Full text of "Works"
THE
WO R K S
OF THE
RIGHT REVEREND
WILLIAM WARBURTON.D.D
LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.
A NEW EDITION,
IN TWELVE VOLUMES.
TO WHICH IS PREFIXED
A DISCOURSE BY WAY OF GENERAL PREFACE*,
CONTAINING
SOME ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE, WRITINGS, AND CHARACTER
OF THE AUTHOR j
BY RICHARD HURD,D.D.
LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER.
A>/ .\
VOLUME THE THIRD. \ v V
Printed by Luke Hansard $ Sons, near Lincoln S Inn Fields*
FOR T. CADELL AND W, DAVIES, IN THE STRAND,
1811.
V
CONTENTS
o F
VOL. III.
THE DIVINE LEGATION.
BOOK III.
PROVES THE NECESSITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURli
STATE TO SOCIETY, FROM THE OPINION AND CONDUCT
OF THE ANCIENT SAGES AND PHILOSOPHERS - p. 1
JSECT. I. Testimonies of ancient sages and philosophers,
concerning the necessity of the doctrine of a future state
to civil society _ pp 4 j 12
SECT. II. That none of the ancient philosophers believed
the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments,
though, on account of its confessed necessity to the sup-
pc~t of religion, and consequently of civil society, all
the theistical philosophers sedulously taught it to the
people. The several senses in which the Ancients con
ceived the permanency of the human soul explained.
Several genera] reasons premised, to shew that the
ancient philosophers did not always believe what they
taught, and that they taught the doctrine of a future state
of rewards and punishments without believing it : Where
the principles that induced the ancient sages to make it
Jawful to deceive for public good, in matters of religion
are explained, whereby they are seen to be such as had
no place in tne propagation or genius of the Jewish and
Uinstian religions, in the course of this enquiry, the
rise, progress, perfection, decline, and genius of the
ancient Greek philosophy, under its several divisions, are
considered and explained - - pp. 12 j_ 44
pECT. Ill Enters on a particular enquiry into the senti
ments of each sect of philosophy on this point. The
division and succession of their schools. The character
ot bocrates*, and of the new and old Academy. The ?
character and genius of each sect of the grand Quaternion
of theistic philosophy, the Pythagoric, the Platonic, the
Peripatetic, and the Stoic: shewing that not one of these
believed the doctrine of a future state of rewards and
punishments. The character of Tully, and his sentiments
IV CONTENTS OF THIRD VOLUME.
on tliis point. The original of the ancient fables, and of
the doctrines of tiie Metempsychosis and Metamorphosis,
occasionally enquired into and explained - pp. 43 ^5
"SECT. IV. Shews, h) order to a fuller conviction, that the
ancient philosophers not only did not, but that they
could not possibly believe a future state of rewards and
punishments, because two metaphysical principles, con
cerning the nature of God, and of the human soul, which
entirely overturn the doctrine of a future state of rc-
ivards and punishments, were universally held and be
lieved by all the Greek philosophers. These doctrines
examined and explained: In the course of this enquiry,
the true genius of the ancient Egyptian wisdom ex
plained; and their pretended philosophy, as delivered by
the later Greek writers, shewn to be spurious. The Sec
tion concludes with the use to be made of this remarkable
fact (of the ancient philosophers not believing, and yet
sedulously teaching, a future., state of rewards and punish-
meats) for the support of our main question, pp. 125 208
SECT. V. This account of the ancient philosophy, so far
from being prejudicial to Christianity, that it greatly
credits and recommends it. Proved from t4io mischiefs
that attend those different representations of paganism,
in the two extremes, which the defenders of religion are
accustomed to make : where it is shewn that the diffe
rence in point of perfection, between the ancient and
modem systems of morality, is entirely owing to Christi
anity pp. 208- 215
SECT. VI. The atheistical pretence of religion s being an
invention of statesmen, and therefore false, clearly con
futed, and shewn to be both impertinent and false. For
that, was the Atheist s account of religion right, it would
not follow that religion was/z/se, but the contrary. But
the pretence false and groundless, religion having existed
before the civil magistrate ,\as in being - pp. 215 314
APPENDIX PP-S^ 354
ISOTES - - - PP. 355399
ERRATA:
p. 60. (notej) /or [M] read [N],
p.6 5. (note*) for [P] read [O].
p. 146. 1. 5. for below, read above.
THE
DIVINE LEGATION OF MOSES
DEMONSTRATED.
BOOK III.
SECT. I.
IN the beginning of the last book, I entered upon
the proof of my second proposition ; namely,
THAT ALL ANTIQUITY WAS UNANIMOUS IN
THINKING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE
STATE OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS WAS
NECESSARY TO THE WELL-BEING OF SOCIETY :
And the method I laid down for it, was, 1 . To shew
the conduct of Legislators, and the founders of civil
policy. 2. The opinions of the wisest and most learned
of the ancient Sages.
The CONDUCT OF THE LEGISLATORS hath been
fully examined in the last book.
II. THE OPINION OF THE ANCIENT SAGES,
is the subject of the present.
VOL, III, B THEY
2 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
THEY too, as well as the Lawgivers, were unani
mous in this point, how discordant soever and at
variance amongst themselves, in other matters.
Whatever System of Policy the Historian favour
ed ; whatever Theory of Nature the Philosopher
espoused; THIS always remained an unquestionable
principle: The favourer of arbitrary power deemed
it the strongest bond of blind obedience ; and the
friend of civil liberty, the largest source of virtue
and a public spirit. The Atheist, from the vastness
of its social use, concluded Religion to be but an
invention of State ; and the Theist, from that con
fessed utility, laboured to prove it of divine original.
To give the reader a detail of the discourses,
where this truth is owned and supported, would be
to transcribe Antiquity : for, with this begins and
ends every thing they teach and explain of Morals,
Government, human Nature, and civil Policy. I
shall therefore content myself with two or three
passages, as a specimen only, of the general voice
of ancient Wisdom.
Timasus the Locrian, a very early Pythagorean,
well practised in affairs, and, in Plato s opinion, of
consummate knowledge in philosophy, discoursing
on the remedies to moral evil, after having spoken
r
of the use of philosophy to lead well- tempered
minds to happiness, by teaching the measures of
just and unjust; adds, that, for intractable spirits
civil Society was invented; which keeps men in fear
Sect, i.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 3
by the coercions of Law and Religion: " But if we
" come (says he) to a perverse ungovernable dispo-
" sition, there, punishments should be applied ;
" both those which civil laws inflict, and those
" which the tenors of religion denounce against the
" wicked from above and from below : as, that
" ENDLESS PUNISHMENTS attend the remains of
" unhappy men ; and all those torments, which I
" highly applaud the Ionic poet for recording from
" ancient tradition, in order to cleanse and purify
" the mind from vice *."
That sage historian, Poljbius (whose knowledge
of mankind and civil Government was so cele
brated, that Rome preferred him to the august em
ployment of composing laws for Greece, now
become a province to the republic) speaking of the
excellence of the Roman Constitution, expresseth
himself in this manner : " But the superior excel-
" lenceof this Policy, above others, manifests itself,
" in my opinion, chiefly in the religious notions
" the Romans hold concerning the Gods : that
" thing, which in other places is turned to abuse,
" being the very support of the Roman affairs ; I
" mean THE FEAR OF THE GODS, or what the
a T IK TOIV wfAuv xj a IK TUV hoyuv truvlovx iirayzffa
on
vsplepoif xj la^a, ova k^aivsu rov lowboy
rug kvayeag. Ueft ^vHa$ uwtw. Timaeus, p. 23. in
Opusculis My th. Eth. et. Physicis, Cantabr. 1671, 8vo.
" Greeks
4 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookllL
Greeks call superstition ; which is come to such a
" height, both in its influence on particulars, and
" on the public, as cannot be exceeded. This,
" which many may think unaccountable, seems
" plainly to have been contrived for the sake of the
* Community. I^Jndeed, one were to frame a
" civil Policy only for wise men, it is possible this
u kind of Institution might not be necessary. But
" since the multitude is ever fickle and capricious,.
" full of lawless passions, arid irrational and violent
" resentments, there is no way left to keep them in
" order, but by the terrors of FUTURE PUNISH-
" ME NT, and all the pompous circumstance that
" attends such kind of fictions. On which account
** the Ancients acted, in my opinion, with great
K judgement and penetration,, when they contrived
" to bring in these notions of the Gods, and of a
" FUTURE STATE, into the popular belief; and
" the present age as inconsiderate! y } and absurdly,
" in removing them, and encouraging the multitude
" to despise their terrors. For see now the conse-
" quence : in Greece, the man who is entrusted
" with the public money (to pass by other matters)
" though it be but of a single talent, and though he
" give a ten-fold security in the most authentic form.
" and before twice the number of witnesses which
" the Law requires, cannot be brought to discharge
;f his engagements-} while, amongst the Romans,
" the mere RELIGION OF AN OATH keeps those,
t( who have vast sums of money passing through
" their
Sect. i. ] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 5
" their hands, either in the public administration or
" in foreign legations, iroin the least violation of
" their trust, or honour. And whereas, in other
** places, it is rare to find a man, who can keep his
" hands clean, or forbear plundering his Country ;
" in Rome it is as rare to take any one offending in
" this kind. That every thing which exists is sub-
" ject to mutation and decay, we need not be told;
46 the unalterable nature of things sufficiently informs
" us of this truth. But there being two ways,
* whereby every kind of Policy is ruined and dis-
" solved ; the one from WITHOUT, and the other
" from WITHIN ; that destruction, which cometh
** from without, cannot be constantly avoided by any
* human provision : but then, there are known and
41 efficacious remedies for those evils which arise
41 from within*/
BoJybius
** Mcy/rw 5s (Mi doxs? &a$ogav %iv TO Pcdftcutw
* teyu g rw BifioufMvav* TT TOPXTOV yot% s
rare il (tip- iza auroig f/; re T<J KBIT i&av $1
x TOC, ttoiva TV$ WoAscofj wrs ^r Kxahi XEW -VTreov o
av tsoXhdis iivxi Savftda-iov efAOi y (M\v Jcxacr* ra
TSTO TnsTToiwsvat. Ei /WEV ya^ iiv
yayw, ttyong y&v ?i> avay^^r- o
fc ir<
t X EXW
B 3
6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Polybius says literally, There are two ways by
which a State is brought to dissolution, from without
and from within : that from without is uncertain
and little known ; that from within is known and
certain. By which words he must mean what I
make him to say, as appears by what he imme
diately subjoins, where he shews how the power of
the Great, when degenerated into tyranny, may
be checked by the People : whose opposition to
power produces, as it happens to be well or ill
managed, either the best or worst form of govern
ment, a Democracy or Ochlocracy.
This long passage deserves our attention, and for
many reasons. Polybius was a Greek, and, as all
good men are, a tender lover of his Country, whose
ancient
ra
aura.
xaot TCV
vs$
/av ra 5 l|
lib. vi. c. 54; 55-
wo jucetocv o vw x
&? $ TO>V MVj ol TO, noivot x,
, say rohefflov JMVOV wrsvQuanVy avli
-zsr/r &$ TWfaa* TO xafaxov. Kl
iza
o-carawov rt ra
"On EV av
af carvcrou TTJV
TO /wev IxJof r7ov EX E< " ^
v. E Polyb. Historiaruni;
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 7
ancient glory and virtue were then fast on the
decline, and the Roman mounting to its meridian.
The melancholy reflexions, arising from this view
of things, were always uppermost in his thoughts :
so that speaking here of the great influence which
Religion had on the minds of the Romans, he could
not forbear giving his countrymen a lesson, and
instructing them in what he esteemed the principal
cause of their approaching ruin; namely, a certain
libertinism, which had spread amongst the PEOPLE
o7 CONDITION, who, ashamed of the simplicity
of their Ancestors, and despising the ignorance
of the People, affected a superior penetration, which
brought them to regard, and preposterously to teacb
others to regard, the restraints of religion as illusory
and unmanly. This he confirms by shewing the
strong influence religion hath on the morals of men.
But to understand what follows, of the two ways by
which a state comes to rum, from without and from
rafAw, which seems to be brought in a little abruptly,
we must suppose, that those, to whom the historian
addresses himself, had objected, That It was not a
want of piety amongst themselves, but the force of
the Roman arms without, which had broken the
power of Greece ; and that this disaster they were
patiently to submit to, because all empires have their
stated periods. Let us suppose this, and the politi
cal reflexion on the fall of States will have a high
propriety, and close connection with what preceded.
It is to this effect : " I agree with you, says Poly-
B 4
8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book Iff.
bius, that evils, coming suddenly on a State from
without, cannot be easily warded ; but then, those
arising from within, as they are commonly foreseen,
have their remedies at hand. Now I take our
misfortunes to have proceeded from these : for had
not a neglect of religion depraved the manners
of the Greeks, Rome had wanted both pretence and
inclination to invade us, and Greece would have
continued able to support its own sovereignty :
therefore your trite aphorism of the mutability of
human things is here altogether misapplied."
But had this great man lived only one age later,
lie would have found large occasion of addressing
this very admonition to the Romans themselves;
when the same libertine spirit foreran and con
tributed to the destruction of their Republic ; and
religion had so lost its hold of those, whom, in the
time of Polybius, it so entirely possessed, that
Caesar could dare, in full senate, with a degree of
licence unexampled in Antiquity, to declare, that
the doctrine of a future state of rewards and
punishments was all a groundless notion. This
was a dreadful prognostic of their approaching
ruin.
If this great politician then may deserve credit,
it would be worth while for our People of condition
to look about them, and compute their gains by
such a conduct: those of them I mean, if any such
there be, who profess to love their Country, and yet
as publicly .despise the Religion of it. One of
them,
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 9
them, who did both in an eminent degree, and who
would substitute a TASTE, instead of a future
state, for the government of the world, thus ex-
presseth himself: " Even conscience, I fear, such,
" as is owing to religious discipline, w ill make but
" a slight figure, where this TASTERS set amiss.
" Amongst the vulgar perhaps it may do wonders;
" a devil and a hell may prevail, where a jail and a
" gallows are thought insufficient. But such is the
" nature of the liberal, polished, and refined part
" of mankind ; so far are they from the mere sim-
" plic ity of babes and sucklings, that, instead of
" applying the notion of a future reward or punish-
" ment to their immediate behaviour in society, they
" are apt much rather, through the whole course
* of their lives, to shew evidently that they look on
" the pious narrations to be indeed no better than
" children s talcs and the amusement of the mere
" vulgar*."
I will not now ask, Where was the religion,
but where was the civil prudence of this great
patriot ? For if it be indeed true, as he con
fesses, that amongst the vulgar a devil and a hell
may prevail, where a jail and a gallows are thought
insufficient; why would this lover of his country
take off so necessary a restraint on the manners of
the multitude ? If he says he would not, I ask.,
why then hath he publicly ridiculed it ? Or was it
* Characteristics, vol.iii. p. 177. edit. 3.
indeed
io THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book IIL
Indeed his intention to make all his fellow- citizens
MEN OF TASTP:? He might as well have thought
of making them all LORDS *.
So absurd and pernicious is the conduct of the
Free-thinkers, even admitting them to be in the right.
But if, instead of removing the rubbish of super
stition, they be indeed subverting the grounds of
true religion, what name must be given to this de
gree of madness and impiety ?
On the whole, I fear we are in no right way.
Whether in the Public too we resemble the picture
this sage historian hath drawn of degenerated
Oreece, I leave to such as are better skilled in those
.matters to determine.
The great Geographer, whose knowledge of men
and manners was as extensive as the habitable globe,
speaks to the same purpose: " The multitude in
" society are allured to virtue by those enticing
" fables, which the poets tell of the illustrious
" achievements of ancient heroes, such as the
" labours of Hercules and Theseus ; and the rewards
" conferred by the Gods, for well-doing. So again,
" they are restrained from vice by the punishments,
" the Gods are said to inflict upon offenders, and
" by those f terrors and ihreatnings which certain
" dreadful words and monstrous forms imprint upon
^ their minds; or by believing that divine judge-
* See note [A] at tbe end of this Book.
f See note [B] at the end of this Book.
" merits
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 11
" ments have overtaken evil men. For it is im*
" possible to govern women and the gross body of
" the people, and to keep them pious, holy, and
" virtuous, by the precepts of philosophy: this can
" be only done by the FEAR OF THE GODS; which
" is raised and supported by ancient fictions and
" modern prodigies. The thunder therefore of
Jupiter, the JEgis of Minerva, the Trident of
ef Neptune, the Thyrsus of Bacchus, and the Snakes
" and Torches of the Furies, with all the other
" apparatus of ancient theology, were the engines
." which the Legislator employed, ^ as bugbears, to
" strike a terror into the childish imaginations of
" the Multitude *."
Lastly, Pliny the elder " owns it to be expedient
" for society, that men should believe, that the
" Gods concerned themselves in human affairs;
" and that the punishments they inflict on offen-
ruv vat voteis cixzvlw $ plv woTniv aywlat
rcf$ <?i TUV fjiav, oTav
YI SijJVS/tiEVWV* OIQV "&f(XJ&1S$ a^ASf, Yl r,(TU^ >J
TUV &wv VEfM(AEva$ y sk aKolfOTrw Je, orav KoXzvEi
SEOJV, ^ QoGw, Xj aTTstf&s, YI hot Aoywv, >J o* TUTTUV cuapav TIVUV
<EfOff$Ex t cav f lat, fj xj winvuiri isepTreffw fivctg. O yao o%Aov TC
yvvauwv, xj vraflo$ xvictix ts Xrfa Inayayw *byu ou alcv $i*Qffo$p t
oet
TWO F ax VEV
Strabo, Gcogr, 1. i.
" ders,
12 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
" ders, though sometimes late indeed, as from
" Governors busied in the administration of so vast
" an Universe, yet are never to he evaded *."
Thus He, though an Epicurean; but an Epicurean
in his senses -: from whom we hear nothing of the
mad strains of Lucretius, " That all religion should
1 be abolished, as inconsistent with the peace of
" mankind."
SECT. II.
BUT to give this matter its full evidence, it will
be proper to set together the PUBLIC PROFESSIONS,
arid the PRIVATE SENTIMENTS of the ancient
THEISTICAL PHILOSOPHERS: who, notwithstanding
they were for ever discoursing on the doctrine of
a future state of rewards and punishments, to the
People, yet were all the while speculating in private
on other and different principles. A conduct which
could proceed from nothing, but a full persuasion
that this doctrine was the very vital part of Religion ;
and the only support of that influence, which divinje
worship hath on the minds of the Multitude.
Now, though after reading their history, reflecting
on their characters, and examining their writing*
with all the care I was able, it appeared to me,
* Verum in his Decs agere curam rerum huipanarum
credi, ex usu vitae est; pcenasque maleficiis aliquando
seras, occupato Deo in tanta mole, nunquam autem
irritas esse. Hist. JCat. 1. ii. c. 7.
that
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 13
that these men believed nothing of that future, state
which they so industriously propagated in the world;
and therefore on this, as well as other accounts,
deserved all that asperity of language with which
they are treated by the Sacred writers ; yet the
contrary having been long and generally taken for
granted, and their real opinions often urged by our
ablest divines, as conformable and favourable to the
Christian doctrine of a future state; I suspect that
what I have here said, will be exclaimed against as
an unreasonable and licentious paradox.
But, for all this, I do not despair of proving it a
certain, though an unheeded, truth: and then I shall
hope my reader s pardon for the length of this
enquiry, as it is of no small moment to shew the
sense Antiquity had of the use of a future state to
Society: and as, in shewing that use, I shall be
able to clear up a very important point of antiquity,
doubly obscured, by length of time and perversity
of contradiction.
But, before I enter on the matter, I shall, in order
to abate the general prejudice, explain what is meant
by that FUTURE STATE, which, I suppose, the
THEISTICAL PHILOSOPHERS did not believe. And
this the rather, because the contrary opinion has
continued the longer unquestioned, through the lax
and ambiguous use of the term. Thus, because it
was evident, that all, or most of the theistical
philosophers believed^ as well as taught, the immor
tality, or rather the eternity of the soul, men, tied
down
14 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
down to the associations of modern ideas, concluded
that they believed, as well as taught, the doctrine
of a future state of rewards and punishments.
To make the reader, therefore, master of the
question, it will not be unfit, just to distinguish the
several senses, in which the Ancients conceived the
PERMANENCY of the human soul; and to reserve
the explanation of them, and assignment of them
to their proper authors, for another place.
This permanency was either,
I. A SIMPLE EXISTENCE after this life : Or,
II. EXISTENCE IN A STATE OF REWARD AND
PUNISHMENT, according to men s behaviour here.
Each of these was two-fold.
Simple existence was either,
I. AN IMMEDIATE REFUSION OF THE SOUL,
ON DEATH, INTO THE UNIVERSAL NATURE Ol
TO V *EN, FROM WHENCE IT PROCEEDED : Or,
II. A CONTINUANCE OF ITS SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT EXISTENCE, ON DEATH, FOR A CERTAIN
PERIOD, BEFORE ITS REFUSION INTO THE TO?
*EN, IN A SUCCESSIVE TRANSITION THROUGH VA
RIOUS ANIMALS, BY A NATURAL AND FATAL,
NOT MORAL DESIGNATION.
Existence in a state of rewards and punishments
was either,
I. A STATE OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS,
IMPROPERLY so CALLED; WHERE HAPPI
NESS
Sect, 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 15
NESS AND MISERY WERE THE NATURAL AND
NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES OF VIRTUE AND
VICE ; NOT POSITIVELY SO, OR BY THE FREE
DESIGNATION OF WILL I Of,
II. A STATE OF REWARDS AND PUNISH
MENTS, PROPERLY so CALLED ; WHERE THE
HAPPINESS AND MISERY CONSEQUENT ON VIR
TUE AND VICE, WERE THE POSITIVE AND FREE
DESIGNATION OF WILL, AND NOT THE NECES
SARY CONSEQUENCES OF THINGS.
The LAST is that notion of a future state, so-
useful to Society, which all the Lawgivers, Priests,.
and Philosophers publicly taught and propagated ;:
and which the People throughout the whole earth
universally believed. Of this, the METEMPSY
CHOSIS was, generally, a part; and, what is more,,
continues to be so to this very clay, amongst the
civilized Gentiles of the East.
It is A FUTURE STATE, then, OF REWARDS and*
PUNISHMENTS IN GENERAL, and particularly the
second and proper notion of it (for as to thejirsf r
it was peculiar to the Platpnists) which I pretend to.
prove the ancient Philosophers did not believe.
But before I proceed to explain the principles
of each sect, it will not be improper to premise
those GENERAL REASONS, which induced me to
think that the Philosophers did not always believe
what they taught : And that they taught this doc
trine without believing it. And as the reader s chief
prejudice, on this point, ariseth from the Philo
sophers*
t6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book lit
sophers having talked and written so much in
behalf of a future state of rewards and punish
ments; the three first of the following general
reasons will shew, i. That they all thought it lawful
to say one thing, and think another. 2. That they
perpetually practised what they thus professed to be
lawful And 3. That they practised it on the very
point in question.
I. Myjirst general reason was, that the ancient
Sages held it lawful, for the public good, to say one
thing when they thought another.
We have described the times of Antiquity very
ill, if it doth not appear, from what is here said,
that each People had the most religious regard to
the laws and constitutions of their country. What
raised this veneration (natural to all men, accus
tomed to a form of Policy) to such a height, was
the popular prejudice in favour of their original.
For, we have seen, the Founders pretended to
receive their respective institutions from some
PATRON GOD. At the time, they received the
civil policy, they established the national religion;
whose principal rites were objective to the patron
God; which gave occasion to the PUBLIC PART OP
RELIGION, explained above: whereby, the State, as
such, became the subject of religious worship.
This making the national Religion one of the
most necessary and essential parts of civil govern
ment, it would become a general raaiim, not only
of
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 17
of mere politicians, but of all the best and wisest
of those times, THAT EVERY ONE SHOULD CON
FORM TO THE RELIGION OF HIS COUNTRY. We
see, by the behaviour of SOCRATES himself, how
much men were possessed with the fitness and im
portance of this rule. That excellent man, who
made it the business of his life to search out, and
expose the errors of human conduct, was most
likely to detect the folly of this general prejudice.
Yet when he comes to his defence before his judges;
a defence, in which he was so scrupulous that he
rejected what his friends would have added of con
fessed utility to his service, because not strictly
conformable to that truth, by which he squared the
rectitude of his life ; when he comes, I say, to
answer that part of the charge which accuses him
of attempting to overturn the popular Divinities,
he declares it, in the most solemn manner, as his
opinion, that every one should adhere to the Reli
gion of his country *. If it should still be sus
pected, that this was only said, as it made best
for his defence, let us follow him in his last moments,
retired amidst his philosophic friends and followers;
and there we shall find him still true to this great
principle, in a circumstance which hath much
distressed, and still distresses, modern critics to
;i
account for I mean the requesting his friends to
sacrifice a cock to Jisculapius a piece of devotion,
* See note [C] at the end of this Book,
VoL.IIL
18 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III
on some account or other, no matter what, due
from him, according to the customs of his country,
which he had neglected to perform *.
But for all this, no one the least conversant in
antiquity, will, I suppose, take it into his head that
these Sages, because they held every one should
adhere to the religion of his country, did not there
fore see the gross errors of the national religions.
Why then (it may be asked) was this strange vio
lation of truth amongst men who employed all their
studies to evince the importance of it, in general,
to happiness ?
The explanation of the riddle is easy : the
GENIUS of their national religions, consisting rather
in the performance of Rites of Worship than in the
profession of Opinions, taught them to conclude,
THAT UTILITY AND NOT TRUTH WAS THE END
OF RELIGION. And if we attentively consider
those religions (formed in subserviency to the State)
as is occasionally explained in the several parts of
this work, we shall not much wonder at their con
clusion. And then not rightly distinguishing between
particular and general UTILITY ; between that
which ariseth from the illegitimate, and legitimate,
administration of civil policy, they universally em
braced this other false conclusion, THAT UTILITY
AND TRUTH DO NOT COINCIDE f. From this
* See note [D] at the end of this Book,
f See the contrary proposition proved, towards the
"beginning of the sixth lection of the third book.
latter
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 19
latter principle, a third necessarily arose, THAT IT
WAS LAWFUL AND EXPEDIENT TO DECEIVE FOR
THE PUBLIC GOOD. This all the ancient Philo
sophers embraced : and Tully, on the authority of
Plato, thinks it so clear, that he calls the doing
otherwise NEFAS, a horrid wickedness. The famous
Scaevola, the Roman Pontiff, frankly declares his
opinion (as St. Austin tells us) " that Societies
" should be deceived in religion *." The last men
tioned author goes on : " Varro, speaking of
* religions, says plainly, that there are many
" TRUTHS which it is not EXPEDIENT the vulgar
" should know ; and many FALSEHOODS which yet
" it is useful for the people to receive as truths f."
Upon which the Father remarks, " Here you have
" the whole arcana of state ;." Nothing shews
more strongly, that, not truth, but utility, ruled all,
in Paganism, than the case Livy mentions, of what
happened in the 573 d year of Rome. Some con
cealed books of Numa were discovered ; which, on
examination by the proper officers, being found to
* Expedire sxistimat falli in religione civitates. De
Civ. Dei, 1. iv. c. 10.
t Varro de religionibus loquens, evidenter dicit,
multa esse VERA, quse vulgo scire non sit TJTILE ; mul-
taque, quae tametsi falsa sint, aliter existimare populum
expediat.
J Hie certe totum consilium prodidit SAPIENTJUM,
per quos civitates & populi regerentur.
c 2
20 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
be injurious to the established Worship, were
ordered, by Authority, to be burnt. Not one word is
objected to them as containing any falsehood ; on
the contrary, they were treated at their execution with
the utmost reverence and respect ; and the fire was
lighted by the sacred Ministers who served at the
Altar. - As we go along, we shall find this maxim
^universally received by the t heist ical Philosophers.
I would only observe, that it appears from hence,
that the principles, which induced the ancient Sages
to deem it lawful to LIE or deceive for the public
<*ood had no place in the nature, or in the con-
i 1 ^
sonant propagation of the JEWISH and CHRISTIAN
religions.
II. My second general reason was, tfiat the an
cient Sages did actually say one thing when they
thought another. This appears from that general
practice in the Greek Philosophy, of a TWOFOLD
DOCTRINE; the EXTERNAL and the INTERNAL?
a vulgar and a secret. The first openly taught
to all; and the second confined to a select number.,
If this needed any other proof than what is given
above, it might be supported by the very language
used in speaking of the philosophers tit
t* ^ ow w ^ at initiation or what mystery
could there be in a sect that had nothing to hide
from the Many, nothing to communicate to the
* Marinus in vita Prodi. t Theorist, in Patr. ok
Tew?
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 21
Few ? And how, but by saying one thing and
thinking another, could such a system be supported ?
Nor were they different doctrines or subjects, but
one and the same, handled differently; popularly
and scientifically; viz. according to OPINION, or
according to TRUTH *.
PARMENIDES, we are told, had two doctrines
concerning the nature of the universe ; one, in which
lie taught that the world had been made, and would
be destroyed*, another, in which he said, it was
tmgenerated, and would never be dissolved; and
that the first was his PUBLIC, and the second was
his PRIVATE teaching f .
That PLATO followed the same practice, we learn
from his own words, who, in a letter to his friends,
says, according to Dr. Bentley s translation +, " As
u for the symbol or private note you desire, to know
" my serious letters, and which contain my real
(( sentiments from those that do not, know and
" remember that GOD begins a seripus letter, and
* GODS one that is otherwise ." Now had not
* See note [E] at the end of this Book.
t See note [F] at the end of this Book.
J See the Doctor s Remarks on the Discourse of
Free-thinking, Sec.
TS yj(x8 T8 zcr^t T$ STTifoha;, o<raj rs ay
inOTAH KAI O2A2 AN MH, ofcai ply <rs
opus zvvosj, > wow uT^oVf^e Toy vsv* izoXhoi yocp
oi Ketei/ovlsg ypatpsiv, ol$ % j>x$iov (pavegus Siwteur&w* r>5; (/.sv yap
ol $s iH$ vtfov. Ep. xiii,
c 3 Plato
22 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Plato used the exoteric doctrine, or delivered things
not corresponding to the real sentiments of his mind,
what occasion had his friends to desire this private
mark or symbol to know when he was in earnest?
GALEN says, " Plato declares that animals have
{ constantly a soul, which serves to animate and
" inform their bodies : as for stones, wood, and
" what we commonly call the inanimate parts of
" the creation; all these, he says, are quite destitute
" of son!. And yet in his Timceus, where he
explains his principles to his disciples and select
friends, he there oives up the common notion,
" declare:- that there is a soul rJIfFused through the
" univu se, uhichis to actuate and pervade every
" part of it. Now u c arc not to imagine that in
" this c .7,vf: he u INCONSISTENT with himself, or
" mainiaim contrary doctrines, any more than
" Aristotle and Thtophrastus are to be charged
. " Kith ccrtt n titctioH, when they delivered to their
" Jji^-i^les t/ittr acrcatic doctrines, and to the
principles of another nature*" And,
avTGi; |Ui]/i%a f^sv an hsyev ra u&, TX$ Ai fa^ ^
ra &&, ? MxQpte Qaw TO. Qurct izavla, rwy
sivcti <pww otidl orzv iv Tipou TVJV (pvffww
oycig owa-
TOV
avfyog tauTM roivotvlia i&yovi , u<r?ref aS* Apirolete$ ^
r, TO, (WEv foTg tzoXho7$ yeyfaQowv, ?#$ ^ axfoz<7i$ roi$
. Galeni De substantia naturalium facultatum
fnigineiitum,
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 23
in the communication of their acroatics or arcane
opinions, the philosophers were as cautious as
the teachers of the Mysteries were in theirs: and
set about it with the same solemnity *.
SYNESIUS, a thorough Platonist, and scarce
more than half a Christian, who perfectly well
understood all the intrigues of Pagan philosophy,
delivers it as the plain consequence of the practice
of the double doctrine, " that philosophy, when it
" has attained the truth, allows the use of LIES
<f AND FICTIONS f,"
After this, it will hardly need to be observed,
That their external doctrine was, either the in
vention of fables, or the propagation of what they
held to be false : and their internal, the delivery
of what they held, or discovered, to be the truth : j
Yet because a remarkable passage of MACROBIUS
will, together with the proof of this point, tend to
the further illustration of the general subject we are
upon, I shall give it at large. " Yet it is to be
u understood (says this author) that the PHILO-
" SOPHERS did not admit into every kind of dispu-
<< tation, the false and fabulous, whether of their
* And in the same form of words :
So, Porphyry in Eusebius introduces his internal
doctrines,
f NSj ai> pAoVop- In-o wv T<if cvw? T?
. Epist. cv.
c 4 " own
24 THE DIVINE LEGATION. [Book III.
c own invention or of public allowance * but only
c in those works which treated of the SOUL, or of
f ETHERIAL POWERS, Or of the OTHER GOPS f.
But when their discourse ventured to raise itself
: to GOD, the origin and principle of all things,
Him whom the Greeks call the GOOD and the
1 FIRST CAUSE; or, to MIND J; which the Greeks
< call NOTE, the offspring of the supreme God,
1 which contains the original species of things
: The text says, fabulosa vel licit a. The two last
words are found in all the old editions : the more
modern, for an obvious reason, dropt them. Gronovius
:akes notice of the fraud, and restores them to their
place; but, in order, finally, to degrade them, on a fair
hearing : which he does, and puts velfcta in their place.
But licita is, I believe, Macrobius s own word, and
signifies, those theological fables allowed of by public
authority. So thztfabulosa vet licita means, either suck
fables as the philosophers invented, or such as they bor
rowed from the popular belief.
t The text says de atriis atheriisve potestatibus ; by
which the author means, the first natural Gods of Gen-
tilism, the heavenly bodies- as by- -vel de ceteris Di s ,
he means, the second class of false gods, dead mm
deified.
admentem. By mind, the author here means
the third hypostasis of the Platonic trinity, called rife
or A0V-. For he takes his example, of what he says,
of the conduct of the philosophers, from Plato ; and
illustrates an observation of his own, in this place, by
a passage in that philosopher.
4 " called
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 25
" called ideas; when these things, I say, MIND and
" the SUPREME GOD, are the subject, then all fable
" and falsehood is banished from the discourse.
" ButNstill let us observe, that if, on these subjects,
" their discourse leads them to inculcate doc-
" trines, which not only exceed the power of
" speech, but even human ideas and cogitations,
" they then fly to allusions, similitudes, and figures.
" But then again, on the other hand, when the
" discourse is of the first kind, that is, concerning
" the GODS and the HUMAN SOUL, where fable
" and falsehood are employed, the philosophers
" have had recourse to this method, not out of an
" idle or fantastic humour, or to please their au-
" dience by an agreeable amusement ; but because
" they know that a naked and open exposition of
" NATURE * is injurious to her ; who, as she hides
" the knowledge of herself from gross and vulgar
" conceptions, by the various covering and dis-
" guise of Forms, so it is her pleasure, that her
" priests, the Philosophers, should treat her secrets
" in fable and allegory. And thus it is even in the
" sacred Mysteries, where the secret is hid, even
* quia sciunt iwimcam esse nature apertam nudamque
expositionemqm sui. He alludes here to the danger of
explaining openly the physical nature of the heavenly
bodies, because it would unsettle one half of vulgar
polytheism. So Anaxagoras was accused, and some say
convicted, of a capital crime, for holding the sun to be
a mere material mass of fire.
" from
26 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book IIL
" from the initiated, under figurative and sccnical
" representations*. And while princes and magis-
" trates only, with Wisdom j* for their guide, are
" admitted to the naked truth J; the rest may be
" well content with outside ornaments, which, at
" the same time that they excite the beholder s
" reverence and veneration , are contrived to
" secure the dignity of the secret, by hiding it
" under that cover from the knowledge of the
" Vulgar ||." The first observation I shall make on
this
* figurarwn cuniadis operiuntur, i. e. cuniculis
jiguranm ad representationem aptis. It alludes to the
allegorical shows of the mysteries represented in sub-
terraneous places.
-j- Sapicntia interpret?; Wisdom is here put into
the office of hierophant of the mysteries, who instructed
the initiated in the secret.
J summatibus tantum viris veri arcani consciis. By
these Macrobius means, heroes, princes, and legislators :
alluding to their old practice of seeking initiation into,
the greater mysteries.
^ Contenti sint reliqui ad venerationem figuris, 8cc. is
equivalent to (Contenti sint reliqui aptis venerationl
jfiguris.
|| Sciendum est tamen non in omnem disputationem
philosoplios adrnittere fabulosa vel licita, sed his uti
solent, vel cum de AN IMA, vel de aeriis atkeriis cepotest-f
atibus, vel de ceteris Dis, loquuntur. Ceterum cum ad
sitmmum et principem omnium Deum, qui apud Grsecos
nxya&Vy qui ispurov amov nuncupatur, tractatus se audet
attollerc j vel ad mentem quam Grseci vw appellant,
originalei
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 27
this long passage is, that the SAME SUBJECT,
namely, the nature of superior beings, was handled
in a TWOFOLD manner; exoterlcally ; and then
the discourse was of the national Gods: esoterically;
and then it was of the first Came of all things.
2. That the exoteric teaching admitted fable and
falsehood, fabulosa vel Helta : the esoteric only what
the teacher believed to be true, nihil fabulosum
penitus. 3. That what was taught the Vulgar
concerning the HUMAN SOUL was of the exoteric
kind. 4. That the teaching of fables was one
thing ; and the teaching in fables, or by figurative
expressions, quite another : the first being the cover
of error ; the second the vehicle of truth : that
the
originates rerum species, quse ftecu dictsc sunt, continen-
- tern, ex summo natam et profectam Deo : cum de his,
inquain, loquuntur, summo Deo et mente nihil fabulosum
penitus attingunt. Sed si quid de his assignare conantur,
que non sermonem tantuminodo, sed cogitationem
quoque humanam superant, ad similitudines et exempla
confugiunt De Diis autem, ut dixi, ceteris, et de anima
non frustra se, nee, ut oblectent,ad Fabulosa convertunt;
sed quia sciunt inimicam esse naturae apertam nuclam-
que expositionem sui: qure sicut vulgaribus hominum
sensibus intellectual sui vario rerum tegmine operimen-
toque subtraxit; ita a prudentibus arcana sua voluit
per fabulosa tractari. Sic ipsa mytteria figurarmn
cuniculis operiuiitur, ne vel hasc adeptis nuda rerum
talium se natura praebeat : sed summatibus tantum
viris, Sapientia interprete, veri arcani consciis ; con
tend sint reliqui ad venerationem figuris defendentibus
g vilitate secretum. In Somn. Scip. lib. i. c. a.
*8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
the passions and prejudices of men made thejirst
necessary; that the latter became unavoidable,
through the weakness of human conception. This
distinction was useful and seasonable, as the not
attending to it, in those late times, in which Macro-
jbius wrote, was the occasion of men s confounding
these two ways of teaching with one another.
From all this it appears, that a right conception
of the nature of the DOUBLE DOCTRINE was
deemed the TRUE KEY to the ancient Greek Phi
losophy.
On which account several writers of the lower
ages composed discourses ON THE HIDDEN DOC
TRINES OF THE PHILOSOPHERS*. But as these,
which would have given much light to the subject,
are not come down to us, we must be content to
feel out our way to the original and end of the
double doctrine as well as we are able. For it is
not enough, that this method of teaching was gene
ral amongst the Greek philosophers: to bring it to
our point, we must prove it was invented for the good
of Society.
The original is little understood. It hath been
generally supposed owing either to a barbarous love
of mystery ; or a base disposition to deceive.
Toland, who made it the study of a wretched life,
to shed his venom on every thing that was great and
* Zacynthus scripsit to, aTropf-nIa, TWJ QitotroQieq, refer
rente Laertio, Porphyrius toSv QtoHrfyuv ?a ano^cc,
teste Eunapio in ejus vita.
respectable,
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 29
respectable, sometimes * supposes this double doc
trine the issue of craft and roguery; at other times,
a grave and wise provision , against the bigotry and ;
superstition of the vulgar. And a different sort of
man, the celebrated Fontenelle, when lie calls
mystery, which is the consequence of the double
doctrine, the apanage of barbarity, does as little
justice to Antiquity.
I shall shew first, that those, from whom the
Greeks borrowed this method of philosophising,
invented it for the service of Society. And secondly \
that those who borrowed it, employed it for that
purpose; however it might at length degenerate into
craft and folly t-
First, then, it is confessed by the Greeks them
selves, that all their learning and wisdom came from
Egypt; fetched from thence either immediately by
their own Philosophers, or brought round to- them by
the Eastern Sages, by the way of Asia. In this, the
Greeks are unanimous. Now Herodotus, Diqdorus-
Siculus, Strabo, Plutarch, all testify that the Egyp
tian priests, with whom the learning of the place
resided, had a TWOFOLD PHILOSOPHY, the one
hidden and sacred, the other open and vulgar J.
* See his Tetradymua, in what he calls, Of tW
Exoteric and Esoteric Philosophy.
f See note [G] at the end of this Book.
o; iVpBf ATO AoroTS ^ofe & > *& \*fa ?
o tie epQaAf % ?$^$SK Hfgi 1^. ^ Q<rif>.
T*
30 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
To know their end in this way of teaching, we
must consider their character. yElian tells us *,
that in the most early times, the Priests, amongst
the Egyptians, were Judges and Magistrates. So
that the care of the People must needs be their
chief concern under both titles : and as well what
they divulged as what they concealed, must be
equally for the sake of Society. Accordingly we
find them to have been the first who taught an in
tercourse with the Gods, a future state of rewards
and punishments, and initiation into MYSTERIES,
instituted for the support of that belief: The
aVcpprfl^ of which was the doctrine of the UNITY.
Plutarch assures us of this truth, where he tells
us, that it was chiefly to their Kings and Magistrates,
to whom the SECRET doctrines of the College were
revealed. " The Kings were chosen (says he)
" either out of the priesthood, or the soldiery :
" as this order for their valour, and that for their
" wisdom, were had in honour and reverence. But
" when one was chosen out of the soldiery, he was
" forthwith had to the college of the Priests, and
" instructed in their secret philosophy; which in-
" volves many things in fables and allegories, where
" the face of truth is seen, indeed ; but clouded and
" obscured |-"
And
* Var. Hist. 1. xiv. c. 34.
f* O? 31 Pa<rite~s ayr&eiwuvlo (Av IK ruv tyetav vi TV (tax ipuvy
TS /WEV di avtyiav, TS tie 5ia cropiav, yv<; a%iu(A&, y^ TIJMIV
sv&v{ tyivtlo ruv
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 31
And in the same manner, and with the same view,
the MAGI of Persia, the DRUIDS of Gaul, and the
BRACHMANS of India, the genuine offspring of the
Egyptian priests, and who, like them, shared in the
administration of the state, had all their external
and internal doctrines *.
What hath misled both ancient and modern
writers to think the double doctrine to be only a
barbarous and selfish craft of keeping up the re
putation of the teacher, was a. prevailing opinion,
that moraljigd natural truths were concealed under
the ancient fables of the Gods and Heroes. For
then, these fables must have been invented by the
ancient Sages ; and invented for the sake of explain
ing them, and nothing more. So the learned
Master of the Charter-house, taking it for granted
that the Sages were the inventors of the ancient
mythology, concludes that one of these two things
was the original of the double doctrine : : It arose
" either from the genius of Antiquity, especially of
" the Orientalists; or else from the affectation of
" making important things, difficult, and not easily
" understood at first sight f." But that way of
allegorizing
rn$
;. ^ OS. Steph. ed.
* Orig. cont. Celsurn, 1. i.
f Sive id factum fuerit pro ingenio priscornm honu-
num, maxime orientalium ; sive ut ea, quro pulclu-a
erant, difficilia redderent, neque priijiQ ifttuitii
Archseol. FUU. L i, c, 3.
32 TtfE DIVINE LEGATION [Book IIL
allegorizing the ancient fables was the invention of
the later Greek philosophers. The old Pagan mytho
logy was only the corruption of historical tradition;
and consequently arose from the People; whose
follies and prejudices occasion the double doctrine
^
to be employed for their service. But what it was
that facilitated its use, we shall see hereafter, when
we come, in the fourth book, to speak of the Egyp
tian HIEROGLYPHICS.
Secondly, We say, the Greeks, who borrowed
this method of the double doctrine, employed it,
like the Egyptians, who invented it, TO THE USE OF
SOCIETY.
1 . The first who went out of Greece to learri
Egyptian wisdom, were the LEGISLATORS : Or such
as, projecting to reduce the scattered tribes, which
then overran Greece, into civil Society, travelled
thither to learn the ART of LAWGIVING, from a
nation ,f be most celebrated for that knowledge.
Of these, were Orpheus, Rhadamarithus, Minos,
Lycaon, Triptolemus, and others; who concerned
themselves with nothing of the Egyptian wisdom,
but their public morals or Polities , and received the
double doctrine along with it; as appears from their
instituting the MYSTERIES (where this doctrine, was
practised) in their several civil establishments.
2. The next sort of men who went from Greece
to Egypt for instruction (though the intercourse of
the Lawgivers with Egypt was not interrupted, but
continued
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 33
continued clown to the times of Draco, Lycurgus,
and Solon) were the NATURALISTS; who, through
out their whole course, bore the name of SOPHISTS.
For now Greece being advanced from a savage and
barbarous state, to one of civil Policy, the inha
bitants, in consequence of the cultivation of the arts
of life, began to refine and speculate. But physics
and mathematics wholly ingrossed the early sophists,
such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xeno-*
phanes, Parrrfenides, and Leucippus. For as these
studies were managed systematically and fitted to
the vain and curious temper of that people, this, as
the post of honour, would be first seized upon.
Besides, Greece being at this lime over-run with
petty TYRANTS *, the descendants of their ancient
HEROEs,~IFwas found unsafe to turn their specu
lations upon morals ; in which politics were con
tained, and made so eminent a part. All then that
this second class of Adventurers learnt of the
Egyptians, was PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL
KNOWLEDGE : and as, in the Cultivation of this
there was little occasion for, so their character of
mere Naturalists made them have less regard to, the
double doctrine. And in effect, we find little men
tion of it amongst the first Greek Sophists, who
busied themselves only in these enquiries.
Je yftogtoK Ty$ Etoad* x ruv
sv Toiiq woAw Kc^iravloy TUV <57^oc r oSwv (ASI&VUV
Hist. 1. i
VOL, III. D 3. The
34 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
3. The last sort of people, who went to Egypt
for instruction, were the PHILOSOPHERS, properly
so called. A character exactly compounded of the
two preceding, the Lawgiver and the Naturalist.
For when now, after various struggles, and revolu
tions, the Grecian States had asserted, or regained
their liberties, MORALS, public and private, would
become the subject most in fashion. From this
time, the Grecian Sages became violently given to
Legislation, and were actually employed in making
laws for the several emerging Common-wealths :
Hence Aristotle observed, that " the best Law-
" givers in ancient Greece, were amongst the
" middle rank of men." The first (as well as most
famous) of this class, and who gave philosophy its
name and character, was PYTHAGORAS. He, and
Flato, with others, travelled into Egypt, like their
predecessors. But now having joined in one, the
t\vo different studies of Politics and Philosophy, a
slight tincture of Egyptian instruction would not
serve their purpose : to complete their Character,
there was a necessity of being thoroughly imbued
with the most hidden wisdom of Egypt. Accord
ingly, the Ancients tell us *, of their long abode
there ; their hard condition of admittance into the
sacred Colleges ; and their bringing away with then*
all the secret science of the priesthood. The result
of all was, and it is worth our observation, that,
* Porph. devita Pythag. Strabo de Platonc, 1. xvii.
Gcogr. Origin. Comm. in Ep. ad. llom. c. iii.
4 iron*
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, .35
from this time, the Greek Sophists (now called
Philosophers) began to cultivate the belief of a
future state of rewards and punishments, and, at
the very same time, the practice of the double doc
trine : which two principles were the distinguishing
badges of their Character.
Thus, by an intimate acquaintance with the
Egyptian priesthood, the Greeks, at length, got
amongst themselves a new species of SAGES, whose
character much resembled that of their masters.
But with this difference, that amongst the Egyptian
Priests (and so amongst the Magi, the Brachmans,
and the Druids) Philosophy was an appendix to
Legislation ; while amongst the Greeks, Legislation
was but the appendix to Philosophy. For philo
sophy was the jm acquest of the Greek Sages ;
and legislation, of the Egyptian. There was yet
another difference ; which was, that, in the Greek
Sophist, the two characters of LEGISLATOR and l_ (
PHILOSOPHER were always kept distinct, and con
ducted on the contrary principles : whereas in the
Egyptian Priest, they were incorporated, and went
together. So th at in Greece, the hidden doctrine of
the Mysteries, and the aVop pVa of the Schools,
though sometimes founded by one and the same
person, as by Pythagoras, were two very different
things ; but in Egypt, still one and the same.
Greece was now well settled in popular Com*
munities ; and yet this legislating humour still con
tinued. And when the Philosophers had no more
D 3 work,
36 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
work, they still kept on the trade ; and from
practical, became speculative Lawgivers. This gave
birth to a deluge of visionary Republics, as appears
from the titles of their works preserved by Diogenes
Laertius ; where, one is always as sure to find a
treatise De legibus., or De republica, as a treatise,
De deo, De anima, or De mundo.
But of all the sects, the Pythagoreans and Pla-
tonists continued longest in this humour. The
Academics and Stoics, indulging to the disputatious
genius of the Greek philosophy, struck out into a
new road ; and began to cultivate the last great
branch of philosophy, LOGIC; especially the Stoics,
who, from their great attachment to it, were sur-
named Dialectici.
The reader hath here a short view of the pro
gress of the GREEK PHILOSOPHY ; which Plato
aptly divided into PHYSICS, MORALS, and LOGIC*.
We have shewn that this was the order of their
birth : the study of physics and mathematics began
while Greece groaned under its petty tyrants :
morals public and private arose with their civil
liberties: and logic, when they had contracted a
habit of disputation and refinement.
But when now the liberties of Greece began to
be again shaken by Tyrants of greater form arid
power, and every nobler province of Science was
, H0IKON, AIAAEK-
TiKON. Diog. Laert. .Prorcm. 18,
already
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED 37
already possessed and occupied by the Sects above
mentioned ; some ambitious men, as EPICURUS,
attempted to revive the splendor of ancient PHYSICS
by an exclusive cultivation of them ; rejecting
LOGIC, and all the public part of MORALS, Politics
and Legislation : and, with them, in consequence,
(which deserves our notice) the use of the DOUBLE
DOCTRINE *, as of no service in this reform. *An
evident proof of its having been employed only for
the sake of Society : for were it, as Toland and
his fellows pretend, for tkeirjywn, it had found its
use chiefly in Physics ; because the celestial bodies
being amongst the popular Gods, enquiries into
their physical essence would hardly escape the
public odium : Plutarch tells us how heavily it fell
both on Protagoras and Ariaxagoras f. Notwith
standing this, the first and the last of the Sophists,
* Clemens Alex, indeed (Strom. 5.) says, that " the
" Epicureans bragged they had their secrets which it
" was not lawful to divulge;", but this was only arro
gating to themselves a mark of Philosophy, which
those, to whom it really belonged, had made venerable.
f- O ya$ TST^WT^- <ra<perofiov ye vsavlwv
Kottavhtppfiv > PKIXS hoyw si$ y$a<p
ST ai/ros w watafoj, STE o AoV^H v3b|-, ato otTrop
srt, y^ $i oXiyuv, ^ /CCET ewAaC e/aj Ttvoj ri islrms {3adi$cw. a yao
weix,ovlo raj <pu<rix%$ Xy {Ailsugoteaxag TOTE KCX^^EVH^ wj /j airici$
faoyxs xj $vvdfti$ a7rpQvoY)TU$ ^ Kulmo^KCiff^a wafa dicclplGGvlag
TO SsTov XX xj Upulctyoga; tipvye ^ Ava&yogav elpxflevlat po^g
. Vit. Nicise.
D 3 who
38 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
who dealt only in Physics, equally rejected the
double doctrine. While on the other hand, the legis
lating philosophers employed this very doctrine
even in natural enquiries. We are told, that Pytha-
goras s popular account of earthquakes was, that
they were occasioned by a synod of ghosts assem
bled under ground *. But Jamblicus t informs
us, that he sometimes predicted earthquakes by the
taste of well-water J.
It appears then, on the whole, that the double
doctrine was used for the sake of Society ; their high
notions of which made them conclude the practice
not only to be innocent, but laudable : whereas,
were the motive either love of mystery^ of fraud,
or of themselves, it cannot be reconciled to any
of their several systems of private morals.
III. My third general reason was, that the
ancient Sages seemed to practise the DOUBLE DOC
TRINE, in the point in question. I have observed,
that those Sects which joined legislation to philo
sophy, as the Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics,
and Stoics, always professed the belief of a future
state of rewards and punishments : while those,
who simply philosophised, as the Cyreniac, the
Cynic, and the Democritic, publicly professed the
* ^Elian. Var. Hist. 1. iv. c. 17.
t Jamblicus Vit. Pythag. 1. i.e. 23.
J See note [H] at the end of this Book.
contrary.
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 39
contrary. And just as those of the legislating class
were more or less in the practice of that art, so
were they more or less in the profession of a future
state: as on the one hand, the Pythagoric and
Platonic ; and on the other, the Peripatetic and
Stoic. Nay in one and the same sect (as the Peri
patetic, or the Stoic), when a follower of it studied
legislation, he professed this belief; when he con
fined himself to private morals, or abstract specu
lations, he rejected it. Thus Zeno, amongst the
Stoics, was a great assertor of it ; while Epictetus
openly denied it. And Seneca, who was but a
mongrel, seems willing to expose the whole mystery.
For in those parts of his writings, where he
strictly philosophises, he denies a future state ; and
in those, where he acts the preacher or politician, lie
maintains it ; and having in this character, said what
he thought fit in its behalf, is not ashamed to add :
" Hrec autem omnia ad MORES spectant, itaque
" suo loco posita sunt; at qua? a DIALECTICS
" contra hanc opinionem dicuntur, segreganda
" fuerunt: et ideo seposita sunt*." As much as
to say, the doctrine was preached up as useful to
Society, but intenable by reason. One might push
this observation from sects to particulars. So
Xenophori and Isocrates, who concerned themselves
much in the public, declared for it; and Hippocrates
and Galen, who confined themselves to natural
Studies, are inclined to be against it.
* Ep. 103,
D 4 This
40 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
This totally enervates what might be urged in
support of the common opinion, from those many
professions in the writings of the Theistical philo
sophers, in favour of a future state of rewards and
punishment; as it shews that those professions only
made part of the EXTERNAL or popular doctrines
of such sects *. It may likewise help to explain
and reconcile an infinite number of discordances in
their works in general; and more especially on this
point, which are commonly, though I think falsely,
ascribed to their inconstancy. How endless have
been the disputes amongst the learned, since the
revival of letters, about what Plato, Aristotle, and
the Stoics held pf the Soul ! But it was not the
Moderns only who found themselves at a loss;
sometimes the Ancients themselves were embar
rassed. Plutarch complains heavily of the Repug
nances of the Stoics : and in his tract so intitled,
accuses Chrysippus, now, for laughing at the
doctrine of a future state of rewards and punish
ments, as a Mormo, fit only to frighten women and
children; and now again, for affirming seriously,
that, let men laugh as they pleased, the thing was a
sober Jruth,
Yet neither could a truth so obvious, nor the notice
here given of it, prevent the numerous writers against
this book from perpetually urging, one from another,
those professions in the EXOTERIC writings of the Phi
losophers, as a confutation of what is here delivered
Concerning their REAL SENTIMENTS.
IV. My
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 41
IV. My fourth general reason is gathered from
the opinions which Antiquity itself seems to have had
of its philosophers on this point. The gravest writers
(as we see in part, by the quotations above, from
Timaeus, Polybius, and Strabo) are full of apologies
for the national Religions; that is, for what was
taught in them, concerning a Providence here, and
especially concerning the doctrine of a future state
of rewards and punishments, hereafter. They pre^
tend that these things were necessary to keep the
People in awe ; but frankly own, that were Society
composed all of wise men, THE RELIGION OF THI
PHILOSOPHERS, which enforces morality by con
siderations drawn from the excellence of virtue, the
dignity of our nature, and the perfection of the
human soul, would be a fitter and more excellent
way to good. Now, the national Religions, as they
taught a doctrine of a future state, being here op*
posed to the Religion of the philosophers, which jij
employed other motives, I conclude, that, in the
opinion of these apologists, the Philosophers did
not really believe this doctrine,
V. My last general argument against the common
opinion, is collected from an extraordinary cir
cumstance in the Roman history. C^SAR, in his
speech to the senate, to dissuade them from pu-
pishing the followers of Catiline with death, argues,
" that death was no evil, as they, who inflicted it for
" a punishment, imagined, and intended it should
" be
42 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
" be made." And thereon takes occasion, with a
licentiousness till then unknown to that august As
sembly, to explain and inforce the avowed principles
of Epicurus (of whose sect he was) concerning the
mortality of the soul *. Now when CATO and
CICERO, who urged the death of the conspirators,
come to reply to his argument for lenity; instead of
opposing the principles of that philosophy by the
avowed principles of a better, they content them
selves with only saying, that " the doctrine of a
" future state of rewards and punishments was
" delivered clown to them from their ancestors f."
From this cold manner of evading the argument, by
retiring under the opinion gf their Forefathers, I
conclude, that these two great patriots were con
scious that the real opinion of ancient philosophy
would not support them: for nothing was more
illogical than their reply, it being evidently, that
Authority of their Ancestors, which Caesar op
posed with the principles of the Greek philosophy.
Here then was a fair challenge to a philosophic
enquiry; and can we believe, that Cicero and Cato
would have been less favourably heard, while they
defended the doctrine of a future state on the prin-
* De pcena, possum equidem dicere id quod res
hubet; in luctu atque miscriis, mortem acrumnarum
requiem, non cruciatum esse; earn cuncta mortalium
mala dissolvere; ultra neque curse, neque gaudio locum
esse. Caesar apud. Sail, cle Bell. Catilin.
f See note [I] at the end of this Book.
ciples
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 43
ciples of Plato and Zeno, so agreeable to the opi
nions of their Ancestors, than Caesar was in over
throwing it on the system of Epicurus ? Or was it
of small importance to the State, that an opinion,
which JTullj, in the words below, tells us was
established by their Ancestors for the service of So
ciety, should be shewn to be conformable to the
conclusions of the most creditable Philosophy?
Yet, for all this, instead of attempting to prove
Caesar a bad philosopher, they content themselves
with only shewing him to be a bad citizen. We
must needs conclude then, that these two learned
men were sufficiently apprized, that the doctrine of
their Ancestors was unsupported by the real opinion
of any Greek sect of Philosophy; whose popular
profession of it would have been to no purpose to
have urged against Caesar, and such of the Senate
as were instructed in these matters ; because the
practice of the double doctrine, and the part to
which this point belonged, was a thing well known
to them.
It may be true, that as to Cato, who was a rigid
Stoic, this observation on his conduct will conclude
only against one sect; but it will conclude very
strongly : for Cato was so far from thinking that the
principles of that philosophy should not be brought
into the conclusions of State, where it could be
done with any advantage, that he was even for
having public measures regulated on the standard
of their paradoxes , for which he is agreeably rallied
by
44 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
by Cicero in his oration for Mura?na. He could
not then, \ve must think, have neglected so fair an
opportunity of employing his beloved philosophy
upon Caesar s challenge, would it have served his
purpose in any reasonable degree.
But though Cato s case only includes the Stoics;
yet Cicero s, who made use indifferently of the
principles of any sect to confute the rest, includes
them all. It will be said perhaps, that the reason
why he declined replying on any philosophic prin
ciple, was because he thought the opinion of their
Ancestors the strongest argument of all; having so
declared it, in a more evident point; the very being
cfa God itself: In QUOD, MAXIMUM EST MA JORUM
NOSTRORUM SAPIENTIA, qui sacra, qui cere-
monias *, &c. But it is to be observed, that this
was spoken to the People, and recommended to
them as an argument they might best confide in;
and therefore urged with Tully s usual prudence,
who always suited his arguments to his auditors;
while the words under question were addressed to
an audience of Nobles, who had, at that time, as
great an affectation to philosophise as Cicero him
self. Hear what he says in his oration for Murana :
Et quoniarn non est nobis hcec oratio habenda aut
cum IMPERITA MULTITUDINE, aut in aliquo con-
ventu agrestium, audacius paulo de STUDIIS HUMA-
^JITATIS qua; et MIHI et VOBIS NOTA ET JUCUNDA
sunt, disputabo f.
* Oral, pro Milono f Sect. 29.
SECT.
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 45
SECT. III.
HAVING premised thus much, to clear the
way, and abate men s prejudices against a new
opinion, I come to a more particular enquiry con-
cerning each of those SECTS which have been
supposed to BELIEVE the doctrine of a future state
of rewards and punishments.
The ancient Greek philosophy may be all ranged
in the ELEATIC, the ITALIC, and the IONIC lines.
The Eleatic line was wholly composed of Atheists
of different kinds-; as the Democritic, the Pyrr-
honian, the Epicurean, Sec. so these come not into
the account. All in the Italic line derive them
selves from PYTHAGORAS, and swear in his name.
All in the Ionic, till SOCRATES, busied themselves
only in Physics, and are therefore likewise excluded.
HE was the first who brought philosophy out of
the clouds, to a clearer contemplation of HUMAN
NATURE; and founded the Socratic school, whose
subdivisions were the PLATONIC or OLD ACA
DEMY, the PERIPATETIC, the STOIC, the MIDDLE,
and the NEW ACADEMY.
As to Socrates, Cicero gives this character of him,
that He was the first who called philosophy from
heaven, to place it in cities, and introduce it into
private houses *, i. e. to teach public and private.
morals.
* Primus Philosophiam devocavit e coelo, et in
itt bibus collocavit, et ia domos etiam introduxit. Tuscul.
Quacst,
46 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
morals. But we must not suppose, that Cicero
simply meant, as the words seem to imply, that
Socrates was the frst of the philosophers, who
studied morals-, this being evidently false; for the
Pythagoric school had, for a long time before, made
morals its principal concern. He must therefore
mean (as the quotation below partly implies) that
HE was the jirst who called off philosophy from a
contemplation of nature, to fix it ENTIRELY upon
morals. Which was so true, that Socrates was not
only the j/\tf, but the last of the Philosophers who
made this separation; having here no followers,
unless we reckon Xenophon; who upbraids Plato,
the immediate successor of his school,, for forsaking
his master s confined scheme, and imitating the
common practice of -the philosophers in their pur
suit of general knowledge; he being, as the same
Cicero observes, varius et multiplex et copiosus.
^However, This, which Socrates attempted in
Philosophy, was a very extraordinary project: and,
to support its credit, he brought in those principles
Of DOUBT and UNCERTAINTY, which SO1716 of his
pretended followers very much abused: Tor while
he
st. hb. v.-And again, Acad. 1. i. Socrates mihi
Videtur, id quod constat inter omnes, primus a r,ebus
oocultis, et ab ipsa natura involute, in quibus omnes ante
im philosophi occupati fuerunt, evocavisse ~Philoso.
pliiam, et ad vitam communem adduxisse, ut de vir-
tutibus et vitiis, omninoque de bonis rebus & ma lig
quasreret; coeleatia autem vel procul esse a nostra
gnmonc censcret, vel, si maxime cognita essent, nihil
tamen ad bene vivendum conferre.
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 47
he restrained those principles of doubt to natural
things, whose study he rejected; they extended
them to every thing that was the subject of philo
sophical inquiry. This we presume was Socrates s
true character: who thus confining his searches,
was the ( bnly_pne)of all the ancient Greek philo
sophers (and it deserves our notice) who really
believed the doctrine of a future state of rewards
and punishments. How it happened that lie was
so singularly right, will be considered hereafter,
when we bring his case to illustrate, and to confirm
the general position here advanced.
From Socrates, as we said, came the middle and
New Academy, as well as the Old, or Platonic.
Arcesilaus was the founder of the Middle; and
Carneades of the New. Between the principles
of these two there was no real difference, as Cicero
tells us ; and we may take his word ; but both, I
will venture to affirm, were as real Sceptics, as the
Pyrrhonisms themselves: I mean in their principles
of philosophising, though not in the professed con-
elusions each pretended to draw from those princi
ples. For the Academics as well as Tyrrhenians
agreed in this, " That nothing could be known ;
" and that, without interfering with any sentiments
" of their own, every thing was to be disputed/
Heace the Tyrrhenians concluded, " that nothing
" was ever to be assented to, but the mind to be
" kept in an eternal suspense :" The Academics,
on the contrary, held, " that the PROBABLE, when
<c found, was to be assented to ; but, till then, they
" we rfc
4* THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book lit
were to go on with the Pyrrhonians, questioning,
1 disputing, and opposing every thing." And
here lay the jest : they continued to do so, through
out the whole period of their existence, without
ever finding the probable in any thing ; except, in
what was necessary to supply them with arms for
disputing against every thing. It is true, this was
a contradiction in their scheme : but Scepticism is
unavoidably destructive of itself. The mischief
was, that their allowing the probable thus far, made
many, both ancients and moderns, think them uni
form in their concessions : In the mean time they
gave good words, and talked perpetually of their
vermmile and probabile, amidst a situation of abso
lute darkness, and scepticism ; like Sancho Pancha,
of his island on the Terra Firma. This was
Lucian s opinion of the Academics ; and no man
knew them better ; speaking of the happy island,
in his true history, and telling us in what manner it
Was stocked with the several Sects of Greek phi
losophy; when he comes to the Academics he
observes with much humour, that though they were
in as good a disposition to come as any of the rest,
they still keep aloof in the Confines, and would
never venture to set foot upon the Island. For here
truly they stuck ; they were not yet satisfied whether
it was an Island or not *,
TI$ TQiavw Ir/y. Ver, Hist. L ii.
This
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 49
This I take to be the true key to the intrigues
of the ACADEMY ; of which famous sect m-my
have been betrayed into a better opinion than it
deserved. If any doubt of this, the acconnt which
Cicero himself gives of them, will satisfy him.
He, who knew them best, and who in good earnest
espoused only the more reasonable part of their
conduct, tells us, that they held nothing could be
known, or so much as perceived: Nihil cognosci,
nihil percipi, nihil sciri posse dixerunt Opinio-
nibus & INSTITUTTS omnia teneri; nihil VERITATI
relinqui : deinceps omnia tenebris circumfusa esse
dixerunt. Itaque Arcesilaus negabat esse quidquam
quod sciri posset, ne illud quidem ipsum * : That
every thing was to be disputed ; and that the pro
bable was not a thing to engage their assents, or sway
their judgments, but to enforce their reasonings,
Carneades vero multo uberius iisdem de rebus
loquebatur : non quo aperiret sententiam suam
(hie enim mos erat pat rim Academics AD VERSA HI
SEMPER OMNIBUS in disputando) sed f, &c. Pro-
prium sit Academic judicium suum nullum inter-
ponere, ea probare quae simillima veri videantur ;
conferre causas, & quid in quamque sententiam
dici possit expromere, null a adhibita sua auctoritate,
judicium audientium relinquere integrum & libe-
rum : That, though they pretended their end was
to find the probable, yet, like the Pyrrhcnians,
* Acad, Quaest. 1. i, c. 12, 13.
t De Orat. lib. i. e, 18, J De Divin. lib. ii, sub fin.
VOL, III, E they
50 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
they held their mind in an eternal suspense, and
continued going on disputing against every thing,
without ever finding the pwbabk to determine their
j udgments, O Academiam volaticam & sui similem,
modohucmodoilluc* 5 says the man whose business
it was to shew-only its fair side. And indeed how
could it be otherwise, when, as he himself tells us,
in the case of the same Arces ilms, they endeavour
ed to prove, that the moment, or weight of evidence,
on each side the question, was exactly equal
Iluic rationij quod erat consentaneum, faciebat, ut
eontra omnium sententlas dies jam plerosque dedu-
ceret: [diceret] ut cum in eadem re paria cont ranis
in partibus momenta ratlonum itrvenirentur, facilius
ah utraque parte adsentio sustineretur. This they
held to be the case, even in the most important
subjects, such as the SOUL, And in the most in
teresting questions concerning it, as whether it was.
in its nature, MORTAL or IMMORTAL. Quod
intelligi quale sit vi& potest: et quicquid est, mortaie
sit, an aeternian r Nam utraque in parte niulta
dieuntur. Ilorum aliquid vf&tro sapienti certurn
videtur: nostro ne quid maxime quidcm probabils
git, occurrit : ita sunt in plerisque contrariaruna rati-
oniim PA ETA MOMENTA f.
Thus it appears, that the sect was thoroughly
sceptical J; And Sextus Enipiricus, a master of
# Ep, ad Alt. 1. 13.
f S.ee note !"Kj at the end of ibis Book,
See note [L] at the end of this Book.
this
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED "51
this argument, says no less : who, though he denies
the Academics and Pyrrhoniam to be exactly the
same, as some ancients affirmed, because, though
both agreed that truth was not to be found, yet the
Academics held there was a difference in those
things which pretended to it (the mystery of which
has been explained above) yet owns that Arcesilaus
and Pyrrho had one common philosophy *. Origen,
or the author of the fragment that goes under his
name, seems to have transcribed the opinion of
those whom Sextus hints at. " But another sect
" of philosophers (says he) was called the Academic^
" because they held their disputations in the Aca-
" demy. Pyrrho was the head and founder of
* Qavi fjuvlot TIVS; on Y\ AxaOYifAaiw pthOffoQia rj avrn ere
ni (THZ-^ii. O t asv TI Apxe<riha@- 9 ov ry$ psws Axcx^nfjLta^
SIVM irporaTw ?t) fyxnyw, mavo poi from roT$ Iluppuvsioig
^oyWfj 00$ (MOV tivat cr^^^cv tnv X&T aurcv otfayYiv x^ r>iv
Hypot. Pyrh. lib. i. c. 33. Ageiiius ; too,
assures us, that the difference between the two sects
amounted to just nothing. Vetus autem quaestio et a
multis scriptoribus Graecis tractata est, in quid et quan
tum Pyr-rhonios et Academicos Philosophos intersit.
Utrique enim SKETITIKOI, Ip^xs), airotfliKoi, dicuntur,
quoniam utrique nihil affirmant, nihilque comprehendi
putant - difFerre tamen inter sese vel maxime prop*
terea existimati sunt. Academici quidem ipsum illud
iiihil posse comprehendi, quasi comprehendunt, et nihil
posse decerni quasi decernunt : Pyrrhonii ne id quidem
ullo pacto videri verum dicunt, quod nihil esse verum
videtur. 1. ii. c, 5.
2 " these;
52 THE DI\ r INE LEGATION [Book IIL
u these; from whom they were called PyrrfxKiians.
u He first of all brought in the AxaJaAs J*a, or in-
** compreheijsibility, as an instrument to enable
* ti&m to dispute on footii sides the question, with-
" out proving or decidmg any thing *.."
But now a difficulty arises which wift require
some explanation- We have represented the Aca~
dbwjr as entirely sceptical: We have represented
Socrates a dogmatist; and yet on his sole authority,
as we are assured by Tully, did this sect hold its
principles of Imomng nothing and disputing all
The true solution seems to be this:
I* SOCRATES; to deter his hearers from all studies
but those of mora/tity, was perpetually representing
the obscurity, in which ail other lay involved: not
only affirming that he knew nothing of them, but
that ftothing could be known; while, in Mwals, lie
was a dogmatist, as appears largely by Xenophon,
,nd the less fabulous parts of Plato. But Arcesilaus
and Carneades took him at his word, when he said
he knew Bathing; and extended that principle of
ncertainty ad omne &cibile*
2. Again, the adversaries, with whom Socrates
had to deal, ia his project of discrediting natural
<# TO
W *Axa3/<ct a 10,$
Philosophica,
knowledge,
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 53
knowledge, and of recommending tke stwdy of w?0~
nrtfry, were the SOPHISTS properly so catted; a race
of men, whoy by their eloquence and fallacies, bad
long kept up the credit of Physics, and much vitiated
the purity of Month : And These being the Grades
of science at that time in Athens, it became the
modesty and humility of his pretensions,, to attack
them covertly, arid rather as an enquirer than a
teacher. This produced the way of disputing by
Interrogation; from the inventor, called the Scwatic:
And as this could not be carried on but under a
professed admiration of thek wisdom, and acqvil-
escence in their decisions, it gave birth to tk? famous
Attie Irony*. Hence it appears, his. mettiod of
confutation must begin in do*ibt; be carried o& ia
turning their own anas- agaaasfc ttei% saoi^ exad la
tidvancwig nothing of km &m^
Now Arcesilaus and Caraeades haYi^, as we
say, extravagantly extended |he Soeratic principle
of knowing npthmg ; easily mistook tiiis. other,, f
advancing notkirtg of Ms mm, when di&putiBg with
tlie Sophists; as a necessajy conseqi^ecice of the
former ; and so made that a general rule for their
school, which, in their master, was only ^n ccca-
sional and confined practice^
* Soprates autem cte se ipse ctetraliens IB
plus tribuebat ii\ quos volebat refeilere. Ita ema
afmd clieeret atque sentiret, libeitter rtti soRtws est ea
dissimulatione, quaia Grseci iom? vocajfxtv
\ u. c, 5.
54 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
On these two mistaken principles was the New
Academy erected. i. Omnia latere in occulto,
nee esse quidqtiam, quod cerni aut intelligi possit.
2. Quibus de causis nihil oportere neque pro-
fiteri, neque affirm are quemquam, neque assertione
approbare *.
They of the OLD ACADEMY f, who came first
after Socrates, did, with more judgment, decline
their master s method of disputation ; easily per
ceiving that it was adapted to the occasion: and
that to make it a general practice, and the charac
teristic of their school, would be irrational and
absurd. But the MIDDLE and NEW, instead of
profiting by this sage conduct of their Predecessors,
made it a handle to extol their own closer adhe
rence to their Master; and an argument that they
were returned to his true principles, from which
the old had licentiously digressed. A passage in
Cicero will justify these observations; and these
observations will explain that passage, which, I
presume, without them would not be thought very
intelligible. Thus the Roman Orator expresses
himself, under the character of an Academic :
Primum, inquam, deprecor, ne me, tanquam phi-
losophum, putetis schoiam vobis aliquam explica-
turum : quod ne in ipsis quidem philosophis
magnopere unquam probavi: quando enim Socrates,
qiti farms philosophic jure did potest, quidquam
* Acad. Queest. lib. i. c. 12.
f See note [M] at the end of this Book.
tale
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 55
tale fecit ? Eoram erat iste mos ? qui turn Sophists*
nominabantur ; quorum & miraero primus cst ausus
Leontinus Gorgias in conventu poscere qaseStionera,
id est, jubere dicere, qua de re quis vellet audire.
Au dax negotium ; dkerem impudeas, nisi hoc m~
ttitutum postca translation ad phitosophos aostros
met. Sed et flluni, quein nominavi, et ceteros
Sophistas, ut ^ Platone ktelligi potest, lasos viderous
a Socrate. Is enim percuBCtando atque mterrogando
elicere solebat eorum ojanionesy qulbuscoio disse-
rebat, ut ad ea, qu S respoodisscat, si quid vide-
retur, diceret : Qui MOS CUM A POSTERIORIBUS
KON ESSET RETENTUS > ARCESILAUS BUM REVO-
CAVIT> INSTITUITQUE, ut it, qui SQ (tudtre vetfent,
non se qu&rererJ, scdipsi dlcerent, quid s&itlrent:
tjitod cum dlrissent, ille contra *. Here Cicero has
gilded the false, but showy pretences of bis Sect :
which not only represented their scepticism, as a
return to the true principles of Socrates; bat
would have the dogmatic sects of philosophy,
against all evidence of antiquity, the later product
of that race of Sophists, with whom the venerable
Athenian had to do. But the Old Academy we
may be sure, thought differently of die matter;
Lucullus says of Arcesilaiis, Nonne cum jani phi-
. losophorum disciplines gravissima* coRstitisseat, turn
exortus est ut in optima Rep, Tiberius Gracchus,
qui otium perturbare^ sic Arcesilausj, qui coosti-
tutam phiiosaphiam everteret f .
* De Fro. BOR. et, Mai. iL c, i . t
x 4
56 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
However, these bold pretensions of restoring the
SOCHATIC SCHOOL to its integrity, deluded many
of the Ancients ; and made them, as particularly
Diogenes Laertius, to rank Socrates in the number
of the Sceptics.
But this is not strange, for it was in the fashion
for all the Sects to pretend relation to Socrates.
Proserninata3 sunt familiae dissentientes, et multum
disjunct et dispares, cum tamen OMNES se phi-
losuphi SOCRATICOS et dici velleat ct esse arbitra-
rentur, says Cicero. And again, Fuerunt etiam
alia genera philosophorum fere qui se OMNES
SOCRATICOS esse dicebant ; rretricorum, Heril-
liorum, Megaricorum, PYRRHONEORUM *. The
same thing, I believe, Apuleius meant to express,
when speaking of Socrates he says, cum nunc
ctiam egrcgii Philosophi sectam ejus sanctissimam
praoptent, et summo beatitudinis studio jurent in
ipsius nomen f.
On the whole it appears that the Academics,
(middle and new) as distinguished from the Pla-
tonists, were mere Sceptics ; and so, like the Pyrrho~
mans, to be thrown out of the account.
Those therefore which remain, are the PYTHA-
GORTC, the PLATONIC, the PERIPATETIC, and the
STOIC : And if it be found that none of these four
renowned schools (the PHILOSOPHIC QUATERNION
OF DOGMATIC TntisTs) did believe, though all
sedulously taught, the doctrine of a future state
* De. Orat. lib. iii. f Metam. 1. x.
of
Sect 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 57
of rewards and punishments, the reader, perhaps,
>vill no longer dispute the conclusion, THAT IT
WAS NOT THE REAL OPINION OF ANT GRECIAN \
SECT OF PHILOSOPHY.
I. PYTHAGORAS comes first under our inspection.
HE is said to have invented the name long alter the
existence of his trad^; and was, as we may say,
the middle link that joined together the Lawgivers
and Philosophers ; being indeed the only Greek,
who was p-operly and truly both : though, from his
time, and in conformity to his practice, not only
those of his ow n school, but even those of the other
three, dealt much in legislation ; In which, his for
tune was like that of Socrates, who was the first and
last of the philosophers that confined himself to
morals ; though, in imitation of his conduct, morals,
from thence, made the chief business of all the
subdivisions of his school.
In the science of legislation, ORPHEUS*, for
whom he had the highest reverence, was his master;
and in philosophy, PHERECYDES SYRUS f.
After he had formed his character on two so
different models, he travelled into EGYPT, the
fountain-head of science ; where, after a long and
painful initiation, he participated of all the Mysteries
of the priesthood.
Jie had now so thoroughly imbibed the spirit
of legislation, that he not only pretended his LAWS
* Jamblichus de Vita Pyth. c. 151. f Id. ib. c. 184.
were
58 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Bool III,
were inspired,, which most other Lawgivers had
dorre; but that his PHILOSOPHY was so, like
wise * ; which wo other Philosopher had the con
fidence to do. .
This, we may be sure, would incline him to a
more than ordinary cultivation of the DOUBLE
DOCTRINE, " He divided his disciples (says
* * Oiigen) into two classes, the one he called the
u ESOTERIC, the other, the EXOTERIC. For ta
Those he intrusted the more perfect and sublime
w doctrines ; to The.se he delivered the more vulgar
u and popular f." And, indeed > he was so eminent
in this practice, that the secret or esoteric doctrine
f Pythagoras became proverbial. For what end
&e did it, Varro informs us, in St Austk\ where he
says, that " Pythagoras instructed his auditors irt
* the science of legislation LAST OF ALL, when
** they were now become learned, wise, and happy.*
And on what subject, appears from a common
saying of the sect, that " in those things which
" relate to the Gods, ALL was not to be revealed
" to ALL ."
The Communities he gave laws to, the Cities he
set free, are known to every one* And that nothing-
* Jamblielms de Vita Pyth. c. i .
f Our rk (juxQnlx; &&*, xj TK; EIHTEPIKOYS,
TU$ 31 rot, fAsigutTega. Fragm, cle Philos.
Mrj eiiw wgp; vsafiaz is&vlcz j$<x*
might
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 59
might be wanting to his legislative character, He,
likewise, in conformity to general practice, instituted
MYSTERIES; in which was taught, as usual, " the
" unity of the divine nature." So Jamblichus:
" They say too he taught lustrations and IN ITIA-
" TIONS, ,in which were delivered the MOST EXACT
" KNOWLEDGE of the Gods. They say farther,
" that he made a kind of union between divine phi-
" losophif and religious worship ; having learnt some
" thinss from the ORPHIC rites ; some, from the
O
" EGYPTIAN PRIESTS; some, from the Chaldeans
" and Magi; and some from the INITIATIONS
" celebrated in ELEUSIS, Imbros, Samothrace and
" Delos ; or wherever else, as amongst the CELTS,
" and Iberians *." Nay so much did his legislative
Character prevail over his philosophic, that he
brought not only the principles t of the Mysteries
into the schools, but likewise many of the observances ;
^as abstinence from Beans and several kinds of
animals ; which afterwards contributed not a little
to confound the secret doctrines of the Schools and
# Alyetoejv 5s avruv ra$ xaQotfljui$, xj rats telou-evas TEAE-
TA2, rov AKPIBESTATHN EIAH2IN ATTON (ry SEWV)
Tr,v
j StpatTriiaV a /wev /*5o j/?a votpa TWV OP^IKflN, a, 3s
AirrnrinN IEPEHN, ^ ^^ x
" waft ri$ TEAETH2, T^ sv EAET21NI
E, xj 2/xo%aw xj Ar^Aw, :tj " T; -ara^a
xj 7^ T^ KEATOT2 xj TW K>: f /ay. Jainbl. de
f See Book II. Sect. 4- Vol. II. p. 19.
the
fo THE DIVINE LEGATION [Bex* IIL
She Mysteries* This confbrmif y was, without doobt r
the- reason why the Crotoniates r or the Metapon-
fcrnes (for in this authors differ*) turned his boose
or school, after his death, into a TEMPLE of CERES*
Thus the fame and authority o Pythagoras
Becanae unrivalled over all Greece and Italy,
Herodotus calls him, the most authoritative ofphi-
Rsspkers f. Cicero- says of him : Cum, Superbo
segnante, in Italiam venisset, ten-uh Magnam Ulam
Graeciam euro HONORS EX DISCIPLINE,, turn
ttiam AUCTORITA.TE J.
And this was no transient reputation- : it de
scended to his followers, through a long succession ;
to whom the cities of Italy frequently committed
the* administration; of their affairs ;,. where they so
well; established their authority, that St. Jeirona tells
us, wry lasting marks of it were remaining to his
Sirae :. Respice omnem oram Italic, q,use quondam
* Diog. Laert. lib. viii. | 17. Porph.. die Vit. Pytli-
f Oy T acr^mrara crotpirn Iluflayofir. lib. iv. 95,
literally, not of the least authority: a common mode
of" expression in the ancient languages. So Homer, in
the 1 5th Iliad, calls Achilles, ax p<awCT7- "Axawr, not
the worst soldier of the Greeks-; meaning, we
the best.
J See note [M] at the end of "this- Book.
TI Xj 01 ffuvovlE$ aura traigoi) urs Xj v
avrx sirfyexw ?a$ noteis, Porph. de Vit. Pyth. N54.
Magna
Sect. 3-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. &
Magna Gratia dkebatur; et Pytkagoreonm &g-
matum inclsa publids titeris am cognosces*.
But there are two circumstances, which must
meeds give us the highest idea of Pythagoras s fame
in point of legislation.
1. The om is, that almost every Lawgiver of
eminence, for some time before f and after, as wel
as durwg Ms time, was numbered amongst his
disciples : for the general opinion was, that nothing
could be done to purpose in the legislating way.,
which did not oorwe from Pythagoras.
2. The other is, that the doctrine of the dispen*
sation of Providence by a METEMPSYCHOSIS, w
transmigration of the soul, though taught in all the
Mysteries, and an iiis-eparable part of a future State
in all the Religions of pagataism, became, "in com
mon speech, the peculiar doctrine of Pythagoras.
And here the reader will pardon a short remark
or two, not a little illustrating the point we are
sipon.
There is not a more extraordinary book in aS
Antiquity, than the METAMORPHOSIS OF OVID;
whether we regard the matter or the form. The
subject appears prodigiously extravagant, and the
composition irregular and absurd : had it been the
product of a dark age, and a barbarous writer, one
* Cent. Ruf. lib. ii.
f See the discourse on Zalencus s laws., B. IT.. Sect. 3-
might
62 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
might have been content to rank it in the class of
our modern Oriental Tales, as a matter of no con
sequence. But when we consider it as written
when. Rome was in its meridian of science and
politeness ; and by an Author, whose acquaintance
with the Greek tragic writers, had informed him of
what belonged to a work or composition, we cannot
but be shocked at so "grotesque an assemblage of
things : Unless we would rather distrust our modern
judgment , and conclude the deformity to be only
in appearance. And this, perhaps, we shall find
to be the case: though it must be owned, the
common opinion seems supported by Quintilian,
the most judicious critic of Antiquity, who thus
speaks of our Author and his Work : Ut Ovidius
LASCIYIRE in Metamorphosi solet, quern tamen
excusare necessitas potest, RES DIVERSISSIMAS
IX SPECIEM UNIUS CORPORIS COLLIGENTJEM *.
But to determine on proper grounds, in this
matter, we must consider the origin of the ancient
fables in general.
There are two opinions concerning it.
I. Thejirst is of such who think the fables con
trived, by the ancient Sages, for repositories of their
mysterious wisdom ; and, consequently, that they
are no less than natural, moral, and divine truths,
fantastically disguised. Greg. Naz. characterizes
these allegories well, where he calls them monstrous
* Instit. Orat, lib, iv. c. i, sub fin.
explanations^
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, -63
zxplanatiom, without principles; in which there is
nothing stable, but a way of interpretation which,
if indulged, would enable you to make any thing
out of any thing *. But what must eternally dis
credit the fancy, that the first Mythologists were
Allegorists, is, that if they indeed invented these
fables to convey under them natural, moral, and
divine truths, they must have been wise and virtuous
men, lovers of Mankind, and the friends of Society,
But how will this .character agree to the abominable
lewdness, injustice, and impiety, with which most
of these popular fables abound ; and which they
could not but foresee would (as in fact they did)
corrupt all the principles of moral practice. For
both these reasons, therefore, we must conclude
that a system which gives us nothing for the moral
but what, as Greg. Naz. observes, is uncertain,
groundless and capricious ; while the Fable presents
nothing but what is absurd and obscene t, must be a&
~
after-thought employed to serve a purpose. How
ever, it was well for truth, that none of these ancient
Allegorists were able to do better ; that none of
them entered upon their task with any thing like the
force of our BACON J ; the creative power of whose
r
* Efr I
UK. lS<ni TO rao-^y. Orat. iii.
*f* -UfAlV B ^T TO VQXftEVOy
%wj . Ib.
$ In lik Book ; De sapientia veterum.
genius
64 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
genius so nearly realized these inventions, as some
times to put us to a stand, whether we should not
prefer the riches and beauty of his imagination, to
the poor and meagre Truth that lies at bottom.
II. The other opinion of the origin of the fables,
is that which supposes them to be the corruptions
of civil history; and consequently, as having their
foundation in real facts : And this is unquestionably
the truth. But this system did not find so able an
expositor formerly in Palaphatus, as the other more
groundless conceit did of late in Bacon. It would
lead me too far from my subject, to shew, in this
place, which of the fables arose from the ambiguity
of words, ill translated from some eastern languages;
which, from proper names ill understood ; which,
from the high Jigures of poetry, were invented to
affect barbarous minds; and which, from the politic
contrivances of statesmen, to tame and soften savage
Manners: and how the universal passion of AD
MIRATION procured an easy admittance into the
mind, for all these various delusions.
But we must not omit, that the followers of this
better opinion are divided into two factions; One of
which would have the ancient fables the corruption
of PROFANE history only; the Other, only of
SACKED.
This Last seems unsupported by every thing but
an ill-directed zeal of doing honour to the Bible:
For by what we can collect from Pagan, or even
2 Jewish
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 65
Jewish writers, the history of the Hebrews was
less celebrated, even less known, than that of any
other people whose memory Antiquity hath brought
down to us. But, known or unknown, it is some
what hard, methinks, that GREECE must not be
allowed the honour of producing one single Hero;
but all must be fetched from PALESTINE. One
would have thought the very number of the Gentile
worthies, and the scarcity of the Jewish, might
have induced our critics, in mere charity, to employ
some home-spun Pagans, for Heroes of a second
rate, at least. But this, it seems, would look too
like a sacrilegious compromise. So, an expedient
is contrived to lessen that disparity in their number :
and Moses alone is discovered to be Apollo, Pan,
Priapus, Cecrops, Minos, Orpheus, Amphion, Tire-
sias, Janus, Evander, Romulus, and about some
twenty more of the Pagan Gods and Heroes. So
says the learned and judicious Mr. Huet * : who,
not content to seize, as lawful prize, all he meets
within the waste of fabulous times, makes cruel
inroads into the cultivated ages of history, and will
scarce allow Rome its own Founder j~.
Nay, so jealous are they of this fairy honour
paid to Scripture, that I have met with those who
thought the BIBLE much disparaged, to suppose
* See note [P] at the end of this Book.
f Si fid em sequimur historic, fabulosa pleraque de
eo [Romulo] narrari. Prop. iv. c. 9. 8.
VOL. III. F any
66 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.-
any other origin of human sacrifices than the com
mand to Abraham, to offer up his son. The con
tending for so extraordinary an honour being not
unlike that of certain Grammarians, who, out of
due regard to the glory of former times, will not
allow either the great or small-pox to be of modern
growth, but vindicate those special blessings to this
highly-favoured Antiquity.
The other party then, who esteem the fables a
corruption of Pagan history, appear in general to-
be right. But the misfortune is, the spirit of system
seems to possess these likewise, while they allow
nothing to Jewish history : For, that reasoning,
which makes them give the Egyptian and Phenician
a share with the Grecian, should consequentially
have disposed them to admit the Jewish into part
nership ; though it might perhaps contribute least
to the common stock. And he who does not
see * that Philemon and Baucis is taken from the
story of Lot, must be, very near, blind : Though
he t who can discover the expedition of the Is
raelites
* La fable de Philemon et de Baucis les personages
sont inconnus, et j en ai rien d interessant a en direr
*;ar de penser avec Mr.Huet, qu elle nous cache Fhistoire
ties Anges qui allerent visiteF Abraham, c est une de ces
imaginations hazardees dans lesqudles ce savant prelat,
Sec. Bariier, les Metam. d Ovid. explic. des fables 7, 8,
o, & 10. lib. viii.
f See Lavaur, one of the best and latest supporters
of this system, in his Histoire de la Fable conferee
avec
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 67
raelites from Egypt to Palestine, in the fable of
the Argonauts, must certainly be gifted with the
second-sight.
Lastly, as it is the fault of these to allow nothing
to Jewish history, so it is the fault of both to allow
nothing to the system of the Allegorists : for though
without all question the main body of the ancient
fables is the corruption of civil History, yet it is
as certain, that some few, especially of the late
ones, were invented to convey physical and mofal
TRUTHS.
Such was the original of the fables in general :
But we must be a little more explicit concerning
that species of them called the METAMORPHOSIS.
The metempsychosis was the method, the reli
gious ancients * employed to explain the ways of
Providence; which, as they were seen to be unequal
here, were supposed to be set right hereafter.
But
avec rHistoire Sainte. Ainsi cette fable est toute
composee des traditions que les Chananeens ou Pheni-
ciens avoint repandues dans leurs voyages. On y voit
des traits defigurez par ces traditions, mais CERTAINE-
MENT pris de 1 histoire des Israelites sous Moyse et
sous Josue. Cap. Jason Seles Argonautes, a la fin.
* But this being the voice of our common nature,
it is no wonder we should find the doctrine of the
metempsychosis operating, as an old Opinion, amongst
the uninstructed natives of South America. See Char-
levoix s Hist of Paraguay, vol. ii. p. 151.
F2
68 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
But this inequality was never thought so great, as to
leave no footsteps of a superintendency : For the
people of old argued thus : If there were no ine
quality, nothing would want to be set right:, and if
there were nothing bat inequality, there would be
no one to set it right. So that a regular Providence,
and none at all, equally destroyed their foundation
of a future state.
It being then believed, that a Providence was
administered here as well as hereafter, though not
with equal vigour in both states ; it was natural for
them to suppose that the mode of it might be
much the same, throughout. And as the way of
punishing, in a different state, was by a transmigra
tion of the soul , so in this, it was by a transforma
tion of the body : The thing being the same, with
only a little difference in the ceremonial of the
transaction : the soul in the first case going to the
body; and, in the latter, the body coming to the
soul : This being called the metamorphosis ; and
That, the metempsychosis. Thus, each made a part
of the popular doctrine of Providence. And it is
remarkable, that wherever the doctrine of transmi
gration was received, either in ancient or modern
times, there the belief of transformation hath pre
vailed likewise *. It is true, that in support of the
* The modern eastern tales are full of metamorphoses-,
and it is to be noted that those people, before they em
braced Mahometanism, were Pagans, and believers of
the metempsychosis.
first
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 69
first part of this superstition, Reason only suffered ;
in support of the latter, the Semes too were violated.
But minds grossly passioned, never want attested
facts to support their extravagances. What prin
cipally contributed to fix their belief of the meta
morphosis was, in my opinion, the strong and dis
ordered imagination of a melancholy habit \ a habit,
more than any other, producing religious fear, and
most affected by what it produces. There was a
common distemper, arising from this habit, well
known to the Greek physicians by the name of the
LYCANTHROPY ; where the patient fancied himself
turned into a wolf, or other savage animal. Why
the disordered imagination should take this ply, is
not hard to conceive, if we reflect that the mtt em-
psychosis made part of the popular doctrine of Pro
vidence ; and that a metamorphosis was, as we have
said, the same mode of punishment, differing only
in time and place. For thenligicus bdkj, we may
be assured, would work strongly on a diseased fancy,
racked by a consciousness of crimes, to which that
habit is naturally obnoxious ; and, as it did in the
case of Nebuchadnezzar, make the patient conclude
himself the object of divine justice. Indeed, Da.-
nieYs prediction of that monarch s disgrace, evidently
shews it to have been the effect of divine vengeance;
yet the circumstances of his punishment, as recorded
in holy Writ, seem to shew, that it was inflicted by
common and natural means. And that the vulgar
superstition generally gives the bias to the career
F 3 of
70 THE DIVINE LEGATION. [BookllL
of a distempered mind, we have a familiar instance.
No people upon earth are more subject to atrabilarc
disorders than the English : Now while the tales
of magicians, and their transformations, were be
lieved, nothing was more symptomatic in this dis
temper, than such fancied changes by the power
of witchcraft. But since these fables lost their
terror, very different whimsies, we find, possess our
melancholic people.
These sickly imaginations therefore, proceeding
from the impressions of the religious notion of the
metamorphosis, would in their turn add great credit
to it ; and then any trifle would keep it up ; even
an equivocal appellation ; which; I do not doubt,
hath given birth to many a fable ; though to many
more, it hath served only for an after-embellishment
But it is remarkable, that fabulous Antiquity itself
assists us to detect its own impostures. For, although
it generally represents the punishments for impiety,
as actual tram formations ; yet, in the famous story
of the daughters of Prcetus, it has honestly told us
the case ; that it was no more than a deep melan
choly, inflicted by Juno, which made them fancy
themselves turned into heifers ; so the poet,
" Prcetides implerunt FALSIS mugitibus agros.
and of this, Melampus cured them by a course of
physic *.
Thus
* Prcetides, Proeti, Sc Stenobceae, sive Antiopse se-
cundum Homerum, filiae fuerunt, Lysippe, Ipponoe,
i Cy rianas sa.
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 71
Thus the METAMORPHOSIS arose from the doc
trine of the metempsychosis; and was, indeed, a
mode of it; and, of course, a very considerable
part of the Pagan theology * : So that we are not
to wonder if several grave Writers made collections
of them; such as Nicander, Boeus, Callisthenes,
Dorotheus, Theodorus, Parthenius, and Adrian the
sophist. Of what kind these collections were, we
may see by that of Antonius Liberalis, who tran
scribed from them; Thence, too, Ovid gathered
his materials ; and formed them into a poem on the
most sublime and regular plan, A POPULAR HIS
TORY OF PROVIDENCE ; carried down in as me
thodical a manner as the graces of poetry would
allow, from the creation to his own times^ through
the
Cyrianassa. Has se cum praetulissent Jtmoni in pul-
chritudine ; vel, ut quidain volunt, cum essent antistites,
ausse sunt vesti ejus aurum detractum in usum suum
convertere : ilia irata hunc furorem earum immisit
mentibus ; ut putantes se vaccas in saltus abirent, et
plerumque mugirent, et timerent aratra; .quas Melam-
pus, Amythaonis films, pacta mercede ut Cyrianassam
uxorem cum parte regni acciperet, placata Junone, in-
fecto fonte, ubi solitse erant bibere, purgavit et in pris-
tinum sensum reduxit. Servius in Bucol. Virgilii vi.48.
* It plainly appears to have been in general credit, by
its makhig the foundation of the following epigram,
one of the finest in antiquity :
Ex w; JUE Scot TE^lav W0ov ix 5e X/fiwo
72 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
the EGYPTIAN, PHENICIAN, GREEK, and RO
MAN histories : And this the elegant Paterculus
seems to intimate, in the character he gives of the
poet arid his work *.
Now the proper introduction, as well as foun
dation and support, of this kind of history, is a
THEISTICAL cosMOGENY. Accordingly, we find
our Poet introduceth it with such a one. And this
likewise in imitation of his Grecian Originals.
Theopompus, by the account Servius gives of him,
seems to have composed such a History, and so
prefaced ; but on a more ingenious plan. Pie feigns
that some of Midas s shepherds took the God,
Silenus, asleep, after a debauch ; and brought him
bound to their master. When he came into the
Presence, his chains fell from him of their own ac
cord; and he answered to what was required of
him, concerning NATURE and ANTIQUITY f. From
hence (as Serviu ; remarks) Virgil took the hint
of his SILENUS: the subject of whose song is so
exact an epitome of the contents of the META
MORPHOSIS
? Naso perfectissimi in forma opens sui. Hist. Rom.
1. ii. c. 36
f Sane hoc de Silcno non dicitur fictum a Virgilio,
sed a Theopompo translation. Is cnim apprehensum
Silenum a Miciaa regis pastoribus, dicit crapula madcn-
tem, et ex ea soporatum ; illos dolo adgressos dormien-
tem vinxisse; postea vincuiis sponte labentibus liberatum
et rebus NATURALIBUS ct ANTIOUIS Midse interroganti
respondisse. Serv. ad Eclog. vi. 33.
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 73
MORPHOSIS of Ovid, that amongst the ancient titles
of that Eclogue, the name of Metamorphosis was
one; which therefore makes it worth considering;
" Namque canebat uti magnum per inane coacta
" Semina, &c.
" - - - et ipse tener mundi concreverit or bis.
" Hinc lapides Pyrrhae jactos, Saturnia regna,
" Caucasiasq; refert volucres, furtumq; Promethei -
" Turn Phaetontiadas musco circumdat amarae
" Corticis
" Quid loquar aut Scyllam Nisi, quam fama secuta est,
" Candida succinctam latrantibus inguina monstris,
" Dulichias vexasse rates - - -
" Aut ut mutatos Terei narraverit artus :" < c*.
Here we have the formation of the world, the
golden age, and the original and renovation of man \
together with those ancient fables which taught the
government of the Gods, and their punishment
of impiety, by the change of human, into brutal
and vegetable forms. It is evident from hence, that
both the Latin poets drew from one source ; and
particularly from Theopompus : whom Virgil hath
epitomised ; and Ovid paraphrased. And if Ovid
neglected to borrow a great beauty from his ori
ginal, to adorn his own poem ; Virgil (which is
much more surprising) by deviating, in one mate
rial circumstance, from their common source, hath
committed a very gross blunder. OVID, in ne
glecting to lay the scene of his History in the ad
venture
74 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
venture of Midas s shepherds ; and so disabling
himself from making SILENUS the Narrator through
out, hath let slip the advantage of giving his sacred
History the sanction of a divine Speaker, and, by
that means, of tying the whole composition together
in the most natural and artful manner. But then
VIRGIL, either in fondness to the philosophy of
Epicurus, or in compliment to Varus, who was
of that School, instead of making his Cosmogeny
theistical (as without doubt Theopompus did, and
we see, Ovid hath done) from whence the popular
history of Providence naturally followed, hath made
it the product of BLIND ATOMS ;
- - - " per inane coacta
" Semina,"
from whence nothing naturally follows, but Fate or
Chance. And yet Virgil talks like a Theist (indeed,
because he talks after Theist s) of the renovation
of Man, the golden Age, and the punishment of
Prometheus. Servius seems to have had some
obscure glimpse of this absurdity, as appears from
his embarras to account for the CONNECTION
between the Epicurean origin of the world, and the
religious fables which follow. In his note on the
words hinc lapides Pyrrhcz jactos, he says,
qusestio est hoc loco : nam, relictis prudentibus
f rebus de mundi origine, subito ad fabulas tran-
situm fecit. Sed dicimus, aut exprimere eum
voluisse sectam Epicurean), quae rebus seriis
" semper
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 75
" semper inserit voluptates : aut fabulis plenis ad-
" mirationis puerorum corda mulcere."
The old Scholiast, we see, was much a stranger
to that conceit -of Catrou\ that as Epicurus s
Physics are followed in the origin of the World,
so his Morals are explained in the Fables. With
out doubt, Servius thought it absurd to suppose
that the Poet would explain the most obnoxious
part of Epicurus s Philosophy (his Physics) so
clearly, and the useful part (his Morals) so obscurely.
However, in other respects, the Eclogue is full
of beauties.
On the other hand, Ovid not only found advan
tages in making his Cosmogeny thcistical, but im
proved what he found with wonderful art. De
scribing the formation of man to be from earth, he
shuts up his account in these beautiful lines,
" Sic modo qua? fuerat rudis, et sine imagine Tellus
<c Induit ignotas hominum, conversafiguras?
Insinuating that this was the first of those CHANGES
which he had promised to speak of ; and thereby
finely preparing his Reader for the following con
versions of Men into brutes, stocks, stones, and the
several elements, by shewing that they were only
returned into that, out of which they had been taken,
by a no less surprising metamorphosis.
But to go back to his Poem. Now although-,
to adorn and enliven his Subject, he hath followed
the bent of his disposition, in filling it with the love-
stones
76 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
stories of the Gods; which, too, their Traditions
had made sacred; yet he always keeps his end in
view, by taking frequent occasion to remind his
reader, that those punishments were inflicted by
the Gods, for impiety. This appears to have been
the usual strain of the writers of METAMORPHOSES
As long as they preserved their piety to thj Gods,
they were happy *, being the constant prologue to
a tragic story. So that, what Palasphatus says of
the mythologic poets in general, may with a peculiar
justness be applied to Ovid: The poets (says he)
contrived fables of this kind, to impress on their
hearers a reverence for the Gods f.
But this was not all. Ovid, jealous, as it were,
of the secret dignity of his Work, hath taken care,
towards the conclusion, to give the intelligent reader
the master-key to his meaning. We have observed,
that though the metempsychosis was universally
taught and believed long before the time of PY
THAGORAS ; yet the greatness of his reputation,
and another cause, we shall come to presently,
made it afterwards to be reckoned amongst his
peculiar doctrines. Now Ovid, by a contrivance,
which for its justness and beauty may be compared
with any thing in Antiquity, seizes this circumstance,
to instruct his reader in these two important points :
"Axpi f^v uv Ssa$ eTifAuV) v$aifjuiVE$ rt<r<xv. Ant. Liberalis
Met. c. xi.
f Toy? 5e pttovs Taraj o-uveQsrav ol wonfloi, "not ol axgou/Atvoi
iv u$ TO Sew, De incred. Hist. c. 3.
i. That
Sect 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 77
i . That his poem is a popular history of Providence :
And 2. That the Metempsychosis was the original
of the Metamorphosis. For in the conclusion of
his book, he introduceth Pythagoras, teaching and
explaining the TRANSMIGRATION of things to the
people of Crotona. This was ending his Work-
in that just philosophic manner, which the elegance
of pure and ancient wit required.
The Abbe Banier, not entering into this beautiful
contrivance, is at a loss * to account for Ovid s
bringing in Pythagoras, so much out of course.
The best reason he can assign, is that the poet
having finished the historical metamorphosis, goes
on to the natural ; which Pythagoras is made to
deliver to the Crotoniates. But this is not fact,
but hypothesis : The poet had not finished the
historical metamorphosis : for having gone through
the episode of the natural change of things, he
re-assumes the proper subject of his work, the
historical, or moral, metamorphosis, through the
remaining part of the last book ; which ends with
the change of Csssar into a comet. Had not Ovid,
therefore, introduced Pythagoras, for the purpose
here assigned, we should hardly have found him in
this place; but in the Greek division, to which he
properly belonged. Where the famous circum
stance of his GOLDEN" THIGH, and the exhibition
of it at the Olympic Games, would have afforded
a very artful and entertaining Episode, in a narrative
* Met. de Ovid, et des Expl Hist. torn. iii.
of
78 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
of a CHANGE begun and left unfinished ; a proof
of the truth of the doctrine of the Metamorphosis,
at least as strong as that which the Alchymists
bring for the reality of the transmutation of Metals,
from the Nails, half gold and half iron, now to be
seen in the Cabinets of the German Virtuosi.
What hath been said, I suppose, will tend to
give us a different and higher notion of this ex
traordinary WORK : and lessen our surprise at the
Author s presumption, in so confidently predicting
immortality to his performance :
" Jamque OPUS exegi, quod nee Jovis ira, nee ignis,,
" Nee poterit ferrurn, nee edax abolere vetustas."
To proceed with our subject. From what hath
been said of Pythagoras s character, it appears,
that lie taught several doctrines which he did not
believe; and cultivated opinions merely on account
of their utility. And we have the express testi
mony of Timaeus Locrus, tha t, m the number of
these latter, was the poputo.r doctrine of the me
tempsychosis. This very anrjieiu Pythagorean, after
having said *, that the propagating the doctrine of
a future state of rewards and punishments, was
necessary to society, go es on m t hi s manner: " For
" as we sometimes cure the body with un whole-
44 some remedies., when such as are most whole-
some have no ^(Fec.t, so we restrain those minds
1 by false relations* which will not be persuaded
See the. J 7 irst Section of this Book.
" bj
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 79
" by the truth : There is a necessity therefore of
" instilling the dread of those FOREIGN TORMENTS.
" As that the soul shifts and changes its habitation;
" that the coward is ignominiously thrust into the
" body of a woman; the murderer imprisoned
" within the furr of a savage; the lascivious con-
" demned to invigorate a boar or sow ; the vain
" and inconstant changed into birds; and the
" slothful and ignorant into fishes. The dispen-
" sation of all these things is committed in the
" second period, to Nemesis tae Avenger ; together
" with the infernal Furies, her Assessors, the In-
" spectors of human actions; to whom God, the
" sovereign Lord of all things, hath committed the
" government of the world, replenished with Gods
" and Men, and other animals; all which were
" formed after the perfect model of the eternal and
" intellectual ideas *."
yap ta <7u^xl<x voorufow vsoxa yyio/xj, taut iw tlxn
tiita
rj ay-ftai ahaQeo-r keyoivlo tf avaftcaiu; xj TIMHPIAI HENAI,
TUV
OJV 3ff (JUatl$QV<aV, $ tylOM (Tupalx,
i$ ishwuv ot{07ropW fyyccv 3s ^J aTrqou&W) af*,x8uv re y^ avo
s$ rav TUV evvtyuv $sav aTrxvltz 3s raj/T sv favlspa ETE^O ^W fx.
ow&Mpive, <ruv 3/jwo<rt ra^o^ya/otj x,6oviot$ TS, TO^
TWV cotifUTrivtov oT$ 6 isdvluv ayefMiv SEOJ fairpfif*
<ruf*,ne<jrXn$ui*ew w ^ewv rs xj avQfuxuv, TO?V TS
otra dkSayittp/ijZaH WOT ftxova T^V fjrav J ^@"
/ x V8>i?w. De Anima Mundi, sub fin.
Timseus s
8o THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Timasus s testimony is precise; and, as this notion
of the metempsychosis was an inseparable part of
the doctrine of a future state of rewards and pu
nishments, if the Pythagoreans disbelieved the one,
they must necessarily reject the other.
But, here it may be proper to explain, and inforce
a distinction, which, by being totally overlooked,
hath much embarrassed the whole matter.
The doctrine of the metempsychosis, as it signified
a moral designation of Providence, came originally
from Egypt, and was, as we have said, believed by
all mankind. But Pythagoras, who had it, with the
rest of the world, from thence, gave it a new modi
fication, and taught, " that the successive transition
of the soul into other bodies, was physical, necessary,
and exclusive of all moral considerations whatever."
This is \vhat Diogenes Laertius means, when he
tells us, " That Pythagoras was reported to be
" the FIUST who taught the migration of the soul,
" from one body to another, by a PHYSICAL NE-
" CESSITY *." This doctrine was, indeed, pecu
liarly his, and in the number of the esoterics,
delivered in his School, to be believed.
How destructive this proper Pythagoric notion
of the metempsychosis was to the doctrine of a
future state of rewards and punishments, Ovid,
who well understood the secret of the distinction,
* TlpSnov 5s tpcuri Tci/rov aTroffivau T>iv ^ux^v KTKAON
ANAFKH2 AMEIBOT2AN, atoole fate* ivdeio-QM &ois
L. viii. ^ 14.
evidently
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 81
evidently perceived, where he makes Pythagoras,
in delivering the esoteric doctrine of his school to
the Crotoniates, reject a future state of rewards
and punishments, on the very principle of his
own metempsychosis, though the general metempsif-
chosis was an inseparable and essential part of
that state :
O genus attonitum gelidae formidine mortis,
Quid Styga, quid tenebras, et nomina vana timetis,
Materiem vatum, falsique piacula mundi ?
Corpora, sive rogus flamma, seu tabe vetustas
Abstulerit, mala posse pati non ulla putetis.
Morte carent animae : SEMPERque priore relicta
Sede, no vis dornibus * habitant vivuntque receptce.
The not attending to this distinction, hath much
perplexed even the best modern writers on the
subject of Pythagoras. Mr. Dacier, in his life of
that philosopher, when he comes to speak of the
doctrine of the mefempsychosis, advances crudely,
that all Antiquity have been deceived in thinking
Pythagoras really believed it. And, for his warrant,
quotes the passage from Timaeus, given above. Mr.
Le Cierc f , scandalized at this assertion, affirms as
crudely, that he did believe it ; and endeavours to
prove his point by divers arguments, and passages
of ancient writers. In which dispute, neither of
them being a ware of the two different kinds of
Metempsychosis, each of them have with much
* L. xv. f Bibl. Choisie, torn. x. art. ii. sect. 5.
VOL. III. G confusion,
* 2 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
confusion, taken of the true and false in this question,
and divided it between them. Dacier was surely
in the right, in supposing Pythagwas did not
believe the Metempsychosis, as delivered by his
disciple Timaus ; but as certainly in the wrong to
conclude from thence, that he believed none at all.
And Le Cterc was not mistaken in thinking the
philosopher did believe some sort of Metempsy
chosis , but apparently in an error in supposing
that it was the popular and moral notion of it.
In a word, the proofs which Dacier brings, conclude
only against Pythagoras s believing a moral trans
migration ; and those Le Clcrc opposes, conclude
only for his believing a natural one. While neither,
as we say, apprehending there were two kinds, the
I one common to all, the other peculiar to that Phi-
1 losopher, they have both fallen into great mistakes.
Let me give an instance from Le Clerc ; as it
will contribute in general to illustrate the subject,
and, at the some time, throw light on the latter
part of the passage, we have but now quoted from
Timieus. Dacier had urged that passage to prove
Pythagoras did not believe the Metempsychosis ;
and Le Cierc had urged it, to prove he did ;
because the author in conclusion expressly affirms,
that the dispensation of the Metempsychosis is com
mitted in the second period to Nemesis the avenger.
"A-rravla, <5t TOLIITX, EV &v?p -srsptocfy a Nt ^fen? 2YN-
AIEKPINE. Le Clerc says, I have translated these
verbatim, that the. reader may see lie talks
1 1 seriously.
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 83
seriously *. But whoever reads the whole passage,
which expressly speaks of the doctrine as useful
and not as true, will be forced to own, that by
the phrase, Nemesis decrees, is meant, it must be
taught that Nemesis decrees. But this circum
stance of Nemesis is remarkable; and enough to
put the matter out of question. There were two
kinds, as we have said, of the Metempsychosis,
which the Pythagoreans taught ; the moral and the
natural. The latter they believed, the first they
only preached. So that Tiniaeus speaking here
of the Metempsychosis as a fable, useful for the
people to credit ; lest the reader should mistake
him as meaning the natural, he adds the circum
stance of Nemesis, the poetical Avenger of the
crimes of men, to confine all he had said, to the
moral Metempsychosis.
To support what is here observed, it may not be
improper to insert the sentiments of some of the
most considerable of Pythagoras s DISCIPLES on
this point : which I shall transcribe from my very
learned Friend, the author of the Critical Inquiry
into the Opinions and Practices of the ancient Phi
losophers : where the reader may see them admi
rably well explained, and defended from a deal of
idle chicane. Plutarch tells us " that EMPE-
" DOCLES held death to be a separation of the
* J ai traduit ces dernieres paroles de Timee mot
pour mot, afinque Ton pfit voir, cru il paile serieusement.
Bibl. Choisie. torn. x. p. 193.
G a " fiery
84 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
" fiery substance from the other parts, and there-
1 fore supposed that death was common to the
" soul and body *."
Sextus Empiricus says, " it is evident that
" Epicurus stole his principles from the poets. As
to that famous tenet of his, that death is nothing
to ?/.v, he borrowed it from .EpiciiARMus, who
says, I neither look upon the act of dying, or
" the state that succeeds it, as of any consequence
" and importance to me f."
Plutarch likewise, in his consolation to Apollonms,
cites the following words of EPICHARMUS : " The
parts of which you are composed will be separated
at death ; and each will return to the place from
" which it originally came. The earth will be re-
stored to earth, and the spirit will ascend upwards;
" what is there terrible or grievous in this^r 3
rov Savalw ysfEvyrGai ^ta^o^i^^ov TS
uy Y) vvyx.picri$ TW avfyuiru eryvcrA are Kctia. raro xo.vov
TOV SavMw <rufx,alo$ x^ -^u^r,^ DC Plac. c. 25. Cicero
says, Empedocles aniiinim esse ccnset cordi suffusiim
saiiguiiicm. i Tusc. p. alluding to Einpedoclcs s o\va
.words in that famous verse:
Aif^ot yap avfyuTToif SJEpittaftiov en vw//.&.
v h o OB E5T**spo< tpuparxi ra Kpotrira ruv dofytxruv
-monjluv. awpKOMBS -- -roy SE Savaflov on sdev sri *s:fo$
<ZUTU sqoffpiwwKw
ad Gram. ^ -273.
J KaAw$ av o > E7ri / J &p/J>&- wvt
$ ydv, WcSpa & civx ri TW$E xateTrov; x& Iv.
As
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 85
As for this ascent of the spirit upwards, Lucre
tius will explain it :
Cedit enhn retro, de terra quod fuit ante,
In terras : et quod missum est ex Athens oris,
Id rursum coeli rellatum templa rcccptant. Lib. ii.
TELES, another follower of Pythagoras, thus
addresses himself to one grieved and afflicted for
the loss of a deceased friend ; " You complain
" (says he) that your friend will never exist more.
" But remember, that he had no existence ten
" thousand years ago, that he did not live in the
" time of the Trojan war, nor even in much later
" periods. This, it seems, does not move you : all
" your concern is, because he will not exist for the
" future*." Epicurus uses the very same language
on the same occasion :
llespice item quarn nil ad nos ante acta vetustas
Temporis aeterni fuerit, quara nascimur ante.
Hoc igitur nobis speculum natura futuri
Temporis exponit, post mortem denique nostram.
Lucr. 1. iii.
S.o far, my learned friend.
II. PLATO is next in order : He likewise greatly
affected the character of Lawgiver ; and actually
start srar sfi yaf
TSfOKXTT Tnit <T8.
W* Stobueus
T1 "5
EC. c. 106.
G 3 compose4
86 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
composed laws for several people, as the Syracusians
and Cretans ; but with what kind of spirit we may
judge, by his refusing that employment for the The-
bans and Arcadians, as soon as he understood they
were averse to equality of possessions *. The truth
is, his philosophic character, which was always pre
dominant (as in Pythagoras the legislative) gave his
politics a cast of refinement which made his schemes
of Government very impracticable, and even un
natural. So that, though his knowledge of mankind
was indeed great and profound, and therefore highly
commended by Cicero t, yet his fine-drawn specu
lations brought him at length into such contempt as
a writer of politics, that Josephus tells us, notwith
standing he teas so high in glory and admiration
amongst the Greeks, above the rest of the Philo
sophers, for his superior virtue, and power of elo
quence, yet he was openly laughed at, and bitterly
ridiculed, by those who pretended to any profound or
high knowledge of politics J.
The only Greek masters he followed, were Pytha
goras and Socrates: These he much admired.
From the first, he took his fondness for geometry,
* See JElian. Yar. Hist. 1. ii. c. 42.
f Deus ille noster Plato in votilelcc. See B. ii. 3.
U^aruv &
T o$ xtoi iv, i>; x
flix 3ifv:/xv x
c-civav EIVCU ra,
lalitei. Cont. A p.
l.ii. 31.
his
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 87
his fanaticism of numbers, his ambition for law-
giving, and the doctrine of the Metempsychosis ;
From the latter, the study of morals, and the mode
of disputing.
This was a monstrous mis-alliance*: I mean,
-the incorporating into one Philosophy, the doctrines
of two such discordant Schools : the first of which
dogmatized in the most sublime questions of natuie;
the* other gave up the most vulgar, as inscrutable.
The Philosopher of Sarnos aimed at glory; the
legislator of Sarnos followed utility ; but the simple
Moralist of Athens laboured after truth.
We need not therefore any longer wonder at the
obscurity which Plato s frequent contradictions
throw over his writings. It was caused not only by
the double doctrine, a practice common to all the
Philosophers ; but likewise by the joint profession
of two such contrary Philosophies. This effect
could not escape the observation of Eusebius :
Hear then (says he; the Greeks thctmdws, by their
best and most powerjul speaker, now rejecting, and
now again adopting the FA-BLES f.
However it was the abstruse pliilosophy of Pytha-
<toras with which he was most taken. For the sake
o
* See note [P] at the end of this Book,
, role V lv waTuv tlffTTG&pevv ru$ pvQvs. Pra J .p. Evang.
p. 47. Steph. Ed. See ^bo.ve, p. 52, &c. and what will
be further said on this matter, in note [Ml at the
of this Book,
04
83 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
of this, he assumed also the legislative part ; and in
imitation of his master, travelled into Egypt; where
he was initiated into the Mysteries of the priest
hood. It was this which made Xenophon, the
faithful follower of Socrates, say, that Plato had
adulterated the pure and simple philosophy of their
Master; and was IN LOVE zritk Egypt, and the
portentous wisdom of Pythagoras *. And even oc
casioned Socrates himself, on reading his romantic
Dialogues, to exclaim, Ye Gods, what a heap of lies
has this young man placed to my account f !
But of all the Egyptian inventions, and Pytha-
goric practices, nothing pleased him more than that
of the double doctrine, and the division of his
auditors into the exoteric and esoteric classes : lie
more professedly than any other, avowing those
principles, on which that distinction was founded ;
such as, 7%** it is for the benefit of mankind, that
they should be ojten deceived That there are some
truths not jit for the people to know That the
world is not to be entrusted with the true notion of
God , and more openly philosophizing upon that
distinction, in his writings. Thus, in his books
of Laws (which we shall see presently were of the
exoteric kind) he defends the popular opinion,
T $a<rt ds K) XuxfctTw axyffavlot rov Autriv &
-, Hfoxtas, ttTreiv, 41; srcM,* /xs xale^iif^ff o
Diog. Laert. 1. iii. 35.
which
Sect 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 89
which held the sun, moon, stars, and earth, to be
Gods, against the theory of Anaxagoras, which
taught the sun was a mass of fire, the moon an
habitahle earth, $c. Mere, his objection to the
NEW PHILOSOPHY (as he calls it) is, that it was
an inlet to atheism ; for the common people, when
they once found these to he no Gods which they had
received for such, would he apt to conclude, there
were none at all ; but in his Cratylus, which was
of the esoteric kind, he laughs at their Forefather?,
for worshipping the sun and stars, as Gods.
In a word, the Ancients thought this distinction
of the double doctrine, so necessary a key to Plato s
writings, that they composed discourses on it. Nu-
menius, a Pythagorean and Platonist both in one,
wrote a treatise (now lost) of the secret doctrines
(that is, the real opinions) of Plato * ; which would
probably have given much light to this question,
had the question wanted it- But Albinus, an old
Platonist, hath, in some measure, supplied this loss,
by his Introduction to the Dialogues of Platof. From
which it appeal s, that those very books, where
Plato most dwells on the doctrine of a future state
of rewards and punishments, are all of the exoteric
kind. To this, it hath been said, that some of these
were of the political and civil kind : and so say I ;
* Tlefi ruv Rt&Tuv^ a-nopfauv. Teste Euseb. 1. xiii.
c. 4, 5. Prsep. Evaiig.
f .A pud Fabric. Bibl. GJ-XC. lib, iii. c. 2*
but
9 o THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
but nevertheless of the exoteric, called political,
from their subject, and exoterlcal from their man
ner of handling it. But if the nature of the sub
ject vvill not teach these objectors that it must needs
be handled exoterically, Jamblichus s authority
must decide between us ; who, in his life of Pytha
goras *, hath used political in the sense of exoterical:
And in that class, Albinus ranks f the Criton, Phaedo,
Minos, Symposium, Laws, Epistles, Epinomis, Me-
nexenus, Clitophon, and Philebus.
There is an odd passage in Cicero J, which
seems to regard the Phaedo in the light of a mere
eivtfirJc composition, so far as it concerns the doc
trine of a future state of rewards and punishments.
The auditor is advised to read the Phaedo, to con-
firm his belief in this point : to which he replies,
Feel mehercule, < quickm s<epius; scd NESCIO
QUOMODO, dum lego assentlor: cum posul Ubrum,
$ mecum ipse de Immortalltatc animorum c&pl
co&itare, asscnsio omnis ilia clabitur. The only
o
reasonable account I can give of this reflection,
(far to suppose it an imitation of something like it
in the Phredo itself, applied to a very different
purpose, gives us none at all) I say the only reason
able account is, that the Phaedo being an exoteric
dialogue, and written for the people, was held
amongst the learned, in the rank of a philosophical
romance : but while one of these better sort of
* Sect. 1 50. t Sect, 5. J Tusc. Disp. 1. i- c. 5.
readers,
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 91
readers, is very intent on such a work, a master
piece, like this, for composition and eloquence, he
becomes so captivated with the charms and allure
ments of these graces, that he forgets, for a moment,
the hidden meaning, and falls into the vuljarjteceit,
But bavin* thrown aside the book, grown cool, and
c5 l -
reflected on those principles concerning^ 6W and
the sold, held in common by the Philosophers (of
which more hereafter) all the bright colouring dis
appears, and the gaudy vision shrinks from his em-
trace. A passage in Seneca s Epistles, will explain,
and seems to support, this interpretation. Quo-
modo molest us cst JUCUNDUM SOMNIUM VIDE sir,
qui exdtat\ aufert cnim votuptatem, etiamsi fal-
sam, cffectum tamen vera habentevr, sic epistola
tua mihi fecit mjiirlain\ reyocavit enim me cogita-
tioni aptce traditum, &: it u rum, si licuisset, ulterius.
Juvabat de aeternitate animarum qu&rere, imo
mehercule credere. Credebam enim facile opinioni-
bus inagnorum virorum, reni gratissimam promit-
tentium magis quain probantium ! Dabam me spel
tanttf. Jam eram fastidio mihi, jam re liquids
cetatis infract a contemnebam^ in immensum illud
tempus <* in possessionem omnis cevi transit urus:
cum subiio experrecius sum> epistola tua accepta,
&; tarn B E L LU M so M x i u si perdidi *.
The Platonic philosophy being then entirely
Pythagorean in the poirit in question, and this
latter rejecting the doctrine of a future state of
102.
rewards
92 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
rewards and punishments, we might fairly conclude
them both under the same predicament.
But as PLATO is esteemed the peculiar patron
of this doctrine; chiefly, I suppose, on his~being
the Jirst who brought REASONS for the ETERNITY
df the soul * : on this account, it will be proper to
be a little more particular.
1. First then, it is very true, that Plato hath
argued much for the eternity, or, if you will, for the
immortality of the soul. But to know what sort
of immortality he meant, we need only consider
what sort of arguments he employs. Now these,
which he was so famous for inventing and inforcing,
were natural and metaphysical, taken from the essence
and qualities of the soul; which therefore concluded
only for its permanency : and this he certainly be
lieved f . But for any moral arguments, from which
only a future state of rewards and punishments
can be deduced, he resolves them all into tradition,
and the religion of his country.
2. As the inventing reasons for the immortality
of the soul, was one cause of his being held the
* Tuscul. Disp, 1. i. 0.17. Primum de animorum
JETEKNITATE non solumsensisseidem quod PYTHAGORAS,
sed RATION EM etiam attulisse.
*f* Tot rationes attulit [Plato] ut velle ceteris, sibi
certe persuasisse videatur. Cic. Tusc. Disp. 1. i. c. 21.
KaQaKsp o VCJJL^- b var^- riyetj as he expresses it in his
twelfth book of Laws.
great
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 93
great patron of this doctrine; so another, was his
famous refinement (for it. was indeed //Ay) of the
natural Metempsychosis, the peculiar notion of the
Pythagoreans. This natural Metempsychosis was,
as we have said, that the successive transition of
the soul into, other bodies was physical and necessary ,
and exclusive of all mor^designation whatsoever.
Plato, on receiving this opinion from his master,
gave it this additional improvement; that those
changes and transitions were the purgations of im
pure minds, unfit , by reason of the pollutions they
had contracted, to reascend the place from whence,
they came, and rejoin that Sui&sTAWCEfrom whence
they were discerped; and consequently, that pure
immaculate souls were exempt from this transmi
gration. Thus Plato s Metempsychosis (which was
as peculiarly his, as the other was Pythagoras*)
seemed indeed to have some shadow of a moral
designation in it, which his master s had not : neither
did it, like that, necessarily subject all to it, without
distinction; or for the same length of time. la
this then they differed : But how much they agreed
in excluding the notion of all future state of reward
and punishment, will be seen., when in the next
section we come to shew what a kind of existence
it was which Pythagoras and Plato afforded to the
soul, when it had rejoined that universal SUBSTANCE,
from which it had been discerped.
We have now explained the three sorts of Me
tempsychosis ; The popular ; That which was
peculiar
94 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
peculiar to Pythagoras ; and lastly, Timt peculiar to
Plato. The not distinguishing the Platonic from
the Pythagoric; and both, from the Popular, has
occasioned even the Ancients to write with much
obscurity on this matter. What can be more inex
plicable and contradictory than the account Servius
hath given of it? " Sciendum, non omnes animas
" ad corpora, reverti. Aliquoe enirn propter vitae
merita non redeunt propter malam vitam; aliquee
" propter fati necessitatem." In JEn. vi. ver. 713.
Here, he has jumbled into o.ve, as the current doc
trine of the Metempsychosis, these three different
and distinct sorts : aliqua propter vita MERITA
non redeunt, belonging to the popular notion; aliqua
redeunt propter fall necessitate, belonging to
Pytbagoras s; and allqiue propter MALAM vitam,
to Plato s.
3. However it is very true, that Plato in his
writings inculcates the doctrine of a future state
of rewards and punishments : but this, always in
the gross sense of the populace : that the souls
cf ill men descended into asses and swine; that
the uninitiated lay in mire and filth ; that
there vere three judges of hell : and talks much of
Styx, Cocytus, Acheron, c. and all so seriously *,
as shews he had a mind to be believed. 13ut did
he indeed believe these fables ? We may be assured
he did not : for being the most spiritualized of the
* In his Gorgias, Phacdo, and Republic.
Philosophers,
Sect 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 95
Philosophers, had he really credited & future state
of rewards and punishments, he would have refined
and purified it, as he did the doctrine of t
of the soul, which he certainly believed. But he
has as good as told us what he really thought of
the matter, in his Epinomis ; where, writing of the
condition of a good and wise man after death, he
says, of whom, both in JEST and in EARNEST,
1 constantly affirm, that when such a one shall have
finished his destined course by death, he shall at his
dissolution be stript of those many senses which he
here enjoyed ; and then only participate of one simple
lot or condition. And, of MANY, as he was here,
being become ONE, he shall be happy, wise, and
blessed *. In this passage, I understand Plato
secretly to intimate, that, when he was in jest, he
held the future happiness of good men in a peculiar
and distinct existence,, which is the popular and moral
notion of a future state : but, when in earnest, he
held, that this existence was not personal or peculiar,,
but a common life? without distinct sensations:
a resolution into the TO tv. And it is remarkable,
that the whole sentence has an elegant ambiguity,
capable of either meaning. For &&>,& v ala-towiM
may either signify our many passions and appetites,
* *Ov >c &
* rl woXhuv TOTE xotbotTizo vw aiff&nfftuv, /ma; re
Ok (AOVGV, >fy K ( STOA?.WV ivot yE/OVOTOj EV$GUfACVet T8
tftfy&rttlw apa > paxctfiw. Sub fin.
or
96 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
or our many cogitations. To deny we have the
first of these in a future state, makes nothing
against a distinct existence ; but to deny the second,
does. His disciple Aristotle seems to have under
stood him as meaning it in this latter sense, when
iii earnest; and has so paraphrased it as to exclude
all peculiar existence *. There is the same am
biguity in lx sroAAwi/ **, which may either signify,
that, of his many sensations, he hath only one left,
the feeling happiness ; or that, from being a part,
and in the number of many individuals of the same
species, he is become 0/ve, and entire, by being
joined to, and united \vith the universal nature.
Plato affirms all this still more plainly, in his com
mentary on Timeeus, where he agrees to his author s
doctrine of the fabulous invention of the FOREIGN
TORMENTS (*.
4. Iii confirmation of the whole, (/ . e. of Plato s
disbelief of the religious doctrine of a future state,
as founded on the v. ill and providence of the Gods)
\ve observe, in the last place, that the most in-
telli^ent of the Ancients regarded what Plato said
of a future state of rewards and punishments, to be
said only in the esoteric way to the people.
The famous Stoic, Chrysipp us ;, when he blames
Pldto, as not rightly deterring men from injustice,
by frightful stories of future punishments, takes it
* See hereafter, in Sect IV. of this Book.
3 . : . .
j- See pp. 78, 70. J Plut. de Stoic, repug.
for
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 97
for granted that Plato himself gave no credit to
them : for he turns his reprehension, not against
that philosopher s wrong belief, but his wrong
judgment, in imagining such childish terrors * could
be useful to the cause of Virtue.
Strabo plainly declares himself of the same opi
nion, when, speaking of the Indian Brachmans, he
says, that they had invented fables in the manner
of Plato, concerning the immortality of the soul,
and a future judgment in the shades below; and
other things of the same nature f .
Celsus owns that every thing which Plato tells us
of a future state, and the happy abodes of the vir
tuous, is an allegory. " But what (says he) we
" are to understand by these things, is not easy for
" every one to find out. To be master of this, we
" must be able to comprehend his meaning, when he.
" says, They cannot, by reason of their imbecility
" and sluggishness, penetrate into the highest re-
" gion. But were their nature vigorous enough
" to raise itself to so sublime a contemplation, they
" would then come to understand, that this was the
" true heaven, and the true irradiation J." To un
derstand
N fl; s3tv 3lpsfov7 TV$ Axxx$ xj nfc A*p/7Sf, 3i* uv to,
vaidof ia ra xaKQa-Whiiv at ywauxe$ aveigyxvi.
t UexfaTiKeKwi 3s -^ pv9x$, ucrTrep ^ IIAATUN, isttf re
a<p6afffia$ ^UMS, xj TWV Kaff & xgtcrsuvy xj a^A TOICIUTX.
Geogr. 1. xv. p. 1040. Gron. Ed.
J T/ 3s 3i T8TWV IftQaviZety nsavn yvuvat pc&tov el JAYI ofif
iffautiv dwoulon T/ WOT Irly txtTvo o <prwv VTT curQeveias j^
VOL. III. H
OS THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
derstand this true irradiation, the dtofavw <??, we
must consider that light was one of the most im
portant circumstances of the Pagan Elysium, as we
may see in the chapter of the Mysteries ; where a
certain ravishing and divine light is represented, as
making those abodes so recommendable ;
Largior hie campos asthcr & lumine vestit
Purpureo - - -
But this remarkable passage of Celsus, besides the
general conclusion to be drawn from it, confirms
what we have said of the peculiar Platonic Metem
psychosis. For here Celsus resolves all Plato s mean
ing, in his representations of a future state of
rewards and punishments, into that Metempsychosis:
and we shall see hereafter, that that was resolvable
into the re-union of the soul with the Divine Nature,
when it became vigorous enough to penetrate into
the highest region *.
The emperor Julian addressing himself to Hera-
clius the Cynic, on the subject of that sect, when
he comes to speak of the double doctrine, and the
admission ofjablc into the teachings of the philo
sophers, observes, |hat it hath its use chiefly in
Ethics (in which he includes Politics t) and in that
part of theology relating to initiation^ and the mys
teries,
TV- % out$ IT itvai $iB%e)iu TT sV^ofov rov as^a, >tj rj
$vffi$ \KaYn t*w avct<7x,<r8ai ogz<r<X) yvuvsu av bri sxeivos Inv o
#\nQ%$ fyavo; xj TO cfcnQiwv fwj. Orig. cont. Cels. 1. vii.
p. 352. Sp. Ed.
* See note [Q] at the end of this Book.
QiXOVCfUKOV ?, TO 1StQ\ tiff,}! OlKtaV
Oral. 7.
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 99
t erics *. To support which, he presently quotes the
example of Plato, w iio. when he writes of Theology,
or as a Theologer, is full of fables in his accounts
of the infernal regions f. From hence it appears,
that, in the opinion of this learned emperor, Plato
did not only not speak his real sentiments of these
matters, but that when he did treat of them, it was
not as a Philosopher, but as a Theologer ; in which
character the ancient Sages never thought them
selves obliged to keep within the limits of truth.
What these fabulous relations were, he intimates,
when he previously speaks of the fables taught in
the Mysteries; by which he could only mean their re
presentations of a futuie state : The great Secret of
the Mysteries, the doctrine of the Unity, being, irihis
opinion, of a nature directly contrary to the other.
We now come to the PERIPATETICS and STOICS,
who will give us much less trouble. For these
having in some degree, though not entirely, thrown
off the legislative character, spoke more openly
against a future state of rewards and punishments.
Indeed the difference in this point, between them
and the Platonists, was only from less to more
reserve, as appears from their all having the same
common principles of philosophizing *.
* Kal T SeofceyMttf, ry retort w, > (AVTIKU. Ib.
Ib.
Acad. Qusest.lib.i.
H2 III. ARISTOTLE
ioo THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
III. ARISTOTLE was the disciple of Plato, and
his Rival. This emulation, though it disposed him
to take a different road to fame, in a province yet
unoccupied, and to throw off the legislative cha
racter; yet it set him upon writing books of law
and politics, in opposition to his Master ; whom
takes every occasion to contradict.
He stuck indeed to the ancient method of the
double doctrine, but with less caution and reserve.
For, whereas the Pythagoreans and Platonists kept
it amongst the secrets of their schools, he seems
willing that all the world should take notice of it,
by giving public directions to- distinguish between
the two kinds *. Accordingly, in his Nkomachian
Ethics, he expresses himself without any ceremony,
and in the most dogmatic way, against a future
State of rewards and punishments. Death (says
he) is of all things the most terrible. For it is the
final period of existence. And beyond that, it af-
pears 7 there is neither good nor evil for the dead
man to dread or hope \.
And in another place he tells us, that the soul,
after its separation from the body, will neither joy
nor grieve, love, nor hate, nor be subject to any
* See Cic. Ep. ad Att. lib. iv. Ep. 16. in singulis
libris [de republica] utor procemiis, ut Aristoteles in iis >
quos e|o/]f^xK$ vocat -
*f- QcGeouTcfiw 5t o 3r < /(^* tskcas. yap xj aSsy m TW Tf^Vfwn
fajittt sr alcdoV) are xoaov tivct Eth. ad Nicom. lib. iii.
c. 6. p. 130. Ed. Han. 1610. 8vo.
passions
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 101
passions of the like nature. And lest we should
suspect that this was said of the ANIMAL life only,
he goes further, and observes, that it will then neither
remember, think, nor understand*. It must there
fore, according to this Philosopher, ibe absolutely
lost, as to any -separate existence.
IV. ZENO, the Founder of the Porch, followed
the mode, in writing of Laws and a Republic.
Agreeably to this part of his character, we find, by
Lactantius, that lie taught a future state of rewards
and punishments in the very terms of Plato : Esse
wferos Zeao Stoicus docuit; $ sede-s piorum ab
impiis esse discretas , $ Mo* qwdem qidetas ac delec-
tabiles iRColerz rcgiones, bos vern lucre pxnas in
tenebrosis lodsatque in cam voraginibits horrenditf.
Yet, we know that he and the whole Porch held, that
God governed the world only by his general Pro
vidence; which did not extend either to Individuals,
Cities, or People : And, not to insist that his fol
lower Chrysippus laughed at these things, as the
most childish of all terrors, we know too, that the
philosophic principle of his School was, thai the
soul died with the body^. Indeed, Jx> compliment
their
* TO 3k AIANOEI20AI, xj $IAEIN MI2E1N, Ir
T MNHMONETE, TE ^x?T. De anima, 1. v.
f Inst. lib. vii. sect. 7, t Nat. Deor. 1. iii. c. 39.
701$
K3
102 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
their WISE MAX, the Stoics taught that hi* soul
held it out till the general Conflagration ; by which,
when we come to speak of their opinion, concern
ing the nature and duplicity of the soul, we shall
find they meant just nothing.
However, it was not long before the Stoics en^
tirely laid aside the legislative character ; for. which
their Master appears to have had no talents, as we
may judge by what he lays down in his Republic,
that States should not busy themselves in erect in <?
temples ; for we ought not to think there is any
thing holy, or sacred, or tltat deserves any real
esteem, in the work of masons and labourers *. The
good man had forgot that he was writing Laws for
a People; and so turned impertinently enough, to
philosophise with the stoical Sage. The truth is,
this sect had never any great name for Legislation:
The reason is evident. This part of Ethics, more
than any other, requires the cultivation of, and ad^
herence to, what is called COMMON NOTICES.
Whereas, of all the ancient systems of Philosophy,
the Stoical Morals most deviated from Nature f.
They
TW ^ fojppdfyoy oTa In vs^i TX$ IDIOTS, y$ ^fi ^ S^TTU^
fu<ro;. Plut. de Plac. Phil. lib. iv. c. 7. See the Critical
inquiry into the Opinions and Practice of the Ancient
Philosophers, p. 2737. 2d ed.
on >c yvuv 6 irsuf rn
^ -2Z70MK a%iov -Hy ayiov olxobfauv re fyyoy -^ Qavawuv. Apud
Grig. pont. Cels. p. 6
t See note [R] at the end of this Book.
Sect 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 103
They soon felt the effects which the doctrines of
their School had on common life, and therefore
in good time laid the study of Politics quite
aside. After which, they wrote, without the least
reserve, against a future state of rewards and
punishments.
Thus EPICTETUS, a thorough Stoic, if ever there
was any, speaking of death, says, " But whither do
" you " go ? no where to your hurt : you return
" from whence you came : to a friendly conso-
" ciation with your kindred elements ; what there
" was of the nature of fire in your composition,
" returns- to the element of tire ; what there was
" of earth, to earth; what of air, to air; and of
" water, to water. There is no Hell, nor Acheron,
" nor Cocytus, nor Pyriphlegethon *."
In another place, he says, " The hour of death
" approaches. Do not endeavour to aggravate,
"j" and make things worse than they really are:
" Represent them to yourself in their true light.
" The time is now come when the materials of
" which you are compounded will be resolved into
" the elements from which they were originally
" taken. What hurt or cause of terror is there in
# ___ , Ha; sis &w tisivov, aXX oQev lysva, $ rot
wfyevw, els foixsief offov W Iv <roi wvf, & w? fasum,
*3i* yjSiw Q<rov WMiuM*, els TSveu/toiTiQv cxrov
Apud Arrian. lib. iii. c. 13.
H4 "this?
104 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
" this? or what is there in the world that ABSO-
" LUTELY PERISHETH* "
ANTONINUS says, " He who feareth death, either
" fears that he shall be deprived of all sense, or
that he shall experience different sensations. If
6 all sensations cease, you will be no longer subject
" to pain and misery; if you be invested with
" senses of another kind, you will become another
" creature, and will continue to exist as such f."
SENECA, in his consolation to Marcia, daughter
of the famous Cremutius Cordus the Stoic, is not
at all behindhand, in the frank avowal of the same
principles. Cogita, nullis defunct um malls qffici :
ilia quce nobis inferos faciunt terribiles, FABULAM
esse: nullas imminere mortuis tenebras, nee car-
cerem, nee Jlumina Jlagrantia igne, nee oblivionis
amnem, nee tribunalia, 8$ reos < in ilia libertate tarn
laxa ullos iterum tyrannos. Luserunt istapoette, <
vanis nos agitavere terroribus. Mors omnium dolo-
rum 8 solatia est, 8$ Jinis : ultra quam mala nostra
lion exeunt ; qua nos in illam tranquiUitatem, IN QUA,
ANTEQUAM NASCEHEMUR, jaCUMlUS, repOtllt J.
* "H5Vj Hpufa aTToQaysiv f*h Tfayu& i TO ^ay^a, aXX* elir*
ftvcttj Yy Tl 0<VOV, Tl /XA^{ O,7TO>^J(7&ai 1(*V V Tw oV^tW. 1. iv. 7.1.
*r "O TOV
tire attoiQiepotv aurvwiv wwn, Mosov $uov ECO?, ^, T
yiii. 58.
t Cap. 19,
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 105
Luc i AN, who, of all the Ancients, best under
stood the intrigues and intricacies of ancient Phi
losophy, appears to have had the same thoughts
of the Stoics upon the point in question. In his
Jupiter Tragicus, or discourse on Providence, Da-
mis, the Epicurean, arguing against Providence,
silences the Stoic, Timocles, when he comes to the
inequality of events , because the Author would not
suffer his Stoic to bring in a future state to remove
the difficulty. And, that nothing but decorum, or
the keeping each Sect to its own principles, made
him leave the Stoic embarrassed, appears from Iris
Jupiter confuted, or discourse on destiny; where,
when Cyniscus presses Jupiter with the same argu
ments against Providence, Jupiter easily extricates
himself: " You appear by this, Cyniscus, to be
" ignorant what dreadful punishments await the
" wicked after this life, and what abundant hap-
" piness is reserved for the good*."
I will only observe in taking leave of this subject,
that the famous STOICAL RENOVATION (which hath
been opposed to what is here represented) seems to
have been conceived on the natural Metempsychosis
of Pythagoras. Origen gives the following account
of it : " The generality of the Stoics not only sub-
" ject every thing mortal to these RENOVATIONS,
" but the immortals likewise, and the very Gods
" themselves. For after the conflagration of the
* Ob ya
oVi o< petrol svfapmi*
" Universe,
io6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
<c Universe, which hath happened already, and will
" happen hereafter, in infinite successions, the same
" face and order of things hath been and ever will
" be preserved from the beginning to the end *."
It is true, the men of this School, to ease a little
the labouring absurdity, contend for no more than
the most exact resemblance of things, in one reno
vation, to those of another. Thus the next Socrates
was not individually the same with the last, but one
exactly like him ; with exactly such a wife as
Xantippe, and such accusers as Anytus and Me-
litusf. Which, however, shews the folly of bringing
this renovation for a proof, that the Stoics believed
a future state of rewards and punishments.
Having now gone through these FOUR FAMOUS
SCHOOLS, I should have closed the section, but that
T imagined
* STCJ XWV ol tsteixg s I/.OVQV TY\V ruv
tlveu QztriV) a>.X xj TY\V ruv aQxvxruv xj TUV HXT aur&f
ya$ TY,V ra tzavTCx; sKTrvpua-iv anti^ccHis
TCC& <XTT apxps (&%fi r^aj isavlvv ytyovs re
(Asvlot StgaTrzuEiv icu; rctg otTrefjupaure^ ot 0.7:0
off OTTWJ, aTra^a^oatlsg (pacriv effgo-Qat Kola
eiTro TOJV vspolsppv veptofav vsavla? no,
TI$ TO!
. Orig. cont. Cels. 1. iv. ed. Spen. pp. 208, 209.
The nature of this renovation is examined at large,
and admirably developed, in the Critical Inquiry into
the Opinions of the Ancient Philosophers.
f See note [S] at the end of this Book.
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 107
I imagined the curious reader would be well pleased
to know what CICERO thought, on this important
point ; Cicero, whcTfinished the Conquests of his
countrymen in Greece, and brought home in triumph,
those only remains of their ancient grandeur, their
PHILOSOPHY and ELOQUENCE*. But there are
great difficulties in getting to his real sentiments. I
shall mention some of the chief.
1. First, that which arises from the use of the
double doctrine ; a circumstance common to the
Greek philosophy ; of its essence ; and therefore,
inseparable from its existence. The ancients who
lived after Cicero, such as- Clemens Alexandrinus,
Origen, Synesius, Sallust the philosopher, Apuleius,
do iii fact speak of it as an instrument still in use ;
nor do any other ever mention it as a thing become
obsolete. So that when Cicero undertook to explain
the Greek Philosophy to his countrymen, he could
not but employ so fashionable a vehicle of science.
But how much it contributed to hide the real senti
ments of the user, we have seen above.
2. Another difficulty arises from the peculiar
genius of the Sect he espoused, the New Academy ;
which was entirely sceptical: It professed a way of
philosophising, in which there was no room for any
^ - ToV <F ATTOtoUVlOV - EtVf-tV Sfi /UEV, W X/XEfftW,
fy Savpafai ry$ tie *E*tee J" o uiluga TV T^%V, opoiv,
TUV xahuv xj/owv ysrcAEiVelo, x^ ^odfrct, Pw/j.aioi$ &a era
JIAIAEIAN TE *) AOFON, Tlut. Vit. Cic,
one
io8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
one to interfere with his own opinions ; or, indeed,
to have any. It is true, were we to consider Cicero
as a strict Academic, in the Grecian sense of ad
hering to a Sect, our enquiry would be presently at
an end ; or at least very impertinent : but he pro
fessed this Philosophy in a much laxer way ; as we
shall now see.
3. And this leads us to another difficulty, arising
from the. manner, in which the Greek Philosophy
was received in Italy. The Romans in general
were, by their manners and dispositions, little
qualified for speculative science. When they first
got footing, and had begun a commerce for arts, in
Greece, they entertained great jealousies of the
Sophists, and used them roughly : and it was long
before they could be persuaded to think favourably
of a set of men, who professed themselves always
able and ready to dispute for or against VIRTUE
indifferently * : and even then, the Greek Philoso
phy was introduced into Rome, but as a more re*
fined species of luxury, and a kind of table-furniture,
set apart for the entertainment of the Great; who
were yet very far from the Grecian humour, jurare
in verba rnagistri : they regarded the doctrines of
the Sect they espoused, not as a rule of life, but
only as a kind of Apparatus for their rhetoric
schools ; to enable them to invent readily, and reason
justly, in the affairs of life. Cicero, who best
* See note [T] at the end of this Book.
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 109
knew upon what footing it was received, says no
less, when he ridicules Cato for an unfashionable
fellow. Hac homo ingcniosimmus M. Cato aucto-
ribus eruditissimis inductus, arripuit, NEQUE DISPU-
TANDI CAUSA, UT MAGNA PARS, Sed ltd VWCtldi*.
The least, then, we may conclude from hence is,
that Cicerc^ laughing at those who espoused a Sect
viwndi cwm^ did himself espouse the Academic,
causa disputandi: which indeed he frankly enough
confesses to his adversary, in this very oration:
fatebor enim, Cato, me quoque in adolescentia,
diffisurn inferno meo, quaesisse adjumenta doctrinae.
Which, mother words, is, I myself espoused a Sect
of philosophy, for its use in disputation. Quintilian,
having spoken of Cicero as a Philosopher, when lie
comes to Cato s nephew, Brutus, (in his Philosophy,
as much in earnest as his Uncle) ; of him, by way
of Contrast to Cicero, he says, Egregius vero, multo-
que quatn in Orationibus prsestantior Brutus, sufFecit
ponderi rerum : sclas enim sentire qua dicit. As
much as to say, " in this he was like Cicero, that
he was equal to his subject ; in this however he was
unlike, that he always said what he thought" This
slippery way, therefore, of professing the Greek
philosophy, must needs add greatly to the embarras
we complain of.
4. A fourth difficulty arises from Tally s purpose
in writing his works of philosophy : which was, nc
* See note [U] at the end of this Book,
to
no THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
to deliver his own opinion on any point of ethics or
metaphysics, but to explain to his countrymen, in
the most intelligible manner, whatever the Greeks
had taught concerning them. In the execution of
which design, no Sect could so well serve his turn
as the NEW ACADEMY, whose principle it was, not
to interfere with their own opinions : and a passage,
in his Academic questions, inclines me to think, he
entered late into this Sect, and not till he had formed
his project. Varro, one of the dialogists, says to
him : sed de teipso quid est quod audio ? Tully
answers : quanam de re ? Varro replies ; relict am
a te VETEREM JAM, tractan autem NOVAM. Varro
hints at it again, where, speaking afterwards to Tully,
he says, tua mnt mine paries, qui ab antiquontm
ratione NUNC desciscis, < ea, qua ab Arcesila
novata sunt probas, docere *, c. This further
appears from a place in his Nature of the Gods f ,
where he says, that his espousing the New Academy
of a sudden, "was a thing altogether unlooked for.
Multis etiam sensi mirabile videri, earn nobis potissi-
mum probatam tsse philosophiam, qua lucem eriperet
< quasi noctem quondam rebus ojfunderct, deserts-
que discipline, % jam pridem relict a patrocimum
NEC OPINATUM a nobis esse susceptum. The change
then was late; and after the ruin of the Republic;
* Manutius and Davies, who, I suppose, did not
attend to what passed before, agree to throw out the
word mine, as perfectly useless and insignificant.
f Lib. i. c. 3.
when
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 111
when Cicero retired from business, and had leisure,
in his recess, to plan and execute this noble under
taking. So that a learned Critic appears to have
been mistaken, when he supposed the choice of the
New Academy was made in his youth. This Sect
(says he) did best agree with the vast genius and
ambitious spirit of YOUNG CICERO *.
5. But the principal difficulty proceeds from the
several and various characters he sustained in his
life, and writings ; which habituated him to feign
and dissemble his opinions. He may be considered
as an Orator, a Statesman, and a Philosopher.
i. As a STATESMAN, he discharged the office of
a PATRIOT, urbis conservator $ par ens, in a Go
vernment torn in pieces by the dissensions between
Senate and People. But could this be done by
speaking his real sentiments to either ? Both were
very faulty ; and, as faulty men generally are, too
angry to hear reason. I have given an instance
below, in the case of the Catiline conspiracy. And
the issue of it declares the wisdom of his conduct
He saved the Republic. 2. As a PHILOSOPHER,
his end and design in writing was not to deliver his
own opinion, but to ex plain theGjecianPhilosofhi/.
On which account he blames those men as too
curious, who were for knowing his own sentiments.
In pursuance of this design, he brings in Stoics,
* Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free-thinking,
Part IL Rem. 53.
Epicureans,
ii2 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Epicureans, Platonists, Academics new and old,
in order to instruct the Romans in their various
opinions, and several ways of reasoning. But whether
it be himself or others that are brought upon the
stage, it is the Academic, not Cicero ; it is the Stoic,
the Epicurean, not Balbus nor Velleius, who deliver
their opinions, 3. As an ORATOR, he was an
Advocate jbr his client, or more properly personated
him. Verum etiam (says Quintilian) in his causis
quibus advocamur, eadem differentia diligenter est
eustodienda. Utiinur emmjictione personarwn, et
velut ore alieno loquimur. In this case, then, he
was to speak the sentiments of his client, not his
own. So that in all these cases, though he acted
neither a weak nor an unfair part, he becomes totally
inscrutable. For these were Characters, all equally
personated: and no one more the real man than the
other : but each of them taken up, and laid down,
for the occasion. This appears from the numerous
inconsistencies we find in him, throughout the course
of his sustaining them. In his oration de Harusp.
respon. in senate, when the popular superstition was
inflamed by present prodigies, he gives the highest
character of the wisdom of their Ancestors, as
Founders of their established Religion : " Ego vero
" primum habeo auctores ac magistros religionurn
V colendarum majores nostros : quorum mihi tanta
" fuisse sapientia videtur, ut satis superque pru-
* dentes sint, qui illorum prudentiam, non dicam
" assequi, seel, quanta fuerit, perspicere possint"
13 Yet
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 113
Yet in his treatise of Laws, as the reader has seen
above *, he frankly declares, that the folly of their
Ancestors had suffered many depravities to be
brought into Religion. Here the Philosopher con
futed the Statesman : As, in another instance, the
Statesman seems to have got the better of the Phi
losopher. He defends the paradoxes of the Stoics
in a philosophical dissertation : But in his oration
for Marina, he ridicules those paradoxes with the
utmost freedom. Nor under one and the same
Character, or at one and the same time, is he more
consistent. In the orations against Catiline, when
he opens the conspiracy to the Senate, he represents
it as the most deep-laid design, which had infected
all orders and degrees of men in the City. Yet,
when he brings the same affair before the People, he
talks of it as only the wild and senseless escape of
a few desperate wretches ; it being necessary for
his purpose, that the Senate and People, w ho viewed
the Conspiracy from several stations, should see it
in different lights.
We meet with numbers of the like contradictions,
delivered in his own person, and under his philoso
phic character. Thus, in his books of divination,
he combats all augury, &c. and yet, in his philoso-
VHMPMMM
phic treatise of laws, he delivers himself in their
favour ; and in so serious and positive a manner,
that it is difficulfTrot to believe him in earnest. In
a word, he laughed at the opinions of State, when
* See Book II. sect, 6,
-Vot.IIJ. I be
114 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
he was amongst the Philosophers ; he laughed at
the doctrines of the Philosophers, when he was
cajoling an Assembly ; and he laughed heartily at
both, when withdrawn amongst his friends in a corner.
Nor, is this the worst part of the story. He hath
given us no MARK to distinguish his meaning: For,
in his Academic questions *, he is ready to swear he
always speaks what he thinks : Jurarem per Jovem
Deosque penates, me & ardere studio veri reperiendi,
& ea sentire quiE dicerem | : Yet, in his Nature of
the Gcds ;];, he has strangely changed his note :
Qui autem requirunt, quid quaque de re ipsi sen-
tiamus, curiosius id faciunt quam necesse est.
If it be asked, then, in which of his writings we
can have any reasonable assurance of his true sen
timents ? I reply, scarce in any, but his EPISTLES.
Nor is this said to evade any material evidence that
may be found in his other works, in favour of a
future state of rewards and punishments : on the
contrary, there are many very glaring instances of
his disbelief, as far a.s we can hazard a judgment of
his mind. As in his Offices, which bids the fairest
of any to come from his heart, he delivers himself
very effectually against it; as will appear in the
next section. And in his oration for Cluentius to
the Judges, he speaks with yet more force on the
same side of the question : " Nam nunc quidem
* Lib. iv. sect. 20.
f See note [X] at the end of this Book.
J Lib. i. sect. 5.
" quid
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 115
" quid tandem illi mail mors attulit? nisi forte
" ineptiis zcfabulis ducirnur, ut existimemus illurn
" apud inferos impiorum supplicia perferre," &c.
" Qure si falsa sunt, id quod omncs intdligunt,
" quid ei tandem aliud mors eripuit praeter sensum
" doloris ? "
Nor will most of those passages, which are usually
brought in support of the opinion, that Tully did
really believe the immortality of the soul, stand in
any account against these : Because, as will be
shewn in the next section, they best agree to a kind
of Immortality very consistent with a thorough dis
belief of a future state of rewards and punishments.
As to the celebrated argument of Plato, for the
immortality of the soul, explained and inforced by
Cicero, it is so big with impiety and nonsense, that
one would wonder how any Christian Divine could
have the indiscretion to recommend it as doing credit
to ancient Philosophy ; or to extol the inventors
and espousers of it, as having delivered and enter
tained very just, rational, a /id proper notions con
cerning the immortality of the human soul. If we
examine this Philosophy as it is delivered us by
Plato in his Phasdrus, or as it is translated by Cicero
in his first Tusculan, we shall find it gives the
human soul the attributes of the Divine Being,
and supposes it to have been from eternity, uncre
ated and self-existent. Speaking of the principle
of motion, or the soul, it says, principii autem nulla
est origo : narn e principio oriuntur omnia : ipsura
I 2 autera
li6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book IIL
autem niilla ex re alia nascl pot est : nee enim esset
id principium quod gigneretur aliunde. Id autem
ncc nascl potcst, ncc mori.- - -Hsec est propria
natura animi atque vis; quae si est ima ex omnibus,
quaB se ipsa semper rnoveat, neque nata certe est,
et tfterna est. i T-usc. e. 2, 3. It is plain too, that
this argument assigns the human soul a NECES
SARY immortality, or an immortality which arises
from its nature and essence, or from its original and
inherent powers ; and not from the Will or appoint
ment of God. We are told that the soul is im
mortal, because it is a self-moving substance ; for
that a self-moving substance can never cease to be,
since it mil always have a power of existing within
itself, independent of any foreign or external cause.
And what can be said more of God himself ? sentit
igitur animus se moveri, quod cum sentit, illud una
sentit se vi sua, non aliena, mover! ; ncc ac cider e
posse, ut ipse unquam a se de&cratttr. i Tusc. c. 23.
Here its immortality is not supposed to arise from
the influence of any foreign or external cause, but
is resolved into the natural and inherent powers of the
soul itself. Plato says, tTrsiK 21 dytw-nlov ^ &JHx<pQogo
TBTO til zrz aVoAAuo-^t XTS
auro otvotywi
yvsa-Qxi Jwojov, 1^ avayxys dyivvtlov rs
av it*. The necessity here spoken of was supposed
to arise from an internal faculty and power of the
soul, or from the principle of self : motion. The
force of all this, has been shuffled over by the wri-
ters against the D. L. with only repeating, that,
Cicero
Sect. 3-] OP MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 117
Cicero inferred the immortality of the soul from its
wonderful powers and faculties, on its principle of
self-motion, its memory, invention, wit and compre
hension. As to self-motion, the word is equivocal,
and may either signify the power given to a being
to begin motion ; or a power inherent^ and essential
to a Being, who has all things within itself, and
receives nothing from without. Now we have
shewn, that Plato and his followers used selmotion,
when applied to the soul, in this latter sense ; and
from thence inferred a NECESSARY immortt .lity^ in
that Being which had it, an immortality which im
plied increation and self-existence. As to the other
powers and faculties of memory, invention, wit and
comprehension, whatsoever immortality may he logi
cally deduced from them, it is not that which Cicero
deduces : For, as we see, his is a strict and proper
immortality, an existence from all eternity, to all
eternity: In a word, the immortality of the Supreme
Being himself. Si cernerem (says Tally) quemad-
modum nasci possent [facilitates animi] etiam quem-
admodum interirent viderern. i Tusc. c. 24. And
again, when he proves the immortality of the soul
against Pansetius, he .goes upon the principle that
the soul cannot be shewn to be immortal, but on the
supposition of its being actually ungenerated. Volt
enim [Panaetius] quod nemo negat, quicquid natinn
sit interire ; nasci autem animos, quod declaret
corum similitudo nihil necessitatis adfert cur nas-
catur, aniaii similitudo. i Tusc. c. 32, 33. I would
j 3 therefore
1 1 8 THE DIVINE LEGATION * [Book III.
therefore have the friends of REASON, not to say
of REVELATIOX, consider whether these extravagant
notions of the human soul, do any honour to ancient
Philosophy ? and whether Tully had not acted a
more decent and modest part, to have held consist
ently, even with Epicurus, the mortality of the soul,
than widi Plato, that it was uncreated, self -existent,
and necessarily eternal ?
It is only then (as we say) in his EPISTLES to his
friends, where we see the man divested of the Poll*
tician, the Sophist, and the Advocate : And there
he professes his disbelief of a future state of rewards
and punishments in the frankest and freest manner.
To L. Mescinius he says : " Sed ut ilia secunda
" moderate tulimus, sic hanc non sol urn adversam,
" sed funditus eversarn fortunam fortiter ferre debe-
" mus ; ut hoc saltern in maximis malis boni con-
" scquamur, ut mortem, quam etiani beati contern-
" nere debeamus, propterea quod NULLUM SENSUM
" esset habitura, nunc sic aifecti, non modo con-
" temnere debeamus, sed etiam optare *." In his
epistle to Torqnatus, he says : " Ita enim vivere
" ut non sit vivendum, miscrrimum est. Mori autem
<c nemo sapiens miserum dixit, ne beato quidem
" sed haec consolatio levis est ; ilia gravior, qua te
" uti spero: Ego certe utor. Nee enim DUM ERO,
" angar ulla re, cum omni vacern culpa : Et si
" NON ERO, sensu oi inino carebo )." Some have
taken the ero and non ero, in this passage, to relate
* Tarn. Ep.l. v. Ep. 21, t Lib. vi. Ep. 3.
generically,
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 11.9
generically, to existence or non-existence absolutely;
and not, as Tully certainly meant it, specifically, to
the state of existence or non-existence here, i. e. Itfe
or death. But if that were his meaning, that if he
had no being he should have no sense, Torquatus, for
so wonderful a discovery, might well have returnee
him his proverb, quoted in this Epistle, ?x<
A9iW. On the contrary, his meaning in all these
passages is that he should have no sense, because he
should have no being. So in his Tuscul. 1. i. c. 1 1.
Quomodo igitur, aut cur, mortem malum tibi videri
dicis; quse aut beatos nos efticiet, animis manen-
tibus; aut non miseros, scnsu carentes, i.e. anwns
non manentibus. But the foregoing passage from
the epistle to Mescinius, in which we find the same
thought, and in the same expression, puts the mean
ing out of doubt. Add to this, that it was the very
language of the Epicureans, and used by Lucretius
as an antidote against the fear of death,
" Scilicet baud nobis quidquam, qui NON ERiMUstum,
" Accidere omnino potcrit SENSUMQUE movere/
But let it be observed, that when Cicero talks of
.death as of the end of man, he does not make this
..conclusion on the Epicurean principle, that the sou
was a mere quality, but on the Platonic, that it was
resolved into the substance from whence it was ex
tracted, and had no longer a particular existence.
Again to the same person* he says;
* Lib. vi. Ep. 4.
I 4 ? <l uod
120 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Booklll.
quod mihi ad consolationem commune tccum est,
si jam vocer ad exitum vitae, non ab ea republica
avellar, qua carendum esse dolearn, pra\sertim cum
id SINE U^LO SEXSU futurum sit." And again
to his friend Toranius*: "Cum consilio pronci
( nihil possit, una ratio videtur, quicquid evenerit,
ferre moderate, praesertim cum omnium reruin
mors sit extremism? That Cicero here speaks
his real sentiments, is beyond all doubt. These are
letters of consolation, to his friends, when he him
self, by reason of the ill state of Public Affairs,
much wanted consolation ; a season when men have
leas Lfe uise > and are most disposed to lay open
their whole hearts ;
Nam verse voces turn dernum pectore ab imo
Ejiciuntur, & eripitur PJERSOXA, manet RES f."
LUC RET,
Here his real sentiments are deliveredj)ositiyely;
which in his Tusculan disputations he advances only
hypothetically ; but with a clearness that well com
ments the conciseness of the foregoing passages.
M. Video te alte spectare & velle in ccelurn migrare.
A. Spero fore, ut contingat id nobis. " Sed fac,
ut isti volunt, animos NON remanere post mortem.
-M.Mai vero quid affert ista sentcntja? Fac
f enim sic animum intcrire, ut corpus. Num igitur
aliq ais dolor, aut omnino post mortem SENSES
* Lib. vi. Ep. 21.
| See note [Y] at the end of this Book,
" in
Sect 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 121
fi in corpore est? Nein ammo quidem igitur SEN-
" sus reinanet, ipse enim nusquam est. Hoc pre-
" mendurn etiam atque etiam est argumentum,
" confirmato illo, de quo, si mortales animi sunt,
" dubitare non possumus, quin tantus interitus in
" morte sit, ut ne minima quidem suspicio SENSUS
" relinquatur *." Now, this is the very language
of the Epicureans, as appears from the following
words of Pliny : " Post sepulturam alise atque alias
" manium ambages. Omnibus a supremadie eadem,
" qua? ante primum : nee magis a morte SENSUS
" ullus aut corpori aut animne quam ante natalem.
" Eadem enim vanitas in futurum etiam se pro-
" pagat, alias immortalitatem anima3, alias trans-
tl fiorurationem, alias sensum inferis dando, & manes
" colendo, deumque faciendo, qui jam etiam homo
<( esse desierit Qua3 (rnalum) ista dementia,
" iterari vitam morte ? Quaeve genitis quies unquam,
" si in sublimi SENSUS ANIM^E manetf."
PLUTARCH was amongst the Greeks, what Cicero
was amongst the Latins, as far as concerned the
business of delivering and digesting the various opi
nions of the Philosophers. In his famous tract of
SUPERSTITION, he uses their COMMON arms to com
bat that evil ; and expresses himself with uncommon
force where he speaks of a future state as an error
essential to superstition, and what the general voice
of Reason, interpreted by sound Philosophy, dis-
* Tusc. Disp. lib. i. c. 34 36.
t Nat. Hist. lib. vii. c. 55.
claims,
122 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
claims. " Death is the final period of our being.
" But SUPERSTITION says NO. - She stretches
" out life beyond life itself. Her fears extend further
" than our existence. She has joined to the idea
" of death, that other inconsistent idea of eternal
" life in misery. For when all things come to an
" end, then, in the opinion of Superstition, they
" begin to be endless *." --
I will beg leave to conclude this section with two
observations relative to the general argument, i . We
have just given a passage from the oration for Clu-
entius, in which, Cicero having ridiculed the popu
lar fables concerning a future state, he subjoins, if
these be false, as all men see they are, what hath
death deprived him of, besides a SENSE o_J>am t f
* -sTEfa; In .j3/8 wei&ow avQf virus o Savo?- tug OE
TOV @oov, ^ trwaTfltttroi TV
hriwiav aQavxruv xj ore wai/slai qsp&yjtotTQy ap%fff6etji
*[* Quee si falsa sunt, id quod omnes intelligimt, quid
ci tandem aliud mors eripuit praeter SENSUM doloris?
Seneca reasons in the same manner. Mors contemni
debet magis quam solet : multa enim de ilia credimus,
Mnltorom ingeniis certalum est ad augendam ejus in^
famiam. Descriptus est career Lnfernus, 8c perpetua
jic.cte oppressa regie, in qua
- " ingens janitor orci," &c.
Sed etiam cum persuaseris istas fabulas esse, nee quic-
quam defunctis superesse quod timeant, subit alius metus,
seque enim tiinor ne apucl inferos sint ; quam ne nusquam.
Ep. 83.
From
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 123
From this inference of the Orator, it appears that
we have not concluded amiss, when, from several
quotations, interspersed throughout this work, in
which a disbelief of the common notion of a future
state of rewards and punishments is implied, we
have inferred the writer s disbelief of a future state
of rewards and punishments in general. 2. We
have seen the Philosophers of every Sect, one while
speaking directly for, and at another, as directly
against a future state of rewards and punishments,
without intimating the least change in their prin
ciples, or making the least hesitation in their pro
fessions : So that either we must hold them guilty
of the most gross and impudent contradictions,
which their characters will not suffer us to conceive
of them ; or else admit the explanation given above
of the DOUBLE DOCTRINE, and the different methods
of their exoteric and esoteric discipline.
Yet to all this it hath been said, " If the Philo-
" sophers disbelieved the popular Divinities, and
" yet really believed the being of a God; why
" might they not reject the popular opinions of a
" future state, and yet, at the same time, hold a
future state of real rewards and punishments ?
" Now as they who did not believe Hercules and
" JEsculapius to be Gods, did not for that reason
" disbelieve the existence of a governing Mind; so
" they that did not believe /Eacus or Minos to be
" judges of Hell, did not for that reason disbelieve
all
124 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookUL
1 all future rewards and punishments*." I answer,
the two cases are nothing alike ; the common fate
of this Writer s Parallels.
i. At the very time the Philosophers discard the
popular Divinities, they declare for the bqingj>f a
Cod. Thus when Varro had said that Hercules
and /Esculapius, Castor and Pollux, were not Gods;
he adds, they only have a right notion of God, who
conceive him to be a Soul, actuating and governing
all things by his power and wisdorn f. But now,
when these Philosophers exploded Styx, Acheron, and
Coc3^tus, did they ever substitute any other future
state of rewards and punishments in their place?
2. The Philosophers give the popular stones
of the infernal regions, as the only foundation and
support of future rewards and punishments ; so
that, if they explode the popular stones, they must
explode the things themselves. And what is more,
THEY TELL US THAT THEY DID SO. But W8S
* Dr. Sykes.
f Quae sunt an tern ilia, quae prolata in multitudinem
noccrit ? Haec, inquit, non esse Deos Herculem, ^Escu-
Japium, Castorcm, Pollucem. Proditur enim a doctis,
quod homines fuerint, et humana conditione defecerint.
But the same Varro says, Quod hi soli ei videantur
animadvertisse, quid esset Deus, qui crediderunt eum
csse animam, motu et ratione mundum gubernantem.
Apud August, de Civ. Dei, 1. iv. c. 27 3 1.
this
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 125
this the case concerning their popular Divinities?
Do they ever represent these as the only foundation
and support of the belief of a Deity?
3. Lastly, The Philosophers held a PRINCIPLE
(arid we are now about to enter upon that matter)
which was inconsistent with a future state of re
wards and punishments : in consequence of which,
they formally, and in express words, disclaim and
reject all such state and condition. But I know
of no principle they held, inconsistent with the
belief ofja God; nor of any declarations they ever
made against such belief. We conclude, therefore,
that the two cases are altogether dissimilar and
unrelated.
SECT. IV.
NOTWITHSTANDING this full evidence against
the PHILOSOPHERS; I much doubt, the general
prejudice in their favour, supported by the reason
ableness of the doctrine itself, will be yet apt to
keep the reader s opinion on this point suspended.
I shall therefore, in the last place, explain the
CAUSES which withheld the Philosophers from be-
lieving : and these will appear to have been certain
fundamental PRINCIPLES of the ancient Greek Phi
losophy, altogether inconsistent with the doctrine
of a future state of rewards and punishments.
But to give this its due force, it will be proper to
premise, that the constitution of that Philosophy,
being
126 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
being above measure refined and speculative, it was
always wont to judge and determine rather on ME
TAPHYSICAL than on MORAL maxims; and to
stick to all consequences, how absurd soever, which
were seen to arise from the former.
Of this, we have a famous instance in the ancient
Democritic Philosophy: which holding, that not
only sensations, but even the cogitations of the mind,
were the mere passion of the Thinker ; and so, all
knowledge and understanding, the same thing with
sense; the consequence was, that there could not
be any error of false judgment ; because all passion
was true passion, and all appearance true appear
ance. From hence it followed, that the sun and
moon were no bigger than they seemed to us : and
these men of reason choae rather to avow this con
clusion, than to renounce the metaphysic principle
which led them into it.
So just is that censure which a celebrated French
writer passes upon them : when the Philosophers
once besot themselves with a prejudice, they are even
wore incurable than the People themselves ; because
they besot themselves not only with the prejudice, but
with the false reasonings employed to support it *.
* Quand les philosophes s entetent une fois d un pre-
juge, ils sont plus incurables que le peuple meine;
parce qu ils s entetent egalement & du prejuge & des
fausses raisons dont ils le soutiennent. Fontenelle, Hist,
des Oracles.
The
Sect 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 127
The regard to metaphysk principles being so great,
the Greek Philosophers (as we shall see) must needs
reject the doctrine of a future state of rewards and
punishments, how innumerable and invincible soever
the moral arguments are which may be brought to
support it For now we come to shew, that there
were two METAPHYSICAL PRINCIPLES concerning
GOD and the SOUL, universally embraced by all,
which necessarily exclude.all notion of a future state
of reward and punishment.
The FIRST PRINCIPLE, which led the Philoso
phers to conclude against such a state was, THAT
GOD COULD NEITHER BE ANGRY NOR KURT
ANY ONE. This, Cicero assures us, was held uni
versally ; as well by those who believed a Provi
dence, as by those who believed not: At hoc
" quidem COMMUNE EST OMNIUM PHILOSOPHO :
" RUM, non eorurn modo, qui Deurn nihil habere
" ipsum negotii dicunt, & nihil exhibere alteri : sed
" eorum etiam qui Deum semper agere aliquid &
" moliri volunt, NUMQ.UAM NEC IRASCI DEUM:
" NEC NOCERE*." What conclusion the Epicu-
cureans drew from hence (those who, he here says,
held, Deum nihil habere ipsum negotii), he tell
in another place, by the mouth of Velleius their
spokesman. " Intelligitur eniin" (an expression de
noting that, in this point, the philosophers were
agreed) " a beata, immortalique natura, & iram
" oratiam segregari : quibus remotis, nullos a
* Offic. lib. iii. cap. 28.
" s opens
128 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
" superis impendere METUS *." And that the other
Sects drew the same conclusion (which infers the
denial of a future state of rewards and punishments)
we shall now see by Cicero himself, who speaks
for them all.
He is here commending Regulus for preferring
the public good to his own, and the honest to the
profitable ; in dissuading the release of the Cartha
ginian prisoners, and returning back to certain
misery, when he might have spent his age at home
in peace and pleasure. All this, he observes, was
done out of regard to his oath. But it may, perhaps*
says he, be objected, what is there in an oath ?
The violator need not fear the wrath of Heaven ;
| for all Philosophers hold, that God cannot be angry
nor hurt any one. He replies, that, indeed, it was
# consequence of the principle of God s not being
angry, that the perjured man had nothing to fear
from divine vengeance : but then it was not this
fear, which was really NOTHING, but justice and
good faith, which made the sanction of an oath.
The learned will chuse to hear him in his own words.
" M. Atilius Regulus Carthaginem rediit: neque
" eum caritas patrire retinuit, nee suorum. Neque
" vero turn ignorabat se ad crudelissimum hostem,
" & ad exquisita supplicia proficisci : Sed jus-
" jurandum conservandum putabat. Quid est igi-
" tur, dixerit quis, in jurejurando ? Nurn iratum
" timemus jovem? At hoc quideui commune
* De Nat. Deor. 1, i. c. 17.
" est
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 129
" est omnium philosophorum. NUMQUAM NEC
" IRASCI DEUM, NEC NOCERE. Hoec quidem
" ratio non magis contra Regulum, quani contra
" omne jusjurandum valet : Sed in jurejurando,
" non qui metus, sed quas vis sit, debet intelligi.
" Est enim jusjurandum affirmatio religiosa : Quod
" autem affirmate, quasi Deo teste, promiseris, id
" tenendum est : Jam enim non ad iram Deorum,
" quag NULL A EST ; sed ad justitiam & ad finem
" pertinet *." It is true, the same Tully says f ,
" deos placatos pietas efficiet et sanctitas," which
looks as if he thought the Gods might be angry ;
and that, therefore, by qu<z nulla est., in the words
above, he did not mean, what the words imply,
qua vana et cowmentitia est ; but, what they do
not imply quci nlhil ad rcm pertinet. Bu t placatos
is not here used in the strict specific sense of ap
peased, which inters preceding anger ; but in the
more loose generic sense of propitious, which infers
no such thing. And my reason for understanding
the word in this sense, is, that, two_ or three lines
afterwards, he declares it to be the opinion of the
Philosophers (to which he agrees) Deos non nocere :
But this opinion was founded on that other, in
question, Deos non irasci.
Here then, we see, Tully owns the consequence
of this universal principle; that it overthrew the
notion of divine punishments : And it will appear
* Cap. 26, 27, 28, 29. f Offic. ii. 3.
VOL. III. K presently,
130 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookllL
presently, that he was no^singular in this concession;
but spoke the sense of his Grecian masters.
A modern reader, full of the philosophic ideas of
these late ages, will he surprised, perhaps, to be
told, that this consequence greatly embarrassed
Antiquity ; when he himself can so easily evade it,
by distinguishing between the human passions of
anger and fondness, and the divine attributes of
justice and goodness ; on which the doctrine of a
future state of rewards and punishments is invin
cibly established. But the ancients had no such
precise ideas of the divine Nature.
Dacier, who understood the genius of Antiquity
very well, was of the same opinion, as appears
from his comment on these words of Antoninus
If there be Gods, then leaving the world is no such
dreadful thing ; for you may be sure they uill do
you no , harm a p\v -9W tl<r, aVb $wfo xaxj
yap <rf ijx av T&tpi&ct,Xoiev. Comme les Stoiciens
mivoient aucune idee ni de peines, ni de recom
penses eternelles apres la mort, et que le plus grand
caractere qn ils reconnoissoient en Dieu, estoit une
BONTE INFJNIE, ils cstoient persuadez qu apres
cette vie on n avoit rien a craindre, et que c estoit
une chose entierement opposee a la nature de Dieu,
de faire du mal. La veritable religion a tire les
homtnes d une securite si pernicieuse, &c. The
learned Critic, indeed, expresses himself very ill,
confounding the premisses and conclusion, the cause
and effect, all the way, one with another; but his
meaning
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 131
meaning is plain enough, that (in his opinion) the
Ancients were very inexpert in their attempts to
sever (if ever they attempted it) anger from God s
justice, w\A fondness from his goodness. We shall
shew, by an illustrious instance, that he was not
mistaken ; lest the reader should suspect that, of
an obscure speculative Principle, we have feigned
one of general credit and influence.
LACTANTIUS, from a forensic Lawyer, now be
come an Advocate for Christianity, found nothing
so much hindered its reception with the Learned,
as the doctrine of a FUTURE JUDGMENT ; which,
their universal principle, that God could not be
angry, directly opposed. To strike at the root of
this evil, he composed a discourse, which Jerom
calls, pulcherrimum opus, intitled, BE IRA DEI :
For lie had observed, he tells us, that this Princi
ple vvas now much spread amongst the common
People * ; he lays the blame of it upon the Philo
sophers f ; and tells us, as Tully had done before,
that all the Philosophers agreed to exclude the .
passion of anger from the Godhead .
So that the general syllogism, Lactantius pro
posed to answer, was this :
If God hath no affections of fondness or hatred,
love or anger ; he cannot reward or punish.
But he hath no affections ; Therefore, S^c.
* Animadvert! PLURIMOS existimare non irasci Deum.
f lidem tarnen a Philosophis irretiti, &falsis argumen-
tationibus capti.
% Ita omnes Philosophide ira consentiunt.
K 2
Let
132 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book IIL
let us see then, how he manages : For although;
his knowledge in the true genius of Christianity
was, perhaps, very imperfect, he was exquisitely
well skilled in the strong and weak side of Pagan
Philosophy. A modern answerer would certainly
have denied the major ; but that was a Principle
received by all parties, as Laetantius himself gives
us to understand, when he says, that the Principle
of God s not being angry destroyed^ all religion,
by taking away a future state *. He had nothing
left then but to deny the minor : And this, he tell?
us, is his purpose to undertake \.
His business is to prove, that God hatb human
passions : And though, by several expressions, drop
ped up and down, lie seems to be fully sensible of
the grossness of this Principle; yet, on the other
hand, all Philosophy agreeing to make it the ne
cessary support of a liiture state, he sets upon his
task in good earnest, avoids all refinements, and
maintains that there are in God, as there are in
man, the passions of loi c and hatred. These in
deed are of two kinds in man, reasonable and
unreasonable ; in God, the reasonable only are to be
found. But, to make all sure, and provide a proper
subject for these passions, he contends strongly
* Qui sine ira Deum esse credentes, dissolvimt omnern
religionem Sive igitur gratiam Deo, sive iram, sive-
utrtimque detraxeris, religionem tolli necesse est. .
f Ha?c [nempe ut irascatur Deus] tuenda nobis, 8c
asserenda seritentia est : in ca enim summa omnis &
cardo relisionis pietatisque versatur*.
for
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 133
for God s having a "human form : No discreditable
notion, at that time, in the Church ; and which, if
I might be indulged a conjecture, I would suppose,
was first introduced for that very purpose, to which
Lactantius here enforces it.
But it is very observable, that our Author in-
troduceth this monstrous notion of God s having
a human form, with an artful attempt, supported
by all his eloquence, to discredit human reason ,
in order to dispose the Reader to believe him, that
nothing could be known of God but by Revelation:
This is an old trick of the Disputers of ail times,
to make reprisals upon Reason; which when found
too upright to deflect, must be represented as too
weak to judge. And when once we find an Author,
who would be valued for his logic, begin with de
preciating Reason ; we may be assured he has some
very unreasonable paradox to advance. So when
the learned Huetius would pass upon his readers
a number of slight chimerical conjectures for De
monstrations, he introduces his work by cavilling at
the certainty of the principles of Geometry,
I. Here we see how the Orthodox evaded this
conclusion of Pagan Philosophy, against a state
of future punishment. Would you know how the
Heretics managed ? They went another way to
work, which it may be just worth while to mention.
The Creator of the invisible world (or the first
Cause) the Marcionites called the GOOD; and the
K 3 Creator
134 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Creator of the visible world, the JUST. Si de
Marcionis argueris hasresi, quae alterum bonum,
alteruni justum Deum ferens, ilium invisibilium,
hunc yisibilium creatorem Hieron. Ep. ad Pam-
mach. Now they agreed in this, with the Pagans,
that the GOOD could not punish, but that the
JUST would ; whose office it was to execute ven
geance on the wicked. And, at the same time,
holding an EVIL PRINCIPLE, they called this Just,
the MIDDLE, whose office is thus described in the
dialogue against Marcion To those who conform
themselves to the GOOD, the MIDDLE PRINCIPLE
gives peace ; but to those who obey the EVIL, the
MIDDLE inflicts tribulation and anguish. H w pi<n
K^XP vTM68<rt TW ayaOw avtrw J*cta<n7, U5Tjxo8<ri St TU
zsroi/n^w S^iiJ/ii/ tf/&W*. Thus did these Heretics divest
the first Cause, or the GOOD, of his attribute of
justice ; and gave it to the Middle Principle, be
cause they were not able to sever it from anger.
Upon the whole, as Lactautius, himself a Philoso
pher, was admirably well versed in all the pagan
Systems, lie could not but understand a Principle^
which all the Philosophers held ; nor coulql he
mistake a Consequence, which they all drew from it.
And as St. Jerom has dignified this tract de ira Dei,
with the title of PULCHERRIMUM OPUS, we must
Deeds conclude that the method. Lactantius took to
support a future judgment was strictly conformable
to THE OLD POSTURE OF DEFENCE, and approved
by the Orthodox of that time.
I. But
JSect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 135
I. But it may be objected, perhaps, that this
principle, of God s not being angry, only concluded
against a future state of punishments, and not of
rewards : Many of the philosophers holding the
affection of grace and favour ; though they all
denied that of anger ; as Lactantius expressly as
sures us : Ita omnes philosophi dc ira consentiunt,
de gratia discrepant. To this I reply,
i. That, when the sanction of punishment is
taken off, the strongest influence of a future state
is destroyed. For while the Ancients made the
rewards of Elysium only temporary,
"Has omnes, ubi millerotam volvere per annos,"&c v
they made the punishments of Tartarus eternal ;
" Sedet, aeternumque sedebit
Infelix Theseus." - - -
This, Plato teaches in several places of his works *.
And Celsus is so far from rejecting it, that he ranks it
in the number of those doctrines which should never
be abandoned, but maintained to the very lastf.
av oaw
yoAof, i tpov%$ axzs x isapavoux;
cra. Tvl%avei ovlat rciauriX
e/j TOV TaflagoVj oQev xvrols
Phaedo, p. 113. -AMci dsovietvlau ol raraj o^wv/Ef &
otti x,?ovav. Gorgias, p. 525.
f 4 Taro (j.sv ys QgQ$ voptl^sffiv^ u$ ol (tsv
nv, ol <$E adiKoi TsafiTrav aiMiois KOLYMC, ffWE^ovlcu. rara Tif
Apud Orig. cont. Cels. lib. viii.
K4 It
136 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
It is true, that several passages of Antiquity
may be objected to what is here said against th$
eternity of rewards; particularly this of Cicero;
Omnibus qui patriain conservariiit, adjuverint,
auxerint, certumesse in coeloac definitum locum,
" ubi beati JEVO SEMPITERXO fruantur*." But
we are to know, that the Ancients distinguished
the souls of men into three species : the HUMAN,
the HEROIC, and the DEMONIC. The two last,
when they left the body, were indeed believed to
enjoy eternal happiness, for their public services on
earth ; not in Elysium, but in Heaven ; where they
became a kind of demi-gods. But all, of the first,.
which included the great body of Mankind, were
understood to have their designation in Purgatory,
Tartarus, or Elysium ; The first and last of which
abodes were temporary ; and the second only eternal.
Now those who had greatly served their Country,
in the manner Tally there mentions, were supposed
to have souls of the heroic or demonic kind f.
2. But secondly, in every sense of a future state
as a moral designation, rewards and punishments
necessarily imply each other : So that where one is
wanting, the other cannot possibly subsist. This
was too visible not to be seen by the ancient Phi-
* Somn. Scip. cap. 3.
f Eusebius, speaking of the political Gods of Egypt,
supports what is here delivered of those heroic or demonic
souls, aXteg $1 IK TXTUV ETTiyeiug ytysfffa^ fcuriv, vTra^avtas /ttev
SwjJaf, Sia 2s <rvvt<Tiv >cj KOIVYIV avfytuTruv ivtfoulow TeIsu%c>Ta$ T>?$
A0ANA2IA2. Praep. Evang. 1. iii. c. 3.
losophers :
Sect.4.]OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 137
losophers: Laetantius thus argues with them, on
common principles. " If God be not provoked at
" impious and wicked men, neither is he pleased with
" the good and just. For contrary objects must
" either excite contrary affections, or no affections
" at all. So that he who loves good men, must at
" the same time hate the ill ; and he who hates not
" ill men, cannot love the good : Because both to
" love good men proceedeth from an abhorrence
" of ill ; and to hate ill men from a tenderness to
" the good*." And so concludes, that the denying
God s attribute of anger,, which removes \h punish
ments of a future state, overturns the state itself.
" Sive igitur gratiam Deo, sive iram, sive utrumque
" detraxeris, religionem tolli necesse est."
In all this (as we say) he does not in the least
misrepresent the common conclusions of Philosophy.
Plutarch delivering the sentiments of learned Anti-
ZD
quity on this head, expressly makes the denial of
future misery, to infer the denial of a future state.
" Death is the final period of our being. But Su-
" perstition says, no. She stretches out life beyond
" life itself. Her fears extend further than our
* Si, Deus non irascitur impiis & injustis, ncc pios
utique jus.tosque diligit : In rebus entin diversis, aut in
ntramque partein moveri riecesse est, aut in neutram.
Itaque qui bonos diligit, & malos odit ; Sc qui malos non
edit, nee bonos diligit: Quia & diligere bonos, ex-odio
jnalorum venitj.Sy malos odisse, ex bonorum caritate
Descend it.
" existence.
138 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
existence. She has joined to the idea of death,
1 that other inconsistent idea of eternal life in
1 misery. For when all things come to an, end,
then, in the opinion of Superstition, they begin to
be endless. Then, I can t tell what, dark and
dismal gates of Tartarus % open : then, rivers
of fire, with all the fountains of Styx, are broken
1 up, &c. Thus doth cursed Superstition oppose
< the voice of God, which hath declared death to
6 be the end of suffering*." Death, says he, is
the end of suffering, therefore the aid of being.
Gnly with the Sr^w -sr^rt^ of the rhetoricians he
has here, in the most rhetorical of all his discourses,
put the conclusion before the premisses.
3- But lastly, I shall shew (under the next head,
to which we are going) that the Philosophers did
not consider the attribute of grace and favour
(which they allowed) to be a passion or affection;
though they considered anger (which they allowed
not) under that idea.
II. As the foregoing objection would insinuate
that the universal Principle of God s not being
angry, doth not prove enough; so, the next pre
tends, that it proves too much : For, secondly, it
may be objected, that this principle destroys God s
*
TO w aa&siv exsrfpH/yr. . De Superst.
Providence
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 139
Providence here, as well as a future state of rewards
and punishments hereafter ; which Providence se
veral of the theistical Philosophers, we know, did
believe.
This will require consideration.
Lactantius says : "All the Philosophers agree
41 about the anger ; but concerning the grace or
" favour they are of different opinions *." And
taking it for granted, that they considered the grace
or favour, which they held, as well as the auger,
which they denied, to be a passion or affection, he
argues against them as above : and adds, " There-
" fore the error of those who take away both grace
" and anger is the most consistent!." But mc-
thinks, the absurdity of the error here imputed,
should have taught Lactantius, that the Philoso
phers, who had rejected anger because it was an
human passion, could never give their GoA favour
or fondness, which is another human passion : For
though they sometimes dogmatized like lunatics,
they never syllogized like idiots ; though their prin
ciples were often unnatural, their conclusions were
rarely illogical. He should therefore have seen,
that those, who held the gratia or benevolence of
the divine Nature, considered it not as a passion or
* Omnes philosophi de ira consentiunt, de gratia
discrepant.
f Ergo constantior est error illorum, qui 8c iram simul,
& gratiam tollunt.
affection^
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
affection, but as an efflux from its essence* : on
which they built tiieir notion of a general Provi
dence. So that when he says, concerning the grace
or favour, they arc of different opinions, we are
to understand no more, than that some of them
held a Providence, and others denied it.
Let us see then what kind of Providence the
theistical Philosophers believed. The PERIPA
TETICS and STOICS went pretty much together
in this matter. It is commonly imputed to Aristotle,
that he held no Providence to be extended lower
than the moon : But this is a calumny which
Chalcidias raised of him. What Aristotle meant
by the words, which gave a handle to it, was that
a particular providence did not extend itself to in
dividuals : For being a fatalist in natural things, and
at the same time maintaining free-will in man, he
thought, if Providence were extended to individuals,
it would either impose a necessity on human actions,
or, as employed on mere contingencies, be itself fre
quently defeated ; which would look like impotency :
and not seeing any way to reconcile free-will and pre
science, he cut the knot, and denied that Providence
extended its care over individuals. Zeno s notion of
Providence, seems to have been as loose f , yet his
* See the following quotation from Sallust the phi
losopher.
t Cotta, in Cieero, explaining the doctrine of the
Stoics, says, Non carat [Dens] singulos homines. Non
mirum, ne civitates quidem. Non eas ? Ne nationcs
quideu et gentes. N. D. iii. 39.
1 fatalism
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 141
fatalism was more uniform: and, indeed, better sup
ported, for he denied free-will in man : Which was
the only difference in this matter between him and
Aristotle.
Here we have a Providence very consistent with
a disbelief of a future state of rewards and punish
ments ; nay, almost destructive of it.
But the PYTHAGOREANS and PLATOX ISTS will,
not be put off so: They held a particular Provi
dence, extending itself to Individuals : A Providence,
which, according to ancient notions, could not be
administered without the affections of kvc and
anger. Here then lies the difficulty : These Sects
removed all passions from the Godhead, especially
anger; and, on that account, rejected a future state
of rewards and punishments ; while yet they believed
a Providence, which was administered by the exer
cise of those very passions. For the true solution
of this difficulty, we must have recourse to a pre
vail in* principle of Paganism, often before hinted
at, for the clearing up many obscurities in Antiquity:
I mean, that of local tutelar Deities. Pythagoras
and Plato were deep in the Theology which taught,
that the several regions of the earth were delivered
over, by the Creator of the Universe, to the vice-
gerency and government of inferior Gods. This
opinion was originally Egyptian ; on whose authority
these two Philosophers received it ; though it had
been long the popular belief all over the pagan
world, tjence, we see the writings of the Pytha
goreans
M2, THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
goreans and Platonists so full of the DOCTRINE OF
DEMONS: A doctrine, which even characterized
the Theology of those Sects. Now, these Demons
were ever supposed to have passions and affections.
On these principles and opinions the Greeks formed
the name of that mixed moral mode, SUPERSTITION :
they called it <WiJaj/A<ma, which signifies the fear
of Demons or inferior Gods. And these being sup
posed, by the Philosophers, to have passions ; and
a Species, or at least one of them (called, by the
people, THE ENVIOUS DEMON) to be more than
ordinary capricious and cruel in the exercise of the
passions, these notions gave birth to all the extra
vagant Kites of atonement * : the practice of which,
as we say, they called JW i$oe,^Qvi ; intimating, in
the very term, the passion which gave birth to them;
and by which alone, the Ancients understood a par
ticular Providence could be administered. And
here it is worthy our observation, that Chalcidias
gives this as the very reason why the Peripatetics
rejected a particular Providence, (he says indeed,
though falsely, all Providence below the moon)
namely, because they held nothing of the admini
stration of inferior Deities. His words are these :
" Aristotle holds, that the providence of God
" descends even to the region of the moon : but
" that, below that orb, tilings were neither governed
" by the decrees of God, nor upheld by the wis-
" clom and aid of Angels. Nor does he suppose
* See note [Z] at the end of this Book.
" any
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 143
" any providential intervention of Demons *." So
closely united, in the opinion of this writer, whom
Fabricius calls gnarissimus vet era philosophic f, was
the doctrine of a particular Providence, and the
doctrine of Demons and subaltern Deities.
But when now the Soul is disengaged from the
body, it is no longer, in their opinion, under the
government of Demons ; nor consequently subject
to the effects of the Demonic passions. And what
becomes of it then, we shall see hereafter. A re
markable passage in Apuleius,will explain and justify
the solution here given : " God (saith this author)
" cannot undergo any temporary exercise of his
" power or goodness : And therefore cannot be
" affected with indignation or anger; cannot be
" depressed with grief, or elated with joy. But,
" being free from all the passions of the mind, he
" neither sorrows nor exults ; nor makes atiyimtan-
" taneous resolution to act, or to forbear acting.
" Every thing of this kind suits only the middle
if nature of the Demons: For they are placed
" between Gods and Men; as well in the frame
" and composition of their minds, as in the situation
Ji of their abodes, having immortality in common
* Aristoteles Dei providentiam usque ad lunae regio-
nem progredi censet; infra vero neque providentiae seitis
regi, nee angelorum ope consultisque sustentari : nee
vero Daemonum prospicientiam putat intervenire. Conj,
in Platonis Timseum.
f Bibl. Lat. 1. iii. c. 7.
" with
144 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
" with the former, and affections in common with
<c the latter. For they are subject, like us, to be
" every way irritated and appeased ; so as to be
" inflamed by anger, melted by compassion, allured
" by gifts, softened by prayers, exasperated by ne-
" gleet, and soothed again by observance. In a
" word, to be affected by every thing that can make
6 impression on the human mind *." Plutarch says
the same thing, but with this remarkable addition,
that it was the very doctrine of PLATO and PYTHA
GORAS f .
On
-Debet Deus nullam perpeti vel opens vel arnoris
temporalem perfunctionem ; & idcirco nee indignatione
nee ira contingi, nullo angore contrahi, itulla alacritate
gestire: sed ab omnibus passionibus animi liber, nee
(tolere unquam, nee aliquando laetari, nee aliquid repen-
tinum vclle vel nolle. Sed & haec cuncta, ut id genus
caetera, Daemonum mediocritati congruuut. Sunt enim
inter homines & deos, ut loco regionis, ita ingenio mentis
intersiti, habentes communem cum su peris immortal i-
tatem cum inieris passionem. Nam perinde ut nos, pati
possunt omnia animorum placamenta vel incitamenta ;
ut & ira incitentur, & misericordia flectantur, & donis
invitentur, & precibus leniantur, & eontumeliis exas-
perentur, & honoribus mulceantur, aliisque omnibus, ad
similem ncbis modum varientur. De Deo Socratis.
j- B&nov zv ol tot. inef)} rov Tutpuvat y^ "Oriftv. y^ v lffiv IrQexptva,
pnTE MV vsaSwalat, WTS a,tyu7rw* otMa AAIMONUN MEFA-
AHN iivou vopigwles, u$ ^ riAATUN, ^ nYxTOPAS, ^
xj XfVffixTr", 7roptvoi ra; IIAAAI EOAOrOTS,
s (Jtlv avQfUKuv ysiovkvau Asyscri, xj tsofaf, TY\ Iwstpu ruv
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 145
On the whole then it appears, that the Principle
of God s not being angry, which subverted the doc
trine of a future state of rewards and punishments,
did not at all affect a particular Providence here ;
and that the grace or favour which some of them
left unto the Deity was no passion or affection, like
the anger, which they took away ; but only a simple
benevolence, which, in the construction of the Uni
verse, was directed to the best ; but did riot interfere
to prevent disorders in particular Systems. A be
nevolence too, that went not from the will, but the
essence of the Supreme Being*.
SALLUST, the Philosopher, writing of the Gods
and the World, proposes in his fourteenth chapter,
to speak to this question, how the immutable Gods
may be said to be angry and appeased f . In the
first
TO 3e $tbv ax a/wxE?; 3s axpalov
xj isovov wee Toii>Tai$ fyfmpsva roi
JjT/ov h^oforiff yivsvlcu
i xj xax/a;. De Is. & Os. p. 642.
* So Seneca informs us : Qune causa est Diis bene
facieudi? NATURA. Errat, siquis putat illos nocere
velle: Non possimt. Nee accipere injuriam queunt,
nee facere; lacdere etenim laedique conjunctum est,
Summa ilia ac pulcherrima omnium natura, quos peri-
ulo exemit, ncc periculos quidem fecit. Ep. 95.
VOL. III.
146 THE DIVINE LfeGATICTN [BoeklfT.
first pfade, he says, th<at God hath ito hirrrian
passion s ; he it&t her rejoices, is (tngry, iftff appetised
trrfh -gifts * : So far is certamly agreeabl e to ttutti.
But hofr then? Why, the Gbds are eternally t/c-
rieficcnt (that is, as Seneca says bteloty causa Dife
tericfa ctendi NA^RA) and beneficent only, arid
never hurtitil f. Thus havtttg avoi de d one extrenre ,
he fails Wto aiibfher ; aWd s^pposeth it to be blind
Nature, and not // /: ///, which d etermineS G6d $
ben encence. The inference from which is, that the
rewards arrd punishments of Heaveti are the iuttufal
and necessary effects (if bktioftk; not positive, tirhi-
trary comeqiteilcc s, or the deWgnatwn df tt lll:
And so our Philosopher itiainta h is. For now the
difficulty being, that if Nature be the came of t/te
beneficence of : tlt% Godhead, libw can PrOvidencfe
Bestow good on the virtuous man, and evil on th$
wicked? Our Sophist resolves it thus : " Wlate we
4i are good, we are joined by similitude of nature
" to the Crcnis ; and when evil, sejTar atiid by dissi-
% iiiilitude. While we practise virtue, we arc in
" iriiion with them ; htit defection to vice makes
" tliem our eneitiies ; not because they are angry
< at tis, but because our crimes interpose between
" us and their divine irradiations, and leave us a
" prey to the avenging Demons. -So that to sav,
11 God is turned away from the wicked, is the same
* Ou %oui 0iQ$ 3$e ogyifHai u$s dufotg SsgaKevslzi.
f* EXEIVOI fiEv ayzGo TF sifiv AEi>
as
Sect4.]0f MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 147
" as to say, THE SUN is HID FROM A BLIND
" MAN *." Ah apt comparison : and very ex-
p ressive of the principle of this philosophy; which
supposes the influence of the Deity, to be like that
of the Sun, physical and necessary; and, conse
quently, all reward and punishment not the moral,
but the natural, issue of things : A Platonic notion,
entirely subversive of the proper doctrine of a
future state of rewards and punishments, as con
ceived every where by the people, and taught by
the Christian Religion : which holds, that they
arise out of God s Goodness and Justice, not by
way of emanation, as light from the Sun, but as the
designation of Will: which disparts freely, though
not fancifully or capriciously ; as, with equal malig
nity and folly, my reasoning in this place hath been
represented.
On the whole, then, we find, that the Pagans in
taking away human passions from God, left him
nothing but that kind of natural excellence, which
went not from his ! att7/, but his essence only; and
consequently, was destitute of morality. This was
one extreme. The primitive Fathers (as Lactantius)
^
Oj 3s yg/Qftevot 3i* avofMiorifia X<8ftQ(&$f xj *<%T apcra^ ZSvlsb
rSiv Sv, xaxoi 3f yewfAtvoi ex,Qf>x$ Y^V -aroiS^i Exeivi?? xx.
www ooyiZopsvw, aMa TKV otjAStfottaruv 85 ^gy jj/wiV XK kcovluv
Aalftitefi 5g wbariKdis waTflwtav. ore O/JLOICV toy
, ^ rev HAION roij S
understanding
145 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
understanding clearly that the Platonic notion of
God overturned & future judgment, and not finding
the medium, which their Masters in Science, the
Philosophers, had missed, supposed (as we have
seen) that God had human passions. This was the
other extreme. And whence, I would ask, did both
these extremes arise, but from neither party s being
able to distinguish between human passions and the
divine attributes of GOODNESS AND JUSTICE? the
true medium between human passions on the one
hand, and a blind excellence of nature, on the other.
II. I proceed now to the OTHER CAUSE, which
kept the Philosophers from believing a future state
of rewards and punishments. As the first was an
erroneous notion concerning the nature of GOD, so
this was a much more absurd one concerning th
nature si the SOUL. For, as our epic Poet sings,
" Much of the SOUL they talk, butall awry *."
There are but two possible ways of conceiving
of the Soul : we must hold it to be, -either a QUA
LITY, or a SUBSTANCE.
1. Those Ancients who believed it to be only
a Quality, as Epicurus, Dicasarchus, Aristoxenus,
Asclepiades, and Galen, come not into the account ;
it being impossible that these should not believe its
total annihilation upon death. The ingenious conceit
of it s SLEEP was reserved to do honour to modern
Invention.
* Par. Reg. Book iv. ver. 313.
2. But
Sect.4.]OE MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 149
2. But the generality of the Philosophers held
it to be a Substance ; and A LL who so held, were
unanimous that it was a DISCERPED PART or
A WHOLE ; an.l that this IV holt was GOD ; into
whom it was again to be resolved.
But concerning this Wholt they differed.
SOME held, that there was only one Substance in
Nature : Others held two.
THEY who maintained the one Universal Sub-
tance, or TO V *EN, in the strictest sense, were
ATHEISTS ; and altogether in the sentiments of
the modern Spinozists ; whose Master apparently
catched this epidemical contagion of human reason
from Antiquity.
The OTH ERS, who believed there were two ge
neral Substances in nature, GOD and MATTER, were
taught to conclude, by their way of interpreting
the famous maxim of ex nihilo nihilfit, that they
were both eternal. These were their THEISTS ;
though approaching sometimes, on the one hand,
to what is called Spinozisyn ; sometimes, on the
other, to Manicheism.
For they, who held two Substances, were again
Subdivided.
Some of them, as the Cyrenaics, the Cynics, and
the Stoics, held both these Substances to be material;
which gave an opening to Spinozism : Others, as
the Pythagoreans, the Platonists, and Peripatetics,
held only om to be material ; which gave the like
opening to Manicheism.
1 3 Lastly,
ijjp THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Lastly, the maint^iners of the immateriality of
tbe divine Substance, Ayere likewise divided into two
parties ; the first of which held but cue person in
the Godhead; the other, two or three. So that
as the former believed the Soul to be part of the
supreme God ; the latter believed it to be pint only
of the second or third Hypostasis. Origen, speak
ing of the Greek Philosophers, says, " They plainly
suppose the whole World to be God. The Stoics
jnake it thejirst God. As to the followers of Plato,
Spine make it the secoutf, and some the third God *."
As they multiplied the Persons of the Godhead,
$o they multiplied the subsistence of the Soul ; some
giving two, and some, more liberally, three to every
man. But it is to be observed, that they esteemed
only one of these to be part of God; the others
js-ere pnly elementary matter, or mere qualities.
These things are but hinted at, a.s ju.st sufficient
to our purpose : A full explanation of them, though
both curious and useful, would take up too much
room, and lead us too far from our subject.
Now, however They, who teld Uie Soul to be
,3 real substance, differed thus in circumstantials,
yet in this consequence of its substantiality, that
it was part of God, discerped from, hyii, <?#</ would
.^resolved; ^iui i/tty hlpi^ they all, ^,e. say, agreed.
Jen; those. \v.ho held b,ut otip substa ! nce, could n.o.t but
TOV OMV xofffMW *<yx<riV Enwi fov.
tev txf&rov. Ol $ ano n^on-ay- TOV dtuTtfW Tivl^ $t auruv Toy
/Toj/. Cont. Ccls. 1. v.
esteem
Sect. 4.] OF JViQSES DEMONSTRATED.
esteem the soul a p^rt of it ; and these who hpM tyq,
.considered those two as conjoined, aud composing
an, Universe; jiist as the soul and body compose^
$, mau. Of wluch Univqrac, God w^s tUe spvJU ,ad
matter, the body. IJence they cpucliided., that as
tlie uumarj, bp.dy was resolved into HS Pai^i^t Master,
sp the sp^ul was resolved into its Parent Spirit.
Agreeably to this explanation, Cicero delivers the
cpininon sentiments o f his Greek masters on this
head : " A natura Deorum, ut dpctjissi^is $apkn-
" tissiraisque pli\cuit, HAUSTOS animus & LI BATONS
" habemus *. ?> And again : " Iluriianus autein
<c animus DECEIIPTUS EX MEXTE DIVINA, cum
" alio nullo nisi cum ipso Deo (si hoc fas est dicta)
" comparari potest \ ."
And, in anpthei* place, he says," a^nimos honn-
, u nura quadani ex parte extrinsecus esse tractps &
i haustos, ex qua intelligiuius esse wtra divinuHi
" animum humanus unde ducatur J." lies aft^-
\vards gives the whole system, from Paciivianus,
more at lai ge :
16 Quicquid cst hoc, oi-wnia animat, format, alk,
auget, creat,
Sepelit, rccipitque in sese omnia, o^nnknnque
idem, cst Pater ;
Indidemque, eaduuque oriuntur de integro, atque
coflem occidunt .,"
* J)e Divin. 1. i. c. 49.
f See note [A A] at the end of this Book.
J DC Divin, Li. c. 32. .Ib. 1. i. e. 57.
L 4
152 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
And St. Austin did not think them injured in this
representation. In his excellent work of the City
of God, he thus exposes the absurdity of that
general principle : " Quid infelicius credi potest,
quam Dei partem vnpulare, cum puer vapulat ?
Jam veropartes Dei fieri lascivas, iniquas, impias,
atque omnino damnabiies quis ferre potest, nisi
qui prorsus insanii * ? "
Now, lest the reader should suspect that these
kind of phrases, such as, the soul s being part of
God-, discerpedfrom him<of his Nature ; which
perpetually occur in the writings of the Ancients,
are only highly figurative expressions, and not
measurable by the severe standard of metaphysical
propriety; he is desired to take notice of one
consequence drawn from this principle, and univer
sally held by Antiquity, which was this, That the
soul was eternal, a parte ANTE, as well as a part e
POST ; which the Latins well expressed by the word
SEMPITERNUsf.
For this we shall produce an authority above
exception : " It is a thing very well known (says
the accurate Cud worth) that, according to the
1 sense of Philosophers, these two things were
1 always included together, in that one opinion
of the Soul s immortality, namely, \\spre-existence,
1 as well as its post-existence. Neither was there
* De Divin. 1. iv. c. 13.
t See note [BB] at the end of this Book.
ever
Sect.4-]OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 153
ever any of the Ancients, before Christianity,
" that held the Soul s future permanency after
" death, who did not likewise assort its pre-existence;
" they clearly perceiving that if it was once granted,
" that the soul was generated, it could never be
" proved but that it might bO also corrupted : And
" therefore the assertors of the Soul s immortality
" commonly began here ; first to prove its pre-
" existence *," &c. What this learned man is
quoted for, is the fact: And, for that, we may
safely take his word: As to the reason given, that,
we bee, is visionary ; invented, perhaps, to hide the
enormity of the Principle :t came from. The true
reason was its being a natural consequence of the
opinion, that the Soul was part of God. This,
Tully plainly intimates, where, after having quoted
the verses from Pacuvianus given above, he subjoins,
" Quid estigitur, cur domiis sit omnium una, eaque
" communis, cumque animi hominum semper fue-
" rintfuturique sint, cur hi, quid ex quoque eveniat,
" & quid quamque rem significet, perspicere non
" possiut?" And again as plainly, " Animoruni
" nulla in tenis origo inveneri potest : His enim in
" naturis nihil inest quod vim memoriae, mentis,
" cogitationis habeat ? quod & praeterita teneat,
" & futura provideat, & complecti possit praesentia ;
" quo3 sola divina sunt. Nee invenietur unquam,
^ unde ad hominem venire possint, nisi a Deo. Ita
* Intel|ectual System, p. 38.
" quicquid
154 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BopkUJ.
quicquid est illud, quod sentit, quod sapit, quo.d
vult, quod viget, ccel$s{e divinuin est; on
" QUE REM JETERNUM SIT NECESS-E EST V
It hath been observed, in the last section, {
the famous argument of Plato, explained, aud
strongly recommended, by Cicero, supposes the
soul to have been from- eternity, because it is a self-
existent substance; which is plainly supposing it to
have been eternal a parte ante, because it is a part
of God.
Here then is a consequence^ universally acknow
ledged, which will not allow the principle, from
whence it proceeded, to be understood in any other
sense than one strictly metaphysical. Let us con-
sider it a little. We are told they held the soul to
be eternal: If eternal, it must be either independent
on God, or part of his substance. Independent it
could not be, for there can be but one independent
of the same kind of substance : The Ancients., in
deed, thouglii it no absurdity to say, that God and
Matter were both self-existent, but they allowed no
third ; tjnerefore they must nec^s conclude that //
was part of God.
And in that sense, indeed, they called it (as we
see in. the last section) independent, when,on account
of its original, they gave it this attribute of the
Deity; and, with that, joined the. others of itHge-
neratcd, and
Fragm. de Consolations
But
Sect. 4,] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 155
But wjien the Ancients are said to hold the pre-
md post-existence of the Soul, a,nd therefpre tot
attribute a proper eternity to it, we must not supppse
that they understood it to be eternal in its district
qnd peculiar existence ; but that it was discerpcd
from the substance of God, in time ; and \vould* i
time, be rejoined, and resolved into it again. This
they explained by a closed Vessel filled with sea-
water, which swimming a while upon the ocean, doe,
o.n the. Vessel s breaking, flow in again, and mingle
with the common mass. They only differed about
the time of this reunion arid resolution : The
greater part holding it to be at death*; but the*
Pythagoreans, not till after many transmigrations.
The Platonits went between these two opinions ;
and rejoined pure arid unpolluted souls immediately,
to the universal spirit : but tliqse which had con
tracted much defilement, were sent into a succession
of other bodies, to purge and purify them, before
they returned to their Parent Substance f . And
these were the twp sorts of the NATUHAL METEM-
* See the Critical Inquiry into the Opinions and
Practice of Ancient Philosophers, p. 125, &seq. ad edit.
f Nee enim omnibus iklem illi sapientes arbitrati
funt eundem cursum in ccelum patere. Nam vitiis &
$celeribus contaminates deprimi in tenebras, atque in
v^oeno jaoere docuerunt: castos autcm, puros, integros,
incorruptos, bonis etiam ftudiis atque artibus expolitos,
levi quodam ac focili lapsu ad Deos, id est, ad naturain
3ui siujilem peryplare. Fragm. $1^ ponsolatipne.
PSYCHOSIS,
156 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
PSYCHOSIS, which we have observed above, to
have been really held by those two Schools of
philosophy *
That we have given a fair representation of the
ancient belief in this matter, we appeal to the learned
Gassendi : " Interim tamen vix ulli fuere (quae
e humanae mentis caligo, atque imbecillitas est) qui
" non inciderint in errorcm ilium de REFUSIONE
" IN ANIMAM MUNDI. Nimirum, sicut existi-
" marunt singulorum animas particulas esse animaj
* c mundanae, quarum quaelibet suo corpore, ut aqua
" vase, inch ! deretur ; ita & reputarunt unamquamque
l animatn, corpore dissolute, quasi diffracto vase,
" effluere, ac Animae mundi, e qua deducta fuerit,
" iterum uniri ; nisi quod plerumque ob contractas
cc in impuro corpore sordeis, vitiorumque maculas,
cc non prius uniantur, quam sensim omneis sordeis
" exuerint, & alia3 serius, aliae ocyus repurgata?,
" atque irnmunes ab omni labe evaserint f." A
great Authority ! and the greater, for that it pro
ceeded from the plain view of the fact only : Gas-
sendi appearing not to have been sensible of the
consequence here deduced from it, namely, that
none of the ancient philosophers COULD believe a
future state of rewards and punishments. Other
wise, we may be sure, he had not failed to urge that
consequence, in his famous Apology for Epicurus. j
* See note [CC] at the end of this Book.
f Animadv. in dec. lib. Diog. Laert. p. 550.
whqsq
Sect. 4 ] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 157
whose monstrous errors he all along strives to pal
liate, by confronting them with others as bad,
amongst the Theistic sects of Philosophy.
Thus \ve see, that this very opinion of the Soul s
eternity, \vhich hath made modern writers conclude
that the ancient Sages believed a future state of re
ward and punishment, was, in truth, the very reason
why they believed it not.
The primitive Christian writers were more quick-
sighted : They plainly saw, this Principle was de
structive of such future state, and therefore employed
all their Eloquence, and more successfully than they
did their Logic, to oppose it. Thus Arnobius (not
indeed attending to the double doctrine of the an
cient Philosophy) accuses Plato of contradiction, for
holding this Principle, and yet, at the same time,
preaching up a future state of reward and punish
ment *.
But
* Quid ? Plato idem vester in eo volumine, q^od de
animsE immortalitate composuit, non Acherontem, non
Stygcm, non Cocytum fluvios, &, Pyriphlegetontcm
nominat, in quibus animas asseverat volvi, mergi, exuri ?
Et homo prudentise non pravse, & examinis judiciique
perpensi, rem inenodabilem suscipit, ut cum animas
dicat immortales, perpetuas, 8c corporali soliditate pri-
yatas ; puniri eas dicat tamen, & doloris afficiat sensu.
Quis autein hominum non vidit, quod sit immortale,
quod simplex, nullum posse dolorem admittere ; quod
autem sentiat dolorem, immortalitatem habere non posse?
Et qui potetit territari formidinis alicujus horrore, cui
fi4erit persuasum, tarn seesse immortalem quam ipsum.
1 1 Peum
158 f!IE DIVINE LEGATION [Rook lit
But it must be confessed, some of the Fathers,
a w-as their custom, ran into the opposite extreme ;
and held the Soul to be naturally mortal ; and, to
support this, maintained its materiality : Jtfst a-s in
the case before, to support human passions in th
Godhead, they gave hirh a human form. Tatidri;
Tertiillian, and Arnobius, fell into this foolish error.
Others indeed, as Justin Martyr, and Irennsus, went
more soberly to work ; affirming only, against the
notion of its eternity, that it was created by God,
and depended continually upon hitt for its duratrorf.
In. tlie heat of dispute, indeed, some unwary words
may now and then drop from the s6bcrest of them,
which seem to favour the doctHne of the SouFs
materiality : But it is but candid to correct them
by the general tenor of tlicrr sentiments.
This was the true original of every thing looking
so unto ward! y, in the writings of the Fathers:
which. had Mr. Dodwell considered, he had never
written so weak a book as his epistolary discourse
against the Soul s immortality, from the judgment-
of the Fathers ; whose opinions he hath one while
egregiously mistaken; at another, as grossly mis
represented.
Having now seen that the Philosophers in ge
neral, held the Soul to be part of God, and resolvable
info
Deum primnm ; nee ab eo jndicari quidquam de se posse,
c!Mn sit una immortalitas in utroque, nee in alteriu*
altera conditionis possit <equalitate vexari ? Adver.
Gentes, 1. ii. p. 52 64. Ed. Lugd. Bat. 1651. Quarto.
Sect-. 4-1 OF MOSES l>EMONSTflATED. 159
into kwij test any doubt should remain, I shall
shew in the rfcxt place, that this was, more espe
cially, believed by the famous PPIILOSOPHTC QUA
TERNION : And if lield by them, we cannot have
thfc least doubt of the rest.
Cicero, in the person of Velleius., the Epicurean,
accuses PYTHAGORAS, for holding that the human*,
stoul was distierped frona the substance of God, or
the universal nature. " Nam Pythagoras, qui ecu
tt stiit animum esse per naturam rerum oittnen?
* ihfentirrn & commeantem, ex quo nostri animi
" carperentur, non vidit distmctiorre humanoram
* animorum discerpi & lacerari Deum *." Here;,
Velleius does not (as hath been pretended) exagge^-
rate or strain matters, to serve his purpose. Pytha
goras held the old maxim ex nlhilo nihil fit, and,
therefore, must needs hold the soul to be taken from
some foreign and external substance. And he sl<*
lowed only two substances, God and matter : there*
fore, as he taught the Soul was immaterial, he could
not possibly conceive it to be any other than a Pait
of God. So that Velleius s consequence naturally
follows, that as Pythagoras held the soul to be a
Substance not a Quality, he must suppose it to be
torn and discerped from the Substance of God,
To the same purpose, Sextus Empiiicus : Pytha*
goras and Empedocles, and the whole company of
the Italic school, hold that our Souls are not only
&f the mme nature uith one tfnoffar, and
* Nat. Deor. 1. i. c. 11,
ifio THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Gods, but likewise with the irrational souls of
brutes : For that there 13 one spirit that pervades
the Universe, and serves it for a soul ; which unites
us and them together *. That Pythagoras and Plata
held the human soul to be of the same nature with
God, lias been seen at large ; that they supposed
the brutal soul to be of the same nature with the
human, which is the other particular here asserted
by Sextus Empiricus, appears from the testimony of
Plutarch - H
rcov
ni/ uraoacrigy tuv (raj/xarwi/
For the Ancients taught that the discerped Parts
of this universal Spirit, the Aniina mundi, or what
soever name they gave it, acted with different de
grees of activity and force, according to the different
nature and disposition of the Matter with which
these parts were invested. Lastly, Laertius tells us,
that Pythagoras supposed the soul to be different
from the life ; and immortal \for that the Substance,
from which it was discerped, was immortal J,
* O< /4sv xv TZtpl TQV HuQayogav y^ TOV E/^7rJbxX;z, xj TWV
(pcur ^trj /xovov rt wfoj aXA\j x ts raj eaj
tlvou viva. xotvuviaV) Klha xj ispos TO, aXcl# TWV uuv ev yocg
VTTOifXtlV TZVIVIMI., TO tilO, 1!0tvio$ T8 KOfffJOS 3iJ}OV ^VWS TOjJW Tf
xj ivay n^ -arfoj kmva) lib. ix. Adv. Physic. 127
t Plac. Phil. 1. v. c. 20.
T*
TE tuff It a,7TE<r7rstrai } ttfawflw w. Vit. Phil.l. viii. 28.
If
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 161
If we may give credit to the ancient Christian
writers, we shall find they too charge the Pytha
goreans with these very principles. Jerom says,
" Juxta Pythagoricorum dogmata, qui hominem
" exrequant Deo, et de ejus dicunt esse substan-
" tia*." Austin speaks to the same purpose
" Cedant et illi quos quidem puduit dicere Deum
" corpus esse, verumtamen ejusdem nature? , cujus
" ille est, animos nostros esse putaverunt ; ita non
" eos mo vet tanta mutabelitas animte, ^uam Del
" nature tribuere nefas cst f."
PLATO, without any softening, frequently calls
the Soul, God ; arid part of God, NOTN AEI CEON.
Plutarch says, " Pythagoras and Plato held the
soul to be immortal : For that launching out into
the Soul of the universe, it returns to its parent and
original ^" Tertullian charges this opinion home
upon him. " Primo quidem oblivionis capacem
" animam non cedam, quia tantam illi concessit
" divinitatem, ut Deo adaquetur\? Arnobius does
no less, where he apostrophises the Platonists in this
manner : " Ipse denique animus, qui immortalis a
" vobis & Deus esse narratur, cur in segris rcger
" sit, in infantibus stolidus, in scnectute defessus?
""Delira, & fatua, & insana||!" The latter part
* Ctesiphon. adver. Pelag. f De civ. Dei, viii. 5.
^arwy, a$Qaglov MM tw 4* V X>W tltSaav yap
|/y%>iv, awtxpfM <zfa ro o^oyevEj. De Plac.
Phil. L iv. c. 7.
De anima, c. xxiv. || Adv. Gentes, 1. ii. p. 47.
VOL. Ill, M of
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
of the sentence is commonly read thus ; Cur in
tegris cpger sit, in mfantibus stolidus, in senectutc
defessus, ddira, $ fatua, $ imam? The Critics
think something is here wanting before the three last
-words. But it appears to me only to have been
wrong pointed ; there should be a note of interro
gation instead of a comma at dcfessus? Dclira,
S^fatua, 8$ insana, making a sentence of itself, by
means of narrcttis understood. Hermias in his
Trris. Gent. Phil, expresses himself, on the same
occasion, pretty much in the same manner :
,v t/^pj x&Xsiv ; Wff PW /*o Joxfi", Tff off/ay, J a
>! poftfav, rl raW. Eusebius expressly says, that
Plato held the soul to be ungeneratcd, and to be
derived by way of emanation from the first cause;
as being unwilling to allow that it could be made out
of nothing. Which necessarily implies, that, accord
ing to Plato s doctrine, God was the material or
substantial cause of the Soul, or that the Soul was
part of his substance *.
There is indeed a passage in Stoba?us, which
hath been understood by some, to contradict what
is here delivered as the sentiments of Plato. It is
where Speusippus, the nephew and follower of
.Plato, says, that the MIND avw neither the same
* 4 O &
/tv, ceysmms thai (pawuv iraj urns? > vsavav
i| airoffoias rns T w OVT^- auras ypyovwgu tiffoai
Praep. Evaiig. 1. ^iii. c. 15.
with
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 163
with THE ONE, nor THE GOOD ; but had a peculiar
nature of its own*. Our Stanley supposes! him
to speak here of the human mind: And then, in
deed, the contradiction is evident. But that learned
man seems to have been mistaken, and misled by his
author, Stobrcus ; who has misplaced this placit,
and put it into a chapter with several others, which
relate to the human mind. I conceive it to be cer
tain that Speusippus was here speaking of a different
thing ; namely, of the nature of the third hypo-
stasis in the Platonic Trinity ; the NOY2, or Aoy^S
so intitled by his uncle ; which he would, by the
words in question, personally distinguish from the
TO X *EN, the ONE, the Jirst person; and from the
T AFA0ON, the GOOD, the second in that Trinity.
ARISTOTLE thought of the Soul like the rest, as
we learn from a passage quoted by Cudworth J out
of his Nichomachean ethics ; where having spoken
of the sensitive soul, and declared it to be mortal,
he goes on in this manner : It remaim that the mind
or intellect, and that alone (pre-existing) enter
from without, and be only DIVINE .
. But then he distinguishes again concerning this
Mind or intellect, and makes it twofold; agent and
patient : The former of which, he concludes to be
TOV vav Sre ru ew, are T ayaQu TOV avrov,
n 3e. Eccl. Phys. 1. i. c. i.
f Hist, of Phil. Fart. v. Art. SPEUSIPPUS, c. 2.
J Intel!. System, p. 55.
^ AaWai & TV vxv pwov Syfaficv 7rsi<rivai } ^ Seiw KVM /uovcv.
immortal*
164 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
immortal, and the latter corruptible. The agent
Intellect is only immortal and eternal, but the pas-
sire is corruptible*. Cudwortb thinks this a very
doubtful and obscure passage ; and imagines Ari
stotle was led to write thus unintelligibly, by his doc-
trine of forms and qualities ; which confounds cor
poreal with incorporeal substances : But had that
excellent person reflected on the general doctrine of
the TO V *EN, he would have seen, the passage was
plain and easy: and that Aristotle, from the common
principle of the Human Soul s being part of the,
Divine Substance, draws a conclusion against a
future state of separate existence ; which, though
(as it now appears) all the Philosophers embraced,
yet all were not so forward to avow. The obvious
meaning of the words then is this : The agent Intel
ligent (says he) is only immortal and eternal, but
the passive; corruptible, i. e. The particular sensa
tions of the soul (the passive Intelligent) will cease
after death ; and the substance of it (the agent In-
tclligent) will be resolved into the Soul of the Uni
verse. For it was Aristotle s opinion, who compared
the Soul to a rasa tabula, that human sensations and
reflections were passions : These therefore are what
he finely calls, the passive Intelligent , which, he
says, shall cease, or is corruptible. What he meant
by the agent Intelligent, we learn from his commen
tators ; who interpret it to bigniiy, as Cudworth here
* Tiro fjtovw aQavdlov x) CUGIOV^ o 3s
acknowledges,
Sect.4.]OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 165
acknowledges, the DIVINE INTELLECT ; which gloss
Aristotle himself fully justifies, in calling it GEION,
divine. But what need of many words? The Learned
well know, that the iutellectus agens of Aristotle
was the very same with the anima mnndi of Plato
and Pythagoras.
Thus, this seeming extravagance in dividing the
human mind into agent and patient, appears very
plain and accurate: But the not having this common
key to the ancient Metaphysics, hath kept the fol
lowers of Aristotle long at variance amongst them
selves, whether their master did, or did not believe
the Soul to be immortal. The anonymous writer
of the life of Pythagoras, as we find it in the Extract,
by Photius, says, that Plato and Aristotle with one
consent agree that the Soul is immortal: Though
some, not fathoming the profound mind of Aristotle,
suppose that he held the Soul to be mortal * ; that is,
mistaking the passive Intelligent (by which Aristotle
meant the present partial sensations) for the Soul
itself, or the agent Intelligent. Nay, this way of
talking of the passive Intelligent made some, as
Nemesius, even imagine that he held the Soul to be
only a quality)".
* "On TlkaTuv, p>i<7i, xj Aftrolstois, Mvaiov ouoius "te
V JtOUl
avrcv teyw. Phot. Bibl. Cod. 259.
Ol /LCEV o?Ao: TYIV -^vxlw iivai teyz<r
avwiov, J3e Nat. Horn.
M 3
166 TPIE DIVINE LEGATION [Booklll.
As to the STOICS, Cleanthes held (as Stobseus
tells us) that every thing was made out of one, and
would be again resolved into one *. But let Seneca
speak for them all. And why should you not be
lieve something divine to be in him, who is indeed
PART OF THE GODHEAD ? That WHOLE, In which
we are contained, is ONE, and that ONE is GOD;
we being his Companions and Members f.
Epictetus says, the souls of men have the nearest
relation to God, as being parts, or fragments of
him, discerped and torn from his substance. Xwufsls
TW 3fto, are writ popiM Ktr&i xj #V0<T7ra<7/.*aIa. This
passage amongst others, equally strong, is quoted
by the learned Dr. Mour, in his book of the Im
mortality of the Soul J. And one cannot but smile
at the good Doctor s explanation of a general Prin
ciple which he could by no means approve. These
expressions (says he) make the Soul of man a ray or
beam of the Soul of the World, or of God. But
we are to take notice, THEY ARE BUT METAPHO
RICAL PHRASES. So, the Socinian, to texts of scrip
ture full as strong for the doctrine of the Redemp
tion. And so, indeed, men of all Parties, when they
would remove what stands in their way. They first
* Eclog Phys. c. 20.
-\ Quid est autem, cur non existimes in eo divini
aliquid cxistere qui Dei pars est ? Totum hoc, quo
continemur, & unum est, & Deus : & socii ejus sumus,
& membra. Ep92.
J Book iii. chap. 16.
change
Sect 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 167
change Things into Figures ; and then change Fi
gures into nothing. But here the learned Doctor
was, more than ordinary, unlucky in the application
of his solution : for Arrian, the Interpreter of Epic-
tetus, tells us, by an apt comparison, what is meant
by being part of the TO &, / am, says he, a man,
a part of the TO wav, as an hour is part of the day ;
Lastly, Marcus Antoninus, as a consolation
against the fear of death, says, To die is not only
according to the course of nature, but of great use
to it. We shall consider how closely man is united
to the GODHEAD, and in what part of him that
union resides , and what will be the. condition of that"
part or portion when it is resolved into the AXIMA.
MUNDI *. Here the doctrine of the TO \* is hinted at ;
but writing only to Adepts, he is a little obscure.
The Editors have made a very confused comment
and translation : the common reading of the latter
part of the passage is, K*l QTAV BTWJ *w hzK&vlou.
TO T* oZtyuTnt TXTQ (Aoptov which is certainly corrupt.-
Gataker very accurately transposed the words thus :
K*i OTW? %n orotv, and for ^ax/tilai, read tuxfi**.
Meric Casaubon, more happily, Jia^Erflft*. They
have the true reading between them : But not being
aware that the doctrine of the nf union was here
Tro (dvloi a pww Qwrws yw Efiv, afoot,
.yrr ei a avw7r- x Halo. T/ air*
KUS c%n orav ^la^au TO T8 a-fyuir TTO popm. eayroy,
L, ii. c. 12. . . .
a alluded
i(S8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III..
alluded to, they could not settle the text with any
certainty. The last word MOPION can signify
nothing else but a discerped particle from the Soul
of the world. Epictetus uses it in that sense in the
passage above; and it seems to be the technical
term for it.
But though here the imperial Stoic must be owned
to be a little obscure ; yet we have his own eluci
dating comment upon it, in another place. " You
have hitherto existed as a PART [or have had a
particular existence] ; you will hereafter be ab-
" sorbed and lost in the Substance which produced
" you : or rather, you will be assumed into the-
" Divine Nature, or the Spermatic Reasons *."
And again, " Every Body will be soon lost and
" buried in the universal Substance. Every Soul
will be soon absorbed and sunk in the Universal
" Nature f."
After all this, one canot sufficiently admire how
Cudworth J came to say, " All those Pagan
Philosophers who asserted the incorporeity of
Souls, must of necessity, in like manner, suppose
them not to have been made out of pre-existing
* ENTIIE2TH2 12 MEPO2- ENA3>ANI20H2H
rENNHSANTI" /UAAOV SE ava&viQ&ivTy E!$ TOV hoyov alt* TOV
ffTrepnaliHGv xala (4/ledSo^y. 1. iv. c. 14.
f Hay TO svutov EvaQavt&lai ra^ira TM TWV oW <r/a, ^
uav amov ti$ TOV TUV chuv hoyov T%<ra ava^a^avilcu.
L. vii. c. TO.
J Intellectual System, p, 741.
f( matter,
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 169
" matter, but by God, out of nothing. Plutarch
" being only here to be except ed, by reason of a
" certain odd hypothesis which he had, that was pe-
" culiarly his own, of a third principle besides God
< and Matter, an evil Demon, self-existent : who
" therefore seems to have supposed all particular
" human souls to have been made neither out of
" nothing, nor yet out of matter or body pre-existing,
" but out of a certain strange commixture of the
tc substance of the evil Soul, and God, blended
" together ; upon which account he does affirm
" souls to be not so much ^fov, as /*lp^ S-fs, not
" so much the work of God, as part of him
Plutarch s words are these: "The soul is not so
" much the work and production of God, as a
" part of him, nor is it made by him, but from
" him, and out of him." C H Si xj/u^i ZK fyyw In
T8 $8 IAWQV #AAa Xy JEAE/)-* x$ TEL* aura, aAA* All"
UT, ^ EH aurs ytyovtv *. On all which I will
only make this observation : If Plutarch called the
Soul a part of God, only in a figurative or popular
sense, what hindered him from considering it as the
mere work and production of God? Nay how could
it have been considered otherwise ? for figurative ex
pression relates not to the Nature of ideas, but only
to the Mode of conveying them.
i. But Cud worth thinks those Philosophers, who
held the imorporeity of the Soul, must of necessity
* Plat, Qiuest
believe
i?o THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book lit
believe it to be made by God out of nothing. Why
so ? Because they could not possibly suppose it to-
be made out of pre-existing Matter. But is there
no other pre-existing Substance in being, besides
Matter ? Yes, the divine. Out of this, then, it
might have been made. And from- this, in fact, the
Philosophers did suppose it to be made. The learned
author, therefore, has concluded too hastily.
2. He thinks Plutarch was single, in conceiving
the soul to be a part, rather than a work of God ;
and that Plutarch was led into that error by the
Manichean principle : But how this principle should
lead any one into such an error, is utterly incon
ceivable. It is true, indeed, that he who already
believes the Soul to be /* />*, or po/Ho? &S, a part or
particle of the Divinity, if at the same time he hold
TWO PRINCIPLES, will naturally suppose the Soul
to take a part from each. And so indeed did Plu
tarch: And in this only, differed from the rest of
the Philosophers: who, as to the general tenet
of f*ff *, and not \$w & S, that the soul was rather
apart, than a work of God, were all of the same
opinion with him.
SUCH was the general doctrine on this point,
before the corning of CHRIST: But then, those
Philosophers, who held out against the FAITH, con
trived, after some time, to new model both their
Philosophy and Religion ; making their Philosophy
more religious, and their Religion more philoso
phical ;
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 171
phical : Of which I have given many occasional
instances, in the course of this work. So, amongst
the philosophic improvements of Paganism, the
softening this doctrine was one ; the modern Pla-
tonists confining the notion of the Sours being part
of the divine Substance, to those of brutes *.
Every irrational power (says PORPHYRY) is re
solved into the life of the whole f. And, it is remark
able, that then, and not till then, the Philosophers
began really to believe a future state of rewards and
punishments. But the wiser of them had no sooner
laid down the Doctrine of the TO V *EN than the
Heretics, as the Gnostics, Manicheans, and Pris-
cillians, took it up. These delivered it to the
Arabians, from whom the Atheists of these ages
have received it.
Such then being the general notion concerning the
nature of the Soul, there could be no room for the
belief of a future state of rewards and punishments:
and how much the Ancients understood the disbelief
of the one to be the consequence of holding the
other, we have a remarkable instance in STRABO.
This excellent writer speaking of the Mosaic Re
ligion, thus expresseth himself: For he (MosesJ
affirmed and taught that the Egyptians and Libyans
conceived amiss, in representing the Divinity under
the form of beasts and cattle : and that the Greeks
were not less mistaken, who pictured him in a human
* See note [DD] at the end of this Book,
f See note [EE] at the end of this Book.
shape ;
172 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
shape ; for God was that only ONE, which contains
all mankind, the earth, and sea, WHICH tee call
HEAVEN, THE WORLD, AND THE NATURE OP
ALL THINGS*. This, indeed, is the rankest Spi-
nozism : But very unjustly charged on the Jewish
Lawgiver, who hath delivered, in his divine writings,
such an idea of the Deity, that had he drawn it on
set purpose to oppose to that absurd opinion, he
could not have done it more effectually. What then,
you will say, could induce so ingenuous a writer to
give this false representation of an Author, to whose
Laws he was no stranger ? The solution of the diffi
culty (which Toland has written a senseless disser
tation f to aggravate and envenom) seems to be
this : Strabo well knew, that all who held the TO X *EN,
necessarily denied a future state of reward and pu
nishment ; and finding in the Law of Moses so ex
traordinary a circumstance as the omission of a
future state in the national religion, he concluded
backwards, that the reason could be no other than
the Author s belief of the TO X *EN : For these two
ideas were inseparably connected in the philosophic
imagination of the Greeks. He was supported in
this reasoning by the common opinion of the Greek
yap &&t jtj eeurxiv, ug dg6u; tyovxnv ol Alywfloi
ZovIss, KJ o<7*>j^a<rj TO 3ov & ol AiZusf is* iu 3g &
ol XMpi? 9 avQpuiTQfAQpipai runtivlet sly yotf ev TSTO fttvov S*0 TO
wot; airavla$, x^ yyv xj SaXor7av, o HO^IV tyam x}
^ TW ruv ovlm <pu<nv. Geog.lib. xvi.
f See his ( Of iginee Judaicaj.
Philosophers
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 173
Philosophers of that time, that the ro V was an
Egyptian doctrine: and he was not ignorant from
whence Moses had all his learning.
But now, though the notion is shewn to be so
malignant, as, more or less, to have infected all the
ancient Greek philosophy ; yet no one, I hope, will
suspect, that any thing so absurd and unphilosophical
will need a formal confutation. Mr. Bayle thinks it
even more irrational than the plastic atoms of Epi*
curus : The atomic system is not, by a great deal, so
absurd as Spinozism*: And judges it cannot stand
against the demonstrations of Newton : In rny opi
nion (says he) the Spinozists would find themselves
embarrassed to some purpose, if one obliged them to
admit the demonstrations of Mr. Newton f. In this
he judged right ; and we have lately seen a treatise,
intkled, An Inquiry into the Nature of the Human
Soul, &e. so well reasoned on the principles of that
philosophy, as totally to dispel the impious phantasm
of Spinozism. He who would have just and precise
notions of GOD and the SOUL, may read that book \
one of the best pursued pieces of reasoning, that, in
my humble opinion, the present times, greatly advan
ced in true philosopl^, have produced.
* Le Systcme des atomes n est pas a beaucoup pn;s
aussi absurde que le spiuozism. Grit. Diet, Article DE-
&IOCRITE.
f* Je croi (|ue les spinozistes se trouveroient bien em~
harasses, si on les forgoit d admettre les demonstrations,
de Mr. Newton. Ibid. Art. LEUCJPFB. Rem.(G) a la fin.
But
174 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookllL
But it will be asked, From whence then did the
Greeks learn this strange opinion ? for we know
they were not ATTOAIAAKTOI. It will be said,
perhaps, from Egypt; where they had all their other
learning : And the books which go under the name
of TRISMEGISTUS, and pretend to contain a body
of the ancient Egyptian wisdom, being very full
and explicit in favour of the doctrine of the TO *EN,
have very much confirmed this opinion : Now
though that imposture hath been sufficiently ex
posed *, yet on pretence, that the writers of those
books took the substance of them from the ancient
Egyptian physiology, they preserve, I do not know
how r , a certain authority amongst the learned, by no
means due unto them.
However, I shall venture to maintain, that the
notion was purely GRECIAN.
1. For first, it is a refined, remote, and far
fetched, yet imaginary conclusion from true and
simple principles. But the ancient Barbaric philoso
phy, as we are informed by the Greeks, consisted
only of detached plaeits or tenets, delivered dosvn
from tradition ; without any thing like a pursued
hypothesis, or speculation founded on a system )*.
* Is. Casaubon cont. Bar. Exerc. i. N 18.
*{- AxA s3e ol sraXa/ToJor ruv Qfroeopuv inl TO ap$i<rifiiv xj
tyspovlo ol fjt.lv yap vtaregoi TUV
E%ayovlai Qhuixfiav SfAKafrdV tie rt
fyv Ix&fatoffa* Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. viii. in prin.
Now
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 175
Now refinement and subtilty are the consequence
only of these inventions.
But of all the Barbarians, this humour would be
least seen in the Egyptians ; whose Sages were not
sedentary scholastic Sophists, like the Grecian; but
men employed and busied in the public affairs of
Religion and Government. Men of such characters,
we may be sure, would push even the more solid
sciences no farther than to the uses of life. In fact,
they did not, as appears by a singular instance, in
the case of Pythagoras. Jamblichus tells us, that
he spent two and twtnty years in Egypt, studying
astronomy and geometry * ; And yet after his return
to Samos, he himself discovered the famous 47th
proposition of thejirst book of Euclid. This, though
a very useful, is yet a very simple theorem ; and not
being reached by the Egyptian Geometry, she us
they had not advanced far in such speculations.
So again,, in Astronomy : Thalcs is said to be the
first who predicted an eclipse of the sun ; nor did
the Egyptians, nor any other Barbarians, pretend
to dispute that honour with him. To this it may be
said, that the Egyptians certainly taught Pythagoras
the true constitution of the Solar system in general :
and, what is more extraordinary, the doctrine of
Comets in particular, and of their revolutions, like
* Ayo Ja *) efxotriv sm nctist triv Afywirlov ev- TQI; a$iiTOi$
arpevoptn ^ yspft^w. Vit. Pyth. c. 4.
the
ry6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Booklll.
the other planets, round the sun * : which is esteem
ed a modern discovery ; at least it needed the
greatest effort of Newton s genius to render it pro
bable ; and still the periods of their revolutions are
only guessed at. We grant they taught him this :
but it is as true, that they taught it not scientifically,
but dogmatically, and as they received it from Tra
dition ; of which, one certain proof is, that the
Greeks soon lost or entirely neglected it, when they
began to hypothesise f.
It
* It is recorded by Aristotle and Plutarch ; and thus
expressed by Amm. Marcellinus : " Stellas qtiasdam,
u ceteris similes, quarum ortus obitusque, quibus sint
" temporibus prastituti humanis mcntibus ignorari."
1. xxv. c. 10.
t Fixas iii supreinis mundi partibus immotas per-
sistere, & planetas his interiores circa soletn revolvi,
terram pariter mover! cursu annuo, diurno vero circa
axern proprium, & solem ceu focum universi in omnium
centro quiescere, antiquissima fuit philosophantium
sententia. Ab ./Egyptiis autem astroruin antiquissimis
observationibus propagatam esse hanc scntentiatn verisi-
mile est. Et etiam ab illis 8c a gentibus conterminis ad
Graecos gentem magis philologicam quam phiiosophicam,
philosopbia omnis antiquior juxta et sanior iiianasse
videtur. Subinde docuerunt Anaxagoras, Democritus,
et alii nonnulli, terram in centro mundi immotam stare,
& astra omnia in occasum, aliqua celerius, alia tardius
moveri, idque in spatiis liberrimis. Namque orbis solidi
postea ab Eudoxo, Callppo, Aristotele, introducti sunt ;
2 declinante
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 177
It will be asked, then, in what consisted this
boasted Wisd rn of Fgypt; which we have so much
extolled throughout this wcrk;.and for which li
berty we have so large warrant from holy Scripture ?
I reply, In the science of LEGISLATION and CIVIL
POLICY : But this, only by the way.
That the Egyptians did not philosophise by hy
pothesis and system, appears farther from the cha
racter of their first Greek disciples. Those early
Wise men, who fetched their Philosophy from E;ypt,
brought it home in detached and independent placits ;
which was certainly as they found it. For, as the
ingenious writer of the Enquiry into the Life of
Homer says, there was yet no SEPARATION of wis-
IXOM ; the philosopher and the divine, the legislator
and the poet, were all united in the same person.
Nor had they yet any Sects, or succession of Schools.
These were late ; and therefore the Greeks could
not be mistaken in their accounts of this matter.
One of the first, as well as noblest systems of
Physics, is the Atomic theory, as it was revived by
Des Cartes. This, without doubt, was a Greek
invention ;
, I .* -J jj ; . . . <
cleclinante in dies philosophic primitus introducta, et
novis Graccorum commends paulatim praevalentibus.
Quibus vinculis antiqid planetas in spatiis liberis retineri,
deque cursu rectilineo perpetuo retractos, in orbem
regular! ter agi docuere, noi\ constat. In hujus rei
explicationem orbes solidos excogitates fuisse opinor,
Newton, de mundi systemate.
VOL. III. N
178 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
invention; nothing being better settled, than that
Democritus and Leucippus were the authors of
it *. But Posidonius, either out of envy or whim,
would rob them of this honour, and give it to one
Moschus a Phenician. Our excellent Cud worth
has gone into this fancy ; and made of that un
known Moschus, the celebrated Lawgiver of the
Jews. But the learned Dr. Burnet hath clearly
overthrown this, notion, and vindicated the right of
the discovery to the two Greeks f .
This being the case, we may easily know what
Plato meant in saying, that the Greeks improved
whatever science they received from the Barbarians^.
Which words, Celsus seems to paraphrase, where
he says, the Barbarians were good at INVENTING
OPINIONS, but the Greeks were only able to PER
FECT
* See note [FF] at the end of this Book.
f " Prscterea non videtur mihi sapere indolem anti-
" quissimorum temporum, iste modus philosophandi per
u hypotheses &, pri.ncipiorum systernata ; quein modum,
" ab introduces atomis, statirn sequebantur philosophi.
" Mace Gracanica sunt, ut par est credere, et sequioris
" aevi. Durasse mihi videtur ultra Trojana tempora
" philosophia traditiva, quae ratiociniis et causarum ex-
" plicatione non nitebatur, sed alterius generis & originis
a doctrina, primig^nia et wwJwrafflt^Tw." ArchaioL
Phil. 1. i. c. 6.
J AJO >cj if o n^arwv tyftiv, o, n av >cj
ol ExXwE, TKTO a/j.Eivov EKpEpmn. Anon, d.G Vit,
P\th. ap. Photimn, Cod. 249.
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 179
FECT and SUPPORT them*. And Epicurus, whose
spirit was entirely systematic as well as atheistic,
finding none of these delicacies amongst the Bar
barians, used to maintain that the Greeks knew only
how to philosophise f . So much was the author of
the Voyage of Cyrus mistaken in thinking that the
Orientalists had a genius more subtile and meta
physical than the Greeks %. But he apparently
formed his judgment in this matter, from the mo
dern genius of the people, acquired since the time
they learnt to speculate of the Greek Philosophers ;
whose writings, since the Arabian conquests, have
been translated into the languages of the East.
It appears therefore, from the nature of the Bar
baric philosophy, that such a notion as the TO V tX EN
could not be Egyptian.
2. But we shall shew next, that it was in fact a
Greek invention ; by the best argument, the disco
very of the Inventors.
TULLY, speaking of PHERECYDES SYRUS, the
Master of Pythagoras, says, that he was the first
who affirmed the souls of men were ETERNAL,
" Quod
* Kt yyw/x!/o>5 yt HK OVEWI^EI tiri Tp
eTrouvuy ug ixavb$ Eugtiv Soy/uaffa Taj
xfivcu >^ fiEvaiupctcrQM roc, VTTQ @aaf<a
Jt<rir*EHwsS Orig. cont. Celsum, p. 5.
"O ? *ElfU(ISf- E/UL7Ta*lV, iTTOhap
tiuvoffQau. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. i. p. 302. ed.
Morel. 1629.
t Voiez Disc, sur la inythologie.
N 2
iSo THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Quod literis extet, Pherecydes Syrus- primum
dixit aniinos hominum esse SEMPITERNOS ; an-
tiquus sane; fuit eniin meo regnante gentili.
1 Hanc opinionem discipulus ejus Pythagoras
maxime -.cqnfirmauit*." This is a very extraor
dinary passage. If it be taken in the common
sense of the interpreters, that Pherecydes was the
first, or the first of the Greeks, who taught the
IMMORTALITY of the soul, nothing can be more
false or groundless. Tully himself well knew the
contrary, as appears from several places of his
works, where he represents the immortality of the
soul, as a thing taught from the most^early times
of memory, and by all mankind ; the author and
original of it, as Plutarch assures us, being entirely
unknown; which indeed might be easily gathered,
by any attentive considerer, from the very early
practice of deifying the dead. Cicero therefore,
who knew that Homer taught it long before ; who
knew that Herodotus recorded it to have been taught
O
by the Egyptians from the most early times, must
needs mean a different thing ; which the exact pro
priety of the word semjnizrnus will lead us to under
stand. Donatus the grammarian says, that SEM-
PITEUNUS properly relates to the Gods, and PERPE-
TUUS to men; Sempiternum ad Deos, perpetuum
proprie ad homines pertinet r \ : Thus a proper ETER-.
MT\ r is given to the Soul; a consequence which
* Tusc. Disp. Li. c. 16.
t In .And. Ter. Act. v. Sc. v.
could
Sect 4-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 181
could only spring, and does necessarily spring from
the principle, of the :_S_oul s being part of God. So
that Cicero hath here informed us of a curious cir
cumstance ; which not only fixes the doctrine of the
P I5C^j?TOUgJ&reeoe, but records the Inventor of it :
And this is farther confirmed by what he adds, that
Pythagoras, the scholar of Pherecydes, took it from
his master ; and by the authority of his own name
added great credit to it. So great indeed, that, as
we have seen, it soon overspread all the Greek phi
losophy. And I make no question but it was Phe-
recydes s broaching this impiety, and not hiding it
so carefully as his great Disciple did afterwards, by
^Q^doM^do^trine^ which made him pass with the
people, for an Atheist. And if the story of his
mocking at all religious worship, which JElian *
mentions, be true, it would much support the popu
lar opinion.
Tatian is the only ancient writer I know of, who
seems to be apprized of this intrigue ; or to have
any notion of Pherecydes s true character. Tatian,
writing to the Greeks, against their Philosophers,
says, Aristotle is the heir of Pherecydes s Doctrine;
and traduces the notion of the soul s immortality^ ;
i. e. rendered the notion odious, JW,aAAt : as such
an immortality certainly was to the Christian Church.
How true it is that Aristotle was heir to tiiis Doc-
* Var. Hist. 1. iv. c. 28.
t "O 3e Afiror sXns T* Qefwufes $oy(ju&-- Xtofovfo- In, xj
Orat. ad Gh 0.412.
N 3 trine,
182 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
trine, may be seen above in the Interpretation of a
passage in the Nichomachcan ethics *. But it hath
much embarrassed Tatian s commentators to find
on what his censure was grounded.
That Pherecydes was the inventor of this notion,
and not barely the first bringer of it to the Greeks,
may not only be collected from what hath been said
above of the different genius of the Greek and
Barbaric philosophy, but from what Suidas tells us
of his being self-taught, and having no master or
director of his studies |.
But as the Greeks had two Inventors of their best
physical principle, Democritus and Lcucippus; so
had they two likewise of this their very worst in me
taphysics. For we have as positive attestation that
THALES was one of them, as that Pherecydes was
the other. There arc (says Laertius) who affirm,
that Thales was the first who held the souls of men
to be IMMORTAL J ; AOANA TOS, an epithet, in the
philosophic ages of Greece, which as properly signi
fied the immortality of the Gods , as "A$0APTO2
signified the immortality of men . The same ob
jection
* See p. 163.
f AV-TQV Ss faxwzvcu *9j/iTKV, oto* iavrov a<rw<rat. Voc.
J "Eviot 3e xj auTW izpurov ifasiv $a<riv aQavxras rot;
Li. 24.
So Eusebius, speaking of the political Gods of
Egypt, says : "AMaj ^e IK TSTWV ivriysiv$
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 183
jection holds here against understanding it in the
common sense, as in the case of Pherecydes.
The sum then of the argument is this: THALFS
and PHERECYDES, who, we are to observe, were
contemporaries, are said to be \hejirst who taught
the immortality of the soul *. In the common sense
of this assertion, they were not the first; and known
not to be the first, by those who affirmed they were
so. The same Antiquity informs us, that they held
tlie doctrine of the TO V tX EN ; which likewise, com
monly went by the name of the immortality. Nor
is there any person earlier than these on record, for
holding this doctrine. We conclude therefore, that
those who tell us they were the first who taught the
immortality of the soul, necessarily meant that they
were the first who held it to be part of the divine
substance. This, I say, we may conclude, although
Plutarch had not expressly affirmed it of one of them,
where he says, that Thales was the FIRST who
taught the soul to be an eternal-moving, or a self -
moving Nature^. But none, but God alone, was
supposed to be such a Nature: Therefore the Soul,
according
lv NHTOTS, 3w & oweffiv >tj xotnv avQpuvuv
rfouxoras rfc A0ANA2IA2 Pnep. Evang.
1. iii.-c. 3.
* Suidas speaking of Pherecydes, says : Efaorvvei &
TJV otorr- 3b v. Voc. &*$**$
f 0#ta$ awtfwdlQ nPHTOS Triv fyxw, $wv AEIKINH-
TON * AYTOKINHTON. Plac. Phil. 1. iv. c. 2.
N 4
iS 4 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
according to Thales, was part of the divine Sub
stance ; and he, according to Plutarch, was the first
who held this opinion.
3. But though the Greeks were the inventors
of this impious notion ; yet we may be assured, as
they had their first learning from Egypt, it was the
recognition of some Egyptian Principles which led
them into it. Let us see then what those principles
were.
The Egyptians, as we are assured by the con
current testimony of Antiquity, were amongst the
first who taught that the soul survived the" body
and was immortal. Not, like the Greek Sophists,
for speculation ; but for a support to their practical
doctrine of a future state of reward and punish
ment: and, every thing being done in Egypt for the
sake of Society, a future state was inforced to se
cure the general doctrine of a Providence. But
still there would remain great difficulties concerning
the ORIGIN OF EVIL, which seemed to affect the
moral attributes of God. And it was not enough
for the purposes of Society, that there was a divine
Providence, unless that Providence was understood
to be perfectly good and just. Some solution there
fore was to be given ; and a better could not be well
found, than the notion of the METEMPSYCHOSIS,
or transmigration of Souls; without which, in the
opinion of Hierocles * the ways of Providence
Lib. deprov. apud Phot. Bib. Cod. 214.
are
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 185
are not to be justified. The necessary consequence
of this doctrine was, that the Soul is elder than
the Body : So having taught before, that the Soul
was eternal, a parte post ; and now, that it had an
existence before it came into the Body, the Greeks,
to give a rounding to their system, taught, on the
foundation of its pre-existehce, that it was eternal
too, a parte ante. This is no precarious conjecture ;
for Suidas, after having told us that Pherecycles
(whom we have shewn above to be one of the
inventors of the notion of the Sours proper eternity)
had no master, but struck every thing out of his
own thoughts ; adds, that he had procured certain
secret Phenician booh*. Now we know from
Eusebius s account of Sanchoniatho, and the famous
fragment there preserved, that these secret Phenician
Books contained the Egyptian wisdom and learning.
The Greeks having thus given the Soul one of
the attributes of the Divinity; another Egyptian
doctrine soon taught them to make a perfect God
almighty of it.
We have observed, that the Mysteries were an
Egyptian invention ; and that the great secret in
them was the unity of the Godhead. This was the
first of the o?iropp1a ; in which, we are told, their
Kings, and Magistrates, and a select number of
the best and wisest, were instructed. It is clear
Aurov $ strxivai xa^/yjTrjv, J\x taurov
Xta.
then
186 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
then that the doctrine was delivered in such a
manner as was most useful to Society: But the
principle of the TO^EN is as destructive to Society,
*
as Atheism can well make it. However, having
suitable conceptions of the Deity thus found, they
represented him as a SPIRIT diffusing itself through
the world, and intimately pervading all things.
Hap* a roig rjiwatflof x.o<rpx TO ftyxw i$-i -smu^a, says
Horapollo. And Virgil, where he gives us the
fr*-0jppij7a of the Mysteries, describes the Godhead in
the same manner :
SPIRITUS intus alit, totamque infusa per artus
MENS agitat naolern, & magno se corpore miscet.
And thus, the Egyptians, in a figurative and moral
sense, teaching that GOD WAS ALL THINGS*;
the Greeks drew the conclusion, but in a literal
and metaphysical ; that ALL THINGS WERE GOD,
*Ev T* rot Tsowltx,, say the poems going under the name
of Orpheus; and so ran headlong into what we
now call Spinozism. But these propositions the
Greeks afterwards father d upon the Egyptians.
The Asclepian dialogue, translated into Latin by
Apuleius, says, OMNIA UNIUS ESSE, ET UNUM
ESSE OMNI A. And again: Nome hoc dixi OMNI A
UNUM ESSE, ET UNUM OMNI A ? Mo^ot rx $
flat l?iv et Si -srai/Ja fAogiot, Txravja a^a o 3"ioff"
IOCVTOV zroitT. ioiv rig liriEi iKnj TO
T0
o-mravcu. Idem.
Sect. 4-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 187
rv1 yap *7j/ai J*. This passage cannot be
well understood without recollecting what has been
just observed above, of the Egyptian premisses and
the Greek conclusion. Now the Platonist, who
forced these books, conscious of the Greek conclusion,
artfully endeavours, in these words, to shew, it
was a necessary consequence of the Egyptian pre
misses ; which, he would make us believe, conveyed
an imperfect representation of the Universe without
it. If any man (says he) go about to separate the
All from the One, he will destroy the All ; for All
ought to be One.
4. But this mistake concerning the birth-place
of Spinozism, for a mistake it is, being chiefly, as we
see, supported by the books, which go under the
name of Hermes Trismegistus, it will be proper to
say something to that matter.
The most virulent enemies, the CHRISTIAN
FAITH had to encounter, on its first appearance
in the world, were the PLATONISTS and PYTHA
GOREANS. And national Paganism, of which, these-
Sects set up for the defenders, being, by its gross
absurdities, obnoxious to the most violent retortion,
their first care was to cover and secure it, by alle
gorizing its GODS, and spiritualizing its WORSHIP.
But, lest the novelty of this invention should dis
credit it, they endeavoured to persuade the world,
* Lib. xvi. of the works of Trismegist, published
by Ficinus.
that
*SS THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
that this refinement was agreeable to tfte ancient
mysterious wisdom of Egypt: in which point,
several circumstances concurred to feypur them.
J. As first, that known, un controverted fact, that
the Greek REUGIO,X antf PHILOSOPHY came ori
ginally from Egypt. 2. Jhp state of the Egyptian
philosophy in their tunes. The power of Egypt had
been much shaken by the Persians; but totally
overturned by the Greeks. Under the Ptolemies,
this famous Nation suffered an entire revolution*
in their Learning and Religion ; and their Priests,
as was natural, began to philosophise in the Grecian
mode; At the time we speak of, they had, for
several ages, accustomed themselves so to dp;
having neglected and forgotten all the old Egyptian
learning; which, if we consider their many subver
sive revolutions, will not appear at all strange to
those who know, that this Learning was conveyed
from hand to hand, partly by unfaithful Tradition,
and partly by equivocal Hieroglyphics. However,
an opinion of Egypt s being the repository of the
true old Egyptian Wisdom, derived too much
honour to the colleges of their Priests, not for them
to contrive a way to support it. 3. This they did
(and it leads me to the third favourable circumstance)
by forging books under the. name of HERMES
TkiSMEGiSTUs, the great Hero and Lawgiver of
the old Egyptians. They could not have thought
of a better expedient : For, in the times of the
Ptolemies, the practice of forging books became
general ;
Sect 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 189
general; and the Art arrived at its perfection.
But bad not the Greeks of this time been so univer
sally infatuated with the delusion of mistaking their
own Philosophy for the old Egyptian, there were
marks enough to have detected the forgery. Jaeib-
lichus says, the books that go under the name of
Hermes do indeed contain the Hermaic doctrines^
THOUGH THEY" OFTEN USE THE LANGUAGE OF
THE PHILOSOPHERS : For they were translated out
of the Egyptian tongue by MEN NOT UNACQUAINT
ED WITH PHILOSOPHY *. These, it must be owned,
were Translators of trust ! who, instead of giving
the Egyptian Philosophy in Greek, have given us
the Greek Philosophy in the Egyptian tongue; if
at least what Jamblichus says be true, that these
forgeries were first fabricated in their own country
language. But whether this Writer saw the cheat,
or was himself in the delusion, is hard to say : He
has owned enough ; and made the matter much
worse by a bad vindication. But the credit of these
forgeries, we may well imagine, had its foundation
in some genuine writings of Hermes. There were
in fact, such writings : and what is more, some frag
ments of them are yet remaining ; sufficient indeed,
if we wanted other proof, to convict the books that
TJT TUV (piho&Qipuv yTuuT, / aroA?%#j$
otTTo TYi$ AiyvTrlias ysMTlr,; iiTT avtyait <piho<rc$ia$ w, Gfftif
e%ovlw. De Myst.
190 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book HI.
go under the name of Hermes, of imposture. For
what Eusebius hath given us, from SANCTION IATIIO,
concerning the Cosmogony, was taken from the
genuine works of Thoth or Hermes : and in them
we see not the least resemblance of that spirit of
refinement and speculation, which marks the cha
racter of those forged writings : every thing is plain
and simple ; free of all hypothesis or metaphysical
reasoning; those inventions of the later Greeks.
Thus the Pythagoreans and Platonists, being sup
plied both with open prejudices and concealed for
geries, turned them, the best they could, against
Christianity. Under these auspices, Jamblichus
composed the book just before mentioned, OF THE
MYSTERIES; meaning the profound and recondite
doctrines of Egyptian wisdom : Which, at bottom,
is nothing else but the genuine Greek Philosophy,
imbrowned with the dark fanaticism of eastern cant.
But their chief strength lay in the forgery : And
they even interpolated the very forgery, the better
to serve their purpose against Christianity.
It is pleasant enough to observe how 7 some primi
tive Apologists defended themselves against the
authority of these books. One w ould imagine they
should have detected the cheat ; which, we see, was
easy enough to do. Nothing like it : Instead of that,
they opposed fraud to fraud : for some Heretics
(the learned Beausobre in his History of Mani-
cheism, very reasonably supposes a Gnostic to have
been concerned) had added whole books to this
noble
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 191
noble collection of Trlsmeglst : In which they have
made Hermes speak plainer of the mysteries of the
Christian Faith, than even the Jewish Prophets them
selves. All this was done with a spirit not unlike
that of the two law-solicitors, of whom the story
goes, that when one of them had forged a bond, the
other> instead of losing time to detect the cheat, pro
duced evidence to prove that it was paid at the day.
But this was the humour of the times : for the Gram^
marians, at the height of their reputation under the
Ptolemies, had shamefully neglected critical learning^
which was their province, to apply themselves to the
forging of books, under the names of old authors.
There is a remarkable passage in Diogenes Laertius,
which is obscure enough to deserve an explanation ;
and will shew us how common it was to oppose
forgery to forgery. He is arguing against those who
gave the origin of Philosophy (which he would
have to be from Greece) to the Barbarians; that
is, the Egyptians But these (says he) Ignorantly.
apply to the Barbarians the illustrious inventions of
the Greeks ; from whence not only Philosophy, but
the very Race of mankind had its beginning. Thus
w$ knozv Mihsaeus was of Athens, and Linus of
Thebes : The former of these, the son 0/Eumolpus,
is. said to be the first, who wrote, in verse, of the
sphere, and of the generation of the Gcds ; and
taught, that ALL THINGS PROCEED FROM ox.
AND WILL BE RESOLVFD BACK AGAIN INTO
IT.
192 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
IT*. To see the force of this reasoning, we are to
suppose, that they whom Laertius is here confuting,
relied principally on this argument, to prove that
Philosophy came originally from the Barbarians,
namely, that the great principle of the Greek Phi
losophy, the TO N *EN and the REFUSION, was an
Egyptian notion. To this he replies, Not so :
Musaeus taught it originally in Athens. The dispute,
we see, is pleasantly conducted : His adversaries,
who supported the common, and indeed, the true
opinion of Philosophy s coming first from the Bar
barians, by the false argument of the ro eVs being
originally Egyptian, took this on the authority of
the forged books of Trismegi&i ; and Laertius op
poses it by as great a forgery, the fragments which
went under the name of Musreus t
T*I
inese are my sentiments of the Imposture.
Casaubon supposes the whole a forgery of some
Platonic Christians : But Cudworth lias fully shewn
the weakness of that opinion ; yet is sometimes in
clined to give them to the pagan Platonists of those
times ; which seems full as weak.
* AexvQavzffi o aw; to, TUV Ewway KtxloSa^
ap v
an ys (pttoffotpix, axxa. 7 tv- avu
ySv vafafuv Afavzioig ytfovE MxiraTos, va
TOV pa, Eii/toter* wcufa (pan, wfoai
xvyi rs E| tvo$ T- -arayla y ever fatty xj f^ rainov
Lib. i. 3.
t See note [GG] at the end of this Book.
i. Because
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 193
i. Because they are always mentioned, both by
Christian and Pagan writers, as works long known,
and of some considerable standing. 2. Because,
had those Platonists been the authors, they would
not have delivered the doctrine of the soul s con-
substantiality with the Deity, and its refusion into
him, in the gross manner in which we find it in the
books of Trismegist. For, as we have shewn above
by a passage from Porphyry *, they had now
confined that irreligious notion to the Souls of brutes.
At other times, this great Critic seems disposed to
think that they might indeed be genuine, and trans
lated, as we see Jamblichus would have them, from
old Egyptian originals : But this, we presume, is
sufficiently overthrown by what has been said above.
In a word, these forgeries (containing the rankest
Spinozism f) passed unsuspected on all hands ;
and the Principle of the TO sv and the refusion went
currently, at that time, for Egyptian : And though,
since the revival of learning, the cheat hath been
detected, yet the false notion of their original hath
* See p. 171. and note [DD] at the end of this
Book.
f As in the following passage, Oux wwot$ h roig Fe-
votoib OTE a?ro (jua$ ^MS ri$ *wv7oj wavou ad feat ti<rw ;
__ As where it is affirmed of the world, vaflat isoieiV)
x" si? kawlov a TroTTotsiv. Of the incorruptibility of the soul;
nty TZ tiwxlcu pQafivai TS ottfiafix, j aTroKwai TI ra &
TO TS jfltt*
VOL. III. O Jcept
194 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
kept its ground. The celebrated M. La Croze has
declared himself in favour of it. This is nothin*
o
strange ; for learned, like unlearned men, are often
carried away by Party. But that so discerning a
man should think the notion well supported by a
passage in a Greek Tragic, (where the Writer, to
keep decorum, puts the sentiment into the mouth
of an Egyptian Woman,) is very strange. Theonoe,
the Daughter of Proteus, is made to say, The
mind or soul of the deceased doth not live [i. e.
hath no separate existence] but hath an immortal
sensation, sliding back aain into the immortal
Why I have been thus solicitous tp vindicate the
pure EGYPTIAN WISDOM from this opprobrium.
will be seen in its place.
And now, to sum up the general argument of this
last section. These two errors in the metaphysical
speculations of the Philosophers, concerning the
nature of COD, and of the SOUL, were the things
which necessarily kept them from giving credit to
a doctrine, which even their own moral reasonings,
addressed to the People, had rendered highly pro
bable in itself. But, as we observed before, it was
their ill fate to be determined rather by metaphysical
than moral arguments. This is best seen by coin-
Mavalov, E!$ a9xvaliv AiSfy spire fxv. Helen. Eurip.
paring
Sect.4.]OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 395
paring the belief and conduct of SOCRATES with
the rest. He was singular, as we said before, in con
fining himself to the study of morality ; and as sin
gular in believing the doctrine of a future state of
rewards and punishments. What could be the
cause of his belief but this restraint ; of which his
belief was a natural consequence ? For having
confined himself to MORALS, he had nothing to
mislead him : Whereas the rest of the philosophers
applying themselves, with a kind of fanaticism, to
physics and metapliystcs, had drawn a number of
absurd, though subtile conclusions, which directly
opposed the consequences of those moral arguments.
And as it is common for parents to be fondest of
their weakest and most deformed issue, so these
men, as we said, were easier swayed by their meta
physical than moral conclusions. But SOCRATES,
by imposing this modest restraint upon himself,
had not only the advantage of believing steadily,
but of informing his hearers, of what he really
believed ; for not having occasion for, he did not
make use of, the double doctrine. Both these cir
cumstances, Cicero (under the person of Lelius)
alludes to in the Character he gives of this divine
Sage. Qui Apollinis Qraculo sapientissimus est
judicatus, non tarn hoc, turn illud, ill in plcrisqiu^
zed IDEM; dlccbat semper, AN HMOS HOMIXUM ESSE
DJVJXOS : risque cum e eorpore excessissent redttum
in Ccelurn pater e opttrnoque ct justissimo culqiw
O -2
196 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book lit
erpeditissimum *. By which words, Cicero, as we
observe, seems to refer to the double doctrine of the
rest of the Philosophers, who sometimes pretended
to believe a future state, and sometimes professed to
hold the extinction or refusion of the human soul.
Thus, as the apostle PAUL observes, the Philoso
phers, PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE,
BECAME FOOLS f. Well therefore might he warn
his followers lest they too should BE SPOILED
THROUGH VAIN PHILOSOPHY J : and one of them,
and he no small fool neither, is upon record for
having been thus spoiled; SYNESIUS bishop of
Ptolemais. He went into the church a Platonist ;
and a Piatonist he remained ; as extravagant and as
absurd as any he had left behind him . This man,
forsooth, could not be brought to believe the
Apostle A- Creed, of the resurrection : And why ?
Because he believed with Plato that the soul was,
before the Body ; that is, eternal, a parte ante: and
the consequence they drew from this was (as we
have shewn) the very thing which disposed the
Platonists to reject all future state of rewards and
punishments. However, in this station, he was not
for shaking hands with Christianity, but would
* De Amicitia,c. iv.
t Rom. i. 22. J Coloss. ii. 8.
See a full account of this man, his principles, his
^Tuples, and his conversion, in The Critical Inquiry
into, the Opinions of the Philosophers, &c. c. xiv.
suppose.
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, 197
suppose some grand and profound mystery to lie hid
under the Scripture account of the RESURRECTION.
This again was in the very spirit of Plato ; who, as
we are told by Celsus, concealed many sublime
things of this kind, under his popular doctrine of a
future state *. It was just the same with the Jewish
Platonists at the time when the doctrine of a future
state became national amongst that people. And
Philo himself seems disposed to turn the notion of
Hell into an allegory, signifying an impure and
sinful life f.
But it was not peculiar to the Platonists to alle
gorize the doctrine of the resurrection. It was the
humour of all the Sects on their admission into
Christianity. Et ut carnis restitutio negetur (says
Tertullian) de una OMNIUM PIIILOSOPHORUM
SCHOLA sumiturj. Yet in another place he tells
us, that every Heresy received its SEASONING in
the school of Plato. Doleo bona fide Platoneni
factum HJERETJCORUM OMNIUM Condimentarium.
For the Philosophers being, in their moral lectures
in their schools (in imitation of the language of the
Mysteries, whose phraseology it was the fashion to
use both in Schools and Courts) accustomed to call
vicious habits, death ; and reformation to a good
* See note (J) p. 97.
f See his tract, De congressu quaerendse eruditionis
causa.
t De prase, adv. Hseret. De Anim. c. 23.
3 life
i 9 8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
.life ANA STAriS or a resurrection, they were dis
posed to understand the RESURRECTION- OF THE
JUST in the same sense. Against these pests of the
Gospel it was * that the learned apostle Paul warned
his disciple Timothy, SHUN (says he) PROFANE
AND VAIN BABBLINGS, /or they Kill Increase unto
more ungodliness. And their icord mil eat as doth
a canker : of whom is Hymcnaeus and Philetus, who
concerning the Truth have erred, saying that THE
RESURRECTION is PAST ALREADY; and over
throw the faith of some f .
And here I will beg leave to observe, that when
ever the holy Apostles speak of, or hint at the Phi-
losophers or Philosophy of Greece, which is not
seldom, they always do it in terms of contempt or
abhorrence. On this account I have not been
ashamed nor afraid to shew, at large, that the reasons
they had for so doing were just and weighty. Nor
have I thought myself at ail concerned to manage
the reputation of a set of men, who, on the first
appearance of Christianity, most virulently opposed
it, by all the arts of sophistry and injustice : and
when, by the force of its superior evidence, they
were at length driven into it, were no sooner in, than
Hinc illae fabv.lac & genealogiae indeterminabilcs,
& quacstiones infructuosc, & Sermoties serpentes ve/ul
.cancer: a quibus nos Apostolus refracnans, nominatim
philosophiam, & c . Tcrtul. do prase, adv. Haret,
t 2 Tim. ii. 16.
they
Sect 4-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 199
they began to deprave and corrupt it*. For from
their profane and vain babblings, Tertullian assures
us, every heresy took its birth. Ipd ilii SAPIENTI;E
PROFESSORES, (k quorum iHgeiiiis othnis haresis
animatur \. And, in another place, he gives us
their genealogy. " Ipsae denique harescs a PHI-
" LOSOPHIA subornantur. Inde yEones fonnae,
" nescio qua?, & trinitas hovninis apud Vakntuium:
" PLATONICUS fuerat. Inde Marcioms deus melior
" de tranquillitate, a STOICIS venerat; & uti aniina
" interire dicatur, ab EPICUREIS observatur : ET
UT CARNIS RESTITUTIO NEGETUR, DE UNA
" OMNIUM rillLOSOPHOHUM SC1IOLA SUMITUR ;
" et ubi materia curn deo aequatur, ZENONIS dis-
" ciplinaest: et ubi aliquid de igneo deo allegatur,
" HERACLITUS intervenit. Eaedem materiae apud
" hsereticos & philosophos volutantur ; iidem re-
" tractatus implicantur. Unde maluin, Sc quare?
". & unde homo, & quomoclo? # quod promote Va-
" Icntinus proposing wide dcus ? Scilicet & de
4( Entbymesi, ectromate inserunt ARISTOTELEM,
a qui illis dialeeticam instifcuit, artificem struendi &
* See the Introduction to Julian, or a Discourse con
cerning his attempt to rebuild the Temple, vol. viii.
t Adv. Marc. 1. i. The author of a fragment con
cerning the Philosophers going under the name of
Origen, says the same thing : atot erv auro AlHuisi ra,
v m tv$ E^vwv <ro<pias
MY2THPIHN E
O4 " destruendi,
200 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
; destruendi, versipelleni in sententiis coaetam, in
" conjecturis duram, in argumentis operariam, con-
tentione molestam, etiam sibi ipsi omnia retrae-
" tantem, nequid omnino tractaverit. Hinc ilia)
tabulae & genealogise indeterminabiles, & qusesti-
ones infructuosffi & SERMON ES SERPENTES
VELUT CANCER, a quibus nos apostolus refrae-
6 nans *," &c. One would almost imagine, from
these last words, that Tertullian had foreseen that
ARISTOTLE was to be the founder of the SCHOOL
DIVINITY.
He observes, that the Heresy, which denies the
Resurrection of the Body, arose out of the whole
School of Gentile philosophy. But he omits another,
which we have shewn stood upon as wide a bottom ;
namely, that which holds the HUMAN SOUL TO BE
OF THE SAME NATURE AND SUBSTANCE WITH
GOD ; espoused before his time by the Gnostics,
and afterwards, as we learn by St. Austin, by the
Manichaeans and Priscillianists f .
* De praesc. adv. Haeret. pp. 70, 71. Ed. Par. 1580.
t Priscillianistae quos in Hispania Priscillianus in-
stituit, maxime Gnosticorum & Manichaeorum dogmata
pcrmixta sectantur; quamvis et ex aliis haeresibus in eas
sordes, tanquam in sentinam quanda^tn horribili confu-
sioiic confluxerint. Propter occultandas autem conta-
minationes Sc turpitudines suas habent in suis dogmatibus
& haac ycrba, Jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli. Hi,
ANIMAS DICUNT EJUSDEM NATURE ATQUE SUBSTAN-
cujus EST DEUS. Aug. De Hseresibus.
Why
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 201
Why the heathen Philosophers of our times
should be displeased to see their ancient brethren
shewn for knaves in practice, and fools in theory, is
not at all strange to conceive : but why any else
should think themselves concerned in the force and
fidelity of the drawing, is to me a greater mystery
than any I have attempted to unveil. For a stronger
proof of the necessity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
cannot, I think, be given than this, That the SAGES
OF GREECE, with whom all the WISDOM of the
world was supposed to be deposited *, had PHILO
SOPHISED themselves out of the most evident and
useful TRUTH with which mankind hath any concern.
Besides, what greater regard could any one shew
to the authority of the Sacred Writers than to justify
their CENSURE of the Greek philosophy ; a censure
which Deists and Fanatics, though for different
ends, have equally concurred to represent as a con
demnation of human learning in general ?
In conclusion, it is but fit we should give the
reader some account why we have been so long and
so particular on this matter.
One reason was (to mention no other at present)
to obviate an objection, which might possibly be
urged against our proof, of the divine legation of
MosEs,y/wz the omission of a future state. For
if now the Deists should say (and we know they
are ready to say any thing) that Moses did not
* i Cor. i. 20.
propagate
202 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
propagate that doctrine, because he did not believe
it; we have an answer ready: having shewn from
iact, that the not believing a doctrine so useful to
, society, was esteemed no reason for the Legislator
not to propagate it. I say, having shewn it from
the practice of the Philosophers : For as to the
Lawgivers, that is, those who were not Philosophers
professed, it appears, by what can be learnt from
their history and character, that they all believed, as
well as taught, a future state of rewards and pu
nishments. And indeed how should it be otherwise?
. for they were free from those metaphysical whimsies,
concerning GOD and the SOUL, which had so be
sotted the Greek Philosophers. And I know of no
thing else that could hinder any man s believing it
Against all this force of evidence, weak, indeed,
as it is against the force of prejudice, the learned
Chancellor of Gottingen has opposed his Authority,
which is great, and his talents of reasoning and
eloquence, which are still greater. " Magnam
non ita pridem (says he) ut Antiquiores mittam,
ingenii vim et doctrinae copiam impendit, ut in hanc
rios sententiam induceret GUILTELMUS WARBUR-
TONUS, vir alioquin egregius & inprimis acutus, in
celeberrimo et eruditissirno libro, quern, The divine
Legation of Moses demonstrated, inscripsit Lib. iii.
Sect. 4. Jubet ille nos existimare OMNES PHI-
LOSOPHOS, quianimorum immortalitatem docuerunt,
eamdem clam negasse. Naturam rerurn revera Dei
loco habuisse atque mentes hominum Particulas
cerisuisse
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTPtATED. 203
censuisse ex mundi anima decerptas, etad cam post
-eorponuii ouitum reversuras. Vcrum, ut taccarn,
Grceconnn tantum Philosophos euni tcstari, quuni
aliis tainen Populis sui etiam Philosoplii fuerint, a
Grcecorum sententiis niultis modis semoti, ut hoc,
.inquam, seponam, non aperiis 8$ planis testimoniis
causam suani agit Vir praeclarus, quod in tanti mo-
menti accusatione necessarium videtur, sed con-,
jecturis tantum, exemplis nonnullis, dcuique con-
sectariis ex institutis quibusdam et dbgmatibus Phi-
losophorum quorumdain ductis. De rebus Christ,
ante Const ant mum Magnum, p. 18. Here the
learned Critic supposing the question to be, What
the Philosophers of the ancient Jl orld i,i general
thought concerning a future state : charges the
Author of the Divine Legation with fall ing short
in his proof, which readies, says he, only the Greek
Philosophers though there were many other in the
world besides, who dogmatized on very different prin
ciples. Now I had again and again declared, that
I confined rny Inquiry to the Greek Philosophers.
\Ve shall see presently, for what reason. What then
could have betrayed this great Man into so wrong a
representation ? It was not, I arn persuaded, a
want of candour, but of attention to the Author he
criticised. For, seeing so much written by me against
the principles of those Ancients who propagated the
doctrine of a future state, he unwarily concluded
that it was in my purpose to discredit the doctrine,
as discoverable by the light of nature; and, on that
ground,
204 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Rook III.
ground, rightly inferred that my business was with
the whole tribe of Ancient Philosophers : and that
to stop at the Greeks was mistaking the extent of my
course. But a little attention to my general argu
ment would have shewn him, that this inquiry into
the real sentiments of a race of Sages, then most
eminent in all political and moral Wisdom, concern
ing this point, was made solely to shew the vast im
portance of the doctrine of a future state of reward
and punishment to society, when it was seen that
these men, who publicly and sedulously taught it, did
not indeed believe it. For this end, the Greek Phi
losophers served my purpose to the full. Had my
end been not the importance, but the discredit of the
Doctrine (as this learned man unluckily conceived
it) I had then, indeed, occasion for much more than
their suffrage to carry my point.
In what follows >f this learned Criticism, I am
much further to seek for that candour which so
eminently adorns the writings of this worthy person.
He pretends I have not proved my charge against
the Greek Philospohers. Be it so. But when he
says, I have not ATTEMPTED it by any clear and
evident testimonies , but only by conjectures ; by in
stances in some Particulars ; by consequences de
duced from the Doctrines and Institutes of certain
of the Philosophers , This, I cannot reconcile to his
ingenuous spirit of criticism. For what are all those
passages given above, from Timaeus the Locrian,
from Diogenes Laertius, from Plutarch, Sextus
Empiricus,
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 205
Empiricus, Plato, Chrysippus, Strabo, Aristotle,
Epictetus, M. Antoninus, Seneca, and others, but
testimonies, clear and evident, either of the parties
concerned, or of some of their school, or of those
who give us historical accounts of the Doctrines
of those Schools, that none of the Theisticai Sects
of Greek Philosophy did believe any thing of a
future state of rewards and punishments.
So much for that kind of evidence which the
learned person says I have not given.
Let us consider the nature of that kind, which lie
owns I have given, but owns it in terms of discredit
-In tanti momenti accusatione conjecturis tan-
turn, evemplis nonnullis denique consectariis ex insti-
tutis, c.
i
1. As to the CONJECTURES he speaks of Were
these offered for the purpose he represents them ;
that is to say, directly to inforce the main question,
I should readily agree with him, that in an accusation
of such moment they were very impertinently urged,
But they are employed only occasionally to give
credit to some of those particular testimonies, which
I esteem clear and evident, but which he denies to
exist at all, in my inquiry.
2. By what he says of the instances or EX
AMPLES in some particulars, he would insinuate
that what a single Philosopher says, holds only
against himself, not against the Sect to which ha
belongs : though he insinuates it in defiance of the
very
206 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book IIL
very genius of the Greek Philosophy, and of the
extent of that temper (by none better understood
than by this learned man himself) which disposed
the Members of a School
- - - jurare in rerba Magistri.
3, With regard to the INFERENCES deduced from
the Doctrines and Institutes of certain of the, Phi
losophers ; by which he principally means those
deduced from their ideas of God and the Soul; We.
roust -distinguish.
If the inference, which is charged on an opinion
be disavowed by the Opiuionist, the charge is.
unjust.
If it be neither avowed nor disavowed, the charge
o
is inconclusive.
But if the Consequence be acknowledged, and even
contended for, the charge is just : and the evidence
resulting from it has all the force of the most direct
proof.
Now the Consequence I draw from the Doctrines
of the Philosophers concerning God and the Souf,
in support of my charge against them, is fully and
largely acknowledged by them. The learned per
son proceeds, and assures his reader that, by the
same way of reasoning, he would undertake to prove
that none of the Christian Divines believed any
thing of that future state which they preached up to
the people. ; Ego quidem mediocris iugenii home*
" et tanto yiro quantus est Warburtonus longe
" inferior,
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 207
" inferior, Ornnes Christianorum Theologos nihil
" eorurn, qua? publicc tradunt, credere, et callide
" hominum mentibus impietatis venenum aftiare
" velle, convincam, si mihi eadem eos via invadendi
" potcstas concedatur, qua Philosophos Vir doc-
tissirnus aggressus est."
This is civil. But what he gives me on the side
of ing&mity, he repays himself on the side of judg
ment. For if it be, as he says, that by the same
kind of reasoning which I employ to convict the
Philosophers of impiety, the Fathers themselves
might be found guilty of it, the small talent of
ingenuity, which nature gave me, was very ill
bestowed.
Now if the Learned Person can shew that Chris*
tlan Divines, like the Greek Philosophers, made use
of a double doctrine that they held it lawful to
deceive, and say one thing when they thought another
that they sometimes owned and sometimes denied a
future state of reward and punishment that they
held God could not be angry, nor hurt any cut-
that the soul was part of the substance oj God-
and avowed thai the consequence tf th-w ideas of
God and the Soul was, no future state rf reward*
and punhhment&-^W\\?\\ I say, he has sheun M
this, I shall be ready to give up the Divine*, as^I
have given up the Philosophers.
But if, instead of this, he will first of all 11- is re
present the force, of my reasoning against the Phi^
losopbeiSj
2oS THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
losophcrs, and then apply it, thus misrepresented,
against the Divines ; bringing vague conjectures in
support of the main question ; making the case of
particulars (Synesius for instance) to include the
whole body ; or urging consequences not seen or
abhorred when seen (such as Polytheism from the
Trinity) : If, I say, with such kind of proof (which
his ingenuity and erudition may find in abundance)
he will maintain that he has proved the charge in
question as strongly against Christian Divines as I
have done against the Greek Philosophers : why
then I will agree with the first Sceptic I meet,
that all enquiries concerning the Opinions either of
the one set of men or of the other, is an idler em
ployment than picking straws : For when Logic and
Criticism will serve no longer to discover Truth, but
may be made to serve the wild vagaries, the blind
prejudices and the oblique interests of the Disputers
of this World, it is time to throw aside these old In
struments of Vanity and Mischief.
SECT. V.
BUT it may now perhaps be said, " Though I
have designed well, and have obviated an objection
arising from the present question ; yet Was it not
imprudent to employ a circumstance for this pur
pose, which seems to turn to the discredit of the
Christian doctrine of a future state ? For what can
bear harder on the REASONABLENESS of this
1 doctrine,
Sect. 5.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 209
doctrine, than that the best an$ wisest of Antiquity
did not believe a future state of rewards and
punishments ? "
To this I reply,
1. That if the authority of the Greek Philo*
gophers have found weight with us in matters of
religion, it is more than ever the sacred Writers in
tended they should ; as appears from the character
they have given us of them, and of their works.
2. Had I, indeed, contented myself with barely
shewing, that the Philosophers rejected the doctrine
of a future state of rewards and punishments, with
out explaining the grounds on which ;hcy went;
some slender suspicion, unfavourable to the Chris
tian doctrine, might perhaps have staggered those
weak and impotent minds which cannot support
themselves without the Crutch of AUTHORITY.
But when I have at large explained those grounds,
which, of all philosophic tenets, are known to be the
most absurd; and the reader hath seen these ad
hered to, while the best moral arguments for it were
overlooked and neglected, the weight of their con-
o 7 o
elusions loses all its force.
3. But had I done nothing of this ; had I left
the Philosophers in possession of their whole AU
THORITY ; that authority would have been found
impertinent to the point in hand. The supposed
force of it arisetb on a very foolish error. Those,
VOL. III. P who
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
who mistake CHRISTIANITY for only a republi-
cation of the Religion of nature, must, of course,
suppose the doctrine it teacheth of a future state, to-
be one of those which natural religion discovers.
It would therefore seem a discredit to that Republi-
catiotij were not the doctrine discoverable by human
reason ; and some men would be apt to think it was
not, when the Philosophers had missed of it. But
our holy Religion (as I hope to prove in the last
book) is quite another thing : and one consequence
of its true nature will be seen to be this, that the
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE of a future state is not in
the number of those which natural Religion teach-
o
eth. The authority of the Philosophers, therefore,
is entirely out of the question.
4. But again, it will be found hereafter, that this
ftict is so far from weakening the doctrines of Chris
tianity, that it is a strong argument for the truth
of that Dispensation.
5. Yet as we have often seen writers, deceived in
their representations of Pagan Antiquity ; and,
while zealously busy in giving such a one as they
imagined favourable to Christianity, they have been
all along disserving it ; lest I myself should be
suspected of having fallen into this common delu
sion, I shall beg leave, in the last place, to shew,
that it is just such a representation of ANTIQUITY
as this I have given, which can possibly be of service
to
Sect. 5.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 211
to our holy Faith. And that, consequently, if what
is here given be the true, it does revealed Religion
much service.
This will best appear by considering the USUAL
VIEWS men have had, and the consequent methods
they have pursued, in bringing PAGAN ANTIQUITY
into the scene.
THEIR design has been, either to illustrate the
REASONABLENESS, Or to sllCVV the NECESSITY of
Christianity.
If the subject were REASONABLENESS, their way
was to represent this Antiquity, as comprehending
all the fundamental truths, concerning God and the
Soul, which our holy Religion hath revealed. But
as greatly as such a representation was supposed to
serve their purpose, the Infidels, we see, have not
feared to join issue with them on the allowed fact ;
and with much plausibility of reasoning, have en
deavoured to Shew, that THEREFORE CHRISTIANITY
WAS WOT NECESSARY. And this very advantage,
TIN DAL (under cover of a principle, which some
modern Divines afforded him, of Christianity s being
only a republication of the Religion of nature) ob
tained over some writers of considerable name.
If THE design were to shew the NECESSITY of
Christianity, they have then taken the other course,
and (perhaps misled by a sense of the former mis
chief) run into the opposite extreme; in repre
senting Pagan Antiquity as ignorant even of the
first principles of Religion, and moral duty. Nay,
p 2 not;
212 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III
not only, that it knew nothing, but that nothing could
be known ; for that human reason was too weak to
make any discoveries in these matters. Conse
quently, that there never was any such thing as
natural religion-, and that what glimmerings of
knowledge men have had of this kind, were only the
dying sparks of primitive Tradition. Here the In
fidel again turned their own artillery upon them, in
order to dismount that boasted REASONABLENESS
OF CHRISTIANITY, on which they had so- much in
sisted : And indeed, what room was there left ta
judge of it, after human Reason had been repre
sented as too weak and too blind to decide?
Thus while they were contending for the reasm-
ab knew, they destroyed the necessity ; and while
they urged the necessity, they risked the reason
ableness Q$ Christianity. And these infidel retortions
had an irresistible force on the principles on which-
our Advocates seemed to go ; namely, that Cfcm*
tianity was. only a repitblication of primitive na
tural Religion *.
It appears, then, that the only view of Antiquity
which gives solid advantage to the CHRISTIAN:
CAUSE, is such a one as shews natural Reason to be
CLEAR enough to PERCEIVE Truth, and the ne
cessity of its deductions when proposed ; but not
generally STRONG enough to DISCOVER it, and draw-
right deductions from it. Just such a view as this v
* See note [HH] at the end of this Book.
I have.
Sect 5-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 213
I have here given of Antiquity, as far as relates to
the point in question ; which I presume to be the
TRUE; not only in that point, but likewise with re
gard to the state of NATURAL RELIGION IN GE
NERAL : where we find human Reason could pene
trate very far into the essential difference of things ;
but, wanting the true principles of Religion, the
Ancients neither knew the origin of obligation, nor
the consequence of obedience. REVELATION hath
discovered these Principles ; and we now wonder,
that such prodigies of parts and knowledge could
commit the gross absurdities which are to be found
in their best discourses on morality. But yet this
does not hinder us from falling into a greater and a
worse delusion. For having of late seen several,
excellent systems of Morals, delivered as the Prin
ciples of natural Religion, which disclaim, or at
least do not own, the aid of Revelation, we are apt
to think them, in good earnest, the discoveries of
natural Reason .; and so to regard the extent of its
powers as an objection to the necessity of any further
light. The objection is plausible ; but sure, there
must be some mistake at bottom ; and the great
difference in point of excellence, between these sup
posed productions of mere Reason, arid those real
ones of the most learned Ancients, will increase our
suspicion. The truth is, these modern system-
niakers had aids, which as they do not acknowledge,
so, I will believe, they did not perceive. These aids
were the true principles- of Religion, delivered by
p 3 Revelation :
214 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Revelation: principles so early imbibed, and so
clearly and evidently deduced, that they are now
mistaken to be amongst our first and most natural
ideas : But those who have studied Antiquity know
the matter to be far otherwise.
I cannot better illustrate the state and condition
of the human mind, before Revelation, than by the
following instance. A summary of the ATOMIC
PHILOSOPHY is delivered in the Thecetetus of
Plato : yet being given without its principles, when
Plato s writings, at the revival of learning, came to
be studied and commented upon, this summary re
mained absolutely unintelligible : for there had been
an interruption in the succession of that School for
many ages ; and neither Marcilius Ficinus, nor
Serranus, could give any reasonable account of the
matter. But as soon as DES CARTES had revived
that Philosophy, by excogitating its principles anew,
the mist removed, and every one saw clearly (though
Cudworth, I think, was the first who took notice
of it) that Plato had given us a curious and exact
account of that excellent Physiology. And Des
Cartes was now thought by some, to have borrowed
his original ideas from thence : though, but for the
revival of the Atomic principles, that passage had
still remained in obscurity. Just so it was with
respect to the powers of the HUMAN MIND. Had
not Revelation discovered the true principles of Re
ligion, they had without doubt continued altogether
unknown. Yet on their discovery, they appeared
so
"Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 215
so consonant to human Reason, that men \vere apt
to mistake them for the production of it.
CICERO (and I quote him as of superior authority)
understood much better the true limits and extent
of human knowledge. He owns the state of natural
Reason to be just what is here delivered ; clear
enough to perceive Truth when proposed, but not,
generally, strong enough to discover it. His re
markable words are these" Nam neque tarn est
" acris acies in naturis hominum, & ingeniis, ut res
" tantas quisquam, NISI MONSTRATAS, possit vi-
" dere : neque tanta tarnen in rebus obscuritas, ut
" eas non penitus acri vir ingenio cernat, si modo
" adspexerit *."
SECT. VI.
I HAVE now gone through the second general
proposition, which is, THAT ALL MANKIND, ESPE
CIALLY THE MOST WISE AND LEARNED NATIONS
OF ANTIQUITY, HAVE CONCURRED IN BELIEVING,
AND TEACHING, THAT THE DOCTRINE OF A FU
TURE STATE OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS
WAS NECESSARY TO THE WELL-BEING OF SO
CIETY. In doing this, I have presumed to enter
the very Penetralia of Antiquity, and expose its
most venerable secrets to open day. Some parts
of which having been accidentally and obscurely
*een by the owl-light of infidelity, were imagined by
# De Orat. 1. iii. e. 31.
P 4 such
2i6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
such as Toland, Blount, and Coward (as is natural
for objects thus seen by false Braves), to wear strange
gigantic forms of terror : and with these they have
endeavoured to disturb the settled piety of sober
Christians.
The ridiculous use these men have made of what
they did not understand, may perhaps recal to the
reader s mind that stale atheistical objection, that
RELIGION is ONLY A CREATURE OF POLITICS,
a State-engine, invented by the Legislator, to draw
the knot of Civil Society more close. And the
rather, because that objection being founded on the
apparent use of Religion to Civil Policy, I may
be supposed to have added much strength to it, by
shewing in this work, in a fuller manner than, per
haps, has been done before, the EXTENT OF THAT
UTILITY; and the. large sphere of the Legislator s
agency, in the application of it.
For thus stood the case : I was to prove MOSES S
divine assistance, from his being ABLE to leave out
of his Religion, the doctrine of a future state.
This required me to shew, that this doctrine was
naturally^ the utmost importance to Society. But
of all the arguments, by which that importance may
be proved, the plainest, if not the strongest, is the
conduct of LAWGIVERS. Hence the long detail
of circumstances in the second and third books.
But indeed it not only served to the purpose of
my particular question, but, appeared to me, to be
one of the least equivocal proofs of the truth of
RELIGION
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED.
RELIGION in general ; and to deserve, in that view
only, to be carefully examined and explained. I
considered this part, therefore, and desire the reader
would so consider it, as ajrAo^and separjrtejvork
Of itself, tO PROVE THE TRUTH OF RELIGION IN
GENERAL, FROM ITS INFINITE SERVICE TO HU
MAN SOCIETY, though it be but the introduction to
the truth of the MOSAIC.
Let us examine it: Lawgivers have unanimously
concurred in propagating Religion. This could be
only from a sense and experience of its UTILITY;
in which they could not be deceived: Religion
therefore has a general utility. We desire no more
to establish its truth.
For, TRUTH AND GENERAL UTILITY NECES
SARILY COINCIDE ; that is, Truth is productive
of Utility ; and Utility is indicative of Truth. That
truth is productive of utility, appears from the na
ture of the thing. The observing truth, is acting
as things really are: he who acts as things really
are, must gain his purposed end : all disappoint
ment proceeding from acting as things are not: Just
as in reasoning from true or false principles, the con
clusion which follows must be necessarily right or
wrong. But gaining this end is utility or happiness ;
disappointment of the end, hurt or misery. If then
Truth produce utility, the other part of the propo
sition, that utility indicates truth, follows of neces
sity. For not to follow, supposes two different
kinds of GENERAL UTILITY relative to the same
creature,
2i 8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookllL
creature, one proceeding from truth, the other from
falsehood ; which is impossible ; because the natures
of those utilities must then be different, that is, one
of them must, at the same time, be, and not be,
utility *. Wherever then we find general utility,
we may certainly know it for the product of Truth,
which it indicates. But the practice of Lawgivers
shews us that this utility results from Religion.
The consequence is, that RELIGION, or the idea of
the relation between the creature and the Creator,
is true.
However, as the unanimous concurrence of Law
givers to support Religion, hath furnished matter for
this poor ifidel pretence, I shall take leave to
examine it more thoroughly.
Our Adversaries are by no means agreed amongst
themselves : Some of them have denied the truth of
Religion, because it was of no UTILITY; Others,
because it was of so GREAT. But commend me to
the man, who, out of pure genuine spite to Religion,
can employ these two contrary systems together,
without the expence so much as of a blush f .
However the System most followed, is the political
invention of Religion for its use : the other being
only the idle exercise of a few Dealers in para
doxes J.
* See note [I I] at the end of ibis Book.
*t* See Blount s Anima Mundi, and Original of Ido
latry.
| Such as the Author of Du Contract Social, cli. viii.
p. 129.
I have
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 219
I have begun these volumes with an examination
of ti\z first of these systems ; and shall now end
them with a confutation of the other. For the Un
believer, driven from his first hold, by ours hewing
the utility of religion, preposterously retires into
this, in order to recover his ground.
CHITIAS of Athens, one of the thirty tyrants,
and the most execrable of the thirty, is at the head
of this division ; whose principles he delivers in the
most beautiful Iambics *. His words are to this
purpose: " There was a time when man lived like
" a savage, without government or Laws, the
" minister and executioner of violence; when diere
" was neither reward annexed to virtue, nor punish-
" ment attendant upon vice. Afterwards, it appears,
" "that men invented civil Laws to be a curb to evil.
" From hence, Justice presided over the human
" race; force became a slave to right, and punish-
" ment irremissibly pursued the transgressor. But
" when now the laws had restrained an open vio-
" lation of right, men set upon contriving, how to
" injure others, in secret. And then it was, as I
" suppose, that some CUNNING POLITICIAN, well
" versed in the knowledge of mankind, counter-
o
" plotted this design, by the invention of a principle
" that would hold wicked men in awe, even when
" about to say, or think, or act ill in private. And
* this was by bringing in the BELIEF OF A GOD;
* whom, he taught to be immortal, of infinite
* See note [KK] at the end of this Book.
" knowledge,
220 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
J knowledge, and of a nature superlatively excel-
" lent, This God, he told them, could hear and see
*< every thing said and done by mortals here below:
e nor could the first conception of the most secret
1 wickedness be concealed from him, of whose
" nature, knowledge was the very essence. Thus
c did our POLITICIAN, by inculcating these notions,
* become the author of a doctrine wonderfully
" taking; while he hid truth under the embroidered
" veil of fiction. But to add servile dread to this
" impressed reverence, the Gods, he told them,
" inhabited that place, which he found was the
" repository of those Mormos, and panic terrors,
" which man was so dexterous at feigning, and so
" ready to fright himself withal, while he adds
" imaginary miseries to a life already over-burtheaed
" with disasters. That place, I mean, where the
" swift coruscations of enkindled meteors, accom-
1 panied with horrid bursts of thunder, run through
u the starry vaults of heaven; the beautiful fret-
" work of that wise old Architect, TIME. Where
" a social troop of shining orbs perform their re-
" gular and benignant courses : and from whence
" refreshing showers descend to recreate the thirsty
c earth. Such was the habitation he assigned for
the Gods ; a place most proper for the discharge
of their function : And these the terrors he ap-
" plied, to circumvent secret mischief, stifle dis-
" order in the seeds, give his Laws fair play, and
" introduce Religion, so necessary to the magistrate.
i " This,
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 221
* Xhis, in rny opinion, was the TRICK, whereby
" mortal man was first brought to believe that there
" were immortal Natures."
How excellent a thing is justice ! said somebody
or other, on observing it to be practised in the den*
of thieves and robbers. How useful, how necessary
a thing is Religion ! may we say, when it forces this
confession of its power, from its two most mortal
enemies, the Tyrant and the Atheist.
The account here given of RELIGION is, that it
was A STATE INVENTION : that is, that the idea
of the relation between the creature and the Creator
was formed and contrived by politicians, to keep wen.
in awe. From whence the Infidel concludes it to be
VISIONARY and GROUNDLESS. From the MA
GISTRATE S large share in the Establishment of
ancient national Religions, two consequences are
drawn; the one by Believers; the other by Un
believers. The First conclude that therefore these
national Religions were of political original: and
this the ancient Fathers of the Church -spent much
time and pains to prove. The Second conclude,
.from the same fact, that therefore ReUgicn m
general, or the idea of the relation between the
creature and the Creator, was a politic invention,
and not founded in the nature of things. And i
in confuting this, I strengthen and support the other
conclusion, I suppose, that, in so doing, I give ad
ditional strength to the cause of Revelation; other
wise the Fathers were very much mistaken. And
though
222 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
though Infidels, indeed, in their writings, affect to
dwell upon this conclusion, " that Superstition was
" a State-invention ;" it is not, I presume, on ac
count of any service, which they imagine it can do
their cause ; but because it enables them to strike
obliquely, under that cover, at Religion in general,
when they do not care to appear without their mask.
But if ever they should take it into their heads to
deny> that there is any better proof of Superstitions
being a mere politic invention than that Religion in
general is so, let them take notice that I have here
answered them beforehand. On the whole, then, if
I prove that Religion in general was not a politic
invention, I enervate all the force of the Atheist s
argument against Revelation, taken from the inven
tion of Religion. For that Superstition was of hu
man original, both parties seem to agree: though
not all of it the indention of Statesmen, as we shall
see presently, when we come to shew that one spe
cies of Idolatry was in use even before the institution
of civil Society.
I shall prove, then, and in a very few words, that
their fact or position is Jirst, IMPERTINENT, arid
secondly, FALSE. For,
I.
Were it true, as it certainly is not, that Religion
was invented by Statesmen, it would not therefore
follow that Religion is false, A consequence that
has been, I do not know hoy/, allowed on all hands ;
perhaps
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 223
perhaps on the mistaken force of one or other of
these Propositions :
I. Either, that Religion was not found out, as a
truth, by the use of Reason.
II. Or, that it was invented only for its Utility.
III. Or lastly, that the Inventors did not believe it.
I. As to Religimis not being found out, as a truth,
by the use of reason, we are to consider, that the
finding out a truth by reason, necessarily implies the
exercise of that faculty, in proportion to the impor
tance and difficulty of the search : so that where
men do not use their reason, truths of the utmost
certainty and highest use will remain unknown. We
are not accustomed to reckon it any objection to die
most useful civil truths, that divers savage nations in
Africa and America, remain yet ignorant of them.
Now the objection against the truth of Religioii,
is founded on this pretended fact, that the Lawgiver
taught it to the people from the most early times.
And the Infidel System is, that man from his first
appearance in the world, even to those early limes
of his coming under the hands of the Civil Magi
strate, differed little from brutes in the use of his
rational faculties ; and that the improvement of
them was gradual and slow ; for which, Antiquity
is appealed to, in the account it gives us concerning
the late invention of the arts of lire. Thus, accord
ing to their own state of the case, Religion -was
taught mankind when the generality had not begun
to
224 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
to cultivate their rational faculties ; and, what is
chiefly remarkable, it was TAUGHT BY THOSE FEW
WHO HAD.
It is true, our holy Religion gives a different ac
count of these jirst men : But then it gives a different
account too of the origin of Religion. And let our
Adversaries prevaricate as they will, they must take
both or neither. For that very thing which was only
able to make the first men so enlightened, as they are
represented in Scripture, was Revelation ; and, this
allowed, the dispute is at an end.
If it should be said, That " supposing Religion
true, it is of so much importance to mankind, that
God would never suffer us to remain ignorant of it:"
I allow the force of the objection : but then we are
not to prescribe to the Almighty his WAY of bringing
us to the knowledge of his Will. It is sufficient to
justify his goodness, that he hath done it : and
whether he chose the way of REVELATION, or of
REASON, or of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE, it equally
manifests his wisdom. And why it might not happen
to this truth, as it hath done to many others of great
importance, to be first stumbled upon by chance,
and mistaken for a mere utility, and afterwards
seen and proved to be what it is; I would beg leave
to demand of these mighty Masters of reason.
1 1. As to Religions being invented only for its
utility : This, though their palmary argument against
it. is, of all, the most unlucky. It proceeds on a
supposed
Sect 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 223
supposed inconsistency between utility and truth.
For men perceiving much of it, between private,
partial, utility and truth, were absurdly brought to
think there might be the same inconsistence, between
general utility and some truths. This it was which led
the ancient Sages into so many errors. For neither
Philosopher nor Lawgiver apprehending THAT
TRUTH AND UTILITY DID COINCIDE; the First,
while he neglected utility, missed (as we have seen)
of the most momentous truths: and the Other, while
little solicitous about truth, missed in many instances
(as we shall see hereafter) of utility. But general
utility and all truth, necessarily coincide. For truth
is nothing but that natural or moral relation of
things, whose observance is attended with universal
benefit. We may therefore as certainly conclude
that general utility is always founded on truth, as
that truth is always productive of general utility.
Take then this concession of the Atheist for granted,
that Religion is productive of public good, and
the very contrary to his inference, as we have
seen above, MUST follow : namely, that Religion
is true.
If it should be urged, That " experience maketh
against this reasoning ; for that it was not Religion,
but SUPERSTITION, that, for the most part, pro
cured this public utility : and superstition, both sides
agree to be erroneous." To this we reply, that Su
perstition was so far from procuring any good in the
ancient world, where it was indeed more or less
VOL. Ill, Q
226 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
mixed with all the national Religions, that the good
which Religion procured, was allayed with evil, in
proportion to the quantity of Superstition found
therein. And the less of Superstition there was hi
any national Religion, the happier, cccteris paribus,
we always find that people ; and the more there
was of it, the unhappicr. It could not be otherwise,
for, if we examine the case, it will appear, That all
those advantages which result from the worship of a
superior Being, are the consequences only of the
true prtKcifles of Religion : and that the mischiefs
which result from such worship, are the consequence*
only of tiiejiifee ; or what we call Superstition.
The wiser Ancients (in whose times, SUPERSTI
TION, with its malignant embraces, had twined
itself round the noble trunk of RELIGION, had
poisoned her benignest qualities, deformed all her
comeliness, and usurped her very NAME) were so
struck and affected with what they saw and felt, that
some of them thought, even ATHEISM was to be
preferred before her. PLUTARCH composed a fine
rhetorical discourse in favour of this strange para
dox; which hath since given frequent occasion tqt
much sophistical declamation. M. BAVLE hath sup
ported Plutarch s Thesis at large, in an Historical
and Philosophical Commentary : Yet, by neglecting,
or rather confounding, a real and material DIS*
TINCTION, neither the ancient nor the modern Wri
ter hath put the reader fairly into possession of the
question. So that, both the SUBJECT and the
2 PREDICATE.
Sect 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 227
PREDICATE of the Proposition are left in that con
venient state of ambiguity which is necessary to give.
&. Paradox the air and reputation of an Oracle.
The ambiguity in the subject ariseth from the word
SUPERSTITION S being so laxly employed as to ad
mit of two senses: either as a THING ADVENTI
TIOUS TO RELIGION, with which it is fatally apt
to mix itself; Or as a CORRUPT SPECIES OF RE
LIGION. In the first sense, Superstition is of no use
at ally but of infinite mischief* and worse than
Atheism itself: In the second sense, of a corrupt
Religion, it is of great service ; For, by teaching
a Providence, on which mankind depends, it im*
poseth a necessary curb upon individuals, so as to
prevent the mischiefs of mutual violence and in*
justice. It is likewise, indeed, of great disservice:
for, by infusing wrong notions of the moral attributes
of God, it hinders the progress of Virtue ; and
sometimes sets up a false species of it. However,
in the sense of a corrupt Religion, the Reader sees,
it is infinitely preferable to Atheism : As in a Drug
of sovereign efficacy, the application even of that
which by time or accident is become decayed or
vitiated, is, in desperate disorders, greatly to be
preferred to the rejection ; though it may engender
bad habits in the Constitution it preserves ; which,
the sound and pure species would not have done.
Now one of the leading fallacies, which runs through
PLUTARCH S little Tract, keeps under the cover
pf tl)js ambiguity, in the SUBJECT,
228 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Bookllf.
The ambiguity in the PREDICATE does as much
service to sophistry. " Superstition (they say) is
" worse than Atheism." They do not tell us, TO
WHOM ; but leave us to conclude, that they mean,
both to PARTICULARS and to SOCIETY; as taking
it for granted, that if worse to one, it must needs be
worse to the other. But here they are mistaken:
and so, from this ambiguity arises a new fallacy,
which mixes itself with the other. The degree of
mischief caused by Superstition is different, as it
respects its objects, Individuals or Societies. Super
stition, as it signifies only a CORRUPT RITE, is more
hurtful to Societies than to Individuals ; and, to both,
worse than Atheism. But as it signifies a CORRUPT
RELIGION, it is less hurtful to Societies than to
Individuals ; and, to both, better than Atheism,
The confounding this distinction makes the ambi
guity in which Bayle principally delights to riot.
And this, by the assistance of the other from
Plutarch, supports him in all his gross equivocations,
and imperfect estimates : Till at length, it en
courages him to pronounce, in the most general
terms, that Superstition is worse than Atheism *.
BAYLE is a great deal too diffused to come within
the limits of this examination. But as PLUTARCH
led the way; and hath even dazzled BACON hirn-
* Pensees diverses ecrites a uu Docteur de Sorbonne
a 1 occasion de la comete qui partit au mois de Decembre
1680. Et continuation des Pensees diverses, &,c.
self,
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 229
self*, with the splendor of his discourse; I pro
pose to examine his arguments, as they lie in order :
Whereby it will appear that, besides the capital
fallacies above detected, it abounds with a variety of
other sophisms, poured out with a profusion which
equals, and keeps pace with, the torrent of his wit
and eloquence.
This famous Tract is, as we have observed, a
florid declamation, adorned with all the forms and
colouring of Rhetoric; when the question de
manded severe reasoning, and philosophical preci
sion. At the same time, it must be owned, that it
is of a genius very different from those luxuriant,
and, at the same time, barren Dissertations of the
Sophists. It is painted all over with bright and lively
images, it sparkles with witty allusions, it amuses
with quaint and uncommon similes ; and, in every
decoration of spirit and genius, equals the finest
compositions of Antiquity : Indeed, as to the solidity
and exactness of the Logic, it is on a level with the
meanest. His REASONING is the only part I am
concerned with: and no more of this, than lies in
one continued COMPARISON between Atheism and
Superstition: For, as to his positive proofs, from
fact, of the actual mischiefs of Superstition, I am
willing they should be allowed all the force they
pretend to.
* See his Essays; where this paradox of Plutarch
JB supported.
Q30 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookllL
It will be proper, in the first place, to observe^
That it is hard to say, What Plutarch intended to
infer from this laboured Comparison between Atheism
and Superstition ; in AVhieh, he, all the way, gives
the preference to Atheism : For though, throughout
the course of the argument, he considers each, only
as it affects Particulars, yet, in his conclusion, he
makes a general inference in favour of Atheism
with regard to Society. But, it will not follow, that,
because Atheism is less hurtful to Particulars, it is
therefore less hurtful to Societies likewise. So that,
to avoid all sophistical dealing^ it was necessary
these two questions should be distinguished; and
separately considered. However, let us examine
his reasoning on that side where it hath most
strength, The effects of Atheism and Superstition
on PARTICULARS.
i . He sets out in this manner" Ignorance
eeriling the nature of the Gods, where it meets with
a bold and refractory temper, as in a rough and
stubborn soil, produces ATHEISM ; where it en
counters flexible and fearful manners, as in rank and
low land, there it brings forth SUPERSTITION *."
-This is by no means an exact, or even generally
TO pw ufTrep EV x,copiot$ rio
TYIV aQeomlx, TO 5f, Wsf EV
otv Itwvmlwiv, Ei 3si<rd. Steph. Ed. 8vo.
vol. i. p. 2861
true
Sect 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 231
true account of the origin of these evils. There are
various causes which incline men to Atheism, besides
fool-hardiness ; and, to Superstition, besides cowar
dice. The affectation of singularity ; the vanity of
superior knowledge; and, what Plutarch himself,
in another place of this very Tract, assigns as a
general cause, the seme of the miseries of Super-
rtition, have frequently inclined men to this fatal
obliquity of judgment. On the other hand, ignorance
of Nature; impatience to pry into futurity; the
unaccountable turns in a man s own fortune, to
good or bad; and, above all, a certain reverence for
things established, carry them into Superstition.
And as these considerations are equally adapted to
affect the hardy and the pusillanimous ; so the others.
mentioned before, as soon get possession of the
fearful as of the bold. Nay, FEAR itself is often
the very passion which most forcibly inclines a
wicked man, who hath nothing favourable to expect
from divine Justice, to persuade himself that there
is none to fear. Plutarch owns as much ; and says
expressly, that the end the Atheist proposes in
his opinions is to exempt biniBclf from all /ear ot
the Deity *." Again, we find, by the
of all times, that Superstition seizetli, along with the
weak and fearful, the most daring and determined,
the most ferocious and untractable. Tyrants, Con
querors, Statesmen, and great Generals, with all
tbe
232 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book lit
the savage tribes of uncivilized Barbarians, submit
tamely to this galling Yoke.
But our Author s account of the different births
of Atheism and Superstition was no more than was
necessary to support his Thesis. He all along esti
mates the two evils by the miseries they bring on
those who are under their dominion^ These miseries
arise from the passions they create. But, of ail the
passions, FEAR is the most tormenting. The pusilla
nimous mind is most subject to fear. And it is over
the fearful (he says) that Superstition gams the
ascendant. This, therefore, was to be laid down as
a postulatum. The rest follows in orden
2. Tor now coming to his parallel, he begins with
a confession " That both errors are very bad.
But as Superstition is accompanied with passion or
affection, and Atheism free from all passion, Super
stition must needs be the greater evil ; as in a broken
limb, a compound fracture is much worse than a
simple. Atheism (he says) may pervert the mind,
but Superstition both nice rates and perverts. A
man who believes no God, hath none to fear ; but
he who believes God to be a capricious or vindictive
Being, hath a great deal to fear *." This is wittily
said : but Nature talks another language. We
should beware how we credit poetical similes; or
Eivat, &c, pp. 200, 7.
even
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 233
-even philosophical analogies ; which, indeed, is but
poetry, once removed. They both have their hopes
and fears. Though the Atheist has no God to fear,
yet the miserable forlorn condition of a World with*
Dut a Ruler must keep him under perpetual alarms,
in the apprehension of the dismal effects which
Chance and Hazard may produce in the Material
system ; either by removing the parts of it (whose
present position supports the harmony of the whole)
too far from, or else by bringing them too near to,
one another.
And now again, the rapidity of Plutarch s inven
tion throws him on a Comparison, to support his
reasoning, which entirely overturns it " He (says
our author) who thinks Virtue a corporeal bang is
only absurd. Here we have an error without pas
sion. But he who thinks Virtue a mere name is
miserable ; for his error is attended with passion *."
How so ? " Because such a one lies under the
sad reflection of having lost his ablest support." But
must not a man s being deprived of the LAWGIVER
be as sensible a mortification, as his being deprived
of the LAW, whose existence depends upon the
Lawgiver ? On the other side, Though Superstition
hath itsjfazrs, it hath its hopes also: which, upon
the whole, I think to be more eligible than that sup
posed freedom of the Atheist (even as our author
draws it) from all passion and affection. For though
oi ovlai TM$ slvai rapa T^V afvrw, Sec. p. 286.
the
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
the superstitious man may think perversely con*
cerning the means whereby the Deity is appeased,
yet he thinks him placable ; and supposeth the means
to be in his own power. So that he is not under
the tyranny of that pu re and unmixed fear, which
Plutarch represents in such a manner as if all Nature
furnished out provision to the superstitious man, for
food and exercise to this passion. Whereas the
feffection of Superstition is equal between hopes and
fears : It is the proper temper of the superstitious
man, which more inclines him towards one than to
the other. But Plutarch had before, gratuitously,
laid it down as an axiom, " That the essential tem
perament of the superstitious man is fear and
cowardice."
3. However, all this would not have been suffi
cient to support the weakness of his declamatory
reasoning, without the assistance of two commo
dious sophisms, to set it off. The first, indeed, is
of a slender make, and hath little more in it than
sound. lie says " the very name shews, the essence
of superstition to be Fear : For the Greek name
of this moral mode, fowfaipovf*, signifies -djear of
the gods." A Roman might with the same pretence
aver, that the essence of superstition is Love : For
that the Latin word superstitio^ hath a reference to
the love zve bear to our children, in the desire that
they should survive us ; being formed upon the
observation of certain religious practices deemed
efficacious
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 235
efficacious for procuring that happy event. The
other sophism is more material; and consists in
putting the change upon us, and representing the
God of the Superstitious man, by whom he supposes
the world to be governed, in false and odious
colours, as an envious Being, hurtful to man * : For
it is not the good, but the EVIL DEMON whom the
superstitious man thus represents : Not the Being
which he worships ; but the Being which he avoids
and detests. The superstitious man, indeed, fool
ishly enough, supposeth, that the God whom he
acknowledged to be good, is capricious, inconstant,
and vindictive. But then, from that essential quality
of GOODNESS, which belongs to him as GOD, he
concludes, that this Being may be appeased by
submission, and won upon by oblations and atone
ments. All this, Plutarch himself confesseth: and
in words which directly contradict the account he
here gives of the God of the superstitious man.
Superstition (says he) agitated by many contrary
passions, sujfereth itself to smpeet that THE GOOD
itself may he evil \. Plutarch has therefore acted
unfairly, and to serve a purpose, in thrusting in the
superstitious man s evil Demon, in the place of his
God. This conduct will bear the harder upon
r MM Ssaj, sww os
pag. 287.
j- H ^ foiffiicnpQViat <arXy^r5 Kaxw TO ayabov
his
?$6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookllL
his ingenuity, as he held the doctrine of the TWO
PRINCIPLES : and, therefore, can hardly be sup
posed to have changed the object inadvertently,
or without design.
4. Having made the God of the superstitious
man, a Devil, he hath, consistently enough, repre
sented the superstitious man s condition to be the
very state of the damned: " That his pains have not
remission ; that he carries Hell in his bosom, and
finds the Furies in his dreams *." The terms of the
original are very elegant: But as they plainly allude
to the shows of the mysteries, I think the author
should have been so fair to recollect, that there was
an ELYSIUM as well as a TARTARUS, both in the
Dreams of the superstitious man and in the shows
of the Mysteries. And that as Tartarus and Elysium
were alike the fictions of superstition, they were
alike the objects of the superstitious Man s dreams.
His natural temperament and the redundancy of a
particular humour would determine the colour of
the Scene. The Atheist, therefore, who, he says,
enjoys the benefit of repose, might have his sleep
disturbed by the cries of the damned as well as the
superstitious man ; whom he represents as kept in
perpetual alarms by this passion ; because the habit
x Tffr* QaffMXXW, x wowa^ nvx; eysipwa*
tx TUJV VTTVUV
iV l<f aVTYI^y W
. p. 288,
f
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 23?
-of tlit body makes the very same impressions on the
fancy, in sleep, which the state of the mind does on
the imagination while awake,
5. But, " from the tyranny of Superstition, he
says, there is no respite nor escape ; because, in the
opinion of the superstitious man, all things are
within the jurisdiction of his God ; and this God is
inexorable and implacable *." From such a Being,
indeed, there can be no escape, nor respite from
torment. But, as was said before, this is not the
superstitious man s God, but his Devil. Besides, the
attribute of implacability totally removes, what our
Author makes the other half of the miseries of
Superstition; its slavish attention to the foolish
and costly business of expiations and atonements :
A practice arising from the idea of placability, and
necessarily falling with it.
6. Therefore, as if conscious of this prevarication,
he adds; " That the superstitious man fears even
his best-conditioned Gods, the Beneficent, the Pre
servers: that the Gods, from whom men seek
grandeur, affluence, peace, concord, and success, are
the objects of h fs dread and terror f." Here we see
* "O 5s TTIV ruv $uv agxpv u$ rvgawifict 0os,Gtv~ erv0p&7z>jy
^5 f*Jrj, in* <pvy?i votcaf yw aQeov ivpy, tnlaei
v. p. 289.
O otB ~ Ttf VSxlCliS Jc 7EV^/8ff,
ogutriv ?,oywv
p. 289.
the
338 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
the superstitious man is at length confessed to have
Gods very different from those before assigned unto
him. However, we must not think that even these
will afford him any solace or consolation. It is well
that the whole proof of this cruel exclusion lies ii\
the ambiguity of the terms, Qpirluit and r^uv :
which, when tney signify \hefearyig slavishly, do
indeed imply misery : But when they signify fearing
religiously, do as certainly imply a blessing; because
they deter the subject, they influence, from evil.
Now, when these terms are applied to the Gods
confessedly beneficent, they can signify only a reli
gious fear ; unless when Plutarch hath defined SU
PERSTITION to be, the fearing slavishly, we will be
so complaisant to allow that the SUPERSTITIOUS
MAN * cannot fear religiously. And where is the
absurdity in flying for refuge to Gods, so feared ?
Though Plutarch puts it among the contradictions
of Superstition f. It is remarkable, that these good-
condit toned Gods, here described as w <r&K/a? xaj
fHr, are called by our author zroflpiaas ^
/8?, h is native and country Gods. Yet if we
consider the stories of Jupiter, Mars, Mercury,
Bacchus, Diana, &c. we shall find no great reason
to extol their morals. But here lay the distress
of the affair. Plutarch was a Priest of this class
of Deities ; and Greece, at that time, being oveix
run with strange Gods, and labouring under Eastern
* See pp. 248, &,c.
raj Sej. p. 291.
superstitions^
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 239
superstitions, it was proper to blacken this foreign
worship, for the sake of the national: So that
Plutarch, like the fair Trader, in an ill humour with
Interlopers, reckons all Eastern Rites as even worse
than_Atheism. Hence his famous exclamation to
his Countrymen, which the noble Author of the
Characteristics quotes with much exultation, and
transferred bitterness. " O wretched Greeks (says
" Plutarch, speaking to his then declining country-
" men) who in a way of superstition run so easily
14 into the relish of barbarous nations, and bring
" into Religion that frightful mien of sordid ancl
^ vilifying devotion, ill-favoured humiliation and
" contrition, abject looks and countenances, con-
" sternations, prostrations, disfigurations, and in the
" act of worship distortions, constrained and pain-
u ful postures of the body, wry faces, beggarly
4k tones, mumpings, grimaces, cringings, and the
" rest of this kind. A shame indeed to us Gre-
" dans! Shall we, while we are nicely observant
if of other forms and decencies in the Temple, shall
" we neglect this greater decency in voice, words,
" and manners ; and with vile cries, fawnings, and
ft prostitute behaviour, betray the natural dignity
" and majesty of that divine Religion, and NA-
" TIONAL WORSHIP, delivered down to us by ou>*
-forefathers, and purged from erery thing of
* BARBAROCS atid sawtge kind*" Such then were
the circumstances of the time ; and these, together
* MUcel. Kefl. vol. iii P Misc. ii.c. 3.
with
240 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
with the personal views of our Author, were, I sup
pose, the causes which gave birth to this famous
Tract, OF SUPERSTITION. To proceed,
7. Another advantage of Atheism over Super*
stition, in Plutarch s reckoning, is, " that the Atheist
is secured from the impressions of a future state* "
It is no wonder that we find this in the number
of the Atheist s blessings, when we consider that
our Author regarded a future state as a Fable, at
best, invented for the restraint of evil. Yet, what
ever pleasure the Atheist may take in his security
from this terror, it is certain, Society would suffer
by taking off so useful a curb upon the manners,
of the people.
8. Our Author then proves, and indeed proves
it effectually, That superstition is much worse
than the true knowledge of the Deity f-"
9. He considers next the different effects of
Atheism and Superstition on their subjects, in the
disastrous accidents of life. And here again,
Atheism, as usual, is found to have the advantage.
" The Atheist indeed curses chance, and bias-.
phemes Providence; but the superstitious man
: T) SIK paxpa hsytiv, isepct$ In TS /3/s vsatrw
tTt wtivot, TS wv, fMUtpOTSpw T /3/s tzoiuira, rov
TW Savaru xaxuv STTIVOIOV aQavarew, &c. pp. 289, 90.
f- tyawofw 3s HJ HQtilutuv av^wv KoRaQfwiiwv, &c. p. 2qi.
complains
Stect6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 241
complains of his Gods, and thinks himself hated
or forsaken of them * ". The Atheist is well come
on. Hitherto Plutarch had represented his Fa
vourite as always calm and undisturbed : Indeed, he
makes one great part of the Atheist s advantage
over Superstition to consist in his freedom from alt
unruly passions. Here, they labour both alike
under their tyranny. Well, but some passions make
their owner more miserable than others. It is con
fessed, they do. But, is that the case here ? Or
if it be, Is it to the advantage of the Atheist ? By
no means. The disasters of life are supposed to
have betrayed them both into passion. But he surely
is least oppressed by the commotion, who sees a
possibility of getting out bf his distresses. It is
impossible the Atheist can have any such prospect.
There is no Fence against a Flail, nor provision
against blind Chance: The superstitious man may
easily hope to appease the irritated Deity: for
though he fears and dreads the Gods, yet, as
Plutarch acknowledges, he flies to them for refuge.
I might mention another advantage which the super
stitious man hath over the Atheist in the disasters
of life, namely, that he is frequently bettered by his
misfortunes ; and this the Atheist never is ; because
TO
wavla, ffuyK?%vpVOi$ xj axfiTftjj QsfEicu, x a-naaiou TO, uv
avQfuwuv -sravlav rov $ECV eunaTOU ^ w$ a 3Wyx^$ wv 5 ?.**
rig av9?M7r&. pp. 291, 2.
VOL. III. R the
242 THE DIVIDE LEGAIlQiN [BookllL
tie superstitious man may sti^rpbs e thm seat by
the Gods iii punishment for his crkiies ; Which the
AthVist never can.
" Bat (says onr Author) If the disaster in
question be diseased sMaitfss, tlie Atheist referring
rt to ^^ ^ig^t ^dii^^-mtcmp^rm^ seeks out for
the-prdpVr core. WBMe tlie supers&lious man ima-
gtffflnfg it to be & j)iitgvietit from Heaven, neglects
to : fiaVe [ rednj^sfe" W medicine *." The delusion
hei^e is evident. It is built on that false position,
which the experience of all ages hath discredkcd s
name!j% That mm always net according to their
principle. la this ease especially, of avoiding or
freeing themselves from instant phy&ical evil, men
of the mo%t different Prmeipl^s go all one way ;
dntfliovrcver divided In their religious opinions, they
all meet in an wttiifrmifi/ to medical practice. It
is an idle sophism which uould persuade us, that,.
because tlie superst idoiis man useth sabred Rites
to remove what he esteeins a sacred disease, that,,
therefore, he emptoys no other means f. Tlie early
mixture of medical drus with reliious charms "ami
TS o
teycvlar
p.
f- Plutarch makes the superstitious man say,
p. 203,
incantations
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 243
incantations in the first state pf Physic, might have
taught our Author, how naturally men are wont to
lend a helping hand to the supposed efficacy of
Religion. But this reasoning is .utterly discredited
by his own - instance of the Mariners ; the most
superstitious of mortals; who, in the distresses of
a storm, while they pour out their vows to thek
Saviour Gods, at the same time fall lustily to their
tackle, and pump without intermission *. Indeed,
he seems fully sensible of its weakness, when he
catches at an occurrence in the Jezcish^ history,
to support it ; where, we know (though he did not)
that , all things were extraordinary, and nothing to
l)e brought to example, any more than to imitation.
To disgrace superstition still more, our Author
urges " the misfortune of N id as the Athenian;
,wljio, frightened by an eclipse of the Moon, delayed
.his retreat till he arid his army were invested, and
cut in pieces, by the enemy." But this kind of
superstitious observance is as well adapted to en
tourage as to dismay armies and bodies of men ;
..awl. hath just as often done the one as. the other.
So that, under this article, Plutarch should have
.fairly stated, and balanced the account.
* TSTO i2y xveVYiTii$ && plv vTrwpuywj Ssaj faruta*
g TOV otcota tz^vayz^ TW xspattcti
ovlav sv ayvaflag
tuv *BJCte^io)y ^ifjuxxa
) Sec. p. 204.
244 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
From the miseries of life, He comes to the
pleasures of it. And here too the Atheist must
have an exclusive possession. He confesseth, "that
the pomps and ceremonies of religious Festivals
abound with complacency and joy." He owns " his
Atheist can receive no further amusement from such
a scene than to laugh at it : But to the superstitious
man (he says) they are the subject of distress and
misery*." Not to allow the relaxations of the
superstitious man s mental terrors to have tlreir effect ; ,
is hard indeed. It is much the same as not to suffer
us to feel the remissions of our bodily pains. If
the superstitious man fancies the Gods are often
angry, he sometimes, at least, believes them to be
appeased. And when can he hope to find them
in good humour, if not at their Festivals ? To draw
him, therefore, at this season, with pale looks and
trembling gestures, rs certainly over-charging the
picture. The truth is, the superstitious man hath
as strong paroxysms of joy as of grief; though
perhaps neither so frequent nor so lasting. Yet to
deny them to him at the celebration of his religious
Festivals is a contradiction to ail common sense.
Our Author next attempts to shew, That " the
crime of impiety is rather to be charged upon tho
f*}y (uewtw xj ffatfiuviov, yetefiat rs
tb&o 5e &S& txp&t xaxov o 3f foifft&ttfttn &fa$M //gv, dwalcu dr
B^w IripaJW/ifvi^- wxf<?> ^ ^ QoGurau, Stc.
294, 295.
superstitious
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 245
superstitious man than the Atheist : for Anaxagoras,
lie says, was accused of impiety, for holding the Sun
to be only a red-hot stone : But nobody challenged
the Cimmerians of that crime for denying its er.ist-
ence *." By this, our Author would insinuate, that
it is more injurious to the Gods, to hold dishonour*
able notions of their Nature, than to call in question
their Iking. The opposition of these cases is witty
and ingenious : but very defective, in the integrity
of the application. Plutarch s philosophic Atheist
in question, corresponds no more with the Cimmt^
riinis, than his Theist does with Amurag&ras. The
Atheist, after having had a full view of the works
of God, denies the existence of the Workman.
The Cimmerians, because debarred, by their situa
tion, the use of that sense w{iich alone could inform
them of the Sun s nature, had no conception of his
Being. In the first case, the conclusion being
derogatory to tlje Nature of the Power denied, the
"penier is justly charged with wipie-ty ; In the latter,
as no such derogation is implied., no such crime can
be reasonably inferred. But this brisk sally was
only to introduce the famous declaration which
follows, and hath been so often quoted by the
*j Tr,v
swat) (M faunutflets 3f TTIV
S/xwtf s$uytv cursGstas 9ri TW hiQw tlnti* TOV
z$i$ tlfttv aetsi$ art T
295.
93
2 4 6 THE DIVINE LEGATION -[Bookllf.
modern advocates * of this paradox. " For my own
-".part I had rather men should say of me, That
- there neither is nor ever was such a one as
-" Plutarch; than they should say, there .was a
." Plutarch, an unsteady, changeable, easily-pro-
" voked, and revengeful man." These, says the
noble author of the Characteristics^ are the words
vf honest Plutarch.
V And, without doubt, did GOD stand only in that
relation to the rest of Beings in which one creature
stands to another; and were his existence no more
necessary to the Universe of things than the exist
ence of honest Plutarch, every body would say the
same. But the KNOWLEDGE of a Creator and
Governor is so necessary to the rational system,
that a merciful Lord would chuse to have it retained
and kept alive, though he might happen to be
dishonoured by many false and absurd opinions
- concerning his Nature and Attributes. A private
man of generous morals might rather wish to con
tinue unknown than to be remembered with infamy,
* " It were better (says BACON) to have no opinion
" of God at all, than such an opinion as is unworthy
" of him. Plutarch saith well to that purpose. Surely
il (saitb he) I had rather a great deal tnen should say
* there was 710 such man as Plutarch, than that they
" should say there rtas one Plutarch that would eat his
" children; 3 See. Essays Civil and Moral, c. xviii.
? . ; ... .. ; ,,.. ...
t Characteristics ; Letter concerning Enthusiasm,
Sect. 5.
:;,,.; But
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 247
But a supreme Magistrate, who loved ^Com
munity he governed, woultf certainly prefer the
being known to his Subjects, even at the hazard of
their mistaking him iqr & Tyrant : because, if the
members of a Community, through ignorance of
their haying a Ruler, should think theuiselves free
from subjection, every one would consult his pas
sions and appetites, till he brought the whole into
confusion. Whereas, while they knew they had a
Master, their actions would be so conformed to the
general measures of obedience as to support the
order of Society : though their perverse notions of
his Character might indeed obstruct many of those
blessings which Government produces wider a Ruler
of acknowledged justice and goodness.
Our author proceeds; and observes next, " that
the Atheist, it is true, bdlwcs there is no God ;
but the superstitious man iclskes there were none :
That the Atheist is averse to Superstition ; but the
superstitious man, if he could, would shelter him
self in Atheism *." It is by no means true tjhat the
superstitious man ever desires to be free of the
sense of a superior Being, to whom he may be
accountable for his actions ; as appears plainly from
his abhorrence and persecution of Atheism : All
that he wjahetii -fe, to render such a Being propitious,
and easily placable.
*
&tffd<*i(Miv rn
issfi Sew-; o ^s7t. p. 29
B 4 AS
248 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book lit
As to our author s inference, concerning the better
condition of Atheism, because " the Atheist never
wisheth to be superstitious, though the superstitious
man wisheth to be an Atheist," it is a mere sophism 3
The proposition, on which it standeth, amounting to
no more than this, That the Atheist doth not wish
what is afflictive in Superstition : And the super
stitious man doth wish what is easy, in Atheism.
And from those restrained premises no such general
conclusion can be logically inferred.
But he hath found out another reason for prefer
ring Atheism to Superstition. " Atheism, he says,
was never the cause of Superstition ; but, on the
contrary, Superstition has very often given birth to
Atheism *." His meaning may be, either, that an
Atheist did never change to a superstitious Reli
gionist ; Or that an Atheist, while such, could never
become superstitious.
ther sense, fact hath shewn that the assertion
Is utterly false.
In the fir-it, we have seen, that it is of the essen
tial wcaknei of humanity to run continually from
one extreme to another. Modum tenere nescia est,
saith the great Philosopher f very truly. And the
nomenon is no mystery. The mind, as soon as
ever it becomes sensible of its excesses, striveth,
from its innate abhorrence of what is wron, to break
*h
,
Kau JAW o a$E& $Et<ridtxi{twta$ SJi^uj (ruvotin" w 3$
xj ytreaQxi wap8r%ev apxfiv. p. 297.
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 249
uway from them. And the force, with, which it
is then impelled, being increased by the struggle
between its old prejudices, which would restrain
it and its new aversion, which drives it on, rarely
remits, till it arrives at the OPPOSITE EXTREME:
The behaviour of all Ages supports this observation:
and of none, mpre than the Present. Where a
contempt of Revelation having for some time spread
amongst the People, we see them now become an
easy prey to fanaticism and superstition: and the
METHODIST and the POPISH PRIEST succeed, with
great ease and silence, to the ^ibertine and
Freethinker.
To say, that an Atheist, while he is such, cannot
become superstitious, betrays great ignorance of
human nature. How many Princes and Ministers
pf State hath the history of the two or three last
Ages delivered down to us as. Unbelievers in all
Religion, and yet strongly devoted to the dotages
pf judicial Astrolcgy ! The Italians, in particular,
have not been more noted for their irrehgion and
refined Politics, than for their credulity in this gross
Imposture. Should I stay to enquire at large into
the cause of so strange a phenomenon, it would
be seen how much honour it does to Religion. At
present I shall only observe, That these men finding
(and none have so good opportunities) how per
petually public events fall out beside their Expecta
tion, and contrary to their best-laid schemes of
Policy are forced to confess that human affairs are
ordered
*5o THE DIVINE LEGATION
ordered by some power exIrmsicaL To
ledge a God ami Ms Providence would be the
way to introduce a jiwrallty destructive of that
public ty stem, which they think necessary for the
government of the World. They have recourse
therefore to that absurd scheme of Power, which
rules by no other Law than-Jlzftror Destiny*
I have now gone thro ugh cm* Author s y
arguments in support of his Paradox ; or. to call
them by their right name, a group of 3J-ec*aabined
sophisms, tricked off by his -eloquence. OF varnished
over with his wit.
But there is one BI ASTER- SOPHISM still behind,.
that animates the Whole, and -gives a false vigour
to every Part Let ns consider the question -which
Pletarch invites his reader to debate with him. It
is not, What the simpk qualities of Atheism aad
Superstition, if found alone in man, are severally
capable of producing : but what each really dofch
produce, as each is, in fact, found mingled with the
rest of man s passions and appetites, He should
not, therefore, have amnsed us with inferences from
the abstract ideas of Atheism and Superstition;
but should have examined their effects in the- con
crete, a& they are to be found in the Atfwtst, and
in -the superstitious man. For, nature having sown
in the human breast the seeds of various .and differ
ing .passions and appetites, the ruling passion, in
each Character, is no more in \\s- simfk-, unmixed
23 state,
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 251
State, than the predominant colour in a well- nought
picture : Both the passion and the cdow are so
darkened or dissipated by surrounding light and
shade so changed and varied by the reflector, of
neighbouring tints, as to produce very different
efferts from what, in their separate and simple
whether real or imaginary, they were capable of
affordin" *. Let the reader apply this observation
to any part of Plutarch s Declamation, who const
ders Atheism and Superstition not in the concrete,
but in the abstract only, and it will presently expose
the inconsequence of his reasoning. I will but just
mve an example, in one instance. He prefers
Atheism to Superstition, "because this is attended
with passion ; that* free from all passion." Now
the only support of this remark is the sophism in
question. Consider the ideas of Atheism and Su
perstition in the abstract, and tfcre is a shew ot
truth : for Superstition, simply, implying the fea
of the gods, is, of the essence of lu&ion; and
Atheism, simply, implying the denial ?/ their exist
ence includes nothing of the idea ot pasaon.- but
consider these moral modes in the concrete, as m
this question we ought to do, and Atheism w,U be
always found accompanied with passion or affection;
and of as uneasy a kind, perhaps, as Superstition.
It is of no moment, to this discourse, whether
Plutarch hath here imposed upon himself or his
* See note ILL] at the .end of this Book.
reader.
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III
reader. It is possible, that, In the drawing his two
characters, he might imitate, or be misled by, TUEO^
PHRA-STUS : Whose various pourtraits have all this
fundamental defect That is, if we understand
them as given for copies of any thing really existing.
But, I apprehend> this is not their true character.
I rather think This curious fragment of Antiquity
was only the remains of a Prowptuary for the use
of the COMIC POET, from whence he might U0
supplied with his materials, the simple passions ; iri
order to blend, and shade, and work them into his
pictures of real life and manners. However, if
Plutarch considered them under the common ijdea,
and, under that, would make them his model v he
shewed as little judgment as tha,t painter would he
found to do, wb/o should apply his simple colour^
just as he received them from the colounnan ; with
out forming them into, those curious.
c Lights and shades, whose well-accorded strife
Gives all the strength and colour of our Hie."
To proceed with our author s Argument, : It is,
directed, we see, to shew the advantage of Atheism
above Superstition, only as these opinions and
practices regard PARTICULARS: Though, by the
turn and management of his reasoning, he appears
willing, you should infer tha,t the same advantage
holds equally, with regard to SOCIETY also: And
therefore he concludes, " That it had been better
far the Gauls and Scythians to be without any
Religion,
Sect 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 253
Religion, than to have had such a one as taught
them to believe that the Gods- delighted in the blood
of human victims : And much better for Carthage
to have had the Atheists, Critias and Diagoras, for
Lawgivers, than such as those who authorized the
Sacrifices performed to Saturn*." The sophisms
which support these assertions are fully exposed in
the introductory observation to these remarks ; and
*o, stand in need of no further detection.
Lord BACON S chapter on Superstition, in his
Kssays civil and moral, is no other than an epitome
of this tract of Plutarch. Now whether that great
man thought his Original defective, in not attempting
to shew the advantage of Atheism over Superstition,
as well with regard to Society as to Particulars;
Or whether he thought, that though his Author did
Attempt it, yet he was too concise and obscure; and
therefore judged it expedient to comment on his
hints ; It is remarkable, that he addresses himself
very strenuously, to make out this important point.
" Atheism (saith his lordship) did never perturb
,- w States ; for it makes men wary of themselves,
" as lookin no farther: And we see, the times
- CJfo afiEivov ax w Taharcut Itvo:?
Zwaav #v 9ewv, ftojre paylajr/av, pyre iroqov, r,
;0x<fw7<z avfyuyruv QotTicpzwv cufMzffi T/ Je
wt ehvo-tistet fyiriav *acnv rj Atayofay vapdsTtv aTr
TWO, uv pyre foiftoW xc^fe<y ; rj TQIOVTU MSN oJa 7
p. 297.
"
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III;
" inclined to Atheism, as the time of Augustus
" Ctesar, were civil times. But Superstition hath
** been the confusion of many States ; and bringeth
" in a new primum mobile, that ravisheth all the
4C spheres of Government. The Master of Super-
" stition is the People."
This is a paragraph totally unworthy so great
a Genius. Atheism, he says, did never perturb
States. The observation might, perhaps, pass for
true, when he wrote. But, true or false, to make
it to his purpose, he must suppose, that this negative
advantage ariseth from the essential nature and
intrinsic quality of Atheism, and not from mere
accident ; and so he plainly insinuates, in the reason
subjoined For it makes men wary of themselves,
&c. but falsely. It is not from the nature of things,
.but by mere accident, that Atheism never perturbed
States ; it having rarely, or never, spread amongst
the People, but hath been confined to a few specu
lative men. If ever it should become thus extensive,
if ever it should infect the Sovereign, it must not
only perturb States (as we have sad experience that
it does, even under its negative form of IRRELIGJON)
but, as we have shewn at large *, would certainly
pverturn Society. Indeed his Lordship himself
fairly confesseth thus much, where, charging . this
very mischief On Superstition, he subjoins the, cause
of its malignity fAe Master of Superstition is* the
* Book I. Sect, iv,
Peopk.
Sect 6,] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 255
People, i. e. the people are they who are infected
with this -error. Athetmz, he say s^ >makcs men wary
*f therm dves, as looking m further ; This argument
in favour of Atheism seems to ; have foeen borrowed
from CARDAN ; and (as miserable as it is) hath been
considered ki its place*.
Tke/ihms^ WcMed ] tv Atheism, \\v&^ were- civil
times: I know of no times kiclbed to Atheism;
that is, when the people had & propensity to it)
unless, perh&ps, two or three centuries ago in Italy;
and then the times were as miserable as civil dis
tractions could make a bad and uicked Govern-
-ment. His Lordship, indeed, refers to the age ^f
Augastiis Gsesar. But it is certain, that, at th^t
time, no Roman troubled his head with Grecian
principles, (and Atheism was then to be had m
where else) except it were a few of the Nobility;
Then, indeed, part of their Grandees, to make
themselves easy under Servitude, espoused the prin
ciples of EPICUUUS: But a much larger part fol
lowed the doctrine of the PORCH. Either served
their turn. If they could persuade themselves to
believe that their miseries were inevitable, it was just
as well as if they could force themselves to think
that these miseries were no evils. The soft, the
delicate, the luxurious, espoused the first : The
more rigid, and severe of morals, the latter. Bat
still we must observe that their p in N c I PL E s were
., *
, * See Vol. I. p. 228,
the
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book HI;
the effect of their acquiescence in a state of Ser-
vitude; not the cause ; as his lordship would insi
nuate: And did then, in reality, no more concern
the Public, than their different tastes for mid-boar
or mullets.
The time of Augustus C&sar, he says, H,YW a civil
time. And this must be placed to the score of
Atheism, although other causes be so very obvious :
The miseries of the preceding civil wars, in sup-*
port of Liberty, often renewed, with still greater
violence, and still less success, made men weary
both of struggling and suffering ; and willing, at
last, to thrust their necks under the yoke of a well-
established Master^ And this, together with the
want of Instruments (for the general slaughter of
them had made Confusion cure itself) were the
real causes which, in the ceaseless round of hu
man actions, produced that still calm of real
Slavery, after a long tempestuous season of nominal
Freedom.
However, the general observation we made on
PLUTARCH may be well applied to BACON : What
he wants in fact and argument, he makes up in wk,
and the ornaments of fancy : as where he says,
Superstition bringeth in a new primum mobile, that
TOiisketh all the spheres of government. By which
pompous figure, borrowed of the Peripatetic Philo
sophy, no more is meant than the Churclimans
destructive claim of independency on the State ;
which conceals a vile ambition under the cloak
of
Sect. 6,] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 257
of Religion: A claim, which, at that time, those
two capital enemies of tlic established Church, the
PAPIST and the P.UIUTAN, alike pursued; as then
to the disturbance, so, wherever they succeed, to tiie
certain ruin of civil Government.
But to return to Plutarch, and -conclude. The
only sage part of his Declamation is in his last
words ; where he observes, " That, for the reasons
he hath given, we ought to shun and avoid SUPER
STITION ; but so cautiously, as not to fall into the
other extreme of ATHEISM- like those giddy tra
vellers, who flying from wild beasts and robbers, fall
down rocks and precipices, where they perish *. n
But to inforce so plain a conclusion, there was no
need of all that expence of wit and sophistry to
prove (what the conclusion did not want) That
Atheism was in all things preferable to Superstition.
To proceed,
III. As to the Inventors -of Religion,, their not
believing what they taugJit concerning it, which is
ithe last pretence, This comes with an ill grace from
an Atheist, who, under cover of an unquestionable
maxim, That, in matters of speculation, reason aijd
not authority .should determine the judgment, der
* $suxlsw av OUTW ayQa&JSfe TE Y^ trvfjufs^ovSug, 8%
yap zvvet
TY,V dsirt&UfMVieffj efuriTrluffiV tl$ ofavnRct T^a^xfiatv *y
, wrsfgndrtU aifles iv pzru Kvpivw TTIV tfo&&. p. 298.
VQL. III. ^ spisctJ}
258 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
spiseth all Authority, so as to. oppose his own sin
gularities against the common voice of mankind.
Was it true, then, that the Inventors did not believe
what they taught, this would be seen to be a very
poor argument against the truth of Religion.
But indeed, the supposition is absolutely false;
and betrays gross ignorance of the true character
of the ancient Lawgivers. The idea, our adversaries
have formed of these Civilizers of mankind (as men
are but too apt, in their representations of others, to
copy from themselves) is of a species of sly cold-
headed Cheats, whose capacity arose only from the
predominancy of their phlegm. But the History
of all times might have told them, that, amongst
the infirmities of Heroes, a deficiency of Faith is
not one. Diockrus was so sensible of their pro
pensity to be on the believing side, that he makes
it a question, Whether those ancient Lawgivers
whom he there enumerates, did not really believe
the divine Mission they professed to execute ?
They did this (says he) either because they really
thought that the conceptions which they had formed,
so productive of public good, must needs be strictly
supernatural and divine *." -And I may venture
to atfii\n, That there never was a great Conqueror,
a Founder of Cecil Policy, or. the Preacher up of
v new Religion, (if he succeeded by mere human
means) but who was naturally much inclined to
ufsto.wv avfysuruv w^~, sirs. 1. i. p. 50. S. E.
ENTHUSIASM.
Sect. -6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED: 259
]tfT.tfUs-iASM. Not that I suppose the beat of
Enthusiasm is not always tempered, in Heroes, with
an equal share of CUAFT mid policy. This extra
ordinary composition makes their true character. 1 :
A. cnaracter so much better conceived than ex*
pressed, that it hath embarrassed the pen even of
a Lrvr to delineate correctly *.
But the necessity of this odd-paired union ap
pears plainly from the nature of tilings. A mere
cold-headed Contriver, .without any tincture of na
tural enthusiasm, can never succeed in his designs*
G 9
because such a One can never supply those sur
prising freaks, which a heated imagination, working
on a disordered, though, for this purpose, Jitly-
f ramed temper of body, so speciously exhibits.
For the spirits of -.the PEOPLE, who are to be taken
in, can -never be allured but by raising their Admi
ration, and keeping up their confidence, by the aid
of an inspired Leader. Besides, new doctrines and
new ideas are uever BO readily received as when the
Teacher of them is in earnest, and believes himself:
for then thereis something so natural in his conduct,
so alluring in his behaviour, as easily conciliates
wavering opinions ; and acts, on his followers, like
fascination,, or a ..charm. This made an ingenioue
French writer not scruple to say : " Give me but
" half a dozen men whom I can thoroughly per-
* suade that it is not the Sun makes the day, -and
* See note [MM] at the end of this Took.
s 2 "I woulql
260 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
" I would not despair of seeing whole nations
" brought over to the same opinion *."
On the other hand, a mere Enthusiast, who by
virtue of his fanaticism, hath gone so far in his pur
pose, as to raise the admiration, and captivate the
spirits of the Populace, must here begin to fail for
want of the other quality, of sectarian craft , for
his imagination not being under the government of
his judgment, he will want the proper dexterity to
apply the different views, tempers, and stations of
the People, now enflamed, and ready to become
his instruments for the attainment of his purpose.
But when these two talents of Fraud and Fana
ticism unite to furnish out a Hero, or Leader of
a sect, great will be the success of his undertakings.
The sallies of enthusiasm will be so corrected by
his cunning, as to strengthen and confirm his super
natural pretences : And the cold and slow advances
of a too cautious policy, will be warmed and pushed
forward by the force of his fanaticism. His craft
will enable him to elude the enquiries and objections
of the more rational ; and his visions will irrecove
rably subdue all the warmer noddles. In a word,
they will mutually strengthen and inforce each
other s power; and cover and repair each other s
* Donncz moi une demi-dozaine de personncs, a qui
je pttisse persuader que ce n cst pas le Soleil qui fait Ic
jour, je ne desesperai pas que dcs nations entierrs
n einbrassent cette opinion. Fontcnelle, Hist, cles
Oracles, cap. xi.
defects.
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 261
defects. St. Jerom seems to have had some idea
of this extraordinary combination, when he said,
" Ntillus potest Haeresm struere, nisi qui ARDEN-
TIS IN GEN ii est, et habet POX A NATURE/
Which may be thus paraphrased, No Heretic will
ever be able to raise a Sect, but he, in tvhcse con
stitution Nature hath enabled Fraud and Fana
ticism to act in concert. And indeed, there are so
many powerful and opposite interests to overcome
and reconcile, so much caprice and humour to
cajole, and artfully to apply ; that it is not strange,
if no one ever yet succeeded in any great design,
where a whole People was the instrument, who had
not reconciled in himself, by a happy union, these
two qualities seemingly incompatible.
Several things concur to facilitate this conjunction.
An Enthusiast considers himself as an instrument
employed by Providence to attain some great End,
for the sake of which he was sent out. This makes
him diligent in his Work; impatient under let or
impediment, and disposed to practise every means
for removing them. Persuaded of the necessity
of the END, and of the reality of the divine Com
mission intrusted to him, for procuring it, he begins
to fancy that One so employed, is dispensed with,
in breaking, nay is authorized to break, the Corn*
mon- Law of Morality ; which, in the cant of that
fatal time when ^Fanaticism had its full swing
amongst us, was called the BEING ABOVE ORDI- -
NANCES. In the first application of these extraordi-
s 3 nary
202 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Bbok.HL
nary MEANS, the People are the dupes of their
Leader: But the success being frequently even
beyond his own expectation, he becomes, in his turn,
the Dupe of his own contrivance; and begins in
good earnest to believe that the trick which he
played them was indeed not of his own invention,,
but the inspired instigation of Heaven *. This may
serve to explain an obscure passage of Tacitus,
where speaking of this sort of Character, he says, in
his Oracular way, FJXGUXT SIMUE CREDUXTQUK,
To confirm all this, it might be easily made appear,
by an historical deduction from. ancient and modern
Times, that all those successful Disturbers or Bene
factors of mankind, who have prospered in their
designs, were indebted for their good fortune to
the mutual assistance of these two Qualities. By
this operation, under the management of such
as MAHOMET, IGNATIUS LOIOLA, and OLIVER
CROMWELL, great and powerful Empires have been
created out of nothing.
o
And again, it might be shewn, that those, who
are upon the records of History for having failed,
were either mere Enthusiasts, who knew not how
to push their projects, when they had disposed the
People to support them ; or else mere Politicians,
uho could never advance their wise schemes so far,
as to engage a fanatic Populace to second them ;
or lastly, which most deserves our observation, such
- See note [NN] at the end of this Book,
as
Sect 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 263
as had the two qualities in conjunction, but in a
.reverted order. Of each of which defects, we have
domestic examples in the three great Companions
of the last successful Imposture, mentioned above;
I mean in FLEETWOOD, LAMBERT, and VANE.
CROMWELL had prepared the way for their suc
cession to his power, as thoroughly as Mahomet
had done for that of Abubeker, Omar, and Othman.
Yet these various wants defeated all their efforts,
and rendered all his preparations fruitless. Fleet-
wood was a frank enthusiast, without parts or capa
city ; Lambert a cool contriver, without fanaticism ;
and Sir Harry Vam, who had great parts, and as
great enthusiasm, yet had them, and used them, in
so preposterous an order as to do him no kind of
service. For the history of those times informs us,
that he began a sober and sedate plotter : But,
when now come in view of the goal, he started out
the wildest and most extravagant of Fanatics : In
a word, he ended just where his MASTER began:
so that we need not wonder his fortune proved so
different. But this was a course as rare as it ap
pears to be retrograde. The affections naturally
keep another order. And the reason is evident,
Enthusiasm is a kind of ebullition, or critical
ferment of the Mind ; which a vigorous nature can
work through ; and, by slow degrees, be abte to
cast off. Hence the most successful Impostors, as
we say, have set out in all the blaze of Fanaticism,
and completed their schemes amidst the cool depth
s 4
264 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
and stillness of Politics, Though this be common
to them all, yet I don t know any who exemplifies
it so strongly as the fomous IGNATIUS LOJOLA.
This illustrious personage, who confirms the obser
vation of one who came after him *, and almost
equalled him in his trade, " that a man never rises
so high as when he docs not know whither he is
going/ 7 began his ecstasies in the mire: and com
pleted his schemes with the direction and execution
of Councils, that, even in his own lifetime, were
ready to give the law to Christendom. Yea, the
same spirit of Enthusiasm so regulated and con
ducted, is no less serviceable to Nations and to
Bodies of Men than it is to particulars. This built
tip old and new ROME, Profane history tells us,
that when the City had not six miles of dominion
beyond its Walls, it indulged the dream of UNI
VERSAL MONARCHY; and we learn by the cede-
nautical, that when the jurisdiction of the Bishops of
Home extended not beyond a small Diocese, they
entertained the celestial vision of a POPEDOM.
And it was this spirit, which, in defiance, and to
the destruction, of Civil Policy and Religion, made
the fortune of Both.
But these things belong rather to the History
of the human Mind than to the work I have in
hand : and besides, would keep me totf long from the
conclusion of the volume f , to which I am now
* CROMWELL, f The 2d vol. of the Edit, in Svo, 1 766.
hastening.
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 265
hastening. I will only observe, that this high
Enthusiasm was so conspicuous in the character
of ancient Heroism, and so powerful in making easy
the most difficult undertakings, that the learned
Varro scruples not to say, " It is of great advantage
" to Society, that Heroes should believe themselves
" the offspring of the Gods, whether indeed they
" be so or not. That by this means, the mind,
u confiding in its divine original, may rise above
" Humanity; so as more sublimely to project,
* more boldly to execute, and more happily to
u establish the grand schemes it labours with, for
" the service of mankind *."
Hence it appears, that if Religion were a cheat,
the LEGISLATORS themselves were among the first
who fell into the deceit.
On the whole then we see, That of all these
mediums, whereby our adversaries would infer that
Religion is false, because invented by Statesmen,
the third, which is most to their purpose, proves
nothing : While, of the other two, \hejirst is a high
presumption of its truth ; and the second, a demon
stration of it.
* Utile est civitatibus, ut se viri fortes, ctiamsi falsum
sit, ex diis genitos esse credant, ut eo modo animus hu-
maims, velut divinae stirpis fiduciain gerens, res maguas
aggrediendas prscsumat audacius, agat vehementius, &
ob hoc impleat ipsa securitate felicius. Apud Aug.
Civ. Dei, 1. iii. c. 4.
I have
266 TrfE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
I have said, that it was (I don t know how) taken
on all hands for granted, that the invention of Reli
gion by Politicians inferred its falsehood. But, on
second thoughts, I am persuaded, the too great
facility in agreeing to this conclusion arose from
iicnce ; The popular argument of the innate idea
of God, had been for many ages esteemed a demon
stration of his Being and attributes : And the
political origin of Religion overthrowing that argu
ment, it was too hastily concluded that it overthrew
the truth of Religion in general : For prejudice
had established this consequence, If no innate idea
cf God y Then no God at all.
II.
But now, although (as hath been proved) the
granting this infidel pretence cloth not at all affect the
truth of NATURAL RELIGION ; yet it doth by acci
dent, and by accident only, affect the truth of HE VE
XATION : Because Holy Scripture hath given us a
different account of the origin of divine worship.
I shiill shew therefore, in the next place, that the
Notion is as false and visionary, as it is vain and
impertinent ; first, by examining the circumstances
from which its pretended truth is interred ; and
secondly, by producing plain matter of fact to
the contrary.
I. The first of these circumstances is, That the
Lawgiver employed his utmost fains and labour in
1 1 teaching,
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, 267
teaching, propagating, and establishing Religion,
But what can be inferred from this, but -that lie
employed his pains from a full conviction of its
ntility? And how should he come by that convic
tion, but from observing the effects of its influence
on the actions of men? Which must needs sup
pose him to have found, and not to have invented
Religion.
If this argument against Religion hath any weight,
we must conclude the Magistrate was not only the
inventor of natural RELIGION, but of natural
JUSTICE likewise; for he took the same pains i
teaching, propagating, and establishing both. But
will any one pretend to say, that men, in a state
of nature, had no ideas of justice? Indeed, both
one and the other liad lost much of their efficacy,
when men applied to the civil Magistrate for relief :
And this explains the reason why, on their entering
into Society, the Legislator was always so intent
upon RELIGION ; namely, that he might recover it
from the powerless condition, to which it was then-
reduced,
It will be said, perhaps, that the Atheist doth,
in fact, contend, that natural justice was an inven
tion of Politicians, as well as Religion* We have
seen, indeed, a Countryman of our own, who hath
jnade this proposition the foundation of his Phi
losophy, that Just and Unjust arose from the Civil
Magistrate. But then, he never supposed, that
men,, before Society, had no idea of these things :
All
2 6S THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
All he would contend for was, that the idea (when
arid wherever got before) was merely fantastic.
II. The other, and more peculiar circumstance
from which our adversaries inter their paradox, is ?
that thejirtt and original idolatry was the worship
of DEAD MEX : And these being Lawgivers, Ma
gistrates, and public Benefactors, Religion appears
to have been a political Institution. So amongst the
Ancients. EUHEMERUS, surnamed the Atheist^
wrote a treatise to prove that the Jirst gods of
Greece were dead men ; which, Cicero, who saw his-
drift, rightly observed, tended to overturn all Reli
gion *. And so, amongst the Moderns, TOLAND,
the pious author of the PANTHEIST I CON, with the
same design, wrote a pamphlet, intilled, Of the
origin of Idolatry, and reasons of Heathenism.
It is not unpleasant to observe the uniform conduct
of this noble pair of writers, which one never fails
to find in authors of a like character, how distant
soever in time or country. Euhemerus pretended his
design "was only to expose the popular religion of
Greece ; and Toland, that his great learning was
only pointed against Pagan idolatry : While the real
end of both was the destruction of Religion in
general.
It must be owned, that this circumstance, of the
Jirst ami original idolatry y hath a face (but a very
false one) of plausibility ; being manifestly founded
* Isat. Dcor. I. i. c. 4-2.
on
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 269
on this sophism, That the Jirst Idolatry, and the
first religious worship, arc one and the same thing.
Whereas, it is not only possible that the worship of
thejirst Cause of all things should be prior to any
Idol worship-, hut, in the highest degree, probable
that it was : Idol worship having none of the marks
of an original practice ; and all the circumstances
attending a depraved and corrupt Institution.
But it being utterly false that the worship of dead
men was the primitive Idolatry, \Ve shall endeavour
to convince these men of a FACT they are so un
willing to see or acknowledge.
I was pleased to find a book, like this of
Toland s, written professedly on the subject ; being
irfliopes to meet with something like argument or
learning, that would justify an examination of it:
For an answer to a licentious writer arrests the atten
tion of common readers, better than general rea
soning, though this goes more directly to the fact,
and determines the question with greater precision.
But I had the mortification to find nothing there but
an indigested heap of common-place quotations
from the Ancients , and an unmeaning collection
of common-place reflections from modern infidels ;
without the least seasoning of logic or criticism, to
justify the waste of time to the Reader, or to make
the labour supportable to one s self. And the
authority of the man, which is nothing, could not
engage me to any farther notice of his book. But
another, whose name stands justly highest in the
learned
270 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
learned world, and whose heart was as unlike
this writers as his head, seems to be of the same
opinion concerning the primitive idolatry. It is
the incomparable NEWT.OX in his Chronology of
the Greeks. His words are these: " JEacus the
son of JEgina, who was two generations older
" than the Trojan war, is by some reputed one of
" the first who built a temple in Greece. Oracles
came first from Egypt into Greece about the
" same time, as also did the custom of forming the
" images of the gods with their legs boiuid tip in
" the shape of the Egyptian mummies: For iDOr
" LATRY began in Cbaldasa and Egypt, and spread
6 thertce, eye. The countries upon the Tigris and
" the Nile being exceeding fertile, were first fre-
" quented by mankind, and grew first into king-
" doms, and therefore began first to adore their
fi dead kings and queens *." This great man, we
see, takes it for granted, that the worship of dead
men was the FIIIST kind of idolatry : And so only
insinuates a reason for this supposed feet, namely,,
that the worship of dead .men introduced image
worship: For, the Egyptians first worshipped dead
men hi person, that is, in their mummies \ ; which
when lost, consumed, or destroyed, were worshipped
by representation, under an image rn^ide icith Us
legs bound up, in likeness of the mummies. The
* Chronology of ancient Kingdoms, p. 160.
t See Book IV. Plate IX. fig. 1,2, & 3 compared
together.
reader
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 271
reader now will be curious to know how this infers
the other, that the worship of dead men was the
primitive idolatry ? All I can say to it is, that the
excellent person seems to have put the change upon
himself, in supposing image worship inseparably
attendant on idolatry in general ; when it was but
commonly attendant on //ero- worship ; and rarely
upon the Elementnry, As to the elementary,
Herodotus tells us that the Persians, who worship
ped the celestial bodies, had no statues of their Gock
at all : And as to Hero-worship, we are assured
by Dionysius Halicarnasseus, that the Romans,
whose Gods were dead men deified, worshipped
them, during some ages, without statues.
But to come closer to the point: Our Adversaries
overturn their position, on the very entrance on the
question. The grand symbol of the Atheistic school
is, that FEAR FIRST MADE GODS:
" Primus in orbc Deos fecit timor."
And yet, if we will believe them, these first gods
were dead men, deified for their PUBLIC BENEFITS
to their country or mankind : " Not only (says
" Toland) kings and queens, great generals and
legislators, the patrons of learning, promoters
" of curious arts, and authors of useful inventions,
" partook of this honour; but also such private
" persons, as by their virtuous actions had distin-
" guished themselves from others *."
* Letters to Serena, Tract of the Origin of Idolatry,
P a S- 73-
But
37-- THE DIVINE LEGATION [Booklll,
But to pass this over. Their great principle of
FEAR is every way destructive of their System;
For those very ages of the world, in which TEAR.
jnost prevailed, and was the predominant passion
of mankind, were the times BEFORE civil society ;
when every man s hand was against his brother.
If fear then was the origin of Religion, Religion,
without question, was BEFORE civil Society,
But neither to insist upon this : Let us hear what
the ancient Theists thought of the matter. They
said it was LOVE, and not FEAR, which was the
origin of Religion. Thus Seneca : " Nee in hunc
" furorem omnes mortales consensissent alloquendi
" surda nuinina inefficaces deos ; nisi nossent
" illorum BENEFICIA mine ultro oblata, nunc
4i orantibus data ; magna, tempestiva, ingentes minas
C intcrventu sco solventia. Quis est autem tarn
" miser, tarn neglectus, quis tarn cluro fato, & in
" poenam gcnitus, ut non tantam deoruin muni-
cc ficentiam senserit? Ipsosillos comploran tcs sortcrn
" suam, & querulos circumspice, invenies non ex
" toto beneficiorum coelestium cxpertes; neminem
" csse, ad quern non aliquid ex ilio BENIGXISSOIO
FONTE manaverit **"
But as HOPE and FEAR, LOVE and HATRED, are
the cardinal hinges, on which all human actions and
cogitations turn, I suppose it was neither one nor
other of these passions alone, but both of them
together, which opened to those early Mortals
* DC Bencf. 1. iv. c. 4.
(whose
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 273
(whose uncultivated reason had not yet gained the
knowledge, or whose degenerate manners had now
lost the tradition of the TRUE GOD) the first idea
of superior Beings.
I. Such men, in a state of nature, whose sub
sistence was immediately to be supplied by the pro
duct of the earth, would be exact observers of what
facilitated or retarded those supplies: So that of
course, the grand genial Power of the system, that
visible God the SUN, would be soon regarded by
them as a most beneficent Deity : And thunder and
lightning, storms and tempests, which his Qualities
produced, would be considered as the effects of his
an<*er. The rest of the celestial Orbs would, in
o
proportion to their use and appearance, be regarded
in the same light. That noble fragment from
SANCHONIATHO, quoted above* , as part of the
History rehearsed in the aVo ppMIa of the Mysteries,
gives this very original to Idolatry. It tells us that
" Genos and Genea (begotten of the two first
mortals, Protogonus and jEon) in the time of
great droughts, stretched out their hands towards
the SUN, whom they regarded as a God, and sole
Ruler of the heavens. After two or three gene
rations, came Upsouranios and his brother Ousous.
These consecrated two pillars to FIRE and WIND,
and then offered bloody sacrifices to them, as to
* Div. Leg. Vol. II. p. 37,
VOL. III. T Gods."
274 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Gods." This is a very natural account of the
origin and FIRST species of Idolatry. That it is
the true, we shall now endeavour to shew.
1 . Those ancient people of the North and South,
the Suevi, the Arabs, and Africans, who lived long
uncivilized, and in tribes, were all worshippers of
the celestial bodies. The same appears to have
been the case of the Chinese ; of the North
Americans ; and of the people of Mexico and
Peru ; as may be collected from what is said above,
of their first Lawgivers pretending to be the off
spring of the Sun and Heaven*: For we may be
assured they had the sense to chuse a well-esta
blished authority, under which to set up their own
Pretensions.
2. But all Antiquity concurs in asserting, that
the first religious adoration, paid to the Creature,
was the worship of heavenly Bodies. This was
so evident, and so universally acknowledged, that
CRITIAS himself, as we see f, was forced to
allow its truth. And this being the entire over
throw of his system of the origin of religion, nothing
but the fullest evidence could have extorted the con
fession from him.
* Le SOLEIL est la divinite ties peuples de I Amerique,
sans en excepter aucun de ceux qui nous sont connus.
Lafitau, Maws des sauvagesAmeriquains, tom.i. p. 130.
f See his Iambics above.
T
Sect. 6.J OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 275
To support so manifest a point with a long heap
of quotations, would be trifling with the reader s
patience.
To cut the matter short, EUSEBIUS expressly
affirms, and attempts to strengthen his position by
an etymology of the word EOS, that no L-eings
were anciently accounted Gods or divine, neither
dead mc v n, nor demons good or bad ; but the STARS
of heaven only *.
But as GREECE and EGYPT, the two Countries
where civil Policy took deepest root, and spread its
largest influence, had, by the long custom of deifying
their public Benefactors, so erased the memory of a
prior idolatry, as to have this second species of it, by
some moderns, deemed ilie Jlrst ; 1 shall produce
an ancient testimony or two, of the highest credit,
to shew that the adoration of the celestial Bodies
was the first idol-worship in those two grand Nur
series of Superstition, as well as in all other places.
i. IT APPEARS TO ME (says Plato in his Cm-
tl/lus} THAT THE FIRST MEN WHO INHABITED
GREECE, HELD THOSE ONLY TO BE GODS, WHICH
*" Ah\ on (jisv 01 isrguTOi x^ TvaXa .oTdloi T&V ctvQotuTrcav, X
uv olxofaiMoug TcpoasT^ov on tie &e ruvpera Tctvra xxluyoftztrpsv
>cj fyuw (XtYifAH ri$ roT$ Tols vjafiv, XT v TIC w a jroi$
x Kpov-, &C. a^Xa x3s dcufjuav rig aya9o<;, YI q>a,vh&- kv avQgu-
(J.QVO, 3e TO, <pcuvo[Asva TOJV xpaviuv Arouv, ^ctca TO
Praep. Evang. J. i. c. 9.
T 2 MANY
276 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
MANY BARBARIANS AT PRESENT WORSHIP J
NAMELY, THE SUN, MOON, EARTH, STARS, AND
HEAVEN *. The barbarians here hinted at, were
both such as remained in, and such as had got out
of, the state of nature. As first, the civilized
Persians, of whom HERODOTUS gives this account :
" They worship the Sun, Moon, and Earth, Fire,
" Water, and the Winds : And this adoration they
" -have all along paid from the very beginning.
" Afterwards, indeed, they learned to worship
" Urania t," fyc. And so goes on to speak of their
later idolatry of dead mortals. Secondly, the savage
Africans, of whom the same Herodotus says, "They
" worship only the Sun and Moon : The same do
" all the Africans ."
2. DIODORUS SICULUS, speaking of the EGYP
TIANS, tells us, THAT THE FIRST MEN LOOKING
UP TO THE WORLD ABOVE THEM, AND TERRI
FIED AND STRUCK WITH ADMIRATION AT THE
NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE, SUPPOSED THE SuN"
AND MOON TO BE THE PRINCIPAL AND ETERNAL
Qalvovloti ftoi o 5Tf STOI ruv avdfunav nep Triv Ex>a&* TST;
$8f weiffQcu, oWff vvv vsoMoi TOJV pxfixfuv. "HAiov, xj
wwiv, *J r>iv, ^ "Arpx, xj Ovpavov.
uwi & "H?u re xj SrXv>i, xj Fji, x) Ilvf 1, xj *
J rj Ovfceviy Susiv. 1. i. c. 131.
J j/acr< 3e "H^/w xj SE^JVJJ pawn* TSTOUTI <itV vvv vsa
i. l.iv. c. 188.
CODS.
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 277
GODS *. The reason which the historian assigns,
makes his assertion general ; and shews he believed
this idolatry to he tliejirst every where else, as well
as in EGYPT. But that it was so there, we have
likewise good internal evidence, from a circumstance
in their hieroglyphics, the most ancient method
of recording knowledge : Where, as we are told hy
Horus Apollo, a STAR denoted or expressed the idea
of the DEITY|.
Such was the genius and state of Idolatry in the
UNCIVILIZED world. So that the Author of the
book called, The Wisdom of Solomon, said well,
Surely vain are all men by nature who are igno-
4 rant of God ; and could not by considering
" the Work, acknowledge the Work-master: but
" deemed either FIRE or WIND, or the swift air,
" or the circle of the stars, or the violent water,
" or the LIGHTS OF HEAVEN, to be the GODS
" which govern the World ."
II. But when now SOCIETY had produced those
mighty blessings, which exalt our brutal nature to a
life of elegance and reason ; and, in exchange for
penury, distress, and danger, had established safety,
TO wateiw yivo(AEVx$ avaS^avlas e/j rov
xotrpov, xj rrjv TUV ofcuv Qwv xalaTTtetyenas *j $owpa<ravias,
i% 5 TE xj ^UT^, TOV TE "Hfcw xj 2c-
Eivai
t Arf vctf Aiyvrfliois y^a^iv^- &w mpouvti, 1. ii. c. 1.
J Chap. xiii. i, 2.
T3 and
278 TH DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
and procured all the accommodations of Civil in
tercourse, the RELIGIOUS system received as great,
though far from so advantageous, a change as the
o
POLITICAL.
1. GRATITUDE and ADMIRATION, the warmest
and most active affections of our nature, concurred
to enlarge the object of Religious worship ; and to
make men regard those BENEFACTORS OF HUMAN
NATURE, the Founders of Society, as having more
in them than a common ray of the Divinity. So
that, god-like benefits bespeaking, as it were, a god
like Mind, the deceased PARENT OF A PEO?LE
easily advanced into an IMMORTAL. From hence
arose, though not till some time after, their meta
physical distribution of Souls into the several classes
of human, heroic, and demonic. A distinction which
served greatly to support this species of Idolatry.
2. When the religious bias was in so good a train,
NATURAL AFFECTION would have its share iu
advancing this new mode of Adoration. PIETY TO
PARENTS would easily take the lead; as it was supr
ported by gratitude and admiration, the primum
mobile of this whole system : The natural Father
of the Tribe often happening to be the political
lather of the People, and Founder pf the State.
3. FONDNESS FOR THE OFFSPRING would next
have its turn. And a disconsolate Father, at the
head of a People, would contrive to sooth his grief
for the untimely death of a favourite child, and to
gratify
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 279
gratify bis pride under the want of Succession, by
paying divine honours to its memory. For a
" Father afflicted with untimely mourning, when he
" had made an image of his child, soon taken away,
." now honoured him as a God, which was then a
" dead man, and delivered, TO THOSE THAT WERE
" UNDER HIM, ceremonies and sacrifices*."
4. Lastly, the SUBJECT S REVERENCE for his
Master, the CITIZEN S VENERATION for the Law-
oiver, would not be far behind, to complete this
.religious Farce of mistaken gratitude and affection.
^ \3
This was the course of the SECOND SPECIES OF
IDOLATRY ; as we may collect from ancient history
both sacred and profane : And, especially, from the
famous fragment of SANCHONIATHO, which par
takes so much of both ; where these various motives
for this species of Idolatry are recounted in express
words : t( After many generations came Chrysor ;
" and he INVENTED many things useful to civil
" life ; for which, after his decease, he was zcor-
" shipped as a God. Then flourished Ouranos and
" his sister Ge ; who deified and offered sacrifices
" to their FATHER Vpxistos, when he had been
" torn in pieces by wild beasts. Afterwards Cronos
" consecrated Math his SON, and was himself
* consecrated by his SUBJECTS f."
* Wisdom of Solomon, ch. xiv. ver. 15-
f See-Div. Leg. Vol. II. p. 38-
T 4 III. But
280 THE DIVINE LEGATION. [Book III.
III. But Idolatry did not stop here, For when
men, as the Apostle says, would not retain God in
their knowledge, He gave them up to their own vain
imaginations, whereby they changed the truth of
God into a lieinto an image made like to cor
ruptible man, and to birds, and to four-footed
beasts, and to creeping things*. Plow this last
monstrous change was effected, I have discoursed
of at large, elsewhere f. It is sufficient to observe
at present, that it was begun in EGYPT, and was
propagated from thence: Where the method of
their Learned, to record the history of their Hero-
gods, in improved hieroglyphics, gave birth to
ERUTE-WOKSHIP. For the characters of this kind
of writing being the figures of animals, which stood
for marks of their ELEMENTARY GODS, and prin
cipally of their HEROES, soon made their Hiero
glyphics, sacred. And this, in no -great space of
time, introduced a SYMBOLIC worship of their
Gods, under hieroglyphic Figures. But the People
(how naturally, we may see by the practice of
saint-worship in the church of Rome) presently
forgot the symbol or relation-, and depraved this
superstition still farther, by a direct worship : till at
length, the animals themselves, whose figures these
hieroglyphic marks represented, became the object
of religious adoration. Which species of Idolatry,
by the credit and commerce of the EGYPTIANS
* ROM. ch. i. ver. 23. f Book IV. Sect. 4.
and
Sect.6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 281
and their Carriers and Factors the PHOENICIANS,
in course of time, spread amongst many other
nations. And this was the THIRD AND LAST SPECIES
of Pagan Idolatry.
And here again, as well for the original as the
order of this Idolatry, we have the confirmation of
SANCHONIATHO S authority : " Ouranos (says he)
" was the Inventor of the B&tylia, a kind of
" ANIMATED STONES framed with great art. And
" Taautus [the Egyptian] formed ALLEGORIC FI-
" GURES, CHARACTERS AND IMAGES of the CeleS-
u tial Gods and Elements V
By these animated stones (as is observed above)
must needs be meant, stones cut into a human
figure. For, before this invention, brute, unformed,
or pyramidal Stones, were consecrated and adored.
The allegoric Jigures and characters more plainly
describe Hieroglyphic writing: From whence, as
we say, this species of Idolatry was first derived.
This is a plain, consistent account of THE RISE
AND PROGRESS OF PAGAN IDOLATRY ; Supported
as well by the scattered evidence of Antiquity, as
by the more certain reason of things. I say, the
" scattered evidence of Antiquity:" For I know
of no writer who hath given us a direct, or so much
as consistent, account of this matter. Arid it is no
wonder. For a system of Religion, of which the
MORTAL GODS are so considerable a part, would
appear too hard even for the digestion of the
* See Div. Leg. Vol. II. p. 38.
people.
282 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
people. An expedient therefore was soon found,
and by a very natural incident, to throw a veil over
this shocking absurdity ; and this was by pretending
one while, to those who grew inquisitive concerning
the nature of the Hero-Gods, that these Gods were
only SYMBOLIC of the Celestial: and at another,
to those who pried too closely into the ELEMEN
TARY worship) that this was only SYMBOLICAL of
their Heroes : who were not dead men, as might
be suspected, but a species of superior Beings,
which, in affection to mankind, had once been con
versant on Earth : and whom, now, a deification
had reinstated in their original Rights. Thus the
popular belief presented nothing but one uniform
order of IMMORTALS: The SECRET of the -human
original of one part of them being reserved for the
private instruction of the MYSTERIES.
This cover foi their absurd Idolatries, would
naturally produce two orthodox Parties of Symbo-
lizcrs in the Pagan Church. They, who most
favoured Vl^iiQ-worsttip, would find the Symbol in
ELEMENTARY: And they, who best liked the
Elementary, would find the Symbol in the Heroic.
Both arties, as usual, laid claim to primitive An-
tiquitv. i or true it is, that the DKGREJ-S and
MAXNER by which the early Mortals SUPERIX-
DUCED the worship of dead men on the primary
idolatrous worship of the heavenly Bodies, gave
countenance to either side. This was the natural
incident I spoke of above, as favouring the expedient
employed
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 283
employed to hide the dishonours of Paganism. The
matter is worth knowing; and I shall endeavour to
explain it.
i. The first step to the APOTHEOSIS was the
complimenting their Heroes and public BENE
FACTORS, with the Name of that Being, which was
most esteemed and worshipped. Thus a King,
for his beneficence, was called the Sun , and a
Queen, for her beauty, the Moon. Diodorus relates,
that SQL FIRST REIGNED IN EGYPT; CALLED so
FROM THE LUMINARY OF THAT NAME IN THE
HEAVENS *. This will help us to understand an odd
passage in the fragment of Sanchoniatho, where it
is said, " that Cronus had seven sons by Rhca, the
" youngest of which was made a God, as soon as
" bonTf." The meanin & I suppose, is, that this
youngest son was called after some luminary in the
Heavens, to which they paid divine honours: and
these honours came, in time, to be transferred to
the terrestrial namesake. The same Historian had
before told us, that the sons of Guenos, mortals
like their father, were called by the names of the
K*T
x . . In the language of Egypt
called men, as we see m Herod. 1. ii. c. 99- The practice
t)f Assyrian superstition was the same; their king E
being named from Baal the Sun.
t T
e woJTol^ apst ,
elements,
284 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookUL
elements, light, fire, mdjlame, whose use they had
discovered *.
2. As this adulation advanced into an Established
worship, they turned the compliment the other way :
And now the Planet or Luminary was called after
the Hero ; I suppose, the better to accustom the
people, even in the act of Planet-worship, to this
new adoration. Diodorus, in the passage quoted a
little before, having told us that the Su.v and MOON
were the first Gods of Egypt, adds, THE FIRST OF
WHICH, THEY CALLED OsiRlS, AND THE OTHER
Isis f. But this was the general practice. So the
Ammonites called the Sux, Moloch; the Syrians,
Adad\ the Arabs, Dionysius; the Assyrians, Eelus;
the Persians, Mithra; the Phoenicians, Saturn;
the Carthaginians, Hercules ; and the Palmyrians,
Elegabalux |. Again, the Moox, by the Phrygians
was called Cybde, cr the mother of the Gods ;
by the Athenians, Minerca ; by the Cyprians
Venus; by the Cretans, Diana; by the Sicilians,
Proserpine; by others Hecate, Bcllonia, Urania,
Vesta, Lucinia^ &c. Philo Byblius, in Eusebius,
explains this practice : " It is remarkable (says he)
f "Efe, $ w \ v , aTTO Fc ysf ytvnfivxi auQif vacata; Swfe, 0*5 elveuy
aZav. Euseb. Praep. Evang. 1. i. c. 10."
"Twote&rv wzi MS tiftttg TE xj -sr^T8f, TOV TE
v TCV piv "0<rip iv , ^ df "laiv cvo^cu. 1. i.
J See Macrob. Saturn. 1. i. c. 17. & seq.
See Apul. Met.
" that
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 285
" that they [the ancient idolaters] imposed on the
" ELEMENTS, and on those parts of nature which
" they esteemed Gods, the NAMES OF THEIR
" KINGS: For the natural Gods, which they
" acknowledged, were only the Sun, Moon, Planets,
" Elements, and the like; they being, now, in the
" humour of having Gods of both classes, the
" MORTAL and the IMMORTAL*."
3. As a further proof that JETero-worship was
thus superinduced upon the planetary, let me add
a very singular circumstance in the first formation
of STATUES, consecrated to the Hero-Gods:, of
which circumstance, both ancient | and modern J
writers have been at a loss to assign a reason.
It is, that these first Statues were not of human
form, but CONICAL and PYRAMIDAL. Thus the
Scholiast, on the Vespae of Aristophanes, tells us,
that the Statues of Apollo and Bacchus were come
pillars, or Obelisks ; and Pausanias, that the Statue
*
/ojf, KM Tin TWV Wfuoi**wv SEUV 10.$ Qvopetfflas sTrs
oe, faov x) erexwv, xj T
TO, <rwa" " uf
tiuTois ng fJ.lv Sv/I3aj, TSJ de Mwatxs A sIvM. Praep. Evang.
Li. 0.9.
f See Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. i. p. 348. Par. Ed.
+ See Spencer dc Leg. Heb. Kit. 1. ii. c. 28. sect. 3.
o* oe af*^o?v. 2^. ver. 87.0.
of
286 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
of Jupiter Mcilichius represented a Pyramid*: That
of the Argive Juno did the same, as appears from
a verse of Phoronis f, quoted by Clemens, intimating,
that these pyramidal columns were the first Statues
of the Gods : And this practice was universal, as
well amongst the early Barbarians as the Greeks,
Now it is well known that the Ancients represented
the rays of Light under pillars of this form ; And
we find, from the fragment of Sanchoniatho, that
Ousous consecrated two COLUMNS to the Wind
and Fire: Hence, the erecting them as representa
tives of their Hero-gods shews how These succeed
ed to the titles, rights, and honours of the natural
and celestial Deities.
To explain this matter at large would require a
Volume: It is sufficient to have given this hint:
which, if pursued, might perhaps direct us to the
right end of the clew of that hitherto inexplicable
labyrinth of PAGAN MYTHOLOGY. The Reader
sees clearly, by what has been already said, that
this unheeded, but very natural way of superinducing
Hero-worship on the Planetary, easily confounded
the different species : and afforded a plausible pre
tence for the two Parties mentioned above, to make
Either, SYMBOLICAL of the Other.
Here matters rested : and the vulgar Faith seems
to have remained a long time undisturbed. But as
* In Corin. p. 132.
rj reppae-i xj wavOt<Tt y
nova (Aoucpw ouawffw* Strom, l.-i.
the
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 287
the Age grew refined, and the Greeks became in
quisitive and learned, the common MYTHOLOGY
began to give offence. The Speculative and more
Delicate were shocked at the absurd and immoral
stones of their Gods ; and scandalized, to find such
things make an authentic part of their story. It may
indeed be thought matter of wonder how such tales,
taken up in a barbarous age, came not to sink into
oblivion as the age grew more knowing; from mere
abhorrence of their indecencies, and shame of their
absurdities. Without doubt, this had been their
fortune, but for an unlucky circumstance : The great
POETS of Greece, who had most contributed to
refine the public taste and manners, and were now
grown into a kind of sacred authority, had sanctified
these silly Legends by their writings, which Time
had now consigned to immortality.
Vulgar Paganism, therefore, in such an Age as
this, lying open to the attacks of curious and inquisitive
men, would not, we may well think, be long at rest.
It is true, FREE-THINKING then lay under great
difficulties and discouragements. To insult the Re
ligion of one s Country, which is now the mark of
learned distinction, was branded, in the ancient
world, with public infamy. Yet Freethinkers there
were : Who (as is their wont) together with the
public worship of their Country, threw off all reve
rence for Religion in general. Amongst these was
EUHEMERUS, the Messenian ; and, by what we can
learn, the most distinguished of this tribe. This
map,
288 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
man, in mere wantonness of heart, began his attacks
on Religion, by divulging the secret of the Mysteries.
But as it was capital to do this directly and pro
fessedly, he contrived to cover his perfidy and malice
by the intervention of a kind of Utopian Romance.
He pretended, "that in a certain City, which he
came to, in his travels, he found this GRAND
SECRET, that the Gods were dead men deified, pre
served in their sacred writings ; and confirmed by
monumental records, inscribed to the Gods them
selves; who were there said to be interred." So
far was not arniss. But then, in the genuine spirit
of his Class, who never cultivate a truth but in order
to graft a lie upon it, he pretended, " that DEAD
MORTALS WERE THE FIRST GODS : And that an
imaginary Divinity in these early Heroes and Con
querors created the idea of a superior Power ; and
introduced the practice of religious worship* amongst
men." The learned reader sees below, that our
Freethinker is true to his cause, and endeavours to
verify the fundamental principle of his Sect, that
TZARjirst made Gods, even in that very instance
where the contrary passion seems to have been at its
height, the time when men made Gods of their.
Se, o enut^eis *A0^-, pimv or w
/", ol vtspiyev6(JisvQi ruv aXhuv Iffftvi TE xj oweffei
WTE infa T<X m ainuv H&&VQ(Jim tsavlatf jSwfv, 0Tre3a0v?f$
Tiva xj Sav tiwaiHVt uQw xj rotf aMo;, ivofAifffaiaav Swt. Sext.
Empir. adv. Mathem.
1 2 deceased
Sect 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 289
deceased BENEFACTORS. A little matter of ad
dress hides the shame of so perverse a piece of
malice. He represents those Founders of Society,
and Fathers of their Country, under the idea of
destructive Conquerors, who by mere force and fear
had brought men into subjection and slavery. On
this account it was that indignant Antiquity con
curred in giving EUHEMERUS the proper name of
ATHEIST : which, however, he would hardly have
escaped, though he had done no more than divulge
l\\z Secret of the Mysteries; and had not poisoned
his discovery with this impious and foreign addition,
so contrary to the true spirit of that Secret.
This detection had been long dreaded by the
orthodox Protectors of Pagan Worship : And they
\vere provided of a temporary defence in their intri
cate, and properly perplexed, system of SYMBOLIC
ADORATION. But this would do only to stop a
breach for the present, till a better could be pro
vided ; and was too weak to stand alone, against so
violent an attack. The PHILOSOPHERS, therefore,
now took up the defence of Paganism, where the
PRIESTS had left it : And, to the others SYMBOLS,
added their own ALLEGORIES, for a second cover
to the absurdities of the ancient Mythology. So,
MINUCIUS FELIX ZENON, interpretando Junonem
Aera, Jovem Coelum, Neptunum Mare, Ignem esse
Vulcanum, et ceteros sirniliter vulgi Deos elementa
esse monstrando, publicum arguit graviter et revincit
errorem. Eadem fere CHRYSIPPUS, vim divinam^
VOL. IIL U ration
THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookllL
rationalem naturatn, et inundum interim, et fatalem
necessitatem Deum credit: ZENONEMque interpre-
tatione Physiologies in HESIODI, HOMERI, OR-
iHEique car minibus imitatur. Babylonia etiam
DIOGENI disci plina est cxponendi et disserendi.
Jovis partum et ortum Minerva et hoc genus cetera,.
rerum vocabula esse non Deorum *. For, all the
genuine Sects of Philosophy, as we have observed,
were steady patriots; LEGISLATION making one
essential part of their Philosophy. And. to legislate
without the foundation of a national Religion, was,
in their opinion, building castles in the air. So that
we are not to wonder, they took the alarm ; and op
posed these Insuiters of the public Worship with all
their vigour. But, as they never lost sight of their
proper character, they so contrived, that the defence
of the national Ptcligion should terminate in a
recommendation of their philosophic speculations.
Hence, their support of the public worship , and
their evasion of Euhemeruss charge, turned upon
this proposition, " That the whole ancient MYTHO
LOGY was no other than the vehicle of PHYSICAL,
MORAL, and DIVINE knowledge." And, to this it
is that the learned Eusebius refers, where he says,
" That a new race of men refined their old gross
" THEOLOGY, and gave it an honester look; and
ic brought it nearer to the truth of things |-"
* Octavius, c. xix.
"\" ToitivTa W T& Trij waXaiaj 0hoyiaff r,v (J,{laahovlt$ vsoi
rrms, yjils ^ tapunv eTrtyutvlss toyixutt^QV rs Qitoffofuv
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 291
However, tiiis proved a troublesome work ; and,
after all, ineffectual for the security of men s PRI
VATE MOJIALS ; which, the example of the licen
tious story according to the letter, would not fail to
influence, how well soever the allegoric interpretation
was calculated to cover the PUBLIC HONOUR of
Religion : So that the more ethical of the Philo
sophers grew peevish with what gave them so much
trouble, and answered so little to the interior of
religious practice : this made them break out, from
time to time, into hasty resentments against their
capital Poets ; unsuitable, one would think, to the
dignity of the Authors of such noble recondite
truths, as they would persuade us to believe were
treasured up in their Writings. Hence it was that
PLATO banished HOMER from his Republic: and
that PYTHAGORAS, in one of his extramundane
adventures, saw both HOMER and HESIOD doing
penance in Hell, and hung up there, for examples,
to be bleached and purified from the grossness and
pollution of their ideas.
The first of these Atlegorizers, as we learn from
Laertius *, was Anaxagoras ; who, with his friend
Metrodorus, turned Homer s Mythology into a
system of Ethics. Next came Heraclides Ponticus,
and,
TOV 3i7 (pVfflHttlsfaV T>7 *5TI @WV /Yo/J ?o|V slff^ynffOlvlf,
tftfofole^ Evgs<notoyia$ TCJJ (toQois ^wtfanwAroiftf. Prsep.
Evang. 1. ii. c. 6.
* Lib. ii. Anaxag. vit.
U 2
292 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
and, of the same fables made as good a system of
Physics : which, to shew us with what kind of spirit
it was composed, he intitled Avn/> pV<f run *a,r auYS
[ O/Affoa] j3Aa<rpi)p)<ra>Icdv. And last of all, when the
necessity became more pressing, Proclus undertook
to shew that all Homer s Fables were no other than
physical^ ethical, and moral ALLEGORIES. For we
are to observe, that the Philosophers INVENTED and
REVIVED this way of interpretation, as at two
different times, so on two different occasions,
1. It was invented to encounter such men as
EUHEMERUS, who attempted to overthrow all Re
ligion, by this pretended fact. That the FIRST Wor
ship was paid to dead men deified , which they sup
ported on a real one, namely, that the greater Gods
of ^Greece were only deified Mortals ; as appeared
from HOMER and the other early Greek Poets :
whose writings being become a kind of SCRIPTURE
in the popular Religion, the Defenders of the com-
mon faith had it not in their power to REPUDIATE
their fables as only the idle visions of a poetic fancy :
Nothing. was left but to SPIRITUALIZE the sense,
o
by allegorical interpretations. And this proved so
lucky an expedient, th?.t at the same time that it-
covered their fables from the attacks of their adver
saries, it added new reverence and veneration both
to them and their Authors. So TERTULLIAN. Ipsa
quoque vulgaris supcrstitio communis Idololatriae,
cum in simulacris de nominibus ct fabulis vcterum
1 2 mortuoruw
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 293
mortuorum pudet, ad interpretationern naturdium
refugit, et dcdccus mum ingenlo obumbrat, ligurans
Jo^em in substantiam fervidam, et Junonem ejus
in aeream * ? &c.
2. What These began for the sake of their THEO-
LOGERS, tlieir successors continued for the sake
of their THEOLOGY. For it is to be noted, that the
first CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS took up so much of
the argument of EUHEMERUS and his Fellows, as
concerned the real nature and original of the greater
Co<ls of Greece. And as they had disencumbered
this truth, of the false consequence with which
those audacious Freethinkers had loaded it, they
were enabled to urge it with superior force. But
if the CHRISTIANS added new vigour to this attack,
the PHILOSOPHERS became still more animated in
their defence : for they hated this new Sect as an
enemy equally to the PHILOSOPHY and to the
RELIGION of Greece. And their accidental ad
vantages in the application of this revived method
of allegory r , were not inferior to their most studied
arts of improving it: For their Christian Adver
saries could with no grace object to a way of inter
pretation which they themselves had just oorrowed
from Paganism, to SPIRITUALIZE, forsooth, their
sacred Scriptures, which the Philosophers had long
used with more sense and better judgment, to make
, REASONABLE.
* Adv. Marc. 1. i.
u But
294 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
But here we are to take notice of this difference
between these Allegorizers BEFORE, and the Alle-
gorizers AFTER the time of Christ. The first were-
principally employed in giving a physical * or moral
interpretation of the Fables; the latter, a THEO
LOGICAL. As we may see in the case of Plutarch;
who was both Priest and Philosopher in one. His
famous tract, OF Is is AND OSIRIS, is directly written
to support the national Religion, which. had just
taken the alarm ; and not without reason. His
purpose, in it, is to shew, That all its MULTIFORM
worship was only an address to the SUPREME,
BEING, under various names and covers. But then
ancient history, which acquaints us with the origin,
of their Gods, stood in his way. He denies, there
fore, what these histories invariably attest. He calls
Euhemerus, who inforced their evidence, an Im
postor I : And hath many other evasions to elude
such circumstances as are most decisive. Thus,
when he cannot deny, that, what is recorded of
* So A RN OBI us. Vulnerari, vexari, bella inter se
gerere furialium memorantur ardore discriminum : Vobis
ilia cst dcscriptio voluptati, atque ut scriptorum tantam
defendalis audaciam, ALLEGORIAS res illas, et NATU-J
KALIS SCIENTI^: mentimitii esse doctrinas. Adv. Gent.
1. iv. p. 150. Ed. quarto.
t *O$ auros [Ew^Ef^-] av
awTTafjflx (Mootoyiasy vatrav adeo-njla
raj vo(ugoiMV8$ Sfa; wy7j o/4a*u$ dtaygdpui, sis WO/MX.
xj Na^xwv ^ Baj-iAsajy, wy 3j TsraAou ythwruv. p. 641 .
their
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 295
their Gods shews them to be subject to human
passions, he will not yet allow the inference for their
humanity; because the Genii and Demons are
agitated by the like passions*. Thus again, the
bewailing and lamenting gestures, in many of their
established Rites, which looked so like mourning for
the dead, signified, he assures us, no more than an
allegorical representation of corn sown and buried^.
In this manner, the postulate having supported the
allegories; the allegories come, in good time, to the
assistance of the postulate.
Thus stood the matter in the ancient World. Let
us see now what use the Moderns have made of what
they found recorded there. Our Freethinkers, such
as Toland and his school, have revived the old rank
doctrine of Euhemerus. That PANTHEISTIC Phi
losopher s understanding had so strong a bias to im
piety, that it seemed rather a natural sympathy, than
any thing acquired, which drew him to it at all
* BsXJwv ay, ol rat tssfi toy TvpSv* *, "Ocn^v xj *l<rtv i
Aawjwiwv
mat
TO
aiffQ ctru ev ffuvutoiws $ovw osx&p svw xj WWW
yivovbu tfy f
x, **/?. p. 642.
f See note [OO] at the end of this Book.
v 4 distances*
296 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III
distances. Hear how awkwardly he represent*
EuhemeruS* system to us : and yet he labours hard
to set ,t off. The FIRST Idolatry ( says he) did not
proceed, as ,s commonly supposed, from the beauty
or order, or influence of the STARS. Bat men ob-
sermng Booh to perish [before there were any] by
fre worms, or rottenness andiron, Brass, and
wble, not less subject to violent hands or the in-
nes of the weather, they IMPOSED ON THE STARS.
as the only everlasting monuments, the proper names
of their HEROES, or of something memorable in
their History*. All this, his Predecessors, the
Freethinkers of Antiquity, (who knew how to ex-
press themselves) informed us of nhen they said,
Star-worship was only symbolical of Hero-
worship- and, consequently, of later date: the
hmg they aimed at, to induce their conclusion, that
therefore Religion was apolitical invention. Toland
treads in their footsteps, though he treads awry. But
our Religionists in general, have not been so nappy
m the choice of their arms, nor in their sagacity of
know ing their friends from their enemies. The ex
cellent G.J. Vossius (to mention him amongst a
multitude) hath, in his very learned collection of
Gentile Theology, gone, bonafide, into the old pagan
method of allegorizing their Theology ; as if it were
service to true Religion to shew, that the
Idolatry was, at bottom, tolerably reasonable.
* Of the origin of Idolatry an d reasons of Heathen.
ism, p. 74.
It
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 297
It is true, a late ingenious Person seems to have
understood his subject better, and to know to what
it all tends ; I mean the learned Writer of the
Letters concerning Mythology. We have observed,
that the ancient defenders of Paganism had by their
Symbols and Allegories resolved the Hero-gods into
the Elementary ; and these again, into the various
attributes of the Jirst Cause. In which they were
so successful, that they not only changed their
Idolatry, but their Idols likewise. For the SIGXA
PANTHEIA expressive of this new Theology have
all the marks of the later times of pagan Antiquity.
The ancient FATHERS of the Church are very
copious in exposing this subterfuge. In which ser
vice they employed all that was found in the system
of Euhemems ; that is to say, That the Greater
Gods of Greece and Rome, the Dil majorum Gen
tium, were Dead men deijted. And I have endea
voured throughout this work to support their Cause.
There are hardly now, I believe, two opinions on
this matter, amongst knowing men. But the Author
of the Inquiry into the life and writings of Homer
attempts, in these Letters, to bring us back again
to the old MUMSIMUS. He saw, I suppose, the
necessary connexion between Allegories arid ideal
Gods: a principle which could produce nothing
more than a SHADOWY IDOLATRY at worst. And
therefore, in honour of Pagan Antiquity hath laid
it down as an axiom, That the powers producing,
and parts composing the Universe, were their
QREATER
* 9 S THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
GREATER GODS* ; or the Du majorum Gentium.
This He calls, the grand Key of Mythology. And
here it is worth while to observe, (hut by the way
only) that these admirers of the wisdom of pro-
Jane Antiquity, are not so favourable to that of
sacred: but are generally amongst the first to laugh
at what Divines call the DOUBLE SENSE in Scrip
ture prophecies. And yet they make the greatest
part of pagan wisdom to consist in the use and in
vention of DOUBLE SENSES : " Witness (says this
writer to his friend) the DOUBLE view you have
6 already had of the rise of tilings, and govern-
4 ment of the world from Orpheus, in the descrip-
fc tion of Pan: and from Hemdin his borrowed
Theogony : and still plainer in the DOUBLE moral
of Prometheus, as signifying either the divine
; Providence in the formation of the world, and
* particularly of man, or human foresight per-
fr petuaMy on the rack, for the necessaries and
conveniencies of Kief." The difference is, the
Pagan double seme connects together two things
that are foreign to one another in the constitution
of Nature : The Scripture double seme connects
together two things that are as nearly related, as
the various parts of one moral Dispensation. But
to return :
As these LETTERS seem to be written as much
in opposition to what is here, and elsewhere through-
P. 409, of the Letters concerning Mythology.
t Pp. 120, 121.
out,
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 299
out this work, advanced, concerning the rise, pro
gress, and various fortunes, of ancient Idolatry, as
in favour of the now exploded MYTHOLOGY ;
which was, as we say, invented, and, from time to
time, improved by the early, middle, and later
Philosophers, to hide the deformities of vulgar
Polytheism ; I think proper to consider what he
hath to say in support of such an undertaking.
Now against my various reasoning in confutation
of this pagan System, I find not so much as one
argument opposed ; and in support of the System
itself, but one ; and this one, borrowed from Cud-
worth*. It is put thus : " Euhemcrus and his
"- FOLLOWERS, ere we join with them in mor-
" tallzing the first Divinities, must satisfy us, Why
" the Poetical Sages, the Instructors of mankind,
" termed their grand Work, the basis of their doc-
" trine, not only a THEOGONY, or an account of
< the birth and pedigree of the Gods, but a Cos-
* MOGONY, or an account of the birth and creation
" of the World? Or, plainer still, a COSMOPOEIA,
" a making or framing of the Universe? The PLA-
" TONIC Philosophy had no hand in the Cosmo -
" gonies, or histories of the Creadon written by
" Taaut or Thoth, by Linus^ by Orpheus, &c. It
" was plain, therefore, the Allegory did not come
" too late-\j* &c. These last are my words.
* See Intellectual System. Contents annexed to First
Edition, p. 234.
f Pp. 211, 212,
300 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book HI.
If Euhemerus supposed, as it appears he did,
that the FIRST pagan Divinities were mortal Men,
he would have found it difficult to answer this ob
jection of Cudworth. But the FOLLOWER of Eu
hemerus (for with this title he honours the Author
of the Divine Legation) who supposes no such
thing, but hath evinced the contrary, will find no
difficulty at all. For he holds*, that the first
Gods of Greece were the heavenly Bodies. And
if the Makers of these Cosmogonies, such as Thoth,
Linus, and Orpheus, held the same, then their
THEOGONIES, or accounts of the birth and pedigrees
oftheseGods, could be no other than COSMOGONIES,
or accounts of the birth and creation of the world;
these Gods being parts of it.
But things seem here to be confounded by our
Letter- Writer. These Cosmogonies have just as
much, and no more, to do with Platonic allegories,
than the elements of Speech with the ornaments of
Rhetoric.
There are two errors likewise, in this matter^
which our Letter- Writer seems to have laboured
under. The one is, that Euhemerus was the In
ventor of the mortalizing system : Whereas, I had
shewn, it was taught in all the Mysteries long before
Euhemerus had any being. He, indeed, maliciously
carried it much farther than the Mysteries intended :
He made planetary worship symbolical of the He
roic: and, from thence, inferred the political origin
* See above.
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 301
of Religion : for which, he passed with Antiquity,
and perhaps justly, for an Atheist. Whereas the
Mysteries, as we see from the fragment of San-
choniatho*, kept these two species of Idolatry
distinct ; and assigned the proper order of time to
each of them.
The other error this lively Writer falls into, is in.
supposing, that this Follower of Euhemerus, against
whom he writes, holds all the first, as well as last,
Gods of Greece to have been mortal men : Whereas
he distinguishes hetween the Gods of civilized and
uncivilized Greece : The first, he supposes to have
been heavenly bodies ; and the latter only, dead men
deified.
From censuring the Learning of Euhemerus s
Followers, the Letter-Writer proceeds to censure
their Morals. " It is not easy (he says) to ascertain
" what should make some warm Ecclesiastics, for
" the wiser are far above such weakness, so angry
" at the Allegories of ancient Poets, now, when
" all danger from their Deities is over. Of old,
o
" indeed, when Temples and Revenues belonged
" to them; when wealth, and Dignities of the
" Church, were annexed to the allegorical Devo-
" tion, and vested in its Teachers, no wonder the
" good FATHERS should fulminate against the wild
" and impious Worship. But now, when the struggle
" is long since over, when the Father qf Gods and
# See above, and likewise p. 37 of Vol. II.
" inen
302 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookllL
" men has not so much as a lamb offered, nor his
" Daughter [i. e. Minerva or WISDOM] a single
" grain of incense burnt upon her altar for near a
" thousand years, it is hard to tell what should
" awake this preposterous zeal, or make them so
" eager to mortalize the EMBLEMS of Antiquity.
" Is there not, as I was hinting, some infection in
" the case? Has not the reading the FLAMING
" INVECTIVES of the primitive Fathers, who were
" actually in the struggle, a little infected their
" Followers with the same fiery spirit and IN-
" DECEXT LANGUAGE*?"
As to \hettflaming Invectives, the Letter-Writer
seems to lie under a small mistake. For though
such invectives may perhaps be thought characteristic
of the FATHERS zeal, the terms are not here in
their place. They reserved their invectives for a
better occasion, to fulminate the malice of their
Enemies, and the follies of their Friends. On this
point, viz. the mortalhing the emblems of antiquity,
I can assure him, they appeared much at their
ease ; and more disposed to quibble than to rail ;
as he might have seen by one of the most serious
of them, and who least understood raillery when
he was pressed, I mean St. Austin ; who, in his
confutation of Varro and his emblems, could afford
to be thus jocular : " Sed, ha3C omnia inquit
" [Varro] referuntur ad mundum ; videatne potius
" ad immundum^"
* Pp. 226, 227. f Civ. Dei, I. vii. c. 27.
An
Sect 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 303
As to the indecent language , it is to be found in
the fourth volume of the Divine. Legation ; where it
is said, that the Ancients adopted into the number of
their greater Gods, Rcccishers, Adulterers, Palhics,
Vagabonds, Thieves, and Murderers *. But it is
pleasant to hear this Letter- Writer talk of decency
to a set of PHANTOMS, EMBLEMS, and SYMBOLS;
for such he esteems these Greater Gods to be ;
and yet observe it so little to the MINISTERS of
the Christian Religion. For he is at a loss, the
Reader sees, to account for their warmth, where
their private Interest is not concerned. And in seek
ing for the cause of it, when he cannot fix it on
their avarice and ambition, rather than allow them
a motive becoming their character and office, he
will throw it upon their passions and prejudices.
He supposes, they catchtd the infection from the
Fathers, whose worldly interests, he imagines, were
much concerned in the quarrel. But if he deserves
the opinion I have of his candour, he will be
pleased to find -his suspicions ill grounded : And
that the ECCLESIASTICS, who engage so warmly IB
this question, do it on important reasons, becoming
their character of Ministers of the Truth.
The Bible represents ancient Idolatry, in the
most odious colours ; and the whole Gentile World
as oiven up to its delusions. A species of modern
Mythologists, hinted at above, had, on the revival
of learning in the West, endeavoured, to evade this
* Book iv. Sect 4.
charge,
304 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
charge, by borrowing the defences of the ancient
Philosophers ; who allegorized the fables of the
popular Religion, to screen it from the contempt
of the more knowing Vulgar ; as Learning, at one
time, and Christianity, at another, had severally
shaken the Seat of Superstition*. In those Alle
gories, all the national Gods were reduced to mere
SYMBOLS, expressive of the Attributes of the first
Cause: and, consequently, the Scripture-charge
against the Gentiles, of worshipping the Creature
for the Creator, rendered groundless, or at least,
uncandid. These modern Mythologists, a late
French Writer hath well described in the following
words, " AM commencement du Seizi&mc Siecle
quelquesuns dcs Savans, qui contribudrent an re-
tablissement dcs lettres, etoient, dit-on, Pai ens dans
le coeur, plus encore par PEDANTERIE, que par
libertinage : ensorte qu il n eut pas tenu a eux de
rainencr le culte dcs Dieux d HoMERE et de Vir-
gile - -ils einploioient ce qu ils avoient de literature
et d esprit, pour domier au Paganisnie un tour
plausible, et en former un systeme moins insense .
Jlsavouoientquela MYTHOLOGIE &oit insoutenable
prise a la lettre : mais, en meme terns, elle con-
tenoit, scion eux, sous I EMBLEME des fictions les
profondeurs de la PHYSIQUE, de la MORALE, et
de la Ti-iEOLOGiEf." In this state and representa
tion of things, some Ecclesiastics have thought it
* See p, 292. f Vie de L Emp. Julien. p. 48, 49.
of
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 305
of their office to MORTALIZE these pretended em
blems of Antiquity ; and to shew, that the greater
national Gods were dead men deified: and, conse
quently, that their worshippers were REAL IDOLA
TERS ; and of the worst sort too, as they frequently
had for their objects the worst kind of men.
But so little of this matter entered into the Letter-
Writer s views, that he says, " This, which was
" formerly a grand religious controversy, is now
" turned to a point; of pure speculation. What,
" in the days of Polytheism, raised the indignation
" of the Priests, and inflamed the rival zeal of the
" Fathers of the Church, now raises a little squabble
" amongst the Antiquaries, as a question of mere
" curiosity : to wit, whether all the Gods of Anti-
< quity were not mortal men *."
Now, if the Letter- Writer will needs suppose,
that where the CLERGY have no oblique and inte
rested designs, they have no reasonable ones, he will
be often out in his reckoning: And (what to be sure
is greatly to be lamented) unequal to the oilice of
a Censor on their Manners,
After all, perhaps, I may understand Him as
little, as he appears to have understood Me, if I
think him in earnest. The whole of his Letters,
if one may judge by hints dropt here and there,
seems to be only the wanton exercise of a Sophist;
and just such an tncomiuni on the WISDOM OF THE
ANCIENTS, as Erasmus s was on the TOLLY OF THE
* P. 208,
VOL. IJL X MODERNS,
306 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book IPI.
MODERNS. l is certain , at least, that in the prose^
cation of his argument, his chief concern is for
FICTION AND ITS INTEREST*. Thus, in one page,
he tells u&, " That this eager zeal to MORTALIZK
these emblems of Antiquity is DESTRUCTIVE OP
ALL TRUE POETRY *." And in another, " That
this- prevailing PROSAIC TASTE has neii-her dvgmty
of manners, nor strength of genius^ nor extent of
fancy f." But he explains himself more fully, where
speaking of SYMBOLS- and ALLEGORIES, and the
inseparable- as well as accidental marks by which
they may be unravelled; he illustrates his subject by
Abb6 Pluche s Hypothesis : Which, however, in
several places, he treats for what it is, an idle and
a groundless fancy. " Symbols (says he) carry
" natural marks that strike a sagacious mind, and
" lead it, by degrees, to their real meaning. A hint
" in one author brightens the obscurities in many
" others ; as one single observation of Macrobiua
"proved the clew to Abbe Pluche s (how ju-stiy
" I say not) to unravel the whole mystery of Egyp*
" tian, Assyrian, and Grecian Gods." He had no
occasion to consider how justly, if he were in jest
Otherwise, a man might have seen, that the just
ness of unravelling depended on the reality of the,
Clew : Which, too, though dignified by the name of
Clew, is indeed no other than a number of odd ends^
that wanted to be made consistent, rather than to be
* P. 215. f P. 214.
Sect 6.] OF JioSfig DEMONSTRATED. 307
unravelled. For the rest, as our learned Critic would
iriimortdlize the Pagan Deities in reverence to the
CLASSICS, so this Abbe Pluche (of whom he speaks
with so much honour) has attempted to draw them
but of their mortal state, in order to cover the dis
graces of POPERY ; to which that superstition is
obnoxious, from the protestant parallels between
Saint and Hero-worship.
But as if all this had not been enough to shew us
that his concern was not for TRUTH but FICTION,
he gravely professes to credit all BACON S visions,
as the genuine Wisdom of the Ancients, which
every body else admires as the sportive effort of
modern wit. As he is in so pleasant an humour,
he may not be displeased to hear the Determina
tion of DOCTOR RAPELAIS upon this question,
who thus addresses the Allegorizers of his time :
" Croyez-vous, en vostre foy, qu oncques HOMERE,
e escripvant Plliade & 1 Odyssee, pensast 6s ALLE-
" GORIES lesquelles de luy out calefrete Plutarche,
" Heraclide de Ponticq, Eustatie, Phornute, et CQ
u que d iceulx POLITIAX ha descrobe ? Si le,
" croyez, vous n approchez ne de piedz, ne de mains
4i & mon opinion : qui DECRETE icelles aussi peu
" avoir este songees de Homere, que d Ovide en
" ses Metamorphoses, les Sacremens de 1 Evangile,
6C lesquelz ung Frere Litbin, vray croquelardon,
u s est efforce demons trer si d adventure il reilcon-
K troit gens aussi folz que luy." This facetious
Satirist had here in his eye those very Mythologists
X 2 Qf
308 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookUL
of the sixteenth Century, whom the learned Author
of the Life of Julian, quoted above, so very
justly censures.
And thus much for this GRAND KEY OF MYTHO
LOGY, as this Letter- Writer is pleased to call his
Fancies *.
To return to the Patrons of the other extreme,
That the heavenly bodies were only SYMBOLS of the
Hero-Gods. Having thus shewn, the worship of
the elements to be prior to that of dead men, I have
not only overthrown this argument, for the proof
of the atheistic notion of the origin of Religion t
but likewise the notion itself. For if (as our adver
saries own) the worship of dead men were the
first religious institution after entering into civil
society; and if (as I have proved) the worship of
the heavenly bodies preceded that of dead men ;
the consequence is, that Religion was in use before
the Civil Magistrate was in Being. But I need riot
our Adversaries concession for this consequence ;
having proved from ancient testimony, \hztplane-
^tary worship was the only Idolatry long before Civil
Society was known ; and continued to be so, by all
unpolicied nations, long after.
II. I come, in the next place, to direct Fact :
from whence it appears, that the Lawgiver, or Civil
Magistrate, did not invent Religion.
* P. 400.
Here
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 309
Here the Atheist s gross prevarication ought not
to pass uncensured. From the notoriety of the
Magistrate s care of Religion, he would conclude it
to be his INVENTION: And yet, that very Anti
quity, which tells him this, as plainly and fully tells
him this other , namely, that Religion was not in
vented by him : For, look through all Greek,
Roman, and Barbaric Antiquity ; or look back on
what we have extracted from thenee in the second
section of the foregoing book, and it will appear,
that not one single Lawgiver ever found a People,
how wild or unimproved soever, without, a Religion,
when he undertook to civilize them. On the con
trary, we see them all, even to the Lawgivers of the
Thracians and Americans, addressing themselves to
the savage Tribes, with the credentials of that God
who was there professedly acknowledged and adored.
But this truth will be farther seen from hence: It
appears by the history of the Lawgivers ; by the
sayings recorded of them ; and by the fragments
of their writings yet remaining, that they perceived
the error and mischief of the gross idolatries prac
tised by those People, whom they reduced into
Society; and yet, that they never set upon reforming
them. From whence we reasonably conclude, that
they found the People in possession of a Religion
which they could not unsettle ; and so were forced
to comply with inveterate prejudices. For, that they
were willing and desirous to have reformed what
they found, appears not only from the PROEMS to
x 3 their
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Beoklll,
their Laws, mentioned above, but from the testimony
of one of the most knowing Writers of Antiquity,
I mean Plutarch ; who, in his Tract of Superstition,
speaking of the unruly temper of the People, says
they ran headlong into all the follies which the
makers of Graven images propagated ; and in the
mean time, turned a deaf ear to their Lawgivers,
who endeavoured to inform them better*. This
forced even Solon himself to establish the Temple-
worship of Venus the Prostitute f. But the reform
\vas seen to be so impossible, that Plato lays it down
as an axiom in his Republic, That nothing ought to
he changed in the received Religion which the Law
giver finds already established; and that a man
must have lost his understanding to think of such
a project. All they could do, therefore, when they
could not purify the SOUL of Religion, was more
firmly to constitute the BODY of it, for the service
of the state. And this they did by NATIONAL RITES
AND CEREMONIES. Nay; when the visible folly
of a superstitious Rite, would have enabled them to
abolish it, they sometimes for the sake of turning it
to the civil service chose to give it the public sanc
tion. This, Cicero confesses where he sayg
Equidem adsentior C. Marcello existimoque jus
augurum, etsi Divinationis opinione principio con-
nOAITIKHN avtyuv
/UET xfwo ni?- xj
f vw&jupe A&pttiiwft* Athenad Deip. 1. xiii.
stituturn
Jctfi.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 3"
Mkutuin sit, -tatnen ;postea B/EtPUBtica; CAUSA
-conservatum &c retentum *.
Indeed, an course of time, though insensibly, the
genius of the JMigion, as we observed before t,
followed -that -of tlie civil Policy; and so grew
better and purer, as it did in ROME ; or more cor
rupt and abominable, as it did in SYRIA. But had
the Legislators given -an entire NEW R-EIIGION, in
the manner they gave LAWS, we should have found
wme of those, at least, nearly approaching to the
purity -of natural Religion. Bat as we see no such,
we must conclude they FOUND Religion, and did
not MAKE it.
On the whole then, I have proved, what the most
judicious HOOKE-R was not ashamed to profess before
me, That " a POLITIQUE USE of Religion there Is.
Men fearing GOD are thereby a great deal more
effectually than by positive Laws restrayned, from
" doing evil; inasmuch as those Laws have no
O 1
<f further power than over our outward actions o iiy ;
" whereas unto men s inward cogitations, unto the
" privie intents and motions of their hearts, Religion
serveth for a bridle. What more savage, wilde,
and cruell than man, if he see himscltc able, either
by fraude to over-reach, or by power to over-bcare,
the Laws ^hereunto he should be subject ?
^Wherefore in so great boldness to offend, it
* DeDivin, L ii. c. 35,
f SeeVohL
" belioveth
312 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
bchoveth that the World should be held in awe,
not by a VAINE SURMISE, but a TRUE APPRE
HENSION of somewhat, which no man may think
himselfe able to withstand. THIS is THE POLI-
TIQUE USE OF RELiGiOK *." Thus far this
great man; where he takes notice how certain
Atheists of his time, by observing this use of Reli
gion to Society, were fortified in their folly of
believing that Religion was invented by Politicians
to keep the World in awe. An absurdity, I per
suade myself, now so thoroughly exposed, as to be
henceforth deemed fit only, to go in rank with the
tales of Nurses, and the dreams of Freethinkers.
I HAVE now at length gone through the two first
Propositions :
1. THAT THE INCULCATING THE DOCTRINE OF
A FUTURE STATE OF REWARDS AND PuNISH-
MENTS, IS NECESSARY TO THE WELL-BEING OF
CIVIL SOCIETY.
2. THAT ALL MANKIND, ESPECIALLY THE
MOST WISE AND LEARNED NATIONS OF ANTI
QUITY, HAVE CONCURRED IN BELIEVING, AND
TEACHING, THAT THIS DOCTRINE WAS OF SUCH
USE TO CIVIL SOCIETY.
The -next Book begins with the proof of the
third; namely,
* Eccl. Pol. Book V. sect. ii.
3- THAT
Sect, 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 315
3. THAT THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE
OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS, is NOT TO BE
FOUND IN, NOR DID MAKE PART OF, THE MOSAIC
DISPENSATION.
Hitherto we have been forced to move slowly, to
feel for our way in the dark, through the thick con
fusion of many irrational RELIGIONS, and mad
schemes of PHILOSOPHY, independent of, and in
consistent with, one another : Where the labour of
the search, perhaps, has been much greater to the
Author, tnan the pleasure will be to the Reader, in
finding this CHAOS reduced to some kind of order;
the PRINCIPLES developed, from whence the endless
diversity and contradiction have arisen; and the
various USE that may be made of these Discoveries
for our demonstration of the truth of revealed
Religion.
We now emerge into open day :
" Major rerum mihi nascitur ordo,
" Majus opus moveo."
And having gotten the PROMISED LAND in view,
the labour will be much easier, as the Discoveries
will be more important, and the subject infinitely
more interesting : For having now only one single
System and Dispensation to explain, consistent in
all its parts, and absolute and perfect in the Whole,
which though, by reason of the pro;\,nd and sub
lime views of its Author, these perfections may not
be
314 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III
be very obvious, yet, if we .have but the happiness
-to enter rightly, we shall go on with ease, and the
prospect will gradually open and enlarge itself, till
we see it lost again in that IMMENSITY from whence
it first arose.
Full of these hopes, and under the auspices of
these encouragements, let us now shift -the Scene
from GENTILE to JEWISH Antiquity; and prepare
ourselves for the opening of a more august ai}4
Solemn Theatre,
END OF THE THIRD BOOK,
OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 315
APPENDIX;
SHEWING,
That the OMISSION of a future State in the Mosaic
Dispensation, doth not make it unworthy of the
Original to which Believers ascribe it.
A S both Believers and Unbelievers have, by some
*-** blind chance or other, concurred to make this
Objection to the OMISSION ; I think it not improper,
before I enter upon the Subject of the MOSAIC
LAW, which comes next into consideration, to
remove this common prejudice concerning it. And
as a celebrated Writer has collected together what
hath been said in support of the Objection, and
civen to it all the strength that the force of his own
& o
genius could impart, I suppose his words will be the
best text to my discourse.
" L Eveque Warburton, auteur d un des plus
savants ouvrages qu on ait jamais fait, s exprime
ainsi, page 8. tome I. " Une Religion, une Societe
" qui n est pas fondee sur la creance d une autre
" vie, doit etre soutenue par une Providence extra-
" ordinaire. Le Judaisme n est pas fonde sur T la*
" creance d une autre vie; done, la Judaisme a -<te
" soutenu
Si 6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book lit.
6 soutenu par une providence extraordinaire." Plu*
sieurs Theologiens se sont eleves contre lui, et
comme on retorque tous les arguments, on a retorque
le sien, on lui a dit : " Toute Religion, qui n est
* pas fondee sur le dogme de I lmmortalite de Tame,
sur les peines et les recompenses eternelles,
i est necessairement fausse ; Or le Judaisme ne
" connut point ces dogmes, done le Judai sme, loin
d etre soutenu par la Providence, etait par vos
* c principes une Religion fausse barbare qui
* attaquait la Providence." Get Eveque eut quel-
ques autres adversaires qui lui soutinrent que
Fimmortalite de Tame etait connue chez les Juifs,
dans le temps meme de Moi se ; mais il leur prouva
tres-evidemment que ni le Decalogue, ni le Levitique,
ni le Deuteronome, n avaient dit un seul mot de cette
creance, & qu il est ridicule de vouloir tordre & cor-
rompre quelques passages des autres livres, pour en
tirer une verit^ qui n est point annoncee dans le livre
de la Loi.
Mr. 1 Eveque ayant fait quatre Volumes pour
demontrer que la Loi Judaique ne proposait ni
peines rii recompenses aprs la mort, n a jamais pu
r^pondre a ses adversaires d\me maniere bien
satisfaisante. Us lui disaient : " Ou Moi se con-
4 naissait ce Dogme, et alors il a troinpe les Juifs
en ne le inanifestant pas ; ou il 1 ignorait ; & en
ce cas il n en savait pas assez pour fonder une
4 bonne Religion. En effct si la Religion avait
ete bonne, pourquoi J aurait-on abolie ? Un
" Religioi
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 317.
" Religion vraie doit etre pour tous les temps &
" pour tous les lieux, elle doit etre comme la
" lumiere du Soleil, qui eclaire tous les Peuples
" toutes les Generations."
" Ce Prelate tout eclaire qu il est, a eu beau-
" coup de peine a se tirer de toutes ces difficultes ;
" mais quel Systeme en est exempt * ? "
The trouble I have had in disengaging myself
from these difficulties will now be seen.
The Objections, as here stated by this ingenious
man, respect, we see, both the LEGISLATOR and
the LAW.
i . Either Moses (says he) was acquainted with &
future State, and in that case he deceived the Jews
in not teaching it : or he was ignorant of the doc
trine, and in this case he did not know enough to.
become the Author of a good Religion. Indeed, if
the religion had been good. Why was it abolished?
a true Religion should be for all times and places.
Its light should be like that of the Sun, which illu
mines all nations and all generations.
2. All Religion which is not founded on the doc
trine of the Soul s immortality and future rewards
and punishments, is necessarily false : but, in Ju
daism, these doctrines were not contained: there
fore Judaism, so far from being supported by an
* Diet. Philosopliique Portatifj article (Religion ?
premiere question).
extraordinary
3i 8 THE DIVINE LEG AtlON [Book III.*
extraordinary Providence, teas, on your tiwn Prin
ciples (says he to the Bishop) a religion false and
barbarous, which attacked and insulted Providence.
1. The first argument, against the integrity of
Moses s conduct from this Omission, had been urged
at large by the late Lord BOLINGBROKE ; and
the Reader may find it at large confuted, in the
Appendix to the Fifth Book of the Divine Legation.
2. The second argument, against the integrity of
the Law from this Omission, has been clamoured by
a krge Body of Answerers, led up by Dr. STEB-
BING. But these men pretending to believe Reve
lation, their reason, for want of integrity in such a
Religion, was founded in a supposed defect in its
Essence; so their conclusion from this reasoning
was, " That a future State was certainly in the
Mosaic Religion, how much soever it might walk
there in Masquerade." The celebrated Frenchman,
who pretends to no such belief, founds his argument
on the reality of the Omission, and from thence con
cludes, "that the Mosaic Law was an imposture."
I shall examine what they have to say, in their order,
I.
Thd English Doctor comes first. " You con-
" sider (says this candid Divine, addressing himself
<{ to the Author of the D. L.) the Ignorance of the
" Jews as to the doctrine of a future State, as one
" of the most momentous truths that Religion has to
" boast of. I, on the other hand, look upon it as
2 "a DISGRACE
Appx-J OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 319
" a DISGRACE to Revelation; as by the very act
Cfc of God himself, it shuts out his own chosen
" People, for many ages, from that single point of
" Knowledge, which could be the foundation of a
" reasonable Worship ; while, by the directions
" of his Providence, all the world besides were
" permitted to have the benefit of it *."
Here we see the Doctor proposes to confute my
representation of the omission of a future State in
the Mosaic Religion : But, for mine, he gives us his
own, and very notably confutes that. My idea of
the omission I declared to be this, that, as the Jews,,
to whom the Mosaic Religion was given, were, at
the time of giving, under an extraordinary Provi
dence, they had no absolute need of the doctrine.
The Doctor s idea of the omission is, that when the
Mosaic Religion was given to the Jews, they were
under an ordinary Providence, and therefore the
doctrine was necessary. That I do him no wrong-
in charging him with this sophistical chicanery, ap
pears from his own words, where he gives his reason
for saying that my (meaning his own) representation
of the omission is a disgrace to Revelation ; namely,
because this single point of Knowledge [i.e. a
future state] is the only FOUNDATION of a reason*,
-able Worship. Now, it is obvious to common sense,
that this can be only predicated of a future state
* An- Examination- of Mr. Warburton s Second Pro
position, &c. in -an. Epistolary Dissertation addressed to
the Author; pp. 131, 2-
under
320 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book Iff.
under an ordinary Providence : And that under an
extraordinary it is no necessary FOUNDATION at all
If it should be pretended (for it will hardly be
owned that the Doctor, with all his zeal, was an
Unbeliever) that by the many ages in which the
people of God were shut up (as he expresses it)
from this knowledge, he meant, those ages in which
the Jews lived under a common providence, this
subterfuge will not serve his turn, for I have shewn,
that when the extraordinary dispensation ceased,
the Jews, like all the world besides, arid by the same
means of information, had all the benefit which the
knowledge of this FUTURE STATE, such as it was,
could afford them.
But let us take the Doctor as we find him.
He tells us why he looks upon my representation
of the Mosaic Religion as a disgrace to Revelation.
Because (says he) by the very act of God himself
it shuts out his own chosen people from that single
point of Knowledge which could be the foundation
of a reasonable Worship.
*Let us examine this curious period on all sides.
By the act of God himself he must mean, (for
nothing else can be meant ; and it is only when his
meaning is thus circumstanced, that I can be certain,
I do not mistake it) he must mean, I say, God s act,
by the ministry of Moses. Now this very Doctor,
in his several Pieces against The Divine Legation,
has, over and over again, told his Reader, that Moses
did not teach, NOH HAD IT IN HIS COMMISSION
TO
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 321
TO TEACH a future state to the Israelites. For,
at every step, he brings himself into these distresses
(if such a trifle as a contradiction can be supposed
to distress him) by a false modesty. He was ashamed
of the absurdity of his Brethren, who all along
maintained, that Moses taught, or OUGHT to hare
taught, a future state : and therefore, at tin s turn,
leaves them in the lurch ; and slily steals in the
better principle of his Adversary, that Moses had
no Commission to teach it : for he must have been
duller than any Doctor can be supposed to be, not
to discover that this was his Adversary s principle,
after having seen him write a large book to prove
that, Moses did not teach it. I call this desertion
of his Friends, a false modesty ; For what is it else,
to be shocked at one of their absurdities, while he is
defending all the rest? whose only support, too,
happens to be in that ONE which he rejects.
Indeed, good Doctor,
- - - PUDOR TE MALUS llTget
Insanos qui inter vereare Insanus habcri.
But " God (says he) by this very act, shut out his
own chosen people from the knowledge of a future
state." It is very true, God s own chosen people
were shut out. But not, as our Doctor dreams,
by the very act of God himself: but (if he will
have the Truth, who never seeks it, for itself) by
the very act of their Forefather, ADAM. It was
the First Man who shut them out ; and the door of
VOL. IIL Y Paradise
322 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
Paradise was never opened again, till the cowing
of the Second Man, the Lord from Heaven. But
this is the Language of Scripture : and this language
his Sums and Systems do not teach him. But more
of this secret hereafter.
A future state (says our Doctor absolutely and
without exception) is that single point of knowledge
which could be the foundation of a reasonable wor
ship. Here Doctors differ. St. Paul places the
foundation of a reasonable worship in another thing..
He saith, that, HE THAT COMETH TO GOD MUST .
BELIEVE THAT HE IS; AXD THAT HE IS A
REWARPER OF THEM THAT DILIGENTLY SEEK
ii 1 31 *. What is Man s purpose in coming to God?
Without doubt, to worship him. And what doth
the ^reat Doctor of the Gentiles tell us is the true,
the reasonable foundation of this worship ? Why,
TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS A REWARDER OF THEM
THAT DILIGENTLY SEEK HIM. He plaCCS this
foundation (we see) in a REWARD simply, and gene-
rically ; not in that particular species of it, a FU
TURE STATE. He places it in the nature , not (as
our modern Doctor) in the inessential circumstances,
of REWARD. The consequence is, that a reward
given HERE was as solid a foundation of a reasonable
Worship to the early Jews, living under an EX
TRAORDINARY Providence, as a reward given
HEREAFTER, is to us Christians, living under the
HDINARY one. Another consequence (though it
* Ileb. xi. 6.
be
Appx.j OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 323
be but a triOe) is, that our learned Doctor is mis
taken. But to come a little closer to this formidable
man, now I have got the Apostle on my side, I
will undertake to DEMONSTRATE (how much soever
he and his Fellows take offence at the word) that a
FUTURE STATE is so far from being the only foun
dation of a reasonable Worship, that, as a MODE
of e.mstence, it is no foundation at all.
foundation of a reasonable Worship, being this and
this only, that God is a rewarder of them who seek
him. He may reward here, or he may reward here
after. But, which he cruises is indifferent, as to
the solidity of the foundation; because PIETY and
MORALITY, which constitute a REASONABLE WOR
SHIP, spring only from the belief that God is, and
that he is a Rewarder. The Mosaic Religion,
teaching this, enjoins that men should love God with
all their hearts, with all their soul, &c. for the ex
cellence of his nature ; and that they should love
their neighbours as themselves, for the equality of
their common nature, which requires an equal
measure for ourselves and others. Now Jesus says,
that, on the Love of God and of our Neighbour
hang all the Law and the Prophets, i. e. in the most
confined sense, it is the foundation of a reasonable
Worship. Our Doctor says, No; a future state
is the only foundation. In a word, then, since
PiETY/which constitutes a reasonable worship, and
since VIRTUE, which constitutes a reasonable service,
are both raised and supported by the belief, that God
v 2 is.
324 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
is, and that he is a Rcwarder ; What more forci
ble inducement is there in our selfish nature to
cherish them, than that which the Law of Moses
holds forth, when it teaches that every work shall
receive its full rceompence of reward HERE?
Here or hereafter, in this lite or in another, beino
only the modes of receiving one and the same thing,
cannot possibly affect either piety or morality. But
it hath been taken for granted, that there is in
future rewards something of a virtue to PURIFY
the mind, which present rewards have not. I shall
consider, before I have done with the question, on
what ground this opinion stands. In the mean
time, let us hear the famous Orobio, the Jew ; who,
though little to his own purpose, yet much to ours,
and to such Objectors to the purity of the Mosaic
Law, as our Doctor Omnes [Christian!] cultum
intcrnum predicant, quasi a Deo internus cultus
sumrna cum perfectione in Lege non fuisset prse-
scriptus ; Tota quidem interni cultus perfectio con-
sistet in vero et constantissirno Dei ainore, et Proximi
propter ipsum Deum : Hie est totus cultus internus
rx quo oinnia opera externa, seu moralia, seu ritualia
sint, debent profluere : qua? si ex hoc principio non
emanaverint, impcrfectissima sunt, et divina Legi
prorsus ad versa*.
Our Doctor proceeds " God s chosen people
* were shut out, for many ages, from that point
M of knowledge, which, by the directions of his
* P. 110,
" Providence,
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 325
4 Providence, all th e world besides were PERMITTED
" to have the BENEFIT. 0/7 In examining the
predicate of this proposition, I shall first consider
the PERMISSION, and then the BENEFIT.
All the, World besides (says he) were permitted.
By what instrument? I ask; for they had no Re
velation By the use of their Reason, says he.
And had not the Jews the use of theirs ? No, replies
he, not the free use : for their Prophet (according
to you) delivering to them from God, a new Law
and a new Religion in which the doctrine of a
future state was omitted, this would naturally lead
them to conclude against it. What ? in defiance
of all the clear deductions of Reason, which, from
God s demonstrable attributes of justice and good
ness, made the Pagan world conclude, that as moral
good and evil had not their retribution here, they
would have it, hereafter ? Yes., for Moses PRO-
MISED they should have their retribution here.
What then ? other ancient Lawgivers promised their
People the same thing. Yet this did not hinder
their having recourse to a future state to secure
O /
the foundation of Religion, which, St. Paul tells us,
is the belief that God is, and that he is the Re-
warder of them that seek him. The matter now
begins to pinch : and the Doctor must be dumb,
or confess that the only possible reason one can
assign why the Jews had not recourse to the same
expedient for securing the foundation of Religion,
which the Gentiles had recourse to, was because
Y 3 they
326 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
they felt the performance as well as heard the
promise: For when that -was no longer felt (the
extraordinary providence being withdrawn in pu
nishment for their crimes) the Jews, like all other
people, had their doctrine of a future state, which,
by its complexion, is seen to he of foreign, and
very spurious birth.
See then, to what this PERMISSION amounts ;
so invidiously urged, not against me, for that is
nothing, but against the Scriptures of God ! Just
to thus much " That all the world besides were
permitted to find out, by REASON as they could,
what his chosen people were taught, by the practical
demonstration of au EXTRAORDINARY PROVI
DENCE ; namely, that God would act with justice
and goodness towards man."
Come we next to the BENEFIT. The benefit of
the doctrine of a future state is twofold ; to Society
as such, by encouraging Virtue and suppressing
Vice, under an unequal distribution of things ; to
Religion as such, by affording a solid foundation
to it, under the same distribution. But both these
aids from the doctrine of a future state were more
effectually afforded by an extraordinary Providence.
We find, then, the learned Doctor to be miserably
mistaken, in supposing the Gentiles enjoyed any
spiritual benejit which the Jews were deprived of.
The former indeed had a future state to support
Society and Religion ; the latter had an extra
ordinary Providence. Which of them was, in its
nature,
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 327
nature, the most efficacious support, common sense
will not suffer us to remain in> doubt. Hut the
benefit of believing is one thing ; the benefit of
having is another, I have only yet spoken to the
first. Now, the Doctor seems to think the latter
affected by the -OMISSION. We commonly hear it
said, that seeing is believing ; but I suspect our
learned Doctor has been imposed on by another
Aphorism (as absurd in the thought as that is m
the expression) that believing w having ; else how
came he to place so great a benefit in the point in
question, if he did not suppose that the Jews 1 want
of the DOCTRINE would deprive them of the
THING.
And now, in taking my final leave of this Cham
pion in Ordinary to the Party Orthodoxal, let me
not be here again misunderstood as I have so otten
been by them. I deny, indeed, that the want of
a future State, in the Moskc Religion, at all affected
the true foundation of a reasonable Worship. Yet
I am very far from denying, that the frame and
constitution of this Religion rendered it, on many
accounts, partial and incomplete. In my address
to the Jews, prefixed to the second part of the
Divine Legation, I have shewn in what particulars
it was so. As, first, in the whole turn of the Ritual
Law: and, secondly, in that OMISSION, at what
time the Jews came under the ordinary and com
mon Providence of Mankind. For I am there
placing before these mistaken People a view of the
y 4 Mosaic
328 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Booklll.
Mosaic Religion as it appears and operates at pre
sent, in order to convince them of the necessity of
its receiving its completion from the Region of
Jesus. In which conclusion, 1 suppose, all Chris
tians are agreed. At least, they who have escaped
the thick darkness of controversy will see that these
two assertions are very distinct and different, and
at the same time consistent, i. That a Religion
without a future state, wanted not, during the & ex-
istence of an extraordinary providence, a solid
foundation of a reasonable worship. And, 2%,
that such a, Religion, if supposed to serve for all
times and places, must needs be deemed incom
plete.
This Omission of a future state in the Mosaic
Religion is now generally acknowledged by all who
read the Bible with the same impartiality that they
read other Histories. Should not our Doctor,
therefore, who pretends to believe the divinity of
the Mosaic Religion, blush at his rashness in call
ing it, A DISGRACE TO REVELATION ? He does
it, indeed, in confidence that the early Jews were
not ignorant of this matter. But will his confidence
persuade impartial men against their senses? Were
there but a chance of being mistaken in this sup
posed knowledge of the early Jews, a sober Mi
nister of God s word would have avoided the scandal
of so irreverent an assertion ; so unsuitable to the
veneration he owes to his Maker, when speaking of
a Dispensation which he professes to believe did
indeed
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 329
indeed come from him; and not have dared to
measure this Dispensation of Providence by his
scanty and obscure ideas of fit and right. The
Author of 77/c Divine Legation demonstrated might,
indeed, say, and I hope without offence, that the
ignorance of the early Jews concerning a future
state was a truth of so HIGH IMPORTANCE, that
from thence might be demonstrated the divinity of
their Religion ; because, though he should be mis
taken, no injury was done to Revelation ; He left
it whole and entire, just as he took it up. But
should our Doctor be mistaken, his calling this
ignorance (now found to be real) A DISGRACE TO
o >
REVELATION, would be supplying the Enemies of
Religion with arms to insult it. The only excuse
he can make for himself (an excuse full as bad as
the offence) is, that he had now gone back to the
common principle of his Party, which before he
seemed to have rejected, That if God did not teach
his chosen People a future state, he ought to have
taught it. A species of folly, which the sage
HOOKEK, to whom their Orthodoxy may haply be
disposed to pay attention, has admirably reproved
in another set of men, possessed with the same
impious and presumptuous spirit c As lor those
" marvellous discourses (says this great man)
" whereby they [the Puritans] adventure to argue,
" that God must needs hare dene the thing which
" they imagined was to be done, I must confess, I
V have often wondered at their exceeding boldness
" herein.
330 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookllL
" herein. When the question is, Whether God
" have delivered in Scripture (as they affirm he
" hath) a complete particular immutable Form of
" Churchy-politic, Why take they that other, both
" presumptuous and superfluous, labour to prove ;
" that HE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT, there being
" no way, in this case, to prove the deed of God,
i saving only by producing that evidence wherein
" he hath done it ? For if there be no such thing
O
" apparent upon Record, they do as if one should
" demand a Legacie by force and virtue of some
" written Testament, wherein there being no such
" thing specified, he pleadetb, that THERE IT
" MUST BE ; and bringeth arguments from the love
" or good- will which always the testatour bore him ;
i imagining that these or the like proofs will con-
" vict a testament to have that in it, which other
" men can no where by reading, find. In matters
" which concern the actions of God, the most
1 dutiful way, on our part, is to search what God
<c hath done , and with meekness to ADMIRE that,
Ci rather than to DISPUTE what he, in congruity
" of reason, ought to do. The waies which he hath,
" whereby to do all things for the greatest good of
" his Church, are more in number than we can
search, other in nature than we should presume
" to determine, which, of many, should be the
" fittest for him to choose, till such time as we see
" he hath chosen, of many, some one ; which one
" we then may boldly conclude to be the fittest,
" because
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 331
" because he hath taken it before the rest. When
" we do otherwise, surely we exceed our bounds :
" who, and where we are, we forget; and therefore
" needful it is that our PRIDE, in such cases, be
" controled, and our disputes beaten back with
" those demands of the blessed Apostle, How un-
" searchable arc his judgements, ami his ways pasi
" finding out ! Who hath known- the mind of the
" Lord, or who hath been his Counsellor* ?
We have now done with the Orthodox DIVINE;
and come, in good time, to the Freethinking PHI
LOSOPHER.
Dr. STEBBING, who sees a future state in the
Mosaic Religion by a kind of SECOND SENSE, just
as northern Highlanders see things to Lome by a
SECOND SIGHT, affirms, only hypothetical^, that
this Religion was a DISGRACE TO RELIGION : Our
Philosopher, who can see in it nothing of futurity,
affirms positively, that it was nuch a DISGRACE.
The Philosopher s Principles incur no discredit,
though he should fail in his conclusion, since he
had discarded Revelation beforehand : But should
the Divine be mistaken, he exposes his Principles
to the scorn and contempt of Freethinkers, since
he professes to believe Revelation.
For the rest, the Philosopher stands charged with
the same SOPHISTRY, of which the Divine hath
been found guilty; the taking for granted the thing
* Book iii. sub fin.
in
332 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III,
in dispute, viz. that the Jews were under an unequal
Providence. Yet here again both his sense and his
modesty triumph over the Divine s. The Philo
sopher, in the Opinion that the Jews were under
an unequal Providence, betrays no Principles of
Natural Religion, which he pretends to follow:
The Divine, in avowing the same Opinion, betrays
all the Principles of Revealed Religion, which he
pretends to believe.
Indeed, the Sophistry in both, is equally con
temptible. For no principles, whether of belief or
unbelief, can authorize a Disputant to take for
granted the thing in question. The Author of The
Divine Legation undertook to prove, that the early
Jews were under an equal Providence, by this
Medium, the Omission of a Future State in their
Law ; and from thence concluded, that the Reli
gion revealed by the ministry of Moses was true ;
which, reduced to a syllogism, runs thus :
Whatever Religion and Society have no future
state for their support, must be suported by an ex
traordinary Providence :
The Jewish Religion and Society had no future
state for their support :
Therefore the Jewish Religion and Society were
supported by an extraordinary Providence.
To deny the major, as our Philosopher should
have done ; to deny the minor, as our Divine did ;
was fair argument. But to leave both, as the First
hath
Appx.j OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 333
hath done, without an answer, and deny only the
conclusion, is, amongst all nations and languages,
a BEGGING OF THE QUESTION. If OUF Philo-
sopher would argue to the purpose, he should either
shew that the premisses are false, and then he
attacks the minor ; or that they do not infer the
conclusion, and then he attacks the mtyor. lie
does neitlier ; but, instead of this, having begged
the question, he falls to syllogizing, in his turn
Every Religion (says he) which is not founded in
the Doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and
eternal rewards and punishments, is necessarily
false. But Judaism was ignorant of these doc
trines. Therefore Judaism, so far from being up
held by a providence, was even, on the Principles
of the Author of the Divine Legation, a Religion
false and barbarous, which attacked Providence
itself. The Argument we see is in form : And, if
you will believe the Philosopher, inforced upon nnj
Principles. But, to bring his syllogism to bear
against me, he must go upon this Postulatum, that
the Law was not administered by an extraordinary
Providence : And then, I dare appeal to his own
venerable Bench of PHILOSOPHERS (if Logic hold
any place in their school) whether the upshot of
all his syllogizing be not taking for granted the
thing in dispute. And if this were all, As these
men have accustomed us to this beggarly way of
reasoning, we might pass it over in silence and con
tempt : But there is something more than ordinary
perverse
334 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
perverse in the conduct of this syllogism. For,
not content to beg the question, our Philosopher
falsifies my Principles On the PRINCIPLES (says
he) of the Author of the Divine Legation, Judaism
was a false Religion.
Now the Principles which, as a Christian, I be-
Here , are these, " That Moses promised an extra
ordinary providence, and that he omitted a future
state."
The Principles, which, as a Logician, I have
proved, are these, " That the promise was fulfilled,
and therefore that the Omission was attended with
no hurtful consequences either to Religion or
Society."
The Principles believed, I had collected from my
Bible : the Principles proved, I had deduced from
what I understood to be the conclusions of right
reason.
How then (I would fain learn) can it fairly be
inferred, from these Principles, that the Religion of
Moses is FALSE?
In the mean time, let me acquaint the Philoso
phers, in what manner I infer from these Principles,
that the Religion of Moses is TRUE.
That Moses promised an extraordinary Provi
dence, is held by all Believers ; and that he omitted
a future state, is seen by all Unbelievers. Neither
of them are mistaken. These are my Principles
of belief. My purpose was to convince Unbe
lievers, on their own grounds, that the promise was
1 PERFORMED,
Appx;] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 335
PERFORMED, and this I do by the MEDIUM of the
Omission. How strongly let the Book itself de
clare. These are my Principles of proof.
It was amongst my more general Principles,
That whatever Religion, under a comnwn Provi
dence, omits to teach a future state, is certainly
false. And it seems to he amongst our Philoso
pher s logical conclusions, that, therefore, on this
Principle of mine, whatever Religion under an &r-
traordinary Providence omits to teacli a future
state is false likewise.
But the Philosophers syllogism seems to have
been made up out of an Objection ill understood,
which certain Divines brought against my argu
ment; {for, of objections, against an offensive truth,
there is neither end nor measure.) These Doctors
of the Church objected, " That I should first of all
have proved from Scripture that the promised Pro
vidence was actually bestoiccd, before I used the
service of my MEDIUM." Let me ask them for
what end ? Should it be to convince Unbelievers ?
But that it could not do ; for they reject the extra
ordinary or supernatural part of Scripture-History.
Did they mean, that it should have been done for
their own satisfaction? But what need of that?
Believers profess to hold that all which Moses pro
mised was performed. What was it then that brought
forth this Objection ? A mere blunder in their rea
soning ; in the course of which, they had con
founded two very different things, with one another
The
3J6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
The promise of an extraordinary providence, with
the actual administration of it. They saw, that it
was necessary previously to prove that Scripture
speaks of the Administration of an extraordinary
Providence, otherwise the medium, which I employ,
would be vague in its aim, and uncertain in its
direction. But they did not see, that this was clone
by simply producing the promises of Moses on this
point : And that as Unbelievers professed to allow
thus much (and with Unbelievers only, I had to do)
my point was to prove to them, on their own prin
ciples, the actual performance of those promises by
the medium of the OMISSION. It is true, indeed,
had no extraordinary providence been promised, it
had then been incumbent on me previously to have
shewn, that Scripture represented the Israelites as
living under such a providence, in order to give mv
medium that certain direction, which leads to my
Conclusion. But as it was promised, the Unbe
liever s confession of thoi promise was all I wanted.
Yet both Believers and Unbelievers have thought
it of such consequence that the Argument of The
Divine Legation should be discredited, that they
have not scrupled to reverse all the Laws of Logic
iu this important service. Hence the conclusion is
turned into the premisses, for the use of our Doctors
and the premisses into the Conclusion, for the use
of our Philosophers.
The ingenious Frenchman s second Argument
against The Divine Legation is in these words
" Either
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 337
" Either Moses was acquainted with this doctrine
" [a future state], and, in this case, he deceived
u the Jews in not communicating it to them; Or
" he was ignorant of it, and, in this case, lie did
" not know enough for the Founder of a Good
" Religion."
As to the first charge, of his deceiving the Jews,
I have answered it long ago, in rny animadversions
on Lord BOLINGBROKE, from whom the argument
is taken.
As to the second, that Moses s ignorance made
him incapable of founding a good Religion, it
receives all its strength from an equivocation in the
term, good\ and a misrepresentation of the nature
of the Mosaic History.
Good may signify either relative or absolute;
good for some, or good for all. Our Philosopher
confounds these two meanings. A good Religion
designed for all men, cannot be without a future
state: But a Religion given to a single Tribe,
singularly circumstanced, may be goody without a
future state.
Moses (says he) ignorant of a future state,
knew not enough to found a good Religion. Had
Moses, when he said nothing of & future state, been
equally silent concerning an extraordinary Pro
vidence, He might, I will confess, be concluded
by our Philosopher (who supposes him a mere civil
Lawgiver and uninspired) not to know enough to
found a good religion : But when the Philosopher
VOL. III. Z himself
338 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III
himself tells us that Moses had promised this extra^
ordinary providence when he omitted a future state ;
then, even on his own Idea of the Character of
Moses, he can never rationally conclude, that the
Lawgiver was not knowing enough in his office,
to found a good Religion, since we find that he did
indeed know the use of a future state, as he pro
vided a succedaneum for the want of it. Now, a
Religion which teaches all that natural Religion
teaches, viz. that God is, and that he is a rewarder
of them who seek him, must needs be a good Reli
gion; and the Founder cf it a perfect Master of
his business.
Let us consider what all other Lawgivers did,
whom our Philosopher will allow to have known
enough. They founded their Religions on this
common Principle, That God is, and that he is a
Rewarder, c. The doctrine of a future state was
ho more than a security for this Foundation, by
a proper sanction, under an unequal Providence,
Moses, under an equal dispensation of things,
wanted not this sanction for the security of his
Foundation, and therefore did riot employ it.
But then (adds the Philosopher) if the Mosaic
Religion was A GOOD Religion, JVhy was it abo
lished ? His equivocation in the use of the word
good, which may signify either relative or absolute
good, hath been already taken notice of. Had the
Mosaic Religion been absolutely good, that is, good
for all men as well as for the Jews, it had certainly
never
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 339
never been abolished. But good, in this sense, he well
knows, the Religion of Moses was never said to be,
by the Author of The Divine Legation, or any
other Believer. They only contend for its relative
goodness. It was relatively good, they say, as it fully
answered the design of God who gave it ; which
was, to preserve a chosen People^ separate from the
rest of mankind, to be a repository for the doctrine
of the UNITV; and to prepare the way for the
further R evelation of a Religion absolutely good,
or a Religion for the use of all Mankind. Now>
to ask, Why a Religion only relatively good was
abolished, to make way for another absolutely good,
for the sake of which, the first was given in the
interim, is a question that could be kept in coun
tenance by nothing but the impertinence of a formal
answer.
But, as our Philosopher, by his question, " If
" the Mosaic Religion was a good religion, Why
" was it abolished ? " seems to deny the justice
and reasonableness of such a conduct in the Deity,
I shall attempt, a little more fully,
to justify the ways of God to man.
" TRUE Religion (says he) should be for all times
" and all places." I have rarely found any other
labour in solving an objection to Revelation, than in
detecting and exposing the ambiguity and equivo
cation of the terms, in which such are almost
always delivered. It is the case here. True Religion
z 2 (as
340 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book lit
(as we before observed of good} may cither signify a
perfect Religion, or a Religion, truly coming from
God. True Religion, in the sense of a perfect Reli-
wn, hath certainly the attributes here assigned to
it, of being for all times and places ; and this, we
say, is amongst the attributes of the CHRISTIAN.
But tru-e Religion in the sense only of a Religion
truly corning from God, like the MOSAIC, doth
imply no such universality ; as shall be now shewn.
The assertion stands on this Principle, " That it
is not agreeable to what the best Philosophy teacheth
concerning the Nature and Attributes of the Deity,
to give a rule of life to one particular people,
exclusive of the rest of Mankind:" because such
a dispensation would imply partiality and an im
potent fondness for one above the rest. Now if
God s revealing himself to one Race or Family doth
imply in the act itself such a partiality, the Prin
ciple 13 well founded. But, it is apparent to common
sense, that it doth not imply it; since various other
.reasons, besides partial fondness, may be assigned
for the act. To know whether a partialjondness be
the motive, we must attend to the reasons which
the Divine Author hath given for the Dispen
sation; either explicitly by words in the declarations
Of his Messengers, or implicitly by circumstances
attending the Gift.
Now, we say, that the Jewish Religion (the Dis
pensation in question) contains all these proots, both
express and implied, of its not being given out of
4 J ondmsi
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 341
fondness for the Jews, or under a neglect of the
Gentiles; but, on the contrary, for the sake of
Mankind in general.
It is notorious, to all acquainted with ancient
History, that, at the time Moses revealed the Law
of God to the Jews, the whole Posterity of Adam,
by some disaster or other, had forgot the Lord their
Creator, and were sunk into the grossest Idolatries,
It is agreeable to all the ideas we have of God s
goodness, that he should rescue the human Race
from the miserable condition into which they had
fallen, through the abuse of their free-will ; and
out of which, by their own strength, they were
unable to extricate themselves.
The only remaining question, then, will be,
Whether, in this charitable work, Gop should seek
the way of performing it, in our ideas, or in his
own ? The Philosopher says, without all doubt m
ours: God should have relieved his labouring
Creatures all at once, and have proceeded directly
to the END, an universal Religion like the Christian;
instead of stopping so long at the MEANS, a partial
Religion like the Jewish. If God had any tiling to
dp in the matter, we may be assured, the universal
Religion would be delayed no longer than to the
time in which he foresaw, that the giving of it would
produce the best effects. And as Ages and Seasons
are in the hand of God, HE only knows the proper
Jime for the accomplishment of his end Indeed,
were Man a machine, and to be governed only by
z 3 thq
342 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
the Laws of matter and motion, we can conceive
no reason why infinite Wisdom did not pursue that
direct course which led immediately to the END,
instead of exercising its Providence so long in the
support and continuance of the MEANS. But as, in
the opinion of Religionists of all kinds, man is not a
machine, but was created an accountable Creature ;
and as none can be accountable without the power
and use of FREE-WILL; this Creature was to be
drawn (according to God s own expression) with the
cords of a man. But He only, who formed the
human heart, and knows what is in man, can tell
when these cords are to be relaxed, and when drawn
straight. In other words, the best means or method
of bringing all mankind to God s truth cannot
possibly be known by any but Himself. When we
have seen the method employed, and the effects it
hath produced, we have a sure way of knowing that
it was the best ; because it was employed by an all?
wise Conductor.
Now the Jewish Religion was the great MEAN,
employed by Providence, of bringing all men to
CHRIST. If this can be proved, and that the Mosaic
Law was not given to the Jews out of any partial
fondness for them, it will appear that a Religion
may be true, though it were not designed for all
times and places.
ABRAHAM (as appears by the history of his
Race) was called by God out of an idolatrous City,
to be the Father and founder of a People, which,
sequestered
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 343
sequestered from all other, was to preserve amongst
them, as in a sure Repository, the name and
memory of the Creator; at this point of time,
in imminent danger of being obliterated and lost ;
to preserve it, I say, till the fulness of time should
come ; that is, till an Universal Religion, founded in
the mystery of Redemption, should be revealed.
In the very entrance on this MEANS, the END was
imparted to the Father of the Faithful, viz. that
IN HIS NAME ALL THE FAMILIES UPON EARTH
SHOULD BE BLESSED.
When the race of Abraham were now become
numerous enough to support themselves in a National
sequestration, God informs them, by the ministry
of Moses, that the immediate blessings attending this
sequestration, were bestowed upon them for the sake
of their Father, Abraham, as the sequestration itself
was ordained for the sake of all Mankind, intimated
in the promise, that in his name all the Families
upon earth should be blessed. By the ministry of his
Prophets He repeats the same Lesson to them, viz.
that this distinction was not for their sakes, but for
his holy name s sake , that is, for the better mani
festation of his gracious Dispensation to all mankind.
And, without question, the exceeding perversity
and unworthiness of this People was recorded in
eacred story, as for other uses to us unknown,
so for this, to obviate that egregious folly both of
Jews and Gentiles, in supposing that the Israelites
were thus distinguished, or represented to be thus
z 4 distinguished,
344 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book III.
distinguished, as the peculiar Favourites of Heaven.
An absurdity which all who attended to the nature
of the God of Israel could confute : and which
the Jewish History amply exposes.
But if their HISTORY informs us for what they
were not selected, their LAW and their PROPHETS
inform us, for what they were. These declare,
in their different modes of information, that this
Religion was given, to prepare men for, and to
facilitate the reception of, one UNIVERSAL.
In the first place, Let us consider the RITUAL
or CEREMON i A L Law. If what I have here assigned
o
to be, was, in truth, the end of the Jewish Dispen
sation, we may expect to find this Ritual declara
tive of such a purpose. And on examination it will
be found to be so. The whole body of the ritual
Law being framed, in part, to oppose to the pre
vailing superstition of the Age in which it was
given; and, in part, to prefigure that future Dis
pensation, which was to take it away. By virtue of
I\\Q first part of its nature, the Jews were kept
separate : and by virtue of the second, they were
prepared to receive, and enabled to understand, the
Religion of their promised Messiah. This, for the
sake of mankind in general, was a necessary pro
vision, since the first Preachers of the Gospel were
preordained to be taken from amongst the Jewish
People.
As to the PROPHETS, which from time to time
were sent amongst them for the support of the
LAW .
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 345
LAW : These (as appears by their predictions) had
it principally in their Commission to acquaint their
Countrymen occasionally, and by slow degrees, with
the approaching GHANGE of their Economy, and
with the different NATURE of the new Dispensation.
Amongst the several intimations given them of the
change, I shall select only two of the most capital ;
the one is concerning the punishment of Children
for the crimes of their Fa 
