The preface informs us, that in the year 1765 he wrote a detection of feveral falfehoods which he perceived' in the forty-ninth chapter of Mr. Voltaire's Philofophy of History, which was efteemed worthy of a place in a periodical mifcellany, for the month of December in that year. In the fame collection he afterwards publifhed fome remarks upon the injuries which Jofephus received from this celebrate writer. But finding, he tells us, that the animadverfions on the Scriptures would become too learned and critical for that channel of conveyance, he determined to publish an account of Mr. de Voltaire's errors and mifreprefentations relative to the Chriftian fyftem, in a feparate treatise, which is now accordingly here delivered to the world.

Mr. Findlay does not feem to have been the moft happy in his flyle and manner. Befide the Scoticifins that frequently prefent themfelves, he is, in fome inftances, a little inaccurate, verbofe, and confufed; nor does he always convey hi, ideas in that agreeable manner which, with a farther degree of attention, we apprehend, he might eafily have attained. He, nevertheless, lays before us a collection of pertinent and ufeful reficctions, and for the greater part, we imagine, folid and weighty arguments, which may be perufed to advantage, efpecially by thofe who have received any ill impreffion from the works of M. de Voltaire, or other writers of that ftamp. In regard to any deficiency in brilliancy of expreffion or elegance of compofition, let us receive the Author's apology for himfelf: I have, fays he, been abundantly fenfible, while employed in meditating this criticism on Mr. Voltaire's works, that I could not write in his entertaining and fprightly manner; far lefs enliven my fubject with his ftrokes of humour and raillery: nevertheless, I have not been difcouraged by the ftrongeft conicioufnels of this inequality. For it feemed to me, that it was a man's duty, to ufe fuch talents of reafon and learning as God had conferred upon him, for promoting the caufe of truth and piety, though he might fall fhort of an adverfary to is, in a lively and animated way of expreffing his fentiments: the more, that numbers of mankind will hearken and yield to found argument, though it may not be recommended by elegance in it's delivery. It occurred to me, likewife, that if I wanted abilities for ridicule and wit, I would be more likely to escape the charge which hath Leen brought against some advocates for Chriftianity, of wandering far from the mark, and be lefs in hazard of irritating Mr. Voltaire's admirers to fuch a degree, as to feel them againit the force of the evidence I offer, to evince his great neglect of veracity and fairness where religion is concerned.'

The preface concludes with the following declaration: I hope, it will be found, that I have not treated Mr. Voltaire with any undue feverity and tharpnefs of expreflion. I am fure

I intended to avoid this, whatever provocation there might be to it on many occafions, by the strongeft proofs of a bigotted and blind zeal for infidelity. Far from wishing him any hurt, I wifh he may enjoy all happiness; and for this end, that he may become a firm believer of Chriftianity, upon these rational grounds on which it challenges our affent, and with diligence obey it's holy precepts.'

The work is divided into three parts; the firft, which confiders the injuries Jofephus has received from Mr. Voltaire, confifts of feven fections, but employs only forty-fix pages of the volume. The reflections here made upon the mifrepresentations of his opponent are very juft, but generally of too great a length to admit of an extract confiftent with our limits; we fhall therefore make one fhort quotation, alone, from the beginning of the fecond section.

:

Let us proceed to the detection of a falfehood more im'portant. Says Voltaire, chap. xxv. "Flavian Jofephus does not hefitate faying, that Minos received his laws from a God. This is a little ftrange in a Jew, who, it fhould feem, ought to allow no other god than his own, unless he thought like the Romans his mafters, and like all the firft people of antiquity, who allowed the existence of all the gods of other nations." With the fentiments of the Romans, and other idolatrous nations, on this point, I have at prefent no concern. My bufinefs now is only to enquire, Whether Jofephus hath allowed fuch divine authority to the lawgiver of Crete. This, I confess, would appear to me not a little ftrange, as Voltaire pronounces it but altogether inconfiftent with his character as a Jew, who profeffed to believe that Jehovah, the God of lfrael, was the God of the univerfe, and that there was none befides. But there is no reason for imputing fuch an abfurdity to him. What he fays is, "Our lawgiver Mofes, was not a juggler or impoftor, as they fay, reviling us unjustly, but fuch a one as the Greeks* boaft Minos to have been, and after him other lawgivers; for fome of them faid their laws were of divine original: Minos at leaft referred his laws to Apollo and his Delphic oracle, they either thinking it was fo in reality, or fuppofing they would easily perfuade the people of it: which is no more an argument that Jofephus thought Minos received his laws from a god, than it would be an evidence that a Chriftian judged Mahomet to be a divine messenger and inftructor, if he fhould fay, that Jefus was fuch a perfon as the Turks believed Mahomet to have

been.'

The remainder of the fection is employed in cenfuring fome fentiments of the fame kind concerning Jofephus, which have

Contra Appion. lib. 2. fect. 16. pag. 1376. Arx' or maça Έλλησιν αυχέσιν τον Μέω γεγονέναι, δ

teen

been delivered by Dr. Middleton, a writer far more able and more diftinguished, on thefe fubjects, than even the witty genius whom this volume is immediately intended to oppofe.

The second part of this book contains two chapters, each fubdivided into fections: the firft chapter treats of thofe mifrepresentations of Scripture, for which Mr. Voltaire may plead the authority of the Vulgate verfion; and as the other fections here are generally too long, we fhall felect only the fourth as a fpecimen.

A fimilar inftance of mifrepresentation fupported by the Vulgate verfion, we meet with, in my opinion, in this fame +chapter, when he fays, "The Lord, in the prophecy of Amos, threatens that the cows of Samaria fhall be put into the caldron, chap. vi."

As no fuch expreffion occurs in the fixth chapter, I fuppofe he intended the fourth, for it begins thus, Hear this word, ye kine of Bafhan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which opprefs the poor, which crush the needy, which fay to their mafters (thofe to whom they have fold them for filver) come and let us drink; the grandees of Ifrael being thus denominated, on account of their infolence, by which they refembled fuch wanton cattle, fed in the luxuriant paftures of Bafhan, according to a figure ufed elsewhere, Ezek. xxxix. 18. Pf. xxii. 30. Then follows the word to which their attention was by this addrefs awaked, The Lord God hath fworn by his holiness, that lo, the days fhall come upon you, that he will take you away with hooks, and your pofterity with fish hooks. In room of which the Vulgate hath, Levabunt vos in contis, et reliquias veftras in ollis ferventibus, They will lift you up on poles, (or perches) and your posterity in boiling pots,' where every one fees the reafon of his caldrons. But our translation appears far preferable. In other places of Scripture alfo, we find the invaders of a country compared to anglers or fifhers, Jer. xvi. 16. Habak. 1. 15. Then the word

Tzanath, by us turned hooks, in the former claufe, properly fignifies thorns, as in Prov. xxii. 5. Job. v. 5. From which fenfe the tranflation was easy and natural to this, as the sharp extremities of thorns were ufed in fifhing, in the more rude and unimproved ages of the world, inftead of the inftruments we call hooks. And though D fir, is often turned, a pot or caldron, and froth, pots or caldrons, yet frim is tranflated thorns in three different places, Ifa. xxxiv. 13. any doubt, Nahum i. 10. Ecclef. vii. 6. Nor can there remain but it should be fo ‡ rendered here, when it is joined with

+ Pag. 210. Philof. of Hiftory.

I confess, however, the Targum hath, fifher-boats, instead of thorns of fishing.

Hh 3

דוגה

1

dugab, as the participle ' dugim is fifhers, Ezek. xlvii. 10 Jer. xvi. 16. God therefore threatens to draw the Ifraelites out of their towns, by their Affyrian enemies Tiglath-1 Pilefer and Shalmanezer, as fish out of their watry element, the one removing thofe whom the other had left. And where is there in this image of their captivity any thing blameable, or which deferves to be fcoffed at? There was no intention § here to ftate a likeness between the treatment they should receive, and that of wanton cattle, by giving them the appellation of kine of Bahan. Though elsewhere indeed, the oppreffion of the people by the princes is called, flaying their fkin and breaking their bones, and chopping them in pieces as for the pot, and as fleth within the caldron, Micah iii. 1, 2, 3. it was only defigned by that expreffion, in the paffage under confideration, to delineate their criminal character, for which God was provoked to punish them, in the manner the prophet defcribes.'

Allowing the Vulgate verfion of the paffage in queftion to have been just, which it does not appear to be, the meaning is evident, and the expreffions fuitable to the eaftern manner and the prophetic ftyle: the ludicrous turn which is given them by Mr. Voltaire is hardly worthy of notice, and with perfons of fenfe and judgment no doubt the ridicule will, as it ought, revert to himself. However, it is doing fervice to mankind, to Thew that this writer is no longer to be regarded or depended upon than while the reader himself is able to produce evidence in fupport of his affert.ons. In the last fection of this chapter Mr. Findlay justly chaftifes, his antagonist, and obferves, that the Vulgate tranflation affords no fufficient apology for (as we find it in the title of that fection) his fairness and candour ; but we fhould fuppofe it ought to be, his want of fairness and candour: fince feveral eminent perfons in the Roman communion acknowledge that it is not without it's errors, and fince Mr. Voltaire himself hath, in fome inftances, we are told, given a fenfe very different and contrary (to that verfion) where fuch

Father Houbigant's no'e fuppofes the women of Samaria living in pleafure, to be fignified by, the kine of Lafhan, and the denunciation to be, that they thould be dealt with as fishes that fport and frifk in a pond, which the nfhers draw out with poles and hooks, and throw into their boats, is worthy to be transcribed here

"Nec mirum videri ceset, talem fimilitudinem adhiberi, poftquam mulieres ile appellatæ funt vacce Bafan, quia hoc erat nudum c gnomen, ut tauri Bafan, Pf. xxi. non autem fimilitudo." Vide Houbig. Bibl. in locum.'

Pobly the Au hor might intend this form of expreflion as fomewhat farcattical, if fo, it feems rather trifling, efpecially in his grave performance.

defertion

defertion of it was needful to answer his view, and gratify him. with the pleasure of deriding the facred writings.'

The fecond chapter, in this part of the work, confiders thofe mifreprefentations of Scripture, for which Mr. Voltaire cannot plead the authority of any tranflation. As there are in the preceding chapter, fome articles more material than that which we have exhibited as a fpecimen, but of too great a length tor us to tranfcribe; this alfo is commonly the cafe with the prefent chapter we fhall, however, lay before our readers part of what Mr. Findlay fays in the fixth fection concerning the affertion, that the Jewish law required human facrifices. The law referred to is found in Levit. xxvii. 29. Some interpretations that have been given of this ftatute are here confidered, and particularly that of the late Dr. Sykes, who explains the meaning of it to be no more than this, "That every person who is devoted or confecrated to the fpecial fervice of God irreverfibly, or for ever, by one having a right to do fo, inftead of being redeemed, fhall die in that devoted flate." The objections to this and other explications are mentioned, and our Author profeffing himself to be diffatisfied with thofe accounts, adds, I will propofe another interpretation of it, and fubmit it to the candour of the reader,

To make way for this I remark, that the Jewish masters very generally underftand this twenty-ninth verfe to treat of a very different kind of hherem or devotement, from that intended in the former verfe, even one by which perfons were separated, not to religious ufes, but to excifion or lofs of life. And it will feen lefs ftrange, that the meaning of the term fhould vary in fuch manner here, when we confider that the fame expreflion upon other occafions, comprehends under it both a feparation to cred fervices, and a feparation to death, according to the different fubjects to which it is applied.' Of this he propofes as inftances, Joshua vi. 17, 18, 19, 21, 29. and then thus proceeds: This change of sense moreover, from a feparation unto religious ufes, to a feparation unto the abfolute lofs of life, is fufficiently intimated by the finifhing claufe in the paffage. under our confideration (which, if I am not mistaken, hath been manifested in the last note to be incapable of any other interpretation than, He fhall be furely flain, or, He fhall be furely put to death,) fince it fhews that the hherem defcribed in it, inferred an excifion by violence from the land of the living, while the hherem spoken of in the former verte, only iffued in a perpetual and unalienable state of holiness to the Lord.

↑ See his Connection of Natural and Revealed Religion, chap. xiii. especially pages 313, 318.