But we have more reasons to declare the pretended clear prophecies of the Bible to be fables. In many instances they are so accurate, and so unlike these passages which we know to have been written previous to the events to which they are applied, or those which are not yet fulfilled, that no philosopher can pronounce them to have been written historically. Thus, we find Jacob announce to his twelve sons, the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel, the fate of their posterity; the situation of the district to be occupied by the Israelites in the land of Canaan, two hundred years before Joshua parcelled out this land in lots to the Israelites; the kind of life the different tribes would lead; the small number of the posterity of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, as well as the power of Judah; all which are related as exactly as if the patriarch had seen the throne of David and Solomon with his own eyes.
Some of the supposed predictions of Isaiah and Daniel, are even more minutely correct. You have treated the question of the genuineness and date of works very lightly; you think it is of no great consequence to ascertain the genuineness of the different books of the Bible. Let us for a moment suppose, that by some accident, the age of Virgil had been forgotten, or the sixth book of his aeneid been ascribed to a writer of the age of aeneas; would not the Romans be entitled to regard, as a most wonderful prophecy, the lively representation given by Anchises of the future heroes of the republic, the two Caesars, and the young Marcellus?
To resume our subject: I remind you of the passage already quoted from Bellarminus, that it was the opinion of the fathers of the church, that the Prophets, among other books, had been collected and arranged by Esdras. I have also stated the selection of genuine works by the synagogue, during the reign of the Maccabees, when the Talmud says that the forgeries of Daniel, Esdras, &c. were prodigious. The destruction by Antiochus Epiphanus of the already broken Jewish books, written by Esdras, may be collected from what is said in Maccabees, chap. i. ver.
56 and 57. "And when they had rent in pieces the books of the law which they found, they burnt them with fire, and whosoever was found with any of the books of the Testament, or if any consented to the law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death."
It is without reason that you triumph at the application which Thomas Paine makes of the prophecy of Isaiah, in chapters xliv. and xlv. No man that reads the passage can hesitate for a moment to declare it a narrative of the deliverance of the Jews by Cyrus, after the seventy years captivity. Cyrus is mentioned by name, as well as his command to rebuild Jerusalem, and his victories over the nations, above one hundred years before the event. Will you then, without any proofs of Isaiah having written this book, insist upon calling it a prophecy? And have not sceptics been justified in their disbelief of the genuineness of such books? Mr. Paine, however, has overlooked a more remarkable prophecy in this book, which has been tortured into an application to Christ. This is contained in chapter lxiii. ver. 1. "Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in. righteousness, mighty to save." And again, in chap. ii.
(talking of the supposed Christ) Isaiah says, "And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plough-shares."--"And the idols he shall totally abolish."
Can this possibly allude to Christ? Did he come from Edom in mighty power, in rich garments? Was his march so terrible? Was he the man who trampled all in his fury; who with his own arm brought salvation to himself, and was upheld by his fury; as also mentioned in chap. lxiii.?
Do not these pretended prophecies also apply to Judas Maccabeus, who delivered the Jews from the tyranny of Antiochus Epi-phanus? And is it not also a proof of the mutilated state of the works of the prophets to see details about Cyrus intermingled with others applying to Judas Maccabeus? I say nothing of Daniel, for his _prophecy_ I shall consider particularly afterwards, and show its true meaning; at present, it may be sufficient to say, that the similarity between the book of Ezra and Daniel proclaim them to be from the same hand; but both have evident marks of having been considerably mutilated. When philosophers cannot ascertain the age of pretended predictions, they consider their clearness as a demonstration of their being histories. Who tells you that the books which the synagogue, like the Nicene council, chose, were not either altogether written, or considerably interpolated, to adopt them to the times? The great question is always, what authority had the synagogue to decide, and whether their decision ought to influence men of sense, any more than the determination of the Popish councils.
As a proof of the absurdity of the application of prophecies, I shall here quote one, which is apparently clearer than any in the whole Bible, and is adduced by the most famous divines as an unquestionable prediction of Christ. It is in Micah, chap. v. ver. I. "Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us; they shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Here even the birth-place of Christ is mentioned, the insults offered to him, his existence from everlasting, and his coming to save Israel. And Matthew, chap. ii. ver. 6, and John, chap. vii. ver. 43, both expressly refer to that passage as a prophecy. Hear now what follows in ver. 5, of the same chapter of Micah: "And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrians shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men."
Can this apply to Jesus Christ? Were the Syrians in the land when he came? Were not the Romans masters of Judea? Your rules of belief are admirable: a little faith, wherever you meet contradictions, absurdities, or wonders, is an invaluable prescription, common to the Bramin, the Musselman, and the Christian. Do but believe that Mahomet is a prophet, that he went up to heaven and saw the eternal Father, and you will go through the other articles of the Mahometan faith without difficulty. Do but admit the gospel of Barnabas where Mahomet is predicted, and we have no reason to say that it is less authentic than our gospel, and the work is done; but, I may say with you, "Proof, proof is what I require, and not assertion."
We will not relinquish our reason in obedience to the despotic mandates of the credulous.
You allow that the miracles of the Jews fall to the ground, if the history of that nation is proved false. I beg you to observe, that if it is true, it does not follow that the miracles are. If you can believe that the history of the Jews is well authenticated, and without numerous contradictions, and if you can exculpate the writers from bad motives, and a desire to deceive, and if you can rely upon their wisdom, you then will really prove yourself a Christian, a man of uncommon faith.
The history of the Jews, every where confused, containing prodigies, deserves no more credit than their antedeluvian tale. Even Chinese history, supported by astronomical observations, is beyond a certain period rejected by all men, from the fables it contains. If you are disposed to believe, I advise you to read the fabulous history of China and of Hindostan, in the holy books of the respective nations, which are adopted by whole nations, and are, at least, more beautiful than the Jews.
I have purposely omitted to speak of Ecclesiastes. I find here several Epicurean notions, a disbelief of a future life, the propriety of enjoying themselves in this life, and other sensible remarks; which prove that the writer enjoyed more common sense than most of his countrymen.
LETTER VI.
You begin your sixth letter by attempting to disprove the arguments of Thomas Paine upon Jeremiah. You acknowledge the disorder that prevails in the writings of this prophet; and you modestly assure us, that you do not know the cause; no more do I: and whatever incidents might have occasioned it, I am certain that, as it stands, it deserves no degree of credit. In a former part of your pamphlet you grant, that the history of the Jews is so connected with the prophetical part, that if the former was done away the latter could not stand; and now you inform us, "that prophecy differs from history, in not being subject to an accurate observance of time and order." This you think a matter of no importance, but, in my opinion, it is very material to know if a prophecy is written after the events it alludes to. I shall not follow far, either your Lordship or Mr. Paine, in proving several of the prophecies of the Bible false; but if they are not prophecies, why should we trouble ourselves with disproving them. If they are scraps of history, we know that of the Jews to be so contradictory, imperfect, so completely without order, that one historical extract, of prophecy, will often contradict another; but much more generally these prophecies are strict enough, being copied from history, and embellished with a little of the figurative style of prophecy. As to Jeremiah, the works that go under his name, as well as those of Isaiah, appear on the face of them to be a collection of extracts from different historians.
While we know so little of the history and genuineness of these writings, we cannot possibly draw any conclusion concerning them, except that they are in the utmost disorder, and that when writers intermingle history with prophecy, we are at a loss to know which is which. I cannot forbear to mention the ludicrous story of Elisha, the children, the bears that devoured the children of men, as you are pleased to call them. Whether Elisha did this as a prophet, I cannot but declare my abhorrence at your approbation of such abominable cruelty, to murder individuals because they bestowed the appellation of Baldhead on another. According to the laudable custom of the church, you appeal to a miracle, and conclude, that if God wrought a miracle it must have been just. I suppose this comparatively as when he destroys whole cities for the sins of a few; but this is the very ground on which every crusader supported his massacres; and every man may imitate the conduct of Ahod, the treacherous murderer, patronised by Jehovah, without incurring the blame of a Bishop. Whether the ridiculous tale which you take for a sign of God, most probably of his cruelty, converted any person, is not known; but as the event most undoubtedly never happened, you may suppose what you please. To murder them is not the way to ingratiate ourselves with our fellow-citizens. If any person set a few bull-dogs on some children, and pretended to do so by authority from heaven, he would most undoubtedly be taken up by our officers of justice. In what respect do these brutal prophets differ from Mahomet, who decided all disputes by the sword? Their business was to exterminate and murder by the direct commands of God.
The writings of Ezekiel are considerably truncated. The very beginning of his prophecies shows it. The conjunction and texture of the whole work refers to something that ought to have preceded it. He begins saying, "That in the 30th year the heavens opened, and he saw visions of God." And in ver. 5, he adds, "That the Lord had inspired him often in Chaldea," which refers to some prophecies written in that period.
Besides, Josephus's work, book 10, chap. ix. of the Jewish antiquities, says, "That Ezekiel had prophecied that Zedekiah should never see Babylon." This is no where found in Ezekiel, but, on the contrary, in chap. xi. and xii. he says, "That the king would be carried a prisoner to Babylon."
As to Daniel, I have already noticed the great similarity between the first book of Esdras and his, and the probability that they came from the same author. The seven first chapters, except the first, were written in Chaldean, and are by the most learned thought to be taken from Chaldean chronologists. It is also thought by men of great learning, that the books of Esdras, Daniel, and Esther, were altered a long time after Judas Maccabeus, because it appears evident that Esdras could not have written the whole of them, since Nehemiah carries the genealogy of Jesuhga, the sovereign Pontiff till Jaddua, the sixteenth in number, who after the defeat of Darius went to meet Alexander. And Nehemiah, ver. 22, "The Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiadah, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers; also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian." We have no reason to believe that Esdras or Nehemiah could survive fourteen kings of Persia, Cyrus having been the first who gave the Jews permission to rebuild the temple, from whom to Darius there are 230 years.
I now come to the famous prophecy of the seventy weeks of Daniel, which you exultingly mention as the most wonderful, and, at the same time, the most incontrovertible prediction in existence, one which never can fail to confound the most perverse unbeliever. If I prove, that so far from being the surprising prophecy you pretend, it has altogether a different meaning, and can nowise apply to the coming of Christ, I shall think myself fully excused, if I do not go through every individual prediction in the Bible. The passage alluded to is in Daniel, chap. ix. ver. 24, to 27, as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision, and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah, the prince, there shall be seven weeks; and threescore and two weeks the streets shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many, for one week; and, in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; and for the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
This passage is generally applied to the coming of Christ. The seventy weeks are supposed to mean weeks of years, or seven years each. Now it is evident, that it cannot apply to Jesus Christ; for if from going forth of the commandment in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, until the coming of the Messiah, there were to be seven weeks or forty-nine years, how does this agree with what follows? "After threescore and two weeks (or three hundred and seventy-four years) shall Messiah be cut off."
And again, "He shall confirm the covenant with many for a week." Did then Jesus Christ live four hundred and twenty-three years, or are there two Messiahs predicted? Dr. Frideaux acknowledges that some parts of this prophecy are so injudiciously printed in the English translation of the Bible, that they are quite unintelligible; his alteration is in the punctuation, and according to it we read, that, _from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, to the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks_; and in verse 27, he puts the half of the week, instead of the midst. The explanation of the prophecy as thus altered, he gives as follows. From the commandment given to Ezra by Ar-taxerxes Longimanus, to the accomplishment of it by Nebemiah forty-nine years, or the first seven weeks; from this accomplishment to the time of Christ's messenger John the Baptist sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years; from thence to the beginning of Christ's public ministry, half a week, or three years and a half; and from thence to the death of Christ, half a week, or three years and a half; in which half week he preached and confirmed the gospel with many; in all, from the going forth of the commandment, till the death of Christ, seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years.
In the first place, we confidently assert that Dr. Prideaux followed his fancy, not the original Hebrew, when he altered the punctuation. He is, however, justified in the alteration of half of a week; but, granting all, let us see how it applies. Did the Messiah come after seven weeks from the commandment of Ar-taxerxes Longimanus? The explanation only says, that Nehemiah finished the work which Ezra began. What has this to do with the Messiah coming at the end of the first seven weeks? The prophet says, that after threescore and two weeks, the street and the wall shall be built. Again, and previously, that after the commandment for the city to be built, the Messiah shall come in seven weeks. The learned divine, on the contrary, makes Daniel say, that John the Baptist began to preach the kingdom of the Messiah sixty-nine weeks after the commandment, and in the first seven weeks he talks of nothing but building the temple. Again, how does the oblation cease in half a week?
In fact, the same objection occurs here, as to the passage as it is written in our Bibles. Daniel speaks quite clear, when he says, that "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks." If we find, in whatever explanation of the prophecy, that Christ did not come forty-nine years after this commandment, and that he did not live four hundred and thirty-four years afterwards, the whole must be an untruth. And, if the first period of seven weeks is united with that of threescore and two, that is, if the period of rebuilding the city, and of the coming of the Messiah be the same, then let divines inform us whether this really came to pass, and reconcile it with what follows, in ver. 26, that the city is to be destroyed at the same time. Did Christ confirm any covenant with many for seven years?
Let us attempt to unriddle this enigma. The passage evidently talks of two Messiahs, or makes one live upwards of four hundred years; and is altogether unintelligible as it stands. For the better understanding of it, I shall quote some previous part of the same chapter, ver. 1. "In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans. 2. In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood by books, the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
3. And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayers and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes. 4. And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said." After this follows his prayer, until the 20th verse; and, in the 21st the angel began to unfold a prophecy to Daniel, which begins in verse 24, and he promises to explain the mystery that had so much grieved Daniel, that is, the prophecy of Jeremiah; then follows the passage I have quoted: the alterations I conceive ought be made in the reading of which, I now proceed to mention. In verse 25, the sentence stops after the seven weeks, as it is in the English Bible, because in the original we find here the stop Atnach. In verse 26, instead of, _shall Messiah be cut off?_ we ought to read, _the oblation shall cease_. This is the real meaning of the expression in the original, according to Tertullian, Eusebius, and Theodoretus. Eusebius says, _Unctum (vel Christum) nihil aliud esse quam successionem Pontificum, quos unctos nominare S.
Literae consueverunt._ The Hebrew properly signifies _perdetur unctio_.
Theodoretus understands by this word, the same as _sacerdotes uncti.
Excidetur unctus,_ signifies the same as the _oblation shall be abolished_; for the verb _excido_ does not always signify to kill, but is applied to whatever falls into disuse that was once in practice, or any thing that perishes. It is in this sense used in many parts of Kings and Chronicles. Samuel says, _excidi de altare_. In Jeremiah, chapter xxxvii. ver. 18, the verb is used in the same sense, _non de sacerdotibus Levitis excidet ur homo coram me_, which is given in English, "neither shall the priests, the Levites, _want a man_ (or cease to have a man) before me." In verse 27, "and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week," means no more than the exemption of calamities, and is tantamount to, _he shall let many remain in peace_, as in Genesis, chap. vi. ver. 18, it is used in this sense.
To understand the real meaning of this pretended prophecy, the reader will remember, that Daniel mourned for the 70 weeks of captivity prophesied by Jeremiah; the vision of Daniel took place in the first year of Darius, King of Chaldea, that is, in the year 162 of Nebuchadnezzar; but, in chap. x. of Daniel we learn, that he ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh and wine into his mouth, till three whole weeks were fulfilled. Now, the term weeks is used in the Bible indiscriminately for weeks of years, or of days; here it appears clear it signifies the former, particularly as the whole relates to the 70 years of Jeremiah; and the angel, in chap. x. ver. 14, tells Daniel, in the same figurative style, "Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days, for yet the vision is for many days." If then Daniel wept three weeks of years, or 21 years, from the destruction of the temple, in the year 141 to the time of the vision in 162, (the angel, chap. x. ver. 13, says, that the prince of Persia withstood him 21 days, or years), it is easy to see what Daniel means.
Jeremiah had prophesied a captivity of 70 years, of these, three weeks or 21 years were past; therefore Daniel, after entreating God to tell him "how many more years were wanting," received for an answer what follows, "At the beginning of thy supplications, the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee."--"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people to seal up the vision and prophecy," that is to complete the prophecy of Jeremiah; and we find,-therefore, that from the issuing the commandment to restore the Jews, and to build Jerusalem, or more properly from the revelation of the angel, (exitu Verbi), promising that Jerusalem should be rebuilt, ver. 23, to the coming of the Messiah, the prince, or Cyrus, who freed the Jews from the captivity, there were to be seven weeks, or 49 years, which, added to the three weeks already past, made the 70 years of Jeremiah. Cyrus is by Isaiah called the Lord's anointed: "Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him for Jacob my servant's sake." Cyrus gave, at that time, liberty to the Jews, as the reader may see in Ezra. It is evident, that the word commandment cannot mean any express order to build Jerusalem, for the angel says, just before he reveals the prophecy, "at the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth we know that Daniel began to address prayers unto heaven, at a time when there was no order to build the temple, on the contrary, the Jews were in captivity.
This is the most difficult part of the pretended prophecy, the remainder is plain. There shall be 62 weeks till the rebuilding of the wall. The writer alludes here to the building of the first temple under Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and then to the rebuilding of the wall, and restoration of the temple by Judas Maccabeus, after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes. The period of this last event is by the prophecy made to extend to 63 1/2 weeks, or 444 years. Let us see if chronology confirms this supposition. The temple was destroyed in the 141st year of Nabuch, or 4107 of the Julian period; add to this 444 years, or 63 weeks and a half, and we have the year 4551, or the second year of Judas Maccabeus, according to Josephus; who also informs us, that having conquered his enemies, he then built a wall about Sion, which is clearly meant in the words, "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times," 1 Maccab. chap. iv. ver. 60. At that time also "they builded up the mount Sion with high walls," &c. Troublous the times certainly were; the Jews were fighting against the cruelty of Antiochtis Epiphanes. It is certain then, that after 343 years, or 69 weeks, the wall should be built, and although it was not really completed till about ten years after, it is presumable that the loose historian, or prophet, did not choose to alter the beautiful idea of 70 Weeks. We know how superstitiously the Jews respected not only the number 7, but all its different affections. We are besides informed, in the first book of Maccabees, that after the first depredation of Antiochus, the people rebuilt the city of David, and made walls and forts; this happened some years before the building of the wall by Judas, and brings the prediction nearer to historical accuracy.
The next part of the prophecy is, "And after threescore and two weeks shall sacrifices cease;" this means in the course of the week that succeeds the 62. And, no doubt, Antiochus Epiphanes abolished them in the seventh year of his reign, as we read in I Maccab. chap. i. "And the people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." This Antiochus most certainly did, "and went up (Antiochus) against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, and entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altars, also he took the hidden treasures, and there was great mourning in Israel," 1 Maccab. J. "And the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." The coming of Antiochus into Jerusalem is pompously detailed in the first book of Maccabees: the Jews compared a great calamity, or an invading and irresistible army, to a flood. Let us proceed with the remainder: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for a week," this alludes to the first seven years of the reign of Antiochus, during which he did not interfere with the worship of the Jews, although he gave liberty to those who chose to be heathens to follow their respective worship: it was in the end of the sixth, and in the beginning of his seventh year that he attacked the Jews, destroyed the temple, plundered it of its riches, and made himself the tyrant of Judea.
The last part of the passage is as follows: "And in the half of a week he shall cause the oblation and sacrifice to cease," and, I have only to observe, that, from the taking of the city by Antiochus, to the absolute forbidding Jewish worship, there elapsed about three years and a half, or half a week, for he came to Jerusalem in the 143d year of the kingdom of the Greeks, and the erecting of idols was in the year 145; after which, he continued to persecute the Jews, and promote idolatry, until the year 148. Now Antiothus attacked Jerusalem at the end of his sixth year, to which, if we add two years and three months, we have pretty exactly the period of half a week, or three years and a half. The expression, "the spreading of abominations," evidently alludes to what is said in Maccabees, chap. i. ver. 34. "Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the 145th year, they (the followers of Antiochus) set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Judah, on every side." Daniel says, chap.
xii. ver. 11, speaking of his vision, "and from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that: maketh desolate set up, there shall be (that is between the first interdict of Antiochus, and the setting up of idols) 1290 days;" which is a little more than three years and a half. The wonderful prophecy is then unriddled, it becomes a contemptible piece of history in an affected style. I trust the explanation which I have given, after Marsham, will appear satisfactory. I challenge Bishop Watson to produce a plausible explanation of the passage according to the sense of the church. It may not be improper to observe, that Clemens Alexandrinus, many of the fathers, Calmet, and other persons of great knowledge, have flatly denied the application of the weeks of Daniel to Jesus. Those who espouse your cause lose sight of the context of Daniel, they forget chronology, and evince to what a pitch of delusion their minds have arrived.
This is the famous prophecy that silenced the Jewish rabbins of Venice; it is of a pattern with Daniel's four beasts; the fourth is also a story of Antiochus Epiphanes and Judas who slays the beast. Judas is the son of man coming in clouds; he is the person of whom the prophets speak, and who has most ridiculously been distorted to Jesus Christ. This farrago of prophecies seems to have been the production of Esdras or some very late writer; and I am not sure, but the doctrine of the Pythagorean millennium gave rise to some of the expressions in both writers, about the beasts: they seem to have sprung from the same origin with those of the Apocalypse; and with the four Indian horses, they crept among the Jews, together with many other Chaldean mythological ideas: the Ancient of Ancients appears in his fiery car as Osiris triumphant, or Chreeshna conquering Chiven; the books are opened before him, as his kingdom is everlasting, like that of Vishnu with the Vedams. But visions so ridiculous as that of Daniel deserve not our consideration; whatever be their source they are but reveries, and may serve to amuse idle people in their ridiculous speculations about the world's end. Like Swedenburgh, men may dream, and interpret their own dreams, and like him have the mortification to be laughed at for the non-accomplishment of their predictions. We have had of late another Daniel in Mr. Brothers; he too saw beasts, and, what is more, he understood their meaning; but unfortunately we are not Jews, and he is cruelly imprisoned in a madhouse.
I have now followed your animadversions on the objections of Thomas Paine upon the Old Testament; and I trust I have shown that you have in no degree been a more successful labourer in the cause of Judaism than your predecessors; even your wonderful prophecy of Daniel is converted into a mere historical tale, and the application Jesus Christ makes of it to himself is accordingly proved to be ridiculous, the more so, as it comes from the Son of God. I have a few more observations to make, before I leave this book. I cannot pass in silence the gross blunder you have committed, when you refer Mr. Paine to Ferguson for an astronomical proof of the miracle of the total darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus.
An odd conceit, upon my word! You might know that the event is omitted by all the authors of eminence who wrote at that time; that even Pliny passes it unnoticed. Lest you should mislead the reader with your groundless assertions, I shall state the matter as it stands in reality.
You avoid learned disquisitions to be intelligible, but you ought not to have been so deficient of authority, where it is most needed. Besides the gospels, the darkness is not mentioned in any author; but divines have attempted to prove the event from a supposed passage of Phlegon, related by Eusebius; it is in the following words: "In the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, there was the greatest eclipse ever seen; it was night at six, and even the stars could be seen." This passage has long been disregarded by men of knowledge; it alludes to an eclipse, not to a miraculous darkness. Both Mr. Ferguson and you have blundered in chronology and astronomy. It is certain, in the year of Christ's crucifixion, according to the common chronology, there could have been no eclipse of the sun visible at that time at Jerusalem; Ferguson, therefore, concludes it a miracle. But you ought to have known, that the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, is not the year of the crucifixion in any system of chronology; that there was an eclipse of the sun, in the year mentioned by Phlegon, in the month of November, which, however, was not central; and you know that Jesus is said to have died at the time of the full moon in March, or in the beginning of April. Besides, had even such a darkness taken place, are you ignorant of the existence of comets, and would not one passing between the earth and the sun eclipse that luminary? Have not such miracles taken place if we credit historians? The death of Caesar was preceded by wonderful prodigies, and a comet made its appearance immediately after. The supposed miraculous influence of comets, and their being prophetic signs, was once an article of faith throughout all Europe, and the ancient history of every country records many events which the authors maintain arose from comets.
Your reflections on prophets I cannot pass unnoticed. You pretend to make a distinction between dreamers, and impostors, and true prophets.
You acknowledge the number of soothsayers and fortunetellers among the Jews; but you maintain that they were altogether distinct from the true prophets, and appeal to Jeremiah, who puts the Jews on their guard against false prophets. Does not every quack, every impostor, do the same, and caution the world to beware of counterfeits? You might have saved a great deal of trouble, had you condescended to produce your proofs of the genuineness of the writings of the prophets; and then we might enquire concerning the works of these augurs. You pretend that a sure mark of the reality of a prophet is his predicting bad things, for a fortune-teller always prophecies good. Pardon me if I suppose you a follower of Mr. Brothers. For surely the destruction of London was not a most desirable event. It is in vain you attempt to turn Mr. Paine into ridicule for his definition of a prophet. He most justly calls them strolling-poets, fortune-tellers; being in Judea what the gipsies, the augurs, and the astrologers have been in other nations. The Hebrew word _Navi_ signifies nothing but an orator, a public speaker, and is by the Jews applied, in a forced way, to soothsayers and diviners. It is incontrovertible that they existed among the Jews in colleges, and were brought up to the business. Their chief employment was to write the chronicles of the times. The name prophet is given in the Bible indiscriminately with that of holy man. Among the Hebrews, the first book of Kings was called the prophecy of Samuel. Abel is called repeatedly in the New Testament a prophet, (see Matth. chap. xxiii.
ver. 31 and 35, and Luke chap. xi. ver. 50 and 51), although we have no account of his having predicted any. Among the Jews there certainly were fortune-tellers, necromancers, and witches, all of which you rank among the impostors. But had not the witch of Endor a real power of incantation? Did she not most wonderfully raise up the spirit of Samuel?
Or are we to look upon the story of the witch of Endor in the same light as those of modern witches? That the prophets of the Jews were repeatedly deceived, we cannot have the smallest doubt when 400 of these gentlemen told a downright lie to Ahaz. But you have a very easy expedient in all these cases. When a prophet tells a lie, you may, as was done in this particular case, attribute it to a design of God to cheat the person who consults his oracles, just as Jupiter did of old to Agamemnon when he sent him the false dream.
You reproach Thomas Paine for want of candour. He has not, you say, examined the general design of the Old Testament There he would find the benevolence of the God of the Jews, and his infinite goodness in selecting them from among the nations, in preserving them from idolatry.
If he chose this people he has certainly exposed them to continual sufferings, and all for no other purpose than to teach mankind that idolatry is the greatest of crimes; that to avoid it, murder, plunder, the crusades, the inquisition, persecution, may all be laudable means for the preservation of the faith of nations. Thus, the cherished people, who were most intimate with their God, committed the most enormous crimes, under the pretence of preserving pure their adoration of the implacable God Jehovah. Did not all the endeavours of Jehovah to rescue nations from idolatry prove fruitless? This despicable creature man has been able to effect what mighty Jehovah never accomplished.
Science is the only antidote against all kinds of superstition. Did Cicero adore stocks or stones? Or did ever any learned man among the heathens humble himself before idols? Has not the principal branch of the church of Christ been notorious idolaters? But what avails all this? Have you proved that the Heathens "emulated in the transcendent flagitiousness of their lives, the impure morals of their gods?" You assert it; but unluckily it is one of the many unsupported and assumed propositions in your pamphlet. Did nations necessarily imitate the conduct of their gods, I would tremble at being among the followers of the bloody Jehovah. The heathens were certainly dreamers in their adoration of the planets; we are taught by science, that these bodies resemble our earth in the general laws that govern them. It was natural for rude men to gaze at the sublimity of the stupendous fabric, the refulgency of the sun; the blessings derived from his genial influence could not be contemplated without admiration by the amazed and fearful savage. Idolatry is ridiculous: but have you proved that Jehovah deserves more to be revered than the Great Whole of nature, whether called Pan, or otherwise disguised in emblems, than the harmony of the planets designed by symbols, the generative powers by Venus, or the vivifying light emanating from the bright orb of Apollo? Confess at least, that the allegorical adoration of nature could only deceive the multitude who were kept in ignorance by their priests. If you are candid, you must acknowledge, that the Polytheists were tolerant, that the Atheists or Deists lectured close, to the temple. They did not exterminate nations, establish inquisitions, murder unbelievers as the Jews, and the Christians; although, as you observe, they received the gift of God through Jesus Christ, and were made alive by the covenant of grace.
In what consists the superiority of the Jewish or Christian notions of God? Jehovah is a being incomprehensible; he is a jealous and a revengeful God, he hardens men's hearts, and sacrifices whole nations to a particular people, who, in their turn, are sacrificed for the boasted scheme of general good, which is never the nearer being accomplished.
He must be adored and revered, and yet he does not make himself known to man. He does not even show himself face to face to any but Moses.
You pay no great compliment to his omnipotence, when you observe, that "probably he could not give to such a being as man a full manifestation of the end for which he designs him, nor of the means requisite for that end;"--and, "that it may not be possible for the Father of the universe to explain to us, infants in apprehension, the goodness and the wisdom of his dealings with the sons of man." Jehovah, in short, equally the offspring of fancy with the Heathen Jupiter, is as cruel as Moloch, and, like other productions of the brain, an invisible phantom, to which priests give the passions of a tyrant; and, in their desire that he should reign alone, that men should not worship other deities, his ministers have preached up this God, and the multitude, eager to admire what they cannot comprehend, have followed the mandates of the pretended interpreters of his will. Still, however, the greatest number of ignorant men are, and will ever be, idolaters; in vain their spiritual guides preach up incomprehensible and ideal beings in an unintelligible jargon; man will always seek to satisfy his senses. Even the immediate presence of Jehovah, and his horrid massacres, could not prevent the favourite nation from following other gods. Even the inspired, the wise, the royal Solomon forsook "the God of Israel, holy, just, and good," for "the impure rabble of heathen Baalim."
According to your nations, according to the doctrines of the Jewish and the Christian churches, the sole aim of God has been to be exclusively adored, and jealousy is his prominent feature. It is not in the pursuit of knowledge, or in the practice of morality that he delights. The precepts of social virtue occasionally scattered through the Old, as well as the New Testament, can make little impression when contrasted with the vindictive cruelty of the Deity. The Jewish Jehovah requires nothing of his followers but their compliance in executing his bloody commands against nations whom he calls impious, because he has not revealed himself to them. The man after his own heart, is the murderer of thousands of innocent people. Christ orders his followers to despise the reason he has given them, to avoid pleasure, to hate the world, and to love pain, to pray, and to spend their lives in continual mortification, and in gazing over unintelligible mysteries to acquire his kingdom. If they fail to believe in him, whether from ignorance or from conviction, he punishes them with eternal damnation, or as _Saint_ Athanasius emphatically expresses it in his celebrated creed, "Whosoever believeth in these things shall be saved; and whosoever believeth not shall be damned."
LETTER VII.
I now bring under review a few passages from _Holy Writ_, which I leave to your Lordship to explain, and which scoffers pretend to say are undeniable proofs of the stupidity of the Jews, and gross ideas they had of God. I shall follow the order of the books without attempting an arrangement.
Genesis, chap. iii. ver. 1. "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord had made; and he said unto the woman, yea hath God said," &c.
This Mr. Serpent would make a fine figure in aesop's fables. They say it means the Devil, but how does that appear?
In ver. 22. and 23. "And behold the Lord said, the man is become one of us, (i. e. one of us Gods), to know good and evil, And now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever; therefore, the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."
This shows strongly that boasted attribute of God, Jealousy. Is it consistent with a Deity to punish this pair, and all their progeny, for their attempt to know good from evil? We here find that the priests have made God expressly after their own image. God's selfishness prevented men from eating of the other tree, which would make him live for ever.
_Queritur,_ then, at what period of the world did the soul of man become immortal? Was it not till Jesus Christ came? And was this tree a type of him, as the bread and wine are at this day? It appears also, that it was not one, but two trees, that were prohibited!
Ib. chap. xxxii. ver. 24. "And Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled a man with him, until the breaking of the day; (this shows the antiquity and high authority of sparring); and when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh (Mendoza like): and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, unless thou bless me. And he said unto him, what is thy name?
And he said, Jacob. And he said, thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; (which, in Chaldee signifies seeing God); for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. (Or, as the Vulgate more correctly translates, for if thou hast been to oppose the Lord, how much more shall thou prevail against men). And Jacob called the name of the place Penial: for I have seen God face to face." This passage requires no comment.