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.
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.