themselves, and more worthy of the All-perfect Being. For what idea is this of God, to reprefent him as neither delighting in order and virtue, nor difpleafed with vice and wickedness, but folacing himself in an eternal indolence, and no-way concerned about the good or ill behaviour, the happiness or mifery of his reasonable creatures! A God deftitute of all affections, or of any thing correfpondent to them, would not be the moft perfect Being. There are spiritual affections, which have nothing to do with body, and which as properly belong to fpirits or minds, as intellect or will; and I can as easily fuppofe them deftitute of the latter as of the former. Our affections indeed have usually a great mixture of bodily paffions, and confequently of imperfection. But there are affections of a nobler kind, and which we may conceive in pure fpirits, yea, they cannot be conceived without them. Nor can we avoid afcribing fome affections, or what is analogous or equivalent to them, to God, provided we remove from them all those imperfections and defects with which they are attended in us. A love of order, goodnefs, purity, virtue, and a just deteftation of moral evil, is abfolutely infeparable from the idea of the Infinitely-perfect Being, the most wife and righteous Governor of the world.

"

I fhall conclude my obfervations on this part of Lord Bolingbroke's book with a paffage from an author whom no man will fuppofe to have been prejudiced in favour of the Scriptures. It is Mr. Anthony Collins, in an Effay which he published in 1707. concerning the use of reafon in propofitions, the evidence whereof depends upon human teftimony. After having obferved, that one ufe of reafon in things which by the tefti66 mony of men are fuppofed to come from God, is to endeavour to find out fuch a sense of a supposed divine revela"tion as is agreeable to the discoveries of our reason, if the "words under any kind of construction will bear it, though "at firft view they may feem repugnant to reason, and to one "another;" he adds," This is certainly a great piece of

justice, and what is due to words that upon the least evi"dence can be fuppofed to come from God, especially fince "expreffions that do literally quadrate with the maxims of "reafon and philofophy, are neceffary to make a revelation "have any effect upon common people's minds. For was not "God to be reprefented by expreffions, which literally under"ftood attribute to him human paffions and actions, they who "by their occupations in the world are incapable of thofe more just ideas which men of thought know to belong to

that

"that Being, would perhaps think him incapable of taking

t

cognizance of their actions: And therefore to make a re"velation useful and credible in itself, it must confift of words "whose literal meaning is falfe, but whose real meaning is "confiftent with the jufteft notions of reafon and philofophy. "And therefore we ought to examine whether the words un"der any conftruction will bear a reasonable sense," p. 17, 18. Mr. Collins then applies this observation to the revelation which we acknowlege, and confiders those passages of Scripture where God is faid to rest, repènt, be angry, &c. It must be owned, that this gentleman judges much more reasonably and equitably in this matter than Lord Bolingbroke has done.

This may fuffice at prefent. In my next I fhall confider the other objections which his Lordship hath urged against the divine authority of the Scriptures of the Old Teftament, efpecially of the Mosaic writings.

LET

LETTER XXX.

Farther objections against the Mofaic writings and the Scriptures of the Old Teftament confidered. The laws of Mofes not contrary to the law of nature. This particularly fhewn with regard to the command for exterminating the Canaanites, and the law for punishing thofe among the Ifraelites that should revolt to idolatry with death. The law of Mofes not accountable for the fury of the zealots. The inftances of Phineas and Mattathias confidered. Infociability not the first principle of the law of Mofes, nor did that law take the Jews out of all moral obligations to the rest of mankind. There is nothing faife or abfurd in the Mofaical account of the creation of the world and the fall of man. Concerning the fanctions of the law of Mofes. The not making express mention of future rewards and punifhments in that law, no argument against its divine original. Some other objections against the Scriptures obviated.

SIR,

Now proceed to another fet of objections, which are defigned to fhew that fome of the laws of Mofes are absolutely contrary to the law of nature, which is the law of God, and therefore cannot come from him. He inftances particularly in the command for exterminating the Canaanites, and the law for punishing idolaters among the Ifraelites with death." In both which (he fays) it is fuppofed impiously, against principles as felf-evident as any of thofe neceffary "truths which are fuch of all knowlege, that the Supreme "Being commands by one law what he forbids by another a." And that he approved and commanded on particular occa

་་

"fions the most abominable violations of the general laws of nature b." I fhall confider what he has offered with regard to each of these.

66

As to the command for exterminating the Canaanites, it is what he frequently inveighs against as the greatest piece of injuftice and cruelty that ever was committed. And he has pronounced, that "the men who justify fuch cruelties upon "any hypothefis whatsoever, muft have very ill hearts as well. 66 as heads:" And that "he who imputes them to the Supreme Being is worfe than an atheift, though he pafs for a "faint." I fhall venture however to examine what this rigid cenfurer has offered on this fubject.

66

He first layeth it down as a principle, that " God cannot "command in particular what he forbids in general. He who "has made benevolence to all rational beings the fundamental "law of our nature, can never command fome to rob or to "murder others; to ufurp on the rights of their fellow-crea66 tures, and to exterminate whole nations." The force of his argument here lies wholly in the words rob and murder. both which carry the idea of depriving others of their lives and properties, without a juft caufe, and without lawful authority. But though God has forbidden us, both in the law of nature and in the decalogue, to murder, he can command fome to put others to death for juft caufes, in which cafe it is not murder. He never by giving this law to mankind divested himself of the dominion he hath over the lives of his creatures. He can also commiffion for wife ends fome to deprive others of their properties. For the law of nature is always to be underftood with this limitation, except in cafes where God him. self shall otherwife appoint. It is no principle of that law, that God can never without injustice exterminate nations. That he can do it in a way of immediate judgment by fending deftructive calamities, famines, peftilences, earthquakes, deluges, and the like, cannot be denied by any Theift who believes a providence governing mankind, and interpofing in the affairs of men. And if he can do it immediately himself, he can commiffion men to do it, provided he gives fufficient credentials of that commiffion. And fuch the Ifraelites had accord. ing to the accounts given in the books of Mofes. And in judging of the cafe, how far it is juftifiable, we must take it in all its circumstances as there reprefented. Our author himself

b Vol. v. p. 181. Vol. v. p. 99. 146.

a Vol. iii. p. 306.

See particularly vol. iii. p. 305. e. Vol. v. p. 99. fup

supposes the miracles done among them, if really done, to be fufficient to convince all mankind, not only at that time, but in all fucceeding generations to the end of the world, of the divine authority of that law and conftitution; and therefore fufficient to convince the people of Ifrael. All therefore that remained was that they fhould be fatisfied of the truth of the facts, and of this they could not doubt, as they were done before their eyes. And the fame books which give an account of the facts, give an account of the divine commiffion to the Ifraelites, and the reafons and ends of it. And whereas it is urged, that "the Canaanites were obnoxious to the divine vengeance in no other respect than that which was common "to them with all the heathen nations, viz. their idolatry f," this is not true according to the account given by Mofes, Levit. xviii. 24, 25. 27. whereby it appears, that it was not merely for their idolatry, but for their monftrous vices and wickedness of all kinds, that they were ordered to be exterminated. And that never was there upon earth a more profligate and abandoned race of men. And fuppofing this to be true, and that God had determined to fignalize his righteous vengeance against them in the severeft manner,, he might, without any pretence for arraigning the juftice of his proceedings, have confumed them by fire from heaven, as he did part of them at Sodom and Gomorrah, or have overwhelmed them with an inundation, or have fwallowed them up by an earthquake, and thereby utterly deftroyed that people, their little ones as well as the adult. Nor could it have been faid in fuch a cafe, that this was contrary to the law of nature. But then it would hot have been fo apparent, that this calamity was inflicted ina way of punishment for their idolatry and deteftable wickednefs. It might have been poffibly attributed to fome natural caufe, or have been regarded as an unaccountable and fortuis tous event. But when they were ordered to be exterminated for their abominable crimes by an exprefs command of God, attested by a series of the most amazing miracles and divine interpofitions; and this appointed to be executed by another nation, who were peculiarly fet apart by their original conftitution, to the acknowlegement and adoration of the one true God, and of him only, and to whom God had given the most holy and excellent laws; at the fame time threatening them with the like punishments if they committed the like crimes In this cafe the reafon of the judgment was as apparent, as

VOL. II.

f Vol. v. p. 184.

K

when