1 i

^>

4^^^r/^'^/

^

t H E

DIVINE LEGATION

MOSES

DEMONSTRATED,

IN NINE BOOKS* The Fourth Editjon, Corrected and Enlarged*

— /^ — ■

WCNr'blAT-A-orvB Y William, Lord Bilhop of Gloucester.

Vol. V.

LONDON,

Printed for A. Millar, and J. and R. ToNSOtr, m the Straad, MDCCLXV.

CONTENTS

O F T H E

FIFTH VOLUME.

BOOK VI.

CONTAINS an Examination of all the Texts brought from the Old and New Tefta- ment to prove a future State of Rewards and Pu- nifhments did make part of the Mofaic Difpenfation,

Sect. I.

States the ^ejlion, Jhews the Adverfaries of

this Work to have much mijiaken it. — And that the true ft ate of the queftion alone is afufficient anfwer to all chjeMions^ p. i — lo.

S E C T. II.

Enters on an examination of the 'Texts brought

from the Old Teftamenr -, firft from the hook of

Job which is proved to be an allegoric Poerriy

v'ritten on the return from the Captivity^ and repre- fcnting the Circumftances of the People of that time. — The famous words, I know that my Redeemer liveth, ^^c. fhewn to fignify, in their literal fenfe,

the hopes of a temporal deliverance only, p. lo

126.

Sect. III.

Contains an examination of the reft of the Texts urged from the Old Teltament, p. 126— -161,

CONTENTS,

Sect. IV.

Contains an examination of -the 'Texts produced from the New Teftament, in which the nature of the ylpoftolic Reafonings cigainjt the Errors of Jewijh Con- verts is explained and illujirated, p. i6i — 194.

Sect. V.

The agreement of the Propofition of no future State in the Mofaic Bifpenfation, with the VIP' Article of

the Church of England evinced. That the Old

Fathers looked for more than tranfitory Promifes,

illujirated in the famous cafe of Abraham, where

it is proved that the command to offer Ifaac was merely an information, in a reprefentative Albion injlead of Words, of the Redemption of Mankind by the great Sa- crifice 0/ Christ.' Shewn how this Interpreta^

tion overturns all the infidel objections againjl the truth of this part of Abraham's hiftory, p. 194—28 1 .

Sect. VI.

Tofupport the foregoing Interpretation, The Origi- nal, Nature, and Ufe of typical Rites and se- condary Senses z;« Prophecies are inquired into.--- fn the courfe of which Inquiry, the Principles of Mr. Collinses book concerning the Grounds and Realbns of the Chriftian Religion are examined and confuted,

and likewife the Reafoning of Dr. Sykes againjl

all double Senfes of Prophecies in his book intituled. The Principles and Connexion of natural and re- vealed'Relijrion, ^c. TheUfe and Importance

of thefe ^lejlious to the fubjc^ of the Divine Lega- tion, explained. Ihe Conclusion of the argu- ment,—with a recapitulation of it, p. 281 — to the end.

THE

THE

DIVINE LEGATION

O F

MOSES

DEMONSTRATED.

* BOOK VI.

" " ' ' ■ ■ I I ■ I. . .. . ■■■ f i..,a .1 . II,,.

SECT. I.

AFTER fuch convincing evidence tliat a FUTURE STATE did not make part of the Religion of Moses, the reader would not have fufpedted, he muft once more be flopt to hear a long Anfwer to a fet of texts brought from the Old and New Teftament to prove, Thai the Doc- trine of a future ft ate of reward and puni/hment did make the moft ejfential part of the Mofaic Difpenfa- tion: and this, not by a few fanciful Allegorifts, or outrageous Bigots only, who will fay, or do any thing J but by many fober men of all Se6ls and Parties, of all Times, and of all Religions.

I. Several of the ancient Christian Writers

were fo perfuaded of this point, that not content to

Vol. V. B " %,

2 ^c Divine Legation Book VI.

fay, the doftrine of a Future ftate made part of the Mofiic Difpenfation, they would be confident that the very Pagans learnt it all from thence. Some modern Chriftians have not been behind them in their Faith^ but have far outftripped them in their Charity^ while they treated the denial of this extra- vagant Opinion as a new fpecies of infidelity. It is true, they are all extremely confufed and obfcure about the way, they reprefent it to have been taught : And there have not been wanting, at all times men of greateft eminence for parts and piety, who have not only doubted, but plainly denied this Future flate to be in the Mofaic Rehgion ; though, to be juft to all, with thf fame inconfiftency and embar- ras that the others have maintained it % However, the more current do6trine hath always been. That a future ftate of rewards and punifhments was taught by the Law of Mofes.

As furprizing as this may feem to thcfe who have weighed the foregoing Evidence, yet indeed no lefs could be expefted from fi-ich a number of concur- rent and oddly combined Prejudices, which have ferved, till now, to difcredit one of the cleareft and mofl important truths of Revelation.

I. The firft was, that feveral Patriarchs and Prophets, both before and under the Mofaic Dif- penfation, were certainly favoured with the reve-

* To give an example only in Biftiop Bull, whofe words, in a latin traft, for a future ftate's not being in the Mofaic Difpenfation I have quoted in the fourth fed^ion of this Vlth book ; yet in an Engh/h pofthumous fcrnion, he fcems to fpeak in a very different manner. — I fhould not have illullrated this ccnfure by tlie example of (o rcfpeftable a Perfon, but for the jndilcretioii of my Anfwerers, who, to fupport their own ill io^tCj have expoffd his;;jc;«/;.

6 latioa

Se£t. I, of Mo ST: 3 demt)72jirated. ^

lation of man's Redemption •, in which the doflrlne of a Future ftate is eminently contained : And they think it utterly incredible that Thele fhould noc have conveyed it to their People and Pofterity.

2. They could not conceive how a Religion could be worthy of God, which did not propofe to its Followers a Future ftate of rewards and pu- nifhments ; but confined their views to the carnal things of this life only.

3. The truth, here attempted to be eftablifhed, had been received and abufed by the Enemies of all true Religion and Godlinefs -, fuch as the Sadducees of the old Jewiih church, the Gnoftics of the old Chriftian, and Unbelievers in all ChurcheSi

4. Laftly, men were kept faft within the error into which thefe prejudices had drawn them, by never rightly diftinguifhing between a Future ftate of reward and punilhment, as taught by what men call natural Religion^ and a future ftate as taught by Chrifiian Revelation -, which is the clue, as we ftiall fee hereafter, to conduft us through all the errors and perplexities of this region of darknefs^ till we come into the full and glorious light of the Cofpel.

But in Religious matters, combinations much lefs ftrange are fufficient to defeat the credit of the plaineft Fadt. A noted inftance of what obsti- nacy alone can do againft the felf-evidence of Truth, will abate our wonder at the perverfity in queftion; at leaft it may be put to ufe, in the ^//^ tory of the human mind, towards which, will be found materials, neither vulgar nor few, in the

B a ^ €Ouri^

?4 T^^e Divine Legation Book VI.

courfe of this work. There is a fe£b, and that no inconfiderable one, which, being effentially found- ed in Enthuliafm, hath, amongft other of its ftrange freaks, thrown out the Inftitution of wa- ter-baptism from its Icheme of Chriftianity. It is very likely that the illiterate Founder, while rapt in his fanatic vifions, did not refledt that, of all the inftitutions of our holy Religion, this of .watcr-baptifiu was leail proper to be called in quef- tion j being moft invincibly eflablifhed by the practice boch of Paul and Peter. This latter finding that the houfhold of Cornelius the Gentile had received the holy Ghojl^ regarded it as a certain diredion for him to admit them into the Church of Chriil, which he did by the initiatory Rite of water-baptifm. [Afts x. 47.] Paul, in his travels through the lefler Afia, finding fome of the Jewish Converts who had never heard of the Holy Ghojlj and, on enquiry, underftanding they had been only baptifed by water unto JohrCs Baptifmy thought fit to baptife them with water in the name of the Lordjefus, that is, to admit them into the Church •, and then laying his hands upon them the Holy Ghojt came upon them, and they /pake with tongues and propheficd. [Ads xix. 4, 5, 6.]

In fpite of thefe two memorable tranfadions, the Quakers have notwithftanding rejected water- baptifm. What is the pretence ? " Water-baptifm (it lecms) is John's baptilm, and only a type of baptilm by the Holy Ghoft or by Fire ; fo that when this lafl came in ufe, the former ceafed and was abolifhed." Yet in the two hidorics given above, both thefe fancies are reproved j and in fuch a manner as \i tl\e (lories had been recorded for no other purpofe : For in the adventure of Paul, th<* ibater-baplifm ofjcfus is exprcisly diftinguifhed ^" - ^^ from

Sedl. I. of Moses demonJl7'ated, ^.

from the water-haptifm of John : And, in that of Peter, it appears, that water-bapifm was neceflary for admittance into the church of Chrift, even af- ter the miniftration of baptifm by fire ^ or the coin- municated power of the Holy Ghoft. It is further obfervable, that thefe two Heads of the Mifiion to the two great divifions of Mankind, the Jews and Gentiles, here aded in one another's pro- vince J Peter the Apoftle of the Jews adminifter- ing baptifm to the gentile houlhold of Cornelius; and Paul the Apoltle of the Gentiles, adminifter- ing the fame rite to the Jewilh Converts. And why v/as this croiTing of hands but to obviate that filly evafion, that water-baptifm was only partial or temporary.

But what is reafon, evidence, or truth, when cppofed to religious Prejudice ! The Qtiakers do not hold it to be clearer, that repentance from dead works is neceifary for obtaining the fpiritual benefits of the Gofpel-Covenanr, than that water -bap- tism is aboliflied, and of no ufe to initiate into the Church of Chrift.

IT. But to proceed. The error in queftion is, as' we faid, not confined to the Chriftian Church. The Jews too maintain it with equal obftinacy, but not with equal indifcretion •, the Children of this world are^ in their generation^ wifer than the Chil- dren of light *'; their fatal adherence to their long abolifhed Rites depending altogether upon this fingle prejudice, that Mofes taught a future ftate of rewards and punifhments : for if he taught it not, the confequence is inevitable, his Religion could hs only preparatory to one that did teach it.

^ Lt'ke xvi. 8.

B 2 This

6 T/je Divine Legation Book VI.

This therefore is their great fupport ; and wifely have they inforced it by all the authority and power of the Synagogue \ But what Chriftians gam by fo doing, I confefs I know not. What they lole hath been feen in part, and will be more fqlly fhewn hereafter : not one demonftration only, of the truth of the Mofaic Miflion, but all true conception of that divine harmony which infpires every part, and runs through the whole of God*s great Difpenfation to Mankind.

III. The error is ftill more extenfive ; and hath fpread from true Religion to the falfe -, a litter foil for its reception. For the Mahometans, who hold the divine original of the Jewifh Law, are as obftinate as t|ie bed, in giving it this miftaken advantage : but, it mull be owned, under a modeller pretext. Their expedient for faving the honour of the Law is this : They confefs the Dodrine of a future ftate is not at prefent to be found there :

^UT THOUGH IT BE NOT THERE, IT OUGHT TO BE ^

for that the Jews, in pure fpite to them, have in- terpolated their Bible, and taken away all mention cfit'.

Matters being in this odd fituation, the reader will excufe me, if I turn a little to confider thofe

* See the Dedi-.ation to the Third Vplumc,

** Taouraf — Les Mufiilmans difent, que c'eft I'ancicn Tefta- jnent que Dieu revela a. Moyfe ecrit en langue Hebra'ique, livre qui a (ite altere & corrunipu par le> Juifs. r-C'ell la le fenti- ;rent aes Mufulmans qui a etc recueilli de plufieurs auteurs ^rabes par Hagi Kha(fnb. Le meme aiiteur dit — que Ton n'y trouve pas aufli aucun endroit ou il foit paric de I'autre vie, j)! de la Refurrtdtion, ni du Paradis, ni de I'Enfer, k que cela vient peut etre de cc que les fuifs out corrompu Iturs exem- plairs. — Fcyex. la Bibhotl^que Orientqie de M. D'Herb'elcty Mot. Xaooar r.

texts

Sedt. I. ^ M OS E s demonjlrated. *f

texts of Scripture which Christian writers have produced to prove, 'That a future jiate of rewards and punifhments does indeed make part of the Mofaic Religion,

II.

But here let me obferve, that the thing of moft confequence in this part of my difcourfe will be to ftate the queftion clearly and plainly. When that is done, every common reader will be able, without my help, to remove the objedtions to my Syftem ; or rather, the queftion being thus truly ftated, they will fall of themfelves.

I. My declared purpofe, in this Work % is to demonftrate />^^ Divine Legation 0/ Moses, in order to ufe it for the foundation of a projected defence of Revelation in general, as the Difpenfation is compleated in Chriftanity. The medium I employ for this purpofe is, that there was no future fiate of reward a?id punifhment in the Mofaic Religion. I muft needs therefore go upon thefe two principles : I. That Mofes did not difhelieve a future fiate of re- ward and punifJoment. 2 . That his Religion was pre- paratory to the Religion of Jesus 'ijuhich taught fuch future fiate. Hence proceed thefe confe- quences ;

I. From my holding that Mofes did not difhelieve a future flate^ it follows, that all thofe texts of Scripture which are bought to prove that the aneient Jews believed the foul furvived the body^ are nothing to the purpofe : but do, on the contrary, greatly confirm my Thefis : for which reafon I have myfelf

* See the Appendix to the firll edit, of the /Alliance hetnueen Church and State,

B 4 Ihewn

S ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

ihewn that the early Jews did indeed fuppofc this truth. ^^

2. From my holding that the Religion of Mofes was only preparatory to the Religion of Jesus, it follows, that all fuch texts, as imply a Future fiate of rewards and punijhments in their typical, fjcrni^ fication^ only, a-e jtac as little to the purpofe. For if Mofes's Religion was preparatory to one Future, it is, as I fnave (hewn '", highly realonable tofuppofe, that the eflential doftrineof that New Religion was fhadowed out under the Rites, or by the^infpired penmen, of the Old. But fuch texts are not only in- concl.ufive, but highly corroborative of the opinion they are brought to oppofe. For if future rewards and punifhments were taught to the People under the Law, what occafion was there for any typical r^prefentation of them,' which neceflariiy implies the throwing thii3gs, into Ihade, and f^^cretino- them from vulgar knowledge? What ground was there for that dlflinaion h-tween a carnal and a fpintual meaning (ooth of which it is agreed the Mofaic Law had, in order to fit it for the ufe of twoDifpenfations) if it did not imply an ignorance ot the fpiritual fenf.; during the continuanlieof the firft ? Yet as clear as this is, the contrary is the doanne of my Adverfaries ; who feem to think that the^/>7/«^/and the carnal \tx\k. muft needs al- ways go together, like the jewel and the foil in Aaron's breaft-plate.

Both thefe forts of texts, therefore, conclude only agamft Sadducees and Intfidels. Yet hath this matter been fo little attended to, in the judgments pait upon my argument, that both forts have been

' See the M fed. of this vol.

2 urged

Scifl. I. of Moses demonflrated, g

urged as confutations of it. I fpeak not here of the dirty calumnies of one or two forgotten fcrib- lers, but of the unequitable cenfures of fome who better deferve to be let right.

II. But farther. As my pofition is, ihat a Fu- turejlate of reward and puntjioment was not taught in the Mofaic Difpenfatmi, all texts brouo-ht to prove the knowledge of it after the time of David are as impertinent as the reft. For what was known from this rime, could not fupply the want of what was unknown for fo many ages before. This therefore puts all the prophetic Writino-s out of thequeftion.

And now, when all thefe Texts are taken from my Adverfaries, what is there left, to keep up the quarrel ? Should I be fo fevere to infift on the corn-* mon rights of Authors, of not being obliged to an-* fwerto convi6l impertinencies, this part of my talk would be foon over. But I fliall, in charity, con- fider thefe Texts, fuch as they are. However that I may not appear altogether fo abfurd as the In- forcersof them, I (hall give the reader my reafons for this condefcenfion.

1. As to the FUTURE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL,'

we Ihould diilinguilli between the mention of it by Mofes, and by the following Writers. Thefe might, and, as we have fnewn, did conclude for its exiftence from the nature of the thing. But Mofes, who, we fuppofe, intentionally omitted the mention oi Future rewards and puniflments^ would not, we muft needs fuppofe likewife, proclaim the preparatory do6lrine of the Exiftence. Nor could he, on the other hand, deny what he knew to be

the

10 ^je Brohte Legation Book VI.

the truth. Thus, being neceflitated to fpeak of Enoch's ^ranjlation^ it could not be, but that a y^- ' ^arate exijievce might be inferred, how obfcurely foever the llory was delivered. But had he faid any thifig, in his account of the Creation, which literally implied (as the words, of man's being made in the image of God, and the breath of life beino- breathed into his noftrils, are fuppoled to do) tha^ man had an immortal foul, then muft Mofes be fuppofed, purpofeiy, to have inculcated that Im- mortality; contrary to what we hold, that he pur- pofeiy omitted the dodrine built upon it, namely a future ftate of reward and punifhment. It will not be improper therefore to fhew that fuch texts "have not this pretended meaning.

2. Concerning a future state of rewarij^ AND PUNISHMENT ; fcveral texts are brought as teaching it in a typical f erf e, which teach it°in no fenfe at alF : feyeral as teaching it in a dired and literal knic, which only teach it in a typical. Both thefe, therefore, it may be proper to fet in a true light.

3. Laflly, concerning the texts from the later Prophets, which are without the period in queftion ; I own, and it is even incumbent on my Argument to prove, that thefe Prophets opened the firft dawn-' ing of the doftrine of a Refurre5Iiofi, and confe- quently of a Future ftate of rezvard and punifhment : even thefe therefore Ihall in their proper place be carefully confidered. At prefentlet mejuftobferve, that the dark veil under which th^ firft fet of Pro- phets delivered their typical rcprefentations was gradually drawn afide by the later.

SECT,

Sed. 2. of Mo sES demonjirated, 1 1

S E C T. II.

HAVING premifed thus much to clear the way, and ftiorten the inquiry, I now pro- igeed to my examination,

And firft, of the texts brought from the Old

Testament.

Now as the book of Job ^ is fuppofed to teach both a SEPARATE EXISTENCE and a future state

OF

g Job's Life, by means of the Devil and his falfe Friends, was an exercife of his Patience; and his Wjlory, by means of Criticifm and his Commentators, has fmce been an exercife of ours. I am far from thinking myfelf unconcerned in this mif- chief ; for by a foolilh attempt to fupport his Name and Cha- rafler, I have been the occafion of bringing down whole bands of hoftile Critics upon him, who like the Sabeam and Chaldeans of old, foon reduced him back to his Dunghill. Some came armed in Latin, fome in Englilh, and fome in the language of JBillingfgate. Moft of them were profefTedly written againft me ; but all, in reality, bear hardeft on the good old Patriarch.

However, tho' I am, as I faid, to be reckoned, along with thefe, amongft Job's Perfecutors ; yet I have this to fay for my- jfelf, that the vexation I gave him was foon over. If I fcribbled ten pages on his back, my Adverfaries and his, have made lovg furro'ws and fcribbled ten thoufand. Now, tho* amongft all thefe, Job found no favour, yet by ill-hap my Syftem did: But to whom I am moft obliged, whether to thofe who attacked it, or to thofe who efpoufed it, is not eafy to fay : for, by a lingular event, the Aflailants have left me in pofleffion of all its fupports, and the Defenders have taken them all away * : the better, 1 prefume, to fit it to their own ufe. Learned Natura- lifts tell us of a certain Animal in the watery wafte, which, for I know not what conceit, they call Bernard the Hermit ; and which, in courtefy, they rank with the teftaceous tribe, tho* l^ature (fo bountiful to the reft of its kind) hath given This no habitation of its own, but fent it naked and unhoufed into

• See Mr. G's, difgourfes on the book of Job.

/ '^ the

ir^ 77je Divine Legation Book VI*-

OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT; and is befidcs thought by fome to be the firftof Moles's writings; ^nd by others to be written even before his time, and by the Patriarch himlclf, I fhall give it the pre- cedence in this inquiry : which it delerves likewife on another account, the fupericr evidence it bears to the point in queflion ; if indeed it bear any evi- clence at all. For it may be faid by thofe who thus., hold it to be the earliell Scripture (allowino- the •virord?, oijob^ IkWiV that my Redeemer liveth^ &c, to.relp^d a future flat'.) that the Jewifh people ^ult hot only have had the knowledge of a fu- ture STATE cf rewards and puniJJments, but, what iS; morCj of the resurrection of the body\ and ihiU more, of the redemption of mankind by the Son cf God : therefore Mofes had no need to incul- cate the dodrine of a future ftate ''. But I much fufpeft that the clear knowledge of fo fublime a myftery, which St. Paul fays, had been hid from diges, and from generations^ but was now (on the preaching of the Gofpel) made manifefito the Saints', was not at all fuited to the times of Job or Mofes. The learned anci impartial Divine will perhaps be rather inclined to think, that either the book of Job was written in a much later age, or that this

the world. In recompence, fhe has enabled it to figure amongft the beft of its tribe : for, by a noble endowment of inJhnd, it 13 taught to make its way into the bell: accommodated, and beft ornamented fliells of its brethren ; which it either finds empty, or foon makes fo, to fit them up for its own eafe and convenience.

^ But if the reader would fee the abfurdlty of fuppofing the book of Job to be written thus early, and at the fame time, to teach the refurrei^ion and a future ftate, expofed at large, he may read the 3d chapter o{ The free and candid examittation of the 3/ SHOP of LcndoHi P.rnf civics,

» Col. i. 26.

famous

Se^l. 2. of Moses demonjl rated* XJ

famous paflage has a very different meaning, rfc fhall endeavour to fhew, that neither of thefe fufpt^ cions would be entertained witiiout reafon.

I.

Firft then concerning the book itfelf.

As to the Perfon of Jph^ the eminence of his Charader, his fortitude and patience in affliftions, and his preceding and fubfequent felicity, thefe are realities fo unqueflionable, that a man muil have fet afide facred Antiquity before he can admit a doubt concerning them. But that the book which bears Job's name was written by him, or in any age near his own, a careful and capable examiner will, I perfuade myfelf, be hardly brought to believe.

In the order of this difcourfe therefore I fliall in- quire.

I. What kind of Compofition the book of Job really is.

II. In what Age it was written. And,

III. Who was its Author.

I.

Even thofe who are inclined to fuppofe this a Work of the higheft Antiquity, and to believe it afl exadl hiflory of Job's fjfferings and patience, and of God's extraordinary difpenfations towards him, recorded by his own hand, arc yet forced to confefs that the Introduction and Conclufion are of anotljer nature, and added, by a later hand, to t9i\t give

t4 ^^ Divine Legation Book Vt.

give that fulnefs and integrity to the Piece, which works of imagination, and only fuch works, re- quire. This is a large concelTion, and plainly in- timates that he who wrote the Prologue and Epi- logue, either himfelf believed the body of the work to be a kind of dramatic Compofition •, or, at leaft, intended that others Ihonld have that opinion of it, I fhall therefore the lefs fcruplq to efpoufe the notion of thofe who conclude the whole to be DRAMATICAL. Fot the transferring the Prologue and Epilogue to a late writer was only an expedient to get rid of a circumftance which (hewed it to be fuch a fort of work -, and which confequently might bring it down to an age remote from that of the fubje(5l. But thofe who contrived this expe- dient feem tohave had but a (lender idea of the an- cient Drama, which was generally rounded with a Prologue and Epilogue of this fort •, to give, by way of narrative, information of fuch fafts as fell not within the compafs of the one entire Aftion repre- fented\

I am induced to embrace this opinion from the caft of the STYLE, the sentiments, and composi- tion ; all perfectly fuited to fuch a kind of Work, and ill agreeing with any other.

I. As to the Style, it hath been obferved by the Critics, even from the time of Jerom, that all

^ Calmet makes the following obfcrvation, in his comment on the ill verfe of chap, xxxviii. L'Ecrivain dc cct Ouvrnge a obferve de ne point employer ce nom de Jehovah dans les dif- cours direfls qu'il fait tenir a Job & a fcs Amis: mais dans leS recits qui font au commencement, et a la fin du Livre, il ufe de ce terme, comme font d' ordinaire les Ecrivains Hebreux. Ce qui dtmoiitre que 1' Ouvrage a etc ecrit par un Juif, et depwis Moyfe; puifque ce nom incommunicable nc fut connu que d*- puis r apparition du Bui/Fon ardent.

Setft. 2. of Moses demonflratsd. i^

but. the introdudlion and conclufion is in meafure. But as it was thecuftom ot Antiquity to write their graved works of Religion, Law, and Hiftory, in verfe, this circumilance alone fhould, I think have little fliare in determining the nature of the Compofition. And as little, I think, on the other hand, ought the frequent ufe of the arabic dialed: to be infifted on, in fupport of its high oricrinal fince, if it be of the nature^ and of the date^ here fuppofcd, an able writer would chufe to give his Fable that air of antiquity and verifimihtude.

2 . But when we take xht fentiments along,and find throughout the whole, not only verfe but poetry, a poetry animated by all the fublimity of figures .and luxuriance of defcription -, and this, on the cooleft and moft abftrafled fubjed; we cannot chufe but conclude it to be a work of imagination. Nor is it fufficient to fay, that this is owing to an eaftern genius, v/hofe kindling fancy heats ^11 his thoughts into a glow of expreffion : for if the two ends be his who wrote the middle, as we have no reafon to doubt, they fhew him not unufed to the plaineft form of narration. And as to that eaftern genius itfelf, though dillinguiihingly fub- lime when a poetic fubje6l has enflamed its enthu- •fiafm, yet in mere hiilory, nothing can be more cool and fimple-, as all acquainted either with their ancient or modern writers can inform us. But, what is more to our purpofe, the facred Prophets themfelves, tho* wrapt in ecftafy of the divine im- prefiions, when treating of the queftion here de- bated, namely, Whether and wherefore the Good are frequently unhappy and the Bad profperous, a qucf- tion that came fometimes in their way, while they were reproving their impious and impatient coun- trymen, who by their repeated apoftafies had now

provokedi

1 6 The Divine Legation Book VI.

provoked God to withdraw from them, by degrees, his extraordinary providence j when, I luy, they touch upon this queftion, they treat the matter with the utmoft piainnefs and fimplicity.

3. But the laft and moll convincing circum- {tance is the form of the compofition. And here I fhal! not urge, as of much weight, what hath been obferved by fome who take this fide of the queHion, the fcenical image of Job and his friends fitting together on the ground feven days and feven nig! its without a word fpeaking '. Becaufe we reafonably fuppofe no more to be meant than that excefsof mutual grief making them unfit to give, and him to receive conlolation, they were fome days "" before they entered on the fubjedt of their vifit.

This rather is the thing to be admired, (if we fuppofe it all hiftoric truth) that three cordial friends fhould make a folemn appointment to go mourn with Job and to comfort him " ; that they Ihould be fo greatly affeded with his extreme dif- treffes, as to be unable to utter a word for feven whole days together •, and yet, after this, to be no fooner fet in, than inrirely to forget their errand, and (miferable comforters as they were) inftead of mourning with him in the bitternefs of his foul, to wrangle, and contradi6t him in every word he fpoke ; and this v/ithout the leaft loftening of

* Chap, ii, 13.

•" — Eo quod ITclirsei foleant multiplicarc ^zx ftp tern (h. e. feptenarium numerum pro inulliludinc poneie) Maimun. More nivochim, p. 267,

■ Chap. ii. 11.

Friendfhip j

&eft. 2; of Moses demonftrated. iy

Friendfhip 5 but with all the fiercenefs and aeri- if-nony of angry Difputants contending for a viftory* It was no trifle neither that they infifted on, in which indeed difputatious men are often the warm- eft, but a contradiftion in the tendereft point. They would needs have it, againft all Job's pro- teftations to the contrary, that his misfortunes came upon him in punifhment for his crimesi Suppofe their Friend had been wrong in the judg- ment he pafTed on things. Was this a time to ani- madvert in fo pitilefs a manner on his errors ? "Would not a fmall fhare of afFeclion, pity, or even common humanity, have difpofed them to bear one /even ^^jj longer with their old diftrefled Acquaintance ? Human nature is ever uniform ; and the greater paflions, luch as thofe of friend- Ihip and natural affeftion, Ihew themfelves to be the fame at all times : But we have an inftance in thefe very times, in that amiable domeftic ftory of Jofeph. This Patriarch had been cruelly injured by his brethren. Providence at length put them into his power ; and, in juft refentment of their in<- hurnan ufage, he thought fit to mortify and humble them : but no fooner did he find them begin to be unhappy, than his anger fubfided, violated affeflion returned, and he melted into their bolbms with all the tendernefs of a fellow- fufferer. This was Nature : This was Hiftory. And fhall we fuppofe the feelings of true Friend- fhip to be inferior to thofe of Family-afl^eflion ? David thought otherwife^ where, fpeaking of Jo-* iiathan, he declares their mutual love was wonder- ful, furpafllng that of the ftrongeft natural affec- tion, the palTion between the two lexes. The fame have always been the Frieridfhips of good men, when founded on virtue, and ftrengthened^ by a fimilitude of manners.

Vol. V. C: So

l8 T^he Divine Legatioji BookVI.

So that it appears, thefe three friends were of a fino-ular complexion •, and defervedly gave occafion to a proverb which lets them in no very honour- able or advantageous light.

But fuppofe now the work to be dramatical^ and we immediately lee the reafon of their behaviour. For had they not *been indulged in their ftrange captious humour, the Author could never have produced a piece of that integrity of aftion, which a fcenic reprefentation demanded : and they might as well have held their tongue feven days longer, as not contradift, when they did begin to

ipeak". ^ This,

*> The Cornifli Critic thinks otherwife, " Thefe falfe friends, «* (fays he) are defcribed as having io much fellow feeling of *' lob's fufferings that they fit with hini feven days and nights *' upon the ground without being able to fpcak to him. If «' this be the dramatic way of reprefenting falfe friends, how *' (hall we know the falfe from the true?" p. 19. Sempronius, in the Play of Cato, is all along warmer than even Gato him- felf in the caufe of liberty and Rome. If this h the dramatic ivay of reprefenting^ falfe patriot (m?y our Critic fay) hoiM Jhall nve knoiv the falfe from the true ? 1 anfwer, by obferving him with his mafic off. And do not Job's falfe friends unmafk them- felves, when they fo cruelly load their fuffering Acquaintance with the moll injurious reflexions? Indeed the Critic dcferve* our pity, who cannot fee that the formal circumftance of fmng flctit fe-ven Jays was a dramatic embellifhment in the eallern manner : The not knowing that the number/ir;; was a facred number amongft the Jews, may indeed, be more exxufable. — But he goes on, " 1 have been often llruck with furprifc to fee •♦ him [the author of the D. L.] very eameftly endeavouring *♦ to fupport his allegorical interpretation of the book of Job by •' arguments drawn from the contradidion^, which he fanciet *' he*" has there efpied, to the truth of the hiflory or tradition " upon which his allegory is built. Than which, in my appre- " henfion, there can fcarce be a greater abfurdity. 1 would dc- *' fire him to confider attentively the allegorical ode in Horace, *' O TMi'is, referent, &c. that tho' every thing therein may be

*' accommodated

Sedl. t, o/' M o s E s demonjirated, 19

This, as to what the 'Drama in general required. But had this been all we eould fay for their con-

ductj

** accommodated to a republic, yet it is true in ihe Jite^I or ** primary fenfe only of a fhip, and that there is not one fmgle *' ftroke in it that can be underftood of a republic and not of ** a fhip J and this might fhew him his miftaiie in applying ** paflages in the book of Job to the Jewiih People, merelv '* becaufe they caiinot be underftood of Job: which is direftly " annihilating the allegory he would eftablifii. For it is as ** plain that in an allegory two things or perfons muji be con- " cerned as that two and two mull go to make four." p. 99, 100. — The inrdeiice, the fraud, the nonfenfe of this paffage ia as much without example as it was without provocation. — 1 de- iire to underftand, by what other means, except by revelation^ an allegorical writing can be known to be allegorical, but by circumrtances in it which cannot be reconciled to the ftory Qt fable which ferveS both for a cover and vehicle to the moral ? And yet this man tells us that to attempt to prove the nature of ia writing to be allegorical from this circumftance is one of the greatefl ahfurdities. When the allegory is of fame length, and takes in the life arid adventures of a certain perfon, it can fcarce be otherwife but that fome circumilances in it muft be varied from the faft, to adapt it to the moral. In a fhorter, whertt the objeft is rtior^ iimple, there may be no need for any varia- tion. And this fliews the difingenuity of this man, in bringing the ode Of Horace into comparifon. For which tod, the little he knows, he is indebted to the author of the JO. h. And how little that is we fhall how fee.

In the firll place, I have fnewn this Ode not to be of the tiatnre of an allegory, where the ftory is only the cover and vehicle to the moral : bUt of the nature of a relation contain- ing a double fenfe, primarily and fecondarily : in which an in* formation is conveyed in both fenfes : confequCntly there ought not to be a fi"gle Jiroke in it that can be uvderfood of a republic Sand not of a fhip : But this is a fpfecies of writing entirely di- ftindt from the allegory in queftion ; fo that the urging it was impertinent : and the follov/ing obfervation is made with his ufual infolence ;' — tbis might fjeiv him his miftake in applying pafjixges of the hook of Job to the Je-wip People MERELY becauft they cannot be underfeed of fob I but not with infolence only, but with fraud : For I do not apply paflages in the book of job, MERELY for this reafon ; no nor principally j but only a» •ne of many reafons.

C a However,

20 • The Divine Legation Book VI.

du6b, we (hould needs confefs that the divine Wri- ter had here done, what mere mortal Poets fo fre- quently

However, contending for fuch diTcordant circuitiftances in the vehicle-ftory, he fays, is direflly annihilating the allegory. Now I underftood it was the eftabliftiing it ; as it is the only means of getting to the knowledge of its being an allegory. He goes on, — For it is as plain that in an alleg^ory t-ivo things or ferfons fKuft be concerned, as that tnx,o and tixo muji go to make four. What he means by this jargon of tijoo's being concerned^ I know not. If he means that the fable and the moral mufl: go to the making up the allegory, no body will difpute it with him. But if he means, that all the perfonages in \}nQ fable muft have all the qualities, attributes, and adventures of the perfonages in the moral, all ^fop's fables will confute this profound reafoner on allegories. However fomething, to be fure, he did mean: He had a notion, I fappofe, that there was a right and wrong in every thing : he only wanted to know where they lie : Therefore to make thefe curfory notes as ufefui as I can, I will endeavour to explain his meaning. It is certain then, that tho' the juftiee of allegoric writing does not require that the fafts in the fable do in reality correfpond exadlly with the fafls in the moral, yet the truth of things requires lYic pojjibility of their fo correfpond- ing. Thus, tho' the Afs perhaps never aftually covered himfelf with a Lion's &in, and was betrayed by his long ears, as yEfop relates, yet we have an example before us, fufficienc to convince us that he might have done fo, without much expence of in- llinft. But when Dryden made his Hind and Panther difpute about the dodlrine and difcipline of particular Churches; as thev never poffibly could have done fo, this (to take his own words, inftead of better) // direSily annihilating the allegory he twould efiablijh ; for it is as plain that in an allegory tnvo things or perfons muJl he concerned^ as that tivo and tijuo muJl go to make four. But 1 fancy I afcribe more to his fagacity than it de- ferves, in fuppofing, that he underftood, what kind of allegory the book of job muil needs be, if it be any allegory at all. I now begin to fufpedt he took it to be of the fame kind with the Ode of Horace, not indeed becaufe he compares it to that Ode ; for fuch kind of Writers are accuftomed to make, as the Poet fays, comparifons un'ike ; but becaufe this fufpicion may give fome light to his cloudy obfervation, that tino things or perfons mitjl be concerned : For in that fort of allegory, which is of the nature of a relation containing a double fenfe primarily and. fccondarily, every thing faid mult agree exadly both to the pri-. mary and to the fecondary fubjedt. Which perhaps is what

thi$

Se(£t. 2. c/* Moses 4emonflrated. 21

quently doj that is, had -traqfgrefTed nature (in fuch a reprefentation of friendlliip) for the fake of his Plot. But we fliall fhew, when we come to ex- amine the MORAL of the poem, that nature is ex^ aftly followed : for that under thefe three jniferable Comforters^ how true friends foever in the Fable^ certain falfe friends were intended to be fhadowed out in the Aff^r^/''.

But now the difpute is begun and carried on with great vehemence on both fides. They affirm,

this man meana by his clumfy precept, of /oua things or perfons concerned. The reafon of this diftinftion, in thefe two forts of allegory, is this, — In that fort of allegosy which is of the nature of the book of Job, or of the apologue, the cover has vo moral import : But in that fort which is of the nature of a

KARRATIVE WITH A DOVBLE SENSE, Xh% QQ\^t bat a morol

import.

P To this, the Cornifh Critic, — <* What a happy way is ^' here of reconciling contradidions ! It feems truth may be- *' come fallhood, if it be neceffary to fupport the allegory. The *' moral and the fable may difagree as widely as you pleafe, *' and the conclufion by a new fort of logic have fomething in

*' it very different from the premifles." p. 19. If his kind

Reader knows what to make of this jargon of truth becoming faljhood and the conclufion hawng more in it than the piemijfes, he may take it for his pains. All that the Author of the D. L. aflerts to be here done, and which may be done according to nature and good fenfe, is no mofe than this, that a dramatic Writer, when he fetches his fubje^ from Hiftoi:y, may alter cer- tain of the circumflances, to fit it to his Plot ; which all dra- matic Writers, antient and modern, have done. Much morj reafojiable is this liberty, where the work is not only dramatic but allegorical. Now 1 will fuppofe, that, together with Job's patience under the hand of God, tradition had brought down an account of his further fufferings under the uncharitable cenfur? of three friends : Was not the Makej; of this allegoric work at liberty, for the better carrying on his purpofe, to reprefent them z.% falfe ones. Yet, this liberty, our wonderful Critic calls reconciling contradidions, making truth become faifhood, and I can't ;sU what nonfenfe befides, of premijjet and conduftons,

C a they

22 The Divine Legation Book VI.

they objeft, they anfwer, they reply -, till, having cxhaufled their whole flock of arguments, and made the niatter more doubtful than they found it, the Author, in this embaras, has recourfe to the common expedient of dramatic writers, to draw him from his ftraits,— ©to? aVo /A5?;^av»!?. And if ever that precept of the mafters of compofition,

l^ec Deus inter/it y nlji dignus Vindice nodus,

was well followed, it was here. For what can we conceive more worthy the prefence of a God than to interfere with his Authority, to filence thofe fri- volous or impious difputes amongft men concern- ing the MYSTERIOUS WAVS OF Provjdence ? And that this interpofition was nothing more, I think, is evident from hence : The fiibjeft, as we ob^ ferve, was of the higheft importance, namely. Whether^ and wby^ good men are unhappy, and the evil profpercus ? The difputants had much perplex- ed the queftion by various anfwers and replies ; in which each fide had appealed to reafon and expe- rience ; fo that there wanted a fuperior Wifdom to moderate and determine. But, to the furprife of all who confider this attentively, and confider it as a ftrift Hiftory, they find God introduced to do this in a fpeech which clears up no difficulties; but makes all hopes of deciding the queftion def- perate, by an appeal to his Almighty power''. A

plain

t jSJamcnides having given a fummary of the difpute, draws this inference from it: Vi-^e ^ perpende, qua ratione hoc nego- t'tum (onfufos reddiderit homines, (Sf ad fententias iUas de fro-vi' dentin Dei ergo, creaturas quas expofuimus fermo'verii. Yet, when he comes toipepk of the folution of thcfe difficulties, he could find none. But not to fay nothing, (the thing moft dreaded by Commentators) he pretends to <^i(covcr, from the cbfcurity in Vv'hich things are left, the trae fcope of ihc book of Job ; Hie

fttit

Scd. 2 . c/ M o s E s demonjlrafed. 2 3

plain proof that the Interpofition was no more than a piece of poetical Machinery. And in that cafe we fee thereafon why the knot remains untied : for the facred Writer was no wifer [ when he fpoke

poeti-f

fuit fcoptts tofiui lihri Johi, ut fdlicet conftituaiur hie orticulus fidei, i^ doceatur, a rebus naturalibus difctndum e]je, ut tion er- remus, cut cogitemui fcientiam ejus [Dei fc] ila/e habere ut/cw.- tiam nojiram ; intent ionem, pronjidentiam, ^ gubernationem ejus^ Jicut intentionem, providentiamy & gtibernationem nofram, Mor,; Kev. p. 3. c. xxiii,

•■ Here Dr. Grey exclaims — " How, Sir, tie nvifer ? Is God ** introduced to unfold the myilerious ways of his Providence, " and yet the knot is left untied, becaufe the Writer, though «' fpeaking in the perfon of God, and by his infpiration, was <' not lui/e enouih to untie it? Is that afpeech to the purpofe, *' which in a Controverfy, as you will have it, where the dif- " putants have much perplexed the queftion, and a fuperior «* Wifdom -vjas nvanted to determine it, clears up no difficulties ? ** Or is it language fit to be made ufe of, when fpeaking of " a book diftated by the fpirit of God, that the writer of it *' has recourfe to the common expedient of dramatic writers «' to help him out of his ftraits ?" Jnfwer to remarks, p. 125. Softly, good Doflor 1 In determining a difpute concerning the ways of Providence, though God himfelf had indeed interpofed, we can conceive but two ways of doing it: The one to satisfy us, by explaining the end and means of that Providence, where the explanation is ufeful to us, and adequate to our capacities : The other, to silence us, by an argument to our modefty, drawn from the incomprehenfible nature and government of the Deity, where an explanation is not ufeful to us, and inadequate to our capacities. Both thefe Determinations, the one by expla" nation, the other by authority, attended by their refpeftive cir- cumftances, are equally reafonable : and the laft is here employed for the reafon hinted at, to put an end to this embarrafled difpute. Let this ferve in anfwer to the Dodlor's queftion, Is that afpeech (0 the purpofe, i^hich in a contro'verfy nvhire the difputants haijt much perplexed the quejiion, and a fuperior 'wifdom, ix:as ivanted ia. determine it, clears up no difficulties ?

Indeed, though there was no untying the knot, there was a way to cut it, which would have done full as well ; and that v/as by revealing the doftrine of a future Itate. Why it was

^4 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI,

poetically in the Perfon of God, than when he fpoke in the perfon of Job or his friends.

On thefe accounts, and on many more, which will be touched upon in the courfe of this differtation, byt are here omitted to avoid repetition, I con- clude, that thofe Critics who fuppofe the book of Job to be of the dramatic kind do not judge amifs.

Nor does fuchidea of this truly divine Compofi- tion at all detract from the proofs we have of the real exiftence of this holy Patriarch, or of the truth of his exemplary Story. On the contrary, it much confirms them : feeing it was the general pradlice of dramatic Writers, of the ferious kind, to chufe an illuftrious Charadler or celebrated Ad- pot done, I leave the learned Critic an^ all in his fentiments, to give us feme good account, fince they are not difpofed to receive that which the Author cf the D. L. has given. For this Dodor tells us, it is but /mall comfort that anfes from refolmng all into fuhmffion to the almighty pcnver of God. p. 107. St. Paul indeed 'tells us, it is the greateft comfort, as well as wifdom, to refolve all into fubmiffion to the almipbty pouoer of God. — But Dodlors differ.

From the m a-^ter of the D. L. the Doftor proceeds (as we fee) to the language. — L it language ft to be made i-f of iih,nf ecik:>ig cf n book di^cted by thefpjrit of God? — The lan- guage hinted at, I fuppofe is what he had quoted above, that the facred iK-Titer mas no 11 ifer -v. hen he/poke poetically in the perfon cf GoJ, &c. J think it ni unfit, and for thefe reafons j a Prophet fpeaking or writing by infpiration, is juft fo far and no further cnl'g'.tcned thnn fuits the purpofe of his Miflion. Now the flearing up the ipyrterious ways of Providence being referved amongit the arcana of the Deity, a Prophet (tho' employed to end the foolifh and hurtful difputes about it, among(t men, by an appeal t) the incomprehenfible nature of the Deity) wriS certain!)', when he made this appeal in the perfon of God, no ivifer \\\ the knowledge of this arcanum, than ^vjhen he fpoke in the ferjan of Job ot his friends.

Venture

Sed. 2. c/" M o s E s demonjlrated, 2?

venture for the fubjed of the Piece, in order to o ive their poem its due dignity and weight. And yet, which is very furprifing, the Writers on both fides[ as well thofe who fuppofe the Book of Job to be dramatical, as thofe who hold it to be hillorical, have fallen into this paralogifm, That^ if dramati- cal, then the Perfon and Htjiory of Job are fi£litious. Which nothing but inattention to the nature of a dramatic Work, and to the pradice of dramatic Writers, could have occafioned. Ladantius had a much better idea of this fpecjes of compofition.

• Totum autem, quod referas, fingere, id ell,

ineptum efle, et Mendacem potius quam Poetam. '

But this fallacy is not of late (landing. Mai- monides, where he fpeaks of thofe whofe opinion he feems to incline to, that fays the book of Job is parabolical, expreffes himfelf in this manner ». Ton know, there are certain men who fay, that fuck 41 man as Job never exified. And that his nisi: oky is nothing elfe kit a parable. Thefe certain men were (we know) the Talmudifls. Now, as, by his Hif- tory, he means this book of Job, it is evident he fuppofed the fabulofity of the book concluded againft the exiftence of 'the Patriarch. Nay, fo in- fenfibly does this inveterate fallacy infmuate itfelf into our reafonings on this fubjed, that even Gro- Tius himfelf appears not to be quite free from the entanglement. Who, although he faw thefe two things, (a real Job and a dramatic reprefentatioq of him) fo reconcileable, that he fuppofed both ; yet will not allow the book of Job to be later than

» N6JIi quo/Jam ejfe, qui dicunt Jobum nunquam fuijfe, ntque cr eat urn ej/i i fed histqriam illitis nihil aliud ejjt quam Pa" \abolam, -^ *

pzekiel.

26 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

Ezekiel, becaufe that Prophet mentions Job*. "Which argument, to have any flrength, muft fup- pofe Job to be unknown until this Book was writ- ten ; confequently that his Perfon was fiditious i contrary to his own fuppofition, that there was a real Job Hving in the time of Mofes ". After this, it is no wonder, that the Author of the Archaologia Philofophide, whofe talent was not critical acumen, Should have reafoned fo grofly on the fame fallacious principle *. Thefe learned men, we fee, would infer a vifionary Job from a vifionary Hiftory, Nor is the miftake of another celebrated Writer lefs grofs, who would, on the contrary, infer a real hiftory from a real Job. Ezekiel and St. James (fays Dr. Middleton, in his effay on the Creation and Fall of Man) refer to the book of Job in the fame manner as if it were a real hifiory. Where- as the truth is, they do not refer to the boo^ oh Job at all.

* Chap. xiv. ver. 14, " Vid. Grotii ?raf. in Lihrum

* This Writer endeavouring to prove the high age of Johy or of the Book of Job, for thefe two things, after better reafoners, he all along confounds, clofes his arguments in this manner, De- Tiijue pojl format cim rempublicam f udaicotn, fecretamque a ceteris gentihus, per injiituta propria Is legem a Deo datam : non facile ^ fredoy banc fan^am gentem^ tjufdem temporit i^ faculi alienige- vam, 'vel hominem Gentilem, in exemplum pietatis ptopofiturarKf out ipfius nfla 13 hiftoriam in facros eorum eudices relaturam. Ar- chjeol. Philof. p. 266. ed. 8vo, 1728. The Reader fees; all the ftrength of the argument re(ls,on this falfe fuppofition, that the book muft needs be as old as its fubjeft. For if Job were of the Patriarchal time?, he was a fit example of piety, let his hiftory be written when it would ; and, if written by a facred Author, it was worthy to be inferted into the Canon of Scripture : and was likely to be fo inftrted, if compofed (as we fliall fee it was) by a Jewifli Prophet.

II. The

Se(5t. 2. of Moses demonjirated, 27

II. The fecond queftion to be confidered, is in what Age this book was compofed.

I. Firft then we fay in general, that it was writ- ten fome time under the Mofaic Difpenfation. But to this it is objefted, that, if it were compofed in thofe Times, it is very ftrange that not a fingle word of the Mofaic Law, nor any diftant allufion to the Rites or Ceremonies of it, nor any hiftori- cal circumflance under it, nor any fpecies of ido- latry in ufe during its period, fhould be found in it^

I apprehend the objedlion refls on one or other of thefe fuppofitions. Either that the book is not a Work of the dramatic kind j or that the Hero of the Piece is fi6i:itious. But both thefe fuppofi- tions have been fhewn to be erroneous -, fo that the objedion falls with them. For to obferve deco- rum is one of the mod eflential rules of dramatic writing. He therefore who takes a real Perfonage for the fubjeft of his poem will be obliged to fhew him in the cuftoms and fentiments of his proper Age and Country \ unmixed with the manners of the Writer's later Time and Place. Nature and

T Jobus Arabs OTo^l;«:^£lTo? kJ 'sjo^vfAx^rii, in cujus hiftoria multa occurrunt antiqua fapientise veftigia, antiquior habetur Mofai Idque multis patet indiciis : Primo, quod nullibi meminerit re- rum a Mofe geftarum, five in iEgypto, five in exitu, five in de- ferto. — Secundo, quod, cam vir pius & veri numinis cultor fuerit, leg! Mofaicae contraiverit, in facrificiis faciendis. — Tertio, ex astatis & vitae fiiae menfura, in tertio, plus minus, a Diluvio feculo coliocandus eflTe videtur : vixit enim ultra ducentos an- nos. — Cum de Idololatria loquitur, memorat primum ipfius genus Solis & Lunae adorationem. — Neque Sabjjathi neque pllius legis faftitiae meminit. — His omnibus adducor ut cre- dam, Mofi Jobum tempore anteiffe. Archaol. Philof, p. 265,

a the

2^ ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

the reafon of the thing fo evidently demand this condud, and the negleft of it has fo ungracious an efFeft, that the polite Roman Hiftorian thought the Greek tragic Writers were to blame even for mentioning the more modern name of ThefTaly, in their pieces of the Trojan War, And he gives this good reafon for his cenfure, Nihil enim ex Perfona Poet a fed o»nnia fub eorum, ^ui illo tempore vixerunt, dixerunt ^,

But to lay no greater ftrjpfs on this argument than it will bear; I confefs ingenuoufly, that were there not (as the objedtion fuppofes) the leaft dif- tant relation or allufion to the Jewifh Law or Hif- tory throughout the whole book, it might reafo- nably create fome fufpicion that the Author lived before thofe times. For though this rule of de^ €orum be fo eflential to dramatic writing, yet, as the greateft iVIafters in that art frequently betrayed their own Times and Country in their fictitious

» Veil Pater. Hiji. 1. i. c. 3. Had Dr. R. Grey known but juft fo much of the nature of thefe Compofitipns, he had never fallen into the ridiculous miUake I am going to take notice of. This learned Critic, to confute the fyftem I ad- vance, that the fubj-efl of the argumentative part of the book of Job was. Whether, and -ivhy, the good are /ometimes unhappy and the bad profperoui ', and that the queftion was debated for the fake of the Ifraelites in the time of Ezra ; obferves as follow^,. *' Zopher fays, c. xx- 4, 5. Knoiueji thou not this of old, fine e *' man ^was pieced upon earthy that the triumphing of the ivickei *' /; foort^ and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment ? Now •' lay your hand upon your heart, Sir, and afk yourfelf ferioufly, *' whether this can relate to an extraordinary Providence over *' the Jews only. p. 1 1 1." He is fo plcafed with the force of this obfcrvation that he repeats it, p. 116. To which I need only reply» Lay your hand, Sir, on your head, and reflefl upon this rule of good writing, Nihil enim ex Perfona Poeta-y fed. omnia fub eoium, qui illo ttmpore vixerunt, dixerunt,

[Works^

Se£l. 2. of MdSES demnftrated» ^g

Works % we can hardly fuppofe a Jewifh Writer more exad in what only concerned the critical per- fe6tion of his Piece. But as decorum is one of the plaineft and fimplefl principles of Compofition^ we cannot fuppofe a good writer ignorant of it ; and fo are not to look for fuch glaring abfurdities as are to be found in the dramatic writings of late barbarous ages •, but fuch only as might eafily ef- cape the moft exaft and beft inftrudted Writer.

Some flight indecorums therefore we may reafo- nably expedt to find, if the Author were indeed a -Jew: and fuch, if I am not much miflaken, we fhall find. Job fpeakingof the wicked man, fays ^ He that fpeaketh flattery to his friends, even the eyes of his children fhall fail ^ — God layeth up iniquity for his children \ ^. And in the courfe of the dis- pute,

; ' From amongft many i'nftances which might be given of wiefe flips, take the following of Euripides, in his Iphigenia in Aulis, A61. 3. where he makes the Chorus fay, Trof perijhes, ylnd for 'whom ? For you, cruel Helen, ivho, as they fay, are ihe daughter of Jupiter, ivho, under the form of a Snxsan hai commerce vAth Leda. — So far is well : becaufe we may fuppofe ihe Chorus alluded to the popular tale concerning Helen's birth, fpread abroad in her life-time. But when the Chorus goes on and fays, — If at leaf the n^riti?igs of the Poets be not fabuloui, the Author had forgot himfelf ; for the Poets who era- beliilhed her ftory, lived long afterwards.

■ * Chap. Scvii. ver. 5. « Chap. xxi. ver. 19.

•^ Here the Cornifh anfwerer affirms, v that this method of " punifhment was not peculiar to the Jewi(h Policy, but was ". pbferved, in fome degree at leaf, with refped to all man- ■*• kind." For which he quotes Ifaiah^s threatenings on the Children of the king of Babylon, chap. 14, 20, ^y^y. That is, in order to prove that God punifed the crimes of the fathers on the children in fome degree at leaf, <ivith rejpea to all mi::kird, he quotes an inilance, not of the general providence of God ta ^!I naiikind, but a f«;//f*/<8r diJpenfajion to the Babylonians:

and

56 'The Divine Legation Book VL

pute, and in the heat of altercation, this peculiar difpcnfation is touched upon yet more precifely. Job, in fupport of his dodlrine, paints' at laro-e the happy condition of profperous wicked men 5 a principal circumftance of whofe felicity is, that they fpend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave", i. e. without ficknefs, or the terrors of Qow-approaching death. The lot which profperous libertines of all times, who be- lieve no future reckoning, moft ardently wifh for. Now in the declining times of the Jewifh CEcono- my, pious men had always their anfwer ready. The profperous wicked man (fay they) (hall be pu- niihed in his Pofterity, and the afflicted good man rewarded in them. To the firft part of the folu- tion concerning the wicked, Job anfwers thus, God layeth up his iniquity for his children : he reward- .eth him, and he Jhall know it*. As much as to fay, the evil man fees and knows nothing of the puniih- ment •, in the mean time, he feels and enjoys his own felicity, as a reward. To the fecond part, concerning the good, he anfwers thus, His eyes Jhall fee his deJiru5iion, and he fmll drink of the wrath of the Almighty : For what pleafure hath he in his houfe after him, when the number of his months is cut off in the jnidjl^. i. e. The virtuous man fees and feels nothing but his own miferies : for what pleafure can the good things referved for his pofterity, af- ford to him who is to tafte and enjoy none of it •, being not only extindl long before, but cut off Untimely?

and not a f articular punKhmcnt, which fele£ls out the children of tranfgreffing parents, but a ^fwifra/ one, which in the nature of things, necefTarily attends the total overthrow of a State or Community.

* Chap, xxii ver. 13. ' Ver. 19. « Ver. 20, 2f*

la

Sedt. 2. of Moses demonjlrafed, ^f

In another place, Job lays, 'That idolatry was an iniquity to he ■punijhed by the judge ^. Now both this and the former fpecies of punifliment were, as we have Ihewn, peculiar to the Mofaic Difpenfa* tion. But a Jew might naturally miftake them fof a part of the general Law of God and nature : and fo, while he was really defcribing the CEconomy under which he lived, fuppofe himfelf to be re- prefenting the notions of more ancient times : which, that it was his defign to do, in the laft in- ftance at leaft, appears from his mentioning only the moft early fpecies of idolatry, the worlhip of the Sun and Moon '. Again, the language of Job with regard to 2l future Jlate is the very Tame with the Jewifh Writers. He that goeth down to the grave (fays this ^^nt^r) jhall come up no more : — they Jhall not awake or be raifed out of their Jleep. Thus tht Pfalmift, — In death there is no remembrance of thee. — Shall the dead arise and praife thee ! — And thus the author of Ecclefiafles, — The dead know not any thing., neither have they any more <?-B.i, WARD ^ And we know what is was that hindred the Jews from entertaining any expeftations of a future Hate of rewards and punifhments, which was a popular doctrine amongil all their Pap-an neighbours. ^

But there is, befides this of Cujioms and Opinions, another circumilance that will always betray a

^ Chap, xxxl ver. 28. Mr. Locke thought this fo dedfive 'a proof that the book of Job was written after the giving thg Law, that he fays, This place alone, were there no •OTHER, is fuficient to confirm their opinion ^ho conclude thai hook to be 'writ by a Je'vj.— Third Letter for Toleration, p. 8r-2 Let thofe Critics refled upon this, who think there is no foot- ftep nor (hade w of allufion to any thing relating to the peopla or Ifrael. r r "

' Ver. 3^. k See Vol. IV, p. 354.

fcigneij

gs The Divine Legation Book Vh

feigned Compofition, made in an age remote from the fubjeft : and that is, the ufe of later phrafeSi Thefe are more eafily difcovered in the modern, and even in what we call, the learned languages : but lefs certainly, in the very ancient ones jelpecially in the Hebrew, of which there is only one, and that no very large Volume, remaining. And yet even here, we may detedt; an author of a later age. For, befides the phrafes of common growth, there are others, in every language, interwoven alike into the current ftyle, which owe their rife to fome fmgular circumilance of time and place ; and io may be eafily traced up to their original: though, being long ufed in common fpeech in a general acceptation, they may well efcape even an atten- tive Writer. Thus Zophar, fpeaking of the wick- ed man, fays : He fiall not fee the rivers^ ihefloods,

the BROOKS OF HONEY AND BUTTER '. This ill

ordinary fpeech only conveyed the idea of plenty in the abftraft ; but feems to have been firft made a proverbial faying from the defcriptions of the holy Land "". Again, Eliphaz fays, Receive, I pray thee, THE Law from his moutH) and lay up his words in thine heart"". That is, be obedient: but the phrafe was taken from the verbal delivery of the Jewifh Law from mount Sinai. The Rabbins were fo fenfible of the exprefiive peculiarity of this phrafe, that they fay the Law of Moses is here Ipoken of by a kind of prophetic anticipation^ Af^ain, Job cries out: O that I were — as I was in the days of my youth, when the secret of God "WAS UPON MY tabernacle % that is, in fidlfe- curity : Evidently taken from the refidence of the

' Chap. XX. ver. 17. " See Exod. ill. 8. — xiil. 5.

*— yxxiii. 3, 4. -r- Deut. XXxi. 20. — 2 Kings xviii. 32. ■ Lhap. ,\xii. ver. 23. ° Ghap. xxix. ver* 4.

Divine

Se'(St. 2. of IS/I &s ES demonjlrated. 33

Divine Prefence or She kin ah, in a vifible fornij on the ark, or on the tent where the ark was placed. And again — O that one would hear me ! Behold my defire is that the Almighty zvoidd anfiver me, and that mine Adverfary had written a hook. Surely I would take it upon my Jljoulder and bind it as a CROWN to me^. A phrale apparently taken from the ufe of their Phylacteries ; which at leaft were as ancient as their return from Captivity, and coeval with their fcrupulous adherence to the Law.

A third circumflrance, which will betray one of thefe feigned compofitions, is the Auhor's being drawn, by the vigour of his imagination, from the feat of Adion and from the manners of the Scene, to one very different •, efpecially, if it be one of great fame and celebrity. So here, tho' the Scene be the deferts of Arabia, amongft family- heads of independent Tribes, and in the fimplicity of primitive Manners, yet we are carried by a poetic fancy, into the midft of Egypt, the beil policied, and the moll magnificent Empire then

exifting in the word. Why died I not from the

womb (fays the chief Speaker) for now I fhould havelien fill and been quiet, Ifoould have Jlept -, then had I been at reft; with kings and counsellors

bF THE EARTH, which buHd DESOLATE PLACES f Of

themfehes '^. 1. e. magnificent buildings, in defd- late places, meaning plainly the Pyramids, raiibd in the midft of barren lands, for the burying places of the kings of Egypt. — Kings and ccun- fellors of the earth — v/as, by way of eminence, the defignation of the Egyptian Governors. So Ifaiah • — the counfel of the wife counfellors of Pharaoh is be-

f Chap. xxxi. ver. };-~6. 1 Chsp. Hi, ver, 13, 14,

Vol. \% I) come

^4 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VL

come hrutijh. Hoiv Jay ye u?ilo Pharaoh, I am the [on of the wife^ the [on of ancient kings ^ But it may be obferved in general, that though the Scene confined the Author to fcattered Tribes in the midft of Deierts, yet his images and his ideas are, by an infenfible allure, taken throughout, from crouded Cities and a civil-policied People. Thus he fpeaks of the Children of the wicked being crujloed in the gate % alluding to a City taken by ftorm, and to the dcftruclion of the flying in- habitants prcfiing one another to death in the nar- row pafTage of the City-gates. — Again, of the good man it is faid, that he f jail be hid from the fcourge of tongues ' •, thj.t peililent mifchief which rages chiefly in rich and licentious Communities. But there would be no end of giving inllances of this kind, where they are fo numerous.

Hitherto the Author feems unwarily to have be- trayed his Times and Country. But we (hall now fee that he has made numerous aliufions to the mi- raculous Hiftory of his Anceftors with ferious/;«r- pcfe and deftgn. For this poem being written, as will appecir, for the comfort and folace of his Coun- trymen, he reafonably fuppofed it would advance his principal end, to refrefh their memories with fome of the more fignal deliverances of their Fore- fathers. In the mean time, decorum, of which we

' Isaiah ^i'C. 1 1.

* Chap. V. vcr. 4. The Septuagint renders it very exprct

* Vcr. :i. cvidcrtly takrn from thefe words of the Pfalmift, Thou Jhalt hep ihem Jtcretly in a pavi ion /rem the firife of tongues, IT. xxxi. 20. For" which was the copy and which the original can here admit no doubt, (ince ihe inuiije was an obvious one in the I'lamiil, who lived in a crcnt city, Irfs natural in Job who livcJ in a dcfcit, as we have obferved abo\e.

find

Se6t. 2. of yio%'t% demonjlrated^ ijr

find him a careful obferver, required him to pre- ferve the image of very different and dillant times. This was a difficulty: and would have been fo to the ableft Writer. Both thefe were matters of im- portance ; and neither one nor the other could be omitted, without negleding his Purpofe, or deform- ing his Compofition. How then can we conceive a Ikillful Artift would ad: if not in this manner j he would touch thofe ftories, but with fo flight aa outline and fuch airy colouring, as to make them pafs unheeded by a carelefs obferver ; yet be vifible enough to thofe who fludied the Work with care and attention. Now this artful tem.per our divine Writer, we fay, hath obferved. The condud: was fme and noble : and the cloud in which he was forced to wrap his ftudied aliufions, will be fo far from bringing them into queition, that it will confirm their meaning •, as it now appears, that if an able Writer would, in fuch a work, make al- iufions to his own Times, Religion, and People, it mult be done in this covert manner. Thus Job, fpeaking of the Omnipotence of God, — which fommandeth thefun^ and il rifeth not, andjealeth up the flats ""y plainly enough alludes to the miraculous hiftory of the people of God, in the Egyptian Darknefs, and the flopping of the Sun's courle by Jofhua. This appeared fo evident to a very learn- ed Commentator, though in' the other opinion of the book's being of Job's own writing, that he was forced to fuppofe that his author fpoke pro- lepticaily, as knowing by the gift of Prophefy, what God in a future age would do \ So where

" Chap. ix. ver. 7.

* Hoc videtur refpicere hiftoriam Jofuae vel Ezechise, quan- quam ante ilia Job extiterit. Sed hasc potiierunt per anticipa- tionem dici, quod Jobum non lateret penes Deum effe id cfficere quandocunque lubtret, Codurcus in locum,

D 2 Job

'5 6 Th6 Dlnitne Legation Book VI.

Job fays, God dhndeth the fea with his power, and by his underfianding he fmiteth through the proud '', he evidently refers to the deftruftion of Pharaoh and his hoji in the Red-fea. Again, in the following words. He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and caufeth them to wander in a wildernefs where there is no way % who can doubt but that they allude to the wandering of the Ifraelites forty years in the wildernefs, as a punifhment for their cowardice, and diffidence in God's promifes ; Eli- phaz, fpeaking of the wonderful works of God, de- clares how he came to the knowledge of them, I will Jheiv thee, hear me •, and what I havefeen I will de- clare •, which wife men have told from their fathers^ and have not hid it " : the very way in which Mofes direfls the Ifraelites to preferve the memory of the miraculous works of God. And v/ho are thefe wife men? They are fo particularly marked out as not to be millaken : tfnto whom alone the earth was given, and no stranger passed AMONGST THEM \ A circumftance ao-reeingr to no People whatfoever but to the Ifraelites fettled in Canaan. The fame Eliphaz, telling Job to his face, that his misfortunes came in punilhment for his Crimes, fays : 'Thou hafi taken a pledge from thy hrothcr for nought, and ftripped the naked of his cloathing \ And Job, I'peaking of the molt pro- fligate of men, defcribes them, amongft other marks of their iniquity, by this, that they caufed . the naked to lodge without cloathing, that they have no covering in the cold '' ; that they take a pledge of the poor, and caufe him to go naked without cloathing ". Who that fees this ranked amongft the greatelt enor-

y Chap. xxvi. ver. 12, * Chap. xii. ver. ZL*

* Chap. XV. ver. 17, 1 8. •* Ver. 19. *^ Chap. xxii.

ver. 6. '' Chap. xxlv. ver. 7. ' Ver. 9, 10.

ExoD. xxii. 26, 27. See alio Deut. xxiv. 12, and 17.

mities.

Se<5l. 2. of Moses demotifirated, 37

mities, but will refleft that it muft have been v/rit- ten by one well Itudied in the Law of Moses, which fays : If thou at all take thy neighbours raiment to pledge, thou jhalt deliver it unto him by that the fun goeth down ; for that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his/kin: Wherein Jh all he Jleep ? And it jhall come to pafs, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear, for I am gracious. Which Law, as the learned Spencer obferves, v72iS peculiar to this infti- tution^ Elihu, fpeaking of Good's dealing with his fervants, fays : " That he may withdraw man *' from his purpofe, and hidrc pride from man, he *' keepth back his foul from the pit, and his life " from perijhing by the fword. He is chaftened " alio with pain upon his bed, and the multitude *' of his bones with Itrong pain. His foul draweth " nigh unto the grave, and his life to the deftroyers, *' If there be a mejfenger with him, an interpreter^ *' one amongji a thoufand to jhew unto man his up' *' rightnefs, then he is gracious unto hrm, and faith, *' Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have *' found a ranfom. His flejh foall be freJJjer than a *' child's, he foall return to the days of his youth, *' He Ihall pray unto God, and he will be favour- ** able unto him, and he fliall fee his face with ^' joy \ for he will render unto man his righteouf- ** nefs^." This is the moft circumftantial ac- count of God's dealing with HeZekiah, as it is told in the books of Chronicles and Kings. God had delivered him from perifhing by the fword of Sennacherib : " In thofe days Hezekiah vv^as ficly

^ Leges illas in Dei tantum Pandedis inveniendse funt,

nempe, de 'vejiibus. pignori datis^ quibus de pecunia concredita cavebant debitores, ante foils occafum, reflituendis. — De Leg^ Uebr. Rit. vol. i, p. 263.

? Chap, xxiii, ver. 17, y /eq,

D ^ 5' to

38 72)^ Divine Legation Book VI,

*' to the death, and prayed unto the Lord : and " he fpake unto him, and he gave him a fign. " But Hezekiah rendered not again, according to " the benefit done unto him, for his heart was lifted " up ^" But the ftory is told more at large in the book of Kings: — " In thofe days was Hezekiah " Jtck unto death : and the Prophet Ifaiah, the fon '* of Amos came to him, and faid unto him, *' Thus faith the Lord, Set thine houfe in order, *' for thou fhalt die and not live. Then he turned •' his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord.— ^ *' And it came to pals, afore Ifaiah was gone out " into the middle court, that the word of the '* Lord came unto \\\m.f faying, 'Turn again, and tell " Hezekiah, Thus faith the Lord, I have heard *' thy prayer, I have feen thy tears : Behold I will *' heal thee i on the third day thou fhalt go up unto " the houfe of the Lord. And Ifaiah faid. Take a ^' lump of figs j and they took and laid it on the *' boil, and he recovered'." — The following words as plainly refer to the deftruftion of the firft-born in Egypt, and Sennacherib's army ravaging Judea: In a moment fo all they die, and the people fhall he troubled at midnight and pafs away, and the mighty fioall he taken away without hand ''. Thefe likewife clearly allude to the Egyptian Darknefs,— /rt?/;j the wicked their light is withholden '.

No one, I think, can doubt but that the following dcfcription of God's dealing with Mo- narchs and Rulers of the world, is a tranfcript of, or allufion to, a pafiage in the fecond book of Chro- nicles. Elihu (who is made to pafs judgment on the difpute) fays, He iwthdraweth not his eyes from

* 2 ChrON. XXxii. 24, 2J, ' 2 KiNCS XX, I. ^ flj*

^ C'hap. xxxiv. ver. 20. ^ Chap, xxxviii. vcr, 15.

the

Se(5t. 2. o/' M OS E s demonJlratCiL 39

the righteous : but^ with kings are they on the throne, yea he doth eJlabliJJo them for ever and they are exalted^ [This feems plainly to refer to the houfe of David, as we fhall fee prefently.] He proceeds : And if they he hound in fetters^ and he holden in cords of aff,i5iion : then he Jheweth their work, and their tranfgreffions that they have exceeded. He openeth alfo their ear to difcipline, and commandeth that they return from iniquity. If they obey and ferve him, they fhall fpend their days in profperity and their years in pleafure •, hut if they obey not, they fJiall perifh by the fword, &c'°. Now hear the facred Hiftorian. •^— " God had fald to David and to Solomon his ** fon, In this houfe and in Jerufilem, which I " have chofen before all the tribes of Ifrael, will I " put my name for ever. Neither will I any more *' remove the foot of Ifrael from out of the land " which I have appointed for your fathers, fo " that they will take heed to do all that I have " commanded them. — So Manafleh made Judah *' and the Inhabitants of Jerufalem to err. — And <' the Lord fpake to ManaiTeh, and to his people : *' but they would not hearken. Wherefore the <' Lord brought upon them the captains of the *' hoft of the king of AfTyria, which took Ma- " nalTeh amongft the thorns, and bound him with " fetters, and carried him to Babylon. And when ** he was in afflidion, he befought the Lord his *' God, and humbled himfelf greatly before the *' God of his Fathers, and prayed unto him, and *' he was entreated of him, and heard his fuppli- " cation, and brought him again to Jerufalem into " his kingdom. Then Manaffeh knew that the ^' Lord he was God ","

"" Chap, xxxvi. ver. 7 — 12. " 2 Chron. xxxIH.

ver. 7—13.

P 4 But

40 ^he Divine Legation Book VI,

But the moft extraordinary allufion of all to the JewiJJo Oeconomy, and the moll inconteltable, is in the following words, where fpeaking of the clouds of rain, our tranflation has it, He caufeth it to come, whether for corre^ien, cr for his LAND, or for mercy °. The Septuagint underflood the facred text in the fame manner! Taura cwri-

T«y yyiv aurS, lai/ lU £A£(^ fJ^nVfi d\)-ov. The mean- ing of which is, he bringeth it at fuch junftures, and in fuch excefs, as to caufe dearth, [for cor- re5!ion {\ or fo timely and moderately, as to caufe plenty, [for mercy j] or laftly, fo tempered, in a long continuL-d courfe, as to produce that fertility of foil which was to make one of the bleffings of the pro- mifed land, [for his land :] a providence as di- llind from the other two, of corre^ion and r/iercy^ as the genus is from the fpecies. This is a fufficient anfwer to the learned Father Houbigant's criticifm on this vcrle, who correds the common reading of the Hebrew text, and thinks the words, or for the land, LO be a marginal illuftration crept into the text. Sc jerom, and the vulgar latin, inftead of,— whether for correction, or for his land, trixn^iate, five in UNA Trieu, Jive in terra fua. If this be the true rendering of the Hebrew, then it plainly ap- pears that the writer of the book of Job alluded to

the words of his contemporary prophet, Amos.

" And alio I have wuholden the rain from you, *' when there were y?t three months to the harveft; " and I caufed it to rain upon one city, and caufed " it not to rain upon another city : one piece was *^ rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained *' nor, withered." Without controvcrfy, however, ^he Writer fpeaks of a special providence upon

P Chap, xxxvii. 13.

God's

Se£l. 2. o/' Moses demonjlrated, 41

God's own Land, the land of Judea -, which plainly fhews that the 'peculiarity of the Jewijh Ouonomy wais ftill uppermoft in his thoughts. In a word, this CEconomy is defcribed by Moses ^ as altogether different from that of other people. Job's account of God's CEconomy exadly quadrates with it. "What are we then to think, but that there is a con- tinued allufion to the Law .'' in many places indeed fo general, as not to be difcovered without the aflif- tance of thofe which are more particular. Befides, (which is the lafl obfervation I (liall make on this point) in the management of thefe Allufions, we fee, the Author has obferved a ftri6t decorum: and, ta take off any offenfive glare, has thrown over them a fober image of ancient manners. So that here we have the plain marks of former times intermixed ■with circumftances peculiar to the latter. What are we therefore to conclude, but that the Work is a fpecies of dramatic writing, compofed long after the age of the fubjed ?

On the whole then it appears that this Obje6bioii of no allufions, which, if well grounded, had made nothing againft the low date of a poetic Compofition, is not indeed fupported by fact: and this will be feen yet more fully hereafter.

But had the Objeflion any real foundation. They who make it, had been Hill much puzzled to account for the Author's filence concerning the fix days Creation^ and the inftitution of the Sabbatl% as it muil reduce them to the neceffity of fuppof- ing that thefe things were unknown to Job. And confequently, that the Sabbath was not a mora^, but a pofitive Law only of the Jews; tho' Mofes,

p Peut. IV. 32.

to

42 The Divine Legation Book VI.

to imprefs the greater reverence upon it, feems to make it coeval with the Creation. How they will get over this difficulty 1 know not. On the other hand, They who, with the low date of this book of Job, hold the Sabbath to be a pofitive Law,, will find no difficulty at all. For, as they would have put the mention of it, had it been mentioned, on the fame footing with that of other things under the Mofaic CEconomy ; lb, the filence they will eafily account for, on the received opinion of that time, that the Sabbath was a pofitive Law, infti- tuted to feparate and diftinguilh the Ifraelites from all others ; and that therefore the mention of a thing fo well known to be a Rite peculiarly Jewiffi, would have had an ill effed, in the mouths of men who lived before the Mofaic Law was given.

After fuch clear evidence that the book of Job was written under the Law, we have little need of Grotius's argument, for the fupport of this point, from the book's containing many paflages limilar to what we find in the Pfalms. And it is well we have not, becaufe I think his argument very equivocal. For if the facred writers muft needs have borrowed trite moral fcntences from one another: it may be as fairly faid, that the authors of the Pfalms borrowed from the book of Job; as that the author of Job borrowed from the book of Pfalms. But Mr. Lc Clerc would mend this argument, by refining upon it, a way that feldom mends any thing. He fays, one may know an original from a copy, by the lattcr's having lefs nature and force; and he thinks he fees this in the book of Job\ Now admitting the truth of

the

*« — Grotiiis croit avec beaucoup plus de vrai-femb'ance, que cet autpur cll pollc.icur k David U a Salomon, dont il fembic

qu'lt

Sed, 2. of Mo SES demojiftrated. 43

the obfervation, it would be fo far from fupport- ing, that it would overturn his conclufion. Mr. Le Clerc feems to have been miiled into this cri- ticifm by what he had obferved of writers of lefs polifhed ages borrowing from thofe of more. In this cafe, the copy will be always much inferior to the original. But the effeCl would have beenjuft the contrary in a writer of the time of David borrow- ing from one of the time of Mofes. And as the common opinion places the two books in thofe two different periods, they are to be fuppofed rightly placed, till the contrary be fhewn. This obfer- vation we fee verified in the greek authors of the Socratic age, and in the roman authors of the Au- gultan, when they borrowed from their very early country writers. But the matter of fadl is, I think, juft otherwife. The advantage of the fublime in the parallel palfages feems to lie on the fide of Job. And from hence we may draw Mr. Le Clerc's conclufion with much greater force. But indeed, take it either way, the argument, as I faid, is of little weight. But it is pleafant to hear Schultens, and his epitomifer Dr. Grey, fpeak of

qu'il ait imite divers endroits, & remarque fort judicieuferaent qu'il y a dans ce livre des manieres de parler, qu'on ne trouve que dans Efdras, dang Daniel, & dans les Paraphrafes Caldai- ques. Codurc, dans fon Commentaire fur Job, a auffi remarque plufieurs Caldailmes dans ce livre, & quelques perfonnes favantes foatiennent, que les Arabifmes qu'on y croit avoir remarque ne font que des manieres de parler Caldeenes. On y trouve des imitations de divers endroits des Pfeaumes. — Mais vous me de- manderez peut-etre, comment on peut favoir, que c'eft I'auteur du livre de Job, qui a imite ces Pfeaumes, & non pas les au- teurs de ces Pfeaumes, qui ont imite le livre de Job ? 11 eft aife de vous fatisfaire. On connoit qu'un auteur en imite un autre a ceci, c'eft que I'imitation n'eft pas fi belle que Toriginal, qui exprime ordinairement les chofes d'une maniere plus nette & plus natiirelle que la copie. Scntimerts de quelques Ikol. de fiol.p. 183.

the

44 ^^ Divine Legation Book: VI.

the grandeur, the purity, and fublimity of the language fpoken in the time of Job, as if the He- brew had partaken of the nature and fortunes of the two languages made perfeft by a long ftudy of elo- quence, in the Socratic and Auguftan ages ; and as if it was equally impolTible for a Hebrew after the captivity (though infpired into the bargain) to imitate thefe excellencies of ftyle, as for a writer of the iron age of Latin to have expreffed the beauty and'xeight of Ennius's elegance. We know what Enthufiafm can do on every obje6t to which it turns itfelf. There have been Critics of this fort, who have found even in the Hebrew of the Rabbins, graces and fublimities of ftyle to match thofe in the beft Greek and Roman hiftorians; tho% in reality, the graces it boafts, partake much of thofe we fee in the Law-french of our Enghlli- Reporters. The truth is, the language of the times of Job had its grandeur, its purity, and fubr limities : but they were of that kind which the learned Mifiionaries have obferved in the languages of certain Warrior tribes in North America. And this language of the time of Job, preferved its genius to late ages, by the afTiftance of that unifor- mity of Charafter which makes the more fequef- tered inhabitants of the Eaft lb tenacious of all their ancient modes and cuftoms,

2. We now come clofer to the queftion; and having proved the book of Job to be written under the Mofaic (Economy^ We fay further, that it muft ht fomewhere between the time of their approaching captivity^ and their thorough re-ejlablijhment in Judea. This is the wideft interval we can afford it. The reafon feems to be decifive. It is this. That no other poftible period can be alTigned in which the GRAND QUESTION, dcbatcd in this book, could

ever

St6l. 2b o/' Moses demonflrated, ^,^

ever come into diipute. This deferves to be con- iidered.

The queftion % a very foreign one to us, and therefore no wonder it ihould have been fo little at- tended

* The beft and ableft Critics are generally agreed, and have as generally taken it for granted, that this que/iion is the fubjeft of debate between the feveral difputants in the book of Job. It would be abufing the reader's patience to produce a long train of Authorities. Though it may not be improper to give the fentiments of the lad, though not the leaf!- able of them, on this head. — Opers pretium eil admonere te, amice Leftor, quid nobis de tota hujus Libri materia cogitandum efle videatur. Primum qiiidem amici Job iic ftatuuut, quando- quidem tot tantifque cladibus Deus amicum ipforum Job afflixit, ei Deum elfe iratum ; eum igitur poenas tales aliquo fcelere, vel aperto, vel occuko commeruifle. Cujus Iuje fen- tentiae teftes adhibent generationes hominuni priores, in quibus inauditum eft, inquiunt, Deum 'vel integros 'viros afper/iatum, vel impios manu apprehendijfe. Si quis noftrje astatis homo fie dif- putaret, nemo efle quin ejus teraeritatem atque audaciam mi- raijEtur, qui rem aperte falfam fumeret, cum fa^pilTime evenlat €t fummas miferias experiri hac in mortali vita viros bonos, et florentiflimam fortunam, flagitiofos. Tamen Job, id quod eji maxime conjtderandum, redargutione tali non utitur. Non id negat, quod fui amici, Patrum memoria tefte confirmabant ; quod tamen Job, fi falfum id fibi videretur, uno verbo, Men- tiris, poterat confutare. Atque etiam idem Job aiterum negans, tales fe miferias crimine aliquo fuo fuiffe conimeritum, aiterum tamen non diffimulat, Deum fibi adverfari ; in qua ipfa fanfti viri confeflione adverfariorum cauia ex parte vincebat, cum fuas clades Job lie acciperet, ut irse divinas confueta figna, cumque inde non parum animo sftuaret. Qus cum ita fint, nos fie exiftimamus, non falfos fuifle memorise teftes Job amicos ; atque adeo, primis mundi temporibus, homines impios fuifte, propter folitum naturse curfum, divina ira percufTos, iifque acceptos plagis, quarum fandli homines efTent immunes; Deo opt. max. humanas res ita moderante, ut Religionem ia terris tueretur, et ut homines, cum talia exempla paterentur cogitarent efte in ccelo Deum juftum, a quo morta'ies ut re<fte faclorum przemium fperare deberent, fie fcelerum ultionera limere. Houbicvnt in librum Joht USiorit

i But

46 ^e Dhtne Legation JBook Vf*

tended to, is, Whether God adminijlers his govern- ment over men here with an equal providence, fo as that

the

But fince the writing of my Di/Tertatiori, the language of the i-abbinical men has been greatly changed. And, partly to keep up the antiquity of the book, but principally to guard againft an extraordinary Providence, feveral of them, in defiance of tKeir fenfes, have denied that this, which this honeft Pried of tne Oratory makes to be the fubjcil of the book of Job, has indeed any thing at all to do with it. Amongft the foremoft of thcfe is Dr. Richard Grey the epitomifer of Albert Schultens' Comment on this book. In the preface to his Abllracl, amongft other things, he has criticifed my opinion of the fcope of the book in the following manner. — Nam quod dicit vir clariff. id prscipue in hoc libro difceptari, nempe an bonis Temper bona, malifque mala, an utrifque utraque promifcue obtingent; hanc autem quxl^ionem (a nobis quidem alienam, minus ideo per- penfam) nufquam alibi gentium prasterquam in Judaea nee apud ipfos Juda:os alio quovis tempore, quam quod affignar, moveri potuifle, id omne ex veritate fus hypothefeos pendet, et mea quidem fententia, longe aliter fe habet. Pr<£f. p. 10 — 15. For as to njjhat this writer [the author of the D. L.] fays, that •the main quejiion handled in the book cf 'Job is nxhetber good hap- fens to the good, and e-uil to evil men, or n.vkether both happen «ot promifcuovf.y to both ; and that this quejiion (a very foreign one 10 us, and therefore the Icfs attended to) could never be the Jufjecl of difputation any ixhere but in the land cf "Judaa, nor there neither at any other time than that nxihich he afpgns ; all this, ■1 fay, depends on the truth of his hypothefs, and is, in my opinion^ J'ar othcrivife, — That which depends on the truth of an hypotbejis has, indeed, generally fpeaking, a very flender foundation t •and I am partly of opinion it was the common prejudice againft this fupport which difpofed the learned Prefaccr to give my notions no better a name. But what I have (hewn to be the fubjedl: of the book is fo far from depending on the truth of my hypothefis, that the truth of my hypothcfis de- pends on what 1 have fliewn to be the fubjccl of the book ; and very fitly fo, as every reafonable hypoihrfii IhoulJ be fup- poiicd on a faci. Now 1 might appeal to the Icained worlds whether it be not as clear a i^.t\ that the fubjed of the book of Job is 'ixhe-.htr good happens to the goad, and e-vil to e'vil men^ or ixhether both haj^pen not protnifuo"jh to both ; as that the fub- jeft of the firft book of 'Tufcu.an Deputations is de contemnenda Morte. On this I founded my hypothefis, that the book of Job muft have been written about the time of Efdras, be*

caufs

Sed^ 2. of Moses demonfirafed. ^j

the' good are always profperous, a?id the had unhappy ; cr whether, on the. contrary y there he notfuch apparent

inequali-

caufe no other affignable time could at all fuit the' fubje6t.

' ^ But 'tis poffible I may miftake in what he calls my

hypothejis: for ought I know he may underftand not that of the took of Job, but that of the Di-uitie Legation. And then, by ■my hypothejis, he muft mean the great religious principle I en- '^eavoured to evince, that the Jews were in reality

VNDER AN EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE. But it wil] bc

-paying me a very unufual compliment to call that my hypothefis which the Bible was not only divinely written, but was like- wife divinely preferved, to teftify ; which all Believers profefs to believe ; and which none but Unbelievers and An/iverers to the Divine Legation diredlly deny. However, if this be ths hypothejis he means, I need defire no better a fupport. But the truth is, my interpretation of the book of Job feeks fupport from nothing but thofe common rules of grammar and logic ou which the fenfe of all kind of writings arc or ought to be in" terpreted.

He goes on in this manner. Nempe id unurn voluifle mihi videtur facer Scriptor, ut iis omnibus, utcunque afflidtis, humi- litatis et patientije perpetuum extaret documentum ex contem- platione gemina, hinc infinite Dei perfedionis, fapientis & potentise ; illinc humane, quae in fandtilfimis quoque viris ineft corruptionis, imbecillitatis & igncrantise. For the sole /i«r- pt>fe of the /acred ivriter feems to jne to be this, to compo/e a nuork that Jhould remain a perpetual document of humility and •patience to all good men in ajffiiSiion f)o?n this t^wofoli corfidera-^ tion, as on the one hand of the infinite perfeSlion, poi.ver, and nvifdom cf God ; fo on the other, of human corruption, imbeciliit\ ■and ignorance, df.o'verable e'ven in the beji of men. Such talk in a popular difcourfs, for the fake of a moral application, might not be amifs : bnt to fpeak thus to the learned world is furely out of feafon. The Critic will be apt to tell him* he hath miftaken the Aaor for the S^uhjed ; and that he miffht on the iame principle as well conclude that the purpofe^of Virgil's poem is not the eftablilTiment of an empire in Italy, •t)ut the perfonai piety of ^n^as. But to be a little mere ex- plicit. The book of Job confifts of two diftinft parts; the -narrati've, contained in the prologue and epilogue ; and the argu- mentative, which compofes the body of the work. Now when the queilion is of the fubjeft of a book, who means any other than the body of it? yet the learned Doftor miftaking the narrative part

for

^S The Divine Legation Book VI.

inequalities^ as that profperity and adverfity often hap- pen indifferently to good and bad. Job maintains

the

fbr th5 argument aiive, gives us the fubjeft of the introdmSlion and conclufion for that of the work itlelf. And it is very true that the beginning and the end do exhibit a perpetual document af humility and patience to all good 7?ien in nffliJiion. But it is cs true that the body of the work neither does nor could exhibit any fuch document. Firll it does not ; for, that humility and patience, which Job manifefls before his entering into difpute, is fueceeded by rage and ollentation when he becomes heated with unreafonabic oppolition. Secondly, it could notj becaufe it is altogether argumentative ; the fubjeft of which mufl: needs be a propofition debated, and not a document exemplified. A precept may be conveyed in hiftory, but a difputation can exhibit only a debated queftion, 1 have fhewn what that quellion is ; and he, inftead of proving that I have afligned A wrong one, goes about to perfuade the reader, that there is no queftion at alU

He proceeds. Quamvis enim in fermonibus, qui in eo habentur, de religione, de virtute, de providentia, Deique in mundo gubernando fapientia, juilitia, fanditate, de uno rerum omnium principio, aliifque graviffimis veritatibus diflertetur, hunc tamen quern dixi unicum efl"e libri fcopum, tarn ex initio et fine, quam ex univerfa ejus ceconomia cuivis opinor mani- feftum erit. Ea enim, ut rem omnem fummatim compleftar, Jobum exhibet, primo quidem querentem, expoilulantem, •ffrsni lu£lui indulgentem ; mox (quum, ut facri dramatis natura poftulabat, amicorum contradidllone, iinillrifque fufpi- cionibus magis magifque irritatus et faeeffitus ellet) impruden- tius Deum provocantem, atque in juftitia fua gloriintem ; ad debitam tandem fummiffionem fuique cognitionem revocatum, turn dcmum, nee antea, intcgritatis fuse tam prrernium, quam tellimonium a Deo reportantem. For although in the fpeeches that occur, there be much talk of religion, ^virtue, and proi'idenct, of God's ijiifdom, jujiice, and holine/s in the government of the nvjrld, cf one principle of all things, and other mojl important truths, yet that this ivhich I have xjjigned is the on'yfcope of the beck 'ujill appear manifeft to every one, as ivell from the beginnirig and the end as from the aconomy of the ^jule. For to fay all in a Huord. it firjl prefents Job complaining, expoflulating, and itt- dulitng himjelf in an ungovernable g^'if : but foon after (ivhen, ^tf tic nolurt of the facred drama required, hy the confradiclien of b; ft lends y and their jinijUr ffficioniy he became more and more

$e:xed

Se(5t. 2. ^ M o s E s demojijlrated, 49

teized and irritated) rajhly challenging God, and glorying in his won integrity : yet at length brought back to a due fubmijjion and knonvledge of him/elf. The reader fees that all this is juft as pertinent as if I fhould fay^ Mr. Chillingworth's famous book againft Knot the Jefuit, was not to prove the religion of Frotejrants a fafe ivay to falvation, but to give the pi£lure of an artful Caviller and a candid Difputer. " For, although, in the arguments that occur, there be much talk of proteftan- tifm, popery, infallibility, a judge of controverfies, funda- mentals of faith, and other moft important matters, yet that this which I have afligned is the only fcope of the book, will appear manifeft to every one, as well from the beginning and the end, as from the CEconomy of the whole. For it firfi: of all prefents the fophifl: quibbling, chicaning, and indulging himfelf in all the imaginable methods of falfe reafoning : and loon after, as the courfe of difputation required, refting on his own authority, and loading his adverfary with perfonal calum- nies ; yet at length, by the force of tritth and good logic, brought back to the point; confuted, expofed, and put to fiience." Now if I fhould fay this of the book of Chilling- worth, would it not be as true, and as much to the purpo.'e, as what our author hath faid of the book of Job ? The matters in the difcourfe of the Religion of Protejlants could not \M treated as they are without exhibiting the two charaders of a Sophift and a true Logician. Nor could the matters in the book of Job be treated as they are without exhibiting a good jnan in affliftion?, complaining and expollulating; impatient under the contradiftion of his friends, yet at length brought back to a due fubmiffion, and knowledge of himfelf. But therefore, to make this the fole or chief Scope of the book, (for in this it varies) is perverting all the rules of interpretation. But what mifled him we have taken notice of above. And he himfelf points to it, where he fays, — the fubje£l I have affined to the book of Job appears the true both from the beginning and the i£.tiD. It is true, he adds, and from the Qecon^my of the ivholt likewife.

Which he endeavours to prove in this manner : For it firji prefents fob complaining, expojiulating, and indulging himfelf in an ungovernable grief : but foen after (vohen, as the nature of the fucred drama required, by the centradiHion of his friend s^ and their fiwfler fufpicions, he became more and niore teixed and irrita- ted) rajhly challenging God, and glorying in his onjon integrity : yet at length brought back to a due fubmijfion and kno^w'edge of himfelf; and then at la[i, and not before, receiving fro7n God both the rcucard and tejlimony of his uprightnefs. This is Indeed a fair account of the conduct of the drama. And from this it

Vol. V. £ appears.

^o T^he Divine Legation Book YI,

appears, firrt, that that which he afligns for the sole scope- of the br;ok cannot be the true. For if its defign were to give a perpetual document of huii.il-.ty and patiencs, how comes it tO" paG, that the author, in the execution of this defign, repre- fents Job CLmplaiiiing, expojlulatingy atid indulging him/elf in an ungoverna'-Ie grief, rajhiy challcngivg God, and g'orying in his onvn integrity? Could a painter, think you, in order to rep re- f. nt the eaie and fafety of navigation, draw a vefTel getting with much p;.ins and difiicuhy into harbour, after having loft all her lading and been mlferably torn and fliattered by a tempell ? and yet you think a writer, in order to give a dccu' ment of humilit'i and patience, had fufficiently difcharged his plan, if he made Job conclude refgned and fibviijfixe, though he had drawn him turbulent, impatient, and almoft blafphe- mous throughout the whole piece. Secondly, it appears from the learned Author's account of the conduct of the drama, that that which I have afiigned for the fole Scope of the 'book is the true. For if, in Job's diilrefsful circum (lances, the queftion concerning an equal or unequal providence were to be debated : His friends, if they held the former part, mull needs doubt of his integrity ; this doubt would natuially provoke Job's indig- naiion ; and, when it was perfilled.in, caufc him to fly out into the intemperate exceffes fo well defcribed by the learned Doclor ; yet coalcious innocence would at length enable patience to do its office, and the conclufive argument for his integrity would be ^is refignation and fubmilTion.

The learned Writer fums up the argument thus. Ex his inquam apparet, non primario agi in hoc libro de providentia, iive asquali, five incTquali, fed de perfonali Jobi integritate. From all this, I fay it appears, thut the ferjunal integrity cf Jab, and not the quejiion concerning an ^qual or -unecjual Prouide/ice is the fr '• -ipal fubjeSi rf the book. He had before only told us his 0 inton ; and now, from his opinion, he fays it appears. But the appearances we fee, are deceitful ; and fo they will always be, when they arife only out of the fancy or inclination, of the Critic, and not from the nature of things.

But he proceeds. Hanc enim (quod omnlno obfervandum eft) in c^ubium vocaverant amici, non ideo tantum quod affliflus efi'ct, fed quod afflidus impatientius fe gereret, Deique jullitia; obmurmuraret : et qui ftrenuus videlicet aliorum hor- tator fuerac ad fortitudinem ct conllantiam, quuni ipfe tcn- taretur, vidus labafceret. Fur that [i. e. his perfonal inte- grity] /'/ nx.a5 njohich his friends douhcd cf, not Jo tmch on ac- count of his afficlion, as for the not bearing his offiiSiitn nuith fatience, but murmuring at lie j'fUce of God. And that he,

iihe

Sed. 2. c/* Moses demonjlrated, ^j

nv^o nvas a Jlrenuotis advifer of others ta fortitude and confancyy fi>ould, %\;hen his ozvn trial came, Jink under the Jiroke of his difajiers. — But why not on account of his afitnioiis ? Do not We find that even now, under this unequal dillribution of things, cenforious men (and fuch doubLlefs he will confefs Job's comforters to have been) are but too apt to fufpecl orreac aiHi£lions for the punifliment of fecret fins. How mucli more prone to the fame fufpicion would flich men be in the time of Job, when the ways of Providence were more equal ? As to his impatience in hearing afiiB'.on, that fymptom was altogether am- biguous, and might as likely denote wane of fortitude as want of innocence ; and proceed as well from the pain of an ulce- rated body as the anguifh of a dillradtd confcience.

Well, our Author has brought the Patriarch thus far on his way, to expofe his bad temper. From hence he accompanies him to his place of reft ; which, as many an innocent man's is, he makes to be in a bad argument. Quum accefierat fandiilimi viri malis, haec graviilima omnium tentatio, ut tanquam im- probus et hypocrita ab amicis damnaretur, et quod unicum ei fupererat, confcientije fuse teftimonio ac folatio, qunntum ipfi. potuerunt, privandns foret, quid mifero faciendum erat ? Ami- cos perfidise et crudelitatis arguit : Deum integritatis fus teftem vindicemque appellat : quum autem nee Deus interveniret, ad innocentiam ejus vindicandam, nee remitterent quicquam amici de acerbis fuis cenfuris, injuftifque criminationibus, ad

SUPREMUM ILLUD JUDICIUM prOVOCat, in quo REDEMPTO-

RiiM fibi afFuturum, Deumque a fuis partibus ftaturum, fum- ma cum fiducia fe novifTe affirmat. A'ocy luhen (fays the learned Writer) the moji grievous trial of all teas added to the other evils of this holy perfn ; to be condemned by his friends as a profiigate, and an hypocrite, and to be deprived, as much as in them lay, of his only remaining fupport, the Tejiimony of a good confcience. What nuas left for the unhappy man to do ? He accufts his friends of perfidy and cruelty ; he calls upon God as the vjit- nffs and avenger of his integrity : But ivhen m it her God inters pofed to vindicate his innocence, nor his friends fo> bore to urge their harjh cenfures and unjuji acctfations, he cppeals ta that LAST JUDGMENT, in vjhich imth the utmojl confidence he fjfirms that he knevj that his redeemer, luould be prefent to him, and that God vQOuld declare in his favour. To underftand the force of this reprefentation, we muft have in mind tliis unqueltionable truth ; " That, be the fubjed of the book v/hat it will, yet if the facred Writer bring in the perfons of the drama difputincr^ he will take care that they talk with decorum and to the pur- pofe." Now we both agree that Job's friends had pretended ai leaft to fufpeft his integrity. This fufpicion it was Job's

E 2 bufinefs

52 The Dhbie Legation Book VI,

bufincfs to remove ; and, if the Doftor's account of the fub- jeft, be right, his only bufinefs. To this end he offers va» -i'ioas arguments, which failing of their eiFccl, he, a: lad, (as tlie D :clor willhave it) appeals to the second coming of THE Redeemer of mankind. But was thii likely to fatisfy them ? They demand a prefent folution of their doubts, and be iends ihcm to a future judgment. Nor can our Author fay, (though he would infinuate) that this was fuch a fort of ap- peal as difputants arc fometimes farced to have recourfe to, when they are run aground and have nothing more to offer : For Job, after this, proceeds in the difputej and urges many other arguments with the utmofl propriety. Indeed there is one way, and but one, to make the appeal pertinent : and that is, to fuppofe our Author miftaken, when he faid that the per/onal integrity of Job, and not the quejlion concerning an equal or unequal Vro'vidcnce, n.vas the tnain fuhjeSl of the book : And we may venture to fuppoie fo, without much danger of doing him wrong : for, the doftrine of a future judgment affords a principle whereon to determine the quejlion of an equal or unequal Providence ; but it leaves the per/onal integrity of Job juft as it found it. But the learned Author is fo litde felicitous for the pertinency of the argument, that he makes, as we fhall now fee, its impertinence to be one of the great fupports of his fyftem. For thus he concludes his argument. Jam vero fi cardo controverfia; fiiiiiet, utrum, falva Dei juftitia, fandi in hac vita, adfligi poflent, ha;c ipfa declarati litem finire debuerat. Sin autem de perfonali Jobi innocentia difceptetur, nil mirum quod veterem canere cantilenam, Jobumque ut fecerant, con- demnare pergerent focii, quum Dei folius erat, qui corda ho- minum explorat, pro certo fcire ; an jure merito fibi Jobus hoc folamen attribueret, an falfam fibi fiduciam vanus arrogaret. But nonv if the hinge of the contro-verjy had turned on this. Whe- ther or no, confijhntly ivith God's jufiicc, good men could be affiiBed in this life, this declaration ought to have finifhed the debate : but if the queflion luere concerning the perfoual innocence of yob, it ^joas no ivonder that they fill fung their old f ng, and ivent on as they had begun, to condemn their much aflicled J'ricnd ; fince it ijjcs in th: pa-xver of God alone to explore the hearts of Tr.cn^ anJ to incxv for certain ^whether it ivas foFs piety that rightly applied a confolntion, or ixshether it ivas his 'vanity that arrogated a fnlfc confidence to himfelf. This is a very pleafant way of coming to the fenfe of a difputed paJTage : Not, as of old, by fhfwing it fupports the Writers argument, but by (hewing it fupports the Crisic's hy^othefis. I had taken it for granted that Job rcafoned to the purpofe, and therefore urged this argu- ment againll undcrAanding him as fpeaking of the RejurreBion in the xixth ch.apter. " The dilputancs (fay I) arc all equally

" imbaraifcd

Se<5l. .2c of "Mos^s {fe^iimjlr^ted, ^z

the Utter part % and his three friends the former^ Tf'hey argue thefe points ' throughout the" whole

book,'

" imbara.Ted in adjufting the ways cf Providence. Job affirms *• that the good man is fometimes unhappy 5 the three friends ** pretend that he never, catx be fo ; becauie fuch a iituatioi> •' would reflefl upon God's jullice. Now the dodlrine of a Re- *' furreSlion fuppofed to be urged by Job cleared up all this em- *' barras. \{ therefore his friends thought it true, it ended the *' difpute ; if falfe, it lay upon them to confute it. Yet they " do neither: They neither call it into queftion, nor allow it ** to be decifive. But without the lead notice that any fuch *' thing had been urged, they go on as they begun, to inforce *' their former arguments, and to coiifute that which they ** feem to underftand was the only one Job had urged a^-ainft *' them, viz. the confcioufnefs of his own innocence.'' — Now what fays our learned Critic to this ? Why, be fays, that if I be miftaken, and he be right in his account of the book of Job, the reafon is plain why the three friends took no notice of Job's appeal to a Refurredlion ; namely, becaufe it deferved rone. As to his being in the right, the reader, I fuppofe, will not be greatly felicitous, if it be one of the confequences that the facred Reafoner is in the wiong. However, before we allow him to be right, it will be expefted he IhouM anfwer the following queftions. If, as he fays, the point in the book of Job was only his ferfonal innocence, and this, not (as I fay) upon the principle of no innocent per/on being miferabk, I would afk how it was poffible that Job's friends and intimates fhould be fo obflinately bent on pronouncing him guilty, the purity of whofe former life and convertation they were fo well acquainted with ? If he will fay, the difputants went upon that PRINCIPLE, 1 then aO; how came Job's appeal toa Refurreaion not to filence his oppofers ? as it accounted for the juftice of God in the prefent unequal dillribution of things'.

* This is one thing (fays Job) therefore I /aid it, he de-

STROYETH THE PERFECT WJTH THE WICKED, chap. ix. 22.

as much as to fay, this is the point or general queftion between us, and I ftick to the affirniativc, and infill upon its truth. The words which follow are remarkable. It had been objefted. that when the good man fufFered it was for a tryal ; to this Job replies: If the Jcourge Jlay fuddenlyy he iv'ill laugh at the trial of the i7inoceut, ver. 27,. fu'dd,enly, or indifcrimifiately zs Schultens rightly underftands itj as much as to fay, wheh the fword de- vours the innocent and the wicked man withpui^ diUintlion, if

'54 ^^'^ Dhine Legation Book VI.

book, and each party flicks firm to his firft opi-

nion.

Now this could never have been made matter of diipute, from the moft early fuppofed time of Job's exigence', even to ours, in any place out of the

land

the innocent wili diftinguifii his ill hap from the wicked man's and call it a iryal, the wicked man will mock at him j and in- deed not without fome ihew of reafon.

* " Suppofing (fays the Cornifh Anfwerer) we fhould allow ** fuch an e<jual trci.idence to have been admin iRered in Jud/ea; •' yet, fince he himfelf reckons it the utmoll extrai'agance *• to iuppofe it any where elle ; what an idea does he give *' us of the talents of Ezra ? who according to him ha» intro- *• duced perfbns who were no Jews debating a queltion fo pal- ** pably abfurd as that ic nevek entered into the head of any *' axe vian living to make a qufjiian of it out rf the land of ** fudaa? coniequently could not vvith the leaft probability *' or propriety be hand.-rd by any bat Jews. Is this like one *' who, he would make us to believe, was a careful ohfr-ver ** of Decorum ? certainly the rule of Decorum would have *' obliged him reJdere perfonae, &c. as Horace ipeaks — either •' to look out for proper perfons to debate his Queftions, or to " fit his queftion to the perfons," I fliould have reafon to complain of this infolcnce of Language, fo habitual to thefe Anfwercrs, did it not always carry its own punilhment along with it. For, look, in proportion lo their rudenefs, is generally their foliy, or ill faith. — Zup'^cflng (fays this man) lue pould allo'JO fucb an equal Providdnce., &c. — Now, when the Reade!" confiders I am only contending for the a8ual adminiflration of fuch a providence as the Bible, in almoft every page, reprefents to have been adminiflered, will he not naturally fuppofe this to be fonie iniidel-writer making a gracious conceflion even at the expence of his own caufe ? But when he is told that the writer is a minifler of the Gofpel, will he not conclude that his head is turned with the rage of Anfnuering?

He tells his Reader that I fay, " That the debated quef- •' tion in the book of Job could never enter into the head <' of any man living out of the land of Judea." Now, the very words from whence he pretends to deduce this propo- fition, coHvid liim of impollure. — l^his (fay J) could ne'ver

bu-vt

SetH:- 2. of Moses demonjlrated. 55

land of Judea ; the adminlftration of Providence, which, throughout that large period, all People and Nations have experienced, being vifibly and confefTedly unequal. Men, indeed, at all times, have been indifcreetly- prone to enquire how this> inequality could be made confiftent with God's juftice or goodnefs : But, amidft the great variety of human opinions, as extravagant as many^ of thofe are which philofophic men have fome time

have been made matter of iifpuie, from the most early sup- posed TIME OF Job's existence even to ours, iv any place out of the land of Judea. Which furely implies it might have been a queftion then ; or why did I reftrain the cafe to the times fmce Job's exiftence ? Was it for nothing ? In fad I was well apprifed (and faw the advantages I could derive from it) that the queftion might as reafonably have been debated at the time when Job lived, as at the time when, I fuppofed, the book of Job was written. But as this was a matter re- ferved for another place, I contented myfelf with the hint con- veyed in this limitation, which juft ferved to lay in my claim to the ufe I Ihould hereafter have for it. The truth is, the^flate of God's providence in the moji early fuppofed time f Job's ex- ijiaice is a fubjeft I ihall have occafion to confider at large in the laft volume of this Work, where I employ it, amonott other proofs, to illuftrate and confirm the conclufion of my general argument by 'one entire view of the harmony which reigns through all the various parts of the Divine Government as ad- miniftered over man. Of this my Anfwerers have no concep- tion. Their talents are only fitted to confider parts, and fuch talents beft fuit their bufinefs, which is, to find fault. — Ti.ey will fay, they were not obliged to wait. But who obliged them to write ? And if tjiey fhoild wait longer, they will have no reafon to complain : For the cloudy and imperfeft concep- tion tljey have of my argument as it now Hands, is the moil commodious fituation for the carrying on their trade. How- ever whether they prefer the light of common fenfe to this datk- nefs occafioned by the abfence of it, or the friendly twilight of Polemics to both, I {hall not go out of my way to gratify their humour. I have faid enough to expofe this filly cavil of our Cornifh Critic, and to vindicate the knowledge of the writer of the book of Job, and his obfervance of decorum, in opening a beauty in the contrivance of this work, which thefe Anfwerers were not aware ©f.

or

E 4

t

56 The Divine Legation Book VI,

or other maintiiined, we do not find any of them ever held or conceived that God's providence was equally adminijlered. This therefore, as we fay, could be no queftion any where out of the land of Judea. But we fay farther.

Nor in that land neither, in any period of the Jewifh nation either before or after the time where- in we place it. Not before, becaufe the difpenfa- tion of Providence to that people was feen and owned by all, to be equal : Not after, becaufe by the total ceafmg of God's extraordinary admini- ftration, the contrary was as evident.

Of this period then, there are three portions:

1. The time immediately /)rf^^^z;?^ the captivity;

2. Thtdttrction of it; and 3. The return from it.

To the opinions which place it in either of the two firft portions, as fuppofmg it to be written for the confolation of the people going into or remaining in captivity, a celebrated Writer has oppofed an unanfwerable objedion : " The Jews « (fays he) undoubtedly fuffered for their ini^ " quity ; and the example of Job is the example " of an innocent man fuffering for no demerit " of his own : Apply this to the Jews in their « captivity, and the book contradidls all the Pro- " phets before, and at the time of, their capti- *' vity, and is calculated to harden the Jews in *' their fuffcrings, and to reproach the Providence ** of God ",'*

There

*» T/v U/e attif Tiftent af Pvophefy, 13 c. p. 208. 3d. ed. — Cirotius thinks the book was written for the confolation of the ■dei'cendants of Efau, carried away in the Babylonifti captivity ; apparently, as the fame writer obferves, to avoid the abfurdity

arifing

Se£l. 2. of Moses demonjirated, 57

There remains only the third portion ; that is to fay, the time of their return, and fettlement ia their own land. And this ftands clear of the above objedion. For the Jews came from the Captivity with hearts full of zeal for the Law, and abhor- rence of their former idolatries. This is the ac- count Ezra and Nehemiah " give of them : And with thefe difpofitions, Jeremiah foretold, their ref- toration Ihould be attended. / will hring Ifrael again to his hahitation^ and he Jhall feed on Carmel and Bajhan, and his fold Jloall be fatisfied upon mount Ephraim and Gilead. In thofe days, and in that time^ faith the Lord, the iniquity of Ifrael JJj all be fought for, and there Jhall be none-, and the fins of Judab^ and they f jail 'not be found ^.

3. We fay then (to come home to the queftion) that the book of Job was written fome time be- tween the return and the thorough fettlement of the Jews in their own country.

Having fuited the I'ime to the People, let us try if we can fuit the People to the Subje^-, and kc

arifing from the fuppofition confuted above ; and yet, as he farther obferves, Groti'us, in endeavouring to avoid one diffi- culty, has fallen into another. For, fuppofe if ivrit, (fays the Author of The U/e and Intent of Prophecy, &c.) for the children of Efau, they i^ere idolaters ; and yet is there no allujion to their idolatry in all this hook, And luhat ground ii there to think they nxierefa righteous as to defer've fuch an interpretation to he put upon their fufferingSy as the book of Job puts on them, if fo be it nx)as nuritten for their fakes ? Or can it he imagined, that a hook 'writ about the time fuppofed, for the ufe of an idolatrous nation, and odious to the Jei-vs, could ever have been received into ihejeiuifl} canon? p. 208. Thefe are ftrong objeftions, and will oblige us to place this opinion amongft the fingularities of the excellent Grotius.

* Ezra, chapters iii. vi. Neh. chapters iii, viii, i*. y Chap. 1. ver. 15, 20,

whether

58 The D hi fie Legation Book VI.

whether this, which was foreign and unnatural to every otlier period, was proper and fcafonable to this here afTigned.

The Jews had hitherto, from their entrance in- to the land of Canaan to their laft race of kings, lived under an extraordinary, and, for the moft part, equal Providence. For thefe two ftates muft be diftinguifned, and indeed are diftinguifhed not only throughout this difcourfe, but throughout the whole Scripture hiftory, altho' the terms, in both, be fomctimes ufed indifferently to fignify either one ftate or the other, v^here the nature of the fubjed leads diredly to the fenfe in v/hich they are em- ployed. As their fins grew ripe and the time of their Captivity approached, God fo tempered juftice with his mercy, as to mix, with the pro- phetic denunciations of their impending puniHi- ment, the repeated promifes of a fpeedy Return ; to be attended with more illuftrious advantages for the Jewlih Republic than it had ever before en- joyed. The appointed time was now come. And their Return (predided in fo plain and public a manner) was brought about with as uncommon circumftances. Thofe moft zealous for the Law, and moft confiding in the promifes of God, as in- ftrufted by their parents in all his extraordinary 331fpenfations, embraced this opportunity of re- turning to their own country, to promote the ref- toratlon of their Law and Religion. And who can doubt but that they expeded the fame manifeftations of God's Providence in their Re- cftabliftiment, th;it their Forefathers had experi- enced in their firft Settlement ^ That they were indeed full of thefe expcdations appears from the remarkable account Ezra gives us of his diftrefs, when about to- return with Artaxerxes's com-

miflionj

Sc£l. 2. o/* Moses demonftrated, 59

tniflion, to regulate the affairs of Judea and Jeru- falem. The way was long and dangerous ; yet the, Jews had told the king fo much of their being un- der the peculiar proteflion of their God, that he was afhamed to afk a Guard for himfelf and his companions i and therefore had recoufe to prayer and falling: 'Then 1 -proclaimed a fafi there at the river Ahava^ that we might affli5t ourfehes before our God^ to feek of him a right way for us ^ and for our little ones^ and for all our Jubjlance For I was ajlmm- ed to require of the king a band of foldiers and horfe- men^ to help us againji the enemy in the way •, becaufs WE had fpoken unto the king^ fi^^y^^gt The hand of our .God is upon all them for good that feek him^ but his power and his wrath is againji all them that forfake him \ But in thefe their expeflations of the old extraordinary Providence, they were greatly de- ceived j and the long traverfes they underwent from the malice and perfecution of their idolatrous neicrhbours, made them but too fenfible of the difference of their condition from that of their Forefathers, in their firft eftablifliment. What then muft be their furprize and difappointment to find their expeftations fruftrate, and their Nation about to be reduced to the common level of the People of the earth, under the ordinary providence of Heaven ? At firfl it would be difficult for many habituated to, and long pofTefTed of, the notion of an extraordinary Providence, to comprehend the true ftate of their prefent circumftances. This aflonifhment is finely defcribed in the following words of Job, As for me, is my complaint to man ? and if it werefo, why Jhould not my fpirit be troubled ? Mark me, and be astonished, and lay your hand upon your mouth. Even when J retnember, I am

» Ezra viii, 21, 22,

afraid^

6q 1%e Bivine Legation Book VL

afraid-,: and tr^embljng taketh hold, of my flejh* Wherefore' do ihe ivicked livCy hcome old, yea iire mighty in p'u:er? &c \ — But otliers lefs pious ■would fall into doubts about God's juftice -, as not conceiving how he could difcharge the expectations he had raifed, without fome v^ry fpecial regai'd to the fafety of his chbfen People : . Nay there were fome, as there always will be in national diftrefles of this nature, fo impious as even to deny the moral government of God. Whom the Prophet Zephaniah thus defcribes, — " Men that are fettled on their lees; that fay in their hearty the Lord will not do

GOOD, NEITHER WILL HE DO EVIL ''." All WOul^

be in a ftate of anxiety and diforder. And this greatly increafed, i. From the bad fituation of affairs without : For, till the coming of Nehe- miah, the Walls of Jerufalem were in many places broken down •, the Gates taken away ; and the in- habitants expofed not only to the infults and rava- ges of their enemies, but to the reproach and con- tempt of all their neighbours, as a defpicable and abandoned People. 2. From the bad fituation of affairs within: Several diforders contrary to the Law had crept in amongd them ; as the marrying fir ange wives, and pradifing iifury with one another. Add to all this, (what would infinitely increafe the con- fufion) that a future itate of Rewards and Punifli- ments was net yet become a popular Dodlrine. That this is a faithful account of their condition ■will be feen when we defcend to particulars : That it would have this effect on the religious fentiments even of the better fort is evident from the expof- tulation of Jeremiah, in whofe time this inequality firfl ftruck their obfervation. Righteous art thou, 'O Z^rd, (fays he) when I plead with thee : yet let me

■» Chap. xxi. vcr. 4, 5, 6, 7. *" Chap. i. ver. 12.

talk

Sed. 2. (!f Mo ^'E^ demonjlrated, 6t

talk with tjpee of thy judgment:. Whe refor e doth the way of the wicked proffer ? V/herefore are all they happy . that deal very treacheroiifly " ? If it be faid, " that the inequality could not now firft ftrike their obfer- vation, in a Difpenfation where the equal Provi- dence had been gradually declining from the time of Saul i" I aflc, Why not ? Since there muft be feme precife point of time or other, when the fadt was firft attended to. And where can we find a more likely one than this ?

Could any thing therefore be conceived more feafonable and neceffary, at this time, than fuch a confolation as the book of Job afforded ? In which, on a traditional ftory, of great fame and reputation over all the Eaft, a good man was re- prefented as afflided for the trial of his virtue, and rewarded for the well-bearing his affliftions: and in which, their doubts concerning God's Provi- dence were appeafed by an humble acquiefcence under his almighty power. And, therefore, I fuppofe it was, that in order to quiet all their anxieties, and to comfort them under their pre? fent diftreffes, one of their Prophets at this very period, compofed the book of Job^. And here lee me obferve, that, to the arguments already given for fixing the date of the book of Job at this pre- cife time of the Jewifh Republic, may be added the following : Job fays, He knoweth the way that I take: When he hath tried me^ I fhall come forth as GOLD. But we have fhewn, in fpeaking of what Maimonides calls the Chaflifements of Love^ that they were unknown to the Jev/ifh religion till the times of their later Prophets ^ Now here the Chaflifements of Love are exprefsly. defcribed.

* Chap. xii. ver. i. • ^ Chap, xxiii. ver, lo. «= See p. 136.

3 To

(52 The Divine Legation Book VI.

To proceed. If fuch were the end of compofing this poetic ftory, we cannot but believe that every- thing in it would be fitted to the circumftances of the Tin:ies. But this could not be done without making the poem allegorical as well as drama- tic. 1 hat is, without reprelenting the real per- fons of that age under the perfons of the drama. And this would be according to the exadteft rules of good writing : For when fome general moral fitted for all times is to be recommended, it is bell fhewn in a fimple dramatic habit: but when the author's purpofe is to convey fome peculiar truths^ circumfcribed by time and place, they have need to be inforced by allegoric Images. And in fa6t, we Ihall find this poem to be wholly allego- rical: The reafon is convincing. There are divers circumftances added to each chara6ler, which can, by no means, belong to \}[it^tx{QXi^reprejenting: we conclude, therefore, that others arc meant under thofe charadlers, namely, the perfons reprefented. Nor did the Author feem much folicitous to conceal his purpofe, while in his introduftion to fome of Job's fpeeches he exprefleth himfelf inthis manner, — morecver Job continued his parable and /aid J, Which word parable properly fignifies in Scrip- ture the reprefenting one thing by another. Jerom in his preface to the book of Job, if I underftand him right, feems to fay much the fame thing, " Obliquus enim etiam apud Hebrasos totus liber fertur, et lubricus, et quod Gr^ci Rhetores

j(r;^r]/xa7j(r,a£K^ S, DUM C^II ALIUD LOQUITUR, ALIUD

AG IT : ut fi velis anguillam vel murenulam llridlis teneremanibus, quanto fortius prefleris tantocitius elabitur." This defcription of the work, and the comparifon by which Jerom illuftrates his defcrip-

^ Chap, xxvii. ver. i. Chap. xxix. ver. i. t Aiy^.

tion.

St6:. 2. of Moses demonf.ratei. 63

tipn, is a lively pidure of an allegory -, in which the literal lenfe, when you begin to grafp it clofe- ly, flips through your fingers like an eel. And in this fenfe we Ihall find the Tpeeches of Job to be extremely parabolical. For it is to be obferved that, from this place, where Job is faid to continue his Parable^ from ch. xxvii. to chap. xxxi. which is the winding up of the controverly between him and his friends, there are more allufions to the Jewifh Itate than in all the reft of the book to- gether.— But to leave no room for doubt in this matter, let us now examine each charafter apart **.

I. In

^ " Here, (fays the Cornlfh Critic) ta!:e the poem in th« " other light, as an allegoric fiftion, and what could it poffibly " afford befides a very od'd' «OT///}OTra/ /" for the truth of hiftory *' is deftroyed : and we have nothing in the room of it, but a " monllrous jumble of times and perfons brought together, " that were in reality feparated from each other by the cfillance ** of a thoufand or twelve hundred years. Had the author " been able to produce but one precedent of this fort amongll " the writings of the ancients, it might hare afforded Tome " countenance to this opinion : but, Tbeiieve, it would be dif- " ficult to find it.'* p. 47. What then, I befeech you, becomes of Sclcmon's Song, if you will not allow it to be a precedent of this yor?.^ Here, in the opinion of the Church, as appears by the infertion of it into the Canon, or at lealt in the opinion of'fuch Churchmen as our Critic, Solomon, under the cover of a love- tale, or amorous intrigue between him and an Egyptian lady, has reprefented Chrift's union and marriage with the Church. Surely, the patience or impatience of Job had a nearer relation in nature to the patience or impatience of the Jewifh People, than Solomon's love intrigue had, in grace, to the falvaiion ob- tained by Jefub Chrift. Yet this we are to deem no odd amufe- ment for the wise man. But for a Prophet, to employ the ftory of Job, to reprove the errors of the People committed to hii, care, and to inform them of an approaching change in their Difpenfation, is by no means to be endured. What ! has this great Critic never heard that, amongft the writings of the ancienh, t^here was a certain allegoric piece known by the name of the Judgment of Hercules, written by a Giecian Sage, to excite the youth of his time to the purfuit of virtue, and to withiland the

ahuie-

64 7he Divine Legation BookVI.

I. In the perfon of Job we have a good man af- flided, and maintaining his innocence ; equally im- patient of pain and contradidion ; yet, at length with all fubmifTion bowing to the hand of God ; and finally rewarded for it. Had this been a fic- titious Charatier in an invented llory we could have only gathered this general moral from it, "That virtue and fubmiiTion to the divine pleafure, not- "withftanding the common frailties of humanity, will alTuredly engage the care of Providence." But as 'this Hero of the poem was a real Perfonage ; and fo greatly famed for his exemplary patience in

allurements of pleafure? Hercules was as well known by hiltory and tradition to the Greeks, as Job was to the Jews. Did that polite people think this an odd amufaner.t ? Did they think the truth cf Hijiory dejiroyed by it ; and vothivg left in its room but a fncnjirous ji'jn'jle of times and per/ons, brought together, that Kvere in reality fcparated from each other by the dijiance of a thou- fund or tivelve hundred years F for fo many at leaft there were between the age of Hercules and the young Men of the time of Prodicus. Or does this Cornilh Critic imagine, that the Sages of Greece took the Allegory, for Hiftory : or believed any more of a real rencontre between Virtue, Pleafure, and young Hercules, than Maimonides did of that folemn meet- ing of the Devil and the Sons of God be.^ore the throne of the Almighty ?

Bat that curious remark of defraying the truth of Hijiory de- ferves a little further canvaffing. 1 fuppofe, when Jefus tranf- ferred the llory of the Prodigal and his fober Brother to the Gentiles and the Jews, and when St. John transferred Babylon to Rome, in allegory, that they deJiro\ed the truth of Wjiory. When ancient and modern drapiatic Writers take their fuSjedl from Hiftory, and make ix^c with fafli to adapt their plot to the nature of their poem, Do they di/hoy the truth of Hfory P Yet in their cafe there is only one bariier to this imaginary mifchief, namely the Drama: In the book of Joli, there are two, both t!ie Drama and the Allegory. But aitcr all, fome hurt it may do, amongft Readers of the iize of thii Anfwerer, when they miftake the book of Job for a piece of Biogr phy, like the men Ben John/on laughs at, who, for greater exadncfs, chofe to read the Hiilory of England in Shakefpear's Tragedies.

afflidions.

Sed. 2. c/* M o s E s dentonftrated, 65

afflidions, that his cafe became proverbial '\ we can never, on the common principles, account for his behaviour, when we find him breaking out ever and anon into fuch excelTes of impatience as border nearly upon blafphemy ^. The judicious Calmet

cannot

i Ye have heard of the Patience of Job, Jam. v. 1 1.

^ But the Corni(h Critic, who has no conception that eveft a patient man may, on fome occalions, break out into impa- tient heats, infills on the impropriety of Job's reprefenting the Ifraelites of Ezra's time. " To reprefent the murmuring and " impatient Jews, (fays he) it feems Ezra takes a perfon who *' was exemplary for the contrary quality — and then to adapt ♦' him to his purpofe, makes him break out into fuch exceffes " of impadence as border on blafphemy." p. 50. I doubt there is a fraall matter amifs in this fine obfervation. The Author of the Di'vine Legation did not write the book of Job ; there- fore whatever difcordancy there be between the Tradition of his patience and the written Hiftory of him in this book, it is juft the fame, whether Job or whether Ezra wrote it. After To illuftrious a fpecimen of his critical acumen, he may lie in bed, and cry out with the old Athlet,

Casftum artemque repono.

However he meant well, and intended that this fuppofed ab- furdity fhould fall upon the Author of the Divine Legation, and not upon the Canon of Scripture. In the mean time the truth is, there is no abftrdity at all, but what lies in his own cloudy pericranium. Whether the traditionary Job reprefented the Ifraelites or not, it is certain, he might with much decorum reprefent them. And this the following words of the Divine Legation might have taught our Critic, had he had but (o much, candour, as to do juftice to a Stranger, whom he would needs make his Enemy.*— " It is remarkable, that Job, from the be- ** ginning of his misfortunes to the coming of his three com- *' forters, though greatly provoked by his wife, finned not wAtb *' his lips; but, peifecuted by the malice and bitternefs of his " falfe friends, he began to lay \'o much ftrefs on his innocence " as even to accufe God of injultice. This was the very ftate " of the Jews ot this time ; fo exaftly has the facred Writer " conducted his allegory ; They bore their ibaits and difficulties " with temper till their enemies Sanballat, Tobiah, and the Vol. V. F " Arabians

66 ile Divine Legatlo7i Book VI.

cannot forbear obferving on this occafion. " En " effet Job avoit marque dans fes plaintes une " vivacite que pouvoit etre interprctee en mauvaife " part. II s'etoit plaint de la riguer de Dieu ; il avoit " deplore fon malheur d'une maniere qui avoit " befoin d'une interpretation benigne ^" And to the fame purpofe Albert Schultens, " In eo exceflu '' ut ne nunc quidem Jobum culpa liberare poffu- "r mus, ita facile intelligitur, multo magis talibus "■ didis offendi tunc debuilTe Elihuum, ignarum " ha6lenus, quid Deus de Jobo ejufque caufa " pronunciaturus elTet'"." Thus fofdy do thefe Commentators fpeak, in their embarras to reconcile this reprefentation of Job to his traditional Charac- ter for patience. The JVriting then and the I'ra-

" Arabians gave them fo much dlflurbance; and then they •' fell into indecent murmurs againfl: God." But leaft our Anfwerer fhould again miftake this, for a defence of the Author of the D. L. and not of Ezra, let him try, if he can reconcile the traditional patience of Job with the feveral ftrokes of im- patience in the written book, upon any other principle than this. That the moll patient man alive may be provoked into Harts of impatience, by a miferable Cavller, who, being let upon Anfivering what he does not underftand, reprefents falfely, interprets pcrverfely, and, when he is unable to make the DoSrine odious, erideavours to make the Perfm fo, who holds it fn conclufion however, thus much is fit to be obrcrved, that if the fo!c or main intention of the Writer of the book of Job (be he whom he will) were to exhibit an example of Patience, he has executed his defign very ill ; certainly, in fo perverfe a man- ner that, from this book, the fame of Job's exemplary Patience could never have arifen. Hence I conclude in favour of an Hypothefis which folves this difficulty, by difiHignifning between Job's traditional and written ftory. But now comes a Cornifti Critic, and makes this very circtanfiance, which I urged for the fupport of my Hypothefif, an objedion to it. Ycx. he had grounds for his obfervation, fuch as they were ; He dreamt, for he could not be awake, that 1 had invtnttd the circumJJance, whereas I only found it.

' £ur cbap. xxxiij. ver. lo. "" On tlie fame place.

diiioit

Se£l. 2. ^ Mos E s demonJl)'ated. ^J

dition being fo glaringly inconnflent, we muft needs conclude, i. That the fame of fa great Patience arofe not from this book. And 2dly, That fome other Charafter, fhadowed under that of Job, was the real caufe of the Author's deviation from the seneral Tradition.

o

And this chara6ter, I fay, was no other than the JEWISH PEOPLE. The fingularity of whofe ■fituation as d.fele5fed Nation is graphically defcribed in the beginning of the book, where Satan is brought in fpeaking of the diftinguiilied honour done to Job by his Maker. Hafi ihou not made a HEDGE about him^ and about his houfe, and about all that he hath, on every Jide''. The great point which Job fo much infifts upon throughout the whole book is his innocence: and yet, to our furprife, we hear him, in one place, thus expoCculating with God : 'Thou writeji bitter things agai'nfi me^ and ma- keft me to pojfefs the iniquities of my youth **. This can be accounted for no otherwife than by underftanding it of the people : whofe repeated iniquities on their firft coming out of Egypt, were in every Age remembered, andpuniihed on their Pofterity. Again, the twenty ninth chapter is an exad and circumftantial dcfcription of the profpe- rous times of the Jewifh People; feveral parts of which can be applied with no tolerable propriety to the condition of a private man: — " O that I *' were as in the days when God preferved me, " when his candle fnined upon my head, and when, " by his LIGHT, I walked through darknefs: As " I was in the days of my youth, when the secret " OF God was upon my tabernacle : — When I " wafhed my fteps with butter, and the rock

^ Chap. i. ver. lo. " Chap. xiii. ver. 26.

F 2 " poured

68 ^he Divme Legation Book VI.

" poured me out rivers of oil. — I put on righte- " oufnefs and it clothed me: my judgment was " as a robe and a diadem. — I brake the jaws of the " v/icKED, and pluckt the fpoil out of his teeth. " — 1 CHOSE OUT THEIR WAY, and fat chief, and '' dwelt as a KING in the army p." In thefe words the writer evidently alludes to the. pillar of fire in the Wildernefs ; — The Schekinah in the tabernacle •, — The land flozving with milk and honey, — The ad- miniftration of the judges -, — The curbing the rava- ges of the Philijiians ; — Ancl the glory of their firfl Monarchs. Well therefore might the Writer, in his introdu6lion to this fpeech, call it a parable.

This will lead us next to confider the Age^ as well as People meant. Job, fpeaking of his mif- fortunes, fays : For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that -which I was afraid of is . come unto me. I was not in fafety, neither had I refi^ neither was I quiet, yet trouble came '^. But in other places he fpeaks very differently. He wifhes he were as in ^months pajl, for then (fays he) I Jhall die in my neji, and 1 fhall multiply my days as the fund '. And again, IFhen I looked for good, then evil came upon me : and when I waited for light, there came dnrknefs \ Thefe things are very difcordant, if underllood of one and the fame perfon ; and can never be reconciled but on the fuppofition of an allegorical reference to another Chara6ler -, and, on that, all will be let right. For this difquiet, and fear of approaching trouble, was the very condition of the Jews on their firft return from the Captivity. Thus Ezra expreffeth it: And they fel up the altar upon his hafes {for fear was upon

P Ver. 2, Is' fej. ^ Chap. iii. ver. 25, 26. ' Chap,

xxix. ver. 1 8. ' Chap. xxx. ver. 26.

them^

Sed. 2. of Moses demonftrated. 69

theniy becaufe of the people of thofe countries) and they offered burnt-offerings thereon unto the Lord *. And thus Zechariah, who prophefied at this time : For before thefe days there was no hire for man, nor any hire for beaji, neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in, becaufe of the affliction ; for I fet all men every one againjl his neighbour ". Job, amongft his other diftreffes,

complains to God •, '■ — "Thou fcarejl me with

dreams, and terrifieji me with vifions"^ : this, I fup- pofe, refers to the comminations of Haggai, Ze- chariah, and Malachi, who all prophefied at this time, and were very troublefome on that account to the impatient Jews, to whofe circumftances only, and fpirit of complaint, thefe obfcure words of Job, expoftulating with God, can agree •, — and why dojt thou not pardon my tranfgrefficn, and take away mine iniquity ? For now 1 fhall Jleep in the dufi, and thou fhalt feek me in the mornings hut I foall not be ^. There is not a more difficult paffage in the whole book of Job ; and yet on the principles, here laid down, it admits and conveys this natural and eafy meaning, " In thus punifh- ing, thou will defeat thy own defign. It is thy purpole to continue us a peculiar People j yet fuch traverfes as we have met with, on our return, will foon deftroy thofe already come into Judea, and deter the reft from hazarding the fame for- tune." Job goes on in the fame drain : Is it good unto thee that thou fhouldefi opprefs ? that thou fhould- ejl defpife the work of thine hands ? and fhine upon the counfel of the wicked ^ ? The Jews of this time made this very complaint. / have loved you, faith

* Ezra, iii, 3.	" ZiiCH. viii. 10.	« Chap.
Tii. ver. 14.	y Chap. vii. ver. z\.	* Chap. X
ver. 3.

F 3 thr

^o The Divine Legation Book VI,

the Lord^ yet ye fay, Wherein haft thou loved us ' ? And again. And now we call the proud happy; yea they t i at work zvickednefs are jet up ; yea they that tempt God are even delivered ". — But Job goes on, — O that thou wculdeft hide me in the grave, that thou woiddeft keep me fecret, until thy wrath be paft \ that thou zvouldeft appoint me afet time, and remember me ^ By which words, the complaints of the Jews of that time are again referred to^ which were, as appears from the words of Job, to this effect : *' \Vould to God we had ftill continued in Capti- vity [the Grave, which was the very figure ufed by the Prophets for the Captivity] expecting a more favourable feafon for ourReftoration , or that we might be permitted to return unto it, 'till the remains of punifhment for our forefathers' fins are overpaft, and all things fitly prepared for our re-^ ception." And in thcfe cowardly andimpatient fen- time nts were they, on their Return, as were their Anceftors, on their firft coming out of the land of Egypt; to which, this Return is frequently com- pared by the Prophets. — Job goes on exprefling his condition in this manner : His troops come to- gether, and raife up their way againft me, and encamp round about my tabernacle. He hath put my bre- thren far frcni me, and mine acquaintance are verily ejlranged from me. My kinsfolk have failed, a?id my familiar friends have forgotten me^. The firll part of this complaint evidently relates to the Arabians, the Ammonites, and the Ajlododitcs', who (^3 Nehemiah tells us) hearing that the walls of J eru- falem were made up, and that the breaches began to be ftopped, were very wroth, and confpired all of them together to come and fight againft Jerufalcm and

' Malac. i. 2. *' Malac. iii. 15. <= Chap. xiv.

ver. 13. ^ Chap. xix. vcr. \z, 13, 14.

to

Sed. 2. of Mos-E^ demonjiraied. -ji

to hinder it '. The fecond part relates to their rich Brethren remaining in Babylon, who feemed, by Nehemiah's account, to have much negledted the diftrefied Remnant that efcaped from the Captivity to Jerufalem. ^ben Hanmii (fays he) one of my Ire- thren came, he and certain men of Judaby and I ajked them concerning the Jews that had efcaped, which were left of the Captivity, and concerning Jerufalem. And they faid unto me, ^he Remnant that are left of the Captivity there in the Province are in great afflic- tion and reproach : the wall of Jerufalem is alfo bro- ken down, and the gates thereof are burnt with fire K — Job goes on, 0 that I knew where I might find him [God] that I might come even to his feat. Behold I go forward, but he is not there, and backward but I can- not perceive him: on the left ba7id where he doth work^ but I cannot behold hi?n : he hideth himfelf on the right hand that I cannot fee him^. Could any thing more pathetically exprefs the lamentations of a People who faw the extraordinary Providence, un- der which they had fo long lived, departing from them ? — From God, Job turns to Man, and fays, " But now they that are younger than I have me " in derifion, whofe fathers I would have difdain- " ed to have fet with the dogs of my flock. Yea, " whereto might the ftrength of their hands pro- *' fit me, in whom old age was periilied? For want " and famine they v/ere folitary : fleeing into the '' Wildernefs in former time defolate and wafte : *' who cut up mallows by the bufhes, and juni- " per- roots for their meat. They were driven " forth from among men (they cried after them " as after a thief) to dwell in the clifts of the val- *' leys, in the caves of the earth, and in the rocks.

« Nehem. iv. 7, 8. ^ Nehem. i. 2, ?. B Cliap"

ixxiii. ver. 3) 8, 9.

F 4 *' Amongft

*^2 The Divine Legation Book VI.

" Amongft the buflies they brayed, under the *' nettles they were gathered together. They were " Children of fools^ yea Children of bafe men : '' they were viler than the earth ''." This is a de- fcription, and a very exa6t one, of the Cutheans or Samaritans ; of their behaviour to the Jews ; and the fentiments of the Jews concerning them. Thefe had him in derijjon^ he fays, and fo Nehemiah informs us : " But it came to pafs, that when " Sanballat heard that we builded the wall, he was *' wroth, and took great indignation, and mocked *' the Jews. And he fpake before his brethren and " the army of Samaria, and faid : What do thefe *' feeble Jews ? will they fortify themfelves ? will *' they facrifice ? will they make an end in a day? " will they revive the (tones out of the heaps of the ** rubbilh, which are burnt ? Now Tobiah the '* Ammonite was by him, and he faid, even that " which they build, if a fox go up, he fhall even " break down their ftone wall. Hear, O our *' God, for we are defpifed^ and turn their reproach *' upon their own head^" And God, by the Prophet Malachi, tells the Jews the reafon why he fufFered them to be thus humbled : Therefore have I alfo made you contemptible and bafe before all the peo- ple, according as ye have not kept iny ways^ but have been partial in the haw^. — Job fays he would have difdainedto have fet thefe with the dogs of his floe k^ that they were younger than him^ that they were children of fools, yea of bafe men, viler that the earth. It is well known in what fovereign contempt the Jews held the Cutheans or Samaritans above all People. The character here given of the bafenefs of their Extraftion, without doubt, was very juft. For

* Chap. XXX, ver. i,i^/cg, * Neh. iv. i, ^ feg;

~^ Mal. ii. g,

when

Sed. 2. ^ Mo s E s demonjlrated, 73.

when a Conqueror, as here the king of Aflyria, would repeople, with his own fubjeds, a ftrange country entirely ravaged and burnt up by an ex- terminating war, none but the very fcum of a Peo- ple would be fent upon fuch an errand. And by the account Ezra gives us of this Colony, as ga- thered out of many diftant parts of the Affyrian Emp!^re, we may fairly conclude them to be the ofr- fcou rings of the Eaft. " Then wrote Rehum the '* chancellor, and Shimlhai the fcribe, and the reft *' of their companions, the Dinaites^ the Aphar- *' fathchites^ the Tarpelites, the Apharfites, the *' Jlrcheviies, the Babylonians^ the Sufanchites^ " the Debavites, and the Elamites, and the reft *' of the Nations whom the great and noble Af- " napper brought over and fet in the cities of *' Samaria V — Job defcribes them as being at firft reduced to the utmoft diftreffes for food and harbour, in a defolate and wajle wildernefs^ living Upon roots, and dwelling in caves and clifts of the rock : and alluredly fuch muft have been the firft entertainment of this wretched Colony, tranfplant- ed into a Country entirely v/afted apd deftroyed by a three years inceffant ravage ". Nay, before they could come up to take poffeffion of their de^ folate places, the wild beafts of the field were got before them, and a fcourge of Lions prepared to receive them for their idolatrous pollutions of the holy Land ".

Job has now ended his Parahle ; and God is brought in to judge the Difputants; whofe fpeech opens in this manner: Then the Lord anfwered Job cut cf the whirlwind and faidy Who is this that

' Ezra iv. 9, 10. ^^ 2 KiiNGs xvii. 5, " 2 Kings

jtvii. 25.

darkeneth

74 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI,

dcrkeneth comtfel hy words ivithout knotvledge" ? The charader which God here gives of Job is that which the Prophets give of the People of this time. Te have wearied the Lord with your words % fays Malachi. And again : Tour words have been flout cgainji me, faith the Lord'^. — But on Job's re- ^peated fiibmiiTion and humiliation, God at leno-th declares his acceptance of him. And thus he re- ceived the People into grace, as we learn by the Prophet Zechariah -.—Thus faith the Lord, I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midfi cf Je- rufaUm\ It is added, Alfo the Lord gave Job TWICE as much as he had before ' : and in the fame manner God fpeaks to the People by the Prophet : Turn ye to the ftrong-hold, ye -pr if oners of hope, even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee \ — Job's brethren now came to comfort him, and every man gave hi?n a piece of money, and every one an ear-ring of goW. This, without queftion, alludes to the prefents which Ezra tells us the Jews of Babylon made to their brethren in Judea : And {ill they that were about them flrengthened their hands with veffels of fdver, with gold, with goods, and with beafts, and zvith precious things, beftdes all that was willingly offered ". — The hiftory adds, .S";? the Lord hleffed the latter end of Job more than the beginning ^ : and thus the future piofperity of tlie People was predifted by the Prophets of this time : The glory of this latter hcufe fhall be greater than the former, faith the Lord of IJojls : And in this place will I give peace, faith the Lord of Hofls''-. For I, faith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of

o Chap, xxxviii. ver. i, 2. p Mal. ii. 17. ^ Mal.

iii. 15. *■ ZtCH-viii, 3. ^ Chap, xlii vcr. lo.

' Zecu. ix". 12. " Chap, xli'i. ver. 11. ^ Ezra i. 6.

y Chap. xlii. ver. 12. ^ IIacgai ii, 9.

fre

Se£t. 2. of Moses demonftraf^. 7^

fire round ahout^ and will he the glory in the midfi of i?^r'.— The Book concludes with thefe words : After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and faw his fons, and his fons fans, even four generations. So Job died being old and full of days " : this too v/as the fpecific blelTing promiled by God to the Peo- ple, in the Prophet Zechariah; '^hus faith the Lord of Hojis, There Jhall yet old men and old women dwell in the Jlreets of Jerufalera, and every man with his fiaff in his hand for very age. And the Jlreets cf the city Jhall be full of boys and girls playing in the Jlreets thereof.

II. The next Perfon in the drama is Job's w^fe. Let us take her, as flie is prefented to us, on the common footing. She a6ls a (hort part indeed, but a very Ipirited one. Thenfaid his wife unto him : Doji thou Jiill retain thine integrity ? Curje God and die '*. Tender and pious ! He might fee, by this prelude of his Spoufe, what he was to expe6l from his Friends. The Devil indeed affaulted Job, but he feems to have got poffeflion of his Wife. Hap- pinefs was fo little to be expeded with fuch a ¥/o- man, that one almoft wonders, that the facred Writer, when he aims to give us the higheit idea of Job's fucceeding felicity, did not tell us, in ex- press words, that he lived to bury his Wife. In thefe modern ages of luxury and polifhed manners, a Chara6ler like this is fo little of a prodigy, that both the learned and unlearned are accuftomed to read it without much refiedlion : But fuch a Wo- man in the age of Job had been thought to need a Luflration. In the hiftory of the Patriarchs we have a large account of their Wives i but thefe are

'' Zech. ii. 5. •* Chap. xlii. ver. i6, 17,

P ZtcH. viii. 4, 5. ^ Chap, ii, ver. 9.

ail

y6 The Divine Legation Book VI,

all examples of piety, tendernefs, and obedience ; the natural growth of old fimplicity of manners. Something lower down, indeed, we find a. Delilah-, but fhe was of the uncircumcifed, a pure pagan ; as, on examination, I believe, tiiis Wife of Job will prove : another very extraordinary circum- ftance in her Charafter. For the Patriarchs either took care to marry Believers, or, if haply idola- ters, to inftrufl them in the true Religion ; as we may fee by the hiilory of Jacob. — Then faid his wife unto him, T)ofi thou Jlill retain thine integrity? Thummah, perfe£iioy that is, Religion. This was altogether in the Pagan mode ; Idolaters, as we find in ancient flory generally growing atheiftical under calamities ^ — Curfe God, barech, henedic'

maledic :

• The different fituations in which this Folly operated in ««- tient and modern times, is very obfervable. In the fimplicity of the early ages, while men were at their eafe, that general opi- nion, fo congenial to the human mind, of a God and his moral goiKynment, was too ftrong ever to be brought in quellion. It was when they found themfelves miferable and in di'hefs, that they began to complain ; to quellion the jiiltice, or to deny the exiltence of a Deity : On the contrary, amongft us, difafterous times are the feafon of refleftion, repentance, and reliance on Providence. It is affluence and abundance v/hich now give birth to a wanton fufficiency, never thoroughly gratified till it have thrown off all the reltraiius of Religion.

I imagine it may not be difficult to account for fo ftrange a contrariety in the manners of iVIcn.

In the ancient World, the belief of a mornl Providence was amongft their rnofl ir.conteftcd principles. But concerning the nature and extent of this Providence they had indeed very in- adequate conceptions ; being milled by tl.e e>.iraoydinaiy man- ner in which the full exertions of it v/cre manifclled, to ex- peft more inflant and immediate proted\ion than the nature of the Dif^ienfatton afforded. So that thefe men being, in their own opinion, the moft worthy objed of Providence's concern, whenever they became prclfcd bv civil or domedic

diilrclTe.-»

Sedl. 2. o/' Moses demonjlrated, yy

maledic: here rightly *^ tranflated curfe. So the Syr, and ^r«^. verfions, Conviciare Deotuo. This was an- other pagan pradtice when they had implored or bribed the Gods to no pnrpofe. Thucydides affords us a terrible inftance : When the Athenians in the height of their profperity went upon the Syracufiaii Expedition, the Fleet fet fail amidft the prayers and hymns of the Adventurers : but on its unhappy ifllie, thefe very men, on the point of their fatal difperfion, profecuted the fame Gods with the direft curfes and imprecations^. — Curfe Gcd and

diftrefTes, fuppofed all to be loft, and the world without a Governor.

But in thefe modern ages of vice and refinement, when every bleffing is cbufed, and, amongil the firft, that greatefl of all, LJEERTY, each improvement of the mind, as well as each, accommodation of the body, is perverted into a fpecies of luxury ; exercifed and employed for amisfement, to gratify the Fancy or the Appetites, as each, in their turn, happens to influence the Will. Hence even the first philosophy, the fcience of Nature itfelf, bows to this general abufe. It is made to aft againft its own ordinances, and to fupport thofe impieties it was authorifed to fapprefs. — But now, when calamity, dif- trefs, and all the evils of thofe abufed bleffings have, by their fevere but wholefome difcipline, reftored recolleftion and vigour to the relaxed and diffipated mind, the didates of Nature are again attended to : the impious principles of falfe Science, and the falfe conclufions of the true, are fhaken off as a hideous dream; and the abufed Vidim of his vanity and his pleafure flies for refuge to that only Afylum of Humanity,

RELIGION.

^ Thus both Saoo and Sacer have, in Latin, contrary figni- fications. The reafon is evident. Some things were corfecrated and fome Je'voted to the Gods : thofe were holy ; thefe exe- crable. So God being invoked fometimes to ble/s, and fome- times to cur/e, the invocation was expreffed by one word, which had contrary fenles. And this agreeable to the genius of lan- guage in general,

To*i lyuvimi; l7r*pJi/K.icrf<.«,j-»» apo^-j^ao-Oai. Lib, vii. § 75. £d. Hud.

Pl£;

^8 ^he Dhine Legation Book VL

DIE ; that is, offer violence to yourfelf. Another impiety of Paganifm ; which, under irretrievable misfortunes, deemed fuicide not only juft but laudable. A crime much abhorred by the He- brews, as forbidden by their Law •, till, in after- times, they became corrupted by Gentile manners. All this fhews the Woman to have been a rank ido- later. But Job's reply feems to put this fufpicion out of doubt: Thou fpeakejl as one of the foolish 'wo- 'm^n fpeaketh. What? Shall we receive good at the , band of Gody andfhallwe not receive evil '^? yf fool- ish WOMAN is a hebrew phrafe to fignify ?i foreign 'woman^ an Idolater, an Adult erefs^ for thefe quali- fications were always joined together in their ideas. On this account tlie Chald. Paraph, explains it, Siciit una de mulierihtis quce operantur ignominiam in domopatris fui. So David, fpeaking of the con- dition of the Pagan world, fays : The fool hath faid in his heart \ i. e. the Pagan; and in the charac- ter Job gives of the Ciitheans, quoted above, he calls them Children of fools'"; that is, of Gentile cxtradtion, as indeed they were. Now can we fup- pofe that Job would marry an Infidel, in a country which abounded with true believers ? Job, who thought idolatry a crime to be punifJjed by the Judge? Thefe are difficulties not to be gotten over on the received idea of this book ; and appeared ib great to Cocceius and Schultens, the two mofl: elaborate of Job's Commentators, that they are for glofling the kind Woman's words into an innocent or excu- fable fenfe ; tho* her Hufband's reply fo unavoid- ably confines them to a bad one : Thou Jpeakeji (fays he) as one of the fooliflj ijoomenfpeaketh. IVhat? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and fh all we

^ Chap. ii. ver. lo. • Psal. xiv. i, — liii. i.

*•' Chap. XXX. ver. 8.

not

Se<5t. 2. of Moses demonjlrated, y^

7wt receive evil ? Befides, they did not confider that Satan had, as it were, engaged that Job fhould cut'fe God to his face ' j which impiety he was here endeavouring to bring about by his agent, the Wo- man. But now, on our interpretation, it will be found that this characler was introduced with ex- quifite ai't and contrivance. We have obferved that this Remnant of the Captivity returned into their own Country with hearts full of zeal for the Law. Yet, with this general good difpofition, there was one folly they were ftill infefted with^ and that was the t^kmg fir ange wives of the ido- latrous nations round about-, which, amongft other had this terrible inconvenience, that the children who in their more tender years are principally un- der the care of the mother, would be early tainted with Pagan principles : a mifchief fo general that Hofea calls the children of fuch m2ivnzg&s, ftrange children"", i. e. idolatrous. This foon became a crying enormity. Their Prophets awaked them with the thunder of divine menaces ; and their Rulers improved their penitence to a thorouo-h re- formation. Jtidah (faith the Prophet Mdachi) hath dealt treacherotijly, and an abomination is com- mitted in Jfrael and in Jerufalem : For Judah hath profaned the holinefs of the Lord which he lovedy and hath married the daughter of a firange God. Thg Lord will cut off the man that doth this " . Nehemiah informs us of his zeal againft this offence: In thofe days alfo faw I Jews that had married wives of AfJidod, of Ammon, and of Moab : And I con- tended with the?n, and curfed them, and fmote certain of them, and pluckt off their hair, and made them J wear by God, faying, Te JhaU.no t give your daughters

_ ^ Chap. ii. ver. 5. » d^ap, v. ver. 7. « Mat

n. II, 12.

7 nnt»

lo ^he Divine Legation Book VL

unto their fons^ nor take their daughters unto your fons, cr for yourfelves". But Ezra gives us a very cir- cumftantial account of the Crime and of the Re- formation : Now when thefe things were done^ the Princes came to me^ faying^ ^he People of Ifrael, and the Priejts, and the Levites have notfeparated them,' felves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations : for they have taken of their daughters for themf elves and for their fans ; fo that the holy feed have mingled themf elves with the people of thofe lands : Tea, the hand of the Princes and Rulers hath been chief in this trefpafs^. Shechaniah then encourages Ezra to reform this abufe **. Ezra alTembles the people ' : they promife amendment ; and propofe a method of Inquiry : Let now our Rulers of all the congregation Jiand, and let all them which have taken firange wives in our cities, come at appointed times, and with them the Elders of every ^ city, and the Judges thereof. Ezra approved of this method, And they fet down in the firfl day of the tenth fnonth to examine the matter. And they made an end with all the men that had taken firange wives by the firfl day of the firfi month'. The ftate and con- dition of a weak and thin Colony, 'tis probable, encouraged them in this tranfgrelTion : yet, as it was fo exprefsly againft the law, they were alto- gether without excufe : And indeed, the prohibi- tion was an admirable expedient againft idolatry ; firange wives inevitably drawing the wifeft, as it did Solomon himfelf, into foreign idolatries. On this account the Prophet quoted above, finely calls them the daughters o/^ strange God. Jeremiah gives us a remarkable inftance of their influence over their hufbands in his time : 'Then all the men

• Nehem. xiii. 23, 25. P Ezra ix. 1,2. -J Chap, x, ver. 2. ' Ver. 7. » Ver. 14. ' Chap. x. ver. 16, 17.

which

Set5l. 2. of Moses demo?iJirated. 8i

which - knew that their wives had burnt incenfe unto other Gods, and all the women that flood by^ a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, anfwered Jeremiah^ f^^yi'ng-, As for the word that thou hajl fpoken unto us in the name of the Lord^ we will not hearken unto thee"^. And Nehemiah had good reafon to tell thefe Tranfgref- fors, — Did not Solomon king of Ifrael fin by thefe things '^ Tet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him King over all Ifrael: Neverthelefs even him did out- landifh women caufe to fin ". For Ezra exprefsly af- fures us, that thofe who had t2k.Qn Jirange women were drawn into the abominations of the people of the lands K

The facred Writer, therefore, who compofed his work for the ufe of thefe People reprefented under the perfon of Job, could not better cha- rafterize their manners, nor give them a more ufeful lelTon, than by making Job's wife, the au- thor of fuch wicked counfel, a Heathen, It was indeed the principal ftudy of their Rulers to deter them from thefe marriages, and to recommend the daughters of Ifrael-, of whom the Prophet Malachi thus fpeaks : Becaufe the Lord hath been witnefs between thee and the wife of thy youth, againfl whom thou haft dealt treacheroufly : yet isfhe thy companion^ And the wife of thy covenant ^ \ This will help us

to

• Jer. xliv. 15. * Nhh. xiii. 26. ^ Ezra ix. i. « Mal. ii. 14.

* The Cornilh Critic fays — " Above all, and to Tupoort " ihe allegory in its moll concerning circumftances, as t}v&''jews " were obliged to put away their idolatrous wives, fo Jot> •• ftiould have put away his, in the upfhot of the Fjble. This ** would CERTAINLY have been done had fuch an a!lerj;ory b-'en . " intended as Mr. VV. fuppofss." p. 66. Let thi» man alone

Vol. V. G f^r

82 72'6' Divine Legation Book VI^

to clear up a difficulty in the conclufion of the book which very much perplexes the Commenta- tors : (where, let it be obrerved, his misfortunes are called his Captivity *; which figure, of the fpe- cies for the genus, could hardly be of ufe in the Jewifli language till after their repeated punifli- ments by Captivities.) So the Lord Ikjfed the latter end of Job — He hctd alfo feven fons and three daugh- ters. And he called the name of the firfi Jemima, and the Jiame of the fecond Kezia, and the name of the third Keren-happuch. And in all the land were no women found fo fair as the daughters of Job, and their father gave them inheritance among their bre- thren ''. Albert Schultens fays "^ : " Men are wont " to afl< why the names of Job's fons are fup- " prefTed, and the names of his daughters only " mentioned. The Ancients have recourfe to my- *' ttery in this cafe, and trifle ftrangely with the

for his didributive juftice. I thought, when, in the conclufion of the book, we have a detailed account of Job's whole family, his fons, his daughters, and his cattle, and that we hear no- thing of his wife, (and, I ween, fhe would have been heard of had llie been there) the Writer plainly enough infinuated that Job had fome how or other got rid of this Affliftion, with the reft. But nothing elfe will ferve our Righter of wrongs but a formal bill of divorce — Indeed I fufped, a light expreffion 1 chanced to make ufe of, gave birth to this ingenious objeftion. See above, p. 75.

■ Chap. ^lii. ver. io. •• Chap, xliii. ver. 12, l£ feq.

^ '* Cur fuppreflis filiorum nominibus, filiarum ilia appofita *' fint, quaeri folet. Ad n.yperiutn confiigiunt veieres, mire *' lodentes in etymis.y^w/*-*', Ketzitr, Sc Kenn-happuchee, five *' Diana vel Diet, CaJ/i^, Sc Ccrnu Jltbii, ut vulgato hffiC COn- ** venire vifum. fn his inveniunt totidem chara(!:teres Ecrlejift, *' qua; cutn fplendore lucis conjungat odorem fragrantiflimum *' virtutis, ut tota pulchra fponfo fuo fillatur, &c. &c. Alii " fymbolicas has faciunt appellationes, quibus familia: foa; re- " divivam lucem, fainam, gloiiam rcprasfcntatam volucrit " fortunatiflinius pater.''

" etynao-

Sed:. 2. of Moses demonllrated. 83

* etymologies of Jemima^ Kczia^ and Keren-hap- pucb : which are commonly fuppofed to fignify Diana or the day, Caffia, and the horn of an- timony. In thefe, they find juil fo many cha- raders of the church $ which to the fplcndor of truth, joins the odour of virtue, that Ihe may {land a perfeft beauty in prefence of her fpoufe, &c. &c. Others make them fymbolical appel- lations, by which the happy father would re- prefent the former fplendor, fame and glory of his family returned again unto it." And Mr.

Le Clerc on the fame place '*-, — " if it is afked why ' the names of the daughters are recorded and not ' the fons : Of this, no reafon can be given, un- ' lefs, perhaps, the daughters were more illuftri- ' ous. Thefe names are urged as a certain proof ' of its being a true hiftory ? But who can. fay ' how far the oriental writers were wont to go^

* in dreffing out their Parables. In a Gofpel-pa- ' rable we find the name of Lazarus •, which does ' not on that account hinder us from confidering ' the ftory as of that clafs. However we think it ' bell to leave the matter juft as we found it."

But now all this difficulty is removed, and the paf- fage is feen in its full force and beauty. It was the writer's defign to recommend the daughters of Ifrael as the moll defirable Parties, [^And in all the land were no women found fo fair as the daughters of Job"] and to commemorate the reformation now made

^ ^luarilur eur Jint fill arum nomina memorata, non filiorum ; tu'pis ret ratio reddi non poteft, ni ft forte illufr lores f»e>int fif^ H.r£C nomina prof'Tuntur, ut argutnentum Qertum, quo cnjiet banc tieram ejji hifioriam. StJ q:tis dicat quo uf^ue Qrienfales pnrabolas tmari folebant ? In parabola E'Jan^eHcu ejl quidint nomen Lazari^ auod non ohjiat q^ia minus Parabola habestur, Verum rern in medio

Q % amongft;

§4 ^ke Divine Legation Book VI.

amongft the peopky when they put away their llrangc wrceSy and took an oath to fhare the holy 'inheritance, for the future, only with the daugh- ters of Ifrael.— Ami tbcir fdtbcr gave them inherit tance anmigfi their brethren: v/ords that have been as troublelbme to the Commentators as the reft •, and have occafioned many a learned Diflertation de Jure SucceJJionis apud liehraos^ Arahas^ Graces, Latinos, i^ quamplurimas Gentes.

III. We come next to Job's three friends. — Their folemn appointment to go and comfort Job ; the neglect of their errand when they came thither-, their inhumanity and ftrange humour of contra- diction, have been already taken notice of, and ex- plained, and reconciled to decorum, on the nature and principles of a dramatic compofition. But this is not all -, We find, on the iffue of their debate, fo many marks of infult, falfhood, and malice, that we muft needs conclude their Friendlhip to have been all pretence •, that they were enemies in their hearts -, and that the true purpofe of their vifit was to imbitter and aggravate his miferies. This requires other principles to explain it ; for, in the hifiorical part they are reprefentcd as real friends : and this makes fuch a difficulty as nothing but our idea of the work can remove. Who then will doubt but that, as the people were repre- fentcd under Job, thefe three friends were their three capital Enemies, who fo greatly hindered and obftruded the rebuilding Jerufalem and the tem- ple, Sanballat, loBiAH, and Geshem ? Of whom Nehemiah gives us this account : Then I tame to the governors beyond the river, and gave them the king's letters. When Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the fervant the Ammonite, heard of it, it

grieved

Sed. 2. o/' M o s E s demonjlrated. 85

grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to feek the 'welfare of the children of Ifrael", And again : But it came to p^fe that zvhen Sanballar, and Tobiah, and the Arabians, aiid the Ammonites^ and the Afhdodites heard that the walls of Jerufalem ivere made up, and that the breaches began to be flopped^ then they were "very wroth, and confpired all of them together, to come and to fight againfi Jerufalem and to binder it ^ When force would not do, they af- I'ayed fraud : Now it came to pafs, when Sanball at, and Tobiah, and Geshem the Arabian, and the reji of our enemies heard that I had builded the wall, and that there was no breach left therein, then Sanbal- lat and Gefliem fent unto me, faying, Co?.ie, let us meet together in fame one of the villages in the plain of Ono : but they thought to do me mifchief^. The Writer of the book of 'Tobit feems to have had this idea of the three friends, where he fays : Nam ficut heato Job infultabant Reges, ita ifti parentes ^ cognati ejus irridebant vitam ejus*". But we are to obferve this is now only to be found in the Latin tranQation, which St. Jerom tells us, he made from the Chaldee. But, what is ftill of more mo- ment, is a paragraph at the end of the Septuagint tranQation of the book of Job, which makes of thefe three friends, two Kings and a Tyrant.

The marks of refemblance between the allege^. ricalsind real perfons, are many and ftrong.

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are delivered as the allies and friends of Job: So Sanbaliat the Ho- ronite had given his daughter to one of the fons of Joiada the fon of Eliafhik^ the high prieft ' : And

• Nehem. ii. 9, 10. ' Chap. iv. ver. 7, 8. « Chap.

vL ver. I, 2. ' ToB. ii. 14.. ^ Neh£M. xiii. 28.

G 3 1'obiah

86 The Divine Legation Book VI.

Tohiah had made two alliances with the Jews : his fon Johanan had married the daughter of Meiliul- 1am the fon of Berechiah ; and he himfelf had taken to wife the daughter of Shcchaniah the fon of Arah ^

Eliphaz^ Bildad, and Zophar came in a friendly manner with offers of fervice and affiftance : So did ihcfe enemies of the Jews, as we are informed both by Ezra and Nehemiah: " Now when the •' ADVERSAi'iES of Judah and Benjamin heard " that the children of the captivity builded the " temple unto the Lord God of Ifrael : Then " they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of " the fathers, and faid unco them, Let us build " WITH YOU. But Zerubbabel and Jefhua and " the reft of the chief of the fathers of Ifrael, faid " unto them. You have nothing to do with us " to build a houfe unto our God, but weourfelves " will build unto the Lord God of Ifrael, as king '* Cyrus the king of Perfia hath commanded us'." And Nehemiah's anfwer to Sanhalkt, Tohiah^ and Gejhem^ fhews, they had made this requeft : — " then " anfwered I them, and faid unto them. The " God of heaven he will profper us ; therefore we " his fervants will arife and build, hit you have no *' 'portion^ nor rights nor memorial in Jerufalem "".'* And of Tcbiah in particular, he fays : Moreover in thefe days the nobles of Judah fent many lei ters unlo Tobiah : and the letters of Tobiah came unto them. Alfo they reported his good deeds before me., and uttered fny words to him. And TobiaJi fent letters to put me infear^^

^ NtH. vi. 18. ' Ezra iv. 1, 2, 3. ■" Neh. ii.

?p. " Neh. vi. 17, 19.

The

Se(5t. 2. ^J y{^%^% demonjlrated, Sj

The three Friends of Job were worihipers of the true God ; and fo were thefe Adverfaries of the Jews': For when, in the place quoted above, they alked to build with the Jews, they give this realbn of their requeft: For we seek your God as yi do^ and we do facrifice unto him fince the days cf Eferhaddon king of JJJitr, which brctight us up hither \

The three-Friends were perpetually deriding and upbraiding him for his fms :* And of this Job fre- quently complains in the courfe of thedirputationP. So Nehemiah tells us, that when Sanballat the Ho- ronite, ajid Tobiah the fervant^ the Ammonite, a-nd Gefhem the Arabian heard that they were fet upon building the zvalls of Jei'ufilem^ they laughed them to fcorn, and defpifed them^ andfaid, tVhat is this thing I hat ye do ? Will ye rebel againji the king '^ ? And again : But it came topafs that when Sanballat heard that we builded the wall, he was wrath, and took great indignation, and mocked the Jews. Now To- biah the Ammonite was by him, and he faid. Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he flmll even break down their ft one wall'. God, by the Prophet Malachi, tells them, Judah hath profaned the holinefs of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of aftrange God\ And it is remarkable that they with whom the Jews had committed this cvirn^;, cLS Sanballat, Tcbiah, and the Cut heans, were made the inftruments of their punifhment. — Eli- phaz the Temanite charges and upbraids Job with the moft flagitious crimes : Is not thy wickednefsgreaty

* Ezra iv. 2.' r Chap, iv. 27. Chap. xii. ver. 4.

Chap, xiii* ver. 4. Chap. xvi. ver. i, 20. Chap. xvii. ver. z.

Chap. xix. ver. 2. Chap. xxi. ver. 3. Chap, xxvi. ver. 4.

^ Neh. ii. 19. ' Chap. iv. ver, i, 3, * Mal. ii. 11.

G 4 and

88 I'he Divine Legation Book VI

end thine iniqtHlies infinite^? And thus the Cu- theans rcprelented the Jews, to Artaxerxes : *' Be ** it known unto the king, that the Jews, which " came up from thee to us, are come unto Jeru- " faiem, building the rebellious and the bad city, ** and have fet up the walls thereof. —Therefore *' have v/e certified the king that fearch may be *' made in the book of the records of thy fathers, " fo Ihalt thou find in the book of the records, *' and know, that this city is a rebellious city, and " hurtful unto kings and provinces •, and that *' they have moved fedition within the fame of old " time ; for which caufe was this city dellroyed "."— If their Adverfaries could accufe them thus unjuft- ly, we are not to think they would fpare them where there was more ground for condemnation. When Nehemiah came to the adminillration of afi'airs, the Rich had opprefled the Poor by a rigorous ex- a(5lion of their debts : And there was a great, cry of the 'people and of their wives, againji their brethren the Jews. For there were that f aid , IVe, our fonsy and our daughters are many : therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat and live. Some alfo there were that faid. We have mortgaged cur lands, vine- yards, and houfes, that we may buy corn becaufe of the dearth. There were alfo that f aid. We have borrowed money for the king^s tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Tet now ourfiefh is as thefiefh of our bre- thren, our children as their children : and lo we bring into bondage our fons and our daughters to be fervants, andfome of our daughters are brought into bondage al- ready, neither is it in our power to redeem them ; for other men have our lands and vineyards ". This abufe Nehemiah reformed ; and in reproving the oppref-

* Chap. xxii. ver. 5, " Ezra iv, tj^ i^, 15.

» NeH. V, I, ^ ftq,

fors,

Se6t. 2. 0/ Moses dcmonjirated. 89

fors, he faid : // is not good that ye do : Ought ye twt to walk in the fear qf our Lord, hecaufe of the re- proach OF THE HEATHEN CUR ENEMIES^' ? whicl^

reproach was intended to be reprefented in thefe words of Eliphaz : For thou hafl taken a -pledge from thy brother for nought ^ andfiripped the naked of their cloathing'^.

But the three Friends are at length condemned by God himfelf: the Lord faid to Eliphaz the 7>- manite : My wrath is kindled againjl ihee, and ngainfi thy two friends : For he have not fpcken of me the thing that is right, as my fervant Job hath^. And in the fame manner he fpeaks, by the Prophet, concerning thefe Adverfaries of the Jews : And I cm 'very fore difpleafed with the Heathen that art AT EASE : For I was hut a litti^e displeased, and they helped forward the affliction ^ — His fentence againft the three Friends goes on ia thefe words : Therefore take now unto you f even hiU kcks andfeven rams, and go to my fervant Job, and offer up for your f elves a burnt-offerings ayid my fer-, vant Jobjhall pray for you, for him will I accept: Lefi J deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not fpoken of me the thing which is right, like my fervant Job ^ This, I fuppofe, is defigned to reprefent the defeat of their Adverfaries, in the decree which the Jews, by the good providence of God, pror cured from. Darius, commanding the Cutheans (who had hitherto fo much hindered) now to afljft the Jews to the utmoft of their power in rebuilding the Temple : " Then Darius the king made a de- " cree — Now therefore Tatnai, Governor beyond " the river Shetharboznai, and your companions

^ Ver* 9. ^ Chap. xxii. ver. 6. *■ Chap, xlii,

ver. 7. '' Zecu. i. 15. ' Chap, xlii, ver. 8.

« the

go 'The Divine Legation Book VL

" the Apharfachites, which are beyond the river, " be ye far from thence : Let the work of this '*• houfe of God alone, let the governor of the " Jews, and the elders of the Jews build this *' houfe of God in his place. Moreover I make **• a decree, what ye fhall do to the elders of thele " Jews, for the building of this houfe of God : " that, of the king's goods, even of the tribute " beyond the river, forthwith expences be givea " unto thefe men, that they be not hindered. " And that which they have need of, both young " bullocks and rams, and lambs, for the burnt- *'^ OFFERINGS of the God of heaven, wheat, fait, •' wine, and oil, according to the appointment of ** the priefts which are at Jerufalem, let it be given *' them day by day without fail; that they may of-' *' fer facrifices of fweet favours unto the God of *' heaven, and pray for the life of the king

" AND OF HIS SONS ^"

The reafon why the three Friends are condemned as not having fpcken of God the thing that was right was, I. Becaufe ufing the argument of an equal Providence only to condemn Job with the heart of an enemy, they made the honour of God a ftale to their mahgnant purpofes. To underftand this more fully we muft confider that the great conteft was concerning an equal Providence: What occa- fioned it was their fufpicion of Job's fecret iniquity, confequently thefe two points take their turns occa- {ionally in the courfe of the difputation. Job, after many ftruggles, at laft gave up the general queftion -, but the particular one of his own righte- oufnefs, he adheres to, throughout, and makes it the fubjedt of all he fays from chap, xxvii. to chap.

* Ezra vi. i, 6, iff /'q.

Sc<f^. 2. o/" M o s E s demonjlrated, 9 1

xxxi. This ended thedifpute: for, in the beginning of the next chapter % the writer tells us, — So thefe three men ceafed to anfiver Job^ becaiife he ivas righ- teous in hii own eyes: that is, they gave Job this con- temptuous reafon why they would argue no long- er with him. By this we may fee, how finely the dilpute was conduced, to anfwer, what I fuppofe was, the end of writing the book. .Job, who re- prefented the People, was to fpeak their fentiments concerning their doubts of an equal Providence -, but he was at laft to acquiefce, to teach them a lefTon of obedience and fubmiflion.

2. The fecond reafon of the condemnation of thefe faife Friends was, becaufe they had fupported their condemnation ot Job by a pretended Reve- lation.— Now a thing was fecretly brought to me (fays Eliphaz) and mine ear received a little thereof. Jn thoughts from the vijions of the nighty when deep Jleep falleth on men, fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to /ioake : then a Spirit pajfed before my face, the hair of myflejh food up : I food Jlill, but I could not difcern the form thereof : an image was before mine eyes, there was filence and I heard a voice faying, " Shall mortal '* man be more juft than God," l£c ^ This was the charader, and condu6l, of the enemies of the Republic, as the Prophet Ezekiel informs us ; whofe words are fo very appofite, that we may well think they were the original to thofe above in the fourth chapter of Job. '^hus faith the Lord God, Wo unto the foolifo Prophets that follow their own fpirit and have feen nothing — 'They have feen vanity and lying divination, faying, The Lord faith ; iind the Lord hath not fent them. — Have ye not

» Chap, xxjcii. ^ Ch^p. iv. ver, 1 2, i^ /eq.

feen

gi The Drohie Legation Book V]

feen a vain vifion^ und have ye not fpoken a lying divination^ whereas ye fay ^ The hord faith it^ albeit I have not fpoken? Therefore thus faith the Lord God, Becaufe ye have fpoken vanity and feen lyes^ therefore behold I am againft you, faith the Lord CodK

IV. The laft Perfon in the Oppofition is the Devil himfelf, Satan, the Author and Contriver of all the mifchief. And now we are come to that part of the Allegory , where the fable and the moral meet, and, as it were, concur to throw off the Malk, and expofe the true face of the Subjed j this affault upon Job being that very attack which the Prophet Zechariah tells us, Satan made, at this time, on the People. The only diflference is, that, in this Poem, it is Job-, in that Prophecy, it it is Jofhua the high priefi, who (lands for the Peo- ple. In all the reft, the identity is fo ftrongly mark- ed, that this fingle circumftance alone is fufficient to confirm the truth of our whole interpretation. There needs only fetting the two paffages together to convince the moft Prejudiced : — The Hiftorian fays, " Now there was a day when the fonsof God *' came to prefent themfelves before the Lord, and *' Satan came alfo among them. And the Lord " faid unto Satan : "Whence comeft thou ? Then *' Satan anfwered the Lord, and faid. From going " to and fro in the earth, and from walking up " and down in it. And the Lord laid unto Satan : *' Haft thou confidered my fervant Job, that there " is none like him in the earth, a perfed and an *' upright man, one that feareth God and efcheweth ** evil ? Then Satan anfwered the Lord and faid : ^* Doth Job fear God for nought ? But put forth

« EzEK. xili. ver. 3, ^'fep

8 " thine

Se(fl.2. ^ Moses demonfirated. 93

" thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and " he will curfe thee to thy face. And the Lord " faid unto Satan : Behold all that he hath is in *' thy power, only upon himfelf put not forth *' thine hand. So Satan went forth from the pre- *' fence of the Lord ''." — The Prophet's account is in thefe words : " Be filent, O all flefh, before the " Lord : for he is raifed up out of his holy habita- " tion. And he Ihewed me Joshua the high »' prieft Handing before the angel of the Lord, ♦' and Satan {landing at his right hand to refift " him. And the Lord faid unto Satan : The •* Lord rebuke thee, O Satan, even the Lord " that hath chofen Jerufalem, rebuke thee: Is " not this a brand pluckt out of the fire ? Now " Jo/hua was clothed with filthy garment Sy and flood «' before the angel. And he anfwered and fpake *' unto thofe that flood before him, faying, "Take •' away the filthy garments from him. And unto *' him he faid. Behold I have caufed thine iniquity " to pafs from thee, and I will clothe thee with ** change of Raiment. And I faid. Let them fet ** a fair mitre upon his head •, fo they fet a fair *' mitre upon his head, and clothed him with gar- *' ments, and the angel of the Lord flood by '." Job's whole dramatic life lies here in its flamina. — Satan ftanding at the angel's right hand to refift Jojhua is, (when drawn out more at length) his perfecution of Job. — JoJJma clothed with filthy gar- ments, is Job amidft the Afhes. — The clothing of Jofhua with change of raiment and fetting a fair mitre on his head, is Job's returning Profperity. And the angel of the Lord flajtding hy^ is God's In- terpofition from the Whirlwind.

^ Chap. i. vcr. 6, l^ feq. * Zech. ii. 13. Chap. iii.

?er. I. l^/tq^.

Bi;t

^4 ^h^ Dhine Legation Book VI,

But we have not yet done with this Character. The finding Satan in the fcene is a ftrong proof that the Work was compofc^d in the age we have afficrned to it. This evil Being; was little known to the Jewilh People till about this time. Their great Lawgiver, where he fo frequently enumerates, and warns them of, the fnares and temptations which would draw them to tranfgrefs the Law of God, never once mentions this Capital enemy of Heaven ; yet this was an expedient which the wifeil: Pagan Lawgivers ^ thought of ufe, to keep the Populace in the ways of virtue. Thus Zaleu- cus, in the preface to his book of Laws, fpeaks of en evil Demon tempting men to mif chief : And in the popular Religion there was always a Fury at hand, to purlue the more atrocious Offenders through the world. Nay, when the end of that facred Hiftory which Mofes compofed, obliged him to treat of Satan's firft grand machination againft man- kind, he entirely hides this wicked Spirit under the Animal which he made his inftrument. (The rea- fon of this wife condudl hath been in part explained already, and will be more exadly treated in the courfe of our general argument'.) But, as the fulnefs of time drew near, they were made more and more acquainted with this their capital Enemy. When Ahab, for the crimes and follies of the Peo- ple, was fuffered to be infatuated, we have this ac- count of the matter in the firft book of Kings : And Micaiah faidy Hear thou therefore the word of the

^ See Div. Leg. Vol. i. p. xzS. 4th ed.

' Divine WifJom procures mnny rtitis by one .nncf the (<ime m(an\ fo Ik re, bt fides this ufe, of throwing the Reader's atV tcntion entirely on the Sttpent. it had another, 'viz. to make ihc Sfrfent, which was of the mod facred and venerable reg.'ird in the Mvlicrious Rclit;ion of Egypt, the objcft of the Ifuicli.ei' fitter abhofitncc and dcicllation.

Lord:

Se6l. 2. cf Moses demonjlrated, g^

Lord : Ifaw the Lord Jilting on his throne, and alt the hojl of heaven Jlanding by him, en his right hand and on his left. And the Lord f aid : fFho /hall per- fuade Ahab that he may go up and fall at Ramoth- Gilead? And me /aid on this maimer, and another faid on that manner. And there came forth a spirit and flood before the Lord, and faid, I will perfuade hifn. And the Lord faid unto him: Where'-jjith? And he faid, I will go forth, and I will be a lying fpirit in the mouth of all his Prophets. And he faid^ ihou fhalt perfuade him, and prevail alfo j Go forth anddo fo ". Satan is not here recorded by name ; and fo we muft conclude that the People were yet to know little of his hijlory : However, this under- taking fufficiently declared his nature. On the re- turn from the Captivity, we find him better known \ and things then are afcribed to him, as the imme- diate and proper Author, which (while divine Pro- vidence thought fit to keep back the knowledge of him) were before given, in an improper fenfe, to the firil and ultimate Caufe of all things. Thus, in the fecond book of Samuel it is faid, that God - moved David to number the people, — And again^ the anger of the Lord was kindled againfi Ifrael, and he moved David againfi them to fay. Go number Ifrael and Judah ". But in the firft book of Chro- nicles, which was written after the Captivity, Satan is faid to have moved David to this folly. And Satan ftood up againfi Ifrael, and provoked David to number I/rael °. For, His hiftory having an infeparable connexion with the Redemption of Mankind, the knowledge of them was to be con- veyed together : and now, their later Prophets

« I Kings xxii. jg, iy /q. ■'» z Sam, x^-iv. i,

• I Chron, ^xi. I.

had

^6 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

had given lefs obfcure defcriptions of the Re- deemer and the other attendant truths.

Here let me flop a moment, though I antici- pate my lubjed, to adore the vifible fplendor of the divine Wifdom, in this period of God's moral Difpenlation : We have obferved that the fulnefs ot time approaching, the writings of the Prophets^ after the Captivity, had given lefs obfcure intima- tions of the Redemption •, and that the Truths, which had a neceflary connexion with it, were propor- tionably laid open. Two of the principal of thefe were the history of Satan and the doctrine OF A FUTURE STATE •, which, foon after this time, were conveyed to their knowledge. Now, befides the ufe of thefe two truths to the general CEconomy, they were of great advantage to the Jewilh people at thofe very jundures when each was firft made known unto them. The hijtory of Satan, it is evi- dent, they were brought acquainted with in their Captiiity ; and nothing could better fecure them from the dangerous error of the two principles, which was part of the national Rehgion of the Country into which they were led captive. The io5lrine of a future ftate they learnt fome fmall time after their thorough Re-eft ablifhrnent-, and this being at a time when their extraordinary Providence was departing from them, was of the higheft advantage and fupport to them, as a Nation and a People. But this, as I fay, is anticipating my fubje6b, and will be explained at large hereafter : The other is the point we are at prel'ent concerned with, name- ly, the knowledge of this wicked Spirit -, and the fecurity this knowledge afforded, againft the error of the two Principles: Which leads us to another ufe the writer of the book of Job hath made of this Peifonaze of the Drama.

Secfl. 2. o/' Moses demovfirated, 97

We have obfervecl, that the principal defign of the Author of this work was to remove all errors concerning the supreme cause, from amongft a People now about to come under the ordinary Pro- vidence of Heaven, after having been long accuf- tomed to the extraordinary. The common fault which the Ancients were prone to commit, on fee- ing good and bad happen indifferently to all men, was to bring in queilion the goodness of their Maker. And they were apt to fatisfy themfelves in this difficulty, by another miftake as abfurd as that was impious-, the belief of two principles, a Good and an Evil. The Jews, of this time par- ticularly, were moft obnoxious to the danger, as coming from a place where this ftrange Dodrine made part of the public Religion. It was of the higheft importance therefore to guard againft both thefe errors. And this the facred Writer hath ef- feftually done, by fhewing that Satan, or the evil Sprit (whofe hiftory, mifunderftood, or im- perfectly told, in the firft Ages of mankind, much favoured the notion of an evil Principle) was, like all other immaterial Beings, even of the higheft rank, a creature of God ; at enmity with him ; but entirely in his power; and ufed by him as an in- ftrument to punifh wicked men ; yet fometimes permitted to afflid the Good, for a trial of their patience, and to render their Faith and Virtue more perfe6t and confpicuous. Hence we fee (which d':;ferves our ferious refled:ion) how ufeful ic was to this purpofe (what little light foe ver it gave to the Queftion) torefolve all, when the difpute came to be moderated and determined, into the omni- potence of God, who is reprefented as the sole Creator and Governor of all things. And, what the Wiiclom of the Holy Spirit direded the Wri- ter of the book of Job to do, in this point, on

VoL.V. H their

q8 TZ'^ Divine Legation Book VI.

their coming from the Land which held the belief of TWO PRINCIPLES, the fame Wifdom directed Il'aiah to do, on their going thither. This Prophet, in the perlbn of God, addrefling his fpeech to Cyrus, whom God had appointed to be the inftru- ment of his People's Reitoration, fays : / am the Lord, and there is none elfe^ there is no God befides Vfie. I girded thee, though thou haji not knozvn

jfjC, — I FORM THE LIGHT AND CREATE DARK- NESS, I MAKE PEACE AND CREATE EVIL: I the

Lord do all thefe things p.

This declaration of God by Ifaiah naturally leads us, ere we conclude this head, to confider another text of the book of Job, which confirms all that is here faid of Satan and the two principles; and, by confequence, the opinion here advanced, of the time in which the book was written. Job, fpeaking of the works of Creation and Provi- dence, lays, He divided the sea with his pozver, {ifid his underfianding fmiteth thro' the proud *'. — This evidently alludes to the miracle of the Red- fia, and the deftruftion of Pharaoh. From thefe v/orks of Providence upon earth, the writer pro- ceeds to fpeak of God's work of Creation above -, both material and intelle^ual. — By his Spirit he hath GARNISHED /^^ heavens -, his Hand hath formed the crooked serpent '. i. e. He made the ma- terial and intelledlual world •, and in this latter, the evil Beifig himfelf, (that pretended Rival of his power, and Oppofer of all his good) is equally the work of his hands. The progrelTion and connexions of the parts, contained in this whole period, are extremely beautiful. His work ot Providence, as Lord of Nature upon earth, led properly to his work of Creation above, as th«

P Is. xlv. 5, 7. s Chan. xxvi. ver. 12. ' Ver. 13.

Maker

Sefl. 2. ^ M OS E s d^monJlratccL 9^

Maker and Governor of all things : and his chaftifement of the proudeft and moft powerful Monarch then on earth, in his charader of Gover- nor of the Moral world, as naturally introduced the mention of his creating, and his keeping in fubjeftion, the evil Spirit, in his charafter of the firft Caufe of all things. And, to conned thefe two relations together with the greater juftnefs, the writer with much elegance calls the evil Spirit by that name wherewith the facred Writers, and efpe- cially Ifaiah, (whom we fhall fee prefently the writer of the book of Job had particularly in his eye) denote the king of Egypt. In that day the Lord, ijoith his fore and great and fir ong [word jlmll punijh Leviathan the piercing ferpent^ even Levia- than that CROOKED SERPENT, and he fioallflay the Dragon that is in the fea \ Let us obferve, that the Writer of the book of Job, in the laft verfe, evidently alludes to, or rather paraphrafes thofe words of Ifaiah quoted before. — I form the light and create darknefs -, I make peace, and create evil: / the Lord do all thefe things: For what is this but garniping the Heavens, and forming the crook- ed Serpent ? But the relation and connexion be- tween the 1 2th and r^th verfcs ' not being ob- ferved, feveral eminent Commentators, both Jews and Chriftians, were inclined to underftand the crooked ferpent as fignifying the great Conftellation fo named, fituate near the ardic pole; or at leaR", that enormous trail of light called the Galaxy or Via ladea. And thofe Moderns who have been as backward to find a Devil for their Tempter, as a God for their Redeemer, thought it agreed bcft with their focinian reafoning-fcheme -, the general mention of the garniture of the Heavens, being well

• Chap, xxvii. I. * Job xxvi,

H 2 followed

100 TZ't' Divhie Legation Book VI.

followed by a particular defcription of one of its pieces of furniture. But whatever their force of Logic may be, their tafte of Rhetoric feems none of the bell. It is a ftrangc kind of amplification to fay, " He made all the conftellations, and he " made one of them." But that interpretation of Scripture which receives its chief ftrengih from the rules of human eloquence, and art of conipo- fiiion, hath often but a (lender fupport. 1 fhall go on therefore to fhew, that an Hebrew Writer (and he who, after all that has been laid, will not allow the Au:hor of the book of Job to be an Hebrew, may grant or deny what he pleafes, for me) to lliew, 1 fay, that an Hebreiv [Vriter^ by the crooked Serpent could not mean a Conjlellation.

The Rabbins tell us, (v/ho in this cafe feem to be competent Evidence) that the ancient Hebrews in their Aftronomy, which the moveable Feafts of their Ritual necelTitated them to cultivate, did not reprefcnt the Stars, either fingle or in Conftellations, by the name or figure of any Animal whatfoever ; but diftinguifhcd them by the letters of their alpha- bet, artificially combined. And this they afllire us was the conftant pradice, till, in the later ages, they became acquainted with the Grecian Sciences: Then, indeed, they learnt the art of tricking up their SPHERE, and making it as pidlurefque as their neighbours. But ftill they did it with modefty and referve -, and hefitated even then, to admit of any human Figure. The reafon given for this fcrupu- lous obfervance, namely, the danger of Idolatry, is the higheft confirmation of the truth of their ac- count. For it is not to be believed, that, when the ASTROuMOMv and superstition of F.gypt were lo clofely coUcagucd, and that the combina- tion was fupported by this very means, the names

given

Se(5l.2. ^MosES demonjlrated. loi

given to the Conftellations, it is not to be believed, I fay, that Mofes, who, under the miniftry of God, forbad the Ifraelites to make any likenefs of any thing in Heaven above according to the old mode, would fufrer them to make new likeneJJ'cs there : which, if not in the firft intention fet up to be worfliiped, yet, we know, never waited long to obtain that honour. To corroborate this Rabbinical account relative to the Hebrew Aftronomy, we may obferve, that the Tranflators of the Septuagint, the Heads and Do6lors of the Jewifh Law, who muft needs know what was conformable to the pradlice derived from that Law, underflood the Writer of the book of Job to mean no more nor lefs than the Devil by this periphrafis of the crooked Serpent ; and fo tranflated it, APAKONTA AHOSTATHN, the apof- tatc 'Dragon.

From all this it appears, that neither Moses nor EsDRAs could call a Conftellation by the name of the crooked Serpent,

V. The laft A6lor in this reprefentation, is Job's fourth friend, Elihu the [on of Baraehc' the Bwzite^ who is brought upon the ftage in the thirty fecond chapter. He is made to reprove Job with great afpcrrity ; and, like the other three, to have his wrath kindled againji him : -and yet, to the furprife of all the Commentators, he is not in- volved in their Sentence, when God pafles judg- ment on the Controverfy. Here again, the only fokition of the difficulty is our interpretation of the book of Job, Elihu's oppofition was the feverity of a true friend ; the others' the malice of pretended ones. His feverity againft Job arofe from this, that jfob jiiflified himfelf rather than God ", that is, was

" Chap, xxxii. ver. 2.

H 3 more

102 The Divine Legation Book VI,

more anxious to vindicate his own innocence than the equity ot God's Providence. For under the per- fon of Elihu was defigned the {acred IVriter him- fclf. He begins with the charafter of a true Pro- phet, under which, as in the aft of infpiration, he reprefents hinnfelf. I am full of matter, the Spirit "Lvithin me ccnflraineth me. Behold tny belly is as wine ivhich hatb no vent^ it is ready to hurji like new bot- tles \ And this, he contrafts with the charadler of the falfe Prophets of that time, — Let me not^ I pray you^ accept any mayCs perfon, neither let me give flat- tering titles unto man ^. But all this will appear from the following confiderations,

Eliliu, on the entrance upon his argument, ad- drefles the three friends in the following manner: Nozv be hath net directed his words againjl u e ; nei- ther will I anfwer him with your fpeeches''. This fufficiently dilcriminates his caufe and charadler from theirs. He then turns to Job : " My words •"' (fays he) ihall be of the uprightnefs of my *' heart ♦, and my lips {hall utter knowledge clearly. *' "''he Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath *' of the Ahnighty hath given me life. If thou " canft anfwer me, fet thy words in order before " me, and Hand up. Behold I am, according " to thy wish, INT God's stead : I alfo am " formed out of the clay %" i^c. This clearly in- timates the character of God's chofen Servant : Thefe were of approved integrity, they received the divine infpiraiion, and were therefore in God's fiead to the People. Elihu goes on in the fame ilrain. — *' He excites Job to attention, — accufes him of charging God with injviflicc, — reproves his impie-

* Chap, x.vxii. vcr, jS, 19. / Ver. z\. ' Chap.

ny.\\\. vcr. J 4. - ei'irfp. xxxiii. vcr. 3, Ir'/f.

Sc(Sl. 2. of Moses demonjlrated. 103

ty^ — tells him that men cry in their affliftions, and

are not heard for want of faith: that his fins

hinder the defcent of God's blefli^gs; whole wif- dom and ways are unfearchable." — But is this the converfation of one private man to another ? Is it not rather a public exhortation of an Hebrew Pro- phet fpeaking to the People ? Hence too, we may fee the great propriety of that allufion to the cafe of Hezekiah ", mentiojied above, which the writer of the book of Job, in this place, puts into the mouth of Elihu. The Spirit with which Elihu fpeaks is farther feen from his telling Job that he defires to juftify him \ And yet he accufes him of faying, It profit eth a man nothings that he Jloould de- light himfelf with God^ ; and expoftulates with him yet further; 'Thinkefi thou this to he right that thou faidfij My rigbteoufnefs is more than Gods? For thou faidfi, IVhat advantage zvill it be unto thee^ ajjd what profit Jhall I ha^ue^ if I be cleanfedfrom my fin" ? Here the Commentators are much fcandalized, as not feeing how this could be fairly colle<5ted from what had paffed ; yet it is certain he fays no more of Job than what the Prophets fay of the People reprefented under him. Thus Malachi : " Ye have wearied the Lord with your words : yet " ye fay. Wherein have we wearied him ? When ye " fay. Every one that doth evil is good in the fight of " the Lord, and he delight eth in them ; or. Where is " the God of judgment^ F" And 2iga.\n : Te havefaid. It is vain to ferve God : and what -profit is it, that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfidly before the Lord of hofts? And now we call the proud happy : Tea they that work wickcdnefs ar^ fet up; yea they that tempt God are even delivered^.

^ Chap, xxxiii. ver. i8, ^ fiq. " Chap, xxxiii. ver. 32.

^ Chap, xxxiv. ver. 9. • Chap, xxxv. ver. 2, 3.

-^ Mal. ii. 17. 2 Mal. iii. 14, 15.

H 4 It

104 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

It was this which kindled Elihu's wrath againft Job ; who, in this work, is reprefented to be really guilty i as appears not only from the beginning of God's fpeech to him " -, but from his own confei- fion ', which follows. It is remarkable that Job, from the beginning of his misfortunes to the com- ing of his three comforters, though greatly pro- voked by his Wife, finned not (as we are told) with his lips^. But, perfecuted by the malice and bitternefs of their words, he began to lay fuch ftrels on his own innocence as even to accufe the juilice of God. This was the very ftace of the Jews at this time: So exadly has the facred Writer conducted his allegory ! They bore their ftraits and difhcukies with temper, till their enemies the Cutheans, and afterwards Sanhallat, Tchiah^ and the yfri-Z'<2«j confederated againit them ; and then they fell into indecent murmurings againft God. And here let us obferve a difference in the condu6l of Elihu iind the three friends, a difference which well diftinguifhes their characters : They accufe Job of preceding faults ; Elihu accufes him of the prefent, namely, his impatience and impiety : which evi- dently {hews that his charge was true^ and that theirs was unjuft'.

Again, Elihu ufes the very fame reafonlngs againft Job and his three friends "", which are after-

•" Chap, xxxviii. * Chap. xlii. ver. i, i^ /eq»

^ Chap. ii. ver. lo.

' To this Dr. Grey fays, that the three friends likewife ac- cufe Job of his prf/tnt faults. Well, and what then ? Does this acquit them of injultice for falfely charging him with preceding ones ?

"> From chap, xxxii. to xxxvii.

wards

Sedt. 2. o/' M o s E s demonflrated, 105

wards put into the mouth of God Limfelf % refolv- ing all into his omnipotency. ElihiCs fpeech is indeed in every refpeft the fame with God's, except in the fe verity of his reproof to Job. And, in that, the Writer hath fhewn much addrefs in conducting his fubjed. The end and purpofe of this Work was to encourage the Jews to a perfe- verance in their duty from the allured care and pro- tection of Providence. At the fame time, as they were growing imipatient, it was necefiary this temper fhould be rebuked. But as the ordonance of the Poem is difpoled, the putting the reproof into the mouth of the Almighty would have greatly weaken- ed the end and purpofe of the Work. This part therefore is given to his fervant Elihu: and God's fentence is all grace and favour on the fide of Job, and indignation and refentment againft his falfe Friends. For this event, the Writer had finely pre- pared us, in making Job, in the heat of the difpu- tation, fay to thefe friends. Wilt thou /peak ivickedly for Cod? and talk deceitfully for him ? Will ye accept his perfon ? will ye contend for God ? Is it good that he fkould fearch you out ? or as one man mocketh another do ye fo 'mock him? He will surely reprove you, if ye do fecretly accept Perfons '^. The judicious rea- der will obferve another artful circumftance in the caft of Elihu's oration. The three friends, in the grand queftion concerning an equal Providence, went dire6tly over to one fide, and Job to another : Elihu inclines to neither, but refolves all into fub- miffion to the almighty power of God. For it was yet inconvenient to acquaint the Jews, (who were jult going to fall under a common Providence) with the truth of their cafe. Hence, to obferve it

" From chap, xxxviii. to xJii. *> Chap. xiii. ver. 7,

by

ic6 The Dhine Legation Book VI.

by the way, another circumftance arrfes to deter- mine the date of the poem. We have fhewn that the Subject fiiited only this time : We now fee that the mamier of treating the Subjefb could agree to no other. On the whole, this intermediate fpeech of Elihu's was the fineft preparative for the de- cifive one which was to follow.

Farther, The true character of Eiihu is feen from hence, that Job replies nothing to thefe words, as confcious of the truth of his reproofs •, and that they were the reproofs of a Friend. And, indeed, his fubmiffion, on this occafion, was to reprefent the repentance of the Jews on the preach- ing of their Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

But laflly, Elihu's not being involved in the condemnation of the three friends is the moft con- vincing argument of his very different Charafter. This, as we have faid, exceedingly perplexed the Commentators. But where was the wonder, he fliould be acquitted, when he had faid nothing but what God himfelf repeated and confirmed .'' What is rather to be admired is the fevere fentencepaflcd upon the three friends i and that, for the crime of iiupiety. A thing utterly inexplicable on the com- mon interpretation. For let them be as guilty as you pleafe, to Job, they are all the way advocates for God •, and hold nothing concerning his Go- vernment that did not become his Nature and Cha- ra(fter. But let us once fuppofe, thefe three friends to reprefent the Adverfaries of the Jews, and the difficulty ccafcs. All their pretences are then hypo- critical : and tlicy impiouHy affume the Patronage of God only to carry on their malice to more ad- vantage againfl: Job. Why the Writer of this

book

Sed:. 2. o/" Moses demo7ijlrateA. 107

book did not openly expofe the wickednefs of their hearts, as is done in the books of Ezra and Nehe- miah, was becaufe the nature of the work would not fuffer it ; the queftion in debate, and the ma- nagers of the queftion, neceffarily requiring that the part they took fhould have a fpecious outfide of piety and veneration toward God. In a word. Job is made to fay fomething wrong, becaufe he reprefents the impatient Jews of that time : His three falfe friends, to fay fomething right, becaufe the nature of the drama fo required : And Elihu to moderate with a perfect redlitude, becaufe he reprefcnted the perfon of a Prophet.

But to fee the truth of this interpretation in its befl light, one fhould have before one's eyes all thofe difficulties with which the Commentators of the book of Job are entangled at almoft every ftep. A view of this would draw us into aa unreafonable length. I fhall only take notice of one of the moft. judicious of them, (who has coUefted from all the reft) in the very cafe of this Elihu. Calmet charafterifes the fourth friend in this manner: Inhere was now none but Elihu the yoiingefi and leafi judicious that held out againjt JoFs arguments — Elihu here by a vain parade and over- floz^ of words gives a reafon p, L'^c. Again : Elihu was given to represent one who knew not how to he Jflent^ a great talker "*. And again : It cannot he denied hut that there is a mixture of ignorance and prefumption in what Elihu fays ; and, above all, a

P II n'y eut qu'EIiu, qui etoit le plus jeune & le moins judici- eux, qui ne fe rendit pas — par un vain etalage des paroles Elio rend id raifon, &c. Sur C. xxxii. ver. i,

"5 Pour defigner un homme qui ne fe pent taire, un grand caufeur. Sttr C. xxxii. ver. 48.

Jr^nge

io8 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

ftrange prejudice and vifihle injufiice in mojl of the accufations he brmgs againjl Job'. This he fays indeed. But when he comes to find Elihu efcape God's condemnation, in which- the other three are involved, he alters his note, and uniays all the hard things he had thrown out againft him. j^lthough Elihu (fays he) had miftaken the fenfe of his friend's ivords^ yet^ for all that., God feems., at leaft^ to have approved his intention, becaufe when be declares to JoVs friends that they hadfpoken amifs, and commands them to offer up burnt -offerings for themfehes^ he only fpcaks of Bildad, Eliphaz, and Zophar., without menticning Elihu. Bejides, Job anfzvers net a word to this laji, and by his filence fecms to approve of his difcourfe\ Grotius, who llrove to be more confiftent in his charadler of Elihu, which yet his acquittal in God's fentence will not Tuffer any Commentator to be, upon the received idea of this Book, has run into a very ftrange ima- gination. He fuppofcs Elihu might be a domeftic, or retainer to one of the three friends, and fo be involved in the condemnation of his principal*. — But, now mark the force of prejudice to inveterate notions ! It is vifible to every one who regards

'' On ne peut nier qu'il n'y ait & de I'ignorancc Sc de la pre- fumption dans ce que dit Eliu, &, fur tout, une etrange pre- vention & une injuflicc vifible dans la plupart des accufations qu'il lorma centre Job. Sur C. xxviii. ver. 2.

• Quoiqu' Eliu eiit mal pris le fens des paroles de fon ami, toutcfois Dieu fcmble approiiver au moins fon intention ; puif- que lorfqu'il declare aiix amis de Job qu'ils ont m.il parle, Sc qu'il ordonne qu'on ofFre pour eux des hobcaulles, il ne fait mention que de liildad, d'Eliphaz, & de Sophar, fans parlcr d'liliu. De plus, Job ne rcpond point a ce dernier, 6c par fon filence il fcmble approuvcr fou difcours.

* Elihu hic non nominatur, ut ncc fupra ii. 1 1 . forte quod aflccla eflet alicojus trium. /« C. xlii. vcr. j,

the

Sedt. 2. cf Moses demonjlrated. 109

the two fpeeches of Elihu and God with the leaft attention, that the dodlrine and the reaibning are the fame. Yet Calmet's general character of Eiihu is, that there is a vain parade and overfiow of words ; that there is a mixture of ignorance and prefumptian^ and a vifible injujlice, in mofc of the accufations he brings againji Job. And yet of God's fpeech he fays. Here we have a clear solution of the dif- ficulties which had perplexed and embarraffed thefe jive friends ". — Pity that this clear folution fliould turn out to be vio folution at all.

III. Having thus fixed the date of the* book, our next enquiry will be concerning its Author. That it was compofed by an infpired writer is be- yond all queftion. Not only its uncontrovertecl reception and conllant place in the Canon, and its internal marks of divinity, which this Expofition has much iiluilrated and enlarged, but its being quoted as infpired fcripture by St. Paul", will fuf- fer no reafonable man to doubt of it. By this time therefore, I fuppofe, the Reader will be be- forehand with me in judging it could fcarce be any other than Ezra himfelf-, who was a ready fcribe in the Law of Mofes^ and had prepared- his heart to feek the Law of the Lord, and to do it^ and to teach in Ifrael ft.atutes and judgments ^ . For he had the welfare of his People exceedingly at heart, as appears from the books of Ezra and Ne- hemiah. And this of Job, we have fhewn, was written purpofely for their inftrudion and confola- tion. He made a corred edition of the Scriptures,

" C'eft ici le denouement dela piece, & la folution des difH- cultuz qui avoient eLe agitccs entre ces cinque amis.

^ I Cor. iii. lo. He taketh the iv'/e in their oivr. craftin'fs. Job v. 13. y EznA vii. 6, ic.

fettled

no y/'^r Divine Legation Book VT.

fettled the Canon, and added in feveral -places throughout the books of his edition^ -Uihat appeared mcejfary for the illuf rating, conne^ing, or com- pleating of them '\ He is reafonably fiippofed to be the author of the two books of Chronicles and the book of Either. It was a common tradition too amongft the Jews that he was the fame with Malachi. And his great reputation as^ ready fcribe in the Law of Mofes, apparently gave birth to that wretched fable of the dcflruction of the Scriptures in the Babylonian captivity, and Ezra's re-produftion of them by divine infpiration.

I'hus is our interpretation of the book of Job fo far from taking away any dignity, or authenti- city it was before pofieiTed of, that it eftablifhes and enlarges both. The fliewing it principally re- fpedted a whole People highly ennobles the fub- jecl : and the fixing an anonymous writing on one of the moft eminent of God's Prophets greatly ftrengthens its authority. But the chief advantage of my interpretation, I prefume, lies in this, That it renders one of the mofl difficult and ob- fcure books in the whole Canon, the moft eafy and intelligible-, reconciles all the charadtersto Nature, all the arguments to Logic, and all the dodrines to the courfe and order of God's Difpenfations» And thefe things fliewing it fuperior, in excellence, to any human Compofition, prove, what univerfal Tradition hath alv/ays taught, that it is of divine Original.

II.

riavinor brouQ-ht down the date of this book (o low, it is of little importance to our fubje^, whe-

* PriJeaux's Cenn. P. i. b^ 5.

thcr

Sedl. 2. of ?vlos E s demonjlrated. in

ther the famous pafiage in the nineteenth chapter be underftood of a Resurrection from the dead^ or only of temporal deliverance from afflic- tions^. Yet as our interpretation affords new affiftance for determining this long debated quef- tion, it will not be improper to fift it to the bot- tom.

I make no fcruple then to declare for the opinioa of thofe who fay that the words, [/ know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he fhallfiand at the latter

^ Indeed, had the book of Job the high antic]uity which the common fyllem fappofes, the contending at the fame time fdr lYit/piritual fenfe of this text, would be followed with infilpei*- able difficulties : but thefe, let the fupporters of that Syftem look to. The very learned Author of ibs argument of the Di'vine Le- gation fairly fated, Jjfr. hath fct thefe difficulties in a light which, I think, fhews them to be infuperable : " Thofe men, *' (fays this excellent writer) who maintain this fyftem, [of *' tiie high antiquity of the book, and the fpiriiuul fenfe of '■ the text] muft needs regard the text to be direS and " literal, not typical or figurative. But then this difficulty " occurs, How came Moses (if he was the Author) to be (o " clear in the hcok of Job, and fo obfciire in the Pentateuch? " Plain expreifion and typical adumbration are the contrary of " one another. They could not both be fit for the fame people, " at the fame time. If they were a Ipiritualized People they *' had no need of carnal covers, fuch as Types ; and if they *• were a carnal-minded people, the light of fpiritual things " would only ferve to dazzle, not to aid their fight.

" Nor is the matter mended, but made worfe, by fuppofing " the book to be written by Job himfelf, or any other Patriarch " earlier than Mofes: That wou'd be only transferring the " Charge from ?,hfes, to the God of Mofes : For while the book of " Job was defigned by Providence, for part of the Jeu^ijh Cavon, " it is the fame unaccountable condiidl tho' removed thirher. " The Resurrection is open and expofed to all in the book ** 'f Jo^i ^nd it is hid and covered under types and figures " in the Pentateuch, From whence arife^ this noble truth wor- •*' thy of its ini'enters, Tbi't the fame doarine may, at ore and ths " fame time, ie the proper objicl both of clear and manfefi, and of " dark and uncertain conteniplatim, to the fame Pcrfov.s.'" p. 134.

9 day

1 1 2 7Z'^ Divine Legation Book VI.

day upon the earth. And though after myjkin^ worms dejtroy this hody^ yet in my f.eflj Jhall I fee God. Whom I fJjall fee for myfelf., and mine eyes fhall be- hold., and not another ^] can fignify no more than Job's confidence in a temporal deliverance •, as all awree they may fignify. And therefore I fliall the lefs infift upon a common obfervation, " That our Tranflators, who were in the other opinion, have given a force to their exprefiion which the Original will by no means bear."

My reafons are thefe, i. To untferfland the •words, of a Refurretlion^ is repugnant to the whole tenor of the Argument: and to underlland them of a temporal deliverance is perfectly agreeable thereto. 2. The end and defignof the Compofition, as ex- plained above, abfolutely requires this latter fenfe, and difclaims the former. 3. The former fenfe is repugnant to Job's own exprefs declaration in other places.

I. We mufl: obferve that the book of Job is ftriftly argumentative : and though fententious, and abounding Vv'ith poetic figures, yet they are all fubfervient to the matter in difpute. In this re- fpe6t, much unlike the writings of David and Solomon, which treat of divine or moral matters in fliorc and detached fentences. On which ac- count, the ablefi; of thofe, who go into the i^n^c of a Refiirre^ion^ have found the neceffity of recon- ciling it to the Context. Thus much being grant- ed, wc argue againll the fenfe they put upon it, from thcfc coniiderations, i. Firft the Dilputants are all equally embaralTed in adjulling'the ways of Provi- dence. Job affirms tliat the Good man is fometimes

' Chap. xix. ver. 25, U /tq^.

unhappy i

Scifl:. 2. of Moses demonfiraUd. 11^

unhappy : yet he appears to regard that Difpenfation as a new thing and matter of wonder, upright men Jhall he qftonijhed at this " ; which, our interpreta- tion well accounts for. The three friends contend that the Good man can never be unhappy, becaufe fuch a fituation would refledl diihonour on God's attributes. Now the dodrine of a Refurre5fion^ fup- pofed to be here urged by Job, cleared up all this cmbarras. If therefore his Friends thought it true, it ended the difpute : if falfe, it lay upon them to confute it. Yet they do neither : they neither call it into queftion, nor allow it to be decifive. But, without the leaft notice that any fuch thing had been urged, they go on, as they began, to inforce their former arguments, and to confute that which, they feem to underfland, was the only one Job had urged againft them, viz. The co?tfciouJnefs of his own i?tnocence. But to be a little more particular, it fell to Zophar's part to anfwer the argument con- tained in the words in queftion, which! underftand to be this- — " Take, fays Job, this proof of *' my innocence, I believe, and confidently expefl^ " that God will vifit me again in mercy, and re- " ftore me to my former condition." To this Zophar, in effed:, replies : But why are you fo miferable now ? For he goes on, in the tv^rentieth chapter, todefcribe the puniihment of the Wicked to be juft fuch a ftate as Job then laboured under. He does not diredtly fay, 'The Good are not miferable •» but that follows from the other part of the Pro- pofition, (which he here inforces as being a little more decent) The had are never happy. Now fup- pofe Job fpoke of the Refurre^Iion^ Zophar's anf- wer is wide of the purpofe. 2. But what is ftill more unaccountable. Job, when he refumes the

^ Chap, xvii. ver. 8.

Vol. V, I difpute,

1 14 7*^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

difputc, flicks to the argument he firft fet out with ; and, tho' he found it gave his Friends little latisfa(5lion, yet he repeats it again and again. But this other argument of a RefurreSion, fo full of Piety and Conviflion, which they had never ventured to reply to, he never once refumes ; never upbraids his Adverfaries for their filence ; nor triumphs, as he well might, in their inability to anfwer it. But, if ever it were the oh]tS: of their thoughts, it pafTed ofi like a Dream or Reverie to which neither fide gave any attention. In a word, the Difpute between Job and his Friends ftands thus : They hold, that if God affli(5led the Good man: it would be unjuft; there- fore the Good man was not afflicted. Job fays, that God did afflidb the Good man ; but that Rea- fon muft here fubmit, and own God's ways to be infcrutable. Could he pofTibly reft in that anf- wer, how pious foever, if he had the more fatif- fadtory folution of a future state ? To this let me add, that if Job fpoke of a Rcfurre5iicn, he not only contradicts the g-eneral tenor of his arsu- ment, maintained throughout the whole difputa- tion, but likevvife what he fays in many places concerning the irrecoverable dijfolution of the body **. It is true, that even in the fenfe of a temporal deli- verance he contradicts what he had faid, in his defpair, in the feventeenth chapter : But there is

*■ See chap. vii. ver. 9, 21. Chap. x. ver. 21. Chap. xvi. ver. 22. Chap. xiv. ver. 7, tsf feq. Could one who fiid. For there is o pe of a tree, if it be cut <}oivn, that it ^K.i:ill fpiout aiain, iiC. But man dieth, &c. could fuch a one (I fpeak of the per- sonated charaflcr) think of the body like him who faid, But foms vian tvill fay, IIoiv ere the dead rai/ed up, and luith ivhat hndf do they ctme ? Thou fool, that ivhich thou fonvefl is not qutckiied exceft it de. And that 'which thou Jo-iufjl thou/oi.v,J} n.t thai body that p.^all be, but bare grain, it may chance of ivbeat •rfcn:e oti.cr grain, Sec.

3 a man!-

Sc<fl. 2. of Moses demonft rated, ii^

a manifeU: difference between a contradidllon of opinion and belief, as in the firft cafe ; and of pajjion and affeofion only, as in the latter. And for this contradiftion he feemsto apologife, when he comes to himfelf, by defining that this confidence in his Deliverer might be engrav^ed on a Rock, as the opinion he would (land to. 3. But what is firang- eft of all. When each party had confounded them- felves, and one another, for want, as one would think, of this principle of a RefurreBion, which fo eafily unraveled all the perplexities of the dif- pute, the fourth Friend, the Moderator, (teps in, as the precurfor of the Almighty, who afterwards makes his appearance as the great Decider of the Controverfy. Here then we might reafonably ex- pe6l the Do6trine of the Refurre5iion to be refumed 5 and that the honour of the folution which it affords, was referved for Thefe ; but, to our great furprife, they neither of them give us the lead hint concern- ing it. — Thofe who contend for this interpretation fuppofe that the notion was here delivered in order to fupport its truth. What reafon then can they give why neither the Moderator nor Decider lliould employ it, to clear up difficulties, when Job him- felf had touched -upon it before ? Elihu juftifies God's conduft ; God bears witnels to Job's inno- cence : yet both concur in refolving all into Power- om.nipotent. This tends more to cloud than clear up the obfcurities of the debate: Whereas the doftrine of a Refurre5fion had rendered every thing plain and eafy. In a word, no folution is given, though a decifion be made. All this, on the common Syftem, is quite unaccountable to our faculties of underftanding.

Let us fee next whether my fenfe of the words agree better with the tenor of the Difpute. Job,

I Z TlQSf

!i6 ^he Dhvte Legation Boqk VL

now provoked paft fufFerance at the inhumanity and malice of his pretended Friends, gives him- felf up to defpair " -, and Teems, as we have ob- ferved, to contradict that part of his pofition which he had hitherto held \ " that God would at '* length bring the Good man out of trouble." For which being reproved by Bildad, {Shall the earth be forfaken for thee? and pall the rock be removed cut of his place "^ ? i. e. becaufe it is thy pleaiure fo obftinately to maintain that God does govern by equal Laws, fhall it therefore be fo ? The confe- quence of which would be a fpeedy defolation. — Shall the Rock ^ or Providence of God be removed to humour your palTions ?) Job recolleds himfelf in the nineteenth chapter, and comes again to his former mind. He begins by complaining of their cruel ufiige : Says, that if indeed he were in an error, his cafe was fo deplorable that they ought rather to treat him with indulgence : that this was no feafon for feverity : begs they would have pity on him •, and then retradls what had fallen from him in the anguifli and bitternefs of his foul: and laftly delivers this as his fixed fentiment, in which he was determined to abide j (and in which he had .indeed acquiefced, till made impatient and def-

* Chap. xvii. *" Chap. xiii. ver. 15, l6. —

Chap, xiv, ver. 15. s Chap, xviii. ver. 4.

•• By the Rock I fuppofe is meant the extracrd'mary Proui- tlenct of Gnd\ this being the common name by which it went anjongfl the Jewiih People. He is the Rock, his iiork is jer- feci : For all his Ways are Judgment , Deut. xxxii. 4. The Rock of his Sal-vationy ver. i >;. — Of the Rock that begat th;e^ ver. 1 8. Except their Rock had fid them, vet. 30. Their Rock is not as cur Rock, eveti our Enemies themfclv-s tein^ Judges, ver. 31. Their Rock iu ivhm they t>vj}ed, ver. 37. Neither is there any Rock like our God, I Sam. ii. 2. ^he Rock w/Ifraei fptxke to me, 2 Sam. xxiii, 3. O Rock, thou haft eftahhfhei tbtmy ll£B. i. 12. and a great number of other places.

perate

Scd. 2. ^ M o s E s demonfirated. liy

perate by the harfhnefs of their treatment) namely, that God would at length bring the Good man out of trouble. I know that my redeemer LivETH, &c. Which he introduces thus : Ob that my words were now written. Oh that they were pint ed in a book, that they were graven with an iron pen and lead, in the rock for ever'. As much as to fay, What I uttered juft before, through the difr temperature of paflion, I here retrad, and defire may be forgotten, and that this may be underftood as my fixed and unfliaken belief ^ And in this

fentiment,

i Chap. xix. ver. 23, 24.

k Here the Cornifh Critx obferves, *' That it does not ap- « pear that Job had any particular revelation of it, [i. e. his •» future felicity] and therefore his confidence (if he had any «* fuch) muft proceed upon fome fuch principle as this, That *' God would at length infallibly deliver the good Man out « of trouble. And again, this principle muft be founded on « that other of an equal Providence : from whence otherwife *« could it arife but from a perfuafion that God will moft cer- *♦ tainly do what is equal and exaft in this life? And yet the ** ingenious Author, as if fond of reconciling contradidions, *' makes Job's Thefis to be this, that Pro'vidence is not equally « adminiftered, at the fame time, that he afcribes to him a cou' «* fidence which could not possibly arife but from the per- ** fuafion of an equal Pronjidencey p. 156.

I make Job hold that Providence ivas mt equally adminijiered. I make him to hold likewife, that he himfelf Jhould he reftored to his former felicity : And this, our Critic calls a contradic- tion. Hisreafonis, that this latter opinion could arife only from his perfuafon of an equal Providence. This may be true, if there be no medium between an equal Providence and no Providence at all. But I fufped there is fuch a medium, from obferving that it is not uncommon, even in thefe times, for good men in afflidion, to have this very confidence of Job, without ever dreaming of an equal Pro'vidence.

The truth is (and fo I have faid in the words which gave

Qccafion to tlus notable obfervation) that Job had through the

1 3 diftempera-

ii5 Tke Divme Legation Book VL

fentiment, it is remarkable, he henceforward perfeveres ; never relapfing again into the hke ex- travagance of pafllon. Which conduft agrees exaclly with his general Thefis, " that Providence is not equally adminiflered -, for that the Good Man is frequently unhappy, and the Wicked profperous •, yet that, at laft, God will bring the Good Man out of trouble, and punifh the Wick- ed doers."

II. In thefecond place, if I have given a right interpretation of the book of Job, a temporal de-t liverance^ and not the refurrc5lion of the body, muft: needs be meant : For the moral of the dramatic piece was to allure the People^ reprefented under the perfon of this venerable Patriarch, of thofe great temporal bleffings which the three Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had predifted, in order to allay that tumult of mind which arofe

diftemperalure of paffioo advanced foms ihings which on cooler thoughts he; retraced. His argument againft an eqfal Praz/i- iiiKce was fometimes puftied fo far as to have the appearance of conclu.ling againll any Providence at all. But he, at length, ccrrefts himfclf for this extravagance of expreffion ; and de- liberately concludes, that though the ways of God were feme how or other become unequal, yet that Providence had not de- ferted the Cife o\ mankind, bat would at length bring the good man out of trouble. Yet this is the cotifdenct, •uihich, this moft confident of all Critics fays, could not possibly arife hut from the per/uajion nf an equal Providence : And for this it is that he charges me with z fondncfs fir reccn:Uitig contractilimts. Here I fhall take my leave of this Difccurfcr on the book of Job, with declaring, that a more contemptuous, difingenuous and ignorant Writer never afTumed the honourable name of Answerer ; yet I would not deny him his ftation amcnoft the Learned, I think the fame apology may be made for him, that a namefake of his, in his hiflory cf the Carthufians, made for their general Bruno, — *' that doubtlcfs he could have wrote wtll if he would, for ho '* printed a Miffal in an exceeding fair letter, and delicate fine ** %wtitt^ pafier.^' Pet R El Bib. Caiih, fol. 35.

in

Se(fl. 2. of Moses demonJirateJ. 119

in every one, on feeing the extraordinary Provi- dence, which protected their Foreiathers, now juR" about to be withdrawn from them.

III. Thirdly and laflly. To underftand thefe words of a refurre^fion of the body^ exprefsly con- tradifls Job's plain declaration againll any fuch hope, in the following words, Js the cloud is con- fumed and vanifheth away^ fo he that goeth down to the grave^ fhall come up no more ^ Again, — • So man lyeth down and rifeth not till the heavens be no more, they JJjall not awake, nor be raifed out of their fleep "". And again. If a man die, floall he live again " ? Clarius and Drufius on the words, //'// the heavens be no more, fay, IntelUge in ceterniim — eft fenfus, nuUo unquam tempore, nam coelum femper erit. It is not in human language to ex- prefs a denial of the Refurre^iion of the body in itrongeror plainer terms. So that it is no wonder the Sadducees (hould, as they always did, urge the firft of thefe texts as their palmary argument againft the Pharifees; but as an argument ad ho- mines only, for they refufed to have their opi- nions tried by any thing but the Law of Mofes. However to make it pertinent to the fupport of their impiety, they underftood the book of Job to be an infpired relation of a real conference between •the Patriarch and his Friends. And give me leave to obferve, that my Adverfaries v^ho have tiie fame idea of this book will never be able to acquit the Prophet of this impious Sadducean opinion. Whereas the dramatic nature of it, here contend- ed for, frees him entirely from the charge -, which I defire may be accepted as another proof of the truth of our general interpretation of the Work.

' Chap. vii. ver. 9. «" Chap. xiv. ver. 12.

" Ver. 14.

I 4 Manaffah

3 20 ^he Divine Legation Book VI,

Manaffah Ben Ifrael, who holds that Job taught the very contrary to a future State, (not appre- hending the nature of the Compofition) has a whole chapter againft the Sadducees, to fliew^ that this makes nothing againft the reality of fuch a State.

I cannot better conclude what hath been here faid, on this famous paflage, or better introduce what will be faid on others to come next under examination, than with the judicious remark of an ancient Catholic Bifhop, on this very book : It is

FIT WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND NAMES AGREEABLY TO THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER ; AND NOT MOLD AND MODEL THE TRUTH OF THINGS ON THE ABUSIVE SIGNIFICATION OF WORDS".

This, though a maxim of the moft obvious rea-. ion, can never, in thcologic matters efpecially, be too often inculcated. How ufual is it, for in- ftance, to have the following words of St. Paul quoted as a proof for the general refurredbion of the dead, by thofe who (as the good Bifliop fays) tnold the truth of things on the ahufvve fignification of words. " He that raifed up Chrift from the dead *' fhall alfo quicken your mortal bodies by his fpirit ** that dwelleth in you p."

III. But as the terjns^ in this paflage of Job, are fup{)ofed, by me, to be metaphorical, and to allude to the reftoration of a dead body to life, fome have ventured to infer, that thofe who ufe fuch terms and make fuch allufions mult needs have had the

^ Tl\y)v K^ tu, !i»o[/,ail» vr^oo'yiKii vouv -cr^uj rr.t ru» wo nfjkivuv Kzto-A^nii. Scrv. ;'« Catenu Graeca in Joh.

P Rom. viii, 1 1.

favi ng

Se6t. 2 . o/" M o s E s detnonflr-ated. i -^ t

faving knowledge of the thing alluded to, Refur- region of the Body : And the tollowing obfervation has been repeated, by more than one Writer, with that air of complacency, which men uliially have for arguments they think unanfwerable — If the Scriptures fpeak of temporal misfortunes and deliver^ ance, in terms of death and a RefurreElion^ then the do^rine of a refurreSlion mufi have been well known^ or the language would have been unintelligible. And here I will lay down this rule^ All words that are iifed in a figurative fenfe, mufi be firfi undcrflood in a literal ^

This looks, at firfl fight, like faying fomethingj but is indeed an empty fallacy •, in which two very different things are confounded with one another; namely, the idea of a Refurredion, and the i?elief of it. I ihall fhew therefore that the very con- trary to the firft: part of the learned Doftor's ob- fervation is true, and that the latter is nothing to the purpofe.

I. The Meffengers of God, prophecying for the people'^s confolation in difaftrous times, fre- quently promife a reftoration to the former days of felicity : and to obviate all diftruft from un- promifmg appearances, they put the cafe even at the worft -, and affure the People, in metapho- rical expreffions, that though the Community v/ere as entirely diffolved as a dead body reduced to dull, yet God w^ould raife that Community again to life. Thus Ifaiah : 'Thy dead men fh all live ^ to- gether with my dead body fhall they arife : Awake and Jmgj ye that divell in the dufl : For thy dew is as (he

< Dr. TeltoTii fixQ Sermons htfore \ths Utiiver/ity of Oxford, p. }8, 19,

deut)

1 22 ^he Divine Legation I>ook VI.

dew of hei-hsy a7id the earth jJo all cajl out t Joe dead'. And that we may have no doubt of the Prophet's meaning, he himfclf explains it afterwards in the following words ' : Jnd I will camp againft thee round about ^ and I ivill lay ftcgc againft thee with a mounts and Iwillraife forts againjl thee. And thoufhalt be brought down, endfhalt fpeak out of the ground^ and ihy fpeech fhall be low cut of the dufi, and thy voice JhalL be as one that hath a familiar fpirit^ out of the ground, and thy fpeech fhall whifper out of the dufi. Nothing could be more plain or fimple than fuch a metaphoric image, even amongft men who had no knowledge that the natural body was indeed to rife again j becaufe every man knowing what it is- to live and to die, every man knows what it is to revive, this being only an idea compounded of the other two : So that v.^e fee there was no occafion for the do£frine of the Refurreolion to make the lan- guage intelligible.

Nay farther, this metaphorical expreflion muft have there moft efficacy where the do5frine of the Refurreciion was unknown.' For we have obferved it was employed to infpire the higheft fentiments of God's Omnipotency; but that always ftrikes the mind moft forcibly which is as well ttew as fuperior to its comprehenfion. Therefore life from the dead was ufed, (and from the force with which a new idea ftrikes) it became almoft pro- verbial in the writings of the Prophets, to exprefs the moft unlikely deliverance, by the exertion of Almighty power.

The following inftance will fupport both thefe ©bfervations •, and fhcvv, that the Dodrine was un-

' Chap. XX vi. ver. 19. * Chap. xxix. 3, 4.

known j

Se6t. 2 . of Moses demo?ifirafed, 123

known -, and that the Image was of more force for its being unknown. The Prophet Ezekiei*, when the Hate of things was mofl defperatej is carried, by the Spirit, into a valley full of dry bones, and afl<:ed this queftion, Son of man. Can thefe dry bones live ? A queftion which God would hardly have made to a Prophet brought up in the knowledge and belief of a Refurre6lion. Butfup- pofing the queftion had been made; the anfwer by men fo brought up, muft needs have been, without hefitation, in the affirmative. But we find the Prophet altogether furprized at the ftrange- nefs of the demand. He was drawn one way by the apparent impofllbility of it to natural concep- tions i he was drawn the other, by.his belief in the Omnipotence of God. Divided between thefe two fentiments, he makes the only anfwer which a man in fuch circumftances could make, O Lord Cod thou knowejl"^. This furprizing aft of Onini- potency is therefore ftiewn in Vifion, either reM -or imaginary. The bones come together ; they are cloathed with flefti, and receive the hreath of Ufe \ And then God declares the meaning of the reprefentation. " Then he faid unto me. Son of " Man, thefe bones are the whole houfe of Ifrael : *' Behold, they fay. Our bones are dried, and our " hope is loft, we are cut off for our parts. There- *' fore prophefy and fay unto them. Thus faith *' the Lord God, Behold, O my People, I will " open your graves, and caufe you to come up out *' of your graves, and bring you into the land " of Ifraei. And ye fhall know that I am the *' Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my *' People, and brought you up out of your " graves, and ftiall put my Spirit in you, and ye *' lliall live; and I Ihall place you in your own

^ Cbap. xxxvii. " V^er. 3, ^ Ver. 8, 10.

" Land.

124 *^b^ Dhine Legation BookVI.

*« Land. Then fhall ye know that I the Lord *» have fpoken it, and performed it, laith the «* Lord'."

Here we fee, in a Prophecy delivered in Adlion or Vifion, infteadof Words (the nature and origi- nal of which has been difcourfed of elfewhere) and afterwards explained by ivo/'ds, to afcertain its meaning, that the figurative ideas of Death and Rcfurredtion are ufed for temporal diftrefles and de- liverance : and this, at a time when the Doolrine of the Refurre^ion, from whence the metaphor is fup- pofed to arife, was fo far from being well known, that the figure could never have acquired its force and energy but from the People's ignorance of fuch a doctrine •, the fcenical reprefentation, without all queftion, alluding to that proverbial Ipeecli amongft the Jews : JVilt thou Jhezv wonders to the dead? Shall the dead arife aiid praife thee'^ ? On the whole then nothing was ever worfe grounded than the obfervation, that if the Scriptures fpeak of tem^ foral misfortunes and deliverance in the terms of death a fid a refurreHion, then the doctrine of a refurrec-r tion mujt have been well known^ or the language ixjould have, been ufiintelligible.

11. And now for the general Rule which follows: 'All words that are ufed in a figurative fenfe mujl be firji underjiood in a literal. If no more be meant •than that every figurative fenfe has a literal, the propofition is true, but trifling, becaufe/^z/r^Z/'y^ is a relative term, and implies literal as its cor- telative. If it means, that he who ufes words in a figurative fenfe muft have an idea of the fiteral, this is likewife true, but nothing to the purpofe,

y Vcr. 1 1, i3 feq% = Ps. Ixxxviii. lo.

becaufe

Sed. 2. of M.o^'Ei demonjlrafed. 12^

becaufe xht idea of a thing does not imply either the truth or the belief oi it. But it* it meanSj than a figurative propofition implies the Uler's belief of its literal lenfe, this is to the purpofe, but not true^ The People had an Idea of dry bones being clothed again with flefh, and the breath of life infpired into the carcafe ; but they were fo.far from believing that was to be the cafe of all mankind, that they did not know whether it was pofllble that thofa bones in the valley could be rellored.

To conclude with the Answ!erers of this Dif- fertation, the mifcellaneous Writers on the Book of Job •, It may not be improper to remind them, that they would have done their duty better, and have given the learned and impartial Public more fatisfa<5lion, if, inilead of labouring to evade two or three independent arguments, though corro- borative of my interpretation, they had, in any reafonable manner, accounted. How this interpre- tation, which they affedt to reprefent as vifionary and groundlefs, fliould be able to lay open and unfold the whole conduft of the Poem upon one entire, perfed, elegant and noble plan, which does more than vulgar honour to the Writer who compofed it. And that it fhould at the fame time, be as ufeful in defining the Parts as in developing the Whole ; fo that particular texts, which, for want of fufficient light, had hitherto been an eafy prey to Critics from every quarter, are now no longer aire«5led by the common opprobrium affixed to this book, of its being a nofe of ivax, made to fuit every religious Syfcem. Of which, amongft many others, may be reckoned the famous text juft now explained. All this, our Hypothefis, (as it is called) has been able to perform, in a Poem become, through length of time and negii-

126 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

gcnce, fo deiperately perplexed, that Commen- tators have choren, as the eafier taflc, rather to find their own notions in it than to feek out thofe of the Author.

For the reft. For any fuller fatisfaflion, He that wants it is referred to third chapter of the Free and

candid examination of the Bijhop of London's * princi- ples i^c. where he will fee, in a fuller light than perhaps he has been accuitomed to fee fuch mat- ters, the great fuperiority of acute and folid rea- foning over chicane and fophiftry.

SECT. III.

THE book of Job hath engaged me longer than I intended : but I fhall make amends, by difpatching the remainder of the objections with great brevity.

Thofe brought from the Old Testament are of tv/o kinds.

I. Such as are fuppofed to prove the feparate Exiftcnce, or, as it is called, the immortality oixhc Soul.

II. Such as are fuppofed to prove a future ftate of Rezvard and puntflomcnt^ together with a Refur- re£iion of the body.

I. To fupport the firft point, the following words of MoJes are urged, — " And God faid, *' Let us make Man in our image, after our like- •' nefs : and let them have dominion, i^c. — And " God created man in his own image, in the image

=■ Dr. Sherlockr.

" of

Se6t. 2. of Moses demonjlrated, 127

« of God created he him'' :" From whence it is in- ferred, that Man was created with an immaterial Soul. On the contrary, I fuppofe, that Mofes was here giving intimation of a very different thing ; namely its rationality. My reafons are thefe: — I think indeed, it may be ftriiflly demonftrated thac Man's foul is immaterial', but then the fame argu- ments which prove his immateriality, prove like- wife that the fouls of all living animals are imma- terial-, and this too without the leaft injury to Religion ^ An immaterial foul therefore being common to him with the whole brute creation, and it being fomething peculiar to man, in which the image of God is faid to confill, I conclude the Hiftorian did not hear teach any thing concern- ing an immaterial Soul. The only two things pe- culiar to Man are his Shape and his Reafon. None but an AnthropomiOrphite will fay it was \\\sfjape ; I conclude therefore it was his reason : And this farther appears from hence. When God fays, Le( lis make man in our image, after our likenefs, he im- mediately adds. And let him have dominion over the whole Brute Creation : Which plainly marks in what the image ov M^/z*?/} confided: for what was it that could inveft man with a Dominion de fa£io, after he had it by this grant, de jure, but his REASON only ? This Dominion too was apparent- ly given for fome preeminence ; but man's pre- eminence confifts not in his having an immaterial foul, for that he has in common with all other ani- mals : But in his Reafon alone which is peculiar to him : The likenefs therefore or image confided in REASON. And thus Phiio Jud^eus underflood the

'• Gen. i. 27. •= See Dr. Clarke againft Mr. Collins

en the Soul ; and Tht Enquirj into ths Nature of the human Soul^ \y Mr. Baxter.

matter.

128 ^he Divi/ie Legation BookVI.

matter, where alluding to this text, he lays, Aoyoq iflv iiKuu 0s». Reafon is the image of God. So much for the firfl Objedion.

2. The next is drawn from the following words of the fame Writer : " And the Lord God formed " man of the dull: of the ground, and breathed " into his noftrils the breath of life^ and man be- " came a living foul'^ •," that is, fay thefe Reafoners, he had an immortal foul. But this is only building en the ftrength of an englifh expreflion. Every one knows that what the tranflation calls a living fotil^ fignifies in the original, a living animal: Hence the fame Writer fpeaks of a dead foul", as well as a living foul. And indeed not only the propriety of the terms, but the very fenfe of the Context re- quires us to confine the meaning of living foul, to living animal. God, the great plaftic Artilt, is here reprefented as making and fliaping out a figure of earth or clay, which he afterwards ani- mates or infpires with life. He breathed, fays the facred Hiftorian, into this Statue, the breath of kfe-^ and the lump became a living creature. But St. Paul, I hope, may be believed whatever becomes of my explanation : who thus comments the very text in queftion : — And fo it is written the firji man Adam ivas made a living soul. The lafi was made A QUICK.NING SPIRIT ^ Hcrc wc find the Apoftle is fo fir from underltanding any immortality in this account of Man's Creation, that he oppoies the mortal animal Adam, to the immortal-making Spirit of Christ.

3. Agairt, God in his fentence of condemnatiort denounced againft all the parties concerned in

^ Ges. ii 7. *■ Numb. vi. 6. Sec alfo Lev, xxi*

•1^1 II. * iCoK.xv. 45 — 49.

Adiim*i

Sed. 2. of MosE Sf demonjlrated. tig

Adam's tranfgrefllon, fays to the ferpent, / will put enmity between thee and the woman •, and between thy feed and her feed: it JJjall bruife thy head, and thou fhalt bruife his heel^. It will be allowed thac even the moft early could not be fo ftupid as mo- dern infidels would make them, to underftand thefe words in their ftrift literal lenfe, that " fer- pents would be apt to bite men by the heel, and men, as ready to crufh their heads." But to en- able them to underftand, by this part of the fen- tence, that " man fhould be reftored to his loH inheritance of immortality by the facrifice of Chrift On the crofs," needed an exprefs revelation of this myftery. "What then did the Jews underftaitd by- it ? This certainly, and nothing but this, thac *' the evil Spirit, who a6tuated the Serpent, would continue his enmity to the human race ; but that man, by the divine alTiftance, fhould be at length enabled to defeat all his machinations."

4. Again^ the phrafe ufed by the facred Hifto- j'ian to indicate the deaths of the Patriarchs is fur- ther urged in fupport of the oppofition. — " He diedy and was gathered to his People \ And dying is ex- prefled by going down into the grave, or into Hell, ScHEOL. — I will go down into the grave ffays Jacob) [or into Heir\ to my fon mourning ' •, which phrafes are fuppofed to intimate the foul's furviving the body, and retiring, on the diffolution of the union, to orte common Receptacle of Souls : for that it is not only faid, the man died and was buried, but like wife that he was gathered to his fathers : And Jacob faid, he would go down into the grave to his

5 Gen. ill. 15. ^ Gen. xxv. 8 — 17. Chap. xxxv.

ver. 29. Chap. xlix. ver. 29, & 33. Numb. xx. 24 — 26 — 28. Chap, xxvii. ver. 13. ^ Gen. xxxvii. 35.

Vol. V. K fen.

130 ^he Divine Legation Book VI,

yo«, who was luppofed to have been devoured by wild beafb." But i. TheObjeftorsdo not reflefk on the genius of the Eaftern ijpeech, which gives aftion and motion to every thing •, in which to be reduced to one common lot or condition is called being gathered to their People ; in this fenfe Jacob might properly fay, he would go down to the grave to a dead fon, who was never buried, i. e. that he Ihould find no eafe to his forrows till he was reduced to the fame condition. 2. The Objectors forget too the peculiar genius of the Hebrew tongue, that delights fo much in Pleo- nafms •, in which to die^ and to be gathered to their people^ are but two different phrafes for the fame thing. At the fame time, I am ready to allow that this latter phrafe originally arofe, (whatever People firft employed it) from the notion of fome common Receptacle of Souls. But we know how foon, and from what various caufes, terms and ■phrafes lofe the memory of their original. 3. The truth of this interpretation is confirmed by the feveral contexts, where all thefe exprefTions occur *, the Hillorian's purpofe being evidently nothing elfe than to record the period of their exiflence here on earth.

Thefe (except fuch as have been confidered elfewhere) are all the texts I can find objefted to my poiition, that immortality was not taught by the LAW. How little they are to the purpofe is now feen. But little or much, the Reader will remem- ber they make nothing againfl my general argu- ment, which maintains that the early Jews, (thofe of them, I mean, and they certainly were but few, who thought any thing of the matter) had at leaft fome vague notion of the Soul's furviving the I body.

Se(5t. 1, ^ M 0 s E s demon/! fated, 131

body. But the particular reafon I had to examine them hath been given above.

II. We come next to thofe Scriptures which are urged to prove, that a future Jiate of reward and punijhment, or a refurre^tion of the body, was taught by the mofaic Law. But before we proceed to the particular Texts, it will be proper toconfider the general argument brought from the genius of the whole Jewifh Law : " which, as they fay, being entirely typical, or, as the Apoftle fays, spiri- tual, all the promifes and denunciations of tem- poral good and evil, did denote and obumbrate a future ftate of reward and punifhment ; for that it was afhadow of things to come, but that the body was of Christ ''." If the Objedors mean by this, that the fandion of Temporal rcv/ard and punifh- ment was no more than a mere reprefentation, in figurative expreffions, of the Doftrine of 2. future flate, without any real meaning in the then Provi- dential difpofition of the things of this life': If, I

fay,

^ CoLoss. ii. 17.

' This wicked fancy fome early Chr'tjiian Writei-s fcem to have gone far into; particularly Origen ; who, becaufe Cel- fus had fuppofed, abfurdly enough, that the propagators of the Gc'fpel had borrowed the Dodtrine of a/j//;^^ ^^/£ from the Pagan Philofophers, was refolved not to be out-done, and therefore tells his adverfary, " that where God fays in the hook of Mofes, which was older than all the Pagan writings, / am come do^jt;n to deliver them out of the hand of the EgyptianSf and to bring them up out of that lund, unto a good lar>d and a large ; unto a land floiving 'vjtth milk and hcney ; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittiies, and the AmonteSf and the Perizzitesy and the Hivites, and the Jrhufites [ExoD. iii. 8<j he did not mean, as ignorant men imagine, the country of Ju- dea, but the kingdom of hea<ven; for that how good a land fo- ever Judea might be, it was yet part of that earth which had been pui under the curfe, and therefore, iif. /' — vs-^^ Ipui\ cVj

1^2 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

lay, this be their meaning, the whole pretence to Mofes's divine MifTion is irrecoverably given up. Not to fay, that the vQxy pretence would be as abfurd as it v/as falfe. For a Theocracy (from whence flowed temporal rewards and punifliments) was no ficrurative ExprcITion, as appears from the real and fubftantial Laws made in fupport of the Thing. In a word, 'tis a vile and impious imagination, originally conceived by certain Jewijh AUegorifts after the extraordinary Providence was departed from them : and only to be matched by a like madnefs in certain Mahometan AUegorifts, whofe early fuccelTes made them fancy this extraordinary Providence was come to them; and therefore fuppofed, on the other hand, that Hell and Paradiie in the Alcoran mean no more that the pleafures and afflidions of this life ". In which, Both have been outdone by a

late

Mi.'yT>!?j 5 izriKKif xj tuv EWr,ny.M y^ufjiyMTUv a^^oaoTe^'^t £iV- •nfctyi rov Qiov i7TX-/nX?i.6iA,ivov mw »y'ia.v yviv, tC/ clyuBr,v i^ laroTiXytVf ^iaa-ccv yoCKcc kJ [t.i'hi, 7;r? x«la To» vi>^o» e3£t;1« ^tuicrcccnv' a^ <y? ollovloci Tiv£? rnv ayacQriv, rvjn xcctu cofAiyja/vj^i/ la^aiav, Kni*,i\i-i)y x^ ccvrh h Tn dpy(;rMiv zMrpxijiivri Iv toT? e^fai; t/j? 'ax^a.Qoujtuq rS Aox^ yn. Cont,

Celf. p. 3.';o. He tliat can rave at this ftrange rate mull needs confider the whole fanftion of temporal vtvfZidi and puniftiment fls a mere figurative reprefentation of future. But is not the hearkening to fuch Interpreters expofiag divine Revelation to the contempt and fcorn of Infidels and Free-thinkers ? And yet perhaps we muft be obliged to hearken to them, if the endea- vours of thefe Anfwerers become fuccefsful in proving the non- FXiSTENCE of the extraordinary Providence (as promifed by Mofes) againit the reafoning of the D. L. that it was actually fidminirtered, in purfuance of that promife. For, by Origen's Commentaries (published by Huetius) it appears, that he was led into this ftrange opinion by taking it for granted, as Sykes, Rutherforth, Stebbing, and fuch like writers have fincc done, that under the Law, the belt and moft pious men were frequently piiferable, and the wicked profperous and happy.

'" II y a parmi les fedlateurs d'AIi, une fefle qui prend fon nom d'un Doitcur nomm» Alidiauhab, lequcl a enfeigne que les

delices

Sed. 2. ^ M o s E s demonftrated. 133'

late Madman of our own, in his Difcourfes on the Gofpel-Miracles. So odly perverfe is the human underftanding when it has once forfaken the road of common fenfe.

But if by the Law's being typical or spiri- tual, no more be meant (as I think no fober man can mean more) than that the temporal re- wards AND punishments, equally and really dif- tributed ; and the ritual w^orship, daily per- formed, were typical orfignificative of the gospel dispensation, and of the life and immortality which that Difpenfation brought to light, I acknow- ledge it for a truth : And, what is more, I require nothing farther to prove my Propofition, That a future flat e of rewards andpmiflments was not taught to the Jewifh People by their Lazv. The Objeaors fuppole, as I do, that the Jewifh and Chriilian Religions are two parts of one entire Difpenfa- tion. St. Paul telk us the order of thefe two parts, THAT WAS not first which is spiri- tual, BUT THAT which IS NATURAL; AFTER- WARDS THAT WHICH IS SPIRITUAL ". Yct, at the

fame time, he tells us, the Law is spiritual °. How is this to be reconciled ? No otherwife than thus. That the Law was typical of the future

fpiritual part of the one entire Difpenfation.

Again, The Apoftles, in order to lliew the fuperior excellence of the gospel, in their reafoning againft Jews, and judaizing Chriftians, fet the Law in op- pofition to it, under the titles of The Law of a carnal Commandment; The miniflration of Death-, The Lam

delices du Paradis, & les peines de TEnfer ne font autre chofe que les plaifirs & les afflif^ions de la vie. Herbelot Bibl. Qrien-. ta'.e, iliV Akhrat & AicHRET.

" J Cor. XV. 46. o Rom, vii. 14.

134 ^^'^ Divine Legation Book VI.

of IVorks : and call fubjeftion to it, Subje5lion to the Flejh. Yet thefc very Writers at the fame time own t\\2ilthe Lawivas spiritual, or had a fpiritnal meaning. But if by this they would teach that the fpiritual meaning was generally underftood under the Law, their whole argument had concluded in a felf-con tradition. For then it was not a Law of a carnal commandment, a minifiration of death; but, indeed a Law of fpirit, a minifiration of life; only under a dead and carnal cover ; which being clearly feen through, or eafily taken off, ferved for no more than a trick of hocus focus. The confequence of all this would be, that the Law was of equal dignity, and, tho* not of equal fimplicity, yet, in- deed, eflentially the fame with the gospel. They owned, we fee, that the Law had 2^ fpiritual fenfe ; but when, and by whom difcovered, the Apoitle Paul informs us, by calling that fenfe the newness OF SPIRIT '' j which he oppofes to theoldnefs of the letter, that is, the letter of the Law. In the former part of the verfe, he fpeaks of the Law being dead-, and, here, of its being revived With, a new fpirit, in contradiftind:ion to the oldnefs of the letter... So true was it, what, in another place he obferves, that the Law was a ^•i\hT><y9f of things to come-, hut the BODY was of Chrifi "^^ The fhadow not of a body ihzn to be feen or underftood, as thefe Anfwer- ers imagine, but of a body that was to come, and, by its prefence, to explain the meaning and reafon of t\\e fhadow. For tne Jews being, as the Apoftle fays, in bondage under the elements of the world', were as men fhut up in prifon, with their faces Jcept turned from the light, towards the whited wall of Ceremonies : on which indeed they faw xn^ny fliadows ; but the body or oppofite fubft^nce

f Rom. vii, 6, Q Col. ii. 17, ' Gaj-. iv. 3.

9C

Sed. 2. of Moses demonjirated. 135

at their backs, to which they could not turn, they faw not. And in this ftate, fays the fame Apoftle, they were kep jhut up unto the Faith^ which fhould afterwards be revealed \ Therefore till that time came, it appears that the great community of the Jews had no knowledge of this Faith ; one of the eflential articles of which is life e^erlafling. This, we muft needs have concluded even tho' he had not faid, that till that time came, they were in bondage under the elements of the world. A proper character truly of a People acquainted with the reveal'd Do6trine of life and immortality. But the Objec- tors pretend that the realbn why Mofes did not PLAINLY teach a future ftate, in the manner Christ hath taught it, was becaufe the Jews were a carnal people, incapable of fpiritual things. Now what is the confequence of this incapacity, but that the fpiritual fenle was referved for better times, when their minds fliould grow more pure and defecated from carnal things •, which all along continued fo grofs and bounded that even the moft eafy of their typical informations, the calling in of the Gentiles^ was never underftood by them ; yet this truth the Prophets had, from time to time, fo plainly cultivated, that the vail of typical em- broidery feems often to have been drawn afide, to aflift their weak fight. But farther, The bet- ter part of the ObjeAors, I fuppofe, will allow that temporal good and evil were not only propofed, but actually difpenfed to the Jews, living for fome time under an equal Providence. And \yhat was the confequence of this but to confine xhtm to the literal fenfe of their Sandlion, and ftop them from looking farther ? Yet in defiance of Reafon, of Scripture, of the order of things, nay even of

* Gal. iii. 23,

K 4 thfir

1^6 ,^e piyine Legation Book VI.

their ownfyftems, thefe men will fuppofe, becaufe the Law is faid to be fpiriiual^ or to have a fpiri- tual fenfe, that therefore this fenfe always went along with, and was infeparably attached to, the literal^ in the underftandings of the Jewifh People. Which is fo ftrangely abfurd, that it takes away the very caufe and occafion of two fenfes. For, Why, let ine aPK, had the Law a fpiritual fenfe' under a carnal cover^ but for thig reafon, that the |irft Jews were fo grofly minded as to be incapable of fpiritual things ; and were therefore, in order to_ dired and govern their affedions, prefented with \.\\^ carnal, to repofe upon? i:\i-^tSchoolmafter, as St. Paul calls the Lav/, which v/as to bring them by degrees, through thofe carnal elements, to the fpiritual and fublime Dodtrines of Christ.— Yet fee the fcheme of thefe Objeaors. The early Jews are fuppofed of fo fordid a tafte as to be. incapable of a fpiritual Repaft, and therefore they had a carnal Cover laid before them : yet were they, at the fame time, fo quick fcented as to pierce throuah this carnal flicll to which they were attached, in- to the fpiritual fubllance, for which they had no reliih. / w

This may be Reajm, fay thefe men ; but what is human Reafon, when oppofed to Scripture ? Juft what it was, fay I, before you fet them at variance: and apparently for no other purpofe than to filence and difgrace this modeft Hand-maid of Revelation.

However, Scripture, it feems, informs us that The figurative and literal, the fpiritual and carnal fenfes of the Law always went together. This, they fay, the Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews plainly teaches. rkerc arc Priejis "jcho offer gifts ac- cording

6e<3^. 2. of M o s Es deinonftrated, 137

cording to the Law ; who ferve unto the exam-pie and padow of heavenly things^ as Mofes was ad~ moniped of God when he was ' about to make the Tabernacle. For fee (faith he) that thou make all 'things according to the pattern pewed thee in the mount \ But thefe Vv'ords will never do the bufinefs. Could the Objeftors, indeed, find a Text whieh tells us, that " as Mofes was admonifhed of God '* about the fpiritual fenfe of the Law, fo he in- " formed the People of it," this would be to the purpofe. ■ As it is, it will hardly follow, that be- caufe Mofes was admonifhed of the fpiritual fenfe, that therefore the fpiritual and a carnal went to- gether in the intelledls and Worfhip of the People, Mofes's knowledge of this fecret 1 allow, as it feems to follow from the privilege of his MifTion ; for if Abraham defired to fee Chrift's day^ and f aw ity and was glad., we are not to fuppofe that Mofes, who had a higher office in the miniftry of God's Difpenfations than Abraham had, Ihould be lefs favoured than Abraham was. Yet tho' I believe this, the text hej-e urged in fupport of it, does in ftridnefs, prove little of the matter. The Ob- jedors fuppofe the fenfe of the text to be this. — " that the Priejisferved unto the example and padow " of heavenly things., and that of this truth, Mofes " was admonifoed, by God in the mount." But the Apoftle is here inflrufting us in a very different truth. The words — as Mofes was admonipoedofGod —are a Similitude or Comparifon which conveys a fenfe to this purpofe,—" The Priefts, who offer gifts according to the Law, ferve unto the example and fhadow of heavenly things, in as exa6t and clofe a manner as that Tabernacle, which Mofes vvas admonifhed to make, anfwered to the pattern

» Heb. viii, 4 — 5.

fhewed

13S 'J'he Divine Legation Book VI.

(hewed him of it, in the mount." Not only the Argument which the Apoftle is upon, but the propriety of the word X^n/xar/^w points us to this ienfe •, which fignifies to command or dire6t the doing of a thing by an Oracle or Magiftrate j and this X6v\y.scli(riJ.og or diredtion we find in the place which the facred writer refers to — And look that thou make them after this pattern, which wasjheived thee in the mount °. But there is nothing thefe men will not employ for the fupport of their abfurdities. They will borrow aid even from a quibble or equivo- cation : And the following words of the fame Apof- tle have been urged to prove that the Law taught its Followers the do<5lrines of the Gofpel. — Unto us [Chrillians] -was the gospel preached as well, unto them [Jews ".]

I. And now to proceed to the particular Texts produced from the Pentateuch, in fupport of this opinion, God fays to Abraham, In thee, Jh all all the families of the earth he bleffed^. The Jews un- derflood this to fignify z formulary, that men (hould ufe, when they invocated the choiceft blefilngs on their friends and families, to this effejft-. May God hlefs thee as he hlefj'ed Abraham. And the firft of Chriftian Interpreters, Hugo Grotius, under- ftands it to fignify a promifed blefllng, which, in time, fhould be derived to the whole earth, from Abraham's care that his pofterity fhould continue in the belief and worfliip of the one true God. Indeed, when the fuinefs of time came, it v;ould then be feen, both by Jews and Chrillians, that this bleffmg ultimately centred in the holy Je- fus, the only begotten fon of God, to whom the Father hath delegated all power and dominion,

" ExOD. XXV. 40, * Heb. iv. 2, y Gen. xii. 3.

Again,

Sedt. 2. ^ Moses demonft rated. 139

Again, " God fays to Abraham, I am thy exceeding great reward \" And again : " -p-I will eflablilh *' my covenant between me and thee, and thy feed " after thee, in their generations, for an ^"yfr/^^m^ " covenant -, to be a God tmto thee and to thy feed " after thee. And I will give unto thee^ and to thy " feed after thee, the land wherein thou art a *' ftranger, all the land of Canaan, for an ever- " lafting pofTefTion ; and I will be their God *." " He repeats the fame promife to Ifaac and to Jacob ferfonally\ yet he gave Abraham no inheritance in the land though he promifed he would give it to him and to his feed after him." — Thus have thefe texts been urged by an excellent Writer '' againfl: the Sadducean opinion, as containing a promife of future rewards in another life : But urged by him, I will fuppofe, as proving fuch zpromife in z-fecondary or fpiritual fenfe only. Becaufe that fenle is fuf- ficient for his purpofe : and becaufe in that fenfe only, is it true, that they do contain fuch a promife. For, I. in the literal fenfe it is a promife of the land of Canaan to Abraham and to his pofterity ; and in this fenfe it was literally fulfilled, though Abraham was never perfonally in poffefliGn of it; fince Abraham and his pofterity, put colleftively, fignify the race of Abraham j and that Race poffefled the land of Canaan. And furely, God may be allowed to explain his own promife : Now though he tells Abraham, he would give him the land, yet, at the fame time, he alTures him that it would be many hundred years before his posteri- ty Ihould be put into poflTeffion of it: for when Abraham defired to know whereby he might be

* Gen. XV. I. * Gen. xvii. 7, 8.

* Dr. S. Clarke in his Eqjiiifnce of Nat. and Rev. Religion, p.

?4^ed, 6.

certain

140 Ti'he Divine Legation Book VI.

certain that he, i. e. his feed fhould inherit the land of Canaan % he is ordered to offer a facrifice-, after which, God in a vifion explains to him the import of his promife : That his feed fhould be a' fir anger in the land that was 7tct theirs, and fJoould ferve them, a}id that they fhould afflict them four hundred years •, that afterwards they fhould ccme out iDith great fubjtance, and in the fourth generation Piould come into Canaan, for that the iniquity of the Ammonites was not yet full '\ And as con- cerning himfelf, that he fhould go to his fathers in peace, and fhould he buried in a good old age ". Thus \V€ fee, that both what God explained to be his meaning, and what Abraham underftood him to mean, was, that his Pofterity, after a certain time, fhould be led into poflcfTion of the Land. And left any miftake fhould remain concerning the accomplifhment of this promife, the facred Hifto- rian fums up the relation in thefe words: In that fame day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, fay- viig. Unto thy seed have I, given this land^i But had the Hiftorian omitted fo minute an explana- tion of the promife, yet common fenfe would inftruit us how to underftand it. A whole Country is given to Abraham and to his feed. Could it pof-" Ably be God's defign, who does nothing in vain, ^o place his Family in the land of Canaan, till they were numerous enough to occupy and defend it ? His Pofterity was his Reprefentative : and there- fore the putting them into poffcfTion was the put- ting him into it. Not to fay, that where a Grant i^ made to a body of men colleftively, as to a Peo- ple or a Family, no laws of contract ever under- ftood the performance to confift in every individual's

= Gen. XV. 8. ^ Gcn. xv, 13, i^ fcq. « Ver. 15.

f Ver. 18.

5 t)eing

Se6t. 2. of Moses demonJl7'afed. 141

being a perfonal partaker. 2. Secondly, the giv- ing an heavenly Canaan to Abraham could not be the literal fenfe of the text, becaufe an earthly Ca- naan is ov/ned to be the dired immediate fubjedt of the promife. The Jews indeed contend for this literal fenfe, and with fome lliew of reafon ;, for they hold, that xh^ future ft ate at the Refurreftion will be pafled in the land of Judca, where Abra- ham, they fay, is then to rife and take poffefTion ^ This is confident however. But thefe Christian Objectors, who hold no fuch opinion, muft be content at iaft to find 2. future ftate only in the fpiri- tual fenfe of the words : and that fenfe, we are- by" no means ambitious of taking from them.

2. " The days of the years of my pilgrimage, " (fays Jacob to Pharaoh) are an hundred and " thirty years : few and evil have the days of the *' years of my life been, and have not attained *' unto the days of the years of the life of my fa- *' thers in the days of their pilgrimage ''." — From this fpeech it is concluded, that Mofes taught a future ftate: and, efpecially fmce the Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews hath brought ' it as a proof that Jacob and the Patriarchs looked for a better cauntry. That Jacob did fo, is unqueftion- able ; but it can never be allowed that the words, in their literal and obvious meaning, exprefs any

s Deus Abrahamo loquens ait : Dabo tibi, & femini tuo port te, terrain peregrinationis tuee. Atqui conflat, Abrahamum, & reliquos Patriarchas earn terram non pofledifTe : necefle er&o eft, ut refufcitemur, quo bonis promifiis fruantur ; alioqui pro- mifla Dei irrita & falfa forent. Hincitaque non tantum h-^\um iMMORTALiTAS probatur, fed etiam ejfmtiale fundamentutn legis, Resurrectio fcilicet mortuorum. ManaflVh Ben-Ifrael </? RefurreBiom Mort. p. 7.

** Gen. xlvii. 9. ' Chap, xi. ver. 13,

fuch

142 77j^ Divine Legation Book VI.

fuch thing. Pharaoh is here queftioning the Pa- triarch, not of human life in general, but of his own. Therefore, to make the reply pertinent, Jacob mud be underflood to mean by his fil- grimage^ the unfettled way of life, living in tents, and removing from place to place, as the con- venience of pafturage gave him invitation : and, by the evil of his days, the ftraits he fuffered from the fraud of Laban, and the hatred of his brother Efau. As for the complaint of xhtfewnefs of his days^ he himfelf explains it to be, not on account of the Ihortnefs of human life in general, but, becaufe he had not attained unto the days of the years of the life of his fathers. The fenfe therefore, which the writer of the epiftle to the Hebrews puts upon thefe words, muft needs be ihc spiritual fenfe.

3. The fame Patriarch, in his lad benediftion of his fons, breaks in upon the prophetic blefilngs with this pious ejaculation, / have waited for thy falvation, 0 Lord ^ : wliich is fuppofed to refped: the falvation of mankind by Jesus Christ. I grant it doth fo in sifpiritual fenfe y nay, for ought I know, it may in a literal. But how Ihould an early Jewifli Reader underftand it in this fenfe, when the fame terms of iht falvation of God, or of the Lord, are perpetually employed, throughout the whole Bible, to fignify God's temporal mercies to the Patriarchs and their Pofterity : and when now, that tlie Myftery of the Gofpel hath been fo long revealed, chriftian Commentators underftand it in an hundred different fenfes ?

4. Balaam, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, fays : Let me die the death of the Righteous,

^ Gek, xlix. 18.

find

Se6t. 2. of Moses demotiflrated. 145

and let my laft end he like his ' : Which is under- ftood as a wifh that he might be partaker with the Righteous in another life. Had the apoftate Pro- phet faid, Let me live the life of the Righteous^ it would have had a much fairer claim for fuch a meaning. As it is, Both the force of the words, and their relation to the context, reftrain us to this literal meaning, — Let me die in a mature old age, after a life of health and peace, with all njy pofterity flouriihing about me : as was the lot of the righteous obfervers of the Law." This vaim wilh, Mofes, I fuppofe, recorded that the fub- fequent account of his immature death in battle °* might make the ftronger impreflion on the ferious Reader, to warn him againft the impiety and folly of expediing the laft reward of virtue for a life fpent in the gratification of every corrupt appetite. But if any one will fay, the words have befides, a fublimer meaning, I have no reafon to contend with him.

5. The next is a ftri6lure of the Law in Le- viticus, urged by Dr. Stebbing in this manner,

* Mofes inforces the obedience of the Ifraelites ' upon this conlideration, Te fhall therefore keep

* my Jlatutes and judgments, which if a man do he

* fhall live in them ". Here is a promife of life made to thofe who fhould obferve the ftatutes and judgments which God gave them by his fervant Mofes ; which cannot be underftood of this temporal life only, becaufe the beft men were often cut off in the midft of their days, and frequently fuffered greater adverfities than the moft profligate finners. The Jews therefore

^ Numb, xxiii. lo.	"" Chap. xxxi. ver. 8.	" Levit.
xi'Jii. 5.		*' have

144 ^^-'^ Divine Legation Book Vf^

*' have conflantly believed that It had a refped to " the life to come. When the lawyer in the *' Gofpel had made that moft important demand, " Majter, what /hall I do to inherit eternal life °, *' our bleffed Lord refers him to what was written " in the Law ; and, upon his making a found *' and judicious anfwer, approves of it -, and for *' fatisfadion to his qucflion, tells him, This do, ** and thou /halt live."

The Objedor would have the promife of life in Leviticus to fignify eternal life. But St. Paul himfelf had long ago decided this queftion, and declared for the negative. A difpute arofe be- tween him, and thejudaizing Chriftians, concern- ing ivhat it was which jujiified before God, or intitl- ed to that eternal life brought to light by the Gofpel. They held it to be xhc works of the Law (believing, perhaps, as the Objedor alTures us they did, that this text, in Leviticus, had a rcfpecl to the life to come:) St. Paul, on the contrary affirms that it v^as, faith in Jefus the Mejfiah. And thus he argues — " But no man is juitified by the *' Law in the fight of God it is evident : for the " Ji(Ji f:>all live by faith. And the Law is not of *' faith, but the man that doth them (hall live in •' them p." — As much as to fay — " That no man can obtain eternal life by virtue of the Lap is evident from one of your own Prophets [Hab] who exprefsiy holds, that the jujl pall live by FAITH*'. Now, by the Law^ no rewards are pro- mifed to faith, but to works enly. The man that DOTH them (fays the Law in Levit'.) Jhall live in them." Here then we fee that this very text,

• Luke X. 25. ' Gal. iii U>'2. "i ii. 4.

.win.

3*

vyhich

Se(5l. 3* ^f Moses demonjlrated. 14^

which the Objector brings to prove that eternal life was by the Law, St. Paul urges, to prove that it was not by the Law, Let us attend to the Apoflle*s argument. He is to Ihew that juftification, or eternal life, is by faith. This he does even on the conceiTion of a Jew, the Prophet Habakkuk ; who exprefsly owns it to be by faith. But the Law, fays the Apoftle, attributes nothing to /^/V/??; but, to DEEDS only, which if a man do he fhall live in them. Now, if, by life, be here meant, as the objeftor fuppofes, eternal life, then St. Paul's argument does not come out as he in- tended it ; namely that faith and not the works of the Law, juftifiss ; but thus, that both faith and the works of the Law jujlify, which would have fatisfied thefe Judaizers, as reconciling on their own prejudices Mofes and Habakkuk ; but would, by no means, have fatisfied our Apoflle ; whofe conclufion on this queftion, where difcuffed ap large, in his epiltle to the Romans, is, that a man isjufiified by faith without the deeds of the Law ^ The very drift of his argument therefore fliews us, that he muft neceflarily underftand the life, pro- mifed in this text of Leviticus, to be temporal life only. But charitably fludious, as it were, to prevent all poflible chance of our miftaking him on \o important a point, He immediately fubjoins, Chrijl hath redeemed us from the curfe of the Law \ Now we know that our redemption by Chrift was from that death which the firft man brought into the world : the curfe which he entailed upon his pofterity. Therefore the transferring this term from Adam to the Law, fliews plainly that in the Apoftle's fentiments, the Law had no more a fliare in the redemption of fallen man than Adam him-

^ Rom. iii. 28. * Gal» iii. 13.

Vol. V. L. felf

1^6 I'he D'lvme Legation Book VI.

felf had. Yet it is certain, that if the Law, when it laid, He zvbo keeps thefe ftatutes and judgments jhall live in ihem, meant, for ever, it propofed the Re- demption of mankind as compleatly as the bleffed Jefus himfclf did, when he faid, he that believeth in me JJjall have everlajiing life. This becomes detr.onftrable, if St. Paul's reafoning will hold, who furely had heard nothing of this prerogative of theZ-^w, when he faid, If there had been a L. aw given which could have given life, verily righteoufnefs Jhould have been by the haiv. Where obferve, I pray you, the force of the word ^wcTrotv^o-ai, which fignifies to quicken, or to make alive j plainly intimating the fame he had faid in the place quoted before, that thofe in fubjeftion to the haijc were under a ciirfe, or in the Rate of death. — Let me add only this further obfervation, that if (as this Objedlor pretends) by life in the text of Levit. be meant eternal life; and if (as the i^poftle pretends) by life, in the text of Hab.ikkuk, be meant eternal life ; then will Mofes and Habakkuk be made direftly to contradid: one another-, the firfc giving that eternal life to works, which the latter gives to FAITH. But Dr. Stebbing v/ould infinuate, that Jefus himfelf feems to have affixed this fenfe to the text in Leviticus ; however, that the plain infe- rence is that eternal life was taught at leaft, if not cbt (lined by the Law. " When the lawyer in the *' Gofpel (fays he) had made that mod important " demand, Majler, what fljall I do to inherit ^ eternal life " ? our bleffed Lord refers him to *' what was v/ritten in the Law, and upon his *' making a found and judicious anfwer, approves " of it-, and for fatisfadion to his queftion, tells ** iiini, '■This do and thou fj alt //^'£'."— Would not

" LUKL X. 25.

any

Sedl. 3- of Moses demonjlrated. i^y

any one now conclude, from the fenfe here put upon the words of Jefus, that the foimd and ju- dicious anjhver of the Lawyer mufl have been a quotation of the text in Leviticus, — Tefiall keep my Jlatutes, which if a man do he fhall live in them ; — or at leaft fome general promife made to the obfervers of the whole Law of Mofes ? No fuch matter. On the contrary, the Lawyer's anfwer was a quotation of only one precept of the Lav/, I'hcujhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. and thy Neighbour as thy f elf . Now how much foever we may differ about a future fiate's being held out by the Law^ through a Meiliah to come, I fuppofe we are both agreed that faith in the Mejfiah, either adual or imputed, is ne- ceffary to obtain xKis. future fate. There are but two ways then of underilandihg this text of St. Luke, neither of which is to his purpofe. The iirft is the fuppofing that Jefus included faith in himfelf in this precept of loving God with all the heart, &c. which will appear no forced interpre- tation to him who holds Jefus to be really and truly God ; as, I im.agine, the Dodor does ; and may be fupparted by a circumftance in the ftory as told by St. Matthew % though omitted by St. Luke, v/hich is, Jefus's faying, that on thefe two commandments hang all the haw and the Prophets. The fecond and exa6ler interpretation is, that Jefus fpoke to a profeffing follower, who pretended to acknowledge his Million, and v/anted only a RULE OF LIFE. For Jefus was here preaching the Gofpel to his difciples, and a Lawyer food up and TEMPTED him, that is, on the falfe footing of a difciple, required a rule of life. Nov/ in either cafe, this reference of Jefus to the Law muft im-

* Matth. xxii. 40.

L 2 ply

148 ^he Divine Legation Book VL

ply this, and this only, that ivithout righteoufnefs and holinefs no man flmll fee the Lord. A point in which, I fuppofe, we are agreed. — But ftill the Do6lor will fay that thefe words of Jefus allude to the words of Mofes. Admit they do. It will not follow, as he feems to think, that they were given to explain them. How many allufions are there in the New Teftament to paflages in the Old, ac- commodated to a fpiritual fenfe, where the texts alluded to, are leen, by all but Fanatics, to have only a carnal? And even in this very allufion, if it be one, we find that the promife made to the obfervers of the whole Law, is transferred to the obfervance of one fingle precept, in the moral part of it. But let us grant him all he would have-, and admit that thefe words of Jefus were given to explain the words of Mofes. What would follow from thence, but that the promife in Le- viticus had ^fecondary fenfe of 2. fpiritual and fub- limer import ? Will this give any advantage to the Do6lor and his Party ? Surely none at all. And yet the ahufe of this conceffion is all they have to fupport themfelves in their determined oppofition to Common fenfe.

6. A Law in Leviticus is delivered in thefe terms, — " Whoever he be of the children of *' Ifrael, or of the ilrangers that fojcurn in Ifrael, " that giveth any of his feed unto Molech, he " (hall furely be put to death ^" Let me firft explain the text before I fliew how it is perverted. There were two cafes in which the offender here defcribed might efcape punifhment : Either the crime could not be 'legally proved. Or the Magi- (Irate might be rcmifs in punifhing. The di-

y Lev IT. XX. 2.

vine

Sed. 3. o/" M o s E s demonjlrated, 149

vine Lawgiver obviates both : and declares that the Infanticide, in fiich cafe, fhall fuffer death by- God's own hand in an extraordinary manner. The fupplial of the firft defed, is in thefe words, — " And I will fet my face againil the man, " and will cut him off from amongst his *' PEOPLE ^.'* The fupplial of the fecond is in thefe : — " And if the people of the land do any " ways hide their eyes from the man, when he " giveth of his feed unto Molech, and kill him " not, then I will fet my face againft that man " and againft his family, and will cut himoff\'* So much for the fenfe of the text. And now for the nonfenfe of our Interpreter, a Profeflbr of • Law and Divinity, the egregious Do6lor Ruther- roRTH. This fage provifion for the execution of the Law our Profelfor being totally unconfcious of, he infifts " that cutting off from among ft his *' People can only mean eternal damnation, the " being configned to a ftate of punifhment in " another life ".'* He is, as I fay, a dealer both in Law and Divinity : but not having yet learnt the ufe of his tools, he confounds Law by Theo- logy, and depraves Theology by Law : And of this, the reader hA already feen fome delegable inftances. But at prefent, to regulate a little his Law-ideas, let him turn to Exod. xii. 15. and Levit. vii. 25, and he will find that the cutting off from Ifrael, and the cutting off from the Peopky are phrafes which fignify only capital punifhment of a civiUcind. Unlefs he will fuppofe that what is there threatened for eating leavened bread and pro- bibiiedfat^ is eternal life in torments.

7. The Psalmist, in a holy confidence of God*s mercies, fays, Thou wilt not leave my foul in hell,

^ Ver. 3. * Ver. 4 — 5, »> Page 33.

L 3 neither

150 The Divine Legation Book VI.

neither ivilt thou fuffer thy holy one to fee corruption. Thou ivilt foezv me the path of life \ in thy prefence isfulnefs of joy ^ at thy right hand there are pica fur es for evermore^. — The fcope of the whole Pfahn is to implore the proteftion of God, from this con- ficieration, that the Plalmilt himfelf not only fted- fiiftly adheres to the Law of God, but is ready to oive his aid and fupport to all thofe who do. — That the vengeance of God purfues idolatry, which he carefully avoids — That the God of Ifrael is his portion^ and tlie land of Cafiaan a fair inhe- ritance— That this fledfaft adherence to the Lord is his confidence and peace — Then follow the words in queftion, — That he is fure, God will not leave his foul hi Hell, &c, &c. that is, fuffer him to fall immaturely, as was the lot of the tranfgrcfibrs of the Law: — And concludes, that walking in the law of God is both the highefl: pleafure, and ftrongeft fecurity. All which isexprefled in terms fo magnificent, as to fl"iew, indeed, that this Pfalm hath a fpiriiual as well as literal meaning. And that fpiritual meaning St. Peter hath explained to us*^: Indeed, if Dr. Stebbing's word were to be taken, the Apoftle hath explained it in a man- ner which overthrows all oudl^eafoning. " St. ** Peter (fays the Dc(5lor) claims this paffage [Pf. " xvi. 10, I I.J as relating to Chrift'srefurredion'.'* But how does he claim it ? No otherwife than by giving it <i fecondary fenfe. Now the learned Dcflor himlelf contends that the fcccndary fenfe of the Prophefies was purpofely concealed and fecreted from the Jewifii Church : Confequently, the Re- furrcBion, the very dcdlrine, which the feccndary fenfe of this text conveys, was fecreted from it. But then, the Do6tor fays, that" in x.\\t primary

* PsAt. xvi. 10, 1 1, ^ Acts ii. 25 — 29. ^ E.xam. p. 49.

*' fenfs

Se<^. 3. of Moses demonjirated. 151

" fenfe David declares his expe£tation of a fu- " ture ftate, not in confequence of any promife " of the Law, but by faith in Jefus Chrift." The refuk then of the Dodor's expofition is this. That the fame text may ferve to prove that the fpiri- tual fenfe of the Law was and was not revealed at this time. The verfe has a primary {^vAt which reveals a future ftate, and a fecondary fenfe which hides and fecretes it. — But he infifts much upon the following words of the text — In thy frefence is fulnefs of joy ^ and at thy right hand are -pleafures for evermore. " ExprefTions, fays the Dodtor, " much too great to defcribe any v/orldly happi- *' NESS^" — I readily confefs it was no worldly hap" pinefs which is here defcribed : for to be in the prefence of God fignified the fame as to appear be- fore the Ark^ PL xvii. 15. and to enjoy pkafures there for evermore^ the fame as dwelling in the hcufe of the Lord for ever^ i. e. all his days, Pf xxiii. 6 a fpiritual happinefs, fure, though enjoyed in this world.

But the texts of texts, the precious ones indeed, are thofe where a hell is m.cntioned j as here — thou Jhalt not leave my foul in Hell^. And of this orthodox confolation there is no fcarcity in the Old Teftament. Mr. Whifton affures us, it is almoji five times as often mentioned as in the New. It may be fo. Hov/ever inftead of examining into the juft- nefs of this nice calculation, I fhall chufe rather to confider what is to be underftood by the word, than how often it is repeated. Now, I iuppofe nei- ther I nor my Anfwerers can have any reafonable objedion to St. John's authority in this matter ; who fpeaking, in the book of Revelations, of the

f Exam. p. 49, « PsAL. xvi. lo.

L 4- ufclefs

152 T^he Divi?7e Legation Book VI.

ufelefs old furniture of the law, fays — and death and HELL were caji into the lake of fire : this is the fecond death^. From hence it appears that the hell of the Old Teftament was a very different thing from the hell of the New, called, the lake of Fire i fince the one is made the punifhment, or at leaft the extinftion of the other. And to re- move all doubt, the Apoftle, we fee, calls this cajiing into the lake, 2l fecond death. Muft not then the Lake itfelf be ?i fecond Hell? And if fo, could the frji or the Old Teftament hell be any other than the grave ? The next words tell us, that whofcever was not found written in the book of life ivas cajl into the lake of fire '\ So that the fenfe of the whole feems to be this, that at the confumma- tion of things (the fubjeft here treated of) all phy- fical and moral evil Ihall be abolifhed.

8. Again, The Pfalmift fays, " Deliver my ** foul from the wicked — from the men of the " world — which have their portion in this life, and " whofe belly thou filleft with thy hidtreafure.— As " for me, I will behold thy face jn righteoufnefs : *' Jfhall be fatisfied, when I awake, with thy like^ " nefs ''." Many moral and myftical commenta- tors (and perhaps our Englifh tranflators them- felves, as one would think from the turn of their language) underftood thefe words as literally pointing, in one verfe, to 3. future ftate, and, ia the other, to a refurreUion, And in this, the dif- fenter, Leland, as I remember, in fome of his things, feems much to triumph. But I Ihall lhe\v that it means nothing lefs.

They have their portion in this ///>, fay ouf tranflators, who, with great piety, had their heads

} XX, 14. » Ver. ic. ^ fs. xvii. li^ 15.

$ed:. 3 . of Moses demonftrated, i ^^

full of ANOTHER. Whcrcas the original word literally fignifies in vitis^ the Hebrew being a plural word and having no fingular : which, by the way, let me obferve, is a convincing proof that the ideas of the common ufers of this language were only employed about this life-, had they been converfant, like us, with another, they would foon have found a fingular to their plural. This will be thought a ftrange Paradox by thofe I have to do with, who clo not know that plural nouns are often words of amplification, not of number. As our tranflators render it, in this life, fo the Chaldee par. p-oes a (tep further, and renders it, in life eternal. The Sept. tranflators, who bell underftood their own idiom, interpret it better than either, h t^ ^m avruv in this life of theirs. So that the true meaning of what we turn, their portion in this life, amounts to this — they are perfe^ly profperoiis.

And now, concerning the words in the other yti{t, — I fhall be fatisfied, when I awake, with thy likenefs. For the fenfe of thefe I Ihall tranfcribe the following paflage of an excellent Critic, and, what is more, a very orthodox Divine. — — " The " Chaldee," fays Dr. Hammond, (and what fort of interpreters they were we have feen juft above)

'■'■ apply this awaking to David ; -when I jhall

'* awake, I fhall he fatisfied with the glory of thy " countenance. And fo it hath truth, in reipedl of " the refurreftion of the juft. — But all the other " interpreters agree to apply it to this glory : h tJ *' o^0>)i/at Tfiv ^o^ccv (r», at the appearing of thy glory„ *' fay the ISKYAl.—cum apparuerit gloria tua, fays ♦'the Latin; (and fo the Arabic and -^thiopic) « — JVhen thy fidelity fhall awake, faith the Sy- S^ |-iac : And fo moft probably it is to be under-

" ftood.

154 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

" flood. By [God's gkry azvaking] fignifying his *' glorious and powerful interpoiition to David's *■'- PRESENT refcue from his enemies hands. — And " thus the learned Caftellio took it; turn fatiandus, " cum tuaexperredlafueric imago; I Jhall be fatif- " fed when thy likenejs pall be awaked \" Other Interpreters, and thofe of the firft Clals, who make the awaking to refer to David, fuppofe it to fignify his morning adorations before the Ark, the fym- bolic refidence of the divine Prefence "". But that David was here fpeaking in the language of the Lazv, and not of the Go/pel, I think, all but deter- mined Bigots will confefs.

Q. And again : Surely goodnefs and mercy Jhall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the Houfe of the Lord for ever ". By the hoiife of the Lord can be meant nothing elfe but the Tabernacle or the Temple : So that, for ever, or as the Heb. iays, to length of days, mull mean that mature old age, which the Law promifed to its faithful adherents.

10. In the xxxvi Pfalm, the facred Writer fays:

For with thee, is the fountain of life : in thy light Jhall we fee light <'. Here, to prove the immortality of Man, a text is produced, which teaches the

' Annot. on the xviith P/alm.

•" V^idetur fignificare David arcam, qiiam fingulis tempo- ribus matutinis Deu:n adoraturus adibat. Cleric, in locum. Pro more Hebr. Poefeos, ipfum in Sandluario quotidie in pia;fentia Dei ad arcam, quod divinas praefentia; fymbolum erat, i'tiQ velle fifterc, quod illi ar.'.e omnia in votis fuit, fummoque gaudio periudit. Hare in loc,

« Ps. xxiii. 6, " Ps. xxxvi, 9,

eternity

Se(5t. 3. of Moses demonjirated, 155

eternity of God. But I know Some, who think there is a necefTary connexion between thefe two truths.

11. " Like flieep (fays the Pfalmift) they [the " wicked] are laid in the grave, death fhall feed " upon them ; and the upright fliall have domi- '* nion over them in the morning, and their beau- " ty Ihall confume in the grave, from their dwel- " Hng. But God will redeem my foul from the " power of the grave, for he lliall receive me p." The literal meaning of v^^hich is, as appears by the context, that " the wicked lliould be untimely cut off and deftroyed, — in the mornings that is, by the judgment of the Law, which was adminiftered in the morning hours 'i; but that his life, and the life of the upright, fhould be preferved and pro- longed." Here, once for all, let me defire the Objedors to confider. What it is that is ever op- posed (in the many pafTages of this fort) to hife^ Redemption^ &c. It is not Mifery^ Torments^ &c. as it muft have been, did life literally fignify eter- nal life in a future ftate -, but it is death, which (hews it was a life here on earth.

12. 'Thou /halt guide me (fays he again) %viih thy counfel^ and afterwards receive me to glory \ Or, as an excellent Critic has it, Confilio tiio deduxijii me^ ^ pojlea cum gloria excepijli me. " Thou waft,

P Ps. xlix. 14, 15.

1 See Jerem, xxi. 12. " O houfe of David, thus faith the ** Lord, Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him <• that is fpoiltd, out of the hand of the opprsfTor, left my ♦' fury go out like fire, — becaufe of the evil of your doings."

^ j?s. Ixxiii, 24.

or

156 I'he Divine Legation Book VI.

or {halt be, always prefent with me in difficulties and diftrefles ; and fhalt lead and conduft me to better fortunes." This literal fenfe the context requires.

13. " But the mercy of the Lord is from ever- " lafting to everlafting, upon them that fear him, " and his righteoufiiefs unto childrens children j *' to fuch as keep his covenant, and to thofe that ** remember his commandments to do them '.** This is fo far from intimating 2. future fiat e^ that it is the very temporal promife annexed to the fecond Law of the Decalogue — Shewing mercy unto thoufands of them that love me, and keep my command- ments \

14. — For THERE the Lord commanded the hUffing^ even life for evermore ". — Where ? In the habi- tation of brethren living together in unity. No- thing elfe then can be meant, but that death and dangers fliould not approach a houfe fo flrongly united in itfelf.

15. In the book of Proverbs it is faid — • " The wicked is driven away in his wickednels :

*^ BUT THE RIGHTEOUS HATH HOPE IN HIS

" DEATH ''." That is, " the righteous hath hope that he Ihall be dehvered from the mod imminent dangers." So the Psalmist — upon them that hope in his mercy ; to deliver their foul from deaths and to keep them alive in famine ^. — And again, 'Thou hafi delivered tny foul from death j TVilt not thou deliver my feet from fallings that I may walk before Qodin the light of the living^ ? See Ps. xxxiii. 19. Ivi. 13.

» Ps. ciii. 17, i3. * ExoD. XX. 6. " Ps. cxxxiii. 3.

? Prov. xiv. 32, y Ps. xxxiii. 19. ^psjvi. j^.

16. And

$e(ft. 3* of Moses dej7ioj2jlrated, 157

16. And again — "The way of life is above to the wife, that he may depart from Hell beneath '. That is, The wife man prolongs his days here on earth, and efcapes that untimely death which at- tends vice and folly. A Dodtrine perpetually in- culcated throughout this book ; as at chap. x. ver. 2, 28. chap. xi. ver. 7. chap. xii. ver. 28. chap. xxi. ver. 16.

And again, " When a wicked man dieth, his *' EXPECTATION Ihall pcrilh j and the hope of un- " juft men perifheth ^" And again, — " So fhall " the knowledge of wifdom be unto thy foul: " when thou haft found it ; then there fhall be a *' reward, and thy expectation fhall not be cut " off''." In the firft of thefe two places it ap- pears by the context, (that is, by the whole tenor of thefe moral precepts and aphorifms) that the expectation which fhould deceive is that of worldly- wicked men to eflablifh a houfe in their pofterity : And in the fecond, the expectation which fhould not deceive is that of wife and virtuous men in the fuc- cefs of their honeft endeavours. But there is one common fallacy which runs through all the reafon- ingof thefe Anticritics: it is this, that having taken the point in queftion [whether a future ftate be taught in the Old Teftament] for granted, they con- fine all cxprefTions, capable of either fenfe confider- ed alone, to the fenfe which fupports their own opi- nion. Whereas while the matter is in queftion, fair reafoning requires, that fuch Texts be con- fidered as indifferent to either fenfe, till determin- ed by the Context, and according to the Analogy of the Law and the Prophets.

* Chap. KV, ver. 24. " Prov. xi. 7. ' xxiv. 14.

17. Wc

158 ^he Divifte Legation Book VT.

17. We conclude with the Preacher, who fays, that Wifdom giveth to them that have it " : And fo fays the Law of Mofes likcwife (which is here al- luded to) and yet it gives nothing but the things of this life.

18. Again : " Though a finner do evil an hun- *' dred times, and his days be prolonged, yet " fjrely I know that it fhall be well with them *' that fear God '." What is meant by this, the very following words declare: But it JJjall not be well with the wicked^ neither jhall he prolong his days, which are as a jhadow •, hecaufe he fearcth not before God^. — That is, though the wicked be fuf- fered to go on for fome time, yet for all that. Ven- geance (hall overtake and arreft him in the middle of his courfe ^.

19. And again " Rejoice, O young man,

" in thy youth, and let thy heart chear thee in the " days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thy " heart, and in the fight of thine eyes : but know " thou, that for all thefe things, God will bring *' thee into judgment. Therefore remove forrow " from thy heart, and put away evil from thy *' flelh, for childhood and youth are vanity \"

^ EccL. vii. 12. « Chap. viii. ver. 12. ^ ver. 13.

s One of the AnAverers of this Work employs much pains to prove that thefe words could not mean, Tu^it it avas to be nvell nuith them th it fear God in the present like. Rutherforth, p. 363. i. e. he will prove, the words could not bear a fenfe to which ihey are limited and tied down by the words immediately following, — But it Jhall not be ivell iv.th the ivickeJy neither SHALL HE PROLONG HIS DAYS. — What \% tu bc doHC with fuch a man i'

•• Chap. xi. ver. 9, ^ Jeq.

That

Sed. 3. of Mo S'Es demonjlrated, 159

iThat is, " in giving an innocent and lawful indul- gence to thy Youth, take heed left thou tranfgrefs the bounds of virtue and piety. For know, that God will certainly puniih thy offences, either in thy own Perfon, or in thy Pofterity."

Thefe are all the paflages of moment (till we come to the Prophets) which I could find have been obje6led to the Opinion, 1^ hat a future fiat e of reward and punifhment is not in the Mofaic Dif- fenfation. By which it appears, that the Objec- tors have been very inattentive to what an Inter- preter of the Old Tefcament fnould have his thoughts conftantly attached, namely to thefe three things j to the context •, to the genius of the EASTERN STYLE-, and to the CEconomy under which the early Hebrews lived, that is to fay, an

EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE, But this laft

fault, though the moft inexcufable of all, they all have in common with the late Jewifh Writers; who confidering only the Difpenfation under which themfelves lived, thought it harfli and unnatural to interpret thefe Texts with reference to worldly good and evil which they faw unequally diftributed.

On the whole therefore it appears, that all thefe paffages, in their obvious and primary fenfe, re- late to the things of this life •, and that fome of them are exprelTed by the Holy Spirit in fuch a manner, as makes it now evident, they had likewife ^.fpiri- tual and fubhmer meaning, and do indeed refer to the completion of the Law, by the Qofpel.

The Texts here examined are urged in common both by Jews and Chriftians. But, befides thefe, the Jews have a fet of Texts peculiar to them- felves i which the Chriftians have never yet ven- 6 tured

i6o ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

tured to put upon Duty. As they are mofl of them of the nature of Riddles, Riddles, for me, they fliall remain : only, for the curious Reader's fatisfaftion, I fhall mark out what the Rabbins bring from the Pentateuch to prove the immor- tality of the foul, and the refurre5iion of the body, as they are coUeded by the learned ManafTeh Ben- Ifrael, in his trad De RefiirreSlione Mortuorum. For the IMMORTALITY, 1 KiNGS i. 31. Ps. cxvi. 7, 8, 9. ExoD. xix. 6. — Chap, xxxiii. ver. 20. Levit. vii. 25. Deut. xiv. i, 2.— Chap. xxii. ver. 7. — Chap, xxxii. ver. 47. — For the re- surrection, Gen. iii. 19. — Chap, xxxvii. ver. 10. ExoD. XV. 6. Levit. xxv. Numb. xv. 30. — Chap, xviii. ver. 28. Deut. iv. 4. — Chap, xxxii. ver. 39. — Chap, xxxiii. ver. 6. But tho' the reader will find many diverting things on this head, in Manaffch Ben-lfrael ; yet they mud all give place to the curious comment of Rabbi Tan- chum on the following words of i Sam. xxv. 29. — The foul of my Lord fhall be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord thy God: and the fouls of thine enemies, themfoall he fling out, as out of the middle of a fling. Sententia ell omnium Interpre- tum (fays this profound Rabbi) quod ad hunc textum, efle ipfum per modum commonitionis [qua declaratiir] quifnam futurus fit animas Ilatus, et ad quid tandem devencura fit, poltquam a corpore feparata fuerit ; atque oftendere duplicem elTe ipfi llatum, viz. quibufdam animabus efle gradum fublimem et locum ftabilcm, apud Dominum fuum, dum vita immortali fruantur, nee morti nee per- ditioni obnoxiae : aliis autem ludcre flu6lus naturae, adco ut requiem et confiftendi locum non inve- niant, verum dolores perpetuos et cruciatus continues, cum aterna duratione, inftar lapidis, qui e funda projedus circumrotatur in acre pro ratione virium

jacientis.

gfedl. 4* of "M-O"^^^ demonjlrate^. i6i

jacientis, dein vi fua natural! gravitate in terram decidit. Animse vero nee ineft gravitas quse ipfam deorfum, nee levitas quas lurlum ferat; ideoque in perpetua ell confufione, percurbatione, trifticia, et dolore ufque in ceternum. Atque hasc revera len- tentia eft sapientum et PHiLosoPKORURf. — How profound a Do6trine ! and how noble an original ! But this is not the firft, by a thoufandj which has been raifed from a Metaphor, out of the hot-bed of theologic wifdom and philofophy. An abufe, that fome cooler thinkers of late have fancied they could never get well rid of, till they had turned the few Doofrines of true Chriftianity back again into Metaphors. And they have fucceeded to admi- ration.

SEC T. iV.

WE come at length to the texts of the New Testament, which are urged to prove, againfl itfelf, that Life and Immortality was brought to light by the Old.

I. The firft is that famous argument of Jesus againft the Sadducees : — Jefits anfwered and faid unto them, Te do err, not knowing the Scriptures^ nor the power of God. — But as touching the Refur- re^ion of the dead^ Have ye not read that which was fpoken unto you by God, faying , I am the God of Abraham y and the God of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob ? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living ^\ Now this very Text, had it been impar- tially conlidered, would alone have been fufficient to convince thefe Anfwerers of the truth here con- tended for. At leaft it convinced a m.uch v.dfer man, the excellent Hugo Grotius, whofc words to his

^ Matth. xxii. 29 — 32.

Vol. V. M friend

1 62 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

friend Gcr. Voflius are as follow : " In Mofis lege " (non dico in veteri Teftamento: nam de Pro- " phetis, pr^fertim pofterioribus, res longe alia " eft) aeternae vitae non fieri mentionem nifi per " umbras, aut rationis confequentiam, certifTimum " mihi videtur, Chrifti autoritate, qui Saducseos " non verbis direSlis, fed ratiocinando refellit '.'* There is not, I repeat it, any plain Text in the whole Bible (and this is amongft the plaineft) fo ftrangely miftaken and perverted : For i . The appellation of the God of Abraham, ^c. is general- ly underftood to be quoted by our blefled Lord, as a diredt proof' of the Refurre^ion of the dead body^ in the fame manner that St. Paul urges the cafe of Jesus : — But now is Chrijt ri fen from the dead, and

* Ep. 130. ed. Am. 1687. Enscopius had the very fame jc^ea of this argument. — " Et fane opinionum, quje inter Judasos erat, circa vitam futuri fzeculi difcrepantia arguit promiffiones Leae faftas tales effe ut ex iis certi quid de vita futuri fxculi ron pofiit coHigi. Quod ct Servator nofter non obfcure innuit, cum refurreflionem mortuorum colligit, Matt. xxii. non ex prnmiffo aliquo Legi addito, fed ex generali tantum illo pro- niiiTo Dei, quo fe Deum Abraham!, Ifjaci, k. Jacobi futurum fpoponderat : qu?e tamen ilia colledio magis nititur cognirione intentionis divins: fub gencraJibus iftis verbis occultata: aut com- prehcnfr. de qua Chriito ccrto conlhbat, quam necefiaria con- ffquentia five verborum vi ac virtut^i manifefta, qualis nunc et in veibis Novi Teftamenti, ubi vita sterna et refurre£lio mor- tuorum proiam et puppim faciunt totius Religionis Chriftianae, e\ tam clare ac diferte promittuntur ut ne hifcere quidem contra quis poflit." /«/. Vnol. lib. iii. § I. c. 2.

^ Mr. J.e Clerc, in his Defe'fe ^es Sentimens fur /' H':Jloire Critique, has fallen into this millake. — Notre Seigneur prefTe ces termcs, en forte qu'il fuppofe qu'il ne faut qu'critendre la langue dans laquelle I'Ecriturc parle pour reconnoitre la Refurrec- tion. Matt. xxii. 31. — 11 ne faut que lire ce raifonnement de Jffus Chiirt, pour fentir qu'il eft tire de cette exprcffion, clre le Dieu de quelqiiun, que I'on ne pourroit appliquer a Dicu, fr cclui. done on dit qu'il eft le Dieu, etoit mjrt/aiu devoir j,.mai$ rtf'J'ater. p. 102, 103,

become

Se£t. 4. ^ M 0 s E s Bemonjlrated. 163

become the firjl fruits of them that Jlept '. But can any thing be more irrational or abfurd ? The bodies of Abraham and the Patriarchs were yet in duft, and reduced to their primitive earth. So that in this fenfe, the reafoning is fo far from proving that God WAS not the God of the dead, that it proves, he was. For Abraham's body continued yet lifelefs at the very time when God was called his God: Whatfoever was to be the future condition of it, that could not influence the prefent appella- tion of the God of Ifrael. What hath led men into this miftake is the introdudlion to the argument, — • But as touching the refurre^ion of the dead^ — which they fuppofed an exordium to 3. dire ff proof: Where- as it is an intimation only, to what an indirect proof tended j namely, that the Refurre^ion of the body might be inferred thro' the medium oi tht feparate exiftence of the foul ', which was. the only point Jel us propofed to prove direBly to them. The cafe Hood thus : He was here arguing againft the Sadducees. Now thefe fupported their opinion, of no refurrec- tion of the body, on a principle that the foul had no feparate exijience, but fell into nothing at the difTolu- tion of its union with the body ; which Principle once overthrown, they had nothing left to oppofe to the writings of the Prophets, or the preaching of Jesus. Againft this principle therefore our blelTed Lord thus divinely argues : — " But as con- cerning the Refurreftion of the dead, You ground your denial of it on this fuppofition, that the foul dies with the body, but you err as much in not knowing the Scriptures, as in not rightly conceiv- ing of the power of God. For the words of the Law, which you allow to be a good authority, di- redly prove that the foul doth not die with the

* I Cor. XV. 20.

M 2 body,

J 64 ^^^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

body, but hath a feparate exiftence. Now Moles tells us, that God, long after the death of Abra- ham, Ifaac, and Jacob, called himfelf their God: But God is not the God of the dead, hut of the living -, therefore the fouls of thofe Patriarchs are yet exifting in a feparate ftate." — This is the force of the Argument "»

2. The fecond mlflake is, that Jesus, by thefe words infinuates that Mofes cultivated the Doc- trine of a Refurre5fion, or a Future Jtate. But here again the Objedors feem to forget, againit whom the argument is addreffed, the Sadducees. Now thefe not only held that Mofes did 7iGt teach^ but that he did not believe that Doctrine. This

""• Which, (to obferve it by the way) unanfwerably confutes that Semipagan Dream of the foul's Jleepin^ till the refurreSlion of the bsdy. And yet, what is itrange to tell, this very text, in the courfe of difputation, which, like the courfe of time, bringi things, ai the Poet fays,

— to their confounding contrariet,

hath been urged to prove ihatfeep, or no feparate life ; and this, by no Ids confiderable a man than Mr. Hales of Eaton, Chriji (faith he) pro^eth the future refurredion of the dead from thence, that God is the God of Abraham, Ifuac, and "Jacob, hut is not the God of the dead, but 0/ the li-ijing. Whence he concludeth, that thef live to God, that is, s H a L L B E recalled to life by God, that he may manifeji hinfelf to be their God or Benefactor. This argument ivould be altogether fallacious, if before the RefurreSi ion they felt hea'venly joy : For then God luould be their God or Bene- fador, namily acarding to tbdr fu.'s, altho^ their bodies Jhould ne'uer rife again*. All which is a mere complication of mif- takes ; as is, indeed, his whole reafoning from Scripture, through- out that chapter. — But they who hold the foul to be only a quality, nnd yet talk of its Jleep between death and the refur- reclion, ule a jargon which confounds all languages as well as all realbn. For (uch a Jkep is an annihilation ; and the nuaking a^aiii, a new creation.

• // brief Inquiry, chap. viii.

was

Sed. 4. cf Mo SES demonflrated. 165

was the error, Jesus aimed to confute ; and only this ; becaule the opinion that Mofes did not teach or cultivate it, was no error at all, as appears, amongft many other reafons, even from hence: that the Jews might reafonably underfland the title of the God of Abraham^ i^c. to mean the pecu- liar tutelary God of Abraham's Family -, for the terms Jacob and Ifrael are frequently ufed in Scrip- ture for the whole nation of the Jews -, Aaron for the whole order of the priefthood ; Dan^ Judah, (fjc, for the whole body of each tribe : And as, in rea- Ibn they might, fo by the Hiftory of the early Jews, we find in fa6l, they did underlland it in this fenfe.

The real force therefore of the Text, here urged, amounts to this, From Jesus's argument it appears, that the feparate exiltence of the foul might be fairly inferred from the writings of Mofes : Which inference I not only grant lome early Jews did make, but have proved likewife ; though not in- deed from thefe words, for the rcafon given above. And fo much my Anfwerers might have under- ftood, had they only obferved that this has all the marks of a new Argument % unknown to the

Pharifees ;

" " Tho' this argument was a ne^v one, (fays Dr. Ruther- *' forth) tho' the Pharifees had never made this inference, ** and that therefore it does not appear from hence, that Mofes *' inculcated the Dodtrine of a future ftate, yet as it was a con- ** clufive argument, as it was an inference which might have " been made, it will prove to us that Mofes was not Jiudious to " conceal this doftrine, nor purpofely omitted every thing that *' might bring his Reader acquainted with thofe notices of •' Redemption and of another life, which the Patriarchs were " favoured with." p. 318. This is a coupde Maitre, indeed : as wittily urged as it was wifely meditatejl. — If Mofes bring a ctnclujive argument for a doBriney it is plain he could not he ftii-

M 3 diovi

1 66 The Divine Legation Book VI.

Pharifees •, as indeed both the dignity of our Lord's character, and the impreflion he would make on his Oppofers, feemed to require it (hould be. Ac- cordingly, we find they are ftruck dumb j and the multitude that beard this, ajionijhed at his do6irine ", But would Eitiier of them have been fo affected with an old foundered argument, long hacknied

iiious t3 conceal that doSlrine, fays our ingenious Profeflbr. — If Roger Bacon, fay J, have given, in his writings, a true 'eceipt to make Gun-Powder, he could not bejiudious to conceal the com- pofition. And yet we know he was fludious to conceal it. What reafons he had for fo doing, and how confiflent it was with his giving the receipt, 1 leave to this profound Pbiio!' ;)her ; and fhall coptent myfelf with (hewing how confiftca. Mofes was in the conduft I have afcribed to him. — If both Mofes's pretenficns and thofe of Jefus liliewife were true, the fornermuft needs obferve this coridud, in his Inffitute, that is to fay, he would omit the doftrine of another life, and, at the fame time, inter-. weave into the Law fuch a fecret mark of its truth, that, when the other InlHtution came, it might be clear to all, ihat he both knew and believed the Doftrine. — If Mofe^ had not omitted xt^ be had intruded on the province of Jefus ; if he had rot hid the grounds on which it rifes, he had negledleJ to , r -vide for the proof of that connexion between the two Diipenfation', neceffary to fhcvv the harmony between their refpedlive ^Authors, Mofes had done both : And from both I gather that he was^a- dious to conceal the doSlrine. The omijjion will be aliowed to be one proof of it; and I (hould think 'this ufe of a term, Tht Cod of Abraham, Sec. is another proof For, the Jews, who, from the ceafing of the extraordinary Providence, continued for many ages with iix-'lfant 1 hour to ranfack thi \ i'ibles for a proof of a future (late, '■ould never draw the inference from this text till Jefus had taught them the way. No, fays the Dodor, How pould an argumtiit vjed by Mc'es, for a future Jiate, be a proof that L.'ifci nj.<as Jludious to conceal i! ?■ This Argument going, as wc now fee, upon our Profe(ror"s utter ignormce of the nature and genius of the iViolaic Difpenfation, (which required as much that the grounds of z future flute (hould be laid, as that the Struflure i:fclf (hculd be kept out of fight) I fhall leave it in pof- fc(Gon of that admiration which it io well defervc?,

** Matth. xxii, 33,

in

Sed. 4* 9f Moses demonjlrated. 167

in the Schools and Synagogues ^ of the Pharifees > Nay, how fliould it be otherwile than new? for the words, I am the God of Abraham^ &:c. as deh- vered by Mofes, were fuppofed, both by Pharifees and Sadducees, to be fpoken of a national God ; as in Gen. xvii. 8, 9. xxvi. 3. xxviii. 13. They therefore could not fee how it implied the con- tinued exiftence of the Patriarch Abraham, &c. But Jefus, in ufing the word God, to fignify the Maker and Lord of all things, rightly inferred that the Patriarchs iHll continued to exift. I am not ignorant, that the modern Rabbins employed this arty u men t very familiarly for a Refurretlion ; but they borrowed it from the gospel, as they have done many other things ; the reafon of which, our rabbinical Commentators, fuch as Lightfoot, not apprehending, have fuppofed the borrowing to be all on the fide of the lenders : but more of this matter in its place.

Thus much for this celebrated Text. In which, however, the learned Dr. Sherlock, the late Biihop of London, finds enough to fupport him- felf in his own opinion, That the Law of Mofes af- forded a good -proof of a future fiate to the ancient Jews \ But to whom did it afford this proof ? To the ancient Jews, who underftood the words in the text, in queftion, to relate to a national God^ or to us Chriftians, who underftand them of the Creator of the Univerfe ? Now though I cannot

P The learned Pocock fpeaking of this Argument, fays, Kis e Lege depromptis cum Sadducasos ad filentium adegiffet Chriftus, dicitur perculfam fuiffe turbam doarina ejus. Unde patet luculentiori ipfum contra eos argumento ufum, quam ullo adhuc ufi fuerant Pharifei. Nota mi/cell, ad Fortarn Mof.s, cap. vi.

« Sermons by the Bifhop of London.

M 4 sgree

1 63 ^^e Dh'me Legation Boojc VI.

a^ree with his Lordlhip in this conclufion, yet I agree wich him in a better thing, which is, That the Law of Mofes affords a gccd "prcof of its own di- vintty ', indeed, by a medium, his Lordfliip never thought of, natnely. That it afforded no proof of a future ftale^ at all. But what if his Lordfliip meant no more than y/hat his refpedtable Father endeavoured to prove', viz. that .the extraordi- nary Providence, (vyhich I hold to be the very circurnftance which kept the Jews from the know- ledge of a future ftate) indeed fhews that they had the knowledge of it ? If this be the cafe, all I have to fay is, that Their proof of a future flate from the Law, begins juft vyhere my proof of its divi- nity ends.

II. We conr^e next to the Parable of the rich Man and Lazarus; where the former, being iri Hell, defires Abraham, \yhom he faw afar off in Paradife, to fend Lazarus to his father's houfe, to teftify to his Brethren, and to lead them to repen- tance, left they too fliould come into that place of torment : To which Abraham replies : If they hear not Mofes and the Prophets., neither will they be per- fuaded., thcugh one rgfe froni the dead'. Hence it is inferred, that both Mofes and the Prophets taught a future flate of Rewards and Punifhmetits. B<.it, here again, the Objeftors are quite befide the

matter. As, in the former cafe, they would

not fee, the argument was diredfed againft thp Sadducees •, fo here, by as pcrverfe a connivance, they will not refleft, that this Parable is addreffed to the Pharisees. It is certain we muft judge of

^ Sermon^, by the Dean of St. Paul's, on the immortality of the /,ui end a future Jiate, p. 141.

' Llmce xvi. 31.

^ the

pe6:. 4, * ^ M o s e s demonjlrated. \ 69

the drift and dcfign of every rational difcourfe from theCharader of thofe to whom it is addrelTed. Now had this Parable been told to the Sadducees, whofe grand error it was, to deny a future ilate of rewards and punifhments ; and had the rich man been reprefented as a Sadducee, who was too late convinced of his miftake, and wanted to undeceive .his father's houfe, which his evil doctrines had perverted ; had this, I fay, been the cafe, there might have been fome ground for the Objedors* inference, which I fuppofe to be this, That " it ap- " pears as plainly from Mofes and the Prophets, *' that there is a future ftate of rewards and punifh- *' ments, as if one came back from that Itate to «' tell us fo." On the contrary, the Parable was particularly addreffed to the Pharifees, the great patrons' of a future ftate, and who feduloufly taught it in oppofition to the Sadducees. It is in- troduced in this manner: And the Pharisees alfo^ who were covetous [?i»x«f)/u^ot] heard all thefe things : and they derided him '. For which they are thus reproved : Te are they which jujlify yoiirfelves hefore tnen : but God knoweth your %earts ". And then prefently follows the Parable. Their capital errors therefore were errors of practice, Avarice and Luxury. And it was to reform thefe, that a rich Pharifee is reprefented as without any compaf- fion for the poor, living in all kind of delicacy, and dying impenitent. This man, when he comes in the other world, finds fo ill a reception there, wants one to be fent to his brethren, (who be- lieved, doubtlefs, as he did, the Do5lrine of a future fiat e) to warn them of their evil ways, and to afTure them, that luxury and inhumanity, unre- pented of, would afTuredly damn them. Which

^* Ver. 14. « V^er. 15.

infojma-

fi^d 'The Divine Legation Book VI.

information, he thought, would be beft inforced by a Miracle: If one went unto them from the dead^ they ijcill repent ". (Where obferve, it is not — they will believe.) To this common miftake, Abraham's reply is extremely pertinent : If they hear not Mofes and the Prophets, neither will they be perfnaded, though one rofe from the dead : i. e. " If they will not hear Mofes, and the Prophets, whofe authority they acknowledge ^ and whofe raifnons were confirmed by fo many and well attefred Mi- racles, neither will they regard a new one, of the refurreftion of a dead man. (Nor in fa6t, were the Pharifees at all foftened into repentance by the return of that Lazarus, the namefake of this in the parable, whom Jefus raifed from the dead.) Now Mofes and the Prophets have denounced the moll fevere threatnings, on the part of God, againft vice and impenitence." This is the force of the argument ; in which v/e fee the queftion of a future ftate is no more concerned, than thus far only, that God will punilh, either here or here- after. Mofes and the Prophets threatened the punilhment here ; and, while here it was executed, the Jews looked no farther : But when the extra- crdiimry Providence, by which that punilhment was adminiftered, had ceafed, the Jews began, from thofe very promifes and denunciations, to entertain feme hopes of an hereafter^ where all inequalities

^ Ver. 30.

y Mere, the groundlcfs conceit of the learned Mofhcim [ite reh. Chris, ante Con, p. 49] is fufEciently refuted. He fuppofes a Sadducee to be reprefcntcd under the pcrfon of the rich Man. But the authority of the Prophets, to which Abraham refers his houifliold, was not acknowledged by the Sadducees, as of weight to decide, in this point. And yet the very words of Abraham fuppofc that their not hca'lng i! e PropUis did not pro- peed from their not believing, but from their not re^ardin^,

4 Ihould

Se<5t, 4* o/" Moses demonjirated, lyi

fhould be fet even, and God's threats and promifes executed to the full : tho' ftill, with lefs confi- dence, if they realbned rightly, than the Pagans had to draw the fame conclufion from the fame principles ; fince their Law had informed them of a truth unknown to the reft of mankind ; namely, that the whole Race was condemned to a ftate of death and mortality, a return to duft from whence Man was taken, for the tranfgreflion of Adam. So that all which good logic or criticifm will au- thorize the believers of a future ftate to draw from this parable, is this, " that God is afevere punifher " of unrepentant luxury and inhumanity."

But now admit the miftaken interpretation of the Objeftors ; and what will follow ! That Mofes taught a future ftate^ the Propofition, I oppofe ? No ; But that from Mofes and the Prophets together a future ,ftate might be collected. A Propofition, I have no occafion to oppofe. For when the Pro- phets are joined to Mofes, and have explained the fpiritual meaning of his Law, and diveloped the hidden fenle of it, I may well allow that from both together a learned Pharilee might colledt the truth of the do6lrine, without receding one tittle from my Argument.

in. " When the Lawyer in the Gofpel (fay " thefe Objectors) had made that moft important " Demand ^, Majler, what fhall I do to inherit " eternal life, our bleffed Lord refers him to what " was written in the Law : and upon his giving a " found and judicious anfwer, approves of it, and " for fatisfadtion to his queftion, tells him. This ^* do and thou fJoalt live J*^ This is the objedion,

* Luke x. 25.

And

172 The Divine Legation Book VI.

And to this. Saint Paul fhall give an anfwer.

Is the LAW then ag.ainst the promifes of God? God forbid. For if there had been a Law given 'iihich could have given Life, verily right eoufnefs ffjculd hwje been by the Law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under fin ; that the promife by FAITH c/ Jefus Chrijl might be given to them that believe \ We mud tKerefore think that this Law- yer was better at diilinaions than the Objeaor who brings him into his Caufe, and inquired, (in this moji important demand) of the agenda, not of the CREDENDA, in order to falvation. And fo his words bear witnefs — What floall I do to be faved ?

IV. In what follows, I hardly think the Objec- tors can be ferious. — Search the Scriptures (fays Jesus to the Jews)/^r in them ye think ye have

eternal life, — on ^y.Hq Soy^un iVUvrxTg ^ocrivxi'Ji/iov i^uy

— and they are they which tefiify of me. And ye 'will not come to tne that ye might have life ". The homicide ' Jews, to whom thefe words are addrefied, thought they had eternal Life in their Scriptures; — THER-EFORE (fay the Objeftors) they had eternal Life. If I allow this therefore, they muft allow me, another — therefore the Miffion of Jesus was vain, being anticipated by that of Mpfes, who brought life and immortality to light by the Law. — And if righteoufnefs came by the Law (fays the Apoftle) then is Chrijl dead in vain. This is a neceflary confequence from the Objedors' in- terpretation, and gives us, to be fure, a very high idea of the realbning of the ever blefled Jesus. — By the fame Art of inferring, I fiippofe too they will conclude, that, when St. Paul fays

. ' Gal. iii. 21, 22. b jo„^, ^ j^^ ^Q^ , y^^^ jg^

to

Sed;. 4. o/' Moses dalionjlrated, 17^

to the unbelieving Jew : — And thou art confident that thou thyfelf art ti guide to the blind, a light of them which are in darknefs, an inJiru£for of the foolifJj, and a teacher of babes ^ ; they will conclude, I lay, that therefore it was the Jew, and not St. Paul, who was indeed, the guide of the blindy a light of them which are in darknefs, an infini^or of the foolijhj and a teacher of babes. In earneft, if Jesus, in thefe words, taught, that the Jewifh Scriptures gave eternal life, (and the, Jews could not have what their Scriptures did not give) he certainly taught a very different dodrine from St. Paul, who exprefsly tells us. That if there had been a Law given which could have given

LIFE, verily righteousness SHOULD HAVE BEEN

BY THE Law ^ All therefore that thefe words of Jefus teach us is that the Jews thought they had eternal life by the Mofaic Difpenfation. For the truth of what is thus charged upon them, we Have the concurrent teftimony of the Apoftles; Who wrote large portions of their epistles to prove, not only that they thought fo, but that they were greatly miftaken in fo thinking. For the Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews fays, that unto the Angels [who delivered the Law to Mofes] hath he [God] not put in fubje^ion the world to COME, whereof v^-s. fpeak\

But tho* we fliould fuppofe, the words— j)'<? think ye have eternal life^ confidered feparately, did not neceffarily imply that thefe were only their thoughts, yet being oppoled to the following words, Te will not come to me that ye might have life, (Kat ou 0£AeT? Ix^Civ TT^og ^£, tva, ^mv 'ix^ls,) they fhew, that whoever thought fo befides, it was not Jesus, whofe

^ Rom. ii. 19. * Gal. iii. 21. ^ Chap. ii. ver. 5.

argument

174 ^'^^ Divine Legation Book VL

argument (lands thus ' " The Scriptures,

I affirm, and am ready to prove, do teftify of me. "What reafon then have you to difown my charac- ter ? it cannot furely be, becauie I preach up a new Do6lrine of life and immortality. For you yourfelves teach that doClrine : and what is more, you underftand feveral paflages in your own Scrip- tures, to fignify eternal life ; which I own, in their fpiritual meaning do fo. Now that life, which you think you have by your Scriptures, but have not, do I here offer unto you, that ye might indeed HAVE LIFE.'* But if men had duly confidered this difcourfe of Jefus to the unbelieving Jews, they would have feen the main drift and purpofe of it was to redify this fatal miflake of theirs, in thinking they had eternal life in their Scriptures. In one place he tells them, that thofe who heard his word bad faffed from death to life *". And again, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead Jhall hear the voice of the Son of God \ Where, by Death and the Dead, is meant the condition of thofe under the Law, fubje6t to the condemnation of mortality.

V. The Objedors have produced St. Paul like- wife to confute the Principle here laid down. This Apoftle, in his epiflle to the Romans, fays — " For as many as have fmned without Law fhall " alfo perifli without law : and as many as have *' fmned in the Law fhall be judged by the Law ''.'* Now, fay the Obje6tors, " had the Law concealed a future flate from the Jev/s, it is plain they were not equitably dealt with, fince they were to be judged in a future Hate." This brings to mind an objection of Lord Bolingbrokc's againft the

'' John v. 24. * Ver. 25. ^ Chap, ii ver. 12.

divinity

Se<?t. 4« o/" Moses demonjirated, ly^

jdivinity of Mofes's Law ; and the anfwer which this text enabled me to give to Him, will fliew, that in thefe words of St. Paul, the Objectors have chofen the moft unlucky text for their purpofe in the whole New Teflament. His Lordfhip's ob- jedion is in thefe words, " If Mofes knew that " crimes were to be puniflied in another life " he deceived the people [in not acquainting them *' with the do6lrine of a future Jiate.l^ If he did _V' not know it, I fay it with horror, that God de- " ceived both him and them. — The Ifraelites had " better things to hope, and worfe to fear, &c'.** Now not to repeat what has been replied to this impious charge, elfewhere *", I will only obferve, that the words of St. Paul above are a full con- futation of it, where he fays, that as many as have finned in the Law fhall be judged by the Law, that is, fhail be judged on the principles of a Law which denounced punifhment to vice and reward to virtue. Thofe who had already received the punifhment which that Law denounced fhould be judged to have done fo ; thofe, who in the times of the gradual decay of the extraordinary provi- dence had efcaped or evaded punifhment, fhould have it hereafter. Nothing is clearer than this in- terpretation. For obferve, I pray you, the diffe- rence of the predication between wicked men with- out the Law^ and the wicked men under the Laiv. The fir&ifiall perijh, «VoA»i/7«j : the fecond Jbali be judged, aci^jria-o'flxt, or brought to trial. For though t^»- "w be often ufed in the New Teflament for 5«ai]a5t^»'uw, yet it is plain, that it is notfo ufed here, both from the fenie of the place, and the Apoftle's change

' Vol. V. p. 194 — 5.

■» See A'vievj of Li. B's. Phikfnphy, ^d ed, p. 225, ^J feq.

Ot

175 ^he Divine Legation Book Vt.

of terms, for which I think no good reafon can b6 affigned but this, that x^tSriVovlaj is oppofed to avoXvvlxi. From all this, I think, it appears, that my Objeflors were as much miftaken in their urg- ing this text againft my principles, as the noble Lord in fuppofing that the reality of a. future ftate was a condemnation of the equity of the Law. But both took it for granted, and foolifhly enough, that thofc who did not live under the fandtion of a future ftate could never, confidently with juf- tice, be fummoned before the Tribunal there erefted.

II.

We are now got to the very P.illadium of the caufe, the famous eleventh chapter to the Hebrews : where it is faid, that by faith, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Ifaac, Jacob, Jofeph, Mofes,

&c. performed all their acceptable works.

That they looked for an heavenly city. That

they faiv the Promifes afar off^ and ivere perfuaded of thenty and embraced them^ and deftred an heavenly country.- -Thdt they all died in faith. — That Mofes ejleemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treafures of Egypt. — That by faith the Jewifh leaders did all their great and marvelous vjorks.— That their very women defpifed death in hopes to ob- tain apart in the refurre^ion of the juji— Arid that all thefe obtained a good, report through faith. ■

This, fay the Objectors, plainly (hews, that a future ftate of Rewards and Puniiliments, or more properly, the Chriftian Doctrine of Life and Im- mortality^ was taught by the Law.— To which I anfwer,

I. That if this be true, the eleventh chapter diredly contradifls all the reit of the Epiftle : In

which,

3d<ft,-4. " of IViosE"^ demonfirated. 177

which, as we have- fhewn, there are more exprefs declarations, that life and immortahty was not known or taught by the Law, than in all the other books of the New Teftament befides. And for which, indeed^ a very good reafon may be afllgned, as it was folely addrelTed to the Jews, amongft whom this fatal prejudice, that a future jiate was taught by the Law^ was then and has continued ever fmce, to be the ftrongeft impediment to their Converfion. For is it pofiible, that a Writer, who had faid, that the Law made nothing per fe£f, but the

BRINGING IN OF A BETTER HoPE DID ; — That

Christ hath obtained a more excellent minijtry than Mosss, by how much alfo he is-the Mediator of a

BETTER COVENANT, which is efiabUJhed UpOU BET- TER PROMISES', — That the Law was only a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image i is it poflible, I fay, that fuch a Writer fhould forget himfelf before he came to the end of his Epiftle, and, in contradidlion to all this, af- firm that Life and Immortality was known and taught under the Law ? We may venture to fay then, that this eleventh chapter muft have a very different meaning. Let us fee if we can find it out : and fure it requires no great fearch.

2. The whole argument of the Epiftle to the Hebrews is dire<5led againft Jews and judaizing Chriftians. The point in difference was this : The Gofpei taught justification by faith : The Judaizers thought it mufl needs be by works. One confequence of which, in their opinion, was, that the Law of Mofes was ftill in force. They had no more conception than our modern Soci- nians and Freethinkers, that there could be any^ merit in faith or Belief, where the underilanding was unavoidably determined by evidence. The

Vol. V. N Reader

178 7he Divine Legation Book VI.

Reader fees then, that the difpute was not whether faith in Mofes or faith in Jesus made men accept- able to God ; but whether ijuorks or the a£i of be- lieving \ confequently, where the Apoftle fhews it was faith or the a^ of believing^ he muft mean faith in the generic fenfe, not in the fpecific, i. e. he did not mezn faith in Jefus: for the Jews, even that part of them which embraced Jesus as the Mefliah, denied it to be any kind oi faith whatfo- ever. On the contrary, had they he\d Jufiif cation to be by faith in Mofes, and not in Jesus, then it had been the Apollle's bufmefs to prove, that it was xht fpecific faith in Jesus. But as the difpute (lood, all he had to do was to prove that it was the aR of believing^ 2XiA nox. works ^ which juftified. And this we find he does with infinite addrefs ; by fhewing, that that thing which made all the Patri- archs before the Law, and all the Rulers and Pro- phets under the Law, acceptable to God, was not works^ hut faith. But then what kind of faith ? Doubtlefs faith in God's prcmifes : for he is argu- ing on their own concefTions. They admitted their anceftors to have had that faith"-, they did not admit that they had faith in Christ. For the Apoftle therefore to aflert this, had been a kind of begging the queftion. Thus we fee that not only the pertinency, but the whole force of the reasoning turns upon our underftanding faith, in this chapter, to mean faith in the God of their fathers.

But the Apoftle's own definition of the word puts the matter out of queftion. We have faid, the difpute between him and the Jewifti Converts

" Thus their Prophet Habakkuk had faid, Tbe juj? fiall iive by htj faith. Chap. ii. vcr. 4.

ncceiTarily

5e<5t. 4' g/" Moses demonjlrated. lyg

neceflarily required him to fpeak of the efficacy of faith in the generic fenfe. Accordingly his defi- nition of FAITH iSj that it is the substance of

THINGS HOPED FOR, THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS

NOT SEEN °. 'Hot oi faith in the Mejp.ah, but of belief in general, and on good grounds. Indeed very general, according to this Writer ; not only ^^- lief of the future, but the paft. *Tis, fays he, the fttbjlance of things hoped for \ and this he illuftrates by Noah's reliance on God's promife to fave him in the approaching deluge ''» 'Tis, again, the m- dence of things not feen j and this he illuftrates by our belief that the worlds were framed by the word of God '^. Having defined what he means by faith, he next proceeds to fhew its nature by its common efficacy, which ftill relates only to faith in the gene*- ric fenfe. — But without faith it is impoffihle to pleafe him \Go'd'\ for he that cometh to God mufi believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently feek him ' ; which wtxy faith he immediately illuft- rates by that of Noah> Abraham, Sarah, Ifaac, Ja- cob, Jofeph, and Mofes. And that no doubt might remain, he farther illuftrates it by the faith of the Jewifli People paffing the Red Sea, and en*- compaffing the walls of Jericho ; and by xht faith of Rahab the harlot. But was any of this, the faith in Jesus the Meffiah ? or a belief of a future ftate of rewards and piuniftimeiits ?

As here the Apoftle tells us of the great rewards of faith, fo in his third chapter he fpeaks of the punifhment of unbelief", which was the fhutting out a whole generation from the land of Canaan, and fuffering them to perifti in the Wildernefs : So we fee (fays he) they could not enter in hecaufe of un*

*> Ver. I. !» Ver. 7*. 1 Ver. 3. ' Ver. 6.

N 2 belief

i?.'o Tie Divine Legation Book Vf.

belief*. But was this unbelief want of faith in tlie Me/Hah, or any thing but want of faith in the pro- mife of the God of Ifrael, who affured them that he would drive out the Canaanite from before them ? Laflly, to evince it impollible xhzt. faith in the Mefjiah Ihould be meant by the faith in this eleventh chapter, the Apoftlc exprcfsly fays, that all thofe to whom he afligns this faith, had not re- ceived THE PROMISE *. Therefore they could not h3.ve faith m that which was never yet propofed to them for the objcft of faith : For how fhoidd they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? fays the Apoftle.

St. Paul had the fame argument to manage in his Epiftle to the Galatians ; and he argues, from the advantages oi faith or belief in God, in the very fame manner. But of his argument, more in the next fedion.

Let us obferve. farther, that the facred Writerc not only ufe. the word /czz/i? in its ^^;;(fnV fenfe of believing on reafonable grounds ^ but like wife the word GOSPEL (a more appropriated term) fox good ■tidings in, general. Thus this very Writer to the Hebrews — For unto us was the Gos^-el. preached ai well as unto them % i. e. the Ifraelites.

Having fhewn, that by the Faith, herefaidtobe fo exrenlive amongft thq Jewifli People, is meant faith in thofe promifes of God which related to their own Difpenlation, all the weight of this objection is removed. For as to the protnifes feen afar off ^.nd believed and embraced, which gave the profpe^t ot abetter cminiry, that is, an heavenly "", theic are

.'^ N'er, ig. t v^gr, 13 and 39. " Chap. iv. vcr. 2.

* V'. r. 13 — 16,

3 coni

Se(Sl. 4. o/" M o s E s demonfirated, 181

confined to the Patriarchs and Leaders of the Jcwifli People. And that they had this diflant proipedt I am as much concerned to prove as my Adverfaries themfelves. And if I fhould undertake to do it more effedually, no body I believe will think that I pretended to any great matter. But then let us ftill remember there is a vaft difference beLween

SEEING THE PROMISES AFAR OFF and RECEIVING

THE Promise : the latter implying a 2;ifc bellow- ed ; the former, only the obfcure and diflant prof^ ped of one to come. This indeed they had: but as to the other, the facred Writers allure us that,_ in general, they had it not. — And thefe all having obtained a good report through. iz\t\\ received not ■ THE promise \ For tho' all the good Ifraelites in general had faith in God, and the Patriirchs and Leaders had the hope of a better Country, yet neither the one nor the other received ihe Pre- mife.

I have faid, that the hopes of a better country, is to be confined to the Patriarchs and Leaders of the ancient Jews : Nor is this contradicted by what is faid of others who were tortured, not aicepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better Rcfurrec- tion % for this refers (as our Englifh Bibles fliew us) to the hiflory of the Maccabees •, in whofe tim<;i it is confefTed the Dodrine of a future fiate wa.s_ become national. How the People get it,— of what materials it was compofed, — and from what quarters it was fetched, will be feen hereafter. It is lufHcient to obferve at prefent, that all this, the Jews foon forgot, or hid from themfelves,^ and made this new flattering Doftrine a part of th? Law. Hence the Author of the fecond book of

y Ver. 30. ^ Ver, 35.

' N ^ Macca^

1 82 The B him Le gat ton Book VI.

Maccabees makes one of the Martyrs fay For

our brethren who now have fuffered a Jhort pain, are dead unto God's covenant of everlasting life *. But it may be a(ked, how came this Covenant of everlajling life to lye fo perfeftly concealed from the time of Moles to the great Captivity, that, as ap- pears from their Hiftory, neither Princes nor Peo- ple had the leaft apprehenfion or fufpicion of fuch a Covenant?

But here a proper occafion offers itfelf to re^ move a feeming contradiction between the Writer of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and St. Paul, in his fpeech to the fynagogue at Antioch, which will give ftill further light to the fubjeft. The former i'ays. And thefe all having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise ^ And the latter. The promise which was made UNTO the fathers, God hath fulfilled the fame unto us their children, in that he hath raifed up Jesus iigain'. But the contradiction is only feemino-. The two texts are, indeed, very confiftent. The Writer to the Hebrews is fpeaking of the condi- tion of the heads and leaders of the faithful Ifrael- ites in general -, who certainly had not the promife of the Gofpel revealed unto them : St. Paul, in his fpeech to the Synagogue, is fpeaking particu- larly of their father Abraham: as appears from his introductory addrefs. Men and Brethren, Child- ren of the flock of Abraham^; and Abraham cer- tainly had the promife of the Gofpel revealed unto him, as appears from the words of Jesus himfdf. Tour father Abraham rejoiced to fee my day ; and he f aw it, and was glad. He faw the refurredion of

' 2 Mace. vii. 36. xiii 11, " Vcr. 26,

'' Heb, xi. ^cy.

' Acts Jefus

Se<fl. 4. of Moses demonjirafed, 183

Jefus in the reftoration of his fon Ifaac. But of this more hereafter. And to this folurion, the Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews himfelf diredts us ; who, tho* he had jfaid that the holy men in general received not thepromife, yet when he reckons up the diftind effefts of each particular man's faith, he exprefsly fays, — who thro" faith fub" dued kif7gdoms, wrought righteoufnefs^ obtained pro- mises, flopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire^, ^c. That is, fome hke David, through f2iith,fubdued kingdoms ; others, like Samuel, wrought right eoufnefs ; others, like Abraham, ob- tained promises ; others, as Ti2,n\Q\, flopped the mouths of lions •, and others, again, as his three companions, quenched the violence of fire. From whence I would infer thefe two conclufions :

I. That as the promife here faid to be ^^/^zW^, . doth not contradift what the fame Writer fays pre- fently after, that the faithful Ifraelites in general received not the promife ; and as xht promife, faid by St. Paul to be made to the fathers, means the fame thing with the promises faid, by the Writer of the epiftle to the Hebrews, to be obtained, namely the promifes made to Abraham, who faw Christ's day, and the oath fworn to David, that of the fruit of his loins he would raife up Chrifi to fj on his throne^', confequently, neither do the words of St, Paul contradid the Writer of the epiftle to the Hebrews, where he fays, thefe all received not the promife. 2. As thefe gofpel Promifes are faid to be obtained by faith, it follows that the faith men-^ tioned in this famous eleventh chapter to the He- brews, could not be faith in the Mejf.ah: becaufe

• Hbb. xi, 33, f Acts ii, 30.

N 4 the

184 ^be Divine Legation Book VL

the promifes of a Mefliah are here faid to he the conlequence of faith -, but faith in the Meffiab is the confcquence of xht promifes oi a MeflTiah : For how could they believe in H^n of whom they had not heard? From whence it appears, that the faith fo much extolled in this chapter "^as, faith in God's, veracity^ according to the interpretation given above.

III.

This is all, as far as I can learn, that hath been objected to my Propofidon •, and this all is fuch a confirmation of it^ that I am in pain left the reader fhould think I have prevaricated, and drawn our 'the ilrongeft Texts in the New Teftament to fup- port my Opinion, under the name of a Confu- tation of it. But I have fairly given them as I found them urged : and to fhew that I am no lefs fevere, though a little more candid, to my own notions, than my Anfv/erers are, I fhall pro- duce an objeftion which occurred to me in reading St. Paul's epiftles of more real moment than their whole bundle of Texts weighed together. It is this :

The learned Apoftle, in his reafoning againft the Jews, argues upon a fuppofition, that " By the Law they had eternal life offered to them or laid before them, on condition of their exaft per- formance of the Commandment ^ but that all coniing fhortof perfe6t obedience, there was a ne- ceflity of recurring to faith." — For zvhat the Law could not do (fays he) in that it was weak through the fiefhy God fending his own Son in the likenefs of finful fleflj^ and for fin condemned fm in ike ficflj : that the righteoufnefs of the Law might be

fulfilled

5e(5t. 4» o/' Moses demonjlrated. 185

fulfilUd in us, who walk not after theflejh^ ht after ihefpirit ^

This general Argument, which runs through the epiftles to the Romans and Galatians wears in-^ deed the face of an Objeftion to what I have ad^ vanced : but to underftand the true value of it, we mull confider the Apoftle's end and purpofe im writing. It was to redify an error in the Jewiih Converts, who would lay a neceflity upon all men of conforming to the Law of Mofes. As itrange- ly fuperftidous as this may now appear to us, it feems to have been a very natural confequence of opinions then held by the whole Jewifli Nation, asdodrines of Mofes and of the Law; namely a future ftate of Rewards and Punifhments, and the refurre^ion of the Body. Now thefe Doftrines, which eafiiy difpofed the lefs prejudiced part of the Jews to receive the Gofpel^ where they were taught more direftly and explicitely, at the fam^ time gave them wrong notions both of the Reli- gion of MosES and of Jesus : Which, by th^ way, I defire thofe, who fo much contend for a future Jlate^s being in the Mofaic Difpenfation, to take notice of. Their wrong notion of the Law confifted in this, that having taken for granted, that the reward of obedience propofed by Mofes was Immortality^ and that this immortality could be obtained only by the works of the Law, there-r fore thofe works were, of neceflity, to be obferved. Their wrong notion of the Gospel confifted in this, that as Immortality was attached to Works by the Law, fo it muft needs be attached to JVerks \>y the Gofpel alfo.

e Rom. viij. 3, 4*

Thefe

l86 7^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

Thefc were fatal miftakes. We have feen in our explanation of the eleventh chapter to the He- brews how the Apoftles combated the lafl: of them, namely Jufiification by Works. The fhewing now in what manner St. Paul oppofedthe other, oi obligation to the Law^ will explain the reasoning in queftion. Their opinion of obligation to the Law of Mofes, was, as we fay, founded on this principle, that it taucrht 21, future fiat e, or offered immortality to its followers. The cafe was nice and delicate, and the confutation of the error required much addrefs. What fhould our Apoftle do? Should he in dired terms deny z future fiat e was to be found in the Law ? This would have fhocked a general tradition fupported by a national belief. Should he have owned that life and immortality came by the Law? This had not only fixed the-m in their error, but, what was worfe, had tended to fubvert the whole Gofpel of Jesus. He has .recourfe therefore to this admirable expedient ; The later Jews, in fup- port of their national Do6trine of a future fiate^ had given a fpiritual fenfe to the Law. And this, which they did out of neceflity, with little apparent grounds of conclufion then to be difcovered, was feen, after the coming of the MefTiah, to have the hio-heft reafonablenefs and truth. 1 hus we find there were two fpiritual fenfes,, the one fpurious, invented by the later Dodlors of the Law, the other genuine, difcovered by the Preachers of the Gofpel ', and thefe coinciding well enough in the main, St. Paul was enabled to feize z. fpiritual fenfe, and from thence to argue on their own principles, that the Law of Mofes could not now oblige ; which he does in this irrefiftible manner. *' ^he LaWy fays he, we know is fpiritual ^y that is, in a

^ Rom. viii. 14. ^ ~ fpiritual

Se£l. 4. o/' M o s E s demonftrated. 1 S7

fpiritual fenfe promifes immortality : for it fays. Do this and live \ Therefore he who does the deeds of the Law Jhall live ''. But what then ? I am carnal^: And all have finned, and come foort of the glory of God"" : So that no flelh qan htjujlified by the deeds of the Law ", which requires a perfect obedience. fVorks then being unprofitable, we muft have recourfe to Faith: But the Law is not of faith": Therefore the Law is unprofitable for the attainment of falvation, and confequently no longer obligatory." — Never was an important ar- gument more artfully conduced, where the er- roneous are brought into the right way on their own principles, and yet the truth not given up or betrayed. This would have been admired in a Greek or Roman Orator,

But though xht principle he went upon was com- mon both to him and his adverfaries, and confe- quently true, that the Law -^2^^ fpiritual, or had a fpiritual meaning, whereby, under the fpecies of thofe temporal promifes of the Law, the promifes of the Gofpel were Ihadowed out •, yet the inference from thence, that the Law offered immortality to its followers, was folely Jewifh, and urged by St. Paul as an argument adhominem only; which ap- pears certain from thefe confiderations ;

I. This fpiritual {en{c, which St. Paul owns to be in the Law, was not a fenfe which was con- veyed down with the literal, by Mofes, to the fol- lowers of the Law -, but was a fenfe invented or 4ifcovered long after j—the fpurious, by the later

» Lev, xviii. 5, Gal. iii. 12. ^ Rom. x, 5.

J Rom. viii. 14. m Rom. iii. 23. " GalI ii. 16.

Chap> iii, ver. 11, • Gal, iii. 12.

Jewilli

iS^ 7he Divine Legation Book VI.

Jewifh Doftors; and the genuine and real, by the Apoftles ; as appears from thefe words of St. Paul ; -— Bui now we are delivered from the Law, thai being dead wherein we were held, that we Jhould ferve in newness of spirit, andnot in the oldness OF the letter p. We fee here, the Apollle gives the letter to the Jewifli CEconomy, and the fpirit to the Chriftian. Let me obferve how ex- actly this quadrates with, and how well it explains, what he fays in another place •, where having told the Corinthians that he and his Fellow-Apoilles were minijlers of the New Tejlament, not of the letter hut of the fpirit, he adds, the letter killeth, but the fpirit giveth life. The Jews had only the letter dt- livered to them by the Law, but the Letter killeth; the confequence is that the Law Cin which was only the letter) had no future ftate.

2. Secondly, Suppofing St. Paul really to hold that the Law offered immortality to its followers, and that that immortality was attached (as his argu- ment fuppofes it) to JVorks, it would contradict the other reafoning which both he himfelf and the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews urged fo cor- dially againft the fecond error of the Jewifh Con- verts i namely, of immortality's being attached to works, or xh^itjufiification was by works under the Gofpel : for to confute this error, they prove, as we have (hewn, that it v/as faith which juflified, not only under the Gofpel, but under the Law alfo.

3. Thirdly, If immortality were indeed offered through works, by the Law, then jtfflif cation by faith, one of the great fundamental dodrines of

f Rom. vii. 6,

Chriltianity,

Se6l. 4. of Moses demonjlrafed, 1 89

Chriftianity \ would be infringed. For then faith could, at bed, be only fuppofed to make up the defedb of works^ in fuch a fenfe as to enable works to jujiify.

4. Fourthly, It would direftly contradid what St. Paul in other places fays of the Law •, as that it is a JhadoiD of things to come^ but that the body is ^/Christ '. But the offer of immortality on one condition, could never be called xh^/hadow of the offer of it on another. I^hat it is thi fchoolmafier to bring me?i to Chriji \ Now, by the unhappy dexte- rity of thefe men, who, in defiance of the Apoftle, .will needs give the do6lrines of grace and truths as well as the do6trines of the Law, to Moses. His appointed schoolmaster, the Law, is made toa6t a part that would utterly difcredit every other fchoolmajler, namely to teach his children, yet in their Elements \ the fublime dodrines of manly fcience.

5. Fifthly and lailly, if St. Paul Intended this for any more than an argument ad hominem, he contradided himfeif, and milled his difciple Timo- tliy, whom he exprefsly aiTured, that our Saviour Jefus Chriji hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gof- pel. And leaft, by this bringing to light, anyone fhould miftake him to mean only that Jefus Chrift had made life and immortality more clear and ma-

*i This I fliall fhew hereafter ; and endeavour to refcue it from the madnefs of enthufiafm on the one hand, and the ab- furdity of the common fyftem on the other, and yet not betray it, in explaining it away under the fafhionable pretence of de- livering the Scripture DoSrine of it.

' Coi, iiu I J. • Gal. iii. 2^. ' Gal, iv. 3—19.

Difeft>

190 'The Divine Legation Book VI.

nifeft, than Mofes had done, he adds, that ouf Saviour had ahoUJhed of dejiroyed Deaths or that ilate of mortality and extinftion into which man* kind had fallen by the tranfgreffion of Adam j and in which, they continued under the Law of Mofes, as appears from that Law's having no other fandtion than temporal rewards and punijh- rnents. Now this ftate muft needs be abolifhed, before another could be introduced : confequently by bringing life and immortality to light, muft needs be meant, the introdudion of a new fyftem.

I will only obferve, that the excellent Mr. Locke was not aware of the nature of the argument in queftion •, and fo, on its miftaken authority, hath feemed to fuppofe that the Law did indeed offer im* mortality to its followers : This hath run him into great perplexities throughout his explanation of St. Paul's epiftles.

Thus we have at length proved our third pro- position, That the Doltrine of a future Jl ate of Re- wards and Punifhments is not to be found in, nor did make part of, the Mofaic Difpcnfation ; and, as we preiume, to the fatisfadion of every capable and impartial reader.

But to give thefe arguments credit with thofe who determine only by authority, I fhall, in the laft place, fupport them with the opinions of three Proteftant Writers •, but thefe Three worth a mil- lion. The firft is the illuftrious Grotius— " Mo- " fes in Religionis Judaicce Inftitutione, fi diferta " Legis refpicimus, nihil promifit fupra hujus *' vitae bona, terram ubercm, penum copioium, " vidloriam de hoftibus, longam & valcntem fc- ** nedtutem, pofteros cum bona fpe fuperllltc?.

'* Nam,

Se6t. 4. o/" M o s E s demonftrated, 19 1

" Nam, SI QUID est ultra, in umbris obtegi- *' tur, autfapienti ac difficili ratiocinatione col- *' ligendum eft."

The fecond is the excellent Episcopius.— " In *' tota Lege Mofaica nullum vitas aeternas pras- " mium, ac ne £cterni quidem prsemii indicium *' VEL vestigium cxtat : quiequid nunc Judsei *' multum de futuro feculo, de refurreftione mor- " tuorum, de vita seterna loquantur, & ex Legis " verbis ea extorquere potius quam oftendere co- *' nentur, ne Legem Mosis imperfectam esse " COGANTUR agnoscere cum Sadducaels ; quos *' olim (&, uti obfervo ex fcriptis Rabbinorum, *' hodieque) vitam futuri faeculi Lege Mofis nee " promitti nee contineri adfirmalTe, quum tamen " Judsei effent, certiflimum eft. Nempe non nifi " per Cabalam five Traditionem, quam illi in *' univerfum rejiciebant, opinionem five iidem " illam irrepfifle afferebant. Et fane opinionum, " quae inter Judsos erat, circa vitam futuri fjeculi *' difcrepantia, arguit promifTioBes Lege facVas tales " efle ut ex iis certi quid de vita futuri fseculi non " poflit colligi. Quod & Servator nofter non ob- *' fcure innuit, cum refurredionem mortuorum *' colligit Mat. xxii. non ex promiflb aliquo Legi *' addito, fed ex generali tantum illo promifTo Dei, *' quo fe Deum Abrahami, Ifaaci, & Jacobi fu- " turum fpoponderat : quse tamen ilia colled;io *' magis nititur cognitione intentionis divinas fub *' generalibus iftis verbis occultatas aut compre- " henfas, de qua Chritto certo conftabat, quam " neceffaria confequentia five verborum vi ac vir- " rute manifefta, qualis nunc & in verbis Novi " Teftamenti, ubi vita asterna & refurre<5lio mor- " tuorum proram & puppim faciunt totius Reli-

192 ■ The Divine Legation Book VL

'* gionis Chriftianas, & tam clare ac diferte pro- *' mittuntur ut ne hifcere quidem contra quis « poflit"."

And the third is our learned Bifhop Bull :— " Prime quaeritur an in V. Teftamento nullum <' omnino extet vits asternae promifTum ? de e6 «« enim a nonnuUis dubitatur. Refp. Huic quae^ '* ftioni optime mihi videtur refpondere Augufli- ^' nus, diftinguens nomen Veteris Teftamenti : *< nam eo intelligi ait aut pa6tum illud, quod in *' Monte Sinai fadum eft, aut omnia, quse in Mofe, ** Hagiographis, ac Prophetis continentur. Si *' Vetus Teftamentum pofteriori fenlu accipiatur, «^ concedi forsitan pofTit, effe in eo nonnulla «' futuras vitce non obfcura indicia ; praefercini ill " Libro Pfalmorum, Daniele, & Ezekiele : quan- " quam vel in his libris clarum ac difertum .'fiternaS *« vitas promiflfum vix ac ne vix quidem repcriaS". " Sed haec qualiacunque erant, non erant niH " praeludia & anticipationes gratiae Evangelical;

«« AD LEGEM NON PERTINEBANT. — LcX Ctlilri

«' promifTa habuit terrena^ & terrena tantuM. « —Si quis contra fentiat, ejus eft locum dare, «* ubi astern SE vitae promiffio extat j quod cbrt^ " iMPOSsiBiLE EST.— Sub his autem verbis [legr^ <* ipfius] Dei intentione comprehenfam fuilfc vitaitl " aeternam, ex interpretatione ipfius Chrifti ejuf- *' que Apoftolorum manifeftum eft. Verum hafC *' non lufficiunt ut dicamus vitam seternam in " Fcedere Mofaico promiflam fuifle. Nam primo •' promifia, praslertim Foederi annexa, dcbent elTd " clara ac diferta, & ejufmodi, ut ab utraqucr *' parte ftipulante intelligi poffint. PromifTa au-

" Injl. TheoL lib. iii, feft. i. c. 2.

*' teni

Se£l. 4^ ^ M 0 s E s demonfirated, 193

«« rem hsec typica &generalia, non addita aliunde " interpretatione, pene impossibile erat, ut

*« QUIS ISTO SENSU INTELLIGERET\

Thus thefe three capital fupports of the Pro- teftant Church. But let the man be of what Church he will, fo he have a fuperiority of under- ftanding and be not defeftive in integrity, you fliall always hear him fpeak the fame Language. The great ARNAULD,that fhining ornament of the Gal- lican Church, urges this important truth with Hill more franknefs — " C*eft le comble de l'ig- ** NORANCE (fays this accomplilhed Divine) de " mettre en doute cette verite, qui eft une des plus <' communes de la Religion Chretienne, et qui

" eft ATTESTEE PAR TOUS LES PERES, qUC ks

*' promejjes de l'a?tcien 'Tejiament n\toient que temporel- *' les et terrejires, et que ks Juifs rCadoroient Dieu que *« pour les kins charnels ^ \" And what more hath

been

* Harmoma Apoftolica, DlfTertat. pofterior, cap. x. fcft. 8. p. 474, inter Opera omniay ed. 1 72 1,

y Apohgii de Port'Rcyal.

^ But all are not Arnaulds, in the GalHcan Chureh. Mr, Freret, fpeaking of the hifiory of Saul and a pail'age in Ifaiah, concerning the invocation of the dead, fays — Ce qui augmaite ma /urprije, c'eji de 'voir que la plus fart de ces Cofnnietitateurs Je plaigvent de ne trowver dans /' Ecritiire aucvne preirce claire que k.s Juifsy au temps c!e Moy/e, crvjjhit I' immortalite de /' atr.e. — I.a pratique, interdite aux juifs, fuppofe que T exigence des ames, leperees du corps, par la mort, etoit alors un opinion general© & populaire. Memoires de /' Acad. Roya!e des In/crip, Sec. v. 23. p. 185. — The Gentleman's yir/zr//'^ arifes from his being un- able to diltinguifh between the feparate cxijicncs cf the 6'o»/ccn- fidered phyfically, and its immortality coniidered in a religious fenfe : It is under this latter confideraticn that a future State of reiKurd and punijhment is included. Had he not confounded thefe two things io different in themfelves, he had never ventured to condemn the Commentators ; who do indeed fay, they cannot find this latter doftrine in the Pentateuch. But then, they do

Vol, v. O not

194 ^'^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

been faid or done by the Author of the Divine Legation ? Indeed, a great deal more. He hath fhewn, " That the abfence or omiflion of a future ft ate of rewards and punifhments in the Mofaic Religion is a certain proof that its original was from God." Forgive him this wrongs my reverend Brethren !

SECT. V.

BUT though it appear that a future Jiate of Re- ivards and puniJJjracnts made no part of the Mo- JaicDifpenfation^yQi the Law had certainly a spiri- tual meaning, to be underftood when the fulnefs of time ihould come : And hence it received the nature, and afforded the efficacy, of Prophesv. In the interim, the mystery of the Gospel was cccafionally revealed by God to his cholen Servants, the Fathers and Leaders of the Jewifli Nation ;• and the dawning of it was gradually opened by the Prophets, to the People.

And which is exactly agreeable to what our ex- cellent Church in its seventh Article of Reli* gion tcacheth concerning this matter.

ARTICLE. VIL

Cftc ^{t! Ccltament 10 not fontracp to tge fircii : J^or liotl) in tiie ^It) auti fitXn 'Ceffamcnt rbedaflring ILife 10 off^reti to SanUinli bp Ciiritt, toljo 10 tlje otilji aacliiatai* bcttoccn 60^ aim i^aiu 5i(ui|^Ei cforc tl)cp arc itot to ht SeattJ, toijiClj feign,

rot 'a'nrt't »r (otiphln of this want; bccaiiH; they faw, tlio' this Acadc-mician docs not, thr.t the abfence of ihe Jodrine of a future Si.-iir of rt-'v.ird and punijhmcnt in the Mosaic Law evince, its impeifeflion, .nnd verifies th« enunciation of the Go pel, that LiKL ANi) i.M.\;o:iT.^LH V ivcre brought to light by Jesus Ciik]> i ,

I'M "^ '■•

Sed. $K ofMos^s dmmjlrated. 19^

tSat tSe £Dlti i^atSeis? t»iti laali anl|i far tranStarp ][aromife0.

The Old 'T eft anient is not contrary to the New, is

a propofition diredled againfttheManichean error, to which the opinions of fome Sectaries of thefe later times feemed to approach. The Manicheans fancied there was a Good and an Evil Principle -, that the Old Difpenfation was urider the Evil, and that the New was the work of the Good, Now it hath been proved that the Old Teftament is fo far from being contrary to the New, that it was the Foun- dation, Rudiments, and Preparation for it.

— For both in the Old and Neiv Teftament everlaft- ing life is oftisred to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man. That the Church could not mean by thefe words, that ever- lafting life was offered to mankind by Christ in the cSd Teftament in the same manner in which it is offered by the New, is evident from thefe con- fiderations :

I. The Church, in the preceding words, only fays, the Old Teftament is not contrary to the New ', but did ihe mean that everlafting life was offered by both, in the fame manner, (he would certainly have faid. The old Teftament is the same with ihe New. This farther appears from the infe- rence drawn from the propofition concerning everry lafting life — wherefore they are 'not to be heard^} which feign, that the old fathers did look only for tranfitory promifes. But was this pretended fenfe. . the true, then the inference had been, That ALL-'*i> the Israelites were inftru^ed to look for more} than tranfitory promifes.

O 2 2. The

196 The Dlvtne Legation Book VI,

2. The Church could not mean that everlaftins; life is offered in the Old and New Teftament in the fame manner, becaufe we learn from St. Auftin, that this was one of the old Pelagian herefies,' condemned by the Catholics in the Synod of Diof-

polis,— OyOD LEX SICMITTAT AD REGNUM [COE-

lorum] quemadmodum et evancelium '.

What was meant therefore by the words .

both in the Old and Nevj Tejlamcnt cverlnfiing Life is

offered to Mankind by Christ, was plainly this

" That the offer of everlaftin^ Life to Mankind by <« Christ in the New Teftament was shadowed " out in the Old ; the spiritual meaning of the " Law and the Prophets referring to thatlife and " immortality, which was brought to light by Jesus " Christ."

3. But laftly, Whate\^er meaning the Church had in thefe words, it cannot at all affed our Pro- pofition, that a future fate was not taught by the Law of Mofes ; becaufe by the Old Teftament is ever meant both the Law and the Prophets. Now I hold that the Prophets gave ftrong intimations, tho' in figurate language borrowed from the Jewilh. Oeconomy, of the everlajiing life offered to man- kind by Jesus Christ.

The concluding words of the Article which re- late to this matter, hy,— wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign, that the old fathers did look only for tranfitory promifes; and fo fay I : becaufe Jesus himfelf is to be heard, before all fuch ; and he affirms the dired contrary of the Father of the faithful in particular. Tour father Abraham (fays

» De GeJlU Ptlagii, c, xi. $ 24.

he

Bed:, S. ' of Mo SES demor^/^rateJ, 197

he to the unbelieving Jews) rejoiced to fee my day^ and he faiv it aiid was glad^ . A fad not only of the utmoft certainty in itfelf, but of the higheft im- portance to be rightly underftood. That I may not therefore be fufpeded of prevarication, I chuie this inftance (the nobleft that ever was given of the HARMONY between the Old and New Teftament) to illuftrate this confiftent truth,

I.

And I perfuade myfelf that the learned Reader will be content to go along with me, while I take occafion, from thefe remarkable words of Jesus, to explain the hiftory of the famous com- mand TO Abraham to offer up his son ; for to this Hiftory I ihall prove, the words refer ; and by their aid I fhall be enabled to juftify a revolting circumftance in it, which has been long the ftum- bling-block of Infidehty.

In the fenfe in which the Hiftory of the Com- mand hath been hitherto underftood, the beft apology for Abraham's behaviour (and it is hard we ftiould be obliged, at this time of day, to make apologies for an aftion, which, we are told, had the greateft merit in the fight of God) feems to be this, that having had much intercourfe with the God of Heaven, whofe Revelations (not to fay, his voice of Nature) fpoke him a good and juft Being, Abraham concluded that this command to facrifice his fon, conveyed to him like the reft, by the fame ftrong and clear impreffion on the Scnfory, came alfo from the fame God. How rational foever this folution be, the Deift, perhaps, would be apt to tell us it was little better than Eledra's anfwer to Oreftes, who, ftaggering \x\

•* John vili. 56.

O 3 his

198 ^he Divine Legation Book VI,

his purpofe to kill his mother by the command of Apollo, fays : But if, after all, this fhould be an evil DerAon, who, bent upon mifchief, hath ajfumed the form of a God? She replies, What, an evil Demon poffefs the f acred 'J'ripod? It is nottobefup- pofed\

But the idea hitherto conceived of this impor- tant Hiftory has fubje6ted it even to a worfe abufe than that of Infidelity : Fanatics, carnally as well as fpiritually licentious, have employed it to coun- tenance and fupport the moll abominable of their Dodlrines and Praftices ^ Rimius in his Candid Narrative hath given us a ftrange pafTage from the writings of the Moravian Brethren, which the reader, from a note of his, will find tranfcribed here below.

However^ after faving and referving to ourfelves the benefit of all thofe arguments, which have been hitherto brought to fupport the hiftory of the com- mand ; I beg leave to fay, that the fource of ^11 the difficulty is the very wrong idea men have been taUght to entertain of it, while it was con- fidered as given for a tryal only of Abraham's

' O^. A^ am aAarwj tire wjrtixao-^it^ Cfji ;

JEurip. Ele^ra, ver. 9-9,

^ *' He (the Saviour) can difpofe of life and foul ; he can make the aconomy of Salvation, and change it every hour, that the hindermolt be the foremoft : He can make laws and abrogate them ; i;e can make that to be moral which IS against nature; the greateft virtue to be the moft villainous aflion, and the mod virtuous thoughts to be the moft Criminal : He can in a quarter of an hour, make Abraham willing to kill his Son, which however is the moft abominable thought a man can have."

Ccunt Zinztndorf't Sfrm. in Rimius, p. ?;^.

faith i

Sed. 5* ^f Moses demonjirated, 199 faith i and confequently as a Revelation unfouaht by him, and unrelated to any. of thofe before" vouchfafed unto him : Whereas, in truth, it was a Revelation ardently desired, had the clo- sest CONNECTION with, and was, indeed, the

COMPLETION OF ALL THE FOREGOING ', wMch

were all direfted to one end; as the gradual view of the orderly parts of oneintire Difpenfation required : confequently, the principal purpofe of the COMMAND was not to try Abraham's faith, althou<yh its nature was fuch, that, in the very giving'^of it, God did, indeed, tempt or try Ahra-

In plain terms, the Adion was enjoined as the conveyance of information to the A6tor, of fome- thing he had requefted to know : This mode of in- formation by Signs infteads of Words being, as we have fhewn, of common praftice in thofe early Ages : And as the force of the following reafoning is founded on that ancient cuftom, I muft requeft the Reader carefully to review what hath been faid between the hundred and fifth and the hundred and twenty-firft pages of the third volume, concerning the origin, progrefs, and various modes of perfo- nal converfe •, where it is feen, how the conveying information, and giving diredions, to Another, by Signs and Anions, inftead of JVords, came to be of general pradice in the firfl rude Ages; and how, in compliance therewith, God was pleafed frequently to converfe with the holy Patriarchs and Prophets in that very manner.

Laying down therefore what hath been faid on this fubjla, in the place referred to, as a Poftu- ^

c Gen. xxii. i,

0 4 latum

2 CO He Divine Legation Book VI.

latum I undertake to prove the following Propo- l;;ion :

I.

That when God says to Abraham, TAKE NOf^ THT SON, THINE ONLT SON ISAAC,

t^c\ THE COMMAND IS MERELY AN INFORMA- TION BY ACTION, INSTEAD OF WORDS, OF THE

GREAT Sacrifice of Christ for the Redemp- tion OF MANKIND, GIVEN AT THE EARNEST REQUEST OF ABRAHAM, WHO LONGED IMPA- TIENTLY TO SEE CHRIST'S DA}"--, and is, in its nature, exactly the lame as thofe informations to the Prophets, where to this Man, God fays, Make thee bonds and yokes, and put them on thy neck^; to another— Gt? take unto thee a wife of whoredoms^, i3c. and to a third: — Prepare thee fluff for removing', ^c. that is, an informa- tion OF HIS PURPOSE BY ACTION INSTEAD OF

WORDS ; in the firft cafe, foretelling the conquefts of Nebuchadnezzar over Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon ; in the fecond, declarino- his abhorrence of the idolatries of the Houfe of Ifrael; and in the third, the approaching Captivity of Zedckiah.

The foundation of my Thefis I lay in that fcripture of St. John, where Jesus fays to the unbelieving Jews, your father Abraham re- joiced TO SEE MY DAY; AND HE SAW IT, AND WAS GLAD ''.

I. If we confider Abraham's perfonal charac- ter, together with the choice made of him for

* Gen. xxii. 2. s Jerem. xxvii. 2. »> Hosea i. 2.

' Ezt^. xii, 3. t cjjap^ yjj-;^ yjj,.^ ^^^

head

Se&^. 5. c/' Moses demonftrated, 201

head and origin of that People which God would feparate and make holy to himfelf i from whence was to arife the Redeemer of Mankind, the ul- timate end of that feparation, we cannot but con- clude it probable, that the knowledge of this Re- deemer would be revealed to him. Shall I hi4e from Abraham the thing which I do^? fays God, in a matter that much lefs concerned the Father of the Faithful. And here, in the words of Jesus, we have this probable truth arifmg from the na- ture of the thing, made certain and put out of all reafonable queftion — Abraham rejoiced, fays Je- sus, to fee my day"", th'i/ -nfj/i^ocv mv ly-vv. Now when the figurative word day is ufed, not to ex- prefs in general the period of any one's exifience, but to denote his peculiar office and employment, it mufl needs fignify that very circumftance in his life, which is chara5ierijlic of fuch office and employment. But Jesus is here fpeaking of his peculiar office and employment, as appears from the occafion of the debate, which was his fay- ing. If any man keep my commandments, he fhall never tajie of death, intimating thereby the vir- tue of his office of Redeemer. Therefore, by the word DAY mufl needs be meant that chara^ierijlic circumftance of his life : But that circumftance was the laying down his life for the Redemption of Mankind. Confequently, by the word day is peant the great facrifice of Christ ". Hence we

may

^ Gen. xviii. 17. ■" John viii. 52,

" Dr. Stebbing, in what he calls Conjiderations en the covt" majid to offer up Ifaac, hath attempted to difcredit the account here given of the Command : And previoufly aflures his rea- der that if any thing can hinder the ill effects nxhich n.y inter- pretation tr.uji have upon Religion, it muji be his expofmg the abfurdity of the ctnceit. This is confidently faid. But what

then i

202 ^he Dk'We Legation Book VL

may difrover the real or afFeded ignorance of the Socinian Comment upon this place; which would

have

Aen ? He can prove it. So it is to be hoped. If not

However let us give him a fair hearing. He criticifes this

obrervation on the word day, in the following manner. •' Really, Sir, I fee no manner of confequence in this rea- *' foning. That Chrift's day had reference to his office, as *' Redeemer, I grant. The day of Chrift denotes the time •' when Chrill (hould come, i. e. when He fhould come, who *' was to be fuch by office and employment. But why it mull •* import alfo that when Chrift came he (hould be offered up a •♦ Sacrifice, I do not in the leaft apprehend : Becaufe I can •* very ealily underftand that Abraham might have been in- *' formed that Chrift was to come without being informed that *' he was to lay down his life as a Sacrifice. If Abraham *' fav/ that a time would come when one of his Tons {hould »' take away the curfe, he faw Chrift's day." [Confid. p. i 59.] At firft fetting out, (for I reckon for nothing this blundering, before he knew where he was, into a Socir.ian comment, the thing he moft abhors) the Reader fees he grants the point I contend for — — That Chriji^s Day (fays he) has reference to his o^ce as Redeemer, I grant. Yet the very next words, em- ployed to explain his meaning, contradidl it ; — The Day of Chrift denotes the time wchen Chriji Jhould come. All the fenfc therefore, I can make of his concefilon, when joined to his explanation of it, amounts to this — ChrifCs Day has reference to his OFFICE : — No, not to his Office, but to his time. He fets off well : but he improves as he goes along. — But avhy it 7nuji im- tort ALSO that ivhen Chriji came he jhould be offered up as a Sacrifce, I do not in the leaji apprehend. Nor I, neither, I aflure him. Had I faid, that the word Day, in the text, im- ported the time, I could as little apprehend as he does, how that which imports time, imports also the thing done in time. Let him take this nonfenfe therefore to himfelf. I argued in a plain manner thus, — When the word Day is ufed to exprefs, in general, the period of any one's exiftcnce, then it denotes time ; when, to exprefs his peculiar office and employ- ment, ihcn it denotes, not the time, but that circumftance of life charafteriftic of fuch office and employment ; or the things done in time. Day, in the text, is ufed to exprefs Chrift's pe- culiar office and employment. Therefore — But what follows is ftill better. His want of apprehenfion, it feems, is founded in this, that he can eafily underfland, that Abraham might have hitn informed that Chf if ivai to comt j luithout being in-

fcrn\ei

Se<3:. 5* of Moses demonjlrated. 203 ^

have day only to fignify in general the life of Christ, or the period of his abode here on earth.

To reconcile the learned Reader to the pro- priety and elegance as well as to the truth of this lenfe of the word, Day^ he may obferve, that as Jefus intitles his great Work, in his ftate of hu- miliation, the Redemption of Mankind, by the name of HIS DAY ; fo is he pleafcd to give the fame ap- pellation to his other great Work, in his trium- phant ftate, the Judgment of Mankind. " For as ^' the lightening (fays he) that lightneth out of the ^' one part under heaven, — fo Ihall alfo the Son *' of Man be, in his day"." But this figure is indeed as ufual in Scripture as it is natural in it felf. Thus that fignal cataftrophe in the fortunes of the Jewifh People, both temporal and fpiritual, their Rejloration, is called their day. — Then Jhall the Children of Judah (fays God by the Prophet Hofea) and the children of Ifrael^ be gathered to-^^

formed that he nvas to lay doiun his life as a Sacrifice. YeSf and fo could I likewife ; or 1 had never been at the pains of making the criticifm on the word Day: which takes its force from this very truth, that Abraham might have been informed of one without the other. And, therefore, to prove he was informed of that other, I produced the text in queftion, which afforded the occafioji of the criticifm. He goes on, — If jibraham fanv, that a time nvould come iiuhen one of his feed Jhould take aivay the curfe, he fazv Chriji's Day. With- out doubt he did. Becauie it is agreed, that Day may fignify either time, or circumftance of adion. But what is this td the purpofe ? The queftion is not whether the word may not, when ufed indefinitely, fignify time; but whether it fignifies time in this text. 1 have fliewn it does not. And what has he faid to prove it does ? Why that it may do fo ia another place. In a word, all he here fays, proceeds on a total inapprehenfion of the drift and purpofe of the ar- gument.

* Luke xvii. 24,

. - ^ither^

i.

204 T'/v Divine Legation Book VI.

get her, and appoint themfehes one head^ and they Jhall £ome up out of the land: for great Jhall be thz day cf Ifrael K

2. But not only the matter, but the manner, likewife of this great Revelation, is delivered in the text — Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he SAVf it and was glad. — "voc IAH» tjiv 'fly.i^ocv rviv ty.^v x) EIAE — This evidently fhews the Revelation to have been made, not by relation in words, but by REPRESENTATION in aftion. The verb uSo-i is frequently ufed in the New Teftamcnt, in its proper fignification, to fee fenfibly. But whether ufed literally or figuratively, it always denotes a full intuition. That the expreflion was as ftrong in the Syrian language ufed by Jesus, as here in the Greek of his Hiftorian, appears from the reply

the Jews made to him ^hou art not yet fifty

years old, and haft thou seen Abraham'^ '^ Plainly intimating that they underftood the aflertion of Abraham s feeing Chrift^s day to be a real beholding him in perfon. We muft conclude therefore, from the words of the text, that the Redemption of Mankind was not only revealed to Abraham, but was revealed likewife by reprefentation. A late Writer, extremely well fkilled in the ftyle of Scripture, was fo fenfible of the force of Jesus's words, that, though he had no fufpicion they re- lated to any part of Abraham's recorded hiftory, yet he faw plainly they implied an information by reprefentation — 'Thusalfo Abraham (fays ht) faw the day of Christ and was glad. But this muji be in a typical cr prophetical vifion \ The excellent Dr. Scott

is

Chap. i. ver. ii. "3 Ver. 57.

' Daubuz. on the Revelations^ p. 251. Printed in the year 1720. To this rcafoning, Pr. Slebbing replies as follows,

" Yon

Se£t. 5. of Moses demonJfraUJ, 20^

is of the fame opinion. He fuppofes " the words " refer to fome peculiar difcoveries, which the

" Spirit

** Yoa are not more fucceftfal in your next point, Abraham re- '* joked to fee my Day, and he/a^iu it, and nuas glad. l'v» lAH tkp ** ^jtAegaf rnn £f(.r)> >t) EIAE — Tbh (fay you) enjideittly Jheius it " [the FCvelation} /o have been made not by relation in nvords, ** but by repre/entation in aSion^^ How fo ? The reafon fol- *' lows. The 'verb 'L^u is frequently vfed in the Neiu Tejiament

*' in its proper fignfcation to fee fenjibly. > In the New

" Tcftament do you fay ? Yes, Sir, and in cwery Greek book ** you ever read in your life. What you should have (aid ** is, that it is fo ufed here ; and I fuppofe you would have *' faid fo, if you had known how to have proved it." [Confid. p. 139—40.]

The reafon follo-ws (fays he.) Where ? In my book indeed, but not in his imperfeft quotation from it; which breaks off before he comes to my reafon. One who knew him not fo well as 1 do, would fufpeft this was done to ferve a purpofe. No fuch matter : 'twas pure hap hazard. He miftook the introduftion of my argument for the argument itfelf. The argument itfelf, which he omits in the quotation, (and which was all I wanted, for the proof of my point,) was, That the werb e1%, ivhether ufed literally or figuratively, airways denotes a full intuition. And this argument, I introduced in the following manner, The -verb e'^u is frequently ufed in the Netu Tefiament in its proper fignif cation, to fee fenfsbly. Unluckily, aa I fay, he took this for the Argument itfelf, and thus correds me for it, " What you should have faid, is, that it is fo ufed here; " and I fuppofe you would have faid fo, if you had known *' how to have prov'd it." See, here, the true origin both of dogmatizing and divining 1 His ignora7ice of what I did fay, leads him to tell me what I ftiould have faid, and to divine what I would have faid. But, what I faid, I think I may ftand to, That the verb e'I^hj ahvays deffotes a full intuition. This was all I wanted from the text ; and on this foundation, I pro- ceeded in the fequel of the difcourfe, to prove that Abraham y^xy fenfibly. Therefore, when my lixaminer takes it, (as he does) for granted, that becaufe, in this place, 1 had not proved that the Word implied x.o fee fnfibly, I had not proved it at all ; he is a fecond time miilaken.

*' But, he oions, that, if this was all, perhaps / fhouU tell ** hitiit that it was a s%ty ftrange anfvs-er of the Jevjs, thou art

** mt

2o6 ^he t>hine Legation ' Book VL

" Spirit of God might make to Abraham, for *' his own private confolation, tho* not recorded " in Scripture'.'*

So

" ntt yet fifty yean old, and hc.Ji thou feen Ahraham?'* [Confid. p. 140] He is very right. He might be fiire I would. In anfwer therefore to this difficulty, he goes on and fays, " No *' doubt, Sir, the yeivi anfwer our Saviour, as if he had faid, *' that Abraham and he were cotemporaries ; in which, they an- *• fwered very fooliflily, as they did on many other occafions ; ** and the anfwer will as little agree with your interpretation " as it does with mine. For does your interpretation fuppofe *' that Abraham faw Chrift in perfon ? No ; you fay it was by *' reprefentation only." [Confid, p. 140— i.]

7he yeivs attfivuered our Saviour as if he had faid that Abra- ham and he ixiere cotemporaries. — Do they fo ? Why then, 'tis plain, the exprejjion ivas as firong in the Syrian language, ufed by Je/ui as in the Greek of his Hifiorian, which was all I aimed to prove by it. But in this (fays he) they anf-jcered I'erf foolijhly. What then ? Did I quote them for their wifdom ? A little com- mon fenfe is all I want of thofe with whom I have to deal : And rarely as my fortune hath been to meet with it, yet it is plain thefe Jews did not want it. For the folly of their anfwer arifes therefrom. They heard Jefus ufe a word in their vulgar idiom, which fignified to fee corporeally ; and common fenfe led them to conclude that he ufed it in the vulgar meaning: in this they were not miftaken. But, from thence, they inferred, that he meant it in the fenfe ol fseing ferfonally \ and in this, they were. And now let the Reader judge whether ihc folly of their anfwer fhews the folh of my Argument, or of my Ex- aminer's. — Nay further, he tells us, they anfwered as foolijhly on many other occafions. They did fo ; and I will remind him of one. Jefus fays to Nicodemus, Except a man be born i gain, he cannot fee the kingdom of Gid, &c *. Suppofe now, fiom thefe words, I fliould attempt to prove that Regeneration and divine Grace were realities, and not mere metaphors : For that Jefus, in declaring the neceflity of them, ufed fuch ftrong exprellions that Nicodemus underitord him to mean the being phyfically born again, and entering the fecond lime into the ivomb : Would it be lufficicnt, let me a(k my Examiner, to reply in this man- ner, " No doubt. Sir, Nicodemus anfwered our Saviour as if

* Chriftian Life, vol. v. p. 194. * St. John iil, 3.

** be

Sedlr. 5« of Moses demonjlrated. 207

So far, then, is clear, that Abraham had indeed this Revelation. The next queftion will be, whe- ther we can reafonably expe6t to find it in the hiftory of his life, recorded in the Old Tefta- ment ? And that we may find it here, both the words of Jesus, and the nature of the thing afTure us.

•' he had faid, that a follower of the Gofpel mufi: enter a fecond *' time into his mstker's n.i:omb nnd be bortt : in which he anfwered " very foolifhiy ; and the anfwer will as little agree with your *' interpretation as it does with mine. For does your inter- " pretation fuppofe he fliouU fo enter ? No ; but that he " Jhould be born of nvater and of tJ>e fpirit,''^ —- Would this, I fay, be deemed, even by our Examiner himfelf, a fufficient anfwer ? When he has refolved me this, I (hall, perhaps, have fomething farther to fay to him. In the mean time I go on. And, in returning him his lall words reftored to their fubjed, help him forward in the folution of what 1 expert from him. — The an/wer (fays he) 'will as little agree ivithyour interpretation as it does nvith 7mne. For does your interpretation fuppofe that Abraham fanxj Chrijl in perfon ? No ; you fay, it ivas by repre- fentation only." Very well. Let me afk then, in the firft place, Whether he fuppofes that what I faid on this occafion, was to prove that Abraham faw Chrift from the reverend autho- rity of his Jewifh Adverfaries ; or to prove that the verb C'^-jt ligniiied \o fee literally, from their miftaken anfwer? He thought me here, it feems, in the way of thofe writers, who are quot- ing Atfthorities, when they fhould be giving Renfns. Hence, he calls the anfwer the Jews iiere gave, a foolifh one : As if 1 had undertaken for its orthodoxy. But our Examiner is ftiU farther miftaken. The point I was upon, in fupport of which I urged the anfwer of the Jews, was not the feeing this, or that perfon: But the feeing f5r/>9rf«//j', and not w£«/<2/.V. Now, if the Jews underilood Jefus, as faying that Abrahain faw cor- poreally, I concluded, that the exprelTion, ufed by Jefus, had that import : And this was all I was concerned to prove. Dif- ference, therefore, between their anfwer as I quoted it, and my interpretation, there was none. Their anfwer implied that Abraham was faid to fee corporeally ; and my interpretation fup- pofes that the words employed, had that import. But to make a diftindion where there was no difference, feeing in perfn, and feing by reprefentation are brought in, to a queftion where they have nothing to do.

I. We

2o8 77v Divine Legation Book VI.

I. We learn, by the hiflory of Christ's Mi- niftry that in his difputations with the Jews, he never urged them with any circumftance of God's Difpenfations to their Forefathers, which they either were not, or might not be, well acquainted with by the ftudy of their Scriptures. The reafon is evident. His credentials were twofold. Scrip- ture and Miracles. In the (irll way there- fore of confirming his Miflion, if inftead of ap- pealing to the courfe of God's Difpenfation to his chofen People, as delivered in Scripture, he had given them an unknown hiftory of that Difpenfa- tion, (as was one of the tricks of Mahomet in his Alcoran) fuch a method had been fo far from fup- porting his Charafter, that it would have heighten- ed the unfavourable prejudices of Unbelievers to- wards him: as looking like a confeffion that the known hiftory v/as againft him ; and that he was forced to invent a new one, to countenance his pre- tenfions. He muft, therefore, for the neceflary flip- port of his Character, appeal to fonie acknowledged Fafls. Thefe were all contained in Scripture and Tradition. But, we know, he always ftudioufly declined fupporting himfelf on their *Traditions^ though they were full of circumftances favourable to the Religion he came to propagate, fuch as the do6lrines of eternal Life^ and the Rc- furre^ion of the Body : Nay, he took all occafions of decrying their Traditions as impious cor- ruptions, by which they had rendred the written word of none effeul. We conclude, therefore, from Jesus's own words, that the circumftance of Abraham's knowledge of his Day is certainly to be found in Abraham's hiftory : Not in fo clear a manner, indeed, as to be underftood by a Carnal- minded Jew, nor even by a Syftem-making Chrif- tian, for reafons hereafter to be explained \ yet 5 certainly

Setfl. 5' of Moses demonjlrated, 209

certainly There ; and certainly proved to be There by the bell rules of logic and criticifm.

2. But though this did not (as it does) appear from the words of Jesus, yet it might be collected from the very nature of the thing. For admin only the fad, (as we now muft) that Abraham did fee Christ*^ Day, and it is utterly incredible that lb capital a circumftance Ihould be omitted in his Hiftory, a facred Record, preordained for one of the fupports and evidences of Christ's Religion. That it could not be delivered in the book of Genefis, in terms plainly to be underftood by the People, during the firft periods of a preparatory Difpenfation, is very certain ; as will be feen here- after : But then, this is far from being a reafon why it fhould not be recorded at all : Great ends, fuch as fupporting the truth of the future Difpen- fation, being to be gained by the delivery of it even in fo obfcure a manner.

Having thus far cleared our way, and Ihewn, that the doSfrine of Redemption was revealed to A- braham ; and that the hiftory of that Revelation is recorded in Scripture ; we proceed to the proof of thefe two points,

I. That there is no place, in the whole hiftory of Abraham, but this, where he is commanded to offer up his Son, which bears the leaft marks or refemblance of fuch a Revelation.

II. That this Command to offer up his Son has all the marks of fuch a Revelation.

I. On the firft head, it will be neceffary to c-jve a Ihort abftrad of Abraham's ftory : in whiclTwe ' Vol. V. P find

2IO ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

find a resiular account of the courfe and order of God's Dilpenfations to him, from the time of his being called out of Chaldca, to the Command to offer up his Son Ifaac •, the laft of God's Revela- tions to him, recorded in Scripture.

The firft notice given us of this Patriarch is in the account of his Genealogy, Family, and Coun- try'. We are then told", that God called him from his Father's houfe to a Land which hejhould JJjeiv him : And to excite his obedience, he pro- mifes to make of him a great Nation " ; to have him in his peculiar protection, and to make all the Nations of the Earth blejfed through him ^. The laft part of this promife is remarkable, as it contains the proper end of God's Choice and Separation of him and his Pofterity -, and fo, very fitly made, by the facred Writer, the foundation of the hif- tory of God's Difpenfations to him ; and a mark to dirc6l the reader to what, tiiey are all ultimately to be referred. Which, by the way, expofes the extreme abfurdity in Collins and Tyndal, who would have the bleffing here promifed to be only an caftern form of fpeech, honourable to the Fa- tb.er of the Faithful. — When Abraham, in obedi- ence to this command, was come into the land af Canaan', God vouchfafed him a farther Revelation of his Will-, and now told him, that this was the Land (which he had before faid he -would Jhew him) to be inherited by his Seed '. When he returned from Egypt, God revealed himfelf ftill farther, and marked o'M the bounds " of that Land, which he iilfured him lliould be to him and his Seed for ever".

' Gen. xI. ver. z;-, l^ feq.	" Chap. xii. ver. i.
" Ver. 2. y Ver. 3.	* Ver. 5. * Ver. 7.
'' Chap. xiii. ver. i^.	' Ver, 15.

Which

Se(5l. 5' g/' Moses demonfirated, 2ii

Which Seed (hould be as the duft of the earth for number ^. After all thefe gracious and repeated aflTurances, we may well fuppofe Abraham to be flow grown uneafy at his Wife's barren nefs, and his own want of ilTue to inherit the Promifes. Ac- cordingly, we find him much difturbed with thefe apprehenfions ^ -, and that God, to remove them appeared to him in a njifion^ and faid. Fear not A- bram^ I am thy Jhield and exceeding great reward* Abraham, thus encouraged to tell his grief, con- feffed it to be for his want of ifliie, and for that he fufpe6ted the promifed bleffings were to be inherit- ed by his adopted children, the fons of his fer- vant Eliezer of Damafcus ^ To eafe him of this difquiet, God was now pleafed to accquaint him, that his defign was not, that an adopted fon Ihould inherit, hut one out of his own bcweh'. And, for farther affurance, he inftrufts him in the various fortunes of his Poiterity.— 7^/^^/ his Seedffwuld be a fir anger in a Land that was not theirs^ which Land fhculd qffli^i them four hundred years, and that then he would judge that Nation, and afterwards bring them out with great fuhflance to inherit the Land of Canaan '"". At the fame time God more particu- larly marks out the bounds of the Promifed Land, and reckons up the feveral Nations which then in- habited it '. Things being in this train, and A- braham now fatisfied that the Seed of his Ipins was to inherit the Promifes ; Sarah, on account of her fterility, perfuaded her Hufband to go in, unto her Hand-maid Hagar, the Egyptian ". In this (he indulged her own vanity and ambition -, flie would have a Son whom fhe might adopt ; // 77jay he (fays he) that I may obtain children by her ' j

^ Ver. i6.« « Chap. xv. ver. i. *" Vcr. 2, 9.

e Ver. 4. h Ver. 13, 1 4. ' Vcr. 18, to the end.

^ Qhap. xvi. 1 Ver. 2.

P 2 and

212 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

and (he flattered herfelf with being, at the fame time, an inftrument to promote the defigns of Providence, Behold novj^ (lays Ilie) the Lord hath rejlrained me from bearing. To this projeft Abra- ham confented. Hagar conceived, and bare a Son, called Iflimael"". The good Patriarch was now fully fatisfied : He grew fond of Ilhmael ; and reckoned upon him for the inheritor of the promifes. To corredl this miftake, God vouch- safed him a new Revelation" ; in which he is told, that God would not only (as had been before pro- raifed) blefs and multiply his Pofterity in an ex- traordinary manner, but would feparate them from all other Nations, and he would be their God, and they fhould be his people ". And this national f.doption requiring a mutual Covenant, the rite of CIRCUMCISION is at the fame time enjoined as the mark of the Covenant**. Laftly, Abraham

is

"" Ver. 15. " Chap. xvH. ° Ver. 7, l^ fcq,

P Ver. 10, y feq. By the account here given, of God*» Difpenfations to Abraham, may be ken the folly of that ob- je«^ion, brought with fuch infmuations cf importance, againft the divine appointment of Circumcijion, from the time of its inltitution. Sir John Marfham obfcrves, that Abraham, n>:hen he luttit into Eo\j)f, ivas not circumciJeJ, nor for tvjcnt^ years after hii return. Abramus, quando yEgyptum ingreffus ell, iionduni circumcifus crat, neque per anncs amplius viginti pofl redicuni, p. 73. Francq. Ed. 4:0. And further, that Circuir,- cijion ivas a mofi ctncient rite cm-ingji the Esjptian:, thut I hey had it from the beginnings and that it luas a principle ivtth them >:ot to make vfe of the cufoms of other people. Apud ^gyp- tios circumcidendi ritus vetuuifiimas fuit, & xtt a.^'^r.^ inltitu- tiis. lili nullorum aliorum hominum inlliiutis uti volunt, p. 74. — The noble Author of the Characteristics, who never lofcs an opportunity of exprefling his goodwill to a Prophet or a Fairiarch, takes up this pitiful fufpicion after Marfliam : " Be- '■ fore the time that Ifrael was conllrained to go down to *' Egypt, and fxe for maintenance, — the Ikly Patriarch /ibra- " hum himfelf had been neccHitated to this compliance on the

♦' fame

Se^. 5. of Moses demonjirated. 2 1 3

is fhewn his fond miftake, and told, that it was not the Son of the bond-woman^ but of his Wife Sarah, who was ordained to be Heir of the Pro-, mifes '^. But Abraham had fo long indulged him- felf in his miftake, and confequently in his affec- tion for Ifhmael, that he begs God would indulge it too — 0 that Iffomael might live before thee ^ And God, in compaffion to his paternal fondnefs, gracioufly promifes that the Pofterity of llliniael fhould become exceeding great and powerful '. but that, neverthelefsj his Covenant fhould be

** fame acconnt, — 'Tis certain that if this H-Jy Patriarch, who " firft inilituted the facred rite of Circumcifion within his own " family or tribe, had no regard to any Policy or Religion of *' the Egyptians, yet he had formerly been a Guell: and Inha- " bitant of Egypt (where hiftorians mention this to have been ** a national rite) long ere he had received any divine notice or ** Revelation conceining this affair." Vol. iii. p. 52, 53. Thefe great men, we fee, appeal to Scrifture, for the fupport of their infinuation ; which Scripture had they but confidered with com- mon attention, they might havefoimd, that it gives us a chrono- logical account of God's gradual Revelations to the Holy Patri- arch ; and therefore that, according to the order God was pleaf. ed to obferve in his feveral Difpenfations towards him, the Rite of Circumcifion could not have been enjoined before the time Abraham happened to go into Egypt ; nor indeed, at any other time than that in which we find it to be given; confequently that his journey into Egypt had not the leaft concern or connec- tion with this affair : Nay, had thefe learned Critics but attend- ed to their own obfervation, that the Rite of Circumcifion was inlHtuted twenty j-ears after Abraham's return from E^ypt, they muft have feen the wealcnefs of fo partial a fufpicion. For had this been after the model of an f^/z/awrite.^ Abraham, in all likelihood, had been circumcifed in Egypt, or at leaft very foon after his return : For in Egypt, it was zperfonal, not 3i family Rite. And we learn from prophane hiftory, that thofe who went from other Countries to Egypt, with a dellgn to copy their manners, or to be initiated into their VVifdom, were, as a previous ceremony, commonly circumcifed by the Egyptian Priefts themfelve .

*- Ver. 16. ' Ver. 18. « Ver. 20, ^/f,

P 3 with

214 *The Divine Legation Book VI.

with Jfaac^ and with his Seed after him \ How.. ever, this Revelation having been received with fome kind of doubt, as appears by the words of the hiflorian ", God was plealed to repeat the promife of a Son by Sarah " : and even to mark the time of his birth ^ ; according to which, Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a Son '^. After this, God revealed himfelf yet again to Abraham % with a command to put away his Son Ifhmael; and to alTure him, that the chosen posterity fhould come from Ifaac : For Abraham was not yet weaned from his unreafonable partiality for Ifh- mael ; but ftill reckoned upon him as his Second hopes^ in cafe of any difafter or misfortune, that fhould happen to Ifaac. This appears from Ifh- mael's infolent behaviour '' ; from Abraham's great vinwillingnefs to difmifs him * •, and from God's af- furing him, in order to make him eafy. That in Jfaac his Seed fiould be called^. We now come to the fam.ous Hiftory of the Command to offer up his Son Ifaac. — And it came to pafs, (fays the facred hiflorian) after these things, that God did tempt Abraham^ and f aid: 'Take now thy Son, thine ONLY son Jfaac, whom thou loveft, and get thee unto the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham arofe ^ &c. This was the laft of God's Revelations to Abraham — And it fame to pafs after thefe things-^ And with this, the hiftoryof them is cloftd.

Here we fee all thefe Revelations, except the laft, are plain and clear, as referring to temporal

* Ver. 19. " Vcr. 17. * Chap, xviii.

y Ver. 10, 14. * Chap. xxi. ver. 2. * Ver. 12.

*> Ver. 9. '^ Ver. 11. " Ver, 12. ' Chap,

xxii, ver. i, 2, 3.

Fcjicitic5

Se6^» 5. ^/ Moses demonflrated. 215

Felicities to be conferred on Abraham and his Pof- terity after the flefh •, through whom, Ibme way or other, a blessing was to extend to all Man- kind. Not one of thefe therefore can pretend to be that Revelation of the Redemption of the world. The laft is the only dark and obfcure one of the. whole; which, if indeed a Revelation of this grand Mylleiy, mufl of necelTity, as we Ihall lliew, be darkly and oblcurely recorded.

But to this perhaps it may be objeified, that the famous Promife of God to Abraham, that in him JJoould all the Fa/nilies of the earth be bkJJ'ed \ is that Revelation; becaufeSt. Paul calls this the preaching of the Gofpel unto him — Jnd the Scripture^ fore- feeing that God would jtijiify the Heathen through Faith^ preached before^ the Gofpel unto Abraham^ fay- ing^ In thee fh all all nations of the earth be blejfed'. To this I reply, that the Apoftle is here convinc- ing the Galatians, that the Gofpel of Christ is founded on the fame principle with that which juilified Abraham, namely faith; — Abraham be- lieved God, and it w/zs accounted to him for righte- eufnefs ^ He then purfues his argument in this manner, Therefore they which be of Faith are bkjfed with faithful Abraham '. The realbn he gives is from the promjfe in queilion, given in reward of Abraham's Fmth, that in him fkotdd all Nations be hleffed. This is the force of the argument ; and it is very finely managed. But then the terms. Faith and Gofpel, are here ufed, as they very often are in the apoflolic writings '', not in their fpecific

f Gen. xii. 3. s Gal. iii. 8, ^ Ver. 6.

* Ver. 9.

^ See what hath been faid on this fubjed in the preceding cifcourfe on the xith chapter to the H ^vitf.

:^i P 4 but

2i6 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

but generic fenfe, for confidence in any one^ and glad tidings in general. For it is plain, Abraham's Faith here recommended, was not that Chrijlia'ri Fatth in Jesus the Messiah, but, faith in God, who had promiled to make his Pofterity accord- ing to the flefh, as numei^ous as the ftars of Hea- ven, when as yet he had no offspring'. In a like latitude of exprefiion, St. Paul ufes the word TT^osvocyhXi^oiMixi, to preach the Gofpel beforehand-, not the tidings of theMeffiah the Kedeemer, but the effe5is of the Redemption wrought by him, a BLESSING on the whole race of mankind. Tidings which indeed referred to a future Difpenfation : and, in this, differing from his ufe of the word Faith, which did not. But then, this is very far from his SEEING Christ's day -, of which indeed he fpeaks in another place, as we fhall fee prefently. It is true, this promifed BLESSING was the preparatory Revelation, by which, we were to eftimate the ul- timate end of all the following ; and on which, we mud fuppofe them to be built : And fo much we are concerned to prove it was. I conclude therefore, that when Jefus fays, Abraham faro his Day; and when St. Paul fays, that he had the Gofpel preached before unto him, they fpoke of two different Revelations. We come therefore,

II. To the fecond point ; which is to fhew, that the COMMAND to offer up Ifaac was the very reve- lation of Christ's day, or the Redemption of niankind, by his death and fufferings.

1. We may bbferve, from this fhort view of Abraham's hiftory, that all God's Revelations to him, even unto this laft, open by degrees; and

' Gen. XV, 6,

relate,

Sedt. 5' of Moses demonjlrated, 217

relate, primarily indeed, to his Pofterity according to the flelh, but ultimately, to the whole race of Mankind : as appears from that mvstick Promife fo early made to him as the foundation of all the following, that in Himjhould all the Families of the earth he blejj'ed. Thefe are the two great coincident Truths, to which all thefe Revelations tend. But the laft, the famous Command in quellion, which one would naturally expeft to find the confirmation and completion of the reft, hath, if the common Interpreters underftand it right, no kind of rela- tion to them, but is entirely foreign to every thing that preceded. Hence we concluae, and furely not unreafonably, that there is fomething more in the Command than thefe Interpreters, refting in the outfide relation, have yet difcovered to us.

2. But this is not all. The Command, as it hath been hitherto underflood, is not only quite disjoined from the reft of Abraham's hiftory, but likewife occupies a place in it, which, according to our ideas of things, it hath certainly ufurped. The Command is luppofed to be given as a Trial only ■". Now when the great Searcher of hearts is

pleafed

" To this Dr. Stebbing anfwers, '* You lay it down here " as the common interpretation, that the command to Abra- " ham to offer up his fon was given as a trial, only, which is ** NOT TRUE." Why not ? becaiife " the common opinion is, " that God's intention in this command was not only to try " Abraham, but alfo to prefigure the facrifice of Chrift." \Cor,Jid. p. 150.] Excellent ! I fpeak of the Command's being given : but to whom ? To all the Faithful, for whofe fake it was recorded ? or to Abraham only, for whofe fake it was re- vealed ? Does not the very fubject confine my meaning to this latter fenfe ? Now, to Abraham, I fay, (according to the com- mon opinion) it was given as a Trial only. To the faithful, if you will, as a prefiguration. — \^, to extricate himfelf from this Wander or fophifm, call it which you will, he will fay it pre- figured

21 8 ^s Dhitie Legation Book VI.

pleafed to try any of his Servants, either for ex- ample fake, or for feme other end favourable of his Difpenfations to mankind ; as in this, he con- defcends to the manner of men, who cannot judge of the merits of their inferior Agents without Trial,

figured to Abraham likewife ; he then gives up all he has been contending for; and eftablifhes my interpretation, which is, that Abraham knew this to be a reprefentation of the great facrifice of Chrift: I leave it undetermined whether he miftakes or cavils : See now, if he be not obliged to me. Where I fpeak of the common opinion, I fay, the command is fuppofed to be GIVEN as a Trial only. He thinks fit to tell me, 1 fay not true. But when he comes to prove it, he changes the terms of the queftion thus, " For the common opinion is, that God's " iMTENTiON in this command was," &c. Now God's inten- tion of giviKg a command to Abraham, for Abraham's fake, might be one thing ; and God's general intention of givitzg that Command, as it concerned the whole of his Difpenfation, ano- ther. But to prove further that I /aid not true, when 1 faid that, according to the common interpretation, the Command was given for a Trial only ; he obferves, that I myfelf had owned that the refemblance to Chrift's facrifice was fo ftrong, that In- terpreters could never overlook it. What then ? If the Inter- preters, who lived after Chrift, could not overlook it, does it follow that Abraham, who lived before, could not overlook it j neither ^ But the impertinence of this has been fliewn already,' Nor does the learned Confiderer appear to be unconfcious of it. Therefore, inftead of attempting to inforce it to the purpofe for which be quotes it, he turns, all on a fudden, to fhew that it makes nothing to the purpofe for which I employed it. But let us follow this Protean Sophifter thro' all his windings. — " The •' refemblance (fays he) no doubt, is very ftrong ; but how " this corroborates your fenfe of the command, J do not fee. *^ Your fenfe is, that it was an a£lual information given to *' Abraham, of the facrifice of Chrift. But to prefigure, and to •• inform, are different things. This tranfaftion might prefigure, ** and does prefigure the facrifice of Chrift ; whether Abraham •' knew any thing of the facrifice of Chrift or no. For it does " not follow, that, becaufe a thing is prefigured, therefore it *' muft be feen and underftood, at the time when it is pre- *• figured." [C:rfd. p. 150 — 1.] Could it be believed that thefe words fhould immediately follo'v an argument, whofe force, (the little it ha?) is founded on the principle, f/jat to PREFIGURE and to INFORM are not. di/j'erent things.

fo

Scdi. 5. 0/" M o s E s demonjlrated, 2 1 9

fo we may be affured, he would accommodate him- felf to their manner likewife, in that which is the material circumllance Ot a Trial : But, amongft men, the Agent is always tried before he be fet on work, or rewarded; and not after: becaufe the Trial is in order to know, or to make it known, whether he be fit for the work, or deferving of the Reward. When we come therefore to this place, and fee a Command only to tempt or try A.- braham, we naturally expetft, on his anfweringto the Trial, to find him importantly employed or greatly rewarded. On the contrary we are told, that this Trial was made after all his Work was done, and all his Reward received •, — and it came topafs after thefe things. — Nay, what is ftill more ftrange, af- ter he had been once tried already. For the pro- mife to him, when he was yet childlefs, his Wife barren, and both of them far advanced in years, that his feedfhoidd be as thefiars of Heaven for mul- titude^ was a Trial of Mis faith ; and his believing, againft all probability in a natural way, the facred Hiftorian tells us, was accounted to him for righteouf- nefs ". Such therefore being the method both of God and Men in this matter, we muft needs con- clude, that the Command was not, according to the common notion, a 'Trial only., becaufe it comes after all Gop's Difpenfations °. Yet as the facred

text

■ Gen, XV. 6.

° To this reafoning, Dr. Stebbing replies, *' Bat how can *• you prove that, according to the common interpretation, '' there was no reward fubfequent to the trial ?" [Confid. p. 151.] How fhall I be able to pleafe him ? — Before, he was offended that I thought the Author of the book of Genefis rnight omit relating the mode of a faft, when he had good rea- fon fo to do. Here, where I fuppofe jio fa^, becaufe there was none recorded vyhen no feafon hindered, he is as captious

on

2 20 The Divine Legation Book VI.

text afTures ns it was a Trial j and as a Trial ne- ceflarily precedes the employment or reward of

the

on this fide likewife. " How will you prove it ?" (fays he.) From the filence of the HiHorian, (fay J ) when nothing hindered him from fpeaking. Well, but he will fhew it to be fairly recorded in Scripture, that there were rewards fubfequent to the trial. This, indeed, is to the purpofe : " Abraham *' (fays he) lived a great many years after that tranfaftioa *' happened. He lived to difpofe of his fon Ifaac in marriage, *' and to fee his feed. He lived to be married himfelf to an- *' other Wife, and to have feveral children by her : He had rot '* THEN received all God's mercies, nor were all God's dif- •* penfations towards him at an end ; and it is to be remem- " bered that ic is exprefsly faid of Abraham. Gen. xxiv. i. •' (a long lime after the tranfaflion in queftion) that Cod had *' blejjed him in all things." [Conjid. p. 151-2.] The queftion here, is of the extraordinary and peculiar rewards beftowed by God, on Abraham ; and he decides upon it, by an enu- meration cf the ordinary and common. And, to £11 up the meafure of thefe bleffings, he makes the burying of his firll wife and the marrying of a fecond to be one. Though un- luckily, this fecond proves at laft to be a Concubine ; as appears plainly from the place where fhe is mentioned. But let me afk him ferioufly ; Could he, indeed, fuppofe me to mean (tho' he attended not lo the drift of the argument) that God immediately withdrew all the common bleffings of his Providence fiom the Father of the Faithful, after the laft extraordinary reward beftow- ed upon him, when he lived many years after? I can hardly, I own, account for this perverfity, any otherwife than from a certain temper of mind which I am not at prefent difpofed to give a name to : but which, the habit of J>ifi.vering has made fo common, that nobody either miftakes it, or is now indeed, much fcandalizcd at it. Tho' for my part, I fhould eftecm a total ig- norance of letters a much happier lot than fuch a learned depra- vity. — " But this is not all," (fays he) — No, is it not ? I am forry for it! — " What furprizes me moft is, that you (hould " argue so weakly, as if the reward of good men had re- " fpcft to this life only. Be it, that Abraham had received " all God's mercies; and that all God's difpcnfations towards " him, in this world, were at an end ; was there not ^ life " yet to come, with refpcft to which the whole period of our *' exiftence here is to be confidered as a ftate of trial ; and *' where we are all of us to look for that reward of our vir- «' tues which we very often fail of in iliis:" \ConfU. p. 152.]

Well,

Sq&, 5. of Moses demonJlraUd, zzi

the perfon tried ; we mud needs conclude, that as no employment, fo fonie benefit followed this trial.

Now,

Well, if it was not all, we find, at leaft, it is all of a piece. For, as before, he would fophiftically obtrude upon us common for extraoriiinary rewards; fo here, (true to the miftery of his trade) he puts fo»z»zo« iox extraordinary trials. Our pre- fent exijience (fays he) is to be conjid red as a Jiate of Trial, The cafe, to which I applied my argument, was this; — " God, determining to feleft a chofen People from the loins of Abra- ham, would manifeft to the world that this Patriarch was worthy of the diftin£lion fhewn unto him, by having his faith found fu- perior to the hardeft trials." Now, in fpeaking of thefe trials, I faid, that the command to offer Ifaac was the laft. No, (fays the Examiner) that cannot be, for, ijoith refped to a life to come, the iKihole period of our exi fence here, is to be confidered as a fate of TRIAL." And fo again, (fays he) with regard to the re- ward; which you pretend, in the order of God's Difpenfa- tions, Ihould follow the trial : Why, we are to look for it in another ivorld. — Holy Scripture records the hiftory of one, to whom God only promifed (in the clear and obvious fenfe) tcm-^ poral bleffings. It tells us that thefe temporal bleffings were difpenfed. One fpecies of which were extraordinary Rewards after extraordinary Trials. In the moft extraordinary of all, no Reward followed : This was my difficulty. See here, how he has cleared it up. Hardly indeed to his own fatisfaftion : for he tries to fave all by another fetch ; the weakeft men being ever moft fruitful in expedients, as the floweft animals have com- monly the moft feet. *' And what (fays he) if after all this, ** the wifdom of God fhould have thought fit, that this very " man, whom he had fingled out to be an eminent example " of piety to all generations; fhould, at the very clofe of " his life, give evidence of it, by an inftance that exceeded all •* that had gone before ; that he might be a patterr; of patient *' fufFering, even unto the end? Would there not be sense " in fuch a fuppofition ?" [^Confd. p. 153.] Jn truth, I doubt not, as he hath put it : And I will tell him. Why. Abraham was not a mere inftrument to ftand for an Example only ; but a moral Agent likewife ; and to be dealt with as fuch. Now, tho', as he fiands for an Example, we may admit of as many Tria's of patient fuffering as this good-natured Divine thinks fitting io impofe ; yet, as a moral Agent, it is required (if we can conclude any thing from the method of God's .dealing with his Servants, recorded in facred hiftory) that each Trial be attended with fomc work done, or fome reward conferred.

But

22 2 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

Now, on our interpretation, a bimfit^ as we fhall fee, did follow : We have reafon therefore to con- clude that this interpretation is the true.

3. Having feen the difficulties arifing from the common interpretation of the Command, let us view it now on the other fide •, in the new light in which we have adventured to place it. And here we lliall find that every circumftance of the Story concurs to fupport our interpretation. From the view given of Abraham's hiftory, we fee, as was faid before, how all God's revelations to him, to this laft, ultimately related to that myftic funda- mental Promife made to him, on his firft Vocation, that in him JJjould all families of the earth be blejfed. God opens the fcheme of his Difpenfations by exadl and regular (leps ; and the Revelations follow one another gradually and in order. — Abraham is firll

But thefe two parts in Abraham's character, our Conjlderer per- petually confounds. He fuppofes nothing to be done for Abra- ham's own fake ; but every thing for the Example's fake. Yet, did the good old caufe of Arfwerhig require, he could as eafily fuppofe the contrary. And to (hew I do him no wrong, I will here give the Reader an inltance of his dexterity, in the coun- ter-exercife of his arms. In p. 150. of thefe Cov.f.dcrations, (he fays) " IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, that, becaufe a thing is pre- *' figured, therefore it muft be feen and underftood at the •' TIME when it is orefigured." Yet in the body of the Pamphlet, at p. 1 12 — 13, having another point to puzzle ; he fays (on my obfcrving that a future State and Refurre£lion were not national Doilrines till the time of the Maccabees) " he knows I will *' fay they had thefe dod^rines from the Prophets — yet the Pro- *' phets were dead two hundred years before." — But if the Prophets were dead their Writings were extant — " And what *' then .'' is it likely that the fons Ihould have learnt from *• the dead Prophets what the Fathers could not learn from the •' living .' — Vk hy could not the Jews learn this Doftrine from •' 1 HE VERY FIRST, as wcli as their Pofterity at the dillanceof ** ages afterwards ?" In the firft cafe we find he exprefsly fays, it does mt follow ; in the fecond, he as plainly fuppofes, that it docs.

C0R>-

Sed. 5. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated. 223

commanded to go into a Land which fhould be fhewn ,-to him — then that Land, to be pofTeffed by his numerous pofterity, is exhibited before him — Its diftindt boundaries are afterwards marked out — He is next affured, while yet childlefs, that his pofterity, to which fo much was promifed, Ihould not be from an adopted fon, but from one out of his own loins — He is, then told that this fon fhould be born of Sarah — which is followed by a formal execution of the covenant confirmed by the feal

of Circumcifton After all this, the birth of

Ifaac is predicted : who being born at the ap- pointed time, Ifhmael is ordered to be fent away ; to defign with more certainty the fucceflion of the fon by Sarah. Here we fee throughout, a gradual opening, and fit preparative for fome farther Reve- lation ; which, in purfuance of this regular fcheme of progrefTive Difpenfations, could be no . other than that of the redemption of mankind by THE Messiah, the completion of the whole Oeco- nomy of Grace, as it only is the explanation of his firft and fundamental Promife, that in Abraham jhould all the families of the earth be bleffed. But now, the fole remaining revelation of God's Will to Abraham, recorded by the facred Hiftorian, is the Command to offer up his fon Ifaac. This com- mand then, as there is no other that can pretend to be the revelation in queftion, and as we have fliewn it muft be fome where or other recorded in Abraham's ftory, is the very revelation we feek ; which perfedts all the foregoing, and makes the whole feries complete and uniform. And the place in which we find it is its proper ftation; for being the completion of the reft, it muft needs be the laft in order.

Such, in the intention of the Holy Spirit, doth

%t. Chrysostom, in his comment on the place,

I under-

224 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI. underftand it to be. t>i\ S\ 'HMEPAN hraZQct

fAOt donu Kiynv TYiV rti rau^a, riv iV tyi tm x^ib 7r^o(r(l>oox

xx\ TK 'iraajc Tr^oJ^ifTuVwo-f. And in this he is joined or followed by Erasmus, in his pataphrafe. Hoc senigmate Jefus fignificavit, Abraham, quum pararet immolare filium Ifaac, per ProphetijE ipiritum vidiflTe Dominum Jefum in mortem crucis

a patre tradendum pro mundi falute. But

thefe excellent men, not refleding on that ancient mode of information, where the Inquirer is an- fwered by a fignificative a^ion in ftead of fpeecb, never conceived that this Command was an imparted information of that kind, but rather a typical re- prefentation unfought, and given in an enjoined Rite -, of whofe import Abraham had then no 'knowledge ^.

4. Again, We find the Revelation of the re- demption of mankind in that very place where, if confidered only in itlelf, and not relatively, as the completion of the reft, we fhould, according to all the rules of plain fenfe, be difpofed to feek it. We mud know then that this Revelation, as iliall be proved from the words of Jesus, —Abraham re- joiced to fee my day, and he faw it, and was glad, was ardently defired and foug!:t after by the Pa-

P And yet an ingenious man, one M. Bouil!er, in a Inte Latin Diflcrtation, accufes me of concealing, that ChrylbRom, Erafmus and others were of my opinion, viz. that Abraham in the Com- mand to faciifice his Son was informed, of what he earnelUy defired to know, that the redemption of Mankind was to be obtained by the facriiice of the Son of God. The Reader now fees, whether the Author of the D. L. was guilty of a conceal- e.l theft, or his Accufer of an open blunder, under which he covers his orthodoxal malignity. Yet he thinks he attones for aU, by calling the D. L. egrcgium opus: uLi ingenimn acerrimiim cum cxiinia erudiiiine cerlat. — DifTiTtationum Sacrum Sylloge,

triarcii.

Sefl. 5. of Moses demonfratcd, 225,

triarch. Now the happincfs or redemption of mankind promifed, on Abraham's firil: Vocation, to come thro' him, could not but make him more and more inquifitive into the manner of its being brought about, in proportion as he foiund himfelf to be more and more perfonaliy concerned as the Inftrument of fo great a bleffing. But every new Revelation would Ihew him ftill farther interefted in this honour : Therefore, by the timfe Iflimael was ordered to be fent away^ and the promifed Seed fixed in Ifaac, we m.uft needs fuppofe him very impatient to underftand the Myftery of Re- demption j and fo, fitly prepared to receive this laft and fapreme Revelation. This^ in the like cafe% \ve find to be the difpofition and ftate of mind in the holy men of old. Thus Daniel, by the ftudy of the Prophefies of Jeremiah, underftanding the approaching reftoration of the Jews, applies himfelf by falling and prayer for God's further information •, and the Angel Gabriel is fcrit unto him. So John anxious and felicitous for the fuf- fering Church, being in prayers on the Lord's day,, was favoured with aU his glorious Revela- tions.

5. Again, The new light in which this Com- mand is placed, difpels all that perplexity in the Common interpretation (taken notice of above) nrifingfrom our ideas of 2. trials where that which fhOuld in ufe and reafon, go before fome extra- ordinary favour, is made to come after all. But now, according to our fenfe of the Cor/imand, the trial, as is meet, precedes the laft and greatcll fa- vour everbeftowed by God on Abraham.

6. To confirm all this, we may confider that this interpretation of the Command is moft eafy and

Vol. V. Q^ natural,

226 ^he iDivhie Legation Book VL

natural, as being intirely agreeable to the ancient way of communicating information. We have ihewn '^ it to have been the general cuftom of Antiquity, in perfonal conferences, to inftrudl by atlions inftead of zvords ; a cuftom begun out of neceflity, but continued out of choice, for the fuperior advantages it hath in making an impref- fion. For motion^ imturally fignificative, which en- ters at the eye, hath a much ftronger effedl than articulate /fl«K^, only ^ri'//r^nfy fignificative, which enters at the ear. We have fhewn likewife, by numerous examples, that God himfelf vouchfafed, in compliance to a general cuftom, to ule this way of information, when he inftruded the holy Pa- triarchs and Prophets in his Will.

7. Again, As the high hiiportance of this Re- velation feemed to require its being given in the ftrong and forcible way of adlion \ fo nothing can

be

•J See vol. iii. p. loj to 121.

* To this, the great Profeflbr replies, That " there are *' but few geftures of the body more apt of thetnfelvts to fig- " nify the fentiment of the mind than articulate found : The *' force of which ariles not from the nature of things ; but " from the arbitrary will of man : and common ufe and cuftt»m " impofes this fignification on articulate founds, not on mo- '• tions and geflares — Pauci funt motus corporis, qui ipfi per " fe aptiores efle videutur ad motus animi fignificandos, quam *' fonus qui ore et lingua in voccm formatur. Vis ipfa iwn eft *' in natura rerum pofita, fed arbitrio hominum conftituta ; " eamque mos et ufus communis non geftibus corporis tribnit, " fed verbis et voci." RurntRFORTH ZJ^rfrrj.

The purpofe of this fine obfervation, tho* fo cloudily expre/Ted, is to fliew thiit vwthn and gefture can have no fignification at all: Not from nature, fince few g( ihires of the body are more apt of ihemfi'lves to exprefs the mind than articulate found ; and yet articulate found is of arbitrary fignification : Not from injiitw

Sed. 5' of Mo^^^ demonjlrated, 227

be conceived more appofite to convey the informa- tion required than this very atlion. Abraham

defircd

i'ton, fince it is not to geftare, but to articulate foiind^ that men have agreed to affix a meaning. The confequence is, that gejiure can have no meaving at all', and (o there is an end of all Abraham's SIGNIFICATIVE action. The Divine would make a great figure, were it not for his Bible j but the Bible is per- petually dilbrienting the Philofopher. His general Thefis is, *' That ailions can never become fignificadve but by the aid of ixjords," Now I defire to know what he thinks of all the Ty- pical Rites of the Lanv, fignificative of the Sacrifice of Chrift? Were not thefe ASlions ? Had they no meaning which extend- ed to the Go/pel? or were there any IVords to accompany them, which explained that meaning : Yet has this man afTexted, in what he calls a Determination, that in the inftances of expreflive gefture, recorded in Scripture, 'words ivere alixays ufed tn conjunction loith them. But to come a little clofer to him. As a Philofopher he Ihould have given his Reafons for thofe two affertions ; or as an Hiftorian he fhould have verified his Fa£ls. He hath attempted neither; and I commend his pru-! dence; for bqfh are againft him : His Fad, that gellures have no meaning by nature is falfe : and his Reafoning, that the/ have none by injiitutionj is millaken. The Spartans might in- llrufl him iha.t ge/Iures alone ha've a natural meaning. Tliat fage People (as we are told by Herodotus) were fo perfuaded of this truth, that they preferred converfe by a^ion, to converfe by /peech ; as aftion had all the clearnefs of fpeech, and was free from the abufes of it. This Hiftorian, in his Thalia, in- forms us that when the Samians fent to Lacedemou for iuccours in diftrefs, their Orators made a long and laboured fpeech. When it was ended, the Spartans told tliem, that the firji fart of it they had forgotten, and could not camp'ehefid the latter. Whereupon, the Samian Orators produced their empty Bread- balcets, and /aid, they wanted bread. kFhat r^ecd of •^vordi^ replied the Spartans, do not your empty Bread -bajietf fn^ciently declare your meaning ? Thus we fee the Spartans thought noG only that ^ejlures 'were apt of themfei'ves, (or by nature) to fig- ttify the Jentiment of the mind, but even more apt than articulate founds. Their relations, the Jews, were in the fame fentimenta and praftice; and full as fparing of their words; and, (the two languages confidered) for fomething a better reafon. The facred Hiftorian, fpeaking of publick days of humiliation, tells lus ftory in this manner — Jnd they gathered together to Mizpe!-^

ANP DREW WATER AND POURED iT OUT BEFORE THE 0^2 LORP,

22^ . ^he Divine Legation BaoK Vtl

defired earneftly to be let into the myftery of the REDEMP.TiON. ; and God, to inftrud him (in the

beft

Lord, anJ fafted en that day, \ Sam. cnap. vli. vtx, 6. The Hiftorian does not explain in ivordi the meaning of this dra-wm ing of luater, Sec. nor needed he. Ic fufficiently exprefTed, that a delude of tears 'was due for their offences. The Profeflor, per- haps, will fay that words accompanied the aftion, at leaft precede ed it. But what will he fay to the aftion of Tarquin, when he ftruck off the heads of the higher poppies which overtopped their fellows ? Here we are exprefly told, that all was done ia profound filence, and yet the adlion was well underftood. But further, I will tell our PiofefTor what he leaR fufpeiled, that Geftures, befides their natural, have often an ar^/Vz-^ry figni-* iication. " A certain Afiatic Prince, entertained at Rome by Augiiftus, was amongft other Shews and Feftivities, amufed with a famous Pantomime ; whofe adlions were fo expreflive, that the Barbarian begged him of the Emperor for his Interpreter between him and feveral neighbouring Nations, whofe languages were unknown to one another." Pantomimic gellure was amongft the Romans one way of exhibiting a Dramatic Story. But before fuch geftures could be formed into a continued feries of Information, we cannot but fuppofe much previous pains and habit of invention to be exerted by the Aftors. Amongft which, one e/pedient muft needs be, (in order to make the expreffion of the Adors convey an entire connefled fenfe) to intermix with the geftures naturally fignificative,' geitures made fignificative by inflitution ; that is, brought, by arbiirary ufe t(^ have as determined a meaning as the others.

To illiiftrate this by thatmoYe lafting information, the Hiero- ^lyphics of the Egyptians and the real Charalers of the Chinefe j which, as we have fhewn, run paraHcl with the more fleeting conveyance of expi'eflive gefture, juft as alphabetic writing does *vith fpcech. Now,", tho' the earlier Hieroglyphics were com- pofed almoft altogether of marks «a/«/-a/Vi fignificative, yet when the Egyptians came to convey continued anJ more precife dif- courliis by this mode of. writing, ihey found a neceflity of in- venting arbitrary fignifications, to intermix and conned with the Other marks which had a naiurai. [See vol. iii. p. 8'9, ^ Jeq.^

Now, to (hew that thefe arbitrary Hieroglyphic marks were' #cal Cliaradlcrs like the other, let us turn to the Charadcrs of the ChLixefe, which tho' (in their prcfen: way of ufe) moft of

theiu

Se6l. 5. c/" Moses demonflratcd. 229

beft manner humanity is capable of receiving in- ftruftion) in the infinite extent of divine goodnefs to mankind, who /pared not his own fon, but de^ liver ed him up for us (ill\ let Abraham feel, by

experience, what it was to lofe a beloved fon ;

^ake now thy fon^ thine only fon Ifaac \ the Son bora miraculoufly when Sarah was paft child-bearing, as Jefus was miraculoufly borrt of a pure Virgin. The duration too of the a6lion was the fame as that between Christ's Death and Refurredion ; both which were defigned to be reprefented in it : and flill farther, not only the final archietypical Sacrifice of the fon of God was figured in the command to offer Ifaac, but the intermediate Typical facrifice, in the Mofaic GEconomy, was reprefent-

them be of arbitrary fignificatlon, yet the Miffionaries aflure us that they are underltood by all the neighbouring nation's of different languages. This Ihews that the auguftan Pantomime fo coveted by the Barbarian for his interpreter might be very able to difcharge his funftion tho' feveral of his geftures had an arbitrary lignification. And we eafily conceive how ic might come to pafs, fmce the gefture of arbitrary iignification only ferved to connedt the aftive difcourfe, by ftanding be- tween others of a natural fignification, diretling to their fenfe.

Thus (to conclude, with our Determiner) it appears that GESTURES ALONE are fo far from having no meaning at all, as he has ventured to affirm, that they have all the meaning which human expreffion can poffibly convey : all which is properly their own, mmely - natural information; and evea much of that which is more peculiar to fpeech, namely «r- bitrary.

To illuftrate the whole by a domeftic inflance ; the folemn Gefture of a Profeflbr in his Chair : which fometimes may naturally happen, to fignify Folly; tho', by infiitution, it al- ways fignifies Wifdom; and yet again, it muit be owned, ia juftice to our Profeffor's fcheme, that fometimes it means no- thing at all.

■ Rom. viii. 32,

0.3 «^>

2 ^^o ^bff Divine Legation Book VI,

cd, by the permitted facrifice of the Ram offered up inllead of Ifaac.

8. The laft reafon I fhall offer In fupport of this point, that the Ccmmand concerning Ifaac was this Revelation of Chrift's da)\ or the redemption of mankind by his death and fufferings, is the aUufion which Jefus makes (in thefe words, Jbraham re- joked to fee my day^ i^c.) to the following wopds of Mofes, in the hiflory of the command — And A- braham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh : as it is faid to this day. In the mount of the Lord it fhall he feen,

To fhew that Jefus alluded to thefe words of Mofes and had them in his eye, when he fpeaks of Abraham'' s rejoicing to fee his day, it will be pro- per to confider the true force and meaning of cither text. The words of Jefus have been fully con- fidered already \

And, in the words of Mofes Abraham called

the name of that -place Jehovah-jireh : as it is faid to this day. In the mount of the Lord itfjjall befeen, we have the affertion of Jefus confirmed, that Abra- ham fav) Chriffs day and was glad, i . Jehovah- jireh fignifies, as feveral of the bcfl interpreters agree, the Lord shall b£ seen ", But with

what

* Sec p. 204, i^ Jeq,

» *' Dominus <viJeb'ttur, (fays the le.irned Father Houbigant) *' 1°. Non iiiJetur, ne ab future verbi abcrremus- 2". Non « luideint, non raodo quia non addilur quid fit Deus vifurui, " fed ctiam quia in tota ilia vifione, hominis elt 'videre, " Domini, inderi\ propter qiiam caufam Deus locum i(tum *' mox nomine •vifionis jnfigniebat. Nimiruxn Deus Abrahamo i* jd pftendit, quod Abrahaft iti^t ii gavi/us efi." The near

relation

Sc6l:. 5- of Moses dcmonjlrafed, 231

what propriety could this name be given to it by Abraham if, in this tranfacflion, he had not feen the reprefentation of the Lord's paflion, which was to happen in a future age ? And if he did fee it, how appofite was the name ! The Hiftorian goes on — as it is /aid to this day^ In the mou7tt of the Lord it Jhall he feen •, or more exaflly to the Hebrew — for he faid^ In the mount the Lord SHALL BE SEEN. In the firll part of the verfe the facred Hiftorian tells us that Abraham called the mount, The Lord fhall he feen \ and in the latter " part he acquaints us with the manner how Abra- ham impofed that appellation, namely by the ufe of a proverbial fpeech implying the reafon of the name.' — To day in the mounts the Lord fhall he feen''. Proverbial fpeeches, before the general ufe

relation of thefe words of Jefus to thofe of Mofes, was too ilrongly marked to be overlooked by this very judicious Critic, the' he confidered the tranfaclion in no other light than as a Type Cft ti\e death and paflion of Jefus.

" Atq.ue hoc illud eft (fays Father Houbigant) quod rremoriae fempitefns Abraham confecrabat, cum ita fubjungeret ZW/> in monte, Dominus <videbilur ; illud hodie fic accipiens, ut accepit Paulus Ap. illud Davidis, hodie fi •vocem ejus audieritis; quod ho^ie tamdiu durat, quamdiu fscula ilia durabunt, de quibus Apoftolus donee hodie cognomivatur. Propterea Abraham ron dicit hodie Dominus 'videiur. Nam id fpedlaculum nunc folus videt Abraham, poftea omnes vifuri funt, et ad omnes perti- ncbit iftud, 'videiitur, generatim di£l«m, cum omnes Unige- iritum ill monie viderifit generis humani vidiniam fadam. Nee aliam fententiam feries verborum patitur. Ex qua ferie illi deviant qui hcec verba, dixit enim hodie in monte doininus — Mofi fic narranti attribuunt/ro//«rfa dicitur hodie in monte Domi- ni— q»afi renarret Moyfes ufurpatum fua setate proverbium. Nam fi fic erit non jam docebit Abraham, cui huic loco no- men fecerit Dominus videbitur; quam tamen nominum nota- tionem in facris paginis non omittunt ii quicumque nomina rebus imponunt. Quod contra plane docebit Abraham fi de eo JVIoyfes fic narrat, •voccmit nomen loci kujus, deus videbjtur ; Rojn dixit, in rnonie Deus *videhitur.

Q.4 of

232 'TJoe JDiiiine Legation Book VI.

of recording abftraft names and things by writing, being the beft and fafeft conveyance of the memory of events to Poflerity. Conformably to this inter- pretation of the i;ext, the Hiftorian on his enterance pn the tranfadion calls the land of Moriah to which Abraham went with Ifaac (according to Jerom's interpretation) the Land of vision, which (hews that the words of Jefus, Abraham saw my day and was GLAD, evidently allude to this extraordinary circumftance •, namely the difpofitiqn of Abraham's mind on the occafion, exprelfed in his memorial of a new name impofed on the fcene of a<lftion •, the ancient way of commemorating joyful and happy events. In a word, Jefus fays, Abraham faiv his day i and Abraham, by the name he impofed upon the mount, declares the fame thing. But as the VISION was of a public, not of a private nature, he exprefil^s himfelf in terms which fignify what man- kind in general y??<';//yt'6', not what he himfelf had Jeen — the Lord shall be seen. From a vague allufion therefore, of the words of Jefus, to this hiaory of the command in general, we have now fixed them to the very words of Mofes, to which they more particularly refer.

The fum then of the Argument is this — Jesus exprefsly fays that Abraham faiv and rejoiced to fee ^ yis day\ or the great Sacrifice for the fins of man- kind by reprcfentation — The records of facred Hil~ tory muft needs verify his affertion — But there is no place in Scripture which prefents the leaft traces of this Revelation, except the hiftory of thf Command to offer Ifaac. — This hiftory not only eafily and naturally admits of fuch a fenfe, but even demands it — And reciprocally, this fenfe gives all imaginable light to the Pliftory ; and removes the e;reateft difficulties attendino; the common in-

terprctation

Se6t. 5« of Moses demonfirated. 23^

terpretation of it. Hence, we conclude with cer- tainty, that the command to Abraham to off?r up his^ Jon was only an information in action, which, at Abraham's earneft requeil, God was graciouQy pleafed to give him, of x.h.Q great facrifice of Chrifi for the Redemption of mankind. The thing to be proved. Two great ends feem to be gained by this intrepretation : The one, to free the Com- mand from a fuppofed violation of natural Law ; The other, to fupport the connexion and depen- dency between the two Revelations ; for this in- terpretation makes the hiftory of the Command a DIRECT Prophefy of Chrift as Redeemer of the worlds whereas the common brings it, at moft» but to a TYPICAL istimation. Now the Defenders'^, of the common interpretation confefs, that " the f ' evidence of dire^ Prophefies is fuperiour to that ^« of Types:^'

The only plaufible Objeflion which can be made to my explanation, I conceive to be the follow- ing,— " That what is here fuppofed the principal " and proper reafon of th© Command, is not at *' all mentioned by the facred Hiftorian ; but ano- •' ther, of a different nature ; namely, the Trial " of Abraham's faith and obedience. — ^;?^ it " came to pafs after thefe things, God did tempt Ahra- ^' ham, and f aid, Take now thy f on, thine only fon Ifaac. " —And when the affair is over, the fame rea- " fon is again infinuated : — By myfelf have I ^* fworn, faith the Lord, for hecaiife thou hafi done *' this thing, and hafi not witheld thy fon, thine only " fon, that in hleffing Iwillblefs thee %" ^c,

I. To the firft part of the Objection I anfwer. That the knowledge of God's future Difpenfation J Dr. Slabbing. ^ q^^ ^^^^^ 16, 17.

in

234 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

in th€ redemption of mankind by the death of his Son, revealed, as a fingular grace, to the Father of the Faithful, was what could by no means be com- municated to the Hebrew People, when Mofes wrote this Hiflory for their ufe -, bccaufe they being then to continue long under a carnal CEconomy, this knowledge, of the end of the Law, would have greatly indifpofed them to a Difpenfation, with which (as a Schoolmajler, that was to bring them by degrees, thro' a harfti and rugged difci- pline, to the eafy yoke of Christ) God, in his infinite wifdom, thought fit to exercile them\ But he who does not fee, from the plain reafon of the thing, the neceffity of the Hiilorian's filence, is referred, for farther latisfaclion, to what hath been already, and will be hereafter faid, to evince the neceffity of fuch a condu<5l, in other momen- tous points relating to that future Difpenfation.

In the mean time, I give him St. Paul's word for this conduft of Mofes, who exprefsly tells us, that he obfcured fome parts of his hiftory, or put a veil over his face that the Ifraelites might not fee to the end of that Law ivhicb nras to be aholifhed. And what was that end^ if not the Redemption of man- kind by the death and facrifice of Chrift? — Mofes (fays he) pit a veil over his face^ that the Children of Jfrael could notjiedfafily look to the end of that which is abolifhed. But their minds were blinded : for until

' Would the Reader now believe it pofflble, when thele vvords lay before Dr. Stabbing, while he was anfwering my Book, that he fliould venture to aflc me, or be capable of afk- ing thcfe infulting queftions — M'^as there any giod ufe that Jlbraham could make of this kuoivledge nvhich the rrfi of the FiDpk of Cod might not ha've made of it as nvrll as He ? Or if tt nvas unft for emery ho^'y e//}, "j/.w /V net unfit for Abraham too f

this

Sed. 5* o/'MosES demonfirated, 235

this day remaincth the fame "jeil untaken away-^ in the reading of the Old Tefiament : which veil is done away in Christ ^

But it may be aflced, perhaps, *' If fuch Revela- tions could not be clearly recorded, why were they recorded at all?" For a very plain as well as weighty reafon -, that when the fulnefs of time Ihould come, they might rife up in Evidence againft Infidelity, for the real relation and dependency betvv^een the ;wo Difpenfations of Mojes and of Chrift " j when

from

^ z Cor, iii. i3r— 14. But all I can fay, or all an Apof- tle can fay, if I chance to fay it after him, will not fatisfy Dr. Stebbing. He yet flicks to his point " That if any in- '• formation of the death and facrifice of Chrifl had been in- ** tended, it is natural to think that the explanation " would have been Recorded with the tranfad^ion, as it is in all *' other SUCH like cases." Now if this orthodox Gentle- fnan will ihew me a fuch like cafe, i. e, a cafe where a Revela- tion of the Gofpel Difpenfation is made by an exprefTive adion, and the explanation is recorded along with it, I fhall be ready to confefs, he has made a pertinent objsidlion. In the mean time, I have fomething more to fay to him. He fuppofes, that this commanded Sacrifice of Ifaac was a Type of the Sacrifice cf Chrift. To this a Deift replies, in the Doctor's own words, " \i any type had been here intended it is natu- *' ral to think that the explanation would have been record- *' ed with the tranfa6tion," Now when the Doctor has fatisfied the objedlion, which he has lent the Deifts, againft a Type, I fuppofe it may ferve to fatisfy himfelf, when he urges it againft my idea of the Command, as an information by action. Again, our Anfwerer himfelf affirms that the dodlrine of Re- demption was delivered under Typet in the Law ; and that the doftiine thus delivered was defignedly fecreted and concealed from the ancient Jews. Now is it natural to think (to ufe his own words) that Mofes would openly and plainly record 3 Doi^rlne in one book which he had determined to fecvete in an- other, when both \yere for the ufe of the fame People and the fame Age i

^ " You muft give me leave to obferve (fays Dr. Stebbing) *' that the tranfaftion in queftion, will have the fame efficacy ' ■ ' - ■ , „ ^^

236 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

from this, and divers the like inftances it fhould appear, that the firfi Dirpenfation could be but very imperfeftly underftood without a reference ta the latter.

*' to fhevv the dependency heiiveen the tivo difpenfations, whe- *' tber Abraham had thereby any information ot the Sacrifice *' of Chrift or not." [ConfiJ. p. 156.] This, indeed, is faying fomething. And, could he prove what he fiys, it woold be depriving my interpretation of one of its principal adv^tages. Let us fte then how he goes about it, — " for this does not arife •* from Abraham's knowledge, or anybody's knowledge, *' at the time when the tranfadlion happened, but from the fimi- *' litiidc and correfpcndency between the event and the tranfac- " tion, by which it was prefigured ; which is exaiSlIy the fame •' upon either fuppofition." [Ibid. p. 1 56-7.3 To this I reply, I. That 1 never fuppofed that the dependency between the two Difpenfations did arije from Abraharns knoivledge, or any hody's knoiuledge^ at that, or at any other time ; but from God's jNTENTiON that this commanded aftion fliould import or re- prefent the Sacrifice of Chrift : And then indeed comes in the cuellion. Whether that Intention be beft difcovered from God's declaration of it to Abraham, or from zJimilituJe and correfpon- dencv between this commanded aftion and the Sacrifice of Chrift. Therefore, 2. I make bold to tell him, that a fimilitude and (orrcjpondcncy between the e<vent and the tranfaHion ivhich pre- figured it, IS NOT ENOUGH to fhew this dependency, to the fatisfaftion of Unbelievers j who fay, that a likenefs between two things of the fame nature y fuch as offering up two men to death, in different ways, and tranfadled in two diftant periods, is not fufiicient alone to Ihew that they had any rela- tion to one another. With the fame reafo.n, they will fay, we mif^ht pretend that Jeptha's daughter, or the king of Moab's fon v/ho.Ti the father facrificed on the wall, 2 Kings iii. 27. were the types of Chrift's facrific?. Give us, they exult, a proof from Scripture that God declared or revealed his intention of prefiguring the death of Jefus ; or feme better authority at leaft than a modern Typifier, who deals only in Jimilitudes and corre/po/idences, and has all the wildnefs, without the wit, of a Poet, and all the weaknefs, without the ingenuity, of an Ana- Ipgiil ! Now whether it be our Examiner, or the Author of the Di'v. Leg. who has given them this fatisfadlion : or whether they have any reafon to require it of ciihcr of us, is left JO the, impartial Reader to confidcr.

Bi]5

B6^. 5. ^ M o s E s denwijirafed, 237

But had not the facred Writer defignedly ob- fcuredthis illuftrious Revelation j by an omifiion of the attendant circumftances, yet the narrative of fuch a convtrfe by a5iion was not, in its nature, fo in- telligible or obvious, as that where God is fhevvri converfmg by aBion to the Prophets, in the feveral inftances formerly given "*. And the reafon is this. Thofe informations, as they are given to the Pro- phets for the inftru6lion of the People, have necef- larily, in the courfe of the hiilory, their explana- tions annexed. But the information to Abraham being folely for, his own private confolation (as Dr; Scott exprefles it above) there was no room for thac formal explanation, which made the commanded actions to the Prophets, fo clear and intelligible.-— Yet, as if I had never faid this, Dr. Stebbing tells the world, I make this adion of Abraham's parallel to thofe of the Prophets, whereas (fays he) it differs from them all in. a very material circmn- ftance^ as they had their feveral explanations annexed^f and this had 7iot. But to Ihew by example, as well as comparifon, that obfcurity is naturally attendant on the relation of converfe by a^ion^ where the in- formation is for the fake of the A6tor only, I (hail inftance in a cafe where no obfcurity was affedted by the Hiftorian. It is the relation of Jacob's wreftling with the Angel '^. The Patriarch, on his return from Haran to his native Country, hear- ing of his brother Efau's power, and dreading his refentment for the defrauded Birthright, addreffes himfelf for protedion in this dillrefs, to the God of his Fathers, with all humility and confidence. God l^ears his prayer ; and is pleafed to inform, him of the happy ifilie of the adventure, by 2<ftgnificativi ia^ion: The following night, he has a ftruggle with

*' See vol. ill. p. 109 to iij. ^ Guru xxxii.

an

23 5 ^f^s Divine Legation Book VL"

an Angel, with whom he is fufFered to make his part fogood, that from thence he colle6led God had granted his petition. This is the circumftancein Ja- cob's hiftory v/hich affords luch mirth to our ilhte- rate Libertines : For this infcrmation by Avlion con- cerning only the Adtor, who little needed to be told the meaning of a mode of Inftrudlion, at that time in vulgar ufe, hath now an oblcurity which the Scripture-relations of the fame mode of information to the Prophets are free from, by reafon of their beino; g-iven for the ufe of the Peo- pie, to whom they were explained. ^

But it may perhaps be aflvcd, '' Why, when the fulnefs of time "jjas come^ Scripture did not break its long filence, and inftrud us in the principal and proper reafon of the Command to offer Ifaac ?" I anlwer, that it has done fo. The words of Jefus are a convincing proof. Nay, I might go farther, and fay that this is not the only place where the true reafon of the Command is plainly hinted at. The Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews, fpeak- ing of this vtvy Command^ fays — By faith Abraham , when he was tried, offered up Ifaac — accounting that God was able to raife him up ei; en from the dead, from whence alfo he received him in a figure^ EN ITAPABOAHt, in a F arable: z mode of informa- tion either by words or anions, which confifts in putting one thing for another. Now, in a Writer who regarded this commanded aftion as a reprefen- tative information of the Redemption of mankind, nothing could be more fine or cafy than this ex- preffion. For though Abraham did not indeed re- ceive Ifaac reftored to life after a real diffolution, -y^i the Son being in this action to reprefent Christ

f Chap. xi. ver. 17 — ly.

fuffering

Sed. 5. of Moses deTnonjlrated. 2 j^

fuffering death for the fins of the world, when the Father brought him fafe from mount Moriah after three days, (during which the Son was in a ftate of condemnation to death) the Father plainly re- ceived him, under the charader of Chr i st's Repre- fentative, as reftorcd from the dead. For, as his being brought to the mount, there bound, and laid upon the Altar, figured the death and fuffer- ings of Christ, fo his being taken from thence alive, as properly figured Christ's Refurreflion from the dead. With the higheft propriety there- fore and elegance of fpeech, might Abraham be faid to receive Ifaac from the dead in a -parable^ or in reprefentation ^ Bu^the nature of the command

not

8 Let us fee now what Dr. Stabbing has to fay to this reafon- ing. — " By your leave, Sir," fays he, (which, by the way, he never afks, but to abufe me ; nor ever takes, but to mif- reprefent me) " if the Apoftie had meant by this expreffion, *' to fignify that Ifaac Hood as the Reprefentative of Chrift, " and that his being taken from the mount alive, was the *' figure of Chrift's Refurreflion; it should have been faid, *' that Abraham received Christ from the dead in a figure.'* Should it fo ? What ? where the difcourfe was not concerning Chriji, but Ifaac? Had, indeed, the facred Writer been fpeak- ing of Abraham's knoujledge of Chrift, fomething might have been faid; but he is fpeaking of a very different thing, his failh in Cod; and only intimates, by a ftrong expreffion, what he underftood that adion to be, which he gives, as an inftance of the moil illuftrious aft oi faith. I fay, had this been the cafe, fomeching might have been faid ; fomething, I mean, juft to keep him in countenance ; yet ftill, notliing to the purpofe, as I fhall now fhew. The tranfaftion of the Sacri- fice of Chrill related to God. The y%«r^ of that tranfaftion, in the command to offer Ifaac, related (according to my in- terpretation) to Abraham. Now, it wa; God who received Chrift ; as it was Abraham who received the type or figure of Chrift, in Ifaac. To cell us then, that (according to my inter- pretation) it SHOULD ha^e been faid, thn Abraham receivui Christ from the dead in a figure, is. in effeft, telling us that he knows no more of logical expreifion than of theological rea-

foniug.

240 The T>ivine Legation fiooic VI.

hot being underftood, thefe words of the epiftle have been hitherto interpreted, to fignify only that

Ifaac

fbning. It is true, could he fliew the expreflion improper, in the lerife which I give to the tranfaflion, he would then ipcak a little to the piupofe ; and this, to do him jiiflicc, is what he

tv'ould fain be at. " For. Chrift it was, accordinr; to your iit-

" terpretition, (fays he) that was received from the dead in *' a figure, by Ifaac his Reprefentative, who really cr>.me alive *• from the mount. If the reading had been, not U Tca^u^o^p, *' but EK OTa^apoXviy, it woiild have fuited yoiir notion ; for it *' might properly have been faiJ, that Ifaac came alive front *' the mount aj a figure, or that he viight he a figure, of the •" Refurreclionof Chrift." [Con fid. p. 147.] Miferable chicane 1 As, on the one hand, I might fay with propriety, that Christ luas recei'ved from the dead in a figure, i. e. BY a reprefentative : fo on the other, I might fay that Isaac ijuai received from the dead in a figure, i. e. as a reprefentative ? For Ifaac, fuf- taining the perfon of Chrift, who was raifed from the dead, Tnight in afigure^ J. e. as that perfon, be faid to be received : Yet this our Examiner denies, arid tells us, the Apoftle should ha've faid that Abraham received Christ, and not Isaac. — •' But (adds he) if the reading had been not ei- n«^aSoX? but ** £K ^a§»So^11l', it would have fuited your notion." And the tealbn he gives, is this : " For it might properly have been " faid that Ifaac came alive from the mount as a figure, or ** THAT HE MIGHT SE 3 figure of the refurrcftion of Chrift^'* Strange ! He fays, this would have fuited ?7iy notion ; and the reafon he gives, llievvs it fiiits only his o^un ; which is that the exaftnefs of the refemblance between the two aflidns, not the declaration of the Giver of the Command, made it a figure. This is the more extraordinary, as I myfelf have here fhewn that the old latin tranflator had turned the words into in para- fiOLAM inftead of in parabola for this very reafon, becaufe he underftood the command in the fenfe our Examiner contends for; viz. That Ifaac, by the refemblance of the ailiohs, might iE, or might become a figure.

Howevei", he owns at laft that " a reafon will ftill be want- ** jng, why, inftead of fpcaking the fadt as it really was, that *' Ifaac came alive from the mount ; tlie Apoftle chofs rathei' •' to fay (what was not really the cafe) that Abraham received *• \\\m frcni the deadJ^ [Confid. p. 1 47-8.] Well; and have not I given a reafon ? No matter fur that : Dr. Stebbing is turned Examiner^ and has cngroill'd the market. His reafon

follows

9

Se6t. 5« of Moses demonjlrated. 2^1

ifaac was a type of Chriji^ in the fame renfe that the old 'Tabernacle, in this epiftle ', is called a type —

follows thus, ** If Jfaac did not die (as it \s certain he did not) *' Abraham could not receive him from the dead. And yet ** the Apoftle fays, he received h.\m.from the dead. The clear- *' ing up this difficulty will ftiew the true fenfe of the pafTage." [Confid. p. 147-8.] What, will the clearing up a difficulty of his own making difccver the true fenfe of another man's writing ? This is one of his new improvements in Logic ; in which, as in Arithmetic, he has invented a rule offal/e, to difcover an unknown truth. For there is none of this difficulty in the facred Text ; it is not there (as in our Examiner) faid iimply, that Abraham recei-ved Ifaac from the dead, but that he recdaied him from the dead \^ a figure, or under the aflumed perfonage of Chriji. Now if Chrifi died, then he, who aflum- ed his perfonage, in order to reprefent his paffion and refurrec- tion, might fiirely be faid to be recei'ved fro7n the dead in a figure. A wonderful difficulty truly ! and we fhall fee, as wonderfully folved ; — by a conundrum ! But with propriety enough. For as z real difficulty requires fenfe and criticifm to refolve it, an imagi- nary one may be well enough managed by a quibble. Be-

cayfe the tranflators of St. Mark's Gofpel have rendered U •aoia. 'aet^uQoM by, ^wiih nukat comparifan Jhall ive compare it, therefore, h tBci^u^o>.y), in the text in queftion, fignifies com- paratively SPEAKING. But no words can fhew him like his own — — " The Apoftle does not fnyfimply and ai/olutsly, " that Abraham received Ifaac from the dead; but that he " received him from the dead, iv "cra^aSoAij, in a parableJ" See here now ! Did not I tell you fo i There was no difficulty all this while : The fentence only opened to the right and left to let in a bluftering objedlion, which is no fooner evaporated than it clofes again as before. // <was not fimply faid — No. " But " that he received him — h -araga^c^ri, in a parable, i. e. in a " compuriforty or by comparifon. Thu'^ the word is ufed, Mark " iv. 30. Whereunto floall ijoe ltke,i the kingdom of God, or iviih *' ifjhat COMPARISON [li/ "CToia rpuoc/QaT^i^ fimll ive compare it. *' The meaning then may be, that Abraham's receiving Ifaac •* alive (after his death was denounced) by the revocation of *' the command; was as if he had received him from the dead. " Thus feveral Interpreters underftand the place. Or it may^ '* be, as others will have it, that the Apoltle here refers to *' the birth of Ifaac; which was [Iv Ttu^xQoh}^ co-mparative-

* Chap. ix. ver. 9. Vol. V. R " tv

2^2 ^^^ Divine Legation BooK. VF»

♦iTK IIAPABOAH, that is, a thing defigned by the Holy Spirit to have both a prefent fignificancy and a future. Which amounts but juft to this. That

" tr SPEAKING, a receiving him from the dead; his father *' being old, and his mother pall ihe age of child-bearing, " on which account the Apoftle ftj^les them both i/eaJ. Which. •* interpretation, I the rather approve, becaufe it fuggefts the " proper grounds of Abraham*s faith." [Confid. p. 148-9.]

He fayj, i> ■wajasCoX*}, fignifies, in or by eompari/on ; and that the word is fo ufed in St. Mark ; to prove which, he quotes the F.nglifti tranflation. Now I muft take the liberty to tell him, that the tranflators were niiftaken ; and he with them. Hx^xZcM, in St. Mark, is not ufed in the fenfe of a Jimilitud$ or comparifon, but of a parable. The ancients had two ways of illuftrating the things they inforced ; the one was by a parable, the other by a fimple c«mpari/on or Jimile : how the latter of thefe arofe out of the former I have fhewn in the third Volume. Here, both thefe modes of illuftration are referred to ; which Ihould have been tranflated thus, To luhat /hall <u:£ COMPARE the kingdom of Go J, or ixiith nuhat PA- R A B L E fiall toe illujlrate or parabolize it. — o/aowo-w/xev — tcx^x'^a'hufjivj — which words cxprefs two different and well known modes of illuftration..

But now fuppofe, l» «ro»a -arajafoX^, had fignified ixjtth luhat comparifon : How comes it to pafs that h TragafoX^ ftiould fjg- rify by comparifon^ or as it <vuere, or comparatively speak.- iNG .' in plain truth, his critical analogy has ended in a plea- fant blunder. How fo ? you will aflc. Nay, 'tis true there's no denying, but i\\zx fpeaking by comparifon is comparati'vely fpeak- i7!g ; and, if men will put another fenfe upon it, who can help- that ? they fay, comparatively fpeaking, fignifies the fpeaking Joofcly, inaccurately, and incorredly. But was it for our Doc- tor to put his reader in mind of fuch kind of fpeakers ? But the charge of a blunder, an innocent miftiap, I am ready to retraft ; for I obferve him to go into it with much artful preparation;' a circumftance which by no means marks that genuine turn of mind, which is quick and fudden, and over head and ears, in an inftant : He begins with explaining, — in a comparifon, by— 6y comparifon : where you jult get the firft glimpfe, as it were, of an enafcent equivocation ; and his, by comparifon is prefent- ly, afterwards, turned into, as it nuere, or as if he had; and then, comparatively fpeaking, brings up the rear, and clofes the criticifm three deep.

Abraham.

Seft. 5* of yiosE^ demonjlrated, 243

Abraham receiving Ifaac fafe from mount Moriah, in the manner related by Scripture, he thereby be- came a Type. An ancient Interpretation, as ap- pears from the reading of the vulgar Latin— C/W^ eum (ffiNPARABOLAM accepit, iov in parabola, as it ought to have been tranflated conformably to the Greek. However I defire it may be obferved, in corroboration of my fenfe of the Command, that the refemblance to Chrift's facrifice in all the cir- cumftances of the ftory was fo ftrong that Interpre- ters could never overlook the refemblance, in their comments on the pafTage.

2. To the fecond part of • the Objedtion, I an- fwer thus : It is the office of Hiftory to affign the Caufes of the fadls related. In thofe fads there- fore, which have feveral Caufes, of which the prin- cipal cannot be conveniently told, the inferior come in properly to take its place. Thus, in the cafe before us •, though it be made, I prefume, very evi- dent that the principal defign of the Command was to reveal to Abraham, by a£iion inftead of words, the Redemption of mankind ; yet as this was a favour of a very high nature, and conferred on Abraham at his earneft requeft, it was but fit he Ihould approve himfelf worthy of it by fome pro- portionable Trial -, agreeably to what we find in Scripture to be God's way of dealing with his fa- voured Servants. On this account, therefore, God was pleafed, by the very manner in which this Myflery was revealed, to tempt or try Abraham. Where the making tht favour itfelf the trial of his deferving it, hath all that fuperior elegance and beauty which is to be conceived in the Difpenfations of divine Wifdom only. Now, as the principai reafon of the Command could hot be conveniently told by the Hillorian, this inferior one of the Trial R 2 is

•-»

'^44 ^^'^ Divine Legation Book VI.

is affigned w'^th great truth and propriety — And it came to pafs after thefe -things God did tempt Abra- ham,'mid /aid, 'Tah now. thy fon, i:'fc. And it is to be obferved, that the very manner of recording this reafon fliews it to be indeed what wefuppofc it; an inferior one. For it is not faid that God gave this Command in order to try Abraham, which exprefles a principal reafon \ but that, in giving the Command, God did try him, which at moft only irnplies an hiferior one. We have laid, that a Trial, when approved, implied a following reward. Now as there may be more reafons than one for giving a Command, fo there may be more rewards than one attendant on a 'Trial. Thus it was in the cafe before us. And it is remarkable that the facred Hiftorian has oblerved the fame rule with regard to the reward of the Trial as to the reafon of the Command. The principal and pe- culiar reward of Abraham's Trial here was the re- velation of the myftery of Redemption : this the Hiftorian couid not mention, for the reafons given above : but befides this, God rewarded him with a repetition of all the former Promifes. This tne Hiftorian could, and, in purfuance of the rules of Hiftory, does mention : — By myfelf have Ifivorn, faith the Lord, for becaufe thou haft done this thing, and haft not ivithheld thyfon, thine only f on, that in tkffing I -Luil/ bkfs thee, and in multiplying, I will mul- tiply thy feed as the flars of Heaven, and as the fand ivhich is upon the fea fijore ; and thy feed fhall poffefs the gate of his ene?nies ; and in thy feedjhall all the nations of the earth be bleffcd^ becatife thou hafi obeyed my voice ^.

On the whole. This Objeflion to the interpre- tation, the only one I can think of, is fo far from

•^ Chap, x.\ii. vcr. i6, U ftq,

6 obfcuring.

Se<9:. 5. of Moses demonjirated. 245

obfcuring, and weakening, that it adds great light and ftrength unto it. For admitting the Tenfe here propofed, to be indeed the true, w« fee the Story itiuft of neceflity have been told in the very man- ner we find it to be recorded =.

Before

* Dr. Stebbing goes on as ufual — — " In ftiort, Sir, I do *' not underftand this Doctrine (with which your whole work " much abounds) of revealing things clearly to Patiiarchs, *' and Prophets, and Leaders, as a fpecial favour to thera- " felves ; but to be kept as a fecret from the reft of Man-

** kind." It is but too plain he does not underjland it :

for which I can give no better reafon than that it is the scripture- dodtrine and not the dodrine of Summs and Syfteni5. " £ *' have been ufed (fays he) to confider perfons under this *' charafter, as appointed, not for themfelves, but for others ; *' and therefore to conclude that whatever was clearly re- *' vealed to them, concerning God's Difpenfations, was fo re- *' vealed in order to be communicated to others *." This is the old fophifm ; '* That, becaufe Perfons aft and are em- ployed for others; therefore, they do nothing, and have no- thing done for themfelves." When God faid, Shall I hide from /^brahatn that thing ivhich I do ? was not this faid to, and for himfelf .?' — But he has another to match it^ " That whatever was clearly jeveakd to the Prophets, was fo revealed, in order to be communicated to others." Here then, a little Scripture-doc- trine will do him no harm. Did Mofes communicate all he knew to the Jews, concerning the Chrijlian Di/fenfatian ; which. the Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews tells us was clearly re- vealed to him in the mount ? — Priejis (fays he) that offer gifts according to the Laiv, luho fer've unto the example and Jhado-iu of heavenly things, as Mofes icas admonif>ed of God 'when he ixas about to make the "1 abernacle -f". Again, We find that Ezekiel, on hi;; being called out, upon his milfion, faw, (what the author of Ec- clefxafticus calk) the glorious --vifon ; and had (as appears from the allegory of the roll of a book) a full interpretation thereof. Yet jiotwithftanding all his iMumination, he was diredled by God to fpeaJc fo obfctiiely to the People, that he found caufe to com- plain,— Ah Lord, they fay of me ! Doth he 7iot f^eak parables %? And now let him alk the Prophets in the fame magillcrial language he is accuftomed to examine me. Was there ony good ufe you could make ofyoKr km<vjUdge, that the Pecple of God anight

* Ccnfid. p. 155-6. f Heb. viii 4-5, J Ezek. xx. 49.

R 3 HOi

246 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

Before I conclude this part of the Difcourfe, I ihaU but juft take potice how flrongly this inter- pretation

not have made of it as nvell as you ? — But thjs very DiH" penfation is alluded to, and continued, under the kingdom of Chrill. And his Di/ciples ajked him faying. What might this parable be ? And he faid, JJnto you it ts giien to inoiv the my/ieriei of the kingdom of God : But to other Sy in parables ; that feeing they night not fie, and hearing they might not under Ji and*. Again, St. John in his vifions tells us, — Andnxihen the feven thundirs had uttered their foices, I ivas about to ivrite. And I heard a -voite from Heaver, faying unto me, seal up thofe thingt nxihich the fen: en thunaers uttered, and write them not. Rev, X. 4. And now, reader, I fhall try his gratitude ? — ** Jf you cai^ " ftiew, (fays he) that I am miftaken in this, pray do it, and *' I fhall be obliged to you f." You fee, I have taken him at his word. And it 'twas well I did ; for it was no fooner out of his mouth, than, as if he had repented, not of his candour,

but Jiis confidence, he immediately cries, Hold and tells

me " I might have fpafed myfelf in afking another queflioni *' fVhy, if Revelations cannot he clearly recorded^ are they re- *' corded at all X F" But, great Defender of the Faith ! — of the ancient Jewifh Church, I mean, I afked that queftion, becaufe the anfwer to it (hews how much you are miftaken ; as the intel- ligent Reader, by this time, eafily perceives. But why does he fay I might h^vt ffiared that quejlion? — Becaufe" if a Re- ** velation is not clearly given, it cannot be clearly recorded ^.'* pid I fay it could ? Or will he fay, that there are no reafbns why a Revelation, that is clearly given, (hould be obfcurely recorded ? To what purpofe then, was the obfervation made i Made ? why to introduce another : for, with our equivocal Examiner, the corruption of argument is the generation of cavil. — '* And yet (fays he) as you intimate, there may *' be reafons why an obscure Revelation fhould be record- " ed, to wit, for the inftruftion of future ages, when the ob- ** fcurity being cleared up by the event, it fhall appear, tha^ *' it was forefeen and fore-ordained in the knowledge and ap- ^* poiniment of God ||." If thou wilt believe me. Reader, 1 never intimated zny thing fp abfurd,

What I intimated was not ccncernilig an ohfcure Revelation, but a Revelation obfcurely recorded. Thefe ar? very different

* Luke viii. 9-10, -f- Confid. p. 156, \ Ibid,

p. 156. \ Confid. p, 156. II Ibid.

things.

Scd:. $. of Moses demonfiraud. 247

pretation of the Command concludes againft the SociNiANS, for the realT^fn)?^-^ of Christ, and the, proper Redemption of mankind. For if the Com- mand was an information by cMion inflead of wcrdsy the proof conveyed in it is decifive ; there being here no room for their evafion of its being zfgu- rative expreffion^ fmce the figurative a£iiott, the original of fuch expreflion, denotes either a real facrificCy or nothing at all.

IL

I come now to the other part of this Difcourfe, viz. to fhew, that the interpretation here given in- tirely diflipates all thofe bluftering objedions which Infidelity hath raifed up againft the hiftoric truth of the relation.

They fay, ** God could not giv€ fuch a Com- tnand to Abraham, becaufe it would throw him into inextricable doubts concerning the Author of

tilings, as appears from hence, that the latter may be a clear Rfvelation\ the word being relative to him to whom the Revelation was made. But this is a peccadillo only. How- ever, he approves the reafon of recordings for that, thereby, «* it Ihall appear, that it was forefeen and foreordained by «* God." It, — What ? The oh/cure Re'velation, according to .grammatical conftrudlion : but, in his Englifh, I fuppofe, it Hands for th& fail re'vsalecL Well then; from the recording of an objure revelation, he fays it will appear, when the fore- told fail happens, that it was forefeen and preordained by God. This too he tells the rtz^tr I intimated -, but fure, the Reader can never think me fo filly : For every fad, whether pre- figured and foretold, or not prefigured and foretold, muft needs have been forefeen and pre-ordained by God. Now, whether we are to afcribe this to exaftnefs, or to inaccuracy, of expref- iion, is hard to fay. For I find him a great mafter in that fpecies of compofition which a celebrated French Writer, in his encomium on the Revelations calls, en darte mire. However, think what we will of his head, his heart lies too open to be misjudged of.

R 4 it.

248 'T^he Divifie Legation Book VI,

it, as Whether it proceeded from a good or an evil Being. Or if not fo, but that he might be fatisfied it came from God, it would then miflead him in his notions of the divine Attributes, and of the fundamental principles of Morality. Becaufe, though the revocation of the Command prevented the homicide, yet the fpecies of the adion com- manded not being condemned when it was re- voked, Abraham and his Family mud needs have thought Human Sacrifices grateful to the Al- mighty: for a fimple revoking was not condemn- ing j but would be more naturally thought a pecu- liar indulgence for a ready obedience. Thus, the pagan fable of Diana's fubftituting a Hind in the place of Iphigenia did not make Idolaters be- lieve that Ihe therefore abhorred Human Sacrifices, they having before been perfuaded of the contrary, from the Command of that Jdol to offer up the daughter of Agamemnon." — This is the fubftance, only fet in a clearer light, of all their dull cloudy differt^tions on the cafe of Abraham '',

I, Let

■• This infidel objefti'on, the Reader fees, coiififts of two parts : the one, that Abraham muft needs doubt of the Author of the Command : the other, that he would be mifled, by con- ceiving amifo of his Attributes, to believe human facrifices were grateful to him. Dr. Stebbing, who will leave nothing «na»- fivered, wjll needs anfwer this, [Confid. p. 158-60.] To the firft part he replies, partly by the aflillance I myfclf had given him, (where I took notice of what might be urged by Be- lievers, 2s of greaf iveight and n)alidity) and partly from what he bad picked up elfewhere. But here I Ihall avoid imitating; his example, who in fpite to the Author of arguments profef- fedly brought in fupport of Religion, ftrives, with all his might, to fh^w their invalidity ; an employment, one wopld think, little becoming a Chriflian Divine. If the common ar- guments againft the objedtion, here urged by him with great pomp, have any weak parts, I fhall leave thenl to Unbelievers to find out — 1 have the more reafon likewifc to truft them to theif own 'iveight, t»oth becaufe they are none of his, and be-

ca\if^

Scft. 5. o/' M o s E s demonjlrated. 249

I. Let us fee then how this cafe ftood : God had been pleafed to reveal to him his etexftal pur-

pofe

caufe I have acknowledged their validity. For which acknow- ledgment, all I get is this — Whether you had o<wned this or not (fays ^^e) 1 jhould have taken upon my/elf the proof. Whereas* all that he has taken is the property of other Writers : made his own, indeed, by a weak and an imperfeft reprefentation. — But his anfwer to the fecond part of the infidel objeflion mull not be paffed over fo flightly. " As to the latter part of the objeftioa " (fays he) that from this command, Abraham and his family ** tnujl needs have thought human facrifices acceptable to Gad j the *' revoking the command at laft, was a fufficient guard againft " any fuch conftruftion. To this you make the Unbeliever an- ** fwer ; No; bee at fe the action having been commanded ought t9 *' have been condemned ; and a Jimple revocation ivas no condem- ** nation. But why was not the revocation of the Command, ** in this cafe, a condemnation of the adion? If I fliould ** tempt you to go and kill your next neighbour, and after- *• wards come and defire you not to do it ; would not this ** after-declaration, be as good an evidence of my diilike to ** the a<^ion, as the firft was of my approbation of it ? Yes, ** and a much better, as it may be prefumed to have been the '* refult of maturer deliberation. Now though deliberation, . ** and after-thought are not incident to God ; yet as God in ** this cafe condefcended (as you fay, and very truly) to aft ** after the manner of men ; the fame conftruftion fliould be *' put upon his adlions, as are ufually put upon the a£lions of *' men in like cafes." {Confid. p. i6o-i.] Now, tho\ as was faid above, I would pay all decent regard becoming a friend of Revelation, to the common arguments of others, in its defence, yet I mufl not betray my own. I confefled they had great vjeight and validity ; yet, at the lame time, I an"ert- ed, they were attended with infuperahle difficulties. And while I fo think, I muft beg lesve to inforce my reafons for this opinion. And, I hope without offence; as the arguments, I am now about to examine, are purely this Writer's own. And the Reader, by this time, has feen too much of him to be ap- prehenfive, that the leflening his Authority will be attended with any great diflervice to Religion.

I had obferved, that the reafonings of Unbelievers on this •afe, as it is commonly explained, were not devoid of all plaufi- bility, when they proceeded thus, — " That as Abral»m lived anjonglt Heathens, whofe highell aft of divine worlhip was

human

2^6 7%e Divine Legation Book VI.

pofe of making all mankind blefled thro' him ? and likewife to confirm this proniife, in a regular

courfe

huTtmn facrifxe\ if God had commanded that Aft, and, on the point of performance, only remitted it as a favour, (and fo it is reprefented;) without declaring the iniquity of the praftice, when addrefled to Jdols ; or his abhorrence of it, when direfled to himfelf ; the Family muft have been mifled in their ideas concerning the moral reftitude of that fpecies of religious worfhip : Therefore, God, in thefe circumftances, had he commanded the aflion as a trial only ^ would have ex- plicitly condemned that mode of wor/hip, as immoral. But he is not reprefented as condemning, but as remitting it for a favour: Confequently, fay the Unbelievers, God did not com- mand the aftion at all." — To this our Examiner replies, — But nuhy ? Was not the revocation of the command a condemna- tion of the aSlion ? If I Jhould tempt you to go and kill your next neighbour y and aftertuards tome and desire you not to do it^ 'would not this after-declaration be as good an evidence of my difike to the aSiion^ as the frf tuas of my approbation of it ? To this I reply ; That the cafes are, by no means, parallel ; either in themfelves, or in their circumftances : Not, in them- felves ; the murder of our next neighbour was, amongft all the Gentiles of that time, efteemed a high immorality ; while, on the contrary, human facrifice was a very holy and acceptable part of divine Worfhip : Not in their circumftances : the deftre to forbear the murder tempted to, is (in the cafe he puts) re- prefented as repentance ; whereas the ftop put to the facrifice of Ifaac, (in the cafe Mofes puts) is reprefented z% favour.

But what follows, I could wifti (for the honour of modem Theology) that the method I have obferved, would permit me to pafs over in filence. — Noiv tho^ deliberation and after-thought (fays he) an not incident to God, yet, as God, in this cafe, con- defcended (as you fay, and very truly) to aSl after the manner of men ; the fame conftruSiion Jhould be put upon his aSions, as is ufu- 4illy put upon the ailions of men in like cafes, [Confid. p. 1 5 5-6. J That is, tho' deliberation and after-thought are not incident to 'God ; yet you are to underftand his anions, as if they were incident. A horrid interpretation ! And yet his reprefenta- tion of the Command, and his decent illuftration of it, by 3 murderer in intention, will not fufFer us to underftand it in any other manner: For God, as if in hafte, and before due deli- beration, is reprefented as commanding an immoral adlion ; yet again, as it were by an after-thought, ordering it to be

foreborn,

Sed. 5. of M OSES demonjlrated, 2.51

courfe of fucceffivc Revelations, each fuller and more explicit than the other. By this time we

cannoc

foreborn, by reafon of its immorality. And in what is all this impious jargon founded ? If you will believe him, in the principle I lay down, That God condefcendi to a£i after the manner cf men. I have all along had occafion to complain of his mifreprefenting my Principles; but then they were Prin- ciples he dilliked : and this, the modern management of con- troverfy has fanftified. But here, tho' the Principle be ap- proved, yet he cannot for his life, forbear to mifreprefent it: So bad a thing is an evil habit. Let me tell him then, |hat by the principle of God^s condefcending to ail after the manner of men, is not meant, that he ever ads in compliance %o thofe vices and fuperrtitions, which arife from the depra- vity of human Will : but in conformity only to men's indif- ferent manners and cuftoms ; and to thofe Ufages which re- fult only from the finite imperfeftions of their nature. Thus tho', as in the cafe befoie us, God was pleafed, in conformity to their mode of information, to ufe their cuftom of revoking ^ Command ; yet he never condefcended to imitate (as our Examiner fuppofes) the irrefolution, the repentance, and hor- rors of confcience of a murderer in intention. Which (horrf* ble to think !) is the parallel this orthodox Divine brings to illuftrate the Command to Abraham. But he had read that Go4 is fometimes faid to repent ; and he thought, I fuppofe, it an- fwered to that repentance which the flings of confcience fome- times produce in bad men. Whereas it is faid, in conformity to a good magiftrate's or parent's correption of vice ; firft tof threaten punifhment \ and then, on the offender's amendment, (0 remit it.

But he goes on without any figns of remorfe. — " Kor *' nuill the Pagan fable of Diana s fubjiituting a Hind in the ** place of Iphigenia at all help your Unbeliever. This did ** not, fay they, or you for them, fnake idolaters be- *• lieve that Jhe therefore abhorred huTr.an facrifces. But do ^* not they themfelves, or have not you afligned a very pro- " per and fufficient reafon why it did not, viz. that they had ^' been before perfuaded of the contrary ? Where human facri- ** fices make a part of the fettled ftanding Religion ; the re- " fufal to accept a human facrifice in one inllance may, indeed, " be rather looked upon as a particular indulgence, than as '* a declaration againft the thing in grofs. But where the ^' ;bing was coiDm^ndCd but in one fmgle inflance, and the

*• command

252 1})e Divine Legation Book VI.

cannot but fuppofe the Father t^ the Faithful, muft, from the nature of the thing, be become

very

** command revoked in that very inftance {which is our pre- " fent cafe) fuch revocation, in all reafonable conllrudtion, is as " eiF*£liial a condemnation of the thing, as if God had told *' Abraham, in fo many words^ that he delighted not in hu- *' man facrifices." [Confid. p. 161.] To come to our Exa- miner's half buried fenfe, we are often obliged to remove, or what is ilill a more difagrecable labour, to fift well, the rubbifh of his words. He fays, the revocation was an cff'e£Iual coi- Jemnation, This may either fignify. That men, now free from the prejudices of Pagan fuperltition may fee that human facri- fices were condemned by the revocation of the Command : or. That Abraham's family could fee this. In the firft fenfe, I have nothing to do with his propofition ; and in the fecond, I fhall take the liberty to fay it is not true. I deny that the re^vocation was an effeilual condemnation. With how good reafon let tlie Reader now judge.

Abraham, for the great ends of God's Providence, was called out of an idolatrous city, infefled, as all fuch cities then were, with this horrid fuperftition. He was himfelf an Idolater, as ap- pears from the words of Jofhua. — i'our Fathers dix:elt en the ether fuie of the food in old time, e-ven Terah the father of Abra^ bajn, and the father cf Ncchor : and rnzY fer^jed other Gods, And I took your father Abraham*., C5V. God, in the aft of calling him, inftruded him in the Unity of his Nature, and thg error of Polytheifm ; as the great principle, for the fake of which (and to prefervc it in one Family amidfl an univerfal overflow of idolatry) he was called out. — That he mult be prejudiced in favour of his Country fuperftitions, is not to be doubted ; bccaufe it is of human nature to be fo : and yet we find no particular inftrutlion given him, concern- ing tJie fuperflition in queftion. The noble Author of the CharaSleriJlics obferves, that " it appears that he was under " no extreme furprife on this trying Revelation ; nor did he " thii'k of expoftulating in the leait on this occafion ; when " at another time he could be io importunate for the pardon of " an inhofpitable, murderous, impious, and inccltuous city :" Infinuating, that this kind of facrjfice was a thing he had i)ecn accultcmed to. Now the noble Author obferves thi?, ' upon the Examiner's, that is, the common, interpretation.

Josh, xjciv. 2, 3.

And

Sed. 5. of Moses demonjirafeds 25;^

very defirous of k-now^ng the manner how this BlefTing was to be brought about : A Myftery, if we will believe the Author of our Faith, that en- gaged the attention of other holy men, lefs imme- diately concerned than Abraham, and confequent- iy, lefs Simulated and excited by their curiofity:— And Jesus turned to his Difciples, and /aid pri- vately, Blejfed are the eyes which fee the things which ye fee. For I tell you that many Prophets and Kings have DESiREi> to fee thcfe tJrv^s which ye fee^ and have not feen them, and to hear thofe things which ye hear J and have not heard them''. But we are

And I believe, on that footing, he, or a better writer, would find it difficalt to take out the mnlicious (ling of the obferva- ■ tion. But I have Ihewn that it falls together with the commoa interpretation.

Well ; Abraham is now in the land of Canaan^ and again furrounded with the fame idolatrous and inhuman Sacriiicers. Here he receives the Commund : And, on the point of execu- tion, has the performance remitted to him as a favour. A circumilance, in the revocation of the Command, which I mufl: beg the Examiner's leave to remind him of; eipecially when I fee him, at every turn, much difpofed (o forget it ; that is, to pafs it over in filence, without either owning or denying. And indeed, the little fupport his reafoning has on any occallon, is only by keeping Truth out of fight. But further, the favour was unaccoT) pained with any inflruiSion concerning the moral nature of this kind of Sacrifice; a pra^lice never pofuively forbidden but by the Law of Mofes. Now, in this cafe, f would a(k any candid Reader, the leaft acquainted with humaa nature, whether Abraham and his Family, prejudiced as they were in favour of Human Sacrifices, (the one, by his educa- tion in his country- Religion ; the other, by their commu- nication with their Pagan-neighbours, and, as appears by Scrip- ture, but too apt of themfelves, to fall into idolatry) would not be eafily tempted to think as -favourably of Human Sacrifices as tbofe Pagans wert, who underftood that Diana required Iphigcnia, tho' fhe accepted a Hind, in her ftead. And with fuch Readers, I finally leave lU

* Luke x. 23, 24.

aflured.

2^ '^he 'Divine Legation Book VI*

afTured, by the fame authority, that Abraham had, \n fad, this very dejire highly raifed in him : Abra- JtOfU rejoiced io fee my day (fays Jesus) and he faw it, and was glad', or rather. He rejoiced that he MIGHT SEE, INA IAHjj which implies, that the ^period of his joy was in the fpace between the . prorpife made, and the adlual performance of it by .\the delivery of the Command i confequently, that it was granted at his earneft requefl \ In the fecond place, we fliall (hew from the fame words, that Abraham, at the time when the Command .was given, knew it be that Revelation he had foearneftly requefted. This is of the higheft im- portance for the underftanding the true nature of -the Command. — Tour Father Abraham rejoiced to fee my Day, and he faw it, and was glad. 'A^^aa/* 0 TS'oilnfi u[j.uv t^ycKXhixa-cclo INA I^Hi rriv viJ-i^av Ttjv £/xiii/* xj ii^i, x^ s%af »)• We have obferved that 'Ivx %, in flri6t propriety, fignifies /i?^/ ^^ might fee. The Englifh phrafe,- -/<? fee, is equivocal and am- bicruous, and means either the prefent time, that he then did fee-, or the future, that he was promifed he fhould fee : but the original 7vx Uri has only the latter fenfe. So that the text plainly diftinguifhes two different periods of Joy -, the firft, when it was premifed he fhould fee ; the fecond, ^^htn he ac- tually faw : And it is to be obferved ^ that, accord- ing

f Thus all the Eajlern Verfions nnderftand it : Syr. Cupidiis foil videndi. — Pirf. Cupidus erat ut videret, — /hah. Exopta- vjt videre. — .€thiop. Dcfideravic, gavifus eft ut videret.

5 " Where are your Authorities for all this ? (fays Dr. '• Stebbin?) you produce none. Wherever you had your " Greek,! am very fure you had it not from the Nevj Tefia^ '• ment, where thefe words are ufcd indifcriminately." [Confid. p. 14Z-3.J li'here are y<ur /Juthoril-.es ? you produce none. This IS to infinuatc, 1 hai none to jMOvluce. He dares not,

indeed,

J9e<5t. 5« g/' Moses demonjlrated. 25-^

ing to the exadt ufe of the word, in aya^jf.Mtofjkctt is implied the tumultuous pleafure which the cer- tain

indeed, fay fo; and in this I commend his prudence. How- ever, thus far he is pofitive, that ivhere'wr 1 had my Greek, I had it not from the Nezv Tejiament. The Gentleman is hard to pleafe : Here he is offended that I had it not ; and, before, that 1 had it from the New Teftament, Here I impofe upon him ; there I triiled with him. But, in all this diverfity of ac- ceptance, 'tis ftill the fame fpirit : The fpirit of Anfvoering.

I had faid, the two Greek words, in their exaSi ufe, lignify fo and fo. Which furely implied an acknowledgment, that this exadlnefs was not always obferved ; efpecially by the Writers of the New Teftament ; who, whatever fome may have dream'd, did not pique themfelves upon what we call, claffical elegance. Now, this implication, our Examiner fairly confirms, tho' by way of confutation. In the Ne-iv Teftament (fays he) thefe \uords are ufed indifcriminately. I had plainly infinuated as "much ; and he had better have let it reft on my acknowledg- ment ; for the inftances he brings, to prove the words ufed in- difcriminately in the New Teftament, are full enough to per- itiade the Reader that they are not fo ufed. His fitft inftance is, I Pet. iv. 13. " Rejoice [x^'^'^O inafmuch as ye are ■partakers *' of Chrifi^s fufferings ', that ivhen his glory Jhall he revealed ** Xyot-^i ayobKhMa^AAvoC^ ye may be glad ixjith exceeding joy. See " you njot here (fays he) the direft reverfe of what you fay r '* that %«i^ft; fignifies the joy which arifes upon profpeft, *• and dyx>,?.ixoiJ.cci that which arifes from pofTeffion," [Conlid, p. 143.] No indeed; I fee nothing like it. The followers of Chrift are bid to rejoice, ^xi^Hu For what ? For being partakers of ChrijTs fufferings. And was not this a blefling in pofTeflion ? But it feems our Dodlor has but fmall conception how fuffering for a good confcience can be a bleffing. Yet at other times he muft have thought highly of it, when, in excefs

■ ©f charity, he befpoke the Magiftrate's application of it on his Neighbours, under the name of wholesom severities. He

■ is juft as wide of truth when he tells us, that <xy*x>»<«oft«* fignifies the joy ivhich arifes on poffejjion. They are bid to rejoice

now in fufferings, that they might be glad 'with exceeding joy at Chrift's fecond coming. And is this the being glad for 2 good in pofleiTion ? Is it not for a good in profpedl ? The re- ward they were then going to receive. For I fuppofe the ap- ' pearance of Chrift's glory will precede the reward of his fol- lowers. So that the Reader now lee;;- he has himfelf fairly

proved

256 ^he Divine Legation \ Book VI.

tain expefbation of an approaching blefling, ^vin- -derftood only in the grols, occafions ; and, .ifi

proved for me, the truth of my obfervation, T/yat in the exaSi ufe of the njjords, «7aXXiao/x»» fignifics thit tvmultuous pUafurt ^tuhich the certain erpeHalion of an approaching lUffing occajioni ; and yjx\^u thi't calm and fettled Joy that arifes from our kno'wiedge, in the foffefjion of it.

He goes on. " Rev. xix. 7. Let us he glad and rejoice *• [%a'5^'fA£' "tj oi.yx».\ui\».i^-x\ — for the marriage of the Lamb is *' come. Where both words (fays he) refer to bleffings in *' pofleffion. Again, Matt. V. 12. Rejoice and be exceeding giad *' [%«tf£T£ K^ ayaX^iac-S;] for great fs )0ur renuard in Heaven ; *' where both refer to bleffings in profpefl." [Confid, p. 143-4.] His old fortune ftill purfues him. The finl text from the Rev. Be glad and rejoice for the marriaoe of the Lar.b is cone ; bids the followers of Chrifl now do that, which they were bid to prepare for, in the words of St. Peter, that, nuhen hit glory fhall be rei'ea'ed, ye may he glad luith exceeding joy, I^ there- fore, where they are bid to prepare for their rejoicing, the joy is for a good in profpedl (as we have (hewn it was) then, cer- tainly, where they are told that this time of rejoicing is come, the joy muil ilill be for a good in profped. And yet he fays, the lucrds refer to bleffings in pfpjjion. Again, the text from St. Matt. — Rejoice and be exceeding gfad, f OR great is your rC' nvard in heaven, has the feme relation to the former part of St. Peter's words, [^Rejoice inafmuch as ye are partakers of Chrijl's fiifferings'] as the text in the Revel, has to the latter. £lefjed are ye (fays Jefus in this gofpel) ivhen mm fhall revile you. and perfectite you, and Jhall fay all manner of e'vil againj} you falfly for my fake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, FOR great is your renji'ard in heaven. Rejoice ! for what ? Is it not for the per- fecution* they fuffer for his fake ? A frefnt bleff.ng fure ; the' not perhaps to our Author's tarte. The reafon why they fhould rejoice, follows, for great is your re^Lard in heaven. And yet here, he fays, the words refer to blejjings in prcfeQ, In truth, what led him into all this inverted reafoning, was a pleafant iniflake. The one text fays — Be glad and rejoice, for cVt — The other. Rejoice and he exceeding glad, for otj — Now he took the particle, in both places^ to fignify propter, for the fake if; whereas it Signifies qucniam, quia, and is, in proof of fomething going before. So that he read the text — Rejoice^ J.r the marriage of the lamb is come ; — As if it had been — • " Rejoice for the marriage of the Lamb, which is come:'*

Aj?d

Sfe^. 5* o/' Mosfis demonjlrated. 257

X<*i^^ that calm and fettled joy which arifes from our knowledge, in the poffeflion of it« But the

^TrariQators,

And — rejoice, for great is yout reivard in heanien ; as if it had been, — " Rejoice for your great reward in heaven.**

But now let us confider thefe texts irt another view, in order to do juftice to his delicacy of Judgment. I had faid that, nn the exa^ u/e of the two Greek words, they fignify fo and fo i and applied that obfervation to a fact ; where a perfoa was faid to have rejoiced, i^c. In order to difprove this cri- ticifm, he brings three paflages, in which thofe Greek words are ufed, where no fact is related ; but where men are, in a rhetorical manner, called upon, and bid to fejoice, l^d Irt which latter cafe, the ufe of one word for another, is aa elegant converfion. Thole, in pofleffion of a bleffing, are bid to rejoice with that exceeding joy, which men generally hnve in the certain expedlation of one approaching ; and thofe in expeftation, with that calm and fettled joy, which attends full pofleffion. And who but our Examiner could not fee, that the ufe of words is one thing, in an hiftorical affertion ; and quite another, in a rhetorical invocation i

Having thus ably acquitted himfelf in one crlticifnl he falls upon another. *' What Ihall we do with IVa ?'* — — What in- deed ! But no fooner faid than done. " "ivct (fays he) is oftert " put for oT£ or oTt, pofitive as you are, that it always refers to •* a future time." [Confid, p. 144.] Now, fo far from being pofitive of this, I am pofitive of the contrary, that there is not One word of truth in all he fays. I obferved indeed, that "va. 'iht in the text, refers onl^ to a future time. And this I fay ftill, tho' our Tranflators have rendered it, equivocally, to fee. Yet he affirms, that I fay, " I'ya [{landing alone] always refers to a future " time." That I am pofitive of it, nay very pofitive, " pofi- " tive as you are," fays he. And to fhame me of this evil habit, he proceeds to (hew, from feveral texts, that Tva is often put for oT£ or OTJ. " Thus John xvi. 2. T/je time cornet^ th at . " [I'vcc] nxihofoever killeth you ijcill think he doth God fervice. *• Again : i Cor. iv. 3. IFith me it is afmall thing that [IW] *♦ / fhould he judged of you. And nearer to the point yet *• 3 John 4. I have no greater joy [J'va «xaw] than that I hear, *' or, than to hear that my children nualk in the truth. And *' why not here, Sir; Abraham rejoiced [IV«5'J»)] when he " faw, or that he faw, or (which is equivalent) to see my *' Day." [Confid. p. 144-3 P^** *'^ ^'^ kindnefs, the bed Vol. Y. S at-

25 S ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

Tranilators, perhaps, not apprehending that there was any time between the Grant to fee, and the ac-

acknowledgment I can make, is to return him back his own criticifm; only the Gr?^/^ words put into Latin. The Tu/gate has renieieJ I'vx ':^r, by ut i-ic/eret, which words I will fup- pofe the Tranflator to fay (ss without doubt, he would) refer only to a future time. On whicl:, I will be very learned and cri- tical . — " Pofitive as you are, Sir, that ut -':hvays refers to zfa- «« Jure time, I will (hew you that it is fometimes put iorpojiquam «' the /a/,

*' Ut vidi, ut peril, ut me mains ahjiulit Error !

** and fometimes (v/hich is yet nearer to the point) for quanta^ *' — — Ut qui/que optime Grace fciret, ita ejje nequifjnmum, *• And why not here, Sir, Abraham rejoiced \ut ijideret^ when "he faw, or that he faw, or which is equivalent, to sej- my ** day ?" — And row he fays, there is but one dff.cujiy thatjlands in his ivay. And what is this, 1 pray you ? Why, that according to his (Dr. Stebbing's) interpretation, " the latter part of the V fentence is a repetition of the former. Abraham rejoiced to *' fee my day, and he faiu it and ivas glad. i. e. Abraham re- *' joicedto fee, and then fa^vo and rejoiced. But fuch kind of repeti- ** tions are frequent in the facred Dialeft; and, in my humble f opinion, it has an elegance here. Abraham rejoiced to fee, x.a.i

" Et^S, ;:a* £%ag>J. HE BOTH SAW AND WAS GLAD." \Confid. p.

144-5.] Before he talked o{ repetitions in the facred Dia/et^, and pronounced upon their qualities, he fhould have known how to diftinguifh between a pleonofm and a tautology ; the firfl of which, indted, is often an elegance; the latter, always a blemilh in expref- ^on : and, in the number of the latter, is this elegant repetition pf the Dodor's own making. Where a repetition of the fame thing is given in different words it is called a ple.nafm ; when in the fame words, (as in the Doflor's tranflation of the text in queftion) it is a tautolag\, which, being without reafon, has nei- ther grace nor elegance. Nay the very pretence it has to common fenfe arifes from our being able to underftand the equivocal phrafe, to fee, in my meaning, of, that he might fee. Confine it to the Doftor'f, of, — Abraham rejoiced ixiben he had/cen tny da)\ and he fanu it and ivas glad, and the ahfurdity becomes ap- parent. For the latter part of the fentence beginning with the conjunflioo completive kx\, it implies a further predication. Vet ill his tranflation there is none ; tho' he makes an effort to- wards it, in dropping the fenfe of xa\ in the found of both.

2 ttial

Sedl. 5. c;^ Moses demonjlrated, 2^()

tual feeing, turned it, he rejoiced to fee ; as if it had bztn the Paraphrafe of the Poet Nonnus,

whereas this Hiflory of Abraham hath plainly three diRinft periods. The firft contains God's promife to grant Abraham's requeft, when lie r^- joiced that he fljouldfee-, this, for reafons given above, was wifely emitted by the Hiftorian : Within the fecond period was the delivery of the Command, with which Mofes's account begins : And Abraham's Obedience, thro' which hefaw Christ's day and was gladj includes the third ''. Thus the Pa-

•• Dr. Stebbing tells me, ** there is not one word, in the ♦* hillory of the Old Teftament to juftify this threefold diilinc- " tion :" and that I myfelf confess -is much. It is true, I confefs that what is not in the Old Teftament is not to be found there. And had he been as modeft, he would have been content to find a future ftate in the New Teftament only.

But where is it, I would afk, that " I confefs there is

*' not one word, in the hiftory of the Old Teftament, to *' juftify this three-fold diftindion r" I was fo far from any fuch thought, that I gave a large epitome * of Abraham's whole hiftory, to fhew that it juilified this three-fcU diflm:- tion, in every part of it. His manner of proving my con- feffion, will clearly deteft the fraud and falfhood of his charge. For, inftead of doing it from my own words, he would ar- gue me into it, from his own inferences. " You confefs it *' (fays he) FOR you fay, that Mofes's hiftory begirs with the *' fecond period, and that the firft was wilely omitted by the " hiftorian," Let us apply this reaToning to a parallel cafe. I will fuppofe him to tell me, (for, after this, he may tell me any thing) " that I myfelf confefs there is not one word in the V Jliad of Homer, to juftify me in faying that there were *' three periods in the deftru6\ion of Troy; the firft, the rob- " bery of Helen ; the fecond, the combats before the Walls ; and ** the third, theftorming of theTown by the Greeks ; for that ** I fay. that Homer's poem begins at the fecond period ; wifely ** omitting the firft and the laft." Now will any one conclude, from this reafoning, that I had made any fuch confeffion ?

* From p. 209 to 215, of this volume,

S 2 triarchy

fi6o The Divine Legation Book VI.

trlarch, we find, had a promife that his requefl fhoiild be granted J and, in regard to that promife, an a^ion is commanded, which, at that time, was a common mode of information •, Abraham there- fore miift needs know it was the very information fo much requefted, fo gracioufly promifed, and fo impatiently expected. We conclude then, on the whole, that this Command being only the Grant of an earneft requeft, and known by Abraham, at the time of impofing, to be fuch Grant, he could not poITibly have any doubt concerning the Author of it. He was folliciting the God of Heaven to reveal to him the Myftery of Man's Redemption, and he received the information, in a Command to offer Ifaac ; a Revelation, that had the clofefl con- nexion with, and was the fullefl: completion of, the whole feries of the preceding Revelations.

2. For, (as we Ihall now fhew, in anfwer to the lecond part of the objefkion) the Command could occafion no miftakes concerning the divine Attributes •, it being, as was faid, only the con- veyance of an information by a5iion inftead oi words, in conformity to the common mode of converfe in the more early times. This a£lion therefore being mere fcenery, had no moral import; that is, it conveyed or implied none of thofe intentions in him who commanded it, and in him who obeyed the Command, which go along with a61:ions that have a moral import '. Confequently the injun5iion and obe-

dience,

' This (hews why God might fgy to Ho/ea, Go tide unto thee a nxjife of ivhoreJoms, iffc. chap. i. ver. 2. — Tho' all anions which have no mcral import are indifferent ; yet fome of this kind (which would even be indifferent, had they a moral im- port) may, on the very account of their having no marat im- fort, be the objed of pleafure or difpleafure. Thus, in the

adventure

->:

5* o/" Moses ciemonfirateih 261

diencCy in an aftion which hath no fuch import, can no way afFed: theniorai charadlerof the perfons con- cerned: and confequently, this Command could oc- cafion no miflakes concerning the divine Attributes, with regard to God's delighting in human facrifices. On the contrary, the very information conveyed by it, was the higheft aflurance to the perfon informed, of God's good-will towards man. Hence we fee there was not the leafl: occafion, when God remit- ted the offering of Ifaac, that he ^oxA^formally con- demn human Sacrifices, to prevent Abraham or his family's falling into an opinion, that fuch Sacrifices were not difpleafing to him % any more than for

the

adventure between EHfha and Joafli, we are told, that the Prophet laid unto the King, "• Take bow and arrows ; and " he took unto him bow and arrows. And he faid to the king *' of Ifrael, Put thine hand upon the bow ; and he put his ** hand upon it ; and Elifha put his hands upon the king's ** hands. And he faid. Open the window eaftward ; and he '* opened it. Then Elifha faid. Shoot ; and he fhot. And *' he faid, The arrow of the Lord's deliverance from Syria : *' for thou (halt fmite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have *' confumed them. And he faid, Take the arrows ; and he *• took them. And he faid unto the king of Ifrael, Saiire " upon the ground ; and he fmote thrice and flayed. And " the man of God loas -wrath luith him, and faid, Thoa •*• Ihouldert have fmitten five or fix times, then hadll thou *' fmitten Syria, till thou hadft confumed them, whereas now " thou fhalt fmite Syria but thrice." 2 Kings xiii. 15 — 18. Here it is not difficult to apprehend, that the Prophet, by God's command, directed the King to perform a fignificative aflion, whofe meaning God had beforehand explained to his MefTen- ger : and, amongft the particulars of it, had told him this, that the Syrians fhould be fmitten as often as the King fmote upon the ground, when the Prophet fhould order him (only in gene- ral words) to fmite it. Hence the Prophet's anger, occafioned hv his love to his country, on the King's Hopping when he had /,iotc thrice.

''To this Dr. Stubbing aifwers, " lean eafily underfland, " Sir, how the matter ilojd with Abraham; and that he

S3 "was

262 7he Divine Legation Book VI.

" was in no danger of being miQed, as to- tjie nature of hu- " man Sacrifices, who knew the fecret df the whole affair ; " and tiiat it was nothing elfe but Scenery. But how this an- " fwer will ferve for his Family; who are to be prefumed to •' have kno\\;n nothing of this fcenical reprefentation, is ut- *' terly pall my coraprehenfion ; — becaufe you have told us *' from the very firrt, that the information to be conveyed by *' it, was intended for Abraham's sole use ; and I do not " fee how Abraham could opjcn to his family the fcenery of *' the tranfatlion, without explaining the mj/iery. — — But is " not your putting the Family of Abraham, in pofieflion of this *' confequence ; a very plain declaration, that they Icnew the •' myftery of Chrift's facrifice! Now therefore, Sir, take your *' choice, and give up one part of your hypothefis, or the *' ether, as beft pleafes you; for to hold both is impoffible. *' If you fay that the family of Abraham were acquainted *' with the myftery of Chrift's facrifice ; it will overturn all *' you have faid concerning their ignorance of a future Hate : ** It likewife overturns the lingle reafon you have given why *' the explanation (ufual in all fuch cafes) to fhew the import,. *' of the tranfailion was not added, viz. that it was a point *' not ft for common kno^wled^e. But if you Ihall chufe to fay, ** that the revelation of this myftery, was for the sole infor- *' mation of Abraham, and that his family knew nothing of " it, the objection will lie full againft you, unanfwered,'* [Confid. p. 166.]

I had faid, that the command was for Abraham^sfcle ufs ; and •' therefore (fays the Doftor) the Family of Abraham mufl be *' prefumed to know nothing of this fcenical reprefentation :" Notwithftanding this, I pre fume (he fays) that theydidkmiuit^ Here he takes me in a flagrant contradidiion. But did he in- deed not apprehend that where I fpoke of its being given for . jibraham^s fote ufe, I was oppofing it, (as the courfe of my argu-. ment required) not to the fingle Family which then lived under his tents, but to the Jewifli People, when the hillory of the tranfafiion was recorded ? — And now having fhewn his wrong conclufion from my words, let us confider next the wrong conclufion he draws from his own. — J do not fee (fays he) i5»cti; Abraham could open to his family the fcenery of the tranfac- tion njcithout explaining the fnyfery ? What does he mean by, opening the fcenery of the traifadion ? There are two fenfes of this ambiguous expieiiion ; it may fignify, either, explaining the Vioral of the fcenery ; or fimply, telling his family that the, iranfaaion ivas a fenical reprefentation. He could not ufe the phiafe in the firll fenfe, becaufe \iQm3\iCs explaining tLemvfery a thing different from opening the fcenery. He mull mean it

then

Se<3:. 5. of Moses demG72jlrated, 263

then in the latter. But could not Abraham tell his Family, that this wa,s z fcenicid reprefmtation without explaining the tnypery ? I do not know what (hould hinder him, unlefs it was the fudden lofs of Tpeech. If he had the free ufe of his tongue, I think, he might, in the tranfports of his joy, on his return home, tell his Wife, " That God had crder'd him to facrifice his Son. and that he had carried this Son to mount Mcriah, in obedience to the divine Command, where a ram was accepted in his ftead ; but that the whoie was a mere fcenical reprefentation, to figure out- a myfterious tranfadion which God had ordained to come to pafs in the latter ages of the world." And I fuppofe when he had once told his wife, the Family would foon hear of it. Now could they not underftand, what was meant by 2i fcenical reprefcntaticn, as well when he told them it was to prefigure' a myftery, as if he had told them ic was to prefigure the crucifixion of Jefus F Had I no other way of avoiding his dilem- ma (for if 1 efcape his Contradidi-n^ he has fet his Dilemma-trap^ which, he fr.ys, it is impoflible I (hould efcape) had I nothing elfe, I fay, 'tis very likely I fhould have infifted upon this ex- planation : But there are more fafe ways than one of taking him by his Horns. " Now therefore (fays he) take your '* choice, and give up one part of your hypothefis or the " other, as beft pleafes you ;- for to hold both is impos- " siBLE. 'If you fay that the family of Abraham were ac- " quainted with the Myftery, it will overturn all you faid con- *' cernir.g their ignorance of a Future ftate — but if you ftiall " chufe to fay that the revelatiori of the Myftery was for the fole " information of Abraham, and that his Family knew nothing " of it, then — the conftruclion in favour of human Sacrifices " muft have been the very fame as if no fuch reprefentation, " as you fpeak of, had been intended." I defire to know where it is that I have fpoken any thihg of the ignorance of Mrakam's Famih, concerning a Future flate. But I am afraid, fomething is wrong here again : and that, by Abraham's Fa- 7nilyy he means the Jfraclites under Mofcs's policy : for, with regard to them, I did indeed fay that the grofs body of the People were ignorant of a Future ftate. But then I fuppofed them equally ignorant of the true import of the Command to Abraham. But, if, by Abrahams Family, he means, as every man does, who means honeftly, thofe few of his houfliold, I fup- pofe them indeed acquainted with the true import of the Com- mand ; but then, at the fame time, not ignorant of a Future ftate. Thus it appears that what our Examiner had pronounced im- possible, was all the while very poflible. And in fpite of this terrible Dilemma, both parts of the hypothefis zr% at peace. I can hardly think him fo immoral as to have put a de- figned trick upon his Reader: I rather fuppofe it to be fome

S 4 confufcd

264 ^he Divine Legation ^ Bo ok VI.

the Prophet Ahijah', when he had rent Jeroboam's garment into twelve pieces to denote the enfuing divifion in the tribes of Ifrael, to dehver a moral precept againft the fin of delpoihng, and infult- ing our neighbour: For the command having no moral import^ as being only an information by adion, where one thing flood for the reprefenta" tive of another, all the coniequence that could be deduced from it was only this, that the Son of God Ihould be offered up for the iins of mankind: there- fore the conceptions they had of human sacrifi- ^CES, after the commatid, muft needs be juft the fame with thofe they had before ; and therefore, in- ftrudion, concerning the execrable nature of this Rite, was not only needlefs, but altogether befidc the queftion.

But this aflcrtion that a scenic al represe.n- TATiON HAS NO MORAL IMPORT, having been mif-

cnnfufed notion concerning the Popifh virtue of tradition, (that trurty Guardian of Truth) which led him into all this abfurdity j and made him conclude, that what Abraham's houf- hold once knew, the Pollerity of Abraham could never forget'L Tho' the WRITTEN Word telh us, that when Moles was fent to redeem this Pofterity from bondage, they remembered fo little of God's Revelations to their Fore-fathers, that they knew no- .thirgeven of his nature, and therefore did, a? men common- ly do in the like cafe, enquire after his name.

' <' And it came to pafs at that time, when Jeroboam went *' outto Jerufalem, that the Prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found ♦' him in the way ; and he had clad himfelf with a new gar- •* n>ent, and they two were alone in the field. And Ahijah *' caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in •* twelve pieces, and he faid to Jeroboam, Take thte ten ^* pieces, for thus faith the Lord the God of Ifrael, Behold I ** will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and " will give ten tribes to thee." i Kincs xi. 29. The circum- ftance of the nezv garment was not infignificant : It was to denote the powtr of (he kingdom at that time in its full ftrength and

underllood

Sitfl:. 5. ' ^f M o s E s defnonjirated. 265

Bffderftood by many, and mifreprefented by more, . ^ho' nothing, as I then thought, could be clearer tamen-verled in moral matters) I fhall beg leave to explain -myfelf. — He who affirms thsLtafcemcalre-i pcefenlation has no moral import, cannot poffibly be underftocid to mean (if interpreted on the ordinary rules of Logic and Common fenfe) any thing elie than -that the reprefentation or the feigned adion has none of th^tfpedjic morality which is in the real a(5tion. He can never be fuppofed to mean that fueh/.a reprefentation could never even by accident, give birth to a moral entity, of a different fpecies ; tho* it kept within, much lefs if it trangrefled the bounds, of its fcenical nature. Give me leave to explain this by an in fiance or two. The Tragic fcene we will fuppofe to exhibit a Pagan flory, in which a lewd Sacrifice to Venus is reprefented. Now I- fay this fcenical reprefentation has no fmral import. -BMt do I mean by this, that there was no immorality of any kind in the fcene ? Far from it. Ipnljr'mean that thd.tfpecific immorality was abfent^ which would have exifled there, had the action been real and not feigned •, I mean idolatry. Again, an- other fet of Tragedians reprefent the Confpiracy againft Julius Caefar in the Senate-houfe. This, I fay, has no moral import : for neither could the fol-. lowers of Casfar's Caufe call thefe fiflitious Confpi- rators, enemies to their Country; nor could the ;Warmefl lovers of liberty call them Patriots. But if ifl this reprefentation, the Adors, inflead of exhibi- ting an imaginary affaffmation, Ihould commit a real one, on the body of the perfonated Caefar, Who ev?r fuppofed that fuch a dramatic reprefen- tation continued flill to have no moral import? The men who committed the aflion dropt their per- fonated, and alfumed their real charadter, being infligated by intereft, malice, or revenge; and

only

256''^' l^e Divine Legation ^ook VI.

only waited a fit opporttTrtky to perpetrate their de- licrns under the cover of a drama. Here indeed, the parallel ceafes. The feigned Confpirators tranfgrelTed the bounds of a reprefentation : while the real death of Ifaac mud be iuppofed to make part of the fcefiical reprefentation, in the Command to Abraham. But it Ihould have been corifidered, and was not, that I employed the principle of a feigned reprefentation* s having no moral import^ to free the Command from the infidel objedion that it was an enjoined facrifice ; not from the obje6tion of its being an injoined deaths /imply : For a human Sacri- fice commanded was fuppofed to difcredit Revela- tion, as giving too much countenance and en- couragement to that horrid fuperftition -, whereas, with regard to a fimple death commanded^ to juftify this, I was ready to confide in the common argu- ment of Divines, taken from God's fovereign ric^ht over his creatures : Whofe power could in- llantaneoufly repair the lofs, or whofe goodnefs would abundantly reward the a6l of obedience. Yet the fair and candid Dr. Rutherforth reprefents my pofition of a fcenical reprefentation* s having no moral import^ to be the fame with faying, that tho' an a^ion b^' everfo vile in itfelf^ yet, if it be done io reprefent fomewhat elfe, it lofes its nature and becomes an indifferent one. — Had I the prefumption to be- lieve, that any thing I could fay, would better his heart or mend his head, I ftiould recommend what hath been here faid to his fcrious confidera- tion.

3. And now we fee the weaknefs of the third and laft part of the Objeftion, which fuppofcs this Command capable of nfi-ording a temptation to tranfgrefs the fundamental principles of the Law of Nature : one of which obliges us to cherifli and

prote(5l:

Se<5t. 5« c/' Moses demonftrated. 267

proted- our OfFspring •, and another, not to injure our Neighbour. For as, by the Command^ Abra- ham underftood the nature of man's Redemption; fo, by the nature of that Redemption, he muft know how the fcenical reprefentation was to end. Ifaac, he faw, was made the perfon or reprefenta- tiveof Chrifi dying for us : The Son of God, he knew, could not poflibly lie under the dominion of the grave. Hence he mufl needs conclude one of thefe twO' things j either that God would flop his hand when he came to give the facrificing ftroker or that, if the Revelation of this myftery was to be reprefejited throughout in adiion, that then his Son, facrificed under the perfon of Christ, was,, under the fame perfon, foOn to be reftored to life : accounting (as he well might) that God was able to> r-aife him up even from the dead, as the Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews ", who feems to have been full of the idea here explained, aflures us he did believe.

Now where was the temptation to violate any Principle of Morality in all this ? The Law of Na- ture commands us to cherifh and proteft our ofF- fpring : Was that tranfgrefled in giving a ftroke whofe hurt was prefently to be repaired ? Surely no more than if the ftroke had been in .vifion. The Law of Nature forbids all injury to our Fellow- creature : And was he injured, who, by being thus highly honoured, in becoming the reprefenta- tive of the Son of God, was to ihare with his Father Abraham in the rewards of his obedience ? But though, as we fee', Abraham could have no ftruggles with himfelf, from any doubts that he might violate Morality in paying obedience to the Command ; yet did the merit of that obedience,

^ Chap. xi. ver, 19.

where

^63 "The Divine Legation Book VI.

•where the natural feelings were fo alarmed, deferve all the encomiums bellowed upon it in Holy Writ. For, in exprefllng his extreme readinefs to obey, he declared a full confidence in the promifes of God.

From hence we may deduce thefe two corol- laries.

I. That the noble Author of the Chara5lerijlics hath fhewn as much ignorance as malevolence, when he fuppofed that Abraham's fhewing no ex- treme furprtfe on this trying Revelation viz% from the favourable notion he had of Human Sacrifices, fo common amongfi the inhabitants of the Palejline and other neighbouring Nations ". For we fee the reafon,

why

° '* To me (fays the noble writer) it plainly appears, that *' in the early times of all Religions, when nations were yet *' barbarous and favage, there was ever an aptnefs or tendency ** towards the dark port of Superilition, which amongft many " other horrors produced that of human Sacrifice. Something " of this nature might poffibly be deduced even from Holy *' Writ." — To this a note refers in the following words ■' Gen. xxii. l. and'\\iX>G. xi. 30. Thefe places relating to Abra- ham ia»d' Jephthah are cited only niitb rr/peii to the nstion luhich thife primitinje ixiarriors may be J aid to hame entertained ccncfrning this horrid encrmitu fo common amongji the inhabitants of the Paleftine and other neighbouring nations. It oppean that even the elder of thefe Hebrew princes ivas under no extreme furprtfe en this trying re'velation. Nor did he think of exp-Jlu latino , in the leaf J on this occafeon ; 'tx:hen ot another time he could he fo impor- tunate for the pardon of an inhofpitable, murderous^ impious, and hicefliious city; Gen. xviii. 23, iJc. Charaft, vol. iii. p. 124.

Dr. Stebbing will needs try his ftrength with the noble Author of the Charaiterijlics. For, whether I quote tor approbation or condemnation, it is all one ; this adlive Watchman of the Church militant will let nothing, efcape him, thjt he finds in my fervice ; nor leave any thing unpurified that has once pafTed through my iiands. To this paflage of the noble Lord he replies, " The

" cafes

5e(5t. 5. - of Mqse% demonjlrated, 269

why Abraham, infteac^ of being under any extreme furprife, was (as Jesus aflures us) under an extreme joy, was becaufe he underftood th^ Command to be a communication of that Myftery in which, he had fo earneftly requefted to participate; and, con- fequently, that Ifaac muft needs, at length, come fefe and unhurt from that fcenical reprefentation, in which he bore the principal part.

2.-r-That Sir John Marlham's fufpicionof Abra- ham's being llruck by a fuperftitious imagination**

is

** cafes widely differ. God did not open precifely what he in- *' tended to do with thefe wicked cities ; only laid, Judgment *• was pafled. But what has this to do with Ifaac, who did " not ftand as a finner before God; but as a Sacrifice, acknow- " ledging God's fovereign dominion. For Abraham to inter- '* ceed here would have inferred a reludancy to do homage, •* which would have deftroyed the perfeftion of his refigna- " tion." [Hift. of Abr. p. 41 — 42.] So, Ifaac's innocence and his not ftanding a finntr before Gcd' when he was doomed to death, makes him a lefs proper object of Abraham's inter- ceffion and compaffion, than a devoted City, inhofpitable, mur- derouif impious^ andincejiuous. This is our Doftor's humanity : And a modeft petition of the Father of the faithful, like that of the Saviour of the world, If it be poj/ible, let this cup pafs from me, ne'verthelifs not as I nuill but as thou nuilt, would have de- Jiroyed all the perfeiiion of his rejignation. And this is our Doftor's divinity! Strange! that this Father of Orthodoxy could not fee, that what might be done by the divine Antitype him- felf, without defraying his perfeSIion of refignatiov, might like- wife be done, without that lofs, in behalf of the 7ype^ After fo fine a fpecimen of what great things he is able to do againft this formiJable Enemy of Revelation ; what pity is it, he was never fet on work by his Superiors, in a more avoiued and open manner ?

'* -—Ex ijlis fatius eft colligere banc Ahrahami tenlationem tton

fttijfe )te)tciiviipfniJi,£inri\i ts^ot^i), aStionem innoijatam ; non recens ex-

cogitatam,fed adpriftinos Cananceorum mores def^nafam. Horrendi

facrijicii ufum apud Pbaenicesfrequentem indicat Porpkyrius : " Phffi-

•* nices, inquit, in magnis periculis ex bello, fame, peftilentia,

*♦ darif-

270 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI,

IS as gronndlefs, as it is injurious to the holy Pa- triarch. Nay, the very examples he gives might have fhewn him the folly of fuch infinuations : For, according to his inferences, Human Sacri- fices were never offered but in cafes of great dif- trefs : Now Abraham was at this time in a full ftate of peace, fecurity, and affluence.

Thus, we prefume, it appears that this Command was a mere information by action : and that, when regarded in this view, all the objeftions againft God's giving it to Abraham are abfolutely ener- vated and overthrown.

For thus (lands the cafe. If the trial of Abra- ham's faith and obedience were the commanding a real facrifice, then was Abraham an Jgenf, and not a bare Injlriiment j and then it might be pre- tended that God commanded an human agent to ad againft humanity. And, his right over his Creatures cannot folve the difficulty, as it may when he employs a mere inftrument to perform his Will upon them. Butif the trial were only the com- manding a fcenical reprefentation, the command had no moral import \ and confequently, Abraham was not put upon any thing morally wrong j as is the offering up a human facrifice.

I have tranfcribed into the notes as I have gone along, fome of the moft confiderablc Objedions my Adverfaries have been able to oppofe to this interpretation of the command to Abraham : which, I prefume, when fairly confidered, will be

•♦ clarifilmorum aliquem ad id fuffragiis publicis deleftum, fa- " crificabaiit Saturno. Et viclimarum talium plena eft Sanchu- •« niathonis hiftoriu Phcenicice fcripta, quam Philo Biblius Giajce " inteiprttatus eft libris odo." Canon. Chron, p. 79.

no

Sed. 5. cf Moses demonjirated, 271

no light confirmation of it. But, as I have no notions to advance, not founded in a fi nee re de fire to find out, and do honour to. Truth, I would by- no means take advantage of an Adverfary's weak- nefs to recommend them to the public favour. I hold it not honeft, therefore, to conceal the force of an Objedion which I myfelf have to offer, by far more plaufible than any that thefe learned Divines have urged againft it. The objeftion is this, ** That it is difficult to conceive why a circum- stance of fuch importance to Revelation, which removes one of the ftrongeft arguments againft its truth, and at the fame time, manifells a real CONNEXION between the two Difpenfations of it, fhould never be dired:ly and minutely explained and infilled on, by the Writers of the New Tefta- ment, tho* Abraham's Hiftorian might have had his reafons for concealing it." Now, to my own Objedlion, I fuppofe, I may have leave to reply. That many truths of great importance, for the fupport of Religion againft Infidelity, were taught by Jefus to his Difciples (amongft which, I reckon this Interpretation to be one) which never came down, by their conveyance, to the Church. But being, by the affiftance of God's Holy Spirit, dif- coverable by thofe who devote themfelves to the ftudy of the Scriptures with a pure mind, have, for the wife ends of Providence (many of which are infcrutable to us) been left for the induftry of men to find out: that, as occafion required, every Age might fupply new evidence of God's Truth, to put toftlence the ignorance of fooliJJj men : and in proportion as the Powers of Darknefs pre- vailed, fo might the Gofpel-light break out again with frefh fplendor to curb and reprefs them. In fupport of what is here faid, I beg the Reader to re-

fiea

272 ^be Divine Legation BookVL

fle6t on what is told us by the Evangelift, of the converfation between Jesus (after his Refurredlion) and the two Difciples journeying to Emmaus j where their Mafter fays unto them, 0 fools, and flow of heart to believe all that the Prophets havefpoken ! Ought not Chrift to have fuffered tbefe things^ and to enter into his glory P Jnd beginning at Moses, and all the Pro- phets, HE EXPOUNDED UNTO THEM, the things Con- cerning himfelf ^ Now, who can doubt but that many things were at this time revealed, which, had they been delivered down to Pofterity, ia Writing, would have greatly contributed to the improvement of Eufebius's Evangelical Demonflra- ticn? Yet hath Providence thought lit to order matters otherwife. But, that the Apoftles ufed, and made a good ufe too, of thofe Expositions, long fince forgotten and loft, we have great reafon to beheve from their amazing fuccefs in the conver- fion of the world, by fuch an application of Mofes and the Prophets, to Chrift. And if I be not much deceived, amongft the Truths thus inforced, that, which I prefume to have difcovered in the Com- mand to Abraham, held no inferior place. Let the unprejudiced Reader judge. St. Paul, making his Apology before king Agrippa, concludes his De- fence in thefe words: Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day witnejfmg both tofmall and great, faying none other things than thofe which the Prophets, and Moses did say should come: that Chv'i^ Jhouldfuffer, and that he floouldbe thefirft that fhould rife from the dead'^. The Greek is rather ftronorer, in predicating this circumftance of

Mofes - «!/ Tf 0» VOQ^PnTAl iXoiKnCXV ^t-iXKoVTUV

p Luke xxiv. ver, 2^, 26, 27. ^ Acts xxvI. ver. 22,

23, and to the fame purpofe, chap. .viii. ver. 31.'

Sed. 5- ' ?/^ MasES demonjirated. 273

yin<T^xi, KAI MnSHZ. Now where, let me afk^ ih all his Writings, but in the Command to Abra- ham^ is there the lead trace of any ilich cir- cvimftance, as that Chrifi jJoould fuffer and that he Jhould be the fir jl that jhould rife f torn the dead? Nor is it to be found there, unlefs the Command be un- derftood in the fenfe I have given to it.— — -

But this is the (late in which it hsth pleafed Providence to place the Church of Chrifi : With abundant evidence in hand, to fupport itfelf againfl the attacks of Infidelity j yet much of this divine Treafure left fealed up, to exercife our Faith and (in time of need) to excite our Indujlry : for it v^as not the intent of Providence that one of thefe virtues fnould thrive at the expence of the other; but that Induflry fhould as well be re- warded by a fuccefsful fearch, as Faith^ by peace in believing. Therefore when my learned Advef' fary% in order, I will believe, to advance the Ghriflian Faith, would difcourage Chriftian Induf- try, by calumniating, and rendering fufpedled what he is pleafed to call experiments in Reli- gion, it is, I am afraid, at beft but a Zeal with- out knowledge. Indeed, M. Pafcal alcribes this contempt of experiinents to a different caufe. — Ceux qui font capables de inventer font rares ; (fays he) Ceux qui n' inventent point font en plus grand nombre, & par confequent, les plus fortes ; et voila pourquoi, lors que les Inventeurs cher- chent la gloire qu' ils meritent, tout ce qu' ils y gagnent, c'eft qu'on les traite de Visionnaires. It is true, if men will come to the ftudy of Scrip- ture with unwafhen hands, that is, without a due reverence f6r the dignity of thofe facred Volumes,

^ Dr. Stebbing.

Vol. V. T or.

2/4 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI,

or, which is as ill, with unpurged heads ; that is, heads ftuffed with bigot-fyitems, or made giddy with cabbaliftic flights, they will delerve that title which Pafcal obferves is lb unjuftly given to thofe who deferve beil of the Public.

But to return to thofe with whom I have prin- cipal concern. I make no queflion but my Free- thinking Adverfaries, to whofe temper and talents I am no ftranger, will be ready to objedl,

I. " That the giving a folution of a difficulty in the Old Teitament by the aiTiftance of the NeWy confidered together as making up one intire Dif- penfation, is an unfair way of arguing againft an Unbeliever : who fuppofing both the Jewifh and Chriftian Religions to be fcilfe^ of confequence fuppofes them to be independent on one another ; and that this pretended relation was a contrivance of the Authors of the later impofture to give it llrength, by ingrafting the young flioot into the trunk of an old flourifhing Supertlition. There- fore, will they fay, if we would argue with fuccefs againft them, we muft feek a folution of their difficulties in that Religion alone, from which they arife." — Thus I may fuppofe them to argue. And I apprehend they will have no reafon to fay I have put worfe arguments into their mouths than they are accuftomed to employ againft Reve- lation.

I reply then, that it will admit of no dlfpute, but that, if they may have the liberty of turning Judaism and Christianity into two Fantoms of their own devifmg, they will have a very eafy vic- tory over Both. This is an old trick, and has been often tried with fuccels. By this flight-of-hand

con-

Se(5t. 5. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated, 275

conveyance Tyndal hath juggled fools out of their Religion. For, in a well known book written by him againft Revelation, he hath taken advantage of the indifcretion of fome late Divines to lay i-c down as a Principle, that Chrijlianity is only a republication of the Religion of Nature : The confe- quence of which is, that Christianity and Ju- daism are independent Inftitutions. But fure the Deift is not to obtrude his own Inventions, in the place of thofe Religions he endeavours to over- throw. Much lefs is he to beg the quefiion of their falfity, as the laying it down that the Jevvifh and Chriftian are two independent Religions, certainly is : becaufe Chriftanicy claims many of its nume- rous Titles to divinity from and under Judaifm. If therefore Deifts will not, ye: Cliriftians of ne- ceffity muft, take their Religion as they find it. Arfd if they will remove obieftions to either CEconomy, they muft reafon on the Principle of Dependency. And while they do fo, their rea- fonings will not only be fair and logical, but every folution, on fuch a Principle, will befides its determination on the particular point in queftion, be a new proof of the divinity of Both, in gene- ral •, becaufe fuch a relation, connexion, and de- pendency between two Religions of fo diftant timei=, could not come about by chance, or by human contrivance, but muft needs be the effed of Di- vine previfion. For a Deift, therefore, to bid us remove his objeflions on the principle of indepen- dency^ is to bid us prove our religion true on a prin- ciple that implies its falfhood% the Nev/ Tefta- ment giving us no other idea of Chriftianity than as of a Religion dependent on, conneded with, and the completion of Judaifm.

T 2 But

276 ^he Divine Legation Book VL

But now fuppofe us to be in this excefs of com- plaifance for our Adverfaries •, and then fee whether the ingenuity of their acceptance would not equal the reafonablenefs of their demand. Without doubt, were we once fo foolifh to fwallow their Chimeras for the heavenly Manna of Revelation, we fhould have them amongft the firft to cry out upon the prevarication. 1 fpeak not this at random. The fad hatk already happened. Certain advocates of Religion, unable to reconcile to their notions of logic, the fenfe of fome Prophecies in the Old Teftament, as explained in the applicatiots of the "Writers of the New, thought it belt to throw afide the care of the Jewish Religion, (a burden which they could as ill bear as the rebellious Ifraelites themlelves) and try to fupport the Christian, by proving its divine Original, independently and from itfelf alone. Upon this Mr. Collins (fori have chofen to inftance in thefe two general dealerg in Free-thinking-, the fmall retailers of it vanifliing as fail as they appear ; for who now talks of Blount or Coward; or who hereafter will talk of Strutt or Morgan ' ?) that the world may fee how little they agreed about their own principles, or rather how little regard they paid to any principles at all ; Mr. Collins, I fay, wrote a book to exclaim againft: our ill faith ; and to remind us of, and to prove to us, the inleparable connexion between the Old and New Teilament. This was no unfeafonable reproof, howfoever intended, for lb egregious a folly. I well endeavour to profit by it •, and manage this Controverfy on their own terms. For whatever

• This man, not long fince, wrote againft the D. L. under the name of a Society of Free- thinker i : by the fame kind of figure, I fuppofe, that He in the Gofpel called himfclf Legion, who was only the forwardclt Devil of the Crew.

pre-

Sed. 5. c/" M o s E s demonjlrated. 2jj

prevarication appeared in the Objedlors, I conceiv- ed they had demanded no more than what they might reafonably expeft. But the advantages arifing to us from this management foon made them draw back, and retra6l what they had de- manded ; and now they chicane with us for call- ing in the afliftance of the New Teftament to repel their attacks upon the Old ' ; while, at the

fame

* But I miftake. Unbelievers, I think, are not yet quite fo fhamelefs. The objeftion, in form, comes from another quarter. It is Dr. Stebbing, who for the honour of the Church, makes it for them. He will not allow that the words of Jelus are of any validity to fupport my interpretation of the Command to Abraham, becaufe Unbelievers will not admit the infpiration of the New Teftament. But what then ; they have not yet difputed with me my interpretation of the Cotnmatiii. No body hath done this but Dr. Stebbing. And I hope the Authority of Jefus will ftand good againfl:him. He was in hafte to do their bufmefs for them : and it mult be confefied by an argument that does equal credit to his logic and his piety.

Fair reafoners of all parties will fee, tho' Dr. Stebbing will not, that the queftion is not particular^ concerning the in/pira- tion of the Old and New I'eftament ; but general, of the connexion bet\veen.i^hem ; and thofe will not be fo unreafonable to expeft 1 iliould prove this connexion, of which they afk a proof, any otherwife than by applying each reciprocally to explain and to fupport the other. If the two Teflaments be fhewn to do this ; while on the other hand, when fingly confidered, and without each others mutual afliftance, they are inexplicable, the connexion between them is fairly made out. The objedlion of Unbelievers ftands thu?. " You pretend (fay they) that thefe two Difpenfations are two conftituent/>ar/j of God's great moral CEconomy : If this be true, they mull needs have a ftrong connexion and near relation to one another. Shew us this con- nexion and relation : and amufe us no longer with proving the divinity of this or that Diff-enfation feparately, as if each were independent on the other." I comply with their demand : And now Dr. Stebbing tells me, 1 take this or that Revelation for granted which I fhould have proved. Whereas in truth I take nothing for granted but what Unbelievers are ready to prove againlt rae, if 1 did not ; namely, that between two Difpenfa-

T 3 tieas.

27S ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

fame time they think themfelves at liberty to life the afiillance of the Old to overthrow the New. Le: the Friends of Revelation, however, conftantly and uniformly hold the infcparable connexion be- tween the two DifpenfatioRS ; and then, let our Enemies, if they will, as they fairly may, take all the advantages they fancy they have againft: us, from the neccfiity we lie under of fo doing.

In a word, We give them, Judaifm and Chrifti- anity as Religions equally from Heaven •, with that reciprocal dependence on each other which arifes between two things bearing the mutual relation of foundation and fnperjlru£lure. They have it in their choice to oppofe ourpretenfions, either by dilputing with us that dependency, or raifing difficulties on the foot of it. But while they only fuppofe it vi- fionary •■, and then argue againft each Religion on that iuppofition, they only beg the queftion. And while they do that, we keep within the rules of good logic, when we remove their objections on that principle of dependency laid down in Scripture. This reftriftive rule of interpretation being how- ever flill obferved, That, in explaining any diffi- culty in the Old Teftament, we never, on pretence of fuch dependency^ forfake the genius and manners of the times in queftion, and ferve ourfelves of thofe of the later Chriftian period, as Collins (whe- ther truly or no, let I'hem look to, who are con- cerned in it) upbraids fom.e defenders of Chriftanity

t'ons the one pretended io be preparatory to the other, there mull nceJ^ be a Ihong and near connexion and relation. And jf, in the covirfe of evincing this connexion, 1 urge fome ciiciimnanccs in the Jewilh to fupport the Chiiitian, and othi?^i in the Chriftian to fupport the Jewilli, this, I fuppofe, i? noi taking for urnniedxhe truth either of one Or the other, \)<ix. fn'ving the divinity of both-

for

Se6:. ^. of Mo SF.S demofjjrafe J. 279

fordoing. This rule is here, I prefume, obferved with fufficient exadnefs ; the foundation of my in- terpretation of the Command being that ancient mode of converfe, fo much at that time in ufe, of ccnverf- ing hy anions.

II. But the Adverfaries of Revelation, how eafily foever they may be confuted, are notfoeafily filenced. They are ready to obje6t, that we fly to the old exploded refuge of a type, which the Author of the Grounds and Reafons of the Chrijiian Religion hath fhewn to be viftonary and fenfelefs -, the mere illogical whimfy of Cabaliftic Jews. To this I anfwer,

1. They are doubly miftaken. This interpre- tation is not founded in any typical lenfe whatfo- ever-, the perfon of Ifaac on the Mount being no more a "Type of Chrift than the fix letters that com- pofe the name are a ^ype of him -, but only an arbitrary mark to ftand for the idea of Chrift^ as that word does. So that their cry againft "Typjs, "whatever force it may have, does not at all affeft this interpretation.

2. But fecondly I fay, A type is neither ^'//7- cnary^ nor fenfelefs^ notwithftanding the difgrace ■which this mode of information hath undergone by the mad abufes of Fanaticifm and Superilition. On the contrary, I hold it to be a juft and reafonable manner of denoting one thing by another : not the creature of the imagination, made out of nothing to ferve a turn •, but as natural and appofite a figure as any employed in human converfe. For "Types arofe from that original mode of communi- cation, the cowjerfing hy actions : the difference there is between thefe two modes of information

T 4 being

2 8© ^t>e Divine Legation Bo(5k VI.

being only this, that, where the a6tion is /imply fignificative^ it has no moral import : For example, when Ezekiel is bid to JJjave his beard, to iveigh the hair in . balances, to divide it into three parts, to burn one, tojlrike another with a knife, and to fcatter ths third part in the wind", this adlion having no moral import is mejfcly Jignif eat ive of information given. But when the Ifraeht^s are commanded to take a male lamb without blemiJJj, and the zvhole ajjhnhly cf the congregation to kill it, and to fprinkle the blood upon the deer-polls'^, this adion having a moral import as be- ing a religious Rite, and, at the fame time, repre- jent^tive of Ibmething future, is properly typical. Hence arofe the miftake of the Interpreters of the CGvmiand to offer Ilaac. Thefe men fuppofing the idlion commanded to have a moral import, as being only for a trial of Abraham's faith-, and, at the fame ,time, feeing in it the mod exa6l refemblance of the death of Christ, very wrongly concluded that aftion to be typical which w^s intxtXy fignijica- five: and by this means, leaving in the adlion a moral import, fubjeded it to all thofe cavils of infidelity, which, by taking away all moral import, as not be^ Jonging to it, are here entirely evaded.

But it being of the higheft importance to Reve- lation in general, and not a little conducive to the fupport of our arguments for the Divine Legation of Mofes in particular, to Ihew the logical truth and propriety of Types in a^ion, zridi Secondary fenfi\s in fpeech, I (hall take the prefent opportunity to fift this matter to the bottom. For having occafj- cnally fh^wn, in feveral parts of the preceding Dif- pourfe, that the references in the law to the cos- f g|. are in typical reprefentations, znd fecondary fenfes j

» Ezp, V. ^ ExoD. xii. 5, 6, 7.

and

Se(!t. 6. of 'b^lo^'E^ demonjlrated, 28 j

and the truth of Chriftianity depending on the real relation (which is to be dilcovered by fuch refer- ences) between the two Difpenfations, it will be incumbent on me to prove the logical truth and propriety of types in adtion, and secondary SENSES in fpeech.

And I enter on this fubjeft with the greater plea- fure, as one of the moft plaufibie books ever writ- ten, or likely to be written, againft Chriftianity is intirely levelled at them. In this enquiry I fhall purfue the fame method I have hitherto taken with unbelieving Writers ; examine only the grounds and principles on which they go •, and having removed and overthrown thefe, in as few words as I am able, leave the fuperftrudure to lupport itfelf, as it may.

SECT. VI.

TH E book I fpeak of is intitled, A Bifcourfe of the Grounds and Reafons of the Chrijlia» Religion^ written, as is generally fuppofed, by Mr. Collins ', a Writer, whofc dexterity in the arts of Controverfy was fo remarkably contrafted by his abilities in reafoning and literature, as to be ever putting one in mind of what travellers tell us of the genius of the proper Indians, who, altho' the verieft bunglers in all the fine arts of manual opera- tion, yet excel every body in flight of hand and the delufive feats of adlivity.

The purpofe of his book is to prove that Jesus v;as an impoftor : and his grand argument ftands thus, — *' Jesus (as he (hews) claims under the pro- mifed MelTiah of the Jews ; and propofes himfelf as the Deliverer prophefied of ii) their facred

Books i

282 ^he Dro'ine Legation Book VI,

Books ; yet (as he attempts to fhew) none of thefe Prophefies can be nnderilood of Jesus but in a fc con dary fell fe only ; now a fecondary fenfe (as he pretends) is fanatical, chimerical, and contrary to all fcholaftic rules of interpretation : Confequently, Jesus not being prophefied of in the Jewifti Writings, his pretenfions are falfe and groundlefs." — His conciufion, the reader fees, Hands on the joint fupport of thefe two Propofitions, That there is no Jewjjh Prophecy zvhich relates /<? Jesus in a frimary fenfe-, and That a fee or. dary fenfe is enthu- fiaftical and unfcholaftic. If either of thefe fail, hir, phantom of a conciufion finks again into nO' thing.

Tho' I fhall not omit occafionally to confute the firft, yet it is the falflioodof the fecond I am prin- cipally concerned to expofc— That there are Jew- ifh prophecies which relate to Jesus in their direft and primary fenfe, hath been proved with much force of reafon and learning: But, th-^t fecondary Prophecies are not enthuftajlical and unfcholaftic, hath not been ihewn and infifted on, by the Writers on this queftion, with the fame advantage. The truth is, the nature of a double sense in Pro- phecies hath been fo little feen or enquired into, that fome Divines who agree in nothing elfe, have yet agreed to fecond this affertion of Mr. Collins, and with the fame franknefs and confidence to pronounce x.h2X2i double fenfe is indeed enthufiaftical and unfcholaftic. To put a ftop therefore to this growing evil, fown firft by Socinus, and fince be- come fo peftilent to Revelation, is not amongft- the laft purpofes of the following difcourfe.

I. It hath been fliewn, that one of the moft ancient and fimple Modes of human convcrfe was

com-

Sedt. 6. of Moses demonflrafed, 28 j

communicating the conceptions by an expreflive Action. As this was of familiar ufe in Civil mat- ters, it was natural to carry it into Religious^ Hence, we fee God giving his inftrudions to the Prophet, and the Prophet delivering God's com- mands to the People in this very manner. Thus far the nature of the attion, both in civil and re- ligious matters, is exactly the fame.

But in Religion it fometimes happens that a STANDING Information is necelTary, and there the Adlion muft be continually repeated : This is done by holding out the particular Truth, (thus to be preferved) in a rehgious i?;V^. Here then the Ac- tion begins to chaage its nature ; and, from a mere fignificative mark, of only arbitrary import like words or letters, becomes an ad;ion of moral import^ and acquires the new name of type. Thus God, intending to record the future facrifice of Christ in Adion, did it by the periodic Sacrifice of a lamb 'without hlemijh. This was not merely and fo direct- ly fignificative of Christ, (like the Command to Abraham) but being a religious Rite and fo having 2l moral import^ it \J2i% typical^ tho' not directly fignificative^ of him. The very fame may be faid of the Temporal rewards of the Law ; they were properly typical of the Spiritual rewards of the Gofpel, and had a moral import of their ovvn, as be- ing the real fandion of the Law.

Again, It hath been fhewn ^, how, in the gra- dual cultivation of Speech, the expreflion by Ac^ ;/^?; was improved and refined into an allegory or Parable j in which the words carry a double meaning i having befides their obvious fenfe which

y Vol. iv. p. 322, 323,

ferves

^he Dhine Legation Book VI.

ferves only for the Envelope, one more material, and hidden. With this figure of fpeech all the mo- ral writings of Antiquity abound. But when this figure is transferred from Civil ufe to Religious, and cm_pk)yed in the writings of infpired Men, to con- v<?y information of particular circumftances in two diftiflft Difpenfations, to a people who had an equal concern in both^ it is then what we call a double SENSE ; and undergoes the very fame change of its nature that an expreffive a^ion underwent when converted into a Type; that is, both the meanings, in the DOUBLE SENSE, are of msralimporl ; where- as in the Allegory^ one only of the meanings is fo : And this, (which arifes out of the very nature of their converfion, from Civil to Religious matters) is the only difference between expreffive anions and TYPES J and between allegories and double senses,

•^ From hence it appears, that as types are only rehoious expreffive Anions, and double senses enly religious Allegories, and neither receive any change but what the very manner of bringing thofe Civil figures into Religion neceffarily induces, they muft needs have, in this their tralatitious flate, the fame logical fitness they had in their naturals

There-

* lienee we fee the vanity of Mr. Whifton*^s diftinflion, vk ho is for retaining Tyfes (neceflitated thereunto by the exprefs declarations of Holy Writ) and for rejeding double fenfes, *' Mx. Whifton (fays the author of the Grounds, Is'c.) juftifies **■ typical arguing /^e;w ibe ritual la<vji p/"]VIofes, and from paJJ'a- V ges of H'Jlory in the Old Tejiament. — Indeed he pretends f ibis lall to be quite anoiker thing from the odd (typical) appli^ *' cation of prophecies. For (fays he) the ancient ceremonial in- *' ftitutions were, as to their principal branches, at leaf in thetr •* eiiin nature. Types and fhadows of future good things -»• ** But the Cffe cf the ancient prophecies to be alled^ed from the old ** Scriptures for the confirmation of Chriftanity is quite cf another *' ,Mtitrey and of a more nice and ex a^ confidcratian" p. 227, 228,

Se6l. 6. of Mos ts demonflraUd. 285

Therefore as expreffive A5iions, &nd .^llegmesy m Civil difcoLirfes, are efteemed proper and reaToaa- ble modes of information, fo muft types arad DOUBLE SENSES in Religious ; for the end of botk is the fame, namely, communication -of know- ledge. The confequence of this is, that Mr. Collins' propofition, that a fecondnry or double fenfe is enthufiafiical and unfcholafiic, fthe necelfary fup- port of his grand Argument) is intirely OV667. thrown.

This is the true and fimple origin of types and DOUBLE SENSES; which our Adverfaries, thro' ig- norance of the rife and progrefs of Speech, a«d unacquaintance with ancient Manners, have info- lently treated as the idue of diftempered brains, and the fondlings of Vifionaries and Enthufiafts.

II. Having thus Ihewn their logical -propriety, or that they are rational Modes of information,;!-,- come now to vindicate their Religious ufe, and to Ihew that they are well fuited to that Religion in which we find them employed. An Objedljon which, I conceive, may be made to this ufe, will lead us naturally into our Argument. The objec- tion is this : " It hath been fhewn % that thefe ob- lique Modes of converfe, tho' at firft invented out of jtecej/ily, for general information, were em- ployed, at length, 10 z.myJlerious fecretion of know- It appears, indeed, they are of a more nut and exa8 <onfidera~ tion, even from Mr. Whilton's fo much millalcing them, as ta fuppofe they are of a 7iature quite d'tffe'-ent from Types, Bui in- Head of telling us honelHy that he knew not what to m^ke of them, he plays the courtier and difmijTes them, for a more nisi a nd ex ail conjideration,

* Vol. iv. p. 323, i^ ft(i.

kdge-.

2S6 7lje Divine Legation Book VI.

ledge; which tho' it might be expedient, ufeful, and even neceflary both in civil matters and in

FALSE RELIGION, COllld neVCF bc fo in MORAL MAT- TERS and in the true Religion ; for this having nothing to hide from any of its followers, Types and Double fenfes (the fame my fterious conveyance of knowledge in Sacred matters, which Allegoric words or Anions are in Civil) were altogether unfit to be employed in it."

To this I anfwer. The Jewish religion, in which thefe Types and Secondatj fenfes are to be found, was given to one fingle People only ; juft as the Christian is offered to all Mankind : Now the Chriftian, as Mr. Collins "^ hlmfelf labours to prove, profeffes to be grounded on the Jewifli. If there- fore Chriftianity was not only profefledly, but really grounded on Judaifm (and the fuppofition is ftridly logical in a defence oi Types and Double fenfes^ whole reality depends on the reality of that relation) then Judaifm was preparatory to Chriftianity, and Chriftianity the ultimate end of Judaifm : But it is not to be fuppofed that there fhould be an intire filence concerning this ultimate Religion during the preparatory, when the fiolice of it was not only

•> *' Chrijlianity is founded on Judai/m, and the New Tefta- <* ment on the Old ; and Jesus is the perfon Hiid in the New •* Teftament to be promifed in the Old, under the charadcr of ** the Messiah of the Je-u^i, who, as fuch only claims the «* obedience and fubmiffion of the world. Accordingly it is *• the defign of the authors of the New, to prove all the parts •^ of Chrijliatnty from the Old Tellamcnt, which is faid to con- *• tain the mcordt of eternal life, and to reprefent Jesus and his *' apgilles as fulfilling by their miflion, doftrines, and works, *« the prediftions of the Prophets, the hiltorical parts of the Old *' Tcftamenc, and the Jewilh Law ; which lalt is exprefly faid *• to prophe/y of, or fjiij) Chrillianicy." Graunjs and Rcafons,

i^c. p. 4, 5.

highly

Scd. 6. of Most. % demoiiflrated. 2S7

highly proper, but very expedient: i.firft, to draw thole under the preparatory Religion, by juib de- 'grees to the ultimate •, a provifion the more necef- fary, as the nature and genius of the two Religions were different, the one carnal, the other fpiritual. 2. fecondly, to afford convincing evidence to fu- ture Ages of the truth of that Ultimate Religion ; which evidence, a circumftantial prediftion of its advent and nature fo long before hand, effe6lually does afford ^ The Ultimate Religion therefore muft have had fome notice given of it, in the Pre- paratory ; and nothing was better fitted for this purpofe than the hyperbolical genius of the eailern Speech. Thus, when Ifaiah fays. Unto us a child is hortiy unto us a fon is given^ and the government jhall be upon his Jlooulder : And his name jjj all he call- ed^ Wonderful^ Councellor^ ^he mi'ghty Gody the ever^ lafiing Father^ the Prince of Peace ^ Mr. Collins ob- ferves, it is the eaftern hyperbole which prevents our feeing that a Jewifh Monarch is literally and direflly fpoken of. Should we allow this, yet we Itill fee, thatfuch a language was admirably fitted

* The Bilhop of London, in his Di/courfes on the XJfe and Intent cf Prophejy^ feemed to have but a {lender idea of this ufe when he wrote as follows — " There was no occafion (fays he) to ** lay in fo long before hand the evidence of prophecy, to con- " vince men of things that were to happen in their own times : *' and it gives us a lonu idea of the adminiji ration of Providence *' in fending Prophets one after another in every age from Adam ** to Chrift, to imagine that all this apparatus was for their fakes ** who lived in or after the times of Chrift." p. 37. But fuch is the way of thefe Writers who have a favourite dodlrine to inforce. The truth of that dodrine (if it haf)pen to be a truth) is fupported at the expence of all others. Thus his Lordfhip, fetting himfelf to prove that Prophecv <v:as gi'ven prin- cipally tojupport the faith and Religion of the World, tiiought he could not iufficiently fecure his point without weakening and xlifcrediting another of, at leaft, equal importance, — That it n.vas gi'ven to affurd tejlimffny to the mijjion cf fefus,

ta

288 The Divine Legation Book VI.

to conneft together the Jirjt 3.ndfecond Senfes : the hyperhle becoming a fimple fpeecB^ when transfer- red from a Jewilli Monarch to the Monarch of the world.

Our next inquiry will be, in ivhat manner this notice muft needs be given. Now the nature of the thing Ihews us it could not be direftly and openly, fo as to be underftood by the People, at the time of giving : becaufe this would have defeated God's intermediate purpofe j which was to train them, by a long difcipline, under his preparatory Difpenfation. For, this being a Religion founded only on temporal Sanations, and burdened with a minute and tirefome Ritual^ had the People known it to be only preparatory to another, founded on better Promifes and eafier Obfervances, they would never have born the yoke of the Law, but would have Ihaken off their fubjedlion to Mofes before the fulnefs of 'Time had brought their fpiritual De- liverer amongft them-, as, without this knowledge, they were but too apt to do, on every imaginary profpe«5l of advantage. But St. Chrysostom will inforce this obfervation with more advantage. " Had the Jews (fays hej been taught from the *' beginning that their Law was temporary and to *' have an end, they would have certainly defpifed *' it. On this account, it feemed good to the di- *' vine Wifdom to throw a veil of obfcurity over the " Prophecies which related to the Chriftian Dif- *' penfation**.'* This information, therefore, was to be delivered with caution ; and conveyed under the covert language of their prefent QEconomy. Hence arofe the fit and neceflary ufe of types and SECONDARY SENSES. For the only fafe and laft-

*• Homilia prima, De prophetarum chfcuritate,

7 ^"S

Sed. 6. of Mo s E s demonfirated. 289

ing means of conveyance were their public ritu- al, and the writings of the prophets. 4-nd a Speaking a£iion^ and d.n Allegoric fpeech^ when thus employed, had all the fecrecy that the occafion required. We have oblerved, that in the fimpler ufe of fpeaking by A^ion^ the Adlion itfclf hath no moral import : and lb, the information having but one moral meaning, that which it conveys is clear and intelligible. But where a Rite of Religion is ufed for this Speaking allien, there the adion hath a moral import ; and fo the informa- tion having two moral meanings, that which it con- veys is more obfcure and niyfterious Hence it appears that this mode of fpeakmg by aRion^ called a TYPE, is exadly fitted for the information in queftion. Juft fo it is again with the secondary SENSE : In the mere allegory^ the reprefenting image has no moral import: mth^ fecojtdary fenfe^ for a contrary reafon, (which the very terra imports) the reprefenting image hath a moral im- port J and fo, acquires the fame fitting obfcurity with information by Types. For the typical Ritual, and the double Prophecy, had each its obvious fenfe in the prefent nature and future fortune of the Jewifh Religion and Republic. And here we are eafily led into the elTential difference (fo much to the honour of Revelation) between the Pagan Oracles or Prophecies, and the Jewilh, The obfcurity of the Pagan arofe from the ambiguity^ equivocation or jargon of expression i the obfcurity of the Jewifh from the figurative reprefentation of THINGS. The Firft (independent of any other Re- ligion) proceeded from ignorance of futurity j the Latter, dependent on the Chriftian, proceeded from the necelTity that thofe to whom the Prophe- cies were delivered Ihouid not have too full a know- ledge of tlicm. . Vol. V. U Or,

290 ^he Divine Legation Book VL

Dr. Middleton, indeed, would fain perfuade us, that the Oracles, or, as he chufes to call thetn, the Prophecies of the Pythian Apollo, were neither bet- ter nor worfe, but exadtly of the fame abfurd con- ftrudtion with the Scripture Prophecies. He would hardly venture to controvert what I have faid of their logical fitnefs and propriety, as a mode of in- formation in the abftra6t, becaufe this would fhew him ignorant of the nature and progrefs of human converle. Much lefs, I fuppofe, would he fay, that this mode of information was not fuited to the genius of the Jewifh Religion ; fmce he owns that to be only a preparatory Syftem calculated to open and to prepare the way for one moreperfe(ft; and confeqnently, that it muft be ib contrived as to connetl, and at the fame time to hide from the vulgar eye, the two parts of the Difpenfation, and the relation they have to one another. Now there is no conceivable way of doing this but by types and fccondary fenfes. What then occafioned this infult upon them ? That which fupports all our free Writers in their contemptuous treat- ment of Religion, their miftaklng the abuse of the thing for the thing itself ; and giving the interpretations of men, or the Doctrines of Churches, for Articles of faith or Scripture hiftory. What hath been here faid will fhow the extreme weaknefs of this ingenious man's parallel between the Scripture Prophecies and the Oracles of the Py- thian Apollo. — '' The PROPHECIES of the Pythian *' Apollo (fays he) were indeed obibure, equivocal *' and ambiguous, admitting not only different but *' contrary fenfes ; lb that the charader here given " of the Scripture Prophecies was undoubtedly *' true of them, that no event could rejlraln them to •* one deterniumte fenfe, when they zvere origi?ially " capable of many. For if the obvious fcnfe failed,

as

Se<fl. 6. g/^ Moses demonjl rated. i^gi

*' as it often did, to the ruin of thofe who adted ** upon it," there was another always in referve, to " fecure the veracity of the Oracle : till this very ** charafter of its ambiguous and senigmatical " lenfes, confirmed by conitant obfervation, gra- " dually funk its credit and finally detec5led the " impofture *"." The prophecies of the Pythian Apollo were ohfcure, equivocal and ambiguous. And this (fays he) was the character of the Scripture Prophecies, Juft otherwife, as is ittn above. Scripture Prophecies were ohfcure -, but the ob- fcurity arofe neither from equivocation nor ambiguity (which two qualities proceed from the expression) but from the figurative reprefentation of things. So that the obfcurity^ which the Pythian Oracle and the Scripture Prophecies had in common, arifingfrom the mod different grounds, the charac- ter given of the Oracles, that no event could reflrain them to one determinate fenfe when they were originally capable of many^ by no means belongs to the Scrip- ture Prophecies, whatever the men he writes againft (who appear to know as little of the DOUBLE SENSE of Prophccics as himfelf) might imagine. For tho' equivocal and ambiguous expres- sion may make a fpeech or writing, where the ob- jedts are unconfined, capable of many fenfeSy yet a figurative reprefentation of things can give no more fenfes than two to the obfcureft Prophecy. Hence it will follow, that while the expedient in fupporting the Pythian Oracles, by having a fenfe always in referve to fatisfy the inquirer, would gra- dually fink their credit and fimally dete£l the inpofiure\ the difcovery of a secondary sense of Prophe- cy, relative to the completory Difpenfation, will

' Examination of the Bifliop of London's Difcourfcs on Pro- phecy, &c. p. 89-90.

U 2 necef.

2<)i ^he 'Divine Legation Book. VI,

neceffarily tend to confirm and eftablifh the divine origin of Scripture Prophecy.

Such was the wonderful ceconomy of divine Wifdom, in connedting together two dependent Religions, the parts of one grand Difpenfation : by this means, making one preparatory of the other; and each mutually to refle6t light upon the other. Hence we fee the defperate humour of that learned man, tho' very zealous chriftian \ who, becaufe moft of the prophecies relating to Jesus, in the Old Tellament, are of the nature defcribed above, took it into his head that the Bible was corrupted by the enemies of Jesus. Whereas, on the very fuppofition of a mediate and an ultimate Religion, which this good man held, the main body of Prophecies in the Old Teftament relating to the New, muit, according to all our ideas of fit- nefs and expediency, needs be prophecies with a DOUBLE SENSE. But it is the ufual fupport of folly ro throw its ditlreiTcs upon knavery. And thus, as we obfervcd, the Mahometan likewife, who pretends to claim under the Jewifli religion, not finding the doftrine of 2l future fiat e of rewards and punifJjments in the Law, is as pofitive that the Jews have corrupted tlieir own fcriptures in pure fpite to his great Prophet ^.

III. Having

t Mr. Whlfton.

s This account of Typcn and fecondnry fcnfes, which fup- pore=i they were intencled to conceal ths tlodrines delivered under them, is To very natural, and, as would leem, reafonable, that Dr. titcbbiii^; himfelf fubfctibes to it. And hence occafion iias been taken by a moll acute and able Writer to expofe his prt^arication, ia maintaining tiiat the lews had the rebelled Doc- trine of a Future Siaic : For the Doftor not only confeiTes that the DoiUine was revealed under Types, but tlwt Do.lrines,

thos

Sfi(3:. 6. 5/' Moses demojijlrated. 293

III. Having thus fhewn the reafonable life and great expediency of thefe modes of facred informa- tion, under the Jewifli CEconomy ; the next que- ftion is. Whether they be indeed there. This we fhall endeavour to Ihew. — And that none of the ■ common prejudices may lie againil our reafoning, the example given fhall be of types and double SENSES employed even in fubjeds relating to the Jewijh dipenfation only.

I. The whole ordinance of the pajfover was a TYPE of the redemption from Egypt. The ftriking the blood on the fide-pofts, the eating flelh with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and in a po- fture of departure and expedition, were all fignifi- cative of their bondage and deliverance. This will admit of no doubt, becaufe the Inftitutor himfelf has thus explained the T^ype. — And thcufoalt Jhew thy fon^ (fays he) in that day., [(^y'^'ng^ This is done becaufe of that which the Lord did unto me, when 'I came forth out of Egypt. And it fhall he afign unto, thee upon thine hand., and for a memorial between thine eyes ; that the Lord's law may he in thy mouth. For with afirong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt. 'Thou fhalt therefore keep this ordi- nance in his feafon from year to year^. As there- fore it was of the genius of thefe holy Rites to be Typical or iignificative of God's paft, prefent, and future Difpenfations to his people, we cannot in the

thu5 conveyed, were purpofely fecreted from the knowledge of the ancient Jews. See the Argument of the Di'vine Legatiott fairly Jlated', p. 125. And the free and candid Examination cf Bijhop Sherlock's Sermons, &c. chap. ii. where the controverfy on this point is fairly determined, as far as truth and lealbn c^ft determine any thing.

^ ExoD, viii. 8, iS feq. ^

U ^ ?eaft

294 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

leaft doubt, but that Mofes^ had he not been re- trained by thofe important confiderations explain- ed above, would have told them xh^LX. xht facrifice of the lamb without blcmi/Ji was a Type, a fign or memorial of the death of Christ.

2. "With regard to double senses, take this inftance from Joel : who, in his prediftion of an approaching ravage by Locujls, foretels likewife, in the fame words, a fucceeding defolation by the JJfyrian army. For we are to obferve that this was God's method both in warning and inpunifh- ing afinful people. Thus, when the /even nations for their exceeding wickednefs were to be exter- minated, God promifes his chofen people to fend hornets before them, which fhould drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before them \ Now Joel, under one and the fame Prophecy, eoDtained in the firft and fecond Chapters of his

' ExOD. xxif. 28. This, the author of the book called the IVi/dim of Solomon admirably paraphrafes : — *' p'or it was thy " will to deliroy by the bands of our fathers both thofe old ** inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou hatedft for doinp- ** mcrt odious works of witchcrafts, and wicked facrifices ; and " alfo thofe mercilefs murderers of children, and devourers of " man's flelh, and the fealls of blood, with their priefts out " of the midft of their idolatrous crew, and the parents that ** tilled, with their own hands, fouls dcftitute of help: That ♦* the Lnd which thou efteemcdrt above all other might receive •' a woriliy colony of God's children. Neverthelefs even thofe " ihou fparedll as men, and didji fend 'nvafps, fcrerunners of *' thine hoji, to deltroy them by little and little. Not that thou *' waft ufiable to bring the ungodly under the hand of the *' righteous in battle, or to dcftroy them at once with cruet <' beajisy or vviih one rough word : But executing thy judg- •' ments upon them by little and little, thou gavcft them place •* of repentance, not being ignorant that they were a naughty *' pcneration, and that their malice was bred in them, and that *• their cogitation would never he changed," Chap. xii. ver. 3. Cffeo.

books

Sei5t.6. of Moses demojiflrated. 295

book, foretels, as w€ fay, both thefe plagues; the locufis in the primary fenfe, and the JJjyrian army in the fecondary—''^ Awake, ye drunkards, and « weep and howl all ye drinkers of wine, becaufe « of the new wine, for it is cut off from your " mouth. For a nation is come up upon my " land, ftrong and without number ; whofe teeth " are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the cheek- « teeth ofa great lion. He hath laid my vine wade, " and barked my fig-tree •, he hath made it clean " bare, and caft it away, 'the branches thereof are " made white — The field is wafted, the land « mourneth -, for the corn is wafted : The new " wine is dried up, the oil languiftieth. Be ye " aftiamed, O ye huft^and-men: Howl, O ye *' vine-dreflers, for the wheat and for the barley ; " becaufe the harveft of the field is periftied\— " Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and found aa " alarm in my holy mountain. Let all the inhabi- « tants of the land tremble : for the day of the « Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand. A day of " darknefs and of gloominefs, a day of clouds " and of thick darknefs, as the morning fpread " upon the mountains : a great people and a ftrong, *' there hath not been ever the like — A fire de- *' voureth before them, and behind them a fiame *' burneth : The land is as the garden of Eden '' before them, and behind them a defolate wil- " dernefs, yea, and nothing (hall efcape them. " The appearance of them is as the appearance of '* horfes, and as horfe-men fo (hall they run. Like " the noife of chariots on the tops of mountains <' fhall they leap, like the noife of a flame of fire that " devoureth the ftubble, as a ftrong people fet in ♦* battle array. Before their face the people ftiall

V Chsp. '. ver. 5, ^^feq.

U 4 ^^

296 ^he Divi?ie Legation Book. VI.

** be much pained : all faces fhall gather blacknefs. " They fhall run like mighty men, they fhall climb " the wall like men of war, and they fliall march " every one on his ways, and they fhall not break *' their ranks i neither fhall one thruft another, they " fhall walk every one in his path : and when they <* fall upon the fword, they fhall not be wounded. " They Ihall run to and fro in the city : they *' fhall run upon the wall, they fhall climb up upon ** the houfes : they fhall enter in at the windows like " a thief. The earth fliali quake before them, the *' heavens fhall tremble, the fun and the moon " fhall be dark, and the ftars fhall withdraw their ^« fhining'."

The fine converfion of the fubjedls is remark- able. The prophecy is delivered in the firft chap- ter, — ylwake, ye drunkards^ &cc. and repeated in the fecond — Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, &c. In the firfl chapter, the locusts are dcfcribed as a people; — For a nation is come tip upon my land, ft^ong and without number. But, that we may not be mif- taken in the primary fenfe, namely the plague of locufts, the ravages defcribed are the ravages of infefts : I'hey lay ivajle the vine, they bark the fig- tree, make the branches clean bare, and wither the corn and fruit-trees. In the fecond chapter, the hoftile PEOPLE are defcribed as locujls : — as the

MORNING SPREAD UPON THE MOUNTAINS. The

appearance of them is as the appearance of horfes, and AS horfemen fo floall they run, as a firong peo- ple fet in bat de array. They fjjall run like mighty men, they fio all climb the wall like men of war. But that we may not miflake the secondary fenfe, nannely the invafion of a foreign enemy, they arc

' Chap. ji. vcr. 1 to 11.

com-;

SeA. 6:' 'of Moses demonjrated. 297

compared, we fee, to a mighty army. This art, in the contexture of the Prophecy, is truly divine; and renders all chicane to evade a double fenfe in- effedual. For in fome places of this Prophecy, dearth by infe^fs muft needs be underftood ; jn others, defolation by war. So that both fenfes are of neceffity to be admitted. And here let me ob- ferve, that had the Commentators on this Pro- phecy but attended to the nature of t\it double fenfe^ they would not have fuffered themfelves to be fo em- barralTed ; nor have fpent fo much time in freeing the Prophet from an imaginary embarras (though at the expence of the context) on account of the f^me Prophecy's having in one part that fignifica- tion ^m^^ry, which, in another, is fecondary. A circumftance fo far from making an inaccuracy, that it gives the higheft elegance to the difcourfe ; and joins the two fenfes fo clofely as to obviate all pretence for a divifion, to the injury of the Holy Spirit. Here then we have a double sense, not arifing from the interpretation of a fmgle verfe, and fo obnoxious to miftake, but of a whole and very large defcriptive Prophecy.

But as this fpecies of double prophecy, when con- fined to the events of one fingle Difpenfation, takes off the moft plaufible objedion io primary and fecon- dary fenfes in general, it may not be improper to give another inllance of it, which fhall be taken from a Time when one would leaft expedl to find a double prophecy employed, I mean, under the Gofpel-Difpenfation. I have obferved, fomewhere or other, that the CEconomy of Grace having little or nothing to hide or to ihadow out, like the Law, it had fmall occafion for typical Rites or Celebrations, or for Prophecies with a double fenfe ; ^nd that therefore they ^ve not to be expeded,

nor

29^ '^'^^ D/i-w Legation Book Vf.

nor indeed, arc they to be found, under the Gof- pel.

Yet the example I am about to give is an 11- luftrious exception to this general truth. The ex- planation of this example will rettify a great deal of embarras and miilake concerning it, and, at th.^ fame time, fupport' the general Truth. The Prophefy I mean, is that in which Jefus foretels his FIRST and second coming in Judgment, not only under the fame ideas, but in one and the fame Prediftion, as it is recorded, in nearly the fame terms, by Matthew, Mark, and Luke; tho* omit- ted by St. John, for the reafon hereafter to be given.

But to comprehend the full import of this Pro- phecy, it will be proper to confidcr the occafion of it. Jefus after having warmly upbraided the Scribes and Pharifees, whom he found in the Temple, with their fuperftitious abufes of the Law -, — with their averfion to be reformed j — and their obftinate rcjeftion of their promifed Meffiah; left them with a dreadful denunciation of the ruin "" then hanging over their Civil and Religious Policy. His Difciples who followed him thro' the Temple, greatly affefled with thefe tiireats, and yet pof- fefied with the national prejudice of the Eternity of the Law. pointed, as he paffed along, at the Temple Buildings, and defired him to obferve the Itupendous folidity and magnificence of the "Work. As much as to fay, " Here are no marks of that fpeedy deftruftion which you have juft now predicted : on the contrary, this mighty Mnfs feems calculated to endure till the general diifolution

■ Matt, xxiii. Mark xji. •;5. Lu-tiK x«i. 45.

of 6

StGt, 6. o/' M 0 s E s demonfirated. 299

of all things." To which, Jefus, underftanding their thoughts, replied, that in a very little time there Jliould not be left one ft one upon another^ of all the wonders they faw before them. And from thence takes occafion to prophefy of the fpeedy- dcftrudion of the Jewilh Nation. But as the bare prediftion of the ruin of that fplendid CEconoiny would be likely to fcandalize thefe carnal-minded men, while they faw nothing eredted in its Head, by their Mefllah and Deliverer, it feemed good to divine Wildom to reprefent this deftrudion under the image of their MefTiah's coming to execute judgment on the devoted City, and of his raifing a new CEconomy on its ruin ; as was done by the eftablifhment of the.Chriftian Policy °.

But yet, as this was to be unattended with the circumftances of exterior grandeur. He relieves the pidture of the Church-militant^ creeled on his firft coming to judge Jerusalem, with all the fplendours of the Church triumphant^ which were to be difplayed at his fecond coming to judge THE World. And this, which was fo proper for the ornament, and ufeful for the dignity of the Scene, was neceffary for the completion of the Subjedl, which was a full and entire view of the JOifpenfation of Grace, Thus, as Joel in one and the fame defcription had combined the previous ravages of the Locufts with the fucceeding de- vaftations of the AfTyrians, fo here, Jesus hath embroidered into one Piece the intermediate judgr ment of the Jews, and the final Judgment of mankind".

" See Julian, or a DJ/caur/e concerning his attempt to rebuild the Temple.

• Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi.

Let

30O The Divine Legation Book VI.

Let us now fee what there was in the notions and language of the Jewifh People that facilitated the eafy introdudlion of t]\^ fecondary fenfe ; and gave the ftyle, which was proper to that fenfe, an exprefTive elegance when applied to the primary.

The Jews, befotted with their fancied Eternity of the Law, had entertained a notion that the de- ftrufbion of Jerufalem was to be immediately fol- lowed with the deftrudion of the World. This made the clofenefs in the connexion between the primary and fecondary fenfe of the defcriptive pro- phecy, eafy and natural •, and as it made the two deftrudions fcarce dividual, fo it left no room to diftinguifh, in any formal manner, between the Jirfi ^and fecond coming in Judgment.

The old prophetic language was of equal ufe and advantage to interweave the two fenfes into one another, which the notion here mentioned had drawn together and combined. The change of Magiftracy, the fall of Kingdoms, and the revolu- tions of States are defcribed, in the old language of infpiration, by difafters in the Heavens, by the fall of Stars, and by eclipfes of the greater Lu- minaries. This admirably ferved the purpofe of conveying both events under the fame fet of images •, indeed, under one and the fame defcrip- tion •, namely, the dellruftion of Jerufalem in the FIGURATIVE Icnfc i and the dellrudion of the world in the literal. — The fun Jhall he darkened and the moon JJmll not give her light : and thejlars of heaven Jhall fall, and the powers that are in heaven fJjall be Jhaken. And they Jhall fee the Son of man coming in the Clouds with great power and glory *,

r Mark xiiit 24— 5— ^. Matt. xxiv. 29—30.

So

Se6t. 6. of Moses demo?iJirated, 301

So that we fee, the reprefentation of a </t?«^/ff y^w/^ in this Prophecy hath all the eafe, and ftrength, and art, which we can conceive pofllble to enter into a facred information of this nature. And the clofe contexture of its parts is fo far from ob- fcuring any thing in the two great correlative pic- tures, portrayed upon it, that it ferves to render each more diilindt, and better defined. Different indeed in this from mofc of the Jewilh Prophecies of the fame kind: And the reafon of the difference is obvious. In the Jewilh Prophecies, the fecon- daryfenfe, relating to matters in another Difpenfa- tion, was of neceffity to be left obfcure, as unfuit- able to the knowledge of the time in which the Prophecy was delivered. Whereas the Jirft and feccndary fenfes of the Prophecy before us, were equally objective to the contemplation of Chrift's Difciples i as the two capital parts of the Dif- penfation to which they were now become fub- jea.

But it will be fald, " That before all this pains had been taken to explain the beauties of the double fenfe, we fhould have proved the exijience of it ; ■ fince, according to our own account of the matter, the magnificent terms employed, which are the principal mark of a secondary fenfe, are the common prophetic Language to exprefs the fub- jed of the primary : And becaufe, when Jefus, in few words, repeats the fubftance of this Pro- phecy to the High-Prieft, on the like occafion for which he delivered it at large to his Difciples, he defcribes the deftruftion of Jcrufalem in thofe high terms from whence the secondary fenfe is in- ferred : for when Jefus was accufed of threatening, or of defigning to deftroy the Temple, and was urged by the High-Prieit to make his defence, he

lavs

302 ^e Divine Legation Book VI.

fays — Hereafter JhaU ye fee the Son of man Jit ting on the right hand of po-u^er, and coming in the clouds of heaven "^ ; which words the context necefTarily confines to his Jirji coming in judgment on Jeru- ialem."

To this I anfwer. That it was not for fear of being put to the proof that it was taken for grant- ed, that this Prophecy had a double fenfe, a pri- mary and a fecondary ; becaufe it is only quoting a paflage or two in it, to (hew that it mull necef- farily be confefTed to have both.

I. That Jefus prophefies of the deflruflion of Jerufalem appears from the concluding words re- corded by all the three Evangelifts — Verily, I fay unto you, that this generation j^^// not-pafs away till KLL thefe things be done or fulfilled''. Hence, by the way, let me obferve, that this fulfilling in the primary fenfe being termed xhc fulfilling all, feems to be the realbn why St. John, who wrote his Gofpel after the deftru6lion of Jerufalem, hath omitted to record this Prophecy of his Maf- ter.

1, Thar, Jefus at the fame time fpeaks of the deftrudion of the World, at his fecond coming to Judgment, appears likewife from his own words recorded by the fame Evangelifts — But of that, day and hour, knozveth no man •, no not the Angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father ' For if the Whole be to be underftood only of one fingle event, then do thefe two texts exprefsly contradidl

^ Matt. xxvi. 64. Mark xiv. 62. Luke xxii. 6g. ' Matt. xxlv. 34. Mark xiii. 30. Luke .\xi. 32, * Mark xiii. 32.

one

S©£1. 6. o/' Moses dcmonjlrated. 303

one another ; the firft telling us that the event fhould come to pafs near the clofe of that very- generation-, the latter telling us that the time is unknown to all men, nay even to the Angels and to the Son himfelf : — then does the lafl quoted texc exprefsly contradid the Prophecy of Daniel \ that veiy Prophecy to which Jelus all the way refers ; for in that prophecy, the day and hour^ that is the precife time of the deilruflion of Jerulalem is minutely foretold.

Hence it follows that this famous Prophecy hath indeed a double sense, the ont primary, and the other, fecondary.

It is true, the infant-Church faw the deflru61:ion of the world fo plainly foretold in this Prophecy as to fufFer an error to creep into it, of the Ipeedy and inftant confummation of all things. This, St. Paul found neceflary to correct — Now I befeech you, fays he, that ye be net foon Jhaken in mind, or troubled, as that the day of Chrijl is at hand, &:c ". And it was on this account, I fuppofe, that St. Luke, who wrote the lateft of tl^e three Evangelifts, records this Prophecy in much lower terms than the other two, and entirely omits the words in the text quoted above, which fixes the feccndary fenfc to the Prophecy — of that day and hour, &c.

If St. Paul exhorted his followers not to be Jhaken in mind on this account ; his fellow- labourer, St. Peter, when he had in like manner reproved the fcoffers, who faid, where is the promife of his ceming? went flill further, and, to Ihew his fol- lowers that the Church was to be of long conti-

» Chap. viii. 13 — 14. " z Thfss. ii ver. i, 'J frq.

nuance

3^4 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

nuance here on earth, explains to them the nature of that evidence which future times were to have of the truth of the Gofpel •, an evidence even fuperior to that which the primitive times enjoyed of mira- cles * ; We have alfo a more fur e word <?/ prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed^ as unto a light which Jhineth in a dark place^ until the day dawn, and the day-fiar arife in your hearts ^ This evidence of PROPHECY isjuftly quahfied a more fur e word'', when compared to miracles, whofe demonftrative evidence is confined to that age in which the power of them was beftowed upon the Church : whereas the prophecies here meant, namely, thofe of St. Paul and St. John"*, concerning the great apostacy, were always fulfilling even to the lafl confumma- tion of all things ; and fo, affording this demonf- trative evidence to the men of all generations '.

How-

* 2 Ep. Peter chap. i. ver. 17. •> Ver. 19.

' B£:3a»oT£fo», more firm, conftant, and durable.

^ See Sir Ifaac Newton on the Prspheciest c. i. of his Oh/er- vations upon the Apccal)'bje of St. "John.

* Mr. Markland has difcovered a new Tenfe in this paf- fage of St. Peter (concerning the m-ire fure nxord 0/ prophecy ) With which his brother-critic is fo enamoured, chat he fays, he may prophecy there ^juiit be no more dif;>utci about it. Mr. Mark- land's difcovery is very fimple, — " it is only placing a colon at " the end of the 18th verfe, that the beginning of the 19th " may connect vvith it ; and fo lead to the true and obvious •' fenfe of a pafTige, which of late has in vain exercifed the " pens of many learned Writers, viz This viice, fuyinj^, this is *• my beloved Son in 'ujhom I am ijocll pic .pd, [taken from Jfaiah " xlii. I.] 'vce heard in the mount, and we have by that means •* (prophecy or) the <v:ords of the Frsphet more fully confirmed^*

This interpretation fuppofcs that Peter is here fpeaking of the FIRST COMING of ihc MciTuh, and that the luovd of pro- phecy

Scd. 6. of Mb SES demonjlrated. 305

However, if from this prophecy the firfl Chrif^ tlans drew a wrong conclufion, it was not by the

fault

phety refers to a Prophecy already accomplidied. Now, if it can be fhevvn, that he is fpeaking of the second coming of Jefus, and that the vjord of prophecy rthvs, lo n\ong feries of predidions to be fulfilled in order, there is a fair end of this new interpretation.

Firft, then, it is to beobferved, that the EpiUle, in which the palTage in quellion is found, is a farewell-epil^e to the Churches. St. Peter (as he tells them, chap. i. ver. 14.) knowing that J}}ortly he muji put off this his Tabernacle. — Now the great topic of confolation urged, by ihefe departing Saints, to their widowed Churches, was the second coming of their M alter. And of this coming it is that St. Peter fpeaks, in the words of the text — For ive ha've not follc-ived cunningly denjifed fables ivhen ive made knoi-vn unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jrfus Chriji, He fubjoins the reafon of his confidence in this second COMING, that he and the reft of the Difciples were eye-ixitnejjes of the majefy of the first, ver. 16.

That \!titfecond coming is the fubjeft of the difcourfe, appears further from the recapitulation in the concluding part of the Epilile, where he reproves thofe fcffers of the lajl dr.ysy who uouldyay, lohere is the promife of his COM iNC ? for fine e the Fa- thers fell afleep all things continue as they ~^vere, &c. [chap. iii. ver. 3, 4.] The primitive Chriftians, as we have feen, liad enter- tained an opinion that the second coming of their Mafter was a: hand. And the caufe and occafion of their niiliake has been explained. Thefe Scoffers the Apoftlc coiifutes at large from ver. 5th, to the 13th. And recurring sgain, at ver. 15, to ihat more fare icord of prophecy, mentioned chap. i. ver. 19. he refeis evidently to thofe parts cf St. Paul's writings, where the Pro- phecies in the Revelations concerning Antichrift are fummarily abridged, of which writings he gives tiiis charadter — As alfo m all his E fifties, f peaking in them cf thefe things, in ixhich are foine things hard to be underftood, 'uhicb they that are unlearned ard ««- Jiable ivreft, as they do all the other Scriptures, unto their cv:n de- firuclion. [ver. 16.] In which words, we have the truefl. pi^flure of thole indifcret Interpreters who fet up for Prophets in prcdiifiiog the events of unfulfilled Prophecies, inftead of confir.ing thern- idv&% to the explanation of thofe already accompliftied.

But not only the general fubjeft of the Epiftle, but the vtry expreflion ufed in the text in queftion, fliews that this powkr.

3o6 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

fault of the Divine Prophet, but their own. Jew- ilh Tradition might at firft miflead the followers of

Jefus

AND COMING of our Lord Jefus Chr'ijl is V\.% fecond coming, — Tcr nue have not fclloijced (fays he) cunningly devised fables \ffiff<j(p^c^it<jiZ p.u9oi;] nuhen ive viade kno'wn unlo you the poifjer and conmig of our Lord Jrfis Chrifl. Now, an attertation of a 'voice from Heanjen at his frf coming, tho' it had been a figment of the Relater, could with no propriety be called a cunningly de- niifcd Fable. But fuppofe the ApoQle to fpeak of Q^ixVX! % fecond coming, when according to the promife, there n.vas to be a nevj Heaven and a neau Earth, ivherein ivas to dive/l ri^hteoufnffs, after the old had been burnt up and dejfrcyed bj fervent heat [chap. iii. ver. 12, 13.] if this awful fcene were an invention, it was truly charatleriled by a cunningly devifed Fable, fuch as thofe in which Paganifni abounded, where, in their mythologic rela- tions, they fpeak of the Regions of departed Heroes, &c.

— locos Isetos & amoena vireta Fortunatorum nemerum, fcdefque beatas. Largior hic Campos aiher & iumine veftit Purpurea : Soleniquc fuuni, fuafydera norutit, .

Ar.d, to afcertain his meaning, the Apoftle ufes a phrafe by which only the mythologic fables of Pagan Theology can be defigned — Iv yu^ ciKro<^KTiji.HHi MT0OIS i^xy.*>^ov^vaa\Ti<; — not foUciiing or imitating the cunningly devijed f ablet of the Greek Sophifs and Mjthologijis.

Secondly, it (hall be now fhewn, that, by the morefure ivord of prophecy, tjie Apoltle does not mean, as Mr. Markland's inter- pretation fuppofes, a Prophecy fulfilled, but a long feries of Pro- phecies to he fulfilled in order, and in the courfe of many ages. We may obferve then, that concerning this more Jure nxjord of prophecy, the Churches are told, they do iMtll to take heed, as utito a light that fineth in a durk place, until the day dan.vn and the day- far arife in their hearts, [chap. i. ver. ig ] Now, from Pro- phecy thus circumllanced, it plainly appears, that it could not be a coinpleat Prophecy of any event fulfilled, fuch as that of Ifaiab, chap. xlii. ver. 1, which Mr. Markland fuppofes is the Prophecy here fpokeii of, becaufe it was not a light Join- ing in a dark place until the day daivn ; fincc, with regard to the Prophecy in queliion, the dat was not only da-.incd, but ad- vanced; yet ilic .Apoille fuppofes the darknefs to exift, and the d'y dawn to be far dillant. i\ either, on the other hand, could

it

Se^. 6. of Moses demonjlraied, 307

Jefus to believe that the deftruftion of the World was very foon to follow the deftruclion of Jerufa-r lem: But thefe men foon put off Tradition, with the Law : And Scripture, which was then recom- mended to them as their only ftudy, with the DOUBLE SENSES with which it abounds, might eafily have led them to a difiin^ion of times in this

It be a Prophecy totally unfulfilled, for fuch are totally dark and unintelligible ; but this, here fpoken of, is a light ihining, tho' in a dark place.

In a word, the charafler given of the morefure (word of Pro- fhery, as being a light that shineth in a dark place, can agree with nothing but the Prophecies of St. Paul and St. John: and with thefe, it agrees admirably. Thefe Pre-- diftions relating to one great event, the future fortum of the Church, under the vfurpation of the Man of Si.'i, are emphati- cally called the word of prophecy. They began ful.Glling even before St. Peter wrote this Epiftle ; for St. Paul, fpeaking of the MAN OF Sin, to the ThefTalonians, fays, the mystery OF INIQUITY DOTH ALREADY WORK, [zd Ep. chap. ii. ver. 7.] This Prophecy therefore, is, with the gre-^tcfl elegance and truth, defcribed as a light fining in a dark place. Jull fo much of the commencing completion was fecn as to exciie Men's at- tention ; but this glimmering was ftill furrounded with thick darknefs : And as the eager curiofity of man tempts him to plunge even into obfcurity in purfuit of a light jufl: begin- ning to emerge from it, he fubjoins a very necefTary caution. — Knoiving this firf^ that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, [ver. 20. j As much as to fay, I ex- hort you to give all attention to this moie fare ixord of prcphe(y\ hut previoufly to guard yourfelves with this important truth, that the Interpreter of Prophecy is not Man but God, and the full completion of it, its only true interpretation. He fupports this obfervation by a faft — For the Prophecy came not in old t'nne by the ixiill of Man^ but hoh Men of God fake as they nxjere moved ty the Holy Ghof, [ve-. zi.] i. e. the very Prophets themfelves, un- der the old Law, often underftood not the true purport of what they prediifled, being only the organs of God's Holy Spirit; hiuch lefs are we to fuppofe the common miniilers of the word qualified for the office of Interpreters of unfulfilled prophecies. And in the jd chapter ver. 16, as has been obferved above, he fpeaks of the mifchiefs attending this prefumption.

X 2 Prophecy,

^oS I'he Divine Legation Book VI,

Prophecy, a Prophecy formed, as they muft needs fee, upon the ancient models.

But as Providence is always educing good out of evil, (tho' neither for this, nor any other reafon, is evil ever connived at by the Difciples of Chrift, as appears from the condud of St. Paul, jutl mentioned above) this error was fruitful of much fervice to truth. It nourilhed and increafed a fpirit of piety, ferioufnefs and charity, which wonderfully contributed to the fpeedy propagation of the Gofpel.

Before I conclujle, let me jufl obferve (what I have always principally in viewj that this expla- nation of the Prophecy obviates all thole impious and abfurd infinuations of licentious men, as if Jefus was led either by craft or enthufiafm, either by the gloominefs of his own ideas, or by his knowledge, of the advantage of inlpiring fuch into his Followers, to prophecy of the fpeedy de- ftrudion ot the World.

But by ftrange ill fortune even fome Belie- vers^ as v/e have obfcrved, are come at length to deny the very exiilence o\ double fmfes -indfecondary prophecies. A late writer hath employed fome pages to proclaim his utter difbelief of all fuch fancies. I Hiall take the liberty to examine this bold redifier of prejudices : not for any thing he hath oppofed to the Principles here laid down ; for I dare fay thefe were never in his thoughts; but only to fhevv that all he hath written is wide of the purpole: though, to fay the truth, no wider than the notions of thofe whom he oppofes ; , men who contend for Types and Secondary fenfes lA ai extravagant a way as he argues againft them ;

that

Se(5l. 6. of yio^'Eidemoiif.rated. 309

that is, fuch who take a handle from the Do<5trinc of double fenfes to give a loofe to the extravagances of a vague, imagination : confequently his argu- ments, which are aimed againfl their very being and ufe, hold only againfl their abufe. And that abiife^ which others indeed have urged as a ^proof againfl the ufe^ he fets himfelf to ^ confute : a mighty undertaking !" and then miflakes his reafon- ing for a confutation of the ufe.

His Argument againfl double fenfes in Prophe- cies, as far as I underfland it, may be divided into two parts, I . Replies to the reafoning of others for " double fenfes. 2. His own reafoning againfl them. With his Replies I have nothing to do, (except where fomething of argument againft the reality of double fenfes is contained) becaufe they are re- plies to no reafonings of mine, nor to any that I approve. I have only therefore to confider what, what he hath to fay againfl the thing itfelf.

I. His firfl argument againfl more fenfes than one, is as follov/s — " Suppofing that the opinion " or judgment of the Prophet or Apoflle is not to *' be confidered in matters of Prophecy more than *' the judgment of a mere amanuenfis is, — and " that the point is not what the opinion of the " amanuenfis was, but what the inditer intended to " exprefs •, yet it muft be granted, that if God " had any views to fome remoter events, at the *' fame time that the words which were ufed were " equally applicable to, and defigned to exprefs *' nearer events : thofe remoter events, as well as ." the nearer, were in the intention of God : And

^ The Principles and ConneHicn of Natural and Revealed Rt!i' glotit difiinSily covjidertdy p, 221. by Dr. Sykes.

^3 'y^

3 10 1^'he Dhine Legat'icn Book VI.

*' if both the nearer and remoter events were " equally intended by God in any Propofition, " then the literal sense of them is not the

" ONE NOR THE OTHER SINGLY AND APART, BUT

.*' BOTH TOGETHER muft bc thc fuU meaning of *' fuch pafTages ^**

■ — 'Then the literal fenfe of them is not the one nor the other ftngly and apart, but both of them together^ &c. i. e. if both together make up but one literal fenfe, then there is neither a fecondary nor a double fenfe : And fo there's an end of the controverfy. A formidable Adverfary truly ! He threatens to overthrow the thing, and gives us an argument againft thc propriety of the name. Let him but al- low his adverfaries that a nearer and a remoter event are both the fubje6ls of one and the fame Predic- tion, and, I fuppofe, it will be indifferent to them whether he call it, with them, a Prophecy of a double and fgurative fenfe, or they call it, with him, a Prophecy of a ftngle literal fenfe : And he may be thankful for fo much complaifance •, for it is plain, they have the better of him even in t\\c propriety of the name. It is confeflfed that God, in thefe Pre^ diftions, might have views to Jtearer and remoter events: now thefc nearer and remoter events were events under two different Difpenfations, the Jew- ifh and the Chriftian. The Prediftion is addreffed to the Jews, who had not only a more immediate concern with the fi.fl, but, ^t the time of giv- ing the Prophecy, were not to be let into the fe- crets of the other : Hence the Predi(ftion of the vearer event was properly the literal or primary fenle, as giv^n for the prefent imformation of God's Servants j and thc more remote event for their

s Page 219.

future

Sed. 6. of Moses deinonjlrated. 3 1 1

future information, and fo was as properly the fecondary fenfe, called with great propriety figura-. live, becaufe conveyed under the terms which pre- dided the nearer event. But I hope a/r/? and a fecond, a. literal and a figurative^ may both together at leall, make up a double sense.

2. His fecond argument runs thus,—" Words ** are the ligns of our thoughts, and therefore " {land for the ideas in the mind of him that ufei " them. If then words are made ufe of to fignify " two or more things at the fame time, their figni- *' ficancy is really loft, and it is impolTible to un- " derftand the real certain intention of him that " ufes them. Were God therefore to difcover " any thing to mankind by any written Revelation, " and were he to make ufe of fuch terms as *' ftand for ideas in mens minds, he muft fpeak " to them fo as to be underftood by them. They " muft have in their minds the ideas which God " intended to excite in them, or elfe it would be *' in vain to attempt to make difcoveries of his " Will i and the terms made ufe of muft be " fuch as were wont to raife fuch certain ideas, or *' elfe there could be no written Revelation. The *' true fenfe therefore of any passage of Scrip- " ture can be but one ; or if it be faid to con- " tain more fenfes than one, if fuch multiplicity " be not revealed, the Revelation becomes ufelcfs, " becaufe unintelligible *"."

Men may talk what they pleafe of the obfcurity of -Writers who have two fe?ifes, but it has been my fortune to meet with it much oftner in thofe who have none. Our Reafoner has here miftaken

^ Page 222, 223.

X 4 the

-2 12 The Divine Legation Book VL

the very Queftion, which is, whether a Scripture Proposition (for all Prophecies are reducible to Propofitions) be capable of two fenles •, and, to fupport the negative, he labours to prove that WORDS OR TERMS Can have but one. — If t.beti WORDS are made life of to fignify two or more things at the fame time^ their fignificancy is really loft — fuch TERMS as Jiand for ideas in mens minds — terms made ufe of mujl be fuch at are wont to raifefuch certain ideas — All this is readily allowed -, but how wide of the purpofe, may be feen by this inftance : Jacob fays, I will go down into Sheol unto my [on mourning. l<iow if SHEOL fignify in the ancient Hebrew, only the Grave, it would be abufing the term to make it fignify likewife, with the vulgsii' Latin in infernum, becaufe if words (as he fays) be made to fignify two cr more things at the fame time, theirfignificancy is lojl. .— But when this proposition of the Pfaimift comes to be interpreted, 'Thou wilt not leave my foul in Hell [Sheol] neither wilt thoufufcr thy holy one to fee corruption; tho' it literally iignifics fecurity from the curfe of the Law upon tranfgreflbrs, viz. im- mature death, yet it is very reafonable to under- iland it in a fpiritual fenfe, of the refurredion of Christ from the ciead ; in which, the zvords or terms tranflated Soul and Hell, are left in the mean- ing they bear in the Hebrew tongue, of Body and Crave.

But let us fuppofe our Reafoner to mean that a proposition is not capable of two fenfcs, as per- haps he did in his confulion of ideas, for notwith- ftanding his exprefs words to the contrary, before he comes to the end of his argument, he talks of the true fenfe of any. passage being but one; and then his allertion mud be. That if one Propofition have two SenfeSy its ftgnijicanfy is really loft ; and

: that

Seel. 6. cfMosES demonjlrated. 313

that 'tis ijnpoffihle to underjiajtd the real certain in- tentic7i of him that ufes thejn j conjeqtiently Revela* Hon ivill become ufelefs^ becaufe unintelligible.

Now this I will take the liberty to deny. In the

foiiovv-ing initances 2.fingle Propojition was intended by the writers and Ipeakers to have a double fenfe. The poet Virgil fays,

— " Talia, pCx- ciypeum Vokani, dona parentis ' " Miratur : rerumque ignarus, imagine gander,

*' AttOLLENS HUMERO FAMAMQUii ET FATA

The laft line has thefe two fenfes : Firft, that iEneas bore on his flioulders, a ihield, on which was engraved a prophetic pidure of the fame and fortunes of his pofterity : Secondly, that under the protedion of that piece of armour he eftablifhed their fame and fortunes, and was enabled to make a fettlement in Latium, which proved the founda- tion of the Roman empire ^

Here

' JEneid, lib. viii. in fin.

" Hear what a very judicious Critic obferves of the line in queftion. " The comment of Servius on this line is remark- " able. Hunc 'verfum notant Critici, quafi fuperflue et inutiliter " additum, nee convetiientem granjiiati ejus, namque eft magis " neotericus. Mr. Addison conceived of it in the fame man- " ner when he faid, this ivas the only 'v:itty line in the JEncis '; " meaning fuch a line as 0-j.V would have written. We fee *' they efteenied it a wanton play of fancy, unbecoming the •* dignity of the Writer's work, and the gravity of his cha- " racier. They took it, in fhorc, for a mere modern flouriih, " totally different from the pure unaffeaed manner of genuine *' antiquity. And thus far they unqueftionably judged right. *' Their defefl was in not feeing that the ufeoi it, as here em- " ployed by the Poet, was an exception to the general rule, ** But to have feen this was not, perhaps, to be expe^ed even

" from

314 ^^^ Divme Legation Book VL

Here then is a double fenfe, which, I believe, none who have any tafte of Virgil will deny. The pre- ceding verfe introduces it with great art.

*' Mirctur, rerumque ignarus imagine gaudet:"

and prepares us for Ibmething myfterious, and hid behind the letter.

On Peter^s refufing to eat of clean and unclean jneats promifcuoufly, in the vifion prefented to hira, the Holy Spirit fays, IVhat God hath cleanfed that call Jiot thou common '. The fingle propofition isj That which God hath cleanfed is not common or

♦• from thefe Critics. However from this want of penetra- •* tion arofc a difficulty in determining whether to read faila *'* or futa nepocum. And as we now underftand tliat Sertius •* and his Critics were utter firangers to Virgil's noble idea, it " is no wonder they could not refolve it. But the /^//fr is the *• I'oet'a own word. He confidered this fhield of celeftial •• make as a kind of Palladium, like the Ancile which fell *• from Heaven and afed to be carried in procelTion on the *• pouldgrs of the Salii. ^id de /cutis (fays Laflantius) jam V 'vetvjlate putridis die am ? ^a: cum portant, Deos ipsos se «' GESTARE HUMERis suis arbitrantur. [Div. JnlL lib. i. *' c. 21.] Virgil, in a fine flight of imagination, alludes to •• this venerable ceremony, comparing, as it were, the fhield ** of his hero to thefacred Ancile ; and, in conformity to the ♦* praOice in that facrcd praceilion, reprefents his hero in the •* prieflly office of religion,

•* ^ttollem Hxs MZViO famamque et fata Ne pot urn..

•' This idea then, of the facrcd fliield, the guard and glory of

•• Rome, and on which, in this ad-vanced {v..\i2i.i\on, depended the

*' fame and fortune of his country, the Poet with extreme ele-

" gance and fublimity, transfers to the Ihield which guarded

*' their great Progenitor, while he was laying the firft founda-

*' tions of the Roman Empire." Mr, Hurd — Notes on the £/,

So Augujiui, p. t)8 9. 3d edit.

* Acts x rj.

impure ;

Se(5l. 6. of Moses demonjirated, 315

impire •, but no one who reads this ftory can doubt of its having this double fenfe : i. T^hat the dijlinc' tion between clean and unclean meats was to be abolijh' ed. 2. And ^hat the Gentiles were to be called into the church of Christ. Here then the true fenfe of thefe PASSAGES is not one^ hut two : and yet the intention or meaning is not, on this account, the leaft obfcured or loft, or rendered doubtful or un- intelligible.

'D*

He will fay, perhaps, " that the very nature of the fubjeft, in both cafes, determines the two fenfes here explained." And does he think, we will not fay the fame of double fenfes in the Prophecies ? But he feems to take it for granted, that Judaifm and Chriftianity have no kind of relation to one another : Why elfe would he bring, in difcredit of a double fenfe ^ thefe two verfes of Virgil :

" Hi motus animorum, atque hsec certamina

" tanta *' Pulyeris exigui jaflu compofta quiefcunt."

On which he thus defcants— 7"^^ words are de^ terminate and clear. — Sn-ppofe now a man having oc- cafion to fpeak of intermitting fevers and the ruffle of a man's fpirits^ and the eafy cure of the diforder by pdverized bark'^^i^c. — To make this pertinent, we muft fuppofe no more relation between the fortunes of the Jewifti Church and the Chriftian, than between a battle of Bees, and the tumult of the animal Spirits: if this were not his meaning it will be hard to know what was, unlefs to Ihew his happy talent at a parody.

" Page 225,

But

3i6 ^be Dhine Legation Book \l.

But as he Icems to delight in claflical authorities, I will give him one not quite 'io abfurd; where he himfelf (hall contefs that a double meaning does in fact run thro' one of the fineil Odes of Antiqui- ty. - Horace thus addrelTcs a crazt fliip in which. his friends had embarked for the /FT^ran fea :

O navis, referent in marc te. novi Fluctus ! 6 quid agis ? fortitcr occupa Portum : nonne vides ut v' IS udum remigio latus ", &c.

In the firfl and primary fenfe he defcribes the dan- gers of his friends in a weak unmanned veflel, and in a tempeftuous fea : in x.\\z fecondary, the danger^. of the Republic in entering into a new civil wars, after all the loffes and difallers of the old. As to the fecondary fenfe^ which is ever the mod quef-; tionable and obfcure, we have the teftmiony of early Antiquity delivered by Quintilian : As to the primary fcnfe^ the following will not fuffer us ta doubt of k ;

Nuper folicitum quss mihi t^cdium. Nunc defiderium, curaquc non levis, Interfufa nitentes

Vitcs aequora Cycladas.

But there being, as we have fhewn above, two kinds of allegories ; (the firft, ivz, the /r^/^r alle- gory -, which hath but one real fenfe, becaufe the literal meaning, ferving only for the envelope, and without a moral import. ", is not to be reckoned; the iccond, the improper, which hath /it?!?; becaufe

* Hor. 0<i'. lib, i. Od. 14. • See p. 194.

the

Sed. 6. of Moses demcjip-afed. 3 17

the literal meaning is of moral import \ and of this nature are Prophecies with a double fcnfe) and the Critics on Horace not apprehending the difterenc natures of thefe two kinds, have engaged in very- warm contefls. The one fide feeing fome parts of the Ode to have aneceflary relation with a real fliip> contend for its being purely hiftorical ; at the head of thefe is Tanaquil Faber, who firft ftarted this criticifm, after fifteen centuries peaceable poflef- fion of the Allegory : the other fide, on the au- thority of Quintilian, who gives the ode as an ex- ample of this figure, will have it to be purely alle- gorical. Whereas it is evidently both one and the other J of the nature of the fecond kind of alle- gories, which have a double fenfe -, and this double fenfe, which does not in the lealtobfcure the mean- ing, the learned reader may fee adds infinite beau- ty to the whole turn of the Apollrophe. Had it been purely hijlorical^ nothing had been more cold or trifling-, had it been purely allegorical, nothing lefs natural or gracious, on account of the enor- mous length into which it is drawn. — Ezekicl has an allegory of that fort which Quintilian fuppoies this to be, (namely, a proper allegory with only one real fenfe) and he manages it with that brevity and expedition which 2. proper allegory demands, when ufed in the place of a metaphor. Speaking of Tyre under the image of a Ship, he fays, 'Thy Rowers have brought thee into great waters : the ea/h wind hath broken thee in the midji of the Seas ^. But fuppofe the Ode to be both hijlorical and allegorical, and that, under his immediate concern tor hi^ Friends, he conveyed his more diilant apprehen- fions for .the Republic, and then there appears fd much cafe, and art, and dignity in every period,"

7 Chap, xxvii. vzr. 26.

3i8 I'he Divine Legation Book VI.

as make us juflly efteem it the moft finifhed com- pofition of Antiquity.

"What is it then which makes the double fenfe fo ridiculous and abfurd in, Hi motus animorum^ ^c, and fo noble and rational in, O Navis referent, &e. but this. That, in the latter cafe, the fubjeft of the twofenfes had a clofe connexion in the interests OF THE WRITER-, in the former, none at all? Now that which makes two fenfcs reafonable, does, at the fame time, always make them intelligible and obvious. But if this be true, then a double fenfe in Prophecies muft be both reafonable and intelli- gible : For I think no Believer will deny that there was the clofeft connexion between the Jewifh and Chriftian fyftems, in the Difpenfations of the Holy Spirit. — This will fliew us, with what knowledge of his fubjed the late Lord Bolingbroke was en- dovv'ed, when he endeavoured to discredit Types and Figures by this wife obfervation, " That Scripture " Types and Figures have no more relation to *' the things fiid to be typified, than to any thing *' that paifes now in France ''."

^. .His next argument runs thus — " If God is ^* ditpoled to reveal to mankind any truths — he *' muft convey them in fuch a manner that they " may be underftood — if he fpeaks to men, he " muft condclcend to their infirmities and capaci- " ties— Now if he were to contrive a Propofition *' in fuch a manner — that the fame Propofition *' ftiould relate to y^^rr^/ events ; the confequence " would be, that as often as events happened " whichagreed to any Propofition, fo often would *' the Revelation be accompliflied. But this would

"^ Works, vol. ili. p. 506.

" only

Sed. 6. of Mo s E s demonjlrated, 319

" only ferve to increafe the confufion of men's " minds, and never to clear up any Prophecy : No " man could i'ay what was intended by the fpirit *' of God : And if many events were intended, *' it would be the fame thing as if no event was " intended at all '.'*

I all along fufpefled he was talking againfl what he did not underfland. He propofed to prove the abfurdity of a dcuble or fee ondary fenfe ' of Prophe- cies ; and now he tells us of many fenfes ; and endeavours to fhew how this would make Prophecy ufelefs. But fure he fhould have known, what the very phrafe itfelf intimates, that no prophetic Pro- pofition is pretended to have more than two fenles : And farther, that the fubjed of each is fuppofcd to relate to tivo connedted and fuccefTive Difpenfa- tions: which is fo far from creating any confufion in men^s minds^ or making a Prophecy ufelefs^ that ic cannot but flrengthen and confirm our belief of, and give double evidence to the divinity of the Predidion. On the contrary he appears to think that what orthodox Divines mean by a fecond fenfi^ is the fame with what the Scotch Prophets mean by zfecondJight\ the feeing one thing after another as long as the imagination will hold out.

4.. His lafl Argument is — " Nor is it any *' ground for fuch a fuppofition, that the Prophets " being full of the ideas of the Meffiah^ and *' his glorious kingdom, made use of images " taken from thence, to exprefs the points upon " which they had occafion to fpeak. From tvhence- •' foever they took their ideas, yet when the^ fpoke •' of p-efmt faSfs^ it was p'^fint falls only that

r Page 2z6, • See p. 221.

*' were

320 The Divine Legation Book VI.

•' were to be underftood. Common language, and

*' the figures of it, and the manner of expreflion ;

«' the metaphors^ the hyperboles, and all the ufual

*' forms of fpeech are to be confidered : And if

*' the occafions of the exprelTion are taken from a

" future fiat e, yet ftill the Propofition is to be in-

*' terpreted of that one thing to which it is particu-

« larly applied V'

Orthodox Divines have fiipportedthe reafonable- nefs and probability of double fenfes by this mate- rial Obfervation, that the infpired Writers were full of the ideas of the Chrifiian Difpenfation. That is, there being a clofe relation between the Chrif- tian and the Jewidi, of which the Ch; iftian was the completion, whenever the Prophets fpoke of any of the remarkable fortunes of the one, they in- terwove with it thofe of the other. A truth, which no man could be fo hardy to deny, who believes, r. That there is that relation between the two Religions : and 2. That thefe infpired men were let into the nature and future fortunes of both. See now in what manner our Author reprefents this obfervation. // is no ground, fays he, for a double fenfe, that the Prophets were full of the ideas, of a Meffiah and his glorious kingdom, and made ufe of images taken from thence; [that is, that they enobled their (lyle by the habitual contemplation of maf^nificent ideas.] For (continues he) isjhencefo- ever they took their ideas, when they fpoke of pre- fent fatls, prefent faofs alone were to be underfiood.

Common language and the figures of it, &c.

Without doubt, from fuch afulnefs of ideas, as only railed and ennobled their llyle, it could be no more concluded that they meant future fadls,

t Page 227,

wher^

Stdi, 6. ^ M o s E s demonfirated, %%t

when they fpeak of prefenr, than that Virgil, be- caufe he was full of the magnificent ideas of the Roman grandeur, where he fays, Priami Imperium — Divum Domus, Ilium, & Ingens gloria T'eucrorum, meant Rome as well as Troy. But what is all this to the purpofe ? Orthodox Divines talk of afuhiefs of ideas arifmg from the Holy Spirit's revealing the mutual dependency and future fortunes of the two Difpenfations ; and revealing them for the in- formation, folace, and fupport of the Chriftian Church: And Dr. Sykes talks of z-fulnefs of ideas got no body knows how, and ufed no body knows why, — to raife (I think he fays) their Jlyle and enohle their images. Let him give fome good ac- count of this reprefentation, and then we may be able to determine, if it be worth the trouble, whether he here put the change upon himfelf or his readers. To all this Dr. Sykes replies, " It ** was no anfwer, to fliew that there are allegories " and allegorical ijTterpretations, for thefe werenevei* *' by me denied." Exam. p. 363. Why does he tell us of his never denying allegories^ v/hen he is called upon for denying fecondary fenfes ? Does he take thefe things to be different ? If he does, his anfwer is nothing to the purpofe, for he is only charged, in exprefs words, with denying fe- condary fenfes. Does he take them to be the fame ? He muft t\\tn dXlowf fecondary fenfes ', and fo give up the queftion j that isj retraft the paflaged here quoted from him. He is reduced to this di- lemma, either to acknowledge that he firft writ, or that he now anfwers, to no purpofe"*

From

•* The Reader fees however, by this, that he at length tak^s ALLEGORIES a}id SECONDARY SENSES not to be the fame : Jrl which I muft crave leave to tell him, he is miftaken. Religious allegories (che only allegories in queftion) being no other than

.. Voi. V. y A

322 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

From hence, to the end of the chapter, he goes on to examine particular texts urged againft his opinion ; with which I have at prelent nothing to do: firfl, becaufe the proper fubjed; of this fe6tion is the general nature only of types and double fenfes : and fecondly, becaufe what room I have to fpare, on this head, is for a much welcomer Gueft, who I am now returning to, the original au- thor of thefe profound reafonings, Mr. Collins himfelf.

II.

We have fnevvn that types and fecondary fenfes are rational, logical, and fcholaftic modes of in- formation : that they were expedient and highly ufeful under the Jewifh CEconomy : and that they are indeed to be found in the Inflitutes of the Law and the Prophets. But now it will be objed- cd, " that, as far as relates to the Jewilh CEcono- my, a double fenfe may be allowed -, becaufe the future affairs of that ' Difpenfation may be well fuppofed to occupy the thoughts of the Prophet ; but it is unreafonable to make one of the fenfes relate to a different and remote Difpenfation, never furely in his thoughts. For the books of the Old "Teftament (Mr. Collins tells us) feem the mofi plain of all ancient writings^ and wherein there appears 7iot the leafi trace of a Typical or Allegorical inten- tion in the Authors or in any other Jews of their time \"

a fpecies o^ fecondary fttifa. This may be news to our Critic, tho' he has written and printed fo much about allegories, that is, dhoMt fecondary Jen/cs', as Monfieur Jordan ^vas fur- prized to find he had talked profe all his lite-time, without knowing it.

* G round} i p. 82.

I reply.

Sed. 6. {)r Moses demonflrated, 323

I reply, that was it even as our adverfaries fug- geft, that all the Prophecies, which, we fay, re- late to Jesus, relate to him only in a fecondary lenfe -, and that there were no other intimations of the New Difpenfation but what fuch Prophecies convey; it would not follow that fuch fenfe was falfe or groundlefs. And this I have clearly fliewn in the account of their nature, original and ufe. Thus much I confcfs, that without miracles, in confirmation of fuch i^n'LC^ fome ^ of them would

with

y Dr. Stebbing, of this some (by one of his arts of con- troverfy) has made all. And charges me * with giving this as the charaifter of double prophecies in general, that luithjut J\liracles in their conformation they could hardly hwve the fenfe contended for, njjell afcertained. On the contrary he afTures his reader that no Prophecy can have its fenfe fupported by Miracles. — That part which relates to the Morality of the Doflor's condudt in this matter, 1 Ihall leave to himfelf: with, his Logic I have fomething more to fay. The Miracles which, the Reader plainly fees, I meant, were thofe worked by Jefus; and the P^-o/iZif/zfj, fome of thofe which }efus quoted, as relating to himfelf. But the Dodlor tells us, " That Miracles are not to " be taken for granted in our difputes with Unbelievers." In fome of our difputes with Unbelievers they are not to be taken for granted ; in fome they are. When the difpute is, whether the truth of Jefus' MiJJion appear from Miracles, it would be ab- furd to take Miracles for granted : but when the difpute is, whether the truth of his Mejfah-charader appear from Prophe- fies, there is no abfurdity in taking his Miracles for granted ; be- caufe an unbeliever may deny his Mejfah-charaiier, which arifes from Prophefies, and yet acknowledge this MiJjion which is proved by Miracles ; but he cannot deny the truth of his mijjion, which is proved by Miracles, and yet acknowledge his Miracles. But more than this — An Unbeliever not only may tiUo^M US to fuppofe the truth of Miracles v^-ben the queilion is about the proof of the Meffiah-charaSer from Prophefies, but the Unbeliever, with whom I had here to do, Mr. Collins, does aSlually allonjj us, in our difpute with hi.ai, to luppole the truth of Miracles : For thus he argues, " Jefus, you lay, has proved his Miili'ja by Miracles, in good time. But he had another

* See Hiji, of Ahr. p. 61 — 2,-3, ^"c,

y s Charaaer

3^4 ^^^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

with difficulty be proved to have it •, becaufe we have fhevvn, that a commodious and defigned ob-

fcurity

Charai!\er to fupport, that of a promS/eJ MeJJiah, for which he appeals to the Prophefies: Now, ift, thefe Prophefies relate not to him, but to another. And 2dly, Miracles never can make that rehite to him which relate to another." In anfwer to this I propofed to (hew, that the firft propofition was abfolutely falfe, and that the fecowd very much wanted to be qualified. In the courfe of this difpute I had occafion to urge the evidence of Miracles; and Mr. Collins, while denying the Mif/;/?i7/^-r^:«rfl^?^r, had permitted me to fuppofe their truth. Unluckily, the Doc- tor, who faw nothing of all this, takes what Logicians call the ■point pjfumed, and the point to be proved, for one and the fame thing. That Jefus was a divine MeJJen^er and worked Miracles is the point ajfumed by me ; and Mr. Collins, over confident of his caufe, permitted me to aflume it. That Jcfus was the Mef' f.ah foretold is the point to he pronjed ; and I did not c.Vpein: that any other than a follower ot Mr. Collins would deny 1 had proved it. But I will be fair even with fo unfair an Adverfary as Dr. Stebbing, and urge his caufe with an advantage with which [ will fuppofe he would have urged it himfelf had he knovn how. It may be queltioned whether it be ftrii^lv logical to employ this topic (which Mr. Collins allows us to afiume) of Jefus's divine mijpon in order to proved his Mefpabfmp ? Now all that can be here objeded is, that we ajfume one Charafter, in order to />roxi^ another, in the fame divine Perfon. And what IS there illogical in this ? Whoever objetled to the force of that rcafoning againll Lord Bolingbroke, which, from the Attributes of God's povjer and idjdom which his Lord (hip allowed the Author of tlie Fieiv of bis Philofophv to afTume, inferred and proved God'sjujiice and gaodnefst which his Lordfhip denied.

But to fatisfy, not the Doftor, hut any more reafonable man, J will fuppofe, it may be aflccd, " Of what ufe are Prophecies thus circumltanccd, that is to f:y, fuch as require the evidence of Miracles to afcertain their fenfe r" I reply, of very important uie; ao they open end reveal more clearly the mutual depen- dency and connexion of the two Difpenfations on one another, :n many particulars which would otherwife have efcapcd otir notice : And, by this means, ftrengthen feveral additional proofs ot the M'JJjahjhip of Jefus, on which the Gofpel dodrine of Redemption depends. But was there no more in it than this, 'i'he rclcuingy^/w prophecies quoted in tlie New Tertament a» rciaiing lo Jefus, out of the hands of Unbelievers, who have

taken

Se(ft. 6. g/' Moses demonft rated. 2^5

fcurity attends both their nature and their ufe. But then, This let me add, and thefe Pretenders to fnperior reafon would do well to confider it, that the authority of divine Wifdom as rationally forces the affent to o. determined meaning of an obfcure and doubtful Propofition, as any other kind of logic4 evidence whatfoever.

But this which is here put, is by no means the cafe. For we fay, i . That fome of the Prophecies relate to Jesus in 2i primary fenfe. 2. That befides thefe, there are in the prophetic Writings, the moft

taken an occafion, from their generality or obfcurity, to per- fuade the people that they relate entirely to another matter, this, I fay, would be no lefs than clearing the truth of the MeJJiahJhip from inextricable difficulties. — — I will now take a iinal leave of this AnJ^uerer ly profejjion \ an Anfwerer of fucll eminence, that he may indeed be called.

Knight of the Shire 'who repre/ents them all.

!feut as he difplays at parting all the effrontery of his miferabie trade, I will juft ftop to new burnifli his complexion.

I had called my Argument a Demonjlration, which one would think, no one who could dillinguilh Morals from Phyfics could miftake, or would venture to mifreprefent. Yet hear Do^or Stebbing's laft words, — " That Mofes was the LegiHator of the *• Jews, and that the Jews were ignorant of a Future State ; thefe ,** fads muft be known by hiftory, which fpoils you for a Demon- *' ftrator at once : For hiitorical evidence goes no further than *' probability, and if this mull concur to make up the evidence, ** it cannot be a DemonjJration ; For Demonllration cannot " ftand upon probability. The evidence may be good and fuf- " ficient, but Demonjhation it cannot be ; nvhich is ahuays " fouti'ied upon felf-injident truths, and is carried on by a chain ** or /tries of the moft fimple ideas hanging upon each other by a " necej/ary ccnnexion,'" Letter to the Dean of Brijlol, p. 9 — 10. And was ic for this, that this wonderful man hath written half 9 fcore Pamphlets againlt the Divine Legation, that he could not find in it the fame fort of Demonjlration which he hath been told inay be ieen in Euclid ?

y 3 clear

326 ^he Dhine Legation Book VI.

clear and certain intimations of the Gofpel CEconomy, which are alone fufficient to afcertain the reality of the fccondary.

I. That SOME Prophecies relate to the Messiah in 2i primary fenfe, hath been invincibly proved by many learned men before me: I fhall mention therefore but one •, and that, only becaufe Mr. Collins hath made fome remarks upon it, which will afford occafion for a farther illuftration of the fubjeft. Jesus declares, of John theBaptift — S^his is the Eli as that was for to come. " Where- " in (fays the Author of the Grounds, &c.) he is " fuppofed to refer to thefe words of Malachi, *' Behold I will fend you Elijah the Prophet before *' the comivg of the great and terrible day of the Lord-, ♦' which according to their literal fenfe, are a " Prophecy that Elijah or Elias was to come in per- " fon, and therefore not literally but mysti- " cally fulfilled in John the Baptifl^:' And again, in his Scheme of literal Prophecy conftdered, fpeakingof this pafiage oi Malachi, he fays, " But *' to cut off all pretence for a literal Prophecy, I ** obferve, firft. That the literal interpretation of " this place is, that Elias, the real Elias was to " come. And is it not a most pleasant literal ** interpretation to make Elias not fignify Elias, *' but lome body who refembied him in qualities? *' — Secondly I obferve, that the Septuagint Tranf-

*' lators render it, Elias the T'ifhbite, and that

" the fews, fince Christ's time, have generally ** undcrftood, from the paffage before us, that " Elias is to come in per fon. — But John Baptifi him- *' felf, who mull: be fuppofed to know who he was ♦* himfelf, when the queftion was alked him, zvhc-^

» Grounds, p. 47, 48,

<* ther

Se<5l. 6. of Moses demonjlrated. 327

«< ther he was Elias, denied himfelf to be Elias -, and

« when aflced who he was, faid, he was the voice

" of one crying in the Wildernefs, &c. which is a

" paflage taken from Ifaiah %"

I. The firft thing obfervable in thefe curiout remarks is, that this great Advocate of Infidelity did not fo much as underftand the terms of the queftion. The words, fays he, according to their literal Jenfe, are a Prophecy that Elijah was to come in perfon^ and therefore not literally hut myjiically fulfilled in John the Baptift. He did not fo much as know the meaning of a primary ^x\d fecondary fenfe, about which he makes all this ilir. Afecon- dary fenfe indeed implies 2i figurative interpretation ; s^prir/iary implies a literal: But yet this primary SENSE does not exclude figurative terms. The primary or literal fenfe of the Prophecy in quefcion is, that, before the great and terrible day of the Lord, a m.eflenger Ihould be fent, refembling in charafter the Prophet Elijah -, this meffenger, by a figure, is called the Prophet Elijah. A figure too of the moft eafy and natural import ; and of efpecial ufe amongft the Hebrews, who were ac- cuftomed to denote any charafter or adion by that of the kind which was become moft known or ce- lebrated. Thus the Prophet Ifaiah : " And the " Lord ihail uterly deftroy the tongue of the Egyp- " tian fea, and with his mighty wind (hall he *' fhake his hand over the river, and fhall Imite it " in the fevenjireams ".'? Here, a fecond paflfage through the Red Sea is promifed in literal terms : But who therefore will fay that this is the literal meaning? The literal meaning, though the pro- phecy be m figurative terms, is fimply redemption

» Page IZ7, ■ ^ Chap. xi. ver. 15.

Y 4 from

328 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

from^ bondage. For Egypt, in the Hebrew phrafc, fignihed a place of bondage. So again Je- remiali fays, " A voice was heard in Ramah, la- " mentation and bitter weeping: Rachel weeping " for her children refufed to be comforted be- • caufc they were not \" The primary fenfe of thefe words, according to Grotius, is a prediftion of the weeping of the Jewifn matrons for their children carried captive to Babylon by Nabuzara- dan. Will he fay therefore that this Prophecy was not literally fiilrilled, becaufe Rachel W2is dead many ages before and did not, that we read of, re- turn to life on this occafion ? Does not he fee that, by the moft common and eafy figure, the Matrons of the tribe of Benjamin were called by the name of this their great Parent. As the Ifraelites, in Scripture, are called Jacob, and the pofterity of the Ion of JeflTe by the name of David, So again, Ifaiah fays, " Hear the word of the Lord, ye " rulers of Sodom •, give ear unto the Law of *' our God, ye people of Gomorrah '." Will he fay, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are here addrefll'd to in the />;7w^ry fenfe, and the people of the Jews only in iht fecondary ? But the preceding words, which fhew the people oi Sodom and Gomorrah could not now be addrefied to, becaufe there were hone left, fliew likewife that it is the Jewifh Nation which is called by thefe names. Except the Lord of Hojls had left us a very fmall remnant, we fhould have been as Sodom, and ive fhould have been like unto Gomorrah '. Would not he be thought an admirable interpreter of Virgil who fhould criti- cife the Roman Poet in the fame manner ^—Virgil fecms the moji plain of all ancient writings : And he fays,

' Chap, xxxi, ver. 15, ' Chap. i. ver. 10.

* Ver. 9,

" Jam

Seft. 6. o/' M o s E s demo?iJlrated, 329

" Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna.'*

JVhich, according to its literal meaning, is, that the Virgin returns, and old Saturn reigns again, in per- fon; and therefore not literally, but mystic allv fulfilled in thejujlice and felicity of Auguflus's reign. And it is a most pleasant literal interpretation^ to make the Virgin and Saturn not fignify the Virgin and Saturn, hut fomebody who refembled them in qualities. Such realbning on a Claffic, would be called nonfenfe in every language. But Freethink- ing fanftities all forts of impertinence. Let me obferve further, that this was a kind of compound blunder : Literal, in common fpeech, being oppofed both to figurative and to fpiritual-, and MYSTICAL fjgnifying both figurative a.nd fpiritual ^ he fairly confounded the diftin6t and difFerenC meanino-s both of literal and of mystical.

He goes on— I obferve, that the Septuagint 'tranf- lators render it Elias the Tifhbite — and that the Jews ftnce Christ's time have generally iinderfiood from this paffage, that Elias is to come in per f on. And John Baptift himfelf, ivho muft be fuppofed to know who he was himfelf, when the quefrion was ajked him, denied himfelf to be Elias — Why does he fay, Since Christ's time, and not before, when it appears to be before as well as fince, from his own account of the tranQation of the Septuagint? For a good reafon. We fhould then have feen why John the Baptijl, when aflced, denied himfelf to be Elias ; which it was not Mr. Collins's defign we fhould fee; if indeed we do not afcribe too much to his know- ledge in this matter. The cafe flood thus : At the time of the Septuagint tranflation, and from thence to the time of Christ, the dodtrine of a ^ranfmigration^ and of a Refurre^ion of the hody^

to

330" ^'^ Drcine Legation Book VI,

to repcjjcfs the Land of Judeay were national opi- nions •, which occafioncd the Jews by degrees to underftand all thefe ibrts of 7?^«r^/rj^ expreflions literally. ' Hence, amongft their many vifions, this was one, that Elias ihould come again in per- fon. Which fliews what it was the Jews afked John the Baptift -, and what it was he anfwered, when he denied himfelf to be Elias : Not that he was not the Meflenger prophefied of by Malachi (for his pretending to be that Meflenger evidently occafioned the queftion) but that he was not, nor did the prophecy imply that the MeflTenger fliould be, Elias in per/on.

But to fet his reafoning in the fuUefl: light. Let us confider a fimilar prophecy of Amos : Behold ihe days come^ faith the Lord God, that I will fetid a TAMit^E in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirji of water, but of hearing the words of the Lord '. I would afk, is this a Prophecy of a fa- mine of the word in a literal, or in a tnyjtical fenfe ? Without doubt the Deifl: will own (if ever he ex- peds we Ihould appeal again to his ingenuity) in a literal. But now ilrike out the explanation \_not a famine of bread, nor a thirfl of water] and what is it then ? Is it not ftill a famine of the word in a literal fenfe ? Myjlical, if you will, in the meaning of metaphorically obfciire, but not in the meaning oi fpiriiual. But myjlical in this latter fignification only, is oppcfed to literal, in the queftion about fecondary fenfes. It appears then, that a want of preaching the word is ftill the literal meaning of the Prophecy, whether the explanation be in or out, though the figurative term [^famine] be ufed to exprcfs that meaning. And the reafon why the

' Chap. viii. vcr. 11.

Prophet

3e<£t. 6. c/' Moses demonfirated, 331

Prophet explains the term, was not, becaufe it was a harfli or unnatural figure, to denote "jcant of preaching, any more than the term Elijah to denote a fimilar character, which Malachi does not ex- plain •, but becaufe the Prophecy of Amos might have been for ever miilaken, and the figurative term uiiderftood literally •, the People being at that time, often punifhed for their fms by 2l famine <f head.

But this abufive cavil at figurative terms will remind us of his obfervations on the following Prophecy of Ifaiah — " Even them will I bring to " my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my " houfe of prayer : their burnt offerings and their " facrifices lliallbe accepted upon mine altar; for " mine houfe Ihall be called an houfe of Prayer " FOR ALL PEOPLE^." This, he fays, muft needs relate to JewiOi, not to Chriftian times. Why ? Becaufe facrifices are mentioned. But how could this truth be told the Jewifh People, that all nations JJjouldbe gathered to the true God, otherwife than by ufing terms taken from Rites familiar to them ; unlefs the nature of the Chriftian Difpenfation had been previouQy explained? A matter evidently unfit for their inform.ation, when they were yet to live fo long under the Jewiih. For tho* the Pro- phets fpeak of the little value of, and fmall regard due to, the ceremonial Law ; , they always mean (and always make their meaning underftood) when the ceremonial Law is fuperftitioufly obferved, and obferved to a negleft of the moral \ which laft they dcfcribe in the purity and perfedion of the Gofpel. So admirable was this condudl ! that w^hile it hid the future Difpenfition, it prepared men for it.

K Chap. Ivi. ver. 7,

Thus

332 ^hc Dhine Legation Book VI.

Thus then (lands the argument of this mighty Rcaibner. There are 7w Prophecies, he fays, which relate to Jesus but in a fecondary fenfe. Now a fecondary fenfe is unfcholaftic and enthufiajiical. To this we anfwer, that the Prophecy of Malachi about Elijah, and of Ifaiah about bringing all people to his holy mountain, relate to Jesus in a primary fenfe. He replies. No, but in a r,iyjiicaly only. Here he begins to quibble, the fure fign of an ex- piring Argument : Myjlical fignifies as well fecon- dary 2^s figurative. In the fenfe of fecondary, the interpretation of thefe Prophecies to Jesus is not tiiyfiical', in the fenfe of /^//r^/iw it is. But is the ufe of a figurative term enthufiaftical or unfcho- laftic, when the end is only to convey information concerning a lefs known thing in the terms of one more known? Now whether we are to charge this to ill faith or a worfe underftanding, his Follow- ers fhall determine for me,

2. But we will fuppofe all that an ingenuous Ad- verfary can alk — " That moft of the Prophecies in queftion relate to Jesus in 2i fecondary fenfe only ; the reft in a primary, but expreffed in figurative terms ; which, till their completion, threw a ihade over their meaning, and kept them in a certain degree of obfcurity." Now, to Ihew how all this came about, will add ftill farther light to this very perplexed queftion.

We have feen, from the nature and long dura- tion of the Jewilh CEconomy, that the Prophecies which relate to Jesus, muft needs be darkly and enigmatically delivered : We have feen how the filkgoric Mode of fpeech, then much in ufe, fur- nifhed the means, by what wc call a double fenfe in Prophecies, of doing this with all the requifite

obfcurity.

SeO:. 6 . 0/ M 6 s e s Jenibnflrated, ' 333

obfcurity. But as fome of thefe Prophecies by their proper light alone, without the confirmation of miracles, could hardly have their fublimer fenfe fo well afcertained ; to render all oppofers of the Gofpel without excufe, it pleafed the Holy Spirit, under the laft race of the Prophets, to give creden- tials to the mifllon of Jesus by prediftions of him in 2i primary and literal knk. Yet the Jewifh GEco- nomy being to continue long, there (till remained the fame neceffity of a covert and myfterious con- veyance. That figurative expreflion therefore, which was before employed in the propcfition^ was now ufed in the terms. Hence, the Prophecies of 2ifingle fenfe come to be in highly figurative words : as before, the earlier Prophecies of a double fenfe (which had a primary meaning in the affairs of the Jewifh State, and, for the prefent information of that People) were delivered in a much fimpler phrafe.

The Jewifli Doctors, whofe obftinate adherence^ not to the letter of the Law, as this Writer igno- rantly or fraudulently fuggefts, but to the my- ftical interpretations of the Cabala, prevents their feeing the true caufe of this difference in the lan- guage, between the earlier and later Prophets, the Jewifh Dodors, I fay, are extremely perplexed to give a tolerable account of this matter. What they befl agree in is, that the figurative enigmatic fiyle of the later Prophets (which however they make infinitely more obfcure by cabaliftic mean- ings, than it really is, in order to evade the relation which the Prediftions have to Jesus) is owingto the declining fiate of Prophecy. Every Prophet, fays the famous Rabbi, Jofeph Albo, that is of a Jlrong, fagacious, and piercing underfiand/ng, ivill ap- prehend the thing 7takedly liiithout any fimilitude; 9 "thence

334 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

'whence it comes to pafs that all hisfayings are diftincl and clear ^ ayid free from all obfciirity, having a literal truth in them : But a Prophet of an inferior rank or degree, his words are ohfcure, enwrapped in riddles and parables \ and therefore have not a literal but alle- gorical truth contained in them^\ And indeed our fi(5titions Rabbi feems to have had as little know- ledge of this matter as the other ; for in anfwer to ■what Mr. Whifton, who, extravagant as he was in rejefting all double fenfes, yet knew the difference between ^fecondary and enigmatic prophecy, which, we fhall fee, Mr. Collins did not, in anfwer, I fay, to Mr. Whifton, who obferved that the Prophefies [meaning the primary"] which relate to Chriftianity are covered^ myfiical, and enigmatical, replies, This is exa^ly equal myfticifm with, andjuji as remote from the real literal fen fe as the myjiicifm of the Allcgorijls [i. e. the Contenders for a double fenfe] and is al- together as OBSCURE to the underftanding K His ar- gument againft fecondary fenfes is, that they are unfcholajiic and enthiifiaflicaL Mr. Whifton, to humour him, prefents him with direti and prima)-y Prophecies, but tells him, at the fame time, they are expreifedin covered, myjlical, and enigmatic terms. This will not fatisfy him ; it is no better than the my- fiicifm of the Allegorijls. How fo .'' We may think perhaps, that he would pretend to prove, be- caufe his argument requires he fhould prove, that enigmatical exprejfwns are as unfcholajiic and enthu- fiafiical as fecondary fenfes. No fuch matter. All he fays is, that they are as obscure to the under- Jlanding. But obfcurity is not his quarrel v^\i\\ fecon- dary fenfes. He objefts to them as unfcholaflic and enthuftaflical. But here lay the difficulty, no man,

^ Smith's ^eleSi Di/courfa, p. iSo. * The GrounJsy

^\. p. 2^z.

who

Se(5l. 6. cf Moses demonjirated* ^35

who pretended to any language, could affirm this, oi figurative enigmatical exprcjfwns -, he was forced therefore to have recourfe to his ufual refuge, ob- scurity.

It is true, he fays, thefe myjiical enigmatic Pro- phecies (as Mr. Whifton calls them) are equally re-' mote from the real literal fenfe^ as the myjlicifm of the Allegorifts. But this is Only a repetition of the blunder expofed above, where he could not diftin- guilh between the literal fenfe of a Tenn^ and the literal lenfe of a Propojition. And how grofs that ignorance is we may fee by the following inftance. Ifaiah fays, "The Wolf alfo fJo all dwell with the Lamb, and the Leopard fhall lie down with the Kid j and the Calf, and the young Lion, and the Failing to- gether, and a little Child fhall lead them ^. Now I will take it for granted that his Followers under- ftand this, as Grotius does, of the profound peace which was to follow after the times of Senacherib, under Hezekiah : but tho' the terms be myftical, yet fure they call this the literal fenfe- of the pro- phecy : For Grotius makes the myfiical fenfe to re- fer to the Gofpel. Mr. Whifton, Ifuppofe, denies that this has any thing to do with the times of He- zekiah, but that it refers to thofe of Christ only. Is not his interpretation therefore literal as well as that of Grotius ? unlefs it immedi- ately becomes odly typical, unfcholajtic, and enthu- ' fiajiical, as foon as ever Jesus comes into the quef- tion.

II. But now, befides the literal primary prophe- cies concerning the person of Jesus, we fay, in the fecond place, that there are other which give a

^ Chap, xi, ver, 6,

primary

33^ ^he Divine Legation Book VI*

primary and dire£i intimation of the change of THE Dispensation. Ifaiah foretels great mercies to the Jewifli People, in a future Age ; which, tho' reprefented by fuch metaphors as bore analogy to the bleflings peculiar to the Jewilh CEconomy, yet, to Ihew that they were indeed different from what the figurative terms alluded to, the Prophet at tlie fame time adds, My thoughts are not as your thoughts, neither are your ways my zvays, faith the Lord\ This furely implies a different Dispensation. That the chano-e was from carnal to fpiritual, is elegantly intimated in the fubjoining words, ~ For as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, /£> are my ways higher than your ways^ and my thoughts than your thoughts'^. But this higher and more excellent Difpenfation is more plainly revealed in the fol- lowing figure : Inftead of the thorn fhall come up the fir-tree, and inftead of the brier fhall come up the myrtle-tree " •, i. e. the new Religion (liall as far excel the old, as the fir-tree does the thorn, or the myrtle the brier. In a following Prophecy he fhews the extent of this new Religion as here he had (hewn its Nature ; that it was to fp read be- yond Judea, and to take in the whole race of man- kind,—•T'/^^ gentiles fhall come to thy light, and kings to the hrightnefs of thy rifing °, ^c. Which idea the Prophet Zephaniah exprelTes in fo ftrong a manner, as to leave no room for evafion : The Lord will he terrible unto them, for he will famish all the Gods of the earth; andmen ffMll worfJoip him everyone from his place, even all the ifies of the Gentiles ^ The exprcffion is noble, and alludes to the popular fuperftitions of Paganilm, which conceived that their Gods were nourilhed

' Chap.lv. ver. 8. "" Vcr. q. * Ver. 13.

« Chap. Ix. ver. 3. »» Chap. ii. ver. 11.

by

Scd:. 6. ^ Moses demonjirated. 337

by the fteam of facrifices. But when were the Pagan Gods thus famijhed^ but in the firft ages of Chriftianity ? — Every one from his place \ that is, they were not to go up to Jerusalem to worfhip. — Even all the ijles of the Gentiles : but when did thefe worfhip the God of Ifrael every one from his place, before the preaching of the Apoftles? Then indeed their fpeedy and general con^rerfion diftin- guifhed them from the reft of the nations. This he exprelTes yet more plainly in another place. ** In that day fhall there be an altar to the Lord " in the midft of the Land of ' Egypt '^J'* i. e. the Temple-fervice fhall be abolifhed ; and the God of Ifrael worfhiped with the moft folemn rites, even in the moft abhorred and unfandified places, fuch as the Jews efteemed Egypt. Which Malachi thus diverfifies in the exprefTion, And in everyplace incenfe fhall he offered unto my name^ and a PURE OFFERING % /. 6. it fliall not bc the lefs ac- ceptable for not being at the temple.

But Ifaiah, as he proceeds, is ftill more explicite, and declares, in direcl terms, that the Difpenfation Ihould be changed: Behold^ 1 create he^ Heavens

9 Chap. xix. 19.

' Chap. i. 19. — Nothing can be more fimple than the prin- ciple here inforced, or more agreeable to the rules of juft in- terpretation than to fuppofe, that the Language of the L.-.it', in the terms altar, sacrifice, &c. ii employed to convey thefe prophetic intimations of the Gofpel. The ancient fathers of the Church very improvidently continued the ufe of thefe terms, when fpeaking of the Chriftjan Rites : For tho' they ufed them, and profeffed to ufa them metaphorically, yet it gave counte- nance to ftrange extravagance of Scripture-interpretation amongft the Romanilh. The ingenious Author of the B7-incii>es de la foi Chreiienne, Tom. i. p. 273. brings this prophecy of Malacht for a proof of the divine inftitution of the Sacrifice of the Mafs.

Vol. V. Z an4

33^ ^hs Divine Legation Book VI.

and a new .Earth •, and the former fiall not he re- membered^ nor come into mind \ This, in the pro- phetic ftyle, means a new religion and a new Law; the metaphors, as we have fliewn elfe- where, being taken from hieroglyphical expreflion. He fpeaks in another place, of the confequence of this change -, namely the transferring the benefits of Religion from the Jewifh to the Chriftian Dif- penfation. Is it not yet a very little while, " and *' Lebanon {the ijles of the Gentiles'] fhall be turn- " ed into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field {the *' land of Judea] fhall be efleemed as a foreft'?" To make it yet more clear, I obferve farther, that the Prophet goes on to declare the change of the SANCTION; and this was a necefTary confequence of the change of the Difpenfation. — There fhall he no more thence an infant of days, Jtor an old man that hath not filled his days : For the child Jhall die an hundred years old, hut thejinner heing an hundred years oldfioall he accurfed"^ ; ;'. e. the Sanction of tem- poral REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS fliall be DO

longer adminiftred in an extraordinary manner : for we muft remember, that long life for obedience, and fudden and untimely death for tranfgrcfTions, bore an eminent part in the San6lion of the Jewifh Law. Now thele are exprefsly faid to be abro- gated in the Difpenfation promifed, it being de- clared that the Virtuous, tho' dying immaturely, fhould be as if they had lived an hundred years; and Sinners, tho' living to an hundred years, as if they had died immaturely.

The very fame prophecy in Jeremiah, delivered in lei's figurative terms, fupports this interpretation

» Chap. Ixv. \'er. 17. ' Chnp. xxix. 17.

" Chap. ixv. 20.

. beyond

S&O:, 6» of Moses demojijlrated, 339

beyond all poflibility of cavil: " Behold the days " come, faith the Lord, that I will make a new " COVENANT with the houfe of Ifrael^ and with *' the houfe oijudah, not according to the Covenant " that I made with their fathers, in the day that I *' took them by the hand, to bring them out of *' the land of Egypt. — But this Jhall be the Covenant " that I will make with the houfe of IfraeU After " thofe days, faith the Lord, / will put my Law *' in their inward parts, and write it in their '* hearts''."'

Whatlfaiah figuratively names 2i new Heaven and a new Earth, Jeremiah fimply and literally calls a new Covenant. And what kind of Covenant ? Not fuch an one as was made with their Fathers. This was declarative enough of its nature ; yet to prevent miftakes, he gives as well a pofitive as a negative defcription of it ; 'ThisJIoall he the Covenant^ 1 will put my Law in their inward parts, &'c. i. e, this Law fliall be fpiritual, as the other given to their Fathers, vj2is carnal: For the Ceremonial Law did not fcrutinize the heart, but reftedin external obedience and obfervances.

Laftly, to crown the whole, we may obferve, that Jeremiah too, likelfaiah, fixes the true nature of the Difpenfation by declaring, the change of the SANCTION : " In thofe days they lliall fay no " more, the fathers have eaten a four grape, and " the childrens teeth are fet on edge. But every " one fliall die for his own iniquity, every man " that eateth the four grape, his teeth fliall be {tt " on edge ^." For it was part of the Sandlion of the Jewifli Law, that children fliould bear the ini-

* Chap. xxxi. ver. 31. y Ver. 29.

Z 2 c^'-'ity

340 lie Divine Legation Book VI.

quity of their fathers, (£c. a mode of punilhincr which hath been already explained and juftified. Yet all thefe Prophecies of the Gospel beincr de- livered in terms appropriate to the Law,'' the Jews of that time would naturally, as they in faft did, underftand them as fpeaking of the extention and completion of the old Difpenfation, rather than the perfedion of it by the introdudtion of a NEW. And thus their reverence for the prefenc Syftem, under which they were yet to continue, was prelerved. The neceflity of this proceedino-^ for the prelent time ;— the effefts it would after- wards produce thro* the perverfity of the fuper- ftitious followers of the Law j— and the divine goodnefs as well as wifdom manifefted in this pro- ceeding, are all finely touched in the following

paffage of Ifaiah ^ « Whom lliall he teach

" knowledge ? and whom fliall he make to under- " ftand doctrine ? Them that are weaned from the " milk, and drawn from the breafts \ For pre- " cept muft be [or hath been] upon precept, pre- " cept upon precept, line upon line, line upon " Imc ", here a little and there a little. For with " Hammering lips and another tongue will he fpeak " to this People =. To whom he faid, This is the " reft, and this is the refrefiiing \ yet they would •* not hear. But the word of the Lord was unto

* Chap, xxvili. 9, i^ feq.

' J. e. Thofe who were moll free from the prejudices of the

Eternity of the Law.

^ This reduplication of the phrafe was to add force and energy to the fenfe. ^'

* i. e. Gofpel truths delivered in the language of the Law.

* i. e. The glad tidings of the Gofpel.

" them

Sed. 6. of Mo SES demonftrated. 341

" them, precept upon precept, precept upon pre- " cept, line upon line, line upon line, here a lit- " tie and there a little -, that they might go and " fall backward, and be broken and fnared and «' taken S"

Notwithftanding all this, if you will believe our Adverfary, Ike hooks of the Old ^ejlament feem the mofi PLAIN of all ancient writings, and wherein there appears not the least trace of typical OR ALLEGORICAL INTENTION in the Authcrs, or in my other Jews c/ their times^. He that anfwers a Free-thinker will find employment enough.— iV<?/ the leafi trace of a typical or allegorical intention ! He might as well have faid there is not the leaji trace of ^ottry in Virgil, or of eloquence in Cicero. But there is none, he fays, either in the Authors, or in any other Jews of their times. Of both which Afiertions, this fingle Text of Ezekiel will be an abundant confutation— y^/j Lord, they say of me, DO^H HE not speak PARABLES ^ ? The Prophct complains that his ineffeftual Miffion proceeded fr6m his fpeaking, and from the People's conceiv- ing him to fpeak, of things myfterioufly, and in a mode of delivery not underftood by them. The Author of the book of Ecclefiafticus, who is rea- fonably fuppofed to have been contemporary with Antiochus Epiphanes, reprefents holy Scripture as fully fraught with typical and allegoric wifdom : " He that giveth his mind to the Law of the

• i. e. Thi^ gradual yet repeated inftrudtion, which was given with fo much mercy and indulgence, to lead them by flow and gentle fteps from the Law to the Gofpel, being abufed fo as to defeat the end, GoJ in punilhment made it the occafion of blinding their eves and hardening their hearts.

f Groundty l^c. p. 82. ^ Chap. xx. ver. 49.

Z 3 " Moll

342 "Tie Divine Legation Book VI.

" Moft High, and is occupied in the meditation *' thereof, will feek out the wifdom of the An- " cients, and be occupied in Prophecies. He *' will keep the fayings of the renowned men ; and ** where subtile parables are, he will be there " alfo. He will fcek out the secrets of grave " sentences, and be converfant in dark para- " bles \" Hence it appears that the Jewilh Pro- phecies were not lb plain as our Adverfary repre- fents them ; and that their obfcurity arofe from their having Typical or AUegoiical intentions: which figures too, related not to the prefent^ but to a future Difpenfation, as is farther feen from what Ezekifl fays in another place — Son of man, behold < they of the houfe of Jfrael fay. The vision that

HE SEETH is for MANY DAYS TO COME, AND HE PROPHESIETH OF THE TIMES THAT ARE FAR OFF '.

So that thefe People to whom the Prophecies were k> plain ^ and who underftood them to refpeft their own times only, without any Typical or Allegoric tneaniiig, complain of ohfctirities in them, and con- fider them as referring to very remote times. But I am afnamed of being long-er ferious with fo idle a Caviller. The Englifh Bible lies open to every Free-thinker of Great Britain; Where they may read it that will, and underitand it that can.

As for fuch Writers as the Author of the Grounds and Reafons, To fay the truth, one would never wilh to fee them other wife employed : But when fo great and fo good a man asGROTius hath unwarily contributed to fupport the dotages of Infidelity,

i\iv3-ilM — •' iv oav.ytA.xyt 'm»px'90?\uv dvar^a'pyia'PiXU Chap. XXXIX. ver. I, 2, 3.

^ Chap. xii. ver. zf.

this

Sed. 6. o/^ M o s E s demonjirated. 343

this is fuch a mifadventure as one cannot but la- ment.

This excellent Perfon, (for it is not to be dif- guifed) hath made it his conftant endeavour throughout his whole Comment on the Prophets, to find a doiihk fenfe even in thofe dire^ Prophecies which relate to Jesus ; and to turn the primary fenfe upon the affairs of the Jewifh Difpenfation ; only permitting them to relate to Jesus in difecon- dary: and by that affeded flrain of interpretation, hath done almoll as much harm to Revelation as his other writings have done it fervice : not from any ftrength there is in his Criticifms -, (for this, and his Comment on the Apocalypfc are the opprobri- um of his great learning) but only from the name they carry with them.

The Principle which Grotius went upon in com- menting the Bible, was, that it fhould be inter- preted on the fame rules of Criticifm that men ufe in the ftudy of all other ancient Writings. No- thing could be more reafonable than his Prin- ciple : but unluckily he deceived himfelf in the application of it. Thefe rules teach us that the GENIUS, PURPOSE, and AUTHORITY of the Writer fhould be carefully ftudied. Under the head of his authority it is to be confidercd, whether he be a mere human or an infpired Writer. Thus far Grotius went right : he examined that authority ; and pronounced the Writers to be infpired^ and the Prophecies divine : But when he came to ap- ply thefe premifTes, he utterly forgot his conclufion ; and interpreted the Prophecies by rules very dif- ferent from what the confefllon of their divine origi- nal required : for feeing them pronounced by Jew- ilh Prophets, occupied in Jewifh Affairs, he con- Z 4 eluded

344 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

eluded their fole Objed was Jevvifh -, and confe- quently that the proper fenfe of the Prophecies referred to thefe only. But this was falling back from one of the grounds he went upon. That the Writers were infpired : for his interpretation was on- ly reafonable on the fuppofition that thefe Writers prophefied in the very manner which the Pagans vinderftood their Prophets fometimes to have done, by a statural fagacity : For, on the allowance of a real infpi^ation, it was God, and not the Writer, who was the proper Author of the Prophecy ; and to underftand his piirpofe^ which the rules of inter- pretation requires us to feek, we mufl examine the nature, reafon, and end of that Religion wjiich he gave to the Jews : For on thefe, common fenfe aflTures us, the meaning of the Prophecies muft be intirely regulated. Now if, on enquiry, it fhould be found, that this which Grotius admitted for a divine Difpenfation, was only preparatory of an- other more perfect, it Vv'ould then appear not to be improbable that fome of thefe Prophecies might relate, in their literal, primary^ a.nd immediate fenfe, to that more perfect Difpenfation. And v/hether they did fo or not was to be determined by the joint evidence of the context, and of the nature of God's whole Difpenfation to mankind, fo far forth as it is difcoverable to us. But Grotius, inftead of making the matter thus reafonably pro-. blematical, and to be determined by evidence, de- termined ftrft, and laid it down as a kind of Prin- ciple, that the Prophecies related direftly and pro- perly to Jewifh affairs : and into this fyftem he wiredrew all his explanations. This, as we fay, was falfly applying a true rule of interpretation. He went on this reafonable ground, that the Pro- phecies fhould be interpreted like all other ancient Writings : and, on examining their authority, he

foun4

Se<3:. 6. o/" M o s E s demonjl rated. 345

found them to be truly divine. When he had gone thus far, he then prepofteroufly went back again, and commented as if they were confefTed to be merely human : The confequence was, that feveral of his criticifms, to fpeak of them only as the performance of a man of learning, are fo forced, unnatural, and abfurd, fo oppofed to the rational canon of interpretation, that I will venture to affirm they are, in all refpedls, the worll that ever came from the hand of an acute and able Critic.

III.

Having now proved that the Principles which Mr. Collins went upon, are in themfelves falfe and extravagant, one has little reafon to regard how he employed them. But as this extraordinary Writer was as great a Free-thinker in Logic as in Divinity, it may not be improper to fhew the fa- fhionable World v/hat fort of man they have chofen for their Guide, to lead them from their Religion, when they would no longer bear with any to direft them in it.

His argument againft what he calls typical^ alle- gorical, but properly, fecondary fenfes, ftands thus : — ** Chriftianity pretends to derive itfelf from Judaifm. Jesus appeals to the religious books of the Jews as prophefyingof his MifTion. None of thefe Prophecies can be underftood of him but in a typical allegoric fenfe. Now that fenfe is abfurd, and contrary to all fcholaftic rules of interpreta- tion. Chriftianity, therefore not being really pre-- difted of in the Jewifli Writings, is confequently falfe.^' — The conteftable Propofition, on which the \vhole argument rells, is, That a typical or allegoric

fenfe

34^ 'The Divine Legation Book VI.

fcnfe is abfurd^ and contrary to allfcholajlic rules of in- terpretation.

Would the Reader now believe that Mr. Collins has himfelf, in this very book given a thorough confutation of his own capital Propofition ? Yet fo it isi and, contrary too to his iifual way of reafoning, he has done it in a very clear and con- vincing manner -, by (hewing, that the typical and allegorical yf2iy oi writings was univerfally practifed by Antiquity. — " Allegory (fays he) was much " in ule amongfl; the Pagans^ being cultivated by " many of the Philofophers themlelves as well as ** Theologers. By some as the method of de- " LivERiNG DOCTRINES; but by moft as the me- " thod of explaining away what, according to the "• letter, appear'd abfurd in the ancient fables or hif- *' tories of their Gods. Religion itfelf was deemed " a myfterious thing amonglt the Pagans, and not " to be publicly and plainly declared. Wherefore " it was never fmiply reprefented to the People, " but was moll oblcurely delivered, and vail'd un- " dtr Allegories, or Parables, or Hieroglyphics ; " and efpecially amongll the Egyptians, Chal- " deans, and the Oriental Nations. — They alle- *' gorized many things of nature, and particu- *' larly the heavenly bodies — They allegorized " all their ancient fables and flories, and pretended " to difcover in them the fecrets of natural Philo- " fophy. Medicine, Politicks, and in a word all *' Arts and Sciences. The works of Homer in " particular have furnifhed infinite materials for " all forts of allegorical Commentators to work " upon. — The ancient Greek Poets were reputed ♦' to involve divine, and natural, and hiftorical " notions of their Gods under myftical and para-

" bolical

Se6l. 6. ^ Moses demonjirated. 347

*' bolical exprefTions — The Pythagorean Philofo-

" phy was wholly delivered in myilical language,

" the fignification whereof was entirely unknown

** to the world abroad— The Stoic Philofophers

" are particularly famous for allegorizing the whole

*' heathen Theology— We have feveral treatifes

" of heathen Philofophers on the fubjed of alle-

*' gorical interpretation "." —

If nov/ this kind of allegorizing^ which involved the Proportion in z double fertfe^ was in ufe amongft the pagan Oracles, Divines, Philofophers and Poets, is not the underllanding ancient writings allegori- cally^ or in a double fenfe^ agreeable to all rational, fcholaftic rules of interpretation ? Surely, as much fo as the underllanding mere metaphorical expfef- lions in a tropical fignification ; whofe propriety no one ever yet called in queftion. For the fenie of Propofdions is impofed as arbitrarily as the fenfe of words. And if men, in the communication of their' thoughts, agree to give, on Ibme occafions, a double fenfe to Propofdiom, as well as on others, a fingle^ the interpreting the firfl in two meanings is as agreeable to all fcholaftic rules, as interpret- ing the other in one : And Proportions, with a double and fingle fenfe, are as eafily diftinguifh- able from each other, by the help of the context, as IVords with a literal and figurative meaning. But this great Philofopherfeems to have imagined, that xht fingle fenfe of a Propofition was impoled by Nature ; and that therefore, giving them a double meaning was the fame offence againft Reafon as the deviating from the unity of pure 'Theifm into Poly- theifin : and, confequently, that the univerfal lapfe

^ Grounds, ^c. p. 83, S4, 85, 86.

5 into

348 The Divine Legation Book VI.

into ALLEGORY and idolatry rendred neither the one nor other of them the lefs abfurd '.

I fay, he feems to think fo. More one cannot fay of fuch a Writer. Befides, he feems to think otherwife, where, in another place, as if aware that Ufe would refcue a double fenfe from his irra- tional and unfcholajiic cenfure, he endeavours to prove, that the Jews, during the prophetic period, did not ufe this allegoric way of expreffion. Now if we be right in this laft conjedure about his meaning, he abufes the terms he employs, under a milerable quibble j and, by fcholajlic and un- fcholajiic rulesy only means interpreting in a ^ngk or a double fenfe.

The Reader perhaps will be curious to know how it happened, that this great Reafoner Ihould, all at once, overthrov/ what he had been fo long labouring to build. This fatal iffue of his two books of the Grounds, &c. and Scheme, &c. had thefe caufes :

' It is wonderful to confider how little the Writers on either fide the queftion, have underftood of the logical propritty and moral ft ntfs of I'ypes, and fecondary feiifes of Prophecy.

Dr. Middleton and Dr. Sykes, who agreed with Mr. Collins in laughing at thefe modes of information, agreed with him likcwife, in laying down fuch principles and inculcating fuch ideas of the Mofaic Religion, as moft efFeflually tended to evince this logical propriety and moral Jit ne/s.

On the other hand, Biihop Sherlock, Dr. Stebbing?, and other advocates for Types and fecondary fenfcs of Prophecy, lay dvown fuch principles, and inculcate fuch ideas of the Mofaic Religion, as would totally fupercede the ufe of thefe modes of information, and confequently dellroy both their logical propriety

and moral f.tnrfs. See the Free and candid Examination of

P'Jhop Sherlock's Principles, Sec. chap. ii.

I. He

St^. 6. of Moses demciiflrated. 349

I. He had a prefllng and immediate obje5iion to remove. And as he had no great ftock of argu- ment, and but fmall forecall, any thing, at a plunge, would be received, which came to his relief.

The obje6lIon was this — " That the allegorical " interpretations of the Apoftles were notdefigned *' for abfolute proofs of Chriftianity, but for argu- " ments ad homines only to the Jews, who were " accuftomed to that way of reafoning *"." Thus, he himfelf tells us, fome Divines are ac- cuftomed to talk. He gives them indeed a folid anfwer -, but he dreams not of the confequence. He fays, this allegoric reafoning v;as common to all mankind. Was itfo .? Then the grand Propofitiori on which his whole Work fupports itfelf, is en- tirely overthrown. For if all mankind ufed it, the method muft needs be rational and fcholaflic. But this he was not aware of. What kept him in the dark, was his never being able' to diftin- guilh between the use and the abuse of this mode of information. Thefe two things he per- petually confounds, T^he 'Pagan Oracles delivered

themfelves in allegories \ this was the ufe : Their

later 'Divines turned all their Religion into allegory ;

«■ this was the abufe. I^he elder Pythagoreans

gave their Precepts in allegory this was the

ufe : T^he later Stoics allegorized every thing ;

this was the abufe. Homer had fome allegories \ —this was the ufe : His Commentators turned all to

allegory; and this again was the abufe. But

tho' he has talked fo much of thefe things, yet he knew no more of them than old John Bun van \ whofe honefter ignorance, joined to a good mean-

"> Page 79.

ing.

350 The Divine Legation Eook VL

ing, difpofcd him to admire that which the malig- nity of our Author's folly inclined him to decry : and each in the like ridiculous extreme.

2. But the other caufe of this fubverfion of his own fyttem was the delight he took to blacken the.fplendor of Religion. He fuppofed, we may be fure, it would prove an effectual difcredit to Revelation, to have it feen, that there was this conformity between the Pagan and Jewiih method of delivering Religion and Morality. His attempt hath been already expofed as it deferves °. But in this inftance it labours under much additional folly. For the differeni reafons which induced the Propagators of Paganifm, and the Author of Judaifm to employ the fame method of infor- mation, are obvious to the meanell capacity, if advanced but fo far in the knowledge of nature to know, that different ends are very commonly profecuted by the fame means. The Pagans alle- gorifed in order to hide the weaknefs and ahfurdi- ties of their national Religions ; the Author of Ju- daifm allegorized in order to pi'epare his follow- ers for the reception of a more perfe£l Difpenfation, founded on Judaifm, which was preparatory of it ; and, at the fame time, to prevent their premature rejection of Judaifm, under which they were Itill to be long exercifed.

Thus we fee how this formidable Enemy of our Faith has himfelf overturned his whole Argument by an unwary anfvver to an occafional objedlion. But this is but one^ of a Work fuUof contradidiions. I have no occafion to be particular, after removing his main Principles ; yet, for the Reader's diver-

" See Book iv, § i. at the end,

fion,

Se£t. 6. of Moses demonjlrated. 351

lioD, I ihall give him a tafte of them. In his 81

page, he fays And there has been for a long time^

and is at this time as little ufe of allegory in thofe re- fpe5is amongji them [the Jews] as there feems to hai-e been during the time the books of the Old 'Teflament were written^ which feem the moji plain of all ancient IVri tings, and wherein there appears not the leajl tra<e of a typical or allegorical intention in the Authors^ or in any other Jews of their times. Yet it is but at the 85 page that we find him faying — And in this \yiz. in delivering his Philofophy in myftical language] Pythagoras came up to Solomon's character of wife men, who dealt in dark fayings, and aEled not much unlike the mofi divine Teacher that ever was. Our Saviour fpake with many parables, &c. Now it leems, it was Solomon's charafter of wife men that they dealt in dark fayings. But thefe wife men were the Authors of the Jewifh Scriptures. And yet he had but juft before affured us, 'That the books of the Old Teflament feem the mofi plain of all ancient Writings, and wherein there appears 7iot the leafl trace of a typical or allegorical intention in the Authors, or in any Jews of their times.

Again, in his 85 — 6 pages, he fays, " The '^y- " thagorean Philofophy was wholly delivered in " myllical language -, the fignification whereof was *' intirely unknown to the world abroad, and but " gradually explained to thofe of the fedt, as they " grew into years, or were proper to be informed *' — The Stoic Philofophers were particularly fa- " mous for allegorizing — We have feveral treatifes " of heathen Philofophers on the fubje6l of alle- " gorical interpretation — And from Philofophers, " Platonifts and Stoics, the famous Origen is *' laid to have derived a great deal of his fldll in " allegorizing tlie books of the Old Teflament."

This

352 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

This he fays, and yet at the 94 page he tells us, — *' That the Apottles, and particularly St. Paul, " wholly difcarded all other methods of reafoning *' ufed by Philofophers, except the allegorical: and " fet that up as the true and only reafoning pro- " per to bring all men to the faith of Christ : " and the Gentiles were to be "wholly beat out '* of the literal way of arguing, and to argue " as became Jews. And the event of preaching ** the Gofpel has been fuited to matters confidered " in this view and light. For we know that the *' WISE did not receive the Gofpel at firft, and " that they were the lateft Converts : Which " PLAINLY arofe from their ujing maxims of reafon- " ing and difputing wholly oppq/ite to thofe of Chrif- " tians.'* By thefe ivife^ can be meant none but the pagan Philofophers : and thefe, according to our Author, were altogether given up to myltery and allegory. Yet St. Paul, and the reft of the Apoftles, who, he fays, were likewife given up to the lame method, could make no converts amongft thefe wife men. Why ? It would now methinks have fuited his talents as well as temper, to have told us, it was becaufe two of a trade could not agree: No, fays this incomparable Logician, it was becaufe the Philofophers ufed maxims of reafon- ing and difputingwholl^ oppofite to the Chrifiians.

What now but the name and authority of Free- thinking could hinder fuch a Writer from becom- ino- the contempt of all who know either how to make, or to underftand an argument ? Thefe men profane the light they receive from Revelation in employing it to rob the treafures of the Sanc- tuary. But Religion arreils them in the manner^ and pronounces one common d»om upon the whole

race.

" — Ne

Sc(5t. 6. of Moses demonjlrated. 353

<< . — Ne IGNIS NOSTER facinori prasluceat, *' Per quern colendos cenfuk Pietas Deos, " Veto ESSE TALE luminis commercium*.

Hence the fate that attends them all, in the in- feparable connexion hztw^^tn impiety 2iX\d blundering; which always follow one another as the crime and the punifhment.

If it be afked then. What it is that hath fo ilrangely prejudiced our modern Reafoners againft this ancient mode of information by typical and SECONDARY fenfes ? I anfwer, the folly of Fana- tics, who have abufed it in fupporc of the mofl abominable nonfenfe. But how unreafonable is this prejudice ! Was there ever any thing rational or excellent amongft Men that hath not been thus abufed ? Is it any difparagement to the method of Geometers^ that fome conceited writers on Morality and Religion have of late taken it up, to give an air of weight and demonftration to the whimfies of pedantic importance ? Is there no truth of nature, or reafonablenefs of art, in Grammatical conftruc- tion, becaufe cabaliftic Dunces have in every age abufed it to pervert all human meaning ? We might as well fay that the ancient Egyptians did not write in Hieroglyphics, becaufe Kircher, who endeavoured to explain them, hath given us no- thing but his own vifions, as that the ancient Jews had not types and fecondary fenfes^ becaufe modern Enthufiafts have allegorized their whole Story.

But I, from thefe ahitfes would draw a very contrary conclufion. The rage of allegorizing in Religion

" Phad. I. iv. Fab. lO.

Vol. V. A a hath

354 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

hath infeded all ages : Can there be a ftronger proof that the original mode was founded in the common conceptions of mankind ? The Pagans began the abufe ; and the peftilent infedlion loon Ipread amongft the followers of true Religion.

1. The early propagators of Paganism, in or- der to hide the weakneis of the national Religion, delivered many things in Types and Allegories. But a growing Superftition, accompanied with an equal advance in knowledge, made it at length impoffible to fcreen the folly even of the lefs ob- noxious parts, from common obfervers. Their Suc- cefTors therefore, to fupport its credit, went on where the others had left off; and allegorized all the traditional ftories of their Gods, intonaturaly moral, and dhini Entities. This, notwithftand- ing the extravagance of the means, fully anfwered the end.

2. The Jews ingrafted on their predecefTors, juft as the Pagans had done on theirs ; and with the fame fecular policy : For being pofiefTed with a national prejudice, that their Religion was to en- dure for ever, and yet feeing in it the marks of a carnal, temporary, and preparatory Difpenfation, they cunningly allegorized its Rites and Precepts into a fpiritucil meaning, which covered every thing that v/as a real deficiency in a Religion, which they conlidered as perfe6t and perpetual. Both thele forts of Allcgorifts therefore had reafon in tlieir rage.

3. Afterwards came a fet of Christian Wri- ters, brought out from amongllyif'ui'j and Gentilesy and thcfe too, would needs be in the fafliion, and allegorize their Religion likewiie. But with in- finite!/

Sedt. 6. of iVTosES detnonjlrated. 355

finitely lefs judgment than the others ; tho' alas ! with equal luccefs. In their hands, the ^;7c/proved as hurtful to truth as the mtans were extravagant in nature. And how fhould it be otherwife in a Religion both divine and perfe£} ? For in fuch aa one, there was nothing either to hide or to supply. We have fhewn that types and fecondary fenfes were employed in the Jewifh Religion for the fake of the Chriftian, of which the Jewilh was the ground- work and preparation. When therefore the Chri- fiian was come, thefe modes of information muft needs ceafe, there being no farther occafion, nor indeed room, for them. As clear as this is to the loweil underftanding, yet would Ibme primitive Doctors of the Church needs contend with Jev/i(h Rabbins, and pagan Philofophers, in all the rage of allegorizing : Deaf to the voice of ReafoOi which called aloud to tell them, that thofe very arguments, which proved that there were, and muft needs be^ types zndfeccndary fenfes in the OldTeJiament, proved as plainly that there neither were, nor could be any, in the Ne-zv. Thus, to the inexprelTible damage of Chriftianity, they c*:- pofed a reafonable Service, and a perfected Difpenfa- tion (where nothing was taught but Truth, plain, fimple, and open) to the laughter and contempt of Infidels ; who, bewildered in the univerfal m.aze of this allegoric mode of information, were never able to know what it was in its original, nor how to diitinguilh between the ufe and the ahife.

To CONCLUDE, Let not the Reader think I have been all this while leading him out of the way, while I have engaged his attention to the hook (?/JoB-, to the Cafe of Aj:^ ah km -^ and to Types and fecondary fenfes under the Jewifh Dif- penfation. All thefe flridlly belong to the Argu- ment :

Aa 2 I. Firft,

356 The Divine Legation Bcok VI.

1. Firfl, as they greatly contribute to fliew the HARMONY of Truth ; and how all the parts of the Jewifh Difpenfation fupport and illuitrate one another.

2. Secondly, as they contribute to fhew the uni- formity of it i and how the Holy Spirit, quite throughout God's grand CEconomy, from his firft giving of the Law to the completion of it by the Gofpel, obferved the fame unvaried method of the

CTRADUAL COMMUNICATION of 'TrUth.

3. Thirdly, as they contribute to Ihew the folly of thofe who contend that the Chriftian Doctrine of a Future ftate was revealed to the early Jews ; fmce this opinion deftroys all the reafon of zfecon- dary fenfe of Prophecies : and of how great impor- tance the reality of this fenfe is to the truth of Chri- ftianity hath been largely explained: For how can it be known with certainty, from the Prophecies themfelves, that they contain double fenfes^ but from hence, that the old Law was preparatory to, and the rudiment of the new? How (hall this relation be certainly known, but from hence, that no fu- ture ftate of Rewards and Punifhments is to be found in the Mofaic Difpenfation ^ ? So clofe a de- pendence

f M. BouiLLER, the ingenious Author of the Court Examen de la Thfje de Mr, L'' Abbe de Prades et Ol>/fy-jatio>:s fur Jon y]fc:cgie, having charged de Frades with taking his idea of the iVIofaic CEconomy from this Work, withoiit owning it, goes on, in his own way, to iTiew that the Argument of the Di'uine Legation, as delivered in thcfe two Volumes, is CONCLUSIVE. — " La Loi iVlofaique, coiifideree comme fondcment d'un cfcabliflement national et ttmporel, n'avoit Cjue dcs promeflcs ct des menaces, ne propolbit que des peines dcs rccompenfes temporelles : aulieu qu'i confiderer /</_g-r^«^/^i ■*uues de cet etablijfement, par rapport a V Eiiglje 7neme, Ja Loi e;oit unc efpece de tableau emblematique, qui fous I'enve- iogpe dcs objcts charnalsy^///-wV /Wy^/V//wA-i enfurte que, en

raifon-

Sed:, 6. c/' M o s E s demonjlrated. 257

pendence have all thefe important Principles on one another.

Reca-

raifonnant felon les pnncipes d'une jufte analogic, la fol des IfratUtes eclaircs et pieux, irouvoit dans les promefTes de la Loi, qui portoient uniquement fur les hiens pre/ens, un nouveau garand de la certitude des biens avenir. Mais comme on doit bien fe fouvenir, que dans cet:e Nation, les Fideles ne faifoient que le PETIT NOM3RE, /'argument ^e W ARBV RT OS , tire dujilenc^ dt la Loi fur um Oeconomie a^venir^ en faveur de la divinite de cette Loi meme, confcrue toute fa force; car il demeure toojours vrai qu'il n'a pas fallu moins que la vertu des miracles et I'efHcace d'une impreffion furnaturelle, pour faire ployer le grofs de la Na- tion, c'ell a- dire ies Juifs charnels, qui ne penetroient point ces vues Myfterieufes, fous le joug pefant de la Difpenfation Mofa- ique." [p. 94 ^.] And again, " Ce double Caraflere de la Dii- penfation JVlofaique met fa divinite hors d'atteinte a tons les traits les plus envenimes du Deifme qui I'attaque par deux bat- teries oppofe'es. Quoi ? difent nos Libertins, une Religion qui promet uniquement les biens de la Terre, peut-elle etre digne du Dieu ! Et lorfque, pour leur repondre, ayant recours au fens myftique, on dit que les promefTes Legales qui, prifes a la lettre, n'ofFrent qu'un bonheur temporel, doivent s'entendre fpiricuellement J ces Meffieurs fe retcurnent auffi-tot avec une merveilleufe adreffe pour vous demander comment un Oracle qui trompe les hommes, et qui n'a point d'accompliflement dans le fens le plus clair, le plus propie et le plus Ijtteral de ce qu'il promet, peut-etre regarde comme un Oracle divin ? Queftion qui dans I'hypotheTe commune me paroit plus diffi- cile a refoudre d'une fa9on fatisfaifante. Mais I'une et I'autre objedion tombe, des qu'on envifage I'ancienne CEconomie telle qu'elle eft ; c'eft-a-dire, tout a la fois comme Alliance nationale et comme CEconomie religieufe. En qualite d'AlIiance na- tionale, fes promeffes font toutes Charnelles, et s' accompliffent a la lettre a fegard des Juifs. Mais en qualite d'CEconomie religieufe, effentieUement Uee au plan de fE'uangile, elle ell pour \t& Fideles, la figure et le gage des biens fpirituals. Double- ment digne du Dieu de verite, et par I'accojnpUJJement Utter at de fes promeffes, ct par leur ufage typique, le reunion de ces deux rapports y annonce Touvrage de fon infinie fageffe." Addition a r Article IV. p. 104.]

Thus far this ingenious Writer. But now a difficulty will occur. He owns the Author of the Dinjine Legation hath made ou.; his point, that the Law of Mofes is from God :

A a 3 He

358 ^he Divine Legation Book VI,

Recapitulation.

And now if the length of the Demonllration have not tired out the Reader's patience, or, to

fpeak,

He contends that the Author's fyftem is tlie oily one t\\zi a^n fupport this Revelation againll the objedions of Dei lis and Lihcnines : Yet when he has done thi';, he has thought fit to call tills very fyftem, a Prtrrtdi9.v ; tho' it goes upon his own principle, ^hat the fno/aic Di/pe>i/atio}i had a double charader ; th'it U ivas a national jJlliance, and nuas at the fame time eji'cniially ut.i.'ed to the Grfjel flan ; that this double Charailer iho" not apprehended by the body of the 'Jen.vijh People, yet luaj t^et'l underjiood bv thofe feculiarly favoured of God, their Prophets and Leaders, This cenfure, if it be intended for one, I fay, appears t:> me a little myfterious. However the learned Writer's words are thcfe — " Quand Mr. de Prades a dit que TCEconomie Mo- faiquc n'etoit fondce que fur les peines et Ics recompcnfes tem- porelles, et qu'il a foutenu que cela meme fournit une bonne preuve de la divinite de cette Q'.conomie, il n'a fait autre chofe que fuivre la trace du favznt IVarburton, qui avan^^a ce para- roxE, il y a deja quelques annees, dans fon fameux Ouvrage de la Divine Legation de Moife, et employa tour a tour pour le de- fendre, le raifonnement et I'erudition. Notre Bachelier, auffi- bien qce M. Hocke, qu'il cite pour fon garand, auroient bien du faire honneur a I'illuftre Dodleur Anglois, d'une penfee que per- fonne nedoutera qu'ils n'ayent puiiee chez lui." [p, 88.] Now, ■I have fo good opinion of this learned Writer's candour as to believe that either he ufed the word paradox in an indifferent jenfe, or that he was mifled in his Judgment of the Di'vine Le- ga:i:n by Mr. de Trades and Mr. Hooke : Who altho' they bor- rosved what they have delivered concerning the nature of the Mofaic CEconomy from that book, which they did not think fit to confefs, yet it is as certain that what they borrowed they either did not underltand, or at leall have mifreprefented. The learned Sorbonift has fince publifhed his courfe of Theology, intitlcd Rcligionis naturalis et rs-vulata Pri7ici/ia. In which, tho' he has confulted his eafe and perhaps his reputation, in tranfcrib- ing the reafonings of the Divine Legation on various points of Theology, and generally without reference to the Book or the Author ; yet his affairs with his Body have t'Ught him caution, aiid obliged him to declare againft the Proposition, in fup- port of which, thofe reafonings were employed by their original Author. For when he comes to the quelHon concerning the favilion of the Jsivip Laiv, he introduces it in the following

manner

Sc£l. 6. of Moses demonjirated. 359

fpeak more properly, if length of time have not worn out his attention to the Subjed, it may be proper ( the Argument being here concluded ) to take a retrolpedive view of the whole, as it hath been inforced in this and the preceed- ing Volume. For the deep Profeflbr, who hath digefted his Theology into Summs and Sj^ ftems, and the florid Preacher, who never fufFered his thoughts to expatiate beyond the limits of a pulpit-elTay, will be ready to tell me, that I had promifed to demonstrate the Divine Lega- tion OF Moses ; and that now I had written two large Volumes on that fubjed, " all that they could find in them were Difcourfes on the foundation of Morality — the origin of civil and religious Society

— the Alliance betv/een Church and State — the policy of Lawgivers,— the Myfteries of the Priefts,

— and the opinions of the Greek Philofophers— The Antiquity of Egypt— their Hieroglyphics — their Heroes — and their Brute-worfhip. That indeed, at laft I fpeak a httle of the Jewifli policy j

manner — Qii?efl:ionem inchoamus difficilem, in qua explicanda adhibenda ell iumma verborum proprieta?, ne Pelagianis ex una parte non fatis fcedus Mofaicum & Evangelicum difcriminanti- bus, aut contrariis recentiorum quorumdam erroribus favere videamur. And fo, fortifies himfelf with Suarez and St. Thomas. The confequence of which is, that the two large Chapters in his fecond Volume (the firft. To prove that a future (late was always a popular Doclrine amongft the Jews ; and the fecond, That temporal rewards and punilhments were really and equally diilributed amongil them under the Theo- cracy) jull ierve to confute one another : Or more properly, the fecond Chapter, by aid of the Arguments taken from the Divine Legation, effeftually overturns all that he has advanced in the firil. — See M. Hooke's fecond volume of his Courfe, intitled, Religionis vatuialis et re^velates Principia, from p. 208 ■%o 236. For the rell, this juftice is due to the learned and ingenious Writer, that thefe Principles of natural ami revealed Religion compofe the beft rcafoned Work in defence of Revela- tion which we have yet feen come from that quarter,

A a 4 luut

360 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

but I foon break away from it, as from a fubjefl I would avoid, and employ the remaining part of the Volume on the Sacrifice of Ifaac — on the book of Job — and on primary and fecondary Prophe- cies. But whatf (lay they) is all this to the Divine Legation of Mofes ?

DiCy Pojlhume ! de tribus Capellis."

To call, the Topic, I went upon, a Paradox, was fiid, without doubr, to my difcredit; but not to fee that I had proved it in form, will I am afraid, redound to their own. Yet I had already befpoke their beft attention in the words of Cicero, who, I believe, often found himfelf in my fituation. *' Video hanc primam ingreffionem meam non ex Orv ATORis dil'putationibus dudam, fed e media Phi- Icfophia repetitam, et earn quidem cum antiquam tum fubobfcuram, aut reprehensionis aliquid, aut certe admirationis habituram. Nam aut mirabantur quid h^c pertineant ad ea qu^ quzerimus: quibus fatisfaciet res ipfa cognita, ut non fine caufa alte repetita videatur : aut repre- hendent, quod inusitatas vias indagemus, TRiTAS RELiNQUAMus. Ego autem me f£Epe nova videre dicere intelligo cum pervetera dicam, fed inaudita plerifque ^."

But as this Apology hath not anfwered its pur- pole, and as the argument is indeed drawn out to an uncommon length ; raifed upon a great va- riety of fiipports ; and fought out from every quar- ter of antiquity, -and fometimes out of corners the moft remote and dark, it was the lefs to be admired if every inattentive Reader did not fee their force

^ Cicero,

and

Sed. 6. of M OS -Es demonjlrated, 361

and various purpofe ; or if every attentive Reader could not combine them into the body of a com- pleated Syllogifm •, and flill lefs if the envious and the prejudiced fliould concurr to reprefent thefe Volumes as an indigefled and inconnetled heap of difcourfes, thrown out upon one another, to dif- burthen a common-place. For the fatisfadion therefore, of the more candid, who acknowledge the fairnefs of the attempt, who faw fomething of the progrefs of the argument, but, miQed by the notice of a remaining Fart, neglected to purfue the proof to the Conclusion here deduced, 1 fliall en- deavour to lay open, in one plain and fimple view, the whole conduct of thefe myfterious Vo- lumes.

Nor fhall I ncgled the other fort of Readers, tho* it be odds, we part again as diflatisfied with one another, as the Toyman of Bath and his Cuftomer. Of whom the ftory goes, that a grave well-drefled man coming into the fhop of this ingenious inven- tor, and reliever of the diftrelTes of thofe who are too dull to know what they want, and too rich to be at eafe with what they have, demanded to fee fome of his beft reading-glaffes ; which when he had tried to no purpofe, he returned. The Toy- man furprifed at fo ftrange a phasnomenon, gravely afked him, whether ever he had karnt to read ? to which the other as gravely replied, that if he had been fo happy he fhould have had no need of his afTiftance. Now, before I bring the diftant parts of my Argument to converge, for the ufe of thefe dim-fighted Gentlemen, may I aflc them, without offence, a fimilar queftion ? They have ANSWERED-, without afking i but not with the fame ingenuity.

In

o

62 T^e Divine Legation Book VI,

In reading the Lav^ and History of the Jews, with all the attention I could give to them, amonaft the many circumftances peculiar to that amazino- Difpenfation (from feveral of which, as I conceive^ the divinity of its original may be fairly proved) thefe two particulars moft forceably ftruck my ob- fervation, the omission of the doctrine of a

FUTURE STATE, and THE ADMINISTRATION OF

AN EXTRAORDINARY Providence. As unaccount- able as the firft circumftance appeared when con- fidered feparately and alone, yet when let againfl the other, and their mutual relations examined and compared, the omijjion was not only well explained, but was found to be an invincible medium for the proof of the Divine Legation of Moses: which, as Unbelievers had been long accuftomed to decry from this very circumftance, I chofe it preferably to any other. The Argument appeared to me in a fupreme degree ftrong and fimple, and not needing many words to inforce it, or, when in- forced, to make it well underftood.

Religion hath always been held neceflary to the fupport of civil society, becaufe human Laws alone are inefreftual to reftrain men from evil, with a force fufficient to carry on the affairs of public regimen : and (under the common difpen- fation of Providence) a future state of re- wards and punilhments is confefled to be as ne- ceffary to the fupport of Religion, becaufe no- thing elfe can remove the objeftions to God's moral Government under a Providence fo apparent- ly unequal ; whofe phaanomena are apt to difturb the ferious profcfibrs of Religion with doubts and fufpicions concerning it, as it is of the effence

of

Sed. 6. ^ M o 8 E s demonjirated. 363

of religious profeflion to believe, that God is a re- warder of them that diligently feek him,

Mofes, who inftituted a Religion and a Re^ PUBLIC, and incorporated them into one another. Hands fingle amongft ancient and modern Law- givers, in teaching a Religion, without the fanC' tioity or even lb much as the mention of a future

STATE OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS. The

fame Mofes, with a fmgularity as great, by uniting the Religion and civil Community of the Jews into one incorporated body, made God, by natural con- fequence, their fupreme civil Magiftrate, where- by the form of Government arifing from thence became truly and effentially a Theocracy. But as the Adminifiration of Government iiecefTarily follows its Form^ that before us could be no other

than AN EXTRAORDINARY OR EQUAL PrOVIDENCE.

And fuch indeed not only the Jewifh Lawgiver himfelf, but all the fucceeding Rulers and Prophets of this Republic have invariably reprefented it to be. In the mean time, no Lawgiver or founder of Religion amongft any other People ever promifed fo fingular a Diftindion •, no Hiltorian ever dared to record fo remarkable a Prerogative.

This being the true and acknowledged ftate of the cafe; Vv'heriever the Unbeliever attempts to difprove, and the Advocate of Religion to fupporr, the divinity of the Mofaic Difpenfation, the ob- vious queftion (if each be willing to bring it to a fpeedy decifion) will be, " Whether the ex-

*' TRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE thuS prOphcticall/

" promifed, and afterwards hiftorically recorded " to be performed, was real or pretended « only r\

We'

364 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

We Believers hold that it was p.e al : and I, as an Advocate for Revelation, undertake to prove it was lb •, employing for this purpofe, as my me- dium, THE OMISSION OF A FUTURE STATE OF RE- WARDS AND PUNISHMENTS. The argument (lands ihus :

If Religion be neceffary to civil Government, and if Religion cannot fubfift, under the common difpenfation of Providence, without a future ftate of Rewards and Puniihments, fo confummate a Lawgiver would never have negle6led to inculcate the belief of fuch a ftate, had he not been well af- fured that an extraordinary providence was indeed to be adminiftered over his People : Or were it pofTible he had been fo infatuated, the im- potency of a Religion wanting a future ftate, muft very foon have concluded in the deftrudion of his Republic : Yet neverthelefs it flouriflied and con- tinued fovereign for many ages.

Thefe two proofs of the propofition, {that an extraordinary providence was really adminijiered) drawn from the thing omitted and the per- son OMITTING, may be reduced to the following Syllogisms.

I. Whatfoever Religion and Society have no fu- ture State for their ftipport, muft be fupported by an extraordinary Providence,

The Jewifh Religion and Society had no future State for their fupport :

Therefore the Jewifh Religion and Society were fupported by an extraordinary Providence.

And again,

II. The

Sedt. 6. c/" Moses demonjirated. 365

II. The Ancient Lawgivers univerfally believed, that a Religion without a future State could be lupported only by an extraordinary Providence.

Mofes, an Ancient Lawgiver, learned in all the "wifdom of the Egyptians, (the principal branch of which wifdom was inculcating the doflrine of a future ftate) inftituted fuch a Religion :

Therefore Mofes believed that his Religion was fupported by an extraordinary Providence.

This is the argument of the Divine Lega- tion ; plain, fimple and convincing, in the opinion of the Author j a Paradox, in the reprefenta- tion of his Adverfaries : Attempts of this nature being ftiil attended with the fortune they have long undergone. V/illiam of Newhourg^ fpeaking of Gregory the VIII, tells us, that he was, " Vir " plane & fapienti^e et vits fmceritate confpicuus, " aemulationem dei habens in ommhus fecundum " fcientiamytifuperjlitiofarum confueiudinum quarum " in Ecclefia per quorundam rufticam fimplici- ** tatem citra Scripturarum aufloritatem multi- ** tudo inolevit, Reprehenfor acerrimus. Unde a *' quihufdam minus difcretis putatus eft turbato per *' nlmiam abftinentiam cerebro delirare." This curious palTage fliews what hath been, and what is likely to be, the fate of all oppofers of foolifh and fuperftitious pra6lices and opinions, when oppofers are moft wanted, that is to fay, to be thought mad. Only one fees there was this dif- ference between lVilliary^% age and our own. In the time of good Gregory, they were the People of leaft difcretion who palTed this judgment on every Reformer's headpiece •, whereas in our times, they are the 7}we difcrset who have made this difcovery.

Our

366 The Divine Legation Book VI,

Our Author's adverfaries proved to be of two forts, Free-thinkehs and Systematical Di- vines. Thofe denied the Major of the two Syl- logifms •, Thefe, the Minor : yet one could not be done without contradiding the univerfal voice of Antiquity j nor the other, without explaining away the fenfe, as well as letter, of facred Scripture. Had it not been for this odd combination, my De~ monjlration of the Divine Legation of Mofes had not only been as jlrong but 2i%fhort too as any of Eu- clid's : whofe theorems^ as Hobbes fomewhere ob- ferves, fhould they ever happen to be conneded with the paflions and interefts of men, would Toon become as much matter of difpute and con- tradiftion as any moral or theological Propofitiou whatfoever.

It was not long, therefore, before I found that the difcovery of this important Truth would encrao-e me in a full dilucidation of the three followino- Pro- pofitions

1. " That inculcating the do6lrine of a future *' ftate of rewards and punifhments, is necelfary *' to the well being of civil Society."

2. " That all mankind, efpecially the moft wife *' and learned nations of Antiquity, have concurr- «' ed in believing and teaching, that this dodrine " was of fuch ule to civil Society."

3. " That the doclrinc of a future flate of re- *' wards and puniiliments is not to be found in, " nor did make part of, the Mofaic Difpeniation."

— Neither a fhort nor an cafy tajfk. The two firft requiring a fevere fearch into the Religion, the

Politics

Se£t. 6. of Moses demo^ijirated. 367

Politics and the Philofophy of ancient times : And, the latter, a minute examination into the naiun end genius of the Hebrew Confiitution,

To the firft part of this enquiry, therefore, I af- figned the firft Volume of this work j and to the other, the fecond.

I. The/;;/? Volume begins with proving the ma- jor of the firll Syllogifm, that whatfoever Religion and Society have no future State for their fupport^ mufi hefupforted by an extraordinary Provide^ice. In or- der to which, the first Proposition was to be in- forced. That the inculcating the do^rine of a future fiate of rewards and punifhments is necejfary to ths well-being of Society,

This is done in the following manner — By fliew- ino- that civil Society, which was inftituted as a remedy againft force and injuftice, falls fhorr, in many inftances, of its effedts— as it cannot, by its own proper force, provide for the obfervance of above one third part of moral duties -, and, of that third, but imperfedtly : and further, which is a" matter of ftill greater importance, that it totally wants the firft, of thofe tv/o great hinges, on which Government is fuppofed to turn, and without which it cannot be carried on, namely Reward and Punishment. Some other coadive power was therefore to be added to civil Society, to fupply its wants and imperfedions. This power is fnewn to be no other than Religion -, which, teaching the juft Government of the Deity, provides for all the natural deficiencies of civil Society. But this go^ ve-rnment, it is feen, can be no otherwife fup-

ported

■368 I'he Divine Legation Book VI.

ported than by the general belief of z future Jiate -, or of an extraordinary Providence^ that is, by a Difpenfation of things very different from what we fee adminiftered at prefent.

This being proved, the difcourfe proceeds to remove objedions. — The Reader obferves, that the fteps and gradations of this capital truth ad- vance thus, — A future ftate is neceflary as it fup- ports Religion — Religion is neceflfary as it fupports Morality — And Morality as it fupports (tho' it be reciprocally fupported by) civil Society, which only can procure fuch accommodations of life as man's nature requires. Hence I concluded, that the Doc- trine of a future ftate was necelTary to civil Socie- ty, under the prefent adminillration of Providence.

Now there are various kinds or rather degrees of Libertinism. Some, tho' they own Morality to be neceffary to Society, yet deny Religion to be necelTary. Others again, deny it even to Mora- lity. — As both equally attempt to break the chain of my reafoning, both come equally under my examination. And, opportunely for my pur- pofe, a great Name in the firft inftance, and a great Book, in the fecond, invited me to this en- tertainment.

I. The famous M. Bayle had attempted to prove, that Religion was not neceffary to Society -, and that, fimple morality^ as diftinguiflied from Re- lif^ion, might well fupply its place; which Mora- lity too, an Atheist might compleatly pofTcfs. His aro-uments in fupport of thefe propoficions I have carefully examined : and having occafion, when I came to the laft of them, to enquire into the true foundation of Morality^ I ftate all its pretences,

confider

Sed:. 6. of Moses deimnftrated, 369

confider all its advantages, and fhew that obliga- tion properly fo called, proceeds from will, and from WILL only. This enquiry was directly to my point, as the refult of it proves that the morality of the Athsifi mull be without any true foundation, and confequently weak and unftable. It had a fur- ther propriety, as the Religion, whofe divine ori- ginal I am here attempting to demonftrate, has founded moral obligation in Will only •, and had a peculiar expediency likewife, as it is become the fafhion of the times to feek for xKis foundation any where but there where Religion has placed it.

I. But Mandeville, the Author of the Fable of the Bees, went a large ftep further i and pretend- ed to prove that morality was fo far from being neceffary to Society, that it was vice and not virtue which rendered dates flourifhing and happy. This execrable Do6trine, that would cut away my Ar- gument by the roots, was prefented to the People with much laboured art and plaufible infmuation. It was neceifary therefore to confute and expofe it. This I have done with the fame care, but with bet- ter faith than, it was inforced.

In this manner I endeavoured to prove the ma- jOR Proposition of the firft Syllogifm : and with this, the firft book of the Divine Legation of Mofe^ concludes.

II. The fecond Book begins with eftablilhing the MAJOR of the fecond Syllogifm, That the en- cient Lawgivers univerfally believed that a Religion without a future fl ate could be fupported only by an ex- traordinary Providence. In order to which, the SECOND Proposition was to be inforced, That all mankind, efpecially the mojl wife and learned nations

Vol. V. B b «/

370 The Divine Legation Book VI.

of Antiquity^ have concurred in believing and teaching, that the Do^frine of a future Jtate was necefj'ary to the well-being of civil Society.

The proof of this propofition divides itfelf into

two parts The conduB of the Lawgivers;

and the opinion of the Philosophers.

The firft part is the fubjefl of the prefe;it Book ; as the fecond part is of the following.

In proving this propofition from the conducl of the Lawgivers^ 1 (hew,

1. Their care to propagate Religion in general, 1. As it appears from the effeBs, the ftate of Reli- gion every where in the civilized World. 2. As it appears from the caufe, fuch as their iiniverfal pre- tence to infpiration, in order to inftil the belief of the Divine Superintendency over human aflairs ; and llich as their univerfal praftice m prefacing their Laws, in order to eftablifii the belief of that Su- perintendency. And here it fhould be obferved, that in proving their care to propagate Religion in general, I prove their care to propagate the doclrine of z future fate of Rewards and Punipments^ fince there never was a formed Religion in the World, the Jewifh excepted, of which this Dodrine did not make an eflential part.

2. But I fliew in the fecond place, their care to propagate this DoBrine, with more than common attention and affiduicy. And as the moil effcc'lual method they employed to this end was, the infti<^ tution of the Mysteries, a large account is gi- ven of their rife and progrefs, from Egypt in^to Grcxx:e, and from thence, throughout the civilized world. I have attempted to difcover the AnoP-

Seft. 6. c/^ Moses demon jl rated. 371

PHTA, or hidden dodrines of thefe Myitcries, whicli were the Unity of the Godhead and the error of the grosser PolytheisiM, namely, the Worfioip of dead men^ deif.ed. This dilcovery not only confirms all that is advanced, concerning- the rile, progrels, and order of the feveral fpecies's of Idolatry, but clears up and redlifies much em- barras and miftake even of the moll celebrated Moderns, fuch as Cudworth^ StilUngfieet^ Pndeaux^ Newion^ &c. who, contrary to the tenure of Holy Scripture, in order to do imaginary honour to Re- ligion, have ventured to maintain, that the one true God was generally known and worJJnped in the Pagcn JVorld ; for, finding many, in divers coun- tries, fpeaking of the one true God, they conclud- ed, that he muft needs have a national IVorJlnp. Nov/ the Difcovery of the airoppnTx of the Myfieries enables us to explain the perfedl confiflency be- tween iac red and prophane Antiquity; which left to fpeak for themfelves concur to inform us of this plain and confident trudi, " That the Doc- trine of the one true God, was indeed taught in all places, but as a profound fecrer, to the few, in the celebration of their myiberious Rites; while, in the Land of Jud^a alone, he h.id 2.puhlic and national IVorfljip.'^ For to the Hebrew People alone, (as Eufebius exprefles it) was referved the honour of being initiated into the knowkdge cf ths Creator of all things. And of this difi^frence, G06. himfelf Ipeaks by the Prophet, — I have not fpoken IN secret, in a dark place of the earth'. And the holy ApoFtle Paul informs us of the confe- quence of that myfierious manner of teaching the true God amongfi: the Pagan nations, that when,

' Ifaiah xlv. 19,

B b 2 by

3/2 The Divine Legation Book VI.

by this means, they came to the knowledge of him, they glorified him not as God\

To confirm and illuftrate my account of the Mysteries, I fubjoin a DifTcrcation on the Jixth Book of firgiTs yEneis; and another on the meta- morphof.s of Apuleius. The firft of which books, is Ihewn to be one continued defcription of the Eleitfmian Myflcries •, and the other to be purpofe- ly written to recommend the ufe and efficacy of tiie Pagan Myfieries in general.

And here the attentive Reader will obferve, that throughout the courfe of this whole argument, on the conduftof the ancient Lawgivers, it ap- pears, that all the fundamental principles of their Policy were borrowed from Egypt. A truth which will be made greatly fubfervient to the fninor of the fecond Syllogifm -, that Mofes^ tho' learned in all the Wifdom of Egypt, yet inftitiited the Jez^ifh Religion and Society 'u;ithout a future State.

From this, and from what has been faid above of MORAL OBLIGATION, the intellig;ent Reader will perceive, that, throughout the Divine Legation, I have all along endeavoured to fele6t for my pur- ppfe fuch kind of arguments, in fupport of the particular queftion in hand, as may, at the fame time, illuitrate the truth of Revelation in general, or ferve as principles to proceed upon in the pro- grcfs of the prefent Argument. Of which, will be given, as occafion fervcs, feveral other inftances in the courie of this review. — And now having ihewn the Legidators care X.Q propagate Religion in

Rom.

J. 21,

general.

Sq6:. 6. g/' Moses demonjlj-ated, 373

general, and the Doftrine of a future ftate of Re- wards and Punifliments in particular, (in which is feen their fenfe of the infeparable connexion be- tween them) I go on, to explain the contrivan- ces they employed to perpetuate the knowledge and influence of them : by which it appears that, in their opinion. Religion was not a temporary expedient, ufeful only to fecure their own power and authority, but a neccllary fupport to civil Society itfelf.

1. The firfl inftance of this care was, as we Ihew, their ESTABLISHING A national Religion,

prctecied by the Laws of the State, in all places where they were concerned. But as Men, igno- rant of /r«^ Religion, could hardly avoid failing into miftakes in contriving the mode of this Efiahliflj- ment, I have therefore (the fubjedb of my Work being no idle fpeculation, but fuch a one as affedts us in our higheft interefts, as Men and Citizens) attempted to deliver the true Theory of the Alliance between Church and State, as the beil defence of the jufcice and equity of an established Reli- gion.

2. The fecond inftance of their care, I fhew to have been the allowance of a general tolera-^ tion i which as it would, for the like reafon, be as imperfedly framed as an EJiabliJJjrnent, I have ventured to give the true 'Theory of that likewife. The ancient Lawgiver contrived to ejlablijb one mode of Religion, by allying it to the State, for the fake of its duration : He tolerated other modes of it, for the fake of their influence, for a Religion forced upon man, has none ; and the Lawgiver concerns himfelf with Religion only for the lake of its influence. — Difcourfing upon this

B b 3 Subjeft,

374 The Divine Legation Book VL

Subject, I was naturally led to vindicate true Reli- gion from an afperiion of Infidelity : Where, I fhew, that the firil perfecution for Religion was not that which was cohimitted^ but that which was undergone by (Yit Chriftian Church : And that the ill fuccfcls atiending its propagation amongft barba- rous Nations in our times, is altogether owing to the prepouerous mttiiod employed for that pur- pofe. — And v/ith this, the fccond Book of the Divine Le2:ation concludes.

'D

: III. The third Book goes on in fupporting the MAJOR of the fecond Syllogifm, by the opinions of the Philosophers. For as the grtat wafte and ravages of time have deilroyed moll of the Monu- ments of ancient Legijlation^ I held it not impro- per to ftrcngthen my pofition of the fenfeof their Lawgivers, by that of their Sages and Philofo- phers. In this is fliewn,

I. From their own words, the convicflion they in general had of the neceflity of the dodlrine of a future ft ate of Rewards and Punijhme7its to civil focitty. And, to fet this convidion in the ftrongeft light, I endeavour to prove, that even fuch of them (viz. the feveral fe<fls of Grecian Philofo- pJiers) who did not believe r. future flate of Re- wards and PurajJjments, did yer, for the fake of So- ciety, diligently teach and propagate it. — That they taiigtoi it, is confelTed ; that they did not beliei-e it, was my bufirx-fs to prove : which I have done by Ihcwing, I. J'hat they all thought it lawful to fay one thinr^- and think another. 2. That they confcantly pradifed w!iat they thus thought to be lawful : and, 3. That they pradifed it on the very D;61rii)e in quefiion. — To explain and verify the two lirit of thefe aiicrtions, I had occafion

to

Se£l.-6. of Moses demcnjlrated, 27 S

tx) inquire into the rife, progrefs, perfcaion, de- cline, and genius of the ancient Greek Philofoph)\ under all its feveral divifions. In which, (as its rile and progrefs are fhewn to have been from Egypt) ftill mo?e materials are laid in for inforcing the 7«/;wrpropofition,of the fecond Syllogifm.— I then proceed to a more particular inquiry into the fenti- ments of each fed of Philofophy, on this point •, and fhew, from the charader and genius of each School, and from the Writings of each man, that none of them did indeed believe the Doftrine of a future Jiate of Rewards and Punifhments. At the fame time it appears, from almoft every proof brought for this purpofe, that they all thought ihe Doftrine to be of the higheft utihty to the State.— Here, in examining the philofophy of Pythago- ras, the fubjea led me, to confider his fo cele- brated MetempfychoftS', in which, I take occafion to fpeak of the origin of the Pagan Fables, and the nature of the Metamorphcfts of Ovid, here fliewn to be a Popular Hipry of Providence, very regular- ly and artfully deduced from the mod early times to his own : From the whole I draw this conclulion, <* that Pythagoras, who fo feduloufly propagated this fpecies of a future ftate of Rewards and Pu- nilhments (the Metemffychcfis) that he was thought by fome to be author of it, confidered it only as a commodious Fable to reftrain the unruly po. pulace,"

2. To fupport this fad, it is fhewn, in the next place, that thefe Phiiofophers not only did not, but that they cc^/^ not poffibly believe the Dodrine of a future ftate of Rewards and Punifhments, becaufe the belief of it contradifted two Metaphyfical prin- ciples univerfally held and believed by them, con. £ernin<T the nature of God and of the Soui. j which "^ B b 4 were.

376 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

were, that the Deify could not hurt any one \ and that the foul was part of the fuhjlance of the Deity, and re- fohable again into him. In explaining and verifying their reception of this latter principle, I take oc- cafion to fpeak of its original •, which, I prove, was Grecian and not Egyptian j as appears from the genius and chara6ler of the two Philofophies; tho' the fpurious books going under the name of Hermes, but indeed written by the later Piatonifts, would perfuade us to the contrary. The ufe of this inquiry likewife (i. e. concerning the origin of this principle) v;ill be feen when we come to fettle the charaher of Mofes, as aforefaid. — But, with regard to the belief of the Philufophers on both points, befides the direft and principal ufe of it, for the fupport of the major oi the fecond Syllogifm, it hath (as I faid before, it was contrived my ar- guments fhould have) two further ufes •, the one, to ferve as a principle in the progrefs of my general Argument i the other, to illuftrate the truth of Revelation in general. For, ift, it will be a fuf- ficient anfwer to that folution of theDeills, (to be confidered hereafter) th-5.t Mofes did not teach the Do5lrine of a f Mure fiat c hecaufe he did not believe it, fince it is fhewn by the ftrongeft evidence, that the not believing a dodlrine fo ufeful to Society^ was efteemed no reafon why the Legiflator fhould not propagate it. 2. It is a convincing proof of the expediency of the Gofpel of Jefus, that the fages of Greece, with whom all the wifdom of the Wife was fuppofed to be depofited, had philofophifed themfelves out of one of the moll evident and ufe- ful truths with which mankind has any concern ; and a fuW jujtif cation of the feverity with which the holy Apoftles always fpeak of the Philofophers and the Philofophy of Greece^ fince it is hereby leen to be directed only againft thefe pernicious principles (

and

Se£t. 6. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated, ^77

and nor, as Deijis and Fanatics concur to repre- sent it, a condemnation of human learning in gene- ra).

3. But as now, it might be objefted, " that by this reprefentation, we lole on the one hand what we gain on the other -, and that while we fhew the expediency of the Gofpel, we run a rifque of difcredit- ing its reafonahknejs ; for that nothing can bear har- der upon this latter quality, than that the beft and wifeft perfons of Antiquity did not believe that which the Gofpel was fent to propagate, namely the Dodtrine of a future ftate of Rewards and Punifh- ments." As this, I fay, might be objedled, we have given (befides explaining on what abfurd princi- ples their unbelief refted) a further anfwer-, and, to fupport this anfwer, fliewn, that the two extremes into which Divines have ufually run, in reprefenting the ftate and condition of revealed Religion^ are at- tended with great and real mifchiefs to it ; while the only view of Antiquity, which yields folid ad- vantage to the Chriftian Caufe, is fuch a one as is here reprefented for the true : Such a one as fliews natural Reafon to be clear enough 10 perceive truth, and the necefiary dedudtions from it when propofedy but not gfi-{\tr:\\y Jircng enough to difcover it. He, who of ail the Pagan World beft knew its force, and was in that very ftate in which only a true judg- ment could be pafied, has with the greateft inge- nuity confeffed this truth, " Nam neque tam eft " acris acies in naturis hominum et ingeniis, ut " res tantas quifquam, nifi monftratus pofTit videre; " neque tanta tamen in rebus obfcuritas, ut eas *' peritusacriviringeniocernat, fimodoafpexerit.'* In explaining this matter, it is occafionally fhewn, that the great and acknowleged fuperiority of the modern Syftems of Deiftical Morality above the ancient, in point of excellence, is entirely owing

to

37^ The Divine' Legation Book VI,

W'the unacknowledged, and perhaps unrufpe(5led, aid of Revelation.

Thus the Reader fees, in vvliat manner we have endeavoured to prove the major. Propositions of the two Syilogifms, that zvbatfoever Religion and Society have no future State for their jupfort^ mujl be ftipported by an extraordinary Prcvidencf. And that, Jhe amient Laivgivers ta:iverfally believed, that a Jidigion 'without a future State could be fupported only by an extraordinary Providence. For having ilicwn, that Religion and Society were unable, and be- lieved to be unable to fnpport themfelves under an ordinary Providence, Vv^ithout a future State ; if they were fupported without that Dodlrine, it could be, and could be believed to be, only by an ixtraordifiary Providence.

But now as the proof is condu<5ted through a long detail of circumftances, fl^iewing the abfolute necef- Jityof Religion to civil Society-, and the fenfe which all the wife and learr.ed amongft the ancients had of that necefiJiy ; left this Ihould be abufed to countenance the idle and impious Conceit that Re- ligion WAS THE INVENTION OF POLITICIANS, I

concludcc'. thc^ third Book and the Vokime together, with proving that the Conceit is both imperti- nent and FALSE.

I. Impertinent, for that, were this account of the origin of Religion true, it would not follow, that the thing itfelf was vifionary -, but, on the con- -trary, moft real, evidently fo even from that univer- fal utility, on which this" its pretended origin is fup- ported. Indeed, againft this utility, paradoxical men, or rren in a paradoxical humour, have often reafoned-, fuch as Bayle, Plutarch, and Bacon : Their arguments are here examined: And the

Maf-

iSeA. 6. o/' Moses demonjirafed. '379

Mafier fophifm^ which runs through the reafoning; of all three, is detedled and expofed.

2. Falfe; for that, in fa6t. Religion exited be- fore the civil Magift rate was in being. In proving this point, the matter led me to fpeak of the origin cf Idolatry •, to diftinguilli the feveral fpecies of it; to adjuft the order in which they arofe out of one another ; and to detedb the ends of the later Plato- nifts, in their attempts to turn the whole into an ALLEGORY (in which the reafonings of a late Wri- ter in his Letters concerning Mythology are confider- ed.) Andbecaufe the rage of allegorising had fpread a total confufion over all this matter. The origin, and progrefs of the folly, and the various views of its fe£tators in fupporting it, are here ac- counted for and explained.

But my end and purpofe in all this, was not barely to remove an objeftion againft the Truths delivered in this place, but to prepare a reception for thofe which are to follow : For if Religion were fo ufeful to Society, and yet not the inven- tion of the Magiftrate, we muft feek for its ori- ginal in another quarter •, either from Nature or Revelation, or from both.

Such is the fubjed-matter of the first Volume of the Divine Legation : which, as it was thought proper to publilh feparately, I contrived fhould not only contain a part, of that general Argument, but (hould likewile be a compleat Treatife of it- felf, eftablifliing one of the moft important Truths with which Man has any concern -, namely, the necessity of Religion for the support of civil Government. And if, in fupport of this truth, I have entered into a long detail of fome

capital

^So T^he Di'vine Legation Book VI.

capital articles of Antiquity, I prefumc I fliall not need an apology.

11.

We come now to the second Volume of the Divine Legation, which is employed in proving the MINOR Proposition of the two Syllogifms ; the Jjrft, that the JewiJ^j Religion aiid Society had no future jiate for their fupport : the other,, that Mofes, an an- cient Lawgiver, and learned in all the Wifdorn of Egypt, furpofely i>.fiituted fuch a Religion, in order to which the THIRD GENERAL PROPOSITION was to be in- forced \ That the Dotlrine of a future Jiate of Re- wards and Punifhments is not to be found in, nor did make part of the Mofaic Difpenfation. But in proving the minor, a method fomething different from that obferved in proving the major Propo- sitions was to be followed. Jhefe, in the firit Vo- lume, were proved fuccejfively and in order. But here the minor Propositions are inforced all the way together. And this difference arifes from the reafon of the thing ♦, the fads brought to prove the dodrine to be omitted, do, at the fame timx, accidentally fhew that the OmifTion was defigned : And the reafons brought to prove the ufes in a de- figned omifllon, necejfarily (hew that the Dodrine was omitted.

To proceed therefore with the fubjed of the SECOND Volume.

IV. I jufl before obferved, that the conclufion of the firft Volume, which detedled the abfurdity and falfity of the Atheiftic Principle, that Reli- gion was an invention of Politicians, and a creature of theJiatCj opened the v;ay to a fair inquiry whether

its

Se(5b. 6. ^/ Moses detJionft rated* 38-1

its true original was not as well from Revelation ^s from NATURAL Reason.

In the introdu6lion therefore to this fecond Vo- lume, I took the advantage which that opening af- forded me, of fhewing that the univerfal pretence to Revelation proves fome Revelation muft be true: That this true Revelation muft have feme charac- teriftic marks to diftinguifh it from the falfe : And that thefe marks are to be found in the Inftitutions

of MoSES.

But this was only by way of introduction ; and to lead the Reader more eafily into the main road of our inquiry-, by fhewing that we purfued no defperate adventure, while we endeavoured to de- duce the divinity of Mofes's Law from the cir- cumftances of the Law itfelf.

I proceeded then to the proof of the minor Pro- positions, that the Jewijh Religion and Society had no future State for their fupport : and that Mofes^ an ancient Lawgiver, and learned in all the wifdom of Egypt, purpofely injlituted fiich a Religion. To evince thefe truths with fufficient evidence, the nature of that Inftitution was to be firft underilood ; which, again required a general knowledge, at leaft, of the manners and genius of the Hebrew People J and of the character and abilities of their Lawgiver. Now thefe having been entirely fa- fhioned on Egyptian models, it was further expe- dient that we fhould know the ft ate of Egyptian fiiperftition and learning in that early period.

I . In order to this, the following propofition is advanced, that the Egyptian learning cekhrated in

Scrip'

382 ^e Divine Legiition Book VL

Scripture, and the Egyptian fuperjiit ion there condemn- ed, were the very learning and fuperjiilion reprefented hy the Greek PFt iters as the honour and opprobrium of that kingdom. Where I firft ftate the queflion •, and then fhew the equal extravagance of each of thofe two parties amongll the learned, who have been accuftomed to advance or to deprefs the high anti- quity of Egypt.

I. I corroborate the Propofition, firft, by Fact, the teftimony of holy Scripture, and of the an*- cient Greek Writers, fet together and fupport- ing one another; and both fupported by circum- ftances regarding the peculiar fituation of the land of Egypt. And here the ohjeSiions of the author of the Sacred and Prophane Hijlory of the World con- nected, frightened by the common panic of the high antiquity of Egypt, are confuted and ex- pofed.

Secondly, by Reason, in an Argument drawn from the nature, origin and various ules of their fo famed Hieroglyphics. Where it is fhewn,

1 . That this fpecies of writing was employed by the Egyptians as the vehicle of learning, even after the invention of letters : for which no good rea- fon can be afligned but this, that they were appli- ed to the fame purpofe before. Now letters were in ufe amongft them before the time of Mofes.

2. Again, it is {hewn that the Onirocritics bor- rowed their art of deciphering dreams from hierogly- phic Symbols: but hieroglyphic Symbols were the myfterious vehicle of the civil fcicnce and of the Theology of the Egyptians. Now Onirocritic

or

2

Sc(5l. 6. o/^ Moses demonjl rated, 38^

or the art of interpreting of dreams was pradiied in the time of Joleph.

5. And again. It is fhewn that ANi\fAL-woRSHip in Egypt arofe from the myflerious ufe of thC' lame hieroglyphic Symbols. Now animal-worship was eftablillied amongft them before the time of Mofes.

From all this, it appears., that Egypt was of that high antiquity which Scripture and the beiL Greek Writers concur to repreilrn: it. By which, we come to underftand \y''.":L" were t.\\p: fpecijic manners and fu- perfiitions cf Egypt in the time of Mofes ; thefe being, as it now appears, id-^iiLically the fame with what tliC Greek Writers have delivered to us.

In the courfe of this proof from Reafon, which opens at large the nature, origin, and variouji kinds of Egyptian EIieroglyphics, I interweave (as the explanation of my fubjed: necefiarily re- quired) a detailed hiftory of the various modes of ancient communication amongft men, as well by real and literary charafters, as by "jocrds and ai^iony and Hatw how speech and writing ran parallel in their progrefs j and influenced, and were influenced by, one another. On the fame account, when I come to the origin of Brute-worship, I give the hiltory of the various modes of ancient Idolatry, in the order in which they rofe, one out of another.

Thefe things I have not only made to ferve in fupport of the queftion I am here upon, but like- wife in fupport of one queftion preceding, and of one which is to follow.

For in the hiftory of the various modes of ancient fommunication was laid, as the Reader will find, the

foundar

384 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

foundation of my difcourfes on the nature of an- cient Prophecies in the fixth Book.

And, in the hiftory of the various modes of an- cient Idolatry^ the Reader hath a neceflary fupple- ment to what had been faid before on the fame fub- jed, in the latter end of the third Book, againll the Atheifl's pretended origin of Religion.

So ftudious have I been to obferve, what a great mafter of Reafon lays down as the rule and tefi of good order in Compofition, That every former part may give firength to all that follow ; and every latter bring light unto all before '\

But the high antiquity of Egypt, tho' proved from Atitiquity itfelf, feemed not to be enough fe- cured, while the authority of ont great modern re- mained entire, and his realonings unanfwered.

In the next place, therefore, I examine Sir Isaac Newton's Chronology of the Egyptian Empire -y a Chronology ereded on the fuppofed identity ofOfiris and Sefoflris i which is a fancy that not only con- tradids dllfacredsLS well as prophane antiquity, but, what is ftill more, the very nature of things.

In the courfe of this confutation, the caufes of that endlefs confufton in the early Greek hijhry and Mythology are inquired into and explained: Which ferves, at the fame time, to confirm and illuftrate all that hath been occafionally faid in the latter end of i\\t third book, and, here again, in this fourth, concerning— the origin and progrefs of Idolatry, — the gpnius of Pagan Religion, — the Gentile

* Hooker.

modes

Scd. 6. ^ Moses demonJirateiL 38^

modes of worfhip, — and their Theological opi-

nions.

Thus far concerning the high antiquity of Egypt. Which, befides the immediate pnrpofe of leading us into the true idea of the Jewifo Inftitution in o-eneral, hath thefe further ufes :

We have feen in the foregoing Volume, that Egypt, as it was moft famed for the arts of legifla- tion, fo it moft of all inculcated the doftrine of a future jiate of Rewards and Punifhments. Now, if E»ypt were indeed of the high antiquity here af- figned unto it, that dodrine muft needs be of na- tional belief, at the time the Hebrews lived there in flavery. But then they having, as we find in Scripture, thoroughly imbibed the religious no- tions of the place, muft needs be much prejudiced in favour of fo reafonable and flattering a Doc- trine : Confequently their Lawgiver, who likewife had been bred up in all the learning of Egypt, would, if he had aded only by human diredion, have, in imitation of his Mafters, taken advantage of this favourable prejudice to inake the dodrine of a future ftate the grand Sanction of his Reli- gion and Law.

Again, the proof of the high ■Antiquity of Egypt^ was neceffary to wmd^iczt^facred Scripture-, which all along declares for that Antiquity ; and which the Deist having endeavoured to take advantage of, in oppofing Mofes's pretence to infpiration,_ibmc imprudent Believers were grown not unwilling to explain away. Sir Ifiac Newton's Chronology afforded them the aid they wanted : And while it offered itfelf in fupport of the BiUe-divin iy.

Vol. V, C c t kv

3^6 T'he Divine Legation Book VI.

they fcemed little attentive to the liberties it had taken with the Bible-hijlcry.

2. In order to bring on this Truth of the high antiquity of Egypt nearer to my purpoie, I pro- ceeded to the /^-co;?^ Proportion. That thejcwiflj People were extremely fond of Egyptian manners^ and did frequently fall into Egyptian fuperjlitions : and that many of the La"d;s given to them by the minijlry of Mofes were injiituted partly in compliance to their pre- judices^ and partly in oppofition to thofe fuperjlitions. In the proof of the firft part of this Propofition, I fhew the high probability that the Law was infti- tuted with reference to Egyptian manners j and through the proof of the fecond, is deduced a demonjlration that it was actually fo framed.

For a further illuftration of this Argument, I give an hiftorical account of the degeneracy of the Hebrew People, and of their amazing propenfity to imitate the manners of Egypt, from the time that Mofes was firft fent upon his Miffion, to their entire fettlement in the land of Judea : Which fully Jliews (what will ftand us in ftead, hereafter) that a People fo perverfe and headftrong needed, in the conftruflion of their civil and religious Inftitutions, all pofTible curbs to diforder : Now of all fuch curbs, the doftrine of a future Jiate was ever held the chief in ancient policy ; and as this doftrine was fo peculiarly Egyptian, they muft needs have the molt favourable prejudice towards it.

But then, as it might perhaps be objeded, that while I am endeavouring to get this way, into the interior of the Jewifli Conftitution, I open a back door to the ravages of Infidelity : it was thought

necefiary.

Se(5l. 6. of Mosses demonjlrated. 387

necefTary, in order to prevent the Deift's taking advantage of the great Truth contained in the preceding Propofinon, ('which is the fecond) to guard it by tlie following, (which is the third) viz. '^hat Mofes's Egyptian Learnings and the Laws injiituted in compliance to the Peoples prejudices^ are no reafoyiahle ohjeofion to the divinity of his Mijfion. Where, in explaining the firft part, which fliews what this learning was, and how well it fuited with Mofes's MilTion, I had occafion to inquire into the origin and ufe of the schools of the Prophets : Which the Reader will find of this fur- ther ufe, viz. To give ilrength andfupport to what is faid in the fixth Book of the Nature of the Jewish Prophecies -, and particularly to what is there obferved of Grotius's fatal error, in his mode of interpreting them.

And in explanation of the fecond part, having proved the Propofition, That to inftitute Laws in conipliance to popular prejudices is no reafonable obje6lion to their divine original, having proved this, I fay, from the nature of things, the Dif- courfe proceeds to examine all the Arguments which have been urged in fupport of the contrary opinion, by Herman Witsius, in his learned Treatife intitled Mgyptiaca, that Book having been publickly recommended by Dr. Waterland, for a difiinU and f olid confutation of Spencer* s De Legibus Hehraonim ritualibus.

And the anfwer to Witfius's laft argument bring- ing into queftion the intrinfic value of the ritual Law, the famous chara6ler of it given by the Prophet Ezekiel, of fiatutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they fhould not live — is ex- plained in a large analyfis of the whole Prophecy, C G 2 againft

388 ^he Divine Legcticn Book VI.

againft an old foolifh notion revived by Dr. Shuck- ford, that thefe Statutes and Jiidg-uients here faid to be grjen by Gcd, were the Pagan Idolatries, which, in defiance of God, they took without leave.

But I go yet further in fupport of the fourth Propofition, and prove, thd^ithefevery circumftances cfMcfes's Egyptian Learnings and the Lais:s injiituted in compliance to the People's prejudices, are a firong confirraation of the divinity of his Mijfwn,

xft. For, that one bred up in the arts of Egyp- tian Legiflation could never, on his own head, have thought of reducing an unruly people to o-overn- ment, on maxims of Religion and Policy,^funda- fnentally oppofite to all the principles of Egyp- tian WISDOM, at that time the univerfal Model on which all the Legiflators worked, in reducing a barbarous People to Society. Yet Mofes went upon principles diametrically oppofite to that wis- dom, when he enjoined the public worfliip of the me true God onjy^ and omitted the dottrine of a fu- ture fiats of Rewards and Punifimients^ in tlie inftitu- tion of his Law and Religion.

2dly, For, that One v^hofalfely pretended to re- ceive the whole frame of a national Conllitution from God, would never have rifqued his preten- fions by a ritual Law, which the people might fee was politically inftituted, partly in co;nphance to their prejudices, and partly in oppofition to Egyp- tian fuperllitions.

Here, all the imaginable motives are inquired into, which Moses, tho' a mere human Lawgiver^ might have had to ad in the manner he did^^ and thefe motives are fhewn to be inlufr;ticnt to induce a

wif«

Se(5i. 6. ^ M o s E s demovjlrafed. 3S9

wife Legiflator thus to afl. — In conclufion, it is made apparent, that a ritual^ contrrjsd to oppofe to the reigning fiiperjiitions 'y and, at the fame time, to prefigure^ by its typical nature^ all the elTential parts of a future Difpenfation, contains a ftrong inter- nal ARGUMENT THAT THE RITUAL LaW WAS NOT A MERE HUMAN INVENTION. And with this

the fourth Book concludes.

V. What hath been hitherto faid, was to let the Reader into the genius of the Jewifh Policy in general^ in order, to his judging more exactly of the peculiar nature of its Government •, that, from thence, he might be enabled to determine, with full certainty, of the matters in queftion, as they are contained in the two Minor terms.

r . The fifth Book^ therefore, comes ftill nearer to the point, and fhews, that the Government m- ftituted by Mofes, was a Theocracy, properly fo called, where God himfelf was the fupreme civil Mamftrate. It begins with affio-nins; and fet- tling the true reafon of the feparation of the pos- terity of Abraham from the reft of mankind ; — • becaufe this feparation has been greatly mifunder- ftood — but principally becaufe the true reafon of tho. feparation leads us into the ufe and necefTity of a theocratic form of Government.

In evincing this neceflity, the juftice of the Law for punijhi/tg Idol-'worfhip capitally, under a Theo- cracy, is explained : And becaufe the Deift hath been accuftomed to urge this haw againll the di- vine original of the whole Inftitution, it is here juftified at large, on the principles of natural equity : Which ferves, as well a paft purpofe, viz. the adding ftrength and fupport to what hath been

C g q fj^id

390 The Divine Legation Book VI.

faid on the fubjeft of Toleration, in the fecond Book i as it does at prefent, viz. To confirm the reality of this Theocracy^ which a celebrated dilFent- ing Minifter has prepofteroufly gone out of his way to bring in queftion : whofe reafoning^ therefore, is , examined and expofed.

• 2. This Theocracy, thus proved to be necef- fary^ was likewife, of the moft eafy introduftion, as I have Ihewn from the notions and opinions of thofe times, concerning ttitelary Deities. And here, fpeaking of the method of divine Providence, in applying the prejudices and manners of men to the great ends of his Difpenfations, I obferve, that He is always accuftomed to imprefs on his in- ftitution, fome charafteriftic note of difference, to mark it for his own : which leading me to give inftances in fome of thefe notes, I infift chiefly up- on this, " that the Mofaic Religion was built upon " a former, namely, the Patriarchal : v/hereas the " various Religions of the Pagan World were all ** unrelated to, and independent of, one another." As this was a circumftance neceflary to be well at- tended to, by all who would fully comprehend the nature of the Mofaic Policy, I took the advantage, which the celebrated Author of the Grounds and Reafons of the Chriftian Religion had afforded me, to fupport this chara6leriflic note, againft his idle at- tempt to prove, that the Pagans, likewife, were accuftomed to build one pretended Revelation on another.

3. I proceed, in the next place, to fliew, that thofe prejudices which made the introduction of a Theocracy fo eafy, occafioncd as eafy a defection from it. In which, I had occafion to explain the nature of the 'ixorfhip of tutelary Gods \ and of that

Idolatry

Se<5i;. 6. cf Moses demonjlrated, 391

idolatry wherewith the Ifraelites were fo obflinate- ly befotted.

Both of which Difcourfes ferve thefe further pur- pofes : tiie former^ to fupport and explain what hath been faid in the fecond Book concerning the Pagan intercommunity of worjlnp : and the /tf//i?r, (be- fides a peculiar ule to be made of it in third Volun-^e) to obviate a popular obj"6tion of Un- believers ; wh'o, from this circumftance, of the perpetual defection of the Ifraelites into idola- try, would infer, that God's Difpenfation to them could never have been fo convi6tive as their Hiilory reprefents it; the Objectors having taken it for grantt-d, on the allowance of Believers, that this Idolatry confifted in renouncing the Law of Mo- fes, and renouncing it as difi^atisfied with its truth. Both which fuppolitions are here fiiewn to be falfe. This affords an occafion to confute the falfe rea- foning of Lord Bolingbroke; who, from this fre- quent lapfe into Idolatry, infers fuch a defed and political inability in the Law, as Ihews its pretence to a divine original to be an impofture.

4.. The nature of the Theocracy, and the cir- cumftances attending its ereElion being thus ex- plained, we come next to inquire concerning its duration. Here we fhew, that, in ftri6l truth and propriety, it fubfifted throughout the whole period of the Jewifh CEconomy, even to the coming of Chrift: In which difcourfe, the contrary opinions, of an earlier abolition, are all confidered and confut- ed, and the above truth fupported and eftablilhed. In the courfe of this reafoning, it is fhewn, that the famous Prophecy of Jacob, of the Sceptre's not de- parting from Judah till the ccming of Shiloh^ is a pro- mife or declaration of the exiltence of the The-

C C 4 OCRACY

392 ^he Divine Legation Book VI.

OCR AC Y till the coming of Chrift. And as the truth of this interpretation is of the higheft im- portance to Revelation, all the different fenfes given to this Prophecy are examined, and (hewn to be erroneous. And the lad of them being one bor- rowed by Dr. Sherlock, Bifhop of London, and received into his Book of the Ufe and Intent of Pre- fhec)\ is particularly difcufled.

The ufe to be hereafter made of the duration of ■the Theocracy to the coming of Chrifl, is to inforce, by this circumltance, amongft many others, the CONNEXION between the two Religions : a truth, though too much neglecfled, yet incumbent on every rational Defender of Revelation to fup- port.

The Argument then proceeds to a confideration of the peculiar confequcnccs attending the admini^ flration of a Theocracy, which brings us yet nearer ro'-our point. Here it is fliewn, that one neceflary confecjMcnce was an extraordinary Providence. And agreeably to this dedudtion from the nature of things^ we find, that holy Scripture does, infa^, exhibit this very reprefentation of God's Govern- ment of Judea ; and that there are many favour- able circumftances in the charader of the Hebrew People, to induce us to believe the reprefentation to be true. Here, many cloudy cavils of the three Doctors, Sykes, Stebbing, and Rutherford, are occafionally removed and difperfed. But the attentive Reader will oblerve, that m.y Argument <loes not require me to prove more in this place, than that holy Scripture represents an extraordi- 'Aary Providence to have been adminiltered. The proof of its real Adminiflration is eflablilhed by \)xq MEDIUM of my ThefiSj the omiffion of the Doc-

p-iiXi

Scd. 6. of Moses dc7nonfirated, 393

trine of a future flate of Rezvards and Tunifirments, Which anlwers all objedions as to our inadequate conceptions of fuch an adminiftration \ as well as to certain pafTages of Scripture that Icem to clafli with its general reprefentation of it. Yet both thefe fort of objedions are, however, tonfidercd €X abundanti.

As important as the fa6l is, to our prefcnt pur- pofe of an extraordinary Providence thus repre- fented, it has ftill a further ufe, when employed amongft thofe diflinguifhing marks of the truth of Mofes's divine Million in general : for it lliews "US, the unnecefTary trouble and hazard to which he expofed himfelf had that Miflion been feign- ed. Had he, like the reft of the ancient Law- givers, only pretended to infpiration^ he had then no occafion to propagate the belief of an extra- crdinary Providence ; a Bifpenfation fo eafy to be confuted. But by deviating from their praftice, and announcing to his People, that their tutehry God was become their King, he laid himfelf under a neceflity of teaching an extracrdinray Providence ; a dead weight upon an Impoftor, which nothing but downright folly could have brought him to wndergo.

To proceed. After having laid this ftrong and neceffary Foundation, we come at length directly to the point in queftion. If the Jewifh Govern- ment were a Theocracy, adminiftered, as it muft be, by an extraordinary Providence^ the next confequence is, that temporal rewards and PUNISHMENTS, and not Future, were the sanc- tion of their Law and Religion. Thus far, there- fore, have our confiderations on the nature alone of the Jewilh Government condu(rted us : and it is al-

moll

394 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI.

mod to our journey's end : for it fairly brings us up to the proof of our two minor Propofitions. So neceflary, as the Reader now fees, is the long dif- courfe of the nature of the Jewifh Government.

But, to prevent all cavil, the Argument goes on, and proves in the next place, that the Do&ine of a future fiate of Rewards and Punifhments^ which could not, from the nature of things, be the Sanc- tion of the Jewifh CEconomy, was not \nfa£l con- tained in it at all : nay further, that it was pur- posely OMITTED by the great Lawgiver. This is proved from feveral pafTages in the Book ofGene- fts and the Law.

And here, more fully to evince, that Mofes, who, it is fcen, fludioufly omitted the mention of it, was well apprifed oi its importance, I fhew, that the Pu- nishment OF Children for the sins of their Parents was brought into this Inftitution purpofe- ]y to afford fome advantages to Government, which the Dodtrine of a future fiate ^ as it is found in all other Societies, amply fupplies. This, at the fame time that it gives further flrength to thepofition of no future fiate in the Mofaic Difpenfation^ gives the Author a fair occafion of vindicating the jultice and equity of the Law of punijhing Children for the fins of their Parents ; and of proving the perfedl agree- ment between Moses and the Prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah, concerning it ; which hath been, in all ages, the ftumblihg-block of Infidelity.

But we now advance a ftep further, and fhew, that as Mofes did not teach, yea forbore to teach the Do6trine of a future State of Rewards and Pu- nifhments, fo neither had the ancient Jews, that is to fay, the Body of the People, any knowledge of

it.

Se(fl. 6. of Moses demonjlrated, 39^

it. The proof is ftriking, and fcarce to be refifted by any Party or ProfefTion but that of the System- maker. The Bible contains a very circumftantial account of this People, from the time of Mofes to the great Captivity ; not only the hiftory of public occurrences, but the lives of private per- fons of both itxts^ and of all ages, conditions, chara6ters and complexions ; in the adventures of virgins, matrons, kings, foldiers, fcholars, parents, merchants, huibandmen. They are given too in every circumftance of life ; captive, vidlorious, in ficknels and in health ; in full fecurity and amidft impending. dangers; plunged in civil bufinefs, or retired ana fequeftered in the fervice of Religion. Together with their ftory, we have their compofi- tions likewife : in one place we hear their trium- phal ; in another, their penitential llralns. Here we have their exultations for bleffings received ; there, their deprecations of evil apprehended: Here they urge their moral precepts to their contempora- ries \ and there again, they treafure up their Pro- phecies and Predictions for the ufe of Pofierity ; and on each, denounce the threatenings and pro- mifes of Heaven. Yet in none of thefe different circumllances of life; in none of thefe various cads of compofition, do we ever find them adling on the motives, or influenced by the profpe6t, of a FUTURE STATE : or indeed, exprefTing the leaft hopes or fears, or even common curiofity, con- cerning it : But every thing they do or fay, re- fpefbs the prefent life only ; the good and ill of which are the fole objects of their purfuits and averfions.

The ftrength of this argument is ftill further fupported by a view of the general hiftory of Man- kind : and particularly of thofe nations moil re-

I'embling

39^ The Divine Legation Book VI,

fembling the Jewifi in their genius and circum- flances : in which we find the Dodrine of a fu- ture ftate of Rewards and Punirtiments, was al- ways pulhing on its influence. It was their con- flant viaticum through life ; it ftimulated them to war, and fpirited their fongs of triumph j it made them infenfible of pain, immoveable in danger, and fuperior to the approach of death.

This is not all : We obferve, that even in the Jcwijh Annals, when this Dodtrine was become national, it made as confiderable a figure in their Hiftory, as in that of any other nation.

It is ftill further urged, that this conclufion does not reft merely on the negative ftlence of the Bible-hiftory -, it is fupported on the poftiive decla- rations contained in it ; by which the facred Wri- ters plainly difcover that there was no popular ex- peftation of a future Jiaie or Refurre^ion.

From the Old Tejlament we come to the Neiv, By the Writers of which it appears, that the Doc- trine of a future ftate of Jlewards andPunifhments, DID NOT MAKE PART of" the Mofaic DifpenfatioH.

Their evidence is divided into two parts ; the firfi^ proving that temporal rewards and punifh- ments were the fanElion of the Jewifti Dilpenlation : The feconJ, that it had no other. And thus, with the moft diredl and unexceptionable proof of the two MINOR propofitions, the fifth Book concludes.

VI. But to remove, as far as pofTible, all the fupports of prejudice againft this important Truth, the fixth and laft Book of this Volume is employ- ed in examining all thofe texts of the Old and Ne'-j}

Tcftament,

Seft. 6. o/" Moses demonjlrated. 397

Teftament, which had been commonly urged to prove, that the Doflrine of a future ftate of re- wards and punifhments, did make part of the Mofaic Difpenfation.

And amongft thofe of the Old Teftament, the famous paflage of the xix"* chapter of Job, con- cerning a Refurre5imt (as it has been commonly underftood) holding a principal place, it was judg- ed expedient, for the reafons there given, to ex- amine that matter to the bottom. This neceflarily brought on an enquiry into the nature and ge- nius of that Book ; when written, and to what purpose. By the aid of which enquiry, a fair ac- count is given of the fenfe of that famous Text, confiftent with our general Proportion.

But the whole Difcourfe on the hook of Job hath this further ufe : It provides a ftrong fupport and illuftration of what will be hereafter delivered con- cerning the gradual decay of the extraordinary Providence from the time oi Saul, to the return from the great Captivity.

Yet this is not all. The Difcourfe hath yet a further ufe, with regard to Revelation in general. For the explaining. How the principles of the Gofpel-Dc^irine were opened by degrees, fully ob- viates the calumnies of thole two leaders in In- fidelity, Tyndal and Collins ; who pretend, that the Heads and Governors of the Jews, refined their old Doflrines concerning the Deity, and in- vented new ones :. juft as the Priejls improved irr knowledge, or the People advanced in curiofity ; or as Both were better taught by the inftruftions they received from their Mafters, in the country ■whither they were led away captive. .J ^ The

-398 7he Divine Legation Book VI.

The difcourfe of Job being of this importance, we were led to fupport all the parts of it, from the attacks of various Writers, who had attempted to confute it.

The reft of the Old Teftament-texts are gone thro' with greater difpatch, being divided into two parts. I. Such as are fuppofed to teach the fe- parate exiflence, or as it is called, the immortality of the Soul. And 2. Such as are fuppofed to teach- a future ft ate of rewards and punijhments^ to- gether with a RefwreBion of the body. In the courfe of which examination, much light, it is hoped, has been thrown both on the particular texts and on the general queftion.

From the texts of the Old Teftament, the Ar- gument proceeds to examine thole of the New : Amongft which, the famous eleventh Chapter of the Epiftle to the Hebrews is not forgotten •, the fenfe of which is cleared up, to oppofe to the inveterate miftakes of Syftematical Divines : And here, occa- fion is taken to explain the nature of St. Paul's rea~ foning againft the errors of the Jewifto converts \ a matter of higheft moment for a right underftand- ing of this Apoflle's Letters to the feveral Churches ; and for the further illuftration of the general Ar-

gument.

As in all this, nothing is taught or infinuated which oppofes the dodrineof our excellent Church, common decency required that this conformity fhould be fully fhewn and largely infilled on.

Having therefore, all along, gone upon this Prin- ciple, That " tho' a future State of rewards and " punifhments, made no part of the Mosaic Dif- 4 ^' penfation,

Sed. 6. of yio%^^ demonfirated. 399

" penfation, yet that the Law had a spiritual " meaning -, tho' not feen or underftood till the " fuUnefs of time was come. Hence the Ritual *' Law received the nature, and afforded the effi- *' cacy of PROPHECY : In the interim (as is fhewn) " the myjlery of the Gofpel was occajionally revealed^ " by God, to his chofen fervants, the Fathers and " Leaders of the Jewifh Nation ; and the dawnings *' of it gradually opened by the Prophets, to the '* People." Having, I fay, gone, all the way, upon this principle, I fiiew, from the seventh ARTICLE of Religion, that it is the very Dodrine of our excellent Church.

And in explaining that part of the Article which fays, — T^hat they are not to be heard which feign that the old Fathers did look only for tranfitory Pro- mifes, I fupport this dodlrine by the cafe of Abra- ham, who, our bleffed Matter tells us, rejoiced to fee his day, and faw it and was glad.

Here, I attempt to prove, in ilUiftration of this text, that the Cominand to Abraham to offer Ifaac, was merely an information given, at Abraham's earneft requeft, in a reprefentative a^ion, inftead of words, of the Redemption of mankind by the great Sacrifice of Chrift on the Crofs. Which in- terpretation, if it be the true one, is, I think, the noblefl proof that ever was given of the Har- mony between the Old and New Teflament.

From this long Diflertation, befides the imme- diate purpofe of vindicating the Dodrine of our national Church, in its feventh Article, we gain thefe two advantages, i. The firll of which is, fupporting a real and eflential connexion between the Mofaic and the Chriftian Religions. 2, The

other

4c5o ^ke Di'vine Legation Book VL

other is, difpofing the Deifts to think more favoura bly of Revelation, when they fee, in this inter- pretation of the COMMAND, all their objedtions tu this part of Abraham's ftory, overthrown.

The matter being of this high importance, it was proper to fix my interpretation on fuch prin- ciples as would leave no room for reafonable doubt or objedtion : And this was to be done by explain- ing the nature of thofe various modes of information in ule amongft the Ancients -, for which explana- tion, a proper ground had been laid in the difcourfe on the Hieroglyphics in the fourth Book. To all this (for the. reafon here given) is fubjoined a continued refutation of all that Dr. Stebbing has been able to urge againft this idea of the Com- mand,

Nor is this all. This Differtation, which affords fo many new openings into the truths of Revela^ . iion in general, and fo many additional fupports to the argument of the Divine Legation in parti- cular, hath another very important ufe. It is a neceffary introduction to the long Difcourfe which follows, concernins: prophecy.

'C3

In this, (v/hich is the lad of the prcfcnt Volume) I have attempted to clear up and vindicate the lo- gical truth and propriety of Tj^^^ ina^ion^ 2ind fecon^ ilary fenfes in fpeech : For on the truth and propriety of thefe, depend.! the divine original of the ancient Jewish prophecies concerning Chrift. A matter much needing a ilipport : For tho' the greater pare of thefe Prophecies confefTedly relate to Jefus only in 2ifccondary fenfe, yet had fome men of name, and in the interells of Religion, thro' ignorance of the true origin and nature oi fuch fenfes^ ralhly

con-

ge(5l. 6, 5/' Moses demonjlrat^ili 40 1

concurred with modern Jndailm and Infidelity, to o-ive them all up as illogical and enthuftafiic^ to the imminent hazard of the very foundation of Chri- stianity. In theprogrefs of this inquiry, I had occafion to examine, and was enabled, on the principles here laid down, to confute Mr. CoHins's famous Work of the Grounds and Reafons of the Chrijiian Religion, one of the moft able and plau- fible books ever written amongft us, againft our holy Faith ; he having borrowed the Argument, and ftolen all the reafoning upon it, from the raoft fagacious of the modern Rabbins •, who pretend that none of the Prophecies can relate to Jefus in any other fenfe than -x [econdary, and that ^./econ- daryfenfe is illogical and fanatical. — ^Had I done no more, in this long work, than explain and clear np, as I have done, this much embarrafled and mofl' important queftion of the Jewiih Prophecies whici^ relate to Chrift, and to the Chriftian Difpenfation; I fhould have thought my time and labour well employed ; fo necefTary to the very being of our holy Faith, is the fetting this matter on its true foundation. Thus much may be faid in favour of this large dilTertation confidered in itfelf alone: But, as part of the Argument of the Divine Le- gation of Mofes, it has thefe more immediate ufes;

I. To fliew, that thofe who contend, that the Chriftian Doftrine of a future State was revealed to the early Jews, deftroy all ufe and reafon of a fecondary fenfe of Prophecies -, for how fhall it be certainly known, from the Prophecies themfelves, that they contain double fenfes, but from this ac- knowledged truth, that the old Law was preparatory i$o, and the rudiments of, the New ? Or how fliall

YOL, V. D d this

40?. The Divine Legation Book VI.

this relation between thefe two Laws be certainly- known, but from the evidence of this conteftedivvLih, that the Doctrine of a future Jlate of Rewards and PuniJJjments, is not to be found in the Mofaic Difpen- fation ? So clofe a dependence have all thefe capital Principles, on one another.

2. The other more immediate reafon for this Differtation on 'Types and fecondary Senfes was this : As I had fhewn, that a future State of rewards and punifhments was not revealed under any part of the Jewifli CEconomy, otherwife than by thofe modes of information, it was neceflary, in order to fhew the real connexion between Judaifm and Chriftianity (the truth of the latter Religion de- pending on that real connexion) to prove thofe modes to be logical and rational. For, as on the one hand, had the dodtrine of life and immortality been revealed under the Mofaic CEconomy, Ju- daifm had been more than a rudiment of, and pre- paration to, Chriftianity ; fo, on the other, had no covert intimations, at all, been given of the doftrine, it had been lefs : that is, the dependency and connexion between the two Religions had not been fufEciently marked out and afcertained. With this Differtation therefore, fo important in its ufe and application, the fixth and laft Book of the fecond Volume concludes.

Thus the Reader, at length, may fee how re- gularly, and intently, thefe two Volumes have been carried on : For, tho' the Author (whofe paffion is not fo much a fondnefs for his own conceived argument^ as for the honour and fupport of Religion itfelf) hath ncgledted no fair occafion of inforcing every collateral circumltance, which might ferve to il-

lullrate

Se(5t. 6. of M OS "ES demonjl rated, 403

luftrate the truth of Revelation in general; yet he never lofes fight of his end, but as the precept for conducing the moil regular works diredls.

Semper ad eventum fejiinat.

This Volume too, like the firft, I thought fit to publilli alone : not merely for the fame reafon, that it was a compleat and entire work of itfelf, which explained the nature and genius of the Jewijb Conjiituiion ; but for this additional one, that it fairly ended and compleated the Argument,

For the firft Volume having proved the ?vIajor, and the fecond Volume, the Minor Propohtions of the TWO Syllogisms, my logic teaches me to think, that the conclusion follows of courfe, viz. That the Jewish Religion and Society

WERE supported BY AN EXTRAORDINARY PRO- VIDENCE.

Or put it in another light,— Having proved my three principal Propofitions,

I. « That the inculcating the Doftrine of a fu- « ture State of rewards and punifiiments, ^^is ne- « cefiary to the well being of civil Society."

II. « That all mankind, efpecially the mod « wife and learned nations of Antiquity, have « concurred in believing, and teaching, that this « Dodrine was of fuch ufe to civil Society.

III. « That the Doftrine of a future State of « rewards and puniftiments is not to be /ound " in, nor did make part of the Mofaic Difpenla-

" tio"-" , The

D d 2 The

404 1^^<'' Divine Legation Book VI.

The conclufion is, that therefore the Law of Moses is of divine original.

A conclusion which neceflarily follows the pre- mifles contained in thele three propofitions. Not- withftanding all this, the evidence of their truth proving fo various, extending fo wide, and having been drawn out to fo great a length ; What between inattention and prejudice^ the Argument, here brought to its final jfTue, hath been generally un- derftood to be left imperfedl •, and the Conclufion of it referved for another Volume. Yet a very moderate fhare of refieftion might have led the can- did Reader to underfiand, that I had here eff'eftually performed what I had nromifcd, namely, to de- monstrate THE Divine Legation of Moses. For if it be indeed proved, That the Doflrine of a future ftate is necellary to the well being of civil Society, under the ordinary government of Provi- dence— That all mankind have ever fo conceived of the matter — That the Mofaic Inftitution was without this fupport, and that yet it did not want it, — What follows but that the Jewifii affairs were adminiilered by an extraordinary Providence, dif- tributing reward and punifhment with an equal hand -, and confequently that the Mission of Mo- ses WAS divine ?

However, the complaint againfi; the Author, for not having performed his Convention with the Public, became pretty general. To which a great deal might be.faid, and perhaps to little purpofe. The following Tale will put it in the faireil light. la a foiemn Treaty lately concluded between the Go- vernor of one of our American Provinces and the neighbouring Savages, it had, it feems, been ilipu- lated, that the Settlement fliould fupply thofe 3 Warrior-

Sedt. 6. o/* M o s E s demonjirated, 405

Warrior-Tribes with a certain number of good and fervicable Mufkets. Which engagement was lb ill performed, that at their next general meeting, the Chiefs of the Barbarians complained, that, tho' indeed the Colony had fent them the number of Muflcets agreed upon, yet, on examination, they were all found to be vjithout Locks. This mil- chance (occafioned by the Mullvets and the Locics being put into two different cargoes) the Gover- nor promifed fhould be redreffed. It was redrcffcd accordingly ; and the Locks fought out, and fenr.* He now flattered himfelf that all cauie of umbrage was effe6tually removed j when, at their next meet- ing, he was entertained with a frefh complaint, that the Colony had fraudulently fent them Locks without Mufiets. The truth was, this brave Peo- ple, of unimpeached morals, were only defedive in their military Logic ; they had not the dexteri- ty, till they were firlt fhewn the way, to put the major of the Mufl^.et and the minor of the Mulket- Lock together •, and from thence to draw the con- cluding trigger.

But then it will be faid, " If, as is here pretended, the PREMISSES have been indeed proved, in thefe two Volumes, with all the detail which their impor- tance required, and with all the evidence which a moral fubjea; can fupply •, and the conclusion-, therefore, eftablilhed with all the conviftion which the Laws of logic are able to inforce j Why was a other Volume promifed ? For no other end, as ■^ aldfeem, than to miQead a well-meaning Rea- diL-, in the vain purfuit of an Argument already ended."

It was promifed for a better purpofe— STc remove'

',11 conQsivahk objeSiions againji the conclusion, ani.

Dd 3 ^

4o6 T^he Divine Legation Book VL

to throw in every collateral light upon the premisses. For it is one thing to fatisfy Truth, and another, to filence her pretended friends. He who de- fends Revelation has many prejudices to encounter ; but he who defends it by Reafon only, has many more.

The third and lafl Volume, therefore. Is diftlned to SUPPORT what hath been already proved : not, as has been abfurdly fuggefted, to continue and con- clude an unfinifhed Argument.

It confifts of three Books, like each of the pre- cedino; Volumes.

I. The feventh Book therefore is employed in fupporting the major and the minor Propofitions of the firfl: Syllogifm : in a continued Hiftory of the Religious Opinions of the Jews, from the time of the earlier Prophets^ who firft gave fome dark intimations of a different Difpenfation, to the time of the Maccabees, when the Dodtrine of a future ftate of rewards and punifhments was become na- tional.

2, The eighth Book is employed in fupporting the MAJOR and minor Propofitions of the fecond Syl- logifm, in which is confidered the personal cha- racter of Mofes and the genius of the Law, as far as it concerns or has a relation to the chara(f->^r of the Lawgiver. Under this latter head, is c .i\- tained a full and fatisfaftory Anfwer to thofe \ (\o may objeifl, *' That a revealed Religion with a fu- ture ftate of rewards and punifhments is unworthy the Divine Author to whom it is afcribed." \

3- Th(

5e<fl« 6. of Moses demonjlratcd. 407

3. The ninth and lafl: Book, explains at large the nature and genius of the Christian Dispen- sation : For having towards the end of the eighth Book, examined the pretended reasons (offer- ed both by Believers and Unbelievers to evade my conclufion) for omitting the Dodrine of a future State of rewards and punilliments in the Mofaic Difpenfation, I was naturally and neceffari- ly led to inquire into the true. For now, it might be finally objected, " That tho', under an extraor- dinary Providence there might be no occafwn for the doftrine of a future State, in fupport of Re- ligion, or for the ends of Government j yet as thlt Doftrine is a truths and confequently, under every regiment of Providence, tifeftil^ it feems hard to conceive, that the Pveligious Leader of the Jew^s, becaufe as a Lawgiver he could do with- out it, that therefore, as a Divine^ he would omit it." The objeaion is of weight in itfelf, and re- ceives additional moment from what hath been ob- ferved in the fifth Book, concerning the Reafon of the Law of funifdng children for the crimes of their Barents. I held it therefore iniuHicient barely to reply, " Mofes omitted it^ that his Law might there- *' hy ft and, throughout all ages, an invincible Monu- " ment of the truth of his pretences :" but proceed- ed to explain the great and principal reafon of the omiffion. And nov^^-'ventum ad verum eft.

The whole concludes with one general but di- flind view of the entire courfe of Gods univerlal CEconomy from Adam to Chrift. In which it is Ihewn, that if Mofes ' were, in truth, lent from God, he could -not teach a future Stare •, that Doc- trine being out of his Commiffion, and referved for him who was at the head of another Diipenlation, Dd 4 by

^o8 The Divhie Legation, he. Book VI,

by which life and immortality was to be brought to light.

This Difcourfe, befides the immediate purpofe of fupporting and illuftrating the Argument here compleated, ferves another end, which I had in view, as to the general difpofition of the whole work : which was to explain and difcriminate the diftinct and various natures of the Pagan, the Jewish and the Christian Religions : the Pagan having been confidercd in the firft Volume, and the Jeivipj in the fecond ; the Chrijlian is referved for the third and laft. Let me conclude therefore, in an addrefs to my Reverend Brethren, with the words of an Ancient Apologift \ Qmd nobis invidemus, fi Veritas Divinitatis, noftri temporis ^tate maturuit ? Fruamur bono noftro, et redti fententiam temperemus : cohibeatur superstitio IMPIETAS expietur, vera RELiciorefervetur.

* Minucius fdix.

The End of the Sixth Book^.

A P P E N-

I 409 ]

APPENDIX

Concerning the Book of J O B.

AN excellent Writer having /r-f^/y and candidly examined the late Bifhop of London's collec- tion of Sermons, and in page 165 of his Examina- tion, afked this queftion. Where ivas Idolatry ever ptnijlded hy the Magijirate, hut under the Jeiinjh (Economy ? The Oxford Profeflbr, in the fecond Edition of his Prelections, concerning the facred Poe- try of the Hebrews, thinks fit to give the following anfwer — " It was punilhed under the CEconomy *' of the Patriarchs, in the families and under the *' DOMINION of Abraham, Melchifedec and Job. ** Idolatry fpreading wider and wider, Abraham " was called by God from Chaldea, for this end, " to be the father of a People, which, divided *' from all others, might continue to worfhip the *' trQe God •, to be fet up for an exemplar of *■'■ true Religion, and to be ready to give tefti- " mony againft the worfhip of vain Deities. " Was not Abraham, therefore (exercifing the *' SOVEREIGNTY in his own family) to punifh Ido- " latry ? Were not Melchifedec and Job, and all *' the Sovereigns of Tribes of that time, whollill *' retained the knowledge and worfhip of the true *' God, amidfl a general defection of all the fur- *' rounding People, to take care that their own f} did not backOide ? To curb offenders, and to

" infli6t

4T0 APPENDIX.

*' infiid puniihment en the obftinate, the re- *' BELLious, and on all thofe who fpread abroad *' the contagion of this vice." — Ad qu^ellionem refpondetur : Sub ceconomia Patriarcharum ; in familiis, et fub Dominatu Abrahami, Melchi- zedechi, Jobi c^terorumque. Ingruente Idolo- latria divinitus evocabatur ex Chaldsea Abraha- mus ; eum in nnem, ut fieret pater Gentis, quae ab aliis omnibus divifa, verum Dcum colerct, pub- licum proponeret exemplum purae religionis, con- traque cultum vanorum numinum teftimonium perhiberet. Nonne erat igitur Abrahami in fua familia principatum exercentis proprium officium & munus in Idololatriam animadvertere ? Nonne Mclchizedechi, Jobi, omniumque tunc temporis in fuis Tribubus Principum, qui veri Dei cogni- tionem & cultum in communi fere gentium cir- cumvicinarum defeftione adhuc retinebant, cavere, ne fui deficerent; coercere delinquentes; obllina- tos & REBELLES, ct fcclcris contagioncm propa- gantes, fupplicio afficere ? — Supplementum ad pri- mara Prakiiionum Editionem : Addit. Editionis fe- cunda^ p. 312.

This is fo pleafant an anfwer, and fo little need- ing the mafterly hand of the Examiner to correct, that a few ftridures, in a curfory Note, will be more than fufficient to do the bufinefs.

I . The Examiner^ to prove, I fuppofe, that the book of Job was a dramatic work, written long after the time of the Patriarch, afl'is, IVhere 'U)as Idolatry e'ver punijijed by the Magistrate, but ujtder the Jeioijh CEccnomy ? The Frofeffor anfwers, // was puniJJoed under the Jobean CEconomy. And he .advances nothing without proof. Docs not Job himfclf fay, that Idolatry was an iniquity to be pii-

iiijhcd

APPENDIX. 4,1

nijhed by the Judge ? The Examiner replies, that the Job who fays this, is an airy Fantom, raif- ed for other purpofes than to lay down the Law for the Patriarchal times. The Profe£cr maintains that they are all AlTes, with ears as long as Father Harduin's, who cannot ke that this is the true and genuine old Job. — In good time. Sub Judice lis efi : And while it is {o, I am afraid the learned Profejfor begs the question j when, to prove that Idolatry was puniflied by the Magiftrate, out of the land of Judea, he affirms that king Job puniQied it. If he fay, he does not reft his aller- tion on this pafiage of the book of Job alone, but on the facred Records, from whence he concludes that thofe civil Magistrates, Abraham and Melchifedec, punifhed Idolatry ; I lliallown he a6ts fairly, in putting them all upon the fame footing-, and on what ground that Hands, we fliall now fee.

2. The Examiner fays, JiHoere ivas Idolatry ever pmijhed by the Magiftrate^ but under the Jewiftj CEco- nomy ? A queflion equivalent to this, — " Where was Idolatry punifhed by the civil Magiftrate on the eftablifhed Laws of the State, but in Judea r" To which, the Profejfor replies, " It was puniUied by all the Patriarchal Monarchs, by king Job, king Abraham, and king Melchifedec."

Of a nolle race zvas Shenkin.

But here, not one, fave the laft, had fo much as a nominal title to civil Magiftracy: And this lad drops as it were, from the clouds, without lineage or parentage i fo that, tho' of divine, yet certainly not a Monarch of the true ftamp, by hereditary right. The Critic therefore fiiils in his firii point, which is, finding out civil Magillrates to do his hierarchical drudgery,

cj. But

412

APPENDIX.

3. But let us admit our Prof efforts right of in- vetliture, to confer this high office, and then fee how he proves, that thefe his Lieges punifhed the crime of Idolatry by civil punifhment. Abra- ham, and the Patriarchs his defcendants, come firft under confideration. What! (fays he) was tiot Abraham^ exercifing the sovereignty in his own family, to punifh Idolatry ? Hobbes is, I believe, the only one (fave our Profefibr) who holds that •' Abraham had a right to prefcribe to his family " what Religion they fhould be of, to tell them *' what was the word of God, and to punifli thofe *' who countenanced any Doftrine which he had *' forbidden." Leviath. chap. 40. — But God fpeak- ing of Abraham, fays, I know that he will command his children and his houfhold after him, and they fh all keep the way of the Lord, &c. Gen. xviii. 19. And Hobbes and our ProfeJJ'or, I fuppofe, regard this de- claration as a clear proof of the divine doftrine of RESTRAINT in matters ofRcligion ; efpecially when interpreted by their darling text of — force them to enter in. On the contrary, thofe who have been bred up in the Principles of 'Toleration, hold it to be a mere teftimony (a glorious one indeed) of Abra- ham's pious and parental care to instruct his fa- mily in the Law of God. And it is well, it can go for no more, or I fhould fear the learned Profefibr ■would have brought in Ifaac asa backflider to Idola- try i and his Father's laying him on the facrifical Pile, as a kind of Auto de fe. Now, except in thefe two places of Abraham's Hillory, of fuch wonder- ful force to fupport intolerant principles, the Patri- arch appears in all others fo averfe to this inquifito- rial fpirit, that where God comes down to deftroy Sodom, the father of the Faithful intercedes, with the utmoll importunity, for that idolatrous as well jis inceftuous City. The truth is this. The ufurped

right

APPENDIX. 413

right of punifhing for opinions, was firft afiumed and long ingrolTed by Idolaters. And, if tradition may be believed, Abraham himfelf narrowly efcap- ed the Fire for preaching againlt its Divinity. Buc this is not all. From his own condu6V, and from the condu6t of his pofterity, he feems to have made one part of that fidelity in keeping the 'xay of the Lord^ (for which he is lb nobly diftinguiflied by God himfelf) to confift in inculcating the di- vine dodrine of Toleration. When Jacob and his family, v.'ithout leave-taking, had departed from Laban, Rachel ftole away her father's Gods. The old m.an followed and overtook them ; and complaining of the theft, Jacob frankly anfwered. With whomfoever thou findeji thy Gods, let him not live. Now, I would afk, was this condemnation on the offender denounced for Idolatry, or for the I'heft ? The words of the Patriarch, which imme- diately follow, determine this — Before our brethren difcern thou what is thine, with me, and take it to thee. Well, Rachel, by a female ftratagem, contrived to keep her father's Gods ; for no better purpofe, we may be fare, than that for which the good man em- ployed fo much pains to recover them. The thefts indeed, had it been difcovered, would have been punifJud by the Judge : But, as for the Idola- try, which, from its nature, could not be long hid, the filence of Scripture fliews it to have been coram ncn Judice, And fo far was Rachel from being doomed to the fire, that we do not find, even her Gods underwent this punifhment.

After the affair of the Shechemites, Jacob, by God's command, goes to Bethel : and there, in pious emulation of his grandfather's care to keep the way of the Lord, the text tells us, he com- manded

414 A P P E N D I X.

manded his houjhold and all that were with him^ to ■put away the Jlrange God's from amongfl them. They obeyed, all was well •, and not a word of punijhing hy the Judge. Indeed, thefe Patriarchal Judges were much better employed, and more futably to their office, in punifhing civil crimes and immo- ralities, as appears from the adventure of Judah and his daughter in law, Tamar.

Melchisedec's ftory is a fhort one ; he is jufl brought into the fcene to blefs Abraham in his re- turn from conqueft. This promifes but ill. Had this King and Priejl cf Salem been brought in curftng^ it had had a better appearance : for, I think, punifhment for opinions, which generally ends in a Fagot., always begins with a ciirfe. But we may be mifled perhaps by a wrong tranflation. The Hebrew word to hlefs^ fignifies likewife to curfe^ and, under the management of an intolerant Prieft, good things eafily run into their contraries. What follows, is his taking Tythes from Abraham. Nor will this ferve our purpofe, unlefs we interpret thefe Tythes into Fines for non- conformity ; and then, by the hleffng, we can eafily underftand ahfohition. We have ^ttn much flranger things done with the Hebrew Verity. If this be not allowed, I do not fee how we can elicite fire and fagot from this ad- venture •, for I think there is no infeparable con- nexion between Tythes and Perfecution^ but in the ideas of a Quaker. — And fo much for king Mel- chifedec.

But the learned Profeffor, who has been hardily brought up in the keen Atmofphere of whole- some SEVERITIES, and early taught to diftinguifh between de fablo and de jtire^ thought it ncedlcfs to enquire into Fatis^ when he was fecure of the 7 Right.

APPENDIX. 415

Right. And, therefore only flightly and fuperci- liouQy ailcs, " What ? was not Abraham, by liis " very princely office, to puniJJi Idolatry ? Were not " Melchifedec and Job, and all the heads of " Tribes to do the fame ?" Why, no : and it is well for Religion that they were not. It is for its honour that fuch a fet of perfecuting Patriarchs is no where to be found, but in 2i poetical Prek^ion.

4. For in the laft place, let it be obferved, that as thefe Patriarchs did not de faolo (which appears from their hiftory) fo they could not de jure (which appears from the laws of Nature and Nations) pu-^ nijh Idolatry by the Judge. Becaufe, as hath been fhewn. Idolatry is not amenable to civil Juftice, but where it becomes Crimen Ufa Majeftatis. It could not become the crime of lefe-majefty under the Patriarchs, unlefs they had been Gods as well as Kings. Indeed, they were as much one as the other. However, it is not pretended that their government, tho' Regal, was Theocratical likewife; The Patriarchs, therefore, could not punift) Idola-* try by the Judge.

From the Examiner, the ProfelTor (without the leaft provocation given him) proceeds to the Au- thor of the Divine Legation -, who, he will fnew, is as ignorant, abfurd, and mad- brained as Father Harduin himfelf.

The Author of the Divine Legation had faid, that the Writer of the book of Job obferved de^ corum, in imitating the manners of the early fcene which he had propofed to adorn. To this, the

ProfelTor objeds, " I can never bring myfelf

^' to allow to a semi-barbarous Poet, writing

" after

4i6 APPENDIX.

•' after the Babylonian Captivity, fuch a piece oif *' fubtilty and refinement." — A mighty piece of refinement truly, for a Writer, who lays his fcene in an early age, to paint, the beft he could, the manners of that age.—" Befides (fays the Pro - " fijfc^) which is the principal point, the ftyle fa- " vours wonderfully of Antiquity, and its pecu- " liar character is a certain primitive and noble " fimplicity. So that they who degrade this Book *' to the times pofterior to the Babylonian Capti- *' vity, feem to judge almofl as infanely of //<?- ** brew literature as Father Harduin did of the *' Roman^ who afcribed the golden Poems of Vir- *' gil, Horace, and the reft, to the iron ages of the

" Monks." < Verum Poetse femibarbaro poft

Captivitatem fcribenti tantam fubtilitatem ut con- cedam, impetrare a me non pofliim. Porro vero Stylus Poematis, quod vel maximum eft, prieci- pue vetuftatem fapit; eft ejus peculiaris character cc^y^a.'iTfj.og. Adeo ut qui id infra Captivitatem Babylonicam deprimunt, non multo fanius in He- braids judicare videantur, quam in Latinis Har- duinusi qui aurea Virgihi, Horatii, Csterorum- que poemata ferreis Monachorum Saeculis adfcrip- fit. Idem ib.

The learned Profejfor is a little unlucky in his comparifon. The age of Job, as fixed by him, and the age of the Writer of his hiftory, as fixed by me, run exa6tly parallel, not with the times of Virgil and Frederic Barbarofla, as he would infi- nuate, but with thofe of Ennius and Virgil. Job the hero of the Poem, lived in an age when civil Society was but beginning to ftiew itfelf, and what is more, in a Country where it never yet was formed: And Ezra (whom I fuppofe to be the Author of the Poem) was an eminent Citizen in the moft perfect

civil

APPENDIX. 417

civil government in the World-, which, he was fent home, to reftore, laden with the literary trea- iures of the Eaft •, treafures that had been Ions accumulating under the warm influence of a large and powerful Empire. From this fecond tranf- plantation of the Republic, Science got footing in Judea j and true Religion took deeper root in the hearts of its Inhabitants. Henceforward, we hear no more of their abfurd Idolatries. A ftri6t ad- herence to the Law now as much diftinguifhed them from others, as did t\iQ Jtngularity of the Law itfelf. And a ftudious cultivation of the Lan- guage, in which that Law was written, as na- turally followed, as it did amongft the Sarazens, who cultivated the Arabic, on the fame principle. And to undcrftand how great this was in both, we need only confider, that each had the fame aver- fion to a tranflation of their Law into a foreign language. It is true, that in courfe of time, when the Jewifli Policy was abolilhed, and the Nation was become vagabond upon Earth, while the Arabs, on the contrary, had ereded a great Empire, a manifeft difference arofe between them, as to the cultivation of the two Languages. — Ycc for all this, the Profeflbr calls Ezra, a Semi-bar- barian i tho' we agree that he wrote by the in- fpirarion of the Moft High ; amidft the lafl; blaze indeed, yet in the full luilre of expiring Prophecy.

But the learned ProfeiTor has an internal argu- ment from taste % full as good as the other from Chronology. " The book of Job favours of Anri- quity, and thofe who cannot relifh it, have as de* praved a tafte as Father Harduin, who could not diftinguilh Partridge from Horfe-fieih."

* See what hath been faid on this head in the .\2d, 43d and 44^^' pages of this Volume.

Vol. V, E e The

4i8 APPENDIX.

The truth is, tlie Greek and Latin Languages having, for many Ages, been the mother-tongues of two of the greateft People upon earth (who had Ihared between them the Empires of Eloquence and of Arms) became daily more and more copious by the cultivation of Arts ; and lefs and lefs pure by the extenfion hi Commerce. In thefe two lan^ua^es, there vet remains a vaft number of writings on all forts of Subjefts. So that modern Critics (in the foremoft rank of whom will alway (land the incomparable Bentley) had by long ap- plication to them, through their various and pro- grefTive refinements and depravations from age to age, acquired a certain fagacity, in pafTmg a toler- able judgment concerning the time of the Writer, by his ttyle and manner. Now Pedantry, which is the ape of Criticifm, would mimic the fame talent of difcernment, in the narroweft and mod barren of all Languages ; little fubjeft to change, both from the common genius of the Eaft, and from the peculiar fituation of a fequeflered People. Of this Language, long fmce become a dead one, the only remains are in one fmall Volume ; the contents of which, had not Providence been mercy- fully pleafcd to fecure, while the Tongue was yet living, by a tranflation into Greek, the Hebrew VERITY, tranfmitted to us in the manner it was found in the moft ancient MSS, where no vowel- points are uled, nor fpace left to diftinguifh one word from another, and where a great number of terms occur only once, would at this day be a mere arbitrary Cipher, which every Rabinical or Ca- balifcic juggler might make the key of his un- revealed Mylleries. — " Idem accidit etiam Maho- metanis (fays Abraham Ekell.) ante inventa ab Ali Abnaditalebo pundla vocalia: Tanta enim le- oentium erat difTcntio, ut nifi Othomanni coercita

O ...

fuiifct authoritate, et determinata ledio pundhs,

qusB

APPENDIX. 419

qu93 Ali'excogitaverat, jam de Alcorano actum fessET." And if this had been the cale -of the Arabic of the Alcoran, a copious and a living^ language, what had become of the Hebrew of the Bible? a very narrow and a dead one. Of which an ancient Jewifh Grammarian gives this charadler : " Lingua ifta [ Arabica] elegans eft, & \ longe lateque fcriptis dilatata^ et qui earn loquitur nulla di(5tione deficit : Lingua vero fanfta pauca eft praa ilia, cum illius nihil extet nifi quod in Libris Scripturae reperitur, nee fuppeditet omnes di£liones lo^uendi necejpinas." Yet this is the lan- o-uao-e whole peculiarities of ftyle and compofition, correipondent to every age and time, the Profejfo^ feems to think, may be as eafily diftinguillied as thofe of the Greek or Latin ClafTics. So much for the Author of the Divine Legation : and in- deed too much, had not Mr. Locke's defence been involved in his : that excellent perfon I-raving de- clared (fpeaking of the words of Job, that Idola- try was an iniquity to be punijloed by the Judge) " This place aloke, were there no other, " is fufficient to confirm their opinion who con- " elude that book to be writ by a Jew." .

From the Divine Legation, the learned ProfefTor turns again to the Examiner, who feems to fit hea- vy on his ftomach.— This excellent Writer defired to know of the learned, IVhere they could find a civil or religious Conjiitution out of Judaa, which declared that the Children Jhouldfuffer for the crime of their Pa- rents. To which the Profeflbr replies in thefe very words — In prsfens Horatiano illo verficulo contentus abito Examinatorum omnium candidis- BIMUS-— Fcr the prefefit, let this most candid of all Examiners go about his biifinefs, and be thankful for thisfcrap of Her ace, _ ,.^

420 APPENDIX.

" Deli6la majorum immeritus lues, « Romane."

This is true Poetical payment: He is called upon for his reckoning, and he difcharges it with an old Song. But the Examiner is not a man to take rhime for reafon. He afked for an oldfyjiem of Laws; and the contemptuous ProfefTor gives him an old Ballad: But a little more civility at parting had not been amifs ; for he who did not fpare the Bilhop, would certainly demolifh the Profeflbr, fhould he take it into his head to ex- amine the FrakSiions as he hath done the Sermons.

INDEX.

GENERAL INDEX

T O T H E

WHOLE WORK.

N. B. For the regular chain of the argument, fee the heads of the Se5iions prefixed to the Fohimes.

*^* The Rornan Numerals refer ■ to the particular Volumes y and the Figures to the Pages,

ABRAHAM, the true meaning of the bleffing pronounc- ed on him, pointed our, v. i 58. Expofuion of the hiftory of the famous command to faciifice his fun 1/aaCy 197, 229. Reply to objedioas againft :he hillorical truth of the relation, 247. The import of God s revelation to him explained, Z14, 222. Summary of his hillory, 210, 252. ». Three diftind; periods in his hiltory pointed out, 259. In what fenfe faid by Chrill to have feen bis davj 230, 254. An advocate for toleration, v. 412. See Action, Gud, Lazarus.

Abraxas, Egxptian amulets, what, iii. 182.

Actions, fignal inftance of divine inllrudion conveyed by, in the cafe of Abraham., v. 197. The eloquence of, illullrated. by an anecdote from the Spartan hiftory, 227. «. Ditto, from the Roman hiftory, 228. r.

Academies, of the Gr^f/' philofophers, how diftinguifhed, and by whom founded, ii 116. Citero and Lucian, their ac- counts of, 117. Whence named, 120. Diftinguilhed into Scepiici and Dogmat'Jls, i 26.

Addison, his obfervations on jEneas's defcent into hell, i, 264. His fublime improvement of a pafTage in Ovid, 300.

Adoration, Prideaux's account of the ancient forms of, iii.

INDEX.

^'Emii-'Akus, cliaradler of, and his religion afcertained, 1.302.

./^NEAS,\he charader of, intended to convey that of a perfedl

lawgiver, i. 218, 226. How his defcent into hell is to be

undcrllood, 226. Particular key to, 236, The clrcum-

flanccs of his return from the lower regions examined into, i,

281. His ftiield defcribed, 287.

^NEis, an analyzation of that poem, i. 211. Who intended

\iy ^^neas, 212. A fyrtem of politics, 219. Contains a

compleat fyflem of future rewards and punilhments, 226.

uSscHYLus, his danger at hinting at the heathen myfleries in

one of his fcenes, i, 181, Alc/eus, why confounded with fli?rfj(7«, iii. 264* Alcieiades, probable expofition of his nofturnal riot, before

his expedition to Syrac.fe, i. 167. n. ALEXANDER the GREAT, probable conjefture why he commu- nicated to his mother the facred mylleries explained to him by an E^ypiian hierophant, i. 158. n. Allegory, a figure often attributed, where never intended, i. 326. Controverfial reflexions on the nature of, with re- ference to Job, and the famous Ode of Horace, O Na'vis re- ferunt, &c. v. 18, n. Allegories, religious, diflinguilhed, v. 284, 321. ». Argu- ment deduced from the general paffion for, 354, Alliance between church and ftate, the influencing motives to, ii. 9, 18. Advantages of the connexion, 11. The re- ciprocal inducements to an union, 18. Alphabet, origin of, accounted for, iii. 99, 148. Politi- cal, 149. Sacred, 154. Reafons difcrediting the notion of . its invention by the I/raelites, 162. Its invention prior to the tivr.e of ih'c/es, ib. Hebre^w formed by Mofes, from an improvement on i)\e Egyptian, 164. See Cadmus, Egyp- tian, Hebrew, Language, Letters, Runic. America, the falfe policy of the Europeans toward the natives of, pointed out, as the caufe of the ill fuccefs of the mif- fionaries, ii, 70. A pioper nurfery for free-thinkers, 74. Americans, native, remarks concerning, by F. C^arZft;^;Ar, ii. 73. ;;. By M, de la Condamine, -jif. n. Remarks on their languages, iii. 174. n. Amos, a clear defcription of a particular providence quoted

from, iv. 293. Anatomy, praclifed and fludied by the ancient Egyptians, iii.

52-

Animal worlhip, true original of, amongft the Egyptians, iii. 197, 255, 24:;. Images tirft worfliiped, 200. Afterward the animals thcmfelves, 204. Various opinions of the an- cients concerning the origin of, 211.

Ar.scHARiL's, St, anecdote of, ii. 52. wij

An

4

INDEX.

Antients, unacquainted with the refined dillinaions of mo- dern philofophy, ii 185. , , • , _, .

AntonInus, emperor, why defirous of admifllon to the, £/.;//- man myfteries, ii. 144. -^is perfecution of chnftianity ac counted for, ii. 53. j ^/- • - a^

Apis, the fymbol of the Egyptian god Ofins, ui. 201. Ac- count of bis worfhip from Diod. Sc 213. n.

Apologue, or fable, its ufe in oratory, hi. 113. Its analogy to hieroglyphic writing, 1 17- Its improvement and con- traaion in>«:V^ and meiaphor, 118. Its change to para-

Apot'heoTis, when bettowed on deceafed heroes among the

Egyptians, iii. 226. . . • .

Apuleius, opinions of the antients concernmg his metamor- phofis, i. 296. Eftimated. C197. Account of, 298. hx- amination of, 307. His fentiments concernmg the unchange- able nature of God, ii. 19 S- ^ .. ^ »1,. 1o.,c«f

Appetites, human, the fource of oppofit.on to the laws o£

aIITians',' why they have fo long preferved the purity of their

notions of the divinity, i- 94- i j j u , ; n.v ,0

Areopagus, addreflesto the paffions excluded by, u DeJ^ o.

In what charaaer St. Paul appeared before that court, 11. 57.

Who the founder of that court, 60. Argument, internal, defined, iv. 314. Aristophanes, why he triumphed oyer Socrates, u DeJ. 19, Aristotle, his charaaer and principles, 11. 160. >93- Ark, its fatal efFeas among the Phdijhnes, iv. 204. Astronomy, J^z.;//^ obfervations on, v. iQO. Artemidorus, fee Dreams. r- c

Article, VUth, of the Church of E.gl^nd, an expofuion of,

Athe?sm.. invites to fenfual gratifications, i. 70. Homer's opi- nion of, 7C. n. And Polytheifm, compared, 36. ?/«- Tank's parallel between, and fuperftition, u. 260. Bacons

ATHE°.s?,^^unable to arrive at a knowledge of morality, i, 44! Neverthelefs accountable and defervedly pumfhable at the hand of God, 56. k. .. r

Atheists unfair c rcumftance attending the compar.fon of thek moral condua, with that of prol^ffors of religion, 1. 71 No general argument to be eftabhmed from particular

A™Tns ^h^w thev drew the refentmemt of P/..7^ of ^U- ""."agai^ll them, i. 269. Their behaviour in pVofpentir. ^nd iij ad verfity inftan<ied,^v.^7 7. ^^ ^ ^ ^^^

index:.

Athens, remarks of its care for the eftabliftietl re'igion, ii. 27.

cy. No ftrange God tolerated there, till approved by the

court of Areopagus, ii. 57. Augustus, t-iiiperor, advifed againft toleration, ii. 68. AuRELius, Empeior, his opinion of the firmnefs of the Chrif-

iians, iii. Prif. 39. Austin, St. his ingenious definition of language and letters,

iii. 105. Author, the principal objeft of his attention, pointed out, i.

J>ed, 35.

B.

Bacchanals, decree of the ^o»z««fenate relating to the cele- bration of, ii. 65.

Bacchus, his exploits in the ImUes, invented to aggrandize the glory of Alexander, iii. i6i. His identity confounded with that o^ Ofiris, 269. Reafons proving him to be Noahf 288. n, 1 he rites of, how charadlerized by Virgil, i. 292.

Bacon Lord, his parallel between Atheijm and Superjiition, ii. 278.

Balaam, his famous prophecy. Numb. xxiv. 17. evpounded, iii. 177. His wi(h to die the death of the righteous, explain- ed, V. 142.

Banishment, how far to be confidered as a punifliment, i. 18.

Baptjsm, the importance of, eftablilhed, v. 4. fee Quakers,

Baucis and Philemon, the fable of, explained, ii. 134.

Bayle, miilaken in the tendency of Pomfonatius\ treatife, Dt immortalitatc ammae, i. 26, 30. His character as a writer, 3^, 77. His arguments to prove reputation capable of in- fluencing a man void of religion, to a virtuous conduft, 6i. Difproved, 62. His argument of Atheifm not being deftruc- tive to morals, examined into, i. 72. Miilaken in his cen- furc of Vzr^ii^s placing infants in hell, i. 258. His reflexions on toleration, iv. 159.

Bembine tables, a defcription of, contained in £«f^;Wj vl- fions, h' 19.

Bennet, tjecrctary, how brought into contempt, i. Dee/. 21.

BoLiNGBROKE, an examination of his n^-tions concerning the omiffion of the dodrine of a future ftate, in the M',fac dif- penfation, iv. 381. His obfervations on tlie infuf»icicncy of the Mc/uic law to reflrain the people, anlwcred, iv. 206. Confequences of a law upon his principle, 210.

Brute-worship, opinions of the anticnts concerning the origin of in E^ypt, ii. 43. iii, 311. The fymbolical nature pf, explained, 111, 20Q,

• Buf«

INDEX.

Buffoonery, its ufe in infidelity, i. Bed. 9. Inftances of its niifchievous tendency, id. 20. Source of, id, 34.

C.

Cabirf, who were fignified by this name, i. 173. Cadmus, whence he obtained his alphabet, iii. 164, Cjesar Julius, his public declaration of his opinion of the doctrine of a future ftate, ii. 82. His notion of death, 1 1 \.

His account of the religion of ancient Gaul, iii. 275. g.

Of ancient Germany, 279. ». Calf, golden, what Deity reprefentcd by, iv. 11. Calves of Dan and Bethel, why the Jexvs were fo invin- cibly attached to, iv. 14. Why two of them erefted by Jeroboam, 20. Canadians and Mexicans, their religious notions compared,

i. 93. Canaanites, why ordered to be exterminated, iv. 2. Cato of Utica, his condufl in oppofmg C^sjAzrV epicurean notions of death in the fenate, with the popular dodrine, inquired into, ii. 112. A mirtaken notion relating to the mention of him in Virgil^ reftified, i. 290. Cavalry, what fituations proper and improper for the ufe

of, iii. 316. Caylus, Count, his opinion relating to the^E'_0;//<2« charafters,

iii. 100. V. Celsus, his recrimination on Orlgev, i. 199. His obfervations on the tenacioufnefs of the "Jev^s, of their religion, ii. 49. His opinion of Plato's reprefentations of a future llatc, ii. T58. Ceres, the hymns of Orpheus, pcrferrcd to thofe of Homer, \n the rices of, i. 178. The .Athenians greatly indebted to, 185^ Her temple at Eleufis defcribed, i. 285. Chaos, how defcribed in f^irgil, i. 245. In Bercfus, ib. Charlevoix, his obfervations on the natives of Canada, ii.

73' »• Charon, the character of, whence derived, 1. 250.

Cheops, king of Bgypt, hovv^ he raifed money lor the ere<flion of his pyramids, explained, iii, 29^. n.

Children, the punifhment of, for the crimes of their parents, on what principle only to be vindicated, iii. Ded. w-

Chinese, their reverence for their ancient charafters, iii. 188.

,».. Languace, an improvement of the ancient Egypian

hieroglyphics, iii. 85. Improvement of, to itsprefent ftate, 89. its oppofite progrels from that of the Egyptian hieroglyphical writing, to what owing, 91. To what the different accounts we have received of it, is owing, 92, Account of by M. Freret, ^ 93-

INDEX.

f 3. Ditto by P. Parennin, 94. Ditto by P. MMgaillanSy ib. The ancient characters of, greatly venerated by the natives, 97. «. Why not further improved, 103. Hieroglyphical ; marks not for words but things, 1 29. Du HaUis obferva- tions on, i8o-

Christ, remarks on the ufe he made of his twofold credentials. Scripture and Miracles, V. 2o8. An expofition of his pro- phecy of his fiift and fecond coming, 298. Important ar- gument drawn from his converfation with two difciples in their journey to Emmaus, after his refurreftion, 272.

Christian Faith, who its greateft enemies at the firll pro* muigation, ii. 230. Religion, its dodlrine fhadowed under the rites of the Mofaic law, v. 8.

Christians, primitive, the caufe of their perfecution by the Pagans^ explained, ii. 53. Their noflurnal aflemblies vindi- cated from the mifreprefentations of Dr. Taylor^ chancellor of Lincoln, iii. Pref. 37. See Het^eri^e.

Christianity, wherein its eflence confifts, i. 3. How efteem- ed by the ancient Pagans, 1. 302. ii. 50. Why neceflarily founded on Judaifm, 47. Not a republication of the reli- gion of nature, 241. The affirmative made ufe of, by infi- dels, as an argument to fupercede the neceflity of fuch re- publication, 242. An enquiry into the methods taken by Providence to propagate it, iv. 54. The ignorance of the propagators, the means of advancing it, 55. Its evidences why not all difclofed by Providence, v. 273. and Judaifm, infeparable, 274. The ultimate end of Judaifm, 286.

Chronology, Egyptian, a miftake of Sir I/aac Nenutons in, illuftrated by a cafe Hated in fimilar circumftances, iii. 253.

Church and State, fee Alliance.

Cicero, his religious precepts, i, 136. His expofition of the Pagan divinities, 159. His account of the academics, ii. 117, 122, ff. 124. His opinion o^ Plato's Phzedo, 153. His true fentiments concerning a future ftate not eafy to be difcovered, 166. His charafter analyzed, 169. His incon- fiflences pointed out, 17O. where his real fentiments arq moft likely to be found, 172. Inftances, 174. His reflec- tions on the cafe of Regulus, 184. His account of the ori- gin of brute-worfhip controverted, iii. 212. Circumcision, when firft enjoined, v. 212. A patriarchal

inftitution, iv. 30. Why appointed, 77. Civil Society, fee Society.

Clemens Alexandrinus, his exclamation againfl: the cor- rupters of the myfteries, i. 198. His account of a remark- able fynibolical meflage fent to D-ar;«j, iii. 113. And Pcr- phyry^ their accounts of the Egyptian charafters and writingx

121.

Clo-»

INDEX.

Clodius, violates the rites of tlie Good Goddefs, i. 187. n. CocYTUs, whence the notion of the gholts waiting there for

paflage, was derived, i. 248. Collins, Mr. his ungenerous treatment of the memory of his friend Locke, i. Ded. 24. The validity of his afleriions, that new religions are always grafted on old ones, &c. ex- amined into, iv. 177. Charadterifed as a writer, v. 281. An examination of his difcourfe on the Grounds and Reafons of the Chriftian Religion, ib. His obfervations on the allego- rical writings of the antients, 346. Thefe obfervations (hewn to refute his obje£tions againft chriftianity, 349. Commentators on Scripture, points recommended to their

attention, v. 159. CoNDAMiNE, his charaflcr of the native Americans, ii. 74. ». Conformity, oaths of, among the antients, ii. 29. Cretans, open celebrators of their myfteries, i. 182. Th»

P^Tg^a/j deities born among them, 1S3. Critias, his Greek poem on the origin of religion, ii. 249. Criticism, the proper conduft of, pointed out, i. 295. Crocodile, why vvorlhiped by the Egyptians, iii. 200. Cromwel, an inftance of the united efFefts of policy and en-

thufiafm, ii. 284. Notable obfervation of, 285. Cudworth, Criticifm on a paffage in, relating to the opinions of the philofophers concerning the human foul, ii. 215. Miftakes Mofchus, for Mofes, 223. The hiftory of his InteL le^ual Syjiem, iii. Pref. 29. Cupid and Psyche, ftory of, i. 325. Custom, capable of counter-adting the ftrongeft principles of

morality, i. 58. Customs, a fimilarity of, obfervable among diftant nations, nar argument of an adlual communication between them, iii. 99. «. Tvaduftive, an enquiry into, iy. 126. Cyrus, his dream about young Darius, iii. 193.

D.

Dark-sayings, what that expreiTwn imports in fcripture, iii.

1 7 1 •

David, why appointed to fucceed S'fla/, iv. 45. His title of man after God's own heart explained, ib. The chronology of fafts relating to his introdudlion to Saul, redlified, ib. n.

Dead, three kinds of perfons who have no right to a place among, according to Ftrgrl, i. 264.

Dedications, abfurdity of addreffing them to unfuitable per- fons, i. Ded. I . , r i_ r ■

Deification, when bellowed on any hero gf the Egyptians,

iii. 226. .^

I. N D E X.

DEtTtts Pagan, authorities proving them to be dead worthies deified, i. 96. a. 104, 154, 168. Their fpurious offspring accounted for, iii 297. Local and tutelary, their worftiip always maintained, even by fojourners and conquerors, iv. 188.

DiAcoRAs, the confequence of his revealing the Orphic and Eleujintan rayfteries, i, i8i.

Dialects, of ancient writers, how far evidences of their genuinnefs, i. 117.

Dramatic writ i kg, remarks on, with reference to the book of Job, V. i8, 27.

Drrams, Artemidorui\ diviiion of, into fpeculative and al- legorical, iii. 190. Superrtitious interpretation of, 191. Grounds of this fpecies of divination, 192.

Druids oi Britain, whence they derived many of their reli- .^ious rites, i. 139.

Du Halde, his remarks on the ftyle of the Chine/e language, • iii. 180.

Duties, of perfedt and imperfeft obligation, what, i. 14.

EARTHQtTAKKS, Pytbagoras^s method of prediding them juf* tified by late experience, ii. loli. n.

Eastern Tales, origin of, traced, ii. 136. n,

ErcLEsiASTicus, a plain allufion to the Pagan myfteries in, i. 281. n. - ^

Egypt, origin of brute-worfhip in, ii. 43. The parent of all the learning of Greece, 100. Rcforted to by the Grecian legiflators, 103. By the Grecian naturalilb, 104. By the Grecian philofophers, 105. Diftinftion between the learn- ing of, and that of Greece, 106. An inquiry into the ftate of the learning and fuperflition of, in the time of Mo/es, iii. 17. Why intitled to priority among civilized nations, 28. Scripture account of, 29. The antiquity and power of, as delivered in the Grecian writers, confirmed by Scripture, 33. Civil arts of, 40. A critical inquiry into the military ufages of, at the time of the Trojan war, 306. Abounding in horfes before the conqueft of Lybia, 3 10. Why the Ijraelites were prohibited carrying horfes from, 313. The laws of Mofei, why accommodated to the prejudices of the 'Je\<:s in favour ol, iv. 23. The ancient fchool of legillation, 1 10. Fundamental maxims in the religious policy of, 111. Heie- ditary defpotifm preferred there, 115.

EoyPTiAN Characters, Kirchey, and Count Caylus, their opinions concerning, iii. 100. n. 138.

Egyptjam

INDEX.

Egyptian Heroes, the reafon why the latter obtained the names of their earlier Gods, explained, iii. 256.

— -Hieroglyphics, how they came to be, and to

conceal their learning, iii. 121, 131. Curiohyicfil and Tro- pica/, 132. Symbolic, 140. The change of their ftyle effeded by this latter application of them, 145.

Learning, that mentioned in Scriptnre, and that

mentioned in a correfponding manner by the Greek writers,

the fame, iii. 25. No diftindt divifion of the fciences in, 53.

How preferved from the knowledge of the people by the

priefts, 168. Summary of, 186.

Idolatrv, defcribed in EzekieVs vifions, iv. 17.

Mysteriej, Si. Ji'Jien's account of, i. 157.

Physicians, confined to diftinft branches of the

medical art, iii. 40, 48. Their preventive method of prac- tice, 45. Their number accounted for, 46. Proved to compofe an order of the priefthood, 52.

Priesthood, account of, from Diodona Siculusy iii.

34. Confirmed by yWc/i'j, 35, Their rites, 39. Writing, the four kinds of, iii. 121.

Egyptians, celebrated for the culture of religion, i, 91, 96. The firft who difcovered the knowledge of the divine nature, 165. 71. The fciences not carried to any great height by them, ji. 221. In what their wifdom confided, 222. Among the firft who taught the immortality of the foul, 228. Why fubjeft to incurable difeafes, iii. 46. Their funeral rites, 65. Their facred dialedl, 167. Origin of animal worfhip among, 197. Worfhippers of plants, 198. Of chimerical beings, 199. Local animal deities among, 200. Their charge againfl the Grecians of ftealing their gods, with their mutual recrimina- tions, 265. Eleusinian Ceres, her temple defcribed, i. 28^, — — ^^— Mysteries, the moft celebrated in antiquity, what, i. 14c. Why the Emperor Kero was deterred from, and the Emperor Antoninus was defirous of, being admitted to them, 144. Scandalous not to be initiated into them, 146. Two forts, the greater, and the lefs, 149. Negative enquiry into, 151. Not the fecret doftrines of the fchools, 151. 1 he rationale of the P<3^^« fyilem of theology, 154. Why con- cealed, 156. Reafbns to conclude Sa'chotiatho's hitlory to be thai narrated in the celebration of them, 171. By whom founded, 174. The hymn fung at them, 177. End and ufe of them, 180. The difclofin^ them fevercly punifhed, 181. Abolilhed by Theodojius the elder, 189. Summary of, 286. Caufes of their degeneracy, 191. Alluded to by Sr. Paul, 196. «.

EtlAS,

%

INDEX.

iLtt AS, the fenfc in which he was prediftcd to come before thfi

day of the Mefliah, afcertained, v. 326. Elihu, why dillinguilhed from the other friends of 7«3, v. lou

His charader, 106. Elisha, expofition of the adventure between him and Joajh^

V. 261. w. Embalming, the Egyptian method of, iii. 49, 65. Tiiis operation performed by the phyficians, and the reafon, 51. The antiquity of the general pradlice of, proved, 67. Enigmas, required in the nature of God's difpenfation to the

Jews, iii. 171. Enoch, the difference between the account of his ttanflation

and that of ^/(/a/?', accounted for, iv. 322. Enthusiasm and Policy, neceffary to, and always to be found in, the antient heroes and legiflators^ ii. 281. How fuccefsfully thefe two qualities co-operate, 283. Inllances of illuftration, 284. Inllances of their infufhciency fmgly. ib* Epic Poetry, the three fpecies of, i. 226. Epictetus, his thoughts on death, ii. i52. Establishment of Religion, the voice of nature ; juftified. from hiflory, ii. 27. Meaning of the exprefTion as applied to antient nations, afcertained, 30. Examination of the leading caufes to, in the Pagan world, 31. Their conceptions of, miftaken, 32. Etrusci, remarks concerning that people, i. 222. How they

found their god Tflf^^f, iii. 241. «. Euhemerus, his expedient to reveal without danger the P^t^^j^ mylleries, i, 182. His artifice to difguife his difcovery of the P^^a« myfteries, ii. 304.^ Evidences, external and internal of revealed religion, com- pared, i. 3. Evil, its effeft on the feelings, ilronger than that of good on

the imagination, i. 12. Euripides, his notions of the defcents of the heroes into hell,

i. 231. Exodus, vi. 3. Expounded, iv. 5.

EzEKiEL, his famous vifions, chap. 8. Relating to Jeiuijh idolatry, expounded, iv. 17. God's reproaches to the Jcwt for their pcrverfenefs and difobedience, delivered by him, 78. The celebrated prophecy in his 20th chap, explained, 84. His vifion of the dry bones explained, v. 123. His reprefentation of the yt-xtT/^ idolatry, iv. 195, 200. Quota- tions from, in confirmation of a particular providence, 291. AnAjEremiah, the adions recorded to be performed by them to illuftrate their prophecies accounted for, iii. 1 08. Ezra, his writings pointed out, v, 109.

Fablesj

INDEX-

F.

Fables, antient, enquiry into the origin of, li. 131; The

corruptions of civil hiftory, 132. Faith, defineJ from St. Paul, v. lyH. Falfely condemned, in

Firgil's jEneid, critical examination of, i. 260. Fate, what efFeft the opinion of it will have on morals, i.

Fathers, of the primitive church, accufe the Myfteries ofgrofs impieties and immoralities, i. 197. And afterward adopt them, 200. Their teftimony againft the antient fages, for duplicity of doftrine, ii. lop. «. Some of them held the foul to be mortal, 207.

Fiction, from what motive employed by the antient lawgivers, iv. 112. «.

Figurative Expressions, origin of, iii. 173, 179.

Fool, its import in the Old Teftament language, v. 78,

Forfeitures, remarks on the laws of, in cafes of high treafon,

Jv. 334-

Fornication, why never adequately punifhed by flourifhing communities, i. 14. The fuppreffion of, produdive of un- natural lulls, ii. 13.

Foster, his notions of the "Jevoijh theocracy, examined, iv. 168.

Fourmont, M. his miftake of the identity of /^^ra/^aw with Cronos, correded, iv. 8. n.

Free-thinkers, their arts in controverfy, i. Ded. 32. America a proper nurfery for, ii. 74.

Funeral Rites, an indifpenfable part of the ftories of the antient heroes, i. 249. Of the Egyptians, defcribed from Herodotus, iii. 65,

Future State, the doflrlne of, deducible by natural realbn, i. 24. iv. 407. The inculcation of, neceffary to the well being of fociety, j. 25, 29. Its utility in the well governing of fociety, confirmed by the opinions of all the antient fages, ii. 77. Though not believed by themfelves, 86, 162. Keafons urged by the 5/wa againft, 183, 186. F/«/o*s view of, i. 260. Plutarch'?, ditto, ii. 191. Of what points that dodlrine con- fifted, in the Pagan theology, i. 142. ii. 87. Its univerfality fhewn, i. 329. Strongly inculcated by the S//fw and Arabs, iv. 348. The chief foundation of every religion except the "Je^ijh, i. 88. Not contained in the Mofalc difpenfalion, 7. This omiffion a proof of its divine origin, 8. v. 3f-;4. Pur- pofely omitted in ditto, iv. 320. The want of, how fupplied, 324. Pofitive declarations againft the expectation of, inftanced from the Je^j:iJJj writers, 353. Corroborated by the New

l^etta-

INDEX.

Teftaraent writers, 562. A review of the prejudices whicii have induced to the belief that it was taught in the Mr/arc difienfation, v, 2. A review of thofs paflages in Scrip- ture, urged to prove that it was taught in the Me/aic difienfation, 126. That taught by natural religion to be diiiinguiihed from that taught by the chrillian revelation, 3. Its mention by M-fes, and by the following writers, to le dillinouiflied, 9. A lift of texts urged by the Rabbins in proof of its being taught under the Mj/i/c law, 160. An examination of the arguments founded on the i ith chapter of the Hebrews, to (hew that it was taught by Mo/es, 176. That it was not taught in the Mofaic law, confirmed by the authori- ties of Gro//a/, Epifcopiusy Arnaud, and Bp. 5«//, 190. See Law Mosaic, and IVIoses,

G.

Gaitl, antient, enquiry into the deities of, iii. 275.

Germany, antient, Ca/ar's account of the gods of, iii. 279, K.

Gesture, fee Action.

God, a favage the moft qualified to reafon to him, i. 94. The acknowledgment of, beneficial to fociety, though difhonouied by abfurd opinions, ii, 272. His immutability afferted by the antient Theijiic philofophers, 183, 186, 195. His unity taught in t\\Q Eleujiidan myfteries, i. 154, 170. The only means of prefcrving the doftrineof his unity, iv. 136.

God of Israel, how confidered by the neighbouring nations, iv. 174. Why he gave himfelf a name to the Jezi^s, 5. "Why reprefented with human affedions, 166. His charafter ^5 the God of Abraham, — oflfaac, — of Jacob, explained; and the miflakes concerning this text pointed out, v. 161. The relations in which he ftood to the Je^jjljh people, iv. 161. Not lefs benign to man under the law, than under the gofpel, iv. 167.

Gods, Pagan, deified worthies, i. 104, 154, 168. Born amon<y the Cretans, 183. Account of the origin of local tutelary ones in Greece from Plato, iii. 271. How fo many immoralities came to be recorded of them, 229. An inter- community of, univerfally tolerated among the Pagans, ii. 40. approbation of, nece/Tary, previous to toleration, 57, 61.

Gospel, enjoins no moral obfervance beyond what natural religion before pointed out, i. 83. No juftification by works, under, v. 186.

Golden Ass of Apuleius, examination of, ?. 307.

GovERNMHNT, civil, an examination into the nature of, i. 17. Its motives in infliding puniflimcnt, i./. 19. Not capable of

rewarding.

INDEX.

tewarding, and why, /7. 20. The regal form of, among the Jenx:s, explained, iv. 225. How tllablilhed, 231. Civil, and religion, the objefts of compared, i. 14.

Grecian History, the confufed chronology of the early part of, remarked, iii» 250.

> . Writers, an enquiry into the validity of their

teftimony concerning the antiquity of the Egyptian monarchy, iii. 25. Their accounts no otherwife to be credited, than as corroborated by Scripture, 27,

Greece, ignorant of the ufe of cavalry at the time of the Trojan war, iii. 307. Whence it derived its learning, ii. 100. Di- ftinftion between the philofophy of, and that of %;•/>/, 1 06. The religion of, traced down to its original, iii. zbcj. What it borrowed from Egypt, 273. The three dillinguiihed periods in the religion of, 292. Charged by the Egyptians with Healing their gods, 295.

Greenland Women, their language a refinement on that of ' the men, iii. 141. ».

Grey, Dr. his notions concerning the book of Job, contro- verted, V. 42,

Grotius, his fatal mifmterpretations of the y^u/}^' prophecies Ihewn, V. 343.

H.

Hades, its different fenfes in the Old and New Teflaments point-

ed out, iv. 346. n. Hagar, why Ihe named the angei who appeared to her, £,W,

iv. 3. Hare, Bp. his cenfure of J'/ephvs, iv. 280. Hebrew Alphabet, whence derived, iii. 164* When the

points were added to it, 166. Hebrews, the only people, whofe public worflilp was addreffed

to the God of the univerfe, i. 163. The argument of St.

Pfl«/'s epiflle to, ftated, v. 177. Hemopolis, the moll famous college of the antient £^///««

priefts, iii. 35. The worfhip eltablilhed there, 38. He ll, its different meanings in the Old and in the New Tefia-

ments, v. 149. Hercules, ftory of his interview with Jupiter from Herodotus,

iii. 207. The antient E yptian account why there were fo

many of that name, 257. Heresies, genealogy of, (rom TertulHan, ii. 238. Hero-worship, the motives to, andufesof, i. 95> 106, 155,

Complicated in its rites, iii. 273. Herodotus, his opinion of the origin of geometry, iii. 324; Vol, V. F f Heroes,

I N D E X.

Heroes and Legislators, always aftuated by craft and en- thufiafm, ii. 28 1.

Het.-eri.'e, aflemblies of the primitive chriftians, the nature of, explained ; when and by whom fupprefled, iii. fref. 75.

Hezekiah, the name he gave to the brazen ferpent, accounted for, iv. 4. n. Detail of God's dealing with him, v. 37.

Hieroglyphics, the firft efTay toward the art of writing, iii. ■70. Foimd in ufe among the Mexicans, by thz Spaniards, 71.

- Found in Siberia, 74. ft. This pifturefqoe method of ex- prcflion abridged by the Egyptians, 75. Brief view of their types and aliufions, ih. Mythologic account of the origin of, 78. Improved in the Chinffe language, 85. Source of the different genius of, from the Chine/e charafters, 91. Stood for things, and not for founds, 80. ti. 95. n. How they came to be applied by the Eg)ptians to conceal their learning, 121. The origin of brute worlhip, 197, 20^.

HiEROPHANT of the Myfteries, his office, i. 176, iii. 210.

Hippocrates, his opinion of the Cniduin fentences, iii. 5 J. DedudioDS from, as to the antient pradice of ghylic, 59, Author of the dietetic part of medicine, 63.

HoBBEs, his opinion of religion, i. 33.

Homer, his opinion of atheifm, i. 75. n. Why baniihed Platans republic, 275. His reprefentations of the antient Greek phyficians, afcertained and accounted for, iii. 55. Whence he coUefted his materials, 308. «.

Hooker, his opinion of the political ufe of religion, ii. 321.

Horace, the double fenfe in his famous Ode, O nwvis rejerunt^ l^c. pointed out, v, 316.

HoREB, confequences of the conira£l there, between God and the ^^u/7;6 people, iv. 162.

Horses, 'Judea not a proper country for the ufe or breeding of, iii. 315.

HvDE, Chancellor, how brought into contempt, i. Ded. zq»

I.

Jacob, his exprefTions to Pharoah, Grn. xlvii. 9. explained, v.

141. His vvreltling with an angel, what intended by, v.

237, Shewn to be of a tolerating difpofition, v. 413. J4MBLICHUS, his apology for the corruption of the Pagan

myfteries, i. 328, His account of the origin of brute

worfhip, controverted, iii. 217. Idolaters, the firft intolerants, v, 413. Idolatry of the Gentiles, in what it chiefly confided, i.

95- — — Sanchomathons fragment, tending greatly to account

for the rife and pro^refs of, i. 168. Not the firft religion, but

the

t N D E X.

the corruption of it, ii. 2S9. The firft objefts of. 292; The fecond fpecies of, 29O. The third fpecies of, 29-; The Pagan apologies for the objefts of their worftiip, 299, 305. Newtoti, his account of the origin of, 290. Toland, his account of the objcdts of it, 291.

Idolatr V.Jewish, the fources of, pointed out, Iv. 1S7. In what it confifted, 19:;, 201. Never proceeding from matters of confcience, 165. Under what figures reprcfentcd in the prophecies, 2Z. n. The extent of that crime, and ho»v lar legally punifhable Under the Je^ijh theocracy, 162;

■ of the Assyrians tranfplanted into the Holy Land

in the room of the captive Jevjs, how puniftled, iv. 190. The means of keeping a people from it, exemplified in the JeiMi/h law, 60. View of the early fpread of, hy Cabiet, 153. n. See Brute Worship.

Idols, arguments deduced froni the mod antlent fio-ures of,

concerning the objefts of the Pagan worfhip, ii. 302. 'Jehovah, explanation of that name, iv. 5.

Jeremiah, his reprcfentation of the y^ac//^ idolatry, iv. 191^; PafTages quoted from, predidive of the new difpenfation, 328^

V. 339-

• and EzEKiEL, the figns added by them to illuftrate

their prophecies, accounted for, iii. 108.

Jerusalem, the dellruftion of, as prophefied hy Chnji figMrs." tively, in a literal fenfe importing the deftruftion of the world, V. 298.

Jewish Poj-tcy, why feldonl underftood, iv. 134.

Jews, the folly of deriving all artsj la-.vs, and religion, front them, or denying them the produflion of any, ii. 153. iii. 20. Their manner of exprefling numbers and muUitudei explained, v, 16. ». In what light their feparation from the refi of mankind to be confidered, iv. 136; Summary vievtr of their deliverance from Egypt in ordei- to be feparated, 154; Their expulfion front Egypt denied, 13. Their theocracy

, titablilhed, 157. How long their theocratic form of govern- ment fubfifted, 225. When abolifhed, 243 Totally igno- rant of a future (late under the Mofaic dilpenfation, v. 395. How long they continued ignorant of a future ftate, iv; 344, 349. n. Their ignorance of a future Itate under the Mofaic difpenfation iliuftrated by the New Tellament writers, 362. Whether fubjeft to punilhment in a future rtate under the Mofaic difpenfation, 407. The caufe of their frequent lapfea into idolatry, ii. 47. Why ill treated by their Pagan neigh- bours, 49. Their obftinate attachment to the Egyptian cuRoms and fuperftitions, hiftorically traced, iv. 8. Reproached in a fignal manner for their perverfenefs and difobcdience, Ezekid, chap, zoth, 78. Explanation of this celebrated F f « chapter.

INDEX.

cliaptcr, 84. Tlieir propenfity to idolatry accounted for, 1 10. Their idolatry not a rejeSiion of the god oi I/raely 193. T lie bad confequence of iheir propenfity toward marrying idolatrous women, v. 7S. Reflexions on the moral difpenfa- tions of God toward them, 96. A fummary view of their hiuory, 58, Whence their obllinate adherence to their abo- lifhed rites proceeds, 9. An examinaiion into the motives which withhold them from receiving chriftianity, iii. Bfd. :;, Arguments adapted to invalidate them, id. 6. The fubjtd of their naturalization argued, id. 16, The repeal of, juftified, id. 20, See Mosaic Dispensation.

Imagination', difordered, the fource of the antient metamor- phofes, ii. 136.

Immortality of the Soul, univerfality of the doflrine of, i. 91.

Infants, unnatural cuftom of expofing, univerfal among the antients, i. 2 57. Difcountenanced in the antient myfteries, ib. Guarded againfl: among the Arabians by Mahomet, ib.

Infidelity, remarks on the prefent propenfity toward, 1. Ded. 2. The liberty of the prefs, liable to no reproach on that account id. ib.

Ink I DELS, the injullice of their complaints of the want of liberty, i. Ded. 4, 7. Their fcurrility againll the ellablilhed clergy, id. 22. Their charge againft the intemperate zeal of tlic primitive martyrs, retorted on them, id. 29. Their dif- ingenuity, id. 31, 42. And bigots, compared, i, 8. The proper method of difputing with, iii. 18. An indifcriminate averfion tp ^// the principles advanced by, prejudicial to the defence of true religion, 19.

Inspiration, pretended, its ufe to antient legiflators, i. 104,

Instinct, human, analyfed, i. 37. Not to be confounded with brutal, 56.

Job, his real exiftence aflerted, v. 24. His exemplary patience not founded on his written llory, 66. Reflexions on the cha- radler of his wife, 75. On thofe of his friends, 84, 101. On that of Satan, 92,

— — . Book of, a critical enquiry into, v. 13. A dramatic com- pofuion, 14. When written, 27, 44, 57. Obfervations on the imagery of, 33. A continual allufion to t\\c Mo/au Izwr throughout, 41. The language of, compared to that of the y^wmcajz Indians, 44. Critical divifion of the work, 47. r. The purpofe of its compofuion pointed out, 61. Examina- tion of the charafters in the piece, 64, 75, 84, 92, joi. .Allegory of the Ilory explained, 67, The moral of, fhewn, 118.

Joel, the double fenfcs in his prophecy, pointed out, v. 294.

Joseph, prime miniltcr of f^}//, married to a daughter of the

pr^ti^

INDEX.

priefl: of 0//, iil. 37. An eminent infiance of the ftrength of natural afFeftion, v. 17. Inference drawn from his cntcitain- ment of his brethren, concerning the ufe of aninal food in Egypt, iii. 321, Procures the property of all the land for Pharoab, 322. Vindicated from the charge of rendering the government of £j^y/>^ defpotic, 68. n.

Jo = EPHUs, defended from the charge of difbelieving the mira- cles he relates, iv. 273. The circumftances under which he wrote his hiftory, 278. His deviations from Scripture ac- counted for, 2 So. The acknowledgment of Chriji in him, a forgery, ii. 57.

Joshua, clear llate of the debate between him and the Jenvijh people, on the article of worfhip, iv. 193.

Jotham's Parable, an inliance of inftruction by apologue, or fable, iii. 115.

Isaac. See Abraham, Sacrifices, Stebbinc.

Isaiah, his denunciations againft the Ifraeiites for bringing horfes from Egypt, in violation of the Mo/aic prohibition, iii.

314. His reprefentation of the Jevjip idolatry, iv, 195, 197. Double fenfes in his prophecies explained, v. 327, 331. His figurative predidion of the gofpel difpenfation,

337.

Is IS, why adopted by the Athenians, as the patronefs of their myfleries, iii. 285. The feveral attributes and charadlers afcribed to her, 286.

Isis and Osiris, the patrons of the primitive arts, iii- 304. Under what limilitudes worfhipped, 42, Their myfteries de- fcribed in Ezekui^ vKions, iv. 18.

Israelites, why fubjeft to few »,2/«rfi/ difeafes, iii. 48. For- bid by their law to fetch horfes from Egypt, 312.. This law violated by Solomon, and puniftied, 3i3._ Fleuris account of the ftate of the arts among, in the time of Mofdy 163. n.

Judaism, its charaderiilic diitindion from all other religions,

iii. 8. , . ...

JuDEA, not a proper Country, for the ufe of cavalry in, 111.

315. ;V/^'Vf's account of, examined, iv. 146. Jupiter, a local deity, iii. 12. Though a local deity, with

different adjur.as to his name, not feveral deities but the fame, ii. 37. n. The Itories of his adulteries foimded in ttntli, iii* ^29.

K..

KiRCHER, his opinion concerning theEgyptlan charafters, iii\ ICQ. n. 138, 184, ft. Charaaeriied as awriici, iii. 237.

INDEX,

I^ACTANTius, his proof of a future judgment, ii. i86. Aflerts the immutability of God, 192.

Lamb, Pafchal, a type of the future facrifice of Chriji, v. 283,

Language, a dedudioa of the origin of, iii. 105. Diodorus Siculus, his account of, lo6. ». Firft taught by God, ib. Upheld at firft by a mixture of words and figns, 108. Its improvement, by apologue or fable, 113. Its advance to elegance by t\iQ metaphor, 118. The revolutions of, traced, 169.

Law, the two great fandtionsof, i. 16.

~— , Mosaic, the objections brought againft the fufEcIency of it, in obtaining its end, equally valid againft the law of nature, iv. 209. Its proviiion againft idolatry, 211. Cauie of its inefficacy, 212. Its divine inftitution manifeft in the difpenfations of Providence toward the J^^ac^ people, 219. The primary intention of, 221. The temporal fandlions of, not transferred into the gofpel, 307. Illuftrations from the prophets of the temporal nature of its fandions, 318. Why enforced by fo many promifes and threats, 393. Thechriftian dodrine ftiadowed under the rites of, v. 8. In what fenfe typical or fpiritual, 133. Not fuppofed by St. Paul to offer a future ftate to its followers, 187. See Future State,

MoSES.

Laws, Civil, punifh paffions carried into adlion, but not re- ward attempts to lubdue them, ii. 13.

Penal, to enforce opinions, only equitable under 3

theocracy, iv. 158, 166.

Lawgivers, atitlent, the ufe they made of religion, i. 87. Illuftrated by inftanccs, 104. Enquiry into their motives, 107. Never found a people void of religion, ii. 319. Obliged to adapt their fyftcms to the worftiip already in being, 320. Antient, unanimous in propagating the dodtrine of a fjture ftate, 69. From what motive induced to have recoiirfe to fiftion, iv. nz. r. Summary view of their conduft in the propagation of religion, v. 370. The place afligned them in Elyfiw^-.y i. 275.

Lazarus, paflages in the parable of, explained; with refer- ence to arguments founded on them of a future ftate being taught by Miy^/, v. 168.

Legislation, antient, a pretended miffion from fome God, the firft ftep of, i. 104.

Legislatoks and HiRCES, always aftuated by craft and en- thufiafm, ii. 281.

Let-

INDEX.

Letters, hiRory of, iii. 70. The antiquity of. among the Egyptians, inferred from their mythologic derivation of them, 162,. Their right to the patronage of the great, inquired into, i. Pre/. 48. Lex Sacra, what, i. 222. ^ r • c ru

Liberty, civil, too great an attention to the fecurity ot, lub- verfive of religion, iii.' Ded. to U. Mansfield.

_ Religious, the ill policy of infringing, li. 34.

of the Press, as favourable to the advocates of

religion, as to the infidel, i. Ded. 3. Lidgus, the Cretan, moral of the tale of, i. 258. n. Life, the promifes of, under the Mo/aic law, how to be under-

ftood, V. 14^, 152, 155. _ .

LivY, his obfervation on the rites ol Bqccbus, 1. 292. ». tti%

^ccoant o£ Sc-fio J/'icanus, ii. 281. _

Locke, his obfervations on the Je--wip theocracy, iv. ibi. His memory infulted by his friend Collins, 1. Ded. z\. by Sbaftejbury, id. 26. ..

Lucian, his opinion of the Academics, 11. 117. n. nis ac- count of the origin of brute worfhip, controverted, 111. 215. Luxury, defined, i. 81, 84. The dellruftive eftefts of, 85. Lycakthropy, a diforder defcribed by the Greek phyficians,

fource of, ii. 136. c o - o

Lycurgus, his chief aim in the laws oi Sparta, u. uS.

M.

Magistrate, the propagation and prefervatlon of religion depending on, and owing to him, 1. 92. ^ eivir., why an alliance with the church neceflary for,

ii. 8. .

Magistrates, why appointed, I. II. ^ ,i,^ ^:nmr

Mahomet, the abfurdity of his imitating Mojes in the diftinc- tion of meats, pointed out, iv. 63. In the union of evil and religious policy, 162. n. The plan on which his religion tas fmmed, 185, 223. To what his fucceffes were chiefly

owing, 316. , „ r • o

Mahometan Writers, a charaaer of. iv. 180. MAmoNiDBs, his account of the 7.xc(/i?' ntual defended, iv.

124. n. I J •

Man, in a ftate of nature, defcribed, 1. 10. Manasseh, detail ofGod's dealings with, ^..39- Mandeville, his pofition of private vices being publu bene-

MEoic!:^ th; Us of. and when each obtained in ufe, iii.

61. Indication of the great antiquity ot 62. Melchizedec, obfervation on the ftory of, v. 414. F f 4

INDEX,

MetAMORPHOSEs, of JpuUtus, particular examination of that

work. i. 307. -^ of ihe antient Poets, rationale of, ii. 136. Pro- ceeded from the Mftempfychofis, 138. Metempsychosis, the intention of that dofirine, i. 141, 279. ii. 135. Efteemed peculiarly the dodrine of /'j/>6i7^or«;, 130. The utility of that do^rine pleaded, 143. Two fyftems of, 144. The only vindication of Providence in the introduftion of evil, accprding to Hierochs, 228. The doc- trine of, not the origin of brute worfhip, iii. 213.

Mexicans, their uie of hieroglyphic writing illuitrated, by their manner of painting their pra^yers, iii. 72. Account of a Mexican hiftory in the fame ftyle, 73.

and Canadj^ns, their religious notions compared,

i. 93.

Mhhokek, the proper fignification of that word pointed out, iv, 245. «.

MiDDLETON, his argument of the derivation of Popijh from Pagan rites, examined, iv. 1 27. n.

Milesian Fables, what, i. 306.

Minerva, expofition of a famous hieroglyphical infcr'ption on her temple at ^^ii, iii. 138.

Ministry, their chara£ler, in what refpedlfacred, i. Ded. 28.

Miracles, evidences of an extraordinary Providence over the Jeiv'/h nation, iv. 273, 286. A neceflary confirmation of the fecondary fenfes of the y^'iu//?' prophecies, v. 323.

Missionaries, catholic and pioteftant, why not attended with good fuccefs, ii. 7c. Should Jirji civilize, and then convert, 71. Millaken policy of, 72.

Molech, the meaning of giving feed to him, v. 148,

Moraliiy, an enquiry into the firft principles of, i. 37. Re- view of the feveral opinions concerning, 40. Capable of being counter-a£led by cuiloni, 58. Not able to influence mankind abllradcd from the confideration of reward and punillimenr, 59, 70. No corapleat fyftem of, contained in the New Teftament, S3.

Mosaic Dispensation, its divinity logically proved, v. 364.

403- Moses, propofitions from which his divine legation is efta- blifhed, i. 7, His account oi the E^ypti/m priefthood, a confirmation of thole of the antient Greek hillorians, iij. 35. Corroborates their account of the religious rites oi Egypt, 39, Of the funeral rites of, 66. Of the divifion of the lands of £iy?i, 67. His knowledge in the Egyptian learning, and the laws by him inllituted, a confirmation of the divinity of his milfion, iv. no. Anfwers to deifticnl objeftions againft the divinity of his millioo, 115. His laws accommodated

to

INDEX.

to the prejudices of the Jenut, in favour of the Egypnen cuftoms, 23. This no objcftion to the divinity cf his niiffion, 39* The reafon of his unwillingnefs to undertake his miiTion, 7. The omiiTion of a future Hate in his law intended, 320. Two periods obfervable in his liillory, ib. The mention of a future ftate by him, and by fbllowin? writers, to be diftinguilhed, v. g. The fejife of his expref- fions relating the creation of man, afcertained. 126. His injunctions to the Jews againlt the local idolatry of Canaan^ iv. 189, 198. One intention of his laws, to prohibit all intercourfe between the Hebreins and the Egy[:t:nns, i i. 312. His motives explained, §13. Vindicated from the fuppofzcioa of having had recourfe to liftion in certain cafes, iv, 112. *. The difference between contradiding the ajlronom)', and the h'Jiory, wrote by him, iii, 24.4. The former of the Hebre^v alphabet by an improvement of the Eiypiian characters, 164. Charadlers in the Pagan mythology fuppofed by fome, to be intended for him, ii. 133. iii. 258.

Moses, Divine Legation of, fummary view of the oppofition this performance met with, iii. Pref. 27. Recapitulation of the argument proving his divine legation, v. 3 58. The length of it accounted for, 366. See Future State, Law Mosaic, Lazarus.

Mus^us, how employed in ^/r^iV's ^/z«V, i, 277.

Musc^uETS, humourous ftory of a parcel of, with a logical in- ference, V. 404,

Mysteries, the mod facred articles of Pagan religion, i. 136. The term explained, 137. Where, and to what gods, cele- brated, 138. AH inculcated the dodrine of a future ftate, ib. Common people fond of them, 148. The expediency of, 149. Refemblance between initiation into, and death, 280. Alluded to by the fon of Sirach, 281. n. Enquiry into the motives of jpu/eiui's defence of, 304.

. Pagan, their ufages adopted by the primitive fathers,

i. 200. Invented and upheld by lawgivers, 202. Marks of their E^rp'ian original, 204. ii. 229. iii. 36. Of great ufe to the ilate, i. 209. The betrayer of them, an infamous charadter, 182, Antient opinions of, 185. Violatcrs of them, how punilhed, 267. Summary view of, v. 37c, See Eleusinian Mysteries.

Mythologists, antient, their tellimony not to be trailed, in afcertaining times and fads, iii. 290.

Mythology, antient, fources of the confufion in, iii, 291.

N.

JJa-ture, ftate of, the miftaken prejiidice in favour of what is fo called, iilullrat^d, ii. 7-j.

Na-

INDEX.

Nature, univerfal, the objeft of all the antlent myllcrics, I, 203, 209.

Nebuchadnezzar, rational meaning of his transformationji ii. 137.

NerO, Emperor, why deterred from attempting to fee the cele- bracion of the Eleujiniau myfteries, i. 144.

New Testament, no compleat fyftem of morality contained in it, i. 83.

Newton, Sir Isaac, his charadlerasa natural philofopher, iii. 243. Milled by Gr^f^ mythologifts, 244. The argument of his Egyptian chronology, 245. His reafons for the identity of Ojiris and S,J'oJiris, 246. His niiftake in this, illullrated by a cafe flated in fimilar terms, 253. The fource of his ' miftake, 260. His hypothefis fupported principally by two mythologic fables, iii. 293. Miitakes the times of the Pagan deities, compared with the sra of the 7ro;a« war, 296. His fyftem of chronology contradidtory to Scripture, 303. His chronology refuted by dedudion, 304. His account of l^ul- cait, 306. Compared with that of Homer, 307. His affer- tion of the conqueft of Ly^aa furnifhing Egypt with horfes, invalidated, 310. His opinion of the time when the Egyptians introduced animal food, refuted, 320. His period of the divifion of.th^Jandsof ^^j//, difproved, 322. His account of the firft introduftion of letters into Egypt, rejeded, 3Z5. His obfervations relating to the populoufnefs of Egypt, exa- mined, 326. Makes Sr/ojiris to ht Hercules, 329. Quotes ^E/culapius as the firft who built with fquare ftone, 330. Sum- mary view of the difpute concerning the identity of Ofiris with Se/ofins, 335.

NiciAS, \\\e Athenian, fatal efFefts of his fuperftition, ii. 270,

Nile, the happy efFe^ls of its annual overflowings, iii. 28.

Noah, hisfharader found to anfwer that of the Indian RauhuSy iii. 288. n.

Nocturnal Assemblies of the primitive chriftians, firft occafion of, iii. Pref. 41. Their antiquity among Pagans Pre/. 67.

' Rites among the antients, fubjeft to great cenfure,

i. 186. n. Regulated by Solon, 6fc. 188. Aboliihed by T/jeouOj'ius the elder, 189.

Nordek, Captain, his miilaken conclufion from a view of the pyramids, concerning the antiquity of the Egyptian hierogly- phics, correlated, iii. 133. «•

O.

Oath, Cicero's opinion of the obligation to fullfil it, ii. 184. Oaths of conformity, amo.ig the antients, ii. 29.

Q Obelisks,

INDEX.

Obelisks, of the antient Egyptians, the public records of tKf times, iii. 133.

Omens, the two kinds of, i. 214.

On, fome account of the priefts of, iii. 38.

Onirocritic art, explained, iii. 190. Whence the art of de- ciphering borrowed, 196.

Opinions, in what inftances men frequently aft contrary to thofe they entertain, i. 69.

Oracles, the original motive of confulting them, iii. 274.

Origen, his mifunderftanding of the promiles of \\it Jewjb law, pointed out, v. 1 3 1 . w.

Orpheus, his hymns preferred to H:i7ier\, in the riles of Ceres, i. 178. His defcent into hell, explained, 229.

Osiris who, iii. 259. His fymbols, 268. proof of hi* anti- quity equal to Mo/es, ib. His fuperior antiquiry to Sefofiris afcertained, ib. Account of, and his court, from Diodorus Siculus, iii. 260. His various charadlers at different places, as exprefied in an epigram of Aufonius, iii. 287. And Sefof- tris, their identity controverted, againft Sir J/aac NeiAJtortf 248. Diflinguilhed, 259, 265.

Ovid, an examination into the merits of his Metamorphofes> ii. 130. Contain a popular hiftory of Providence, 138. Criticifm on, 140. His account of Tyfhufi war with the Cods, iii. 206.

P.

Pagan Deities, vicious examples of, and the licentious rites

in their worfhip, infuperable obftacles to virtue, i. 153. ^ ■ Mythology, the apology of the priefts and philo-

fophers, for the immorality of it, i. 176, n. Paganism, antient, analyfis of, ii. 37. Not CQnfifting of

dogmatic points of belief, but of practical rites, 40. How

the antient philofophers attempted to uphold it, in its decline,

i. 303. Pan, how painted by the Egyptians, iii. 208. Pan TOM 1 ME, hillorical anecdote of the great expreffion of on^

V. 228. r>. Parable, the origin and nature of, iii. 169. Paraguay, wife conduct of the Je/iiiti there, ii. 72. ». Parmenides, his two theories of the Univerfe, ii. 95. Passover, Jen.vijh, its typical meaning pointed out, v. 295. Patriots, how fituated in Eyfium, i, 276. Patriarchs, Jeiuijh, (hewn to be no punifhers for opinions,

V. 412. Paul, St. for what purpofc called to the apoftlefliip, iv. 57.

In what charadler he appeared before the court of Anopagust'

ii.

INDEX.

fi. 57. His fcntiments of perfecution, before, and after con- verfion, iv. 164. n. Citations from, in proof that the doc- trine of a future ftate was not known under the Mc/aic Dif- penfation, 363, — that its fandions were all temporal, 371. Kis definition of faith, v, 178. A feeming contradiction in, between /ifis xiii. 32. and Heb. xi. 39. reconciled, 182. An important pafTage in his EpilUe to the Romans, chap. viii. ver. 3, 4. expounded, 184.

Pelasoians, account of their adoption of the names of the Egyptian Gods, and application of them to their own deities ; from Herodotust iii. 278. Communicate them to the Greeh, 280.

Pentateuch, its authenticity maintained, i. 117.

Peripatktics, in what refpedl different from the Platoiiijis, ii. 160. Deny a particular Providence, 193.

Persecution for religious opinions, the origin of, traced, ii. 48, 52, 68. iii. Tref. 3^. v, 413. How accounted for by Voltaire, ii. 48. «. Difcouncenanced by the Gofpel difpenfa- tion, iv. 164. 77.

Persian Superstition, defcribed in Ezekiels vifions, iv. 21.

Peter, his vifion of the clean and unclean beafts explained, iv. 62. His double fenfe of, pointed out, v. 314. 2 Ep. chap. i. ver. 19, explained, v. 304. n.

PiiAROAH, king of E^ypt, the Scripture account of, iii. jg. Promotes Jc/epb, 37. His chariots and cavalry in the pur- suit of the l/iaelitts, iii. 310. An illuflration of the Oniro- critic art, drawn from Jofeph'h interpretation of his two dream.s 105.

Pharmacy, general divifion of, iii. 63.

Phenician Superstition, defcribed in Ezekiel*^ vifions, iv, 21.

Pherecydes,. the firfl who taught the dodrine of the To en, ii. 225.

Philemon and Baucis, the fable of, expounded, ii, 134.

Philip of Mac^don, his obfervation on feeing the bodies of l\\e Sacred Band zK Ch^rotiea, i. 224.

Philosopher, antient, a chara(Ser compounded of Lawgiver and Naturalift, ii. 105. In both, miliaken in their views, i. 151. And citizen, diftinftion between, ii. 75.

PmLOfSOPHERs, antient, unanimous in the opinion that the inculcation of the belief of a futupe ftate was neceffary to tfie well-being of focicty, ii. 77, The opinion of its utility flrengtheiied, by its not being an article of their private belief, 86. Taught confc;rnii!y to the Religion of the country, 89. Hence infincerity juftificd by them, 91. Their external ana internal doftrine wherein they differed, 95. Reproached b^ jhe piimitive f,*thcrs for diiliiiiulation, top. u. Their two-

foldi

INDEX.

fold do£lrlne applied to the fervice of fociet}', 103, 107, 143. Difference between thofe who added iegiflation to their phyfics, and thofe who did not, icg. When they be- gan to admit a future ftate of retribution, 216. Atheillic, their particular motives to the prafticc of virtue, i. 73.

Philosophhrs, Grecian, charaifler of, ii. 106. — always men- tioned by the Apoftles with contempt, 237.

Philosophy, Greek, true key to, ii. 99. Who formed by, 105. Analyfis of, 1 1 4. How received in //a/)', 165. Bar- baric, not fyftematic ; but in detached precepts, 221. Mo- dern, the antients unacquainted with the refined dillinflions of, 185.

Phlegyje, in Virgil, who, i. 267,

Physic, a critical inquiry into the Hate of, in antient Fg-j/r, iii. 40.

Planet- worship, the firft religion of Grffre, iii. 270.

Plato, his definition of facrilege, i. 133, His view of a future flate, 260. His private opinion of an univcrlal foul, ii. 94. His analyfis of the Grecian philofophy, 107. His charafter afcertained, 122. n. His charafter as a lavir- giver, 149, 162. His politics ridiculed by the antients, 150. What, the proper key to his writings, 152. His Phaedo, Cuero\ opinion of, i 53. His notirn of the immor- tality of the foul inquired into, 154. His refinement on the Metempfychsfis, 155. Inculcates future lewards and puniOi- ments in the popular fenfe of, 156. Tellimonies of his dif- belief of, 157. Why he baailhed Homer from his rcpabU:,

Platonists, in what refpefl differing from the Peripnie'.ict and Stoics y ii. 160, 193. Allegorize ttic dodrine of the refur- reftion, 236.

Pliny the younger, his opinion of the ChriJIians, ii. 53. The reafon of his perfecuting the Chrifliansy iii. Pre/. 37, 48.

Plutarch, his fentiments of a future llatc, ii. 179,191. His account of the origin of atheifm and fuperllition, 260. His parallel between, 261. His motives to this performance ex- amined into, 266. n. Argues from unfair principles, 274. His argument purfued by Loril Bacon, i-jj. The objeft of his tratl on Ifis and Ofiris, 308, Accuies the Je<ws of woi- ihipping fwine, iii, 212. n.

PococKE, his account of the Egyptian hieroglyphics confidered, iii. 80. n.

Political Romances, an inquiry into a general, thougii fundamental deviation from known faft, in, i. 20.

PoLvjJius, his encomium on the piety aad probity of the /Js- fjians, ii. 79.

Poir-

INDEX.

Polytheism, the Elcufinian myfteries a deteftlon of, i. i^^, 170.

PoMPONATius, the intention of his ircBX\(e De immortalitate animae miftaken by Bayle, \; 26, 3c.

Porch, the doftrine taught by t|ie philofophers of, ij. 161.

Porphyry, his account of the origin of brute-worlhip, con- troverted, iii. 216. And Clemens Alexandrinus, their account of the antient Egyptian charaders and writing, 121.

Posterity, why the punifliments of the Mojaic law extended to then), iv. 326. The cafe argued, 332.

PosTHUMius, the conful, his exhortation to maintain unity of public worfhip, ii. 29. Not inconfillent with toleration of private religion, 35.

Priests, Pagan, not folicitous to teach the people virtue, i. 208. Pious, where placed in the Pagan elyfium, i. 276.

Primitive Christians, their nodurnal vigils abuied, i.

Principles, Good and Evil, the belief of, how guarded againft by the writer of the book o!i Job, v. 97.

Prophecy. See Christ, Ezekiel, Horace, Jerusalem^ Joel, Isaiah, Peter, Sykes.

Prophecies, what a neceffary confirmation <f their reference to the Meffiah, v. 323. Their primary and fecondary fenfes diftinguilhed, 327. Of the gofpel difpenfation, mifunder- Itood by the Je^MSy and why /o ordained, 340. Scripture, defended from the infinuations of Dr. MiddUton, 290.

Prophets, Jevsi/h, rational account of their illuftrating their prophecies by figns, iii. 108. Reafon of the inllitution of a Ichool for, iv. 42.

1*rovidence, the notions of the Thrjiical philofophers con- cerningj ii. 193. Particular, denied by the Stoics and Peri- ■pateticsy ib. Particular, affirmed by the Pythagoreans and Flatonijis, ib. The difpenfations of, according to the Pa- gans, adminiftered through the medium of inferior local tute- lary deities, 194. How its difpenfations were jultified by the ancients, 228. Remarks on the different reception of its adveife difpenfations, in antient and modern times, v. 76. n.

im-. ^ — Extraordinary, a neceiTary confequence of the

'Je-\ijijh theocracy, iv. 267. Illulhatcd from Solomon s prayer at the dedication of the Temple, 289. From Ezektel, 291. YxQ'nx Amos, zcfy Evidences of its ceafing, 29S. The men- tion of the inequalities of, by the facred writers, accounted for, 302.

PsAMMiTicHus, his fchcmc to cilablilh an intercourfe between Egypt and the Grecian ftates, iii. i6o.

Punishments, their ufes in. civil fociety, i. 15.

Purgatory, Pagan, what, i. 25^.

Pyra-

I N D E X.

PvRAMiDS of E^pt, probable reafons wliy they exliibit no hieroglyphic infcriptions, iii. 133. «. The Egy(>!ian iirchi- tedture formed on the idea of, 134. Not temples, but fcpulchres, 135. Alluded to in the book of Job, v. 35.

Pyrrhonians, their tenets, and wherein they differed from the academics, ii. 116. Whence named, 120.

Pythagorus, his precept for ellablifhing laws, i. 121. His good and evil Principle, 126. The firft in rank among the Grecian lawgivers and philofophers, ii. 105. How he ac- quired the learning of Egypt^ ib. More particular account of, 126. Proofs illuflrative of his legiflative fame, 130. Why he affigned Homer and Hcfiod penance in hell, 306. His theory of earthquakes, 108. His predidion of them jullified by late experience, 108. n,.

Quakers, their motives for rejeding the inftitution of baptlfm, examined into, v. 4.

R.

Rainbow, firft creation and reafon of, iv, 32* n\

Reason, human, able to perceive, but not to difcover, trutli, ii- 243.

Regulus, Cicero s opinion of his obligation to return to Cw- thage, ii. 184.

Religion, the external evidences of it how weakened j i. z- Natural, not fufficient vnthout the aid of the civil magillratc^ II. Only capable of fupplying thofe fandions which civil fociety needs, but hath not, 22. How, ib. 23. Its neccf- fity to fociety, 25. Its exiftence fecured by an alliance with the civil power, ii. 9, 17. Confers refpeft and veneration on the laws and magiftrate, 12, Receives a coaftive power, 13. The only tribunal before which intentions are cognizable, 13. Evil confequences of more than one being in a itate, 16^ 26. Its ufe in legiflation, i. 87. The confcrvation cf, de- pending on the magiftrate, 92. Its truth in the general, proved from its infinite fervice to fociety, ii. 247. The notion of its being a political invention, examined, 248, 319. The affirmative no proof of its falfity, 254, 287. Why the magii^rate fo folicitous to inforce it, ih. Not the offspring oi fear, 291. The abfurdliy of any human legiflature's in- forcing it by penal laws, iv. 166. An eftablilhed one in every of the antient nations, ii. I. Its ufe in fociety, 3. Jts care limited to the foul, 8. Eftabliflied, falfe policy of forcing people into conformity to it, 34.- Diftindion among

the

INDEX.

the Pagans, between, and private or tolerated religion, 62 i tti 66. Conformity to that of the country, taught by the an- tient philofophers, 89. Diftiniftion between true and falfe, 46. Chriflian, why necefiarily founded on the Jeixilh, i^j.

Religion, Jewish, not adopted by any of the neighbouring nations, and why, iv, 203.

. (iF Names, zw Egyptian (vi^tr^Wxon, iv« 3.

OF Nature, confirmed by revelation, i. 83,

. Pagan, the genius of, indicative of the hand of the

magiflrate in its formation and fupport, i. 95. How it came to be fo inierwoven with civil hiftory, loi* ». Myfleries the moft facred articles in, 136. Confined to local deities, ii. 31. Utility and not truth, the end of, 91. Hence deception expedient in, ib. National and that of philofophers, how calculated, iii.

Religions, a comparifon of the many that have exifted in the world, the clue to the true one, iii. 8,

.. • — — Pagan, apologetical fuggeilions to account for the

diverfity of, ii. 4:^. Not interfering with each other, iv. 182.

Christian and Mosaic, necefiarily dependant on

fome preceding religion, iv. 183. Reljgigus Society. See Societv. 'Resurrection, dodirine of, allegorized hy i\it Platonijls, ii.

236. Reward and Punishment, the proper meaning of, afcer-

tained, i. 16. How far capable of being enforced by civil

government, id. 19. Anfwer to the objetSlion againft them,

as inducements to virtue, id. 39. n. More powerful perfua-

livcs CO virtue, than any abftract contemplation on the loveli-

nefs of it, i. 59, 70. Revelation, ChrilHan, not a republication of the religion of

nature, ii. 241. Revelation?, fome one, embraced by all mankind, iii. I.

Natural inferences from this general propenfity, 2. Pagan,

one circumftance common to all, 11. Pagan, attributed by

the primitive fathers, to the Devil, ih. Rhetoric, the arts of, prohibited in the court of Areopagus, i.

Ded. 10. Riddles, propounded by ihc Hebrew fages, as mutual trials of

fagacity, iii. 171. Ridicule, the favourite figure of fpeech among infidels, i.

Did. 9. Arguments in juftificntion of, id. 12. Refuted, id.

13. Not the tell of truth, but -vice 'ver/a, id. 15. IVIifchiefs

refulting from it, fd. 18. Rites, legal and patriarchal, not to be confounded, iv. 28. Ritual Law of the Jews, made in reference to the Egyptian

fuper*

INDEX.

fuperftition, iv. 24. This no objeiflion to the divinity of it, 58. Charaderifed in Ezekiel, 82. Explained, 88.

Rome, to what its declenfion was owing, i. 83. Antient and modern, refecnblance between, in religioub modes, ii. 35. Pagan, how it preferved its eftablifhed religion from foreioa mixtures, 66. Chriilian, whether its fupcrllitions borrowed from the Pagan city, examined, iv. 127.

Rose, what a fymbol of, among the antients, i. 317.

Runic Alphabet, when and why changed for tJie Roman, iii. 165.

RuTHERFORTH, Dr. his notion of the cfFeft the withdrawing the fanftions of the yenxiijh law, had on the obligatory force of that law, examined, iv. 269. His notions of the tem- poral fanftions of the Jemcijh lasv being continued under the gofpel, examined, 307. His notions of inefficacy of aclion without fpeech, examined, v. 226. ».

S.

Sabbath, a pofitive inftitution, iv. 32. ».

Sacred Band, affedling anecdote of, i. 224.

Sacrifices, human, the command to Abraham to offer up his fon Ifaac, vindicated from the objeiSlion cf giving a divine fanftion to, v. 248, 266.

Sallust, his theological fentiments, ii. 197.

Samuel, his conduit in eftablilhing the regal form of govern- ment in Judea, iv. 231.

Sanchoniathon, his genealogical account of the firft ages, i, 168. Reafons to conclude his hiftory to be that narrated at the Eleujinian myfteries, i. 171. Whence he tranfcribed his hiftory, 173. His hiftory when corrupted, 175. When he lived, ib.

Sanhedrim, why inftituted, iv. 42. When eftablifhed, 53, The motives of Je/us Chriji'% evafive reply to their interro- gations, ib.

Satan, examination of his charafter as delivered in Job, 92.

Saul, the phrafe of his being among the prophets, explained, iv, 44. Charafterifed, ib.

ScENicAL Representations, in what refpeft without moral import, v. 265.

Sceptre of Judah, the common notions of that phrafe exa- mined, iv. 246. True fenfe of, pointed out, 262.

SciPio Africanus, L/o/y's account of, li. 281.

Scriptures, facred, a fummary view of their contents, iv. 344. General rule for the interpretation of, V. 124.

Sectaries, reafons for excluding them from the public admi- niftraiion, ii. 27. Vol, V. G g Seneca,

INDEX.

Seneca, his fentiments concerning death, ii. 163. His account of the origin of religion, 291.

Serpent, in the fall of man, the true meaning of, afcertained, iv. 322. How the fentence pafTed on ir, is to be underftood, V. 129. Crooked, in yj^ ^XiA Ij'aiahy the meaning of ex- plained, 98.

Sesostris, account of, ixam Diadorus Siculusy iii. 32. Who, 259. Divides i'^/*^ by tranfverfe canals, 320. His motives for, 324.

. and Osiris, arguments againft the indentity of, in

oppofitionto Sir I/aac Nexvlouy iii. 248, Diflinguilhed, 259, 265.

Shaftesbury, his application of ridicule, as a tell of truth, i. Ded, 12. His treatment oi Locke y id. 26. His notions of the antient Heathen religions, erroneous, ii. 41. Oppofes the influence oUajU, to the belief of a future JiatCy 83,

Sherlock, Bp. his notion of the tribal fceptre of Judab, examined, iv, 2;o.

Shuckford, Dr. his remarks on the antient 7J//W law, exa- mined, iv. 28, 83.

Sibyl, the charafter fhe fullains in the jEneid, i. 234.

Signs, memorable inltance of divine inftruflion communicated by, in r.\\& cz(q oi Abraham, v. 197.

Sins, diftinguiflied from crimes, and before what tribunal amenable, ii. 14,

Sleeping Scheme, the principles of, examined, iv. 376.

Sociality, the benefits of, i. Ded. 35.

Society, civil, the advantages of, i. 12. Its infufficiency againft moral dlforders, 13. Evils introduced by it, 15. The two great fandions of, 16. The laws of, continually affronted by the members of it, 75. Difference between, and a ftate of nature, 76. Why inftituted, ii. ^.' Its care limited to the body, 8. Independent on religious fociety, ib. Why induced to unite with religious fociety, 15. See Alli- ance, Religion.

Society, religious, its ultimate end, ii. 6. Independent on civil fociety, /^. Why induced to unite with civil fociety, 17.

Socrates, Why he declined initiation into the Orphic and Eleujinian myiXcnes, i. 181. His conformity to the religion of his country, iuftanced, ii. 89. The firft who brought philofophy from a fpeculation of nature, to the improvement of morals, 115. This fcheme effeded by the principles of doubt and uncertainty, 116, 120. Why not milled in his judgment of a future llate, 235.

Socratic method of arguing, what, ii. i2i.

Solomon, his prayer at the dedication of the Temple, illuHra-

tive of the paiticular Providence over the ^i^wj//.' nation, iv.

3 289..

1 N D £ X.

289. And that the fanflions of the Mojaical law were mecrlv temporal, 318. His violations of the ^/o^/V law, remarked, iii. 313. How perverted to idolatry, v. <Si.

Sophists, fome account of, ii. 121. Unfavourably treated by \}a.Q Romans, 166.

Soul, Pythagoras^ notion of an univcrfal one, ii. 208, 224. Immaterial, common to the whole animal creation, v. 127. Human, three fpecies of, diflinguifhed by the antients, i'. 190. Held to be fubftance, 199. Difcerped parts of God, 201. Pre-exiftent as well as polt-exillent, 203. Jllulhated byafimile, 205, Believed to be mortal, by fome of the fathers, 207. The mortality of it, argued from peripatetic principles, i. 27. The fentiments of the Je^vs concerning, iinder the law, iv. 375. Examination of the notion of the fleep of, 376. The mention of its future exillence by M^fes and by following writers, to be diflinguilhed, v. 9. Living in what fenfe to be underftood as ufed in the hiftory of the creation of man, 128.

Speech, the origin and hiftory of, iii. 105.

Spencer, an examination of the argument of his treat' fs Z?? Theocratia Judaica, iv. 236.

Spinozism, the principle of, cherifhed in the antient myfteries, and whence derived, i. 278.

Spiritual Courts, the ufe of, ii. 14.

State. See Alliance*

States, the two ways by which they come to ruin, ii, 80.

Statues, the firft rife of worlhipping, in human form, iii.

Stebbing, Dn his expofition of Zf-rrV. xviii. 5. examined, v.

I43. An examination of his confiderations on the command

to /Abraham to offer up Ifaac, 20i« «?» 219. «. His notions of the

trial of Abraham examined into, 233, 239. n. 248. n. 261. n. Stillingfleet, his opinion of the Egyptian hieroglyphics,

iii. 139. Stoical Renovation, what, ii. 164. Stoics, the principle of that feft, i. 66, Ba\le^s reafoning

from it, invalidated, 67. In what refpcft different from the

Platonijls, ii. 160. Difbelieve the immortality of the foul,

i6z. Deny a particular Providence, 193. Strabo, his divifion of the antient Pagan religion, i. 289.

Miftaken in his reprcfentation of the Mo/aic ve\\^\on, ii. 219. Suicide, difcountenanccd in the antient myfteries, i. 254. SuLPicius, his reflexion on the fight of the ruins ol Corinth ^

i^c, i. Ded, 16. Burlefqued by Scarron, i.l. ib. Sun and Moon, the various names thefe luminaries were wcr-

jhipped by, among the Pagans, ii. 301,

G g a Super*

INDEX.

Superstition, diib'nguinied from religion, ii. 256. Plutarch's

account of the origin of. 260. SvKES, Dr. his notion cf the Jeiv'Jh theocracy, examined, iv.

287. ». 291. »• 324. n. His notion concerning the double

fenfesof the Scripture prophecies, examined, v. 308. Symbols, their revolution from being employed for contrary

purpofes, to their primitive defignation, pointed out, iii,

16S. System and Hypothesis, the human mind naturally inclined

to, iii. 20.

T.

Tacitus, his opinion of the y^fif/}^ religion, iii. Pre/. 38, n. His account of the antient Jhebaii monuments, 137.

Tages, x.he Etrufcan God, how found, iii. 241. n.

Talismans, greatly venerated by the Ma^ow^/aw/, iii. 183.

Taste, oppoled by Lord Shaftefiury to the influence of the be- lief of a future ftate, ii. 83.

Taylor, Dr. examination of his account of the origin of perfecution, iii. Pre/. 36.

Telemachus, why he refufed the horfes of Menelaus, iii. 315.

Test-law, the reafons of, traced, ii. 24. The obligation the ftate is under to grant the church this iecurity, 25. Juftified from hiftory, 27.

Test-oath, among the /Athenians, ii. 28.

"Theocratic- government of ihejeivs, the reafons and con- veniencies of, iv. 136, 166. Why willingly received by them, 172. Particular enquiry into the circumllances cf, 161, 215. Neceflarily including an extraordinary Providence, 267. Illuftrated from Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the Temple, 289. From Ezekiel, 291. From Jmos, 293. How long fublifting, 225. When aboliflied, 243.

Theocracy, every fubjtd a pi left under, iv. 157. ».

Theology, dopmatic. how introduced, ii. 46.

Theseus, expofition of his defcent into hell, i. 230. His punifhment for violating the myileries, 26;,

TiMi€US, his charader by Polybius, i. 113.

Tindal's Chriftianity as old as the Creation, founded on a miftakcn argument, ii. 242.

To LAND, his account of the origin of idolatry, ii. 310.

Toleration, the benefits of, ii. 27. Univerfal, allowed amoncjallthe antient nations, and why, ii. 33. iii. Prtf. 61. Religious impreffions ftrengthencd by encouraging new, and foreign worfliip, 35. Antient, different from our modcru ideas of, ih.

Toyman, d^iBath, pertinent Ilory of, v. 3!'.f.

Tradi-

INDEX.

Tradition, mlftaken prefumption to ftrengthen the auihority

of, by the church of 7?o/nf, iv. 359. Trajan, Emperor, his perfccution of Chriftianity accounted for,

^"- 5?. .

Treason, high, obfervations on the laws of forfeitures in cafes

of, iv. 334. TaiSMtGisTus, the books that go under his name, forged, ii.

Truth andUriLiTY, proved to coincide, ii. 24.7, z:;6. Types, the meaning of, afcertained, v. 270. Derivation of,

283. In Religion, argument deduced from the general

paffion for, 31^4. TvPKON, the fable of, explained, iii. 206, 258. Tyrants, antient, great encouragers of religion, and why, i.

107.

V.

Varro, his obfervation on the expediency of enthufiafm for the effefling great enterprizes, ii. 286.

Virgil, his reformation oi Epic poetry, i. 212. n. His po- litical views in (ksJEneis, 217. His inLrnal geography, i. 253. Millake in, noted, 263. Wherein he excelled /ifo^^r, i. 274. His fcenes all accommodated to the myfteries, 277. The purpofe of his writing, 282. Some criticifms againll, obviated, 283. Exhibits an entire view of the P^gon reli- gion, i. 2S9. His reprefentation of the rites of Bacchuj, 292. From whence he took the hint of his Silenus, ii. 139* Criticifm on, 140.

Virtue, the various motives by which men are allured or drove into the praftice of it, i. 28, 38 Anfwer to the objeAion againft the view of rewards and punilhments, operating as motives to it, i. 39. Why a uniform praclice of it, will not generally contribute to human happinefs, i. 60. An enquiry into the nature of, under a difpenfation of rewards and punifli- ments, iv. 419.

Voltaire, his miftaken notion of the origin of religious per- fccution, reel fied, ii. 48. t?. His account of the Mo/aic difpenfation, examined, iv. 139. His mifreprefentation of Judea, refuted, 146. Some miliakes in his trcatife on 1 olera- tion, noted, iv. 341. ».

Vossius, his account of the origin of idolatry, refuted, iii. 218.

Utility, indicative of truth, ii. 247,

Vulcan, Sir //'v«,r AW/on's account of, iii. 306, Compared with that of Homers 307.

G g 5 WAKTi,

INDEX,

w.

Wants, real and fantaftic, the efFeds of, i. y^. Increafe with

the improvements in policy and arts, 76. William of iVi?au.'o«r^, his charadler of Pope Gregory vin. v.

Witchcraft, the fuppofed effefts of, accounted for, ii. i^y, WiTsiu s, his arguments for the Egyptian Ritual being borrowed

from the j^eivs, examined, Hv. 27. Critique on his ^gyptiaca,

67. Wives, ftrange, or idolatrous, bad confequences of the fond-

nefs the Je'w had for them, fuewn, v. 78. Works, no juftification by, under the Gofpel, v, 186. Worship, intercommunity of, a fundamental point of Pa^a-

vjfm, ii. 4c, 53. Writing, hiltory of the art of, iii. 70,

Z.

Zaleucus, his exiftence called in queftion by 7V/w^*Y/, i. irj. Enquiry into the authenticity of his laws, 116. Prior to Pythagoras, 120. His religious precepts, 127.

Zeno, his character, ii. 161, 193.

Zoroaster of /^'rt'^ and Pr/dV<2*^, difcredited, vt, j8o*

A N

AN

ALPHABETICAL LISlT

O F'

AUTHORS, &c.

Quoted in the foregoing Work 3 which Quo- tations are not referred to in the Index.

ACofta, iii. DeJ. 2, «. 71, 86. «. 99. «. Addiibn, i. Det^. 12, 214. ^lian, ii. loi, 108. iii!; 201.

262. ^fchylus, ii. 60. Agellius, ii. 120. Ahijah, v. 264. Albinus, ii. 152. Albo, Rabbi Jofeph, v. 333. Ammianus Marcellinus, iii.

136. iv. 10. Amos, iv. 12, 90. V. 330. Anaxagoras, ii. 271, 307. Antoninus, Marcus, ii. 53, 55,

163, ^14. Apion, iv. 204. ft. 278. «. Apollodorus, iii. 54. n. Apuleius, i. 146, 232, 238,

274., 291, 296. ii. 125, 195,

230. iii. ^6. w. 50, 147,

168, 286. Arceiilaus, ii. ! 16. Ariftides, i. 140, 190, 270,

275. /?. 286. Ari(toj>iiaRes, i. 14:, 205. ».

Arirtotle, i. 12, 154, 212. ii.

5, 21 1, 222, ». iii. 262. Arnauld, v. 193. Arnobius, ii, 100. ». 206, 2ic» Arrian, ii. 163, «, iii. 261. Aitemidorus, i. 313. n. iii.

190. Aflruc, iii. 162. ». iv. 6. Aulus Gellius, i. 253. iii. 301,

w. Aufonius, iii. 287. Aiiftin, i. 100. //. IC2, 14J,

154. ». 157, 309. ii. 64. n.

91, loi. fi. 12 7. iii. 153. w.

Bacon, Lord, i. 10. ii. 132,259, 271. ». iii. Pre/. 8c. iv. 109,

Banier, ii. 134. tr. 142.

Barbeyrac, i. 2^6.

Baxter, iii. 192.

Bayle, i. 44, 88, ico, 114, 250. ii. 64, 220, 250. », 257. iv. I '^g. V. 368.

Beaufobre, ii. 233. iii. 182. /u

Bellarniine, i. 191. g 4 Bcatlcy.

ALPH ABETICA-L LIST

Bentley, i. 112. ii. 37. ».

Berkley, iv. 360.

Bernier, ii. 45.

B.'ackwell, i. 97. w. 219, 250.

ii. 223, 310. Blount, ii. 248. Bochart, iii. 207. ». Bolingbroke, Lord, iii. 10. n.

iv. 38, 152, ». 215, 217,

343. V. 174, 318. BofTu, i. 213. Ti. Bouilier, v. 224. w. 356. «, Boulainvilliers, i. 94. Brown, i. Ded. 20. n. Bull, Billiop, V. :. n. 192. Bullet, iii. 175. n. Bunyan, v. 349. Burlamaqui, i. 54. Burnet, ii. 103, 223. iii. 331.

iv. 32. n. Butler, iii. 33 1»

Caecilius, iii. Pre/. 6z. Callimacbus, i. 184. ». iii.

301. n. Calmet, iv, 154, ?;. 338. ». y.

14. n. Cardan, i. 26, 74, Carneades, ii. 116. Cafaubon, i. 200. ».'2o8. n, ii.

84. n. iii. 261. n, Cafiiadoius, iii. 183. Celfus, i. 139. ii. 189. iii.

Pre/. 53,48. ». 53. iv. 188. ChasrcrtK/n, iii. 37. ;;. Charlevoix, i. 233. n. iii 74. «. Charondas, i. 112, 132. Chillingworth, v. 49. Cbryfippus i. 43. n. 163. ii.

Ill, 157, 161. Chryibltom, ii. 57, n. v. 22'?,

288. Chibb, iv. 305. ». Cicero, i. Ded. 11, iJ. 34, 16.

». 74. 9>' 9S' 'J6» '3i> 140, 171, 18^. 214. n, 223. 233> 254, 290. ii. 35, 61,

91, 109. «. 112, 115, 129, 148. «, 165, 201, 224, 245, 288. iii. Pre/, 69, 62, 102, 176, 241 . «. V, 360. Clarke, i. 52. ». iii. 57. ». iv. 368. n. 408. V. 127. ».

139; Claudian, i. 24, Cleanthes, ii. 213. Clemens Alexandrinus, i. 114,

152, 163. 179. 195, 233.

11. 107. ;/. iii. 53, 1 22. Cocceius, iii. 36, v. 78. Codurcus, V. 35. n. Collins, i. Ded. 36. id. ^g.id. 43:

iii. Ded. 6. iii. 115. «. iv,

43. w. 176. V. 276. Condamine, iii. 174. k, Condillac, iii. 152. w. 177. », Craig, i. 2. n. Crinitus, iii. 164, tr. Critias, ii. 248, 293. Cudworth, ii. 203, 211, 245. Cumberland, iii. 22. n, 79. n,

291. Cyprian, i. ijg.

Dacier, i. 255. «. ii. 148, 185. Daniel, ii. 13;. iii. 172. v.

225. Daubuz, iii. 192. ». 195. ». v.

204. David, king, iii. 172, iv. 189,

291. », 302. De Choifi, ii. 46. ti. De la Croix, i. 105. ti. Demetrius Phalareus, iii. loc.

Democritus, ii. 223.

Demollhenes, ii. 29.

Dcs Cartes, ii. 223, 245.

Diodofus Siculus, i. 104, io6, 138, 172, 182, 204. n. 264, ii. 42, a8i, 295. iii. 32, 34, 54. w, 65, 136, 144, 175, 209, 257.

Diogenes Laeitius, i. 104. ii. 106,

OF AUTHORS, &c.

106, 125, 128, 144, 233.

n. 307, iii. 293. Dionyfius HalycarnafTus, i,

187. ». 289. ii. 47. ». 66,

68. Dion CafTius, ii. 68. Dion Chryfoftom, i. 238. Dodwell, ii. 2c8. Donatus, ii. 225. Dudley, Paul, Efq; ii. 108. ». Du Halde, iii. 86. ». 189. ».

Ebenezra, iii. 63. w, Egede, iii. 141. ». 174. », Elihu, V. 37. Epiftetus, i. 144. ii. 213, Epicurus, ii. 107, 149. Epifcopius, V. 162. «. Euhemerus, ii. 311, Eupolemus, iii. 38. ». Euripides, i. 146, 148. «. 230.

ii. 250. ». V. 29. «. ig8. «. Eufebius, i. 97. «. 165, 176.

ii. 55, 100. «. 151, igo. ».

227. Tt. 294. iii. I. n. 6. n,

9, 79. «. i57» 227-

Euftathius, iii. 79. ».

Ezekiel, iii. 17, 109, 119. 170, 231. «. iv. 9, 136, 138, 202, 268, 289, 30Z, 329. V. 245. «. 280, 317, 341.

Ezra, V. 6S, 80, 86, 88.

Fabius Celfus, i. 264.

Fabricius, i. 195.

Felton, V. 121.

Fenton, iii. 302,

Fleetwood, Lieut. Gen. ii.

284. Fleuri, iii. 163. n, Fontenelle, ii. 99, 183, 283, Fourmont, iii. 99. «. 198. »,

236, 281. K. Freret, iii. 93, 276. n. v. 193.

Gale, iii. 21. ». 128. ». Galen, i. 164. ii. 94, no. iii,

60. Garcillaflb, iii. 269, «. GafTendi, ii. 206. Gaubil, iii. 94. Geddes, ii. 150, ». GeofFry of Monmouth, iii,

175. «. Gordon, iii. 76. ». Gregory Nazianzen, i. 145, ii,'

Grey, v, 23. ». 28. ». 43, 46.

ft. Gronovius, ii. 96. », Grotius, ii. 9. iii. 173. iv. 335.

V. 25, 42. tr. 56. H. 10*,

138, 161, 190, 328. Gruter, ii, 63. tt. Guignes, iii. 98. tt.

Habakkuk, iii, 179. v. I45»

178. rr. Haggai, iv. 241. Hales, V. 164. », Hammond, iii. 22. «. v. ijj," Harduin, v. 415. Hare, iii. 172. v. 154. «- Heliodorus, iii. 157. Heraclitus, i. 109. iii. 113. Herbelot, v. 6. w. Herbert, Lord, i. 24. Hereclides, Ponticus, ii. 307. Hermapion, iii. 135. Herodotus, i. DeJ. 45, 92, 96,

173, 249, tt. ii, 128. iii. 17,

35» 39' 45» 49» 60, 65, 107.

w. 113. n. i<;s, 160, 193,

201, 207, 260, 278, 320,

339. v. 227. w, Hefiod, i. 65. iii. 28. tt. 115.

«. 143. n. Hezekiah, iv. 355, Hierocles, ii. 216. tt, 228. Himerius, i. 279. Hieronymus, ii. zi,n.

Hip.

ALPHABETICAL LIST

Julius Finnicus, i. i6i. Julius Hyginus, i, 268. Juflin, iii. 300. Juftin Martyr, iv, 173, Juvenal, ii. 41.

Hippocrates, ii. no. iii. 64. ». Hobbes, i. 48, 107. ii. 288.

iv. 272. V. 412. Holflenius, iii. 122. r. Homer, i. 211. iii. 28. n. 116,

», 242. n, 330. n. iv. 351.

Hooke, V. 358. ».

Hooker, i. 9, i r. ». ii. 321. iv.

312. v._384. Horace, iii. 316. Horapollo, i. 147, «. ii. 229,

». iii* 75, 131, 168. Hofea, iv. 199, v. 79, 260. «. Houbigant, iv. 106. », v. 40,

45.». 230. ». Houteville, iv. 249. Huet, ii. 133, 188. iii. 240. », Huntingdon, iii. 147, Hard, vi. 313. ». Hutchinfon, iii. 307. «, Hyde, iii. 9. n.

Jablonfki, iii. 303. », Jackfon, iii. 140. «. Jamblichus, i. 120, 273. ii.

lOo, 127, 153, 221, 231. Jamefon, iii. 33. n. 42. w, Jeremiah, iv. 23, 116. ». 189,

20^, 356. V. 80. 155. «.

328. Jerom, i. 199. ii. 209, 282. iii.

41, 108, 147. ». 231. ff. Ignatius, Loyola, ii. 284. Job, iv. 355. John, V. 225. Jofephus, i. 141, 166. ii. 150.

iii. 37. «. 171. iv. 204. n,

219. Jotham, iii. 169. Ifciah, iii. 33, n. 193. ». iv.

202, 318. V. 33, 38, 98,

121, Z^"]. Ifocrates, i. iSj, /I90. ii. 14. «.

1 10. Julian, ij. 40. n, 56, 159. iii.

Frcf. 4c.

Kircher, iii. 70. n. 76. ». 85, 99. n. 222. iv. 19.

Laftantius, i. Ded. 30. ii. ico. jr. 161, 186, 190, iv. 4. V.

tafateau, iif. io8. n. Lambert, Gent. ii. 284. Lambin, i. 131. «. Lampridius, ii. 51, 52. w, Lavaur, ii. 134. «. Law, Mr, Wm. iii. Fref. 79. Le Clerc, i. 180, 203. ii. 51,

148. iv. 228. V. 42, 83,

162. «. Le Compte, iii. 87. n, 146. »« Leland, v. 152-. Leonard, iii. 32. v, Leucippus, ii. 223. Limborch, iii. Ded, 7. iv. 280.

«. 339. n. Levy, i. 221, 269. ii. 29, 65,

281. Locke, i. Bed. 24. id. 38, 60,

209, ii. 5. V. 31. ff. 190. Lucan, iii. 184, Lucian, i. 92, 159, 208, 24!.

ii. iiy.n. 164. iii. 217, 258. Lucretius, ii. 85, 148, 175. Lucullus, i. 195. ii. 125, 171. Lycurgus, i. n i.

Mabillon, ii. 53- «, Machiavel, ii. 12. Macrobius, i. 171, 221, 227,

296. ii. 95. Magaillans, iii. 95. Mahomet, i. 222. ». ii. 284.

iii. 1 19. Maimonides, iii. 20, 109. iv.

269. v. 16. ». 22. », 25.

Mala-

OF AUTHORS, &c.

Malachi, v. 72, 79, 87, 326. Manafleh Ben Ikael, v. 120,

141. ». 160. Mandeville, i. 42. ». 79. v.

369- Manetho, iii. 158, 166, iv.

119. Mann, iii. 248. Manutius, ii. 62. », Marcas, Aurelius, i, 297^) Marinus, ii. 92. n. Mark, v. 242. n. Markland, v. 304. Marfham, i, (165) «. 249. iii.

21, 32, 165, 183, iv. 107.

V. V. 212. n, 269. Martinius, iii. 89. Matthew, iv. 309, Mead, iv, 44, Melampus, iii. 54. Metrodorus, ii. 307. Meuriius, i. 1 36, 206. Micah, iii. 179. Middleton, i. Ded. 22. ii. 1 19.

». iii. Ded, 3. «. iv, 112. n.

V. 26, 290. Milton, i. 225, 295. ii. 38,

199. iii. 285, Minutius, Felix, v. 408, Montefquieu, ii. 13. «. Morgan, iii. Ded. 4, g. w, Molheim, v. 170. «. Muret, iii. 277, ».

Needham, iii. 96. w. 99. n, Nehemiah, iv. 282. v. 72, 79,

86. Newton, i. 98. ». ii. 222, 290.

iv. 29. ti. V, 385. Nicephorus, Gregoras, i. 148.

n. NyfTen, iii. io5. v» Numenius, ii. 152.

Origen, i. 139, 192. «. 199, 245, a. ii, 5 o, H. 93* «. 1 20,

127, 162, 164, 200. «, iii.

Pre/. 53. iv. 339. Orobio, iii. Ded. 1 1. Orpheus, ii. i 26. • Ovid, i. 203, 216. ». 229, «#

258. n. 300, ii, 130. Outram, iv. 374.

Palaephatus, ii. 132, 141. Parennin, iii. 94. Pafchal, V. 273. Paterculus, i. 214. », v. 28. Paul, i. 21, 23, 42, 84, 141,

196, 257.. li. 55. t>. 235.

297. IV. 137, 280. «. 295,

308. V. 4, 120, 133, 145,

215, 234. Paufanias, i. 140, 174, 178,

227, 252. Pericles, i. 257. Peter, iv. 308, Peters, iv. 351. »; Petit, ii. 63. ». 250. n. Phaedrus, v. 353. Pherecydes, Syrus, ii. 126, Philo, iv. 285. n. Philo Judaeus, v. 127. Philollratus, i. 195, 252. Photius, i. 141. w. 307. ii. 211, Pindar, i. 271. Plato, i. 58. «. 130. ». 153,

156, 185, 2^3. ii. 100. n.

189, 209, 224, 294, 32©-

iii. 102, 271, 296. w. Plautus, i. 153. n. Pletho, i. 273. Pliny, the elder, ii. 85, 275. n,

iii. i;2, 55, 62. n. the younger, ii. 53. iii.

Pref. -JS- Pluche, i. 161. ii. 309. », iii,

239. r. Plutarch, i. Ded, 10, 88, 90,

III, 12!^, «. 162, 167. //,

215, 224, 227. ii. 43. ».

102, III, 148, 162,;/. 165.

ALPHABETICAL LIST

». 189, 215, 227, 250. n, Schultens v. 43, 66, 78, 82.

320. iii. 189. n. 233, 274, Scipio Africanus, ii. 281. n.

298. Scott, V. 204, 237.

Pocoke, iii, 338, v. 167. n. Scriboniin Largus, ii. 90. «.

Folybius, i. 113. Seneca, i. De<:f. 35, 15. ii. Pope, i. 212. iii. 228, 298, loi. «. 109, 145. «. 154,

308, ft. 163, 213.

Porphyry, i. log, 1 18, 123. «. ■ the Tragedian, i. 268.

145, I57««» 204, 235, 237. Servetus, iv. 146.

zf. 279, 328. ii. 130. ». 216, Servius, i. 233, 250, 260, 282,

134. iii. 122, 199. ii. 139. iii. 70. ».

Pofidonius, ii. 223. Severus, Alex. ii. 51.

Pofthumius, ii, 61. Sextus Empericus, i. 91. ii. Frades v. 358. «, 119, 250. «,

Prideaax, iii. 9. ». 161. w. Shaftefbury, i. D^ij'. 12. rV. 25.

197, ». 219, 225, 232. V. zV. 33. 7J. 40, 41, 42, ii,

110. 36, 41, 83, 266. n. iv. 52,

PrQclus,!. 144, 257, ii. 307.iii. 417. v. 212. », 252. n»

107. ft. 137. 268.

Pfellus.i. 272. Shakefpeare, iii. 143. ». 180.

Purchas, iii. 73. «. 144. Shaw, iii. 189. ft.

Pyrrho, ii. iig. Sheringham, i. 105. iii. 165.

Pythagoras, i. 126. ii. 106, Sherlocke, Bp. iii. 316. «. iv.

221. iii. 122. 250. V. 167, 392.

Shuckford, iii. 21. ft. 42. 288. Quintilian, ii. 131. iii. Pre/. v, iv. 28. ». 83, 154. w.

50, 119, 175. n. 177. ». V. Simon, F. i. 176. iii. 106. «.

317. iv. 228, 360. «.

Smallbrooke, iii. Pref. 26.

Rabelais, ii. 318. Smith, iii. no, iv. 53.

Renaudot, iii. 165, Socrates, ii. 89, 115, iii. 3.

"Rogers, iii. Ded, 3. «. Solomon, iv. 289.

Rowe, ii. 37. ». Solon, i. 188. ii. 320,

Rubriquis, ii. 45. n. Sopater, i. 210, 227. w. 272.

Rufinus, iii. 182. Sophocles, i. 141, 146. iv. Rutherforth, iv, 269, 292. n. 188.

306. v. 149, 158. «. 16;. ff. Spencer, iii. ig. iv. 25, 83,

226, 266, 409. 123. «. 175. «. 236. V. 37.

Spinoza, i. 1 1 8. iv. 43, 46. St. Evremond, i. 217. ». 273, 330, 338. n.

Salluft, ii. 197. Stanley, ii. 211.

Sanchoniatho, i. 168. ii. 298, Stebbing, iir. Ded. 8. v. iv.

3C0, 302. iii. 78, 193. 212. ' 114. «. 172. w. 313. 33i»

». 127. 349. ». 353. «. V. 146,204.

Saxo, Grammaticus, iii. 276. w. ». 214. n. 292. 323. «.

Scaevola, i. 156. ». ii. 91. Stephen Martyr, iv. 39.

Scarron, i. Ded. \t. 27c. Stillingflect, iii. 159, 290.

Stobxus

OF AUTHORS, &c.

Stobsus, i. 112, 280. ii. 28, Turbevil, iii. g6. n.

149,210. Turnebus, i. i3i.n.

Strabo, i. 108. n. 140, 164, Tyndal, i. Ded. z^. iil. 5,

174, 205. H. 11.84,158.111. l©7. ». 1 10. «. iv. 33. a.

35. 39' 76. ». 136, 261. 330, 167. n. V. 275.

Strahlenberg, ill. 74. ».

Suetonius, i. 228. ii. 38. n. Valerius Maximus, ii. 66.

Suidas, i. 114. ii. 227. k. 229. Vane, Sir Henry, 11. 284,

w. ill. 194. n. Vanini, iv. 317. n.

Swift, u Ded. 15,20. Varro, i. 149. ii. 91, 127, Sykes, ii. 100. ». iSo.iv. 238. 180. iii. 257. ».

». 267, 294. n. 295. «. 336. Vellelus, i. 161.

«. V. 309, 321. Virgil, i. 199, 211, 218. ii. Symmachus, ii. 44. 229.

Syncellus, i. 245. «. ill. 52. Vitruvlus, i. 285. iil. 106. r.

Synefius, i. 148. 11. 95, 236. Voltaire, i. 219. iii. g. n. Syrianus, i- 147. 103. w.

Voflius, il. 310.

Tacitus, i. 258. ii. 45. «. 50, Ujceus, Anthony, i. Ded. g. n,

68, 281. ill. 76. «. 104. n.

225, 231. n. 257, 275. ». Walker, iii. 112. ti.

iv. iS. Walter, 11. "jz.n.

Tanaqull Faber, v, 317. Waicrland, iv. 67.

Tanchum, Rabbi, v, 160. Webftcr, iii. Pref. 26.

Tatian, ii. 226. iil. 150. ». Whilton, iv. 281, 346, n. v. Tavernier, 11.2. 151, 284, 334.

Taylor of Norwich, iv. 377. Whitby, iv. 284.

Terence, i. 58. w. 146. Wilkins, iii. 70, w.

TertuUian, i. 145, 178, 243. Witfius, iv. 26. v. 387.

ii. 210, 237. iii. 54. Wollarton, 1. 54. ii. 10.

Thales, ii. 227. Woolfton, \. Dtd. 11.

Themiftius, 1. 272, il. 44. Worceller, Bp. of, i, Ded. 38,

Themlftocles, ii. 92. n. Wycherley, i. Ded. 12. Theodoret, i. 192. v.

Theopompus, ii. 139. - Xenophon, ii. no, 115, 151. Thucyiides, v, j-j.

Tiberius, ii. 51. Zacynthus, ii. 99. ».

Timseus, ii. 78,143. Zateucus, 1. no.

Toiand, il. 99, 107, 219, 2S8, Zechariah, ill. n8. v. 93.

291. Zeno, 11. 161.

Torquatus, ii. 175. «• Zephaniah, v. 336.

Tournemine, iv. 248. Zeuxis, iv. 134. ».

Trajan, iil. Pre/. 49. Zinzendorf, Count, v. 198. n.

Trirmegillus, 11. 220,23c. Zofimus, i. 140, 18S.

ERRATA.

P. 49. 1. 31. for it varies, read, l^e varies,

P. 78. 1. 13. for fl« Adult erefs. r. a Projlitutc

P. 89. I, II. for hey X. ye.

P. 127. 1. 15. for hear, r. here.

P. 129. 1. 5. after early, r. mortals.

P. 169. 1. 31. for nx'ttiiis, r, /^a/ />f txants,

P' 255, J. I. for <iver</, r, njnords.

V