"voice" did not bring him to himself: for he began not to recollect till the Lord" opened his eyes," and showed him "the angel standing in the way." So thoughtless and precipitate was the man, so eager to oblige King Balak, and to receive his reward, that he could scarce think of any thing else for the time being, till repeated prodigies had been sent to recover him. I know that some, both Jews and Christians ", after Maimonides, have been of opinion that this was all transacted in a vision or a dream. But their reasons, though specious, appear not to have weight sufficient to overthrow the more common and prevailing construction. Enough has been said to demonstrate the madness of the Prophet at his first setting out: and it is well known from the story, how wretchedly he behaved ever after; how ridiculously he came off with King Balak, and how execrable a part he afterwards acted; and how tragically the whole ended, both to himself and others, after he had run all his lengths of madness. When men are foolish, forward, and selfwilled, and for their humour, or vanity, or corrupt views, will take their own ways, notwithstanding the kindest hints offered to make them retreat, God then deserts them, and abandons them to follow their own imaginations, to their own undoing. The case was exemplified in the Prophet Balaam, who "loved the wages of un" righteousness," and pursued his avarice and his selfconceit, till they became his ruin. I may here add, that Balaam's infamy and cursed policy, in the advice he gave for debauching God's people, stand upon record, not only in the Old Testament, but in three distinct places also of the Newy. For when there started up a sect of false teachers, profligate men, attempting to seduce the people from the purity of the Gospel precepts, to all manner of lewdness, wantonness, and dissolute * See Patrick in loc. and Bochart. Hieroz. part. i. lib. 2. cap. 14. u See Memoirs of Literature for April 1710. p. 14. x Numb. xxxi. 16. y 2 Pet. ii, 15, 16. Jude 11. Rev. ii. 14, 15. p. 193. ness, the good Christians of that time could not think of a more odious name to give them, than that of Balaamites or Nicolaitanes; the first being the Hebrew name, as the other is the Greek one 2; and both very probably signifying the same thing, namely, leaders (that is, misleaders) of the people. DEUT. I. 34. AND THE LORD WAS WROTH, AND SWARE, SAYING, &c. The Objector's irreverent reflection here is: "If we "are to admit nothing that is repugnant to the natural "notion we have of God, ought we not to examine by our reason, whether God, who has no superior to in"voke, can swear at all, much less be in a passion, and "swear in wrath a?" But since this gentleman pretends to examine every thing by reason, let him first examine by his reason, whether it be modest, reverent, or honest, to give this false and ludicrous account of Scripture, as if it supposed God to have been in a passion. That God cannot be in a passion is certain: neither does Scripture either assert or suppose that he may. But when God condescends to talk with men, he is pleased to make use of human words and human phrases, to be understood by men; and (as I have before observed b, in a like case) to render his expressions more pathetic, lively, and affecting. Nevertheless, whatsoever is thus spoken avIgwriтαJos, after the manner of men, must be understood SeoTpEws, in a sense suitable to the Divine Majesty, as made known to us in some measure by reason, and much more by revelation. As to God's confirming his oracles or his decrees by an oath, this also is done in great compassion and condescension to human infirmities; and is an affecting instance y by Dominus Populi. servat. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 999, &c. a Christianity as Old, &c. See above, p. 38. Nixóλaos, Victor Populi. See Vitring. ObBuddæi Eccles. Apostol. p. 372, 373. p. 250. both of the wisdom and goodness of God towards us: so far is it from being any just objection against Scripture. He has no superior to invoke: but since he can 66 swear by no greater, he swears by himself," as the Apostle assures usc. Perhaps this matter may want some clearing; and therefore I shall enlarge a little farther upon it. The Objector seems to be of opinion that the invoking a superior is essential to every kind of oath. I believe it is true that in all oaths taken by creatures, such invoking, either tacit or express, is a necessary circumstance, necessary to the very nature and definition of an oath`so taken. If it be equally necessary and essential to every oath, as an oath; then it must be allowed, that God is but improperly or figuratively said to swear; as he is also improperly or figuratively said to hear, or see, or wax wroth, and the like. But I apprehend, that an oath means a solemn asseveration made as strong and binding as possible, in order to beget faith and confidence in others, or to procure a firm belief of what is so sworn to. When creatures swear, nothing can make their asseveration so strong and binding, as the invoking of God to be both witness and avenger. This therefore is a necessary circumstance always supposed and implied in their oaths; because every thing is supposed and implied that can most confirm and strengthen the asseveration. In like manner, when God himself swears, or is said to swear, we are to suppose that be enforces and strengthens his asseveration as much as is possible, or as much as is proper to beget the highest trust and confidence in his revelations d: not by invoking a superior, (for in this case, and in this only, it is impracticable and absurd,) but by condescending to make use of human forms of swearing, with proper alterations, such as the case requires. God therefore swears by himselfe, e Heb. vi. 13. Proinde, si et in promissionibus, aut comminationibus jurat, fidem in primordiis arduam extorquens, nihil Deo indignum est quod efficit Deo credere. Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. ii. c. 26. p. 395. • Gen. xxii. 16. Exod. xxxii. 13. Jer. xxii. 5. Heb. vi. 13. Isa. xlv. 23. or by his great. name f, or by his lifes, or by his right handh, or by the arm of his strengthi, or by his holinessk, or his truth', or his excellency m, or any other of his attributes or perfections. The meaning and import of all which expressions amount very nearly to the same: namely, that God thereby declares the thing to be as certain as his own being and attributes are, and as firmly to be depended upon. This manner of speaking being more awful and solemn than a naked declaration, is so much the apter to make deep impressions upon the hearers, and to beget the strongest confidence. But besides that, there is a further use in it, in some cases, for the distinguishing absolute and irrevocable decrees, from bare promises or threatenings suspended upon certain conditions, tacit or express. His general promises are under condition of the obedience of the persons whom he gives them to; and his general threatenings are under condition of the impenitency of the persons threatened: : but his sworn decrees are absolute and irrevocable, suspended on no conditions. Such is the end and use of those Divine asseverations, which the Scripture frequently calls oaths and swearing. And I must own I see no reason why they should not be esteemed oaths properly so called, having in them all that is strictly necessary or essential to make up the general nature or definition of an oath. Accordingly, I would define an oath, in the general, to be a solemn asseveration made as strong as is possible to beget faith in others: which definition would take in both human and Divine oaths. An human oath is one thing, and an oath, at large, is another. It is well known, the Pagans supposed that their Gods might swear, even their supreme God Jupiter", as well as the rest which shows that the general idea to f Jer. xliv. 26. Jer. li. 14. Numb. xiv. 21, 28. Isa. xlix. 18. et passim. h Isa. lxii. 8. i Ibid. * Amos iv. 2. Psalm lxxxix. 35. 1 Psalm lxxxix. 49. cxxxii. 11. mAmos viii. 7. "Homer. Iliad. O'. 37. See Vossius de Idololatria, lib. ii, c. 81. which mankind have affixed the name of swearing, means no more than what I have said, and does not necessarily imply the "invoking a superior." Indeed, the Pagans came but lamely off, in their theology, while they made their greatest gods swear by Styx, (or Stygian lake,) reckoning it the highest and strongest oath their gods could have: which was blundering wretchedly, and talking they knew not what. But the scriptural account of the Divine oaths is just and rational, clear of all offence; which might be an argument to our writer, if he would please to consider it, of the truth and divinity of our Scriptures, and that they were not contrived by man's device for if they had, it is more than a hundred to one, but they would have blundered in this article, as much as the Pagan theology did. To conclude this head: if, after all, any one should dislike the general definition here given of an oath, yet let it be observed, that nothing material depends upon it; but it would be disputing only about words. : JOSH. II. 4. AND THE WOMAN TOOK THE TWO MEN, AND HID THEM, AND SAID THUS, THERE CAME MEN UNTO ME, BUT I WIST NOT WHENCE THEY WERE. : The censure upon this passage is as follows "When "men find the harlot Rahab celebrated, even in the New "Testament, for lying to the government, and betraying "her country to its most cruel enemies, are they not in "danger, if they find their advantage in it, and it is for "the service of those they judge to be true Israelites, to "do the same?" Here are two charges against sacred Writ; slanders both, as usual: first, that it applauds Rahab for "lying to the government;" 2dly, that it commends her likewise for betraying her country. 1. As to the first, how will this gentleman be ever able to prove that she is "celebrated in the New Testament |