Skip to main content

Full text of "The Divine legation of Moses demonstrated ..."

See other formats 


1     i 


^> 


4^^^r/^'^/ 


^ 


t    H    E 


DIVINE  LEGATION 

MOSES 

DEMONSTRATED, 

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

— /^ — ■ 

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


Vol.    V. 


LONDON, 

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


CONTENTS 

O  F    T  H  E 

FIFTH     VOLUME. 


BOOK    VI. 

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

Sect.    I. 

States  the  ^ejlion, Jhews  the  Adverfaries  of 

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

S  E  C  T.     II. 

Enters  on  an  examination  of  the  'Texts  brought 

from  the  Old  Teftamenr  -, firft  from  the  hook  of 

Job which  is  proved  to  be  an  allegoric  Poerriy 

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

the  hopes  of  a  temporal  deliverance  only,  p.  lo 

126. 

Sect.    III. 

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


CONTENTS, 

Sect.   IV. 

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

Sect.  V. 

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

the  Church  of  England  evinced. That  the  Old 

Fathers  looked  for  more  than  tranfitory  Promifes, 

illujirated  in  the  famous  cafe  of  Abraham, where 

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

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

Sect.   VI. 

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

and  likewife  the  Reafoning  of  Dr.  Sykes  againjl 

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

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

THE 


THE 

DIVINE  LEGATION 

O    F 

MOSES 

DEMONSTRATED. 

*  BOOK     VI. 

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

SECT.    I. 

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

I.  Several  of  the  ancient  Christian  Writers 

were  fo  perfuaded  of  this  point,  that  not  content  to 

Vol.  V.  B  "  %, 


2  ^c  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

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

6  latioa 


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

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

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

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

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

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

B  a  ^        €Ouri^ 


?4  T^^e  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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


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

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

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

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

^  Lt'ke  xvi.  8. 

B  2  This 


6  T/je  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

texts 


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

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

II. 

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

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

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

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

B  4  Ihewn 


S  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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


'  See  the  M  fed.  of  this  vol. 

2  urged 


Scifl.  I.      of  Moses  demonflrated,  g 

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

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

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

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

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

the 


10  ^je  Brohte  Legation      Book  VI. 

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

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

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

SECT, 


Sed.  2.       of  Mo  sES  demonjirated,  1 1 

S  E  C  T.    II. 

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

And  firft,  of  the  texts  brought  from  the  Old 

Testament. 

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

OF 

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

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

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

/   '^  the 


ir^  77je  Divine  Legation      Book  VI*- 

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

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

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

»  Col.  i.  26. 

famous 


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

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

I. 

Firft  then  concerning  the  book  itfelf. 

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

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

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

II.  In  what  Age  it  was  written.     And, 

III.  Who  was  its  Author. 

I. 

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


t4  ^^  Divine  Legation        Book  Vt. 

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

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

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

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


Setft.  2.       of  Moses  demonflratsd.  i^ 

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

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

provokedi 


1 6  The  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

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

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

*  Chap,  ii,  13. 

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

■  Chap.  ii.  11. 

Friendfhip  j 


&eft.  2;       of  Moses   demonftrated.  iy 

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

Vol.  V.  C:  So 


l8  T^he  Divine  Legatioji       BookVI. 

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

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

ipeak". 
^  This, 

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

*'  accommodated 


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

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

ductj 

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

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

C  a  However, 


20  •  The  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

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

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

thi$ 


Se(£t.  2.       c/*  Moses  4emonflrated.  21 

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

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

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

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

import. 

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

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

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

C  a  they 


22  The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

plain 

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

fttit 


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

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

poeti-f 

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

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

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


^4  ^^  Divine  Legation         Book  VI, 

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

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

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

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

Venture 


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

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

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

ineptum  efle,  et  Mendacem  potius  quam  Poetam. ' 

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

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

pzekiel. 


26  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

II.  The 


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

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

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

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

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

a  the 


2^  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

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

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

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

[Works^ 


Se£l.  2.      of  MdSES  demnftrated»  ^g 

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

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

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

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

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

and 


56  'The  Divine  Legation        Book  VL 

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

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

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

la 


Sedt.  2.     of  Moses   demonjlrafed,  ^f 

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

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

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

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

fcigneij 


gs  The  Divine  Legation       Book  Vh 

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

the  BROOKS     OF  HONEY     AND     BUTTER  '.       This  ill 

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

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

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

Divine 


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

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

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

exifting   in  the  word. Why  died  I  not  from  the 

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

bF  THE  EARTH,    which  buHd  DESOLATE  PLACES  f Of 

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

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

Vol.  \%  I)  come 


^4  ^^^  Divine  Legation         Book  VL 

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

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

'  Isaiah  ^i'C.   1 1. 

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

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

find 


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

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

"  Chap.  ix.  ver.  7. 

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

D  2  Job 


'5  6  Th6  Dlnitne  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

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

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

mities. 


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

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

^  Leges  illas  in  Dei  tantum  Pandedis  inveniendse  funt, 

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

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

D  ^  5'  to 


38  72)^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI, 

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

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

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

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

the 


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

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

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

ver.  7—13. 

P  4  But 


40  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI, 

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

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

the  words  of  his  contemporary  prophet,  Amos. 

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

P  Chap,  xxxvii.  13. 

God's 


Se£l.  2.       o/'  Moses    demonjlrated,  41 

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

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

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

p  Peut.  IV.  32. 

to 


42  The  Divine  Legation      Book  VI. 

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

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

the 

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

qu'lt 


Sed,  2.       of  Mo  SES  demojiftrated.  43 

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

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

the 


44  ^^  Divine  Legation      Book:  VI. 

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

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

ever 


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

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

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

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

i  But 


46  ^e  Dhtne  Legation        JBook  Vf* 

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

the 

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

caufs 


Sed^  2.       of  Moses  demonfirafed.  ^j 

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

inequali- 

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

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

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

VNDER    AN    EXTRAORDINARY    PROVIDENCE.       But    it    wil]    bc 

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

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

for 


^S  The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

the 

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

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

$e:xed 


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

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

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

Vol.  V.  £  appears. 


^o  T^he  Divine  Legation        Book  YI, 

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

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

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

iihe 


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

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

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

SUPREMUM    ILLUD    JUDICIUM     prOVOCat,    in    quo  REDEMPTO- 

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

E  2  bufinefs 


52  The  Dhbie  Legation       Book  VI, 

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

"  imbaraifcd 


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

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

book,' 

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

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

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

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


'54  ^^'^  Dhine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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


nion. 


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

land 


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

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

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

bu-vt 


SetH:- 2.       of  Moses   demonjlrated.  55 

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

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

or 


E  4 


t 


56  The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI, 

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

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

Of  this  period  then,  there  are  three  portions: 

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

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

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

There 

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

arifing 


Se£l.  2.     of  Moses  demonjirated,  57 

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

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

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

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

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

whether 


58  The  D  hi  fie  Legation       Book  VI. 

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

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

miflionj 


Sc£l.  2.       o/*  Moses   demonftrated,  59 

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

»  Ezra  viii,  21,  22, 

afraid^ 


6q  1%e  Bivine  Legation  Book  VL 

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

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

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

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

talk 


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

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

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

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

3  To 


(52  The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

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

tion. 


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

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

I.  In 

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

ahuie- 


64  7he  Divine  Legation       BookVI. 

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

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

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

afflidions. 


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

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

cannot 

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

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

Casftum  artemque  repono. 

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


66  ile  Divine  Legatlo7i       Book  VI. 

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

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

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

diiioit 


Se£l.  2.        ^  Mos  E  s  demonJl)'ated.  ^J 

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


o 


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

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

F  2  "  poured 


68  ^he  Divme  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

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

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

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

them^ 


Sed.  2.       of  Moses  demonftrated.  69 

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

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

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


*  Ezra,  iii,  3. 

"  ZiiCH.  viii.  10. 

«  Chap. 

Tii.  ver.  14. 

y  Chap.  vii.  ver.  z\. 

*  Chap.  X 

ver.  3. 

F  3  thr 


^o  The  Divine  Legation      Book  VI, 

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

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

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

to 


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

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

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

ixxiii.  ver.  3)  8,  9. 

F  4  *'  Amongft 


*^2  The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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


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

~^  Mal.  ii.  g, 

when 


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

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

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

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

jtvii.  25. 

darkeneth 


74  ^^^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI, 

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

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

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

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

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

fre 


Se£t.  2.      of  Moses  demonftraf^.  7^ 

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

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

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

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

ail 


y6  The  Divine  Legation         Book  VI, 

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

maledic : 

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

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

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

diilrclTe.-» 


Sedl.  2.      o/'  Moses   demonjlrated,  yy 

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

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

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

RELIGION. 

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

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

Pl£; 


^8  ^he  Dhine  Legation        Book  VL 

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

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

*•'  Chap.  XXX.  ver.  8. 

not 


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

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

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

n.  II,  12. 

7  nnt» 


lo  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  VL 

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

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

which 


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

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

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

to 

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

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

Vol.  V.  G  f^r 


82  72'6'  Divine  Legation        Book  VI^ 

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

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

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

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

"  etynao- 


Sed:.  2.       of  Moses   demonllrated.  83 

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

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

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

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


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

Q  %  amongft; 


§4  ^ke  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

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

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

grieved 


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

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

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

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

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

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

G  3  1'obiah 


86  The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

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

The 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G  4  and 


88  I'he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI 

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

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

»    NeH.  V,   I,  ^  ftq, 

fors, 


Se6t.  2.       0/ Moses  dcmonjirated.  89 

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

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

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

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

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

«  the 


go  'The  Divine  Legation  Book  VL 

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

"    AND  OF  HIS  SONS  ^" 

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

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


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

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

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

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

feen 


gi  The  Drohie  Legation        Book  V] 

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

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

«  EzEK.  xili.  ver.  3,  ^'fep 

8  "  thine 


Se(fl.2.     ^  Moses  demonfirated.  93 

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

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

?er.  I.  l^/tq^. 

Bi;t 


^4  ^h^  Dhine  Legation       Book  VI, 

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

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

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

Lord: 


Se6l.  2.       cf  Moses  demonjlrated,  g^ 

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

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

•  I  Chron,  ^xi.  I. 

had 


^6  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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


Secfl.  2.       o/' Moses  demovfirated,  97 

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

VoL.V.  H  their 


q8  TZ'^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

Lord  do  all  thefe  things  p. 

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

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

Maker 


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

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

•  Chap,  xxvii.  I.  *  Job  xxvi, 

H  2  followed 


100  TZ't'  Divhie  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

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

given 


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

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

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

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

"  Chap,  xxxii.  ver.  2. 

H  3  more 


102  The  Divine  Legation      Book  VI, 

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

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

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

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


Sc(Sl.  2.       of  Moses  demonjlrated.  103 

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

are  not  heard  for  want  of  faith: that  his  fins 

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

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

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

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

H  4  It 


104  ^^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

^  Chap.  ii.  ver.  lo. 

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

">  From  chap,  xxxii.  to  xxxvii. 

wards 


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

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

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

by 


ic6  The  Dhine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

book 


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

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

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

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

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

Jr^nge 


io8  ^he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

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

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

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

the 


Sedt.  2.       cf  Moses    demonjlrated.  109 

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

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

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

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

fettled 


no  y/'^r  Divine  Legation        Book  VT. 

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

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

II. 

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

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

thcr 


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

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

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

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

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

9  day 


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

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

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

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

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

unhappy i 


Scifl:.  2.       of  Moses   demonfiraUd.  11^ 

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

^  Chap,  xvii.  ver.  8. 

Vol.  V,  I  difpute, 


1 14  7*^^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

3  a  man!- 


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

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

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

I    Z  TlQSf 


!i6  ^he  Dhvte  Legation       Boqk  VL 

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

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

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

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

perate 


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

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

fentiment, 

i  Chap.  xix.  ver.  23,  24. 

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

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

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

Qccafion  to  tlus  notable  obfervation)  that  Job  had  through  the 

1  3  diftempera- 


ii5  Tke  Divme  Legation        Book  VL 

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

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

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

in 


Se(fl.  2.        of  Moses  demonJirateJ.  119 

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

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

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

"  Ver.  14. 

I  4  Manaffah 


3  20         ^he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI, 

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

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

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

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

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

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


P  Rom.  viii,  1 1. 


favi  ng 


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

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

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

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

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

deut) 


1 22         ^he  Divine  Legation  I>ook  VI. 

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

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

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

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

known  j 


Se6t.  2 .      of  Moses  demo?ifirafed,  123 

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

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

"  Land. 


124  *^b^  Dhine  Legation        BookVI. 

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

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

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

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

becaufe 


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

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

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


126  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

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

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

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

SECT.     III. 

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

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

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

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

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

=■  Dr.  Sherlockr. 

"  of 


Se6t.  2.       of  Moses  demonjlrated,         127 

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

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

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

matter. 


128  ^he  Divi/ie  Legation       BookVI. 

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

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

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

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

•1^1  II.  *    iCoK.xv.  45 — 49. 

Adiim*i 


Sed.  2.       of  MosE  Sf  demonjlrated.  tig 

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

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

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

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

Vol.  V.  K  fen. 


130  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI, 

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

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


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

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

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

fay, 

^  CoLoss.  ii.  17. 

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


1^2  ^he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

late 


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

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

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

delices 


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

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

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

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

fpiritual  part  of   the  one  entire    Difpenfation. 

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

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

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


134  ^^'^  Divine  Legation      Book  VI. 

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

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

9C 


Sed.  2.       of  Moses  demonjirated.  135 

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

*  Gal.  iii.  23, 

K  4  thfir 


1^6  ,^e  piyine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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


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

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

»  Heb.  viii,  4 — 5. 

fhewed 


13S  'J'he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

Again, 


Sedt.  2.       ^  Moses  demonft rated.  139 

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

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

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

?4^ed,  6. 

certain 


140  Ti'he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

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

f  Ver.  18. 

5  t)eing 


Se6t.  2.       of  Moses   demonJl7'afed.  141 

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

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

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

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

fuch 


142  77j^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

^  Gek,  xlix.  18. 

find 


Se6t.  2.      of  Moses  demotiflrated.  145 

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

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

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

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

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


^  Numb,  xxiii.  lo. 

""  Chap.  xxxi.  ver.  8. 

"  Levit. 

xi'Jii.  5. 

*'  have 

144  ^^-'^  Divine  Legation       Book  Vf^ 

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

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

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


.win. 


3* 


vyhich 


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

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

^  Rom.  iii.  28.  *  Gal»  iii.  13. 

Vol.  V.  L.  felf 


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

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

"  LUKL  X.  25. 

any 


Sedl.  3-       of  Moses   demonjlrated.  i^y 

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

*  Matth.  xxii.  40. 

L  2  ply 


148  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VL 

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

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

y  Lev  IT.  XX.  2. 

vine 


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

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

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

^  Ver.  3.  *  Ver.  4 — 5,  »>  Page  33. 

L  3  neither 


150  The  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

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

*'  fenfs 


Se<^.  3.       of  Moses  demonjirated.  151 

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

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

f  Exam.  p.  49,  «  PsAL.  xvi.  lo. 

L  4-  ufclefs 


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

"  ftood. 


154         ^^^  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

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

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

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

'  Annot.  on  the  xviith  P/alm. 

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

«  Ps.  xxiii.  6,  "  Ps.  xxxvi,  9, 

eternity 


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

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

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

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

P  Ps.  xlix.  14,  15. 

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

^  j?s.  Ixxiii,  24. 

or 


156  I'he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

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

*^    BUT      THE       RIGHTEOUS      HATH      HOPE     IN     HIS 

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

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

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

16.  And 


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

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

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

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

17.  Wc 


158  ^he  Divifte  Legation       Book  VT. 

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

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

19.  And  again "  Rejoice,  O  young  man, 

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

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

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

••  Chap.  xi.  ver.  9,  ^  Jeq. 

That 


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

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

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

EXTRAORDINARY      PROVIDENCE,        But     this     laft 

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

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

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


i6o  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

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

jacientis. 


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

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

SEC  T.     iV. 

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

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

^  Matth.  xxii.  29 — 32. 

Vol.  V.  M  friend 


1 62  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

become 


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

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

*   I  Cor.  XV.  20. 

M  2  body, 


J  64  ^^^^  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

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

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

—  to  their  confounding  contrariet, 

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

•   //  brief  Inquiry,   chap.  viii. 

was 


Sed.  4.        cf  Mo  SES  demonflrated.  165 

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

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

Pharifees ; 

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

M  3  diovi 


1 66  The  Divine  Legation      Book  VI. 

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

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

**  Matth.  xxii,  33, 

in 


Sed.  4*       9f  Moses  demonjlrated.  167 

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

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

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

«  Sermons  by  the  Bifhop  of  London. 

M  4  sgree 


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

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

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

matter. As,  in   the  former  cafe,  they  would 

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

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

'  Llmce  xvi.  31. 

^  the 


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

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

^*  Ver.  14.  «  V^er.  15. 

infojma- 


fi^d  'The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

^  Ver.  30. 

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

4  Ihould 


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

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

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

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

*  Luke  x.  25. 

And 


172  The  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

And  to  this.  Saint  Paul  fhall  give  an  anfwer. 

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

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

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

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

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

to 


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

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

LIFE,  verily  righteousness  SHOULD   HAVE  BEEN 

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

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

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

argument 


174  ^'^^  Divine  Legation        Book  VL 

argument  (lands  thus  '  "  The  Scriptures, 

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

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

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

divinity 


Se<?t.  4«      o/"  Moses  demonjirated,  ly^ 

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


'  Vol.  V.  p.  194 — 5. 

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


Ot 


175  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  Vt. 

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

II. 

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

&c.  performed  all  their  acceptable  works. 

That  they  looked  for  an  heavenly  city. That 

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

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

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

which, 


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

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

BRINGING    IN    OF    A  BETTER     HoPE    DID  ; — That 

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

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

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

Vol.  V.  N  Reader 


178  7he  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

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

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

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

ncceiTarily 


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

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

THINGS    HOPED    FOR,    THE     EVIDENCE    OF    THINGS 

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

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

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

N  2  belief 


i?.'o  Tie  Divine  Legation        Book  Vf. 

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

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

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

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

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

*  V'.  r.  13 — 16, 

3  coni 


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

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

SEEING   THE    PROMISES  AFAR   OFF  and  RECEIVING 

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

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

y  Ver.  30.  ^  Ver,  35. 

'    N  ^  Macca^ 


1 82  The  B  him  Le gat  ton        Book  VI. 

Maccabees  makes  one  of  the  Martyrs  fay For 

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

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


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

''  Heb,  xi.  ^cy. 

'  Acts 

Jefus 

Se<fl.  4.       of  Moses  demonjirafed,  183 

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

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

•  Hbb.  xi,  33,  f  Acts  ii,  30. 

N  4  the 


184         ^be  Divine  Legation         Book  VL 

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

III. 

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

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

fulfilled 


5e(5t.  4»       o/'  Moses  demonjlrated.  185 

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

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

e  Rom.  viij.  3,  4* 

Thefe 


l86         7^^  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

^  Rom.  viii.  14. 
^  ~  fpiritual 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewilli 


iS^  7he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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

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

f  Rom.  vii.  6, 

Chriltianity, 


Se6l.  4.     of  Moses  demonjlrafed,  1 89 

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

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

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

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

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

Difeft> 


190  'The  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

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

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

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

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

'*  Nam, 


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

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

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


192         ■    The  Divine  Legation       Book  VL 

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

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

««    AD     LEGEM     NON     PERTINEBANT.  —  LcX    Ctlilri 

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

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

*'  teni 


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

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

*«   QUIS  ISTO  SENSU  INTELLIGERET\ 

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

"   eft    ATTESTEE    PAR    TOUS    LES    PERES,    qUC    ks 

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

been 

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

y  Apohgii  de  Port'Rcyal. 

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

Vol,  v.  O  not 


194  ^'^^  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

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

SECT.    V. 

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

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

ARTICLE.    VIL 

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

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


I'M  "^  '■• 

Sed.  $K      ofMos^s  dmmjlrated.        19^ 

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

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

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

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

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

O  2  2.  The 


196         The  Dlvtne  Legation        Book  VI, 

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

polis,— OyOD   LEX  SICMITTAT  AD  REGNUM    [COE- 

lorum]  quemadmodum  et  evancelium '. 

What  was   meant   therefore  by  the  words . 

both  in  the  Old  and  Nevj  Tejlamcnt  cverlnfiing  Life  is 

offered  to  Mankind  by  Christ,  was  plainly  this 

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

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

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

»  De  GeJlU  Ptlagii,  c,  xi.  $  24. 

he 


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

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

I. 

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

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

•*  John  vili.  56. 

O  3  his 


198  ^he  Divine  Legation      Book  VI, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

faith  i 


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

COMPLETION     OF     ALL     THE     FOREGOING  ',     wMch 

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

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

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

c  Gen.  xxii.  i, 

0  4  latum 


2 CO  He  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

I. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

head 


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

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

may 

^  Gen.  xviii.  17.  ■"  John  viii.  52, 

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

then  i 


202  ^he  Dk'We  Legation        Book  VL 

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

have 

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

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

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

fcrn\ei 


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

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

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

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

*  Luke  xvii.  24, 

.  -  ^ither^ 

i. 


204  T'/v  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

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

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

the  Jews   made  to  him ^hou  art  not  yet  fifty 

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

is 


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


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

"  Yon 


Se£t.  5.       of  Moses   demonJfraUJ,  20^ 

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

"  Spirit 

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

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

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

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

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

**  mt 


2o6  ^he  t>hine  Legation     '  Book  VL 

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

So 

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

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

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

**  be 


Sedlr.  5«      of  Moses  demonjlrated.  207 

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

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

I.  We 


2o8  77v  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

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


Setfl.  5'       of  Moses   demonjlrated,  209 

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

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

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

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

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

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


2IO  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

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


'  Gen.  xI.  ver.  z;-,  l^  feq. 

"  Chap.  xii.  ver.  i. 

"  Ver.  2.              y  Ver.  3. 

*  Ver.  5.                *  Ver.  7. 

''  Chap.  xiii.  ver.  i^. 

'  Ver,  15. 

Which 


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

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

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

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

^  Qhap.  xvi.  1  Ver.  2. 

P  2  and 


212  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

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

is 

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

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

♦'  fame 


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

is  fhewn  his  fond  miftake,  and  told,  that  it  was 
not  the  Son  of  the  bond-woman^  but  of  his  Wife 
Sarah,  who  was  ordained  to  be  Heir  of  the  Pro-, 
mifes  '^.  But  Abraham  had  fo  long  indulged  him- 
felf  in  his  miftake,  and  confequently  in  his  affec- 
tion for  Ifhmael,  that  he  begs  God  would  indulge 
it  too  —  0  that  Iffomael  might  live  before  thee  ^ 
And  God,  in  compaffion  to  his  paternal  fondnefs, 
gracioufly  promifes  that  the  Pofterity  of  llliniael 
fhould  become  exceeding  great  and  powerful '. 
but  that,   neverthelefsj    his  Covenant  fhould  be 

**  fame  acconnt, — 'Tis  certain  that  if  this  H-Jy  Patriarch,  who 
"  firft  inilituted  the  facred  rite  of  Circumcifion  within  his  own 
"  family  or  tribe,  had  no  regard  to  any  Policy  or  Religion  of 
*'  the  Egyptians,  yet  he  had  formerly  been  a  Guell:  and  Inha- 
"  bitant  of  Egypt  (where  hiftorians  mention  this  to  have  been 
**  a  national  rite)  long  ere  he  had  received  any  divine  notice  or 
**  Revelation  conceining  this  affair."  Vol.  iii.  p.  52,  53.  Thefe 
great  men,  we  fee,  appeal  to  Scrifture,  for  the  fupport  of  their 
infinuation  ;  which  Scripture  had  they  but  confidered  with  com- 
mon attention,  they  might  havefoimd,  that  it  gives  us  a  chrono- 
logical account  of  God's  gradual  Revelations  to  the  Holy  Patri- 
arch  ;  and  therefore  that,  according  to  the  order  God  was  pleaf. 
ed  to  obferve  in  his  feveral  Difpenfations  towards  him,  the  Rite 
of  Circumcifion  could  not  have  been  enjoined  before  the  time 
Abraham  happened  to  go  into  Egypt ;  nor  indeed,  at  any  other 
time  than  that  in  which  we  find  it  to  be  given;  confequently 
that  his  journey  into  Egypt  had  not  the  leaft  concern  or  connec- 
tion with  this  affair  :  Nay,  had  thefe  learned  Critics  but  attend- 
ed to  their  own  obfervation,  that  the  Rite  of  Circumcifion  was 
inlHtuted  twenty  j-ears  after  Abraham's  return  from  E^ypt, 
they  muft  have  feen  the  wealcnefs  of  fo  partial  a  fufpicion. 
For  had  this  been  after  the  model  of  an  f^/z/awrite.^ Abraham, 
in  all  likelihood,  had  been  circumcifed  in  Egypt,  or  at  leaft 
very  foon  after  his  return  :  For  in  Egypt,  it  was  zperfonal,  not 
3i  family  Rite.  And  we  learn  from  prophane  hiftory,  that  thofe 
who  went  from  other  Countries  to  Egypt,  with  a  dellgn  to  copy 
their  manners,  or  to  be  initiated  into  their  VVifdom,  were,  as  a 
previous  ceremony,  commonly  circumcifed  by  the  Egyptian 
Priefts  themfelve  . 

*-  Ver.  16.  '  Ver.  18.  «  Ver.  20,  ^/f, 

P  3  with 


214  *The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

with  Jfaac^  and  with   his  Seed  after  him  \     How.. 
ever,  this  Revelation  having  been    received  with 
fome  kind  of  doubt,  as   appears  by  the  words   of 
the   hiflorian ",    God   was   plealed   to   repeat  the 
promife  of  a  Son  by  Sarah " :  and  even  to  mark 
the  time  of  his  birth  ^ ;  according  to  which,  Sarah 
conceived  and  bore  Abraham  a   Son  '^.     After  this, 
God   revealed  himfelf  yet   again    to  Abraham  % 
with  a  command  to  put  away  his  Son  Ifhmael;  and 
to  alTure  him,  that  the  chosen  posterity  fhould 
come  from  Ifaac :     For  Abraham   was  not   yet 
weaned  from  his  unreafonable  partiality  for  Ifh- 
mael ;  but   ftill  reckoned  upon  him  as  his  Second 
hopes^  in  cafe  of  any  difafter  or  misfortune,  that 
fhould  happen  to  Ifaac.     This  appears  from  Ifh- 
mael's  infolent  behaviour '' ;  from  Abraham's  great 
vinwillingnefs  to  difmifs  him  *  •,  and  from  God's  af- 
furing  him,  in  order  to  make  him  eafy.  That  in 
Jfaac  his  Seed  fiould  be  called^.     We  now  come  to 
the  fam.ous  Hiftory  of  the  Command  to  offer  up 
his  Son  Ifaac. — And  it  came  to  pafs,  (fays  the  facred 
hiflorian)    after   these    things,    that   God  did 
tempt  Abraham^  and f aid:  'Take  now  thy  Son,  thine 
ONLY   son  Jfaac,  whom  thou  loveft,    and  get   thee 
unto  the  land  of  Moriah,  and  offer  him  there  for  a 
burnt-offering  upon  one  of  the  mountains  which  I  will 
tell  thee  of.     And  Abraham  arofe  ^  &c.     This  was 
the  laft  of  God's  Revelations  to  Abraham — And  it 
fame  to  pafs  after  thefe  things-^ And  with  this,  the 
hiftoryof  them  is  cloftd. 

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

*  Ver.  19.  "  Vcr.  17.  *  Chap,  xviii. 

y  Ver.  10,  14.  *  Chap.  xxi.  ver.  2.  *  Ver.  12. 

*>  Ver.  9.  '^  Ver.  11.  "  Ver,  12.  '  Chap, 

xxii,  ver.  i,  2,  3. 

Fcjicitic5 


Se6^»  5.      ^/  Moses  demonflrated.  215 

Felicities  to  be  conferred  on  Abraham  and  his  Pof- 
terity  after  the  flefh  •,  through  whom,  Ibme  way 
or  other,  a  blessing  was  to  extend  to  all  Man- 
kind. Not  one  of  thefe  therefore  can  pretend  to 
be  that  Revelation  of  the  Redemption  of  the  world. 
The  laft  is  the  only  dark  and  obfcure  one  of  the. 
whole;  which,  if  indeed  a  Revelation  of  this  grand 
Mylleiy,  mufl  of  necelTity,  as  we  Ihall  lliew,  be 
darkly  and  oblcurely  recorded. 

But  to  this  perhaps  it  may  be  objeified,  that  the 
famous  Promife  of  God  to  Abraham,  that  in  him 
JJoould  all  the  Fa/nilies  of  the  earth  be  bkJJ'ed  \  is  that 
Revelation;  becaufeSt.  Paul  calls  this  the  preaching 
of  the  Gofpel  unto  him — Jnd  the  Scripture^  fore- 
feeing  that  God  would  jtijiify  the  Heathen  through 
Faith^  preached  before^  the  Gofpel  unto  Abraham^  fay- 
ing^ In  thee  fh all  all  nations  of  the  earth  be  blejfed'. 
To  this  I  reply,  that  the  Apoftle  is  here  convinc- 
ing the  Galatians,  that  the  Gofpel  of  Christ  is 
founded  on  the  fame  principle  with  that  which 
juilified  Abraham,  namely  faith; — Abraham  be- 
lieved God,  and  it  w/zs  accounted  to  him  for  righte- 
eufnefs  ^  He  then  purfues  his  argument  in  this 
manner,  Therefore  they  which  be  of  Faith  are  bkjfed 
with  faithful  Abraham  '.  The  realbn  he  gives  is 
from  the  promjfe  in  queilion,  given  in  reward  of 
Abraham's  Fmth,  that  in  him  fkotdd  all  Nations  be 
hleffed.  This  is  the  force  of  the  argument ;  and 
it  is  very  finely  managed.  But  then  the  terms. 
Faith  and  Gofpel,  are  here  ufed,  as  they  very  often 
are  in  the  apoflolic  writings '',  not  in  their  fpecific 

f  Gen.  xii.  3.  s  Gal.  iii.  8,  ^  Ver.  6. 

*  Ver.  9. 

^  See  what  hath  been  faid  on  this  fubjed  in  the  preceding 
cifcourfe  on  the  xith  chapter  to  the  H ^vitf. 

:^i  P  4  but 


2i6  ^he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

but  generic  fenfe,  for  confidence  in  any  one^  and 
glad  tidings  in  general.  For  it  is  plain,  Abraham's 
Faith  here  recommended,  was  not  that  Chrijlia'ri 
Fatth  in  Jesus  the  Messiah,  but,  faith  in  God, 
who  had  promiled  to  make  his  Pofterity  accord- 
ing to  the  flefh,  as  numei^ous  as  the  ftars  of  Hea- 
ven, when  as  yet  he  had  no  offspring'.  In  a  like 
latitude  of  exprefiion,  St.  Paul  ufes  the  word 
TT^osvocyhXi^oiMixi,  to  preach  the  Gofpel  beforehand-, 
not  the  tidings  of  theMeffiah  the  Kedeemer,  but 
the  effe5is  of  the  Redemption  wrought  by  him,  a 
BLESSING  on  the  whole  race  of  mankind.  Tidings 
which  indeed  referred  to  a  future  Difpenfation :  and, 
in  this,  differing  from  his  ufe  of  the  word  Faith, 
which  did  not.  But  then,  this  is  very  far  from  his 
SEEING  Christ's  day  -,  of  which  indeed  he  fpeaks 
in  another  place,  as  we  fhall  fee  prefently.  It  is 
true,  this  promifed  BLESSING  was  the  preparatory 
Revelation,  by  which,  we  were  to  eftimate  the  ul- 
timate end  of  all  the  following ;  and  on  which, 
we  mud  fuppofe  them  to  be  built :  And  fo  much 
we  are  concerned  to  prove  it  was.  I  conclude 
therefore,  that  when  Jefus  fays,  Abraham  faro  his 
Day;  and  when  St.  Paul  fays,  that  he  had  the 
Gofpel  preached  before  unto  him,  they  fpoke  of  two 
different  Revelations.     We  come  therefore, 

II.  To  the  fecond  point ;  which  is  to  fhew,  that 
the  COMMAND  to  offer  up  Ifaac  was  the  very  reve- 
lation of  Christ's  day,  or  the  Redemption  of 
niankind,  by  his  death  and  fufferings. 

1.  We  may  bbferve,  from  this  fhort  view  of 
Abraham's  hiftory,  that  all  God's  Revelations  to 
him,    even   unto  this  laft,  open  by  degrees;  and 

'  Gen.  XV,  6, 

relate, 


Sedt.  5'       of  Moses  demonjlrated,  217 

relate,  primarily  indeed,  to  his  Pofterity  according 
to  the  flelh,  but  ultimately,  to  the  whole  race  of 
Mankind  :  as  appears  from  that  mvstick  Promife 
fo  early  made  to  him  as  the  foundation  of  all  the 
following,  that  in  Himjhould  all  the  Families  of  the 
earth  he  blejj'ed.  Thefe  are  the  two  great  coincident 
Truths,  to  which  all  thefe  Revelations  tend.  But 
the  laft,  the  famous  Command  in  quellion,  which 
one  would  naturally  expeft  to  find  the  confirmation 
and  completion  of  the  reft,  hath,  if  the  common 
Interpreters  underftand  it  right,  no  kind  of  rela- 
tion to  them,  but  is  entirely  foreign  to  every  thing 
that  preceded.  Hence  we  concluae,  and  furely  not 
unreafonably,  that  there  is  fomething  more  in  the 
Command  than  thefe  Interpreters,  refting  in  the 
outfide  relation,  have  yet  difcovered  to  us. 

2.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  Command,  as  it 
hath  been  hitherto  underflood,  is  not  only  quite 
disjoined  from  the  reft  of  Abraham's  hiftory,  but 
likewife  occupies  a  place  in  it,  which,  according  to 
our  ideas  of  things,  it  hath  certainly  ufurped. 
The  Command  is  luppofed  to  be  given  as  a  Trial 
only  ■".     Now  when  the  great  Searcher  of  hearts  is 

pleafed 

"  To  this  Dr.  Stebbing  anfwers,  '*  You  lay  it  down  here 
"  as  the  common  interpretation,  that  the  command  to  Abra- 
"  ham  to  offer  up  his  fon  was  given  as  a  trial,  only,  which  is 
**  NOT  TRUE."  Why  not  ?  becaiife  "  the  common  opinion  is, 
"  that  God's  intention  in  this  command  was  not  only  to  try 
"  Abraham,  but  alfo  to  prefigure  the  facrifice  of  Chrift." 
\Cor,Jid.  p.  150.]  Excellent !  I  fpeak  of  the  Command's  being 
given  :  but  to  whom  ?  To  all  the  Faithful,  for  whofe  fake  it 
was  recorded  ?  or  to  Abraham  only,  for  whofe  fake  it  was  re- 
vealed ?  Does  not  the  very  fubject  confine  my  meaning  to  this 
latter  fenfe  ?  Now,  to  Abraham,  I  fay,  (according  to  the  com- 
mon opinion)  it  was  given  as  a  Trial  only.  To  the  faithful,  if 
you  will,  as  a  prefiguration. — \^,  to  extricate  himfelf  from  this 
Wander  or  fophifm,  call  it  which  you  will,  he  will  fay  it  pre- 
figured 


21 8         ^s  Dhitie  Legation         Book  VI. 

pleafed  to  try  any  of  his  Servants,  either  for  ex- 
ample fake,  or  for  feme  other  end  favourable  of 
his  Difpenfations  to  mankind  ;  as  in  this,  he  con- 
defcends  to  the  manner  of  men,  who  cannot  judge 
of  the  merits  of  their  inferior  Agents  without  Trial, 

figured  to  Abraham  likewife  ;  he  then  gives  up  all  he  has  been 
contending  for;   and  eftablifhes  my   interpretation,    which   is, 
that  Abraham  knew  this   to  be  a  reprefentation  of  the  great 
facrifice  of  Chrift:  I  leave  it  undetermined  whether  he  miftakes 
or  cavils :  See  now,  if  he  be  not  obliged  to  me.     Where  I 
fpeak  of  the  common  opinion,  I  fay,  the  command  is  fuppofed  to 
be  GIVEN  as  a  Trial  only.     He   thinks   fit   to  tell  me,  1  fay  not 
true.     But  when  he  comes  to  prove  it,  he  changes  the  terms  of 
the  queftion  thus,  "  For  the  common  opinion  is,  that  God's 
"  iMTENTiON  in  this  command  was,"  &c.     Now  God's  inten- 
tion of  giviKg  a  command  to  Abraham,  for   Abraham's  fake, 
might  be  one  thing  ;  and  God's  general  intention  of  givitzg  that 
Command,  as  it  concerned  the  whole  of  his  Difpenfation,  ano- 
ther.    But  to  prove  further  that  I /aid  not  true,  when  1  faid  that, 
according  to  the   common  interpretation,   the  Command   was 
given  for  a  Trial  only ;  he  obferves,  that  I  myfelf  had  owned 
that  the  refemblance  to  Chrift's  facrifice   was  fo  ftrong,  that  In- 
terpreters could  never  overlook  it.     What  then  ?   If  the  Inter- 
preters, who  lived  after  Chrift,  could   not  overlook  it,  does  it 
follow   that  Abraham,  who  lived  before,  could  not  overlook  it  j 
neither  ^   But  the  impertinence  of  this  has  been  fliewn  already,' 
Nor  does  the  learned  Confiderer  appear  to  be  unconfcious  of  it. 
Therefore,  inftead  of  attempting  to  inforce  it  to  the  purpofe  for 
which  be  quotes  it,  he  turns,  all  on  a  fudden,  to  fhew  that  it 
makes  nothing  to  the  purpofe  for  which  I  employed  it.     But  let 
us  follow  this  Protean  Sophifter  thro'  all  his  windings. — "  The 
•'  refemblance  (fays  he)  no  doubt,  is  very  ftrong ;    but  how 
"  this  corroborates  your  fenfe  of  the  command,  J  do  not  fee. 
*^  Your  fenfe  is,  that  it   was  an  a£lual  information  given   to 
*'  Abraham,  of  the  facrifice  of  Chrift.     But  to  prefigure,  and  to 
••  inform,  are  different  things.    This  tranfaftion  might  prefigure, 
**  and  does  prefigure  the  facrifice  of  Chrift  ;  whether  Abraham 
•'  knew  any  thing  of  the  facrifice  of  Chrift  or  no.     For  it  does 
"  not  follow,  that,  becaufe  a  thing  is  prefigured,  therefore  it 
*'  muft   be  feen  and  underftood,  at  the  time  when  it  is  pre- 
*•  figured."  [C:rfd.   p.    150 — 1.]     Could   it  be   believed   that 
thefe  words   fhould    immediately   follo'v   an   argument,  whofe 
force,  (the  little  it    ha?)  is  founded   on   the  principle,  f/jat  to 
PREFIGURE  and  to  INFORM  are  not.  di/j'erent  things. 

fo 


Scdi.  5.      0/"  M  o  s  E  s  demonjlrated,  2 1 9 

fo  we  may  be  affured,  he  would  accommodate  him- 
felf  to  their  manner  likewife,  in  that  which  is  the 
material  circumllance  Ot  a  Trial :  But,  amongft 
men,  the  Agent  is  always  tried  before  he  be  fet  on 
work,  or  rewarded;  and  not  after:  becaufe  the 
Trial  is  in  order  to  know,  or  to  make  it  known, 
whether  he  be  fit  for  the  work,  or  deferving  of 
the  Reward.  When  we  come  therefore  to  this 
place,  and  fee  a  Command  only  to  tempt  or  try  A.- 
braham,  we  naturally  expetft,  on  his  anfweringto  the 
Trial,  to  find  him  importantly  employed  or  greatly 
rewarded.  On  the  contrary  we  are  told,  that  this 
Trial  was  made  after  all  his  Work  was  done,  and 
all  his  Reward  received  •, — and  it  came  topafs  after 
thefe  things. — Nay,  what  is  ftill  more  ftrange,  af- 
ter he  had  been  once  tried  already.  For  the  pro- 
mife  to  him,  when  he  was  yet  childlefs,  his  Wife 
barren,  and  both  of  them  far  advanced  in  years, 
that  his  feedfhoidd  be  as  thefiars  of  Heaven  for  mul- 
titude^ was  a  Trial  of  Mis  faith ;  and  his  believing, 
againft  all  probability  in  a  natural  way,  the  facred 
Hiftorian  tells  us,  was  accounted  to  him  for  righteouf- 
nefs ".  Such  therefore  being  the  method  both  of 
God  and  Men  in  this  matter,  we  muft  needs  con- 
clude, that  the  Command  was  not,  according  to  the 
common  notion,  a  'Trial  only.,  becaufe  it  comes 
after  all  Gop's  Difpenfations  °.     Yet  as  the  facred 

text 

■  Gen,  XV.  6. 

°  To  this  reafoning,  Dr.  Stebbing  replies,  *'  Bat  how  can 
*•  you  prove  that,  according  to  the  common  interpretation, 
''  there  was  no  reward  fubfequent  to  the  trial  ?"  [Confid.  p. 
151.]  How  fhall  I  be  able  to  pleafe  him  ? — Before,  he  was 
offended  that  I  thought  the  Author  of  the  book  of  Genefis 
rnight  omit  relating  the  mode  of  a  faft,  when  he  had  good  rea- 
fon  fo  to  do.  Here,  where  I  fuppofe  jio  fa^,  becaufe  there 
was  none  recorded  vyhen  no  feafon  hindered,  he  is  as  captious 

on 


2  20  The  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

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

the 

on  this  fide  likewife.  "  How  will  you  prove  it  ?"  (fays  he.) 
From  the  filence  of  the  HiHorian,  (fay  J  )  when  nothing 
hindered  him  from  fpeaking.  Well,  but  he  will  fhew  it  to  be 
fairly  recorded  in  Scripture,  that  there  were  rewards  fubfequent 
to  the  trial.  This,  indeed,  is  to  the  purpofe  :  "  Abraham 
*'  (fays  he)  lived  a  great  many  years  after  that  tranfaftioa 
*'  happened.  He  lived  to  difpofe  of  his  fon  Ifaac  in  marriage, 
*'  and  to  fee  his  feed.  He  lived  to  be  married  himfelf  to  an- 
*'  other  Wife,  and  to  have  feveral  children  by  her  :  He  had  rot 
'*  THEN  received  all  God's  mercies,  nor  were  all  God's  dif- 
•*  penfations  towards  him  at  an  end  ;  and  it  is  to  be  remem- 
"  bered  that  ic  is  exprefsly  faid  of  Abraham.  Gen.  xxiv.  i. 
•'  (a  long  lime  after  the  tranfaflion  in  queftion)  that  Cod  had 
*'  blejjed  him  in  all  things."  [Conjid.  p.  151-2.]  The  queftion 
here,  is  of  the  extraordinary  and  peculiar  rewards  beftowed 
by  God,  on  Abraham ;  and  he  decides  upon  it,  by  an  enu- 
meration cf  the  ordinary  and  common.  And,  to  £11  up  the 
meafure  of  thefe  bleffings,  he  makes  the  burying  of  his  firll 
wife  and  the  marrying  of  a  fecond  to  be  one.  Though  un- 
luckily, this  fecond  proves  at  laft  to  be  a  Concubine  ;  as  appears 
plainly  from  the  place  where  fhe  is  mentioned.  But  let  me  afk 
him  ferioufly ;  Could  he,  indeed,  fuppofe  me  to  mean  (tho'  he 
attended  not  lo  the  drift  of  the  argument)  that  God  immediately 
withdrew  all  the  common  bleffings  of  his  Providence  fiom  the 
Father  of  the  Faithful,  after  the  laft  extraordinary  reward  beftow- 
ed upon  him,  when  he  lived  many  years  after?  I  can  hardly,  I 
own,  account  for  this  perverfity,  any  otherwife  than  from  a 
certain  temper  of  mind  which  I  am  not  at  prefent  difpofed  to 
give  a  name  to :  but  which,  the  habit  of  J>ifi.vering  has  made  fo 
common,  that  nobody  either  miftakes  it,  or  is  now  indeed,  much 
fcandalizcd  at  it.  Tho'  for  my  part,  I  fhould  eftecm  a  total  ig- 
norance of  letters  a  much  happier  lot  than  fuch  a  learned  depra- 
vity. —  "  But  this  is  not  all,"  (fays  he) — No,  is  it  not  ?  I  am 
forry  for  it!  —  "  What  furprizes  me  moft  is,  that  you  (hould 
"  argue  so  weakly,  as  if  the  reward  of  good  men  had  re- 
"  fpcft  to  this  life  only.  Be  it,  that  Abraham  had  received 
"  all  God's  mercies;  and  that  all  God's  difpcnfations  towards 
"  him,  in  this  world,  were  at  an  end  ;  was  there  not  ^  life 
"  yet  to  come,  with  refpcft  to  which  the  whole  period  of  our 
*'  exiftence  here  is  to  be  confidered  as  a  ftate  of  trial  ;  and 
*'  where  we  are  all  of  us  to  look  for  that  reward  of  our  vir- 
«'  tues  which  we  very  often  fail  of  in  iliis:"  \ConfU.  p.  152.] 

Well, 


Sq&,  5.     of  Moses  demonJlraUd,  zzi 

the  perfon  tried ;  we  mud  needs  conclude,  that  as 
no  employment,  fo  fonie  benefit  followed  this  trial. 

Now, 

Well,  if  it  was  not  all,  we  find,  at  leaft,  it  is  all  of  a  piece. 
For,  as  before,  he  would  fophiftically  obtrude  upon  us  common 
for  extraoriiinary  rewards;  fo  here,  (true  to  the  miftery  of 
his  trade)  he  puts  fo»z»zo«  iox  extraordinary  trials.  Our  pre- 
fent  exijience  (fays  he)  is  to  be  conjid  red  as  a  Jiate  of  Trial, 
The  cafe,  to  which  I  applied  my  argument,  was  this; — "  God, 
determining  to  feleft  a  chofen  People  from  the  loins  of  Abra- 
ham, would  manifeft  to  the  world  that  this  Patriarch  was  worthy 
of  the  diftin£lion  fhewn  unto  him,  by  having  his  faith  found  fu- 
perior  to  the  hardeft  trials."  Now,  in  fpeaking  of  thefe  trials,  I 
faid,  that  the  command  to  offer  Ifaac  was  the  laft.  No,  (fays  the 
Examiner)  that  cannot  be,  for,  ijoith  refped  to  a  life  to  come, 
the  iKihole  period  of  our  exi fence  here,  is  to  be  confidered  as  a  fate 
of  TRIAL."  And  fo  again,  (fays  he)  with  regard  to  the  re- 
ward; which  you  pretend,  in  the  order  of  God's  Difpenfa- 
tions,  Ihould  follow  the  trial  :  Why,  we  are  to  look  for  it  in 
another  ivorld.  —  Holy  Scripture  records  the  hiftory  of  one,  to 
whom  God  only  promifed  (in  the  clear  and  obvious  fenfe)  tcm-^ 
poral  bleffings.  It  tells  us  that  thefe  temporal  bleffings  were 
difpenfed.  One  fpecies  of  which  were  extraordinary  Rewards 
after  extraordinary  Trials.  In  the  moft  extraordinary  of  all,  no 
Reward  followed  :  This  was  my  difficulty.  See  here,  how  he 
has  cleared  it  up.  Hardly  indeed  to  his  own  fatisfaftion :  for  he 
tries  to  fave  all  by  another  fetch  ;  the  weakeft  men  being  ever 
moft  fruitful  in  expedients,  as  the  floweft  animals  have  com- 
monly the  moft  feet.  *'  And  what  (fays  he)  if  after  all  this, 
**  the  wifdom  of  God  fhould  have  thought  fit,  that  this  very 
"  man,  whom  he  had  fingled  out  to  be  an  eminent  example 
"  of  piety  to  all  generations;  fhould,  at  the  very  clofe  of 
"  his  life,  give  evidence  of  it,  by  an  inftance  that  exceeded  all 
•*  that  had  gone  before ;  that  he  might  be  a  patterr;  of  patient 
*'  fufFering,  even  unto  the  end?  Would  there  not  be  sense 
"  in  fuch  a  fuppofition  ?"  [^Confd.  p.  153.]  Jn  truth,  I  doubt 
not,  as  he  hath  put  it :  And  I  will  tell  him.  Why.  Abraham 
was  not  a  mere  inftrument  to  ftand  for  an  Example  only  ;  but 
a  moral  Agent  likewife  ;  and  to  be  dealt  with  as  fuch.  Now, 
tho',  as  he  fiands  for  an  Example,  we  may  admit  of  as  many 
Tria's  of  patient  fuffering  as  this  good-natured  Divine  thinks 
fitting  io  impofe ;  yet,  as  a  moral  Agent,  it  is  required  (if  we 
can  conclude  any  thing  from  the  method  of  God's  .dealing 
with  his  Servants,  recorded  in  facred  hiftory)  that  each  Trial 
be  attended  with  fomc  work  done,  or  fome  reward  conferred. 

But 


22  2  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

Now,  on  our  interpretation,  a  bimfit^  as  we  fhall 
fee,  did  follow  :  We  have  reafon  therefore  to  con- 
clude that  this  interpretation  is  the  true. 

3.  Having  feen  the  difficulties  arifing  from  the 
common  interpretation  of  the  Command,  let  us 
view  it  now  on  the  other  fide  •,  in  the  new  light  in 
which  we  have  adventured  to  place  it.  And  here 
we  lliall  find  that  every  circumftance  of  the  Story 
concurs  to  fupport  our  interpretation.  From  the 
view  given  of  Abraham's  hiftory,  we  fee,  as  was 
faid  before,  how  all  God's  revelations  to  him,  to 
this  laft,  ultimately  related  to  that  myftic  funda- 
mental Promife  made  to  him,  on  his  firft  Vocation, 
that  in  him  JJjould  all  families  of  the  earth  be  blejfed. 
God  opens  the  fcheme  of  his  Difpenfations  by  exadl 
and  regular  (leps  ;  and  the  Revelations  follow  one 
another  gradually  and  in  order. — Abraham  is  firll 

But  thefe  two  parts  in  Abraham's  character,  our  Conjlderer  per- 
petually confounds.  He  fuppofes  nothing  to  be  done  for  Abra- 
ham's own  fake  ;  but  every  thing  for  the  Example's  fake.  Yet, 
did  the  good  old  caufe  of  Arfwerhig  require,  he  could  as  eafily 
fuppofe  the  contrary.  And  to  (hew  I  do  him  no  wrong,  I  will 
here  give  the  Reader  an  inltance  of  his  dexterity,  in  the  coun- 
ter-exercife  of  his  arms.  In  p.  150.  of  thefe  Cov.f.dcrations,  (he 
fays)  "  IT  DOES  NOT  FOLLOW,  that,  becaufe  a  thing  is  pre- 
*'  figured,  therefore  it  muft  be  feen  and  underftood  at  the 
•'  TIME  when  it  is  orefigured."  Yet  in  the  body  of  the  Pamphlet, 
at  p.  1 12 — 13,  having  another  point  to  puzzle  ;  he  fays  (on  my 
obfcrving  that  a  future  State  and  Refurre£lion  were  not  national 
Doilrines  till  the  time  of  the  Maccabees)  "  he  knows  I  will 
*'  fay  they  had  thefe  dod^rines  from  the  Prophets — yet  the  Pro- 
*'  phets  were  dead  two  hundred  years  before."  — But  if  the 
Prophets  were  dead  their  Writings  were  extant  —  "  And  what 
*'  then  .''  is  it  likely  that  the  fons  Ihould  have  learnt  from 
*•  the  dead  Prophets  what  the  Fathers  could  not  learn  from  the 
•'  living  .'  —  Vk  hy  could  not  the  Jews  learn  this  Doftrine  from 
•'  1  HE  VERY  FIRST,  as  wcli  as  their  Pofterity  at  the  dillanceof 
**  ages  afterwards  ?"  In  the  firft  cafe  we  find  he  exprefsly  fays, 
it  does  mt  follow  ;  in  the  fecond,  he  as  plainly  fuppofes,  that 
it  docs. 

C0R>- 


Sed.  5.       ^  M  o  s  E  s  demonjlrated.         223 

commanded  to  go  into  a  Land  which  fhould  be  fhewn 
,-to  him — then  that  Land,  to  be  pofTeffed  by  his 
numerous  pofterity,  is  exhibited  before  him — Its 
diftindt  boundaries  are  afterwards  marked  out — 
He  is  next  affured,  while  yet  childlefs,  that  his 
pofterity,  to  which  fo  much  was  promifed,  Ihould 
not  be  from  an  adopted  fon,  but  from  one  out  of 
his  own  loins — He  is, then  told  that  this  fon  fhould 
be  born  of  Sarah — which  is  followed  by  a  formal 
execution  of  the  covenant  confirmed  by  the  feal 

of  Circumcifton After  all   this,    the   birth  of 

Ifaac  is  predicted : who  being  born  at  the  ap- 
pointed time,  Ifhmael  is  ordered  to  be  fent  away  ; 
to  defign  with  more  certainty  the  fucceflion  of  the 
fon  by  Sarah.     Here  we  fee  throughout,  a  gradual 
opening,  and  fit  preparative  for  fome  farther  Reve- 
lation ;  which,  in  purfuance  of  this  regular  fcheme 
of  progrefTive   Difpenfations,  could   be  no .  other 
than  that  of  the  redemption  of  mankind  by 
THE  Messiah,  the  completion  of  the  whole  Oeco- 
nomy  of  Grace,  as  it  only  is  the  explanation  of  his 
firft  and  fundamental  Promife,    that  in  Abraham 
jhould  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  bleffed.     But 
now,  the  fole  remaining  revelation  of  God's  Will 
to  Abraham,  recorded  by  the  facred  Hiftorian,  is 
the  Command  to  offer  up  his  fon  Ifaac.    This  com- 
mand then,  as  there  is  no  other  that  can  pretend 
to  be  the  revelation  in  queftion,  and  as  we  have 
fliewn  it  muft  be  fome  where  or  other  recorded  in 
Abraham's  ftory,  is  the  very   revelation  we  feek  ; 
which    perfedts   all   the   foregoing,    and    makes 
the  whole  feries  complete  and  uniform.     And  the 
place  in  which  we  find  it  is  its  proper  ftation;  for 
being  the  completion  of  the  reft,  it  muft  needs  be 
the  laft  in  order. 

Such,  in  the  intention  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  doth 

%t.  Chrysostom,  in  his  comment  on  the  place, 

I  under- 


224  ^^  Divine  Legation  Book  VI. 
underftand  it  to  be. t>i\  S\  'HMEPAN  hraZQct 

fAOt  donu  Kiynv  TYiV  rti  rau^a,  riv  iV  tyi   tm  x^ib  7r^o(r(l>oox 

xx\  TK  'iraajc  Tr^oJ^ifTuVwo-f.  And  in  this  he  is 
joined  or  followed  by  Erasmus,  in  his  pataphrafe. 
Hoc  senigmate  Jefus  fignificavit,  Abraham,  quum 
pararet  immolare  filium  Ifaac,  per  ProphetijE 
ipiritum  vidiflTe  Dominum  Jefum  in  mortem  crucis 

a  patre   tradendum   pro  mundi   falute. But 

thefe  excellent  men,  not  refleding  on  that  ancient 
mode  of  information,  where  the  Inquirer  is  an- 
fwered  by  a  fignificative  a^ion  in  ftead  of  fpeecb, 
never  conceived  that  this  Command  was  an  imparted 
information  of  that  kind,  but  rather  a  typical  re- 
prefentation  unfought,  and  given  in  an  enjoined 
Rite  -,  of  whofe  import  Abraham  had  then  no 
'knowledge  ^. 

4.  Again,  We  find  the  Revelation  of  the  re- 
demption of  mankind  in  that  very  place  where,  if 
confidered  only  in  itlelf,  and  not  relatively,  as  the 
completion  of  the  reft,  we  fhould,  according  to 
all  the  rules  of  plain  fenfe,  be  difpofed  to  feek  it. 
We  mud  know  then  that  this  Revelation,  as  iliall 
be  proved  from  the  words  of  Jesus,  —Abraham  re- 
joiced to  fee  my  day,  and  he  faw  it,  and  was  glad, 
was  ardently  defired  and  foug!:t  after  by  the  Pa- 

P  And  yet  an  ingenious  man,  one  M.  Bouil!er,  in  a  Inte  Latin 
Diflcrtation,  accufes  me  of  concealing,  that  ChrylbRom,  Erafmus 
and  others  were  of  my  opinion,  viz.  that  Abraham  in  the  Com- 
mand to  faciifice  his  Son  was  informed,  of  what  he  earnelUy 
defired  to  know,  that  the  redemption  of  Mankind  was  to  be 
obtained  by  the  facriiice  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  Reader  now 
fees,  whether  the  Author  of  the  D.  L.  was  guilty  of  a  conceal- 
e.l  theft,  or  his  Accufer  of  an  open  blunder,  under  which  he 
covers  his  orthodoxal  malignity.  Yet  he  thinks  he  attones  for 
aU,  by  calling  the  D.  L.  egrcgium  opus:  uLi  ingenimn  acerrimiim 
cum  cxiinia  erudiiiine  cerlat.  —  DifTiTtationum  Sacrum  Sylloge, 

triarcii. 


Sefl.  5.       of  Moses  demonfratcd,         225, 

triarch.  Now  the  happincfs  or  redemption  of 
mankind  promifed,  on  Abraham's  firil:  Vocation,  to 
come  thro'  him,  could  not  but  make  him  more 
and  more  inquifitive  into  the  manner  of  its  being 
brought  about,  in  proportion  as  he  foiund  himfelf 
to  be  more  and  more  perfonaliy  concerned  as  the 
Inftrument  of  fo  great  a  bleffing.  But  every  new 
Revelation  would  Ihew  him  ftill  farther  interefted 
in  this  honour :  Therefore,  by  the  timfe  Iflimael 
was  ordered  to  be  fent  away^  and  the  promifed 
Seed  fixed  in  Ifaac,  we  m.uft  needs  fuppofe  him 
very  impatient  to  underftand  the  Myftery  of  Re- 
demption j  and  fo,  fitly  prepared  to  receive  this  laft 
and  fapreme  Revelation.  This^  in  the  like  cafe% 
\ve  find  to  be  the  difpofition  and  ftate  of  mind 
in  the  holy  men  of  old.  Thus  Daniel,  by  the 
ftudy  of  the  Prophefies  of  Jeremiah,  underftanding 
the  approaching  reftoration  of  the  Jews,  applies 
himfelf  by  falling  and  prayer  for  God's  further 
information  •,  and  the  Angel  Gabriel  is  fcrit  unto 
him.  So  John  anxious  and  felicitous  for  the  fuf- 
fering  Church,  being  in  prayers  on  the  Lord's 
day,,  was  favoured  with  aU  his  glorious  Revela- 
tions. 

5.  Again,  The  new  light  in  which  this  Com- 
mand is  placed,  difpels  all  that  perplexity  in  the 
Common  interpretation  (taken  notice  of  above) 
nrifingfrom  our  ideas  of  2.  trials  where  that  which 
fhOuld  in  ufe  and  reafon,  go  before  fome  extra- 
ordinary favour,  is  made  to  come  after  all.  But 
now,  according  to  our  fenfe  of  the  Cor/imand,  the 
trial,  as  is  meet,  precedes  the  laft  and  greatcll  fa- 
vour everbeftowed  by  God  on  Abraham. 

6.  To  confirm  all  this,  we  may  confider  that 
this  interpretation  of  the  Command  is  moft  eafy  and 

Vol.  V.  Q^  natural, 


226  ^he  iDivhie  Legation         Book  VL 

natural,  as  being  intirely  agreeable  to  the  ancient 
way  of  communicating  information.  We  have 
ihewn  '^  it  to  have  been  the  general  cuftom  of 
Antiquity,  in  perfonal  conferences,  to  inftrudl  by 
atlions  inftead  of  zvords ;  a  cuftom  begun  out  of 
neceflity,  but  continued  out  of  choice,  for  the 
fuperior  advantages  it  hath  in  making  an  impref- 
fion.  For  motion^  imturally  fignificative,  which  en- 
ters at  the  eye,  hath  a  much  ftronger  effedl  than 
articulate /fl«K^,  only  ^ri'//r^nfy  fignificative,  which 
enters  at  the  ear.  We  have  fhewn  likewife,  by 
numerous  examples,  that  God  himfelf  vouchfafed, 
in  compliance  to  a  general  cuftom,  to  ule  this  way 
of  information,  when  he  inftruded  the  holy  Pa- 
triarchs and  Prophets  in  his  Will. 

7.  Again,  As  the  high  hiiportance  of  this  Re- 
velation feemed  to  require  its  being  given  in  the 
ftrong  and  forcible  way  of  adlion  \  fo  nothing  can 

be 

•J  See  vol.  iii.  p.  loj  to  121. 

*  To  this,  the  great  Profeflbr  replies,  That  "  there  are 
*'  but  few  geftures  of  the  body  more  apt  of  thetnfelvts  to  fig- 
"  nify  the  fentiment  of  the  mind  than  articulate  found  :  The 
*'  force  of  which  ariles  not  from  the  nature  of  things ;  but 
"  from  the  arbitrary  will  of  man  :  and  common  ufe  and  cuftt»m 
"  impofes  this  fignification  on  articulate  founds,  not  on  mo- 
'•  tions  and  geflares  —  Pauci  funt  motus  corporis,  qui  ipfi  per 
"  fe  aptiores  efle  videutur  ad  motus  animi  fignificandos,  quam 
*'  fonus  qui  ore  et  lingua  in  voccm  formatur.  Vis  ipfa  iwn  eft 
*'  in  natura  rerum  pofita,  fed  arbitrio  hominum  conftituta ; 
"  eamque  mos  et  ufus  communis  non  geftibus  corporis  tribnit, 
"  fed  verbis  et  voci."     RurntRFORTH  ZJ^rfrrj. 

The  purpofe  of  this  fine  obfervation,  tho*  fo  cloudily  expre/Ted, 
is  to  fliew  thiit  vwthn  and gefture  can  have  no  fignification  at  all: 
Not  from  nature,  fince  few  g(  ihires  of  the  body  are  more  apt 
of  ihemfi'lves  to  exprefs  the  mind  than  articulate  found  ;  and 
yet  articulate  found  is  of  arbitrary  fignification  :  Not  from  injiitw 


Sed.  5'       of  Mo^^^  demonjlrated,  227 

be  conceived  more  appofite  to  convey  the  informa- 
tion required   than  this  very  atlion.      Abraham 

defircd 

i'ton,  fince  it  is  not  to  geftare,  but  to  articulate  foiind^  that  men 
have  agreed  to  affix  a  meaning.  The  confequence  is,  that 
gejiure  can  have  no  meaving  at  all',  and  (o  there  is  an  end  of  all 
Abraham's  SIGNIFICATIVE  action.  The  Divine  would  make 
a  great  figure,  were  it  not  for  his  Bible  j  but  the  Bible  is  per- 
petually dilbrienting  the  Philofopher.  His  general  Thefis  is, 
*'  That  ailions  can  never  become  fignificadve  but  by  the  aid  of 
ixjords,"  Now  I  defire  to  know  what  he  thinks  of  all  the  Ty- 
pical Rites  of  the  Lanv,  fignificative  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift? 
Were  not  thefe  ASlions  ?  Had  they  no  meaning  which  extend- 
ed to  the  Go/pel?  or  were  there  any  IVords  to  accompany  them, 
which  explained  that  meaning :  Yet  has  this  man  afTexted,  in 
what  he  calls  a  Determination,  that  in  the  inftances  of  expreflive 
gefture,  recorded  in  Scripture,  'words  ivere  alixays  ufed  tn 
conjunction  loith  them.  But  to  come  a  little  clofer  to  him.  As 
a  Philofopher  he  Ihould  have  given  his  Reafons  for  thofe  two 
affertions ;  or  as  an  Hiftorian  he  fhould  have  verified  his 
Fa£ls.  He  hath  attempted  neither;  and  I  commend  his  pru-! 
dence;  for  bqfh  are  againft  him  :  His  Fad,  that  gellures  have 
no  meaning  by  nature  is  falfe  :  and  his  Reafoning,  that  the/ 
have  none  by  injiitutionj  is  millaken.  The  Spartans  might  in- 
llrufl  him  iha.t  ge/Iures  alone  ha've  a  natural  meaning.  Tliat  fage 
People  (as  we  are  told  by  Herodotus)  were  fo  perfuaded  of 
this  truth,  that  they  preferred  converfe  by  a^ion,  to  converfe 
by /peech ;  as  aftion  had  all  the  clearnefs  of  fpeech,  and  was 
free  from  the  abufes  of  it.  This  Hiftorian,  in  his  Thalia,  in- 
forms us  that  when  the  Samians  fent  to  Lacedemou  for  iuccours 
in  diftrefs,  their  Orators  made  a  long  and  laboured  fpeech. 
When  it  was  ended,  the  Spartans  told  tliem,  that  the  firji  fart 
of  it  they  had  forgotten,  and  could  not  camp'ehefid  the  latter. 
Whereupon,  the  Samian  Orators  produced  their  empty  Bread- 
balcets,  and  /aid,  they  wanted  bread.  kFhat  r^ecd  of  •^vordi^ 
replied  the  Spartans,  do  not  your  empty  Bread -bajietf  fn^ciently 
declare  your  meaning  ?  Thus  we  fee  the  Spartans  thought  noG 
only  that  ^ejlures  'were  apt  of  themfei'ves,  (or  by  nature)  to  fig- 
ttify  the  Jentiment  of  the  mind,  but  even  more  apt  than  articulate 
founds.  Their  relations,  the  Jews,  were  in  the  fame  fentimenta 
and  praftice;  and  full  as  fparing  of  their  words;  and,  (the 
two  languages  confidered)  for  fomething  a  better  reafon.  The 
facred  Hiftorian,  fpeaking  of  publick  days  of  humiliation,  tells 
lus  ftory  in  this  manner  —  Jnd  they  gathered  together  to  Mizpe!-^ 

ANP     DREW     WATER     AND     POURED     iT    OUT     BEFORE     THE 
0^2  LORP, 


22^  .  ^he  Divine  Legation        BaoK  Vtl 

defired  earneftly  to  be  let  into  the  myftery  of  the 
REDEMP.TiON. ;  and  God,  to  inftrud  him  (in  the 

beft 


Lord,  anJ  fafted  en  that  day,  \  Sam.  cnap.  vli.  vtx,  6.  The 
Hiftorian  does  not  explain  in  ivordi  the  meaning  of  this  dra-wm 
ing  of  luater,  Sec.  nor  needed  he.  Ic  fufficiently  exprefTed,  that 
a  delude  of  tears  'was  due  for  their  offences.  The  Profeflor,  per- 
haps, will  fay  that  words  accompanied  the  aftion,  at  leaft  precede 
ed  it.  But  what  will  he  fay  to  the  aftion  of  Tarquin,  when  he 
ftruck  off  the  heads  of  the  higher  poppies  which  overtopped 
their  fellows  ?  Here  we  are  exprefly  told,  that  all  was  done  ia 
profound  filence,  and  yet  the  adlion  was  well  underftood.  But 
further,  I  will  tell  our  PiofefTor  what  he  leaR  fufpeiled,  that 
Geftures,  befides  their  natural,  have  often  an  ar^/Vz-^ry  figni-* 
iication.  "  A  certain  Afiatic  Prince,  entertained  at  Rome  by 
Augiiftus,  was  amongft  other  Shews  and  Feftivities,  amufed  with 
a  famous  Pantomime  ;  whofe  adlions  were  fo  expreflive,  that 
the  Barbarian  begged  him  of  the  Emperor  for  his  Interpreter 
between  him  and  feveral  neighbouring  Nations,  whofe  languages 
were  unknown  to  one  another."  Pantomimic  gellure  was 
amongft  the  Romans  one  way  of  exhibiting  a  Dramatic  Story. 
But  before  fuch  geftures  could  be  formed  into  a  continued  feries 
of  Information,  we  cannot  but  fuppofe  much  previous  pains 
and  habit  of  invention  to  be  exerted  by  the  Aftors.  Amongft 
which,  one  e/pedient  muft  needs  be,  (in  order  to  make  the 
expreffion  of  the  Adors  convey  an  entire  connefled  fenfe)  to 
intermix  with  the  geftures  naturally  fignificative,'  geitures  made 
fignificative  by  inflitution  ;  that  is,  brought,  by  arbiirary  ufe  t(^ 
have  as  determined  a  meaning  as  the  others. 

To  illiiftrate  this  by  thatmoYe  lafting  information,  the  Hiero- 
^lyphics  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  real  Charalers  of  the  Chinefe  j 
which,  as  we  have  fhewn,  run  paraHcl  with  the  more  fleeting 
conveyance  of  expi'eflive  gefture,  juft  as  alphabetic  writing  does 
*vith  fpcech.  Now,",  tho' the  earlier  Hieroglyphics  were  com- 
pofed  almoft  altogether  of  marks  «a/«/-a/Vi  fignificative,  yet  when 
the  Egyptians  came  to  convey  continued  anJ  more  precife  dif- 
courliis  by  this  mode  of.  writing,  ihey  found  a  neceflity  of  in- 
venting arbitrary  fignifications,  to  intermix  and  conned  with  the 
Other  marks  which  had  a  naiurai.  [See  vol.  iii.  p.  8'9,  ^  Jeq.^ 

Now,  to  (hew  that  thefe  arbitrary  Hieroglyphic  marks  were' 
#cal  Cliaradlcrs  like  the  other,  let  us  turn  to  the  Charadcrs  of 
the  ChLixefe,  which  tho'  (in  their  prcfen:  way  of  ufe)  moft  of 

theiu 


Se6l.  5.       c/"  Moses   demonflratcd.  229 

beft  manner  humanity  is  capable  of  receiving  in- 
ftruftion)  in  the  infinite  extent  of  divine  goodnefs 
to  mankind,  who  /pared  not  his  own  fon,  but  de^ 
liver ed  him  up  for  us  (ill\  let  Abraham  feel,  by 

experience,  what  it  was  to  lofe  a  beloved  fon ; 

^ake  now  thy  fon^  thine  only  fon  Ifaac  \  the  Son  bora 
miraculoufly  when  Sarah  was  paft  child-bearing, 
as  Jefus  was  miraculoufly  borrt  of  a  pure  Virgin. 
The  duration  too  of  the  a6lion  was  the  fame  as 
that  between  Christ's  Death  and  Refurredion ; 
both  which  were  defigned  to  be  reprefented  in  it : 
and  flill  farther,  not  only  the  final  archietypical 
Sacrifice  of  the  fon  of  God  was  figured  in  the 
command  to  offer  Ifaac,  but  the  intermediate  Typical 
facrifice,  in  the  Mofaic  GEconomy,  was  reprefent- 

them  be  of  arbitrary  fignificatlon,  yet  the  Miffionaries  aflure  us 
that  they  are  underltood  by  all  the  neighbouring  nation's  of 
different  languages.  This  Ihews  that  the  auguftan  Pantomime 
fo  coveted  by  the  Barbarian  for  his  interpreter  might  be  very 
able  to  difcharge  his  funftion  tho'  feveral  of  his  geftures  had 
an  arbitrary  lignification.  And  we  eafily  conceive  how  ic 
might  come  to  pafs,  fmce  the  gefture  of  arbitrary  iignification 
only  ferved  to  connedt  the  aftive  difcourfe,  by  ftanding  be- 
tween others  of  a  natural  fignification,  diretling  to  their  fenfe. 

Thus  (to  conclude,  with  our  Determiner)  it  appears  that 
GESTURES  ALONE  are  fo  far  from  having  no  meaning  at  all, 
as  he  has  ventured  to  affirm,  that  they  have  all  the  meaning 
which  human  expreffion  can  poffibly  convey  :  all  which  is 
properly  their  own,  mmely  -  natural  information;  and  evea 
much  of  that  which  is  more  peculiar  to  fpeech,  namely  «r- 
bitrary. 

To  illuftrate  the  whole  by  a  domeftic  inflance ;  the  folemn 
Gefture  of  a  Profeflbr  in  his  Chair  :  which  fometimes  may 
naturally  happen,  to  fignify  Folly;  tho',  by  infiitution,  it  al- 
ways fignifies  Wifdom;  and  yet  again,  it  muit  be  owned,  ia 
juftice  to  our  Profeffor's  fcheme,  that  fometimes  it  means  no- 
thing at  all. 

■  Rom.  viii.  32, 

0.3  «^> 


2  ^^o  ^bff  Divine  Legation        Book  VI, 

cd,  by  the  permitted  facrifice  of  the  Ram  offered 
up  inllead  of  Ifaac. 

8.  The  laft  reafon  I  fhall  offer  In  fupport  of  this 
point,  that  the  Ccmmand  concerning  Ifaac  was  this 
Revelation  of  Chrift's  da)\  or  the  redemption  of 
mankind  by  his  death  and  fufferings,  is  the  aUufion 
which  Jefus  makes  (in  thefe  words,  Jbraham  re- 
joked  to  fee  my  day^  i^c.)  to  the  following  wopds  of 
Mofes,  in  the  hiflory  of  the  command — And  A- 
braham  called  the  name  of  that  place  Jehovah-jireh : 
as  it  is  faid  to  this  day.  In  the  mount  of  the  Lord  it 
fhall  he  feen, 

To  fhew  that  Jefus  alluded  to  thefe  words  of 
Mofes  and  had  them  in  his  eye,  when  he  fpeaks 
of  Abraham'' s  rejoicing  to  fee  his  day,  it  will  be  pro- 
per to  confider  the  true  force  and  meaning  of  cither 
text.  The  words  of  Jefus  have  been  fully  con- 
fidered  already  \ 

And,  in  the  words  of  Mofes Abraham  called 

the  name  of  that  -place  Jehovah-jireh  :  as  it  is  faid  to 
this  day.  In  the  mount  of  the  Lord  itfjjall  befeen,  we 
have  the  affertion  of  Jefus  confirmed,  that  Abra- 
ham fav)  Chriffs  day  and  was  glad,  i .  Jehovah- 
jireh  fignifies,  as  feveral  of  the  bcfl  interpreters 
agree,  the  Lord    shall    b£  seen  ",     But  with 

what 

*  Sec  p.  204,  i^  Jeq, 

»  *'  Dominus  <viJeb'ttur,  (fays  the  le.irned  Father  Houbigant) 
*'  1°.  Non  iiiJetur,  ne  ab  future  verbi  abcrremus-  2".  Non 
«  luideint,  non  raodo  quia  non  addilur  quid  fit  Deus  vifurui, 
"  fed  ctiam  quia  in  tota  ilia  vifione,  hominis  elt  'videre, 
"  Domini,  inderi\  propter  qiiam  caufam  Deus  locum  i(tum 
*'  mox  nomine  •vifionis  jnfigniebat.  Nimiruxn  Deus  Abrahamo 
i*  jd  pftendit,  quod  Abrahaft  iti^t  ii  gavi/us  efi."     The  near 

relation 


Sc6l:.  5-      of  Moses  dcmonjlrafed,  231 

what  propriety  could  this  name  be  given  to  it  by 
Abraham  if,  in  this  tranfacflion,  he  had  not  feen 
the  reprefentation  of  the  Lord's  paflion,  which 
was  to  happen  in  a  future  age  ?  And  if  he  did  fee 
it,  how  appofite  was  the  name !  The  Hiftorian 
goes  on — as  it  is  /aid  to  this  day^  In  the  mou7tt  of 
the  Lord  it  Jhall  he  feen  •,  or  more  exaflly  to  the 
Hebrew — for  he  faid^  In  the  mount  the  Lord 
SHALL  BE  SEEN.  In  the  firll  part  of  the  verfe  the 
facred  Hiftorian  tells  us  that  Abraham  called  the 
mount,  The  Lord  fhall  he  feen  \  and  in  the  latter " 
part  he  acquaints  us  with  the  manner  how  Abra- 
ham impofed  that  appellation,  namely  by  the  ufe 
of  a  proverbial  fpeech  implying  the  reafon  of  the 
name.' — To  day  in  the  mounts  the  Lord  fhall  he 
feen''.     Proverbial  fpeeches,  before  the  general  ufe 

relation  of  thefe  words  of  Jefus  to  thofe  of  Mofes,  was  too 
ilrongly  marked  to  be  overlooked  by  this  very  judicious  Critic, 
the'  he  confidered  the  tranfaclion  in  no  other  light  than  as  a 
Type  Cft  ti\e  death  and  paflion  of  Jefus. 

"  Atq.ue  hoc  illud  eft  (fays  Father  Houbigant)  quod  rremoriae 
fempitefns  Abraham  confecrabat,  cum  ita  fubjungeret  ZW/> 
in  monte,  Dominus  <videbilur ;  illud  hodie  fic  accipiens,  ut  accepit 
Paulus  Ap.  illud  Davidis,  hodie  fi  •vocem  ejus  audieritis;  quod 
ho^ie  tamdiu  durat,  quamdiu  fscula  ilia  durabunt,  de  quibus 
Apoftolus  donee  hodie  cognomivatur.  Propterea  Abraham  ron 
dicit  hodie  Dominus  'videiur.  Nam  id  fpedlaculum  nunc  folus 
videt  Abraham,  poftea  omnes  vifuri  funt,  et  ad  omnes  perti- 
ncbit  iftud,  'videiitur,  generatim  di£l«m,  cum  omnes  Unige- 
iritum  ill  monie  viderifit  generis  humani  vidiniam  fadam.  Nee 
aliam  fententiam  feries  verborum  patitur.  Ex  qua  ferie  illi 
deviant  qui  hcec  verba,  dixit  enim  hodie  in  monte  doininus  — 
Mofi  fic  narranti  attribuunt/ro//«rfa  dicitur  hodie  in  monte  Domi- 
ni—  q»afi  renarret  Moyfes  ufurpatum  fua  setate  proverbium. 
Nam  fi  fic  erit  non  jam  docebit  Abraham,  cui  huic  loco  no- 
men  fecerit  Dominus  videbitur;  quam  tamen  nominum  nota- 
tionem  in  facris  paginis  non  omittunt  ii  quicumque  nomina 
rebus  imponunt.  Quod  contra  plane  docebit  Abraham  fi  de  eo 
JVIoyfes  fic  narrat,  •voccmit  nomen  loci  kujus,  deus  videbjtur  ; 
Rojn  dixit,  in  rnonie  Deus  *videhitur. 

Q.4  of 


232  'TJoe  JDiiiine  Legation        Book  VI. 

of  recording  abftraft  names  and  things  by  writing, 
being  the  beft  and  fafeft  conveyance  of  the  memory 
of  events  to  Poflerity.     Conformably  to  this  inter- 
pretation of  the  i;ext,  the  Hiftorian  on  his  enterance 
pn  the  tranfadion  calls  the  land  of  Moriah  to  which 
Abraham  went  with  Ifaac  (according  to  Jerom's 
interpretation)  the  Land  of  vision,  which  (hews 
that  the  words  of  Jefus,  Abraham  saw  my  day  and 
was  GLAD,  evidently  allude  to   this  extraordinary 
circumftance  •,  namely  the  difpofitiqn  of  Abraham's 
mind  on  the  occafion,  exprelfed  in  his  memorial  of 
a  new  name  impofed  on   the  fcene  of  a<lftion  •,  the 
ancient  way  of  commemorating  joyful  and  happy 
events.     In  a  word,  Jefus  fays,  Abraham  faiv  his 
day  i  and  Abraham,  by  the  name  he  impofed  upon 
the  mount,  declares  the  fame  thing.     But  as  the 
VISION  was  of  a  public,  not  of  a  private  nature,  he 
exprefil^s  himfelf  in  terms  which  fignify  what  man- 
kind in  general y??<';//yt'6',  not  what  he  himfelf  had 
Jeen — the  Lord  shall  be  seen.     From  a  vague 
allufion  therefore,  of  the  words  of  Jefus,  to  this 
hiaory  of  the  command  in  general,  we  have  now  fixed 
them  to  the  very  words  of  Mofes,  to  which  they 
more  particularly  refer. 

The  fum  then  of  the  Argument  is  this — Jesus 
exprefsly  fays  that  Abraham  faiv  and  rejoiced  to  fee ^ 
yis  day\  or  the  great  Sacrifice  for  the  fins  of  man- 
kind by  reprcfentation — The  records  of  facred  Hil~ 
tory  muft  needs  verify  his  affertion — But  there  is 
no  place  in  Scripture  which  prefents  the  leaft 
traces  of  this  Revelation,  except  the  hiftory  of 
thf  Command  to  offer  Ifaac. — This  hiftory  not  only 
eafily  and  naturally  admits  of  fuch  a  fenfe,  but 
even  demands  it — And  reciprocally,  this  fenfe  gives 
all  imaginable  light  to  the  Pliftory  ;  and  removes 
the  e;reateft  difficulties  attendino;  the  common  in- 

terprctation 


Se6t.  5«      of  Moses  demonfirated.         23^ 

terpretation  of  it.  Hence,  we  conclude  with  cer- 
tainty, that  the  command  to  Abraham  to  off?r  up  his^ 
Jon  was  only  an  information  in  action,  which, 
at  Abraham's  earneft  requeil,  God  was  graciouQy 
pleafed  to  give  him,  of  x.h.Q  great  facrifice  of  Chrifi 
for  the  Redemption  of  mankind.  The  thing  to  be 
proved.  Two  great  ends  feem  to  be  gained  by 
this  intrepretation  :  The  one,  to  free  the  Com- 
mand from  a  fuppofed  violation  of  natural  Law  ; 
The  other,  to  fupport  the  connexion  and  depen- 
dency between  the  two  Revelations ;  for  this  in- 
terpretation makes  the  hiftory  of  the  Command 
a  DIRECT  Prophefy  of  Chrift  as  Redeemer  of  the 
worlds  whereas  the  common  brings  it,  at  moft» 
but  to  a  TYPICAL  istimation.  Now  the  Defenders'^, 
of  the  common  interpretation  confefs,  that  "  the 
f '  evidence  of  dire^  Prophefies  is  fuperiour  to  that 
^«  of  Types:^' 

The  only  plaufible  Objeflion  which  can  be  made 
to  my  explanation,  I  conceive  to  be  the  follow- 
ing,— "  That  what  is  here  fuppofed  the  principal 
"  and  proper  reafon  of  th©  Command,  is  not  at 
*'  all  mentioned  by  the  facred  Hiftorian ;  but  ano- 
•'  ther,  of  a  different  nature ;  namely,  the  Trial 
"  of  Abraham's  faith  and  obedience.  —  ^;?^  it 
"  came  to  pafs  after  thefe  things,  God  did  tempt  Ahra- 
^'  ham,  and  f aid,  Take  now  thy  f on,  thine  only  fon  Ifaac. 
"  —And  when  the  affair  is  over,  the  fame  rea- 
"  fon  is  again  infinuated  :  —  By  myfelf  have  I 
^*  fworn,  faith  the  Lord,  for  hecaiife  thou  hafi  done 
*'  this  thing,  and  hafi  not  witheld  thy  fon,  thine  only 
"  fon,  that  in  hleffing  Iwillblefs  thee  %"  ^c, 

I.  To  the  firft  part  of  the  Objection  I  anfwer. 
That  the  knowledge  of  God's  future  Difpenfation 
J  Dr.  Slabbing.  ^  q^^  ^^^^^  16,  17. 

in 


234  ^^^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

in  th€  redemption  of  mankind  by  the  death  of  his 
Son,  revealed,  as  a  fingular  grace,  to  the  Father  of 
the  Faithful,  was  what  could  by  no  means  be  com- 
municated to  the  Hebrew  People,  when  Mofes 
wrote  this  Hiflory  for  their  ufe  -,  bccaufe  they  being 
then  to  continue  long  under  a  carnal  CEconomy, 
this  knowledge,  of  the  end  of  the  Law,  would 
have  greatly  indifpofed  them  to  a  Difpenfation, 
with  which  (as  a  Schoolmajler,  that  was  to  bring 
them  by  degrees,  thro'  a  harfti  and  rugged  difci- 
pline,  to  the  eafy  yoke  of  Christ)  God,  in  his 
infinite  wifdom,  thought  fit  to  exercile  them\ 
But  he  who  does  not  fee,  from  the  plain  reafon  of 
the  thing,  the  neceffity  of  the  Hiilorian's  filence, 
is  referred,  for  farther  latisfaclion,  to  what  hath 
been  already,  and  will  be  hereafter  faid,  to  evince 
the  neceffity  of  fuch  a  condu<5l,  in  other  momen- 
tous points  relating  to  that  future  Difpenfation. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  give  him  St.  Paul's  word 
for  this  conduft  of  Mofes,  who  exprefsly  tells  us, 
that  he  obfcured  fome  parts  of  his  hiftory,  or  put 
a  veil  over  his  face  that  the  Ifraelites  might  not  fee  to 
the  end  of  that  Law  ivhicb  nras  to  be  aholifhed.  And 
what  was  that  end^  if  not  the  Redemption  of  man- 
kind by  the  death  and  facrifice  of  Chrift? — Mofes 
(fays  he)  pit  a  veil  over  his  face^  that  the  Children  of 
Jfrael  could  notjiedfafily  look  to  the  end  of  that  which 
is  abolifhed.     But  their  minds  were  blinded :  for  until 

'  Would  the  Reader  now  believe  it  pofflble,  when  thele 
vvords  lay  before  Dr.  Stabbing,  while  he  was  anfwering  my 
Book,  that  he  fliould  venture  to  aflc  me,  or  be  capable  of  afk- 
ing  thcfe  infulting  queftions  —  M'^as  there  any  giod  ufe  that 
Jlbraham  could  make  of  this  kuoivledge  nvhich  the  rrfi  of  the 
FiDpk  of  Cod  might  not  ha've  made  of  it  as  nvrll  as  He  ?  Or  if 
tt  nvas  unft  for  emery  ho^'y  e//},  "j/.w  /V  net  unfit  for  Abraham 
too  f 

this 


Sed.  5*       o/'MosES  demonfirated,  235 

this  day  remaincth  the  fame  "jeil  untaken  away-^  in  the 
reading  of  the  Old  Tefiament :  which  veil  is  done 
away  in  Christ  ^ 

But  it  may  be  aflced,  perhaps,  *'  If  fuch  Revela- 
tions could  not  be  clearly  recorded,  why  were  they 
recorded  at  all?"  For  a  very  plain  as  well  as  weighty 
reafon  -,  that  when  the  fulnefs  of  time  Ihould  come, 
they  might  rife  up  in  Evidence  againft  Infidelity, 
for  the  real  relation  and  dependency  betvv^een  the 
;wo  Difpenfations  of  Mojes  and  of  Chrift "  j  when 

from 

^  z  Cor,  iii.  i3r— 14.  But  all  I  can  fay,  or  all  an  Apof- 
tle  can  fay,  if  I  chance  to  fay  it  after  him,  will  not  fatisfy 
Dr.  Stebbing.  He  yet  flicks  to  his  point  "  That  if  any  in- 
'•  formation  of  the  death  and  facrifice  of  Chrifl  had  been  in- 
**  tended,  it  is  natural  to  think  that  the  explanation 
"  would  have  been  Recorded  with  the  tranfad^ion,  as  it  is  in  all 
*'  other  SUCH  like  cases."  Now  if  this  orthodox  Gentle- 
fnan  will  ihew  me  a  fuch  like  cafe,  i.  e,  a  cafe  where  a  Revela- 
tion of  the  Gofpel  Difpenfation  is  made  by  an  exprefTive  adion, 
and  the  explanation  is  recorded  along  with  it,  I  fhall  be  ready 
to  confefs,  he  has  made  a  pertinent  objsidlion.  In  the  mean 
time,  I  have  fomething  more  to  fay  to  him.  He  fuppofes, 
that  this  commanded  Sacrifice  of  Ifaac  was  a  Type  of  the 
Sacrifice  cf  Chrift.  To  this  a  Deift  replies,  in  the  Doctor's 
own  words,  "  \i  any  type  had  been  here  intended  it  is  natu- 
*'  ral  to  think  that  the  explanation  would  have  been  record- 
*'  ed  with  the  tranfa6tion,"  Now  when  the  Doctor  has  fatisfied 
the  objedlion,  which  he  has  lent  the  Deifts,  againft  a  Type,  I 
fuppofe  it  may  ferve  to  fatisfy  himfelf,  when  he  urges  it  againft 
my  idea  of  the  Command,  as  an  information  by  action. 
Again,  our  Anfwerer  himfelf  affirms  that  the  dodlrine  of  Re- 
demption was  delivered  under  Typet  in  the  Law ;  and  that  the 
doftiine  thus  delivered  was  defignedly  fecreted  and  concealed 
from  the  ancient  Jews.  Now  is  it  natural  to  think  (to  ufe  his 
own  words)  that  Mofes  would  openly  and  plainly  record  3 
Doi^rlne  in  one  book  which  he  had  determined  to  fecvete  in  an- 
other, when  both  \yere  for  the  ufe  of  the  fame  People  and  the 
fame  Age  i 

^  "  You  muft  give  me  leave  to  obferve  (fays  Dr.  Stebbing) 
*'  that  the  tranfaftion  in  queftion,  will  have  the  fame  efficacy 
' ■     '  -  ■  ,  „  ^^ 


236  ^he  Divine  Legation      Book  VI. 

from  this,  and  divers  the  like  inftances  it  fhould 
appear,  that  the  firfi  Dirpenfation  could  be  but 
very  imperfeftly  underftood  without  a  reference  ta 
the  latter. 

*'  to  fhevv  the  dependency  heiiveen  the  tivo  difpenfations,  whe- 
*'  tber  Abraham  had  thereby  any  information  ot  the  Sacrifice 
*'  of  Chrift  or  not."  [ConfiJ.  p.  156.]  This,  indeed,  is  faying 
fomething.  And,  could  he  prove  what  he  fiys,  it  woold  be 
depriving  my  interpretation  of  one  of  its  principal  adv^tages. 
Let  us  fte  then  how  he  goes  about  it,  —  "  for  this  does  not  arife 
•*  from  Abraham's  knowledge,  or  anybody's  knowledge, 
*'  at  the  time  when  the  tranfadlion  happened,  but  from  the  fimi- 
*'  litiidc  and  correfpcndency  between  the  event  and  the  tranfac- 
"  tion,  by  which  it  was  prefigured  ;  which  is  exaiSlIy  the  fame 
•'  upon  either  fuppofition."  [Ibid.  p.  1 56-7.3  To  this  I  reply, 
I.  That  1  never  fuppofed  that  the  dependency  between  the 
two  Difpenfations  did  arije  from  Abraharns  knoivledge,  or  any 
hody's  knoiuledge^  at  that,  or  at  any  other  time  ;  but  from  God's 
jNTENTiON  that  this  commanded  aftion  fliould  import  or  re- 
prefent  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift  :  And  then  indeed  comes  in  the 
cuellion.  Whether  that  Intention  be  beft  difcovered  from  God's 
declaration  of  it  to  Abraham,  or  from  zJimilituJe  and  correfpon- 
dencv  between  this  commanded  aftion  and  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift. 
Therefore,  2.  I  make  bold  to  tell  him,  that  a  fimilitude  and 
(orrcjpondcncy  between  the  e<vent  and  the  tranfaHion  ivhich  pre- 
figured it,  IS  NOT  ENOUGH  to  fhew  this  dependency,  to  the 
fatisfaftion  of  Unbelievers  j  who  fay,  that  a  likenefs  between 
two  things  of  the  fame  nature  y  fuch  as  offering  up  two  men 
to  death,  in  different  ways,  and  tranfadled  in  two  diftant 
periods,  is  not  fufiicient  alone  to  Ihew  that  they  had  any  rela- 
tion to  one  another.  With  the  fame  reafo.n,  they  will  fay,  we 
mif^ht  pretend  that  Jeptha's  daughter,  or  the  king  of  Moab's 
fon  v/ho.Ti  the  father  facrificed  on  the  wall,  2  Kings  iii.  27. 
were  the  types  of  Chrift's  facrific?.  Give  us,  they  exult,  a  proof 
from  Scripture  that  God  declared  or  revealed  his  intention 
of  prefiguring  the  death  of  Jefus  ;  or  feme  better  authority  at 
leaft  than  a  modern  Typifier,  who  deals  only  in  Jimilitudes  and 
corre/po/idences,  and  has  all  the  wildnefs,  without  the  wit,  of  a 
Poet,  and  all  the  weaknefs,  without  the  ingenuity,  of  an  Ana- 
Ipgiil !  Now  whether  it  be  our  Examiner,  or  the  Author  of 
the  Di'v.  Leg.  who  has  given  them  this  fatisfadlion  :  or  whether 
they  have  any  reafon  to  require  it  of  ciihcr  of  us,  is  left  JO  the, 
impartial  Reader  to  confidcr. 

Bi]5 


B6^.  5.        ^  M  o  s  E  s  denwijirafed,         237 

But  had  not  the  facred  Writer  defignedly  ob- 
fcuredthis  illuftrious  Revelation j  by  an  omifiion  of 
the  attendant  circumftances,  yet  the  narrative  of 
fuch  a  convtrfe  by  a5iion  was  not,  in  its  nature,  fo  in- 
telligible or  obvious,  as  that  where  God  is  fhevvri 
converfmg  by  aBion  to  the  Prophets,  in  the  feveral 
inftances  formerly  given  "*.  And  the  reafon  is  this. 
Thofe  informations,  as  they  are  given  to  the  Pro- 
phets for  the  inftru6lion  of  the  People,  have  necef- 
larily,  in  the  courfe  of  the  hiilory,  their  explana- 
tions annexed.  But  the  information  to  Abraham 
being  folely  for,  his  own  private  confolation  (as  Dr; 
Scott  exprefles  it  above)  there  was  no  room  for  thac 
formal  explanation,  which  made  the  commanded 
actions  to  the  Prophets,  fo  clear  and  intelligible.-— 
Yet,  as  if  I  had  never  faid  this,  Dr.  Stebbing  tells 
the  world,  I  make  this  adion  of  Abraham's 
parallel  to  thofe  of  the  Prophets,  whereas  (fays 
he)  it  differs  from  them  all  in. a  very  material  circmn- 
ftance^  as  they  had  their  feveral  explanations  annexed^f 
and  this  had  7iot.  But  to  Ihew  by  example,  as  well 
as  comparifon,  that  obfcurity  is  naturally  attendant 
on  the  relation  of  converfe  by  a^ion^  where  the  in- 
formation is  for  the  fake  of  the  A6tor  only,  I  (hail 
inftance  in  a  cafe  where  no  obfcurity  was  affedted 
by  the  Hiftorian.  It  is  the  relation  of  Jacob's 
wreftling  with  the  Angel  '^.  The  Patriarch,  on 
his  return  from  Haran  to  his  native  Country,  hear- 
ing of  his  brother  Efau's  power,  and  dreading  his 
refentment  for  the  defrauded  Birthright,  addreffes 
himfelf  for  protedion  in  this  dillrefs,  to  the  God  of 
his  Fathers,  with  all  humility  and  confidence.  God 
l^ears  his  prayer ;  and  is  pleafed  to  inform,  him  of 
the  happy  ifilie  of  the  adventure,  by  2<ftgnificativi 
ia^ion:  The  following  night,  he  has  a  ftruggle  with 

*'  See  vol.  ill.  p.  109  to  iij.  ^  Guru  xxxii. 

an 


23 5  ^f^s  Divine  Legation      Book  VL" 

an  Angel,  with  whom  he  is  fufFered  to  make  his 
part  fogood,  that  from  thence  he  colle6led  God  had 
granted  his  petition.  This  is  the  circumftancein  Ja- 
cob's hiftory  v/hich  affords  luch  mirth  to  our  ilhte- 
rate  Libertines  :  For  this  infcrmation  by  Avlion  con- 
cerning only  the  Adtor,  who  little  needed  to  be 
told  the  meaning  of  a  mode  of  Inftrudlion,  at 
that  time  in  vulgar  ufe,  hath  now  an  oblcurity 
which  the  Scripture-relations  of  the  fame  mode 
of  information  to  the  Prophets  are  free  from,  by 
reafon  of  their  beino;  g-iven  for  the  ufe  of  the  Peo- 
pie,  to  whom  they  were  explained.  ^ 

But  it  may  perhaps  be  aflvcd,  ''  Why,  when  the 
fulnefs  of  time  "jjas  come^  Scripture  did  not  break 
its  long  filence,  and  inftrud  us  in  the  principal  and 
proper  reafon  of  the  Command  to  offer  Ifaac  ?"  I 
anlwer,  that  it  has  done  fo.  The  words  of  Jefus 
are  a  convincing  proof.  Nay,  I  might  go  farther, 
and  fay  that  this  is  not  the  only  place  where  the 
true  reafon  of  the  Command  is  plainly  hinted  at. 
The  Author  of  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  fpeak- 
ing  of  this  vtvy  Command^  fays — By  faith  Abraham , 
when  he  was  tried,  offered  up  Ifaac — accounting  that 
God  was  able  to  raife  him  up  ei;  en  from  the  dead,  from 
whence  alfo  he  received  him  in  a  figure^  EN 
ITAPABOAHt,  in  a  F arable:  z  mode  of  informa- 
tion either  by  words  or  anions,  which  confifts  in 
putting  one  thing  for  another.  Now,  in  a  Writer 
who  regarded  this  commanded  aftion  as  a  reprefen- 
tative  information  of  the  Redemption  of  mankind, 
nothing  could  be  more  fine  or  cafy  than  this  ex- 
preffion.  For  though  Abraham  did  not  indeed  re- 
ceive Ifaac  reftored  to  life  after  a  real  diffolution, 
-y^i  the  Son  being  in  this  action  to  reprefent  Christ 


f  Chap.  xi.  ver.  17 — ly. 


fuffering 


Sed.  5.       of  Moses  deTnonjlrated.  2  j^ 

fuffering  death  for  the  fins  of  the  world,  when 
the  Father  brought  him  fafe  from  mount  Moriah 
after  three  days,  (during  which  the  Son  was  in  a  ftate 
of  condemnation  to  death)  the  Father  plainly  re- 
ceived him,  under  the  charader  of  Chr  i st's  Repre- 
fentative,  as  reftorcd  from  the  dead.  For,  as  his 
being  brought  to  the  mount,  there  bound,  and 
laid  upon  the  Altar,  figured  the  death  and  fuffer- 
ings  of  Christ,  fo  his  being  taken  from  thence 
alive,  as  properly  figured  Christ's  Refurreflion 
from  the  dead.  With  the  higheft  propriety  there- 
fore and  elegance  of  fpeech,  might  Abraham  be 
faid  to  receive  Ifaac  from  the  dead  in  a  -parable^  or 
in  reprefentation  ^     Bu^the  nature  of  the  command 

not 

8  Let  us  fee  now  what  Dr.  Stabbing  has  to  fay  to  this  reafon- 
ing.  —  "  By  your  leave,  Sir,"  fays  he,  (which,  by  the  way, 
he  never  afks,  but  to  abufe  me ;  nor  ever  takes,  but  to  mif- 
reprefent  me)  "  if  the  Apoftie  had  meant  by  this  expreffion, 
*'  to  fignify  that  Ifaac  Hood  as  the  Reprefentative  of  Chrift, 
"  and  that  his  being  taken  from  the  mount  alive,  was  the 
*'  figure  of  Chrift's  Refurreflion;  it  should  have  been  faid, 
*'  that  Abraham  received  Christ  from  the  dead  in  a  figure.'* 
Should  it  fo  ?  What  ?  where  the  difcourfe  was  not  concerning 
Chriji,  but  Ifaac?  Had,  indeed,  the  facred  Writer  been  fpeak- 
ing  of  Abraham's  knoujledge  of  Chrift,  fomething  might  have 
been  faid;  but  he  is  fpeaking  of  a  very  different  thing,  his 
failh  in  Cod;  and  only  intimates,  by  a  ftrong  expreffion,  what 
he  underftood  that  adion  to  be,  which  he  gives,  as  an  inftance 
of  the  moil  illuftrious  aft  oi  faith.  I  fay,  had  this  been  the 
cafe,  fomeching  might  have  been  faid  ;  fomething,  I  mean, 
juft  to  keep  him  in  countenance ;  yet  ftill,  notliing  to  the 
purpofe,  as  I  fhall  now  fhew.  The  tranfaftion  of  the  Sacri- 
fice of  Chrill  related  to  God.  The y%«r^  of  that  tranfaftion, 
in  the  command  to  offer  Ifaac,  related  (according  to  my  in- 
terpretation) to  Abraham.  Now,  it  wa;  God  who  received 
Chrift ;  as  it  was  Abraham  who  received  the  type  or  figure  of 
Chrift,  in  Ifaac.  To  cell  us  then,  that  (according  to  my  inter- 
pretation) it  SHOULD  ha^e  been  faid,  thn  Abraham  receivui 
Christ  from  the  dead  in  a  figure,  is.  in  effeft,  telling  us  that  he 
knows  no  more  of  logical  expreifion  than  of  theological  rea- 

foniug. 


240         The  T>ivine  Legation        fiooic  VI. 

hot  being  underftood,  thefe  words  of  the  epiftle 
have  been  hitherto  interpreted,  to  fignify  only  that 

Ifaac 

fbning.  It  is  true,  could  he  fliew  the  expreflion  improper,  in 
the  lerife  which  I  give  to  the  tranfaflion,  he  would  then  ipcak  a 
little  to  the  piupofe ;  and  this,  to  do  him  jiiflicc,  is  what  he 

tv'ould  fain  be  at. "  For.  Chrift  it  was,  accordinr;  to  your  iit- 

"  terpretition,  (fays  he)  that  was  received  from  the  dead  in 
*'  a  figure,  by  Ifaac  his  Reprefentative,  who  really  cr>.me  alive 
*•  from  the  mount.  If  the  reading  had  been,  not  U  Tca^u^o^p, 
*'  but  EK  OTa^apoXviy,  it  woiild  have  fuited  yoiir  notion  ;  for  it 
*'  might  properly  have  been  faiJ,  that  Ifaac  came  alive  front 
*'  the  mount  aj  a  figure,  or  that  he  viight  he  a  figure,  of  the 
•"  Refurreclionof  Chrift."  [Con fid.  p.  147.]  Miferable  chicane  1 
As,  on  the  one  hand,  I  might  fay  with  propriety,  that  Christ 
luas  recei'ved from  the  dead  in  a  figure,  i.  e.  BY  a  reprefentative  : 
fo  on  the  other,  I  might  fay  that  Isaac  ijuai  received  from 
the  dead  in  a  figure,  i.  e.  as  a  reprefentative  ?  For  Ifaac,  fuf- 
taining  the  perfon  of  Chrift,  who  was  raifed  from  the  dead, 
Tnight  in  afigure^  J.  e.  as  that  perfon,  be  faid  to  be  received  : 
Yet  this  our  Examiner  denies,  arid  tells  us,  the  Apoftle  should 
ha've  faid  that  Abraham  received  Christ,  and  not  Isaac.  — 
•'  But  (adds  he)  if  the  reading  had  been  not  ei-  n«^aSoX?  but 
**  £K  ^a§»So^11l',  it  would  have  fuited  your  notion."  And  the 
tealbn  he  gives,  is  this :  "  For  it  might  properly  have  been 
"  faid  that  Ifaac  came  alive  from  the  mount  as  a  figure,  or 
**  THAT  HE  MIGHT  SE  3  figure  of  the  refurrcftion  of  Chrift^'* 
Strange !  He  fays,  this  would  have  fuited  ?7iy  notion  ;  and  the 
reafon  he  gives,  llievvs  it  fiiits  only  his  o^un ;  which  is  that  the 
exaftnefs  of  the  refemblance  between  the  two  aflidns,  not  the 
declaration  of  the  Giver  of  the  Command,  made  it  a  figure. 
This  is  the  more  extraordinary,  as  I  myfelf  have  here  fhewn 
that  the  old  latin  tranflator  had  turned  the  words  into  in  para- 
fiOLAM  inftead  of  in  parabola  for  this  very  reafon,  becaufe 
he  underftood  the  command  in  the  fenfe  our  Examiner  contends 
for;  viz.  That  Ifaac,  by  the  refemblance  of  the  ailiohs,  might 
iE,  or  might  become  a  figure. 

Howevei",  he  owns  at  laft  that  "  a  reafon  will  ftill  be  want- 
**  jng,  why,  inftead  of  fpcaking  the  fadt  as  it  really  was,  that 
*'  Ifaac  came  alive  from  the  mount  ;  tlie  Apoftle  chofs  rathei' 
•'  to  fay  (what  was  not  really  the  cafe)  that  Abraham  received 
*•  \\\m  frcni  the  deadJ^  [Confid.  p.  1 47-8.]  Well;  and  have 
not  I  given  a  reafon  ?  No  matter  fur  that :  Dr.  Stebbing  is 
turned  Examiner^  and  has  cngroill'd  the  market.     His  reafon 

follows 

9 


Se6t.  5«       of  Moses  demonjlrated.  2^1 

ifaac  was  a  type  of  Chriji^  in  the  fame  renfe  that  the 
old  'Tabernacle,  in  this  epiftle ',  is  called  a  type — 

follows  thus,  **  If  Jfaac  did  not  die  (as  it  \s  certain  he  did  not) 
*'  Abraham  could  not  receive  him  from  the  dead.  And  yet 
**  the  Apoftle  fays,  he  received  h.\m.from  the  dead.  The  clear- 
*'  ing  up  this  difficulty  will  ftiew  the  true  fenfe  of  the  pafTage." 
[Confid.  p.  147-8.]  What,  will  the  clearing  up  a  difficulty 
of  his  own  making  difccver  the  true  fenfe  of  another  man's 
writing  ?  This  is  one  of  his  new  improvements  in  Logic ;  in 
which,  as  in  Arithmetic,  he  has  invented  a  rule  offal/e,  to 
difcover  an  unknown  truth.  For  there  is  none  of  this  difficulty 
in  the  facred  Text ;  it  is  not  there  (as  in  our  Examiner)  faid 
iimply,  that  Abraham  recei-ved  Ifaac  from  the  dead,  but  that  he 
recdaied  him  from  the  dead  \^  a  figure,  or  under  the  aflumed 
perfonage  of  Chriji.  Now  if  Chrifi  died,  then  he,  who  aflum- 
ed his  perfonage,  in  order  to  reprefent  his  paffion  and  refurrec- 
tion,  might  fiirely  be  faid  to  be  recei'ved  fro7n  the  dead  in  a  figure. 
A  wonderful  difficulty  truly  !  and  we  fhall  fee,  as  wonderfully 
folved  ; — by  a  conundrum  !  But  with  propriety  enough.  For  as 
z  real  difficulty  requires  fenfe  and  criticifm  to  refolve  it,  an  imagi- 
nary one  may  be  well  enough  managed  by  a  quibble. Be- 

cayfe  the  tranflators  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  have  rendered  U 
•aoia.  'aet^uQoM  by,  ^wiih  nukat  comparifan  Jhall  ive  compare  it, 
therefore,  h  tBci^u^o>.y),  in  the  text  in  queftion,  fignifies  com- 
paratively SPEAKING.  But  no  words  can  fhew  him  like 
his  own  — —  "  The  Apoftle  does  not  fnyfimply  and  ai/olutsly, 
"  that  Abraham  received  Ifaac  from  the  dead;  but  that  he 
"  received  him  from  the  dead,  iv  "cra^aSoAij,  in  a  parableJ" 
See  here  now  !  Did  not  I  tell  you  fo  i  There  was  no  difficulty 
all  this  while :  The  fentence  only  opened  to  the  right  and  left 
to  let  in  a  bluftering  objedlion,  which  is  no  fooner  evaporated 
than  it  clofes  again  as  before.  //  <was  not  fimply  faid — No.  "  But 
"  that  he  received  him  —  h  -araga^c^ri,  in  a  parable,  i.  e.  in  a 
"  compuriforty  or  by  comparifon.  Thu'^  the  word  is  ufed,  Mark 
"  iv.  30.  Whereunto  floall  ijoe  ltke,i  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  iviih 
*'  ifjhat  COMPARISON  [li/  "CToia  rpuoc/QaT^i^  fimll  ive  compare  it. 
*'  The  meaning  then  may  be,  that  Abraham's  receiving  Ifaac 
•*  alive  (after  his  death  was  denounced)  by  the  revocation  of 
*'  the  command;  was  as  if  he  had  received  him  from  the  dead. 
"  Thus  feveral  Interpreters  underftand  the  place.  Or  it  may^ 
'*  be,  as  others  will  have  it,  that  the  Apoltle  here  refers  to 
*'  the  birth  of  Ifaac;  which  was  [Iv  Ttu^xQoh}^  co-mparative- 

*  Chap.  ix.  ver.  9. 
Vol.  V.  R  "  tv 


2^2  ^^^  Divine  Legation      BooK.  VF» 

♦iTK  IIAPABOAH,  that  is,  a  thing  defigned  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  have  both  a  prefent  fignificancy  and 
a  future.     Which  amounts  but  juft  to  this.  That 

"  tr  SPEAKING,  a  receiving  him  from  the  dead;  his  father 
*'  being  old,  and  his  mother  pall  ihe  age  of  child-bearing, 
"  on  which  account  the  Apoftle  ftj^les  them  both  i/eaJ.  Which. 
•*  interpretation,  I  the  rather  approve,  becaufe  it  fuggefts  the 
"  proper  grounds  of  Abraham*s  faith."  [Confid.  p.  148-9.] 

He  fayj,  i>  ■wajasCoX*},  fignifies,  in  or  by  eompari/on ;  and  that 
the  word  is  fo  ufed  in  St.  Mark  ;  to  prove  which,  he  quotes 
the  F.nglifti  tranflation.  Now  I  muft  take  the  liberty  to  tell 
him,  that  the  tranflators  were  niiftaken ;  and  he  with  them. 
Hx^xZcM,  in  St.  Mark,  is  not  ufed  in  the  fenfe  of  a  Jimilitud$ 
or  comparifon,  but  of  a  parable.  The  ancients  had  two  ways 
of  illuftrating  the  things  they  inforced  ;  the  one  was  by  a 
parable,  the  other  by  a  fimple  c«mpari/on  or  Jimile :  how  the 
latter  of  thefe  arofe  out  of  the  former  I  have  fhewn  in  the 
third  Volume.  Here,  both  thefe  modes  of  illuftration  are 
referred  to  ;  which  Ihould  have  been  tranflated  thus,  To  luhat 
/hall  <u:£  COMPARE  the  kingdom  of  Go  J,  or  ixiith  nuhat  PA- 
R  A  B  L  E  fiall  toe  illujlrate  or  parabolize  it.  —  o/aowo-w/xev  — 
tcx^x'^a'hufjivj  —  which  words  cxprefs  two  different  and  well 
known  modes  of  illuftration.. 

But  now  fuppofe,  l»  «ro»a  -arajafoX^,  had  fignified  ixjtth  luhat 
comparifon :  How  comes  it  to  pafs  that  h  TragafoX^  ftiould  fjg- 
rify  by  comparifon^  or  as  it  <vuere,  or  comparatively  speak.- 
iNG  .'  in  plain  truth,  his  critical  analogy  has  ended  in  a  plea- 
fant  blunder.  How  fo  ?  you  will  aflc.  Nay,  'tis  true  there's 
no  denying,  but  i\\zx  fpeaking  by  comparifon  is  comparati'vely  fpeak- 
i7!g ;  and,  if  men  will  put  another  fenfe  upon  it,  who  can  help- 
that  ?  they  fay,  comparatively  fpeaking,  fignifies  the  fpeaking 
Joofcly,  inaccurately,  and  incorredly.  But  was  it  for  our  Doc- 
tor to  put  his  reader  in  mind  of  fuch  kind  of  fpeakers  ?  But  the 
charge  of  a  blunder,  an  innocent  miftiap,  I  am  ready  to  retraft ; 
for  I  obferve  him  to  go  into  it  with  much  artful  preparation;' a 
circumftance  which  by  no  means  marks  that  genuine  turn  of 
mind,  which  is  quick  and  fudden,  and  over  head  and  ears,  in 
an  inftant :  He  begins  with  explaining, — in  a  comparifon,  by— 
6y  comparifon  :  where  you  jult  get  the  firft  glimpfe,  as  it  were, 
of  an  enafcent  equivocation ;  and  his,  by  comparifon  is  prefent- 
ly,  afterwards,  turned  into,  as  it  nuere,  or  as  if  he  had;  and 
then,  comparatively  fpeaking,  brings  up  the  rear,  and  clofes  the 
criticifm  three  deep. 

Abraham. 


Seft.  5*       of  yiosE^  demonjlrated,  243 

Abraham  receiving  Ifaac  fafe  from  mount  Moriah, 
in  the  manner  related  by  Scripture,  he  thereby  be- 
came a  Type.  An  ancient  Interpretation,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  reading  of  the  vulgar  Latin— C/W^ 
eum  (ffiNPARABOLAM  accepit,  iov  in  parabola,  as  it 
ought  to  have  been  tranflated  conformably  to  the 
Greek.  However  I  defire  it  may  be  obferved,  in 
corroboration  of  my  fenfe  of  the  Command,  that 
the  refemblance  to  Chrift's  facrifice  in  all  the  cir- 
cumftances  of  the  ftory  was  fo  ftrong  that  Interpre- 
ters could  never  overlook  the  refemblance,  in  their 
comments  on  the  pafTage. 

2.  To  the  fecond  part  of  •  the  Objedtion,  I  an- 
fwer  thus :  It  is  the  office  of  Hiftory  to  affign  the 
Caufes  of  the  fadls  related.  In  thofe  fads  there- 
fore, which  have  feveral  Caufes,  of  which  the  prin- 
cipal cannot  be  conveniently  told,  the  inferior  come 
in  properly  to  take  its  place.  Thus,  in  the  cafe 
before  us  •,  though  it  be  made,  I  prefume,  very  evi- 
dent that  the  principal  defign  of  the  Command  was 
to  reveal  to  Abraham,  by  a£iion  inftead  of  words, 
the  Redemption  of  mankind ;  yet  as  this  was  a 
favour  of  a  very  high  nature,  and  conferred  on 
Abraham  at  his  earneft  requeft,  it  was  but  fit  he 
Ihould  approve  himfelf  worthy  of  it  by  fome  pro- 
portionable Trial  -,  agreeably  to  what  we  find  in 
Scripture  to  be  God's  way  of  dealing  with  his  fa- 
voured Servants.  On  this  account,  therefore,  God 
was  pleafed,  by  the  very  manner  in  which  this 
Myflery  was  revealed,  to  tempt  or  try  Abraham. 
Where  the  making  tht  favour  itfelf  the  trial  of  his 
deferving  it,  hath  all  that  fuperior  elegance  and 
beauty  which  is  to  be  conceived  in  the  Difpenfations 
of  divine  Wifdom  only.  Now,  as  the  principai 
reafon  of  the  Command  could  hot  be  conveniently 
told  by  the  Hillorian,  this  inferior  one  of  the  Trial 
R  2  is 


•-» 


'^44  ^^'^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

is  affigned  w'^th  great  truth  and  propriety — And  it 
came  to  pafs  after  thefe  -things  God  did  tempt  Abra- 
ham,'mid  /aid,  'Tah  now.  thy  fon,  i:'fc.  And  it  is 
to  be  obferved,  that  the  very  manner  of  recording 
this  reafon  fliews  it  to  be  indeed  what  wefuppofc 
it;  an  inferior  one.  For  it  is  not  faid  that  God 
gave  this  Command  in  order  to  try  Abraham, 
which  exprefles  a  principal  reafon  \  but  that,  in 
giving  the  Command,  God  did  try  him,  which  at 
moft  only  irnplies  an  hiferior  one.  We  have  laid, 
that  a  Trial,  when  approved,  implied  a  following 
reward.  Now  as  there  may  be  more  reafons  than 
one  for  giving  a  Command,  fo  there  may  be  more 
rewards  than  one  attendant  on  a  'Trial.  Thus  it 
was  in  the  cafe  before  us.  And  it  is  remarkable 
that  the  facred  Hiftorian  has  oblerved  the  fame 
rule  with  regard  to  the  reward  of  the  Trial  as  to  the 
reafon  of  the  Command.  The  principal  and  pe- 
culiar reward  of  Abraham's  Trial  here  was  the  re- 
velation of  the  myftery  of  Redemption  :  this  the 
Hiftorian  couid  not  mention,  for  the  reafons  given 
above  :  but  befides  this,  God  rewarded  him  with 
a  repetition  of  all  the  former  Promifes.  This  tne 
Hiftorian  could,  and,  in  purfuance  of  the  rules 
of  Hiftory,  does  mention : — By  myfelf  have  Ifivorn, 
faith  the  Lord,  for  becaufe  thou  haft  done  this  thing, 
and  haft  not  ivithheld  thyfon,  thine  only  f on,  that  in 
tkffing  I  -Luil/  bkfs  thee,  and  in  multiplying,  I  will  mul- 
tiply thy  feed  as  the  flars  of  Heaven,  and  as  the  fand 
ivhich  is  upon  the  fea  fijore  ;  and  thy  feed  fhall  poffefs 
the  gate  of  his  ene?nies  ;  and  in  thy  feedjhall  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  be  bleffcd^  becatife  thou  hafi  obeyed 
my  voice  ^. 

On  the  whole.  This  Objeflion  to  the  interpre- 
tation, the  only  one  I  can  think  of,  is  fo  far  from 

•^  Chap,  x.\ii.  vcr.   i6,  U  ftq, 

6  obfcuring. 


Se<9:.  5.       of  Moses   demonjirated.  245 

obfcuring,  and  weakening,  that  it  adds  great  light 
and  ftrength  unto  it.  For  admitting  the  Tenfe  here 
propofed,  to  be  indeed  the  true,  w«  fee  the  Story 
itiuft  of  neceflity  have  been  told  in  the  very  man- 
ner we  find  it  to  be  recorded  =. 

Before 

*  Dr.  Stebbing  goes  on  as  ufual  — —  "  In  ftiort,  Sir,  I  do 
*'  not  underftand  this  Doctrine  (with  which  your  whole  work 
"  much  abounds)  of  revealing  things  clearly  to  Patiiarchs, 
*'  and  Prophets,  and  Leaders,  as  a  fpecial  favour  to  thera- 
"  felves ;  but  to  be  kept  as  a  fecret  from  the  reft  of  Man- 

**  kind." It  is   but  too  plain   he  does  not  underjland  it : 

for  which  I  can  give  no  better  reafon  than  that  it  is  the  scripture- 
dodtrine  and  not  the  dodrine  of  Summs  and  Syfteni5.  "  £ 
*'  have  been  ufed  (fays  he)  to  confider  perfons  under  this 
*'  charafter,  as  appointed,  not  for  themfelves,  but  for  others ; 
*'  and  therefore  to  conclude  that  whatever  was  clearly  re- 
*'  vealed  to  them,  concerning  God's  Difpenfations,  was  fo  re- 
*'  vealed  in  order  to  be  communicated  to  others  *."  This  is 
the  old  fophifm  ;  '*  That,  becaufe  Perfons  aft  and  are  em- 
ployed for  others;  therefore,  they  do  nothing,  and  have  no- 
thing done  for  themfelves."  When  God  faid,  Shall  I  hide  from 
/^brahatn  that  thing  ivhich  I  do  ?  was  not  this  faid  to,  and  for 
himfelf .?' — But  he  has  another  to  match  it^  "  That  whatever  was 
clearly  jeveakd  to  the  Prophets,  was  fo  revealed,  in  order  to 
be  communicated  to  others."  Here  then,  a  little  Scripture-doc- 
trine will  do  him  no  harm.  Did  Mofes  communicate  all  he 
knew  to  the  Jews,  concerning  the  Chrijlian  Di/fenfatian  ;  which. 
the  Author  of  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  tells  us  was  clearly  re- 
vealed to  him  in  the  mount  ? — Priejis  (fays  he)  that  offer  gifts 
according  to  the  Laiv,  luho  fer've  unto  the  example  and  Jhado-iu  of 
heavenly  things,  as  Mofes  icas  admonif>ed  of  God 'when  he  ixas  about 
to  make  the  "1  abernacle  -f".  Again,  We  find  that  Ezekiel,  on  hi;; 
being  called  out,  upon  his  milfion,  faw,  (what  the  author  of  Ec- 
clefxafticus  calk)  the  glorious  --vifon  ;  and  had  (as  appears  from  the 
allegory  of  the  roll  of  a  book)  a  full  interpretation  thereof.  Yet 
jiotwithftanding  all  his  iMumination,  he  was  diredled  by  God  to 
fpeaJc  fo  obfctiiely  to  the  People,  that  he  found  caufe  to  com- 
plain,—  Ah  Lord,  they  fay  of  me  !  Doth  he  7iot  f^eak  parables  %? 
And  now  let  him  alk  the  Prophets  in  the  fame  magillcrial 
language  he  is  accuftomed  to  examine  me.  Was  there  ony  good 
ufe  you  could  make  ofyoKr  km<vjUdge,  that  the  Pecple  of  God  anight 

*  Ccnfid.  p.  155-6.         f  Heb.  viii  4-5,       J  Ezek.  xx.  49. 

R    3  HOi 


246  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

Before  I  conclude  this  part  of  the  Difcourfe,  I 
ihaU  but  juft  take  potice  how  flrongly  this  inter- 
pretation 

not  have  made  of  it  as  nvell  as  you  ?  —  But  thjs  very  DiH" 
penfation  is  alluded  to,  and  continued,  under  the  kingdom 
of  Chrill.  And  his  Di/ciples  ajked  him  faying.  What  might 
this  parable  be  ?  And  he  faid,  JJnto  you  it  ts  giien  to  inoiv  the 
my/ieriei  of  the  kingdom  of  God :  But  to  other Sy  in  parables  ;  that 
feeing  they  night  not  fie,  and  hearing  they  might  not  under Ji and*. 
Again,  St.  John  in  his  vifions  tells  us,  —  Andnxihen  the  feven 
thundirs  had  uttered  their  foices,  I  ivas  about  to  ivrite.  And  I 
heard  a  -voite  from  Heaver,  faying  unto  me,  seal  up  thofe  thingt 
nxihich  the  fen:  en  thunaers  uttered,  and  write  them  not.  Rev, 
X.  4.  And  now,  reader,  I  fhall  try  his  gratitude  ? — **  Jf  you  cai^ 
"  ftiew,  (fays  he)  that  I  am  miftaken  in  this,  pray  do  it,  and 
*'  I  fhall  be  obliged  to  you  f."  You  fee,  I  have  taken  him 
at  his  word.  And  it  'twas  well  I  did  ;  for  it  was  no  fooner  out 
of  his  mouth,  than,  as  if  he  had  repented,  not  of  his  candour, 

but  Jiis  confidence,  he  immediately  cries,  Hold and  tells 

me  "  I  might  have  fpafed  myfelf  in  afking  another  queflioni 
*'  fVhy,  if  Revelations  cannot  he  clearly  recorded^  are  they  re- 
*'  corded  at  all  X  F"  But,  great  Defender  of  the  Faith  ! — of  the 
ancient  Jewifh  Church,  I  mean,  I  afked  that  queftion,  becaufe  the 
anfwer  to  it  (hews  how  much  you  are  miftaken  ;  as  the  intel- 
ligent Reader,  by  this  time,  eafily  perceives.  But  why  does 
he  fay  I  might  h^vt  ffiared  that  quejlion? — Becaufe"  if  a  Re- 
**  velation  is  not  clearly  given,  it  cannot  be  clearly  recorded  ^.'* 
pid  I  fay  it  could  ?  Or  will  he  fay,  that  there  are  no  reafbns 
why  a  Revelation,  that  is  clearly  given,  (hould  be  obfcurely 
recorded  ?  To  what  purpofe  then,  was  the  obfervation  made  i 
Made  ?  why  to  introduce  another  :  for,  with  our  equivocal 
Examiner,  the  corruption  of  argument  is  the  generation  of 
cavil. —  '*  And  yet  (fays  he)  as  you  intimate,  there  may 
*'  be  reafons  why  an  obscure  Revelation  fhould  be  record- 
"  ed,  to  wit,  for  the  inftruftion  of  future  ages,  when  the  ob- 
**  fcurity  being  cleared  up  by  the  event,  it  fhall  appear,  tha^ 
*'  it  was  forefeen  and  fore-ordained  in  the  knowledge  and  ap- 
^*  poiniment  of  God  ||."  If  thou  wilt  believe  me.  Reader,  1 
never  intimated  zny  thing  fp  abfurd, 

What  I  intimated  was  not  ccncernilig  an  ohfcure  Revelation, 
but  a  Revelation  obfcurely  recorded.     Thefe  ar?  very  different 

*  Luke  viii.  9-10,  -f-  Confid.  p.  156,  \  Ibid, 

p.  156.  \  Confid.  p,  156.  II  Ibid. 

things. 


Scd:.  $.     of  Moses   demonfiraud.  247 

pretation  of  the  Command  concludes  againft  the 
SociNiANS,  for  the  realT^fn)?^-^ of  Christ,  and  the, 
proper  Redemption  of  mankind.  For  if  the  Com- 
mand was  an  information  by  cMion  inflead  of  wcrdsy 
the  proof  conveyed  in  it  is  decifive  ;  there  being 
here  no  room  for  their  evafion  of  its  being  zfgu- 
rative  expreffion^  fmce  the  figurative  a£iiott,  the 
original  of  fuch  expreflion,  denotes  either  a  real 
facrificCy  or  nothing  at  all. 

IL 

I  come  now  to  the  other  part  of  this  Difcourfe, 
viz.  to  fhew,  that  the  interpretation  here  given  in- 
tirely  diflipates  all  thofe  bluftering  objedions  which 
Infidelity  hath  raifed  up  againft  the  hiftoric  truth  of 
the  relation. 

They  fay,  **  God  could  not  giv€  fuch  a  Com- 
tnand  to  Abraham,  becaufe  it  would  throw  him 
into  inextricable  doubts  concerning  the  Author  of 

tilings,  as  appears  from  hence,  that  the  latter  may  be  a  clear 
Rfvelation\  the  word  being  relative  to  him  to  whom  the 
Revelation  was  made.  But  this  is  a  peccadillo  only.  How- 
ever, he  approves  the  reafon  of  recordings  for  that,  thereby, 
«*  it  Ihall  appear,  that  it  was  forefeen  and  foreordained  by 
«*  God."  It,  —  What  ?  The  oh/cure  Re'velation,  according  to 
.grammatical  conftrudlion  :  but,  in  his  Englifh,  I  fuppofe,  it 
Hands  for  th&  fail re'vsalecL  Well  then;  from  the  recording 
of  an  objure  revelation,  he  fays  it  will  appear,  when  the  fore- 
told fail  happens,  that  it  was  forefeen  and  preordained  by 
God.  This  too  he  tells  the  rtz^tr  I  intimated -,  but  fure,  the 
Reader  can  never  think  me  fo  filly :  For  every  fad,  whether  pre- 
figured and  foretold,  or  not  prefigured  and  foretold,  muft  needs 
have  been  forefeen  and  pre-ordained  by  God.  Now,  whether 
we  are  to  afcribe  this  to  exaftnefs,  or  to  inaccuracy,  of  expref- 
iion,  is  hard  to  fay.  For  I  find  him  a  great  mafter  in  that 
fpecies  of  compofition  which  a  celebrated  French  Writer,  in  his 
encomium  on  the  Revelations  calls,  en  darte  mire.  However, 
think  what  we  will  of  his  head,  his  heart  lies  too  open  to  be 
misjudged  of. 

R  4  it. 


248  'T^he  Divifie  Legation       Book  VI, 

it,  as  Whether  it  proceeded  from  a  good  or  an 
evil  Being.     Or  if  not  fo,  but  that  he  might  be 
fatisfied  it  came  from  God,  it  would  then  miflead 
him  in  his  notions  of  the  divine  Attributes,  and  of 
the  fundamental  principles  of  Morality.     Becaufe, 
though  the  revocation  of  the  Command  prevented 
the   homicide,  yet  the  fpecies  of  the  adion  com- 
manded not  being  condemned  when  it  was  re- 
voked, Abraham  and  his  Family  mud  needs  have 
thought  Human  Sacrifices  grateful  to  the  Al- 
mighty: for  a  fimple  revoking  was  not  condemn- 
ing j  but  would  be  more  naturally  thought  a  pecu- 
liar indulgence  for  a  ready  obedience.     Thus,  the 
pagan   fable  of  Diana's   fubftituting  a  Hind  in 
the  place  of  Iphigenia  did  not  make  Idolaters  be- 
lieve that  Ihe  therefore  abhorred  Human  Sacrifices, 
they  having  before  been  perfuaded  of  the  contrary, 
from  the  Command  of  that  Jdol  to  offer  up  the 
daughter  of  Agamemnon." — This  is  the  fubftance, 
only  fet  in  a  clearer  light,  of  all  their  dull  cloudy 
differt^tions  on  the  cafe  of  Abraham '', 

I,  Let 

■•  This  infidel  objefti'on,  the  Reader  fees,   coiififts   of  two 
parts :  the  one,  that  Abraham  muft  needs  doubt  of  the  Author 
of  the  Command  :  the  other,  that  he  would  be  mifled,  by  con- 
ceiving amifo  of  his  Attributes,  to  believe  human  facrifices  were 
grateful  to  him.     Dr.  Stebbing,  who  will  leave  nothing  «na»- 
fivered,  wjll  needs  anfwer  this,  [Confid.  p.  158-60.]     To  the 
firft  part  he  replies,  partly  by  the  aflillance  I  myfclf  had  given 
him,  (where  I  took  notice  of  what  might  be  urged  by   Be- 
lievers, 2s  of  greaf  iveight  and  n)alidity)  and  partly  from  what 
he  bad  picked  up  elfewhere.     But  here  I  Ihall  avoid  imitating; 
his  example,  who  in  fpite  to  the  Author  of  arguments  profef- 
fedly  brought  in   fupport  of  Religion,    ftrives,    with   all   his 
might,  to  fh^w  their  invalidity  ;   an  employment,    one  wopld 
think,  little  becoming  a  Chriflian  Divine.     If  the  common  ar- 
guments againft  the  objedtion,  here  urged  by  him  with  great 
pomp,  have  any  weak  parts,  I  fhall  leave  thenl  to  Unbelievers 
to  find  out —  1  have  the   more  reafon  likewifc  to  truft  them  to 
theif  own  'iveight,  t»oth  becaufe  they  are  none  of  his,  and  be- 

ca\if^ 


Scft.  5.     o/'  M  o  s  E  s  demonjlrated.  249 

I.  Let  us  fee  then  how   this  cafe  ftood :  God 
had  been  pleafed  to  reveal  to  him  his  etexftal  pur- 

pofe 

caufe  I  have  acknowledged  their  validity.     For  which  acknow- 
ledgment, all    I  get  is  this  —  Whether  you  had  o<wned  this  or  not 
(fays  ^^e)  1  jhould  have  taken  upon  my/elf  the  proof.     Whereas* 
all  that  he  has  taken  is  the  property  of  other  Writers  :  made  his 
own,  indeed,  by  a  weak  and  an  imperfeft  reprefentation.  —  But 
his  anfwer  to  the  fecond  part  of  the  infidel  objeflion  mull  not  be 
paffed  over  fo  flightly.     "  As  to  the  latter  part  of  the  objeftioa 
"  (fays   he)   that  from  this  command,  Abraham   and  his  family 
**  tnujl  needs  have  thought  human  facrifices  acceptable  to  Gad  j  the 
*'  revoking  the  command  at  laft,  was  a  fufficient  guard  againft 
"  any  fuch  conftruftion.     To  this  you  make  the  Unbeliever  an- 
**  fwer  ;  No;  bee  at fe  the  action  having  been  commanded  ought  t9 
*'  have  been  condemned ;  and  a  Jimple  revocation  ivas  no  condem- 
**  nation.     But  why  was  not  the  revocation  of  the  Command, 
**  in  this  cafe,    a  condemnation  of  the  adion?   If  I   fliould 
**  tempt  you  to  go  and  kill  your  next  neighbour,  and  after- 
*•  wards  come  and  defire  you  not  to  do  it ;  would  not  this 
**  after-declaration,  be  as  good  an  evidence  of  my  diilike  to 
**  the  a<^ion,  as  the  firft  was  of  my  approbation  of  it  ?  Yes, 
**  and  a  much  better,  as  it  may  be  prefumed  to  have  been  the 
'*  refult  of  maturer   deliberation.     Now  though  deliberation, 
.  **  and  after-thought  are  not  incident  to  God ;  yet  as  God  in 
**  this  cafe  condefcended  (as  you  fay,  and  very  truly)  to  aft 
**  after  the  manner  of  men ;  the  fame  conftruftion  fliould  be 
*'  put  upon  his  adlions,  as  are  ufually  put  upon  the  a£lions  of 
*'  men  in   like  cafes."  {Confid.   p.   i6o-i.]    Now,   tho\   as 
was  faid  above,  I   would  pay   all  decent  regard  becoming  a 
friend  of  Revelation,  to  the  common  arguments  of  others,  in 
its  defence,  yet  I  mufl  not  betray  my  own.     I  confefled  they 
had  great  vjeight  and  validity  ;  yet,  at  the  lame  time,  I  an"ert- 
ed,  they  were  attended  with  infuperahle  difficulties.     And  while 
I  fo  think,  I  muft  beg  lesve  to  inforce   my   reafons  for  this 
opinion.     And,   I  hope  without  offence;  as  the  arguments,  I 
am  now  about  to  examine,  are  purely  this  Writer's  own.     And 
the  Reader,  by  this  time,  has  feen  too  much  of  him  to  be  ap- 
prehenfive,  that  the  leflening  his   Authority  will  be  attended 
with  any  great  diflervice  to  Religion. 

I  had  obferved,  that  the  reafonings  of  Unbelievers  on  this 
•afe,  as  it  is  commonly  explained,  were  not  devoid  of  all  plaufi- 
bility,  when  they  proceeded  thus, — "  That  as  Abral»m  lived 
anjonglt  Heathens,  whofe  highell  aft  of  divine  worlhip  was 

human 


2^6  7%e  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

pofe  of  making   all   mankind  blefled  thro'  him  ? 
and  likewife  to  confirm  this  proniife,  in  a  regular 

courfe 

huTtmn  facrifxe\  if  God  had  commanded  that  Aft,  and,  on 
the  point  of  performance,  only  remitted  it  as  a  favour,  (and 
fo  it  is  reprefented;)  without  declaring  the  iniquity  of  the 
praftice,  when  addrefled  to  Jdols ;  or  his  abhorrence  of  it, 
when  direfled  to  himfelf ;  the  Family  muft  have  been  mifled  in 
their  ideas  concerning  the  moral  reftitude  of  that  fpecies  of 
religious  worfhip :  Therefore,  God,  in  thefe  circumftances, 
had  he  commanded  the  aflion  as  a  trial  only ^  would  have  ex- 
plicitly condemned  that  mode  of  wor/hip,  as  immoral.  But 
he  is  not  reprefented  as  condemning,  but  as  remitting  it  for  a 
favour:  Confequently,  fay  the  Unbelievers,  God  did  not  com- 
mand the  aftion  at  all." — To  this  our  Examiner  replies, — 
But  nuhy  ?  Was  not  the  revocation  of  the  command  a  condemna- 
tion of  the  aSlion  ?  If  I  Jhould  tempt  you  to  go  and  kill  your  next 
neighbour y  and  aftertuards  tome  and  desire  you  not  to  do  it^ 
'would  not  this  after-declaration  be  as  good  an  evidence  of  my 
difike  to  the  aSiion^  as  the  frf  tuas  of  my  approbation  of  it  ? 
To  this  I  reply ;  That  the  cafes  are,  by  no  means,  parallel  ; 
either  in  themfelves,  or  in  their  circumftances :  Not,  in  them- 
felves ;  the  murder  of  our  next  neighbour  was,  amongft  all 
the  Gentiles  of  that  time,  efteemed  a  high  immorality  ;  while, 
on  the  contrary,  human  facrifice  was  a  very  holy  and  acceptable 
part  of  divine  Worfhip  :  Not  in  their  circumftances  :  the  deftre 
to  forbear  the  murder  tempted  to,  is  (in  the  cafe  he  puts)  re- 
prefented as  repentance ;  whereas  the  ftop  put  to  the  facrifice  of 
Ifaac,  (in  the  cafe  Mofes  puts)  is  reprefented  z%  favour. 

But  what  follows,  I  could  wifti  (for  the  honour  of  modem 
Theology)  that  the  method  I  have  obferved,  would  permit  me 
to  pafs  over  in  filence. —  Noiv  tho^  deliberation  and  after-thought 
(fays  he)  an  not  incident  to  God,  yet,  as  God,  in  this  cafe,  con- 
defcended  (as  you  fay,  and  very  truly)  to  aSl  after  the  manner  of 
men  ;  the  fame  conftruSiion  Jhould  be  put  upon  his  aSions,  as  is  ufu- 
4illy  put  upon  the  ailions  of  men  in  like  cafes,  [Confid.  p.  1 5 5-6. J 
That  is,  tho'  deliberation  and  after-thought  are  not  incident  to 
'God ;  yet  you  are  to  underftand  his  anions,  as  if  they  were 
incident.  A  horrid  interpretation !  And  yet  his  reprefenta- 
tion  of  the  Command,  and  his  decent  illuftration  of  it,  by  3 
murderer  in  intention,  will  not  fufFer  us  to  underftand  it  in  any 
other  manner:  For  God,  as  if  in  hafte,  and  before  due  deli- 
beration, is  reprefented  as  commanding  an  immoral  adlion ; 
yet  again,  as  it  were  by  an  after-thought,  ordering  it  to  be 

foreborn, 


Sed.  5.       of  M  OSES  demonjlrated,         2.51 

courfe  of  fucceffivc  Revelations,  each  fuller  and 
more  explicit  than  the  other.     By  this  time  we 

cannoc 

foreborn,  by  reafon  of  its  immorality.  And  in  what  is  all 
this  impious  jargon  founded  ?  If  you  will  believe  him,  in  the 
principle  I  lay  down,  That  God  condefcendi  to  a£i  after  the 
manner  cf  men.  I  have  all  along  had  occafion  to  complain  of 
his  mifreprefenting  my  Principles;  but  then  they  were  Prin- 
ciples he  dilliked  :  and  this,  the  modern  management  of  con- 
troverfy  has  fanftified.  But  here,  tho'  the  Principle  be  ap- 
proved, yet  he  cannot  for  his  life,  forbear  to  mifreprefent 
it:  So  bad  a  thing  is  an  evil  habit.  Let  me  tell  him  then, 
|hat  by  the  principle  of  God^s  condefcending  to  ail  after  the 
manner  of  men,  is  not  meant,  that  he  ever  ads  in  compliance 
%o  thofe  vices  and  fuperrtitions,  which  arife  from  the  depra- 
vity of  human  Will :  but  in  conformity  only  to  men's  indif- 
ferent manners  and  cuftoms ;  and  to  thofe  Ufages  which  re- 
fult  only  from  the  finite  imperfeftions  of  their  nature.  Thus 
tho',  as  in  the  cafe  befoie  us,  God  was  pleafed,  in  conformity 
to  their  mode  of  information,  to  ufe  their  cuftom  of  revoking 
^  Command  ;  yet  he  never  condefcended  to  imitate  (as  our 
Examiner  fuppofes)  the  irrefolution,  the  repentance,  and  hor- 
rors of  confcience  of  a  murderer  in  intention.  Which  (horrf* 
ble  to  think !)  is  the  parallel  this  orthodox  Divine  brings  to 
illuftrate  the  Command  to  Abraham.  But  he  had  read  that  Go4 
is  fometimes  faid  to  repent ;  and  he  thought,  I  fuppofe,  it  an- 
fwered  to  that  repentance  which  the  flings  of  confcience  fome- 
times produce  in  bad  men.  Whereas  it  is  faid,  in  conformity 
to  a  good  magiftrate's  or  parent's  correption  of  vice ;  firft  tof 
threaten  punifhment  \  and  then,  on  the  offender's  amendment, 
(0  remit  it. 

But  he  goes  on  without  any  figns  of  remorfe.  — "  Kor 
*'  nuill  the  Pagan  fable  of  Diana  s  fubjiituting  a  Hind  in  the 
**  place  of  Iphigenia  at  all  help  your  Unbeliever.  This  did 
**  not,  fay  they,  or  you  for  them,  fnake  idolaters  be- 
*•  lieve  that  Jhe  therefore  abhorred  huTr.an  facrifces.  But  do 
^*  not  they  themfelves,  or  have  not  you  afligned  a  very  pro- 
"  per  and  fufficient  reafon  why  it  did  not,  viz.  that  they  had 
^'  been  before  perfuaded  of  the  contrary  ?  Where  human  facri- 
**  fices  make  a  part  of  the  fettled  ftanding  Religion ;  the  re- 
"  fufal  to  accept  a  human  facrifice  in  one  inllance  may,  indeed, 
"  be  rather  looked  upon  as  a  particular  indulgence,  than  as 
'*  a  declaration  againft  the  thing  in  grofs.  But  where  the 
^'  ;bing  was  coiDm^ndCd  but  in  one  fmgle  inflance,  and  the 

*•  command 


252         1})e  Divine  Legation  Book  VI. 

cannot  but  fuppofe  the  Father  t^  the  Faithful, 
muft,  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  be  become 

very 

**  command  revoked  in  that  very  inftance  {which  is  our  pre- 
"  fent  cafe)  fuch  revocation,  in  all  reafonable  conllrudtion,  is  as 
"  eiF*£liial  a  condemnation  of  the  thing,  as  if  God  had  told 
*'  Abraham,  in  fo  many  words^  that  he  delighted  not  in  hu- 
*'  man  facrifices."  [Confid.  p.  161.]  To  come  to  our  Exa- 
miner's half  buried  fenfe,  we  are  often  obliged  to  remove,  or 
what  is  ilill  a  more  difagrecable  labour,  to  fift  well,  the  rubbifh 
of  his  words.  He  fays,  the  revocation  was  an  cff'e£Iual  coi- 
Jemnation,  This  may  either  fignify.  That  men,  now  free  from 
the  prejudices  of  Pagan  fuperltition  may  fee  that  human  facri- 
fices were  condemned  by  the  revocation  of  the  Command  :  or. 
That  Abraham's  family  could  fee  this.  In  the  firft  fenfe,  I  have 
nothing  to  do  with  his  propofition ;  and  in  the  fecond,  I  fhall 
take  the  liberty  to  fay  it  is  not  true.  I  deny  that  the  re^vocation 
was  an  effeilual  condemnation.  With  how  good  reafon  let  tlie 
Reader  now  judge. 

Abraham,  for  the  great  ends  of  God's  Providence,  was  called 
out  of  an  idolatrous  city,  infefled,  as  all  fuch  cities  then  were, 
with  this  horrid  fuperftition.  He  was  himfelf  an  Idolater,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  words  of  Jofhua.  —  i'our  Fathers  dix:elt  en  the 
ether  fuie  of  the  food  in  old  time,  e-ven  Terah  the  father  of  Abra^ 
bajn,  and  the  father  cf  Ncchor :  and  rnzY  fer^jed  other  Gods, 
And  I  took  your  father  Abraham*.,  C5V.  God,  in  the  aft  of 
calling  him,  inftruded  him  in  the  Unity  of  his  Nature,  and  thg 
error  of  Polytheifm ;  as  the  great  principle,  for  the  fake  of 
which  (and  to  prefervc  it  in  one  Family  amidfl  an  univerfal 
overflow  of  idolatry)  he  was  called  out.  —  That  he  mult  be 
prejudiced  in  favour  of  his  Country  fuperftitions,  is  not  to  be 
doubted ;  bccaufe  it  is  of  human  nature  to  be  fo :  and 
yet  we  find  no  particular  inftrutlion  given  him,  concern- 
ing tJie  fuperflition  in  queftion.  The  noble  Author  of  the 
CharaSleriJlics  obferves,  that  "  it  appears  that  he  was  under 
"  no  extreme  furprife  on  this  trying  Revelation  ;  nor  did  he 
"  thii'k  of  expoftulating  in  the  leait  on  this  occafion  ;  when 
"  at  another  time  he  could  be  io  importunate  for  the  pardon  of 
"  an  inhofpitable,  murderous,  impious,  and  inccltuous  city  :" 
Infinuating,  that  this  kind  of  facrjfice  was  a  thing  he  had 
i)ecn  accultcmed  to.  Now  the  noble  Author  obferves  thi?, 
'  upon  the   Examiner's,   that  is,    the   common,   interpretation. 


Josh,  xjciv.  2,  3. 


And 


Sed.  5.       of  Moses  demonjirafeds  25;^ 

very  defirous  of  k-now^ng  the  manner  how  this 
BlefTing  was  to  be  brought  about :  A  Myftery,  if 
we  will  believe  the  Author  of  our  Faith,  that  en- 
gaged the  attention  of  other  holy  men,  lefs  imme- 
diately concerned  than  Abraham,  and  confequent- 
iy,  lefs  Simulated  and  excited  by  their  curiofity:— 
And  Jesus  turned  to  his  Difciples,  and  /aid  pri- 
vately,  Blejfed  are  the  eyes  which  fee  the  things  which 
ye  fee.  For  I  tell  you  that  many  Prophets  and  Kings 
have  DESiREi>  to  fee  thcfe  tJrv^s  which  ye  fee^  and 
have  not  feen  them,  and  to  hear  thofe  things  which 
ye  hear  J  and  have  not   heard  them''.     But  we  are 

And  I  believe,  on  that  footing,  he,  or  a  better  writer,  would 
find  it  difficalt  to  take  out  the  mnlicious  (ling  of  the  obferva- 
■  tion.     But  I  have  Ihewn  that  it  falls  together  with  the  commoa 
interpretation. 

Well ;  Abraham  is  now  in  the  land  of  Canaan^  and  again 
furrounded  with  the  fame  idolatrous  and  inhuman  Sacriiicers. 
Here  he  receives  the  Commund :  And,  on  the  point  of  execu- 
tion, has  the  performance  remitted  to  him  as  a  favour.  A 
circumilance,  in  the  revocation  of  the  Command,  which  I  mufl: 
beg  the  Examiner's  leave  to  remind  him  of;  eipecially  when  I 
fee  him,  at  every  turn,  much  difpofed  (o  forget  it ;  that  is,  to 
pafs  it  over  in  filence,  without  either  owning  or  denying.  And 
indeed,  the  little  fupport  his  reafoning  has  on  any  occallon,  is 
only  by  keeping  Truth  out  of  fight.  But  further,  the  favour 
was  unaccoT) pained  with  any  inflruiSion  concerning  the  moral 
nature  of  this  kind  of  Sacrifice;  a  pra^lice  never  pofuively 
forbidden  but  by  the  Law  of  Mofes.  Now,  in  this  cafe,  f 
would  a(k  any  candid  Reader,  the  leaft  acquainted  with  humaa 
nature,  whether  Abraham  and  his  Family,  prejudiced  as  they 
were  in  favour  of  Human  Sacrifices,  (the  one,  by  his  educa- 
tion in  his  country- Religion ;  the  other,  by  their  commu- 
nication with  their  Pagan-neighbours,  and,  as  appears  by  Scrip- 
ture, but  too  apt  of  themfelves,  to  fall  into  idolatry)  would  not 
be  eafily  tempted  to  think  as  -favourably  of  Human  Sacrifices 
as  tbofe  Pagans  wert,  who  underftood  that  Diana  required 
Iphigcnia,  tho'  fhe  accepted  a  Hind,  in  her  ftead.  And  with 
fuch  Readers,  I  finally  leave  lU 

*  Luke  x.  23,  24. 

aflured. 


2^  '^he  'Divine  Legation        Book  VI* 

afTured,  by  the  fame  authority,  that  Abraham  had, 
\n  fad,  this  very  dejire  highly  raifed  in  him  :  Abra- 
JtOfU  rejoiced  io  fee  my  day  (fays  Jesus)  and  he  faw 
it,  and  was  glad',  or  rather.  He  rejoiced  that  he 
MIGHT  SEE,  INA  IAHjj  which  implies,  that  the 
^period  of  his  joy   was  in  the  fpace  between  the 
.  prorpife  made,  and  the  adlual  performance  of  it  by 
.\the  delivery  of  the  Command  i  confequently,  that 
it  was  granted   at  his  earneft  requefl  \     In   the 
fecond  place,  we  fliall  (hew  from  the  fame  words, 
that  Abraham,  at  the  time  when  the  Command 
.was  given,  knew  it  be  that  Revelation   he    had 
foearneftly  requefted.     This  is  of  the  higheft  im- 
portance for  the  underftanding  the  true  nature  of 
-the  Command. — Tour  Father  Abraham  rejoiced  to 
fee  my  Day,  and  he  faw  it,  and  was  glad.     'A^^aa/* 
0  TS'oilnfi   u[j.uv  t^ycKXhixa-cclo  INA   I^Hi   rriv  viJ-i^av  Ttjv 
£/xiii/*  xj  ii^i,  x^  s%af »)•     We  have  obferved  that  'Ivx 
%,  in  flri6t  propriety,  fignifies /i?^/ ^^  might  fee. 
The  Englifh  phrafe,-  -/<?  fee,  is  equivocal  and  am- 
bicruous,  and  means  either  the  prefent  time,  that 
he  then  did  fee-,  or  the  future,  that  he  was  promifed 
he  fhould  fee :  but  the  original  7vx  Uri  has  only  the 
latter  fenfe.     So  that  the  text  plainly  diftinguifhes 
two  different  periods  of  Joy  -,  the  firft,  when  it 
was  premifed  he  fhould  fee ;  the  fecond,  ^^htn  he  ac- 
tually faw  :  And  it  is  to  be  obferved  ^  that,  accord- 
ing 

f  Thus  all  the  Eajlern  Verfions  nnderftand  it :  Syr.  Cupidiis 
foil  videndi.  —  Pirf.  Cupidus  erat  ut  videret, —  /hah.  Exopta- 
vjt  videre.  —  .€thiop.  Dcfideravic,  gavifus  eft  ut  videret. 

5  "  Where  are  your  Authorities  for  all  this  ?  (fays  Dr. 
'•  Stebbin?)  you  produce  none.  Wherever  you  had  your 
"  Greek,!  am  very  fure  you  had  it  not  from  the  Nevj  Tefia^ 
'•  ment,  where  thefe  words  are  ufcd  indifcriminately."  [Confid. 
p.  14Z-3.J  li'here  are  y<ur  /Juthoril-.es  ?  you  produce  none. 
This  IS  to  infinuatc,  1  hai  none  to  jMOvluce.     He  dares  not, 

indeed, 


J9e<5t.  5«       g/' Moses  demonjlrated.         25-^ 

ing  to  the  exadt  ufe  of  the  word,  in  aya^jf.Mtofjkctt 
is  implied  the  tumultuous  pleafure  which  the  cer- 
tain 

indeed,  fay  fo;  and  in  this  I  commend  his  prudence.  How- 
ever, thus  far  he  is  pofitive,  that  ivhere'wr  1  had  my  Greek,  I 
had  it  not  from  the  Nezv  Tejiament.  The  Gentleman  is  hard 
to  pleafe :  Here  he  is  offended  that  I  had  it  not ;  and,  before, 
that  1  had  it  from  the  New  Teftament,  Here  I  impofe  upon 
him  ;  there  I  triiled  with  him.  But,  in  all  this  diverfity  of  ac- 
ceptance, 'tis  ftill  the  fame  fpirit :  The  fpirit  of  Anfvoering. 

I  had  faid,  the  two  Greek  words,  in  their  exaSi  ufe,  lignify 
fo  and  fo.  Which  furely  implied  an  acknowledgment,  that 
this  exadlnefs  was  not  always  obferved ;  efpecially  by  the  Writers 
of  the  New  Teftament ;  who,  whatever  fome  may  have  dream'd, 
did  not  pique  themfelves  upon  what  we  call,  claffical  elegance. 
Now,  this  implication,  our  Examiner  fairly  confirms,  tho'  by 
way  of  confutation.  In  the  Ne-iv  Teftament  (fays  he)  thefe 
\uords  are  ufed  indifcriminately.  I  had  plainly  infinuated  as 
"much ;  and  he  had  better  have  let  it  reft  on  my  acknowledg- 
ment ;  for  the  inftances  he  brings,  to  prove  the  words  ufed  in- 
difcriminately in  the  New  Teftament,  are  full  enough  to  per- 
itiade  the  Reader  that  they  are  not  fo  ufed.  His  fitft  inftance 
is,  I  Pet.  iv.  13.  "  Rejoice  [x^'^'^O  inafmuch  as  ye  are  ■partakers 
*'  of  Chrifi^s  fufferings  ',  that  ivhen  his  glory  Jhall  he  revealed 
**  Xyot-^i  ayobKhMa^AAvoC^  ye  may  be  glad  ixjith  exceeding  joy.  See 
"  you  njot  here  (fays  he)  the  direft  reverfe  of  what  you  fay  r 
'*  that  %«i^ft;  fignifies  the  joy  which  arifes  upon  profpeft, 
*•  and  dyx>,?.ixoiJ.cci  that  which  arifes  from  pofTeffion,"  [Conlid, 
p.  143.]  No  indeed;  I  fee  nothing  like  it.  The  followers 
of  Chrift  are  bid  to  rejoice,  ^xi^Hu  For  what  ?  For  being 
partakers  of  ChrijTs  fufferings.  And  was  not  this  a  blefling  in 
pofTeflion  ?  But  it  feems  our  Dodlor  has  but  fmall  conception 
how  fuffering  for  a  good  confcience  can  be  a  bleffing.  Yet  at 
other  times  he  muft  have  thought  highly  of  it,  when,  in  excefs 

■  ©f  charity,  he  befpoke  the  Magiftrate's  application  of  it  on  his 
Neighbours,  under  the  name  of  wholesom  severities.     He 

■  is  juft  as  wide  of  truth  when  he  tells  us,  that  <xy*x>»<«oft«* 
fignifies  the  joy  ivhich  arifes  on  poffejjion.     They  are  bid  to  rejoice 

now  in  fufferings,  that  they  might  be  glad  'with  exceeding  joy 
at  Chrift's  fecond  coming.  And  is  this  the  being  glad  for  2 
good  in  pofleiTion  ?  Is  it  not  for  a  good  in  profpedl  ?  The  re- 
ward they  were  then  going  to  receive.  For  I  fuppofe  the  ap- 
'  pearance  of  Chrift's  glory  will  precede  the  reward  of  his  fol- 
lowers.   So  that  the  Reader  now  lee;;-  he  has  himfelf  fairly 

proved 


256  ^he  Divine  Legation    \   Book  VI. 

tain  expefbation  of  an  approaching  blefling,  ^vin- 
-derftood  only  in   the   grols,    occafions ;   and,  .ifi 

proved  for  me,  the  truth  of  my  obfervation,  T/yat  in  the  exaSi 
ufe  of  the  njjords,  «7aXXiao/x»»  fignifics  thit  tvmultuous  pUafurt 
^tuhich  the  certain  erpeHalion  of  an  approaching  lUffing  occajioni ; 
and  yjx\^u  thi't  calm  and  fettled  Joy  that  arifes  from  our  kno'wiedge, 
in  the  foffefjion  of  it. 

He  goes  on.  "  Rev.  xix.  7.  Let  us  he  glad  and  rejoice 
*•  [%a'5^'fA£'  "tj  oi.yx».\ui\».i^-x\  — for  the  marriage  of  the  Lamb  is 
*'  come.  Where  both  words  (fays  he)  refer  to  bleffings  in 
*'  pofleffion.  Again,  Matt.  V.  12.  Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  giad 
*'  [%«tf£T£  K^  ayaX^iac-S;]  for  great  fs  )0ur  renuard  in  Heaven ; 
*'  where  both  refer  to  bleffings  in  profpefl."  [Confid,  p.  143-4.] 
His  old  fortune  ftill  purfues  him.  The  finl  text  from  the 
Rev.  Be  glad  and  rejoice  for  the  marriaoe  of  the  Lar.b  is  cone ; 
bids  the  followers  of  Chrifl  now  do  that,  which  they  were  bid 
to  prepare  for,  in  the  words  of  St.  Peter,  that,  nuhen  hit  glory 
fhall  be  rei'ea'ed,  ye  may  he  glad  luith  exceeding  joy,  I^  there- 
fore, where  they  are  bid  to  prepare  for  their  rejoicing,  the  joy 
is  for  a  good  in  profpedl  (as  we  have  (hewn  it  was)  then,  cer- 
tainly, where  they  are  told  that  this  time  of  rejoicing  is  come, 
the  joy  muil  ilill  be  for  a  good  in  profped.  And  yet  he  fays, 
the  lucrds  refer  to  bleffings  in  pfpjjion.  Again,  the  text  from 
St.  Matt.  —  Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  gfad,  f  OR  great  is  your  rC' 
nvard  in  heaven,  has  the  feme  relation  to  the  former  part  of 
St.  Peter's  words,  [^Rejoice  inafmuch  as  ye  are  partakers  of 
Chrijl's  fiifferings']  as  the  text  in  the  Revel,  has  to  the  latter. 
£lefjed  are  ye  (fays  Jefus  in  this  gofpel)  ivhen  mm  fhall  revile  you. 
and  perfectite you,  and Jhall  fay  all  manner  of  e'vil  againj} you  falfly 
for  my  fake.  Rejoice,  and  be  exceeding  glad,  FOR  great  is  your 
renji'ard  in  heaven.  Rejoice  !  for  what  ?  Is  it  not  for  the  per- 
fecution*  they  fuffer  for  his  fake  ?  A  frefnt  bleff.ng  fure  ;  the' 
not  perhaps  to  our  Author's  tarte.  The  reafon  why  they  fhould 
rejoice,  follows,  for  great  is  your  re^Lard  in  heaven.  And  yet 
here,  he  fays,  the  words  refer  to  blejjings  in  prcfeQ,  In  truth, 
what  led  him  into  all  this  inverted  reafoning,  was  a  pleafant 
iniflake.  The  one  text  fays — Be  glad  and  rejoice,  for  cVt  — 
The  other.  Rejoice  and  he  exceeding  glad,  for  otj — Now  he 
took  the  particle,  in  both  places^  to  fignify  propter,  for  the 
fake  if;  whereas  it  Signifies  qucniam,  quia,  and  is,  in  proof  of 
fomething  going  before.  So  that  he  read  the  text  —  Rejoice^ 
J.r  the  marriage  of  the  lamb  is  come  ;  —  As  if  it  had  been  — • 
"  Rejoice  for  the  marriage  of  the  Lamb,  which  is  come:'* 

Aj?d 


Sfe^.  5*       o/'  Mosfis  demonjlrated.         257 

X<*i^^  that  calm  and  fettled  joy  which  arifes  from 
our  knowledge,  in  the  poffeflion  of  it«     But  the 

^TrariQators, 

And  —  rejoice,  for  great  is  yout  reivard  in  heanien  ;  as  if  it  had 
been,  —  "  Rejoice  for  your  great  reward  in  heaven.** 

But  now  let  us  confider  thefe  texts  irt  another  view,  in  order 
to  do  juftice  to  his  delicacy  of  Judgment.  I  had  faid  that, 
nn  the  exa^  u/e  of  the  two  Greek  words,  they  fignify  fo  and 
fo  i  and  applied  that  obfervation  to  a  fact  ;  where  a  perfoa 
was  faid  to  have  rejoiced,  i^c.  In  order  to  difprove  this  cri- 
ticifm,  he  brings  three  paflages,  in  which  thofe  Greek  words 
are  ufed,  where  no  fact  is  related  ;  but  where  men  are,  in 
a  rhetorical  manner,  called  upon,  and  bid  to  fejoice,  l^d  Irt 
which  latter  cafe,  the  ufe  of  one  word  for  another,  is  aa 
elegant  converfion.  Thole,  in  pofleffion  of  a  bleffing,  are  bid 
to  rejoice  with  that  exceeding  joy,  which  men  generally  hnve 
in  the  certain  expedlation  of  one  approaching ;  and  thofe  in 
expeftation,  with  that  calm  and  fettled  joy,  which  attends  full 
pofleffion.  And  who  but  our  Examiner  could  not  fee,  that  the 
ufe  of  words  is  one  thing,  in  an  hiftorical  affertion  ;  and  quite 
another,  in  a  rhetorical  invocation  i 

Having  thus  ably  acquitted  himfelf  in  one  crlticifnl  he  falls 
upon  another.  *'  What  Ihall  we  do  with  IVa  ?'*  — —  What  in- 
deed !  But  no  fooner  faid  than  done.  "  "ivct  (fays  he)  is  oftert 
"  put  for  oT£  or  oTt,  pofitive  as  you  are,  that  it  always  refers  to 
•*  a  future  time."  [Confid,  p.  144.]  Now,  fo  far  from  being 
pofitive  of  this,  I  am  pofitive  of  the  contrary,  that  there  is  not 
One  word  of  truth  in  all  he  fays.  I  obferved  indeed,  that  "va.  'iht 
in  the  text,  refers  onl^  to  a  future  time.  And  this  I  fay  ftill,  tho'  our 
Tranflators  have  rendered  it,  equivocally,  to  fee.  Yet  he  affirms, 
that  I  fay,  "  I'ya  [{landing  alone]  always  refers  to  a  future 
"  time."  That  I  am  pofitive  of  it,  nay  very  pofitive,  "  pofi- 
"  tive  as  you  are,"  fays  he.  And  to  fhame  me  of  this  evil 
habit,  he  proceeds  to  (hew,  from  feveral  texts,  that  Tva  is  often 
put  for  oT£  or  OTJ.  "  Thus  John  xvi.  2.  T/je  time  cornet^  th  at 
.  "  [I'vcc]  nxihofoever  killeth  you  ijcill  think  he  doth  God  fervice. 
*•  Again  :  i  Cor.  iv.  3.  IFith  me  it  is  afmall thing  that  [IW] 
*♦  /  fhould  he  judged  of  you.  And  nearer  to  the  point  yet 
*•  3  John  4.  I  have  no  greater  joy  [J'va  «xaw]  than  that  I  hear, 
*'  or,  than  to  hear  that  my  children  nualk  in  the  truth.  And 
*'  why  not  here,  Sir;  Abraham  rejoiced  [IV«5'J»)]  when  he 
"  faw,  or  that  he  faw,  or  (which  is  equivalent)  to  see  my 
*'  Day."  [Confid.  p.  144-3  P^**  *'^  ^'^  kindnefs,  the  bed 
Vol.  Y.  S  at- 


25 S  ^he  Divine  Legation      Book  VI. 

Tranilators,  perhaps,  not  apprehending  that  there 
was  any  time  between  the  Grant  to  fee,  and  the  ac- 

acknowledgment  I  can  make,  is  to  return  him  back  his  own 
criticifm;  only  the  Gr?^/^  words  put  into  Latin.  The  Tu/gate 
has  renieieJ  I'vx  ':^r,  by  ut  i-ic/eret,  which  words  I  will  fup- 
pofe  the  Tranflator  to  fay  (ss  without  doubt,  he  would)  refer 
only  to  a  future  time.  On  whicl:,  I  will  be  very  learned  and  cri- 
tical . — "  Pofitive  as  you  are,  Sir,  that  ut  -':hvays  refers  to  zfa- 
««  Jure  time,  I  will  (hew  you  that  it  is  fometimes  put  iorpojiquam 
«'  the /a/, 

*'  Ut  vidi,  ut  peril,  ut  me  mains  ahjiulit  Error  ! 

**  and  fometimes  (v/hich  is  yet  nearer  to  the  point)  for  quanta^ 
*'  — —  Ut  qui/que  optime  Grace  fciret,  ita  ejje  nequifjnmum, 
*•  And  why  not  here,  Sir,  Abraham  rejoiced  \ut  ijideret^  when 
"he  faw,  or  that  he  faw,  or  which  is  equivalent,  to  sej-  my 
**  day  ?" — And  row  he  fays,  there  is  but  one  dff.cujiy  thatjlands 
in  his  ivay.  And  what  is  this,  1  pray  you  ?  Why,  that  according 
to  his  (Dr.  Stebbing's)  interpretation,  "  the  latter  part  of  the 
V  fentence  is  a  repetition  of  the  former.  Abraham  rejoiced  to 
*'  fee  my  day,  and  he  faiu  it  and  ivas  glad.  i.  e.  Abraham  re- 
*'  joicedto  fee,  and  then  fa^vo  and  rejoiced.  But  fuch  kind  of  repeti- 
**  tions  are  frequent  in  the  facred  Dialeft;  and,  in  my  humble 
f  opinion,  it  has  an  elegance  here.     Abraham  rejoiced  to  fee,  x.a.i 

"    Et^S,    ;:a*  £%ag>J.    HE   BOTH    SAW  AND  WAS   GLAD."    \Confid.  p. 

144-5.]  Before  he  talked  o{  repetitions  in  the  facred  Dia/et^,  and 
pronounced  upon  their  qualities,  he  fhould  have  known  how  to 
diftinguifh  between  a  pleonofm  and  a  tautology  ;  the  firfl  of  which, 
indted,  is  often  an  elegance;  the  latter,  always  a  blemilh  in  expref- 
^on  :  and,  in  the  number  of  the  latter,  is  this  elegant  repetition 
pf  the  Dodor's  own  making.  Where  a  repetition  of  the  fame 
thing  is  given  in  different  words  it  is  called  a  ple.nafm  ;  when 
in  the  fame  words,  (as  in  the  Doflor's  tranflation  of  the  text  in 
queftion)  it  is  a  tautolag\,  which,  being  without  reafon,  has  nei- 
ther grace  nor  elegance.  Nay  the  very  pretence  it  has  to  common 
fenfe  arifes  from  our  being  able  to  underftand  the  equivocal 
phrafe,  to  fee,  in  my  meaning,  of,  that  he  might  fee.  Confine 
it  to  the  Doftor'f,  of, —  Abraham  rejoiced  ixiben  he  had/cen  tny 
da)\  and  he  fanu  it  and  ivas glad,  and  the  ahfurdity  becomes  ap- 
parent. For  the  latter  part  of  the  fentence  beginning  with  the 
conjunflioo  completive  kx\,  it  implies  a  further  predication. 
Vet  ill  his  tranflation  there  is  none  ;  tho'  he  makes  an  effort  to- 
wards it,  in  dropping  the  fenfe  of  xa\  in  the  found  of  both. 

2  ttial 


Sedl.  5.       c;^  Moses    demonjlrated,  2^() 

tual  feeing,  turned  it,  he  rejoiced  to  fee  ;  as  if  it  had 
bztn  the  Paraphrafe  of  the  Poet  Nonnus, 

whereas  this  Hiflory  of  Abraham  hath  plainly 
three  diRinft  periods.  The  firft  contains  God's 
promife  to  grant  Abraham's  requeft,  when  lie  r^- 
joiced  that  he  fljouldfee-,  this,  for  reafons  given  above, 
was  wifely  emitted  by  the  Hiftorian  :  Within  the 
fecond  period  was  the  delivery  of  the  Command,  with 
which  Mofes's  account  begins :  And  Abraham's 
Obedience,  thro'  which  hefaw  Christ's  day  and 
was  gladj    includes   the   third ''.      Thus   the   Pa- 

••  Dr.  Stebbing  tells  me,  **  there  is  not  one  word,  in  the 
♦*  hillory  of  the  Old  Teftament  to  juftify  this  threefold  diilinc- 
"  tion  :"  and  that  I  myfelf  confess  -is  much.  It  is  true, 
I  confefs  that  what  is  not  in  the  Old  Teftament  is  not  to  be 
found  there.  And  had  he  been  as  modeft,  he  would  have 
been  content  to  find  a  future  ftate  in  the  New  Teftament  only. 

But  where  is  it,  I  would  afk,  that  "  I  confefs  there  is 

*'  not  one  word,  in  the  hiftory  of  the  Old  Teftament,  to 
*'  juftify  this  three-fold  diftindion  r"  I  was  fo  far  from  any 
fuch  thought,  that  I  gave  a  large  epitome  *  of  Abraham's 
whole  hiftory,  to  fhew  that  it  juilified  this  three-fcU  diflm:- 
tion,  in  every  part  of  it.  His  manner  of  proving  my  con- 
feffion,  will  clearly  deteft  the  fraud  and  falfhood  of  his  charge. 
For,  inftead  of  doing  it  from  my  own  words,  he  would  ar- 
gue me  into  it,  from  his  own  inferences.  "  You  confefs  it 
*'  (fays  he)  FOR  you  fay,  that  Mofes's  hiftory  begirs  with  the 
*'  fecond  period,  and  that  the  firft  was  wilely  omitted  by  the 
"  hiftorian,"  Let  us  apply  this  reaToning  to  a  parallel  cafe. 
I  will  fuppofe  him  to  tell  me,  (for,  after  this,  he  may  tell  me 
any  thing)  "  that  I  myfelf  confefs  there  is  not  one  word  in  the 
V  Jliad  of  Homer,  to  juftify  me  in  faying  that  there  were 
*'  three  periods  in  the  deftru6\ion  of  Troy;  the  firft,  the  rob- 
"  bery  of  Helen  ;  the  fecond,  the  combats  before  the  Walls ;  and 
**  the  third,  theftorming  of  theTown  by  the  Greeks  ;  for  that 
**  I  fay.  that  Homer's  poem  begins  at  the  fecond  period  ;  wifely 
**  omitting  the  firft  and  the  laft."  Now  will  any  one  conclude, 
from  this  reafoning,  that  I  had  made  any  fuch  confeffion  ? 

*  From  p.  209  to  215,  of  this  volume, 

S  2  triarchy 


fi6o  The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

trlarch,  we  find,  had  a  promife  that  his  requefl 
fhoiild  be  granted  J  and,  in  regard  to  that  promife, 
an  a^ion  is  commanded,  which,  at  that  time,  was  a 
common  mode  of  information  •,  Abraham  there- 
fore miift  needs  know  it  was  the  very  information 
fo  much  requefted,  fo  gracioufly  promifed,  and  fo 
impatiently  expected.  We  conclude  then,  on 
the  whole,  that  this  Command  being  only  the  Grant 
of  an  earneft  requeft,  and  known  by  Abraham,  at 
the  time  of  impofing,  to  be  fuch  Grant,  he  could 
not  poITibly  have  any  doubt  concerning  the  Author 
of  it.  He  was  folliciting  the  God  of  Heaven  to 
reveal  to  him  the  Myftery  of  Man's  Redemption, 
and  he  received  the  information,  in  a  Command  to 
offer  Ifaac  ;  a  Revelation,  that  had  the  clofefl  con- 
nexion with,  and  was  the  fullefl:  completion  of, 
the  whole  feries  of  the  preceding  Revelations. 

2.  For,  (as  we  Ihall  now  fhew,  in  anfwer  to 
the  lecond  part  of  the  objefkion)  the  Command 
could  occafion  no  miftakes  concerning  the  divine 
Attributes  •,  it  being,  as  was  faid,  only  the  con- 
veyance of  an  information  by  a5iion  inftead  oi  words, 
in  conformity  to  the  common  mode  of  converfe  in 
the  more  early  times.  This  a£lion  therefore  being 
mere  fcenery,  had  no  moral  import;  that  is,  it 
conveyed  or  implied  none  of  thofe  intentions  in  him 
who  commanded  it,  and  in  him  who  obeyed  the 
Command,  which  go  along  with  a61:ions  that  have  a 
moral  import '.    Confequently  the  injun5iion  and  obe- 

dience, 

'  This  (hews  why  God  might  fgy  to  Ho/ea,  Go  tide  unto 
thee  a  nxjife  of  ivhoreJoms,  iffc.  chap.  i.  ver.  2. — Tho'  all  anions 
which  have  no  mcral  import  are  indifferent ;  yet  fome  of  this 
kind  (which  would  even  be  indifferent,  had  they  a  moral  im- 
port) may,  on  the  very  account  of  their  having  no  marat  im- 
fort,  be  the  objed  of  pleafure  or  difpleafure.     Thus,  in  the 

adventure 


->: 


5*     o/"  Moses   ciemonfirateih  261 

diencCy  in  an  aftion  which  hath  no  fuch  import,  can 
no  way  afFed:  theniorai  charadlerof  the  perfons  con- 
cerned: and  confequently,  this  Command  could  oc- 
cafion  no  miflakes  concerning  the  divine  Attributes, 
with  regard  to  God's  delighting  in  human  facrifices. 
On  the  contrary,  the  very  information  conveyed  by 
it,  was  the  higheft  aflurance  to  the  perfon  informed, 
of  God's  good-will  towards  man.  Hence  we  fee 
there  was  not  the  leafl:  occafion,  when  God  remit- 
ted the  offering  of  Ifaac,  that  he  ^oxA^formally  con- 
demn human  Sacrifices,  to  prevent  Abraham  or  his 
family's  falling  into  an  opinion,  that  fuch  Sacrifices 
were  not  difpleafing  to  him  %  any  more  than  for 

the 

adventure  between  EHfha  and  Joafli,  we  are  told,  that  the 
Prophet  laid  unto  the  King,  "•  Take  bow  and  arrows ;  and 
"  he  took  unto  him  bow  and  arrows.  And  he  faid  to  the  king 
*'  of  Ifrael,  Put  thine  hand  upon  the  bow ;  and  he  put  his 
**  hand  upon  it ;  and  Elifha  put  his  hands  upon  the  king's 
**  hands.  And  he  faid.  Open  the  window  eaftward  ;  and  he 
'*  opened  it.  Then  Elifha  faid.  Shoot ;  and  he  fhot.  And 
*'  he  faid,  The  arrow  of  the  Lord's  deliverance  from  Syria : 
*'  for  thou  (halt  fmite  the  Syrians  in  Aphek,  till  thou  have 
*'  confumed  them.  And  he  faid,  Take  the  arrows  ;  and  he 
*•  took  them.  And  he  faid  unto  the  king  of  Ifrael,  Saiire 
"  upon  the  ground  ;  and  he  fmote  thrice  and  flayed.  And 
"  the  man  of  God  loas  -wrath  luith  him,  and  faid,  Thoa 
•*•  Ihouldert  have  fmitten  five  or  fix  times,  then  hadll  thou 
*'  fmitten  Syria,  till  thou  hadft  confumed  them,  whereas  now 
"  thou  fhalt  fmite  Syria  but  thrice."  2  Kings  xiii.  15 — 18. 
Here  it  is  not  difficult  to  apprehend,  that  the  Prophet,  by  God's 
command,  directed  the  King  to  perform  a  fignificative  aflion, 
whofe  meaning  God  had  beforehand  explained  to  his  MefTen- 
ger  :  and,  amongft  the  particulars  of  it,  had  told  him  this,  that 
the  Syrians  fhould  be  fmitten  as  often  as  the  King  fmote  upon 
the  ground,  when  the  Prophet  fhould  order  him  (only  in  gene- 
ral words)  to  fmite  it.  Hence  the  Prophet's  anger,  occafioned 
hv  his  love  to  his  country,  on  the  King's  Hopping  when  he  had 
/,iotc  thrice. 

''To  this  Dr.  Stubbing  aifwers,  "  lean  eafily  underfland, 
"  Sir,  how  the  matter  ilojd  with  Abraham;   and  that  he 

S3  "was 


262  7he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

"  was  in  no  danger  of  being  miQed,  as  to-  tjie  nature  of  hu- 
"  man  Sacrifices,  who  knew  the  fecret  df  the  whole  affair  ; 
"  and  tiiat  it  was  nothing  elfe  but  Scenery.     But  how  this  an- 
"  fwer  will  ferve  for  his  Family;  who  are  to  be  prefumed  to 
•'  have  kno\\;n  nothing   of  this   fcenical   reprefentation,  is  ut- 
*'  terly  pall  my   coraprehenfion  ;  —  becaufe  you  have  told  us 
*'  from  the   very  firrt,  that  the  information  to  be  conveyed  by 
*'  it,  was  intended  for  Abraham's  sole   use  ;  and  I   do  not 
"  fee  how  Abraham  could  opjcn   to  his  family  the  fcenery  of 
*'  the  tranfatlion,  without  explaining  the  mj/iery.  — —  But  is 
"  not  your  putting  the  Family  of  Abraham,  in  pofieflion  of  this 
*'  confequence ;  a  very  plain  declaration,  that  they   Icnew  the 
•'  myftery  of  Chrift's  facrifice!  Now  therefore,  Sir,  take  your 
*'  choice,    and   give  up  one  part   of  your  hypothefis,  or  the 
*'  ether,  as  beft  pleafes  you;   for  to  hold  both   is  impoffible. 
*'  If  you    fay   that   the  family  of  Abraham   were  acquainted 
*'  with  the   myftery  of  Chrift's   facrifice ;  it  will  overturn   all 
*'  you  have  faid  concerning  their  ignorance  of  a  future  Hate : 
**  It  likewife  overturns  the  lingle  reafon  you  have  given  why 
*'  the  explanation  (ufual  in  all  fuch  cafes)  to  fhew  the  import,. 
*'  of  the  tranfailion  was  not  added,  viz.  that  it  was  a  point 
*'  not  ft  for  common  kno^wled^e.     But  if  you  Ihall  chufe  to  fay, 
**  that  the  revelation  of  this  myftery,  was  for  the  sole  infor- 
*'  mation  of  Abraham,  and  that  his   family  knew  nothing  of 
"  it,    the  objection   will  lie  full   againft    you,  unanfwered,'* 
[Confid.  p.  166.] 

I  had  faid,  that  the  command  was  for  Abraham^sfcle  ufs ;  and 
•'  therefore  (fays  the  Doftor)  the  Family  of  Abraham  mufl  be 
*'  prefumed  to  know  nothing  of  this  fcenical  reprefentation  :" 
Notwithftanding  this,  I  pre  fume  (he  fays)  that  theydidkmiuit^ 
Here  he  takes  me  in  a  flagrant  contradidiion.  But  did  he  in- 
deed not  apprehend  that  where  I  fpoke  of  its  being  given  for . 
jibraham^s  fote  ufe,  I  was  oppofing  it,  (as  the  courfe  of  my  argu-. 
ment  required)  not  to  the  fingle  Family  which  then  lived  under 
his  tents,  but  to  the  Jewifli  People,  when  the  hillory  of  the 
tranfafiion  was  recorded  ?  —  And  now  having  fhewn  his  wrong 
conclufion  from  my  words,  let  us  confider  next  the  wrong 
conclufion  he  draws  from  his  own. — J  do  not  fee  (fays  he) 
i5»cti;  Abraham  could  open  to  his  family  the  fcenery  of  the  tranfac- 
tion  njcithout  explaining  the  fnyfery  ?  What  does  he  mean  by, 
opening  the  fcenery  of  the  traifadion  ?  There  are  two  fenfes  of 
this  ambiguous  expieiiion  ;  it  may  fignify,  either,  explaining 
the  Vioral  of  the  fcenery ;  or  fimply,  telling  his  family  that  the, 
iranfaaion  ivas  a  fenical  reprefentation.  He  could  not  ufe  the 
phiafe  in  the  firll  fenfe,  becaufe  \iQm3\iCs  explaining  tLemvfery 
a  thing  different  from  opening  the  fcenery.     He  mull  mean  it 

then 


Se<3:.  5.       of  Moses   demG72jlrated,         263 

then  in  the  latter.  But  could  not  Abraham  tell  his  Family,  that 
this  wa,s  z  fcenicid  reprefmtation  without  explaining  the  tnypery  ?  I 
do  not  know  what  (hould  hinder  him,  unlefs  it  was  the  fudden  lofs 
of Tpeech.  If  he  had  the  free  ufe  of  his  tongue,  I  think,  he 
might,  in  the  tranfports  of  his  joy,  on  his  return  home,  tell  his 
Wife,  "  That  God  had  crder'd  him  to  facrifice  his  Son.  and  that 
he  had  carried  this  Son  to  mount  Mcriah,  in  obedience  to  the 
divine  Command,  where  a  ram  was  accepted  in  his  ftead  ;  but 
that  the  whoie  was  a  mere  fcenical  reprefentation,  to  figure  out- 
a  myfterious  tranfadion  which  God  had  ordained  to  come  to 
pafs  in  the  latter  ages  of  the  world."  And  I  fuppofe  when  he 
had  once  told  his  wife,  the  Family  would  foon  hear  of  it. 
Now  could  they  not  underftand,  what  was  meant  by  2i  fcenical 
reprefcntaticn,  as  well  when  he  told  them  it  was  to  prefigure' 
a  myftery,  as  if  he  had  told  them  ic  was  to  prefigure  the 
crucifixion  of  Jefus  F  Had  I  no  other  way  of  avoiding  his  dilem- 
ma (for  if  1  efcape  his  Contradidi-n^  he  has  fet  his  Dilemma-trap^ 
which,  he  fr.ys,  it  is  impoflible  I  (hould  efcape)  had  I  nothing 
elfe,  I  fay,  'tis  very  likely  I  fhould  have  infifted  upon  this  ex- 
planation :  But  there  are  more  fafe  ways  than  one  of  taking 
him  by  his  Horns.  "  Now  therefore  (fays  he)  take  your 
'*  choice,  and  give  up  one  part  of  your  hypothefis  or  the 
"  other,  as  beft  pleafes  you  ;-  for  to  hold  both  is  impos- 
"  siBLE.  'If  you  fay  that  the  family  of  Abraham  were  ac- 
"  quainted  with  the  Myftery,  it  will  overturn  all  you  faid  con- 
*'  cernir.g  their  ignorance  of  a  Future  ftate —  but  if  you  ftiall 
"  chufe  to  fay  that  the  revelatiori  of  the  Myftery  was  for  the  fole 
"  information  of  Abraham,  and  that  his  Family  knew  nothing 
"  of  it,  then — the  conftruclion  in  favour  of  human  Sacrifices 
"  muft  have  been  the  very  fame  as  if  no  fuch  reprefentation, 
"  as  you  fpeak  of,  had  been  intended."  I  defire  to  know 
where  it  is  that  I  have  fpoken  any  thihg  of  the  ignorance  of 
Mrakam's  Famih,  concerning  a  Future  flate.  But  I  am  afraid, 
fomething  is  wrong  here  again :  and  that,  by  Abraham's  Fa- 
7nilyy  he  means  the  Jfraclites  under  Mofcs's  policy :  for,  with 
regard  to  them,  I  did  indeed  fay  that  the  grofs  body  of  the 
People  were  ignorant  of  a  Future  ftate.  But  then  I  fuppofed 
them  equally  ignorant  of  the  true  import  of  the  Command  to 
Abraham.  But,  if,  by  Abrahams  Family,  he  means,  as  every 
man  does,  who  means  honeftly,  thofe  few  of  his  houfliold,  I  fup- 
pofe them  indeed  acquainted  with  the  true  import  of  the  Com- 
mand ;  but  then,  at  the  fame  time,  not  ignorant  of  a  Future  ftate. 
Thus  it  appears  that  what  our  Examiner  had  pronounced  im- 
possible, was  all  the  while  very  poflible.  And  in  fpite  of 
this  terrible  Dilemma,  both  parts  of  the  hypothefis  zr%  at 
peace.  I  can  hardly  think  him  fo  immoral  as  to  have  put  a  de- 
figned  trick  upon  his  Reader:  I  rather  fuppofe  it  to  be  fome 

S  4  confufcd 


264  ^he  Divine  Legation     ^  Bo  ok  VI. 

the  Prophet  Ahijah',  when  he  had  rent  Jeroboam's 
garment  into  twelve  pieces  to  denote  the  enfuing 
divifion  in  the  tribes  of  Ifrael,  to  dehver  a  moral 
precept  againft  the  fin  of  delpoihng,  and  infult- 
ing  our  neighbour:  For  the  command  having 
no  moral  import^  as  being  only  an  information  by 
adion,  where  one  thing  flood  for  the  reprefenta" 
tive  of  another,  all  the  coniequence  that  could  be 
deduced  from  it  was  only  this,  that  the  Son  of  God 
Ihould  be  offered  up  for  the  iins  of  mankind:  there- 
fore the  conceptions  they  had  of  human  sacrifi- 
^CES,  after  the  commatid,  muft  needs  be  juft  the 
fame  with  thofe  they  had  before  ;  and  therefore,  in- 
ftrudion,  concerning  the  execrable  nature  of  this 
Rite,  was  not  only  needlefs,  but  altogether  befidc 
the  queftion. 

But  this  aflcrtion  that  a  scenic al  represe.n- 
TATiON  HAS  NO  MORAL  IMPORT,  having  been  mif- 

cnnfufed  notion  concerning  the  Popifh  virtue  of  tradition, 
(that  trurty  Guardian  of  Truth)  which  led  him  into  all  this 
abfurdity  j  and  made  him  conclude,  that  what  Abraham's  houf- 
hold  once  knew,  the  Pollerity  of  Abraham  could  never  forget'L 
Tho'  the  WRITTEN  Word  telh  us,  that  when  Moles  was  fent 
to  redeem  this  Pofterity  from  bondage,  they  remembered  fo  little 
of  God's  Revelations  to  their  Fore-fathers,  that  they  knew  no- 
.thirgeven  of  his  nature,  and  therefore  did,  a?  men  common- 
ly do  in  the  like  cafe,  enquire  after  his  name. 

'  <'  And  it  came  to  pafs  at  that  time,  when  Jeroboam  went 
*'  outto  Jerufalem,  that  the  Prophet  Ahijah  the  Shilonite  found 
♦'  him  in  the  way  ;  and  he  had  clad  himfelf  with  a  new  gar- 
•*  n>ent,  and  they  two  were  alone  in  the  field.  And  Ahijah 
*'  caught  the  new  garment  that  was  on  him,  and  rent  it  in 
•*  twelve  pieces,  and  he  faid  to  Jeroboam,  Take  thte  ten 
^*  pieces,  for  thus  faith  the  Lord  the  God  of  Ifrael,  Behold  I 
**  will  rend  the  kingdom  out  of  the  hand  of  Solomon,  and 
"  will  give  ten  tribes  to  thee."  i  Kincs  xi.  29.  The  circum- 
ftance  of  the  nezv  garment  was  not  infignificant :  It  was  to  denote 
the  powtr  of  (he  kingdom  at  that  time  in  its  full  ftrength  and 

underllood 


Sitfl:.  5.  '  ^f  M  o  s  E  s   defnonjirated.  265 

Bffderftood  by  many,  and  mifreprefented  by  more,  . 
^ho'  nothing,  as  I  then  thought,  could  be  clearer 
tamen-verled  in  moral  matters)  I  fhall  beg  leave  to 
explain  -myfelf. — He  who  affirms  thsLtafcemcalre-i 
pcefenlation  has  no  moral  import,  cannot  poffibly  be 
underftocid  to  mean  (if  interpreted  on  the  ordinary 
rules  of  Logic  and  Common  fenfe)  any  thing  elie 
than -that  the  reprefentation  or  the  feigned  adion 
has  none  of  th^tfpedjic  morality  which  is  in  the  real 
a(5tion.     He  can  never  be  fuppofed  to  mean  that 
fueh/.a  reprefentation  could  never  even  by  accident, 
give  birth  to  a  moral  entity,  of  a  different  fpecies ; 
tho*  it  kept  within,  much  lefs  if  it  trangrefled 
the  bounds,  of  its  fcenical  nature.     Give  me  leave 
to  explain  this  by  an  in  fiance  or  two.     The  Tragic 
fcene  we  will  fuppofe  to  exhibit  a  Pagan  flory,  in 
which  a  lewd   Sacrifice  to  Venus  is  reprefented. 
Now  I- fay  this  fcenical  reprefentation  has  no  fmral 
import.   -BMt  do  I  mean  by  this,  that  there  was  no 
immorality  of  any  kind  in  the  fcene  ?  Far  from  it. 
Ipnljr'mean  that  thd.tfpecific  immorality  was  abfent^ 
which  would  have  exifled  there,  had  the  action  been 
real  and  not  feigned  •,  I  mean  idolatry.     Again,  an- 
other fet  of  Tragedians  reprefent  the  Confpiracy 
againft  Julius  Caefar  in  the  Senate-houfe.     This,  I 
fay,  has  no  moral  import :  for  neither  could  the  fol-. 
lowers  of  Casfar's  Caufe  call  thefe  fiflitious  Confpi- 
rators,  enemies  to  their  Country;   nor  could  the 
;Warmefl  lovers  of  liberty  call  them  Patriots.    But  if 
ifl  this  reprefentation,  the  Adors,  inflead  of  exhibi- 
ting an  imaginary  affaffmation,  Ihould  commit  a 
real  one,  on  the  body  of  the  perfonated  Caefar, 
Who  ev?r  fuppofed  that  fuch  a  dramatic  reprefen- 
tation  continued  flill  to   have   no  moral  import? 
The  men  who  committed  the  aflion  dropt  their  per- 
fonated, and  alfumed  their  real  charadter,  being 
infligated   by  intereft,  malice,   or  revenge;    and 

only 


256''^'        l^e  Divine  Legation        ^ook  VI. 

only  waited  a  fit  opporttTrtky  to  perpetrate  their  de- 
licrns  under  the  cover  of  a  drama.  Here  indeed, 
the  parallel  ceafes.  The  feigned  Confpirators 
tranfgrelTed  the  bounds  of  a  reprefentation  :  while 
the  real  death  of  Ifaac  mud  be  iuppofed  to  make 
part  of  the  fcefiical  reprefentation,  in  the  Command 
to  Abraham.  But  it  Ihould  have  been  corifidered, 
and  was  not,  that  I  employed  the  principle  of  a 
feigned  reprefentation* s  having  no  moral  import^  to  free 
the  Command  from  the  infidel  objedion  that  it  was 
an  enjoined  facrifice ;  not  from  the  obje6tion  of  its 
being  an  injoined  deaths  /imply :  For  a  human  Sacri- 
fice commanded  was  fuppofed  to  difcredit  Revela- 
tion, as  giving  too  much  countenance  and  en- 
couragement to  that  horrid  fuperftition  -,  whereas, 
with  regard  to  a  fimple  death  commanded^  to  juftify 
this,  I  was  ready  to  confide  in  the  common  argu- 
ment of  Divines,  taken  from  God's  fovereign 
ric^ht  over  his  creatures :  Whofe  power  could  in- 
llantaneoufly  repair  the  lofs,  or  whofe  goodnefs 
would  abundantly  reward  the  a6l  of  obedience. 
Yet  the  fair  and  candid  Dr.  Rutherforth  reprefents 
my  pofition  of  a  fcenical  reprefentation* s  having  no 
moral  import^  to  be  the  fame  with  faying,  that  tho' 
an  a^ion  b^'  everfo  vile  in  itfelf^  yet,  if  it  be  done  io 
reprefent  fomewhat  elfe,  it  lofes  its  nature  and  becomes 
an  indifferent  one.  —  Had  I  the  prefumption  to  be- 
lieve, that  any  thing  I  could  fay,  would  better 
his  heart  or  mend  his  head,  I  ftiould  recommend 
what  hath  been  here  faid  to  his  fcrious  confidera- 
tion. 

3.  And  now  we  fee  the  weaknefs  of  the  third 
and  laft  part  of  the  Objeftion,  which  fuppofcs  this 
Command  capable  of  nfi-ording  a  temptation  to 
tranfgrefs  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Law  of 
Nature :  one  of  which  obliges  us  to  cherifli  and 

prote(5l: 


Se<5t.  5«       c/' Moses   demonftrated.  267 

proted-  our  OfFspring  •,  and  another,  not  to  injure 
our  Neighbour.     For  as,  by  the  Command^  Abra- 
ham underftood  the  nature  of  man's  Redemption; 
fo,  by  the  nature  of  that  Redemption,  he   muft 
know  how  the  fcenical  reprefentation  was  to  end. 
Ifaac,  he  faw,  was  made  the  perfon  or  reprefenta- 
tiveof  Chrifi  dying  for  us :  The  Son  of  God,  he 
knew,  could  not  poflibly  lie  under  the  dominion  of 
the  grave.     Hence  he  mufl  needs  conclude  one  of 
thefe  twO'  things j  either  that  God   would  flop  his 
hand  when  he  came  to  give  the  facrificing  ftroker 
or  that,  if  the  Revelation  of  this  myftery  was  to 
be  reprefejited  throughout  in  adiion,  that  then  his 
Son,  facrificed  under  the  perfon  of  Christ,  was,, 
under  the  fame  perfon,  foOn  to  be  reftored  to  life  : 
accounting  (as  he  well  might)  that  God  was  able  to> 
r-aife  him  up  even  from  the  dead,  as  the  Author  of  the 
epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  ",  who  feems  to  have  been 
full  of  the  idea  here  explained,  aflures  us  he  did 
believe. 

Now  where  was  the  temptation  to  violate  any 
Principle  of  Morality  in  all  this  ?  The  Law  of  Na- 
ture commands  us  to  cherifh  and  proteft  our  ofF- 
fpring :  Was  that  tranfgrefled  in  giving  a  ftroke 
whofe  hurt  was  prefently  to  be  repaired  ?  Surely 
no  more  than  if  the  ftroke  had  been  in  .vifion. 
The  Law  of  Nature  forbids  all  injury  to  our  Fellow- 
creature  :  And  was  he  injured,  who,  by  being 
thus  highly  honoured,  in  becoming  the  reprefenta- 
tive  of  the  Son  of  God,  was  to  ihare  with  his 
Father  Abraham  in  the  rewards  of  his  obedience  ? 
But  though,  as  we  fee',  Abraham  could  have  no 
ftruggles  with  himfelf,  from  any  doubts  that  he 
might  violate  Morality  in  paying  obedience  to  the 
Command  ;  yet  did  the  merit  of  that  obedience, 

^  Chap.  xi.  ver,  19. 

where 


^63  "The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

•where  the  natural  feelings  were  fo  alarmed,  deferve 
all  the  encomiums  bellowed  upon  it  in  Holy  Writ. 
For,  in  exprefllng  his  extreme  readinefs  to  obey, 
he  declared  a  full  confidence  in  the  promifes  of 
God. 

From  hence  we  may  deduce  thefe  two  corol- 
laries. 

I.  That  the  noble  Author  of  the  Chara5lerijlics 
hath  fhewn  as  much  ignorance  as  malevolence, 
when  he  fuppofed  that  Abraham's  fhewing  no  ex- 
treme furprtfe  on  this  trying  Revelation  viz%  from  the 
favourable  notion  he  had  of  Human  Sacrifices,  fo 
common  amongfi  the  inhabitants  of  the  Palejline  and 
other  neighbouring  Nations ".     For  we  fee  the  reafon, 

why 

°  '*  To  me  (fays  the  noble  writer)  it  plainly  appears,  that 
*'  in  the  early  times  of  all  Religions,  when  nations  were  yet 
*'  barbarous  and  favage,  there  was  ever  an  aptnefs  or  tendency 
**  towards  the  dark  port  of  Superilition,  which  amongft  many 
"  other  horrors  produced  that  of  human  Sacrifice.  Something 
"  of  this  nature  might  poffibly  be  deduced  even  from  Holy 
*'  Writ." — To  this  a  note  refers  in  the  following  words  ■' 
Gen.  xxii.  l.  and'\\iX>G.  xi.  30.  Thefe  places  relating  to  Abra- 
ham ia»d' Jephthah  are  cited  only  niitb  rr/peii  to  the  nstion  luhich 
thife  primitinje  ixiarriors  may  be  J  aid  to  hame  entertained  ccncfrning 
this  horrid  encrmitu  fo  common  amongji  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Paleftine  and  other  neighbouring  nations.  It  oppean  that  even 
the  elder  of  thefe  Hebrew  princes  ivas  under  no  extreme  furprtfe 
en  this  trying  re'velation.  Nor  did  he  think  of  exp-Jlu latino ,  in  the 
leaf  J  on  this  occafeon  ;  'tx:hen  ot  another  time  he  could  he  fo  impor- 
tunate for  the  pardon  of  an  inhofpitable,  murderous^  impious,  and 
hicefliious  city;  Gen.  xviii.  23,  iJc.     Charaft,  vol.  iii.  p.  124. 

Dr.  Stebbing  will  needs  try  his  ftrength  with  the  noble  Author 
of  the  Charaiterijlics.  For,  whether  I  quote  tor  approbation  or 
condemnation,  it  is  all  one  ;  this  adlive  Watchman  of  the  Church 
militant  will  let  nothing, efcape  him,  thjt  he  finds  in  my  fervice  ; 
nor  leave  any  thing  unpurified  that  has  once  pafTed  through  my 
iiands.     To  this  paflage  of  the  noble  Lord  he  replies,  "  The 

"  cafes 


5e(5t.  5.  -     of  Mqse%  demonjlrated,  269 

why  Abraham,  infteac^  of  being  under  any  extreme 
furprife,  was  (as  Jesus  aflures  us)  under  an  extreme 
joy,  was  becaufe  he  underftood  th^  Command  to  be 
a  communication  of  that  Myftery  in  which,  he  had 
fo  earneftly  requefted  to  participate;  and,  con- 
fequently,  that  Ifaac  muft  needs,  at  length,  come 
fefe  and  unhurt  from  that  fcenical  reprefentation, 
in  which  he  bore  the  principal  part. 

2.-r-That  Sir  John  Marlham's  fufpicionof  Abra- 
ham's being  llruck  by  a  fuperftitious  imagination** 

is 

**  cafes  widely  differ.  God  did  not  open  precifely  what  he  in- 
*'  tended  to  do  with  thefe  wicked  cities ;  only  laid,  Judgment 
*•  was  pafled.  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  Ifaac,  who  did 
"  not  ftand  as  a  finner  before  God;  but  as  a  Sacrifice,  acknow- 
"  ledging  God's  fovereign  dominion.  For  Abraham  to  inter- 
'*  ceed  here  would  have  inferred  a  reludancy  to  do  homage, 
•*  which  would  have  deftroyed  the  perfeftion  of  his  refigna- 
"  tion."  [Hift.  of  Abr.  p.  41 — 42.]  So,  Ifaac's  innocence 
and  his  not  ftanding  a  finntr  before  Gcd' when  he  was  doomed 
to  death,  makes  him  a  lefs  proper  object  of  Abraham's  inter- 
ceffion  and  compaffion,  than  a  devoted  City,  inhofpitable,  mur- 
derouif  impious^  andincejiuous.  This  is  our  Doftor's  humanity  : 
And  a  modeft  petition  of  the  Father  of  the  faithful,  like  that 
of  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  If  it  be  poj/ible,  let  this  cup  pafs  from 
me,  ne'verthelifs  not  as  I  nuill  but  as  thou  nuilt,  would  have  de- 
Jiroyed  all  the  perfeiiion  of  his  rejignation.  And  this  is  our  Doftor's 
divinity!  Strange!  that  this  Father  of  Orthodoxy  could  not 
fee,  that  what  might  be  done  by  the  divine  Antitype  him- 
felf,  without  defraying  his  perfeSIion  of  refignatiov,  might  like- 
wife  be  done,  without  that  lofs,  in  behalf  of  the  7ype^  After 
fo  fine  a  fpecimen  of  what  great  things  he  is  able  to  do  againft 
this  formiJable  Enemy  of  Revelation  ;  what  pity  is  it,  he  was 
never  fet  on  work  by  his  Superiors,  in  a  more  avoiued  and  open 
manner  ? 

'*  -—Ex  ijlis  fatius  eft  colligere  banc  Ahrahami  tenlationem  tton 

fttijfe  )te)tciiviipfniJi,£inri\i  ts^ot^i),  aStionem  innoijatam ;  non  recens  ex- 

cogitatam,fed  adpriftinos  Cananceorum  mores  def^nafam.    Horrendi 

facrijicii  ufum  apud  Pbaenicesfrequentem  indicat  Porpkyrius :  "  Phffi- 

•*  nices,  inquit,  in  magnis  periculis  ex  bello,  fame,  peftilentia, 

*♦  darif- 


270  ^^^  Divine  Legation       Book  VI, 

IS  as  gronndlefs,  as  it  is  injurious  to  the  holy  Pa- 
triarch. Nay,  the  very  examples  he  gives  might 
have  fhewn  him  the  folly  of  fuch  infinuations : 
For,  according  to  his  inferences,  Human  Sacri- 
fices were  never  offered  but  in  cafes  of  great  dif- 
trefs :  Now  Abraham  was  at  this  time  in  a  full 
ftate  of  peace,  fecurity,  and  affluence. 

Thus,  we  prefume,  it  appears  that  this  Command 
was  a  mere  information  by  action :  and  that,  when 
regarded  in  this  view,  all  the  objeftions  againft 
God's  giving  it  to  Abraham  are  abfolutely  ener- 
vated and  overthrown. 

For  thus  (lands  the  cafe.  If  the  trial  of  Abra- 
ham's faith  and  obedience  were  the  commanding  a 
real  facrifice,  then  was  Abraham  an  Jgenf,  and 
not  a  bare  Injlriiment  j  and  then  it  might  be  pre- 
tended that  God  commanded  an  human  agent  to 
ad  againft  humanity.  And,  his  right  over  his 
Creatures  cannot  folve  the  difficulty,  as  it  may 
when  he  employs  a  mere  inftrument  to  perform  his 
Will  upon  them.  Butif  the  trial  were  only  the  com- 
manding a  fcenical  reprefentation,  the  command 
had  no  moral  import  \  and  confequently,  Abraham 
was  not  put  upon  any  thing  morally  wrong  j  as 
is  the  offering  up  a  human  facrifice. 

I  have  tranfcribed  into  the  notes  as  I  have  gone 
along,  fome  of  the  moft  confiderablc  Objedions 
my  Adverfaries  have  been  able  to  oppofe  to  this 
interpretation  of  the  command  to  Abraham  : 
which,  I  prefume,  when  fairly  confidered,  will  be 

•♦  clarifilmorum  aliquem  ad  id  fuffragiis  publicis  deleftum,  fa- 
"  crificabaiit  Saturno.  Et  viclimarum  talium  plena  eft  Sanchu- 
•«  niathonis  hiftoriu  Phcenicice  fcripta,  quam  Philo  Biblius  Giajce 
"  inteiprttatus  eft  libris  odo."     Canon.  Chron,  p.  79. 

no 


Sed.  5.       cf  Moses  demonjirated,         271 

no  light  confirmation  of  it.  But,  as  I  have  no 
notions  to  advance,  not  founded  in  a  fi  nee  re  de  fire 
to  find  out,  and  do  honour  to.  Truth,  I  would  by- 
no  means  take  advantage  of  an  Adverfary's  weak- 
nefs  to  recommend  them  to  the  public  favour.  I 
hold  it  not  honeft,  therefore,  to  conceal  the  force  of 
an  Objedion  which  I  myfelf  have  to  offer,  by  far 
more  plaufible  than  any  that  thefe  learned  Divines 
have  urged  againft  it.  The  objeftion  is  this, 
**  That  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  why  a  circum- 
stance of  fuch  importance  to  Revelation,  which 
removes  one  of  the  ftrongeft  arguments  againft 
its  truth,  and  at  the  fame  time,  manifells  a  real 
CONNEXION  between  the  two  Difpenfations  of  it, 
fhould  never  be  dired:ly  and  minutely  explained 
and  infilled  on,  by  the  Writers  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  tho*  Abraham's  Hiftorian  might  have  had 
his  reafons  for  concealing  it."  Now,  to  my  own 
Objedlion,  I  fuppofe,  I  may  have  leave  to  reply. 
That  many  truths  of  great  importance,  for  the 
fupport  of  Religion  againft  Infidelity,  were  taught 
by  Jefus  to  his  Difciples  (amongft  which,  I  reckon 
this  Interpretation  to  be  one)  which  never  came 
down,  by  their  conveyance,  to  the  Church.  But 
being,  by  the  affiftance  of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  dif- 
coverable  by  thofe  who  devote  themfelves  to  the 
ftudy  of  the  Scriptures  with  a  pure  mind,  have, 
for  the  wife  ends  of  Providence  (many  of  which 
are  infcrutable  to  us)  been  left  for  the  induftry 
of  men  to  find  out:  that,  as  occafion  required, 
every  Age  might  fupply  new  evidence  of  God's 
Truth,  to  put  toftlence  the  ignorance  of  fooliJJj  men  : 
and  in  proportion  as  the  Powers  of  Darknefs  pre- 
vailed, fo  might  the  Gofpel-light  break  out  again 
with  frefh  fplendor  to  curb  and  reprefs  them.  In 
fupport  of  what  is  here  faid,  I  beg  the  Reader  to  re- 

fiea 


272  ^be  Divine  Legation       BookVL 

fle6t  on  what  is  told  us  by  the  Evangelift,  of  the 
converfation  between  Jesus  (after  his  Refurredlion) 
and  the  two  Difciples  journeying  to  Emmaus  j  where 
their  Mafter  fays  unto  them,  0  fools,  and  flow  of  heart 
to  believe  all  that  the  Prophets  havefpoken  !  Ought  not 
Chrift  to  have  fuffered  tbefe  things^  and  to  enter  into 
his  glory  P  Jnd  beginning  at  Moses,  and  all  the  Pro- 
phets, HE  EXPOUNDED  UNTO  THEM,  the  things  Con- 
cerning himfelf  ^     Now,  who  can  doubt  but  that 
many  things  were  at  this  time  revealed,  which, 
had   they   been   delivered  down   to  Pofterity,  ia 
Writing,  would  have  greatly  contributed  to  the 
improvement  of  Eufebius's  Evangelical  Demonflra- 
ticn?  Yet  hath  Providence  thought  lit  to  order 
matters  otherwife.     But,  that  the  Apoftles  ufed, 
and  made  a  good  ufe  too,  of  thofe  Expositions, 
long  fince  forgotten  and  loft,  we  have  great  reafon 
to  beheve  from  their  amazing  fuccefs  in  the  conver- 
fion  of  the  world,  by  fuch  an  application  of  Mofes 
and  the  Prophets,  to  Chrift.     And  if  I  be  not  much 
deceived,  amongft  the  Truths  thus  inforced,  that, 
which  I  prefume  to   have  difcovered  in  the  Com- 
mand to  Abraham,  held  no  inferior  place.     Let  the 
unprejudiced  Reader  judge.    St.  Paul,  making  his 
Apology  before  king  Agrippa,  concludes  his  De- 
fence in  thefe  words:  Having  therefore  obtained  help 
of  God,  I  continue  unto  this  day  witnejfmg  both  tofmall 
and  great,  faying  none  other  things  than  thofe  which 
the  Prophets,  and  Moses  did   say  should  come: 
that  Chv'i^ Jhouldfuffer,  and  that  he  floouldbe  thefirft 
that  fhould  rife  from  the  dead'^.     The  Greek  is  rather 
ftronorer,    in    predicating    this     circumftance    of 

Mofes  -  «!/    Tf    0»   VOQ^PnTAl    iXoiKnCXV    ^t-iXKoVTUV 

p  Luke  xxiv.  ver,  2^,  26,  27.  ^  Acts  xxvI.  ver.  22, 

23,  and  to  the  fame  purpofe,  chap.  .viii.  ver.  31.' 


Sed.  5-     '  ?/^  MasES  demonjirated.  273 

yin<T^xi,  KAI  MnSHZ.  Now  where,  let  me  afk^ 
ih  all  his  Writings,  but  in  the  Command  to  Abra- 
ham^ is  there  the  lead  trace  of  any  ilich  cir- 
cvimftance,  as  that  Chrifi  jJoould  fuffer  and  that  he 
Jhould  be  the  fir jl  that  jhould  rife  f torn  the  dead?  Nor 
is  it  to  be  found  there,  unlefs  the  Command  be  un- 
derftood  in  the  fenfe  I  have  given  to  it.— — - 

But  this  is  the  (late  in  which  it  hsth  pleafed 
Providence  to  place  the  Church  of  Chrifi :  With 
abundant  evidence  in  hand,  to  fupport  itfelf  againfl 
the  attacks  of  Infidelity  j  yet  much  of  this  divine 
Treafure  left  fealed  up,  to  exercife  our  Faith  and 
(in  time  of  need)  to  excite  our  Indujlry :  for  it 
v^as  not  the  intent  of  Providence  that  one  of 
thefe  virtues  fnould  thrive  at  the  expence  of  the 
other;  but  that  Induflry  fhould  as  well  be  re- 
warded by  a  fuccefsful  fearch,  as  Faith^  by  peace 
in  believing.  Therefore  when  my  learned  Advef' 
fary%  in  order,  I  will  believe,  to  advance  the 
Ghriflian  Faith,  would  difcourage  Chriftian  Induf- 
try,  by  calumniating,  and  rendering  fufpedled 
what  he  is  pleafed  to  call  experiments  in  Reli- 
gion, it  is,  I  am  afraid,  at  beft  but  a  Zeal  with- 
out knowledge.  Indeed,  M.  Pafcal  alcribes  this 
contempt  of  experiinents  to  a  different  caufe.  — 
Ceux  qui  font  capables  de  inventer  font  rares ; 
(fays  he)  Ceux  qui  n'  inventent  point  font  en  plus 
grand  nombre,  &  par  confequent,  les  plus  fortes ; 
et  voila  pourquoi,  lors  que  les  Inventeurs  cher- 
chent  la  gloire  qu'  ils  meritent,  tout  ce  qu'  ils  y 
gagnent,  c'eft  qu'on  les  traite  de  Visionnaires. 
It  is  true,  if  men  will  come  to  the  ftudy  of  Scrip- 
ture with  unwafhen  hands,  that  is,  without  a  due 
reverence  f6r  the  dignity  of  thofe  facred  Volumes, 

^  Dr.  Stebbing. 

Vol.  V.  T  or. 


2/4  ^^^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI, 

or,  which  is  as  ill,  with  unpurged  heads ;  that  is, 
heads  ftuffed  with  bigot-fyitems,  or  made  giddy 
with  cabbaliftic  flights,  they  will  delerve  that  title 
which  Pafcal  obferves  is  lb  unjuftly  given  to  thofe 
who  deferve  beil  of  the  Public. 

But  to  return  to  thofe  with  whom  I  have  prin- 
cipal concern.  I  make  no  queflion  but  my  Free- 
thinking  Adverfaries,  to  whofe  temper  and  talents 
I  am  no  ftranger,  will  be  ready  to  objedl, 

I.  "  That  the  giving  a  folution  of  a  difficulty  in 
the  Old  Teitament  by  the  aiTiftance  of  the  NeWy 
confidered  together  as  making  up  one  intire  Dif- 
penfation,  is  an  unfair  way  of  arguing  againft  an 
Unbeliever  :  who  fuppofing  both  the  Jewifh  and 
Chriftian  Religions  to  be  fcilfe^  of  confequence 
fuppofes  them  to  be  independent  on  one  another ; 
and  that  this  pretended  relation  was  a  contrivance 
of  the  Authors  of  the  later  impofture  to  give  it 
llrength,  by  ingrafting  the  young  flioot  into  the 
trunk  of  an  old  flourifhing  Supertlition.  There- 
fore, will  they  fay,  if  we  would  argue  with  fuccefs 
againft  them,  we  muft  feek  a  folution  of  their 
difficulties  in  that  Religion  alone,  from  which  they 
arife."  —  Thus  I  may  fuppofe  them  to  argue. 
And  I  apprehend  they  will  have  no  reafon  to  fay 
I  have  put  worfe  arguments  into  their  mouths 
than  they  are  accuftomed  to  employ  againft  Reve- 
lation. 

I  reply  then,  that  it  will  admit  of  no  dlfpute, 
but  that,  if  they  may  have  the  liberty  of  turning 
Judaism  and  Christianity  into  two  Fantoms  of 
their  own  devifmg,  they  will  have  a  very  eafy  vic- 
tory over  Both.  This  is  an  old  trick,  and  has  been 
often  tried  with  fuccels.     By  this   flight-of-hand 

con- 


Se(5t.  5.       ^  M  o  s  E  s  demonjlrated,  275 

conveyance  Tyndal  hath  juggled  fools  out  of  their 
Religion.  For,  in  a  well  known  book  written  by 
him  againft  Revelation,  he  hath  taken  advantage 
of  the  indifcretion  of  fome  late  Divines  to  lay  i-c 
down  as  a  Principle,  that  Chrijlianity  is  only  a 
republication  of  the  Religion  of  Nature :  The  confe- 
quence  of  which  is,  that  Christianity  and  Ju- 
daism are  independent  Inftitutions.  But  fure  the 
Deift  is  not  to  obtrude  his  own  Inventions,  in  the 
place  of  thofe  Religions  he  endeavours  to  over- 
throw. Much  lefs  is  he  to  beg  the  quefiion  of  their 
falfity,  as  the  laying  it  down  that  the  Jevvifh  and 
Chriftian  are  two  independent  Religions,  certainly 
is :  becaufe  Chriftanicy  claims  many  of  its  nume- 
rous Titles  to  divinity  from  and  under  Judaifm. 
If  therefore  Deifts  will  not,  ye:  Cliriftians  of  ne- 
ceffity  muft,  take  their  Religion  as  they  find  it. 
Arfd  if  they  will  remove  obieftions  to  either 
CEconomy,  they  muft  reafon  on  the  Principle 
of  Dependency.  And  while  they  do  fo,  their  rea- 
fonings  will  not  only  be  fair  and  logical,  but  every 
folution,  on  fuch  a  Principle,  will  befides  its 
determination  on  the  particular  point  in  queftion, 
be  a  new  proof  of  the  divinity  of  Both,  in  gene- 
ral •,  becaufe  fuch  a  relation,  connexion,  and  de- 
pendency between  two  Religions  of  fo  diftant  timei=, 
could  not  come  about  by  chance,  or  by  human 
contrivance,  but  muft  needs  be  the  effed  of  Di- 
vine previfion.  For  a  Deift,  therefore,  to  bid  us 
remove  his  objeflions  on  the  principle  of  indepen- 
dency^ is  to  bid  us  prove  our  religion  true  on  a  prin- 
ciple that  implies  its  falfhood%  the  Nev/  Tefta- 
ment  giving  us  no  other  idea  of  Chriftianity  than 
as  of  a  Religion  dependent  on,  conneded  with, 
and  the  completion  of  Judaifm. 

T  2  But 


276         ^he  Divine  Legation  Book  VL 

But  now  fuppofe  us  to  be  in  this  excefs  of  com- 
plaifance  for  our  Adverfaries  •,  and  then  fee  whether 
the  ingenuity  of  their  acceptance  would  not  equal  the 
reafonablenefs  of  their  demand.  Without  doubt, 
were  we  once  fo  foolifh  to  fwallow  their  Chimeras 
for  the  heavenly  Manna  of  Revelation,  we  fhould 
have  them  amongft  the  firft  to  cry  out  upon  the 
prevarication.  1  fpeak  not  this  at  random.  The 
fad  hatk  already  happened.  Certain  advocates  of 
Religion,  unable  to  reconcile  to  their  notions  of 
logic,  the  fenfe  of  fome  Prophecies  in  the  Old 
Teftament,  as  explained  in  the  applicatiots  of  the 
"Writers  of  the  New,  thought  it  belt  to  throw  afide 
the  care  of  the  Jewish  Religion,  (a  burden  which 
they  could  as  ill  bear  as  the  rebellious  Ifraelites 
themlelves)  and  try  to  fupport  the  Christian, 
by  proving  its  divine  Original,  independently  and 
from  itfelf  alone.  Upon  this  Mr.  Collins  (fori 
have  chofen  to  inftance  in  thefe  two  general  dealerg 
in  Free-thinking-,  the  fmall  retailers  of  it  vanifliing 
as  fail  as  they  appear ;  for  who  now  talks  of  Blount 
or  Coward;  or  who  hereafter  will  talk  of  Strutt  or 
Morgan  '  ?)  that  the  world  may  fee  how  little  they 
agreed  about  their  own  principles,  or  rather  how 
little  regard  they  paid  to  any  principles  at  all ; 
Mr.  Collins,  I  fay,  wrote  a  book  to  exclaim  againft: 
our  ill  faith  ;  and  to  remind  us  of,  and  to  prove  to 
us,  the  inleparable  connexion  between  the  Old  and 
New  Teilament.  This  was  no  unfeafonable  reproof, 
howfoever  intended,  for  lb  egregious  a  folly.  I 
well  endeavour  to  profit  by  it  •,  and  manage  this 
Controverfy  on  their  own  terms.     For  whatever 

•  This  man,  not  long  fince,  wrote  againft  the  D.  L.  under 
the  name  of  a  Society  of  Free- thinker i :  by  the  fame  kind  of 
figure,  I  fuppofe,  that  He  in  the  Gofpel  called  himfclf  Legion, 
who  was  only  the  forwardclt  Devil  of  the  Crew. 

pre- 


Sed.  5.      c/"  M  o  s  E  s  demonjlrated.  2jj 

prevarication  appeared  in  the  Objedlors,  I  conceiv- 
ed they  had  demanded  no  more  than  what  they 
might  reafonably  expeft.  But  the  advantages 
arifing  to  us  from  this  management  foon  made 
them  draw  back,  and  retra6l  what  they  had  de- 
manded ;  and  now  they  chicane  with  us  for  call- 
ing in  the  afliftance  of  the  New  Teftament  to 
repel  their  attacks  upon  the  Old ' ;  while,  at  the 

fame 

*  But  I  miftake.  Unbelievers,  I  think,  are  not  yet  quite 
fo  fhamelefs.  The  objeftion,  in  form,  comes  from  another 
quarter.  It  is  Dr.  Stebbing,  who  for  the  honour  of  the  Church, 
makes  it  for  them.  He  will  not  allow  that  the  words  of  Jelus 
are  of  any  validity  to  fupport  my  interpretation  of  the  Command 
to  Abraham,  becaufe  Unbelievers  will  not  admit  the  infpiration 
of  the  New  Teftament.  But  what  then ;  they  have  not  yet 
difputed  with  me  my  interpretation  of  the  Cotnmatiii.  No  body 
hath  done  this  but  Dr.  Stebbing.  And  I  hope  the  Authority 
of  Jefus  will  ftand  good  againfl:him.  He  was  in  hafte  to  do 
their  bufmefs  for  them  :  and  it  mult  be  confefied  by  an  argument 
that  does  equal  credit  to  his  logic  and  his  piety. 

Fair  reafoners  of  all  parties  will  fee,  tho'  Dr.  Stebbing  will 
not,  that  the  queftion  is  not  particular^  concerning  the  in/pira- 
tion  of  the  Old  and  New  I'eftament ;  but  general,  of  the 
connexion  bet\veen.i^hem  ;  and  thofe  will  not  be  fo  unreafonable 
to  expeft  1  iliould  prove  this  connexion,  of  which  they  afk  a 
proof,  any  otherwife  than  by  applying  each  reciprocally  to  explain 
and  to  fupport  the  other.  If  the  two  Teflaments  be  fhewn  to 
do  this  ;  while  on  the  other  hand,  when  fingly  confidered,  and 
without  each  others  mutual  afliftance,  they  are  inexplicable, 
the  connexion  between  them  is  fairly  made  out.  The  objedlion 
of  Unbelievers  ftands  thu?.  "  You  pretend  (fay  they)  that 
thefe  two  Difpenfations  are  two  conftituent/>ar/j  of  God's  great 
moral  CEconomy  :  If  this  be  true,  they  mull  needs  have  a  ftrong 
connexion  and  near  relation  to  one  another.  Shew  us  this  con- 
nexion and  relation  :  and  amufe  us  no  longer  with  proving  the 
divinity  of  this  or  that  Diff-enfation  feparately,  as  if  each  were 
independent  on  the  other."  I  comply  with  their  demand  : 
And  now  Dr.  Stebbing  tells  me,  1  take  this  or  that  Revelation 
for  granted  which  I  fhould  have  proved.  Whereas  in  truth  I 
take  nothing  for  granted  but  what  Unbelievers  are  ready  to  prove 
againlt  rae,  if  1  did  not ;  namely,  that  between  two  Difpenfa- 

T  3  tieas. 


27S  ^he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

fame  time  they  think  themfelves  at  liberty  to  life 
the  afiillance  of  the  Old  to  overthrow  the  New. 
Le:  the  Friends  of  Revelation,  however,  conftantly 
and  uniformly  hold  the  infcparable  connexion  be- 
tween the  two  DifpenfatioRS ;  and  then,  let  our 
Enemies,  if  they  will,  as  they  fairly  may,  take 
all  the  advantages  they  fancy  they  have  againft:  us, 
from  the  neccfiity  we  lie  under  of  fo  doing. 

In  a  word,  We  give  them,  Judaifm  and  Chrifti- 
anity  as  Religions  equally  from  Heaven  •,  with  that 
reciprocal  dependence  on  each  other  which  arifes 
between  two  things  bearing  the  mutual  relation  of 
foundation  and  fnperjlru£lure.  They  have  it  in  their 
choice  to  oppofe  ourpretenfions,  either  by  dilputing 
with  us  that  dependency,  or  raifing  difficulties  on 
the  foot  of  it.  But  while  they  only  fuppofe  it  vi- 
fionary  •■,  and  then  argue  againft  each  Religion  on 
that  iuppofition,  they  only  beg  the  queftion.  And 
while  they  do  that,  we  keep  within  the  rules  of 
good  logic,  when  we  remove  their  objections  on 
that  principle  of  dependency  laid  down  in  Scripture. 
This  reftriftive  rule  of  interpretation  being  how- 
ever flill  obferved,  That,  in  explaining  any  diffi- 
culty in  the  Old  Teftament,  we  never,  on  pretence 
of  fuch  dependency^  forfake  the  genius  and  manners 
of  the  times  in  queftion,  and  ferve  ourfelves  of 
thofe  of  the  later  Chriftian  period,  as  Collins  (whe- 
ther truly  or  no,  let  I'hem  look  to,  who  are  con- 
cerned in  it)  upbraids  fom.e  defenders  of  Chriftanity 

t'ons  the  one  pretended  io  be  preparatory  to  the  other,  there 
mull  nceJ^  be  a  Ihong  and  near  connexion  and  relation.  And 
jf,  in  the  covirfe  of  evincing  this  connexion,  1  urge  fome 
ciiciimnanccs  in  the  Jewilh  to  fupport  the  Chiiitian,  and 
othi?^i  in  the  Chriftian  to  fupport  the  Jewilli,  this,  I  fuppofe, 
i?  noi  taking  for  urnniedxhe  truth  either  of  one  Or  the  other, 
\)<ix.  fn'ving  the  divinity  of  both- 

for 


Se6:.  ^.       of  Mo SF.S  demofjjrafe J.  279 

fordoing.  This  rule  is  here,  I  prefume,  obferved 
with  fufficient  exadnefs  ;  the  foundation  of  my  in- 
terpretation of  the  Command  being  that  ancient  mode 
of  converfe,  fo  much  at  that  time  in  ufe,  of  ccnverf- 
ing  hy  anions. 

II.  But  the  Adverfaries  of  Revelation,  how 
eafily  foever  they  may  be  confuted,  are  notfoeafily 
filenced.  They  are  ready  to  obje6t,  that  we  fly 
to  the  old  exploded  refuge  of  a  type,  which  the 
Author  of  the  Grounds  and  Reafons  of  the  Chrijiian 
Religion  hath  fhewn  to  be  viftonary  and  fenfelefs  -,  the 
mere  illogical  whimfy  of  Cabaliftic  Jews.  To  this 
I  anfwer, 

1.  They  are  doubly  miftaken.  This  interpre- 
tation is  not  founded  in  any  typical  lenfe  whatfo- 
ever-,  the  perfon  of  Ifaac  on  the  Mount  being  no 
more  a  "Type  of  Chrift  than  the  fix  letters  that  com- 
pofe  the  name  are  a  ^ype  of  him  -,  but  only  an 
arbitrary  mark  to  ftand  for  the  idea  of  Chrift^  as 
that  word  does.  So  that  their  cry  againft  "Typjs, 
"whatever  force  it  may  have,  does  not  at  all  affeft 
this  interpretation. 

2.  But  fecondly  I  fay,  A  type  is  neither  ^'//7- 
cnary^  nor  fenfelefs^  notwithftanding  the  difgrace 
■which  this  mode  of  information  hath  undergone 
by  the  mad  abufes  of  Fanaticifm  and  Superilition. 
On  the  contrary,  I  hold  it  to  be  a  juft  and  reafonable 
manner  of  denoting  one  thing  by  another :  not  the 
creature  of  the  imagination,  made  out  of  nothing 
to  ferve  a  turn  •,  but  as  natural  and  appofite  a 
figure  as  any  employed  in  human  converfe.  For 
"Types  arofe  from  that  original  mode  of  communi- 
cation, the  cowjerfing  hy  actions :  the  difference 
there  is  between  thefe  two  modes  of  information 

T  4  being 


2 8©  ^t>e  Divine  Legation        Bo(5k  VI. 

being  only  this,  that,  where  the  a6tion  is  /imply 
fignificative^  it  has  no  moral  import :  For  example, 
when  Ezekiel  is  bid  to  JJjave  his  beard,  to  iveigh  the 
hair  in  .  balances,  to  divide  it  into  three  parts,  to  burn 
one,  tojlrike  another  with  a  knife,  and  to  fcatter  ths 
third  part  in  the  wind",  this  adlion  having  no  moral 
import  is  mejfcly  Jignif eat ive  of  information  given. 
But  when  the  Ifraeht^s  are  commanded  to  take  a 
male  lamb  without  blemiJJj,  and  the  zvhole  ajjhnhly  cf  the 
congregation  to  kill  it,  and  to  fprinkle  the  blood  upon  the 
deer-polls'^,  this  adion  having  a  moral  import  as  be- 
ing a  religious  Rite,  and,  at  the  fame  time,  repre- 
jent^tive  of  Ibmething  future,  is  properly  typical. 
Hence  arofe  the  miftake  of  the  Interpreters  of  the 
CGvmiand  to  offer  Ilaac.     Thefe  men  fuppofing  the 
idlion  commanded  to  have  a  moral  import,  as  being 
only  for  a  trial  of  Abraham's  faith-,  and,  at   the 
fame  ,time,  feeing  in  it  the  mod  exa6l  refemblance 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  very  wrongly  concluded 
that  aftion  to  be  typical  which  w^s  intxtXy  fignijica- 
five:  and  by  this  means,  leaving  in  the  adlion  a  moral 
import,  fubjeded  it  to  all  thofe  cavils  of  infidelity, 
which,  by  taking  away  all  moral  import,  as  not  be^ 
Jonging  to  it,  are  here  entirely  evaded. 

But  it  being  of  the  higheft  importance  to  Reve- 
lation in  general,  and  not  a  little  conducive  to  the 
fupport  of  our  arguments  for  the  Divine  Legation 
of  Mofes  in  particular,  to  Ihew  the  logical  truth 
and  propriety  of  Types  in  a^ion,  zridi  Secondary  fenfi\s 
in  fpeech,  I  (hall  take  the  prefent  opportunity  to 
fift  this  matter  to  the  bottom.  For  having  occafj- 
cnally  fh^wn,  in  feveral  parts  of  the  preceding  Dif- 
pourfe,  that  the  references  in  the  law  to  the  cos- 
f  g|.  are  in  typical  reprefentations,  znd  fecondary  fenfes  j 

»  Ezp,  V.  ^  ExoD.  xii.  5,  6,  7. 

and 


Se(!t.  6.     of 'b^lo^'E^  demonjlrated,  28  j 

and  the  truth  of  Chriftianity  depending  on  the  real 
relation  (which  is  to  be  dilcovered  by  fuch  refer- 
ences) between  the  two  Difpenfations,  it  will  be 
incumbent  on  me  to  prove  the  logical  truth  and 
propriety  of  types  in  adtion,  and  secondary 
SENSES  in  fpeech. 

And  I  enter  on  this  fubjeft  with  the  greater  plea- 
fure,  as  one  of  the  moft  plaufibie  books  ever  writ- 
ten, or  likely  to  be  written,  againft  Chriftianity  is 
intirely  levelled  at  them.  In  this  enquiry  I  fhall 
purfue  the  fame  method  I  have  hitherto  taken  with 
unbelieving  Writers ;  examine  only  the  grounds  and 
principles  on  which  they  go  •,  and  having  removed 
and  overthrown  thefe,  in  as  few  words  as  I  am 
able,  leave  the  fuperftrudure  to  lupport  itfelf,  as 
it  may. 

SECT.    VI. 

TH  E  book  I  fpeak  of  is  intitled,  A  Bifcourfe 
of  the  Grounds  and  Reafons  of  the  Chrijlia» 
Religion^  written,  as  is  generally  fuppofed,  by  Mr. 
Collins ',  a  Writer,  whofc  dexterity  in  the  arts  of 
Controverfy  was  fo  remarkably  contrafted  by  his 
abilities  in  reafoning  and  literature,  as  to  be  ever 
putting  one  in  mind  of  what  travellers  tell  us  of 
the  genius  of  the  proper  Indians,  who,  altho'  the 
verieft  bunglers  in  all  the  fine  arts  of  manual  opera- 
tion, yet  excel  every  body  in  flight  of  hand  and 
the  delufive  feats  of  adlivity. 

The  purpofe  of  his  book  is  to  prove  that  Jesus 
v;as  an  impoftor :  and  his  grand  argument  ftands 
thus, — *'  Jesus  (as  he  (hews)  claims  under  the  pro- 
mifed  MelTiah  of  the  Jews  ;  and  propofes  himfelf 
as    the   Deliverer  prophefied  of  ii)    their  facred 

Books  i 


282  ^he  Dro'ine  Legation       Book  VI, 

Books ;  yet  (as  he  attempts  to  fhew)  none  of  thefe 
Prophefies  can  be  nnderilood  of  Jesus  but  in  a 
fc con dary  fell fe  only  ;  now  a  fecondary  fenfe  (as  he 
pretends)  is  fanatical,  chimerical,  and  contrary  to 
all  fcholaftic  rules  of  interpretation :  Confequently, 
Jesus  not  being  prophefied  of  in  the  Jewifti 
Writings,  his  pretenfions  are  falfe  and  groundlefs." 
— His  conciufion,  the  reader  fees,  Hands  on  the 
joint  fupport  of  thefe  two  Propofitions,  That  there 
is  no  Jewjjh  Prophecy  zvhich  relates  /<?  Jesus  in  a 
frimary  fenfe-,  and  That  a  fee  or.  dary  fenfe  is  enthu- 
fiaftical  and  unfcholaftic.  If  either  of  thefe  fail, 
hir,  phantom  of  a  conciufion  finks  again  into  nO' 
thing. 

Tho'  I  fhall  not  omit  occafionally  to  confute  the 
firft,  yet  it  is  the  falflioodof  the  fecond  I  am  prin- 
cipally concerned  to  expofc— That  there  are  Jew- 
ifh  prophecies  which  relate  to  Jesus  in  their  direft 
and  primary  fenfe,  hath  been  proved  with  much 
force  of  reafon  and  learning:  But,  th-^t fecondary 
Prophecies  are  not  enthuftajlical  and  unfcholaftic,  hath 
not  been  ihewn  and  infifted  on,  by  the  Writers  on 
this  queftion,  with  the  fame  advantage.  The 
truth  is,  the  nature  of  a  double  sense  in  Pro- 
phecies hath  been  fo  little  feen  or  enquired  into, 
that  fome  Divines  who  agree  in  nothing  elfe,  have 
yet  agreed  to  fecond  this  affertion  of  Mr.  Collins, 
and  with  the  fame  franknefs  and  confidence  to 
pronounce  x.h2X2i  double  fenfe  is  indeed  enthufiaftical 
and  unfcholaftic.  To  put  a  ftop  therefore  to  this 
growing  evil,  fown  firft  by  Socinus,  and  fince  be- 
come fo  peftilent  to  Revelation,  is  not  amongft- 
the  laft  purpofes  of  the  following  difcourfe. 

I.  It  hath  been  fliewn,  that  one  of  the  moft 
ancient  and  fimple  Modes  of  human  convcrfe  was 

com- 


Sedt.  6.       of  Moses  demonflrafed,  28 j 

communicating  the  conceptions  by  an  expreflive 
Action.  As  this  was  of  familiar  ufe  in  Civil  mat- 
ters, it  was  natural  to  carry  it  into  Religious^ 
Hence,  we  fee  God  giving  his  inftrudions  to  the 
Prophet,  and  the  Prophet  delivering  God's  com- 
mands to  the  People  in  this  very  manner.  Thus 
far  the  nature  of  the  attion,  both  in  civil  and  re- 
ligious matters,  is  exactly  the  fame. 

But  in  Religion  it  fometimes  happens  that  a 
STANDING  Information  is  necelTary,  and  there  the 
Adlion  muft  be  continually  repeated  :  This  is  done 
by  holding  out  the  particular  Truth,  (thus  to  be 
preferved)  in  a  rehgious  i?;V^.  Here  then  the  Ac- 
tion begins  to  chaage  its  nature  ;  and,  from  a  mere 
fignificative  mark,  of  only  arbitrary  import  like 
words  or  letters,  becomes  an  ad;ion  of  moral  import^ 
and  acquires  the  new  name  of  type.  Thus  God, 
intending  to  record  the  future  facrifice  of  Christ 
in  Adion,  did  it  by  the  periodic  Sacrifice  of  a  lamb 
'without  hlemijh.  This  was  not  merely  and  fo  direct- 
ly fignificative  of  Christ,  (like  the  Command  to 
Abraham)  but  being  a  religious  Rite  and  fo  having 
2l  moral  import^  it  \J2i%  typical^  tho' not  directly 
fignificative^  of  him.  The  very  fame  may  be  faid 
of  the  Temporal  rewards  of  the  Law ;  they  were 
properly  typical  of  the  Spiritual  rewards  of  the 
Gofpel,  and  had  a  moral  import  of  their  ovvn,  as  be- 
ing the  real  fandion  of  the  Law. 

Again,  It  hath  been  fhewn  ^,  how,  in  the  gra- 
dual cultivation  of  Speech,  the  expreflion  by  Ac^ 
;/^?;  was  improved  and  refined  into  an  allegory 
or  Parable  j  in  which  the  words  carry  a  double 
meaning  i  having  befides  their  obvious  fenfe  which 

y  Vol.  iv.  p.  322,  323, 

ferves 


^he  Dhine  Legation        Book  VI. 


ferves  only  for  the  Envelope,  one  more  material, 
and  hidden.  With  this  figure  of  fpeech  all  the  mo- 
ral writings  of  Antiquity  abound.  But  when  this 
figure  is  transferred  from  Civil  ufe  to  Religious,  and 
cm_pk)yed  in  the  writings  of  infpired  Men,  to  con- 
v<?y  information  of  particular  circumftances  in  two 
diftiflft  Difpenfations,  to  a  people  who  had  an  equal 
concern  in  both^  it  is  then  what  we  call  a  double 
SENSE  ;  and  undergoes  the  very  fame  change  of  its 
nature  that  an  expreffive  a^ion  underwent  when 
converted  into  a  Type;  that  is,  both  the  meanings, 
in  the  DOUBLE  SENSE,  are  of  msralimporl ;  where- 
as in  the  Allegory^  one  only  of  the  meanings  is  fo  : 
And  this,  (which  arifes  out  of  the  very  nature  of 
their  converfion,  from  Civil  to  Religious  matters) 
is  the  only  difference  between  expreffive  anions  and 
TYPES  J  and  between  allegories  and  double  senses, 

•^  From  hence  it  appears,  that  as  types  are  only 
rehoious  expreffive  Anions,  and  double  senses 
enly  religious  Allegories,  and  neither  receive  any 
change  but  what  the  very  manner  of  bringing  thofe 
Civil  figures  into  Religion  neceffarily  induces,  they 
muft  needs  have,  in  this  their  tralatitious  flate,  the 
fame  logical  fitness  they  had  in  their  naturals 

There- 

*  lienee  we  fee  the  vanity  of  Mr.  Whifton*^s  diftinflion, 
vk  ho  is  for  retaining  Tyfes  (neceflitated  thereunto  by  the  exprefs 
declarations  of  Holy  Writ)  and  for  rejeding  double  fenfes, 
*'  Mx.  Whifton  (fays  the  author  of  the  Grounds,  Is'c.)  juftifies 
**■  typical  arguing /^e;w  ibe  ritual  la<vji  p/"]VIofes,  and  from  paJJ'a- 
V  ges  of  H'Jlory  in  the  Old  Tejiament.  —  Indeed  he  pretends 
f  ibis  lall  to  be  quite  anoiker  thing  from  the  odd  (typical)  appli^ 
*'  cation  of  prophecies.  For  (fays  he)  the  ancient  ceremonial  in- 
*'  ftitutions  were,  as  to  their  principal  branches,  at  leaf  in  thetr 
•*  eiiin  nature.  Types  and  fhadows  of  future  good  things -»• 
**  But  the  Cffe  cf  the  ancient  prophecies  to  be  alled^ed  from  the  old 
**  Scriptures  for  the  confirmation  of  Chriftanity  is  quite  cf  another 
*'  ,Mtitrey  and  of  a  more  nice  and  ex  a^  confidcratian"  p.  227,  228, 


Se6l.  6.       of  Mos  ts  demonflraUd.         285 

Therefore  as  expreffive  A5iions,  &nd  .^llegmesy  m 
Civil  difcoLirfes,  are  efteemed  proper  and  reaToaa- 
ble  modes  of  information,  fo  muft  types  arad 
DOUBLE  SENSES  in  Religious ;  for  the  end  of  botk 
is  the  fame,  namely,  communication  -of  know- 
ledge. The  confequence  of  this  is,  that  Mr. 
Collins'  propofition,  that  a  fecondnry  or  double  fenfe 
is  enthufiafiical  and  unfcholafiic,  fthe  necelfary  fup- 
port  of  his  grand  Argument)  is  intirely  OV667. 
thrown. 

This  is  the  true  and  fimple  origin  of  types  and 
DOUBLE  SENSES;  which our  Adverfaries,  thro' ig- 
norance of  the  rife  and  progrefs  of  Speech,  a«d 
unacquaintance  with  ancient  Manners,  have  info- 
lently  treated  as  the  idue  of  diftempered  brains,  and 
the  fondlings  of  Vifionaries  and  Enthufiafts. 

II.  Having  thus  Ihewn  their  logical -propriety,  or 
that  they  are  rational  Modes  of  information,;!-,- 
come  now  to  vindicate  their  Religious  ufe,  and  to 
Ihew  that  they  are  well  fuited  to  that  Religion  in 
which  we  find  them  employed.  An  Objedljon 
which,  I  conceive,  may  be  made  to  this  ufe,  will 
lead  us  naturally  into  our  Argument.  The  objec- 
tion is  this :  "  It  hath  been  fhewn  %  that  thefe  ob- 
lique Modes  of  converfe,  tho'  at  firft  invented 
out  of  jtecej/ily,  for  general  information,  were  em- 
ployed, at  length,  10  z.myJlerious  fecretion  of  know- 
It  appears,  indeed,  they  are  of  a  more  nut  and  exa8  <onfidera~ 
tion,  even  from  Mr.  Whilton's  fo  much  millalcing  them,  as  ta 
fuppofe  they  are  of  a  7iature  quite  d'tffe'-ent  from  Types,  Bui  in- 
Head  of  telling  us  honelHy  that  he  knew  not  what  to  m^ke  of 
them,  he  plays  the  courtier  and  difmijTes  them,  for  a  more  nisi 
a  nd  ex  ail  conjideration, 

*  Vol.  iv.  p.  323,  i^  ft(i. 

kdge-. 


2S6  7lje  Divine  Legation      Book  VI. 

ledge;  which  tho'  it  might  be  expedient,  ufeful, 
and  even  neceflary  both  in  civil  matters  and  in 

FALSE  RELIGION,  COllld  neVCF  bc  fo  in  MORAL  MAT- 
TERS and  in  the  true  Religion  ;  for  this  having 
nothing  to  hide  from  any  of  its  followers,  Types 
and  Double  fenfes  (the  fame  my fterious  conveyance 
of  knowledge  in  Sacred  matters,  which  Allegoric 
words  or  Anions  are  in  Civil)  were  altogether  unfit 
to  be  employed  in  it." 

To  this  I  anfwer.  The  Jewish  religion,  in 
which  thefe  Types  and  Secondatj  fenfes  are  to  be 
found,  was  given  to  one  fingle  People  only ;  juft  as 
the  Christian  is  offered  to  all  Mankind  :  Now  the 
Chriftian,  as  Mr.  Collins  "^  hlmfelf  labours  to  prove, 
profeffes  to  be  grounded  on  the  Jewifli.  If  there- 
fore Chriftianity  was  not  only  profefledly,  but  really 
grounded  on  Judaifm  (and  the  fuppofition  is  ftridly 
logical  in  a  defence  oi  Types  and  Double  fenfes^  whole 
reality  depends  on  the  reality  of  that  relation) 
then  Judaifm  was  preparatory  to  Chriftianity,  and 
Chriftianity  the  ultimate  end  of  Judaifm  :  But  it  is 
not  to  be  fuppofed  that  there  fhould  be  an  intire 
filence  concerning  this  ultimate  Religion  during  the 
preparatory,  when  the  fiolice  of  it  was  not  only 

•>  *'  Chrijlianity  is  founded  on  Judai/m,  and  the  New  Tefta- 
<*  ment  on  the  Old  ;  and  Jesus  is  the  perfon  Hiid  in  the  New 
•*  Teftament  to  be  promifed  in  the  Old,  under  the  charadcr  of 
**  the  Messiah  of  the  Je-u^i,  who,  as  fuch  only  claims  the 
«*  obedience  and  fubmiffion  of  the  world.  Accordingly  it  is 
*•  the  defign  of  the  authors  of  the  New,  to  prove  all  the  parts 
•^  of  Chrijliatnty  from  the  Old  Tellamcnt,  which  is  faid  to  con- 
*•  tain  the  mcordt  of  eternal  life,  and  to  reprefent  Jesus  and  his 
*'  apgilles  as  fulfilling  by  their  miflion,  doftrines,  and  works, 
*«  the  prediftions  of  the  Prophets,  the  hiltorical  parts  of  the  Old 
*'  Tcftamenc,  and  the  Jewilh  Law  ;  which  lalt  is  exprefly  faid 
*•  to  prophe/y  of,  or  fjiij)  Chrillianicy."     Graunjs  and  Rcafons, 

i^c.  p.  4, 5. 

highly 


Scd.  6.        of  Most.  %  demoiiflrated.         2S7 

highly  proper,  but  very  expedient:  i.firft,  to  draw 
thole  under  the  preparatory  Religion,  by  juib  de- 
'grees  to  the  ultimate  •,  a  provifion  the  more  necef- 
fary,  as  the  nature  and  genius  of  the  two  Religions 
were  different,  the  one  carnal,  the  other  fpiritual. 
2.  fecondly,  to  afford  convincing  evidence  to  fu- 
ture Ages  of  the  truth  of  that  Ultimate  Religion  ; 
which  evidence,  a  circumftantial  prediftion  of  its 
advent  and  nature  fo  long  before  hand,  effe6lually 
does  afford  ^  The  Ultimate  Religion  therefore 
muft  have  had  fome  notice  given  of  it,  in  the  Pre- 
paratory ;  and  nothing  was  better  fitted  for  this 
purpofe  than  the  hyperbolical  genius  of  the  eailern 
Speech.  Thus,  when  Ifaiah  fays.  Unto  us  a  child 
is  hortiy  unto  us  a  fon  is  given^  and  the  government 
jhall  be  upon  his  Jlooulder :  And  his  name  jjj all  he  call- 
ed^ Wonderful^  Councellor^  ^he  mi'ghty  Gody  the  ever^ 
lafiing  Father^  the  Prince  of  Peace ^  Mr.  Collins  ob- 
ferves,  it  is  the  eaftern  hyperbole  which  prevents 
our  feeing  that  a  Jewifh  Monarch  is  literally  and 
direflly  fpoken  of.  Should  we  allow  this,  yet  we 
Itill  fee,  thatfuch  a  language  was  admirably  fitted 

*  The  Bilhop  of  London,  in  his  Di/courfes  on  the  XJfe  and  Intent 
cf  Prophejy^  feemed  to  have  but  a  {lender  idea  of  this  ufe  when 
he  wrote  as  follows  — "  There  was  no  occafion  (fays  he)  to 
**  lay  in  fo  long  before  hand  the  evidence  of  prophecy,  to  con- 
"  vince  men  of  things  that  were  to  happen  in  their  own  times : 
*'  and  it  gives  us  a  lonu  idea  of  the  adminiji ration  of  Providence 
*'  in  fending  Prophets  one  after  another  in  every  age  from  Adam 
**  to  Chrift,  to  imagine  that  all  this  apparatus  was  for  their  fakes 
**  who  lived  in  or  after  the  times  of  Chrift."  p.  37.  But 
fuch  is  the  way  of  thefe  Writers  who  have  a  favourite  dodlrine 
to  inforce.  The  truth  of  that  dodrine  (if  it  haf)pen  to  be  a 
truth)  is  fupported  at  the  expence  of  all  others.  Thus  his 
Lordfhip,  fetting  himfelf  to  prove  that  Prophecv  <v:as  gi'ven  prin- 
cipally tojupport  the  faith  and  Religion  of  the  World,  tiiought  he 
could  not  iufficiently  fecure  his  point  without  weakening  and 
xlifcrediting  another  of,  at  leaft,  equal  importance, — That  it  n.vas 
gi'ven  to  affurd  tejlimffny  to  the  mijjion  cf  fefus, 

ta 


288  The  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

to  conneft  together  the  Jirjt  3.ndfecond  Senfes :  the 
hyperhle  becoming  a  fimple  fpeecB^  when  transfer- 
red from  a  Jewilli  Monarch  to  the  Monarch  of  the 
world. 

Our  next  inquiry  will  be,  in  ivhat  manner  this 
notice  muft  needs  be  given.  Now  the  nature  of 
the  thing  Ihews  us  it  could  not  be  direftly  and 
openly,  fo  as  to  be  underftood  by  the  People,  at  the 
time  of  giving :  becaufe  this  would  have  defeated 
God's  intermediate  purpofe  j  which  was  to  train 
them,  by  a  long  difcipline,  under  his  preparatory 
Difpenfation.  For,  this  being  a  Religion  founded 
only  on  temporal  Sanations,  and  burdened  with  a 
minute  and  tirefome  Ritual^  had  the  People  known 
it  to  be  only  preparatory  to  another,  founded  on 
better  Promifes  and  eafier  Obfervances,  they  would 
never  have  born  the  yoke  of  the  Law,  but  would 
have  Ihaken  off  their  fubjedlion  to  Mofes  before 
the  fulnefs  of  'Time  had  brought  their  fpiritual  De- 
liverer amongft  them-,  as,  without  this  knowledge, 
they  were  but  too  apt  to  do,  on  every  imaginary 
profpe«5l  of  advantage.  But  St.  Chrysostom  will 
inforce  this  obfervation  with  more  advantage. 
"  Had  the  Jews  (fays  hej  been  taught  from  the 
*'  beginning  that  their  Law  was  temporary  and  to 
*'  have  an  end,  they  would  have  certainly  defpifed 
*'  it.  On  this  account,  it  feemed  good  to  the  di- 
*'  vine  Wifdom  to  throw  a  veil  of  obfcurity  over  the 
"  Prophecies  which  related  to  the  Chriftian  Dif- 
*'  penfation**.'*  This  information,  therefore,  was 
to  be  delivered  with  caution  ;  and  conveyed  under 
the  covert  language  of  their  prefent  QEconomy. 
Hence  arofe  the  fit  and  neceflary  ufe  of  types  and 
SECONDARY  SENSES.     For  the  only  fafe  and  laft- 

*•  Homilia  prima,  De  prophetarum  chfcuritate, 

7  ^"S 


Sed.  6.       of  Mo  s E  s  demonfirated.  289 

ing  means  of  conveyance  were  their  public  ritu- 
al, and  the  writings  of  the  prophets.  4-nd  a 
Speaking  a£iion^  and  d.n  Allegoric  fpeech^  when  thus 
employed,  had  all  the  fecrecy  that  the  occafion 
required.  We  have  oblerved,  that  in  the  fimpler 
ufe  of  fpeaking  by  A^ion^  the  Adlion  itfclf  hath 
no  moral  import :  and  lb,  the  information  having 
but  one  moral  meaning,  that  which  it  conveys 
is  clear  and  intelligible.  But  where  a  Rite  of 
Religion  is  ufed  for  this  Speaking  allien,  there 
the  adion  hath  a  moral  import ;  and  fo  the  informa- 
tion having  two  moral  meanings,  that  which  it  con- 
veys is  more  obfcure  and  niyfterious  Hence  it 
appears  that  this  mode  of  fpeakmg  by  aRion^  called 
a  TYPE,  is  exadly  fitted  for  the  information  in 
queftion.  Juft  fo  it  is  again  with  the  secondary 
SENSE  :  In  the  mere  allegory^  the  reprefenting 
image  has  no  moral  import:  mth^ fecojtdary  fenfe^ 
for  a  contrary  reafon,  (which  the  very  terra 
imports)  the  reprefenting  image  hath  a  moral  im- 
port J  and  fo,  acquires  the  fame  fitting  obfcurity 
with  information  by  Types.  For  the  typical  Ritual, 
and  the  double  Prophecy,  had  each  its  obvious  fenfe 
in  the  prefent  nature  and  future  fortune  of  the 
Jewifh  Religion  and  Republic.  And  here  we  are 
eafily  led  into  the  elTential  difference  (fo  much  to 
the  honour  of  Revelation)  between  the  Pagan 
Oracles  or  Prophecies,  and  the  Jewilh,  The 
obfcurity  of  the  Pagan  arofe  from  the  ambiguity^ 
equivocation  or  jargon  of  expression  i  the  obfcurity 
of  the  Jewifh  from  the  figurative  reprefentation  of 
THINGS.  The  Firft  (independent  of  any  other  Re- 
ligion) proceeded  from  ignorance  of  futurity  j  the 
Latter,  dependent  on  the  Chriftian,  proceeded 
from  the  necelTity  that  thofe  to  whom  the  Prophe- 
cies were  delivered  Ihouid  not  have  too  full  a  know- 
ledge of  tlicm. 
.  Vol.  V.  U  Or, 


290  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  VL 

Dr.  Middleton,  indeed,  would  fain  perfuade  us, 
that  the  Oracles,  or,  as  he  chufes  to  call  thetn,  the 
Prophecies  of  the  Pythian  Apollo,  were  neither  bet- 
ter nor  worfe,  but  exadtly  of  the  fame  abfurd  con- 
ftrudtion  with  the  Scripture  Prophecies.  He  would 
hardly  venture  to  controvert  what  I  have  faid  of 
their  logical  fitnefs  and  propriety,  as  a  mode  of  in- 
formation in  the  abftra6t,  becaufe  this  would  fhew 
him  ignorant  of  the  nature  and  progrefs  of  human 
converle.  Much  lefs,  I  fuppofe,  would  he  fay,  that 
this  mode  of  information  was  not  fuited  to  the 
genius  of  the  Jewifh  Religion  ;  fmce  he  owns  that 
to  be  only  a  preparatory  Syftem  calculated  to 
open  and  to  prepare  the  way  for  one  moreperfe(ft; 
and  confeqnently,  that  it  muft  be  ib  contrived  as 
to  connetl,  and  at  the  fame  time  to  hide  from  the 
vulgar  eye,  the  two  parts  of  the  Difpenfation,  and 
the  relation  they  have  to  one  another.  Now  there 
is  no  conceivable  way  of  doing  this  but  by  types 
and  fccondary  fenfes.  What  then  occafioned  this 
infult  upon  them  ?  That  which  fupports  all 
our  free  Writers  in  their  contemptuous  treat- 
ment of  Religion,  their  miftaklng  the  abuse 
of  the  thing  for  the  thing  itself  ;  and  giving 
the  interpretations  of  men,  or  the  Doctrines  of 
Churches,  for  Articles  of  faith  or  Scripture  hiftory. 
What  hath  been  here  faid  will  fhow  the  extreme 
weaknefs  of  this  ingenious  man's  parallel  between 
the  Scripture  Prophecies  and  the  Oracles  of  the  Py- 
thian Apollo. — ''  The  PROPHECIES  of  the  Pythian 
*'  Apollo  (fays  he)  were  indeed  obibure,  equivocal 
*'  and  ambiguous,  admitting  not  only  different  but 
*'  contrary  fenfes  ;  lb  that  the  charader  here  given 
"  of  the  Scripture  Prophecies  was  undoubtedly 
*'  true  of  them,  that  no  event  could  rejlraln  them  to 
•*  one  deterniumte  fenfe,  when  they  zvere  origi?ially 
"  capable  of  many.     For  if  the  obvious  fcnfe  failed, 

as 


Se<fl.  6.       g/^  Moses   demonjl rated.  i^gi 

*'  as  it  often  did,  to  the  ruin  of  thofe  who  adted 
**  upon  it,"  there  was  another  always  in  referve,  to 
"  fecure  the  veracity  of  the  Oracle  :  till  this  very 
**  charafter  of    its  ambiguous   and   senigmatical 
"  lenfes,  confirmed  by  conitant  obfervation,  gra- 
"  dually  funk  its  credit  and  finally  detec5led  the 
"  impofture  *"."      The  prophecies  of   the   Pythian 
Apollo  were  ohfcure,  equivocal  and  ambiguous.    And 
this  (fays  he)  was  the  character  of  the  Scripture 
Prophecies,     Juft    otherwife,    as    is    ittn    above. 
Scripture   Prophecies  were  ohfcure  -,  but  the  ob- 
fcurity  arofe  neither  from  equivocation  nor  ambiguity 
(which  two  qualities  proceed  from  the  expression) 
but  from   the  figurative  reprefentation  of  things. 
So  that  the  obfcurity^  which  the  Pythian  Oracle 
and  the  Scripture  Prophecies   had  in   common, 
arifingfrom  the  mod  different  grounds,  the  charac- 
ter given  of  the  Oracles,  that  no  event  could  reflrain 
them  to  one  determinate  fenfe  when  they  were  originally 
capable  of  many^  by  no  means  belongs  to  the  Scrip- 
ture Prophecies,    whatever    the   men    he    writes 
againft    (who  appear   to   know   as  little  of   the 
DOUBLE   SENSE   of  Prophccics  as  himfelf)  might 
imagine.     For  tho'  equivocal  and  ambiguous  expres- 
sion may  make  a  fpeech  or  writing,  where  the  ob- 
jedts  are   unconfined,  capable  of  many  fenfeSy  yet 
a  figurative  reprefentation  of  things  can  give  no 
more  fenfes  than  two  to  the  obfcureft  Prophecy. 
Hence  it  will  follow,  that  while  the  expedient  in 
fupporting  the  Pythian  Oracles,  by  having  a  fenfe 
always  in  referve  to  fatisfy  the  inquirer,  would  gra- 
dually fink  their  credit  and  fimally  dete£l  the  inpofiure\ 
the  difcovery  of  a  secondary   sense  of  Prophe- 
cy, relative  to  the  completory  Difpenfation,  will 

'  Examination  of  the  Bifliop  of  London's  Difcourfcs  on  Pro- 
phecy, &c.  p.  89-90. 

U  2  necef. 


2<)i  ^he  'Divine  Legation       Book.  VI, 

neceffarily  tend  to  confirm  and  eftablifh  the  divine 
origin  of  Scripture  Prophecy. 

Such   was  the  wonderful  ceconomy  of    divine 
Wifdom,  in  connedting  together  two  dependent 
Religions,    the  parts  of  one  grand  Difpenfation : 
by    this  means,    making  one  preparatory  of  the 
other;  and  each  mutually  to  refle6t  light  upon  the 
other.     Hence  we  fee  the  defperate  humour  of  that 
learned  man,  tho'  very   zealous  chriftian  \  who, 
becaufe  moft  of  the  prophecies  relating  to  Jesus, 
in  the  Old  Tellament,  are  of  the  nature  defcribed 
above,  took  it  into  his  head  that  the  Bible  was 
corrupted  by  the  enemies  of  Jesus.     Whereas,  on 
the  very  fuppofition  of  a  mediate  and  an  ultimate 
Religion,  which  this  good   man   held,  the  main 
body  of  Prophecies  in  the  Old  Teftament  relating 
to  the  New,  muit,  according  to  all  our  ideas  of  fit- 
nefs  and  expediency,  needs   be  prophecies  with  a 
DOUBLE    SENSE.     But  it  is  the  ufual  fupport  of 
folly  ro  throw  its  ditlreiTcs  upon  knavery.     And 
thus,   as  we  obfervcd,  the  Mahometan    likewife, 
who  pretends  to  claim  under  the  Jewifli  religion, 
not  finding  the  doftrine  of  2l  future  fiat  e  of  rewards 
and  punifJjments  in  the  Law,  is  as  pofitive  that  the 
Jews  have  corrupted  tlieir  own  fcriptures  in  pure 
fpite  to  his  great  Prophet  ^. 

III.  Having 

t   Mr.  Whlfton. 

s  This  account  of  Typcn  and  fecondnry  fcnfes,  which  fup- 
pore=i  they  were  intencled  to  conceal  ths  tlodrines  delivered 
under  them,  is  To  very  natural,  and,  as  would  leem,  reafonable, 
that  Dr.  titcbbiii^;  himfelf  fubfctibes  to  it.  And  hence  occafion 
iias  been  taken  by  a  moll  acute  and  able  Writer  to  expofe  his 
prt^arication,  ia maintaining  tiiat  the  lews  had  the  rebelled  Doc- 
trine of  a  Future  Siaic  :  For  the  Doftor  not  only  confeiTes  that 
the  DoiUine  was  revealed  under  Types,  but  tlwt  Do.lrines, 

thos 


Sfi(3:.  6.       5/' Moses   demojijlrated.  293 

III.  Having  thus  fhewn  the  reafonable  life  and 
great  expediency  of  thefe  modes  of  facred  informa- 
tion, under  the  Jewifli  CEconomy ;  the  next  que- 
ftion  is.  Whether  they  be  indeed  there.  This  we 
fhall  endeavour  to  Ihew. — And  that  none  of  the  ■ 
common  prejudices  may  lie  againil  our  reafoning, 
the  example  given  fhall  be  of  types  and  double 
SENSES  employed  even  in  fubjeds  relating  to  the 
Jewijh  dipenfation  only. 

I.  The  whole  ordinance  of  the  pajfover  was  a 
TYPE  of  the  redemption  from  Egypt.  The  ftriking 
the  blood  on  the  fide-pofts,  the  eating  flelh  with 
unleavened  bread  and  bitter  herbs,  and  in  a  po- 
fture  of  departure  and  expedition,  were  all  fignifi- 
cative  of  their  bondage  and  deliverance.  This  will 
admit  of  no  doubt,  becaufe  the  Inftitutor  himfelf 
has  thus  explained  the  T^ype. — And  thcufoalt  Jhew 
thy  fon^  (fays  he)  in  that  day.,  [(^y'^'ng^  This  is  done 
becaufe  of  that  which  the  Lord  did  unto  me,  when  'I 
came  forth  out  of  Egypt.  And  it  fhall  he  afign  unto, 
thee  upon  thine  hand.,  and  for  a  memorial  between  thine 
eyes  ;  that  the  Lord's  law  may  he  in  thy  mouth. 
For  with  afirong  hand  hath  the  Lord  brought  thee 
out  of  Egypt.  'Thou  fhalt  therefore  keep  this  ordi- 
nance in  his  feafon  from  year  to  year^.  As  there- 
fore it  was  of  the  genius  of  thefe  holy  Rites  to  be 
Typical  or  iignificative  of  God's  paft,  prefent,  and 
future  Difpenfations  to  his  people,  we  cannot  in  the 

thu5  conveyed,  were  purpofely  fecreted  from  the  knowledge  of 
the  ancient  Jews.  See  the  Argument  of  the  Di'vine  Legatiott 
fairly  Jlated',  p.  125.  And  the  free  and  candid  Examination  cf 
Bijhop  Sherlock's  Sermons,  &c.  chap.  ii.  where  the  controverfy 
on  this  point  is  fairly  determined,  as  far  as  truth  and  lealbn  c^ft 
determine  any  thing. 

^  ExoD,  viii.  8,  iS  feq.  ^ 

U  ^  ?eaft 


294  ^^^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

leaft  doubt,  but  that  Mofes^  had  he  not  been  re- 
trained by  thofe  important  confiderations  explain- 
ed above,  would  have  told  them  xh^LX.  xht  facrifice 
of  the  lamb  without  blcmi/Ji  was  a  Type,  a  fign  or 
memorial  of  the  death  of  Christ. 

2.  "With  regard  to  double  senses,  take  this 
inftance  from  Joel :  who,  in  his  prediftion  of  an 
approaching  ravage  by  Locujls,  foretels  likewife, 
in  the  fame  words,  a  fucceeding  defolation  by  the 
JJfyrian  army.  For  we  are  to  obferve  that  this 
was  God's  method  both  in  warning  and  inpunifh- 
ing  afinful  people.  Thus,  when  the /even  nations 
for  their  exceeding  wickednefs  were  to  be  exter- 
minated, God  promifes  his  chofen  people  to  fend 
hornets  before  them,  which  fhould  drive  out  the  Hivite, 
the  Canaanite,  and  the  Hittite  from  before  them  \ 
Now  Joel,  under  one  and  the  fame  Prophecy, 
eoDtained  in  the  firft  and  fecond  Chapters  of  his 

'  ExOD.  xxif.  28.  This,  the  author  of  the  book  called  the 
IVi/dim  of  Solomon  admirably  paraphrafes  : — *'  p'or  it  was  thy 
"  will  to  deliroy  by  the  bands  of  our  fathers  both  thofe  old 
**  inhabitants  of  thy  holy  land,  whom  thou  hatedft  for  doinp- 
**  mcrt  odious  works  of  witchcrafts,  and  wicked  facrifices  ;  and 
"  alfo  thofe  mercilefs  murderers  of  children,  and  devourers  of 
"  man's  flelh,  and  the  fealls  of  blood,  with  their  priefts  out 
"  of  the  midft  of  their  idolatrous  crew,  and  the  parents  that 
**  tilled,  with  their  own  hands,  fouls  dcftitute  of  help:  That 
♦*  the  Lnd  which  thou  efteemcdrt  above  all  other  might  receive 
•'  a  woriliy  colony  of  God's  children.  Neverthelefs  even  thofe 
"  ihou  fparedll  as  men,  and  didji  fend  'nvafps,  fcrerunners  of 
*'  thine  hoji,  to  deltroy  them  by  little  and  little.  Not  that  thou 
*'  waft  ufiable  to  bring  the  ungodly  under  the  hand  of  the 
*'  righteous  in  battle,  or  to  dcftroy  them  at  once  with  cruet 
<'  beajisy  or  vviih  one  rough  word :  But  executing  thy  judg- 
•'  ments  upon  them  by  little  and  little,  thou  gavcft  them  place 
•*  of  repentance,  not  being  ignorant  that  they  were  a  naughty 
*'  pcneration,  and  that  their  malice  was  bred  in  them,  and  that 
*•  their  cogitation  would  never  he  changed,"  Chap.  xii.  ver.  3. 
Cffeo. 

books 


Sei5t.6.       of  Moses   demojiflrated.         295 

book,  foretels,  as  w€  fay,  both  thefe  plagues;  the 
locufis  in  the  primary  fenfe,  and  the  JJjyrian  army 
in  the  fecondary—''^  Awake,  ye  drunkards,  and 
«  weep  and  howl  all  ye  drinkers  of  wine,  becaufe 
«  of  the  new  wine,  for  it  is  cut  off  from  your 
"  mouth.  For  a  nation  is  come  up  upon  my 
"  land,  ftrong  and  without  number  ;  whofe  teeth 
"  are  the  teeth  of  a  lion,  and  he  hath  the  cheek- 
«  teeth  ofa  great  lion.  He  hath  laid  my  vine  wade, 
"  and  barked  my  fig-tree  •,  he  hath  made  it  clean 
"  bare,  and  caft  it  away,  'the  branches  thereof  are 
"  made  white  — The  field  is  wafted,  the  land 
«  mourneth  -,  for  the  corn  is  wafted :  The  new 
"  wine  is  dried  up,  the  oil  languiftieth.  Be  ye 
"  aftiamed,  O  ye  huft^and-men:  Howl,  O  ye 
*'  vine-dreflers,  for  the  wheat  and  for  the  barley ; 
"  becaufe  the  harveft  of  the  field  is  periftied\— 
"  Blow  ye  the  trumpet  in  Zion,  and  found  aa 
"  alarm  in  my  holy  mountain.  Let  all  the  inhabi- 
«  tants  of  the  land  tremble :  for  the  day  of  the 
«  Lord  cometh,  for  it  is  nigh  at  hand.  A  day  of 
"  darknefs  and  of  gloominefs,  a  day  of  clouds 
"  and  of  thick  darknefs,  as  the  morning  fpread 
"  upon  the  mountains :  a  great  people  and  a  ftrong, 
*'  there  hath  not  been  ever  the  like — A  fire  de- 
*'  voureth  before  them,  and  behind  them  a  fiame 
*'  burneth :  The  land  is  as  the  garden  of  Eden 
''  before  them,  and  behind  them  a  defolate  wil- 
"  dernefs,  yea,  and  nothing  (hall  efcape  them. 
"  The  appearance  of  them  is  as  the  appearance  of 
'*  horfes,  and  as  horfe-men  fo  (hall  they  run.  Like 
"  the  noife  of  chariots  on  the  tops  of  mountains 
<'  fhall  they  leap,  like  the  noife  of  a  flame  of  fire  that 
"  devoureth  the  ftubble,  as  a  ftrong  people  fet  in 
♦*  battle  array.    Before  their  face  the  people  ftiall 

V  Chsp.  '.  ver.  5,  ^^feq. 

U   4  ^^ 


296  ^he  Divi?ie  Legation        Book.  VI. 

**  be  much  pained  :  all  faces  fhall  gather  blacknefs. 
"  They  fhall  run  like  mighty  men,  they  fhall  climb 
"  the  wall  like  men  of  war,  and  they  fliall  march 
"  every  one  on  his  ways,  and  they  fhall  not  break 
*'  their  ranks  i  neither  fhall  one  thruft  another,  they 
"  fhall  walk  every  one  in  his  path  :  and  when  they 
<*  fall  upon  the  fword,  they  fhall  not  be  wounded. 
"  They  Ihall   run  to  and  fro  in  the   city :  they 
*'  fhall  run  upon  the  wall,  they  fhall  climb  up  upon 
**  the  houfes :  they  fhall  enter  in  at  the  windows  like 
"  a  thief.   The  earth  fliali  quake  before  them,  the 
*'  heavens  fhall  tremble,  the  fun  and  the  moon 
"  fhall  be  dark,  and  the  ftars  fhall  withdraw  their 
^«  fhining'." 

The  fine  converfion  of  the  fubjedls  is  remark- 
able. The  prophecy  is  delivered  in  the  firft  chap- 
ter, —  ylwake,  ye  drunkards^  &cc.  and  repeated  in 
the  fecond  —  Blow  ye  the  trumpet  in  Zion,  &c.  In 
the  firfl  chapter,  the  locusts  are  dcfcribed  as  a 
people; — For  a  nation  is  come  tip  upon  my  land,  ft^ong 
and  without  number.  But,  that  we  may  not  be  mif- 
taken  in  the  primary  fenfe,  namely  the  plague 
of  locufts,  the  ravages  defcribed  are  the  ravages 
of  infefts :  I'hey  lay  ivajle  the  vine,  they  bark  the  fig- 
tree,  make  the  branches  clean  bare,  and  wither  the 
corn  and  fruit-trees.  In  the  fecond  chapter,  the 
hoftile  PEOPLE   are  defcribed  as  locujls  : — as  the 

MORNING     SPREAD    UPON    THE     MOUNTAINS.       The 

appearance  of  them  is  as  the  appearance  of  horfes, 
and  AS  horfemen  fo  floall  they  run,  as  a  firong  peo- 
ple fet  in  bat  de  array.  They  fjjall  run  like  mighty 
men,  they  fio all  climb  the  wall  like  men  of  war.  But 
that  we  may  not  miflake  the  secondary  fenfe, 
nannely  the  invafion  of  a  foreign  enemy,  they  arc 

'  Chap.  ji.  vcr.  1  to  11. 

com-; 


SeA.  6:'  'of  Moses   demonjrated.  297 

compared,  we  fee,  to  a  mighty  army.     This  art, 
in  the  contexture  of  the  Prophecy,  is  truly  divine; 
and  renders  all  chicane  to  evade  a  double fenfe  in- 
effedual.     For  in  fome  places  of  this  Prophecy, 
dearth  by  infe^fs  muft   needs    be  underftood ;  jn 
others,  defolation  by  war.     So  that  both  fenfes  are 
of  neceffity  to  be  admitted.     And  here  let  me  ob- 
ferve,  that  had  the  Commentators  on   this   Pro- 
phecy but  attended  to  the  nature  of  t\it  double  fenfe^ 
they  would  not  have  fuffered  themfelves  to  be  fo  em- 
barralTed  ;  nor  have  fpent  fo  much  time  in  freeing 
the  Prophet  from  an  imaginary  embarras  (though 
at  the  expence  of  the  context)  on  account  of  the 
f^me  Prophecy's  having  in  one  part  that  fignifica- 
tion ^m^^ry,  which,  in  another,  is  fecondary.     A 
circumftance  fo  far  from  making  an  inaccuracy, 
that  it  gives  the  higheft  elegance  to  the  difcourfe  ; 
and  joins  the  two  fenfes  fo  clofely  as  to  obviate  all 
pretence  for  a  divifion,  to  the  injury  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.     Here  then  we  have  a  double  sense,  not 
arifing  from  the  interpretation  of  a   fmgle  verfe, 
and  fo  obnoxious  to  miftake,  but  of  a  whole  and 
very  large  defcriptive  Prophecy. 

But  as  this  fpecies  of  double  prophecy,  when  con- 
fined to  the  events  of  one  fingle  Difpenfation,  takes 
off  the  moft  plaufible  objedion  io primary  and  fecon- 
dary  fenfes  in  general,  it  may  not  be  improper  to 
give  another  inllance  of  it,  which  fhall  be  taken 
from  a  Time  when  one  would  leaft  expedl  to  find 
a  double  prophecy  employed,  I  mean,  under  the 
Gofpel-Difpenfation.  I  have  obferved,  fomewhere 
or  other,  that  the  CEconomy  of  Grace  having 
little  or  nothing  to  hide  or  to  ihadow  out,  like  the 
Law,  it  had  fmall  occafion  for  typical  Rites  or 
Celebrations,  or  for  Prophecies  with  a  double  fenfe ; 
^nd  that  therefore  they  ^ve  not  to  be  expeded, 

nor 


29^  '^'^^  D/i-w  Legation       Book  Vf. 

nor  indeed,  arc  they  to  be  found,  under  the  Gof- 
pel. 

Yet  the  example  I  am  about  to  give  is  an  11- 
luftrious  exception  to  this  general  truth.  The  ex- 
planation of  this  example  will  rettify  a  great  deal 
of  embarras  and  miilake  concerning  it,  and,  at 
th.^  fame  time,  fupport' the  general  Truth.  The 
Prophefy  I  mean,  is  that  in  which  Jefus  foretels 
his  FIRST  and  second  coming  in  Judgment,  not 
only  under  the  fame  ideas,  but  in  one  and  the  fame 
Prediftion,  as  it  is  recorded,  in  nearly  the  fame 
terms,  by  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke;  tho*  omit- 
ted by  St.  John,  for  the  reafon  hereafter  to  be 
given. 

But  to  comprehend  the  full  import  of  this  Pro- 
phecy, it  will  be  proper  to  confidcr  the  occafion  of 
it.  Jefus  after  having  warmly  upbraided  the  Scribes 
and  Pharifees,  whom  he  found  in  the  Temple, 
with  their  fuperftitious  abufes  of  the  Law  -, — with 
their  averfion  to  be  reformed  j — and  their  obftinate 
rcjeftion  of  their  promifed  Meffiah;  left  them 
with  a  dreadful  denunciation  of  the  ruin ""  then 
hanging  over  their  Civil  and  Religious  Policy. 
His  Difciples  who  followed  him  thro' the  Temple, 
greatly  affefled  with  thefe  tiireats,  and  yet  pof- 
fefied  with  the  national  prejudice  of  the  Eternity 
of  the  Law.  pointed,  as  he  paffed  along,  at  the 
Temple  Buildings,  and  defired  him  to  obferve 
the  Itupendous  folidity  and  magnificence  of  the 
"Work.  As  much  as  to  fay,  "  Here  are  no  marks 
of  that  fpeedy  deftruftion  which  you  have  juft  now 
predicted  :  on  the  contrary,  this  mighty  Mnfs  feems 
calculated    to  endure  till  the  general  diifolution 

■  Matt,  xxiii.     Mark  xji.  •;5.     Lu-tiK  x«i.  45. 

of 
6 


StGt,  6.       o/'  M  0  s  E  s  demonfirated.  299 

of  all  things."  To  which,  Jefus,  underftanding 
their  thoughts,  replied,  that  in  a  very  little  time 
there  Jliould  not  be  left  one  ft  one  upon  another^  of  all 
the  wonders  they  faw  before  them.  And  from 
thence  takes  occafion  to  prophefy  of  the  fpeedy- 
dcftrudion  of  the  Jewilh  Nation.  But  as  the  bare 
prediftion  of  the  ruin  of  that  fplendid  CEconoiny 
would  be  likely  to  fcandalize  thefe  carnal-minded 
men,  while  they  faw  nothing  eredted  in  its  Head, 
by  their  Mefllah  and  Deliverer,  it  feemed  good  to 
divine  Wildom  to  reprefent  this  deftrudion  under 
the  image  of  their  MefTiah's  coming  to  execute 
judgment  on  the  devoted  City,  and  of  his  raifing 
a  new  CEconomy  on  its  ruin  ;  as  was  done  by  the 
eftablifhment  of  the.Chriftian  Policy  °. 

But  yet,  as  this  was  to  be  unattended  with  the 
circumftances  of  exterior  grandeur.  He  relieves 
the  pidture  of  the  Church-militant^  creeled  on  his 
firft  coming  to  judge  Jerusalem,  with  all  the 
fplendours  of  the  Church  triumphant^  which  were 
to  be  difplayed  at  his  fecond  coming  to  judge 
THE  World.  And  this,  which  was  fo  proper  for 
the  ornament,  and  ufeful  for  the  dignity  of  the 
Scene,  was  neceffary  for  the  completion  of  the 
Subjedl,  which  was  a  full  and  entire  view  of  the 
JOifpenfation  of  Grace,  Thus,  as  Joel  in  one  and 
the  fame  defcription  had  combined  the  previous 
ravages  of  the  Locufts  with  the  fucceeding  de- 
vaftations  of  the  AfTyrians,  fo  here,  Jesus  hath 
embroidered  into  one  Piece  the  intermediate  judgr 
ment  of  the  Jews,  and  the  final  Judgment  of 
mankind". 

"  See  Julian,  or  a  DJ/caur/e  concerning  his  attempt  to  rebuild 
the  Temple. 

•  Matt.  xxiv.    Mark  xiii.    Luke  xxi. 

Let 


30O  The  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

Let  us  now  fee  what  there  was  in  the  notions  and 
language  of  the  Jewifh  People  that  facilitated  the 
eafy  introdudlion  of  t]\^  fecondary  fenfe ;  and  gave  the 
ftyle,  which  was  proper  to  that  fenfe,  an  exprefTive 
elegance  when  applied  to  the  primary. 

The  Jews,  befotted  with  their  fancied  Eternity 
of  the  Law,  had  entertained  a  notion  that  the  de- 
ftrufbion  of  Jerufalem  was  to  be  immediately  fol- 
lowed with  the  deftrudion  of  the  World.  This 
made  the  clofenefs  in  the  connexion  between  the 
primary  and  fecondary  fenfe  of  the  defcriptive  pro- 
phecy, eafy  and  natural  •,  and  as  it  made  the  two 
deftrudions  fcarce  dividual,  fo  it  left  no  room  to 
diftinguifh,  in  any  formal  manner,  between  the 
Jirfi  ^and  fecond  coming  in  Judgment. 

The  old  prophetic  language  was  of  equal  ufe  and 
advantage  to  interweave  the  two  fenfes  into  one 
another,  which  the  notion  here  mentioned  had 
drawn  together  and  combined.  The  change  of 
Magiftracy,  the  fall  of  Kingdoms,  and  the  revolu- 
tions of  States  are  defcribed,  in  the  old  language 
of  infpiration,  by  difafters  in  the  Heavens,  by  the 
fall  of  Stars,  and  by  eclipfes  of  the  greater  Lu- 
minaries. This  admirably  ferved  the  purpofe  of 
conveying  both  events  under  the  fame  fet  of 
images  •,  indeed,  under  one  and  the  fame  defcrip- 
tion  •,  namely,  the  dellruftion  of  Jerufalem  in  the 
FIGURATIVE  Icnfc  i  and  the  dellrudion  of  the  world 
in  the  literal. — The  fun  Jhall  he  darkened  and  the 
moon  JJmll  not  give  her  light :  and  thejlars  of  heaven 
Jhall  fall,  and  the  powers  that  are  in  heaven  fJjall  be 
Jhaken.  And  they  Jhall  fee  the  Son  of  man  coming  in 
the  Clouds  with  great  power  and  glory  *, 

r  Mark  xiiit  24— 5— ^.     Matt.  xxiv.  29—30. 

So 


Se6t.  6.      of  Moses  demo?iJirated,  301 

So  that  we  fee,  the  reprefentation  of  a  </t?«^/ff 
y^w/^  in  this  Prophecy  hath  all  the  eafe,  and  ftrength, 
and  art,  which  we  can  conceive  pofllble  to  enter 
into  a  facred  information  of  this  nature.  And 
the  clofe  contexture  of  its  parts  is  fo  far  from  ob- 
fcuring  any  thing  in  the  two  great  correlative  pic- 
tures, portrayed  upon  it,  that  it  ferves  to  render 
each  more  diilindt,  and  better  defined.  Different 
indeed  in  this  from  mofc  of  the  Jewilh  Prophecies 
of  the  fame  kind:  And  the  reafon  of  the  difference 
is  obvious.  In  the  Jewilh  Prophecies,  the  fecon- 
daryfenfe,  relating  to  matters  in  another  Difpenfa- 
tion,  was  of  neceffity  to  be  left  obfcure,  as  unfuit- 
able  to  the  knowledge  of  the  time  in  which  the 
Prophecy  was  delivered.  Whereas  the  Jirft  and 
feccndary  fenfes  of  the  Prophecy  before  us,  were 
equally  objective  to  the  contemplation  of  Chrift's 
Difciples  i  as  the  two  capital  parts  of  the  Dif- 
penfation  to  which  they  were  now  become  fub- 
jea. 

But  it  will  be  fald,  "  That  before  all  this  pains 
had  been  taken  to  explain  the  beauties  of  the  double 
fenfe,  we  fhould  have  proved  the  exijience  of  it ; 
■  fince,  according  to  our  own  account  of  the  matter, 
the  magnificent  terms  employed,  which  are  the 
principal  mark  of  a  secondary  fenfe,  are  the 
common  prophetic  Language  to  exprefs  the  fub- 
jed  of  the  primary  :  And  becaufe,  when  Jefus, 
in  few  words,  repeats  the  fubftance  of  this  Pro- 
phecy to  the  High-Prieft,  on  the  like  occafion  for 
which  he  delivered  it  at  large  to  his  Difciples,  he 
defcribes  the  deftruftion  of  Jcrufalem  in  thofe  high 
terms  from  whence  the  secondary  fenfe  is  in- 
ferred :  for  when  Jefus  was  accufed  of  threatening, 
or  of  defigning  to  deftroy  the  Temple,  and  was 
urged  by  the  High-Prieit  to  make  his  defence,  he 

lavs 


302  ^e  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

fays — Hereafter  JhaU  ye  fee  the  Son  of  man  Jit  ting  on 
the  right  hand  of  po-u^er,  and  coming  in  the  clouds 
of  heaven  "^ ;  which  words  the  context  necefTarily 
confines  to  his  Jirji  coming  in  judgment  on  Jeru- 
ialem." 

To  this  I  anfwer.  That  it  was  not  for  fear  of 
being  put  to  the  proof  that  it  was  taken  for  grant- 
ed, that  this  Prophecy  had  a  double  fenfe,  a  pri- 
mary and  a  fecondary  ;  becaufe  it  is  only  quoting 
a  paflage  or  two  in  it,  to  (hew  that  it  mull  necef- 
farily  be  confefTed  to  have  both. 

I.  That  Jefus  prophefies  of  the  deflruflion  of 
Jerufalem  appears  from  the  concluding  words  re- 
corded by  all  the  three  Evangelifts — Verily,  I  fay 
unto  you,  that  this  generation  j^^//  not-pafs  away 
till  KLL  thefe  things  be  done  or  fulfilled''.  Hence, 
by  the  way,  let  me  obferve,  that  this  fulfilling 
in  the  primary  fenfe  being  termed  xhc  fulfilling  all, 
feems  to  be  the  realbn  why  St.  John,  who  wrote 
his  Gofpel  after  the  deftru6lion  of  Jerufalem, 
hath  omitted  to  record  this  Prophecy  of  his  Maf- 
ter. 

1,  Thar,  Jefus  at  the  fame  time  fpeaks  of  the 
deftrudion  of  the  World,  at  his  fecond  coming  to 
Judgment,  appears  likewife  from  his  own  words 
recorded  by  the  fame  Evangelifts  —  But  of  that, 
day  and  hour,  knozveth  no  man  •,  no  not  the  Angels 
of  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father '  For 
if  the  Whole  be  to  be  underftood  only  of  one  fingle 
event,  then  do  thefe  two  texts  exprefsly  contradidl 

^  Matt.  xxvi.   64.      Mark   xiv.   62.      Luke   xxii.   6g. 
'  Matt.  xxlv.  34.     Mark  xiii.  30.    Luke  .\xi.  32, 
*  Mark  xiii.  32. 

one 


S©£1.  6.      o/'  Moses   dcmonjlrated.  303 

one  another ;  the  firft  telling  us  that  the  event 
fhould  come  to  pafs  near  the  clofe  of  that  very- 
generation-,  the  latter  telling  us  that  the  time  is 
unknown  to  all  men,  nay  even  to  the  Angels  and 
to  the  Son  himfelf : — then  does  the  lafl  quoted  texc 
exprefsly  contradid  the  Prophecy  of  Daniel  \  that 
veiy  Prophecy  to  which  Jelus  all  the  way  refers  ; 
for  in  that  prophecy,  the  day  and  hour^  that  is  the 
precife  time  of  the  deilruflion  of  Jerulalem  is 
minutely  foretold. 

Hence  it  follows  that  this  famous  Prophecy  hath 
indeed  a  double  sense,  the  ont  primary,  and  the 
other,  fecondary. 

It  is  true,  the  infant-Church  faw  the  deflru61:ion 
of  the  world  fo  plainly  foretold  in  this  Prophecy 
as  to  fufFer  an  error  to  creep  into  it,  of  the  Ipeedy 
and  inftant  confummation  of  all  things.  This, 
St.  Paul  found  neceflary  to  correct — Now  I  befeech 
you,  fays  he,  that  ye  be  net  foon  Jhaken  in  mind,  or 
troubled,  as  that  the  day  of  Chrijl  is  at  hand,  &:c ". 
And  it  was  on  this  account,  I  fuppofe,  that  St. 
Luke,  who  wrote  the  lateft  of  tl^e  three  Evangelifts, 
records  this  Prophecy  in  much  lower  terms  than 
the  other  two,  and  entirely  omits  the  words  in  the 
text  quoted  above,  which  fixes  the  feccndary  fenfc 
to  the  Prophecy  —  of  that  day  and  hour,  &c. 

If  St.  Paul  exhorted  his  followers  not  to  be 
Jhaken  in  mind  on  this  account ;  his  fellow- labourer, 
St.  Peter,  when  he  had  in  like  manner  reproved 
the  fcoffers,  who  faid,  where  is  the  promife  of  his 
ceming?  went  flill  further,  and,  to  Ihew  his  fol- 
lowers that  the  Church  was  to  be  of  long  conti- 

»  Chap.  viii.  13 — 14.  "  z  Thfss.  ii  ver.  i,  'J  frq. 

nuance 


3^4  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

nuance  here  on  earth,  explains  to  them  the  nature 
of  that  evidence  which  future  times  were  to  have  of 
the  truth  of  the  Gofpel  •,  an  evidence  even  fuperior 
to  that  which  the  primitive  times  enjoyed  of  mira- 
cles * ;  We  have  alfo  a  more  fur  e  word  <?/ prophecy; 
whereunto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed^  as  unto  a  light 
which  Jhineth  in  a  dark  place^  until  the  day  dawn, 
and  the  day-fiar  arife  in  your  hearts  ^  This  evidence 
of  PROPHECY  isjuftly  quahfied  a  more  fur e  word'', 
when  compared  to  miracles,  whofe  demonftrative 
evidence  is  confined  to  that  age  in  which  the  power 
of  them  was  beftowed  upon  the  Church :  whereas 
the  prophecies  here  meant,  namely,  thofe  of  St.  Paul 
and  St.  John"*,  concerning  the  great  apostacy, 
were  always  fulfilling  even  to  the  lafl  confumma- 
tion  of  all  things ;  and  fo,  affording  this  demonf- 
trative evidence  to  the  men  of  all  generations  '. 

How- 

*  2  Ep.  Peter  chap.  i.  ver.  17.  •>  Ver.  19. 

'  B£:3a»oT£fo»,  more  firm,  conftant,  and  durable. 

^  See  Sir  Ifaac  Newton  on  the  Prspheciest  c.  i.  of  his  Oh/er- 
vations  upon  the  Apccal)'bje  of  St.  "John. 

*  Mr.  Markland  has  difcovered  a  new  Tenfe  in  this  paf- 
fage  of  St.  Peter  (concerning  the  m-ire  fure  nxord  0/ prophecy ) 
With  which  his  brother-critic  is  fo  enamoured,  chat  he  fays,  he 
may  prophecy  there  ^juiit  be  no  more  dif;>utci  about  it.  Mr.  Mark- 
land's  difcovery  is  very  fimple, — "  it  is  only  placing  a  colon  at 
"  the  end  of  the  18th  verfe,  that  the  beginning  of  the  19th 
"  may  connect  vvith  it ;  and  fo  lead  to  the  true  and  obvious 
•'  fenfe  of  a  pafTige,  which  of  late  has  in  vain  exercifed  the 
"  pens  of  many  learned  Writers,  viz  This  viice,  fuyinj^,  this  is 
*•  my  beloved  Son  in  'ujhom  I  am  ijocll  pic  .pd,  [taken  from  Jfaiah 
"  xlii.  I.]  'vce  heard  in  the  mount,  and  we  have  by  that  means 
•*  (prophecy  or)  the  <v:ords  of  the  Frsphet  more  fully  confirmed^* 

This  interpretation  fuppofcs  that  Peter  is  here  fpeaking  of 
the  FIRST  COMING   of  ihc  MciTuh,  and  that  the  luovd  of  pro- 
phecy 


Scd.  6.       of  Mb  SES  demonjlrated.  305 

However,  if  from  this  prophecy  the  firfl  Chrif^ 
tlans  drew  a  wrong  conclufion,  it  was  not  by  the 

fault 

phety  refers  to  a  Prophecy  already  accomplidied.  Now,  if  it 
can  be  fhevvn,  that  he  is  fpeaking  of  the  second  coming  of 
Jefus,  and  that  the  vjord  of  prophecy  rthvs,  lo  n\ong  feries  of 
predidions  to  be  fulfilled  in  order,  there  is  a  fair  end  of  this  new 
interpretation. 

Firft,  then,  it  is  to  beobferved,  that  the  EpiUle,  in  which  the 
palTage  in  quellion  is  found,  is  a  farewell-epil^e  to  the  Churches. 
St.  Peter  (as  he  tells  them,  chap.  i.  ver.  14.)  knowing  that 
J}}ortly  he  muji  put  off  this  his  Tabernacle. — Now  the  great  topic  of 
confolation  urged,  by  ihefe  departing  Saints,  to  their  widowed 
Churches,  was  the  second  coming  of  their  M alter.  And  of 
this  coming  it  is  that  St.  Peter  fpeaks,  in  the  words  of  the  text 
—  For  ive  ha've  not  follc-ived  cunningly  denjifed  fables  ivhen  ive 
made  knoi-vn  unto  you  the  power  and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jrfus 
Chriji,  He  fubjoins  the  reafon  of  his  confidence  in  this  second 
COMING,  that  he  and  the  reft  of  the  Difciples  were  eye-ixitnejjes 
of  the  majefy  of  the  first,  ver.  16. 

That  \!titfecond  coming  is  the  fubjeft  of  the  difcourfe,  appears 
further  from  the  recapitulation  in  the  concluding  part  of  the 
Epilile,  where  he  reproves  thofe  fcffers  of  the  lajl  dr.ysy  who 
uouldyay,  lohere  is  the  promife  of  his  COM  iNC  ?  for  fine  e  the  Fa- 
thers fell  afleep  all  things  continue  as  they  ~^vere,  &c.  [chap.  iii.  ver. 
3,  4.]  The  primitive  Chriftians,  as  we  have  feen,  liad  enter- 
tained an  opinion  that  the  second  coming  of  their  Mafter  was 
a:  hand.  And  the  caufe  and  occafion  of  their  niiliake  has 
been  explained.  Thefe  Scoffers  the  Apoftlc  coiifutes  at  large  from 
ver.  5th,  to  the  13th.  And  recurring  sgain,  at  ver.  15,  to  ihat 
more  fare  icord  of  prophecy,  mentioned  chap.  i.  ver.  19.  he  refeis 
evidently  to  thofe  parts  cf  St.  Paul's  writings,  where  the  Pro- 
phecies in  the  Revelations  concerning  Antichrift  are  fummarily 
abridged,  of  which  writings  he  gives  tiiis  charadter  —  As  alfo  m 
all  his  E fifties,  f peaking  in  them  cf  thefe  things,  in  ixhich  are  foine 
things  hard  to  be  underftood,  'uhicb  they  that  are  unlearned  ard  ««- 
Jiable  ivreft,  as  they  do  all  the  other  Scriptures,  unto  their  cv:n  de- 
firuclion.  [ver.  16.]  In  which  words,  we  have  the  truefl.  pi^flure 
of  thole  indifcret  Interpreters  who  fet  up  for  Prophets  in  prcdiifiiog 
the  events  of  unfulfilled  Prophecies,  inftead  of  confir.ing  thern- 
idv&%  to  the  explanation  of  thofe  already  accompliftied. 

But  not  only  the  general  fubjeft  of  the  Epiftle,  but  the  vtry 
expreflion  ufed  in  the  text  in  queftion,  fliews  that  this  powkr. 


3o6         ^he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

fault  of  the  Divine  Prophet,  but  their  own.     Jew- 
ilh  Tradition  might  at  firft  miflead  the  followers  of 

Jefus 

AND  COMING  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chr'ijl  is  V\.%  fecond  coming, — Tcr 
nue  have  not  fclloijced  (fays  he)  cunningly  devised  fables 
\ffiff<j(p^c^it<jiZ  p.u9oi;]  nuhen  ive  viade  kno'wn  unlo  you  the  poifjer  and 
conmig  of  our  Lord  Jrfis  Chrifl.  Now,  an  attertation  of  a  'voice 
from  Heanjen  at  his  frf  coming,  tho'  it  had  been  a  figment  of 
the  Relater,  could  with  no  propriety  be  called  a  cunningly  de- 
niifcd  Fable.  But  fuppofe  the  ApoQle  to  fpeak  of  Q^ixVX! %  fecond 
coming,  when  according  to  the  promife,  there  n.vas  to  be  a  nevj 
Heaven  and  a  neau  Earth,  ivherein  ivas  to  dive/l  ri^hteoufnffs, 
after  the  old  had  been  burnt  up  and  dejfrcyed  bj  fervent  heat  [chap. 
iii.  ver.  12,  13.]  if  this  awful  fcene  were  an  invention,  it  was 
truly  charatleriled  by  a  cunningly  devifed  Fable,  fuch  as  thofe  in 
which  Paganifni  abounded,  where,  in  their  mythologic  rela- 
tions, they  fpeak  of  the  Regions  of  departed  Heroes,  &c. 

—  locos  Isetos  &  amoena  vireta 
Fortunatorum  nemerum,  fcdefque  beatas. 
Largior  hic  Campos  aiher  &  iumine  veftit 
Purpurea  :  Soleniquc  fuuni,  fuafydera  norutit, . 

Ar.d,  to  afcertain  his  meaning,  the  Apoftle  ufes  a  phrafe  by 
which  only  the  mythologic  fables  of  Pagan  Theology  can  be 
defigned  —  Iv  yu^  ciKro<^KTiji.HHi  MT0OIS  i^xy.*>^ov^vaa\Ti<;  —  not 
foUciiing  or  imitating  the  cunningly  devijed  f ablet  of  the  Greek 
Sophifs  and  Mjthologijis. 

Secondly,  it  (hall  be  now  fhewn,  that,  by  the  morefure  ivord  of 
prophecy,  tjie  Apoltle  does  not  mean,  as  Mr.  Markland's  inter- 
pretation fuppofes,  a  Prophecy  fulfilled,  but  a  long  feries  of  Pro- 
phecies to  he  fulfilled  in  order,  and  in  the  courfe  of  many  ages. 
We  may  obferve  then,  that  concerning  this  more  Jure  nxjord  of 
prophecy,  the  Churches  are  told,  they  do  iMtll  to  take  heed,  as  utito 
a  light  that  fineth  in  a  durk  place,  until  the  day  dan.vn  and  the  day- 
far  arife  in  their  hearts,  [chap.  i.  ver.  ig  ]  Now,  from  Pro- 
phecy thus  circumllanced,  it  plainly  appears,  that  it  could 
not  be  a  coinpleat  Prophecy  of  any  event  fulfilled,  fuch  as 
that  of  Ifaiab,  chap.  xlii.  ver.  1,  which  Mr.  Markland  fuppofes 
is  the  Prophecy  here  fpokeii  of,  becaufe  it  was  not  a  light  Join- 
ing in  a  dark  place  until  the  day  daivn ;  fincc,  with  regard  to  the 
Prophecy  in  queliion,  the  dat  was  not  only  da-.incd,  but  ad- 
vanced;  yet  ilic  .Apoille  fuppofes  the  darknefs  to  exift,  and  the 
d'y  dawn  to  be  far  dillant.     i\ either,  on  the  other  hand,  could 

it 


Se^.  6.       of  Moses  demonjlraied,  307 

Jefus  to  believe  that  the  deftruftion  of  the  World 
was  very  foon  to  follow  the  deftruclion  of  Jerufa-r 
lem:  But  thefe  men  foon  put  off  Tradition,  with 
the  Law :  And  Scripture,  which  was  then  recom- 
mended to  them  as  their  only  ftudy,  with  the 
DOUBLE  SENSES  with  which  it  abounds,  might 
eafily  have  led  them  to  a  difiin^ion  of  times  in  this 

It  be  a  Prophecy  totally  unfulfilled,  for  fuch  are  totally  dark  and 
unintelligible ;  but  this,  here  fpoken  of,  is  a  light  ihining,  tho' 
in  a  dark  place. 

In  a  word,  the  charafler  given  of  the  morefure  (word  of  Pro- 
fhery,  as  being  a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place, 
can  agree  with  nothing  but  the  Prophecies  of  St.  Paul  and 
St.  John:  and  with  thefe,  it  agrees  admirably.  Thefe  Pre-- 
diftions  relating  to  one  great  event,  the  future  fortum  of  the 
Church,  under  the  vfurpation  of  the  Man  of  Si.'i,  are  emphati- 
cally called  the  word  of  prophecy.  They  began  ful.Glling 
even  before  St.  Peter  wrote  this  Epiftle  ;  for  St.  Paul,  fpeaking 
of  the  MAN  OF  Sin,  to  the  ThefTalonians,  fays,  the  mystery 
OF  INIQUITY  DOTH  ALREADY  WORK,  [zd  Ep.  chap.  ii.  ver.  7.] 
This  Prophecy  therefore,  is,  with  the  gre-^tcfl  elegance  and 
truth,  defcribed  as  a  light  fining  in  a  dark  place.  Jull  fo  much 
of  the  commencing  completion  was  fecn  as  to  exciie  Men's  at- 
tention ;  but  this  glimmering  was  ftill  furrounded  with  thick 
darknefs  :  And  as  the  eager  curiofity  of  man  tempts  him  to 
plunge  even  into  obfcurity  in  purfuit  of  a  light  jufl:  begin- 
ning to  emerge  from  it,  he  fubjoins  a  very  necefTary  caution. 
—  Knoiving  this  firf^  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  any 
private  interpretation,  [ver.  20. j  As  much  as  to  fay,  I  ex- 
hort you  to  give  all  attention  to  this  moie  fare  ixord  of  prcphe(y\ 
hut  previoufly  to  guard  yourfelves  with  this  important  truth, 
that  the  Interpreter  of  Prophecy  is  not  Man  but  God,  and  the 
full  completion  of  it,  its  only  true  interpretation.  He  fupports 
this  obfervation  by  a  faft — For  the  Prophecy  came  not  in  old  t'nne  by 
the  ixiill  of  Man^  but  hoh  Men  of  God  fake  as  they  nxjere  moved  ty 
the  Holy  Ghof,  [ve-.  zi.]  i.  e.  the  very  Prophets  themfelves,  un- 
der the  old  Law,  often  underftood  not  the  true  purport  of  what 
they  prediifled,  being  only  the  organs  of  God's  Holy  Spirit; 
hiuch  lefs  are  we  to  fuppofe  the  common  miniilers  of  the  word 
qualified  for  the  office  of  Interpreters  of  unfulfilled  prophecies. 
And  in  the  jd  chapter  ver.  16,  as  has  been  obferved  above,  he 
fpeaks  of  the  mifchiefs  attending  this  prefumption. 

X  2  Prophecy, 


^oS  I'he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI, 

Prophecy,  a  Prophecy  formed,  as  they  muft  needs 
fee,  upon  the  ancient  models. 

But  as  Providence  is  always  educing  good  out 
of  evil,  (tho'  neither  for  this,  nor  any  other  reafon, 
is  evil  ever  connived  at  by  the  Difciples  of  Chrift, 
as  appears  from  the  condud  of  St.  Paul,  jutl 
mentioned  above)  this  error  was  fruitful  of  much 
fervice  to  truth.  It  nourilhed  and  increafed  a 
fpirit  of  piety,  ferioufnefs  and  charity,  which 
wonderfully  contributed  to  the  fpeedy  propagation 
of  the  Gofpel. 

Before  I  conclujle,  let  me  jufl  obferve  (what  I 
have  always  principally  in  viewj  that  this  expla- 
nation of  the  Prophecy  obviates  all  thole  impious 
and  abfurd  infinuations  of  licentious  men,  as  if 
Jefus  was  led  either  by  craft  or  enthufiafm,  either 
by  the  gloominefs  of  his  own  ideas,  or  by  his 
knowledge,  of  the  advantage  of  inlpiring  fuch 
into  his  Followers,  to  prophecy  of  the  fpeedy  de- 
ftrudion  ot  the  World. 

But  by  ftrange  ill  fortune  even  fome  Belie- 
vers^ as  v/e  have  obfcrved,  are  come  at  length  to 
deny  the  very  exiilence  o\  double  fmfes  -indfecondary 
prophecies.  A  late  writer  hath  employed  fome 
pages  to  proclaim  his  utter  difbelief  of  all  fuch 
fancies.  I  Hiall  take  the  liberty  to  examine  this 
bold  redifier  of  prejudices :  not  for  any  thing  he 
hath  oppofed  to  the  Principles  here  laid  down ; 
for  I  dare  fay  thefe  were  never  in  his  thoughts; 
but  only  to  fhevv  that  all  he  hath  written  is  wide 
of  the  purpole:  though,  to  fay  the  truth,  no 
wider  than  the  notions  of  thofe  whom  he  oppofes ; 
,  men  who  contend  for  Types  and  Secondary  fenfes 
lA  ai  extravagant  a  way  as  he  argues  againft  them  ; 

that 


Se(5l.  6.        of  yio^'Eidemoiif.rated.  309 

that  is,  fuch  who  take  a  handle  from  the  Do<5trinc 
of  double  fenfes  to  give  a  loofe  to  the  extravagances 
of  a  vague,  imagination :  confequently  his  argu- 
ments, which  are  aimed  againfl  their  very  being 
and  ufe,  hold  only  againfl  their  abufe.  And  that 
abiife^  which  others  indeed  have  urged  as  a  ^proof 
againfl  the  ufe^  he  fets  himfelf  to  ^  confute :  a 
mighty  undertaking !"  and  then  miflakes  his  reafon- 
ing  for  a  confutation  of  the  ufe. 

His  Argument  againfl  double  fenfes  in  Prophe- 
cies, as  far  as  I  underfland  it,  may  be  divided  into 
two  parts,  I .  Replies  to  the  reafoning  of  others  for  " 
double  fenfes.  2.  His  own  reafoning  againfl  them. 
With  his  Replies  I  have  nothing  to  do,  (except 
where  fomething  of  argument  againft  the  reality 
of  double  fenfes  is  contained)  becaufe  they  are  re- 
plies to  no  reafonings  of  mine,  nor  to  any  that  I 
approve.  I  have  only  therefore  to  confider  what, 
what  he  hath  to  fay  againfl  the  thing  itfelf. 

I.  His  firfl  argument  againfl  more  fenfes  than 
one,  is  as  follov/s  —  "  Suppofing  that  the  opinion 
"  or  judgment  of  the  Prophet  or  Apoflle  is  not  to 
*'  be  confidered  in  matters  of  Prophecy  more  than 
*'  the  judgment  of  a  mere  amanuenfis  is, — and 
"  that  the  point  is  not  what  the  opinion  of  the 
"  amanuenfis  was,  but  what  the  inditer  intended  to 
"  exprefs  •,  yet  it  muft  be  granted,  that  if  God 
"  had  any  views  to  fome  remoter  events,  at  the 
*'  fame  time  that  the  words  which  were  ufed  were 
"  equally  applicable  to,  and  defigned  to  exprefs 
*'  nearer  events  :  thofe  remoter  events,  as  well  as 
."  the  nearer,  were  in  the  intention  of  God  :  And 

^  The  Principles  and  ConneHicn  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Rt!i' 
glotit  difiinSily  covjidertdy  p,  221.  by  Dr.  Sykes. 

^3  'y^ 


3 10  1^'he  Dhine  Legat'icn       Book  VI. 

*'  if  both  the  nearer  and  remoter  events  were 
"  equally  intended  by  God  in  any  Propofition, 
"  then  the  literal  sense  of  them  is  not  the 

"    ONE  NOR  THE  OTHER  SINGLY  AND  APART,    BUT 

.*'  BOTH  TOGETHER  muft  bc  thc  fuU  meaning  of 
*'  fuch  pafTages  ^** 

■  — 'Then  the  literal  fenfe  of  them  is  not  the  one  nor 
the  other  ftngly  and  apart,  but  both  of  them  together^ 
&c.  i.  e.  if  both  together  make  up  but  one  literal 
fenfe,  then  there  is  neither  a  fecondary  nor  a  double 
fenfe :  And  fo  there's  an  end  of  the  controverfy. 
A  formidable  Adverfary  truly  !  He  threatens   to 
overthrow  the  thing,  and  gives   us   an  argument 
againft  thc  propriety  of  the  name.     Let  him  but  al- 
low his  adverfaries  that  a  nearer  and  a  remoter  event 
are  both  the  fubje6ls  of  one  and  the  fame  Predic- 
tion, and,  I  fuppofe,  it  will  be  indifferent  to  them 
whether  he  call  it,  with   them,  a  Prophecy  of  a 
double  and fgurative  fenfe,  or  they  call  it,  with  him, 
a  Prophecy  of  a  ftngle  literal  fenfe  :  And  he  may  be 
thankful  for  fo  much  complaifance  •,  for  it  is  plain, 
they  have  the  better  of  him  even  in  t\\c  propriety 
of  the  name.    It  is  confeflfed  that  God,  in  thefe  Pre^ 
diftions,  might  have  views  to  Jtearer  and  remoter 
events:  now  thefc  nearer  and  remoter  events  were 
events  under  two  different  Difpenfations,  the  Jew- 
ifh  and  the  Chriftian.     The  Prediftion  is  addreffed 
to  the  Jews,  who  had  not  only  a  more  immediate 
concern  with  the  fi.fl,  but,  ^t  the  time  of  giv- 
ing the  Prophecy,  were  not  to  be  let  into  the  fe- 
crets  of  the  other :  Hence  the  Predi(ftion  of  the 
vearer  event  was  properly  the  literal   or  primary 
fenle,    as    giv^n   for  the   prefent   imformation  of 
God's  Servants  j  and  thc  more  remote  event  for  their 

s  Page  219. 

future 


Sed.  6.      of  Moses  deinonjlrated.  3 1 1 

future  information,  and  fo  was  as  properly  the 
fecondary  fenfe,  called  with  great  propriety  figura-. 
live,  becaufe  conveyed  under  the  terms  which  pre- 
dided  the  nearer  event.  But  I  hope  a/r/?  and  a 
fecond,  a.  literal  and  a  figurative^  may  both  together 
at  leall,  make  up  a  double  sense. 

2.  His  fecond  argument  runs  thus,—"  Words 
**  are  the  ligns  of  our  thoughts,  and  therefore 
"  {land  for  the  ideas  in  the  mind  of  him  that  ufei 
"  them.  If  then  words  are  made  ufe  of  to  fignify 
"  two  or  more  things  at  the  fame  time,  their  figni- 
*'  ficancy  is  really  loft,  and  it  is  impolTible  to  un- 
"  derftand  the  real  certain  intention  of  him  that 
"  ufes  them.  Were  God  therefore  to  difcover 
"  any  thing  to  mankind  by  any  written  Revelation, 
"  and  were  he  to  make  ufe  of  fuch  terms  as 
*'  ftand  for  ideas  in  mens  minds,  he  muft  fpeak 
"  to  them  fo  as  to  be  underftood  by  them.  They 
"  muft  have  in  their  minds  the  ideas  which  God 
"  intended  to  excite  in  them,  or  elfe  it  would  be 
*'  in  vain  to  attempt  to  make  difcoveries  of  his 
"  Will  i  and  the  terms  made  ufe  of  muft  be 
"  fuch  as  were  wont  to  raife  fuch  certain  ideas,  or 
*'  elfe  there  could  be  no  written  Revelation.  The 
*'  true  fenfe  therefore  of  any  passage  of  Scrip- 
"  ture  can  be  but  one  ;  or  if  it  be  faid  to  con- 
"  tain  more  fenfes  than  one,  if  fuch  multiplicity 
"  be  not  revealed,  the  Revelation  becomes  ufelcfs, 
"  becaufe  unintelligible  *"." 

Men  may  talk  what  they  pleafe  of  the  obfcurity 
of -Writers  who  have  two  fe?ifes,  but  it  has  been 
my  fortune  to  meet  with  it  much  oftner  in  thofe 
who  have  none.     Our  Reafoner  has  here  miftaken 

^  Page  222,  223. 

X  4  the 


-2  12  The  Divine  Legation        Book  VL 

the  very  Queftion,  which  is,  whether  a  Scripture 
Proposition  (for  all  Prophecies  are  reducible  to 
Propofitions)  be  capable  of  two  fenles  •,  and,  to 
fupport  the  negative,  he  labours  to  prove  that 
WORDS  OR  TERMS  Can  have  but  one.  —  If  t.beti 
WORDS  are  made  life  of  to  fignify  two  or  more  things 
at  the  fame  time^  their  fignificancy  is  really  loft — fuch 
TERMS  as  Jiand for  ideas  in  mens  minds — terms 
made  ufe  of  mujl  be  fuch  at  are  wont  to  raifefuch  certain 
ideas — All  this  is  readily  allowed  -,  but  how  wide  of 
the  purpofe,  may  be  feen  by  this  inftance :  Jacob 
fays,  I  will  go  down  into  Sheol  unto  my  [on  mourning. 
l<iow  if  SHEOL  fignify  in  the  ancient  Hebrew,  only 
the  Grave,  it  would  be  abufing  the  term  to  make 
it  fignify  likewife,  with  the  vulgsii'  Latin  in  infernum, 
becaufe  if  words  (as  he  fays)  be  made  to  fignify  two 
cr  more  things  at  the  fame  time,  theirfignificancy  is  lojl. 
.—  But  when  this  proposition  of  the  Pfaimift 
comes  to  be  interpreted,  'Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  foul 
in  Hell  [Sheol]  neither  wilt  thoufufcr  thy  holy  one  to 
fee  corruption;  tho'  it  literally  iignifics  fecurity  from 
the  curfe  of  the  Law  upon  tranfgreflbrs,  viz.  im- 
mature death,  yet  it  is  very  reafonable  to  under- 
iland  it  in  a  fpiritual  fenfe,  of  the  refurredion  of 
Christ  from  the  ciead ;  in  which,  the  zvords  or 
terms  tranflated  Soul  and  Hell,  are  left  in  the  mean- 
ing they  bear  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  of  Body  and 
Crave. 

But  let  us  fuppofe  our  Reafoner  to  mean  that  a 
proposition  is  not  capable  of  two  fenfcs,  as  per- 
haps he  did  in  his  confulion  of  ideas,  for  notwith- 
ftanding  his  exprefs  words  to  the  contrary,  before 
he  comes  to  the  end  of  his  argument,  he  talks  of 
the  true  fenfe  of  any. passage  being  but  one;  and 
then  his  allertion  mud  be.  That  if  one  Propofition 
have  two  SenfeSy  its  ftgnijicanfy  is  really  loft ;  and 

:  that 


Seel.  6.       cfMosES  demonjlrated.  313 

that  'tis  ijnpoffihle  to  underjiajtd  the  real  certain  in- 
tentic7i  of  him  that  ufes  thejn  j  conjeqtiently  Revela* 
Hon  ivill  become  ufelefs^  becaufe  unintelligible. 

Now  this  I  will  take  the  liberty  to  deny.    In  the 

foiiovv-ing  initances  2.fingle  Propojition  was  intended 
by  the  writers  and  Ipeakers  to  have  a  double  fenfe. 
The  poet  Virgil  fays, 

— "  Talia,  pCx-  ciypeum  Vokani,  dona  parentis 
'    "  Miratur :  rerumque  ignarus,  imagine  gander, 

*'    AttOLLENS  HUMERO     FAMAMQUii     ET     FATA 


The  laft  line  has  thefe  two  fenfes :  Firft,  that 
iEneas  bore  on  his  flioulders,  a  ihield,  on  which 
was  engraved  a  prophetic  pidure  of  the  fame  and 
fortunes  of  his  pofterity :  Secondly,  that  under  the 
protedion  of  that  piece  of  armour  he  eftablifhed 
their  fame  and  fortunes,  and  was  enabled  to  make 
a  fettlement  in  Latium,  which  proved  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Roman  empire  ^ 

Here 

'  JEneid,  lib.  viii.  in  fin. 

"  Hear  what  a  very  judicious  Critic  obferves  of  the  line  in 
queftion.  "  The  comment  of  Servius  on  this  line  is  remark- 
"  able.  Hunc  'verfum  notant  Critici,  quafi  fuperflue  et  inutiliter 
"  additum,  nee  convetiientem  granjiiati  ejus,  namque  eft  magis 
"  neotericus.  Mr.  Addison  conceived  of  it  in  the  fame  man- 
"  ner  when  he  faid,  this  ivas  the  only  'v:itty  line  in  the  JEncis '; 
"  meaning  fuch  a  line  as  0-j.V  would  have  written.  We  fee 
*'  they  efteenied  it  a  wanton  play  of  fancy,  unbecoming  the 
•*  dignity  of  the  Writer's  work,  and  the  gravity  of  his  cha- 
"  racier.  They  took  it,  in  fhorc,  for  a  mere  modern  flouriih, 
"  totally  different  from  the  pure  unaffeaed  manner  of  genuine 
*'  antiquity.  And  thus  far  they  unqueftionably  judged  right. 
*'  Their  defefl  was  in  not  feeing  that  the  ufeoi  it,  as  here  em- 
"  ployed  by  the  Poet,  was  an  exception  to  the  general  rule, 
**  But  to  have  feen  this  was  not,  perhaps,  to  be  expe^ed  even 

"  from 


314  ^^^  Divme  Legation        Book  VL 

Here  then  is  a  double fenfe,  which,  I  believe,  none 
who  have  any  tafte  of  Virgil  will  deny.  The  pre- 
ceding verfe  introduces  it  with  great  art. 

*'  Mirctur,  rerumque  ignarus  imagine  gaudet:" 

and  prepares  us  for  Ibmething  myfterious,  and  hid 
behind  the  letter. 

On  Peter^s  refufing  to  eat  of  clean  and  unclean 
jneats  promifcuoufly,  in  the  vifion  prefented  to 
hira,  the  Holy  Spirit  fays,  IVhat  God  hath  cleanfed 
that  call  Jiot  thou  common  '.  The  fingle  propofition 
isj  That  which  God  hath  cleanfed  is  not  common  or 

♦•  from  thefe  Critics.  However  from  this  want  of  penetra- 
•*  tion  arofc  a  difficulty  in  determining  whether  to  read  faila 
*'*  or  futa  nepocum.  And  as  we  now  underftand  tliat  Sertius 
•*  and  his  Critics  were  utter  firangers  to  Virgil's  noble  idea,  it 
"  is  no  wonder  they  could  not  refolve  it.  But  the /^//fr  is  the 
*•  I'oet'a  own  word.  He  confidered  this  fhield  of  celeftial 
••  make  as  a  kind  of  Palladium,  like  the  Ancile  which  fell 
*•  from  Heaven  and  afed  to  be  carried  in  procelTion  on  the 
*•  pouldgrs  of  the  Salii.  ^id  de  /cutis  (fays  Laflantius)  jam 
V  'vetvjlate  putridis  die  am  ?  ^a:  cum  portant,  Deos  ipsos  se 
«'  GESTARE  HUMERis  suis  arbitrantur.  [Div.  JnlL  lib.  i. 
*'  c.  21.]  Virgil,  in  a  fine  flight  of  imagination,  alludes  to 
••  this  venerable  ceremony,  comparing,  as  it  were,  the  fhield 
**  of  his  hero  to  thefacred  Ancile  ;  and,  in  conformity  to  the 
♦*  praOice  in  that  facrcd  praceilion,  reprefents  his  hero  in  the 
•*  prieflly  office  of  religion, 

•*  ^ttollem  Hxs  MZViO  famamque  et  fata  Ne pot  urn.. 

•'  This  idea  then,  of  the  facrcd  fliield,  the  guard  and  glory  of 

••  Rome,  and  on  which,  in  this  ad-vanced  {v..\i2i.i\on,  depended  the 

*'  fame  and  fortune  of  his  country,  the  Poet  with  extreme  ele- 

"  gance  and  fublimity,  transfers  to  the  Ihield  which  guarded 

*'  their  great  Progenitor,   while  he  was  laying  the  firft  founda- 

*'  tions  of  the  Roman  Empire."     Mr,  Hurd — Notes  on  the  £/, 

So  Augujiui,  p.  t)8  9.  3d  edit. 

*  Acts  x   rj. 

impure ; 


Se(5l.  6.     of  Moses  demonjirated,  315 

impire  •,  but  no  one  who  reads  this  ftory  can  doubt 
of  its  having  this  double  fenfe  :  i.  T^hat  the  dijlinc' 
tion  between  clean  and  unclean  meats  was  to  be  abolijh' 
ed.  2.  And  ^hat  the  Gentiles  were  to  be  called  into 
the  church  of  Christ.  Here  then  the  true  fenfe 
of  thefe  PASSAGES  is  not  one^  hut  two :  and  yet  the 
intention  or  meaning  is  not,  on  this  account,  the 
leaft  obfcured  or  loft,  or  rendered  doubtful  or  un- 
intelligible. 


'D* 


He  will  fay,  perhaps,  "  that  the  very  nature  of 
the  fubjeft,  in  both  cafes,  determines  the  two  fenfes 
here  explained."  And  does  he  think,  we  will 
not  fay  the  fame  of  double  fenfes  in  the  Prophecies  ? 
But  he  feems  to  take  it  for  granted,  that  Judaifm 
and  Chriftianity  have  no  kind  of  relation  to  one 
another  :  Why  elfe  would  he  bring,  in  difcredit  of 
a  double  fenfe  ^  thefe  two  verfes  of  Virgil : 

"  Hi  motus  animorum,  atque  hsec  certamina 

"  tanta 
*'  Pulyeris  exigui  jaflu  compofta  quiefcunt." 

On  which  he  thus  defcants— 7"^^  words  are  de^ 
terminate  and  clear.  —  Sn-ppofe  now  a  man  having  oc- 
cafion  to  fpeak  of  intermitting  fevers  and  the  ruffle  of 
a  man's  fpirits^  and  the  eafy  cure  of  the  diforder  by 
pdverized  bark'^^i^c. — To  make  this  pertinent, 
we  muft  fuppofe  no  more  relation  between  the 
fortunes  of  the  Jewifti  Church  and  the  Chriftian, 
than  between  a  battle  of  Bees,  and  the  tumult  of  the 
animal  Spirits:  if  this  were  not  his  meaning  it 
will  be  hard  to  know  what  was,  unlefs  to  Ihew  his 
happy  talent  at  a  parody. 

"  Page  225, 

But 


3i6  ^be  Dhine  Legation       Book  \l. 

But  as  he  Icems  to  delight  in  claflical  authorities, 
I  will  give  him  one  not  quite  'io  abfurd;  where  he 
himfelf  (hall  contefs  that  a  double  meaning  does  in 
fact  run  thro'  one  of  the  fineil  Odes  of  Antiqui- 
ty. -  Horace  thus  addrelTcs  a  crazt  fliip  in  which. 
his  friends  had  embarked  for  the  /FT^ran  fea : 

O  navis,  referent  in  marc  te.  novi 
Fluctus !  6  quid  agis  ?  fortitcr  occupa 
Portum  :  nonne  vides  ut 
v'  IS  udum  remigio  latus ",  &c. 

In  the  firfl  and  primary  fenfe  he  defcribes  the  dan- 
gers of  his  friends  in  a  weak  unmanned  veflel,  and 
in  a  tempeftuous  fea :  in  x.\\z  fecondary,  the  danger^. 
of  the  Republic  in  entering  into  a  new  civil  wars, 
after  all  the  loffes  and  difallers  of  the  old.  As  to 
the  fecondary  fenfe^  which  is  ever  the  mod  quef-; 
tionable  and  obfcure,  we  have  the  teftmiony  of 
early  Antiquity  delivered  by  Quintilian  :  As  to 
the  primary  fcnfe^  the  following  will  not  fuffer  us  ta 
doubt  of  k  ; 

Nuper  folicitum  quss  mihi  t^cdium. 
Nunc  defiderium,  curaquc  non  levis, 
Interfufa  nitentes 

Vitcs  aequora  Cycladas. 

But  there  being,  as  we  have  fhewn  above,  two 
kinds  of  allegories  ;  (the  firft,  ivz,  the /r^/^r  alle- 
gory -,  which  hath  but  one  real  fenfe,  becaufe  the 
literal  meaning,  ferving  only  for  the  envelope,  and 
without  a  moral  import. ",  is  not  to  be  reckoned; 
the  iccond,  the  improper,  which  hath /it?!?;  becaufe 

*  Hor.  0<i'.  lib,  i.  Od.  14.  •  See  p.  194. 

the 


Sed.  6.        of  Moses  demcjip-afed.         3 17 

the  literal  meaning  is  of  moral  import  \  and  of  this 
nature  are  Prophecies  with  a  double  fcnfe)  and  the 
Critics  on  Horace  not  apprehending  the  difterenc 
natures  of  thefe  two  kinds,  have  engaged  in  very- 
warm  contefls.  The  one  fide  feeing  fome  parts  of 
the  Ode  to  have  aneceflary  relation  with  a  real  fliip> 
contend  for  its  being  purely  hiftorical ;  at  the  head 
of  thefe  is  Tanaquil  Faber,  who  firft  ftarted  this 
criticifm,  after  fifteen  centuries  peaceable  poflef- 
fion  of  the  Allegory :  the  other  fide,  on  the  au- 
thority of  Quintilian,  who  gives  the  ode  as  an  ex- 
ample of  this  figure,  will  have  it  to  be  purely  alle- 
gorical. Whereas  it  is  evidently  both  one  and  the 
other  J  of  the  nature  of  the  fecond  kind  of  alle- 
gories, which  have  a  double  fenfe -,  and  this  double 
fenfe,  which  does  not  in  the  lealtobfcure  the  mean- 
ing, the  learned  reader  may  fee  adds  infinite  beau- 
ty to  the  whole  turn  of  the  Apollrophe.  Had  it 
been  purely  hijlorical^  nothing  had  been  more  cold 
or  trifling-,  had  it  been  purely  allegorical,  nothing 
lefs  natural  or  gracious,  on  account  of  the  enor- 
mous length  into  which  it  is  drawn. — Ezekicl  has 
an  allegory  of  that  fort  which  Quintilian  fuppoies 
this  to  be,  (namely,  a  proper  allegory  with  only  one 
real  fenfe)  and  he  manages  it  with  that  brevity  and 
expedition  which  2.  proper  allegory  demands,  when 
ufed  in  the  place  of  a  metaphor.  Speaking  of 
Tyre  under  the  image  of  a  Ship,  he  fays,  'Thy 
Rowers  have  brought  thee  into  great  waters  :  the  ea/h 
wind  hath  broken  thee  in  the  midji  of  the  Seas  ^.  But 
fuppofe  the  Ode  to  be  both  hijlorical  and  allegorical, 
and  that,  under  his  immediate  concern  tor  hi^ 
Friends,  he  conveyed  his  more  diilant  apprehen- 
fions  for  .the  Republic,  and  then  there  appears  fd 
much  cafe,  and  art,  and  dignity  in  every  period," 

7  Chap,  xxvii.  vzr.  26. 


3i8  I'he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

as  make  us  juflly  efteem  it  the  moft  finifhed  com- 
pofition  of  Antiquity. 

"What  is  it  then  which  makes  the  double  fenfe  fo 
ridiculous  and  abfurd  in,  Hi  motus  animorum^  ^c, 
and  fo  noble  and  rational  in,  O  Navis  referent,  &e. 
but  this.  That,  in  the  latter  cafe,  the  fubjeft  of  the 
twofenfes  had  a  clofe  connexion  in  the  interests 
OF  THE  WRITER-,  in  the  former,  none  at  all? 
Now  that  which  makes  two  fenfcs  reafonable,  does, 
at  the  fame  time,  always  make  them  intelligible  and 
obvious.  But  if  this  be  true,  then  a  double  fenfe 
in  Prophecies  muft  be  both  reafonable  and  intelli- 
gible :  For  I  think  no  Believer  will  deny  that  there 
was  the  clofeft  connexion  between  the  Jewifh  and 
Chriftian  fyftems,  in  the  Difpenfations  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. — This  will  fliew  us,  with  what  knowledge 
of  his  fubjed  the  late  Lord  Bolingbroke  was  en- 
dovv'ed,  when  he  endeavoured  to  discredit  Types  and 
Figures  by  this  wife  obfervation,  "  That  Scripture 
"  Types  and  Figures  have  no  more  relation  to 
*'  the  things  fiid  to  be  typified,  than  to  any  thing 
*'  that  paifes  now  in  France ''." 

^.  .His  next  argument  runs  thus — "  If  God  is 
^*  ditpoled  to  reveal  to  mankind  any  truths — he 
*'  muft  convey  them  in  fuch  a  manner  that  they 
"  may  be  underftood — if  he  fpeaks  to  men,  he 
"  muft  condclcend  to  their  infirmities  and  capaci- 
"  ties— Now  if  he  were  to  contrive  a  Propofition 
*'  in  fuch  a  manner — that  the  fame  Propofition 
*'  ftiould  relate  to y^^rr^/ events  ;  the  confequence 
"  would  be,  that  as  often  as  events  happened 
"  whichagreed  to  any  Propofition,  fo  often  would 
*'  the  Revelation  be  accompliflied.   But  this  would 

"^  Works,  vol.  ili.  p.  506. 

"  only 


Sed.  6.       of  Mo  s  E  s  demonjlrated,  319 

"  only  ferve  to  increafe  the  confufion  of  men's 
"  minds,  and  never  to  clear  up  any  Prophecy :  No 
"  man  could  i'ay  what  was  intended  by  the  fpirit 
*'  of  God  :  And  if  many  events  were  intended, 
*'  it  would  be  the  fame  thing  as  if  no  event  was 
"  intended  at  all  '.'* 

I  all  along  fufpefled  he  was  talking  againfl  what 
he  did  not  underfland.  He  propofed  to  prove  the 
abfurdity  of  a  dcuble  or  fee ondary  fenfe  '  of  Prophe- 
cies ;  and  now  he  tells  us  of  many  fenfes  ;  and 
endeavours  to  fhew  how  this  would  make  Prophecy 
ufelefs.  But  fure  he  fhould  have  known,  what  the 
very  phrafe  itfelf  intimates,  that  no  prophetic  Pro- 
pofition  is  pretended  to  have  more  than  two  fenles : 
And  farther,  that  the  fubjed  of  each  is  fuppofcd 
to  relate  to  tivo  connedted  and  fuccefTive  Difpenfa- 
tions:  which  is  fo  far  from  creating  any  confufion 
in  men^s  minds^  or  making  a  Prophecy  ufelefs^  that  ic 
cannot  but  flrengthen  and  confirm  our  belief  of, 
and  give  double  evidence  to  the  divinity  of  the 
Predidion.  On  the  contrary  he  appears  to  think 
that  what  orthodox  Divines  mean  by  a  fecond  fenfi^ 
is  the  fame  with  what  the  Scotch  Prophets  mean 
by  zfecondJight\  the  feeing  one  thing  after  another 
as  long  as  the  imagination  will  hold  out. 

4..  His  lafl  Argument  is  —  "  Nor  is  it  any 
*'  ground  for  fuch  a  fuppofition,  that  the  Prophets 
"  being  full  of  the  ideas  of  the  Meffiah^  and 
*'  his  glorious  kingdom,  made  use  of  images 
"  taken  from  thence,  to  exprefs  the  points  upon 
"  which  they  had  occafion  to  fpeak.  From  tvhence- 
•'  foever  they  took  their  ideas,  yet  when  the^  fpoke 
•'  of  p-efmt  faSfs^  it   was  p'^fint  falls  only  that 

r  Page  2z6,  •  See  p.  221. 

*'  were 


320  The  Divine  Legation      Book  VI. 

•'  were  to  be  underftood.  Common  language,  and 

*'  the  figures  of  it,  and  the  manner  of  expreflion ; 

«'  the  metaphors^  the  hyperboles,  and  all  the  ufual 

*'  forms  of  fpeech  are  to  be  confidered  :  And  if 

*'  the  occafions  of  the  exprelTion  are  taken  from  a 

"  future  fiat e,  yet  ftill   the  Propofition  is  to  be  in- 

*'  terpreted  of  that  one  thing  to  which  it  is  particu- 

«  larly  applied  V' 

Orthodox  Divines  have  fiipportedthe  reafonable- 
nefs  and  probability  of  double  fenfes  by  this  mate- 
rial Obfervation,  that  the  infpired  Writers  were 
full  of  the  ideas  of  the  Chrifiian  Difpenfation.  That 
is,  there  being  a  clofe  relation  between  the  Chrif- 
tian  and  the  Jewidi,  of  which  the  Ch;  iftian  was 
the  completion,  whenever  the  Prophets  fpoke  of 
any  of  the  remarkable  fortunes  of  the  one,  they  in- 
terwove with  it  thofe  of  the  other.  A  truth, 
which  no  man  could  be  fo  hardy  to  deny,  who 
believes,  r.  That  there  is  that  relation  between 
the  two  Religions :  and  2.  That  thefe  infpired  men 
were  let  into  the  nature  and  future  fortunes  of  both. 
See  now  in  what  manner  our  Author  reprefents 
this  obfervation.  //  is  no  ground,  fays  he,  for  a 
double  fenfe,  that  the  Prophets  were  full  of  the  ideas, 
of  a  Meffiah  and  his  glorious  kingdom,  and  made  ufe 
of  images  taken  from  thence;  [that  is,  that  they 
enobled  their  (lyle  by  the  habitual  contemplation  of 
maf^nificent  ideas.]  For  (continues  he)  isjhencefo- 
ever  they  took  their  ideas,  when  they  fpoke  of  pre- 
fent  fatls,  prefent  faofs  alone  were  to  be  underfiood. 

Common  language   and  the  figures  of  it,  &c. 

Without  doubt,  from  fuch  afulnefs  of  ideas,  as 
only  railed  and  ennobled  their  llyle,  it  could  be 
no  more   concluded  that  they  meant  future  fadls, 

t  Page  227, 

wher^ 


Stdi,  6.       ^  M o  s E  s  demonfirated,         %%t 

when  they  fpeak  of  prefenr,  than  that  Virgil,  be- 
caufe  he  was  full  of  the  magnificent  ideas  of  the 
Roman  grandeur,  where  he  fays,  Priami  Imperium 
— Divum  Domus,  Ilium,  &  Ingens  gloria  T'eucrorum, 
meant  Rome  as  well  as  Troy.  But  what  is  all  this 
to  the  purpofe  ?  Orthodox  Divines  talk  of  afuhiefs 
of  ideas  arifmg  from  the  Holy  Spirit's  revealing  the 
mutual  dependency  and  future  fortunes  of  the  two 
Difpenfations  ;  and  revealing  them  for  the  in- 
formation, folace,  and  fupport  of  the  Chriftian 
Church:  And  Dr.  Sykes  talks  of  z-fulnefs  of  ideas 
got  no  body  knows  how,  and  ufed  no  body  knows 
why,  —  to  raife  (I  think  he  fays)  their  Jlyle  and 
enohle  their  images.  Let  him  give  fome  good  ac- 
count of  this  reprefentation,  and  then  we  may  be 
able  to  determine,  if  it  be  worth  the  trouble, 
whether  he  here  put  the  change  upon  himfelf  or 
his  readers.  To  all  this  Dr.  Sykes  replies,  "  It 
**  was  no  anfwer,  to  fliew  that  there  are  allegories 
"  and  allegorical  ijTterpretations,  for  thefe  werenevei* 
*'  by  me  denied."  Exam.  p.  363.  Why  does  he 
tell  us  of  his  never  denying  allegories^  v/hen  he 
is  called  upon  for  denying  fecondary  fenfes  ?  Does 
he  take  thefe  things  to  be  different  ?  If  he  does, 
his  anfwer  is  nothing  to  the  purpofe,  for  he  is 
only  charged,  in  exprefs  words,  with  denying  fe- 
condary fenfes.  Does  he  take  them  to  be  the  fame  ? 
He  muft  t\\tn  dXlowf  fecondary  fenfes ',  and  fo  give 
up  the  queftion  j  that  isj  retraft  the  paflaged 
here  quoted  from  him.  He  is  reduced  to  this  di- 
lemma, either  to  acknowledge  that  he  firft  writ,  or 
that  he  now  anfwers,  to  no  purpofe"* 

From 

•*  The  Reader  fees  however,  by  this,  that  he  at  length  tak^s 
ALLEGORIES  a}id  SECONDARY  SENSES  not  to  be  the  fame :  Jrl 
which  I  muft  crave  leave  to  tell  him,  he  is  miftaken.  Religious 
allegories  (che  only  allegories  in  queftion)  being  no  other  than 

..  Voi.  V.  y  A 


322  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

From  hence,  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  he  goes 
on  to  examine  particular  texts  urged  againft  his 
opinion  ;  with  which  I  have  at  prelent  nothing  to 
do:  firfl,  becaufe  the  proper  fubjed;  of  this  fe6tion 
is  the  general  nature  only  of  types  and  double 
fenfes :  and  fecondly,  becaufe  what  room  I  have 
to  fpare,  on  this  head,  is  for  a  much  welcomer 
Gueft,  who  I  am  now  returning  to,  the  original  au- 
thor of  thefe  profound  reafonings,  Mr.  Collins 
himfelf. 

II. 

We  have  fnevvn  that  types  and  fecondary  fenfes 
are  rational,  logical,  and  fcholaftic  modes  of  in- 
formation :  that  they  were  expedient  and  highly 
ufeful  under  the  Jewifh  CEconomy  :  and  that  they 
are  indeed  to  be  found  in  the  Inflitutes  of  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets.  But  now  it  will  be  objed- 
cd,  "  that,  as  far  as  relates  to  the  Jewilh  CEcono- 
my, a  double  fenfe  may  be  allowed  -,  becaufe  the 
future  affairs  of  that '  Difpenfation  may  be  well 
fuppofed  to  occupy  the  thoughts  of  the  Prophet ; 
but  it  is  unreafonable  to  make  one  of  the  fenfes 
relate  to  a  different  and  remote  Difpenfation,  never 
furely  in  his  thoughts.  For  the  books  of  the  Old 
"Teftament  (Mr.  Collins  tells  us)  feem  the  mofi  plain 
of  all  ancient  writings^  and  wherein  there  appears 
7iot  the  leafi  trace  of  a  Typical  or  Allegorical  inten- 
tion in  the  Authors  or  in  any  other  Jews  of  their 
time  \" 

a  fpecies  o^  fecondary  fttifa.  This  may  be  news  to  our  Critic, 
tho' he  has  written  and  printed  fo  much  about  allegories, 
that  is,  dhoMt  fecondary  Jen/cs',  as  Monfieur  Jordan  ^vas  fur- 
prized  to  find  he  had  talked  profe  all  his  lite-time,  without 
knowing  it. 

*  G round} i  p.  82. 

I  reply. 


Sed.  6.       {)r  Moses    demonflrated,  323 

I  reply,  that  was  it  even  as  our  adverfaries  fug- 
geft,  that  all  the  Prophecies,  which,  we  fay,  re- 
late to  Jesus,  relate  to  him  only  in  a  fecondary 
lenfe  -,  and  that  there  were  no  other  intimations  of 
the  New  Difpenfation  but  what  fuch  Prophecies 
convey;  it  would  not  follow  that  fuch  fenfe  was 
falfe  or  groundlefs.  And  this  I  have  clearly  fliewn 
in  the  account  of  their  nature,  original  and  ufe. 
Thus  much  I  confcfs,  that  without  miracles,  in 
confirmation  of  fuch  i^n'LC^  fome  ^  of  them  would 

with 

y  Dr.  Stebbing,  of  this  some  (by  one  of  his  arts  of  con- 
troverfy)  has  made  all.  And  charges  me  *  with  giving  this 
as  the  charaifter  of  double  prophecies  in  general,  that  luithjut 
J\liracles  in  their  conformation  they  could  hardly  hwve  the  fenfe 
contended  for,  njjell  afcertained.  On  the  contrary  he  afTures 
his  reader  that  no  Prophecy  can  have  its  fenfe  fupported  by 
Miracles.  —  That  part  which  relates  to  the  Morality  of  the 
Doflor's  condudt  in  this  matter,  1  Ihall  leave  to  himfelf:  with, 
his  Logic  I  have  fomething  more  to  fay.  The  Miracles  which, 
the  Reader  plainly  fees,  I  meant,  were  thofe  worked  by  Jefus; 
and  the  P^-o/iZif/zfj,  fome  of  thofe  which  }efus  quoted,  as  relating 
to  himfelf.  But  the  Dodlor  tells  us,  "  That  Miracles  are  not  to 
"  be  taken  for  granted  in  our  difputes  with  Unbelievers."  In 
fome  of  our  difputes  with  Unbelievers  they  are  not  to  be  taken 
for  granted  ;  in  fome  they  are.  When  the  difpute  is,  whether 
the  truth  of  Jefus'  MiJJion  appear  from  Miracles,  it  would  be  ab- 
furd  to  take  Miracles  for  granted  :  but  when  the  difpute  is, 
whether  the  truth  of  his  Mejfah-charader  appear  from  Prophe- 
fies,  there  is  no  abfurdity  in  taking  his  Miracles  for  granted  ;  be- 
caufe  an  unbeliever  may  deny  his  Mejfah-charaiier,  which 
arifes  from  Prophefies,  and  yet  acknowledge  this  MiJjion  which 
is  proved  by  Miracles ;  but  he  cannot  deny  the  truth  of  his 
mijjion,  which  is  proved  by  Miracles,  and  yet  acknowledge  his 
Miracles.  But  more  than  this  —  An  Unbeliever  not  only  may 
tiUo^M  US  to  fuppofe  the  truth  of  Miracles  v^-ben  the  queilion  is 
about  the  proof  of  the  Meffiah-charaSer  from  Prophefies,  but 
the  Unbeliever,  with  whom  I  had  here  to  do,  Mr.  Collins,  does 
aSlually  allonjj  us,  in  our  difpute  with  hi.ai,  to  luppole  the  truth 
of  Miracles :  For  thus  he  argues,  "  Jefus,  you  lay,  has  proved 
his  Miili'ja  by  Miracles,     in  good  time.     But  he  had  another 

*  See  Hiji,  of  Ahr.  p.  61  —  2,-3,  ^"c, 

y  s  Charaaer 


3^4  ^^^^  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

with  difficulty  be  proved  to  have  it  •,  becaufe  we 
have  fhevvn,  that  a  commodious  and  defigned  ob- 

fcurity 

Charai!\er  to  fupport,  that  of  a  promS/eJ  MeJJiah,  for  which  he 
appeals  to  the  Prophefies:  Now,  ift,  thefe  Prophefies  relate  not 
to  him,  but  to  another.  And  2dly,  Miracles  never  can  make 
that  rehite  to  him  which  relate  to  another."  In  anfwer  to  this 
I  propofed  to  (hew,  that  the  firft  propofition  was  abfolutely  falfe, 
and  that  the  fecowd  very  much  wanted  to  be  qualified.  In  the 
courfe  of  this  difpute  I  had  occafion  to  urge  the  evidence  of 
Miracles;  and  Mr.  Collins,  while  denying  the  Mif/;/?i7/^-r^:«rfl^?^r, 
had  permitted  me  to  fuppofe  their  truth.  Unluckily,  the  Doc- 
tor, who  faw  nothing  of  all  this,  takes  what  Logicians  call  the 
■point  pjfumed,  and  the  point  to  be  proved,  for  one  and  the  fame 
thing.  That  Jefus  was  a  divine  MeJJen^er  and  worked  Miracles 
is  the  point  ajfumed  by  me ;  and  Mr.  Collins,  over  confident  of 
his  caufe,  permitted  me  to  aflume  it.  That  Jcfus  was  the  Mef' 
f.ah  foretold  is  the  point  to  he  pronjed ;  and  I  did  not  c.Vpein: 
that  any  other  than  a  follower  ot  Mr.  Collins  would  deny  1  had 
proved  it.  But  I  will  be  fair  even  with  fo  unfair  an  Adverfary 
as  Dr.  Stebbing,  and  urge  his  caufe  with  an  advantage  with 
which  [  will  fuppofe  he  would  have  urged  it  himfelf  had  he 
knovn  how.  It  may  be  queltioned  whether  it  be  ftrii^lv  logical 
to  employ  this  topic  (which  Mr.  Collins  allows  us  to  afiume)  of 
Jefus's  divine  mijpon  in  order  to  proved  his  Mefpabfmp  ?  Now  all 
that  can  be  here  objeded  is,  that  we  ajfume  one  Charafter,  in 
order  to />roxi^  another,  in  the  fame  divine  Perfon.  And  what 
IS  there  illogical  in  this  ?  Whoever  objetled  to  the  force  of  that 
rcafoning  againll  Lord  Bolingbroke,  which,  from  the  Attributes 
of  God's  povjer  and  idjdom  which  his  Lord  (hip  allowed  the 
Author  of  tlie  Fieiv  of  bis  Philofophv  to  afTume,  inferred  and 
proved  God'sjujiice  and gaodnefst  which  his  Lordfhip  denied. 

But  to  fatisfy,  not  the  Doftor,  hut  any  more  reafonable  man, 
J  will  fuppofe,  it  may  be  aflccd,  "  Of  what  ufe  are  Prophecies 
thus  circumltanccd,  that  is  to  f:y,  fuch  as  require  the  evidence 
of  Miracles  to  afcertain  their  fenfe  r"  I  reply,  of  very  important 
uie;  ao  they  open  end  reveal  more  clearly  the  mutual  depen- 
dency and  connexion  of  the  two  Difpenfations  on  one  another, 
:n  many  particulars  which  would  otherwife  have  efcapcd  otir 
notice  :  And,  by  this  means,  ftrengthen  feveral  additional  proofs 
ot  the  M'JJjahjhip  of  Jefus,  on  which  the  Gofpel  dodrine  of 
Redemption  depends.  But  was  there  no  more  in  it  than  this, 
'i'he  rclcuingy^/w  prophecies  quoted  in  tlie  New  Tertament  a» 
rciaiing  lo  Jefus,  out  of  the  hands  of  Unbelievers,  who  have 

taken 


Se(ft.  6.       g/' Moses   demonft rated.         2^5 

fcurity  attends  both  their  nature  and  their  ufe.  But 
then,  This  let  me  add,  and  thefe  Pretenders  to 
fnperior  reafon  would  do  well  to  confider  it,  that 
the  authority  of  divine  Wifdom  as  rationally  forces 
the  affent  to  o.  determined  meaning  of  an  obfcure  and 
doubtful  Propofition,  as  any  other  kind  of  logic4 
evidence  whatfoever. 

But  this  which  is  here  put,  is  by  no  means  the 
cafe.  For  we  fay,  i .  That  fome  of  the  Prophecies 
relate  to  Jesus  in  2i  primary  fenfe.  2.  That  befides 
thefe,  there  are  in  the  prophetic  Writings,  the  moft 

taken  an  occafion,  from  their  generality  or  obfcurity,  to  per- 
fuade  the  people  that  they  relate  entirely  to  another  matter, 
this,  I  fay,  would  be  no  lefs  than  clearing  the  truth  of  the 
MeJJiahJhip  from  inextricable  difficulties.  — —  I  will  now  take  a 
iinal  leave  of  this  AnJ^uerer  ly  profejjion \  an  Anfwerer  of  fucll 
eminence,  that  he  may  indeed  be  called. 

Knight  of  the  Shire  'who  repre/ents  them  all. 

!feut  as  he  difplays  at  parting  all  the  effrontery  of  his  miferabie 
trade,  I  will  juft  ftop  to  new  burnifli  his  complexion. 

I  had  called  my  Argument  a  Demonjlration,  which  one  would 
think,  no  one  who  could  dillinguilh  Morals  from  Phyfics  could 
miftake,  or  would  venture  to  mifreprefent.  Yet  hear  Do^or 
Stebbing's  laft  words, — "  That  Mofes  was  the  LegiHator  of  the 
*•  Jews,  and  that  the  Jews  were  ignorant  of  a  Future  State ;  thefe 
,**  fads  muft  be  known  by  hiftory,  which  fpoils  you  for  a  Demon- 
*'  ftrator  at  once  :  For  hiitorical  evidence  goes  no  further  than 
*'  probability,  and  if  this  mull  concur  to  make  up  the  evidence, 
**  it  cannot  be  a  DemonjJration  ;  For  Demonllration  cannot 
"  ftand  upon  probability.  The  evidence  may  be  good  and  fuf- 
"  ficient,  but  Demonjhation  it  cannot  be ;  nvhich  is  ahuays 
"  fouti'ied  upon  felf-injident  truths,  and  is  carried  on  by  a  chain 
**  or  /tries  of  the  moft  fimple  ideas  hanging  upon  each  other  by  a 
"  necej/ary  ccnnexion,'"  Letter  to  the  Dean  of  Brijlol,  p.  9 — 10. 
And  was  ic  for  this,  that  this  wonderful  man  hath  written  half 
9  fcore  Pamphlets  againlt  the  Divine  Legation,  that  he  could  not 
find  in  it  the  fame  fort  of  Demonjlration  which  he  hath  been  told 
inay  be  ieen  in  Euclid  ? 

y  3  clear 


326  ^he  Dhine  Legation        Book  VI. 

clear  and  certain  intimations  of  the  Gofpel  CEconomy, 
which  are  alone  fufficient  to  afcertain  the  reality  of 
the  fccondary. 

I.  That  SOME  Prophecies  relate  to  the  Messiah 
in  2i  primary  fenfe,  hath  been  invincibly  proved  by 
many   learned    men   before  me:  I   fhall  mention 
therefore  but  one  •,  and  that,   only  becaufe  Mr. 
Collins  hath  made  fome  remarks  upon  it,  which 
will  afford  occafion  for  a  farther  illuftration  of  the 
fubjeft.     Jesus  declares,  of  John   theBaptift  — 
S^his  is  the  Eli  as  that  was  for  to  come.     "  Where- 
"  in  (fays  the  Author  of  the  Grounds,  &c.)  he  is 
"  fuppofed  to  refer  to  thefe  words   of  Malachi, 
*'  Behold   I  will  fend  you  Elijah  the  Prophet  before 
*'  the  comivg  of  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord-, 
♦'  which  according  to  their  literal  fenfe,  are  a 
"  Prophecy  that  Elijah  or  Elias  was  to  come  in  per- 
"  fon,  and  therefore  not  literally  but  mysti- 
"  cally  fulfilled  in  John  the  Baptifl^:'      And 
again,  in  his  Scheme  of  literal  Prophecy  conftdered, 
fpeakingof  this  pafiage  oi  Malachi,  he  fays,  "  But 
*'  to  cut  off  all  pretence  for  a  literal  Prophecy,  I 
**  obferve,  firft.  That  the  literal  interpretation  of 
"  this  place  is,  that  Elias,  the  real  Elias  was  to 
"  come.     And  is  it  not  a  most  pleasant  literal 
**  interpretation  to  make  Elias  not  fignify  Elias, 
*'  but  lome  body  who  refembied  him  in  qualities? 
*'  — Secondly  I  obferve,  that  the  Septuagint  Tranf- 

*'  lators  render  it,  Elias  the  T'ifhbite, and  that 

"  the  fews,  fince  Christ's  time,  have  generally 
**  undcrftood,  from  the  paffage  before  us,  that 
"  Elias  is  to  come  in  per  fon. — But  John  Baptifi  him- 
*'  felf,  who  mull:  be  fuppofed  to  know  who  he  was 
♦*  himfelf,  when  the  queftion  was  alked  him,  zvhc-^ 

»  Grounds,  p.  47,  48, 

<*  ther 


Se<5l.  6.       of  Moses   demonjlrated.         327 

«<  ther  he  was  Elias,  denied  himfelf  to  be  Elias  -,  and 

«  when  aflced  who  he  was,  faid,  he  was  the  voice 

"  of  one  crying  in  the  Wildernefs,  &c.  which  is  a 

"  paflage  taken  from  Ifaiah  %" 

I.  The  firft  thing  obfervable  in  thefe  curiout 
remarks  is,  that  this  great  Advocate  of  Infidelity 
did  not  fo  much  as  underftand  the  terms  of  the 
queftion.  The  words,  fays  he,  according  to  their 
literal  Jenfe,  are  a  Prophecy  that  Elijah  was  to  come 
in  perfon^  and  therefore  not  literally  hut  myjiically 
fulfilled  in  John  the  Baptift.  He  did  not  fo  much 
as  know  the  meaning  of  a  primary  ^x\d  fecondary 
fenfe,  about  which  he  makes  all  this  ilir.  Afecon- 
dary  fenfe  indeed  implies  2i  figurative  interpretation ; 
s^prir/iary  implies  a  literal:  But  yet  this  primary 
SENSE  does  not  exclude  figurative  terms.  The 
primary  or  literal  fenfe  of  the  Prophecy  in  quefcion 
is,  that,  before  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the 
Lord,  a  m.eflenger  Ihould  be  fent,  refembling  in 
charafter  the  Prophet  Elijah  -,  this  meffenger,  by 
a  figure,  is  called  the  Prophet  Elijah.  A  figure 
too  of  the  moft  eafy  and  natural  import ;  and  of 
efpecial  ufe  amongft  the  Hebrews,  who  were  ac- 
cuftomed  to  denote  any  charafter  or  adion  by  that 
of  the  kind  which  was  become  moft  known  or  ce- 
lebrated. Thus  the  Prophet  Ifaiah  :  "  And  the 
"  Lord  ihail  uterly  deftroy  the  tongue  of  the  Egyp- 
"  tian  fea,  and  with  his  mighty  wind  (hall  he 
*'  fhake  his  hand  over  the  river,  and  fhall  Imite  it 
"  in  the  fevenjireams  ".'?  Here,  a  fecond  paflfage 
through  the  Red  Sea  is  promifed  in  literal  terms : 
But  who  therefore  will  fay  that  this  is  the  literal 
meaning?  The  literal  meaning,  though  the  pro- 
phecy be  m  figurative  terms,  is  fimply  redemption 

»  Page  IZ7,  ■     ^  Chap.  xi.  ver.  15. 

Y  4  from 


328  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

from^  bondage.  For  Egypt,  in  the  Hebrew 
phrafc,  fignihed  a  place  of  bondage.  So  again  Je- 
remiali  fays,  "  A  voice  was  heard  in  Ramah,  la- 
"  mentation  and  bitter  weeping:  Rachel  weeping 
"  for  her  children  refufed  to  be  comforted  be- 
•  caufc  they  were  not  \"  The  primary  fenfe  of 
thefe  words,  according  to  Grotius,  is  a  prediftion 
of  the  weeping  of  the  Jewifn  matrons  for  their 
children  carried  captive  to  Babylon  by  Nabuzara- 
dan.  Will  he  fay  therefore  that  this  Prophecy 
was  not  literally  fiilrilled,  becaufe  Rachel  W2is  dead 
many  ages  before  and  did  not,  that  we  read  of,  re- 
turn to  life  on  this  occafion  ?  Does  not  he  fee  that, 
by  the  moft  common  and  eafy  figure,  the  Matrons 
of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  were  called  by  the  name 
of  this  their  great  Parent.  As  the  Ifraelites,  in 
Scripture,  are  called  Jacob,  and  the  pofterity  of 
the  Ion  of  JeflTe  by  the  name  of  David,  So  again, 
Ifaiah  fays,  "  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  ye 
"  rulers  of  Sodom  •,  give  ear  unto  the  Law  of 
*'  our  God,  ye  people  of  Gomorrah  '."  Will 
he  fay,  the  people  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  are  here 
addrefll'd  to  in  the />;7w^ry  fenfe,  and  the  people  of 
the  Jews  only  in  iht  fecondary  ?  But  the  preceding 
words,  which  fhew  the  people  oi Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
could  not  now  be  addrefied  to,  becaufe  there  were 
hone  left,  fliew  likewife  that  it  is  the  Jewifh  Nation 
which  is  called  by  thefe  names.  Except  the  Lord  of 
Hojls  had  left  us  a  very  fmall  remnant,  we  fhould 
have  been  as  Sodom,  and  ive  fhould  have  been  like 
unto  Gomorrah '.  Would  not  he  be  thought  an 
admirable  interpreter  of  Virgil  who  fhould  criti- 
cife  the  Roman  Poet  in  the  fame  manner  ^—Virgil 
fecms  the  moji  plain  of  all  ancient  writings :  And  he  fays, 

'  Chap,  xxxi,  ver.  15,  '  Chap.  i.  ver.  10. 

*  Ver.  9, 

"  Jam 


Seft.  6.     o/'  M  o  s  E  s   demo?iJlrated,  329 

"  Jam  redit  &  Virgo,  redeunt  Saturnia  regna.'* 

JVhich,  according  to  its  literal  meaning,  is,  that  the 
Virgin  returns,  and  old  Saturn  reigns  again,  in  per- 
fon;  and  therefore  not  literally,  but  mystic  allv 
fulfilled  in  thejujlice  and  felicity  of  Auguflus's  reign. 
And  it  is  a  most  pleasant  literal  interpretation^ 
to  make  the  Virgin  and  Saturn  not  fignify  the  Virgin 
and  Saturn,  hut  fomebody  who  refembled  them  in 
qualities.  Such  realbning  on  a  Claffic,  would  be 
called  nonfenfe  in  every  language.  But  Freethink- 
ing  fanftities  all  forts  of  impertinence.  Let  me 
obferve  further,  that  this  was  a  kind  of  compound 
blunder :  Literal,  in  common  fpeech,  being 
oppofed  both  to  figurative  and  to  fpiritual-,  and 
MYSTICAL  fjgnifying  both  figurative  a.nd  fpiritual  ^ 
he  fairly  confounded  the  diftin6t  and  difFerenC 
meanino-s  both  of  literal  and  of  mystical. 

He  goes  on— I  obferve,  that  the  Septuagint  'tranf- 
lators  render  it  Elias  the  Tifhbite — and  that  the  Jews 
ftnce  Christ's  time  have  generally  iinderfiood from  this 
paffage,  that  Elias  is  to  come  in  per f on.  And  John 
Baptift  himfelf,  ivho  muft  be  fuppofed  to  know  who  he 
was  himfelf,  when  the  quefrion  was  ajked  him,  denied 
himfelf  to  be  Elias  —  Why  does  he  fay,  Since 
Christ's  time,  and  not  before,  when  it  appears  to 
be  before  as  well  as  fince,  from  his  own  account 
of  the  tranQation  of  the  Septuagint?  For  a  good 
reafon.  We  fhould  then  have  feen  why  John  the 
Baptijl,  when  aflced,  denied  himfelf  to  be  Elias  ; 
which  it  was  not  Mr.  Collins's  defign  we  fhould  fee; 
if  indeed  we  do  not  afcribe  too  much  to  his  know- 
ledge in  this  matter.  The  cafe  flood  thus :  At 
the  time  of  the  Septuagint  tranflation,  and  from 
thence  to  the  time  of  Christ,  the  dodtrine  of  a 
^ranfmigration^  and  of  a  Refurre^ion  of  the  hody^ 

to 


330"  ^'^  Drcine  Legation        Book  VI, 

to  repcjjcfs  the  Land  of  Judeay  were  national  opi- 
nions •,  which  occafioncd  the  Jews  by  degrees  to 
underftand  all  thefe  ibrts  of  7?^«r^/rj^  expreflions 
literally.  '  Hence,  amongft  their  many  vifions, 
this  was  one,  that  Elias  ihould  come  again  in  per- 
fon.  Which  fliews  what  it  was  the  Jews  afked 
John  the  Baptift  -,  and  what  it  was  he  anfwered, 
when  he  denied  himfelf  to  be  Elias :  Not  that  he 
was  not  the  Meflenger  prophefied  of  by  Malachi 
(for  his  pretending  to  be  that  Meflenger  evidently 
occafioned  the  queftion)  but  that  he  was  not,  nor 
did  the  prophecy  imply  that  the  MeflTenger  fliould 
be,  Elias  in  per/on. 

But  to  fet  his  reafoning  in  the  fuUefl:  light.  Let 
us  confider  a  fimilar  prophecy  of  Amos  :  Behold 
ihe  days  come^  faith  the  Lord  God,  that  I  will  fetid 
a  TAMit^E  in  the  land,  not  a  famine  of  bread,  nor  a 
thirji  of  water,  but  of  hearing  the  words  of  the 
Lord  '.  I  would  afk,  is  this  a  Prophecy  of  a  fa- 
mine of  the  word  in  a  literal,  or  in  a  tnyjtical  fenfe  ? 
Without  doubt  the  Deifl:  will  own  (if  ever  he  ex- 
peds  we  Ihould  appeal  again  to  his  ingenuity)  in  a 
literal.  But  now  ilrike  out  the  explanation  \_not  a 
famine  of  bread,  nor  a  thirfl  of  water]  and  what  is 
it  then  ?  Is  it  not  ftill  a  famine  of  the  word  in  a 
literal  fenfe  ?  Myjlical,  if  you  will,  in  the  meaning 
of  metaphorically  obfciire,  but  not  in  the  meaning 
oi  fpiriiual.  But  myjlical  in  this  latter  fignification 
only,  is  oppcfed  to  literal,  in  the  queftion  about 
fecondary  fenfes.  It  appears  then,  that  a  want  of 
preaching  the  word  is  ftill  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
Prophecy,  whether  the  explanation  be  in  or  out, 
though  the  figurative  term  [^famine]  be  ufed  to 
exprcfs  that  meaning.     And  the  reafon  why  the 

'  Chap.  viii.  vcr.  11. 

Prophet 


3e<£t.  6.       c/' Moses  demonfirated,  331 

Prophet  explains  the  term,  was  not,  becaufe  it  was 
a  harfli  or  unnatural  figure,  to  denote  "jcant  of 
preaching,  any  more  than  the  term  Elijah  to  denote 
a  fimilar  character,  which  Malachi  does  not  ex- 
plain •,  but  becaufe  the  Prophecy  of  Amos  might 
have  been  for  ever  miilaken,  and  the  figurative 
term  uiiderftood  literally  •,  the  People  being  at  that 
time,  often  punifhed  for  their  fms  by  2l  famine  <f 
head. 

But  this  abufive  cavil  at  figurative  terms  will 
remind  us   of  his  obfervations  on  the  following 
Prophecy  of  Ifaiah  — "  Even  them  will  I  bring  to 
"  my  holy  mountain,  and  make  them  joyful  in  my 
"  houfe  of  prayer :  their  burnt  offerings  and  their 
"  facrifices  lliallbe  accepted  upon  mine  altar;  for 
"  mine  houfe  Ihall  be  called  an  houfe  of  Prayer 
"  FOR  ALL  PEOPLE^."     This,  he fays,  muft  needs 
relate  to  JewiOi,  not  to  Chriftian  times.     Why  ? 
Becaufe  facrifices  are  mentioned.     But  how  could 
this  truth  be  told  the  Jewifh  People,  that  all  nations 
JJjouldbe  gathered  to  the  true  God,  otherwife  than  by 
ufing  terms  taken  from  Rites   familiar  to  them ; 
unlefs  the  nature  of  the  Chriftian  Difpenfation  had 
been  previouQy   explained?    A   matter  evidently 
unfit  for  their  inform.ation,  when  they  were  yet  to 
live  fo  long  under  the  Jewiih.     For  tho*  the  Pro- 
phets fpeak  of  the  little  value  of,  and  fmall  regard 
due  to,  the   ceremonial  Law ; ,  they  always  mean 
(and  always  make  their  meaning  underftood)  when 
the  ceremonial  Law  is  fuperftitioufly  obferved,  and 
obferved  to  a  negleft   of  the   moral \  which  laft 
they  dcfcribe  in  the  purity  and  perfedion  of  the 
Gofpel.     So   admirable   was   this   condudl !    that 
w^hile  it  hid  the  future  Difpenfition,  it  prepared 
men  for  it. 

K  Chap.  Ivi.  ver.  7, 

Thus 


332  ^hc  Dhine  Legation       Book  VI. 

Thus  then  (lands  the  argument  of  this  mighty 
Rcaibner.  There  are  7w  Prophecies,  he  fays,  which 
relate  to  Jesus  but  in  a  fecondary  fenfe.  Now  a 
fecondary  fenfe  is  unfcholaftic  and  enthufiajiical.  To 
this  we  anfwer,  that  the  Prophecy  of  Malachi  about 
Elijah,  and  of  Ifaiah  about  bringing  all  people  to 
his  holy  mountain,  relate  to  Jesus  in  a  primary 
fenfe.  He  replies.  No,  but  in  a  r,iyjiicaly  only. 
Here  he  begins  to  quibble,  the  fure  fign  of  an  ex- 
piring Argument :  Myjlical  fignifies  as  well  fecon- 
dary 2^s  figurative.  In  the  fenfe  of  fecondary,  the 
interpretation  of  thefe  Prophecies  to  Jesus  is  not 
tiiyfiical',  in  the  fenfe  of /^//r^/iw  it  is.  But  is  the 
ufe  of  a  figurative  term  enthufiaftical  or  unfcho- 
laftic, when  the  end  is  only  to  convey  information 
concerning  a  lefs  known  thing  in  the  terms  of  one 
more  known?  Now  whether  we  are  to  charge  this 
to  ill  faith  or  a  worfe  underftanding,  his  Follow- 
ers fhall  determine  for  me, 

2.  But  we  will  fuppofe  all  that  an  ingenuous  Ad- 
verfary  can  alk  —  "  That  moft  of  the  Prophecies 
in  queftion  relate  to  Jesus  in  2i  fecondary  fenfe  only  ; 
the  reft  in  a  primary,  but  expreffed  in  figurative 
terms ;  which,  till  their  completion,  threw  a  ihade 
over  their  meaning,  and  kept  them  in  a  certain 
degree  of  obfcurity."  Now,  to  Ihew  how  all  this 
came  about,  will  add  ftill  farther  light  to  this  very 
perplexed  queftion. 

We  have  feen,  from  the  nature  and  long  dura- 
tion of  the  Jewilh  CEconomy,  that  the  Prophecies 
which  relate  to  Jesus,  muft  needs  be  darkly  and 
enigmatically  delivered :  We  have  feen  how  the 
filkgoric  Mode  of  fpeech,  then  much  in  ufe,  fur- 
nifhed  the  means,  by  what  wc  call  a  double  fenfe 
in  Prophecies,  of  doing  this  with  all  the  requifite 

obfcurity. 


SeO:.  6 .       0/  M  6  s  e  s  Jenibnflrated, '  333 

obfcurity.  But  as  fome  of  thefe  Prophecies  by 
their  proper  light  alone,  without  the  confirmation 
of  miracles,  could  hardly  have  their  fublimer  fenfe 
fo  well  afcertained  ;  to  render  all  oppofers  of  the 
Gofpel  without  excufe,  it  pleafed  the  Holy  Spirit, 
under  the  laft  race  of  the  Prophets,  to  give  creden- 
tials to  the  mifllon  of  Jesus  by  prediftions  of  him 
in  2i primary  and  literal  knk.  Yet  the  Jewifh  GEco- 
nomy  being  to  continue  long,  there  (till  remained 
the  fame  neceffity  of  a  covert  and  myfterious  con- 
veyance. That  figurative  expreflion  therefore, 
which  was  before  employed  in  the  propcfition^  was 
now  ufed  in  the  terms.  Hence,  the  Prophecies  of 
2ifingle  fenfe  come  to  be  in  highly  figurative  words : 
as  before,  the  earlier  Prophecies  of  a  double  fenfe 
(which  had  a  primary  meaning  in  the  affairs  of  the 
Jewifh  State,  and,  for  the  prefent  information  of 
that  People)  were  delivered  in  a  much  fimpler 
phrafe. 

The  Jewifli  Doctors,  whofe  obftinate  adherence^ 
not  to  the  letter  of  the  Law,  as  this  Writer  igno- 
rantly  or  fraudulently  fuggefts,  but  to  the  my- 
ftical  interpretations  of  the  Cabala,  prevents  their 
feeing  the  true  caufe  of  this  difference  in  the  lan- 
guage, between  the  earlier  and  later  Prophets,  the 
Jewifh  Dodors,  I  fay,  are  extremely  perplexed  to 
give  a  tolerable  account  of  this  matter.  What 
they  befl  agree  in  is,  that  the  figurative  enigmatic 
fiyle  of  the  later  Prophets  (which  however  they 
make  infinitely  more  obfcure  by  cabaliftic  mean- 
ings, than  it  really  is,  in  order  to  evade  the  relation 
which  the  Prediftions  have  to  Jesus)  is  owingto 
the  declining  fiate  of  Prophecy.  Every  Prophet, 
fays  the  famous  Rabbi,  Jofeph  Albo,  that  is  of  a 
Jlrong,  fagacious,  and  piercing  underfiand/ng,  ivill  ap- 
prehend the  thing  7takedly  liiithout  any  fimilitude; 
9  "thence 


334  ^^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

'whence  it  comes  to  pafs  that  all  hisfayings  are  diftincl 
and  clear ^  ayid  free  from  all  obfciirity,  having  a  literal 
truth  in  them  :  But  a  Prophet  of  an  inferior  rank  or 
degree,  his  words  are  ohfcure,  enwrapped  in  riddles 
and  parables  \  and  therefore  have  not  a  literal  but  alle- 
gorical truth  contained  in  them^\  And  indeed  our 
fi(5titions  Rabbi  feems  to  have  had  as  little  know- 
ledge of  this  matter  as  the  other ;  for  in  anfwer  to 
■what  Mr.  Whifton,  who,  extravagant  as  he  was 
in  rejefting  all  double  fenfes,  yet  knew  the  difference 
between  ^fecondary  and  enigmatic  prophecy,  which, 
we  fhall  fee,  Mr.  Collins  did  not,  in  anfwer,  I  fay, 
to  Mr.  Whifton,  who  obferved  that  the  Prophefies 
[meaning  the  primary"]  which  relate  to  Chriftianity 
are  covered^  myfiical,  and  enigmatical,  replies,  This  is 
exa^ly  equal  myfticifm  with,  andjuji  as  remote  from 
the  real  literal  fen fe  as  the  myjiicifm  of  the  Allcgorijls 
[i.  e.  the  Contenders  for  a  double  fenfe]  and  is  al- 
together as  OBSCURE  to  the  underftanding  K  His  ar- 
gument againft  fecondary  fenfes  is,  that  they  are 
unfcholajiic  and  enthiifiaflicaL  Mr.  Whifton,  to 
humour  him,  prefents  him  with  direti  and  prima)-y 
Prophecies,  but  tells  him,  at  the  fame  time,  they 
are  expreifedin  covered,  myjlical,  and  enigmatic  terms. 
This  will  not  fatisfy  him ;  it  is  no  better  than  the  my- 
fiicifm  of  the  Allegorijls.  How  fo  .''  We  may  think 
perhaps,  that  he  would  pretend  to  prove,  be- 
caufe  his  argument  requires  he  fhould  prove,  that 
enigmatical  exprejfwns  are  as  unfcholajiic  and  enthu- 
fiafiical  as  fecondary  fenfes.  No  fuch  matter.  All 
he  fays  is,  that  they  are  as  obscure  to  the  under- 
Jlanding.  But  obfcurity  is  not  his  quarrel  v^\i\\  fecon- 
dary fenfes.  He  objefts  to  them  as  unfcholaflic  and 
enthuftaflical.     But  here  lay  the  difficulty,  no  man, 

^  Smith's  ^eleSi  Di/courfa,  p.  iSo.  *  The  GrounJsy 

^\.  p.  2^z. 

who 


Se(5l.  6.     cf  Moses   demonjirated*  ^35 

who  pretended  to  any  language,  could  affirm  this, 
oi  figurative  enigmatical  exprcjfwns  -,  he  was  forced 
therefore  to  have  recourfe  to  his  ufual  refuge,  ob- 
scurity. 

It  is  true,  he  fays,  thefe  myjiical  enigmatic  Pro- 
phecies (as  Mr.  Whifton  calls  them)  are  equally  re-' 
mote  from  the  real  literal  fenfe^  as  the  myjlicifm  of  the 
Allegorifts.  But  this  is  Only  a  repetition  of  the 
blunder  expofed  above,  where  he  could  not  diftin- 
guilh  between  the  literal  fenfe  of  a  Tenn^  and  the 
literal  lenfe  of  a  Propojition.  And  how  grofs  that 
ignorance  is  we  may  fee  by  the  following  inftance. 
Ifaiah  fays,  "The  Wolf  alfo  fJo all  dwell  with  the  Lamb, 
and  the  Leopard  fhall  lie  down  with  the  Kid  j  and 
the  Calf,  and  the  young  Lion,  and  the  Failing  to- 
gether, and  a  little  Child  fhall  lead  them  ^.  Now  I 
will  take  it  for  granted  that  his  Followers  under- 
ftand  this,  as  Grotius  does,  of  the  profound  peace 
which  was  to  follow  after  the  times  of  Senacherib, 
under  Hezekiah  :  but  tho'  the  terms  be  myftical, 
yet  fure  they  call  this  the  literal  fenfe-  of  the  pro- 
phecy :  For  Grotius  makes  the  myfiical  fenfe  to  re- 
fer to  the  Gofpel.  Mr.  Whifton,  Ifuppofe,  denies 
that  this  has  any  thing  to  do  with  the  times  of  He- 
zekiah, but  that  it  refers  to  thofe  of  Christ 
only.  Is  not  his  interpretation  therefore  literal 
as  well  as  that  of  Grotius  ?  unlefs  it  immedi- 
ately becomes  odly  typical,  unfcholajtic,  and  enthu- ' 
fiajiical,  as  foon  as  ever  Jesus  comes  into  the  quef- 
tion. 

II.  But  now,  befides  the  literal  primary  prophe- 
cies concerning  the  person  of  Jesus,  we  fay,  in 
the  fecond  place,  that  there  are  other  which  give  a 

^  Chap,  xi,  ver,  6, 

primary 


33^  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI* 

primary   and  dire£i  intimation  of  the  change  of 
THE  Dispensation.    Ifaiah  foretels  great  mercies 
to  the  Jewifli  People,  in  a  future  Age  ;  which,  tho' 
reprefented  by  fuch  metaphors  as  bore  analogy  to  the 
bleflings  peculiar  to  the  Jewilh  CEconomy,  yet,  to 
Ihew  that  they  were  indeed  different  from  what 
the  figurative  terms  alluded  to,  the  Prophet  at  tlie 
fame  time  adds,  My  thoughts  are  not  as  your  thoughts, 
neither  are  your  ways  my  zvays,  faith  the  Lord\  This 
furely  implies  a  different  Dispensation.    That  the 
chano-e   was  from  carnal  to  fpiritual,  is  elegantly 
intimated  in  the  fubjoining  words,  ~  For  as  the 
Heavens  are  higher  than  the  Earth,  /£>  are  my  ways 
higher  than  your  ways^   and  my  thoughts  than  your 
thoughts'^.     But  this  higher  and  more   excellent 
Difpenfation  is  more  plainly  revealed  in  the  fol- 
lowing  figure  :  Inftead  of  the  thorn  fhall  come  up 
the  fir-tree,  and  inftead  of  the  brier  fhall  come  up  the 
myrtle-tree "  •,  i.  e.  the  new  Religion  (liall   as  far 
excel  the  old,  as  the  fir-tree  does  the  thorn,  or  the 
myrtle  the  brier.     In  a   following  Prophecy  he 
fhews  the  extent  of  this  new  Religion  as  here  he 
had  (hewn  its  Nature  ;  that  it  was  to  fp read  be- 
yond Judea,  and  to  take  in  the  whole  race  of  man- 
kind,—•T'/^^  gentiles  fhall  come  to  thy  light,  and 
kings  to  the  hrightnefs  of  thy  rifing  °,  ^c.     Which 
idea  the  Prophet  Zephaniah  exprelTes  in  fo  ftrong 
a  manner,  as  to  leave  no   room  for  evafion  :  The 
Lord  will  he  terrible  unto  them,  for  he  will  famish 
all  the  Gods  of  the  earth;  andmen  ffMll  worfJoip 
him  everyone   from  his  place,  even  all  the  ifies  of 
the  Gentiles  ^     The  exprcffion   is  noble,    and 
alludes  to  the  popular  fuperftitions  of  Paganilm, 
which  conceived  that  their  Gods  were  nourilhed 

'  Chap.lv.  ver.  8.  ""  Vcr.  q.  *  Ver.  13. 

«  Chap.  Ix.  ver.  3.  »»  Chap.  ii.  ver.  11. 

by 


Scd:.  6.       ^  Moses  demonjirated.  337 

by  the  fteam  of  facrifices.  But  when  were  the 
Pagan  Gods  thus  famijhed^  but  in  the  firft  ages 
of  Chriftianity  ? — Every  one  from  his  place  \  that  is, 
they  were  not  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  worfhip. 
— Even  all  the  ijles  of  the  Gentiles :  but  when  did 
thefe  worfhip  the  God  of  Ifrael  every  one  from  his 
place,  before  the  preaching  of  the  Apoftles?  Then 
indeed  their  fpeedy  and  general  con^rerfion  diftin- 
guifhed  them  from  the  reft  of  the  nations.  This 
he  exprelTes  yet  more  plainly  in  another  place. 
**  In  that  day  fhall  there  be  an  altar  to  the  Lord 
"  in  the  midft  of  the  Land  of  '  Egypt '^J'*  i.  e. 
the  Temple-fervice  fhall  be  abolifhed ;  and  the 
God  of  Ifrael  worfhiped  with  the  moft  folemn 
rites,  even  in  the  moft  abhorred  and  unfandified 
places,  fuch  as  the  Jews  efteemed  Egypt.  Which 
Malachi  thus  diverfifies  in  the  exprefTion,  And  in 
everyplace  incenfe  fhall  he  offered  unto  my  name^  and  a 
PURE  OFFERING  %  /.  6.  it  fliall  not  bc  the  lefs  ac- 
ceptable for  not  being  at  the  temple. 

But  Ifaiah,  as  he  proceeds,  is  ftill  more  explicite, 
and  declares,  in  direcl  terms,  that  the  Difpenfation 
Ihould  be  changed:  Behold^  1  create  he^  Heavens 

9  Chap.  xix.  19. 

'  Chap.  i.  19.  — Nothing  can  be  more  fimple  than  the  prin- 
ciple here  inforced,  or  more  agreeable  to  the  rules  of  juft  in- 
terpretation than  to  fuppofe,  that  the  Language  of  the  L.-.it',  in 
the  terms  altar,  sacrifice,  &c.  ii  employed  to  convey  thefe 
prophetic  intimations  of  the  Gofpel.  The  ancient  fathers  of 
the  Church  very  improvidently  continued  the  ufe  of  thefe  terms, 
when  fpeaking  of  the  Chriftjan  Rites  :  For  tho'  they  ufed  them, 
and  profeffed  to  ufa  them  metaphorically,  yet  it  gave  counte- 
nance to  ftrange  extravagance  of  Scripture-interpretation  amongft 
the  Romanilh.  The  ingenious  Author  of  the  B7-incii>es  de  la 
foi  Chreiienne,  Tom.  i.  p.  273.  brings  this  prophecy  of  Malacht 
for  a  proof  of  the  divine  inftitution  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the 
Mafs. 

Vol.  V.  Z  an4 


33^         ^hs  Divine  Legation  Book  VI. 

and  a  new  .Earth  •,  and  the  former  fiall  not  he  re- 
membered^ nor  come  into  mind  \  This,  in  the  pro- 
phetic ftyle,  means  a  new  religion  and  a  new 
Law;  the  metaphors,  as  we  have  fliewn  elfe- 
where,  being  taken  from  hieroglyphical  expreflion. 
He  fpeaks  in  another  place,  of  the  confequence  of 
this  change  -,  namely  the  transferring  the  benefits 
of  Religion  from  the  Jewifh  to  the  Chriftian  Dif- 
penfation.  Is  it  not  yet  a  very  little  while,  "  and 
*'  Lebanon  {the  ijles  of  the  Gentiles']  fhall  be  turn- 
"  ed  into  a  fruitful  field,  and  the  fruitful  field  {the 
*'  land  of  Judea]  fhall  be  efleemed  as  a  foreft'?" 
To  make  it  yet  more  clear,  I  obferve  farther,  that 
the  Prophet  goes  on  to  declare  the  change  of  the 
SANCTION;  and  this  was  a  necefTary  confequence 
of  the  change  of  the  Difpenfation. — There  fhall 
he  no  more  thence  an  infant  of  days,  Jtor  an  old  man 
that  hath  not  filled  his  days  :  For  the  child  Jhall  die  an 
hundred  years  old,  hut  thejinner  heing  an  hundred  years 
oldfioall  he  accurfed"^ ;  ;'.  e.  the  Sanction  of  tem- 
poral   REWARDS    AND    PUNISHMENTS    fliall  be    DO 

longer  adminiftred  in  an  extraordinary  manner  : 
for  we  muft  remember,  that  long  life  for  obedience, 
and  fudden  and  untimely  death  for  tranfgrcfTions, 
bore  an  eminent  part  in  the  San6lion  of  the  Jewifh 
Law.  Now  thele  are  exprefsly  faid  to  be  abro- 
gated in  the  Difpenfation  promifed,  it  being  de- 
clared that  the  Virtuous,  tho'  dying  immaturely, 
fhould  be  as  if  they  had  lived  an  hundred  years; 
and  Sinners,  tho'  living  to  an  hundred  years,  as  if 
they  had  died  immaturely. 

The  very  fame  prophecy  in  Jeremiah,  delivered 
in  lei's  figurative  terms,  fupports  this  interpretation 

»  Chap.  Ixv.  \'er.  17.  '  Chnp.  xxix.  17. 

"  Chap.  ixv.  20. 

.  beyond 


S&O:,  6»       of  Moses  demojijlrated,  339 

beyond  all  poflibility  of  cavil:  "  Behold  the  days 
"  come,  faith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new 
"  COVENANT  with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael^  and  with 
*'  the  houfe  oijudah,  not  according  to  the  Covenant 
"  that  I  made  with  their  fathers,  in  the  day  that  I 
*'  took  them  by  the  hand,  to  bring  them  out  of 
*'  the  land  of  Egypt. — But  this  Jhall  be  the  Covenant 
"  that  I  will  make  with  the  houfe  of  IfraeU  After 
"  thofe  days,  faith  the  Lord,  /  will  put  my  Law 
*'  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their 
'*  hearts''."' 

Whatlfaiah  figuratively  names  2i  new  Heaven  and 
a  new  Earth,  Jeremiah  fimply  and  literally  calls  a 
new  Covenant.  And  what  kind  of  Covenant  ? 
Not  fuch  an  one  as  was  made  with  their  Fathers. 
This  was  declarative  enough  of  its  nature  ;  yet  to 
prevent  miftakes,  he  gives  as  well  a  pofitive  as  a 
negative  defcription  of  it ;  'ThisJIoall  he  the  Covenant^ 
1  will  put  my  Law  in  their  inward  parts,  &'c.  i.  e, 
this  Law  fliall  be  fpiritual,  as  the  other  given  to 
their  Fathers,  vj2is  carnal:  For  the  Ceremonial  Law 
did  not  fcrutinize  the  heart,  but  reftedin  external 
obedience  and  obfervances. 

Laftly,  to  crown  the  whole,  we  may  obferve, 
that  Jeremiah  too,  likelfaiah,  fixes  the  true  nature 
of  the  Difpenfation  by  declaring,  the  change  of 
the  SANCTION  :  "  In  thofe  days  they  lliall  fay  no 
"  more,  the  fathers  have  eaten  a  four  grape,  and 
"  the  childrens  teeth  are  fet  on  edge.  But  every 
"  one  fliall  die  for  his  own  iniquity,  every  man 
"  that  eateth  the  four  grape,  his  teeth  fliall  be  {tt 
"  on  edge  ^."  For  it  was  part  of  the  Sandlion  of 
the  Jewifli  Law,  that  children  fliould  bear  the  ini- 

*  Chap.  xxxi.  ver.  31.  y  Ver.  29. 

Z  2  c^'-'ity 


340  lie  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

quity  of  their  fathers,  (£c.  a  mode  of  punilhincr 
which  hath  been  already  explained  and  juftified. 
Yet  all  thefe  Prophecies  of  the  Gospel  beincr  de- 
livered in  terms  appropriate  to  the  Law,''  the 
Jews  of  that  time  would  naturally,  as  they  in  faft 
did,  underftand  them  as  fpeaking  of  the  extention 
and  completion  of  the  old  Difpenfation,  rather 
than  the  perfedion  of  it  by  the  introdudtion  of  a 
NEW.  And  thus  their  reverence  for  the  prefenc 
Syftem,  under  which  they  were  yet  to  continue, 
was  prelerved.  The  neceflity  of  this  proceedino-^ 
for  the  prelent  time  ;— the  effefts  it  would  after- 
wards produce  thro*  the  perverfity  of  the  fuper- 
ftitious  followers  of  the  Law  j— and  the  divine 
goodnefs  as  well  as  wifdom  manifefted  in  this  pro- 
ceeding, are   all   finely  touched  in  the  following 

paffage  of  Ifaiah  ^ «  Whom  lliall  he  teach 

"  knowledge  ?  and  whom  fliall  he  make  to  under- 
"  ftand  doctrine  ?  Them  that  are  weaned  from  the 
"  milk,  and  drawn  from  the  breafts  \  For  pre- 
"  cept  muft  be  [or  hath  been]  upon  precept,  pre- 
"  cept  upon  precept,  line  upon  line,  line  upon 
"  Imc  ",  here  a  little  and  there  a  little.  For  with 
"  Hammering  lips  and  another  tongue  will  he  fpeak 
"  to  this  People  =.  To  whom  he  faid,  This  is  the 
"  reft,  and  this  is  the  refrefiiing  \  yet  they  would 
•*  not  hear.     But  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  unto 

*  Chap,  xxvili.  9,  i^  feq. 

'  J.  e.  Thofe  who  were  moll  free  from  the  prejudices  of  the 

Eternity  of  the  Law. 

^  This  reduplication  of  the  phrafe  was  to  add  force  and  energy 
to  the  fenfe.  ^' 

*  i.  e.  Gofpel  truths  delivered  in  the  language  of  the  Law. 

*  i.  e.  The  glad  tidings  of  the  Gofpel. 

"  them 


Sed.  6.       of  Mo  SES  demonftrated.  341 

"  them,  precept  upon  precept,  precept  upon  pre- 
"  cept,  line  upon  line,  line  upon  line,  here  a  lit- 
"  tie  and  there  a  little  -,  that  they  might  go  and 
"  fall  backward,  and  be  broken  and  fnared  and 
«'  taken  S" 

Notwithftanding  all  this,  if  you  will  believe  our 
Adverfary,  Ike  hooks  of  the  Old  ^ejlament  feem  the 
mofi  PLAIN  of  all  ancient  writings,  and  wherein 
there  appears  not  the  least  trace  of  typical 
OR  ALLEGORICAL  INTENTION  in  the  Authcrs,  or  in 
my  other  Jews  c/  their  times^.  He  that  anfwers  a 
Free-thinker  will  find  employment  enough.— iV<?/ 
the  leafi  trace  of  a  typical  or  allegorical  intention ! 
He  might  as  well  have  faid  there  is  not  the  leaji 
trace  of ^ottry  in  Virgil,  or  of  eloquence  in  Cicero. 
But  there  is  none,  he  fays,  either  in  the  Authors,  or 
in  any  other  Jews  of  their  times.  Of  both  which 
Afiertions,  this  fingle  Text  of  Ezekiel  will  be  an 
abundant  confutation— y^/j  Lord,  they  say  of  me, 
DO^H  HE  not  speak  PARABLES  ^  ?  The  Prophct 
complains  that  his  ineffeftual  Miffion  proceeded 
fr6m  his  fpeaking,  and  from  the  People's  conceiv- 
ing him  to  fpeak,  of  things  myfterioufly,  and  in  a 
mode  of  delivery  not  underftood  by  them.  The 
Author  of  the  book  of  Ecclefiafticus,  who  is  rea- 
fonably  fuppofed  to  have  been  contemporary  with 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  reprefents  holy  Scripture  as 
fully  fraught  with  typical  and  allegoric  wifdom : 
"  He  that  giveth  his  mind  to  the  Law  of  the 

•  i.  e.  Thi^  gradual  yet  repeated  inftrudtion,  which  was  given 
with  fo  much  mercy  and  indulgence,  to  lead  them  by  flow  and 
gentle  fteps  from  the  Law  to  the  Gofpel,  being  abufed  fo  as  to 
defeat  the   end,  GoJ   in  punilhment  made  it  the  occafion  of 
blinding  their  eves  and  hardening  their  hearts. 

f  Groundty  l^c.  p.  82.  ^  Chap.  xx.  ver.  49. 

Z  3  "  Moll 


342  "Tie  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

"  Moft  High,  and  is  occupied  in  the  meditation 
*'  thereof,  will  feek  out  the  wifdom   of  the  An- 
"  cients,  and  be  occupied  in  Prophecies.    He 
*'  will  keep  the  fayings  of  the  renowned  men  ;  and 
**  where  subtile  parables  are,  he  will  be  there 
"  alfo.     He  will  fcek  out  the  secrets  of  grave 
"  sentences,  and  be  converfant  in  dark  para- 
"  bles  \"     Hence  it  appears  that  the  Jewilh  Pro- 
phecies were  not  lb  plain  as  our  Adverfary  repre- 
fents  them  ;  and  that  their  obfcurity  arofe  from 
their  having  Typical  or  AUegoiical  intentions:  which 
figures  too,  related  not   to  the  prefent^  but  to   a 
future  Difpenfation,  as  is  farther  feen  from  what 
Ezekifl  fays  in  another  place — Son  of  man,  behold 
<  they  of  the  houfe  of  Jfrael  fay.  The  vision   that 

HE  SEETH  is  for  MANY  DAYS  TO  COME,  AND  HE 
PROPHESIETH  OF  THE  TIMES  THAT  ARE   FAR  OFF  '. 

So  that  thefe  People  to  whom  the  Prophecies  were 
k>  plain ^  and  who  underftood  them  to  refpeft  their 
own  times  only,  without  any  Typical  or  Allegoric 
tneaniiig,  complain  of  ohfctirities  in  them,  and  con- 
fider  them  as  referring  to  very  remote  times.  But 
I  am  afnamed  of  being  long-er  ferious  with  fo  idle 
a  Caviller.  The  Englifh  Bible  lies  open  to  every 
Free-thinker  of  Great  Britain;  Where  they 
may  read  it  that  will,  and  underitand  it  that  can. 

As  for  fuch  Writers  as  the  Author  of  the  Grounds 
and  Reafons,  To  fay  the  truth,  one  would  never 
wilh  to  fee  them  other  wife  employed  :  But  when  fo 
great  and  fo  good  a  man  asGROTius  hath  unwarily 
contributed  to  fupport  the  dotages  of  Infidelity, 

i\iv3-ilM  — •'  iv  oav.ytA.xyt   'm»px'90?\uv  dvar^a'pyia'PiXU      Chap.    XXXIX. 
ver.  I,  2,  3. 

^  Chap.  xii.  ver.  zf. 

this 


Sed.  6.      o/^  M  o  s  E  s  demonjirated.  343 

this  is  fuch  a  mifadventure  as  one  cannot  but  la- 
ment. 

This  excellent  Perfon,  (for  it  is  not  to  be  dif- 
guifed)  hath  made  it  his  conftant  endeavour 
throughout  his  whole  Comment  on  the  Prophets, 
to  find  a  doiihk  fenfe  even  in  thofe  dire^  Prophecies 
which  relate  to  Jesus  ;  and  to  turn  the  primary 
fenfe  upon  the  affairs  of  the  Jewifh  Difpenfation  ; 
only  permitting  them  to  relate  to  Jesus  in  difecon- 
dary:  and  by  that  affeded  flrain  of  interpretation, 
hath  done  almoll  as  much  harm  to  Revelation  as 
his  other  writings  have  done  it  fervice :  not  from  any 
ftrength  there  is  in  his  Criticifms  -,  (for  this,  and 
his  Comment  on  the  Apocalypfc  are  the  opprobri- 
um of  his  great  learning)  but  only  from  the  name 
they  carry  with  them. 

The  Principle  which  Grotius  went  upon  in  com- 
menting the  Bible,  was,  that  it  fhould  be  inter- 
preted on  the  fame  rules  of  Criticifm  that  men  ufe 
in  the  ftudy  of  all  other  ancient  Writings.  No- 
thing could  be  more  reafonable  than  his  Prin- 
ciple :  but  unluckily  he  deceived  himfelf  in  the 
application  of  it.  Thefe  rules  teach  us  that  the 
GENIUS,  PURPOSE,  and  AUTHORITY  of  the  Writer 
fhould  be  carefully  ftudied.  Under  the  head  of 
his  authority  it  is  to  be  confidercd,  whether  he  be 
a  mere  human  or  an  infpired  Writer.  Thus  far 
Grotius  went  right :  he  examined  that  authority ; 
and  pronounced  the  Writers  to  be  infpired^  and 
the  Prophecies  divine :  But  when  he  came  to  ap- 
ply thefe  premifTes,  he  utterly  forgot  his  conclufion  ; 
and  interpreted  the  Prophecies  by  rules  very  dif- 
ferent from  what  the  confefllon  of  their  divine  origi- 
nal required  :  for  feeing  them  pronounced  by  Jew- 
ilh  Prophets,  occupied  in  Jewifh  Affairs,  he  con- 
Z  4  eluded 


344  ^^^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

eluded  their  fole  Objed  was  Jevvifh  -,  and  confe- 
quently  that  the  proper  fenfe  of  the  Prophecies 
referred  to  thefe  only.  But  this  was  falling  back 
from  one  of  the  grounds  he  went  upon.  That  the 
Writers  were  infpired :  for  his  interpretation  was  on- 
ly reafonable  on  the  fuppofition  that  thefe  Writers 
prophefied  in  the  very  manner  which  the  Pagans 
vinderftood  their  Prophets  fometimes  to  have  done, 
by  a  statural  fagacity :  For,  on  the  allowance  of  a 
real  infpi^ation,  it  was  God,  and  not  the  Writer, 
who  was  the  proper  Author  of  the  Prophecy  ;  and 
to  underftand  his  piirpofe^  which  the  rules  of  inter- 
pretation requires  us  to  feek,  we  mufl  examine  the 
nature,  reafon,  and  end  of  that  Religion  wjiich  he 
gave  to  the  Jews  :  For  on  thefe,  common  fenfe 
aflTures  us,  the  meaning  of  the  Prophecies  muft  be 
intirely  regulated.  Now  if,  on  enquiry,  it  fhould 
be  found,  that  this  which  Grotius  admitted  for  a 
divine  Difpenfation,  was  only  preparatory  of  an- 
other more  perfect,  it  Vv'ould  then  appear  not  to 
be  improbable  that  fome  of  thefe  Prophecies 
might  relate,  in  their  literal,  primary^  a.nd  immediate 
fenfe,  to  that  more  perfect  Difpenfation.  And 
v/hether  they  did  fo  or  not  was  to  be  determined 
by  the  joint  evidence  of  the  context,  and  of  the 
nature  of  God's  whole  Difpenfation  to  mankind, 
fo  far  forth  as  it  is  difcoverable  to  us.  But  Grotius, 
inftead  of  making  the  matter  thus  reafonably  pro-. 
blematical,  and  to  be  determined  by  evidence,  de- 
termined ftrft,  and  laid  it  down  as  a  kind  of  Prin- 
ciple, that  the  Prophecies  related  direftly  and  pro- 
perly to  Jewifh  affairs :  and  into  this  fyftem  he 
wiredrew  all  his  explanations.  This,  as  we  fay, 
was  falfly  applying  a  true  rule  of  interpretation. 
He  went  on  this  reafonable  ground,  that  the  Pro- 
phecies fhould  be  interpreted  like  all  other  ancient 
Writings :  and,  on  examining  their  authority,  he 

foun4 


Se<3:.  6.        o/"  M  o  s  E  s  demonjl rated.         345 

found  them  to  be  truly  divine.  When  he  had 
gone  thus  far,  he  then  prepofteroufly  went  back 
again,  and  commented  as  if  they  were  confefTed 
to  be  merely  human  :  The  confequence  was,  that 
feveral  of  his  criticifms,  to  fpeak  of  them  only  as 
the  performance  of  a  man  of  learning,  are  fo  forced, 
unnatural,  and  abfurd,  fo  oppofed  to  the  rational 
canon  of  interpretation,  that  I  will  venture  to 
affirm  they  are,  in  all  refpedls,  the  worll  that 
ever  came  from  the  hand  of  an  acute  and  able 
Critic. 

III. 

Having  now  proved  that  the  Principles  which 
Mr.  Collins  went  upon,  are  in  themfelves  falfe  and 
extravagant,  one  has  little  reafon  to  regard  how 
he  employed  them.  But  as  this  extraordinary 
Writer  was  as  great  a  Free-thinker  in  Logic  as  in 
Divinity,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  fhew  the  fa- 
fhionable  World  v/hat  fort  of  man  they  have  chofen 
for  their  Guide,  to  lead  them  from  their  Religion, 
when  they  would  no  longer  bear  with  any  to  direft 
them  in  it. 

His  argument  againft  what  he  calls  typical^  alle- 
gorical, but  properly,  fecondary  fenfes,  ftands  thus : 
— **  Chriftianity  pretends  to  derive  itfelf  from 
Judaifm.  Jesus  appeals  to  the  religious  books  of 
the  Jews  as  prophefyingof  his  MifTion.  None  of 
thefe  Prophecies  can  be  underftood  of  him  but  in 
a  typical  allegoric  fenfe.  Now  that  fenfe  is  abfurd, 
and  contrary  to  all  fcholaftic  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion. Chriftianity,  therefore  not  being  really  pre-- 
difted  of  in  the  Jewifli  Writings,  is  confequently 
falfe.^' — The  conteftable  Propofition,  on  which  the 
\vhole  argument  rells,  is,  That  a  typical  or  allegoric 

fenfe 


34^  'The  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

fcnfe  is  abfurd^  and  contrary  to  allfcholajlic  rules  of  in- 
terpretation. 

Would  the  Reader  now  believe  that  Mr.  Collins 
has  himfelf,  in  this  very  book  given  a  thorough 
confutation  of  his  own  capital  Propofition  ?  Yet 
fo  it  isi  and,  contrary  too  to  his  iifual  way  of 
reafoning,  he  has  done  it  in  a  very  clear  and  con- 
vincing manner  -,  by  (hewing,  that  the  typical  and 
allegorical  yf2iy  oi  writings  was  univerfally  practifed 
by  Antiquity.  — "  Allegory  (fays  he)  was  much 
"  in  ule  amongfl;  the  Pagans^  being  cultivated  by 
"  many  of  the  Philofophers  themlelves  as  well  as 
**  Theologers.  By  some  as  the  method  of  de- 
"  LivERiNG  DOCTRINES;  but  by  moft  as  the  me- 
"  thod  of  explaining  away  what,  according  to  the 
"•  letter,  appear'd  abfurd  in  the  ancient  fables  or  hif- 
*'  tories  of  their  Gods.  Religion  itfelf  was  deemed 
"  a  myfterious  thing  amonglt  the  Pagans,  and  not 
"  to  be  publicly  and  plainly  declared.  Wherefore 
"  it  was  never  fmiply  reprefented  to  the  People, 
"  but  was  moll  oblcurely  delivered,  and  vail'd  un- 
"  dtr  Allegories,  or  Parables,  or  Hieroglyphics  ; 
"  and  efpecially  amongll  the  Egyptians,  Chal- 
"  deans,  and  the  Oriental  Nations.  —  They  alle- 
*'  gorized  many  things  of  nature,  and  particu- 
*'  larly  the  heavenly  bodies  —  They  allegorized 
"  all  their  ancient  fables  and  flories,  and  pretended 
"  to  difcover  in  them  the  fecrets  of  natural  Philo- 
"  fophy.  Medicine,  Politicks,  and  in  a  word  all 
*'  Arts  and  Sciences.  The  works  of  Homer  in 
"  particular  have  furnifhed  infinite  materials  for 
"  all  forts  of  allegorical  Commentators  to  work 
"  upon. — The  ancient  Greek  Poets  were  reputed 
♦'  to  involve  divine,  and  natural,  and  hiftorical 
"  notions  of  their  Gods  under  myftical  and  para- 

"  bolical 


Se6l.  6.     ^  Moses  demonjirated.  347 

*'  bolical  exprefTions  —  The  Pythagorean  Philofo- 

"  phy  was  wholly  delivered  in  myilical  language, 

"  the  fignification  whereof  was  entirely  unknown 

**  to  the  world  abroad— The  Stoic  Philofophers 

"  are  particularly  famous  for  allegorizing  the  whole 

*'  heathen  Theology— We   have  feveral  treatifes 

"  of  heathen  Philofophers  on  the  fubjed  of  alle- 

*'  gorical  interpretation  "." — 

If  nov/  this  kind  of  allegorizing^  which  involved 
the  Proportion  in  z  double  fertfe^  was  in  ufe  amongft 
the  pagan  Oracles,  Divines,  Philofophers  and  Poets, 
is  not  the  underllanding  ancient  writings  allegori- 
cally^  or  in  a  double  fenfe^  agreeable  to  all  rational, 
fcholaftic  rules  of  interpretation  ?  Surely,  as  much 
fo  as  the  underllanding  mere  metaphorical  expfef- 
lions  in  a  tropical  fignification  ;  whofe  propriety  no 
one  ever  yet  called  in  queftion.  For  the  fenie  of 
Propofdions  is  impofed  as  arbitrarily  as  the  fenfe  of 
words.  And  if  men,  in  the  communication  of 
their'  thoughts,  agree  to  give,  on  Ibme  occafions, 
a  double  fenfe  to  Propofdiom,  as  well  as  on  others, 
a  fingle^  the  interpreting  the  firfl  in  two  meanings 
is  as  agreeable  to  all  fcholaftic  rules,  as  interpret- 
ing the  other  in  one :  And  Proportions,  with  a 
double  and  fingle  fenfe,  are  as  eafily  diftinguifh- 
able  from  each  other,  by  the  help  of  the  context, 
as  IVords  with  a  literal  and  figurative  meaning. 
But  this  great  Philofopherfeems  to  have  imagined, 
that  xht  fingle  fenfe  of  a  Propofition  was  impoled  by 
Nature  ;  and  that  therefore,  giving  them  a  double 
meaning  was  the  fame  offence  againft  Reafon  as  the 
deviating  from  the  unity  of  pure  'Theifm  into  Poly- 
theifin :  and,  confequently,  that  the  univerfal  lapfe 

^  Grounds,  ^c.  p.  83,  S4,  85,  86. 

5  into 


348  The  Divine  Legation      Book  VI. 

into  ALLEGORY  and  idolatry  rendred  neither  the 
one  nor  other  of  them  the  lefs  abfurd  '. 

I  fay,  he  feems  to  think  fo.  More  one  cannot 
fay  of  fuch  a  Writer.  Befides,  he  feems  to  think 
otherwife,  where,  in  another  place,  as  if  aware 
that  Ufe  would  refcue  a  double  fenfe  from  his  irra- 
tional and  unfcholajiic  cenfure,  he  endeavours  to 
prove,  that  the  Jews,  during  the  prophetic  period, 
did  not  ufe  this  allegoric  way  of  expreffion.  Now 
if  we  be  right  in  this  laft  conjedure  about  his 
meaning,  he  abufes  the  terms  he  employs,  under 
a  milerable  quibble  j  and,  by  fcholajlic  and  un- 
fcholajiic  rulesy  only  means  interpreting  in  a  ^ngk 
or  a  double  fenfe. 

The  Reader  perhaps  will  be  curious  to  know 
how  it  happened,  that  this  great  Reafoner  Ihould, 
all  at  once,  overthrov/  what  he  had  been  fo  long 
labouring  to  build.  This  fatal  iffue  of  his  two 
books  of  the  Grounds,  &c.  and  Scheme,  &c. 
had  thefe  caufes : 

'  It  is  wonderful  to  confider  how  little  the  Writers  on  either 
fide  the  queftion,  have  underftood  of  the  logical  propritty  and 
moral  ft  ntfs  of  I'ypes,  and  fecondary  feiifes  of  Prophecy. 

Dr.  Middleton  and  Dr.  Sykes,  who  agreed  with  Mr.  Collins 
in  laughing  at  thefe  modes  of  information,  agreed  with  him 
likcwife,  in  laying  down  fuch  principles  and  inculcating  fuch 
ideas  of  the  Mofaic  Religion,  as  moft  efFeflually  tended  to 
evince  this  logical  propriety  and  moral  Jit  ne/s. 

On  the  other  hand,  Biihop  Sherlock,  Dr.  Stebbing?,  and 
other  advocates  for  Types  and  fecondary  fenfcs  of  Prophecy, 
lay  dvown  fuch  principles,  and  inculcate  fuch  ideas  of  the  Mofaic 
Religion,  as  would  totally  fupercede  the  ufe  of  thefe  modes  of 
information,  and  confequently  dellroy  both  their  logical  propriety 

and  moral  f.tnrfs. See   the   Free  and  candid  Examination  of 

P'Jhop  Sherlock's  Principles,  Sec.  chap.  ii. 

I.  He 


St^.  6.       of  Moses  demciiflrated.  349 

I.  He  had  a  prefllng  and  immediate  obje5iion  to 
remove.  And  as  he  had  no  great  ftock  of  argu- 
ment, and  but  fmall  forecall,  any  thing,  at  a 
plunge,  would  be  received,  which  came  to  his 
relief. 

The  obje6lIon  was  this — "  That  the  allegorical 
"  interpretations  of  the  Apoftles  were  notdefigned 
*'  for  abfolute  proofs  of  Chriftianity,  but  for  argu- 
"  ments  ad  homines  only  to  the  Jews,  who  were 
"  accuftomed  to  that  way  of  reafoning  *"." 
Thus,  he  himfelf  tells  us,  fome  Divines  are  ac- 
cuftomed  to  talk.  He  gives  them  indeed  a  folid 
anfwer  -,  but  he  dreams  not  of  the  confequence. 
He  fays,  this  allegoric  reafoning  v;as  common  to  all 
mankind.  Was  itfo  .?  Then  the  grand  Propofitiori 
on  which  his  whole  Work  fupports  itfelf,  is  en- 
tirely overthrown.  For  if  all  mankind  ufed  it, 
the  method  muft  needs  be  rational  and  fcholaflic. 
But  this  he  was  not  aware  of.  What  kept  him 
in  the  dark,  was  his  never  being  able' to  diftin- 
guilh  between  the  use  and  the  abuse  of  this 
mode  of  information.  Thefe  two  things  he  per- 
petually confounds,    T^he  'Pagan  Oracles  delivered 

themfelves  in  allegories  \ this  was  the  ufe  :  Their 

later   'Divines  turned  all  their  Religion  into  allegory ; 

«■ this  was  the  abufe.     I^he  elder  Pythagoreans 

gave  their  Precepts  in  allegory this  was  the 

ufe  :  T^he  later  Stoics  allegorized  every  thing ; 

this  was  the  abufe.  Homer  had  fome  allegories \ 
—this  was  the  ufe  :  His  Commentators  turned  all  to 

allegory; and  this  again  was  the  abufe.     But 

tho'  he  has  talked  fo  much  of  thefe  things,  yet  he 
knew  no  more  of  them  than  old  John  Bun  van  \ 
whofe  honefter  ignorance,  joined  to  a  good  mean- 

">  Page  79. 

ing. 


350  The  Divine  Legation         Eook  VL 

ing,  difpofcd  him  to  admire  that  which  the  malig- 
nity of  our  Author's  folly  inclined  him  to  decry  : 
and  each  in  the  like  ridiculous  extreme. 

2.  But  the  other  caufe  of  this  fubverfion  of  his 
own  fyttem  was  the  delight  he  took  to  blacken 
the.fplendor  of  Religion.  He  fuppofed,  we  may 
be  fure,  it  would  prove  an  effectual  difcredit  to 
Revelation,  to  have  it  feen,  that  there  was  this 
conformity  between  the  Pagan  and  Jewiih  method 
of  delivering  Religion  and  Morality.  His  attempt 
hath  been  already  expofed  as  it  deferves  °.  But 
in  this  inftance  it  labours  under  much  additional 
folly.  For  the  differeni  reafons  which  induced 
the  Propagators  of  Paganifm,  and  the  Author 
of  Judaifm  to  employ  the  fame  method  of  infor- 
mation, are  obvious  to  the  meanell  capacity,  if 
advanced  but  fo  far  in  the  knowledge  of  nature 
to  know,  that  different  ends  are  very  commonly 
profecuted  by  the  fame  means.  The  Pagans  alle- 
gorifed  in  order  to  hide  the  weaknefs  and  ahfurdi- 
ties  of  their  national  Religions ;  the  Author  of  Ju- 
daifm allegorized  in  order  to  pi'epare  his  follow- 
ers for  the  reception  of  a  more  perfe£l  Difpenfation, 
founded  on  Judaifm,  which  was  preparatory  of  it ; 
and,  at  the  fame  time,  to  prevent  their  premature 
rejection  of  Judaifm,  under  which  they  were  Itill  to 
be  long  exercifed. 

Thus  we  fee  how  this  formidable  Enemy  of  our 
Faith  has  himfelf  overturned  his  whole  Argument 
by  an  unwary  anfvver  to  an  occafional  objedlion. 
But  this  is  but  one^  of  a  Work  fuUof  contradidiions. 
I  have  no  occafion  to  be  particular,  after  removing 
his  main  Principles ;  yet,  for  the  Reader's  diver- 

"  See  Book  iv,  §  i.  at  the  end, 

fion, 


Se£t.  6.       of  Moses  demonjlrated.         351 

lioD,  I  ihall  give  him  a  tafte  of  them.     In  his  81 

page,  he  fays And  there  has  been  for  a  long  time^ 

and  is  at  this  time  as  little  ufe  of  allegory  in  thofe  re- 
fpe5is  amongji  them  [the  Jews]  as  there  feems  to  hai-e 
been  during  the  time  the  books  of  the  Old  'Teflament 
were  written^  which  feem  the  moji  plain  of  all  ancient 
IVri tings,  and  wherein  there  appears  not  the  leajl  tra<e 
of  a  typical  or  allegorical  intention  in  the  Authors^  or 
in  any  other  Jews  of  their  times.  Yet  it  is  but  at  the 
85  page  that  we  find  him  faying — And  in  this  \yiz. 
in  delivering  his  Philofophy  in  myftical  language] 
Pythagoras  came  up  to  Solomon's  character  of 
wife  men,  who  dealt  in  dark  fayings,  and  aEled  not 
much  unlike  the  mofi  divine  Teacher  that  ever  was. 
Our  Saviour  fpake  with  many  parables,  &c.  Now 
it  leems,  it  was  Solomon's  charafter  of  wife  men 
that  they  dealt  in  dark  fayings.  But  thefe  wife  men 
were  the  Authors  of  the  Jewifh  Scriptures.  And 
yet  he  had  but  juft  before  affured  us,  'That  the 
books  of  the  Old  Teflament  feem  the  mofi  plain  of  all 
ancient  Writings,  and  wherein  there  appears  7iot  the 
leafl  trace  of  a  typical  or  allegorical  intention  in  the 
Authors,  or  in  any  Jews  of  their  times. 

Again,  in  his  85 — 6  pages,  he  fays,  "  The  '^y- 
"  thagorean  Philofophy  was  wholly  delivered  in 
"  myllical  language  -,  the  fignification  whereof  was 
*'  intirely  unknown  to  the  world  abroad,  and  but 
"  gradually  explained  to  thofe  of  the  fedt,  as  they 
"  grew  into  years,  or  were  proper  to  be  informed 
*'  — The  Stoic  Philofophers  were  particularly  fa- 
"  mous  for  allegorizing — We  have  feveral  treatifes 
"  of  heathen  Philofophers  on  the  fubje6l  of  alle- 
"  gorical  interpretation — And  from  Philofophers, 
"  Platonifts  and  Stoics,  the  famous  Origen  is 
*'  laid  to  have  derived  a  great  deal  of  his  fldll  in 
"  allegorizing  tlie  books  of  the  Old  Teflament." 

This 


352  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

This  he  fays,  and  yet  at  the  94  page  he  tells  us, — 
*'  That  the  Apottles,  and  particularly  St.  Paul, 
"  wholly  difcarded  all  other  methods  of  reafoning 
*'  ufed  by  Philofophers,  except  the  allegorical:  and 
"  fet  that  up  as  the  true  and  only  reafoning  pro- 
"  per  to  bring  all  men  to  the  faith  of  Christ  : 
"  and  the  Gentiles  were  to  be  "wholly  beat  out 
'*  of  the  literal  way  of  arguing,  and  to  argue 
"  as  became  Jews.  And  the  event  of  preaching 
**  the  Gofpel  has  been  fuited  to  matters  confidered 
"  in  this  view  and  light.  For  we  know  that  the 
*'  WISE  did  not  receive  the  Gofpel  at  firft,  and 
"  that  they  were  the  lateft  Converts :  Which 
"  PLAINLY  arofe  from  their  ujing  maxims  of  reafon- 
"  ing  and  difputing  wholly  oppq/ite  to  thofe  of  Chrif- 
"  tians.'*  By  thefe  ivife^  can  be  meant  none  but 
the  pagan  Philofophers :  and  thefe,  according  to 
our  Author,  were  altogether  given  up  to  myltery 
and  allegory.  Yet  St.  Paul,  and  the  reft  of  the 
Apoftles,  who,  he  fays,  were  likewife  given  up 
to  the  lame  method,  could  make  no  converts 
amongft  thefe  wife  men.  Why  ?  It  would  now 
methinks  have  fuited  his  talents  as  well  as  temper, 
to  have  told  us,  it  was  becaufe  two  of  a  trade  could 
not  agree:  No,  fays  this  incomparable  Logician, 
it  was  becaufe  the  Philofophers  ufed  maxims  of  reafon- 
ing and difputingwholl^  oppofite  to  the  Chrifiians. 

What  now  but  the  name  and  authority  of  Free- 
thinking  could  hinder  fuch  a  Writer  from  becom- 
ino-  the  contempt  of  all  who  know  either  how  to 
make,  or  to  underftand  an  argument  ?  Thefe 
men  profane  the  light  they  receive  from  Revelation 
in  employing  it  to  rob  the  treafures  of  the  Sanc- 
tuary. But  Religion  arreils  them  in  the  manner^ 
and  pronounces  one  common  d»om  upon  the  whole 

race. 

"  — Ne 


Sc(5t.  6.       of  Moses  demonjlrated.  353 

<<  . — Ne  IGNIS  NOSTER  facinori  prasluceat, 
*'  Per  quern  colendos  cenfuk  Pietas  Deos, 
"  Veto  ESSE  TALE  luminis  commercium*. 

Hence  the  fate  that  attends  them  all,  in  the  in- 
feparable  connexion  hztw^^tn  impiety  2iX\d  blundering; 
which  always  follow  one  another  as  the  crime  and 
the  punifhment. 

If  it  be  afked  then.  What  it  is  that  hath  fo 
ilrangely  prejudiced  our  modern  Reafoners  againft 
this  ancient  mode  of  information  by  typical  and 
SECONDARY  fenfes  ?  I  anfwer,  the  folly  of  Fana- 
tics, who  have  abufed  it  in  fupporc  of  the  mofl 
abominable  nonfenfe.  But  how  unreafonable  is  this 
prejudice !  Was  there  ever  any  thing  rational  or 
excellent  amongft  Men  that  hath  not  been  thus 
abufed  ?  Is  it  any  difparagement  to  the  method  of 
Geometers^  that  fome  conceited  writers  on  Morality 
and  Religion  have  of  late  taken  it  up,  to  give  an 
air  of  weight  and  demonftration  to  the  whimfies  of 
pedantic  importance  ?  Is  there  no  truth  of  nature, 
or  reafonablenefs  of  art,  in  Grammatical  conftruc- 
tion,  becaufe  cabaliftic  Dunces  have  in  every  age 
abufed  it  to  pervert  all  human  meaning  ?  We 
might  as  well  fay  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  did 
not  write  in  Hieroglyphics,  becaufe  Kircher,  who 
endeavoured  to  explain  them,  hath  given  us  no- 
thing but  his  own  vifions,  as  that  the  ancient 
Jews  had  not  types  and  fecondary  fenfes^  becaufe 
modern  Enthufiafts  have  allegorized  their  whole 
Story. 

But  I,  from  thefe  ahitfes  would  draw  a  very  contrary 
conclufion.     The  rage  of  allegorizing  in  Religion 

"  Phad.  I.  iv.  Fab.  lO. 

Vol.  V.  A  a  hath 


354        ^^^  Divine  Legation  Book  VI. 

hath  infeded  all  ages :  Can  there  be  a  ftronger 
proof  that  the  original  mode  was  founded  in  the 
common  conceptions  of  mankind  ?  The  Pagans 
began  the  abufe ;  and  the  peftilent  infedlion  loon 
Ipread  amongft  the  followers  of  true  Religion. 

1.  The  early  propagators  of  Paganism,  in  or- 
der to  hide  the  weakneis  of  the  national  Religion, 
delivered  many  things  in  Types  and  Allegories. 
But  a  growing  Superftition,  accompanied  with  an 
equal  advance  in  knowledge,  made  it  at  length 
impoffible  to  fcreen  the  folly  even  of  the  lefs  ob- 
noxious parts,  from  common  obfervers.  Their  Suc- 
cefTors  therefore,  to  fupport  its  credit,  went  on 
where  the  others  had  left  off;  and  allegorized 
all  the  traditional  ftories  of  their  Gods,  intonaturaly 
moral,  and  dhini  Entities.  This,  notwithftand- 
ing  the  extravagance  of  the  means,  fully  anfwered 
the  end. 

2.  The  Jews  ingrafted  on  their  predecefTors, 
juft  as  the  Pagans  had  done  on  theirs ;  and  with 
the  fame  fecular  policy :  For  being  pofiefTed  with 
a  national  prejudice,  that  their  Religion  was  to  en- 
dure for  ever,  and  yet  feeing  in  it  the  marks  of 
a  carnal,  temporary,  and  preparatory  Difpenfation, 
they  cunningly  allegorized  its  Rites  and  Precepts 
into  a  fpiritucil  meaning,  which  covered  every 
thing  that  v/as  a  real  deficiency  in  a  Religion,  which 
they  conlidered  as  perfe6t  and  perpetual.  Both 
thele  forts  of  Allcgorifts  therefore  had  reafon  in 
tlieir  rage. 

3.  Afterwards  came  a  fet  of  Christian  Wri- 
ters, brought  out  from  amongllyif'ui'j  and  Gentilesy 
and  thcfe  too,  would  needs  be  in  the  fafliion,  and 
allegorize  their  Religion  likewiie.     But  with  in- 
finite!/ 


Sedt.  6.       of  iVTosES  detnonjlrated.  355 

finitely  lefs  judgment  than  the  others ;  tho'  alas ! 
with  equal  luccefs.  In  their  hands,  the  ^;7c/proved 
as  hurtful  to  truth  as  the  mtans  were  extravagant 
in  nature.  And  how  fhould  it  be  otherwife  in  a 
Religion  both  divine  and  perfe£}  ?  For  in  fuch  aa 
one,  there  was  nothing  either  to  hide  or  to  supply. 
We  have  fhewn  that  types  and  fecondary  fenfes  were 
employed  in  the  Jewifh  Religion  for  the  fake  of 
the  Chriftian,  of  which  the  Jewilh  was  the  ground- 
work and  preparation.  When  therefore  the  Chri- 
fiian  was  come,  thefe  modes  of  information  muft 
needs  ceafe,  there  being  no  farther  occafion,  nor 
indeed  room,  for  them.  As  clear  as  this  is  to  the 
loweil  underftanding,  yet  would  Ibme  primitive 
Doctors  of  the  Church  needs  contend  with  Jev/i(h 
Rabbins,  and  pagan  Philofophers,  in  all  the  rage 
of  allegorizing :  Deaf  to  the  voice  of  ReafoOi 
which  called  aloud  to  tell  them,  that  thofe  very 
arguments,  which  proved  that  there  were,  and 
muft  needs  be^  types  zndfeccndary  fenfes  in  the 
OldTeJiament,  proved  as  plainly  that  there  neither 
were,  nor  could  be  any,  in  the  Ne-zv.  Thus,  to 
the  inexprelTible  damage  of  Chriftianity,  they  c*:- 
pofed  a  reafonable  Service,  and  a  perfected  Difpenfa- 
tion  (where  nothing  was  taught  but  Truth,  plain, 
fimple,  and  open)  to  the  laughter  and  contempt  of 
Infidels ;  who,  bewildered  in  the  univerfal  m.aze 
of  this  allegoric  mode  of  information,  were  never 
able  to  know  what  it  was  in  its  original,  nor  how 
to  diitinguilh  between  the  ufe  and  the  ahife. 

To  CONCLUDE,  Let  not  the  Reader  think  I 
have  been  all  this  while  leading  him  out  of  the 
way,  while  I  have  engaged  his  attention  to  the 
hook  (?/JoB-,  to  the  Cafe  of  Aj:^  ah  km -^  and  to 
Types  and  fecondary  fenfes  under  the  Jewifh  Dif- 
penfation.  All  thefe  flridlly  belong  to  the  Argu- 
ment : 

Aa  2  I.  Firft, 


356  The  Divine  Legation  Bcok  VI. 

1.  Firfl,  as  they  greatly  contribute  to  fliew  the 
HARMONY  of  Truth  ;  and  how  all  the  parts  of  the 
Jewifh  Difpenfation  fupport  and  illuitrate  one 
another. 

2.  Secondly,  as  they  contribute  to  fhew  the  uni- 
formity of  it  i  and  how  the  Holy  Spirit,  quite 
throughout  God's  grand  CEconomy,  from  his  firft 
giving  of  the  Law  to  the  completion  of  it  by  the 
Gofpel,  obferved  the  fame  unvaried  method  of  the 

CTRADUAL  COMMUNICATION  of  'TrUth. 

3.  Thirdly,  as  they  contribute  to  Ihew  the  folly 
of  thofe  who  contend  that  the  Chriftian  Doctrine 
of  a  Future  ftate  was  revealed  to  the  early  Jews  ; 
fmce  this  opinion  deftroys  all  the  reafon  of  zfecon- 
dary  fenfe  of  Prophecies  :  and  of  how  great  impor- 
tance the  reality  of  this  fenfe  is  to  the  truth  of  Chri- 
ftianity  hath  been  largely  explained:  For  how  can 
it  be  known  with  certainty,  from  the  Prophecies 
themfelves,  that  they  contain  double fenfes^  but  from 
hence,  that  the  old  Law  was  preparatory  to,  and 
the  rudiment  of  the  new?  How  (hall  this  relation 
be  certainly  known,  but  from  hence,  that  no  fu- 
ture ftate  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Mofaic  Difpenfation  ^  ?  So  clofe  a  de- 
pendence 

f  M.  BouiLLER,  the  ingenious  Author  of  the  Court  Examen 
de  la  Thfje  de  Mr,  L'' Abbe  de  Prades  et  Ol>/fy-jatio>:s  fur  Jon 
y]fc:cgie,  having  charged  de  Frades  with  taking  his  idea  of 
the  iVIofaic  CEconomy  from  this  Work,  withoiit  owning  it, 
goes  on,  in  his  own  way,  to  iTiew  that  the  Argument  of 
the  Di'uine  Legation,  as  delivered  in  thcfe  two  Volumes,  is 
CONCLUSIVE.  —  "  La  Loi  iVlofaique,  coiifideree  comme 
fondcment  d'un  cfcabliflement  national  et  ttmporel,  n'avoit 
Cjue  dcs  promeflcs  ct  des  menaces,  ne  propolbit  que  des  peines 
dcs  rccompenfes  temporelles :  aulieu  qu'i  confiderer /</_g-r^«^/^i 
■*uues  de  cet  etablijfement,  par  rapport  a  V  Eiiglje  7neme,  Ja  Loi 
e;oit  unc  efpece  de  tableau  emblematique,  qui  fous  I'enve- 
iogpe  dcs  objcts  charnalsy^///-wV /Wy^/V//wA-i  enfurte  que,  en 

raifon- 


Sed:,  6.       c/'  M  o  s  E  s  demonjlrated.  257 

pendence  have  all  thefe  important  Principles  on 
one  another. 

Reca- 

raifonnant  felon  les  pnncipes  d'une  jufte  analogic,  la  fol  des 
IfratUtes  eclaircs  et  pieux,  irouvoit  dans  les  promefTes  de  la  Loi, 
qui  portoient  uniquement  fur  les  hiens  pre/ens,  un  nouveau  garand 
de  la  certitude  des  biens  avenir.  Mais  comme  on  doit  bien  fe 
fouvenir,  que  dans  cet:e  Nation,  les  Fideles  ne  faifoient  que  le 
PETIT  NOM3RE,  /'argument  ^e  W ARBV RT OS ,  tire  dujilenc^  dt 
la  Loi  fur  um  Oeconomie  a^venir^  en  faveur  de  la  divinite  de  cette 
Loi  meme,  confcrue  toute  fa  force;  car  il  demeure  toojours  vrai 
qu'il  n'a  pas  fallu  moins  que  la  vertu  des  miracles  et  I'efHcace 
d'une  impreffion  furnaturelle,  pour  faire  ployer  le  grofs  de  la  Na- 
tion, c'ell  a- dire  ies  Juifs  charnels,  qui  ne  penetroient  point  ces 
vues  Myfterieufes,  fous  le  joug  pefant  de  la  Difpenfation  Mofa- 
ique."  [p.  94  ^.]  And  again,  "  Ce  double  Caraflere  de  la  Dii- 
penfation  JVlofaique  met  fa  divinite  hors  d'atteinte  a  tons  les 
traits  les  plus  envenimes  du  Deifme  qui  I'attaque  par  deux  bat- 
teries oppofe'es.  Quoi  ?  difent  nos  Libertins,  une  Religion  qui 
promet  uniquement  les  biens  de  la  Terre,  peut-elle  etre  digne 
du  Dieu  !  Et  lorfque,  pour  leur  repondre,  ayant  recours  au  fens 
myftique,  on  dit  que  les  promefTes  Legales  qui,  prifes  a  la 
lettre,  n'ofFrent  qu'un  bonheur  temporel,  doivent  s'entendre 
fpiricuellement  J  ces  Meffieurs  fe  retcurnent  auffi-tot  avec  une 
merveilleufe  adreffe  pour  vous  demander  comment  un  Oracle 
qui  trompe  les  hommes,  et  qui  n'a  point  d'accompliflement 
dans  le  fens  le  plus  clair,  le  plus  propie  et  le  plus  Ijtteral  de  ce 
qu'il  promet,  peut-etre  regarde  comme  un  Oracle  divin  ? 
Queftion  qui  dans  I'hypotheTe  commune  me  paroit  plus  diffi- 
cile a  refoudre  d'une  fa9on  fatisfaifante.  Mais  I'une  et  I'autre 
objedion  tombe,  des  qu'on  envifage  I'ancienne  CEconomie  telle 
qu'elle  eft  ;  c'eft-a-dire,  tout  a  la  fois  comme  Alliance  nationale 
et  comme  CEconomie  religieufe.  En  qualite  d'AlIiance  na- 
tionale, fes  promeffes  font  toutes  Charnelles,  et  s' accompliffent 
a  la  lettre  a  fegard  des  Juifs.  Mais  en  qualite  d'CEconomie 
religieufe,  effentieUement  Uee  au  plan  de  fE'uangile,  elle  ell  pour 
\t&  Fideles,  la  figure  et  le  gage  des  biens  fpirituals.  Double- 
ment  digne  du  Dieu  de  verite,  et  par  I'accojnpUJJement  Utter  at 
de  fes  promeffes,  ct  par  leur  ufage  typique,  le  reunion  de  ces 
deux  rapports  y  annonce  Touvrage  de  fon  infinie  fageffe." 
Addition  a  r Article  IV.  p.  104.] 

Thus  far  this  ingenious  Writer.  But  now  a  difficulty  will 
occur.  He  owns  the  Author  of  the  Dinjine  Legation  hath 
made  ou.;  his  point,  that   the  Law  of  Mofes  is  from  God  : 

A  a  3  He 


358  ^he  Divine  Legation       Book  VI, 

Recapitulation. 

And  now  if  the  length  of  the  Demonllration 
have  not  tired  out  the  Reader's  patience,  or,  to 

fpeak, 

He  contends  that  the   Author's  fyftem  is  tlie  oily  one  t\\zi  a^n 
fupport    this  Revelation  againll  the   objedions  of  Dei  lis    and 
Lihcnines  :  Yet  when  he  has  done  thi';,  he  has  thought  fit  to 
call  tills  very  fyftem,  a  Prtrrtdi9.v ;  tho'  it  goes    upon  his   own 
principle,  ^hat  the  fno/aic  Di/pe>i/atio}i  had  a  double  charader  ; 
th'it  U  ivas   a  national    jJlliance,    and  nuas   at    the  fame  time 
eji'cniially  ut.i.'ed  to   the  Grfjel  flan  ;   that   this    double    Charailer 
iho"  not  apprehended  by  the  body  of  the  'Jen.vijh  People,  yet  luaj  t^et'l 
underjiood  bv  thofe  feculiarly  favoured  of  God,  their  Prophets  and 
Leaders,     This  cenfure,  if  it  be  intended  for  one,  I  fay,  appears 
t:>  me  a  little  myfterious.     However  the  learned  Writer's  words 
are  thcfe  —  "  Quand  Mr.  de  Prades  a  dit  que  TCEconomie  Mo- 
faiquc  n'etoit  fondce  que  fur  les  peines  et  Ics  recompcnfes  tem- 
porelles,  et  qu'il  a  foutenu  que  cela  meme  fournit  une  bonne 
preuve  de  la  divinite  de  cette  Q'.conomie,  il  n'a  fait  autre  chofe 
que  fuivre  la  trace  du   favznt  IVarburton,  qui  avan^^a  ce  para- 
roxE,  il  y  a  deja  quelques  annees,  dans  fon  fameux  Ouvrage  de 
la  Divine  Legation  de  Moife,  et  employa  tour  a  tour  pour  le  de- 
fendre,  le  raifonnement  et  I'erudition.     Notre  Bachelier,  auffi- 
bien  qce  M.  Hocke,  qu'il  cite  pour  fon  garand,  auroient  bien  du 
faire  honneur  a  I'illuftre  Dodleur  Anglois,  d'une  penfee  que  per- 
fonne  nedoutera  qu'ils  n'ayent  puiiee  chez  lui."  [p,  88.]    Now, 
■I  have  fo  good  opinion  of  this  learned  Writer's  candour  as  to 
believe  that  either  he  ufed  the  word  paradox  in  an  indifferent 
jenfe,  or  that  he  was  mifled  in  his  Judgment  of  the  Di'vine  Le- 
ga:i:n  by  Mr.  de  Trades  and  Mr.  Hooke  :  Who  altho'  they  bor- 
rosved  what  they  have  delivered  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
Mofaic  CEconomy   from   that  book,  which  they  did  not  think 
fit  to  confefs,  yet  it  is  as  certain  that  what  they  borrowed  they 
either  did  not  underltand,  or  at  leall  have  mifreprefented.     The 
learned  Sorbonift  has  fince  publifhed  his  courfe  of  Theology, 
intitlcd  Rcligionis  naturalis  et  rs-vulata  Pri7ici/ia.      In  which,  tho' 
he  has  confulted  his  eafe  and  perhaps  his  reputation,  in  tranfcrib- 
ing  the  reafonings  of  the  Divine  Legation  on  various  points  of 
Theology,  and  generally  without  reference  to  the  Book  or  the 
Author ;  yet  his  affairs  with  his  Body  have  t'Ught  him  caution, 
aiid  obliged  him  to  declare  againft  the  Proposition,  in  fup- 
port  of  which,  thofe  reafonings  were  employed  by  their  original 
Author.     For  when  he  comes  to  the  quelHon  concerning  the 
favilion  of  the  Jsivip  Laiv,  he  introduces  it  in  the  following 

manner 


Sc£l.  6.      of  Moses  demonjirated.  359 

fpeak  more  properly,  if  length  of  time  have  not 
worn  out  his  attention  to  the  Subjed,  it  may  be 
proper  ( the  Argument  being  here  concluded ) 
to  take  a  retrolpedive  view  of  the  whole,  as 
it  hath  been  inforced  in  this  and  the  preceed- 
ing  Volume.  For  the  deep  Profeflbr,  who 
hath  digefted  his  Theology  into  Summs  and  Sj^ 
ftems,  and  the  florid  Preacher,  who  never  fufFered 
his  thoughts  to  expatiate  beyond  the  limits  of  a 
pulpit-elTay,  will  be  ready  to  tell  me,  that  I  had 
promifed  to  demonstrate  the  Divine  Lega- 
tion OF  Moses  ;  and  that  now  I  had  written  two 
large  Volumes  on  that  fubjed,  "  all  that  they  could 
find  in  them  were  Difcourfes  on  the  foundation  of 
Morality — the  origin  of  civil  and  religious  Society 

—  the  Alliance  betv/een  Church  and  State — the 
policy  of  Lawgivers,— the  Myfteries  of  the  Priefts, 

—  and  the  opinions  of  the  Greek  Philofophers— 
The  Antiquity  of  Egypt— their  Hieroglyphics — 
their  Heroes  —  and  their  Brute-worfhip.  That 
indeed,  at  laft  I  fpeak  a  httle  of  the  Jewifli  policy  j 

manner  —  Qii?efl:ionem  inchoamus  difficilem,  in  qua  explicanda 
adhibenda  ell  iumma  verborum  proprieta?,  ne  Pelagianis  ex  una 
parte  non  fatis  fcedus  Mofaicum  &  Evangelicum  difcriminanti- 
bus,  aut  contrariis  recentiorum  quorumdam  erroribus 
favere  videamur.  And  fo,  fortifies  himfelf  with  Suarez  and 
St.  Thomas.  The  confequence  of  which  is,  that  the  two 
large  Chapters  in  his  fecond  Volume  (the  firft.  To  prove  that  a 
future  (late  was  always  a  popular  Doclrine  amongft  the  Jews  ; 
and  the  fecond,  That  temporal  rewards  and  punilhments  were 
really  and  equally  diilributed  amongil  them  under  the  Theo- 
cracy) jull  ierve  to  confute  one  another :  Or  more  properly, 
the  fecond  Chapter,  by  aid  of  the  Arguments  taken  from  the 
Divine  Legation,  effeftually  overturns  all  that  he  has  advanced 
in  the  firil.  —  See  M.  Hooke's  fecond  volume  of  his  Courfe, 
intitled,  Religionis  vatuialis  et  re^velates  Principia,  from  p.  208 
■%o  236.  For  the  rell,  this  juftice  is  due  to  the  learned  and 
ingenious  Writer,  that  thefe  Principles  of  natural  ami  revealed 
Religion  compofe  the  beft  rcafoned  Work  in  defence  of  Revela- 
tion which  we  have  yet  feen  come  from  that  quarter, 

A  a  4  luut 


360  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

but  I  foon  break  away  from  it,  as  from  a  fubjefl  I 
would  avoid,  and  employ  the  remaining  part  of 
the  Volume  on  the  Sacrifice  of  Ifaac — on  the  book 
of  Job — and  on  primary  and  fecondary  Prophe- 
cies. But  whatf  (lay  they)  is  all  this  to  the  Divine 
Legation  of  Mofes  ? 

DiCy  Pojlhume  !  de  tribus  Capellis." 

To  call,  the  Topic,  I  went  upon,  a  Paradox, 
was  fiid,  without  doubr,  to  my  difcredit;  but  not  to 
fee  that  I  had  proved  it  in  form,  will  I  am  afraid, 
redound  to  their  own.  Yet  I  had  already  befpoke 
their  beft  attention  in  the  words  of  Cicero,  who, 
I  believe,  often  found  himfelf  in  my  fituation. 
*'  Video  hanc  primam  ingreffionem  meam  non  ex 
Orv  ATORis  dil'putationibus  dudam,  fed  e  media  Phi- 
Icfophia  repetitam,  et  earn  quidem  cum  antiquam 
tum  fubobfcuram,  aut  reprehensionis  aliquid, 
aut  certe  admirationis  habituram.  Nam  aut 
mirabantur  quid  h^c  pertineant  ad  ea  qu^ 
quzerimus:  quibus  fatisfaciet  res  ipfa  cognita,  ut 
non  fine  caufa  alte  repetita  videatur :  aut  repre- 
hendent,  quod  inusitatas  vias  indagemus, 
TRiTAS  RELiNQUAMus.  Ego  autem  me  f£Epe  nova 
videre  dicere  intelligo  cum  pervetera  dicam,  fed 
inaudita  plerifque  ^." 

But  as  this  Apology  hath  not  anfwered  its  pur- 
pole,  and  as  the  argument  is  indeed  drawn  out 
to  an  uncommon  length ;  raifed  upon  a  great  va- 
riety of  fiipports  ;  and  fought  out  from  every  quar- 
ter of  antiquity,  -and  fometimes  out  of  corners  the 
moft  remote  and  dark,  it  was  the  lefs  to  be  admired 
if  every  inattentive  Reader  did  not  fee  their  force 

^  Cicero, 

and 


Sed.  6.        of  M OS -Es  demonjlrated,         361 

and  various  purpofe ;  or  if  every  attentive  Reader 
could  not  combine  them  into  the  body  of  a  com- 
pleated  Syllogifm  •,  and  flill  lefs  if  the  envious  and 
the  prejudiced  fliould  concurr  to  reprefent  thefe 
Volumes  as  an  indigefled  and  inconnetled  heap  of 
difcourfes,  thrown  out  upon  one  another,  to  dif- 
burthen  a  common-place.  For  the  fatisfadion 
therefore,  of  the  more  candid,  who  acknowledge 
the  fairnefs  of  the  attempt,  who  faw  fomething  of 
the  progrefs  of  the  argument,  but,  miQed  by  the 
notice  of  a  remaining  Fart,  neglected  to  purfue  the 
proof  to  the  Conclusion  here  deduced,  1  fliall  en- 
deavour to  lay  open,  in  one  plain  and  fimple 
view,  the  whole  conduct  of  thefe  myfterious  Vo- 
lumes. 

Nor  fhall  I  ncgled  the  other  fort  of  Readers,  tho* 
it  be  odds,  we  part  again  as  diflatisfied  with  one 
another,  as  the  Toyman  of  Bath  and  his  Cuftomer. 
Of  whom  the  ftory  goes,  that  a  grave  well-drefled 
man  coming  into  the  fhop  of  this  ingenious  inven- 
tor, and  reliever  of  the  diftrelTes  of  thofe  who  are 
too  dull  to  know  what  they  want,  and  too  rich  to 
be  at  eafe  with  what  they  have,  demanded  to  fee 
fome  of  his  beft  reading-glaffes ;  which  when  he 
had  tried  to  no  purpofe,  he  returned.  The  Toy- 
man furprifed  at  fo  ftrange  a  phasnomenon,  gravely 
afked  him,  whether  ever  he  had  karnt  to  read  ? 
to  which  the  other  as  gravely  replied,  that  if  he 
had  been  fo  happy  he  fhould  have  had  no  need 
of  his  afTiftance.  Now,  before  I  bring  the  diftant 
parts  of  my  Argument  to  converge,  for  the  ufe  of 
thefe  dim-fighted  Gentlemen,  may  I  aflc  them, 
without  offence,  a  fimilar  queftion  ?  They  have 
ANSWERED-,  without  afking i  but  not  with  the 
fame  ingenuity. 

In 


o 


62  T^e  Divine  Legation        Book  VI, 


In  reading  the  Lav^  and  History  of  the  Jews, 
with  all  the  attention  I  could  give  to  them,  amonaft 
the  many  circumftances  peculiar  to  that  amazino- 
Difpenfation  (from  feveral  of  which,  as  I  conceive^ 
the  divinity  of  its  original  may  be  fairly  proved) 
thefe  two  particulars  moft  forceably  ftruck  my  ob- 
fervation,  the  omission  of  the  doctrine  of  a 

FUTURE     STATE,    and    THE    ADMINISTRATION    OF 

AN  EXTRAORDINARY  Providence.  As  unaccount- 
able as  the  firft  circumftance  appeared  when  con- 
fidered  feparately  and  alone,  yet  when  let  againfl 
the  other,  and  their  mutual  relations  examined  and 
compared,  the  omijjion  was  not  only  well  explained, 
but  was  found  to  be  an  invincible  medium  for  the 
proof  of  the  Divine  Legation  of  Moses:  which, 
as  Unbelievers  had  been  long  accuftomed  to  decry 
from  this  very  circumftance,  I  chofe  it  preferably 
to  any  other.  The  Argument  appeared  to  me 
in  a  fupreme  degree  ftrong  and  fimple,  and  not 
needing  many  words  to  inforce  it,  or,  when  in- 
forced,  to  make  it  well  underftood. 

Religion  hath  always  been  held  neceflary  to 
the  fupport  of  civil  society,  becaufe  human 
Laws  alone  are  inefreftual  to  reftrain  men  from 
evil,  with  a  force  fufficient  to  carry  on  the  affairs  of 
public  regimen  :  and  (under  the  common  difpen- 
fation of  Providence)  a  future  state  of  re- 
wards and  punilhments  is  confefled  to  be  as  ne- 
ceffary  to  the  fupport  of  Religion,  becaufe  no- 
thing elfe  can  remove  the  objeftions  to  God's 
moral  Government  under  a  Providence  fo  apparent- 
ly unequal ;  whofe  phaanomena  are  apt  to  difturb 
the  ferious  profcfibrs  of  Religion  with  doubts 
and  fufpicions  concerning  it,  as  it  is  of  the  effence 

of 


Sed.  6.     ^  M  o  8  E  s  demonjirated.  363 

of  religious  profeflion  to  believe,  that  God  is  a  re- 
warder  of  them  that  diligently  feek  him, 

Mofes,  who  inftituted  a  Religion  and  a  Re^ 
PUBLIC,  and  incorporated  them  into  one  another. 
Hands  fingle  amongft  ancient  and  modern  Law- 
givers, in  teaching  a  Religion,  without  the  fanC' 
tioity  or  even  lb  much  as  the  mention  of  a  future 

STATE     OF     REWARDS     AND     PUNISHMENTS.       The 

fame  Mofes,  with  a  fmgularity  as  great,  by  uniting 
the  Religion  and  civil  Community  of  the  Jews  into 
one  incorporated  body,  made  God,  by  natural  con- 
fequence,  their  fupreme  civil  Magiftrate,  where- 
by the  form  of  Government  arifing  from  thence 
became  truly  and  effentially  a  Theocracy.  But 
as  the  Adminifiration  of  Government  iiecefTarily 
follows  its  Form^  that  before  us  could  be  no  other 

than  AN  EXTRAORDINARY  OR  EQUAL  PrOVIDENCE. 

And  fuch  indeed  not  only  the  Jewifh  Lawgiver 
himfelf,  but  all  the  fucceeding  Rulers  and  Prophets 
of  this  Republic  have  invariably  reprefented  it  to 
be.  In  the  mean  time,  no  Lawgiver  or  founder  of 
Religion  amongft  any  other  People  ever  promifed 
fo  fingular  a  Diftindion  •,  no  Hiltorian  ever  dared 
to  record  fo  remarkable  a  Prerogative. 

This  being  the  true  and  acknowledged  ftate  of 
the  cafe;  Vv'heriever  the  Unbeliever  attempts  to 
difprove,  and  the  Advocate  of  Religion  to  fupporr, 
the  divinity  of  the  Mofaic  Difpenfation,  the  ob- 
vious queftion  (if  each  be  willing  to  bring  it  to 
a  fpeedy  decifion)  will  be,  "  Whether  the   ex- 

*'    TRAORDINARY    PROVIDENCE  thuS  prOphcticall/ 

"  promifed,  and  afterwards  hiftorically  recorded 
"  to  be  performed,  was  real  or  pretended 
«  only  r\ 

We' 


364  ^^^  Divine  Legation      Book  VI. 

We  Believers  hold  that  it  was  p.e  al  :  and  I,  as  an 
Advocate  for  Revelation,  undertake  to  prove  it 
was  lb  •,  employing  for  this  purpofe,  as  my  me- 
dium, THE  OMISSION  OF  A  FUTURE  STATE  OF  RE- 
WARDS AND  PUNISHMENTS.  The  argument  (lands 
ihus : 

If  Religion  be  neceffary  to  civil  Government, 
and  if  Religion  cannot  fubfift,  under  the  common 
difpenfation  of  Providence,  without  a  future  ftate 
of  Rewards  and  Puniihments,  fo  confummate  a 
Lawgiver  would  never  have  negle6led  to  inculcate 
the  belief  of  fuch  a  ftate,  had  he  not  been  well  af- 
fured  that  an  extraordinary  providence  was 
indeed  to  be  adminiftered  over  his  People  :  Or 
were  it  pofTible  he  had  been  fo  infatuated,  the  im- 
potency  of  a  Religion  wanting  a  future  ftate,  muft 
very  foon  have  concluded  in  the  deftrudion  of  his 
Republic :  Yet  neverthelefs  it  flouriflied  and  con- 
tinued fovereign  for  many  ages. 

Thefe  two  proofs  of  the  propofition,  {that  an 
extraordinary  providence  was  really  adminijiered) 
drawn  from  the  thing  omitted  and  the  per- 
son OMITTING,  may  be  reduced  to  the  following 
Syllogisms. 

I.  Whatfoever  Religion  and  Society  have  no  fu- 
ture State  for  their  ftipport,  muft  be  fupported  by 
an  extraordinary  Providence, 

The  Jewifh  Religion  and  Society  had  no  future 
State  for  their  fupport : 

Therefore  the  Jewifh  Religion  and  Society  were 
fupported  by  an  extraordinary  Providence. 

And  again, 

II.  The 


Sedt.  6.       c/"  Moses  demonjirated.  365 

II.  The  Ancient  Lawgivers  univerfally  believed, 
that  a  Religion  without  a  future  State  could  be 
lupported  only  by  an  extraordinary  Providence. 

Mofes,  an  Ancient  Lawgiver,  learned  in  all  the 
"wifdom  of  the  Egyptians,  (the  principal  branch 
of  which  wifdom  was  inculcating  the  doflrine  of 
a  future  ftate)  inftituted  fuch  a  Religion  : 

Therefore  Mofes  believed  that  his  Religion  was 
fupported  by  an  extraordinary  Providence. 

This  is  the  argument  of  the  Divine  Lega- 
tion ;  plain,  fimple  and  convincing,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Author  j  a  Paradox,  in  the  reprefenta- 
tion  of  his  Adverfaries  :  Attempts  of  this  nature 
being  ftiil  attended  with  the  fortune  they  have 
long  undergone.  V/illiam  of  Newhourg^  fpeaking 
of  Gregory  the  VIII,  tells  us,  that  he  was,  "  Vir 
"  plane  &  fapienti^e  et  vits  fmceritate  confpicuus, 
"  aemulationem  dei  habens  in  ommhus  fecundum 
"  fcientiamytifuperjlitiofarum  confueiudinum  quarum 
"  in  Ecclefia  per  quorundam  rufticam  fimplici- 
**  tatem  citra  Scripturarum  aufloritatem  multi- 
**  tudo  inolevit,  Reprehenfor  acerrimus.  Unde  a 
*'  quihufdam  minus  difcretis  putatus  eft  turbato  per 
*'  nlmiam  abftinentiam  cerebro  delirare."  This 
curious  palTage  fliews  what  hath  been,  and  what  is 
likely  to  be,  the  fate  of  all  oppofers  of  foolifh 
and  fuperftitious  pra6lices  and  opinions,  when 
oppofers  are  moft  wanted,  that  is  to  fay,  to  be 
thought  mad.  Only  one  fees  there  was  this  dif- 
ference between  lVilliary^%  age  and  our  own.  In 
the  time  of  good  Gregory,  they  were  the  People  of 
leaft  difcretion  who  palTed  this  judgment  on  every 
Reformer's  headpiece  •,  whereas  in  our  times,  they 
are  the  7}we  difcrset  who  have  made  this  difcovery. 

Our 


366  The  Divine  Legation         Book  VI, 

Our  Author's  adverfaries  proved  to  be  of  two 
forts,  Free-thinkehs  and  Systematical  Di- 
vines. Thofe  denied  the  Major  of  the  two  Syl- 
logifms  •,  Thefe,  the  Minor  :  yet  one  could  not  be 
done  without  contradiding  the  univerfal  voice  of 
Antiquity  j  nor  the  other,  without  explaining  away 
the  fenfe,  as  well  as  letter,  of  facred  Scripture. 
Had  it  not  been  for  this  odd  combination,  my  De~ 
monjlration  of  the  Divine  Legation  of  Mofes  had  not 
only  been  as  jlrong  but  2i%fhort  too  as  any  of  Eu- 
clid's :  whofe  theorems^  as  Hobbes  fomewhere  ob- 
ferves,  fhould  they  ever  happen  to  be  conneded 
with  the  paflions  and  interefts  of  men,  would 
Toon  become  as  much  matter  of  difpute  and  con- 
tradiftion  as  any  moral  or  theological  Propofitiou 
whatfoever. 

It  was  not  long,  therefore,  before  I  found  that 
the  difcovery  of  this  important  Truth  would  encrao-e 
me  in  a  full  dilucidation  of  the  three  followino-  Pro- 
pofitions 

1.  "  That  inculcating  the  do6lrine  of  a  future 
*'  ftate  of  rewards  and  punifhments,  is  necelfary 
*'  to  the  well  being  of  civil  Society." 

2.  "  That  all  mankind,  efpecially  the  moft  wife 
*'  and  learned  nations  of  Antiquity,  have  concurr- 
«'  ed  in  believing  and  teaching,  that  this  dodrine 
"  was  of  fuch  ule  to  civil  Society." 

3.  "  That  the  doclrinc  of  a  future  flate  of  re- 
*'  wards  and  puniiliments  is  not  to  be  found  in, 
"  nor  did  make  part  of,  the  Mofaic  Difpeniation." 

— Neither  a  fhort  nor  an  cafy  tajfk.  The  two 
firft  requiring  a  fevere  fearch  into  the  Religion,  the 

Politics 


Se£t.  6.       of  Moses  demo^ijirated.  367 

Politics  and  the  Philofophy  of  ancient  times  :  And, 
the  latter,  a  minute  examination  into  the  naiun 
end  genius  of  the  Hebrew  Confiitution, 

To  the  firft  part  of  this  enquiry,  therefore,  I  af- 
figned  the  firft  Volume  of  this  work  j  and  to  the 
other,  the  fecond. 

I.  The/;;/? Volume  begins  with  proving  the  ma- 
jor of  the  firll  Syllogifm,  that  whatfoever  Religion 
and  Society  have  no  future  State  for  their  fupport^  mufi 
hefupforted  by  an  extraordinary  Provide^ice.  In  or- 
der to  which,  the  first  Proposition  was  to  be  in- 
forced.  That  the  inculcating  the  do^rine  of  a  future 
fiate  of  rewards  and  punifhments  is  necejfary  to  ths 
well-being  of  Society, 

This  is  done  in  the  following  manner — By  fliew- 
ino-  that  civil  Society,  which  was  inftituted  as  a 
remedy  againft  force  and  injuftice,  falls  fhorr,  in 
many  inftances,  of  its  effedts— as  it  cannot,  by  its 
own  proper  force,  provide  for  the  obfervance  of 
above  one  third  part  of  moral  duties  -,  and,  of  that 
third,  but  imperfedtly :  and  further,  which  is  a" 
matter  of  ftill  greater  importance,  that  it  totally 
wants  the  firft,  of  thofe  tv/o  great  hinges,  on  which 
Government  is  fuppofed  to  turn,  and  without 
which  it  cannot  be  carried  on,  namely  Reward 
and  Punishment.  Some  other  coadive  power  was 
therefore  to  be  added  to  civil  Society,  to  fupply  its 
wants  and  imperfedions.  This  power  is  fnewn  to 
be  no  other  than  Religion  -,  which,  teaching  the 
juft  Government  of  the  Deity,  provides  for  all  the 
natural  deficiencies  of  civil  Society.  But  this  go^ 
ve-rnment,   it   is  feen,   can  be  no  otherwife  fup- 

ported 


■368  I'he  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

ported  than  by  the  general  belief  of  z  future  Jiate -, 
or  of  an  extraordinary  Providence^  that  is,  by  a 
Difpenfation  of  things  very  different  from  what  we 
fee  adminiftered  at  prefent. 

This  being  proved,  the  difcourfe  proceeds  to 
remove  objedions. — The  Reader  obferves,  that 
the  fteps  and  gradations  of  this  capital  truth  ad- 
vance thus, — A  future  ftate  is  neceflary  as  it  fup- 
ports  Religion — Religion  is  neceflfary  as  it  fupports 
Morality — And  Morality  as  it  fupports  (tho'  it  be 
reciprocally  fupported  by)  civil  Society,  which  only 
can  procure  fuch  accommodations  of  life  as  man's 
nature  requires.  Hence  I  concluded,  that  the  Doc- 
trine of  a  future  ftate  was  necelTary  to  civil  Socie- 
ty, under  the  prefent  adminillration  of  Providence. 

Now  there  are  various  kinds  or  rather  degrees 
of  Libertinism.  Some,  tho'  they  own  Morality 
to  be  neceffary  to  Society,  yet  deny  Religion  to  be 
necelTary.  Others  again,  deny  it  even  to  Mora- 
lity. —  As  both  equally  attempt  to  break  the 
chain  of  my  reafoning,  both  come  equally  under 
my  examination.  And,  opportunely  for  my  pur- 
pofe,  a  great  Name  in  the  firft  inftance,  and  a 
great  Book,  in  the  fecond,  invited  me  to  this  en- 
tertainment. 

I.  The  famous  M.  Bayle  had  attempted  to 
prove,  that  Religion  was  not  neceffary  to  Society  -, 
and  that,  fimple  morality^  as  diftinguiflied  from  Re- 
lif^ion,  might  well  fupply  its  place;  which  Mora- 
lity too,  an  Atheist  might  compleatly  pofTcfs.  His 
aro-uments  in  fupport  of  thefe  propoficions  I  have 
carefully  examined :  and  having  occafion,  when 
I  came  to  the  laft  of  them,  to  enquire  into  the  true 
foundation  of  Morality^    I  ftate   all  its  pretences, 

confider 


Sed:.  6.       of  Moses  deimnftrated,  369 

confider  all  its  advantages,  and  fhew  that  obliga- 
tion properly  fo  called,  proceeds  from  will,  and 
from  WILL  only.  This  enquiry  was  directly  to  my 
point,  as  the  refult  of  it  proves  that  the  morality  of 
the  Athsifi  mull  be  without  any  true  foundation, 
and  confequently  weak  and  unftable.  It  had  a  fur- 
ther propriety,  as  the  Religion,  whofe  divine  ori- 
ginal I  am  here  attempting  to  demonftrate,  has 
founded  moral  obligation  in  Will  only  •,  and  had  a 
peculiar  expediency  likewife,  as  it  is  become  the 
fafhion  of  the  times  to  feek  for  xKis  foundation  any 
where  but  there  where  Religion  has  placed  it. 

I.  But  Mandeville,  the  Author  of  the  Fable 
of  the  Bees,  went  a  large  ftep  further  i  and  pretend- 
ed to  prove  that  morality  was  fo  far  from  being 
neceffary  to  Society,  that  it  was  vice  and  not  virtue 
which  rendered  dates  flourifhing  and  happy.  This 
execrable  Do6trine,  that  would  cut  away  my  Ar- 
gument by  the  roots,  was  prefented  to  the  People 
with  much  laboured  art  and  plaufible  infmuation. 
It  was  neceifary  therefore  to  confute  and  expofe  it. 
This  I  have  done  with  the  fame  care,  but  with  bet- 
ter faith  than,  it  was  inforced. 

In  this  manner  I  endeavoured  to  prove  the  ma- 
jOR  Proposition  of  the  firft  Syllogifm  :  and  with 
this,  the  firft  book  of  the  Divine  Legation  of  Mofe^ 
concludes. 

II.  The  fecond  Book  begins  with  eftablilhing 
the  MAJOR  of  the  fecond  Syllogifm,  That  the  en- 
cient  Lawgivers  univerfally  believed  that  a  Religion 
without  a  future  fl  ate  could  be  fupported  only  by  an  ex- 
traordinary Providence.  In  order  to  which,  the 
SECOND  Proposition  was  to  be  inforced,  That  all 
mankind,  efpecially  the  mojl  wife  and  learned  nations 

Vol.  V.  B  b  «/ 


370  The  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

of  Antiquity^  have  concurred  in  believing  and  teaching, 
that  the  Do^frine  of  a  future  Jtate  was  necefj'ary  to 
the  well-being  of  civil  Society. 

The  proof  of  this  propofition  divides  itfelf  into 

two  parts The   conduB  of  the  Lawgivers; 

and  the  opinion  of  the  Philosophers. 

The  firft  part  is  the  fubjefl  of  the  prefe;it  Book ; 
as  the  fecond  part  is  of  the  following. 

In  proving  this  propofition  from  the  conducl  of 
the  Lawgivers^  1  (hew, 

1.  Their  care  to  propagate  Religion  in  general, 
1.  As  it  appears  from  the  effeBs,  the  ftate  of  Reli- 
gion every  where  in  the  civilized  World.  2.  As  it 
appears  from  the  caufe,  fuch  as  their  iiniverfal  pre- 
tence to  infpiration,  in  order  to  inftil  the  belief  of 
the  Divine  Superintendency  over  human  aflairs  ; 
and  llich  as  their  univerfal  praftice  m  prefacing  their 
Laws,  in  order  to  eftablifii  the  belief  of  that  Su- 
perintendency. And  here  it  fhould  be  obferved, 
that  in  proving  their  care  to  propagate  Religion  in 
general,  I  prove  their  care  to  propagate  the  doclrine 
of  z  future  fate  of  Rewards  and  Punipments^  fince 
there  never  was  a  formed  Religion  in  the  World, 
the  Jewifh  excepted,  of  which  this  Dodrine  did 
not  make  an  eflential  part. 

2.  But  I  fliew  in  the  fecond  place,  their  care  to 
propagate  this  DoBrine,  with  more  than  common 
attention  and  affiduicy.  And  as  the  moil  effcc'lual 
method  they  employed  to  this  end  was,  the  infti<^ 
tution  of  the  Mysteries,  a  large  account  is  gi- 
ven of  their  rife  and  progrefs,  from  Egypt  in^to 
Grcxx:e,  and  from  thence,  throughout  the  civilized 
world.     I  have  attempted  to  difcover  the  AnoP- 


Seft.  6.       c/^  Moses    demon jl rated.  371 

PHTA,    or   hidden  dodrines  of   thefe  Myitcries, 
whicli  were  the  Unity  of   the  Godhead  and 
the  error  of  the  grosser  PolytheisiM,  namely, 
the  Worfioip  of  dead  men^  deif.ed.     This  dilcovery 
not  only  confirms  all  that  is  advanced,  concerning- 
the  rile,  progrels,  and  order  of  the  feveral  fpecies's 
of  Idolatry,  but  clears  up  and  redlifies  much  em- 
barras  and  miftake  even  of  the   moll  celebrated 
Moderns,  fuch  as  Cudworth^  StilUngfieet^  Pndeaux^ 
Newion^  &c.  who,  contrary  to  the  tenure  of  Holy 
Scripture,  in  order  to  do  imaginary  honour  to  Re- 
ligion, have   ventured   to  maintain,  that   the  one 
true  God  was  generally  known  and  worJJnped  in  the 
Pagcn  JVorld ;  for,  finding  many,  in  divers  coun- 
tries, fpeaking  of  the  one  true  God,  they  conclud- 
ed, that  he   muft  needs  have  a  national  IVorJlnp. 
Nov/  the  Difcovery  of  the  airoppnTx  of  the  Myfieries 
enables  us  to  explain  the  perfedl  confiflency  be- 
tween iac  red  and  prophane  Antiquity;  which  left 
to  fpeak  for  themfelves  concur  to  inform  us  of 
this  plain  and  confident  trudi,  "  That  the  Doc- 
trine of  the  one  true  God,  was  indeed  taught   in 
all  places,  but  as  a  profound  fecrer,  to  the  few, 
in  the  celebration  of  their  myiberious  Rites;  while, 
in  the  Land  of  Jud^a  alone,  he  h.id  2.puhlic  and 
national  IVorfljip.'^     For   to  the   Hebrew   People 
alone,  (as  Eufebius  exprefles  it)  was  referved  the 
honour  of  being  initiated  into  the  knowkdge  cf  ths 
Creator  of  all  things.     And  of  this  difi^frence,  G06. 
himfelf  Ipeaks  by  the  Prophet, — I  have  not  fpoken 
IN  secret,  in   a  dark  place  of  the  earth'. 
And  the  holy  ApoFtle  Paul  informs  us  of  the  confe- 
quence  of  that  myfierious   manner  of  teaching  the 
true  God  amongfi:  the  Pagan  nations,  that  when, 

'  Ifaiah  xlv.  19, 

B  b  2  by 


3/2  The  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

by  this  means,  they  came  to  the  knowledge  of  him, 
they  glorified  him  not  as  God\ 

To  confirm  and  illuftrate  my  account  of  the 
Mysteries,  I  fubjoin  a  DifTcrcation  on  the  Jixth 
Book  of  firgiTs  yEneis;  and  another  on  the  meta- 
morphof.s  of  Apuleius.  The  firft  of  which  books, 
is  Ihewn  to  be  one  continued  defcription  of  the 
Eleitfmian  Myflcries  •,  and  the  other  to  be  purpofe- 
ly  written  to  recommend  the  ufe  and  efficacy  of 
tiie  Pagan  Myfieries  in  general. 

And  here  the  attentive  Reader  will  obferve, 
that  throughout  the  courfe  of  this  whole  argument, 
on  the  conduftof  the  ancient  Lawgivers,  it  ap- 
pears, that  all  the  fundamental  principles  of  their 
Policy  were  borrowed  from  Egypt.  A  truth 
which  will  be  made  greatly  fubfervient  to  the  fninor 
of  the  fecond  Syllogifm  -,  that  Mofes^  tho'  learned  in 
all  the  Wifdom  of  Egypt,  yet  inftitiited  the  Jez^ifh 
Religion  and  Society  'u;ithout  a  future  State. 

From  this,  and  from  what  has  been  faid  above  of 
MORAL  OBLIGATION,  the  intellig;ent  Reader  will 
perceive,  that,  throughout  the  Divine  Legation,  I 
have  all  along  endeavoured  to  fele6t  for  my  pur- 
ppfe  fuch  kind  of  arguments,  in  fupport  of  the 
particular  queftion  in  hand,  as  may,  at  the  fame 
time,  illuitrate  the  truth  of  Revelation  in  general, 
or  ferve  as  principles  to  proceed  upon  in  the  pro- 
grcfs  of  the  prefent  Argument.  Of  which,  will  be 
given,  as  occafion  fervcs,  feveral  other  inftances 
in  the  courie  of  this  review. — And  now  having 
ihewn  the  Legidators  care  X.Q  propagate  Religion  in 


Rom. 


J.    21, 


general. 


Sq6:.  6.       g/' Moses   demonjlj-ated,  373 

general,  and  the  Doftrine  of  a  future  ftate  of  Re- 
wards and  Punifliments  in  particular,  (in  which  is 
feen  their  fenfe  of  the  infeparable  connexion  be- 
tween them)  I  go  on,  to  explain  the  contrivan- 
ces they  employed  to  perpetuate  the  knowledge 
and  influence  of  them  :  by  which  it  appears  that, 
in  their  opinion.  Religion  was  not  a  temporary 
expedient,  ufeful  only  to  fecure  their  own  power 
and  authority,  but  a  neccllary  fupport  to  civil 
Society  itfelf. 

1.  The  firfl  inftance  of  this  care  was,  as  we 
Ihew,  their  ESTABLISHING  A  national  Religion, 

prctecied  by  the  Laws  of  the  State,  in  all  places 
where  they  were  concerned.  But  as  Men,  igno- 
rant of /r«^  Religion,  could  hardly  avoid  failing  into 
miftakes  in  contriving  the  mode  of  this  Efiahliflj- 
ment,  I  have  therefore  (the  fubjedb  of  my  Work 
being  no  idle  fpeculation,  but  fuch  a  one  as  affedts 
us  in  our  higheft  interefts,  as  Men  and  Citizens) 
attempted  to  deliver  the  true  Theory  of  the  Alliance 
between  Church  and  State,  as  the  beil  defence  of 
the  jufcice  and  equity  of  an  established  Reli- 
gion. 

2.  The  fecond  inftance  of  their  care,  I  fhew  to 
have  been  the  allowance  of  a  general  tolera-^ 
tion  i  which  as  it  would,  for  the  like  reafon,  be 
as  imperfedly  framed  as  an  EJiabliJJjrnent,  I  have 
ventured  to  give  the  true  'Theory  of  that  likewife. 
The  ancient  Lawgiver  contrived  to  ejlablijb  one 
mode  of  Religion,  by  allying  it  to  the  State,  for 
the  fake  of  its  duration  :  He  tolerated  other 
modes  of  it,  for  the  fake  of  their  influence,  for 
a  Religion  forced  upon  man,  has  none ;  and  the 
Lawgiver  concerns  himfelf  with  Religion  only  for 
the  lake  of  its  influence.  —  Difcourfing  upon  this 

B  b  3  Subjeft, 


374  The  Divine  Legation        Book  VL 

Subject,  I  was  naturally  led  to  vindicate  true  Reli- 
gion from  an  afperiion  of  Infidelity :  Where,  I 
fhew,  that  the  firil  perfecution  for  Religion  was 
not  that  which  was  cohimitted^  but  that  which  was 
undergone  by  (Yit  Chriftian  Church  :  And  that  the 
ill  fuccfcls  atiending  its  propagation  amongft  barba- 
rous Nations  in  our  times,  is  altogether  owing  to 
the  prepouerous  mttiiod  employed  for  that  pur- 
pofe.  —  And  v/ith  this,  the  fccond  Book  of  the 
Divine  Le2:ation  concludes. 


'D 


:  III.  The  third  Book  goes  on  in  fupporting  the 
MAJOR  of  the  fecond  Syllogifm,  by  the  opinions  of 
the  Philosophers.  For  as  the  grtat  wafte  and 
ravages  of  time  have  deilroyed  moll  of  the  Monu- 
ments of  ancient  Legijlation^  I  held  it  not  impro- 
per to  ftrcngthen  my  pofition  of  the  fenfeof  their 
Lawgivers,  by  that  of  their  Sages  and  Philofo- 
phers.     In  this  is  fliewn, 

I.  From  their  own  words,  the  convicflion  they 
in  general  had  of  the  neceflity  of  the  dodlrine  of 
a  future  ft  ate  of  Rewards  and  Punijhme7its  to  civil 
focitty.  And,  to  fet  this  convidion  in  the  ftrongeft 
light,  I  endeavour  to  prove,  that  even  fuch  of 
them  (viz.  the  feveral  fe<fls  of  Grecian  Philofo- 
pJiers)  who  did  not  believe  r.  future  flate  of  Re- 
wards  and  PurajJjments,  did  yer,  for  the  fake  of  So- 
ciety, diligently  teach  and  propagate  it.  — That 
they  taiigtoi  it,  is  confelTed  ;  that  they  did  not  beliei-e 
it,  was  my  bufirx-fs  to  prove  :  which  I  have  done  by 
Ihcwing,  I.  J'hat  they  all  thought  it  lawful  to 
fay  one  thinr^-  and  think  another.  2.  That  they 
confcantly  pradifed  w!iat  they  thus  thought  to  be 
lawful :  and,  3.  That  they  pradifed  it  on  the 
very  D;61rii)e  in  quefiion. — To  explain  and  verify 
the   two  lirit  of  thefe  aiicrtions,  I  had   occafion 

to 


Se£l.-6.       of  Moses   demcnjlrated,         27 S 

tx)  inquire  into  the  rife,  progrefs,  perfcaion,  de- 
cline, and  genius  of  the  ancient  Greek  Philofoph)\ 
under  all  its  feveral  divifions.  In  which,  (as  its  rile 
and  progrefs  are  fhewn  to  have  been  from  Egypt) 
ftill  mo?e  materials  are  laid  in  for  inforcing  the 
7«/;wrpropofition,of  the  fecond  Syllogifm.— I  then 
proceed  to  a  more  particular  inquiry  into  the  fenti- 
ments  of  each  fed  of  Philofophy,  on  this  point  •, 
and  fhew,  from  the  charader  and  genius  of  each 
School,  and  from  the  Writings  of  each  man,  that 
none  of  them  did  indeed  believe  the  Doftrine  of 
a  future  Jiate  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments.  At  the 
fame  time  it  appears,  from  almoft  every  proof 
brought  for  this  purpofe,  that  they  all  thought  ihe 
Doftrine  to  be  of  the  higheft  utihty  to  the  State.— 
Here,  in  examining  the  philofophy  of  Pythago- 
ras, the  fubjea  led  me,  to  confider  his  fo  cele- 
brated MetempfychoftS',  in  which,  I  take  occafion 
to  fpeak  of  the  origin  of  the  Pagan  Fables,  and 
the  nature  of  the  Metamorphcfts  of  Ovid,  here  fliewn 
to  be  a  Popular  Hipry  of  Providence,  very  regular- 
ly and  artfully  deduced  from  the  mod  early  times 
to  his  own  :  From  the  whole  I  draw  this  conclulion, 
<*  that  Pythagoras,  who  fo  feduloufly  propagated 
this  fpecies  of  a  future  ftate  of  Rewards  and  Pu- 
nilhments  (the  Metemffychcfis)  that  he  was  thought 
by  fome  to  be  author  of  it,  confidered  it  only  as 
a  commodious  Fable  to  reftrain  the  unruly  po. 
pulace," 

2.  To  fupport  this  fad,  it  is  fhewn,  in  the  next 
place,  that  thefe  Phiiofophers  not  only  did  not,  but 
that  they  cc^/^  not  poffibly  believe  the  Dodrine  of  a 
future  ftate  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments,  becaufe 
the  belief  of  it  contradifted  two  Metaphyfical  prin- 
ciples  univerfally  held  and  believed  by  them,  con. 
£ernin<T  the  nature  of  God  and  of  the  Soui.  j  which 
"^  B  b  4  were. 


376  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

were,  that  the  Deify  could  not  hurt  any  one  \  and  that 
the  foul  was  part  of  the  fuhjlance  of  the  Deity,  and  re- 
fohable  again  into  him.  In  explaining  and  verifying 
their  reception  of  this  latter  principle,  I  take  oc- 
cafion  to  fpeak  of  its  original  •,  which,  I  prove, 
was  Grecian  and  not  Egyptian  j  as  appears  from 
the  genius  and  chara6ler  of  the  two  Philofophies; 
tho'  the  fpurious  books  going  under  the  name  of 
Hermes,  but  indeed  written  by  the  later  Piatonifts, 
would  perfuade  us  to  the  contrary.  The  ufe  of 
this  inquiry  likewife  (i.  e.  concerning  the  origin  of 
this  principle)  v;ill  be  feen  when  we  come  to  fettle 
the  charaher  of  Mofes,  as  aforefaid. — But,  with 
regard  to  the  belief  of  the  Philufophers  on  both 
points,  befides  the  direft  and  principal  ufe  of  it,  for 
the  fupport  of  the  major  oi  the  fecond  Syllogifm, 
it  hath  (as  I  faid  before,  it  was  contrived  my  ar- 
guments fhould  have)  two  further  ufes  •,  the  one,  to 
ferve  as  a  principle  in  the  progrefs  of  my  general 
Argument  i  the  other,  to  illuftrate  the  truth  of 
Revelation  in  general.  For,  ift,  it  will  be  a  fuf- 
ficient  anfwer  to  that  folution  of  theDeills,  (to  be 
confidered  hereafter)  th-5.t  Mofes  did  not  teach  the 
Do5lrine  of  a  f  Mure  fiat c  hecaufe  he  did  not  believe  it, 
fince  it  is  fhewn  by  the  ftrongeft  evidence,  that 
the  not  believing  a  dodlrine  fo  ufeful  to  Society^ 
was  efteemed  no  reafon  why  the  Legiflator  fhould 
not  propagate  it.  2.  It  is  a  convincing  proof  of 
the  expediency  of  the  Gofpel  of  Jefus,  that  the  fages 
of  Greece,  with  whom  all  the  wifdom  of  the  Wife 
was  fuppofed  to  be  depofited,  had  philofophifed 
themfelves  out  of  one  of  the  moll  evident  and  ufe- 
ful truths  with  which  mankind  has  any  concern  ; 
and  a  fuW  jujtif cation  of  the  feverity  with  which 
the  holy  Apoftles  always  fpeak  of  the  Philofophers 
and  the  Philofophy  of  Greece^  fince  it  is  hereby  leen  to 
be  directed  only  againft  thefe  pernicious  principles  ( 

and 


Se£t.  6.     ^  M  o  s  E  s   demonjlrated,  ^77 

and  nor,  as  Deijis  and  Fanatics  concur  to  repre- 
sent it,  a  condemnation  of  human  learning  in  gene- 
ra). 

3.  But  as  now,  it  might  be  objefted,  "  that  by 
this  reprefentation,  we  lole  on  the  one  hand  what 
we  gain  on  the  other  -,  and  that  while  we  fhew  the 
expediency  of  the  Gofpel,  we  run  a  rifque  of  difcredit- 
ing  its  reafonahknejs ;  for  that  nothing  can  bear  har- 
der upon  this  latter  quality,  than  that  the  beft  and 
wifeft  perfons  of  Antiquity  did  not  believe   that 
which  the  Gofpel  was  fent  to  propagate,  namely  the 
Dodtrine  of  a  future  ftate  of  Rewards  and  Punifh- 
ments."    As  this,  I  fay,  might  be  objedled,  we  have 
given  (befides  explaining  on  what  abfurd  princi- 
ples their  unbelief  refted)  a  further  anfwer-,  and,  to 
fupport  this  anfwer,  fliewn,  that  the  two  extremes 
into  which  Divines  have  ufually  run,  in  reprefenting 
the  ftate  and  condition  of  revealed  Religion^  are  at- 
tended with  great  and  real  mifchiefs  to  it ;  while 
the  only  view  of  Antiquity,  which  yields  folid  ad- 
vantage to  the  Chriftian  Caufe,  is  fuch  a  one  as  is 
here  reprefented  for  the  true  :  Such  a  one  as  fliews 
natural  Reafon  to  be  clear  enough  10 perceive  truth, 
and  the  necefiary  dedudtions  from  it  when  propofedy 
but  not  gfi-{\tr:\\y  Jircng  enough  to  difcover  it.    He, 
who  of  ail  the  Pagan  World  beft  knew  its  force, 
and  was  in  that  very  ftate  in  which  only  a  true  judg- 
ment could  be  pafied,  has  with  the  greateft  inge- 
nuity confeffed  this  truth,  "  Nam  neque  tam  eft 
"  acris  acies  in  naturis  hominum  et  ingeniis,  ut 
"  res  tantas  quifquam,  nifi  monftratus  pofTit  videre; 
"  neque  tanta  tamen  in  rebus  obfcuritas,  ut  eas 
*'  peritusacriviringeniocernat,  fimodoafpexerit.'* 
In  explaining  this  matter,  it  is  occafionally  fhewn, 
that  the  great  and  acknowleged  fuperiority  of  the 
modern   Syftems  of  Deiftical  Morality  above   the 
ancient,  in  point  of  excellence,  is  entirely  owing 

to 


37^  The  Divine' Legation        Book  VI, 

W'the  unacknowledged,  and  perhaps  unrufpe(5led, 
aid  of  Revelation. 

Thus  the  Reader  fees,  in  vvliat  manner  we  have 
endeavoured  to  prove  the  major.  Propositions  of 
the  two  Syilogifms,  that  zvbatfoever  Religion  and 
Society  have  no  future  State  for  their  jupfort^  mujl  be 
ftipported  by  an  extraordinary  Prcvidencf.  And  that, 
Jhe  amient  Laivgivers  ta:iverfally  believed,  that  a 
Jidigion  'without  a  future  State  could  be  fupported  only 
by  an  extraordinary  Providence.  For  having  ilicwn, 
that  Religion  and  Society  were  unable,  and  be- 
lieved to  be  unable  to  fnpport  themfelves  under  an 
ordinary  Providence,  Vv^ithout  a  future  State ;  if 
they  were  fupported  without  that  Dodlrine,  it 
could  be,  and  could  be  believed  to  be,  only  by  an 
ixtraordifiary  Providence. 

But  now  as  the  proof  is  condu<5ted  through  a  long 
detail  of  circumftances,  fl^iewing  the  abfolute  necef- 
Jityof  Religion  to  civil  Society-,  and  the fenfe  which 
all  the  wife  and  learr.ed  amongft  the  ancients  had 
of  that  necefiJiy ;  left  this  Ihould  be  abufed  to 
countenance  the  idle  and  impious  Conceit  that  Re- 
ligion   WAS   THE    INVENTION    OF   POLITICIANS,    I 

concludcc'.  thc^  third  Book  and  the  Vokime  together, 
with  proving  that  the  Conceit  is  both  imperti- 
nent and  FALSE. 

I.  Impertinent,  for  that,  were  this  account  of 
the  origin  of  Religion  true,  it  would  not  follow, 
that  the  thing  itfelf  was  vifionary  -,  but,  on  the  con- 
-trary,  moft  real,  evidently  fo  even  from  that  univer- 
fal  utility,  on  which  this"  its  pretended  origin  is  fup- 
ported. Indeed,  againft  this  utility,  paradoxical 
men,  or  rren  in  a  paradoxical  humour,  have  often 
reafoned-,  fuch  as  Bayle,  Plutarch,  and  Bacon  : 
Their  arguments  are  here  examined:    And   the 

Maf- 


iSeA.  6.       o/' Moses  demonjirafed.         '379 

Mafier  fophifm^  which  runs  through  the  reafoning; 
of  all  three,  is  detedled  and  expofed. 

2.  Falfe;  for  that,  in  fa6t.  Religion  exited  be- 
fore the  civil  Magift rate  was  in  being.  In  proving 
this  point,  the  matter  led  me  to  fpeak  of  the  origin 
cf  Idolatry  •,  to  diftinguilli  the  feveral  fpecies  of  it; 
to  adjuft  the  order  in  which  they  arofe  out  of  one 
another  ;  and  to  detedb  the  ends  of  the  later  Plato- 
nifts,  in  their  attempts  to  turn  the  whole  into  an 
ALLEGORY  (in  which  the  reafonings  of  a  late  Wri- 
ter in  his  Letters  concerning  Mythology  are  confider- 
ed.)  Andbecaufe  the  rage  of  allegorising  had 
fpread  a  total  confufion  over  all  this  matter.  The 
origin,  and  progrefs  of  the  folly,  and  the  various 
views  of  its  fe£tators  in  fupporting  it,  are  here  ac- 
counted for  and  explained. 

But  my  end  and  purpofe  in  all  this,  was  not 
barely  to  remove  an  objeftion  againft  the  Truths 
delivered  in  this  place,  but  to  prepare  a  reception 
for  thofe  which  are  to  follow  :  For  if  Religion 
were  fo  ufeful  to  Society,  and  yet  not  the  inven- 
tion of  the  Magiftrate,  we  muft  feek  for  its  ori- 
ginal in  another  quarter  •,  either  from  Nature  or 
Revelation,  or  from  both. 

Such  is  the  fubjed-matter  of  the  first  Volume 
of  the  Divine  Legation  :  which,  as  it  was  thought 
proper  to  publilh  feparately,  I  contrived  fhould  not 
only  contain  a  part,  of  that  general  Argument, 
but  (hould  likewile  be  a  compleat  Treatife  of  it- 
felf,  eftablifliing  one  of  the  moft  important  Truths 
with  which  Man  has  any  concern  -,  namely,  the 
necessity  of  Religion  for  the  support  of 
civil  Government.  And  if,  in  fupport  of  this 
truth,  I  have  entered  into  a  long  detail  of  fome 

capital 


^So  T^he  Di'vine  Legation       Book  VI. 

capital  articles  of  Antiquity,  I  prefumc  I  fliall  not 
need  an  apology. 

11. 

We  come  now  to  the  second  Volume  of  the 
Divine  Legation,  which  is  employed  in  proving  the 
MINOR  Proposition  of  the  two  Syllogifms ;  the 
Jjrft,  that  the  JewiJ^j  Religion  aiid  Society  had  no  future 
jiate  for  their  fupport :  the  other,,  that  Mofes,  an  an- 
cient Lawgiver,  and  learned  in  all  the  Wifdorn  of  Egypt, 
furpofely  i>.fiituted  fuch  a  Religion,  in  order  to  which 
the  THIRD  GENERAL  PROPOSITION  was  to  be  in- 
forced  \  That  the  Dotlrine  of  a  future  Jiate  of  Re- 
wards and  Punifhments  is  not  to  be  found  in,  nor  did 
make  part  of  the  Mofaic  Difpenfation.  But  in 
proving  the  minor,  a  method  fomething  different 
from  that  obferved  in  proving  the  major  Propo- 
sitions was  to  be  followed.  Jhefe,  in  the  firit  Vo- 
lume, were  proved  fuccejfively  and  in  order.  But 
here  the  minor  Propositions  are  inforced  all  the 
way  together.  And  this  difference  arifes  from  the 
reafon  of  the  thing  ♦,  the  fads  brought  to  prove 
the  dodrine  to  be  omitted,  do,  at  the  fame  timx, 
accidentally  fhew  that  the  OmifTion  was  defigned : 
And  the  reafons  brought  to  prove  the  ufes  in  a  de- 
figned omifllon,  necejfarily  (hew  that  the  Dodrine 
was  omitted. 

To  proceed  therefore  with  the  fubjed  of  the 
SECOND  Volume. 

IV.  I  jufl  before  obferved,  that  the  conclufion 
of  the  firft  Volume,  which  detedled  the  abfurdity 
and  falfity  of  the  Atheiftic  Principle,  that  Reli- 
gion was  an  invention  of  Politicians,  and  a  creature  of 
theJiatCj  opened  the  v;ay  to  a  fair  inquiry  whether 

its 


Se(5b.  6.       ^/  Moses  detJionft rated*  38-1 

its  true  original  was  not  as  well  from  Revelation 
^s  from  NATURAL  Reason. 

In  the  introdu6lion  therefore  to  this  fecond  Vo- 
lume, I  took  the  advantage  which  that  opening  af- 
forded me,  of  fhewing  that  the  univerfal  pretence 
to  Revelation  proves fome  Revelation  muft  be  true: 
That  this  true  Revelation  muft  have  feme  charac- 
teriftic  marks  to  diftinguifh  it  from  the falfe :  And 
that  thefe  marks  are  to  be  found  in  the  Inftitutions 

of  MoSES. 

But  this  was  only  by  way  of  introduction ;  and 
to  lead  the  Reader  more  eafily  into  the  main  road 
of  our  inquiry-,  by  fhewing  that  we  purfued  no 
defperate  adventure,  while  we  endeavoured  to  de- 
duce the  divinity  of  Mofes's  Law  from  the  cir- 
cumftances  of  the  Law  itfelf. 

I  proceeded  then  to  the  proof  of  the  minor  Pro- 
positions, that  the  Jewijh  Religion  and  Society  had 
no  future  State  for  their  fupport :  and  that  Mofes^  an 
ancient  Lawgiver,  and  learned  in  all  the  wifdom  of 
Egypt,  purpofely  injlituted  fiich  a  Religion.  To 
evince  thefe  truths  with  fufficient  evidence,  the 
nature  of  that  Inftitution  was  to  be  firft  underilood  ; 
which,  again  required  a  general  knowledge,  at 
leaft,  of  the  manners  and  genius  of  the  Hebrew 
People  J  and  of  the  character  and  abilities  of  their 
Lawgiver.  Now  thefe  having  been  entirely  fa- 
fhioned  on  Egyptian  models,  it  was  further  expe- 
dient that  we  fhould  know  the  ft  ate  of  Egyptian 
fiiperftition  and  learning  in  that  early  period. 

I .  In  order  to  this,  the  following  propofition  is 
advanced,  that  the  Egyptian  learning  cekhrated  in 

Scrip' 


382  ^e  Divine  Legiition        Book  VL 

Scripture,  and  the  Egyptian  fuperjiit ion  there  condemn- 
ed, were  the  very  learning  and  fuperjiilion  reprefented 
hy  the  Greek  PFt  iters  as  the  honour  and  opprobrium  of 
that  kingdom.  Where  I  firft  ftate  the  queflion  •,  and 
then  fhew  the  equal  extravagance  of  each  of  thofe 
two  parties  amongll  the  learned,  who  have  been 
accuftomed  to  advance  or  to  deprefs  the  high  anti- 
quity of  Egypt. 

I.  I  corroborate  the  Propofition,  firft,  by  Fact, 
the  teftimony  of  holy  Scripture,  and  of  the  an*- 
cient  Greek  Writers,  fet  together  and  fupport- 
ing  one  another;  and  both  fupported  by  circum- 
ftances  regarding  the  peculiar  fituation  of  the  land 
of  Egypt.  And  here  the  ohjeSiions  of  the  author 
of  the  Sacred  and  Prophane  Hijlory  of  the  World  con- 
nected, frightened  by  the  common  panic  of  the 
high  antiquity  of  Egypt,  are  confuted  and  ex- 
pofed. 

Secondly,  by  Reason,  in  an  Argument  drawn 
from  the  nature,  origin  and  various  ules  of  their 
fo  famed  Hieroglyphics.     Where  it  is  fhewn, 

1 .  That  this  fpecies  of  writing  was  employed  by 
the  Egyptians  as  the  vehicle  of  learning,  even  after 
the  invention  of  letters  :  for  which  no  good  rea- 
fon  can  be  afligned  but  this,  that  they  were  appli- 
ed to  the  fame  purpofe  before.  Now  letters  were 
in  ufe  amongft  them  before  the  time  of  Mofes. 

2.  Again,  it  is  {hewn  that  the  Onirocritics  bor- 
rowed their  art  of  deciphering  dreams  from  hierogly- 
phic Symbols:  but  hieroglyphic  Symbols  were  the 
myfterious  vehicle  of  the  civil  fcicnce  and  of  the 
Theology  of  the  Egyptians.     Now  Onirocritic 

or 

2 


Sc(5l.  6.      o/^  Moses   demonjl rated,  38^ 

or  the  art  of  interpreting  of  dreams  was  pradiied 
in  the  time  of  Joleph. 

5.  And  again.  It  is  fhewn  that  ANi\fAL-woRSHip 
in  Egypt  arofe  from  the  myflerious  ufe  of  thC' 
lame  hieroglyphic  Symbols.  Now  animal-worship 
was  eftablillied  amongft  them  before  the  time  of 
Mofes. 

From  all  this,  it  appears.,  that  Egypt  was  of  that 
high  antiquity  which  Scripture  and  the  beiL  Greek 
Writers  concur  to  repreilrn:  it.  By  which,  we  come 
to  underftand  \y''.":L"  were  t.\\p:  fpecijic  manners  and  fu- 
perfiitions  cf  Egypt  in  the  time  of  Mofes ;  thefe 
being,  as  it  now  appears,  id-^iiLically  the  fame  with 
what  tliC  Greek  Writers  have  delivered  to  us. 

In  the  courfe  of  this  proof  from  Reafon,  which 
opens  at  large  the  nature,  origin,  and  variouji 
kinds  of  Egyptian  EIieroglyphics,  I  interweave 
(as  the  explanation  of  my  fubjed:  necefiarily  re- 
quired) a  detailed  hiftory  of  the  various  modes  of 
ancient  communication  amongft  men,  as  well  by 
real  and  literary  charafters,  as  by  "jocrds  and  ai^iony 
and  Hatw  how  speech  and  writing  ran  parallel  in 
their  progrefs  j  and  influenced,  and  were  influenced 
by,  one  another.  On  the  fame  account,  when  I 
come  to  the  origin  of  Brute-worship,  I  give  the 
hiltory  of  the  various  modes  of  ancient  Idolatry,  in 
the  order  in  which  they  rofe,  one  out  of  another. 

Thefe  things  I  have  not  only  made  to  ferve  in 
fupport  of  the  queftion  I  am  here  upon,  but  like- 
wife  in  fupport  of  one  queftion  preceding,  and  of 
one  which  is  to  follow. 

For  in  the  hiftory  of  the  various  modes  of  ancient 
fommunication  was  laid,  as  the  Reader  will  find,  the 

foundar 


384  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

foundation  of  my  difcourfes  on  the  nature  of  an- 
cient Prophecies  in  the  fixth  Book. 

And,  in  the  hiftory  of  the  various  modes  of  an- 
cient Idolatry^  the  Reader  hath  a  neceflary  fupple- 
ment  to  what  had  been  faid  before  on  the  fame  fub- 
jed,  in  the  latter  end  of  the  third  Book,  againll 
the  Atheifl's  pretended  origin  of  Religion. 

So  ftudious  have  I  been  to  obferve,  what  a  great 
mafter  of  Reafon  lays  down  as  the  rule  and  tefi  of 
good  order  in  Compofition,  That  every  former  part 
may  give  firength  to  all  that  follow  ;  and  every  latter 
bring  light  unto  all  before  '\ 

But  the  high  antiquity  of  Egypt,  tho'  proved 
from  Atitiquity  itfelf,  feemed  not  to  be  enough  fe- 
cured,  while  the  authority  of  ont  great  modern  re- 
mained entire,  and  his  realonings  unanfwered. 

In  the  next  place,  therefore,  I  examine  Sir  Isaac 
Newton's  Chronology  of  the  Egyptian  Empire -y  a 
Chronology  ereded  on  the  fuppofed  identity  ofOfiris 
and  Sefoflris  i  which  is  a  fancy  that  not  only  con- 
tradids  dllfacredsLS  well  as  prophane  antiquity,  but, 
what  is  ftill  more,  the  very  nature  of  things. 

In  the  courfe  of  this  confutation,  the  caufes  of 
that  endlefs  confufton  in  the  early  Greek  hijhry  and 
Mythology  are  inquired  into  and  explained:  Which 
ferves,  at  the  fame  time,  to  confirm  and  illuftrate 
all  that  hath  been  occafionally  faid  in  the  latter  end 
of  i\\t  third  book,  and,  here  again,  in  this  fourth, 
concerning— the  origin  and  progrefs  of  Idolatry, 
—  the  gpnius  of  Pagan  Religion,  —  the  Gentile 

*  Hooker. 

modes 


Scd.  6.       ^  Moses  demonJirateiL  38^ 

modes  of  worfhip,  —  and  their  Theological  opi- 


nions. 


Thus  far  concerning  the  high  antiquity  of  Egypt. 
Which,  befides  the  immediate  pnrpofe  of  leading 
us  into  the  true  idea  of  the  Jewifo  Inftitution  in 
o-eneral,  hath  thefe  further  ufes  : 

We  have  feen  in  the  foregoing  Volume,  that 
Egypt,  as  it  was  moft  famed  for  the  arts  of  legifla- 
tion,  fo  it  moft  of  all  inculcated  the  doftrine  of  a 
future  jiate  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments.  Now,  if 
E»ypt  were  indeed  of  the  high  antiquity  here  af- 
figned  unto  it,  that  dodrine  muft  needs  be  of  na- 
tional belief,  at  the  time  the  Hebrews  lived  there 
in  flavery.  But  then  they  having,  as  we  find  in 
Scripture,  thoroughly  imbibed  the  religious  no- 
tions of  the  place,  muft  needs  be  much  prejudiced 
in  favour  of  fo  reafonable  and  flattering  a  Doc- 
trine :  Confequently  their  Lawgiver,  who  likewife 
had  been  bred  up  in  all  the  learning  of  Egypt, 
would,  if  he  had  aded  only  by  human  diredion, 
have,  in  imitation  of  his  Mafters,  taken  advantage 
of  this  favourable  prejudice  to  inake  the  dodrine 
of  a  future  ftate  the  grand  Sanction  of  his  Reli- 
gion and  Law. 

Again,  the  proof  of  the  high  ■Antiquity  of  Egypt^ 
was  neceffary  to  wmd^iczt^facred Scripture-,  which  all 
along  declares  for  that  Antiquity  ;  and  which  the 
Deist  having  endeavoured  to  take  advantage  of, 
in  oppofing  Mofes's  pretence  to  infpiration,_ibmc 
imprudent  Believers  were  grown  not  unwilling  to 
explain  away.  Sir  Ifiac  Newton's  Chronology 
afforded  them  the  aid  they  wanted  :  And  while 
it  offered  itfelf  in   fupport   of  the  BiUe-divin  iy. 

Vol.  V,  C  c  t  kv 


3^6         T'he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

they  fcemed  little  attentive  to  the  liberties  it  had 
taken  with  the  Bible-hijlcry. 

2.  In  order  to  bring  on  this  Truth  of  the  high 
antiquity  of  Egypt  nearer  to  my  purpoie,  I  pro- 
ceeded to  the /^-co;?^  Proportion.  That  thejcwiflj 
People  were  extremely  fond  of  Egyptian  manners^  and 
did  frequently  fall  into  Egyptian  fuperjlitions :  and  that 
many  of  the  La"d;s  given  to  them  by  the  minijlry  of 
Mofes  were  injiituted  partly  in  compliance  to  their  pre- 
judices^ and  partly  in  oppofition  to  thofe  fuperjlitions. 
In  the  proof  of  the  firft  part  of  this  Propofition, 
I  fhew  the  high  probability  that  the  Law  was  infti- 
tuted  with  reference  to  Egyptian  manners  j  and 
through  the  proof  of  the  fecond,  is  deduced  a 
demonjlration  that  it  was  actually  fo  framed. 

For  a  further  illuftration  of  this  Argument,  I 
give  an  hiftorical  account  of  the  degeneracy  of  the 
Hebrew  People,  and  of  their  amazing  propenfity  to 
imitate  the  manners  of  Egypt,  from  the  time  that 
Mofes  was  firft  fent  upon  his  Miffion,  to  their 
entire  fettlement  in  the  land  of  Judea :  Which  fully 
Jliews  (what  will  ftand  us  in  ftead,  hereafter)  that 
a  People  fo  perverfe  and  headftrong  needed,  in  the 
conftruflion  of  their  civil  and  religious  Inftitutions, 
all  pofTible  curbs  to  diforder :  Now  of  all  fuch 
curbs,  the  doftrine  of  a  future  Jiate  was  ever  held 
the  chief  in  ancient  policy  ;  and  as  this  doftrine 
was  fo  peculiarly  Egyptian,  they  muft  needs  have 
the  molt  favourable  prejudice  towards  it. 

But  then,  as  it  might  perhaps  be  objeded,  that 
while  I  am  endeavouring  to  get  this  way,  into  the 
interior  of  the  Jewifli  Conftitution,  I  open  a  back 
door  to  the  ravages  of  Infidelity  :  it  was  thought 

necefiary. 


Se(5l.  6.       of  Mosses  demonjlrated.         387 

necefTary,  in  order  to  prevent  the  Deift's  taking 
advantage  of  the  great  Truth  contained  in  the 
preceding  Propofinon,  ('which  is  the  fecond)  to 
guard  it  by  tlie  following,  (which  is  the  third) 
viz.  '^hat  Mofes's  Egyptian  Learnings  and  the  Laws 
injiituted  in  compliance  to  the  Peoples  prejudices^  are 
no  reafoyiahle  ohjeofion  to  the  divinity  of  his  Mijfion. 
Where,  in  explaining  the  firft  part,  which  fliews 
what  this  learning  was,  and  how  well  it  fuited 
with  Mofes's  MilTion,  I  had  occafion  to  inquire 
into  the  origin  and  ufe  of  the  schools  of  the 
Prophets  :  Which  the  Reader  will  find  of  this  fur- 
ther ufe,  viz.  To  give  ilrength  andfupport  to  what 
is  faid  in  the  fixth  Book  of  the  Nature  of  the 
Jewish  Prophecies  -,  and  particularly  to  what  is 
there  obferved  of  Grotius's  fatal  error,  in  his 
mode  of  interpreting  them. 

And  in  explanation  of  the  fecond  part,  having 
proved  the  Propofition,  That  to  inftitute  Laws  in 
conipliance  to  popular  prejudices  is  no  reafonable 
obje6lion  to  their  divine  original,  having  proved 
this,  I  fay,  from  the  nature  of  things,  the  Dif- 
courfe  proceeds  to  examine  all  the  Arguments 
which  have  been  urged  in  fupport  of  the  contrary 
opinion,  by  Herman  Witsius,  in  his  learned 
Treatife  intitled  Mgyptiaca,  that  Book  having  been 
publickly  recommended  by  Dr.  Waterland,  for  a 
difiinU  and  f olid  confutation  of  Spencer* s  De  Legibus 
Hehraonim  ritualibus. 

And  the  anfwer  to  Witfius's  laft  argument  bring- 
ing into  queftion  the  intrinfic  value  of  the  ritual 
Law,  the  famous  chara6ler  of  it  given  by  the 
Prophet  Ezekiel,  of  fiatutes  that  were  not  good, 
and  judgments  whereby  they  fhould  not  live  —  is  ex- 
plained in  a  large  analyfis  of  the  whole  Prophecy, 
C  G  2  againft 


388  ^he  Divine  Legcticn         Book  VI. 

againft  an  old  foolifh  notion  revived  by  Dr.  Shuck- 
ford,  that  thefe  Statutes  and  Jiidg-uients  here  faid  to 
be  grjen  by  Gcd,  were  the  Pagan  Idolatries,  which, 
in  defiance  of  God,  they  took  without  leave. 

But  I  go  yet  further  in  fupport  of  the  fourth 
Propofition,  and  prove,  thd^ithefevery  circumftances 
cfMcfes's  Egyptian  Learnings  and  the  Lais:s  injiituted 
in  compliance  to  the  People's  prejudices,  are  a  firong 
confirraation  of  the  divinity  of  his  Mijfwn, 

xft.  For,  that  one  bred  up  in  the  arts  of  Egyp- 
tian Legiflation  could  never,  on  his  own  head,  have 
thought  of  reducing  an  unruly  people  to  o-overn- 
ment,  on  maxims  of  Religion  and  Policy,^funda- 
fnentally  oppofite  to  all  the  principles  of  Egyp- 
tian WISDOM,  at  that  time  the  univerfal  Model  on 
which  all  the  Legiflators  worked,  in  reducing  a 
barbarous  People  to  Society.  Yet  Mofes  went 
upon  principles  diametrically  oppofite  to  that  wis- 
dom, when  he  enjoined  the  public  worfliip  of  the 
me  true  God  onjy^  and  omitted  the  dottrine  of  a  fu- 
ture fiats  of  Rewards  and  Punifimients^  in  tlie  inftitu- 
tion  of  his  Law  and  Religion. 

2dly,  For,  that  One  v^hofalfely  pretended  to  re- 
ceive the  whole  frame  of  a  national  Conllitution 
from  God,  would  never  have  rifqued  his  preten- 
fions  by  a  ritual  Law,  which  the  people  might  fee 
was  politically  inftituted,  partly  in  co;nphance  to 
their  prejudices,  and  partly  in  oppofition  to  Egyp- 
tian fuperllitions. 

Here,  all  the  imaginable  motives  are  inquired 
into,  which  Moses,  tho'  a  mere  human  Lawgiver^ 
might  have  had  to  ad  in  the  manner  he  did^^  and 
thefe  motives  are  fhewn  to  be  inlufr;ticnt  to  induce  a 

wif« 


Se(5i.  6.       ^  M  o  s  E  s  demovjlrafed.  3S9 

wife  Legiflator  thus  to  afl. — In  conclufion,  it  is 
made  apparent,  that  a  ritual^  contrrjsd  to  oppofe  to 
the  reigning  fiiperjiitions 'y  and,  at  the  fame  time,  to 
prefigure^  by  its  typical  nature^  all  the  elTential  parts 
of  a  future  Difpenfation,  contains  a  ftrong  inter- 
nal ARGUMENT  THAT  THE  RITUAL  LaW  WAS 
NOT   A    MERE  HUMAN  INVENTION.       And  with  this 

the  fourth  Book  concludes. 

V.  What  hath  been  hitherto  faid,  was  to  let  the 
Reader  into  the  genius  of  the  Jewifh  Policy  in 
general^  in  order,  to  his  judging  more  exactly  of 
the  peculiar  nature  of  its  Government  •,  that,  from 
thence,  he  might  be  enabled  to  determine,  with 
full  certainty,  of  the  matters  in  queftion,  as  they 
are  contained  in  the  two  Minor  terms. 

r .  The  fifth  Book^  therefore,  comes  ftill  nearer 
to  the  point,  and  fhews,  that  the  Government  m- 
ftituted  by  Mofes,  was  a  Theocracy,  properly 
fo  called,  where  God  himfelf  was  the  fupreme 
civil  Mamftrate.  It  begins  with  affio-nins;  and  fet- 
tling  the  true  reafon  of  the  feparation  of  the  pos- 
terity of  Abraham  from  the  reft  of  mankind ; — • 
becaufe  this  feparation  has  been  greatly  mifunder- 
ftood — but  principally  becaufe  the  true  reafon  of 
tho.  feparation  leads  us  into  the  ufe  and  necefTity 
of  a  theocratic  form  of  Government. 

In  evincing  this  neceflity,  the  juftice  of  the  Law 
for  punijhi/tg  Idol-'worfhip  capitally,  under  a  Theo- 
cracy, is  explained  :  And  becaufe  the  Deift  hath 
been  accuftomed  to  urge  this  haw  againll  the  di- 
vine original  of  the  whole  Inftitution,  it  is  here 
juftified  at  large,  on  the  principles  of  natural 
equity  :  Which  ferves,  as  well  a  paft  purpofe,  viz. 
the  adding  ftrength  and  fupport  to  what  hath  been 

C  g  q  fj^id 


390  The  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

faid  on  the  fubjeft  of  Toleration,  in  the  fecond 
Book  i  as  it  does  at  prefent,  viz.  To  confirm  the 
reality  of  this  Theocracy^  which  a  celebrated  dilFent- 
ing  Minifter  has  prepofteroufly  gone  out  of  his  way 
to  bring  in  queftion  :  whofe  reafoning^  therefore,  is , 
examined  and  expofed. 

•  2.  This  Theocracy,  thus  proved  to  be  necef- 
fary^  was  likewife,  of  the  moft  eafy  introduftion, 
as  I  have  Ihewn  from  the  notions  and  opinions  of 
thofe  times,  concerning  ttitelary  Deities.    And  here, 
fpeaking  of  the  method  of  divine  Providence,  in 
applying  the  prejudices  and  manners  of  men  to 
the   great  ends  of  his  Difpenfations,   I  obferve, 
that  He  is  always  accuftomed  to  imprefs  on  his  in- 
ftitution,  fome  charafteriftic  note  of  difference,  to 
mark  it  for  his  own  :  which  leading  me  to  give 
inftances  in  fome  of  thefe  notes,  I  infift  chiefly  up- 
on this,  "  that  the  Mofaic  Religion  was  built  upon 
"  a  former,  namely,  the  Patriarchal  :  v/hereas  the 
"  various  Religions  of  the  Pagan  World  were  all 
**  unrelated  to,  and  independent  of,  one  another." 
As  this  was  a  circumftance  neceflary  to  be  well  at- 
tended to,  by  all  who  would  fully  comprehend  the 
nature  of  the  Mofaic  Policy,  I  took  the  advantage, 
which  the  celebrated  Author  of  the  Grounds  and 
Reafons  of  the  Chriftian  Religion  had  afforded  me,  to 
fupport  this  chara6leriflic  note,  againft  his  idle  at- 
tempt to  prove,  that  the  Pagans,  likewife,  were 
accuftomed  to  build  one  pretended  Revelation  on 
another. 

3.  I  proceed,  in  the  next  place,  to  fliew,  that 
thofe  prejudices  which  made  the  introduction  of  a 
Theocracy  fo  eafy,  occafioncd  as  eafy  a  defection 
from  it.  In  which,  I  had  occafion  to  explain  the 
nature  of  the  'ixorfhip  of  tutelary  Gods  \  and  of  that 

Idolatry 


Se<5i;.  6.      cf  Moses  demonjlrated,  391 

idolatry  wherewith  the  Ifraelites  were  fo  obflinate- 
ly  befotted. 

Both  of  which  Difcourfes  ferve  thefe  further  pur- 
pofes :  tiie  former^  to  fupport  and  explain  what 
hath  been  faid  in  the  fecond  Book  concerning  the 
Pagan  intercommunity  of  worjlnp  :  and  the /tf//i?r,  (be- 
fides  a  peculiar  ule  to  be  made  of  it  in  third 
Volun-^e)  to  obviate  a  popular  obj"6tion  of  Un- 
believers ;  wh'o,  from  this  circumftance,  of  the 
perpetual  defection  of  the  Ifraelites  into  idola- 
try, would  infer,  that  God's  Difpenfation  to  them 
could  never  have  been  fo  convi6tive  as  their  Hiilory 
reprefents  it;  the  Objectors  having  taken  it  for 
grantt-d,  on  the  allowance  of  Believers,  that  this 
Idolatry  confifted  in  renouncing  the  Law  of  Mo- 
fes,  and  renouncing  it  as  difi^atisfied  with  its  truth. 
Both  which  fuppolitions  are  here  fiiewn  to  be  falfe. 
This  affords  an  occafion  to  confute  the  falfe  rea- 
foning  of  Lord  Bolingbroke;  who,  from  this  fre- 
quent lapfe  into  Idolatry,  infers  fuch  a  defed  and 
political  inability  in  the  Law,  as  Ihews  its  pretence 
to  a  divine  original  to  be  an  impofture. 

4..  The  nature  of  the  Theocracy,  and  the  cir- 
cumftances  attending  its  ereElion  being  thus  ex- 
plained, we  come  next  to  inquire  concerning  its 
duration.  Here  we  fhew,  that,  in  ftri6l  truth  and 
propriety,  it  fubfifted  throughout  the  whole  period 
of  the  Jewifh  CEconomy,  even  to  the  coming  of 
Chrift:  In  which  difcourfe,  the  contrary  opinions,  of 
an  earlier  abolition,  are  all  confidered  and  confut- 
ed, and  the  above  truth  fupported  and  eftablilhed. 
In  the  courfe  of  this  reafoning,  it  is  fhewn,  that  the 
famous  Prophecy  of  Jacob,  of  the  Sceptre's  not  de- 
parting from  Judah  till  the  ccming  of  Shiloh^  is  a  pro- 
mife  or  declaration  of  the  exiltence  of  the  The- 

C  C    4  OCRACY 


392  ^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

OCR  AC  Y  till  the  coming  of  Chrift.  And  as  the 
truth  of  this  interpretation  is  of  the  higheft  im- 
portance to  Revelation,  all  the  different  fenfes  given 
to  this  Prophecy  are  examined,  and  (hewn  to  be 
erroneous.  And  the  lad  of  them  being  one  bor- 
rowed by  Dr.  Sherlock,  Bifhop  of  London,  and 
received  into  his  Book  of  the  Ufe  and  Intent  of  Pre- 
fhec)\  is  particularly  difcufled. 

The  ufe  to  be  hereafter  made  of  the  duration  of 
■the  Theocracy  to  the  coming  of  Chrifl,  is  to  inforce, 
by  this  circumltance,  amongft  many  others,  the 
CONNEXION  between  the  two  Religions  :  a  truth, 
though  too  much  neglecfled,  yet  incumbent  on 
every  rational  Defender  of  Revelation  to  fup- 
port. 

The  Argument  then  proceeds  to  a  confideration 
of  the  peculiar  confequcnccs  attending  the  admini^ 
flration  of  a  Theocracy,  which  brings  us  yet  nearer 
ro'-our  point.  Here  it  is  fliewn,  that  one  neceflary 
confecjMcnce  was  an  extraordinary  Providence. 
And  agreeably  to  this  dedudtion  from  the  nature 
of  things^  we  find,  that  holy  Scripture  does,  infa^, 
exhibit  this  very  reprefentation  of  God's  Govern- 
ment of  Judea ;  and  that  there  are  many  favour- 
able circumftances  in  the  charader  of  the  Hebrew 
People,  to  induce  us  to  believe  the  reprefentation 
to  be  true.  Here,  many  cloudy  cavils  of  the  three 
Doctors,  Sykes,  Stebbing,  and  Rutherford, 
are  occafionally  removed  and  difperfed.  But  the 
attentive  Reader  will  oblerve,  that  m.y  Argument 
<loes  not  require  me  to  prove  more  in  this  place, 
than  that  holy  Scripture  represents  an  extraordi- 
'Aary  Providence  to  have  been  adminiltered.  The 
proof  of  its  real  Adminiflration  is  eflablilhed  by 
\)xq  MEDIUM  of  my  ThefiSj  the  omiffion  of  the  Doc- 

p-iiXi 


Scd.  6.        of  Moses  dc7nonfirated,         393 

trine  of  a  future  flate  of  Rezvards  and  Tunifirments, 
Which  anlwers  all  objedions  as  to  our  inadequate 
conceptions  of  fuch  an  adminiftration  \  as  well  as 
to  certain  pafTages  of  Scripture  that  Icem  to  clafli 
with  its  general  reprefentation  of  it.  Yet  both 
thefe  fort  of  objedions  are,  however,  tonfidercd 
€X  abundanti. 

As  important  as  the  fa6l  is,  to  our  prefcnt  pur- 
pofe  of  an  extraordinary  Providence  thus  repre- 
fented,  it  has  ftill  a  further  ufe,  when  employed 
amongft  thofe  diflinguifhing  marks  of  the  truth  of 
Mofes's  divine  Million  in  general :  for  it  lliews 
"US,  the  unnecefTary  trouble  and  hazard  to  which 
he  expofed  himfelf  had  that  Miflion  been  feign- 
ed. Had  he,  like  the  reft  of  the  ancient  Law- 
givers, only  pretended  to  infpiration^  he  had  then 
no  occafion  to  propagate  the  belief  of  an  extra- 
crdinary  Providence ;  a  Bifpenfation  fo  eafy  to  be 
confuted.  But  by  deviating  from  their  praftice, 
and  announcing  to  his  People,  that  their  tutehry 
God  was  become  their  King,  he  laid  himfelf  under 
a  neceflity  of  teaching  an  extracrdinray  Providence ; 
a  dead  weight  upon  an  Impoftor,  which  nothing 
but  downright  folly  could  have  brought  him  to 
wndergo. 

To  proceed.  After  having  laid  this  ftrong  and 
neceffary  Foundation,  we  come  at  length  directly 
to  the  point  in  queftion.  If  the  Jewifh  Govern- 
ment were  a  Theocracy,  adminiftered,  as  it 
muft  be,  by  an  extraordinary  Providence^  the  next 
confequence  is,  that  temporal  rewards  and 
PUNISHMENTS,  and  not  Future,  were  the  sanc- 
tion of  their  Law  and  Religion.  Thus  far,  there- 
fore, have  our  confiderations  on  the  nature  alone  of 
the  Jewilh  Government  condu(rted  us :  and  it  is  al- 

moll 


394  ^^^  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

mod  to  our  journey's  end :  for  it  fairly  brings  us  up 
to  the  proof  of  our  two  minor  Propofitions.  So 
neceflary,  as  the  Reader  now  fees,  is  the  long  dif- 
courfe  of  the  nature  of  the  Jewifh  Government. 

But,  to  prevent  all  cavil,  the  Argument  goes  on, 
and  proves  in  the  next  place,  that  the  Do&ine  of 
a  future  fiate  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments^  which 
could  not,  from  the  nature  of  things,  be  the  Sanc- 
tion of  the  Jewifh  CEconomy,  was  not  \nfa£l  con- 
tained in  it  at  all :  nay  further,  that  it  was  pur- 
posely OMITTED  by  the  great  Lawgiver.  This 
is  proved  from  feveral  pafTages  in  the  Book  ofGene- 
fts  and  the  Law. 

And  here,  more  fully  to  evince,  that  Mofes,  who, 
it  is  fcen,  fludioufly  omitted  the  mention  of  it,  was 
well  apprifed  oi  its  importance,  I  fhew,  that  the  Pu- 
nishment OF  Children  for  the  sins  of  their 
Parents  was  brought  into  this  Inftitution  purpofe- 
]y  to  afford  fome  advantages  to  Government,  which 
the  Dodtrine  of  a  future  fiate ^  as  it  is  found  in  all 
other  Societies,  amply  fupplies.  This,  at  the  fame 
time  that  it  gives  further  flrength  to  thepofition  of 
no  future  fiate  in  the  Mofaic  Difpenfation^  gives  the 
Author  a  fair  occafion  of  vindicating  the  jultice  and 
equity  of  the  Law  of  punijhing  Children  for  the  fins 
of  their  Parents ;  and  of  proving  the  perfedl  agree- 
ment between  Moses  and  the  Prophets  Ezekiel 
and  Jeremiah,  concerning  it ;  which  hath  been,  in 
all  ages,  the  ftumblihg-block  of  Infidelity. 

But  we  now  advance  a  ftep  further,  and  fhew, 
that  as  Mofes  did  not  teach,  yea  forbore  to  teach 
the  Do6trine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Pu- 
nifhments,  fo  neither  had  the  ancient  Jews,  that  is 
to  fay,  the  Body  of  the  People,  any  knowledge  of 

it. 


Se(fl.  6.     of  Moses  demonjlrated,  39^ 

it.  The  proof  is  ftriking,  and  fcarce  to  be  refifted 
by  any  Party  or  ProfefTion  but  that  of  the  System- 
maker.  The  Bible  contains  a  very  circumftantial 
account  of  this  People,  from  the  time  of  Mofes 
to  the  great  Captivity  ;  not  only  the  hiftory  of 
public  occurrences,  but  the  lives  of  private  per- 
fons  of  both  itxts^  and  of  all  ages,  conditions, 
chara6ters  and  complexions ;  in  the  adventures  of 
virgins,  matrons,  kings,  foldiers,  fcholars,  parents, 
merchants,  huibandmen.  They  are  given  too  in 
every  circumftance  of  life  ;  captive,  vidlorious,  in 
ficknels  and  in  health  ;  in  full  fecurity  and  amidft 
impending. dangers;  plunged  in  civil  bufinefs,  or 
retired  ana  fequeftered  in  the  fervice  of  Religion. 
Together  with  their  ftory,  we  have  their  compofi- 
tions  likewife  :  in  one  place  we  hear  their  trium- 
phal ;  in  another,  their  penitential  llralns.  Here 
we  have  their  exultations  for  bleffings  received ; 
there,  their  deprecations  of  evil  apprehended:  Here 
they  urge  their  moral  precepts  to  their  contempora- 
ries \  and  there  again,  they  treafure  up  their  Pro- 
phecies and  Predictions  for  the  ufe  of  Pofierity ; 
and  on  each,  denounce  the  threatenings  and  pro- 
mifes  of  Heaven.  Yet  in  none  of  thefe  different 
circumllances  of  life;  in  none  of  thefe  various  cads 
of  compofition,  do  we  ever  find  them  adling  on 
the  motives,  or  influenced  by  the  profpe6t,  of  a 
FUTURE  STATE  :  or  indeed,  exprefTing  the  leaft 
hopes  or  fears,  or  even  common  curiofity,  con- 
cerning it :  But  every  thing  they  do  or  fay,  re- 
fpefbs  the  prefent  life  only ;  the  good  and  ill  of 
which  are  the  fole  objects  of  their  purfuits  and 
averfions. 

The  ftrength  of  this  argument  is  ftill  further 
fupported  by  a  view  of  the  general  hiftory  of  Man- 
kind :  and  particularly  of  thofe  nations  moil  re- 

I'embling 


39^  The  Divine  Legation      Book  VI, 

fembling  the  Jewifi  in  their  genius  and  circum- 
flances :  in  which  we  find  the  Dodrine  of  a  fu- 
ture ftate  of  Rewards  and  Punirtiments,  was  al- 
ways pulhing  on  its  influence.  It  was  their  con- 
flant  viaticum  through  life  ;  it  ftimulated  them  to 
war,  and  fpirited  their  fongs  of  triumph  j  it  made 
them  infenfible  of  pain,  immoveable  in  danger, 
and  fuperior  to  the  approach  of  death. 

This  is  not  all :  We  obferve,  that  even  in  the 
Jcwijh  Annals,  when  this  Dodtrine  was  become 
national,  it  made  as  confiderable  a  figure  in  their 
Hiftory,  as  in  that  of  any  other  nation. 

It  is  ftill  further  urged,  that  this  conclufion 
does  not  reft  merely  on  the  negative  ftlence  of  the 
Bible-hiftory  -,  it  is  fupported  on  the  poftiive  decla- 
rations contained  in  it ;  by  which  the  facred  Wri- 
ters plainly  difcover  that  there  was  no  popular  ex- 
peftation  of  a  future  Jiaie  or  Refurre^ion. 

From  the  Old  Tejlament  we  come  to  the  Neiv, 
By  the  Writers  of  which  it  appears,  that  the  Doc- 
trine of  a  future  ftate  of  Jlewards  andPunifhments, 
DID  NOT  MAKE  PART  of"  the  Mofaic  DifpenfatioH. 

Their  evidence  is  divided  into  two  parts ;  the 
firfi^  proving  that  temporal  rewards  and  punifh- 
ments  were  the  fanElion  of  the  Jewifti  Dilpenlation : 
The  feconJ,  that  it  had  no  other.  And  thus,  with 
the  moft  diredl  and  unexceptionable  proof  of  the 
two  MINOR  propofitions,  the  fifth  Book  concludes. 

VI.  But  to  remove,  as  far  as  pofTible,  all  the 
fupports  of  prejudice  againft  this  important  Truth, 
the  fixth  and  laft  Book  of  this  Volume  is  employ- 
ed in  examining  all  thofe  texts  of  the  Old  and  Ne'-j} 

Tcftament, 


Seft.  6.       o/"  Moses  demonjlrated.  397 

Teftament,  which  had  been  commonly  urged  to 
prove,  that  the  Doflrine  of  a  future  ftate  of  re- 
wards and  punifhments,  did  make  part  of  the 
Mofaic  Difpenfation. 

And  amongft  thofe  of  the  Old  Teftament,  the 
famous  paflage  of  the  xix"*  chapter  of  Job,  con- 
cerning a  Refurre5imt  (as  it  has  been  commonly 
underftood)  holding  a  principal  place,  it  was  judg- 
ed expedient,  for  the  reafons  there  given,  to  ex- 
amine that  matter  to  the  bottom.  This  neceflarily 
brought  on  an  enquiry  into  the  nature  and  ge- 
nius of  that  Book ;  when  written,  and  to  what 
purpose.  By  the  aid  of  which  enquiry,  a  fair  ac- 
count is  given  of  the  fenfe  of  that  famous  Text, 
confiftent  with  our  general  Proportion. 

But  the  whole  Difcourfe  on  the  hook  of  Job  hath 
this  further  ufe :  It  provides  a  ftrong  fupport  and 
illuftration  of  what  will  be  hereafter  delivered  con- 
cerning the  gradual  decay  of  the  extraordinary 
Providence  from  the  time  oi  Saul,  to  the  return  from 
the  great  Captivity. 

Yet  this  is  not  all.  The  Difcourfe  hath  yet  a 
further  ufe,  with  regard  to  Revelation  in  general. 
For  the  explaining.  How  the  principles  of  the 
Gofpel-Dc^irine  were  opened  by  degrees,  fully  ob- 
viates the  calumnies  of  thole  two  leaders  in  In- 
fidelity, Tyndal  and  Collins  ;  who  pretend, 
that  the  Heads  and  Governors  of  the  Jews,  refined 
their  old  Doflrines  concerning  the  Deity,  and  in- 
vented new  ones  :.  juft  as  the  Priejls  improved  irr 
knowledge,  or  the  People  advanced  in  curiofity  ; 
or  as  Both  were  better  taught  by  the  inftruftions 
they  received  from  their  Mafters,  in  the  country 
■whither  they  were  led  away  captive. 
.J  ^  The 


-398  7he  Divine  Legation         Book  VI. 

The  difcourfe  of  Job  being  of  this  importance, 
we  were  led  to  fupport  all  the  parts  of  it,  from  the 
attacks  of  various  Writers,  who  had  attempted  to 
confute  it. 

The  reft  of  the  Old  Teftament-texts  are  gone 
thro'  with  greater  difpatch,  being  divided  into  two 
parts.  I.  Such  as  are  fuppofed  to  teach  the  fe- 
parate  exiflence,  or  as  it  is  called,  the  immortality 
of  the  Soul.  And  2.  Such  as  are  fuppofed  to 
teach-  a  future  ft  ate  of  rewards  and  punijhments^  to- 
gether with  a  RefwreBion  of  the  body.  In  the  courfe 
of  which  examination,  much  light,  it  is  hoped, 
has  been  thrown  both  on  the  particular  texts  and 
on  the  general  queftion. 

From  the  texts  of  the  Old  Teftament,  the  Ar- 
gument proceeds  to  examine  thole  of  the  New  : 
Amongft  which,  the  famous  eleventh  Chapter  of  the 
Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  is  not  forgotten  •,  the  fenfe  of 
which  is  cleared  up,  to  oppofe  to  the  inveterate 
miftakes  of  Syftematical  Divines :  And  here,  occa- 
fion  is  taken  to  explain  the  nature  of  St.  Paul's  rea~ 
foning  againft  the  errors  of  the  Jewifto  converts  \  a 
matter  of  higheft  moment  for  a  right  underftand- 
ing  of  this  Apoflle's  Letters  to  the  feveral  Churches ; 
and  for  the  further  illuftration  of  the  general  Ar- 


gument. 


As  in  all  this,  nothing  is  taught  or  infinuated 
which  oppofes  the  dodrineof  our  excellent  Church, 
common  decency  required  that  this  conformity 
fhould  be  fully  fhewn  and  largely  infilled  on. 

Having  therefore,  all  along,  gone  upon  this  Prin- 
ciple, That  "  tho'  a  future  State  of  rewards  and 
"  punifhments,  made  no  part  of  the  Mosaic  Dif- 
4  ^'  penfation, 


Sed.  6.       of  yio%^^  demonfirated.  399 

"  penfation,  yet  that  the  Law  had  a  spiritual 
"  meaning  -,  tho'  not  feen  or  underftood  till  the 
"  fuUnefs  of  time  was  come.  Hence  the  Ritual 
*'  Law  received  the  nature,  and  afforded  the  effi- 
*'  cacy  of  PROPHECY  :  In  the  interim  (as  is  fhewn) 
"  the  myjlery  of  the  Gofpel  was  occajionally  revealed^ 
"  by  God,  to  his  chofen  fervants,  the  Fathers  and 
"  Leaders  of  the  Jewifh  Nation  ;  and  the  dawnings 
*'  of  it  gradually  opened  by  the  Prophets,  to  the 
'*  People."  Having,  I  fay,  gone,  all  the  way, 
upon  this  principle,  I  fiiew,  from  the  seventh 
ARTICLE  of  Religion,  that  it  is  the  very  Dodrine 
of  our  excellent  Church. 

And  in  explaining  that  part  of  the  Article 
which  fays, — T^hat  they  are  not  to  be  heard  which  feign 
that  the  old  Fathers  did  look  only  for  tranfitory  Pro- 
mifes,  I  fupport  this  dodlrine  by  the  cafe  of  Abra- 
ham, who,  our  bleffed  Matter  tells  us,  rejoiced  to 
fee  his  day,  and  faw  it  and  was  glad. 

Here,  I  attempt  to  prove,  in  ilUiftration  of  this 
text,  that  the  Cominand  to  Abraham  to  offer  Ifaac, 
was  merely  an  information  given,  at  Abraham's 
earneft  requeft,  in  a  reprefentative  a^ion,  inftead  of 
words,  of  the  Redemption  of  mankind  by  the 
great  Sacrifice  of  Chrift  on  the  Crofs.  Which  in- 
terpretation, if  it  be  the  true  one,  is,  I  think,  the 
noblefl  proof  that  ever  was  given  of  the  Har- 
mony between  the  Old  and  New  Teflament. 

From  this  long  Diflertation,  befides  the  imme- 
diate purpofe  of  vindicating  the  Dodrine  of  our 
national  Church,  in  its  feventh  Article,  we  gain 
thefe  two  advantages,  i.  The  firll  of  which  is, 
fupporting  a  real  and  eflential  connexion  between 
the  Mofaic  and  the  Chriftian  Religions.     2,  The 

other 


4c5o  ^ke  Di'vine  Legation       Book  VL 

other  is,  difpofing  the  Deifts  to  think  more  favoura 
bly  of  Revelation,  when   they  fee,  in  this  inter- 
pretation of  the  COMMAND,  all  their  objedtions  tu 
this  part  of  Abraham's  ftory,  overthrown. 

The  matter  being  of  this  high  importance,  it 
was  proper  to  fix  my  interpretation  on  fuch  prin- 
ciples as  would  leave  no  room  for  reafonable  doubt 
or  objedtion  :  And  this  was  to  be  done  by  explain- 
ing the  nature  of  thofe  various  modes  of  information 
in  ule  amongft  the  Ancients  -,  for  which  explana- 
tion,  a  proper  ground  had  been  laid  in  the  difcourfe 
on  the  Hieroglyphics  in  the  fourth  Book.  To  all 
this  (for  the.  reafon  here  given)  is  fubjoined  a 
continued  refutation  of  all  that  Dr.  Stebbing  has 
been  able  to  urge  againft  this  idea  of  the  Com- 
mand, 

Nor  is  this  all.  This  Differtation,  which  affords 
fo  many  new  openings  into  the  truths  of  Revela^ . 
iion  in  general,  and  fo  many  additional  fupports 
to  the  argument  of  the  Divine  Legation  in  parti- 
cular, hath  another  very  important  ufe.  It  is  a 
neceffary  introduction  to  the  long  Difcourfe  which 
follows,  concernins:  prophecy. 


'C3 


In  this,  (v/hich  is  the  lad  of  the  prcfcnt  Volume) 
I  have  attempted  to  clear  up  and  vindicate  the  lo- 
gical truth  and  propriety  of  Tj^^^  ina^ion^  2ind  fecon^ 
ilary  fenfes  in  fpeech  :  For  on  the  truth  and  propriety 
of  thefe,  depend.!  the  divine  original  of  the  ancient 
Jewish  prophecies  concerning  Chrift.  A  matter 
much  needing  a  ilipport :  For  tho'  the  greater  pare 
of  thefe  Prophecies  confefTedly  relate  to  Jefus  only 
in  2ifccondary  fenfe,  yet  had  fome  men  of  name, 
and  in  the  interells  of  Religion,  thro'  ignorance  of 
the   true  origin  and  nature  oi  fuch  fenfes^  ralhly 

con- 


ge(5l.  6,      5/'  Moses   demonjlrat^ili         40 1 

concurred  with  modern  Jndailm  and  Infidelity,  to 
o-ive  them  all  up  as  illogical  and  enthuftafiic^  to  the 
imminent  hazard  of  the  very  foundation  of  Chri- 
stianity. In  theprogrefs  of  this  inquiry,  I  had 
occafion  to  examine,  and  was  enabled,  on  the 
principles  here  laid  down,  to  confute  Mr.  CoHins's 
famous  Work  of  the  Grounds  and  Reafons  of  the 
Chrijiian  Religion,  one  of  the  moft  able  and  plau- 
fible  books  ever  written  amongft  us,  againft  our 
holy  Faith ;  he  having  borrowed  the  Argument, 
and  ftolen  all  the  reafoning  upon  it,  from  the  raoft 
fagacious  of  the  modern  Rabbins  •,  who  pretend 
that  none  of  the  Prophecies  can  relate  to  Jefus  in 
any  other  fenfe  than  -x  [econdary,  and  that  ^./econ- 
daryfenfe  is  illogical  and  fanatical. — ^Had  I  done 
no  more,  in  this  long  work,  than  explain  and  clear 
np,  as  I  have  done,  this  much  embarrafled  and  mofl' 
important  queftion  of  the  Jewiih  Prophecies  whici^ 
relate  to  Chrift,  and  to  the  Chriftian  Difpenfation; 
I  fhould  have  thought  my  time  and  labour  well 
employed  ;  fo  necefTary  to  the  very  being  of  our 
holy  Faith,  is  the  fetting  this  matter  on  its  true 
foundation.  Thus  much  may  be  faid  in  favour  of 
this  large  dilTertation  confidered  in  itfelf  alone: 
But,  as  part  of  the  Argument  of  the  Divine  Le- 
gation of  Mofes,  it  has  thefe  more  immediate 
ufes; 

I.  To  fliew,  that  thofe  who  contend,  that  the 
Chriftian  Doftrine  of  a  future  State  was  revealed 
to  the  early  Jews,  deftroy  all  ufe  and  reafon  of  a 
fecondary  fenfe  of  Prophecies  -,  for  how  fhall  it  be 
certainly  known,  from  the  Prophecies  themfelves, 
that  they  contain  double  fenfes,  but  from  this  ac- 
knowledged truth,  that  the  old  Law  was  preparatory 
i$o,  and  the  rudiments  of,  the  New  ?  Or  how  fliall 

YOL,  V.  D  d  this 


40?.  The  Divine  Legation       Book  VI. 

this  relation  between  thefe  two  Laws  be  certainly- 
known,  but  from  the  evidence  of  this  conteftedivvLih, 
that  the  Doctrine  of  a  future  Jlate  of  Rewards  and 
PuniJJjments,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Mofaic  Difpen- 
fation  ?  So  clofe  a  dependence  have  all  thefe  capital 
Principles,  on  one  another. 

2.  The  other  more  immediate  reafon  for  this 
Differtation  on  'Types  and  fecondary  Senfes  was  this  : 
As  I  had  fhewn,  that  a  future  State  of  rewards  and 
punifhments  was  not  revealed  under  any  part  of 
the  Jewifli  CEconomy,  otherwife  than  by  thofe 
modes  of  information,  it  was  neceflary,  in  order 
to  fhew  the  real  connexion  between  Judaifm  and 
Chriftianity  (the  truth  of  the  latter  Religion  de- 
pending on  that  real  connexion)  to  prove  thofe  modes 
to  be  logical  and  rational.  For,  as  on  the  one 
hand,  had  the  dodtrine  of  life  and  immortality 
been  revealed  under  the  Mofaic  CEconomy,  Ju- 
daifm had  been  more  than  a  rudiment  of,  and  pre- 
paration to,  Chriftianity  ;  fo,  on  the  other,  had 
no  covert  intimations,  at  all,  been  given  of  the 
doftrine,  it  had  been  lefs  :  that  is,  the  dependency 
and  connexion  between  the  two  Religions  had 
not  been  fufEciently  marked  out  and  afcertained. 
With  this  Differtation  therefore,  fo  important  in 
its  ufe  and  application,  the  fixth  and  laft  Book  of 
the  fecond  Volume  concludes. 

Thus  the  Reader,  at  length,  may  fee  how  re- 
gularly, and  intently,  thefe  two  Volumes  have  been 
carried  on :  For,  tho'  the  Author  (whofe  paffion  is 
not  fo  much  a  fondnefs  for  his  own  conceived  argument^ 
as  for  the  honour  and  fupport  of  Religion  itfelf) 
hath  ncgledted  no  fair  occafion  of  inforcing  every 
collateral  circumltance,  which  might  ferve  to  il- 

lullrate 


Se(5t.  6.     of  M OS  "ES  demonjl rated,  403 

luftrate  the  truth  of  Revelation  in  general;  yet  he 
never  lofes  fight  of  his  end,  but  as  the  precept  for 
conducing  the  moil  regular  works  diredls. 

Semper  ad  eventum  fejiinat. 

This  Volume  too,  like  the  firft,  I  thought  fit 
to  publilli  alone :  not  merely  for  the  fame  reafon, 
that  it  was  a  compleat  and  entire  work  of  itfelf, 
which  explained  the  nature  and  genius  of  the  Jewijb 
Conjiituiion ;  but  for  this  additional  one,  that  it 
fairly  ended  and  compleated  the  Argument, 

For  the  firft  Volume  having  proved  the  ?vIajor, 
and  the  fecond  Volume,  the  Minor  Propohtions 
of  the  TWO  Syllogisms,  my  logic  teaches  me  to 
think,  that  the  conclusion  follows  of  courfe,  viz. 
That    the    Jewish    Religion    and    Society 

WERE  supported  BY  AN  EXTRAORDINARY  PRO- 
VIDENCE. 

Or  put  it  in  another  light,— Having  proved  my 
three  principal  Propofitions, 

I.  «  That  the  inculcating  the  Doftrine  of  a  fu- 
«  ture  State  of  rewards  and  punifiiments,  ^^is  ne- 
«  cefiary  to  the  well  being  of  civil  Society." 

II.  «  That  all  mankind,  efpecially  the  mod 
«  wife  and  learned  nations  of  Antiquity,  have 
«  concurred  in  believing,  and  teaching,  that  this 
«  Dodrine  was  of  fuch  ufe  to  civil  Society. 

III.  «  That  the  Doftrine  of  a  future  State  of 
«  rewards  and  puniftiments  is  not  to  be  /ound 
"  in,  nor  did  make  part  of  the  Mofaic  Difpenla- 

"  tio"-"  ,  The 

D  d  2  The 


404  1^^<''  Divine  Legation        Book  VI. 

The  conclufion  is,  that  therefore  the  Law  of 
Moses  is  of  divine  original. 

A  conclusion  which  neceflarily  follows  the  pre- 
mifles  contained  in  thele  three  propofitions.  Not- 
withftanding  all  this,  the  evidence  of  their  truth 
proving  fo  various,  extending  fo  wide,  and  having 
been  drawn  out  to  fo  great  a  length ;  What  between 
inattention  and  prejudice^  the  Argument,  here 
brought  to  its  final  jfTue,  hath  been  generally  un- 
derftood  to  be  left  imperfedl  •,  and  the  Conclufion 
of  it  referved  for  another  Volume.  Yet  a  very 
moderate  fhare  of  refieftion  might  have  led  the  can- 
did Reader  to  underfiand,  that  I  had  here  eff'eftually 
performed  what  I  had  nromifcd,  namely,  to  de- 
monstrate THE  Divine  Legation  of  Moses. 
For  if  it  be  indeed  proved,  That  the  Doflrine  of 
a  future  ftate  is  necellary  to  the  well  being  of  civil 
Society,  under  the  ordinary  government  of  Provi- 
dence— That  all  mankind  have  ever  fo  conceived 
of  the  matter — That  the  Mofaic  Inftitution  was 
without  this  fupport,  and  that  yet  it  did  not  want 
it, — What  follows  but  that  the  Jewifii  affairs  were 
adminiilered  by  an  extraordinary  Providence,  dif- 
tributing  reward  and  punifhment  with  an  equal 
hand  -,  and  confequently  that  the  Mission  of  Mo- 
ses WAS  divine  ? 

However,  the  complaint  againfi;  the  Author, 
for  not  having  performed  his  Convention  with  the 
Public,  became  pretty  general.  To  which  a  great 
deal  might  be.faid,  and  perhaps  to  little  purpofe. 
The  following  Tale  will  put  it  in  the  faireil  light.  la 
a  foiemn  Treaty  lately  concluded  between  the  Go- 
vernor of  one  of  our  American  Provinces  and  the 
neighbouring  Savages,  it  had,  it  feems,  been  ilipu- 
lated,  that  the  Settlement  fliould  fupply  thofe 
3  Warrior- 


Sedt.  6.       o/*  M  o  s  E  s  demonjirated,         405 

Warrior-Tribes  with  a  certain  number  of  good  and 
fervicable  Mufkets.  Which  engagement  was  lb 
ill  performed,  that  at  their  next  general  meeting, 
the  Chiefs  of  the  Barbarians  complained,  that, 
tho'  indeed  the  Colony  had  fent  them  the  number 
of  Muflcets  agreed  upon,  yet,  on  examination, 
they  were  all  found  to  be  vjithout  Locks.  This  mil- 
chance  (occafioned  by  the  Mullvets  and  the  Locics 
being  put  into  two  different  cargoes)  the  Gover- 
nor promifed  fhould  be  redreffed.  It  was  redrcffcd 
accordingly ;  and  the  Locks  fought  out,  and  fenr.* 
He  now  flattered  himfelf  that  all  cauie  of  umbrage 
was  effe6tually  removed  j  when,  at  their  next  meet- 
ing, he  was  entertained  with  a  frefh  complaint, 
that  the  Colony  had  fraudulently  fent  them  Locks 
without  Mufiets.  The  truth  was,  this  brave  Peo- 
ple, of  unimpeached  morals,  were  only  defedive 
in  their  military  Logic  ;  they  had  not  the  dexteri- 
ty, till  they  were  firlt  fhewn  the  way,  to  put  the 
major  of  the  Mufl^.et  and  the  minor  of  the  Mulket- 
Lock  together  •,  and  from  thence  to  draw  the  con- 
cluding trigger. 

But  then  it  will  be  faid,  "  If,  as  is  here  pretended, 
the  PREMISSES  have  been  indeed  proved,  in  thefe 
two  Volumes,  with  all  the  detail  which  their  impor- 
tance required,  and  with  all  the  evidence  which  a 
moral  fubjea;  can  fupply  •,  and  the  conclusion-, 
therefore,  eftablilhed  with  all  the  conviftion  which 
the  Laws  of  logic  are  able  to  inforce  j  Why  was 
a  other  Volume  promifed  ?  For  no  other  end,  as 
■^  aldfeem,  than  to  miQead  a  well-meaning  Rea- 
diL-,  in  the  vain  purfuit  of  an  Argument  already 
ended." 

It  was  promifed  for  a  better  purpofe— STc  remove' 

',11  conQsivahk  objeSiions  againji  the  conclusion,  ani. 

Dd  3  ^ 


4o6  T^he  Divine  Legation        Book  VL 

to  throw  in  every  collateral  light  upon  the  premisses. 
For  it  is  one  thing  to  fatisfy  Truth,  and  another, 
to  filence  her  pretended  friends.  He  who  de- 
fends Revelation  has  many  prejudices  to  encounter ; 
but  he  who  defends  it  by  Reafon  only,  has  many 
more. 

The  third  and  lafl  Volume,  therefore.  Is  diftlned 
to  SUPPORT  what  hath  been  already  proved  :  not,  as 
has  been  abfurdly  fuggefted,  to  continue  and  con- 
clude an  unfinifhed  Argument. 

It  confifts  of  three  Books,  like  each  of  the  pre- 
cedino;  Volumes. 

I.  The  feventh  Book  therefore  is  employed  in 
fupporting  the  major  and  the  minor  Propofitions 
of  the  firfl:  Syllogifm  :  in  a  continued  Hiftory  of  the 
Religious  Opinions  of  the  Jews,  from  the  time 
of  the  earlier  Prophets^  who  firft  gave  fome  dark 
intimations  of  a  different  Difpenfation,  to  the  time 
of  the  Maccabees,  when  the  Dodtrine  of  a  future 
ftate  of  rewards  and  punifhments  was  become  na- 
tional. 

2,  The  eighth  Book  is  employed  in  fupporting  the 
MAJOR  and  minor  Propofitions  of  the  fecond  Syl- 
logifm, in  which  is  confidered  the  personal  cha- 
racter of  Mofes  and  the  genius  of  the  Law,  as 
far  as  it  concerns  or  has  a  relation  to  the  chara(f->^r 
of  the  Lawgiver.  Under  this  latter  head,  is  c  .i\- 
tained  a  full  and  fatisfaftory  Anfwer  to  thofe  \  (\o 
may  objeifl,  *'  That  a  revealed  Religion  with  a  fu- 
ture ftate  of  rewards  and  punifhments  is  unworthy 
the  Divine  Author  to  whom  it  is  afcribed."      \ 

3-  Th( 


5e<fl«  6.       of   Moses   demonjlratcd.         407 

3.  The  ninth  and  lafl:  Book,  explains  at  large 
the  nature  and  genius  of  the  Christian  Dispen- 
sation :  For  having  towards  the  end  of  the  eighth 
Book,  examined  the  pretended  reasons  (offer- 
ed both  by  Believers  and  Unbelievers  to  evade 
my   conclufion)   for  omitting  the  Dodrine  of  a 
future  State  of  rewards  and  punilliments  in  the 
Mofaic  Difpenfation,  I  was  naturally  and  neceffari- 
ly  led  to  inquire  into  the  true.    For  now,  it  might 
be  finally  objected,  "  That  tho',  under  an  extraor- 
dinary Providence  there  might  be  no  occafwn  for 
the  doftrine  of  a  future  State,  in  fupport  of  Re- 
ligion,   or  for  the  ends  of  Government  j  yet  as 
thlt  Doftrine  is  a  truths  and  confequently,  under 
every   regiment  of   Providence,   tifeftil^  it   feems 
hard  to  conceive,  that  the  Pveligious   Leader  of 
the  Jew^s,  becaufe  as  a  Lawgiver  he  could  do  with- 
out it,  that  therefore,   as  a  Divine^  he  would  omit 
it."     The  objeaion  is  of  weight  in  itfelf,  and  re- 
ceives additional  moment  from  what  hath  been  ob- 
ferved  in  the  fifth  Book,  concerning  the  Reafon  of 
the  Law  of  funifdng  children  for  the  crimes  of  their 
Barents.     I  held  it  therefore  iniuHicient  barely  to 
reply,  "  Mofes  omitted  it^  that  his  Law  might  there- 
*'  hy  ft  and,  throughout  all  ages,  an  invincible  Monu- 
"  ment  of  the  truth  of  his  pretences :"  but  proceed- 
ed to  explain  the  great   and  principal  reafon 
of  the  omiffion.     And  nov^^-'ventum  ad  verum 
eft. 

The  whole  concludes  with  one  general  but  di- 
flind  view  of  the  entire  courfe  of  Gods  univerlal 
CEconomy  from  Adam  to  Chrift.  In  which  it  is 
Ihewn,  that  if  Mofes  '  were,  in  truth,  lent  from 
God,  he  could  -not  teach  a  future  Stare  •,  that  Doc- 
trine being  out  of  his  Commiffion,  and  referved  for 
him  who  was  at  the  head  of  another  Diipenlation, 
Dd  4  by 


^o8       The  Divhie  Legation,  he.      Book  VI, 

by  which  life  and  immortality  was  to  be  brought  to 
light. 

This  Difcourfe,  befides  the  immediate  purpofe 
of  fupporting  and  illuftrating  the  Argument 
here  compleated,  ferves  another  end,  which  I  had 
in  view,  as  to  the  general  difpofition  of  the  whole 
work  :  which  was  to  explain  and  difcriminate  the 
diftinct  and  various  natures  of  the  Pagan,  the 
Jewish  and  the  Christian  Religions  :  the  Pagan 
having  been  confidercd  in  the  firft  Volume,  and 
the  Jeivipj  in  the  fecond  ;  the  Chrijlian  is  referved 
for  the  third  and  laft.  Let  me  conclude  therefore, 
in  an  addrefs  to  my  Reverend  Brethren,  with  the 
words  of  an  Ancient  Apologift  \  Qmd  nobis 
invidemus,  fi  Veritas  Divinitatis,  noftri  temporis 
^tate  maturuit  ?  Fruamur  bono  noftro,  et  redti 
fententiam  temperemus  :  cohibeatur  superstitio 
IMPIETAS  expietur,  vera  RELiciorefervetur. 


*  Minucius  fdix. 


The  End  of  the  Sixth  Book^. 


A  P  P  E  N- 


I  409  ] 


APPENDIX 

Concerning    the    Book    of  J  O  B. 

AN  excellent  Writer  having /r-f^/y  and  candidly 
examined  the  late  Bifhop  of  London's  collec- 
tion of  Sermons,  and  in  page  165  of  his  Examina- 
tion, afked  this  queftion.  Where  ivas  Idolatry  ever 
ptnijlded  hy  the   Magijirate,   hut  under  the  Jeiinjh 
(Economy  ?  The  Oxford  Profeflbr,  in  the  fecond 
Edition  of  his  Prelections,  concerning  the  facred  Poe- 
try of  the  Hebrews,  thinks  fit  to  give  the  following 
anfwer  —  "  It  was  punilhed  under  the  CEconomy 
*'  of  the  Patriarchs,  in  the  families  and  under  the 
*'  DOMINION  of  Abraham,  Melchifedec  and  Job. 
**  Idolatry  fpreading  wider  and  wider,  Abraham 
"  was  called  by  God  from  Chaldea,  for  this  end, 
"  to  be  the  father  of  a  People,  which,  divided 
*'  from  all  others,  might  continue  to  worfhip  the 
*'  trQe  God  •,  to  be  fet  up  for  an  exemplar  of 
*■'■  true  Religion,  and  to  be  ready  to  give  tefti- 
"  mony    againft    the    worfhip    of   vain   Deities. 
"  Was  not  Abraham,    therefore  (exercifing   the 
*'  SOVEREIGNTY  in  his  own  family)  to  punifh  Ido- 
"  latry  ?  Were  not  Melchifedec  and  Job,  and  all 
*'  the  Sovereigns  of  Tribes  of  that  time,  whollill 
*'  retained  the  knowledge  and  worfhip  of  the  true 
*'  God,  amidfl  a  general  defection  of  all  the  fur- 
*'  rounding  People,  to  take  care  that  their  own 
f}  did  not  backOide  ?  To  curb  offenders,  and  to 

"  infli6t 


4T0  APPENDIX. 

*'  infiid  puniihment  en  the  obftinate,  the  re- 
*'  BELLious,  and  on  all  thofe  who  fpread  abroad 
*'  the  contagion  of  this  vice."  —  Ad  qu^ellionem 
refpondetur :  Sub  ceconomia  Patriarcharum ;  in 
familiis,  et  fub  Dominatu  Abrahami,  Melchi- 
zedechi,  Jobi  c^terorumque.  Ingruente  Idolo- 
latria  divinitus  evocabatur  ex  Chaldsea  Abraha- 
mus ;  eum  in  nnem,  ut  fieret  pater  Gentis,  quae 
ab  aliis  omnibus  divifa,  verum  Dcum  colerct,  pub- 
licum proponeret  exemplum  purae  religionis,  con- 
traque  cultum  vanorum  numinum  teftimonium 
perhiberet.  Nonne  erat  igitur  Abrahami  in  fua 
familia  principatum  exercentis  proprium  officium 
&  munus  in  Idololatriam  animadvertere  ?  Nonne 
Mclchizedechi,  Jobi,  omniumque  tunc  temporis 
in  fuis  Tribubus  Principum,  qui  veri  Dei  cogni- 
tionem  &  cultum  in  communi  fere  gentium  cir- 
cumvicinarum  defeftione  adhuc  retinebant,  cavere, 
ne  fui  deficerent;  coercere  delinquentes;  obllina- 
tos  &  REBELLES,  ct  fcclcris  contagioncm  propa- 
gantes,  fupplicio  afficere  ?  —  Supplementum  ad  pri- 
mara  Prakiiionum  Editionem :  Addit.  Editionis  fe- 
cunda^  p.  312. 

This  is  fo  pleafant  an  anfwer,  and  fo  little  need- 
ing the  mafterly  hand  of  the  Examiner  to  correct, 
that  a  few  ftridures,  in  a  curfory  Note,  will  be 
more  than  fufficient  to  do  the  bufinefs. 

I .  The  Examiner^  to  prove,  I  fuppofe,  that  the 
book  of  Job  was  a  dramatic  work,  written  long 
after  the  time  of  the  Patriarch,  afl'is,  IVhere  'U)as 
Idolatry  e'ver punijijed by  the  Magistrate,  but  ujtder 
the  Jeioijh  CEccnomy  ?  The  Frofeffor  anfwers,  //  was 
puniJJoed  under  the  Jobean  CEconomy.  And  he 
.advances  nothing  without  proof.  Docs  not  Job 
himfclf  fay,  that  Idolatry  was  an  iniquity  to  be  pii- 

iiijhcd 


APPENDIX.  4,1 

nijhed  by  the  Judge  ?  The  Examiner  replies,  that 
the  Job  who  fays  this,  is  an  airy  Fantom,  raif- 
ed  for  other  purpofes  than  to  lay  down  the  Law 
for  the  Patriarchal  times.  The  Profe£cr  maintains 
that  they  are  all  AlTes,  with  ears  as  long  as  Father 
Harduin's,  who  cannot  ke  that  this  is  the  true  and 
genuine  old  Job.  —  In  good  time.  Sub  Judice  lis 
efi :  And  while  it  is  {o,  I  am  afraid  the  learned 
Profejfor  begs  the  question  j  when,  to  prove 
that  Idolatry  was  puniflied  by  the  Magiftrate,  out 
of  the  land  of  Judea,  he  affirms  that  king  Job 
puniQied  it.  If  he  fay,  he  does  not  reft  his  aller- 
tion  on  this  pafiage  of  the  book  of  Job  alone,  but 
on  the  facred  Records,  from  whence  he  concludes 
that  thofe  civil  Magistrates,  Abraham  and 
Melchifedec,  punifhed  Idolatry ;  I  lliallown  he  a6ts 
fairly,  in  putting  them  all  upon  the  fame  footing-, 
and  on  what  ground  that  Hands,  we  fliall  now  fee. 

2.  The  Examiner  fays,  JiHoere  ivas  Idolatry  ever 
pmijhed  by  the  Magiftrate^  but  under  the  Jewiftj  CEco- 
nomy  ?  A  queflion  equivalent  to  this,  —  "  Where 
was  Idolatry  punifhed  by  the  civil  Magiftrate  on 
the  eftablifhed  Laws  of  the  State,  but  in  Judea  r" 
To  which,  the  Profejfor  replies,  "  It  was  puniUied 
by  all  the  Patriarchal  Monarchs,  by  king  Job, 
king  Abraham,  and  king  Melchifedec." 

Of  a  nolle  race  zvas  Shenkin. 

But  here,  not  one,  fave  the  laft,  had  fo  much  as  a 
nominal  title  to  civil  Magiftracy:  And  this  lad 
drops  as  it  were,  from  the  clouds,  without  lineage 
or  parentage  i  fo  that,  tho'  of  divine,  yet  certainly 
not  a  Monarch  of  the  true  ftamp,  by  hereditary  right. 
The  Critic  therefore  fiiils  in  his  firii  point,  which  is, 
finding  out  civil  Magillrates  to  do  his  hierarchical 
drudgery, 

cj.  But 


412 


APPENDIX. 


3.  But  let  us  admit  our  Prof  efforts  right  of  in- 
vetliture,  to  confer  this  high  office,  and  then  fee  how 
he  proves,   that   thefe  his  Lieges   punifhed  the 
crime  of  Idolatry  by  civil  punifhment.     Abra- 
ham, and  the  Patriarchs  his  defcendants,  come 
firft   under   confideration.     What!  (fays  he)  was 
tiot  Abraham^  exercifing  the  sovereignty  in  his  own 
family,    to  punifh  Idolatry  ?  Hobbes  is,  I  believe, 
the  only  one  (fave  our  Profefibr)  who  holds  that 
•'  Abraham  had  a  right  to  prefcribe  to  his  family 
"  what  Religion  they  fhould  be  of,  to  tell  them 
*'  what  was  the  word  of  God,  and  to  punifli  thofe 
*'  who  countenanced  any  Doftrine  which  he  had 
*'  forbidden."  Leviath.  chap.  40. — But  God  fpeak- 
ing  of  Abraham,  fays,  I  know  that  he  will  command 
his  children  and  his  houfhold  after  him,  and  they  fh all 
keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  &c.  Gen.  xviii.  19.     And 
Hobbes  and  our  ProfeJJ'or,  I  fuppofe,  regard  this  de- 
claration as  a  clear  proof  of  the  divine  doftrine  of 
RESTRAINT  in  matters  ofRcligion ;  efpecially  when 
interpreted  by  their  darling  text  of — force  them  to 
enter  in.     On  the  contrary,  thofe  who  have  been 
bred  up  in  the  Principles  of  'Toleration,  hold  it  to  be 
a  mere  teftimony  (a  glorious  one  indeed)  of  Abra- 
ham's pious  and  parental  care  to  instruct  his  fa- 
mily in  the  Law  of  God.     And  it  is  well,  it  can  go 
for  no  more,  or  I  fhould  fear  the  learned  Profefibr 
■would  have  brought  in  Ifaac  asa  backflider  to  Idola- 
try i  and  his  Father's  laying  him  on  the  facrifical 
Pile,  as  a  kind  of  Auto  de  fe.    Now,  except  in  thefe 
two  places  of  Abraham's  Hillory,  of  fuch  wonder- 
ful force  to  fupport  intolerant  principles,  the  Patri- 
arch appears  in  all  others  fo  averfe  to  this  inquifito- 
rial  fpirit,  that  where  God  comes  down  to  deftroy 
Sodom,  the  father  of  the  Faithful  intercedes,  with 
the  utmoll  importunity,  for  that  idolatrous  as  well 
jis  inceftuous  City.     The  truth  is  this.  The  ufurped 

right 


APPENDIX.  413 

right  of  punifhing  for  opinions,  was  firft  afiumed 
and  long  ingrolTed  by  Idolaters.  And,  if  tradition 
may  be  believed,  Abraham  himfelf  narrowly  efcap- 
ed  the  Fire  for  preaching  againlt  its  Divinity.  Buc 
this  is  not  all.  From  his  own  condu6V,  and  from 
the  condu6t  of  his  pofterity,  he  feems  to  have  made 
one  part  of  that  fidelity  in  keeping  the  'xay  of  the 
Lord^  (for  which  he  is  lb  nobly  diftinguiflied  by 
God  himfelf)  to  confift  in  inculcating  the  di- 
vine dodrine  of  Toleration.  When  Jacob  and 
his  family,  v.'ithout  leave-taking,  had  departed 
from  Laban,  Rachel  ftole  away  her  father's  Gods. 
The  old  m.an  followed  and  overtook  them ;  and 
complaining  of  the  theft,  Jacob  frankly  anfwered. 
With  whomfoever  thou  findeji  thy  Gods,  let  him  not 
live.  Now,  I  would  afk,  was  this  condemnation  on 
the  offender  denounced  for  Idolatry,  or  for  the 
I'heft  ?  The  words  of  the  Patriarch,  which  imme- 
diately follow,  determine  this  —  Before  our  brethren 
difcern  thou  what  is  thine,  with  me,  and  take  it  to  thee. 
Well,  Rachel,  by  a  female  ftratagem,  contrived  to 
keep  her  father's  Gods  ;  for  no  better  purpofe,  we 
may  be  fare,  than  that  for  which  the  good  man  em- 
ployed fo  much  pains  to  recover  them.  The 
thefts  indeed,  had  it  been  difcovered,  would  have 
been  punifJud  by  the  Judge  :  But,  as  for  the  Idola- 
try, which,  from  its  nature,  could  not  be  long 
hid,  the  filence  of  Scripture  fliews  it  to  have  been 
coram  ncn  Judice,  And  fo  far  was  Rachel  from 
being  doomed  to  the  fire,  that  we  do  not  find, 
even  her  Gods  underwent  this  punifhment. 

After  the  affair  of  the  Shechemites,  Jacob,  by 
God's  command,  goes  to  Bethel :  and  there,  in 
pious  emulation  of  his  grandfather's  care  to  keep 
the  way  of  the  Lord,  the  text  tells  us,  he  com- 
manded 


414  A   P  P   E   N  D   I  X. 

manded  his  houjhold  and  all  that  were  with  him^  to 
■put  away  the  Jlrange  God's  from  amongfl  them.  They 
obeyed,  all  was  well  •,  and  not  a  word  of  punijhing 
hy  the  Judge.  Indeed,  thefe  Patriarchal  Judges 
were  much  better  employed,  and  more  futably  to 
their  office,  in  punifhing  civil  crimes  and  immo- 
ralities, as  appears  from  the  adventure  of  Judah 
and  his  daughter  in  law,  Tamar. 

Melchisedec's  ftory  is  a  fhort  one  ;  he  is  jufl 
brought  into  the  fcene  to  blefs  Abraham  in  his  re- 
turn from  conqueft.  This  promifes  but  ill.  Had 
this  King  and  Priejl  cf  Salem  been  brought  in 
curftng^  it  had  had  a  better  appearance  :  for,  I 
think,  punifhment  for  opinions,  which  generally 
ends  in  a  Fagot.,  always  begins  with  a  ciirfe.  But 
we  may  be  mifled  perhaps  by  a  wrong  tranflation. 
The  Hebrew  word  to  hlefs^  fignifies  likewife  to 
curfe^  and,  under  the  management  of  an  intolerant 
Prieft,  good  things  eafily  run  into  their  contraries. 
What  follows,  is  his  taking  Tythes  from  Abraham. 
Nor  will  this  ferve  our  purpofe,  unlefs  we  interpret 
thefe  Tythes  into  Fines  for  non- conformity ;  and  then, 
by  the  hleffng,  we  can  eafily  underftand  ahfohition. 
We  have  ^ttn  much  flranger  things  done  with  the 
Hebrew  Verity.  If  this  be  not  allowed,  I  do  not 
fee  how  we  can  elicite  fire  and  fagot  from  this  ad- 
venture •,  for  I  think  there  is  no  infeparable  con- 
nexion between  Tythes  and  Perfecution^  but  in  the 
ideas  of  a  Quaker.  —  And  fo  much  for  king  Mel- 
chifedec. 


But  the  learned  Profeffor,  who  has  been  hardily 
brought  up  in  the  keen  Atmofphere  of  whole- 
some SEVERITIES,  and  early  taught  to  diftinguifh 
between  de  fablo  and  de  jtire^  thought  it  ncedlcfs 
to  enquire  into  Fatis^  when  he  was  fecure  of  the 
7  Right. 


APPENDIX.  415 

Right.  And,  therefore  only  flightly  and  fuperci- 
liouQy  ailcs,  "  What  ?  was  not  Abraham,  by  liis 
"  very  princely  office,  to  puniJJi  Idolatry  ?  Were  not 
"  Melchifedec  and  Job,  and  all  the  heads  of 
"  Tribes  to  do  the  fame  ?"  Why,  no :  and  it  is 
well  for  Religion  that  they  were  not.  It  is  for  its 
honour  that  fuch  a  fet  of  perfecuting  Patriarchs  is 
no  where  to  be  found,  but  in  2i  poetical  Prek^ion. 

4.  For  in  the  laft  place,  let  it  be  obferved,  that 
as  thefe  Patriarchs  did  not  de  faolo  (which  appears 
from  their  hiftory)  fo  they  could  not  de  jure  (which 
appears  from  the  laws  of  Nature  and  Nations)  pu-^ 
nijh  Idolatry  by  the  Judge.  Becaufe,  as  hath  been 
fhewn.  Idolatry  is  not  amenable  to  civil  Juftice, 
but  where  it  becomes  Crimen  Ufa  Majeftatis.  It 
could  not  become  the  crime  of  lefe-majefty  under 
the  Patriarchs,  unlefs  they  had  been  Gods  as  well 
as  Kings.  Indeed,  they  were  as  much  one  as  the 
other.  However,  it  is  not  pretended  that  their 
government,  tho'  Regal,  was  Theocratical  likewife; 
The  Patriarchs,  therefore,  could  not  punift)  Idola-* 
try  by  the  Judge. 

From  the  Examiner,  the  ProfelTor  (without  the 
leaft  provocation  given  him)  proceeds  to  the  Au- 
thor of  the  Divine  Legation  -,  who,  he  will  fnew, 
is  as  ignorant,  abfurd,  and  mad- brained  as  Father 
Harduin  himfelf. 

The  Author  of  the  Divine  Legation  had  faid, 
that  the  Writer  of  the  book  of  Job  obferved  de^ 
corum,  in  imitating  the  manners  of  the  early  fcene 
which  he  had  propofed  to  adorn.     To  this,  the 

ProfelTor  objeds, "  I  can  never  bring  myfelf 

^'  to  allow  to  a  semi-barbarous  Poet,  writing 

"  after 


4i6         APPENDIX. 

•'  after  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  fuch  a  piece  oif 
*'  fubtilty  and  refinement."  — A  mighty  piece  of 
refinement  truly,  for  a  Writer,  who  lays  his  fcene 
in  an  early  age,  to  paint,  the  beft  he  could,  the 
manners  of  that  age.—"  Befides  (fays  the  Pro - 
"  fijfc^)  which  is  the  principal  point,  the  ftyle  fa- 
"  vours  wonderfully  of  Antiquity,  and  its  pecu- 
"  liar  character  is  a  certain  primitive  and  noble 
"  fimplicity.  So  that  they  who  degrade  this  Book 
*'  to  the  times  pofterior  to  the  Babylonian  Capti- 
*'  vity,  feem  to  judge  almofl  as  infanely  of  //<?- 
**  brew  literature  as  Father  Harduin  did  of  the 
*'  Roman^  who  afcribed  the  golden  Poems  of  Vir- 
*'  gil,  Horace,  and  the  reft,  to  the  iron  ages  of  the 

"  Monks."  < Verum  Poetse  femibarbaro  poft 

Captivitatem  fcribenti  tantam  fubtilitatem  ut  con- 
cedam,  impetrare  a  me  non  pofliim.  Porro  vero 
Stylus  Poematis,  quod  vel  maximum  eft,  prieci- 
pue  vetuftatem  fapit;  eft  ejus  peculiaris  character 
cc^y^a.'iTfj.og.  Adeo  ut  qui  id  infra  Captivitatem 
Babylonicam  deprimunt,  non  multo  fanius  in  He- 
braids  judicare  videantur,  quam  in  Latinis  Har- 
duinusi  qui  aurea  Virgihi,  Horatii,  Csterorum- 
que  poemata  ferreis  Monachorum  Saeculis  adfcrip- 
fit.  Idem  ib. 

The  learned  Profejfor  is  a  little  unlucky  in  his 
comparifon.  The  age  of  Job,  as  fixed  by  him, 
and  the  age  of  the  Writer  of  his  hiftory,  as  fixed 
by  me,  run  exa6tly  parallel,  not  with  the  times  of 
Virgil  and  Frederic  Barbarofla,  as  he  would  infi- 
nuate,  but  with  thofe  of  Ennius  and  Virgil.  Job 
the  hero  of  the  Poem,  lived  in  an  age  when  civil 
Society  was  but  beginning  to  ftiew  itfelf,  and  what 
is  more,  in  a  Country  where  it  never  yet  was  formed: 
And  Ezra  (whom  I  fuppofe  to  be  the  Author  of  the 
Poem)  was  an  eminent  Citizen  in  the  moft  perfect 

civil 


APPENDIX.  417 

civil  government  in  the  World-,  which,  he  was 
fent  home,  to  reftore,  laden  with  the  literary  trea- 
iures  of  the  Eaft  •,  treafures  that  had  been  Ions 
accumulating  under  the  warm  influence  of  a  large 
and  powerful  Empire.  From  this  fecond  tranf- 
plantation  of  the  Republic,  Science  got  footing  in 
Judea  j  and  true  Religion  took  deeper  root  in  the 
hearts  of  its  Inhabitants.  Henceforward,  we  hear 
no  more  of  their  abfurd  Idolatries.  A  ftri6t  ad- 
herence to  the  Law  now  as  much  diftinguifhed 
them  from  others,  as  did  t\iQ  Jtngularity  of  the  Law 
itfelf.  And  a  ftudious  cultivation  of  the  Lan- 
guage, in  which  that  Law  was  written,  as  na- 
turally followed,  as  it  did  amongft  the  Sarazens, 
who  cultivated  the  Arabic,  on  the  fame  principle. 
And  to  undcrftand  how  great  this  was  in  both,  we 
need  only  confider,  that  each  had  the  fame  aver- 
fion  to  a  tranflation  of  their  Law  into  a  foreign 
language.  It  is  true,  that  in  courfe  of  time, 
when  the  Jewifli  Policy  was  abolilhed,  and  the 
Nation  was  become  vagabond  upon  Earth,  while 
the  Arabs,  on  the  contrary,  had  ereded  a  great 
Empire,  a  manifeft  difference  arofe  between  them, 
as  to  the  cultivation  of  the  two  Languages. — Ycc 
for  all  this,  the  Profeflbr  calls  Ezra,  a  Semi-bar- 
barian i  tho'  we  agree  that  he  wrote  by  the  in- 
fpirarion  of  the  Moft  High ;  amidft  the  lafl;  blaze 
indeed,  yet  in  the  full  luilre  of  expiring  Prophecy. 

But  the  learned  ProfeiTor  has  an  internal  argu- 
ment from  taste  %  full  as  good  as  the  other  from 
Chronology.  "  The  book  of  Job  favours  of  Anri- 
quity,  and  thofe  who  cannot  relifh  it,  have  as  de* 
praved  a  tafte  as  Father  Harduin,  who  could  not 
diftinguilh  Partridge  from  Horfe-fieih." 

*  See  what  hath  been  faid  on  this  head  in  the  .\2d,  43d  and 
44^^'  pages  of  this  Volume. 

Vol.  V,  E  e  The 


4i8  APPENDIX. 

The  truth  is,  tlie  Greek  and  Latin  Languages 
having,  for  many  Ages,  been  the  mother-tongues 
of  two  of  the  greateft  People  upon  earth  (who 
had  Ihared  between  them  the  Empires  of  Eloquence 
and  of  Arms)  became  daily  more  and  more  copious 
by  the  cultivation  of  Arts ;  and  lefs  and  lefs  pure 
by  the  extenfion  hi  Commerce.  In  thefe  two 
lan^ua^es,  there  vet  remains  a  vaft  number  of 
writings  on  all  forts  of  Subjefts.  So  that  modern 
Critics  (in  the  foremoft  rank  of  whom  will  alway 
(land  the  incomparable  Bentley)  had  by  long  ap- 
plication to  them,  through  their  various  and  pro- 
grefTive  refinements  and  depravations  from  age  to 
age,  acquired  a  certain  fagacity,  in  pafTmg  a  toler- 
able judgment  concerning  the  time  of  the  Writer, 
by  his  ttyle  and  manner.  Now  Pedantry,  which 
is  the  ape  of  Criticifm,  would  mimic  the  fame 
talent  of  difcernment,  in  the  narroweft  and  mod 
barren  of  all  Languages  ;  little  fubjeft  to  change, 
both  from  the  common  genius  of  the  Eaft,  and 
from  the  peculiar  fituation  of  a  fequeflered  People. 
Of  this  Language,  long  fmce  become  a  dead  one, 
the  only  remains  are  in  one  fmall  Volume ;  the 
contents  of  which,  had  not  Providence  been  mercy- 
fully  pleafcd  to  fecure,  while  the  Tongue  was  yet 
living,  by  a  tranflation  into  Greek,  the  Hebrew 
VERITY,  tranfmitted  to  us  in  the  manner  it  was 
found  in  the  moft  ancient  MSS,  where  no  vowel- 
points  are  uled,  nor  fpace  left  to  diftinguifh  one 
word  from  another,  and  where  a  great  number  of 
terms  occur  only  once,  would  at  this  day  be  a  mere 
arbitrary  Cipher,  which  every  Rabinical  or  Ca- 
balifcic  juggler  might  make  the  key  of  his  un- 
revealed  Mylleries. — "  Idem  accidit  etiam  Maho- 
metanis  (fays  Abraham  Ekell.)  ante  inventa  ab 
Ali  Abnaditalebo  pundla  vocalia:  Tanta  enim  le- 
oentium  erat  difTcntio,  ut  nifi  Othomanni  coercita 

O  ... 

fuiifct  authoritate,  et  determinata  ledio  pundhs, 

qusB 


APPENDIX.  419 

qu93  Ali'excogitaverat,  jam  de  Alcorano  actum 
fessET."     And   if  this  had  been  the  cale  -of  the 
Arabic  of  the  Alcoran,   a  copious   and  a  living^ 
language,  what  had  become  of  the  Hebrew   of 
the  Bible?  a  very  narrow  and  a  dead  one.     Of 
which  an  ancient  Jewifh  Grammarian  gives  this 
charadler :  "  Lingua  ifta  [ Arabica]  elegans  eft,  &         \ 
longe  lateque  fcriptis  dilatata^  et  qui  earn  loquitur 
nulla  di(5tione  deficit :  Lingua  vero  fanfta  pauca 
eft  praa  ilia,  cum  illius  nihil  extet  nifi  quod  in 
Libris   Scripturae   reperitur,   nee  fuppeditet   omnes 
di£liones  lo^uendi  necejpinas."     Yet  this  is  the  lan- 
o-uao-e  whole  peculiarities  of  ftyle  and  compofition, 
correipondent  to  every  age  and  time,  the  Profejfo^ 
feems  to  think,  may  be  as  eafily  diftinguillied  as 
thofe  of  the  Greek  or  Latin  ClafTics.     So  much 
for  the  Author  of  the  Divine  Legation :  and  in- 
deed too  much,  had  not  Mr.  Locke's  defence  been 
involved  in  his :  that  excellent  perfon  I-raving  de- 
clared (fpeaking  of  the  words  of  Job,  that  Idola- 
try was  an  iniquity  to  be  punijloed   by  the  Judge) 
"  This  place  aloke,  were  there  no  other, 
"  is  fufficient  to  confirm  their  opinion  who  con- 
"  elude  that  book  to  be  writ  by  a  Jew."     . 

From  the  Divine  Legation,  the  learned  ProfefTor 
turns  again  to  the  Examiner,  who  feems  to  fit  hea- 
vy on  his  ftomach.— This  excellent  Writer  defired 
to  know  of  the  learned,  IVhere  they  could  find  a  civil 
or  religious  Conjiitution  out  of  Judaa,  which  declared 
that  the  Children  Jhouldfuffer  for  the  crime  of  their  Pa- 
rents. To  which  the  Profeflbr  replies  in  thefe 
very  words  —  In  prsfens  Horatiano  illo  verficulo 
contentus  abito  Examinatorum  omnium  candidis- 
BIMUS-— Fcr  the  prefefit,  let  this  most  candid  of  all 
Examiners  go  about  his  biifinefs,  and  be  thankful  for 
thisfcrap  of  Her  ace,  _  ,.^ 


420  APPENDIX. 

"  Deli6la  majorum  immeritus  lues, 
«  Romane." 

This  is  true  Poetical  payment:  He  is  called 
upon  for  his  reckoning,  and  he  difcharges  it  with 
an  old  Song.  But  the  Examiner  is  not  a  man  to 
take  rhime  for  reafon.  He  afked  for  an  oldfyjiem 
of  Laws;  and  the  contemptuous  ProfefTor  gives 
him  an  old  Ballad:  But  a  little  more  civility  at 
parting  had  not  been  amifs ;  for  he  who  did  not 
fpare  the  Bilhop,  would  certainly  demolifh  the 
Profeflbr,  fhould  he  take  it  into  his  head  to  ex- 
amine the  FrakSiions  as  he  hath  done  the  Sermons. 


INDEX. 


GENERAL    INDEX 

T  O     T  H  E 

WHOLE     WORK. 


N.  B.  For  the  regular  chain  of  the  argument,  fee  the 
heads  of  the  Se5iions  prefixed  to  the  Fohimes. 

*^*  The  Rornan  Numerals  refer  ■  to  the  particular  Volumes y 
and  the  Figures  to  the  Pages, 


ABRAHAM,  the  true  meaning  of  the  bleffing  pronounc- 
ed on  him,  pointed  our,  v.  i  58.  Expofuion  of  the 
hiftory  of  the  famous  command  to  faciifice  his  fun  1/aaCy  197, 
229.  Reply  to  objedioas  againft  :he  hillorical  truth  of 
the  relation,  247.  The  import  of  God  s  revelation  to  him 
explained,  Z14,  222.  Summary  of  his  hillory,  210,  252.  ». 
Three  diftind;  periods  in  his  hiltory  pointed  out,  259.  In 
what  fenfe  faid  by  Chrill  to  have  feen  bis  davj  230,  254. 
An  advocate  for  toleration,  v.  412.  See  Action,  Gud, 
Lazarus. 

Abraxas,  Egxptian  amulets,  what,  iii.  182. 

Actions,  fignal  inftance  of  divine  inllrudion  conveyed  by,  in 
the  cafe  of  Abraham.,  v.  197.  The  eloquence  of,  illullrated. 
by  an  anecdote  from  the  Spartan  hiftory,  227.  «.  Ditto, 
from  the  Roman  hiftory,  228.  r. 

Academies,  of  the  Gr^f/' philofophers,  how  diftinguifhed,  and 
by  whom  founded,  ii  116.  Citero  and  Lucian,  their  ac- 
counts of,  117.  Whence  named,  120.  Diftinguilhed  into 
Scepiici  and  Dogmat'Jls,  i  26. 

Addison,  his  obfervations  on  jEneas's  defcent  into  hell,  i, 
264.  His  fublime  improvement  of  a  pafTage  in  Ovid, 
300. 

Adoration,  Prideaux's  account  of  the  ancient  forms  of,  iii. 


INDEX. 

^'Emii-'Akus,  cliaradler  of,  and  his  religion  afcertained,  1.302. 

./^NEAS,\he  charader  of,  intended  to  convey  that  of  a  perfedl 

lawgiver,  i.  218,  226.     How   his  defcent  into  hell  is  to  be 

undcrllood,    226.      Particular   key  to,    236,     The    clrcum- 

flanccs  of  his  return  from  the  lower  regions  examined  into,  i, 

281.     His  ftiield  defcribed,  287. 

^NEis,  an  analyzation  of  that  poem,  i.  211.     Who  intended 

\iy  ^^neas,  212.     A   fyrtem   of  politics,    219.     Contains   a 

compleat  fyflem  of  future  rewards  and  punilhments,  226. 

uSscHYLus,  his  danger  at  hinting  at  the  heathen  myfleries  in 

one  of  his  fcenes,  i,  181, 
Alc/eus,  why  confounded  with  fli?rfj(7«,  iii.  264* 
Alcieiades,  probable  expofition  of  his  nofturnal  riot,  before 

his  expedition  to  Syrac.fe,  i.   167.  n. 
ALEXANDER  the  GREAT,  probable  conjefture  why  he  commu- 
nicated to  his  mother  the  facred  mylleries  explained  to  him 
by  an  E^ypiian  hierophant,  i.  158.  n. 
Allegory,  a  figure  often  attributed,  where  never  intended,  i. 
326.     Controverfial  reflexions  on    the    nature  of,  with  re- 
ference to  Job,  and  the  famous  Ode  of  Horace,  O  Na'vis  re- 
ferunt,  &c.  v.  18,  n. 
Allegories,  religious,  diflinguilhed,  v.  284,  321.  ».    Argu- 
ment deduced  from  the  general  paffion  for,  354, 
Alliance  between  church  and  ftate,  the  influencing  motives 
to,  ii.  9,    18.     Advantages  of  the  connexion,  11.     The  re- 
ciprocal inducements  to  an  union,  18. 
Alphabet,  origin  of,  accounted  for,  iii.  99,    148.      Politi- 
cal, 149.     Sacred,   154.     Reafons  difcrediting  the  notion  of 
.   its   invention  by   the  I/raelites,    162.      Its  invention  prior 
to  the  tivr.e  of  ih'c/es,  ib.    Hebre^w  formed  by  Mofes,  from  an 
improvement  on  i)\e  Egyptian,   164.     See  Cadmus,  Egyp- 
tian, Hebrew,  Language,  Letters,  Runic. 
America,  the  falfe  policy  of  the  Europeans  toward  the  natives 
of,  pointed  out,  as  the  caufe  of  the  ill  fuccefs  of  the  mif- 
fionaries,  ii,   70.     A    pioper  nurfery  for  free-thinkers,  74. 
Americans,  native,  remarks  concerning,  by  F.  C^arZft;^;Ar,  ii. 
73.  ;;.     By  M,  de  la  Condamine,  -jif.  n.     Remarks  on  their 
languages,  iii.  174.  n. 
Amos,  a  clear  defcription  of  a  particular  providence  quoted 

from,  iv.  293. 
Anatomy,  praclifed  and  fludied  by  the  ancient  Egyptians,  iii. 

52- 

Animal  worlhip,  true  original  of,  amongft  the  Egyptians,  iii. 
197,  255,  24:;.  Images  tirft  worfliiped,  200.  Afterward 
the  animals  thcmfelves,  204.  Various  opinions  of  the  an- 
cients concerning  the  origin  of,  211. 

Ar.scHARiL's,  St,  anecdote  of,  ii.  52.  wij 


An 


4 


INDEX. 

Antients,  unacquainted  with  the  refined  dillinaions  of  mo- 
dern philofophy,  ii    185.  ,     ,    •  ,      _,     . 

AntonInus,  emperor,  why  defirous  of  admifllon  to  the,  £/.;//- 
man  myfteries,  ii.  144.  -^is  perfecution  of  chnftianity  ac 
counted  for,  ii.  53.  j  ^/-  •     -  a^ 

Apis,  the  fymbol  of  the  Egyptian  god  Ofins,  ui.  201.  Ac- 
count of  bis  worfhip  from  Diod.  Sc  213.  n. 

Apologue,  or  fable,  its  ufe  in  oratory,  hi.  113.  Its  analogy 
to  hieroglyphic  writing,  1 17-  Its  improvement  and  con- 
traaion  in>«:V^  and  meiaphor,  118.     Its  change  to  para- 

Apot'heoTis,  when  bettowed  on  deceafed  heroes  among  the 

Egyptians,  iii.  226.  .       .  •  . 

Apuleius,  opinions  of  the  antients  concernmg  his  metamor- 
phofis,  i.  296.  Eftimated.  C197.  Account  of,  298.  hx- 
amination  of,  307.  His  fentiments  concernmg  the  unchange- 
able nature  of  God,  ii.  19  S-  ^  ..         ^      »1,.   1o.,c«f 

Appetites,  human,  the  fource  of  oppofit.on  to  the  laws  o£ 

aIITians','  why  they  have  fo  long  preferved  the  purity  of  their 

notions  of  the  divinity,  i-  94-  i  j  j  u  ,    ;    n.v   ,0 

Areopagus,  addreflesto  the  paffions  excluded  by,  u  DeJ^    o. 

In  what  charaaer  St.  Paul  appeared  before  that  court,  11.  57. 

Who  the  founder  of  that  court,  60. 
Argument,  internal,  defined,  iv.  314. 
Aristophanes,  why  he  triumphed  oyer  Socrates,  u  DeJ.  19, 
Aristotle,  his  charaaer  and  principles,  11.  160.   >93- 
Ark,  its  fatal  efFeas  among  the  Phdijhnes,  iv.  204. 
Astronomy,  J^z.;//^  obfervations  on,  v.  iQO. 
Artemidorus,  fee  Dreams.  r-         c 

Article,  VUth,  of  the  Church  of  E.gl^nd,  an  expofuion  of, 

Athe?sm..  invites  to  fenfual  gratifications,  i.  70.  Homer's  opi- 
nion of,  7C.  n.  And  Polytheifm,  compared,  36.  ?/«- 
Tank's  parallel  between,  and  fuperftition,  u.  260.     Bacons 

ATHE°.s?,^^unable  to  arrive  at  a  knowledge  of  morality,  i, 
44!  Neverthelefs  accountable  and  defervedly  pumfhable  at 
the  hand  of  God,  56.  k.  ..        r 

Atheists  unfair  c  rcumftance  attending  the  compar.fon  of 
thek  moral  condua,  with  that  of  prol^ffors  of  religion,  1. 
71      No  general  argument  to  be  eftabhmed  from  particular 

A™Tns  ^h^w  thev  drew  the  refentmemt  of  P/..7^  of  ^U- 
""."agai^ll  them,  i.  269.  Their  behaviour  in  pVofpentir. 
^nd  iij  ad verfity  inftan<ied,^v.^7 7.  ^^  ^ ^ ^^^ 


index:. 

Athens,  remarks  of  its  care  for  the  eftabliftietl  re'igion,  ii.  27. 

cy.     No  ftrange  God  tolerated  there,  till  approved  by  the 

court  of  Areopagus,  ii.  57. 
Augustus,  t-iiiperor,  advifed  againft  toleration,  ii.  68. 
AuRELius,  Empeior,  his  opinion  of  the  firmnefs  of  the  Chrif- 

iians,  iii.  Prif.  39. 
Austin,  St.  his  ingenious  definition  of  language  and  letters, 

iii.  105. 
Author,  the  principal  objeft  of  his  attention,  pointed  out,  i. 


J>ed,  35. 


B. 


Bacchanals,  decree  of  the  ^o»z««fenate  relating  to  the  cele- 
bration of,  ii.  65. 

Bacchus,  his  exploits  in  the  ImUes,  invented  to  aggrandize 
the  glory  of  Alexander,  iii.  i6i.  His  identity  confounded 
with  that  o^  Ofiris,  269.  Reafons  proving  him  to  be  Noahf 
288.  n,     1  he  rites  of,   how  charadlerized  by  Virgil,  i.  292. 

Bacon  Lord,  his  parallel  between  Atheijm  and  Superjiition,  ii. 
278. 

Balaam,  his  famous  prophecy.  Numb.  xxiv.  17.  evpounded, 
iii.  177.  His  wi(h  to  die  the  death  of  the  righteous,  explain- 
ed, V.  142. 

Banishment,  how  far  to  be  confidered  as  a  punifliment, 
i.  18. 

Baptjsm,  the  importance  of,  eftablilhed,  v.  4.  fee  Quakers, 

Baucis  and  Philemon,  the  fable  of,  explained,  ii.  134. 

Bayle,  miilaken  in  the  tendency  of  Pomfonatius\  treatife,  Dt 
immortalitatc  ammae,  i.  26,  30.  His  character  as  a  writer, 
3^,  77.  His  arguments  to  prove  reputation  capable  of  in- 
fluencing a  man  void  of  religion,  to  a  virtuous  conduft,  6i. 
Difproved,  62.  His  argument  of  Atheifm  not  being  deftruc- 
tive  to  morals,  examined  into,  i.  72.  Miilaken  in  his  cen- 
furc  of  Vzr^ii^s  placing  infants  in  hell,  i.  258.  His  reflexions 
on  toleration,  iv.  159. 

Bembine  tables,  a  defcription  of,  contained  in  £«f^;Wj  vl- 
fions,  h'  19. 

Bennet,  tjecrctary,  how  brought  into  contempt,  i.  Dee/.  21. 

BoLiNGBROKE,  an  examination  of  his  n^-tions  concerning  the 
omiffion  of  the  dodrine  of  a  future  ftate,  in  the  M',fac  dif- 
penfation,  iv.  381.  His  obfervations  on  tlie  infuf»icicncy  of 
the  Mc/uic  law  to  reflrain  the  people,  anlwcred,  iv.  206. 
Confequences  of  a  law  upon  his  principle,  210. 

Brute-worship,  opinions  of  the  anticnts  concerning  the 
origin  of  in  E^ypt,  ii.  43.  iii,  311.  The  fymbolical  nature 
pf,  explained,  111,  20Q, 

•  Buf« 


INDEX. 

Buffoonery,  its  ufe  in  infidelity,  i.   Bed.  9.     Inftances  of 
its  niifchievous  tendency,  id.  20.     Source  of,  id,  34. 

C. 

Cabirf,  who  were  fignified  by  this  name,  i.  173. 
Cadmus,  whence  he  obtained  his  alphabet,  iii.  164, 
Cjesar  Julius,  his  public  declaration  of  his  opinion  of  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  ftate,  ii.  82.     His  notion  of  death,   1 1  \. 

His  account  of  the  religion  of  ancient  Gaul,  iii.  275.  g. 

Of  ancient  Germany,  279.  ». 
Calf,  golden,  what  Deity  reprefentcd  by,  iv.  11. 
Calves  of  Dan  and  Bethel,  why  the  Jexvs  were  fo  invin- 
cibly attached  to,  iv.   14.     Why  two  of  them  erefted  by 
Jeroboam,  20. 
Canadians  and  Mexicans,  their  religious  notions  compared, 

i.  93. 
Canaanites,  why  ordered  to  be  exterminated,  iv.  2. 
Cato  of  Utica,  his  condufl  in  oppofmg  C^sjAzrV  epicurean 
notions  of  death   in  the  fenate,  with  the  popular  dodrine, 
inquired  into,  ii.  112.     A   mirtaken  notion  relating  to  the 
mention  of  him  in  Virgil^  reftified,  i.  290. 
Cavalry,  what  fituations  proper  and  improper  for   the  ufe 

of,  iii.  316. 
Caylus,  Count,  his  opinion  relating  to  the^E'_0;//<2«  charafters, 

iii.  100.  V. 
Celsus,  his  recrimination  on  Orlgev,  i.  199.     His  obfervations 
on  the  tenacioufnefs  of  the  "Jev^s,  of  their  religion,  ii.  49. 
His  opinion  of  Plato's  reprefentations  of  a  future  llatc,  ii. 
T58. 
Ceres,  the  hymns  of  Orpheus,  pcrferrcd  to  thofe  of  Homer,  \n 
the  rices  of,  i.  178.     The  .Athenians  greatly  indebted  to,  185^ 
Her  temple  at  Eleufis  defcribed,  i.  285. 
Chaos,  how  defcribed  in  f^irgil,  i.  245.     In  Bercfus,  ib. 
Charlevoix,  his  obfervations  on  the  natives  of  Canada,  ii. 

73'  »• 
Charon,  the  character  of,  whence  derived,  1.   250. 

Cheops,  king  of  Bgypt,  hovv^  he  raifed  money  lor  the  ere<flion 
of  his  pyramids,  explained,  iii,  29^.  n. 

Children,  the  punifhment  of,  for  the  crimes  of  their  parents, 
on  what  principle  only  to  be  vindicated,  iii.  Ded.  w- 

Chinese,  their  reverence  for  their  ancient  charafters,  iii.  188. 

,».. Languace,  an  improvement  of  the  ancient  Egypian 

hieroglyphics,  iii.  85.  Improvement  of,  to  itsprefent  ftate,  89. 
its  oppofite  progrels  from  that  of  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphical 
writing,  to  what  owing,  91.  To  what  the  different  accounts  we 
have  received  of  it,  is  owing,  92,  Account  of  by  M.  Freret, 
^  93- 


INDEX. 

f  3.  Ditto  by  P.  Parennin,  94.  Ditto  by  P.  MMgaillanSy  ib. 
The  ancient  characters  of,  greatly  venerated  by  the  natives, 
97.  «.  Why  not  further  improved,  103.  Hieroglyphical ; 
marks  not  for  words  but  things,  1 29.  Du  HaUis  obferva- 
tions  on,  i8o- 

Christ,  remarks  on  the  ufe  he  made  of  his  twofold  credentials. 
Scripture  and  Miracles,  V.  2o8.  An  expofition  of  his  pro- 
phecy of  his  fiift  and  fecond  coming,  298.  Important  ar- 
gument drawn  from  his  converfation  with  two  difciples  in  their 
journey  to  Emmaus,  after  his  refurreftion,  272. 

Christian  Faith,  who  its  greateft  enemies  at  the  firll  pro* 
muigation,  ii.  230.  Religion,  its  dodlrine  fhadowed  under 
the  rites  of  the  Mofaic  law,  v.  8. 

Christians,  primitive,  the  caufe  of  their  perfecution  by  the 
Pagans^  explained,  ii.  53.  Their  noflurnal  aflemblies  vindi- 
cated from  the  mifreprefentations  of  Dr.  Taylor^  chancellor 
of  Lincoln,  iii.  Pref.  37.     See  Het^eri^e. 

Christianity,  wherein  its  eflence  confifts,  i.  3.  How  efteem- 
ed  by  the  ancient  Pagans,  1.  302.  ii.  50.  Why  neceflarily 
founded  on  Judaifm,  47.  Not  a  republication  of  the  reli- 
gion of  nature,  241.  The  affirmative  made  ufe  of,  by  infi- 
dels, as  an  argument  to  fupercede  the  neceflity  of  fuch  re- 
publication, 242.  An  enquiry  into  the  methods  taken  by 
Providence  to  propagate  it,  iv.  54.  The  ignorance  of  the 
propagators,  the  means  of  advancing  it,  55.  Its  evidences 
why  not  all  difclofed  by  Providence,  v.  273.  and  Judaifm, 
infeparable,  274.     The  ultimate  end  of  Judaifm,  286. 

Chronology,  Egyptian,  a  miftake  of  Sir  I/aac  Nenutons  in, 
illuftrated  by  a  cafe  Hated  in  fimilar  circumftances,  iii.  253. 

Church  and  State,  fee  Alliance. 

Cicero,  his  religious  precepts,  i,  136.  His  expofition  of  the 
Pagan  divinities,  159.  His  account  of  the  academics,  ii. 
117,  122,  ff.  124.  His  opinion  o^  Plato's  Phzedo,  153. 
His  true  fentiments  concerning  a  future  ftate  not  eafy  to  be 
difcovered,  166.  His  charafter  analyzed,  169.  His  incon- 
fiflences  pointed  out,  17O.  where  his  real  fentiments  arq 
moft  likely  to  be  found,  172.  Inftances,  174.  His  reflec- 
tions on  the  cafe  of  Regulus,  184.  His  account  of  the  ori- 
gin of  brute-worfhip  controverted,  iii.  212. 
Circumcision,  when  firft  enjoined,  v.  212.     A  patriarchal 

inftitution,  iv.  30.     Why  appointed,  77. 
Civil  Society,  fee  Society. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  his  exclamation  againfl:  the  cor- 
rupters of  the  myfteries,  i.  198.  His  account  of  a  remark- 
able fynibolical  meflage  fent  to  D-ar;«j,  iii.  113.  And  Pcr- 
phyry^  their  accounts  of  the  Egyptian  charafters  and  writingx 

121. 

Clo-» 


INDEX. 

Clodius,  violates  the  rites  of  tlie  Good  Goddefs,  i.  187.  n. 
CocYTUs,  whence  the  notion  of  the  gholts  waiting  there  for 

paflage,  was  derived,  i.  248. 
Collins,  Mr.  his  ungenerous  treatment  of  the  memory  of 
his  friend  Locke,  i.  Ded.  24.  The  validity  of  his  afleriions, 
that  new  religions  are  always  grafted  on  old  ones,  &c.  ex- 
amined into,  iv.  177.  Charadterifed  as  a  writer,  v.  281. 
An  examination  of  his  difcourfe  on  the  Grounds  and  Reafons 
of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  ib.  His  obfervations  on  the  allego- 
rical writings  of  the  antients,  346.  Thefe  obfervations 
(hewn  to  refute  his  obje£tions  againft  chriftianity,  349. 
Commentators  on  Scripture,  points  recommended  to  their 

attention,  v.  159. 
CoNDAMiNE,  his  charaflcr  of  the  native  Americans,  ii.  74.  ». 
Conformity,  oaths  of,  among  the  antients,  ii.  29. 
Cretans,  open  celebrators  of  their  myfteries,  i.  182.    Th» 

P^Tg^a/j  deities  born  among  them,   1S3. 
Critias,  his  Greek  poem  on  the  origin  of  religion,  ii.  249. 
Criticism,  the  proper  conduft  of,  pointed  out,  i.  295. 
Crocodile,  why  vvorlhiped  by  the  Egyptians,  iii.  200. 
Cromwel,  an  inftance  of  the  united  efFefts  of  policy  and  en- 

thufiafm,  ii.  284.     Notable  obfervation  of,  285. 
Cudworth,  Criticifm  on  a  paffage  in,  relating  to  the  opinions 
of  the   philofophers   concerning   the   human    foul,   ii.   215. 
Miftakes  Mofchus,  for  Mofes,  223.     The  hiftory  of  his  InteL 
le^ual  Syjiem,  iii.  Pref.  29. 
Cupid  and  Psyche,  ftory  of,  i.  325. 
Custom,  capable  of  counter-adting  the  ftrongeft  principles  of 

morality,  i.  58. 
Customs,  a  fimilarity  of,  obfervable  among  diftant  nations,  nar 
argument  of  an   adlual  communication   between   them,  iii. 
99.  «.     Tvaduftive,  an  enquiry  into,  iy.  126. 
Cyrus,  his  dream  about  young  Darius,  iii.  193. 

D. 

Dark-sayings,  what  that  expreiTwn  imports  in  fcripture,  iii. 

1 7 1  • 

David,  why  appointed  to  fucceed  S'fla/,  iv.  45.  His  title  of 
man  after  God's  own  heart  explained,  ib.  The  chronology 
of  fafts  relating  to  his  introdudlion  to  Saul,  redlified,  ib.  n. 

Dead,  three  kinds  of  perfons  who  have  no  right  to  a  place 
among,  according  to  Ftrgrl,  i.  264. 

Dedications,  abfurdity  of  addreffing  them  to  unfuitable  per- 
fons, i.  Ded.  I .  ,  r  i_    r       ■ 

Deification,  when  bellowed  on  any  hero  gf  the  Egyptians, 

iii.  226.  .^ 


I.    N     D    E    X. 

DEtTtts  Pagan,  authorities  proving  them  to  be  dead  worthies 
deified,  i.  96.  a.  104,  154,  168.  Their  fpurious  offspring 
accounted  for,  iii  297.  Local  and  tutelary,  their  worftiip 
always  maintained,  even  by  fojourners  and  conquerors,  iv. 
188. 

DiAcoRAs,  the  confequence  of  his  revealing  the  Orphic  and 
Eleujintan  rayfteries,  i,  i8i. 

Dialects,  of  ancient  writers,  how  far  evidences  of  their 
genuinnefs,  i.  117. 

Dramatic  writ i kg,  remarks  on,  with  reference  to  the  book 
of  Job,  V.  i8,  27. 

Drrams,  Artemidorui\  diviiion  of,  into  fpeculative  and  al- 
legorical, iii.  190.  Superrtitious  interpretation  of,  191. 
Grounds  of  this  fpecies  of  divination,   192. 

Druids  oi  Britain,  whence  they  derived  many  of  their  reli- 
.^ious  rites,  i.  139. 

Du  Halde,  his  remarks  on  the  ftyle  of  the  Chine/e  language, 
•      iii.   180. 

Duties,  of  perfedt  and  imperfeft  obligation,  what,  i.   14. 


EARTHQtTAKKS,  Pytbagoras^s  method  of  prediding  them  juf* 
tified  by  late  experience,  ii.  loli.  n. 

Eastern  Tales,  origin  of,  traced,  ii.  136.  n, 

ErcLEsiASTicus,  a  plain  allufion  to  the  Pagan  myfteries  in, 
i.  281.  n.  -      ^ 

Egypt,  origin  of  brute-worfhip  in,  ii.  43.  The  parent  of 
all  the  learning  of  Greece,  100.  Rcforted  to  by  the  Grecian 
legiflators,  103.  By  the  Grecian  naturalilb,  104.  By  the 
Grecian  philofophers,  105.  Diftinftion  between  the  learn- 
ing of,  and  that  of  Greece,  106.  An  inquiry  into  the  ftate 
of  the  learning  and  fuperflition  of,  in  the  time  of  Mo/es,  iii. 
17.  Why  intitled  to  priority  among  civilized  nations,  28. 
Scripture  account  of,  29.  The  antiquity  and  power  of,  as 
delivered  in  the  Grecian  writers,  confirmed  by  Scripture,  33. 
Civil  arts  of,  40.  A  critical  inquiry  into  the  military  ufages 
of,  at  the  time  of  the  Trojan  war,  306.  Abounding  in 
horfes  before  the  conqueft  of  Lybia,  3  10.  Why  the  Ijraelites 
were  prohibited  carrying  horfes  from,  313.  The  laws  of 
Mofei,  why  accommodated  to  the  prejudices  of  the  'Je\<:s  in 
favour  ol,  iv.  23.  The  ancient  fchool  of  legillation,  1 10. 
Fundamental  maxims  in  the  religious  policy  of,  111.  Heie- 
ditary  defpotifm  preferred  there,    115. 

EoyPTiAN  Characters,  Kirchey,  and  Count  Caylus,  their 
opinions  concerning,  iii.  100.  n.  138. 

Egyptjam 


INDEX. 

Egyptian  Heroes,    the  reafon  why  the  latter  obtained  the 
names  of  their  earlier  Gods,  explained,  iii.  256. 

— -Hieroglyphics,    how  they  came  to   be,    and  to 

conceal  their  learning,  iii.  121,  131.  Curiohyicfil  and  Tro- 
pica/, 132.  Symbolic,  140.  The  change  of  their  ftyle  effeded 
by  this  latter  application  of  them,   145. 

Learning,  that  mentioned  in  Scriptnre,    and  that 


mentioned  in  a  correfponding  manner  by  the  Greek  writers, 

the  fame,  iii.  25.    No  diftindt  divifion  of  the  fciences  in,  53. 

How  preferved  from  the   knowledge  of  the  people  by  the 

priefts,   168.     Summary  of,    186. 

Idolatrv,  defcribed  in  EzekieVs  vifions,  iv.  17. 

Mysteriej,  Si.  Ji'Jien's  account  of,  i.  157. 

Physicians,   confined  to  diftinft    branches   of  the 


medical  art,  iii.  40,  48.  Their  preventive  method  of  prac- 
tice, 45.  Their  number  accounted  for,  46.  Proved  to 
compofe  an  order  of  the  priefthood,  52. 

Priesthood,  account  of,  from  Diodona  Siculusy  iii. 


34.    Confirmed  by  yWc/i'j,  35,     Their  rites,  39. 
Writing,  the  four  kinds  of,  iii.   121. 


Egyptians,  celebrated  for  the  culture  of  religion,  i,  91,  96. 
The  firft  who  difcovered  the  knowledge  of  the  divine  nature, 
165.  71.  The  fciences  not  carried  to  any  great  height  by  them, 
ji.  221.  In  what  their  wifdom  confided,  222.  Among  the  firft 
who  taught  the  immortality  of  the  foul,  228.  Why  fubjeft 
to  incurable  difeafes,  iii.  46.  Their  funeral  rites,  65.  Their 
facred  dialedl,  167.  Origin  of  animal  worfhip  among,  197. 
Worfhippers  of  plants,  198.  Of  chimerical  beings,  199. 
Local  animal  deities  among,  200.  Their  charge  againfl  the 
Grecians  of  ftealing  their  gods,  with  their  mutual  recrimina- 
tions, 265. 
Eleusinian  Ceres,  her  temple  defcribed,  i.  28^, 
— — ^^—  Mysteries,  the  moft  celebrated  in  antiquity,  what, 
i.  14c.  Why  the  Emperor  Kero  was  deterred  from,  and  the 
Emperor  Antoninus  was  defirous  of,  being  admitted  to  them, 
144.  Scandalous  not  to  be  initiated  into  them,  146.  Two 
forts,  the  greater,  and  the  lefs,  149.  Negative  enquiry  into, 
151.  Not  the  fecret  doftrines  of  the  fchools,  151.  1  he 
rationale  of  the  P<3^^«  fyilem  of  theology,  154.  Why  con- 
cealed, 156.  Reafbns  to  conclude  Sa'chotiatho's  hitlory  to 
be  thai  narrated  in  the  celebration  of  them,  171.  By  whom 
founded,  174.  The  hymn  fung  at  them,  177.  End  and  ufe 
of  them,  180.  The  difclofin^  them  fevercly  punifhed,  181. 
Abolilhed  by  Theodojius  the  elder,  189.  Summary  of,  286. 
Caufes  of  their  degeneracy,  191.  Alluded  to  by  Sr.  Paul, 
196.  «. 

EtlAS, 


% 


INDEX. 

iLtt AS,  the  fenfc  in  which  he  was  prediftcd  to  come  before  thfi 

day  of  the  Mefliah,  afcertained,  v.  326. 
Elihu,  why  dillinguilhed  from  the  other  friends  of  7«3,  v.  lou 

His  charader,   106. 
Elisha,  expofition  of  the  adventure  between  him  and  Joajh^ 

V.  261.  w. 
Embalming,    the    Egyptian  method  of,    iii.   49,    65.     Tiiis 
operation  performed  by  the  phyficians,  and  the  reafon,   51. 
The  antiquity  of  the  general  pradlice  of,  proved,  67. 
Enigmas,  required  in  the  nature  of  God's  difpenfation  to  the 

Jews,  iii.  171. 
Enoch,  the  difference  between  the  account  of  his  ttanflation 

and  that  of  ^/(/a/?',  accounted  for,  iv.  322. 
Enthusiasm  and  Policy,    neceffary  to,    and  always   to  be 
found  in,  the  antient  heroes  and  legiflators^  ii.  281.     How 
fuccefsfully  thefe  two  qualities  co-operate,  283.     Inllances  of 
illuftration,  284.     Inllances  of  their  infufhciency  fmgly.  ib* 
Epic  Poetry,  the  three  fpecies  of,  i.  226. 
Epictetus,  his  thoughts  on  death,  ii.  i52. 
Establishment  of  Religion,  the  voice  of  nature  ;  juftified. 
from  hiflory,  ii.  27.     Meaning  of  the  exprefTion  as  applied 
to  antient  nations,    afcertained,    30.      Examination  of   the 
leading  caufes  to,  in  the  Pagan  world,  31.    Their  conceptions 
of,  miftaken,  32. 
Etrusci,  remarks  concerning  that  people,  i.  222.     How  they 

found  their  god  Tflf^^f,  iii.  241.  «. 
Euhemerus,  his  expedient  to  reveal  without  danger  the P^t^^j^ 
mylleries,  i,  182.     His  artifice  to  difguife  his  difcovery  of  the 
P^^a«  myfteries,  ii.  304.^ 
Evidences,  external  and  internal  of  revealed  religion,  com- 
pared, i.  3. 
Evil,  its  effeft  on  the  feelings,  ilronger  than  that  of  good  on 

the  imagination,  i.  12. 
Euripides,  his  notions  of  the  defcents  of  the  heroes  into  hell, 

i.  231. 
Exodus,  vi.  3.     Expounded,  iv.  5. 

EzEKiEL,  his  famous  vifions,  chap.  8.  Relating  to  Jeiuijh 
idolatry,  expounded,  iv.  17.  God's  reproaches  to  the  Jcwt 
for  their  pcrverfenefs  and  difobedience,  delivered  by  him, 
78.  The  celebrated  prophecy  in  his  20th  chap,  explained, 
84.  His  vifion  of  the  dry  bones  explained,  v.  123.  His 
reprefentation  of  the  yt-xtT/^  idolatry,  iv.  195,  200.  Quota- 
tions from,  in  confirmation  of  a  particular  providence, 
291.  AnAjEremiah,  the  adions  recorded  to  be  performed 
by  them  to  illuftrate  their  prophecies  accounted  for,  iii.  1 08. 
Ezra,  his  writings  pointed  out,  v,  109. 

Fablesj 


INDEX- 


F. 

Fables,  antient,   enquiry  into  the  origin   of,  li.   131;    The 

corruptions  of  civil  hiftory,   132. 
Faith,  defineJ  from  St.  Paul,  v.  lyH.     Falfely  condemned,  in 

Firgil's  jEneid,  critical  examination  of,  i.  260. 
Fate,  what  efFeft  the  opinion  of  it  will  have  on  morals,  i. 

Fathers,  of  the  primitive  church,  accufe  the  Myfteries  ofgrofs 
impieties  and  immoralities,  i.  197.  And  afterward  adopt 
them,  200.  Their  teftimony  againft  the  antient  fages,  for 
duplicity  of  doftrine,  ii.  lop.  «.  Some  of  them  held  the 
foul  to  be  mortal,  207. 

Fiction,  from  what  motive  employed  by  the  antient  lawgivers, 
iv.  112.  «. 

Figurative  Expressions,  origin  of,  iii.  173,   179. 

Fool,  its  import  in  the  Old  Teftament  language,  v.  78, 

Forfeitures,  remarks  on  the  laws  of,  in  cafes  of  high  treafon, 

Jv.  334- 

Fornication,  why  never  adequately  punifhed  by  flourifhing 
communities,  i.  14.  The  fuppreffion  of,  produdive  of  un- 
natural lulls,  ii.  13. 

Foster,  his  notions  of  the  "Jevoijh  theocracy,  examined,  iv. 
168. 

Fourmont,  M.  his  miftake  of  the  identity  of /^^ra/^aw  with 
Cronos,  correded,  iv.  8.  n. 

Free-thinkers,  their  arts  in  controverfy,  i.  Ded.  32.  America 
a  proper  nurfery  for,  ii.  74. 

Funeral  Rites,  an  indifpenfable  part  of  the  ftories  of  the 
antient  heroes,  i.  249.  Of  the  Egyptians,  defcribed  from 
Herodotus,  iii.  65, 

Future  State,  the  doflrlne  of,  deducible  by  natural  realbn, 
i.  24.  iv.  407.  The  inculcation  of,  neceffary  to  the  well 
being  of  fociety,  j.  25,  29.  Its  utility  in  the  well  governing  of 
fociety,  confirmed  by  the  opinions  of  all  the  antient  fages,  ii. 
77.  Though  not  believed  by  themfelves,  86,  162.  Keafons 
urged  by  the  5/wa  againft,  183,  186.  F/«/o*s  view  of,  i.  260. 
Plutarch'?,  ditto,  ii.  191.  Of  what  points  that  dodlrine  con- 
fifted,  in  the  Pagan  theology,  i.  142.  ii.  87.  Its  univerfality 
fhewn,  i.  329.  Strongly  inculcated  by  the  S//fw  and  Arabs, 
iv.  348.  The  chief  foundation  of  every  religion  except  the 
"Je^ijh,  i.  88.  Not  contained  in  the  Mofalc  difpenfalion,  7. 
This  omiffion  a  proof  of  its  divine  origin,  8.  v.  3f-;4.  Pur- 
pofely  omitted  in  ditto,  iv.  320.  The  want  of,  how  fupplied, 
324.  Pofitive  declarations  againft  the  expectation  of,  inftanced 
from  the  Je^j:iJJj  writers,   353.     Corroborated  by  the  New 

l^etta- 


INDEX. 

Teftaraent  writers,  562.  A  review  of  the  prejudices  whicii 
have  induced  to  the  belief  that  it  was  taught  in  the  Mr/arc 
difienfation,  v,  2.  A  review  of  thofs  paflages  in  Scrip- 
ture, urged  to  prove  that  it  was  taught  in  the  Me/aic 
difienfation,  126.  That  taught  by  natural  religion  to  be 
diiiinguiihed  from  that  taught  by  the  chrillian  revelation,  3. 
Its  mention  by  M-fes,  and  by  the  following  writers,  to  le 
dillinouiflied,  9.  A  lift  of  texts  urged  by  the  Rabbins  in 
proof  of  its  being  taught  under  the  Mj/i/c  law,  160.  An 
examination  of  the  arguments  founded  on  the  i  ith  chapter  of 
the  Hebrews,  to  (hew  that  it  was  taught  by  Mo/es,  176.  That 
it  was  not  taught  in  the  Mofaic  law,  confirmed  by  the  authori- 
ties of  Gro//a/,  Epifcopiusy  Arnaud,  and  Bp.  5«//,  190.  See 
Law  Mosaic,  and  IVIoses, 

G. 

Gaitl,  antient,  enquiry  into  the  deities  of,  iii.  275. 

Germany,  antient,  Ca/ar's  account  of  the  gods  of,  iii. 
279,   K. 

Gesture,  fee  Action. 

God,  a  favage  the  moft  qualified  to  reafon  to  him,  i.  94.  The 
acknowledgment  of,  beneficial  to  fociety,  though  difhonouied 
by  abfurd  opinions,  ii,  272.  His  immutability  afferted  by  the 
antient  Theijiic  philofophers,  183,  186,  195.  His  unity 
taught  in  t\\Q  Eleujiidan  myfteries,  i.  154,  170.  The  only 
means  of  prefcrving  the  doftrineof  his  unity,  iv.  136. 

God  of  Israel,  how  confidered  by  the  neighbouring  nations, 
iv.  174.  Why  he  gave  himfelf  a  name  to  the  Jezi^s,  5. 
"Why  reprefented  with  human  affedions,  166.  His  charafter 
^5  the  God  of  Abraham, — oflfaac, — of  Jacob,  explained;  and 
the  miflakes  concerning  this  text  pointed  out,  v.  161.  The 
relations  in  which  he  ftood  to  the  Je^jjljh  people,  iv.  161. 
Not  lefs  benign  to  man  under  the  law,  than  under  the  gofpel, 
iv.  167. 

Gods,  Pagan,  deified  worthies,  i.  104,  154,  168.  Born 
amon<y  the  Cretans,  183.  Account  of  the  origin  of  local 
tutelary  ones  in  Greece  from  Plato,  iii.  271.  How  fo  many 
immoralities  came  to  be  recorded  of  them,  229.  An  inter- 
community of,  univerfally  tolerated  among  the  Pagans,  ii.  40. 
approbation  of,  nece/Tary,  previous  to  toleration,   57,  61. 

Gospel,  enjoins  no  moral  obfervance  beyond  what  natural 
religion  before  pointed  out,  i.  83.  No  juftification  by  works, 
under,  v.  186. 

Golden  Ass  of  Apuleius,  examination  of,  ?.  307. 

GovERNMHNT,  civil,  an  examination  into  the  nature  of,  i.  17. 
Its  motives  in  infliding  puniflimcnt,  i./.  19.     Not  capable  of 

rewarding. 


INDEX. 

tewarding,  and  why,  /7.  20.  The  regal  form  of,  among  the 
Jenx:s,  explained,  iv.  225.  How  tllablilhed,  231.  Civil, 
and  religion,  the  objefts  of  compared,  i.  14. 

Grecian  History,  the  confufed  chronology  of  the  early  part 
of,  remarked,  iii»  250. 

> .  Writers,    an  enquiry   into   the   validity  of  their 

teftimony  concerning  the  antiquity  of  the  Egyptian  monarchy, 
iii.  25.  Their  accounts  no  otherwife  to  be  credited,  than  as 
corroborated  by  Scripture,  27, 

Greece,  ignorant  of  the  ufe  of  cavalry  at  the  time  of  the  Trojan 
war,  iii.  307.  Whence  it  derived  its  learning,  ii.  100.  Di- 
ftinftion  between  the  philofophy  of,  and  that  of  %;•/>/,  1 06. 
The  religion  of,  traced  down  to  its  original,  iii.  zbcj.  What 
it  borrowed  from  Egypt,  273.  The  three  dillinguiihed  periods 
in  the  religion  of,  292.  Charged  by  the  Egyptians  with 
Healing  their  gods,   295. 

Greenland  Women,  their  language  a  refinement  on  that  of 
'   the  men,  iii.  141.  ». 

Grey,  Dr.  his  notions  concerning  the  book  of  Job,  contro- 
verted, V.  42, 

Grotius,  his  fatal  mifmterpretations  of  the y^u/}^' prophecies 
Ihewn,  V.  343. 

H. 

Hades,  its  different  fenfes  in  the  Old  and  New  Teflaments  point- 

ed  out,  iv.  346.  n. 
Hagar,  why  Ihe  named  the  angei  who  appeared  to  her,  £,W, 

iv.  3. 
Hare,  Bp.  his  cenfure  of  J'/ephvs,  iv.  280. 
Hebrew  Alphabet,  whence  derived,  iii.    164*     When  the 

points  were  added  to  it,   166. 
Hebrews,  the  only  people,  whofe  public  worflilp  was  addreffed 

to  the  God  of  the  univerfe,  i.   163.     The  argument  of  St. 

Pfl«/'s  epiflle  to,  ftated,  v.  177. 
Hemopolis,  the  moll  famous  college  of  the  antient  £^///«« 

priefts,  iii.  35.     The  worfhip  eltablilhed  there,   38. 
He  ll,  its  different  meanings  in  the  Old  and  in  the  New  Tefia- 

ments,  v.  149. 
Hercules,  ftory  of  his  interview  with  Jupiter  from  Herodotus, 

iii.  207.     The  antient  E  yptian  account  why  there  were  fo 

many  of  that  name,  257. 
Heresies,  genealogy  of,  (rom  TertulHan,  ii.  238. 
Hero-worship,  the  motives  to,  andufesof,  i.  95>   106,   155, 

Complicated  in  its  rites,  iii.  273. 
Herodotus,  his  opinion  of  the  origin  of  geometry,    iii.   324; 
Vol,  V.  F  f  Heroes, 


I    N     D    E    X. 

Heroes  and  Legislators,  always  aftuated  by  craft  and  en- 
thufiafm,  ii.  28 1. 

Het.-eri.'e,  aflemblies  of  the  primitive  chriftians,  the  nature  of, 
explained  ;  when  and  by  whom  fupprefled,  iii.  fref.  75. 

Hezekiah,  the  name  he  gave  to  the  brazen  ferpent,  accounted 
for,  iv.  4.  n.     Detail  of  God's  dealing  with  him,  v.  37. 

Hieroglyphics,  the  firft  efTay  toward  the  art  of  writing,  iii. 
■70.     Foimd  in  ufe  among  the  Mexicans,  by  thz  Spaniards,  71. 

-  Found  in  Siberia,  74.  ft.  This  pifturefqoe  method  of  ex- 
prcflion  abridged  by  the  Egyptians,  75.  Brief  view  of  their 
types  and  aliufions,  ih.  Mythologic  account  of  the  origin 
of,  78.  Improved  in  the  Chinffe  language,  85.  Source  of 
the  different  genius  of,  from  the  Chine/e  charafters,  91.  Stood 
for  things,  and  not  for  founds,  80.  ti.  95.  n.  How  they 
came  to  be  applied  by  the  Eg)ptians  to  conceal  their  learning, 
121.     The  origin  of  brute  worlhip,   197,  20^. 

HiEROPHANT  of  the  Myfteries,  his  office,  i.  176,  iii.  210. 

Hippocrates,  his  opinion  of  the  Cniduin  fentences,  iii.  5 J. 
DedudioDS  from,  as  to  the  antient  pradice  of  ghylic,  59, 
Author  of  the  dietetic  part  of  medicine,  63. 

HoBBEs,  his  opinion  of  religion,  i.  33. 

Homer,  his  opinion  of  atheifm,  i.  75.  n.  Why  baniihed 
Platans  republic,  275.  His  reprefentations  of  the  antient 
Greek  phyficians,  afcertained  and  accounted  for,  iii.  55. 
Whence  he  coUefted  his  materials,  308.  «. 

Hooker,  his  opinion  of  the  political  ufe  of  religion,  ii.  321. 

Horace,  the  double  fenfe  in  his  famous  Ode,  O  nwvis  rejerunt^ 
l^c.  pointed  out,  v,   316. 

HoREB,  confequences  of  the  conira£l  there,  between  God  and 
the  ^^u/7;6  people,  iv.  162. 

Horses,  'Judea  not  a  proper  country  for  the  ufe  or  breeding  of, 
iii.  315. 

HvDE,  Chancellor,  how  brought  into  contempt,  i.  Ded.  zq» 

I. 

Jacob,  his  exprefTions  to  Pharoah,  Grn.  xlvii.  9.  explained,  v. 

141.     His  vvreltling  with  an  angel,  what  intended   by,  v. 

237,     Shewn  to  be  of  a  tolerating  difpofition,  v.  413. 
J4MBLICHUS,    his   apology   for    the    corruption   of  the  Pagan 

myfteries,    i.   328,      His  account  of  the  origin  of  brute 

worfhip,  controverted,  iii.  217. 
Idolaters,  the  firft  intolerants,  v,  413. 
Idolatry  of  the  Gentiles,  in  what  it  chiefly  confided,  i. 

95- 
— —  Sanchomathons  fragment,  tending  greatly  to  account 

for  the  rife  and  pro^refs  of,  i.  168.  Not  the  firft  religion,  but 

the 


t    N    D    E    X. 

the  corruption  of  it,  ii.  2S9.  The  firft  objefts  of.  292; 
The  fecond  fpecies  of,  29O.  The  third  fpecies  of,  29-; 
The  Pagan  apologies  for  the  objefts  of  their  worftiip,  299, 
305.  Newtoti,  his  account  of  the  origin  of,  290.  Toland, 
his  account  of  the  objcdts  of  it,  291. 

Idolatr  V.Jewish,  the  fources  of,  pointed  out,  Iv.  1S7.  In  what 
it  confifted,  19:;,  201.  Never  proceeding  from  matters  of 
confcience,  165.  Under  what  figures  reprcfentcd  in  the 
prophecies,  2Z.  n.  The  extent  of  that  crime,  and  ho»v  lar 
legally  punifhable  Under  the  Je^ijh  theocracy,   162; 

■ of  the  Assyrians  tranfplanted  into  the  Holy  Land 

in  the  room  of  the  captive  Jevjs,  how  puniftled,  iv.  190.  The 
means  of  keeping  a  people  from  it,  exemplified  in  the  JeiMi/h 
law,  60.  View  of  the  early  fpread  of,  hy  Cabiet,  153.  n. 
See  Brute  Worship. 

Idols,  arguments  deduced  froni   the  mod  antlent  fio-ures  of, 

concerning  the  objefts  of  the  Pagan  worfhip,  ii.  302. 
'Jehovah,  explanation  of  that  name,  iv.  5. 

Jeremiah,  his  reprcfentation  of  the  y^ac//^  idolatry,  iv.  191^; 
PafTages  quoted  from,  predidive  of  the  new  difpenfation,  328^ 

V.  339- 

• and  EzEKiEL,  the  figns  added  by  them  to  illuftrate 

their  prophecies,  accounted  for,  iii.  108. 

Jerusalem,  the  dellruftion  of,  as  prophefied  hy  Chnji  figMrs." 
tively,  in  a  literal  fenfe  importing  the  deftruftion  of  the  world, 
V.  298. 

Jewish  Poj-tcy,  why  feldonl  underftood,  iv.  134. 

Jews,  the  folly  of  deriving  all  artsj  la-.vs,  and  religion,  front 
them,  or  denying  them  the  produflion  of  any,  ii.  153.  iii. 
20.  Their  manner  of  exprefling  numbers  and  muUitudei 
explained,  v,  16.  ».  In  what  light  their  feparation  from  the 
refi  of  mankind  to  be  confidered,  iv.  136;  Summary  vievtr 
of  their  deliverance  from  Egypt  in  ordei-  to  be  feparated,  154; 
Their  expulfion  front  Egypt  denied,    13.     Their  theocracy 

,  titablilhed,  157.  How  long  their  theocratic  form  of  govern- 
ment fubfifted,  225.  When  abolifhed,  243  Totally  igno- 
rant of  a  future  (late  under  the  Mofaic  dilpenfation,  v.  395. 
How  long  they  continued  ignorant  of  a  future  ftate,  iv;  344, 
349.  n.  Their  ignorance  of  a  future  Itate  under  the  Mofaic 
difpenfation  iliuftrated  by  the  New  Tellament  writers,  362. 
Whether  fubjeft  to  punilhment  in  a  future  rtate  under  the 
Mofaic  difpenfation,  407.  The  caufe  of  their  frequent  lapfea 
into  idolatry,  ii.  47.  Why  ill  treated  by  their  Pagan  neigh- 
bours, 49.  Their  obftinate  attachment  to  the  Egyptian 
cuRoms  and  fuperftitions,  hiftorically  traced,  iv.  8.  Reproached 
in  a  fignal  manner  for  their  perverfenefs  and  difobcdience, 
Ezekid,  chap,  zoth,  78.  Explanation  of  this  celebrated 
F  f  «  chapter. 


INDEX. 

cliaptcr,  84.  Tlieir  propenfity  to  idolatry  accounted  for, 
1  10.  Their  idolatry  not  a  rejeSiion  of  the  god  oi  I/raely  193. 
T  lie  bad  confequence  of  iheir  propenfity  toward  marrying 
idolatrous  women,  v.  7S.  Reflexions  on  the  moral  difpenfa- 
tions  of  God  toward  them,  96.  A  fummary  view  of  their 
hiuory,  58,  Whence  their  obllinate  adherence  to  their  abo- 
lifhed  rites  proceeds,  9.  An  examinaiion  into  the  motives 
which  withhold  them  from  receiving  chriftianity,  iii.  Bfd.  :;, 
Arguments  adapted  to  invalidate  them,  id.  6.  The  fubjtd 
of  their  naturalization  argued,  id.  16,  The  repeal  of, 
juftified,  id.  20,  See  Mosaic  Dispensation. 

Imagination',  difordered,  the  fource  of  the  antient  metamor- 
phofes,  ii.  136. 

Immortality  of  the  Soul,  univerfality  of  the  doflrine  of, 
i.  91. 

Infants,  unnatural  cuftom  of  expofing,  univerfal  among  the 
antients,  i.  2 57.  Difcountenanced  in  the  antient  myfteries, 
ib.     Guarded  againfl:  among  the  Arabians  by  Mahomet,  ib. 

Infidelity,  remarks  on  the  prefent  propenfity  toward,  1. 
Ded.  2.  The  liberty  of  the  prefs,  liable  to  no  reproach  on 
that  account    id.  ib. 

Ink  I  DELS,  the  injullice  of  their  complaints  of  the  want  of  liberty, 
i.  Ded.  4,  7.  Their  fcurrility  againll  the  ellablilhed  clergy, 
id.  22.  Their  charge  againft  the  intemperate  zeal  of  tlic 
primitive  martyrs,  retorted  on  them,  id.  29.  Their  dif- 
ingenuity,  id.  31,  42.  And  bigots,  compared,  i,  8.  The 
proper  method  of  difputing  with,  iii.  18.  An  indifcriminate 
averfion  tp  ^// the  principles  advanced  by,  prejudicial  to  the 
defence  of  true  religion,   19. 

Inspiration,  pretended,  its  ufe  to  antient  legiflators,  i.  104, 

Instinct,  human,  analyfed,  i.  37.  Not  to  be  confounded  with 
brutal,  56. 

Job,  his  real  exiftence  aflerted,  v.  24.  His  exemplary  patience 
not  founded  on  his  written  llory,  66.  Reflexions  on  the  cha- 
radler  of  his  wife,  75.  On  thofe  of  his  friends,  84,  101. 
On  that  of  Satan,  92, 

— — .  Book  of,  a  critical  enquiry  into,  v.  13.  A  dramatic  com- 
pofuion,  14.  When  written,  27,  44,  57.  Obfervations  on 
the  imagery  of,  33.  A  continual  allufion  to  t\\c  Mo/au  Izwr 
throughout,  41.  The  language  of,  compared  to  that  of  the 
y^wmcajz  Indians,  44.  Critical  divifion  of  the  work,  47.  r. 
The  purpofe  of  its  compofuion  pointed  out,  61.  Examina- 
tion of  the  charafters  in  the  piece,  64,  75,  84,  92,  joi. 
.Allegory  of  the  Ilory  explained,  67,  The  moral  of,  fhewn, 
118. 

Joel,  the  double  fenfcs  in  his  prophecy,  pointed  out,  v.  294. 

Joseph,  prime  miniltcr  of  f^}//,  married  to  a  daughter  of  the 

pr^ti^ 


INDEX. 

priefl:  of  0//,  iil.  37.  An  eminent  infiance  of  the  ftrength  of 
natural  afFeftion,  v.  17.  Inference  drawn  from  his  cntcitain- 
ment  of  his  brethren,  concerning  the  ufe  of  aninal  food  in 
Egypt,  iii.  321,  Procures  the  property  of  all  the  land  for 
Pharoab,  322.  Vindicated  from  the  charge  of  rendering  the 
government  of  £j^y/>^  defpotic,  68.  n. 

Jo  =  EPHUs,  defended  from  the  charge  of  difbelieving  the  mira- 
cles he  relates,  iv.  273.  The  circumftances  under  which  he 
wrote  his  hiftory,  278.  His  deviations  from  Scripture  ac- 
counted for,  2 So.  The  acknowledgment  of  Chriji  in  him,  a 
forgery,  ii.  57. 

Joshua,  clear  llate  of  the  debate  between  him  and  the  Jenvijh 
people,  on  the  article  of  worfhip,  iv.  193. 

Jotham's  Parable,  an  inliance  of  inftruction  by  apologue,  or 
fable,  iii.  115. 

Isaac.  See  Abraham,  Sacrifices,  Stebbinc. 

Isaiah,  his  denunciations  againft  the  Ifraeiites  for  bringing 
horfes  from  Egypt,  in  violation  of  the  Mo/aic  prohibition,  iii. 

314.  His  reprefentation  of  the  Jevjip  idolatry,  iv,  195, 
197.  Double  fenfes  in  his  prophecies  explained,  v.  327, 
331.     His   figurative  predidion  of  the  gofpel  difpenfation, 

337. 

Is  IS,  why  adopted  by  the  Athenians,  as  the  patronefs  of  their 
myfleries,  iii.  285.  The  feveral  attributes  and  charadlers 
afcribed  to  her,  286. 

Isis  and  Osiris,  the  patrons  of  the  primitive  arts,  iii-  304. 
Under  what  limilitudes  worfhipped,  42,  Their  myfteries  de- 
fcribed  in  Ezekui^  vKions,  iv.  18. 

Israelites,  why  fubjeft  to  few  »,2/«rfi/ difeafes,  iii.  48.  For- 
bid by  their  law  to  fetch  horfes  from  Egypt,  312..  This  law 
violated  by  Solomon,  and  puniftied,  3i3._  Fleuris  account  of 
the  ftate  of  the  arts  among,  in  the  time  of  Mofdy   163.  n. 

Judaism,  its  charaderiilic  diitindion  from  all  other  religions, 

iii.  8.  ,      .      ... 

JuDEA,  not  a  proper  Country,  for  the  ufe  of  cavalry  in,  111. 

315.  ;V/^'Vf's  account  of,  examined,  iv.  146. 
Jupiter,  a  local  deity,  iii.  12.     Though  a  local  deity,  with 

different  adjur.as  to  his  name,  not  feveral  deities  but  the  fame, 
ii.  37.  n.  The  Itories  of  his  adulteries  foimded  in  ttntli,  iii* 
^29. 

K.. 

KiRCHER,  his  opinion  concerning  theEgyptlan  charafters,  iii\ 
ICQ.  n.  138,  184,  ft.     Charaaeriied  as  awriici,  iii.  237. 


INDEX, 


I^ACTANTius,  his  proof  of  a  future  judgment,  ii.  i86.  Aflerts 
the  immutability  of  God,    192. 

Lamb,  Pafchal,  a  type  of  the  future  facrifice  of  Chriji,  v.  283, 

Language,  a  dedudioa  of  the  origin  of,  iii.  105.  Diodorus 
Siculus,  his  account  of,  lo6.  ».  Firft  taught  by  God,  ib. 
Upheld  at  firft  by  a  mixture  of  words  and  figns,  108.  Its 
improvement,  by  apologue  or  fable,  113.  Its  advance  to 
elegance  by  t\iQ  metaphor,  118.  The  revolutions  of,  traced, 
169. 

Law,  the  two  great  fandtionsof,  i.  16. 

~— ,  Mosaic,  the  objections  brought  againft  the  fufEcIency  of 
it,  in  obtaining  its  end,  equally  valid  againft  the  law  of 
nature,  iv.  209.  Its  proviiion  againft  idolatry,  211.  Cauie 
of  its  inefficacy,  212.  Its  divine  inftitution  manifeft  in  the 
difpenfations  of  Providence  toward  the  J^^ac^  people,  219. 
The  primary  intention  of,  221.  The  temporal  fandlions  of, 
not  transferred  into  the  gofpel,  307.  Illuftrations  from  the 
prophets  of  the  temporal  nature  of  its  fandions,  318.  Why 
enforced  by  fo  many  promifes  and  threats,  393.  Thechriftian 
dodrine  ftiadowed  under  the  rites  of,  v.  8.  In  what  fenfe 
typical  or  fpiritual,  133.  Not  fuppofed  by  St.  Paul  to  offer 
a  future  ftate  to  its  followers,   187.     See  Future  State, 

MoSES. 

Laws,  Civil,  punifh  paffions  carried  into  adlion,  but  not  re- 
ward attempts  to  lubdue  them,  ii.   13. 

Penal,    to  enforce  opinions,    only    equitable    under  3 

theocracy,  iv.   158,   166. 

Lawgivers,  atitlent,  the  ufe  they  made  of  religion,  i.  87. 
Illuftrated  by  inftanccs,  104.  Enquiry  into  their  motives, 
107.  Never  found  a  people  void  of  religion,  ii.  319. 
Obliged  to  adapt  their  fyftcms  to  the  worftiip  already  in  being, 
320.  Antient,  unanimous  in  propagating  the  dodtrine  of  a 
fjture  ftate,  69.  From  what  motive  induced  to  have  recoiirfe 
to  fiftion,  iv.  nz.  r.  Summary  view  of  their  conduft  in 
the  propagation  of  religion,  v.  370.  The  place  afligned  them 
in  Elyfiw^-.y  i.  275. 

Lazarus,  paflages  in  the  parable  of,  explained;  with  refer- 
ence to  arguments  founded  on  them  of  a  future  ftate  being 
taught  by  Miy^/,  v.   168. 

Legislation,  antient,  a  pretended  miffion  from  fome  God, 
the  firft  ftep  of,  i.   104. 

Legislatoks  and  HiRCES,  always  aftuated  by  craft  and  en- 
thufiafm,  ii.  281. 

Let- 


INDEX. 

Letters,  hiRory  of,  iii.  70.     The  antiquity  of.  among  the 
Egyptians,  inferred  from  their  mythologic  derivation  of  them, 
162,.    Their  right  to   the  patronage  of  the  great,  inquired 
into,  i.  Pre/.  48. 
Lex  Sacra,  what,  i.  222.  ^    r       •        c  ru 

Liberty,  civil,  too  great  an  attention  to  the  fecurity  ot,  lub- 
verfive  of  religion,  iii.'  Ded.  to  U.  Mansfield. 

_         Religious,  the  ill  policy  of  infringing,  li.   34. 

of  the  Press,  as  favourable  to  the   advocates   of 

religion,  as  to  the  infidel,  i.  Ded.  3. 
Lidgus,  the  Cretan,  moral  of  the  tale  of,  i.  258.  n. 
Life,  the  promifes  of,  under  the  Mo/aic  law,  how  to  be  under- 

ftood,  V.  14^,  152,  155.     _  . 

LivY,  his  obfervation  on  the  rites  ol  Bqccbus,  1.  292.  ».     tti% 

^ccoant  o£  Sc-fio  J/'icanus,  ii.  281.  _ 

Locke,  his  obfervations  on  the  Je--wip  theocracy,  iv.  ibi. 
His  memory  infulted  by  his  friend  Collins,  1.  Ded.  z\.  by 
Sbaftejbury,  id.   26.  .. 

Lucian,  his  opinion  of  the  Academics,  11.  117.  n.     nis  ac- 
count of  the  origin  of  brute  worfhip,  controverted,  111.  215. 
Luxury,  defined,  i.  81,  84.     The  dellruftive  eftefts  of,  85. 
Lycakthropy,  a  diforder  defcribed  by  the  Greek  phyficians, 

fource  of,  ii.   136.  c  o  -  o 

Lycurgus,  his  chief  aim  in  the  laws  oi  Sparta,  u.  uS. 

M. 

Magistrate,  the   propagation  and  prefervatlon   of  religion 
depending  on,  and  owing  to  him,  1.  92. 
^         eivir.,  why  an  alliance  with  the  church  neceflary  for, 

ii.  8.  . 

Magistrates,  why  appointed,  I.   II.  ^    ,i,^  ^:nmr 

Mahomet,  the  abfurdity  of  his  imitating  Mojes  in  the  diftinc- 
tion  of  meats,  pointed  out,  iv.  63.  In  the  union  of  evil 
and  religious  policy,  162.  n.  The  plan  on  which  his  religion 
tas  fmmed,   185,  223.     To  what  his  fucceffes  were  chiefly 

owing,  316.  ,       „        r    •         o 

Mahometan  Writers,  a  charaaer  of.  iv.  180. 
MAmoNiDBs,  his  account  of  the  7.xc(/i?'  ntual  defended,  iv. 

124.  n.  I    J     • 

Man,  in  a  ftate  of  nature,  defcribed,  1.   10. 
Manasseh,  detail  ofGod's  dealings  with,  ^..39- 
Mandeville,  his  pofition  of  private  vices  being  publu  bene- 

MEoic!:^  th;  Us  of.  and  when  each  obtained  in  ufe,  iii. 

61.     Indication  of  the  great  antiquity  ot    62. 
Melchizedec,  obfervation  on  the  ftory  of,  v.  414. 
F  f  4 


INDEX, 

MetAMORPHOSEs,  of  JpuUtus,  particular  examination  of  that 

work.  i.  307. 
-^ of  ihe  antient  Poets,  rationale  of,  ii.  136.  Pro- 
ceeded from  the  Mftempfychofis,  138. 
Metempsychosis,  the  intention  of  that  dofirine,  i.  141, 
279.  ii.  135.  Efteemed  peculiarly  the  dodrine  of /'j/>6i7^or«;, 
130.  The  utility  of  that  do^rine  pleaded,  143.  Two 
fyftems  of,  144.  The  only  vindication  of  Providence  in  the 
introduftion  of  evil,  accprding  to  Hierochs,  228.  The  doc- 
trine of,  not  the  origin  of  brute  worfhip,  iii.  213. 

Mexicans,  their  uie  of  hieroglyphic  writing  illuitrated,  by 
their  manner  of  painting  their  pra^yers,  iii.  72.  Account  of 
a  Mexican  hiftory  in  the  fame  ftyle,  73. 

and  Canadj^ns,  their  religious  notions  compared, 

i.  93. 

Mhhokek,  the  proper  fignification  of  that  word  pointed  out, 
iv,  245.  «. 

MiDDLETON,  his  argument  of  the  derivation  of  Popijh  from 
Pagan  rites,  examined,  iv.   1 27.  n. 

Milesian  Fables,  what,  i.  306. 

Minerva,  expofition  of  a  famous  hieroglyphical  infcr'ption on 
her  temple  at  ^^ii,  iii.   138. 

Ministry,  their  chara£ler,  in  what  refpedlfacred,  i.  Ded.  28. 

Miracles,  evidences  of  an  extraordinary  Providence  over  the 
Jeiv'/h  nation,  iv.  273,  286.  A  neceflary  confirmation  of 
the  fecondary  fenfes  of  the  y^'iu//?' prophecies,  v.  323. 

Missionaries,  catholic  and  pioteftant,  why  not  attended  with 
good  fuccefs,  ii.  7c.  Should  Jirji  civilize,  and  then  convert, 
71.     Millaken  policy  of,  72. 

Molech,  the  meaning  of  giving  feed  to  him,  v.   148, 

Moraliiy,  an  enquiry  into  the  firft  principles  of,  i.  37.  Re- 
view of  the  feveral  opinions  concerning,  40.  Capable  of 
being  counter-a£led  by  cuiloni,  58.  Not  able  to  influence 
mankind  abllradcd  from  the  confideration  of  reward  and 
punillimenr,  59,  70.  No  corapleat  fyftem  of,  contained  in 
the  New  Teftament,  S3. 

Mosaic  Dispensation,  its  divinity  logically  proved,  v.  364. 

403- 
Moses,  propofitions  from  which  his  divine  legation  is  efta- 
blifhed,  i.  7,  His  account  oi  the  E^ypti/m  priefthood,  a 
confirmation  of  thole  of  the  antient  Greek  hillorians,  iij.  35. 
Corroborates  their  account  of  the  religious  rites  oi  Egypt,  39, 
Of  the  funeral  rites  of,  66.  Of  the  divifion  of  the  lands  of 
£iy?i,  67.  His  knowledge  in  the  Egyptian  learning,  and 
the  laws  by  him  inllituted,  a  confirmation  of  the  divinity  of 
his  milfion,  iv.  no.  Anfwers  to  deifticnl  objeftions  againft 
the  divinity  of  his  millioo,  115.     His  laws  accommodated 

to 


INDEX. 

to  the  prejudices  of  the  Jenut,  in  favour  of  the  Egypnen 
cuftoms,  23.  This  no  objcftion  to  the  divinity  cf  his 
niiffion,  39*  The  reafon  of  his  unwillingnefs  to  undertake 
his  miiTion,  7.  The  omiiTion  of  a  future  Hate  in  his  law 
intended,  320.  Two  periods  obfervable  in  his  liillory,  ib. 
The  mention  of  a  future  ftate  by  him,  and  by  fbllowin? 
writers,  to  be  diftinguilhed,  v.  g.  The  fejife  of  his  expref- 
fions  relating  the  creation  of  man,  afcertained.  126.  His 
injunctions  to  the  Jews  againlt  the  local  idolatry  of  Canaan^ 
iv.  189,  198.  One  intention  of  his  laws,  to  prohibit  all 
intercourfe  between  the  Hebreins  and  the  Egy[:t:nns,  i  i.  312. 
His  motives  explained,  §13.  Vindicated  from  the  fuppofzcioa 
of  having  had  recourfe  to  liftion  in  certain  cafes,  iv,  112.  *. 
The  difference  between  contradiding  the  ajlronom)',  and  the 
h'Jiory,  wrote  by  him,  iii,  24.4.  The  former  of  the  Hebre^v 
alphabet  by  an  improvement  of  the  Eiypiian  characters,  164. 
Charadlers  in  the  Pagan  mythology  fuppofed  by  fome,  to  be 
intended   for   him,  ii.    133.    iii.  258. 

Moses,  Divine  Legation  of,  fummary  view  of  the  oppofition 
this  performance  met  with,  iii.  Pref.  27.  Recapitulation  of 
the  argument  proving  his  divine  legation,  v.  3  58.  The 
length  of  it  accounted  for,  366.  See  Future  State,  Law 
Mosaic,  Lazarus. 

Mus^us,  how  employed  in  ^/r^iV's  ^/z«V,  i,   277. 

Musc^uETS,  humourous  ftory  of  a  parcel  of,  with  a  logical  in- 
ference, V.  404, 

Mysteries,  the  mod  facred  articles  of  Pagan  religion,  i.  136. 
The  term  explained,  137.  Where,  and  to  what  gods,  cele- 
brated, 138.  AH  inculcated  the  dodrine  of  a  future  ftate, 
ib.  Common  people  fond  of  them,  148.  The  expediency 
of,  149.  Refemblance  between  initiation  into,  and  death, 
280.  Alluded  to  by  the  fon  of  Sirach,  281.  n.  Enquiry 
into  the  motives  of  jpu/eiui's  defence  of,  304. 

. Pagan,  their  ufages  adopted  by  the  primitive  fathers, 

i.  200.  Invented  and  upheld  by  lawgivers,  202.  Marks  of 
their  E^rp'ian  original,  204.  ii.  229.  iii.  36.  Of  great  ufe 
to  the  ilate,  i.  209.  The  betrayer  of  them,  an  infamous 
charadter,  182,  Antient  opinions  of,  185.  Violatcrs  of  them, 
how  punilhed,  267.  Summary  view  of,  v.  37c,  See 
Eleusinian  Mysteries. 

Mythologists,  antient,  their  tellimony  not  to  be  trailed,  in 
afcertaining  times  and  fads,  iii.  290. 

Mythology,  antient,  fources  of  the  confufion  in,  iii,  291. 

N. 

JJa-ture,  ftate  of,  the  miftaken  prejiidice  in  favour  of  what 
is  fo  called,  iilullrat^d,  ii.  7-j. 

Na- 


INDEX. 

Nature,  univerfal,  the  objeft  of  all  the  antlent  myllcrics,  I, 
203,  209. 

Nebuchadnezzar,  rational  meaning  of  his  transformationji 
ii.  137. 

NerO,  Emperor,  why  deterred  from  attempting  to  fee  the  cele- 
bracion  of  the  Eleujiniau  myfteries,  i.   144. 

New  Testament,  no  compleat  fyftem  of  morality  contained 
in  it,  i.  83. 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  his  charadlerasa  natural  philofopher,  iii. 
243.  Milled  by  Gr^f^  mythologifts,  244.  The  argument  of 
his  Egyptian  chronology,  245.  His  reafons  for  the  identity 
of  Ojiris  and  S,J'oJiris,  246.  His  niiftake  in  this,  illullrated 
by  a  cafe  flated  in  fimilar  terms,  253.  The  fource  of  his 
'  miftake,  260.  His  hypothefis  fupported  principally  by  two 
mythologic  fables,  iii.  293.  Miitakes  the  times  of  the  Pagan 
deities,  compared  with  the  sra  of  the  7ro;a«  war,  296.  His 
fyftem  of  chronology  contradidtory  to  Scripture,  303.  His 
chronology  refuted  by  dedudion,  304.  His  account  of  l^ul- 
cait,  306.  Compared  with  that  of  Homer,  307.  His  affer- 
tion  of  the  conqueft  of  Ly^aa  furnifhing  Egypt  with  horfes, 
invalidated,  310.  His  opinion  of  the  time  when  the  Egyptians 
introduced  animal  food,  refuted,  320.  His  period  of  the 
divifion  of.th^Jandsof  ^^j//,  difproved,  322.  His  account 
of  the  firft  introduftion  of  letters  into  Egypt,  rejeded,  3Z5. 
His  obfervations  relating  to  the  populoufnefs  of  Egypt,  exa- 
mined, 326.  Makes  Sr/ojiris  to  ht  Hercules,  329.  Quotes 
^E/culapius  as  the  firft  who  built  with  fquare  ftone,  330.  Sum- 
mary view  of  the  difpute  concerning  the  identity  of  Ofiris 
with  Se/ofins,   335. 

NiciAS,  \\\e  Athenian,  fatal  efFefts  of  his  fuperftition,  ii.   270, 

Nile,  the  happy  efFe^ls  of  its  annual  overflowings,  iii.  28. 

Noah,  hisfharader  found  to  anfwer  that  of  the  Indian  RauhuSy 
iii.   288.  n. 

Nocturnal  Assemblies  of  the  primitive  chriftians,  firft 
occafion  of,  iii.  Pref.  41.  Their  antiquity  among  Pagans 
Pre/.  67. 

' Rites  among  the  antients,  fubjeft  to  great  cenfure, 

i.    186.  n.     Regulated  by  Solon,   6fc.    188.      Aboliihed   by 
T/jeouOj'ius  the  elder,   189. 

Nordek,  Captain,  his  miilaken  conclufion  from  a  view  of  the 
pyramids,  concerning  the  antiquity  of  the  Egyptian  hierogly- 
phics, correlated,  iii.  133.  «• 

O. 

Oath,  Cicero's  opinion  of  the  obligation  to  fullfil  it,  ii.  184. 
Oaths  of  conformity,  amo.ig  the  antients,  ii.  29. 

Q  Obelisks, 


INDEX. 

Obelisks,  of  the  antient  Egyptians,  the  public  records  of  tKf 
times,  iii.   133. 

Omens,  the  two  kinds  of,  i.  214. 

On,  fome  account  of  the  priefts  of,  iii.  38. 

Onirocritic  art,  explained,  iii.  190.  Whence  the  art  of  de- 
ciphering borrowed,   196. 

Opinions,  in  what  inftances  men  frequently  aft  contrary  to 
thofe  they  entertain,  i.  69. 

Oracles,  the  original  motive  of  confulting  them,  iii.  274. 

Origen,  his  mifunderftanding  of  the  promiles  of  \\it  Jewjb 
law,  pointed  out,  v.  1 3  1 .  w. 

Orpheus,  his  hymns  preferred  to  H:i7ier\,  in  the  riles  of 
Ceres,  i.   178.     His  defcent  into  hell,  explained,  229. 

Osiris  who,  iii.  259.  His  fymbols,  268.  proof  of  hi*  anti- 
quity equal  to  Mo/es,  ib.  His  fuperior  antiquiry  to  Sefofiris 
afcertained,  ib.  Account  of,  and  his  court,  from  Diodorus 
Siculus,  iii.  260.  His  various  charadlers  at  different  places, 
as  exprefied  in  an  epigram  of  Aufonius,  iii.  287.  And  Sefof- 
tris,  their  identity  controverted,  againft  Sir  J/aac  NeiAJtortf 
248.     Diflinguilhed,  259,  265. 

Ovid,  an  examination  into  the  merits  of  his  Metamorphofes> 
ii.  130.  Contain  a  popular  hiftory  of  Providence,  138. 
Criticifm  on,  140.  His  account  of  Tyfhufi  war  with  the 
Cods,  iii.  206. 

P. 

Pagan  Deities,  vicious  examples  of,  and  the  licentious  rites 

in  their  worfhip,  infuperable  obftacles  to  virtue,  i.   153. 
^     ■        Mythology,  the  apology   of  the  priefts  and  philo- 

fophers,  for  the  immorality  of  it,  i.  176,  n. 
Paganism,    antient,    analyfis   of,  ii.    37.     Not  CQnfifting  of 

dogmatic  points  of  belief,  but  of  practical  rites,  40.     How 

the  antient  philofophers  attempted  to  uphold  it,  in  its  decline, 

i.  303. 
Pan,  how  painted  by  the  Egyptians,  iii.  208. 
Pan  TOM  1  ME,  hillorical  anecdote  of  the  great  expreffion  of  on^ 

V.  228.  r>. 
Parable,  the  origin  and  nature  of,  iii.   169. 
Paraguay,  wife  conduct  of  the  Je/iiiti  there,  ii.  72.  ». 
Parmenides,  his  two  theories  of  the  Univerfe,  ii.  95. 
Passover,  Jen.vijh,  its  typical  meaning  pointed  out,  v.  295. 
Patriots,  how  fituated  in  Eyfium,  i,  276. 
Patriarchs,  Jeiuijh,  (hewn  to  be  no  punifhers  for  opinions, 

V.  412. 
Paul,  St.  for  what  purpofc  called  to  the  apoftlefliip,  iv.  57. 

In  what  charadler  he  appeared  before  the  court  of  Anopagust' 

ii. 


INDEX. 

fi.  57.  His  fcntiments  of  perfecution,  before,  and  after  con- 
verfion,  iv.  164.  n.  Citations  from,  in  proof  that  the  doc- 
trine of  a  future  ftate  was  not  known  under  the  Mc/aic  Dif- 
penfation,  363, — that  its  fandions  were  all  temporal,  371. 
Kis  definition  of  faith,  v,  178.  A  feeming  contradiction 
in,  between  /ifis  xiii.  32.  and  Heb.  xi.  39.  reconciled,  182. 
An  important  pafTage  in  his  EpilUe  to  the  Romans,  chap.  viii. 
ver.  3,  4.  expounded,  184. 

Pelasoians,  account  of  their  adoption  of  the  names  of  the 
Egyptian  Gods,  and  application  of  them  to  their  own  deities ; 
from  Herodotust  iii.  278.  Communicate  them  to  the  Greeh, 
280. 

Pentateuch,  its  authenticity  maintained,  i.  117. 

Peripatktics,  in  what  refpedl  different  from  the  Platoiiijis,  ii. 
160.     Deny  a  particular  Providence,   193. 

Persecution  for  religious  opinions,  the  origin  of,  traced,  ii. 
48,  52,  68.  iii.  Tref.  3^.  v,  413.  How  accounted  for  by 
Voltaire,  ii.  48.  «.  Difcouncenanced  by  the  Gofpel  difpenfa- 
tion,  iv.  164.  77. 

Persian  Superstition,  defcribed  in  Ezekiels  vifions,  iv.  21. 

Peter,  his  vifion  of  the  clean  and  unclean  beafts  explained, 
iv.  62.  His  double  fenfe  of,  pointed  out,  v.  314.  2  Ep. 
chap.  i.  ver.  19,  explained,  v.   304.  n. 

PiiAROAH,  king  of  E^ypt,  the  Scripture  account  of,  iii.  jg. 
Promotes  Jc/epb,  37.  His  chariots  and  cavalry  in  the  pur- 
suit of  the  l/iaelitts,  iii.  310.  An  illuflration  of  the  Oniro- 
critic  art,  drawn  from  Jofeph'h  interpretation  of  his  two 
dream.s   105. 

Pharmacy,  general  divifion  of,  iii.  63. 

Phenician  Superstition,  defcribed  in  Ezekiel*^  vifions,  iv, 
21. 

Pherecydes,.  the  firfl  who  taught  the  dodrine  of  the  To  en, 
ii.  225. 

Philemon  and  Baucis,  the  fable  of,  expounded,  ii,   134. 

Philip  of  Mac^don,  his  obfervation  on  feeing  the  bodies  of 
l\\e  Sacred  Band  zK  Ch^rotiea,  i.   224. 

Philosopher,  antient,  a  chara(Ser  compounded  of  Lawgiver 
and  Naturalift,  ii.  105.  In  both,  miliaken  in  their  views, 
i.  151.     And  citizen,  diftinftion  between,  ii.  75. 

PmLOfSOPHERs,  antient,  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  the 
inculcation  of  the  belief  of  a  futupe  ftate  was  neceffary  to 
tfie  well-being  of  focicty,  ii.  77,  The  opinion  of  its  utility 
flrengtheiied,  by  its  not  being  an  article  of  their  private  belief, 
86.  Taught  confc;rnii!y  to  the  Religion  of  the  country,  89. 
Hence  infincerity  juftificd  by  them,  91.  Their  external  ana 
internal  doftrine  wherein  they  differed,  95.  Reproached  b^ 
jhe  piimitive  f,*thcrs  for  diiliiiiulation,  top.  u.     Their  two- 

foldi 


INDEX. 

fold  do£lrlne  applied  to  the  fervice  of  fociet}',  103,  107, 
143.  Difference  between  thofe  who  added  iegiflation  to 
their  phyfics,  and  thofe  who  did  not,  icg.  When  they  be- 
gan to  admit  a  future  ftate  of  retribution,  216.  Atheillic, 
their  particular  motives  to  the  prafticc  of  virtue,  i.  73. 

Philosophhrs,  Grecian,  charaifler  of,  ii.  106. — always  men- 
tioned by  the  Apoftles  with  contempt,  237. 

Philosophy,  Greek,  true  key  to,  ii.  99.  Who  formed  by, 
105.  Analyfis  of,  1 1 4.  How  received  in //a/)',  165.  Bar- 
baric, not  fyftematic  ;  but  in  detached  precepts,  221.  Mo- 
dern, the  antients  unacquainted  with  the  refined  dillinflions 
of,  185. 

Phlegyje,  in  Virgil,  who,  i.  267, 

Physic,  a  critical  inquiry  into  the  Hate  of,  in  antient  Fg-j/r, 
iii.  40. 

Planet- worship,  the  firft  religion  of  Grffre,  iii.  270. 

Plato,  his  definition  of  facrilege,  i.  133,  His  view  of  a 
future  flate,  260.  His  private  opinion  of  an  univcrlal 
foul,  ii.  94.  His  analyfis  of  the  Grecian  philofophy,  107. 
His  charafter  afcertained,  122.  n.  His  charafter  as  a  lavir- 
giver,  149,  162.  His  politics  ridiculed  by  the  antients, 
150.  What,  the  proper  key  to  his  writings,  152.  His 
Phaedo,  Cuero\  opinion  of,  i  53.  His  notirn  of  the  immor- 
tality of  the  foul  inquired  into,  154.  His  refinement  on  the 
Metempfychsfis,  155.  Inculcates  future  lewards  and  puniOi- 
ments  in  the  popular  fenfe  of,  156.  Tellimonies  of  his  dif- 
belief  of,  157.     Why  he  baailhed  Homer  from  his  rcpabU:, 

Platonists,  in  what  refpefl  differing  from  the  Peripnie'.ict 
and  Stoics y  ii.  160,  193.  Allegorize  ttic  dodrine  of  the  refur- 
reftion,  236. 

Pliny  the  younger,  his  opinion  of  the  ChriJIians,  ii.  53.  The 
reafon  of  his  perfecuting  the  Chrifliansy  iii.  Pre/.  37,  48. 

Plutarch,  his  fentiments  of  a  future  llatc,  ii.  179,191.  His 
account  of  the  origin  of  atheifm  and  fuperllition,  260.  His 
parallel  between,  261.  His  motives  to  this  performance  ex- 
amined into,  266.  n.  Argues  from  unfair  principles,  274. 
His  argument  purfued  by  Loril  Bacon,  i-jj.  The  objeft  of 
his  tratl  on  Ifis  and  Ofiris,  308,  Accuies  the  Je<ws  of  woi- 
ihipping  fwine,  iii,  212.  n. 

PococKE,  his  account  of  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  confidered, 
iii.  80.  n. 

Political  Romances,  an  inquiry  into  a  general,  thougii 
fundamental  deviation  from  known  faft,  in,  i.  20. 

PoLvjJius,  his  encomium  on  the  piety  aad  probity  of  the  /Js- 
fjians,  ii.  79. 

Poir- 


INDEX. 

Polytheism,  the  Elcufinian  myfteries  a  deteftlon  of,  i.  i^^, 
170. 

PoMPONATius,  the  intention  of  his  ircBX\(e  De  immortalitate 
animae  miftaken  by  Bayle,  \;  26,  3c. 

Porch,  the  doftrine  taught  by  t|ie  philofophers  of,  ij.   161. 

Porphyry,  his  account  of  the  origin  of  brute-worlhip,  con- 
troverted, iii.  216.  And  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  their  account 
of  the  antient  Egyptian  charaders  and  writing,   121. 

Posterity,  why  the  punifliments  of  the  Mojaic  law  extended 
to  then),  iv.  326.     The  cafe  argued,  332. 

PosTHUMius,  the  conful,  his  exhortation  to  maintain  unity 
of  public  worfhip,  ii.  29.  Not  inconfillent  with  toleration  of 
private  religion,  35. 

Priests,  Pagan,  not  folicitous  to  teach  the  people  virtue,  i. 
208.     Pious,  where  placed  in  the  Pagan  elyfium,  i.  276. 

Primitive   Christians,   their   nodurnal   vigils  abuied,    i. 

Principles,  Good  and  Evil,  the  belief  of,  how  guarded  againft 
by  the  writer  of  the  book  o!i  Job,  v.  97. 

Prophecy.  See  Christ,  Ezekiel,  Horace,  Jerusalem^ 
Joel,  Isaiah,  Peter,  Sykes. 

Prophecies,  what  a  neceffary  confirmation  <f  their  reference 
to  the  Meffiah,  v.  323.  Their  primary  and  fecondary  fenfes 
diftinguilhed,  327.  Of  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  mifunder- 
Itood  by  the  Je^MSy  and  why  /o  ordained,  340.  Scripture, 
defended  from  the  infinuations  of  Dr.  MiddUton,  290. 

Prophets,  Jevsi/h,  rational  account  of  their  illuftrating  their 
prophecies  by  figns,  iii.  108.  Reafon  of  the  inllitution  of  a 
Ichool  for,  iv.  42. 

1*rovidence,  the  notions  of  the  Thrjiical  philofophers  con- 
cerningj  ii.  193.  Particular,  denied  by  the  Stoics  and  Peri- 
■pateticsy  ib.  Particular,  affirmed  by  the  Pythagoreans  and 
Flatonijis,  ib.  The  difpenfations  of,  according  to  the  Pa- 
gans, adminiftered  through  the  medium  of  inferior  local  tute- 
lary deities,  194.  How  its  difpenfations  were  jultified  by  the 
ancients,  228.  Remarks  on  the  different  reception  of  its 
adveife  difpenfations,  in  antient  and  modern  times,  v.  76.  n. 

im-. ^ —    Extraordinary,  a   neceiTary   confequence   of  the 

'Je-\ijijh  theocracy,  iv.  267.  Illulhatcd  from  Solomon  s  prayer  at 
the  dedication  of  the  Temple,  289.  From  Ezektel,  291. 
YxQ'nx  Amos,  zcfy  Evidences  of  its  ceafing,  29S.  The  men- 
tion of  the  inequalities  of,  by  the  facred  writers,  accounted 
for,  302. 

PsAMMiTicHus,  his  fchcmc  to  cilablilh  an  intercourfe  between 
Egypt  and  the  Grecian  ftates,  iii.    i6o. 

Punishments,  their  ufes  in. civil  fociety,  i.   15. 

Purgatory,  Pagan,  what,  i.  25^. 

Pyra- 


I    N    D    E    X. 

PvRAMiDS  of  E^pt,  probable  reafons  wliy  they  exliibit  no 
hieroglyphic  infcriptions,  iii.  133.  «.  The  Egy(>!ian  iirchi- 
tedture  formed  on  the  idea  of,  134.  Not  temples,  but 
fcpulchres,  135.     Alluded  to  in  the  book  of  Job,  v.  35. 

Pyrrhonians,  their  tenets,  and  wherein  they  differed  from 
the  academics,  ii.  116.     Whence  named,   120. 

Pythagorus,  his  precept  for  ellablifhing  laws,  i.  121.  His 
good  and  evil  Principle,  126.  The  firft  in  rank  among  the 
Grecian  lawgivers  and  philofophers,  ii.  105.  How  he  ac- 
quired the  learning  of  Egypt^  ib.  More  particular  account 
of,  126.  Proofs  illuflrative  of  his  legiflative  fame,  130. 
Why  he  affigned  Homer  and  Hcfiod  penance  in  hell,  306. 
His  theory  of  earthquakes,  108.  His  predidion  of  them 
jullified  by  late  experience,  108.  n,. 

Quakers,  their  motives  for  rejeding  the  inftitution  of  baptlfm, 
examined  into,  v.  4. 

R. 

Rainbow,  firft  creation  and  reafon  of,  iv,  32*  n\ 

Reason,  human,  able  to  perceive,  but  not  to  difcover,  trutli, 
ii-  243. 

Regulus,  Cicero  s  opinion  of  his  obligation  to  return  to  Cw- 
thage,  ii.   184. 

Religion,  the  external  evidences  of  it  how  weakened j  i.  z- 
Natural,  not  fufficient  vnthout  the  aid  of  the  civil  magillratc^ 
II.  Only  capable  of  fupplying  thofe  fandions  which  civil 
fociety  needs,  but  hath  not,  22.  How,  ib.  23.  Its  neccf- 
fity  to  fociety,  25.  Its  exiftence  fecured  by  an  alliance  with 
the  civil  power,  ii.  9,  17.  Confers  refpeft  and  veneration  on 
the  laws  and  magiftrate,  12,  Receives  a  coaftive  power,  13. 
The  only  tribunal  before  which  intentions  are  cognizable,  13. 
Evil  confequences  of  more  than  one  being  in  a  itate,  16^ 
26.  Its  ufe  in  legiflation,  i.  87.  The  confcrvation  cf,  de- 
pending on  the  magiftrate,  92.  Its  truth  in  the  general, 
proved  from  its  infinite  fervice  to  fociety,  ii.  247.  The 
notion  of  its  being  a  political  invention,  examined,  248,  319. 
The  affirmative  no  proof  of  its  falfity,  254,  287.  Why  the 
magii^rate  fo  folicitous  to  inforce  it,  ih.  Not  the  offspring 
oi  fear,  291.  The  abfurdliy  of  any  human  legiflature's  in- 
forcing  it  by  penal  laws,  iv.  166.  An  eftablilhed  one  in 
every  of  the  antient  nations,  ii.  I.  Its  ufe  in  fociety,  3. 
Jts  care  limited  to  the  foul,  8.  Eftabliflied,  falfe  policy  of 
forcing  people  into  conformity  to  it,  34.-    Diftindion  among 

the 


INDEX. 

the  Pagans,  between,  and  private  or  tolerated  religion,  62 i  tti 
66.  Conformity  to  that  of  the  country,  taught  by  the  an- 
tient  philofophers,  89.  Diftiniftion  between  true  and  falfe, 
46.     Chriflian,  why  necefiarily  founded  on  the  Jeixilh,  i^j. 

Religion,  Jewish,  not  adopted  by  any  of  the  neighbouring 
nations,  and  why,  iv,  203. 

.  (iF  Names,  zw  Egyptian  (vi^tr^Wxon,  iv«  3. 

OF  Nature,  confirmed  by  revelation,  i.  83, 

.  Pagan,  the  genius  of,  indicative  of  the  hand  of  the 

magiflrate  in  its  formation  and  fupport,  i.  95.  How  it  came 
to  be  fo  inierwoven  with  civil  hiftory,  loi*  ».  Myfleries  the 
moft  facred  articles  in,  136.  Confined  to  local  deities,  ii. 
31.  Utility  and  not  truth,  the  end  of,  91.  Hence  deception 
expedient  in,  ib.  National  and  that  of  philofophers,  how 
calculated,   iii. 

Religions,  a  comparifon  of  the  many  that  have  exifted  in  the 
world,  the  clue  to  the  true  one,  iii.  8, 

.. • — —  Pagan,  apologetical  fuggeilions  to  account  for  the 

diverfity  of,  ii.  4:^.  Not  interfering  with  each  other,  iv. 
182. 

Christian  and  Mosaic,  necefiarily  dependant  on 


fome  preceding  religion,  iv.   183. 
Reljgigus  Society.     See  Societv. 
'Resurrection,  dodirine  of,  allegorized  hy  i\it  Platonijls,  ii. 

236. 
Reward  and  Punishment,  the  proper  meaning  of,  afcer- 

tained,  i.   16.     How   far  capable  of  being  enforced  by  civil 

government,  id.   19.     Anfwer  to  the  objetSlion  againft  them, 

as  inducements  to  virtue,  id.  39.  n.     More  powerful  perfua- 

livcs  CO  virtue,  than  any  abftract  contemplation  on  the  loveli- 

nefs  of  it,  i.  59,  70. 
Revelation,  ChrilHan,  not  a  republication  of  the  religion  of 

nature,  ii.  241. 
Revelation?,  fome  one,  embraced   by  all  mankind,  iii.   I. 

Natural  inferences  from  this  general  propenfity,  2.     Pagan, 

one  circumftance  common  to  all,   11.     Pagan,  attributed  by 

the  primitive  fathers,  to  the  Devil,  ih. 
Rhetoric,  the  arts  of,  prohibited  in  the  court  of  Areopagus,  i. 

Ded.   10. 
Riddles,  propounded  by  ihc Hebrew  fages,  as  mutual  trials  of 

fagacity,  iii.   171. 
Ridicule,   the  favourite  figure  of  fpeech  among  infidels,  i. 

Did.  9.    Arguments  in  juftificntion  of,  id.    12.     Refuted,  id. 

13.     Not  the  tell  of  truth,  but  -vice  'ver/a,  id.   15.    IVIifchiefs 

refulting  from  it,  fd.   18. 
Rites,  legal  and  patriarchal,  not  to  be  confounded,  iv.   28. 
Ritual  Law  of  the  Jews,  made  in  reference  to  the  Egyptian 

fuper* 


INDEX. 

fuperftition,  iv.  24.  This  no  objeiflion  to  the  divinity  of 
it,  58.     Charaderifed  in  Ezekiel,  82.     Explained,   88. 

Rome,  to  what  its  declenfion  was  owing,  i.  83.  Antient  and 
modern,  refecnblance  between,  in  religioub  modes,  ii.  35. 
Pagan,  how  it  preferved  its  eftablifhed  religion  from  foreioa 
mixtures,  66.  Chriilian,  whether  its  fupcrllitions  borrowed 
from  the  Pagan  city,  examined,  iv.   127. 

Rose,  what  a  fymbol  of,  among  the  antients,  i.  317. 

Runic  Alphabet,  when  and  why  changed  for  tJie  Roman,  iii. 
165. 

RuTHERFORTH,  Dr.  his  notion  of  the  cfFeft  the  withdrawing 
the  fanftions  of  the  yenxiijh  law,  had  on  the  obligatory  force 
of  that  law,  examined,  iv.  269.  His  notions  of  the  tem- 
poral fanftions  of  the  Jemcijh  lasv  being  continued  under  the 
gofpel,  examined,  307.  His  notions  of  inefficacy  of  aclion 
without  fpeech,  examined,  v.  226.  ». 

S. 

Sabbath,  a  pofitive  inftitution,  iv.  32.  ». 

Sacred  Band,  affedling  anecdote  of,  i.  224. 

Sacrifices,  human,  the  command  to  Abraham  to  offer  up  his 
fon  Ifaac,  vindicated  from  the  objeiSlion  cf  giving  a  divine 
fanftion  to,  v.  248,  266. 

Sallust,  his  theological  fentiments,  ii.   197. 

Samuel,  his  conduit  in  eftablilhing  the  regal  form  of  govern- 
ment in  Judea,  iv.  231. 

Sanchoniathon,  his  genealogical  account  of  the  firft  ages,  i, 
168.  Reafons  to  conclude  his  hiftory  to  be  that  narrated  at 
the  Eleujinian  myfteries,  i.  171.  Whence  he  tranfcribed  his 
hiftory,  173.  His  hiftory  when  corrupted,  175.  When  he 
lived,  ib. 

Sanhedrim,  why  inftituted,  iv.  42.  When  eftablifhed,  53, 
The  motives  of  Je/us  Chriji'%  evafive  reply  to  their  interro- 
gations, ib. 

Satan,  examination  of  his  charafter  as  delivered  in  Job,  92. 

Saul,  the  phrafe  of  his  being  among  the  prophets,  explained, 
iv,  44.     Charafterifed,  ib. 

ScENicAL  Representations,  in  what  refpeft  without  moral 
import,  v.  265. 

Sceptre  of  Judah,  the  common  notions  of  that  phrafe  exa- 
mined, iv.  246.     True  fenfe  of,  pointed  out,  262. 

SciPio  Africanus,  L/o/y's  account  of,  li.  281. 

Scriptures,  facred,  a  fummary  view  of  their  contents,  iv. 
344.     General  rule  for  the  interpretation  of,  V.    124. 

Sectaries,  reafons  for  excluding  them  from  the  public  admi- 
niftraiion,  ii.  27. 
Vol,  V.  G  g  Seneca, 


INDEX. 

Seneca,  his  fentiments  concerning  death,  ii.  163.  His  account 
of  the  origin  of  religion,  291. 

Serpent,  in  the  fall  of  man,  the  true  meaning  of,  afcertained, 
iv.  322.  How  the  fentence  pafTed  on  ir,  is  to  be  underftood, 
V.  129.  Crooked,  in  yj^  ^XiA  Ij'aiahy  the  meaning  of  ex- 
plained, 98. 

Sesostris,  account  of,  ixam  Diadorus  Siculusy  iii.  32.  Who, 
259.  Divides  i'^/*^  by  tranfverfe  canals,  320.  His  motives 
for,  324. 

. and  Osiris,  arguments  againft  the  indentity  of,  in 

oppofitionto  Sir  I/aac  Nexvlouy  iii.  248,    Diflinguilhed,  259, 
265. 

Shaftesbury,  his  application  of  ridicule,  as  a  tell  of  truth,  i. 
Ded,  12.  His  treatment  oi  Locke y  id.  26.  His  notions  of 
the  antient  Heathen  religions,  erroneous,  ii.  41.  Oppofes 
the  influence  oUajU,  to  the  belief  of  a  future  JiatCy  83, 

Sherlock,  Bp.  his  notion  of  the  tribal  fceptre  of  Judab, 
examined,  iv,  2;o. 

Shuckford,  Dr.  his  remarks  on  the  antient  7J//W  law,  exa- 
mined, iv.  28,  83. 

Sibyl,  the  charafter  fhe  fullains  in  the  jEneid,  i.  234. 

Signs,  memorable  inltance  of  divine  inftruflion  communicated 
by,  in  r.\\&  cz(q  oi Abraham,  v.   197. 

Sins,  diftinguiflied  from  crimes,  and  before  what  tribunal 
amenable,  ii.  14, 

Sleeping  Scheme,  the  principles  of,  examined,  iv.  376. 

Sociality,  the  benefits  of,  i.  Ded.  35. 

Society,  civil,  the  advantages  of,  i.  12.  Its  infufficiency 
againft  moral  dlforders,  13.  Evils  introduced  by  it,  15. 
The  two  great  fandions  of,  16.  The  laws  of,  continually 
affronted  by  the  members  of  it,  75.  Difference  between, 
and  a  ftate  of  nature,  76.  Why  inftituted,  ii.  ^.'  Its  care 
limited  to  the  body,  8.  Independent  on  religious  fociety,  ib. 
Why  induced  to  unite  with  religious  fociety,  15.  See  Alli- 
ance, Religion. 

Society,  religious,  its  ultimate  end,  ii.  6.  Independent  on 
civil  fociety,  /^.    Why  induced  to  unite  with  civil  fociety,   17. 

Socrates,  Why  he  declined  initiation  into  the  Orphic  and 
Eleujinian  myiXcnes,  i.  181.  His  conformity  to  the  religion 
of  his  country,  iuftanced,  ii.  89.  The  firft  who  brought 
philofophy  from  a  fpeculation  of  nature,  to  the  improvement 
of  morals,  115.  This  fcheme  effeded  by  the  principles  of 
doubt  and  uncertainty,  116,  120.  Why  not  milled  in  his 
judgment  of  a  future  llate,  235. 

Socratic  method  of  arguing,  what,  ii.   i2i. 

Solomon,  his  prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the  Temple,  illuHra- 

tive  of  the  paiticular  Providence  over  the  ^i^wj//.' nation,  iv. 

3  289.. 


1    N    D    £    X. 

289.  And  that  the  fanflions  of  the  Mojaical  law  were  mecrlv 
temporal,  318.  His  violations  of  the  ^/o^/V  law,  remarked, 
iii.   313.     How  perverted  to  idolatry,  v.   <Si. 

Sophists,  fome  account  of,  ii.  121.  Unfavourably  treated  by 
\}a.Q  Romans,   166. 

Soul,  Pythagoras^  notion  of  an  univcrfal  one,  ii.  208,  224. 
Immaterial,  common  to  the  whole  animal  creation,  v.  127. 
Human,  three  fpecies  of,  diflinguifhed  by  the  antients,  i'. 
190.  Held  to  be  fubftance,  199.  Difcerped  parts  of  God, 
201.  Pre-exiftent  as  well  as  polt-exillent,  203.  Jllulhated 
byafimile,  205,  Believed  to  be  mortal,  by  fome  of  the 
fathers,  207.  The  mortality  of  it,  argued  from  peripatetic 
principles,  i.  27.  The  fentiments  of  the  Je^vs  concerning, 
iinder  the  law,  iv.  375.  Examination  of  the  notion  of  the 
fleep  of,  376.  The  mention  of  its  future  exillence  by  M^fes 
and  by  following  writers,  to  be  diflinguilhed,  v.  9.  Living 
in  what  fenfe  to  be  underftood  as  ufed  in  the  hiftory  of  the 
creation  of  man,  128. 

Speech,  the  origin  and  hiftory  of,  iii.   105. 

Spencer,  an  examination  of  the  argument  of  his  treat' fs  Z?? 
Theocratia  Judaica,  iv.   236. 

Spinozism,  the  principle  of,  cherifhed  in  the  antient  myfteries, 
and  whence  derived,  i.  278. 

Spiritual  Courts,  the  ufe  of,  ii.  14. 

State.     See  Alliance* 

States,  the  two  ways  by  which  they  come  to  ruin,  ii,  80. 

Statues,  the   firft  rife  of  worlhipping,  in  human  form,  iii. 

Stebbing,  Dn   his  expofition  of  Zf-rrV.  xviii.  5.  examined,  v. 

I43.     An  examination  of  his  confiderations  on  the  command 

to /Abraham  to  offer  up  Ifaac,  20i« «?»  219.  «.  His  notions  of  the 

trial  of  Abraham  examined  into,   233,  239.  n.  248.  n.  261.  n. 
Stillingfleet,  his   opinion   of  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphics, 

iii.    139. 
Stoical  Renovation,  what,  ii.   164. 
Stoics,  the  principle  of  that   feft,  i.  66,     Ba\le^s  reafoning 

from  it,  invalidated,  67.     In  what  refpcft  different  from  the 

Platonijls,  ii.   160.     Difbelieve  the  immortality  of  the  foul, 

i6z.     Deny  a  particular  Providence,   193. 
Strabo,  his  divifion   of  the  antient  Pagan  religion,    i.   289. 

Miftaken  in  his  reprcfentation  of  the  Mo/aic  ve\\^\on,  ii.  219. 
Suicide,  difcountenanccd  in  the  antient  myfteries,  i.   254. 
SuLPicius,  his  reflexion  on  the  fight  of  the  ruins  ol  Corinth ^ 

i^c,  i.  Ded,  16.     Burlefqued  by  Scarron,  i.l.  ib. 
Sun  and  Moon,  the  various  names  thefe  luminaries  were  wcr- 

jhipped  by,  among  the  Pagans,  ii.  301, 

G  g  a  Super* 


INDEX. 

Superstition,  diib'nguinied  from  religion,  ii.  256.  Plutarch's 

account  of  the  origin  of.   260. 
SvKES,  Dr.  his  notion  cf  the  Jeiv'Jh  theocracy,  examined,  iv. 

287.  ».  291.  »•  324.  n.      His  notion  concerning  the  double 

fenfesof  the  Scripture  prophecies,  examined,  v.  308. 
Symbols,  their  revolution  from  being  employed  for  contrary 

purpofes,    to   their   primitive   defignation,    pointed   out,  iii, 

16S. 
System  and  Hypothesis,  the  human  mind  naturally  inclined 

to,  iii.  20. 

T. 

Tacitus,  his  opinion  of  the  y^fif/}^  religion,  iii.  Pre/.  38,  n. 
His  account  of  the  antient  Jhebaii  monuments,   137. 

Tages,  x.he  Etrufcan  God,  how  found,  iii.  241.  n. 

Talismans,  greatly  venerated  by  the  Ma^ow^/aw/,  iii.   183. 

Taste,  oppoled  by  Lord  Shaftefiury  to  the  influence  of  the  be- 
lief of  a  future  ftate,  ii.  83. 

Taylor,  Dr.  examination  of  his  account  of  the  origin  of 
perfecution,  iii.  Pre/.  36. 

Telemachus,  why  he  refufed  the  horfes  of  Menelaus,  iii.  315. 

Test-law,  the  reafons  of,  traced,  ii.  24.  The  obligation  the 
ftate  is  under  to  grant  the  church  this  iecurity,  25.  Juftified 
from  hiftory,  27. 

Test-oath,  among  the  /Athenians,  ii.  28. 

"Theocratic- government  of  ihejeivs,  the  reafons  and  con- 
veniencies  of,  iv.  136,  166.  Why  willingly  received  by 
them,  172.  Particular  enquiry  into  the  circumllances  cf, 
161,  215.  Neceflarily  including  an  extraordinary  Providence, 
267.  Illuftrated  from  Solomon's  prayer  at  the  dedication  of 
the  Temple,  289.  From  Ezekiel,  291.  From  Jmos,  293. 
How  long  fublifting,  225.      When  aboliflied,  243. 

Theocracy,  every  fubjtd  a  pi  left  under,  iv.   157.  ». 

Theology,  dopmatic.  how  introduced,  ii.  46. 

Theseus,  expofition  of  his  defcent  into  hell,  i.  230.  His 
punifhment  for  violating  the  myileries,  26;, 

TiMi€US,  his  charader  by  Polybius,  i.   113. 

Tindal's  Chriftianity  as  old  as  the  Creation,  founded  on  a 
miftakcn  argument,  ii.   242. 

To  LAND,  his  account  of  the  origin  of  idolatry,  ii.  310. 

Toleration,  the  benefits  of,  ii.  27.  Univerfal,  allowed 
amoncjallthe  antient  nations,  and  why,  ii.  33.  iii.  Prtf.  61. 
Religious  impreffions  ftrengthencd  by  encouraging  new,  and 
foreign  worfliip,  35.  Antient,  different  from  our  modcru 
ideas  of,  ih. 

Toyman,  d^iBath,  pertinent  Ilory  of,  v.  3!'.f. 

Tradi- 


INDEX. 

Tradition,  mlftaken  prefumption  to  ftrengthen  the  auihority 

of,  by  the  church  of  7?o/nf,  iv.   359. 
Trajan,  Emperor,  his  perfccution  of  Chriftianity  accounted  for, 

^"-  5?.       . 

Treason,  high,  obfervations  on  the  laws  of  forfeitures  in  cafes 

of,  iv.   334. 
TaiSMtGisTus,  the  books  that  go  under  his  name,  forged,  ii. 

Truth  andUriLiTY,  proved  to  coincide,  ii.   24.7,  z:;6. 
Types,  the  meaning  of,  afcertained,  v.  270.     Derivation  of, 

283.     In  Religion,    argument    deduced    from  the   general 

paffion  for,  31^4. 
TvPKON,  the  fable  of,  explained,  iii.  206,  258. 
Tyrants,  antient,  great  encouragers  of  religion,  and  why,  i. 

107. 

V. 

Varro,  his  obfervation  on  the  expediency  of  enthufiafm  for  the 
effefling  great  enterprizes,  ii.  286. 

Virgil,  his  reformation  oi Epic  poetry,  i.  212.  n.  His  po- 
litical views  in  (ksJEneis,  217.  His  inLrnal  geography,  i. 
253.  Millake  in,  noted,  263.  Wherein  he  excelled /ifo^^r, 
i.  274.  His  fcenes  all  accommodated  to  the  myfteries,  277. 
The  purpofe  of  his  writing,  282.  Some  criticifms  againll, 
obviated,  283.  Exhibits  an  entire  view  of  the  P^gon  reli- 
gion, i.  2S9.  His  reprefentation  of  the  rites  of  Bacchuj, 
292.  From  whence  he  took  the  hint  of  his  Silenus,  ii.  139* 
Criticifm  on,   140. 

Virtue,  the  various  motives  by  which  men  are  allured  or  drove 
into  the  praftice  of  it,  i.  28,  38  Anfwer  to  the  objeAion 
againft  the  view  of  rewards  and  punilhments,  operating  as 
motives  to  it,  i.  39.  Why  a  uniform  praclice  of  it,  will  not 
generally  contribute  to  human  happinefs,  i.  60.  An  enquiry 
into  the  nature  of,  under  a  difpenfation  of  rewards  and  punifli- 
ments,  iv.  419. 

Voltaire,  his  miftaken  notion  of  the  origin  of  religious  per- 
fccution, reel  fied,  ii.  48.  t?.  His  account  of  the  Mo/aic 
difpenfation,  examined,  iv.  139.  His  mifreprefentation  of 
Judea,  refuted,  146.  Some  miliakes  in  his  trcatife  on  1  olera- 
tion,  noted,  iv.  341.  ». 

Vossius,  his  account  of  the  origin  of  idolatry,  refuted,  iii. 
218. 

Utility,  indicative  of  truth,  ii.  247, 

Vulcan,  Sir //'v«,r  AW/on's  account  of,  iii.  306,  Compared 
with  that  of  Homers  307. 

G  g   5  WAKTi, 


INDEX, 


w. 


Wants,  real  and  fantaftic,  the  efFeds  of,  i.  y^.    Increafe  with 

the  improvements  in  policy  and  arts,    76. 
William  of  iVi?au.'o«r^,  his   charadler  of  Pope  Gregory  vin.  v. 

Witchcraft,  the  fuppofed  effefts  of,  accounted  for,  ii.  i^y, 
WiTsiu  s,  his  arguments  for  the  Egyptian  Ritual  being  borrowed 

from  the  j^eivs,  examined,  Hv.  27.  Critique  on  his  ^gyptiaca, 

67. 
Wives,  ftrange,  or  idolatrous,  bad  confequences  of  the  fond- 

nefs  the  Je'w  had  for  them,  fuewn,  v.  78. 
Works,  no  juftification  by,  under  the  Gofpel,  v,   186. 
Worship,  intercommunity  of,  a  fundamental  point  of  Pa^a- 

vjfm,  ii.  4c,   53. 
Writing,  hiltory  of  the  art  of,  iii.  70, 

Z. 

Zaleucus,  his  exiftence  called  in  queftion  by  7V/w^*Y/,  i.  irj. 
Enquiry  into  the  authenticity  of  his  laws,  116.  Prior  to 
Pythagoras,  120.     His  religious  precepts,   127. 

Zeno,  his  character,  ii.   161,   193. 

Zoroaster  of /^'rt'^  and  Pr/dV<2*^,  difcredited,  vt,  j8o* 


A   N 


AN 


ALPHABETICAL   LISlT 


O  F' 


AUTHORS,    &c. 

Quoted  in  the  foregoing  Work  3  which  Quo- 
tations are  not  referred  to  in  the  Index. 


ACofta,  iii.  DeJ.  2,  «.  71, 
86.  «.  99.  «. 
Addiibn,  i.  Det^.  12,  214. 
^lian,  ii.  loi,  108.  iii!;  201. 

262. 
^fchylus,  ii.  60. 
Agellius,  ii.  120. 
Ahijah,  v.  264. 
Albinus,  ii.  152. 
Albo,  Rabbi  Jofeph,  v.  333. 
Ammianus     Marcellinus,     iii. 

136.  iv.  10. 
Amos,  iv.  12,  90.  V.  330. 
Anaxagoras,  ii.  271,  307. 
Antoninus,  Marcus,  ii.  53,  55, 

163,  ^14. 
Apion,  iv.  204.  ft.  278.  «. 
Apollodorus,  iii.  54.  n. 
Apuleius,  i.    146,   232,    238, 

274.,  291,  296.  ii.  125,  195, 

230.    iii.    ^6.    w.   50,    147, 

168,  286. 
Arceiilaus,  ii.  !  16. 
Ariftides,   i.    140,    190,   270, 

275.  /?.  286. 
Ari(toj>iiaRes,  i.  14:,  205.  ». 


Arirtotle,  i.    12,  154,  212.  ii. 

5,  21 1,  222,  ».  iii.  262. 
Arnauld,  v.  193. 
Arnobius,  ii,  100. ».  206,  2ic» 
Arrian,  ii.  163,  «,  iii.  261. 
Aitemidorus,   i.    313.    n.    iii. 

190. 
Aflruc,  iii.  162.  ».  iv.  6. 
Aulus  Gellius,  i.  253.  iii.  301, 

w. 
Aufonius,  iii.  287. 
Aiiftin,   i.    100.  //.   IC2,   14J, 

154.  ».  157,  309.   ii.  64.  n. 

91,  loi.  fi.  12  7.  iii.  153.  w. 

Bacon,  Lord,  i.  10.  ii.  132,259, 
271.  ».  iii.  Pre/.  8c.  iv.  109, 

Banier,  ii.  134.  tr.  142. 

Barbeyrac,  i.  2^6. 

Baxter,  iii.  192. 

Bayle,  i.  44,  88,  ico,  114, 
250.  ii.  64,  220,  250.  », 
257.  iv.  I  '^g.  V.  368. 

Beaufobre,  ii.  233.  iii.  182.  /u 

Bellarniine,  i.  191. 
g  4  Bcatlcy. 


ALPH  ABETICA-L    LIST 


Bentley,  i.  112.  ii.  37.  ». 

Berkley,  iv.  360. 

Bernier,  ii.  45. 

B.'ackwell,  i.  97.  w.  219,  250. 

ii.  223,  310. 
Blount,  ii.  248. 
Bochart,  iii.  207. ». 
Bolingbroke,  Lord,  iii.  10.  n. 

iv.  38,    152,  ».  215,  217, 

343.  V.  174,  318. 
BofTu,  i.  213.  Ti. 
Bouilier,  v.  224.  w.  356.  «, 
Boulainvilliers,  i.  94. 
Brown,  i.  Ded.  20.  n. 
Bull,  Billiop,  V.  :.  n.  192. 
Bullet,  iii.  175.  n. 
Bunyan,  v.  349. 
Burlamaqui,  i.  54. 
Burnet,  ii.  103,  223.  iii.  331. 

iv.  32.  n. 
Butler,  iii.  33 1» 

Caecilius,  iii.  Pre/.  6z. 
Callimacbus,  i.     184.  ».    iii. 

301.  n. 
Calmet,  iv,  154,  ?;.  338.  ».  y. 

14.  n. 
Cardan,  i.  26,  74, 
Carneades,  ii.  116. 
Cafaubon,  i.  200.  ».'2o8.  n,  ii. 

84.  n.  iii.  261.  n, 
Cafiiadoius,  iii.  183. 
Celfus,  i.    139.    ii.    189.    iii. 

Pre/.  53,48.  ».  53.  iv.  188. 
ChasrcrtK/n,  iii.  37.  ;;. 
Charlevoix,  i.  233.  n.  iii  74.  «. 
Charondas,  i.  112,  132. 
Chillingworth,  v.  49. 
Cbryfippus   i.   43.  n.  163.  ii. 

Ill,  157,  161. 
Chryibltom,  ii.  57,  n.   v.  22'?, 

288. 
Chibb,  iv.  305.  ». 
Cicero,  i.  Ded.  11,  iJ.  34,  16. 

».  74.  9>'  9S'  'J6»  '3i> 
140,  171,  18^.  214.  n,  223. 
233>  254,  290.  ii.  35,  61, 


91,  109.  «.  112,  115,  129, 
148.  «,  165,  201,  224,  245, 
288.  iii.  Pre/,  69,  62,  102, 
176,  241 .  «.  V,  360. 
Clarke,  i.  52.  ».  iii.  57.  ». 
iv.  368.  n.  408.  V.  127.  ». 

139; 
Claudian,  i.  24, 
Cleanthes,  ii.  213. 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  i.  114, 

152,    163.    179.   195,  233. 

11.  107.  ;/.  iii.  53,  1 22. 
Cocceius,  iii.  36,  v.  78. 
Codurcus,  V.  35.  n. 
Collins,  i.  Ded.  36.  id.  ^g.id.  43: 

iii.  Ded.  6.  iii.    115.   «.  iv, 

43.  w.  176.  V.  276. 
Condamine,  iii.  174.  k, 
Condillac,  iii.  152.  w.  177.  », 
Craig,  i.  2.  n. 
Crinitus,  iii.  164,  tr. 
Critias,  ii.  248,  293. 
Cudworth,  ii.  203,  211,  245. 
Cumberland,  iii.  22.  n,  79.  n, 

291. 
Cyprian,  i.  ijg. 

Dacier,  i.  255.  «.  ii.  148,  185. 
Daniel,  ii.    13;.    iii.    172.  v. 

225. 
Daubuz,  iii.  192.  ».  195.  ».  v. 

204. 
David,  king,  iii.  172,  iv.  189, 

291.  »,  302. 
De  Choifi,  ii.  46.  ti. 
De  la  Croix,  i.  105.  ti. 
Demetrius  Phalareus,  iii.  loc. 

Democritus,  ii.  223. 

Demollhenes,  ii.  29. 

Dcs  Cartes,  ii.  223,  245. 

Diodofus  Siculus,  i.  104,  io6, 
138,  172,  182,  204.  n.  264, 
ii.  42,  a8i,  295.  iii.  32,  34, 
54.  w,  65,  136,  144,  175, 
209,  257. 

Diogenes  Laeitius,  i.  104.  ii. 
106, 


OF    AUTHORS,    &c. 


106,  125,  128,  144,  233. 

n.  307,  iii.  293. 
Dionyfius    HalycarnafTus,     i, 

187.  ».  289.  ii.  47.  ».  66, 

68. 
Dion  CafTius,  ii.  68. 
Dion  Chryfoftom,  i.  238. 
Dodwell,  ii.  2c8. 
Donatus,  ii.  225. 
Dudley,  Paul,  Efq;  ii.  108.  ». 
Du  Halde,  iii.  86.  ».  189.  ». 

Ebenezra,  iii.  63.  w, 
Egede,  iii.  141.  ».  174.  », 
Elihu,  V.  37. 
Epiftetus,  i.  144.  ii.  213, 
Epicurus,  ii.  107,  149. 
Epifcopius,  V.  162.  «. 
Euhemerus,  ii.  311, 
Eupolemus,  iii.  38.  ». 
Euripides,  i.  146,  148.  «.  230. 

ii.  250.  ».  V.  29.  «.  ig8.  «. 
Eufebius,  i.  97.  «.  165,   176. 

ii.  55,  100.  «.  151,  igo.  ». 

227.  Tt.  294.  iii.  I.  n.  6.  n, 

9,  79.  «.  i57»  227- 

Euftathius,  iii.  79. ». 

Ezekiel,  iii.  17,  109,  119. 
170,  231.  «.  iv.  9,  136, 
138,  202,  268,  289,  30Z, 
329.  V.  245.  «.  280,  317, 
341. 

Ezra,  V.  6S,  80,  86,  88. 

Fabius  Celfus,  i.  264. 

Fabricius,  i.  195. 

Felton,  V.  121. 

Fenton,  iii.  302, 

Fleetwood,    Lieut.    Gen.    ii. 

284. 
Fleuri,  iii.  163.  n, 
Fontenelle,  ii.  99,  183,  283, 
Fourmont,  iii.  99.  «.  198.  », 

236,  281.  K. 
Freret,  iii.  93,  276.  n.  v.  193. 


Gale,  iii.  21.  ».  128.  ». 
Galen,  i.  164.  ii.  94,  no.  iii, 

60. 
Garcillaflb,  iii.  269,  «. 
GafTendi,  ii.  206. 
Gaubil,  iii.  94. 
Geddes,  ii.  150,  ». 
GeofFry     of  Monmouth,  iii, 

175. «. 
Gordon,  iii.  76.  ». 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  i.  145,  ii,' 

Grey,  v,  23.  ».  28.  ».  43,  46. 

ft. 
Gronovius,  ii.  96.  », 
Grotius,  ii.  9.  iii.  173.  iv.  335. 

V.    25,  42.  tr.  56.  H.  10*, 

138,  161,  190,  328. 
Gruter,  ii,  63.  tt. 
Guignes,  iii.  98.  tt. 

Habakkuk,  iii,   179.  v.  I45» 

178.  rr. 
Haggai,  iv.  241. 
Hales,  V.  164.  », 
Hammond,  iii.  22.  «.  v.  ijj," 
Harduin,  v.  415. 
Hare,  iii.  172.  v.  154.  «- 
Heliodorus,  iii.  157. 
Heraclitus,  i.  109.  iii.  113. 
Herbelot,  v.  6.  w. 
Herbert,  Lord,  i.  24. 
Hereclides,  Ponticus,  ii.  307. 
Hermapion,  iii.  135. 
Herodotus,  i.  DeJ.  45,  92,  96, 

173,  249,  tt.  ii,  128.  iii.  17, 

35»  39' 45»  49»  60,  65, 107. 

w.  113.  n.  i<;s,  160,   193, 

201,  207,  260,  278,  320, 

339.  v.  227.  w, 
Hefiod,   i.  65.  iii.  28.  tt.  115. 

«.  143.  n. 
Hezekiah,  iv.  355, 
Hierocles,  ii.  216.  tt,  228. 
Himerius,  i.  279. 
Hieronymus,  ii.  zi,n. 

Hip. 


ALPHABETICAL    LIST 

Julius  Finnicus,  i.  i6i. 
Julius  Hyginus,  i,  268. 
Juflin,  iii.  300. 
Juftin  Martyr,  iv,  173, 
Juvenal,  ii.  41. 


Hippocrates,  ii.  no.  iii.  64.  ». 
Hobbes,  i.  48,  107.  ii.  288. 

iv.  272.  V.  412. 
Holflenius,  iii.  122.  r. 
Homer,  i.  211.  iii.  28.  n.  116, 

»,  242.  n,  330.  n.  iv.  351. 

Hooke,  V.  358.  ». 

Hooker,  i.  9,  i  r.  ».  ii.  321.  iv. 

312.  v._384. 
Horace,  iii.  316. 
Horapollo,  i.  147,  «.  ii.  229, 

».  iii*  75,  131,  168. 
Hofea,  iv.  199,  v.  79,  260.  «. 
Houbigant,  iv.  106.  »,  v.  40, 

45.».  230. ». 
Houteville,  iv.  249. 
Huet,  ii.  133,  188.  iii.  240. », 
Huntingdon,  iii.  147, 
Hard,  vi.  313.  ». 
Hutchinfon,  iii.  307.  «, 
Hyde,  iii.  9.  n. 

Jablonfki,  iii.  303.  », 
Jackfon,  iii.  140. «. 
Jamblichus,  i.    120,   273.   ii. 

lOo,  127,  153,  221,  231. 
Jamefon,  iii.  33.  n.  42.  w, 
Jeremiah,  iv.  23,  116.  ».  189, 

20^,   356.  V.    80.   155.  «. 

328. 
Jerom,  i.  199.  ii.  209,  282.  iii. 

41,  108,  147.  ».  231.  ff. 
Ignatius,  Loyola,  ii.  284. 
Job,  iv.  355. 
John,  V.  225. 
Jofephus,  i.   141,  166.  ii.  150. 

iii.   37.  «.   171.  iv.  204.  n, 

219. 
Jotham,  iii.  169. 
Ifciah,  iii.  33,  n.   193.  ».   iv. 

202,    318.   V.    33,  38,  98, 

121,  Z^"]. 
Ifocrates,  i.  iSj,  /I90.  ii.  14.  «. 

1 10. 
Julian,  ij.  40.  n,  56,  159.  iii. 

Frcf.  4c. 


Kircher,  iii.  70.  n.  76.  ».  85, 
99.  n.  222.  iv.  19. 

Laftantius,  i.  Ded.  30.  ii.  ico. 
jr.  161,    186,   190,  iv.  4.  V. 

tafateau,  iif.  io8.  n. 
Lambert,  Gent.  ii.  284. 
Lambin,  i.  131.  «. 
Lampridius,  ii.  51,  52.  w, 
Lavaur,  ii.  134.  «. 
Law,  Mr,  Wm.  iii.  Fref.  79. 
Le  Clerc,  i.  180,  203.  ii.  51, 

148.  iv.    228.   V.  42,   83, 

162.  «. 
Le  Compte,  iii.  87.  n,  146.  »« 
Leland,  v.  152-. 
Leonard,  iii.  32.  v, 
Leucippus,  ii.  223. 
Limborch,  iii.  Ded,  7.  iv.  280. 

«.  339.  n. 
Levy,  i.  221,  269.  ii.  29,  65, 

281. 
Locke,  i.  Bed.  24.  id.  38,  60, 

209,  ii.  5.  V.  31.  ff.  190. 
Lucan,  iii.  184, 
Lucian,  i.  92,  159,  208,  24!. 

ii.  iiy.n.  164.  iii.  217,  258. 
Lucretius,  ii.  85,  148,  175. 
Lucullus,  i.  195.  ii.  125,  171. 
Lycurgus,  i.  n  i. 

Mabillon,  ii.  53-  «, 
Machiavel,  ii.  12. 
Macrobius,  i.  171,  221,  227, 

296.  ii.  95. 
Magaillans,  iii.  95. 
Mahomet,  i.  222.  ».  ii.  284. 

iii.  1 19. 
Maimonides,  iii.   20,  109.  iv. 

269.  v.  16.  ».  22.  »,  25. 

Mala- 


OF    AUTHORS,    &c. 


Malachi,  v.  72,  79,  87,  326. 
Manafleh  Ben  Ikael,  v.    120, 

141.  ».  160. 
Mandeville,  i.  42.  ».  79.   v. 

369- 
Manetho,   iii.    158,    166,  iv. 

119. 
Mann,  iii.  248. 
Manutius,  ii.  62.  », 
Marcas,  Aurelius,  i,  297^) 
Marinus,  ii.  92.  n. 
Mark,  v.  242.  n. 
Markland,  v.  304. 
Marfham,  i,  (165)  «.  249.  iii. 

21,  32,   165,  183,  iv.  107. 

V.  V.  212.  n,  269. 
Martinius,  iii.  89. 
Matthew,  iv.  309, 
Mead,  iv,  44, 
Melampus,  iii.  54. 
Metrodorus,  ii.  307. 
Meuriius,  i.  1 36,  206. 
Micah,  iii.  179. 
Middleton,  i.  Ded.  22.  ii.  1 19. 

».  iii.  Ded,  3.  «.  iv,  112.  n. 

V.  26,  290. 
Milton,  i.   225,   295.  ii.  38, 

199.  iii.  285, 
Minutius,  Felix,  v.  408, 
Montefquieu,  ii.  13.  «. 
Morgan,  iii.  Ded.  4,  g.  w, 
Molheim,  v.  170.  «. 
Muret,  iii.  277,  ». 

Needham,  iii.  96.  w.  99.  n, 
Nehemiah,  iv.  282.  v.  72,  79, 

86. 
Newton,  i.  98.  ».  ii.  222,  290. 

iv.  29.  ti.  V,  385. 
Nicephorus,  Gregoras,  i.  148. 

n. 
NyfTen,  iii.  io5.  v» 
Numenius,  ii.  152. 

Origen,  i.   139,   192.  «.   199, 
245,  a.  ii,  5  o,  H.  93*  «.  1 20, 


127,  162,  164,  200.  «,  iii. 

Pre/.  53.  iv.  339. 
Orobio,  iii.  Ded.  1 1. 
Orpheus,  ii.  i  26.  • 
Ovid,  i.    203,  216.  ».  229,  «# 

258.  n.  300,  ii,  130. 
Outram,  iv.  374. 

Palaephatus,  ii.  132,  141. 
Parennin,  iii.  94. 
Pafchal,  V.  273. 
Paterculus,  i.  214.  »,  v.  28. 
Paul,  i.  21,  23,  42,  84,   141, 

196,  257.. li.   55.  t>.  235. 

297.  IV.  137,  280.  «.  295, 

308.  V.  4,  120,   133,  145, 

215,  234. 
Paufanias,  i.   140,    174,   178, 

227,  252. 
Pericles,  i.  257. 
Peter,  iv.  308, 
Peters,  iv.  351.  »; 
Petit,  ii.  63.  ».  250.  n. 
Phaedrus,  v.  353. 
Pherecydes,  Syrus,  ii.  126, 
Philo,  iv.  285.  n. 
Philo  Judaeus,  v.  127. 
Philollratus,  i.  195,  252. 
Photius,  i.  141.  w.  307.  ii.  211, 
Pindar,  i.  271. 
Plato,  i.   58.  «.   130.  ».  153, 

156,  185,  2^3.   ii.   100.  n. 

189,   209,   224,  294,  32©- 

iii.  102,  271,  296.  w. 
Plautus,  i.  153.  n. 
Pletho,  i.  273. 
Pliny,  the  elder,  ii.  85,  275.  n, 

iii.  i;2,  55,  62.  n. 
the  younger,  ii.  53.  iii. 

Pref.  -JS- 
Pluche,  i.  161.  ii.  309.  »,  iii, 

239.  r. 
Plutarch,  i.   Ded,  10,  88,  90, 

III,    12!^,  «.   162,  167.  //, 

215,    224,   227.   ii.  43.   ». 

102,  III,  148,  162,;/.  165. 


ALPHABETICAL    LIST 

».   189,  215,  227,   250.  n,  Schultens    v.  43,  66,  78,  82. 

320.  iii.  189.  n.  233,  274,  Scipio  Africanus,  ii.  281.  n. 

298.  Scott,  V.  204,  237. 

Pocoke,  iii,  338,  v.  167.  n.  Scriboniin  Largus,  ii.  90.  «. 

Folybius,  i.  113.  Seneca,    i.   De<:f.    35,    15.    ii. 
Pope,  i.  212.    iii.   228,  298,         loi.  «.  109,    145.  «.  154, 

308,  ft.  163,  213. 

Porphyry,  i.  log,  1 18,  123.  «.  ■  the  Tragedian,  i.  268. 

145,  I57««»  204,  235,  237.  Servetus,  iv.  146. 

zf.  279,  328.  ii.  130.  ».  216,  Servius,  i.  233,  250,  260,  282, 

134.  iii.  122,  199.  ii.  139.  iii.  70. ». 

Pofidonius,  ii.  223.  Severus,  Alex.  ii.  51. 

Pofthumius,  ii,  61.  Sextus  Empericus,   i.   91.    ii. 
Frades  v.  358.  «,  119,  250.  «, 

Prideaax,  iii.   9.    ».    161.  w.  Shaftefbury,  i.  D^ij'.  12.  rV.  25. 

197,  ».  219,  225,  232.  V.         zV.  33.  7J.  40,  41,  42,  ii, 

110.  36,  41,  83,  266.  n.  iv.  52, 

PrQclus,!.  144, 257,  ii.  307.iii.         417.    v.    212.  »,    252.   n» 

107.  ft.  137.  268. 

Pfellus.i.  272.  Shakefpeare,  iii.  143.  ».  180. 

Purchas,  iii.  73.  «.  144.  Shaw,  iii.  189.  ft. 

Pyrrho,  ii.  iig.  Sheringham,  i.   105.  iii.  165. 

Pythagoras,   i.    126.    ii.    106,  Sherlocke,  Bp.  iii.  316.  «.  iv. 

221. iii.  122.  250.  V.  167,  392. 

Shuckford,  iii.  21.  ft.  42.  288. 
Quintilian,  ii.   131.  iii.   Pre/.         v,  iv.  28.  ».  83,  154.  w. 

50,   119,  175.  n.  177. ».  V.  Simon,  F.  i.  176.  iii.  106.  «. 

317.  iv.  228,  360.  «. 

Smallbrooke,  iii.  Pref.  26. 

Rabelais,  ii.  318.  Smith,  iii.  no,  iv.  53. 

Renaudot,  iii.  165,  Socrates,  ii.  89,  115,  iii.  3. 

"Rogers,  iii.  Ded,  3.  «.  Solomon,  iv.  289. 

Rowe,  ii.  37.  ».  Solon,  i.  188.  ii.  320, 

Rubriquis,  ii.  45.  n.  Sopater,  i.  210,  227.  w.  272. 

Rufinus,  iii.  182.  Sophocles,    i.    141,    146.    iv. 
Rutherforth,  iv,  269,  292.  n.         188. 

306.  v.  149,  158. «.  16;.  ff.  Spencer,  iii.   ig.   iv.   25,   83, 

226,  266,  409.  123.  «.  175.  «.  236.  V.  37. 

Spinoza,   i.    1 1 8.  iv.  43,  46. 
St.  Evremond,  i.  217.  ».  273,  330,  338.  n. 

Salluft,  ii.  197.  Stanley,  ii.  211. 

Sanchoniatho,   i.  168.  ii.  298,  Stebbing,  iir.   Ded.   8.   v.    iv. 

3C0,  302.  iii.  78,  193.  212.  '     114.  «.    172.  w.  313.  33i» 

».  127.  349.  ».  353.  «.  V.  146,204. 

Saxo,  Grammaticus,  iii.  276.  w.         ».  214.  n.  292.  323.  «. 

Scaevola,  i.  156.  ».  ii.  91.  Stephen  Martyr,  iv.  39. 

Scarron,  i.  Ded.  \t.  27c.  Stillingflect,  iii.  159,  290. 

Stobxus 


OF    AUTHORS,    &c. 

Stobsus,    i.  112,  280.  ii.  28,  Turbevil,  iii.  g6.  n. 

149,210.  Turnebus,  i.  i3i.n. 

Strabo,  i.    108.  n.    140,   164,  Tyndal,    i.  Ded.   z^.    iil.    5, 

174,  205.  H.  11.84,158.111.  l©7.  ».   1 10.  «.  iv.  33.  a. 

35.  39'  76.  ».  136,  261.  330,  167.  n.  V.  275. 

Strahlenberg,  ill.  74. ». 

Suetonius,  i.  228.  ii.  38.  n.  Valerius  Maximus,  ii.  66. 

Suidas,  i.  114.  ii.  227.  k.  229.  Vane,  Sir  Henry,  11.  284, 

w.  ill.  194.  n.  Vanini,  iv.  317.  n. 

Swift,  u  Ded.  15,20.  Varro,    i.    149.   ii.   91,   127, 
Sykes,  ii.  100.  ».  iSo.iv.  238.         180.  iii.  257.  ». 

».  267,  294.  n.  295.  «.  336.  Vellelus,  i.  161. 

«.  V.  309,  321.  Virgil,  i.  199,  211,  218.  ii. 
Symmachus,  ii.  44.  229. 

Syncellus,  i.  245.  «.  ill.  52.  Vitruvlus,  i.  285.  iil.  106.  r. 

Synefius,  i.  148.  11.  95,  236.  Voltaire,    i.    219.    iii.    g.  n. 
Syrianus,  i-  147.  103.  w. 

Voflius,  il.  310. 

Tacitus,  i.  258.  ii.  45.  «.  50,  Ujceus,  Anthony,  i.  Ded.  g.  n, 

68,  281.  ill.  76.  «.  104.  n. 

225,  231.  n.  257,  275.  ».  Walker,  iii.  112.  ti. 

iv.  iS.  Walter,  11.  "jz.n. 

Tanaqull  Faber,  v,  317.  Waicrland,  iv.  67. 

Tanchum,  Rabbi,  v,  160.  Webftcr,  iii.  Pref.  26. 

Tatian,  ii.  226.  iil.  150.  ».  Whilton,  iv.  281,  346,  n.  v. 
Tavernier,  11.2.  151,  284,  334. 

Taylor  of  Norwich,  iv.   377.  Whitby,  iv.  284. 

Terence,  i.  58.  w.  146.  Wilkins,  iii.  70,  w. 

TertuUian,  i.  145,   178,  243.  Witfius,  iv.  26.  v.  387. 

ii.  210,  237.  iii.  54.  Wollarton,  1.  54.  ii.  10. 

Thales,  ii.  227.  Woolfton,  \.  Dtd.  11. 

Themiftius,  1.  272,  il.  44.  Worceller,  Bp.  of,  i,  Ded.  38, 

Themlftocles,  ii.  92.  n.  Wycherley,  i.  Ded.  12. 
Theodoret,  i.  192.  v. 

Theopompus,  ii.  139.      -  Xenophon,  ii.  no,   115,  151. 
Thucyiides,  v,  j-j. 

Tiberius,  ii.  51.  Zacynthus,  ii.  99.  ». 

Timseus,  ii.  78,143.  Zateucus,  1.  no. 

Toiand,  il.  99,  107,  219,  2S8,  Zechariah,  ill.  n8.  v.  93. 

291.  Zeno,  11.  161. 

Torquatus,  ii.  175.  «•  Zephaniah,  v.  336. 

Tournemine,  iv.  248.  Zeuxis,  iv.  134.  ». 

Trajan,  iil.  Pre/.  49.  Zinzendorf,  Count,  v.  198.  n. 

Trirmegillus,  11.  220,23c.  Zofimus,  i.  140,  18S. 


ERRATA. 

P.  49. 1.  31.  for  it  varies,  read,  l^e  varies, 

P.  78.  1.  13.  for  fl«  Adult erefs.  r.  a  Projlitutc 

P.  89.  I,  II.  for  hey  X. ye. 

P.  127.  1.  15.  for  hear,  r.  here. 

P.  129.  1.  5.  after  early,  r.  mortals. 

P.  169.  1.  31.  for  nx'ttiiis,  r,  /^a/  />f  txants, 

P'  255,  J.  I.  for  <iver</,  r,  njnords. 


V