^ety utt Avriovy
rv ETTifoLvv; xaSia? eitiy 0 AayinKo; xoj ttokkoi; iritny lUTrpo^m
tiYifpa^i, * See ibid. 11. 8. 5. and compare Part i. feft. 5, p. 28,

t.UL THE SACRED BOOKS. 3^7
* That the * defolation of the temple by Antiochus,
* and the Macedonians, was foretold in Daniel's pro-
* phecy 40 8 years before it happened.' So fuU is he
about the book of Daniel's being genuine, or writ
ten by the perfon whofe name it bears, and In the
age which It pretends.
Yet there Is not wanting other teftimony to the
fame point ; for In the firft book, of Maccabees, (to
Omit the ufe of the phrafe, * the abomination of de
folation,' by the -writer of it, chap. i. 54. which hath
been thought to be taken from Daniel; becaufe I ap
prehend there is little or no force in the argument
from it to Confute Porphyry's hypothefis, though
it hath been fometimes urged with that view, as the
writer lived after Antiochus's wars,) Mattathias, who
was coeval with tins enemy of the Jews, commemo
rates in a fpeech to his fons, chap, ii. 50-^6. Dani
el's deliverance for his innocency from the mouth
of Uons, and the prefervation of Ananias, Miffiael,
and Azarias, amidft the flaming fire, which are events
recorded in the book of Daniel, when he profeffes
* .Ibid. 12. 7. 6. — Kara rnv AayinKv TTfoipnreiay Ttpo rirpa-
XotrtaY xoLi oxra fiyofityny iray, I may obferve likewife, that in his
Antiq. lo. 16, 6. having recited fome things which are in the book
of Daniel, he adds, ' he mentioned them as he found them in their
• antient books,' and that he had profefled in the beginning of the'
work, to tranflate only the books ofthe Hebrews into the Greek tongue.
Proem; feft.' 2. Moreover, in his firft book againft Apion, feft. 8.
he fpeaks of the books of the prophets, among which this of Daniel
was one, as comprehending things which happened in their own ref-'
peftive times, ra xar aurv; Trpa^ivrx, from the age of Mofes un
til that of Artaxerxes, which is altogether inconfiftent with Porphyry's
date ofthe book in-Antiochus's time, fince Artaxerxes was long dead be
fore Antiochus Epiphanes reigned, even almoft 250 years, '

398 A VINDICATION OF P. IIL
to bring to their remembrance * The fads done by
' their fathers, in their time, through zeal for the
' Lord;' And Eleazar again recites both hiftories in his
prayer in the third book, vi. 7 , 8 . But thefe allufions or
references affqrd no contemptible evidence, that the
book of Dani^ was known before Antiochus's op
preffion of the JeWs, and the miferies they fuffered
at his hands. And furely after fuch proof, I need
not infift upon that which arifes from the works of
the Chriftian fathers. Porphyry then fpoke againft
the general confent of the world about the matter,
when he threw out that heavy charge above quoted:
wherefore he deferved no credit, unlefshehad brought
irrefragable reafons from the book itfelf, to deftroy
its pretenfions to that original which it claims. But
did he offer fuch unanfwerable objedions to its ge--
nuinenefs ? Or have they been advanced fince, by Spi
noza, Collins, and others who adopted his fentiments?
I think not ; as wiU appear from the following ffiort
remarks upon the moft fpecious and plaufible of
them. As to the Greek etymologies or derivations or
words, whence Porphyry concluded the book of
Daniel* muft have been the forgery of fome Greek
* Hieronym. pr. ad explanat. in Daniel, tom. 3. 1071.--*-' Grae-
' ci fermonis efle commentum, quia in Sufannae fabula contineatur, di-
' cente Daniele ad preftjyteros, Aito rv ax'y^ I'X""^' ""^ *"'' ''*
• a-|i»»w ¦yrptaan, quam etymologiam magis GraeCO ferraoni convenire
' quam Hebraeo; cui et Eufebius, et Origenea. et ApoUinaris pari-
' fententia refponderunt, Sufannae, Belifqoe ac Draconis fabulas non
* contineri in Hebraico ¦¦¦'" nee fe debere refpondere Porphyrio pro
' lus, quae nullam Scripturae Sanftae auftoritatera praebeant.' See Su-'
fauna, v. 44 — 59. See alfo Hieronym. Praefat. in Danielis verfionem
apud Bibl. Vulgat, ' Daniel apud Hebraeos nee Sufannae habet hiftori-

P.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 399
writer, thefe are not to be found at aU in the book
which was received by the Hebrews, and which from
them is admitted into our canon; but only in the a-
pocryphal ftory of Sufanna, where indeed the allu
fions between (sxiyo; and ^x"^'*fi '"'piyo; and Trpitsai occur
in the fpeech to the elders, which that prophet is there
made to deliver.
Daniel might be a young man in the third year
bf Jehoiakim's reign, when he was chofen by AJhpe-
naz mafter of the eunuchs, to ftand before Nebu
chadnezzar, Dan. i. 3. and yet might have all that
reputation for wifdom and piety, and favour or ac
ceptance -with God, which he is fuppofed to have
in the book of Ezekiel, chap. xiv. 14. and xxviii.
3. For Ezekiel Uttered thefe prophecies only in thei
fixth and eleventh years of Jehoiachin's captivity,
(which appears by comparing the dates of thefe de
ferent revelations from God, wherein Daniel is cele
brated, as they are to be learned from chap. viU. i.
and xxvi. i .) by confequence, when Daniel in refpeft
of the laft of Ezeklel's encomiums, had been about
eighteen, and in refped of the former of them, had
been about thirteen years famous, on account of his
declaration of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and of the
meaning of it, after he himfelf had forgotten It, and
all the Chaldean wife men had been unable to find
it out ; feeing this happened in the fourth year of Je
hoiakim, Jehoiachin's predeceffor, whtrfe reign ex-
* am, nee hymnumtrium puerorum, nee BeKs DraconMque fabulas,—
' audivi ego quendam de praeceptoribus Judaeorum, cum Sufannae de-
* rideret hiftoriam, et a Graeco nefcio quo eam diceret confiftam, illud
* opponere, quod Origeni quoque Africanus oppofuit, etymologias ha»
* a;r« TV, &c. de Craeco fermose defcendere.'

4eo A VINDICATION 6f P.IlL
tended to eleven years in whole, 2 Kings, xxiu. 3 1 .-
and xxiv. 8.
Though the Greek verfion of Daniel which we
now have be Theodotion's, who is generally aUow
ed to have pubUflied his Greek tranflation of the
Old Teftament, fo late as the reign- of Commodus
the Roman emperor, about the year ofour Lord 192^
there was a more antient Greek verfion of it, as well
as of the other Jewiffi Scriptures. This is evident
from Juftin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eufebi
us, and Jerome, w^ho alfo, in his * preface to his tranf
lation of the book of Daniel, difcovers to us that it
paffed under the name of ' The tranflation according
• to the Seventy,' and bears -witnefs, at the fame time
that he owns his ignorance of the reafon, why the
churches of Chrift did not read it, but Theodotion's,
that it was with juftlee difearded becaufe it varied
much from the original.'
Is it faid, there is no Chaldee paraphrafe of this?
book by Jonathan, as there is ofthe other prophets?
not to Infift from the teftimonies quoted by Biffiop
Chandler, that there was an antient | Targum on-
* Praef. in Daniefem, fub fin. Vulg. vei-f. ' Danielem proj)hetairi
' p'tjff T'o interpretes Dorfiini Salvatoris Ecclefike non legunt, utentes
' Theodotionis verfione, et fioc'cur acciderit nefcio ; — Roc tin'um affir-'
' mare pofliim, quod multuma veritate difcOrd'at, et re^o judicio repu-
' diaius fit.' To the fame purpofe he likewife writes-, iri his commen
tary on Daniel,- cap. 4. ' Judicio magiftrorum ecclefiae editio 70 re-*
• pudiata eft, et Theodotionis vulgo legitur, quae et Hebraeo et cete-
• ris tranflatoribus congruit.' That more antient verfion of Daniel more-'
over had a column allotted toit in Origen-'s Hexapla.
f He fays there is a paflage in the Miflina Traft. ladlm five Dtf
Lotione Manuum, c- 4. feft. 5. which infinuates, that before our Sa-"
Tiour's time, there was a Targum on Daniel. I layit before the reader

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 401
Daniel, though it be now periffied, unlefs it lurk in
fome corner, as that upon the * Chronicles lay con
cealed tUl near the end of the laft century, there was
not the fame need of It as of paraphrafes upon the
other prophets, for the inflrudlon of the Jews, after
they had loft the knowledge of the original Hebrew,
becaufe the greater | part of the book is -written in
the Chaldee language. Accordingly, for the fame
reafon in all probabffity, neither is there any Targum
on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which among
the Jews make one book: yet the authenticity there
of was never on this account difputed. Jonathan
therefore, however he might omit a Chaldee tranfla
tion of Daniel's book, might hold it notwithftanding
in high refped and | efteem.
as it is tranflated in Surenhufius's edition of the Miflina, and leave
its force to his confideration, ' Targum in Ezram et Danielem non
' polluit manus. Targum Hebraice fcriptum et contra, ut et Scrip-
' tura Hebraice, noh polluunt manus. Sed nunquam polluunt, nifi
' Aflyriace fcripfimus in pelle, et cum atramento.' Bartenora explains
' Targum Hebraice fcriptum, Targum in Danielem et Ezram.'
* It was firft publiftied by Becke, at Augft>urgh in Germany, 1 680,
and 1683.
X This Jerome obferved long ago, both concerning the books of
Daniel and Ezra, Praefat. in Daniel, ubi fupra, ' Sciendum quoque
'eft Danielem maxirae et Efdram Hebraicis quidem literis, fed Chal-
' daeo fermone confcriptos.' And would any know what he compre
hended under the title of Ezra's book, he may be foon gratified : for in
his preface to Efdras and Nehemiah he writes thus, after faying he had
been follicited to tranflate into Greek the book of Efdras, ' Nee quen-
' quam moveat quod unus a nobis liber editus eft, quia et apud Hebrae-
* os Efdrae Nehemiaeque fermones in unum volumen coarftantur."
X Suitably, he, in different places of his paraphrafes on the pro
phets, ufes undeniably the terms, phrafes, and ideas of Daniel for ex-
C c

4Q2 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
As for thefef names of mufical inftruments In this
book, chap. ill. yer. 5, 10, which are fuppofed to
be derived from the Greek, and made an argument
that it was not written tUl after the time of Alexan
der, when the Greek empire prevailed; it is doubt
ful ftill, whether they had this original, whatever
likenefs or fimUitude of found tfiere may be between
them and fome Greek vocables : the more that the
Greeks J themfelves are faid to have learned mufic
from the eaftern nations. But fuppofing thefe feW
words with a Chaldean termination to have a Greek
etymology, on account of the invention or improve
ment of the mufical inftruments which they are
ufed to defcribe, by fome Greek or Greeks, what
force can there be herein to difprove the genuinenefs
©f the book of Daniel, againft fuch pofitive evidence for
it ? Such foreign names might very well have made
their yi^ay intp the Babylonian and Perfian courts,
in reprefenting the manners of which they only oc
cur, through fuch intercourfe and correfpondence
as appears to have been between the Greek and eaft
ern nations, even § before Alexander's time.
plaining their fenfe, as on Habak. iii. 17. ifai. xi. 4. Amos, ix. 8.
f The names of all the mufical ipftruments mentioned there are,
Kama, Maftirokitha, Kitheros, Saccheba, Pefantherin, SUmphonia,
or, as it is in the tenth verfe, Sipphonia.
X Strabo, in his Geography, lib. 4-. p 471. fays, ' Some mufi-
cal'inftruments have barbarous names, as Na^\a, SctjuQvxn, BapSiTo;
' and many others ;' and fpeaks of KiBufa (the harp,) as of Afiatic
invention, quoting in proof hereof a hne from one of Euripides's plays.
Now two of thefe very inftruments, in which he inftances, occur here,
according to the Greek verfion, I mean KiSafo. and ^a/tSuxn.
§ Herodotus, lib. 2 p. i 49. Edit. Stephan. tells us that theGreeks
learned from the Babylonians the ttoko; and ytafiiay,- the dial and
I

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 493
Is It urged, there was no fuch writer before the time
pf Jefus, the author of the apocryphal book of Ec
clefiafticus, who yet lived a confiderable time after the
|-eturn of the Jews from captivity in Babylon, be
caufe he omits him In his enumeration, when he
fays, * Let us now praife famous men, and our fa-
' thers that begat us,' xliv. i.? Befides, that this
would prove too much, even that there had been
no fuch wife and holy man as Daniel In the age of
the captivity, in oppofition to Ezeklel's moft exprefs
teftimony to his eminent reputation, fince the au
thor does not propofe to confine his catalogue of
them whom he would extol to thofe that were
writers, but to extend it to all famous anceftors
¦without fuch reftridlon ; befides this, I fay, it Is e-
vident no conclufion againft Daniel's living and
writing in a paft age can be reafonably buUt upon
his filence at all, fince Abel, Ezra, and others, Uke
wife lUuftrious in a former period, are paffed over
by him, as may be feen by every one who pleafes
to examine his detail ; on what account, we cannot
pretend to fay.
Hath the clearnefs of < the prophecies In Daniel's
book been improved as a prefumption, that the book
was written after the events had happened which It
pretended to foreteU ? How ftrange a cavU is this !
Not to mention that fome of them reach beyond the
times f of Epiphanes, may not prophecies be clearer
flyle, which with its ftiadow pointeth the hours, and the twelve parts of
the day, in the reign of Sefoftris, who by many is made the Shifak of
Scripture, as we faw above, part 2. feft. 21. page 315. but by fome
is placed far earlier.
t As to Porphyry's pretence for concluding that the writer lived
C C 2

404 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
according to the pleafure of God, to whom all fu
turities more near and more diftant are manifeft^
vrithout miniftring any ground of fufpicion, by the
more abundant fulnefs of light which Is in them,
that they are forgeries after the events have hap
pened? And are there not predidions as plain, yea'
more plain and explicite, in other books of the Old
Teftament, as in particular, Ifaiah, xxxvU. 26,-36.
xliv. 24 — 28. xiv. I — 15. Jerem. xxv. 8. xxvU-
i — 22. whofe genuinenefs notwithftanding was ne
ver on this account queftioned ?
Finally, as to the argument which hath been
raifed from Daniel, xii. i 3. where the angel fays to
Daniel, ' Go thou thy way till the end, for thou
' ffialt reft and ftand in thy lot at the end ofthe days,*
which words have been interpreted to contain an af
furance, that he ffiould fee the end of Antiochus's
defolations,andbeen hereon brought to prove, that the
real author of the book lived about that time ; 1 an
fwer, this Is not the true fenfe of the words. It is In
deed very unreafonable to put this fenfe upon them;
for it Is to make the -writer weakly blunder at the
clofe of his book, after carrying on an impofture with
dexterity through the whole, or inconfiderately be
tray his true age in the laft verfe, after paffing him
felf very artfully through more than 3 00 verfes that
in Antiochus's reign, tbat fucceeding events were falfely defcribed in
thefe prophecies which related to them, while occurences previous to
It were juftly reprefented, there is no foundation for it; the charge
was owing to his own mifinterpretation ofthe prediftions which regard
ed things that followed that epocha: tiefe have alfo been verified in
their real and juft meaning, as may be feen in Jerome, Sir Ifaac New
ton, and others.

P,IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 405
preceded, as contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar,
Belffiazzar, and Darius, when from the acceffion of
the firft of them to the throne, tiU the deliverance
ofthe Jews from Antiochus's oppreffion, there was
no ffiorter an interval than the fpace of 440 years,
which is a ffip againft all probability, — And as It
is unreafonable to expound the words thus, fo It is
no way neceffary. They may be a call to him to fi
niffi his prophecy with a comfortable affurance that
he ffiould reft in his grave tUl the period of time, and
then rife to the enjoyment of a celeftlal inheritance,
as Theodotion * feems to have underftood them ; or
they may be an admonition to him to be eafy, in
ftead of anxious and dejeded on his own account,
fince he would come to the end of his life In the
fruition of the prefent honour and dignity which he
held ; fo Yp Ketz is ufed for the end of life, Pf. xxxix.
4. Job, vi, II, and '7~)J Garal, is put for that lot
or portion of worldly happinefs which is affigned
to a man by the providence of God, Pf. xvi, 5. and
this Interpretation Is very agreeable to the reft of
the book, in which It is intimated over and over,
that his vifions related not to events at hand, but
to events remote In time, and at a confiderable dif
tance, X. I. 14, &c.
There is then no weight in the objedions which
are taken from the book itfelf, to overthrow the di
red evidence which there is for Its being a work of
Daniel the captive ; they are all capable of a fair and
fatisfadory folution,- nay many of them appear idle
* Theodotion's tranflation is, Ka/ cm tio^o, k«/ ayaTra\iv' in yap
»/ispai x«/ apof et; ayaTKn^aciy cuyriKeta;, xoj ayavnTn et; ror XKify
fOY trv eti (TvyriKeieiy njmiur,
Cc 3

4o6 A VINDICATION OF P. HI,
andf frivolous. Moreover the language Is far more
pure In it than in Onkelos's Targum, as this again
is more corred than that of fome later Targums,
which is an evidence of the much greater antiquity
of Daniel's book than of that compofition, though
it be looked upon as written about Chrift's tlmc-^^
The charaders of the princes mentioned in this book,
agree very well with the accounts of them In other
hiftorians about the fame era. — The fymbolical re
prefentations given therein of kingdoms and ftates,
are fuch as are to be met with in the other prophets,
and particularly in thofe who lived about the Baby-
ioniffi captivity, as may be feen by comparing Ezek.
i, 15, xxiv. 3. Jerem. xviU, 4. Zechariah, chap. iv.
V, vi. &c. — There does not, in fine, appear any In
tention In the writer, as might have been expeded
in a cheat and deceiver, either to raife his own glory,
or that of his nation : for he afcribes his extraordina
ry knowledge to God, who is the revealerof fecrets,
and reprefents his own and his people's fins as thi
caufes of the hardffiips they had fuffered, Dan. iL
18, 23, 28, 29, 30, and ix, 4 — 14, We may
therefore upon the whole be fure, that the book of
Daniel is genuine, and with confidence look upon
it as another of Mr, Voltaire's falfe affertions, ' that
' the book was forged after the events which it pre-
* tended to foretell;' but how important is it that
this ffiould be made manifeft ! The authenticity of
¦j- Whoever would examine the matter.more fully, may confultHu-
etii Demonftr. Evangellca, Prop. 4. De Danielis prophetia, feft. 11.
&c. and the writings of the two learned Chandlers upon this fubjeft
againft Collins, the one the bifliop of Coventry artd Litchfield, ind thS
other the famous diflenting minifter lately deceafed.

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 407
the book being afcertained, the prophecies which it
contains afford moft aftoniffiing proofs of God's exad
foreknowledge of the changes and revolutions which
arrive in the poUtical and moral world, and confti
tute a very ftriking and convidive part of the evi
dence for God's having made fupernatural and ex
traordinaiy difcoveries of his fcheines unto the Jew
iffi people. Upon it, accordingly, the attacks ofthe
enemies of feUgiori, both In antient and moderrt
times, have been more vituleht.
SECTION in.
Of his caUing in the fame work our book of Job an
Hebrew tjrahflation Of an Ai-aWc orlglnil, and de
nying it to be a Je-wiffi book.
IN the forty-eighth chapter of the fame PhUofophy
of Hiftory he writes thus, ' Job Is reprefented * as an
^ Arabian paftor, living upon the confines of Perfia.
' V^e have already obferved, that the Arabian words
' retained irt the Hebre\V tranflation of this antient
* allegory, evince that the book was firft written by
* the Arabians.' He refers no doubt to chapter fe
venth of that treatife, where he affirms without any
hefitation, ' The allegory of Job f -vVas certainly wrote
' in Arabic ; as the Hebrew and Greek vferfions have
* retained feveral Arabic terms.' And he alludes, I
fuppofe, to both paffages a little do-wn-wards, when
he fays, ' The allegory of Job, f which we have fpoken
* of. Is not a jewiffi book.' But is all this right ? 1
apprehend, not.
* Page 231. t Page 2 y, X Page 236.
Cc 4

4o8 A VINDICATION OF P. UI.
That Job was not a fidltious, but a real Perfon.
Mr. Voltaire feems to think Job a fidltious, inftead
of a real perfon ; by confequence, his affluence, his
integrity, his loffes, his difeafe, his fubmlffion, the
reftoratlon of his health, the recovery of his fortune
with improvement, the renewal of the fame num
ber of fons and daughters to him with that which
had been taken away in the beginning of his cala
mities, as well as the dialogues between him and his
friends, and other incidents, wholly invented for
conveying fome moral Inftrudions, Nor is he fingu
lar in this opinion; for fome learned men, both *
Jews and Chriftians, f have entertained it. N everthe-
lefs it appears moft probable, if I can judge, that he
was not an imaginary, but a real perfon, who pof
feffed fuch eminent virtue and fuperior riches, who
was vlfited with fuch fignal death of chUdren, and
ruin of fubftance, and grievous malady, who ffiew-
* Even Maimonides feems to have embraced this notion, at leaft
to have had a propenfity and biafs toward it ; for he fays, Moreh Ne
bochim, part ?. cap 22. ' Nofti quofdem efle qui dicunt, Jobum
* nunquam fuifle neque creatum efle ; fed hiftoriam illius nihil aliud ef-
* fe quam Parabolam.' And he afterwards obferves, that their inabili
ty, who contend his book is a true hiftory, to fix the time in which he
lived, fome making him contemporary with the Patriarchs, fome with
Mofes, fome with David, and fome with the wife men of Babylon,
confirms this opinion, that he never really exifted. — ' Quae incertitu-
' do fententiam illorum confirmet, qui dicunt ilium nee fuifle nee crea-
• tum efle.' Then he goes on. ' Sive autem revera fuerit, five non fu-
' erit, &c,'
f It was a prevailing notion among the Anabaptifts in laft age,
and bath been adopted by Salmafius and Le Clerc.

P,IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 409
ed fuch uncommon patience and refignation amidft
unparallel'd calamities, till he was hurried into fome
indecent complaints by the length of their continu
ance, and the reproaches of his friends, from whom
he expeded the moft tender fympathy and condo
lence, and who enjoyed fuch extraordinary profperi
ty in his latter end, as we read of in the book which
takes its appellation from him.
This fuppofition Is favoured by the more particu
lar and diftind account of his name, country, cha
rader and circumftances, than Is to be found of a
perfon in paraboUcal relations or apologues for prac
tical purpofes, as every one will be fenfible by com
paring fuch both in the Old and New Teftament.
2 Sam. xU. I. and xiv. 5. Luke x. 30. xU. 16, &c.
For how. great an air hath the book hereby of relat
ing not feigned, but adual events and tranfadions ?
whateyer neceffity there may be to admit decoration
and poUffilng in the difcourfes of the interlocutors :
fince It cannot be thought that any perfons would
fpeak in a manner fo elaborate and harmonic extem-
poraneoufly, and without premeditation; far lefs
that Job would talk in fuch fublime and meafured
ftile fo long when he had made no preparation for it,
and, far from being at eafe, was burdened with hea-
¦vy and ffiarp afflidion. — Yet the fame opinion which
naturally arifes in the mind from a furvey of the
piece itfelf, Is exceedingly ftrengthened by the refe
rences that are made to him as a real perfon in fcrip
ture. For God himfelf, In the prophecies of Ezekiel,
mentions him in conjundion with Noah and Daniel,
as a man of fo diftinguiffied righteoufnefs, that it
might be thought he would fave the land from fa-

4IO A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
mine, fword, noifome beaft and peftUence, out of re
gard to him and to them, notwithftanding its ge
neral wickednefs and prevaiUng corruption ; and de
clares that hopes buUt on fuch a foundation ffiould
be difappointed, Ezek, xiv, 13. — 21. ' Though thefe
* three men, Noah, Daniel, Job were in it, they
' ffiould deUver but their own fouls by their righted
¦* oufnefs,' Now, why ffiould Job's exiftence b^
queftioned more than that of Noah and Daniel, to
whom he here fucceeds? , Again, the apoftle Jame$
propofes him to Chriftians in a ftate of fuffering, as
a pattern of patience, whom they ffiould imitate, and
of a happy efcape and deliverance from troubles,
¦with the hope of which they ffiould folace them-;
felves, after he hath fet before them the prophets in
general; -v, 16, 11. ' Take, my brethren, the pro-
' phets, who have fpoken In the name of the Lord,
* for an example of fuffering afflidion, and of pa-
* tience. Behold, we count them happy who en-
* dure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and
* have feen the end of the Lord, that the Lord Is ve-
* ry pitiful and of tender mercy.' But hbw Would
the force and energy of the admonition be deftfOyi
ed if Job was a fidltious perfon, and his calttinef^
under diftrefs, and profperity after it, wholly ideal?
Yea, what -writer of any abUities, would have introduc
ed him as a model of patience. If it was merely Ima*-
ginary, after caUIng their attention to the meffengers
of God In former ages, by whom it had been really
exhibited? It appears as abfurd indeed as would be
a father's recommending the chaftity of a PameM,
or other fidltious female, to his daughter's regard,
after reciting that of Lucretia, or any other, whc>

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 411
hath been ennobled by unffiaken conftancy, amidft
the moft preffing and violent temptations to lewd
nefs. After fo high authorities, I need fcarce add, he
is fpoken of by the author of the Apocryphal bbok
of Tobit f as a real perfon, whom God jiermltt'ed td
fall into great diftreffes^ and to be ihflilted by kingsj
that he might ffiew hini to f)ofterity as an example
of patience ; Tobit U. 11.-15. And Uke-wife by A-
riftaeas in his hiftory of the Jews. For, according to
a paffage of It prefervfed by Alexander Polyhiftor, he
fays, he was a dfefceudettt of EfaU by Baffatah his
wife, as we -svUl fee prefently, -\Vith whofe accOurtfc
alfo agrees in fome particulars, the addition to the
book of Job in the Septuagint, We niay therefore
tonfider Job as a rgal, | rather than an aUegbrieal or
fabulous perfort.
X This indeed is only true according to the Latin verfibn there
of. HovCever, Jerome fays he made this froni the Chaldee copy of the
book, in his preface to if. See Vulg. Bibl; fub fin. The words are,
' Gontigit adtem ut ex nido hirimdirium dorinienti illi (Tobiae) calidi
• ftercora inciderent fuper oculos ejus, fietfetque caecus. Hanc auteni
• tentationem ideo permifit Bdminus evenire illi, xH pofteris daretut
* exeftiplum patientiae ejus, fictit et fahfti Job.— — Natiif fitiilt beato Job
' infliltabaht regeS, ita iftr paretiifei et cognati ejus irfidfebint Vitam e-
* jus, &fc;' in the Greek verfion bf the book, afid in the Kngliffi tranf-
latibh of it, iWhich I haie, and tvhich I beheve is that printed in our
Kbles \JrhicH hatfe the Apocrjrpha, there is no meritfon df Job at all.
X The late Dr. Sherloitk, iti the fecond Diflettaitidn annexed to his
book on tropfiefcy, hath formed an argiiment fiif- thfe reality of the
hiftory contained in the book of Jbb, aidd agaiiiffi its being a mere poe
tical fiftiOn, fforfj Jdb xix. 25. which I leave to be pertifed there, if
the reader fliall ititline ; as iis fofce depends iifdn the fuppofition that
that m'ach dif|icrtet} pafl'age feXprefl^S Job's faith ofa refurrfedtioh, whilft
it was afecre't to all his friends. See pages 245, 246. Edit. 6. 
1i"o his being S teal f erfbh, ibme dftjeffions bare been made ; bfat <hey

412 A VINDICATION OF P. III.
Of Job's Country.
When, however, Mr. Voltaire fays ' he is repre-
* fented to have been an Arabian paftor,' 1 have no
difference with him, if by paftor he mean a great
proprietor of cattle. For I alfo think it Ukely the
real Job, who is defcribed to have poffeffed very nu
merous flocks and herds, refided in Arabia. The
land where he dwelt is caUed indeed in fcripture,
the land of Uz, or V^ Gnutz, perhaps from Uz, or
. Gnutz, the firft born fon of Nahor, Abraham's bro-
ther, who fettled here. Gen. xxU. 20, But this
feems to have been the region of Aufitis, * which
was a part of Arabia the Defert, according to the
common acceptation of this name, though accord--
ing tof the addition in the Seventy abovementioned,
appear to me to have little weight in them. Is all explicite mention of
him omitted by the writer to the Hebrews in his catalogue of worthies ?
In like manner, Jofliua, Elijah, Eliftia, Hezekiah, Jofiah, and others
very illuftrious, are pafled over. Is Jofephus filent about him .•" This
ought to create no prejudice againft his exiftence ; for he intended on
ly to comprehend in his hiftory the affairs ofthe Jews, and things con-
nefted with them. But Job was a foreigner, whofe changes and viclf
fitudes of fortune did not affeft their intereft. Thus, in his preface to
his Antiquities, feft. 2. he gives this account of the work. Me^^e^
Jaf TTi^ii^ety aVairac rny Trap n/Uir apx^ioKofiay, xai rny tiara^iY
IV TroKiTiv/jiaro; tx ray E^paixay /ui^ipjunyiuo/Aiyny ffajujuaray,
* This will appear more eafy, when the manner in which the
Greeks exprefled the letter y Hgain or ajin ofthe Hebrews is attend-^
ed to. I have obferved that, in the fecond column of Orlgen's Hexa-.
pla, which reprefented the Hebrew text in Greek charafters, the Hebrew
^¦^ gnal is aK twice over in Genefis i. 2. ibid v. j. 3~!y gnereb is
fjieS, and fo on.
t This addition at the end ofthe Greek verfion of Job (which, fay

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 413
which places Job therein, and according to Ariftae-
as, who gives him f the fame fituation, it was upon
the confines of it. Accordingly we may obferve Te-
rah, ' the father of Nahor, and Abram Uved in that
neigbourhood at Harran, or Harrae, on the oppofite
bank of the Euphrates, Nigh this alfo had the Chal
deans, or Chafdim, the defcendents of Chefed, ano
ther fon of Nahor, Gen. xxU, 2 2, fixed their habita
tion, which agrees well to their being faid to have
carried away Job's camels. Nor were the Sabeans,
who forcibly feized his oxen and affes, far diftant,
provided we do not underftand by them, a people of
this name inhabiting Arabia Felix, as Pf. IxxU, 10.
the riches and frultfulnefs of which country for
bids our thinking It was a neft of perfons who made
incurfions for the fake of booty; but a, people fo de-
the authors of the Univerfal Hiftory, 3. 35®. is to be found alfo at
the end of the Arabic and Vulgate verfions, but is not to be met with
in the vulgate of Sixtus and Clement at all) is pretended, by the writ
er of it, to be a tranflation from ^ Syriac book, ix rn; 'S.vpiaxn; 'BiQkv,
and reprefents ' Job to have lived in the country of Aufiys, on the
' borders of Idumea and Arabia,' fays, ' his name was before, Jobab;
* that he married an .Arabian woman, by whom he begat a fon named
' Ennon; that his father was Zareh, of the fons of Efau, and his mother
• Boflbrah ; fo that he was the fifth from Abraham ; that he reigned in
• the country of Edom ;' (vlfhich account ofbis being a king, was perhapjs
a tale founded on Gen. xxxvi. 33.) and defcribes Eliphaz, Bildad and
Zophar, as kings ofthe Temanites, Zauchaeans and Minaeans, refpec-
tively. f Ariftaeas, as his words are quoted, Eufeb. praep. Evang. lib. 9.
c. 2 J. fays, he was born to Efau by his wife Baflarah, in the country
of Edom, that he dwelt in the territory called Aufitis, on the confines
of Idumea and Arabia, that ihe was formerly named Jobam; tells the
fame ftory ofthe thrfee kings ; and adds, that Elious, the fon of Bara-
chiel the Zobite, alfo came to vifit him in diftrefs.

414 AVINDICATIONOF P. UL
noihlnated from their refidence in Saba, a town of
Arabia the Defert, according to Ptolemy, which
hath been conjedured to have received its appellation
from Sheba, grandfpn of Abraham by Keturah, Gen.
XXV. 3. as It is affirmed his father went from Canaan,
In queft of a new fettiement, into the eaft country.
Gen. xxiU. 6. For this is a common expreffion for
Arabia In fcripture, becaufe it was fituated to the eaft
of Canaan ; whence alfo its inhabitants are called the
chUdren of the eaft. Judges vi, 3. — In this vicinity
^Ifo we may fuppofe we find Job's friends, Elihu the
Bufite, and Eliphaz the Temanite, For Bufitis was
^ territory adjoining, perhaps fo called from Buz,
Nahor's fecond fon. Gen. xxii. 2 i , And Teman, per
haps fo named from Teman, Efau's grandfon. Gen.
xxxyi. II. 15. is mentioned at the fame time with
Buz, Jerem, xxv. 23. as a place contiguous. Nor
need -we be at a lofs about Bildad the Shuhlte, if he
derived this title fron; Shuh, or Shuah, another of
Abraham's chUdren by Keturah, Gen, xxv, 2. fince
he, like his brother, departed alfo eaftward from Ca
naan, that he might fearch out a commodious habi
tation.
"i^hat the hqqh of Job wfl^s written in ./(ra^ic, according
iq j^r, VoltaJKe'sfinfe of the expreffion, is, denied;
But though I agree with Mr. Voltaire, that Job
was an Arabian * paftor, I cannot admit that the
* Som.e, indeed, on the authority of the addition in the 70, and of
the genealogy of Jobab, Gen, xxxvi. 33. i Chron. i. 44. whom they
fuppofe to be the fame with Joli, make him an Idumean, and argue
from Lament, ir. 21 . ' Rejoice and be glad, 0 daughter of Edom, that

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 415
book of Job was written in Arabic. So, indeed, fays
Mr. Voltaure, with whom the Hebrew and Greek
copies of it are equally verfions, becaufe both have
retained feveral Arabic terms. Has he, however, rea
fon on his fide? The celebrated Frederic Spanhelm,
I own, fuppofed that the ground of this book, I, e.
that the fads and difcourfes in it were, as to their
fubftance or material part, firft extant In Arabic;
they having been recorded originally in that tongue,
eitiier by Job himfelf at his leifure, after his reftora
tlon to an eafy and comfortable ftate, for the bene
fit of himfelf and his pofterity; as it hath been ufual
for many religious and good men, fuch as he was,
to keep an account or journal of the moft memo
rable tranfadions of their Uves ; or elfe by one of his
friends, whether Elffiu, or fome other who was a
witnefs to his afflidion, and heard, or bore himfelf
a part in the dialogues holden on that occafion*.
Neverthelefs, he reckoned that the book itfelf, in its
prefent form, was firft written in Hebrew, and almoft
whoUy in Hebrew metre or verfe, upon this Arabic
groundwork, by fome Jewiffi prophet in the land of
Canaan, (wherefore he fays. Job, the Arabian, is fit
ly denominated by him there, one of the chUdren of
• dwelleft in the land of Uz.' But allowing this to be a right verfion, it
will only prove, that in Jeremiah's time, the Edomites were become
mafters of the land of Uz, not that it was their original and ancient
abode. Bochart, however, will have the Und of U?, in Lamentations,
but another name for Idumea, and fancies it got this appellation from
I/z, a defcendept of Efau, pen, xxpi. 28. The aqthors of the An-
qent Univerfal Hiftory, appear to haye thought Job an Idumaean,
2. 170. and 3. 3;o. though he, a3 will afterwards be obferved, did
not. See Boch. Phaleg. lib 2. cap. 8.
* See Spanhemii Hiftoria Jobi. cap. 1^.

4i6 THE SACRED BOOKS. P.IIL
the eaft,) and that it was committed by him to the
cuftody of the Jewiffi church, lUce thofe other anti
ent oracles which compofe the old Teftament. And in
the fame manner may fome others have judged, tho'
all who have approved his leading fentiment, may
not have agreed with him in every notion about the
time or author of the piece. This fcheme, however,
is not at all our author's, otherwife the parag a )h
quoted from him, might have been allowed to pafs
without reprehenfion. For he fays, without diltin-
guifhlng between the book In its iivitftamina or ele
ments, and In Its now finlffied and perfed ffiape;
that it was -written originally in Arabic; that the
Hebrew copy Is as much a verfion as the Greek co
py; and is pofitive that it is not a Jewiffi book, as
we faw before * he was for excluding it from the
writings of the Hebrew canon. And what is the
great argument upon which he founds this Important
conclufion, and by which he would perfwade us of
its Indubitable certainty? It is no more than that
fome Arabic terms are retained in it; an argument
which is by no means fufficient to juftify the affer
tion, and to make us profelytes to his opinion. Ne
verthelefs, that we may ffiew the weaknefs and fu
tUIty of it the more fully, it vrill be requifite to con*
fider the age in which Job Uved.
Of the age in whicb Job lived.
Now, as to the age of Job, he feems to have! lived
in a pretty early period. Some Indeed have fuppofed
him to have lived about the time of the Babylonllfh-
• Part I. feft. 6. page 30, 3.1.

P,in. THE SACRED BOOKS. 417
captivity, becaufe he is mentioned by God himfelf,
in Ezeklel's prophecy; two different times after Da
niel, who was one of the Jewiffi prifoners whom Ne
buchadnezzar carried away in Jeholakim's time; as
this Daniel again, is likewife mentioned twlccj ac
cording to the real order of his birth, after Noah,
chap, xiv, 14, 20, But fpecious as this plea Is * at
firft view, it hath Uttle force in it. For the order ob
ferved In enumerating perfons in fcripture, fo often
varies from that which the time of their nativity In
to the world required, that no conclufion can be
drawn from preference of recital, to preference or
precedence of living. Thus, Gen.vi. id, Noah is
faid to have begot three fons, Shem, Ham and Ja
phet, But were they born into the world in the or
der In >Vhich they ftand In this catalogue? No, For
Ham was his youngeft fon, and Japhet the eldeft.
Gen, ix. 24. x. 21. Again we are told, ' Terah liv-
' ed feventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor and Ha-
' ran,' Gen. xi. 2 7 * But was Abraham oldet- than
thefe two brothers in the Uft ? Far otherwife. For the
iacred hiftorian is exprefs, that he was only feventy-
five years old at his removal from Charrart, after his
* See ibid, page 32. Where, however, hath beeh, through inad
vertence, an omiifion of a ftiort claufe, which the tenor of the reafon
lng required, and even the truth of the faft did claim. For, though
Grotius, Codurcns, and the learned bifliop of Gloucefter were of opi
nion, that the book of Job was written about the age of the captivity,
not they, but others imagined Job lived but a little before that event, —
The fentence fliould have run, both to compleat the argument, and to
be agreeable to faft, afte-r mentioning the judgment of thefe perfons a-
bout the date ofthe book of Job, as follows, ' And might fancy that
* Job lived when tbat calamity was at no great diftance, as fome others
' have thought, among whofe arguments, &c.'
D d

4i8 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
father Terah's death ; though this happened not tUl
he was two hundred and five years old, or had fur-
vlved the 7 ath year of his life, in which he is here
faid to have begot thefe fons, one hundred and thir
ty-five years. Abraham * muft therefore have been
younger than the reft, and not born till Terah was
much more advanced In age. Once more ; is not Mo
fes often mentioned before Aaron, in the hiftory of
/their atchievements? Exod. iv, 29, v. i, &c. Yet
Aaron was fenior, as is evident from comparing
Num. xxxiU, 38, 39. and Deut. xxxiv. 5, — 7. In
like manner then. Job might be of a far fuperior age
to Daniel, though poftponed to him in Ezeklel's
-catalogue ; and he might be mentioned laft for
* It muft be allowed, the hiftorian never intended to point out
Abraham as Terah's eldeft fon, by placing him firft in the lift of thofe
whom he begat when he was 70 years old, unlefs we will be fo un
reafonable as to make him a perfon fo deftitute of all underftanding and
attention, as, within the compafs of a few lines, to give accounts firft
¦of the feafon of life when Terah begat Abraham, and ofthe length of
his years when he died, and then of Abraham's age at this laft event,
which are obvioufly and plainly incompatible with one another. Befides,
the hiftory itfelf leads us to believe, that Haran, though laft mention
ed among Terah's fons, like Japhet among Noah's, was the firft born,
inftead of Abraham. For we are exprefsly told, Nahor, Abraham's
brother, married his daughter Milcah ; as ifcah, bis other daughter, is
'thought to be the Sarai whom Abraham took ; wherefore, Jonathan
adds, in his Targum on Gen, xii. 29. ' The fame ifcah is Sarai.' and
Jofephus calls Sarai, in one place, Haran's daughter; in another,
Abram's niece; in another, the fifter of Lot, his brother Haran's fon.
Antiq 1 . 6, 5. and 7 i. Now this being the cafe, all Voltaire's ri
dicule, founded on reprefenting Abram 135 years old at Terah, or
Tharaeus's death, inthe i 6th chapter of his Philofophy of Hiftory, page
74. falls to the ground. On which account, I have dwelt longer on
this example. I

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 419
his tranfcendent piety gnd virtue, or becaufe he
was npt of the feed of Jacob, as Daniel was. But
though fome have fuppofed Job fo late as the capti
vity. It Is not the general fenfe of thofe who have
accounted him a real perfon, nor even of thole,
which is remarkable, who have made the book it
felf the compofition of an age confiderably pofterlor
to that in which he lived. Much the greater part of
fueh have placed him before the exodus, or the de
parture of the children of Ifrael from Egypt. And this
Opinion they think ftrongly favoured by many things
in the book itfelf; for inftance, the inventory of his
wealth, which is defcribed to confift in multitudes of
«attle of various kinds, like Abraham's, Lot's, Ifaac's,
Laban's, Efau's and Jacob's; — The refemblance be
tween his facrifices and the patriarchal ones, Gen.xU.
7. 8. xIU. 18, xxU, 3. &c; — And there being no
mention of any kind pf idolatry in It, except the wor
ffiip ,of the fun, and moon, and ftars, that is, of the
idolatry which was more antient than any other, Job,
xxxi. 26, 27, 28. They remark alfo, with the fame
view, the omiffion of the method of God's declar
ing his wUl to Mofes, when Elihu enumerates the dif
ferent -^ays by which he was accuftomed to difcover'
himfelf to men, xxxUi. 14, 15. and many of them at
Ieaft,the entire J filence which is obferved by thefpeak-
X \ e-xprefs myfelf thus, becaufe it is not the opinion of all who
ylace Job before the Exodus, that there is no reference or allufion to
thefe w.onders, and to the Jewifti law and hiftory after them. For the
learned Dr. Warburton and Mr. Heath &c. fuppofe fome touches at
fijch things, whereby the writer ofthe book, whom they make of an
age far pofterlor to Job, violated the ftrift rules of decorum, whicli
fliould h^re been obferved to the critical perfedlon of his piece, and
D d 2

420 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
kers about the miracles in Egypt and at the Red fea,
how pertinent foever they were to be urged, forffiew-
betrayed, like fome of the greateft mafters in dramatic writing, his own
real time and country. However, many ofthe advocates for Job's fu
perior antiquity, perhaps the greateft number" of them, have thought,
there is not any allufion in the dialogue to any event abont or after the
departure from Egypt, or to any ftatute of the Mofaic code. — Nor,
if I may prefume to give my fentiments upon this fubjeft, am 1 fatisfi
ed there is. In general, it is unreafonable, unlefs we are compelled by
clear evidence, to fuppofe the author puts into the mouths ofthe fpeak
ers whom he introduces, thoughts unfuitable to the time in which they
lived, and the more fldlful and exaft he appears to be in that fort of
writing, it is in proportion more unreafonable ; what then muft be faid,
when the author of this book, who is allowed to be on the whole
very cautious that his interlocutors talk in a way agreeable to their re
al circumftances and age, is reprefented at other times, to make them
deviate from the notions and language thereof, in a manner the moft pal
pable and grofs, and eafily detefted ; yea to do fo with a frequency far
beyond what any other writer inftrufted in the nature of fuch com
pofition, can be charged with even in a work of greater length ? This
confideration itfelf muft incline me to think there are not fo many
improprieties here as are fuppofed.—- -As to the inftances that are poin
ted out, it would fwell this note too much to examine them all. I wiH
therefore only take notice of fome which have been regarded as more
decifive. Thus the parting of the Red fea, and the deftruftion of Pha
raoh, have been faid to be referred to, where Job fays xxvi. 1 2. ' He
' divideth the fea with hfs power, and by his underftanding he fmiteth
'' through the proud ;' for, fay they, this laft word Qfn Rahhab,
is put to fignify, the king of Egypt, or that country itfelf. But is this
tranflation of the firft claufe, and expofition of the fecond at all cer
tain i While fome turn the former period, ' he ftilleth, fmootheth,
' or calmeth tlie fea by his ftrength,' for which we may compare the
ufe of the verb yj~l ragang in Hiphil, Ifai. xxxi. 2. xxxiv. 14.
xlvii. 6. li. 4. Jerem; 1 34. Deut. xxviii. 65 and obferve that
they have the concurrence of the 70 with them, \is-^t xamrami tdc
%at^ai!<sa.y ; others, as Mercer, Schultens, Taylor, underftand it of
his raifing, agitating, and tofling the fea, in whieh way they alfo- in*

P.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 421
ing God's readinefs to execute vengeance on the wic
ked, and to refcue thegoodfrom oppreffion, and about
terpret JJJ"! ragang, Ifai. li. 13. Jerem. xxxi. 35. as they do the
fame word Job, vii. 6. of the beating or throbbing of a bile ; The
latter claufe again, of God's fmiting the proud, as the fame word 3m
rahhabii rendered Pror, xxviii. 2 j, Pf, ci. f . Prov. xxi. 4, but is turn
ed often elfewhere the large, the broad, they explain of God's fubduing
the fwelling billows, or ofbis fubduing the fea-monfters formidable by
bulk or fize : and as this glofs agrees to Pf. Ixxxix. i o. fo it is that ofthe
70. ETTi^njun Ti iTparo] ro xnro;, and feems countenanced by Pf,
Ixxiv. II. Ifai. xxvii. i, Befides from the very tenor of the chap
ter, there feems to be only a recital of God's general operations in the
courfe of his providence defigned, and not the mention of any fingular
interpofition.  Again, it hath been faid, there is an allufion to the
Jewifti law by which idolatry was puniftied with death, Job, xxxi. 26,
$8. but, though it fliould be admitted, that this paflTage relates to the
idolatrous worfliip of the fun and moon, as it is indeed the literal and
obvious fenfe of the words, and not to the covetoufnefs of gold and
filver, or to the adulation ofthe great and powerful, one or other of
which figurative explications the celebrated Schultens prefers, furely
any worfliipper of the true God, however unacquainted with any con
ftitution or fyftem of laws which made idolatry punifliable with death
by the civil magiftrate, might be reprefented, without any trefpafs againfl:
the ftrift decorum of his age, to fay that it was ' An iniq^uity of arbi-
' trators or judges,' Compare Deuteron. xxxii. 31. an iniquity defer-
ving punifliment from them I and indeed it muft have drawn fome pu
nifliment after it in the families of Abraham and Jacob, and other pious
perfons, unlefs we will fay they fuffered the breach of their own com
mands to keep the way ofthe Lord, and to put away ftrange gods. Gen.
xviii, 1 9. xxxv. 2 . to pafs with impunity, inftead of making the difobedi
ent fmart for it, for their own reformation, and the prevention of the
crime in others . I forbear to mention that fome underftand the word in the
fingular number, and fuppofe the all-difcerning judge in heaven to be
here meant. — As to Job xxi. 19. again, where Job fayeth, ' God
' layeth up his (the wicked man's,) iniquity for his children,' what is
there here to oblige us to think, there is a refpeft to God's threatening
t»y Mofes, that he would rifit the iniquities of the fathers upon the chili
Dd 3

422 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
foUo-wing difpenfations of providence towards the I-
fraeUtes, whatever allufions may be to previous fcrip-
dren, fince it hath been believed by the heathens from the moft antient
times, that it was not unufual for divine vengeance to purfue children
for the crimes of their parents ? See Plutarch De feravindifta Numinis,
and Aelian Var, Hiftor. 3. 43. as Cicero fays, it was alfo the me
thod of human governments from the eariieft ages, to fubjeft children
to evils for the faults of their parents, that parents, from that afl^efti-
on which made them unwilling they ftiould fuffer, might be engaged
to behave better; Cicer. Epift. liber fingul. ad Brutum epift. 11. and
1 5 . — In like manner, it hath been thought, there was a clear allufi
on to the law of Mofes, when thefe faults are charged againft Job, ' of
* taking a pledge from his brother for nought,, and ftripping the naked
' of their cloathing,' as the greateft enormities. Job, xxii. 6. and
xxiv. 7, 9, 10. But does not every one fee with what propriety fuch
account might be made of thefe crimes, where was no acquaintance
with the prohibition, Deut. xxiv. 10 — i 3 ? the more that this does
not guard againft taking the raiment of the poor as a pledge for the
payment of a loan, but only againft its detention over-night, whichis
not here diftinftly mentioned. — Once more it hath been aflerted, there
is a moft inconteftible allufion to God's fpecial providence over the
land of Judea as his own land, in thefe words of Elihu, where fpeak
ing ofthe clouds of rain, our tranflation has it, (as the 70) ' He
* caufeth it to come, whether for correftion, or for his land, or fot
• many,' xxxvii 13. the meaning of which is explained to be, ' He
* bringeth it at fuch junftures, and in fuch excefs, as to caufe dearth,
' (for correftion,) or fo timely and moderately as to caufe plenty, (fot
' mercy,) or laftly fo tempered in a long continued courfe, as to pro-'
' tluce that fertility of foil, which was to make one ofthe bleflings of
' the promifed land, (for his land,) a providence as diftinft from the
' other two, of correftion and mercy, as the genus is from thejpecies,'
But though I acknowledge, that the land of Canaan might be ftiled
God's land, by way of eminence, as it is Joel, ii, i 8. Ezek. xxxvi.
20. Pf. X. 16. fince God himfelf Called it. My land, Jerem. ii. f.
xvi. 18. Ezek. xxxvi. j. xxxviii. 6. Joel, i. 6. it does not follow, that
this was here intended. The word we turn land, tho' it fignify often a
particular country, fignifies alfo the earth in general ; and the earth

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 423
turalf fads, which might have been learned by tra
dition — Above aU, they urge Job's great longevity
or length of days ; for he is faid to have lived 1 40
years, after recovering his profperous ftate with adr
vantage, though he could not be lefs than fifty | or
might very well be denominated his, as it is Prov. viii, 3 1 . ' I was re-
' joicing,' fays Wifdom, ' in the habitable part ofbis (God's) earth,'
with which compare Pf. xxiv. i . Now, thtis there will refult a very,
good fenfe, and a fenfe againft which there will not lie the objeftion.
of fuppofing the greateft benefit or advantage placed in the middle ;
• He fends it either unfeafonably and immoderately, (for correftion,)
' or for the neceffity of his eanh, to fupply what the common courfe
of nature requires, to produce the ordinary increafe for fuftenance
of man and beaft, (for his earth,) or for caufing extraordinary plenty
' and abundance, (for mercy or liberality,)' as indeed the word "IDD
hhefed often denotes peculiar and unufual favour ; but I muft defift.
In other inftances which are brought of fuch indecorums in Job and;
the other fpeakers, while they are admitted to have been prior to Mo
fes, a reader's own fagacity will fliew him that they do not carry con-
Mftion with them.
f Such are reckoned to be to the hiftory ofthe fall, Job, xii. 1 6.
xxvi. 13. to the deftruftion of Sodom, Job, xx. 23, 26. xxxi. 33.
See of others Dr. Sherlock's lecond. Diflertation after his book on
prophecy. X A learned perfon hath reprefented Job to reproach his three-
friends as younger than himfelf, and hath obferved, as their being fo
young is contrary to Elihu's account that they had gray hairs, wliich
awed him long to keep reljjeftful filence, xxxii. 6, 7, 9. and to E-
liphaz's aflertion, xv. 10. there cannot be any truth in the hiftory,
but all muft be a fiftion, Vid. Joan. David. Michaelis Not. ad Lowth
Praeleft. 33. p. 179. But for this there is no foundation, though
indeed many have fuppofed Job's words, xxx. i. to have been level
led againft them as welt as he. It is unreafonable fo to interpret his
words, when he is fuppofed not to be more advanced than in the text ;
he muft mean, perfons younger than himfelf among the loweft of the
people derided him ; for he add^, their fathers did not appear to hira
Dd 4

424 A VINDICATION OF P.m.
fixty years old at the arrival ofbis calamities. By con
fequence, he muft have Uved two hundred years or
thereabouts, which is a meafure of life more agree
able to the times of the poftdiluvian patriarchs, than
to thofe which fucceeded ; and indeed, even in the
age of the later patriarchs after the flood, needed a
peculiar bleffing of heaven to fecure it: for Abraham
only Uved 175 years, Jacob only 147, Jofeph only
IIO, Levi only 137, and Mofes only 120, So far
back have moft removed Job's age, even -(- of them
who look upon the book which takes Its denomina
tion from him, as a far later produdion. Nor have
fome others among them, who have not raifed him
worthytobejoined to his fliepherd dogs; and indeed it is incredible that
a rich and illuftrious perfon as Job was, would have chofen men of fo
low and mean extraftion to be his friends.
f Thus Spanheim, who, after Jerome and Bochart, fuppofes Job a
defcendent from Nahor, Abraham's brother, in the country of Aufitis,
makes the hiftory of Job to have happened before the ifraelites left
Egypt, though he thinks the book was written by a Jewifti prophet
about the times of David or Solomon. So does Carpzovius, Introduft.
ad libros V. T. poeticos, though he fancies the prophet bamuel was
the perfon who prefixed to the book of Job the two firft chapters,
and alfo added the laft, at leaft part of it. Mr. Heath, after Bp, Uftier,
places Job's exit fourteen years before the Ifraelites left Egypt, though
he thinks the book was written during or after the captivity. The learn
ed Dr Warburton proceeds upon the fuppofition, that Job was more
antient than the Mofaic oeconomy and difpenfation, though, rejefting
their opinions who date the book either a little before, or during the
continuance of this diftrefs, he reckons it was written by Ezra himfelf,
.fometime between the return of the Jews from Babylon, and their
thorough fettiement in their own country Finally, Mr. Coftard, of
Wadham college, while he imagines the book as recent a work as the
age of the captivity, makes Job contemporary in the race of Nahor
even with Ifaac.

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 425
to fo high antiquity, brought him down J much low
er: after which I need fcarce obferve, that § they have
X Thus Grotius, who regards the book of Job as written for the
confolation of Efau's defcendents, when they were carried captive by
the Babylonians, and who urges in behalf of this date, that many ex
preffions are borrowed from the book of Pfalms, as Job, xxi. 2 1, 24.
from Pf. cvii. 40. Job, v, i 6. and xxii. 1 9. from Pf cvii. 42. Job,
V. 18. from Pf. cxivii. 3. (as if it could not be anfwered, that Da
vid rather borrowed from Job's book, fuppofing fuch a coincidence of
thought and phrafe between two facred writers, could not happen
without borrowing on either fide,) makes the events related in the
book to have happened while the Ifraelites fojourned in the defert.
§ Neverthelefs I fliall mention fome of them, that it may appear
what a concurrence there is about the great antiquity of Job himfelf.
The famous Albert Schultens, who makes him a defcendent of Abra
ham by Keturah, whofe fons and grandfons for the greater part fixed
their feats in Arabia Deferta, fuppofes Abraham was his grandfather,
or great-grandfather, as may be found by his preface to his Comment.
on the book of Job. So too Carpzovius, who makes the reft of the
book a work of Mofes's age. So alfo Huetius, Jo. Hen. Michaelis,
and, to name no more foreigners, the author ofthe Obfervationes Mif-
ceUaneae, publiftied at Amfterdam 1756, place Job before Mofes. In
the fame manner among ourfelves, Bilhops Patrick, Sherlock, and
Lowth, Dr. Taylor, Dr. Kennicot, who, if I miftake not, makes him
a fon of Efau, and tbe writers ofthe Antient Univ. Hiftory, who, al
though they make him a more remote defcendent of Efau, ftill fuppofe
him to have feen an end of all his fufferings before Mofes left the land
of Midian, the four generations on Efau's fide having been ffiorter than
thofe on Jacob's. In giving this high antiquity to Job, the Chriftian fa
thers had led the way, for Origen exprefsly calls him more antient than
Mofes, adverf. Celf. lib. 6. p. 305. Eufebius pronounces, Dem. Evan.
lib. I . cap. 6. p. 1 4. that he was two complete ages before Mofes,
being the fifth from Abraham, whereas Mofes was the feventh ; yea,
he introduces him inhis catalogue of God's favourites before Jofeph,
while at the fame time he denies him to be of Jewifti race, Praep. Ev,
lib. 7. c. 8. p. 300. as indeed Leontius, a writer about the year
600, tells us fome fuppofed Jofeph the author of tbe book of Job,

426 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
placed him at that great diftance from us with one
confent, who have dated the compofition of the piece
about Mofes's time, however they have differed in fen
timent, firft about his parentage, whether he was
fprung from Nahor or from Abraham, and if from
him, whether by Keturah, or by Hagar, or by Sarah
in the Une of Efau ; and then about the precife era of
his nativity and death, whether they were more or
lefs anterior to the deliverance of the IfraeUtes from
Egypt. It may then feem moft likely, from the ar
guments mentioned, as indeed they are aUowed to
have fo much force very generally by the learned,
that the hiftory recorded in this book happened be
fore the exod, and the promulgation of the law. It
is true Jofephus muft be confeffed to be againft us
here. For, having faid, ' That there were with his na-
' tion twenty-two books, containing the hiftory of
* all time, which have been juftly believed * to be di-
* vine, and that of thefe, five are Mofes's, which com-
* prehend both the laws and the account of the J ge-

which they could not do, without placing him more early, De Seftis^
Aft. 2 . Nor do the Jewifti doftors difagree in general, for in their Se
der Clam Rabbah or Great Chronicle, they place his death before the
exod, cap. 3. and many of them judge him to have flouriflied in the
times of Ifaac and Jacob, as one of Nahor's grand-children, who was
Abraham's brother. Selden de Jure Nat. et Gentium, lib. 7. cap. 11.
p 881.
* Contra Apion, lib. i. feft. 8. — Tos tixotja; Seta TTiTrmv/ttiya,
This, by the by, fliews the groundleflhefs of Dr. Middleton's remark,
that Jofephus only fpeaks of Mofes's being under a divine guidance*
where the fame is aflirmed by himfelf in the courfe of his hiftory. See
Part I feft. 2. p. 7
X KoY '¦'f ''W dy^foiTroyoYtoi; Trctpaloiriy. Dr. Hudfon's verfioa

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 427
' neratlon of men until his death,' he adds, ' But
' from the death of Mofes till the reign of Artaxer-
' xes the king of the Perfians after Xerxes, the pro-
' phets after Mofes wrote the things done in their
' own* time in thirteen books; from which it fol
lows, as we have faid, if he included the book of Job
among the books of the prophets, that he muft have
placed his Ufe, and the occurrences of it after Mofes's
death. But Is it not reafonable to make the confide
ratlons offered In fupport of Job's fuperior antiquity
to Mofes, overballance the authority of Jofephus's
judgment in the matter, who wrote fo long after ?
is, ' The feries of events from the creation, feriem rerum geftaf um a
' conditu humani generis.'
* The words are quoted above. Part i . feft. 6. p. 33. 34 . A doubt
indeed hath arifen in my mind, whether xar avrv; is properly tranf
lated, ' in their own time,' though it be the common verfion, partly be
caufe I do not obferve fuch a fenfe of this praepofition with the accufa-
tive marked by lexicographers, and partly becaufe it could not be Jo
fephus's intention to fay each ofthe prophets after Mofes wrote the oc
currences of his own time; for we cannot fuppofe that the one perfon
who wrote the book of Judges, was contemporary with all thofe per
fons whofe atchievements and fortune he records, or that the prophet
who wrote the two books of Kings, lived through all the fucceffive
reigns the affairs whereof he relates. So that they who give this fenfe
muft maintain, it was only his defign to declare, that the prophets in
the whole wrote the tranfaflions of that long interval from Mofes's death
till Artaxerxes's reign, during fome part of which interfal, one or 0-
ther of them lived. But though we fliould turn xar avrv; other-
wife, ftill the natural meaning will be, that thofe prophets wrote only
of perfons and things that followed Mofes's death, which will bring
Job's hiftory according to hira within that period. Nor can it be juftly
deemed an objeftion to the truth of Jofephus's reprefentation about their
fubjeft, that we have by one of them in the beginning ofthe firft book
of Chronicles, a table ofthe genealogies of men even from Adam, who
was more than 2400 years before Mofes.

428 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
Though there are Arabic terms in the book of Job, it is
not an Hebrew tranflation of an .Arabic original.
It being fliewed there is a greater probabUity that
Job lived in the patriarchal times, let us now con-^
fider Mr, Voltaire's affertion, ' That the book of Job
* was certainly -wrote in Arabic, becaufe it contains
* feveral Arabic terms, wherefore the copy in our
* Hebrew bibles Is no more than an Hebrew tranf-
* lation of it.' But what appearance is there, that
the Hebrew copy we have of this book, is a verfion
at aU ? That this hath been afferted by fome, cannot
indeed be denied. Perhaps^ however, the affertion
had its rife from the addition at the end of the Greek
tranflation of Job, becaufe the preface, with which
the ftory above quoted from it, concerning Job's
antecedent name, extraction, marriage, refidence and
kingdom, is thus introduced, ' This Is interpreted
' from. a Syriac book,' was underftood, not as it
ffiould have been, to relate to that account annexed,
but to extend to the whole book, and to fignify that ,
it had been taken from a Syriac book; nor this aver
fion, but an original*. But, to whatever caufe the
affertion may have been owing, the opinion on which
it proceeds is at prefent very generally exploded as
* With thefe words, ' And Job died, being old and full of days,'
xlii. 17. the Hebrew ended of old, aS it does ftill ; and fe did Aquil^
and Symmachus conclude their verfions. But in the 70, and (heo-
dotioq's verfions, thefe words were added, after ' But it hath been; ,.
' written, that he ftiall rife again with thofe whom God raifeth up,,'
\fro; ip/ULnyivirai ix rn; Zupiaxn; BiSkv, iy juiy yn xaroixuy rn At(,T
iririti, and what follows, as before rendered, page 413.

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 429
a groundlefs one: (I may not fay * univerfally, be
caufe I apprehend fome reftridlon needful;) and
there is the greateft reafon for fuch treatment of
it, for the book hath the air and caft of an o-
riginal Hebrew compofition throiigh Its whole frame
and contexture. This is evident concerning the two
firft chapters, which conftitute the narrative of Job's
misfortunes, and concerning the eleven verfes at the
end, which declare the happy change and alteration
of his circumftances till he went down into the
grave ; infomuch, that even they have looked upon
them to be orlginaUy the produdion of a Jewiffi pro
phet In his own language, when the book was recei
ved into the canon of his church, who are moft zea
lous for deriving the | reft of the book from a ftran-
* So however the authors ofthe Antient Univ. Hiftory, 3.353. ' Tho'
* fomelearned men have thought it (the book of Job) to have been written
' originally in Syriac, or Arabic, either by Job himfelf, or by one of his
' friends ; yet it is now univerfally allowed to have been written in
' Hebrew.' Yet they add, ' What has given rife to the former notion,
' is its being fo blended with Syriac and Arabic expreflions and idioms,
' as makes it very difficult to be rightly underftood.'
X It hath been admitted by them who fuppofed the reft of the
book, as we have it, a tranflation of an Arabic work by Job himfelf,
or one of his friends. For in thefe portions is pure Hebrew, free from ,
all fuch Syri^ms, ChaldaifmS, Arabifms, as have been thought to be
in other places. Befides, not to repeat what was faid about the fitnels
of the defcription of Job's fituation, from the pen of a Jew in Canaan,
as it is i. 3. they have infifted much on the very frequent ufe here of
the name Jehovah, by us turned the Lord, in capital letters, as indeed
it occurs 28 times^ while it is never in the mouth of any fpeaker thro*
the whole dialogue, but once in that of Job, xii. 9. or at moft twice,
if the reading ofthe ,- Oxford MSS. and ofthe Cambridge one, be more
genuine than that ofour printed copies, which give Adonai, Job xxviii.
2S. And it is but j times in the tranfitions from one interlocutor to

430 A VINDICATION OF P. UL
ger. As to the Intermediate part again, from thef^
words of Job, * Let the day periffi wherein I was
' born, and the night iu which it was faid, A manr
' child is conceived,' iU. i. untU thefe others, 'There-
' fore I abhor myfelf, and repent in duft and affies,'
,xUi, 6 . the ftyle is indeed different ; for, whereas the
former portions of the book are profe, this, -vv-hicli
lies between them, is In meafure and verfe, as was
Jong fince obferved by J Jerome, who hath been berg?
in followed by otha^ critics ; and, whereas there the
ftUe is fimple and unadorned, here it is eleygted and
£mbdUffi^d. But ftiU the verfe or metre Is juft fucfe
as is found in other writings of that kind originally
Hebrew; for there is tJlje fame peculiar conforflja-
tion of fentences in refped of fimilar length and ca^-
dence, and, I may add, import, the latter period be
ing commonly either paraUel or contradidory to the
former; alfo, the fame force and energy of language,
the fame loftinefs and fubUmity of thought, the fame
boldnefs of Imagery and coroparifons which are per-
jceptible in them. Wherefore this, Uke them, hath
alfo a certain luftre and fhine of poetry through the
medium of a tranflation. In a word. It feems com
pofed according to the fame rules and reftraints. —
Nor is there to b,e difcerned any tiring of that con-
to anotjier, xxxviii. 1. xl. I, 3, 6. xlii. I. For fay they, this fo
common and familiar ufe ofthe term Jehovah, in the narrative of Job's
(troubles and deliverance, while it is fo rare elfewhere, clearly indicates
tbe author th^eof to have been a Jew after God had afl^umed thjit name
St. his cotEHniffion to Mcrfes, Exod. iii vi.
X Vid. Praef. in Jobi librum. More ffiortly in his Letter to Paur
Jinus, he fays, ' Profa incipit, verfu labitur, pedeftri fermone finitur.'
Tom. 3, Op. pp. 7. ,8,

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 431
fir^nt, any thing of that lofs, at leaft, diminution
of the briUiancy and fplendor of figures, or like
faults which mark and charaderize a verfion In con-
tradlftindlon to Its archetype, or the primitive work
which it copies.
But fays Mr. Voltaire, ' There are Arabic terms
* in it, therefore the book was ¦written in Arabic'
And at this rate, it ffiould alfo have been written in
Syriac ; for there are Syriac terms in it, fay fome.
And in Chaldaic ; for there are Chaldaic terms in It,
fay others. Ill-fated book of Job, to be in this man
ner difbraded and pulled different ways at once, with
relation to thy native language! But there is no
force in fuch premifes to juftify the conclufion. How
indeed can there be, when, as the ingenious and learn
ed Dr| Lowth hath obferved, poetry hath always been
¦indulged in the ufe of foreign words, and of certain
anomalies, that is, forms of received words fome
what varied and altered from the analogy and laws
of language ; as muft occur to every fcholar who
thinks of Homer, and other writers in this way a-
mong the Greeks. Befides, when we admit there
are Arabic terms here, it is only neceffary to admit
it in this fenfe, that there are words in the dialogue
of the book which are to be met with no where elfe
in the bible, but are only to be found in fome of the
numerous Arabicvolumes that are tranfmitted to us,
or in didionaries formed thereon. They might howe
ver haye been common in the age when Job lived, both
to Jews and Arabians. For it is agreed by perfons
of ikUl and learning on this point, that the Hebrew
and Arabic are not different languages, but different
X See Praeleft. 3. on the facred poetry ofthe Hebrews.

432 A VINDICATION OF P.M.
dialeds of the fame primaeval language : wherefore,
if there is fuch a harmony and C&lncidence between
the Hebrew, as It is preferved In the bible, and the
Arabic, as it is exhibited in writings of far pofterlor
date, as is almoft incredible to them who are unini
tiated In both, there muft have been a greater refem
blance and famenefs between them, the nearer thofe
who ufed them in fucceeding ages were to their u-
nlon * in Heber, as their common parent or progeni
tor, whatever diverfities may have crept in gradual
ly afterwards, in refped of the ufe or difufe of the
fame vocables, and in refped of circumftantial things
about thofe that were mutuaUy retained. It wiU
then ftill lefs follow from the appearance of Arabic
terms in the book of Job, as the fenfe of the expref-*
fion is now explained, that it was written origlnaUy In
Arabic, and that the Hebrew copy is only a tranfla*
tion, as may be ffiortly ffiewed, whatever hypothe*
fis we embrace about the age of that compofition.
The imagination Indeed is excluded by their
fcheme itfelf, who malce the book to have been
written in its prefent drefs, upon fome traditional
oral accounts, concerning one Job in the patrlar-*
chal times, an eminently good man, who had fuf-^
fered extraordinary afiUdions for the trial of his vir
tue, and been confpicuoufly rewarded for his pati*
ence under them, whether they date it foon after
* I mention Heber, Secaufe from him the pofterity of Joktan in
Arabia were derived. Gen. x, 26. 1 Chron, i. 19. The other inhabitants
thereof were, I think, fprung from Nahor, Abraham's grandfather,
and from Abraham himfelf, by Hagar or Keturah ; and therefore were
not fo eariy feparated from a general anceftor or head, in whom tbey
were combined with the Jews.

p.m. ITHE SACRED BOOKS. 433
the commencement of the regal government In If
rael, or whether they date it about the aera Of the
BabylOniffi captivity *, Accordingly, Dr. Warbur
ton, the great patron and advocate of this laft date
ofthe work, who, confiftently, will not allow the fre-
* As the friends of the hypothefis, which afligns the book one bi:
other of thefe dates, do, or may infift, in common, on allufions through.
the dialogue to the miraculous procedure of God at the Red Sea; and
to the Jewiffi ftatutes againft idolatry, and againft taking a pledge from
the poor, with the threatning annexed to the.feiSDnd command in the
decalogue ; and to the peculiar care of God over Canaan ; and to the
paflTages in the Pfalms, of which already, page 425. So they alfo
do, or may, jointly urge, in fupport bf it, allufions to the Egyptian
darknefs, Job ix. 7. and to the death of the firft born there, xxxiv.
so. and to the exclufive partition of the land of Canaan among the
Ifraelites, xv. i 9. Some of them do likewife remark the pofition
6f the book after Pfalms and Proverbs in the Hebrew Bibles, land ih the
lifts ofthe canonical books given ui in Bava Bathra, and other Jewifti
writings ; and the obfervation in tfie narrative with Which the book
i:oncludes, }tlii. ij. ' Job gave his three daughters inheritance among
• their brethren,' which nevei- wotild have been made, they fay, but for thfe
contrary rdgulatiori of the Jewifti law already eftabliflied, which de
creed that the paternal inheritance ftiould paft to fons wholly, where
fuch were in life, as in the cafe of Job's daughters, Numb, xxvii. 6,
i I . And Dr. Wirburton, with others who bring the book as low afe
he does, urge as argiinients in behalf of theii- opinion, references in E-
lihu's difcourfe to Hezekiah 's difeafe and recovery, :txxiv. if,- — 26.
to Manafleh's humiliation arfd penitence, xjtxvi. 7, 8, 9, to Amon's
affalfinariori by his fervants, when he did not take warning by his fa
ther's punifliment, xxxvi, 1 2. They take notice of the expreflion in
the hiftorical part for God's deliverance of Job from his miferies, xlii.
ib. ' The Lord turned the captivity of Job,' aS a faint ofthe Babyltf-
hifli captivity. They tell uS, that the 'ifroi-d Satan is only employed
about the times ofthe captivity, for the prince of fallen angels. And
they reprefent the phrafe, xxxi, 36. as an allufion tothe phylafteries,
the wearing of which about the head, was not.before tb«iiera,introduced.
E e

434 ^ VINDICATION OF P.IIL
<juent ufe of the Arabic dialed to be infifted on as a
proof of Its high and remote original, regards it on
ly as an evidence of the ability of the writer to give
his dramatic fable fuch an air of antiquity and veri-
fimilitude as he chofe, by making the Arabians in
troduced exprefs their fentiments, as perfons living
in their times would have done ; though he allows,
that by fuffering fome Indecorums f or Improprieties
-to creep In, in fome other articles, he hath betrayed
his own times and country. If, therefore, we em
brace the hypothefis which fixes one or other of
thefe greatly pofterlor dates of the book to Job's age,
we need not be ftraltened to- account for what have
been called Arabifms in it, however little It can be
pretended there was any connedion and intercourfe
f Some of thefe indecorums which they mention, may be learn
ed from the preceding note. They alfo reckon the putting Jehovah in
to the mouth of Job the Arabian, xii. 9. and perhaps xxviii. 28. as
another of thefe improprieties. This, however, muft depend upon this
queftion, whether that name of God was altogether unknown till God
fent Mofes to deliver Ifrael. Exodus iii. i 5. vi. 2, 3. Now that is
far from being a certain point, as we find it ufed by Mofes in the pre
ceding hiftory, not only when he relates fafts himfelf, in which he
might be fuppofed to accommodate his ftyle concerning God, to the
manners of his own age, but even where he introduces God addreffing.
men, and men again fpeaking unto, or about God, and' denominating
places from him in more autient times, as Gen xv. 2', 7, 8. xxii. 14.
xxvi 22,28, 29 xxviii 13^16 For in all thefe paflages, the Lord
is, in the original, Jehovah. Un this account God may feem to intend
faying, Exod. vi 2.3. not that he then would be called by a name
formerly unheard, but that he would aft fuitably to its import, by
difcovering bis immutability in the fulfilment ofbis promifes. It was
before obferved, tbat this name of God was familiar to Balaam of
Mefopotamia ; but this tranfaftion is placed by chronologers fo late as
the fortieth year after the exod. I

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 435
between Arabians and Jews, which would taint the
Hebrew language with Arabic terms and Idioms, in
either of thefe periods of the Jewiffi ftate.
On the other hand, if we adopt their hypothefis,
who ina:ke the book of Job a more antient -writing
by Mofes, or by Job himfelf, as* many do, becaufe
they do not acknowledge the truth of the obferva
tions made by the friends of the former fcheme, or,
* Who thofe are may be feen in part from Note p. 425. and they
do, or may obferve thefe things by way of reply to the arguments
before produced. That the rule followed in the arrangement of the
Sacred Books, is not the order of time in which they were writteii,
as muft be admitted by thofe who fuppofe the book of Job writteii,
either under the regal government in ifrael, or about the captivity ; fcjr
Job's.book is prefixed to Ruth, and Jeremiah's Lamentations are placed
before Ecclefiaftes, both in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewifli lifts of the
canonical fcriptures. — That the hiftorian might have related the faft
as he does Job, xlii, 15. to ftiew Job's equity of diftrlbution unto
his children, though no fuch law had been enafted by Mofes as that
fuppofed to be referred unto ; more efpecially, if it was, as fome have
thought, an antient cuftom in Arabia, to give daughters as well as fons
a fliare or determinate part of their lather's pofleffions, as indeed
Mahomethath eftabliflied the rule in his Goran, cfaap. iv. — That thefe
allufions in the dialogue, which have been mentioned, are many of them
evidendy the fuggeftions of mere arbitrary fancy and imagination, and
even thefe of them which have been pointed out with the greateft plau-
fibifity, are after all very uncertain. For might not a writer have made
the interlocutors exprefs themfelves as they do, tho' he had not heard
of fuch events in the Jewifli hiftory, as are fuppofed to have given rife
to the paflTages refpeftively ? See Note p. 4 2 o. That the phrafe, of God's
turning a man's captivity, in the laft chapter, might have been applied
to his reparation of his ruined fortunes, as foon as any captives were
releafed and fet at liberty in the world, which happened even in Abra
ham's days.— That Satan is the name applied to the wicked fpirit in the
cixih Pfalm, according to the common opinion, as indeed the 70 turn
the Hebrew term there by the word AiaSoKo;, which is alfo tbeir ver-
E e 2

436 A VINDICATION O'F' P.m.
where they confefs the truth of them, do not admit
the juftice of their reafonlng from them, it wUl be
fion of the fame, i Chron. xxi. i. Job, i ii. and Zechariah, iii. i,
2. where the patrons ofthe lateft date of Job's book allow the prince
of fallen angels to be intended. However, though no example could be
produced of fuch life of it prior to the tinieS of the captivity, from a
book of fo fmall fize as the more early fcriptures, Where little mention
is made of evil fpirits, it would be rafli to affirm, the word which fig
nifies an enemy in general, was never before employed to mark him
ont among the Jews, when it had fuch an aptitude to fignify him
by way of eminence, who is the great adverfafy of the honour of God,
and the happinefs of men. — In particular, il hath been lirged againft
them who bring the book fo low as the captivity, and make the ground
of it mere traditionary accounts of Job's charafter, circumftances, and
behaviour, who lived in the patriarchal times, that thefe accounts muft
at fo great' a diftance as looo years, have appeared of too uncertain
credit to be the foundation of fuch a fuperftrufture as iS here, and of
fuch veneration for Job as the declaration in Ezekiel's prophecy fup
pofes. — That there is no likelihood the book was Written for the end
afligned, for what tendency could it have, either to comfort the JewS
under their removal to Babylon, and their hardfliips there, fince they
were fubjefted to it for their idolatry and other crimes, (as were th'e
Edomites,) Dan. ix. 4 — 13. Ezra, ix. 6. 7- or to folace them af
ter they came back to their own country cured of their biafs to ferve
falfe gods, under their injurious treatment by their neighbours there ?
fince they were then chargeable with general and flagrant offences againft
their law by intermarriages with heathens, by exaftion of ufury from
their brethren, by violation ofthe fabbath, and By negleft ofthe houfe
of God, and ofthe inftituted fervices of worfliip in it, as appears from
Ezra, ix. i. x. i. Nehem: v. 13'. ix. i. &c. xiii. throughout, and
the reproaches, of God's prophets Haggai, Malachi, and Zechariah, in
that period.- — Nor furely werethe Jews to learn then only, that though
good they might be misfortunate, and though wicked they might be
profperous. Dr. Lowth hath alfo obferved, that Ezra's ftile, to Whom
this book hath been afcribed by fome, who date it fo late as the return
«5f the Jews from the Babylonifti captivity into their own land, is very
different fromthat ofthe hiftorit»l narrative at its beginning and end.

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 437
eafy to ffiew, that the confequence does not hold
from our finding Arabic words in our Hebrew book
of Job, to its being a verfion of an Arabic original.
Do we fuppofe it a work of Mofes, amidft his great
er leifure in the land of Midian, buUt upon moft au
thentic accounts which he had received of Job's cha
rader and condition ? and indeed this hath been a very
common * opinion both among Jews and Chriftians.
* It hath been reckoned the moft common, although Jofephus
did not look upon it as a compofition of Mofes. To this purpofe
fpeak the authors ofthe Antient Univerfal Hiftory ; for they fay, ' it hath
' been attributed to Mofes by the majority of leamed men,' and add,
' That his poetic genius was equal to this excellent performance, thofe
' few canticles he has left os in the Pentateuch will not permit us to
' doubt,' though at the fame time th^y leem to have thought ano
ther wrote the three or four laft verfes ofthe book, wbich give an ac
count of Job's death and numerous pofterity, as they did not fuppofe
Mofes to have outlived him fo long, as to be able to relate thefe fafts,
vol. 3. p. 5 53 Nor is there perhaps any exaggeration in their afler
tion. It is the fenfe of the Talmudifts in Bava Bathra, and of David
Kimchi with many other Rabbis ; it is the judgment of feveral Chriftian
fathers,asof Metfaodius.ofthe authors of the commentaries on Job.com-.
monly afcribed to Origen,of Jerome,&c. it is the opinion of Huetius,bifli-
op Patrick, Schmidius, the prefent learned bifliop of Oxford, the author
of obfervationes Mifcellaneae in Jobum, &c And the favourers of it do,
or may obferve, that there is a great agreement in ftile between the
profe parts of this book, and the profe parts ofbis acknowledged books,
and between the poetical parts of this book, and the fongs and predic
tions which he hath recorded through the Pentateuch ; or if there is any
difltrence, there is none but what may be accounted for by his writing
them in different periods of life, in one ofwhicb the imagination was
more warm and lively, but in the other its heat and vivacity were a-
bated.-— That Job an Arabian, might be defcribed by a writer Ir
IMidian, as well as a writer in Canaan, as a man of the eaft, becaufq
Arabia lay on the eaft of the former, as well as of tfae latter. — |— ^
Thfit thefeparauon of it from Mofes's allowed works in t;he Bible, is.
Ee 3

438 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
Whether it was compofed by him to * teach the Ifra-
lites patience under the miferies of their fervitude
and oppreffion under the Egyptians, and to folace
them with hope of deliverance, or whether fit was
framed by him to inculcate that great truth, that
no evidence he was not the writer of it ; for, not to mention that in one
antient catalogue, I mean that of Jerome's letter to Paulinus, (of which
before, Part i. feft. 6. pp. 32. 33.) the book of Job is mentioned
next after the five books of Mofes, we find books are feparated from
One another in the order of arrangement which had the fame author.
Thus in the Hebrew bible and in Jewifli lifts, the book of Job is placed
between the Proverbs and the Song ; Ruth and Lamentations again in
tervene between the Song and Ecclefiaftes ; yet Proverbs, Song, and
Ecclefiaftes are the works of Solomon; Ruth and Lamentations are the
produftion of perfons very diftant in age from him, as well as from one
another. * This hath been generally believed the defign of it by them who
attribute it to Mofes, and the perfon who writes the commentaries up
on this book under the name of Origen, tells us he found fuch an ac
count of its view in the fayings of the antients. See Patrick's preface
Svo. pp. 17, J 8. where a long ftory of this kind is quoted thence, and
in fupport of it it may be faid, if Job an upright worfliipper of God
was fo patient under his troubles, it much more became the Ifraelites
to acquiefce in their fufferings under the tyranny of Pharaoh, who were
tainted with the idolatries and other vices of Egypt.  Further, tho'
they could not with reafon entertain hopes of deliverance and redemp
tion, from Job's recovery to a profperous ftate in itfelf confidered, be
caufe their charafter was far different from his ; yet fuch an inftance
of divine interpofition in his behalf, criminal as their behavioQr was,
might ftrengthen their expeftations, that he would extend mercy to
them alfo, as it was a bleffing promifed in his covenant with Abraham.
\ This is luggefted byBp Sheriockin his Second Diflertation, where
indeed as will be afterwards obferved, he fuppofes the book to be writ
ten by a different perfon from Mofes, and more antient. Suitably, Sa
tan the evil being is reprefented there unable to afflift Job, till he hath
God's allowance ; and Job adores God there as the fupreme Lord and
Sovereign, by whofe direftion all his diftrefles and loflTes befell him.

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 439
therq was one fupreme ruler of the univerfe, by
whofe will all calamity, as weU as aU profperity hap
pened, in oppofition to the very antient error of two
independent and coordinate principles, the one the au
thor of all good, the other the author of aU evU, Is not
material here. Upon this fuppofition, that it is a pro
dudion of Mofes, it cannot feem ftrange, that there
ffiould be words or forms of words in it, which -|- though
then In ufe among, or known to his countrymen, after
wards fell Into difufe, fo that they are only to be read in
Arabic pieces, and not In the otheiT books ofthe Bible,
as Indeed in fome of them alfo, there are words in
vain fearched for through It any where elfe.
Again, do we fuppofe It, as fome of diftinguiffied
fame for oriental learning*have done, a compofition
f If any fliould incline to think Mofes had any afliftance in this
work by written memoirs in the Arabic dialeft, tbe fame being formed
before that time, in contradiftinftion to the Hebrew, he may account
for the Arabic terms by their occurrence in them, while yet they were
not unintelligible to the Ifraelites.
* This was the opinion of the celebrated Albert Schultens, a ve
ry able judge in eaftern writings, with regard to that part ofthe book
which reaches from the iii. chapter to the 6 verfe ofthe xlii. as may
be feen in his preface ; of Cocceius likewife, and Carpzovius, and Hinc-
kelman, and, if I miftake not, of Golius, and Walton, and Bochart,
as it was that of Suidas of old. To this alfo, Bifliop Sherlock feems to
have inclined, who fays, there is all the appearance that can arife from
internal charafters, that it was written before any ofthe books of Mo
fes ; wherefore he confiders its teftimony to religious doftrine, as diftinft
from the authority of Mofes. And in favour of this opinion, it hath
been, or may be remarked, it feems very reafonable to fuppofe that
Job, in fome of his happy and unmolefted years, wrote the piece. For
who could be better prepared to tranfmit to pofterity an account of the
difcourfes of himfelf and his friends, and ofthe addrels ofthe Almighty
upon the occafion, than he who was always prefent at, and bore fo great
Ee 4

44P A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
of Job himfelf, in the fame language in which it is
now extant ? I mean this with exception of the in
trodudlon and conclufion, which appear rather tq
have been written by a Jewiffi prophet, when it was
admitted into the canon of his church, (whether it
was Mofes, or Samuel, or another, is not important)
on account of the difference of ftUe therein, and In
particular the frequent ufe of the name Jehovah, the
impropriety of Job's recording his own praifes, and
the impoffibUity of his giving a relation of his own
death. In this cafe, it feems very natural that there
ffiould be Arabifms In it, or terms and modesof fpeech,
occurring In no. other part of the Bible, but found a-
mong Arabian authors. They might be. In Job's age,
common to all thepofterity ofHeber,butbecomeafter<:
wards obfolete in the Jewiffi branch, at leaft not appear
a fliare in the original dialogue ? And who again could be better difpof*
ed to edify mankind by tfie relation in future ages, than he who fo
eminently reverenced God, and muft have been very folicitous to pro
mote his honour and glory in the world ? Further, hath not the piece
itfelf, the air and appearance of being penned by one who was an agent
in the fcene ? Doth it not carry the ftamp and impreflion of Inch a
hand in thefe ardent affeftions, thefe daring expreffions, which are ob
fervable through it? And if Job wrote the fame, why fliould it be
thought he wrote it in another language, fo that we have pnly a tranf
lation of his compofition, when there is no reafon to fuppofe the language
of Abraham '-s pofterity by Jacob, and ofthe inhabitants of Arabia from
the fame ftoek with them, was, in that early period, fo different, that
they would be unintelligible to one another ; and when there does not
appear any fuch want of emphafis and force, or of dignity and majefty,
or of grace and beauty, as points out a verfion ? Are not the names
which Job gave his daughters, Hebrew ? And why ftiould any fancy
Job called his children by words of the Hebrew language, but fpoke
in common life, or wrote, in a language quite diftinft, which could
not be comprehended by them that ufed that \

P.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 441
in another part of the Bible, (the only book extant
in the Hebrew dialed, and comparatively of very fmall
fize,) while they continued In the Arab line, and there-;
fore are found in their more | voluminous writings.
It does not then follow, upon the fuppofition of
the fo remote antiquity of the book, becaufe there
are Arabic terms in the book of Job, that it was ori-t
ginally ¦written in the Arabic language, as it now
ftands,and only tranflatedinto Hebrew, To argue thus,
upon this fcheme, f is very abfurd ; and the abfurdity
X It is the fame thing in effeft as to the explication of thefe Arab
ifms, if Elihu be made the writer of it as he is by Dr. Lightfoot, who
alfo thinks Job's time fell in with the fervitude of Ifrael in Egypt. This
notion he builds partly on the filence about him, chap. ii. 1 1 . partly on his
fpeaking of himfelf as the hiftorian, xxxii. i j, i6, 17. Works, vol. i,
p. 23. This laft however cannot be juftly faid of him more than of o-
thers, for he only there recites his words in the firft perfon as before, ver,
6.7. which alfo the former fpeakers fometimes did, Job, ix. 2 2 . xxvii,
II, 12.
f An objeftion hath been made to this early date of Job's book,
that there are many Chaldaifms in it, of which fort are reckoned the
terminations of words plural in "J' in, inftead of tD' >'''• For it hath
beenJience inferred, that it was written about the time of the captivi-.
ty, when the purity of the language of the Jews became tainted by in
tercourfe with the Chaldeans. But fays Mr. Schultens, how can it be
made appear that they are Chaldean idioms, and not genuine Hebrew
modes of fpeech ofthe moft antient and venerable ftamp ? Such plural ter-i
minations are found elfewhere, as Prov. xxxi. 3. and Ezek. xxvi. 1 8.
It hath been alfo urged, I know, againft giving this poetical piece lb
great antiquity as the age of Mofes or Job, that there is mention in it
of writing upon lead. Job xix, 24. For this they pretend muft be the
fenfe, as, indeed, it is that which the Vulgate verfion exhibits, lead
being too foft a fubftance for graving letters upon a rock, efpecially un
to perpetuity. But lead, they add, was not in ufe for wriqjig upon, till
far pofterlor times. It may, however, be anfwered, 'tis true, lead was
not the firft materials that were employed for this, purpofe, it only fucn-

442 A VINDICATION OF P. UL
of it may perhaps be rendered more ftriking to ma
ny readers in this manner. Let us take for granted,
that the Welch and Galic are only different dialeds
of the old Celtic tongue, derived from it as two
ftreams from the fame fountain ; and let us imagine
that the writings preferved in the Welch are far
more numerous than thofe which are conveyed
down In the Galic : what a poor argument would it
ceeded in fuch ufe of it, to palm leaves, and barks of trees. For fays
Pliny, Hift. Nat, lib. 13. cap. 41.' Olim in palmarum foliis fcriptitatum
' et libris quarundam arborum : poftea publica monumenta plumbeisvo-
' luminibus, mox et privata lintels confici coepta, aut ceris. Pugillarium
* enim ufum fuifle etiam ante Trojana tempora invenimus apud Home-
' rum.' Neverthelefs, if its ufe was introduced according to this order,
it muft have been very antient. Agreeably, Paufanias, who flourifhed
under Adrian, about 117 years after Chrift, fays, he faw in Eoeotia,
Hefiod's poem of the Epya, or Labours, written on lead; but many
parts of it eflPaced, or greatly injured by time. Lib. 9. cap. 31,
pag. 771. Ka; fioi jxoKvZloy itmxywiv — ra ttokkol u-^o rv ^ootv
KiKUiua(Tju(va' ytyfa^p/jai ti avro ra i^ya. And he adds, ' He was
' told Hefiod left this poem in writing without the invocation of the
' mufes then prefixed to it,' as it is indeed ftill ; a circumftance very
obfervable ! But without pretending to afl'ert that it was a praftice in
Job's time, to imprint charafters upon leaden tables, it does not feem to
me that fuch is the neceflary, or even probable, fenfe ofthe paflage. For
if the matter, on which the words were to be written, had been de
figned, it would have been l~n~lDy3 Bagnephereth, as it is afterward
"rnlir^ batzur, in the rock, inftead of I — IIDJ?! vegnephereth, which,
from the conncftion wherein it ftands, points out fomething which wa?
to be ufed like iron in marking the words, rather than the fubftance,
upon which they were to be written. We may therefore fay, lead
being too pliable a fubftance for being ufed as i. flyle, or inftrument of
writing on a rock, that lead to be melted and poured into the charac
ters cut in the rock by the iron ftyle, that the fame might be more con
fpicuous and legible, is there meant. So Bochart Hieroz. lib. 2. c, 44.
page 466. and R. Salomo hare explained it.

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 443
be to perfuade us, that an old Galic piece was firft
¦written in Welch, and afterwards tranflated from
the original Welch, that fome vocables, or conftruc-
tlons, to be met with in it, are not to be feen in any
other of the few Galic produdlons which are hand
ed down to our times, but only in the more various
and large Welch compofitions ? In like manner let uS
affume it, that the French and German have the fame
relation of dialeds to the Latin tongue; and that
authors have compofed In the French in far greater
number, and upon much greater diverfity of fub
jeds, than In the German : how lame and Infuffi-
clent a proof would it be, that an antient German
book was merely a verfion of a French original, that
fome terms mentioned in it are not found in any other
of the (by fuppofition) few German works that are
extant, but only in the more extenfive French writ
ings? Every one muft perceive, upon the ffighteft
refledion, that fuch words might belong to the mo
ther languages refpedively, the Celtic and Latin,
and be, In the fucceffion of ages, loft In one dialed
thence formed, but be continued in the other thro*
accidental caufes. For indeed the more we go back
in the examination of different dialeds of the fame
tongue, artd the nearer we come to that period when
the progenitors of thofe who ufe them had one fpeech,
there Is always the greater fimUarlty and agreement
in the founds that are fignificaiit of their ideas.
Whereas, the farther we afcend in our inveftigatlon
of different languages, we difcover always the leffer
likenefs and coincidence of phrafe and didion *. Now
* This hath been obferved to be the Cafe ofthe French and Engliffi ;
and agreeably, it hath been taken notice of, that the more antient En-

444 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
all this applies to the book of Job, the Hebrew and
Arabic being only two dialeds of the fame prlmae-.
val language, and the books written in the former,
being Inconfiderable for fize and number, in compa
rifon of thofe we have in the latter, It is then e-
qually fooliffi to conclude, becaufe there are words
here no where elfe found in the Hebrew volume, but
occurring in Arabian works, that the book of Job was
an Arabian compofition at firft, and that QUI" He
brew copy is only a tranflation of it.
So much for vindicating the book of Job againfl
Mr, Voltaire's refledion, upon the various hypothe-.
fes which learned men have embraced about its age
and author ; for this method I have rather chofen,
than to decide among the contending parties. It is
a book written with muchloftinefs of ftile and expref-.
fion, on account of which it hath excited the wonder
of every paft age, and will In like manner raife the adi
miration of every fucceeding one. What grand dcT
fcriptIons|haye we here, through the courfe ofthe
difpute between Job and his friends, whether adver-
fity is a proof of God's -wrath and difpleafure in this
world, and through the feries of the divine appUca-.
glifli books have fewer words ofa French extraftion and derivation in
them, X Yet we fliould take heed we do not build religious doftrines on this
or that aflertion QjTthe humane interlocutors, except fo far as the fame
is confonant to the diftates of reafon, or confirmed by paflages of fpeaki
ers or writers infpired, feeing God himfelf cenfured them. Is it not
evident Job's friends were miftaken, in fuppofing that great affUftions
were a demonftration of great crimes. — That the worldly profperity
of finnersj where it takes place, always foon ceafes, fo as to reveal thei^
iniquity to men .' &(;.

i*.ltt. THE SACRED BOOl^S. 4^^
tion to Job, of the perfedions, and works, and mea
fures of Deity ! What excellent delineations do we
meet with through the human dialogue of the vir-f
tues and vices of mert ! WhUe again in the hiftorical
relation at the beginning of the book, we behold a
fignal inftance of God's vifiting a man, even with un
ufual and fore afiUdions, not for the puniffiment of his
fins, but for the trial and difplay of the truth and
ftrength of his reUgion ; and a ftriking pattern of
dutiful fubmlffion under thefe calamities, unexpeded
as they were In their arrival, and immediate as they
were In their fucceffion to one another. And then
in the narrative at the end, we fee an Uluftrious ex
ample ofthe divine interpofition to -vindicate traduced
innocence, and crown difbreffed virtue even upon
earth with a happy deUverance, and tranfcendent
profperity.
SECTION IV.
Of his refledions, in his Philofophical Didionary^
againft the genuinenefs of Solomon's writings.
MR. VOLTAIRE, in his PhUofophical Didio
nary, under the article Solomon, * propofes this
queftion with a great air of confidence, that the pofnt
which he aims to deny by it, cannot be maintained:
1 mean that the books which the Jews afcribe to So
lomon, reaUy belong to him. ' Is this fame -wife So-
' lomon really author, fays he, of the works father-
* ed on him ?' And then he goes on to attack each
* Page 327.-^330'.

446 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
of them diftindly. This paffage, therefore, muft be
confidered by us.
Of his refledions againfl the Song of Songs,
He begins -with the Song. ' Is It likely, for in-
' ftance, he affis, that the Jewiffi eclogue called the
' Song of Songs, is ofbis writing?' And hereon he
argues, through almoft two pages, againft its being
his compofition, from the ImprobabiUty and unnatu-
ralnefs, as he thinks, of fome adions and addrefles
defcribed in It, together with the unfultable-
nefs and indelicacy of certain Images ufed there. His
reafonlng, which I think injuftice I ought to quote,
though fomewhat long, runs thus,
' A monarch, who had a thoufand miftreffes, may
' have faid to one of thefe charmers, Kifs me with
' the kiffes of thy mouth, for thy breafts are better
' than wine. A king and a ffiepherd amidft fuch a-
* morous endearments may very naturally talk alike:
' but it Is fomething odd, that it Is the girl who is
' made to talk thus wantonly about kiffes and her
* fweet-heart's breafts,
' I likewife will not deny but a courtly prince may
' make his miftrefs fay. My hufband is like a clufto"
' of myrrh, he fliall lye aU night betwixt my breafts.
* A clufter of myrrh is to me fomething obfcure; but
' I very well underftand the charmer's meaning,
* when flie bids her beloved lay his left hand over
* her neck, and embrace her with his right.
* There are fome expreffions In which the author's
* elucidation Is wanted, as when he fays, Your navel
' is like a goblet in which there is always fomething

P,m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 447
' to drink ; your beUy is Uke a buffiel of wheat ; your
' breafts are like two young roes ; your nofe Is as the
' tower of Lebanon.
' This I own is not the ftUe of VIrgU's Eclogues ;
* but all have not a like ftUe, and a Jew is not obUg-
' ed to write like VirgU.
' I fuppofe it may likewife be another beautiful
' ftrain of eaftern eloquence to fay. Our fifter'is yet
' Uttie ; ffie has no breafts ; what ffiall we do for our
* fifter? If ffie be a waU, let us buUd on her; if a
' door, let us ffiut her.
' We wiU allow that fuch words might have e-
' fcaped Solomon, though the -wifeft of men, in a
* merry mood. This compofition Is faid to be an e-
•• pithalamium- on his marriage with Pharaoh's
' daughter: but is it natural that Pharaoh's fon-in-
* law ffiould leave his beloved in the night, to go
' and faunter In his walnut-yard ; and that the queen
' ffiould run after him bare-footed? that the city
' watch ffiould heat her and take her gown from
' her? ' Could a king's daughter have faid, I am brown,
' yet I am beautiful like Solomon's furrs. Such ex-
* preffions might be overlooked in a home-fpun
' fwain; though, after all, there can be Uttle affinity
* between furrs and a girl's beauty. WeU, but Solo-
' mon's furrs might be exceedingly admired In their
' time; and for a low-liv'd Jew in a lay to his fweet-
* heart, to tell her in his Jewiffi gibberiffi, that never
' any Jewiffi king had fuch fine furred gowns as her
' dear felf, was not at all out of charader; but Solo-
' mon muft have been ftrangely infatuated with his
' furxs to compare them to his miftrefs. Were a

448 A VINDlCAtldN Of P. lit.
* king in our times to write fuch an epithalamiuni
' on his marriage with a neighbouring monarch'5
* daughter^ he would forfeit all title tb the lau^
* relj:' Butj without entering here into difquifitions el-^
ther about the intention of this piece, or about it^
divine * authority (thefe being foreign to my plan) ; Is
it not reafonable, in matters of this kind, to make
allowance for difference of times -j- and manners ? It
X Page 327j 32S; * See Parti, feft. VI. page 34, 3 j.
f This obfervation opens the general foliitioh of the difficulties
Which arife from the inftances he produces, fuppofing them all juft;
even as it fuggefts the true ip'ology for bolder figurative defcriptions
than any Here, in Ezek. xvi. and xxiii. chapters, which oflPend us whd
are accuftomed to greater referve of fpeech, by the rnles which good
breeding prefcribes, on account of the promifcuous fociety and con-^
verfation of the fexes that prevails in thefe countries, than thofe are
who live in the eaft, where the fame intercourfe does not take place.
And it is neceflTary often to have recourfe to the fame principle for de
fending antient writers, the moft admired for the elegance and beauty
of their compofitions. How otherwife ftiall we vindicate Theocritus^
that celebrated paftoral poet among the Greeks, when he makes twelvd
principal young ladies of the town of Sparta, in their fdng before the
nuptial chamber of Menelaus and Helen, firft liken her,' that they may
extol her excellence, to a furrow which ftioots beyond the reft in a
field, and to a cyprefs tree in a garden ; and then compare her, with
the fame view, to a Theffaliari hotfe iii' a chariot ? Idyl, xviii. 36, 31.
' " n a^juari QtaoaKo; iTTTfoi
'iiSe xdt d potoxf^i 'Ekiyx Aaxitai/uovi itocrjuo;;
* As a Theflalian horfe in a chariot, fo rofy-coloured Helen was aii
• ornament to Lacedaemon.' A like im'age to which, by the by, we
alfo find in this Jewifti Song, i. 9 . only Egyptian horfes are mentioned,
which were in Judea moft famed for excellence. How, again, other-
wife ftiall we joftify Homer, in the accounts he gives us of the Gre
cian captains, Achilles, Patroclus, &c. their killing, fleaing and Cut
ting afunder animals of the herd or flock, their lighting and blovi^-ing

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 449
is weU known that fimUies and comparlfons may be
fufficiently decent and delicate In one age through
its greater fimplicity, and yet may become in ano
ther unhandfome and offenfive through its greater
refinement, or perhaps Ucentloufnefs. In like man
ner it Is certain, that difcourfes and adions may be
reprefented with perfed agreeablenefs to ufage and
cuftom In one period, and yet may appear unlikely
to have been fpoken and performed In a fucceeding
one, before the arrival of which, an immenfe varia-
the fire, and their preparing by pot or fpit their own dinners from
them ; as well as of fome of their other employments which, however
they might be conformable to the plainnefs of their own times, are ve
ry Oppofite to the praftice of ours. Indeed every perfon fliould tranf
port himfelf in imagination to the age and country of a writer, and
judge of his fentiments and expreflions by the opinions and cuftoms
there and then prevalent. Neverthelefs, it may be queftioned whether
all the paflages which Mr. Voltaire exhibits from this fong, to make
good the charge of grofllhefs and deviation from probability againft its
author, are rightly produced. For example, the word turned clujler
by Mr. Voltaire, and by our tranflators bundle, chap. i. i 3 . is render
ed a bag or bo'x, Hagg. i. 6. PrOv. vii. 20. wherefore fome repofitory
of precious and fragrant perfume, which ladies of rank and opulence
were accuftomed to wear, might be intended. Then, again, the lad
claufe of that verfe may be tranflated, ' It ftiall abide between my
' breafts;' for the word rendered, ' lie all night,' doth not neceflkrily
include the idea of night in it, but only that of mere permanence oc
continuance, Zechar. v. 4. Job xxxix. 28 Ifai. i. 21. Job xxxix.
9. xii. 14. Thus the meaning wiU be no more than this, As a box of
myrrh hanging continually between the breafts gives delight to the fen
fes of all around, fo the huflsand or bridegroom would procure her un-
decaying favour and acceptance. So too the defcriptions chap. vii. r,
a. have been fuppofed to relate, not to thefe parts ofthe body naked
and uncloathed, which are mentioned, but to the drelfes thereof. See
Patrick's Comment, and Outiines ofa New Commentary on Solomon's
Song, particularly page 105, &c,
F f

450 A VINDICATION OF P.III.
tion or change in language and behaviour hath been
introduced, when they are examined by the ftand
ard which Is thence formed. Neverthelefs, Mr. Vol
taire gives no indulgence from fuch confideratlons,
equitable and candid as it would have been. Befides,
ffiould it not be remembered, that images are very
apt and pertinent for iUuftrating and explaining a
fubjed, though they be low * and mean, Inftead of
lofty, and grartd, and fplendid, when they are eafy
and famUiar, and theire is a manifeft and evident ap
pearance of fimffitude? Yea, further, that Images
may have had a great fitnefs to ferve this end, when
they were lifed in thofe remote places and diftant
times, which we now are prone to blame for the
fault of dIffimUarity f, only becaufe the things whence
* Thus Homerhas been vindicated from cenfure, when he refem-
bles the Greciah army to fwarms of flies which buzz round milk-pails,
that he may imprefs his readers with a fenfe ofthe eagernefs and avidi
ty for battle which was fpread through the immenfe croud. The fame
way Virgil has been defended, in likening the Tyrians, for their ar
dour in building the different parts of their new city, to bees diligent in
their various labours amidft warm funftiine, in the beginning of fura->
mer. Eneid i. 432.
X This is a thing very fuppofeable. And to take it for granted^
that it is the cafe in comparlfons which are made from things We now
do either but little, or not at all, underftand, inftead of cenfuring and
condemning a writer for them, wbo ufes fo many images extremely
proper and appofite for giving clearer and livelier ideas of his fubjeft,
as this author does, is no more than exercifing common Candour and
fairnefs. Thus,as to the palfage with which Mr. Voltaire finds fault, ' That
' a king's daughter ftiould fay,. " I am brown, yet I am beautiful like
' Solomon's furrs," (which, 1 fuppofe, is his quotation of chap. i. 5.
where our tranflation hath, ' I am black, but comely as the tents of
' Kedaf, as the curtains of Solomon,') might there not be a great pro
priety in the fimilies to exprefs at once her dark complexion, the tents
I

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 451
the comparlfons are drawn, are at prefent, through
the defedivenefs of accounts about them, very Imper
fedly comprehended? Yet all this our author over
looks, or pays no due attention to.
Thereafter he proceeds thus, ' Several Rabbis have
' advanced, that this lufcious eclogue not only Is not
' Solomon's, but is not fo much as authentic ;' But
though fbme of the Talmudical dodors are report
ed to have faid this fbng was written by King He-
zeklah's council, among whom they tell us the pro
phet Ifaiah was one, and have been followed In this
opinion by Mofes Kimchi, and feveral other mafters,
the generaUty have taught that it was written by
Solomon; as indeed it may be queftioned whether
the former, I mean the Talmudical dodors, did not ra
ther Intend to attribute its pubUc reception into the ca
non, than its writing, to thefe friends of Hezekiah, The
tide itfelf leads us to think Solomon -|- was its author,
of the wild Arabs being made of black or duffdfli goats-hair, and
her magnificent appearance, the coverings of Solomon's tent being very
rich and brilliant^ and might not the fame thing be true about the
images ufed in other places, were we fully acquainted with the ob
jefts, particularly chap. vii. 4. &c?
X It is true it runs pIQ^U'^ "WH Afher lefhelomoh, which
theabove quoted author of the Outlines of a New Commentary, &c.
would render * which is concerning Solomon,' as likewife the author
of the New Tranflation of the Song ; for, in the beginning of his
annotations, he tells us, ' Perhaps it ought to have been rendered,
" which is concerning Solomon," adding, that the praefix in the original
' hath evidently this fenfe in Pf Ixxii.' But is not the praepofition the
fame as is placed before David's name in the titles to thofe Pfalms,
where none ever queftioned the defign was to inftruft us, that David
was the penman thereof, particularly Pf. iii, vii, xviii. to omit ma
ny others ? Is it not alfo employed in the fame meaning in the title of
the prayer wbich none ever doubted to be the work of the prophet
Habbakuk, iii. i ? Even as to Pfalm Ixxii. it is not agreed by aH, th^

452 A VINDICATION OF P.III.
as we are exprefsly affured he was of many other fongs
I Kings, v. 1 2 , while it alfo ImpUes, it was among
them fall the moft exceUent and precious. Noristhere
any thing In its frame and ftrudure which compeUs
us to regard it J as the compofition of a later age.
it fliould have the fignification in the title there, which that author
would give it; wherefore the Targum hath paraphrafed it, ' A Pfalm
' fpoken prophetically by the hands of Solomon,' and our tranflators
have placed in the margin,- ' A Plalm of Solomon.'
f This feems to be the natural import of the infcription. Song of
Songs ; as Holy of Holies is moft holy, and ornament of ornaments is
moft excellent ornament, Ezek. xvi. 7. and king of kings is moft ex
alted king, Ezek. xxvi. 7. and heaven of heavens is moft high
heaven, 1 Kings, viii. 27.
X It hath, I own, been made an argument that fhisfong muft be the
produftion of fome later writer than Solomon, that David's name is
written in chap. iv. 4. T'lT with a iod, which is the manner of writ
ing it in Ezekiel, Zechariah, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, as it is
alfo in the books of Amos and Hofea, who prophefied only about two
hundred years after Solomon's marriage; whereas in Ruth, Samuel,
Kings, Pfalms, Proverbs, ifaiah, and Jeremiah, it is written nn with
out a iod. Compare here Critical Review, April, 1768.
But there is here a miftake. For in Ezekiel it is written both ways'.
In chap, xxxiv. 23. with a iod, and in ver. 24. and xxxvii. 24. with
out a iod. Befides, is it reafonable to build" fo important an inference
on fo fmall a variation, when it feems to have been a matter regulated
by private choice and inclination rather than by public cuftom, in whicli
of the two ways the name David ftiould be written ? wherefore even
in Ifaiah and Jeremiah it occurs without a iod, though the one pro
phefied almoft half a century, and the other near two centuries after
Hofea and Amos, who are mentioned as having introduced the w;^ in
to it; and in Ezekiel, a contemporary of Jeremiah, it is found both ways)
which may account for its being faid by different writers, that he
writes it without a iod, and that he writes it with it. Agreeably, I
have obferved one word of the fame form written both with and with
out a iod, in books which are reckoned produftions of one age. For a
prince or ruler ofthe houfe of God is IJiJnegid, Nehem. xi. i (. but
in I Chron. ix. 11, 2 Chron. xxxi. 13. iSjTJJ^^^'V, whichftiews

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 453
Further, whereas Mr. Voltaire afferts, ' That fe-
* veral Rabbis have advanced, not only that the
* Song is not Solomon's,' of which already, ' but
* that It is not fo much as authentic,' by which he
muft mean, as the claufe is here diftinguiffied and
contrafted, that it does not even belong to the canon
of Sacred Scripture ; there Is here a grofs mifrepre
fentation. For none of the Rabbis, antient or mo
dern*, have denied its canonical authority. On the
contrary, though of old they may have permitted its
it Was arbitrary. Perhaps others may have remarked more inftances of
fuch diverfity. Is not Nebuchadnezzar's name written by authors, pretty
much coaetaneous, feveral different ways ? I fliall only add, the inge
nious Mr. Hallet was fo far from fooking on David with a iod, as a
departure from the primary and original fpelling in times near the cap
tivity, tliat, he fufpefts, wherever it is written without iod in the Bible»
it is mifpelt. See his Scripture Notes, vol. 2. p. 49,
• Says Abenezra in his preface to this book, according to Wolfi-
Hs, Bibliotheca Hebraic, tom. 2. ' Far be it from any to affirm, that
* the Song of Songs fliould treat of carnal pleafure, for all things are
' fpoken figuratively in it. And, indeed, unlefs there had been the
' greateft dignity in it, it would not have been placed among the books
' of Scripture. Nor is there any controverfy about that,' In Seder
Olam Rabbah, or the Great Chronicle, the Jews tell us, c. i j
' When Solomon was become old, and drew near to the grave, the
' Holy Spirit dwelt in him, and fo he compofed thefe three bopks, the
' Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Ecclefiaftes.' Though indeed there
does not feem to have been an entire agreement among them about the
time of life when he framed this fong; for R. Jonathan in lalkut ad
I Kings, iii. 28. makes it to have been a produftion of his youth.
Once more, Mercer hath quoted a paflage from Midraffi Shir, which
is a Jewifti hiftorical and allegorical commentary on the Song, where
it is faid ' That their wife men had difputed about the authority of
* Ecclefiaftes, but never had any debate about the divine authority of
' this book.' vid. Poli Synopf in Cantie,
Ff 3

454 A VINDICATION OF P, 111.
perufal * to none but perfons of mature age, afraid
that they, of ffiorter ftanding in the world, would
overlook the fpiritual and aUegorical fenfe which they
fuppofed to be hidden under the letter of it, and
that they would abufe fome paffages of it, through
this negled ofthe figurative intention, accordingto
the propenfity of nature in the earUer period of life
to feed wanton defires, they have with the moft
perfed unanimity maintained it was a divine book ;
and f not a few of them have beftowed the moft ex-
•* So Origen tells us Praefat. in Ezek. ad Euftochium, tom. j.
458. ' Nam nifi quis apud Hebraeos aetatem facerdotalis minifteril, i.
* e. tricefimum annum impleverit, nee principia Genefeos, necCanticnm
* Canticorum, nee hujus voluminis (Ezekielis,) exordium et finem le-
' gere permittitur, ut ad perfeftam feientiam et myfticos intelleftus
* plenum humanae naturae Kmpus accedat.' To the like purpofe Je
rome fpeaks concerning the manner of the Jews with relation to this
book, though lefs pofitively, and at the fame time advifes perfons to
forbear its perufal, who have not obtained a good degree of maftery 0-
ver fenfual defires, Hom. i . in Cantic. tom. 7. foi. 64. ' Moneo, et
* confilium do omni qui nondum carnis et languinis moleftiis caret, ne-
* que ab- afleftu naturae materiali abfcedit, ut a leftione libelli hujus,
* eorumque quae in eo dicuntur, penitus fibi temperet : aiunt enim
' obfervari etiam apud Hebraeos, quod, nifi quis ad aetatem perfeftam
• maturamque pervenerit, libellum hunc ne quidem in manibus tenere
' permittitur.' Compare Theodoret's works tom. i. p. 98 J.
t Thus in the Talmudic traft QIT iadim, five De lotione ma
nuum, cap. 3. feft. J. as in Surenhufius's edition ofthe Miflina, R. A-
kiba expreffes himfelf thus, ' Far be it from any ifraelite to fay, that
the Song of Songs pollutes the hands, or is not holy, becaufe the
• whole world is not of fo great value as that day wherein the Song
• of Songs was given to ifrael ; for all the hagiegrapha are holy, but
• the Song of Songs is moft holy : and if there hath been any difference
' of opinions about Solomon's writings, it hath only been about Ec-
• clefiaftes.' This reading oi hogiographa here is followed by R. So-

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 455
travagant praifes and commendations on it. Even
the Chaldee paraphraft, whUe he explains it of God's
love to his chofen nation of Krael, from the calling
of Abraham tiU Solomon's time, prefers it to the 0-
ther § ten Songs in the Bible by prophetical perfons,
which only celebrate particular benefits.
Mr. Voltaire adds, ' Theodore of Mopfueftia was
' of the fame opinion ;' that is, If I underftand him
aright, ' that the Song was neither Solomon's, nor
* fo much as authentic,' or of divine authority. But
it Is evident he beUeved it to be a genuine produdion
of the Jewiffi prince, from a fragment * of his writ
ings ftUl preferved, in which he reafons from his emi
nent wifdom, that he would never have compofed
it with a defign to promote lewdnefs ; and from the
words of Theodoret, who is faid by Pope Pelagiusf,
lomo and others ; though Abarbanel, in his Commentary on i Kings
iii. 12. quotes the paftage, ' All the Songs are holy,' &c. I fuppofe
the reader knows that Hagiographa is a name for the third clafs of their
facred books, which they divide into the Law, the Prophets, and the
Hagiographa, and comprehends Pfalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs,
Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclefiaftes, Efther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and
Chronicles. Thefefive fmall books, agaiB,Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamenta
tions, Ecclefiaftes and Efther, they call, by way of diftinftion, Megil-
loth, among which the Song is placed firft, becaufe it was read at the feaft
ofthe paffover, which precedes other feafts,
§ Huet. Dem. Evang. prop. iv. 356. &c, Waehner. Antiq. Hebr,
feft. I. cap. 27. and Michael. Praefat. in Cantic. page 17,
* See this fragment cited in next page.
f ' Pelagii Papae Epiftola 5, quae eft tertia ad Eliam et Iftriae epif-
' copos.' Speaking of Theodoret, fome of whofe writings he con
demned, he fays, ' Alia veto fcripta ejus non folum recipimus, fed e-
* tiam contra adverfarios utimur. Nam cum Theodorus Canticum
' Canticorum, vellet exponere, et non ad commenta, fed potius ad de-
• liramenta laboraret, per hunc librum Aethiopiflae reginae blanditum
F f 4 '

456 A VINDICATION OF P,IIL
to have aUuded to him, where he blames fome for
maintaining that the -wife Solomon penned it in ce
lebration of the loves of himfelf and of his queen, the
king of Egypt's daughter. The former part, there
fore, of Mr, Voltaire's affertion, is falfe. As to the
latter part of it, again, there is Indeed fome teftimony
to its truth. For Leontius, who was firft an advocate
at Conftantinople, and afterwards a monk In Palef
tine, and flouriffied about the year of Chrift 600, af
firms, according to his words quoted by Fabricius \,
that he cut It off from the facred books, Neverthe
lefs, this fad is doubted ; for it appears from Facun-
dus§, an African biffiop, about the year 540, and
from Simeon, biffiop of Betharfam, or ArfamopoUs,
in Perfia, about the year 510, as weU as from the
words of Theodoret, which are cited In the laft note,
that he wrote a commentary upon it, — Moreover,
Leontius -writes with fo manifeft ktennefs and vio
lence of temper againft him, as admonlffies every
prudent and candid reader not to credit aU his ac-
* profefllis eft. Quod Theodoretus reprehendens, nomen quidem fup-
* preffit, fed tamen vefaniam patefecit. Ejufdem namque libri com-
' menta confcribens ait, audio plures Canticum Canticorum detrahen-
* tes et non credentes fpirltualem efle librum, fabulas autem quafdam
* per vefaniam texentes componere et praefumere dicentes, quia fapiens
• Solomon ad feipfum et filium Pharaonis hunc librum confcripfit.
' Quomodo ergo nulla fcripta ejufdem Theodoreti recipimus, qui il-
' lum etiam contra Theodorum affertorem veritatis invenimus ? Haec
' ad fcripta veftra refpondemus.' Apud Harduin. Concil. tom. 3.
page 438.
X Bibl. Grace, tom. 9. page 159.
§ Ibid. And fee Du Pin Bibl. Ecclefiaftique, tom. i . under the
different articles of Leontius, Theodore and Facundus. AlfoDr.Lard-
ner's Credibility, vol. 9. page 397. — 399,

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 457
counts. — The charges and accufations of fuch difre-
fped to this facred book, finally, are to be found a-
mong his enemies only after his death, when he could
no longer anfwer for himfelf. In order ftill to pre
ferve, in fpite of their endeavours to blacken and de
fame him, the high efteem and honour which he
feems to have poffeffed through his Ufe. For thefe
reafons, James Bafnage and Dr. Lardner hefitate not
to declare, that there is in all probabffity, fome mif
reprefentation of his fentiments about this point.
For my own part, though I do not think it very
material whether this biffiop of Mopfueftia rejeded
the Song from the canon of fcripture or not, as he
fiUed that fee fo late as the 390th year of Chrift,
when It Is confidered that Its divine authority had
been fo univerfally acknowledged * by the Chriftian
fathers before, I dare not, after the moft careful exa
mination, be pofitive that he did exclude It. For
in the alone words ofbis, which we have preferved,
upon the fubjed, as they were produced by his ac-
cufers at the fecond councU of Conftantinople, which
was called by Juftinian, in the year 546, and in
which the condemnation of his books was procur
ed, he vindicates it from a licentious and impure in-
* Thus it is in Melito's catalogue of the Sacred Books, about the
year 170; in Orlgen's, about 230; in Athanafius's, about 326; in
the council of Laodicea's, about 363 ; in Amphilochius's of Iconium,
about 370; in Epiphanius's of Salamis, about 368. Not to fpeak of
Jerome's, who was a cotemporary with Theodore. Yet it is alfo to be
owned, that Philafttius, bifliop of Brefcia, in his treatife of Herefies,
which he is thought to have written about the year 380, mentions
fome who denied its right of admiflion into the facred canon. Hae
ref. 131.

458 A VINDICATION OF P. IIL
tention ; and, whUe he looks upon it as a marriage-
fong, feems to own that it had fome moral meaning,
although he would not commend It as prophetic of
the bleffings of the Chriftian church f ,
Mr, Voltaire fubjoins, ' And the celebrated Gro-
\ I cite now the whole fragment above referred to, in which, ac
cording to the report even of his enemies, he fpeaks thus ; • Quae om-
' nia oportet legentes librum cogitando, nee ad impudicitiae hortatio-
' nem putare effe confcriptionem fapientiflimi, et propter hoc odiffe;
' (qualis enim eflet titilitas Salomoni feftinare ad confcriptionem impu-
' dicitiae, cui et fine confcriptione poteftas erat impudicitiae I) nee col-
* laudare codicera, ficut habentem propheticam diftationem bonorum
* ecclefiae. Si enim propheticam gratiam meruiffet, mentionem all-
* cubi Dei fecifliet. (In nulla enim prophetica feriptura Deus non rae-
' moratur) fed fcire debent omnes, et aemulationis nuptialis codicem
' menfale convivium effe, ficut et de amore convivium poftea Plato con-
' fcripfit. Unde nee Judaeis, nee nobis publica leftio Cantici Cantico-
' rum fafta eft, tanquam domefticus et nuptialis Salomonis conviviis
* cantus opprobria fponfae fonans.' Harduin. Concil. tom. 3. Con-
ftantinop. Concil. 2. Collatio. 4. p. 89.— --Agreeably, Du Pin's ac
count of Theodore's opinion is only, that he fays, it is a difficult mat
ter to write an ufeful commentary upon it. Ubi fupra page 3 3 j. Dr.
Moftieim, who fpeaks of him as a man truly eminent both in learning
and genius, and as a free and unprejudiced enquirer after truth, who
followed the explications of fcripture given by his predeceffors only
as far as he found them agreeable to reafon, reprefents him indeed to
have been a great enemy to the allegorical method of interpreting the
Old Teftament, common in his age, whereby every paflage was cruelly
tortured and that, without the leaft (park of judgment, or the fmal
left air of probability, either to typify Chrift and the bleflings of his
kingdom, or Antichrift, and the wars and defolations which he was to
bring upon the earth. See his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, tranflated by Mr.
Maclaine, 8vo. yol. i. p. 393. — 395. If his Commentary on the
Song be among his Commentaries concealed with the Neftorians in
the eaft, and ever fee the light, it may explain what is now more dubi»
ous and uncertain about his fentiments.

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 459
' tlus caUs the Song of Songs a Ubidinous work,fia-
* gitiofus.' But I cannot find that this great man
hath expreffed himfelf fo harffily about it. At the
fame time that he thinks It was a compofition of
Solomon concerning himfelf and Pharaoh's daugh
ter, in its Uteral and primary fenfe, he writes, that
he is fuppofed to have framed it with fuch art and
addrefs, that it may, without much ftraining, be
confidered as an allegorical defcription of God's love
toward the Jewiffi people, as the Chaldee paraphraft,
and after him Maimonides hath ffiewed. And
he Ukewife obferves, as this love was a figure of
Chrift's love toward his church, that Chriftians have,
with a commendable zeal, exerted their wits to ac
commodate the words of this fong in a typical view
to this fubjed ; encouraged by the example of the
apoftles, who have compared Chrift's relation to his
church, to the conjugal one, or that between a bride
groom and his fpoufe. Thus he ; as may be feen In
his preface to his commentary on * the Song, in
which, if he does not raife its aim fo high as fome,
he certainly does not merit to be ranked with them
who deem it a -wicked and flagitious piece, — So a
* • Eft hoc canticum colloquium inter Salomonem et filiam regis
' Aegypti, interloquentlbus etiam choris duobus,  creditur autem
* Salomon, quo magis perennaret hoc fcriptum, ea arte id compo-
' fuifle, ut fine multa diftortione aKKnyo^tai in eo inveniri poflent,
* quae Dei amorem erga populum Ifraeliticum exprimerent, quod et
' fenfit et oftendit Chaldaeus hie paraphraftes ; nee aiiter accepit Mai-
' monides, llle autem amor typus cum fuerit arooris Chrifti erga ec-
' defiam, Chriftiani ingenia fua, ad applicanda ad eam rem hujus car-
• minis verba, exercuerunt laudabili ftudio : nametapoftoli Chrifti cum
' ecclefia conjunftionera matrimonio comparawerant,' 2 Cor,xi. S.Eph.
V. 32. Apoe. xix. 7, 9,

46o A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
late v^T-Iter, Jo. David Michaelis, profeffor of philofo
phy, and feUow of the royal academy of fciences at
Gottingen, hath confidered this Song not as f a
celebration of the loves of Solomon and the Egyp
tian princefs in the charaders of bridegroom and
bride at their nuptials, like Boffuet, but as a cele
bration of their mutual tender affedions in the ftate
of hufband and wife ; the more admirable and praife-
worthy, as polygamy then prevaUed; and fuppofes
it was written to commend the conjugal fociety as
a fource of pleafure and delight in human life: in
which view, it is alfo extolled in the book of Pro
verbs, in oppofition to fome fevere and rigid mora
lifts, who did then, or would afterwards, decry and
vilify It. But though he hath not allowed, more than
Grotius, that fpiritual fenfe to be intended, which
many of the antient Chriftians have illuftrated in
their commentaries and other writings, but which,
it -wUl be granted, fOme have purfued too minutely,
he is far from gi-ring any ground to fay, that he ac
counted it a loofe and licentious compofition.
Of his refledions againfl the Proverbs.
Mr. Voltaire proceeds a little after * to the Pro-
t vid. Michaelis. Not. ad Lowthi Praeleftiones.
* He fays indeed, firft, ubi fupra 329. ' Ecclefiaftes is ofa more
• ferious turn, but no more Solomon's than the Song of Songs.' Where
fore it might have been expefted I fliould now have undertaken the de
fence ofthe book of Ecclefiaftes againft his cavils. But it is plain he
wrote here Ecclefiaftes, by miftake, for Ecclefiafticus ; becaufe he af
firms, ' The author is commonly thought to be Jefus the fon of Sirach,
* while otiiers attribute it to Philo of Byblus;' and becaufe he men^

p. IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 461
verbs, which have been alfo afcribed to Solomon,
and faysf, ' The Proverbs have been attributed to I-
* faiah, Elziah, Sobna, EUakim, Joake and many
* others ; but to whomfoever we owe this coUedion
' of eaftern fentences, we may be fure It does not
' come from a royal hand. Would a king have faid,^
* The wrath of a king Is as the roaring of a Uon?
* This is the language of a fubjed or flave j who
' trembles at a frown from his mafter.' But can this
reafon, againft the genuinenefs of this Proverb, per
fuade any impartial perfon? Why might not Solo
mon propofe this obfervation as a caveat to his fub
jeds againft provoking him by difobedient carriage,
that a king's wrath was dreadful to his people, like
the roaring of a lion | to the beafts of the field? efpe
ciaUy when he aUures them at the fame time to fe
cure his friendfhip by a dutiful behaviour, fetting
forth its beneficial and falutary effeds, in way of an-
tions things contained in it difagreeable to the Pentateuch ; as Abra
ham's going to facrifice Ifaac at the time ofthe deluge, and Jofeph the
patriarch's being king of Egypt : whence he infers, ' That whoever he
' was, the Pentateuch was not known in his time.' Now thefe things
are not true ofour book of Ecclefiaftes, which was neither ever fuppofed
to owe its original to one or other of thefe two perfons, nor contains one
fyllable of fuch contradiftions to the Mofaic hiftory, Thefe remarks
only agree to the book of Ecclefiafticus ; accordingly, which fliews it
was his intention to attack this alone here, after he has fallen foul on
the Proverbs, he writes thus, ' We now come to Ecclefiaftes.' With
his charge againft Ecclefiafticus, however, I do not think myfelf con
cerned ; for, though the church of Rome makes it a part of canonical
fcripture, Ve juftly reckon it apocryphal,
f Ibid, page 329.
<¦ X So he obferves elfewhere, ' Tlje fear of a king is as the roaring
' of a lion : whofo provoketh hira to anger, finneth againft his owa
' foul.' Pro?. XX. 2.

462 A VINDICATION OF P,IIL
tithefis or contraft, in the next claufe, thus, ' But his
* favour is as the dew upon the grafs,' comfortable
and ufeful, as that revives the herb of the ground.
Prov. xix, 1 2 ,
He goes on, ' Would Solomon have harped fo
' much on a whoriffi woman ?' But muft not every
wife man fee caufe for remonftrances againft lewd--
nefs and debauchery, and for expofing its mifchiev
ous confequences, In proportion to his opportunities
of wide and extenfive obfervation upon human Ufe ?
Above aU, wUl not fuch a perfon, when he appUes
himfelf to give prudence to the fimple, i. e, the credu
lous through want of experience, and to communicate
to the young man knowledge and underftanding for
the guidance ofbis fteps, think It neceffary todiffuade
from this vice, byareprefentatlonofitshurtful effeds;
as in that ftage of life,thereistoo ftrong a biafs and pro
penfity ,in general, to its gratifications ? And might not
Solomon be more difpofed to enlarge upon this topic,for
the benefit of the gay and fanguine, if he made thefe
refledions, after he had learned, * by fad and painful
feeling, the noxious influence of loofe indulgences?
* So the Hebrew doftors, in Seder Olam Rabbah, cap. 1 j. make
bim to have diftated them, if not to have written them, when he was
old, and near his death. And in like manner, fome of them fpeak elfe
where. Nay, the 70 have been thought to ftrengthen this opinion,
that the Proverbs were compofed by hira after his recovery to a vir
tuous and holy life, from which he had been feduced by outlandilh
women, becaufe they turn the original, Prov. xxiv. 32. vn^oy lya
lA.iriyon<sa, ' I afterwards repented ;' where we have, ' I confidered
' well,' and more juftly, fince Solomon defcribes there only his own
refleftions upon, and improvement of viewing the garden of the flug-
gard, which was over-run with thorns and nettles, and had its fence or
wall demoliflied. Yet others have thought he diftated and wrote them

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 463
Thereafter he fubjoins, ' Would he have faid,
' Look not X on the wine when it appears bright in
* the glafs, and its colour fhines? I very much qUef-
' tion whether drinking glaffes were made in Solo-
' mon's time: the. Invention is but modern: the
* antients drank out of wooden or metal cups; and
' this fingle paffage betrays the book to be the work
' of fome Alexandrine Jew, and to be -written long
' fince Alexander.' Thus, from this one paffage, he
concludes the book fpurious ; yea, that it did not
appear in the world till far more than 600 years,
after Solomon was dead: but no more is the infe
rence here, againft the authenticity of the book,
well founded than before. Whether glafs was made
at all before Solomon's time, the manufadure of
which is faid by PUny J to have had Its rife from
the accidental mixture of the fand of the river Be-
lus, upon the coaft of Tyre, -with kindled nitre, when
fome merchants, who had arrived there with a ffiip,
ufed lumps of it, inftead of ftones, for raifing their
pots or pans over a fire on ffiore, I pretend not
to determine ; as the author who gives this account,
is filent about the aera of the difcovery. For I do
not think any folid argument, for its invention in
Job's age, can be raifed from the fkies being com
pared to a molten looklng-glafs, in our tranflation.
Job xxxvU, 1 8 , becaufe the expreffion in the origi
nal, may relate to a mlrrour of poUffied brafs, fuch
faeforehis lapfe into idolatry and other vices ; becaufe he makes no men
tion of his faults here, as in Ecclefiaftes, and becaufe his hiftorian tells
us he fpoke 3000 proverbs, ere he gives us any account of his being mif
led and drawn afide from right behaviour, i Kings iv. 32. xi. i, 2, &c,
X This is taken from Prov. xxiii. 31, X Nat. Hift. lib. 3 6. cap. 26,

464 A VINDICATION OF P,IIL
as were the mirrours of the Ifraelites, Exod. xxxvUi,
8. fince of them were made the layer of brafs, and
its foot or bafe. And as little do I build on Deut,
xxxm. 1 9. where it is declared, the tribe of Zebulon
' ffiall fuck of the abundance of the fea, and of the
' treafure hidden in the fand,' as a proof that the art
of making glafs was known before the entry of the
Ifraelites into Canaan, For fuppofing there was here
a predidlon of wealth and riches to Zebulon, from
the trade which would be carried on in that commo
dity, on the confines of their territory, as Le Clerc,
after Jonathan in his Targum, hath imagined, it
might refer to it, as to an article of commerce that
was to be found out in fome after period, and not as
to one already In ufe* But as to drinking glaffes, 1
allow they were a much more modern invention, up
on Pliny's authority, who fpeaks of it as having hap
pened during Nero's reign, when two of them, tho'
of moderate * fize, were fold at almoft 50 pounds
fterling, Neverthelefs, that the art of making them
was fo modern, can create no difficulty and em
baraffment here. For Mr, Voltaire ought not to have
reprefented Solomon to mention glafs at all ; though
the Vulgate verfion hath turned the claufe, ' Cum
* fplenduerit in vitro color ejus, when the colour of
' the wine fhineth in the glafs.' Even the Alexan
drine interpreters themfelves, as much as he, pro
nounces the book, on account of the paffage before
• Plin, Nat, Hift, 36, 26. ' Sed quid referf, Neronis principatu
' reperta vitri arte, quae modicos calices duos, quos appellabant ptero-
* tos H. S. fex millibus venderet. — Ufus vero ad potandum argenti
¦ metalla et auri pepnlit.' Mille feftertiura, according to Arbuthnot, JJ^
81. IS. j-|-d. The whole therefore is 4 81. 19 s. id.

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 465
us, the work of fome Alexandrine Jew, have left the
materials, of which the drinking veffel was formed,
undetermined f ; fo that it might have been of wood,
or ftone, or metal, after aU they have faid about it.
And they tranflated, as they have done, with reafon.
For, accordingly, cup Is the fenfe given of DID chus^
which Is the marginal reading here, in Gen, xl, 11,
I 3, 2 1. 2 Sam. xU, 3, and Pfal. xvi. 5. lxxv. 8, Yet
the genuinenefs of thefe parts of fcripture was never,
on account of that term, fufpeded, tho' it might have
been denied therefore, at leaft with greater juftice and
propriety, upon the fame pretence, fuppofing the Vul
gate to have meant to tranflate it in the paffage be
fore us, becaufe thefe were ftlU longer written before
the invention of drinking glaffes. And this fenfe of
cup, by the principles of analogy, may be alfo the fig
nification of the textual reading D'D chis, if it is to be
preferred, fince critics are agreed that words which
differ only as to their middle radical Iod or Vau, have
commonly a fimilitude and Ukenefs of meaning; tho',
I confefs, it Is to be met -with no where elfe in the fa
cred books, but In the fenfe of a bag or purfe. Till,
therefore, it can >be ffiown, that fome glafs veffel for
liquor is intended here, all objedions, becaufe drink-
f Their words are, Eay yap et; ra; (piaKa; xof ra. Trornpa Saif.
rv; olp6«^/,^»? (sv. To fiaKn, which is turned vial in the book of Re
velation, a reader is perhaps ready to affix the idea of glafs. But un
juftly. For we read of golden vials. Rev, v. 8. xv. 7. The name is
given with the proper adjeftive to brazen bafons or bowls, Exod.
xxxviii. 3. I Kings vii, 41, 45. to a filver bowl or bowls. Num. vii,
I 3, &c. many different times ; to golden bafons or bowls finally,
2 Chron. iv. 8,2 2. I Chron. xxviii. 7. 2 Kings xxiv. i j. Compare
Jofeph. Antiq. 3. 6.6, 8, *'a'^l then does not neceffarily fuggeft
the notion of .glals,
G g

466 A VINDICATION OF P.m.
ing-glaffes were only found out more than a thou
fand years after Solomon's time, againft the Proverbs
being his genuine work, from the admonition before
us, muft be groundlefs and impertinent.
We may then reft fatisfied, notwithftanding thefe
cavils, that the Proverbs are a work of Solomon
the fon of David and king of Krael, according to
their introdudory * title, chap, i'. i . For he, we are
told, fet in order many proverbs, Eccl. xU, 9, yea,
fpoke 3000 proverbs, i Kings iv, 32; more, by con
fequence, than are contained In this book, what
ever Jerome | hath faid ; unlefs he be interpreted to
mean, that here was, as it were, their pith andquin-
teffence. I muft be underftood, however, to fay this
with exception ofthe words of Agur, whom, Indeed,
I look upon as a different perfon from Solomon,
both from the delineation he makes of his own cha
rader, Prov. xxx. 2. compared with Eccl. I. 16. and
I Kings ii. 6, ^. and from the account he gives us
of his prayer, wherein he deprecated the two ex
tremes of riches and plenty, and affied' only food
* Accordingly they were regarded by Philo in this light; for he
cites a paflage from Prov. Hi. 1 1 . thus, ' One of the followers of Mo-
' fes, who in our native tongue is called Solomon, hath faid, " Sony
" defpife not the chaftning ofthe Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuk-
'¦' ed of him." De Congreflu, &c. page 449. From the beginning,
till the end of the ix. chapter, there feems to be rather a preface to
Muze attention to the leffons that follow, and to difpofe men to receive
benefit from them ; which may explain the infcription at the head of
the X. chapter.
•|- fn his Quaefliiones Hebraicae, in lib. Regum, he fells us, ' In
• Proverbiis noningenti et quindecim verfus continentur, in quibus eri-
* am continentur iria raillia parabolarum.' Now this laft feems only
true in the fenfe above explained. The Mafora makes no more u^'h
than 1863.

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 467
convenient for him. Prov. xxx. 7 . And the excep*
tion muft be alfo extended to the words which King
Lemuel's mother taught him, chap. xxxi. i . who
ever ffie was.
Whether he wrote them or not, Is a different
queftion. The Talmudifts, I know, afcribe * the
wniting of them to Hezekiah and his coinpany, a-
mong whom they reckon Ifaiah, Eliakim fon of
Hilklah, Sebna the fcribe, and Joah-f, fon of Afaph
the recorder. But, which may difcredit even this
tale, they there alfo afcribe the writing of Kalah's
prophecies to the fame perfons ; though, according
to their own tradition, Hezekiah died before Ifaiah
had finlffied his work as God's meffenger to the na
tion. Befides, the Jewiffi commentators do not fup
port this opinion with any reafon but fuch as rather
ferves to perfuade us of the contrary. For, as it is
only faid at the beginning of chap, xxv. ' Thefe are
* alfo proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Heze-
* klah king of Judah copied out,' and not at the
commencement of the book, it Is natural to think,
that, all which precede, were written by Solomon
himfelf; and that only thefe ¦which foUow this In
fcription, were coUeded by fome perfons whom He
zekiah, in his zeal for reformation, appointed unto
this work. Had all been gathered by them, this no
tice would have been given in the frontifplece, in
ftead of being deferred to this place.
So much for -vindicating the book of Proverbs,
* Bava Bathra, i. 14. Some, however, think they fpeak rather of
the reception of this book into the canon by them.
t The lift then given by Mr. Voltaire, in the place quoted at the
fce^inaing of tiiis fubdivifion ofthe feftion, is not altogether accurate.
Gg 2

468 A VINDICATION OF P. lit
which certainly is an admirable work, confifting of ex
cellent rules and obfervations for direding the condud
of perfons in every age and condition, but efpecially
of perfons juft entering Into the world, and more rea-"
dy, through their inexperience, to be infnared Into
wrong courfes, to their utter ruin. Among thefe
rules, neverthelefs, a reverence of God is in a parti
cular manner inculcated again and again, with great
earneftnefs, as It Is the nobleft fource and principle,
and the beft feeurity for the difcharge of other du
ties amidft the temptations of life. What is there
comparable to this Jewiffi treafure in aU the fenten
ces of Solon, Thales, Bias and others, whom heathen
antiquity fo much extolled? Mean while, the royal
dignity of the author tends more to awaken the at
tention, and procure the regard of the world to his
maxims and precepts, than if they had been didated
by fome eftabliffied preceptor, or reclufe philofopher,
and proceeded from the fchool or the ffiade. .
Accordingly, It hath been reckoned a part of the
facred canon by the Jews very unanlmoufly. For
though fome were once difpofed to rank it among
apocryphal writings, becaufe its words were contra
didory to one another, they afterwards changed *
* See Traft. Talmud, Shabbath. ii. 30. Perhaps they here
thought of Proverbs xxvi. 4.5. where we have thefe, at firft view,
oppofite direftions ; ' Anfwer not a fool according to his folly, left thou
• alfo be like unto bim. Anfwer a fool according to his folly, left he
' be wife in his own conceit.' But they are eafily made confiftent. In
the former, we are difliiaded againft anfwering a fool according to his
folly, by imitation of his fcurrility, buffoonery, abufive and railing
language, as appears from the reafon with which it is inforced, ' Left
' thou alfo become like to him.' In the latter, we are required to an-

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 469
their mind, becaufe they faw there was a method of
reconcffing them,
Of his refledions againft Ecclefiaftes.
Last of aU, Mr, Voltaire falls on our book of Ec
clefiaftes. ^ We * now come to Ecclefiaftes, which
' Grotius affirms to have been written in the time of
* Zorobabel. This author's freedom is known to e-
* very body. He fays. That men are in nothing bet-
* ter than beafts ; that it is better never to have been
* born than to exift; that there is no other life; that
* the only good is to eat and to drink, and be mer-
' ry with the woman one loves. Solomon perhaps
' might have talked in this manner to fome of his
' women, and fome conftrue thefe fayings as objec-
* tions which he makes to himfelf; but, befides the
* libertinifm of which they ftrongly favour, they
' have nothing of the appearance of objedions; and
.' to make an author mean the contrary of what he
> fays, is an infult on the world,'
But what poor pretences had Grotius for judg
ing as he does, that this book was a compofition af
ter the captivity, by fqveral perfons whom Zoroba
bel had appointed to coUed or gather opinions a-
bout the happinefs of men, and to pafs fuch coUec
tion upon the world as a work of King Solomon,
fwer a fool according to his folly, by found arguments, expofing tha
falftiood of his principles, and the abfurdity ofbis conduft, that we may
take down his prefumption, and cure him of that vain conceit of his
own fuperior underftanding, which filence would leave him witha
< i.eft he be wife in his own conceit.'
• Ibid, page 330.

470 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
after he had repented of his evil ways ? Though the
Talmudical writers, according to the general inter
pretation of their words, have afcribed the writing of
this book *, as weU as of Ifaiah, Proverbs and Song,
to Hezekiah and his men, none of the Jews, at leaft
almoft none of them, ever queftioned but Solomon
fpoke the things contained In it ; and this, in his
advanced f age, after he was reclaimed from his love
of ftrange women, and the fins into which they be
trayed him ; as indeed there are through the piece,
many expreffions which carry in them an air of pe
nitence; fee Eccl. ii. i, 2. xi. 18. vii. 26, &c. — To
Solomon alone agree thefe defcriptions which the
perfon who affumes the province of inftrudor here,
gives of his fuperior wifdom, i, 1 6. and of the great
magnificence and variety of his works, and of the
tranfcendent pomp, and fplendor, and gaiety In
which he lived, U. 4, — 10. and to no other is the
charader fuitable which he draws of himfelf, as hav
ing fought out and fet in order many proverbs, xii. 9.
which things conftitute prefumptions, tUl they be in-
vaUdated by contrary evidence, that he is the author.
* See Talmud, Traft. Baba Bathra, i. e. porta pofterlor, ubi fu
pra; which, however, as was hinted before, fome underftand rather
of their admiflion of the book into the canon. Waehner Antiq. He-
braica, feft. i. cap. 30.
f In Seder Olam Rabba, cap. i j. it is faid, when Solomon had waxed
old, and was near to his diflblution, the Holy Spirit refted upon him,
fo that he fpoke the things which are contained in Proverbs, Song of
Songs and Ecclefiaftes : and in this date of Ecclefiaftes, with reference
to his time of life, they feem generally to agree. So R. Chija Rabbah,
and R. Jonathan, though they differ in affigning youth or middle age
to Song or Proverbs. Vid. Midrafti Shir Haftiirim, and lalkut Shimo-
ni apud Waehner feft, i. cap. 25. I

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 471
Further, the title, in its natural and obvious mean
ing, attributes the book to him as its author. For
who but he was fon of David, and at the fame time
king of Jerufalem, as he caUs himfelf? chap, i, i, 12.
None of his fucceffors on the throne could be fo de
nominated, except in a loofe and general fenfe, as
David was his remote progenitor, — What although
two words occur here (and they are no * more) which
are not found in themfelves, or in their root, any
where elfe in the Hebrew books of the Bible, but
only in the Chaldee part of Daniel's book, and In
the Chaldee Targums or paraphrafes on fcripture?
They might, notwithftanding, belong to the Hebrew
language In its pure and unadulterated ftate. For
how fmall a portion muft we have of this, In a vo
lume of no larger fize than the Bible, as any one
wUl be fenfible, who will refled that this muft have
been the cafe with the Greek or Latin languages,
had we only pieces tranfmitted to us therein refpec-
tively, of equal bulk and magnitude ? Accordingly,
it often happens that we meet \rith words in a book
of the Bible, which are only once read through the
* For though four have been mentioned, two of them are not juft
ly numbered of this fort, viz. ~\^D.fr, rendered /o/, chap. vii. 6. fince
it occurs, Exod. xvi. 3. and TUV^IN abionah, turned defire, chap,
xii. J. fince TXHV^ abah is often to be met with in the Hebrew Bible in
the fignification of defiring, or being well afiefted toward an objeft.
The two words which are rightiy inftanced in are, firft, "W^ pejher,
iht interpretation, Eccl. viii. i. which is only read befides in Daniel
ii. 4, J. where the Cbaldee part of that book begins, and is continued
till the end of the vii. chapter. Compare alfo Targum on Gen. xl. 8.
Judges vii. 19. and then "^UM gutnatz, 3. ditch, Eccl. x. 8. which
again appears no where in the Bible, but in Targum, Pfal. vii. 1 6. and
ProT. xxii. 4, &c. and in Syriac New Teftament, Luke vi. 39.
Gg 4

472 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
whold' extent of It from beginning to end, fo that we
muft have recourfe to the fifter-dialeds, Arabic, Sy
riac, or Chaldee,forthe difcovery of then- fignification ;
and yet no fufpicion hath been formed, on this ac
count, againft its being written in the age of the
perfon, whofe name It bears. Why then ffiould fuch
an Inference be made here from this cUcumftance,
as to place Ecclefiaftes below the Babylonlffi -captivi
ty ? — Is it pretended, finally, that n'^Hp Koheleth,
the name which the fpeaker affumes here ffiould be
turned, the coUedor or heaper up of the various o-
pinions of wife men about happinefs, inftead of, the
preacher, as we have tranflated It after the Seventy and
Vulgate ? It Is anfwered, though we were to prefer the
fenfe of coUedor or gatherer, from the root "PHp, ka-
hal, to affemble, congregate, bring together, it might
be very well accommodated to Solomon here, where
his aim is to unite wandering fouls from the purfuit
of vanities to the profecution of the fupreme good,
and where he, as it were, calls a multitude together,
to hear and learn from him the path to true feUcity.
It feems therefore an Idle unfupported fancy, that
Ecclefiaftes was the work of feveral perfons. in Zoro
babel's time.
As to any paffages again In this book, which feem
to favour the gratification of irregular defires, and
to remove the apprehenfions of a future retribution,
is It not manifeft, that they ffiould be explained J In
X Thus when it is faid that ' a man hath no praeeminence above
a beaft,' chap. iii. 1 9. it may be underftood to be fpoken not abfolute
ly, or upon the whole, but in refpeft ofthe breath or refpiration, which
ceafes alike in men and brutes at the moment of death, -When it is
faid again, ' That the day of death is better than the day of birth,'

P,IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 473
a quaUfied and limited fenfe. If they contain the re
al fentimtsnts of the writer ; or if they cannot be
thus explained without violence, that they ffiould
be regarded as expreffing the deteftable principles of
Epicureans and fenfualifts, which he wiffied to over
throw and confute ? For ,otherwife,they would be moft
inconfiftent with the pofitions he advances, and the
diredions he gives, upon different occafions, through
the treatife ; as, to be more ready to hear or obey the
counfels of virtue and piety, at attendance on the
houfe of God, than to offer there the facrifice of
fools, which-all did who continued to allow them
felves in wicked Uving, however expenfive or nu
merous their oblations, chap. v. 1.2. to rejoice for
God's acceptance and approbation of our works, ix.
7 , to retrench fuperfluous expences for beneficence
to the poor and diftreffed, xi, i, 2, to moderate
vii. I . which I fuppofe Mr. Voltaire paraphrafes, ' It is better never
' to have been born, than to exift;' it may be underftood to fignify,
that the time of a man's death, who hath fpent this life well, or by
virtuous aftions acquired a good reputation to himfelf, which in the
former claufe ofthe verfe is preferred to the moft precious and fragrant
perfume, is produftive of more good to him, than the feafon of his na
tivity into this life, where all are fubjeft to many woes and forrows.
Once more, when he bids eat, drink, and be merry or chearful, chap.
viii. I J. and live joyfully with the wife whom thou loveft, for that
is a man's portion in this life, ix. 9. he may be explained to advife no
more than that perfons ftiould enjoy the fortunes which God beftows
upon them by chearful focial repafts, inftead of giving into parfimoni-
ous abftinence from the ufe of them, though ftill not fo as to difable
them from works of mercy and charity, which himfelf enjoins, iii. 1 2,
xi. 1 2. and that they ffiould folace themfelves in the company of their
own wives, inftead of feeking the pleafures of whoredom and adultery,
V. 15 — 21.

474 A VINDICATION OF P. III.
our Indulgence to carnal defires, by the confiderati
on of a future judgment, which judgment he afferts
over and over, xi. 9. m. 16, 17. &c. and to defpife
worldly pleafures as vain and unfatisfadory, U. 2.
vU. 2 . Yea, otherwife, they will be quite fubverfive
of the coroUary which he deduces from the whole
of his premifes here, and which he leaves with his
readers as his finiffiing leffon, which he aimed above
all things to inculcate, ' Let us hear the conclufion.
* of the whole matter. Fear God, and keep his coni-
' mandments ; for this is the whole of man,' the
whole of his duty and felicity. ' For God ffiall bring
* every work Into judgment, with every fecret
* thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evU.*
And is fuch a method of interpretation ffiewing
any * greater favour to a writer, than common can
dour didates, from a regard to his avowed fcope
and intention ? If the paffages favour ftrongly of fi
ber tinifin, when viewed in another light, this is fo
far from being an argument againft the conftrudion
we put upon them, as Mr, Voltaire would make it,
that it becomes a ftronger proof and demonftration
they ought to be fo explained, in proportion as So-
* If we meet with any paflage in Plato, Ariftotle, Tully, Seneca,
or any of the Gentile philofophers, which at firft view appears to be
repugnant to the declared principles of the author in other places, or
to his evident intention in writing the piece where it occurs, we try
to find out a convenient or commodious fenfe of the paflage in queftion,
by which he may appear confiftent widi himfelf, and cautious of de-<
feating the end he had in view. And ffiould not we follow the' fame
rule of interpretation here which is fo loudly prefcribed by. a careful
and unprejudiced confideration and comparifon of the whole treatife, in
ftead of explaining this or that part in the way moft abfurd and non-
feofical, and palpably fubrerfirc ofthe writer's grand and ultimate aim?

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 475
lomon appears animated by a ferious and religious
defign In the compofition of the book. Suitab
ly, we are told, though f fome of the vrife or
learned men among the Jews were once difpofed to
rejed this book from the canon of Scripture, becaufe
its words deftroyed one another ; In particular be
caufe it was faid, ' Rejoice O young man in thy youth,
* let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth,
* and walk in the ways of thy heart, and in the fight
' of thine eyes,' chap, xi. 9. which they thought
claffied with Numb. xv. 39. ' Remember all the
' commandments of the Lord and do them, and that
' ye feek not after your own heart, and your o-wn
' eyes, after which ye ufe to go a-whoring;' They,
notwithftanding, retained it as a part of canonical
Scripture, becaufe the beginning and conclufion of
the book were the words of the law, and becaufe
the -writer added In the particular paffage which was
mentioned as creating offence, ' But know thou,
' that for all thefe things God wUl bring thee into
' judgment.' There is then no reafon to cenfure the book of
Ecclefiaftes, as the produdion of a later age than So
lomon's, and as in its contents unworthy of him !^
— Nor, by confequence, as this is the only work a-
fcribed to him which remained to be vindicated, is
there any ground to deny that he is reaUy author
ofthe works fathered on him.
As to what foUows in Mr, Voltaure, ' But though
' thefe books were vsrrltten by a Jew, what Is that
* to us ? The Chriftian religion is indeed founded
f See Traft Shabbath, foi. 30. and Midrafti Coheleth, foi, 114,
and Michaelis ad Hagiographa, — and Waehner ubi fupra, feft. 1. 30

476 A VINDICATION OF P.m.
* on Judalfm, but not on aU the Jewifli books ? Why
* fliould the Song of Songs be held more facred
* among us, than the fables of the Talmud? The an-
' fwer is, becaufe we have included it in the Hebrew
* canon. And what is this fame canon ? It is a col-
* ledion of authentic works. Well, and muft a work
* of courfe be divine, for being authentic ? For In-
* ftance, a hiftory of the kings of Juda, and of Si-
* chem, what is It but a hiftory ? A ftrange prepo-
* feffion, indeed! We defpife and abhor the Jews;
* and yet we infift, that aU fuch of their -writings
* which we have coUeded, bear the facred ftamp of
* divinity. Never was fuch a contradldtibn heard of!'
I have beftowed fome attention upon this paragraph
already, and fuggefted then the true reafon of our vci'
neratlon * for their books. I therefore only now add,
the greater difpleafure and averfion Chriftians had at
the Jews, It is plain, they would be lefs ready to re
ceive Jewiffi books as divine oracles, without fatisfaC
tory evidence that Jefus and his apofUes honoured
them as fuch ; even, as it is evident, the more keen
the maUce and hatred of the Jews againft Chriftiani
ty, they would be lefs forward to corrupt or alter
their facred books, fo as to ferve its caufe and IntCr
reft. The circumftance, therefore, of the abhorrence
of Chriftians at them, may rather be improved to thq
confirmation and eftabUffiment of our faith in the
antient Scriptures. * Part I. feftion 6. page 34,

p.m. THE SACRED feoOKS. 477

SECTION V.
Of his Infinuation that Mathew's Gofpel was not
written tUl after the taking of Jerufalem by Ti
tus, from the mention of Zacharias's death.
IN his PhUofophical Didionary, fpeaking of learned
perfons*, he fays, ' They obferve f, that, in St. Mat-
' thew, Jefus Chrift fays to the Scribes and Phari-
' fees, that upon them ffiould come aU the innocent
* blood ffied on the earth from the blood of rlghte-
' ous Abel to that of Zacharias the fon of Barac,
' whom they flew between the temple and the al-
' tar. ' In all the hiftory of the Hebrews, fay they, we
* meet with no fuch perfon as Zacharias killed in the
' temple before the coming of the Meffiah, nor in
' his time; but Jofephus, in his hiftory ofthe fiege
' of Jerufalem, (chap. 1 9. book 4.) mentions a Zacha-
' rias the fon of Barachias, who was killed in the
* middle of the temple by a fadion of the Zelotes.
* This has given rife to a fupiclon, that St. Matthew's
• Gofpel was not written tlU after the taking of Jeru-
* falem by Titus. But if we confider the Infinite dif-
* ference there muft be between books divinely in-
* fpired,and fuch as are merely human,all thefe doubts,
* difficulties and objedions immediately vanlffi.*
But what learned men ever expreffed fuch a fuf-
* See article Chriftianity, page 98.
X Thus the reader muft have obferved, it is his frequent manner
to put objeftions in the mouths of others, which, it cannot be doubt-
-«d, he himfelf approves, and triumphs in as unanfwerable.

47 8 A VINDICATION OF P.III.
picion as Mr. Voltaire afcribes to them ! Indeed there
have not been wanting fome, and among thofe a per
fon of no lefs critical ability and reputation than Gro
tius, who fuppofed Zacharias the fon of Baruch,
whom Jofephus * reprefents to have been flain in the
middle of the temple, by two of the moft daring of
the Zelotes, only about the end of Nero's reign, and
a little before Jerufalem was invefted by the Roman
armies, to be intended in the paffage of St. Matthew,
chap, xxm, v, 3 5 . But then they never drew the
conclufion which he mentions from It, that St, Mat
thew's Gofpel was a compofition of a later date. No.
They reckoned f our Lord fpoke of his murder here
by way of anticipation, through that power of pro
phecy which refided in him, and enabled him to fore-
fee and foretell future contingencies even more dif
tant, as appears, from his hiftory. They therefore
ftUl agreed with other critics about the age of
this work, who, however they have differed con
cerning its precife time, fome of them placing it
eight, fome fifteen, and fome, upon the teftimony
of Irenaeus, that it was -written when Peter and
Paul were preaching at Rome, fo late as 2 8 years af
ter Chrift's afcenfion into heaven, have univerfally
judged that it, as weU as the Gofpels of Mark and
* De Bello, 4. 5. 4.
f Thus Grotius on the place writes, ' Videri hie Chriftura adlu-
' dere ad, veterem hiftoriam, 2 Paralip. 24. 17 — 22. ut fimul infit
' ejus verbis futuri praefagium. Nam virorum bonorum atque infigni-
' um ultimus ab Hierofolymitis trucidatus, et quidem in ipfo templo,
'.. diftus itidem eft Zacharias, et quidem filius Baruchi, quod cum Bara-
' chiae nomine idem haberi poteft ; cujus caedem ftatim fecuta eft obfi-
' dio, ut apud Jofephum videre eft.'

P.m» THE SACRED BOOKS., 479
Luke, was publiffied a confiderable whUe not only
before the taking of Jerufalem by Titus, but before
the commencement of its fiege. And truly this may
be argued from the manner of the EvangeUft him
felf, which adds ftrength to the harmonious tradi
tion of antient Chriftians about its fo early appear
ance. For he does not drop the leaft Intimation,
where he records our Saviour's predidion of the
fpread of the Roman armies through the land of Ju
dea, and the defolation of its capital and temple by
them, that it had been verified by the event, any
more than thefe other facred hiftorians do, who were
his companions in the kingdom of God. On the con
trary, like them, by the expreffion, ' Let him that
* readeth, underftand,' he calls upon all difciples of
Jefus in that country, into whofe hands his narra
tive might come, to be attentive to the figns that
were declarative of the approaching diftrefs and ru
in, and inferts admonitions and warnings to them,
to provide for their own fafety.
But is there, after aU, fufficient reafon to Ima
gine, that the Zacharias was meant, whofe death Jo
fephus there relates, as our author takes for granted,
whUe he appears to every reader of penetration,
¦vrilling to improve it into an evidence, that Mat
thew's Gofpel was written after that event happen
ed, and rather to deride the hypothefis which con
fiders It as an inftance of Chrift's extraordinary
knowledge ? I apprehend not. I do not infift for
ffiewing this, that the Zacharias of the gofpels is
flain between the temple and the altar; whereas the
Zacharias of Jofephus, In the period referred to, is
kiUed in the middle of the temple. For I doubt

48o A VINDICATION OF P, III.
•whether this difference can be of any force to per
fuade that another perfon was intended by the evan-
gelifts, fince Jofephus might have fatisfied him.felf
with fo general an account of the fcene of his death,
though it had happened in the Inner court, In which
the altar of burnt-offering ftood ; as indeed he hath
done in his narrative of the excifion of a more an
tient Zacharias, at the * command of Joaffi, which is
admitted to have been tranfaded in the fame court,
about which he only fays, ' The king ordered that
' he ffiould die by ftoning in the temple.'
There are other differences which feem to me of
greater weight to evince the point. In Priatthew,
the Zacharias fpoken of, is called the fon of Bara-
cluas ; but the Zacharias In Jofephus, is ftUed the
fon of Baruch, which is a different name from the
former, fmall as the variety betwixt thefe words is.
For in the Greek verfion, ^«p»x Baruch, Is always
ufed to tranflate the Hebrew "^113 Baruch, but B«-
f «X'"f Barachias is applied with the fame uniformity
to render the Hebrew rTD~)3 Berechiah. Compare
Ifai, vm. 2, Zechar, I, 17, Nehem, m, 4, 20, Jerem.
xliU. 3, 6. xiv. I, 2, &c. And the example of this
verfion Is followed by Jofephus himfelf, as may be
found by looking into his Antiquities, where he
gives an account of the remonftrance of | Berechiah
and other princes of Ifrael, to their brethren that
returned from the war, againft detaining the nume
rous captives they had made in Judah, from 2 Chron.
xxvm. I 2, and, again, where he mentions the adions
and ufage of Baruch, from the book of Jeremiah. —
* J. Antiq. 9. 8. 3. and 2 Chron. xxiv. 17, — 22.
X Antiq. 9. 12. 2. and 10. 6. 2. &c.

1*1 m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 481
Further, the Zacharias of the New Teftament is a
prophet. The connedion ahd fcope In Matthew's
Gofpel dired us to regard him in this lights And
the exprefs words in Luke xi. 50, 51, declare him
fuch, ' That the blood of all the prophets which was
* ffied from the foundation of the world may come
* upon this generation, from the blood of Abel, unto
* the blood of Zacharias.' But the Zacharias whom
Jofephus mentions to have been killed before the Ro
mans furrounded Jerufalem, though faid to have been
a man who greatly detefted, and warmly reproved all
manner of wickednefs, is not reprefented to have
had any prophetic * commlffion and endowment, or
to have made any claim or pretenfion to it. — Final
ly, the murder of the Zacharias in the evangeUft-s, is
charged' upon the Jews as a national crime. But
the death of that Zacharias in Jofephus, was the deed
of a fadion or party, not only without the autho
rity of the legal council or fanhedrim, but even in
oppofition to the pleafure of that irregular and dif-
orderly one, which had been conftituted by them
for his trial and condemnation, through a defire of
taking away his life with the forms ofjuftice. FOrthey,
con^rinced ofbis innocence, after aU the Charges and
¦accufations of his enemies, chofe rather to abfolve
and acquit hina, fo their corifufibn and rage, by
whom they tad been thus creafed judges, than to
bring upon themfelves the guUt of his blood, by
gratifying their wiffies and hopes vrith a fentence
eondemning him to fuffer capital puniffiment.
It is then Very unreafonable, when there are fuch
' inftances of difagreemeUt betW^een the perfons ia
* See De Bello, as above,
H h

4&2 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
the cifcuniftancfes of parentage, charader and fate,
merely becaufe the name is the fame, to pretend
that the EvangeUft Matthew makes Jefus teU the
Jews his conteinporaries under Tiberius, that they
had kUled a man whom Jofephus informs us they
did not deftroy till more than 30 years after, when
Nero had almoft done fwaying the imperial fcepter.
And it muft be ftill more unjuftifiable, on fo ffight
^ ground, to fuggeft that he wrote In a later period
than that In which he is fuppofed to have written,
"When through all the length of his treatife, it cannot
be manlfefted that he betrays any unfuitablenefs to
its earlier date In any events, cuftoms, aUufions, or
phrafes which there occur, as difficult as it muft have
been to have avoided It. — By confequence, the ca
vil which proceeds upon the fuppofition that this
Zacharias, who was cut off in the temple by the
feealots, w^as intended in Matthew, liath no good
foundation *.
* I do not fuppofe, the reader fees, that Chrift fpoke of this mart
iveti by way of anticipation, through his extraordinary knowledge.
For he plainly intended a prophet murdered before, yea murdered by
the anceftors of thofe whom he addreffed, and addreffed in the way of
blaming their fconduft- ; their care, I mean, of the prophets fepulchres,
while themfelves imitated the cruelty of their fathers who had killed
them. Nor is it any objeftion to this that he fays, tvhom ye /lew, for
this is according to that common figure by which a nation or people
is confid'e'red as ftill the fame. As in Johh vi. 32, &c. Befides, how
could the Jews have Comprehended the fenfe of his folemn affevera-
iion, if he had de%ned a perfon to be killed hereafter? and Where
would have been the propriety, on this fuppofitibti, of the fOrm of
Ipeech he ufes, to warn them that great miferies would befal them,
when many of thefe miferies would have already overtaken them, be
fore they ftiould contraft any guilt by ffiedding that man's bjood. But
though I do not think this prophetic interpretation the true fenfe, I did
not reafon againft it above, becaufe, were it received, no argument

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 483
Says Voltaire, however, in the name of his un
known learned men, whofe objedion he recites, ' We
* meet with no fuch perfon as Zacharias kUled in the
* temple before the coming of the Meffiah, nor in his
' time,' that he may thence infer he can be no other
than the Zacharias who feU a facrifice, according to
Jofephus, near the end of the Jewiffi ftate. But fure
ly this is a miftake. We read undeniably of a Zacha
rias kiUed in the temple more than 500 years be
fore the birth of Chrift, as muft have been already
obferved, 2 Chron. xxiv. 17, 22. And this perfon I
take to be here meant; not Zacharias who flou
riffied after the return of the Jews from Babylon,
and whofe book makes one among the books of the
twelve fmaUer prophets ; for though he is ftiled the
fon of Barachias, like the Zacharias of the evange-
lifts, we have neither any hiftory of his * murder by
the Jewiffi people, nor does it feem probable in it
felf, they ffiould have committed fuch an outrage,
after their great refped for him, Ezra v. 2 . when
they had juft emerged from that diftrefs and capti-
could be derived from the mention of fuch Zacharias, againft the early
age of this gofpel.
* I am aware there is mention of a Zacharias, fon (or grandfon)
of Iddo, a great prieft and faithful prophet, killed in the fanftuary
ofthe Lord, on the day of expiation, becaufe he reproved the people,
in the Targum on Lament, ii. 20. which many underftand concerning
this leflTer prophet, from comparing Ezra v. 1, and Zechar. i. 7. But
it is probable Zacharias, who periftied under Joafli, is meant ; and that
he is called the fon of Iddo only by miftake ofthe autiior. or his tran
fcriber, fince the accounts of their death do fo exaftly tally : to which
addf this very paffage ofthe Lamentations is in many other places ex
pounded by the Jewifti mafters, of the fon of Jehta^da. See Light-
foot's W^orks, i, 237. and Michaelis Annot, in locum,
Hh 2

A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
vity with which God puniffied them, for mifufing
his former prophets and meffengers: far lefs Zacha^
rias, father of the Baptift, for whofe violent death
in the temple by Herod, we have no better autho-'
rity than a tale of Epiphanius, who comes too late,
fince he flouriffied only about the year of our Lord
370, and was too credulous to juftify our entire re
liance upon his teftimony, were that piece where it
is found really his, which is after all very doubt-'
ful. It is true, the Zacharias in Chronicles is not cal-*
led the fon of Barachias, but the fon of Jeholada.
But, though we ffiould not fuppofe that the name
Barachias was fubftituted for Jeholada * In the text
of Matthew's Gofpel, by fome ignorant but zealous
tranfcriber, who recolleded no Zacharias except
that one among the minor prophets, whofe father
was fo called, nor have recourfe to any other violent
folution, this difagreement between the writer of
Chronicles and of the Gofpel, can create little diffi
culty. For, as it was no uncommon thing among the
Jews, for places to have two or more names, nrither
¦was it unufual for perfons to have two or more ap
pellations, of which fome examples are produced be
low X. Why then might not the father of Zacharias,
* To this purpofe it has been obferved, that the Gofpel ofthe Na-
zarenes read the fon of Jeholada here, inftead ofthe fon of Barachias,
in Jerome's time,
f Thus Jehoahaz, 2 Kings xxiii. 30. is Shallum, Jer. xxii. 11.
Ner, the grandfather of Saul, is alfo Abiel, i Chron. ix. 39. i Sam.
ix, I. Azariah the fon of Oded, is alfo Oded, 2 Chron. xv. i, 8.
Uzziah, king. of ^udah, is alfo called Azariah, 2 Chron. xxvi. I.
2 Kings XV. I, z. Matthew is Levi, Mat. ix. 9. Markii. 14. Luke

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 485
who had his tragical . exit under Joaffi, be named
Barachias as weU as Jeholada, efpecially when both
names are of equivalent fignification? Upwi aUow
ing this, aU objedion vaniffies. And what colour of
argument can there be againft it, fince there is a per
fed correfpondence between the Zacharias defcrib
ed in the gofpels, and the Zacharias mentioned In
Chronicles, in other circumftances? Does Chrift
fpeak of a Zacharias who was a prophet? fuch was
Zacharias in Chronicles, 2 Chron. xxiv. 19, 20.
Does he fpeak of a Zacharias flain by the Jews? This
was his end, ' The people,' on his reproof of their
idolatry, and denunciation of divine wrath againft:
them, ' confpired againft him, and ftoned him with
* ftones, at the commandment of the king. — Thus
* Joaffi the king remembred not the kindnefs which
' Jeholada his father had done to him, but flew his
• fon,' V. 21, 22. Once more, does our Saviour
fpeak of a Zacharias kffied between the temple and
the altar? It Is faid that that Zacharias, fon of Jehoi<-
da the prieft, who ftood above the people when he
addreffed to them thefe words which provoked them,
was kUled in the court of the houfe of the Lord,
that is, in the Inner court, or court of the priefts,
which was beyond that of the IfraeUtes, and in whicb,
near the entrance ofthe fanduary, or moft holy place,
ftood the altar of burnt offering, 2 Chron, xxiv. 20.,
2 I . Only Chrift adds, which might be agreeable
to received traditionary or wiltten information,
that, having fled thither from them violence and
fury, he was put to death in that place of the
y. 27, &c. Why then might not Jeholada be alfo Barachiah. The
former of which fignifies, the Lord knows ; the other, the Lord ble/^i,
Hh 3

4^6 A VINDICATION OF P.m.
court which lay between this altar and the ho
ly of hoUes*; by confequence in the vicinity, and
under the obfervation of God himfelf, who refided
there by a vifible glory or brightnefs over the ark his
fymbol, which did not a Uttle aggravate and inflame
their guUt. Of his death alfo, the Jews fpeak much
in their | Talmud. And it is obvious there was a
fitnefs in our Saviour's feleding him, whatever righ
teous men, and even prophets, might have been kU
led by them in fucceeding rimes, before his own ap
pearance in the fleffi, when he ufed the phrafeology
here to admoniffi them of great calamities, as he is
the laft prophet whofe murder is mentioned in their
facred books, and the only one of whom we read
that he required vengeance for the effufion of his
blood before he expired, even as we do, that Abel's
blood cried for it, after it was ffied.
Here then Is another Zacharias killed in the templd,
many ages before the coming of the Meffiah, who
anfwers very well the defcription In Matthew, We
may therefore be fatisfied, notwithftanding Mr. Vol
taire's affertion, that it could agree to none but one
ilain long after Jefus's death, into whofe mouth both
this evangelift and Luke puts the fad, that Matthew
wrote as early | as is fuppofed, without having re-
* This is the frequent fenfe of yao;, the term in the gofpels turned
temple, while ii^oy fignifies the whole facred building with its courtSj
or any part exclufive of that. So Jofeph. Antiq. 9. i, 2. Jehofaphat
is faid to have gathered the people of Jerufalem into the h^oy, and to
have prayed ftanding with his face toward the yao; or holy of holies,
Kara Tr^otraTroy rv yav.
t See Ligbtfoot's Works, vol. 2. page 1 140. and Talmud. Exer
citations on Matth. vol. i. page 237. alfo his Sermons, page ii20.
Michaelis Annot. in 2 Chron. xxiv. 2 1.
X See note, page 508.

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 487
courfe, for the folution of any difficulty here, to the
infinite difference between books divinely infpired
and fuch as are merely human, which he only ac*
knowledges * by way of feoff and farcafin.

SECTION VI.
Of his calUng Toldos Jefchut quite contrary to our
gofpels, and making it a more antient writing.
J AM now haftening to a conclufion pf this works
but ere I end, muft alfo take notice of a remarkable
* As Mr. Voltaire here has fuppofed St. Matthew to make Chrift
fpeak of a Zacharias, who was not flain till almoft 4 o years after his
death ; fo in his article Mefliah ofthe fame Diftionary, he makes Gama
liel fpeak ofa Theudas, who did not appear tiU long after thefe delibe
rations were held, at which he affifted. ' The wife Gamaliel,' fays he,
' Afts, V. 34. mentions one named Theudas, whofe hiftory is to be
' foundin Jofephus's antiquities, lib, 20. c. 2.' See ibid, page 273.
But it is plain he gives this interpretation ofthe paffage, in like manner,
by way of ridicule. For, he could never believe Gamaliel intended
hira, whofe impofture and ruin Jofephus relates. Jofenhus'p Tlj^ujla?
arofe not till Culpius Fadus was procurator of Judea, under the empe
ror Claudius, about the fourty-fourth year of the Chriftian aera. Ga
maliel, in his fpeech made eight orten years fooner, mentions a Theudas
who had given difturbance, and been flain at that time ; yea before the
time ofthe tumults and commotions which Judas of Galilee raifed, who
ieduced much people in. the daysof the.aflelfmentor cepfus, when Jj[_-
dea was reduced to the ftate of a Roman province. They muftthsre-
forehave been two.dififerenl. perfons of.the (arne pwje. Aqcprdingly,
this is the general fenfe of learned men, Ai^T^fhy might there not be
two deceivers in that country of one name, in the compafs of ,^0 years,
with fuch fimilarity in charafter and fate, as this hypothefis requires-?
None will think this an unlikely or improbable thin.g, who look into the
late excellent Dr. Lardner's Credibility, part i. book 2. chap. 7, p.
931 — 940. to whofe wor|cI iherefpre refer the reader.
H h 4

488 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
ftroke againft our gofpels, in one of his lateft pub
lications, I mean his ' Letters on eminent Writers,'
There,* fays he, ' The Toldos Jefchut is the moft an^
* tient Jewiffi writing that has been tranfmitted to
' us againft our reUgion, It Is a life of Jefus quite
' contrary to our holy gofpels. For the author makes
* no mention of them ; and probably he would have
* tried to refute them, if he had known any thing of
* them. He makes Jefus the adulterous fon of Miri-
' ah, or Mariah, and of a foldler called Jofeph Pan-
^ der, or Panther.' Thus he relates to us the infa
mous original which this book gives Jefus, afferts its
total repugnance to the hiftory of him by the evan-
gelifts, and at the fame time infinuates it is more wor-.
thy of credit and belief, as ^ writing of fuperior anr
tiquity, and greater nearngfs to his age of whom it
treats. But is this book, of the generations of Jefus, (for
that is the import of Its Hebrew title, rni^lfl ISD
W^ Sepher Toldoth Jejhu^ fo contrary to our gofpels,
as from his manner of expreffing himfelf upon the
fubjed, and from the fpecimen he gives of its con-
-tents, every reader -wiU naturaUy imagine ? Or has
it that title to veneration and refped, from its being
a work of more early date than our gofpels, which
he invefts it with ? I think neither of thefe wUl be
found true.
That there is jiot an abfolute and entire difagree
ment between it and our gofpels, will appear from
the following account, which the reader may rely on
as exad, being formed froju the perufal pf the He-
• Page IIO.

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 489
brew copy ofthe piece, printed by * WagenfeU with
a Latin tranflation.
It aUows Jefus to have been born at Bethlehem,
and to have wrought miracles. In particular, it re
prefents him to have reftored a dead man to life, and
a leper f to foundnefs, on three different occafions,
and on the laft of thefe, to have alfo made two mil-
ftones fwim upon the Jordan, while he himfelf, more
over, fitting hereon, catched fiffies, and gave of them
unto the multitudes prefent, that they might eat.
It defcribes the people, on feeing the two firft mi
racles, to have faUen down and worffiipped him,
faying, ' Thou art altogether the fon of God,' It re-
* See tom. 2 WagenfeU, ' Tela ignea Satanae,* where is alfo a
confutation of it, as well as of the Carmen Lipmanjii, (which is an a-
bridgment of the Jewifli treatife againft our religion ftiled Nizzachon,
or viftory,) though not of Chijfuk Emanah, another very wicked piece
therealfoprinted, ofwhicb Dr.Kidder hath often made mention, to re
fute its objeftions, in his Demonftration of the Mefliah.
f The firft miracles are thus related, 'Having complained of thefe
* men who called him a baftard, and pretended he was of an impure
' original, and having afferted that he was the fon of God, and that
' Ifaiah prophefied of him, " Behold a virgin ftiall conceive." He
' faid before the people at Bethlehem of Judah, the place of hi? na-
* tivity. Bring hither to rae a dead man, I will recover him to life.
' The people haften, and digging up a grave, find nothing there but
' dry bones : when they reported this to him, he faid, ' Bring them
' forth into the midft ;' thefe being brought hira, he joins each ofthe
' bones, and covers them with fldn, flefti, andm|rves, fo that he arofe
* who was before a earcafe, and ftood on his iMI When men faw it
• they wondered ; then he faid, ' Do ye marvel at thefe things, bring
' me fome leper, I will heal hira ;' and when they had placed a leper
' before him, he in like manner healed him, by the ineffable name ;
• which when men faw, they fell down, and worfliipped him, faying,
' Thou art the fon of God.' pp. 7. 8.

490 A VINDICATION OF P.m.
lates, that he rode into Jerufalem on an afs, whlcfi
was brought to him at his own defire, and that aU
the city broke forth to meet him, when Ufting up
his voice, he faid, ' Zechariah the prophet foretold
' concerning me. Behold thy king will come to thee
* juft, and * faved, and poor, fitting upon an afs,.
and upon a colt, the fon of affes.' It makes him ap
ply thefe predidions to himfelf, ' Ifaiah prophefied
* of me. The lame man ffiall leap as an hart. Of me
* my great progenitor David fpake thefe words, The
* Lord faid unto me, thou art my fon, this day 1 have
* begotten thee; and again in another place. The
' Lord faid to my Lord, Sit thou at my right-
' hand ; for now will I afcend to my heavenly fa-
* ther, and fit at his right-hand, and ye ffiaU
* behold it with your eyes;' 'added he, in pre
fence of the elders and wife men of Jerufalem. 
It declares, that one Juda mixed himfelf into his train,
with a mifchievous defign, that Jefus went up to Je^
rufalem to celebrate the feaft of unleavened bread,
that the reUgious men were glad when Juda faid to
them he would betray him into their hands, and that
the man before whom he ffiould proftrate himfelf was
Jefus, wherefore they ffiould play the men, and behave
courageoufly, and take him. Accordingly, Juda does
fo. Next day he proftxates himfelf before him, and
all the citizens of Jerufalem being armed, apprehend
him. It fets ford|»that his difciples hereon fled hither
and thither, ano^jroke forth into bitter weeping,
that the elders of Jerufalem led him into the city^
* The Hebrew word in Zechar. ix. 9. is yUU Nofbarig, which
many Chriftian commentators alfo render y^tiifi/ .infteafl of Saviopr,
as Vulgate, or • having falvation,' as we do.

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 491
and tied him to a marble pillar, and fcourged him,
that they next took ffiarp thorns, and plaiting a
crown of them, put it on his head ; then being com
peUed by thirft, he fays, ' Give me a Uttle water to
' drink,' therefore there was given him ffiarp -rine-
gar ; this being drunk, he began to cry with a great
cry, ' About me David my progenitor prophefied,
* And they gave gaU for my meat, and in my thirft
* vinegar to drink.' That Jefhu wept bitterly, and com
plained, ' My God, my God, wherefore haft thou for-
' faken me.' Then the elders faid, ' If thou be the
* fon of God, why doft thou not free thyfelf from
' our hands ?' Jeffiu anfwered, ' My blood ffiall ex-
* plate men. So Ifaiah foretold. And by his ftripes
* there is heaUng to us,' — That they placed him be
fore the greater and leffer fanhedrim, where he was
fentenced to be ftoned and hanged, that the day was
both the preparation of the paffover, and of the fab
bath, when he was put to death by ftoning, and af
terwards hanged upon a great ftalk of cabbage, hav
ing fo enchanted all the trees, that none would fup
port his weight. That about evening the wife men
faid, ' It is not lawful to violate one letter of the
* law about this baftard, let us do to him what the
* law enjoins ;' therefore they buried him where
he was ftoned. That when his friends found the bo
dy removed, which was done by Juda, fearing, be
caufe they gathered and lamented^that they would
fteal him, they gave out that he waf rifen, and gone
to heaven, as he had faid, whereon Juda ffiewed him.
— That, however, the religion, contrary to the Jew
iffi, increafed and fpread greatiy ; for twelve men
¦went forth through twelve kingdoms publillia»§failif-

492 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
hoods, whom fome of the IfraeUtes, yea, a great mul
titude adhered to. That the fed was called Nazarene.
Such is the account given in this book, which,
though fomewhat long, I hope will not be difagree
able to the generality of readers, as no fuch tranfcript
from it is, according to my knowledge, extant in
the Engliffi tongue. — And now, is it not plain to aU,
whatever abominable falffioods are in the piece, that
there is not fuch a total contrariety to the hiftory of
the evangelifts, as Mr. Voltaire's manner of fpeak
ing led to conceive ? It is acknowledged, that Jeffiu,
by whom is intended our Jefus, was born at Beth
lehem, wrought * miracles, entered Jerufalem on an
afs, there being a general concourfe of the citizens
on the occafion. That one Juda, by whom is meant
Judas the traitor, was in his retinue, propofed to be
tray him into the hands of the religious men among
the Jews, and did fo at Jerufalem, when he had re
paired to it to keep the paffover, marking him out
to them, that they might lay hold on him, by the
promlfed fignal of falUng down before him, which
every, one knows to have been a token of high re-
* That he wrought miracles, is alfo confefs'd in the Latin tranf
lation of Toldoth Jeffiu, which Raymundus Martini, who lived in the
end of the thirteenth century, firft publiflied in his Pugio Fidei, and
from him others, as Salvator and Luther, though it differs much from
Wagenfeil's copy. For he is there faid to have made a lame man,
who bad never ftood, arife and ftand on his feet, to have healed a le
per, and reftored a dead man to life, to have made birds, which fome
Galileans had formed of clay, fly, to have caufed a great milftone, which
he had caufed be thrown into the fea, ftand upon the furface of the
waters, and himfelf to have walked on the face ofthe fea. See that
treatife as publiflied alfo by Wagenfeil from Martini, or in Martini's
own book.

I».m, THE SACRED BOOKS. 493
fped. That his difciples fled at his arreft. That the
elders of Jerufalem fcourged him, and crowned him
with thorns, and gave him vinegar to drink in hia
thu-ft. That he cried out, ' My God, my God, why
* haft thou forfaken me ?* That they derided his
pretenfions to be the fon of God, bidding him, In
proof of it, fave himfelf from their power. That
they put him to death, and hanged him, on the day
which was the preparation of the fabbath and ofthe paf
fover. That, left their law ffiould be broken, they
buried him about the evening. That his body was
not found in the grave. That his difciples, twelve
in number, pubUffied he was rifen, and afcended to
heaven, and gained many to the belief of it. This, in
ftead of an entire repugnancy, is fuch a coincidence
with the account of the gofpelsj as muft ftrike every
perfon who Is acquainted with them. Our author then,
ought not to have faid, ' This piece was a life of Je-
' fus Chrift quite contrary to our holy gofpels ;' fince
¦rirulent as it is, in other refpeds, it bears teftimony
to many fads which they contain; yea fads fo ho
nourable to the author of our religion, and fo im
portant In the Chriftian fcheme, that the conceffion
of them by Jews, whofe fathers were the firft, and
moft Inveterate enemiesof our faith, muft for ever
confound and puzzle modern infidels, and be confi
dered by us as no mean argument -j- on the fide ofthe
f It feems very reafonable thus to improve any accounts of fafts
which we meet with in this book, agreeable to the relations contained
in our gofpel, as arguments of their truth ; for to what could fuch ac
counts in it be owing ? not to any favourable prepofleflion toward the
caufe of Chriftianity, but to the force of truth, or to a reverence of
fome traditions about him, which they looked upon as too authentic

494 A VINDICATION OF P.III.
evangeUcal hiftory, fince they could not want incli
nation, even in however remote an age from his
time the work was compofed, to have denied them,
unlefs they had looked on them as true.
In the fame manner, whereas Mr. Voltaire gives
this piece very great antiquity, and fuppofes the au
thor not to have known any thing of our gofpels,
becaufe he hath not mentioned them, and tried to
refute them, it is manifeft that it is of no fuch old
date, and that the writer was not unacquainted with
them. The refemblance and likenefs of fads which
is fo obfervable from the reprefentation juft given,
creates a fufpicion of this. And the fame is further
confirmed by this circumftance, that one Simon Ke-
pha is introduced faying to the Nazarenes (that Is
the followers of Jeffiu) when he would diffuade them
from doing any hurt to the Jews, ' If a Jew * fay to
* a Nazerene, Go with me one mile, he ought to ac-
* company him two miles ; and if a Jew fmite a Na-
' zarene on the left cheek, he ought to turn to him
* alfo the right cheek :' for this looks like the lan
guage of one that had read ~f Mat. v. 39, — 41. But
and certain to be contradifted. So, though the teftimony of enemies
is difregarded, which is to the prejudice or ruin of perfons who are
the objefts of their malice and hatred, it hath always been thought
of great weight when it was in their favour, to whom they bore no
good will,
* Toldoth Wagenfeil, page 2 2.
f Thefe words of our Saviour, which fome are ready to fneer at,
are only a proverbial admonition, that perfons ought to bear fmall in
juries and affronts without retaliating, rather than enter into ftrife and
contention for flight and trivial infringements of their property, or li
berty, or honour. And how far the evils done, are of this diminutive
nature, every one muft judge for himfelf, as in the fight of God. Our

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 495
that it is a far later work than our gofpels, appears
further from thefe confideratlons.
It muft have been framed after the Talmud, for
k makes mention of it. Thus, at the beginning, the
author ha-ring told us that Jofeph Pander, of the
tribe of Judah, a taU proffigate feUow, dwelt in Beth
lehem of Judah, and that a certain widow Uved near
to his houfe caUed CD'ID Miriam, fubjoins, ' This
* is that Miriam the dreffer of women's hair, who is
' mentioned in the Talmud.' Now tho' the word
Talmud fometimes denotes the Miffina, or coUedion
of Je-wiffi traditions fo called, which is thought to
have been compUed by Rabbi Jehudah Hakkadoffi,
about, or after the middle of, the fecond century
from the birth of Chrift, it muft here fignify the Ge
mara, or commentaries upon that text, as indeed,
in this fenfe, the term is generaUy ufed. ' The reafon
Saviour never intended to lay that we might not reprove and check by
remonftrance, wrongs fimilar to thofe which he here mentions, more
efpecially in fome circumftances, as is evident from his own behavi
our when he was illegally fmitten upon his trial, John xviii, 22, 23.
and from his apoftles replies before the council, Afts xxiii, 3,-75.
But we are rather to expofe ourfelves to the hazard ofa repetition of
little indignities, and lofiTes, and conftraints, than have recourfe to vio
lence, or even appeal to the civil magiftrate, and involve ourfelves ia
all the vexations and charges ofa law-fuit. And is this any more than
what every prudent man praftifes for his own eafe and tranquillity in
life ? — To multitudes who had a veft and a cloak, or manrie, likewife,
taking away a veft would be an inconfiderable damage, when it was
cuftomary for all in more wealthy circumftances, to accumulate a great
variety of habits, or fuits of apparel ; to which manner, there is an al
lufion. Mat. vi. 19, 20. and James v. 2. LucuUus had five thoufand
changes of garments in his wardrobe, Horat. Epift. lih. i . epift. 6.
line 4a, — 44. '

496 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
is, that only there, and not In the Miffina*, nay,
not even in the Jerufalem Gemara, or Talmudy
which, however, was not compleated before the
year of our Lord 300, but in the Babylonifti, which
was not finlffied tlU the 500 year of Chrift, or be
ginning of the fixth centuiy. Is there mention of
Mary or Miriam, the plaiter of womens hair f . By
confequence this piece muft have been written fince
that time.
Again^ the ftory in it about Jefus, is, in many in
ftances, very different from the accounts which the
antient Jews gave of him, according to Chriftian
writers in the primitive times, and according to their
own Talmudical books. It is well known, though
the works of the early adverfaries of our faith are
loft, which Is only a fate common to them, with
many apologies and defences thereof by its friends,[
yet there are fragments of them preferved in
the writings of the Chriftian fathers. Now from
them, their notions about Jefus may be learned.
Accordingly, we find by Origen's book againft
Celfus, ' That Celfus J perfonating, or affuming the
' charader of a Jew, pretended he was born of a
' poor woman, a native of Judea, who was caft
* out by her hufband, a carpenter, as guUty of
• Whether there is any reference at all to the affairs of Chrifti
ans in the Miftina, is much difputed. Wagenfeil ftrenuoufly contends
there is none, and obferves, though Buxtorf in his' Talmudic Lexicon^
makes the Miffinah fpeak of the /eafts of Chriftians, the word in the
original is mVIJ Gojim, which fignifies the Gentiles, or nations, Seo
Wagenf. Confut. Toldoth. page 10.
f The paflages relating to her, are quoted in Lighfoot's Workv
vol. 2. page 270,
X Orig, adverf. Celf. lib. i, page 22. and ibid, page 25.

t. irt. THE SACRED BOOKS. 497
« adultery ; and that having ferved In Egypt for hire,
' on account of his poverty, where he learned fome
' powerful arts, for which the Egyptians were fa-
* mOus, he returned, elated on account of his abUI-
' ties, and afferted that for them he Ought to be ac-
' knbwledged as a god.' And it is elfewhere faid of
him there, ' That he beUeved he Was begotten by
* one Panthera, who corrupted the virgin.' In the
Talmud again, the Jews reprefent him to have been
begotten Upon a woman caUed Mary * (or Miriam)
a plaiter of womens hair, by the violence Of Pandi*
rajtheparanymph, whUeher own hufband, Paphus,
forebore to approach her, on account of her legal
poUution, at the time of marriage,— They defcribe
him, further, to have gone into Egypt, and learned
magical arts ; for it is faid, ' Did not f Ben Satda
' (the fon of Satda) bring inchantments out of E-
' SYP^' ^^ ^^^ cutting which was in his fleffi,'  .
They make him to have had only five difciples §, who
Werd all flain in Judea. — And, finally, they teU us,
* She_ was alfo called Stada, ar Satda, becanfe ffie had turned a-
fide from her own huffjand, or been unchafte. They faid in Pumba-
dith, a fchool in the land of Babylon on the Euphrates, flie departed.
X Set Maflachet Galla cited by Wagenfeil, page 14*15. and Lard
ner's Teftim. i. 189, — 199. <3i^
X See Shabljat, foi. 1 04. 2. where the glofs fays, the reafon ofthe
Cutting in the flefti was, he could not bring them away in writing,
becaufe the priefts diligently fearched all who went out, that they
might not carry inchantments or magical arts with them to men in
other nations, as quoted Lardner's Teftim. i. 190, 194. Ligbtfoot's
Talmud, and Hebrew Exercitat. iii, 112. and Wagenfeil, ubi fu^
fra, p. 17.
§ Lardner, 19J. Wagenfeil, 17, 18. and compare Lightfoot ots-
Mat. ix. 9. I i

498 A VINDICATION OF P. IIL
he was § hanged in Lud, or Lydda, on the evening
of the paffover, after he was ftoned ; a cryer having.
made this proclamation before him for forty days,
' This man comes forth to be ftoned, becaufe he
,* dealt in forcerles, and perfuaded and feduced If-
* rael : whofoever knows any defence for him, let
' him appear and produce It,' and no defence hav
ing been found.
But how different the narrative about Jefus, in the
piece under our confideration, from the tales of Cel
fus, and the Talmudical writers ! This one is Indeed
alfo begotten by Pandira on Mary, or Miriam, who
remonftrates againft all intercourfe, from the Mofaic
prohibition ; but then he is admitted through a mif
take that he was Johanan, the bridegroom, or young
perfon, to whom her mother had contraded her*. —
Moreover, he Is not faid to go into Egypt at allj
and to work miracles at his return through his ac-
qulfition of magical fkill there ; but to have arrived
to. his power of performing them, by learning the
ineffable name,, of God in the temple of Jerufalem.
* At that time,' fays Toldoth, ' there was In the
§ See Sanhedrim, foi. 43. quoted by Lightfoot on Mat xxvii.
31. and Sanhedrim, foi. 67. quoted by Lardner, 198, &c. and Wa
genfeil, page 19, 2 J.
* It is not then exaftly true what fome have faid, that the Tal
mudic ftory of Chrift's origin is adopted by the author of Toldoth
Jefliu. I might have added, that, according to Toldoth, Johanan, the
bridegroom^ when he underftood Mary had been defiled, informed a-
gainft her to Simeon Shetahides, who difcovered it to other wife men-,
his coliegues. But according to the Talmud, file herfelf confeffed it
to Rabbi Akiba, who declared it to other wife men. Again, the maf
ter of Jefus in- Toldoth, is Elhanan; but in Talmud, is R. Jofuaf
the fon of Petahiah, who carried him into Egypt.
I

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS.* 499
« temple of Jerufalem, the WnDQn C2\n Shem Ham-
\ phorafh, or ineffable name of God, engraven on a
* ftone of the foundation : for when David dug the
'foundation, he difcovered there a certain ftone on
« the mouth of the abyfs which contained it, and
* lifting it up, he depofited It In the holy of hoUes,
' where it was guarded by brazen lions before the
' door, which the wife men had made, through their
' inchantments, to fend forth fuch roaring noife,
' that whoever ffiould enter and learn the name
' would forget it. Jeffiu having come from Galilee,
' entered the temple fecretly, and learned it, and In-
'^ fcrlbed It on a piece of parchment, and, cutting his
' fleffi, hid it there, having firft pronounced the name,
' that he might not feel pain. Immediately, pronoun-
' cing it again, he caufed the fleffi to coalefce. 
* When he was going out through the door, the 11-
' ons I roared, wherefore he forgot the name ; but
' when he was out of the city^ he opened the fleffi,
' took out the writing, and having thoroughly weigh-
' ed the charaders, he recovered his knowledge ofthe
' name, whereon he wrought miracles,' Agreeably,
it Is exprefsly mentioned, when he healed the firft
leper, after reftoring the firft dead man to life, ' In
' Uke manner he reftored him to foundnefs by the
' ineffable name.' So too, at the cure ofthe fecond le
per, it is taken notice of, that he pronounced \ it. And
f Wagenfeil turns it, ' The dogs barked;' but the Hebrew wprd
is the fame as before, I^ 1'"IK arjoth, leones.
X Thus alfo in Raymund's copy, whereis the like account of Jefhu 's
learning the name, it is particulariy remarked, he did thofe different
miracles above recited from it, by pronouncing the fame.
II 2

500 A VINDICATION OF P. Illy
it is every where fuppofed § through the work, that'
he owed his power of miracles to it ; as. Indeed, it is
alfo related there, that another, named Juda in Wa
genfeil's copy, but In Raymundus's Juda Scariot, op
pofed or withftood him, by learning it alfo.  To
proceed, Jeffiu in Toldoth, inftead of five difciples,
all put to death in Judea, has twelve, who leaving
Judea, fill twelve kingdoms with their error and fu
perftition.  Here alfo, inftead of having a trial in
legal form, and the execution of the fentence delay
ed forty days, having been taken by furprize, he is
immediately delivered to die * by the elders of the
fanhedrim.  And, finally, here, inftead of being
ftoned and hanged at Lud, a town fituated, accord
ing to Lightfoot, near the Phenician ffiore, at the
diftance of about' a day's journey from Jerufalem,
which is the Talmudical reprefentation, (without one
word, however, ofthe ftoek of cabbage on whichToI-
§ Toldoth, indeed, reafons thus, where I have marked the omif
fion of fome words in quoting ; ' But he muft have entred the temple by
* magical art and force of enchantments, otherwife how would the
' priefts have fuffered him to enter ? He muft then have done all thefe
' things by the affiftance of an impure name, and by magical art.' But
there is not a word of his going into Egypt, and being inftrufted in it
there. Nor is one miracle ever afcribed to any thing but the ineffable
name of God, ofwhicb he had learned the true found.
* The ftory in Wagenfeil's Toldoth runs thus : That Juda having
cut Jeftiu's fleffi with a knife, and ftole out the parchment when he was
afleep, through the help of fome inchantments which he ufed, per
fuaded him afterwards to go to Jerufalem fecretly, and learn the name.
That, when he had gone thither, from a defire of concealment, dreffed
in garments like to thofe which his difciples wore to a hair's breadth,
fo that it was imppflible to diftinguiffi him from them, Juda procured
bim to be feized next day, and fi'raighiiway put to death.

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 501
doth fays he was fufpended,becaufe he had fo enchant
ed aU trees, that none would bear his wright) he is fton
ed and hanged at Jerufalem Itfelf, — This book, then,
which gives an account fo different and inconfiftent
with that given by the Jews in their Talmud, and be
fore It, in Celfus's work, about Jefus, whUe at the fame
time, it appeals to that as fpeaking concerning his
mother, muft be of a more recent date, and by con
fequence, be far inferior in point of Its age, to our
gofpels. Its fidions were not then known nor re
ceived by the unbelievers among that nation. If we
rely upon Wagenfeil, the rude traces of it are firft to
be feen in a book written by Agobard archbiffiop of
Lyons, concerning Jewiffi fuperftitious, and in a trea
tife of the once celebrated Rabanus Maurus, arch
biffiop of Mentz, that is, about the year 800 ; for
then thefe writers flouriffied. However, they are ve
ry far ffiort, as the learned reader wUl perceive be
low*.
* Ibid. Says Maurus, 'Jefum filium ethnici cujufdam Pandera a-
' dulteri ihore latronura punitum efle, aiunt, Clamante vero ac juben-
' te magiftro eorum Jofua celeriter de ligno depofitum ; et in quodam
' horto caulibus pleno in fepulchro projeftum, ne terra eorum contami-
' naretur. Iterumde fepulchro extraftum, et retorta cervice pet totam
' civitatem traftum, ficque projeftum : et propter hoc ufque hodie fepul-
' chrum ejus ftare vacuum,' &c. According to Agobard, ' In doftri-
, ' nis majorum fuorum Judaei legunt lefum juvenem quendam fuiffe
' apud eos honorabilem, et magifterio Joannis Baptiftae eruditum quam-
' plures habuifle difcipulos, quorum uni, propter duritiem et hebetudi-
' nem fenfus, Kephae vel Petrae nomen impofuit ; ad extremum vero
' propter plura mendacia accufatum, Tiberii judicio in carcerem retru-
' fum,-^veluti magum deteftabilem fuiffe fufpenfum atque hoc modo
* occifum, juxta quendam aquae duftum fepultum, et Judaeo cuidam
' ad cuftodiam commendatura. Noftu vero, fubita aquae duftus ime-
Ii 3

502 A VINDICATION OF P. Hi.
Finally, though Mr. Voltaire intimate it Is more
worthy of belief than our gofpels, muft it not ap
pear, in compariion, undeferving of all credit with
ev.:)y perfon of probity and candour? Is there not
a moft glaring contradidion between the different
copies of the book itfelf? To omit leffer inftances;
in the book publiffied by Raymundus, whofe inte
grity in reciting Jewiffi books, fo far' as I know or
recoiled, hath never been fufpeded, Queen Helena
is fpoken of as a ftranger, altogether unacquainted
with Jewiffi affairs, and as an enemy to Jefus, who
fent foldiers to feize him, and Avho, when ffie had
gotten him into her power, delivered him into the
hands of the Jews, that they might deal with him
according to their wiffies. But in Wagenfeil's, ffie is
reprefented as a kinfwoman of Jeffiu, fo of Jewiffi
extradion and parentage, as favourable to him while
he lived, and as angry at the wife men of the nati
on for killing him without her advice. — In the fame
book, publiffied by Raymundus, the ftone on which
the name of God was written, Inftead of being fpo
ken of as that which covered the mouth of the abyfs,
fo that the fafety of all men, and of all nature de
pended on It, which is the defcription In Wagenfeil's
copy, is called fimply, the ftone on which the ark
of the Lord of old refted : while, again, in Buxtorf's
copy of the work, according to a citation from it,
in his TaliUUdlcal didionary, it is declared to be the
very ftone which our father Jacob anointed with oU,
' datione, fublatum. Pilati juffii per i 2 lunasqnaefitum, nee ufquamin-
' ventum ;' and then he goes on to Pilate's ordering to adore him as
rifen. See thefe writers quoted by Wagenfeil, Confut. Toldoth. 12, 13.
and Confer, Bibliothec. Patrum. torn. 9.

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 503
after fleeping on it as his piUow.  Again, doth it
not contain the moft ridiculous fables ? for example,
that of the great cabbage ftock ; to abate our afto-
nUhment at which, Raymund's book adds a tale of
one in the houfe of the fanduary, which yields e-
very year one hundred pounds weight of feed: tho',
according to the accounts of traveUers, cabbage-
ftocks there are not much fuperior In fize and height
to thofe in Britain;  That of a ftone's being de
pofited in the holy of hoUes, on which was written
the four lettered name of God, by learning whereof,
perfons might bring defolation on the world, and do
whatever they %A'ould ;  That of their wife mens
making Uons which ffiould glv^ alarm at a perfon's
coming out of the temple after the acquifition of the
ineffable name, in fpite of aU his magical fkUl, but give
none -when he entered it with the mifchievous in
tention of acquainting himfelf with it ;  That of
God's favouring a magician to learn his name, and
through It defeat their contrivances, (as thus he was
enabled to efcape unobferved by the watch of priefts
and Levites vv^hlch w^as continuaUy kept in the tem
ple, and engaged in going round with burning torch
es, even through the night, and to open unpercelv-
ed thofe vaft gates defcribed by Jofephus to require
the force of 200 men to ffiut them,) though not In
deed without needing to cut his fleffi, when yet
he had ordered fuch to be puniffied with death by
his law, Exod. xxU. 1 7 ;  That of making another
Jew defeat and ruin Jefus by coming to the know
ledge of the name which he had, when none of the
Jews ever employed this expedient, powerful as it muft
have been, for the protedion of their holy temple and
Ii 4

504 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
country againft their enemies.  ^Further, how ir-
reconcileable with all hiftory the narrative of this
book? I will not Infift on the negative argument,
that no fuch ftone, memorable as It muft have been,
is mentioned either by the facred authors, or Jofe
phus, in their minute accounts of the building of
the temple.  But, how comes David to have
found this ftone in digging the foundation of the
temple, and to have lodged It In the holy of hoUes;
when it is certain it was only the work of Solomon
his fon to begin and finiffi that facred edifice ? Could
Jefus fuffer when Jannaeus's queen ruled over Ju
dea after the death of her hufband, which happen
ed in the 6 7 5th year of Rome, before the time of any
of the Caefars, when it Is evident from Tacitus *, that
he underwent capital puniffiment only in the time
of the emperor Tiberius, the third of the Caefars,
by order of Pontius Pilate, his procurator in that
country, which, fometime before, had been made a
Roman province, that Is, not till more than a hun-
red years after her reign ?  Once more. Is It not a
matter of public notoriety, allowed by the enemies
of Chriftianity from the moft antient times, that Je
fus, inftead of being ftoned to death and then hang
ed, according to the Mofaic law, was put to death
by crucifixion ?
Surely then, no wife and impartial man can hefi
tate a moment whether he ffiould give the prefe
rence to the evangelical hiftory beyond this Toldoth
Jeffiu, a work fo remote In the aera of its compofi
tion from the time of Jefus's birth, and life, and
• Annal. XV. 44. Auftor nominis ejus (Chriftiani) Chriftus, qui
Tiberio imperitante per procuratorera Pentium Pilatum fupplicio affec-

tus erat.

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 505
death; fo inconfiftent f In its different copies; fo ftuf-?
fed -vrith monftrous tales, arid fo contrary J to hifto
ries of approved accuracy and fideUty,
If Mr. Voltaire do indeed receive this book, whUe
he rejeds our gofpels, he Is in this, as in fome o-
ther § articles, an example of the moft blameable and
f I once thought that the Toldoth Jeffiu, publiflied by Huldric,
3705, was a different copy ofthe fame book, and had obferved, on the
authority of Dr. Sharp, in his argument for Chriftianity from concef-
fions of enemies, page 40, that it gives an account of ' the king's or-
' der to kill every infant in Bethlehem, which was accordingly done :'
while of this there is no mention in Wagenfeil's or in Raymund's copy ;
looking on this as another inftance how much the different copies of
the fame book varied from each other. But I now find that Bafnage,
in his hiftory ofthe Jews, fpeaks of that book as the work of a different
author ; and indeed from the reprefentation he hath made of it, it ap
pears to be fuch. For it makes Jefus born under King Herod, from
whofe maffacre of the children in Bethlehera, he only efcaped by flight
into Egypt, and to have died under him too. See Hiftory ofthe Jews,
b. 4. c. 28. But having had no opportunity of feeing the book itfelf,
I forbear making more extrafts.
X I might have alfo remarked, that theftory of Simon Kepha is fuch,
who is defcribed to have gone to the metropolis ofthe Nazarenes (mean
ing Rome) after Chrift's death ; to have gathered a multitude of them
to hira as fand on the fea-ffiore ; to have exhorted them to forbear
killing Jews ; to have appointed the celebration ofthe days of Chrift's
paffion, and afcenfion, and birth, and circumcifion ; and to have died
in a tower they built for him at his defire : all which agrees ill with
the perfecuted fcattered ftate of Jefus's followers then, and the ac
count ofthe introduftion of thefe feftivals in the church.
§ Thus in his Philofophy of Hiftory, chap. 18. page 86, Sec. he
fays, ' That the Chinefe annals carry with them the ftamp of certain-
* ty, if any annals do, the hiftory of heaven and earth being in them
' united, and each reign of their emperors being written by cotempo-
' raries.' And having added, ' that they are confirmed by the una-
* nimous opinion ofour travellers of different fefts, Jacobins, Jefuits,

So6 A VINDICATION OF P.IIL
abfurd credulity, at the fame time that he ftudies to
caft the reproach of it upon others ; even as fome of his
fceptical brethren have betrayed a great degree of
' Lutherans, Calvinifts, all interefted in contradifling them,' he fcruples
not, upon their authority, to pronounce it evident, that the empire of
China was formed upwards of four thoufand years ago : yea, he con
cludes that the Chinefe muft have been a body of people for antecedent
ages. He alfo obferves, that he may deftroy the credit of the fcripture
account of the ftood, before which be thus afferables them, 'Thlspeoplg
' of antiquity never heard any mention made of thofe inundations, the
* flight remembrance of which is preferved and changed in the fable of
• the deluge of Deucalion.' Neverthelefs, prone as our author is to re
ly upon the annals of this nation, as indeed he is upon every tale that
contradifts fcripture, whoever reads what Fourmont in his Reflexions
Critiques fur I'Hiftoire des Anciens Peuples, the authors of the An
tient Univerfal Hiftory, vol. 20. page 109, &c. and others, have op
pofed to the pretenfions which the Chinefe make to fo high antiqui
ty, will be fatisfied that thefe annals deferve no fuch regard as he
pays to them. I further remark, that even Father du Halde, who pro
feffes himfelf a zealous admirer of the Chinefe chronology, difagrees
with him about the original of their empire ; for he places Fohi its
founder, about 200 years after the flood, according to the Greek ver
fion ; which is about 800 years after it according to the Hebrew calcu
lation, that making the flood to have happened in the 2262, but this
in the 1656 year ofthe world. Nor does Father Regis, who died at
Pekin only in the 37 th year of this prefent century, make him to have
reigned much earlier; for he only raifes him 120 years beyond Du
Halde. Further, Monfieur Voyeu de Brunen informs us that the Chi
nefe themfelves look on the hiftory ofthe times antecedent or previous '
to the inftitution of their cycle of 60 years, which he, as well as Mon
fieur Regis, acknowledges to have been contrived but about i 300 years
after the deluge, and according to which, they only counted the year of
Chrift 1 7 5 o the 4 7th year of the 67 th cycle, (an evidence that the firft
cycle did not reach back to that inundation) to be very uncertain and
dubious. Finally, Monfieur Freret, fpeaking of their annals, fays,
• They confift of two parts, whofe authenticity and credit are very dif-
• ferent. That part which begins about 200 years before Chrift's birtb»

p.m. THE SACRED BOOKS. 507
enthufiafm *, whUe they were defirous to fix the im
putation upon beUevers In Chrift's religion. For aU cir
cumftances do concur to overthrow the authority of
this book, but our gofpels have the ftrongeft claim
to credibffity,
was written upon contemporary memoirs, and underwent before it was
publiffied a very accurate examination, fo it may be confidered as ac
companied with the ftrongeft evidence, but that part which precedes
this period hath little certainty in it. See Memoires de 1' Acadeniie
Royal des Infcriptions et Belles Lettres, torn. xv. p 57. and BibUo-
theque des Sciences, tom. 7. p. 367.
* I allude to the ftory which Lord Herbert of Cherbury, the firft de-
iftical writer in England, tells us of himfelf, as it is publiftied by Dr. Le
land, in his view of the Deiftical writers, vol. i. p. 43. from a manu
fcript Hfe ofthatauthor,which had been communicated tohim. Asitisin
itfelf very remarkable, and as it may be a caveat to fome perfons of a very
oppofite charafter and complexion to Lord Herbert, who are too rea
dy to look for, and lay ftrefs upon figns from heaven, or ftrong inward
impreffions as guides of their judgment and conduft, and thereby to ex
pofe both their underftanding and their piety to reproach, I ftiall not
hefitate to tranfcribe the paflage, befeeching them at the fame time
to make a due ufe of it, that they may retrieve their credit and honour.
It runs thus, ' Being doubtful (he means about the publication of his
book, ' De Veritate Religionis,' i. e. concerning the truth of religion,)
* in my chamber one fair day in the fummer, my cafement being open
' towards the fouth, the fun ffiining clear, and no wind ftirring, I took
' my book De Veritate in my hands, and kneehng on my knees, de-
' voutly faid thefe words, ' O thou eternal God, author of this light
" which now fliines upon me, and giver of all inward illumination. I
" befeech thee, of thine infinite goodnefs, to pardon a greater requeft
*' than a finner ought to make. I am not fatisfied enough, whether I
" ftiall publiffi this book : if it be for thy glory, I befeech thee, give
" me fome fign from heaven ; if not, I ffiall fupprefs it.' I had no
* fooner fpoken thefe words, but a loud, though yet gentie noife, came
• forth from the heavens, (for it was like nothing on earth,) which
* did fo cheer and comfort me, that I took my petition as granted, and

5o8 A VINDICATION OF P.III,
Thefe are books which have been handed down
to us from the beginning, as the works of thefe four
perfons, from whom they are denominated, two of
them the apoftles and Intimate companions of Jefus,
and two of them, again, their familiar acquaintan
ces. — They are free from every thing in their ftile,
which is unfuitable to the * age in which they are
' that I had the fign I demanded ; whereupon alfo I refolved to print
' my book. This, how ftrange foever it may feem, I proteft before
' the Eternal God is true ; neither am I any way fuperftitioufly de-
' ceived herein, fince I did not only clearly hear the noife, but in th?
' fereneft fl-cy that I ever faw, being without all cloud, did to mythink-
' ing fee that place from whence it came.' Here we fee he defires an
interpofition of providence by fome preternatural event to direft him,
and, warmed with an opinion of the importance of his book to pros-
mote the glory of God, as was natural for its author, he fancies he re
ceived a fignal to publiffi it by fome noife in the air, which might pror
ceed from a variety of natural caufes. How would Delfts have been
ready to exult and triumph in it, as an evidence of fanaticifm and weak?
nefs of mind, if any apologift for Chriftianity had related fuch a fcene
as he has done, for encouraging him to print a defence of if ?
* This was with regard to them all, before the end of the centur
ry about the thirty-third or thirty-fourth year of which Chrift died,
and with regard to three of them, the gofpels of Matthev/, Mark, and
Luke, beyond difpute, long before its conclufion. About this date
ofthe gofpels, we have the unanimous teftimony ofthe antient church,
which, in a faft of this nature, hath the force ofa demonftration. For
none of the Chriftian fathers make the three former evangelifts to have
wrote later than thirty years or thereabouts, after our Lord's cru
cifixion; and all of them agree, that John, who wrote laft, pubfiflied
his gofpel, before the conclufion of the century, while not a few
have faid, that he did fo before the deftruftion of Jerufalem, which
happened in the year 70. — There are, befides, indications in the
three firft gofpels themfelves, from their manner of recording Chrift's
prediftions about the overthrow ofthe city, and temple of Jerufalem,
and the calamities coming on the Jewilh people, as was obferved in the

p. IIL T H E S A C R E D B O O K g. 50^
faid to have been written, and from every thlno- in
the reprefentations they give of the ftate of Judea
former feftion, p. 479, that they were written earlier than thofe e-
tents ; nor have there been wanting learned moderns, who have thought
that there are notes ofthe fame time in John's gofpel, from its fuitable
nefs for fliewing the heinous and inexcufable guilt of that nation, and
juftilying the providence orCod in their impending ruin, 1 and from
the mention of the five porches at the pool of Bethefda as ftill fubfift-
ing, chap. V. 2. and from fome other circumftances. Moreover, as
it cannot be pretended, there are any marks in the three firft gofpels
at leaft, even upon the moft rigorous and critical examination of them,
which betray their being written fince the deftruftion of the Jewiffi
ftate, fo there is a peculiar argument, that Luke's gofpel was compo
fed a confiderable while before it. For, it was written before his book
of the Afts of the Apoftles, as appears from the beginning of this laft
book, ' The former treatife have I made, O Theophilus, of all that
' Jefus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken
' up,' Afts, i. 1 . 2 . But he ends his hiftory of the travels and atchieve
ments ofthe apoftles there, with the two years imprifonment of Paul
at Rome, from which he is fuppofed fo have been releafed in the year
63. inftead of proceeding to write an account ofbis death and martyr
dom for the name of Chrift, which by none is made pofterlor to the
year 6 5 . Now, for this no reafon can be affigned, except that he wrote it
before they happened. His gofpel, therefore, muft have been written
before that imprifonment, in which his fucceeding book ofthe Afts ter
minates. And this obfervation ffiews more abundantly the impertinence
and weaknefs of Mr. Voltaire's cavil, that Matthew's gofpel was writ
ten afterthe deftruftion of Jerufalem, from the mention Jefus is there
reprefented to make of Zacharias, fince Luke alfo, in his gofpel, de
clares him to have fpoken of hira, whofe gofpel there is fo clear proof
was written long before the breaking out ofthe Jewifli war, about the
commencement of which, the death of Jofephus's Zacharias was pro
cured. I ftiall only add, as littie is there room to queftion thefe gofpels were
written by the perfons whofe names they bear. If Matthew and John
fpeak of themfelves in the third perfon in their gofpels. Matt. ix. 9.
John, xiii. 23. it is no unufual thing for writers or fpeakers to ufe

sto A VINDICATION dF P.IIL
and other countries, ofthe offices and employments
there held, and of the fpeeches and adions of the
perfons who are introduced, which looks like the
forgery and invention of a later period. For aU is
agreeable to the accounts we have of the condition
of thefe places, of the dignities enjoyed in them, of
the charaders, and even names of thofe that filled
fuch pofts, and of the opinions and fentiments that
then prevailed there, by other authors. — There is a
moft ftriking fairnefs and Impartiality apparent In
thefe books. For the writers of them tell us fuch
things of Jefus Chrift, as were in their own nature
calculated to create offence, or in the judgment of
the world feemed exceptionable, without palliating ;
and they record the faults of themfelves and their
friends, their dulnefs of underftanding, their want
of faith, their forgetfulnefs, their ambitious difputes
about worldly pre-eminence, their cowardly defer-
this ftyle, both in the Old and New Teftament. If they are entitied.
The gofpels according to fuch perfons, this is no evidence, efpecially
againft univerfal tradition from the beginning, that they were not the
writers of them, and that others only collefted thein from their fer-
mons. For without examining, whether the titles were not added by
others rather than the hiftorians themfelves, unqueftionably they may
fignify, that the men therein mentioned penned each the book refpec-
tively, to which fuch title with his name is prefixed, according to the
ufe ofthe praepofition xara among the Greeks, So di xar AyyiSay
TT^a^et;, Polyb. 3,6 is, the aftions done by Hannibal. And they muft
be underftood to denote this here ; even that every gofpel was written
by the perfon, according to whom it is faid in its title to be. For fo
Luke wrote the gofpel entitled, according to Luke, as may be argued
from comparing Luke, i. 3 Afts, i. 1, 2. xvi. 10. &c. and John
wrote the gofpel entitled, according to John, as is evident from John
xxi. 24,

P.IIL THE SACRED BOOKS. 51*
tion of their mafter at his arreft, and the bafe denial
of him by Peter, who was one of the moft zealous
and refolute in the party, and thelUce, together with
Jefus's cenfures and reproofs of then- offences upon
different' occafions, though fome of them were ffiarp
and fevere ; which is a great argument that onjy truth
Is here declared. — Further, notes of time, circum
ftances of place, names or titles of perfons interefted,
occafions of adion and difcourfe, and many other
particulars are marked, tending to render a detedi
on of falffiood In the relations eafy, if there had been
room for it, forafmuch as they facUItated accuracy
and exadnefs of inquiries ; and yet, though there
could not be wanting IncUnation, as fomethings men
tioned carried a refledion on individuals even of rank
and figure, or on focleties and bodies of men In gene-
. ral, wherefore they would doubtiefs raife refentment,
and the whole was aimed to fubvert and overthrow
the religions then eftabUffied, with the lucrative
trades and employments, and the favourite ffiews
and exhibitions depending thereon, there never was
any confutation of the narrative, nor any expofure
of them that compofed the fame as liars and decei
vers : as is manifeft from the fpeedy propagation of
the gofpel in the world, in fpite of all oppofition from
prejudices of education, fecular intereft, and other
caufes, — There is obfervable likewife in the hifl:ory,
an unparaUelled and unprecedented plainnefs and fim-
pUcity of recital .~ For here we meet with no ftudied
excufes and apologies for what might have been fore-
feen to ffiock and difguft, no parade of language or
colouring pf rhetoric to fet off their .hero's adions or
words, no laboured remarks to raife his honour, or

$ii A VINDICATION OF P, lif^
to lUuftrate the virtues of his admirers, whatever oc-^
cafion there was for it, no Invedlves and reproaches
againft his enemies for malice, Injuftice, and like dif
pofitions, as much as they flie-v^ed thefe hateful qua
lities, in their cavils againft his dlfcoiii'fes and-Oi^orks,
and in their attempts againft his liberty and life. The
reader is juft entertained with a naked and unadorn
ed detail of fads, and left to judge ; which looks not
like fidion, but is a prefumption of great fincerity.'
There is, moreover, among the four evangelifts, who"
cannot be with any ffiadow of reafon fufpeded to have
writ by concert and harmony, an agreement fo entire
andfuU, that the likeis not to be found ^mOrig fo many
writers of the events and occurrences of any perfon's
Ufe. — Finally, as It cannot be pretended that there is
any thing incredible In Itfelf in God's having raifed up
an extraordinary teacher among the Jews, furnlffied
with fuch credentials as they reprefent, nor be al
leged that they wanted fufficient capacities for Un
derftanding, v/hether fuch and fuch words Were fpo-
keujfuch and fuch -\yorks were done as they relate, fince
to comprehend thefe plain matters of fad, there was
not requifite any uncommon natural acutehefs of in-
telledUal faculties, or any artificial Improvement of
them by Uberal education, fo there are other things^
befides the circumftances taken notice of In theirman-
ner of writing,, whieh perfuade US of their fincerity
in their teftimony. For they were perfons unblame-
able and Irreproachable in'their moral condud ; where
fore none of their moft virulent adverfaries ever bran
ded them for any vice and wickednefs, whatever ac-'
cufations they have thrown out againft them of
weaknefs and delufion, from zeal for their own caufej

t.ni. THE SACRED BOOKS. 513
the prefumption, therefore, from their charader is
that they Avrote truth. — Agam, there was no motive
to incUne them to deceive the world by a falfe nar
rative, for both the Jewiffi reUgion in -which they
were bred, and the Chriftian reUgion which they had
embraced, and of the rife and principles ofwhicb they
profeffed to give an account, moft exprefsly prohibi
ted, and moft awfuUy threatened aU lying and for
gery ; wherefore, Inftead of having any incitement
to be falfe witneffes, even v.ith a good Intention, by
hope of re-ward from God, they would be deterred
fi'om it by the fear of tremendous punifhment from
his juftice. And then, as to men, what could they
exped by trying to pafs upon them a falfe narrative
in fupport of Chriftianity, which was every where
perfecuted, but that, inftead of changing their reUgi
ous fentiments and manners in deference to their for
gery, and loading them ^rith wealth and riches, or
raifing them to power and authority for it, they ffiould
proceed againft them with aU ciril penalties as noto
rious Uars and Impoftors, tiU after various miferies of
bonds, fcourges, tortures, and the Uke, they were ex
terminated out of the world, the profelytes that had
been already made by their preaching faUing away
through ffiame and terror, as fnow melts before the
fun, — 1 mean, unlefs they retraded their teftimony,
which it wiU not be afferted they ever did, amidft
aU the fiery trial from their enemies which they en
dured. There was therefore no confideration to in
cline the evangeUfts to attempt fuch a -vnld and ex
travagant cheat upon the world, as is imputed to
them by thofe who make them guUty of falffiood In
their narratives; and ffiould not thefe argum-ents
K k

514 A VINDICATION OF&c. P.m.
laid together, fatisfy us ofthe truth of thegofpel-hif-
tory, upon which depends the truth and divinity of
our religion ? — Let this book then the Toldoth Jeffiu
never more be heard of, or fet up in oppofition to the
books of our evangeUfts.

THE

CONCLUSION.

I have now finlffied what 1 propofed to perform.
For I have ffiewed, as I think, that Mr. Voltaire
hath ffiamefuUy mifreprefented the Jewiffi hiftorian
Jofephus, in the accounts he gives us of his religi
ous opinions, and in feveral relations of fj)eeches and
tranfadlons which he profeffes to quote from his
¦works, or to buUd upon his authority, — I have like-
wife convided him, according to niy apprehenfion,
of mifciting or mifinterpreting the facred books in
very many inftances, and often after a moft unrea
fonable and perverfe manner; whUe it hath alfo been
obferyed, in expofing this his unfair and unjuft
treatment of them, that he hath not fcrupled more
than once to contradid himfelf*, or to affirm and
* To the examples of fuch inconfiftency which haVe been given, I
may here add another, as it was omitted in its proper place. We have
feen that, in his Ignorant Philofopher, under the article entitied. The
Effefts ofthe Spirit of Party and Fanaticifm, page 3 7 3 . he makes mutual
perfecution among Chriftians, even unto fpilling of blood, the neceffary
iffeCi ofour Saviour's words, ' Whomfoever liftens not to the church,
' fliall be looked upon as a pagan and a publican.' Yet, in his treatife
on Toleration, he fpends the whole 1 4th chapter to fliew that Chrift:
hatii not eftabliflied fanguinary laws, and .enjoined non-toleration, but
preached up by his words and aftions mildnefs, forbearance and indul
gence ; and more particulariy ftill, having quoted this very paflage a-
mong the few paiTages in the New Teftament from which the fpirit
of perfecution hath inferred that tyranny and conftraint in religiou?
Kk 3

5i6 THE CONCLUSION.
deny in turns the fame propofitions, as they fuited
or thwarted his prefent humour, and promoted or
oppofed his views at the time. And laftly, I have
manlfefted, if I am not deceived, that he hath thrown
out falfe charges and innuendos againft the genuine
nefs of different canonical books of fcripture, with
an evident Intention of difcrediting and difparaging
the fame, or even of bringing the whole coUedion,
of which they make a part, Into contempt. Nor are
there wanting, among thefe refledions which he hath
caft upon them, fome at leaft, which are not only
deftitute of all good foundation, but alfo -have fuch
an appearance of malice and fpitefulnefs in them in
a perfon of his knowledge and penetration, as to make
matters are permitted, ' Whofoever heareth not the word of God,
' ftiall be like an heathen, and like one who fitteth at the receit of cuf-
' tom,' he adds, ' But certainly, this is not faying that we ought to
' perfecute all unbelievers and cuftom-houfe officers ; they are fre-
' quently curfed indeed, but they are not delivered up to the arm of
' the fecular power, and fo far from depriving the latter of the pre-
' rogatives of citizens, they are indulged with the greateft privileges ;
* and though their profeffion is the only one condemned in fcripture, it
' is of all others the moft protefted and favciured by every govern-
' ment. Why then ftiould not we ftiow fome indulgence to our bre-
' thren,| wbo are unbelievers, while we load with benefits our brethren
* the tax-gatherers ?' pages 21 4, 215. Which, furely, whatever mix
ture there is here of falfe explication, and of that indecent raillery,
which is fo charafteriftical of the author, is very contrary to the mean-'
rng he affixes to the paffage in his Ignorant Philofopher. And he con
cludes the chapter thus, ' I now defire to know whether toleration or
* non-toleration appears to be of divine prefcription ! Let thofe who
' would referable Chrift be martyrs, and not executioners.' p. 224.
A conclufion which ill agrees with his affertion, that reciprocal effu
fion of blood- among Chriftians for differences of fentiment, was the
neceflary eff'eft of Chrift's words-. I

THE CONCLUSION. 517
it difficult to conceive how he ffiould not have been
fenfible he was doing herein manifeft inj'ury and
¦wrong, and, by confequence, to render It hard to re
concUe his condud to any degree of honefty. 1 may
have left, even in thefe pieces of Mr. VoltaUe whence
I have brought my inftances of mifreprefentation a-
gainft him, feveral paffages unreproved, which might
with equal propriety have been cenfured under one
or other, at leaft, of the two former branches In my
method, as thofe upon which I have remarked. Ne
verthelefs, I fuppofe, I have produced enough under
each head of divifion, to make gOod the accufation
againft him, that he Is guUty of a grofs difregard
to truth and candour, where he treats of the Jewiffi
hiftorian, and of the facred fcriptures. And it never
was my intention, as was already intimated, to take
notice of all articles of that fort In him, partly becaufe
I thought it was needful to ftudy brevity, and partly
becaufe I was perfuaded that fo complete an exami
nation of them inight be fpared, if the charge was In-
conteflibly verified againft him in a great number of
examples. If, then, thefe things are fo, it follows, that Mr.
Voltaue's manner of treating the Je-wiffi hiftorian and
the facred writers, muft appear to aU Impartial aud
equitable judges exceedingly criminal. 1 aUow hira
his due praifes for his ardent love of liberty, for his
fine genius, and for his manner of writing, which is
peculiarly pleafing ; becaufe, at the fame time that it Is
moft eafy and perfplcuous, it is remarkably fprightly
and animated. And, further, on account ofbis pof
feffion of thefe ingaging quaUties, I acknowledge. It Is
more to be lamented and regretted that he hath em-
Kk 3

5i8 THE CONCLUSION.
ployed his pen, efpecially fo much as he has done, to
vilify the holy fcriptures, and to deftroy In the minds of
men all veneration and reverence for thefe holy books,
which contain the moft exceUent and perfed rules of
yirtue, and the moft powerful motives and induce
ments to Its pradice that ever were propofed to the
world ; becaufe he is thereby the more fitted to fe
duce others into his fentiments. But ftiU it feems
imavoldable, that all fair and unprejudiced perfons
ffiould agree to think his condud, whether in giv
ing fuch falfe quotations and making fuch falfe reci
tals from thefe authors, or in perverting and wreft->
ing their words where they are juftly produced and
exhibited, to a fenfe quite contrary to their own ma^
nifeft intention and defign, or in urging groundlefs
and fpiteful cavils againft the genuinenefs of the fa
cred writings, very faulty and deferving of difplea
fure. No perfon could ufe fuch unfair methods with
any of the Greek and Roman hiftorians or philofo
phers, in order to put them into a fool's coat, and
bring them into contempt, as he hath purfued witb
regard to Jofephus's works and the facred fcriptures,
that he might place them in a falfe light, and expofe
them to be laughed at in the world, and be counted
innocent, or chargeable only with a fmall trefpafs,
On the contrary, he would be the objed of indig-
iiatlon from every fcholar, and be feverely condem
ned, and loaded with heavy reproaches for fuch a-,
bufe of them. For what writer, however venerable,
would he fay, can be fafe, if fuch unreftrained li
cence and freedom Is taken in citing or explaining
him ? Shall, then, Mr, Voltaire's indulgence of him
felf in thefe pradices which have been proved upon

THE CONCLUSION. 5151
him, firft with relation to Jofephus, and then again
¦mth relation to the facred writers, be efteemed by
any a guUtiefs thing, or nothing but a ffight and tri
vial offence, becaufe thefe laft profefs to ffiew unto
mankind in the name of God, the beft dUedory of
their behaviour, and to inforce In the fame name, by
the ftirongeft perfuafives, their refignation of their
hearts and Uves to its guidance ; and becaufe he a-
gain, inftead of being a Greek or Roman, is a Jew
iffi hiftorian of confiderable fervice and ufe to Chri
ftians, both as to their eftablifliment in the faith of
the gofpel, and as to their inveftigatlon of the fenfe
of fome paffages in the Old Teftament ? Surely this
is io partial and unequal judging, as eveiy perfon
ffiould bluffi at, or be affiamed of, who can be right
fully accufed of it.
But what ought to be the effed of this detedion
of Mr. Voltaire, in a procedure fo unjuftifiable and
inexcufable ? It ought to convince this author him
felf |, of his injurious and unhandfome dealing to
wards thefe ¦writers, if he may be fuppofed to have
f To fome it may feem too vain to hint it as a poffible thing, that
what is here faid may engage Mr. Voltaire's attention, and imprefs him
with a fenfe ofbis culpable behaviour. It appears, hovever, no more
than equitable. For I mention it to his honour, upon the authority
of a foreign literary journal, that a Portugueze Jew, fettled at Bour-
deanx, having publiftied a piece of 4 8 pages in duodecimo, entitled.
Reflexions on the Firft Chapter of the Seventh Volume of Mr. Vol
taire's Works concerning the Jews, or of his General Hiftory of the
Manners and Spirit of Nations, where he fays, ' The Jews are a people
• ignorant and barbarous, &c.' Mr, Voltaire promifed to correft thefe
lines in another edition, owning it was wrong to attribute to a whole
nation the vices of fome individuals, Bibl. des Sciences et Beaux Arts^
tsn, 1 8. p. 509.
Kk 4

^20 THE CONCLUSION.
been mifled by relying on any erroneous accounts of
them by others, or to haye been fo blinded by fome
unhappy prejudices, (perhaps, even a mere love of fin
gularity, or an affedation to fignalize himfelf by
ftriking out of the more common and beaten path
into that of fcepticifm, or the efprit fort^ as not to
have perceived he was doing them wrong ; and ffiould
lead him to purge his works from whatever fubjeds
him to fo foul an imputation, a& that of falffiood and
difipgenuity, or even the fo probable fufpicion there
of. And furely this is an effed which every Chriftian
is bound to wiffi, upon the generous principles of his
religion, from benevolenceto Mr. Voltaire himfelf, af
ter all the hurt and mifchief he hath done in fpread
ing infidelity, even apart from all confideration of
the advantage which it might be produdive of to
the caufe of truth and piety. — But be the event here
as it will, the difcovery now made ought to be im
proved by others, and may teach them tlie following
ufeful leffons.
Hath it been ffiewed, that Mr, Voltaire hath been
guilty of a grofs difregard to veracity and candour
in treating of the Jewiffi hiftorian and the facred
writers? This ffiould put all on their guard againft
receiving his affertions and accounts about them
blindly and implicitly, whatever prepoffeffion in his
favour, and difpofition to fwallow without previous
inquiry all that he advances, the fmart ftrokes of
his wit, the vivacity and UvcUnefs of his Imaginati
on, and the other graces and embelliffiments of his
ftUe, together with his high fame in the polite world,
may haye created In their minds. When a perfon
hath been found to be falfe and difingenuous in his

THE CONCLUSION, 521
relation of fads at fome focial Interview, but ftUl
more when he hath been found to be fuch with fre
quency, we hear him afterwards with fufpicion and
diftruft ; we fufpend our affent and credit to them
tiU we ffiall ourfelves fearch how matters ftand. At
leaft all wife and prudent perfons do fo. And ffiould
not Mr, Voltaire's being chargeable with fo many
mifreprefentations of thefe authors, produce the
fame caution and referve? Indeed who can refign
himfelf to the guidance of a writer fo negUgent of
truth and fairnefs, as he hath now been evinced to
be about matters which have any concern with re
velation, and not betray a moft criminal creduUty ?
Let me then befeech all, Inftead of relying on him as
a fure and faithful inftrudor where the Bible Is in
terefted, to go themfelves firft, and examine ¦with
impartial and unprejudiced minds. In particular, let
me intreat the young to purfue this courfe, Inftead
of yielding a ready ear to his feoffs and cavUs. For
fuch, I apprehend, are in greater danger of being de
ceived by him. Their knowledge being generally
more fuperficial of divine revelation than that of per
fons more advanced in age, (I mean, amidft equal ca
pacities and advantages for Information,) and their
experience being fmaUer of its importance and ufe
fulnefs to folace and comfort the mind under afflic
tive occurrences in life, to which, by their ffiorter
ftanding In the world, and their greater vigour of
conftitution, they are more ftrangers, they are foon
er impofed on and carried away by fpecious and plau
fible objedions, or even lame and falfified detaUs,
through the fuppreffion or addition of material cir
cumftances. Their paffions being commonly more

522 THE CONCLUSION.
headftrong, they are more eafily flexible to prin
ciples, which, inftead of tending to reftrain them
within due bounds, promife them a greater Uberty
. to range uncontrouled. And their defire to be well
thought and well fpoken of by thofe who make the
fafhionable part of the age, being more violent In
this period of life, they are more quickly brought to
difcard and throw off all regard to what is laughed
at by an author who Is fo idolized among them, and
has fo great Influence in forming their opinions, and
regulating their tafte about religion, without hav
ing any patience honeftly and coolly to try whether
his ridicule be well or ill founded.
Further, have fome paffages of the Jewiffi hifto
rian, but chiefly many paffages of fcripture which
Mr. Voltaire had mifquoted, or violently twifted and
diftorted from their true meaning, and explained to
a wrong fenfe, been vindicated from his abufe, and
fet in a proper and juft light in this work ? Withal,
have his exceptions againft the genuinenefs of feve
ral books which make a part of the facred canon,
been confuted and manlfefted to be vain and grounds.
lefs ? hereby all that unjuft offence and unreafonable
difpleafure which he may have raifed or Increafed a-
gainft Jofephus, and efpecially againft the facred writ
ings by thefe artifices, ought to be removed ; and all
that difrefped for thofe books among them whofe
authenticity he had attacked, which was created by
his cavils againft them, ought to ceafe : and they
ought to be replaced in our good opinion, and recor
ver or regain their due honour and veneration with
us. Finally, this detedion may even ferve to ftrength-

THE CONCLUSION, 523
pn and confirm our beUef in the divine authority of
the fcriptures, fince by it we perceive, that a writer,
pf fo diftinguiffied talents and abUities as Mr. Vol
taire, hath been obliged to have recourfe to falfe ac
counts of the pontents of the facred books, and to
the moft wfld and unreafonable interpretations there
of, that he might fucceed in his endeavours of fub-
jeding them to fcorn and contempt; and that he
hath been reduced to a neceffity of adopting or lay
ing hold upon the moft frivolous, idle and captious
objedions againft fome of the pieces which compofe
our Bible, that he might compafs his end of under
mining their credit : yea, to advance into the rank
of a more early and credible record than our gofpels,
a Jewiffi produdion, which is undeniably fuU of the
moft abfurd tales, and ridiculous fables, where it dif
fers from them, or contradids them, and Is repugnant
in many particulars, to the accounts of the moft ce
lebrated, and approved hiftories of thofe times where
in Jefus and his apoftles lived, and appears clear
ly, by every proper mark and evidence which can
be urged in fuch a cafe, to be a work of a much later
age than that in which our gofpels were -wrote. For
it is natural to argue thus hereon. If the Bible Is in
itfelf worthy to be rejeded, furely fuch an acute and
ingenious perfon as Mr, Voltaire, with his ftrong in
clination to depreciate It, would have produced fuf
ficient objedions againft it, without flying to fuch
expedients and ffiifts as mifquoting the fame, and
ftraining its words to a meaning which they were
never defigned to receive, and oppofmg exceptions
to the genuinenefs of fome of its parts, the moft void
«f reafon and contemptible. Thus may we turn his

524 THE CONCLUSION.
puerile and ffiiberal manner of attack, when we con
fider his fuperior endowments and parts, to buUd us
up and fettle us in our faith of the fcriptures.
It concerns us deeply, however, who profefs a con
vidion of the divine authority of the fcriptures, to
remember, that this, if it continue mere theory
and fpeculation, can never fatisfy the obligations
which lie upon us. No. We muft acquaint our
felves with the hiftories, dodrines, precepts, prohibi
tions, promifes and threatnings therein contained,
according to that meafure of inward capacity and
outward opportunity which God hath given lis, who
diftributes to every man varioufly as he wffis. We
muft treat them In our difcourfe with fuitable ho
nour and refped, with which it does not feem con
fiftent to be borrowing the phrafes and expreffions
thereof, to embelUffi and enliven the moft vain and
trifling, perhaps loofe and licentious chat, and raife
a laugh by our converfation with fuch company as
can reliffi this feafoning. For what Is this but to
make a jeft and fport of the word of God? As it is
certain, again, this pradice is not very friendly to
thecontInuanceofyenerationforthefame,whereityetis in any degree, fince It Is a certain and evident truth,
that mixing things ofthe higheft eftimation and value
with low and ludicrous, and much more with bafe and
ffithy images, ftrongly tends to weaken our regards
for them, or to render them defpicable and vile in
our eyes. Above all, we muft be careful to cultivate
that temper of mind, and purfue that courfe of life,
which thefe fcriptures enjoin and enforce, which is
no more than fuffering the perfuafion and judgment
of our minds to have its proper influence and power

THE CONCLUSION. 525
•ver our affedions and adions. This is that behavi
our alonp which wUl give an agreeablenefs and har
mony with the appearances we affume, and the forms
we pradife. This is the moft effedual method to pro
mote the credit, and advance the fpread of our reli
gion in the world, which we ffiould look upon our
felves as more loudly caUed to be tender of, and foU
citous about, that there Is, in thefe times and places,
a great biafs and propenfity to derogate from its ex
cellence and ufefulnefs, and to improve every mif-
carriage and nufcondud of profeffing Chriftians, e-
fpeciaUy in refped ofjuftice, fincerity, fideUty, ge-
nerofity, and Uke focial virtues, to Its prejudice and
difparagement. But, if thefe confideratlons wUl not
have fufficient weight with us, as. Indeed, they are
only fitted to operate on more delicate and noble
minds, that have a regard to propriety and decency
of deportment, and that glow with zeal for the ho
nour of God and Jefus, or benevolence towards men
in their fpiritual and immortal Interefts, we ffiould
aU be animated in this ftudy and endeavour, by a
concern about our own true welfare and happinefs.
For, as this is the way to rational heart-felt joy and
fatisfadion at prefent, from the confcious approba
tion of our own minds, and a fenfe of divine favour;
fo, it is the way to fave our fouls in that eternity
which is haftening upon us, wherein we are to re
ceive aqcordlng to what we have done in the body,
and to the affiftances for hoUnefs we have enjoyed.
Nor do any of us know how foon, or how fuddenly
it may rufh in upon us. Of what moment Is it then
to us Chriftians to foUow holinefs, both in fpirit and
eonverfition! May this be the prevaUing and go-

^26 T Ii E Conclusion.
verning concern , yea, the ever growing and increafing'
foUcItude of the author, and of all others into whofe
hands this treatife may faU !• And I wUl add, of all,
likewife, who hold the fame common ruie of faitii
and manners, whatever variety of opinions or diver
fity of fentiments there may be among us about the'
fenfe of fome paffages hereof, amidft honeft and fin
cere endeavours to underftand the fame, from which
different apprehenfion' We may confcientioufly arguo'
on oppofite fides of tliis or that queftion! Amen.

APPENDIX,

Concerning Mr. Voltaire's rernarks upon the filence
of cotemporary writers about the maffacre of the
infants, the ftar, the miracles of Chrift, the dark
nefs and other prodigies at his death, which are
recorded by the evangeUfts.

M R.VOLTAIRE, in his PhUofophical Didi
onary, article Chriftianity, whence alfo fome
other paffages were brought under examination In
the preceding treatife, hath thrown out exceptions
at fome length againft the truth of St. Matthew's
narrative, about the flaughter ofthe chUdren in Beth
lehem, and the appearance of the ftar at Chrift's
birch, and againft the credibffity of the accounts gi
ven both by him and the other evangeUfts, concern
ing the miracles which Chrift performed, and the
extraordinary events which happened at the time of
his paffion, from the omiffion of thefe fads by con
temporary writers. I propofe, therefore, here to add
fome obfervations on that part of his book, as it ftrikes
fodeep, and the confideration of It did not faU within
thecompafs of the plan I had laid down. The whole,
however, of what Mr,; Voltaire hath faid upon this fub
jed, though fomewhat proUx, muft firft be produ
ced, left by abridging it, I fliould give any handle to
the reader to complain, or even fufped, that I had

528 A P P E N D I 3^.
diminiffied the ftrength and force of his argument
It ftands then at length thus.
' In vain have fome of the learned expreffed their
' wpnder, that in the hiftorian Jofephus, they meet
* with no trace of Jefus Chiift, the little paffage re-
' lating to him in his hiftory being now unlver-
' fally given up as interpolated. iTct Jofephus's
* father muft have been an eye-witnefs of Jefus's mi-
' racles. This hiftorian was of the prieftly lineage,
' and being related to queen Mariamne, Herod's -wife,
' is minutely particular on all that prince's proceed-
* ings, yet whoUy filent as to the life and death of
* Chrift. Though neither conceaUng nor palliating
* Herod's Cruelties, not a word does he fay about
' his ordering the children to be maffacred on an in-
' formation that a king of the Jews was juft born.
* According to the Greek calendar the number of
' chUdren put to death on that occafion amounted
' to fourteen thoufand. •,
' Of all the cruelties ever committed by aU the?
' tyrants that ever lived, this was the moft horrible j
' a like inftance is not to be found in hiftory.
' Yet the beft writer the Jews ever had, the on-
* ly one of any account with the Romans and Greeks,-
' makes no manner of mention of a tranfadion fo
' very extraordinary, and fo very dreadfulj He fayS
' not a word of the new ftar whkh had appeared In
' the eaft at Our SavioUr's nativity; and a phaeno-
' menon fo fingular could not efcape the knowlege
' of fuch an accurate hiftorian as Jofephus : he is like-
' wife filent as to the darknefs, which, at noon-day,;
* covered the whole earth for the fpace of three hours,
* whUft the Saviour was on the crofs ; the opening

APPENDIX. 529
* ofthe tombs at that awful time, and the number
' of the juft, who rofe from the dead.
' It is no lefs a matter of wonder to the learned
' that thefe prodigies are not taken notice of by any
' Roman hiftorian, though they happened in the reign
' of Tiberius, under the very eyes of a Roman go-
* vernor and garrifon, who naturaUy would have fent
' the emperor and fenate a circumftantfal account of
* the moft miraculous event ever heard of. Rome
* Itfelf muft for three hours have been involved In
* thick darknefs, and furely fuch a prodigy would
* have been noted id the annals of Rome, and thofe
* of aU other nations. But God, I fuppofe, would
' not aUow that fuch divine things ffiould be com-
* mitted to vpriting by prdphatte hands.' *
But though I have copied this very exceptionable
paffage in aU its length at once, it wUl be neceffary
to examine feparately the different cavUs which it
contains.

Ofthe miffion of the fldughter ofthe infants by other
, hiftorians.
Firft then, let iis confider his dbjedion to the maf
facre of the babes in Bethlehem and itscoafts, which
Ues againft Matthew alone, becaufe he only hath re
lated this cruel fad. The film of it, as the reader
muft Obferve, is, that Jofephus, who could not be
ignorant of the tranfadion by Herod, and who does
not appear difpofed either to conceal or aUevIate his
barbarities, fays not a word about it, though, in re-
* See pp. ^6 — 98,
L 1

5 30 APPENDIX.
fped of horror, it had no paraUel in the annals of the
world, forafmuch as the' number of innocent child
ren then put to death by his order, Was no lefs,
according to the Greek calendar, than '^^ 14,000.
To which he might have added, after ColUns, in his
Scheme of Literal f Prophecy, ' Neither is it taken
' notice of by any other hiftorian, Greek or Roman.*
But how unreafonable Is it to improve this fUence
to deftroy or weaken the credit of the evangelift,
concerning this matter!
As to the omiffion of the flaughter of the in
fants by heathen hiftorians, who wrote the affairs
of the Roman empire about the time when it hap
pened, it may be eafily accounted for. They
might not be inftruded about this maffacre, which
was limited to a fmall diftrid, in a country at a great
diftance from the f(?at of government, and of very
inconfiderable fize in comparifon -of that wide and
extenfive fcene of which they treated ; or, if they
were inftruded about It, they might not think it of
¦* I am not fure but he ffiould have faid their number, accord
ing to this calendar, amounted to 144,000. At leaft, a capuchin
Once called them fo many ; and when a proteftant, who happened to
be with him in his convent on the feaft of Innocents, i. e. the feaft
celebrated in commemoration of them as martyrs, Dec. 28. begged
li'is authority for it, reprefenting that Bethlehera and its territory could
not furnifti fuch a multitude under two years of age, he replied, ' Ht
' was certain of it from the Script,ure read that morning : nor could
' there be any numeral error or miftake, for the perfons ftain in each tribe
' were condefcended on, ofthe tribe of Judah twelve thoufand, ofthe
• tribe of Reuben twelve thoufand, &c. as in Revel, vii. j — 9. and
* thefe added produce that fum.*
t Pages 16. 17.

APPENDIX. 531
fufficient nioment and importance to be recorded.
For how fmaU a thing -wOiild It appear to them, that
a prince of any dependent ftate had caufed a number
ofthe children ofbis fubjeds to be kUled, uponafur-
mife, that one had been born who would feize the
|ceptre, in order to fecure the continuance of the
crown in his own family ! And how would it feem
a ftill ffighter affair, that the king of judea had exe
cuted fueh a meafure fOr that end, as the Jews were
a people defpifed and hated above all others ! Indeed,
it is manifeft, fuch order would be lefs ffipcking in
that age, as it was then ah ordinary * pradice, even
* That it was lawful among fome Greek nations to expofe to
the mercy of fortune, or kill new-born children, is fuppofed by Ari-
ftotie, Politic, lib. 7 , 17, who, where public order did not allow ex
pofing children, direfts to procure abortion, left perfons ftiould be 0-
verburdened, and from Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. lib. 2. p. 400.
edit. Sylborg. Nay Plutarch tells us, that, by the laws of Sparta, fa
thers were reqiiired to carry their neW-born infants to a certain .place,
where fome ofthe graveft nien of their tribe attended to examine them,
and were obliged, upon their pronouncing them deformed or unhealthy
after careful infpeftion of them, to throw them into a deep pit at the
foot of MoQnt Taygetus; De Lycurgo, p. 49. It is, however, to be
Mentioned to the honour of the Thebans, as famous as their country
of Boeotia was for producing dunces, that it was among them capital
by law for any man to expofe a child or lay it down in a defolate place :
if a father was extremely poor, he was to Carry his infant ftraight
from the birth, in its fwaddling ^ioaths, to the magiftrates, who were
to put it into the hands of fome perfon, by whom itwas tobe maintain-
td, from the affurance of enjoying its labours as a flave when it ftiould
arrive to mature age, by way of recompence for his trouble and charge
in rearing. Aelian. Var. Hift. lib. 2. cap. 7. Indeed, the praftice
feems to have prevailed among other Greek people, even beyond any
legal order, efpecially with relation to daughters ; hence thefe lines
•f Pefidippus, whieh fignify, ' A man tlrough poor will not ex
Ll 2

53= APPENDIX.,
among more civilized nations, the Greeks and Ro-»
mans, to expofe chUdren in the fields, who were
* pofe his fon, but if he is rich he will fcarce preferve his daughter,'
Tioy rpifet ri; xar Trim; ri; ay rv^n,
G/tiyari^Ot. ti ixn^n^i xai n vrKvcio;.
As to the Romans again, by a law of Romulus their firft king, as
fathers had power over their children through their Whole life, either
to imprifon them, or fcourge them, or detain them at rural labour,
or kill them if they pleafed, whatever public ofiices they might enjoy,
or whatever national fervices they might have done, yea, power to fell
them as flaves three times over for gain, (for only upon their recove
ry of their liberty a third rime, were they to be exempted from their
jurifdiftion,) fo they bad power, by his ordinance, to expofe any
child which was maimed or monftrous from the birth, after firft ffiew
ing the farae to five men, who were neareft neighbours, and obtaining
their concurrence, and were only required to bring up every male and
eldeft daughter, and to forbear putting to death others which were
well formed and entire, before they reached three years of age J So
Dionyfius Halicarnaffeus tells us, in his Roman Antiquities, lib. 2. p.
96. Sylburg. edit. 94. Hudf. edit, for he fays, Romulus gave fathers
power over their children et; Tsayra rv Ziv Xf'" layn ei^yetv, i-
ayri fAa?tyvr, layri oe crt ray xar aypoy ipyav xari^ety, layri a-
TToxriyyvycLj ^poaipnroj, 8(.c. And before that, p. 88. Sylburg. 8y.
Hudfon, Tlparoy //.iy et; arayxm xari^nal rv; oixnropa; aurn; {to-
^euf) a-naaay appiya yinay ixr^ifeiy, xa/ ^vyari^ay rv; rr^aroyi-
vv;' aTTOxriyyvyoLj ti fjintly ray ylyo/jilyuy yK^ripoy rpurv;' TrKnv, et
71 yiyoiro Traitioy ayawnpov n ripa; eufluc airo yoyn;, ravra oe vx e-
xaKvaiY rv; yeiya/uiyv;, i7ritetz,ayra; Trpori^or TTiyri artpa<riy rot;
lyyi^a oixvair, lav xaxetyoi; axjytox'n. After which he proceeds to re
late, that he alfo appointed fines agahaft thofe who obeyed not this law
with others, and that half of their goods ffiould belong to the treafury.
This law of Romulus, which Numa Pompilius his fucceffor moderated'
only in one article, by reftraining a father from felling his fon, after
he had confented to his marrying a wife and raifing a family, as the
farae Dionyfius ffiews us ibid, was afterwards confirmed by the decem
virs, in the year of Rome 302. as indeed it is alluded to, at leaft as in
part then eftabliffied, by Cicero De Legibus, 3.8. Hence all who

APPENDIX. 535
either weak and feeble, pr miffiapen and deformed,
or who, on account of the previous number in the
houfe, would create too hea-vy a burden on the pa
rents, there to periffi with cold and hunger, or to
have pretended to publiffi their laws ofthe twelve tables, have given
it a place therein. So Francis Balduin, and from him Manutius, ' Pa-
* rentura liberos omne jus efto, relegandi, vendendi, occidendi. 18.
' Monftrofos partus fine fraude caedunto.' The Jefuits again, Catrou
and Rouille, in their colleftion ofthe fragments ofthe twelve tables,
and from them Mr, Hook in his Roman hiftory, reprefent the contents
ofthe fourth table, to wliich, according to Dionyfius, the law which
gave power to fathers to fell their children three times, belonged, ioi
this manner. Law ift. 'i,et a father have the power of life and death
' over his legitimate children, and let him fell them when he pleafes.'
Law 2. ' But ifa father has fold his fon three times, let the fon then
' be out of his father's power.' Law 3. 'Ifa father has a child born
' which is monftroufly deformed, let him kill himimmediately.' Hook's
Rom. Hift. vol. 2. Svo. chap, 27. p. i 36. Nor does Plutarch, though
he flouriffied folate as 140 years after Chrift, blame the law of Ro
mulus as tpo rigorous, in giving fuch extenfive and perpetual power
to fathers ; he only finds fault with another ofbis ftatutes as too hard,
that by which he granted a man power to repudiate his wife upon her
poifoning his children, making falfe keys, or committing adultery, but
no liberty at all to a woman, upon any account, or on any miff)eha-
viour, to quit her hufband, De Romulo, pp. 30, 3 1 , And as the law
ftood fo, it appears to have been no unufual thing to kill or defert new
born infants, whenever they were for any reafon difagreeable, or would
create too great expence ; as is evident from the plays of Plautus, and
Terence, and from Suetonius, who tells us, in his life of Oftavius
Auguftus the emperor, that he forbad to bring up the infant born by
his grand-daughter Julia, after ffie was convifted of debauchery and
lewdnefs, and condemned to banifliment, cap. 6 J. 'Ex nepte Julia
* poft damnationem editum infantem agnofci alique vetuit. As agaln^,
in his life of Caligula, he informs us, that on the day on which Tiberius
his predeceffor died, the children which his wives bore to him were ex
pofed, cap. J, • Quo defunftus eft die Tiberius — partus conjugunv
< expoCti.'
Ll 3

534 APPENDIX.
be devoured by fome wild and ravenous beafts; yea,
even to difpatch them outright by the hand of man :
and it was both permitted by la-vy, and continued a
frequent cuflom"*^ long after.
* Hpw long after, this abufe was licenfed by law, and prevailed
in faft, is more difficult to determine. It was the opinion ofthe fa
mous Noodt, that to expofe or kill new-born children was never dif-
charged by any imperial edift, till more than 300 years from Chrift's
birth, though it is plain, that the paternal power was greatly reftrain
ed before that period towards children of mature age, which was, Ib
ihe beginning of the Roman commonwealth, and even by the tables
of the decemvirs, fo abfolute, as to extend to the putting them to
death at any time, by the father's private authority. Nay, that the
Chriftian emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian, were the firft
who fubjefted for it to capital puniffiment by their decree dated in
March, A. D. 374. ? Unufquifque fobolem fuara nutriat. Quod fi
' exponendam putaverit, animadverfioni, quae conftituta eft, fubjace-
* bit.' Cod. 8. tit. 52. ' De infantibus expofitis, liberis et fervis, &c.'
and L. 8. C. ad L. Cornel De ficariis ' Si quis necandi infantis piacu-
' lum aggreffus aggreflTave fit, fciat fe capitali fupplicio efle puniendum.'
At the fame time, it is, or may be allowed, by the advocates for this opi
nion, that Conftantine, the firft Chriftian emperor, endeavoured to put
a ftop to the cruel and barbarous cuftom, by feveral ftatutes. For by
a law enafted at Nailfus in Decia, in May, 316. he commanded the
officers of the revenue to receive and educate, at his coft, foch child
ren as ftiould be brought to them by their parents, becaufe they were
unable to provide for them by their own labour. And by another law
made in the year 322. he enjoined to fopply with corn from the pub
lic granaries, fuch parents as ftiould be found incapable of main
taining their children. Probably alfo before both thefe ordinances, he
had, with the fame view, allowed the fale of new-born children into fla
very to be valid or binding, but with a right of redemption. Cod. Juf
tinian, 4. 43. ' Si quis propter nimiam paupertatem, egeftatemque,
* viftus caufa, filium filiamve fanguinolentos, (this is explained in notes
" recenter natos,) vendiderit, venditione in hoc tantumraodo cafu va-
* lente, emptor obtinendi ejus fervitii habeat facultatem, &c.' 

APPENDIX. 535
But it vriU be inrged, the greatnefs of their num
ber who feU -ridlms or facrifices to Herod's ftate-
On the other hand, Bynkecftiock, another celebrated lawyer, thought
that the rigorous and fevere ufe of the paternal power about deftroying
or deferring new-born children, gradually abated through tbe progrefs
of more gentle and civilized manners, from the times of Trajan, or
Hadrian, or Antoninus Pius ; and that Conftantine, the firft Chriftian
anperor, threatened any father who Ihould commit fuch a crime, with
being puniffied like a parricide, or fewed up in a lack with the follow
ing brute animals, a dog, a cock,^ a viper, and an ap^ and'tben drown
ed in the fea, or fome river. For fo he underftands bis words in bis
refcript, Dec. 318. to Verinus, proconful of Africa, 'Si quis paren-
' tis, aut filii, aut omnino adfeftionis ejus, quae nuncupationeparricidii
' continetur, fata properaverit, five palam five clam id enifus fuerit, poena-
' parricidii puniatur. Sec.' Cod. L. 16. tit. 17. ' De his qui parentes,
' vel liberos, occiderunt.' See Noodt, ' Julius Paulus, five lib. de par-
' tus expofitione, et nece,' and Bynkerftioek, ' De jure exponendi er
' occidendi liberos apud veteres Romanos,' with. the other pieces pub
liffied by both on this fubjeft. Without deciding in the controverfy,
for which indeed I have not all requifite afljftances, I will only obferve,
that the praftice of abandoning, or difpatching new-bora infants, feeras
to have been far from uncommon, through the whole period, from
ourSaviour's appearance until the reign of Valentinian and his coliegues,
or at leaft until Conftantine 's death. For, not only does Philo Judaeus,
who flouriffied ia Caligula's time, fpeak of it as a common impiety a-
raong many nations, De legibus fpecialibus, page 79J. but Tacitus,
who lived under Trajan, marks it as fomething peculiar in the Germans,
that they held it a wicked thing to fet limits to the number of chil
dren, or kill any of their kindred, De fitu et moribus Germaniae, cap.
19. and in hke manner, he relates it, as a diftinguilijing. principle of
the Jews to abftain from difpatching thofe who were copnefted with
thenjiby the ties of nature, Hift. 5. 5. Apuleius of Madaura, again, a-
nother heathen, who wrote later, under the two Antonines, fpeaks of
it as an ordinary aft'air to kill a child at the birth ; for he reprefents.
a father at going abroad, coolly to lay his commands on his wife, to
kill the child ftie was then big with if it was a female : which accord-
ja='ly ftie told him. at his return ftie had done, though ftie had in rea-
Ll 4

53^ APPENDIX.
jealoufy, muft have awaked their attention to it,
and engaged their recital of it, had it been true,
lity faved her, from maternal tendernefs, and given her to be nurfed
and brought up in the neighbourhood, Metatnorphof. lib. i o. p. 119.
' Pater peregre proficifcens mandavit uxori fuae, quod enira farcina
' praegnationis oneratam eam relinquebat, ut fi fexus fequioris edidiffet
' foetus, protinus quod effet editum necaretur, &c.' The Chriftian
fathers, again, are full of reproaches and inveftives againft this, as a
prevailing evil among the Gentiles their enemies. So Juftin Martyr in
his firft apology prefented to one of thefe laft named emperors, even
Antonine the Pious, in the year of Chrift 1 40. pp. 7 o, 71, Nay,
TertuUian, in his apology written about the year 200. fcruples not to
fay, that many who were then thirfting for the blood of Chriftians,
yea many of the moft upright magiftrates themfelves, had been guilty
of drowning their infants, or of expofing them to perifti by hunger, or
cold, or carnivorous animals, cap. 9. ' Quot vultis ex his circumftan-i
' tibus, et in Chriftianorum fanguinem hiantibus, ex ipfi^ etiam vobis
' juftifiimis et feveriffimis in nos praeCdibus apud confeientias pulfem,
' qui natos fibi liberos enecent ? fiquidem et de genere necis differt, u-
' tique crudelius in aqua fpiritum extorquetis, aut frigori, et fami, et
' canibus exponitis. Ferco enim mori aetas quoque major optaverit.'-
And in his firft book to the Nations, he fays, * No lav/s vvere more
" fafely or fecurely violated among them, than even the laws which
* forbid to put children to death,' referring, I fuppofe, to the praftice
of deftroying them in cafes where the kws gave no allowance to do it,
cap. I J. ' Vos quoque infanticidae, qui infantes editos enecantes legi-
• bus quidem prohibemini, fed nullae magis leges tam impune, tam fe-
• cure, fub omnium confcientiae unius a  tabelli-s eludunttir, &c.'
And, (to pafs the words of Minutius Felix, cap. 30 as he wrote only
a little later than.Tertullian;) Laftantius, who flouriflied after the be
ginning of the fourth century, under Conftantine, (hews it to have
been ftill a frequent cuftom to ftrangle or expofe children, lib. 5. c. 9..
adding, that if, amidft this laft treatment, they were preferved alive
through the humanity and compaffion of any ftranger, they wereeither
educated for flavery, orfor the brothel-houfe, lib. 6. cap. 20. to whom
I might fubjoin Arnobius, and Julias Firmicus Maternus who wrote
after both. Nor Was even the edift of thefe emperors, Valentinian,

APPENDIX, 537
feeing it was altogether unpreeedented, I anfwer. It
is contrary to aU probabffity, to fuppofe that they
amounted to a tenth part ofthe number Mr, Voltaire
mentions. In towns containing 20 or 25000 fouls,
there are not born in one year more than rooo chU
dren, of whom not a few die from time to time, by
maladies or cafualties Inciden t to that tender age,before-
they have compleated, or even begun, the fecond
year of life. Bethlehem was but a fmall town, of
Uttle note or fame, tlU It became Uluftrious, accord
ing to the predidion of Micah, by his nativity, which
gave rife to the difmal tragedy we are fpeaking of.
By confequence. It muft not have been very popu
lous. And Indeed it could not be of* great extent ; for
Valens and Gratian, elfeftual to put an entire ftop to the long efta
bliffied corruption, as appears fi om penal ftatutes enafted in fucceeding
times againft it. It feems probable, the world owes the abolition of
this favage and inhuman cuftom, which continued among the Romans
after they were arrived to their higheft improvement in fcience and po
lite arts, more to the preisalence of the Chriftian religion, than many
are willing to acknowledge ; on which account, I have been more full
in ftating both the law and the ufage,
* John, in his gofpel, calls it xo/xyi, a village, vii. 42. It is true,
Luke beftows upon it the appellation of ttoKi;, ii. 4. But Epiphanius
Haeres, 5 1 . is fuppofed by many to inform us, tbat one copy of the
evangelifts read here, xa/xny, inftead of ¦itokiy ; though, I confefs, o-
thers think by his phrafe ayriypafor ray luayfiKiTuy, he only intend
ed to acquaint us, that it was fo called by another writer of our Lord's
life, even John, Juftin Martyr, who had good opportunities for know
ing its fize, having been born at Flavia Neapolis, the antient Sichem, in
tfae farae country of Paleftine, ftiles it xu/o), Apolog. 2. page 7 j. and
Dialog, with Tryphon, p. 303. yea, X'^f""' (^f^ix-}oy, a little plot.
Jerome, moreover, who refided at Bethlehem in the latter part ofbis
life, in his epiftle to Marcella, names it villam pauperculam ; nay, f;'/-
lulam : and in his commentary on Micah, vixparvumviculum. It muft

535 APPENDIX.
the hiU on which it flood, and of which It occupied
only a part, according to travellers, does not exceed
in its whole circumference a thoufand paces, that is,
a fingle mUe, Nor co^jjd its coafts be very wide,
fince, according to Jerome and others, Jerufalem was
fituated within fix f mUes ; but, according tb Juftin
Martyr, within five; and, according to Jofephus^
•within four miles of it on the north : and Elam was
ItiU lefs diftant from it on the fouth. The chUdren,
then, in this place and its confines, from two years
of age and under, who were cut off by Herod's de
cree, muft have been but J a handful in compari
fon. Why then ffiould it be thought ftrange, that
thefe GentUe writers, who had fo large a field before
them, and who needed to treat of fo great a variety
of events interefting to the Roman government,
ffiould have been filent about this flaughter of fome
babes In a finall corner of the empire, for the fake of
therefore have been a place very inconfiderable for its fize, and there
fore could contain no great number of babes under two years of age.
Ladoire, a French author, in his. Travels into the Holy Land, in
1719, fays, ' It is at prefent a very fmall town, containing fcarce 300,
' houfes. "^
f SeeRelandi Paleftina, 416. 44 j. 44J. 480, &c.
X That St. Matthew ufes the expreflion Trayra;, in defcrlbing the
flaughter ofthe infants here, is no evidence that they were very nu
merous. It is well known, that the term is applied by Greek writers,
where perfons of one age or rank are univerfally cut off, whether they.
be more or fewer.-^^-That men have fwelled the numbers of thofe
babes fo much, may have proceeded in part from the pathetic and.
flowery declamations of orators, and the exaggerations of poets, for
whofe figurative manner of fpeaking, allowance ought to have been
made, as well as from the reading of that paffage of fcripture, Rev.
xiv. 4, 5. in the church, by public appointment, on tbe feftival of
the martyrdom of tbe Innocents.

APPENDIX. 53,
the interefts of a petty prince ? And how ritUculous
is it to make their omiffion to mention it, a gi'ound
of unbeUef, efpeciaUy when It is confidered, that
they eitiier, through ftudy of brevity, pafs Herod's
ftoiy altogether ; or if they do not, they comprize §
all they teU us about his elevation to the throne, his
behaviour in it, his deatii, and the di-vifion of his
kingdom among his fons, whofe very names withal
they omit. In three or four lines !
It deferves, neverthelefs, to be obferved, whUe there
is fo entire filence about this barbarous adion among
contemporary Gentile -writers, that Macrobius, a Pa
gan author, towards the end of the fourth century,
in a dialogue which receives its name from the fea
fon at which it is laid, the feftival which was folem
nlzed In honour of Saturn, inti"oduces A-yienus, alfo
a heathen, relating among many other vtdtty fayings
or jefts of Auguftus, one which proceeded upon that
emperor's information of Herod's order to klU boys
under two years of age, as an uncontroverted fad.
§ Thus all which Tacitus fays on the fubjeft is, ' Regnum ab
' Antonio Herodi datum viftor Auguftus auxit. Poft mortem Hero-
' dis, nihil expeftaio Gaefare, Simon quidam regium nomen invafe-
f rat. Is a Quinftilio Varo Syriam obtinente punitus. Et gentem.co-
' erdtam liberi Herodis tripartite rexere.' Hiftor. 5. 9. Strabo, again,
is equally brief and concife, lib. 16, Edit. Cafaub. 765. ' Herod, a
' man of the country, having arrived at the priefthood, furpaffed fo
' much thofe before him, efpecially in familiarity with the Romans,
' and in adminiftration, that he obtained the title and dignity of king,
' firft from Antony, and afterwards from Caefar .Auguftus. Bat of his
' fons, he himfelf flew fome, for having laid foares againft his life.
^ Others he left his fucceflbrs when he died, having affigned each his
' fliare of that territory which belonged to him.'

54» APPENDIX.
Avienus's words are, ' When ^ Auguftus heard, that
* among the boys under two years of age, whom He-
^ rod king of the Jews commanded to be put to
' death in Syria, that prince's own fon had been alfo
* flain, he faid. It is better to be Herod's hog than
* his fon,' And is it not prefumable he put this ac
count of the occafion of this fmart fpeech of the
eniperor, which alludes evidently to the tendernefs
of the Jewiffi people toward fwine, as they forebore
to eat their fleffi, into the mouth of Avienus on the
teftimony of fome antient writer, fince he profeffed
to his fon, that his book was juft a coUedion of aU
his reading both Greek and Latin, for his advantage;
fuitably to which, it is found to contain accurate ex-
trads from older authors, where, by their prefervati
on untU our time, there is any room for comparifon ?
Nay, is it not probable he did fo, on the teftimony
of a heathen writer, rather than ofthe evangelift, or
any other Chriftian, fince he himfelf-}-, together with
* Macrob. Saturnal. 2. 4. * Cum audiflet Auguftus inter pueros
' quos in Syria Herodes rex Judaeorum, intra biraaturajuffit interfici,
* filiura quoque ejus occifura, ait, melius eft, Herodis porcum effe
* quam filium.'
f I am fenfible, fome have paid little regard to Macrobius's tefti
mony, becaufe they have thought him a Chriftian ; though Collins hath
only faid, ' Perhaps he was a Chriftian.' But for this opinion, I know
no pretence, except that he bore public offices in Theodofius's time,
which is no good reafon, fince under this emperor, there were Pagans
both in the fchools of philofophy and rhetoric, and in the fenate, and in
places of magiftracy. See Lardner's Teftimonies, book 4. chap, laft,
p. 4 60.-1 — 466. And there are many ftrong arguments againft it ; par
ticularly, that the whole fcope ofthe book where this repartee is found,
is to vindicate the fyftem of polytheifm, and to juftify the heathen fu
perftition, and that the interlocutors are zealous friends thereof, as in
the next note.

APPENDIX. 54I
all the interlocutors I, were GentUes in principle and
belief; efpeciaUy when it is confidered, that, befides
making one of Herod's fons periffi among thefe chU
dren, which Matthew does not, the maffacre is re
prefented to have been enjoined through the whole
province of Syria; whUe by the facred writer, and
thofe who have foUowed him, it is faid to have been
Confined to one town of that province and its envi
rons? His teftimony, therefore, though fo remote in
timei may be aUowed to add weight to Matthew's
account. As to Jofephus's omiffion of the atrocious deed,
again, I confefs, it is at firft fight more ftrange. Per
haps, indeed, he might not find any mention of it
X AsVettius Praetextatus, at whofe houfe the conference here re
cited is reprefented to have been held for a fucceffion of days, and Sym
machus, another fpeaker in the dialogue, are allowed to have been
perfons of diftinguilhed bigotry to Paganifm by all who are acquainted
with the tranfaftions of thofe times-, the other fpeakers appear to have
been perfons ofthe fame complexion ; in particular, Avienus, who re
lates this witty word of Auguftus. For in the beginning ofthe 1 7th
chapter of tbe firft book, he is introduced acknowledging that he had
frequently and long confidered with himfelf, why he and the reft wor
fhipped the fun, fometimes under the name of Apollo, fometimes under
the name of Liber, fometimes under ftill different appellations, and ap
plying to Vettius, who, by the divine will, was prieft to all deities, for
an explication of the reafon of it. At the end, moreover, of Vettius's
reply, Macrobius defcribes all whom he addreffed, by confequence,
Avienus, who propofed the queftion, as filled with admiration at his
fine difcourfe, and breaking forth in his praifes, fome for his learning,
fome for his memory, all for his religion, and faying, ' That he alone
' was acquainted with the fecret nature of the gods, that he alone
' could comprehend in his mind and exprefs thefe divine matters.' See
chap. 24. of the farae book, at the beginning. But I muft forbear to
quote the original.

^42 APPENDIX.
in the hiftory of Nicolas of Damafcus, to whieh h^
was obliged for many articles in his account of He-*
rod's reign. For we are affured, as he was Herod's
friend, he fuppreffed fonie adiOris which were dif
graceful to him, as his violation of David's § fepul-
chre ; while on the other hand, hfe attributed ho
nours to him to which he had no title : for inftance,
that of being defcended from a principal Jewiffi fa
mUy that returned from Babylon to judea, -when his
father was in truth an Idumean, Neverthelefs, It i$
not reafonable to fuppofe that he could be ignorant
of an adion that would make fo much noife, and
raife fo great difpleafure againft Herod as this, fince
he was a native of the countty, and a perfon of fu
perior Intelligence by his rank and education, (for
he was of the facerdotal or prieftly race, and bred
fuitably) and he wrote within lefs than loo years
after It ffiould have happened. He muft then have
been acquainted with it, if fuch a maffacre was exe
cuted, as with many other things recorded by hiitf
to Herod's difadvantage, either by fome earlier writ
ten relation, or fome verbal information ; and, if he
hath * been altogether ffient about it, as the objec-
§ Antiq; 14. I. 3. and I 6. 7. I,
* I exprefs myfelf thus, becaufe fome learned men have fuppofed
not only a reference to the cenfus or enrollment of the Jewiffi nation
at Chrift's birth, in Jofephus's ftory of the whole peoples taking an
oath to be faithful to Caefar, except 6000 Pharifees ; but alfo a refe
rence to this malTacre which followed that cenfus, after Herod heard
that a king ofthe Jews Was born from the wife men, and learned from
the chSef priefts and feribes, that the prophecies foretold his nativity irt
Bethlehem, in the account he gives of Herod's putting to death fome
of the Pharifees, who had foretold that God had decreed to put an
end to the government of Herod and his race, and to transfer the

APPENDIX. 54^
tion fuppofes, he muft have been filent of intention
or riefign. Butfiirely it does not foUow, becaufe he hath o-
mlfcted this fad, which he is allowed to have heard
ofj that therefore it is falfe. Many reafons, different
from a convidion of falffiood, may lead a hiftorian
to be fUent about a deed which hath come to his
knowledge 5 fo that it would be raffi to conclude it
fabulous frmn his avokling to mention it, — Nay,
from that love of truth which is natural to men,
and from that difpofition which we have to corred
the miftakes and errors of others, to the difparage*
ment and difgrace of their underftanding, but to the
credit and reputation of our own judgment, there
even arifes a prefumption that a ftory is true, when
a -writer, in whole time it is much fpread and be
Ueved, does not contradid and confute it,-^In the
prefent cafe then, Jofephus's filence about this inhu
man meafure of Herod ought not to be confidered
as an evidence of its being a fidion. — He may have
forbore to record it from other principles than a
fenfe of Its being an idle and maUcious tale ; for in
ftance, from a tendernefs f for Herod's reputation,
kingdom to Pheroras's family, together with BagoaS and Carus, and
every one in bis own family who adhered to the Pharifees in this mat
ter : about which the reader may fee Jofeph. Antiq. 1 7. 2, 6. and De
Bdlo, I. 30. and confult Dr. Lardner's Credibility, vd. 2, book 2.
ehap..^!. page 628,^645.
f It is true, Jofephus hath related many wicked aftions of Herod.
Bnt this is no foundation for imputing to him fo^reat enmity againft
Herod as would not foffer hira to fpare him here ; for he attempts to
vindicate him from blame on fome occafions, mentions fome of his
wicked contrivances only in a flight manner, and intermixes many

544 APPENDIX.
which he muft have been aware would be more hurt
by an order to maffacre a number of Innocent and
inoffenlive babes, at leaft among the Jews and fuch
Gentiles as did not permit to fathers the power of
kiUing them at their pleafure, than by his other cru-^
cities ; from an unwIUingnefs to provoke the difplea
fure of that prince's kinfmen or friends, and thereby
bring inconveniences upon himfelf'; from a delicacy
toward his readers, who, he might be apprehenfive,
would be tired and difgufted by a recital of more
heinous and foul crimes in his life, yea, tempted to
fufped him of loading him beyond the truth. But,
perhaps, more than by any or all thefe motives, he
may have been determined to fay nothing of this
flaughter of the infants, from political and reUgious
confideratlons : that he might not, by fwelUng his
reprefentation * of his barbarities, render the uneafi
nefs and difcontent of his countrymen under the
Roman governors, whofe treatment of theirt was,
in comparifon, mUd and gentle, more inexcufable ;
and that he might not afford, by his narrative of
it, any advantage to the caufe of Chriftians, who
pretended that the maffacre owed its rife to the re
port of his birth whom they affirmed to be the Chrift,
things'' to his honour and advantage, which otherwife muft have beei
•nknown. Antiq. 14. 9. 4. ij. i. i. 16. 7. i. &c,
* Say fome, that he might remove any caufe of uneafinefs' and dif
quietude to the Roman emperors, to one of whom, even Vefpafian,
he had applied the prophecy relating to Mefliah's reijgn, De Bello*
4. 10, 7. and 6. 5. 4. whofe anxiety was, after a-U, fo great, as was
alfo Domitian's afterwards, as to caufe fearch out and kill all David's
defcendents. Eufeb. Hift. 3. i 2, and 19, To have mentioned this
ftory would, at leaft, have weakened the credit of his own applica
tion ofthe oracle in their facred books.

APPENDIX; ^45
and that It had been ineffedual to accompUffi his
death, though Intended to make it fure. Indeed, how
natural would it have been for us to have argued
from his relation thus ? ' There muft furely have been
' fome credible alarm, that a chUd was born at Beth*
' lehem, concerning whom, there were great hopes
' and expedations that he would be king of the Jews,
' but fome uncertainty about the houfe where he was
' lodged ; otherwife the ruler of the country would
' never have thought of fo horrid and ffiocking an
' expedient for preventing aU mifchief from that quar-
' ter,asto command a'general murder of Infants there^
' May he not, however, as our evangelift affures us,
* have efcaped through the dUIgence of his keepers ?*
And how likely is it, that an averfion to give fuch
ftrength to our faith, wrought -with him in an emi
nent manner to obferve ffienee, (if it be fuppofed that
he has not fpoken one word about Jefus or his foUow
ers throughout his whole work, as Is done by our
author and many others, who look upon the only
paffage therein where he Is mentioned, as fpurious,)
when wfc refled, that^ within that period on the af
fairs of which he is moft exadahd minute, the Chri
ftians had their rife in Judea, and had thence fpread
into diftant places, yea. Into Rome Itfelf, fo as to
create atteiition, and to be taken notice of by other
coeval vmters, particularly by Tacitus, as uUcon-
neded as he was with the Jewiffi nation, and as fu
perficial and Gurfory as he is in his accounts of
their affairs?
Why then ffiould any qUeflion the fad merely be-
catife Jofephus hath omitted it, when fo good an ex
plication may be given of his doing this ? Upon the
M_m

54^ APPENDIX.
principles laid down above, Inftead of miniftring any
ground for fufpeding Its falffiood, it rather ffiews,
unwilling as he might be to relate it, that hewas not
able to refute It, fince it was at his time of -writing
in the mouths of multitudes.- — It ought to be fuffi
cient to us that wehavethe teftimony of Matthew, For
we often receive fads upon the teftimony of one hif
torian, who appears to have had good opportunities
of Information, and at the fame time feems a fair and
candid writer, free from all violent prejudice and
prepoffeffion for or againft the perfon that Is treated
of, though they have been omitted by another of the
fame age with him, or by feveral -vVriters more near to
the time when they happened. Thus, as we beUeve
on Jofephus's authority alone many things about He
rod which none befide him atteft ; fo we credit ma--
ny things about the Caefars upon Tacitus's relation,.
which Suetonius, who was his contemporary, paf
fes ; and many things upon DIo's affertion, though
he lived about loo years later, which neither of
them mentions In their hiftories of their lives and
reigns.-— Is it not then very equitable to rely upon
Matthew's account of this action, though omitted by
Jofephus ?— He muft have been born probably at the
time It happened ; but Jofephus was not born tiU
more than 30 years * after Herod's death, as we
learn by his own teftimony, that he came into life
fn the firft year of Caius Caefar Caligula's reign,'
which was the .37 th ofthe Chriftian aera. Matthew
alfo wrote within fixty years of the tranfadion ; but
Jofephus after an Interval of 90 years, fince he tells
us himfelf, he finlffied- his Antiquities only In tlie
* Jofeph^ vita, parag, i . and Antiquities at the ead.
'i

APPENDIX. 547
t 3th year of Caefar Domitian, that is, the 9 3d of
the Chriftian aera. — Moreover, there is not difcover
ed by Matthew any hatred or rancour againft He
rod, which might incUne us to doubt his narrative
bf fo unnatural an adion. He teUs it in a fimple man
ner, without making any remarks and obfervations
to excite horror and deteftatlon at him, as great
room as there was for them. Yea, he fpeaks of it
fummarily and concifely, without entring into any
detail of circumftances, which might have more
rouzed iridignation at the author of fudh a fcene of
diftrefs and mifery. — Nor does he introduce upori
the occafion, any other of his cruelties, the more to
fexpofe him,' and confirm his o-wrt account of the maf
facre, ready as moft, I belleVe, -vVould have been to
do it, which furely dOes nOt look like a fOrwardnefs
to blacken him at the expence of truth.^ — Once more,
whoever confiders HerOd's charader and manners;
as deUneated by Jofephus himfelf, muft be conftrain
ed to acknowledge,- it is no way Impr6bable that he
ffiould have enjoined fuch barbarous execution as
Matthew charges him with, from ambition and an
xiety about royal p'o-wer and authority. For what
muft he not have been capable of In fubferviency
to his own grandeur, who could give fuch diredi
ons, and purfue fuch meafures as that writer fays *
he did.
* Jofephus informs uS, that he f erfaaded Mark Antony by a funi
of money, to put to death Antigonus his rival, when he Was taken pri
foner by the Romans, left he ftiould fometime aftef revive his preten
fions to the throne and diadem as a branch ofthe Afmonean family —
he direfted Ariftobulus, brother of his wife Mariamne, to be murder
ed, though only about 1 8 years of age, becaufe the people of Jerufa«
lem had exprefled peculiar favour and refpeft for him — he put ttf

548 APPENDIX.
So much for the cavUs againft the ftory ^ of thtf
murder of the infants. As to Mr. Voltaire's other
cavils, 1 may be ffiorter upon them ; for many of the
fame obfervations may be appUed with equal pro
priety and force to obviate them, and to difpofe us,
notwithftanding, to acquiefce in the teftimony of the
evangelifts. Of the otniffion ofthe Star hy other h'lftorianii
With relation to the ftar at our Saviour's nati
vity, there is indeed mention made of it by Chalci-
dius in this manner. After giving examples how ftars
had portended the difeafes of a people, and the deaths
of great men, and after fpeaking of Homer, and his
ufe of poetical licence, he adds, ' There is alfo ano-
* ther more holy and more venerable hiftory, which
* declares, that by the rifing of a certain ftar, not
* difeafes and deaths were fignified, but the defcent
death Hyrcanus his grandfather, a man who had (hewed himfelf ofa
quiet temper under all revolutions, even in his vigorous age, and a
man who had faved his own life when he was perfecuted by the fanhe
drim — He even brought to a public execution his beloved wife Ma
riamne, and her mother Alexandra, and caufed Mariamne's two fons
to be ftrangled in prifon, as it feems, upon groundlefs fufpicions. Fi
nally, in his laft ficknefs, he fummoned all the chief men of the Jews
to meet at Jericho under pain of death, furrounded them in the cir
cus there, on their arrival, with his foldiers, and conjured his friends,
with tears in his eyes, to fend in thefe foldiers to kill them as foon as
he ftiould expire, that all Judea, and every family in it, might mourn,
though unwillingly, at his death. "What a monfter ! Antiq. 659,-' —
666, 667, 684, — 688, 745, 768. Edit. Hudfon.
• Upon this article I have been obliged for feveral thoughts to Dr.
Lardner's Credibility and Teftimonies, Mr. Maffon's Vindication of
the Slaughter of the Infants as an Hiftorical Faft, and Nouvelle Bibl,
Cermanique, vol. 5.

APPENDIX. 549
? of a venerable God, for the fake of the falvation
' of mankind and the advantage of mortals. When
? fome truly wife men of the Chaldeans had feen
* this ftar upon a night journey, as they were weU
* pradifed In the contemplation of the heavenly bo-
* dies, they are faid to have inquired after the recent
* birth of a God, and, upon finding that young ma-
* jefty, to have worfhipped him, and made vows, a-
' greeable to fo great a God, which things are much
' better known to thee than to others^.' But as
this -wiiter flouriffied fo late as the year 330, as he
refts the credit of the fad upon the evangeUcal hif
tory itfelf, and as it is much difputed among learn
ed men, whether he was not himfelf a Chriftian f ,
like the Ofius § to whom he iafcribes his book, and
to whom, in the end of this very paffage, he pays'
the compliment of ha-ring more accurate acquain
tance with that facred hiftory in which the account
* Eft quoque alia fanftior, et venerabilior hiftoria quae perhibet
ortu ftellae cujufdam, non morbos mortefque denuntiatas, fed de-
fcenfum Dei venerabilis ad humanae confervationis rerumque mortali-
um gratiam, Quam ftellam cum nofturno itinere fufpexiflient Chaldae-
orum profefto fapientes viri, et confideratione rerum coeleftium fatis
exerciuiti, quaefiviffe dicuntur recentem ortum Dei, repertaque ilia ma-
jeftate puerili veneratos efle, et vota Deo unto convenientia nnncupaffe ;
quae tibi multo melius funt comperta, quam caeteris. Comment, in
Timaeum. cap. 7. feft. I2J. p. 32J. edit. Fabric. 219. edit. Meurfii.
-j- So fome have accounted him, as Cndworth, Beaufobre and Fa
bricius, which laft, in his Bibliotheca Latina, fpeaks of an old MS. of
tbe book in the Bodleian lihrary, witii a note prefixed, Ijearing, ' Thart
• he was archdeacon to Ofius a Spanifli bifliop. - '
§ This ofius, or HoCus, is fuppofed to have been he who was
biffiop of Oorduba in Spain, and, according to many accounts, prefided
at die Council of Nice. Indeed- the compliment Chalddius makes hirn^,
it fuitable enough to his epifcopal charafter.
M m. J

550 APPENDIX,
of the ftar was contained, although I incUne myfelf
rather to I think he was a Gentfle or Heathen, I do
not Infift on his narrative as an exception to the
truth of Mr, Voltaire's affertloh, that the ftar is o-
mltted by all other authors befides Matthew, both
Jewiffi and Chriftian,
Still, however, their filence is no g0od reafon for
difbelleving Matthew's hiftory of it, which Is at
tended -yrith fo many ftrong circumftances of credi
biUty, To have recorded this extraordinary appear
ance ofthe ftar;, would yet lefs have fuited Jofephus's
enmity to the Chriftian fed, and affedation of referve
about them, which is indeed fo ftriking, when all
things are confidered, than to have related the maf
facre of the babes, with its occafion. We need not
therefore wonder that he has not given it ^ny place
in his work. Then, as to Roman hiftorians, fuppof
ing. them to ha-ve heard a report of it, it is natural
to conceive they might be lefs careful to enquire in
to its truthji-b^caufe accounts of prodigies were eve-
-- X This appears to me more probable, from his fpeaking of Mofes's
divine infpiration in fo faint a manner, as a thing faid; from his ap
proving the divinatjon of futurities from, the ffight of birds aadt,intrails
of beafts ; from his confuting an opinion which he himfelf afcribes
to Mofes, though' without foundation; from his calling the ftars gods,
and reprefenting: them to be animated with a divine nature ; from his
affertipg thewptld to.have been eternal : and like arguments, of which
there is a goodoaecount by the learned iMofheim, in his notes on Cud-r
.W<ir!th's IntelleHaai.Syftem, vol. i. p. 730. And indeed, if he had
been a Chriftian, why.ffioiild he not have difcovered himfelf fuch,
pl^nly, fince thei head of the empire was now Chriftian, and worid
ly advantages, rather than inconveniencies; attended an d^en profef
fion, of faith in. Jefus ? Of this opiniion was Dr, Hody, and to it alfo
Dr. Lardner is inclined.

APPENDIX. 551
ry day brought from fome of the provinces of their
great empire, among which Judea was looked up
on with fovereign contempt, as a feat of foollffi and
abfurd fuperftition : and, again, fuppofing them to have
been fatisfied of Its reality, it is eafy to fee they^might
not think themfelves bound to relate it more than every
ftrange phenomenon, feeing it was not pretended to
be accompanied, or followed with any events affeding
the inter-efts of the ftate, but only with the birth of a
perfon who was efteemed by fome king of the Jews,
but was in a ffiort time, without ever having difturbed
or alarmed the government, crucified as a deceiver and
%^ J ¦ ¦ ¦
impoftor. To this, add, there is no reafon to ima
gine this appearance in the heavens at Jefus's nati
vity, was a new ftar, in the common fenfe of the
phrafe, that is, a new luminary kindled In the ethe
real fpaces, to ffiine there for perpetuity, and to be
confpicuous, from its pofition therein, through the
world. It feems to have been only fome radiant or
lucid body In the lower regions of the air, of ffiort
continuance and narrow obfervation ; probably alfo,
even in thefe places where it was vifible through the
period of its duration, feen but at intervals ; for the
account given of it, leads us to apprehend, it with
drew and returned, or vanlffied and ffione out, ac
cording to the neceffities of thofe Arabian -^^ travel-
* The fcripture is exprefs, that they who came to Jerufalem, up
on the obfervation of this light, which they either conjeftured to be
an indication of the nativity of the great perfon then expefted, ac-.
cording to a current or prevailing opinion of thefe times about the omi
nous virtue of comets and other unufual lights, Origen contra Celf,
I. p. 4 J. or underftood by fome divine revelation and difcovery to
be declarative of it, came from the eaft. Now, Arabia is ftiled the
M m 4

55Z APPENDIX.
lers, who repaired, upon the view of it, to fee the
new-born prince. Agreeably, It moved from eaft to
weft, contrary to the ordinary courfe of the ftars,
and It ftood over, and pointed out the village, and the
houfe in the viUage where this child was, whereas
every common ftar, through its diftance and height,
muft have left perfons uncertain and dubious about
both. We ffiould not then hefitate to receive Mat
thew's narrative about the ftar, becaufe other luftO'
rians are ffient concerning it,

Of their otniffion ofthe darknefe, and other circumftances,
at Chrift's paffion.
Mr. Voltaire here takes for granted, that the
darknefs when Jefus was crucified was univerfal, or
that it covered the whole earth where it was then
day. And fuch many have fuppofedit, believing it was
<jaft in Scriptnre, Gen. xxv. 6. Judges, vi. %. Jerem. xlix. 28. and
is faid to bound Judea on that quarter by Tacitus, Hiftor. 5.6.' Ter-
• ra finefque, quae ad orientem vergunt, Arabia terminatur.' It was, _
moreover, famous for thefe comipodities of which they raade prefents
to the illuftrious infant, gold, frankincenfe, and rayrrh, as indeed He
rodotus, lib. 3. p. 231. edit, Stephan. fays, ' there alone of all coun
tries frankincenfe did grow.' It appears, finally, to have abounded" with
magi, as indeed it would have been ftrange if they had not fpread into
it, confidering its vicinity and neighbourhood to Perfia, which was
their great feminary. See Ptolera. Geogr. and Plin. Nat. Hift. 30. i.
Accordingly, Juftin Martyr makes them Arabians, Dialog, with Try
pho, page 303. To call them Chaldeaijs, as Chalcidius does, feeras
far wrong, as Chaldea lay north from Jerufalem, wherefore the Chal
deans are defcribed in the prophets, the people of the north, Jerem.
i. 14, IJ, vi. 21. Joel, ii. 20.

APPENDIX. ss^
mentioned by Phlegon, a freed-man of the emperor
Adrian, in his Chronicles, according to the fragment
quoted by Eufebius^, Origen, and others, which
fpeaks of a great ecUpfe of the fun, exceeding aU
which had happened before, at the fixth hour of the
day, fo that the ftars were feen, in the fourth year
of the 2 o 2 d Olympiad ; and that It was Ukewife de
fcribed by Thallus, who, fays Africanus referring
his words to the time of Chrift's paffion, hath re
prefented there was a great darknefs over the whole
world, and improperly caUed it an eclipfe: nay, that
it was f even marked In the Chinefe annals. But
furely fince Mr Voltaire denies that there is any re
cord of this darknefs by heathen writers, he had no
right to confider it as of fo wide extent. The words
of the eyangeUfts Matthew, Mark, and Luke, do
* I forbear quoting the paffage, which may be found Eufeb. Chron,
p. 77. Origen againft Celfus, lib. 2. p. 80. Syncell. Chron. p. 322.
and read in many moderns ; and ftill more, a difcuffion ofthe controverfy
whether Phlegon and Thallus intended this darknefs, and not a natu
ral eclipfe of the fun, in a different year from that in which our Saviour
fuffered, as it hath been agitated between W^hifton, Sykes, and others,
f Whereas it hath been faid, that there is mention in the Chinefe
fafi ofa total eclipfe of the fun, in the 28th year of their 46th cycle,
the laft day of the third moon, which was pronounced a fign, that a
heavenly man (hould die, as it happened before its time, and this
hath been explained of the darknefs at the paffion ; to fay nothing
of other writers, Pere Souciet, inhis Obfervations Mathematiques, A-
ftronomiques, &c. if I am not mifinformed, hath clearly ftiewed, that
neither the year, nor month, nor age of the moon, when that eclipfe
is faid to have been obferved fooner than it was computed, fuit this
darknefs at Chrift's death, which was at the paflbver or full moon :
and that the raiflionaries who explained that eclipfe of this darknefs,
applied to it what was faid about the foretokening quality of an eclipfe
that happened no lefs than 600 years before our Saviour fuffered.

554 APPENDIX.
not neceffarily imply this, but are fully accounted
for by the hypothefis, which confines it to the coun
try of Judea, In which Chrift died, as may appear
from the inftances above ^ produced of the ufe of
yn, even with the adjedive of unlverfallty joined to
it, for a pai'ticular land or region of the earth. Ac
cordingly, our tranflators themfelves feem to me to
have thought It reached no further, for In their ver
fion of the two firft gofpels, they call it ' darknefg
' over all the land ;' and though In that of Luke's
gofpel they ftile It In the text, ' darknefs over aU
' the earth,' where the original expreffion, however,
is precifely the fame as in Mark's hiftory, they are
neverthelefs fo cautious and fair, as to dired every
reader's attention to the margent by the ufual note
of reference, wherein they have placed the word
land. And many others, both-)- antient and modern,
of great learning and good judgment, have likewife
reckoned the darknefs had no larger fpread, but was,
circumfcribed within the Jewiffi territories at the
utmoft, even as the darknefs which God fent in tef-.
timony of his difpleafure againft the Egyptians was
topical or local. Nor have fome, who have contended
* See Part 2. feft. 2 J. p- 347.
X Among the former I mention Origen, in his Commentaries on
Matthew, Tr. 3 j. where he reafons fortbe darknefs 's being confined
to Judea, as the other extraordinary appearances at Chrift's death,
were to the neighbourhood of Jerufalem, in anfwer to the objeftion
againft its truth, from the filence of heathen authors, though in his
book againft Celfus, he had appealed to Phlegon's teftimony, and con
fidered it as more extenfive. Among moderns, no meaner perfons than
Erafmus, Calvin, Gerard John Voffius, Scaliger, Le Clerc, Lenfant
and Beaufobre, Doddridge, and Lardner, have declared for its being li
mited to Judea.

APPENDIX. 555
fpr ^ Its being diffufed over aU that vaft trad of the
terreftrial globe, where the fun then ffione, denied
that the words of the evangelifts might be very weU
expounded to denote its being barely ftretched over
Judea, fo that they have adopted the other fenfe on
ly or chiefly, iron\ a deferenpe to fuch authorities,
as Voltaire does not allow to haye any aUufion to it.
Why then ffipuld we affirm the darknefs at our Sa
viour's paffion w^as univerfally diffufed, unlefs there
was greater evidence fuch Gentiles attefted it, than
there Is ? Though confined to Judea, it was a fufficient
teftimony from heaven of the innocence and digni
ty of the fufferer, and a fufficient demonftration of
God's wrath againft the criminal adors in his execu
tion ; indeed more fo, than if it had been common
to all other nations with them. Thus alfo, It would
bear a greater refemblance to the other proofs of Je-;
fus's miffion or authority, which, if we except the
ftar at its firft rife, were all exliiblted in that country
alone, which was the fcene of his dodrine, inftead
pf being alfo exhibited in other parts of the world,
where his name was not then known or heard of,
nor likely to be known or heard of for many ages,
perhaps not till all remembrance of fuch atteftations
.to him ffiould be effaced and obUterated,
* I particularly intend Reland here, in his Palaeftina, who fays,
' Quod fi quis exiftimet, uti Luc. iv. 2J. Tsairoi n yn notat folum
' terram Ifraeliticam, ita hie quoque notare pofle, me non habebit
' repugnantera. Fateor ita accipi poffe ; ' though he himfelf embraces
the pther opinion, becaufe the words are capable of fignifying the whole
earth, and becaufe the fenfe of words ftiould rather be diminiffied and
ftrengthened for the honour of our religion, and its author, and be
caufe we have the teftimoniesof Phlegon and other antientheathens, and
of the very Chinefe in this matter, lib, i. cap. 5. p. 30.

556 APPENDIX.
Should any oppofe to this account of the darknefs,
the ftory which is told about Dionyfius the Areopa-
gite's having obferved it in Egypt, in company with
ApoUophanes, a mafter under whom he profecuted
his ftudies, and broke forth Into this exclamation,
' Either the God of nature fuffers, or fympathizes
* with the fufferer;' it is a ftory, as was f Intimated
before, which appears altogether unworthy of credit.
For there is no account of Dionyfius's having re
marked it, and made fuch refledion upon it by Eu
febius, or any other of the early ecclefiaftic hiftorians,
as important and worthy to be tranfmitted to pofte
rity as the fad muft have feemed, confidering how
illuftrious his rank in life was, and'that he was then
a heathen, having been only converted by Paul when
he preached at Athens, about eighteen years after
the crucifixion. As little is there mention of it in a->i
ny of the different apologies ftill extant, which were
-written by Juftin Martyr, Athenagoras, TertulUan,
Origen, and others, for the Chriftian religion, though
they fpeak of the darknefs, and appeal to fueh evi
dences as they relied upon, in fupport of it, as proper
as it muft have been thought by them for ferving
their caufe, or in any of the commentaries or homi
lies upon the evangeUcal hiftory of Chrift's paffion,
by Origen, Chryfoftom, Jerome, Ambrofe, Theodo
ret, and others, which we have tranfmitted to us,
though fome of them are pretty prolix and full. If
we meet with Dionyfius's obfervation of the dark
nefs in Egypt, in his own works, thefe were never
heard of till the fixth centuiy, and are now very ge?
uerally looked on as fpurious and forged, both by
t Part 2. feft. 27. page 371,

APPENDIX. 557
PapUls and Proteftants of the moft eminent critical
judgment and abffity ; even there, however, there'
is no notice given by Dionyfius, in his minute and
eh-cumftantlate detaU about the darknefs he remark
ed at Heliopolls, of his having made fuch an excla-"
mation as hath been afcribed to him, nor is It rela
ted by any before Syncellus, a writer of little autho
rity, who flouriffied about the year 828. Withal,
the fabulous authors who do fpeak of it afterwards,
teU it -with fo much variety as to deftroy its credit,
at leaft in concurrence with what hath been already
offered, as much weight as hath been by fome laid
upon it. But 1 muft not enlarge on the fubjed, and
far lefs can I tarry to produce the proofs of aU this now.
What hath been faid, may be enough to ffiew, that
none ought to conclude the darknefs was more large
ly difiiifed, upon the authority of this tale concern
ing Dionyfius.
Now, if the darknefs was thus Umited, inftead of
involving all nations In it, and even Rome itfelf,
which our author reprefents, it is unreafonable to
fufped or deny its truth, merely becaufe Greek and
Latin hiftorians of that age are ffient about it. Indeed,;
if it had been univerfal, as it was not the darknefs of
an eclipfe, but a darknefs preternatural and extraor
dinary, which the evangeUfts ffiew, forafmuch as n-o
ecUpfe happens at full but at new moon, nor creates
an obfcurity of fo long duration, it would have been
very ftrange, if it had been entirely overlooked by
them aU, fond as they were of recording prodigies,
and ftruck as they muft have been with wonder and
aftoniffiment at the fight of it. But when the cafe
was otherwife, the negled of it by heathen hiftorians

558 APPENDIX.
need not offend us ; we may eaffiy digeft its> omiffiori
by them, and even by Jofephus, who was a native
of Judea, upon the principles allready propofed.
After this I need fay nothing, in particular, uport
his cavU from their filence about the opening bf thd
tombs, when Jefiis was upon the crofs, and the ri
fing of the juft from the dead, which I apprehend^
however, to have been rather at his refurredion than'
at his death, fince thefe things were only in the neigh
bourhood of Jerufalem, and were too ftrong marks
of divine approbation and favour to him, whoni thef
rulers ofthe nation put to death as a malefador, to be
related by their own hiftorian . It remain s jtherefore^on-'
ly to confider what he has advaneed, with the fame
vlert?- of deftroying the credit ofthe evangeUcal hiftory,-
from our meeting no trace of JefUs Chrift in the hif
torian Jofephus,' though his father muft have been
an eye-witnefs of Jefus's miracles, the little paffage
relating to him, in his works, being now univerfally
given up as interpolated, and from no Roman hifto
rian's having taken notice of thep>rodigIes, (meaning
1 fuppofe the ftar, darknefs, and refurredion of the
juft,) though they happened in the reign of Tlberiusy
under the very eyes of a Roman governor and gar
rifon, who naturally would have fent the emperor
and fenate a circumftantial account of the moft mira
culous event ever heard of.

APPENDIX.

559

Of the entire omiffton of Jefus Chrift by Jofephus, ac
cording to the univerfal opinion at prefent, though his
father muft have feen Jefus's miracles; <¦ the little
paffage relating to him, in his vDorks, being now uni
verfally given up as interpolated;' and of the filence
of every Roman hiftorian about the prodigies at
his birth and death, though a circumftantial ac
count "Would naturally be tranfmitted to the emperor
end fenate from the Roman goiiernor and garrifon in
'the province of Judea,
The Uttle paffage in Jofephus to which our author
here f refers, runs thus, ' At that time Uved Jefus,
* a -wife man, if he may be called a man. For he was
' a performer of wonderful works, a teacher of men
' who received the truth with pleafure, and he
• brought over (or profelyted) many Jews and Greeks.
' This was the Chrift. And PUate having Condem-
' ned him to the crofs, at the folUcitation of the chief
' men among us, they who at firft loved him did
' not ceafe from entertaining an affedion for him.
f Antiq. 1 8. 3. 3. I quote the original paffage, that the learn.
ed reader may better underftand the critical emendations which have
been propofed by its defenders, and judge more furely about the juf
tice or injuftice of any different tranflation, Viyirai ti xaroi rvroy
ror yjpoYoy Inov;, (sofo; aynf, etfi art^a avroy Kifety XP>1. He yaf
Traoato^ay tpfay Troinrn;, titatsxaKo; ay^puTray ray ntoyn r aKn^H
ItXofiiy^y, "«/ ¦TOKKv; pLiy Ivtaiv;, ttokkv; ti koj rv EKKnvixv nrn-
fafiro. 'O XpiTo; avro;, ny' xof avror,iytet^et rayTrparay aytfar Trap'
nuiv, i-avpu tTinriptnxoro; "fliKarv, vx nrav^ayro oifi TTforty au-,
rer afa-rna-arri;' i(parn Ta^ avroi; r^irny ix^" n/Ui^ay, TTXKir 'C,ar,
ruY 9eiar TTPotinTar, ravra ri xai aKKa piv^ioe davftatria, Tstpi avTt
tio/ixoray. Ei; fn yvy ray X^i7iayay a-ro rvti aro/A.aispi.iyoY vx nrt-
t.i-^ir rs fvKty.

t6o APPENDIX.'
' For he appeared to them the third day again allve^
' the divine prophets having faid both thefe, and in-'
* numerable other wonderful things concerning him,
' The ftd of the Chriftians which is denominated
* from him hath not ceafed until now.' However,
when he affirms it is now uni-v^erfally given up as in
terpolated, by which he muft be undetftood to fig
nify, it is by all in this age regarded as a forgery from
beginning to end, fince upon this he builds his affer
tion, that we meet with no trace of Jefus Chrift In
the hiftorian Jofephus, he fays -what is far from true.
For It hath been vindicated and received as genuine,
In whole or in part, by many learned men, even of
late* years, as by Tobias fEckhardus, Jacobus J Se-
renius, Dr,§ Chapman, Dr, || N. Foi-fter of Oxford,
* As I confine myfelf to late years, I fay nothing of Huetius, Care,
Fabricius, Voffius, Spanhemius, Whifton, and others.
f In libro cui titulus, Non Chriftianorum de Chrifto Teftimonia,
ex antiquis monumentis propofita et dijudicata. Quedlinburgi, 1736.
:J: Paftor at Nykoping, and member ofthe Royal Society at London,
in a book publiffied about 1 7 j8, of which is an accottnt,- Nouv. Bibl.-
Germ. tora. 24.
§ Author of Eufebius, and ofthe defence of Phlegon's eclipfe againft
Sykes, who would explain O 'X.piro; vr'o< ny, as the title on the crofs,-
' This is he who was called Chrift,' and refer the avrv in the claufe'
about the prophets, ndt to Jefus, but to Chrift or Meffiah, by which
fome chief ot>jeftions againft the paffage from Jofephus's charafter are
removed. II To him Is afcribed the Diflertation on the fubjeft, which Dr Lard
ner hath examined in his preface to the 2d volume of his Teftimonies,-
who, as he agrees with Dr. Chapman^ in his verfion of Ovro; ny Xf/ir-
To;, would read r an^n inftead of r aKn%, fo that Jofephus fhould'
only fay, he was a teacher of raen, who received new or unheard of doc
trines with pleafure, and again would alter ray Getwy into ray itiav.

APPENDIX. 561
Dr. Gregory Sharpe * and Dr, Samuel Chandler f ^
Neverthelefs, I do not infift on it ; it feems to me,
indeed. It ought rather to be utterly rejeded; For it
hath not been quoted by any of the various Chrifti
an writers we are acquainted with, tUl the 4th cen
tury, -^\'hen It firft appears in Eufebius |, whatever
natural occafions they had to introduce it or to ap
peal to It, it has not fo eafy a connedion in the nai"-
rative where it ftands as might have been expeded
from fo exad a writer as Jofephus. Photius, in the
ninth century, feems not to have read it in his co*
pies of Jofephus ; for he takes no notice of it, as
he does of his honourable teftimony to John the Bap
tift, although he had a good opportunity of It In
three different articles -which he allows this writer.
Nay, in fpeaking of Juftus of Tiberias, a contempo-*
fo that he fliould only fay, ' Both their own prophets or preachers re-
' ported thefe, and numberlefs other wonderful things concerning him.'
* See his argument ftom the conceffions ofthe moft antient adver
faries, where, p. 39. he pardons Origen for his omiffion of Jofephus's
famous paffage conceming Jefus, by fuppofing it may have been wanting
in his copy, though it were extant in the original one of Jofephus.
¦j- It appears from Dr. Lardner's life, that Dr. Chandler addreffed
a letter to him on his publication of the firft volume of his Teftimo
nies, wherein he fays he had been always inclined to think the pa
ragraph as to the greateft part gentiine, propofed two or three ob
fervations in fupport of it. which are the obfervations of a learned
friend, that Dr. Lardner confiders in the preface to the 2d volume,
and thinks the whole claufe from afa-rrnffavri; to et; in, &c. an in
terpolation of Eufebius or fome other Chriftian.
. X Demonftr. Evangel. Lib. 3. cap. 5. p. 124. It is true, a tefti
mony to it and quotation of it by Macarius, who lived fooner than
Eufebius, was produced by Tenzelius in his Colloq. Menftr. an. 1697,
but thefe afts of faints where it occurs, are, if not fpurious, much is-
terpolated. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. 4. 6. 5. p. 237.
N n

562 APPENDIX.
rary Jewiffi writer, he Intimates, it was common to
all the Jews not to make the leaft mention of Chrift
or his miracles. It is altogether unfuitable, in the on
ly proper fenfe of the expreffions, to this hiftorian's
charader, as a Jew, and enemy of our religion, In
ftead of a profeffed Chriftian, And if, to get rid of
this objedion, we once admit of vitiations and cor
ruptions without any authority of MSS, or antient
fathers, as fome of the lateft and moft able advocates
for its authenticity In the main have done, whatever
is left muft be very uncertain and infignificant §.
But, though I thus give up the little place In Joi-
fephus, and therefore admit that he hath not men
tioned Jefus's miracles, I am not equally fatisfied that
1 ought to grant Pilate negleded to fend any ac
count of the prodigies or extraordinary occurreijces
about Jefus to Tiberius the Roman emperor, becaufe
no Roman hiftorian hath taken notice of them. For
Juftin Martyr, in his apology for the Chriftian reUgi
on to Antoninus Pius and the fenate of Rome, about
the year 140, having fpoken of Jefus's heaUng all
difeafes, and reftoring the dead to life, according to
Ifaiah's prophecy of him, that at his coming, the
lame men would leap as an hart, and the tongue of
the dumb (or ftammerer) be eloquent, the blind re-
covet their fight, the lepers becleanfed, and the dead
§ That it ftiould be rejefted hath alfo been the opinion of many
learned men, as Blondel, Ittigius, Faber, and Vitringa, who is pofi
tive the paffage did not come from Jofephus's hand as it now ftands*
and even, after erafing fome claufes, thinks there is an infurmount-
able arguraent againft it, frora its interruption of the thread of the
hiftory ; fo argues likewife Dr. Lardner, who obferves that ipfa ttu-
fato^a is miraculous mjorks in Jofephus, not vazxA^ Jl range unufual
things, as Forfter tranflates it.

APPENDIX. 563
i-ffe and walk, adds, ' And * that he did thefe things,
« ye may learn from the ads made under Pontius Pi-
' late ;' even as m a former paffage of it, which I quote
below, he appeals f to the fame ads about his cruci
fixion, and fome circumftances then in the behaviour
of his enemies toward him. TertulUan, again, in his
apology, about the year 200, writes thus, after
mentioning Chrift's difmiffion of his fpirit upon the
crofs j, ' At the fame moment the day was withdrawn
' when the fun was in his meridian height. They
' thought it indeed an ecUpfe, who did not know It
* was alfo foretold concerning Chrift. The reafon
* It is in bis firft Apology, called in the Paris edition of his works,
anno 161 5, the 2d Apology, p. 84. c. and runs there indeed, ort
rl ravra iTromirty ix ray itti Uoytiv IliKarv yiYo/jLiyay aura jua-
flftK tuyatrBi : but inftead of Uvra, it fhould have been axravi Ac
cordingly it is fo in later editions ; and the Latin tranflator, Langus,
turns the text in that very edition as if it had been axray there.
' Et quod ita fuerit ex iis qui fub Pontio Pilato confcripti funt com-^
' mentariis cognofcere poteftis.' It alfo occurs in that fame edition,
as in next note.
•j- Ibid. p. 76.^8. C. Having mentioned our Saviour's crucifixion,
with the perforation of his hands and feet, and partition of his garments
by lot, among them who took care ofthe execution of tbe fentence
pronounced againft him, he fubjoins, Kai ravra oft yifon tvyoLuSi
fiaiety ix ray itti Uoyriv HiKarv fiyofiiiyay axray.
X As the paffage is long, I do not quote the whole in the original,
but the moft material parts. ' Eodem momento dies medium orbem fig-
nante fole fubdufta eft ; deliquium utique putaverunt, qui id quoque
fuper Chrifto praedicatum non fcierunt : ratione non deprehenfa, ne-
gaverunt ; et tamen eum mundi cafum relatora in arcanis veftris^ (in
archivis reftris, Rigaltius) habetis.' — Dehinc ordinatis els ad ofiici-
um praedicandi per orbem, circumfufa nube in coelum ereptus eft,
multo melius quam apud vos affeverare de Romulis Proculi folent.
Ea omnia fuper Chrifto Pilatus, et ipfe jam pro fua confcientia Cbri-
ftianus, Caefari tunc Tiberio nuntiavit.'
N n a

5<54 APPENDIX,
not having been found, they denied it ; and yeC
ye have that calamity of the world in your fecrefc
books [or archives.] Him the Jews, when he was
taken down and buried, furrounded carefully with-
a military guard, becaufe he had foretold he would
rife again on the third day from his death, left
his difciples ffiould remove the body, and impofe
upon the people. But, behold, on the third day,
the earth being ffiaken fuddenly, and the mafs
which ffiut up the fepulchre being rolled back, and
the guard difperfed through terror, without any
appearance of difciples, nothing was found In the
fepulchre, except the fpoils of the fepulchre, (i. e.
the grave-cloaths.) Neverthelefs, the chief men,
whofe intereft It was, both to publiffi the crime, and
to hinder the people fubjed to them from believing
in hir^, fpread abroad, that he had been ftolen by
the difciples ; for neither did he ffiew himfelf to the
generality, left wicked men ffiould be freed from
their miftake, and left all difficulty of faith fliould
ceafe, which was deftined to receive an extraordi
nary reward. But he fpent forty days with fome
difciples in Galilee, a trad of Judea. Thereafter,
having appointed them to the office of preaching
through the world, he was taken away Into hea
ven in a furrounding cloud ; much better than the
Proculi among you ufe to aver § about the Romu-
§ He refers to the ftory of Julius Procuhis's affuring the curiae
by oath, that Romulus, whom they fufpefted, as was the truth, to have
been flain by the fenators, though they gave out he had been on a fud
den furrounded by a flame, and fnatched up into heaven, had appeared
to him, and enjoined him to acquaint his people, that it had pleafed
the gods he ffiould return to heaven from which he originally came;

A P P E N D I ,X. 565
'lus's. All thefe things concerning ChrUi, PUate,
• already a Chriftian, according ^ to his own confci-
' ence, tranfimltted an account of to Caefar, who
' was at that time Tiberius.' And he hath been fup
pofed to hint the fame communication from PUate
before, when, having mentioned TIberius's propofal
to the fenate, that Chrift ffiould be placed among
the gods, he fays |, he did this, having received from
Paleftine in Syria, an account of fuch things as dif
covered the truth of his divinity, Eufebius alfo. In
his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, tells J us, when Chrift's re
furredion and afcenfion to heaven were in the mouths
of aU men, or much talked of through aU Paleftine,
PUate informed the emperor thereof, as likewife of
his miracles, which he had heard of, and that, being
raifed up after he had been put to death, he was al
ready believed by many to be a god. And, thereaf
ter, he quotes a Greek verfion of the paffage in Ter
tulUan laft produced, with fome periods before and
after it, relative to the emperor's motion and the
fenate's refufal of it. Orofius, finally, of the 5 th ceur
tury, not to inftance in later writers, fpeaks § of Pi
late's having fent an account to Tiberius of Chrift's
paffion and refurredion, and of the foUowing wour-
ders which were done publickly by himfelf, or by
whereon, becaufe he was efteemed a fenator of great probity, and had
always been believed a friend to Romulus, they acquiefced, and de
creed divine honours to him.
* .Alluding to the opinion he ffiewed of Jefus's innocence at his tri
al, and his averfion to condemn him.
t Apolog. cap. 5.  ' Annuntiata fibi ex Syria Palaeftina, qu?*,
' illic veritatem iftius divinitatis revelarent.'
X Lib, 2. cap. 2. § Lib, 7. cap. 4.
N n 3

566 -^A P P E N D I X.
his difciples in his name, and of his being believeci
to be a god, through the encreafing faith of very
many. — Morepver, it is certain, and has been proved
undeniably by feverals (as Indeed the cuftomarinefg
of fuch kind of information to the emperors is ad
mitted by our author) that the governors of provln-.
ces were in ufe to compofe ads or commenta-r
ries, and therein, to tranfmit to the emperors intel
ligence of the principal occurrences and tranfadions
of the countries where they prefided. Why then
ffiould we queftion that Pilate, who was dragged in
to the condemnation of Chrift, had fent fome fa
vourable notices about him to his mafter, fince we
fee that the more early advocates for our religion
appeal to them in their defences that were to be p-e-
fented to magiftrates, who, unlefs it had been fo,
would thus have obtained a great advantage againft
them and their caufe. Further, we know from the
fame ^ Eufebius, who fpeaks of thefe ads, that, iri or-
der to take from Chriftians all pretence of fupport
to their intereft from that quarter, the heathen peo-^
pie forged ads of Pilate full of all blafphemy againft
Chrift, which they difperfed dUigently through aU
the provinces, and which the perfecuting emperor
Maximin, about the year 307, ordered to bepubllck^
ly propofed both in town and countiy, and enjoined
fchool-mafters to deliver to the boys as leffons which
they ffiould commit to memory. Indeed Pilate might
* Hift, lib I . cap. 9. and 9 . 5. he is fo exaft as to acquaint ns they were
convifted to be a forgery, from making Chrift's death to have happen
ed in TIberius's 4th confulftiip, or the 7th year of his reign, when it
appeared by Jofephus, that Pilate, under whom he was crucified, re»
ceived the procuratorfliip of Judea only in Tiberitis's 1 2th year.

APPENDIX. 567
be moreready to tranfmit fome accounts to Rome con
cerning Jefus, becaufe his foUowers had multipUed
confiderably, and begun to make a figure before he
was removed from his government, which was not,
according to the ffiorteft computation, till almoft two
years after our Saviour's crucifixion.
It does not however foUow, that, if there had
been fuch ads, containing relations Of ftrange things
which happened in honour of Chrift, fome Roman
hiftorian would have given us fome account of thefe
prodigies In teftlmOny to his greatnefs from them.
For It is feldom we meet with quotations from, or
appeals to, Uke commentaries and records, in thofe
writers who treat of the affairs and tranfadions of
the provinces. Befides, it ought never to have been
expeded, that hiftorians ftUl continuing heathen,
would give themfelves any trouble to fearch thofe
reglfters, and to produce from them any ftupendous
proofs therein mentioned of Jefus's authority and
miffion, who was fprung from a nation for which
they had a fovereign and proud contempt, whofe
claim and pretenfions themfelves difalloWed, and
whofe aim In his dodrine, was to baniffi out of the:
world thofe idolatrous forms of worffiip to which
they were enflaved, together with their attendant
¦rices, whatever advantageous things PUa!te, the hea
then governor, might have been led to fay In his"
commentaries in fidelity to his truft as chief magi
ftrate over Judea under Caefar, that he might ex
plain the rife of a fed which was growing numerous
in that part of the empire. There is not then fuffi
cient weight in the objedion, from the filence of the
Roman hiftorians, to overthrow the real ejdftence of
N n 4

568 APPENDIX,
fome ads of Pilate with a narrative In the main fa
vourable to Jefus, Neverthelefs, I muft obferve, we
cannot affert, with the moft exad certainty, to what
degree It was fo, as none ofthe antient Chriftians who
fpeak of thefe ads, have pretended to recite to us
their precife words on the fubjed. And, further,' it
is plain to all attentive perfons, that while they fpeak
of their contents, every one in his own language and
didion, they alfo fpeak ofthe matters therein declared
to his advantage, with fome variety and diverfity ;
and fometimes fo loofely and generally, that It Is not
eafy to fay what they intended their readers ffiould
underftand to be found In them, and what not.
But be it, that as Jofephus hath been filent about
all the miracles and prodigies which were wrought
in confirmation of Chrift's authority, fo Pilate had not
wrote one word of them to Tiberius, notwithftand
ing all the pofitive affurances we have from thefathers
that he had, becaufe no Roman hiftorian hath mention
ed a fyllable about them. Are thefe miracles and pro
digies to be on this account difbelieved, and rejeded
as idle tales? By no means. Even upon this fuppofi
tion, they ftill deferve our fuUeft credit and affent.
The hiftories we have of them are written by per
fons who had goOd opportunities to know the fads,
who were originally prepoffeffed againft Jefus's pre
tenfions to be the Chrift, through the national ex
pedations that fuch a perfon would appear with great
worldly pomp and fplendour, and who were ftedfaft
in their teftimony to the miracles, inftead of retrad-
ingit, amidft any profped of dangers which threatned
them, or any preffure of troubles and inconvenien
ces to which they were fubjeded for it ; as were al-

APPENDIX, S69
fo their companions ; for it is not pretended that
any of them denied their reality, or accufed them as
ffiam and trick, whatever difpleafure they incurred
of the mafter himfelf, or of his friends, by their of
fences and mifcaiTiages,-r-And thefe hiftories were
pubUffied to the world foon after the wonderful
things which they fet forth are faid to have been
done, in the country which Is reprefented to be the
fcene of them, or in places which, amidft their dif-
ance, had eafy and frequent Intercourfe therewith, —
There are no incredible and ridiculous circumftan
ces Interwoven in the narratives of thefe extraordi
nary events, fuch as demonftrate many monkiffi and
pagan tales of miracles to be mere arrant forgeries
and frauds. ^ — Nor are thefe events in themfelves lu
dicrous and triffing, of which fort have been the
tricks and rogueries of wicked men, but grave and
important. — The power to which they are afcribed
alio is adequate to the operation of them. And the
end for which they are affirmed to have been done Is
rational and exalted, meet therefore and worthy of
God, — The hiftories of them, moreover, tho' com
pofed by four different perfons, agree well with one
another, allowance being made for the not uncom-
m.on omiffion of fome fads or circumftances of fads
by one wiiter, which another takes notice of; and
reafonable caution being ufed that we do not con
found all miraculous cures through Jefus's life, and
aU appearances by him after his refurredion from the
dead, as the fame, which have fome mutual Ukenefs
and fimUarity. — And they come accompanied -with
epifties or letters, at leaft from one of the party, to
churches or focleties of ChrUtians, among whom he
had virulent perfonal enemies, and reproves fome for

570 APPENDIX.
abufes and corruptions,of which they were guilty , with
ffiarpnefs, yea, threatens them with a rod, wherein,
notwithftanding the handle he would have given them
to infult and triumph over him by any falffiood in his
pretenfions, he fpeaks In a famUiar manner of like
extraordinary powers having been exerted by himfelf
and his fellow-labourers, and even of their being pof
feffed by many among themfelves thro' the grace of
Jefus, as we are told In thefe hiftories fignalized him.
¦ — Befides, not to repeat what was faid above, in enu
merating the marks of credibility obfervable in the
four gofpels In general, the details of the wonders are
in particular moft artlefs, inftead of being framed
with the fkUl which diftinguiffies a cunningly devif-
ed fable. For there is no gradual rifing from mi
racles where the effed was more flow, to thofe where
the effed was more inftantaneous ; from miracles
where was fome external adion or application, how
ever inadequate to the effed, to miracles where none
was ufed; from miracles where the change and al
teration produced was lefs beyond human power to
thofe where it was fo more confeffedly : — in a word,
from miracles lefs ffio wy and ftriking, to thofe more
fuited to amaze and aftoniffi, which would have
been a method more calculated to prepare the rea
der for beUeving the ,whole ; but all are told pro
mifcuoufly as they were tranfaded: whUe at the
fame time, there is fometimes only a fummary men
tion of works that muft have appeared more ftupen
dous, a minute recital being preferred of thofe that
were lefs fuch. — And, throughout, there is great
fimplicity and ffiortnefs of relation, whatever room
there muft have been for enlargement and embel-
lUhment to commend and extol the doer of them..

APPENDIX. 57 1
Further, they were never contradided by any writ
ten memoirs of thefe times ; none fuch do now exift ;
none fuch can with any ffiadow of reafon be aUedg-
ed to have formerly exifted, but to have periffied
by accident or intention. Authors of that age whofe
works are come down to us, inftead of confuting
the miracles, and expofing them as falfe and legen
dary, grateful as this muft have been to rulers and
magiffrates, and to the majority in every nation, and
promifing as the fucpefsful attempt muft have been
of honour and profit to themfelves, have been filent,
and left them to receive whatever dependence upon
them thefe hiftories could procure for any oppofite
endeavours on their fide to prevent it. What an im
preffion, in this view, does Jofephus's mere omiffion
to refute the truth of the evangeUcal hiftory make,
fince he himfelf belonged to that very nation which
crucified Chrift as a falfe prophet and deceiver, and,
though not born at the time, was born \rithin a few
years after he was thus put to death, yea, born
to a prieft ; one, by confequence, of that order of
men who had been very adive in procuring his ap
prehenfion and condemnation ! EfpeciaUy when we
add, that he could not be reftrained from doing it
by fear of fubjeding thofe of his o-wn religion to di
ftrefs and mifery from the Romans, upon pretence
of their adherence to Chrift; becaufe, before he
viTote, Jews and Chriftians were veiy well under
ftood by them to be feparate and diftind feds.— —
Even the gofpels, which have been caUed apocry
phal, and juftly excluded from the canon of the New
Teftament, inftead of overthrowing, rather confirm
ed the accounts contained in our genuine and au-

37 i APPENDIX.
thentic gofpels ofthe miracles and of the prodigies In
general abovementioned. For all the writers of them
fuppofed that Jefus had a power of working miracles,
and that he rofe, and that he afcended into heaven ;
only they gave fuch accounts of his extraordinaiy
works as fancy had fuggefted, or tradition had con
veyed to them ; and took away or added fuch fpe-
cialities to his hiftory and difcourfes falfely and with
out ground, as were unfavourable or friendly to
their own diftinguiffiing pecuUar notions refpedive
ly; of his not having any previous exiftence to his
nativity in the days of Auguftus ; of his not being
born of a virgin by the miraculous agency of the Ho^
ly Ghoft, but born as other men are ; of his not havr
ing real but only apparent humanity ; of the tran-^
fcendent excellence and virtue of celibacy, or the
Uke^, Again, the moft keen and inveterate adverfaries
of our religion in the early ages, do not feem to have
abfolutely denied the miracles which Jefus Is record
ed to have performed, though, as they lived very
near to the pretended time of thefe operations, they
enjoyed, fuperior advantages for difproving them If
* I muft fatisfy myfelf with this general account of thefe gofpels,
which, in general, were produftions ofthe fecond century. -Whoever
would be better acquainted with them, may read Beaufobre Difcours
fur les livres Apocryphes, Hiftoire des Manichees, tom. i . liv. 2. p. 4 J J,
— 464. Lardner's Credibility, vol. 6. p. 400, &c. vol. 12. near the
end. Fabric. Codex Pfeudepigraphus N. Teftaraenti. I only add,
for iUuftrating what hath been faid, that fome of them began with John's
baptifm and preaching, and had nothing at all about the miraculous
conception, the appearance of the ftar, the vifit of the Magi, the maf
facre of the babes, and the retreat into Egypt, the prefentation of Je-
fos in the temple, and like matters.

APPENDIX. -573
they were fidltious. They appear rather to have owned
the fads, and to have difallowed them force to eftablifll
his divine authority, and confirm the gofpel, by afcrib
ing them to magical flrill, (juft as the Pharifees, dur
ing our Lord's perfonal miniftry, evaded aU the argu
ments from his ejedion of demons for ffiewing he
was the Son of God, by faying. He cafteth out de
vUs by Beelzebub the prince of the devUs) and fome- :
times alfo by difparaging them In comparifon of the
wonders which fome of their own perfwafion and
party had viTought. This Is evident from the quo
tations from their pieces which are preferved in the
¦writings ofthe Chriftian fathers. For thefe produc
tions themfelves are ^ long ago loft; which the
* Neverthelefs, the profeffors of our religion fhould not be whol
ly blaraed for the want of thefe works of Celfus, Porphyry, Hiero-
cles and other enemies. It is indeed true, that the zeal of fome Chrif
tian princes of old, led them to order them to be burnt. Conftantine,
foon after the Council of Nice, in a letter to the bilhops and people, of
which Socrates hath given us a copy, fpeaks of his having required
that Porphyry's books againft religion (hould be committed to the fire ;
yea, feems to have denounced capital punifhment to every one who
fhould hide or conceal them, inftead of bringing them forth to be
burnt, if we may judge from the penalty he annexes to the negleft of
faving Arius's books, where he appears to raake his own conduft, with
i-elation to Porphyry's writings, his model. Hift. lib. i. cap. 9. page
3 2 . But it was not effeftual to aboliffi his works ; for Libanius read
thera, and Apollinarius anfwered them about the middle ofthe 4th
Century : and Jerome gives us large quotations frora them in his Com
mentaries, even about the end of that century. Nay, there is a law of
Theodofius the younger and Valentinian, appointing that all books which
Porphyry or any olher had written againft the religious worffiip ofthe
Chriftians, with whomfoever they were found, fliould be caft into the
fire ; which (hews they were extant fo late as A. D. 449. Cod. lib.
I . Tit. 1 . De Summa Trinitate, leg. 3. As again, in Juftinian's No-

574 APPENDIX.
moft wife and able advocates for our faith do la*
ment, becaufe thence occafion hath been taken to
yels, we have a reference to its having been declared unlawful by for^
mer emperors, to tranfcribe or pofifefs Porphyry's writings againft the
Chriftians ; where the fame thing is ftatnted about the books of SeveruS
the heretic, under pain of the lofs of a hand for writing them. 42.
cap. I . However, the heathens had here fet the example ; for Dio-
clefian had before ordered the fcriptnreS to be burnt, in the year
303. Eufeb. Hift. 8. 2. 294. in purfuance ofwhicb, it was done-
in the market places,- many delivering up thefe divinely infpired books
to the flames, that they might preferve their lives. Ibid. 8. 2. 293,
Laftantius, or the author De Mort. Perfecut. cap. 12. Auguftinus CoU
Iat. cum Donatiftis, cap. 1 5, &c. As, indeed, it had been the old prac-r
tice both ofthe Greeks and Romans, to deftroy in this way whatever
tended to overthrow their religions. Valer. Maxim, lib. i . cap. i .
feft. 12. Laftant. Inft. lib. i. cap. 22. Cic.de Nat. D. 1. i.e. 23,;
Minutius Felix, cap. 8. and Laftant. de Ira Dei, cap. 9.— ^Hence, ac
cording to Arnobius, who flourifhed about A. D. 3O7. not a few hea
thens in his time, murmured that Cicero's writings were not aboliflied^
(meaning, I fuppofe, in particular, his books De-Divinatione and De
Natura Deorum) becaufe they contributed to promote the Chriftian re
ligion, and fubverted the reverence of antiquity, thus fearing the tefti-
fication of truth. Adverfus Gentes, lib. 3. p. 103, 104. And Julian,
in the intermediate period between thefe edifts of Conftantine and
Theodofius, had ffiewed the fame difpofition with relation to Chriftian
Writings. For, upon the murder of Georgius Bp. of Alexandria, he wrote
to Endicius, governor of Egypt, to do him the favour of procuring
for him all his books : ' For he had many philofophical, and many rhe-
• torical books, and many concerning the doftrine of the impious Gali-
' leans, fays he, whicb I would wifti to be entirely deftroyed ; but that
' more ufeful books raay not be deftroyed together with them, let theni
' alfo be fought with exaftnefs.' And then he goes on to bid him
employ his fecretary, who, if he fearched them out with fidelity,
(hould be rewarded with the enjoyment of his freedom ; but if he be
haved ill about the matter, (hould be tortured for his difcovery of
books. See Epift. 9. and corapare Epift. 26. Chriftians then had
learned this method of procedure frora the Gentiles themfelves, thouglj

APPENDIX. 575
throw out fufpicions, though without reafon, to its
prejudice. To this purpofe we faw formerly, that
Celfus, an heathen of confiderable learning and abffi
ties, in his book whichbe infcribed, ' The true Word,*
about the year 170, made his Jew attribute the mi
racles or mighty works, on account ofwhicb Jefus was
elated, and afferted he ought to be acknowledged as
a God, to his having learned fome powerful arts from
the Egyptians, whUe he ferved for hire among them,
they did not equally with them negleft to refote irreligious writings,
"Why, however, did they not furvive thefe fevere edifts, even as the fcrip
tures did the like ? This feems to have been owing to the great con
tempt into which they fell by the progrefs of our religion, for which
we have Chryfoftom's teftimony, who lived long before the laft of thefe
decrees for comraitting the books of adverfaries to the flames. For
he fays, De S. Babyla, orat. 2. tom. 2. Benedift. J39. or tom. j.
444. Savil. ' The philofophers and fine orators — after their difpute
' with us have become ridiculous, and have appeared to dilferin nothing
' from children that trifle ; for they have not been able to perfuade over,
' out of fo many nations and people, man or woman, wife or unwife, nor
' even a littie child ; but fo great is the difregard ofthe books writteii
' by them, that they have vanilhed long ago, and many of them have
' periftied as foon as they were (hewed or publiihed ; but if any can ba
' found preferved any where, one may .find it faved with Chriftians.'
In this there is, I doubt not, fome exaggeration ; but it is eafy to fee,
in proportion as Chriftianity advanced, few would be at the trouble of
tranfcribing the books of enemies, or at the expence of caufing tran
fcribe thera, which muft have been confiderable, fince we find that among
^ number of flaves able to read, none coft lefs than ido.ooo nummi,
or 800 1. Sterling, Seneca, lib, 4. epift. ad Lucil. — Accidental fires
too, violence of conquerors, and barbarity of fucceetling ages may have
contributed to deprive us of them, as they have loft to us many apo-
lo^esforthe Chriftian religion, as Quadratus's, Ariftides's, Melito's
&c. and many anfwers to the books of unbelievers, as thefe of Metho
dius, Eufebius of Cefarea, Apollinarius of Laodicea in Syria, and Phi-
loftorgius againft Porphyry, &c. "VVe read of libraries, eyen large ones,

576 APPENDIX.
being in ftraltened circumftances : which appears t(?
be admitting fomething extraordinary, *
confumed by lightening, and plundered, yea, burned by enemies. lit
particular, the calif Omar wrote to his general, when the Saracens un
der him had become mafters of Alexandria, A. D. 6^2. to deftroy all
the books in the library there, becaufe if they agreed in doftrine with
the book of God, (meaning the iora«,) they were ufek-fs, and if they
contradifted it, they ought not to be fuffered : whilfe, thefe again were fo
numerous, that, having been diftributed among the public baths, they
ferved for fuel for fix months, Abulpharaji Hiftor. Dynaftiarum per Po
cock, Dyn. 9. p. 814. and who can tell what havock mere ftupldlty
and ignorance inay have produced ! Thefe things may check the cla
mours and reproaches of infidels, upon this point.
* Celfus's own words, as quoted by Origen, lib. r. p. 22. are,
Ko(j vro; et; Aiyvyrrov fMu^apyncdt;, xa xei tvvaiUiay riyuv Tset^aS-et;
eip' ii; AiyvTrrioi tn/Avvyoyra^, iTraynK^iv, irrai; dvra//ii(Ti uiya <ppo-
ray, xa/ ti aura; ©loy avroy aynyo^ivol. Yet I have fome doubt,
whether Celfus, on the whole, did not rather maintain the appearance of
miracles, through an impofition on the fenfes, than admit their reality.
For Origen tells us ibid. p. J3. Celfus jiretends to grant the truth of
whatever things are written about Jefus's cures, or his reftoring to life,
or his feeding multitudes with fonie few loaves, from which many frag
ments were left, or whatever things he reckons the difciples, in tbeir
humour of telling prodigies {n^arivuo/jiiyv;,) have recorded. — And
immediately he makes them works common with thofe of jugglers,
{yonray,) who ptomife more wonderful things, and with things done!
in the market-places for a few pence, by thofe who haV'e learned ad
mirable fciences from the Egyptians, and who expel! demons from men,
and blow out difeafes, and call up fouls of heroes, and (hew expenfive;
fuppers, tables, cakes, and fiflies, which exift not, and move as living
creatures things which are not living creatures, but are beheld fuch in ap
pearance, after which he aflis, ' Becanfe raen do thefe things, will it be-
' hove us to efteera them fons of God, or muft we not rather fay, that
' thefe are artifices of wicked men, and of men influenced by an evil dae-
• mon? '^Hereupon Origen obferves, ' You fee how by thefe words,he ad-
' mitted that there is magic, though perhaps he is the fame perfon with
' him vdio wrote feveral books againft raagic, but as it was ufeful to hint

APPENDIX. 577
Hierocles, again, ariother writer, and a magiftrate,
who was very adive in perfecuting the Chriftians,in his
two books, in which he endeavoured to overthrow o nr
religion, did not deny the truth of the miracles, tor
fays Ladantius his contemporary, ' When he would
' deftroy the wonderful adions of Jefus, and yet
' could not deny them, hef was wilUng to ffiew that
' ApoUonius performed either equal or greater things /
And the fame thing appears from Eufebius's confu
tation of his book. For though he faid, according to
him, ' It is reafonable to think, tliat the adions of
' for his purpofe, be likens tbe things recorded concerning Jefus fo' things
' done from magic. And they would be like,ifhe had before evinced there
* was nothing but (hew or femblance in them, et fii'XJ" arrotet^ia; o-
' pioia; toi; pLayyayivvaiy iipBayi to^a;.' And then he goes on to ob
ferve, how by his doftrine he called men to fear God, and to reform
their manners, that they might be approved by him, which none of
the jugglers did, and how he was an example of a virtuous life, while
they were filled with tbe moft filthy and abominable crimes ; though
I may not recite the paffage exaftly, that I may ffiorten, for which rea
fon I alfo omit quoting the original. In another place, page bj.
Origen fayS, ' Frequently already Celfus, not able to gainfay tho
' miracles which Jefus is written to have done, calumniates them as
¦ juggleries, yonreta;.' if this be the cafe, there will be fome diffe
rence, indeed, between Celfus's real hypothelis, and the account general
ly given of it ; for it will be this, that fpeftators and patients were de
ceived about the miracles, they being tricks of legerdemain. But it is
a moft ridiculous and abfurd pretence For there was fuch a concu rrencs
of by- flanders, and of thofe who were the fubjefts of the operations
themfelves, in behalf of the reality, as could never happen without at»
alteration and change of their organs of fenfation equally miraculous;
»hey were done alfo in a moft open and public manner, and had
permanent and abiding effefts.
t Lib. 5. cap. 3. ' Quum fafta ejus mirabilia deftrueret, nee ia»
*¦ men nesaret.' &c..
• 6 0

578 APPENDIX.
' Jefus have been magnified by Peter, and Paul,
* and others like them, ignorant men, liars and im-
' poftors,' and thought ' PhUoftratus's ^ account of
' ApoUonius's wonderful works more worthy of cre-
' dit,' he ftill fuppofed Jefus to have made the bUnd
recover their fight, and to have performed fome fuch
amazing things, but ApoUonius to have wrought
more ; wherefore he blames the levity of Chriftians,
* Moft abfurdly. For this Philoftratus, who flouriflied about A,
D. 2IO. wrote more than too years after the death of ApoUonius,
a contemporary of Nero, and relied chiefly on the formerly unknown me-*
moirs of one Damis concerning him, (fince loft,) that were then
brought to the emprefs Julia, wife of Septimius Severus, who ordered
him to compofe the life of ApoUonius, which we ftill have, from them.
How filly and ridiculous ftories are there told of ApoUonius, as the
whole are ill vouched, may be feen in Dr. Lardner's Teftimonies vol.
3. chap. 39, of Hierocles. If there is one relation of his reftoring agirl
to life, when (he was carried out to interment, to fay nothing about
the probability of the whole tale's being a fiftion, the author him
felf leaves room to think (he was not really dead. For he fays, ApoUo
nius touching her, and murmuring fome words fecretly over her, iL^wi'
keaedher fromjeeming deith,a^»o rv toxvyro;Sayarv. Andadds, 'But
* whether he found a fpark of life in her, which efcaped the obferva-
• tion of them that waited on her, for it is faid, as Jupiter fent a (how-
' er, (he fent forth a fraoke from her face,' (a natural token and in
dication of remaining warmth and life,) ' or whether he recalled antl
' cherifhed up life that was extinguilhed, the event appeared not to
' me only, but alfo toothers, very wonderful. Eiri tl <iTny^n^a rn;
¦^v)(n; ivpiY ty lavrn, i; iKiKn^et rv; 9ipaTrivoyra;, Kiyiroii yao a;
¦^ixaQoi /Aly 0 Xiv;, n oe arjuii^or a^ro rv TrpoiraTrv, eiri aTriaSixviiay
rny ¦^v^ny an^aK'^ixctf ayiKaSiv, appnro; n xxraKn-^i; rvrv yiyo-
yiY vx 1//.0I fxoroY, aKKa xojj roi; Traparvyyisiy. Philoft. Op. edit.
Olear, Hb. 4. c. 4J. To read the whole, muft fatisfy every one to what
hard ffiifts the heathens were driven, when they laid hold on the won
ders afcribed to this man, in order to fupport the caufe of polytheifm
apd idolatry, io oppofition to the gofpel of Chrift.
X

APPENDIX. 579
who preached Jefus to be a God for fome few pro
digies Tipareta;, and praifes their own reafonable judg
ment, who, efteemed ApoUonius, notwithftanding
he had done a greater number of thefe things, not
a God, but a man acceptable to the f Gods.' JuUan,
finaUy, In like manner acknowledged the truth of
fome miracles at leaft, however he difparaged them.
For fays he in one place, where he is fpeaking of the
unbelief of Chrift's brethren, as quoted by \ CyrUl,
* Jefus, who commanded the winds, and walked on
' the fea, and caft out demons, and as you wUl have
' it, made the heaven and the earth, (for none of
* his difciples prefumed to fay thefe things concerning
* him, except John alone, nor he clearly and expUcIte-
* ly, but let It be granted that he faid them,) could
' not change the purpofes of his friends and relations
' unto falvation.' And before^ this, ' Jefus having
' perfuaded the worft fort among you, is celebrated
• a few more than 300 years, having wrought no
' work through the time which he lived worthy to
' be reported, unlefs one think to heal the lame, and
• the blind, and to exorclfe demoniacs, in the vlUages
* Bethfalda and Bethany, are among the greateft
* works.' And ffiould it not be of weight, that thefe
X Eufeb. adv. Hieroclem, pp. 512. 113. who giws us his very
words. X Lib, 6. page 213.
? Ibid. p. 191. I (hall give the original hetrei, as h is ftort, white
it is, at the fame time, decifive. 'o Si luirwf etyotnensa; ro x^f*^*-
Tay Trao vfAiy oKiyv; Trpo; ror; rfioLKOtnoi; ivianTot; oco^a^tra/, etf..
ycLtrctuiYo; Trao oy i^n XP""* ^^7" ^^^' oixon; a^ov, ei fm r-i; onrof
tv; xukkv; hloli tuJikv; ;a(r«<r9«<, »«/ tcii/iovi'0>yTa,t tftpiii^ ly BsfiS..
<ra;X« KX{ ty B«6«H« rc^t "w/to^f, ran- y^iyifay ipyw ewoif.
O O 2

58o APPENDIX.
perfons * who profeffedly wrote againft Chriftianity,
and would have been glad tp have deftroyed its evi»
deuces completely, inftead of denying roundly that
fuch things were done as the evangelifts fet forth,
have expreffed themfelves as they have done, though
they could be under no reftraints of fear from men ?
for the two firft wrote before the eftabUffiment of
Chriftianity by Conftantine, by confequence, before
any books which might be ferviceable to their caufe
could have periffied, through a deference to impe-
ilal decrees; yea, in times of violent perfecution f.
And Julian was himfelf the head of the Roman em
pire. Once more, though we have not relations of the
miracles and prodigies by Jewiffi and GentUe writ
ers, perfifting ftill in enmity to our holy religion, as
indeed they could never be rationally expeded ; (for
what would it have been for them who were not
wiought on by the miracles and prodigies to em
brace the gofpel to have entered into a detail of them,
but to have bore teftimony againft themfelves in
their rejedlon of it, and to have written a hiftory
to their own condemnation and confufion?) yetwc
* I might alfo h'ave obferved here, that Mahomet, who was al
moft 300 years after Julian, attributes, in his Koran, miracles to Je
fus, the fon of Mary, the apoftle of God. For, befides making him
fpeak to men in the cradle, he reprefents him to have formed of clay
tjje figure of a bird, and to have breathed therein, whereon it became
a bird ; to have healed one blind from his birth, and a leper ; to have
raifed dead perfons ; and to have caufed a table defcend from heaven
full of food. See Sale's tranflation, chap 3. page 41, and chap. 5.
page 97, 98. and chap., 19, page 291. with the notes.
t Origen adv. Celf, lib. i. p. 5. and Laftant. Inft. 5. 3.

APPENDIX. 581
have the converfion of innumerable Jews and Gen
tUes to Chriftianity, notwithftanding the ftrong dif
fuafives they had from the prejudices of their edu
cation, the importunities of their criminal paffions,
and the blandiffiments of worldly wealth, honour,
and eafe, againft fueh a change : which ffiould be a
very fatisfadory argument for the truth of the evan
gelical accounts concerning them. This Is a copious
fubjed ; but I muft be concife. Behold, then, multi
tudes of Jews trained up from their childhood in the
hopes of a Meffiah amidft great earthly pomp and
fplendor, who would fubdue the nations under them,
and enrich them with their treafures ; In the belief
of the perpetual continuance of their law ; in the
perfuafion of the unlnteiTupted confinement of the
moft valuable privileges to themfelves as the people
of God: and -wdthal, ever accuftomed to a ffiowy
and laborious form of worfhip, Thefe, both In
Judea and In the countries of their difperfion, with
in a fmall number of years, became profelytes to the
Chriftian religion, which declared Jefus to be the
Meffiah, though, after fpending his life quietly and
peaceably in the employment of an humble artificer,
or in the exercifes of a fpiritual inftrudor, he had
been crucified by their rulers as an evU doer ; which,
at the fame time, abrogated their ritual ordinances,
and laid open the favour of God and the felicity of
heaven, and other moft precious bleffings, to all men
without diflindlon, upon the fame terms ; and, fi
nally, whieh introduced a mode of devotion moft ea
fy, and fimple, and plain, unadorned with any degree
of that outward magnificence and gaudlnefs upon
¦which they had fo fondly doted before, as in truth it

582 APPENDIX.
is veiy apt to attrad the admiration, and captivate
the affedion of the populace every where. — Behold
again, great numbers of Gentiles bred up from the
milk in a reverence for various idol deities, whom
they delineated under images of men, and beafts, and
birds, and fiffies ; or perhaps even In the denial of a
Providence over the world, with a future ftate of re
tribution ; educated, moreover, in an abhorrence of
the Jews, together with a fcornful difregard of all
their pretended revelations and prerogatives. Thefe,
in Uke manner, within no long fucceffion of years,
came over to the Chriftian religion alfo, and ac
knowledged the fame Jefus, though a Jew by ori
ginal, and therefore of a nation hated and defpifed,
as a prophet from heaven, and the Saviour of the
human race; renounced the fervice of their countlefs
vain, and fidltious divinities, for the fervice of the
one true and living God, though a ference deftitute
of all ufe of corporeal figures or material reprefenta
tions, and of all that External pageantry with which
theirs had been accompanied ; received the dodrines
of a divine fuperintendency over human affairs now,
and of righteous recompences hereafter, even by the
generally exploded method of a refurredion of the
dead ; and paid honour to the fcriptures of the Old
Teftament as the oracles of God, , of which the Jews
had been honoured by him to be the guardians and
depofitaries, and in which the coming and circum
ftances of the Chrift had been foretold. This new
religion, fo contrary to their moft rooted prepoffef
fions, thofe different forts of people embraced, when
it was preached by men who had neither arms to
conquer, nor power to awe, nor wealth to bribe, nor

APPENDIX. 583
eloquence to perfuade them to undertake its profef
fion, (for the preachers of it were themfelves UUte-
rate, and poor, and feeble,) though it was oppofed by
the authority ofthe magiftrates, by the artifices and
intrigues of the priefts, by the learning and wifdom
of the phUofophers and Rabbis, by the obloquy and
reproach of bigots of all forts, and by their own vi
cious appetites and affedions not the leaft ftrenu
oufly, upon which it brought a feverer and harder
reftraint than they had ever been under before. — And
what was the evidence upon which this reUgion, fo
oppofite to former notions, fo contrary to the lufts
of men, in the hands of inftruments fo weak and
defpicable, fo withftood Ukewife at its firft appear
ance by a moft frightful confederacy againft it,
claimed mens faith and fubmlffion ? Chiefly the mi
racles and prodigies which had happened in honour
of Chrift, thefe having been at the beginning recit
ed in more pubUc or private addreffes by his friends,
and by four of them foon after (indeed by three of
them within thirty years of his crucifixion, or there
abouts) committed to -writing and made public, in
the language which of all others was then moft com
monly underftood. But now, how can this mighty
revolution we fpeak of be accounted for, that Jews
and Gentiles of aU ranks in immenfe multitudes,
ffiould reUnquiffi and abandon their moft darling
and favourite, their moft confirmed and eftabliffi
ed fentiments, together with aU their peculiar ufages
and pradifes founded thereon refpedively, in an age
when fcience and liberal arts had made a very great
progrefs, and in places even the beft Inftruded and
improved, as Jerufalem, Caefarea, Antioch, Theffa-

584 APPENDIX,
lonlca, Athens, Corinth, Ephefus, and Rome itfelfj
to receive the gofpel of Chrift, by whieh they were
to be more controlled in their evil inclinations ;
when, inftead of acquiring thereby any earthly ad-"
vantage, they expofed themfelves to the hatred and
derifion of unbelieving neighbours, yea, to bonds,
banifliment, ftripes, confifcation of fubftance, and e-
ven the deftrudion of Ufe itfelf, in ffiapes moft fbock-
ing and grievous ? Surely it can never be accounted
for, that men made fuch a change, and, having
made it, continued in it, except by their having
looked on thefe miracles and prodigies upon which
Chriftianity bottomed its pretenfions to regard and
veneration, as what had been really performed
and exhibited, in atteftatlon to the divine miffion of
its author. Asj again, it can never be fuppofed, that
men would have efteemed thefe extraordinary e-
ventS to have happened, firft in the places where
they were recorded to have come to pafs but tlur-
ty or forty years ago, and afterwards In places
more diftant, amidft liich temptations to treat the
written narratives of them as forgeries and falffioods^.
from antecedent miftakes early imbibed, from wic-;
ked and corrupt paffions, and from fe-cular interefts
through the perfecutions which were raifed againft
Chriftianity, and through the lofs of various profi
table trades and o<;cupatIons that were fuperfeded
by it in proportion as it prevaUed ; and amidft the
cafe and fpeed with which a fraud, had there been
any, might have been deteded, whether perfons were
fituated in or near the country which was the fcene
of thefe tranfadions, or In territories more remote,
as there was very free intercourfe and communicatioa

APPENDIX. 585
between aU parts of the empke, but efpeciaUy thefe
more celebrated and more frequented parts where
the gofpel firft fpread, unlefs they had truly come
to pafs as they were reprefented. Indeed this fuc
cefs of the gofpel, and propagation of our religion,
fo -wide and extenfive, in fo ffiort a fpace, is an
effed altogether inisxpUcable, in the circumftances
in which it was pubUffied, but upon the fuppofition
of the truth of the hiftory of the miracles and pro
digies which the evangelifts have given us. For
who would now difcard the religious principles and
rites in which they have been nouriffied up, and
adopt others in their room diametricaUy repugnant,
upon Mftories of wonders recorded to have been re-
centiy done in this or any adjoining country, at the
^ appUcation of perfons mean and contemned, with
out any worldly inducement to Incline to It, and a-
nudft every earthly motive to forbear it, if fuch
wonders were arrant fables? And if men would
not, in fuch a fituation, change at prefent, why
ffiould the thing be Imagined to have been done fo
generaUy then ? The fpeedy alteration In the -\vorld
itfelf, therefore, of which there are moft authentic
monuments in the relations of heathen hiftorians, and
in the refcripts of heathen ^ princes and governors,
is a ftrong proof of the truth of the miracles and
prodigies, notwithftanding the ffienee of Jewiffi and
GentUe -writers, ftiU remaining enemies to our re
Ugion, about them ; which is only a difficulty eafy to
* See Sueton. and Tacitus in the life of Nero. Plin. Epift. lib.
10, Epift. 97, and 98. Adrian's refcript to Fundanus, Eufeb. 4,
8. And compare even Celfus apud Origen. lib. 3.10. Not tofpe.-.k
of later times,
Pp

586 APPENDIX.
be folved from a knowledge of human nature, -with
out faying, as Mr. Voltaire does in his ironical fcof
fing manner, ' I fuppofe * God would not aUow
' fuch divine things ffiould be committed to writing
' by prophane hands.' Agreeably to this, weU faid
an antient father, * When our adverfaries f tell us
' miracles were not wrought, they wound themfelves
' (that is, hurt their own caufe) more exceedingly,;
' for It would thus be the greateft miracle, that aU
* the world did run toward twelve poor andunlearn-
' ed men, being aUured and caught by them.'
It follows then, from this and other confiderati-
ons abovementioned, that the miracles and prodi
gies ought to be counted worthy of all cretfit, tho*
we have the detail of them only from thofe who had
* In the fame way our author exprefles himfelf in his Philofophy
of Hiftory, chap. 19. page 98. After remarking the filence of all
the Egyptian, and all the Greek writers, about the plagues of Egypt,
and the efcape of the Hebrews through the Red Sea, where the whole
army of their enemies were fwallowed up, ' God, doubtiefs, was un-
• willing tbat fo divine an hiftory (hould be tranfmitted to us by a-
• ny prophane hand.' But we need not be furprized that the Egyp
tians, who were a moft vain-glorious and proud nation, have omitted
to relate events fo difgraceful and humiliating to themfelves and to
their gods, Herodotus, again, who is by far the oldeft prophane writer
that gives us any account of the affairs of Egypt, travelled thither at
the diftance of more than lODO years after thefe miracles happened.
And he himfelf owns ingenuoufly, that the Greeks had a very im
perfeft knowledge ofthe things which befell that people, before Ffam-
mitichus filled the throne there, which was no lefs than eight cen
turies after the departure of the Ifraelites from the country. Lib.
2. c. 144. edit. Stephan. page 170.
f Eufeb. Demonftr. Evangel, lib. 3. To the fame purpofe Chry
foftom, Hom.. 4. in Afta, tom. 3. page 92, 93. and Auguftin d«
Ciyit. Dei, 22. 8.

APPENDIX. 587
become the difciples and foUowers of Jefus. Rely
ing, therefore, on the hiftory, let us reft fatisfied of
JdTus's di-vine miffion, endeavour to underftand that
fcheme of truth and duty which he hath taught the
world, and walk fuitably thereunto, in expedation
of thefe glorious rewards which he hath promifed,
and which he hath affured he wiU retum to beftow
upon aU his fincere and faithful fervants.

FINIS.

YALt UNIVtHSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02440 6994