Skip to main content

Full text of "The Divine authority of the Old and New Testament asserted : with a particular vindication of the character of Moses, and the prophets, our Saviour Jesus Christ, and his apostles, against the unjust aspersions and false reasonings of a book, entitled, The moral philosopher"

See other formats

Stom f ^e feifitart of 

QprofcBBor ^dmuef (tttiffer 

in (gtemoti? of 

3ubgc ^amuef (gdifPer QBrecftinribge 

(Jpresenteb %t 

^amuef (glifPer QSrecfeinribge &ong 

to t^ feifirari? of 

Qprincefon C^eofogtcaf ^eminarj 

w^-k A 

u "/ 

I i 


. . .ClufA'^.i ■ t'^i; y 

t H E 





The Fourth Edition, Correfted and Enlarged« 

/ — —■ 

William, Lord Bilbop of Gloucester, 

Vol. V. 


Printed for A. Millar, and J. and R. ToNSOtr, 
in the Strand, MDGCLXV, 


O F T H E 



CONTAINS an Emmination of all the 
'Texts brought from the Old and New Tefla- 
ment to prove a future State of Rewards and Pu- 
nifhrnents did make part of the Mofaic Difpenfation, 

S E C T. I. 

States the ^efiion^ fhews the Adverfaries of 

this Work to have much miftaken it, — And that the 
true Jlate of the quejiion alone is a fufficient anfwer to 
all chjeMons^ p. i — lo. 

S E C T. II. 

Enters on an examination of the Texts hr ought 

from the Old Teftamenr -, firft from the book of 

Job which is proved to be an allegoric Poem^ 

written on the return from the Captivity^ and repre- 
fenting the Circumflances of the People of that time. 
— ^e famous words ^ I know that my Redeemer 
livethj Cfff. fhewn to fignify^ in their literal fenfe^ 
the hopes of a temporal deliverance only ^ p. lo 

Sect. III. 

Cciita.n: an examination of the reft of the Texts 
urged f'cfH ik' Old Teitament, p. 126—161. 


Sect. IV. 

Ccntains ayt examination of the 'Texts produced from 
the New Teftament, in which the nature of the 
ylpoftclic Reafonings againft the Errors of Jewijh Con- 
verts is explained and iliuftratedy p. i6i — 194. 

Sect. V. 

The agreement of the Fropofition of no future State 
hi the Mofaic Bifpenfation^ with the YIV^ Article of 

the Church of England evinced. That the Old 

Fathers looked for more than tranfitory Promifes, 

illujlrated in the famous cafe of Abraham ^ where 

it is proved that the command to offer Ifaac was merely 
an iiiformation^ in a reprefentative Action injiead of 
JVcrds^ of the Redemption of Mankind by the great Sa- 
crifice g/ Christ. ' Shewn how this Interpreta- 
tion overturns all the infidel objections againfi the truth 
of this part of Abraham's hiftory^ p. 194 — 28 1 . 

Sect. VI. 

To fupport the foregoing Interpretation^ The Origi- 
nal^ Nature.^ and Ufe of typical Rites and se- 
condary Senses in Prophecies are inquired into 

[n 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 againfi^ 

ell double Senfes of Prophecies in his book intituledy 
The Principles and Connexion of natural and re- 
vealed -Religion, &c. TheUfe and Importance 

of thefe Sjiejlious to the fubje^ of the Divine Lega- 
tion, explained. The Conclusion of the argu- 

?ncnt^—with a recapitulation of ity p. 281 — to the 



I ■ . ■ i 

»*^" " -" - ■■ ' ■' — - ■ " ■ " '■■ " -' "^" — - — '^ — "■"■■ " ■■■ ■■»'... 11.^ ^ 



O F 



'—"—-' — ' _ ■ ■' " ■ ■ ' ■■ ■ " ..I t . »iii.iii« . I .... iw m 


AFTER fuch convincing evidence that a 
FUTURE STATE did not make part of the 
Religion of Moses, the reader would not 
have fufpedled, he mufl: once more be ftopt to hear 
a long Anfwer to a fet of texts brought from the 
Old and New Teftament to prove, 'That the Doc- 
trine of a future fiate of reward and punifhment did 
make the mofi 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 ♦, but by many fober men of all Seds and 
Parties, of all Times, and of all Religions. 

I. Several of the ancient Christian Writers 

were fo perfuadedof this point, that not content to 

Vol. V. fi " fays 

2 ^hc Divine Legation Book VL 

fay, the dodrlne of a Future Itate made part of the 
Mofaic 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 
Hate to be in the Mofaic Religion ; though, to be 
jufl to all, with thf, fame inconfiftency and embar- 
ras that the others have maintained it \ However, 
the more current dodlrine hath always been. That 
a future ft ate 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 expedled from fuch 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 Bifhop Bull, whofe words, 
in a latin tra(^, for a future date's not being in the Mofaic 
Difpenfation 1 have quoted in the fourth fedion of this Vlth 
book ; yet in an Enghfh pofthumous fermon, he fcems to fpeak 
in a very different manner. — I fhould not have illullrated this 
ccnfure by the example of {k^ refpedlable a Perfon, but for the 
indilcrctioii of my Anfvverers, who, to fupport their own ;'// 
iogn^ have ex pofed his zTicr^A. 

^ latlorv 

Se£t. li of Mo s^s d€mt)72jirdted, ^ 

. 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 not 
have conveyed it to their People and Poftcrity. 

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 eflablifhed, 
had been received and ahufed 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 

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 fhall fee hereafter, to condu6t us through all 
the errors and perplexities of this region of darknefs^ 
till we come into the full and glorious light of the 

But in Religious matters, combinations much 
lefs ftrange are fufficient to defeat the credit of the 
plaineft Fad. 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 fev/, in the 

B a eourf^ 

A. The Divine Legation Book VI. 

courfe of this work. There is a fe6t, and that no 
inconfiderable one, which, being eflentialiy found- 
ed in Enthunafm, 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 
.nj!:aUr-ba.ptiJ]n was leail proper to be called in quef- 
tion-, being mofl invincibly eftablifhed by the 
pra6lice boch of Paul and Peter. This latter 
finding that the houfhold of Cornelius the Gentile 
had received the holy Ghoft^ 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, [Ads x. 47.] Paul, in his travels 
through the lelTer Afia, finding fome of _the 
Jewish Converts who had never heard of the Holy 
Ghojiy and, on enquiry, underftanding they had 
been only baptifed by water unto John's Baptifnty 
thought fit to baptife them with water in the name 
of the Lordjefiis^ that is, to admit them into the 
Church •, and then laying his hands upon them the 
Holy Gbojl came upon them^ and they /pake with 
tongues and prophejicd, [Ads xix. 4, 5, 6.] 

In fpite of thefe two memorable tranfadions, 
the Quakers have notwithilanding rejeded water- 
baptifm. What is the pretence ? " Water-baptifm 
{it lecms) is John's baptifm, 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 abdlifhed." Yet in the two hiftories given 
above, both thefe fancies are reproved -, and in fuch 
a manner as \i the (lories had been recorded for 
no other purpofe : For in the adventure of Paul, 
thd "-Joiiter 'baptifm ofjefus is exprefsly diftinguifhed 


Sed. I. cf Moses demonjlrafed. ^ 

from the water-haptifm of John : And, in that of 
Peter, it appears, that water-baptifin was neceflary 
for admittance into the church of Chrift, even af- 
ter the miniltration of baptifm hyfire, or the com- 
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 Jew^s 
and Gentiles, here a6ted in one another's pro- 
vince ', Peter the Apoftle of the Jews adminifter- 
ing baptifm to the gentile houfhold of Cornelius; 
and Paul the Apoftle of the Gentiles, adminifter- 
ing the fame rite to the Jewifti Converts. And 
why v/as this croiTing of hands but to obviate that 
filly evafion, that watc?'-haptifm was only partial or 

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

II. 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 b£ only preparatory to one that did teach it. 

^ Luke xvi. 8. 

B 5 Thi3 

6 The 'Divine Legation Book VL 

This therefore is their great fupport \ and wifely 
have thv^y inforced it by all the authority and 
power of the Synagogue ^ But what Chriftians 
gfijn by fo doing, I confefs I know not. What 
they lole hath been feen in part, and will be more 
fylly fhewn hereafter : not one demonftration only, 
^ of the truth of the Mofaic MifTion, 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 j and hath 
fpread from triie Religion to the falfe ; a fitter foil 
for its reception. For the Mahometans, who 
hold the divine original of the Jewifh Law, are 
as obftinate as tjie befl, in giving it this miftaken 
advantage : but, it mud be owned, under a modefter 
pretext. Their expedient for faving the honour of 
the Law is this : They confefs the Doctrine of a 
future flate is not at prefent to be found there : 


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

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

* See the Dedt.ation to the Third Volume, 

<* Taouraf — Les Mufulmans difent, que c'efi: Pancien Tefla- 
irent que Dicu revela a Moyfe ecrit en langue Hebra'ique, livre 
qui a etc aliere & corrunipu par le^ Juifs. r-C'eil la le fenti- 
jrent aes Mufulmans qui a ele recueilli de plufieurs auteurs 
^rabes par Hayj Khalfnb. Le meme auteur dit — que Ton 
r'y trouve pns aufll aucon endrcit ou il foit paile de Tautre vie, 
T)i dc la Refurreftion, ni du Paradis, ni de PEnfer, & que cela 
yifrnt peut ctre de cc que les [uifs out corrompu leurs exem- 
plairs. — Voyez. la Bibhotke^ue Orientqk de M, D'Herhlot, Mot. 
Xacdar r. 


Sed. I. §y^ M OS E s demonjlrated, ^ 

texts of Scripture which Christian writers have 
produced to prove, 'That a future ft ate of rewards 
and pinifhments does indeed make part of the Mofaic 


But here let me obferve, that the thing of moft 
confequence in this part of my difcourle will be 
to ilate the queftion clearly and plainly. When 
that is done, every common reader will be able, 
without my help, to remove the objedions 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 /i?^ Divine Legation o/Moses, in order 
to ufe it for the foundation of a proje6ted defence 
of Revelation in general, as the Difpenfation is 
compleated in Chriftanity. The medium I employ 
for this purpofe is, that there was 7to future ftate 
of reward and punifloment in the Mofaic Religion. I 
muft needs therefore go upon thefe two principles : 
I. That Mofes did 7tot difhelieve a future ftate of re^ 
ward and puniftoment, 2 . T h at his Religion was pre- 
paratory to the Religion of Jesus vohich taught 
fuch future ftate. Hence proceed thefe confe- 
quences ; 

I. From my holding that Mofes did not difielieve 
a future ftate^ it follows, that all thofe texts of 
Scripture which are bought to prove that the aneient 
Jews believed the foul furvived the hody^ 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 Miance between 
Church and State* 

B 4 fhewn 

g ^he D hi fie Legation Book VI. 

fliewn that the early Jews did indeed fuppofe this 

2. From my holding that ibe Religion of Mofes 
was only preparatory to the Religion of Jesus, it 
follows, that all fuch texts, as imply a Future ft ate 
cf rewards and punljkmcnts in their typical Jigni- 
fication only, a-e ji-fc as little to the purpofe. For if 
Mofes's Religion was preparatory to one Future, it 
is, as 1 fnave (hewn \ highly reaionable tofuppofe, 
that the eflential do6trineof thatNew Religion was 
fhadowed out under ihe Rites, or by the infpired 
penmen, of the Old. But fuch texts are not only in- 
conclufive, 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 neceffarily implies 
the throwing things, into fhade, and ffcreting 
them from vulgar knowledge ? What ground was 
there for that ci;iTin6tion br^tween a carnal and a 
fpiritual meaning (both 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 
of the fpiritual fenfe during the continuance of the 
firft ? Yet as clear as this is, the contrary is the 
do6lrine of my Adverfaries ; v/ho feem to think 
that the fpiritual 2Lnd the carnal (tnit muft needs al- 
ways go together, like the jev/el and the foil in 
Aaron's breaft-plate. 

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

^ See the lafl fed. of this vol, 

2 . urged 

Sc<3:. I . of Moses demonjlrated. ,^ 

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, that a Fu- 
ture ft ate of reward and funiftoment ixjas not taught 
in the Mofaic Difpenfatmi^ all texts brouo-ht to 
prove the knowledge of it after the time of David 
are as impertinc-nt 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 Writings out 
of the queftion. 

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 com- 
mon rights of Authors, of not being obliged to an- 
fwer to convi6l impertinencies, this part of my tafk 
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 ihail give the reader my reafons 
for this condefcenfion. 


we fhould diftinguiili between the mention of it 
by Moles, and by the following Writers. Thefe 
might, and, as we have faewn, did conclude for 
its exiftence from the nature of the thing. But 
Mofes, who, we fuppofe, intentionally omitted the 
mention of Future rewards and puniftmentSy would 
not, we mnft needs fuppofe likewife, proclaim the 
preparatory do6lrine of the Exiftence, Nor could 
he, on the other hand, deny what he knew to be 


'id 5^^ Divhie Legation Book VI. 

the truth. Thus, being neceflitated to fpeak of 
Enoch's "Tranfiation^ it could not be, but that a y^- 
f orate exijfefice might be inferred, how obfcurely 
foever the ftory was delivered. But had he faid 
any thing, in his account of the Creation, which 
literally implied (as the words, of man's being 
madem the image of God, and the l^reatb of life being 
breathed into his noftrils, are fuppoied to do) that 
man had an immortal foul, then muft Mofes be 
fuppofed, purpofely, to have inculcated that Im- 
mortality^ contrary to what we hold, that he pur- 
pofely omitted the do6lrine 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 reward 
AND PUNISHMENT ; fcveral texts are brought as 
teaching it in a typical fenfe, which teach it in no 
fenfe at all' : feveral as teaching it in a diredl and 
literal {cn^c, which only teach it in a typical. Both 
thefe, therefore, it may be proper to let in a true 

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 firfl dawn- 
ing of the do6trine of a Refurre5lion, and confe- 
qucntly of a Future fiat e of reward and punifhr}ient : 
even thefe therefore fhall 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 reprefentations was 
gradually drawn afide by the later, 


Sed. 2. of Mo s'ES demotijlrated. 1 1 

S E C T. II. 

HAVING premifed thus much to clear the 
way, and fhorten the inquiry, I now pro- 
£;eed to my examina^on, 

And firfl, of the texts brought from the Oj.d 


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


s Job's Life, by means of the Devil and his falfe Friends, 
was an exercife of his Patience ; and his Hijlory, by means of 
Criticifm and his Commentators, has fmce been an exercife of 
ours. I am far from thinking myfelf unconcerned in this mif- 
phief ; for by a foolifh attempt to fupport his Name and Cha- 
rader, I have been the occafion of bringing down whole bands 
of hoftile Critics upon him, who like the Sabeans and Chaldeans 
of old, foon reduced him back to his Dunghill. Some came 
armed in Latin, forae in Englifh, and fome in the language of 
Billingfgate. Moft of them were profelTedly written againll me j 
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- 
felf, that the vexation I gave him was foon over. If Ifcribbled 
^en pages on his back, my Adverfaries and his, have made iovg 
furrows 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 
jfingular event, the AiTailants have left me in pofleffion of all its 
fupports, and the Defenders have taken them all away * : the 
better, I 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 oa the book of [ob. 

IZ The Divine Legation Book VI.; 

thought by fome to "be the firflof Moies's writings; 
^nd by others to be written even before his time, 
and by the Patriarch himfclf, I fhall give it the pre- 
cedence in this inquiry : which it delerves likewife 
on another account, the fuperior evidence it bears 
to the point in queftlon ; if indeed it bear any evi- 
dence at ail. For it may be faid by thofe who thus, 
hold it to be the earlietl Scripture (allowing the 
yprd3, of Joh^ I know that my Redeemer liveth^ &c. 
to. refp^d a future flate) that the Jewifh people 
mull not only have had the knowledge of a fu- 
ture STATE cf re-wards and puyiifJoments^ but, what 
IS: more, of the resurrection of the. hody^ and 
{hill more, of the redemption of mankind by the 
Son of God : therefore Mofes had no need to incul- 
cate the do6trine of a future (late ''. But 1 much 
fufped that the clear knowledge of fo fublime a 
myftery, which St. Paul fays, had been hid from 
ages, and from generations, but was now (on the 
preaching of the Gofpel) made manifeftto 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, (he has enabled it to figure amongft 
the beft of its tribe : for, by a noble endowment of inlbnd, 
it u taught to make its way into the befl: accommodated, and 
beft ornamented (hells of its brethren ; which it either finds 
empty, or foon makes To, to fit them up for its own eafe and 

^ But if the reader would fee the abfurdlty of fuppofing the 
book cS Job to be written thus early, and at the fame time, to 
teach the refurreOion and a future ftate, expofed at large, he 
may read the 3d chapter o{ The free and candid examiuat ion of the 
U^iHOP oj London s Principles, 

» Col. i. 26, 


Seft. 2. of Moses demonjlrated. |J 

famous pafTage has a very different meaning. I 
fhall endeavour to fhew, that neither of theic iuipi:-»' 
cions would be entertained without reafon. 


Firft then concerning the book itfelf. 

As to the Perfon of Joh^ the eminence of his 
Charadter, his fortitude and patience in afflidtions, 
and his preceding and fubfequent felicity, thefe are 
realities fo unqueftionable, that a man muft 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 

In the order of this difcourfe therefore I fliall in- 

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

II. In what Age it was written. And, 

III. Who was its Author. 


Even thofe who are inclined to fuppofe this a 
Work of the higheft Antiquity, and to believe it afi 
exad hiftory of Job's fufferings and patience, 
and of God's extraordinary difpeniations towards 
him, recorded by his own hand, arc yet forced to 
confefs that the Introduclion and Conclufion are of 
another nature, and added, by a later hand, to 


t4 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VL 

give that fulnefs and integrity to the Piece, which 
works of imagination, and only fuch works, re- 
quire. This is a large conceflion, 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 fhonld have that opinion of 
it. I fhall therefore the lefs fcriiplq 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 circumilance which Ihewed it to be 
fuch a fort of work -, and which confequently 
might bring it down to an age remote from that of 
the fubjed:. But thofe who contrived this expe- 
dient feem to have had but a (lender idea of the an- 
cient Drarna-i which was generally rounded with a 
Prologue and Epilogue of this fort -, to give, by way 
of narrative, information of fuch fads as fell not 
within the compafs of the one entire Adion repre- 

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

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

^ Calmet makes the following obf^irvauon, in his comment 
on the irt verfe of chap, xxxviii. L'Ecrivain de cet Ouvrage a 
obferve de ne point employer ce nom de Jehonjah dans les dif- 
cours dire£\s qu'il fait tenir a Job & a fcs Amis: mais dans Ie5 
recits qui fontau commencement, et a la fin du Livre, il ufe de 
ce terme, comme font d' ordinaire les Ecrivains Hebreux. Ce 
qui dtmo7itre que V Ouvrage a ete ecrit par un Juif, et depais 
IWoyfe; puifque ce nom incommunicable nc fut conn u que 4«- 
puis 1' apparition du BuUTon ardent. 

Sea. 2. ^ M o s ES demon/lrafed, xg 

but the introdudion and conclufion is in meafure. 
But as it was the cuftom of Antiquity to write their 
graved works of Religion, Law, and Hiftory, in 
verfe, this circumtlance 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 ule of the arabic dialed 
to be infilled on, in fupport of its high original, 
fince, if it be of the nature^ and of the date^ here 
fuppofed, an able writer would chufe to give his 
Fable that air of antiquity and verifimilitude, 

2. But when we take t\\Q fentiments z\Qng^2indi 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 
cooled and molt abllraded fubje6t; we cannot 
chufe but conclude it to be a work of imagination. 
Nor is it fufficient to fay, that this is owing to an 
eaflern genius, v/hofe kindling fancy heats all 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 plained form of narration. And as to that 
eaftern genius itfelf, though didinguidiingly fub- 
lime when a poetic fubjedl has enfiamed its enthu- 
fiafm, yet in mere hidory, 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 ecdafy of the divine im- 
prefiions, when treating of the quedion here de- 
bated, namely, VFhether and wherefore th£ 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 apodafies had now 


1 6 The Drjhie Legation Book VI. 

provoked God to withdraw from them, by degrees, 
his extraordinary providence; when, I %, they 
touch upon this queflion, they treat the matter 
with the ucmoft piainnefs and fimpiicity. 

3. But the laft and moft convincing circum- 
flance is the form of the compofition. And here 
I fhall not urge, as of much weight, what hath 
been obferved by fome who take this fide of the 
quellion, the fcenical image of Job and his friends 
fittino- together on the ground feven days and feven 
nicrlits without a word fpeaking \ Becaufe we 
reafonably fuppofe no more to be meant than that 
excefs of mutual grief making them unfit to give, 
and him to receive conlolation, they were fome 
days "" before they entered on the fubjed of their 

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

* Chap. ii. 13. 

" — Eo quod Mclirael foleant multiplicare ^txfeptem (h. e. 
feptenarium numerum pro muliiludine poneie) Maimon, More 
nfVQchim, p. 267, 

■ Chap. ii. 11. 

Friendfhip 5 

feect. s. g/' Moses demonflrated, 17 

Friendlhip 5 but with all the fiercenefs and aeri- 
mony of angry Difputants contendingfor a vi6tory* 
It was no trifle neither that they infifted on, in 
which indeed difputatious men are often the vvarm- 
cil, but a contradidlion in the tendereft point. 
They would needs have it, againfb all Job's pro- 
teftations to the contrary, that his misfortunes 
came upon him in punilhment for his crimes; 
Suppofe their Friend had been wrong in the judg- 
ment he paiTed on things. Was this a time to ani- 
rnadvert in fo pitilefs a manner on his errors ? 
Would not a fmall Ihare of affection, pity, or 
even common humanity, have difpofed them to 
bear on^feven i^jj longer with their old diftrefled 
Acquaintance ? Human nature is ever uniform ; 
and the greater palTions, fuch as thofe of friend- 
lhip and natural affedlion, fhew themfelves to be 
the fame at all times : But we have an inilance in 
thefe very times, in that amiable domedic flory of 
Jofeph. This Patriarch had been cruelly injured by 
his brethren. Providence at length put them into 
his power ; and, in juil refentment of their in- 
hunlan ulage, he thought fit to mortify and 
humble them : but no fooner did he find them 
fcegin to be unhappy, than his anger fubfided, 
violated aff^e6lion 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- 
lhip to be inferior to thofe of Family-affedtion ? 
David thought otherwife^ where, fpeaking of Jo- 
iiathan, he declares their mutual love was wonder- 
ful, furpafling that of the ftrongeft natural aff^ec- 
tion, the paffion between the two lexes. The fame 
have always been the Friendfhips of good men, 
when founded on virtue, and ftrengthened/oy a 
fimilitude of manners. 

Vol. V. C So 

i8 T^he Divine Legatioji Book VI* 

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

But fuppofe now the work to be dramatical., and 
we immediately fee^ the reafon of their behaviour. 
For had they not been indulged in their flrange 
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 contradid, when they did begin to 



o The Cornifh Critic thinks otherwife, " Thefe falfe friends, 
** (fays he) are defcribed as having fo much fellow feeling of 
** job's fufFerings that they fit with hini feven days and nights 
" upon the ground without being able to fpeak to him. If 
** this be the dramatic way of reprefenting falfe friends, how 
•' fhall we know the fiilfe 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 be the dramatic 
ivay of reprefenting <i fa fe patriot (may our Critic fay) honju Jhall 
nve hno^ the falfe from the true F 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 fuiFering Acquaintance 
with the mofl injurious refle<5lions? Indeed the Critic deferves 
our pity, who cannot fee that the formal circumftance offuing 
J:/ent fe-ven days was a dramatic embellifhment in the eallern 
manner : The not knowing that the number/i,'f/7 was a facred 
number amongft the Jews> may indeed, be more excufable. — • 
But he goes on, *' 1 have been often ftruck with furprifc to fee 
" him [the author of the D. L.] very earneftly endeavouring 
** to fupport his allegorical interpretation of the book of Job hy 
'* arguments drawn from the contratiiclion?, which he fanciet 
*' he has there efpicd, to the truth of the hiftory 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 Hoface^^ 
** O zwi'/V, referent J &c. that tho' every thing therein may be 

*< accommodated 

Se6l. ±. o/' M o s E s demonftrated, 19 

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

** accommodated to a republic, yet it is true in the Jitc^I or 
** primary fenfe only of a (hip, and that there is not One fmgle 
** ftroke in it that can be underftood of a republic and not of 
** a fhip; and this might fliew him his millake in applying 
'* pafiages in the book cf Job to the Jewiih People, kerelv 
** becaufe they cannot 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 muft be con- 
" cerned as that two and two mull go to make four." p. 99, 
100. — The infolence, the fraud, the nonfenfe of this paffage 13 
as much without example as it was without provocation. — 1 de- 
fire to underhand, by what other means, except by revelation, 
an allegorkal writing can be known to be allegorical, but by 
circumilances in it which cannot be reconciled to the ftory 01* 
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 
a writing to be allegorical from this circumftance is one of ths 
■greatefl abfurdities. When the allegory is of fome length, and 
takes in the life arid adventures of a certain perfon, it can fcarce 
he otherwife but that foriie circumilances in it muft be varied 
from the faft, to adapt it to the moral. In a fhorter, where 
the objed is rtior^ fimple, there may be no need for any varia- 
tion. And this ftiews the dinngenuity of this man, in bringing 
the ode 6f Horace into comparifon. For which tod, the little 
he knows, he is indebted to the author of the JD. Li And how 
little that i3 we fhall how fee. 

In the firft place, I have (hewn this Ode not to be of the 
hatnre 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 
hot to be a fingle Jiroke in it that can be underfiood of a republic 
Sand not of a Jhip : But this is a fpecies of writing entirely di- 
ftind from the allegory in queftion ; fo that the urging it was 
impertinent : and the follov/ing obfervation is made with his 
ufual infolence ; — this wight fe<vj him his mijlake in applyin9 
paffixges of the book of Job to the Je^vifh People p^eRELY becauft 
they cannot be under food of fob I but not with infolence only, 
but with fraud : For I do not apply paffages in the book of 
job, MERELY for this reafon ; no nor principally j but only a» 
•ne of many reafons. 

C % However, 

20 7be Divine Legation Book VI. 

du6t, we (hould needs confefs that the divine Wri- 
ter had here done, what mere mortal Poets fo fre- 

However, contending for fuch diTcordant circuriiilances In the 
vehicle-ftorv, he fays, is direSlly 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 allegory t^o things or perfons 
ir.uji he con'cerned, as that tnx)o and tixo muji go to make four. 
What he means by this jargon of inuo's being concerned, I know 
not. If he means that the fahle and the wor«/muft go to the 
making up the allegory, no body will difpuce it with him. 
But if he means, that all the perfonages in t\\Q fable mull have 
all the qualities, attributes, and adventures of the perfonages in 
the moral, all uiEfop's fables will confute this profound reafoner 
on allegories. However fomething, to be fure, he did mean : 
He had a notion, 1 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 ufeful as I can, I will endeavour 
to explain his meaning. It is certain then, that tho' the juftice 
of allegoric writing does not require that the fadts in the fable 
do in reality correfpond exaftly with the fads in the moral, yet 
the truth of things requires the pojjibility of their fo correfpond- 
ing. Thus, tho' the Afs perhaps never adlually covered himfelf 
with a Lion's Ikin, and was betrayed by his long ears, as .^fop 
relates, yet we have an example before us, fufficient to convince 
us that he might have done fo, without much expence of in- 
Itinft. But when Dryden made his Hind and Panther difpute 
about the dodrine and difcipline of particular Churches; as 
they never poffibly could have done fo, this (to take his own 
words, inftead of better) is dire^ly annihilating the allegory he 
nvould ejiablijh ; for it is as plain that in an allegory tnvo thitrgs 
or perfons muf be concerned^ as that tivo and t<wo muf go to make 
four. But I fancy I afcribe more to his fagacity than it de- 
ferves, in fuppofjng, that he underftood, what kind of allegory 
the book of job mufh needs be, if it be any allegory at all. I 
now begin to fufpeft he took it to be of the fame kind wth 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, ccmparifons un'ike ; but becaufe this fufpicion may give 
fome light to his cloudy obfervation, that tnjjo things or perfons 
muJl be concerned : For in that fort of allegory, which is of the 
nature of a relation containing a doible fenfe primarily and. 
fecoadarily, every thing faid mull agree exadly both to the pri-» 
mary and to the fecondary fubjed* Which perhaps is what 


Sed. 2. 5/* Moses 4^monJlrated. 21 

qqently doj that is, had ♦traqfgrefled nature (in 
fuch a reprefentation of friendlliip) for the fake of 
his Plot. But we Ihall lliew, when we come to ex- 
amine the MORAL of the poem, that nature is ex^ 
adly followed : for that under thefe three miferable 
Comforters^ how true friends foever in the Fable^ 
certain falfe friends were intended to be (hadowed 
out in t\\Q Moral ^, 

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

this man means by his clumfy precept, of invo things or ferfons 
concerned. The reafon of this diftinftion, in thefe two forts of 
allegory, is this, — Jn that fort of allegocy which is of the 
nature of the book of Job, or of the apologue, the cover has 
no moral import : But in that fort which is of the nature of a 
NARRATIVE WITH A DOVBLE SENSE, the cover >^^; a mprol 

P To this, the Cornifh Critic, — <* What a happy way is 
** here of reconciling contradictions ! It feems truth may be- 
** come falfhood, 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 premiiTes." p. 19. \i his kind 

Reader knows what to make of this jargon of truth becoming 
faljhood and the conclufion halving more in it than the premij/es^ he 
may take it for his pains. All that the Author of the D. L. 
afferts to be here done, and which may be done according to 
nature and good fenfe, is no mo^e th^n this, that a dramatic 
Writer, when he fetches his fubjefi; from Hiftory, may alter cer- 
tain of the circumflances, to fit it to his Plot ; which all dra- 
matic Writers, antient and modern, have done. Much mor? 
reafonable 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 Make^: of this allegoric work at 
liberty, for the better carrying on his purpofe, to reprefent 
them 2isfal/e ones. Yet, this liberty, our wonderful Critic calls 
reconciling contradi^ions^ making truth become falfhood, and I can't 
^elj whatnonfenfe befides, of premijjh and conclufions, 

C 3 they 

22' ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

they objed, they anfwer, they reply -, till, having 
exhaufled their whole ftock of arguments, and 
made the nnatter 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,-^0€o\ d-rro [^vix°^^'^^' And 
if ever that precept of the matters of compofition, 

J^ec Deus interjit^ niji dignus Vindice nodusy 

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 amongfl men concern- 
ing the MYSTERIOUS WAYS OF Prov|dence ? And 
that this interpofition was nothing more, I think, 
js evident from hence : The fubje^l, as we ob-r 
ferve, was of the higheft importance, namely. 
Whether^ and why^ good men are unhappy^ and the 
evil profpercus ? The difputants had much perplex- 
ed the queflion 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 ftrid 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 


5 Naimonides having given a fammary of the difpute, draws 
this inference from it: Vi.-Ie ^ perpends , qua ratione hoc nego - 
tium (onfufos reddiderit homines, tsf ad fententias il!as de froui' 
dentin Dei er^a creaturas quas expo/uimus permo'verit. Y^t, when 
he comes to Tpepk of the folution of thcfe difficulties, he could 
find none. But not to fay nothino;, (the thing moft dreaded by 
Commentators) he pretends to c'ifcover, from the cbfcurity in 
which things are left, the trHe ko'^^ of the book of Job ; Hie 


Scd. 2 . of Moses demonjlrated. 2 3 

plain proof that the Interpofition was no more 
than a piece of poetical Machinery. And in tliat 
cafe we fee thereafonwhy the knot remains untied : 
for the facrcd Writer was no wifer \ when he fpoke 


fuit fcopus totius lihri Johi^ ut fcUket conjlituatur hie articulus 
jideii isf doceatur, a rebus fiaturalibus difcendum e]fe, ut ?ion er- 
remuSj cut cogitemus Jcicntiam ejus [Dei fc.] ita fe habere ut fcien- 
tiam nojiram ; intentionem^ pro'videniiam, i^ gubernctionem ejus^ 
ficut intentionern, proijidentiamy ^ gubernationem nofaam, Mor, 
JKev. p. 3. c. xxiii, 

' Here Dr. Grey exclaims — ** How, Sir, nonvi/er? Is God 
** introduced to unfold the myllerious 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 iiui/e enouih to untie it ? Is that a fpeech to the purpofe, 
** which in a Controverfy, as you will have it, where the dif- 
** putants have much perplexed the queflion, and a fuperior 
<* Wifdom woai ivanted to determine it, clears up no diiHculties ? 
** 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 llraits?" An/iver to remarks, p. 125. 
Softly, good Dodlor ! 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 modefiy, 
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 refpe(flive 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 Doftor's queftion. Is that a fpeech 
to the purpofe, <which in a controverfy njohere the difputanis hanjt 
much perplexed the quejlion, and a fuperior <ujfdom, <u:as 'wanted ta 
determine it, clears up tw difftcultiesf 

Indeed, though there was no untying the knot, there was a 
way to cut it, which would have done full as well ; and that 
was hy revealing the do^rine of a future Hate. 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 diflertation, 
bgt 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 

Nor does fuchidea of this truly divine Compofi- 
tlon at all detract from the proofs we have of 
the real exiflence 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 illuftripus Charader or celebrated Ad- 

liot 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, // is but f mall comfort thai arifes from refolding all into 
fuhm Jf on to the almighty ponxjer of God. p. 107. St. Paulindecd 
'tells us, it is the greateft comfort^ as well as wifdom, to refolve 
till into fuhmiflio7i to the almighty ponxer of God, — But Dodors 
differ. - ■ 

From the matter of the D. L. the Do6lor proceeds (as we 
fee) to the language. — L it language ft to be made vfe of 
r^ishitif caking cf a took diP.c.ted by thefpirii of God ? — The lan- 
guage hinted at, I fuppofe is what he had quoted above, that the 
facrcd nxriter <uas no iiifer nahen he fpoke poetically in the perfon of 
Go:!, Sec. J think it nt unfits and for thefe reafons ; a Prophet 
fpeakingor writing by infpiration, is jull fo far and no further 
cnl'g'.tfned than fuits the purpofe of his Miflion. Now the 
clearing up the iryfterious ways of Providence being referved 
amonglt the arcana of the Deity, a Prophet (tho' employed to 
^nd the foolifh and hurtful difputes about it, amonglt men, by 
an appeal t>j the incomprehenfible nature of the Deity) was 
certJiinly, when he made this appeal in the perfon of God, no ivifer 
in the knowledge of this arcanum, than ^vjhen he fpoke in the 
terfn cf Job or his friends, 


Sed. 2. of Mo SE s demonjlrated, 2^ 

venture for the fubjedt of the Piece, in order to give 
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 hiflorical, 
have fallen into this paralogifm, nat^ if dramati- 
mU t^^^ i^^ Perfon and Hiftory of Job are fi5iitious. 
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 fpecies of compofition. 

. Totum autem, quod referas, fingere, id efb, 

ineptum effe, 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'. 
Xou know^ there are certain men who fay^ that fuck 
41 man as Job never exijled. And that his hist oky 
is nothing elfe hut 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 

' No/it quefJam ejfe, qui dictmt Jcbum nunquam fnijfe, neque 
(teat urn ejje ; fed histqriam illius nihil aliud ej/g fuam Pa" 


26 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

Ezekiel, becaufe that Prophet mentions Job*. 
Which argument, to have any flrength,. mull fup- 
pofe Job to be unknown until this Book was writ- 
ten i confequently that his Perfon was fidlitious \ 
contrary to his own fuppofition, that there was a 
real Job Uving in the time of Mofes ". After this, 
it is no wonder, that the Author of the Archaologioi 
Pbilofophicf, whofe talent was not critical acumen, 
Hiould 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 hillory from a real Job. Ezekiel and St. James 
(fays Dr. Middleton, in his elTay on the Creation 
and Fall of Man) refer to the book of Job in the 
fame manner as if it were a real hiftory. Where- 
as the truth is, they do not refer to the boo^ op- 
Job at all. 

* Chap. xiv. ver. 14. " Vid. Grotii Praf. in Lihrum 

* This Writer endeavouring to prove the high age of JoB^ 
or of the Book of Job, for thefe two things, after better reafoners, 
he all along confounds, clofes his arguments in this manner, De~ 
nique poji format am rempuhlicam Judaic^nn, fecretamque a c re tens 
gentibus, per infituta propria v5 legem a Deo datam : non facile, 
(redo, banc fan^am gentem^ ejufdem temporis i^ fecculi alienige" 
nam, n;el bominetn GentHem, in exanplum pietatis propofturam, 
tiut ipjius n^a l^ hiftoriam in facros eorum codices relaturam. Ar- 
chaiol. Philof. p. 266. ed. 8vo, 1728. The Reader fees; all the 
ilrength of the argument refts,on this falfe fuppofition, that the 
book mud 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 inferted, if compofed (as we lliall fee it was) 
by a Jewjfli Prophet, 

11. The 

Sed. 2. of Moses demonjlrated. 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 alkifion 
to the Rites or Ceremonies of it, nor any hiftori- 
cal circumftance under it, nor any fpecies of ido- 
latry in ufe during its period, fliould be found in 

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

7 Johns Arabs -sroXyAiXsiTo? >cj -nroXyfiaSo??* in cujus hiftoria multa 
occurrunt antlquze fapientiae veftigia, antiquior habetur Mof» 
Idque multis patet indiciis : Primo, quod nullibi meminerit re- 
rum a Mofe geftarum, five in ^gypto, five in exitu, five in de- 
ferto. — Secundo, quod, cum vir pius & veri ntiminis cultor 
fuerit, legi Mofaicae contraiverit, in facrificiis faciendis. — Tertio, 
ex astatis & vitae fuas menfura, in tertio, plus minus, a Diluvio 
faeculo collocandus ^^o. videtur : vixit enim ultra ducentos an- 
nos. — Cum de Idololatria loquitur, memorat primum ipfius 
genus Solis & Lunas adorationem. — Neque Sabliathi neque 
pllius legis faditiae meminit. — His omnibus adducor ut cre- 
dam, Mori Jobum tempore anteiffe. Archaol. FhiloJ\ p. 265, 

% the 

sS ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

the reafon of the thing fo evidently demand this 
conduct, and the negled: of it has fo ungracious 
an effedt, 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 
PoeUfed mnnia fub eorufUy qui illo tempore viicerunty 
dixerunt ^, 

But to lay no greater flr^fs on this argument 
than it will bear; I confefs ingenuoufly, that were 
there not (as the objedlion 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 thouo;h this rule of de-^ 
€orum be fo eflenpal to dramatic writing, yet, as 
the greateft Mafters in that art frequently betrayed 
their own Times and Country in their fiftitiou^ 

« Veil. Pater. Hijl. 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 miltake I am going to take 
notice of This learned Critic, to confute the fyilem I ad- 
vance, that the fubj-edl of the argumentative part of the book 
of Job was, Whether y and ^vhy^ the good are fometimes unhappy and 
the bad pro/perous ; and that the queftion was debated for the 
fake of the Ifraelites in the time of Ezra ; obferves as follows;, 
*' Zopher fays, c. xx- 4, 5. Kno^eji thou not this of old, fince 
** man <voas placed upon earthy that the triumphing of the n.vickei 
** ii Jborty and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment F Now 
•' lay your hand upon your heart, Sir, and afk yourfelf ferioully, 
•' whether this can relate to an extraordinary Providence over 
*' the Jews only. p. 1 1 1." He is fo pleafed 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 refleft upon 
this rule of good writing, Nihil enim ex Perfona PoetiCy fed. 
0J:ir.iafiib eoruniy qui illo tempore njixerunt, dixerunt. 

Sed. 2. of MOsES demnfcrafed. ^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 plainefl and fimpleft 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 mofl exa6t and beft inftr.u6led V/riter. 

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

* From amongft many inftances 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, Troy perijhes» 
And for wukom ? For you, cruel Helen, nvho, as they fay, are 
ihe daughter cf Jupiter, n.vho, under the form of a Bnjcan ha'S 
commerce vAth Leda. — So far is well : becauTe we may fuppofe 
the 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 njoritings of the Poets be not 
fabulous, the Author had forgot himfelf ; for the Poets who em- 
beliilhed her ftory, lived long afterwards. 

^ Chap. xvii. ver. 5. ^ Chap. xXi. ver. 19. 

•^ Here the Cornifh anfwerer affirms, ^* that this method of 
" puniftiment was not peculiar to the Jewiih Policy, but was 
**. obferved, in fonie degree at leaf, with refped to all rnan- 
"** kind." For which he quotes ifaiah'*s threatenings on the 
Children of the king of Babylon, chap. 14, 20, ^j^^. That 
is, in order to prove that God punifed the crimes of the fathers 
on the children in fame degree at leaf, ivith rejped to all mankivdy 
ht quotes an inftance, not of the general providence of God to 
^U ciankind, but a farticu/ar diipeniation to the Babylonians : 


50 T!he 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 do6lrine^ paints at large 
the happy condition of profperous wicked men ; 
a principal circumftance of whofe felicity is, that 
they fpend their days in tvealth^ and in a moment go 
down to the grave ""^ i. e. without flcknels, or 
the terrors of flow-approaching death. The lot 
which profperous libertines of all times, who be- 
lieve no future reckoning, moil ardently wifli for. 
Now in the declining times of the Jewifh CEcono- 
my, pious men had always their anfwer ready. 
The profperous wicked man (fay they) Ihall be pu- 
nilhed in his Pofterity, and the afRided 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 J and he pall know it ^ As much as to fay, 
the evil man fees and knows nothing of the punilh- 
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 eyesjhall 
fee his deftru^ion^ and he fJoall drink of the wrath of 
the Almighty : For what pleafure hath he in his hbufe 
after him^ when the number of his months is cut off in 
the midft 2. 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 

and not a particular punifhmcnt, which fclefts out the children 
of tranfgreding parents, but a general one, which in the nature 
of things, necelTarily attends the total overthrow of a State or 

* Chap. xxi. ver. 13. ^ Ver. 19. < Ver. 20, 2t* 


Seft. 2. of Moses demonjlrated. 3 { 

In another place. Job lays, nat idolatry was 
an iniquity to he punijhed by the judge \ Now both 
this and the former fpecies of punifhment 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- 
flance at leaft, appears from his mentioning only 
the moil early fpecies of idolatry, the worfhip of 
the Sun and Moon '. Again, the language of Job 
with regard to 2l future ft ate is the very lame with 
the Jewifh Writers. He that goeth down to the 
grave (fays this ^v'lttv) foall come up no fnore : — -they 
/ball not awake or he raifed out of their Jleep, Thus 
the Pfalmiil, — In death there is no remembrance of 
thee. — Shall the dead arise andpraife thee I — And 
thus the author of Ecclefiailes, — The dead know 
not any things neither have they any more <?'Ri* 
WARD ^ And we know what is was that hindred 
the Jews from entertaining any expedations of a 
future Hate of rewards and punifhments, which 
was a popular doctrine amongil all their Pap-aa 

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

^ Chap. xxxi. ver. 28. Mr. Locke thought this fo dedfivft 
'a proof that the book of Job was written after the giving thg 
Law, that he fays, Twis place alone, were there no 
•OTHER, is fufficient to confirm their opinion qj^ho conclude thai 
look to he nurit by a Jen^j.-^Third Letter for Tote ration , p. 8f-2., 
Let thofe Critics refled upon this, who think there is no foot* 
ftep nor (hadow of allufion to any thing relating to the people 
of ifrael. 

* Vfif. 2^, k Sec Vol. IV. p. 35^. 


gs The Divine Legation Bock Yh 

feigned Compofition, made in an age remote from 
the fubjedt : and that is, the ufe of later phrafes>, 
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; efpecially 
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 fo 
may be eafily traced up to their original : though, 
being long ufed in common fpeech in a general 
acceptation, they may w^ell efcape even an atten- 
tive Writer. Thus Zophar, fpeaking of the wick- 
ed man, fays : He ftoall ttot fee the rivers^ the floods ^ 


ordinary fpeech only conveyed the idea of plenty in 
the abftra6l ; but feems to have been firfl 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 hear f" , That is^ he obedient: but the 
phrafe was taken from the verbal delivery of the 
Jewifh Law from mount Sinai. The Rabbins were 
fo fenfible of the expreflive pecuHarity of this 
phrafe, that they fay the Law of Moses is here 
Ipoken of by a kind of prophetic anticipation^ 
Again, 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 full fe- 
curity : Evidently taken from the refidence of the 

^ Chap. XX. ver. 17. ^ See Exod. iil. 8. — xiii. 5. 

*— X'xxiii. 3, 4. t-Deut. xxxi. 20. — 2 Kings xviii. 32, 
■ Chap. .Nxii. ver. 23. "" Ghap. xxix. ver* 4. 


Se£l. 2. ^ M s E s demonjlrated, 33 

Divine Prefence or She kin ah, in a vifible form^ 
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 zvould anfwer 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 phrafe 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 

A third circumfliance, 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, amongil 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 bell 
policied, and the mod magnificent Empire then 

exiftirig in the word. IVhy died I not from the 

womb (fays the chief Speaker) for now J Jhould 
have lien Jim and been quiety Ifbould have Jlept -, then 
had I been at rejl-, with ku^gs and counsellors 


themfelves '^. i. e. magnificent buildings, in defd- 
late places, meaning plainly the Pyramids, railed 
in the midfb of barren lands, for the burying 
places of the kings of Egypt. — Ki7igs and ccun- 
fellors of the earth — v/as, by way of eminence, the 
defignation of the Iilgyptian Governors. So Ifaiah 
— //^^ counfel of the w(/e counfellors of Pharaoh is he- 

f Chap. xxxi. ver. 35 — 6. "^ Ch^p. Hi. ver. ij, i^y 

Vol. Yh X) come 

24 "Tlje Divine Legation Book VL 

come hrutiJJj, How fay ye unto Pharaoh^ I am the 
fon of the wlfe^ the fon of ancient kings \ But it 
may be oblerved in general, that though the 
Scene confined the Author to fcattered Tribes in 
the midft of Delerts, yet his images and his ideas 
are, by an inlenfible allure, taken throughout, 
from crouded Cities and a civil-policied People. 
Thus he fpeaks of the Children of the wicked 
being crufJjcd in the gate \ alluding to a City taken 
by ftorm, and to the dcilrudion of the flying in- 
habitants preffing one another to death in the nar- 
row pafTage of the City-gates. — Agahi, of the good 
man it is laid, that he floall be hid from the fcotirge 
of tongues ^ •, that peililent mifchief which rages 
chiefly in rich and licentious Communities. But 
there would be no end of giving infliances 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 allufions to the mi- 
raculous Hiftory of his Ancefl:ors with ferious/j^r- 
pofe and deftgn. For this poem being written, as 
will appecir, for the comfort and folace of his Coun- 
trymen, he reafonably fuppofed it v/ould advance 
his principal end, to refrefh their memories with 
fomc of the more fignal deliverances of their Fore- 
fathers. In the mean time, decorum^ of which we 

^ Is A) All xi>:. 1 1. 

5 Chap. V. ver. 4. The Septiiagint renders it very exprel^ 

* Vcr. 21. evidently takfn from rhefe words of the Pfalmift, 
Thov Jhalt kt-cp ihem ftcntly in a fa^oi ion frrm the Jlrife of tongttcs^ 
Pf, xxxi. 20. I'or which was the copy and which the original 
can here admit no doabt, fince the imaoe was an obvious one in 
the Pfamill, who lived in a prent city, Ic-fs natural in Job who 
JivtJ in a dcfcri, as we have obfcrvcd above. 


Sea. 2, </ M o s Es demon/Irate^^ 3 r 

find him a careful obrer\^er, 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, v/ithout negledling his Purpofe, or deform- 
ing his Compofition. How then can we conceive 
a Ikillful Artift would a6t if not in this manner j 
he would touch thofe (lories, but with fo flight an 
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 temper our divine 
Writer, we fay, hath obferved. The condud was 
fme and noble : and the cloud in which he was 
forced to wrap his fludied aliufi.ons, will be fo far 
from bringing them into queilion, that it will 
confirm their meaning •, as it now appears, thac 
if an able Writer would, in fuch a work, make al- 
iufions to his own Times, Religion, and People, 
it mull be done in this covert manner. Thus Job, 
fpeaking of the Omnipotence of God, — which 
commandeth thefun^ and it rifeth fiot^ andjealeth up 
theftars^'j plainly enough alludes to the miraculous 
hiflory of the people of God, in the Egyptian 
Darknefs^ and the flopping of the Sun's courfe by 
Jofhua. This appeared io 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- 
leptically, as knowing by the gift of Prophefy, 
what God in a future age would do \ So where 

" Chap. ix. ver. 7. 

* Hoc videtur refplcere hiftoriam Jofuae vel Ezechiae, quan- 
quam ante ilia Job extiterit. Sed hsc potuerunt per anticipa- 
tionem dici, quod Jobum non lateret penes Deum efTe id cfficere 
quandocunque lubtret, Codurcus in locum* 

D 2 Job 

'5 6 7h Diniine Legation Book VI. 

Job fays, God divideth the [ea with his power ^ and by 
his underftanding he fmiteth through the proud ^^ he 
evidently refers to the deflru6lion of Pharaoh and 
his hoft in the Red-fea. Again, in the following words. 
He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of 
the earthy and caufeth them to zvander in a wildernefs 
where there is 770 way % who can doubt but that 
they allude to the wandering of the Ifraelites forty 
years in the wildernefs, as a puniiliment 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 
Jhew thee^ hear me ; and what I have feen I will de- 
dare \ which wife men have told from their fathers^ 
and have not hid it ^ : the very way in which Mofes 
diredls the Ifraelites to prelerve 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 : Unto whom alone the 
earth zvas given^ and no stranger passed 
AMONGST THEM \ A circumftancc ao-reeing- to 
no People whatfoever but to the Ifraelites fettled 
in Canaan. The fame Eliphaz, teUing Job to his 
face, that his misfortunes came in puniihment for 
his Crimes, fays : T'hou haft taken a pledge from thy 
hrothcr for nought^ and ftripped the naked of his 
cloathing \ And Job, fpeaking of the moft pro- 
fligate of men, defcribes them, amongll 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 greateft enor- 

y Chap. xxvi. ver. 12. ^ Chap. xii. ver. za. 

* Chap. XV. ver. 17, 18. ^ Ver. 19. *^ Chap. xxii. 

ver. 6. ^' Chap. xxiv. ver. 7. ^ Ver. 9, 10. 

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


Sedi:. 2. of MosES demonfirated. 37 

mities, but will rcfledt that it mud have been v/ric- 
ten by one well fludied in the Law of Moses, 
which fays : If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiinent 
to 'pledge^ thou jh alt deliver It unto him by that the fun 
goeth down ; for that is his covering only^ it is his 
raiment for hisjkin: Wherein fh all he Jleep ? And it 
Jhall come to pafsy when he crieth unto me^ that I will 
hear^ for I am gracious. Which Law, as the 
learned Spencer obferves, "WdiS peculiar to this infli- 
tution^ Elihu, fpeaking of Good's dealing with 
his fervants, fays : " That he may withdraw man 
" from his purpofe^ and hide pride from man, he 
** keepth back his foul from the pity and his life 
*' from perifhing by the fword. He is chaftened 
*' alfo 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 meffenger with him, an interpreter^ 
*' one amongji a thou f and to fhew unto man his up* 
*' rightnefsy then he \% gracious unto hrm, and faith, 
*' Deliver him from going down to the pit ^ I have 
*' found a ranfom. His flefh fhall be frefjjer than a 
*' child' Sy he fhall return to the days of his youth. 
^* He fhall pray unto God, and he will be favour- 
*^ able unto him, and he Iliall fee his face with 
f« joy \ for he will render unto man his righteouf- 
** nefs^." This is the moft circumftantial ac- 
count of God's dealing with He2ekiah, as it is 
told in the books of Chronicles and Kings. God 
had delivered him from perifhmg by the fword of 
Sennacherib : " In thofe days Hezekiah v/as ficli; 

^ Leges illae in Dei tantum Pandedis inveniendse funt, 

^empe, de njejiibus. pignori datis, quibus de pecunia concredita 
cavebant debitores, ante folis occafum, reftituendis. — De Leg^ 
^ebr, Rit. vol. i. p. 263. 

? Chap. xxiJi, ver. 17, y feq. 

D ^ 5' to 

3? T^e 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 
" f,ck 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 fnalt die and not live. Then he turned 
** his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lcrd.-^ 
*' And it came to pafs, afore Ifaiah was gone out 
" into the middle court, that the word of the 
*' Lord came unto \\\m^ faying^ 'Turnagain^ and tell 
*' Hezekiah, Thus faith the Lord, I have heard 
*' thy prayer^ I havey^^« thy tears : Behold I will 
*' heal thee-, on the third day thou pah go up unto 
" the houfe of the Lord, And Ifaiah faid, Take a 
*' lump of figs -, and they took and laid it on the 
*' boil, and he recovered'.'^ — The following words 
as plainly refer to the deftru6tion of the firft-born 
in Egypt, and Sennacherib's army ravaging Judea: 
In a moment fh all they die^ and the people fhall he 
troubled at midnight and pafs away^ and the mighty 
fioall he taken away without hand ^\ Thefe likewile 
clearly allude to the Egyptian Darknefs,— /r^wi the 
wicked their light is witJjholden ^ 

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

* 2 Chron. xxxii. 24, 25, ^ 2 Kings xx. i. ^Sfjk^, 

^ Cxhap. xxxiv, ver. 20. ^ Chi^p. xxxviii. ver. 15. 


Sed. 2. cf M OS E s demonjlrated, 39 

the righteous : hut^ 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 be bound in fetters^ and be holden in cords of 
ajfii^ion : then he fheijceth 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 hiniy 
they fhoM fp end their days in profperity and their years 
in pleafure ^ but if they obey not^ they fJiall perifh by 
the fword^ &€"". Now hear the facred Hiftorian. 
-»— " God had faid to David and to Solomon his 
*^ fon. In this houfe and in Jeruililem, 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 ManalTeh made Judah 
*' and the Inhabitants of Jerufalem to err. — And 
^' the Lord fpake to ManalTeh, and to his people : 
*' but they would not hearken. Wherefore the 
*•' Lord brought upon them the captains of the 
*' hoft of the king of AiTyria, which took Ma- 
'^ naffeh amongft the thorns, and bound hirn 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. xxxiii. 

ver. 7—13. 

P 4 But 

40 ^le Divine Legation Book Vl^ 

But the moft extraordinary allufion of all to 
the JewiJJo Oeconomy, and the mod incontellable, is 
in the following words, where fpeaking of the 
clouds of rain ^ our translation has it, He caufeth 
it to come^ whether for corre5fisn^ cr for his 
LAND, or for mercy "" . The Septuagint underftood 
the facred text in the fame manner. Taura c-ui^t^- 

Tu)>clat -srac* auT8 liri rrig yrig, loiv t£ slg ■urociiBiocv, Iccv sls 

rnv y^iy aurs, loiv i\<; £X£{^ £u^'/fcrfi d^rov. The mean- 
ing of which is, he bringeth it at fuch jundures, 
and in fuch excefs, as to caufe dearth, [for cor- 
reolion •,] or fo timely and moderately, as to caufe 
plenty, \for mercy ;] or laftly, fo tempered, in a long 
continued courfe, as to produce that fertility of foil 
which was to make one of the bleflings of the pro- 
mifed land, [for his land :] a providence as di- 
flin(ft from the other two, of correP/ion and mercy ^ 
as the genus is from the fpecies. This is afufficient 
anfvver to the learned Father Houbigant's criticifm 
on this verfe, 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, inflead of, — . 
whether for correction, or for his land^ tr^nHate^ 
five in UNA Tribu,^?^'^ 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 
th^ v/ords of his contemporary prophet, Amos. — 
*^' And alio I have witholden the rain from you, 
'^' when there were yet 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 controverfy, however, 
^he Writer fpeaks of a special providence upor\ 

p Chap, xxxvii. 13, 


Seft. 2. g/" Moses demonjlrated. /^\ 

God's own Land, the land of Judea ; which plainly 
fhews that the peculiarity of the Jewijh Oe£onomy v/3iS 
Hill iippermoft 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 exadlly 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 laft obfervation I (liall make on this 
point) in the management of thefe Allufions, we fee, 
the Author has obferved a flri6l decorum : and, to 
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 circumltances 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 Objedion 
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 Objedion any real foundation. 
They who make it, had been ftill much puzzled 
to account for the Author's filence concerning the 
fix days Creation^ and the inftitution of the Sahbathl^ 
as it mufl reduce them to the neceffity of fuppof- 
ing that thefe things were unknown to Job. And 
confcquently, that the Sabbath was not a moral, 
hut a pofitive Law only of the Jewsj tho' Mofes, 

p Peut. iv. 32, 


4.2 The D hi fie Legation Book VI,, 

to imprefs the greater reverence upon it, feems to 
make it coeval with the Creation. How they will 
get oyer this difficulty I 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 QEconomy ; fo, 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 diflinguifh the Ifraelites from 
all others ; and that therefore the mention of a 
thing fo wellknovv^n to be a Rite peculiarly Jewifh, 
would have had an ill effedt, in the mouths of 
men who lived before the Mofaic Law was o-iven. 

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 paiTages 
limilar to what we find in the Plalms. 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 fentences 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 v/ould 
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 latter's having 
lefs nature and force j and he thinks he fees this in 
the book of Job"*. Now admitting the truth of 


1 — Grotius croit avec beaucoup plus de vrai-fembiance, que 
cet autjiur cil polk.icur k David k a Salomon^, dont il femble 


Seft. 2. c/' M o s E s demonfirated, 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 obierved 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 effect would have been juft 
the contrary in awriter 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 Ihewn. This obfer- 
vation we fee verified in the greek authors of the 
Socratic age, and in the roman authors of the Au- 
guftan, when they borrowed from their very early 
country writers. But the matter of fa6l is, I think, 
juft otherwife. The advantage of the fublime in 
the parallel paffages 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 judicieufement 
qu*il y a dans ce livre des manieres de parler, qu'on ne trouve 
que dans Efdras, dans Daniel, & dans les Paraphrafes Caldai- 
ques. Codurc, dans fon Commentaire fur Job, a auffi remarque 
plufieurs Caldailmes dans ce livre, & quelques perfonnes favantes 
ibutiennent, 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 peuc-etre, comment on peut favoir, que c'efl I'auteur 
du livre de job, qui a imite ces Pfeaumes, & non pas les au- 
leurs 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 I'original, qui 
exprime ordinairement les chofes d*une maniere plus netie & 
plus nattirelle que la copie. Scntimens de quelques 1 htoi de 
HqI.^, 183. 


44 TJ^ 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 perfed by a long ftudy of elo- 
quence, in the Socratic and Auguftan ages •, and 
as if it was equally impofTible 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 exprefied the 
iheanty and weight 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 Englilli- 
Reporters. The truth is, the language of the 
times of Job had its grandeur, its purity, and fub- 
limities : but they were of that kind which the 
. learned Miffionaries 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 afliftance of that unifor- 
mity of Character which makes the more fequef- 
tered inhabitants of the Eaft fo 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 CEcommy^ We fay further, that it muft 
he fomewhere between the time of their approaching 
captivity^ and their thorough re-efiahlijJoment in Judea, 
This is the wideft interval we can afford it. The 
reafon feems to be decifive. It is this. That no 
other poffiblc period can be afligncd in which the 
GRAND QUESTION, debated in this book, could 


Stfl:. 2i of Mos.z^ demonjlrat&d. ^,^ 

ever come into difpute. This deferves to be con- 

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

*■ The befl and ableft Critics are generally agreed, and 
have as generally taken it for granted, that this quejlion is the 
flibjeft of debate between the feveral difputants in the book 
of Job. It would be abuling 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. •— Operse pretium efl: admonere te, amice 
Leflor, quid nobis de tota hujus Libri materia cogitandum effe 
videatur. Primum quidem amici Job iic ftatuunt, quando- 
quidem tot tantifque cladibus Deus amicum ipforum Job 
alHixir, ei Deum effe iratum ; eum igitur poenas lales aliquo 
fcelere, vel aperto, vel occulto commeruilfe. Cujus fu?e fen- 
tentiae telles adhibent generationes hominuni priores, in quibus 
inauditum eft, inquiunt, Deum ^el integros fjiros afpernatu7n^ 'vel 
imp'tos tnanu appreherJiJJe. Si quis noilr^ astatis homo iic dif- 
putaret, nemo effe quin ejus teraeritatem atque audaciam mi- 
raj^tur, qui rem aperte falfam fumeret, cum fspiffime evenlat 
et fummas miferias experiri hac in mortali vita viros bonos, et 
florentifiimam fortunam, flagitiofos. Tamen Job, id quod eji 
maxime conjiderandum, 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- 
liris, poterat confutare. Atque etiam idem Job alterum negans, 
tales fe miferias crimine aliquo fuo fuiffe commeritum, alterum 
tamen non diffimulat, Deum fibi adverfari; in qua ipfa fandli 
viri confeffione adverfariorum caufa ex parte vlncebat, cum fuas 
clades Job lie acciperet, ut irss divinae confueta figna, cumquc 
inde non parum animo ^lluaret. Qus cum ita iint, nos iiic 
exiftimamus, non falfos fuiiTe memorise teftes Job amicos j 
atque adeo, primis mundi temporibus, homines impios 
fuifle, prcEter folitum naturse curfum, divina ira percuffos, 
iifque acceptos plagis, quarum fandli homines eifent immunes; 
Deo opt. max. humanas res ita moderante, ut Religionem ia 
terris tueretur, et ut homines, cum talia cxempla paterentur 
cogitarent effe in coelo Deum juftum, a quo mortales ut rede 
faclorum praemium fperare deberent, f:c fcclerum ultionenx 
timere. HousiGANX in librum Jab, le^ori, 

t But 

46 ^e Dhme Legation Book Vl 

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


*But fince the writing of my DifTertatiori, the language of the 
Vabbinical men has been greatly changed. And, partly to 
keep up the antiquity of the book, but principally to guard 
againft an extraordinary Pro-jidEnce^ feveral of them, in defiance 
of their fenfes, have denied that this, which this honell Prieft of 
tne Oratory makes to be the fubjeil of the book of job, has 
indeed any thing at all to do with it. Amongft the foremoft of 
thefe is Dr. Richard Grey the epitomifbr of Albert Schultens' 
Comment on this book. In the preface to his Abllrad, amongft 
other things, he has criticifed my opinion of the fcope of the? 
book in the following manner. — Nam quod dicit vir clariff. id 
priccipue in hoc libro difceptari, nempe an bonis Temper bona, 
malifque mala, an utrifque utraque promifcue obtingent; hanc 
autem qua:ilionem (a nobis quidem alienam, minus ideo per- 
penfam) nufquam alibi gentium, prseterquam in Judaea nee apud 
ipfos judaios alio quovis tempore, quam quod alTignar, moveri 
.potuifle, id omne ex veritate fuoe hypothefeos pendet, et mea 
quidem fcntentia, longe aliter fe habet. Praf. p. 10 — 15. 
For as to iKihat this writer [the audior of the D. L.] fays, that 
4he 7nain quejiion handled in the book of Job is ^^hether geod hap- 
tens to the goody and enjtl to e'vil meny or ^vkether both happen 
not promi/cuQuJly to both ; and that this quejiion (a 'very foreign 
em to usy and therefore the left attended to J could nc-vcr be the 
Ju^jeSl of difputalion a7iy nxhere but in the land cf Jud^euy nor 
there neither at at?y other time than that ivhich he ajjigns ; all this, 
■Jfayy depends on the truth of his hypothefs, and isy in my opinion^ 
far Qthcr-jjifs. — That which depends on the truth of an hypothefis 
has, indeed, generally fpeaking, a very flender foundation : 
-and I am partly of opinion it was the common prejudice againft 
this fupport which difpufed the learned Prefaccr to give my 
notions no better a name. But what I have fhewn to be 
the fubje£l of the book is fo far from depending on the 
truth of my hypothecs, that the truih of my hypothcfis de- 
pends on what 1 have fliewn to be the fubjccl of the book j 
and very fitly fo, as every reafonable hypothcjii fhould be fup- 
ported on a facl. Now 1 might appeal to the learned worlds 
whether it be not as clear a fad that the fubjecl of the book 
of Job is njshe: her good happens to the good, and e-vil to e'vil men^ 
•or ixhetber both happen not pronrifcuo'fy to both ; as that the fub- 
jeft of the firft book of Tufculan Dfputations is de contemnenda 
morte. On this I founded my hypothefis, that the book of 
Job muft have been written about the ume of Efdras, be- 


Sea. 2. of Mo SB s demonjlrated, 47 

the' good are always pr offer ous^ a?id the had unhappy ; 
<jr whet her y on the contrary y there he notftich apparent 


caufe no other affignable time could at all fult the' fuhje^l. 

. But 'tis poffible 1 may miftake in what he calJs jny 

hypothrjis: for ought I know he may underiland not that of the 
book of Job, but that of the Diuine Legation. And then, by 
my hyf'othejjsy he mud mean the great religious principle I en- 
deavoured to evince, that thi- Jews were in reality 


-paving me a very unufua! compliment to call that my hypothecs 
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 Anfvoerers to 
the Divine Legation direftly deny. However, if this be the 
hypothefis he means, I need defire no better a fupport. But the 
tiudi is, my interpretation of tlie book of Job feeks fupport 
from nothing but thofe common rules of grammar and logic on 
which the fenfe of all kind of writings arc or ought to be in; 

He goes on in this manner. Nempe id unum voluifie mihi 
videtur facer Scriptor, ut iis omnibus, utcanque afflidis, humi- 
litatis et patientias perpetuum extaret docunientum ex contem- 
platione gemina, hinc iniinitae Dei perfedionis, fapienti^ & 
potentise ; illinc humanas, qu« in fandliffimis quoque viris inelt, 
corruptionis, imbecillitatis & igncrantias. For the sole *«r- 
-pofe of the /acred ^vriter feems to ?m to he thls^ to compofe a 
nvork that Jhould remain a perpetual document of humility and 
-patience to all good men m affile ion from this t twofold corfidera-m 
tion^ as on the one hand of the infinite perfe^ion, poi.vcr, and 
ivifdom cf God ; fo on the other ^ of human corruption j imbecillity^ 
and ignorance, df. operable en; en in the heft of men. Such talk 
in a popular difcourfe, for the fake of a moral application, 
might not be amifs : but to fpeak thus to the learned world, 
is furely out of feafon. The Critic wi'l be apt to tell him, 
he hath miftaken the Ador for the t^uhjed ; and that he miahc 
on the fame principle as well conclude that the purpofe of 
Virgil^s poem is not the eftablii^iment of an empire in Italy, 
but the perfonal piety of ^neas. But to be a little mere ex- 
plicit. The book of Job confifts of two diftindl parts; the 
Tiarrati've, contained in the prologue and epilogue; and the argu- 
mentativ€y which compofes the body of the work. Now when the 
quellion is of the fubjedl of a book, who means any other than the 
body oi it? yet the iearaed Doftor miftaking the narrative part 


4? ^he Divhte Legation Book VI. 

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


fbr ths argument aii've^ gives us tiie fubjeft 6f the introduftion 
and conclufion for that of the work itlelf. And it is very true 
that the beginning and the end do exhibit a perpetual document 
of humility and patience to all good 7nen in affiidion. But it is as 
true that the body of the work neither does nor could exhibit 
any fuch document. Firft it does not ; for, that humility and 
patience, which Job manifefls before his entering into difpute, 
is fucceeded by rage and oltentation when he becomes heated 
with unreafonable oppofition. Secondly, it could not; becaufe 
it is altogether argumentative ; the fubjefl of which mud needs 
be a propofition debated, and not a document exemplified. 
A precept may be conveyed in hillory, but a difputation can 
exhibit only a debated queftion. J have fhevvn what that 
queftion is; and he, inflead of proving that I have affigned A 
wrong one, goes about to perfuade the reader, that there is na 
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 veritaiibus diHertetur, 
hunc tamcn quem dixi unicum efle libri fcopum, tarn ex initio 
et fine, quam ex univerfa ejus ceconomia cuivis opinor mani- 
feftnm erit. Ea enim, ut rem omnem fummatim comple(^ar, 
Jobum exhibet, primo quidem querentem, expoilulantem, 
«ffraeni lu6lui indulgentem ; mox (quum, ut facri dramatis 
natura poftulabat, amicorum contradidllone, fmiilrifque fufpi- 
cionibus magis magifque irritatus et faeeffitus eilet) impruden- 
tius Deum provocantem, atque in juftitia fua gloriantem ; ad 
debitam tandem fummifTionem fuique cognitionem revocatum, 
turn demum, nee antea, integritatis fuas tarn pr?emium, quam 
tellimonium a Deo reportantem. For although in the fpeeches 
that occur y there be much talk of religion^ ^virtue^ and pronjidenciy 
of God^s nti/dom, jujlicey and holuiefs in the gyvemment of the 
i0)rld, cf one principle of all things^ and other mofl important 
truths, yet that this ivhich I huue i>£igned is the on 'y f cope of the 
heck 'uoiU appear manifeji to every one^ as nvell from the beginning 
and the end as from the aconomy of the ^-whole. For to fay all in 
a <word. it firji prefents Job complainingy expo/iulutingy and tM- 
dulling himjelf in an ungovernable g^ief : but foon after (ivheny 
4ti the nature of the/acred drama requiredy by the confradiSiion of 
hr friends y and thnr ftntjhr J'ffuioniy he became more and more 


Seft. 2. of Mo si£B demonjlrated, 49 

teized and irritated) rajhly challenging God, and glorying in hii 
cnvn integrity : yet at length brought back to a due fubmijjion and 
knowledge of himfelf. The reader fees that all this is juft as 
pertinent as if I (hould fay^ Mr. Chillingworth's famous 
book again ft Knot the Jefuit, was not to prove the religion of 
Frotejiants a fafe tvay to falvationy but to give the pi<fture 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 affigned 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 iwix. of 
all prefents the fophift quibbling, chicaning, and indulging 
himfelf in all the imaginable methods of falfe reafoning : and 
foon after, as the courfe of difputation required, refting on his 
own authority, and loading his adverfary wich perfonal calum- 
nies ; yet at length, by the force of truth and good logic, 
brought back to the point; confuted, expofed, and put to 
filence." Now if I fhould fay this of the book of Chilling- 
worth, would it not be as true, and as much to the purpoi'e, 
as what our author hath faid of the book of job ? The matters 
in the difcourfe of the Religion of Protejlants could not b* 
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 aiiiidlion?, complaining and expollulating ; impatient 
under the contradidlion 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 miiled him we have taken notice of above. And he 
himfelf points to it, where he fays, — the fubje^l I have aJJ'.gmd 
to the book of Job appears the true both from the beginning and 
the END, It is true, he adds, and from the O economy of the ivhole 

Which he endeavours to prove in this manner : For it firji 
prefenis Job comptajning, expojiulating^ and indulging himfelf in 
an ungo<vernable grief: but foon after (^vheny as the nature of 
the facred drama required, by the contradiSlion of his friends ^ and 
their Jin fer fufpicions, he became more and ntore tei%..ed and irrita- 
ted) rajhly challenging Gody and glorying in his onxjn integrity : 
yet at length brought back to a due fuhmifjion and knonjo'edge of 
himfelf \ and then at laji, and not before ^ receiving f)-o7n God both 
the reixard and tejiimony of his uprightnefs. This is indeed a 
fair account of the conduct of the drama. And from this it 

Vol. V. £ appears, 

CO "fhe Divine Legation Book YI. 

appears, iirll, that that which he alTigns for the sole scopeoF 
the book cannot be the true. For if ifs defign were to give a 
perpetual document of huvuhty and patience^ how comes it to' 
paG, that the author, in the execution of this defign, repre- 
ients "Job ccmplainingy expoftuLning^ ajid indulging himfelf in an 
ungQverna''le grief, rafblj c'oalhiiging Gody and g'orying in his 
o'wn integriiy ? Could a painter, think you, in orcer to repre- 
il-nt the eaie and fafety of navigation, draw a vefTel getting 
with much pains and dimculty into harbour, after having loft 
all her lading and been mlierabiy torn and fhattered by a 
tempell ? and yet you think a writer, in order to give a dccu" 
meat of humilily and patience^ had fufhciently difcharged his 
plan, if he made Job conclude refigned and fibvii five ^ 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 lDOok is the 
true. For if, in Job's didrefsful circumllances, the queftion 
concerning an equal or unequal providence were to be debated : 
His friends, if ihey held the former part, mull needs doubt of 
his integrity ; this doubt would naturally provoke Job's indig- 
nation ; and, when it was, caufe him to fly out into 
the intemperate exceffes fo well defcribed by the learned Doclor; 
yet conlcious innocence would at length enable patience to do 
its office, and the conclufive argument for his integrity would be 
•his refignation and rubmiilion. 

The learned Writer Turns up the argument thus. Ex his 
inquam apparet, non primario agi in hoc libro de providentia, 
-five sequali, five iucTquali, fed de perfonali Jobi integritate. 
From all this, I fay it appears, ihut the perjonal integrity cf jfob^ 
u'nd not the quefiion concerning an -ei]ual or -unequal Providence is the 
fr ' 'ipal Jubjeil of the book. He had before only told us his 
o, 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 omnino obfervandum 
eft) in dubium vocaverant amici, non ideo tantum quod 
affliftus eflct, fed quod aiflidus impatientius fe gereret, Deique 
jullitijc obmurmuraret : et qui ftrenuus videlicet aliorum hor- 
tator fuerat ad fortitudinem ct conitantiam, quum ipfe tcn- 
taietur, vidlus labafceret. For that [i. e. his perfonal inte- 
grity] it nxas ^which his friends douhttd cf not Jo muh on ac- 
count of his affliJlion, as for the not bearing his offliiiivn nxjith 
fatiencey but murmuring at tie j'^fice of God. And that he^ 

Seft. 2. c/ Moses demonjlrated, £x 

fivho tvas a ftrenuom advifer of others to fortitude and confancVf 
Jhouldf ^\:hen his ozvn trial came, Jink under the Jlroke of his 
difajlers. — But why not on account of his afii£lions ? Do not 
We find that even now, under this unequal dillribu'cion of 
things, cenforious men (and fuch doabtiefs he will confefs 
Job's comforters to have been) are but too apt to fufpecl great 
aiHi(flions for the punlfliment of fecret fins. How much more 
prone to the fame fufpicion would fach men be in the time of 
Job, when the ways of Providence were more equal ? As to his 
impatience in bearing afliii'.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 diftrailed confcience. 

Well, our Author has brought the Patriarch thus far on his 
way, to expofe his had temper. From hence he accompanies 
him to his place of reil ; which, as many an innocent man's is, 
he makes to be in a had argument. Quum acceflerat fandi/nmi 
viri malis, hasc graviiBma omnium tentatio, ut tanquam im- 
probus et hypocrita ab amicis damnaretur, et quod unicum ei 
fupererat, confcientise {\\'s, teftimonio ac folatio, quantum ipfi 
potuerunt, privandus foret, quid mifero faciendum erat f Ami- 
cos perfidije 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 cenfaris, injuftifque criminationibus, ad 


REM fibi afFuturum, Deumque a fuis partibus ftaturum, fum- 
ma cum fiducia fe noviife affirmat. A^c-x-y ijohen (fays the learned 
Writer) the moji grievous trial of all <v:as added to the other 
evils of this holy perfn ; ta be condemned by his friends as a 
profligate, 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 'was left for the unhappy man to do ? He accufs 
his friends of perfidy and cruelty ; he calls upon God as the ivit- 
Tjffs and avenger of his integrity : But vohen m it her God intsr-m 
pofed to vindicate his innocence, nor his friends forbore to urge 
their harfl? cenfures and unjuji accv fat ions, he appeals to that last 
JUDGMENT, in vjhich ivith the utmoji confience he fffimis that 
he knevj that his redeemer, nvould be prefent to him, a?id that 
God ijcould declare in his favour. To underftand the force of 
this reprefentation, we mufl have in mind tliis unqueftionable 
truth J " That, be the fubjedl of the book what it will, yet if 
tlie facred Writer bring in the perfons of the drama difputing, 
he will take care that they talk with decorum and to the pur- 
pofe.'* Now we both agree that job's friends had pretended 
at leaft to fulpeft his integrity. This fufpicion it was Job*8 

£ 2 buiioefs 

y^ The Dhine Legation Book VI. 

bufinefs to remove ; and, if the Doflor's account of the fub- 
jeil:, be right, his only bufinefs. To this end he offers va* 
rious arguments, which failing of their elfefl, he, at lad, (as 
tlie D.;6lor will have it) appeals to the second coming of 
THE Redeemer of mankind. But was this likely to fatisfy 
them ? They demand a prefect folution of iheir doubts, and 
he lends them to a future judgment. Nor can our Author fay, 
"(though he would infmuate) that this was fuch a fort of ap- 
peal as difputants are fometimes forced to have recourfe to, 
when they are run aground and have nothing more to offer : 
For Job, after this, proceeds in the difpute; 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 miflaken, when he fald that the 
perfonal integrity of Johy and not the quejiion concerning an equal 
or unequal Pronjidence^ ^vas the tnain fuhjeSi of the book : And we 
may venture to fuppofe fo, without much danger of doing 
him wrong : for, the dodlrine of a future judg?nent affords a 
principle whereon to determine the quejiion of an equal or 
unequal Provide7ice ; but it leaves the perfonal integrity of Job 
juft as it found it. But the learned Author is fo litde folicitous 
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 11 
cardo controverfise fuiifet, utrum, falva Dei juflitia, fanfti in 
hac vita, adfligi poflent, haec 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^verfy had turned on thisy Whe^ 
iher or no., ccnjijicnily nvith God^s juJiicCf good men could be afliSied 
in this life, this declaration ought to have finijhed the debate .* 
hut if the quejiion <vo;re concerning the perfonal innocence of Job, 
it <uuas no njoonder that they fill fing their old fng, and <went 
on as the)' had begun, to condemn their much aflicled J'riend ; fince 
it ivcs in thi po-iver of God alone to explore the hearts of Tr.en^ 
and to knciv for certain ^whether it ivas foPs piety that rightly 
cpplied a confolntiony or nvhether it tvas his 'vanity that arrogated 
a falfc confidence to himfelf This is a very pleafant way of 
coming to the fenfe of a difputed pafTage : Not, as of old, by 
fhewing it fupports the Writer s argument, but by (hewing it 
fupports the Critic's hy^othefts. I had taken it for granted that 
Job reafoned to the purpofe, and therefore urged this argu- 
ment againll underuanding him as fpeaking of the Rejurreclion 
in the xixth chapter. ** The difputants (fay 1) are all equally 

" imbaraffed 

SeA. .2. ^/MQSi:..s demonflrate,d. 53' 

the latter part % and His three friends the formen 
They argue thefe points throughout the whole 


'* imbarafled in adjufting the ways rf Providence. Job affirms 
** that the good man is fometimes unhappy j the three friends 
*' pretend that he never can be fo ; becauie fuch a fituarioa 
•' would refleft upon God's juftice. Now the doftrine of a Re- 
** furredion fuppofed to' be urged by job cleared up all this em- 
*• barras. Jf 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, ncr allow it 
*' to be decifive. But without the leall notice that any fucli 
** thing had been urged, they go on as they begun, to inforce 
** their former arguments, and to confute that which they 
** feem to underftand was the only one Job had urged againfl 
•* them, viz. the confcioufnefs of his own innocence." — Now 
what fays our learned Critic to this r Why, he fays, that if I 
be miltaken, 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 Refurredion ; namely, becaufe it deferved 
none. As to his being in the right, the reader, I fuppofe, will 
not be greatly folicitous, if it be one of the confequences that 
the facred Reafoner is in the wrong. However, before we 
allow him to be right, it will be expedled he Ihould anfwer 
the following queftions. If, as he fays, the point in the book 
of Job was only his per/onai innocence, and this, not (as I fay) 
upon the principle of no innocent per/on being miferabky I 
would afk how it was poflible that Job's friends and intimates 
ftiould be fo obftinately bent on pronouncing him guilty, the 
purity of whofe former life and converfation they wer^ fo well 
acquainted with ? \i he will fay, the difputants went upon that 
PRINCIPLE, I then aflc how came Job's appeal toa Refurreflion 
not to filence his oppofers ? as it accounted for the juftice of 
God in the prefent unequal diltribution of things. 

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


as much as to fay, this is the point or general queftion between 
us, and I flick to the affirmative, and infill: upon its truth. The 
words which follow are remarkable. It had been objedled. 
that when the good man fuffered it was for a tryal ; to this Job 
replies : If the fcourge flay fuddenly, he iv'dl laugh at the trial of 
the innocent y ver. 23. fu'ddenly, or indfcritninately as Schultens 
rightly underftands it ; as much as to fay, wheh the fword de- 
vours the innocent and the wicked man without dilUntlion, if 
E 5 the 

'54 ^'^^ Divine Legation Boo^ VI. 

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

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


the innocent will diftinguifh his ill hap from the wicked man's 
and call it a tryal, the wicked man will mock at him j and in- 
deed not v/ithout ibme ihew of reafjn. 

* " Suppofing (fays the Cornifh Anfwerer) we (hould allow 
** fuch an equal t'ro^^idence to have been adminiftercd in fudaai 
** yet, fince he himfelf reckons it the utmoil extravagance 
** to iuppofe it any where elfe ; what an idea does he give 
** us of the talents of Ezra ? who according to him has intro- 
** duced perfons who were no Jews debating a quellion fo pal- 
•* pably abfurd as that it never entered into the head of any 
*' me man living to m'ike a quejiian of it out cf the land of 
** judisa? confequently could not vvith the leafi probability 
♦• or propriety be hand.rd by any bat Jews. Is this like one 
<* who, he would make us to believe, was a careful obfr-ver 
** cf Deccrnvi? certainly the rule of Decorum would have 
*' obliged him reddere perfonae, &c. as Horace fpeaks — either 
•* to look out for proper perfons to debate his Queftions, or to 
** fit his queflion to the perfons." I fhould have reafon to 
complain of this infolcnce of Language, fo habitual to thefe 
Anfwerers, did it not always carry its own punilhment along 
with it. For, look, in proportion to their rudenefs, is generally 
their folly, or ill faith. — Sup^c/ing (fays this man) ive pould 
allo^M fuch an equal Providence^ &c. — Now, when the Readelr 
confidcrs I am only contending for the aSiual adminiilration of 
fuch a providence as the Bible, in almoft every page, reprefents 
to have been adminiftered, will he not naturally fuppofe this to 
be fome infidel- writer making a gracious conceflion even at the 
expence of his owui caufe ? But when he is told that the writer 
is a minifter of the Gofpel, will he not conclude that his head is 
turned with the rage of AnfiKering ? 

He te'ls 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 ffom whence he pretends to deduce this propo- 
fuion, convid him of impofture. — This (fay J) could never 


Scdi. 2. 5/^ 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, ac all times, 
have been indifcreetly- prone to enquire how this 
inequality could be made confiflent with God's 
juflice or goodnefs : But, amidft the great variety 
of human opinions, as extravagant as many of 
thofe are which philofophic men have fome time 

ha've been wade matter of difpute^ FROM THE most early sup- 
posed TIME OF Job's existence even to ours, in any 
place out of the land of fudea. Which furely implies it might 
have been a queftlon then ; or why did I relhain the cafe to 
the times fence Job's exiflence ? Was it for nothing ? In fa^H: 
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, 1 contented myfelf with the hint con- 
veyed in this limitation, which jull ferved to lay in my claim to 
the ufe I ihould hereafter have for it. The truth is, the ftate 
of God's providence in the nicji early fuppofed time rf Job^s ex- 
ifence is a fubjeft I fhall have occafion to confider at large in 
the laft volume of this Work, where I employ it, amonoft other 
-proofs, to illaftrate and confirm the conclulion 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 partSy and fuch 
talents beft fuit their bufinefs, which is, to find fault. — Tiiey 
will fay, they were not obliged to wait. But who obliged 
them to write ? hn^ if they fhoi Id wait longer, they will have 
no reafon to complain : For the cloudy and imperfedl concep- 
tion they have of my argument as it now ftands, is the moll 
commodious fituation for the carrying on their trade. How- 
ever whether they prefer the light of common fenfe to this datk- 
refs occafioned by the abfence of it, or the friendly twilight of 
Polemics to both, I fhall not go out of my way to gratify their 
humour. I have faid enough to expofe this iil'y 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. 

E 4 or 

j6 The Divine Legation Book VI, 

or other maintained, we do not find any of them 
ever held or conceived that God's providence was 
eq^uaUy adminiftered. 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- 
ilration, the contrary was as evident. 

Of this period then, there are three portions: 

1. The time immediately />r^<:^^/>^ the captivity; 

2. The duration of itj and 3. The return from it. 

To the opinions which place it in either of the 
two firft portions, as fuppofing it to be written 
for the coniblation of the people going into or 
remaining in captivity, a celebrated Writer has 
oppofed an unanfwerable objection : " The Jews 
*' (fays he) undoubtedly fufrered for their ini-p 
*' 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 contradids all the Pro- 
*' phets before, and at the time of, their capti- 
*' vity, and is calculated to harden the Jews in 
*' their fufferings, and to reproach the Providence 
** of God \" 


^ Tl>e life and hieni of Pyophe/y, l^c. p. 2o8. gd. cd. — 
Grotius thinks the book was written for the confolation of the 
•dercendants of Efau, carried away in the Babylonifh captivity ; 
apparently, as the fame writer obfervesj so avoid the abfurdity 


Se£l. 2* ^ M o s E s demonjlrated. gf 

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 
objection. 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 fhould be attended. / will bring Ifrael 
again to his habitation^ and he Jh all feed on Carmeland 
Bajhan^ and his fold floall be fatisfied upon 7nount 
Ephraim and Gilead. In thofe days^ a7id in that time^ 
faith the Lord, the i7iiquity of Ifrael flo all be fought 
for^ and there fhall be mne\ and the fins of Judah^ 
and they fhall not be found ^ 

3. We fay then (to come home to the queflion) 
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 ^ime to the People, let us try 
if we can fuit the People to the Subje5f\ and fee 

arifmg from the fuppofition confuted above ; and yet, as he 
farther obferves, Grotius, in endeavouring to avoid one diffi- 
culty, has fallen into another. For, fuppofe it ^rit, (fays the 
Author of The U/e and Intent of Prophecy, &c.) for the children 
of Efauy they n^ere idolaters ; and yet is there no allufeon to their 
idolatry in all this hook, And ivhat ground it there to think they 
nx^erefo righteous as to defer<ve fuch an interpretation to be put 
upon their fufferings^ as the hook of Job puts on them^ if fo he 
it nx)as <written for their fakes ? Or can it he imagincdy that a 
hook ivrit about the time fuppofed^ for the ufe of an idolatrous 
nation^ and odious to the Jexvs, could ever have been received into 
the JeiAjiJh 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. vj, Neh. chapters iii, viii, i*. 
y Chap. 1, ver. 19, 20, 


58 The Divine Legation Book VL 

whether this, which was foreign and unnatural to 
every other period, was proper and feafonable 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 mod: 
part, equal Providence. For thefe two ilates mufl 
be diflinguiined, and indeed are diftinguifhed not 
only throughout this difcourfe, but throughout the 
whole Scripture hiftory, altho' the terms, in both, 
be fometimes 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 {0 tempered 
juftice with his m.ercy, as to mix, with the pro- 
phetic denunciations of their impending punifli- 
ment, the repeated promifes of a fpeedy Return > 
to be attended with more illuftrious advantages 
for the Jewilh 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 
circumflances. Thofe mod zealous for the Law, 
and mod confiding in the promifes of God, as in- 
Urucled by their parents in all his extraordinary 
5Difpenfations, embraced this opportunity of re- 
turning to their own country, to promote the ref- 
toration of their Law and Religion. And who 
can doubt but that they expected the fame 
manifeftations of Goo's Providence in their Re- 
citabUniment, that their Forefathers had experi- 
enced in their firft Settlement ? That they were 
indeed full of thefe expectations appears from the 
remarkable account Ezra gives us of his diftrefs, 
when about to" return with Artaxerxes's com- 


Seft. 2. g/' Moses demonflrated. ^g 

mifTion, to regulate the affairs of Judea and Jeru- 

lalem. The way was long and dangerous ; yet the, 
Jews had told the king fo much of their being un- 
der the peculiar protedion of their God, that he 
was alhamed to afk a Guard for himfelf and his 
companions; and therefore had recoufe to prayer 
and fading : l!hen I proclaimed afaft there at the river 
Ahava^ that we might affli5f ourfelves before our 
God^ to feek of him a right way for us ^ and for our 
little ones^ and for all our Juhjiance For I was ajham- 
ed to require of the king a hand of foldiers and horfe- 
men^ to help us againjt the enemy in the way •, hecaufe 
"WE had fpoken unto the king^ f^^y^'ng-, ^he hand of our 
.Cod is upon all them for good that feek him^ but his 
power and his wrath is againft all them that forfake 
him ^ Buc in thefe their expeflations of the old 
extraordinary Providence, they were greatly de- 
ceived ; and the long traverfes they underwent 
from the malice and perfecution of their idolatrous 
neighbours, made them but too fenfible of the 
-difference of their condition from that of their 
Forefathers, in their lirft 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 earthy under the ordinary pro\ridence 
of Heaven ? At firft it would be difficult for many 
habituated to, and long polfeiTed of, the notion of 
an extraordinary Providence, to comprehend the 
true ftate of their prefent circumflances. This 
aftonifhment is finely defcribed in the following 
w^ords of Job, Js for me^ is my complaint to man ^ 
and if it were fo^ why fhould not my fpirit be troubled ? 
Mark me, and ^^ astonished, and lay your hand 
upon your mouth. Even when I remember^ I am 

* Ezra viii, 21, 22. 


(^ ^he . Divine Legation Book Vt 

afraid J and trembling taketh hold of wy flejh* 
"Wherefore' do the *wicked Uve^ hecome old, yea 
ere mighty in power ? &c '. — But others lefs pious 
would fall into doubts about God's juilice ; as not 
conceiving how he could difcharge the expe6lations 
he had raifed, without fome very fpecial regard to 
the fafety of his chofen People : Nay there were 
fonrie, as there always will be in national diilrefles 
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 leesy 
that fay in their hearty the Lord will not do 


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 pra6lifing ufury with one another. Add 
to all this, (what would infinitely increafe the con- 
fufion) that a future ftate of Rewards and Punifli- 
ments was net yet become a popular Dodrine. 
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 whole time this inequality 
firfl ftruck their obfervation. Righteous art thou^ 
"O Lordy (fays he) when I plead with thee : yet let m& 

•» Chap. xxi. ver. 4, 5, 6, 7. * Chap. i. ver. 12. 


Sedt. 2. 5^ M o s E s demonjlrated. 6t 

talk with thee of thy judgment:. Wherefore doth the 
way of the wicked pro/per ? V/hcrefore are all they happy 
that deal very treacheroujly '^ ? 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 afl^, Why not ? Since there muft be 
fome precife point of time or other, when the fa6t 
was firft attended to. And where can we find a 
more likely one than this ? 

Could any thing therefore be conceived more 
feafonable and necefTary, 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 afflidled for the trial of his virtue, and 
rewarded for the well-bearing his afflidions : 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 prcr 
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 Jhall come forth 
as GOLD. But we have fhewn, in fpeaking of 
what Maimonides calls the Chaftifements of Love^ 
that they were unknown to the Jev/ilh religion 
till the times of their later Prophets ^ Now here 
the Chajlifements of Love are exprefsly. defcribed. 

* Chap* xil. ver. i. • «• Chap, xxiii. ver. ic. « See p. 1-^6* 

3 To 

62 T^he 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 Times. But this could not be done without 
making the poem allegorical as well as drama- 
tic, 1 hat is, without reprefenting the real per- 
fons of that age under the perfons of the drama. 
And this would be according to the exadleft rules 
of good writing : For when fome general moral 
fitted for all tinies is to be recommended, it is bed 
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 fad, we Ihall find this poem to be wholly allego- 
rical: The reafon is convincing. There are divers 
circumflances added to each charader, which can, 
by no means, belong to the perfons r^/r^'^;^//^^ : 
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 introduction to fome of 
Job's fpeeches he expreffeth himfelf inthis manner, 
^-moreover Job continued his parable and f aid}. 
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 


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

' Chap, xxvii. ver. i. Chap. xxix. ver. i, s Aoy(^, 


Sed. 2. of Moses demorijlrateci. 63 

tJion, 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 fcnle we Ihall find the fpeeches of Job to be 
extremely parahoUcaL 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 conrroverly between him 
and his friends, there are more allufions to the 
Jewifh flate 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 charadler apart ^. 

L In 

^ '* Here, (fays the Cornifli Critic) ta!:e the poem in th« 
** other light, as an allegoric fiillon, and what could it poffibly 
** afford befides a very odd amufement ? for the truth of hiftory 
** is deftroyed : and we have nothing in the room of it, but a 
** monlb-ous jumble of limes and perfons brought together, 
'* that were in reality feparated from each other by the dillance 
" of a thoufand or twelve hundred years. Had the author 
*' been able to produce but one precedent of this fort amongil 
" the writings of the ancients, it might have afforded fome 
•* countenance to this opinion : but, I believe, it would be dif- 
•* ficult to find it." p. 47. What then, I befeech you, becomes 
of Solomon^ s Song^ if you will not allow it to be a precedent of this 
fort P Here, in the opinion of the Church, as appears by the 
infertion of it into the Canon, or at leall 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 falvation 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 -.he 
ftory of Job, to reprove the errors of the People committed to 
his care, and to inform them of an approaching change in their 
Difpenfation, is by no means to be endured. What 1 has this 
great Critic never heard that, amongil: the ^writings of the ancient s^ 
there 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 vvithilainJ the 


64 ^h^ Divtne Legation BookVL 

I. In the perfon of Job we have a good man af- 

fii6ted, and maintaining his innocence -, equally im-* 
patient of pain and contradiction -, yet, at length 
with all fubmifTion bowing to the hand of God ; 
and finally rewarded for it. Had this been a fic- 
titious Charadler in an invented ftory we could have 
only gathered this general moral from it, ^'^ That 
virtue and lubmiiTion to the divine pleafure, not- 
withftanding the common frailties of humanity, will 
aiTuredly 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 
hiilory and tradition to the Greeks, as Job was to the Jews. Did 
that polite people tliink this an c^^ amufejnent ? Did they think 
the truth of Hijfory de/irojed by it ; and vothivg left in its room but 
a fncnjirous jumhle of times and .per/ons^ brought together^ that 
Kvere in reality jcparated from each other by the dijtance of a thou- 
/and or tiuelve hundred years P 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 t'hat folemn meet- 
ing of the Devil and the Sons of God before the throne of the 
Almighty ? 

But that curious remark of dejlroy'mg the truth of Hijlory de- 
ferves a little further canvafHng. 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 dejiroyed the truth of Hijlory, 
When ancient and modern drapiatic Writers take their fubjed 
from Hiftory, and make iree with fa£ls to adapt their plot to 
the nature of their poem, Do they di/lroy the truth of Hfory P 
Yet in their cafe there is only one bar«ier to this imaginary 
mifchief, namely the Drama: In the book of Job, there are 
two, both the Drama and the Allegory. But after all, fome hurt 
it may do, amongft Readers of the iize of this Anfwerer, when 
they miftake the book of Job for a piece of Biogr .phy, like the 
men Ben Johnfon laughs ar, who, for greater exactnefs, chofe to 
read the Hiilory of England in Shakcfpear's Tragedies. 


Sed. 2. 5/* M o s E s denlonjlrated. 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 exceHes of impatience as border 
nearly upon blafphemy \ The judicious Calmet 


^ Te have heard of the Vatience of Joht Ja.m. v. 1 1. 

^ But the CorniQi Critic, who has no conception that even 
a patient man may, on fome occalions, break out into impa- 
tient heats, infiib on the ifnpropnety of Job's reprefenting the 
IlVaelites of Ezra's time. " To reprefenc the murmuring and 
" impatient Jews, (Hiys he) it Teems 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 excefies 
" of impatience as border on blafphemy." p. 50. I doubt there 
is a fmall matter amifs in this fine obfervation. The Author of 
the Diuine Legation did not write the book of job ; there- 
fore whatever difcordancy there be between the Tradition of 
his patience and the written Hiilory of him in this book, it is 
jufl: the fame, whether Job or whether Ezha wrote it. After 
fo illuftrious a fpecimen of his critical acumen, he may lie in 
bed, and cry out with the old Athlet, 

Cseilum arteraque repono. 

However he meant well, and intended that this fuppofed ab- 
furdity ihould fall upon the Author of the Divine Legation^ and 
not upon the Canon of Scripture. Jn the mean time the truth 
is, there is no abri.rdity 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 fo 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 njAth 
** his lips ; but, pej fecuted by the malice and bitternefs of his 
** falfe friends, he began to lay \o much ftrefs on his innocence 
** as even to accufe Gud of injuflice. This was the very ftaie 
** of the Jews of this time; fo exactly has the facred Writer 
** conducted his allegory j They boie their Ibaits and difficulties 
" with temper till their enemies Sanballat, Tobiah, and the 
Vol. V. F " Arabians 

66 Ttje Divine Legation Book VL 

cannot forbear obferving on this occafion. " En 
'' efFet Job avoit marque dans fes plaintes une 
'' vivaclte que pouvoitetreinterpretee 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 excelTu 
*' ut ne nunc quidem Jobum culpa liberare pofTu- 
''^ mus, ita facile intelligitur, multo magis talibus 
'*^ di6tis offendi tunc debuiife Elihuum, ig-narum 
" hadlenus, quid Deus de Jobo ejufque caufa 
*•; pronunciaturus effet'"." Thus foftly do thefe 
Commentators fpeak, in their embarras to reconcile 
this reprefentation of Job to his traditional Charac- 
ter for patience. The Writing then and the 'Tra- 

** Arabians gave them fo much diHurbance; and then they 
" fell into indecent murmurs againft God." But leaft our 
Anfwerer ihould 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 m.ay be provoked into 
fiarts of impatience, by a miferable Caviler, who, being fet 
upon Aiifvjerrng what he does not underiland, renrefentfi falfely, 
interprets perverfely, and, when he is unable to make the Docirine 
odious, endeavours to make the Perfm fo, who holds it fn 
conclufion however, thus much is fit to be obferved, that if the 
fole 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 dillwigulfiiing between 
Job's traditional and written llory. Ijut now comes a Cornifh 
Critic, and makes this very ciramjiance, which I urged for the 
fupport of my Hypothefis, an objedlon to it. Yet he had 
grounds for his obfervanon, fuch as they were ; He dreamt, for 
he could not be awake, that I had in^oentcd the circufujiance^ 
whereas I only found it. 

' Sur chap, xxxiii. ver. lo, ""On the fame place. 


Sed. 2. ^ M o s E s demonfiYatecL 6y 

dition being fo glaringly inconnflent, we mud needs 
conclude, i. That the fame of fo great Patience 
arofe not from this book. And 2dly, That fome 
other Chara6ler, (hadowed under that of Job, was 
the real caufc of the Author's deviation from the 
general Tradition. 

And this charadler^ I fay, was no other than 
the JEWISH PEOPLE. The Angularity of whofe 
fituation as ay^/t'^'?^^ AW/^;? is graphically defcribed 
in the beginning of the book, where Satan is 
brought in fpeaking of the diftinguifhed honour 
done to Job by his Maker. Haft ibou yiot made a 
HEDGE ahcut him, and about his houfe, and about all 
' that he hath, on every fide ". The great point which 
Job fo much infiils upon throughout the whole 
book is his innocence: and yet, to our furprife, 
we hear him, in one place, thus expofculating with 
God : Thou writ eft hitter things againft me, and ma- 
keft me to pojfefs the iniquities of my youths 
This can be accounted tor no otherwife than by 
underilanding it of the people : whofe repeated 
iniquities on their firft coming out of Egypt, were 
in every Age remembered, and puniihed on their 
Pofterity. Again, the twenty ninth chapter is an 
exa6t and circumftantial defcription 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 1 
" wallied my fteps with butter, and the rock 

^ Chap, i. ver. lo. ° Chap. xiii. ver. 26. 

F 2 " poured 

68 The Divine 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 
" WICKED, 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 iht pillar of fire in the 
Wiidernefs •, — The Scbekinab in the tabernacle •, — 
The land fiozving with milk and honey \ — The ad- 
miniftration oix.\\t judges \ — The curbing the rava- 
ges of the Philijiians \ — Antl the glory of their firfl 
Monarchs. Well therefore might the Writer, in 
his introduction 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 
cor/ie unto me. I was not in fafety^ neither had I reft, 
neither was I quiet ^ yet trouble came '^. But in other 
places he fpeaks very differently. He wifhes he 
were as in months paft^ for then (fays he) / Jhall 
die in my nefi^ and 1 Jhall multiply my days as the 
fand \ And again, JVhen I looked for good^ then 
evil came upon me : and when I waited for lights there 
came darknefs \ Thefe things are very difcordanr, 
if underftood of one and the fame perfon ; and 
can never be reconciled but on the fuppofition of 
an allegorical reference to another Charadter ; and, 
on that, all will be fet 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 exprefleth it; And they 
fa lip the altar upon his hafes {for fear was upon 

P Ver, 2, Iff feq, ^ Chap. iii. ver. 25, 26. ' Chap, 

xxix. ver. 18. ® Chap. xxx. ver. 26. 


Sed. 2. of Mo SES demonjirated, 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 beaft, 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 •, ^hou fcareji me with 

dreams, and terrifiefi me with viftons^ : 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 doji thou not pardon my tranfgrefficn, and 
take away mine iyitquity ? For now 1 Jhall jleep 
in the duft, and thou foalt feek me in the mornings 
hut I fhall not be^. There is not a more difficult 
paflage 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 
purpofe to continue us a peculiar People -, yet 
fuch traverfes as we have met with, on our return, 
will foon deftroy thofe already come into Judea, 
and deter the reil from hazarding the fame for- 
tune." Job goes on in the fame drain : Is it good 
unto thee that thou Jhouldeft opprefs ? that thou foould- 
eft defpife the work of thine hands ? and f dine upon 
the counfel of the wicked"^ ? The Jews of this time 
made this very complaint. / have loved you, faith 

* Ezra, iii, 3. 

" Zech. viii. 10. 

* Chap. 

Tii. ver. 14, 

y Chap. vii. ver. zi. 

"^ Chap. X, 

ver, 3. 

F 3 th 

^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 tlat work vjukednefs are fet up ; yea they that 
tempt God are even delivered ^ — But Job goes on, 
—O that thou wGuldefi hide me in the grave, that 
thou wouldeft keep me fecret^ until thy wrath he paft \ 
that thou wouldeft appoint rne a fet time^ and remember 
we \ 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 effe6t : 
^' Would to God v/e had ftill continued in Capti- 
vity [the Grave^ which was the very figure ufed 
by the Prophets for the Captivity] expelling a 
more favourable feafon for our Refloration , or that 
we might be permitted to return unto it, 'till the 
remains of punilhment for our forefathers' fins are 
overpaft, and all things fitly prepared for our re-t 
ception.'- And in thefe cowardly and impatient fen- 
time nts were they, on their Return, as were their 
Anceftcrs, on their firft coming out of the land of 
Egypt; to which, this Return is frequently com- 
pared by the Prophets. — Job goes on exprefiing. 
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 from me^ and mine acquaintance are verily 
eftranged from me. My kinsfolk have failed^ and 
my familiar friends have forgotten me^. The firft 
part of this complaint evidently relates to the 
Arabians^ the Ammonites^ and the Ajljdodites', v/ho 
(^3 Nehemiah tells us) hearing that the walls of J eru- 
falem ivere made iip^ and that the breaches began 
to be ftopped^ were very wroth ^ and confpired all of 
them together to come and fight againft Jerufalem and 

^ Malac. i. 2. ^ Malac. iii. 15. « Chap. xiv. 

vef. 13, '^ Chap. xix. ver. 12, 13, 14. 


Sed. 2. ^ M o s ES demonjirated, yi 

to hinder it ^ The fecond part relates to their rich 
Brethren remaining in Babylon, who feenned, by 
Nehemiah's account, to have much negleded the 
diftreffed Remnant that efcaped from the Captivity 
to Jerufalem. "Then Hanani (lays he) one of my hre- 
thren came^ he and certain men of Jiidahy and I ajTced 
them concerning the Jews that had efcaped^ which 
were left of the Captivity^ and concerning Jerufalem, 
And they faid unto me^ ihe Rermiant 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 ^ 
— Job goes on, that I knew where Ijnight 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- 
7iot perceive him: on the left hand where he doth work^ 
but I cannot behold him : 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 fer with the dogs of my flock. Yea, 
*' whereto might the ftrength of their hands pro- 
*' fit me, in whom old age was periihed ? For want 
" and famine they were folitary : fleeing into the 
*^ Wildernefs in former time defolate and wafle : 
*' 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. f Nehem. i. 2, 3. s Chap* 

pjxiii. ver. 3, 8, 9. ... 

F 4 '* Amongft 


*r2 T'he 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. 
Thtithad him iri derifion^ he fays, and fo Nehemiah 
informs us : " But it came to pafs, that when 
*' Sanhallat 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 ftones out of the heaps of the 
** rubbilh, which are burnt ? Now Tobiah the 
*' Ammonite \v2is by him, and he faid, even that 
" which tliey build, if a fox go up, he iliall even 
*' break down their Hone wall. Hear, O our 
*' God, for v/e are defpifed^ and turn their reproach 
*' upon their own headV And God, by the 
Prophet Malachi, tells the Jews the reafon why he 
fuffered them to be thus humbled : Therefore have 
J alfo made you contemptible and bafe before all the peo- 
fle^ according as ye have not kept my ways^ but have 
been partial in the Law^. — Job fays he would have 
difdained to have fet thefe with the dogs of his floe k^ 
that they were younger than him, that they were children 
cf 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 
Extraction, without doubt, was very juft. For 

^ Chap. XXX. ver. j,i^/ea, ^ Neh. iv. i, & /e^; 

^ Mal, ii. 9. 


Sed, 2. of Moses demonftrated. 73. 

when a Conqueror, as here the king of AfTyria, 
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 Aflyrian 
Emp>e, 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 
'' Archevites^ the Babylonians^ the Sufanchites^ 
*' the Debavites, and the Eiamites^ and the reft 
*' of the Nations whom the o-reat and noble Af- 
'' napper brought over and let in the cities of 
" Samaria^" — Job defcribes them as being at 
firft reduced to the utmoft diilrefles for food and 
harbour, in a defolate arid wafte wildernefs, living 
Upon rooiSy and dwelling in caves and clifts of the 
rock : and alfuredly fuch muft have been the firft 
entertainment of this wretched Colony, tranfplant- 
ed into a Country entirely wafted and deftroyed 
by a three years inceffant ravage "". Nay, before 
they could come up to take pofTefTion 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 of the whirlwind and faid^ Who is this that 

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

*vii. 25. 


^4 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI, 

darkeneth ccunfel hy words without knowledge''? 
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 
againft me^ faith the Lord'^. — But on Job's re- 
^peated fubmilTion and humiliation, God at length 
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- 
rufalem\ 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 prifoners 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 him a piece of money ^ and every 
one an ear-ring of gold "". This, without queftion, 
alludes to the prefents which Ezra tells us the Jews 
of Babylon made to their brethren in Judea : And 
ell they that were about them ftrengihened their hands 
with veffels of filver^ with gold^ with goods^ and 
with beafts^ and with precious things^ befides all that 
was willingly offered "". — The hiftory adds, So 
the Lord bleffed the latter end of Job more than the 
beginning ^ : and thus the future profperity of the 
People was predicted by the Prophets of this 
time : The glory of this latter hcufe fhall be greater 
than the former^ faith the Lord of Ilofis : And in 
this place will 1 give peace ^ faith the Lord of Uofis^, 
Lor /, faith the Lord^ will be unto her a wall of 

° Chap, xxxviii. ver. i, z. p Mal. ji. 17. •? Mal. 

iii. 13. "■ ZECH.vIii. 3. ^ Chap, xlil ver. le. 

t Zech. ix. 12. " Chap. xlii. ver. 11. ^ Ezra i. 6. 

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


Seft. 2. of yio^Y.% demonflrate-d. y^ 

fire round alout^ and will be the glory in the midji 
of her"". — The Book concludes with thefe words : 
After this lived J oh an hundred and forty years ^ and 
faw his fons^ and his fons fons^ even four generations. 
So Job died being old and full of days ^ : this too was 
the fpecific blelTing protniled by God to the Peo- 
ple, in the Prophet Zechariah; ^hus faith the Lord 
of Flofts^ ^here fnall yet old men and old. women dwell 
in the flreets of ferufalem^ and every man with his 
ftaff in his hand for very age. And the flreets cf the 
city fhall be full of boys and girls playing in the flreets 

II. The next Perfon in the drama is Job's w^ife. 
Let us take her, as llie is prefented to us, on the 
common footing. She a6ls a fhort part indeed, 
but a very Ipirited one. 'Thenfaid his wife unto hrm : 
Doft thou ftill retain thine integrity ? Curfe God and 
die ^ Tender and pious ! He might fee, by this 
prelude of his Spoufe, what he was to exped from 
his Friends. The Devil indeed aflaulted Job, but 
he feems to have got poffejffion of his Wife. Hap- 
pinefs was fo little to be expeded with fuch a Wo- 
man, that one almoll wonders, that the facred 
W^riter, when he aims to give us the higheil idea 
of Job's fucceeding felicity, did not tell us, in ex- 
prels words, that he lived to bury his Wife. In 
thefe modern ages of luxury and polifhed manners, 
a Charader like this is fo little of a prodigy, that 
both the learned and unlearned are accuftomed to 
read it without much reflection : 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 ; but thefe are 

^ Zeck. ii. ^. ^ Chap. xlii. ver. i6, 17. 

f= Zlch. viii. 4, 5. d Chap. ii. ver. 9. 


y6 The Divine Legation Book VI. 

all examples of piety, tendernefs, and obedience 5 
the natural growth of old fimplicity of manners. 
Something lower down, indeed, we find a Delilah', 
but fhe was of the uncircumcifed, sl pure pagan ; 
as, on examination, I believe, this Wife of Job 
will prove : another very extraordinary circum- 
Itance in her Character. For the Patriarchs either 
took care to marry Believers, or, if haply idola- 
ters, to inftrudl them in the true Religion; as we 
may fee by the hiflory of Jacob. — Then /aid bis 
wife unto him^ D oft thou ft ill retain thine integrity? 
Thummah, prfeEiiOy that is, Religion. This was 
altogether in the Pagan mode ; Idolaters, as we 
find in ancient ftory generally growing atheiilical 
tmder calamities % — Curfe God^ barech, henedic^ 

maledic : 

* The dliferent fituatlons in which this Folly operated in ««- 
cient and modern times, is very obfervable. Jn 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 
goveyf.ment, was too ftrong ever to be brought in queftion. It 
was when they found themfelves miferable and in di!liefs, that 
they began to complain ; to quefUon the juilice, or to deny the 
exiltence of a Deity : On the contrary, amongft us, difafterous 
times are the feafon of reflection, repentance, and reliance on 
Providence. It is afFiuence and abundance v/hich now give 
birth to a wanton iufficiency, never thoroughly gratified till it 
have thrown ciT all the rellraints of Religion. 

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

In the ancient World, the belief of a moral Providence was 
amongft their moil incontefted principles. But concerning the 
nature and extent of this Providence they had indeed very in- 
adequate conceptions ; being milled by tlie e:iiraoydinary man- 
ner in which the full exertions of it v/cre manifeiled, to ex- 
peft more inllant and immediate protedion than the nature 
of the Difpcn/ation afforded. So that thefe men being, in 
their own opinion, the moft worthy objed of Providence*s 
concern, whenever they became preifcd by civil or domeftic 


Seft. 2. gf Moses demonjiraied. yj 

maledk: here rightly^ tranflated curfe. So the Syr. 
and Arab, verfions, Conviciare Deo tuo. This was an- 
other pagan pradice when they had implored or 
bribed the Gods to no purpofe. Thucydides affords 
us a terrible inftance : When the Athenians in the 
height of their profperity went upon the Syracufian 
Expedition, the Fleet fet fail amidft the prayers 
and hymns of the Adventurers : but on its unhappy 
iifue, thefe very men, on the point of their fatal 
difperfion, profecuted the fame Gods with the 
direfl curfes and imprecations^. — Curfe God and 

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

But in thefe modern ages of vice and refinement, when €very 
bleffing is abufed, and, amongll the firft, that greateft of ali» 
LJBERTY, each improvement of the mind, as well as each 
accommodation of the body, is perverted into a fpecies of luxury ; 
exerciled and employed for amufement, 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 zd: 
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, rellored recolledion and 
vigour to the relaxed and diffipated mind, the didates of 
Nature are again attended to : the impious principles of falfe 
Science, and the fa'fe conclufions of the true, are fhaken oiF 
as a hideous dream; and the abufed Vi6lim of his vanity and 
his pkafure flies for refuge to that only Afylum of Humanity, 


*" Thus both Sacro and 5'/7r^r have, in Latin, contrary fignl- 
fications. The reafon is evident. Some things were confecrated 
and fome denj-yted to the Gods : thofe were holy ; thefe exe- 
crable. So God being invoked fometimes to blc/sy and fome- 
times to cur/e^ the invocation was expreflTed by one word, which 
had contrary fenies. And this agreeable to the genius of lan- 
guage in general, 

2 — civi) c lv^-/',<; re y^ 'S^aixvuv^ ^xtfl* «» tlsTr^sov, 'sja,>^v tHrm 
Tor$ ivufiioK; i7fi^rii^ia-(A,xatv d^po^iJioiahoii. Lib. vii. § 75. £d. Hud. 


yS ^he Dhine Legation Book VL 

DIE ; that is, offer violence to yourfelf. Another 
impiety of Paganifm ; which, under irretrievable 
misfortunes, deemed filicide 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 : ^hou fpakefi as one of the foolish ^q- 
'M'Eufpeaketh. What? Shall we receive good at the 
hand of God^ and fh all we not receive evil ^? A fool- 
ish WOMAN is a hebrewphrafe to fignify 2. foreign 
womayi^ an Idolater^ an Adult erefs ; for thefe quali- 
fications were always joined together in their ideas. 
On this account the Chald, Paraph, explains it, 
Siciit una de rmlierihis qu^e operantur igfiominiar/i in 
domopatris ftii. So David, fpeaking of the con- 
dition of the Pagan world, fays : The fool hath j aid 
in his heart \ i. e. the Pagan; and in the charac- 
ter Job gives of the Ctitheans^ quoted above, he 
calls them Children of fools ^; that is, of Gentile 
extradion, as indeed they were. Now can we fup- 
pofe that Job would marry an Infidel, in a country 
which abounded with true believers ? Joh^ who 
thought idolatry a crime to be punifloed by the Judge? 
Thefe are difficulties not to be gotten over on the 
received idea of this book ; and appeared fo great 
to Cocceius and Schultens, the two mofl elaborate 
of Job's Commentators, that they are for glofllng 
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 : nou fpeakejl 
(fays he) as one ofthefoolifh women fpeaketh. IVhat? 
Shall we receive good at the hand of God^ and fh all we 

h Chap. ii. ver. 10. * Psal. xiv. i. — liii. i. 

'' Chap. XXX. ver. 8. 


Sect. 2e of Moses demoiijlrafed. 79 

7iot receive evil P Befides, they did not confider that 
Satan had, as it were, engaged that Job fhould 
cmfe 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 chara6ler was introduced with ex- 
quifite art and contrivance. We have oblerved, 
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 ftili infefted with, 
and that was the taking /r^/7^<? 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 rndLvrrngts^ Jirangt 
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 thorough re- 
formation. Judah (faith the Prophet Malachi) 
hath dealt treacheroujly^ and a?t ahominaAion is com-- 
mitted in Ifrael and in Jenifalem : For Judah hath 
profaned the holinefs of the Lord which he loved^ 
and hath married the daughter of a flrange God. Thi 
Lord will cut off the man that doth this ". Nehemiah 
informs us of his zeal againil this offence : In 
thcfe days alfo faw I Jews that had married wives 
of AfJidod^ of Ammon^ and of Moah : And I con- 
tended with thctn^ and curfed the?n, and fmote certain 
of them^ and pluckt off their hair, and made them 
fwearhy God^ fo-ying, Te fh all. not give your daughters 

' Chap. ii. ver. 5. ""' Chap, v, ven 7. « Mal, 

n, II, 12. 

7 unt& 

8o T^he Divine Legation Book VL 

unto their fons^ nor take their daughters unto your fons, 
cr for yourf elves °, But Ezra gives us a very cir- 
cumitantial account of the Crime and of the Re- 
formation : Now when thefe things were done^ the 
Princes came to me^ frying^ ne People of Ifrael^ and 
the Priefts^ 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 fons \ 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 
affembles the people ' : they promife amendment \ 
and propofe a method of Inquiry : Let now our 
Rulers of all the congregation fiand^ and let all them 
which have taken Jlrange wives in our cities^ come at 
appointed times y and with them the Elders of every city^ 
and the Judges thereof \ Ezra approved of this 
method, And they fet dawn in the firfl day of the 
tenth month to examine the matter. And they made an 
end with all the men that had taken jlrange wives by 
the firfl day of the firfl month^. The flate and con- 
dition of a weak and thin Colony, 'tis probable, 
encouraged them in this tranfgrefTion : 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 ; 
Jlrange wives inevitably drawing the wifefl, as it 
did Solomon himfelf, into foreign idolatries. On 
this account the Prophet quoted above, finely calls 
them the daughters of a strange God. Jeremiah 
gives us a remarkable inflance 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. f Ver. 7. » Ver. 14, * Chap. x. ver. 16, 17. 


Sc*5l. 2. of Moses dt?monJirafed, 8i 

which knew that their wives had burnt incenje unto 
other Gods, and all the women that flood by\ a great 
multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of 
Egypt y in Pathros, anfwered Jeremiah^ Jdying, As 
for the word that thou haft fpoken unto us in the nams 
of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee"". And 
Nehemiah had o-ood reafon to tell thefe Tranfg-ref- 
fors, — Did not Solomon king of Ifrael fin by thefe 
things ^ Tet ajjiong many nations was there ?io king 
like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made 
him King over all Ifrael: Neverthelefs even him did out- 
landifl-j women caufe to fin ''. For Ezra exprefsly af- 
fures us, that thofe who had I2^^v\ ftrange women 
were drawn into the abominations of the people of 
the lands ^. 

The facred Writer, therefore, who compofed 
his work for the ufe of thefe People reprefented 
under the perfon of Job, could not better cha- 
radlerize their manners, nor give them a more 
ufeful leflbn, than by making Job's v^ife, the au- 
thor of kich 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, againft whom 
' thou haft dealt treacheroiifty : yet isfhe thy companion^ 
and the wife of thy covenant "^ ^ This will help us 


• Jer. xHv. 15. * Neh. xiii. 26, ^ Ezh^a ix. i. 

* Mal, ii. 14. 

* The Cornilh Critic fays — " Above all, and ta'fupport 
" the allegory in its molt concerning circumlUnces, as tlv&'^jevvs 
** were obliged 10 put away their idolatrous wive?, To Joi? 
** fliould have put away his, in the upfliot of the Fable. This 
** would CEiiTAiNLY have been done had fuch an aUe;^ory b.-en . 
*' intended aa Mr, VV. fuppofss." p. 66. Let ihi* man alone 

Vol. V. G Ut 

82 7Zv Divine Legation BoaK VI^ 

to clear up a difficulty in the conclufion of the 
book which very much perplexes the Commenta- 
tors : (where, let it be obferved, 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 blejfed the latter 
end of Job — He had alfo f even fins 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 
//^iri Keren-happuch. And in all the land were 
710 women found fo fair as the daughters of Joh^ and 
iheir father gave them inheritance among their hre- 
thren ^, Albert Schultens fays ^ : " Men are wont 
" to aflv why the names of Job's fons are fup- 
" prefTed, and the names of his daughters only 
" mentioned. The Ancients have recourfe to my- 
" ftery in this cafe> and trifle ftrangely with the 

for his diflributive 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 ilie 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 Rightcr of wrongs but a 
formal bill of divorce — Indeed 1 fufped, a light expreffion 1 
chanced to make ufe of, gave birth to this ingenious objedion. 
See above, p. 7 5 . 

* Chap. xlii. ver. 10. ** Chap, xliii. ver. F2. \5 feq. 

^ ** Cur fuppreflis filiorum nominibus, filiarum ilia appofita 
*' fint, quseri folet. Ad n.yjlenutn confugiunt veteres, mire 
" ludentes in etymis^7^w/w-«', Ket-zi^^ h Keren- happuchee, five 
*' Dian<£ vel /)/>;', Cajfi^y Sc Ccrnu Jiibii^ ut vuigoto hsec con- 
*• venire vifum. In his inveniunt totidem charaiiiteres Ecdejift, 
" qua." cum fplendore lucis conjungat odorem fragrantiffimum 
** virtutis, u: tota pulchra fponfb fuo fillatur, &c. &-c. Alii 
*' fymbcilicas has faciunt appellationes, quibus familiaj (02^ re- 
" divivam lucem, famam, gloi-iam repr«fentatam volucrit 
" fortunatiilimus pater.'* 

^' etynao- 

Sed:. 2. ^ Moses demonfirated, 83 

" etymologies of Jemima^ Kczia^ and Keren-hap- 
*' puch : which are commonly fuppofed to fignify 
" Diana or the day, Caflia, and the horn of an- 
*' timony. In thefe, they find juil fo many cha- 
•' raders of the church 5 which to the fplc ndor of 
" truth, joins the odour of virtue, that ihe may 
*^ {land a perfe6l 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 hiflory ? But who can, fay 
*' how far the oriental writers were wont to go^ 
" in drefling 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 nov/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 Ijrael 
as the mod defirable Parties, S^And in all the land 
'were no women fotindfofair as the daughters of Job'] 
and to commemorate the reformation now made 

** ^uaritur cur Jint fill arum nomlna memorata^ non Jiliorum ; 
€uJ2iS ret ratio reddi non potefi^ nip forte illujlr lores fue>int fi'i-r ^ 
ILec notnina prof^rujitur^ ut argurnentum Qertum^ quo c^njlet banc 
^'eram ejje hijforiam. Sed q-Jtii die at quo ufquc Q'-ienta'es pnrabolos 
emarc Julebant ? In parahoi'a EtJcingelicu ej} quidini nomen Lszari^ 
auod non ohjiat qu) minus Parabola habeatur, Verum rem in medio 

G % amon^ft 

§4 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

amongft the peopky when they put away their 
jlrcvigc wivesy and took an oath to fhare the holy 
inheritance, for the future, only with the daugh- 
ters of Ifrael. — And their father gave theyn inheri- 
tance amo?igjl It heir brethren: v/ords that have been 
as troubieiome to the Commentators as the reft ^ 
and have occafioned many a learned DilTertation 
ds Jure Succefjioms apud liehraosy Arahas^ GracoSy 
LatinoSy & o^uamplurimas Gentes. 

III. We come next ta Job's three friends. — 
Their folemn appointment to go and comfort Job j 
the neglecl of their errand v/hen they came thither; 
their mhumanity and flrange humour of contra- 
diclion, 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 ail •, We find, on the iHue of their debate, 
io many marks of infult, falfhood, and malice, 
that we muft needs conclude their Friendfhip 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 hiflorical 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 
obftrudted the rebuilding Jerufalem and the tem- 
ple, Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem? Of 
whom Nehemiah gives us this account : l^hen I 
came to the governors beyond the river y and gave them 
the king's letters. H^hen SanbsXht the Horonitey and 
Tobiah il^e feruant the Afmnonitey heard of ity it 


Scdl. 2. of Moses 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 pcifs that zvhen Sanballar, 
and Tobiah, and the Arabians^ and the Ammonites^ 
and the AJhdodites heard that the walls of Jerufalem 
were 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 againji Jerufalem a?id to 
binder it \ When force would not do, they af- 
layed fraud : Now it came to pafs^ when San ball at, 
and Tobiah, and Geshem the Arabian^ and the 
reji of our enemies heard that I had builded the wally 
and that there was no breach left therein^ then Sanbal^ 
lat and Gefhem fent unto me^ faying^ Co:-ne^ let us 
meet together infome one of the villages in the plain of 
Ono : but they thought to do me mifchief^. The 
Writer of the book ofTobit feems to have had this 
idea of the three friends, where he fays : Nam 
ficut heato Job infultabant Reges^ ita ifti parentes i^ 
cognati ejus irridebant vitam ejiis^. But we are to 
obferve this is now only to be found in the Latin 
tranflation, which St. Jerom tells us, he made 
from the Chaldee. But, what is dill of more mo- 
ment, is a paragraph at the end of the SeptuaginC 
tranQation of the book of Job, which makes of 
thefe three friends, two Kings and a Tyrant. 

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

EliphaZy Bildady and Zophar are delivered as 
the allies and friends of Job : So Sanballat the Mo- 
ronite had given his daughter to one of the fons of 
Joiada the fon of Elia(hib( the high prieft ' : And 


^ Nehem. 




f Chap. 



• 7' 


5 Chap. 


ver. 1, 2. 



ii. 14.. 




xiii. 28. 


86 The Divine Legation Book VI. 

'Tchiah had made two alliances with the Jews : his 
fon Johanan had married the daughter of Meiliul- 
iam the fon of Berechiah ; and he himfelf had 
taken to wife the daughter of Shechaniah the fon 
of Arah ^ 

Eliphaz^ Bildadj and Zophar came in a friendly 
manner with offers of fervice and affiftance : So 
did thefe enemies of the Jev/s, as we are informed 
both by Ezra and Nehemiah: " Now when the 
•' ADVERSARIES of Judah and Benjamin heard 
*' that the children of the captivity builded the 
" temple vmto the Lord God of Ifrael : Then 
" they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of 
" the fathers, and faid unco them, I>et 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 we ourfelves 
'' will build unto the Lord God of Ifrael, as king 
'' Cyrus the king of Perfia hath commanded us^" 
And Nehemiah's anfwer to Sanhallat^ 'Tohiah^ and 
Gejhem^ (hews, 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, but you have no 
*' portion^ nor rights nor memorial in Jerufalem ""." 
And of 'Tohiah in particular, he fays : Moreover in 
the fe days the nobles of Judah fent many letters unto 
Tobiah : and the letters of Tobiah came unto them, 
Alfo they reported his good deeds before me^ and uttered 
my words to him. And Tobiah fent letters to put me 

^ NtH. vi. t8. ' Ezra iv. i, 2, 3. *" Neh. ii. 

2p. " Neh. vi. 17, {9. 


Sedl. 2. of Mos E s demonjlrated. 87 

The three Friends of Job were worfhipers of the 
true God \ and fo were thefe Adverfaries of the 
Jews': For when, in the place quoted above, they 
aflved to build with the Jews, they give this realbn 
of their requefl: For v^e seek your God as yi 
do^ and we do facrifice unto him fince the days of 
Eferhaddon king of JJ/ur, which brought us wp 
hither \ 

The three-Friends were perpetually deriding and 
upbraiding him for his fins :- And of this Job fre- 
quently complains in the courfe of thedifputation''. 
So Nehemiah tells us, that when Sanballat the Ho- 
ronite, and Tobiah the fervant^ the Ammonite^ and 
Gefhem the Arabian heard that they were fet upon 
building the walls of Jerufdem^ they laughed them to 
fcorn^ and defpifed them^ and faid^ What is this thing 
that ye do ? Will ye rebel againfi 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 JImll even 
break down their f 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 
crime, as Sanballat, tobiah, and the Cutheans, were 
made the inflruments of their punifhment. — Eli- 
phaz the Temanite charges and upbraids Job with 
the mod flagitious crimes : Is not thy wickednefs great ^ 

<• 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, 

*i Neh. ii. 19. \ Chap. iv. ver. i, 3. « Mal, ii. 11. 

G 4 and 

83 The Divine Legation Book VI 

and thine iniqiHties wfinite^ ? And thus the Cu- 
theans reprdented the Jews, to Artaxerxes : " Be 
*' it known unto the king, that the Jews, which 
" came up from thee to us, are come unto Jeru- 
" falem, 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 fhalt 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 {edition within the fame of old 
" time ; for which caufe was this city detlroyed ''."— 
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 adminiilration of afiairs, 
the Rich had opprefied the Poor by a rigorous ex- 
a(5lion of their debts : And there was a great cry of 
the people and of their wives^ againfi their brethren 
the Jews. For there were that f aid ^ V/e., our fons^ 
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- 
yardsy 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. Yet now our fiefh is as theflefh of our bre- 
thren., our children as their children : and lo we bring 
into bondage our fons and our daughters to be fervantSy 
andfome of our daughters are brought into bondage al- 
ready,, neither is it in our pow^r to redeem them •, for 
other men have our lands and vineyards ". This abufe 
Nehemiah reformed ; and in reproving the oppref- 

* CKap, xxii. ver. 5, « Ezra iv, \^ 14, 15, 

* NeH. V, I, ^ /tq, 


Scd . 2 . of Moses demonfiratcd, 8 9 

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

reproach was intended to be reprefcnted in theie 
words of Eliphaz : For thou haft 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 : ^he Lord faid to Eliphaz the Te- 
manite : My wrath is kindled againft ihee^ and agniiifi 
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 
am very fore difpleafed with the Heathen that arc 
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 feven bul- 
locks and f even rams, and go to my fervant Joh^ and, 
offer up for your [elves a burnt -offerings and my fer-, 
vant Job jh all pray for you, for him will I accept : Lefi 
J deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not 
fpoken of ine 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, pro- 
cured from. Darius, commanding the Cutheans 
(who had hitherto fo much hindered) now to affjft 
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 

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

ver, 7, ^ Zecu. i. 15. « Chap, xlii, ver. 8. 

'' the 

go ^he 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 thefe 
'' 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 given. 
*' 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 fwect favours unto the God of 
*^ heaven, and pray for the life of the king 


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 
ta their malignant 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 lad gave up the general 
queflion •, 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. r, 6, ^/f, 


Scft. 2. of Most, s demonjlrated. 9 1 

xxxi. This ended tbedifpute: for, in the beginning 
of the next chapter % the writer tells us, — So thefe 
three men ceafed to anfiver Job^ becatife he was righ- 
teous in his 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 
difpute 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 
leffon of obedience and fubmiffion. 

2. The fecond reafon of the condemnation of 
thefe faile Friends was, becaufe they had fupported 
their condemnation of Job by a pretended Reve- 
lation. — Now a thing was fecretly brought to me 
(fays Eliphaz) a7id mine ear received a little thereof. 
In thoughts from the vifions of the nighty when 
deep fleep falleth on men^ fear came upon me, and 
tremblings which made all my hones to floake : then a 
Spirit pajfed before my face, the hair of my fiefh flood 
up : J flood fill, but I could not difcern the form 
thereof : an image was before mine eyes, there was 
ftlence and I heard a voice faying, " Shall mortal 
'^ man be more juft than God," ^c \ This was 
the chara6ler, 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. Thus 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 hord faith ; 
and the Lord hath not fent them. — Have ye not 

^ Chap, xxxii. ^ Ch^p. Iv. ver. 12, i^ feq, 


92 The Divine Legation Book VJ^ 

feen a vain vifion^ and have ye not fpoken a lying 
divination^ whereas ye fay ^ "T he Lord faith it^ albeit 
I have not fpoken? Therefore thus faith the Lord 
Gody Becaufe ye have fpoken vanity and feen lyes^ 
therefore behold I ant againft youy faith the Lord 

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 
Mafk, and expofe the true face of the Subjedt j this 
afTault upon Job being that very attack which the 
Prophet Zechariah tells us, Satan made, at this 
time, on the People. The only difference is, 
that, in this Poem, it is Job ; in that Prophecy, it 
it is Jofhua the high priefi^ who Hands for the Peo- 
ple, In all the reft, the identity is fo ftrongly mark- 
ed, that this finglc 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 fons of 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 anfwcred the Lord, and faid. From going 
*' to and fro in the earth, and from walking up 
" and down in it. And the Lord faid unto Satan: 
*' Haft thou confidered my fervant Job, that there 
*' is none like him in the earth, a perfect 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 

I EzEK. xiil. ver, 3, l^ feq, 

8 " thine 

Seft. 2. ^ M o s E s de?nonJirated. ()^ 

" 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 himlelf put not torch 
** 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 fiefh, before the 
" Lord : for he is raifed up out of his holy habita- 
" tion. And he fhewed me Joshua the high 
*' prieft Handing before the angel of the Lord, 
♦* and Satan Handing at his right hand to refill 
" 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 
*' Jqfhua was clothed with filthy garment s^ and ftood 
*' before the angel. And he anfwered and fpake 
*' unto thofe that ftood before him, faying, ^ake 
*' 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 ftamina. 
— ^atan ftanding at the angel's right hand to reftft 
Jofhua is, (when drawn out more at length) his 
perfecution of Job. — Jofbua 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 heady is Job's returning Profperity. 
And the angel of the Lord fianding hy^ is God's In- 
terpofition from the Whirlwind. 

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

▼er. I. ^yfj. » ' 


94 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VL 

But we have not yet done with this Charader. 
The finding Satan in the fcene is a ftrong proof 
that the Work was compofed in the age \ye have 
affigned to it. This evil Being was little known 
to the Jewifh People till about this tinoe. Their 
great Lav/giver, where hefo 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 
wifeft 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 
an evil Demon tempting men to mifchief : And in the 
popular Religion there was always a Fury at hand, 
to purfue 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 inflrument. (The rea- 
fon of this wife condud hath been in part explained 
already, and will be more exaflly 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 
Micaiahfaid^ Hear thou therefore the word of the 

^ See Di-v, Leg, Vol. i. p. 128. 4th ed. 

* Divine WifJom procures mnny ends by one ancf the fame 
»;f««; fohne, bt fides this ule, of throwing the Reader's at* 
tcntion entirely on the Sa-pent, it had another, 'viz. to make 
the Serpent, which was of the mod facred and venerable regard 
in the Myllerious Religion of Egypt, the object of the Ifiaelite** 
iitier abhorience and detelbtion. 


Seft. 2. c/* M o s E s demofjjlrafed. q^ 

Lord : I faw the Lord fitting on his throne^ mid all 
the hoft of heaven ftanding by him^ en his right hand 
and on his left. And the Lord f aid : TFho Jhall per- 
fuade Ahah that he may go up and fall at Ramoth- 
Gilead? And one faid on this manner^ and another 
faid on that manner. And there came forth a spirit 
and flood before the Lord, and faid, I will perfuade 
him. And the Lord faid unto him: Wherewith^ 
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 \ Go forth 
end do fo "". Satan is not here recorded by name ; 
and fo we muft conclude that the People were yet 
to know little of his hijiory : However, this under- 
taking fufSciently declared his nature. On the re- 
turn from the Captivity, we find him better known i 
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 firll 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 nu7nber 
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 flood up againfi Ifrael, and provoked 
David to number Ifrael °. For, His hiilory having 
an infeparable connexion with the Redemption of 
Mankind, the knowledge oi them was to be con- 
veyed together : and now, their later Prophets 

« I Kings xxii. 79, 'd /ej. ^ t Sam, x^'iv. i, 

• I Chron, ;^xi. I. 


^6 The Divine Legation Book VI. 

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

Here let me ftop a moment, though I antici- 
pate my lub)e6l, to adore the vifible fplendor of 
the divine Wifdom, in this period of God's moral 
Difpenfation : We have obferved that the fulnefs 
of 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 neceifary 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 OEconomy, 
they were of great advantage to the Jewifh people 
at thofe very jundlures when each was firft made 
known unto them. The hifiory of Sata% it is evi- 
dent, they were brought acquainted with in their 
Captivity •, and nothing could better fecure them 
from the dangerous error of the two principles, 
which was part of the national Religion of the 
Country into which they were led captive. The 
do5irine of a future ftate they learnt fome fmall time 
after their thorough Re-efiablifhment\ 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. 
Bat this, as I fay, is anticipating my fubjed, and 
will be explained at large hereafter : The other is 
the point we are at prefent 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 
Ferfonaze of the Drama. 

^ ^ Wc 

Sefl:. 2. o/^ Moses demonjirated. 97 

We have obferved, 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 queftion 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 mod obnoxious to the danger, as 
coming from a place where this ftrange Dodrine 
made part of the pubHc Religion. It was of the 
highelt importance therefore to guard againft both 
thefe errors. And this the facred Writer hath ef- 
fe6tually done, by Ihewing that Satan, or the 
evil Spirit (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- 
llrument 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 perfedl and confpicuous. Plence we fee 
(which dcrferves our ferious refledion) how ufeful ic 
was to this purpofe (what little light foever it gave to 
the Queftion) torefolve all, when the difpute came 
to be moderated and determined, into the omni- 
potence of God, who is reprefeated as the sole 
Creator and Governor of all things. And, what 
the Wifdom of the Holy Spirit direded the Wri- 
ter of the book of Job to do, in this point, on 

Vol. V. PI their 

98 The Divine Legation Book VL 

their coming from the Land which held the belief 
of TWO PRINCIPLES, the fame Wifdom dire6led 
Ifaiah to do, on their going thither. This Prophet, 
in the perfon of God, addrefTing his fpeech to 
Cyrus, whom God had appointed to be the inftru- 
ment of his People's Reftoration, fays : / am the 
Lord^ and there is none elfe^ there is no God befides 
me. I girded thee^ though thou haft not known 


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 ail 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 power^ 
c'rid his underftanding fmiteth thro" the proud *^. — 
This evidently alludes to the miracle of the Red- 
fea^ and the deftrudtion 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 intelle5lual, — By his Spirit he 
hath garnished /i?^ heavens \ his Hand hath formed 
the crooked serpent "■. i. e. He made the ma- 
terial and intelledlual world \ and in this latter, 
the evil Being himfelf, (that pretended Rival of 
his power, and Oppofer of all his good) is equally 
the work of his hands. The progrefTion and 
connexions of the parts, contained in this whole 
period, are extremely beautiful. His work of 
Providence, as Lord of Nature upon earth, led 
properly to his work of Creation above, as the 

P Is. xlv. 5, 7. ^ Chap. xxvi. ver. 12. ' Ver. 15. 


Sefl. 2. ^ M OS E s dwwnJlratecL 99 

Maker and Governor of all things : and his 
chaftifement of the proudeil and mofh 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 fubjedlion, the evil Spirit, in his charadler of 
the firll Caufe of all things. And, to connect thefe 
two relations together with the greater juflnefs, 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^ with his fore and great and ftrong [word flmll 
piinijh Leviathan the piercing ferpent^ even Levia^ 
than that crooked serpent, and he ftoall Jlay the 
Dragon that is in the fea \ Let us oi3ferve, that 
the Writer of the book of Job, in the lad 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 
garnifhing 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, feverai eminent Commentators, both Jews 
and Chriftians, were inclined to underftand the 
crooked ferpent as fignifying the great Conftellation 
fo named, fituate near the ardlic pole \ or at leaR", 
that enormous trail of light called the Galaxy or 
Via ladlea. And thofe Moderns who have been as 
backward to find a Devil for their Tempter, as a 
God for their Redeemer, thought it agreed beft 
with their focinian reafoning-fcheme \ the general 
mention of the garniture of the Heavens^ being well 

« Chap, xxvii. i. » J02 xxvi, 

H 2 followed 

I bo Tke 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 tafle of Rhetoric feems none 
of the bell. It is a ftrange 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 iirength from 
the rules of human eloquence, and art of compo- 
fi'tion, hath often but a flender fupport. I fhall 
go on therefore to fhew, that an Hebrew Writer 
(and he who, after all that has been laid, will not 
allow the Author of the book of Job to be an 
Hebrew, may grant or deny what he pleafes, for 
me) to (liew, 1 fay, that an Hebrew IVriter^ 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 neceOitated them to cultivate, did not 
reprefent the Stars, either fingle or in Conflellations, 
by the name or figure of any Animal whatfoever j 
but diftinguifhed them by the letters of their alpha- 
bet, artificially combined. And this they alTure 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 pidturefque as their 
neighbours. But ftill they did it with modefty and 
referve •, and hcfitated even then, to admit of any 
human Figure. The reafon given for this fcrupu- 
lous obfervance, namely, the danger of Idolatry, is 
the highetl confirmation of the truth of their ac- 
count. For it is not to be believed, that, when 
the ASTRONOMY and superstition of Egypt 
were lb clofely coUcagued, and that the combina- 
tion was fupported by this very means, the names 


Sedl, 2. g/' M o s E s demon/Irate J. 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 
fuffer them to make ne^uo likenejjes there : which, 
if not in the firit 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 Afcronomy, we may obfervc, 
that the TranQators of the Septuagint, the Heads 
and Dodors of the Jewifh Law, who muil needs 
know what was conformable to the pradlice derived 
from that Law, underftcod 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 fon of Earache* the 
Buzite^ who is brought upon the flage in the thirty 
fecond chapter. He is made to reprove Job with 
great afpcrrity ; and, like the other three, to have 
his wrath kindled againfl him : -and yet, to the 
furprife of all the Com.mentators, he is not in- 
volved in their Sentence, when God pajfTes judg- 
ment on the Controverfy. Here again, the only 
folution 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 againfl Job arofe from this, that 
Job jufiifed himfelf rather than God % that is, was 

" Chap, xxxil. ver. 2. 

H 3 xnor^ 

102 Tke Divine Legation Book VI. 

more anxious to vindicate his own innocence than 
the equity of God's Providence. For under the per- 
fon of Elihu was defigned the facred Writer hhn- 
fclf. He begins with the charader of a true Pro- 
phet, under which, as in the adl of infpiration, he 
reprefents himfelf I am full of matter^ the Sprit 
ivithin me ccnfiraineth me. Behold my helly is as wine 
^Lvhich hath iio vent^ it is ready to hurft like new bot- 
tles \ And this, he contrafts with the charafter of 
the falfe Prophets of that time, — Let me not, I pray 
you^ accept any man's perfon^ neither let me give flat- 
tering titles unto man ^ . But all this will appear 
fi'om the following confiderations. 

Ehhu, on the entrance upon his argument, ad- 
drefTes the three friends in the following manner ; 
sSovj he hath net dire^ed his words againjl me : nei- 
ther will I anfwer him with yovk fpeeches'''. This 
fufHciently difcriminates his caufe and character 
from theirs. He then turns to Job : " My words 
" (fays he) fhall be of the uprightnefs of my 
"" heart ', and my lips fhall utter knowledge clearly. 
*' l^\it Spirit of God hath raade me^ and the breath 
*' of the Almighty hath given me life. If thou 
" canil anl\ver me, fet thy words in order before 
" me, and Hand up. Behold I am, according 
^* to thy wish, in God's stead : I alfo am 
" formed out of the clay %" &c. This clearly in- 
timates the character of God's chofen Servant : 
Thefe v;ere of approved integrity, they received the 
divine infpiraiion, and were therefore in God's flead 
to the People. Elihu goes on in the fame flrain. — 
*' He excites Job to attention, — accufes him of 
charging God with injufticc, — reproves his impic- 

* Chap, xx.xij. vcr, iS, 19. >' Vsr. 21. ^- Chap. 

ji^xW. vcr. J 4. ** Chap, xxxiii. vcr. 3, is' fy. 

Scd. 2. of Moses demonjlrated, ioi> 

ty, — tells him that men ciy in their afflidions, and 

are not heard for want of faith : that his fins 

hinder the dcfcent of God's bleffi'-gs ; whofe 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 ^, mentio.ned 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 
de fires to juftify him \ And yet he accufes him of 
faying, // profit eth a man nothings that he Jlooidd de- 
light himfelf with God^ ; and expoftulates with him 
yet further-, Thinkeft thou this to he right that thou 
faidfi. My righteoufnefs is more than God's? For 
thou faidft^ What a,dvantage will it he unto thee^ and 
what profit jh all I have^ if I he cleanfedfrom myfm^? 
Here the Commentators are much fcandalized, 
as not feeing how this could be fairly colleded 
from what had pafied ; 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 etb in them ; or^ Where is 
^' the God of judgment^ ?'' And again : Tehavefaid^ 
It is vain to ferve God : and what profit is it^ that 
we have kept his ordinance^ and that zve have walked 
mournftdly hefore the Lord of hofts ? And now we 
call the proud happy : Tea they that work wickednefs are 
fet up; yea they that tempt God are even delivered^. 

*• Chap, xxxili. ver. i8, ^ feq. 

'^ Chap, xxxiii. ver. 32. 

^ Chap, xxxiv. ver, 9, 

* Chap, XXXV. ver. 2, 3. 

* Mal. ii. 17. 2 PvIal. iii. 

14, 15. 

H 4 


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 ♦, as appears not only from the beginning of 
God's fpeech to him "^ ; but from his own confef- 
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 
juftice of God. This was the very ftace of the 
Jews at this time: So exactly has the facred Writer 
condu(5led his allegory ! They bore their flraits 
and difficulties with temper, till their enemjes the 
Cutheans^ and afterwards Sanhallat^ 'Tobiah^ and the 
Arahians confederated againil them •, and then they 
fell into indecent murmurings againflGoD. And 
here let us obferve a difference in the condudl 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 fhews that his charge was true^ and that 
theirs was unjuft'. 

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

^ Chap, xxxviii. * Chap. xlii. ver. i, ^ feq, 

^ Chap. ii. ver. lo. 

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

*" From chap, xxxii. to xx;rvii. 


Sedt. 2. ^ M o s E s demonflrated. 105 

wards put into the mouth of God himfelf % refolv- 
ing all into his omnipotency. Elihu's fpeech 
is indeed in every refpedt 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 
conducing his fubjedl. The end and purpofe of 
this Work was to encourage the Jews to a perfe- 
verance in their duty from the alTured care and pro- 
tection of Providence. At the fame time, as they 
were growing impatient, it was necelTary this temper 
ihould 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 W^riter had finely pre- 
pared us, in making Job, in the heat of the difpu- 
tation, fay to thefe friends, TVilt thou /peak wickedly 
for Cod? and talk deceitfully for him ? Will ye accept his 
perfon ? will ye contend for God ? Is it good that he 
JJjould 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 circumilance in the 
call of Elihu's oration. The three friends, in the 
grand quellion concerning an equal Providence^ 
went diredtly over to one fide, and Job to another : 
Elihu inclines to neither, but refolves all into fub- 
mifTion to the almjghty power of God. For it 
was yet inconvenient to acquaint the Jews, (who 
were juft going to fall under a common Providence) 
with the truth of their cafe. Hence, to obferve it 

" From chap, xxxviii. to xlii. <> Chap. xiii. ver. 

.8. ^/ej. 


ic6 I'he Divine Legation Book VI. 

by the way, another circnmftance arrfes to deter- 
mine the date of the poem. We have fhewn that 
the Subject fuited only this time : We now fee that 
the manner of treating the Subje6l could agree to 
no other. On the whole, this intermediate fpeech 
of Ehhu's was the fined preparative for the de- 
cifive one which was to follow. 

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

But laflly, Elihu's not being involved in the 
condemnation of the three friends is the moft con- 
vincing argument of his very different Chara6ler. 
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 fentence pafTed 
upon the three friends \ and that, for the crime of 
impiety, 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- 
racter. But let us once fuppofe, thefe three friends 
to reprefent the Adverfaries of the Jews, and the 
difficulty ceafcs. All their pretences are then hypo- 
critical : and they impiouHy afiume the Patronage 
of God only to carry on their malice to more ad- 
vantage againft Job. Vvhy the Writer of this 


Seft. 2. g/'MosES demonjlrated. 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 queflion in debate, and the ma- 
nagers of the quefhion, neceflarily requiring that 
the part they took ihould 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 perfed reditude, becaufe he 
reprefented the perfon of a Prophet. 

But to fee the truth of this interpretation in its 
befl light, one Ihould have before one's eyes all 
thofe difficulties with which the Commentators of 
the book of Job are entangled at almoft every 
fcep. A view of this would draw us into an 
unreafonable length. I fhall only take notice 
of one of the mod. judicious of them, (who has 
colle6led from all the reft) in the very cafe of this 
Elihu. Calmet charadterifes the fourth friend in 
this manner: "There was now none hut Elihu the 
youngejl and leafi judicious that held out againjt JoFs 
arguments — Elihu here by a vain parade and over^ 
fioz^ of words gives a reafon p, &c. Again : Elihu 
was given to reprefent one who knew not how to he 
Jrlent^ a great talker '^. And again : It carmot 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'Eliu, qui etoit le plus jeune & le molns judlci- 
eux, qui ne fe rendit pas — par un vain etalage des paroles Ella 
rend ici raifon, &c. Sur C. xxxii. ver. i. 

•5 Pour defigner un homme ^ui ne fe peijt taire, un grand 
caufeur. Sur C. xxxii. ver, 48. 


jo8 The Divwe Legation Book VI. 

ftrange prejudice and vifible injuftlce in moft of the 
nccufaiions he hrings againft 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 unlays all the 
hard things he had thrown out againft him. 
JlUhotigh Elihu (fays he) had miftaken the fenfe of 
his friend's words^ yet^ for all that^ God feems^ at 
leaft^ to have approved his intention^ becaufe when 
he declares to Job's friends that they hadfpoken amifsy 
and commands them to offer up burnt-offerings for 
themfelvesy he only fpcaks of Bildad, Eliphaz^ and 
Zophar^ without menticning Elihu, Beftdes^ Job 
anfivers not a word to this lajl^ and by his filence 
feems to approve of his difcourfe\ Grot i us, who 
ftrove to be more confiftent in his charadter of 
Elihu, which yet his acquittal in God's fentence will 
not fufter any Commentator to be, upon the received 
idea of this Book, has run into a very ftrange ima- 
gination. He fuppofes 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'ignorance k de la pre- 
fumplion dans ce que dit Eliu, &, fur tout, une etrange pre- 
vention Sc une injuftice vifible dans la plupart des accufations 
qu'il lorma contre Job. Sur C, xxviii. ver. 2. 

" Quoiqu' Eliu eut mal pris le fens des paroles de fon ami, 
toutefois Dieu fcmble approuver au moins Ion intention ; puif- 
que lorfqu'il declare aux amis de Job qu'ils ont mal parle, & 
qu'il ordonne qu'on ofFre pour eux des holocaulies, ii ne fait 
mention que de Bildad, d'Eliphaz, Sc de Sophar, fans parler 
d'E!iu. De plus, Job ne repond point a ce dernier, Sc par fon 
filence il femble approuver fon difcours. 

* Elihu hie non ncminatur, ut nee fupra ii. 11. forte quod 
aflecla CiTet alicnjus trium. In C. xlii. ver. 7, 


Se<5l. 2, ^/ Moses demonjlrated, 109 

the two fpeeches of Elihu and God with the leaft 
attention, that the dodrine and the realbning are 
the fame. Yet Calmet's general character of Kiihii 
is, that there is a vam parade and overflow of words ; 
that there is a mixture of ignorance and prefwmption^ 
and ^ vifihle injuftice^ in moft of the accufations he 
brings againft Job. And yet of God's fpcech he 
fays. Here we have a clear solution of the dif- 
ficulties which had perplexed a?id enibarraffed thefe 
five friends \ — Pity that this clear folution fliould 
turn out to be no 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 uncontroverted 
reception and conftant place in the Canon, and its 
internal marks of divinity, which this Expofition 
has much iiluilrated and enlarged, but its bein^ 
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 himfeif; 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 ftatutes 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 de la piece, & la folution izz difu- 
cukcz qui avoifciu ete agitces entreces cinque amis. 

^ I Cor. ill. lo. He tnheth the iv'-ft in their on.vy: croSti>:''fs. 
Job v. 13. y EzKA vii. 6, lo. 


iro 7be Divine Legation Book VI. 

fettled the Canon, and added in feveral -places 
throughout the books of his edition., mhat appeared 
necejj'ary for the illuftrating^ conne5iing^ or corn- 
pleating of them ^. He is reafonably fiippofed to 
be the author of the two books of Chronicles and 
the book of Eflher. 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 deflrudion of the 
Scriptures in the Babylonian captivity, and Ezra's 
re-produ6lion of them by divine infpiration. 

Thus is our interpretation of the book of Job 
fo far from taking away any dignity, or authenti- 
city it was before polTefTed of, that it eftablijQies 
and enlarges both. The fhewing it principally re-' 
fpeded a whole People highly ennobles the fub- 
jed : and the fixing an anonymous writing on 
one of the mod eminent of God's Prophets greatly 
flrengthens its authority. But the chief advantage 
of my interpretation, I prefume, lies in this. 
That it renders one of the moil difficult and ob- 
fcure books in the whole Canon, the mod eafy and 
intelligible i reconciles all the chara(5i:ers to Nature, 
all the arguments to Logic, and all the dodtrines 
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 always taught, that it is of divine 


riavincr brouo-ht down the date of this book fo 
low, it is of little importance to our fubje<Jt, whe- 

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


Sed. 2. of Mos E s demonjirated. i r i 

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

I make no fcruple then to declare for the opinioa 

of thofe v/ho fay that the words, [/ know that my 
Redeemer liveth^ and that he Jhallftand at the latter 

^ Indeed, had the book of Job the high antlcjuity which the 
common fyilem f^ppofes, the contending at the fame time fdr 
x\iQ fpiritual fenfe of this text, would be followed with infUper*- 
able difHculties : but thefe, let the fupporters of that Syftem look 
to. The very learned Author of the argument of the Divine Le- 
gation fairly fated, ISc, hath fet thefe difficulties in a light 
which, I think, {hews them to be infuperable: '* Thofe men, 
•' (fays this excellent writer) who maintain this fyftem, [of 
** the high antiquity of the book, and the fpiritual fenfe of 
*-' the text] muft needs regard the text to be direSi and 
** literal, not typical or fgurative. But then this difficulty 
*' occurs, How came Moses (if he was the Author) to be (o 
** clear in (he hook of J cb, and fo obfcure in the Pentateuch? 
** Plain expreffion 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 fpiritualized 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 [o dazzle, not to aid their fight, 

*' Nor is tlie 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 LJcfes, to the God of Mofes : For while the book of 
*' Job was defigned by Providence, for part of the Jezvijh Cavon, 
** it is the fame unaccountable condutt tho* removed thither. 
'* The Resurrection is open and expofed to all in rhe book 
*' ^f J^^* ^^^ 't is hid and covered under types and figures 
*' in the Pentateuch, From whence arifes this noble truth vvor- 
■*' thy of its in venters, Thct the fi^me doSlrine may, at one. and the 
** fame time, be the proper objiSl both of dear and tnanfef^ and of 
*' dark and uncertain iontemplatiorij to the fame Pcrfor.i.'" p. 134. 

9 day 

1 1 2 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

day upon the earth. And though after myjkin^ worms 
dsftroy this hody^ yet in my fleflo jhall I fee God. 
Whom I fhall fee for myfelf^ and mine eyes fhall he- 
hold^ and not another ^] can fignify no more than 
Job's confidence in a temporal deliverance ; 
as all agree they may fignify. And therefore I 
fhall the lefs infift upon a common obfervation, 
" That our Tranilators, who v/ere in the other 
opinion, have given a force to their expreffion 
v/hich the Original v^ill by no means bear." 

My reafons are thefe, i. To unrferfland the 
words, of a Refurretlion^ is repugnant to the whole 
tenor of the Argument: and to undcriland 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 

I. We mufl obferve that the book of Job is 
flridiiy argumentative : and though fententious, 
and abounding with poetic figures, yet they are all 
fubfervient to the matter in difpute. In this re- 
fpedt, much unlike the writings of David and 
Solomon, which treat of divine or moral matters 
in fliort and detached fentences. On which ac- 
count, the ableft of thofe, who go into the fenfe 
of a Refurre5fion^ have found the neceiTity of recon- 
ciling it to the Context. Thus much being grant- 
ed, we argue againft the fenfe they put upon it, from 
thefe coniiderations. i. Firft the Difputants are all 
equally embaraifed in adj ailing- the ways of Provi- 
dence. Job aflirms that th^ Good man is fometimes 

* Chap: xix. ver. 25, IJ /tg> 

unhappy i 

Sed. 2. of Mo$ES demonJlraUd. 1 1 j 

unhappy : yet he appears to regard that Difpenfation 
as a new thing and matter of wonder, upright men 
Jhall he aftonijhed 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 diflionour on God's 
attributes. Now the do6lrine 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 queflion, 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 againfl them, viz. The confcioujnefs of his 
own tJinocence, 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! underfland 
to be this- — '' Take, fays Job, this proof of 
" my innocence, I believe, and confidently expe6l, 
*' 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 twentieth 
chapter, to defcribe the puniihment of the Wicked 
to be juil fuch a flate as Job then laboured under. 
He does not directly fay, The Good are not miferahle ; 
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 ha^fy. Now fup- 
pofe Job fpoke of the Reftirre5fion^ Zophar's anf- 
wer is wide of the purpofc. 2. But what is dill 
more unaccountable, Job, when he refumes the 

^ Chap. xvii. ver. S. 
Vol. V, I difpute. 

1 14 T'he Divine Legation Book VI. 

difpute, flicks to the arguQient he firfl fet out 
with j and, tho' he found it gave his Friends little 
iatisfadion, yet he repeats it again and again. 
But this other argument of a Refurre^ion, fo full 
of Piety and Convidlion, 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 object of 
their thoughts, it pafTed off 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 
afflided the Good man: it would be unjuft; there- 
fore the Good man was not afBided. Job fays, 
that God did afflid the Good man -, but that Rea- 
fon muft here fubmit, and own God's ways to be 
infcrutable. Could he pofTibly i-eft in that anf- 
wer, how pious foever, if he had the more fatif- 
fadlory folution of a future state ? To this 
let me add, that if Job fpoke of a Rcfurre5iiony he 
not only contraditfls the general tenor of his argu- 
ment, maintained throughout the whole difputa- 
tion, but likewife 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. vli. ver. 9, 21. Chap. x. ver. 21. Chap. xvi. 
ver. 22. Chap. xiv. ver. 7, l^ ftq. Could one who fiid, For 
there is h pe of a iree^ if it be cut doivriy thai it n.Killfp>out agairty 
6cc. But man dielh, &c. could fuch a one (I fpeak of the per- 
fonated charadler) think of the body like him who faid, But 
fome man nvill fay, Ilonv ere the dead raijed up^ and nvith 'what 
hody do they come ? Thou fool^ that nvhtch thou fo'wej} is not 
qiiickned except it d e. And that nvhich thou foijoejl thoufo^vtj} 
n.t (hat hody that /hall be, but bare grain, ii may chance of <^vheat 
tr fome other grain, Sec. 

- 3 a mani- 

Scd. 2. of MosE s demonjlrated. 1 15 

a manifefl: difference between a contraeildlon of 
opinion and beliefs as in the firfi: cafe ; and of pafjion 
and affetlion only, as in the latter. And for this 
contradiction he feemstoapologife, when he comes 
to himfelf, by defiring that this confidence in his 
Deliverer might be engraved on a Rock, as the 
opinion he would (land to. 3. But what is fcrang- 
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, ileps 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 Dodrine of the Refurre5iion to be refumed ; 
and that the honour of the folution v/hich 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 Vv'hy neither the Moderator nor Decider fliould 
employ it, to clear up difficulties, when Job him- 
felf had touched -upon it before ? Elihu juftifies 
God's condu6t: •, 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 
do6lrineof 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 underilanding. 

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

I 2 r.ovf 

Ii6 ^he Divine Legation Book VI, 

now provoked paft fufferance at the inhumanity 
and malice of his pretended Friends, gives him- 
felf up to defpair ^ ; and feems, 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 
he forfaken for thee? and Jh all the rock be removed 
cut of his place " ? i. e. becaufe it is thy pleafure fo 
obftinately to maintain that God does govern by 
equal Laws, Ihall 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 pafllons ?) Job recolledts himfelf 
in the nineteenth chapter, and comes again to his 
former mind. He begins by complaining of their 
cruel ufage.: 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 j and then retra6ls what had fallen from 
him iri the anguilh and bitternefs of his foul: and 
iaftly delivers this as his fixed fentiment, in which 
he was determined to abide ♦, (and in which he had 
indeed acquiefced, till made iitipatient and def- 

« Chap. xvii. ^ Chap. xlii. voj, 15, 16.— 

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

** By the Rock I fuppofe is meant the extraordinary Pro'vi- 
^enct of God\ this being the common name by which it went 
amongfl the Jewiih People. He is the Rock, his ixork is jer~ 
fe^ : For all his Ways are Jucigmenf^ Deut. xxxii. 4. The 
Rock of his Sal^atiotiy ver. 15. — Of the Rock that begat thee^ 
ver. 1 8. Except their Rock had fold them ^ veJ*. 50. 7heir 
Rock is not as cur Rock, even our Enemies theinfel-j-s being Judges, 
ver. 31. Their Rock in ivhom they trufed, ver. 37. Neither 
is there any Rock like our (iody i Sam. ii. 2. 7he Rock ^^/Ifrael 
fpnke to me, 2 Sam. xxiii, 3. O Rock, thou haf efahhfhed 
ibtm^ Uec. i. 12. and a greatnumber of other places. 


Scft. 2. of Moses demonjlrated, iiy 

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 : Oh 
that my words were now written^ Oh that they were 
printed in a bock^ 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 dif, 
temperature of paflion, I here retradl, and defire 
may be forgotten, and that this may beunderftood 
as my fixed and unfliaken belief \ And in this 


^ Chap. xix. ver, 23, 24. 

^ Here the Cornirti Critic ccferves, *' 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 iiny 
** 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 exa6l in this life? And yet the 
** ingenious Author, as if fond of reconciling contradicflions, 
** makes Job's Thefis to be this, that Pro^vidence is not equally 
" adminijieredy at the fame time, that he afcribes to him a con- 
<* iidence which could not possibly arife but from the per- 
** fuafion of an equal Pro'vidence,^'' p. 156. 

I make Job hold th<^t Pro=vidence <vjas not equally adminijlertd. 
I make him to hold likewife, that he himfelf Jhould be rejhred 
to his former felicity : And this, our Critic calls a contradic- 
tion. His reafon is, that this latter opinion could arife only 
from his perfuafon of an equal Pronjidence. 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 fald in the words which gave 

ocgafjon to tliis notable obfervation) that Job had through the 

1 3 diftempera* 

II 5 7ke Divhte Legation Book VI. 

fentiment, it is remarkable, he henceforward 
perfeveres , never relapfing again into the like ex- 
travagance of palTion. Which condu6l agrees 
exa(5lly v/ith 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% 
liverance^ and not the refurrc5lion of the body^ mufl 
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 predidted, 
in order to allay that tumult of mind which arofe 

diftemperature of paffioo advanced foms .hings which on cooler 
thoughts ha retraced, His argument againlt an eqi'ul Pronji' 
dsnce was fometimes pudied fo far as to have the appearance of 
concluding againll any Providence at all. But he, at length, 
corrects himfclf for this extravagance of exprefllon ; and de- 
liberately concludes, that though the ways of God were feme 
how or other beconie unequal, yet that Providence had not de- 
ferted the ciSt of mankind, but would at length bring the good 
man out of trouble. Yet this is the confidence, nvhich, this moft 
confident of all Critics fays, could not possibly arife but from 
the pcr/uajion of an equal Pro=v'idence : And for this it is that he 
charges me with 2i fondnefs for rcccnciling'ions. Here I 
fhall take my leave of this Difccurfer on the book of Job, with 
declaring, that a more contemptuous, diiingenuous and ignorant 
V/riter never aflumed the honourable name of Answerer ; yet 
I would not deny him his ftaticn amcngll: the Learned. I think 
the fame apology may be made for him, that a namefake of his, 
in his hiftory cf the Carthufians, made for their general Bruno, — 
*' that doubtlcfs he could have wrote well if he would, for he 
*' printed a MifTal in an exceeding fair letter, and delicate fine 
♦* I'snting fci^er'' P^trei Bib. Cailh, fol. 35. 


Sed:. 2. ^ Mo s E s demonjlrated, 119 

in every one, on feeing the extraordinary Provi- 
dence, which prote6led their Forefathers, now juft 
about to be withdrawn from them. 

III. Thirdly and laftly. To underftand thefe 
words of a refurre^ion of the body^ exprefsly con- 
tradidls Job's plain declaration againii any fuch 
hope, in the following words. As the cloud is con- 
fumed and vanifheth azvay^ 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 fJjall not awake^ nor he raifed out of 
their Jleep ". And again. If a man die^ fJjall he 
live again " ? Clarius and Drufins on the words, 
//// the heavens be no more^ fay, Intellige in sternum 
— eft fenfus, nullo unquam tempore, nam coelum 
femper erit. It is not in human language to ex- 
press a denial of the Refurre6iion of the body in 
flrongeror 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 the 
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. g. «" Chap. xiv. ver, 12. 

" Ver. 14. 

I 4 ManafTali 

120 ^he Dhiiie Legation Book VI^ 

ManafTah 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 lliew^ 
that this makes nothing againil the reality of fuch 
a State, 

I cannot better conclude what hath been here 
faid, on this famous paffage, 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 


This, though a maxim of the moft obvious rea^ 
fon, can never, in theologic 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 refurre6lion of 
the dead, by thofe who (as the good Bifliop fays) 
mold the truth of things on the ahufive fignification of 
words. " He that raifed up Chrifl from the dead 
" fhall alfo quicken your mortal bodies by his fpirit 
*' that dwelleth in you p." 

III. But as the terms^ in this paffage of Job, are 
fuppofed, by me, to be metaphorical, and to alludt 
to the reftoration of a dead body to life, fome have 
ventured to infer, that thofe who ufe fuch terms 
and make fuch allufions muft needs have had the 


^ nX'oy kJ TuC Ivcfjiocla, •rr^oo'V/XEt voiTv -cr^oij T7-,v Tuv vtto nf/,. 
Kxvo-Ai^nv. Sew, in Catena Gn^ca in Job. 

P Rom. viii, i \ 

favi ng 

Sed. 2. ^ Moses demonjlrated. \^x 

faving knowledge of the thing alluded to, Refur- 
redlion of the Body : And the following obfervation 
has been repeated, by more than one Writer, with 
that air of complacency, which men ullially have 
for arguments they think unanfwerable — If the 
Scriptures fpeak of temporal misfortunes and deliver^ 
ance^ in terms of death and a RefurreSlion^ then the 
do5lrine of a refurre5fion mufi have heen. well knowrty 
cr the language would have been unintelligible. And 
here I will lay down this rule., All words that are tifed 
in a figurative fenfe^ mufi be firfi miderflood 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 J?elief 
of it. I ftiall fhew therefore that the very con- 
trary to the firft part of the learned Dodlor's ob- 
fervation is true, and that the latter is nothing to 
the purpofe, 

I. The MefTengers of God, prophecying for 
the people'-s confolation in difaftrous times, fre- 
quently promife a reiloration to the former days 
of felicity : and to obviate all diftruft from un- 
promifing appearances, they put the cafe even at 
the worft ; and affure the People, in metapho- 
rical exprefTions, that though the Community v/ere 
as entirely diffolved as a dead body reduced to 
duft, 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 : Azvake and 
jpvgj ye that dtvell in the dufi : For thy dew is as the 

^ Dr. TeltoTii i'njq Sermons before 'jhs Umverjity of Oxford, 
p. 58, 19, 


1 22 ^he Divine Legation Eook VI. 

dew of herbs ^ and the earth Jh all caft out the dead \ 
And that we may have no doubt of the Prophet's 
meaning, he himfelf explains it afterwards in the 
foiiov/ing words ': And 1 will camp againft thee round 
about ^ and I ijoill lay ficge againft thee with a mounts 
and Iwillraife forts againft thee. And thoujhalt be 
brought down^ andfhalt fpeak out of the ground^ and 
thy fpeech fnall be low out of the duft^ and thy voice Jhall 
be as one that hath a familiar fpirit^ out of the 
ground^ and thy fpeech fhall whifper out of the duft. 
Nothing could be more plain or fimple than fuch 
?. metaphoric im.age, even amongfl men who had 
no knovv^ledge that the natural body was indeed 
to rife again •, 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 we fee there was no occafion 
for the do^rine of the Refurre^lion to make the lan- 
guage intelligible* 

Nay farther, this metaphorical expreflion mufl: 
have there moil efficacy where the doElrine of the 
Refurre^tion w2ls 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 new as 
fiiperior to its comprehenfion. Therefore life 
from the dead was ufed, (and from the force with 
which a nev/ 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 (hew, that the Dodtrine was un- 

f Chap. xxvi. ver. 19. • Chap. xxix. 3, 4.. 

known 5 

Seft. 2. o/" M o s E s demonjlrafed. 123 

known ; and that the Image was of more force 
for its being unknown. The Prophet EzekieP^ 
when the Hate of things was moil defperate^ is 
carried, by the Spirit, into a valley full of dry 
bones, and afl<:ed this qneftion, Son of man^ Can 
thefe dry bones live ? A qucftion which God would 
hardly have made to a Prophet brought up in the 
knowledge and belief of a Refurredion. 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 impoflibility of it to natural concep- 
tions ; 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 
€od thou knoweft °. This furprizing a6t of Onini- 
potency is therefore fhewn in Vifion, either re^l 
or imaginary. The bones come together ; they 
are cloathed with flefh, and receive the breath of 
life "". 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 Ifrael. And ye ihall know that I am the 
" Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my 
'' People, and brought you up out of your 
" graves, and fhall put my Spirit in you, and ye 
*' ihall iivei and I Ihall place you in your own 

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

" Land. 

124 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VL 

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

Here we fee, in a Prophecy delivered in A6lion 
or Vifion, inftead of Words (the nature and origi- 
nal of which has been difcourfed of elfewhere) and 
afterwards explained by 'wo'rds, to afcertain its 
meaning, that the figurative ideas of Death and 
Rcfurrec^ion are ufed for temporal diftreffes and de- 
liverance : and this, at a time when the Destine of 
the Rcfurre^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 doSrine ; the fcenical reprefentation, without 
all queftion, alluding to that proverbial IpeecH 
amongft the Jews : JVilt thou Jhew wonders to the 
dead? Shall the dead arife and praife thee"" ? On the 
whole then nothing was ever worfe grounded than 
the obfervation, that // the Scriptures fpeak of tern" 
foral jnisfortunes and deliverance in the terms of death 
and a refurreElion^ then the doctrine of a refurrec-r 
iion fnuft have been well known^ or the language would 
hdveheen unintelligible, 

II. And now for the general Rule which follows: 
'All words that are ufed in a figurative fenfe mufi be 
firft underftood in a literal. If no more be meant 
»than that every figurative fenfe has a literal, the 
propofition is true, but trifling, htC2.\^.{^ figurative 
is a relative term, and implies literal as its cor- 
relative. If it means, that he who ufes words in 
a figurative fenfe mull have an idea of the literal, 
this is likewife true, but nothing to the purpofe, 

y Ver. ii,t3/eqt =^ Ps. Ixxxviii. to. 


Sedl. 2 . ^ M o s E s demonjlrated. 12^ 

becaufe the idea of a thing does not imply either 
the truth or the belief oi it. But if it means^ than 
a figurative proportion implies the Ufer's heliej of 
its literal fenfe, 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 carcafej but they were Co f^iv from believing 
that was to be the cafe of all mankind, that they 
did not know whether it was poflible that thola 
bones in the valley could be reilored. 

To conclude with the Answerers of this Dif- 
fertation, the mifcellaneous M^riters on the Book 
of Job j 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 
fatisfadion, 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 afFedl to reprefent as vifionary 
and groundlefs, iliould be able to lay open and 
unfold the whole condud 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 ihould 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 affeded by the comnon opprobrium affixed 
to this book, of its being a 7tofe of ivax^ made to 
fuit every religious Syllem. 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 kr.gth of time and negii- 


126 T'be Divine Legation Book VI, 

^cnce, fo defperately perplexed, that Commen- 
tators have cholen, as the eafier taflc, rather to 
find their own notions in it than to feek out thofe 
of the Author. 

For the red. For any fuller fatisfadllon, He that 
wants it is referred to third chapter of the Free and 
candid examination of the Bijhop of London's ^princi- 
ples &c. where he will fee, in a fuller light than 
perhaps he has been accuftomed to fee fuch mat- 
ters, the great fuperiority of acute and folid rea- 
foning over chicane and fophiftry. 

s f: c T. III. 

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

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

I. Such as are fuppofed to prove the feparate 
Exiilence, or, as it is called, the immortality of the 

IT. Such as are fuppofed to prove a future flatc 

of Reward and punifloracnt ^ together with a Refur- 
re^iion of the body. 

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

^ Dt, Sherlock. 

Seft. 2. g/" M o s E s demonjlrated. 1 27 

*' ^Tf G^i 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 ; 
namdy its ralionaiily. My reafons are thefe:— I 
think indeed, it may be flri6i:ly demonftrated that 
Man's foul is immaterial \ but then the fam.e argu- 
ments which prove his immateriality^ prove like- 
wife that the fouls of all living animals are imma- 
terial', and this too without the leafl 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 confitl, 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 Anthropomorphite will fay it was hisjljape ; 
I conclude therefore it was his reason : And this 
farther appears from hence, When God fays. Let 
us jnake 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 or like nefs conCi^ed: for what 
was it that could inveft man with a Dominion de 
fa^o^ 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 iraage confided in 
REASON. And thus Phiio Judsus underilood the 

^ Gen. i. 27. ^ See Dr. Clarice againft Mr. Collins 

on the Soul ; and Thi Enquiij into ths Nature of the human Sou/, 
%y Mr. Baxter. 


izS ^he Divvie Legation BookVI. 

matter, where alluding to this text, he faysj 
A6yo(; Iflu Eixcoi/ 0£«. Reafon is the image of God» So 
much for the firil Objedion. 

2. The next is drawn from the following words 
of the fame Writer: " And the Lord God formed 
'' man of the diift of the ground, and breathed 
*' into his noftrils the breath of life^ and man be- 
*^ came a living foul^ j'* that is, fay thefe Reafoners^ 
he had an immortal foul. But this is only building 
on the ftrength of an englifh exprelTion. Every 
one knows that what the tranflation calls a living 
foul^ fignilies 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 Artift, is 
here reprefcnted as making and Iliaping out a 
fjgure of earth or clay, which he afterwards ani- 
mates or infpires with life. He breathed^ fays the 
facred Hillorian, into this Statue, the breath of Ufe-^ 
•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 firft man 
Adam voas made a living soul, "The kift was made 
A QuicKNiNG SPIRIT ^ Hctc wc find the Apoftle 
is fo far from underltanding any immortality in this 
account of Man's Creation, that he oppofes the 
mortal animal Adam, to the immortal-making 
Spirit of Christ. 

3. Again, God in his fentence of condemnation 
denounced againft all the parries concerned in 

^ Gen. ii 7. *" Numb. v\. 6. Sec alfo Lev. xxL 

1, 5. u. ' ^1 Coti.xv. 45— 49* 


Sed. 2. ^ M s E »■ demonjlrated. izg 

Adam's tranfgrefTion, fays to the Terpen t, / zvill 
put enmity betzveeyi thee and the woman •, and between 
thy feed and her feed: it fjjall hruife thy head^ and 
thou fh alt hruife his heel^. It will be allowed that 
even the moft early could not be fo ftupid as mo- 
dern infidels would make them, to underfland 
thefe words in their ftrid literal {q\\{q^ 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 underfland, by this part of the fen- 
tence, that " man fhould be reftorcd to his loll 
inheritance of immortality by the facrifice of Chrifl 
On the crofs," needed an exprefs revelation of this 
myflery. What then did the Jews underflaitd by 
it ? This certainly, and nothing but this, that 
*' the evil Spirit, who a6luated the Serpent, would 
continue his enmity to the human race ; but that 
man, by the divine afTiftance, fhould be at length 
enabled to defeat all his machinations." 

4. Agaitti the phrafe ufed by the facred Hifto- 
rian to indicate the deaths of the Patriarchs is fur- 
ther urged in fupport of the oppofition. — "i/^ died^ 
and wtis gathered to his People ^ And dying is ex~ 
prelTed by going down into the grave^ or into Hell^ 
ScHEOL. — I will go down into the grave ('fays Jacob) 
[or into Hell] 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 one common Receptacle of Souls : for that it is 
not only faid, the man died and was buried^ but 
likewife that he was gathered to his fathers : And 
Jacob faid, he would go down into the grave to his 

s Gen. Hi. 15. '' Gen. xxv. 8 — 17. Chap. xxxv. 

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

Vol. V. K fvn. 

130 The Divine Legation Book VI, 

forty who was luppofed to have been devoured by 
wild beads." But i. TheObjedlorsdo not refledt 
on the genius of the Eaftern fpeech, which gives 
a6lion 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, 
f. e» that he fhould find no eafe to his forrows till 
he was reduced to the fame condition. 2. The 
Objedors 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 firil 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 expreffions occur ; 
the Hiltorian's purpofe being evidently nothing 
elfe than to record the period of their exigence 
here on earth. 

Thefe (except fuch as have been confidered 
elfewhere) are all the texts I can find objeded to my 
pofition, 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 againft 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 
lead fome vague notion of the Soul's furviving the 
I body. 

Se£t. 1. ^ M o s E s demonjl fated. 1 3 1 

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 ft ate of reward 
and punifhment^ or a refurre^io7i of the hody^ 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 a fhadow of things to corne^ hut that the body 
was ^/Christ ''." If the Objedors mean by this, 
that the fan6tion of Temporal reward and punilh- 
nient was no more than a mere reprefentation, in 
figurative expreflions, of the Doctrine of z future 
ftate ^ without any real meaning in the then Provi- 
dential difpofition of the things of this life^: If, I 


^ CoLoss. ii. 17. 

' This wicked fancy fome early Chrijlian Writers fcem to 
have gone far into; particularly Origen; who, becaufe Gel - 
fus had fuppcfed, abfurdiy enough, that the propagators of 
the Gofpel had borrowed the Dodrine of ^future Jiate 'ixoxw. 
the Pagan Philofophers, was refolved not to be out-done, and 
therefore tells his adverfary, " that where God fays in the 
book of Mofes, which was older than all the Pagan writings^ 
I a7n come donjon to delinjer them out of the hand of the Egyptiatiif 
and to bring them up out of that land, unto a good land and a 
large ; unto a la^id flonxing njjith milk and honey ; unto the place 
of the Canaamtes, and the Hittiteiy and the AmoriteSy and the 
Ferizzitesy and the Hi'viteSy and the Jehujites [ExoD. iii. 8,] 
he did not mean, as ignorant men imagine, the country of Jw 
deay but the kingdom of heaven 'y for that hovv good a land fo- 
ever Judea might be, it was yet part of that earth which had 
been put under the curfe, and therefore, ^' ./* — ex h^^ or* 

J -^2 ^he Divine Legation Book VL 

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


Mx'yyj^?, -rrro^Aoj ic) Twy ''E'K'Kr,nK^v y^a[jiy.dT:<:v a^^onors^'^, ilc" 
vifacys. Tov Qiov i7Txy[iK?^oiMvoy tw ayiav yr,Vj x^ a.yuQr,y }^ 'WoTO^y^Vy 
^crccv yccKcc tCj ^ihi^ r^r? xala toi/ vo/^oy layiy ^iuxraa-iv' a^ a<; o'iovlxi 
Tivc? T'nv ayaO'/jy, T'^v> voi/^iCpuivriV lnocxficcvj Ki^iAiivri'J >C ccvtov h T/> 
dp-)(;c^iv zxl-^pociiivr} Iv roTq s^fon; tv7? 'Ujd^ci.QouTicjq rs Acxyi. yvj. Cont, 
Celf. p. 3^0. He that can rave at this ftrange rate mull needs 
confidcr ths whole fanflion of temporal reward and paniihment 
6s a mere figurative reprefentation o^ 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 mud be obliged to hearken to them, if the endea- 
vours of thcfe Anfwerers become fuccefsful in proving the non- 
FXisTENCE of the extraordinary Providence (as promifed by 
Mofes) againft the reafoning of the D, L. that it was actually 
^dminiftered, in purfuance of that promife. For, by Origen's 
Commentaries (publifhed by Huetius) it appears, that he was 
led into this iirange opinion by taking it for granted, as Sykes, 
Kutherforth, Stebbing, and fach like writers have fmce done, 
that under the Law, the beft and moft pious men were frequently 
jniferable, and the wicked profperous and happy. 

'^ II y a parml les fedateurs d'AIi, une fede qui prend Ton nom 
d'un Doiikur nommi Alidiatthab, lequsl a enfsigne que les 


Sed. 2. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated, 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 lenfe. 

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, dally per- 
formed, were typical or fignificative 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 ft ate of rewards and pinifJoment s was not taught 
to the Jewifh People by their Law. The Objedors 
fuppofe, as I do, that the Jewifh and Chrillian 
Religions are two parts of one entire Difpenfa- 
tion. St. Paul tells 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 ". Yet, 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 fliew 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 ne Law of a carnal 
Qornrifiandment j Ihe miniftration of Death j The Law 

delices du Paradis, Sc les peines de TEnfer ne font autre chofc 
que les plaifirs & les affliflions de la vie. Herbelot BibL Orien->- 
talet Mot Akhrat & Akhret. 

" I Cor. XV. 46. o Ro.M.vii, 14, 

K3 of 

134 ^^'^ Divine Legation Book VI. 

cf IVorks : and call fubjedlion to it, Subje^ion to the 
flcjh. Yet thefe very Writers at the fame time 
own that the Law was spiritual, or had a fpiritual 
meaning. But if by this they would teach that the 
fpiritual meaning was generally underilood tinder 
the Law, their whole argument had concluded in 2, 
felf-con tradition. For then it was not a Law of 
a carnal commandment^ a miyiiftration of death \ but, 
indeed a Law of fpirit^ a miniftration 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 pocus. The confequence 
of all this would be, that the Law was of equal 
dignity, and, tho' not of equal fimplicity, yet, in- 
deed, elTentially the fame with the gospel. They 
owned, we fee, that the Law had 2i fpiritual fenfe ; 
but when, and by whom difcovered, the Apoitle 
Paul informs us, by calling that fenfe the newness 
OF SPIRIT P ; 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 fpirity 
in contradiitindlion to the oldnefs of the letter,.. So 
true was it, what, in another place he obferves, 
that the Law was a ^nhXiOV^ of things to come-, but 
the BODY was of Chriji % The fhadow not of ^ 
hodyi\itT\ to be feen or underilood, as thefe Anfwer- 
ers imagine, but of a body that was to come, and, 
by its prefence, to explain the meaning andreafoa 
of t\\^ Jhadow, For the Jews being, as the ApoHle 
fays, in bondage under the elements of the world\ 
were as men fhut up in prifon, with their faces 
kept turned from the light, towards the white4 
wall of Ceremonies : on which indeed they faw 
xn^ny fliadows -^ but the ^^^ or oppofite fubft^nce 

f PeOir vii, 6. Q Col. ii. 17, r Ga^, iv. 3. 

Seft. 2. of Moses demonjlrated, 135 

at their backs, to which they could not turn, they 
faw not. And in this ftate, fays the fame Apoftle, 
they were kept 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 everhiftiTig, 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 chara6ler 
truly of a People acquainted with the reveaPd 
Dodrine 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 alTift their weak fight. But farther. The bet- 
ter part of the Objedors, I fuppofe, will allow 
that temporal good and evil were not only propoled, 
but actually difpenfed to the Jews, living for feme 
time under an equal Providence. And what was 
the confequence of this but to confine ih^m to the 
literal fenfe of their San6lion, and ftop them from 
looking farther? Yet in defiance of Realbn, of 
Scripture, of the order of things, nay even of 

5 Gal. iii. 23, 

K 4 thf ir 

1-6 TJ^ JDiviiie Legation Book VI, 

their own fyftems, 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 
alono- with, and was infeparably attached to, the 
literal in the underftandings of the Jewilh People. 
Which is fo ftrangely abfurd, that it takes away 
the very caufe and occafjon of tivo fenfes. For, 
Why, let ine aPK, had the Law a fpiritual fenfe, 
und^r a carnal cover, but for thi^ reafon, that the 
^rft Jews were fo grofly minded as to be incapable 
of fpiritual things -, and were therefore, in order 
to dired and govern their affe6tions, prefented 
with the carnal, to repofeupon? Th?LtScboolmaJler, 
as St. Paul calls the Lav/, which v/as to bring thern 
by degrees, through thofe carnal elements, to the 
fpiritual and fublime Dodlrines of Christ. — Yet 
fee the fcheme of thefe Objedors. 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 through 
this carnal flicll to which they were attached, in- 
to the fpiritual fubflance, for which they had no 

I'his may be Reafon, fay thefe rnen j but what 
is human Reafon, when oppofed to Scripture ? 
Jufl: what it was, fay I, before you fet them at 
variance: and apparently for no other purpofe than 
to filence and difgrace this modcfl Hand-maid of 

However, Scripture, it feems, informs us that 
the figurative and literal, the fpiritual and carnal 
frnfes of the Law always went together. This, they 
fay, the Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews plainly 
teaches. nere are Priejls ischo offer gifts ac- 

Sefl:. 2. ^ M o s E s demonftrated, 137 

cording to the Laiv ; who ferve unto the example 
and Jhadow of heavenly things^ as Mofes was ad- 
monified of God when he was about to make the 
"Tabernacle. For fee (faith he) that thou make all 
things according to the pattern floewed thee in the 
7noiint \ But thefe v;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 intelle6ls 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 ofiice in the miniflry of God's 
Difpenfations than Abraham had, fhould be lefs 
favoured than Abraham was. Yet tho* I believe 
this, the text here urged in fupport of it, does 
in ftridnefs, prove little of the matter. The Ob- 
jedlors fuppofe the (trSc of the text to be this. — 
" that the Friejisferved unto the example andfhadow 
" of heavenly things^ and that of this truth, Mofes 
" was admonifJoed^ by God in the mount." But 
the Apoille is here intruding us in a very different 
truth. T he words — as Mofes was admonifjjed of God 
—are a Simihtude or Comparifon which conveys a 
fenfe to this purpofe, — " The Priefls, 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. 


138 ^he Divine Legation Book VL 

(liewed him of it, in the mount." Not only the 
Argument which the Apoftle is upon, but the 
propriety of the word X^^/xar/^w points us to this 
lenfe-, which fignifies to command or dired: the 
doing of a thing by an Oracle or Magiftrate ; and 
this Xfi^iwctlio-juo? or diredlion we find in the place 
which the facred writer refers to— y^nd look that thou 
make them after this 'pattern^ which wasjhewed 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 doclrines of the Go^^tX.—Unto 
us [Chrillians] was the gospel preached as well 
unto iheyn [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^jhallall 
the families of the earth he hleffed^. The Jews un- 
derftood this to fignify 2l formulary^ that men (hould 
ufe, when they invocated the choiceft bleiTings on 
their friends and families, to this effed; May 
God hlefs thee as he hlefjed Abraham. And the firfl; 
of Chriftian Interpreters, Hugo Grotius, under- 
flands it to fignify a promifed blefTing, which, in 
time, fhould be derived to the whole earth, from 
Abraham's care that his pofterity fhould continue 
in the belief and worfiiip of the one true God, 
Indeed, when the fulnefs of time came, it v/ould 
then be feen, both by Jews and Chriftians, that 
this blefTing 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. 


Scft. 2. nf Moses demonflrated. 139 

Again, "God fays to Abraham, I am thy exceeding 
great rezvard ^" And again : " -^I will eftablifh 
*' my covenant between me and thee, and thy feed 
" after thee, in their generations, for an ^i;^r/^/»g- 
*' covenant ; to be a God unto 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 
*' Itranger, all the land of Canaan, for an ever- 
" lafting polTeflion *, and I will be their God V 
*' 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 thele 
texts been urged by an excellent Writer ^ againft 
the Sadducean opinion, as containing a promife of 
future rewards in another life : But urged by him, 
I will fuppofe, as proving fuch 2Lpromife in zfecondary 
or fpiritual fenfe only. Becaufe that fenfe 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 xh^ literal fenfe it is a promife of the 
land of Canaan to Abraham and to his pofterity j 
jind in this fenfe it was literally fulfilled, though 
Abraham was never perfonally in pofTeflion of it ; 
fince Abraham and his pofterity, put colledively, 
fignify the race of Abraham j and that Race 
pofTefled 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 fhould be put into pofleffion of it: for when 
Abraham defired to know whereby he might be 

^ Gen. XV. i. » Gen. xvii. 7, 8. 

* Dr. S. Clarke in his Evidence of Nat. and Rev. Religion, p. 
HJ» cd, 6. 


140 7he Divine Legation Book VI, 

certain that he, i. e. his feed ihould 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 fhoiild he a' 
fir anger in the land that was not theirs^ andfljould 
ferve them^ a)id that they fhould affli^i them four 
hundred years •, that afterwards they fJooidd ccme out 
with great fubftance^ and in the fourth generation 
Oioidd 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 
feace^ and fhould he buried in a good old age *". Thus 
we 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 pofTelfion of the Land. 
And left any miftake fhould remain concerning the 
accomplilhment of this promife, the facred Hiflo- 
rian fums up the relation in thefe words : hi that 
fame day the Lord made a covenant with Ahram^ fay- 
b2g^ Unto thy seed have I, given this land^^ 
But had the Hiftorian omitted fo minute an explana- 
tion of the promife, yet common fenfe would inftrudl: 
us how to underftand it. A whole Country is 
given to Abraham and to his feed. Could it poii 
nbly be God's defign, who does nothing in vain, 
t,o pLice 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 pofTefTion was the put- 
ting him into it. Not to fay, that where a Grant 
i^ made to a body of men coUedlively, as to a Peo- 
ple or a Family, no laws of contracl ever under- 
ftood the performance to confift in every individual's 

*^ Gen. XV. 8. «' Gen. xv. 13, ^ /^q, « Ver. ir. 

f Ver. 18. ^ y^ 

5 being 

Seft. 2. of Moses demonjlrated, 141 

being a perfonal partaker. 2. Secondly, the giv- 
ing an heavenly Canaan to Abraham could not be 
the literal fenfeof the text, becaufe an earthly Ca- 
naan is ov/ned to be the dire^l immediate fubjed of 
the promife. The Jews indeed contend for this 
literal itn^t^ and with fome fliew of reafon v for 
they hold, that t\\Q future ft ate at the Refurredion 
will be pafled in the land of Judea, where Abra- 
ham, they lay, is then to rife and take poflefllon ^. 
This is confident however. But thefe Christian 
Objectors, who hold no fuch opinion, muft be 
content at lad to find 2i 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 ft ate : and, efpecially fmce the Author of 
the epiille to the Hebrews hath brought ' it as a 
proof that Jacob and the Patriarchs looked for a 
better cauntry. That Jacob did fo, is unqueilion- 
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 poll 
te, terrain peregrinationis tuae. Atqui conftat, Abrahamum, 
& reliquos Patriarchas earn terram non pofTedifTe : necefTe ergo 
ell, ut refufcitentur, quo bonis promilTis fruantur ; alioqui pro- 
mifTa Dei irrica & falfa forent. Hincitaque non tantum anim^ 
iMMORTALiTAS probatur, fed etiam ejfentiale fundament um legisy 
Resurrectio fcilicet mortuorum. ManafliVh Ben-Ifrael ^> 
RefurreSiione Mort. p. 7. 

^ Gen. xlvii. 9. ^ Chap, xi. ver. 13, 


142 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VIv* 

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 underftood to mean by his pil- 
grimage^ the unfettled way of life, living in tents, 
and removing from place to place, as the con-- 
venience of paflurage 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 the fewnefs of his 
dnysy he himfelf explains it to be, not on account 
of the fhortnefs 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 epiille to the Hebrews 
puts upon thefe words, mult needs be the Jpiritual 

3. The fame Patriarch, in his laft benedifbion • 
of his fons, breaks in upon the prophetic blefiings 
with this pious ejaculation, / have waited for thy 

falvation^ Lord ^ : which is fuppofed to refped: 
the falvation of mankind by Jesus Christ. I 
grant it doth fo in afpiritual fenfe ^ nay, for ought 
I know, it may in a literal. But how fhould an 
early Jewifh Reader underfland it in this fenfe, 
when the fame terms of the 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 the Myiiery of the Gofpel hath been fa 
long revealed, chriilian Commentators underfland 
it in an hundred different fenfes ? 

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

^ Gen, xlix. 18. 


Se6l. 2. of Moses demonjlrated. 143 

and let my laft end he like his * ; Which is under- 
ftood as a wifli that he might be partaker with the 
Righteous in another life. Had the apellate 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 n)y 
pofterity flourifhing about me : as was the lot of 
the righteous obfervers of the Law." This vaia 
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 expedling the lafl 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 ftri61:ure of the Law in Le- 
viticus, urged by Dr. Stebbing in this manner, 
*' Mofes inforces the obedience of the Ifraelites 
" upon this confideration, Te fhall therefore keep 
*' my fiatutes 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 fiatutes 
" and judgments which God gave them by his 
" fervant Mofes ; which cannot be underftood of 
" this temporal life only, becaufe the befl men 
*' were often cut off in the midft of their days, 
*' and frequently fufFered greater adverfities than 
*' the mofl profligate fmners. The Jews therefore 

1 Numb, xxiii. lo. 

"* Chap. xxxi. ver, 8. 

" Levit, 

Xi'iii. 5. 

« have 

144 ^'^^ Divine Legation Book VL 

" have conftantly believed that It had a refped to 
" the life to come. When the lawyer in the 
*' Gofpel had made that moll important demand, 
" Mafter^ ivhat /hall I do to inherit eternal life °, 
" our blefTed 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 queflion, tells him, nis do^ 
" and thou /halt live:' 

The Objedor would have the promife of life m 
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 the judaizing Chriftians, concern- 
ing iJi'hat it was which jufiified before God, or in titl- 
ed to that eternal life brought to light by the 
Gofpel. They held it to be the works of the Law 
(believing, perhaps, as the Objedor afiTures us 
they did, that this text, in Leviticus, had a refpetj 
to the life to come:) Sz, Paul, on the contrary 
affirms that it ^^dis faith in Jefus the Meffiah. And 
thus he argues — " But no man is jultified by the 
*' Law in the fight of God it is evident : for the 
*' Jufi fJdalllivehy faith. And the Law is not of 
" faith, but the man that doth them fhall live in 
*' them P." — As much as to fay — " That no man 
can obtain eternal life by virtue of the Lajjo is 
evident from one of your own Prophets [Hab] 
who exprefsly holds, that the juji fhall live by 
FAITH *^. Now, by the Law, no rewards are pro- 
mifed to faith, but to works only. "The man that 
DOTH them (lays the Law in Lcvit'.) fJoall live in 
them:* Here then we fee that this very text, 

*• Luke x. 25. f Gal, iii Uj '2. 'J ii. 4. 

' -wlii. -. 


Se(5l. 3' 9f Moses demonJi?-ated. 14^ 

which the Objector brings to prove that eternal life 
was by the Law^ St. Paul urges, to prove that it 
was not hy the Law. Let us attend to the Apoflle*s 
argument. He is to fhew that juftificalion^ 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/^///^; 
but, to DEEDS only, which if a man do he fhall 
live in them. Now, if, by life^ be here meant, 
as the objedor 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^ juftifies ; but thus, that both faith and 
the works of the Law jujiify^ which would have 
fatisfied thefe Judaizers, as reconciling on their 
own prejudices Mofes and Habakkuk ; but would, 
by no means, have fatisfied our Apoftle ; whofe 
conclufion on this queftion, where difcuifed ap 
large, in his epiftle to the Romans, is, that a man 
isjuflified by faith without the deeds of the Law \ 
The very drift of his argument therefore Ihews us, 
that he muft neceflarily underftand the life^ pro- 
mifed in this text of Leviticus, to be temporal 
life only. But charitably ftudious, as it were, to 
prevent all pofTible chance of our miftaking him on 
fo important a point, He immediately fubjoins, 
Chrift 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, lliews plainly that in the 
Apoftle's fentiments, the Law had no more a Ihare 
in the redemption of fallen man than Adam him- 

5 Rom. iii. 28. * Gal. iii. 13. 

Vol. V. L fe]f 

146 T& Divine Legation Book VI. 

felf had. Yet it is certain, that if the Law, v/hen 
it lliid, He "xho keeps thefe ftatutes and judgments {hall 
live in ihem, meanr, for ever^ it propofed the Re- 
demption of mankind as compleatly as the bleifed 
Jefus himfelf did, when he faid, be that helieveib 
in ;;;j ffjall have everlafting life. This becomes 
deironftrahle, if St. Paul's reafoning will hold, 
who furely had heard nothing of this prerogative of 
theL^'zcJ, when he faid, If thei'e had been a 'La^ given 
ivhich could have given life^ verily right eoufnefs Jhould 
have been by the haw. Where obferve, I pray you, 
the force of the v/ord ^cocTror^o-at, which fignifies to 
quicken., or to make alive \ plainly intimating the 
fame he had faid in the place quoted before, 
that thofe in fubjecdon to the Law were under a 
ciirfe., or in the ftate of death. — Let me add only 
this further obfervation, that if (as this Objector 
pretends) by life in the text of Levit. be meant 
eternal life \ and if (as the i\porde pretends) by 
life^ in the text of FJabiikkuk, be meant eternal 
life ; then will Mofes and Habakkuk be made diredly 
to contradict one another-, the firfc giving that 
eternal life to wop.ks, which the latter gives to 
FAITH. But Dr. Stebbing v/cuki infinuare, 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 
obtained by the Law. " When the lawyer in the 
*' Gofpel (fays he) had made that moll important 
" demand, Mafter, what pall I do to inherit 
" eternal life^'^'i our bleifed 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 hi^ queftion, tells 
" iiim, '•Ihis do and thou fh alt live'' — Would not 

" LuK :: X. 25. 


Sedl. 3. g/' Mos E s demonftrated. 147 

any one now conclude, from the {itx\{t here put 
upon the words of Jefus, that t\\^ found and ju- 
dicious anfwer of the Lawyer mufl have been a 
quotation of the text in Leviticus, — Te JJoall keep 
my ftatutes^ wJoich if a man do he fJoall live in them ; 
— or at Icaft 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/, 
"Thcufloalt love the Lord thy God with all thy hearty 
&c. and thy Neighbour as thy f elf Now how much 
foever we may differ about a future jiate^s being 
held out by the Law^ through a Meiliah to 
come, I fuppofe v/e are both agreed that faith 
in the Mcffiah^ either a6tual or imputed, is ne- 
ceffary to obtain this future fate. There are but 
two ways then of underiiandihg this text of St. 
Luke, neither of which is to his purpofe. The 
firfl is the fuppofing that Jefus included faith 
in hmfelf in this precept of loving God with all the 
hearty &c. which will appear no forced interpre- 
tation to him who holds Jefus to be really and 
truly God ♦, as, I im.agine, the Doclor 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 exadler interpretation is, that 
Jefus fpoke to a profefiing follower, who pretended 
to acknowledge his Miflion, and v/anted only a 
RULE OF LIFE. For Jefus was here preaching the 
Gofpel to his difciples, and a Lawyer flood up and 
TEMPTED hiin^ 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 mufl im- 

* Matth. xxii. 40. 

L 2 ply 

148 ^he Div'me Legation Book VL 

ply this, and this only, that zvithout righteoufnefs 
and bolinefs no manfljall fee the Lord. A point in 
which, I luppofe, we are agreed. — But ftill the 
Do6lor will lay 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 palTages in the Old, ac- 
commodated to a fpritual fenfe, where the texts 
alluded to, are feen, 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 lingle 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 Tifecondary fenfe of 2^ fpritual 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 conceflion 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 ftrangers that fojourn in Ifrael, 
*' that giveth any of his feed unto Molech, he 
" (hall lu rely be put to death''." Let me firft 
explain the text before I fhew 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- 
ftrace might be remifs in punifhing. The di- 

y Lev IT. XX. 2. 


Seft. 3. of Moses demotijlrated, 149 

vine Lawgiver obviates both : and declares that 
the Infanticide, in llich cafe, fhall fuffer death by- 
God's own hand in an extraordinary manner. 
The fupplial of the firft defe6l, is in thefe words, 
— " And I will fet my face againlt 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 againil that man 
" and again ft his family, and will cut him off \" 
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- 
forth. This fage provifion for the execution 
of the Law our Profelfor being totally unconfcious 
of, he infifts " that cutting off from among ft his 
*' Feo'ple can only mean eternal damnation, the 
" being configned to a ftate of punifhment in 
" another life ^" He is, as 1 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 h4fc already feen fome deledlable 
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 IfraeX and the cutting off from the People ^ 
are phrafes which fignify only capital punifhment 
of a civil-kind. Unlefs he will fuppofe that what 
is there threatened for eating leavened bread znd. pro- 
hibited fat^ is ETERNAL LIFE IN TORMENTS. 

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

^ Ver. 5. ^ Ver. 4 — 5, > Page 33. 

L 3 neither 

150 T'he Divine Legation Book VI, 

neither ivilt thou fuffer thy holy one to fee corruption, 
1'hou wilt floezv me the path of life \ inthy pre fence 
isfulnefs of joy ^ at thy right hand there are pica fur es 
for evermore^ — The fcope of the whole Pfahn is 
to implore the protection of God, from this con- 
ficieration, that the Piiilmiil himfelf not only fled- 
fliftly adheres to the Law of God, but is ready to 
o-ive 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 the land of Canaan a fair inhe- 
ritance — That this ftedfaft 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 m Hell^ &C5 &c. that is, fuffer him to fall 
immaturely, as was the lot of the tranfgrefibrs of 
the Law: — And concludes, that walking in the 
law of God is both the highefl: pleafure, and 
llrongeft fecurity. All which isexprefied in terms 
fo magnificent, as to iliew, 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 v/hich overthrows all ourt^reafoning. " St. 
" Peter (fays the Dcdlor) claims this paflage [Pf. 
*' xvi. 10, T I.J as relating toChrifl'srefurre(5tion\" 
But how does he claim it .? No otherwife than by 
giving it 2i.fecondaryfenfe. Now the learned Dc6lor 
himielf contends that the feccndary fenfe of the 
Prophefies was purpofely concealed and fecreted 
from the Jewifh Church : Confequently, the Re^ 
furre5lion^ the very dc6trine, which the fecondary 
fenfe of this text conveys, was fecreted from it. 
But then, the Do6tor fays, that " in the primary 

* PsAj.. xvi. 10, 1 1. '^ Acts ii. 25 — 29. <= Exam, p. 49, 

*' fenfs 

Sedl. 3 . ^ M o s E s demofijlrated. 1 5 1 

" fenfe David declares his expedatlon of a fu- 
*' ture flate, not in confeq'jence of any promife 
" of the Law, but by faith in Jefus Chrift." 
The refult then of the Dodor's expofitlon 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 {t:w{^ which 
reveals a future flate, and a fecondary fenfe which 
hides and fecretes it. — But he infifts much upon 
the following words of the text — In thy -prefence is 
fulnefs of joy^ and at thy right hand are pleafures 
for evermore. " ExprefTions, fays the Do6lor, 
" 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^ Pf. xvii. 15. and x.o tv\]o^ pleafures 
there for evermore^ the fame as dwelling in the houfe 
of the Lord for ever^ i. e. all his days, Pf xxiii. 6 
a fpiritual happinefs^ fure, though enjoyed in this 

But the texts of texts, the precious ones indeed, 
are thofe where a hell is mentioned ; as here — 
thou fh alt 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 almoft 
five times as often mentio7ied as in the New. It may 
be fo. Hovv^ever inft ead of examining into the juft- 
nefs of this nice calculation, I fhall chufe rather 
to confider what is to be underfiiood by the word, 
than how often it is repeated. Now, I fuppofe 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. 10. 

L 4 ufelefs 

152 T^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

ufelefs old furniture of the law, fays — and death 
and HELL were caji into /i?^ lake of fire : this is 
thefecond 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 •, fince the one is made the punifhment, 
or at leaft the extindion of the other. And to re- 
move all doubt, the Apoftie, we fee, calls this 
cafting into the lake, a fecond death, Muft not then 
the Lake itfelf be ^ [econd Hell? And if fo, could 
\\it jirft or the Old Teftament hell be any other 
than the grave ? The next words tell us, that 
'ujhofcever was not found written in the hook of life 
VJas 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 fubjed: here treated of) all phy- 
fical and moral evil fhall be aboiifhed. 

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 hid treafure.— As 
" for me, I will behold thy face in righteoufnefs : 
*' J fhall he 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 2, future ft ate, and, in 
the other, to a refurreEiion. And in this, the dif- 
fenter, Leland, as I remember, in fome of his 
things, feems much to triumph. But I fhall fhew 
that It means nothing lefs. 

1 hey have their portion in this life, fay ouj: 
tranflators, who, with great piety, had their heads 

* XX. 14, » Ver, ic. k j>s^ ^vii. \a, 15. 


6e<a. 3« of MosE% demonjlraied. j^j 

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 fmgular to their plural. This will be thought a 
ftrange Paradox by thofe I have to do with, who 
do 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 
flep further, and renders it, in life eternal. The 
Sept. tranflators, who beft underftood their own 
idiom, interpret it better than either, Iv tJ? ^m aurwv 
in this life of theirs. So that the true meaning of 
what we turn, their portion in this life^ amounts to 
this — they are prfeEily profperous. 

And now, concerning the words in the other 
ytx{t^ — Ifhall he fatisfied^ when I awake ^ with thy 
likenefs. For the fenle of thefe I Ihall tranfcribe 
the following pallage 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 Bavid y when I fhall 

" awake^ I fhall he fatisfied with the glory of thy 
^' countenance. And fo it hath truths in refped of 
" the refurredtion of the juft. — But all the other 
" interpreters agree to apply it to this glory : Iv rZ 
" o^6>ii/at Triv ^o^uv o-», at the appearing of thy glory ^ 
*' fay the LXXIL— r^^;? apparuerit gloria tua^ fays 
the Latin ; (and fo the Arabic and iEthiopic) 
— When thy fidelity fhall awake., faith the Sy- 
l"iac : And fo moil probably it is to be under- 

*' ftood. 


154 ^f^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 

" flood. By [God*s glory awaking] fignifying his 
" glorious and powerful interpoiition to David's 
" PRESENT refcne from his enemies hands. — And 
" thus the learned Cafteliio took it 5 turn fatiandus, 
« cum tua experreda fuerit imago ; IJhall he fatif- 
" fed when thy Ukenejs jJoall he awaked\" Other 
Interpreters, and thoie of the firfl Clafs, who make 
the awaking to refer to David, fuppofe it to fignify 
his morning adorations before the Ark, the lym- 
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 Hoiife of the Lord for ever ". By the houfe of the 
Lord can be meant nothing elfe but the Tabernacle 
or the 'Temple ': So that, for ever, or as the Fleb. 
lays, to length of days, mull mean that mature 
old age, which the Law promifed to its faithful 

10. In the xxxvi Pfalm, the facred Writer fays: 
For with thee, is the fountain of life : in thy light 
floall we fee lights. Here, to prove the imynortality 
of Man, a text is produced, which teaches the 

* Jnnot. on the xvlitli F/alm. 

^ Videtur fignificare David arcam, quam fingulls tempo- 
rib-JS matutinis Deu;n adoiaturus adibat. Cleric, in locum. Pro 
more Hebr. Poefecs, ipfum in San6luario quotidie in pisefentia 
J)t\ ad arcam, quod divina; pra^fentiaj fymbolum erat, iefe velle 
fillcrc, quod illi an'.e omnia in votis fuit, fummcque gaudio 
perfudit. Hare in loc^ 

« Ps. xxiii. 6. Ps. xxxvi, 9. 


Sed. 3. of Moses demonjlrated. 155 

eternity of God. But I know Some, who think 
there is a neceflary connedion between thefe two 

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 fhall confume in the grave, from their dwel- 
" ling. But God will redeem my foul from the 
" power of the grave, for he fliall receive me V* 
The literal meaning of vs^hich is, as appears by the 
context, that " the wicked fliould be untimely cut 
off and deftroyed, — in the mornings that is, by the 
judgment of the Law, which was adminiftered in 
the morning hours '^ \ 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 Ltfe^ 
Redemption^ &c. It is not Mifery^ Torments^ &c. 
as it mufl have been, did life literally fignify eter- 
nal life in a future ft ate ^ but it is death, which 
ihews it was a life here on earth, 

12. nou Jh alt guide 7ne (fays he again) wiih thy 
counfel^ and afterwards receive me to glory ^ Or, 
as an excellent Critic has it, Confilio tiio deduxifii 
me^ ^ pojlea cum gloria ex cepijii me, " Thou waft, 

P Ps. xlix. 14, 15. 

^ See Jerem. xxi. 12. ** O houfe of David, thus faith the 
" Lord,^ Execute judgment in the mormnc, and deliver him 
** that is fpoiltd, out of the hand of the oppreflbr, lell my 
*' fury go out like fiie, — becaufe of the evil of your doings." 

^ Ps. Ixxii?, 24, 


156 The Divine Legation Book VI. 

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

13. " But the mercy of the Lord is from ever- 
" lalVmg to everlafting, upon them that fear him^ 
*' and his righteoufnefs unto childrens children ; 
" to fuch as keep his covenant, and to thofe that 
" remember his commandments to do them '/* 
This is fo far from intimating 2i future ft ate ^ 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 Ueffing^ 
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 wickednefs : 


" DEATH "." That is, " the righteous hath hope 
that he fliall be deHvered from the moft 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 
haft delivered my foul from death \ Wilt not thou 
deliver my feet from fallings that J may walk before 
God in the light of the living"^ ? See Ps, xxxiii, 19. 
Ivi. 13. 

" Ps. cili. 17, 18. * ExoD. XX. 6. " Ps. cxxxiii. 3. 

^ Frov. xiv. 32, y Ps. xxxiii. 19. ^ Ps. Ivi. 13. 

i|5. AncJ 

Sed. 3. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated. 157 

16. And again — '^he way of life is above to 
the wifcy that he may depart from Hell beneath *, 
That is, I'he wife man prolongs his days here oi\ 
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 fhall pcrirti •, and the hope of un- 
" juft men perifheth '." And again,—" So Ihall 
*^ 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 
€xpe5lation which fhould deceive is that of worldly- 
wicked men to eftabliHi a houfe in their pofterity : 
And in the fecond, the expe Nation 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 cxprelTions, 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. We 

1 j8 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

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

18. Again : " Tliough 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 Jhall not he 
well with the wicked^ neither Jhall he prolong his 
daySy vohich are as a Jhadow ♦, hecaufe he feareth not 
before Gcd^. — That is, though the wicked be fuf- 
fered to go on for fome time, yet for all that. Ven- 
geance fhall 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 for row 
" 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, Thut it ivas to be 'well 
nxj'ith them tb:it fear God in the present mfe. 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 -well ivtth the ivickeJ, neither 

SHALL HE PROLONG HIS DAYS. — What \% tO bc donC With 

fuch a man ? 

^ Chap. xi. ver. 9, ^ feq. 


Sefl:. 3. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated, 159 

I'hat is, " in giving an innocent and lawful indul- 
gence to thy Youth, take heed left thou tranfgrefs 
the bound? of virtue and piety. For know, that 
God will certainly punifh thy offences, either ia 
thy own Perfon, or in thy Pofterity." 

Thefe are all the pafTages of moment (till we 
come to the Prophets) which I could find have 
been objeded to the Opinion, That a future ft ate 
of reward and punifhment is not in the Mofaic Dif- 
penfation. By which it appears, that the Objec- 
tors have been very inattentive to what an Inter- 
preter of the Old Teftament fhould 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 


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 expreffed by the Holy Spirit in fuch a manner, 
as makes it now evident, they had likewife a^/W- 
tual and fublimer 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 tliem- 

felves ; which the Chriftians have never yet ven- 

6 tured 

i6o ^he Divine Legation BookVL 

tured to put upon Duty. As they are mod of 
them of the nature of Riddles^ Riddles, for me, 
they fhall remain : only, for the curious Reader's 
fatisfaftion, I ihall mark out what the Rabbins 
brincr from the Pentateuch to prove the immor- 
tali t^ of the fouU ^^^ ^^^ refurre5iicn of the bod)\ as 
they are coUeded by the learned Manaffeh Ben- 
Ifrael, in his tradt De Refurre^ione Mortuoruni. 
For the immortality, i 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 Manaffeh Ben-Ifrael ; yet they muft all 
crive 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 
cf life with the Lord thy God : and the fouls of 
thine enemies^ them fo all he fling out^ as out of the 
middle of a fling, Sententia eft omnium Interpre- 
tum (fays this profound Rabbi) quod ad hunc 
textum, elle ipfum per modum commonitionis 
[qua declaratur] quifnam futurus fit anim^e ftatus, 
et ad quid tandem deventura fit, poftquam a corpore 
feparata fuerit \ atque oftendere duplicem effe ipfi 
ilatum, viz. quibufdam animabus eiTe gradum 
fublimem et locum ilabilem, apud Dominum fuum, 
dum vita immortal! fruantur, nee morti nee per- 
ditioni obnoxiae : aliis autem ludere fiudlus naturae, 
adco ut requiem et confiftendi locum non inve- 
niant, verum dolores perpetuos et cruciatus continuos, 
cu:n atcryia durations^ indar lapidis, qui e funda 
projedus circumrotatur in acre pro ratione virium 


gfecft. 4. of Mo ^ES demonJlrateS. 1 6 1 

jacientis, dein vi fua natnrali gravitate in terram 
decidit. Animse vero nee inefl gravitas quae ipfam 
deorfiim, nee levitas quas liirlum ferat; ideoque in 
perpetua efl confufione, percurbatione, trifticia, et 
dolore ufque in ceternum. Atque htsc re vera len- 
tentia efl sapientum et PHiLosoPHOP.uAf. — How 
profound a Do6lrine ! and how noble an original ! 
But this is not the firft, by a thoufand^ which has 
been raifed from a Metaphor, out of the hot-bed 
of theologic wifdom and pbilofophy. An abufe, 
that fome cooler thinkers of late have fancied they 
could never get well rid of, till they had turned the 
few Boolrines of true Chriftianity back again into 
Metaphors, And they have fucceeded to adirii-, 

SEC T. iV. 

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

I. The firft is that famous argument of Jesus 
againft the Sadducees : — Jefits anfwered and f aid 
unto them, Te do err^ not knowing the Scriptures^ 
7ior the power of God. — But as touching the Refiir- 
region of the dead^ Have ye not read that which 
was fpoken unto you hy God, faying, I am the God of 
Abraham, and the God of Ifaac, and the God of 
Jacob F God is not the God of the dead, hut of the 
living ^\ Now this very Text, had it been impar- 
tially confidered, would alone have been fufficient 
to convince thefe Anfwerers of the truth here con- 
tended for. At lead it convinced a much wifer man, 
the excellent Hugo Grotius, whofe words to his 

^ Matth. xxii. 29 — 32. 

Vol. V. M friend 

1 62 I'he Divme Legation Book VL 

friend Ger. Voflius are as follow : " In Mofis lege 
" (non dice in veteri Teftamento : nam de Pro- 
" phetis, pr^fertim pofterioribus, res longe alia 
*' eil) 2eternae vitas non fieri mentionem nifi per 
" umbras, aut rationis confequentiam, certifTimum 
" mihi videtur, Chrlfti autoritate, qui Saduc^os 
" non verbis dire^is, fed ratiocinando refellit '." 
There is not, I repeat it, any plain Text in the 
whole Bible (and this is amongft the plained) fo 
flrangely miftaken and perverted: For i. The 
appellation of the God of Abraham^ ^c. is general- 
ly underftood to be quoted by our bleffed Lord, as 
a dire6l proof ^ of the Refmre^ion of the dead body^ 
in the fame manner that St. Paul urges the cafe of 
Jesus : — But now is Chrift r if en from the dead^ and 

* Ep. 13c. ed. Am. 1687. Eriscopius had the very fame 
idea of this argument. — *' Et fane opinionum, qu^e inter Judasos 
erat, circa vitam futuri fzeculi difcrepantia arguit promifliones 
Lege faftas tales efie ut ex lis certi quid de vita futari fseculi 
ron pofiit colligi. Quod et Servator nofter non obfcure innuit, 
cum refurredionem mortuorum colligit, Matt. xxii. non ex 
prnmifTo aliquo Legi addito, fed ex generali tantum illo pro- 
miiTo Dei. quo fe Deum Abrahami, Ifjaci, k Jacobi futurum 
fpoponderat : quse tamen ilia colledio magis nititur cognicione 
intentionis divir.s fub generafibas iftis verbis occultatas aut com- 
prehenf^. de qua Chrifto ccrto conlbbat, quam necefTaria con- 
fpquentia five verborum vi ac virtute manifefta, qualis nunc et 
in veibis Novi Teftamenti, ubi vita seterna et refurreflio mor- 
tuorum proiam et puppim faciunt totius Religionis Chrifti.^nae, 
et t.nm clare ac diferte promittuntur ut ne hifcere quidem contra 
qui^ poffit." InJ], Iheol lib, iii. § I. c. 2r 

^ Mr. J,e ClerCy in his Defe^-fe des ^enttmens fur /' Hljioire 
Critique^ has fallen into this miilake. — Notre Seigneur prefle 
ces ttrmcs, en forte qu'il fuppofe qu'il ne faut qu'entendre la 
langue dans laquelle TEcriture parle pour reconnoitre la Refurrec- 
tion. Matt. xxii. 31. — II ne faut que lire ce raifonnement 
de Jcfus Chiirt, pour fentir qu'il ell tire de cette expreffion, etre 
le DUu de quelquun, que I'on ne pourfoit appliquer a Dieu, fr 
cclui, dont on dit qu'il ell le Dieu, etoit mjrt/am de-voirjumais 
rtfi'/citer. p. 102, 103, 


Sefl:. 4» of M OS IE s demonjlrated, 163 

become the fir ft fruits of them that Jlept '. But can 
any thing be more irrational or abfurd ? The bodies 
of Abraham and the Patriarchs were yet in dud, 
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 deady 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 introduction to the argument, — 
But as touching the refurre5fion of the dead^ — which 
they fuppofed an exordium to a /^fr^^ proof : Where- 
as it is an intimation only, to what an indire^ proof 
tended \ namely, that the Refiirre5lion of the body 
might be inferred thro' the medium oi xht feparate 
exijience of the foul ; which was, the only point Jefus 
propofed to prove direUly to them. The cafe ilood 
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 exiftence^ but fell into nothing at the diffolu- 
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 
blefied Lord thus divinely argues : — " But as con- 
cerning the Refurredtion 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 I'l^^ Divine Legation Book VL 

body, but hath a feparate exiftence. Now Mofes 
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^ but of the living ^ 
therefore the fouls of thofe Patriarchs are yet 
exifting in a feparate flate." — This is the force of 
the Argument ". 

2. The fecond miftake is, that Jesus, by thefe 
words infinuates that Mofes cultivated the Doc- 
trine of a Refiirre5fion^ or a Future Jiate, But 
here again the Objedors feem to forget, againil 
whom the argument is addreffed, the Sadducees. 
Now thefe not only held that Mofes did not teach^ 
but that he did not believe that Dodlrine. This 

^- Vy'hlch, (to obferve it by the way) unanfwerably confutes 
that Semipagan Dream of the foul's Jleepiyig till the refurredion 
of the body. And yet, what is ilrange to tell, this very text, in 
the courfe of difputation, which, like the courfe of time, brings 
things, as the Poet fays, 

— to their confounding contraries^ 

hnth been urged to prove that feep, or no feparate life', and this, 
by no Ids coiifiderable a man than Mr. Hales of Eaton, 
Chriji (faith he) pro^eth the future refurretlion of the dead from 
thence^ that God is the God of Ahrahain, IfuaCy and Jacobs hut is 
not the God of the dead, but 0/ the livings Whence he concludeth, 
that they Hue to God, that is, shall re recalled to life by God, 
that he may manifeji hinfelf to he their God or Benefactor. This 
argwjisnt ^would be altogether fallacious^ if before the RefurreStion 
they felt hea<venhjoy : For then God n.vould he their God or Bene- 
fador^ namely according to thdr fouls, altho'' their bodies Jhould 
ne'ver 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, and yet talk of its Jlecp between death and the refur- 
redion, ufe a jargon which confounds all languages as well as 
all reafon. For iuch 3. Jkep is an annihilation ; and the waking 
a^ain, a new creation. 

* /^ brief Ittquiry, chap. viii. 


Secfl. 4. cfMo 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 underiland the 
title of the God of Abraham^ ^c, to mean the pecu- 
liar tutelary God of Abraham's Family ; for the 
terms Jacoh and Ifrael are frequently ufed in Scrip- 
ture for the whole nation of the Jews •, Jaron for 
the whole order of the prieflhood ; Dan, Judah, &c, 
for the whole body of each tribe: And as, in rea- 
fon they mighty fo by the Hiftory of the early 
Jews, we find in fa6l, they did underftand it in 
this fenfe. 

The real force therefore of the Text, here urged, 
amounts to this, From Jesus's argum.ent it appears, 
that the feparate exiflence of the foul might be 
fairly inferred from the writings of Mofes : Which 
inference I not only grant fome 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- 
llood, had they only obferved that this has all the 
marks of a new Argument % unknown to the 

Pharifees ; 

" " Tho' this argument was a nezv 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 Dodlrine 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 (tudious 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 meditate^i. — If Mofes bring a 
conclujive argument for a doSIrine, it is plain he could not he Jiu- 

M 3 diouf 

i66 7i6^ Divine Legation Book VI. 

Pharifees ^ as indeed both the dignity of our Lord's 
character, and the imprefiion he would make on 
his Oppofers, feemed to require it Ihould be. Ac- 
cordingly, we find they are fhruck dumb ^ and the 
multitude that heard this, ajionijhed at his do£lrine''. 
But would Either of them have been fo affected 
with an old foundered argument, long hacknied 

Jiaus to conceal that doBrine, fays our ingenious ProfefTor. — If 
Roger Bacon, fay I, have given, in his writings, a true receipt 
to make Gun-Powder, he could not befiudious to conceal the com- 
pofition. And yet we know he was ftudious to conceal it. 
What reafons he had for fo doing, and how confident ir was 
with his giving the receipt, I leave to this profound Phiio- ;)her ; 
and Ihall cc;itent myfelf with Ihevving how confiftca. Mofes 
was in the conduct I have afcribed to him. — If both Mofes's 
pretenficns and thofe of Jefus likewife were true, the former mufl 
needs obferve this coridud, in his Inffitine, that is to fay, he would 
ornit the doftrine of another life, and, at the fan-.e time, inter* 
weave into the Lawfuch a fecret mark of its truth, that, ivhen 
the other Inllitution came, it might be clear to all, that he both 
knew and believed the Doftrine. — If Mofe^ had not omitted it, 
Jie had intruded on the province of Jefus ; if he had rot Iiid 
the grounds on wliich it rifes, he had negledied to ,.r -vide for 
the proof of that connexion between the two Difpenfation.'^ji 
neceflary to (hew the harmony between their refpeftive .Authors, 
Mofes had done both : And from both I gather that he was J}u- 
dious to conceal the doBrine. The omijjion will be allowed to be 
one proof of it; and I ihould think,' this ufe of a term, The 
God of Abraham^ &c. is another proof. For, the Jews, who, 
from the ceafmg of the extraordinary Providence, continued for 
many ages with ince-ifant 1 hour to ranfack ths. u- -'ibles for a proof 
of a future ilate, -"ould never draw the inference from this text 
till Jefus had taught them the way. No, fays the Doctor, Ho^v 
Jhould an argument ujed by Mc'es, for a future Jiate^ be a proof 
that Iv.'ifcs ivas fudir.iis to conceal it ^ This Argument going, as 
we now fee, upon our Profeflbr's utter ignorance of the nature 
and gcniu;] of the Moiaic Difpenfation, (which required as much 
ihzx. the grounds of 2l future fate fhould be laid, as that the 
Structure i:fclf ihculd be kept out of fight) I fhall leave it in pof- 
fcffion of that admiration which it io well deferves, 

*' Matth. xxii, 33, 


Sea. 4« of Moses demonjlrated, 167 

in the Schools and Synagogues ^ of the Pharifees > 
Nay, how fhould it be otherwife than new? for 
the words, I am the God of Abraham^ &:c. as deli- 
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 llill continued to exift. I am not 
ignorant, that the modern Rabbins employed this 
argument very familiarly for a Refurreclion •, 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 
Bifhop 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 underflood the words 
in the text, in quefiion, to relate to a national God^ 
or to us Chriflians, who underfland them of the 
Creator of the Univerfe ? Now though I cannot 

P The learned Pocock fpeaking of this Argument, fays. 
His e Lege depromptis cum Sadducsos ad filentium ade^iffet 
Chriftus, dicitur perculfam fuifTe turbam doflrina ejus. Unde 
patet luculentiori ipfiim contra eos argumento ufum, quam ullo 
adhuc ufi fuerant Pharifaei, Nota mifcelL ad Fortam Mofis^ 
cap. vi. 

^ Sermons by the Bifhop of London, 

M 4 agree 

l68 31^^ Divine Legation Boojc VL 

aoree with his Lordiliip in this conclufion, yet I 
agree wich him in a better thing, which is, That 
the Law of Mofes affords a gGcd prcof of its own di- 
vimty •, indeed, by a raedium, his Lordfliip never 
thought of, namely, That it afforded no proof of 
a future flute, at all But what if his Lordfhip 
meant no more than vyhat his refpedable Father 
endeavoured to prove ', viz. that »the extraordi- 
nary Providence, (which I hold to be the very 
circurnftance which kept the Jev/s from the know- 
ledge of a future ftace) indeed Hiews that they hacj 
the knowledge of it ? If this be the cafe, all I have 
to fay is, that Their proof of a future flate frora 
the Law, begins juft where my proof of its divi- 
nity ends. 

II. We con^e next to the Parable of the ric\ 
Man and Lazarus-, where the former, being iri 
Hell, defires Abraham, whom 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 he per- 
fuaded^ though one rofe frora the dead\ Hence it 
is inferred, that both Mofes and the Prophets 
taught a future flate of Rewards and Funifhments, 
But, here again, the Objeftors are quite befide the 

matter. As, in the former cafe, they would 

not fee, the argument was direded againft th^ 
Sadducees ', fo here, by as perverfe a connivance, 
they will not refled, that this Parable is addreffed 
to the Pharisees. It is certain we muft judge of 

f Sermons by the Dean of St. Paul's, on the immortality of the 
f.uiindafuturejfate, p. 141. 

"• Lu:cR xvi. 3!. 

^. the 

pe£t. 4? * ^ M G s E s demonjlrated, 169 

the drift and dcfign of every rational difcourfe 
from theCharader of thofe to whom it is addreiTed. 
Now had this Parable been told to the Sadducees, 
whofe grand error it was, to deny a future flate of* 
rewards and punifhments \ and had the rich man 
been reprefenred 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 ilate of rewards and punifh- 
*' ments, as if one came back from that ilate to 
" tell us fo." On the contrary, the Parable was 
particularly addrefled 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 '[p?<cc^yo^o^] heard all thefe 
things : and they derided him \ For which they are 
thus reproved : Te are they which juftify yoitrfelves 
iefore men: hut God knoweth your ^hearts"", 'And 
then prefently follows the Parable. Their capital 
errors therefore were errors of practice^ Jvarice 
and Luxury. And it was to reform thefe, that a 
rich Phartfee 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 BoBrine of a 
future fiat e) to warn them of their evil ways, and 
to afTure them, that luxury and inhumanity, unre- 
pented of, would affuredly damn them. Which 

,* Ver. 14. « V'er, 15. 


Ij7 The Divine Legation Book VI. 

information, he thought, would be bed inforced by 
a Miracle: If one went unto them from the deady 
they will 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 Frophets^ neither will they he 
perfiiadedy though one rofe from, the dead : i. e. " If 
they will not hear Mofes, and the Prophets, whofe 
authority they acknowledge % and whofe mifTions 
were confirmed by fo many and well attefted Mi- 
racles, neither will they regard a new one, of the 
refurredtion of a dead man. (Nor in fad, v;ere 
the Pharifees at all fofcened 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 
moil fevere threatnings, on the part of God, 
againft vice and impenitence." This is the force 
of the argument ; in which v;e fee the queiticn 
of a future ftate is no more concerned, than thus 
far only, that God will punilh, either here or he^-e^ 
after, Mofes and the Prophets threatened the 
punifhment here ; and, while here it was executed, 
the Jews looked no farther : But when the extra- 
ordinary Providence, by which that punifhment 
was adminiflered, had ceafed, the Jews began, from 
thofe very promifes and denunciations, to entertain 
fome hopes of an hereafter^ where all inequalities 

=* Ver. 30. 

y Here, the groundlcfs conceit of the learned P^olheim [de 
reh. Chris, ante Con, p. 49] is fufficiently refuted. He fuppofes 
a ^adducee to be reprefented under the perfon of the rich Man. 
But the authority of the Prophets, to which Abraham refers 
his hoiifliold, was not acknowledged by the Sadducees, as of 
weight to decide, in this point. And yet the very words of 
Abraham fuppofe that their not heading t'e PropUis did not pro- 
ceed from their not bclievingy but from their not re^ardincr, 

4 ftiould 

Sed. 4* ©/"Moses demonjlrated, lyi 

fhould be fet even, and God's threats and prom lies 
executed to the full : tho' ftill, with lels confi- 
dence, if they realbned rightly, than the Pagans 
had to draw the fame conclufion from the fame 
principles ; fmce their Law had informed them of 
a truth unknown to the reft of mankind j 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 tranfgrelTion 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 Objedors j and what will follow ! That Mofes 
taught a future ftate^ the Propofition, I oppofe ? 
No; But that from Mofes and the Prcphets 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 
fpritual meaning of his Law, and diveloped the 
hidden fenie of it, I may well allow that from 
both together a learned Pharilee might colled: the 
truth of the doctrine, without receding one tittle 
from my Argument. 

III. " When the Lawyer in the Gofpel (fay 
" thefe Objectors) had made that moft important 
*' Demand ^, Mafier^ what fijall I do to mherit 
" eternal life^ our blelTed Lord refers him to what 
" was written in the Law : and upon his giving a 
'' found and judicious anfwer, approves of it, and 
" for farisfadtion to his qu eft ion, tells him. This 
^' do and thou fJoalt live,'' This is the objedion, 

' Luke x. 25. 


172 7he Divine Legation Book VI. 

And to this. Saint Paul Ihall give an anfwcr. — 
Js the LAW then ag.ainst the promifes of God? 
God forbid. For if there had been a Law givejz 
'ii-hich could have given Life^ verily righteoufnejs 
fjcidd have been by the Law, But the Scripture 
hath concluded all under fin ; that the promife by 
FAITH of Jefus Chrift might be given to them that 
believe \ We mull therefore think that this Law- 
yer was better at diflindions than the Objedor 
who brings him into his Caufe, and inquired, (in 
this -moft 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 

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 ^^{^q §oy.{iri ivolvroag ^oonvdicoi/iov i^tiv 
— and they are they which tefiify of me. And ye 
*uoill 'not come to me that ye might have. life ^ 
The homicide *" Jews, to whom thefe words are 
addrelTed, thought they had eternal Life in their 
Scriptures \ — therefore (fay the Objedlors) they 
had eternal Life. If I allow this therefore^ they 
mud allow me, another — therefore the Miflion 
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 Chrift dead in vain. This 
is a neceflary confequence from the Objedtors' in- 
terpretation, and gives us, to be fure, a very 
high idea of the realbning of the ever bleffed 
Jesus. — By the fame Art of inferring, I fuppofe 
too they will conclude, that, when St. Paul fays 

, * Gal. iii. 21, 22. ^ John v. 39, 40. *^ Ver. 16. 


Sea. 4. of Moses defnonjfrated. jy^ 

to tlie unbelieving Jew : — Jnd thou art confident 
that thou thyfelf art ti guide to the blind^ a light of 
them which are in darknefs^ an infi;ru5for of the 
foolip^ and a teacher of hahes ^ \ they will conclude, 
I lay, that therefore it was the Jew, and not 
St. Paul, who was indeed, the guide of the Uind^ 
a light of them which are in darknef\ an iyifiru^or 
of the fooliJJj^ and a teacher of hahes. In earned, 
if Jesus, in thefe words, taught, that the Jewilh 
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 thele words of 
Jefus teach us is that the Jews thought they had 
eternal life hy the Mofaic Difpenfation. For the 
truth of what is thus charged upon them, we h'ave 
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 fuhjeclion the w-orld to 
COME, whereof WEfpeak^ 

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 oppofed to the following words, Te will 
not come to me that ye might have life, (Ka\ oy 
OiAfTf \\^Ci)> TT^oV /^f, Tya ^w>ij/ l^f^^^) ^hey fhew, that 
whoever thought fo befides, it was not Jesus, whofe 

^ Rom. ii, 19, « Gal. iii. 21. ^ Chap. ii. ver. 5. 


174 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VL 

argument ftands 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, becaule I preach up a 
new Dodrine of life and immortality. For you 
yourfelves teach that dodrine : and what is more, 
you underftand feveral pafTages 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 miftake of theirs, in 
thinking they had eternal life in their Scriptures. In 
one place he tells them, that thofe who heard his 
word had faffed from death to life *". And again, 
the hour is coming and now is^ when the t>^ad Jhall 
hear the voice of the Son of God \ Where, by Death 
and the Dead^ is meant the condition of thofe 
under the Law^ fubjed to the condemnation of 

V. The Objedors have produced St. Paul like- 
wife to confute the Principle here laid down. This 
Apoftle, in his epiftle to the Romans, fays— 
" For as many as have finned without Law Ihall 
" alfo perifh without law : and as many as have 
" finned in the Law fh all he judged by the Law ^" 
Now, fay the Objedors, *' had the Law concealed 
a future (late from the Jev/s, it is plain they were 
not equitably dealt with, fince they were to be 
judged in a future ftate." This brings to mind 
an objedion of Lord Bolingbroke's againft the 

^ John v. 24. ^ Ver. 25. ^ Chap, ii ver. it. 


Seflt. 4* of Moses demonjirated. ij^ 

divinity 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 Objedors 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 dodrine of a future ft ate,'] If he did 
.V' not know it, I fay it with horror, that God de- 
'' ceived both him and them. — The Ifraeiites had 
" better things to hope, and worfe to fear, &c'.** 
Now not to repeat what has been replied to this 
impious charge, elfewhere "'j 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 fh all he judged hy the Law ; 
that is, fhall be judged on the principles of a Law 
which denounced punilhment to vice and reward 
to virtue. Thofe who had already received the 
punifhment which that Law denounced fliould 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, fliould 
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 Law. 
T\it ^v^fliall per ifh^ octtoK^uIcci: the {tcond fhall he 
judged^ ii^ihc-o'jlcci^ or brought to trial. For though >«^t- 
vw be often ufed in the New Teflament foryi-^locyi^Uca, 
yet it is plain, that it is not fo ufed here, both from 
the fenfe of the place, and the Apoftle's change 

* Vol. V. p. 194 — 5. 

• See J 'View of Ld. B's. Philofphy, ^d ed. p. 225, ^fy. 


ijh 7he Divine Legation BodK Vi. 

of terms, for which I think no good reafon can ht 
affigned but this, that x^iSrjV&vl&ii is oppofed to 
dTTox^Ay^i, From all this, I think, it appears, that 
my ObjciSlors were as much miflaken in their urg- 
ing this text againft my principles, as the noble 
Lord in fuppofing that the reality of z future Jlate 
was a condemnation of the equity of the Law. 
But both took it for granted, and foolifhly enough, 
that thole who did not live under the fandion of 
a future ftate could never, confidently with juf^ 
tice, be fummoned before the Tribunal there 


We are now got to the very Palladium 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 Jaw the Fromifes afar off^ and ivere perfuaded 
of them^ and embraced them., and defired an heavenly 
country. '--Th-dt they all died in faith. — nat Mofes 
ejleemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than 
the treafures of Egypt. — That by faith the Jewijh 
leaders did all their great and marvelous works.'— 
That their very women dcfpifed death in hopes to ob- 
tain apart in the refurreSlion of the juji— Audi that all 
thefe obtained a good report TnKO\jQn faith. 
This, fay the Objectors, plainly fhews, that a 
future (late of Rewards and Punirnmencs, or more 
properly, the Chriftian Doclrine of Life and Im- 
mortality.^ was taught by the Law.— To which I 

I. That if this be true, the eleventh chapter 
diredly contradii5ts all the reit of the Epiftle : In 


Scidl. '4* of Moses demoiiflrated, 177 

."which, as we have- fhewn, there are more exprefs 
declarations, that life and imniortaUty was not 
known or taught by the Law, than in all the other 
books of the New Teftament befides. And for 
which, indeedj a very good reafon may be afllgned, 
as it was folely addrelTed to the Jews, amongfb 
whom this fatal prejudice, that a future fiat e was 
taught by the Law\ ^2lS then and has continued 
ever fmce, to be the flrongeft impediment to their 
Converfion. For is it poflible, that a Writer, who 
had faid, that the Law made nothing per fe5f^ but the 


Christ hath obtained a more excellent miniftry than 
Moses, by how much alfo he is'the Mediator of a 
BETTER COVENANT, which is efiabUJhed upon BET- 
TER PROMISES', — That the Law was only a 
very image •, is it poffible, 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 Epiflle to the 
Hebrews is direded againil Jew^s and judaizing 
Chriflians. The point in difference was this : The 
Gofpel taught justification by faith : The 
Judaizers thought it mufh 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 Ihe 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 works or the a5i 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 mc^n faith in Jefus: for the Jews, even 
that part of them which embraced Jesus as the 
Mefliah, denied it to be any kind o^ faith whatfo- 
ever. On the contrary, had they hddjuflification 
to be by faith in Mofes, and not in Jesus, then it 
had been the Apoftle's bufinefs to prbve, that it 
was xh^ fpecific faith in Jesus* But as the difpute 
flood, all he had to do was to prove that it was 
the a^ of helieving^ and not ic^^r^j, 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 P 
Doubtlefs faith in God's promifes : for he is argu- 
ing on their own concefiions. They admitted their 
anceftors to have had that faith "^ they did not 
admit that they had faith in Christ. For the 
Apoftle therefore to affert this, had been a kind 
of begging the queftion. Thus we fee that not 
only the pertinency, but the whole force of the 
reafoning turns upon our underftanding faith^ 
in this chapter, to mean faith in the God of their 

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

« Thus their Prophet Habakkuk had faid. The juji Jhall 
ii*v£ by hi} faith. Chap. ii. vcr. 4. 


Std:. 4. g/' Mos E s demonjlrated. iy() 

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


NOT SEEN °. '^Qt 0^ faith in the Meffiah^ but of 
belief in general, and on good grounds. Indeed 
very general, according to this Writer j not only ^^- 
//>/of the future, but the paft. 'Tis, fays he, the 
fuhftance of things hoped for -, and this he illuftraces 
by Noah's reliance on God's promife to fave him 
in the approaching deluge p* 'Tis, again, the evi* 
dence of thi?igs 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 Ihew its nature by its common 
efficacy, which ilill relates only to faith in the gene- 
ric fenfe* — But without faith it is impoffible to pleafe 
him \GoTy'\ for he that cometh to God muft believe that 
he is^ and that he is a revjarder of them that diligently 
feek him ' ; which very 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 Jewifti People paffing the Red Sea, and en- 
compafling the walls of Jericho -, and by the faith 
of Rahab the harlot. But was any of this, the 
faith in Jesus the MefTiah ? or a belief of a future 
ftate of rewards and piuniftiments ? 

As here the Apoftle tells us of the great rewards 
of faith^ fo in his third chapter he fpeaks of the 
punifhment of unbeliefs which was the fhutting out 
a whole generation from the land of Canaan, and 
fufFering them to perifti in the Wildernefs : 6"^ we 
fee (fays he) they cotdd not enter in becaufe of un* 

*> Ver. I. !» Ver. i. 1 Ver. 3, ' Ver. 6. 

N 2 belief. 

I Bo The Divine Legation Book Vr. 

lelief\ But was this tinhelief want of faith in the 
Mefllah, 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 impoflible xh2it faith in 
the MeJJiab ihould be meant by the faith in this 
eleventh chapter, the Apoftle exprcfsly fays, that all 
thole to whom he afTigns this faith, had not re- 
ceived THE PROMISE '. Therefore they could 
not h'SiVt faith'm that which wasneveryet propofed 
to them for the objeft of faith : For how fhoulcl they 
believe in him cf 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 lame manner. But of his argument, more 
in the next fedlion. 

Let us obferve farther,, that the facred Writers 
not only ule. the word faith in its generic fenfe of 
believing on reafonable grounds ^ but like wife the 
word GOSPEL (a more appropriated term) for^^?^^ 
tidings in general. Thus this very Writer to the 
Hebrews — For unto us was the Gosvel. preached a$ 
well as unto them ", i. e. the Ifraelites. 

Having (hewn, that by the Faith^ herefaidtobe 
To exrenlive amongft thq Jewifli People, is meant 
faith in thofe prcmifes of God which related to their 
own Difpenfation, all the weight of this objeclion 
is removed. For as to the promifes feen afar off 
and believed and embraced^ which gave the profped: 
of a. better coimtry^ that is, an heavenly ""^ thefe are 

^ \ e\ \q. t V^er. 13 and 39, » Chap. iv. ver. 2. 

* Vr. li— 16, 

3 con* 

SeS. 4. of Moses demorifirated^ 181 

confined to the Patriarchs and Leaders of the Jcwilh 
People. And that they had this diflant profpcdl 
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 
iliil remember there is a vail difference between 


THE Promise : the latter implying a gift 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 affure us that, in 
general, they had it not. — And thefe all having 
cbtained a good report through i'^L\t\\ received not 
THE PROMISE^. For tho' all the good Ifraelites 
in general had faith in God^ and the Patriarchs 
and Leaders had the hope of a better Country^ 
yet neither the one nor the other received the Trc* 

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 contradidled by what 
is faid of others who ivere tortured^ not accepting 
deliverance^ that they might obtain a better Rcfdrrec- 
tion % for this refers (as our Englifo Bibles (hew us) 
to the hiftory of the Maccabees ; in whofe tim<.v 
it is confelTed the Doctrine of a future fiate was 
become national. How the People get ir, — of 
what materials it was compofed, — and from what 
quarters it was fetched, will be feen hereafter. 
It is fulHcient to obferve at prefent, that all this, 
the Jews loon forgot, or hid from themfelves, and 
made this new flattering Dodrine a part of the 
Law. Hence the Author of the fecond book of 

y Ver. 30. ^ Ver, 35. 

N 3 MaccA' 

lS2 The Dhtne Legation Book VL 

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 aflced, how came this Covenant of 
everlafting life to lye fo perfedly 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 con tradition between the Writer 
of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and St. Paul, in 
his fpeech to the fynagogue at Antioch, which will 
o-ive ftill further light to the fubje6t. The former 
fays, 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 «/> Jesus 
again". But the contradidion is only feeming. 
The two texts are, indeed, very confident. 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 introdudory 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 himfelf. 
Tour father Abraham rejoiced to fee my day •, and he 
faw it, and was glad. He faw the refurre6lion of 

* 2 Mace. vii. 36. •> Heb. xi. 39'. * Acts 

xiii 32. " Ver. 26, 


Sed. 4, of Moses demonjlrated. 183 

Jefus in the reftoration of his fon Ifaac. But of 
this more hereafter. And to this folution, the 
Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews himfelf 
diredls us ; who, tho' he had faid that the holy 
men in ot^tx^X received not thepromife^ yet when he 
reckons up the diitind efFedls of each particular 
man's faith, he exprefsly fays, — who thro* faith fub- 
diiedkifigdoms^ wrought righteoufnefs^ obtain -ED pro- 
mises, flopped the months of lions ^ quenched the 
violence of fire \ ^c. That is, fome hke David, 
through idiiih^fubdued kingdoms-, others, like Samuel, 
wrought right eoufnefs -, others, like Abraham, os- 
TAiNEu PROMISES; Others, as Damc]^ 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 ^^/^/W^, 
doth not contradift what the fame Writer fays pre- 
fently after, that the faithful Ifraelites in general 
received not thepromife-, and as xhtpromife^ 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 f aw Christ's 
day^ and the oath fworn to David, that of the fruit 
of his loins he would raife up Chrift to fit on his 
throne^ % confequently, neither do the words of 
St, Paul contradidl 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 Mejfah: becaufe 

• |i£B. xL 33. ^ Acts ii\ 30. 

N 4 the 

184 515^ Divine Legation Book VL 

the promifes of a MefTiah are here faid to he the 
conlequence of faith •, but faith in the MeJJiab is 
the confcquence of the promifes of a Mefilah : For^ 
how could they believe in him of whom they had not 
heard? From whence it appears, that the faith 
fo much extolled in this chapter "^d-s faith in God's, 
veracity^ according to the interpretation give^ 


This is all, as far as I can learn, that hath been 
cbjedied to my Propofition \ and this all is fuch a 
confirmation of it, that I am in pain left the reader 
fhould think I have prevaricated, and drawn out 
'the ftrongeft 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 owH 
notions, than my Anfv/erers are, I fhall pro- 
duce an objedlion which occurred to rqe in reading 
St. Paul's epiftles of more real moment than their 
w^hole bundle of Texts weighed together. It is 
this : 

The learned Apoflle, 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 exad: per- 
formance of the Commandment --, but that all 
coming fhortof perfe6i; obedience, there was a ne- 
celTity of recurring to faith." — For what the 
Law could not do (fays he) in that it was weak 
through the fiefJo^ God fending his own Son in the 
likenefs of finful flefJ-j^ and for Jin condemned fin in 
the flefh : that the righteoufnefs of the Law might he 

■ ' ■ fulfilled 

Seft. 4' of Mo^E% demonjlrated. 185 

fulfilled hi us^ who w^lk not after thefleflj^ i?ut after 
thefpirit ^ 

This general Argument, which runs through 
the epiilles to the Romans and Galatians wears in^ 
deed the face of an Objedion to what I have adi- 
vanced : but to underftand the true value of it, 
we muft gonfider the Apoftle's end and purpofe in 
writing. It was to redify an error in the Jewifh 
Converts, who would lay a neceflity upon all men 
of conforming to the Law of Mofes. As ftrange- 
iy fuperflitious 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 Puniihments, and the 
refurre^ion of the Body. Now thefe Dodrines, 
which eafily difpofed the lefs prejudiced part of 
the Jews to receive the Gofpel^ where they were 
taught more diredly and explicitely, at the fam^ 
time gave them wrong notions both of the Reli- 
gion of Moses and of Jesus : Which, by the 
way, I defire thofe, who fo much contend for a 
future flate^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 coul4 
be obtained only by the works of the Law, there-r 
fore thofe works were, of neceffity, 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 Warks 
ty the Gofpel alfo. 

2 Rom, vii}. 3, 4< 


i86 ^he Divine Legation Book VI, 

^hefc were fatal miftakes. We have {t^n in 
our explanation of the eleventh chapter to the He- 
brews how the Apoflles combated the laft of them, 
namely Juftification by Works, The fhewing now in 
what manner St. Paul oppofedthe other, oi obligation 
to the Law^ will explain the realbning in queftion. 
Their opinion of obligation to the Law of Mofes, 
was, as we fay, founded on this principle, that it 
tauo-ht 2i future ft ate ^ or offered immortality to its 
followers. The cafe was nice and delicate, and 
the confutation of the error required much addrefs. 
What fhould our Apoflle do.? Should he in dired: 
terms deny 2i. future ft ate was to be found in the 
Law ? This would have fliocked 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 them 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 Dodrine of a future ftate, 
had given a fpiritual fenfe to the Law. And this, 
which they did out ofnecefllty, with little apparent 
grounds of conclufion then to be difcovered, was 
feen, after the coming of the MefTiah, to have the 
highefl reafonablenefs and truth. Thus 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 tofeize z. fpiritual fenfe, 
zxidi from thence to argue on their own principles, 
that the Law of Mofes could not now oblige ; 
which he does in this irrefiftible manner. ^' ^hc 
LaWy fays he, we know is fpiritual ^^ that is, in a 

*> Rom, viii. 14, 


Se£t. 4. of Moses demonjlrated. 187 

fpiritual fenfe promifes immortality : for it fays, 
ho this and live\ Therefore he who does the 
deeds of the Law Jhall live ^, But what then ? / 
am carnaP : And all have finned^ and come JJjort of 
the glory of God"^ : So that no flefh qan htjujlified 
hy 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 
cf faith'': Therefore the Law is unprofitable for 
the attainment of falvation, and confequently no 
longer obligatory." — Never was an important ar- 
gument more artfully condudled, 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 tht principle he went upon was com- 
mon both to him and his adverfaries, and confe- 
quently true, that the Law W2is 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 ad hominem only; which ap- 
pears certain from thefe confiderations : 

I. This fpiritual kn{c^ which St. Paul owns to 
be in the Law, was not a fenfe v/hich was con- 
veyed down with the literal, by Mofes, to the fol- 
lowers of the Law ; but was a fenfe invented or 
difcovered long after ;--the fpurious, by the later 

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

^ Rom. viii. 14. ^ Rom. iii. 23. " Gal. ii. 16. 

Chap> iii. ver. 11, ^ Gal. iii, 12, 


i88 The Divine Legation Book VL 

Jewifh Dodlors; and the genuine and real, by the 
Apoftles •, as appears from thefe words of St. Paul : 
— But mw we are delivered from the Law^ that 
heing dead wherein we were held^ that we Jhould 
ferve in newness of spirit, andnot in the oldnes$ 
OF THE LETTER P. We fee here, the Apoflle 
gives the letter to the Jewifh CEconomy, and the 
fpirit to the Chriftian. Let me obferve how ex- 
adlly this quadrates with, and how well it explains, 
what he fays in another place •, where having told 
the Corinthians that he and his Fellow-Apoflles 
were minifters 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 d^- 
livered to them by the Law, but the Letter killeth; 
the confequence is that the Law (\n which was 
only the letter) had no future ftate. 

2. Secondly, Suppofmg 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 Works ^ it would contradi6t 
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 Jewilh Con- 
verts •, namely, of immortality^ s being attached to 
works^ or xh^ii jujlification was by works under the 
Gofpel : for to confute this error, they prove, as 
we have (hewn, that it ^Tis faith which juftifiedy 
not only under the Gofpel, but under the Law 

3. Thirdly, If immortality were indeed offered 
through works^ by the LaiVy ihtvijifflijication by 
faith^ one of the great fundamental dodrines of 

f Rom. vii. 6, 


Se(S. 4. ^ M o s E s demonjlrafed. 1 8^ 

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 

4. Fourthly, It would dire6tly contradlcl what 
St. Paul in other places fays of the Law -, as that 
it is a Jhadow of things to come^ but that the body is 
of Christ '. But the offer of immortality on one 
condition, could never be called xh^piadow of the 
offer of it on another. ^ha£ it is the fchoolmafter to 
bring men to Chrijl \ Now, by the unhappy dexte- 
rity of thefe men, who, in defiance of the Apoflle, 
-will needs give the do6trines oi grace and truths as 
well as the doctrines of the Law^ to Moses. His 
appointed schoolmaster, the Law, is made toad 
a part that would utterly difcredit every other 
fchoolmafter^ namely to teach his children, yet in 
their Elements \ the fublime dodrines of manly 

5. Fifthly and laftly, li ^t, Paul Intended this 
for any more than an argument ad hominem^ he 
contradided himfelf, and milled his difciple Timo- 
tliy, whom he exprefsly aflbred, that otir Saviour 
Jefus Chrijl hath abolished death, and hatb 
brought life and immortality to light through the Gof- 
pel. And leaif, by this bringing to light, anyone 
Ihould miflake him to mean only that Jcfus Chrift 
had made life and immortality more clear and ma- 

^ This I (hall ihevv hereafter j and endeavour to refcue it 
from the madnefs of enthufiafm en the one hand, and the ab- 
furdity of the common fyllem on the other, and yet not betray 
it, in explaining it away under the fafhionable pretence of de- 
livering the Scripture Do^ri-ne of it. 

^ Col. iii< 17, « Gal. iii. 2^. * Gal, iv. 3—19. 


190 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

nifell, than Mofes had done, he adds, that ouf 
Saviour had aholijhed of dejlroyed Beath^ or that 
ilate of mortality and extindion into which man- 
kind had fallen by the tranfgreflion of Adam % 
and in which, they continued under the Law of 
Mofes, as appears from that Law's having no 
other fandion than temporal rewards and ptinijh- 
ments. Now this flate mufl needs be aboliflied, 
before another could be introduced : confequently 
by bringing life and immortality to lights muft needs 
be meant, the introdudion of a new fyflem. 

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, ^hat the Do Brine of a future fiat e of Re- 
wards and Punijhments is not to be found in^ nor did 
make part of^ the Mofaic Difpenfation -, and, as we 
pre fume, 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 Judaicae Inflitutione, fi diferra 
" Legis refpicimus, nihil promifit fupra hujus 
*' vitae bona, terram uberem, penum copiofum, 
" vidloriam de hoflibus, longam & valentem fc- 
** nedUitem, pofteros cum bona fpe fuperftltes. 

'^ Nam, 

Seft. 4. o/" M o s E s demonjlrated. 19 1 

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

The fecond is the excellent Episcopius. — " In 
" tota Lege Mofaica nullum vitas aeternse prae- 
" mium, ac ne sterni quidem praemii indicium 
" VEL vestigium cxtat *. quiequid nunc Judaei 
*' multum de futuro feculo, de refurre6lione mor- 
" tuorum, de vita seterna loquantur, & ex Legis 
" verbis ea extorquere potius quam oftendere co- 
" nentur, ne Legem Mosis imperfectam esse 
" COGANTUR AGNOscERE cum Sadducscis ; quos 
" olim (&, uti obfervo ex fcriptis Rabbinorum, 
" hodieque) vitam futuri feculi Lege Mofis nee 
" promitti nee contineri adfirmalTe, quum tamen 
" Judasi effent, certiffimum eft. Nempe non nifi 
** per Cabalam five Traditionem, quam illi in 
*' univerfum rejiciebant, opinionem five fidem 
" illam irrepfifle alTerebant. Et fane opinionum, 
" quae inter Judaoserat, circa vitam futuri fseculi 
*' difcrepantia, arguit promifTioHes Lege facias tales 
*' effe ut ex iis certi quid de vita futuri fasculi non 
" poflit colligi. Quod & Servator nofter non ob- 
" fcure innuit, cum refurredionem mortuorum 
" colligit Mat. xxii. non ex promilfo aliquo Legi 
" addito, fed ex generali tantum illo promiiTo Dei, 
" quo fe Deum Abrahami, Ifaaci, & Jacobi fu- 
" turum fpoponderat : quae tamen ilia coliectio 
*' magis nititur cognitione intentionis divinse fub 
" generalibus iftis verbis occultatas aut compre- 
" henfas, de qua Chrifto certo conftabat, quam 
" neceffaria confequentia five verborum vi ac vir- 
" tute manifefta, qualis nunc & in verbis Novi 
" Teftamenti, ubi vita leterna & refurre(5lio mor- 
" tuorum proram & puppim faciunt totius Reli- 

" srionii ' 

19^ ' 'I'he Divine Legation BookVL 

** gionis Chriftians, & tarn clare ac diferte pro- 
<' mittuntur ut ne hifcere quidem contra quis 
« poITit"." 

And the third is our learned Bifhop Butt :— 
«« Primo quasritur an in V. Teflamento nuUunl 
<« omnino extet vits asternse promifTum ? de eo 
** enim a nonnuUis dubitatur. Refp. Huic quae- 
*« ftioni optime mihi videtur refpondere Augiifli- 
*' nus, diftinguens nomen Veneris Teilamenti : 
" nam eo intelligi ait aut paftum iliud, quod in 
«' M(>nte Sinai fadtum eft, aut omnia, quse in Mofe, 
*' Hagiographis, ac Prophetis continentur. Si 
" Vetus Teftamentum pofteriori fenfu accipiatur, 
«« concedi forsitan poffit, efle in eo nonnulla 
" futurae vitse non obfcura indicia ; praefertim in 
<' Libro Pfalmorum, Daniele, & Ezekiele : quan- 
" quam vel in his libris clarum ac difertum i£tern^ 
" vitae promifium vix ac ne vix quidem repcrias. 
" Sed haec qualiacunque erant, non erant niil 
" prasludia & anticipationes gratiae Evangelical, 


<' promilTa habuit terrena^ & terrena tantum. 

« Si quis contra fentiat, eju5 eft locum dare, 

« ubi aeternae vitae promifTio extat ^ quod certi^ 
•' iMPOSsiBiLE EST. ---Sub his autem verbis [legi^ 
^< ipfius] Dei intentione comprehenfam fuilTe vitaiii 
'' ^ternam, ex interpretatione ipfius Chrifti ejuf- 
*' que Apoftolorum manifeftum eft, Verum hasc 
*' non fufliciunt ut dicamus vitam aeternam in 
" Fcedere Mofaico promifiam fuifTe. Nam primo 
" promifia, praefertim Foederi annexa, debent elTe 
*' clara ac diferta, & ejufmodi, ut ab utraque 
*' parte ftipulante intelligi poffint. Promifta au- 

" Inj7. ThcoL lib. iii. fea. I. C. 2. 

'' teni 

Sea. 4^ cf Moses demonpated. 193 

*« rem hasc t ypica & generalia, non addita aliunde 
" interpretatione, pene impossibile erat, ut 


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 defective in integrity, you fhall 
always hear him fpeak the fame Language. The 
great ARNAULDjthat fhining ornament of the Gal- 
ilean Church, urges this important truth with 
ftill more franknefs— " C*eft le comble de l'io- 
" NORANCE (fays this accomplifhed Divine) de 
« mettre endoutecette verite, qui eft une des plus 
" communes de la Religion Chretienne, et qui 


*^ 'promeffes de rancien 'Tejtament n'etoient que temper el- 
*' les et terrejlres^ et que les Juifs rCadoroient Bieu que 
*' pour les beins charneh ^ \^\ And what more hath 


5^ Tiarnmiia Afojlolicay DifTertat. pofterior, cap. x, fe(^. 8. 
p. 474, inter Opera omnia, ed. 1721. 

y Apohgie de Fort-Royal, 

^ But all are not Arnaulds, in the GclHcan Church. Mr* 
Treret, fpeaking of the hiilory of Saul and a paffage in Jfaiah, 
concerning the invocation of the dead, fays— C^ qui augmt7Ue 
ma furprifey c'ejl de 'voir que la plus fart de ces Co7nrh€ntateurs fe 
plaigtient de ne trowver dans /' Ecritiire auctwe preirce claire que les 
Juifs, au temps dt Moyfe, crujjhit V immortalite de /' ame. — I.a 
pratique, interdite aux juifs, fuppofe que T exiilence des ames, 
feperees du corps, par la mort, etoit alors un opinion generale 
& populaire. Memoires de I* Acad. Royale des In/crif, Sec. v. 
23. p. 185. — The Gentleman's yi(/-;-r//'^ arifes from his being un- 
able to dillinguiih between thefeparate cxijQcnce cf the Soul ccn- 
fidered phyfically, and its immortality confidered in a religious 
fenfe : It is under this latter confideration that a future State of 
reiiard uvd punijhment is included. Had he not confounded 
thefe two things lo different in themfelves, he had never ventured 
to condemn the Comtnentators ; who do indeed fay, they cannot 
iind this latter doflrine in the Pentateuch. But then, they ^o 

Vol, V. O not 

194 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VL 

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


BU T though it appear that a future Jiate of Re- 
wards and punifloraents made no part of the Mo- 
faic Bifpenfation^yQi the Law had certainly a spiri- 
tual meaning, to be underftood when the fulnefs 
of time fnouid come : And hence it received the 
nature, and afforded the efficacy, of Prophesv. 
In the interim, the mystery of the Gospel was 
occafionally revealed by God to his chofen Servants, 
the Fathers and Leaders of the Jewifli Nation 5- 
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. 


Cftt ^Jt! 'Ceilament n mt fomvarp to tge 
fit\^ : i^or Ijot!) in tlje ^It) auti fit\x^ ^eUament 
^Derlal^ing ILife i$ otfcveti to ^aukinti tip €%x\% 
tuljo n tljc on!p £pc^iataf bettoccu (Soti anU i|)an^ 
^iBei cforc tijcp are xm ta lie fieart, toSiCl) fcicjn, 

rot ^avievt sr complain of this want; becaufj they faw, the' this 
Academician docs not, that the abfena^ of die dodrine of a 
future State of re-w.ird and punijhmtnt in the Mosaic Law 
evince; its imperfei^ion, and verifies the enunciation of the 
Go pel, that LiTL AND iMMOiiTALrfY ^jjcre brought to light 
Iby j£sus CiiKi > 1 , 


Sedl. S< of M OS -ES dtmmjlrated. ig^ 

t&at tfie S)It» S^atijm tiiti loafe onl|i far tranCtarp 

— The Old Teft anient is not contrary to the New^ is 
a propofition diredled againfttheManichean error, 
to which the opinions of fome Sedaries 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 Teflament 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 Nezv Tejlament everlafl^ 
ing life is offered 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 Old Teflament 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 fhe mean that everlafting life was 
offered by both, in the fame mafiner^ (he would 
certainly have faid. The old Teftament is th^s. same 
with the New, This farther appears from the infe- 
rence drawn from the propofition concerning ever- 
lafting life — WHEREFORE they are 7iot 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 - 
the Israelites were inftru^ed to look for more 
than tranfitory -promifes, 

O 2 2, The 

196 ^e Divine Legation Book VL 

2. The Church could not mean that everlafting 
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 herefics, 
condemned by the Catholics in the Synod of Diof- 


lorum] quemadmodum et evangelium *. 

What was meant therefore by the v/ords 

hoth in the Old and New Tefiamcnt everlajiing Life is 
offered to Mankind hy Christ, was plainly this — 
" That the offer of everlafting 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 that life and 
" immortality, which was brought to light by Jesus 
" Christ." 

3. But laftly. Whatever meaning the Churcli 
had in thefe words, it cannot at all affed our Pro- 
pofition, that a future fate was not taught hy 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 everlafting life offered to man- 
kind by Jesus Christ. 

The concluding words of the Article which re- 
late to this matter, fay, — wherefore they are not to he 
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 dire6t contrary of the Father of the 
faithful in particular. Tour father Abraham (fays^ 

* De Gejl;s Pelagiif c, xi. § 24. 


Sedl. 5. cf Mo SEs demovjlrated. i ^j 

he to the unbelieving Jews) rejoicedtofee my day^ 
and he faw it and was glad^ . A fadt not only of 
the utmoft certainty in itfelf, but of the higheft im- 
portance to be rightly underflood. That I may 
not therefore be fufpedled of prevarication, I chufe 
this inftance (the nobleft that ever was given of the 
HARMONY between the Old and New Teftament) 
to illuftrate this confident truth, 


And I perfuade myfelf that the learned Reader 
v^ill 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 AbPvAham to offer up his son ; for to 
this Hiftory I fhall 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 adion, 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 imprefTion on the 
Scnfory, came alfo from the fame God. How 
rational foever this folution be, the Deift, perhaps, 
v^ould be apt to tell us it was little better than 
Eleclra's anfwer to Oreftes, who, daggering in 

^ John viii. 56. 

O 3 his 

198 The Divine Legation Book VI, 

his purpofe to kill his mother by the command of 
Apollo, fays : But if^ after alU this Jhould be an 
evil Demon^ who, bent upon mifchief hath affumed 
the form of a God? She replies, What, an evil 
Demon foffefs the f acred tripod? It is nottobefup- 

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 moft abominable of their 
Dodrines and Pradlices ^ Rimius in his Candid 
Narrative hath given us a ftrange palTage from 
the writings of the Moravian Brethren, which the 
reader, from a note of his^ will find tranfcribed here 

However^ after faving and refervlng 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 

^ 0^0 ' A^ ocvT y.XuTu^ iItc uTrnxaa-Belg Se^j ; 

Eurip. EleSira, ver, 979. 

^ " He (the Saviour) can difpofe of life and foul ; he can 
'' make ihc ceconomy of falvation, and change it every hour, 
'' that the hindermolt be the foremoft : He can make laws and 
" abrogate them ; he caxN make that to b£ moral whjch 
*' IS against nature ; the greateft virtue to be the moft 
*' villainous aflion, and the moft virtuous tiioughts 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 
?f abominable thought a man can have." 

Coutit Zinzendorf^i Ssrm, in Rimius, p. i;^. 


Secfl. 5« ?/* Moses demonjlrated. 199 

faith ; and confequently as a Revelation unfoiight 
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 


were all diredted 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, 
although its nature was fuch, that, in the very 
giving of it, God did^ indeed, temp or try Abra- 

In plain terms, the Action 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 infleads of Words being, as we 
have (hewn, of common pradlice in thofe early 
Ages : And as the force of the following reafoning 
is founded on that ancient cuftom, I mufl requefl 
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 dirediions, to Another, 
by Signs and A^iions^ inftead of PFords^ came to be 
of general pradlice in the firft 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 fubjedl, in the place referred to, as a Poilu- 

<^ Gen. xxii. i, 

4 latum 

20O T^e Dhine Legation Book VI. 

latum I undertake to prove the following Propo- 
1:1 ion : 


That when God says to Abraham, TAKE 


GREAT Sacrifice of Christ for the Redemp- 
its nature, exactly the fame as thofe informations 
to the Prophets, where to this Man, God fays, 
Make thee bonds and yokes, and pit them on thy 
neck s J to another— Gi? take unto thee a wife of 
whoredoms^, 13 c. and to a third: — Prepare thee 
fluff for removing ', (f^c. that is, an informa- 

WORDS ; in the firfl cafe, foretelling the conqueft^ 
of Nebuchadnezzar over Edom, Moab, Ammon, 
Tyre, and Sidon •, in the fecond, declaring his 
abhorrence of the idolatries of the Houfe of Ifrael; 
and in the third, the approaching Captivity of 

The foundation of my Thefis I lay in that 
fcripture of St. John, where Jesus fays to the 
unbelieving Jews, your father Abraham re- 

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

* Gen. xxii. 2. » Jerem. xxvii. 2. ^ Hosea i. 2. 

* EzFK. xii, 3. ^ Chap. viii. ver. 56. 


ged. 5. c/' M o s E 8 demonjlrated, 201 

head and origin of that People which God would 
feparate and make holy to himfelf ^ 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 hide 
from Abraham the thing which Ido^? 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 o^wt^ion— Abraham rejoiced^ fays Je- 
sus, to fee my day'", rrw y\ixi^o(,v ry\v li^viv. Now 
when the figurative word day is ufed, not to ex- 
prefs in general the period of any one's exigence y 
but to denote his peculiar office and employment ^ it 
muft needs fignify that very circumilance in his 
life, which is chara5lerijiic 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 tafte of deaths intimating thereby the vir- 
tue of his office of Redeemer. Therefore, by the 
word D-.AY muft needs be meant that chara^erijlic 
circumftance of his life: But that circumftance 
was the laying down his life for the Redemption of 
Mankind. Confequently, by the word day is 
pieant the great facrifice of Christ ". Hence we 


J Gen. xviii. 17. ^ John viii. 52, 

" Dr. Stebbing, in what he calls Ccnfiderations on the com- 
mand to offer up Ifaacy hath attempted to difcredit the account 
nere given of the Command : And previoufly afTures his rea- 
der that if any thing can hinder the ill effeJIs nx:hich n.y inter- 
^retaticn muji ha-ve upon Religicny it muft be his expofing the 
ahfurdity of the conceit. This is confidently faid. But what 

then } 

202 ^he DIvifie Legation Book VI. 

may difcover the real or affeded ignorance of the 
Socinian Comment upon this place j which would 


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

However let us give him a fair hearing. — He criticifes this 
obfervation on the word day, in the following manner. 
** Really, Sir, I fee no manner of confequence in this rea- 
*' foning. That Chrifi's day had reference to his office, as 
*' Redeefner, I grant. The day of Chrift denotes the time 
*' when Chrift (hould come, i. e. when ^He fhould come, who 
** was to be fuch by office and employment. But v/hy it muft 
** import alfo that when Chrift came he fhould be offered up a 
•• Sacrifice, I do not in the leaft apprehend : Becaufe I can 
•' very eafily 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 fhould 
*' take away the curfe, he favv Chrifi's day." [Confid. p. 159.] 
At firft fetting out, (for I reckon for nothing this blundering, 
before he knew where he was, into a Socinian comment, the 
thing he moft abhors) the Reader fees he grants the point I 
contend for ■ That ChriJ}^s Day (fays he) has reference to 
his opce as Redeemer, I grant. Yet the very next words, em- 
ployed to explain his meaning, contradidl it ; — The Day of 
Chriji denotes the time nvhen Chriji Jhould come. All the fenfe 
therefore, I can make of his conceffion, when joined to his 
explanation of it, amounts to this — ChrijVs 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 ^ojhy it tnuf im- 
port ALSO that ivhen Chriji came he fpould he offered up as a 
Sacrifice, I do not in the leaf apprehend. Nor I, neither, I 
affure 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 Ah^o t\iQ 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 exiftence, then it 
denotes ti7?ie ; when, to exprefs his peculiar office and employ- 
ment, then it denotes, not the time, but that circumftance of 
life chara6teriftic of fuch office and employment; or t\\Q things 
done in time. Day, in the text, is ufed to exprefs Ch rift's pe- 
culiar office and employment. Therefore — But what follows 
is Hill better. His want of apprehenfion, it feems, is founded 
in this, that he can eafily underfand, that Abraham might 
bai'e iitn informed that Chi if n^jui to corns; without being in- 

Se<a. 5' g/' 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 
fenfe of the word, D^^, he may obferve, that as 
Jefus intitles his great Work, in his flate of hu- 
miliation, the Redemption of Mankind^ by the name 
of HIS DAY ; fo is he plcafed to give the fame ap- 
pellation to his other great Work, in his trium- 
phant flate, 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 Reft oration^ is called their day. — Then fhall 
the Children of Judah (fays God by the Prophet 
Hofea) and the children of Ifrael^ be gathered io- 

formed that he nvas fo lay doivn his life as a Sacnjice, Yes, 
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 
aiforded the occafion of the criticifm. He goes on, — 1/ 
Abraham fanv, that a time njcould come ivhen one of his feed 
Jhould take aix-ay the curfe, he faw ChriJTs Day. With- 
out doubt he did. Becaufe it is agreed, that Day may fignify 
either time, or circumftance of adlion. But what is this to 
the purpofe ? The queftion is not whether the word may not, 
when ufed indefinitely, fignify tiine ; but whether it fignifies 
time in this text, 1 have fiiewn it does not. And what 
has he faid to prove it does ? Why that it may do fo in 
another place. In a word, all he here fays, proceeds on 
a total inapprehenfion of the drift and purpofe of the ar- 

• Luke xvii. 24, 


204 ^he Divine Legation Book VL 

gether^ and appoint themf elves one head^ and they jhall 
come tip out of the land: for great Jhall he the day 

cf Ifi^aelK 

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 SAW it and was glad. — 'Ivc/, lAH* r-h -^[Ai^xv rviv 
IfAriv ^ EIAE — This evidently ihews the Revelation 
to have been made, not by relation in words, but 
by REPRESENTATION in a6lion. The verb fl'^w is 
frequently ufed in the New Teftament, in its 
proper fignification, to fee fenfihly. But whether 
ufed literally or figuratively, it always denotes a 
full intuition. That the exprefiion 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 T^hou art not yet fifty 

years old., and haft thou seen Abraham'^ '^ Plainly 
intimating that they underftood the afiertion of 
Abraham's feeing Chrijl'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 Ikilled 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 hiflory, 
yet he faw plainly they implied an information by 
reprefentation — Thusalfo Abraham (fays ht) faw the 
day of Christ and was glad. But this mujl he in a 
typical or prophetical vifion \ The excellent Dr. Scott 


' Chap. i. ver. ii, ^ Ver. 57. 

' Dauhifz on the RevelationSi p. 251. Printed in the year 
1720. To this reafoning, Dr. Stebbing replies as follows, 

*' Yon 

Sedl. 5. of Moses detnonJIrateJ. 20^ 

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

" Spirit 

** Yoa are not more fuccef^ful in yotir next pofnt, Abraham re- 
*• joked to fee my Day, and hefanv it, and nvas glad. I'm lAH tkp 
** rVga" '^^ ^f*^'» *b EI^E — ^^^^ (^ay you) e'vidently flpenxjs it 
•' [the revelation] to have been made not by relation in nvords^ 
•* hut by reprefentation in aSiion^ How fo ? The reafbn fol- 
** lows. The werb e\^uj is frequently vfed in the NetM Tefiament 

** in its proper fgnfcation to fee fenfibly. > In the New 

" Tcftament do you fay ? Yes, Sir, and in t\^ry Greek book 
" you ever read in your life. What you should have faid 
•* is, that it is fo ufed here; and I fuppofe you would have 
" faid {o, if you had known how to have proved it." [Confid. 
p. 139—40-] 

The reafon follonvs (fays he.) Where ? In my book indeed, 
but not in his imperfed quotation from it ; which breaks off 
before he comes to my reafon. One who knew him not (q 
well as 1 do, would fufped this was done to ferve a purpofe. 
No fuch matter: 'twas pure hap hazard. He miftook the 
introdudion 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 
*verb EtX, ^whether ufed literally or figuratively, al-ivavs denotes 
a full intuition. And this argument, I introduced in the 
following manner, The 'uerb A is frequently vfed in the New 
Tefiament in its proper fignif cation, to fee fenfihly. Unluckily, as 
I iay, 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 I His ignorance 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 1 faid, I think I may 
ftand to, That the -verb e'i^w alvuays denotes a full intuition. This 
was all I wanted from the text ; and on this fjundation, I pro- 
ceeded in the fequel of the difcourfe, to prove chat Abraham 
faiv fenfibly. Therefore, when my lixaminer takes It, (as he 
does) for granted, that becaufe, in this place, I had not proved 
that the Word implied lo fee fnfibly, I had not proved it at all ; 
he is a fecond time miilaken. 

•* But, he onvns, that, if this was all, perhaps / J&ould tell 
** him, that it was a very ftrange anfwer of the fevjs, thou art 

2o6 7he Jbivine Legation Book VL' 

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


" not yet ffty years oldy and hafi thou, feen Ahraham?^^ [Confid. 
p. 140.] He is very right. He might be fure I would. In 
anfwer therefore to this difficulty, he goes on and fays, " No 
*' doubt, Sir, the y^iw anfwer our Saviour, as if he had faid, 
•• that Abraham and he were cotemporanes ; in whieh, 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.] 

^he yeivs arifwered our Sa'viour as if he had /aid that Ahra-- 
ham and he ivere colemporaries. — Do they fo ? Why then, 'tts 
plain, the exprej/ion ivas as flrong in the Syrian language, ufed by 
Je/us as in the Greek of his Hijioriany which was all I aimed to 
prove by it. But in this (fays he) they anfnxered <very 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 o{ feeing perfonally ; and in this, 
they were. And now let the Reader judge whether the folly of 
their anfwer fhews the folly of my Argument, or of my Ex- 
aminer's. — Nay further, he tells us, they 2in(\?jQTQA 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 c gain, he 
cannot fee the kingdom of G-)d, &c *. Suppofe now, fiom thefe 
words, I fhould attempt to prove that Regeneration and divine 
Grace were realities, and not mere metaphors : For that Jefus, 
in declaring the neceffity of them, ufed fuch ilrong exprelTions 
that Nicodemus underllocd him to mean the being phyficajly 
born againy and entering the Jecond time into the nvomb : Would 
it be (ut^icicnt, let me afk my E'xaminer, to reply in this man- 
ner, " No doubt. Sir, iNicodemus anfwered our Saviour as if 

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

Sedb. 5- o/" Moses demonjlrated. toy 

So far, then, is clear, that Abraham had indeed 
this Revelation. The next queftion will be, whe- 
ther we can reafonably expedt 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 

" he had faid, that a follower of the Gofpel mud enter a femtd 
" time into his mstker* s v:omb rind be horn : in which he anfwered 
" very foolilhly ; 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 nuater and of tJ>e fpirit ."'* — Would this, I 
fay, be deemed, even by our Examiner himfelf, a fufhcient 
anfwer ? When he has refolvcd me this, I (hall, perhaps, have 
fomething farther to fay to him. In the mean time I go on. 
And, in returning him his laft words reftored to their fubjed, 
help him forward in the folution of what 1 exped from him. — 
II he anfwer (fays he) nxiill as little agree i*jith your interpretation 
as it does 'with mine. For does your interpretation fuppofe that 
Abraham fauu Chrif in perfn ? No ; jou foy^ it <voas by repn^ 
fentation only" Very well. Let me afk then, in the firfl 
place, Whether he fuppofes that what I faid on this occafion, 
was to prove that Abraham faw Chriil from the reverend autho- 
rity of his Jewifli Adverfaries ; or to prove that the verb i'ihj* 
fignified toy^^ literally, from their miflaken anfver ? He thought 
me here, it feems, in the way of thofe writers, who are quot- 
ing Ai^thorities^ when they fhould be giving Renfns. Hence, 
he calls the anfver the Jews here gave, a foolif> one : As if .1 
had undertaken for its orthodoxy. But our Examiner is flili 
farther miftaken. The point I v^as upon, in fupport of which 
I urged the anfwer of the Jews, was not the ieeing this^ or 
that perfon : But the feeing corporeally^ and not mentally. Now, 
if the Jews underllood Jefus, as faying that Abraham faw cor^ 
poreally, I concluded, that the expreffion, 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 thac 
Abraham was faid to fee corporeally ; and my interpretation fup- 
pofes that the words employed, had that import. But to make 
a diftinflion 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 ^e iDhiite Legation Book Vli 

I. We learn, by the hiftory 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 tv/ofold. Scrip- 
ture and Miracles. In the (irfl way there- 
fore of confirming his MifTion, 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 Maliomet in his 
Alcoran) fuch a method had been fo far from fup- 
. porting his Charadler, 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 j and that he was 
forced to invent a new one, to countenance his pre- 
tenfions. He muft, therefore, for the neceflary fup- 
port of his Charader, appeal to fome acknowledged 
Fads. Thefe were all contained in Scripture 
and Tradition. But, we knov/, 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 do6trines of eternal Life^ and the Re- 
furre^lion of the Body : Nay, he took all occafions 
of decrying their Traditions as impious cor- 
ruptions, by which they had rendred the ^kittzh 
word of none effeul. We conclude, therefore, from 
Jesus's own words, that the circumftance of 
Abraham's knowledge of his Bay 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 rcafons hereafter to be explained -, yet 
5 ctrtainly 

Secfl. 5- rf Moses demonjirated. 209 

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

2. But though this did not (as it does) appear 
from the words of Jesus, yet it might be coliedled 
from the very nature of the thing. For admin 
only the fadl, (as we now muft) \h2iX. Ahraha7n did 
y^^ Christ's Bay^ and it is utterly incredible that 
fo capital a circumftance fliould be omitted in his 
Hiftory, a facred Record, preordained for one of 
the fupports and evidences of Christ's Relio-ion. 
That it could not be delivered in the book of 
Genefis, in terms plainly to be underflood 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 lliould not be recorded at all : Great ends, 
fuch as fupporting the truth of the future Dilpen- 
lation, 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 do^rine 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 leafl 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 firfl head, it will be necefTary to give 

a fhort abftrad of Abraham's ftory ; in w^hich we 

Vol. V. P find 

2IO ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

find a regular account of the courfe and order of 
God's Dilpcnfations to him, from the time of his 
being called out of Chaldea, 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, Fam.ily, and Coun- 
try'. We are then told", that God called him 
from his Father's houfe to a Land which hejhould 
Jheiv 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 j and a mark 
to diredl the reader to what, they are all ultimately 
to be referred. Which, by the way, expofes the 
extreme abfurdity in Collins and Tyndal, who 
would have the hlejfing here promifed to be only 
an eaftern form of fpeech, honourable to the Fa- 
tiier of the Faithful. — When Abraham, in obedi- 
ence to this command, was come into the land of 
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 flill farther, 
and marked o'Jl the bounds " of that Land, which he 
alTured him lliould be to him and his Seed for ever"". 

^ Gen. xI. ver. 27, l^ feq, " Chap.-xii. ver, i, 

» Ver. 7. 


" Ver. 2. y Ver. 3. '^ Ver. 5. * Ver. 7. 

^ Chap. xiii. ver. i^, «= Ver. i 

Sedl. 5. ofMoBE s demonflrated. 2 1 1 

Which Seed (hould be as the duft of the earth for 
number'^. After all thefe gracious and repeated 
afTurances, we may well fuppofe Abraham to be 
ilow grown uneafy at his Wife's barren nefs, and 
his own want of iflue to inherit the Promifes. Ac- 
cordingly, we find him much difturbed with thefe 
apprehenfions ^ ; and that God, to remove them 
appeared to him in ?ivifion^ and faid. Fear not A- 
hram^ I am thy Jhield and exceeding great rewards 
Abraham, thus encouraged to tell his grief, con- 
fefTed it to be for his want of iiTue, and for that he 
fufpefted 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 fhould 
inherit, but one out of his ozvn ho^ji'eh^. And, for 
farther afiurance, he inftru6ls him in the various 
fortunes of his Pofterity. — "l^hat his SeedfJwtdd he 
a fir anger in a hand thai was not theirs^ which Land 
fhould afflict them four hundred years ^ and that then 
he would judge that Nation^ and afterwards bring 
them out with great fuhflance to inherit the hand 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 Igins 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 (he might adopt •, // raay 
he (fays he) that I may obtain children by her ' , 

^ Ver. 16.' ^ Chap. xv. ver. i. ^ Vcr. 2, 9. 

e Ver. 4. ^ Ver. 13, 14. ^ Vcr. 18, to ihe end. 

^ Qhap. vvi. ^ Ver. 2. 

P 2 and 

212 The Divine Legation Book VI. 

and (he flattered herfelf with being, at the fame 
time, an inftrument to promote the defigns of 
Providence, Behold now^ (iliys flie) the Lord hath 
rejlrained me from bearing. To this projedt Abra- 
ham confented. Hagar conceived, and bare a 
Son, called Iflimaer". The good Patriarch was 
now fully fatisfied : He grew fond of Ilhmael ; 
and reckoned upon him for the inheritor of the 
promifes. To corred this miftake, God vouch- 
fafed him a new Revelation" -, in which he is told, 
that God would not only (as had been before pro- 
mifed) blefs and multiply his Poflerity 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 
adoption requiring a mutual Covenant, the rite of 
circumcision is at the fame time enjoined as 
the mark of the Covenant ''. Laftly, Abraham 


» Ver. 15. " Chap. xvii. ° Ver. 7, l^ feq. 

P Ver, 10, ^ feq. By the account here given, of God's 
Difpenfations to Abraham, may be feeii the tolly of that ob- 
jfction, brought with fuch infinuations of importance, againft 
the divine appointment of Circumcljiati, from the time of its 
inllitution. Sir John Marfham obfcrves, that Jbraham, nvhen 
he ivitit into Egypty nxias not circumcifed, nor for tnjjcnty years 
after his return. Abramus, quando yEgyptum ingrefius eft, 
iionduni circumcifus erat, neque per anncs amplius viginti poll 
reditum, p, 73. Franeq, Ed. 4to. And further, that Circum- 
cifion ivas a moji ancient rite amongji the E^yptians^ that they 
had it from the beginning, and that it <ivas a principle n.vith them 
>!0t to make vfe of the cuftoms of other people. Apud -<Sgyp- 
tios circumcidendi ritus vetafiiffimas fuit, & oiir u^)(r,!; inlb'tu- 
tns. lili nulloruni aliorum hominum inlliiutis uti volunt, p. 74. 
— The noble Author of the Characteristics, who never 
lofes an opportunity of exprelhng his goodwill to a Prophet or 
a Patriarch, takes up this pitiful fufpicion after Marfham : *' Be- 
** fore the time that Ifrael was conlliained to go down to 
** Egypt, and fe for maintenance, — the Ud)^ Patriarch /ihra- 
" ham himfelf had been necelfuated to this compliance on the 

*' fame 

Seft. 5. of Moses demonjlrated, 2 1 3 

is fliewn his fond miilake, and told, that it was 
not the So7i 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 miflake, and confequently in his affec- 
tion for Ifhmael, that he begs God would indulge 
it too — O that I/hmael might live before thee ^ 
And God, in compaffion to his paternal fondnefs, 
gracioufly promifes that the Pofterity of Iflimael 
(hould become exceeding great and powerful '. 
but that, neverthelefs, his Covenant (hould be 

** fame account, — 'Tis certain that if this Hily Patriarchy who 
" firft inilituted the facred rile of Circumcifion within his own 
** family or tribe, had no regard to any Policy or Religion of 
*' the Eayptiansy yet he had formerly been a Gucll 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 Scri{:ture, for the fupport of their 
infinuation ; which Scripture had they but confidered with com- 
mon attention, they might have found, 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 y^ars after Abraham's return from E^ypt, 
they muft have feen the weaknefs of fo partial a fufpicion. 
For had this been after the model of an f^j/z/^w rite, 'Abraham, 
in all likelihood, had been circumcifed in Egypt, or at leafl 
very foon after his return : For in Egypt, it was z perfonal^ not 
a family Rite. And we learn from prophane hiftory, that thofe 
who went from other Countries to Egypt, with a defjgn to copy 
their manners, or to be initiated into their VVifdom, were, as a 
previous ceremony, commonly circumcifed by the Egyptian 
Priefts themfelve . 

*. Ver. i6, ' Ver. 18. '' Ver. 20, cif/f, 

P 3 with 

214 T^he 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 hiftorian ", God was plealed to repeat the 
promife of a Son by Sarah "" : and even to marl?; 
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 yec 
weaned from his unreafonable partiality for Ifh- 
mael ; but ftill reckoned upon him as his Second 
hopes^ in cafe of any difailer or misfortune, that 
fhould happen to Ifaac. This appears from Ifh- 
inael's infolent behaviour ^ •, from Abraham's great 
vjnwillingnefs to difmifs him ^ ; and from God's af- 
furing him, in order to make him eafy, That in 
Jfaac his Seed JJjould be called^. We now come to 
the fam.ous Hiftory of the Command to offer up 
his Son Ifaac. — Audit came to pafs^ (fays the facred 
hiftorian) after, these things, that God did 
tempt Abraham^ and f aid: I'ake now thy Son, thine 
ONLY son Ifaac, whom thou lovejf, 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 lafl of God's Revelations to Abraham — And it 
fame to pafs after thefe things — rAnd with this, the 
hiflory of them is clofcd. 

Here we fee all thefe Revelations, except the 
lafl, are plain and clear, as referring to temporal 

* Ver. 19. " Ver. 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. 


Seft. j*, of Mo s E s demonjirated. 2 1 5 

Felicities to be conferred on Abraham and his Pof- 
terity after the flefh •, through whom, fome 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 neceflity, as we fhall fliew, be 
darkly and obfcurely recorded. 

But to this perhaps it may be obje^Led, that the 
famous Promife of God to Abraham, that in him 
JJjould all the Families of the earth be blejjed ', is that 
Revelation; becaufeSt. Paul calls this the preaching 
of the Gofpel unto him — And the Scripture^ fore- 
feeing that God would jufiify the Heathen through 
Faiths preached before^ the Gofpel unto Abraham^ fay- 
ing^ In thee fhall all nations of the earth be bleffed'^* 
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 
juftified Abraham, namely faith;— ^^r^i?^;;? ^^- 
lieved God^ and it wus accounted to him for righte- 
eufnefs ". He then purfues his argument in this 
manner, l^herefore they which be of Faith are bkffed 
with faithful Abraham \ The reafon he gives is 
from the promife in queftion, given in reward of 
Abraham's Fmth^ that in him fhould 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 apofiolic writings '', not in their fpecific 

f Gen. xli. 3. g Gal. iii. 8. ^ Ver. 6. 

* Ver. 9. 

^ See what hath been faid on this fubjec^ in the preceding 
cifcourfe on the xith chapter to the Hrbni-vs, 

P 4 but 

2i6 The 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 Chriftian 
Faith in Jesus the Messiah, but, faith in God, 
who had promifed to make his Pofterity accord- 
ing to the flelh, as numerous as the ftars of Hea- 
ven, when as yet he had no offspring ^ In a like 
latitude of exprefTion, St. Paul ufes the word 
Tr^ofuayf^At^o/Aat, to preach the Gofpel beforehand-^ 
not the tidings of the MefTiah the Redeemer, but 
the effects 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 fpcaks 
in another place, as we fhall fee prefently. It is 
true, this promifed BLESSING was the preparatory 
Revelation, by which, we were to eilimate the ul- 
timate end of all the following ; and on which, 
we mufl fuppofe them to be built : And fo much 
we are concerned to prove it was. I conclude 
therefore, that when Jefus fays, Abraham Jaw 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, 

IL 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 
mankind, by his death and fufferings. 

I. We may obferve, from this fhort view of 
Abraham's hiftory, that all God's Revelations to 
him, even unto this lafl, open by degrees ^ and 

^ Gen. XV, 6. 


Seft. 5' of Mo^E% demonjlraied. 217 

relate, primarily indeed, to his Pollerity according 
to the flefh, but ultimately, to the whole race of 
Mankind : as appears from that m y stick Promife 
fo early made to him as the foundation of all the 
following, l\\2itin Him Jhould all the Families of the 
earth be blejjed. Thefe are the two great coincident 
Truths, to which all thefe Revelations tend. But 
the laft, the famous Command in queftion, which 
one would naturally expe6t 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 thino- 
that preceded. Hence we conclude, 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 underftood, 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 


" To this Dr. Stebbing anfwers, ** Yoa 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 ? becaufe ** the common opinion i?, 
*^ that God's intention in this command was not only to try 
** Abraham, but aifo to prefigure the facriiice of Chrift." 
\Cofifid. p. 150.] Excellent I I fpeak of the Command's beino- 
given : but to whom ? To all the Faithful, for whofe fake ft 
was recorded ? or to Abraham only, for whofe fake it was re- 
vealed ? Does not the \tx^ fubjecl confine my meaning to this 
latter fenfe ? Now, to Abraham, J fay, (according to the com- 
mon opinion) it was given as a Trial only. To the faithful, if 
you will, as a prefiguration.— If, to extricate himfelf from this 
fclander or fophifm, call it which you will, he will fay it pre- 

21 8 ^s Dmne Legation Book Vh 

pleafed to try any of his Servants, either for ex- 
ample fake, or for fome 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 likevvife ; he then gives up all he has been 

contendino- for; and eftablifhes ray 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, i/pe 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 
" j.MTENTiON in this command was,'* &c. Now God's inten- 
tion of gi'viKg a command to Abraham, for Abraham's fake, 
might be one thing ; and God's general intention of giving that 
CDmmand, as it concerned the whole of his Difpenfation, ano- 
ther. But to prove further that I /aid not triie^ 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 To Ibong, 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 
neither ? But the impertinence of this has been fhewn already. 
Nor does the learned Confiderer appear to be unconfcious of it. 
Therefore, inftead of attempting to inforce it to the purpbfe 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 adual 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." [Cirfd. p. 150 — i.] Could it be believed that 
thefe words fhould immediately follo'-v an argument, vvhofe 
force, (the little it has) is founded on the principle, fbat to 
^Rt FIGURE and to inform are hot. di^'erent ibings, 


Sedt. 5. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated. 21 g 

{o we may be affured, he would accommodate him- 
felf to their manner Ukewife, in that which is the 
material circumllance of a Trial : But, amongft 
men, the Agent is always tried before he be fet on 
work, or rewarded ; and not ^fier : becaufe the 
Trial is in order to know, or to m.ake 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 expedl, 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 feedfhotdd he as thejiars of Heaven for mul- 
titude^ was a Trial of his faith -, and his believing, 
againft all probability in a natural way, the facred 
Hiflorian 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 ^rial 07tl)\ becaufe it comes 
after all Gop's Difpenfations °. Yet as the facred 


° Gen, XV. 6. 

° To this reafoning, Dr. Stebbing replies, *' Beit how can 
•' you prove that, accordino; to the common interpretation, 
'* there was no reward fubfequent to the trial ?" \ConJid. p. 
151.] How Ihall I be able to pleafe him ? — Before, he wa3 
offended that I thought the Author of the book of Genefis 
might omit relating the mode of a faft, when he had good rea- 
fon fo to do. Here, where I fuppofe no faSly becaufe there 
was none recorded when no reafon hindered, he is as captious 


2 2 o The Divine Legation Book VI. 

text aiTures ns it was a Trial-, and as a Trial ne- 
ceflarily precedes the employment or reward of 


on tills fide likewlfe. ** How will you prove it ?" (fays he.) 
From the filence of the Hiftorian, (fay I ) when nothing 
hindered him from fpeaking. Well, but he will (hew 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 tranfadion 
*' 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 not 
'* THEN received ail 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 time after the tranfaftion in queftion) that God had 
*« blej/ed him in all things" [Conjid, p. 151-2.] The queftion 
here, is of the extraordinary and peculiar rewards bellowed 
by God, on Abraham; and he decides upon it, by an enu- 
meration of the ordinary and common. And, to fill up the 
meafure of thefe bleflings, he makes the burying of his iirll 
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 aik 
him ferioufly ; Could he, indeed, fuppofe me to mean (tho' he 
attended not to the drift of the argument) that God immediately 
withdrew all the common bleffings of his Providence from 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 Anfnvering has made ^q 
common, that nobody either miftakes it, or is now indeed, much 
fcandalized at it. Tho' for my part, I fliould efteem 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 Ihould 
" argue so weaklv, 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 difpenfations towards 
*' him, in this world, were at an end ; was there not a life 
** yet to come, with refped to which the whole period of our 
** exiftence here is to be confidered as a ftate of trial j and 
*' where we are all of us to look for that reward of our vir- 
" tues which we very often fail of in this?" \ConfU. p. 152.] 


Se(5. 5. 5/^ M o s E s demonjlrated. 221 

the perfon tried ; we mud needs conclude, that as 
no employment^ fo fome benefit followed this trial. 


Well, if it was not ally we find, at leaft, it is all of a piece. 
For, as before, he would fophiftically obtrude upon us common 
for extraordinary rewards; fo here, (true to the miftery of 
his trade) he puts roz«wo« iox extraordinary trials. Our pre- 
fent exijience (fays he) is to be conjid red as a fiate 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 diftindion fhewn unto him, by having his faith found fu- 
perior to the hardefl: trials." Now, in fpeaking of thefe trials, I 
faid, that the command to offer Ifaac was the laft. A'o, (fays the 
Examiner) that cannot be, foVy 'voith rffpeSl to a life to come, 
the n.K,hole period of our exi fence here, is to be confidered as a fate 
cf 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 <rix:orld. — Holy Scripture records the hiftory of one, to 
whom God only promifed (in the clear and obvious fenfe) iem^ 
poral bleffings. It tells us that thefe temporal bleiTings 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 fatisfadtion : for he 
tries to fave all by another fetch ; the weakeft men being ever 
moft fruitful in expedients, as the Howeft 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 pattern of patient 
** fuifering, even unto the end? Would there not be sense 
** in fuch a fuppofition ?" [^Cotfd. p. 153.] In truth, 1 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 ftands for an Example, we may admit of as many 
7ria's of patient fufferittg as this good-natured Divine thinks 
fitting io impofe ; yet, as a moral Agejit, 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 rew.ird conferred. 


22 2 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

Now, on our interpretation, a benefit^ as we fliall 
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 fliall 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 JJwuld all families of the earth he blejfed* 
God opens the fcheme of his Difpenfations by exa6t 
and regular fleps •, and the Revelations follow one 
another gradually and in order. — Abraham is firft 

But thefe two parts in Abraham*s character, our Confiderer per- 
petually confounds. He Uippofes 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 An/weririg require, he could as eafily 
fuppofe the contrary. And to (hew I do him no wrong, I will 
here give the Reader an inilance of his dexterity, in the coun- 
ter-exercife of his arms. In p. 150. of thefe ConfJeralionst (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 prefigured." Yet in the body of the Pamphlet, 
at p. 1 12 — 13, having another point to puzzle; he fays (on my 
oblcrving that a future State and Refurreftion were not national 
Doilrines till the time of the Maccabees) ** he knows I will 
*' fay they had thefe do(^bines 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 fhould have learnt from 
** the dead Prophet^ what the Fathers could not learn from the 
** living ? — VV hy could not the Jews learn this Dodlrine from 
•' THE VERY FIRST, as wcli as their Pofterity at the diftance of 
** ages afterwards ?'* Jn the firft cafe we find he exprefsly fays, 
it does mt follow ; in the fecond, he as plainly fuppofes, that 
it does, 


SecS. 5. of Moses demonjlrated. 223 

commanded to go into aLandwhichjfhouldbefhewn 
to him — then that Land, to be pofTefTed by his 
numerous pofterity, is exhibited before him— Its 

diflindl boundaries are afterwards marked out 

He is next afTured, while yet childlefs, that his 
pollerity, 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 ihould 
be born of Sarah — which is followed by a formal 
execution of the covenant confirmed by the feal 

of Circumcifion 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 fucceffion 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 he 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 
fhewn it mufb be fome where or other recorded in 
Abraham's flory, is the very revelation we feek ; 
which perfedls all the foregoing, and makes 
the whole feries complete and uniform. And the 
place in which we find it is its proper flation ; for 
being the completion of the reft, it muft needs be 
the lad in order. 

Such, in the intention of the Holy Spirit, doth 

St, Chrysostom, in his comment on the place, 

I under- 

224 "^k^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
underftand it to be. — t>?v ^\ 'HMEPAN lyro^ZU 

xat Ts 'la-aa>c 7r^o^i£TU7rwo-f. And in this he is 

joined or followed by Erasmus, in his pairaphrafe. 
Hoc senigmate Jefus fignificavit, Abraham, quum 
pararet immolare filium Ifaac, per Propheti^E 
fpiritum vidiffe Dominum Jefum in mortem crucis 

a patre tradendum pro mundi falute. But 

thefe excellent men, not refledling on that ancient 
mode of information, where the Inquirer is an- 
fwered by a fignificative a^ion in ftead of fpeech^ 
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 itfelf, and not relatively, as the 
completion of the reft, v/e fhould, according to 
all the rules of plain fenfe, be difpofed to feek it. 
We muft know then that this Revelation, as ihall 
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 fouglu after by the Pa- 

p And yet an ingenious man, one M. Bouiller, in a late Latin 
Diflertation, accufes me of concealing, that ChryfoRom, Erafmus 
and others were of my opini.n, viz. that Abraham in the Com- 
mand to laciifice his Son was informed, of what he earneflly 
defired to know, that the redemption of Mankind was to be 
obtained by the facrilice of the Son of God, The Reader now 
fees, whether the Author of the D. L. was guilty of a conceal- 
e.i theft, or his Accufer of an open blunder, under which he 
covers his orthodoxal malignity. Yet he thinks he attones for 
alJ, by calling the D.h. egregium opus: uhi ingeniiun acerrimum 
cum exi/nia erudiihne certat, — Diflertation um Sacrum Sylloge, 


Sed. 5. of Moses demonjirated. 2 2 5 

triarch. Now the happinefs or redemption of 
mankind promifed, on Abraham's firil: Vocation, to 
come thro' him, could not but make him more 
and more inquiiitive into the mannet* of its being 
brought about, in proportion as he found himfclf 
to be more and more perfonally concerned as the 
Inftrument of fo great a bleffing. But every new- 
Revelation would ihew him flill farther interelled 
in this honour : Therefore, by the tirrife Iflimael 
was ordered to be fent away^ and the promifed 
'Seed fixed in Ifaac, we muft needs fuppofe him 
very impatient to underftand the Myftery of Re- 
demptioh ; and fo, fitly prepared to receive this laft 
and fupreme Revelation. This^ in the like cafe% 
we find to be the difpofition and ftate of mind 
in the holy men of old. Thus Daniel, by the 
ftudy bf the Prophefies of Jeremiah, underftanding 
the approaching refboration of the Jews, applies 
himfelf by falling and prayer for God's further 
information ; and the Angel Gabriel is fent unto 
him. So John anxious and folicitous for the fuf- 
fering Church, being in prayers on the Lord's 
day, was favoured v/ith all his glorious Revela- 

5. Again, The new light in v/hich this Com- 
rnand is placed, difpels all that perplexity in the 
common interpretation (taken notice of above) 
arifingfrom our ideas of atrial-, where tba^ which 
fhduld in ufe and reafon, go before fome extra- 
ordinary favour, is made to come after all. But 
now, according to our fenfe of the Coramandy the 
trial, as is meet, precedes the laft and greatcil fa- 
vour ever bellowed 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 'The Divhie 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 inftrud: by 
a^io7is inftead of words •, a cuftom begun out of 
neceffity, but continued out of choice, for the 
fuperior advantages it hath in making an impref- 
fion. For motion^ naturally fignificative, which en- 
ters at the eye, hath a much ftronger effedl than 
articulate founds only arbitrarily 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 inftrudled the holy Pa- 
triarchs and Prophets in his Will. 

7. Again, As the high importance of this Re- 
velation feemed to require its being given in the 
ftrong and forcible way of action ', fo nothing can 


*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 them/elves to fig- 

" nify the fentiment of the mind than articulate found : The 

*' force of which arifes not from the nature of things ; but 

•■' from the arbitrary will of man : and common ufe and cuftom 

*' impofes this fignihcation on articulate founds, not on mo- 

** tions and geftares — Pauci funt motus corporis, qui ipfi per 

** ie aptiores efie videntur ad motus animi fignificandos, quam 

•' fonus qui ore et lingua in vocem formatur. Vis ipfa non eft 

*' in natura rcrum pofita, fed arbitrio hominum conftituta ; 

** eamque mo5 et ufus conmiunis non geftibus corporis tribuic, 

*' fed verbis ct vocl." Rutherforth Z)f/^r/7. 

The purpofe of this fine obfervation, tho* fo cloudily exprefTed, 
is to ihew that motion avd gefiure can have no fignification at all : 
Not from nature^ fmce few g( ftiires of the body are more apt 
of themft'lves to exprefs the mind than articulate found ; and 
yet articulate found is of arbitrary fignification : Not from injlitu* 


Sed. 5^ ^ Mo SE s deimnjlrated. S27 

be conceived more appofite to convey the informa- 
tion required than this very atlion, Abraham 


tiorty fince it is not to geftare, but to articulate founds that men 
have agreed to affix a meaning. The confequence is, that 
gejlure can have no ineav'mg at all", and To 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 anions can never become fignificacive but by the aid of 
<ivords,'* Now I defire to know what he thinks of all the Ty- 
pical Rites of the Laiv, fignificative of the Sacrifice of Chrill? 
Were not thefe Anions ? Had they no meaning which extend- 
ed to the Go/pelP or were there any Words to accompany them, 
which explained that meaning ? Yet has this man afTerted, in 
what he calls a Determination^ that in the inflances of expreffive 
gefture, recorded in Scripture, nvords luere alivays tifed m 
conjunction ^oith them. But to come a little clofer to him. As 
a Philofopher he Ihould have given his Rcafons for thofe two 
affertions j or as an Hiftoiian he fhould have verified iis 
Fads. He hath attempted neither; and 1 commend his pru^ 
dence ; for bq;h are againft him : His Fadt, that gellures have 
no meaning by nature is falfe : and his Reafoning, that thi;/ 
have none by injiitution, is millaken. The Spartans might in- 
llru6l him that gefiures alone ha^ve a natural meaning. That fagc 
People (as we are told by Herodotus) were fo perfuaded of 
this truth, that they preferred converfe by a^iony to converfe 
hy fpeech ; as adlion 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 Lacedemon for fuccours 
in dillrefs, their Orators made a long and laboured fpeech. 
When it was ended, the Spartans told them, that the fir;i fart 
of it they had forgotten^ and could not camp'ehend the latter. 
Whereupon, the Samian Orators produced their empty Bread- 
balvCts, and faid^ they wanted bread. H'hat r.ecd of 'zvordi^ 
replied the Spartans, do not your empty BreadbajLet^ Ju^ciently 
declare your meaning P Thus we fee the Spartans thought noc 
only that oejfures luere apt of themfei'ves, (or by nature) to Jig- 
tiify the fentiment of the mind, but even more apt than articulate 
founds. Their relations, the Jews, were in the fame fentiments 
and praftice; and full as fparing of their words; and, (the 
two languages confidered) for fomething a better reafon. Ths 
facred Hiftorian, fpeaking of publick days of humiliation, tells 
his llory in this manner — Jnd they gathered together to Mizpel^ 


^2S . The Divine Legation l5o.oK.Vtl 

defired earneftly to be let into the myftery of the 
REDEMP.TiON. ; and God, to inftrud him (in the 


Lord, an^ faffed on that day, i Sam. cnap. vH, vef, 6. The 
Hiflorian does not explain in nxiords the meaning of this dravo- 
ing of "jjater, S:c. nor needed he. It fufficiently exprefTed, that 
a delude of tears nvas due for their offences. The Profeflbr, per- 
haps, will fay that words accompanied the aflion, at leaft precede 
ed it. But what will he lay to the aftion of Tarciuin, wKen he 
Uruck off the heads of the higher poppies which overtopped 
their fellows ? Here we are e'xprefly told, that all was done ia 
profound filence, and yet the aftion was well underftood. But 
further, I will tell our Profeflbr what he leail fufpedled, that 
Geftures, befides their natural, have often an arbitrary {ignU 
fication. *' A certain Afiatic Prince, entertained at Rome by 
Augiiftiis, was amongft other Shews and Feftivities, amufed with 
a famous Pantomime ; whofe aflions were fo expreffive, 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 miift needs be, (in order to make the 
cxpreflion of the Adors convey an entire connet^ed fenfe) to 
intermix with the geftures naturally fignificative,' geftures made 
fignificative by inflitution ; that is, brought, by arbitrary ufe tc^ 
have as determined a meaning as the others. 

To illuftrate this by that moYe lafting information, the Uiero' 

ghphics of the Egyptians and x\\zreal Chara^urs of the Chinefe ; 
which, as we have (hewn, run parallel with the more fleeting 
conveyance of expreflive gefture, juft as alphabetic writing does 
with fpcech. Now,' tho' the earlier Hieroglyphics were com-^ 
pofed almoft altogether of marks natural^ fignificative, yet when 
the Egyptians came to convey continued and more precife dif- 
courfes by this mode of. writing, ihey found a neceffity of in- 
venting arbitrary fignifications, to intermix and conned with the 
Other marks which had a natural, [See vol. iii. p. ^9, ^ Je<l^ 

Now, to fhew that thefe arbitrary Hieroglyphic marks were 
feal Charaders like the other, let us turrt to the Charaders of 
iwt Chiaefe, which tho* (in their prefent way of ufe) moft of 


Sed. 5. of Moses demonflratcd, 229 

beft manner humanity is capable of receiving in- 
ftrucflion) in the infinite extent of divine goodncfs 
to mankind, ivho /pared not his own fon^ hut de- 
livered him up for us all\ let Abraham feel, by- 
experience, what it was to lofe a beloved fon ; 

^ake now thy fon^ thi'ne only fon Ifaac \ the Son born 
miraculouily when Sarah was pafb child-bearing, 
as Jefus was miraculoufly bora of a pure Virgin. 
The duration too of the a6lion was the fame as 
that between Christ's Death and Rcfurredion ; 
both which were defigned to be reprefented in it : 
and flill farther, not only the final archietypical 
Sacrifice of the fon of Gop was figured in the 
command to offer Ifaac, but the intermediate Typical 
facrifice, in the Mofaic CEconomy, was reprefent- 

tbem be of arbitrary ftgnification, yet the Mlilionaries afTure us 
that they are underftood by all the neighbouring nation's of 
different languages. This Ihews that the auguftan Pantomime 
ia coveted by the Barbarian for his interpreter might be very 
able to difcharge his fun(5lion tho' feveral of his gcftures had 
an arbitrary fignification. And we eafily conceive how it 
might come to pafs, fmce the geflure of arbitrary fignificatioa 
only ferved to conned the aftive difcourfe, by Handing 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 polfibly convey : all which is 
properly their own, namely ■ «^^«rrt/ information; and even 
much of that which is more peculiar to fpeech, namely «r- 
bit vary. 

To illuflrate the whole by a domeflic inflance ; the folemn 
(jefture of a Profefibr in his Chair : which fometimes may 
naturally happen, to fignify Folly; the', by injlitutioriy it al- 
ways fignifies Wifdom; and yet again, it mult be owned, in 
juftice to our ProfefTor's fcheme, that fometimes it means no- 
thing at all. 

« Rom. viii. 32, 

2^^o ^be Divine Legation Book VI. 

ed, by the permitted facrifice of the Ram offered 
up inflead of Ifaac. 

8, The laft reafon I fhall offer in fupport of this 
point, that the Ccmmarid concerning Ifaac was this 
Revelation of Chrifl's day^ or the redemption of 
mankind by his death and fufferings, is the alkifion 
which Jefus makes (in thefe words, Abraham re- 
joiced to fee my day^ &c.) to the following wopds of 
Mofes, in the hiftory of the command — And A- 
hraham 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 Ihew 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 m.eaning of either 
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 fir eh : as it is faid to 
this day^ In the mount of the Lord itfioall befeeny we 
have the affertion of Jefus confirmed, that Abra- 
ham fav) Chrift^s day and was glad, I . Jehovah- 
jireh fignifies, as feveral of the beft interpreters 
agree, the Loro shall be se^n ", But with 


* See p. 2C4, l^ fe^, 

^ ** Dominus fvidehitur, (fays the learned Father Houbi'gant) 
^' 1°. Non njideiur, nc ab future verbi abcrremus. 2". Non 
<^ njidehity non modo quia r^on additur quid fit Deus vifurus, 
" fed etiam quia in tota ilia vifione, hominis ell 'vidercy 
" Domini, I'i.'/en ; propter qnam caufam Deus locum iftum 
^* mox nomine t'ifionis infigniebat. Nimiruxn Deus Abrahamo 
^* jd oftendit, quod Abrahap i)idit Li gavi/us eft." The near 


Scd:. 5. of Moses dcmonjlrafed, 231 

what propriety could this name be given to it by 
Abraham if, in this tranfadlion, he had not feen 
the reprefentation of the Lord's pafTion, 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 mount of 
the Lord it jhall he feen\ or more exadlly to the 
Hebrew — for he faid^ In the mount the Lord 
SHALL BE SEEN. In the firil part of the verfe the 
facred Hiftorian tells us that Abraham called the 
mount, T^he Lord fh all he feen \ and in the latter" 
part he acquaints us with the manner how Abra- 
ham impofed that appellation, namely by the ule 
of a proverbial fpeech implying the reafon of the 
name. — T"^ 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, 
tho' he confidered the tranfaftion in no other light than as a 
Type m the dea<h and paiTion of Jefus. 

^ Atq.ue Koc illud eft (fays Father Houbigant) quod memorial 
fempiternaj Abraham confecrabat, cum ira fubjungeret /jo^i^ 
in monte, Dojninus 'videbilur ; illud hod:e fic accipiens, ut accepit 
Paulus Ap. illud Davidis, hodie fi n;ocem ejus audieritis\ qiiod 
hodie tamdiu durat, quamdiu fjscula ilia durabunt, de quibus 
Apoftolus dome hodie cognominatur. Propterea Abraham non 
dicit hodie Dominus <videtur. Nam id fpcdlaculum nunc folus 
videt Abraham, portea omnes vifuri funt, et ad omnes perti- 
nebit ifttid, "jidtiitur, generatim di(5\um, cum omnes Unige- 
nitum /;; motite viderint generis humani vidimam fa^flam. jSec 
aliam fententiam feries verborum patitur. Ex qua ferie illi 
deviant qui hrec verba, dixit enim hodie in rjionte dofnirnjs — 
Mofi fic narranti ?iXX\-\h\.\\inx. propterea dicitur hodie in monte Domi- 
ni — qttafi renarret Moyfes ufurpatum fua astate proverbium. 
Nam fi fic erit non jam docebit Abraham, cui huic lo:o no- 
men fecerit Dominus 'videbitur; quam tamen nominum nota- 
tionem in facris paginis non omittunt ii quicumque nomina 
rebus imponunt. C^od contra plane docebit Abraham fi de eo 
Moyfes fic narrat, 'voca^it ncmen lod bujusj deus videbjtur ; 
pam dixit, in monte Deus I'idehitur, 

0.4 of 

232 ^he Dmne Legation Book Vf. 

of recording abftradt names and things by writing, 
being the bed and fafeft conveyance of the memory 
of events to Pofterity. Conformably to this inter- 
pretation of the t;ext, the Hifcorian on his enterance 
bn the tranfadion calls the land of Moriah to which 
Abraham went with Ifaac (according to Jerom's 
interpretation) the Land of vision, which fhews 
that the words of Jefus, Abraham, saw my day ani 
was GLAD, evidently allude to this extraordinary 
circumftance ; namely the difpofitiqn of Abraham's 
mind on the occafion^ expreffed in his memorial o£ 
a new name impofed on the fcene of action -, the 
ancient v/ay of commemorating joyful and happy 
events. In a word, Jefus fays, Abraha7n faw his 
, day •, 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 
exprefies himfelf in terms which fignify what man- 
kind in general Jhali fee, not what he himfelf had 
Jeen—Tuz Lord shall be seen. From a vague 
allufion therefore, of the words of Jefus, to this 
hiuory 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 faw and rejoiced to fee ^ 
pis day\ or the great Sacrifice for the fins of man- 
kind by reprefentation — The records of facred Hif^ 
tory mull needs verify his alTertion— But there is 
no place m Scripture which prefents the leail 
traces of this Revelation, except the hiftory of 
the 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 Hiftory ; and removes 
The grcatcft difficulties attending the common in- 

Seft. 5. of Mo s^s demonfirated. 233 

terpretation of it. Hence, we conclude with cer- 
tainty, that the command to Abraham to off^r up hi$. 
Jon was only an information in action, which, 
at Abraham's earnelt requell, God was gracioufly 
pleafed to give him, of i\it great facrijice 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 hiflory of the Command 
a DIRECT Prophefy of Chrift as Redeemer of the 
worlds whereas the common brings it, at moft, 
but to a TYPICAL iHtimation. Now the Defenders^ 
of the common interpretation confeis, that " the 
f evidence of dire^i Prophelies is fuperiour to thac 
?' of Types:'' 

The only plaufible Objedlion 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 tho 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.- — And it 
*' came to pafs after thefe things^ God did tempt Ahra- 
\^ ham, andfaidy Take ?2ow thy fon, thine only Jon Ifaac, 
*' • — And when the affair is over, the fame rea- 
*' fon is again infinuated : — By myfelf have I 
*' fwcrn, faith the Lord, for hecaiife thou hafi done 
*' this thing, and hafi not wit held thy fon, thine onlj 
*' fon, that in hleffiyig I will hlefs thee ""," ^c, 

I. To the firil part of the Objeftion I anfwer, 
That the knowledge of God's future Difpenfation 
y Dr. S;ebbin^. ^ q^^ j^^^jj^ j^^ j^^ 


234 ^'^^ Divine Legation Book VL • 

in th-e 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; becaufe 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 Schoolmafter^ that was to bring 
them by degrees, thro' a harlh and rugged difci- 
pline, to the eafy yoke of Christ) God, in his 
infinite wifdom, thought fit to exercife them*. 
But he v/ho does not fee, from the plain reafon of 
the thing, the necefTity of the Hillorian's filence, 
is referred, for farther fatisfaclion, to what hath 
been already, and will be hereafter faid, to evince 
the necefTity 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 condudl of Mofes, w^ho exprefsly tells us, 
that he obfcured fome parts of his hiflory, or put 
a veil over his face that the Ifraeliies might not fee to 
the end of that Law which was to he aholijhed. And 
what was that end^ if not the Redemption of man- 
kind by the death and facrifice of Chrifl? — Mofes 
(fays he) put a veil over his face ^ that the Children of 
Ifrael could not ftedfafily look to the end of that which 
is abolifJjed, But their minds were blinded : for until 

' Would the Reader now believe it poffiblc, when thefe 
words lay before Dr. Stebbing, while he was anfwering my 
Book, that he fiiould venture to a(k me, or be capable of afk- 
ing thefe infultin;^ queftions — PFas there any good ufe that 
Abraham could make of this kuonvledge nvhich the reji of the 
People of Cod might not hanje made of it as nvrll as He F Or if 
It nvas urft for ei'ery ho^^y elj}^ y}ai it not v.nft for Abraham 



Se6l. 5. of Moses clemon/lraieJ. 235 

this day remaineth the fame veil untaken avja^ in the 
reading of the Old ^eflament : which veil is dom 
away i;/ Christ ^ 

But it may be ailced, perhaps, *' If fuch Revela- 
tioris 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 fliould come, 
they might rife up in Evidence againft Infidelity, 
for the real relation and dependency between the 
;wo Difpenfations of Mofes and of Cbifi " ^ when 


^ 2 Cor, iii. 13^—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 ilicks to his point '* That if any in- 
** formation of the death and facrifice of Chrill had been in- 
** tended, it is natuhal to think that the explanation 
" v/ould have been Recorded with the tranfadion, as it is in all 
** other SUCH like cases." Now if this orthodox Gentle- 
jTian will fliew me a fuch like cafe, i. e, a cafe whert; a Revela- 
tion of the Gofpel Difpenfation is made by an exprefiive a61ion, 
and the txplauation is recorded along with it, 1 ihall be ready 
to confefs, he has made a pertinent objcdion. 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 Chrilf. 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 tranfatStion," Now when the Doctor has fatisfied 
the objeftion, which he has lent the Deifts, againft a Type, I 
fuppole it may ferve to fatisfy himfelf, when he urges it againft 
my idea of the Command, as an iKFORiMATiON by action. 
Again, our Anfwerer himfelf affirms that the doftrine of Re- 
demption was delivered under Types in the Law ; and that the 
doftiine thus delivered was defignedly fecrettd and concealed 
from the ancient jews. Now is it natural to think (to ufe his 
own words) that Mofes would openly and plainly record a 
Doflrlne in one book which he had determined to fecrete in an- 
other, when boih vyere for the ufe of the fame People and the 
iame h^t I 

^ " You muft give me leave to obferve (fays Dr. Stebbing) 
*^ that the tranfadion in (jueftion, will have the fame efficacy 
' ■ • ' *' to 

236 7he Dhine Legation Book VI. 

from this, and divers the like inftances it fhould 
appear, that the Jirft Difpenfation could be but 
very im perfectly underllood without a reference ta 
the latter. 

** to fhew the dependency heltveen the t'wo difpenfations^ whe- 
*« ther Abraham had thereby any information of the Sacrifice 
*' of Chrift or not." \Conftd. p. 156.] This, indeed, is faying 
fomething. And, could he prove what he fays, it would be 
depriving my interpretation of one of its principal advantages. 
Let us fee then how he goes about it, — ** for this does not arife 
•* from Abraham's knowledge, or anybody's knowledge, 
«* at the time when the tranfadion happened, but from the fimi' 
•'■ litude and correfpcndency between the event and the tranfac- 
*' tion, by which it was prefigured ; which is ex5n5lly the fame 
*' upon either fuppofition." [Ibid. p. i 56-7.] To this 1 reply, 
1. That 1 never fappofed that the dependency between the 
two DifpenTations did arife from Ahrahanis knouAedge, or a»y 
hodys kno-joledgey at that, or at any other time ; but from God's 
INTENTION that this commanded aftion fhould import or re- 
prefent the Sacrifice of Chrift : And then indeed comes in the 
queilion. Whether that Intention be bell difcovered from God's 
declaration of it to Abraham, or from ^fmi litude o7id correfpon-» 
dencv between this commanded aftion and the. Sacrifice of Chrift. 
Therefore, 2. I make bold to tell him, that a fmilitude and 
eorrcfpondency betvueen the event and the tranfaBion <^hich pre- 
fgured it, is not enough to fhew this dependency, to the 
fatisfaftion of Unbelievers ; who fay, that a likenefs between 
two things of the fame nature \ fuch as offering up two men 
to death, in different ways, and tranfaded in two diftant 
periods, is not fufficient alone to flievv that they had any rela- 
tion to one another. With the fame reafo.n, they will fay, we 
ini<^ht pretend that Jeptha's daughter, or the king of Moab's 
fon v/hom the father facrificed on the wall, 2 Kings iii. 27. 
were the types of Chrift's facrifice. Give us, they exult, a proof 
from Scripture that God declared or revealed his intention 
of prefiguring the death of Jefus ; or fome better authority at 
leaft than a modern Typifier, who deals only in fimilitudei and 
eorre/ponde}icesy and has all the wildnefs, without the wit, of a 
Poet, and all the weaknefs, without the ingenuity, of an Ana- 
Ipgiil 1 Now whether it be our Examiner, or the Author of 
the Di'v. Leg. who has given them this fatisfafiion ; or whether 
they have any reafon to require it of either of us, is left Jo the, 
impartial Reader to confidcr. 


Scd. 5. ^ M o s E s demonjlrafed. 237 

But had not the facred Writer defignedly ob- 
fcuredthis illuftrious Revelation, by an omifTion of 
the attendant circumflances, yet the narrative of 
fuch a converfe by aBion was not, in its nature, fo in- 
telHgible or obvious, as that where God is fhewil 
converfmg by action 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 inftrudlion of the People, have necef- 
farily, 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 exprefTes it above) there was no room for that 
formal explanation, which made the commanded 
adtions to the Prophets, fo clear and intelligible.— 
Yet, as if I had never faid this, Dr. Stebbing tells 
the world, I make this adtion cf Abraham's 
parallel to thofe of the Prophets, ivhereas (fays 
he) it differs from them all in. a very material clrcuni- 
fiance^ as they had their feveral explanations annexed^, 
and this had 7iot, But to fhew 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 fhail 
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, addrcfles 
himfelf for protedtion in this dillrefs, to the God of 
his Fathers, with all humility and confidence. God 
hears his prayer; and is pleafedto inform, him of 
the happy iffue of the adventure, by 2Lftgmficative 
aSiion: The following night, he has a ftruggle with 

** Sfe vol. iii. p. 109 to \iy, ^ Gi;.\-; xxxii. 


23S 7he Divine Legation Book Vlv* 

an Angel, with whom he is fiifFered to make his 
part fogood, that from thence he colleded God had 
granted his petition. This is the circumftancein Ja- 
cob's hiftory v/hich affords luch mirth to our iUite- 
rate Libertines : For this information by Action con- 
cerning only the A6lor, who little needed to be 
told the meaning of a mode of Inflrudion, 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 being given for the ufe of the Peo-^ 
pie, to whom they were explained. 

But it may perhaps be afked, '' Why, when the 
fulnefs of time was come. Scripture did not break 
its long filence, and inftru^l us in the principal and 
proper reafon of the Command to offer Ifaac ?'* I 
anfwer, 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 epiille to the Hebrews, fpeak- 
ing of this very Command, fays — By faith Abraham^ 
when he was tried, offered up Jfaac — accounting that 
God was able to raife him up even from the dead, from 
whence alfo he received him in a figure S EN 
ITAPABOAHt, in a F arable: a 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 adlion 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 reflored to life after a real diffolution, 
^et the Son being in this action to reprefent Christ 

Chap. xi. ver. 17 — 19, 


Seft. 5. of Moses demonjlrated. 23^ 

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 Christ's Repre- 
fentative, as reftored 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 Refurreclion 
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 


s Let us fee now what Dr. Stebbing has to fay to tliis reafon- 
ing. — " By your leave. Sir,'' fays he, (which, by the way, 
he never aflcs, but to abufe me ; nor ever takes, but to mif- 
reprefent me) *' if the Apoftle had meant by this expreflion, 
** to fignify that Ifaac Ibod as the Reprefentative of Chrift, 
*' and that his being taken from the mount alive, was the 
*' figure of Chrift's Refurreclion; 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 
Chrij}^ but Ifaac? Had, indeed, the facred Writer been fpeak- 
ing of Abraham's knoi^vleJge of Chrif, fomething might have 
been faid ; but he is fpeaking of a very difi-erent thing, his 
faith in God', and only intimates, by a ftrong expreflion, what 
he underftood that adion to be, which he gives, as an inftance 
of the moil: illuftrious a£t o^ faith. I fay, had this been the 
cafe, fomething might have been faid ; fomething, 1 mean, 
juft to keep him in countenance ; yet ftill, notliing to the 
purpofe, as I fhall now Ihew, The tranfadion of the Sacri- 
iice of Chrlll related to God. They^^w/v of that tranfa<ftion. 
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 
Chrilt, in Ifaac. To tell us then, that (according to my inter- 
pretation) it SHOULD hai>e been faid, thnt Abraham receiuhi 
Christ Jrom the dc'ad in a figure, is. in effed, telling us that he 
knows no more of logical exprefiion than of theological rea- 


240 The Divine Legation Book VL 

hot being underftood, thefe words of the epiftle 
have been hitherto interpreted, to fignify only that 


jfoning. It is true, could he fiiew the exprellion improper, in 
the ferife which I give to the tranfaftion, he would then Ipeak a 
little to the purpofe ; and this, to do him juftice, is what he 

tvould fain be at. ** For, Chrift it was, according to your in- 

** terpretation, (fays he) that was received from the dead in 
<^ a figure, by Ifaac his Reprefentative, who really came alive 
** from the mount. If the reading had been, not \v ^ccaoot^o^^^ 
*' but hq 'jju^cc^oXrjVy it woiild have fuited your notion ; for it: 
** might piopeily have been faid, that Ifaac came alive front 
** the mount aj a figure, or that he inight be a figure, of the 
^* Refurreclionof Chrift." [Confid. p. 147.] Miferable chicane t 
As, on the one hand, I might fay with propriety, that Christ 
ivas recei'ved from the dead in a figure^ i. e. by a reprefentative : 
fo on the other, I might fay that Isaac w^j received from 
the dead in a figure ^ i. e. as a reprefentative ? For Ifaac, fuf- 
Gaining the perfon of Chrift, who was raifed from the dead, 
might in afigurei i. e. as that perfon, be faid to be received : 
Yet this our Examiner denies, arid tells us, the Apoftle should 
h an) e faid that Abraham recel-ved Christ, and not Isaac. — • 
•* But (adds he) if the reading had been not h Ucc^ocQoXri but 
** £K ria^aCoXfli', it would have fuited your notion." And the 
tealbn he gives, is this: " For it might properly have beeri. 
** faid that Ifaac came alive from the mount as a figure, or 
" THAT HE MIGHT BE 3 figure of the fefurrciflion of Chrift." 
Strange ! He fays, this would have fuited my notion ; and the 
reafon he gives, fhevvs it fiiits only his on.w2 ; which is that the 
exaftnefs of the refemblance between the two aflions, not the 
declaration of the Giver of the Command, made it a figure. 
•This is the more extraordinary, as I myfelf have here Ihevvn 
that the old latin tranflator had turned the words into in para- 
BOLAM 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 adiohs, might 
iE, or might become a figure. 

However, he owns at laft that " a reafon will ftill be want- 
** ing, why, inftead of fpeaking the fad as it really was, that 
** Ifaac came alive from the mount ; the Apoftle chofe rather 
•' to fay (what was not really the cafe) that Abraham received 
" him /;7j.w the dead''* [Confid. p. 14 7-8.] Well; and have 
not I given a reafon ? No matter for that : Dr. Stebbing is 
turned Examiner^ and has cngroilcd the market. His reafon 


Sedt. 5. 5/^ Mo s E s demqnjlrated. 2^^.! 

Ifaacwas a type of Chrijl^ in the fame fenfe that the 
eld "Tabernacle^ in this epiftle % is called a type — 

follows thus, *' If Jfaac did not die (as it is certain he did not) 
*' Abraham could not receive him from the dead. And yet 
" the Apollle fays, he received \i\m from the dead. The clear- 
** ing up this difficulty will (hew the true fenfe of the paflage.'* 
[Confid, p. 147-8.] What, will the clearing up a difHcuIty 
of his own making difcover 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 offalfe, 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 received Ifaac from the dead, but that he 
received him from the dead \^ a kigure, or under the afibmed 
perfonage of Chrif. Now if Chrif died, then he, who aifum- 
ed his perfonage, in order to reprefent his paffion and refurrcc- 
tion, might furely be faid to be receinjcd fro?n 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 
a real difficulty requires fenfe and criticifm to refolve it, an imagi- 

.nary one may be well enough managed by a quibble. Be- 

cai;fe the tranflators of St. Mark's Gofpel have rendered U 
taoioc, <u7a(.pa.Qo7\ri by, cjjith ivhat comparfon jhall ^ve compare it, 
therefore, u o7«^aCo?.>5, in the text in queftion, fignifies com- 
PAR^TiVELY SPEAKING. But no words Cfln (hew him like 

his own ** The Apoftle does not (diy Jimp ly and ahfolutely, 

" that Abraham received Ifaac from the dead ; but that he 
** received him from the dead, h 'uya^oJ^aMy in a parable^ 
See here now ! Did not I tell you fo .? There was no difficulty 
all this while : The fentence only opened to the right and left 
to let in a bluftering objedtion, which is no fooner evaporated 
than it clofes again as before. // nvas not fimply faid — No. " But 
** that he received him — h izra^a^oA^, in a parahky i. e. in a 
" compurifcriy or by comparfon. Thu'= the word is ufed, Mark 
** iv. 30. Whereunto Jhall <vje like,i the kingdom of God, or <zvith 
" ^what COMPARISON [Iv 'zso'ta, -cra^c^CoA;^] fjall 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 iiad 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 [ek Tra^aCoAr] comparative- 

^ Chap. ix. ver. 9. 
VoL.V. R •* ty 

2^t ^he Divine Legation BooK VI^ 

fiTK riAPABOAH, that is, a thing defigned by the 
Holy Spirit to have both a prefent fignificancy and 
i future. Which amounts but juft to this. That 

** Lr S5PEA1CINC, a receiving him from the deadj his father 
*' being old, and his mother paft the age of child-bearing, 
** on which account the Apoftle ft^les them both ^eaJ. Whicli 
** interpretation, I the rather approve, becaufe it fuggefts the 
** proper grounds of Abraham*s faith." [Confiid. p. 148-9.] 

He fays, h -aragaCoXxi, lignifies, in or hy comparifon j and that 
the word is fo ufed in St. Mari^ ; to prove which, he quoted 
the Englilh tranflation. Now I muft take the liberty to tell 
him, that the tranjQators were miftaken; and he with them. 
ria^-a^cAt}, in St. Mark, is not ufed in the fenfe of a Jimilitudi 
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 csmparifon ox Jimile : how the 
latter of thefe arofe out of the former I have fhewn in the 
third Volume. Here, both thefe modes of illuflration arc 
referred to ; which ihould have been tranflated thus, To wuhat 
Jhall *we COMPARE the kingdom of God ^ or nxiith nvhat pa- 
rable /hall nve illujlrate or parabolize it. — o^oiucruyLiv -— 
<K»^aQa7,uf^vj — which words exprefs twa different and well 
known modes of illuftration.. 

But now fuppofe, Iv wota •rra^a^oA^, had fignified <m;//^ wz&iif 
comparifon : How comes it to pafs that h Traga^oXjJ Ihould fig- 
nify by comparifon, or as it nxjere, or comparatively speak.- 
iNG .•* In plain truth, his critical analogy has ended in a plea- 
fan t blunder. How fo? you will afk. Nay, 'tis true there's 
"no denying, but xhzi fpeakittg by comparifon is comparati'vely fpeak- 
JTig ; and, if men will put another fenfe upon it, who can help 
that ? they fay, comparatively fpeaking, fignifies the fpeaking^ 
loofely, 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 milhap, I am ready toretrad; 
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— 
by comparifon : where you jull get the firll glimpfe, as it were, 
of an enafcent equivocation; and his, by comparifon is preknt- 
!y, afterwards, turned into, as it ^ere, or as if he had; and 
then, comparati'vely fpeaking, brings up the rear, and clofes the 
critic! fm three deep. 


Se£b, 5' of IsAosES 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— -i7«^^ 
eum & IN PARABOLAM ucceptt^ for in parahla, as it 
ought to have been tranilated conformably to the 
Greek. However 1 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 (Irong that Interpre- 
ters could never overlook the refemblance, in their 
comments on the pafTage. 

2. To the fecond part of- the Objedion, I an- 
fwer thus : It is the office of Hiftory to alTign the 
Caufes of the fadls related. In thofe fa6ts 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 a5lion in (lead 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 x\\t 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 principal 
reafon of the Command could not be conveniently 
told by the Hillorian, this inferior one of the Trial 
R 2 is 

:*44 , '^he Dtvtne^ Legation Book VI. 

is afTigned with great truth and propriety — And it 
came to pafs_ after tbefe -things God did tempt Ahra- 
ham^^ and faid^ 'Take nowjhy fon^ L'^c. And it is 
to be obferved, that the very manner of recording 
this reafon fliews it to be indeed what w^e fuppofe 
it; an inferior one. For it is not faid that. God 
gave this Command in order to try Abraham, 
which exprefies a principal reafon -, but that, in 
giving the Command, God did try him, which at 
mofh only irnplies an inferior one. We have faid, 
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 obferved the fame 
rule with regard to the reward of the Trial as to the 
reafon of the Command. The principal and pe- 
cuhar 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 the 
Hiftorian could, and, in purfuance of the rules 
of Hiftory, does mention : — By myfelfhave I [worn^ 
faith the Lord^ for hecaufe thou hafi done this things 
and hafi not 'withheld thy fon^ thine onlyfon^ that in 
tleffng I "doill blefs thee^ and in midtiplying^ I will mul- 
tiply thy feed as the flars of Heaven^ and as the fand 
zvhich is upon the fea floor e -, and thy feed fhall poffefs 
the gate of his enemies \ and in thy feed Jhall all the 
nations of the earth he bleffcd^ hecaufe thou hafi obeyed 
my voice^. 

On the whole, This Objeflion to the interpre- 
tation, the only one I can tiiink of, is fo far from 

Chap. xxii. ver, i6, isf /e<j. 


Sed:. 5. ^/ Moses demonjlrated. 245 

obfcuring, and weakening, that it adds great light' 
and ftrength unto it. For admitting the lenfe here 
propofed, to be indeed the true, w-e fee the Story 
muft of necelTity have been told in the very man- 
ner we find it to be recorded =. 


« Dr. Stebbing goes on as ufual " In fhort, Sir, I do 

«* not underftand this DotSlrine (with which your whole work 
" much abounds) of revealing things clt-arly to Patriarchs, 
*' and Prophets, and Leaders," as a fpecial favour to theni- 
" felves ; but to be kept as a fecret from the reft of Man- 

** kind." It is but too plain he does not under j} and it: 

for which I can give no better reafon than that it is the bcripture- 
jdodrine and not the do6lrine of Summs and Syflems, *' I 
** have been ufed (fays he) to confider perfons under this 
*' chamber, as appointed, not for themfelves, but for others ; 
** and therefore to conclude that whatever was clearly fe- 
" vealed to them, concerning God's Difpenlations, 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; theretore, they do nothing, and have no- 
thing done for themfelves." When God faid, Shall I htdefrcm 
Mraham that thing njohich I do ? was not this faid to, and for 
himfelf ? — But he has another to match itj *' 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 Chrijiian DifpenfatUm ; which. 
the Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews tells us was clearly re- 
vealed to him in the mount t—Priefis (fays he) that offlr gifts 
according to the Laiv, iLho fer-ue unto the example and Jhado-iu of 
heavenly things, as Mofes iias adtnonijhed cfGodnvhen he about 
to make the '1 ahernacle f . Again, We find that Ezekiel, on hu 
being called out, upon his million, faw, (what the author of Ec- 
clefiafticus calk) the glorious njifion ; and had (as appears from the 
aiJegory of the roll of a book) a full interpretation thereof. Yet 
fiotwithftanding all his iMumination, he was direded by God to 
fpeak io obfctirely to the People, that he found caufe to com- 
plain, — Ah Lord, they fay of me ! Doth he not fyeak parables X ? 
And now let him alk the Prophets in the fame magillerial 
language he is accuftomed to examine me, Was there ony gocd 
ufeyou could make of yonr knofwledge, that the Pecple of God migJjt 

* Confid. p. 155-6. t Heb. viii 4-5. X Ezek. xx. .^9. 
R 3 no% 

246 The't^ivine Legation Book VI, 

Before I conclude this part of the Difcourfe, I 
ihall but juft take notice how ftrongly this inter- 

not have made of it as nvell as you ? — But this very Dif* 
penfation is alluded to, and continued, under the kingdom 
of Chrifl. And his Di/ciples ajked him faying. What might 
this parable be ? And he faid, JJnto you it is gi'ven to knonjo the 
myferies of the kingdom of God : But to other Sy in parables i that 
feeing they might not fee^ and hearing they might not underjiand*, 
Again, St. John in his viiions tells us^ •— Jad luhen the f even 
thundiTs had uttered their voice s^ I ivas about to ivrite. y^nd I 
heard a voice from Heaven faying unto me, seal up thofe thingi 
vjhich the f even thunaers uttered, and write them not. Rev, 
X. 4. And now, reader, I (hall try his gratitude ? — *' If you cai^ 
" (hew, (fayi he) that 1 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 fpa^-ed myfelf in afking another queflion; 
" Why, if Revelations cannot be clearly recorded, are they re-. 
** corded at all\ P" But, great Defender of the Faith ! — of the 
ancient Jewilh Church, I mean, I afked that queflion, 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 have fpared that quejiion? — Becaufe ** if a Rcr 
** velation is not clearly given, it cannot be clearly recorded §/* 
Pid I fay it could ? Or will he fay, that there are no reafons 
why a Revelation, that is clearly given, (hould be obfcurely 
recorded ? To what purpofe then, was the obfervation made ? 
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 (hould be record- 
*' ed, to wit, for the inftruflion of future ages, when the ob- 
•* fcurity being cleared up by the event, it (hall appear, tha| 
** it was forefeen and fore-ordained in the knowledge and ap- 
*• pointment of God ||." If thou wilt believe me. Reader, I 
never intimated any thing fp abfurd, 

What I intimated was not concernipg an ohfcure Revelation^ 
but a Revelation obfcurely recorded, Thefe are Very different 

♦ Luke viii. 9-10, f Confid. p. 156, 

} Ibid, 

156. § Confid. p. 156. II Ibid. 


Scdi, s. of Moses demonflraUd. 247 

pretation of the Command concludes againft the 
SociNiANS, for the reaiy^fri/^^e' of Christ, and the 
proper Redemption of mankind. For if the Com- 
mand was an information by a5iion inftead oiwcrdsy 
the proof conveyed in it is decifive ; there being 
here no room for their evafion of its being 2. figu- 
rative exprefftoriy fmce the figurative a^ion, the 
original of fuch expreflion, denotes either a real 
facrifice^ or nothing at all. 


I come now to the other pant of this Difcourle* 
viz. to fhew, that the interpretation here given in- 
tirely diffipates all thofe bluflering objedions whicii 
Infidelity hath raifed up againfl the hifloric 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 
Revelation ; 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 reccrdlng^ for that, thereby, 
** it fiiall appear, that it was forefeen and foreordained by 
** God." It, — What ? The oh/cure Revelation^ according to 
^grammatical con(lru6lion : but, in his Engliih, I fuppofe, rr 
Hands for t\i& faSi revealed^ Well then; from the recording 
of an obfcure revelation, he fays it will appear, when the fore- 
told fadl happens, that it was forefeen and preordained by 
God. This too he tells the reader I intimated ; but fur e, the 
Reader can never think me fo filly : For every fai^, 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 exadtnefs, 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 hig 
encomium on the Revelations calls, en clarte noire. Howex'er, 
think what we >¥iU of his head, his heart lies too open to be 
misjudged of. 

R 4 it. 

248 "The Divine Legation Book VL 

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 adtion com- 
manded not being condemned when it was re* 
voked, Abraham and his Family muft 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 Jdpl to offer up the 
daughter of Agamemnon." — This is the fubftance, 
only fet in a clearer light, of all their dull cloudy 
diflert^tions on the cafe of Abraham ^ 

I, Let 

^ This inndel objeftlon, the Reader fees, confifts 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 unan^ 
fweredy wjll needs anfwer this, [Confid. p. 158-60.] To the 
firft part he replies, partly by the aMance I myfelf had given 
him, (where 1 took notice of what might be urged by Be- 
lievers, as of ^reaf iveigbt and 'validity J and partly from what 
he had picked up elfewhere. But here I fhall 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 Chriftian Divine. If the common ar- 
guments againft the objeftion, here urged by him with great 
pomp, have any weak parts, I (hall leave therrt to Unbelievers 
%o find out — 1 have the more reafon likewife to truft them to 
iheif own njueightj |)oth becaufe they are none of his, and be- 


Sefl:. 5. of Moses demonjlrated. 249 

I. Let us fee then how this cafe ftood : God 
had been pleafed to reveal to him his eternal pur- 


caufe I have acknowledged their validity. For which acknow- 
ledgment, all I get is this — Whether you had o<v:ned thh or not 
(fays he) 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 imperfed reprefentation. — But 
his anfwer to the fecond part of the infidel objeftion mull not be 
paffed over fo flightly. *' As to the latter part of the objeftion 
** (fays he) that frojn this command^ AbraJjam and his family 
" muf needs have thought human facrifices acceptable to God j the 
*' revoking the command at laft, was a fufficient guard againll 
** any fuch conftrudbion. To this you make the Unbeliever an- 
** fwer ; No', becaife the aSiion having been commanded ought to 
** have been condemned ; and a Jimple revocation voas no condem- 
** nation. But why was not the revocation of the Command, 
** in this cafe, a condemnation of the aftion ? If I Ihould 
** tempt you to go and kill your next neighbour, and aftcr- 
** wards come and defire you not to do it ; would not this 
** after-declaration, be as good an evidence of my diilike to 
** the ai^lion, as the firll 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 fhould be 
♦* put upon his adions, as are ufually put upon the a£lions of 
" men in like cafes.'* (Confid. p. 160-1.] 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 mull not betray my own. I confeffed they 
had great vjeight and validity ; yet, at the lame time, I affert- 
ed, they were attended with infuperable difficulties. And while 
I fo think, I muft beg le^ive 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 differvice 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 Abraliam lived 
aHjoi)g{^ Heathens, whofe higheil aft of divine worlhip was 


2^6 The Divine Legation Book VI; 

pofe of making all mankind blefled thro' him ? 
and likewife to coniBrm this promife, in a regular 


human facrtfice\ if God had tx)mmanded 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 
pradice, when addre/Ted to Idols ; or his abhorrence of it, 
when directed to himfelf ; the Family muft have been mifled in 
their ideas concerning the moral re6litude of that fpecies of 
religious worlhip : Therefore, God, in thefe circumftances, 
had he commanded the a6tion as a trial only y would have ex- 
plicitly condemned that mode of worihip, as immoral. But 
he is not reprefented as condemning, but as remitting it for a 
fa'vour: Confequently, fay the Unbelievers, God did not com- 
mand the action at all." — To this our Examiner replies, — 
But nuhy ? Was not the revocation of the command a condemna- 
tion of the a5iion ? If 1 fhould tempt you to go and kill your next 
neighbour y and afternMards come and desire you not to do it, 
*would not this after-declaration be as good an enjidence of my 
dijlike to the aSlion^ as the frji <was of my approbation of it f 
To this I reply ; That the cafes are, by no means^ parallel ; 
cither in themfelves, or in their circumftances : Not, in them*- 
fehes ; the murder of our next neighbour was, amongft all 
the Gentiles of that time, elleemed 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 pf 
Ifaac, (in the cafe Mofes puts) is reprefented zi fa'vour. 

But what follows, I could wifh (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- 
defended (as you fay, and 'very truly) to a5l after the manner of 
fiten ; the fame conftruSlion Jhould be put upon his adionsy as is ufu- 
4il\y put upon the aSlions of men in like cafes, [Confid. p. 155-6.] 
That is, tho* deliberation and after-thought are not incident to 
God; yet you are to underftand his aflions, as if they were 
incident. A horrid interpretation 1 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 hafle, and before due deli- 
beration, is reprefented as commanding an immoral aftion; 
yet again, as it were by an after-thought, ordering it to be 


Se6t. 5. c/' M o s E 8 demonjlrated. 251 

courfe of fuccelTivc Revelations, each fuller and 
more explicit than the other. By this time we 


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 condefcends to ad afier 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 teli him then, 
|hat by the principle of God's coridefc ending to a£i after the 
manner of me^, is not meant, that he ever ads in compliance 
%o thofe vices and fuperllicions, 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 imperfections of their nature. Thus 
tho', as in the cafe before us, God was pleafed, in conformity 
to their mode of information, to ufe their cuftom of revoking 
g 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 (horri- 
ble to think !) is the parallel this orthodox Divine brings to 
illuflrate the Command to Abraham. But he had read that Go4 
is fometimes faid to repent ; and he thought, I fuppofe, it an- 
fvvered 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 to 
threaten punilhment j and then, on the offender's amendment, 
to remit it. 

But he goes on without any figns of remorfe. — " Nor 
** ivill the Pagan fable of J)iana''s fubjlituting a Hind in the 
** place of Jphigenia at all help your Unbeliever. This did 
** noty fay they, or you for them, 7nake idolaters he-- 
** lienje that Jhe therefore abhorred human facrifces, But do 
^V 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- 
** ficcs make a part of the fettled Handing Religion ; the re- 
** fufal to accept a human facrlfice 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 
^' ;hing was coinmandtcl but in one fingle indance, and the 

** command 

252 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 

cannot but fuppofe the Father of the Faithful, 
mult, from the nature of the thing, be become 


" command revoked in that very inftance -(which is our pre- 
" fent cafe) fuch revocation, in all reafonable conilru£lion, is as 
*' efF*6tual 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, oi* 
what is liill a more difagreeable labour, to fift well, the rubbifh 
of his words. He {ays, the re^'ocation was an cfedual con- 
demnation. This may either fignify. That men, now i\tQ from 
the prejudices of Pagan fuperftition may fee that human facri-, 
fices were condemned by the revocation of the Command : or. 
That Abraham's family could fee this. In the firil fenfe, I have 
nothing to do with his propofition ; and in the fecond, I fhalf 
take the liberty to fay it is not true. I deny that the re'vocation 
was an effeSiual condemnation. With how good reafon let the 
Reader now judge. 

Abraham, for the great ends of God's Providence, was called 
out of an idolatrous city, infedied, as all fuch cities then were, 
with this horrid fuperllition. He was himfelf an Idolater, as ap- 
pears from the words of Jofhua. — Tour Fathers dnx-elt en the 
ether fi/ie of the food in old ti^ne^ e-ven Terah the father of Abra^ 
hamy and the father of Nochor : and tbily ferijed other Gods, 
Jnd I took your father Abraham*^ iffr. God, in the adl of 
calling him, inftrufted him in the tjnity of his Nature, and thjp 
error of Polytheifm ; as the great principle, for the fake of 
which (and to preferve it in one Family amidfl an univerfal 
overflow of idolatry) he was called out. — That he m.uft be 
prejudiced in favour of his Country fuperftitions, is not to be 
doubted ; becaufe it is' of human nature to be fo : and 
yet we find no particular inftrudion given him, concern- 
ing tiie fu perdition in queftion. The noble Author of the 
CharaSlenJiics obferves, that *' it appears that he was under 
*' 150 extreme furpiife on this trying Revelation ; nor did he 
" thi-.^k of expoftulating in the leait on this occafion ; when 
** at another time he could be lo importunate for the pardon of 
" an inhofpitable, muiderous, impious, and incel^uous city :'* 
Irifinuating, that this kind of facrjfice was a thing he had 
i)ecn accultomed to. Now the noble Author obferves thi?, 
upon the Examiner's, that is, the common, interpretation. 

* Josh, x;iiv. 2, 3. 


St&. 5. of Moses demonjirafed. 25;^ 

very defirous of k-now'^ng the manner how this 
BlefTing was to be brought about : A MylVery, 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- 
ly, lefs Simulated and excited by their curiofity:— 
And Jesus turned to his Difciples^ and faid pri- 
vately^ BleJJed are the eyes which fee the things which 
ye fee. For I tell you that many Prophets and Kings 
have DESIRED to fee thcfe ^h'^^^s which ye fee^ and 
have not feen theni^ and to hear thofe things which 
ye hear^ a?id have not heard them''. But we are 

And I believe, on that footing, he, or a better writer, would 
find it difficult to take out the mnlicious fling of the obferva- 
tion. But I have Ihewn that it falls together with the commoa 

Well ; Abraham is now in the land of Canaan^ and again 
furrounded with the fame idolatrous and inhuman Sacriiicers. 
Here he receives the Command: And, on the point of execu- 
tion, has the performance remitted to him as a favour. A 
circumllance, in the revocation of the Command, which I mall 
beg the Examiner's leave to remind him of; efpecially when I 
fee him, at every turn, much difpofed to forget ir ; that is, to 
pafs it over in filence, without either owning or denying. And 
indeed, the little fupport his reafoning has on any occafion, is 
only by keeping Truth out of fight. But further, the favour 
was unaccoTipained with any in'lruftion concerning the moral 
nature of this kind of Sacrifice; a practice never pofitively 
forbidden but by the Law of Mofes. Now, in this cafe, I 
would alk any candid Reader, the lead acquainted with human 
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 PagriU-neighbour?, 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 were, who underftood that Diana required 
Iphigcnia, tho' flie accepted a Hind, in her ftead. And with 
fuch Readers, I finally leave it* 

« Luke x, 23, 24. 


2j^ 7& Divine Legation Book VI* 

aflured, by the lame authority, that Abraham had, 
in fadl, this very defire highly raifed in him : Jbra- 

J>a;» rejoiced to fee my day (fays Jesus) and he faw 
it^ and was glad; or rather. He rejoiced that he 
MIGHT SEE, INA IAHj; which imphes, that the 

..period of his joy was in the ipace between the 
proiTiire made, and the adtual performance of it by 
the dehvery of the Command; 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 
fo earneftly requefted. This is of the higheft im- 
portance for the underftanding the true nature of 
the Command. — Tour Father Abraham rejoiced to 
fee my Bay^ and he faw it, and was glad, 'A?^aa/A 
zro^vio vfMccv T^yocXXida-cclo INA lAHi rrji/ vj^i^o^v ryiv 

lixriu' xj il^i, xj Ip^a^t). We have obferved that IW 
*^>7, in flri(5l propriety, figniiies that he might fee. 
The Englifh phrafe,- -/<? fee^ is equivocal and am- 
biguous, and means either the prefent time, that 
he then did fee-., or the future, that he was fromifed 
he fhould fee : but the original hx Uyi has only the 
latter fenfe. So that the text plainly diftinguifhes 
two different periods of Joy ; the firft, when it 
was promifed he fhould fee \ the fecond, when he ac- 
. tuallyfaw : And it is to be obferved ^ that, accord- 

f Thus all the Eajlfrn Verfions underfliand it : Syr. Cupidus 
full videndi. — Pirf. Cupidus erat ut videret, — Arab. Exopta- 
vit videre. — .€ihiop. Defideravic, gavilus eft ut videret. 

^ '* Where are your Authorities for all this? (fays Dr. 
** Stebbin^) you produce none. Wherever you had your 
" Greek, "l am very fure you had it not from the Ne'w Tejia* 
'* mefit, where thele words are ufed indifcriminately," [Ccnfid. 
p. 1 42-5. J If here are yiur Authorities ? you produce no?ie. 
This IS to infinuatc, 1 hai none to produce. He dares not, 


Sefl:. 5* g/' Moses demonflraied. 25 j 

ing to the exa6t ufe of the word, in ayaXXidofAcc^ 
is implied the tumultuous pleafure which the cer- 

Incleed', fay Co; and in this I commend his prudence. How- 
fever, thus far he is pofitive, that ivherev^r 1 had my Greek, I 
had it not from the Ne-iv 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 upoa 
him ; there I trifled with him. But, in all this diverfity of ac- 
ceptance, 'tis ftill the fame fpirit ; The fpirit of Anfvoering. 

I had fald, the two Greek words, in their exa^ ufe, fignify 
i<i and fo. Which furely implied an acknowledgment, that 
this exadlnefs was not always obferved ; efpecially by the Writers 
ef 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 New Tejiament (fays he) thefe 
\ji'ords are ufed indifcritninately. T had plainly infimiated as 
■much ; and he had better have let it reft on ray acknowledg- 
ment J for the inftances he brings, to prove the words ufed in- 
difcriminately in the New Teftament, are full enough to per- 
fuade the Reader that they are not fo ufed. His firft inftance 
is, I Pet. iv. 13. " Rejoice [p^ai^i]?] inafmuch as ye are partakers 
** of Chrij'i^s fufferings ; that 'when his glory Jhall be revealed 
** [;^ag^T£ ayw^Aw'/Afvoi] ye may he glad ivith exceeding joy. See 
" you n.ot here (fays he) the diredl reverfe of what you fay y 
*' that x^v^w fignifies the joy which arifes upon profpe6l, 
♦* and d.yx7^-Kia,oiJ.ui that which arifes from pofTeflion.*' (Coniid. 
p. 143.] No indeed; I fee nothing like it. The followers 
of Chrift are bid to rejoice^ x'^k^^* ^^^ what ? For hein^ 
partakers of ChriJPs fufferings. And was not this a blefling in 
pofTeflion ? But it feem? our Dodlor has but fmall conception 
how fuiFering 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 Magi(lrate*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 aV*^»«V** 
fignifies the joy njohich arifes on poffeffion. They are bid to rejoice 
now in fufferings, that they might he glad ixith exceeding joy 
at Chrift's fecond coming. And is this the being glad for a 
good in poflelTion ? Is it not for a good in profpeft ? The re- 
ward they were then going to receive. For I fuppofe the ap- 
pearance of ChrijTs glory will precede the reward of his fol- 
lowers. So that the Reader now fees he has himfelf fairly 


256 'The Dhine Legation \ Book VI. 

tain expe6bation of an approaching blefiing, . un- 
derftood only in the grois, occafionsj ^iid, .iji 

proved for me, the truth of my obfervation, 7hat in the exa6i 
ufe of the <vjords, ayxT^ido^ai ftgnifies that inmuliuous pleafure 
nuhich the certain expe&ation of an approaching hlejjing occajiom ; 
and x°^'^%^ //6^v? calm atid fettled Joy that arfes from our kno^wledge, 
in the poffejfion of it. 

PTe goes on. *' Rev. xix. 7. Let us he glad and rejoice 
** [;^3tt^"a'jit£y K^ aya.'hr.wiA.i^rf] — for the marriage of the Lamb is 
** come. Where both words (fays he) refer to bleffings'in 
** poflelTion. Again, Matt. v. 12. Rejaice and he exceeding gldd 
*' [pf^al^ETe K^ oi,ycc>->A0L<7%-^ for great Is your re^uoard in Hea<veh ; 
" where both refer to bleffings in profpeft." [Confid. p. 143-4.] 
Plis old fortune ftill purfues him. The nrft text from the 
Rev. Be glad and rejoice for the marriage of the Lamb is come; 
bids the followers of Chrift now do that, which they were bid 
to prepare for, in the words of St. Peter, that^ n.vhen his glory 
fhall be re'vealedy ye may be 'glad luith exceeding joy, I^ therc- 
. fore, where they are bid to prepare for their rejoicing, the joy 
is for a good in profped (as we have (hewn it was) then, cer- 
tainly, where they are told that this time of rejoicing is come^ 
the joy mull ilill be for a good in profped. And yet he fays, 
the 'words refer to bleffings in pojjejjion. Again, the text from 
St. Matt. — Rejoice and be exceeding g'ad, poR. great is your re^ 
nvard in heaven, has the iame relation to the former part of 
St. Peter's words, [^Rejoice inafmuch as ye are partakers (f 
Chrijl's fifferings] as the text in the Revel, has to the latter. 
Bleffed are ye (fays Jefus in this gofpel) tvhen mtn fhall revile you. 
and perfeciite youy and Jh all fay all manner of evil againjl you falfly 
for my fake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for. great is ycur 
reiK;ard in heaven. Rejoice ! for what ? Is it not for the per- 
fecuiion* they fuffer for his fake ? A frefnt fure ; the' 
not perhaps to our Author's tarte. The reafon why they fhould 
rejoice, follows, for great is your regard in heaven. And yet 
here, he fays, the words refer to blejjings in prcfed* Iq truth, 
what led him into all this inverted reafoning, was a pleafant 
wiftake. The one text fays — l^e glad and rejoice, for. cVi — 
1'hc other, Rfjoice and be exceeding glad, FOR qt, — Now he 
look the particle, in boih places^ to fignify propter, for the 
fake cf\ whereas it fignifies qucniam^ quia., and is, in proof of 
fomething going before. So that he read the text — R.ejoice^ 
J.r the marriage f the Lamb is come ; — As if it had been •— 
** Rejoice for the' marriage of the Lamb, which is come :'* 


Seft. 5* of Most s demonflraied. l^y 

X**^" that calm and fettled joy which arifes from 
our knowledge, in the pofielTioa of it* But the 


And — rejoice^ for great is youf reiuard in hea"Jen j as if it had 
been, — '* Rejoice for your great reward in heaven.** 

But now let us confider thefe texts in another view, in order 
to do juftice to his delicacy of Judgment. I had faid that, 
Hin the exaSi ufe of the two Greek words, they fignify fo and 
fo ; and applied that obfervation to a fact ; where a perfon 
was faid to have rejoiced, \£c. In order to difprove this cri- 
ticifm, he brings three paffages, in which thofe Greek words 
are ufed, where no fact is related; hut where men are, in 
a rhetorical manner, called upon, and bid to rejoice, l£c, Iti 
which latter crife, the ufe of one word for another, is aa 
elegant converlion. Thoie, in pofTeffion of a blcffing, are bid 
to rejoice with that exceeding joy, which men generally have 
in the certain expedlation of one approaching ; and thofe in 
expectation, with that calm and fettled joy, which attends full 
poffeflion. And who but our Examiner could not fee, that the 
ufe of words is one thing, in an hiftorical aiTertion ; and quite 
another, in a rhetorical invocation ? 

Having thus ably acquitted himfelf In one criticifm he falls 
upon another. " What fhall we do with Xvct. ?" — What in- 
deed I But no fooner faid than done. ** "iva, (fays he) is often 
** put for cT£ or oTj, pofitive as you are, that it always refers to 
•* a future time.'* [Confid, p. 144.] Now, fo far from being 
pojitive of this, I am pofitive of the contrary, that there is not 
One word of truth in all he fays. 1 obferved indeed, that "vu 'ih* 
in the text, refers only to a future time. And this I fay ftill, tho' our 
Tranflators have rendered it, equivocally, to/ee» Yet he affirms, 
that I fay, *' aa [(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 Ihame me of this evil 
habit, he proceeds to (hew, from feveral texts, that 'iva. is often 
put for oTt or oTt. ** Thus John xvi. 2. The time cometh that 
*' [iW] 'who/oe'ver killeih you ijcill think he doth God fer'vice. 
" Again : i Cor. iv. 3. With me it is a/mall thing that [I'va] 
«* / J^jould be judged of you. And nearer to the point yet 
** 3 John 4. I have no greater joy [Ji-a axuw] than that 1 hear, 
*• or, than to hear that my children woalk in the truth. And 
** why not here, Sir; Abraham rejoiced [ IVa I^tj ] when he 
** faw, or that he faw, or (which is equivalent) to see my 
** Day.'* [Confid. p. 144.] For all thi* kindnefs, the bed 

Vol. V. S «:- 

5»^8 The Divine Legation Book VI, 

Tranllators, perhaps, not apprehending that there 
was any time between the Grant tofee^ and the ac- 

ackiiowled<»ment I can make, is to return him back his own 
criticifm; 'only l\^t Greek words put into Latin. The Vulgate 
has renietoJ T^^ ':rn hy ,ut videret, vtVich words I will fup- 
pofe the Tranilator to fay (ns without doubt, he would) refer 
only to a future time. On vvhich, I will be very learned and cri- 
tical : •' Pofjtive as you are, Sir, that ut always refers to zfu- 

«* ture tlmey I will fiiew you that it is fometimes put fovpojiquam 
*' the/>a/f 

** Ui ^vidi, ut peril, ut me mains ahjiulit Error ! 

** and fometimes (which is yet nearer to the point) for quanta^ 

" JJt qui/que optirne Grace fciret, ita efje nequij^mum, 

" And why not here, Sir, Abraham rejoiced \ut ^ideret"] when 
*' HE faw, or THAT he faw, or which is equivalent, to see my 
** day r" — And now he fays, there is but one dffxulty that /lands 
in his nvay. And what is this, i pray you ? Why, that according 
to his (Dr. Stebbing's) interpretation, " the latter part of the 
<' fentence is a repetition of the former. Abraham rejoiced to 
*' fee my day, and he favu it and ivas glad. i. e. Abraham re-^ 
** joicedtofee, and then faw and rejoiced. But fuch kind of repeti- 
•' tions are frequent in the facred Dialed; and, in my humble 
V opinion, it has an elegance here. Abraham rejoiced to fee, kui 

** h^s, ;:at £%a^-/3. HE BOTH SAW AND WAS GLAD.*' [Conjid. p. 

1 44- 5 . ] Before he talked of repetitions in the facred Dialed, and 
pronounced upon their qualities, he fhould have known how to 
diftinguiih between a pleonofm and a tautology ; the firft of which, 
indted, is often zxi elegance-, the latter, always a blemifh in expref- 
fion : and, in the number of the latter, is this elegant repetition 
pf the Doflor's own making. Where a repetition of the fame 
thing is given in different words it is called a ple.nafn ; when 
in the fame words, (as in the Dodor's tranflation of the text in 
queltion) it is a tautology y which, being without reafon, has nei- 
ther grace nor elegance. Nay the vzxy 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 tl;e Do61or'f , of, — nbraham rejoiced nvhen he hadfeen my 
dayy and be J'anv it and nvas glad, and the ahfurdity becomes ap- 
parent. For the latter part of the fentence beginning with the 
conjunflion completive hm, it implies a further predication. 
Yet in his tranflation there is none ; tho' he makes an effort to- 
wards it, in dropping the fenfe of xa\ in the found of both. 

j? tiial 

Sedl. 5, cf Moses demoiijlrated. 2^g 

iual feeing, turned it, he rejoiced to fee -, as if it had 
been the Paraphrale of the Poet Nonnus, 

whereas this Hiflory of Abraham hath plainly 
three diRindl periods. The firlt contains God*s 
promife to grant Abraham's requeft, when he ?y- 
joicedthathe floouldfee-^ this, for realbns given above, 
was wifely emitted by the Hiftorian : Within the 
fecond period was the delivery oi' the CowmaNd, with 
which Mofes's account begins : And Abraham's 
Obedience, thro' which hcfaw Christ's day a7id 
was gladj includes the third''. Thus the Pa- 

^ Dr. Stebbing tells me, *' there is not one word, in the 
" hirtory of the Old Teftament to juftify this threefold dirtinc- 
** tion :*' and that I myfelf conkes5 as 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 Tellament 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 diftindlion :" J was fo far from any 
fuch thought, that I gave a large epitome * of Abraham's 
whole hiftory, to Ihew that it juilified this three-fcli dijim:- 
tiotty 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 
*' (fsys he) FOR you fay, that Mofes's hiftory begins with the 
" fecond period, and that the firft was wilcly omitted by the 
" hiftorian." Let us apply this reafoning 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 deftrudion 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 confeflion ? 

* From p. 209 to 215, of this volume, 

S 2 triarch. 

fi6o The Divine Legation Book VI. 

triarch, we find, had a promife that his requeft 
fhoiild be granted J and, in regard to that promife, 
an action is commanded, which, at that time, was a 
common mode of information ♦, Abraham there- 
fore muft 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 earned requeft, and known by Abraham, at 
the time of impofing, to be fuch Grant, he could 
not pofTibly have any doubt concerning the Author 
of it. He was foUiciting 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 clofeft con- 
nexion with, and was the fulleft completion of, 
the v/holeferies of the preceding Revelations. 

2. For, (as we (hall now fhew, in anfwer to 
the fecond part of the objeftion) the Command 
could occafion no miftakes concerning the divine 
Attributes ♦, it being, as was faid, only the con- 
veyance of an information by a^iion inftead of words, 
in conformity to the common .mode of converfe in 
the more early times. This a^ion 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 adlions that have a 
moral import '. Confequently the injunction and obe- 

* This (hews why God might fgy to Ho/eay Go take unto 
thee a nxj'ife of 'whoredoms^ l£c. chap. i. ver. 2. — Tho' all aflions 
which have no moral 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 moral im' 
port, be the objedl of pleafure or difpleafure. Thus, in the 


Sed. 5- of Moses demonJlratcLL 261 

diencCy in an adion which hath no Tuch import, can 
no way affed the moral chara6ler of the pcrfons con- 
cerned: and confequently, this Command could oc- 
cafion no miftakes 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 lead occafion, when God remii- 
ted the offering of Ifaac, that he ^ouXdformally 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 


adventure between EHflia and Joafli, we are told, that the 
Prophet laid unto the King, " Take bovv 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 Eliftia put his hands upon the king's 
** hands. And he faid. Open the window eaftward ; and he 
** opened it. Then Eliftia faid, Shoot ; and he iTiot. 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 'frael, Siiie 
" upon the ground ; and he fmote thrice and Hayed. And 
*' the man of God njuas -ivrath nuith him, and faid, Thou 
** fliouldert have fmitten five or lix times, tnen hadil thou 
** fmitten Syria, till thou hadft confumed them, whereas now 
" thou fhalt fmite Syria but thrice." 2 Kings xiii. i^ — 18. 
Here it is not diiRcult to apprehend, that the Prophet, by God's 
command, dire£\ed the King to perform a fignificative adion, 
whofe meaning God had beforehand explained (o his Meflen- 
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 
bv his love to his country, on the King's Hopping when he had 
J',iote thrice, 

^ To this Dr. Stubbing aifwers, ** I can eafily underftand, 
" Sir, how the matter flojd with Abraham i and that he 

S3 *• wa« 

262 7he Divhie Legation _ Book VI. 

" was in no danger of being miQcd, as tO; tjie nature of hu- 
** man Sacrifices, who knew the fecret 6f the whole affair ; 
*' and that it was nothing elfe but Scenery. But how this an- 
** fwer will ferve for his Family \ who are to. be prefumed to 
*' have known nothing of this fcenical reprefentation, is ut- 
*' terly pad my coraprehenfion ; — becaufe you have told us. 
*' from the very firft, that the information to be conveyed by 
*' it, was intended for Abraham's sole use; and I do not 
*• fee how Abraham could open to his family the fcenery of 
*' the tranfatlion, without explaining the myjiery, ■ But is 

** not your putting the Family of Abraham, in pofTeflion of this 
*• confequencc ; a very plain declaration, that they knew the 
** myftery of Chriirs facrificel Now therefore, Sir, take your 
*• choice, and give up one part of your hypothecs, or the 
** other, as bell 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 iingle reafon you have given why 
*' the explanation (ufual in all fuch cafes) to fhew the import 
*' of the tranfailion was not added, I'iz, that it was a point 
** not ft for common knowledge. But if you fhall 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 objedlion will lie full againft you, unanfwered," 
[Confid. p. 1 66. J 

I had faid, that the command was for Abraham^ s fole ufe ; and 
*' therefore (fays the Doflor) the Family of Abraham muft be 
" prefumed to know nothing of this fcenical reprefentation :" 
Notwlthftanding this, 1 pre fume (he fays) that they did kmn» it^ 
Here he takes me in a flagrant contradidion. But did he in- 
deed not apprehend that where I fpoke of its being given for 
jihrahairis fole 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 hiftory of the 
tranfafiion was recorded ? — And now having (hewn his wrong 
conclufion from my words, let us confider next the wrong, 
conclufion he draws from his own, — I do not fee (fays be) 
ho^.v Abrahajn could open to his family the fcenery of the tranfac- 
iion nxithout explaining the myflery ? What does he mean by, 
opening the fcenery of the tra'nfadion ? There are two fenfes of 
this ambiguous expiellion ; it may fignify, either, explaining 
the inoral of the fcenery ; or fimply, tellin>i his fatnily that the-, 
iranfaciion tias a fenical reprefentation. He could not ufe the 
phiafe in the firft fenfe, becauie he makes explaining the mvfery 
a thing diftercnt from opening the fcenery. He mull mean it* 


Se<fl. 5« tf Moses demoiifirated. 263 

then in the latter. But could not Abraham tell his Family, that 
this wa3 2ifcenictd reprcfintation without explaining the 7r.y fiery ? I 
do not know what fhould hinder him, unlefs it was the fudden lofs 
of fpeech. ff he had the free iife 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 facriiice his Son. and that 
he had carried this Son to n^.ount Mcriah, in obedience to the 
divine Command, where a ram was accepted in his ftead ; but 
that the whole was a mere fcenical reprefentation, to figiire out 
a myfterious tranfatSlion 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 n fcenical 
repre/cntaticHy as well when he told them it was to prefigure 
a' myftery, as if he had told them it was to prefigure the 
crucifixion of Jefus P Had I no other way of avoiding his dilem- 
ma (for if I efcape his Contradi8i'n^ he has fet his Dikmrna-trapy 
which, he fr.ys, it is impoflible 1 fhould efcape) had I nothing 
elfe, I fay, *tis very likely I fnould 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- 
** cerning their ignorance of a Future llate — But if you fhall 
** chufe to fay that the revelation of the Myftery was for the fole 
** information of Abraham, ana 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." 1 defire to know 
where it is that I have fpoken any thing of the ignorance of 
Jbraham^s Fa?nih, concerning a Future fate. But I am afraid, 
fomething is wrong here again : and that, by Abrahanis Fa- 
7nily, he means the Ifraclites 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 Abrahanis Fa?nily, he means, as every 
man does, who means honeftly, thofe few of his houfliold, 1 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 IxM- 
POSSIBLE, was all the while very pofTible. And in fpite of 
this terrible Dilemma, both parts of the hypothefis ar^ at 
peace. I can hardly think him fo immoral as to have put a de- 
iigned trick upon his Reader: I rather fuppofe it to be fome 

S 4 con fu fed 

264 The Divine Legatioji xBook VL 

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 
a^lion, where one thing flood for the reprefenta^ 
tive of another, all the confequence that could be 
deduced from it was only this, that the Son of God 
(hould be offered up for the fins of mankind: there- 
fore the conceptions they had of human sacrifi- 
.CEs, after the comma^tdy mufl needs be jufl the 
fame with thofe they had before •, and therefore, in- 
ftrudion, concerning the execrable nature of this 
Rite, was not only needlefs, but altogether befide 
the quedion. 

But this alTertion that a scenical REPRESi^Ni^ 
TATiON HAS NO MORAL ixMPORT, having been miC- 

confufed notion concerning the Poplfli 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 Poiterity of Abraham could never forget. 
Tho' the WRITTEN Word tells us, that when Moles was fent 
to redeem this Porterity from bondage, they remembered fo little 
of God's Revelations to their Fore-fathers, that they knew no- 
.thing even 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- 
•* ment, and they two were alone in the field. And Ahijah 
*' caught the ne;v garment that was on him, and rent it in 
" twelve pieces, and he faid to Jeroboam, Take thee 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 Kings xl. 29, The circum- 
ftance of the neiv garment was not inhgnificant : It was to denote 
the powtr of the kingdom at that time in its full ftrength and 


Sift. 5. ?/ M o s E s demonjlrated, 265 

offderftood by many, and mifreprefented by more, 
^ho'- nothing, as I then thought, could be clearer 
tcr men^verfed in moral matters) I fhall beg leave to 
explain -mylelf. — He who affirms that afcenicalre-^ 
pcefentation has no moral import, cannot poflibly be 
underftood to mean (if interpreted on the ordinary 
rules of Logic and Common fenfe) any thing elfe 
than that the reprefentation or the feigned adion 
has none of th^tfpecific morality which is in the real 
adion. He can never be luppofed to mean that 
fuch/.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 trangrefied 
the bounds, of its fcenical nature. Give me leave 
to explain this by an inflance or two. The Tragic 
fcene we will fuppofe to exhibit a Pagan (lory, in 
which a lewd Sacrifice to Venus is reprefented. 
Now I- fay this fcenical reprefentation has no imral 
import, '^\xx. do I mean by this, that there was no 
immorality of any kind in the fcene ? Far from it. 
Ipnly^tnean that th^Lt fpecijic immorality was abfenf, 
which would have exifled there, had the aclion 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 
f^y, has no moral import : for neither could the fol- 
lowers of C^far's Caufe call thefe fidtitious Confpi- 
rators, enemies to their Country; nor could the 
;Warmeft lovers of liberty call them Patriots. But if 
In this reprefentation, the A dors, inflead of exhibi- 
ting an imaginary affaiTination, Ihould commit a 
real one, on the body of the perfonated Caefar, 
Who ev^r fuppofed that fuch a dramatic reprefen- 
tation continued ftill to have no moral import ? 
The men who committed the adion dropt their per- 
fonated, and aifumed their real charader, being 
inftigaied by intereft, malice, or revenge ; and 
■ only 

266 ^'he Divine Legation So ok VI. 

only waited a fit opporturtity to perpetrate their de- 
ligns under the cover of a drama. . Here indeed, 
the' parallel ceafes. The feigned Confpirators 
tranfgrelTed the bounds of a reprefentaticn : while 
the real death of Ifaac mufl be fuppofed to make 
partofthefcenical reprefentation, in the Command 
to Abraham. But it {hould have been coniidered, 
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 
en enjoined facrifice ; not from the objedtion of its 
being an injoincd deaths Jimply : For a human Sacri- 
fice commanded was fuppofed to difcredit Revela- 
tion, as giving too much countenance and en- 
couragement to that horrid fuperflition ; whereas, 
with regard to a finrple death commanded^ to juftify 
this, I was ready to confide in the common argu- 
ment of Divines, taken from God's fovereign 
right over his creatures : Whofe power could in- 
itantaneoufly repair the lofs, or whofe goodnefs 
would abundantly reward the a6t of obedience. 
Yet the fair and candid Dr. Rutherforth reprefents 
my pofition of a fcenical reprefentation^ s having no 
moral i-mport^ to be the fame with faying, that thd* 
an a5fion be' ever fo vile in itfelf^ yet^ if it he 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 fhould recommend 
what hath been here faid to his ferious confidera- 

3. And now we fee the weaknefs of the third 
and laft part of the Objeftion, which fuppofes this 
Command capable of nfi^ording a temptation to 
tranfgrefs the fundamental principles of the Law of 
Nature : one of which obliges us to cherifh and 


Seft. 5* cfMosEs demonftrated, 267 

proted: our Offspring •, and another, not to injure 
our Neighbour. For as, by the Command^ Abra- 
ham unuerilood the nature of man's Redemption; 
fp, by the nature of that Redemption, he muft 
know how the fcenical reprefentation was to end. 
Ifaac, he faw, was m.ade the perfon or reprefenta- 
tivcof Chrifi dying for us : The Son of God, he 
knew, could not pofiibly lie under the dominion of 
the grave. Hence he rnufu needs conclude one of 
thefe two things j either that God would ilop his 
hand v/hen he came to give the facrificing ftroke : 
or that, if the Revelation of this myftery was to 
be repreferited throughout in adlion, 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 
rmfe 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, alTures us he did 

Now where was the temptatioQ to violate any 
Principle of Morality in all this ? The Law of Na- 
ture commands us to cherifh and prote6l 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 
Gommand -, yet did the merit of that obedience, 

^ Chap. xi. ver. 19, 


$63 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

■where the natural feelings were fo alarmed, deferve 
all the encomiums bellowed upon it in Holy Writ. 
For, in exprefling his extreme readinefs to obey, 
he declared a full confidence in the promifes of 

From hence we may deduce thefe two corol- 

I. That the noble Author of the Chara5feriftics 
hath fhewn as much ignorance as malevolence, 
when he fuppofed that Abraham's (hewing no ex- 
treme furprtfe on this trying Revelation ^2i% from the 
favourable notion he had of Human Sacrifices, fo 
ccnimon amongfi the inhabitants of the Paleftine and 
ether neighbouring Nations ". For we fee the reafon, 


° ** To me (fays the noble writer) it plainly appears, that 
** in the early times of all Religions, when nations were yet 
** barbarous and lavage, there was ever an aptnefs or tendency 
•* towards the dark part of Superllition, which araongft many 
** other horrors produced that of human Sacrifice. Something 
*' of this nature might poiTibly be deduced even from Holy 
*' Writ." — To this a note refers in the following words ■ 
Gen. xxii. i. and ]vt)G. xi. 30. ^he/e places relating to Abra- 
ham and Jephthah are cited only m:ith rrfpeSl to the notion nx^hich 
thife primitinje tuarriors may be /aid to ha^ve entertained concerning 
this horrid encrmit^y fo common amongji the inhabitants of the 
Paleftine and other neighbouring nations. It oppears that e'ven 
the elder of thefe Hebrew princes ivas under no extreme furprife 
en this trying re'velation. Nor did he think of exp^flulating^ in the 
leafy on this occafeon \ ixhen ot another time he could be fb impor- 
tunate for the pardon of an inhofpitahle^ ?nurderousy impious, and 
iJicffliicus city. Gen. xviii. 23, 6ff. Charaft, vol. iii. p. 124. 

Dr. Stebbing will needs try his ftrength with the noble Author 
of the Charatteri flics. For, whether I quote tor approbation or 
condemnation, it is all one ; this adive Watchman of theChurch 
militant will let nothingefcape him, that he finds in my fervice ; 
nor leave any thing unpurified that has once pafled through my 
hands. To this paflage of the noble Lord he replies, ** The 

*' cafci 

JSedt. 5. of Moses demonjlrated, 269 

why Abraham, inileacj of being under any extreme 
furprife^ was (as Jesus afifures us) under an extreme 
joyy was becaufe he underflood t\\Q 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 Marfliam's fufpicion of Abra- 
ham's being flruck by a fuperftitious imagination*" 


** cafes widely diiFer. God did not open precifely what he in- 
*' tended to do with thefe wicked cities ; only iaid, Judgment 
** was pafTed. 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 relu6lancy 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 Jianding a finner before God when he was doomed 
to death, makes him a lefs proper obje^ of Abraham's inter- 
ceflion and compaifion, than a devoted City, i?ihofpita6ley mur- 
deroust impiousy andincejlimts. 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 pajfthle, let this cup pnfs from 
me^ ne'verthelfs not as I nvill but as thou nvi/t, would have ds^ 
Jiroyed all the perfeilion of his refignation. And this is our Dodor'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 ferfeSiion of refignation^ might like- 
wife be done, without that lofs, in behalf of the Type. After 
fo fine a fpecimen of what great things he is able to do againft 
this formiJabie Enemy of Revelation ; what pity is it, he was 
never fet on work by his Superiors, in a more auoixed and open. 
manner ? 

o — jPx ifiis fatius efi colUgere banc Ahrahami tcntationem rton 
fuijfe Ki>ictiviipft)^ivy,v 'cap^oi^my aftionem innonjatam\ von ruens e.X' 
cogitatam,fed ad prifiinos Cananceorum mores defi^natam. llurren.ii 
facrificii ufum apud Phaenices frequent em tndicat Porpkyriui : " Pho:- 
•*> nices, inquit^ in magnis periculis ex bello, fame, peftiientia, 

** clarify 

270 '^he 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 hy aclion : and that, when 
regarded in this view, all the objedlions againft 
God's giving it to Abraham are abfolutely ener- 
vated and overthrown. 

For thus ftands the cafe. If the trial of Abra- 
ham's faith and obedience were the commanding a 
real facrifice, then was Abraham an Age^it^ and 
not a bare Infiniment \ 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. But if 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 wrongs 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 : 
wliich, I prefume, when fairly confidered, will be 

** clarKTimorum aliquem ad id fuffragiis publicis dele(ftum, fa- 
*' crificabaiit Saturro, Et vicUmarum talium plena eft Sanchu- 
** niathonis hiftoiia Phoenicice fcripta, quam Philo Biblius Graece 
** imeipretatus eft libris odo." Canon. Chron, p. 79. 


Se(ft. 5. of Moses demonjlrated, 271 

no light confirmation of it. But, as I have no 
notions to advance, not founded in a fincere defire 
to find out, and do honour to. Truth, I would by 
no means take advantage of an Adverfary's vveak- 
nefs to recommend them to the public favour. I 
hold it not honed, therefore, to conceal the force of 
an Objedtion which I myfelf have to offer, by far 
more plaufible than any that thefe learned Divines 
have urged againft it. The obje6lion is this, 
" That it is difficult to conceive why a circum- 
stance of fuch importance to Revelation, which 
removes one of the ftrongeft arguments ao^ainft 
its truth, and at the fame time, manifefls a real 
CONNEXION between the two Difpenfations of it, 
Ihould never be diredlly and minutely explained 
and infilled on, by the Writers of the New Tefla- 
ment, tho' Abraham's Hiftorian might have had 
his reafons for concealing it." Now, to my own 
Objedion, 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 (am.ongfb which, I reckon 
this Interpretation to be one) which never came 
down, by their conveyance, to the Church. But 
being, by the alTiilance of God's Holy Spirit, dif- 
coverable by thofe who devote themfelves to the 
fludy of the Scriptures with a pure mind, Iiave, 
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 fiipply new evidence of God's 
Truth, to put tofilence the ignorance of fooliflj ?7ien : 
and in proportion as the Powers of Darknefs pre- 
vailed, fo might the Gofpel-light break out again 
with frerti fplendor to curb and reprefs them. In 
fupport of what is here faid, I beg the Reader to re- 


272 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI, 

fle6t on what is told us by the Evangelift, of the. 
converfation between Jesus (after his Refurredtion) 
and the two Difciples journeying to Emmaus; where 
their Mailer fays unto them, Ofools^ and flow of heart 
to believe all that the Prophets havefpoken I Ought not 
Chrift to have fuffered thefe things^ and to enter into 
his glory? And beginning at Moses, and all the Pro- 
phets^ HE EXPOUNDED UNTO THEM, the things COH' 

cerning himfelf ^ Now, who can doubt but that 
many things were at this time revealed, which, 
had they been delivered down to Poiterity, ia 
Writing, would have greatly contributed to the 
improvement of Eufebius's Evangelical Bemonftra- 
iion? Yet hath Providence thought fit 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 believe 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 witnejfing both to fmall 
and great, f^y^^^g ^one other things than thofe which 
the Prophets, and Moses did say should come: 
that ChviH Jhouldfuffer, and that he floouldbe thefirft 
that fhould rife from the dead\ The Greek is rather 
ftronger, in predicating this circumftance of 
Mofes, ■ uu Tf o» 'jr^o(pYiT(xi i\d\n(rM f/^iWovTuv 

P Luke xxiv. ver. 2^, 26, 27. 1 Acts xxvi. ver. 22, 

23, and to the fame purpofe, chap. .\:iii. ver. 31. 

Seft. 5' of Moses demonjlrated, 273 

y/v£(r0dc», KAI MfiSHX. Now where, let me ailc^ 
in all his Writings, but in the Command to Abra- 
ham^ is there the leafl: trace of any ibch cir- 
cvim (lance, as that Chrifi jloould fuffer and that he 
jhoidd he the fir ft that Jhould rife from the deadf' Nor 
is it to be found there, unlels the Command be un- 
derftood in the fcnfe I have given to it. • 

But this is the (late in which it hath plcafcd 
Providence to place the Church of Chrift : With 
abundant evidence in hand, to fupport itfelf again ft 
the attacks of Infidelity •, yet much of this divine 
Treafure left fealed up, to exercife our Faith and 
(in time of need) to excite our Induftry : for it 
vl^as not the intent of Providence that one of 
thefe virtues fnould thrive at the expence of tlie 
other-, but that Induftry ftiould as well be re- 
warded by a fuccefsful fearch, as Faith, by peace 
in believing. Therefore when my learned Adver- 
fary% in order, I will believe, to advance the 
Ghriftian 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 knowledze. Indeed, M. Pafcal aicribes this 
contempt of experiments 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 j 
et voila pourquoi, lors que les Inventeurs cher- 
chent la gloire qu' ils meritent, tout ce qu' ils y 
gagnentj c'eft qu'on les traite de Visionnaires. 
it is true, if men will come to the ftudy of Scrip- 
ture with unwaftien hands, that is, without a due 
reverence fOr the dignity of thofe facred Volumes, 

' Vir, Stebbing. 

Vol, V. T or. 

274 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 

or, which is as ill, with nnpurged heads ; that is^ 
heads ftufFed with bigot-fyilems, or made giddy 
with cabbaliflic flights, they will delerve that title 
which Pafcal obferves is lb unjuftly given to thofe 
who deferve bell 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 objed. 

I. " That the giving a folution of a difficulty In 
the Old Teftament 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 fuppoling both the Jewifh and 
Chriilian Religions to be falfe, of confequence 
fuppofes them to be independoit 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 flourirfiing Superllition. 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- 

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 devifing, 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 


Sedt, 5, 5/" M o s E s demonjlrated. 275 

conveyance Tvnd al 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 fomc late Divines to lay it 
down as a Principle, that Cbriftianity 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 
Deill 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 quejlion of their 
falfity, as the laying it down that the Jewifh and 
Chriftian are two indepe?uient Religions, certainly 
is : becaufe Chriftanity claims many of its nume- 
rous Titles to divinity from and under Judaifm. 
If therefore Deifts will not, ye: Chriflians of ne- 
cefTity muil, take their Religion as they find it. 
Arfd if they will remove objeftions to either 
CEconomy, 'they mull 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 queflion, 
be a new proof of the divinity of Both, in gene- 
ral-, becaufe fuch a relation, connexion, and de- 
pendency between two Religions of lb diftant times 
could not come about by chance, or by human 
contrivance, but muft needs be the effed of Di- 
vine previfion. For a Deid, therefore, to bid us 
rem>ove his objedions on the principle of indepen- 
dcncy, is to bid us prove our religion true on a prin- 
ciple that implies its falfiood-, the New Teila- 
ment giving us no other idea of Chriflianity than 
as of a Religion dependent on, conneded with, 
and the completion of Judailm. 

T 2 But 

276 ^he Divine Legation Book VL 

But now fuppofe us to be in this excefs of com- 
plaifance tor our Adverfaries \ and then lee 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. I fpeak not this at random. The 
la6l hath 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 applications of the 
Writers of the New, thought it bell to throw afide 
the care of the Jewish Religion, (a burden which 
they could as ill bear as the rebellious Ifraelites 
themielves) 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 dealers 
in Free-thinking j the fmall retailers of it vanifiiing 
as fad 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 againll 
our ill faith ; and to remind us of, and to prove to 
us, the inleparable connexion between the Old and 
New Teftament. This was no unfeafonable reproof, 
howfoever intended, for fo 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 agalnll the D. L. under 
the name of a Society of Free-thinken : by the fame kind of 
figure, I fuppofe, that He in the Gofpel called himfclf Legion, 
who was only the forwardeft Devil of the Ciew. 


Sed. 5. ^ Mo s E s dcmonjlrated, 277 

prevarication appeared in the Objedors, I conceiv- 
ed they had demanded no more than what they 
might realbnably exped. But the advantages 
arifing to us from this management loon made 
them draw back, and retradl what they had de- 
manded \ and now they chicane with us for call- 
ing in the afliftance of the New Teflament to 
repel their attacks upon the Old ' j 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 Tertamenc. But what then; they have not yet 
difputed with me my interpretation of the Commanc^, No body 
hath done this but Dr. Stebbing. And I hope the Authority 
of Jefus will fland good againft him. He was in hafte to do 
their bufinefs for them : and it muft 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 ijjjpira- 
tion of the Old and New Tclbment; but general^ ot the 
connexion betweenuhem ; and tliofe will not be fo unreafonable 
to exped 1 fliould 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 Tellaments be fhewn to 
do this ; while on the other hand, when fingly confulered, and 
without each others mutual afiiilance, they are inexplicable, 
the connexion between them is fairly made out. The objcdtiou 
of Unbelievers (lands thu?. '* You pretend (fay they) that 
thefe two Difpenfations are two conllituent/»^r/j of God's great 
moral CEconomy : \i this be true, they mull needs have a llrong 
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 Difpenfation 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 
againit me, if 1 did not: namely, that between two Difpenfa- 

1' 3 licas, 

27S "the Divine Legation Book VL 

fame time they think themfelves at liberty to nfe 
the afiiilance of the Old to overthrow the New. 
Lee the Friends of Revelation, however, conftantly 
and uniformly hold the infeparable connexion be- 
tween the two Difpenfations ; and then, let our 
Enemies, if they will, as they fairly may^ take 
all the advantao;es they fancy they have againft us, 
from the necefiity we lie under of fo doing. 

In a word, We give them, Judaifm and Chrifti- 
an-ity as Religions equally from Heaven ♦, with that 
reciprocal dependence on each other which arifes 
between tw^o things bearing the mutual relation of 
foundation and fuperftru^ure. They have it in their 
choice to oppole ourpretenfions, either by difputing 
with us that dependency, or raifing difficulties on 
the foot of it. But while they only fupp of e it vi- 
fionary ^ and then argue againft each Religion on 
that fuppofition, 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 reftridlive rule of interpretation being how- 
ever ftill obferved, That, in explaining any difH- 
culty in the Old Teftament, we never, on pretence 
cf fuch dependency^ forfake the genius and manners 
of the times in queftion, and lerve ourfelves of 
thofe of the later Chriftian period, as Collins (whe- 
ther truly or no, let Them look to, who are con- 
cerned in it) upbraids fom.e defenders of Chriftanity 

tions the one pretended io be preparatory to the other, there 
n)ull need^ be a ilrong and near connexion and relation. And 
if, in the courfe of evincing this connexion, 1 urge fome 
ciicumfianccs in the Jewifh to fupport the Chriitian, and 
fsthcis in the Chriftian to fupport the Jewiih, this, I fuppofe, 
i3 r\ol taking for s.ravtedlhQ truth either of one or the other, 
but itn^^fing the divinity of both. 


Sefl:. 5. oj Moses demonJlrateJ, 279. 

fordoing. This rule is here, I prefume, obfcrved 
with lufficient exadlnefs ; the foundation of my in- 
terpretation of the Command being that ancient mode 
of converfe, fo much at that time in ufe, of ccnvevf- 
ing by anions. 

II. But the Adverfaries of Revelation, how 
eafily foever they may be confuted, are notfoeafily 
filenced. They are ready to objed, that we fly 
to the old exploded refuge of a type, which the 
Author of the Groimds and Reafons of the Chrijlia^i 
Religicn hath fhewn to be vifionary and fenfelefs \ the 
mere illogical whimfy of Cabaliftic Jews. To this 
I anfwer, 

T. 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 Type of him •, but only an 
arbitrary mark to ftand for the idea of Chrift^ as 
that word does. So that their cry againft Types, 
whatever force it may have, does not at all allect 
this interpretation. 

2. But fecondly I fay, A type is neither r//7- 
cnary, nor fenfelefs, notwithftanding the difgrace 
which this mode of information hath undergone 
by the mad abufes of Fanaticifm and Superflition. 
On the contrary, I hold it to be a juil 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 co7rjerftng by actions: the difference 
there is between thefe two modes of information 
T 4 being 

5i8© 77^^ Divine Legation Bo(3k VL 

being only this, f:hat, where the adlion is Jimply 
f.gnificative^ it has no inoral import : For example, 
when Ezekiei is bid toJJjave his beard, to weigh the 
hair in .balances, to divide it into three parts, to burn 
one, to fir ike another with a knife, and to fcatter th^ 
third part in the wind"", this a6lion having no moral 
import is merely fignificative of information given. 
But when the Ifraelites are commanded to take a 
tnale lamb without blemiJJj, and the zvhole ajjemhly of th^ 
congregation to kill it, and to fprinkle the blood upon the 
dccr-pofts '', this ad ion having a moral import as be- 
ing a religious Rite, and, at the fame time, repre- 
jent^tiye of Ibmething future, is properly typical. 
Hence arofe the miftake of the Interpreters of the 
Command to offer Haac. Thefe men fuppofing the 
adlion commanded to have a moral import, as being 
only for a trial of Abraham's faith; and, at the 
fame xime, feeing in it the mod exa6l refemblance 
of the death of Christ, yery wrongly concluded 
that adion to be typical which w^s vntxtly fignijica- 
tive: 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 Legatig-n 
of Mofes in particular, to lliew the logical truth 
qnd propriety o^ "Types in a^ion, ^nd Secondary fenfis 
in fpceoh, I fhall take the prefent opportunity to 
fift this matter to the bottom. For having occafj- 
onally fh^wn, in feveral parts of the preceding Dif- 
fourfe, that vhe references in the law to the gos- 
f^L are in typical reprefentations, znd fecondary fenfes -, 

" JEzt-c. V. ' ExoD. xli. 5, 6, 7. 

Se(5t, 6. c/' M o s E s demonjlrated. 281 

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 adion, and secondary 
SENSES in fpeech. 

And I enter on this fubje6t with the greater plea- 
fure, as one of the mod plaufible books ever writ- 
ten, or likely to be written, againil Chriftianity is 
intirely levelled at them. In this enquiry 1 fliall 
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 fuperftrudture to lupport itfelf, as 
it may. 


THE book I fpeak of is intitled, A Bifcourfe 
of the Grounds and Reafons of the Chrijliati 
Religion, written, as is generally fuppofed, by Mr. 
Collins •, a Writer, whofe 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 activity. 

The purpofe of his book is to prove that Jesus 
vjas an impoftor : and his grand argument ftands 
thus, — " Jesus (as he fhews) claims under the pro- 
mifed Mefliah of the Jews ; and propofes himfclf 
as the Deliverer prophefied of ir) their facred 


2^2 ^he Divine Legation Book VI, 

Book*? ; yet (as he attempts to (hew) none of thefe 
Prophefies can be underilood of Jesus but in a 
fecondary fevfe 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 Jewifli 
Writings, his pretenfions are falfe and groundlefs." 
— His conciufion, the reader fees, flands on the 
joint fupport of thefe two Proportions, ^at there 
fs no Jewijh Pi'cphecy which relates /^ Jesus in a 
frimary fenfe \ and 'That a feccrdary fenfe is enthu- 
fiaftkal and unfcholaflic. If either of thefe fail, 
his phantom of a conciufion finks again into no- 

Tho' I ihall not omit occafionally to confute the 
£rft, yet it is the falfhoodof the fecond I amprin- 
cipaliy concerned to expofe — That there are Jew- 
ilh prophecies which relate to Jisus in their direft 
and primary fenfe, hath been proved v/ith much 
force of reafon and learning: But, th-^t fecondary 
Prophecies are not enthufiaftical and unfcholaflic^ hath 
not been fliewn and infilled 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 th^itz double fenfe is indeed enthufiaftical 
and unfcholaflic. To put a flop therefore to this 
growing evil, fown firfl by Socinus, and fince be- 
come fo peflilent to Revelation, is not amongft 
the lafl purpofes of the following difcourfe. 

I. It hath been fhewn, that one of the mofl 
ancient and Hmplc Modes of human eonverfe was 


Sedt. 6. of Moses demo?j/Irafed. 28J 

communicating the conceptions by an exprefTive 
Action. As this was of famihar ufe in Civil mat- 
-ters, it was natural to carry it into Religious^ 
Hence, we lee God giving his inftrudions to the 
Prophet, and the Prophet delivering God's com- 
mands to the People in this very manner. Thus 
hi' the nature of the adion, both in civil and re- 
ligious matters, is exadly the fame. 

But in Religion it fometimes happens that a 
STANDING Information is necelfary, and there the 
Adion muil be continually repeated : This is done 
by holding out the particular Truth, (thus to be 
preferved) in a religious Rite. Here then the Ac- 
tion begins to change its nature •, and, from a mere 
fignificative mark, of only arbitrary import like 
words or letters, becomes an action 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 fignijicative of Christ, (like the Command to 
Abraham) but being a religious Rite and fo having 
2l moral import^ it ^2iS 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 own, as be- 
ing the real iandion 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 , in which the words carry a double 
meaning \ having befides their obvious knk which 

r Vol. iv. p, 322, 323, 


The Drjvie Legation Book VL 

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 
empbyed in the writings of infpired Men, to con- 
vey information of particular circumflances in two 
diftiii(ft Difpenfations, to a people who had an equal 
concern in bothv, it is then what we call a double 
SENSE i and undergoes the very fame change of its 
mture that an- exprejjive a^ion underwent when 
converted into a Type-, that is, both the meanings, 
m the DOUBLE SENSE, are of moral import ; 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 actions and 
TYPES j and between allegories and double senses. 

From hence it appears, that as types are only 
religious exprejfive A5iions^ and double senses 
only religious Allegories^ and neither receive any 
change but what the very manner of bringing thofe 
Civil figures into Religion neceflarily induces, they 
muft needs have, in this their tralatitious flate, the 
iame LOGICAL fitness they had in their naturals 
r .■>'Jv/ '^^ ^ There- 

* lience we fee the vanity of Mr. "Whiflon*s diflinftion, 
f^ho is for retaining Tyjtes (neceffitated thereunto by the exprefs 
declarations of Holy Writ) and for rejeding trouble fenfes. 
** Mv. Whillon (fays the author of the Grounds, t3c.J juflifies 
*"'' typical arguing /"^o;^ the ritual la<vjs (?/"Mofes, and froin paJJ'u' 
V' ges of Hijiory in the Old Tejiatnent. — Indeed he pretends 
f* ihii lall to be quite another thing from the odd (typical) appli-F 
'^'cation of prophecies. For (fays he) the ancient ceremonial in- 
'**' flitutions were, as to their pn'vcipai hrajiches, at leaf in their 
•* exc'/j nature. Types and fhadows of future good things — «- 
** But the crfe of the ancient prophecies to he alledged from the old 
** Scriptures for the cojfrmation of Chrijiian'ity is quite of dncther 
**. nature, and of a more nice ami epca^ confidcration^^ p. 227, 228, 

Sea. 6. of Most s demonflraUd. 285 

Therefore as exprefive Anions, and AlkgoricSy in 
Civil dilcourfes, are efteemed proper and reaibiwu 
ble modes of information, fo muft xypEi and 
DOUBLE SENSES in Rcligious ; for the end of botk 
is the fame, namely, communication of know- 
ledge. The coniequence of this is,, that Mr* 
Collins' propofition, that a feccndary or double fenfe 
is enthufiaftkal and unfcholafiic, ('the necelfary fup- 
port of his grand Argument) is intirely over- 

This is the true and fimple origin of types and 
DOUBLE SENSES; which our Advcrfarics, thro' ig- 
norance of the rife and progrefs of Speech, aiid 
unacquaintance with ancient Manners, have info- 
lently treated as the ilTue of diftempered brains, and 
the fondlings of Vifionaries and Enthufiafls. 

II. Having thus fhewn their logical propriety^ or 
that they are rational Modes of information, i 
come now to vindicate their Religious ufe^ and to 
fhew that, they are well fuited to that Religion in 
which we find them employed. An Objedion 
v;hich, I conceive, may be made to this ufe, will 
lead us naturally into our Argument. Ilie objec- 
tion is this : " It hath been fhewn % that thefe ob- 
lique Modes of converfe, tho' at firft invented 
out of 7teceffiiy, for general information, were em- 
ployed, at length, to 2l myjlerious fecrefion of kuo-w- 

It appears, indeed, they are of a more nice axJ exa^i confutero' 
tioriy even from Mr. Whillon's fo much millalcing tbera, as Do 
fuppofe they are of a nature quite (iij[e>-ent from T^pes, But in- 
jftead of telling us honelUy that he knew not what to mjke of 
them, he plays the courtier and difmiiTwb tlie:n, for a more nia 
And exatl co/ijideration, 

* Yo\. iv. p. 323, i^ fcq. 

2S6 The Divifte Legation Book VI 

ledge '^ which tho' it might be expedient, ufeful, 
and even neceflary both in civil matters and in 
FALSE RELIGION, could never bc fo in MORAL mat- 
ters and in the true Religion •, for this having 
nothing to hide from any of its followers, ^ypes 
and Double fenfes (the fame myilerious 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 Secondary fenfes are to be 
foLtnd, was given to one fingle People only ; juil as 
the Christian is offered to all Mankind : Now the 
ChriiVian, as Mr. Collins '^ himfelf labours to prove, 
profefTes to be grounded on the Jewilh. If there- 
fore Chriftianity was not only profelTedly, but really 
grounded on Judaifm (and the fuppofition is ilridly 
logical in a defence o^ 'Types znd Double fenfes, whofe 
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 fhonld be an in tire 
filence concerning this ultimate Religion during the 
preparatory, when the notice of it was not only 

*> " Chrijiianity is founded on Judaifm^ and the New Tella- 
•* ment on the Old ; and Jesus is the perfon i;iid in the New 
«* Teftament to be promifcd in the Old, under the charafler of 
<* the Messiah of the y^fw/, who, as fuch only claims the 
** obedience and fubmiffion of the world. Accordingly it is 
** the defign of the authors of the iWou, to prove all the parts 
«' of Chrijiianity from the Old Tellamcnt, which is faid to con- 
** tain the njcords of eternal Itfe^ and to reprefent Jesus and his 
** ap«llles as fulfilling by their miflion, doiSlrines, and works, 
*< the predidlions of the Prophets, the hillorical parts of the Old 
•' Tcftamenc, and the Jewifh Law ; which lall is exprefly faid 
** to prophe/y of, or tcjiij^ ChrilUanity." Grounds and Rea/ons, 
^c. p. 4, 5. 


Seft. 6. of M.0 ST. s demoiijlratcd, 287 

highly proper, but very expedient: i. firfl, to draw 
thole under the preparatory Religion, by juft dc- 
'grees to the ultimate •, a provifion the more necel- 
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 predidion of its 
advent and nature fo long before hand, cffeclually 
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, Unio us a child 
is born^ unto us a fon is given^ and the government 
jhall he upon his JJooulder : And his name pall be call- 
ed^ Wonderful^ Councellor^ lloe mighty Gcdy the ever^ 
lafting 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 
directly fpoken of. Should we allow this, yet we 
ftill fee, thatfuch a language was admirably fitted 

' The Bifhop of Lendon, in his Difcourfes on the Vfe and Intent 
cf Prophefjiy feemed to have but a flender 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 m a tonv idea of the admimjlration of Provnierfte 
*' in fending Prophets one after another in every age from Adant 
" to Chrill, to imagine that ull this apparatus was for their fakes 
" who lived in or. after the times of Chrill." p. 37- ^'"^ 
fuch is the way of thefe Writers who have a favourite do61rine 
to inforce. The truth of that dodrine (if it happen to be a 
truth) is fupported at the expcnce of all others. Thus his 
Lordlhip, fetting himfelf to prove that Ptophea -f:as gi-jen pnn- 
cipally tofiipport the Faith and Religion rf the World, thought he 
could not fufficiently fecure his 'point witliout weakening and 
difcrediting another of, at lead, equal importance,— J/'d/ // i»as 
gvven to ojjlrd tejiimony to the mijjion cf fefus, 


288 The t)ivine Legation Book Vt. 

to conned together ihtfirft zndfecond Senfes : thd 
hyperbole becoming a fimple fpeecb\ when transfer- 
red from a Jewifli Monarch to the Monarch of the 

Our next inquiry will be, in what manner this 
notice muft needs be given. Now the nature of 
the thing (hews us it could not be dire6lly and 
openly J fo as to be underftood by the People, at the 
time of giving : becaufe this would have defeated 
God's intermediate purpofe ^ which was to train 
them, by a long difcipline, under his preparatory 
Difpenfation. For, this being a Religion founded 
only on temporal Sanctons, and burdened with a 
minute and tirefome Ritual^ had the People known 
it to be only preparatory to another, founded 9n 
better Promifes and eafier Obfervances, they would 
never have born the yoke of the Law, but would 
have fhaken off their fubjedtion 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 
profpe6]: of advantage. But St. Chrysostom will 
inforce this obfervation with more advantage* 
*' Had the Jews (fays \\t) 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 neceffary ufe of types and 
SECONDARY SENSES. For the only fafe and laft- 

^ HomiJia primal De prophetarum ohfcuritatet 

7 i"S 

Se£t. 6. of Mo s e s demonjlrated, 289 

ing means of conveyance were their public ritu- 
al, and the writings of the prophets. And a 
Speaking atUon^ and zn Allegoric fpeech^ when "thus 
employed, had all the Iccrccy that the occafioa 
required. We have oblerved, that in the fimpler 
ufe of fpeaking by J5fion, 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 a^ion^ there 
the adion hath a moral import •, and lb the informa- 
tion having two moral meanings, that which it con- 
veys is more obfcure and myilerious Hence it 
appears that this mode of fpeaking by aSlioUy called 
a TYPE, is exad:ly fitted for the information in 
queftion. Juft lb it is again with the secondary 
SENSE : In the mere allegory^ the reprefenting 
image has no moral import: m the feco?idary fenfe^ 
for a contrary reafon, (which the very term 
imports) the reprefenting in^age hath a moral im- 
port i and fo, acquires the fame fitting obfcurity 
with information by Types. For the typical Ritual^ 
and the double Prophecy^ had each its obvious Icnle 
in the prefent nature and future fortune of the 
Jewifh Religion and Republic. And here we are 
eafily led into the eflential dilference (lb much to 
the honour of Revelation) between the Pagan 
Oracles or Prophecies, and the Jewifh. The 
obfcurity of the Pagan arofe from the ambigutty^ 
equivocation or jargon of expression i the oblcurity 
of the Jewilh from the figurative reprefentation of 
THINGS. The Firft (independent of any other Re- 
ligion) proceeded from ignorance of futurity; the 
Latter, dependent on the Chriftian, proceeded 
from the necelTity that thofe to whom the Prophe- 
cies were delivered Ihould 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 them, the 
Prophecies of the Pythian Apollo, were neither bet- 
ter nor worfe, but exadly 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 abftradl, becaufe this would fhew 
him ignorant of the nature and progrefs of human 
converfe. Much lels, I fuppofe, would he fay, that 
this mode of information was not fuited to the 
genius of the Jewifli Religion ; fmce he owns that 
to be only a preparatory Syflem calculated to 
open and to prepare the way for one more perfed; 
and confequently, that it muft be (0 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 miftaking 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 Ihow 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 obicure, equivocal 
*' and ambi.^uous, admitting not only different but 
*' contrary fenfes 5 lb that the character here given 
" of the Scripture Prophecies was undoubtedly 
*' true of them, that no eve fit could reftrain them to 
*' one determinate fenfe^ when they zvere origijiallyi 
" capable of many. For if the obvious icnfe failed, 


Sed:. 6. g/^ Moses demonjl rated, 29 £ 

" as it often did, to the ruin of thofe who acted 
** upon it, there was another always in rcfcrve, to 
" fecure the veracity of the Oracle : till this very 
** chara6ler of its ambiguous and enigmatical 
" ienfes, confirmed by conllant obfervation, gra- 
" dually funk its credit and finally deteded the 
" impofture ^■'* ^hc prophecies of the Pythian 
Apollo were ohfcure, equivocal and ambiguous. And 
this (fays he) was the character of the Scripture 
Prophecies, Jull otherwife, as is feen above. 
Scripture Prophecies were ohfcure •, but the ob- 
fcurity arofe neither from equivotation 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 moft different grounds, the charac- 
ter given of the Oracles, that no event could rejlrain 
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 
againll (who appear to know as little of the 
DOUBLE SENSE of Ptophccics as himfelf) might 
imagine. For tho' equivocal and ambiguous expres- 
sion may make a fpeech or writing, where the ob- 
jects are unconfined, capable of many fenfeSy yet 
a figurative reprefentation of things can give no 
more fenfes than two to the obfcurefl 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 ftnk their credit and finally detect the impoflure\ 
the difcovery of a secondary sense or Prophe- 
cy, relative to the completory Difpenfation, will 

e Examination of the Biihop of London^s Difcourfcs on Pro- 
phecy, &c. p. 89-90. 

U 2 necef- 

292 ^'^'^ Divine Legation Book VI, 

necedlirily tend to confirm and eftablilh the divine 
origin of Scripture Prophecy. 

Such was the wonderful oeconomy of divine 
Wifdom, in conne6ling together two dependent 
Religions, the parts of one grand Difpenfation : 
by this means, making one preparatory of the 
other-, and each mutuaUy to reflect 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 deicribed 
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, muil, 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 to throw its diltrejTcs upon knavery. And 
thus, as we obferv^d, the Mahometan likewife, 
who pretends to claim under the Jewifli religion, 
not finding the dodrine of 2. future ft ate of rewards 
and punifJrments in the Law, is as pofitive that the 
Jews have corrupted tlieir own fcriptures in pure 
fpite to his great Prophet ^. 

III. Having 

»" Mr. Whifton. 

s This account of Type." and fscondnry fenfes, which fup- 
pofes they were intended to conceal the doclrines delivered 
under them, is ib very natural, and, as would Teem, reafonable, 
that Dr. Stebbin^ himfelf fubfciibes to it. And hence occafion 
has been taken by a molt acute and able Writer to expofe his 
prt\i/arication, in maintaining that the fcvvs had the rcwenled Doc- 
trine of a Future Siatc : For the Doftor not only confefTes that 
the j;od\iine was revealed under Types, but that Do;\rines, 


Scd:, 6* of MosE s dcmojijlratcd, 293 

III. Having thus fliewn the reafonable ufe and 
great expediency of thefe modes of facred informa- 
tion, under the Jewifli CEconomy ; the next que- 
llion is. Whether they be indeed there. This we 
Ihall endeavour to fhevv. — And that none of the 
common prejudices may lie againfl our reafonino-, 
the example given fhall be of types and doubli: 
SENSES employed even in fubjeds relating to the 
Jezvijh dipenfation only. 

I. The whole ordinance of the pajfover was a 
TYPE of the redempt 1071 from Egypt, I'he linking 
the blood on the fide-pofts, the eating fiefh 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 Inilitutor himfelf 
has thus explained the I'ype. — And thcufroalt Jhew 
thy fcn^ (fays he) in that day^ f^yi^g-^ ^^-'is is done 
becaufe of that which the Lord did unto tne, zvhen'I 
came forth out of Egypt. Andit foall he afign unto, 
thee upon thine hand^ and for a memorial between thine 
eyes ; that the Lord's law may be in thy mouth. 
For with ajlrong hand hath the Lord brought thee 
out of Egypt, nou floalt therefore keep this ordi- 
nance in his feafvn from year to year^. As there- 
fore it was of the genius of thefe holy Rites to be 
Typical or iignificative of God's pail, prefent, and 
future Difpenfations to his people, we cannot in the 

thu3 conveyed, were purpofely fecretcd from the knowledge of 
the ancient Jews. See the Argument of the Di^jine Legation 
fairly Jf ate dy p. 125. And the free and canJia Examination (/ 
Bijhcp Sherlock's Sermons, &c. chap. ii. where ihe controverlV 
on this point is fairly determined, as far as truth and lealon caft 
determine any thing. 

^ ExoD, viii. 8, l5 fcq. 

U 3 ?cafl 

294 "^^^ Divhie Legation Book VI. 

lead doubt, but that MofeSy had he not been re- 
trained by thofe important confiderations explain- 
ed above, would have told them that the facrifice 
cf the lamb without hlcmiJJi was a 7};/?^, a fign or 
memorial of the death of Christ. 

2. With regard to double senses, take this 
inftance from Joel : who, in his predi6tion of an 
approaching ravage by Locufis^ 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 a finful people. Thus, when the feven 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 HivitCy 
the Canaanite., and the Hittite from before them '.. 
Now Joel, under one and the fame Prophecy, 
contained in the firft and fecond Chapters of his 

^ ExOD. xxl'r. 23. This, the author of the book called the 
Wi/dom of Solomon admirably paraphrafes :— ■** For it was thy 
" will to dellroy by the hands of our fathers both thofe old 
^ inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou hatedft for doing 
** mart odious works of witchcrafts, and wicked facrifices ; and 
" alfo thofe mercilefs murderers of children, and devourers of 
" man's fiefh, and the fealls of blood, with their priefts out 
'* of the midfl: of their idolatrous crew, and the parents that 
'♦ killed, with their own hands, fouls dcftitute of help : That 
♦* the lund which thou efteemedft above all other might receive 
** a worthy colony of God's children. Neverthelefs even thofe 
*' ihou fparedll as men, and did]} fend nvafps, forerunners of 
** thine hof, to deltroy them by little and litde. Not that thou 
*' waft unable to bring the ungodly under the hand of the 
** righteous in battle, or to dcftroy them at once with cruel 
*' beafsy or with one rough word; But executing thy judg- 
*' ments upon them by little and little, thou gaveft them place 
** cf repentance, not being ignorant that they were a naughty 
•' generation, and that their malice was bred in them, and that 
** their cogitation would never be changed." Chap, xii, ver. 3. 



Se<5l. 6. of Moses demojijlrated, 295 

book, foretels, as we fay, both thcfe plagues; the 
locufis in the primary lenle, and the Ajjyrian 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, flrong and without number ; whofe teeth 
" are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the cheek- 
'' teeth of a great lion. He hath laid my vine walle, 
" 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 languifheth. Be ye 
afhamed, O ye hufband-men : Howl, O ye 
vine-drefTers, for the wheat and for the barley ; 
'^ becaufe the harveft of the field is periftied^.— 
" Blow ye the trumpet in Zion^ and found an 
*' 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 ftrcng, 
*' there hath not been ever the like — A fire de- 
*' voureth before them, and behind them a fiaine 
*' burneth : The land is as the garden of Eden 
*' before them, and behind them a defolate wil- 
*' dernefs, yea, and nothing fhall efcape them. 
" The appearance of them is as the appearance of 
*' horfes, and as horfe-men fo ftiall they run. Like 
" the noife of chariots on the tops of mountains 
^< fhall they leap, like the noife of a flameof fire that 
" devoureth the ftubble, as a ftrong people fet in 
^ battle array. Before their face the people fhall 

^ Ch?p. i. ver. 5, ^ feq. 

U 4 ^ 

2$6 ^he Divhie Legation Book VI. 

** be much pained : all faces fhall gather blacknefs. 
" They fhall run like mighty men, they (hall climb 
*' the wall like men of war, and they fhall march 
" every one on his ways, and they fhall not break 
*' their ranks-, neither ihall one thruil another, they 
*' fhall walk every one in his path : and when they 
<' fall upon the fword, they fhall nr;t be wounded. 
*' They fhall 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 fhall quake before them, the 
*' heavens fliall tremble, the fun and the moon 
" fhall be dark, and the ilars fhall withdraw their 
^' fhiningV 

The fine converfion of the fubje<5ls is remark- 
able. The prophecy is delivered in the firft chap- 
ter, — Awake, ye drunkards, &c. and repeated in 
the fecond — Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, Sec. In 
the firfl chapter, the locusts are defcribed as a 
j)eople; — Fcr a nation is come up upon my land, firong 
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 infers : T^hey lay ivafte 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 locufts : — as the 


appearance of them is as the appearance of horfes, 
and AS horfemen fo floall they run, as aftrong peo- 
ple fet in battle array. They JJ.iall run like mighty 
men, they fJo all climb the wail like men of war. But 
that we may not miflake the secondary fenfe, 
namely the invafion of a foreign enemy, they are 

^ Chap. ji. ver. i to ii, 


Scft. 6; '^ M o s E s demonjlratcd, 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- 
effedtual. For in fome places of this Prophecy, 
dearth by infects muft needs be underltood \ jn 
others, defolation by war. So that both fenfes arc 
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 th^ double fenfe ^ 
they would not have fuffered themfclves to be fo em- 
barraffed ; nor have fpent fo much time in freeing 
the Prophet from an imaginary embarras (thougli 
at the expence of the context) on account of the 
fame Prophecy's having in one part that fignifica- 
XAon primary^ 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 objection 10 primary diVnl fecon- 
dary fenfes in general, it may not be improper to 
give another inflance of it, which fliall be taken 
from a Time when one would leaft expedl to find 
a double prophecy employed, I mean, under the 
Gofpcl-Difpenfation. I have obferved, fomewhere 
or other, that the CEconomy of Grace having 
little or nothing to hide or to fhadow out, hke the 
Law, it had fmall occafion for typical Rites or 
Celebrations, or for Prophecies with a double fenfe ; 
^nd that therefore they are not to be expelled, 


2^8 'il-^ Divine Legation Book VI. 

nor indeed, are they to be found, under the Gof- 

Yet the example I arn about to give is an il- 
luftrious exception to this general truth. The ex- 
planation of this example will rectify a great deal 
of embarras and miilake concerning it, and, at 
the fame time, fupport* the general Truth. The 
Prophefy I mean, is that in which Jefus foretels 
his FIRST and second coming in Judgment, not 
on'Iy 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 

BtJt to comprehend the full import of this Pro- 
phecy, it will be proper to confider the occalion 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 \ — and their obftinate 
rejedlion of their promifed MefTiah*, 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 affected with thefe threats, and yet pof • 
feffed with the national prejudice of the Eternity 
of the Law, pointed, as he pafTed along, at the 
Temple Buildings, and defired him to obferve 
the Itupendous folidity and magnificence of the 
Work. As much as to lay, " Here are no marks 
of that fpeedy deftrudion which you have jull now 
predicted : on the contrary, this mighty Mafs feems 
(:alculatcd to endure till the general diifolution 

*» •Matt, xxiii. Mark 7(ii. ^5. Lukk xxi. 45. 


Se6t. 6. o/' M s E s dcmonfiratcd. 299 

of all things." To which, Jefus, underftanding 
their thoughts, replied, that in a very little time 
there fliould not he left one ft one upon another^ of all 
the wonders they faw before them. And from 
thence takes occafion to prophefy of the fpecdy 
dellru6lion of the Jewifh Nation. But as the bare 
predidion of the ruin of that fplendid CEconomy 
would be likely to fcandalize thefe carnal-minded 
men, while they faw nothing eredted in its ftead, 
by their Mefliah and Deliverer, it feemed good to 
divine Wifdom 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 
eflablifhment of the .Chriilian Policy °. 

But yet, as this was to be unattended with the 
circumftances of exterior grandeur. He relieves 
the pidure of the Church-militant^ ered:ed on his 
firil: 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 neceflary for the completion of the 
Subjed, which was a full and entire view of the 
J)ifpenfatiGn of Grace, Thus, as Joel in one and 
the fame defcription had combined the previous 
ravages of the Locufls with the fucceeding de- 
vaftations of the AiTyrians, fo here, Jesus hath 
embroidered into one Piece the intermediate judg- 
jment of the Jews, and the final Judgment of 
mankind ''. 

" See Julian, or a Difcaur/e concerning his attempt to nbuild 
the Temple, 

• Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi. 


300 Tihe Divine Legation Book VL 

Let us now fee what there was in the notions and 
language of the Jewilh People that facilitated the 
eafy introdudion of iht fecondary fenfe ; and gave the 
ftyle, which was proper to that fenfe, an expreflive 
elegance when apphed to the primary. 

The Jews, befotted with their fancied Eternity 
of the Law, had entertained a notion that the de- 
ftru6lion of Jerufalem was to be immediately fol- 
lowed with the deftrudion of the World. This 
made the clofenefs in the connexion between the 
p'imary znA fecondary fenfe of the defcriptive pro- 
phecy, eafy and natural ♦, and as it made the two 
deftru(5lions fcarce dividual, fo it left no room to 
diftinguifh, in any formal manner, between the 
Jirft ^nd 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- 
tiort ♦, namely, the deftrudtion of Jerufalem in the 
FIGURATIVE fenfc ; and the deftrudion of the world 
in the literal. — The fun Jhall he darkened and the 
moon Jloall not give her light : and the ftars of heaven 
jhall fall^ and the powers that are in heaven jhall he 
jhaken. And they fJjall fee the Son of man coming in 
the Clouds with great power and glory *, 

r Mark xiii/24 — 5 — 6. Matt, xxlv, 29 — 30. 


Se6t. 6 . ^/ M s £ s demonflrated. 3 o x 

So that we fee, the repref^^ntation of a ^i?//^/^ 
/^w/^ in this Prophecy hath all the eafc, and flrength, 
and art, which we can conceive pofllble to enter 
into a facred information of this nature. AnJ 
the clofe contexture of its parts is fo far from ob- 
fcuring any thing in the two great correlative pic- 
uires, portrayed upon it, that it ferves to render 
each more diltindt, and better defined. Different 
indeed in this from mofc of the Jewifh Prophecies 
of the fame kind: And the reafon of the difference 
is obvious. In the Jewilli Prophecies, x.\\^ feco7i- 
daryfenfe^ relating to matters in another Difpenfa- 
tion, was of neceiTity 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 pbjedlive to the contemplation of Chri(l*s 
Difciples ; as the two capital parts of the Dif- 
penfation to which they were now become fub- 

But it will be faid, " That before all this pains 
had been taken to explain the beauties of the double 
fenfe, we fhould have proved the exijlence of it i 
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 Tub- 
je6l of the primary: And becaule, when Jcfus, 
in few words, repeats the fubflance of this Pro- 
phecy to the High-Priefi:, on tlie like occafion for 
which he delivered it at large to his Dikiples, he 
defcribesthe deflrudioncf Jerufalem in thofe high 
terms from v/hence the secondare kvi'ic is in- 
ferred : for when Jefus was accufcd of threatening, 
or of defigning to deftroy the Temple, and was 
urged by the High-Pricil to make his defence, he 

302 T^he Divi?2e Legation Book VI. 

lays — Hereafter JhaU ye fee the Son of man fitting on 
the right hand of power ^ and coming in the clouds 
of heaven "^ \ which words the context necefiarily 
confines to \i\sfirft coming in judgment on Jeru- 

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 pafTage or two in it, to fhew that it muft necef- 
farily be confefled to have both. 

I. That Jefus prophefies of the deftrudion of 
Jerufalem appears from the concluding words re- 
corded by all the three Evangelifts — Verily^ I fay 
unto yoUy that this generation t^/z// notpafs away 
till ALL thefe things be done or fulfilled'. Hence, 
by the way, let me obferve, that this fulfilling 
in the primary fenfe being termed xht fulfilling ally 
feems to be the reafon why St. John, who wrote 
his Gofpel after the deftrudion of Jerufalem, 
hath omitted to record this Prophecy of his Maf- 

1. That, Jefus at the fame time fpeaks of the 
deflrudion of the World, at his fecond coming to 
Judgment, appears likewife from his ov/n words 
recorded by the fame Evangelifls — But of thai 
day and hour^ knoweth 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 contradi(5t 

1 Matt. xxvi. 64. Mark xiv, 62. Luke xxii, 69. 
' Matt. xxiv. 34. Mark xiii. 30. Luke .xxi. 32, 
* Mark xiii. 32. 


S©a. 6. o/' Moses dcmonjlrated. 30? 

one another-, the firft telling us that the evenc 
fhould come to pafs near the clofe of that very 
generation i the latter telling us that the time 13 
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 
very Prophecy to which Jefus all the way refers ; 
for in that prophecy, the day and hour, that is the 
precife time of the deftrudlion of Jerufalcm is 
minutely foretold. 

Hence it follows that this famous Prophecy hath 
indeed a double sense, the one primary^ and the 
other, fecondary. 

It is true, the infant-Church faw the deftrudlion 
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 necefiary to corre6t — No'-j:} I befeech 
you^ fays he, that ye be net foon fiaken in tnindy or 
troubled^ as that the day of Chrift is at hand. Sec ", 
And it was on this account, I fuppofe, that St. 
Luke, who wrote the lateft of tqe three Evangeliits, 
records this Prophecy in much lower terms than 
the other two, and entirely omits the words in the 
text quoted above, which fixes the feccndmy 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 [coffers, who faid, where is the promife of his 
coming? went ftili further, and, to fhevv his fol- 
lowers that the Church was to be of long conti- 

» Chap. vlii. 13— -14. "2 Thtss. ij ver. r, li' /r?- 


304 "The Divine Legation Book VI. 

nuance here on earth, explains to them the nature 
of that evidence which fiUiire 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 of prophecy ; 
whereunto ye do well that ye take heedy as unto a light 
which fhineth in a dark place^ until the day dawn, 
and the day-flar 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 beflowed upon the Church : whereas 
xht 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, afibrding this demonf- 
trative evidence to the men of all generations ^. 


* 2 Ep. Peter chap. i. ver. 17. ^ Ver. 19. 

*= BsiSatoTEPoi', more firm, conftant, and durable. 

^ See Sir Ifaac Newton on the Prophecies^ c. i. of his Oh/ef' 
wations upon the Jpocalytj'e of St. John. 

* Mr. Markland has difcovered a new fenfe in this paf- 
fage of St. Peter (concerning the m^jte fure njoord of prophecy) 
with which his brother-critic is To enamoured, that he fays, he 
may prophecy there nviil be no more dfutcs about it, Mr. Mark- 
land's difcovery is very fimple, — " it is only placing a colon at 
*' the end of the i8th verfe, that the beginning of the 19th 
** may connect with it ; and fo lead to the true and obvious 
•* fenfe of a pail'ige, which of late has in vain exercifed the 
•* pens of many learned "Writers, viz This iicice, faying, thit is 
•♦ my beloved So/i in whvn I am 'vccll pic -fd, [caken from Ifaiah 
*• xlii. 1.] iMe hea'-d in the mount, and we have by that means 
•* (prophecy or) the ivords of the Prophet more fully confirmed.^^ 

This interpretation fuppofcs that Peter is here fpeaking of 
the FiRiT COMING pf ihc MciTuh, and that the Tyi?r</^'/>ra- 


Scft. 6. ofMo SES demo^Jlrated, 30 r 

However, if from this prophecy the firfl Chrif- 
tians drew a wrong conclufion, it was not by the 


phecy refers to a Prophecy already accomplifhed. Now, if it 
can be ihevvn, that he is fpeaking of the second coming of 
Jefus, and that the ^ord of prophecy refers to a long ftries of 
predidions to be fultillcd in order, there is a fair end of this new 

Firfl, then, it is to beobferved, that the Rpillle, in which the 
pHiTage in qucflion is found, is a farcwell-cpirtle to the Churches. 
St. Peter (as he tells them, chap. i. ver. 14.) knowing that 
fiortly he i7iuj} put ojf this his Tabernacle. — Now the great topic of 
confolation urged, by ihefe departing Saints, to their widowed 
Churches, was the shcond coming of their Mailer. And of 
this coming it is that St. Peter fpeaks, in the words of the text 
— For ".ve ha've not follc'-wed cwining'y de^vHed fables nxhen nve 
made kno^vji unto you the power and coming cf our Lord Jfut 
Chriji. He fubjoins the reafon of his coniidence in this second 
COMING, that he and the reft of the Difciplcs were eye-ixiinejjes 
of the majefy of the first, ver. 16, 

That \}cit fecond cc?ning is the fubjedl of the difcourfe, appears 
further from the recapitulation in the concluding part of :l;e 
Epiitle, where he reproves thofe fcnffers of the lajl days, who 
W'OiA^ fayy inhere is the promife of his COM iNC ? for f nee the Fa- 
thers fell ajleep all things continue as they ^.vere, Szc, [chap. iii. ver. 
3, 4.] The primitive Chriilians, as we have focn, liad enter- 
tained an opinion that the second coming of their Mailer wag 
at hand. And the caufe and occafion of their millake has 
been explained. Thefe Sccjhs the Apo!l!c coiifutes at large from 
^er. 5th, to the 13th. And recurring sgain, at ver. 15, to 
more fare nvord of prophecy y mentioned chap. i. ver. 19. he refeis 
evidendy to thofe parts of St. Paul's writings, where the Pro- 
phecies in the Revelations concerning Antichrifl arc fummarily 
abridged, of which writings he gives this cliarafler —- y^j alfo m 
all his Epifles, fpeaking in them cf thefe things y in ivhicb arc feme 
things hard to be underjioody iihich they that are unlearned aid un- 
fiable ivrcfy as they do all the other Scripturety unto their cai^n dc- 
flruPiion. [ver. 10!] \n which words, we have the truefl piaure 
of thole indifcret Interpreters who fet up for Prophets in prcdi^l-liog 
the events of unfulfilled Prophecies, inilead of thcm- 
Uhz% to the explanation of thofe already accomplillied. 

But not only the general fubjeft of the Fpiflle, but the xtry 

CXprcffion ufed in the text in quellion, flicwb that this powifc 

V(JL.V. X ^^^ 

3o6 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

fault of the Divine Prophet, but their own. Jew- 
ifh Tradition might at firft miQead the followers of 


AKD COMING of our Lord Jefus ChriJ} is V\% fecond coming. — Tcr 
'we ha-ve not fcllonxed (fays he) cunningly devised fables 
T(ri<r(i(picr^ivoic |u.yGo»5] iv/:en nve made knonjon unto you the fo^er and 
coming of our Lord Jefus ChriJ}. Now, an atteilation of a 'voice 
ftom Heaven at bis firfi comings tho' it had been a figment of 
the Relater, could with no propriety be called a cunningly de- 
tvifed Fable. But fuppofe the ApoHle to fpeak of Q\\x\9Csfecond 
comings when according to the promife, there ivas to be a nenxi 
Hean.:en and a new Earth, ^wherein 'tvas to diAje/I ri^hteoufefs, 
after the old had been burnt up and defy oyed by fsr<vent heat [chap. 
ill. ver. 12, 13.] if this awful fcene were an invention, it was 
truly charatlerii'ed by a cunningly de^jifed Fabky fuch as thofe in 
which Paganifm abounded, where, in their mythologic rela- 
tions, they fpeak of the Regions of departed Heroes, &c. 

— Locos laBtos & amoena vireta 
Fortunatorum nemerum, fedefque beatas. 
Lar<^ior hie Campos aiher h lumine veftit 
Purpurea : Solemque fuumt fuafydera norunt,. 

Ar.d, to afcertain his meaning, the Apoftle ufes a phrafe by 
which only the mythologic foibles of Pagan Theology can be 

defjgned — Iv yccQ CKToi^nTt^iyon; MY ©CIS e|a««^ot;9JaavT£? — not 
follci.iing or imitating the cunningly dcvifed fables of the Greek 
Sophifs and Mythologijis. 

Secondly, it (hall be now (hewn, that, by the morefure njoord of 
prophecy, the 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 fure nxord of 
prophecy f the Churches are told, they do 'vjell to take hied, as unto 
a light that fiineth in a dark place ^ until the day and the day^ 
far arife in their hearts, [chap. i. ver. 19] Now, from Pro- 
phecy thus ciicumfianced, it plainly appears, that it could 
not be a compleat Prophecy of any event fulfilled, fuch as 
that of Ifaiah, chap. xlii. ver. 1, which Mr. Markland fuppofes 
is the Prophecy here fpoken of, becaufe it was not a light f^in- 
ing in a dark place until the day da^vn ', fince, with regard to the 
Prophecy in queliion, the day was not only datvncd, but ad- 
vanced ; yet ilie Apoille fuppofes the darknefs to exift, and the 
d^y da-ivn to be far dillant. i\ either, on the other hand, could 


Sed. 6. of Moses demonjlrated. 307 

Jefus to believe that the deftru6lion of the World 
was very foon to follow the deftruclion of Jerufa^ 
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 
cafily have led them to a diftinuion of times in this 

It be a Prophecy totally unfulfilled, for fuch are totally (^ark and 
unintelligible; but this, here fpoken of, x-^Tili^ht ihining, tho* 
in a dark place. 

In a word, the charafler given of the more fur e ivsrd of Pro* 
fheryy as being a light that shineth in a dakk place, 
can agree with nothing but the Prophecies of St. Paul and 
St. John : and with thefe, it agrees admirably. Thefe Pre- 
didions relating to one great event, the future f'tunj of tht 
Church, under the vfurpation of the Man of 6'/.v, are emphati- 
cally called the word of prophecy. They began fulfilling 
even before St. Peter wrote this Epiftle ; for St. Paul, fpeaking 
of the MAN OF Sin, to the ThefTalonians, fays, the mystery 
OF iNic^iTY doth ALREADY woRfc. [2d Ep. chap. ii. vcr. 7.] 
This Prophecy therefore, is, with the greatcft elegance and 
truth, defcribed as a light f.vning in o dark plate. Jul! fo much 
of the commencing completion was feen as to cxciie Men's at- 
tention ; but this glimmering was ftill furroundcd with thick 
darknefs : And as the eager curiofity of man tempts him to 
plunge even into obfcurity in purfuit of a light juft begin- 
ning to emerge from it, he fubjoins a very necefiary caution. 
— Knc^ving this firj}^ that no prophecy of Scripture if cf arty 
frluate interpretation, [ver. 20.] As much as to fay, I ex- 
hort you to give all attention to this moie fare nxord of prcphe.y^ 
but 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 fa£l — For the Prophecy can:e ret in old time hy 
the ^ill of Man, 'hut hoh Men of God fake as they ii^cre moved ry 
the Holy Ghof, [ve^ 21.] i. e. the very Prophets themfclvcs, un- 
der the old Law, often underflood not the true purport of vyhat 
they predided, being only the organs of God's Holy Spirit; 
iiiuch lefs are we to fuppofe the common miniftcrs of the word 
qualified for the office of Interpreters of unfulfilled prophecies, 
^nd in the :,d chapter vcr. 16, as has been obfcrved above, he 
fpeaks of the mifchiefs attending this prefumplion. 

X 2 Prophecy, 

joS T'he Divine Legation Book VI. 

Prophecy, a Prophecy formed, as they muft need$ 
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 condu6l of St. Paul, juil 
mentioned above) this error was fruitful of much 
fervice to truth. It nourifhed and increafed a 
fpirit of piety, ferioufnefs and charity, which 
wonderfully contributed to the fpeedy propagation 
of the Gofpel. 

Before I conclude, let me jull obferve (what I 
have always principally in viewj that this expla- 
nation of the Prophecy obviates all thofe 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 infpiring fuch 
into his Followers, to prophecy of the fpeedy de- 
flrudion of the World. 

But by ilrange ill fortune even fome Belie- 

W's^ as v/e have obferved, are come at length to 
deny the very exiilence oi double fenfes 'indfccojidary 
prophecies. A late writer hath employed fome 
pages to proclaim his utter difbelief of all fuch 
fancies. I Iliall take the liberty to examine this 
bold redifier o'i 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 fhew that all he hath written is wide 
of the purpofe: though, to fay the truth, no 
wider than the notions of thofe whom he oppofes ; 
,men who contend for Types and Secondary fenfes 
^iii as extravagant a way as he argues againft them ; 


Se<a. 6. of Mos E s demonjirated. 309 

that is, fuch who take a handle from the Doctrine 
of double fenfes to give a loofe to the extravao-ances 
of a vague, imagination : confequently his'^arcrii- 
nients, which are aimed againfl their very betnr'- 
and ufe^ hold only againfl their ^^z(/6'. And tha^c 
ahiije^ 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 contutation 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 againll them. 
With his Replies I have nothing to do, (except 
where fomethmg of argument againfl 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 confide r what, 
what he hath to fiy againfl the thing itfelf. 

I. His firfl argument againfl more fenfes than 
one, is as follov/s — " Suppofmg 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 mufl 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 ConneHlon of Natural and Revealed Rett" 
gion, dijUn^ly covjjdercdy p. 221. by Dr. Sykes. 

X 3 ^' if 

310 The Divine Legation 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 


.*' BOTH TOGETHER muft bc thc fuU meaning of 
*' fuch pafTages C' 

■ — "Then the literal fenfe of them is not the one nor 
the other fingly 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 the propriety of the name. Let him but al- 
low his adverfaries that a nearer and a remoter event 
are both the fubjecEls of one and the fame Predic- 
tion, and, I fiippofe, it will be indifferent to them 
whether he call it, with them, a Prophecy of a 
double and figurative fenfe, or they call it, with him, 
a Prophecy of a fingle literal fenfe : And he may be 
thankful for fo much complaifance *, for it is plain, 
they have the better of him even in the propriety 
of the name. It is confeffed that God, in thefe Pre- 
di6lions, might have views to 7tearer and remoter 
events : nov/ thefe nearer and remoter events were 
events under two different Difpenfations, the Jew- 
ifh and the Chriftian. The Predidion 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(5lion of the 
rearer event was properly the literal or primary 
fenle, as giv(?n for the prefent Imformation of 
God's Servants 5 and the more remote event for their 

. s Page 219. 


Sedt. 6. of Moses de?nonJlrateii. 3 1 1 

future information, and fo was as properly the 
fecondary fenfe, called with great propriety figura- 
iive^ becaufe conveyed under the terms which pre- 
didted the nearer event. But I hope a/r/? and a 
fecond, a literal and a figurative^ may both together 
at leaft, make up a double sense. 

2. His fecond argument runs thus,—" Words 
*' are the figns of our thoughts, and therefore 
*' ftand for the ideas in the mind of him that ufes 
^' them. If then words are made ufc of to fignify 
*' two or more things at the fame timcj their figni- 
*' ficancy is really loft, and it is impoflible 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 difcovcries of his 
" Will j 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 fald 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 \i2iVQ two fe7tfes, but it has been 
my fortune to meet with it much oftner in thofe 
who have none» Our Reafoner has here miftaken 

i» Page 222, 223. 

X 4 ^^'^ 

3i2 T'he Divine Legation Book VL 

the very Queftion^ ^hich is, whether a Scripture 
Proposition (for all Prophecies are reducible to 
Propofitions) be capable of two fenfes •, and, to 
fupporc the negative, he labours to prove that 
WORDS OR TERMS Can have but one. — If then 
WORDS are made ufe of to fignify two or more things 
at the fame time^ their fignificancy is really loft — fuch 
TERMS as ftayid for ideas in mens minds — terms 
made ufe of muft he fuch at are wont to raifefuch certain 
ideas — All this is readily allowed ; but how wide of 
the purpofe, may be leen by this inftance : Jacob 
fays, I will go down into Sheol tinto my [on mourning. 
Now if SHEOL fignify in the ancient Hebrew, only 
the Grave, it would be abufing the term to make 
it fignify likewife, with the vulgar Latin in inferyium, 
becaufe if words (as he fays) be made to fignify two 
or more things at the fame time, their fignificancy is loft. 
i— But when this proposition of the Pfalmift 
comes to be interpreted, Thou wilt not leave my foul 
in Hell [Sheol] neither wilt thoufufer thy holy one to 
fee corruption-, tho' it literally fignihcs fecurity from 
the curfe of the Law upon tranfgrellbrs, viz. im- 
mature death, yet it is very reafonable to under- 
iland it in a fpiritual fenfe, of the refurredion of 
Christ from the dead; 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 

But let us fuppofe our Reafoner to mean that a 
proposition is not capable of two fenfes, as per- 
haps he did in his confufion of ideas, for notwith- 
ftanding his exprefs words to the contrary, be*bre 
he comes to the end of his argument, he talks of 
the true fenfe of anypassage being but one-, and 
then his alfertion muft be, That if one Propofition 
have two Senfes^ its fignificancy is really loft -, and 


Sccl.6. g/^MosES dcmonjlratcd. 313 

that His Impojjihle to underjiand the real certain in- 
tenticn of him that ujes them ; conjequently Rcvcla* 
tion IV ill become ufelefs^ becaufe unintelligible. 

Now this I will take the liberty to deny. In the 
folio vving inflances :ifingle Propofition was intended 
by the writers and Ipeakers to haye a double fenfe. 
The poet Virgil fays, 

— " Talia, per clypeum Volcani, dona parentis 
" Miratur: rerumquc ignarus, imagine gaudet, 

" NEPOTUM '.'* 

The lail line has thefe iivo fenfes : Firft, that 
iEneas bore on his flioulders, a fhield, 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 eftabhlhed 
their fame and fortunes, and was enabled to make 
a fettlement in Latium, which proved the founda- 
tion of the Roman empire \ 


^ JBnei^, 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 con-venientem gra'vitati ejusj tiamque (Ji magi: 
** neotencus. Mr. Addison conceived of it in the fame man- 
" ner when he faid, this nvas the only nriity line in the ^ncis ; 
** meaning fuch a line as 0<v:d 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- 
" rader. They took it, in (horc, for a mere v.cdcrn flourilh, 
** totally different from the pure unafTefled manner of genuine 
** antiquity. And thus far they unquelb'onably judged right, 
** Their defefl was in not feeing that the nje of it, as here cm- 
" ployed by the Poet, was an exception to the general rule, 
** But to have feen this was not, perhaps, to be expected cvea 

*' from 

314 7S^ Divine Legation Book VI. 

Here then is a double fenfe^ which, I believe, none 
who have any taile of Virgil will deny. The pre- 
ceding verfe introduces it with great art. 

*V Miratur^ rerumque ignarus imagine gaudet:'* 

and prepares us for fomething myfterious, and hid. 
behind the letter. 

On Peter's refufing to eat of clean and unclean 
jneats promifcuoufly, in the vifion prefented to 
him, the Holy Spirit fays, IVhat God hath cleanfed 
that call not thou common '. The fingle proportion 
is. That which God hath cleanfed is not common or 

** from thefc Critics. However from this want of penetra- 
•* tion arofe a difHculty in determining whether to read fa^a 
*'* or fata nepotum. And as we now underiland that Ser-tius 
•' and his Critics were utter ftrangers to Virgil's noble idea, it 
*• is no wonder they could not refolve it. But the /<?//fr is the 
** Poet's own word. He confidered this fhield of celellial 
•* make as a kind of Palladium, like the Akcile which fell 
** from Heaven and ofed to be carried in procelTion on the 
** JhouUers of the Salii. ^id de /cutis (fays Laflantius) jam 
•' <v£tvjlate putridis die am ? ^Ji<£ cum port ant, Deos iPsos SE 
«* GESTARE KUMERis suis arbitrantur. [Div. Inlh 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 
** pra6>ice in that facrcd proceflion, reprefents his hero in the 
<' priellly office of religion, 

*' /ittollem HVUZKO famamque et fata Nepotum, . 

** This idea then, of the facrcd Ihield, the guard and glory of 
•• Rome, and on which, in this advanced {i*.\i:it\or\, depended the 
•' fame and fortune of his country, the Poet with extreme ele- 
•* gance and fublimity, transfers to the fhield which guarded 
•" their great Progenitor, while he was laying the firft founda- 
•* tions of the Roman Empire." Mr, Hurd — Notes on the £/, 
S6 Augujiuiy p. 68 9. 3d edit. 

^ Acts x j-. 


Seft. 6. of Mo s-ES dejmnjirated. 3 i r 

impure-, but no one who reads this ftory can doubt 
of its having this double fenfe : i. That the dijlinc- 
tion between clean ayid unclean meats was to he aloHJh' 
ed. 2. And That the Gentiles were to be called into 
the church of Christ. Here then the true fenfc 
of thefe PASSAGES is not one, but two : and yet the 
intention or meaning is not, on this account, the 
lead obfcured or loft, or rendered doubtful or un- 

He will fay, perhaps, " that the very nature of 
the fubjed, 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 elie would he bring, in difcredk of 
a double fenfe ^ thefe two verfes of Virgil : 

*' Hi motus animorum, atque hasc certamina 

" tanta 
'' Pulveris exigui jadlu compofta quiefcunt.'* 

On which he thus defcants— 77?^ words are de* 
terminate and clear. — Snppofe 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 
pulverized bark "^^^c— To make this pertinent, 
we muft fuppofe no more relation between the 
fortunes of the Jewilh Church and the Chriftian, 
than between a battle of Bees, and the tumult of the 
mimal Spirits: if this were not his meaning it 
will be hard to know what was, unlefs to fhew his 
happy talent at a parody. 

"^ Page 225, 


3i6 "The Divine Legation Book VL 

But 33 he feems to delight in clailical tuthorities, 
I will give him one not quite io abfurd ; where he 
hinifelf ihall confefs that a double meaning does in 
facl run thro* one of the fineil Odes of Antiqui- 
ty. Horace thus addreflcs a crazt fnip in which. 
his friends had embarked for the yEgean fea : 

O navis, referent in marc te.novi 
Fluclus 1 6 quid agis ? ibrtiter occupa 
Portum : nonne vides ut 
> IN udum remigio iatus ", &c. 

In the fiffl and 'primary fenfe he defcribes the dan- 
gers of his friends in a weak unmanned veffel, and 
in a tempeftuous fea : in x.hz fecondar)\ the dangers 
of the Republic in entering inco a new ci\'il war, 
after all the lofTes and difafters of the old. As to 
the fecondary fenfe^. which is ever the moil quef- 
tionable and obfcure, we have the tellmiony of 
early- Antiquity • delivered by Quintilian : As to 
the primary fenfe^ the following will not fufFer us ta 
doubt of It : 

Nuper foliritum qusE mihi t^edium. 
Nunc deiiderium, curaque non levis, 
Interfufa nitentes 

Vitc3 aequora Cycladas. 

But there being, as we have fhewn above, two 
kinds of allegories ; (the firft, ^72;. the /?r^/fr alle- 
gory ; which hath but one real fenfe^ becaufe the 
literal meaning, ferving only for the envelope^ and 
without a moral import ""y is not to be reckoned; 
the iecond, the improper^ which hath/ix^<?; becaufe 

* Hor. O^/. lib, i. Od. 14. • See p. 194. 


Seft. 6. ^ M o 5 K s demcnJlrdtcL 3 17 

th€ literal meaning is of moral import \ and of this 
nature are Prophecies with a double fcnfe) and the 
Critics on Horace not apprehending the dihcrenc 
natures of thefe two kinds, have engaged in verv 
warm contefls. The one fide feeing fome parts oV 
the Ode to have a neceflary relation with a real \\\\\-)^ 
contend for its being purely hijlorkal \ at the head 
of thefe is Tanaquil Faber, who ftrit ftarted this 
criticifm, after fifteen centuries peaceable poflcf- 
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 alk- 
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 leail obfcure the mean- 
ing, the learned reader may fee adds infinite beau- 
ty to the whole turn of the Apotfrophe. Had ir 
httn purely hijlcrical^ 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. — Ezckiel has 
an allegory of that fort which Quintilian fuppoles 
this to be, (namely, a proper allegory ivith only one 
real fenfe) and he manages it with that brevity and 
expedition which 2i proper allegory demands, when 
ufed in the place of a metaphor. Speaking of 
Tyre under the image of a Ship, lie fays, "Iby 
Rowers have brought thee into great waters : the eajt^ 
wi7td hath broken thee in the midft of the Seas ^. But 
fuppofe the Ode to be both hiftcrical and allegorical 
and that, under his immediate concern for hi^ 
Friends, he conveyed his more diilant apprehen- 
fions for .the Republic, and then there appears fJ 
much eafe, and art, and dignity in every period,' 

7 Chap, xxvji. vcr. 26. 


3i8 The DhiJte Legation Book V I. 

as make us juftly efteem it the moft iinifhed 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^ ^c, 
but this. That, in the latter cafe, the fubjed of the 
two fenfes had a clofe connexion in the interests 
OF THE WRITER-, in the former, none at all? 
Now that which makes two fenfes reafonahk^ 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 fubjedl the late Lord Bolingbroke v/as en- 
dowed, when he endeavoured to difcredit Types and 
Figures by this wife obfervation, " That Scripture 
" Types and Figures have no more relation to 
" the things faid to be typified, than to any thing 
" that pafifes now in France ^" 

2,^ .His next argument runs thus — " If God is 

^* ditpofed to reveal to mankind any truths — he 

** muil convey them in fuch a manner that they 

" may be underftood — if he fpcaks to men, he 

'' mail condefcend to their infirmities and capaci- 

*' ties — Now if he were to contrive a Propofition 

*' in fuch a manner — that the fame Propofition 

*' fhould relate to /^^rr^^/ events ; the confequence 

*' would be, that as often as events happened 

*' which agreed to any Propofition, fo often would 

" the Revelation be accomplifhed. But this would 

'^ Works, vol. ili. p. 3o6# 

" only 

Seft. 6. of Mo ST.S demonjl rated, 319 

" only ferve to increafe the confufion of men's 
*' minds, and never to clear up any Prophecy: No 
" man could iay 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 fufpedled he was talking againfl: what 
he did not underdand. He propofed to prove the 
abfurdity of a double ox fecondary fenfe ' of Proplie- 
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- 
portion is pretended to have more than two fcnies : 
And farther, that the fubjed of each is fuppofed 
to relate to t'lvo connected and fuccefTive Difpen ra- 
tions: which is fo far from creating any confufion 
in mev^s minds ^ or making a Prophecy ufelefs^ that it 
cannot but flrengthen and confirm our belief of, 
and give douhk evidence to the divinity of the 
Prediction. On the contrary he appears to think 
that what orthodox Divines mean by a fecond fenfe^ 
is the fame with what the Scotch Prophets mean 
by 2ifecond fight \ the feeing one thing after another 
as long as the imagination will hold out. 

4. His laft Argument is — '' Nor is it any 
*' ground for fuch a fuppofition, that the Prophets 
*' being full of the ideas of the Mejfiah^ and 
*' his glorious kingdom, made use of images 
"taken from thence, to exprefs the points upon 
*' v/hich they had occafion to fpeak. Prom ivhence- 
*' foever they took their ideas, yet when thc^f fpoke 
^^'oi frefent fa^s, it was fri-fcnt: fatls only that 

^ Page lid, ' -See p. 221. 

*' were 

320 The Divijie 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 expreffion are taken from a 

*' future ft ate, yet ftill the Propofition is to be in- 

*' terpreted of that one thing to which it is particu- 

«' larly applied'." 

Orthodox Divines have fupportedthe reafonable- 
nefs and probability of double fenfes by this mate- 
rial Obfervation, that the infpired Writers were 
full of the ideas of the Chriftian Difpenfation. That 
is, there being a clofe relation between the Chrif- 
tian and the Jewilh, of which the Chriftian 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, t. 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. It is no ground, fays he, for a 
double fenfe, that the Prophets were full of the ideas 
of a Meffiah and his glorious kingdora, and made ufe 
of images taken from thence-, [that is, that they 
enobled their (lyle by the habitual contemplation of 
magnificent ideas.] For (continues he) whencefo- 
ever they took their ideas, when they fpoke of pre- 
fent fa^s, prefent faEis alone were to be underftood. 

Common language and the figures of it, &c. 

Without doubt, from fuch 2.fulnefs of ideas, as 
only raifed and ennobled their ftyle, it could be 
no more concluded that they meant future fadts. 

t Page 227, 


Scdl. 6. of Moses demonjlrated. 321 

when they fpeak of prefent, than that Virgil, be- 
caule he was full of the magnificent ideas of the 
Roman grandeur, where he lays, Priami Iwpcriim 
— Divum Domus^ Ilium^ & hgcns gloria T'eucrorum^ 
meant Ro?ne as well as Troy. But what is all this 
to the purpofe ? Orthodox Divines talk of iifuhiefs 
of ideas arifing from the Holy Spirit's revealino- the 
mutual dependency and future fortunes of the two 
Difpenfations ; and revealing them for the in- 
formation, folace, and lupport of the Chriftian 
Church: And Dr. Sykes talks of 2.fHlnefs of ideas 
got no body knows how, and uled no body knows 
why, — to raife (I think he fays) their flyle and 
enoble their images, l^et 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, " Ic 
*' was no anfwer, to lliew that there are allegories 
*' and allegorical interpret ations.^ for thefe were never* 
*' by me denied." Exam. p. o^^^. Why does he 
tell us of his never denying allegories.^ when he 
is called upon for denying fecondary fcnfcs '^ Doc3 
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 then allow /^r^;/^'^/7 /"///^"J"; and fo give 
up the queftionj that iS) retradt the pafiages 
here quoted from him. He is reduced to this di- 
lemma, either to acknowledge that he fird wric, or 
that henov/ anfwers, to no purpofe"* 


^ The Reader fees however, by this, that he at length takA 
ALLEGORIES and SECONDARY SENSES not to be ihejamt: Iti 
which I muft crave leave to tell him, he is milbken. Rrligirus 
allegories (the only allegories in queftion) being no other than 

. voL.v. y * 

322 ^ke 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 preient nothing to 
do: firft, becaufe the proper fubjed of this fedtion 
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 


We have fhewn 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 Infcitutes of the 
Law and the Prophets. But now it will be objed- 
ed, " that, as far as relates to the Jewifh 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) fee?n the 7n oft plain 
of all ancient writings^ and wherein there appears 
not the leaft trace of a typical or Allegorical inten- 
tion in the Authors or in any other Jews of their 

a {j-»ccies o^ fecondary fenfes. This may be news to our Critic, 
tho' he has written and printed fo much about allegories, 
that is, -dhont fecondary fenfes \ as Monfieur Jordan ^vas fur- 
prized to find he had talked profe all his life-time, without 
knowing it. 

* Croiindi^ p. 82. 

I reply. 

Sed:. 6. gT Moses demonjl rated, 321 

I reply, that was it even as our adverfaries Juo-, 
geft, that all the Prophecies, which, we lay, re- 
late to Jesus, relate to him only in a fccondan 
lenfe ; and that there were no other intimations of 
the New Difpenlation but what luch Prophecies 
convey; it would not follow that fuch fcnfe 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 fenfe, fome^ of them would 


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 charatfler of double prophecies in genera], that njoiibjut 
]\liracles in their conformation they could hardly have the J'enjg 
contended for, tucll 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 
DoQor's condadt in this matter, 1 (hall leave to himfclf: with 
his Logic I have fomething more to fay. The Miracles which, 
the Reader plainly kts, I meant, were thofe worked by Jefusj 
^Xid. \.\iQ Propheftes, fome of thofe which jefus quoted, as relating 
to himfelf. But the Dodor tells us, *' That Miracles are not to 
" be taken for granted in our difputes with Unbiilievers." In 
fome of our difputes with Unbelievers they are not to be taken 
for granted ; in fome they are. When the di-'pute is, wlieiher 
the truth of Jefus' MiJJton appear from Miracles, it would be ab- 
fiird to take Miracles for granted : but when the difpute is, 
whether the truth of his MeJJiah-charaSier appear from Prophc- 
fies, there is no abfurdity in taking his Miracles for granted ; be- 
caufe an unbeliever may deny his Mejpah-churader, which 
arifes from Prophefies, and yet acknowledge tiiis Mijjun which 
is proved by Miracles ; but he cannot deny the truth of Iws 
TniJJion, which is proved by Miracles, and yet acknowledge his 
Miracles. But more than this — An Unbeliever not only may 
^llo^M U3 to fuppof;; the truth of Miracles when the queition i* 
about the proof of the Me[]uih-charader from Prophcfie:, but 
the Unbeliever, with whom 1 had here to do, Mr. Collins, does 
aSiually allo-ix> us, in our difpute with him, lo luppoie the truth 
of Miracles : For thus he arguss, '' Jefui, you lay, has proved 
his Mifiiaa by Miracles, iu good time, tiut he had ailother 

* See Hiji, of Mr, n. 61-2,-3, ic. 

324 77j^ Divine Legation Book VL 

with difficulty be proved to have it •, becaufe we 
have fhevvn, that a commodious and defigned ob- 


Chara^er to fupport, that of a promi/ed Mejpah^ 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 relate to him which relate to another." In anfwer to this 
I propofed to Ihew, 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 occalion to urge the evidence of 
Miracles; and Mr. Collins, while denying the Mf/^^/^-r/W^ii?^r, 
liad permitted me to fuppofe their truth. Unluckily, the Doc- 
tor, who faw nothing of all this, takes what Logicians call the 
faint o£iimed, and the point to be proved^ for one and the fame 
thing. That Jefus was a di'vine Mejfenger and worked Miracles 
is the point ajfumed by me ; and Mr. Collins, over confident of 
his caufe, permitted me to affume it. That Jefus was the Mef- 
fiah foretold is the point to be pronjed -, and I did not expe^l 
that any other than a follower of 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 I will fuppofe he would have urged it himfelf had he 
known how. It may be quelHoned whether it be llriftly logical 
to employ this topic (which Mr. Collins allows us to affume) of 
Jefus's diuine mijjion in order to proved his Mefjlahfryip ? Now all 
that can be here objeded is, that we affume one Charader, in 
order to /^roff another, in the fame divine Ferfon. And what 
is there illogical in this ? Whoever objeded to the force of that 
reafoning againft Lord Bolingbroke, which, from the Attributes 
of God's poxver and ivijdom which his Lord (hip allowed the 
Author of tlje View of his Philofophy to affume, inferred and 
proved God' sjujiice and gaodnefsy which his Lordfliip denied. 

But to fatisfy, not the Doftor, but any more reafonable man, 
J will fuppofe, it may be aflced, " Of what ufe are Prophecies 
thus circumllanced, that is to f:y, fuch as require the evidence 
of Miracles to afcertain their fenfe ?*' I reply, of very important 
ule; ao they open and reveal more clearly the mutual depen- 
ckncy and connexion of the tv-zo Difpenfations on one another, 
:n many particulars which would otherwife have efcapcd our 
notice : And, by this means, ftrengthen feveral additional proofs 
of the TShJfiahjhip of Jefus, on which the Gofpel dodrine o-f 
Redumption depends. But was there no more in it than this, 
1'he rclcuingyi'/;;^ prophecies quoted in the New Tertament a«^ 
xeiaiing to Jefus, out of the hands of Unbelievers, who have 


Seft. 6. g/^ M s E s demonjlrated, 325 

fcurity attends both their nature and their ufe. But 
then, This let me add, and thefe Pretenders to 
fiiperior reafon would do well to confidcr it, that 
the authority of divine Willlom as rationally forces 
the aflent to 2, determined meayiing of an oblcure and 
doubtful Proportion, as any other kind of logical 
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 2, primary fenfe. 2. That befidcs 
thefe, there are in the prophetic Writings, the molt 

taken an occafion, from their generality or obfcurlty, to pcr- 
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. — 1 will now take a 
final leave of this Anji.>jerer hy profejfion \ an Anfwerer of facli 
eminence, that he may indeed be called. 

Knight of the Shire tvho repre/ents them all. 

But as he difplays at parting all the effrontery of his miferable 
trade, I will juft Hop to new burnifli his complexioji. 

I had called my Argument a Demonjlration^ which one would 
think, no one who could dillinguilh Morals from Phyjics could 
miftake, or would venture to mifreprefcnt. Yet hear Dodor 
Stebbing's lau words, — " l^hat Mofes was the Legillator of the 
*• Jews, and that the Jews were ignorant of a Future State ; thefe 
•* fads mull be known by hiftory, which fpoils you for a Demon- 
*' ftrator at once : For hillorical evidence goes no further than 
** probability^ and if this mult concur to make up the evidence, 
** it cannot be a Demonjiration : For Demonllration cannot 
** ftand upon probability. The evidence may be good and fuf- 
*' ficient/but Demonjiration it cannot be; nuhuh is al^.vays 
" fouH'ied upon felf-£<vident truths, and is carried an by a chain 
*' or /tries of the mojl ftmple ideas hanging upon each other by a 
« necejjury ccnnexion" Letter to the Dean of Brijhl, p. 9 — 10. 
And was it for this, that this wonderful man hath written half 
3 fcore Pamphlets againlt the Divine Legation, that he could not 
find in It the fame fort of Demonjiration which he hath been told 
jTiay be ieen in Euclid ? 

^ y 2 clear 

326 ^he Divine Legation Book VL 

clear and certain intimations of the Gcfpel (Economy^ 
which are alone fufHcient to afcertain the reality of 
the fecondary, 

I. That SOME Prophecies relate to the Messiah 
in 2l 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 — 
'I'bis 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 comif/g 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 Baptift^r And 
again, in his Scheme of literal Prophecy confideredy 
fpeakingof this palTage 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 Tifhbite^ and that 

^^ the fews^ fince Christ's time, have generally 
*' underftood, from the paffage before us, that 
*' Elias is to come inperfon. — But John Baptifi him- 
*' felf, who mull be fuppofed to know who he was 
*' himfelf, when the queftion was aikcd him, whc^ 

'* Grow}4s, p. 47, 48, 

Sec5l. 6. of Moses demonjlrated. 327 

" ther he was Elias^ denied himfclf to be Elias •, and 
'' when an<:cd who he was, laid, 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 curioi% 
remarks is, that this great Advocate of Infidelity 
did not fo much as underftand the terms of the 
queflion. The words, fays he, according to their 
literal Jenfe, are a Prophecy that Elijah was to come 
in perfo'd^ and therefore not literally hut myjlically 
fulfilled in John the Baptifl. He did not fo much 
as know the meaning of a primary :!ind fecondary 
fenfe^ about which he makes all this llir. Kfeccn- 
dary fenfe indeed implies a/^^/r^to^ interpretation ; 
Si primary implies a lite7'al: But yet this primayy 
SENSE does not exclude figurative terms. The 
primary or literal fenfe of the Prophecy inquefcion 
is, that, before the gi^eat and terrible day of the 
Lord, a mxifenger (hould be fent, refembling in 
chara6ler the Prophet Elijah -, this mefienger, by 
a figure J is called the Prophet Elijah. A figure 
too of the mod eafy and natural import; and of 
efpecial ufe amongft the Hebrews, who were ac- 
cuftomed to denote any chara6ler or adlion by that 
of the kind which was become mod known or ce- 
lebrated. Thus the Prophet Ifaiah : " And the 
*' Lord fhall uterly deftroy the tongue of the Egyp- 
" tian fea, and with his mighty wind fhall he 
*' fhake his hand over the river, and fliall Imite ic 
" in the fev en fir earns ^'* Here, a fecond pafTage 
throuo-h 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 ht \n figurative terms^ is fimply redemption 

^ Page 127. ^ Chap. xi. vcr. i:. 

Y 4 from 

328 ^h Divine Legation Book VI. 

from bondage. For Egypt, in the Hebrew 
phrafe, figniried a place of bondage. So again Je- 
remiah fays, '' A voice was heard in Ramah, la- 
'' mentation and bitter weeping: Rachel weeping 
^' for her children refufed to be comforted be- 
^ caufe they were not '." The primary fenfe of 
theie words, according to Grotius, is a prediction 
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 fulrilled, becaufe Rachel was 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 mod: 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 fon of Jefle 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 
addrelled to in the primary icnft, and the people of 
the Jews only in the fecondary ? But the preceding 
words, which fhew the people of Sodom and Gomorrah 
could not now be addreffed to, becaufe there were 
hone left, fliew like wife that it is the Jewifli Nation 
which is called by thefe names. Except the Lord of 
Ilofls had left us a very fmall remnant, we fhould 
have been as Sodom, and we 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 fay s^ 

" Chap, xxxi, ver. 15, ^ Chap. i. ver. 10; 

* Ver. 9, 

'f Jam 

Seft. 6. ^ M o s E s dmonjlratcd. 329 

" Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna." 

Which^ according to its literal meanings is, that the 
Virgin returns, and old Saturn reigns" again, in per- 
fon\ and therefore not literally, hut mystic a llv 
fulfdlcd in the juftice and felicity of Augullus's rci^n. 
And it is a most pleasant literal interpretation^ 
to make the Virgin ^/V^ Saturn not fjgnify the Vir^^in 
and Saturn, but fomebody who refernbled them in 
qualities. Such realbning on a Claflk, would be 
called nonfenfe in every language. But Freethink- 
ing lancftilies all forts of impertinence. Let mc 
obferve further, that this was a kind of compound 
blunder: Literal, in common fpeech, being 
oppofed both to figurative and to fpiritual ; and 
mystical fignifying both figurative dnd fpiritual -, 
he fairly confounded the diflind and difFerenC 
meanings 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 
finceQvLKiST^% time have generally underft cod from this 
paffage, that Elias is to come inperfon. And John 
Baptift himfelf, "who muft be fuppofed to know who he 
was himfelf, when the queftion was ajked him, denied 
himfelf to he Elias — Why does he fay, ^incc 
Christ's time, and not before, when it appears to 
be before as well as fmce, from his own account 
of the tranflation of the Septuagint? For a good 
reafon. We fhould then have Teen why J^i'w the 
Baptifl, when aflced, denied himfelf to be Elias ; 
which it was not Mr. Collinses defign we fliould fee; 
if indeed we do not afcribe too much to Iiis know- 
ledge in this matter. The cafe Hood thus : At 
the time of the Septuagint tranllation, and from 
thence to the time of Christ, the dodrinc of a 
franfmigraticn^ and of a Refurre^ion of the hcdy^ 


330^. The Divine Legation Book VI, 

to repcjfefs the Land cf J idea y were national opi- 
nions •, which occafioncd the Jews by degrees to 
underftand all thefe forts of ^^//r^/rj^ exprefTions 
literally, ' Hence, amongft their many vifions, 
this was one, that Elias fhould come again in per- 
fon. Which lliews Vv^hat it was the Jews afked 
John the Baptift •, and what it was he anfwered, 
when 7;?^ denied hitnfelf to be Elias: Not that he 
was not the Meflenger prophefied of by Malachi 
(for his pretending to be that Meffenger evidently 
occafioned the queilion) but that he was not, nor 
did the prophecy imply that the Meflenger Ihould 
be, Elias in perfon. 

But to fet his reafoning in the fulleft light, Let 
us confider a fimilar prophecy of Amos : Behold 
the days come^ faith the Lord God^ that I will fend 
a YAMmi. in the land^ not a famine of breads nor a 
thirfi of water^ but of hearing the words of the 
Lord^. I would alk, is this a Prophecy of V7/^- 
mine of the word in a literal^ or in a myftical fenfe ? 
Without doubt the Deill will own (if ever he ex- 
pels Vv^e fhould appeal again to his ingenuity) in a 
literal But now ilrike out the explanation [iiot a 
famine of bread, nor a thirfi of water] and what is 
it then ? Is it not ftill a famine of the word in a 
literal fenfe ? Myfical^ if you will, in the meaning 
of metaphorically obfcure^ but not in the meaning 
of fpiritual. But myflical in this latter fignificatioii 
only, is oppofed to literal, in the queftion about 
fecondary fenfes. It appears then, that a want of 
preaching the word is llill 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, 


Seft. 6. cf Moses dernonjl rated. x^i 

Prophet explains the term, was not, becaufe it was 
a harfli or unnatural figure^ to denote -jcant of 
preachings any more than the term Elijah to denote 
a fimilar character, which Malachi does not ex- 
plain ; but becaufe the Prophecy of Amos mio-ht 
have been for ever mittaken, and the figurative 
term underftood literally ; the People being at that 
time, often punifhed for their fms by 2i famine (f 

But this abufive cavil at figurative terms will 
remind us of his obfervations on the followino- 
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 
*' facrilices ihallbe accepted upon mine altar; for 
*' mine houfe Hiall be called an houfe of Praver 
" FOR ALL PEOPLE ^" This, he fay s, mud needs 
relate to Jewifh, not to Chriflian times. Why ? 
Becaufe facrifices are mentioned. But how could 
this truth be told the Jewifh People, that alUiations 
fioouldbe gathered to the true God, otherwiie than by 
ufing terms taken from Rites familiar to them ; 
unlets the nature of the Chriflian Difpenfation had 
been previoufly explained? A matter evidently 
unfit for their information, when they were yet to 
live fo long under the Jewifh. 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 fuperilitioufly obferved, and 
obferved to a negled; of the moral \ which lafl 
they dcfcribe in the purity and perfedion of the 
Gofpel. So admirable was this condudl ! that 
while it hid the future Difpenfuion, it prepared 
men for it. 

B Chap. Ivi. ver. -. 


332 ^/^c Dhhie Legation Book VI. 

Thus then flands the argument of this mighty 
Rcalbner. There are no Prophecies, he fays, which 
relate to Jesus but in a fecondary fenfe. Now a 
fecondary ienfe is unfcholaftic and enthufiaJHcal. 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 
Jenfe. He replies. No, but in a myftical^ only. 
Here he begins to quibble, the fure fign of an ex- 
piring Argument: Myftical fignifies as v^tW fecon- 
dary zs figurative. In the fenfe of fecondary^ the 
interpretation of thefe Prophecies to Jesus is not 
r.iyftical', \n tht {^nic oi figurative \t \%, But is the 
tife of a figurative terra enthufiaftical or unfcho- 
laftic, when the end is only to convey information 
concerning a lefs knov/n 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- 
verikry can afk — '' 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 iliade 
over their meaning, and kept them in a certain 
degree of obfcurity." Now, to (hew 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 
fMcgoric Mode of fpeech, then much in ufe, fur- 
nifhed the means, by what we call a double fenfe 
in Prophecies, of doing this with all the requifite 


Se6l. 6. <?/M6sEs dernbnjlrated.^ 3^2 

obrcurit7. But as fome of thefe Prophecies by 
their proper light alone, without the confirmation 
of miracles, could hardly have their fublimer fcnfc 
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 predictions of him 
in Tifrmary and likralknk. Yet the Jewifh (Eco- 
nomy being to continue long, there Hill remained 
the fame necefTity of a covert and myfterious con- 
veyance. That figurative exprefTion therefore, 
which was before employed in the propcfttion^ was 
now ufed in the terms. Hence, the Prophecies of 
2Lfinglefenfe come to be in highly figurative words : 
as before, the earlier Prophecies of a double fenfe 
(which had 2i primary meaning in the affairs of the 
Jewifh State, and, for the prefent information of 
that People) were delivered in a much fimpler 

The Jewifli Doctors, whofe obllinate adherence^ 
not to the letter of the Law^ as this Writer igno- 
rantly or fraudulently fuggefts, but to the my- 
flical 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 Dodtors, 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 cabaliflic mean- 
ings, than it really is, in order to evade the relation 
v/hich the Predidions have to Jesus) is owing to 
the declining ftate of Prophecy. Ei'cry Prophet^ 
fays the famous Rabbi, Jofeph Albo, that is of a 
ftrong^ fagaciotis^ and piercing underflandiJig^ ivill ap- 
prehend the thing ?jakedly lyiihout any fimilitude-y 
^ '•ji'hcnce 

334 ^^^ Divine Legation Bookl VI. 

"johence it comes to pafs that all his fayings are diftin5f 
and clear ^ and free from all obfctirity^ having a literal 
truth in them : But a Prophet of an inferior rank or 
degree^ his words are ohfcure^ enwrapped in riddles 
a7jd parables -, and therefore have not a literal hut alle- 
gorical truth contained in them^\ And indeed our 
li6titioiis Rabbi feems to have had as little know- 
ledo-e of this matter as the other •, for in anfwer to 
what Mr. Whifton, who, extravagant as he was 
inreje6ling all double fenfes^ yet knew the difference 
between 2ifecondary and enigmatic prophecy, which, 
we (hall fee, Mr. Collins did not, in anfwer, I fay, 
to Mr. Whiflon, who obferved that the Prophefies 
[meaning the primary'] which relate to Chriftianity 
ere covered^ myfticaU and enigmatical^ replies, This is 
€^a5lly equal myfticifm with^ and jufi as remote from 
the r-eal literal fen fe as the myflicifm of the Allegorifts 
\i. e. the Contenders for a double fenfe] and is al- 
together as OBSCURE to the underftanding K His ar- 
gument 2ig3Ani\. fecondary fenfes is, that they are 
unfcholaftic and enthuftaftical. Mr. Whifton, to 
humour him, prefents him with dire^ and pri?nary 
Prophecies, but tells him, at the fame time, they 
are expreffedin covered^ myftical^ and enigmatic terms. 
This will not fatisfy him \ it is no better thoji the my- 
fiicifm of the Allegorifls. How fo ? We may think 
perhaps, that he would pretend to prove, be- 
caufe his argument requires he fhould prove, that 
enigmatical expreffions are as unfcholaftic and enthu- 
ftaftical as fecondary fenfes. No fuch matter. All 
he fays is, that they are as obscure to the under- 
ftanding. But obfcurity is not his quarrel ^\\h fecon- 
dary fenfes. He objed's to them as unfcholaftic and 
enthuftaftical. But here lay the difficulty •, no man, 

^ Smith's SelUi DifcQurJcii p. iSo. * 7he Grounds^ 

i^c. p. 24:. 


Se£l. 6. cf Moses demonjirafed. ^3^ 

Yrho pretended to any language, could affirm this, 
oi figurative enigmatical exprcjfions -, he was forced 
therefore to have recourfe to his ufual refuge, ob- 

It is true, he fays, thefe myftical enigmatic Fro- 
phecies (as Mr. fVhifton calls them) are equally re^ 
mote from the real literal fenfe^ as the myfticifm of the 
Allegorijls, But this is only a repetition of the 
blunder expofed above, where he could not diftin- 
guifh between the literal fenfe of a Term^ and the 
literal fcnfe of a Propofition. And how grofs that 
ignorance is we may fee by the following inftance. 
Ifaiah fays, ne Wolf alfo fJo all dwell with the Lamb^ 
and the Leopard fhall lie down with the Kid ; and 
the Calf and the young Lion, and the Fatling to- 
gether, and a little Child fhall lead them '". Now I 
will take it for granted that his Followers under- 
fland this, as Grotius does, of the profound peace 
which v/as to follow after the times of Senacherib, 
under Hezekiah : but tho' the terms be myftical, 
yet fur© they call this the literal fenfe- of the pro- 
phecy : For Grotius makes the myftical 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, unfcholaftic, and enthu- 
fiafticah as foon as ever Jesus comes into the quef- 

II. But now, befides the literal primary prophe- 
cies concerning the person of Jesus, we fay, in 
t\\Q fecond place, that there are other which give a 

^ Chap, xi, ver. 6, 


336 7X^ Divine Legation Book VI* 

primary and dire£l intimation of the change of 
THE Dispensation. Ifaiah tbretels great mercies 
to the Jewifh People, in a future Age ; which, tho* 
reprefented by fuch metaphors as bore analogy to the 
bleflings peculiar to the Jewifh CEconomy, yet, to 
fhevv that they were indeed different from what 
the figurative terms alluded to, the Prophet at the 
fame time adds. My thoughts are not as your thoughts^ 
neither are your ways my zvays^ faith the LordK This 
furely implies a different Dispensation. That the 
change was from carnal to fpiritual^ is elegantly 
intimated in the fubjoining words, ~ For as the 
Heavens are higher than the Earth, y^ 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 
tnyrtle-tree " •, /. e, the 7iew Religion fliall 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 fhewn its Nature ; that it was to fp read be- 
yond Judea, and to take in the whole race of man- 
kind,— -jT^^ gentiles fhall come to thy lights and 
kings to the hrightnefs of thy rifing °, &c. Which 
idea the Prophet Zephaniah exprelTcs in fo flrong 
a manner, as to leave no room for evafion : 'The 
Lord will he terrible unto them^ for he will famish 
^11 the Gods of the earth-, and men fhall worfloip 
hitn everyone from his place, even all the ifles of 
the Gentiles ^ The exprefTion is noble, and 
alludes to the popular fuperftitions of Paganifm, 
which conceived that their Gods were nouriihed 

' ver. 3. " Vcr. q. " Ver. 13* 

*» Chap. k. ver. 3, p Chap. ii. ver, 1 1. 


Sc<ft. 6. ^ Moses demonjlrated. 337 

by the fleam of facrifices. But when were the 
Pagan Gods thus famijhed^ but in the firft ages 
of Chriilianity ? — 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 converfion diftin- 
guifhed them from the reft of the nations. This 
he exprefTes 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 "^T i, e. 
the Temple-fervice fhall be abolifhed ; and the 
God of Ifrael worfhiped with the mofl folemn 
rites, even in the molt abhorred and unfandified 
places, fuch as the Jews efleemed Egypt. Which 
Malachi thus diverfifies in the expreflion, And in 
everyplace incenfe fhall be offered unto my name^ and a 
PURE OFFERING \ i. e. it fhall not be the lefs ac- 
ceptable for not being at the 'Temple, 

But Ifaiah, as he proceeds, is flill more explicite, 
and declares, in direct terms, that the Difpenfation 
fhould be changed: Behold^ 1 create ^e\^ Heavens 

^ Chap. xix. 19, 

' Chap. i. 19. — Nothing can be more fimple than the prin- 
ciple here inforced, or more agreeable to the rules of jufl in- 
terpretation than to fuppofe, that the Language ef the Z.- at', in 
the terms altar, sacrifice, &c. is employed to convey thefe 
prophetic intimations of the Gofpel. The ancient fathers cf 
the Church very improvidently continued the ufe of thefe terms, 
when fpeaking of the Chriflian Rites : For tho' they ufed them, 
and profefled to ufe them metaphorically, yet it gave counte- 
nance to ftrange extravagance of Scripture-interpretation amongft 
the Romaniih. The i^ngenious Author of the tH-incihes de la 
foi Chretienney Tom. i. p. 273. brings this prophecy of Malachi 
for a proof of the divine inftltution of the Sacrifice of the 

Vol. V, Z Ani 

338 The Divine Legation Book VI. 

and a new Earth •, and the former Jliall not be re- 
membered^ nor come into mind \ This, in the pro- 
phetic ftyle, means a new religion and a new 
LAWi the metaphors, as we have fliewn elfe- 
where, being taken from hieroglyphical exprelTion. 
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'] fhali be turn- 
" ed into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field [the 
" land of Judea] fhall be efteemed 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.— 2">^^r^ fhall 
be no more thence an infant of days^ nor an old man 
that hath not filled his days : For the child fhall die an 
hundred years old, but the /inner being an hundred years 
oldfJoall be accurfed"^ \ i. e, the Sanction of tem- 
poral rewards and punishments ihall be no 
longer adminiftred in an extraordinary manner : 
for we muft remember, that long life for obedience, 
and fudden and untimely death for tranfgreflion's, 
bore an eminent part in the Sanation of the Jewilh 
Law. Now thele are exprefsly faid to be abro- 
gated in the Difpenfation promifed, it being de- 
clared that the Virtuous, tho' dying immaturely, 
Ihould 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 lefs figurative terms, fupports this interpretation 

• Chap. Ixv. ver. 17. « Chnp. xxix. 17. 

« Chap. Ixv. 20. 

o. . beyond 

Seft. 6. ^ M o s ES demonjlrated. 339 

beyond all poflibility of cavil: " Behold the days 
" come, faith the Lord, that I will make a new 
*' COVENANT with the hoLife of Ifi-ael^ and with 
" the houfe o^Judah^ not according to the Covenant 
" that I made with their fathers^ in the day that I 
" took them by the hand, to bring tliem out of 
" the land of Egypt. — But this Jh all be the Covenant 
*' that I will make with the houfe of IfraeU After 
" thofe days, faith the Lord, / will put my Laiji) 
*' in their inward parts, and write it in their 


Whatlfaiah figuratively names 2. new Heaven and 
a new Earthy Jeremiah fimpiy 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 ; Thisjhall be the Covenant^ 
I will put my Law in their inward parts ^ &c. i. e, 
this Law lliall be fpiritual^ as the other given to 
their Fathers, ^2.% carnal: For the Ceremonial Law 
did not fcrutinize the heart, but reiledin external 
obedience and obfervances. 

Laftly, to crown the whole, we may obferve, 
that Jeremiah too, like Ifaiah, fixes the true nature 
of the Difpenfation by declaring, the change of 
the SANCTION : " In tliofe days they fliall fay no 
" more, the fathers have eaten a four grape, and 
^' the childrens teeth are fet on edge. But every 
" one lliall die for his own iniquity, every man 
«' that eateth the four grape, his teeth iball be {tx. 
" on edge^." For it was part of the Sandlion of 
the Jewiih Law, that children (hould bear the ini- 

^ Chap. xxxi. ver. 31. ^ Ver, 29. 

Z 2 quity 

340 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

quity of their fathers, &c. a mode of punifhing 
which hath been already explained and juftified. 
Yet all thefe Prophecies of the Gospel being de- 
livered in terms appropriate to the Law, the 
Jews of that time would naturally, as they infaft 
did, underftand them as fpeaking of the extention 
and completion of the old Dilpenfation, rather 
than the perfedion of it by the introdudtion of a 
NEW. And thus their reverence for the prefent 
Syftem, under which they were yet to continue, 
was prelerved. The necefiity of this proceeding, 
for the prefent time j-~the effedls it would after- 
wards produce thro' the perverfity of the fuper- 
ftitious followers of the Law -, — and the divine 
goodnefs as well as wifdom manifefted in this pro- 
ceeding, are all finely touched in the following 

paflage of Ifaiah "^ " Whom fhall he teach 

*' knowledge ? and whom fliall he make tounder- 
" (land dodtrine ? Them that are weaned from the 
" milk, and drawn from the breafts '. For pre- 
" cept mud be [or hath been] upon precept, pre- 
" cept upon precept, line upon line, line upon 
" line ^ here a little and there a little. For with 
" ftammering lips and another tongue will he fpeak 
" to this People '. To whom he faid, This is the 
" reft, and this is the refrefliing '^^ yet they would 
*• not hear. But the word of the Lord was unto 

* Chap, xxviii. 9, i^ feq, 

* i. e. Thofe who were moft 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. c. The glad tidings of the Gofpel, 

" them 

Sed. 6. g/" M o s E s demonjl rated. 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 %" 

Notwithftanding all this, if you will believe our 
Adverfary, T^he hooks of the Old Teftament feem the 
mofi PLAIN of all ancient writings^ and wherein 
there appears not the least trace of typical 
OR ALLEGORICAL INTENTION in the Authors^ or in 
^ny other Jews of their t!n:es^. He that anlwers a 
Free-thinker will find employment enough. — Not 
the leaft trace of a typical or allegorical intention] 
He might as well have faid there is not the leajl 
trace oi poetry 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—^/^ Lord^ they say of me, 


complains that his ineffedlual MifTion 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 inftruflion, which was olven 
with To much^mercy and indulgence, to lead them by flow and 
gentle fteps from the Law to the Gofpel, being abufed \o as to 
defeat the end, God in puniihment made it the occafion of 
blinding their eyes and hardening their hearts. 

f Grounds, l^c, p. 82. ^ Chap. xx. ver. 49. 

Z 3 " Moll 

342 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

" Moil 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 feek out the secrets of grave 
*^ sentences, and be converfant in dark para- 
'' bles\" Hence it appears that the Jewifh Pro- 
phecies were not fo plain as our Adverfary repre- 
fents them ; and that their obfcurity arofe from 
their having Typical or Allegorical inteiitions: which 
figures too, related not to the prefent^ but to a 
future Difpenfation, as is farther feen from what 
Ezekit'l fays in another place — Son of rnan^ heboid 
they of the houfe of Ifrael fay^ The vision that 


So that thefe People to whom the Prophecies were 
{o plain ^ and who underflood them to refpeft their 
own times only, without any Typical or Allegoric 
meanings complain of ohfciirities in them, and con- 
fider them as referring to very remote times. But 
I am afnamed of being longer ferious with fo idle 
a Caviller. The Englifb Bible lies open to every 
Free-thinker of Great Britain-, Where they 
may read it that will, and undertland it that can. 

As for fuch Writers as the Author of the Grounds 
and Reafhns, To fay the truth, one would never 
wilh to fee them otherwife employed : But when fo 
great and fo good a man asGROTius hath unwarily 
contributed to fupport the dotages of Infidelity, 

jvW/lxi — ■ El/ uW.yiAxo-i '!!7x^xQo?,uv «car§a^»3V£i«». Chap, xxxix. 
ver. I, 2, 3. 

^ Chap. xii. ver. zy. 


SecS. 6. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated, 343 

this is fuch a mifadventure as one cannot but la- 

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 double fenfe even in thofe direbl 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 dLfecon- 
dary: and by that afFeded ftrain of interpretation, 
hath done almoft 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 
fhould be carefully ftudied. Under the head of 
his authority it is to be confidered, 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 i?ifpired, 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 confeffion of their divine origi- 
nal required : for feeing them pronounced by Jew- 
ifli Prophets, occupied in Jewifh Affairs, he con- 
Z 4 eluded 

344 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 

eluded their fok Objed was Jewifh •, and confe- 
quently that the proper fenfe of the Prophecies 
referred to thefe only. But this was falUng 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 
underftood their Prophets fometimes to have done, 
by a 7iaturd fagacity : For, on the allowance of a 
real infpii^ation, it was God, and not the Writer, 
who was the proper Author of the Prophecy ; and 
to underftand his purpofe^ which the rules of inter- 
pretation requires us to feek, we muft examine the 
nature, reafon, and end of that Religion wiiich he 
gave to the Jews : For on thefe ^ common fenfe 
aifures us, the meaning of the Prophecies muftbe 
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 feme of thefe Prophecies 
might relate, in th^'w literal, primary^ and mmediate 
fenfe, to that more perfed: 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-r 
blematical, and to be determined by evidence, de- 
termined ftrfl:, and laid it down as a kind of Prin- 
ciple, that the Prophecies related diredlly and pro- 
perly to Jewifh affairs : and into this fyilem he 
wiredrew ail his explanations. This, as we fay, 
was falfly applying a true rule of interpretation. 
He went on this reafonable ground, that the Pro- 
phecies fliould be interpreted like all other ancient 
Writings : and, on examining their authority^ he 


Seft. 6. of M OS E s demonjl rated, 345 

found them to be truly divine. When he had 
gone thus far. he then prepoftcroufly went back 
again, and commented as if they were confefled 
to be merely human : The confequence was, that 
feveral of his criticilms, to fpeak of them only as 
the performance of a man of learning, are lb forced, 
unnatural, and abfurd, fo oppofed to the rational 
canon of interpretation, that I will venture to 
affirm they are, in all refpecls, the worlT: that 
ever came from the hand of an acute and able 


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 what fort of man they have chofen 
for their Guide, to lead them, from their Religion, 
when they would no longer bear with any to dire6b 
them in it. 

His argument againft v/hat he calls typical^ alk- 
gorical^ but properly, fccondary fenfes, ftands thus : 
— " Chriftianity pretends to derive itfelf from 
Judaifm. Jesus appeals to the religious books of 
the Jews as prophefying of his MifTion. None of 
thefe Prophecies can be underftood of him but in 
a typical allegoric fenfe. Now that fenfe is ablurd, 
and contrary to all fcholaftic rules of interpreta- 
tion. Chriitianity, therefore not being really pre- 
didled of in the Jewifli Writings, is confequently 
falfe."" — The conteftable Propofition, on which the 
whole argument reils, is, flat a typical or allegoric 


346 'Th^ Divine Legation Book VL 

fcyife is ahfurd^ and contrary to allfcholafiic rules of in- 

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 is •, and, contrary too to his ufual way of 
reafoning, he has done it in a very clear and con- 
vincing manner •, by (hewing, that the typical and 
allegorical ^2iY oi writings was univerfally pradifed 
by Antiquity. — " Allegory (fays he) was much 
*•' in ule amongft 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, appeared abfurd in the ancient fables or hif- 
*' tories of their Gods. Religion itfelf was deemed 
" a myilerious thing amongll the Pagans^ atid not 
*' to be publicly and plainly declared. Wherefore 
" it was never fmiply reprefented to the People, 
*' but was mod obfcurely delivered, and vaii'd un- 
" dcr 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 

Se(S. 6. (y^ M o s E s demo?iJlrated, 347 

^' bolical exprefTions — The Pythagorean ^\\\\q^q. 
" phy vva3 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 treatiies 
" of heathen Philofophers on the fubjed of alle- 
^' gorical interpretation \" — 

If now this kind of allegorizing^ which involved 
the Propofition in 2. double ferlfe^ was in ufe amongft 
the pagan Oracles, Divines, Philofophers and Poets, 
is not the underftanding ancient writings allegori- 
cally^ or in a double fenfe^ agreeable to all rational, 
fcholaftic rules of interpretation ? Surely, as much 
fo as the underftanding mere metaphorical expref- 
fions in a tropical fignification •, whofe propriety no 
one ever yet called in queftion. For the fenfe of 
Fropofuions is impofed as arbitrarily as the fenfe of 
words. And if men, in the communication of 
their thoughts, agree to give, on fome occafions, 
a doudle fenfe to Propofition?^ as well as on others, 
a fingle^ the interpreting the firft 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 diftinguilli- 
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 iht Jingle fenfe of a Propofition was impoled by 
Nature ; and that therefore, giving them a double 
7neaning was the fame offence againft Realbn as the 
deviating from the unity of pure neifm into Poly- 
theifm: and, confequently, that the univerfal lapfe 

k Grounds, ^c. p. 83, S4, 85. 86. 

5 ^"^^ 

348 ^he 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 unfcholaftic 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 lafc conjeclure about his 
meaning, he abufes the terms he employs, under 
a miferable quibble ; and, by fcholaftic and un- 
fcholaftic rulesy only means interpreting in a yingle 
or a double fenfe. 

The Reader perhaps will be curious to know 
how it happened, that this great Reafoner fhould, 
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 woiKicrful to confider how little the Writers on either 
fide the queflion, have underftood of the logical propriety and 
mcrai fimfi of Types, and fecondary fen fes 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 moll efFeclually tended to 
evince this logical propriety and moral ft ne/s. 

On the other hand, Biihop Sherlock, Dr. Stebbings, and 
other advocates for Types and fecondary fenfes of Prophecy, 
lay down 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 fitnrfs, See the Free and candid Examination of 

^'jhop SherUclis Princi^leSf &c. chap. ii. 

I. He 

Seft . 6 . of Moses demcnflrated, 3 4^ 

I. He had a prefling and immediate ohje5lion to 
remove. And as he had no great flock of arcru- 
ment, and but fmall forecalt, any thing, af a 
plunge, would be received, which came to his 

The objedlion was this—" That the allegorical 
" interpretations of the Apoftles were not defio-ned 
" for abfolute proofs of Chriftianity, but for argu- 
*' ments ad homines only to the Jews, who were 
" accuHomed to that way of reafoning 

m if 

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 confcquence. 
He fays, this allegoric reafoning v/as common to all 
mankind. Was itfo .^ Then the grand Propofition 
on which his whole Work fupports itfelf, is en- 
tirely overthrown. For if all mankind ufed it, 
the method muft needs be rational and fcholafiic. 
But this he was not aware of. What kept him 
in the dark, was his never being able' to dillin- 
guifh between the use and the abuse of this 
mode of information. Thefe two things he per- 
petually confounds, 'The Pagan Oracles delivered 

themfehes in allegories \ this was the ufe : Their 

later Divines turned all their Religion into allegory ; 

this was the abufe. The elder Pythagoreans 

gave their P7^ecepts in allegory this was the 

ufe : The 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 j 
whofe honefter ignorance, joined to a good mean- 

" P^ge 79. 


350 The Divine Legation Book VL 

ing, difpofed 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 fuppoled, we may 
be fure, it would prove an effe6lual difcredit to 
Revelation, to have it feen, that there was this 
conformity between the Pagan and Jewifh 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 different reafons which induced 
the Propagators of Paganifm, and the Author 
of Judaifm to employ the fame method of infor- 
mation, are obvious to the meaneit capacity, if 
advanced but fo far in the knowledge of nature 
to know, that differeitt ends are very commonly 
prolecuted by the fame means. The Pagans alle- 
goriled in order to hide the weaknefs and abfurdi- 
ties of their national Religions ; the Author of Ju- 
daifm allegorized in order to prepare Jhis follow-, 
ers for the reception of a more perfeEl Difpenfationy 
founded on Judaifm, which was preparatory of it -, 
and, at the fame time, to prevent their premature 
rejection of Judaifm, under which they were flill to 
be long exerciled. 

Thus we fee how this formidable Enemy of our 
Faith has himfelf overturned his whole Argument 
by an unwary anfwer to an occafional obje61:ion. 
But this is but one^ of a Work full of contradidlions. 
I have no occafion to be particular, after removing 
his main Principles •, yet, for the Reader's diver- 

n See Book iv. § i. at the end. 


Sefl:. 6. of Mos ES demonjl rated, 3 5 r 

fion, I Ihall give him a tafte of them. In his 8r 

page, he fays And there has been for a long timc^ 

and is at this time as little ufe of allegory in thofe re- 
fpeBs amongft them [the Jews] as there feems to haz-e 
been during the time the books of the Old ^eflament 
were written^ which feem the mojl plain of all ancient 
Writings^ and wherein there appears not the lecfl tra<s 
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 [viz, 
in deUvering his Philofophy in myllical language] 
Pythagoras came up to Solomon's characlcr of 
wife men^ who dealt in dark fayings^ and aEled not 
?nuch unlike the moft divine Teacher that ever was. 
Our Saviour fpake with many parables^ &c. Now 
it feems, it was Solomon's charadter of wife men 
that they dealt in dark fay ings. 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 Tefi anient feem the moft plain of all 
ancient JVritings^ and wherein there appears not the 
leaft 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 Py- 
" thagorean Philofophy was wholly dehvered in 
" myllical language •, the fignification whereof was 
" intirely unknown to the world abroad, and but 
'' gradually explained to thofe of the fed, as they 
" grew into years, or were proper to be informed 
« — The Stoic Philofophers were particularly fa- 
" mous for allegorizing — We have fcveral treatifes 
" of heathen Philofophers on the fubjed of allc- 
" gorical interpretation-— And from Philofophers, 
" Platonifls and Stoics, the famous^ Origen is 
" faid to have derived a great deal cf hisfidll in 
" alleo-orizino; tlie books of the Old Tellament." 
^ This 

352 7)66? Divine Legation Book VL 

This he fays, and yet at the 94 page he tells us,— 
*' That the Apoitles, 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 v/ay 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 ufing maxims of reafon- 
** ing and difputing v/holly oppqfite to thofe of Chrif- 
** tians'' By thefe wife^ can be meant none but 
the pagan Philofophers : and thefe, according to 
our Author, were altogether given up to myitery 
and allegory. Yet St. Paul, and the reft of the 
Apoftles, who, he fays, were iikev/ife given up 
to the l^me method, could make no converts 
amongft thefe wife men. Why ? It would now 
mechinks 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 zvas becaufe the Philofophers ufed maxims of reafon- 
ing and difputing wholly oppofite to the Chrifiians, 

What now but the name and authority of Free- 
thinking could hinder fuch a Writer from becom- 
ing 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 Sane- 
tuary. But Religion arrelb them in the manner^ 
and pronounces one common d^om upon the whole 

" — Ne 


Scft. 6. of Moses demojijl rated. jr^ 

" — Ne IGNIS NOSTER facinori prasluceat, 
" Per quern colendos cenfuk Piv^tas Deos, 
" Veto ESSE TALE luminis commercium\ 

Hence the fate that attends them all, in the in- 
feparable connexion bctv^Q^n impiety and I^hmdemi^-^ 
which always follow one another as the crime and 
the punifhment. 

If it be afked then, What it is that hath fo 
llrangely prejudiced our modern Reafoners againft 
this ancient mode of information by typical and 
SECONDARY fcnfes ? I anfwer, the folly of Fana- 
tics, who have abufed it in fupporc of the mofl 
abominable nonfenfe. But how unreafonable is this 
prejudice 1 Was there ever any thing rational or 
excellent amongfl Men that hath not been thus 
abufed ? Is it any difparagement to the methcd of 
Geometers^ that fome conceited writers on Morality 
and Religion have of late taken it up, to give an 
air of weight and demonilration to the whimfies of 
pedantic, importance ? Is there no truth of nature, 
or reafonablenefs of art, in Grammatical coriftruc- 
tion^ becaufe cabaliftic Dunces have in every age 
abufed it to pervert all human meaning ? W"e 
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 

But I, from thefe ahufes would draw a very contrary 
conclufion. The rage of allegorizing in Religion 

• Fh^eJ. I. =v. Fab. lo. 

Vol. V. A a Lath 

354 ^^-^^ Divine Legation Book VL 

hath infeded all ages : Can there be a llronger 
proof that the original mode was founded in the 
common conceptions of mankind ? The Pagans 
began the ahufe -, and the peftilent infedlion foon 
Ipread amongil: the followers of true Religion. 

1. The early propagators of Paganism, in or- 
der to hide the weaknefs 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 
impofiible to fcreen the folly even of the lefs ob- 
noxious parts, from common obfervers. Their Suc- 
ceiTors therefore, to fupport its credit, went on 
where the others had left off; and allegorized 
all the traditional ilories of their Gods, into natural^ 
morale and diving Entities. This, notwithiland- 
ing the extravagance of the means, fully anfwered 
the end. 

2. The Jews ingrafted on their predeceflbrs, 
juft as the Pagans had done on theirs •, and with 
the fame fecular policy : For being pofleiTed 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 fpiriUidl meaning, which covered every 
thing that v/as a real deficiency in a Religion, which 
they confidered as perfedt and perpetual. Both 
thele forts of AUegorifcs therefore had reafon in 
tiieir rage. 

3. Afterwards came a fet of Christian Wri- 
ters, brought out from amongil J^-icj and Gentiles-^ 
and thele too, would needs be in the fafhion, and 
allegorize their Religion likewile. But with in- 

Se6l. 6. of Mo s^s demonjlrated, 355 

finitely lefs judgment than the others ; tho' alas ! 
-with equal luccefs. In their liands, the ^;7^ proved 
as hurtful to truth as the means were extravagant 
in nature. And how fhould it be otherwife in a 
Religion both divine and ferfeSl ? For in fuch an 
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 Chrifiian^ of which the Jev/iih was the ground- 
work and preparation. When therefore the Chri- 
fiian was come, thefe modes of information mufb 
needs ceafe, there being no farther occafion, nor 
indeed room, for them. As clear as this is to the 
ioweil underftanding, yet would fome primitive 
Dodlors of the Church needs contend with Jev/ifh 
Rabbins, and pagan Philofophers, in all the rage 
of allegorizing : Deaf to the voice of Rcrafon^ 
which called aloud to tell them, that thofe very 
arguments, which proved that there were, and 
muft needs be^ types a.nd fecondary fenfes in the 
OldTeflament^ proved as plainly that there neither 
were, nor could be any, in the New. Thus, to 
the inexpreflible damage of Chrillianity, they f:- 
pofed a reaf enable Service^ and a perfected 'Difpcnfa- 
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 dillinguifh between the ufe and the ahnfc. 

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 C^^ ^/ Abraham ; and to 
Types and fecondary fenfes under the JcwiQi Dil- 
penfation. All thefe fcridtly belong to the Argu- 
ment : 

A a 2 I. I^ii-i.> 

356 "The Divine Legation Book VI. 

1. Firft, as they greatly contribute to lliew the 
HARMONY of Tvuth ; and how all the parts of the 
Jewifh Difpenfation fupport and illuilrate one 

2. Secondly, as they contribute to fhevv the uni- 
formity of it; and how the Holy Spiriu, quite 
throuo-hoiit God's grand QEconomy, from his firft 
giving of the Law to the completion of it by the 
Gofpei, obferved the fame unvaried method of the 


3 . Thirdly, as they contribute to fhew the folly 
of thofe who contend that the Chriftian Dodrine 
of a Future flate was revealed to the early Jews ; 
fmce this opinion deftroys all the reafon of ^fecon- 
dary fenfe of Prophecies : and of how great impor- 
tance the reality of this fenfe is to the truth of Chri- 
ilianity 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 fhall this relation 
be certainly known, but from hence, that no fu- 
ture flate of Rewards and Punilhments is to be 
found in the Mofaic Difpenfation ^ ? So clofe a de- 

P M. BouiLLER, the ingenious Author of the Ccurt Examen 
de la Thf/p de Mr» ii' /ibhc de Prades et ObfervatioKs fur Jhii 
J'^ciogie, having charged de Frades with taking his idea of 
the iVIofaic CEcoiiomy from this Work, vvitliout owning it, 
goes on, in his own way, to lliew that the Argument of 
the Di'vifie Legation, as delivered in thefe two Volumes, is 
coKCLusivH. — ** La Loi Mofaique, confideree comme 
fondcment d'un cfcabliflement national et ttmporel, n*avoit 
que dcs promeflcs cc des menaces, ne propofoit que des peines 
dcs rccompenfes temporelles : aulieu qu'a confiderer Aj^?'«Wi?i 
■*uu€s de cet et all: Jf erne nty par rapport a V Engh/e ineme, Ja Loi 
croit unc efpece de tableau embiematique, qui fous I'enve- 
l»)£pe dcs objcts charnalsy^/zm/ /Wyy:/V;/«f/;i enforte que, en 


Scd. 6. of Mo SES demonjl rated, ^57 

pendence have all thefe important Principles on 
one another. 


raifonnant felon les principes d'ane jufle analogic, h foi des 
Ifraelites eclaircs et pieux, irouvoit dans les promefTes de la Loi, 
qui forto'ient uniquement fur les biens prefenSy un noiiveau garand 
de la certitude des biens avenir. Mais comme on doit bien fe 
fouvenir, que dans cette Nation, les Fideles ne faifoient c^e le 
PETIT NOMBRE, I'argumcnf ^e W ARBV RT ON , tire duJlUnci de 
la Lot fur une Oeconomie avenir, en faveur de la divinite de cette 
Lot memsy confcrve toute fa force j car il demeure toujours vrai 
qu'il n'a pas iallu moins que la vertu des miracles et refficace 
d'une impreffioa furnaturelle, pour faire ployer k grofs de la Isa- 
tiotiy c'ell a-dire les Juifs charnels, qui ne pcnetroient point ccs 
vues Myfterieufes, fous le joug pefant de la Difpenfation Mofa- 
ique." [p. 94-^1 '^"^ ^g?-^". " Ce double Carailere de la Dif- 
penfation Mofaique met fa divinite hors d'atteinte a tous les 
traits les plus envenimes du Deifme qui I'attaque par deux bat- 
teries oppofees. Quoi ? difent nos Libertins, une Religion qui 
promet uniquement les biens de la Terre, peut-elle ecre digne 
du Dieu ! Et lorfque, pour leur repondre, ayant recours au feus 
myllique, on dit que les promefTes Legales qui, prifes a la 
lettrs, n'oftrent qu'un bonheur temporel, doivent s'entendrc 
fpiricuellement ; ces MefTieurs fe retournent auffi-tot avec une 
nierveilletife adrefle pour vous demander comment un Oracle 
qui trompe les hommes, et qui n'a point d'nccompliflement 
dans le fens le plus clair, ie plus propre et le plus Utteral de ce 
qu'il promet, peut-etre regarde comme un Oracle divin ? 
Quellion qui dans I'hypothefe commune me paroit plus diffi- 
cile a refoudre d'une fafon fatisfaifante. Mais I'une et I'autre 
objedlion tombe, des qu'oa envifage I'ancienne CEconomie telle 
qu'elle eft ; c'eft-a-dire, tout a la fois comme Alliance nationals 
et comme CEconomie religieufe. En qualite d'AlIiance na- 
tionale, fes promefTes font toutes Charnelles, et s'accompliffent 
a la lettre a Tegard des Juifs, Mais en qualite d'CEconomie 
religieufe, ejentiellement hee au plan de l'E<vangil£y elle ell pour 
les Fidelesy Ta figure et le gage des biens fpirituals. Double- 
ment digne du Dieu de verite, et par I'accomplif'ement Utteral 
de fes promeffcsy ct par leur ufage typique, le reunion de ces 
deux rapports y annonce Touvrage de fon inlinie fagefle/* 
Addition a l' Article IV. p. 1 04,] 

Thus far this ingenious Writer. But now a difficulty will 
occur. He owns the Author of the Di-vine Legatim hath 
made oiu his point, that the Law of Mofes is from God : 

A a 3 "® 

358 7he Divine Legation Book VI, 


And now if the length of the Demonftration 
have not tired out the Reader's patience, or, to 


He contends that the Author's fyftem is the Wy o«^ that can 
iupport this Revelation againil the objedions of Deills and 
Libertines : Yet when he has done thi-:, he has thought fit to 
call this very fyftem, a Paradox ; tho* it goes upon his own 
principle, ^hat the mojaic Dijpenjation had a double charader ; 
ihtt U IV as a national JlliancBy and ^ivas at the fame time 
eJJlntiaUy wdted to the Gofjel plan ; that this double Charader 
tkd' net apprehended by the body of the 'Jenvijh People, yet n.vas woell 
uhderjiocd bv ihofe peculiar^ 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 thefe — ** Qaand Mr. de Prades a dit que TCEconomie Mo- 
faique n'etoit fpndce que fur les peines et les recompenfes tern- 
porelles, et qu'il a foutenu que cela meme fournit une bonne 
pieuve de la divinite de cette Q'.conomie, il n'a fait autre chofe 
cue fuivre la triice du favant Warburton, qui avan^a ce para- 
DOXE, 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 il/. Hockey qu'il cite pour fon garand, auioient bien du 
faire honneur a Tilluftre Dodeur Anglois, d'une penfee que per- 
fjnne ne doutera qu'ils n'ayent puifee 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 
fenfe, or that he was milled in his Judgment of the Di'vine Le- 
ga:i:n by Mr. de Trades and Mr. Hooke : Who altho' they bor- 
rowed 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 underlhnd, or at leaft have mifreprefented. The 
learned Sorbonift has fince publilhed his courfe of Theology, 
intltlcd Rcligionis naturalis et rs-velatiS Priyicipia. In which, tho' 
he has confuhed his eafe and perhaps his reputation, in tranfcrib- 
ing the reafonings of the Divine Legation on various points of 
Theology, and generally v.'ithoqt reference to the Book or the 
Author ; yet his affairs with his Body have taught him caution, 
and 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 queltion concerning the 
fantflion of the fs^vAJJ? Lu%Vj he introduces it in the following 


Scd. 6. ^ Mo s E s demonjlrated. 359 

fpeak more properly, if length of time have not 
worn out his attention to the Subjedl, it may be 
proper ( the Argument being here concluded ) 
to take a retrofpedlive view of the whole, as 
it hath been inforced in this and the preceed- 
ing Volume. For the deep Profeffor, who 
hath digelted his Theology into Summs and '^^'' 
llems, and the florid Preacher, who never fufFered 
his thoughts to expatiate beyond the limits of a 
pulpit-effay, 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 v/ere 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-worlhip. That 
indeed, at lail I fpeak a httle of the Jewiili policy \ 

manner — Qnreftionem inchoamus difficilem, in qua explicanda 
adhibenda eil iumma verborum proprieta?, ne Felagianis ex una 
parte non fatis foedus Mofaicum & Evangelicum difcriminanti- 
bus, aut contrariis recentiorum quorumdam erroribus 
favere videamur. And fo, fortifies hinifelf with Suarez aud 
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 amongll the Jews ; 
and the fecond, That temporal rewards and punilhments were 
really and equriliy diftributed amongll them under the Theo- 
cracy) juil lerve to confute one another: Or more p.operly, 
the fecond Chapter, by aid of the Arguments taken from the 
Divine Legati-jtiy efFeftually overturns all that he has advanced 
in the firli. — See M. Hooke's fecond volume of his Courfe, 
intitled, Religionis vatw alis et revelata Principioy from p. 2oS 
• |:o 236. For the rell, this juftice is due to the learned and 
ingenious Writer, that thefe Principles of natural and revea ed 
Religion compofe the bell rcafoncd Work in defence of Revela- 
tion whi^h we have yet fcen come from that quarter* 

A a 4, hu; 

360 T'he Divine Legation Book VI. 

but I foon break away from it, as from a fubjedl 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 whaif (lay they) is all this to the Divine 
Legation of Mofes ? 

Die, Pofthume I ds trihtis Capellis,^* 

To call, the Topic, I went upon, a Paradox, 
was faid, without doubt, 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 bed attention in the words of Cicero, who, 
1 believe, often found himfelf in my fituation. 
'• Video hanc primam ingreffionem miCam non ex 
On AToiiis dil'putationibus du(5lam, fed e media Phi- 
lolbphia repetitam, et earn quidem cum antiquam 
turn iubobicuiam, aut reprehensionis aliquid, 
aut certe admirationis habituram. Nam aut 
mirabantur quid h^c pertineant ad ea qu^ 
Oy^RiMus: quibus fatisfaciet res ipfa cognita, ut 
non fine caufa alte repetita videatur : aut repre- 
hendent, quod inusitatas vias indagemus, 
T r IT A s R E L I N Qu A M us. Ego autem me f^epe nova 
videre dicere intelligo cum pervetera dicam, fed 
inaudita plerifque "i." 

But as this Apology hath not anfwered its pur- 
pofe, and as the argument is indeed drawn out 
to an uncommon length ; raifed upon a great va- 
riety of fupports -, and fought out from every quar- 
ter of antiquity, -and fometimes out of corners the 
moit remote and dark, it was the lefs to be admired 
if every inattentive Reader did not fee their force 

^ Cicero, 


Seft. 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 indigeilcd and inconnedcd heap of 
difcourfes, thrown out upon one another, to dif- 
burthen a common-place. For the fatisfadlion 
therefore, of the more candid, who acknowledge 
the fairnefs of the attempt, who faw fomething of 
the progrefs of the argument, but, mifled by the 
notice of a remaining Part, negledled to purfue the 
proof to the Conclusion here deduced, 1 fliall en- 
deavour to lay open, in one plain and Hmple 
view, the whole condud of thele myfterious Yo- 

Nor fhall Inegled the other fort of Readers, tho* 
it be odds, we part again as difiatisfied with one 
another, as the Toyman of Bath and his Cuftomer. 
Of whom the itory goes, that a grave well-drefied 
man coming into the iliop of this ingenious inven- 
tor, and reliever of the diftreffes 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 befl reading-glaifes ; which when he 
had tried to no purpofe, he returned. The Toy- 
man furprifed at fo itrange a phenomenon, gravely 
aiked 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 affiftance. Now, before I bring the diflant 
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 ; but not with the 
fame ingenuity. 


362 The Divine Legation Book VI, 

In reading the Lav/ and History of the Jews, 
v;ith all the attention I could give to them, amongil 
the many circumilances peculiar to that amazing 
Dilpenfation (from feveral of which, as I conceive, 
the divinity of its original may be fairly proved) 
thefe two particulars moil forceably ilruck my ob- 
fervation, the omission of the doctrine of a 
ruTURE state, and the administration of 
AN extraordinary Providence. As unaccount- 
able as the firft circumftance appeared when con- 
fidered feparately and alone, yet when fet againft 
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. Ihe 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 always been held necefTary to 
the fupport of civil society, becaufe human 
Laws alone are ineffedual to reftrain men from 
evil, with a force fufficient to carry on the affairs of 
public regimen : and (under the common dilpen- 
fation of Providence) a future state of re- 
wards and punifhments is confelTed to be as ne- 
cefTary to the fupport of Religion, becaufe no- 
thing elfe can remove the objedions to God's 
moral Government under a Providence fo apparent- 
ly unequal ; whofe ph^enomena are apt to difturb 
the ferious profcfTors of Religion with doubts 
and fufpicions concerning it, as it is of the effence 


Sed. 6. ^ M o 8 E s demonjlrated. 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 Rsn 
PUBLIC, and incorporated them into one another, 
flands fingle amongft ancient and modern Law- 
givers, in teaching a Religion, without the /^;^r- 
tion^ or even lb much as the mention of a future 


fame Mofes, v/ith 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 ariling from thence 
became truly and eflentially a Theocracy. But 
as the Adminifiration of Government neceflarily 
follows its Form^ that before us could be no other 


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 flate of 
the cafe-, Vv'hertever the Unbeliever attempts to 
difprove, and the Advocate of Religion to fupport, 
the divinity of the Mofalc Difpenfation, the ob- 
vious queflion (if each be willing to bring it to 
a fpeedy decifion) will be, " Whether the ex- 
'' TRAORDiNARY Providence thus prophctically 
" promifed, and afterwards hiftorically recorded 
*' to be performed, was real or pretended 
" only V\ 


364 T?'^ 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- 
WARDS AND PUNISHMENTS. The argument Hands 
thus : 

If Religion be necefTary to civil Government, 
and if Religion cannot fubfift, under the common 
difpenfation of Providence, without a future ftate 
of Rewards and Punifhments, fo confummate a 
Lawgiver would never have neglected 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 deftrudlion of his 
Republic : Yet neverthelefs it flouriftied and con- 
tinued fovereign for many ages. 

Thefe two proofs of the propofition, {that an 
txtraordinary providence was really adminiftered) 
drawn from the thing omitted and the per- 
son omitting, may be reduced to the following 

I. Whatfoever Religion and Society have no fu- 
ture State for their fupport, 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, 

H. The 

Sed. 6. cf Moses det}:o7:Jlr^ted. 365 

II. The Ancient Lawgivers univerfally believed, 
that a Religion without a future State could be 
Supported 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 do6lrine of 
a future ftate) inflituted fuch a Religion ; 

Therefore Mofes believed that his Religion was 
fupported by an extraordinary Providence. 

This is the argument of the Divine Lega- 
tion J plain, fimple and convincing, in the opinion 
of the Author ; a Paradox, in the reprefenta- 
tion of his Adverfaries : Attempts of this nature 
being lliil attended with the fortune they have 
long undergone. V/illiam of Newhourg^ fpeaking 
of Gregory the VIII, tells us, that he was, " Vir 
" plane & fapientiae et vitae finccritate confpicuus, 
" 2emulationem dei habens in ommhus fecundum 
*^ fcientimn^tx.fu'perjlitiojarum conjuetudinum quarum 
" in Ecclefia per quorundam ruilicam fimplici- 
*' tatem citra Scripturarum audoritatem multi- 
*' tudo inolevit, Reprehenfor acerrimns. Unde a 
" quihufdam tninus difcretis putatus eft turbato per 
" nlmiam abftinentiam cerebro delirare." This 
curious paflage (liews what hath been, and what is 
likely to be, the fate of all oppofers of foolifli 
and fuperftitious pra6liccs and opinions, wlien 
oppofers are moft wanted, that is to fay, to be 
thought mad. Only one fees there was this dif- 
ference between lViUia??i's age and our own. In 
the time of good Gregory, they were the People of 
leafl difcretion who palTed this judgment on every 
Reformer's headpiece-, whereas in our times, they 
are the more difcreet who have made this difcovery. 



Th Divme Legation Book VL 

Our Author's adverfaries proved to be of two 
forts, Free-thinklrs 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 y nor the other, without explaining away 
the fenfe, as well as letter, of facred Scripture. 
Had it not been for this odd combination, my Be- 
monfiration of the Divine Legation of Mofes had not 
only been as firong but 2^% fhort too as any of Eu- 
clid's : whofe theorems, as Hobbes fomewhere ob- 
ferves, fhould they ever happen to be connedled 
with the pafTions and interefls of men, would 
foon become as much matter of difpute and con- 
tradidlion as any moral or theological Propoficioii 

It was not long, therefore, before I found that 
the difcovery of this important Truth would engage 
me in a full dilucidation of the three following Fro- 

1. " That inculcating the dodhrine of a future 
*' ftate of rewards and punifhments, is neceifary 
*' 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 ufe to civil Society." 

3. " That the dodrinc of a future flate of re- 
*' wards and punifhments is not to be found in, 
'' nor did make part of, the Mofaic Difpenfation." 

— Neither a fhort nor an cafy tafk. The two 
firft requiring a fevere fearch into the Religion^ the 


Se£t. 6. of Moses demoiift rated. 2(>j 

Politics and the Philofophy of ancient times : And, 
the latter, a minute examination into the nature 
and genius of the Hebrew Confiiiution, 

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 firft Syllogifm, that whatfoever Religion 
and Society have no future State for their fupport^ mujl 
hefupported by an extraordinary Providence, In or- 
der to which, the first Proposition was to be in- 
forced, That the inculcating the doctrine of a future 
Jlate of rewards and punifhmtnts is necejfary to thz 
well-being of Society, 

This is done in the following manner— By fliew- 
ing that civil Society, which was inftituted as a 
remedy againft force and injuftice, falls fhorr, in 
many inftances, of its efte6ts — as it cannot, by its 
own proper force, provide for the obfervance of 
iabove one third part of moral duties ; and, of that 
third, but imperfedly : and further, which is a 
matter of ftill greater importance, that it totally 
wants the firft, of thofe two great hinges on which 
Government is fuppofed to turn, and without 
which it cannot be carried on, namely Reward 
and Punishment. Some other coadlive power was 
therefore to be added to civil Society, to fupply its 
wants and imperfedtions. This power is fiiewn to 
be no other than Religion-, which, teaching the 
>uft Government of the Deity, provides for all the 
natural deficiencies of civil Society. But this go- 
vernment, it is fcen, can be no otherwife fuj^ 


368 The Dm?ie Legation Book VL 

ported than by the general belief of ^ future fiat e-^ 
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 difconrfe proceeds to 
remove objedions. — The Reader obferves, that 
the fteps and gradations of this capital truth ad- 
vance thus, — A future (late is necelTary 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 neceifary 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 
neceffary. 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 inflance, and a 
great Book, in the fecond, invited me to this en- 

I. The famous M. Bayle had attempted to 
prove, that Religion was not neceffary to Society ; 
and that, fimple morality^ as diflinguiflied from Re- 
ligion, might well fupply its place; which Mora- 
lity too, an Atheist might compleatly polTcfs. His 
arguments in fupport of thefe proportions I have 
carefully examined : and having occafion, when 
I came to the laft of them, to enquire into Irhe true 
foundation of Morality^ I ftacc all its pretences, 


Sed. 6. 5/" Moses demoiiflrated. 360 

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 Atheift mult be without any true foundation, 
and coniequently weak and unflablc. It had a lur- 
ther propriety, as the Religion, whofe divine ori- 
ginal I am here attempting to demonflrate, has 
founded moral obligation in Will only •, and had a 
peculiar expediency likev/ire, as it is become the 
fafliion of the times to feek for this foundation any 
where but there where Religion has placed it. 

I. But Mandeville, the Author of the Fable 
cf the Bees^ went a large ftep further; and pretend- 
ed to prove that morality was fo far from being 
neceffary to Society, that it was vice and not virtue 
which rendered ftates flourifhing and happy. This 
execrable Dodrine, that would cut away my Ar- 
gument by the roots, was preiented to the People 
with much laboured art and plaufible infinuation. 
It was neceffary therefore to confute and expofc it. 
This 1 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 firil Syllogifm : and with 
this, the firft book of the Divine Legation of Mofe^ 

II. The fecond Book begins with eftabliflKng 
the major of the fecond Syllogifm, "That the an- 
cient Lawgivers univerfally believed that a Religion 
without a future fiate could be fuppor ted only by an ex- 
traordinary Providejice. In order to which, the 
SECOND Proposition was to be inforced, That all 
mankind^ efpecially the mojl wife and learned nations 

Vol. V. B t> */ 

^^0 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 

of Antiquity^ have concurred in believing and teachings 
that the Do5frine of a future ftate was necefj'ary to 
the well-being of civil Society, 

The proof of this propofition divides itfelf Into 

two parts The conduct of the Lawgivers; 

and the opinion of the Philosophers. 

The firil part is the fubjefl of the prefect Book ; 
ss the fccond part is of tht following. 

In proving this propofition from the conduuJ of 
the Lawgivers, 1 (hew, 

1. Their care to propagate Religion in general^ 
I. As it appears from the effe&s^ the Hate of Reli- 
gion every where in the civilized World. 2. As it 
iippcars from the caufe^ fuch as their univerfal pre- 
tence to infpiration^ in order to inftil the belief of 
the Divine Superintendency over human affairs ; 
and iuch as their univerfal praftice in prefacing their 
Laws^ in order to eftablifli the belief of that Su- 
perintendency. And here it Ihould be obferved, 
that in proving their care to propagate Religion in 
general^ I prove their care to propagate the doctrine 
of 2i future fiat e of Rewards and Punifiments \ fince 
there never was a formed Religion in the World, 
the Jewifh excepted, of which this Doclrine did 
not make an eflential part. 

2. But I fliew in the fecond place, their care to 
propagate this Doctrine^ with more than common 
attention and affiduity. And as the moil effectual 
method thev employed to this end was, the infti^ 
tution of the Mysteries, a lar^e account is g-i- 
ven of their rife and progrcfs, from Egypt into 
Greece, and from thence, throughout the civilized 
world. I have attempted to difcover the AIIOP- 


Seft. 6. ^ Moses dcmonflraud. -^yi 

PHTA, or hidden du6lrines of tlicfc Myilcrics, 
whicli were the Unity of the Godhuad and 
the error of the grosser Polytheism, niuncly, 
the IVorpoip of dead men^ deified, Tliis dlJcovery 
not only confirms all that is advanced, conctrninrr 
the rile, progrels, and order of the feveral fpecies's 
of Idolatry, but clears up and redlifies much em - 
barras and milbke even of the moft celebrated 
Moderns, fuch as Cudwortb^ bulling fleet ^ Pridcaux^ 
Newton,, &c. who, contrary to the tenure of Holy 
Scripture, in order to do imaginary honour to Re- 
ligion, have ventured to maintain, t'lat the one 
true God was generally known and worjhiped in the 
Pagan JVor Id ', for, finding many, in divers coun- 
tries, fpeaking of the one true God, they conclud- 
ed, that he muft needs have a national V/orJlnp. 
Nov/ the Difcovery of the dTropfviroc of the Mjfltries 
enables us to explain the perfed confiiiency be- 
tween facred and prophane Antiquity ^ which Ict't 
to fpeak for themfelves concur to inform us of 
this plain and confident truih, " 7'hat 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 myllerious Rites; while, 
in the Land of Jud^a alone, he hr.d d.puhlic arJ 
national V/orfloip'^ For to the Hebrew People 
alone, (as Eufebius exprefies it) was refcr'ved the 
honour of heing initiated into the knowledge of the 
Creator of all things. And of this difference, God 
himfelf fpeaks by the Prophet, — I have not fpokcr\ 
IN secret, in a dark place of the earth'. 
And the holy Aporde Paul informs us of t!ie confe^ 
quence of that myfierious manner of teaching the 
true God amongft the Pagan nations, that v/Iicn, 

' Ifaiah xlv. 19, 

B b 2 by 

^72 ^he 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 fix th 
Book of Virgil's jEneis \ and another on the meta- 
morphojls of Apuleius. The firfl of which books, 
is Ihewn to be one continued defcription of the 
Eleiifinian Myfieries ; and the other to be purpofe- 
ly written to recommend the ufe and eiiicacy of 
the Pagan Myfieries in general. 

And here the attentive Reader will obferve, 
that throughout the courfe of this whole argument, 
on the condud of 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 fubferrient to the 7ninor 
of the fecond Syllogifm ; that Mofes, tho' learned in 
all the Wifdom of Egypt, yet injlituted the Jeivijk 
Religion and Society "jiithout a future State, 

From this, and from what has been faid above of 
MORAL OBLIGATION, the intelligent Reader will 
perceive, that, throughout the Divine Legation^ I 
have all along endeavoured to feledt for my pur- 
ppfe fuch kind of arguments, in lupport of the 
particular queftion in hand, as may, at the fame 
time, illuilrate the truth of Revelation in general^ 
or ferve as principles to proceed upon in the pro- 
grefs of the prefent Argument. Of which, will be 
given, as occafion ferves, feveral other inftances 
in the courfe of this review. — And now liaving 
ihev/n the LegiQators care x.o propagate Religion in 

* Rom. i. 21. 


Seft. 6. ^ Moses demon/lrated. 373 

general, and the Doftrine of a future flatc of Re- 
wards and Punilliments 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 neceliiiry fupporc to civil 
Society itfelf. 

1. The firfl: inflance of this care was, as we 
fhew, their ESTABLISHING A national Religion, 
prctecied hy the Laws of the State^ in all places 
where they were concerned. But as Men, igno- 
rant of /r«^ Religion, could hardly avoid tailin^into 
miftakes in contriving the mode ox this Ejh?Mrjh- 
ment, I have therefore (the fubjedl of my V/ork 
being no idle fpeculation, but fuch a one as affeds 
us in our highefl: interefls, as Men and Citizens) 
attempted to deliver the true Theory of the Alliance 
between Church and State, as the belt defence of 
the juftice and equity of an established Reli- 

2. The fecond inflance of their care, I fhew to 
have been the allowance of a general tolera-* 
TiON ; which as it would, for the like reafon, be 
as imperfedly framed as an Eftahliftjrnent, I have 
ventured to give the true Theory of that likewife. 
The ancient Lawgiver contrived to eftablijh 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 Ikke of its influence. — Difcourfing upon this 

B b 3 Subjed, 

374 ^^^^^ Divme Legation Book VL 

Subje6u, I was naturally led to vindicate true Reli- 
gion from an afperiioQ of Infidelity : Where, I 
iliew, that the nrll perfecution for Religion was 
not that which was coriimitted^ but that which was 
undergone by the Chriftian Church : And that the 
ill fucctfs attending its propagation amongft barba- 
rous Nations in our limes, is altogether owing to 
the prepouerous nietiiod employed for that pur- 
pofe. — And v^^ith this, the fecond Book of the 
JDivine Legation concludes. 

III. The third Book goes on in fupporting \!i'\Q 
MAjon of the fecond Syllogifm, by the opinions of 
the Philosophers. For as the great wafle and 
ravages of time have dellroyed n^iOll oi the iVIonu- 
ments of ancient Legijlation^ I held it not impro- 
per to ftrcngthen my pofition of the fenfeof their 
JLaw givers, by that of their Sages and Philofo- 
phers. In this is fliewn, 

I. From their own words, the convI(5lion they 
in general had of the neceffity of the dodlrine of 
a future ft ate of Rezvards and Punijhnents to civil 
focitty. Knd^ to fet this convidfion in the ftrongeft 
light, I endeavour to prove, that even fuch of 
them (viz.. the feveral fedts of Grecian Philofo- 
piiers) who did not believe e future flate of Re^ 
wards and PurJjhne?its^ did yet, for the fake of So- 
ciety, dili(;c;itiy teach and propagate it. — That 
they taughi it, is confefled ; that they did not believe 
it, was my bufmcrs to prove : which I have done by 
fh.wing, I. J' they all thought it lawful to 
fay one thing and think another. 2. That they 
confcnntly pradifed what they thus thought to be 
lawful : and, 3. That they pradlifed it on the 
very D ;dh*ine in queftion. — To explain and verify 
the two firit of thele alicrtions, I had occafioa 


Se>^. 6 . of Moses demciijlrated, 3 7 r 

to inquire into the rile, progrcfs, perfcdion, de- 
cline, and genius of the ancient Greek Philofcphy^ 
under all its leveral divifions. In which, (as its rile 
and progrefs are (hewn to have been from Evypt) 
ftill more materials are laid in for inforcin_^ the 
^/zf/^^rpropofition^of the fecond Syllogilm.—rthen 
proceed to a more particular inquiry into the fenti- 
ments of each fed of Philofophy, on this point ; 
and fhew, from the character and genius of each 
School, and from the Writings of each man, that 
none of them did indeed believe tlie Do6lrine of 
a future Jlate of Rewards and Punifliments. At the 
fame time it appears, from almoft every proof 
brought for this piirpofe, that they all thouglit ehe 
Dodrine to be of the higheft utility to the State. — 
Here, in examining the philofophy of PyxHAGO- 
RAS, the fubje<5l led me, to confider his fo cele- 
brated Metempfychofts-, in which, I take occafion 
to fpcak of the origin of the Pagan Fables^ and 
the nature of the Metamorphofis of Ovid ^ here lliewn 
to be a Popular Hiflory of Providence, very regular- 
ly and artfully deduced from the moil early times 
to his own : PVom the whole I draw this conclulion, 
*' that Pythagoras, who fo feduloully propagated 
this fpecies of a future ftate of Rewards and Pu- 
nifhments {th^ Metempfyckofis) that he was thouglic 
by fome to be author of it, confidered it only as 
a commodious Fable to reftrain the unruly po^ 

2. To fupport this fddiy it is (hewn, in the next 
place, that thefe Phiiofophers not only did not^ but 
that they could not poflibly believe the Dodrine of a 
future ftate of Rewards and Punifhments, becaufe 
the belief of it contradided two Metaphyfical prin- 
ciples univerfally held and believed by them, con- 
ixrning the nature of God and of the Soul j which 
B b 4 were. 

376 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 

were, that the Deity could not hurt any one ; and that 
the foul was part of the fuhftance of the Deity ^ and re- 
folvable again into him. In explaining and verifying 
thc^ir reception of this latter principle, I take oc- 
cafion to fpeak of its original ^ which, I prove, 
was Grecian and not Egyptian-^ as appears from 
the genius and charader of the two Philofophies; 
tho' the fpurious books going under the name of 
Hermes^ but indeed Vv^ritten by the later Platonifls, 
would perfuade us to the contrary. The ufe of 
this inquiry like wife (i. e. concerning the origin of 
this principle) will be feen when we come to fettle 
the charaiier of Mofes^ as aforefaid. — But, with 
regard to the belief of the Philofophers on both 
points, befides the direct and principal ufe of it, for 
the fupport of the major of the ilcond 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-, the other, to illuftrate the truth of 
Revelation in general. For, ift, it will be a fuf- 
ficient anfwer to that fohition of the Deiils, (to be 
confidered hereafter) that Mofes did not teach the 
DoElrine of a fut^ure jlatc hecaufe he did not believe it^ 
fince it is fhewn by the ftrongell evidence, that 
the not believing a dodtrine fo ufeful to Society^ 
was efteemed no reafon why the Legiflator ihould 
not propagate it. 2. It is a convincing proof of 
the expediency of the Gofpelof Jefus, that the fages 
of Greece, with whom all the wifdom of the Wife 
was fuppofed to be depofited, had philcfophifed 
rhemfelves out of one of the moll evident and ufe- 
ful truths with which mankind has any concern ; 
and a fuW jufiijjcaticn of the feverity with which 
the holy Apoftles aKvays fpeak of the Philofophers 
and the Philofophy of Greece^ fmce it is hereby ieen to 
be dircdled only againfl thefe pernicious principles ; 


Seft. 6. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated, 377 

and nor, as 'Deifts and Fayiatks concur to re])re- 
fent it, a condemnation of human learning in gene- 

3. But as now, it might be objedted, « that by 
this reprefentation, we lole on the one hand what 
we gain on the other ; and that while we (liew the 
expediency of the Gofpel, we run a rifque of difcrcdit- 
ing iisreafonabknejs'y for that nothing can bear har- 
der upon this latter quality, than that the beft and 
wifeft perfons of Antiquity did not beheve that 
which the Gofpel was fent to propagate, namely the 
Do6trine of a future ftate of Rewards and Punifh- 
ments." As this, I fay, might be objeded, we have 
given (befides explaining on what abfurd princi- 
ples their unbelief reded) a further anfwer-, and, to 
fupport this anfwer, fliewn, that the two extremes 
into which Divines have ufually run, in reprcfenting 
the ftate and condition of revealed Religion^ are at- 
tended with great and real mifchiefs 10 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 flitws 
natural Reafon to be clear enough to perceive truth, 
and the necelfary dedudlions from it when propofedy 
but not generally y?/'C7i!o- enough to difcover it. He, 
who of aii the Pagan World beft knew its force, 
and was in that very ftate in which only a true judg- 
ment could be pLiffed, has with the greatcft inge- 
nuity confefTed this trurh, *' Nam neque tam eft 
** acris acies in naturis hominum et ingeniis, ut 
'^ res tantas quifquam, nifi nionftratus pofTit viderc; 
" neque cunta tamen in rebus oblcuritas, ut eas 
*' peritus acri vir ingenio cernat, fi modo afpexerit." 
In explaining this matter, it is occafionally fliewn, 
that the great and acknowleged fuperiority of the 
modern Syftems of Beiftical Morality above the 
ancient, in point of excellence, is entirely owing 


3^8 The Divine Legation Book VI. 

to the unacknowledged, ind perhaps unfufpeded, 
aici of Revelation. 

Thus the Reader fees, in what manner we have 
endeavoured to prove the major Propositions of 
the two Syilogifms, that zvhatfoever Religion and 
Socitty have no future State for their Jupp or t^ muft he 
fupported by an extraordinary Providence. And that. 
The amient Lavugivers umverfally believed., that a 
P.eli<^ion ^without a future State could be fupported only 
hy an eyJracrdinary Providence. For having fhewn, 
that Religion and Society were unable, and be- 
lieved to be unable to fupport themfelves under an 
ordinary Providence., without a future State -, if 
they were fupported without that Doftrine, it 
could be, and could be believed to be, only by an 
extraordinary Providence. 

But now as the proof is condu61:ed through a long 
detail cf circurrjftances, ihewing the ahfolute fiecef- 
Jityoi Religion to civil Society, and the fenfe which 
all the wife and lean.ed amongft the ancients had 
of that necefiiiy; left this fhould be abufed to 
countenance the idle and impious Conceit that Re- 

concluded the third Book and the Volume 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 n-en in a paradoxical humour, have often 
reafoned-, fuch as Bayle, Plutarch, and Bacon : 
Their arguments are here examined: And the 


iSeft. 6. ^ M o s E s demonfirated, 379 

Mafter fophifm^ which runs through the reafonin^ 
of all three, is detedled and expofed. 

2. Falfe-, for that, in fa6l. Religion cxx^Cftd be- 
fore the civil Magiftr ate was in being. In proving 
this point, the matter led me to fpeak of the origin 
of Idolatry -, to diftinguilli the feveral fpccies of it-, 
to adjuft the order in which they arofe out of one 
another ; and to detedt 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.) And becaufe the rage of allegorising had 
fpread a total confufion over all this matter, The 
origin, and progrefs of the folly, and the various 
viev/s of its fedtators in fupporting it, are here ac- 
counted for and explained. 

But my end and purpofe in all this, was not 
barely to remove an objedion againft the Truths 
delivered in this place, but to prepare a reception 
for tho'fe 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 fubjedl- matter of the first Volume 
of the Divine Legation : which, as it was thought 
proper to publifh feparately, I contrived Ihould nut 
only contain a part^ of that general Argument, 
but fhould likewile be a compleat Treatife of it- 
feif, eftabliiliing one of the mod important Truths 
v/ith which Man has any concern; namely, the 
necessity of Religion for the support of 
CIVIL Government. And if, in fupport of this 
truth, 1 have entered into a long detail of fome 


jSo T^he Divifie Legation Book VI. 

capital articles of Antiquity, I prefumc I fliall not 
need an apology. 


We come now to the second Volume of the 
Divine Legation^ which is en:iployed in proving the 
MINOR Proposition of the two Sylloglfms ; the 
iirft, that the Jewifi Religion and Society had no future 
fi ate for their fupport : the other,, that Mofes^ an an- 
cient Lawgiver^ and learned in all the Wifdom of Egypt ^ 
purpofely iiftituted fuch a Religion^ in order to which 
the THIRD general proposition was to be in- 
forced \ That the Dotlrine of a future fiate of Re- 
vj'ards and Punifhtnents 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. T'hefe^ 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 
rcalbn of the thing ; the fads brought to prove 
the do6lrine to be omitted, do, at the fame time, 
accidentally fhew that the OmifTion was defigned : 
And the reafons brought to prove the ufes in a de- 
figned omiflion, neceffarily fhew that the Dodrine 
was omitted. 

To proceed therefore with the fubjedl of the 
SECOND Volume. 

IV. I jufl before obferved, that the conclufion 
of the firft Volume, which deteded the abfurdity 
and falfity of the Atheiflic Principle, that Reli- 
gion "joas an invention of Politicians^ and a creature of 
the fiate J opened the v;ay to a fair inquiry whether 


Se<a. 6. of Mo^ES, dmonflrated. 381 

its true original was not as well from Revelation 
as from natural Reason. 

In the introdudlion therefore to this fecond Vo- 
lume, I took the advantage which that opening af- 
forded me, of lliewing that the univerfai pretence 
to Revelation proves fome Revelation mud be true : 
That this true Revelation muft have fome charac- 
teriftic marks to diftinguifh it from the falfe : And 
that thefe marks are to be found in the Inititutions 
of Moses. 

But this was only by way of introdunion ; 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- 
cumflances 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 zvifdcm of 
Egypt, purpofely injiituted fuch a Religion. To 
evince thefe truths with fuHicient evidence, the 
nature of that Inftitution v/as to be firtl underilood ; 
which, again required a general knowledge, at 
lead, of the manners and genius of the Hebrew 
People-, 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 fate of Egyptian 
fuperftition and learning in that early period. 

I. In order to this, the following propofition Is 
advanced, that the Egyptian learning cdekatcd in 


382 7^^ Divine Legatim Book VL 

Scripture^ and the Egyptian fuperftition there condemn- 
edy were the very learning and ftiperftilion reprefented 
hy the Greek Writers as the honour and opprobrium of 
that kingdom. Where I firft ftate the queflion ^ and 
then (hew the equal extravagance of each of thofe 
two parties amongtl the learned, who have been 
accuftomed to advance or to deprefs the high anti- 
quity of Egypt. 

I. I corroborate the Propofitlon, 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- 
Itances regarding the peculiar fituation of the land 
of Eo-ypt. And here the ohje5fions of the author 
of the Sacred and Propha?ie Hijtory of the World con- 
necfedy frightened by the common panic of the 
high antiquity of Egypt, are confuted and ex- 

Secondly, by Reason, in an Argument drawn 
from the nature, origin and various ufes 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 afTigned but this, that they were appli- 
ed to the fame purpofe before. Now letters were 
in ufe amongftthem before the time of Mofes. 

2. Again, it is ihewn that the Onirocritics bor- 
rowed their art of deciphering dreams from hierogly- 
phic Symbols: but hieroglyphic Symbols were the 
myfterious vehicle of the civil fcience and of the 
Theology of the Egyptians. Now Onirocritiq 


Sc6l. 6. ^ Moses demonjl rated. ^Sj 

or the art ot interprtting of dreams was practiicd 
in the time of Joleph. 

cj. And again, It is fhewn that animal-worship 
in Egypt arofe from the myfterious ufe of the 
fame hieroglyphic Symbols, Now a n i m a l ■ wo r s h 1 1> 
was eftablillied amongll them before the time of 


From all this, it appears, that Eovpt was of that 
high antiquity which Scripture and the beli: Greek 
Writers concur to reprefrii: it. By which, we come 
to underftand wh.:L- were xhtfpecific manners and fu^ 
perftitions c: Egypt in the time of Mofes •, thcfe 
being, as it now appears, ideiiLically the lame \\\i\\ 
what i!'C Greek Writers have delivered to us. 

In the courfe of this proof from Reafon, which 
opens at large the nature, origin, and variou.^ 
kinds of Egyptian Hieroglyphics, 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 wcrds and a^:ion\ 
and fiievv how speech and writing ran parallel in 
their progrcfs •, and influenced, and were influenced 
by, one another. On the lame 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 queilion 1 am here upon, but like- 
wife in fupport of one quelfion preceding, and or 
one which is to follow. 

For in the hifliory of the various modes of ajwiotl 
fommunication was laid, as t.he Reader will And, the 


3S4 716^ Divine Legation Book VL 

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 neceffary fupple- 
ment to what had been faid before on the fame fub- 
ie6l, in the latter end of the third Book, againft 
t\\Q Atheifl's pretended origin of Religion. 

So ftudious have I been to obferve, what a great 
•mailer of Reafon lays down as the rule and tefi of 
good order in Compofition, 'That every former part 
may give flrength to all that follow , and every latter 
bring light unto all before % 

But the high antiquity of Egypt^ tho' proved 
from Antiquity itfelf, feemed not to be enough fe- 
cured, while the authority of one great modern re- 
mained entire, and his reafonings unanfwered. 

In the next place, therefore, I examine Sir Isaac 
Newton's Chronology of the Egyptian Empire-^ a 
Chronology ereded on the fuppofed identity ofOfiris 
and Sefoftris ^ which is a fancy that not only con- 
tradids ?i\\facred2iS well as prophane antiquity, but, 
what is ftill more, the very nature of thiyigs. 

In the courfe of this confutation, the caufes of 
that endlefs confufion in the early Greek hiftory and 
Mythology y are inquired into and explained: Which 
ferves, at the fame time, to confirm and illuilrate 
all that hath been occafionally faid in the latter end 
of the third book, and, here again, in this fourth^ 
concerning— the origin and progrefs of Idolatry, 
— the g<:nius of Pagan Religion, — the Gentile 

* Hooker, 


Scd. 6. of MosKs demonjirated. 3 8 r 

modes of worihip, — and their Theological opi^ 

Thus far concerning /^<r^/^y& antiquity of Egypt. 
Which, befides the immediate purpofe of leading 
us into the true idea of the JewiJ/j Injtituticn in 
general, hath thefe further ufes : 

We have feen in the foregoing Volume, that 
Egypt, as it was mod famed tor the arts of legifla- 
tion, fo it moll of all inculcated the dodbrine of a 
future flat e of Rewards and PunifJjments. Now, if 
Egypt were indeed of the high antiquity here af- 
figned unto it, that dodlrine mufl needs be of na- 
tional belief, at the time the Hebrews lived there 
jn flavery. But then they having, as we find in 
Scripture, thoroughly imbibed the religious no- 
tions of the place, mud 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 a6led only by human diredion, 
have, in imitation of his Mafters, taken advantage 
of this favourable prejudice to make the do6lrine 
of a future flate the grand Sanction of his Reli- 
gion and Law. 

Again, the proof of the Ingh Antiquity of Egypt^ 
was neceflary to vindicsLZ^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 Ifaac Newton's CHRONOLocr 
afforded them tiie aid they wanted : And while 
it offered itfelf in fupport of the Biile-diiin 0', 

Vol. V, C c t kv 

386 ^he Divine Legation Book VL 

they feemed little attentive to the liberties it had 
taken with the Bible-hijicry, 

2. In order to bring on this Truth of the high 
antiquity of Egypt nearer to my purpole, I pro- 
ceeded to they^c^;/^ Propofition. That thejewifi 
People were extremely fond of Egyptian manners^ and 
did frequently fall into Egyptian fuperfiitions : ajtd that 
many of the Laws given to them by the minijlry of 
Mofes were inftituted partly in compliance to their pre- 
judices^ and partly in oppofttion to thofe fuperfiitions. 
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 ; and 
through the proof of the fecond, is deduced a 
demonfiration that it was adlually 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 Miflion, 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 
conftruftion of their civil and religious Inftitutions, 
all poflible curbs to diforder : Now of all fuch 
curbs, the dodlrine of a future fiate was ever held 
the chief in ancient policy \ and as this dodlrine 
was fo peculiarly Egyptian, they muft needs have 
the moil favourable prejudice towards it. 

But then, as it might perhaps be objefted, that 
while I am endeavouring to get this way, into the 
interior of the Jewifh Conftitution, I open a back 
door to the ravages of Infidelity : it was thought 


Se(fl. 6. of Mosses demonjlrated, 387 

necefTary, in order to prevent the Deift's taking 
advantage of the great Truth contained in the 
preceding Propofition, fwhich is the lecond) to 
guard it by the following, (which is the tliird) 
viz. T^hat Mofes's Egyptian Learnings and the Lwws 
inftituted in compliance to the Peoples prejudices^ are 
no reafo?mhle ohjeuiion to the divinity of his Mijfion. 
Where, in explaining the fir'ft part^ which flicws 
what this learning was, and how well it fuited 
with Mofes's MifTion, 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 Itrength and fupport 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 
compliance to popular prejudices is no reafonable 
objedion 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 JEgyptiaca, that Book having been 
publickly recommended by Dr. IVaterlandy for a 
diftin^ and f olid confutation of Spencer's De Legibus 
Hehraorum ritualibiis. 

And the anfwer to Witfius's lad argument bring- 
ing into queflion the intrinfic value of the ritual 
Law, the famous charadler of it given by the 
Prophet EzEKiEL, of ftatutes that were not good, 
and judgments whereby they fliould not live — is ex- 
plained in a large analyfis of the whole Prophecy^ 
C c 2 agami'b 

388 "The Divine Lcgciicn Book VI. 

acrainft an old foolifl:i notion revived by Dr. Shuck- 
ford, that thefe SiatiUes and Judg7neni5 here faid to 
be giien by God, were the Pagan Idolatries^ which, 
in defiance of God, they took without kave. 

But I go yet further in fupport of the fourth 
Propofition, and prove, th^ittbefevery circumjiances 
efMcfes's Egyptian Learnings and the Laws inftituted 
in compliance to the People* s prejudices ^ are a ftrong 
€cnfirraation of the divinity of his Miffion. 

ift, For, that one bred up in the arts of Egyp- 
tian Legiflaiion couki never, on his own head, have 
thought of reducing an unruly people to govern- 
ment, on maxims of Religion and Policy, funda- 
mentally 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 vvorihip of the 
cue true God only^ and omitted the dotlririe of a fu^ 
ture fiats of Rewards and PunifJjmentSy in the inftitu- 
tion of his Law and Religion. 

2dly, For, that One v^hofalfely pretended to re- 
ceive the whole frame of a national Conftitution 
from God, would never have rifqued his preten- 
fions by a ritual Law, which the people might fee 
was politically inftituted, partly in compliance to 
their prejudices, and partly in oppofition to Egyp- 
tian fuperftitions. 

Here, all the imaginable motives are mc|uired 
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 infuff^cicnt to induce a 


S6{k. 6. 5^^ M o s E s dcmo^ftrated. 389 

wife Legiflator thus to ad. —In conclufion, it is 
made apparent, that a ritual^ contrived to oppofe to 
the reigning fiifcrftitions \ and, at the iiune time, to 
prefigure^ by its typical nature^ all the eilcntial parts 
of a future Difpenfation, contains a llrong inter- 

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 exadtly of 
xh^ 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. 

I. The fifth Booki therefore, comes dill nearer 
to the point, and fhews, that the Government in- 
ftituted by Mofes, was a Theocracy, properly 
fo called, where God himfelf was the fupreme 
civil Magiftrate. It begins with afTigning and fet- 
tling the true reafon of the feparation of the pof- 
terity of Abraham from the reft of mankind ; — 
becaufe this feparation has been greatly mifunder- 
ftood — but principally becaufe the true realbn of 
the feparation leads us into the ufe and nece iruy 
of a kheocratic form of Government. 

In evincing this necefTity, the juftice of the Lavy 
for punifhing Idol-worfhip capitally^ under a Theo- 
cracy, is explained : And becaufe the Deift hath 
been accuftomed to urge this Lazv again ft 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 ^ddine ftrength and fupport to what hath been 

390 The Divine Legation Book VI. 

faid on the fubjedl of Toleration, in the fecond 
Book •, as it does at prefent, viz. To confirm the 
reality of this neocrac)\ v/hich a celebrated diflent- 
ing Minifter has prepofleroufly gone out of his way 
to bring in queflion : whofe reafoning^ therefore, is . 
examined and expofed. 

2. This Theocracy, thus proved to be necef- 
far}\ was likewife, of the moft eafy introduftion, 
as I have fhewn from the notions and opinions of 
thofe times, concerning tutelary 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- 
llitution, fome charaderiftic 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 neceffary 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 chara^teriftic note, againil his idle at- 
tempt to prove, that the Pagans, likewife, were 
accuftomed to build one pretended Revelation on 

:?. I proceed, in the next place, to fliew, tJiat 
thofe prejudices which made the introdu^ion of a 
Theocracy fo eafy^ occafioned as eafy a defection 
from it. In which, I had occafion to explain the 
nature of the ivorfhip of tutelary Gods -y and of that 


Se<a. 6. cf Mo s'ES dcrnonJ}rated, 391 

Idolatry wherewith the Ifraelices were fo obdinate- 
iy befotted. 

Both of which Difcourfes fcrve thefe further pur- 
pofes : the former^ to fupport and explain wiiat 
hath been faid in the fecond Book concernino- the 
Pagan inter commu7iity of worfljip : and the/^z//^r, (be- 
fides a peculiar ule to be made of it in third 
Volunie) to obviate a popular objrdtion of Un- 
believers ; wh'o, from this circun^ftance, of the 
perpetual defedlion of the Ifraelitt-s into idola- 
try, would infer, that God's Diipenlation to them 
could never have been foconvidive as their Hillory 
reprefents it; the Objedlors having taken it for 
granted, on the allowance of Believers, that this 
Idolatry confided in renouncmg the Law of Mo- 
fes, and renouncing it as diffitisfied with its truch. 
Both which fuppolitions are here (liewn 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 defedt and 
politicakinability in the Law, as fhews its pretence 
to a divine original to be an impodure. 

4. The nature of the Theocracy, and the cir- 
cumdances attending its ereEiion being thus ex- 
plained, we come next to inquire concerning its 
duration. Here we diew, that, in drift truth and 
propriety, it fubdded throughout the whole period 
of the Jewidi (Economy, even to the coming of 
Chrid: In which difcourfe, the contrary opinions, of 
an earlier abolition, are all confidercd and confut- 
ed, and the above truth fupported and edabliflied. 
In the courfe of this reafoning, it is diewn, that the 
famous Prophecy of Jacob, of the Sceptre' s^ not de- 
parting from Judah till the caning of Sbilob, is a pro- 
mife or declaration of the exidence of tlie The- 


392 'The Divine Legation Book VI; 

ocRACY 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 fhewn to be 
erroneous. And the laft of them being one bor- 
rowed by Dr. Sherlock, Bifhop of London, and 
received into his Book of the Ufi and Intent of Pro- 
fhec)\ is particularly dilculTed. 

The ufe to be hereafter made of the duration of 
■the theocracy to the coming of Chrijl^ is to i n force,- 
by this circumilance, amongft many others, the 
CONNEXION between the two Religions : a truth, 
though too much negleded, yet incumbent on 
eveiy rational Defender of Revelation to fup- 

The Argument then proceeds to a confideration 
of the peculiar confequences attending the admin^- 
Itration of a Theocracy, which brings us yet nearer 
ro^ur point. Here it is fliewn, that one neceffary 
confecjMcnce was an extraordinary Providence, 
And agreeably to this deduction from the nature 
of thiyigs^ we find, that holy Scripture does, infadl^ 
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 RutherforDj 
are occafionally removed and difperfed. But the 
attentive Reader will obferve, that my Argument 
does not require me to prove more in this place, 
than that holy Scripture represents an extraordi- 
:iary Providence to have been adminiftered. The 
proof of its real Adminillration is eftablilhed by 
the MEDIUM of my Thefis, the omiffion of, the Doc- 


Seft. 6. ofiAo^^^ dcinovflrated. 395 

trine ^ of a future flate of Reivards and Tumjlrrnents. 
Which anlwers all objcdions as to onr inadequate 
conceptions of fuch an aciininifbraticn ^ as well as 
to certain paHages of Scripiure that Iccm to clalli 
with its general repixTentation of it. Yet both 
thefe fort of objedions are, however, toniiJcred 
ex abundanti. 

As important as the fad is, to ourprefcnt pur- 
pofe of an extraordinary Providence thus repre- 
fented, it has ftill a further uie, when employed 
amongfl thofe diftinguifhing raarks of the truth of 
Mofes's divine Million in general : for it lhcv;s 
us, the unnecefTary trouble and hazard to which 
he expofed himfelf had that Mifiion been feio-n- 
ed. Had he, like the reft of the ancient Law- 
givers, only pretended to infplraUov.^ he had tl^.en 
no occafion to propagate the belief of an extra- 
ordinary Providence *, a Bifpenfation io eafy to be 
confuted. But by deviating from their pradice* 
and announcing to his People, that their tutelary 
God was become their King, lie laid himfelf under 
a neceflity of teaching an extracrdinray Froiidence ; 
a dead weight upon an Impoftor, which nothing 
but downright folly could have brought him to 

To proceed. After having laid this flrong and 
neceflary Foundation, we come at length directl^^ 
to the point in queftion. If the Jewifli Govern- 
ment wTre a Theocracy, adminiftered, as it 
muft be, by an extraordinary Prcvidcnce^ 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 
^he Jewilh Government conduced us : and it is al- 


394 ^'^^ Dhme Legation Book VI, 

moil 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 flate of Rewards and Punifhments^ which 
could not, from the nature of things, be the Sanc- 
tion of the Jewifh CEconomy, was not \nfa5l con- 
tained in it at all : nay further, that it was pur- 
posely OMITTED by the great Lawgiver. This 
is proved from feveral paflages in the Book of G^;/^- 
Jis and the Law, 

And here, more fully to evince, that Mofes, who, 
it is feen, fludioufly omitted the mention of it, was 
well apprifed of its importance, I fhew, that the Pu- 
nishment OF Children for the sins of their 
Parents was brought into this Inftitution purpofe- 
]y to rford fome advantages to Government, which 
the Doctrine of a future flate ^ as it is found in all 
other Societies, amply fupplies. This, at the fame 
time that it gives further ilrength to thepofition of 
no future fiate in the Mofaic Bifpenfation^ gives the 
Author a fair occafion of vindicating the jultice and 
equity of the Law of funifhing Children for the fins 
of their Parents \ and of proving the perfed agree- 
ment between Moses and the Prophets Ezekiel 
and Jeremiah, concerning it ; which hath been, in 
all ages, the ftumbling-block of Infidelity. 

But we now advance a Hep further, and fhew, 
that as Mofes did not teach, yea forbore to teach 
the Do6lrine 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 


Se(S. 6. cf Mo SE s demojijlrated. 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 Mofcs 
to the great Captivity -, not only the hiftory of 
public occurrences, but the lives of private per- 
fons of both ^tx^s^ and of all ages, conditions, 
charaders and complexions ; in the adventures of 
virgins, matrons, kings, foldiers, Icholars, parents, 
merchants, huibandmen. They are given too in 
every circumftance of life ; captive, viftorious, in 
ficknels and in health ; in full fecurity and amidft 
impending dangers; plunged in civil bufincfs, or 
retired ana fequeilered in the fervice of Rehgion. 
Together v;ith their (lory, we have their compofi- 
tions likewife : in one place we hear their trium- 
phal ; in another, their penitential ilrains. Plere 
we have their exultarions for blelTings received ; 
there, their deprecations of evil apprehended: Here 
they urge their moral precepts to their contempora- 
Yies\ and there again, they treafure up their Pro- 
phecies ♦ and Predictions for the ufe of Poftrrity ; 
and on each, denounce the threatenings and pro- 
mifes of Heaven. Yet in none of thefe different 
circumftances of life; in none of thefe various cads 
of compofition, do we ever find them a6ling on 
the motives, or influenced by the profpc6l, of a 
FUTURE STATE I or indeed, expreffing the leall 
hopes or fears, or even common curiofity, con- 
cerning it : But every thing they do or fay, re- 
fpefls the prefent life only ; the good and ill of 
which are the fole objeds of their purfuits and 

The ftrength of this argument is flill further 
fupported by a view of the general hiftory of Man- 
kind : and particularly of thole nations molf re- 


396 The Divine Legation Book VL 

fcmbiing the JewiJJj in their genius and circum- 
fiances : in which we find the Dodrine of a fu- 
ture Hate of Rewards and Puniihments, was al- 
ways pulhing on its influence. It was their con- 
ftant viaticum through life ; it llimulated them to 
war, and fpirited their fongs of triumph •, 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 
Jewijh Annals, when this Dodrine was become 
national, it made as confiderable a figure in their 
Hiftory, as in that of any other nation. 

It is ftili further urged, that this conclufion 
does not reft merely on the negative filence of the 
Bible-hiftory ; it is fupported on the pofttive decla- 
rations contained in it ; by which the facred Wri- 
ters plainly difcover that there was no popular ex- 
pe6lation of a future Jiate or Refurre^ion. 

From the Old Teftament we come to the New^ 
By the Writers of which it appears, that the Doc- 
trine of a future ftate of p.ewards and Punifhments, 
DID NOT MAKE PART of the Mofaic Difpenfation, 

Their evidence is divided into two parts ; the 
firft^ proving that temporal rewards and punifh- 
ments were the fanEiion of the Jewifh Difpenfation : 
The feconJ, that it had no other. And thus, with 
the moll dired: and unexceptionable proof of the 
two MINOR proportions, the fifth Book concludes. 

VI. But to remove, as far as pofTible, all the 
fupports of prejudice againft this important Truth, 
the fixth and iaft Book of this Volume is employ- 
ed in examining all thofe texts of the Old and Ne^j!} 


Seft. 6. t/ Moses demonjlrated. 397 

Teftament, which had been commonly urged to 
prove, that the Dodlrine of a future Hate of re- 
wards and punifhments, did make part of the 
Mofaic Difpenlation. 

And amongft thofe of the Old Teftament, the 
famous pafTage of the xix"" chapter of Job, con- 
cerning a Refurre5iion (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 Propofition. 

But the whole Bifcourfe on the hook of Job hath 
this further ufe : It provides a ftrong lupport and 
illuftration of what will be hereafter delivered con- 
cerning the gradual decay of the extraordiJiary 
Provideme from the time of Saul, to the return from 
the great Captivity, 

Yet this is not all. The Bifcourfe hath yet a 
further ufe, with regard to Revelation in general. 
For the explaining. How the principles of the 
Gofpel-Bc5irine 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 Do6trines concerning the Deity, and in- 
vented new ones : juft as the Priejh improved in' 
knowledge, or the People advanced in curiofity ; 
or as Bo)b were better taught by the inftru6tions 
they received from their Mailers, in the country 
v;hither they were led away captive. ^ 


'39^ T/&<? Divme 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 exiftence, 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 punifhments^ to- 
gether with a Refurre^ion 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 thofe 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. PauVs rea- 
fining againft the errors of the JewifJj converts ^ a 
matter of higheft moment for a right underftand- 
ing of this Apoftle's Letters to the feveral Churches ; 
and for the further illuftration of the general Ar- 

As in all this, nothing is taught or infmuated 
which oppofes the doctrine of our excellent Church, 
common decency required that this conformity 
fhould be fully fliewn and largely infifted on. 

Having therefore, all along, gone upon this Prin- 
ciple, That " tho' a future State of rewards and 
*' punilhments, made no part of the Mosaic Dif- 
4 ^* penfation, 

Sed. 6. of Moses demonjlrated. 399 

" penfation, yet that the Law had a spiritual 
" meaning ; tho' not feen or underllood till the 
" fuUnefs of time was come. Hence the Ritual 
" Law received the nature, and afforded the cffi- 
" cacy of PROPHECY : In the interim (as is fhcwn) 
" the myftery of^ the Gofpel was occaftonally revealed^ 
" by God, tohischofen fervants, the Fathers and 
" Leaders of the Jewifh Nation •, and the daivnings 
" 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^^/ they are not to be heard which feign 
that the old Fathers did look only for tranfitory Fro- 
mifes^ I fupport this dodlrine by the cafe of A.bra- 
HAP4, who^ our blelTed M after tells us, rejoiced to 
fee his day ^ and f aw it and was glad. 

Here, J attempt to prove, in illuftration of this 
text, that the Command to Abraham to offer Jfaac^ 
was merely an information given, at Abraham's 
earneft requeft, in a reprefentatiie a5iion^ 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 
nobleil: proof that ever was given of the Har- 
mony between the Old and New Teftament. 

From this long DifTertation, beHdes the imme- 
diate purpole of vindicating the Dodtrine of our 
national Church, in its feventh Article^ we gain 
thefe two advantages, i. The firft of which is, 
fupporting a real and elTential connexion between 
the Mofaic and the Chriftian Religions. 2. Fhe 


Jfoo Tbe Divine Legation Eooiv VL 

other is, dlfpofing the Delfts to think mare favours 
bly of Revelation, when they fee, in this inter- 
pretation of the command, all their objedlions to 
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 objection : 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^ 

Nor is this all. This Biffertation^ 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 
necelTary introduclion to the long Difcourfe which 
follows, concerning prophecy. 

In this, (which is the laft of the prefent Volume)' 
I have attempted to clear up and vindicate the lo- 
gical truth and propriety o^iypes in a^ion^ 2LV\dfecon^ 
dary 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 fupport : For tho' the greater pare 
of thefe Propiiecies confeffediy relate to Jefus only 
in zfecondary fenfe^ yet had fome men of name, 
and in the interelts of Religion, thro' ignorance of 
the true origin and nature oi fuch fenfes^ raflily 



Seft. 6, of Moses demonjlratcd. 40 f 

concurred with modern Judaifm and Infidelity, to 
give them all up as illogical and cntbiifiajlic, to the 
imminent hazard of the very foundation of Chri- 
stianity. In theprogrefs of this inquiry, I had 
occafion to examine, and v/as enabled, on the 
principles here laid down, to confute Mr. CulHns'3 
famous Work of the Grounds and Reafons cf the 
Chriftian Religion^ one of the moil able and plau- 
fible books ever wr-itten amongd us, againft our 
holy Faith ; he having borrowed the Argument, 
and ftolen all the reafoning upon it, from the mod 
fagacious of the modern Rabbins •, who pretend 
that none of the Prophecies can relate to Jefus in 
any other fenfe than -dfecondary, and that a/econ- 
daryfenfe is illogical and fanatical. — — ?Iad I done 
no more, in this long vv^ork, than explain and clear 
np, as I have done, this much embarraffed and mod 
important queftion of the Jewifh Prophecies whicli 
relate to Chrift, and to the Chriftian Dilpcnfationj 
I fhould have thought my time and labour well 
employed ; fo neceflary 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 diflertation confidered in itfelf alone: 
But, as part of the Argument of the Divine Le- 
gation of Mofes, it has thefe more immediate 

I. To fhew, that thofe who contend, that the 
Chriftian Dodrine of a future State was revealed 
to the early Jews, deftroy all ufe ami rcafon of a 
fecondary fenfe of Prophecies •, for how (hall it be 
certainly known, from the Prophecies themfclves, 
that they contain double fenfes^ but from this ac- 
knowledged truth, that the eld La-ju was preparatory 
iCo, and the rudiments of, the New ? Or how Hull 

Yoh.Y. D d this 

40^- ^^-^^ Di'vine Legation Book VI. 

this relation between thefe Hvo Laws be certainly- 
known, but from the evidence of this contefted truthj 
that the Bo^rine of a future ftate 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 
DifTertation on 'Types and fecondary Senfes was this : 
As I had (hewn, that a future State of rewards and 
punifliments was not revealed under any part of 
the Jewifh CEconomy, othervv^ife than by thofe 
modes of information, it was neceflary, in order 
to Ihew 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 dodlrine 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 fufficiently marked out and afcertained. 
With this DifTertation 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 paJTion is 
not fo much a fondnefs for his own conceived argument^ 
as for the honour and fupport of Religion itfelf) 
hath neglected no fair occafion of inforcing every 
collateral circumftance, which might ferve to il- 


Scd. 6. cf Moses demonjlraled 403 

luftrate the truth of Revelation in general-, yet he 
never lofes fight of his end, but as the precept for 
conducing the mod regular works direds. 

Semper ad eventum fefiinat. 

This Volume too, like the firft, I thought fie 
to publiili alone : not merely for the fame reaibn, 
that it was a compleat and entire work of itlelf, 
which explained the nature and genius of the Jewijlj 
Confiitution ♦, but for this additional one, that it 
fairly ended and compleat ed the Argument, 

For the firft Volume having proved the Major, 
and the fecond Volume, the Minor Propolitions 
of the TWO Syllogisms, my logic teaches me to 
think, that the conclusion follows of courle, viz. 
That the Jewish Religion and Society 


Or put it in another light,— Having proved my 
three principal Propofitions, 

I. " That the inculcating the Dodlrine of a fu- 
« ture State of rewards and punin:inient.s,^^is ne- 
" cefTary 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 Dodrine of a future State of 
« rewards and punifiiments is not to be tound 
" in, nor did make part of the Mofaic Difpenia- 

" tion," ^, ^ 

D d 2 The 

404 ^^^<^ Divine Legation Book VI. 

The conclufion is, that therefore the Law of 
Moses is of divine original. 

A CONCLUSION which necefTarily follows the pre- 
milTes contained in thefe three proportions. 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 
inattentio7z and prejudice^ ■ the Argument, here 
brought to its final ifllie, hath been generally un- 
derftood to be left imperfe6t •, and the Conclufion 
of it referved for another Volume. Yet a very 
moderate fhare of refie6lion might have led the can- 
did Reader to underfiand, that I had here efiedually 
performed what I had nromifed, namely, to de- 
monstrate THE Divine Legation of Moses. 
For if it be indeed proved, That the Do6lrine of 
a future ftate is neceilary 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 Jev/ifli affairs were 
adminiilered by an extraordinary Providence, dif- 
tributing reward and punilhment with an equal 
hand •, and confequently that the Mission of Mo- 
ses WAS divine ? 

Kov/ever, the complaint againft 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 fairell light. In 
a folemn 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 (liould fupply thofe 
3 Warrior- 

Sea. 6. of Mo s^s demcnjlrafed. 405 

Warrior-Tribes with a certain number oF good and 
fervicable Mufkets. Which engagemenc was lb 
ill performed, that at their next general meeting, 
the Chiefs of the Barbarians complained, that, 
tho' indeed the Colony had lent them the number 
of Muflcets agreed upon, yet, on examination, 
they were all found to be 'without Lccks. This mil- 
chance (occafioned by the Mulkets and the Locks 
being put into two different cargoes) the Gover- 
nor promifed fhould be redreffed. It was redreifcd 
accordingly; and the Locks fought our, and lent: 
He now flattered himfelf that all caule of umbrage 
was effedually removed ^ when, at their next meet- 
ing, he was entertained with a frelh complaint, 
that the Colony had fraudulently fent them Locks 
without Mufiets. The truth was, this brave Peo- 
ple, of unimpeached morals, were only defcdlive 
in their military Logic ; they had not the dexteri- 
ty, till they were firlt fliewn the way, to put the 
major of the MuHcet and the miiior 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 thele 
two Volumes, with all the detail which their impor- 
tance required, and with all the evidence which a 
moral fubjedl can fupply j and the conclusiont, 
therefore, eilablilhed with all theconvidion which 
the Laws of logic are able to inforce -, Why was 
a other Volume promifed ? For no other end, as 
Y. uld feem, than to miQead a well-meaning Rea- 
df, in the vain purfuit of an Argument already 

It was promifed for a better purpofe— 7j rcyrrjvc 
M conceivable ohjc5iions againji the conclusion, afid 
D d 3 ^^ 

4o6 The Divine Legation Book VI. 

to throiv in every collateral light upon /^^ 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 

The third and lafl Volume, therefore, is diflined 
to SUPPORT what hath been already proved : not, as 
has been abfurdly fuggefted, to continue and con* 
elude an unfinifhed Argument. 

It confifts of three Books, like each of the pre- 
ceding Volumes, 

I. The feventh Book therefore is employed in 
fupporting the major and the minor Propofitions 
of the firft Syllogifm : in a continued Hiftory of the 
Religious Opinions of the Jews, from the time 
of the earlier Prophets^ who firfl gave fome dark 
intimations of a different Difpenfation, to the time 
of the Maccabees^ when the Dodlrine of a future 
ftate of rewards and punifhments was become na- 

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 chara6>er 
of the Lawgiver. Under this latter head, is c .*i- 
tained a full and fatisfadlory Anfwer to thofe \ ^o 
may objed, ^' That a revealed Religion with a fu- 
ture ftate of rewards and punifhments is unwc^hy 
the Divine Author to whom it is afcribed." 

3. Th(] 

ScS:. 6. of Moses demonjlratcd. 407 

3. The ninth and lafl: Book, explains at large 
the nature and genius of the Ciiiustian Dispen- 
sation : For having towards the end of the eirrhth 
Book, examined the pretended reasons (olicr- 
ed both by BeUevers and Unbelievers to evade 
my conclufion) for omitting the Dodtrine of a 
future State of rewards and punilhmcnts in the 
Mofaic Difpenfation, I was naturally and neccffari- 
ly led to inquire into the true. For now, it might 
be finally objeded, " That tho', under an extraor- 
dinary Providence there might be no occafion for 
the dodlrine of a future State, in fupport of Re- 
ligion, or for the ends of Government; yet as 
that Do6lrine is a truths and confcqucntly, under 
every regiment of Providence, ttfcfiil^ it feems 
hard to conceive, that the Religious Leader of 
the Jews, becaufe as a Lawgrcer he could do with- 
out it, that therefore, as ^xDrjJne, he would omit 
it." The objection is of weight in itfelf, and re« 
ceives additional moment from what hath been ob- 
ferved in the fifth Book, concerning ihe Reafon of 
the Laijp of punifmng children for the crimes of their 
Farents. I held it therefore infuHicient barely to 
reply, " Mofes omitted it, that his Lazi; -might there- 
*' by 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 now, — '^jenturn ad verum 

The whole concludes with one general but di- 
flind view of the entire courle of Gods univcrlal 
CEconomy from Adam to Chriil. In which it is 
ihewn, that if Mofes Were, in truth, lint from 
God, he could net teach a future Stare \ that Doc- 
trine being out of his CommilTion, and referved for 
bim who was at the head of another Diipcnlation, 
Dd 4 by 

/jo8 The Divine Legation y &c. Book VI, 

by which life and immortality was to be brought to 

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 diicriminate the 
diftincl and various natures of the Pagan, the 
Jewish and the Christian Rehgions : the Pagan 
having been confidered in the firft Volume, and 
the Jewiftj in the fecond -, the Chriftian is referved 
for the third and laft. Let me conclude therefore, 
in an addrefs to my Reverend Brethren, with the 
words of an Ancient Apologiit \ Quid nobis 
invidemus, fi Veritas Divinitatis, noflri temporis 
^tate maturuit ? Fruamur bono noftro, et re6ti 
fententiam temperemus: cohibeatur superstitio^^ 
iMpiETAS expietur, vera RELiGiorefervetur. 

« Minucius F(lix» 

The End of the Sixth Book< 

A P P E N« 

[ 409 ] 


Concerning the Book of J O B, 

AN excellent Writer having /r^^/y and candidly 
examined the late Biihop of London's collec- 
tion of Sermons, and in page 165 of his Examina- 
tion^ afl<ed this queftion, PFhere 'u:a5 Idolatry ever 
punijioed by the Magijirate^ hut under the Je'-jcijh 
(Economy ? The Oxford Profefibr, in the fccond 
Edition of his PreleBions^ concerning the [acred Poe- 
try of the Hebrews^ thinks fit to give the follovv'ing 
anfwer — '' It was punifhed 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 
^' trOe 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 (exerclfing the 
*' SOVEREIGNTY in his own family) to punifh Ido- 
" latry ? Were not Melchifedec and Job, and all 
^' the Sovereigns of Tribes of that time, whofiill 
*' retained the knowledge and worfliip of the true 
^' God, amidft a general defedion of all the fur- 
" rounding People, to take care that their own 
^^ did not backilide ? To curb oficnders, and to 

" iniha 


*' infiidl punifhment en the obftinate, the re- 
" BELLious, and on all thofe who fpread abroad 
** the contagion of this vice." — Ad quasftionem 
refpondetur: Sub oeconomia Patriarcharum •, in 
familiis, et fub Dominatu Abrahami, Melchi- 
zedechi, Jobi csterorumque. Ingruente Idolo- 
latria divinitus evocabatur ex Chaldsea Abraha- 
mns ; eum in finem, ut fieret pater Gentis, quse 
ab aliis omnibus divifa, verum Deum coleret, pub- 
licum proponeret exemplum piir^ religionis, con- 
traque cultum vanorum numinum teftimonium 
perhiberet. Nonne erat igitur Abrahami in fua 
familia principatum exercentis proprium officium 
& muniis in Idololatriam animadvertere ? Nonne 
Melchizedechi, Jobi, omniumque tunc temporis 
in fuis Tribubus Principum, qui veri Dei cogni- 
tionem & cultum in communi fere gentium cir- 
cumvicinarum defc6lione adhuc retinebant, cavere, 
ne fui deficerent; coercere delinquentes j obilina- 
tos& REBELLES, ct fccleHs contagioncm propa- 
gantes, fupplicio afiicere ? — Supplementum ad pri- 
mam Fr^eleiliorMm Ediiionem : Addit. Editionis fe- 
ciinda^ p. 312. 

This is fo pleafant an anfwer, and fo little need- 
ing the mafterly hand of the Examiner to corred, 
that a few flridures, in a curfory Note, will be 
more than fuiHcient 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, aflcs. Where was 
Idolatry ei:er piinifljed by the Magistrate, but under 
the Jeijoijld CEccnomy ? The Profejjor anfwers, // was 
punified under the Jobean CEconomy. And he 
.advances nothing without proof. Docs not Job 
himfclf fay, that Idolatry was an mi^uity to be pu- 



nified by the Judge ? The Examiner replies, tliat 
the Job who iliys this, is an airy Fantom, raif- 
ed for other purpofes than to lay down the Law 
for the Patriarchal times. The PrcfrJJcr maintains 
that they are all AITes, with ears as long as Fa/l)ci' 
Hardmn's, who cannot ii^c that this is the true and 
genuine old Job. — In good time. Sub Judice lis 
eft : And while it is h^ I am afraid tlie learned 
Profejfor begs the question •, when, to prove 
that Idolatry was puniilied by the Mafj,i(lratc, out 
of the land of Judea, he affirms that king Job 
punifhed it. If he fay, he does not rell: his allcr- 
tion on this pafTage of the book of Job alone, but 
on the facred Records, from whence he concludes 
that thofe civil Magistrates, Abraham and 
Melchifedec, punilhed Idolatry -, 1 fliallown he acts 
fairly, in putting them all upon the fame footing-, 
and on what ground that Hands, we fliall now fee. 

2. The Examiner fays, JJ^jere 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 eftabliihed Laws of the State, but in Judea?" 
To which, the Profejfor replies, '' It was punilhed 
by all the Patriarchal Monarclis, by king Job, 
king Abraham, and king Mclchiledec." 

Of a noble race zvas Shenk/n. 

But here, not one, lave the lad, had fo much as a 

nominal title to civil Magilb.icy: And this lall 

drops as it were, from the clouds, without lineage 

or parentage-, fo that, tiio' of divine, yet certainly 

not a Monarch of the true (lamp, by hereditary right. 

The Critic theref )re fails in his tirll point, which is 

finding out civil Magillrates to do his hierarchical 


^. But 


3. But let us admit our Prof efforts right of in- 
veiliture, to confer this high office, and then fee how 
he proves, that thefe his Lieges punifhed the 
crime of Idolatry by civil puniihment. Abr;\- 
HAM, and the Patriarchs his defcendants, come 
firft under confideration. What I (fays he) was 
Tiot Abraham^ exercifing the sovereignty in his own 
family^ to funijh Idolatry ? Hobbes is, I believe, 
the only one (fave our ProfeiTor) 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 Do6lrine which he had 
" forbidden." Leviath. chap. 40. — But God fpeak- 
ing of Abraham, fays, / know that he will command 
his children and his houjhold after him^ and they fh all 
keep the way of the Lord^ &c. Gen. xviii. 19. And 
Hobbes and our Profeffor^ I fuppofe, regard this de- 
claration as a clear proof of the divine dodrine of 
RESTRAINT in matters of Religion , efpecially when 
interpreted by their darling text oi— 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 (hould fear the learned Profeflbr 
would have brought in Ifaac asa backflider to Idola- 
try j 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 Hiftory, 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 deilroy 
Sodom, the Father of the Faithful intercedes, with 
the utmoft importunity, for that idolatrous as well 
iis incefluous City. The truth is this, The ufurped 



right of punilhing for opinions, was firft afTumcd 
and long ingrofled by Idolaters. And, if traditioa 
may be believed, Abraham himfelf narrowly elcap- 
ed the Fire for preaching againll its Divinity. Buc 
this is not all. From his own condudl, and from 
the condud of his pofterity, he feems to have made 
one part of that fidelity in keeping the ivay cf the 
Lord^ (for which he is lb nobly dillinguilhed by 
God himfelf) to confift in inculcating tlie di- 
vine dodrine of Toleration. When Jacob and 
his family, without leave-taking, had departed 
from Laban, Rachel Hole away her father's Gods. 
The old man followed and overtook them •, and 
complaining of the theft, Jacob frankly anfwered. 
With whomfoever thou findcji thy Gods, let him not 
live. Now, I would afk, was this condemnation on 
the offender denounced for Idolatry, or for the 
neft ? 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 itratagem, 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. Hie 
theft, indeed, had it been difcovered, would have 
been puniffoed 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 (\o not find, 
even her Gods underwent this punilhment. 

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- 

414 A P P E N D I X. 

manded his houJJoold and all that were with him, to 
fut away the ftrange God's from amongfi 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 llory is a fhort one ; he is juft 
brought into the fcene to blefs Abraham in his re- 
turn from conqueil. This promifes but ill. Had 
this King and Priejl cf Salem been brought in 
curfing, it had had a better appearance : for, I 
think, punifhment for opinions, which generally 
ends in a Fagot, always begins with a curfe. But 
we may be mifled perhaps by a wrong tranflation. 
The Hebrew word to hlefs, fignilies likewife to 
curfe, and, under the m.anagement of an intolerant 
Prieft, good things eafily run into their contraries. 
What follows, is his taking I'ythes from Abraham. 
Nor will this ferve our purpofe, unlefs we interpret 
thefe "Tythes into for non- conformity ; and then, 
by the hleffmg, we can eafily underftand ahfoliition. 
We have {^t?i 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 Perfecuticn, but in the 
ideas of a Quaker. — And fo much for king Mel- 

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 fatlo and de jure, thought it needlefs 
to enquire into Fa^fs^ when he was fee u re of the 
7 Right. 


Right, And, therefore only fligluly and fupcrci- 
lioully aflcs, " What? was not Abraham, by his 
" Y(^VY princely office^ to punijh 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 perfeciuing Patriarchs is 
no where to be found, but in 2i poetical Prelection, 

4. For in the laft place, let it be obferved, that 
as thefe Patriarchs did not de faoio (which appears 
from their hiftory) fo they coidd not de jure (which 
appears from the laws of Nature and Nations) pu-' 
nijh Idolatry by the Judge. Becauie, as hath been 
fhewn. Idolatry is not amenable to civil Jullice, 
but where it becomes Crimen Uf^e Majeftatis. It 
could not become the crime of lefe-majeily 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 T'heocra ileal like wife. 
The Patriarchs, therefore, could not puni/h Idola-* 
try by the Judge. 

From the Examiner, the Profeflbr (without the 
leaft provocation given him) proceeds to the Au- 
thor of the Divine Legation ; who, lie will fnew, 
is as ignorant, abfurd, and mad-brained as Father 
Harduin himfelf. 

The Author of the Divine Legation had laid, 
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, tlie 

Profeflbr objeds, " I can never bring myfelf 

" to allow to a semi-barbarous Poet, writing 

" after 


*' after the Babylonian Captivity^ fuch a piece o/ 
" fubtilty and refinement." — A mighty piece of 
refinement truly, for a Writer, who lays his fcene 
in an early age, to paint, the heft he could, the 
manners of that age. — " Befides (fays the Pro - 
*' /^rj 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 almoil as infanely of He-' 
*' 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 pofium. Porro vero 
Stylus Poematis, quod vel maximum eft, pr^ci- 
pue vetuftatem fapit; eft ejus peculiaris character 
a^;)(^ai(rjao?. Adeo Ut qui id infra Captivitatem 
Babylonicam deprimunt, non multo fanius in He^ 
braids judicare videantur, quam in Latinis Har- 
duinusi qui aurea Virgilii, Horatii, Casterorum- 
que poemata ferreis Monachorum Saeculis adfcrip- 
fit. Idem ib. 

The learned ProfeJJor 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 fhew 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 perfed 



civil government in the World-, which, he was 
fent home, to reftore, laden with the literary trea- 
fures of the Eaft ; treafures that had been lono- 
accumulating under the warm influence of a large 
and powerful Empire. From this fecond tranf- 
plantation of the Republic, Science got footing in 
Judea ; and true Religion took deeper root in'^thc 
hearts of its Inhabitants. Henceforward, we hear 
no more of their abfurd Idolatries. A ftrid: ad- 
herence to the Law now as much diftinguiflied 
them from others, as did i\i^ ftngidarity 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, w^ 
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 Jewifn Policy was abolifhcd, and the 
Nation was become vagabond upon Earth, while 
the Arabs, on the contrary, had ereded a great 
Empire, a manifefl: diffc^rence arofe between them, 
as to the cultivation of the two Languages. — Ycc 
for all this, the ProfefTor calls Ezra, a Semi-bar- 
barian-, tho' we agree that he wrote by the in- 
fpirarion of the Moft High ; amidft the lall blaze 
indeed, yet in the full luilre of expiring Prophecy. 

But the learned Profeflbr has an internal argu- 
ment from TASTE % full as good as the other from 
Chronology. " The book of Job favours of Anti- 
quity, and thofe who cannot relilh it, have as de- 
praved a tafte as Father Harduin, who could nut 
diftinguifli Partridge from Horle-fielh." 

« See what hath been fa'd on this heau in the yA, \i^ ar.J 
44th pages of ills Volujiic. 

■yoL. V, Ee Th« 


The truth is, the 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 bf Commerce. In thefe two 
languages, there yet remains a vaft number of 
writings on all forts of Subjedls. So that modern 
Critics (in the foremofl rank of whom will alway 
(land the incomparable Bentley) had by long ap- 
plication to them, through their various and pro- 
greffive refinements and depravations from age to 
age, acquired a certain fagacity, in pafling a toler- 
able judgment concerning the time of the Writer, 
by his ftyle and manner. Now Pedantry, which 
is the ape of Criticifm, would mimic the fame 
talent of difcernment, in the narroweft and moft 
barren of all Languages •, little fubjed: to change, 
both from the common genius of the Eafl, and 
from the peculiar fituation of a fequeftered 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 pleafed to fecure, while the Tongue was yet 
living, by a tranllation into Greek, the Hebrew 
veri'ty, tranfmitted to us in the manner it was 
found in the moft ancient MSS, where no vowel- 
points are ufed, 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- 
baliftic jtiggler might make the key of his un- 
revealed Myfteries. — " Idem accidit etiam Maho- 
metanis (fays Abraham Ekell.) ante inventa ab 
Ali Abnaditalebo pundla vocalia: Tanta enim le- 
gentium erat difTcntio, ut nifi Othomanni coercita 
fuiflct authoritate, et determinata ledio pun6tis, 



du^ AH cxcogitaverat, jam de Alcorano actum 
EssET." And if this had been the cale of the 
Arabic of the Alcoran, a copious and a Jivini^ 
language, what had become of the Hebrew ot* 
the Bible? a very narrow and a dead one. Of 
which an ancient Jewifli Grammarian gives this 
charader: " Lingua ilia [Arabica] elcguns ell, &c 
ionge lateque fcriptis dilatata, et qui cam loquitur 
nulla didtione deficit : Lingua vero fanfla pauca 
eft pra3 ilia, cum illius nihil extet nifi quod in 
Libris Scripturae reperitur, 7iec fuppeditct omnes 
diuiiones loqiiendi necejjarias.''' Yet this is the lan- 
guage whofe peculiarities of ftyle and compofition, 
correipondent to every age and time, the ProfeJfGf' 
feems to think, may be as eafily dillinguiflied as 
thofe of the Greek or Latin Ciaflics. 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 having de- 
clared (fpeaking of the words of Job, that Idola- 
try was an iniquity to be puniJJjed by the Judge) 
*' Thls place alone, were there no other, 
" is fuffiicient to confirm their opinion who con- 
*' elude that book to be writ by a Jew." 

From the Divine Legation^ the learned ^vofc^ov 
turns again to the Examiner, who feems to lit hea- 
vy on his ftomach. — This excellent Writer dcfired 
to know of the learned, JVhere they could find a ciiil 
or religious Conftitution out of Judaea, which declared 
that the Children Jhouldfuffer for the crime of their Pa- 
rents, To which the Profeflbr replies in thele 
very words — In prasfens Horatiano illo verficulo 
contentusabitoExaminarorum omnium candidis- 
siMus— fbr the prefcfit, let this most candid of all 
Examiners go about his biifinefs^ and he thankful for 
this f crap of Bcrace^ 

E e 2 *' Dclidla 


^^ Delida 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 old fy ft em 
cf 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 Bifhop, would certainly demolifh the 
ProfefTor, fhould he take it into his head to ex- 
amine the Prak^fions as he hath done the Sermons^ 



T O T H E 


N. B. For the regular chain of the argument, fee the 
heads of the Sections prefixed to the Folumes, 

%* The Roman Numerals refer ■ to the particular Folumes^ 
and the Figures to the Pages, 

ABRAHAM, the true meaning of the blefllng pronounc- 
ed on him, pointed our, v. 138. Expofuion of the 
hiftory of the famous command to faciifice his fon I/aacy 197, 
229. Reply 'to objedions againll rhc hilloncal truth of 
the rela'tion, 247. The import of God s revelation to him 
explained, 214, 222. Summary of his hiiiory, 210, 25 z. «, 
Three diilinfl periods in his hillory pointed out, 259, Jn 
what fenfe faid by Ch-ill to have feen bis dti\\ 2^0, 294. 
An advocate for toleration, v. 412. Sec Action, Gud, 

Abraxas, Egyptian zmMlctSt what, iil. 182. 

Actions, fignal inftance of divine inltrudion conveyed by, in 
the cafe of Abraham^ v. 197. The eloquence of, lilullr.itei 
by an anecdote from the Spartan hillory, 227. n. Ditto, 
from the Roman hirtory, 228. r?. 

Academies, of the Greek philofophers, how diftinguifhed, and 
by whom founded, ii 116. Citero and iMciarit their ac- 
counts of, 117. Whence named, 120. Dilbnguiihcd into 
Sceptics and Dogmatjls, I 26. 

Addison, his obiervations on JEn!as\ drfccnt into hell, i, 
264. His fublime improvement of a pallage in Oiv*/, 

Adoration, Prideaux's account of the ancient krmi of, ili, 


J-e J ,fcUi 


^'EMitiANUS, cliaracler of, and his religion afcertained, i. 302^ 

^!ENEAS,'the character of, intended to convey that of a perfect 

lawgiver, i. 218, 226. How his defcent into hell is to bq 

underftood, 226. Particular key to, 236, The circum- 

ftances of his return from the lower regions examined into, i, 

281. His Ihield defcribed, 2S7. 

i^NEis, an analyzation of that poem, i. 211. Who intended 

by jEneas, 212. A fyftem of politics, 219. Contains a 

compleat fyflem of future rewards and puniftiments, 226. 

^scHYLuG, his danger at hinting at the heathen myfteries in 

one of his fcenes, i, 181. 
Alcjeus, why confounded with //i?rr&Zf/, iii. 26/^^ 
Alcjbiades, probable expofition of his nodlurnal riot, before 

his expedition to Syrac:fe, i. 167. n. 
Ax-EXANDER the GREAT, probablc conjedure why he commu- 
nicated to his mother the facred mylleries explained to him 
by an Egyptian hierophant, i. 158. ». 
Allegory, a figure often attributed, where never intended, i, 
326. Controverfial reflexions on the nature of, with re- 
ference 10 Job, and the famous Ode of Horace, O Na^vis re- 
feruni, &c. v. i8« n. 
Allegories, religions, dillinguifhed, v. 284, 321. ». Argu- 
ment deduced from the general paflion for, 354. 
Alliance between church and ftate, the influencing , motives 
to, ii. 9, 18. Advaptages 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 Ifraelites, 162. Its invention prior 
to the time of Mo/es, ib. Hebrew formed by Mofesy from an 
improvement on the 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 proper nurfery for free-thinkers, 74. 
Americans, native, remarks concerning, by F. C^arZ?'t;^/>, ii, 
73. «. By M. de la Condamine, 74. 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. 

, Animal woifliip, true original of, amongft the Egyptiansy iii, 
197, 235, 24:^. Images hrft worshiped, 200. Afterward 
the animals thcmfelves, 204. Various opinions of the an- 
cients concerning the origin of, 211. 
A:.5CHARius, Si, anecdote of, ii. 52. riy^ 


Antients, unacquainted with the reiined diHindions of mo- 
dern philofophy, ii 185. 

Antoninus, emperor, why dcfirous of acimiHlon to {he, EUu/i- 
nian myfteries, ii. 144. His perfecution of chriilianity ac- 
counted for, ii. 53. 

Apis, the fymbol of the Egyftion god OJiris, iii. 201. Ac- 
count of his worfliip from Diod. S c. 213. ;/. 

Apologue, or fable, its ufe in oratory, til. 113, Its analogy 
to hieroglyphic writing, 117. Its improven-.ent and con- 
tra£lion in /imile and metaphor^ 118. Its change to para- 
ble, 169. 

Apotheosis, when bellowed on deceafcd heroes among the 
Egyptians, iii, 226, 

Apuleius, opinions of the antients concerning Ids metamor- 
phofis, i. 296. Eftimated, z^j. Account of, 298. Ex- 
amination of, 307. His fentiments concerning ;he unchan^je- 
able nature of God, ii. 191;. 

Appetites, human, the fource of oppofition to the laws 01 
fociety, i. 75. 

Arabians, why they have fo long preferved the purity of their 
notions of the divinity, i. 94. 

Areopagus, addreflesto the paflions excluded by, i. Ded. ic. 
Jn what charader St. Paul appeared before that court, ii. 57. 
Who the founder of that court, 60. 

Argument, internal, defined, iv. 314. 

Aristophanes, why he triumphed over Socrates, i. DeJ. 19, 

Aristotle, his charadler and principles, ii. 160, 193, 

Ark, its fatal efFedls among the PhiltJIines, iv. 204. 

Astronomy, y^fzy//^ obfervations on, v. 100. 

Artemidorus, fee Dreams. 

Article, Vllth, of the Church of England, an cxpofition of, 

V. 194. ... 

Atheism., invites to fenfual gratifications, i. 70. Hcmcr^j opi- 
nion of, 75. 71. And Polyiheifm, compared, 36. Plu- 
tardi's parallel between, and fupcrllition, ii. 260. Bacon s 
ditto, 278. 

Atheist, unable to arrive at a knowledge of morality, i, 
44. Neverthelefs accountable and defcrvedly punifhabic at 
the hand of God, 56. n. 

Atheists, unfair crcumllance attending the companfon of 
their moral condud, with that of proteflbrs of religion, i. 
71. No general argument to be eftablilhed from particular 

inftances, 73. r 1 1 c ^' 

Athenians, how they drew the refentmcmt of Podip of ^.a- 
cedon againll them, i. 269. Their behaviour in proiJKruy, 
and in adverfity inftan<;ed, v. 77. 

E c 4 Atkins^ 


Athens, remarks of its care for the eftablifhed religion, ii. 27. 

57, No ftrange God tolerated there, till approved by the 

court of Areopagus, ii. 57. 
Augustus, tmperor, advifed againft toleration, ii. 68. 
AuRELius, Eiijpeior, his opinion of the firmnefs of the Chrif- 

lians, iii. Prff. 39. 
Austin, St. his ingenious definition of language and letters, 

iii. 105. 
.^uTHOR, the principal objeflof his attention, pointed out, i, 

Dea\ 35. 


Bacchanais, decree of the Roman fen&te relating to the cele- 
bration of, ii. 65. 

Bacchus, his exploits in the Inaiesy invented to aggrandize 
the glory of A}?xarJer, iii. 161. His identity confounded 

' with that of 0/5m, 269. Reafons proving him to be lS!oah^ 
288. ». 1 he rites of> how charafterized by Virgily i. 292. 

Bacon Lord, his parallel between Athe'ifm and Superjiition, ii. 

Balaam, his f^.mous prophecy, Numh. xxiv. 17. e>fpounded, 

■ iii. 177. His wilh to die the death of the righteous, explain- 
ed, V. 142. 

Banishment, how far to be confidered as a puniihment, 
i. 18. 

Baptism, the importance of, eRabliflied, v. 4. fee Quakers, 

Baucis and Philemon, the fable of, explained, ii. 134. 

Bayle, miilaken in the tendency of Pompnatius^ treatife, Ds 
imm-ortaUtate animae, i. 26, 30. His chara<^er as a writer, 
3^}, 77. His arguments to prove reputation capable of in- 
fluencing a man void of religion, to a virtuous conduft, 61. 
JDifproved, 62. His argument of Atheifm not being deftruc- 
tive to morals, examined into, i. 72. Miltaken in his cen- 
fure oi Virgil'*?, placing infants in hell, i. 258. His reflexions 
on toleration, iv. 159. 

Bemeine tables, a defcription of, contained in £'2;fi;V/'j vvt 
fions, iv. 19. 

Bennet, Secretary, how brought into contempt, i. Ded, 21. 

BoLiNG BROKE, an examination of his nr-tions concerning the 
omiffion of the do«5lrine of a future ftate, in the Mofac dif- 
penfation, iv. 381. His obfervations on the infufuciency of 
the McjOic law to reftrain the people, anfwcred, iv. 206. 
Confequences of a law upon his principle, 210. 

Brute-worship, opinions of the aniicnts concerning the 
origin of in E^^l^t, ii. 43. iii. 311. The fymbolical nature 
pf, explained, lu, 2 op,, 



Buffoonery, Its ufe in infidelity, i. Dtd. 9. InHaiiCcs of 
its mifchievous tendency, id, 20. Souigc of, /7. 3.1. 

Caeiri, who were fignified by this name, i. 173, 

Cadmus, whence he obtained his alphabet, iii. 161. 

C.TisAR Julius, his public declaration of his opinion of the 

dodrine of a future (late, ii. 82. His notion of death, 1 1 1. 

His account of the religion of ancient Caul, iii. 275. n, . 

Of ancient Germany^ 2'JC). fi» 
Calf, golden, what Deity leprefcntcd by, iv. n. 
Calves of Dan and Bethel, why the Je-Ms were fo invin- 
cibly attached to, iv. 14. Why two of them ercftcd by 

Jeroboam t 20. 
Canadians and Mexicans, their religious notions compared, 

i. 93. 
Canaanites, why ordered to be exterminated, iv, 2. 
Cato of Utica, his conduft in oppofmg C^^/^r'/ epicurean 

r.otions of death in the fenate, with the popular do<flrinf, 

inquired into, ii. 112. A milLiken notion relating to the 

mention of him in Virg^l^ rectified, i. 290. 
Cavalry, what fituations proper and improper for the ufc 

of, iii. 316. . 
Caylus, Count, his opinion relating to the ^^//^jz/charaftcrs, 

iii. 100. V. 
Celsus, his recrimination on Origev, I. 199. His obfer\*ation» 

on the tenacioufnefs of the Jezvs^ of their religion, ii. .jg. 

His opinion of Plato's reprefentations of a future Ifatc, ii. 

Ceres, the hymns of Orpheus, pcrferrcd to thofe of Homer, In 

the rites of, i. 178. The /hhenians gvc:x([y indebted to, i8ji 

Her temple at Eleufis defcribed, i. 285. 
Chaos, how defcribed in ^irgil^ i. 245. In Bero/us, ib. 
Charlevoix, his obfervations on the natives of Car.aJay ii. 

Charon, the chara6ler of, whence derived, i. 250. 

Cheops, king of Bgypt, how he raifcd money ior the erc«flioa 
of his pyramids, explained, iii, 29^. ;r. 

Children, the punifhment of, for ihe crimes of their parents, 
on what principle only to be vindicated, iii. D(J, w- 

Chinese, their reverence for their ancient chara«fters, iii. 188. 

»-^ Language, an improvement of the ancient Egyftjcn 

hieroglyphics, iii. 85. Improvement of, to itsprclent llaie, 89. 
its oppofite progrefs from that of the E^ypidn hicrogiyphical 
writing, to what owing, 91. '1 o what the different accounts we 
have received of it, is owing, 92. Account of by M. t'rem. 


^3. Ditto by P. Parennin, 94. Ditto by P. Magaillans, ib. 
The ancient charafters of, greatly venerated by the natives, 
gj.n. Why not further improved, 103. Hieroglyphical ; 
marks not for words but things, 129. Du Halde's ohkxYZi' 
tions on, 180. 

Christ, remarks on the ufe he made of his twofold credentials. 
Scripture and Miracles, V. 208. 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 Emmans, after his refurredlion, 272. 

Christian Faith, who its greateft enemies at the firft pro- 
mulgation, 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. Taylory chancellor 
of Lincoln, iii. Pref. 37. See Het^ri^. 

Christian iTY, wherein its efience coniifts, i. 3. How efteem- 
^di by the ancient Pagans^ \. 302. ii. 50. Why neceffarily 
founded on Judaifmy 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 neceffity 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 Judaifnt, 
infeparable, 274. The ultimate end of Judai/rti, 286. 

Chronology, Egyptian, a miltake of Sir i/2zflf A'ieou/ow's in, 
illuflrated by a cafe Hated in fimilar circumffances, 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, n, 124, His opinion 0^ Plato's Phasdo, 153., 
His true fentiments concerning a future flate not eafy to be 
difcovered, 166. His charadler analyzed, 169. His incon- 
fiilences pointed out, 170. where his real fentiments arq 
jnoft likely to be found, 172. Inllances, 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 Alexandriwus, his exclamation againft the cor- 
ruptors of the myfteries, i. 198. His account of a remark- 
able fymbolical mefiage kx\X. io Darius, iii. 113. And Por^ 
fhyry^ their accounts of the Egyptian chara^ers and writings 



Clodius, violates the rites of the Good Goddcfs, 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 adl-rtions, 
that new religions are always grafted on old ones, &;c. ex- 
amined into, iv. 177. Charailcrifed as a writer, v. 281. 
An examination of his difcourfeon the Grounds and Reafoni 
of the Chriflian Religion, ib. His obfervations on the allego- 
rical writings of the antients, 346. Thefe oblcrvations 
(hewn to refute his objedions againll chriftianity, 349. 

Commentators on Scripture, points recommended to their 
attention, v. 159. 

CoNDAMiNE, his chara£ler of the native Americaniy ii. 74. n. 

Conformity, oaths of, among the antients, ii. 29. 

Cretans, open celebrators of their myfteries, i. 182. Tht 
P^a-^^za deities born among them, 183. 

Critias, his Greek poem on the origin of religion, ii. 249. 

Criticism, the proper condudl of, pointed out, i. 295. 

Crocodile, why worfhiped by the Egyptians, iii. 200. 

Cromwel, an inftance of the united effeds of policy and cn- 
thufiafm, ii. 284. Notable obfervation of, 285. 

Cudworth, Criticifm on a pafTage in, relating to the opinions 
of the philofophers concerning the human foul, ii. 215. 
Miltakes Mofchus, for Mo/est xz^. The hiibry of his Intel* 
leBual Syjiem, iii. Pre/. 29. 

Cupid and Psyche, ftory of, i. 325. 

Custom*, capable of counter-a(5ting the Ilrongeft principles of 
morality, i. 58. 

Customs, a fimilarity of, obfervable among diftant nations, n* 
argument of an actual communication between them, iii. 
99, /?. Tiadudlive, an enquiry into, iv. 126. 

Cykus, his dream about young Darius^ iii. 193. 

Dark-savings, what that exprefllon imports in fcrlpture, iii. 

Pavid, why appointed to fucceed 5'^i//, iv. 45. His title of 
man after God's own heart explained, ib. The chronology 
of fafts relating to his introduction to Saul^ redified, ib. n. 

Dead, three kinds of pcrfons who have no right to a place 
among, according to Firgt/^ i. 26;. 

Dedications, abfurdity of addrelling them to unfiiiiable pcr- 
fons, i. Ded. I . 

Peification, when bellowed on any hero gf the EgyptioMf, 

iii. 226. 


I. N D E X. 

DEfTtt^, Pagatty authorities proving them to be dead worthies 
deified, i. 96. n. 104, 154, 168. Their fpurious oiFspring 
accounted for, iii 297. Local and tutelary, their vvorlhip 
always maintained, even by fojourners and conquerors, iv. 

Bi A CORAS, the confequence of his revealing the Orphic and 
Eleujinian myfteries, i. 181. 

Dialects, of ancient writers, how far evidences of thfeir 
genuinnefs, i. 117. 

Dramatic writing, remarks on, with reference to the book 
of Job, V. 18, 27. 

DrRams, jirtemidoruih diviiion of, into fpeculative and al- 
legorical, iii. 190. Superftitious interpretation of, 191. 
Grounds of this fpecies of divination, 192. 

Druids of ^r//^/«, whence they derived many of their reli- 
gious rites, i. 139. 

Du Halde, his remarks on the liyle of the Chinefe language, 
iii. i8o. 

Duties, of perfeft and imperfeft obligation, what, i. 14. 

Earthquakes, Pythagoras^s method of prediding them juf** 
tified by late experience, ii. \o%. n. 

Eastern Tales, origin of, traced, ii. 136. ». 

EccLEsiASTicus, a plain allufion to the Pagan myfteries in, 
i. 281. n, -^ ^ 

Egypt, origin of brute-worfhip in, ii. ^3. The parent of 
all the learning of Greece^ 100. Reforted to by the Grecian 
legiflators, 103. By the Grecian naturalifts, 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 MofeSy 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 I/raeiites 
were proliibited carrying horfes from, 313, The laws of 
Mofesy why accommodated to the prejudices of the Je^vs m 
favour oi, iv. 23. The ancient fchool of legillation, 1 10. 
Fundamental maxims in the religious policy of, 1 1 1. Heie- 
ditary defpotifm preferred there, 115. 

Egyptian Characters, Kirchcy and Count Caylus^ their 
opinions concerning, iii, 100. n, 138. 



Egyptian Heroes, the reafon why the latter obtained the 
names of their earlier Gods, explained, iii. 2;6. 

-Hieroglyphics, how they came to be, and to 

conceal their learning, iii, 121, 131. C^r/c/n ;V 7/ and TVo- 
pical, 132. Symbolic, 1 4©, The change of iheir ft) I- effected 
by this latter application of them, 145. 

Learning, that mentioned in Scripture, 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. 

Idolatry, defcribed in £2;^/f/V/*s vificns, iv. 17. 

Mysteriet, Si. Jujienh account of, i. 157. 

Physicians, confined to diHind 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 priellhood, i;2. 

Priesthood, account of, fiom Dioi/ona Siculuj, iii. 

34. Confirmed by iV/«7/rj, 35, Their rites, 39. 
■ Writing, the four kinds of, iii. 121. 

Egyptians, celebrated for the culture of religion, i. 91, 96. 
The firrt who difcovered the knowledge of the divine nature, 
165. w. The fciences not carried to any great height by them, 
ii. 221. Jn what their wifdom con filled, 222. Among the firl*: 
who taught the immortality of the foul, 228. Why fubjedl 
to incurable difeafes, iii. 46. Their funeral rites, 65. Their 
facred dialedl, 167. Origin of animal worfhip among, iry7. 
Worfhfppers of plants, 198. Of chimerical beings, 19^. 
Local animal deities among, 200. Their charge againll the 
Grecians of ftealing their gods, with their mutual recrimina- 
tions, 265. 

Eleusinian Ceres, her temple dcfcribcd, i. 2.S^. 

— ■ Mysteries, the mofl: celebrated in antiquity, whit, 

i. 14c. Why the Kmperor Nero was deterred from, aud the 
Emperor Antonivuj was defirous of, being admitted to them, 
144. Scandalous not to be initiated into them, 146. Two 
forts, the greater, and the lels, 149. Negative enquiry into, 
151. Not the fecret dodlrines of the fchools, 151. The 
rationale of the T^^^^a; fyllem cf theology, 154. Why con- 
cealed, 156. Reafons to conclude Scv.chohiatho'% hiilory to 
be that narrated in the celebration of them, 171. liy whom 
founded, 174. The hymn fung at them, 177. End and ule 
of them, 180. The difclofinjf them fevertly puniihed, i>^i. 
Aboliflied hy The odojius the elder, 1S9. Summary of, z^':. 
Caufes of their degeneracy, 191. Alluded to by St. Puu^y 

196. «. 



El I AS, the fenfc in which he was predifted to come before tk^ 

day of the Mefliah, afcertained, v. 326. 
Elihu, why dilHnguilhed from the other friends of Je^, v, loi* 

His charader, 106. 
Elisha, expofition of the adventure between him and Joajh^ 

V. 26[. w. 

Embalming, the Egyptian method of, iii. 49, 65. This 
operation performed by the phyficians, and the reafon, 5 1 . 
The antiquity of the general pradlice of, proved, 6-]* 

Enigmas, required in the nature of God's difpenfation to the 
Jen)js, iii. 171. 

Enoch, the difference between the account of his ti-anflation 
and that of ^/z/^/', accounted for, iv. 322. 

Enthusiasm and Policy, necelTary to, and always to be 
found in, the antient heroes and legiflators^ ii. 281. How 
fuccefsfully thefe two qualities co-operate, 283. Inftances of 
illuftration, 284. Inltances of their infufRciency 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 hiftory, ii. 27. Meaning of the expreiTion as applied 
to antient nations, afcertained, 30. Examination of the 
leading caufes to, in the Pagan world, 31, Their conceptions 
of, mi (taken, 32. 

Etrusci, remarks concerning that people, i. 222. How they 
found their god Tagesy iii. 241. n, 

EuHEMERUs, his expedient to reveal without danger "Cci^Pagan 
mylleries, i, 182. His artifice to difguife his difcovery of the 
P^^«« myfteries, ii. 304.^ 

Evidences, external and internal of revealed religion, com* 
pared, i. 3. 

Evil, its effeifl on the feelings, flronger 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 jenuijh 
idolatry, expounded, iv. 17, God's reproaches to the Jc^vs 
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-xt'//^ idolatry, iv. 195, 200. Quota- 
tions from, in confirmation of a particular providence, 
291, AnA Jeremiah, the anions recorded to be performed 
by them to illullrate their prophecies accounted for, iii. 108. 

E^iRA, his writings pointed out, v, 109. 



Fables, antieftt, enquiry into the origin of, ii. ml J]^^ 
corruptions of civil hirtory, 132. 

Faith, defined from ^t. Paul, v. 17.S. Falfcly condemncJ, in 
Firgil's jEnei^y critical examination of, i. 260. 

Fate, what efFeft the opinion of it will have on mora! , i 
>' 69. 

Fathers, of the primitive church, accufe the Myfleries of grofi 
impieties and immoralities, i. 197. And afterward adopt 
them, 200. Their tellimony againft the ancient fages, for 
duplicity of doftrine, ii. 100. n. Some of them held' the 
foul to be mortal, 207. 

Fiction, from what motive employed by the antient lawgiver;, 
iv, 112. «. 

Figurative Expressions, origin of, ili. 173, 179. 

Fool, its import in the Old Tellament language, v. 78. 

Forfeitures, remarks on the laws of, in cafes of high trcafon, 
iv. 334. 

Fornication, v/hy never adequately punifhed by flouri(hin» 
communities, i. 14. The fuppreflion of, produdive of un- 
natural lulls, ii. 13. 

Foster, his notions of the Jev.ijh theocracy, examined, iv, 

FouRMOrjT, M. his miflake of the identity of <^^ra/'/z/»» with 
Cronos y correded, iv. 8. ». 

Free-thinkers, their arts in controverfy, i. Ded. 32. America 
a proper nuifery 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 doclrlne of, deducible by natural reafon, 
i. 24. iv. 407. The inculcation of, neceflary to the well 
being of fociety, i, 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 themfclves, 86, 162. Keafons 
urged by the 6"/^;/^ againft, 183, 186. Plato's \\z\v of, i. 260. 
Plutarch's ditto, ii. 191. Of what points that dodUine con- 
fifted, in the Pagan theology, i. 142. ii. 87. Its univcrfaliry 
Ihewn, i. 329. Strongly inculcated by i\\tS.ievi and Arals, 
iv. 3 48. The chief foundation of every religion except the 
Jeuijh, i. 88. Not contained in the Mo/aic difpcnfation, 7. 
This omiffion a proof of its divine origin, 8. v. 3^-4. Pur- 
pofely omitted in ditto, iv. 320, The want of, how fupplicd, 
324. Pofitive declarations againft the expectation of, inftanccd 
from the Jezdp writers, 353. Corroborated by the New 

1 Cltl* 


Teftament writers, 562. A review of the prejudices which 
have induced to the belief that it was taught in the Mn/uic 
dirLenfation, v. 2. A review of thofe pafTages in Scrip- 
ture, urged to prove that it was taught in the Mcfalc 
difj enfrition, 126, That taught by natural religion to be 
diflinguiilied from that taught by the chriftian revelation, 3. 
Its mention by M^fes^ and by the following writers, to be 
diibni^uifhed, 9. A lift of texts urged by the Rabbins in 
proof of its being taught under the Mj/^j/c law, 160. An 
examination of the arguments founded on the nth chapter of 
the Hfibrenvs, 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 Grc//«/, Epifcopius, Arnaud, and B^, Bull, 190. See 
Law Mosaic, and Moses, 


Gaul, antient, enquiry into the deities of, iif. 275. 

Germany, antient, Cafar*% 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 difhonoured 
by abfurd opinions, ii. 272. His immutability afferted by the 
antient Theipc philofophers, 183, 186, 195. His unity 
taught in i\\z Eleujinian myfteries, i. 154, 170, The only 
means of prefcrving the dodrine of bis unity, iv. 136. 

God of Israel, how confidered by the neighbouring nations, 
iv. 174. Why he gave himfelf a name to the Jezis, 5. 
Why reprefented with human affedlions, i66. His charader 
7iS the God of Abraham, — ofl/aacy — ofjacoby explained; and 
the miftakes concerning this text pointed out, v. 161, The 
relations in which he Hood to the Je^MtJh people, iv. i6i. 
Not lefs benign to man under the law, than under the gofpel, 
iv. 167. 

Gods, Pagan, deified worthies, i. 104, 154, 168. Born 
among 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 F^^gar.s, ii. 40. 
approbation of, neceflary, 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 Apuleiuj, examination of, i. 307. 

Government, civil, an examination into the nature of, i. 17-. 
Its motives in infliairg punillimcnt, U, 19. Not capable of 


1 N D E X. 

tewarding, and why, /./. 20. The regal form of, among the 
Jenxs, explained, iv. 225. How tllablinied, 231. Uvil 
<and religion, the objcds of compared, i. i^. 

Grecian History, the confufed chronology of the early part 
of, remarked, iii» 250. 

■ Writers, an enquiry into the validity of their 

tertimony concerning the antiquity of the Ejjpitun monarchy, 
iii. 25. Their accounts no othcrwife to be credited, than aa 
corroborated by Scripture, 27. 

Greece, ignorant of the ufe of cavalry at the time of the Trcjan 
war, iii. 307. Whence it derived its learning, ii. 100. Di- 
ftindlion between the pliilofophy of, and thai o{ E/yp(, ic6. 
The religion of, traced down to its orii;inal, iii. 2O9, What 
it borrowed from E^ypff 273. The three dillinguilhed periods 
in the religion of, 292. Charged by the Egyptiam witU 
Itealmg their gods, 295. 

Greenland Women, their language a refinement on that of 
the men, iii. 141. p» 

Grey, Dr. his notions concerning the book of Jobj contro- 
verted, V. 42, 

Grotius, his fatal mifmterpretations of the ytn/y^ prophecies 
Ihewn, V. 343. 


Hades, its different fenfes in the Old and New Teflamcnts point- 

ed out, iv, 346. n. 
Hagar, why Ihe named the angei who appeared to her, E.'rjl^ 

iv. 3. 
Hare, Bp. his cenfure of J-fephusy iv. 2S0. 
Hebrew Alphabet, whence derived, iii. 164. When the 

points were added to it, 166. 
Hebrews, the only people, whofe public worfliip was addreffcd 

to the God of the univerfe, i. 165. The argument of St. 

F^w/'sepiflleto, ftated, v. 177. 
Heligpolis, the moft famous college of the antient E^sp'ian 

priefts, iii- 35. The worfhip eltablifhed there, 38. 
Hell, its different meanings in the Old and in the New TcHa- 

ments, v. 149. 
Hercules, (lory of his interview vviih Jufitcr from Herodotus^ 

iii. 207. The aniient i^ j//;^// account why there were fo 

many of that name, 257. 
Heresies, genealogy of, fiom Ter/u/Ihn, li. 238. 
Hero-worship, the mo:ivcs to, andulesof, i. 95, 106, 155, 

Complicated in its rite?, iii. 273. 
Herodotus, his opinion of the origin of geometry, iii. 524 
Vol, V. F ^ Hi.RO£», 

I N D E X. 

Heroes and Legislators, always adluated by craft and en- 
thufialm, ii. 281. 

HET.'ERiiE, afTemblies of the primitive chriftians, the nature of, 
explained ; when and by whom fupprefled, ill. Pref, 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 firil eflay toward the art of writing, iii. 
70. Found in ufe among the Mexicans, by iht Spaniards, yi, 

. jpound in Siberia, 74, v. This piflurefqoe method of ex« 
preflion abridged by the Egyptians, 75. Brief view of their 
types and allufions, ib. Mythologic account of the origin 
of, 78. Improved in the Cy6z«-?/^ language, 85. Source of 
the different genius of, from the Chinefe charaders, 91. Stood 
for things, and not for founds, 80. n, 95, w. How they 
came to be applied by the Egyptians to conceal their learning, 
121. The origin of brute worlhip, 197, 204, 

HiEROPHANTof the Myftcries, his office, i. 176, iii. 210. 

Hippocrates, his opinion of the Cnidian fentences, iii. 5?, 
DedudioDs from, as to the antient pradice of phyfic, 59, 
Author of the dicXtetic part of medicine, d^, 

HoBBEs, his opinion of religion, i. 33. 

Homer, his opinion of atheifm, i, 75. n. Why baniflied 
Platoh republic, 275. His reprefentations of the antient 
Greek phyiicians, afcertained and accounted for, iii. 55, 
Whence he coUeiled his materials, 308, n. 

Hooker, his opinion of the political ufe of religion, ii. 321. 

Horace, the double fenfe in his famous Ode, O nu'vis rejerunt^ 
ISc. pointed out, v. 316, 

HoREB, confequences of the contraft there, between God and 
the "JexKilh people, iv. 162. 

Horses, 'Jadea not a proper country for the ufe or breeding of, 
iii. 315. 

Hyde, Chancellor, how brought into contempt, i. Ded. 20, 

Jacob, his expreflions to P^^roa/^, G.-;/. xlvii. 9. explained, v. 

141. His wreltling with an angel, what intended by, v. 

237. Shewn 10 be of a tolerating difpofition, v. 413. 
Jamblichus, 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 confifted, i. 

• SanchoyuGthon\ fragment, tending greatly to account 

for the rife and pro^refs of, i, 168. Not the firil religion, but 


t N D E X. 

the corruption of it, if. 2S9. The firft objcas of -^^ 
The fecond fpecies of, 296. The third fpccics of zg- 
The Pagan apologies for the objeits of their worlhip, 290 
305, Nekton, his account of the origin of, 290. TvlunJ 
his account of the objc(^h of it, 291. * 

Idolatrv,Je\vish, the fources of, pointed out, Iv. 1R7. In what 
itconfilled, 19^,, 201. Never proceeding Irom mattcri of 
confcience, 16,-. Under what figures rcprcft-nrcd in the 
prophecies, 22. n. The extent of that crime, and ho.v lar 
legally punilhable Under the Jc-idjh theocracy, 162. 

*-| of the Assyrians tranfplanted the Holy Lanti 

in the room of the captive J.-xt/, how punifhcd. iv. 190. 1 he 
means of keeping a people from it. exemplified in the Jtiui/h 
law, 60. Viev/ of the early fprcad of, by Calmet, 153. n. 
See Brute Worship. 

Idols, arguments deduced from the moft antient figures of, 
concerning the objedls of the Pagan worlhip, ii. 302? 

Jehovah, explanation of that name, jv. r, 

Jeremiah, his reprcfentation of the y.x'.//?' idolatry, iv. 19;. 
PafTages quoted from, predidlive of tne new difpenfation, 328. 
V. 339- 

■ and EzEKiEL, the figns added by them to illuftratc 

their prophecies, accounted for, iii. loS. 

Jerusalem, the deltruftion of, as prophefied by Chriji figura- 
tively, in a literal fenfe importing the deflruftion of the world, 
V. 298, 

Jewish Poj-fcy, why (eldonl underilood, iv. 134. 

Jews, the folly of deriving all arts, la'.vs, and religion, from 
them, or denying them the produt^lion of any, ii. i;3. iii. 
20, Their manner of exprefling numbers and multuuJe. 
explained, v, 16. ». In what light their fepanuion from the 
reft of mankind to be confidered, iv. 136. Summary view 
of their deliverance from Egypt in order to be fcparatod, 1:4. 
Their expulfion from Egypt denied, 13. Their thcjcracy 
feltabliChed, 157. How long their iheocratic form of govern- 
ment fubfifted, 225. When abolilhed, 243 Totally igno- 
rant of a future ftate under the Mo/n-c difpenfation, v, 39J. 
How long they continued ignorant of a future Hate, iv, 344, 
349. n. Their igrlorance of a future Itatc under the Mc'u.-c 
difpenfation iiluftrated by the New rellamcnt writers, yz. 
Whether rubjc<ft to punifhment in a future Hate under the 
Mo/aic difpenfation, 407. The caufc of their frcqut-ni lapk-i 
into idolatry, ii. 47. Why ill treated by their ^a^^^^r neigh- 
bours, 49. Their obllinute attachment to th-,- E^jpii't 
culloms and fuperftitions, hiftorically traced, iv. 8. ReprJachci 
in a fignal manner for their pervcrfenefs and dilobcdiencc, 
Ezekisl, chap. 20th, 78. Explanaiiv^n of this cHfbr.ucJ 
F f 7 chaprer. 


cliapter, S4. llieir propenfity to idolatry accounted for, 
1 10. Their idolatry not a rejeSiiGn of the god ^i Ifrael, 193, 
T he bad confequence of their propenfity toward marrying 
idolatrous women, v. 78. Reflexions on the moral difpenfa- 
tions of God toward them, 96. A fummaiy view of their 
hiuory, 58, Whence their obllinate adherence to their abo- 
li(hed rites proceeds, ^. An examinadon into the motives 
which withhold them from receiving chrillianity, iii. Bfd. z^. 
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 dodrine of, 
i. 91. 

Infants, unnatural cuftom of expofing, univerfal among the 
antients, i. 257. Difcountenanced in the antient myfteries, 
ib. Guarded againft among the Arabians by Mahomet, ib. 

Infidelity, remarks on the prefent propenfity toward, i. 
Ved. 2. The liberty of the prefs, liable to no reproach on 
that account id. ib. 

In I-- 1 DELS, the injurtice of their complaints of the want of liberty, 
i. Ded. 4, 7. Their fcurrility againll the eftablifhed clergy, 
zd. 22. Their charge againfl the intemperate zeal of ti:i€ 
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 all 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 exlftence afferted, v. 24. His exemplary patience 
not founded on his written Itory, 66. RefleNions on the cha- 
ja6ler 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- 

pofition, 14. When written, 27, 44, 57. Obfervations on 
the imagery of, 33. A continual allufion to the A/^^/r law 
throughout, 41. The language of, compared to that of the 
^//;^>7V«7z Indians, 44. Critical divifion of the work, 47. //, 
The purpofe of its compofition pointed out, 61. Examina- 
tion of the charafters in the piece, 64, 75, 84, 92, jot. 
Allegory of the Hory explained, 67. The moral of, fhewn, 
Joel, the double fenfes in his prophecy, pointed out, v. 294. 

JosEPU, prime rainifter oi Egxpt, married to a daughter of the 



priell of 0/;, ;;;. 37. An eminent inflancc of the ftrength of 
natural affedtion, v. 17. Inference drawn from his entertain- 
ment of his brethren, concerning the ufo of food in 
Egypt, iii. 321. Procures the property of all the land fur 
Pharoah, 322. Vindicated from the charge of rcndenni; the 
government of %v/»/ d'jjpotic, 68. n. 

Jqsephus, defended from the charge of dilbelievinir the mira- 
cles he relates, iv. 273. The circumftances under which he 
wrote his hiftory, 278. His deviations from Scripture ac- 
counted for, 280. The acknowledgment of Chriji in him, a 
forgery, ii. 57. 

Joshua, clear llate of the debate between him and the Jmvijh 
people, on the article of worftiip, iv. ir)-. 

Jotham's Parable, an inliance of inftruction by opolcue. or 
table, 111. 115. 

Isaac. See Abraham, Sacrifices, Stebcinc. 

Isaiah, his denunciations againft the Ijraelites for bringing 
horfes from Egypty in violation of the J^hfaic prohibition,' ii-. 

314. His reprefentacion of the Jeivijh idolatry, iv, 195, 
197. Double fenfes in his prophecies explained, v. 3:7, 
331. His figurative predicftlon of the gofpel difpenfation, 


Is IS, why adopted by the ^//Y«:,7r/, as the patronefs of their 
myfteries, iii. 285. The fevcral attributes and characters 
afcribed to her, 286. 

Isis and Osiris, the patrons of the primitive arts, iii. 304. 
Under what fimilitudes worfhippcd, 42. 1 heir mylleries de- 
fcribed in Eze^ie^s vifions, iv. 18. 

Israelites, why fubjeft to few ^^/r^r^z/ difcafcs, iii. 48. For- 
bid by their law to fetch horfes from Egypr, 312. This law 
violated hy Solomon, and punifhed, 313. /^A*wr/*s account of 
the ftate of the arts among, in the time of Moi'a^ 163. n. 

Judaism, its charaderillic diitindion from all other religions, 
iii. 8. 

Judea, not a proper Country, for the ufc of cavalry in, iii. 

315. /fl//'<2'Ws account of, examined, iv, 146. 
Jupiter, a local deity, iii. 12. Though a local deity, with 

different adjonds to his name, not fevcral dtities but the fjmc, 
ii. 37. n. The llories of his adulteries foimdcd in ttu^th, i:i, 


KiRCHER, his opinion concerning iht Egypt i at charaf^.ers, iii. 
ICQ. 71. 138, 184. n. Charadciifed as A wnics, i»i. -137. 




JiACTANTius, his proof of a future judgment, ii. i86. Aflerts 
the immutability of God, 192. 

Lamb, Pafchal, a type of the future facrifice of ChriJ}, v. 283, 

Language, a deduilioa of the origin of, iii. 105. Diodorus 
Siculus, his account of, 106. ». Firft taught by God, 16, 
Upheld at firfl 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, 

Law, the two great fandionsof^, i. 16. 

^ ' •>, AJosAic, the objections brought againfl the fufEciency of 
it, in obtaining its end, equally valid againft the law of 
nature, iv. 209. Its provifion againft idolatry, 211. Caufe 
of its inefficacy, 212. Its divine inftitution manifeft in the 
difpenfations of Prov'idence toward the Je^jcip people, 219, 
The primary intention of, 221. The temporal fandions of, 
not transferred into the gofpel, 307. Illuftrations from the 
prophets of the temporal nature of its fandions, 318. Why 
enforced by fo many promifcs and threats, 393. Thechriftian 
doctrine j[hadowed under the rites of, v, 8. In what fenfe 
typical or fpiritual, 133. ISfot fuppofed by St, Paul to offer 
a future ilate to its followers, 187. See Future State, 

Laws, Civil, punifh pafHons carried into adion, but not re- 
ward attempts to iubdue them, ii, 13. 

. Penal, to enforce opinions, only equitable under a 

theocracy, iv. 158, 166. 

Lawgivers, antient, the ufe they made of religion, i. 87, 
Jllullrated by inftances, 104. Enquiry into their motives, 
J 07. Never found a people void of religion, ii. 319. 
Obliged to adapt their fyfiems to the worfhip already in being, 
-jzo. Antient, unanimous in propagating the dodrine of a 
fjture ftate, 69, From what motive induced to have recourfe 
to lidion, iv. 112. p. Summary view of their conduft in 
the propagation of religion, v. 370. The place afligned them 
in ElyJiUT., i. 275. 

Lazarus, paffages in the parable of, explained; with refer- 
ence to arguments founded on them of a future ftate being 
taught by Mofes^ v. 168. 

Legislation, antient, a pretended mifTion from fome God, 
the fir It ilep of, i. 104, 

Legislatoks and Hlrces, always actuated by craft and en- 
thufiafm, ii. 281. 



Letters, hi (lory of, iii. 70. The antiquity of. among 
Egyptians^ inferred from their mythologic dciivation of th 


162.. Their right to the patronage of the great, inquired 

into, i. Pre/, 48. 
Lex Sacra, what, i. 222. 
Liberty, civil, too great an attention to the fecurity of, fub- 

verfive of religion, iii.^ Ded. to U, Man^fuld. 

Religious, the ill policy of infrin;^ing, ii. 34. 
■■ of the Press, as favourable to the advocate: of 

religion, as to the infidel, i. Ded. 3. 
LiDGus, the Cretariy moral of the tale of, i. 258. n. 
Life, thepromifes of, under the Mo/aic law, how tote undcr- 

ftood, V. 14:;, 152, 155. 
LivY, his obfervation on the rites of i?aff/^;/;, i. 292. ». Hit 

account of Sc-ph J/ricanus, ii, 281. 
Locke, his obfervations on the Je-wlp theocracy, iv. i6i. 

His memory infulted by his friend CoUinsy i. Dcd. 24. by 

Shaftejburyy id. 26. 
LuciAN, his opinion of the Academics, ii. 117. n. His ac- 
count of the origin of brute worfhip, controverted, iii. 215. 
Luxury, defined, i. 81, 84. The deitrudtive cfieifls of, 85. 
Lycakthropy, a diforder defcribed by the Cnek phyficians, 

fource of, ii. 136. 
LycuRGus, his chief aim in the laws of Span a ^ iv. iiS. 


Macisttiate, the propagation and prefervatlon of religion 
depending on, and owing to him, i. 92. 

. - Civil, why an alliance with the church neccfTary for, 

ii. 8. 

Magistrates, why appointed, i. 11. 

Mahomet, the abfurdity of his imitating Mo/ls in the diflinc- 
tion of meats, pointed out, iv. 6^. In the union vf civil 
and religious policy, 162. n, I'he plan on which his relipim 
was framed, 185, 223. To what his fuccefies were chicHy 
owing, 316. 

Mahometan Writers, a chara(fler of. iv. 180. 

MaimOxMDEs, his account of the JezciJ^ ritual defended, iv. 
124. n. 

Man, in a flate of nature, defcribed, i. 10. 

Manasseh, detail of God's dealings with, v. 39. 

Mandevjlle, his pofition of private vices being pubac bene- 
fits, analyfed, i. 79. ,. , • j • r ••• 

Medicine, the parts of, and when each obtained in u.c, i.i. 
61. Indication of the great antiquity of, 62. 

Melchizedec, obfervalion on the ftoy of, v. 414-. 

f f ^ Mc- 


Met AMORPH OSES, of JpuUiusy particular examination of that 
work. i. 307. 

of ihe antient Poets, rationale of, ii. 136. Pro- 
ceeded from the Metempfychofis, 138, 

]VIETE^spsYCHosIs, the intention of that doctrine, i. 141, 
279. ii. 135. Efteemed peculiarly the doftrine of F^/^^^or^;, 
130. The utility of that doflrine pleaded, 143. Two 
fyftems of, 144. The only vindication of Providence in the 
introduftion of evil, according to Hierochsy 228. The doc- 
trine of, not the origin of brute worfhip, iii. 213. 

Mexicans, their ufe of hieroglyphicvvriting illuftrated, by 
their manner of painting their praters, iii. 72. Account of 
a Mexican hiflory in the fame ftyle, 73. 

and Canad^^Lns, their religious notions compared, 

i- 93- 
Mhhokek, the proper fignification of that word pointed out, 

iv. 245. n. 
Middleton, his argument of the derivation of Popijh from 

Pagan rites, examined, iv. 1 27. «. 
Milesian Fables, what, i. 306. 
Minerva, expofition of a famous hieroglyphical infcription on 

her temple at Sdii, iii. 138. 
Ministry, their charader, in what refped facred, i. Ded. 28. 
Miracles, evidences of an extraordinary Providence over ths 

Je'wijh nation, iv. 273, 286. A neceifary confirmation of 

the fecondary fenfes or the y^w/,'^ prophecies, v, 323. 
Missionaries, catholic and pioteftant, why not attended with 

good fuccefs, ii. 7c. Should firji civilize, and //6^« convert, 

71. MiHaken policy of, 72. 
MoLECH, the meaning of giving feed to him, v. 148, 
Morality, an enquiry into the firH: principles of, i. 37. Re- 

viev/ of the feveral opinions concerning, 40. Capable of 

being counter-aded by cuftorn, 58. Not able to influence 

mankind abftr:idcd from the confideration of reward and 

puniljhment, 59, 70. No compleat fyftem of, contained in 

the New Teftament, S3. 
Mosaic Dispensation, its divinity logically proved, v. 364. 

Moses, propofitions from which his divine legation is efta- 
blifhed, i. 7, His account of the E^ypti'in priefthood, a 
confirmation of thole of the antient Greek hiftorians, iij. 35. 
Corroborates their account of the religious rites oi' Egyft, 39. 
Of the funeral rites of, 66. Of the divifion of the lands of 
£^y:t, 67. His knowledge in the Ejiyptian learning, and 
the laws by him inllituted, a confirmaiion of the divinity of 
his million, iv. no. Anfwers to deillical objedlions againft 
the divinity of his millioo, 115. His laws accommodated 



to the prejudices of the Jcnxs, in favour of U)e E^pit^n 
cullnms, 23. This no objcdion to the divinity cf hii 
niiffion, 39« The reafon of his unwillingncCs to undertake 
his miflion, 7. The omiiTion of a future Hate in his law 
intended, 320. Two periods obfervable in his Inllory, ih- 
The mention of a future rtate by him, and by foilovvin;^ 
writers, to be diiUnguilhed, v. q. The (iyife of hi» cxprcf- 
fions relaung the creation of man, aicertained. 126. Hii 
injunclions to the Jenvs againll the local idolatry of CaKaan, 
iv. 189, 198. One intention of his laws, to prohibit all 
intercourfe between the Hel/reiLs and the E^yftians^ i i. 312. 
His motives explained, §13. Vindicated from the fuppofition 
of having had recourfe to li£lion in ceriain cafes, iv. 112. n. 
The difference between coniradiding the ojlronojns, and the 
h'Jioryy wrote by him, iii, 244. '1 he former of \\\tHebre^\j 
alphabet by an improvement of the Egypiian charadlers, 164. 
Charafters in the Pagan mythology fuppofed by fome, to be 
intended for him, ii. 133. iii. 258. 

Moses, Divi?ie Legation of\ fummary view of the oppofjiion 
this performance met with, iii. Vref. 27. Recapitulation of 
the argument proving his divine legation, v. 358, The 
length of it accounted for, 366. See Future State, Law 
Mosaic, Lazarus, 

Mus^us, how employed in ^/'r^//*6 yfi"///?/*/, i, 277. 

MusquETS, humourous llory of a parcel of, with a logical in- 
ference, v. 404. 

Mysteries, the moll facred articles oi Pagan religion, i. 136. 
The tferm explained, 137. Where, and to what, cele- 
brated, 138. All inculcated the dodrine of a future llatc, 
ib. Common people fond of them, 148. The expediency 
of, 149. Refemblance between initiation into, anil death. 
280. Alluded to by the fon of ^irach, 281. n. Enquiry 
into the motives oi Apuleiui'^ defence of, 304. 

■s ■ Pagan, their ufages adopted by the primitive fathers, 

i. 200. Invented and upheld by lawgivers, 202. Marks ot 
their Egyp'ian original, 204. ii. 229. iii. 36. Of great ufe 
to the^ilate, i. 209. Tiie betrayer of them, an infamou:* 
charaaer, 182. Antient opinions of, 1.S5. Violators of them, 
how punilhed, 267. Summary view of, v. 37c. Sec 
Eleusinian Mysteries. 

Mythologist?, antient, their tellimony not to he truikd, in 
afcertaining times and fafts, iii. 290. 

Mythology, antient, fources of the confufion in, lu, 291. 

J^Ja-ture, ftate of, the miftakcn prejiidirc io favoiir of v. hat 
3S fb called, iliullrut^d, ii. 7^. 


Nature, unisTrfal, the objeft of all the antlent mylleries, i, 
203, 209. 

Nebuchadnezzar, rational meaning of his transformationj 
ii. 137. 

NerO, Emperor, why deterred from attempting to fee the cele- 
bration of the Eleufiniatt myfleries, i. 144. 

New Testament, no compleat fyftem of morality contained 
in it, i. 83. 

Newton, Sir Isaac, his chara6lerasa natural philofopher, iii. 
243. Milled by Grff>^ my thologifts, 244. The argument of 
his Egyptian chronology, 245. His reafons for the identity 
of OJiris and Srfojirisy 246. His iniflake in this, illuftrated 
by a cafe ftated in fimilar terms, 253. The fource of his 
' jniflake, 260. His hypothefis fupported principally by two 
mythologic fables, iii. 293. Miftakes the times of the Pagan 
deities, compared with the ^ra of the 7iri9/<2« war, 296. His 
fyftem of chronology contradidtory to Scripture, 303. His 
chronology refuted by dedudlion, 304. His account oi Vul- 
cariy 306. Compared with that of Homer y 307. His affer- 
tion of the conqueil: of Lyhia furnifhing Egypt with horfes, 
iRwilidated, 310. His opinion of the time when the Egyptians 
introeluced animal food, refuted, 320. His period of the 
divifion of ,thj£.Jandsof £^jt;/i/, difproved, 322. His account 
of the firft introduclion of letters into Egypt ^ rejefted, 325. 
His obfervations relating to the populoufnefs of Egypt^ exa- 
mined, 326. Makes Sr/ojiris io h^ Hercules, 329. Quotes 
uE/culapius as the firft who built with fquare ftone, 330. Sum- 
mary view of the difpute concerning the identity of Ofiris 
with Se/ojiris, 335. 

NiciAS, \\i& Athenian, fatal eifefts of his fuperftition, ii. 270, 

Nile, the happy efFe>5ls of its annual overflowings, iii. 28. 

Noah, hirf haradler found to anfwer that of the Indian Bacchus^ 
iii. 288. n. 

Nocturnal Assemblies of the primitive chrillians, firft 
occafion of, iii. Pre/. 41. Their antiquity among Pagans 
Pre/. 67. 

• Rites among the antients, fubjeft to great cenfure, 

i. 186. n. Regulated by Solon, ^c, 1 8 8. Abolilhed by 
T^heodofiui the elder, 189. 

Nordek, Captain, his miiiaken conclufion from a view of the 
pyramids, concerning the antiquity of the Egyptian hierogly- 
phics, correjSled, iii. 133. z?. 


Oath, Cicero's, opinion of the obligation to fullfil It, ii. 184. 
Oaths of conformity, amo.^g the antients, ii. 29. 

() Obelisks, 


Obelisks, of the antient Eoyptiansy the public records of iKf 
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 inflances men frcquent'y a£t contrary to 
thofe they entertain, i. 69. 

Oracles, the original motive of confulting them, iii 274. 

Origen, his miiunderftanding of the promilcs of \\it Jt'wjb 
law, pointed out, v. 1 3 i . w. 

Orpheus, his hymns preferred to ILmeri^ in the riles of 
Ceresy i, 178. His defcent into hell, explained, 229. 

Osiris who, iii. 259. His fymbols, 268. proof of hit •ntf- 
quity equal to Mojesy ib. His fuperior antiquity to St/ojtris 
afcertained, ib. Account of, and his court, from Diodtnu 
Siculusy iii. z6o. His various characters at different places, 
as expreffed in an epigram of Aufonius, iii. 287. And ^efof- 
trist their identity controverted, againft Sir l/aac A/iuton, 
248. Diflinguilhed, 259, 265. 

Ovid, an examination into the merits of his Mctamorphofes, 
ii. 130. Contain a popular hiftory of Providence, 15S. 
Criticifm on, 140. His account of Ty^ufi war with iKc 
Gods, iii. 206. 


Pagan Deities, vicious examples of, and the licentious rites 
in their worfhip, infuperable obftacles to virtue, i. 153. 

^ Mythology, the apology of the priells and philo- 

fophers, for the immorality of it, i. 176. n. 

Paganism, antient, analyfis of, ii. 37. Not confiftiDg of 
dogmatic points of behcf, but of praftical rites, 40. How 
the antient philofophcrs attempted to uphold it, in its decline, 

i. 303. 
Pan, how painted by the Egyptians, in. 208. 
Pantomime, hillorical anecdote of the great cxprcflion ol one, 

V. 228. ». ... 

Parable, the origin and nature of, 111. 169. 
Paraguay, wife conduct of the Jefnit, there, 11. 72. n. 
Parmenides, his two theories of the Univcrfe, 11. 93. 
Passover, Je^vijh its typical meaning pointed out, v. 293. 
Patriots, how fituated in E'yfuim, 1. 276. 
Patriarchs, Je^.^ifi, Iheun to be no punifhers for opinions, 

PA^'uLt'st. for what purpofc called to the apoaieOilp, iv. 57. 
' |n what charaaer he appeared before the court of Aricpa^ut^^^ 


fi. 57. His fentiments 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- 
penfatron, 363, — that its fandions were all temporal, 371, 
Kis definition of faith, v. 178. A feeming contradiction 
in, between Jfis xiii. 32. and Heh. xi. 39. reconciled, 182, 
Au important paffage in his Epiille to the Romans, chap. viii. 
ver. 3, 4. expounded, 184. 

Pelasgians, account of their adoption of the names of the 
Egyptian Gods, and application of them to their own deities ; 
from Herodotusy iii. 278. Communicate them to the Greeks, 

Pentateuch, its authenticity maintained, i. 117. 

Peripatktics, in what refped different from the Platonrjfs, lu 
160. Deny a particular Providence, 193. 

Persecution for religious opinions, the origin of, traced, ii. 
48, 52, 68. iii. Pre/. 31;. v, 413, How accounted for by 
Vcltairey ii. 48. «. Difcouncenanced by the Gofpel difpenfa- 
tion, iv. 164. ». 

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, 

Pharoah, king of E^ypt, the Scripture account of, iii. 39. 
Promotes Jcfeph, 37. His chariots and cavalry in the pur- 
suit of the Ifraelitts, iii. 310. An illuilration of the Oniro- 
critic art, drawn from Jofeph*^ interpretation of his two 
dreams, 195. 

Pharmacy, general divifion of, iii. 62. 

pHENiciAN Superstition, defcribed in EzekiePs vifions, iv, 

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 
t\\t Sacred Band €i\. Cb^roneay \. 224. 

Philosopj^er, antient, a chara<Ser compounded of Lawgiver 
and Naturalift, ii. 105. In both, miftaken in their views, 
i. 151. And citizen, diilindlion between, ii. 75. 

PwiLOrSOPHERs, antient, unanimous in the opinion that the 
inculcation of the belief of a futupe Hate was neceffary to 
tlie well-being of focicty, ii. 77. The opinion of its utility 
ilrengthened, by its not being an article of their private belief, 
86. Taught conformity to the Religion of the country, 89. 
Hence infmcerity juftificd by them, 91. Their external and 
internal doftrine wherein they differed, 95. Reproached by 
;he piimitive fathers for diiUmuIation, igo. u. Their two- 


fold doflrlne applied to the fcrvice of fociety, 103, 107, 
143. DiiFerence between thcfe who added legiflation 10 
their phyfics, and thofc who did not, leg. When they be- 
gan to admit a future date of retribuiion, 216. Aiheillic, 
their particular motives to the praflicc of virtue, i. 73. 
pHiLosoPHKRs, Grecian, charadcr of, ii. 106. — always men- 
tioned by the Apoftles with contempt, 237. 
Philoso|»hy, Greek, true key to, ii. 99. Who formed by, 
KS5. Analyfis of, 1 1 4. How received in //<?/)•, 16''). Bar- 
baric, not fyflematic ; but in detached precepts, 221. Mo- 
dern, the antients unacquainted with the rciincd dillindlions 
of, 185. 
Phlegyje, in Virgil^ who, i. 267, 
Physic, a critical inquiry into the flate of, in antient /Tjj/r, 

iii. 40. 
Planet-worship, the firft religion of Grfrr^, iii. 270. 
Plato, his definition of facrilege, i. 133. His view of a 
future Hate, 260, His private opinion of an univcrlal 
foul, ii. 94. His analyfis of the Gnctan philofophy, 107. 
His charader afcertained, 122. «. His charafter as a laU'- 
^iver, 149, 162. His politics ridiculed by the antients, 
150. What, the proper key to his writings, 152. His 
Phaedo, Cicero's opinion of, i 53. His norim of the immor- 
tality of the foul inquired into, 154. Hii refinement on the 
Metempfychefis, 155. Inculcates future icwards and punif].- 
ments in the popular fenfe of, 1^6. Tcltinionies of his dil- 
beliefof, 157. Why he baailhsd /f^w^r from his repubii., 
Platonists, in what refpedl differing from the PenpniCict 
and Stoicsy ii. 160, 193. Allegorize ti.e dodlrine of the reici- 
reftion, 236. 
Pliny the younger, his opinion of the ChriJIians, ii. 53. The 

reafon of his perfecuting the Chnjlianiy iii. Prcf. ^y, 4S. 
Plutarch, his fentiments of a future Hate, ii. 179,191. Hij 
account of the origin of atheifm and fupcrllition, 260. His 
parallel between, 261. His motives to this performance ex- 
amined into, 266. fi. Argues from unfair principle?, 274. 
His argument purfued by Lord Bacon, 277. The objedl of 
his trad on I/u and O/ms, 308. Accufes the Jtivs ot woi- 
fhipping fwinc, iii, 212. w. 
PococKE, his account of the Egyptian hieroglyphics confidcrco, 

iii. 80. ;:, 1 u I 

Political Romances, an inquiry into a general, thou^.i 

fundamental deviation from known faft, in, i. 20. 
P0LYP.IUS, his eacomium on the piety aud probu/ of the R,- 

manst 11. 79. 


t N D E X. 

Polytheism, the Ekujlnian myfleries a dete£li*on of, i. 154, 
170. - 

PoMPONATius, the intention of his ircziik De immortalitate 
animae miftaken by Bayle, ii 26, 3c. 

Porch, the doftrine taught by the philofcphers of, ii. 161. 

Porphyry, his account of the origin of brute-worfliip, con- 
troverted, iii. 216. And Clemens JkxandrinuSy their account 
of the antient Egyptian charaders and writing, 121. 

Posterity, why the punifhments of the Mojaic law extended 
to them, iv. 326. The cafe argued, 332. 

PosTHUMius, the conful, his exhortation to maintain unity 
of public worfhip, ii. 29. Noc inconfiflent with toleration of 
private religion, 35. 

Priests, Pagatiy not folicitous to teach the people virtue, i. 
208. Pious, where placed in the Fagan elyfium, i. 276. 

Primitive Christians, their nofturnal vigils abufed, u 

Principles, Good and Evil, the belief of, how guarded againll 
by the writer of the book o^ Job, v. 97. 

Prophecy. See Christ, Ezekiel, Horace, Jerusalem^ 
Joel, Isaiah, Peter, Sykes. 

Prophecies, what a neceffary confirmation cf their reference 
10 the Meffiah, v. 323. Their primary and fecondary fenfes 
diftinguifiied, 327. Of the gofpel difpenfation, mifunder- 
ilood by the Je^^vs, and why /o ordained, 340. Scripture^ 
defended from the infinuations of Dr. Middhton, 290- 

Prophets, Jevcijhy rational account of their illnftrating their 
prophecies by figns, iii. 108. Reafon of the inftitution of a 
Ichool for, iv. 42. 

Providence, the notions of the The'rjiical phiiofophers con- 
cerning, ii. 193. Particular, denied by the Stoics and Peri- 
■patetics, ib. Particular, affirmed by the Pythagoreans and 
Ftatonijisy ib. The difpenfations of, according to the Pa- 
gansy adminiilered through the medium of inferior local tute- 
lary deities, 194. How its difpenfations were juflified by the 
antients, 228. Remarks on the different reception of its 
adverfe difpenfations, in antient and modern times, v. 76. n. 

— _ — Extraordinary, a neceifary confequence of the 

yeiQiJh theocracy, iv, 267. lllullratcd from Solomons prayer at 
the dedication of the Temple, 289. From Ezekiely 291. 
From ylmosy 293. Evidences of its ceafmg, 29S. The men- 
tion of the inequalities of, by the facred wruers, accounted 
for, 302. 

PsAMMiTicHus, his fchcmc to ellablifli an intercourfe between 
Egypt and the Grecian flates, iii. 160. 

Punishments, their ufes in. civil fociety, i. 19. 

Purgatory, Pagany what, i. 25^. 


I N D E X. 

PYRAMIDS of Eay-pt, probablc reafons why th<?y exhibit do 
hieroglyphic infcriptions, iii. 133. «. The E^yp^.an ..rchi- 
tedure formed on the idea of, 134. Not temples, but 
fcpulchres, 135. Alluded 10 in ihe book of Joh, v. 3^. 

Pyrrhonians, their tenets, and wherein tijcy differed "from 
the academics, ii. 116. Whence named, 1 20. 

Pythagorus, his precept for cUablifliing laws, i. 121 His 
good and evil Principle. 126. The firft in rank among the 
Grecian lawgivers and phiiofophers, ii. 105. How he ac- 
quired the learning of Egypt, ib. More particular account 
of, iz6. Proofs illuftrative of his leL;iflative fame, 130. 
Why he afligned Homer and Hcfoti penance in hell,' 306^ 
His theory of earthquakes, 108. His predidion of thorn 
juHified by late experience, 108. «. 

Quakers, their motives for rejeding the Inflitution of baptjfm, 
examined into, v. 4. 


Rainbow, firfl creation and reafon of, iv. 32* nl 

Reason, human, able to perceive, but not to difcovcr, truti), 
ii- 243. 

Regulus, Cicero's opinion of his obligation to return to Car- 
thage, ii. 184. 

Religion, the external evidences of it how weakenedj i. 2. 
Natural, not fufficient v^ithout the aid of the civil magillratc, 
II. Only capable of fupplying thofe fantI:tions which civil 
fociety needs, but hath not, 22. How, ib, 23. Its ncccf- 
fity to fociety, 25. Its exiitence fecured by an alliance uith 
the civil power, ii. 9, 17. Confers refpcdl and veneration on 
the laws and magiftrate, 12. Receives a coadlive power, 13. 
The only tribunal before which indentions are cognizable, i 3. 
Evil confequences of more than one being in a Uate, if-y 
26. Its ufe in legiflation, i. 87* I'hc confcrvation c^, 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 
magiilrate fo folicitous to infoice it, /A. Not the offspring 
o^ fear, 291. The abfurdiiy of any human It giflaturc% in- 
forcing it by penal laws, iv. 166. h\\ eUabliflied one jn 
every of the antient nations, ii. i. Its ufe in fociety, 3. 
Jts care limited to the foul, 8. EflalliHicd, falfc policy of 
forcing people into conformity to it, 3-j. Diilindion amoni; 


the Pagafts, between, and private or tolerated religion, 62 i ni 
66. Conformity to that of the country, taught by the an^ 
tient philofophers, 89. Diftinition between true and falfe, 
46. Chriftian, why neceflarily founded on the Je^vijh, 47. 

IIemgion, Jewish, not adopted by any of the neighbouring 
nations, and why, iv, 203. 

— OF Names, an jE'^j/)//<*« fuperftition, iv* 3. 

■- OF Nature, confirmed by revelation, i. 83, 

• Pagan, the genius of, indicative of the hand of the 

magiilrate in its formauon and fupport, i. 95. How it came 
to be fo interwoven with civil hiftory, loi* n. Myfteries 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, 1 11 . 

Religions, a comparlfon of the many that have exifled in the 
world, the clue to the true one, iii, 8, 

■ • Pagan, apo!og€tical fuggeilions to account for the 

diverfity of, ii. 44.. Not interfering with each other, iv, 

Christian and Mosaic, neceflarily dependant on 

fome preceding religion, iv. 183. 
Religious Society. See Society. 
Resurrection, dodrine of, allegorized hy i\it Plat onijis, \l. 

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 objedion againft them, 

as inducements to virtue, /V. 39. n. More powerful perfua- 

Hves to virtue, than any abftraCt contemplation on the loveli- 

nefs of it, i. 59, 70. 
Revelation, Chriltian, 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 ci re urn fiance 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 iheHebreiv fages, as mutual trials of 

fagacity, iii. 171. 
Ridicule, the favourite figure of fpeech among infidels, i. 

Did. 9. Arguments in jnftification of, id. 12. Refuted, id, 

13. Not the tell of truth, but 'vice 'ver/a, id. 15. Mifchiefs 

refulting from it, id. 18. 
Rites, legal and patriarchal, rot to be confounded, iv. 28. 
Ritual Law of the Jews, made in reference to the Egyptian 



fuperflitlon, iv. 24. This no objcaion to the divinity of 
it, 58. Charaderifed in Ezekiel, 82, Explained, HS. 

Rome, to what its dcclenfion was owing, i. 8^. Antient and 
modern, refemblance between, in religious modes, ii. 35. 
Pagan, how it prefcrved its ellabljfhed religion from forcion 
mixtures, 66. Chriilian, whether its fupcrliitions 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 the, iii, 

RuTHERFORTH, Dr. his notioH of the efFe<fl the withdrawing 
the fanftions of the Je^ijh law, had on the obligatory force 
of that law, examined, iv. 269. His notions of the tem- 
poral fanftions of the Jeivijh law being continued under the 
gofpel, examined, 307. His notions of inefhcacy of actiua 
without fpeech, examined, v. 226. n. 


Sabbath, a pofitive inllitution, iv. 32. ». 

Sacred Band, affefling anecdote of, i. 224. 

Sacrifices, human, the command to Abraham to offer up his 
fon Ifaac, vindicated from the obje(5^ion of giving a divine 
fanftion to, v. 248, 266. 

Sal LUST, his theological fentiments, ii. 197. 

Samuel, his conduft in eflabliftiing the regal form of govern- 
ment in Judeay iv. 231. 

Sanchoniathon, his genealogical account of the firft ages, f, 
168. Reafons to conclude his hillory to be that narrated at 
xhQ Eleujtnian myfteries, i. 171. Whence he tranfcribed his 
hiftory, 173, His hillory when corrupted, 175. When he 
lived, ib. 

Sanhedrim, why inftituted, iv. 42. When eftablifhcd, 53. 
The motives of Jefus Chrift\ evafive reply to their interro- 
gation?, ih. 

Satan, examination of his charafter as delivered in Job, 92. 

Saul, the phrafe of his being among the prophets, explained, 
iv, 44. Charadlerifed, ih. 

ScENiCAL Representations, in what refpefl without moral 

import, v. 265. r ^. x. c 

Sceptre of Judah, the common notions of that phr.le exa- 
mined, iv. 246. True fenfe of, pointed out, 262. 

SciPio Africanus, I/Ws account of, li. 281. 

Scriptures, facred, a fummary view of their contents, iv. 
344. General rule for the interpretation of, V. \i^. 

Sectaries, reafons for excluding them from the public admi- 
niftraiion, ii. 27. _ 

Vou V. G g Si-Nic*. 


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 pafied on ir, is to be underftood, 
V. 129. Crooked, m Job 2indilfaiah, the meaning of ex- 
plained, 98. 

Sesostris, account of, (ram Diodorus Sicu/us, iii. 32. Who, 
259. Divides £'^'/>2' by tranfverfe canals, 320. His motives 
for, 324. 

and Osiris, arguments againft the indentity of, in 

oppo^xdoTiXo Sir I/aac NeiviQJi, iii, 248, Diftinguillied, z^g^^ 
265. ' 

Shaftesbury, his application of ridicule, as a teft of truth, i. 
f)ed, 12. His treatment of Locke, id, 26. His notions of 
the antient Heathen religions, erroneous, ii, 41. Oppofes 
the influence oUaJie, to the belief of a future Jiate^ 83, 

Sherlock, Bp. his notion of the tribal fceptre of Judah, 
examined, iv. 2,0. 

Shuckford, Dr. his remarks on the antient i^//W law, exa- 
mined, iv. 28, 83, 

Sibyl, the charafler fhe fullains in the JEnetdy i. 234. 

8jg ns, memorable inltance of divine inflradion communicated 
by, in thecafe of^^r^/6«w, 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, \, Ded, 35. 

Society, civil, the advantages of, i. 12. Its infufficlency 
againft moral diforders, 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 inilituted, ii. c. 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, ib. Why induced to unite with civil fociety, 17. 

Socrates, Why he declined initiation into the Orphic and 
Eleufiniun mylleries, i. i8x. 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 mifled m his 
judgment of a future flate, 235. 

Socratic method of arguing, what, ii. 121. 

Solomon, his prayer at the dedication of the Temple, illuflra- 

tive of the paiticular Providence over the y^wj//b nation, iv. 

3 289. 


289. And that the fanaions of the Mojaical \m were mr cr!f 
temporal, 318. His violations of the A/o/v/f law, remarkco 
iii. 313. How perverted to idolatry, v. Si. ' 

Sophists, fome account of, ii. 121. Unfavourably treated by 
the Rowans, 166. 

Soul, PythagoraCs notion of an univcrfal one, ii. 208, 224. 
Immaterial, common to the whole animal creation, v. 127. 
Human, three fpecies of, diilinguilhed by the anticnts, i'i 
190. Held to be fubllance, 199. Difcrrpcd parts of God, 
201. Pre-exiftent as well as poll-exillcnt, 203. Illullratcd 
byafimile, 209. 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 concernin;^, 
under the law, iv. 371;. Examination of the notion of the 
fleep of, 376. The mention of its future exillence by Mjes 
and by following writers, to be diftinguithcd, 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. 109. 

Spencer, an examination of the argument of his treat' fc /)r 
Theocratia Juda'ua, iv. 236. 

Spinozism, the principle of, cherifhed in the antient myftcrics, 
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 0^ Levit. xviii. 5. examined, v. 

143. An examination of his confideraiions on the command 

to /Abraham to offer up Ifaac^ 20i» n, 2ig. n. His notions of the 

trial of Abraham examined into, 2^3, 239. n. 248. n. 261, n. 
Stillingfleet, his opinion o^ \.\\e Egyitian hieroglyphics, 

iii. 139. 
Stoical Renovation, vi'hat, ii, 164. 
Stoics, the principle of that fe6l, i. 66. Ba\le^s renfoning 

from it, invalidated, 67. In what refpcd different f om the 

Plato7iiJ}sy ii. 160. Difbelieve the immortality of the foul, 

162. Deny a particular i^rovidence, 193. 
St R A BO, his divifion of the antient Pugnn religion, i. 289. 

Miftaken in his reprclentation of the M?//z/V religion, ii. 219. 
Suicide, difcountenanccd in the antient myfterirs, i. 2^4. 
SuLPicius, his reflexion on the fight of the ruins qI Corinth, 

l^c, \. Ded» 16. Burlefqued by Scarron, it. ih. 
Sun and Moon, the various names thefe luminaries were wor- 

jhipped by, among the Pagafu, ii. 301. 

C g 2 Super* 


Superstition, dlllinguifhed fron? religion, ii. 256. PlutarcWi 

account of the origin of, 260, 
SvKES, Dr. his notion of the Jenv'Jh theocracy, examined, iv. 

287. ;?. 291. », 324. n. His notion concerning the double 

fenfes of the Scripture prophecies, examined, v. 308. 
Symbols, their revolution from being employed for contrary 

purpofes, to their primitive defignation, pointed out, iii, 

System and Hypothesis, the human mind naturally inclined 

to, iii. 20. 


Tacitus, his opinion of the y^'-w//^ religion, iii. Pre/, 38. n. 
His account of the antient Jheban monuments, 137. 

Tages, \.\\q Etrv/can Go^t how found, iii. 24.1. n. 

Talismans, greatly venerated by the M«/^^w^/««/, iii. 183. 

Taste, oppofed 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 Menelausy iii. 31^. 

Test-law, the reafons of, traced, ii. 24, The obligation the 
ftate is under to grant the church this fecurity, 25. Juflified 
from hirtory, 27. 

Test-oath, among the /^/i'(?fl//2»/, ii. 28. 

'Th E o c R A T I c - GOV E K N M E N T of the Jeivs, the reafons and con- 
veniencies of, iv. 136, 166. Why willingly received by 
them, 172. Particular enquiry into the circumllances of, 
161, 215. NeceiTarily including an extraordinary Providence, 
267. Illullrated from Solcmons prayer at the dedication of 
the Temple, 289. From Ezekiel, 291. From Jmos, 293. 
How long fubilfting, 225. When abolifhed, 243. 

Theocracy, every fubjtd a priell under, iv. 157. ». 

Theology, do^imatic, how introduced, ii. 46. 

Theseus, expofjcion of his defcent into hell, i. 230. His 
punifhment for violating the myfteries, 26;, 

TiMiEUS, his charader by Po/, 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 
amon'jj all the antient nations, and why, ii. 33, iii. Pre/. 61. 
Religious impreflions ftrengthened by encouraging new, and 
foreign worlhip, 35. Antient, difteient from our modera 
ideas of, ih. 

Toyman, d^tBath, pertinent Uory of, v. 361. 



Tradition, miftaken prefumptlon to Hrengthcn the auihority 
of, by the church of 7?ow, iv. 359. ^ 

Trajan, Emperor, his perfccution of Chriftianlty accountcJ for. 

^"- 5?- . 

Treason, high, obfervatlons on the laws of forfeitures in cafci 
of, iv. 334. 

Trismegistus, the bouks that go under his name, forecJ, ii. 

Truth and Utility, proved to coincide, ii. 247, 2i;6. 
Types, the meaning of, afcertained, v. 270. Derivation of, 

285. In Religion, argument deduced from the gtneral 

pafiion for, 394. 
Typhon, the fable of, explained, iii. 206, 25S. 
Tyrants, antient, great cncouragers of icligion, and why, i. 


Varro, his obfervation on the expediency of enihufufm for the 
efFefting great enterprizes, ii. 286. 

Virgil, his reformation o^ Epic poetry, i. 212. n. Mis po- 
litical viev^'s in ihz JE?2eisy 217. His infernal geography, i. 
253. Millake in, noted, 263. Wherein he excelled //owr, 
i. 274. His fcencs all accommodated to the myfteries, 277. 
The purpofe of his writing, 282. Some criticifms againlt, 
obviated, 283. Exhibits an entire view of the Pogin reli- 
gion, i. 2S9, His reprefentation of the rites of Bacchus^ 
292. Erom 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 objedion 
againft the view of rewards and punilhmenls, operating as 
motives to it, i. 39. Why a uniform practice of it, will not 
generally contribute to human happinefs, i. 60. An enquiry 
into the nature of, under a difpcnfation of rewards and punifli- 
ments, iv. 419, 

Voltaire, his miftaken notion of the origin of religious per- 
fccution, reel fied, ii. 48. n. His account of the Mcl'aic 
difpcnfation, examined, iv. 139. His mifreprcfcntation of 
Judea, \z^\i\.t^y 146. Some millakes in his treacife on 1 dera- 
tion, noted, iv. 341. v, 

Vossius, his account of the origin of idolatry, refuted, iii. 

Utility, indicative of truth, ii. 247, 

Vulcan, Sir //W AVtx.7o«'s account of, iii. 306. Compared 
with that of Homer, 307. 

G g 3 Wakti, 



Wants, real and fantaftic, the effe£ls of, i. 75. Increafe with 

the improvements in policy a»d arts, 76. 
William of iV^av/o«r^, his charader of Pope Gregory vi'ii, v, 

Witchcraft, the fuppofed effefts of, accounted for, ii. 137. 

WiTsius, his arguments for the Egyptian Ritual being borrowed 

from theje^vs, examined, ^v. 27. Critique on his ^gyptiaca, 

Wives, ftrange, or idolatrous, bad confequences of the fond- 

nefs the Je--vj' had for them, faewn, v. 78. 
Works, no j unification by, under the Gofpel, v. 186, 
Worship, intercommunity of, a fundamental point of Paga^ 

n//m, ii. 4c, 53. 
Writing, hiilory of the art of, iii. 70* 


Zaleucus, his exiftence called in queftion by fimaus, f. I r j. 
Enquiry into the authenticity of his laws, 116. Prior to 
Pythagoras, 120. His religious precepts, 127. 

Zeno, his chara6ter, ii. 161, 193. ' 

Zoroaster of Hyde and Prideaux, difcredited, iv. iSp^ 

A N 



O F- 

AUTHORS, 6cx. 

Quoted in the foregoing Work 3 which Quo- 
tations are not referred to in the Index. 

ACofta, ill*. DeJ, 2, «. 71, Ariftotlc, i. 12, 154, 212. ii. 

86. n. 99. n. 5, 21 1, 222, n. iii. 262. 

Addilbn, i. Ded. 12, 21^. Arnauld, v. 193. 

^Han, ii. loi, 108. iii. 201. Arnobius, ii. 100. ». 206,21c, 

262. Arrian, ii. 163. n. iii. 261. 

^fchylus, ii. 60. Aiteniidorus, i. 313. r. iii. 

Agellius, ii. 120. igo. 

Ahijah, v.' 26^. Aftruc, iii. 162. n. iv. 6. 

Albinus, ii. 152. Aulus Gellius, i. 268. iii. 301, 

Albo, Rabbi Jofeph, v. 333. w. 

Ammianus Marcellinus, iii. Aufonius, iii. 287. 

136. iv. 19. Auftin, i. 100. /;. IC2, 14J, 

Amos, iv. 12," 90. V. 330. 1)4- »• ^57. Z-9\}}- ^\' "• 

Anaxagoras, ii. 271, 307. 91, loi. «. 12 7. in- 153. '/. 
Antoninus, Marcus, ii. 53, 55, 

,63, ^14. Bacon, Lord, 11. 132,2^9, 

Apion, iv. 204. «. 278. n. 271. //. iii. I'rej: ^c. iv. 105, 

Apollodorus, iii. 54. n. ''. 

Apuleius. i. 146. 232, 238, Banier, ii. 134.'^. H-' 

274. 291, 296. ii. 125, 195, Barbeyrac, 1. 256. 
230. iii. ::6. n, 90, 147, Baxter, ni. 192. 

168, 286. Bayle, i. 44. ^8' >^°' ''-^^ 

Arcefilaus, ii. 116. 250. ii. 64, 220 250. n. 

Ariftides, i. 140, 190, 270, 257.1v. i;9. V.S68. 

275. n. 286. Beaufobre, n. 233. iii. 182. r. 
ArHlophanes, i. 14:, 205. fu Bellarmine, i. 191. ^^^. 


Bentley, i. 112. 11. 37. ». 

Berkley, iv. 360. 

Bernier, ii. 45. 

Blackwell, i. 97. «. 219, 250. 

ii. 223, 310. 
Blount, ii. 248. 
Bochart, iii. 207. n, 
Bolingbroke, Lord, iii. 10. n, 
iv. 38, 152. n, 215, 217, 
343. V. 174, 318. 
BofTu, i. 213. n. 
Bouiller, v. 224. w. 356. «, 

Boulainvilliers, i. 94. 

Brown, i. Ded, 20. n. 

Bull, Bilhop, V. 2. n. 192. 

Bullet, iii. 175. n. 

Bunyan, v. 349. 

Burlamaqui, i. 54. 

Burnet, ii. 103, 223. iii. 331. 
iv. 32. V, 

Butler, iii. 331* 

Caecilius, iii. Vref. 62. 
Callimachus, i. 184. /?. iii. 

301. n. 
Calmet, iv. 154. w. 538. ». v. 

14. n.^ 
Cardan, 1. 26, 74. 
Carneades, ii. 1 16. 
Cafaubon, i. 200. ;;.'2o8. n, ii. 

84. n, iii. 261. ?7, 
Cafiiadorus, iii. 183. 
Celfus, j. 139. ii. i8g. iii. 
Pref. 53, 48. z?. 53. iv. 188. 
ChaEiemon, iii. 37. n. 
Charlevoix, i. 233. n. iii 74. n. 
Charondas, i. 112, 132. 
Chillingworth, v. 49. 
Cbryfippus i. 43. w. 163. ii. 

Ill, 157, 161. 
Chrylollom, ii. 57, n, v. 223, 

Chubb, iv. 305. «. 
Cicero, i. Ded. 11. id, 34, j6. 
jr. 74, 91, 95, 116, 131, 
140, 171, 18^, 214. n, 223. 
233, 254, 290. ii. 35, 61, 

91, 109. n. 112, 115, 129, 
148. n. 165, 201, 224, 245, 
288. iii. 'Pref^ 69, 62, 102, 
176, 241. ». v. 360. 
Clarke, i. 52. ». iii. 57. ». 
iv. 368. «. 408. v, 127. n, 

Claudian, i. 24. 
Cleanthes, ii. 213. 
Clemens Alexandrinus, i. 114, 

152, 163. 179, 195, 233. 

ii. 107. w, iii. 53, 122. 
Cocceius, iii. 36, v. 78. 
Codurcus, v. 35. n, 
Collins, i. Ded, 36. id. 43; 

iii. Ded. 6. iii. 115. «. iv. 

43. t7, 176. v. 276. 

Condamine, iii. 174. ». 
Condillac, iii. 152. w. 177. »• 
Craig, i. 2. ». 
Crinitus, iii. 164. v. 
Critias, ii. 248, 293. 
Cudworth, ii. 203, 21 1, 245. 
Cumberland, iii. 22. n, 79. n, 

Cyprian, i. 159. 

Dacier, i. 255. n. ii. 148, 185. 
Daniel, ii. 137. iii. 172. v. 

^^5- ... 
Daubuz, m. 192. ti, 195. n, v, 

David, king, iii. 172. iv. 189, 

291. ti, 302. 
De Choifi, ii. 46. tt, 
De la Croix, i. 105. ». 
Demetrius Phalareus, iii. 10c. 

Democritus, ii. 223. 
Demollhenes, ii. 29. 
Des Cartes, ii. 22^,2^1;* 
Diodorus Siculus, i. 104, 106, 

138, 172, 182, 204. ». 264, 

ii. 42, 281, 295. iii. 32, 34, 

54. n. 65, 136, 144, 175, 

209, 257. 
Diogenes Laertius, i. 104. ii. 


106, 125, 128, 144, 233. 

V. 307, iii. 293. 
Dionyfius Halycarnaffus, i, 

187. «. 289. ii. 47. n, 66, 

Dion Caflius, ii. 68. 
Dion Chryfoftom, i. 238. 
Dodwell, ii. 2c8. 
Donatus, ii. 225. 
Dudley, Paul, Efq; ii. 108. n, 
Du Halde, iii. 86, ft, 189. n, 

Ebenezra, iii. 63, ». 

Egede, iii. 141. ». 174. n, 

Elihu, V, 37, 

Epidletus, i. 144. ii, 213, 

Epicurus, ii. 107, 149. 

Epifcopius, V. 162. «, 

Euhemerus, ii. 311. 

Eupolemus, iii. 38. n. 

Euripides, i, 146, 148. ft. 230. 
ii. 250, ». V. 29, «. 198. fi. 

Eufebius, i. 97. ». 165, 176. 
ii. 55, 100. ft. 151, 190, ft, 
227. ft. 294. iii, I. ft. 6. ft, 

9. 79' "\\S7> 227. 

Euftathius, iii, 79. ». 

Ezekiel, jii. 17, 109, 119. 
170, 231. ft. iv. 9, 136, 
138, 202, 268, 289, 302, 
329. V. 245. ft. 280, 317, 

Ezra, V. 63, 80, 86, 88. 

Fabius Celfus, i. 264. 

Eabricius, i. 195. 

Felton, V. 121. 

Fenton, iii, 302, 

Fleetwood, Lieut. Gen. ii, 

Fleuri, iii. 163. ft, 
Fontenelle, ii. 99, 183, 283, 
Fourmont, iii. 99. w. 198. ft, 

236, 281. ft. 
Freret, iii. 93, 276. ;:. v. 193. 

Gale, iii. 21. ». 128. rt. 
Galen, i. 164. ii. 94, no. iii^ 

GarcillafTo, iii. 269. r$, 
Gaffendi, ii. 206. 
Gaubil, iii. 94. 
Geddes, ii. 150. n. 
GeoiFry of Monmouth, iii, 

175. «. 
Gordon, iii. 76. n. 
Gregory Nazianzen, i. 145, ii. 

Grey, v, 23. ft, 28. n. 43, 46. 

Gronovius, ii. 96. ft, 
Groiius, ii. 9, iii. 173. iv. 335, 

V. 25, 42. ft, 56. ft. iQi, 

138, 161, 190, 328. 
Gruter, ii, 63. n. 
Guignes, iii. 98, ». 

Habakkuk, iii. 179. v. 145, 

178. ft, 
Haggai, iv. 241. 
Hales, V. 164, ». 
Hammond, iii. 22. ft. v. I53« 
Harduin, v. 415, 
Hare, iii. 172. v. 154. ft. 
Heliodorus, iii. 157. 
Heraclitus, i. 109. iii. 113, 
Herbelot, v. 6. ft. 
Herbert, Lord, i. 24. 
Hereclides, Ponticus, ii. 307* 
Hermapion, iii. 135. 
Herodotus, i. De^/. 45, 92, 96, 

173,249. «. ii, 128, iii. 17, 


V. 113. r, i;5, 160, 193, 

201, 207, 260, 278, 320, 

339. V. 227. ff. 
Hefiod, i. 65. iii. 28. ti. 115. 

ft. 143. ft. 
Hezekiah, iv. 3^5, 
Hierocles, ii. 216. n, 228. 
Himerias, i. 279. 
Hieronymus, ii. 31. n. 



Julius Firmicus, i. i6i. 
Julius Hyginus, i, 268. 
Juftin, iii, 300. 
Juftin Martyr, iv, 173, 
Juvenal, ii, 41. 

Hippocrates, ii. no. iii. 64. », 
Kobbes, i. 48, 107. ii. 288. 

iv. 272, V. 412. 
Holflenius, iii, I2z. r. 
Homer, i. 211. iii. 28. ». 116, 

«. 242. Ji. 330. w. iv. 351. 

Hookc, V. 358. ». 
Hooker, i, 9, il. ». ii. 321.17. 

Horace, iii. 316. 
Horapollo, i, 147, «. ii, 229, 

». iii* 75, 131, 168. 
Hofea, iv. 199, v. 79, 260. «. 
Houbigant, iv. 106. », v. 40, 

45. w. 230. n, 
Houteville, iv. 249. 
Huet, ii. 133, 188. iii. 240. »» 
Huntingdon, iii. 147. 
Hurd, vi. 313. «?. 
Hutchinfon, iii. 307, n» 
Hyde, iii. 9, n. 

Jablon/ki, iii. 303. », 
Jackfon, iii. 140. «. 
Jamblichus, i. 120, 273. ii. 

loB, 127, 153, 221, 231. 
Jamefon, iii. 33. ». 42. w, 
Jeremiah, iv. 23, 116. z?. 189, 

20:;, 356. V. 80, 155. «. 

Jerom, i. 199. ii. 209, 282. iii. 

• 41, 108, 147. ». 231. «. 
Ignatius, Loyola, ii. 284. 
Job, iv. 353. 
John, V. 225. 
Jofephus, i. 141, 166. ii. 150. 

iii. 37. ». 171. iv. 204. //. 

Jotham, iii. 169. 
Jfuiah, iii. 33. n. 193. r. iv. 

202, 318. V. 33, 38, 98, 

121, 2R7. 
Ifocrates, i. 185, 'I90. ii. 14. k. 

1 10. 
Julian, \\, 40. n. 56, 159. iii. 

Fref. 4c. 

Kircher, iii. 70. «. 76. a. 85, 
99. 71. 222. iv. 19. 

Laftantius, i. Ded, 30, ii. ico. 
jp. 161, 186, 190, iv, 4. V. 

Lafateau, iii, 108. ». 
Lambert, Gent, ii. 284. 
Lambin, i. 131. «. 
Lampridius, ii. 51, 52. »» 
Lavaur, ii. 134. «. 
Law, Mr., Wm. iii. Pre/. 79. 
Le Clerc, i. 180, 203. ii, 51, 

148. iv, 228. V. 42, 83, 

162. n. 
Le Compte, iii, 87, ». 146. »* 
Leland, V. 152-. 
Leonard, iii, 32. w, 
Leucippus, ii. 223. 
Limborch, iii. Ded» 7. iv. 28o« 

Levy, 1. 221, 269, 11, 29, 05, 

Locke, i. Ded. 24. id. 38, 60, 

209, ii. 5, v, 31. «, 190. 
Lucan, iii. 184, 
Lucian, i, 92, 159, 208, 241. 

ii, 117. ». 164. iii. 217, 258, 
Lucretiusi ii. 85, 148, 175. 
Lucullus, i. 195. ii. 125, 171* 
Lycurgus, i. 11 1, 

Mabillon, ii. 53. «• 

Machiavel, ii. 12. 

Macrobius, i, 171, 221, 227, 

296. ii. 95. 
Magaillans, iii. 95. 
Mahomet, i. 222. z?. ii. 284. 

iii. 1 19. 
Maimonides, iii. 20, 109. iv, 

z6q^ v. 16. z?. 22. n^ 25. 



Malachi, v. 72, 79, 87, 326. 
ManafTeh Ben Iliael, v. 120, 

141. », 160. 
Mandeville, i. 42. «, 79. v. 

Manetho, iii, 158, 166, iv. 

Mann, iii, 248. 
Manutius, ii. 62. ft, 
Marcus, Aurelius, i, 297^ 
Marinus, ii, 92. ;;. 
Mark, v, 242. n, 
Markland, v. 304, 
Mariham, i, (165) «. 249. iii. 

21, 32, 165, 183. iv. 107. 

». V. 212. n, 269. 
Martinius, iii, 89. 
Matthew, iv. 309, 
Mead, iv, 44, 
Melampus, iii. 54. 
Metrodorus, ii. 307. 
Meurlius, i, 1 36, 206, 
Micah, iii. 179. 
Middleton, i. Ded. 22. ii. 119. 

», iii. Ded, 3. «, iv, 112. «. 

V. 26, 290. 
Milton, i. 225, 295. ii. 38, 

199. iii. 285, 
Minutius,' Felix, v, 408. 
Montefquieu, ii. 13. n. 
Morgan, iii, Ded. 4, g. ». 
Moflieim, v, 170, n. 
Muret, iii, 277. ». 

Needham, iii. 96, », 99. n, 
Nehemiah, iv. 282. v. 72, 79, 

Newton, i. 98. ». ii. 222, 290. 

iv. 29. V. V. 385. 
Nicephorus, Gregoras, i. 148. 

Nyflen, iii. io5. n, 
Numenius, ii. 152. 

Origen, i. 139, 192. n. 159, 
245, «. iif 50, n, 93. «. 1 20, 

127, 162, 164, 200. «, iii, 

Pref. 53. iv. 339. 
Orobio, ill. Ded. u. 
Orpheus, ii. i 26. • 
Ovid, i. 203, 2\6, rt. 229. «# 

258. n. 300, ii. 130. 

Outram. iv, 


Palaephatus, ii. 132, 141, 
Parennln, iii. 94. 
Pafchal, V. 273. 
Patcrculus, i. 214. n, v. 28. 
Paul, i. 21, 23, 42, 84, 141. 

196, 257. li. 55. ;;. 235. 

297. jv. 137, 280. n. 295. 

308. V, 4, 120, 133, 145, 

Paufanias, i. 140, 174, 178, 

227, 252. 
Pericles, i. 257. 
Peter, iv. 308. 
Peters, iv. 351. n: 
Petit, ii. 63, n. 250. n, 
Phaedrus, v. 353, 
Pberecydes, Syrus, il. 126, 
Philo, iv. 285, n, 
Philo Judaeus, v. 127. 
Philoliratus, i. 195, 252. 
Photius, i. 141. «. 307. ii, 211. 
Pindar, i. 271. 
Plato, i. 58, ». 130. ». 193, 

156, 185, 2;3. ii, 100. ». 

189, 209, 224, 294, 329. 

iii. 102, 271, 296. ff, 
Plautus, i. 153. «. 
Pletho, i. 273. 
Pliny, the elder, if. 85, 275. n. 

iii. ^2, 55, 62. n. 
the younger, ii. 5:. iii. 

Pluche, i. 161. ii. 309. n. iii, 

239, V, 
Plutarch, i. Ded, 10, 88, 90. 

1 1 1, 12^^, ». 162, 167. r, 

215, 224, 227. ii. 43. If. 

102, III, 148, 162,//. 165. 


n, 189, 215, 227, 250. n, 

320. iii» 189. n. 233, 274, 

Pocoke, iiu 338, v. 167. ». 
Folybius, i. 113. 
Pope, i. 212. iii. 228, 298, 

308, ». 
Porphyry, i. 109, 118, 123. «. 

14J, 157. «. 204, 235, 237. 

». 279, 328. ii. 130. ». 216, 

134. iii. 122, 199. 
Pofidonius, ii, 223. 
Pofthumius, ii. 61. 
Frade:, v. 358. n, 
Prideaux, iii. 9. ft. 161. zr. 

197. ». 219, 225, 232. V. 

1 10. 
PrQclus,!. 144, 257, ii. 307. iii. 

107. n. 137. 
Pfellus.i. 272. 
Purchas, iii. 73, ». 144. 
Pyrrho, ii, 119. 
Pythagoras, i. 126. ii. 106, 

221. iii. 122. 

Quintilian, if. 131. iii. Pre/. 
50, 119, 175. n. 177. K. V. 

T^abelais, ii. 318. 
Renaudot, iii. 165, 
"Rogers, iii. De<^, 3. ». 
Rowe, ii. 37, n. 
Rubriquis, ii. 45. n. 
Rufinus, iii. 182. 
Rutherforth, iv, 269, 292. n. 

306. V. 149, 158. n. 165. n. 

226, 266, 409. 

St. Evremond, i. 217. 
Salluft, ii. 197. 
Sanchoniatho, i. 168. ii. 298, 

3C0, 302. iii. 78, 193. 212. 

n. 127. 
Saxo, Grammaticus, iii. 276, n. 
Scasvola, i. 156. ». ii, 91, 
Scarron, i. D^^. iC. 27c. 

Schultens, v. 43, 66, -S, 82. 
Scipio -Africanus, ii. 281. 77. 
Scott, V. 204, 237. 
Scribonios Largus, ii. 90. «. 
Seneca, i. Ded. 35, 15. ii. 

101. ». 109, 145. «. 154, 

163, 213. 
■ the Tragedian, i. 268. 

Servetus, iv. 146, 
ServiiK, i. 233, 250, 260, 282, 

ii. 139. iii. yo.n. 
Severus, Alex. ii. 51. 
Sextus Empericus, i. 91. if» 

119, 250. n. 
Shaftefbury, i. D^^. 12. zV. 25. 

zV. 33. 7V. 40, 41, 42, ii, 

36, 41, 83, 266. ». iv. 52, 

417. V. 212, ». 252. ». 

Shakefpeare, iii. 143. ». 180. 
Shaw, iii. 189. ». 
Sheringham, i. 105. iii. 165. 
Sherlocke, Bp. iii. 316. ». iv, 

250. V. 167, 392. 
Shuckford, iii. 21. «. 42. 288. 

w. iv. 28. fj. 83, 154. n, 
Simon, F. i. 176. iii. 106. »^ 

iv. 228, 360. K. 
Smalibrooke, iii. Pre/. 26. 
Smith, iii. 110, iv. 53. 
Socrates, ii. 89, 115. iii. 3. 
Solomon, iv. 289. 
Solon, i. 188. ii. 320, 
Sopater, i. 210, 227. w. 272, 
Sophocles, i. 141, 146. iv. 

Spencer, iii. 19. iv. 25, 83, 

123. n. 175. «. 236. V. 37. 
Spinoza, i. 118. iv. 43, 46. 

»• 275' 330, 338. ». 
Stanley, ii, 211. 
Siebbing, iir. Dee^. 8. n, iv, 
' 114. «. 172. n, 313, 331, 

349. r. 353. «. V. 146, 204. 

». 214. ti. 292. 323. ft. 
Stephen Martyr, iv. 39. 
Stillingfleet, iii. 159, 290. 



Stobseus, i. 112, 280. ii. £8, 

149, 210. 
Strabo, i. 108. «. 140, 164, 

174, 205. n. ii, 84, 158. iii. 

35' 39» 7^-f- '3^' 261. 
Strahlenberg, iii. 74. n. 
Suetonius, i. 228. il. 38. ;:. 
Suidas, i. 114. ii. 227. n. 229. 

». iii. 194. n. 
Swift, i. Dei/, 15, 20. 
Sykes, ii. 100. n. 180. iv. 2^8. 

». 267, 294. », 295. //. 336. 

». V. 309, 321. 
Symmachius, ii. 44. 
Syncellus, i. 245. «. iii. 52. 
Synefius, i. 148. ii. 95, 236. 
Syrian U3, i. 147. 

Tacitus, i. 258. ii. 45. «. 50, 

68, 281. iii. 76. «. 104. ». 

225, 231. ». 257, 275. n, 

iv. 18. 
Tanaquil Faber, v. 317. 
Tanchum, Rabbi, v. 160. 
Tatian, ii. 226, iii. 150. n. 
Tavernier, ii. 2. 
Taylor of Norwich, iv. 377. 
Terence,*!. 58. «. 146. 
Tertullian, i. 145, 178, 243. 

ii. 210, 237. iii. 54. 
Thales, ii. 227. 
Themiftius, i. 272. ii. 44. 
Tliemiftodes, ii. 92. «. 
Theodoret, i. 192. w. 
Theopompus, ii. 139. - 
Thucyiides, v. yj. 
Tiberius, ii. 51. 
Timseus, ii. 78, 143. 
Toland, ii. 99, 107, 219, 2SS, 

Torquatus, ii. 175- "• 
Tournemine, iv. 248. 
Trajan, iii. Pre/. 49. 
TrifmegiUus, ii. 220,23c. 

Turbevil, iii. 96. n. 
Turncbus, i. 131. «. 
Tyndal, i. DeJ. 23. 

IC7. «. 1 10. n. iv. 

330, 167. n. V. 275, 

Valerius Maximus, ii. 66. 
Vane, Sir Henry, ii. 284. 
Vanini, iv. 317. n. 
Varro, i. 149. ii. gi, 127, 

I So. ii'. 257. n. 
Velleius, i. 161. 
Virgil, i. 199, 211, 218. ii. 

Vitruvius, i. 285. iii. 106. «r, 
Voltaire, i. 219. iii. 9. w. 

103. n, 
Voflius, ii, 310. 
CJrceus, Anthony, i. DeJ, 9. n. 

Walker, iii. 112. n. 
Walter, ii. 72. r, 
Waicrland, iv. 67. 
Webftcr, iii. Pre/. 26. 
Whillon, iv. 281, 346. k. v. 

151, 2^4, 334. 
Whitby, iv. 284. 
Wilkins, iii. 70. rr, 
Witfius, iv. 26. V. 387. 
WoUallon, i. 54. ii. 10. 
WoolUon, i. DtA 1 1. 
Worceller, Bp. of, i. D/./. 38. 
Wycherlcy, i. DeJ. i 2. 

Xenophon, ii. no, 1 15, 151. 

Zacynthus, ii. 99. ». 
Zateiicu5, i. no. 
Zechariah, iii. 118. v. 93. 
Zeno, ii. i6i. 
Zephaniah, v. 336. 
Zeuxis, iv. i 34- w. 
Zinzendorf, Count, v. 198. n. 
Zofimus, i. 140, i'6i. 


P, 49. 1. 31. for it varies, read, he 'varies, 

P. 78. I. 13. iox an Adulter efs, r. a Projiitute, 

P. 89. 1. II. for ^^, 

P. 127. 1. 15. for hear, r. ^fr^. 

P. 129. 1. 5. after early, r. mortals. 

P. 169. 1. 31. for njuaJits, r. /^^/ he ivantSm 

P. 255, J. I. for ijuord, r, nxiords. 

1?^ ;■■-■•■;