صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

But though the Jewish doctors have commonly interpreted, as hath been faid, the hherem, or devotement here, of a separation to be cut off, they never fuppofed it was the intention of the law to fay, that a man with validity might devote, and with acceptance before God kill another, according to his fancy and humour; No. How indeed could they lodge a right of this kind in any Jew, when, as was fhewed, they do not even allow to a Hebrew mafter the power of life and death over his Gentile flave? Now, a devotement is only made with binding force, to the extent of a man's title of difpofal; and procedure according to it is only juft, in the fame proportion, these rights being exactly paramount or equal to one another. They therefore limited and reftrained this ftatute about devoting unto death, with a legal effect of excifion, in refpect of the perfons who were the fubjects of it; and fo would I, though with fome little alteration. For I fuppofe it to relate to none but those whofe lives were appointed by God to be deftroyed. Thus the Amalekites, and all the Canaanites who would not confent to terms of peace, were to be put to death by God's exprefs command, Deut. vii. 2. xxv. 17, 19. 1 Sam. xv. 3. In the fame manner, whoever fhould lie with a beaft, facrifice to an idol deity, or commit certain other attrocious crimes, against which capital punishment was denounced in the law, were to be cut off. They therefore who belonged to thefe claffes of men, or who perpetrated there 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 hercon be faid to be devoted, or as the phrafe is in the book of Jofhua vi. 17. about the inhabitants of Jericho, To be accurfed to the Lord. And concerning fuch, when they had been devoted to death, I reckon the ordinance here to be enacted, None devoted who is devoted of men, fhall be redeemed, but shall fure'y be put to death.'

Mr. Findlay endeavours afterwards to remove an objection or two that may be raised against this explication, an explication which Guffetius, a celebrated critic, appears to have pointed at in his Commentary on the Hebrew Tongue, laying great stress on the omiffion of the words, which is his, in the 29th verfe, whereas they occur in the 28th; part of his words on the place are here quoted in a note from Michaelis, as follows, "Omne de vetum," omne fcilicet aliud quod non eft de propriis viri, ut erat ver. 28. quod anathema fit fecundum vocabulum Dei.' And perhaps, adds our Author, from these last words I may have taken the hint of my explication.'

This fection is concluded with fome pertinent reflections upon the differences of opinion among learned men about the meaning of this law. That there are difficulties, he fays, in afcertaining

afcertaining the original intention and fenfe of this ftatute, and thence a variety of opinions among divines concerning it, need not much be wondered at. In like manner, there are intricacies in fome of the laws delivered by the decemvirs to the Roman people, and, on this account, a wide difference between the fentiments of civilians and critics about their import.' He proceeds to mention two examples, the one about punishing theft, upon fearch and difcovery of the ftolen goods, by the lanx and licium, concerning the fenfe of which words the learned have been greatly divided; the other is the law about the treatment of the infolvent debtor, which is also preserved to us by Aulus Gellius, and has given rife to feveral difputes. And this laft, he fuppofes, may be thought more appofite, as, like that of Mofes, it hath received an interpretation very cruel and inhuman.'

Now furely, it is added, if there are not wanting perplexities and difficulties in the laws of the decemvirs to the Romans, it is not furprizing that fuch fhould be found to attend this, as well as fome other ordinances in the Mofaic code, when we confider that the Jewish lawgiver lived in times much more remote, and that there are not equal affiftances for inveftigat-. ing the real defign of every statute promulged by him, as there are for discovering the intention of these other legislators, by the many Roman Authors, whofe writings 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 believe, in ftatute books far more modern, paffages which are dark and obfcure, so that those who are best able to judge, are not agreed about the certain and determinate meaning of them, but have much debate concerning it. Nor is it a circumftance peculiar to codes of laws; but common to all ancient writings whatever. This perplexity therefore, in the ordinance about devotement, and thefe different comments and expofitions, to which the fame hath given rife, fhould not offend us, far lefs lead us to form any conclufion to the prejudice 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 latter ages, and occafion difputes among us about their fenfe like the prefent one, even as there may be fufficient proof of the establishment of a ftatute book in any kingdom or realm, though there are obfcurities in it, and therefore controverfies about its expofition. Meantime, they exercife our diligence, try our candour, and ferve to abate our pride and vanity.'

In the twenty-feventh fection, which is the laft of the fecond part, this Author expreffes himself thus, I fhall only take notice of another mifreprefentation of the fenfe of Scripture; and it is in his Ignorant Philofopher. But it is not the paffage where he afferts, That the holy Scripture," where it introduces God faying, He will require the blood of men's lives at the hand of every beaft, manifeftly fuppofes in beafts a knowledge of, and acquaintance 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 examine, is in the article entitled, The effects of the Spirit of party and fanaticifm. After obferving, there is room for mutual reproaches among papifts and proteftants, on account of religious cruelties, he goes on thus,

Compare fects, compare times, you will every where find for one thousand fix hundred years, nearly an equal proportion of abfurdity and horror every where amongst a race of blind men, who are deftroying each other in the obfcurity which furrounds them. What book of controverfy is there written without gall? And what theological dogma has not been the cause of spilling blood?" And then adds, "This was the neceflary effect of thefe fenfible words, Whom foever liftens not to the church, fhall be looked upon as a pagan and publican. 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 opinions, as the fmugglers treat the officers of the customs when they have the fuperiority. Thus the first dogma every where eftablifhed, was hatred."

Mr. Findlay confiders his opponent here as attributing the perfecutions that have been fo fhamefully exercifed in the Chriftian world, to the words of Chrift, Matt. xviii. 17. But what can be more injurious, fays he, than fuch a reflection founded on this text? Indeed, I am not able to recollect, that it hath ever been pleaded by any of the patrons and advocates of feverities for difference of opinion.'

After fhewing, than which nothing is indeed more evident, that perfecution is utterly repugnant to the fpirit of the gospel, he proceeds to prove that a rule of this kind is not contained in the place mentioned: because it is plain from the context that Chrift is not fpeaking of errors in fpeculation, or mistakes in opinion, but of injuries between man and man as to fubftance, or reputation, and good name, or fome fimilar intereft:" farther alfo it is certain that the treatment to which the words direct is very different from that which M. Voltaire mentions:

When was it ever heard, fays Mr. Findlay, by what ancient writer is it at all recorded, that the Jews were accuftomed, whenever they were equal to the work and favoured with an opportunity for it, to dispatch a heathen or publican? which,

it feems, is the manner of the fmuggler's dealing with the officers of the cuftoms in Mr. Voltaire's country. What then is the rational and likely meaning of the words of our Saviour, "Let a brother who is deaf to rebuke in all these methods, be to thee as a heathen man, or a publican ?" It appears to be this; that he whom he had injured, fhould confider him as unworthy of all tenderer affection, and more intimate fociety, and carry at a greater distance from him, as the Jews did to heathens or publicans.'

One fhould have been almoft tempted to think that this Author's zeal had carried him too far, as it is not credible that Voltaire fhould himfelf believe the words were intended to favour perfecution, though he might fuppofe thar fome Christians had given them fuch a turn; but his own expreffions as here quoted, it must be owned, do appear to lead to fome fuch meaning. This, among other inftances, must be fufficient to fatisfy every reader, that though our fprightly foreigner has been juftiy celebrated for genius and wit, he is greatly defective as to fidelity and veracity; and in regard to points of hiftory and fact, and not unfrequently as to other fubjects, is to be read with great fufpicion, if not with utter diftruft.

The third part of this work confifts of remarks upon, and anfwers to fome injurious affertions which its Author finds advanced by his opponent, with regard to feveral of the BOOKS of Scripture. The whole is concluded by an appendix, confifting of obfervations on thofe remarks which Mr. Voltaire has made on the filence of cotemporary writers concerning the miracles of Chrift, and feveral other extraordinary events which the Scriptures relate. Among a variety of obfervations, agreeable to what learned men have offered at different times with great propriety and ftrength on thefe fubjects, we may tranfcribe a few lines, which are likely to afford a little affiftance to fuch of our readers as have found difficulties on this question, and who have not had much opportunity for removing them: they are taken from that part of the work which confiders the omiflion of the flaughter of the infants by other hiftorians.

Bethlehem, fays our Author, was but a small town, of little note or fame :-it could not be of great extent, for the hill on which it food, 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 mile.-The children, then, in this place and it's confines, from two years of age and under, who were cut off by Herod's decree, must have been but a handful in comparifon. Why then fhould it be thought strange, that thefe Gentile 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, fhould have been filent about this flaughter of fome babes in a small corner of the Roman

empires

empire, for the fake of the intereft of a petty prince? And how ridiculous is it to make their omiffion to mention it, a ground of unbelief, especially when it is confidered, that they either, through ftudy of brevity, pafs Herod's ftory altogether; or if they do not, they comprize all they tell us about his elevation to the throne, his behaviour in it, his death, and the divifion of his kingdom among his fons, whofe very names withal they omit, in three or four lines."-In another place, on the fame fubject, he proceeds,- As we believe, on Jofephus's authority alone, many things about Herod which none befide him atteft; fo we credit many things about the Cæfars upon Tacitus's relation, which Suetonius, who was his cotemporary, paffes; and many things upon Dio's affertion, though he lived about 100 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?'

Towards the clofe of the appendix it is added, "The speedy alteration in the world itfelf, 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, notwithstanding the filence of Jewish and Gentile writers, ftill remaining enemies to our religion, about them; which is only a difficulty eafy to be folved from a knowledge of human nature, without faying, as Mr. Voltaire does in his ironicial fcoffing manner, "I fuppofe God would not allow fuch divine things fhould be committed to writing by profane hands."

We fhall only obferve, in the conclufion, that we have trufted to Mr. Findlay as to the fidelity of the quotations which he has made from the works of Mr. Voltaire.

ART. VII. An hift.rical Effay on the English Conflitution; or, an impartial Enquiry into the elective Power of the People, from the first Eftablishment of the Saxons in this Kingdom. Wherein the Right of Parliament to tax our diftant Provinces is explained and juflified, upon fuch Conflitutional Principles as will afford an equal Security to the Colonifts as to their Brethren at home. 8vo. 4s. Boards. Dilly. 1771.

TH

HE inftitutions, laws, and cuftoms of the Northern nations have often been the pleafing fubjects of enquiry to the learned and curious, and we cannot be uninformed how much a spirit of liberty prevailed among the Teutonic tribes in general. This is finely reprefented in Tacitus's admirable Treatife on the Manners of the ancient Germans; in which treatise, as hath frequently been obferved, we may plainly dif cern how early the foundations were laid of thefe free prin

« السابقةمتابعة »