NOTES ON BOOK VII.

P. 612, A. On this point it will be sufficient to refer the reader to those two excellent writers, Dr Samuel Clarke and Mr W. Baxter, for a full demonstration of the immateriality of that substance, in which the faculties of sense and reflection reside. (See Clarke's Tracts against Dodwell and Collins, and Baxter on the Nature of the Soul.) These writers have gone much further than Locke and others on the same subject; who contented themselves with showing the possibility, nay, great probability, that the thinking substance in us is immaterial (See Locke's Second Reply to the Bishop of Worcester, p. 600, of his works.) But Clarke and Baxter have clearly proved, from the discovered qualities of a thinking being, that the soul cannot possibly be material, whatever undiscovered qualities it may be possessed of. And this conclusion was made (in my opinion) neither rashly nor at random. For, to unsettle our assurance in the truth of their opinion, their adversaries must show that such undiscovered qualities are contrary to the qualities discovered; yet contrary qualities can never subsist together in the same substance, without one destroying the other. Hence, we understand the futility of Mr Locke's superinduction of the faculty of thinking to a system of matter; conceived, by that excellent writer, in the modest fear of circumscribing omnipotence; but omnipotence is not circumscribed by denying its power of making qualities, destructive of one another, to reside in the same substance (for a power which produces nothing is no exercise of power); but by denying his power to change, together with consistent qualities, the nature of the substance in which those qualities reside. This power (supposing Mr Locke contended for no more) will be readily granted; but his argument will gain nothing by it. On the contrary, by changing materiality into immateriality, it ends the dispute with the bishop; but to Mr Locke's disadvantage, by proving, that the soul, or thinking substance in us, is immaterial.

P. 620, B. The impious notion of the human soul's being part or portion of the Divine substance, made the theistical philosophers give no credit to the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments. (See the Divine Legation, book iii. sect. 4.) To avoid this impiety, certain Christian enthusiasts taught that eternity was the condition of the soul by nature as well as by grace. And so before they were aware, fell into the very error of the philosophers, which they were so anxious to avoid. For eternity being confessed by all to be one of the attributes of the Deity, it followed, that the human soul was indeed part or portion of the Divine substance. This execrable frenzy, of which religion could never get entirely free, (known by the name of SPINOZISM) hath of late appeared under its ugliest form in the writings of Mr W. Law, collected from the exploded ravings of Jacob Behmen. (See a book, entitled, An Appeal to all who doubt or disbelieve the Truths of the Gospel.) -But when learned men wake out of one delirium, it is not to recover their senses, but to fall back again into another; and that, generally, is its opposite. So it was here. The philosophic converts to the Christian faith, in the first ages of the church, were no sooner convinced of the folly of fancying that the human soul was a part of the Godhead, than, in their haste to be at a distance from that monstrous opinion, they ran suddenly into a contrary folly, and maintained, that the soul had not one spark of the divinity in her whole composition; but was MATERIAL as well as mortal: now degrading man to a brute, whom before they had exalted to a god. Nor hath this extravagance been destitute of (for what extravagance hath ever wanted) the patronage of modern divines. We have seen it lately employed in support of a fresh whimsy, viz., THE SLEEP OF THE SOUL. One thing however seems to be defective in the scheme; which is, the not rectifying the old error of a RESURRECTION. For, I apprehend, that when a MATERIAL soul is once gone to sleep, nothing but a RECREATION can awake it.

P. 625, C. Other death had been understood, viz., eternal life in misery. But, to see what ill use hath been made of this portentous comment, we need only attend to Collins in his Discourse of Freethinking. "We learn in the Old Testament," says he, "that Adam by eating the forbidden fruit subjected himself and all his posterity to death. But the New Testament TEACHES US TO UNDERSTAND, by death, eternal life in misery; and from thence, we know that GOD HAD BUT ONE WAY to put mankind in a capacity of enjoying immortal happiness." P. 153. Having given, in this buffoon manner, so absurd and monstrous a picture of REDEMPTION, (to the composition of which the school divines had greatly contributed) he, and his freethinking colleagues, hoped that their doctrine of Christianity's being only a republication of the religion of nature would go down the easier. And they well enough understood how to manage that unscriptural error to their advantage; as may be seen by Tindal's book, entitled, Christianity as old as the Creation; which combats the Christian revelation, under cover of the absurd concessions of certain latitudinarian divines of a later date. These concessions, Tindal miscalls the PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITY. Hence this formidable book became one continued thread of contemptible sophistry from beginning to end. Yet I remember the time when the false terror of it alarmed the whole body of the clergy, for the danger of the church, who were but just recovered from the Sacheverel-crisis.

P. 625, D. The REMONSTRANTS, fearing that this interpretation of the text might give countenance to the school doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN, deny that infants are here meant, by those who had not sinned, &c. But the fear is vain. It was death, and not damnation, which reigned from Adam to Moses. The expression-Καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μη ἁμαρτήσαντας, &c. -implies it was a part only of the human species which was free from sinning after the similitude of Adam's transgression; or the being without sin. And what part could this be but the infantine?

P. 632, E. It is true, that notwithstanding the conformity of this language in the revelation to that of Peter and to the gospel of John, some critics, and particularly Grotius, would have the text in the Apocalypse, which says, "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life, of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"-to be thus understood-The book of life written from the foundation of the world and not as here translated-Christ slain from the foundation of the world. However, both the one and the other sense infers the same truth; for if the book of life [of the Lamb slain] was written from the foundation of the world, it is plain that the Lamb slain, or the sacrifice of his death, was pre-ordained from the foundation of the world.

P. 635, F. The reason why Jesus, at the first publication of the gospel, refers so little to the FALL, which concerned all mankind, and so much to his MESSIAHSHIP, which directly concerned only the Jews, is apparent; his mission was first directed to the house of Israel. He left his apostles to carry on their ministry of the gospel, to the gentiles. Hence St Paul, who was more eminently the apostle of the gentiles, is so explicit in his account of the RESTORATION FROM THE FALL. This furnished a handle to Lord Bolingbroke, to affirm, with equal ignorance and malice, that-Paul preached a NEW GOSPEL, different from that of Jesus.

P. 644, G. A learned and serious writer, in a late book, entitled, Observations and Inquiries relating to the various parts of ancient History, hath a chapter concerning HUMAN SACRIFICES; which he thus introduces - "One would think it scarce possible that so unnatural a custom as that of HUMAN SACRIFICES should have existed in the world. But it is certain, that it did not only exist, but almost universally prevailed."-P. 267. Our account of the origin of this unnatural custom will much abate the wonder. However, the learned writer solves the difficulty with much ease; by deriving it from the command to Abraham. And here, before I enter on the matter, permit me to repeat, what I have before observed, that it indicates an odd turn of mind (however general it may be), which disposes the learned to seek for the origin of the superstitious rites of antiquity, rather in the casual adventures of particular men, than in the uniform workings of our common nature.

But the learned writer fancies his solution is much strengthened by the general notion of antiquity, that the ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΘΥΣΙΑ was a mystical sacrifice. Let us examine his reasoning on this head. Mr Bryant having given us, from the fragment of Sanchoniatho, what relates to IL or KRONUS'S sacrifice of his only son (by which, indeed, it appears, that human sacrifice was not a conceit of yesterday; the author of that fragment plainly deriving his story from this part of the Abrahamic history), goes on in these words, "They [human sacrifices] were instituted probably in consequence of a prophetic tradition, which I imagine had been preserved in the family of Esau; and transmitted, through his posterity, to the people of Canaan." P. 291.

To this, let me, first of all, observe, that the supposition of a prophetic tradition rests entirely on the truth of my peculiar idea of the nature of the command to Abraham, viz. that it was a mere scenical representation, given at the patriarch's earnest request. For on this idea only could the command be considered as a prophecy. But this is doing too much honour to my hypothesis, still held, I suppose, by the more orthodox, to be a paradox; and, what is still worse, it greatly weakens the learned writer's reasoning; for a scenical representation, which must naturally end as this did, in a prohibition of the commanded sacrifice, could hardly induce any one, who went upon the grounds, or in consequence, of a prophetic

* Mr Bryant.

† Printed in quarto, 1767.

tradition, to think that human sacrifices were acceptable to the Deity. But the truth is, this prophetic tradition, in the family of Abraham, is merely gratis dictum. We find not the least footsteps of it in the more circumstantial history of the other branch of Abraham's family, the patriarchal; which was most concerned to preserve it, had there been any such. Besides, how this commanded sacrifice, which was forbidden to be perpetrated, should encourage human sacrifices, before men had steeled themselves, by long use, in the practice of so unnatural a crime, is hard to conceive. It is true, that this argument will lose somewhat of its force, when we suppose the command was given to a family which were no strangers to human sacrifices. This is observed purely in reverence to truth; but, be this as it will, it subverts the fancy of the Abrahamic original. For the fact seems to be, that, at the time this command was given to the patriarch, the gentile world was deeply plunged into this diabolic barathrum: which, though the descendants of Esau possibly had not escaped, yet the line of Isaac certainly had.

The Mosaic account of the state of religion in the Abrahamic times, shows that it was extremely depraved. For though the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full,* yet that of their neighbours, in Sodom and Gomorrah, we know, was. These considerations reasonably induced Philo the Jew, in his Discourse concerning Abraham, to suppose that human sacrifices were in use before the time of Abraham. And Marsham, one of the best modern critics concerning ancient times, declares, without hesitation, in favour of this humiliating circumstance; and our admirable Spencer thinks, there is so little reason to ascribe the original of infanticide to the command to Abraham, that, unless the history of that command be told very lamely and imperfectly, it affords very strong arguments against that inhuman practice. But it is not generally the way of scripture to reprobate a bad practice before it has been conceived or committed.† Hence we may fairly collect, that human sacrifices were in use before the command to Abraham. But what need we more to prove the fact in question, than this, that, if the account, here given, of the origin and progress of sacrifice be the true, (as it hath the fairest claim of being so received, since the first use, and all the gradual abuses of it, till it sank into the horrid rite in question, may be understood, and understood only on this simple principle, the uniform workings of our common nature,) human sacrifices must needs have preceded that era.

ally opening the nature of the NEW DISPENSATION, Micah would have let slip so fair an occasion of considering it under that Christian idea.

We may now see, for what reason child-sacrifice came to be reckoned a MYSTERIOUS WORSHIP; it was done, to withdraw the observation of the people from so horrid a rite, when considered only in its simple use; for nature is rarely so far debauched, as to behold, with indifference, the violation of its most instinctive appetites. So that the enormity was to be covered by some far-fetched invention of superior excellence of virtue, which preferred the rights of the divinity to all human obligations. Thus, when the worshippers were apt to revolt at sacrifices extremely cruel or libidinous, the priests secured their own credit, and the honour of their God, by the intervention of a spiritual meaning. And human sacrifices became mysterious for the same reason that the impudent procession of the phallus, in the corrupted rites of Bacchus and Osiris, was taught to convey the high matters of REGENERATION, and a new life.

I have been the longer on this question, because, if human sacrifices should be thought to have had their original from the command to Abraham, it might seem to give some colour (which was far from the intention of this very learned and worthy man) to the calumny of the deists, who assert, that HUMAN SACRIFICES MADE A PART OF THE MOSAIC RITUAL. For if the σεκνοθυσία prefigured the sacrifice on the cross, or, as the learned writer expresseth it, was a type or representation of something to come, it softens a little this infidel paradox. The poet VOLTAIRE hath repeated the calumny over and over, as if the Bible was still shut up, not only from the people in general, but (what perhaps would have been attended with less injury to religion) from THESE POETS in particular.

And now, this more serious question (in the midst of one less important, viz. the origin and progress of sacrifice in general) will deserve a severe examination.

VOLTAIRE, in a thing he calls "An Essay on general History," accuses the Law, in these words "The Jewish law seems to permit these [human] sacrifices. It is said in Leviticus, that none devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. The Jewish books bear evidence, that when the Israelites overran the little country of Canaan, they massacred in most of the villages, men, women, and children, because they had been DEVOTED. On this law it was that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter." +

I. This whole calumny I shall clear away first of all, by the most express prohibitions of the LAW, together with the declarations of the PROPHETS; both of which execrate every species of human sacrifice.

II. And then examine and explain all those passages of scripture, which seem to have given a handle to this impious charge.

III. Concluding, in the third place, with a confutation of that censure of inhumanity towards the inhabitants of Canaan urged by Voltaire, to support his main accusation of HUMAN SACRIFICES, and urged as if it were itself in the number of such sacrifices.

I. In my entrance on the first head, let me previously observe, that the earliest direction for SANCTIFICATION, that is, (in the language of Moses) for SACRIFICE, is of the first-born, expressed in these words.‡ SANCTIFY unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb amongst the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is MINE. This is declared to be for a memorial of God's smiting Egypt in favour of his chosen people. - "All the first-born of the children of Israel are MINE, both man and beast: on the day that I smote the first-born in the land of Egypt, I SANCTIFIED them for myself."

But from this sanctification or SACRIFICE, man and unclean animals were excepted, and redeemed. The redemption of the first-born of man is thus settled and explained-"I have taken," says the text, "the LEVITES for all the FIRST-BORN of the children of Israel: and I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons, to do the service of the children of Israel, in the tabernacle of the congregation."|| The redemption of the first-born of unclean animals, with a repetition of the redemption of men, is thus expressed: "Every firstling of an ass shalt thou redeem with a lamb and all the first-born of man, amongst thy children shalt thou redeem." The redemption-money, for both, is given to Aaron and his successors;** to whom the whole tribe of Levi was assigned for a vicarious (and in lieu of a more general) sanctification of the first-born of man.

* Chap. xxvii. ver. 29.

Les

† La loi des Juifs semblait permettre ces sacrifices. Il est dit dans Levitique; si une áme vivante a été promise à DIEU on ne pourra la racheter, il faut qu'elle meure. livres des Juifs reportent que quand ils envahirent le petit pays des Cananéens, ils massacrèrent dans plusieurs villages, les hommes, les femmes, les enfans-parce qu'ils avoient été devoués. C'est sur cette loi qui furent fondés les serments de Jephthé qui sacrifia sa fille, &c., Œuvres de M. de Voltaire, t. xiii. pp. 227, 228, ed. 1756, 8vo.

This redemption was not on account of personal favour to a chosen people, but in abhorrence of HUMAN SACRIFICES, as appears plainly both from the Law and the PROPHETS. Moses, on his delivery of the LAW, thus solemnly forbids all curious inquiry concerning the pagan rites of worship, in the nations round about them; Inquire not after their GODS, saying, how did these nations SERVE their gods? EVEN SO WILL I DO LIKEWISE. The reason of the prohibition follows, they practised the horrid enormity of child sacrifice-For every abomination to the Lord, WHICH HE HATETH, have they done unto their gods; FOR EVEN THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS HAVE THEY BURNT IN THE FIRE TO THEIR GODS* The dangerous curiosity here restrained, was not on account of the number and nature of the gods of Canaan. For the striking absurdity of their theogony or original, and the impiety of their mythology or history, would have served to attach the Israelites more firmly to the LAW. The prohibition only respected an inquiry into the Canaanitish modes of worship, or, as it is better expressed in the text, -How these nations served their gods. And though this inquiry might, at first, arise from nothing else than a wanton curiosity, yet the legislator intimates that it would end in apostasy from the LORD OF HOSTS-even so will we do likewise; that is, we will use those pagan rites in the service of the God of Israel; for they were little in danger, so early, to use Canaanitish rites in the service of the gods of Canaan. Besides, the caution here is not against IDOLATRY but INFANTICIDE. Nor could they be much disposed to forsake the God of Israel for the gods of Canaan, at the very time they were so successfully marching, under the auspices of Moses, to exterminate that devoted people. He therefore could scarce conceive that, at this time, they needed such a caution. For, the reason he gives for restraining this hurtful inquiry is, lest they should worship their own God with pagan rites; especially this most abominable of all, INFANTICIDE. And there was the more need of this caution, since the first-born of man and beast, in Israel, were to be sanctified to the Lord; and though the first-born of man was redeemed, while the first-born of the clean beasts were sacrificed, yet the love of corrupt and idolatrous rites might give some propensity to a fatal mistake, and to slip in sacrifice instead of sanctification.

Afterwards when the Israelites became polluted with the infernal stains of infanticide, the PROPHETS never ceased to proclaim aloud God's abhorrence of this impiety. For, in order to impress upon the paganized or apostate Israelites a due sense of their frequent defections, it was found necessary for these his messengers thoroughly to probe the consciences of such hardened wretches, which had been seared with the fires of Molech.

Sacred history informs us how severely Ahaz was punished for his multiplied idolatries; but principally for his "burning his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen [the Canaanites] whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel." +"They sacrificed," says the Psalmist, "their sons and their daughters unto devils-the idols of Canaan-and the land was polluted with blood-insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance." -" They have built the high places of Baal," says Jeremiah, "to burn their sons with fire, for burnt-offerings to Baal." And again-"They caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, to Molech." || Ezekiel, likewise, accuseth them of having caused their sons to pass through the fire, to DEVOUR them. But further, it would seem, by the following words of Jeremiah, that these impious sacrifices were offered, by the unnatural Jews, to the God of Israel himself "The children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the Lord; they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it, and they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind."** The concluding words seem to intimate that these apostates pretended to have received such a command; or with what propriety was it so formally denied? Possibly they might pervert the famous passage in Leviticus;ft of which more hereafter. However, the whole of the text informs us clearly, that child sacrifice sometimes polluted the altars of the temple. Ezekiel seems to confirm the same thing; "Moreover, this they have done unto me; they have defiled my sanctuary, in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths. For when they had slain their children unto their idols, then they came, the same day, into my sanctuary to profane it, and lo! thus have they done in the midst of mine house."‡‡-i.e. "When they had slain children to their idols, they, on the same day, offered the like horrid sacrifice to me." -And we know, it was their usual practice, amidst their defections, to join idol worship to the worship of the God of Israel.

The sacred historian is still more express to this purpose; when he thus speaks of the wicked king Manasseh-" He built altars in the house of the Lord-and he built altars for

* Deut. xii. 30.
Chap. xix. ver. 5. ||
†† Chap. xxvii. 28, 29.

+ 2 Chron. xxviii, 3.
‡ Ps. cvi. 37, 38, 40,
Chap. xxxii. 35. ↑ Chap. xxiii. 37. ** Chap. vii. 30. 31.
# Chap. xxiii. 38. 39.