their books were written by the principal person which they relate to, such as the Pentateuch by Moses, the book of Joshua, by Joshua; the book of Judges and books of Samuel, by Samuel; and so on, whereas there is every internal proof to the contrary, that would be sufficient to satisfy the obstinate minds of the Jews and Christians on any other subject. The case is simply this, the Jews have raised their sacred books into fame by the most glaring exaggerations, and the Christians, having built their fraud upon them, are obliged to subscribe to all those exaggerations, even whilst they themselves confess to be staggered at them. I shall enter more fully into this subject after passing through Deuteronomy.

The third chapter concludes with an account of Moses asking the favour of Jehovah to be permitted to pass the Jordan, which he is refused, although Moses is here described as repeating to the Israelites what had occurred, and what they knew, yet we have not met with any such circumstance be fore; in fact, commentators have made it a boast, of the meekness of Moses in acquiesing in the order of Jehovah, and not expressing a wish to enter the promised land after all he had done for the Israelites. They have attempted to argue, that Moses must have been convinced of enjoying the spiritual Canaan, therefore was indifferent as to reaching the earthly Canaan! But what cannot Jews and Christian imagine? There is one thing worthy of notice which strikes me here, and that is, that Moses is represented throughout his career as speaking to the whole body of Israelites, which, according to their number is an utter impossibility, that they could be congregated and addressed as a body. In the second verse of the fourth chapter we have the following injunction :--

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

What are we to say to our various translators of the Hebrew Bible, no two of whom have yet agreed as to the true and literal translation? Is it not too much, as I asked Chief Justice Abbott, to call upon any man to put his faith in any translation of the Bible, when every translator differs from the other as to the import and meaning of an innumerable number of words, and not only words, but whole sentences and paragraphs. But I was answered, there is the authorized version which King James and the Parliament decided should be re

ceived in this country. I reply, that I have a conscience which cannot be satisfied, on so important a matter, upon such suspicious grounds. So, for keeping a conscience, I am to have three years imprisonment! Bravo! bravo; Christians.

In the fifth chapter we have a repetition of the decalogue, of which, I shall take no further notice, than to make a few observations on the following sentence, which I omitted to do in passing through the book of Exodus.

"For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me."

I consider this to be an abominable doctrine to teach mankind, and totally irreconcileable with the Christian precepts. To imagine that an unconscious infant is to be accountable for the sins of its parents, or parent's progenitors, is a gross and horrible idea, unsocial, unnatural, and pregnant with-mischief to society. It is not sufficient that the unhappy offspring of vicious parents suffer both in body and mind from the ill consequences of the vices of their parent or parents, but they also must be loaded with the wrath and vengeance of a God? It is satisfactory that we know Jehovah to be a powerless nonentity, or this doctrine would be sufficient to distract every reflecting mind. The God of Nature has ordained that vice should carry its own reward with it, and we see that every vicious character, whose life is prolonged, becomes a misery to himself and all that are connected with him. It unfortunately happens, that the children of such a parent suffer from his conduct whilst living, and there may be instances where the ill effects of his vices extend beyond life, but as sure as the family of such a vicious parent take warning by his end, and make virtue their guide, nature holds out to them the common benefits of her produce. There is no exception, there is no distinction; she is open to the embrace of every kuman being, and those who reject her and seek assistance from other ideal powers, punish themselves, whilst nature is neither injured nor offended. The acme of human happiness is centred in nature and open to the approach of all mankind, who by their faculty of reason have the power of enjoying it: but alas! how much below every other animal is man: he alone rejects that, which is pre-eminently his to enjoy!

I come now to the seventh chapter of which I shall insert the two verses and follow them with a disquisition of Dr. Geddes.

"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the ebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

'Nothing can be clearer than that the utter destruction of the seven Canaanite nations is enjoined in this Mosaical precept: nor ⚫ was this doubted by any translator, interpreter or commentator, till toward the close of the eighteenth century, They all tell us, in⚫deed, that it was a reasonable, a necessary command: for that "to spare such rank, incurable idolators, would have been cruelty to "themselves and their posterity." Were not the Moabites, and Ammonites, and other neighbouring nations, as gross idolators as the Canaanite nations? Yet there is no injunction to utterly destroy them. It was not then the mere idolatry of the Canaanites that brought about their destruction; but their idolatry and other abominations, were made pretexts to dispossess them of their lands and properties, in order to transfer them to the Israelites. But still they allow that such a precept was given, and endeavour to justify it by reasonings, which, to me appear frivolous in the extreme, and totally repugnant to the evangelical doctrines of Christianity. It was this consideration, I doubt not, which induced some very ' modern writers to maintain, that such an injunction was never given !'

Not so the candid, the learned, the liberal prelate, who wrote a 'short while ago, an Apology for the Bible. He was conscious that the fact could not be controverted; but he endeavours to justify it on principles, which at first sight seem specious; but which, in my apprehension, will not bear a minute inspection. He is astonished that the author of The Age of Reason should attempt to disparage the Bible by bringing forward the exploded and frequently refuted objections of Morgan, Tindal, and Bolingbroke. You profess yourself (adds he) to be a "Deist, and to believe that there is a God, who created the universe and established the laws of nature, by which it is sustained in ex

*This mode of expression, so conimon among controversialists, I con'fess I never could relish. It may be equally used, and has been used, by "both parties: for nothing is more easy to say than-"Your argu"ment has already been often answered and confuted." Bellarmine might say so to Barclay, and Barclay to Bellarmine; and, if Bolingbroke, Tindal or Morgan were now alive, they would most probably deny that their argumcuts had been refuted. Certainly every answer is • not a refutation.”

istence. You profess, that from the contemplation of the works of God you derive a knowledge of his attributes; and you reject the Bible, because it ascribes to God things inconsistent (as you suppose) with the attributes which you have discovered to belong to him and in particular, you think it repugnant to his moral justice, • that he should doom to destruction the crying or smiling infants of ⚫ the Canaanites. Why do you not maintain it to be repugnant fo •his moral justice, that he should suffer crying or smiling infants to be swallowed up by an earthquake, drowned by an inundation, consumed by a fire, starved by a famine, or destroyed by a pestilence? The word of God is in perfect harmony with his work: crying or smiling infants are subjected to death in both. When Catania, • Lima, and Lisbon were swallowed up alive, why do you not spurn, as spurious, the Book of Nature, in which this fact is certainly writ ten, and from the perusal of which you infer the moral justice of "God?"

In the Preface to the second volume of my version of the Bible ' (p. ii. in the note), I have said, that it grieved me to read in a late elegant Apology, so lame a justification of the passage in question; and added, "I am tempted sometimes to think, that the R. R. author must have felt the weakness of his argument, and seen the disparity of his simile." I used the words tempted to think, because I could not bring myself to believe that the bishop did feel ⚫ the weakness of his argument. I am persuaded that he considered it as a strong argument: and, perhaps, what I am now going to write against it, will not move him to alter his opinion. I will, however, make an essay.

In the first place, then, I trust his Lordship will agree with me, that there is but one clear, explicit, immutable law of moral equity, implanted by the wise creator in the human mind: ALTERI NE · FECERIS, QUOD TIBI NON FIERI VIS. It is this law which, independent of any revelation, tells us, that we must not steal, we must not kill, we must not injure our neighbour: and if this hold good, and be obligatory with respect to individuals, it must be equally so with regard to whole families, tribes and nations, which are composed of individuals. According to this, I believe indisputable, principle, the Israelitic nation had no more right to invade, dispossess and exterminate the Canaanites, than these had to invade, dispossess, and exterminate the Israelites. "True (it will possibly be said) in the abstract, and bating particular circumstances; but 'God, who is the sovereign arbiter of the world, and author of the the laws of nature, whether physical or moral, may, when he 'pleases and sees occasion, dispense with the general moral law, ALTERI NE FECERIS, &c. and give a special positive law in direct opposition to it." I might obstinately deny this assertion,

* Apology, p. 14, 15, 16.

་

4

and maintain that he could not, without being himself unjust: nor do I see what solid argument could be adduced to prove the contrary; for I presume my antagonist would hardly have recourse to the argument of tyrants: SUCH is OUR PLEASURE. But, granting that an arbitrary, omnipotent being have a right to transfer my property to you, and authorise you to murder me and mine offspring for the purpose of securing that transfer; I must have strong proofs indeed of the existence of such an instrument, and of its having ⚫ been issued from the chancery of heaven, before I could submit to so uncommon a dispensation of providence and even then, I fear, it would only be a bare submission: my soul would interiorly murmur, and wonder how this could be reconcileable with the justice ' of that Supreme Being, who has so deeply imprinted on the tablet of my mind, the idea, that no one is to do to another, what he wishes not to be done to himself. "But what if I were an egragious sinner, who had deserved to be dispossessed of my property, ⚫ and bereaved of my life?" An egregious sinner! In the estima'tion of whom? Not surely of you my destroyer! I should consi⚫der you as a partial judge, and might deem you as great a sinner as myself." Not merely in my estimation (you reply), but in the esti'mation of God, who, knowing all things, must know, that you are a most enormous sinner, deserving death and destruction." so-he has a thousand ways and means to destroy me, without employing you as an instrument-and before I believe that he has · chosen you for that purpose, I must have far other proofs than your bare assertion; especially as I find that you are interested in the matter, and are to reap the fruits of my destruction. But if the order, which you say you have received from heaven, be to dispossess and destroy not only my guilty self, but my guiltless infants and posterity, I become still more astonished and more incredulous; and desire to see and peruse your commission, with the broad seal of heaven upon it:-nay, were you to produce such a commission in the name of heaven, I should insist on its being a fabrication of your own; and that it could not come from the same God who says, that children shall not be punished for the sins of their 'fathers.

Be it

Now, as we have no other proof that God commanded Moses and 'his Israelites (who themselves were so sinful a people, that he often 'threatened to destroy them) to dispossess and extirpate the Ca-. naanite, man, woman, and infant, than the bare assertion of an He'brew historian. Suppose it even to be Moses himself-the Canaan⚫ites must have necessarily considered the god of Moses as an unjust god; or believed that the pretended command to dispossess and exterminate them, was a counterfeit. We are then, I think, warranted to say, that it is infinitely more probable that God never gave such an order, so opposite to the general law of moral equity, than that he dispensed with this law, in favour of a particular pation, with

་