Full text of "Works"
O4SE
V v **"-- *-<-*:
SVJ^,;. ., v - C , C ^_vjal
v < f - *
<aeiff - C *"V-.
<r <r
<!
e I*:."-
C<1 y
KjaP 1
?
V.-:- Xi.
< . 4* ^ v. <t_5*t5-..
-v. <
< ,
-<
*
^ir
<v
C < o<y
THE
WORKS
OF THE
RIGHT REVEREND
WILLIAM WARBURTON,D.D.
LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER,
A NEW EDITION,
IN TWELVE VOLUMES,
TO WHICH IS PEEFIXED
A DISCOURSE BY WAY OF GENERAL PREFACE-}
CONTAINING
SOME ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE, WRITINGS, AND CHARACTER
OF THE AUTHOR ;
BY RICHARD T1URD, D.D.
LORD BISHOf OF WORCESTER.
^^ \
I
VOLUME THE FIFTH.
t
Printed by Luke Hansard <$ Sons, near Lincoln* s-Inn Fields,
FOR T. CADELL AND W. DA VIES, IN THE STRAND.
CONTENTS
o Y
VOL. V.
THE DIVINE LEGATION.
BOOK V.
THE NATURE OF THE JEWISH THEOCRACY EXPLAINED:
AMD THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE PROVED
NOT TO BE IN, NOR TO MAKE PART OF, THE MOSAIC
DISPENSATION - p. 1.
(SECT. I. Little light to be got from the systems of Chris
tian writers, or the objections of Deists, or from the
Rabbins, or from the Cabalists, concerning the true
nature of the Jewish Republic. The Hebrew People
separated from the rest of mankind not as favourites, but
to preserve the knowledge of the true God amidst an
idolatrous world, Vindicated from the calumnious false
hoods of the Poet Voltaire - - pp. i 19
SECT. II. Proves the Jewish Government to be a Theo
cracy. This form shewn to be necessary : There being
no other, by which opinions could be justly punished by
civil Laws ; And without such Laws against idolatry, the
Mosaic
VI CONTEXTS OF FITTH VOLUME.
Mosaic Religion could not be supported. The equity
of punishing opinions under a Theocracy, explained*
33aylc censured. Foster confuted. The Theocracy easily
introduced, as founded on a prevailing notion of tutelary
Deities. An objection of Mr. Collins to the truth of
Revelation examined and confuted. The easy intro
duction of the Theocracy, it is shewn, occasioned as
"easy a defection from the Laws of.it. The inquiry into
the reason of this leads to an explanation of the nature
of the Jewish idolatry. Lord Boiingbroke s accusation
of the Law of Moses examined and exposed, pp. 19 82
SECT. IJF. Treats of the Jurat ion of the T/ieocracy.
Shewn to h >ve continued till the coining of CHRIST.
The arguments of Spencer and Le Cierc to the contrary
examined. The Prophecy of Shiloh explained: the
Bishop of London s Discourse upon it examined and
confuted - pp. 83 117
SECT. IV. The Consequences of a Theocracy considered.
Shewn that it must be administered b} an extraordinary
Providence, equally dispensing temporal Rewards and
Punishments, both to the Community and to Particulars.
That Scripture gives this representation of GOD S
government. And that there are many favourable cir
cumstances in the character of he Jewish People, to
induce an impartial Examiner to believe thar represen
tation to be true - - - pp. 117158
SECT. V. Shews, that as temporal Rewards and Punish
ments were the proper sanction of the Jewish Law, so,
there were no other; Moses entirely omitting the Doc^
trine of a future State. That this omission was not
accidental, but designed; and of a. thing well known by
him to be of high importance to Society. Proved from
several circumstances in the book of Genesis, and from
the Law of punishing the crimes of Parents on their
Posterity,
CONTENTS OF IIFTII VOLUME. vii
Posterity, which was to supply the warit of the Doctrine
of a future state. The nature and equity of this Law
explained, and defended against Unbelievers. It is then
shewn that as Moses taught not the Doctrine of a future
State of Rewards and Punishments, so neither bad the
ancient Jews any knowle Ige of it. Proved from the
books of the Old Testament - pp. 158180
SECT. VI. Proves the same point from the books of the
New Testament. What notion the early Jews had con
cerning the Soul, explained - pp. 186 201
APPENDIX - - pp. sod 245
NOTES ON THE FIPTH BOOK - pp. 246 288
BOOK VL
CONTAINS AN EXAMINATION OF ALL THE TEXTS
A; R OUGHT FROM THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
TO PROVE A FUTURE STATE OF REWARDS AND
PUNISHMENTS DID MAKE PART OF THE MOSAIC
DISPENSATION - - - p. 289
SECT. I. States the Question, shews the Adversaries of
this Work to have much mistaken it. And that the true
siate of the question alone is a sufficient ansv/er to all
objections - - P- 2Sq 207
SECT- II. Enters on an examination of the Texts brought
o
from the Old Testament; first from the book of Joe--
which is proved to be an allegoric Poem, wriueu on the
return from (he Captivity, and representing the Circum
stances of the People of that time. The famous word,-,
I -know that rtiij Redeemer Jirzth. &e. shewn to .signify, in.
titeirlheral sense, the hope* of :) 1 wuorsl deliverance only,
pp. 297384
SECT.
CONTEXTS OF FIFTH VOLUME,
SECT. III. Contains an examination of the rest of the
Texts urged from the Old Testament * pp. 384 415
SECT. IV. Contains an examination of the Texts pro-*
cluced from the New Testament, in which the nature of*
the Apostolic Reasonings against the Errors of Jewish
Converts is explained and illustrated - pp. 415 444
NOTES to the first four Sections * pp. 445483
THE
DIVINE LEGATION OF MOSES
DEMONSTRATED.
BOOK V.
SECT. I
HAVING now examined the CHARACTER of
the Jewish People, and the TALENTS of their
Lawgiver, I come next to consider the NATURE of
that Policy, which by his ministry was introduced
amongst them. For in these tuo enquiries I hope to
lay a strong and lasting foundation for the support of
the third general proposition, That the doctrine of a
future state of rewards and punishments is not to be
found in, nor did make part of the Mosaic Dispen*
sation.
We find amongst this people a Policy differing
from all the Institutions of mankind ; in which the
two Societies, civil and religious, were perfectly incor
porated, with GOD ALMIGHTY, AS A TEMPORAL
GOVERNOR, at the head of both.
The peculiar administration attending so singular a
frame of Government hath always kept it from the
knowledge of superficial observers. Christian writers,
by considering Judaism as a Religious policy only, or
VOL. V, B a Church;
2 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
a Church ; and Deists, as a Civil policy only, or a
State ; have run into infinite mistakes concerning the
reason, the nature, and the end of its laws and insti
tutions. And, on so partial a view of it, no wonder
that neither have done justice to this amazing eco
nomy. Let us suppose, the famous picture of the
female centaur by Zeuxis, where two different Na
tures were so admirably incorporated, that the passage
from one to the other, as Lucian telis us *, became
insensible; let us, I say, suppose this picture to have
been placed before two competent judges, yet in such
different points of view, that the one could see only
the brutal, the other the human part ; would not the
first have thought it a beautiful horse, and the second,
as beautiful a woman ; and would not each have given
the creature supposed to be represented such functions
as he judged proper to the species in which he ranked
it ? But would not both of them have been mistaken ;
and would not a sight of the whole have taught them
to rectify their wrong judgments? as well knowing
that the functions of such a compounded animal,
ivhenever it existed, must be very different from those
of either of the other, singly and alone. From such
partial judges of the LAW therefore, little assistance
is to be expected towards the discovery of its true
nature.
Much less are we to expect from the Jewish Doc
tors : who, though they still keep sheltered, as it were,
in the ruins of -this august and awful Fabric ; yet patch
yt Tr
Iot* TO
itn. Z<uxb, c. 6, torn. I p. 843, Edit. Rcitzii, Amst. 410,
1743-
It
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 3
it up with the same barbarity of taste, and impotence
of science, that the present Greeks are wont to hide
themselves amongst the mouldering monuments of
Attic power and politeness. Who, as our travellers
inform us, take a beggarly pride in keeping up their
claim to these wonders of their Ancestors magnifi
cence, by white-washing the Parian marble with chalk,
and incrusting the porphyry and granate with tiles
and potsherds.
But least of all shall we receive light from the
fantastic visions of our English Cocceians* ; who
have sublimed the crude nonsense of the Cabalists, so
long buried in the dull amusement of picking Myste
ries out of letters, into a more spiritual kind of folly ;
a quintessence well defecated from all the impurities
of sense and meaning.
o
Therefore, to understand the nature of the Jewish
Economy, we must begin with this truth, to which
every page of the five books of Moses is ready to
bear witness, That the separation of the Israelites was
in order to preserve the doctrine of the UNITY, amidst
an idolatrous and polytheistic World. The necessity
of this provision shall be shewn at large hereafter )*.
At present we only desire the Deist would be so civil
as to suppose there mfght possibly be a sufficient
cause.
But now, because it is equally true, that this sepa
ration was fulfilling the promise made to ABRAHAM
their Father ; these men have taken occasion to re
present it as made for the sake of a FAVOURITE
PEOPLE . And then again, supposing such a partial
distinction to be inconsistent with the divine attri-
* The followers of Hutchiuson. f In the ninth book,
i See the first volume of the Divine Legation.
B 2 Lutes.,
4 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
butes, have ventured to arraign the LAW itself of im
posture.
But this representation of the fact is both unjust and
absurd. They cannot deny but it might be GOD S
purpose, at least, that it became his goodness, to pre
serve the doctrine of the UNITY amidst an idolatrous
world. But this (we know by the event) could never
be effected but by a separation of one part from the
rest. Nor could such a separation be made any
otherwise than by bringing that part under GOD S pe
culiar protection : The consequence of which were
GREAT TEMPORAL BLESSINGS. Now as SOme One
People must needs be selected for this purpose, it
seems most agreeable to our ideas of divine Wisdom,
which commonly effects many ends by the same means,
to make the blessings attendant on such a selection, the
reward of some high exalted virtue in the progenitors
of the chosen People. But therefore to object that
they were chosen as FAVOURITES, is both unjust and
absurd. Tiie separation was made for the sake of
Mankind in general ; though one People became the
honoured instrument, in reward of their Forefathers
virtues. And this is the language of those very Scrip
tures which, as they pretend, furnish the objection.
Where God, by the Prophet Ezekiel, promises to re
store the Israelites, after a short dispersion through the
Countries, to their own land, he declares this to be the
end of their separation : " Therefore say unto the
" house of Israel, Thus saith the LORD GOD, I DO NOT
" THIS FOR YOUR SAKES, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL,
" BUT FOR MINE HOLY NAME S SAKE, which VQ
" have profaned among the heathen whither ye went.
" And I will sanctify my great name which was pro--
" faned amongst the heathen, which ye have profaned
" in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know
that
Sect, i.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED.
" that I am the LORD, saith the LORD GOD, when I
" shall be sanctified in you before their ryes*/* What
GOD himself says of the PEOPLE, St. Paul says of
their LAW: "Wherefore then serveth the Law? IT
" WAS ADDED BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSIONS; till
" the seed should come, to whom the p was
" madef/ If was added, says the Apostle, To
what? To the patriarchal Religion of the UNtTYj.
To what end ? Because of transgressims, i. e, the
transgressions of polytheism and idolatry ; into which,
the rest of mankind were already absorbed, and the
Jews at that time, hastening apace ; and from which
there was no other means of restraining them, than
by this ADDITION; an addition that kept them sepa
rate from all others, and preserved the doctrine of the
UNITY tilt the coming of the promised seecL
But another thing offends *he Deists : they cannot
understand, let the end of this choice be what it
would, why GOD should prefer so perverse and sottish
a People, to all others. One reason hath been given
already ; that it was for the sake of their Forefathers,
and to fulfil the promise made to the Patriarchs. But
others are not wanting ; and those very agreeable to
the ideas we have of infinite Wisdom ; such, for in
stance, as this, That the EXTRAORDINARY PROVI
DENCE, by which they were blessed and protected,
might become the more visible and illustrious, For
had they been endowed with the shining qualities of
the more polished nations, the effects of that provi
dence might have been ascribed to their own power
or wisdom. Their impotence and inability, when left
to themselves, is finely represented in the Prophet
Ezekiel, by the similitude of the vine-tree : Son vf
* Ezek. xxxvi. 22, 23. t Gal. iii 19*
| See note [A] at the end of this Book*
B 3
6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
man, what is the vine-tree more than any tree, or than
a branch which is amongst the trees of the, forest ?
Shall wood be taken thereof to do any work ? or will
men take a pin of it to hang any vessel thereon ?
Therefore thus saith the Lord God, As the vine-tree
amongst the trees of the forest*, &c. For as the
vine, which, with cultivation and support, is the most
valuable of all trees, becomes the most worthless,
when left neglected in its own natural state : so the
Jews, who made so superior a figure under the parti
cular protection of GOD, when, for their sins, that
protection was withdrawn, became the weakest and
most contemptible of all tributary nations.
The Poet VOLTAIRE indeed has had a different
revelation. The pride of every individual amongst
" the Jews (says he) is interested in believing, that it
" was not their DETESTABLE POLICY, their ignorance
" in the arts, and their unpoliteness, which destroyed
" them ; but that it is GOD S anger which yet pursues
" them for their idolatries f." This DETESTABLE
POLICY (for so, with the free insolence of impiety,
characteristic of these times, he calls the MOSAIC
INSTITUTION) was a principle of independency : this
ignorance in the arts prevented the entrance of
luxury ; and this impoliteness hindered the practice of
it. And yet parsimony, frugality, and a spirit of li
berty, which naturally preserve other States, all tended,
in the ideas of this wonderful Politician, to destroy
the Jewish. Egypt was long lost for want of a spirit
of independency; Greece sunk by its knowledge in
the arts ; and Rome was ruined by its politeness ; yet
* Chap. xv. ver. 3.
f L orgucil de chaque Juif est interesse a croire que ce n est
point sa DETESTABLE POLITIQUE, son ignorance des arts, sa
grossierete, qui 1 a perdu ; mais que c est la colere de Dieu que le
punit, Rera. ix. sur les pensees de Pascal.
Judea
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 7
Judea suffered for the want of all these causes of de
struction. Is not this more than a thousand topical
arguments, to prove, that they were ruined by nothing
but by their idolatries, which brought down GOD S
vengeance upon them ? But any contrivance will serve
a Poet, any argument will satisfy a Freethinker, to
keep a GOD and his providence at a distance, And
that the PEOPLE were as DETESTABLE as their PO
LICY, the same Poet, the virtuous Voltaire assures
us " We do not find (says he) throughout the whole
u annals of the HEBREW" PEOPLE one generous ac-
" tion. They are utter strangers both to hospitality,
" to beneficence, and to clemency. Their sovereign-
" good is the practice of Usury, with all but their
" own nation. And this disposition, the principle of
" all baseness, is so inrooted in their hearts, that
" Usury is the constant object of the figures they em-
" ploy in that species of eloquence which is peculiar
" to them. Their glory is to lay waste with Jire and
" sword, such paltry villages as they were just able to
" storm : They cut the throats of the old men and
" children^ and reserve from slaughter only the mar-
" riageable virgins. They assassinate their masters
" when they are slaves, They fare Incapable of par-
" donlng when they conquer * THEY ARE THE FOES
4< OF ALL *
* On ne voit dans toutes les Annales du people Hebreu auctme
action genereuse. Us ne connaissent ni Hiospitalite, m la libe-
ralite, ni la clemence. Leur souveraio boaheur est d*exerccr
Tusure avec les otrangers ; et cet esprit dc usure, principe de toutc
lachete, est telkrnent enraeine clans leurs occurs, qe c est 1 objet
contiriuel des figures, qu ils employent dans Vespece d"e!oqnenc^
qui leur est propre. Leur gloire est de mettve i feu <Sc k sang lea
petits villages, dont ils peuvent s einparer. Us egorgc-nt les
vieillards & les enfans; ils ne reservent que IcsfiUes awbiJes; il*
assassinent leurs Maitres quand Us sovit csclaves; ilsnesuvent
janiais pardonnerquandilssontVain^ueurs; m* SONT WLS E>
MIS DU GENRE iiv AIAIK . Addit. a THist* Genej-aJ e, $
B 4 Such
8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
Such is the strong colouring of our MORAL PAINTER.
He has dipt his pencil in sulphur to delineate with
horns and tails, these chosen instruments of God s
vengeance on a devoted Nation, overrun with UNNA
TURAL LUST and brutish Idolatry; for to their de
struction, the murders, the rapine, and the violations
here charged upon the Hebrew People, allude. For
the rest, it is so much below all criticism, that one
is almost ashamed to touch upon it. Otherwise, we
might observe, that, in his rage, he hath confounded
the character of the ancient HEBREWS with that of the
modern JEWS, two people as much unlike as the an
cient Francs to modern Frenchmen. We mi^ht be
o
merry with ttie nonsense, of Usury s being the object
of their jigures of eloquence ; which yet is not more
ridiculous in the thought than absurd in the expression;
his meaning, I suppose, being, that their figures of elo
quence are formed from, and allude to, the circum
stances attending their practice of Usury.
But the affair grows more serious, as we proceed
with our General Historian ; and we shall find that
this unh u)t>y People, however they may stand with
their God, certainly, at present, for some reason or
other, lie under the Poet s curse. And from his un
common knowledge of their Usury and their eloquence,
I should suspect, he had lately been transacting some
money-matters with them, and had been not only out
witted but out-talked too into the bargain.
As to their HATRED OF ALL MANKIND, (the
choppin^-block of infidelity) we have it over again,
and more at large, in another place. " You are
" (says he to his reader) struck with that hatred and
" contempt, which all people have always entertained
" tor the Jewish Nation. It is the unavoidable con-
" sequence of THEIR LEGISLATION ; which reduced
" things
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. g
" things to the necessity, that either the Jews must
" enslave the whole world, or that they, in their turn,
" must be crushed and destroyed. IT WAS COM-
" HANDED THEM to hold all other People in abhor-
tc rence, and to think themselves polluted if they had
" eat in the same dish which belonged to a man of
" another religion BY THE VERY LAW ITSELF,
" they at length found themselves the natural enemies
" of THE WHOLE RACE OF MANKIND*."
I believe it will not be easy to find, even in the
dirtiest sink of Freethinking, so much falsehood, absur
dity, and malice, heaped together in so few words.
He says, There was an inevitable necessity, arising
from the very genius of the Law itself, either that
this people should enslave the whole world, or that they,
in their, turn, sliould be c turned and destroyed.
It might be thought unreasonable to expect that a
Poet should read his Bible : but one might be allowed
to supppse that he had heard at least of its general
contents. If he ever had, could he, unmasked, and
in the face of the sun, have said, " That the MOSAIC
" LAW directed or encouraged the Jewish people to
" attempt extensive conquests ? " That very LAW,
which not only assigned a peculiar and narrow district
for the abode of its followers ; but, by a number of
Institutions, actually confined them within those limits:
Such as the stated division of the land to each Tribe ;
the prohibition of the use of horses ; the distinction of
* Vous etes frappes de cette haine & de ce mepris que toutes
les nations ont toujuurs eu pour la -Nation Juive. C est la suite
inevitable de LEUR LEGISLATION ; il ialloit, ou que ce Peuple sub-
juguat tout, ou qu il fut ecrase. II lui fut ordonne d avoir, les
nations en horreur, & de se croire souilles s ils avaient mange dans
un plat, qui cut appartenu a un homme d un autre Loi ils se
trouverent PAR LEUR LOI MEME enfin Ennemis naturels da
GENRE HUMAIX. Add, a 1 Hist. Generalc, p. 174.
meats
10 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
meats into clean and unclean ; the yearly visit of each
individual to Jerusalem ? with many others. The Poet,
who appears throughout his whole history to be a much
tetter Mussulman than a Christian, was surely, when
fee said this, in some pious meditation on the ALCOKAN ;
which indeed, by the inevitable consequence of its
Legislation^ must either set the Saracens upon en
slaving all mankind, or all mankind on extirpating so
pernicious a crew of miscreants.
But the Jews, he tells us, were COMMANDED to
hold all other people in abhorrence. If he had said,
to hold their IDOLATRIES in abhorrence, he had said
true ; but that was saying nothing. To tell the world
that the Jews were commanded to hold the PERSONS
0f Idolaters in abhorrence^ was done like a Poet.
But when he goes on to say, that The Jews found*
BY THE VERY CONSTITUTION OF THE LAW ITSELF,
that they, were the NATURAL ENEMIES of all mankind^
this was not like a Poet, being indeed a transgression
of the PROBABLE ; for by the constitution oj the Law
itself, every Jew that could read, found all mankind to
be- his BRETHREN. For Moses, to prevent any such
estrangement, which some other parts of his Institution,
if abused, might occasion, was careful to acquaint the
chosen Family with the origin of the human race, and
of their descent from one man and woman ; and, in
order to impress this salutary truth more strongly on
their minds, he draws out an exact genealogy from
Adam, not only of the direct line which was to inhabit
the land of Judea, but of all the collateral branches
by which the whole earth was peopled.
So that were our Poet to turn Lawgiver, (which he
might as well do, as GENERAL HISTORIAN) and sit
down to contrive a method by which brotherly love
and Affection might be best established amongst the
2 sons
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, n
sons of men, one might defy him, with all his poetical
or historical invention, to hit upon any more efficacious
than that which Moses has here employed. St. Paul,
when he would enlarge the affections of the Athenians
(to whom all other nations, as well as the Jews, were
become BARBARIANS) to that extent which Christian
benevolence requires, employed no other topic than this,
that GOD HAD MADE OF ONE BLOOD ALL NATIONS
OF MEN : and from thence inferred, that they all stand
in the relation of BRETHREN to one another.
But it may be asked, What are we then to think of
that ODIUM HUM AN i GENERIS, with which the ancient
Pagans charged the Jews ? I have shewn, in the first
volume of this work, that there was not the least
shadow from fact to support this calumny ; and that it
was merely an imaginary consequence, which they drew
from the others declared hate and abhorrence of the
Idols of Paganism, and firm adherence to the sole
worship of the one true God. But besides this original,
the Principles and Doctrine, there was another, the
Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaic Religion ; either
of tliem sufficient alone to perpetuate this wretched
calumny amongst ignorant and prejudiced men. That
the Doctrine was worthy of its original, the enemies
of Revelation confess ; That the establishment of the
Ceremonies, as they were necessary to support the
Doctrine, were of no less importance, I shall now shew
our Poet.
To separate one people from all others, in order
to preserve the doctrine of the Unity, was a just
purpose.
No separation could be made but by a ceremonial Law.
No ceremonial Law could be established for this
purpose, but what must make the Gentiles be esteemed
unclean by the separated People.
The
12 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
The eon sequence of an estimated undeanness, must
be the avoiding it with horror : which, when observed
by their enemies, would be maliciously represented to
arise from this imaginary odium humani generis. What
idea then must we needs entertain, I will not say of
the Religion, but of the common honesty of a modern
Writer, who, without the least knowledge of the Jewish
Nation or their Policy, can repeat an old exploded
calumny with the assurance of one who had discovered
a newly acknowledged truth ? But the Pagans were
decent when compared to this rude Libertine. They
never had the insolence to say, that this pretended
Utate of all mankind was COMMANDED BY THE LAW
ITSELF. They had more sense as well as modesty.
They reverenced the great Jewish Lawgiver, who, they
saw, by his account of the origin of the human race,
liad laid the strongest foundation amongst his people*
of brotherly love to all men. A foundation, which not
one of the most celebrated Lawgivers of Antiquity
&ad either the wit to inforce^ or the sagacity to dis
cover.
Well, but if the Jews were indeed that DETESTA*BLH
People which the Poet Voltaire represents them to be,
they were properly fitted however with a Law, which,
be assures us ; was full as DETESTABLE. What pity
is it that he did not know just so much of his Bible,
however, as might serve to give some small countenance
at least to his impieties ! We might then have had the
Prophet to support the Poet, where, speaking in the
name of God, he says, / gave them Statutes that
were not good, find Judgments whereby they should
not live *. But to leave this to his maturer projects ;
and go on with him, in his pious design of eradicating
Ezekiel. See Book IV. 6.
this
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 13
this devoted People ; for he assures us, we see, that
unless they be rooted out, their DETESTABLE POLICY
will set them upon enslaving all mankind.
He hath shewn the PEOPLE to be detestable, and
their LAW to be detestable-, and well has he provided
for the reception of both, a most detestable COUNTRY.
You may, if you please, suppose all this done in vin
dication of the good providence of the God of Israel;
for a People so bad, certainly deserved neither a better
Government nor Habitation. No, he had a nobler
end than this ; it was to give the lie to the Legate of
the God of Israel, who promised to them in his Master s
name, A land flowing with milk and honey, the glory
of all lands. Having gotten Moses at this advantage,
by the assistance of Servetus and his followers (for he
always speaks from good authority) he draws this
delightful picture of the HOLY LAND " All of it
" which is situated towards the south, consists of DE-
" SERTS OF SALT SANDS on the side of the Mediter-
" ranean and Egypt; and of HORRID MOUNTAINS
" all the way to Esiongaber, towards the Red-Sea,
" These sands, and these rocks, at present possessed
" by a few straggling Arabian Robbers, were the an-
" cient patrimony of the Jews *."
Now admitting this account to be true: i. In
the first. place, we may inform our Poet, that, from the
face of a country lying desert, there is no safe judg
ment to be made of the degree of its fertility when well
cultivated ; especially of such a one as is here described,
consisting of rugged mountains and sandy plains, which,
* Tout ce qui est situe vers le midi cousiste en deserts de sables
sales du cote de la Mediterranee & de 1 Egypte, & en montagnes
affreuses jusqu a Esiongaber vers la Mcr Rouge. Ces sables &
ces rochers, liabites aujourd-hui pt .r quelques A rubes Voleurs,
*ont 1 ancienne patrie des Juifs. Add. a, 1 IIist. Generale, p. 83.
without
14 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
without culture, indeed, produce nothing, but which,
by human industry in a happy climate, may be made
to vie with soils naturally the most prolific. 2. It
appears, from the vast numbers which this country
actually sustained in the most flourishing times of the
Theocracy, that it well answered the character their
Lawgiver had bestowed upon it, of a land flowing with
milk and honey. 3. The Israelites, when they took
possession of it, certainly found it to come up to the
character which Moses had given them, of a place
where they should find great and goodly Cities which
they had not builded, houses full of good things which
they had not Jilted, wells digged which they had not
digged, and vineyards and olive-trees which they had
not planted*. If, I say, they had riot found it so, we
should soon have heard of it, from the most turjbulent
and dissatisfied people upon earth. And it was no
wonder they found it in this condition, since they had
wrested it from the hands of a very numerous and
luxurious People, who had carried arts and arms to
some height, when they, in any sense, could be said to
have Cities fenced up to Heaven. But the Poet has a
solution of this difficulty ; for to the Israelites, just got
out of their forty years captivity in the Wilderness,
this miserable country must needs appear a paradise,
in comparison of the Deserts of Param and Cadish
Barnea f. Now it is very certain, that no Desert
thereabout, could be more horrid or forbidding than
that of Judea, as the Poet has here drawn the land
scape. But does he think they had quite forgot the
fertile plains of Egypt all this time ? And if they corn-
fared the promised Inheritance to the Wilderness on
* Deut. vi viii.
f Ce pais fut pour eux une terre delicieuse ea coinparaisou
des Deserts de Param & de Cades-Barpe, Ib.
the
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, 15
the one hand, would they not be as apt to compare it
to Egypt on the other ? And what Judea gained by the
first, it would loose by the second. But he will say,
that Generation which came out of Egypt, fell in the
Wilderness. What if they did ? they left their fond
ness for its flesh-pots behind them, as we are sufficiently
informed from the excessive attachment of their pos
terity for Egyptian luxury of every kind. 4. But let
us admit his account of the sterility of the promised
Land, and then see how the pretensions of the Mosaic
Mission will stand. We will consider this sterility in
cither view, as corrigible, or as incorrigible.
If corrigible, we cannot conceive a properer region
for answering the ENDS of Providence, as Moses has
delivered them unto us, with regard to this People,
The first great blessing bestowed on mankind, was to
be particularly exemplified in the posterity of .Abraham,
which was to be like the sand on the sea-shore for
multitude: and yet they were to be confined within
the narrow limits of a single district : so that some
proportionate provision was to be made for its nume
rous Inhabitants. Affluence by commerce they could
not have ; for the purpose of their separation required
that Idolaters should no more be permitted to come
and pollute them, than that they should go amongst
Idolaters to be polluted by them : And accordingly, a
sufficient care was taken, in the framing of their Laws,
to hinder this communication at cither eud. Thus the
advantages from commerce being quite cut off, they had
only agriculture to have recourse to, for subsistence
of their multitudes. And the natural sterility of the
land would force them upon every invention to improve
it. And artificial culture produces an abundance,
which unassisted nature can never give to the most
fruitful soil and most benignant climate. Add to this,
that
16 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
that a People thus sequestered, would, without such
constant attention to the art, and application to the
labour, which the meliorating of a backward soil re
quires, soon degenerate into barbarous and savage
manners ; the first product of which has been always
seen to be a total ob ivion of a God.
But if we are to suppose what the Poet would
seem to insinuate, in discredit of the Dispensation,
that the soil of Judea was absolutely incorrigible ., a
more convincing proof cannot be given of that EX
TRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE which Moses promised
to them. So that if the corrigibility of a bad soil
perfectly agreed with the END of the Dispensation,
which was a separation, the incorrigibility of it was
as well fitted to the MEAN, which was an extraordi
nary Providence. For the fact, that Judea did sup
port those vast multitudes, being unquestionable, and
the natural incapacity of the country so to do being
allowed, nothing remains but that we must recur to
that extraordinary Providence, which not only was
promised, but was the natural consequence 01 a Theo
cratic form of government. But I am inclined to
keep between the two contrary suppositions, and take
up the premisses of the one, and the conclusion of the
other : to hold that the sterility of Judea was very
corrigible ; but that all possible culture would be in
adequate to the vast numbers which it sustained, and
that therefore its natural produce was still further mul
tiplied by an extraordinary blessing upon the land.
To support this system, we may observe, that this
extraordinary assistance was bestowed more eminently,
because more wanted, while the Israelites reiii. \ d
in the Wilderness, MOSES, whose word will yet go
as far as our General Historians, iuys, that when
God took Jacob up, to give him his LAW,- he found^
him
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 17
him indeed in a desert Land., and in the waste-howling
wilderness ; but it was no longer such, when now God
had the leading of him. " He led him about" [i.e.
while he was preparing him for the conquest of the
promised Land] " He instructed him" [i.e. by the
LAW, which he there gave him] " He kept him as the
" apple of his eye" [i.e. he preserved him thereby
his extraordinary Providence;] the effects of which
he describes in the next words, " He made him ride
" on the high places of the earth, 1 [i.e. he made the
Wilderness to equal, in its produce, the best cultivated
places] " that he might eat the increase of the fields ;
" and he made him to suck honey out of the Rock,
" and oil out of the flinty Rock : Butter of kine, and
" milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the
c< breed of Bashan" [i. e. as large as that breed] " and
" goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat," [i. e. the
flour of wheat] " and them didst drink the pure blood
" of the Grape."
That this was no fairy-scene, appears from the ef
fects " Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art
6 waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered
" with fatness; then he forsook God which made
" him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salva-
* tion*," &c. This severe reproof of Moses cer
tainly did not put the Israelites in an humour, to take
the wonders in the foregoing account on his word, had
the facts he appeals to been the least equivocal.
On the whole, we can form no conception how God
could have chosen a People, and assigned them a land
to inhabit, more proper for the display of his almighty
Power, than the People of Israel and the land of
Judea. As to the People, the PROPIIKT In his Para
ble of the Vine-tree, informs us, that they were natu-
* Deut. xxxii. 10, & seq.
VOL, V. C rally,
i THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V,
rally, the weakest and most contemptible of all na
tions : and as to the land, the POET, in his great Fa
ble, which he calls a General History, assures us, that
Judea was the vilest and most barren of all countries.
Yet somehow or other this chosen People became the
Instructors of mankind, in the noblest office of huma
nity, the science of true Theology : and the promised
Land, while made subservient to the worship of one
God, was changed, from its native sterility, to a region
flawing with milk and honey ; and, by reason of the
incredible numbers \vhich it sustained, deservedly en
titled the GLORY OF ALL LANDS.
This is the state of things which SCRIPTURE lays
before us. And I have never yet seen those strong
reasons, from the schools of Infidelity, that should
induce a man, bred up in any school at all, to prefer
their logic to the plain facts of the Sacred Historians.
I have used their testimony to expose one, who, in
deed, renounces their authority : but in this I am not
conscious of having transgressed any rule of fair
reasoning. The Freethinker laments that there is no
contemporary historian remaining, to confront with the
Jewish Lawgiver, and detect his impostures. How
ever, he takes heart, and boldly engages his credit to
confute him from his own history. This is a fair at
tempt. But he prevaricates on the very first onset.
The Sacred History, besides the many civil facts which
it contains, has many of a miraculous nature. Of
these, our Freethinker will allow the first only to be
brought in evidence. And then bravely attacks his
adversary, who has now one hand tied behind him :
for the civil and the miraculous facts, in the Jewish
Dispensation, have the same, nay, a nearer relation to
each other, than the two hands of the same body ; for
these may be used singly and independently, though
to
Sect, i.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 19
to disadvantage ; whereas the civil and the miraculous
facts can neither be understood nor accounted for, but
on the individual inspection of both. This is con
fessed by one who, as clear-sighted as he was, certainly
did not see the * consequence of what he so liberally
acknowledged. " The miracles in the Bible" (says
his philosophic Lordship) " are not like those in Livy,
" detached pieces, that do not disturb the civil His-
c< tory, which goes on very well without them. But
" the miracles of the Jewish Historian are intimately
" connected with all the civil affairs, and make a ne-
" cessary and inseparable part. The whole history
" is founded in them ; it consists of little else ; and
" if it were not an history of them, it would be a
" history of nothing j*.
From all this, I assume that where an Unbeliever,
a Philosopher if you will, (for the Poet Voltaire makes
them convertible terms) pretends to show the false
hood of Moses s mission from Moses s own history of
it ; he who undertakes to confute his reasoning, argues
fairly when he confutes it upon facts recorded in that
history, whether they be of the miraculous or of the
civil kind : since the two sorts are so inseparably con
nected, that they must always be taken together, to
make the history understood, or the facts which it
contains intelligible.
SECT. II.
ALLOWING it then, to have been GOD S pur
pose to perpetuate the knowledge of himself amidst
an idolatrous World, by the means of a separated
People ; let us see how this design was brought
See the View of Lord Bolingbroke s Philosophy, Vol. XII.
t Bolingbroke s Posthumous Works, vol. iii, p. 279.
c 2
20 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V,
when the Family, he had chosen, was now become
numerous enough to support itself under a separation ;
and Idolatry, which was grown to its most gigantic
stature*, was now to be repressed.
The Israelites were, at this time, groaning under the
yoke of Egypt; whither the all-wise providence of
God had conducted them, while they were yet few in
number, and in danger of mixing anji confounding
themselves with the rest of the Na&ons. In this
distress, one of their own brethren is sent to them
with a message from GOD, by the name and character
of the GOD OF THEIR FATHERS, whose virtues GOD
had promised to reward with distinguished blessings
on their Posterity. The message, accompanied with
signs and wonders, denounced their speedy deliverance
from Egyptian bondage, and their certain possession
of the land of Canaan, the scene of all the promised
blessings. The People hearken, and are delivered.
They depart from Egypt; and in the third month
from their departure, come to Mount Sinai. Here
GOD first tells them by their Leader, MOSES, that, if
they would obey his voice indeed, and keep his Cove
nant } then they should be a PECULIAR TREASURE to
him above all people, for that the WHOLE EARTH was
his f. Where we see an example of what hath been
observed above, that whenever an Institution was
given to this People, in compliance with the notions
they had imbibed in Egypt, a corrective was always
joined with it, to prevent the abuse. Thus God hav
ing here told them, that if they would obey his voice
they should be his peculiar treasure above all people,
(speaking in the character of a tutelary God;) to
prevent this compliance from falling into abuse, as the
* See note [B] at the end of this Book,
f Exod. xix. 5.
division
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 21
division of the several regions of the earth to several
celestial rulers was inseparably connected with the
idea of a tutelary Deity, he adds, as a reason for
making this People his Peculiar, a circumstance de
structive of that Pagan notion of tutelary Gods
for that the WHOLE EARTH was his. Well. The
people consent*; and GOD delivers the Covenant to
them, in the words of the two Tables f.
But this promise, of their being received for GOD S
peculiar treasure, could be visibly performed no other
wise than by their separation from the rest of man
kind. As on the other hand, their separation could
not have been effected without this visible protection.
And this, Moses observes in his intercession for the
people : For wherein shall it be known /it re:, that I
and thy people have found grace in thy si^hl ? Is it
not in that THOU GOEST WITH us ? So shall we be
SEPARATED, I and thy people, from all the people that
are upon t he face of the earth J. The better, there
fore, to secure this separation, GOD proposes to them,
to become their KING. And, for reasons that will be
explained anon, condescends to receive the Magis
tracy, on their free choice. And ye shall be unto me
a kingdom of priests^, and an holy nation. -And all
the people answered together and said, All that the
Lord hath spoken we will d&\\. GOD then delivers
them a Digest of their civil and religious Laws, and
settles the whole Constitution both of Church and
State. Thus the Almighty becoming their KING, in
as real a sense as he was their GOD, the republic of
the Israelites was properly a THEOCRACY ; in which
*-Exod. xix. 8. f Chap. xx. J Chap, xxxiii. 16. .
For -where God is King, every suljcct is, in some sense or
other, a priest ; because in that case,- civil obedience must have in
it the nature of religious ministration.
II Exod. xix. 68.
c 3 the
22 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
the two Societies, civil and religious, were of course
intircly incorporated. A thing neither attended to
nor understood. The name indeed is of familiar use :
but how little men mean by it, is seen from hence,
that those who, out of form, are accustomed to call it
a Theocracy, yet, in their reasonings about it, consider
it as a mere Aristocracy under the Judges ; and as a
mere Monarchy under the Kings : whereas, in truth,
it was neither one nor the other, but a real and proper
.THEOCRACY, under both.
Thus was this famous SEPARATION made. But it
will be asked, Why in so extraordinary a way ? A way,
in which the sagacious Deist can discover nothing but
the marks of the Legislator s fraud, and the People s
superstition. As to what a mere human Lawgiver
could gain by such a project, will be seen hereafter.
At present, it will be sufficient, for the removal of
these suspicions, to shew, that a THEOCRACY WAS
NECESSARY, as the separation could not be effected
any other way.
It appears, from what hath been shewn above, that
the Israelites had ever a violent propensity to mix with
the neighbouring Nations, and to devote themselves
to the practices of idolatry : this would naturally, and
did, in fact, absorb large portions of them. And the
sole human means which preserved the remainder,
was the severity of their civil Laws against idolatry *.
Such
* " If there be found amongst you within any of thy gates
" which the LOKD thy GOD giveth thee, man or woman that
" hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy GOD in
" transgressing his covenant; and hath gone and served other
" gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or the moon, or
" any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; and
" it be told Ihee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired dili-
" gently, and behold it be true, and the thing certain, that such
" abomination is wrought in Israel : then shall thou bring forth
Q that
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 23
Such laws, therefore, were necessary to support a
separation. But penal Laws, inforced by the ordinary
Magistrate, for matters of opinion, are manifestly
unjust. Some way therefore was to be contrived to
render these Laws equitable. For we are not to sup
pose GOD would ordain any thing that should violate
the rule of natural justice. Now these penal laws are
equitable only in a Theocracy : therefore was a THEO
CRACY NECESSARY.
That the punishment of opinions, by civil Laws,
under a THEOCRACY, is agreeable to the rules of na
tural justice, I shall now endeavour to prove.
LTnbelievers and intolerant Christians have both
tried to make their advantage of this part of the
Mosaic institution. The one using it as an argument
against the divinity of the Jewish Religion, on pre
sumption that such Laws are contrary to natural
equity ; and the other bringing it to defend their into
lerant principles by the example of Heaven itself.
But they are both equally deceived by their ignorance
of the nature of a Theocracy : which, rightly under
stood, clears the Jewish Law from an embarrassing
objection, and leaves the rights of mankind inviolate.
Mr. Bayle, in an excellent treatise for Toleration,
when he comes to examine the arguments of the In-
tolerants, takes notice of that which they bring from
the example in question. " The fourth objection
" (says he) may arise from hence, that the Law of
" Moses gives no toleration to idolaters, and false
( prophets, whom it punishes with death ; and from
" what the Prophet Elijah did to the Priests of Baal,
" whom
tc that man or that woman (which have committed that wicked
;< thing) unto thy gates, even that man, or that woman, and shalt
** stone them with stones till they die." Deut. xvii. 2, 3, 4, 5.
C 4
24 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
" whom he ordered to be destroyed without mercy.
6 From whence it follows, that all the reasons I have
c employed, in the first part of this commentary, prove
" nothing, because they prove too much; namely,
" that the literal sense of the Law of Moses, as far
" as relates to the punishment of opinions, would be
" impious and abominable. Therefore, since GOD
<c could, without violating the eternal order of things,
" command the Jews to put false prophets to death,
" it follows, evidently, that he could, under the Gos-
" pel also, command orthodox believers to inflict the
" same punishment upon heretics.
" I am not, if I rightly know myself, of that temper
" of mind, so thoroughly corrupted by the contagion
" of Controversy, as to treat this objection with an
" air of haughtiness and contempt; as is the way
" when men find themselves incapable of answering
" to the purpose. I ingenuously own the objection
" to be strong ; and that it seems to be a mark of
" GOD S sovereign pleasure, that we should not arrive
" at certainty in any thing, seeing he hath given ex-
" ceptions in his holy word to almost all the common
t( notices of reason. Nay, I know some who have no
" greater difficulties to hinder their believing that GOD
" was the author of the Laws of Moses, and of all
" those Revelations that occasioned so much slaughter
" and devastation, than this very matter of into-
" lerance, so contrary to our clearest ideas of natural
" equity *.
"Whether Mr. Bayle himself was one of these back
ward believers, as by some of his expressions he
gives us reason to suspect, is not material. That he
* Voions presentement cette iv. objection. On la peut tirer
de ce que la loi du JMo ise, &c. Commentaire Philosophique,
Part ii. Chap. 4.
dwelt
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 25
dwelt with pleasure on this circumstance, as favouring
his beloved scepticism, is too evident. But sure he
went a little too far when he said, GOD S word contains
exceptions to almost all the common notices of reason *.
I hope to shew, before I have done with Infidelity,
that it contains exceptions to none. Our excellent
countryman Mr. LOCKE, who wrote about this time
on the same subject, and with that force and precision
which is the character of all his writings, was more
reasonable and modest in his account of this matter.
As to the case (says he) of the Israelites in the Jewish
Commonwealth, who being initiated into the Mosalcal
rites, and made citizens of the commonwealth, did after
wards apostatize from the worship of the GOD of
Israel, these were proceeded against as traitors and
rebels, guilty of no less than high treason. For the.
commonwealth of the Jews, different, in that, from all
others, was an absolute THEOCRACY; nor was there,
nor could there be, any difference between the Com
monwealth and the Church. The Laws established
there concerning the worship of the one invisible Deity
were the civil Laws of that people, and a part of their
political Government, in which GOD himself was the
Legislator f . This he said ; but it being all he said,
I shall endeavour to support his solution by such
other reasoning as occurs to me. It will be necessary
then to observe, that GOD, in his infinite wisdom, was
pleased to stand in two arbitrary relations towards the
Jewish People, besides that natural one, in which he
stood towards them and the rest of mankind in com
mon. The first was that of a tutelary Deity, gentilitial
and local-, the GOD of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
* par les exceptions qu il a mise dans sa parole a presque
toutes les notions communes de la raison.
f Letter concerning Toleration, p. 37. Ed. 1689,
who
26 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
who was to bring their posterity into the land of Canaan,
and to protect them there, as his peculiar People.
The second was that of supreme Magistrate and
Lawgiver. And in both these relations he was pleased
to refer it to the people s free choice, whether or no
they would receive him for their GOD and KING. For
a tutelary Deity was supposed by the Ancients to be
as much matter of election as a civil Magistrate. The
People, therefore, thus solemnly accepting him, these
necessary consequences followed from the HOREB
CONTRACT.
I. First, that as the national GOD and civil Ma
gistrate of the Jews centered in one and the same
object, their civil Policy and Religion must be inti
mately united and incorporated * ; consequently, their
religion had, and very reasonably, A PUBLIC PART,
whose subject was the Society as such : though this
part, in the national pagan Religions, which had it
likewise, was extremely absurd, as hath been shewn
more at large in the first volume f.
II. Secondly, as the two Societies were thoroughly
incorporated, they could not be distinguished ; but
must stand or fall together. Consequently the direc
tion of all their civil Laws must be for the equal pre
servation of both. Therefore, as the renouncing him
for King was the throwing him off as God ; and as the
renouncing him for God was the throwing him off as
King ; idolatry, which was the rejecting him as GOD,
was properly the crimen lagste majestatis ; and so
justly punishable by the civil Laws. But there was
* Such a kind of union and incorporation was most absurdly
affected by MAHOMET, in imitation of the Jewish Economy;
whence, as might be expected, it appears that neither he nor his
assistants understood any thing of its true nature.
-j- See Divine Legation, B. II. Sect, i. pp. 309, 310.
this
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 27
this manifest difference in these two cases, as to
the effects. The renouncing GOD as civil Magistrate
might be remedied without a total dissolution of the
Constitution ; not so, the renouncing him as tutelary
GOD : because, though he might, and did * appoint a
deputy, in his office of KING, amongst the Jewish
tribes; yet he would have no substitute, as GOD,
amongst the pagan Deities. Therefore, in necessity
as well as of right, idolatry was punishable by the civil
Laws of a THEOCRACY ; it being the greatest crime
that could be committed against the State, as tending,
by unavoidable consequence, to dissolve the Con
stitution. For the one GOD being the supreme
Magistrate, it subsisted in the worship of that GOD
alone. Idolatry, therefore, as the renunciation of one
GOD alone, was in a strict philosophic, as well as legal
sense, the crime of lese-majesty. Let us observe
farther, that as, by such INCORPORATION, religious
matters came under civil consideration, so likewise
civil matters came under the religious. This is what
Josephus would say, where, in his second book against
Apion, speaking of the Jewish Theocracy, he tells
us that Moses did not make Religion a part of Virtue,
but Virtue a part of Religion^. The meaning is,
that, as in all human Societies, obedience to the
Law is moral Virtue; under a THEOCRACY, it is
Religion.
III. The punishment of Idolatry, by Law, had this
farther circumstance of equity, that it was punishing
* The kings of Israel and Judah being, as we shall shew, indeed
no other.
O OTt t T#
IV KTTOtffl, 7Vp<$UV\CtV p. 483. HuV. Ed.
the
aS THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
the rebellion of those who had chosen the Government
under which they lived, when freely proposed to
them. Hence, in the Law against idolatry, the crime
is, with great propriety, called the TRANSGRESSION OF
THE COVENANT*.
Thus we see, the Law in question stands clear of the
cavils of Infidels, and the abuse of Intolerants f.
But to this, the defender of the common rights of
subjects may be apt to object, that " these penal laws
" were unjust, because no contract to give up the rights
" of conscience can be binding."
To which I reply, with a plain and decisive fact,
That none of all the idolatrous worship the Jews ever
fell into, from the time of giving the Law to the total
dissolution of the Republic, was MATTER OF CON
SCIENCE; but always of convenience; such as pro
curing some temporal good, which they wantonly
affected, or averting some temporal evil, which they
servilely feared. The truth of which appears from
hence, that, in the midst of all their idolatries, the
GOD of their Fathers, as we shall see, was ever owned
to be the Creator and first Cause of all things ; and the
Religion taught by Moses, to be a Revelation from
heaven.
But it may be asked, What if their commission of
idolatry had, at any time, proved matter of conscience ;
i. e. such an action as they thought they were obliged
in duty to perform ?
I reply, the question would have weight, had the
Law in dispute been of human institution. But as it
was given by GOD, who knows the future equally with
the past and present, and saw the case would not
happen, it is altogether impertinent. The Question,
* Deut. xvii. 2.
f See note [C] at the end of this Book.
indeed,
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 29
indeed, points out to us, the danger and absurdity in any
human legislature to make penal Laws for restraining
the exercise of Religion, on any pretence whatsoever.
Thus it is seen, that a separation, so necessary to
preserve the Unity, could not have been supported
without PENAL LAWS against idolatry ; and, at the
same time, seen that- such penal laws can never be
equitably instituted but under a Theocracy. The con
sequence is, that A TIIEOCUACY WAS NECESSARY.
But this form of Government was highly convenient
likewise. The Israelites, on their leaving Egypt, were
sunk into the lowest practices of idolatry. To recover
them, therefore, by the discipline of a separation, it
was necessary that the idea of GOD and his attributes
should be impressed upon them in the most sensible
manner. But this could not be done, commodiously,
under his character of GOD of the Universe : under
his character of KING of Israel it well might. Hence
it is, we find him in the Old Testament so frequently
represented with affections analogous to human pas
sions. The Civil relation, in which he stood to these
people, made such a representation natural ; the
grossness of their conceptions made the representation
necessary; and the guarded manner in. which it was
always qualified, prevented it from being mischievous.
Hence, another instance of the wisdom of this Econo
my ; and of the folly of Spinoza, and others, who would
conclude from it, that Moses and the Prophets had
themselves gross conceptions of the Deity. Nor should
the indiscretion of those Divines pass uncensured,
who have taught that GOD, in the Old Testament,
looks on man with a less gracious and benign aspect,
than in the New. An error, which at one time gave
birth to the most absurd and monstrous of the ancient
heresies; and hath at all times furnished a handle
to
30 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
to infidelity*. But GOD, whenever he represents
himself under the idea of Lord of the Universe,
makes one uniform revelation of his nature, throughout
all his Dispensations, as gracious and full oj compassion \
as good to ALL, and whose tender mercies are OVER
ALL HIS WORKS: yet condescending to become the
tutelary God, and civil Magistrate of the Jews, it cannot
but be, that he should be considered as having his
peculiar inspection attached to this People, and as
punishing their transgressions with severity.
These appear to me the true reasons of the Theo
cratic form of government. With such admirable
wisdom was the Jewish Economy adapted, to effect
the ends it had in view ! Yet, notwithstanding the
splendour of divinity which shines through every part
of this Theocratic form, Mr. Foster, a dissenting
preacher, tells us roundly, that it is all an idle dream ;
and that he will undertake to defend the Law, which
punishes idolatry with death, " not on dark and ima-
" ginary, but on clear and solid principles ; I therefore
" add, (says he) supposing the THEOCRATIC form of
" government amongst the Jews to be a point incon-
" testible, it seems scarce capable of affording &full
11 and satisfactory answer to the objection raised against
" the Hebrew Law for devoting idolaters to death.
" For when the people of Israel, fond of novelty,
" and of imitating the customs of other nations, were
" stubbornly and inflexibly resolved, notwithstanding
" all the remonstrances of the Prophet Samuel to the
" contrary, to have a visible and mortal King ; God
* It must be owned (says Tindal) that the same spirit (I dare
not call it a spirit of cruelty) does not alike prevail throughout the
Old Testament : the nearer we come to the times of the Gospel, the
milder it appeared. Christianity as old as the Creation, p. 241,
See too Lord Bolingbroke s Posthumous Works throughout.
" upon
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 31
" upon this occasion declared, that they had rejected
" him that he should not reign over them : and as his
" former political reign is founded on a supposed
" compact between the Almighty Sovereign and his
" people, that original compact being now solemnly
" renounced on the part of the people, there must
" of course be a dissolution or end of the Theo-
" cracy*."
He begins with calling the Theocracy a dark prin
ciple. And yet, the account he gives of it shews, that
he did not find it dark ; arid, what was worse, could
not, with all his endeavours, make it so. He calls it
imaginary ; and yet the very History he quotes to prove
its short duration, shews, even by his own proof, it
was not imaginary, but real.
Indeed, if that civil Government, which is founded
on ORIGINAL COMPACT, were dissolvable at pleasure,
that is, as soon as one of the contracting parties was
grown weary of it (which this Decider on Government
and Laws expressly says it is), then Government, on
its most legitimate foundation, would be the most
dark and imaginary of all things. "When the Parliament
rose up in arms against Charles I. they wanted just
such a Preacher as this (and yet they had many pre
cious ones), to assure them, that their renouncing the
King s Authority had fairly dissolved the Monarchy,
and brought it to a lawful end. For the Leaders of
that body, it is plain, knew nothing of this secret, and
were therefore at a great deal of pains to prove, and
at last could hardly get themselves believed, that
Charles himself had broken the original Compact. But
unless this Compact stands upon a different footing
from all other compacts in the world, we may safely
pronounce, that a bargain or agreement, which has been
* Sermons, vol. iii, pp. 373; 374.
made
32 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
made between two parties, can never be dissolved but
by the consent of both of them ; or by a fundamental
misdemeanour in one ; if the other party chuses to
exact the forfeiture. Now, in the case of the Jews
under Samuel, there was a renunciation, it is true, on
the part of the People, or, in plainer English, a RE
BELLION. But GOD did not give way to it; he
would not (as on the principles of civil justice he
might) exact the forfeiture ; which was, the withdraw
ing his protection. All this will be proved at large in
its place. The Theocracy, therefore, still continued
under their Kings ; which were indeed no other than
the anointed, or the Viceroys of GOD. Such is our
Preacher s success in attempting to shew Mr. Locke s
principle to be dark and imaginary. Let us see next
whether he has better fortune in proving his own to be
clear and solid.
Now his way of justifying the Law, which punished
idolatry with death, without the aid of the theocratic
principle, is this. " As the end for which the civil
" constitution of the Jews was formed, viz. to prevent
" their being overrun with idolatry, (which, as it
" prevailed amongst the neighbouring nations, cor-
" rupted their internal sense of the difference of good
" and evil, and banished humanity and decency, and
" many of the most considerable and important of
" the social virtues, by introducing shameful impuri-
" ties and human sacrifices, quite detestable to nature)
" as the end, I say, for which the civil constitution of
" the Jews was formed, appears, when thus explained,
< and abstracted from all consideration merely reli-
" gious, to be wise and gracious in itself; and as the
fc judicial Laws in that scheme of Government were
61 admirably adapted to subserve and advance this
" wise and gracious end ; it necessarily follows, that
^ idolatry,
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 33
" idolatry, which would have frustrated the whole de-
" sign of tne Constitution, and have entirely dissolved
" and destroyed it, must, upon the .same rea? JMS that .
" are allowed to be just in all other Policies, have
ct deserved capital punishment^."
Here we see our Preacher approves himself just as
skilful in the end of Civil-government, as he did before,
in its nature and essence. He appears not to know
(what he might have seen proved in the two first
volumes of this work) that civil Society must have one
particular, distinct, and appropriated end ; and that
this end can be no other than security to the temporal
liberty and property of man ; because (as is there
shewn) all other ends may be attained without civil
Society. This then is the only proper end of Go
vernment. Yet our Preacher falls into that exploded
conceit, which makes any attainable end, ?o it be a
good one, the legitimate business of civil Society, as
such : which confounds this society with all others,
there being no way to keep the Civil distinct, but by
assigning it an end peculiar to itself. But his subject
happening to be the Jewish government, it secured
his reasoning from the glare of the absurdity. And
his false and fallacious account of the end of its in
stitution, with which he introduces his reasoning, gave
a certain plausibility to the nonsense which followed.
It is in these words, The end for which the civil con
stitution was formed, was to prevent their being over
run with idolatry. Now, by civil constitution, a fair
reasoner should mean (where the question is concern
ing the efficacy of a mere civil Government, iii con
tradistinction to the Religious) the civil constitution of
the Jews as it was so distinguished. But, in this
sense, the end of the civil constitution of the Jews was
* Pages 375, 37^
VOL. V. D the
34 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
the same with all other, namely, security to men s tem
poral liberty and property. It is true, if by their
civil constitution, he meant both civil and religious,
which here indeed was incorporated, and went under
the common name of LAW; then indeed its end was
to prevent idolatry \ but then this is giving up the
point, because that incorporation was the consequence
of the Theocratic form of Government, or, to speak
more properly, it was the THEOCRACY itself. Thus
he comes round again to the place on which he had
turned his back ; and, before he knows where he is,
establishes the very doctrine he would confute. In a
word, our Preacher was got out of his depth ; and
here I shall leave him to sink or swim ; only observing,
that this great advocate of religious liberty has done
his best (though certainly without design) to support
a principle the most plausible of any that Persecutors
for opinions can catch hold on, to justify their iniqui
tous practice ; namely, that civil government teas or
dained for the procuring all the good of all kinds,
which it is even accidentally capable of advancing.
And to make sure work, he employs that adulterate
gloss, which They so artfully put upon their wicked
practice ; viz. that it is for the support of morality :
for who is so purblind that he cannot spy immoralities
lurking in all heretical opinions ? And thus it is that
our Preacher defends civil Government, in punishing
opinions : The idolatry of the neighbouring nations
(says he) corrupted their internal sense of the diffe
rence of good and evil, and banished humanity and de
cency, and many of the most considerable and important
of the social virtues. A reason constantly in the
mouths, whatever hath been in the hearts of Perse
cutors, from St. Austin to St. Dominic *.
* See note [D] at the end of this Book.
II. We
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 35
II.
We come, in the next place, to shew, that this
THEOCRACY, as it was NECESSARY, so it would have
an easy reception ; being founded on the flattering
notion, at that time universally entertained, of TUTE
LARY DEITIES, Gent Hit ial and Local. Thus, to
carry on his great purpose, the Almighty very early
represented himself to this chosen race, as a Gentili-
tial Deity, The GOD of Abraham, Isaac, and Ja
cob*: Afterwards, when he preferred Judea to all
other countries for his personal residence (on this ac
count called HIS LAND f), he came under their idea
of a Local Deity : which notion was an established
principle in the Gentile world, as we have shewn
above, from Plato. It was originally EGYPTIAN;
and founded in an opinion that the earth was at first
divided by its Creator, amongst a number of inferior
and subordinate Divinities. The Septuagint trans
lators appear to have understood the following pas
sage, in the song of Moses, as alluding to this opinion;
When the Most High divided to the nations their
inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he
set the bounds of the people ACCORDING TO THE NUM
BER OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. For the Lord s
portion is his people : Jacob is the lot of his inheri
tance J : For, instead of, according to the number of
the children of Israel (which if they found in the
text, they understood no more than later critics) they
wrote jtaja apitipbv *Afy&*N @s, ACCORDING TO THE
NUMBER OF THE ANGELS OF GOD. Which at least
is intelligible, as referring to that old notion, original
* See Jer. x. 16. and li. 19.
t Levit. xxv. 23. Deut. xi. 12. Ps. x. 16. Is. xiv. 25.
Jer. ii. 7. Chap. xvi. ver. 18. Ezek. xxxv. 10. Chap, xxxvi.
ter. 5. 20. Cluj>. xxxvui. ver. 16. \Vii>d. of Sol. xii. 7.
J Deut, auuiu 8, 9.
D 3 tO
36 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
to the country where this translation was made. And
Justin Martyr tells us *, that in the beginning, GOD
had committed the government of the world to angels,
who, abusing their trust, were degraded from their
regency. But whether he learnt it from this transla
tion, or took it from a worse place, I shall not pretend
to determine.
The Land, thus selected by GOD for his personal
residence, he bestows upon his chosen People. Be
hold (says he) the laud of Canaan which 1 give unto
the children of Israel for a possession f. This too
was according to the common notions of those times.
Thus Jephthah, who appears to have been half pa
ganized by a bad education, speaks to the King of the
Ammonites, Wilt not thou possess that which Che-
mosh thy GOD giveth thee to possess ? So, whomsoever
the Lord our GOD shall drive out from before us,
them will we possess J.
It was no wonder, therefore, when GOD was thus
pleased, for the wise ends of his providence, to be
considered, by a prejudiced people, in this character,
that all the pagan nations round about should regard
the GOD OF ISRAEL no otherwise than as a local
tutelary Deity ; too apt, by their common prejudices,
to see him only under that idea. Thus he is .called the
GOD of the Land^ the GOD of the Hills ||, 8$c.
And it is expressly said, that they spoke against the
GOD of Jerusalem, as against the Gods of the people
of the earth, which were the work of the hands of
wan*fi. By which is meant, that they treated him as
a local tutelary Deity, of a confined and bounded
power : for it was not the old pagan way to speak
* Apologet. i. f Pent, xxxii. 49.
I Judg. xi. 24. 2 Kings xvii. 26. & xviii. 33, & seq.
j] i Kings xx. 23. fl" 2 Chron. xxxii. 19.
against
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 37
against one another s Gods, in discredit of their Divi
nity : and this circumscribed dominion was esteemed,
by them, no discredit to it : But, by the Jews, the
worshippers of the true GOD, it was justly held to
be the greatest. Therefore, to call the GOD of Israel
the God of the hills, and not of the plain, was speak
ing against him.
For, here again we must observe, that when GOD,
agreeably to the whole method of this Dispensation,
takes advantage of, or indulges his people in, any ha
bituated notion or custom, he always interweaves some
characteristic note of difference, to mark the institu-*
tion for his own. Thus in this indulgence of their
prejudices concerning a tutelary GOD,
1. He first institutes, upon it, a Theocracy; a
practice just the reverse of Paganism : for there Kings
became Gods; whereas here, GOD condescended to
become King*.
2. Secondly, he forbids all kind of community or
intercourse between the GOD of Israel and the Gods
of the Nations, either by joining their worship to his,
or so much as owning their Divinity. Thus were the
Israelites distinguished from all other people in the
most effectual manner; for, as we have often had oc
casion to observe, there was a general intercommunity
amongst the Gods of paganism : They acknowledged
one another s pretensions ; they borrowed one an
other s titles ; and, at length, entered into a kind of
partnership of Worship. All the Pagan nations, we
see, owned the GOD of Israel for a tutelary Deity f.
But His followers were not permitted to be so com
plaisant. There was to be no fellowship between
* See note [R] at the end of this Book,
t 2 Kings xviii. 25. Jer. iv. Q, 3,
D 3 GOD
38 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
GOD and Belial ; though a good understanding always
subsisted between Belial and Dagon.
But, amidst a vast number of characteristic circum^
stances proving the origin of the MOSAIC RELIGION
to have been different from that of every other nation,
there is none more illustrious than this, That the Mo
saic religion was built upon a former, namely the
PATRIARCHAL: whereas the various Religions of the
Pagan world were all unrelated to, and independent
of, any other *.
And yet the famous Author of The Grounds and
Reasons of the Christian Religion, hath been hardy
enough to employ one whole chapter to prove, that
this method of introducing Christianity into the world,
by building and grounding it on the Old Testament, is
agreeable to the common method of introducing new
Revelations, whether real or PRETENDED, or any
changes in religion-, and also the nature of things^*
" For if (says he) we consider the various revolutions
" and changes in religion, whereof we have any tole-
" rable history, in their beginning, we shall find them,
" for the most part, to be grafted on some old stock,
" or founded on some preceding revelations, which
" they were either to supply, or fulfil, or retrieve from
" corrupt glosses, innovations, and traditions, with
" which by time they were incumbered : and this,
" which MAY SEEM MATTER OF SURPRISE TO THOSE,
" WHO DO NOT REFLECT on the changeable nature
" of all things, hath happened ; though the old reve-
" lations, far from intending any change, ingraftment,
" or new dispensation, did for the most part declare
" they were to last for ever, and did forbid all altera-
" tions and innovations, they being the last dispensa-
" tion intended." p. 21.
* See Vol. I. book i. f Grounds and Reasons, &c. p. 20.
Here
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 39
Here are two things asserted : i. That the building
new Religions and new Revelations upon old, was
agreeable to the common method of the ancient world.
2. That it was agreeable to the nature of things.
These are discoveries one would little have ex
pected.
I. Let us first examine his FACTS. But to judge
truly of their force, we must remember, that the obser
vation is made to discredit what Believers call true
Revelation, by shewing that all false Religions have
taken the same method of propagation.
i. His first point is, That this method was agreeable
to the common practice of the ancient world. Would
not one expect now an instance of some confessedly
false Religion, between the time of ABRAHAM and
CHRIST, which pretended to be built on some preced
ing Revelation ? Without doubt : If it were only for
this, that there is no other way of proving the proposi
tion. Besides, to say the truth, such an instance would
be well worth attending to, for its extreme curiosty.
But he could not give the reader what was not to be
had: and therefore he endeavours to make up this
deficiency of fact, by shewing, i. That the JEWISH
Religion, like the CHRISTIAN, pretended to be built
on a preceding. " Thus the mission of Moses to the
" Israelites (says he) supposed a former revelation of
" God (who from the beginning seems to have been
" constantly giving a succession of dispensations and
revelations) to their ancestors ; and many of the
" religious precepts of Moses were borrowed, or l;ad
1 an agreement with the religious rites of the heathens,
with whom the Israelites had correspondence, and
particularly with the religious rites of the Egyptians,
* (who upon that account seem confounded with the
D 4 " I * radices
40 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
Israelites by some pagans, as both their religious
rit< s were equally, and at the same time, prohibited
" by others) to whose religious rites the Israelites
* seem to have been Conformists during their abode
* in Egypt." p. 22. Go thy way, for a good Reasoner !
To prove that false revelations had the same pre
tensions of dependency on a preceding, as the true
have had, he shews that all the true had these pre
tensions. But this is but half the atchievment. The
best part is still behind, Tis a rarity ; a blunder in
grafted on a sophism. He was not content to say
that Moses founded his Religion on the Patriarchal :
He must needs go on, And many of the religious
precepts of Moses were borrowed, or had an agreement
with the religions rites of the Heathens, with whom
the Israelites had correspondence, and particularly
with the religious Rites of the Egyptians. Now, how
it comes to pass that Moses s borrow ing from the reli
gious rites ot the Egyptians, whose religion he formerly
condemned of falsehood, should be metamorphosed
into an example of one Religion s being founded upon,
or receiving its authority from, another, I confess, I
cannot comprehend. If he were not at the head of
the FREETHINKERS, I should suspect some small con
fusion in his ideas : and that this great Reasoner was
unable to distinguish between, a Religions supporting
itself on one preceding, which it acknowledged to be
true : and a Religions complying, for the sake of in
veterate prejudices, with some innocent practices of
another religion, which it was erected to overthrow,
as false.
2. He shews next, that those false religions which
came AFTER the Jewish and the Christian, and are
confessed to mimic their peculiarities, pretended to be
built on preceding revelations. " The mission of
" Zoroaster
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 41
" Zoroaster to the Persians supposed the religion of
" the Magians ; which had been, for many ages past,
" the antient national religion of the Medes as well as
tc p ers j a ns. The missioi of Mcihoniet supposed Chris-
" tianity ; as that did, Judaism/ p. 23. This is still
better. The design of his general observation, That
it was the common method for new revelations to be
built and grounded on preceding revelations, was to
shew that the revelations, which we call true, imitated
the false. And he proves it, by shewing that the
false imitated the true. That Mahomet s did so, is
agreed on all hands. And those bewildered men who
would have us credit the story of a late Zoroaster, do,
and must suppose that he borrowed from Judaism.
But the truth is, the whole is an idle tale, invented by
Persian writers under the early Califs. However,
though the Zoroaster of Hyde and Prideaux be a mere
phantom, yet the Religion called by his name, was a
real thing, and started up in the first ages of Mahome-
tanism, with a Bible to support its credit, in imitation
of, and to oppose to, the Alcoran. But this neat de
vice unluckily detects the whole imposture: For in the
Age of Mahomet, and in the time of the first Com
mentators on the Alcoran, the Persians were esteemed
by them as Idolaters, and without a Bible ; (and they
had good Opportunity, by their constant commerce
thither, to be w T ell informed :) Wjiich is agreeable to
every thing that the earlier and the later G reek Writers
unanimously deliver of the Persian Religion. But
that, on the appearance of Mahometanisin, the Persians
should do what the Greeks did on the first appearance
of Christianity, refine their old idolatrous worship, till
they brought it to what Hyde and Prideaux observe it
is at this day, amongst the remainder of the Magian
sect in Persia and India, is nothing strange. The
wonder
42 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
wonder is, that these learned men should have swal
lowed so gross a cheat, on the testimony of later Ma
hometan Writers ; who had so many motives to support
it, and so slender abilities to detect it ; whose propensity
to fabling is so great as even to discredit any truth
that rests on their authority ; and whose talents in the
art of lying are so little proportioned to their incli
nation to exercise it, that they never fail of defeating
their own impositions. This argument, therefore, was
in all respects worthy the Author of The Grounds and
Reasons of the Christian Religion.
3. Lastly, he tells us, that " the Siamese and Brach-
" mans both pretend that they have had a succession
" of incarnate deities amongst them, who at due
" distances of time have brought new Revelations
" from heaven ; each succeeding one depending on the
" former; and that religion is to be conveyed on, in
" that way, for ever." p. 23. He promised to prove
a succession of Religions in the ancient world, the later
founded and depending on the preceding: And he
proves a succession of incarnate deities, talked of
amongst the MODERN pagans of India and Siam; and,
from this succession concludes for a succession of
DEPENDING RELIGIONS, of which they have no kind
of notion. Nor are these extravagancies, which their
priests do indeed talk of, any other than late inventions
of their priests, to oppose to Mahometan and Christian
Missionaries. But a succession of incarnate deities
was so arch a ridicule on the mysteries of our holy
faith, that it was to be brought in at any rate. But
now the joke is over, let me tell him, he need not have
gone so far for it. Were not Ccelus, Saturn, Jupiter,
Mars, $c. a succession of incarnate deities ? yet were
any of the Religions, which had those Gods for then-
author OF Object, FOUNDED Or DEPENDENT On (though
they
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, 43
they succeeded to) one another ? Here again, our sa
gacious Freethinker was at a fait ; and, with all his
logic, could not distinguish between one Religion s
being built upon another, and one Religions simply
succeeding another.
II. He comes next to the STATURE OF THINGS.
The reader has seen how short he falls of his reckon
ing from fact : But let him fairly make up his accounts,
and we shall not differ with him about his way of
payment; but willingly receive his deficiencies of
Fact, in Reason. " If we consider (says he) the
" nature of things, we shall find that it must be diffi-
" cult, if not impossible, to introduce amongst men
" (who in all civilized countries are bred up in the
" belief of some revealed religion) a revealed religion
" wholly new, or such as has no reference to a pre-
" ceding one : for that would be to combat all men
" in too many respects, and not to proceed on a
* sufficient number of principles necessary to be
" assented to by those, on whom the first impres-
" sions of a new Religion are proposed to be made."
pp. 23, 24.
Here his head was full of the theologic ideas of
modern times ; where one Religion is maintained and
propagated on the destruction of all the rest. And
that indeed would be combating all men in too many
respects, without good evidence /in the Religion thus
proposed. But had he had the least knowledge of
Antiquity, he would have known that the Gentile
religions of those times were founded on different
principles, and propagated on different practices. Not
one of those numerous Religions ever pretended to
accuse another of falsehood ; and therefore was never
its.elf in danger of being so accused. They very
amicably
44 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
amicably owned one another s pretensions; and all
that a new Religion claimed, was to be let into part
nership with the rest, whose common practice was to
trade in shares *. Yet, according to this great Phi
losopher, it was difficult, if not impossible it was
combating all men in too many respects It was not
proceeding on a sufficient number of principles necessary
to be assented to, Sec. But he can make Men, as well
as Religions, change their natures when he wants them
for some glorious mischief. It is his more usual way,
and so it is of all his fellows, to make the People (the
gross body of mankind) run headlong into Religion,
without the least inquiry after evidence. But here we
are told it is very difficult, if not impossible, to induce
them to think well of a Religion which hath not the
most plausible evidence for its support : That the not
giving them this, is not proceeding on a sufficient
number of principles, but combating all men in too
many respects, &c.
And this is all we can get out of him, FROM THE
NATURE OF THINGS. But as he has raised a curiosity
which he knew not how to gratify, I shall endeavour
to supply his ignorance ; and from this nature of things,.
shew the reader, i. How the Religions of MOSES and
JESUS must NECESSARILY SUPPOSE a dependency on
some preceding. 2. How the ancient Religions of
paganism must NECESSARILY NOT SUPPOSE any such
dependency, and 3. How it came to pass, that more
modern impostors, risen since the coming of Chris
tianity, imitated the true, rather than the false Religions
of ancient times, in this pretence to dependency.
I. The PATRIARCHAL, the JEWISH, and the
CHRISTIAN Religions, all professed to come from the
* See Vol. II. book ii. p. 301. & seq.
only
Sect, 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 45
only one GOD, the Creator of all things. Now as
the whole race of mankind must be the common object
of its Creator s care, all his Revelations, even those
given only to a part, must needs be thought ultimately
directed to the interest of the whole : consequently,
every later Revelation must suppose the TRUTH of the
preceding. Again, when several successive Revelations
are given by him, some less, some more extensive, we
must conclude them to be the parts of ONE ENTIRE
DISPENSATION ; which, for reasons best known to in
finite Wisdom, are gradually enlarged and opened :
consequently every later must not only suppose the
TRUTH of every preceding Revelation, but likewise
their mutual RELATION and DEPENDENCY. Hence
\VQ see, there may be weighty reasons, why God, from
the beginning^ should have been constantly giving a
succession of Dispensations and Revelations , as this
Author (p. 22.) with a lewd sneer, seems to take a
pleasure in observing. If therefore, what we call the
true Revelation came from GOD, these Religions
must needs be, and profess to be, dependent on one
another,
II. Let us see next how the case stood in the ancient
Pagan world. Their pretended Revelations were not
from the ONE GOD ; but all from local tutelary Deities ;
each of which was supposed to be employed in the
care of his own Country or People, and unconcerned
in every Other s department. Consequently, between
earlier and later Revelations of this kind, there could
be no more dependency, than there was opposition :
But each stood on its own foundation, single, unrelated,
and original.
III. But when, by the propagation of the Gospel,
the knowledge of the OXLY ONE GOD was spread
abroad
46 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
abroad over the whole earth, and the absurdities of
Polytheism fully understood by the people, an Impos
tor, who would now obtrude a new Religiorr%n the
world, must of necessity pretend to have received it
from that only one God. But thq probability of his
giving a Revelation now, being seen greatly to depend
on his having given one before, our Impostor would
be forced to own the truth of those preceding Reli
gions, which professed to come from that GOD. And
as the credit of the new Religion was best advanced
by its being thought a finishing part of an incomplete
Dispensation, he would, at the same time, bottom it
on the preceding. Besides, as an Impostor must needs
want that necessary mark - of a divine Mission, the
power of Miracles, he could cover the want no other
wise than by a pretended relation to a Religion which
had well established itself by Miracles. And thus,
in fact, MAHOMET framed the idea of his imposture.
He pretended his new Religion was the completion of
Christianity, as Christianity was the completion of Ju
daism ; for that the world not being to be won by the
mild and gentle invitations of Jesus, was now to be
compelled to enter in by Mahomet. And so again, to
complete the imitation, this last and greatest Prophet,
as his followers believe him to be, is pretended to be
foretold in the New Testament, as the Messiah was
in the Old.
Thus this notable observation, from whence the
Author of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian
Religion endeavoured to deduce so discrediting a
likeness between all fake religion, and what we be
lievers hold to be the true, comes, we see, just to
nothing.
But he has yet another flagrant mark of likeness, in
reserve : And thus he goes on, from discovery to dis-
3 corny.
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 47
co very. In building thus upon PROPHECY (says he)
as a principle, Jesus and his Apostles had the concur
rence of all sects of Religion amongst the .Pagans.
Is it possible? Yes. For the Pagans universally
built their Religion on DIVINATION, pp. 27, 28. As
much as to say, the people of Amsterdam, in building
their town-house upon piles, had (in the mode of lay
ing a foundation) the concurrence of all the cities in
England; who build theirs upon stone, or clay, or
gravel. In the Jewish writings there are Prophecies
of a future and more perfect Dispensation ; which,
Jesus claiming to belong to HIS, his Religion was pro
perly built upon PROPHECIES. The Heathens made
Gods of their dead benefactors, and then consulted
them at their shrines, as Oracles ; they inspected the
entrails of beasts; they observed the flight of birds;
they interpreted dreams and uncommon phenomena;
and all these things they called DIVINATION. But
what likeness is there between these things and Pro
phecies, the Prophecies on which Jesus founded his
Religion? Just as much as there is between TRUTH
and what these men call, FREETHINKING. But he
has found a device to bring them related. Tis a
master-piece ; and the Reader shall not be robbed of
it. They [the Pagans], says he, learnt that art [Di
vination] in schools, or under discipline, as the Jews
did prophesying in the schools and colleges of the Pro
phets ; where, the learned Dodwell says, the candidates
for prophecy were taught the rules of divination prac*
tised by the Pagans, who were skilled therein, and in
possession of the art long before them*. This idle
whimsy of the learned Dodwell concerning the schools
of the Prophets has been exposed, as it deserves,
already j\ But for the sake of so extraordinary an
* See Vol. IV. book iv, 6. f Ibid.
argument
48 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
argument (an impiety, grafted on its proper stock, an
absurdity), it deserves to be admitted, though it be
but for a moment. The reasoning then stands thus :
Divination was an art learnt in the schools ; so \vas
one kind of Prophecy, or the Jewish art of Divina
tion : those who learnt this Jewish art of divination
were taught the rules of pagan divination : THERE
FORE, pagan divination and ANOTHER kind of Pro
phecy, such as foretold the coming of the Messiah,
were things of the same kind. Incomparable reaso-
ner ! and deservedly placed at the head of modern
Freethinking ! But his learning is equal to his sense,
and his premises just as true as his conclusion : The
Pagans universally built their Religion on divination.
I believe there are few school-boys, who would not
laugh at his blunder, and tell him it was just other
wise, that the Pagans universally built divination on
their Religion. Ail that was ever built on divination
was now and then a Shrine or a Temple. To return :
III.
But these prejudices, concerning local tutelary
Deities, which made the introduction of a Theocracy
so easy, occasioned as easy a defection from the Laws
of it.
1. For these tutelary Deities owning one another s
pretensions, there was always a friendly intercourse of
mutual honours, though not always of mutual worship.
For at first, each God was supposed to be so taken up
with his own people, as to have little leisure or incli
nation to attend to the concerns of others. Now
this prejudice was the first source of the Jewish
idolatry.
2. But the pretensions of these Gods being thus
reciprocally acknowledged; and Some, by the fortu
nate
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 49
Hate circumstances of their followers, being risen into
superior fame, the Rites used in their Worship were
eagerly affected. And this was the second source of
the Israelites idolatry ; exemplified in the erection of
the GOLBEX CALF, and their fondness for all Egyp
tian superstitions in- general*
3. But of these tutelary deities there being two
sorts, GEXT ILITIAL and LOCAL; the one ambulatory,
and the other stationed ; the latter were fixed to their
posts, as a kind of heir-loom, which they who con
quered and possessed the country were obliged to
maintain in their accustomed honours. And what
ever gentilitial Gods a People might bring with them,
yet the local God was to have a necessary share in the
religious Worship of the new Comers. Nay, it was
thought impiety, even in foreigners, while they so
journed only in a strange Country, not to sacrifice to
the Gods of the place. Thus Sophocles makes Anti
gone say to her father, that a stranger should both
venerate and abhor those things which are venerated
and abhorred in the city where he resides *. Celsus
gives the reason of so much complaisance " Be
cause (says he) the several parts of the world were,
from the beginning, distributed to several powers,
each of which has his peculiar allotment and resi
dence f." And those who were loth to leave their
*3 TO <p*Xov crs SWQcti. Act. i. Ofcuip. Colon.
f- XAa ) on, MC, ei xoj, TO. f/.if
xctioi
Jc <*) TOC, mOLf HXrO$ Q(v<; CCV
xiyo$ (plt.oy, is otfitx.Xisrir ot u% o&iot tlvoti TO, 1% *%>?? xccla. TOT
v .vo^ia-^vot. Orig, cont. Ccls. lib. v. p< 247. bee the passage,
from Plato, pp. 230, 231.
VOL. V. E paternal
50 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
paternal Gods when they sought new settlements, at
least held themselves obliged to worship them with the
Ilites, and according to the usages of the Country
they came to inhabit. Against this more qualified
principle of Paganism, Moses thought fit to caution
his People, in the following words : When the Lord
thy GOD shall cut off the nations from before thee,
whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeed-
est them, and dwetlest in their land: take heed to thy
self that thou be not snared by following them, after
that they be destroyed from before thee ; and that thou
ENQUlltE NOT AFTER THEIR GODS, Saying, HOW did
these nations serve their Gods ? even so WILL I DO
likewise*. But the adoption of these new GODS, as
well as of their Rites, was so general, that David
makes his being unjustly driven into an idolatrous
land, the same thing as being forced to serve idolatrous
Gods. For thus he expostulates with his persecutor,
" Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear
" the words of his servant: If the Lord have stirred
" -thee up against me, let him accept an offering : but
" if they be the children of men, cursed be they be-
" fore the Lord ; for they have driven me out this day
" from abiding in the inheritance, of the Lord, saying,
" Go SERVE OTHER GoDsf. To the same princi
ple Jeremiah likewise alludes, in the following words f
Therefore will I cast you out of this land into a land
- ye know not, neither ye nor your fathers : and
THERE su ALL YE SERVE OTHER GODS day and ?iight ;
where, J otsheriyoufowbur^. By which is not
liiat they should be jorwd, any otherwise than
by the superstitious dread of divine vengeance for a
slighted worship : for at this time civil restraint in
i.fcrs of ; very IT?.
* Beiit. xii. eo, 30, i * %^< **vL 19, % Clu xvi. ver. 13.
But
Sects.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 51
But the imaginary vengeance which the tutelary
GOD was supposed to take on those, who, inhabiting
his Land, yet slighted his Worship, was at length
really taken on the Idolatrous Cutheans, when they
came to cultivate the land of Israel. For the Al*
mighty having, in condescension to the prejudices of
the Israelites, assumed the title of a TUTELARY LO
CAL GOD, and chosen Judea for his peculiar regency;
it appeared but fit that he should discharge, in good
earnest, the imaginary function of those tutelary
GODS, in order to distinguish himself from the lying
Vanities of that infatuated age. Therefore when so
great a portion of his Chosen people had been led
captive, and a niixt rabble of Eastern idolaters were
put into their place, he sent plagues amongst them for
their profanation of the holy Land. Which calamity
their own principles easily enabled them to account
for. The story is told in these words : " And the
" king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and
" from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath,
" and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities
" of Samaria, instead of the children of Israel : and
" they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities
" thereof. And so it was at the beginning of their
" dwelling there, that they feared not the Lord :
" therefore the Lord sent lions amongst them, which
<c slew some of them. Wherefore they spake to the
" king of Assyria, saying, The nations which thou hast
" removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, KNOW
" XOT THE .MANNER OF THE GoD OF THE LAND!
" therefore he hath sent lions amongst them, and
" behold, they slay them, because they know not the
" manner of the God of the land. Then the king
c of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one
" of the Priests and let him teach them the- manner
i; 2 " of
52 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
" of the God of the land. Then one of the Priests
" came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how
" they should fear the Lord. Howbeit, every nation
" made Gods of their own every nation in their
" cities wherein they dwelt. So these nations feared
" the Lord, and served their graven, images, both
" their children^, and their children^ children: as did?
" their fathers^ so= do they unto this day *."
But, lest this account of the miraculous interposi
tion should be misunderstood as- aias encouragement of
the notion of local Gods, or of intercommunity, of
worship, rather than a vindication? of the sanctity
of that Country, which was consecrated to the God>
of Israel, the sacred Historian goes on to- acquaint us
/with the perverse influence this judgment had on the
new inhabitants, so contrary to the divine intention*
" They feared the Lord, and served their own Gods,
" after the manner of the nations whom they carried
" away from thence. Unto this day they do. after the
" former manners: they fear not the Lord, neither do
" they after their statutes, or after their ordinances*.
" or after the Law and Commandment which the
" Lord commanded tlie children of Jacob^ whom he.
" named Israel f."" They feared the Lord? and served
their own God* ; that is, they feared the vengeance
impending on the exclusion of the Worship of the
Crod of Israel. But they feared not the Lord, neither
did after their Statutes. That is, they transgressed
the Commandment which they found so frequently
repeated in the Pentateuch, of joining no other Wor
ship to that of the God of Israel
And this was the true reason why the Kings of
Persia and Syria (when Judea afterwards became a
province to them) so frequently appointed sacrifices to
* 2. Kings iprii. 24. et ser. f Ver. 33, 34,
be
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 53
be offered to the God of the land, at Jerusalem, in
behalf of themselves and families. Nor was the
practice disused when the Jews fell under the Roman
yoke; both Julius Caesar and Augustus making the
same provision for tlicje/ictti/ of the Empire.
Hence therefore the third source of the Jewish ido
latries. It was this superstitious reverence to local
Deities within their own departments, which made
them so devoted., wliile in Egypt, to the Gods of that
Country ; and wliea in possession of their own land,
to the tutelary Gods of Canaan.
But this intercommunity of Worship, begun by the
migration of People and Colonies from one country
to another, grew more general, as those migrations
became more frequent. Til} at length the frequency,
aided by many other concurrent causes .(occasionally
taken notice of in several places of this work), made
the intercommunity universal. And this was the last
source of Jewish idolatries. This drew them into the
service of every God they Ijeard of; or from whom
they fancied any special good might be obtained ;
especially the Gods of all great and powerful Nations.
These prejudices of opinion, joined to those of practice
which they had learnt in Egypt, wore the true causes of
their so frequent lapse into idolatry.
From all this it appears, that their defection from
the GOD ,qf Israel, wicked and abominable as it was,
did not however consist in the rejecting him as a false
God, or in renouncing the Law of Moses as a false
Religion; but only, in joining foreign Worship and
idolatrous Ceremonies to the lijtual of the true GOD.
Their bias to the idolatries of Egypt was inveterate
custom ; their inclination for the idolatries of Canaan
was a prevailing principle that the tutelary God of
the place should be worshipped by its inhabitants;
3 and
54 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
and their motive for all other idolatries, a vain expec
tation of good from the guardian Gods of famous and
happy Nations.
These were all inflamed by that common stimulation
of a debauched People, the luxurious and immoral
rites of Paganism ; for it is to he observed that these
defections generally happened amidst the abuses of
prosperity. There is a remarkable passage in the
Book of Joshua, which sets this matter in a very clear
light. The Israelites having lapsed -into idolatry,
Joshua drew together their Heads and Rulers at
Shechem, in order to a reformation. And the topic,
he insists upon for this purpose, is not, that the God
of Israel was the only true God, the Maker of all
things ; but that he was the family- God of the race of
Abraham, for which he had done so great things.
And this he prosecutes from the 2d to the 1 3th verse of
the xxivth chap. His conclusion from all is, " Now
" therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity
" and in truth ; and put away the Gods which your
" Fathers served on the other side of the flood, and
" in Egypt *." However (continues he) at least make
your choice, and either serve the Lord, or serve the
Gods of other People. " And the People ansicercd^
" God for bid we should forsake the Lord, to serve other
<c Gods\ : for we acknowledge him to be that God
" who has done so great things for us." To this
Joshua replies, <( Ye cannot serve the Lord] for he is
" an holy God] he is a jealous God] he mil not forgive
<e your transgressions, nor your sins"^" From all this
it appears, that the point debuted between Joshua and
his People, was not, whether the Israelites should return
to God, whom they had rejected and forsaken ; but
whether they should serve him ONLY, or, as Joshua.
* Ver. 14, t Ver. 16, 17, J Ver. 19.
expresses
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 55
, expresses it, serve him in sincerity and in truth. For
on their exclaiming agaiost the impiety of rejecting
God, " God forbid we should forsake the Lord;
" we will still serve .him ;" meaning along with the
other Gods, their Leader replies, Ye cannot serve
the Lord, for he is an HOLY God: he is a JEALOUS
God-, i.e. As a holy God, -he will not be served with.
the lewd and polluted Rites of the Nations ; and as a
jealous God, lie will not suffer you to serve Idols of
wood and stone with his Rites. The consequence is,
You must serve him alone, and only with that worship
which he himself hath appointed.
That this was the whole of their Idolatry, is farther
seen from the accounts which the holy Prophets give
us of it, in their reproofs and expostulations.
Is A i AH says, To what purpose is the multitude of
your Sacrifice* unto me ? saith the Lord: I am full of
the Burnt-offerings of Rams, and the Fat of fed
Beasts, c. * To whom are these words addressed ?
To those who, besides their numerous Immoralities,
there reckoned up at large, delighted in idolatrous
worship in Groves and high Places. For the Denun
ciation is thus continued : They shall be ashamed of the
OAKS which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded
for the G A KDEN s that ye have chosen f. He describes
them again in this manner ; A People that provoketh
me to Anger continually TO MY FACE; that sacrijiceth
in Gardens, and bur net h Incense upon Altars of
jB/vc/t 1 J. Yet, at the same time, these men gloried
so much in being the peculiar People of the Lord,
that they said, Stand by thyself, come not near to ?He;
for I am holier than tlwu .
Jiair.. \rjAii draws them in the very same colours :
Though they say, The Lord Ih-eth 9 surely they sn
* Chap. i. ver. 11. f Ver. 29. J Ch.lxv. ver. 3. Ye.r. 5,
E 4
56 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
falsely *, i. e. vainly, idolatrously. Why ? The Reason
is given soon after ; they swore likewise by their idols ;
How shall I pardon thee for this? thy Children have
forsaken me, and SWORN BY THEM THAT ARE NO
GODS f. Again, Will ye steal, murder , and commit
adultery, and SWEAR FALSELY, and BURN INCENSE
UNTO BAAL, and walk after other Gods that ye
knozo not [i.e. strange Gods]; and come and STAND
BEFORE ME IN THIS HOUSE, tvhich is called by my
Name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abo
minations ? And in another place we find them thus
expostulating with the Prophet, Wherefore hath the
Lord pronounced all this Evil against us? or what is
our Iniquity ? or what is our Sin that we have com
mitted against the Lord our GOD ? and the Prophet
answering them in this manqer, because your Fathers
have forsaken me> saith the Lord, and walked after
other Gods, and have served them, and have worshipped
them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my
Law: And ye have done worse than your Fathers^.
But is it possible they could be so exceeding stupid
or impudent as to talk at this rate, had they ever
renounced the RELIGION, or the GOD of their Fore
fathers ?
EZEKIEL, likewise, shews plainly that their idolatries
consisted in polluting the Religion of Moses with
foreign worship : " Son of man, these men have set
* up their idols in their heart, and put the stumbling-
* block pf their iniquity before their Face : SHALL
" I BE INQUIRED OF at all by them ? Therefore
1* speak unta them, and say unto them, Thus saith the
" Lord GOD, Every man of the house of Israel, that
* putteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the
* Chap. v. ver. 2. | Ver. 7. J Chap. vii. yer. 9, Jo,
Chap. xvL vef, 10. \\ Ver, u, 12,
" stumbling
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 57
" stumbling-block of iniquity before his face, and
" cometh to the Prophet ; I the Lord will answer him
" that cometh according to the multitude of his
* idols*," &c. And again: As for you, O house of
Israel, Thus saith the Lord God , Go ye, serve yc every
one his idols, and hereafter also, if ye will not hearken
unto me; but POLLUTE YE MV HOLY NAME NO
MORE with your gifts, and with your idols f, i. e. vvith
gifts offered up to me with idolatrous Rites. In another
place he giveth a terrible instance of this horrid mix
ture : " They have committed adultery, and blood is
" in their hands, and with their idols have they com-
" mitted adultery, and have also caused their sons,
" whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through
" the fire to devour them. Moreover, this they have
* done unto me: THEY HAVE DEFILED MY SANO
" TUARY IN THE SAME DAY, and have profaned
" my Sabbaths. For when they had slain their Chil-
<f dren to their idols, then THEY CAME THE SAME
** DAY IXTO MY SANCTUARY to profane it: and
* e lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house J."
These, and innumerable other passages in the Prophets
to the same purpose, evidently shew, that this defection
from the God of Israel consisted not in a rejection of
flim, or of his Law.
This appears still more evident, from the following
considerations :
1. That, in the course of their idolatries, they abused
the memorials of their own Dispensation to super
stitious Worship. Such as the Brazen Serpent of
Moses ; to which, in the time of their kings, they paid
divine honours . And I am much mistaken if the
monument of Twelve stones, taken out of Jordan, and
* Chap. xiv. ver. 3, 4. f Chap, xx. ver. 39*
J Chap, xxiii, ver. 37 39, 2 Kings xviii. 4.
pitched
58 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
pitched in Gilgal for a memorial of their miraculous
passage*, was not equally abused. What induces me
to think so, is the following passage of ISAIAH :
" Draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed
" of the adulterer, and the whore. Against whom do
" you sport yourselves ? enflaming yourselves with
" idols under every green tree, slaying the children in
" the valleys, under the clifts of the rocks? AMONG
" THE SMOOTH STONES OF THE STREAM IS THY
" PORTION; they, they are thy lot : EVEN TO THEM
" HAST THOU POURED A DRINK-OFFERING, ttlOU
" hast offered a meat-offering. Should I receive
<c comfort in these f ? "
2. The Israelites were most prone to idolatry in
PROSPEROUS TIMES ; and- generally returned to the
God of their fathers in ADVERSITV, as appears from
their whole history. Against this impotence of mind
they were more than once cautioned, before they en
tered into the Land of Blessings, that they might
afterwards be left without excuse. " And it shall
" be (says Moses) when the Lord thy GOD shall have
* : brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy
" fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to
f - give thee great and goodly cities which thcu build-
" edst not, and houses full of all good things which
" thou filledst not, and wells digged which thou diggedst
" not, vineyards and olive-trees which thou plantedst
" not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full; then
* beware lest thou forget the Lord which brought thee
et forth out of the Land of Egypt, from the house of
t bondage. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy GOD, and
" serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall
" not go alter other Gods, of the Gods of the people,
* JcVn.iv. 3. 20, 2J, 22. f Isaiah Ivii, 3, et seq.
" whick
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 59
" which are round about you *." However, Moses
himself lived to see an example of this perversity,
while they remained in the Wilderness : But Jeshunm
(says hej waxed fat and kicked: Thou art waxed fat,
thou art grown thick, thou art covered witli fatness;
then he forsook God which made him, and lightly
esteemed the Rock of his Salvation |\ And the Prophet
HOSEA assures us, that the Day of prosperity \vas the
constant season of their idolatry : Israel is an empty
vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself : ACCORD
ING TO THE MULTITUDE OF HIS FRUIT HE HATH
INCREASED THE ALTARS; ACCORDING TO THE
GOODNESS OF HIS LAND THEY HAVE MADE
GOODLY IMAGES^. And again : According to their
pasture, so were they Jitlcd , THEY WERE FILLED,
AND THEIR HEART WAS EXALTED; therefore June
they forgotten me . This, therefore, is a clear proof
that their defection from the God of Israel was not
any doubt of his goodness or his power, but a wanton
abuse of his blessings. Had they questioned the truth
of the Law, their behaviour had been naturally other
wise : they would have adhered to it in times of
prosperity; and would have left it in adversity
and trouble. This the Deists would do well to con
sider.
3. The terms, in which God s warnings against this
defection are expressed, plainly shew that their lapse
into Idolatry was no rejection of him : he will have no
FELLOWSHIP OF COMMUNION" with false Gods. The
names employed to design their idolatries are ADUL
TERY and WHOREDOM. And God s resentment of
their defection is perpetually expressed by the same
metaphor ; which shews that his right over them was
* Deut. vi. 10. etseq. and chap. viii. vcr. 11. et scq.
f Chap, xxxii, ver. 15. j Ch. x. ver, i. Ch. xiii. ver. 6.
still
60 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
stiH acknowledged, just as an adulterous wife o^ ns the
husband s right, amidst all her pollutions with strangers,,
Where we may observe, that though fheir idolatry
is so constantly styled ADULTERY, yet that of the
Pagans never is ; though it is very often called WHORED
DOM. The reason of this distinction is plainly intimated
in the following words of Ezekiel : " How weak is
" thine heart, saith the Lord God, seeing thou dost
" all these things, the work of an imperious whorish
^ woman ? In that thou buildest thine eminent place
" in the head of every way, and makest thine high
" place in every street; and hast NOT BEEN AS AN
Ci HARLOT (in that thou scornest hire) but AS 4
" WIFE that committeth ADULTEBY, which taketlj
* strangers instead of her husband *." The Jews had
entered into a covenant with God, which had made
them his Peculiar; and when the v had violated their
tt
plighted faith, they stood in that relation to hi IB which
an ADULTERESS does to her injured husband. The
Gentiles, on the contrary, had entered into no ftrc/fimfe
engagements with their Gods, but the practice of inter-
comrmmityhaA prostituted them, as a common HARLOT.,
to all comers.
Thus much, however, must Ve confessed, that
though the very worst of their idolatry consisted only
in mixing foreign Worship with their own; yet, in
their mad attention to those abominable things, God s
Worship was often so extremely neglected, that IIo
.says, by the Prophet, They have forsaken me, the foun
tain of living waters, just as the Saiqt-worshippers ia
the Church of Rome forsake God, when in their
private devotions the Vulgar think only of their tutelary
Saints*
* Chap. xvi. ver. 30, 31, 32.
The
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 61
The several principal parts, therefore, of the Israel-
itisii idolatry were these,
i. Worshipping the true GOD imder an image,
such as the golden Cah-es, i Kings xii. 28. 2. Wor
shipping him iu Places forbidden, as in Grvcen*
2 Kings xviii. 22. Is. xxxvi. 7. 3. And by idola
trous Rites, such as cutting themselves with knives^
Jer. xli. 5. 4. By profaning the house of GOD with
idolatrous images, Jer. xxxii. 34. 5. By worshipping
the true GOD and Idols together. 6. And lastly., by
worshipping idols alone, Jer. ii. 13- Yet by what
follows, ver. 35, it appears, that even this was not a
total apostasy from God.
If the Reader would know what use I intend to make
of this account of the Jewish idolatry, to the main
Question of my Work, I must crave his patience till
we come to the lasi Volume. If he would know
what other use may foe made of it, he may consider
what iiath been said above ; and be farther pleased to
observe, that it obviates the objection of a sort of tner*
equally unskilled in sacred and profane Antiquity (of
whom more by and by), who, from this circumstance
of the perpetual defection of the Jews into idolatry,
would conclude that the Dispensation of GOD to them
could never have been so illustrious as thekr history
hath represented k. The strength of which objection
rests on these two suppositions, that their idolatry con
sisted in renouncing the Law of Moses : Awd re
nouncing it as dissatisfied of its truth. Both which
Dispositions we have shewn to be false: the neglect
of the la\v, during their most idolatrous practice, bek&
no other than their preferring impure novel Kites
(which most strongly engage the attention of a super
stitious people) to old ones, whose sanctity has ntf
carnal allurements. As ta its original from GOD, they
never
62 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V,
never entertained the least doubt concerning it; or
that the GOD f Israel was the Creator of the Uni
verse : They had been better instructed. Thus saith
the Lord, the HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL and HIS
MAKER*. As much as to say, the tutelary God of
Israel is the Creator of the Universe : Indeed, in the
period just preceding their Captivity, when the extra
ordinary providence was gradually withdrawing from
them (a matter to be considered hereaiter more at
large), they began to entertain suspicions of GOD S
farther regard to them, as his chosen people. But that
nothing of this ever contributed to their idolatry, is
plain from what we have shewn above, of its being a
wanton defection in the midst of peace, prosperity,
and abundance (the confessed effects of the extraor
dinary providence of the God of Israel), and of their
constantly returning to him in times of difficulty and
distress.
It is true, that this state of the case, which removes
the infidel objection, at the same time discovers a most
enormous perversky in that People; who, although
convinced of the truth of a Religion forbidding all
o O
intercommunity, was for ever running astray after fo
reign Worship. However, would we but transport
ourselves into these times, and remember what hath
been said of that great principle of INTERCOMMU
NITY OF WORSHIP; and how .early and deeply the
Jews had imbibed all the essential superstitions of Pa
ganism; we should not only abate of our wonder, but
see good cause to make large allowances to this un
happy People.
But there is another circumstance in this affair, too
remarkable to be passed by in silence. As fond as the
Jews were of borrowing their Neighbours Gods, we
* I?aiuh x!v. n,
do
L2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 63
do not find, by any hints in ancient history, either pro
fane or sacred, that their Neighbours were disposed
to borrow theirs. Nay, we are assured, by Holy
Writ, that they did not. GOD, by the Prophet Eze-
kiel, addressing himself to the Jews, speaks on this wise;
And the contrary is in thee from other women in
thy WHOREDOMS, WIJE11EAS NONE FOLLOWETH THEE
T o COMMIT, w ii o R E D o M s : and in th at th ou gives t a
reward, and no reward -is given to thee] therefore
ihou. art contrary*. I have shewn, elsewhere, that,
. by this, is meant, that no Gentile nation borrowed the
Jewish Rites of Worship, to join them to their own.
For as to Proselytes, or particular men converted to
the service of the true God, we find a prodigious num
ber in the Days of David and Solomon f. So again,
in the Prophet Jeremiah, HATH A NATION CHANGED
THE nt GODS, WHICH ARE YET NO GODS? But my
.people have changed their glory for that which doth
not profit \. ; i.e.. Hath any of the nations brought in
the God of Israel into the number of their fake Gods,
as the Israelites have brought in theirs to stand in fel
lowship with the true ? For that the Nations frequently
changed their tutelary Gods, or one idol for another,
is too notorious to need any proof.
This then is remarkable. The two principal reasons
of the contrariety, I suppose, were these :
i . It was a thin^ well known to all the neighbour-
o o
ing Nations, that the God of Israel had an abhorrence
of all community or alliance with the Gods of the
Gentiles. This unsociable temper would deter those
people (who all held him as a tutelary Deity of great
power) from ever bringing him into the fellowship of
their country Gods. For, after such declarations,
they could not suppose his company would prove very
* Chap. xvi. ver. 34. f 2 Chron. ii, 17. * Clap. ii. ver. i \.
propitious.
$4 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
propitious. And in truth, they had a single instance
of his ill neighbourhood, much to their cost* which
brings me to the second reason.
2, The devastation he brought upon the Philistines,
while the ARK rested in their quarters. For they
having taken it from the Israelites in battle, carried it,
as another Palladium*, to Ashdod, and placed it in
the temple of their God Dagon ; who passed two so
bad nights with his new Guest, that on the second
morning lie was found pared away to hisjishy stump f ;
And this disaster was followed with a desolating pesti
lence. The people of Ashdod, who hitherto had
intended to keep the Ark as one of their Idol-pro
tectors, now declare it should not abide with them^
for that the hand of the GOD OF ISRAEL was sore
upon them, and upon Dagon their God^. They sent
it therefore to Gath, another of their cities ; and these
having carried it about in a religious procession, it
made the same havoc amongst them . It was then
removed a third time, with an intent to send it .to
Ekron ; but the men of that city, terrified with the
two preceding calamities, refused to receive it, saying
they had brought the Ark of the God of Israel, to slay
them and their people ||. At length the Philistines by
sad experience were brought to understand, that it was
the best course to send it back to its owners : which
they did with great honour ; with gifts and trespass-
offerings, to appease the offended Divinity ^f. And
from this time we hear no more of any attempts
amongst the Gentile Nations to join the Jewish Wor
ship to their own. They considered the God of Is
rael as a tutelary Deity, absolutely UNSOCIABLE;
who would have nothing to do with any but his own
* See note [F] at the end of this Book. f 1 Sam. v. 4, 5.
.* Ver. 7. Ver.g. |[ Ver, 10. f Chap. vi. ver. 3.
People,
Sect. 2.} OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 65
People, or with such Particulars as would worship him
alone ; and therefore, in this respect, different from all
other tutelary Gods ; each of which was willing to
live in community with all the rest This, the historian
Josephus understood to be their sentiment, w^hen he
makes the Midianitish women address the young men
of Israel in the following manner : Nor ought you to
be blamed for honouring those Gods which belong to
the Country where you sojourn *. Besides., our Gods
,are COMMON TO ALL THE NATIONS, yours to NONE
OF THEM f .
And thus the matter rested, till occasion requiring
ttiat God should vindicate his property in that Coun
try which he had chosen for his peculiar residence, as
a tutelary Deity, He then drove the Pagan inhabi
tants of Samaria into his worship, just as he had
driven the Philistines from it : and, in loth :.v. p os, hath
afforded to his servants the most illustrious proofs of
divine wisdom, in his manner of conducting this won-
O
derful economy to its completion.
But from this circumstance of the inability of the
Law to prevent the Israelites from falling thus fre
quently into idolatry, a noble Writer ;[; has tk-:; right fit
to ground a charge of imposture against the Lawgiver.
It would therefore look like prevarication to let so
fair an opportunity pass by without vindicating the
Truth from his misrepresentations; especially when
the nature and causes of that idolatry, as here ex-
* See what hath been said above concerning this imaginary
obligation.
r.jiO o oi<, . tl yq<; tl$ r,v a^r^Oe r&&lt;; loixq avryi; Qsy$
M^ TOivrct. Tuv [Aiv Yifjieliguv xoivuv ovluv <ar^o; CLiroivloiSy T
0? fjLT.&voc Totard Tfl^avovl^-. Antiq. Jud. 1. iv. c. 6.
Sect. 8.
J Lord Bolingbroke,
VOL. V. F I 1 laine^
66 THE DIVINE LEGATION [fiookV.
plained, tend so directly to expose all his pompous
sophistry.
" One of the most conceivable perfections of a law
" is (says his Lordship), that it be made with such a
" foresight of all possible accidents, and with sucb
" provisions for the due execution of it in all cases,
" that the law may be effectual to govern and direct
" these accidents, instead of lying at the mercy of
" them. Such a law would produce its effect, by a
" certain: moral necessity resulting from itself, and
" not by the help of any particular conjuncture. We
" are able to form some general notions of laws thus
" perfect ; but to make them, is above humanity.
" To apply these reflections to the Law of Moses :
" We cannot read the Bible without being convinced,
* that no law ever operated so weak and uncertain
" an effect as tne Law of Moses did. Far from-
" prevailing against accidents and conjunctures, the
" least was sufficient to interrupt the course and to*
" defeat the designs of it; to make that people not
" only neglect the Law, but cease to acknowledge the
" Legislator. To prevent this, was the first of these
u designs ; and if the second was, as it was, no doubt,
" and as it is the design or pretence of all laws, to
" secure the happiness of the people, THIS DESIGN
u WAS DEFEATED AS FULLY AS THE OTHER; for
." the whole history of this people is one continued
" series of infractions of the Law, and of national
" calamities. So that this law, considered as the par-
" ticular law of this nation, has proved more ineffec-
" tual than any other law perhaps that can be quoted,
" If this be ascribed to the hardness of heart and ob-
" stinacy of the people, in order to save the honour
" of the Law, this honour will be little saved, and its-
" divinity ill maintained. This excuse may be ad-
" mitted
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 67
" mitted in the case of any human law; but we
" speak here of a law supposed to be dictated by
cc divine Wisdom, which ought, and which would
" have been able, if it had been such, to keep, in a
" state of submission to it, and of national prosperity,
<c even a people rebellious and obstinate enough to
" break through any other. If it be said, the Law
" became ineffectual by the fault of those who go-
" verned the people, their Judges and their Kings, let
" it be remembered that their Judges and their Kinss
O ~
" were of GOD S appointment, for the most part at
" least; that he himself is said to have been their
" King during several ages ; that his presence remained
" amongst them, even after they had deposed him ;
" and that the High Priest consulted him, on any
" emergency, by the Urim and Thummim. Occasional
" miracles were wrought to inforce the Law ; but this
" was a standing miracle, that might serve both to
" explain and inforce it, by the wisdom and authority
" of the Legislator, as often as immediate recourse to
" him was necessary. Can it be denied that the /st
" imperfect system of human laws would have been
" rendered effectual by such means as these* ?"
I. The sum of his Lordship s reasoning amounts
to this, " that the Jewish Law being ordained for a
certain end, it betrays its imposture by never being
able to attain that end. For, first, if infinite Wisdom
framed the Law, it must be most perfect; and it is
essential to the perfection of a mean, for a Law is
nothing but a mean, that it attain its end. Secondly,
if infinite Power administered it, that Power must
have rendered even the most imperfect system effectual
to its purpose."
* Lord Bolingbroke s Works, vol. iii. pp. 292-294. 410. Edit.
F 2 Thus,
68 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BooE #
Thus, we see, his argument, when reduced to order,
.divides itself into these two branches ; Considerations
drawn, first, front the tPisdom, and, then, from
the Power of the Deity, to discredit his workman
ship.
i . We will take him at his best, with the improve
ment of order ; and first examine his conclusions
from the circumstance of infinite Wisdom s framing the
.Law.
Let us admit then for a moment, that his represen
tation of the end of the Law is exact ; and that his
; assertion of its never gaining its end, is true : I answer,,
that this objection to the divine original of the JEWISH
.LAW holds equally against the divine original of that
Law of Nature, called the MORAL LAW. Now his
.Lordship pretends to believe that the Moral Law
came from GOD : nay, that He was so entirely the
, Author and Creator of it, that if he had so pleased,
he might have made it essentially different from what
it is. But yet the experience of all ages hath shewn,
. that this Law prevailed still less against accidents and
conjunctures than the Mosaic. For if the Jews were
always transgressing their Law till the Captivity, yet
after that disaster they as scrupulously adhered to it;
and in that attachment have continued ever since :
whereas, from the day the MORAL LAW was first given
to mankind, to this present hour, the least accident
was sufficient to interrupt the course, and to defeat the
designs of it. How happened it, therefore, that this
acknowledged Law of GOD did ml govern and direct
: accidents, instead of lying at the mercy of them? Was
-it less perfect in its kind than the Mosaic ? Who will
pretend to say That, who believes the Moral Law can/ie
directly from GOD, and was delivered intimately to
Man, for the service of the whole Species ; "While the
Jewish
Sect 2.} OF. MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 69
Jewish Law came less directly from him, as being
conveyed through the ministry of Moses, for the sole
use of the Jewish People ?
To these questions his Lordship would be ready to
answer, " That it is necessary for the subjects of a
jnoral law to be endowed witli free Will : That free
Will may be abused.; and that such abuses may
render the most perfect system of Laws ineffectual."
But this answer turns upon his Lordship, when ap
plied to the defence of -the Mosaic Law ; and turns
with redoubled force.
We see then how much he was mistaken in con
cluding, that, because perfection in its kind is one of
the essential qualities of a divine Law, therefore such a
law must of necessity produce its effect. His best
reason -for this- fancy is, that he is able to form
some .general notions of Laics thus perfect. Which
is no more than telling us (notwithstanding his parade
/)f insinuated ability), that he is able to conceive how
the Will may be controlled, and how Man may bo
transformed into a Machine. It is true, he owns,
that this fact, viz. to make laws thus perfect, is above
humanity. It is so; and let me add, as much below
the Diviyify ; whose glory it is to draw his reasonable
creatures with the cords of a man. A Law then, which"
produces its effects by a certain necessity, must do it
by a necessity which is physical, and not moral , it
.being the quality of physical, not of moral necessity,
that its effects cannot possibly be defeated.
Thus, we see, all there is of truth in his Lordship s
.assertion, of its being essential to the perfection of a
mean that it attain its end, amounts only to this,
A capacity in such a mean to attain its end, naturally
,and of itself. And this, we say, was the condition of the
3Josa.ic Law ; whatever might be the actual success.
y 3 The
70 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
The qualities of a Law capable of producing its
effect, are to be sought for a priori, as the Schools
speak, and not a posteriori : And if here we find in
trinsic marks of excellence in the particular Laws ;
of consummate wisdom in the general Frame and
Constitution of them ; and can likewise discover those
accidents, which, at some periods of the Dispensation,
hindered the effect ; we have done all that human
reason can require, to vindicate this divine Law, from
his Lordship s imputations of imposture.
To treat this matter as it deserves, would require a
volume, though not so large as his Lordship s. But a
few words will suffice to give the reader a general idea
of the truth. And a general idea will be sufficient to
shew the futility of the objection.
The admirable provision made by the Jewish Law
for preventing idolatry, may be seen in the following
instances :
1. That each specific Rite had a natural tendency
to oppose, or to elude, the strong propensity to idola
trous Worship, by turning certain Pagan observances,
with which the People were besotted, upon a proper
object. Hence that CONFORMITY between Jewish and
Pagan Ceremonies, which so vainly alarms, and so vainly
flatters, both the friends and enemies of Revelation.
2. That by their multiplicity, and the frequent
returns of their celebration, they kept the People con
stantly busied and employed ; so as to afford small
time or leisure for the running into the forbidden super
stitions of Paganism.
3. That the immediate benefits which followed the
punctual observance of the Law, had a natural ten
dency to keep them attached to it.
4. But lastly, and above all, that the admirable
coiiicidency between the institute of Law, and the
Administration
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 71
Administration of Government (whereby the Magi
strate was enabled to punish idolatry with death,
without violating the rights of mankind), went as far
towards .the actual prevention of idolatrous Worship,
as, according to human conceptions, CIVIL LAW,
whether of human or divine original, could possibly go.
And resting the matter here, I suppose, one might
safely defy his Lordship, with all his legislative talents,
and his vain boast of them* to form any general notions
of a law more perfect.
But this reasoning on the natural efficacy of the
Mosaic Law, by its innate virtue, to prevent and to
restrain Idolatry, which it did not at all times, in fact,
.prevent and restrain, will be further supported by this
consideration: That the circumstance which, from
time to time, occasioned a defection from the Law,
v/as .neither an indisposition to its establishment ; nor
-any incoherence in its general Frame and Constitution ;
nor aversion to any particular pttrt, nor yet a debility
or weakness in its Sanctions. The sole cause of the
.defection was an inveterate prejudice, exterior and
foreign to ,thc Law. The Israelites, in their house of
bondage, had been brought up in the principles of
&OCAL AND TUTELARY DEITIES and INTERCOM
MUNITY OF WORSHIP; principles often referred to,
; on various occasions, in the course of this work, for
ithc illustration of the most important truths.. In these
Principles,, they saw the whole race of mankind agree :
and, from the Practice of them, in the worship of
tutelar Deities, they thought they saw a world of good
ready to arise. But not only the hope of good, but
the fear of evil drew them still more strongly into this
road of folly. Their Egyptian education had early
impressed that bugbear-notion of a set of local Deities,
who expected their dues of all who came to inhabit the
F 4 country
72 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V;
country which they had honoured with their protect
tion * ; and severely resented the neglect of payment
on all new coiners. This will easily account for the
frequent defections of the Israelites in the divided ser
vice of the Gods of Canaan. But it is difficult for
men fixed down to the impressions of modern mariners,
to let themselves into distant times ; or to feel the forcer
of motives whose operations they have never expe
rienced : Therefore, to convince such men that the
early Jewish defections were not owing to any want of
force or virtue in the Law, but to the exterior violence
of an universal prejudice, it may be proper to observe,
that, from the Babylonian Captivity to this very time,
the Jews have been as averse to Idolatry under every
form and fashion of it, as before they were prepense
unto it If it be asked, \vhat it was that occasioned
so mighty a change ? I answer, It was in part, the
severity of that punishment which they had felt; and
in part, the abatement of that foolish prejudice which
they had favoured, of INTERCOMMUNITY OF WOR
SHIP : This, though still as general as ever in the Pagan
world, had yet lost greatly of its force amongst the
Jews, since they became acquainted with the principled
of Gentile Philosophy; the sounder parts of which
being found conformable to the reasonable doctrines of
their Religion, were applied by them to the use of ex
plaining the Law. An use which this Philosophy was
never put to in the place of its birth, on account of the
absurdities of Pagan worship; for this kept the prin
ciples of Philosophy and the practices of Religion at
too reat a distance to have any influence - on biic
another. Such was the advantage the followers of the
Jewish Law reaped from the Greek Philosophy;" an
* See what has been said on this matter just above, in the case
of the Cut/leans, inhabiting Samaria.
advantage
Sect. 2.] " OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 73*.
advantage peculiar to them ; and which made some
amertds for the many superstitions of another kind,
which the mixing Philosophy with Religion introduced
into the practice of the Law : superstitions which
depraved, and at length totally destroyed the noble
simplicity of its nature and genius. But I antici
pate a subject for which I shall find a much fitter
place.
At length then we see, that the Law of Moses was,
indeed, such a one as his Lordship would require in a
LAW OF DIVINE ORIGINAL, namely, that it produced
its effect, if riot by a physical necessity which bears
down all obstruction before it, yet by a moral, which
constantly kept operating when no foreign impediment
stood in the way ! So false is his Lordship s assertions;
lhat the WHOLE history of this people is one continued
series of infractions of the Law. If, by \hewhole, he
means (as his argument requires he should mean) the
whole both of their sacred and merely civil history*;
and,- by one continued series of infractions of the Law,
their lapses into Idolatry; it is the grossest misrepre
sentation : the far greater part of their duration as a
distinct People was free from idolatry ; and an au
thentic account of this freedom is recorded in their
Annals. But if by their whole history, lie means (as
his cause might necessitate him to mean) only the
sacred books ; and, by their infraction of the Law,
only transgressions in lesser matters, it is illusory and
"impertinent.
2. We have seen the force of his Lordship s
conclusion from the circumstance of infinite Wisdoms
framing the Law : We come next to the other
circumstance, from which he deduceth the same
conclusion, namely, infinite Powers administering
the Law.
" Let
74 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
;i Let it be remembered (says his Lordship) that
" GOD himself is said to have been their King during
( several ages; that his presence remained amongst
" them, even after they had deposed him ; and that
-" the High Priest consulted him, on any emergency,
" bv the Urim and Thummim. OCCASIONAL MI-
*J
" RAGLES were wrought to iolbrce the Law ; :but this
"" was a standing miracle, that might serve both to
"" explaia and inferce it, by the wisdom and authority
" of the Legislator, as often as immediate recourse to
" him was necessary. Can it be denied that the most
" imperfect system of human Laws would have been
* rendered effectual by such means asttiese?"
This bad reasoning seems to be urged with much
good faith, contrary to his Lordship s usual custom;
and arises from his ignorance of a Theocratic admini
stration, as the nature of the administration may be
collected from the common principles of the Law of
Nature and Nations.
Let us consider the affair dispassionately. God, iia
giving laws to his chosen people, was pleased, more
humano, to assume the title of King, and to administer
their civil affairs by a Theocratic mode of Government
Every step ia this establishment evinces, that it wag
itis purpose to interfere no otherwise than in conformity
&o that political assumption. He proceeded on the
most equitable grounds of civil Government,: he be
came their King by free choice. It must needs
therefore be l*is purpose to confine himself to such
.powers of legislation, as human Governors are able to
.exert ; though he extended the powers of administratio.il
far beyond the limits of humanity. His Lordship s
ignorance of so reasonable a distinction occasioned all
this pompous Fallacy. He found in the Mosaic Dis
pensation OCCASIONAL MIRACLES pretended : and he
a o imagined
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 75
imagined that, consistently with this pretence, Mira
cles ought to operate throughout, rather than that the
end of the Law should be defeated. But, I presume,
GOD could not, conformably to his purpose of erecting
a THEOCRACY, and administering it MORE HUMANO,
exert miraculous powers in legislating, though he very
well might, and actually did exert them, in governing :
because, in legislation, a miracle, that is, a supernatural
force added to the Laws, to make them constantly
obeyed, could not be employed without putting a force
upon the Will ; by which God s Laws would indeed
produce their effect, but it would be by the destruction
of the subject of them. The case was different in
administering the Laws made : here God was to act
iniraculomly ; often out of wise choice, to manifest
the nature of the Government, and the reality of his
regal character; sometimes out of necessity, for the
carrying on of that Government on the Sanctions by
which it was to be dispensed : and all this he might do
without the least force upon the Will.
This is sufficient to expose the futility of his Lord
ship s conclusion from the circumstance of injinite
Powers administering the Law ; it being essential to
the Law, that infinite Power administering it, should
restrain itself within such bounds as left the will per
fectly free. But injinite Power, restrained within
such bounds, might sometimes meet with unsurmount-
able obstructions in the course of its direction, under
a Theocracy administered more hwnano.
II. W e have seen how weak his Lordship s reason
ing is in itself : Let us now see how much weaker he
makes it by ill management ; till at length it comes
out a good argument against his own objection.
Ihe Law of Moses (says his Lordship) was so
far from prevailing over accidents and conjunctures,
" that
T6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
4 that the least was sufficient to interrupt the course
* aud defeat the design of it, to make that people not
" only neglect the Law, BUT CEASE TO ACKNOW-
f LED^E THE LEGISLATOR. To prevent this, was
* 4 the. first of these designs: and if .the second was (as
" it was, no doubt) and as it is the design or pretence
" of all Laws, to secure the happiness of the people,
L * THIS DESIGN WAS DEFEATED AS FULLY AS THE
" OTHER : for the whole history of this people is one
ct continued -series of INFRACTIONS OF TH,E LAW,
" AND OF NATIONAL CALAMITIES."
To pass fey that vulgar mistake (which has been
Sufficiently exposed above) that the Jews ever ceased
.to acknowledge their Legislator,; let me observe it to
iris Lordship s credit, that he appears to have under
stood so much at least of the Mosaic Institution, as to
see that fae first end of it was peculiar to itself ; and
that that which is common to all civil Communities was
tbut the second end of This.
But is it not strange, when he saw so far into the
nature of the Jewish Constitution, that he should not
see that this second end was entirely dependent on
Avhat he himself makes .the principal; namely, to pre
serve the Israelites from idolatry ; but should argue
against the divinity of the Law, as if these ends were
independent one of another ; and that one might be
obtained without the other ? For, to aggravate the im
becility of the Law, he informs us in the passage last
quoted, " that it was not only unable to gain its first
end, but its second likewise : that the one design was
defeated as fully as the other:, that the people- were
not only idolaters in spiritual matters, but poor, nii&f li
able, and calamitous in their civil interests." Strange,!
-that he could not see, or would not acknowledge, that
he LAW denounces their happinqss and misery as
.citizens,
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. *&
citizens, in exact proportion to their adherence to, or
their defection irom, that Law; when he saw and
confessed (what their HISTORY records), that this was
their invariable fortune. The whole history of thi$
people (says life Lordship) is one continued series of
infractions of the Law, and of national calamities-.
~Now if the whole frame of the Mosaic Law was so
-composed, as to do that by positive institute which the
Moral Law does by natural, viz. reward the obedient,
: and punish the disobedient (and it certainly was so
composed, if a continued series of infractions was fol
lowed by a continued series of calamities), we must
needs conclude that we have here the strongest prouf
of that divine Wisdom in the Constitution, which this
great modern Lawgiver pretends to seek, but assures
us he is not able to find ; and yet, at the same time,
brings this convincing circumstance of the truth of
the LAW ; This design (says he) was defeated as
fully as the other. Here his rhetoric, as usual, got
the better of his reasoning : Not content to say, the
whole history of this People is one continued series of
infractions of the Law, he will needs add by way of
exaggeration AND OF NATIONAL CALAMITIES.
Which has so perverse an influence on the argument
as to undo all he had been labouring to bring about,
by discovering a connexion between infractions and
/ O \s
calamities, which has all the marks of a divine con
trivance.
Had it been the declared design of their Lawgiver
to separate the two ends, and to form such an economy
as that the People under it might be flourishing, in
peace and affluence, while they were Idolaters in Re
ligion; or, on the other hand, true Worshippers, arid
at the same time calamitous Citizens ; then* to "find
them neither religious nor prosperous, under a Law
which
75 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
which pretended to procure truth without temporal
felicity, or to establish peace and prosperity in the
midst of error; this indeed (without taking in the
perversity of such a System) would have fully discre
dited the pretended original. But when, in this Law,
truth and happiness, error and misery, are declared to
have an inseparable connexion ; the freethinking Poli
tician, who shews from history that this connexion was
constant and invariable, is intrapped by the retortion
of nature and reason, to prove against himself the
Divinity of that Institute he labours to discredit.
Still further : When, on reading the history of this
extraordinary People, we find (as Josephus well ex
presses it) that, in proportion to the -neglect of the
Law, easy things became unsurmountable, and all their
undertakings, how just soever, ended in incurable cala
mities* : , we cannot but acknowledge the divine direc
tion in every stage of such a Dispensation. For, to
comprehend the whole of the Historian s meaning, we
must remember, that there were some Laws given
purposely to manifest the divinity of their original :
such as that against multiplying horses ; which, when
it was transgressed, easy things became unsurmount-
able ; and that which most facilitates a victory, a
strong body of Cavalry intermixed with Foot, proved
amongst the Israelites a certain means of their defeat^
So again, when they transgressed the Law which com
manded all the males to. go annually to the temple, the
historian tells us, their most just -undertakings ended
in incurable calamities; and sure nothing could be
more just than to defend their borders from invaders ;
yet they were sure to be most infested with them when
, 7* WOT av ?
pirifriu Antiq. V. i. p. 4*
they
Sect 2*.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 7^
they thought themselves best secured: that is, \\\.
their males were at home, when they should have been*
worship-ping at the Temple.
III. But it is ROW time to come a little closer to his
Lordship. He has been all along arguing on a FA LSI.
ACT, which his ignorance of the nature of the Jewish
Separation hindered him from seeing.
He understood, indeed, that this extraordinary eco
nomy had, for its primary end, something very diffe
rent from all other civil Policies ; and that that which
was the first (indeed the only end) in others, was but
the secondary end in this. Yet this primary end he
saw so obscurely, as not to be able to make it out.
He supposed it was to keep the Israelites from idola
try; whereas it was TO PRESERVE THE MEMORY OF
THE ONE GOD IN AN IDOLATROUS WORLD, till the
coming of Christ: To keep the Israelites jrom ido
latry, was but the mean to this end. Thus has our
political Architect " mistaken the scaffold tor the pile,"
as his harmonious friend expresses it. And the mis
take is the more gross, as the notion of the ultimate
end s being to keep the Israelities from idolatry, is
founded in that vain fancy of Jewish pride, that their
Fathers were selected as the favourites of God, out of
his fondness for the race of Abraham.
Under this rectified idea therefore let us consider
the truth of his Lordship s assertion, That no Law
ever operated so weak and uncertain an effect as the
Ztfiv of ]\ loses did: far from prevailing against acci
dents and conjunctures, the least was sufficient to in
terrupt the course, and to defeat the designs of it.
Now if we keep the true end of the Law in view,
we shall see, on the contrary, that it prevailed con
stantly and uniformly, without the least interruption,
against the most violent accidents, and in the most
unfavourable
So THE DIVINE LEGATION, [Book V,
unfavourable conjunctures ; those I mean, which hap
pened when their propensity to the practice of idolatry,
and their prejudice for the principle of inter community ^
were at the height: for amidst all the disorders con
sequent thereto, they still preserved the knowledge of
the. true .God, and performed the Rites ordained by
the Law. And the very calamities which followed the
infraction of the Law, of which the neighbouring
Nations occasionally partook, were sufficient to alarm
.these latter, when most at ease, amidst the imaginary
protection of their tutelary Gods, and to awaken them
to the awful sense of a 1 EIN.G different, as well as
superior to their National Protectors. Which shews,
that the Law -still operated its effect, strongly and
constantly; and still prevail >:d og \lns.t accidents and
.conjunctures, which it governed and directed, instead
.of lying at the mercy of them. But as it is very
probable that the frequent transgressions, which those
accidents and conjunctures occasioned, would in time
.have defeated the end, of me Law, the transgressors
.were punished by a seventy-years-captiviiy ; the ex
traordinary circumstances of which made such an
impression on their haughty masters, as brought them
to confess that the God of Israel was the true God ;
and was so severely felt by them, that they had an
.utter aversion and abhorrence of Idolatry,, or the wor-
,ship of false Gods, ever after. So thui ; from thence
.to the- coming of Christ, a course of many ages, they
Adhered, though tributary and persecuted, and (what
.has still greater force than Persecution, if not thorough
ly administered) despised and ridiculed by the two
greatest Empires of the world, the Greek and Roman;
and though surrounded with the pomp and splendor of
Pagan idolatries, recommended by the fashion of
Courts, and the plausible glosses of Philosophers, they
adhered,
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. Si
adhered, I say strictly, and even superstition sly, to the
letter of that Law, which allowed of no other Gods
besides the God of Israel. Now if this was not
gaining its end, we must seek for other modes of
speech, and other conceptions of things, when we
reason .upon Government and Laws.
Yet this was not all. For the LAW not only gained
its end, in delivering down the Religion of the TRUE
GOD into the hands of the REDKE:,IKR OF MANKIND;
who soon spread it throughout the whole Roman Em
pire; but even after it had done its destined work, the
.vigour of the Mosaic Revelation still working at the
root, enabled a bold Impostor to extend the principle
of the UNITY still wider, till it had embraced the re
motest regions of the habitable World : So that, at
this day, almost all the Natives of the vast regions of
.higher Asia, whether Gentiles, Christians, or Maho
metans, are the professed worshippers of the ONE
ONLY GOD. How much the extension of the prin
ciple of the Unity \ws been owing to this Cause, under
the permission and direction of that Providence, which
is ever producing good out ofevU t is known to all whp
are acquainted with the present state of the Eastern
world.
The reason why I ascribe so much of this good, to
the lasting efficacy of the Mosaic Law, is this : Ma
homet was born and brought up an Idolater, and
inhabited an idolatrous Country ; so that had he seen
no more of true Religion than in the superstitious
practice of the Greek Church, at that time overrun
with saint and image-worship, it is odds but that, when
he set up. for a Prophet, he might have made Idolatry
the basis of his new Religion : But getting acquainted
with the Jews and their Scriptures, he came to under
stand the folly of Gentilism and the corruptions of
VOL. V. G Christianity;
S2 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
Christianity ; and by this means was enabled to preach
up the doctrine of the OXE GOD, in its purity and
integrity. It is again remarkable, that to guard and
secure this doctrine, which He made the fundamental
principle of Islimaelitisrn, he brought into his Impos
ture many of those provisions which Moses had pat
in practice to prevent the contagion of idolatry.
But the great Man with \vhom we have to do, is so
secure of his fact, namely, that the Law wets perpe
tually defeated, ami never gained its end*, that he sup
poses his Adversaries, the DIVIDES, are ready to
confess it; and will only endeavour to elude his in
ference by throwing the ill success of its operations on
the hardness of the People* hearts and the impiety* of
their Governors*. And this affords him fresh occa
sion of triumph.
I will not be positive that this species of Divines k
intirely of his own invention, and that this their apo
logy for Moses is altogether as imaginary as their fa
mous CONFEDERACY (* against God; because 1 knov,*
by experience that there are of these Divines, who, in ;
support of their passions and prejudices, are always
ready (as I "have amply experienced) to admit what
Scripture opposes, and to oppose what it admits, in :
almost every page. But the best Apologies of such
men arc never worth a defence, and indeed are rarely
capable of any.
To conclude : Such as these here exposed, are al
ti:c reasonings of his Lordship s bulky volumes : A net
rro wonder ; when a writer, however able in other
matters, will needs dictate in a Science of which he
tlid not possess so much as the first principles.
* Pages 293, 4. t Vol. V. p. 305307- 393-
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 83
SECT. III.
HAVING thus shewn the nature of this THEO
CRACY, and the attendant circumstances of its erec
tion; our next enquiry will be concerning its DURATION.
Most writers suppose it to have ended with the
JUDGES ; but scarce any bring it lower than the
CAPTIVITY. On the contrary, I hold that, in strict
truth and propriety, it ended not till the coming of
CHRIST.
I. That it ended not with the Judges, appears evi
dent, for these reasons :
1. Though indeed the People s purpose, in their
clamours for a King, was to live under a Gentile
Monarchy, like their idolatrous neighbours (for so it
is represented by God himself, in his reproof of their
impiety* ); yet in compassion to their blindness, he,
in this instance, as in many others, indulged their
prejudices, without exposing them to the fatal conse
quence of their project : which, if complied with, in
the sense they formed it, had been the withdrawing
of his extraordinary protection from them, at a time
when they could not support themselves without it.
He therefore gave them a King ; but such an one as
was only his VICEROY or Deputy; and who, on that
account, was not left to the People s election, as he
left his own Regality ; but was chosen by himself:
the only difference between God s appointment of
the Judges and of Saul being this, that They were
chosen by internal impulse; He, by Lots, or external
designation.
2. This King had an unlimited executive power;
s God s Viceroy must needs have.
* i Sum. vii. 7,
&4 THE DIVINE LEGATION
3. He had no legislative power : which a Viceroy
could not possibly have.
4. He \v as placed and displaced by God at pleasure :
of \vhich,, as Viceroy, we see the perfect fitness ; but
as Sovereign by the people s choice, one cannot easily
account for ; because God did not chuse to supersede
the natural Rights of his People,- as appears by his
leaving it,, at first, to their own option whether they
would have God himself for their King.
o
5. The very same punishment was ordained fc*r
guFsing the Kir/g as tbr blaspheming, God, namely,
stoning to death ; and the reason is intimated in thest
words of Abishai to David, Shall not Sliimei he put
to death for this, becait-sv he cursed the LORD S
ANOINTED*? This was the common title of the
Kings of Israel and Judah, and plainly denoted their
.office of Viceroyalty: Improperly, and superstitiously
transferred, in these Inter ages. to. Chris tiun. Kiugs and
Princes.
From this further circumstance,, a J r iceroyalty is
necessarily inferred : The throne and kingdom of Judea
is all along expressly declared to be God s throne and
God s kingdom. Tims, in the first book of Chronicles,
,it is said that Solution wit cm the TPIR,OXE OF -SHE
LOUD, as King^ instead of David his j at her ^.. And
the qaecn of Slieba, who visited Solomon, to be in
structed in his wisdom, and doubtless had been infonnc.x.1
bv him of the true nature of his kingdom, compliments
him in these words : fttessed be the Lord thy God y
u /r /i /i delighted in thee to set thee on ins THRONE,
TO BE KING FOR THE LoUD THY GoDlj;. In like
manner Ahij.-th speaks to the house of Israel, on their
defection from Rehoboam : And now ye think to with
stand the KINGDOM OF THE Loun in the hands of the
* 2 Srun* xix* 21.. f Chap. xxix. ver. 23. t 2 Chron. ix. 8.
Sece 3.3- OF MOSES DEMO. TRATED. 8.5
WHS of David*. And to the same purpose, Xehcmiah :
Neither have aur kings, our princes, our priesis, nor
wir fathers, kept ..thy lav, uor hnirkincd -unto thy
cammandmenif;, and f/ij/ testimonies, ichcrw-ith thoa
didst testify against them. J or .they hare not served
thee in THEIR KINGDOM ) . The sense, I think, re
quires that .the Septuagini read* ig should be here
preferred, which says EN BA2IAEIA EOT, i:< THY
KINGDOM. And this the Syriac and Anibic versions
follow. As Juclea is always called his kingdom, so he
is always called the King of .the Jew& Thus tlie
Psalmist: Thine Altars, O Lord of Hosts, my Kixu,
and my God jf.. And again.: Let Israel rejoice m Jiim
that made, him : let the children of Zion be jouful in
Jhcir KING. Andti.\\\& the Prophet J.ereuiiah: The
JVIXG, whose name-is the Lord of Hosts^.
7. The penal Laws against idolatry were still ii?
force during their Kings, and put in execution by their
-best rulers, and even by men inspired. Which, alone,
.i.s a demonstration of the subsistence of the THEO
CRACY ; because such laws are absolutely unjust under
every other form of Government.
As to the title of King given to these "Rulers, this
.will have small weight \\ith those who reflect that
Moses likewise, who was surely no more thiu God.^
deputy, is called Kinv: Jlfoses ttiinfiltittdzd*QA a Laic;
wu I he inheritance of the tongregatlQn of Ja-cob.
.^Ind lie w(ut KING in.Jeshuruii) whtyi tin* -head* of
.the people, cuid the trib-i* <f L- rad. mi crai to-
Let us now ^ce \vluit the cclcbrai ".e Clerc
says iu derence of ti.e conl^u-y opinion. : i3iippo-
; sc th the TiiEociiACv to liiive epd( : the Judges.
* 2 Chron. xiii. 8. -j- C b. ix. 3.;, 3- ; i-s,i:iu ixxxiv. 3.
* I cuitn cxlix. 2. |j Ch. li. 57. 51 Deut. xxxiii. ^ Sr 5.
x; 3 J a,thcr
86 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
Father Simon of the Oratory had said, that the republic
of the Hebrews never acknowledged ami of her CHIEF
than God alone, who continued to govern in that
quality even (luring the time in which it icas subject
to Kings*. This was enough to make his learned
adversary take the other side of .the question; who
being piqued at Simon s contemptuous slight of his
offered assistance in the project for a new Polyglotr,
revenged himself upon him in those licentious | Letters,
intitled, Sentimcns de qudques Theoiogicm de Hollande,
\vhere his only business is to pick a quarrel, lie there
fore maintains against Simon, That the theocracy ceased
on establishing the throne in the race of David $.
What he hath of argument to support this opinion is
but little; and may be summed up in .the following
observation, That God did not PERSONALLY interfere
with his directions, nor discharge the functions of a
Magistrate after the establishment of the Kings as he
had done before . But this, instead of proving the abo
lition of the Theocracy, only shews that it was
* La Republique des Hebreux differe en cela de tous les autres
tats du monde, qu elle n a jamais recomiu pour chef que Dieu
seul, qui a continue de la gouverner en cette qualitc dans les terns
memes, qu elle a ete soumise & des rois. Histoire Crit. de Vieux
Test. p. 15. Ed. Rotterd. 1685.
-f- See note [G] at the end of this Book.
J II paroit au contraire par 1 Ecriture, que Dieu n agouverne la.
republique des Hebreux, en qualite de chef politique, que pendant
qu ils n avoient point des rojs, & peut-e tre au commencement que
le rois furent etablis, avant que la famille de Davi^l fut aflermie sur
letronede Israel. iSentimens, tS:c. p. 78.
rondvint tout ce temps-la, Dieu fit les fonctions dc roi, II
jugeoit des r.flaires il repondoit par 1 oracle il regloit la marche
de 1 annce il envoyoit meme quelquefois un ange On n etoit
oblige d obeir aveuglernent, qu aux seuls ordres de Dieu. Mais
lors qu il y eut des rois en Israel, & que le royaume fut attache :\
la famille de David, les rois furent maitres absolus, & Dieu cessa
<Je faire leurs fonctions. pp. 78, 79.
6
Stt.3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 8;
.-administered by a Viceroy. For in what consists the
-office of a Viceroy but to discharge the functions of his
Principal? He had been a cipher, had God still governed
-immediately, as before. - Mr. Le Clerc could see that
Cod acted by the ministry of the Judges*. If then
the Theocratic, function could be discharged by depu
tation, why might it not be done by Kings as well as
.Judges? The difference, if any, is only from less to
more, and from occasional to constant. No, -says our
Critic, the cession was in consequence of his own de
claration to Samuel : For they have not rejected thec,
<but they kcrcc REJECTED ME, that I should not reign
ot cr them \. This only declares the sense God had df
-their mutinous request; but does not at all imply that he
gave way to it. For who, from the like words (whick
express so natural a. resentment of an open defection)
would infer in the case of any other monarch, that he
thereupon stepped clown from his throne, and suffered
4in usurper to seize his place ? This, we see, was poor
easoniiig. But, -luckily for his reputation, he had an
Adversary who .reasoned worse. However, Simon saw
thus much into Le Clercs cavil, as to reply, That al l
JH had said \cas quite beside the.purfosfyfor that the
.thing to he ppovedtvaSt that, after the establidimenf
:/// the Khigs, God icas no longer the civil Chief ^
au lieu qiuuiparaviiut Dieu lui-mcuie la fa bsuit* par Ic
<wlni$ter.c dca Jttges t qu il suscitoit fie temps en teu.ips ,au milieu
d lsruel. Def. des Sent. p. 1-21.
-j- C est pour cela que Dicu dit a Samuel, Jors qu Israi l
voiilut ;ivoir tin roi pour /< /.v^y/ 1 d Ic mflnicrc dc /cities lex nations :
-<< w i .v/ pay (of quit* out rtjciu , main moi, (tjin (juc j.c ;tc regne point
3((r citx. i Sam. viii. 7.
I Je passe sous silence le lo*if; Jiscours de Mr. le Clerc louchunt
:le ponvoir de Dieu sur les Israelites avant retablissetneiit cies rois,
K!*OU il pretend prouver que Dieu pe.uda.nt lout ce temps-la fit la
function de roi. Tout .cela est liors de propos,jpuis qu il s agit de
G
88 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
On which Le Clerc thus insults him: As much as to
,#37/, that in order to prove God was no longer Clriif
qf the Hebrews after the election of a King, it is
beside the purpose to shew, he never afterwards dis~
charged the functions of a Chief of the republic. It
Is thus this great Genius happily unravels matters,
and discovers, in cm instant, what is, and what is not
to the purpose*. Whether Simon indeed knew why
Le Clerc s objection was nothing to the purpose, is to
Le left to God and his own conscience, for he gives us
o
no reasons for the censure he passes on it: but tiiat it
.tvas indeed nothing to the purpose, is most evident, if
this proposition be true, " That a King does not cease
" to be King, when he puts in a Viceroy, who executes
" the regal office by deputation."
Le Clerc returns to the charge in his Defence of the
Sentiments : " The Israelites did not reject God as
" Protector, but as civil Chief, as I observed before.
46 They would have a King who should determine
" sovereignly, and command their armies. Which,
" before this, God himself did by (lie ministry of the
" Judges, whom he raised up, from time to time, from
" the midst of Israel. In this sense we must under-
" stand absolutely the words of God, in Samuel, that
" / should not reign over them f ," It is indeed strange,
that,
prouver, qu apres ces temps I d Pien n\i plus etc leiir chef: & c est
ce qu on ne pror.vera jamais. Rcponse aux Sentimens de quelques.
Theol. de Hoi. p. 55.
* C est a dire, qre pour prouver que Dieu n a pas c^c chef
dcs Hebneiix, apros I elect.-.-n des rois, I est hors de propos de
prouver qu il u u plus fait les foncticns de chef de la republique,
C est ainsi que ce grain} genie debvruiilc beurenbement les nuuieres,
& decouvre d aboidre qui rsl hors de propos, de ce qui ne Test pas.
peieiis. des Sentimens, p. 1-20.
t Les Israelites ne r<jetterent pas Dieu comme protecteur,
niais comme chef politlque, ainsi que je 1 ai marque. Us vculurent
uri
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 89
that, after writing two books, he should still insist on
so foolish a paD)lo<iisin*, That God s giving up his
office of civil Chief, was a necessary consequence of
the People s demandhi? it. For, that they did demand
it, I acknowledge. Let us consider then this whole
matter a, little more attentively.
Samuel (an-.l I desire the Deists would take notice
of it) had now, by a wise and painful direction of aff-jirs,
restored the purity of Religion, and rescued his Nation
from the power of the Philhim??, and their other
hostile neighbours; against whom they were utterly
unable to make head when he entered upon the public
Administration. At this very time, the People-, de
bauched, as usual, by power and prosperity, t.r. k the
pretence of the corrupt conduct of the Prophet s two
sons f, to go in a tumultuary manner, and demand a
King. But the secret spring of their rebellion was the
ambition of their leaders ; who could live no longer
without the splendour of a regal Court and Houshold ;
GIVE ME (say they, as the Prophet Hosea interprets
their insolent demand) A KING AND PRIXCLS ; where
every one of them. mi;ht shine a distinguished Officer
of State. They could get nothing when their affairs
led them to their Judges 1 poor residence, \\i\\\eSchocls
of the .Prophzts, but the GIFT of theMoly Spirit^
which a Courtier, I presume, would nor prize even at
the rate Simon Magus held it, of a paltry picoe of
money.
un roi qui IKS jug&& s uve.rai;iemont, & qm . commanciac le: is
.armei-s, an lieu q^ a^parayunt 1) e \ MM-;^ iue le i;i;soit, p ir le au-
nisteredeajug) j*citou ue l^. ; i,s en temps an inil.eu d if?racl.
- 1 co sens il taut entendre ahsotu niertt It s p.uoies de Dieu dans
Siiinui i, ajin qucjr tic rcgric point xur eu.r, p. r.n.
* However, foolish as it is, the. Reader hath seen, how a late
.Seruioiiizei has borrowed it, and how little iorce he has added
to it.
t i Sa-n. viii. 5. and xii. i<2. J Chap. xiii. ver. io f
$ Chap. x. 10. and chap. xix.
<?o THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
unouey. This it was, and this only, that made their
demand criminal. For the chusing Regal ratlie/r than
Aristocratic Viceroys \vas a thing plainly indulged to
dieni by the Law of Moses, in the following admonition :
fF/izK thou art come into the land which the Lord tin]
Godgi-Oeth thee, and shalt possess it, and sluik dwell
therein, and shalt say, Iiitli set a KING over me, tike
as the nations that are about me ; Thou shalt in any
wise -set him King over thce, whom the LORD THV
SHAL-L c ii USE : one from amongst thy Brethren
thou set King over thee : Thou mayest not set a
Granger over thee, which is not thy brother *. The
<plain meaning of which caution is, that they should
take care, when they demanded a King, that they
thought of none other than such a King who was to be
CTOD S DEPUTY. As therefore Court-ambition only
*vas in the wicked view of the Ringleaders of these
o
imaleconteats, arid no foolish fears for the State, or hopes
of bettering the public Administration ; it is evident
to all acquainted with the genius of this Time and
People, that compliance with their demand must have
ended in the utter destruction of the Mosaic RELI-
<riox as well as LAW. But it was XJOD S purpose to
*keep them -SEPARATA in order to preserve the memory
of himself amidst an idolatrous World. And this not
feeing to be done but by the preservation of their
Religion and Law, w r e must needs conclude that he
ivould not give way to their rebellious demand.
And what we are brought to conclude from the
reason of the thing, the history of this transaction
cleady enough confirms. For it having now informed
us how GOD consented to give this People a King,;
To shew us, that he had not cast off the Government,
but jonly transferred the immediate Admii-iistration to
* JDeut. xvii. 14, 15,
a Deputy,
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 91
a Deputy, and consequently that fheir Kin* was his
Viceroy ; it tells us next, how He was pleased to bring
them to repentance in an extraordinary way ; the
gracious method he commonly employed when he in
tended to pardon. Samuel assembled the People * ;
and to convince them of their crime in demanding a
King, called clown the present vengeance of their
offended GOD in a storm of thunder and rain at the
time of wheat-harvest^. This sudden desolation
brings them to a sense of their guilt, and they implore
mercy and forgiveness : u And all the People said
" unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord
" thy God, that we die not : for we have added unto
" ail our sins this evil, to ask us a King. And Samuel
" said unto the People, Fear not; (ye have done all
" this wickedness : yet turn not aside from following
" the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart;
" and turn ye not aside : for then -should you go alter
" vain things which cannot profit nor deliver ; for they
" are vain : ) For the Lord will not forsake his People
" for his great Name s sake: because it hath pleased
" the Lord to make you hi$ People ^." Here, we see,
they repent, are pardoned, and received again into
Grace, as appears by the concluding promise, that the
Theocratic form should be continued. They are ready
to give up their King, and yet a regal character is in
stituted. The plain conclusion from all this is, that
their King was given, and, now at least, received as
GOD S DLIPL TY.
liut Father Simon is at length provoked into a Reason,
and that to say the truth, no weak one. God, lie ob
serves, kept the election of their King in his own hands .
i Sam. xii. f Chap. xii. 17, 18. J i S^in. xii. 19. & sc.q.
Et une preuvc memo qu il r.e cessoit pas (li ire leur ch< i par
cctte election, c cst <ju il s cii rend le raaitre. l.U j>onse uux Sen-
tiinens, . 53.
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V,
But this, Le Clerc says, proves nothing. How so?
Because, according to this reasoning, zee should be
obliged to say that God qfiencr discharged the func
tions of -Civil chief bi the idolatraus realm ^of the ten
Tribes than in that of Judah : for that teas elective,
this, hereditary*. And what if \ve do ? Where will
be the harm of it? The two kingdoms made up hut
one Commonwealth; of which God, as Head, go
verned by two Viceroys. And if he oftoner acted
immediately in the kingdom ,of Israel, there was .a
plain reason for it; Its inhabitants were more given
o idolatrous worship ; and needed more the frequency
/of an extraordinary restraint. And, in effect, we
find he did interfere greatly m other instances, as well
:as in the electioa of their Kings.
In truth, F. Simon seemed to see as little into the
force of the observation (that Clod reserved the choice
-of their King to himself) when he urged it, as M. Le
4Jlerc did, when he despised it: yet it is strongly con
clusive for the continuation of the, Theocracy. For
iiad the visible King which the Israelites demanded
been granted to thern^ that is, a Kmg in his own
right, sovereign, and at the head .of a new Constitu
tion, or indeed, any other than a Viceroy to the KING
-of the Theocracy, the choice of him would have been
reserved to the People. It was a natural right; and
more than ,tha,t, a right which God did not think fit to
* Pour ce-que dit M. Simon, que Dreu sc raid wait re dc V elec
tion des Rois il ne s ensuit nulleincnt qu il continuiit d uti e pour
ceU chfef po li-tiqne <!e la republique cflsrail; pukque si cela etoit,
il fdiidroit dire que Dieu ikisoii bc^uicoup plus souvent les fonc-
tions da chef cie 1 etat dans le royu-unic Idolatre des dix tribes, que
<ians celui do Juda. Car ce derniere royau.me etoit hereditaire, &
iCtoit possede par la maison de David, saris qu il fut besoin d au-
cune election, au lieu qu il le fit plusieurs elections dans cclui des
dix tribes. JDtfense des Sentiracas, pp. 121, 122.,,
lake
Sect. 3-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 93;
take from them, when he first accepted the regal office
for himself. But if the People have, hy natural Law,
a right to chuse their own King, that King hath, by
civil Law, a prerogative to chuse his own Deputy.
"When we see him therefore exercise this prerogative,
we marv be assured that- the Kin" 1 chosen was- no other
j O
than his Deputy, as SOVEREIGN of the Theocracy.
13ut to return to the two Combatants. Here the Dis
pute ended; and for farther satisfaction, Le Clove
refers us- to a book of Spencer s, written professedly
upon this very subject*. It is his tract DC Thcocm-
tia Judalca. What is to be found there, besides the
arguments which Le Cjcrc has borrowed from it, and
which have been considered already, I shall, now wish
some reluctance inform the Reader.
This treatise is by no means in the nijinber of those-
on which Sirjcncer raised his reputation. He goes on
a wrong hypothesis; he uses weak arguments; and he
is confused and inconsistent in his assertions. .-
i. He thinks the Theocracy was established by d<?-
greesf, and abrogated by degrees;!:. A conceit
highly absurd, as GOD was the Lawgiver, and Supreme
Magistrate of the Jew?. He thinks the first step to
its introduction was their protection at the Red Sea f> ;
and
* 11 n est ins nf cessnire qn? je m arrvte d avantape a cela, aprx-s
ce qu en a tlit le savant Spenar dans un Unite qu il a fail expic-^
stir cette nrmtiere. Lib, i. de Leuir.. lleb. Rit. Det . des St-nt. p. \^i.
t Neniihem in sacris literis vel inediocriler vtr: -,a.tum lalere.
potest TJteocfadam in ipso rem.m Israel it icaram exordio aliqun-
tenus obtinuisse, atl oxjitni aulein non nisi graeiarini iS: posl U\.\ein
in Sinai datatn pervenisse. Vol. I. p. 230.
+ Cum autein regiiniuis hujus, non sitnul cS: semel, sed pof x
gradus quosdam, jacturam fecoint, placel hie veritutis fugientis
vestigia gradatini premere. id. ib.
Ciradum primum ad pot^stalem regiam obtinendani fecisre
viduiur Deus, cuin gen tern Jsraclilicam insiirni illo potentiaj <?>:
54 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
and the first step to its abolition, their demand of a
King*: That it was still more impaired when Saul
and David got possession of the throne | : That it
approached much nearer to its end when it became
hereditary, under Salomon J : and yet, for all this, he
confesses that some obscure footsteps of it remained
even to the time of CHRIST .
2, In his reasoning for the abolition of the THEO
CRACY, instead of employing the general principles
of civil Policy, which were the only means of coming
to the truth, he insists much on the disuse of Urim
and Thummini, c. which Le Cicrc borrowed from
him ; and which hath been already considered. He
brings the despotic power of the Kings ||, as another
argument; which, I think, proves just the contrary.
For if so be, that these Kings were the Viceroys of
God, whose power was despotic, their power must be
despotic too, i.e. independent on all but the SOVE
REIGN. Not so, if they were Monarchs in their own
right.
3. Though, as we observed, Spencer, in the second
section of his fourth chapter, supposes a gradual decay
of the Theocracy ; and that even some obscure foot
steps
bonitatis sure documcnto (Jigyptiorum in Mari Rubro submer
sion*?) sibi devinxifiset. Id. ib.
* IVimo il ique ad certum aiih mo, quod Israelite, regem sibi
d:iri pasttflatttes, uraduin piimu.m ad imptrii hujus desideratissimi
minam feekse vi;L antur. Id. ib. .
f Dei regimen inuUo mnpis irnminutnm est, cum Deus Saitlcm
& ..Dr/r/f/cw; ad rorum arbitrium evocasset. p. 240.
* Salomonc reruni potito, Thcocratia multo vicinior aOana-^
non ininiorito cciiscatiir.
Jvu jci Tl:eocratKC, veteris indicia & vestigia quncdam obscu-
riora, ud extrem-i usque pr>litia? suaj tempora retinuere ipso
Domini nostri sectdo, Ilicrosolynia ciritas vntgni regis uudiit. Ib.
|| adeo-ut hint- constet, ens se.pro rogibus gy.s^iss.e, & potes-
teteia-arbitrariam exercuisse. Ib.
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 95
steps of it remained to the time of CHIUST; yet, in
the following section, he, all the way, argues upon the
supposition of an absolute and entire abrogation * by
the establishment of the Kings f. To proceed.
II. That this Theocracy, the administration .of
which lay, as it were, in abeyance during the Ca;
vity, was again exercised after the return from it, is-
evident from the express declaration of the Almighty
toy the Prophet llaggai : Yet r t ow be strong, O Zend-
babel, sfiilh thc~Lord; and be strong, O Joshua, Sots
of Joscdcch the High Priest ; and be strong, all ye
People of the Land, sailh the Lord, and tcork : for I
am with you,, sailh the Lard -of Hosts: ACCORDIXC-
1-0 THE WORD THAT I COVENANTED WITH YOU,,
WHEN YOU CAME OUT OF EGYPT, SO Mr Sp IRIT
RF.MAIXE71I AMONGST YOU : JCCIT ?/,? IJOt^. What
was that Covenant ? That Israel shouk-i be his People,,
and lie, their God and King. Therefore it cannot
barely mean, that he would be their God, and they
should be his People; for this was bet part of the
Covenant. Nor can it mean that they should be con
ducted by an extraordinary providence, as at their
coining out of Egypt, and during the first periods of
the Theocracy ; for thl* was but the effects of the
Covenant: and besides, we know that that dispensa
tion of Providence 30011 ceased after the Re-cstablish-
rrient. The meaning therefore rr>ust be, that he would
still continue their KING as well as God, Yet at the
saiue time, when this Theocracy \vss restored, it was
both fit, on account of its own dignity, and necessary
ibr the Peoples assurance, that it should be attended
* Regimiras hujus inutati vet abr;>g;iti causa principalis
De regiminis hnjus abro^nti cilectu vel cveutu brevitcr disscrenduro
cst-Atc. pp. -241 243,
f See note [H] at the end of this Book.
J Chap. ii. ver. 4, 5.
with
96 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V*
with some unusual display of divine favour. Accord
ingly, Prophets were raised up and an extraordinary
Providence for some short time administered, as ap
pears from many places in those Prophets *.
III. That the Theocracy continued even to the
coming of CHRIST, may be seen from hence
1. Whenever it was abrogated, it must needs be
done in the same solemn manner in which it was esta
blished ; so that the one might be as well known as
the other : because it was of the highest importance
to a people so strictly bound to obedience, not to be
mistaken concerning the power under winch they lived.
-Natural equity requires this formality as a necessary
concomitant in the imposing and abrogating of all
civil laws and institutions whatsoever. Now the The- 1
ocracy having never been thus abolished till ihe corning
of Christ, we conclude that it continued to subsist till
that time.
2. Nor indeed, could it have been abolished without
dissolving the whole frame of the Republic; since all
the Laws of it, whether as to their equity, force, or"
iitncss, as well as the whole llitual of Worship, re-
spccted, and referred to God as civil Governor. Lut
neither by the declaration of any Prophet, nor by the
act of any good King, did the Institution suffer the
least change in any of its parts, from the time of its
establishment by Moses to its dissolution by JESUS
CHRIST, cither by addition, correction, or abrogation.
Consequently, the Theocracy was existing throughout
that whole period : Nothing being more absurd than
to suppose that national Laws, all made in reference
to the form of Government, should remain invariable,
while the Government itself was changed. For, what
* Hag. i. 6 -ii. Chap. ii. vcr. 16 19. Zech. viii* 12,
Mai, iu, 10, 11.
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 97
the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says of the
PRIEST (in a Constitution where the t\vo Societies
were incorporated) must be equally true of the KING.
THE PRIESTHOOD BEING CHANGED, THERE is
MADE ALSO, OF NECESSITY, A CHANGE OF THE
LAW *. And now it was that JESUS, the MESSIAH,
who is here spoken of as making this change, in qua
lity of PRIEST, made it likewise in quality of KING.
For, as we learn from the history of his Ministry, he
came as Heir of GOD, to succeed immediately without
any interregnum, in his Father s kingdom : GOD hav
ing DELIVERED UP to his Son the kingdom, of which
the Father was, till then, in possession. And this
change in the Government, from the temporal Thco*
cracy of GOD the Father, to the spiritual Kingdom of
GOD the Son, was made in the same solemn and au
thentic manner in which that Theocracy was introduced.
GOD raised up from amongst his chosen People, a
Prophet like unto Moses, who exercised the Legislative
power, like Moses ; and assumed the Regal power,
like GOD. He gave a NEW LAW to be administered
in a NEW KINGDOM, and confirmed the divinity of
the Dispensation by the most stupendous miracles.
Thus, we find, the Theocracy did indeed subsist till
the coming of Christ.
And this ABOLITION of it by the Son of GOD, I
take to be the true completion of that famous PRO
PHECY of Jacob, of which so much hath been written
and disputed.. THE SCEPTRE SHALL NOT DEPART
FROM JUDAH, NOR A LAWGIVER FROM BETWEEN"
HIS FEET, UNTIL SlIILOH COME f, i.e. the TlIEO-
CKACY shall continue over the Jews until Christ
* Chap. vii. ver. 12. t G en - xlix. 10.
J Who took their Name from the Tribe of Judah ; the rest being
incorporated in that Tribe, or extinguished in Captivity.
VOL. V. II come
9S THE DIVINE LEGATION [BopkV.
come to take possession of bis Father s Kingdom:
For there was never any Lawgiver *, in Judah, but
GOD by the ministry of Moses, until the coming of
bis SON.
JESUS the MESSIAH, the best interpreter of the
Oracles of GOD, of which he himself is the capital
subject, and for whose sake the chain of prophecies
was so early drawn out, and exended to such a length,
seems to have paraphrased and explained the words of
Jacob concerning the departure of the Sceptre from
Jitda/i, by his declaration recorded in St. Matthew,
THE PliOPlIETS AND THE LAW PROJiHESIED TILI^
Jonx t, i.e. " the -\Iosaic Law, and the Theocratic
Government by which it was dispensed, continued in
Being till the approach of this harbinger of Christ,
John the Baptist ; but was then superseded by the
promulgation of a mw Law and the establishment of
a new Kingdom"
But as this interpretation is so different from the
common, and understands the Prophecy as foretelling
that the Jewish nation should not be bereft of Sove
reign Power, by falling under a foreign Yoke, till the
Advent of the MESSIAH, the Header will excuse me,
if I detain him a little longer on so important $
subject.
The common notion of the Sceptre of Judah, is
explained three different ways, each of which has it s
particular Followers.
* Mhho/ick, Legislator, ant J^cgis interpret. But the first is
its original and proper Signification. And thus Isaiah [ch. xxxiii.
ver. 22.] " The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our LAWGIVER
[Al/t/toke/iciiou], the Lord is our Ki/ig, he will save us." Where
the word Mkhokck is used in its proper Signification of lawgiver ;
the other Sense of Dispenser or Interpreter of the Law being
combined in the titles of Judge and, Kivg.
I Matt. xi. 13.
i. Some
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, gg
1 . Some suppose the Sceptre of Judah to signify the
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE JEWISH NATION at large.
2. Others again suppose it to signify the SOVE
REIGNTY OF THE TRIBE OF JcDAH.
3. And a third sort contend that it signifies not a
sovereign or regal, but a TRIBAL SCEPTRE only.
In the Sense of a Sovereignty in the Jewish People
at large, which is the most general interpretation, and,
in my Opinion, the most natural of the three (as the
whole People were long denominated from that tribe),
the pretended Prophecy was not only never fulfilled,
but has been directly falsified : because long before
the coming of Shiioh, or of Christ, the Sceptre or
Sovereignty in the Jewish people was departed Dur
ing the Babylonian and Persian Captivity, and while
afterwards they continued in a tributary dependence
on the Greeks, they could, in no reasonable sense, be
said to have retained their Sceptre, their Sovereignty,
or independent Rule. But it may be replied, " that
the Prophecy by departure, meant a final departure ;
and in these instances it was but temporary : for
CYRUS restored the Sceptre to them; and when it
was again lost in the Grecian Empire, the MACCABEI
recovered it for them." Though this be allowed, yet
we must still confess, that the Romans, who under
Pompey reduced Judea to a dependent Province,
effectually overthrew the Prophecy. POMPEY took
Jerusalem; and left to Hyrcanus, the last of the As-
monean family, only the office of High-Priest. From
this time, to the birth of Christ, it was ever in depen
dence on the Romans, who disposed of all things at
their pleasure. The Senate gave the Government of
Judea to Antipater; and then to Herod his Son, under
the title of King. And Archelaus, on the death of
liis Father, did not dare to take possession of this
H 2 subject-
loo THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
subject-kingdom, till he had obtained leave of Augustus ;
who afterwards, on complaint of the Jews against him,
banished him into the West, where he died. Now the
precarious Rule of a dependent Monarch could no
more be called a Sceptre (which, in the figurative modq.
of all languages, signifies Sovereignty) than the con
dition of the Jews could be said to be sovereign, when
this Archelaus was deposed, and Coponius a Roman
Knight made procurator of Judaea, at that time which
the supporters of this interpretation fix for the Depar
ture of the Sceptre.
I reckon for nothing another objection which has
been made to the common interpretation, " That after
the return from the Captivity, the Jews were, from time
to time, under a form of Government resembling rather
the Aristocratic than the Monarchic;" because the
Sceptre, or Sovereignty, belongs equally to all those
Forms. This then makes no more against the common
interpretation, than the other, I am now going to men
tion, makes for it, namely, that the Senate of Rome
gave the Government of Judas to Herod under the title
of KING ; since the dependent rule of this Roitelet was
as certainly the departure of a Sceptre, as a Sovereignty
under an aristocratic Government was the continuance
of it.
The learned Father Tournemine was so embarrassed
with these difficulties, that in a dissertation on the
Sceptre of Judah y he endeavours to shew, that the proof
of the predicted birth of Christ from this Prophecy
arises not irom the departure of the Sceptre, but from
its re-establishment under the Messiah-*. Which
thesis (as the intelligent reader may observe) fairly put
him in the road ; and, had it been pursued, would have
led him to the sense I am here endeavouring to establish.
* Journal de Trevoux, Mars 1705, & Feb. 1721.
The
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 101
The second branch of the common interpretation is,
That by the Sceptre is signified a mil sovcreig?ity in
the tribe of Judah. This, in my opinion, has still less
of stability than the other. It supposes that, the Sceptre,
or the supreme rule of the Jewish People, remained in
natives of that Tribe, from the time of David to the
coming of Christ. But Petavius hath shewn, that
from the giving of the Prophecy to the time of David
(a Space of above six hundred Years), there \vas
but one or two Rulers descended from the Tribe of
Judah : And that from the death of Sedecias to the
birth of Christ (a space of near the same number
of years) all the Rulers of the Jewish People were
of other Tribes ; the Asmonean princes particularly
being all of the tribe of Levi *. The Abbe de Houte-
ville, who, at a very easy rate, hath obtained tne
reputation of an able defender of Revelation f , hath
indeed invented a curious expedient to evade this
difficulty. His system is, that the rulers of the tribe
of Levi (and so I suppose of the rest) exercised this
Sovereignty by leave, or deputation from the Tribe of
Judah. To such wretched shifts are learned men
reduced, when they have reversed the order of things,
and made Truth to wait upon their Systems ; instead
of making their Systems subservient to Truth.
* At coiuplures antiquorum re.centiorumque qui in ilia Jacob!
sententia Judam peculiari de tribu intellexernut, id sibi Palruuci: un
voluisse credunt, ex stirpe ac progenie Judce tilii ipsuis perpetuo
Judseis pnefuturum aliquem eorumque fore prinripetn, donee (, hris-
tus adveniat. Sed in hujus reddendadicti rutione multum ivstuant,
siquidem vetustatis omni teste memoria rei elluntur, qua: non sulum
ante Davidem unum altenmive duntaxat ex ilia tnbu rexisse po-
pulum ostendit, annis circiter 675 ub edita prophetia; sed etiam
post Sedecias necem, occusumque Urbis & Teniph ad Christum
usque de alia quam Judcc stirpe duces extitisse annis 588 ; etenim
Machabaoos constat ex Levitica et Sacei dotali progenie desceiidert.
Ration. Tempoium, Par. II. L. III. C. 16.
f See his beok, intitled, Religion preuvee par Us Faits.
H 3 These
102 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
These txvo senses (by one or other of which the
common interpretation hath been long supported)
being found on a stricter scrutiny, to be intenablc,
men cast about tor a third : and a happy one it was
thought to be, which contrived, that Sceptre should
signify a domestic, not a civil rule; a TRIBAL, not a
SOVEREIGN Sceptre , and of which, they say, JUDAH,
at the giving of the Prophecy, was already po^sessed.
Ihis expedient, the learned Dr. Sherlock, Bishop of
London, has honoured with his support and protec
tion *.
It would be want of respect to so eminent a Person,
to pass over this refinement with the same slight notice
that has been given to the other two. I shall therefore
do myself the honour to consider his Lordship s
reasoning more at large.
His Lordship s first argument in support of a tiibal
Sceptre is That the Sceptres not DEPARTING from
Judah shews plainly that Judah had a Sceptre when
the prophecy was given. " Is there any sense (says
c his Lordship) in saying that a thing shall not depart,
" which never was yet in possession ? The prophecy
" is not a grant of the Sceptre, but a confirmation of
" it. Now a confirmation of nothing is nothing:.
" And, to m.?ke it something, the possession of the
" thing confirmed must be supposed. I know not by
what rules of language or grammar, these words can
" be construed into a grant of the Sceptre. And
" though so many writers and interpreters have followed
" this sense, yet I do not remember to have seen one
" passage or parallel expression from ihe Scripture, or
" any other author, produced to justify the interpre-
"* tation." pp. 326, 7.
Is there any Seme (his Lordship asks) in saying a
fhing shall not DEPART which never was yet in posses-
* Use and latent of Prophecy, Dissert. III. 5th Edit, 1749.
sion f
Sect 3,] OF if OSES DEMONSTRATED. 103
sion? Yes certainly, a very good one, in a PROPHECY,
where the subject is not of a present but of a future
possession ; and where the Holy Spirit is wont to call
the thing* that arc not, as though they icere. The
Subject is a Sceptre, which could in no sense, not even
in the sense of a tribal sceptre, be in possession of
Judah before he became a Tribe. His Lordship,
indeed, supposes he became a Tribe immediately after
the death of Jacob. This power in the hands of the
Tribes took place immediately upon the death oj Jacob.
p. 323. But if it did? Was not that accession as
properlyy^/^rt , as if it had been a. thousand years
after? Judah then, at the time of this Prophecy, not
being in possession of his Sceptre, a confirmation df
nothing is nothing, &c. so that all the absurdities here
imagined stick to his Lordship s /Era of the Sceptre, a.s
well as to the common one. But let us suppose that
Jacob s Prophecy and death were individual ; and then
see how he proves his assertion, that Judah and the
Rest became Tribes immediately on the death of Jacob.
His proof is a little extraordinary // "hen AJOMX and
Aaron led them into the, ll ilderncss (says his Lordship)
we hear of the ELDERS of the people, and the RULKUS
of the congregation, p. 323. His assertion is, that
the tribal sceptre sprung up from the asiies of Jacob;
and his proof, that it arose and flourished in the Wil
derness. This is indeed tiie truth; it was a Native of
that place ; as may be fairly presumed from the occasion
which the Israelites hail of a tribal rule (namely, to
fit them for the warfare they were now about to under
take), and as may be fairly proved from the first chapter
of the book of Numbers " And the Lord spake unto
" Moses in the wilderness of Sinai : Take ye the sum
" of all the congregation of the Children of Israel,
" after their families, by the house of their Fathers
H 4 " all
104 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
" all that are able to go forth to war in Israel,
" Thou and Aaron shall number them with their
" armies. And with you, there SHALL BE A MAN
" of every tribe; every one HEAD OF THE HOUSE of
" his Fathers and they assembled all the congre-
" gation; and they declared their pedigrees, after
" their families, by the house of their Fathers These
" were those which were numbered : and the PRINCES
" OF ISRAEL BEING TWELVE MEN, EACH ONE WAS
" FOR THE HOUSE OF HIS FATHERS. And the
" Children of Israel shall pitch their tents, every man
" by his own camp, and every man by his own standard,
" throughout their Hosts And the Children of Israel
" did according to all the Lord commanded them *."
Then follows the order of the Tribes in their tents f .
Now, surely, this detailed account of these tribal
Sceptres hath all the mark of a new Institution.
The Bishop s hypothesis therefore is without found
ation : the Sceptre was something in reversion. Indeed
the particular words, as well as the general nature of
Prophecy, declare the subject to be of things future.
" And Jacob called to his sons, and said, Gather
" yourselves together that I may tell you what shall
" befall you IN THE LAST DAYS J." The Bishop
owns, that most of the Interpreters, from these words,
take it for granted, and it is the common notion, that
the Sceptre was not to be settled in JudaKs family till
some ages after the death of Jacob, p. 326. I think
they had not reason so to do. How does his Lordship
prove they had ? In this manner : " The observation,
" when rightly applied, is right. And if the continuance
" of the Sceptre of Judah be, as I suppose, the thing
" foretold, it extends to the very last days of the Jewish
* Numb. i. 4, 5. 18. 44. 52. 54. | Numb. chap. ii.
I Gen. xlix. i.
" State;
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 105
" State; and in this respect the interpretation is
" justified :" (p. 327.) i. e. if you will agree that fu
turity refers to the continuance, and not to the
establishment of the Sceptre, his Lordship will shew
you, how well he can evade this objection. But though
we were inclined to be thus complaisant, the book of
Numbers would not suffer us : which informs us (we
see) that even the tribal Sceptre was established long
after the death of Jacob. But to go no farther than
the Prophecy. If each Tribe had a Sceptre then
existing, how happened it that J Uriah s is only named,
by ic ay of CONFIRMATION, as his Lordship will have
it. For, by way of GRANT, we find Dan too had a
Sceptre Dan SHALL judge his People as one of the
Tribes [or SCEPTRES] of Israel. But then Dan s is a
reversionary Sceptre ; and such a one destroys ail his
Lordship has been erecting.
To proceed The Prophecy (says the Bishop) is not
a GRANT of a sceptre, but a CONFIRMATION. The
Prophecy itself plainly intimates the contrary. Jacob
having told his sons that he would inform them of what
o */
should befall them in the last days, when he comes to
Judah, he says, Thy Fathers Children shall bow down
before thee *. This, if it was any thing, w as the pro
mise of a future Sceptre ; and consequently it was the
grant.
The Bishop goes on Now a confirmation of nothing
is nothing. Witheut doubt. But he supposes (what
I have shewn to be a mistake), that there was no grant.
If there were a grant, then the confirmation of it was
the confirmaticn of something. He seems to be appre
hensive of so obvious an answer, for he immediately
adds / know not by what rules of languuge or gram
mar these, words can be construed into a GRANT of the
* Gen. xlix. 8.
Sceptre.
106 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
Sceptre. By the plainest rule in the world ; that of
common sense, the first and capital rule in every Art as
well as grammar. For if Jacob made a declaration
concerning some future prerogative, as the words
Thy fathers Children shall bow down before thee
prove he did ; and that this was the first time that
Judah heard of it, as the words I will tell you what
shall befall you in the last daysprove it was ;
What can this Prophecy be but the GRANT of a
Sceptre ?
" Though so many writers and interpreters (says the
" Bishop) have followed this sense, yet I do not re-
" member to have seen one passage or parallel
" expression from the Scripture or any other writer
" produced to justify the interpretation." As for any
other Writers than those of Scripture, I know of none
who have prophesied : and the language of prophecy
hath peculiarities unknown to other Compositions.
But a Scripture-writer I am able to produce ; and the
same who has recorded this Prophecy of Jacob.
On Abraham s departure out of Haran, he being then
seventy-five years of age, the Lord, as Moses tells us,
appeared unto him and said Unto thy SEED will I
give this Land*. Was this now a grant, or a con
firmation only of SEED ? " A confirmation only, says
his Lordship : All the grant contained in these words
is the grant of the LAND : and this shews (will he say)
that the Seed was now existing : for a non-entity is in
capable of receiving any grant or donation : besides,
a confirmation of nothing is nothing, and so on." -
Notwithstanding all this, it so happens that Abraham
had then no Seed.
Here now is a parallel expression, which holds
a fortiori. For if it be a little anomalous to talk of a
* Chap. xii. Ver. 7.
things
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 107
things departing which was never yet in possession, it
seems to be much more absurd to talk of ghing to
persons who were never yet in Being. Besides, the
promise of Rule actually accompanies the promise of
its duration : but the express promise of Seed does
not accompany the promise of a provision for it:
I suppose the reason of this difference of expression in
the two places is, because to get a Son is a much
commoner case than to get a Sceptre.
His Lordship having thus shewn, that Judah s
Sceptre was a Sceptre in possession, he will prove next,
that it was not a crcil, but a trio til sceptre, which
did not stretch its sovereignty over a whole nation, but
was confined to tiie economic rule of tire single tribe
of Judah. u Another thing supposed (says he) by
" most interpreters is, thai the Sceptre, here mentioned,
" is an emblem of Dominion over all the tribes of
" Jacob. But how can that be? Had not Jacob
" settled a sc^tre in every tribe? as is evident,
" ver. 16. Dim shall judge his people an one of the
" Sceptres of Israel. Suppose a Father has divided
" his estate amongst twelve Sons, and should say of
" one of them, The Estate shall not depart from
II John, j or many ages , could you possibly suppose
" him to mean more than the share of the Estate given
" to John ? Could you understand him to mean that
" all the estate, the twelve shares, should come to
" John and continue in his family ? The case is the
" same here. Twelve Princes are created ; Of one
" of them Jacob says, the Sceptre shall r.ot depart
" from him until Shiloh come. Is it not plain then,
" that the Sceptres are distinguished here ; and that it
" is foretold of one, that it shall long outlast the rest?
( consequently the Sceptre here is an emblem of Autho-
1 I ity IN AND OVER ONE TllIBi, ONLY." pp. 328, 9.
His
io8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
His Lordship s reasoning, on which he grounds his
parallel, stands thus Judah s sceptre was the same
\vith Dan s : now Dan s was a tribal Sceptre ; there
fore Judah s. But the very words of the Prophecy
shew that the Sceptres were specifically different. Of
Dan it is said, he shall judge his People AS ONE OF
THE TRIBES OR SCEPTRES OF ISRAEL. Here IS
a tribal Sceptre marked out in express and proper
terms. But of Judah s Sceptre it is said, THY FA
THER S CHILDREN SHALL BOW DOWN BEFORE THEE.
Who were these Children but the eleven tribes ? So
that here a civil and a sovereign Sceptre is as properly
and expressly marked out for Judah, as before, a
tribal one for Dan. This shall judge his own tribe;
but the other shall, with his own tribe, judge the rest
also. And yet if you will rely on his Lordship s Au
thority, he has a case in point , and he assures us
" that Judah s grant is the same as that of a Father s
to his Son John, who when he had divided his estate
amongst his twelve Sons should say of John s part,
that it should not depart for many ages."
He tells us next, " that the sense of the word LAW
GIVER will follow the fate of the word Sceptred p. 329.
In this, I perfectly agree with him. And therefore,
as his sense of the word Sceptre is found to be erro
neous, his sense of the word Lawgiver must fall
with it.
All that follows has nothing to do with the question
of a tribal Sceptre, till we come to page 344. From
thence to 350, he endeavours to take advantage of the
hypothesis, to shew that this tribal Sceptre never de
parted from Judah till the coming of Christ: And
here he had an easy task. But unluckily confounding
economic with civil Rule, he embarrasses himself as
much, to make out the completion of the Prophecy,
as
Sect 3-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 109
as the supporters of the other two branches of the
common interpretation are wont to do. As where lie
talks of the Jews in Babylon ordering all matters re*
Idling to their men CIVIL and ECCLESIASTICAL Af
fairs. p.34. r ). Their coming back to their men Country
as a People and a nation GOVERNED BY THEIR OWN-
LAWS though never so FREE A PEOPLE as they had
been formerly. They lived tinder subjection to the
Persian Monarch, and under tbe empire of the Greeks
and Romans, p. 347. The Evangelists shew that
they lived under their OWN LAWS, and EXECUTED
JUDGMENT amongst themselves, p. 349. Had tlie
exercise of JUDICIAL AUTHORITY amongst themselves.
p. 350. Thus, like the Successors of Peter, who en
larged his Rock into a Citadel, his Lordship at last
lengthens his tribal Sceptre into a sovereign. But if
here he extends it over a People and Nation, he con
tracts it as much by and by ; and we see it shrink up
into a mere philosophical or Stoical Regality. His
Lordship undertakes to prove that the Jews were a
FREE PEOPLE, from their own consciousness of their
free condition. When our Saviour (says the Bishop)
tells the Jews " The truth shall make you free ;" they
reply, " We are Abraham s Children, and were never
" in bondage to any man." p. 349. This his Lord
ship urges as a proof of their Civil freedom. But if
the Jews, who expected a carnal Messiah to lead real
armies against their enemies, could suppose that Jesus
made them an offer of sending Truth in person, to
execute this commission for them, their stupidity must
have exceeded every thing we have been told of it, by
their Enemies. To be plain with his Lordship, the
subject here debated, between Jesus and his adversa
ries, is most foreign from his Lordship s purpose.
Our blessed Saviour is here addressing himself to the
PHARISEES,
no THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
PHARISEES, a rank of men not ignorant of the Greek
philosophy (though greatly mistaking its use w ien
they brought so much of it into the Law), and there
fore, with a Stoical dignity, he tells them the truth
shall setyoujree. They answer him in the sarae tone,
We are Abrahams Children, and were never in bond
age to any man. That is, " Our principles are of
divine extraction, and we never suffered ourselves to
be inslaved to human decisions." Surely (says his
Lordship) they had not forgot their captivity in Ba
bylon. Forgot ! Why, Jesus had said nothing to put
them in mind of it. The question is not about their
freedom from Babylon, but from Error. Much less
(says he) could they be ignorant of the power of the
Romans over them at that time, and yet we see they
account themselves free. And why should they not,
when the Question between Jesus and them was only
who should make them so, HE or ABRAHAM.
Strange! that his Lordship s own account of their
civil condition under the power of the Romans should
not have brought him to see, that the subject in hand
was only of their moral Condition. Stranger still !
that his solution of this difficulty should not have led
him to discover that it was but imaginary they were
free (says his Lordship) for they lived by their own
Laws, and executed judgment amongst themselves.
Had he added but, at the precarious nod of an arbi
trary Tyrant it would doubtless have given great
force to his observation : For, about this time, Copo-
nius, a Roman Knight, was named Procurator of
Judea. Nay, even the precarious privilege of punish
ing capitally was now taken from them : They hud a.
pa;an Governor: and Justice was administered, not
by their own Forms of Law, but by the Roman. An
admirable character of civil Freedom !
i His
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, m
His Lordship seems to be no happier in answering
others objections, than in urging his own proofs.
" You will say (continues he) why did not Jacob
" foretell also the continuance of the Sceptre of Ben-
" jarnin ? For the tribe of Benjamin run the same
" fortune with that of Judah : they went together
" into captivity : they returned home together ; and
" were both in Being when ShiloJi came." p. 355.
Upon my word, a shrewd objection. Let us see
how his Lordship quits his hands of it. His first
answer is,- -That from the division of the Kingdom,
after the death of So/amon, the tribe of Beujamm and
the remnant of Israel, that is, part vj all the other
tribes, ADHERED TO JUDAH AS THEIR HEAD.
Pi>- 355, 6-
Here his Lordship seems fairly to have given up the.
Cause ; his answer proving, in so many words, that;
Judahs Sceptre was not tribal, but chil. Let us ex
amine it step by step. Ejnjamin and the remnants of
ail the other tribes adhered to Judah as their head.
Now such an adherence can be no other than an ac
knowledgement of a Clcit Sceptre, iu Judah. Yet his
Lordship gives this as a reason why tlie continuance of
Judah s Sceptre is foretold, and not Benjamin s.
Therefore the Sceptre, whose continuance is foretold,
\vas a c/r//, not a tribal, Sceptre, even on his own,
principles. If this needed a support, the words of
the Prophecy afford it amply : his Lordship says, that
Benjamin and the remnant* tif all the other tribes ad
hered to Judah as their HEAD; ana this adherence,
Jacob foretells Thy Father* children shall FALL
povx before thec.
Supposing therefore that this Sceptre of Judah were
of the civil kind, his Lordship, it mqst be owned, has
given a very satis IUCU.TV reason why Benjamin s tribal
sceptre
112 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
sceptre was not mentioned. But if both were tribal
Sceptres, the continuance of Benjamin s had as good
a claim to the Prophet s notice (for any thing the
Bishop has shewn to the contrary) as Judah s. Since
as Tribes, they both continued to exist, and to exist
distinct.
His second answer to the Objection seems as little
satisfactory as the first Though the continuance of
the SCEPTRE of Benjamin is not foretold, yet the con
tinuance of the tribe or PEOPLE of Benjamin is dis
tinctly foretold, p. 356. Would you desire a more
conclusive argument against his own notion of a tribal
Sceptre ? If this prophetic Sceptre of Judah was a
civil one, there is a very good reason why the conti
nuance cf the people, and not of foe Sceptre of Ben
jamin, should be foretold ; because what Judah and
Benjamin had in common was their continuing to exist
as distinct tribes ; the Sceptre being peculiar to the
first : But if a tribal Sceptre be the subject of the
Prophecy concerning Judah, then no possible reason
can be assigned why the continuance of Benjamin s
Sceptre should not be honoured with the divine notice
as well as Judah s ; since his Lordship assures us
they both run the same fortune ; they went together
into captivity ; they returned together to Judea ; and
ivere both in being when Shiloh came. And while a
Tribe continues distinct, a tribal Sceptre continues
with it; just as the head of a family exists so long as
there is a family to govern.
AH this considered, his Lordship in my humble
opinion had done well not to load himself with more
than he had occasion to carry : especially as he had
so little to answer for, in the success of this hypo
thesis; for he tells us at the end of his DISSERTA
TION, that he has nothing more to add, but to acquaint
the
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 113
the reader that the interpretation of Jacob s Prophecy
now advanced, was not a mere invention of his own ;
that it was, as to the main point, the same with that
which is the fourth in HUETIUS, and by him rejected.,
but for such reasons as had been fully obviated in
this dissertation. That it was the same which JUNIUS
and TIIEMELLIUS, and our own learned Countryman,
AINSWORTH, had espoused ; and which not many years
ago was revived and improved by Mr. JON COURT.
pag. 358.
Now, from what hath been said, it appears that of
all the three branches, into which the common inter
pretation spreads, though they be equally weak, the
last betrays its weakness most. But, what is of prin
cipal consideration, it is, of all the three, least suitable
to the DIGNITY OF PROPHECY ; the whole body of
which has a perpetual reference to one or other of the
great parts of the Dispensation of Grace. Now the
first branch refers with suitable dignity to a whole
People at large : the second to the same People under
the Government of one certain line: while the third
concerns only the fortunes of a single Tribe, and under,
a Family-idea.
The common interpretation therefore being shewn
so very exceptionable in all its branches, what remains
for us to conclude, but that the true and real meaning
of the Sceptre of Judah is that THEOCRATIC GOVERN
MENT which God, by the vicegerency of Judges,
Kings, and Rulers, exercised over the Jewish nation ?
We have shewn from various considerations of weight,
that this THEOCRACY, which was instituted by the
ministry of Moses, continued over that People till the
coming of Shiloh or Christ; THAT PROPHET like unto
Moses, whom God had promised to raise up. And to
support what hath been urged from reason, to illustrate
VOL. V, I this
ii4 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
this important truth, we have here a Prophetic decla
ration enouncing the same thing, the sceptre shall not
depart from Judah till Shiloh come : Shiloh is Christ.
Now Christ is not the Successor of those VICEGE
RENTS of the Jewish State, but of God himself, the
KING of the Jews. The Sceptre therefore which
descends to him, through the hands of those vicegerents,
is not merely a CIVIL, but a THEOCRATIC Sceptre.
This, at the same time, explains the Evangelic doctrine
of CHRIST S KINGDOM, arising out of the Theocracy
or Kingdom of God. Hence the distinction in that
famous declaration of Christ, so much abused to fac
tious and party purposes, that His KINGDOM WAS
>TOT OF THIS WOULD : The Theocracy which was
administered over the Jews only, and in a carnal man
ner, was a Kingdom of this world: but when transferred
to Shiloh, and extended over all mankind, and admi
nistered in a spiritual manner, it became a Kingdom
not of this world. And the making the Sceptre of
Judah neither Tribal, nor MERELY Ciril, but properly
Theocratic, clears the Prophecy from those insuperable
difficulties which render all the other interpretations hurt
ful or dishonourable to the Prophetic system in general.
These are the superior advantages of the sense I
have here endeavoured to establish. Nor are these all
the advantages. The Prophecy is seen to embrace a
much nobler object than was imagined. It was sup
posed to relate only to the fortunes of the Jewish
Economy, and we find it extends itself to the whole
Dispensation of Grace. It was considered but as a
simple PROPHECY, while it had the dignity of a RE
VELATION. It was mistaken for the species, when it
is indeed, of the genus.
But to all this an Answerer may reply : i. " That,
as we admit the THEOCRACY to be a Kingdom of this
3 World,
Sect. 3-1 OP MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 115
World, the same objection will lie as well against the
CONTINUANCE or duration of a Theocratic Sceptre as
of a mere Civil one." But here we must distinguish.
The Theocracy was indeed carnal in its administration,
but in its original it was Divine. Therefore, as where
the subject is of the continuance of a mere civil Sceptre,
we cannot but understand the continuance of its ad
ministration, because the administration is inseparable
from the existence ; so where the subject is of the
continuance of a Theocratic Sceptre, we must under
stand that continuance to consist in its remaining
unrevoked, since what is of divine original exists,
independently of its being actually administered ; it
exists till it be formally abrogated. This difference is
evident from the nature of things. Forms of Govern
ment ordained by Men, cease when Men no longer
administer them ; because, in the non-administration
of them, they arc naturally supposed to revoke what
they had ordained : But men s ceasing to administer
(whether by choice or force) a Form of Government
given by God, does not (on any rules of logic or ideas
of nature) imply God s revocation of that form of
Government.
Again, we must remember what has been said of the
effect and consequence of a THEOCUACY. It not
only united, but incorporated the two Societies, civil
and religious, into One. And this incorporated body
of the Jewish State went by the name of THK LAW.
Now under that part of the Law which more intimately
regarded Religion, the Jews always lived FREE till the
publication of the Gospel; though the other part of
it, regarding the sovereign administration of civil policy
and justice, they had lost from the time of Pompey.
For a power precariously enjoyed, and ready to be
abolished at the nod of a Conqueror, can never be
1 2 called
li 6- THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookY.
called Sovereign (which implies the being free and
independent) without the worst abuse of words, whicfo
is, the quibbling upon them. So that a Sovereignty
in this Theocracy was still administered to the last,
though in part. However, this partial exercise was
consentaneous to the System on which this Theocracy
was dispensed; its Administration being ordained to
have a gradual decline. The Jews, for their trans
gressions, being first of all deprived of that natural
effect of Theocratic rule, the extraordinary providence:
and then, for their incorrigible manners, further pu
nished by an infringement of their civil sovereignty :
but still the Theocracy, as to that more essential, the
Religious part, remained unhurt till the coming of
Christ : And let it be observed, that it was this part in
particular which was to be assigned over to him, from
the Father. Thus, as I said before, this is not so pro
perly a pi*edictiou of human events, as a revelation
concerning the course of God s Dispensation.
2. Secondly, it hath been objected, that " according
to the sense here put upon the Sceptre, it should
have been said the Sceptre shall not depart from
JEHOVAH instead of JUDAII. But such Objectors do
not advert, that the Theocracy was administered by-
Vicegerents of JUDAII. And this likewise will account
O
for the expression of a Lawgiver between his feet.
3- Lastly, it may be said, " That by this interpre
tation of the Sceptre oj Judah we deprive the Prophecy
of one principal part of the information it was supposed
to give, namely, the TIME of Christ s advent, which
the common interpretation is supposed to fix. exactly."
To this I answer, that Religion loses nothing by this
change, since there are so many other Prophecies
which point out the time with infinitely more precision.
On the other hand, Religion gains much by it, in evad
ing
Sect 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 117
ing a number of objections, which had stigmatized the
supposed Prediction vuth apparent marks of falshood.
Thus we see this noble Prophecy, concerning the
transfer of the Kingdom of GOD, to CHRIST, contains
a matter of much greater dignity in itself, and of much
greater moment for the support of CHRISTIANITY,
than could arise from the perplexed question about the
reign of the Asmonean Princes, or the Continuance of
the power of life and death amongst a tributary Peo
ple. For, in predicting the Abolition of the Law, it
supplies us with a new and excellent Argument for the
Conversion of the Jewish People, fatally persuaded of
its eternal obligation.
The Reasons of my being so particular concerning
the duration of the THEOCRACY are various, and will
be seen as occasion offers. Only the reader may here
take notice, that it was necessary for the present
purpose, to shew its continuance throughout the whole
duration of the Republic, in order to vindicate the
justice of those Laws all along in force, for the punish
ment of idolatrous Worship.
S E C T. IV.
THUS far as to the nature and duration of the
Mosaic Republic. Let us now sec what PECULIAR
CONSEQUENCES necessarily attended the administration
of a THEOCRATIC form of Government.
One necessary consequence was an EXTRAORDI
NARY PROVIDENCE. For the affairs of a People
under a Theocracy, being administered by God as
King; and his peculiar and immediate administration
of human affairs being what we call an extraordinary
Providence ; it follows that an extraordinary Provi
dence must needs be exercised over such a People.
1 3 My
ii 8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
My meaning is, that if the Jews were indeed under a
Theocracy, they were indeed under an extraordinary
Providence : And if a Theocracy was only pretended,
yet an extraordinary Providence must necessarily bo
pretended likewise. In a word, they must be either
both true or both false, but still inseparable, in reality
or idea. Nor does this at all contradict (as was sug
gested by Doctor SYKES even alter he had seen his
suggestion confuted) what I observe concerning the
gradual decay and total extinction of the extraordinary
Providence, while the Theocracy yet existed. For
when I say an extraordinary Providence was one ne
cessary consequence of a Theocracy, I can only mean
that it was so in its original constitution, and in the
order and nature of things : not that in this, which was
matter of compact, the contravening acts of one Party
might not make a separation. For, as this extraordinary
Providence w r as (besides its being a mode of admini
stration arising out of a Theocracy) a reward for obe
dience, it became liable to forfeiture by disobedience,
though subjection to the Government still continued.
I beg leave to illustrate this position both by a foreign
and a domestic instance. The /Erarii in the Roman
State were such who, for their crimes, were deprived
of the right of Citizens : Yet these delinquents were
obliged to pay the public taxes. At home, a voice in
the supreme Council of the kingdom is the necessary
consequence of an English Barony ; yet they may be
separated by a judicial Sentence; and actually have
been so separated ; as we may see in the two famous
cases of Lord Verulam, and the Earl of Middlesex,
in the reign of James the First; w!r \vere both de
prived of their seats in the House of Lords, and yet
held their Baronies, with all the other rights pertaining
to them. Thus a punishment of this kind was inflicted
on
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 119
on the rebellious Israelites : they were deprived of the
extraordinary Providence: and were yet- held subject
to the Theocracy, as appears from the Sentence pro
nounced upon them, by the mouth of the Prophet
Ezekich " Ye polluted yourselves with your idols
" even unto this day : and shall I be enquired of by
" you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord
" God, / will not be enquired of by you. And that
" which cometh into your mind shall not beat all, that
" ye say, We will be as the Heathen, as the Families
" of the Countries, to serve JFood and Stone. As I
" live, saith the Lord, with a mighty Hand, and wit h
" a strctched-out Arm, and with, Fury poured out,
" will I rule orer you. And I will bring you out
"from the People, and will gather you out of the
" Countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty
" Hand, and with a stretched-out Arm, and with
" Fury poured out. And I will bring you into the
" Wilderness of the People, and there will I plead
" with you Face to Face. Like as I pleaded with your
" Fathers in the 1 Wilderness of the Land of Egypt, so
" will I plead with you, saith the Lord. And 1 will
" cause you to pass under the Hod, and 1 will bring
" you into the BOND OF THE COVENANT." Chap. xx.
ver. 31 -37. It is here we see denounced, that the
extraordinary Providence should be withdrawn ; or, in
Scripture phrase, that God would not be enquired of by
them-, That they should remain in this condition,
which their Fathers had occasionally felt in the wilder
ness, when the extraordinary Providence, for their
signal disobedience, was, from time to time, suspended :
And yet, that, though they strove to disperse themselves
amongst the People round about, and projected/;/ their
minds to be as the heathen, and thejmntlu* of the
Countries, to serve wood and stone, they should still be
I 4 under
120 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
under the government of a THEOCRACY ; Which, when
administered without an extraordinary Providence, the
blessing, naturally attendant on it, was, and was justly
called, THE ROD AND BOND OF THE COVENANT.
But now if you will believe a Professor of Divinity
and a no less eminent dealer in Laws, the case grows
worse and worse, and, from a contradiction in my
system, it becomes a contradiction in God s. For
thus Dr. RUT HEREOUT IT descants upon the matter :
" As the Law was gradually deprived of its
" Sanction, the Obligation of it grew continually
" weaker, till at last, after the people were returned
" from the Captivity, it must have ceased to oblige
" them at all. For whatever may be the case of God s
" MORAL LAW, yet most certainly, as he withdraws
" the Sanctions of his POSITIVE ones, he takes off
" something from their obligation ; and when he
" has wholly withdrawn the promise of reward and the
" threatening of punishment, THOSE LAWS OBLIGE
" NO LONGER." p. 329. To this Determination of the
learned Professor, concerning OBLIGATION, I have
nothing to oppose but the Determination of GOD
himself: who, by the mouth one of his Prophets, de
clares, That the Laws shall still oblige, though the
Sanction be withdrawn. " Ye pollute yourselves with
" your Idols," &c. as the reader may find it transcrib
ed just above. Here God declares he would withdraw
that extraordinary Providence which naturally attended
a THEOCRACY / will not be enquired of by you.
" Yet do not (says he) deceive yourselves in an expec
tation that, because for your crimes I withdraw this
sanction of my Law, the Law will oblige no longer
ami that which comet h into your mind shall not be at
all, that ye say we will be as the heathen : For, in order
to the bringing about my own great purposes, I will
still
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 121
still continue you a select and sequestered people I
will bring you out from the people, and will gather you
out from, the Countries wherein you are scattered. And
will still rule over you by my Law ; now, in my wrath,
as before in my mercy. With fury poured out I will
rule over you, and bring you into the bond of the.
Covenant"
I suppose the thing that led our Doctor into this
rash judgment, That when the sanctions of a positive
law are withdrawn, the obligation to the law ceases,
was his totally misunderstanding the principles of the
best writers on the Law of Nature : Not by their
fault, I dare assure the Reader. The Law of Nature
is written in the heart ; but by Whom, is the question.
And a question of much importance ; for if not written
by a competent Obliger it is no Law, to bind us. The
enquirers therefore into this matter had no other way
of coming to the Author of the Law, but by considering
the effects which the observance or inobservance of it
would have on mankind. And they found that the
observance tended to the benefit of all, the inobservance
to their destruction. They concluded therefore that it
must needs have been given by God, as a Law to
mankind ; and these effects of its observance or inob
servance they called the sanction. Hence it appears
that the knowledge of our obligation to the Law of
nature arises from the knowledge of the sanction.
And, this sanction away, we had not been obliged, be
cause we could never have discovered any real ground
of obligation.
But the positive Law of the Jews was written in
stone by the finger of God, in a visible manner ; in
which the senses of tiie People were appealed to, for
the truth of the transaction. Here the knowledge of
their obligation did not arise from their knowledge of
" th*
122 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
the sanction, but from quite another thing, namely, the
immediate knowledge they had by their senses, that
God, their sovereign Lord and Master, gave them the
Law. To inforce which, a sanction indeed was added ;
but a sanction that added nothing to the obligation,
o fr> *
nor consequently that took from it, when it was with
drawn.
This is a plain and clear state of the case. Yet so
miserably has our Professor mistaken it, that for want
of seeing on what principle it was which the writers on
the Law of Nature proceeded, when they supposed
obligation to depend on the sanction, he hath, of a
particular case, made a general maxim : and in apply
ing that maxim, he hath, turned every thing topsy
turvy, and given us just the reverse of the medal.
lie supposes the taking the sanction from the moral
Law might not destroy the obligation (which it cer
tainly would) wkdtstfter, says he, might be the cause
vf God s moral Laws; and that taking away the sanc
tion from his positive Law would destroy the obligation
(which it certainly would not).
What might further mislead our Professor (for the
more such men read, the less they understand) is the
attribute the Roman Lawyers give to such civil Laws
as are made without a penal sanction. These they
are wont to call, Leges imperfects : And our great
Civilian might believe that this assigned imperjection y
had a reference to the obligation they imposed, whereas
it refers to the efficacy they were able to work. He
should have known at least this first principle of Law,
That it is the AUTHORITY of the Lawgiver, not the
SANCTION he annexes to his Law, which makes it, I
will not say, OPERATE properly (for this is nothing to
the purpose), but makes it OBLIGE really , which is
only to the purpose. In a word, I know of nobody
but
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 123
but HOBBES, besides this Doctor, who pretended to
teach that the obligation to Laws depended upon their
sanction : and this he did, because he derived all right
and wrong from the Civil Magistrate : which, for
aught I know, our learned Professor may do likewise,
as only mistaking right and wrong (by a blunder like
to the foregoing) for good and evil. Yet hath this
grave man written most enormously both on LAWS
and MORALS: And is indeed a great Writer, just as
the mighty Giant, Leon Gawer, was a great Builder;
of whom the Monk of Chester so sweetly sings:
" The Founder of this City, as saith Polychronicon,
" Was Leon Gawer, a mighty strong Giant,
" Which builded Caves and Dungeons many a one:
" No goodly Building, ne proper, ne pleasant."
But our business at present is not with the actual
administration of an extraordinary Providence, but
with the Scripture representation of such an admini
stration. And this the sacred history of the Jews
attests in one uniform unvaried manner; as well by
recording many instances of it in particular, as by
constantly referring to it in general.
I. The first is in the History of MIRACLES. For
an equal Providence being, by the nature of man s
situation and affairs, necessarily administered partly
by ordinary and partly by extraordinary means, these
latter produce what AVC call Miracles, the subject of
the sacred Writers their more peculiar regard. But I
apprehend it would be thought presuming too much
on the reader s patience, to expect his attention, while
I set myself formally to prove that many miracles are
related in the sacred history of the Israelites.
The simpler sort of Deists fairly confess that the
Bible records the working of many Miracles, as ap
pears even from the free names they give to those
accounts.
124 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
accounts. But there are refiners in Infidelity, such as
SPINOZA and his mimic TOLAND; who acknowledge
many of the facts recorded, hut deny them to have
been miraculous. These are to our purpose, and an
Appeal to the common sense of Mankind is a suffi
cient answer to them all. And surely I should have
done no more, had they not attempted to draw in to
their Party much honester men than themselves. For
such, therefore, even charity requires us to attempt
jiome kind of defence.
The infamous Spinoza would persuade us that
JOSE THUS himself was as backward in the belief of
Miracles as any modern Pagan whatsoever. The
handle, for his calumny, is * that Writer s relation of
the passage of the Red-sea ; which he compares to
Alexander s through the Pamphylian, and which con
cludes with saying that every Man may believe of it as
he pleases. No unusual way with this Historian, of
* Scriptura de natura in genere (juibusdam in locis affirmat
earn fixam atque immutabilem ordinem servarc. Philosophus
praiterea in sno Ecd. clarissirne docet nibil novi in natura contin-
gore. Heec igitur in Scriptura expresse docentur, at nullibi, quod
in natura aliquid contingat, quod ipsius legibus repugnet, aut quod
ex iis nequeat sequi, adeoque neque etiam Scripturoe affingendum.
Ex quibus evidentissirne sequitur miracula res naturales fuisse.
Attamen de his unicuique, prout sibi melius esse sentiet, ad
Dei eultum & religionem integro animo suscipiendum, liberuru
est existirnare. Quod etiam JOSEPIIUS SENTIT; sic enim in
conclusione, /. i. Antiq. scribit, Nullus vero discrcdat verlo mira*
aili, si ontiquis hominibus, fy malitia prkatis via salutis liquet per
mare facta, sive Tolvntate Dei, sive sponte revelata: dum & eis,
c]ui cum Alexandro rege Macedonia3 fuerunt olim, &c antiquitus a
resistentibus Pamphylicum mare divisum sit, & cum aliud iter
non esset, transitum prcebuit iis 9 volcnte Deo> per emn Persarum
dcstrucrc prindpatum; fy hoc coirfitentitr omnes, quiactus Ahxandri
scripserunt ; DE HIS ITAQUE/SICUT PLACUERIT CUILIBET, EXIS-
TIMET. Hcec sunt verba Josephi, ejusque DE FIDE MIIIACULORUM
JUDICIUM. Tract, Tbeologico-Poi. C. vi. ds Miraculis, p. 81, 8-2.
introducing
Sect 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 125
introducing or ending a miraculous Adventure. This
hath indeed so libertine an air, that it hath betrayed
some Believers into the same false judgment concern
ing Josephus ; as if he afforded only a political or
philosophical belief to these things ; and gave a lati
tude to those of his own Religion, to think as they
should see cause.
But here lies the difficulty; the Historian is every
now and then putting on a very different aspect, and
talking like a most determined Believer. Many are
the places where he expresses the fullest and firmest as
sent to the Divinity of the Mosaic Religion, and to the
Truth of the sacred Volumes. To mention only one
or two, from a Book so known, and in a point so
notorious. The folio-wing words of his Introduction
(where he cannot possibly be considered as a trans
lator, or rclator only of what he found in the sacred
books, from which he composed his History) these, I
say, shew in how different a light he regarded Moses
from all other Lawgivers : " And now I earnestly
" intreat all who take these Volumes in hand, to apply
" themselves with their whole faculties to the contem-
" plation of the Divine Nature, and then turn to our
" LAWGIVER, and see whether lie has not made a
<c representation of that Nature entirely worthy of
" it ; always assigning such Actions to GOD, as be-
" come his excellence, and preserving the high subject
" clear from any impure mixture of FABLE. Though
*" if we consider the distance and antiquity of the
* Time he wrote in, we cannot but understand he was
" at full liberty to invent and falsify at pleasure. For
he lived full two thousand years ago. A distance
" of Time to which even the Poets dared not to carry
" up the birth of their Gods, the actions of their
" Heroes,
126 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
fe Heroes, or the establishment of their Laws*." Here,
we see, the Historian expressly declares that MOSES
in his writings employed ??o degree of [fiction, so com
mon in the practice of other ancient Lawgivers.
And how truly divine he supposed the LAW, ap
pears from his observing, in the same place, that,
while the Jews religiously observed its Precepts, ail
things went well and prosperously; but that, when
ever they transgressed, then nothing but disasters fol
lowed. And lest any one should pretend, lie meant
no more than that national happiness was the natural
consequence of adhering to the Laws of their Coun
try ; or that those Laws, being founded on Just and
Right, God (whose general Providence it is agreed he
acknowledged) would reward the virtuous observers,
whatever were the original of such Laws; lest, I say,
this should be pretended, he adds, that these disasters
followed whenever they transgressed the Law, though
in pursuit of things just and good. His words are
these : " Upon the whole, what the Reader of this
" History may chiefly learn from it is this : That
" those who obsequiously study the Will of God,
" and reverence his well established Laws, pass their
" lives in incredible prosperity; Happiness, the re-
" ward from God, ever attending their obedience.
" But in proportion to their neglect of these Laws,
rr,v
x rv ovva.f^
rov rstfi avr^ <pvha.i:a,<; Aoycv rr,<;
ocov ETT* /^,5
ciTuv. yiyovzv yu.% -nr^o truv hfypfrwr, ify ova*
v 01 <z?aivla.l rs yiM(Tt{ ruv a;v, IA^T^C Toeq
TUV avQpy Truv <&pcii- tj, >j Ttfj vo^i?5 UVIVI^KIIV tTQ^u^cat, Y ol. 1.
pp. 2, 4.
" easy
Sect 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 127
" easy things become unsurmountable, and all their
" undertakings, how justly soever directed, end in
" incurable calamities *." In which words, I take it
for granted, he had the case of Said particularly in his
view. Again, so full was his persuasion of the Di
vinity of the Law, that he extols the Jews for suffer
ing Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, to take their City by
storm on the seventh day, rather than violate the
Sabbatic rest A<r at liar clucks fsavs he) thinks this
~ X / /
scruple worthy of contempt and laughter. But those
who weigh it without prejudice, will see something
truly great, and deserving of the highest commenda
tions, in thus always preferring their Piety towards
God, and adherence to his Lmr, before their own
safety, or even the freedom of their Country f.
These passages, we see, have all the marks of a
very zealous Believer. And what makes the greatest
difficulty of all, is, that the very places in which the
Historian uses such offensive latitude of expression,
are those where he employs his utmost endeavours to
shew the real Divinity of his Religion; of which
these Miracles are produced as evidence ; an evidence
he studiously seeks, and seems to dwell upon witn
pleasure.
This varying aspect, therefore, so indiiTerently as
sumed, creates all the embarras. But would men
15 To ^?oAo* E j^caAtra TK; otv \y, roiv
&*Xd&, ort plv roft stf y^
&Gs via. t*}
pv yttou ?& -crj/xa,
"* *!>4r5> o, TI WOT v, if ayaOo* ^
Vol. i. pp. 3, 4.
f
rmet;
Vol, li. p. 458.
only
128 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
only do in this case what they ought to do in all, when
they pass their judgment on an ancient writing, that is,
consider the End, and Time, and Genius of the
Writer, together with the Character of those to
whom the work is addressed ; they would find Jose-
phus to be indeed a steady Follower of the Law, and
a firm Believer of its miraculous establishment ; and,
at the same time, discover the easy solution of all
those untoward appearances which have brought his
Religion into question.
The case, with our Historian, stood thus : His
Country was now in great distress ; its Constitution
overturned, and his Brethren in apparent danger of
utter Extirpation; calamities arising as much from
the ill will which the Heathens had entertained of
their Religion * for its unsociable nature, as for their
own turbulent and rebellious Carriage. This ill-will
had been much increased by their superior Aversion
to Christianity, considered by them as a Sect of Ju
daism ; which had carried its insociability as far, and
its pretensions much farther : so far as to insist on
the necessity of all Men s submitting to its dominion,
and renouncing their own Country Religions as the
Impostures of Politicians, or the Inventions of evil
Demons. This put the Heathen world into a flame,
and produced those mad and wicked Persecutions
that attended the first Propagation of the Christian
Faith "\. Such was the unfriendly state of things,
when Josephus undertook an Apology for his Nation,
in the HISTORY OF ITS ANTIQUITIES. Now as their
conquerors aversion to them, arose from the supposi
tion that their Religion required the belief and obe
dience of all Mankind (for they had, as we observed,
confounded Judaism with Christianity}, to wipe off
* See note [I] at the end of this Book, f See Book L
this
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 129
this invidious imputation, we must conclude, would be
ever in the Author s thoughts. So that when the course
of his History leads him to speak of the effects of
GOD S extraordinary Providence in his conduct of this
People, he sometimes adds to his relation of a mira
culous. adventure, but in this every Man may believe as
he pleases. A declaration merely to this effect: "The
" Jewish Religion was given by GOD for the use of
" his chosen People, therefore the Gentiles might
" believe as they pleased. The Jews did not pretend
" they should leave their own Country Religion to
" embrace theirs * : That in this they were different
" from the Christian Sect, which required all Mankind
" to follow the Faith of a crucified Saviour under pain
" of total destruction j. But that yet they were not
" so unhospitabk, but that they received with open arms
" all who were willing to worship one God the Creator
" of the Universe ." Thus we see how it came to
pass (which was the main difficulty), that the places
where lie gives such a latitude of Belief, are those very
places where he most labours to prove the Divinity of
his Religion.
But this solution clears up all difficulties, and shews
the Historian s great consistency, as well as artful
address, throughout the whole work. Josephus pro
fesses the most awful regard to the sacred Volumes ;
and yet, at the same time, takes such liberties of going
from their authority, that it provoked the bonest resent
ment of a late excellent Writer to the following
asperities : Nee levis sit suspicio ilium Hebraice
* See note [K] at the end of this Book.
f See note [L] at the end of this Book.
I *J TSTO jtAovoir ilva.i xoivov, el /StfAomei, r^of a.vrv<; *} tte
>9&;7roi?, a<pxvjtytsyo$ j To goy ctGfiv TOV . Vol. i. p. 556.
Bishop Hare.
VOL. V. K
non
130 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
* nan scivisse, cum multis indiciis lingua? cjus hnpe-
" ritiain prudat. Quivis certe, cui vei mica salis est,
* sentiat illurn Ilistorias Sacras pro arbitrio interpo-
% lasse, dementlo, addendo, immutando, ut Antiqui-
* tabes suas ad Lectorum Graecorum Romanorum
palatum accommodaret." But this license, though
surely to be condemned, was however something more
legitimate and sober than is generally supposed ; his
deviation from Scripture being in those places only,
where an exact adherence to it would have increased
that general aversion to his Nation, whose effects were
at that time so much to be dreaded, either as exposing
$\Q perverse nature of the People, or the unsociable
genius of their Religion. To give an instance or two
of each :
i . The murmuring of the Israelites, for bread and
jksh in the Wilderness, is represented in Scripture,
and justly*, as an act of horrid ingratitude towards
God. Vet Joseph iis makes Jl-foses own they ha<^
reason for their complaints f. And in the execrable
behaviour of the Men of Gihcah to the Levite and hi*
wife, though Scripture expressly says they attempted
a more unnatural crime than adultery, yet the Historian
passes this over in silence-, and makes all the personal
outrage attempted, as well as committed, to be offered
&&gt; the woman ];. The reader will now easily account
for what Mr. Whiston could not, his Authors omission
f the story of the golden CalJ^. For this -was so
amazing a perversity, at that juncture, that it must
&av.e made the very Pagans themselves ashamed of
their Jewish brethren in idolatry.
* Exod. xvi.
5ud. Liii. c. i. | 5.
I Ant. J nd. 1. v. c. 2. 8.
^ See note [M] at the end. Q/ this Book.
2. Again,
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 131
2. Again, \vc are told in Scripture, that when the
( iitheans, or Samaritans, heard that the Jews, who
were returned from the Captivity, were rebuilding the
Temple, they came and desired to be partners in the
work, and joint Worshippers of the Ciod for whom it
was erected ; to which the Jews gave this round reply :
You hare nothing to do with us, to build an House unto
our God, but we ourselves together will build unto the
Lord God of Israel, as King Cyrus the King of
Persia hath commanded us*. And Nehcmiah, on the
same occasion, gave them a still rougher answer: The
God of Heaven he will prosper us, therefore we his
Servants will arise and build: but you iiaveno Portion,
nor Right, nor Memorial in Jerusalem t- This was a
tender place : it was touching upon the very sore, in an
express declaration of the Unsocial leness complained
of. The story therefore, we may be sure, was to be
softened before the Gentiles were to be intrusted with
it. Accordingly, Joseph us makes them speak in these
obliging terms : That they could not possibly admit
them as partners in the work ; for that the command
to build the Temple was directed to them Jirst by Cyrus,
and now by Darius : That indeed they were at liberty
to worship along with them: and that this was the
on hi Community, in religious matters, that they could
enter into with them, and which they would do with as
many of the rest of Mankind, as were willing to come
up to the Tew-ple to adore the God of Heaven $. The
reason the Scripture Jews give for the refusal of the
offer to be joint partners with them in their work and
* Ezra iv. 3. f Neh. ii. 20.
+
j TO vaov
WIFO Aapcttt* tvgoo M.vvztv ot avroTi; i^fsya*. xocl TTO
tl /?aAok]aj, orgo5 at-ras >t^ mciirtv
ctGtHt TO 0IOJ-." Vol. i. p. 556.
K 2 worship,
132 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
worship, is, that it was a Temple built in the Land of
Israel^ and to the honour of the God of Israel. The
reason Joscphus s Jews give for their refusal, is, obe
dience to the King of Persia : else, as for community
of worship, they were very ready to receive them.
And now was not that a wise project * which pro
posed reforming the sacred Text by the Writings of
Joscphus ?
But this Explanation will enable us to conclude
with certainty against that spurious passage concerning
CHRIST. I think I have already offered one demon
strative argument against itf. And I suppose, the
many marks of forgery are so glaring, that most men
would be willing to give it up, were Joseph its s silence
on so extraordinary an occasion but easy to be ac
counted for. Now we have so far laid open his
conduct, as to see, that the preaching up of CHRIST
was an affair he would studiously decline. His great
point, as we observed, was to reconcile the Gentiles
to his Countrymen. But the Pagan aversion was
greatly increased by the new Sect of Christians, sprung,
as was well known, from the Country of Judea. It
was therefore utterly destructive of his purpose to
shew, as he must have done, in giving them an
account of CHRIST, the close connexion between the
two Religions. Of all dangerous subjects, therefore,
Josephus would be careful to avoid this;};. So that
* Mr. Whiston a. - t See vol. i.
I " La plus forte preuve qu on ait, pour soutenir que le passage-
en question, od il est parle de JKSUS CHRIST, est de Jbfep^c est
qu il n est pas croyable, qu il n ait rien dit de JESUS CHRIST.
Photius founiit une reporise a ce raisonnement, en parlant de Juste
de Tiberide, qui 1 a ecrit 1 Histoire des Juifs en Grec, et qnivivoit
du terns de Joseph, avec qui il a eft de grands demelez. Juste de
Tiberide, dit Photius n a point parle de JESUS CHRIST parce qu il
etok Juif de Nation et de Religion." P. Simon, Bibl. Crit. vol. ii.
pag. 41.
(certain
Sect 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 133
(certain as I am of the Writer s purpose, and not
ignorant of the liberty he took with the sacred Records,
when it serve: I his ends, of adding and omitting at
pleasure) I should have been as much surprised to
have found the History of JESUS in his Works, as
others are to be told that it is not there. This too ill
equally well account for his omission of Horoi
slaughter of the children at Bethlehem, which bculiger
so much wondered at*; which Collins so inach
triumphed in t ; and for the sake of which, our Wliitby
seemed ready to give up the truth of the story .
Thus did this excellent Writer, out of extreme love
to his Country (the most pardonable however of all
human [rail ties) make too free with Truth and Scrip
ture ; though most zealously attached to the Religion
of his Forefathers : as those Men generally are who
love their Country best. And a Jew he strictly was,
of a very different Stamp too, from that poor paltry
Mimic of the Greek Sophists, Philo\. Of whom his
Master Pluto would have said, what Joscphus tells us
Aristotle did sat/, of one of his -Jewish Acquaintance,
A GilEEK HE WAS, AND NOT JN SPEECH ONLY, BUT
.IN SOUL LIKEWISE ||.
I judged it of importance to set this matter in a
true light: Because many, I supposed, would think it
a fair prejudice against the Divinity of the Mosaic
.Religion, had a person so eminent amongst his Coun-
* Animad. in Chron. Kusebii.
t Scheme of literal Prophecy considered.
J Comment on the New Testament.
Philo, in his life of Muses, brings in the Egyptian Priests
reasoning on the Platonic principles, concerning the soul that
informed Mom s body; which is altogether as well judged, as if a
modern Writer of the Life of Ptolemy the Astronomer should bring
in explaining Sir Isaac Newton s Principia.
TJ Y T X H.
K 3 tryrnen
134 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
trymen while the Republic was yet existing, and of sd
learned an age ; so conversant in the Jewish Records,
and so skilled in the best Grecian Literature; had
such a one afforded only a political or philosophic
Faith to the sacred Volumes. But then it will follow
on the other hand, that the sincere Belief of one, so
circumstanced, will be as fair a prejudice in its favour.
Not that I am over fond of this kind of evidence, in
matters where every one is obliged to judge for himself;
and consequently, where every one, on a due appli
cation to the subject, is capable of judging. Much
less would I lay great weight on the opinions of Men
out of their own Profession, however eminent in any
other. What is it to Truth, for instance, what a
Courtier judges of a Church ; a Politician of Con
science ; or a Geometer, grown grey in Demonstration,
of moral Evidence ? To go on :
MIRACLES, therefore, as they are recorded to be
continued through so large a period of this Republic,
I give for one proof that the Scriptures have represented
the Israelites as living under an extraordinary Pro
vidence. I say, as they are recorded to be so
continued: For when miracles are only given at the
first propagation of a Religion (as of the Christian),
they are to be no otherwise esteemed of, than as the
Credentials of a new Revelation : These being like the
Cloud which conducted the Israelites in their jouriiey-
ings in the wilderness ; the other like the same Cloud
which abode upon the Mercy-seat : These like the
Manna rained down from heaven only for a present
subsistence; the other like the same Manna pre
served uncorruptcd in the Ark, to be a testimony to
future ages.
II. This extraordinary Providence is represented
as administered ; i . Over the State in general. 2. Over
5 private
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 135
private Men in particular. And such a representation
\ve should expect to find from the nature of the Re
public; because, as an extraordinary Providence ovk*
the STATE necessarily follows (vros being their
TL-TELARY DEITY; so an ex , ; .tinary Providence
to PARTICULARS follows BS -urily from his being
their SUP HE ME MAGISTRATE *.
As t6 tliis Providence over the State, it would b^
absurd to quote particular texts, when the whole BiBLfc
is one continued history of it. Only it may not be
amiss to observe, that from a passage in Ezekiel,
where GOD says, Became that Moab and Seir do sm/,
BEHOLD THE HOUSE OF JUDAII is LIKE UXTO ALL
THE HEATH EX f, it appears the Jews had boasted,
and the Gentiles, t il then, had acknowledged, that
they were under an extraordinary Providence. As
this therefore is so plain, I d.ul not hazard the ob
scuring it by many words : but go on to shew, that
Scripture represents this Providence as administered
likewise to Particulars.
In the Dedication of the first Temple, SOLOMOX
addresses his Prayer to GOD, that the Covenant be
tween him and the People might remain for ever firm
and inviolate, and the old Economy be stiH continued.
And alter having enumerated divers parts of it, be
proceeds in this manner. : u Whe i the heaven is shut
" up, and there is no rain, because they have shirred
" against thee ; yet if they .pray towards this Place,
" and confess thy name, and turn from their sin when
" thou dost afflict them ; Then luw i ! ou from heaven,
" and forgive the sin of thy SERVANTS and of thy
" PEOPLE ISRAEL, when thou hast tuught them the
" -good way wherein they should w\lk ; and send ruin
* See note [N] at the end of this Book,
t Chap. xxv. ver. 8.
K 4 " upoa
136 THE DIVINE LEGATION HRookV.
" upon the Land which thou hast given unto thy
c _ People for an inheritance. If there be dearth in the
" Land, if there be pestilence, if there be blasting or
" mildew, locusts or caterpiilers ; if their enemies
( besiege them in the cities of their Land ; whatsoever
" sore, or whatsoever sickness there be: Then what
" prayer, or what supplication shall be made of ANY
" MAX, or of all thy PEOPLE ISRAEL, when EVERY
" ONE shall know his own sore, and his own grief, and
" shall spread forth his hands in this house : then hear
," thou from heaven, and forgive, and RENDER UNTO
u EVERY MAN according unto all his ways, whose
." heart thou knowest*." Solomon in this petition,
.which, with respect to the given Covenant, we might
properly call a PETITION OF RIGHTS, speaks the lan
guage of one who extended the temporal sanctions of
the Law to PARTICULARS and INDIVIDUALS. For he
desires God, according to the terms of the Covenant,
to render unto every man according to all his ways.
But when is it that he prays for the exertion of this
extraordinary providence to particulars? At the very
time when it is administering to the state in general.
If there he dearth in the land, if there be pestilence,
if there be blasting or mildew, locusts or caterpiilers,
- if their enemies besiege them, Sac. The necessary con
sequence is, that as sure as Solomon believed an
extraordinary Providence exercised to the State in
general, so surely did he believe it exercised to indi-
; viduals in particular. The Psalmist bears his testimony
to the same Economy : / have been young (says he)
and now am old: yet have I not seen the Righteous
[forsaken, nor his seed begguig their bread r \. God
Jiimself declares it, by the Prophet Isaiah : Say ye to
* i Chron. vi. 26. See also note [O] at the end of this Book,
-j- Psal. xxxvii. 25. See also note [P] at the end f this Book.
the
Sect. 4] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 137
the Righteous that it shall be well with him : for they
shall eat the fruit of their doings. IVo unto the
Wicked, it skall be ill with him : for I he reward of his
hands shall be git-en him *. And again : He that
walketh righteously and speaketh uprightly, &c. he
shall dwell on high : his place of defence shall be the
munitions of rocks, bread shall be given him, his waters
shall be snrt j\ And we learn, from a parabolical
command in Ezckiel, how exactly these promises were
fulfilled: "And the Lord said unto him, Go through
" the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem,
" and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that
" sigh, and that cry for all the abominations that be
" done in the mkist thereof. And to others he said
" in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city,
" and smite : let not your eye spare, neither have ye
" pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids and
e little children, and women; but come not near any
" man upon whom is the mark ; and begin at my Sanc-
" tuary +," &c. The same Prophet in another place,
alluding to Abraham s intercession for Sodom, declares
from God, that when his judgments come out against
the land of Judea, the Righteous, found in it, should
save only themselves ; which plainly shews, a provi
dence extending to particulars- " Son of man, when
" the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously,
" then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will
" break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send
" famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from
" it. Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and
" Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own
" souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God."
Ch. xiv. 13, 14. But GOD, by the Prophet Amos,
* Chap.iii. ver. 10, 11. f Chap, xxxiii. ver. 15, 16.
; Chap. ix. ver. 46. See also note [Q] at the end of this Book.
describes
138 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
describes this administration of Providence in the
fullest manner : "Also I have whhholden the rain from
" you, when there were yet three months to the har-
" vest ; and I caused it to rain upon one city, and
" caused it not to rain upon another city : one piece
" ttYft? r ainal upon y and the piece K hemtiwn it ruined
" tifff, withered. So two or three cities wandered
u tmta one city to drink water ; but they were not
" satisfied : yet have ye not returned unto me, sakh
a the Lord. I have smitten you with blasting and
" -mildew *," <$s c. And again : Lo, I will co/mtu/nd,
and Ivcili sift the house ef Israel (Huongs t ail
like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the
grahrjall upon the earth t-
T hese declarations of God s providence are so ex
actly correspondent to Solomon s petition ; that they
seera as it were the FIAT to it ;{;.
Thus we see the Law, as well by its express decla
rations as by its essential nature and genius, extended
its sanctions of temporal rewards and punishments.
as well to Particulars as to the General. And as in
civil Government, universal practice shews the neces
sity of a mere exact dispensation of punishment than
of reward, so we may observe from the passages last
quoted, that the Mosaic Law had the same attention ;
tvhtch occasioned the Wise Man to say, Behold the
ffhfill be rer<mpemed in the Eaith :. 211 ecu
the Wicked <!i>ii the Shiticr^.
The inspired writers &f the NEW TK.STAMKNT give
evidence to this dispensation of Providence under thfe
OLD. The Author of tte Epistle to the Hebrews
argues from it as a thing well known and generally
allowed : For rf the IVord spoken by Angels wtis,
* Ghap. iv. Ver. 711. t Chap. ix. ver. 9.
| See note [R] dl the end of tWs Book. . Prov. xi. 31.
Sect 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 139
sfedfast, and EVERY TRANSGi<5:ssu\ AXD DISOBE
DIENCE RECEIVED A JUST RP..COMPENCE OF RE
WARD, how shall we escape if ice neglect 30 great
salvation * ?
St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, speaking of
the advantages whk:h Christianity had over Judaism,
says : Therefore bdiig justified b if faith > ice have peace
with (rod through our Lord Jems Christ. By whom
also we have access by Faith into his Grace, wherein
we stand, and njoice in hope of the glory oj God.
And not only so, but WE GLORY IN TRIBULATION
ALSO, knowing that Tribulation worketh patience f,
$c. Here St. Paul, opposing the advantages which
the Gentile Converts had by FAITH, to those which
the Jews, in contempt to the Gentiles, gloried to
have by the LAW, adds, in order to shew those advan
tages in their highest superiority, that the Christian
Gentiles could glory even in that which wajs the very
opprobrium of the Jews, namely, tribulation. For
the sanction of the Jewish Law being temporal re
wards and punishments, administered hy an equal
providence ; Tribulation was a punishment for crimes,
mid, consequently, an high opprobrium . But the
followers of Christ, who were taught, that we must
through muck TRIBULATION enter into the kingdom
t> O
of God\ had the same reason to glory in the rough
ness of the road, as the ancient Agonistae had in the
toils which procured them the victory. This is urged
with great address. But the Critics, not taking the
Apostle s meaning, have supposed, in their usual way,
that he here broke in upon his argument, with an idea
foreign to the point in hand.
* Chap. ii. ver. i, 3. f ROIIJ. v. i. & secj,
J See note [S] at the end of this Book.
Acts xiv. 2 2.
This
140 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
This will help us to explain an odd remark of the
excellent Mainionidcs : That their wise wen talked of
u thing which was NOT TO BE FOUND in the LAW,
namely, that which some of them call the CHASTISE
MENTS OF LOVE, by which they meant that TRIBU
LATIONS might befall a man without any precedent
sin *, and only in order to multiply his reward. And
that this was the very opinion of the Sect called
Muatzal,. of which , or in Jar cur of which opinion,
there is not one single word to h > found, in the Law f.
This seems to have perplexed our Rabbi ; aiK with
cause. He lived when his countrymen were ..ncLr a
common providence^ and had the doctrine of a future
state of rewards and punishments, which, he took for
granted, was always in the Jewish Economy. These
things disabled him from seeing that NO CHASTISE
MENTS OF LOVE was a necessary consequence of
temporal rewards and punishments administered by an
equal providence : And likewise that when this sanc
tion ceased, and a fuLure state was known, then CHAS
TISEMENTS OF LOVE became a necessary consequence.
But if by the LAW, Maimonicles did (as the Jews
frequently do) include the writings of the Prophets,
then he was very much mistaken in saying there is
not one word in it concerning the chastisements of
* This explanation was necessary ; for, another kind of chas
tisements of Love there was in the Law, namely, paternal chastise
ments. Thus Moses: Thou shalt also consider in th nc heart, that
as a man chastencth his son, so the Lord thy God chastencth thee.
Deut. viii. 5.
f Unum tamen occurrit in verbis sapicntnm nostrorum, quod
NON INVENITUR IN LEGE ; id nempe, quod quidam eorum dicunt
CASTIG ATIONES A MORIS. .Tuxta hanc enim sententiarn possunt
TRIBULATIONES alicui cvenire sine pra^ccrlonte pcccato, sed ut
inultiplicetur ejus Remuneratio. Atque hacc ipsi&sima eat senten-
tia Sectac Muatzoli, de qua, ant pro qua, ne verhulum quidera in
Lege repcritur. More Nevocb. Buxtoriii, p. 381.
love.
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 141
love. For Zechariah, prophesying of a NEW Dispen
sation, describes this sort of chastisements in very
express terms : " And I u ill bring the third part
" through the fire, and will refine them as silver is
" refined, and will try them as gold is tried : and they
" shall call on my name, and I will hear them." So
admirably do all the parts of God s grand Economy
support one another.
We have seen what testimonies their coeval writers
afford of an extraordinary Providence. But we must
not suppose the Jews always held the same language.
The difference is great between the early and later
Jews, even during the existence of the Republic.
Take an iastance from the Psalmist, and the writer of
Ecclesiasticus. The former says, / have been young,
and wrv am old, yet have I not seen the Righteous
forsaken, nor his Seed begging their bread*. The lat
ter Look at ^GENERATIONS OF OLD, and see :
Did ever any trust in the Lord and was confounded?
Or did any abide in his Fear and was forsaken ? Or
whom did he ever despise that called upon him | ? The
Psalmist, living under an extraordinary Providence,
appeals to his own times ; the Author of Ecclesiasticus
living when it was long ceased, appeals to former
times. But as we have been told, that this talk of a
particular Providence is only an Eastern Hyperbole,
io which every thing is ascribed to God, I think it
not improper to take notice here of one singular cir
cumstance in favour of the Reporters.
We may observe, then, that the spirit of Gentilism
was always uniform ; and, throughout its whole dura
tion, had ever the same unvaried pretensions to divine
Intercourse, supported by the same sort of Oracles
and Divinations. But amongst the Jews matters were
* Psal. xxxvii. 35. f Chap. ii. ver. 10, &c.
OB
1.42 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
on another footing. After their perfect settlement, on
their return from Captivity (when we know, from the
course and progress of Gocfs Economy, that toe ex
traordinary Providence was to cease), we hear no
more of their pretences to it, though they now ad
hered more strictly than ever to the Religion of their
forefathers. They made no claim, as we sec by the
excellent Writer of the first Book of Maccabees,
either to Prophets, Oracles, or extraordinary DLspen-
wi wm. When they write unto the Lacedemonians,
for the renewal of their Alliance, they tell them, at
the same time, that they need it not, FOR THAT THEY
tfAVE THE HOLY BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE IN THEIR
HANDS TO COMFORT THEM*. Language very dif
ferent from their fore fathers , when God was wont to
send immediate help from the Sanctuary. How in
genuously does the same Historian relate the misfor
tune of Rethsura, caused by the observance of the
Sabbatic Yearf ? A misfortune of which we have no
instance before the Captivity ; and therefore a plain
evidence that the extraordinary Providence was indeed
withdrawn. -Besides, if w r e consider the nature of the
Jtdigio.n, the genius of the People, and the circum
stances of the Time, we shall find, they all concurred
to favour the continuance of a pretension to an extra
ordinary Providence, had it been only a pretension.
i. The Mosair, Religion, like the Pagan, had R
fuh lc part, and therefore the Jews might, with the
greatest ease, have still carried on the Superstition of
Oracles , had their Oracles been indeed a superstition ;
especially as they were now become so closely attached
to their Religion. Fpr when did ever Greece QV Italy
confess ,that their Oracles w r ere become dumb, till $l]
Consuitecs had generally forsaken them, and the
.* JCbap. :xii. vprv 9. t J Mace. yi. 49*
whole
Sect. 4-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 143
-whole frame of their Religion was falling to pieces?
Besides, the practice of this superstition had been as
easy as it was commodious ; for the Oracular Voice
was wont to come from the Mercy-Scat beliind the
I di.
2. The genius nf the People too would have contri
buted to thu continuance of this claim. For, some how
or other, it was become their character to require a
&)g;t * ; and though, now, really superstitious, yet the
humour spent itself rather in telling lies of former
limes f , than in inventing any of their own. This, oa
a supposition of the human invention of their Law,
is altogether unaccountable. But take the matter as
tve find it in their sacred Books, and nothing is more
easy. For if they had indeed been long accustomed
to a, miraculous Dispensation, they would, ever after,
be strongly disposed to require a Sign ; but it wou!4
i>e only such a Sign as bore the evident marks of a
Divinity; which not being to be had in human inven
tions, they would be kept safe from delusions, aad
made scmible of the difference of times : And such
>vas, in fact, their case.
3. Add to all tliis, that the time of the Maccabees
was the season of Enthusiasm, when that airy Spirit
is at its height; after the national Genius, long sunk
by oppression, begins to rise and recover itself to a
vindication of public Liberty. And of tliis we havo
a signal instance in the person of Judas Maccahaus
himself; who, in imitation of Gideon, would set upon
an army of twenty thousand foot and two thousajid
horse, with only eight hundred straggling desperadoes;
which rash and fanatic attempt was followed with the
fortune that might, at this time, have been expected .
* i Cor. i, 22. f See note [T ] at tho end of this Book,
J i MJCC. ix. 6.
In
144 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
In such a season too, artful Leaders are most dis
posed to support themselves by inspiration . ; have
most need of them ; and are thought, by the People,
most worthy to receive them.
There is the same difference between the Writers of
the New Testament and of the Old, as between the
Writers of the several age. 1 * of the Old. The Apos
tles (who worked Miracles as well as Moses and the
Prophets) represent the followers of CHRIST as under
the same connnon Providence with the rest of mankind :
Unlike in this, to the first propagators of the LAW,
who always declared the Israelites to be under an
extraordinary Providence.
From all this I conclude, that as amidst the concur
rence of so many favourable circumstances, no such
claim was made ; but that, contrary to the universal
practice of all false Religions, the Jews saw and owned
a great change in the Divine Economy, that therefore
their former pretensions to the peculiar protection of
Heaven were TRUE.
But it hath been objected, that the early sacred
Writers themselves frequently speak of the inequality
of Providence to Particulars*: and in such a man
ner as Men living under a common Providence are
accustomed to speak. It is very true that these
Writers do now and then give intimations of this ine
quality. And therefore, though we shall hereafter
prove an extraordinary Providence to have been ac
tually administered, in which, not only this objection
- * Asaph de Dei providentia dubitavit, & fere a vera via
deflexisset Salomon etiam, cujus tempore res Judajorum in
summo vigore erant, suspicatur omnia casu contingere Denique
omnibus fere prophetis hoc ipsuin valde obscurum fuit, nempe
quomodo ordo naturae & hotninum eve ntus cum conceptu quern de
providentia Dei formaverant, possent con venire. 7 Spinozce Theo-
logico-Pol. pp. 73, 74-
will
Sect.*] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 145
will be seen to drop of itself, but the particular pas
sages, on which it is founded, will he distinctly consi
dered ; yet, for the Reader s satisfaction, it may not
be amiss to shew here, that these representations of
inequality are very consistent with that before given
of the extraordinary Providence. We say, therefore,
I. That when the Sacred Writers speak of the
inequalities of Providence, and the unfit distribution
of things, they often mean that state of it amongst
their Pagan neighbours, and not in Jucka : As parti
cularly in the Book of Psalms and Ecclesiastes *..
II. We sometimes find men complaining of inequa
lities in events, which were indeed the effects of a
most equal Providence. Such as the punishment of
Posterity for the crimes of their Forefathers-, and
of Sutyects for their Kings. Of the first, the Prophet
Ezekiel gives us an instance in the People s case :
What mean ye, that you use this Proverb concerning,
the Land of Israel, saying, The Fathers have eaten
sour grapes, and the Childrens teeth are set on edge}*?
Of the second, David gives it in his own ; not duly
attending to the justice of this proceeding, where he
says, But these Sheep, what have they done J ? And
that he was sometimes too hasty in judging of these
matters appears from his own confession : Behold,
ihese are the ungodly, u-Jio prosper in the world, they
increase in riches, JVhen 1 thought to know this, it
was too painful for me : until I went into the Sanc
tuary oj God-, then understood I their end. Surely
thou didst set them in slippery places : thou castcdst
them dou n into destruction. So joolish ivas I, and
ignorant : I icas as a beast before thee . That is, I
understood not the course of thy justice, till I had
*. See Appendix. . f Chap, xviii. ver. 2.
t 2 Sana, xjciv. 17, P$alm Ixxiii. 1222,
-Vox.. V. L considered
14(3 - TIIE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V;
Considered the way in which an equal Providence
I riust necessarily be administered -under a 77? eocracy,-
and thc-cojiscquences of such an Administration. For,
III. Even admitting the reality of an equal Provi
dence to Particulars in the Hebrew State, the admi
nistration of it must needs be attended with such
circumstances as sometimes to occasion those observa
tions of inequality. For i. it appears from the reason
of the thing, that this administration did not begin to
be exerted in particular cases till the civil Laws of
the Republic had failed of their efficacy. Thus where
any crime, as for instance disobedience to Parents,
Was public, it became the object of the civil Tribunal;
Sthd is accordingly ordered to be punished by the
Judge *. But when private and secret, then it became
the object of Divine vengeance f. Now the conse-*
quence of this was, that when the Laws were remissly
or corruptly administered, good and / // would some
times happen unequally to men. For we are not^to
suppose that Providence, in this case, generally, in
terfered till the corrupt administration itself, when
ripe for vengeance, had been first punished. 2. In
this extraordinary administration, one part of the
Wicked was sometimes suffered as a scourge to the
other. 3. The extraordinary Providence to the State
might sometimes clash with that to Particulars, as in
the plague for numbering the people. 4. Sometimes
the extraordinary Providence was suspended for a
season, to bring on a national repentance : But at the.
same time this suspension was publicly denounced ..
And a very severe punishment it was, as leaving a
State \Vhich had not the sanction of a future state of
towards and punishments in a very disconsolate coiidi*
* Exod. xxi. 15, & 17. f Dcut. xxvii. 16. & Prov. xxx. 17.
t \ Isaiah iii, 5. Chap. lix. ver. a. Chap, Ixi*. ver. 7. :
i- : ;;tlba.
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. > 47
tien. And this was what occasioned the complaints,
of the impatient Jews, after they had been so long
accustomed to an extraordinary administration*.
IV.. But the general and full solution of the difficulty
is this, The common cause of these complaints arose
from the GRADUAL WITHDRAWING the extraordinary
Providence. Under the Judges it was perfectly equal.
And during that period of the Theocracy, it is remark
able that we hear of no complaints. When the people
had rebelliously demanded a king, and their folly was
so far complied with, that God suffered the Theocracy
to be administered by a Viceroy, there was then, ^s
was fitting, a great abatement in the vigour of -this
extraordinary Providence ; partly in natural conse-.
quence, God being now farther removed from the
immediate administration ; and partly in punishment
of their rebellion. And soon after this it is that we
first find them beginning to make their observations
and complaints of inequality. From hence to the time,
of the Captivity, the extraordinary Providence kept
gradually decaying, till on their full re-establishment,
it intirely ceased f. For what great reasons, besides
punishment for their crimes; and what consequences
it had on the religious sentiments of the People, will
be occasionally explained as we go along. <
But now, let it be observed, that though I have here
accounted for the appearances of an unequal Provi^
deuce, yet this is e.v abundant I ; the very nature of mv
general argument evincing, that there must needs have,
been an equal Providence actually administered : foe
a People in -society, without both a future State and
an equal Providence, could have no belief in the moral
* Isaiah v. 9. Jerem. xvii. 15. Amos v, 18. Zeph. i. is*
MaUc. ii. i^.
t Set note [U] at the end of this Bfok,
* 2 government
14$ THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
overmrient of Ood : And under such circumstances,
it hath been shewn, that they could not long subsist,
but must fall back again into all the confusion of a-
savage state. We must conclude therefore, that what
appearance* soever there may be of inequality in the
administration of Providence, in the early times of the;
Jewish Theocracy, they are but appearances : that is,
nothing which cirn really affect such a mode of admi
nistration *. The Adversaries therefore of the Dirbte
Legation, such of them, I mean, who profess themselves
Believers, should consider that, while they oppose
the reality of an extraordinary Providence over the
Jewish people, they are weakening the evidence for the
miracles recorded in the Old Testament. But this i*
the least of their care. One of them, with an assurance
that hath something in it of a prodigy, affirnte, " that
the Providence administered under the Law was
exactly ihe same kind with that administered under
the Gospel -\\" How this could be the case, without
impeaching the veracity of God himself, as not making
good his repeated engagements, this man would do well
to consider before he becomes the scorn and contempt
of Unbelievers. But as such sort of men bear worse
the disgrace of folly than impiety, I shall consider
this Portent on its ridiculous side only.
Temporal rewards and punishments administered
fry the hand of God, followed, as a corfsequence, from
the Jewish Government s being Thwcratical ; and an
tithibrdinury Providence followed, as a consequence,
from the dispensation of temporal rewards and punish
ments. Yet hert We have a Regius Professor of
Divinity affirming, That both temporal Sanctions and an
&rtraordimry Providence are administered under the
Gospel in the very same manner they formerly were
See note [XJ at the end of thii Btxik. f Dr. Rutiierforth,
under
Sect. 4-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 149
under the Law. In which it is difficult to determine what
most to admire ; his modesty or his wit. For if it
does honour to his wit to maintain conel unions destitute
of their premisses, it as strongly recommends his mo
desty to contradict due whole tcnpur of tlie New Tes
tament. But tlicre is neither end nor measure to
party- bigotry. Faustus, the Manichean, contended
that the Jews and Christians got the doctrine of the
one only God from the Gentiles. Is this a wilder
fancy than what many modern Divines have asserted,
that the Gentiles got the doctrine of future rewards
and punishment from tl,ie Law of Moses ? Or are
either of these more extravagant than the folly I am
going to expose, namely, That the temporal sanctions of
the LAW are transferred into the GOSPEL ? Now, if
you should ask whether the Gospel claimed to be $L
Theocracy, I suppose at first, they \vould say no;
till they found the advantage you get over them by
this answer. And then I make no doubt, they would
as readily say yes. For what should hinder them ?
Dqes the Gospel disclaim, in stronger terms, its being
a TEMPORAL KINGDOM, when Christ says, his kingdom
was not of this tear Id, than it disclaims TEMPORAL
SANCTIONS, when it says, Yea, and all that null live
godly in Jesus Christ xhall suffer persecution *, or thai*
.it disclaims an extraordinary providence where it de-
cjares that the Jews had the promise of the life that
now is, and the Christians of that which is to
pome t ?
But not to stretch our conjectures to the lengths these
men are disposed to go; let us consider how far they
have already gone. They say the temporal sajiqtiow
of t lie Law are transferred into the Gospel; and they
prove it by these two notable texts :
* 2 Tim, iii. 12. f l Tim, iv, 8.
*< 3 The
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.<
The first is of St. PAUL, "Children, obey your
" parents in all things : tor this is right. Honour thy
"Father and thy Mother (which is the first com-
" mandment with promise) that it may be well with
"thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth*."
All that 1 here find transferred, from the Law to the
Gospel, are the words of the fifth Commandment.
-For the Apostle having said. Children, obey your pa
rents in the Lord: for this is -right; he supports his
exhortation by a quotation from the Decalogue; just
as any modern preacher, but This, would do, without
ever dreaming of temporal sanctions in the Gospel;
the observation the Apostle makes., upon it being in
these words which is the Jirst commandment with
promise; as much as to say, " You may see from this
circumstance, how very acceptable the performance of
this duty is, to God :" The only inference which com
mon sense authorizes us to draw from it being what,
in another place, he thus expresses, Godliness [or the
observance of God s commands] is profitable unto all
things, having the promise of the life that now is
[under the LAW] and of that which is to come [under
the GOSPEL]. .
-The other colour for this clandestine transfer of
temporal sanctions, is from St. PETER: " Who is he
that will harm you, if you be followers of that which is
"good I",?" -- So" says the. Apostle; and so too said his
Master; to whose- words Peter alludes, Fear not therii
which kill the body : but rather fear him which is able
to destroy body and soul in hell$. But as if the Apostle
had it in his thoughts to guard against this absurd
vision of temporal sanctions, he immediately subjoins
. " But, an4 if ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy
are ye." *
* Eph.vi. 2, 3.- t i Pet. iii. 13, - - j- Matt. x. 28.
Our
Sect. 4.]* OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 151
Our X)octoi\ having so w r ell made out this point,
we need not wonder at his confidence, when he assures
us, that there is full as good evidence of an extraordi
nary providence under the Christian Dispensation as
under the Jewish. This though the language of Toland,
Tindal, Collins, and the whole tribe of Free-thinkers,
yet comes so unexpected from a Regius Professor of
Divinity, that we should be very careful not to mistake
his meaning.
, If, by full as good, he would insinuate that an
extraordinary providence was administered under both
Dispensations, I shall be in pain for his intellects*:
if he would insinuate, that an extraordinary providence
was administered in neither, I shall be in pain for his
Professorship. But he is in pain for nothing as tlue
reader may perceive by his manner of supporting this
impertinent paradox. His proofs follow with equal
case and force, / say unto you, that if two of you
shall agree on. earth, as touching any thing that they
shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father
which is in Heaven *.And every one that. hath Jb>\-
saken houses,- or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my namc*s
sake, shall- receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit
everlasting life f. Take therefore no thought saying^
What shall we eat ? or wliat shall we drink? or where
withal shall we be clothed? j or your heavenly Father
k)ioiceth that you have need of all these things. But
sedi ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness
<ind all these things shall be added unto you . Aud
again, 1f-yc ask. any thing in rny. name, l.will give it *.
"No- more, rny most wise Friend ? Thou bast my
wonder ; that s enough. My understanding . shall
* Matt , xviii. 19. f \fatt. \x&: 29; -
; Matt. vi. 31. & seq* ...-: . ,, l % John xiv. 14,
L 4 come
152 THE DIVINE LEGATION
come after ;" said, once on a time, a plain good nmn
to a profound philosopher like this.
* Now not to repeat again the illogical bravado of
taking and supporting a conclusion divorced from itepre-
wisses ; such as is the contending for temporal sanctions
and an extraordinary providence where there \vas no
Theocracy, from whence they could he derived ; we
Jhave here a Professor of Divinity who has his elements
of Scripture-interpretation yet to learn. The first rule
of which is, i . " That all, does not signify all simply,
but all of one kind; and, of what kind, the context
must direct us to determine." When, therefore, the
members of Christ s spiritual Kingdom are promised
they shall obtain all they ask, this all must needs be
confined to things spiritual. Now when here we
find those, who are bid to leave their temporal posses
sions and propagate the Gospel, have the promise of
a hundredfold, are we to seek for the performance, in
Palestine, or in a better Country * ? Again, Where,
under the Law, we read of temporal promises, we read
likewise that they were fulfilled. Where, under the
GOSPEL, we read that those who, for the sake of
Christ, forsake houses, or brethren, or sisters, or
father or mother, or wife or children, or lands, shall
receive an hundredfold ; W T hat are we there to look
for ? For the good things of this world, which this
sharp-sighted .Doctor is so eager and intent to find ? -
Now admit there might be no great inconvenience in
receiving a hundred houses for one ; would not a hun
dred wives a little embarrass his Professorship ? And
as to the house and land Where did he learn that this
was literally fulfilled, even to those w ho had the best
title to them if they were literally promised, I meap
the Ap03TLs, yet these we always meet on foot;
* Jieb. xi. -16.
stranger*
Sect. 4,] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 153
strangers upon earth ; and without either house or
home, lie, who then passed for a learned Apostle,
once at Rome, indeed, got a warm house, over his
head ; yet let us not forget that it was hut a hired one.
Here, in this Capital of the World, he received all
who came to him. But though a good Divine, as
times then went, he never rose to a Regius Professor
ship.
The second elementary rule of interpretation is,
" That all the promises of extraordinary blessings,
made to the first .propagators of tiie Gospel, are not to
be understood as extending to their successors of all
Ages, or to the Church in general." To apply this
likewise to the thing in question. If it should he ad
mitted that great temporal blessings were promised to
the first disciples of Christ, it will not follow that their
successors had a claim to them, any more than they
had to their spiritual gift a and graces, such as the
power of working miracles, prophesying, speaking with
tongues, ( 6 . Because as divine Wisdom saw these
latter to be necessary for the (.ischarge of their peculiar
function; so divine Goodness might he graciously
.pleased to bestow the Other on them, as the reward of
their abundant Faith, and superior Courage in the
.day of trial, when the Powers of this world were bent
on their destruction. But this (blessed be God) is
neither the learned Professor s case, nor mine. The
worst that has befallen me, in the defence of Religion,
is only the railings of the Vile and Impotent : and
the worst that is likely to l>cfa.l him, is only the ridicule
of all the rest. Happy had it been for himself, and
much happier for his hearers, had our Professor s
modesty disposed him rather to seek instruction from
those who have gone ^before, than to impart it to those
\vho are to come after. HOOKER has so admirably
exposed
154 TH E DI V IXE LEGATION [Book V,
exposed this very specific folly which our Doctor has
run into, of arguing against his senses, in making the
Dispensation of Providence under the Mosaic and
Christian Economics to be the same, that I cannot do
htm better service than to transcribe the words of that
divine ornament of the English Priesthood: "Shall
ec we then hereupon ARGUE EVEN AGAINST OUR OWN
" EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE? Shall we Seek t>
" persuade men that, of necessity, it is with us as it
*v was with them, that because God is ours, in all
" respects as much as theirs, therefore, either no such
" way of direction hath been at any time, or if it have
" been, it doth still continue in the Church ? or if the
" same do not continue, that yet it must be, at the
" least, supplied by some such means as pleaseth us to
" account of equal force? A more dutiful and religious
" way for us, were to admire the Wisdom of God
" which shineth in the beautiful variety of things, but
" most in the manifold and yet harmonious dissi-
" niilitude of those ways, whereby his Church upon
" eaith is guided from age to age throughout all the
" generations of men*-.
But this was one of the charitable expedients em
ployed to set me right, and to prevent the disgrace of
scribbling much to no purpose. However, as in a
work of this nature, which partakes so much of the
History of the human mind, I may be allowed occa
sionally, and as it falls in my way, to give as well,
examples of its more uncommon degrees of depravity
and folly, as of its improvements and excellencies, I
shall go on. My constant friend Dr. Stebbing proceeds
another Av ay to work, but all for the same good end.
He desires me and my reader to consider, " what k
f: was that Moses undertook; and what was the
" Eccl. Pol. b. iii; Sec. 10. ft *
" true
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 155
-" true end of his Mission. Jt was to carry the chil-
<; clren of Israel out of Egypt, and put them in
" possession of the Land of Canaan, in execution of
" the Covenant made with Abraham. The work in
" the very NATURE of it required the administration
" of ^extraordinary Providence; of which it OUGHT
" THEREFORE TO BE PRESUMED that Moses had
" both the assurance and experience: otherwise he
4C would have -engaged in a very MAD undertaking,
" and the people would have been AS. MAD in follow-
" ing him. THIS SHOUT HINT POINTS OUT THE
" TRUE INTERNAL EVIDENCE Qf.-MoStfSS J)il blC
"Legation, and this evidence lias no sort of depen-
" deuce upon the belief or disbelief of the doctrine
" of a future state. For supposing (what .is the
ic truth) that the Israelites did- believe it; what could
" this belief effect ? It might carry them to Heaven,
"and would do so if they made a proper use of it,
" but it could not put them in possession of the Land
" of Canaan. Mr. War burton therefore has plainly
" mistaken his point."
This intimation of my mistake is kind : arid I should
have taken his hint, as short as it is, but for the. fol
lowing reasons :
1 . This hint would serve the Mufti full as well, to
prove the Divine Legation of Mahomet : for thus we
may suppose he would .argue: " Mahomet s work
was not like Moses s, the subdual of a small tract of
Country, possessed by seven Tribes or Nations, with
a force of some hundred thousand followers; but the
conquest of almost all Asia, with a handful of Ban
ditti. Now this work) says the learned Mahometan,
in the very nature of it, required the administration
of an extraordinary providence, of which IT OUGHT
THEREFORE TO BE PRESUMED, that Mahomet had
both
156 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Bool V.
both th: assurance and experience ; otherwise he would
have engaged in a very mad undertaking, and the
people would have been ax mad in following him."
Thus hath the learned Doctor taught the Mufti
how to reason. The worst of it is, that I, for whom
the kindness was principal}} intended, cannot pmfit
by it, the argument lying exposed to so terrible a re
tortion. To this the Doctor replies, that the cases
.ftre widely different : and that I mys,elf allow them to
be different, for that I hold, the Legation of Moses to
be a true one ; and the Legation of Mahomet, an im
posture. -Risum tcneatis, Annici !
But there is another reason why I can make nothing
of this gracious hint. It is because I proposed to
MOVE (and not, as he says I ought to have done, TO
PRESUME upon) the Divinity of Moses s mission, by
an internal argument. Indeed he tells me, that if I
.be for proving > he has pointed out such a one to me.
He says so, tis true : but in so saying, he only shews
Iiis ignorance of what is meant by an INTERNAL
ARGUMENT. An internal argument is such a one as
takes for its medium some notorious Fact, or circum
stance, in the frame and constitution of a Religion,
not in contest ; and from thence, by necessary conse
quence, deduces the truth of a fact supported by
testimony which is in content. Thus, from the noto
rious Fact of the omission of a future State in Moses -3
institution of Law and Religion, I deduce his Divine
Legation.
But the learned Artist himself seems conscious that
the ware he would put into my hands is indeed no
better than a counterfeit piece of tvuujpery; and so
far from being an internal argument, that it is np
.argument at all : For he tells us, IT OUGHT THEKI;-
TO BE .piiEsyjtfEP, that M.o$e$ had both the
5 assurance
Beet. 4-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 157
assurance ttnd experience that God governed the Is
raelites by an extraordinary Providence.
But what follows is such unaccountable jargon .!
For supposing -the Israelite* did believe a future State,
what would this belief effect? It might carry them to
Heaven, but it could not put them in possession of tht
land of Canaan. This looks as if the learned Doctor
had supposed that, from the truth of this assertion,
That no civil Society under a common Providence could
xuhsht without a future state, I had inferred, that,
with a future -state, Society would be able to work
wonders. What efficacy a future state hath, whether
little or much, affects not my argument any otherwise
than by the oblique tendency it hath to support the
reasoning: and I urged it thus; " Il-ad not the Jews
been under an extraordinary Providence, at that pe
riod when Moses led them out to take possession of
the land of Canaan, they were most unfit to bear the
want of the doctrine of a future state :" Which ob
servation I supported by the case of Odin s followers,
and Mahori-ots ; who, in the same circumstances of
making conquests, and seeking new habitations, had
this Doctrine sedulously inculcated to than, by their
respective Leaders. And the histories of both these
Nations inform us, that nothing so much contributed
to the rapidity of their successes as the enthusiasm
which that Doctrine inspired.
And yet, to be sure, the Doctor never said a livelier
thing, wiio is celebrated for saying many, than when
lie asked, What could this belief effect? It might
carry them to Heaven ; but it could not put them iu
possession of the Land of Canaan. Now unluckily,
like most of these witty things, when too nearly in
spected, we find it to be just the reverses of the truth.
Xiie belief could never carry them tv Heaven, and
yet
THE DIVINE LEGATION f Book ,\?>
yet was abundantly sufficient, under such a leader as
Moses, to put them In possession of the land of Ca
naan. The Arabians belief of a future state could
never, in the opinion at least of our orthodox Doctor,
carry them to Heaven; yet he must allow it enabled
them to take and keep possession of a great part of
Europe and Asia. But the Doctor s head was run
ning on the efficacy of the Christian Faith, when he
talked of belief carrying men to heaven.- Yet who
knows, but when he gave the early Jews the know
ledge of a future state, he gave them the Christian
faith into the bargain ?
SECT. V.
THUS we see that an EXTRAORDINARY PRO
VIDENCE WAS THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF
A THEOCRACY ; and that this Providence is represent
ed in Scripture to have been really administered. -
TEMPORAL REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS, there
fore, (the- effects of this providence) and not future,
MUST NEEDS BE THE SANCTION of their Law and
Religion.
Having thus prepared the ground, and laid the
foundation, I go on to shew that future Rewards and
Punishments, which COULD NOT BE THE SANCTION
of the Mosaic Dispensation, WERE NOT TAUGHT iu
it at all : and that, in consequence of this Omission,
flie PEOPLE had not the doctrine of a future state for
many ages. And here my arguments will be chiefly
directed against the believing part of my opponents ;
no Deist % that I kiiqw of, ever pretending that the
doctrine of a future state was to be found in the Law..
Moses delivered to the Israelites a complete Digest
of Law and Religion : but, to fit it to the nature of ,a
. - * -See note [V] at the end of this Book. -
Theocratic
Sect 5-1 OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED.
Theocratic Government, he v gave it perfectly incorpo-
rated. And, for the observance of the in tire Institu
tion, he added the. sanction of re wards and punish*
ments : both of which we have shewn to be necessary-
for the support of a Republic : and yet, that civil-
Society, as such, can administer only one*.
Now in the Jewish Republic, both the rewards and
punishments promised by heaven were TEMPORAL
only. Such as health, -long life, peace, plenty, and
dominion, 4 6\ Diseases, immature death, war, famine,
want, subjection, and captivity, c^r. And in no one.
place of the Mosaic Institutes is there the least men
tion, or any intelligible hint, of the rewards nnd pu
nishments of another life.
When. SOLOMON had restored the integrity of Reli
gion ; and, to the regulated purity of \\orship, had
added the utmost magnificence ; in his DEDICATION
of the new-built Temple, he addresses a long praver
to the God of Israel, consisting of one solemn petition
for the continuance of the OLD COVENANT made by
the ministry of Moses, lie gives an. exact account
of all its parts, and explains at large the SANCTION
of the Jewish Law and Religion. And here, as in
tiie writings of Moses, we find nothing but TEMPORAL,
rewards and punishments ; without the least hint or.
intimation of a future state %
r ! -The holy PROPHETS speak of no other. Thus
Isaiah : " Then shall he give the rain of thy seed that
4 thou shalt sow the ground withal, and bread of the
u increase of the earth, and it shall be fat and plen-
V teous ; and in that day shall thy cattle feed in large
1 pastures, And there shall be upon every high
". mountain, and upon every high hill, rivers and
*. streams of water f." And Jeremiah: " I will
* i, t. Punishments. See Vul. I. p. 210. | Ch. xxx. ver. 33. 25.
.;:.: ; " surely
1 60 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
" surely consume them, saith the Lord; there shall
" be no grapes on the vine, nor tigs on the fig-tree,
4< and the leaf shall fade, and the things that I have
" given them shall pass away from them. I will send
" serpents and cockatrices amongst you, which will
" not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the
" Lord *." Nay so little known, in these times, was
any other kind of rewards and punishments to the
Jewish People, that, when the Prophets foretell that
NEW Dispensation, by which, life and immortality
were brought to light , they express even those future
rewards and punishments under the image of the pre
sent. Thus Zechariah, prophesying of the times of
CHRIST, describes the punishment attendant on a re
fusal of the terms of Grace, under the ideas of the
Jewish Economy : " And it shall be that whoso will
u not come up of all the families of the earth unto
" Jerusalem, to worship the King the Lord of Hosts,
" even upon them SHALL BE NO RAIN f." I would
have those men well consider this, who persist in
thinking " that the early Jews had the doctrine of a
future state of regards and punishments, thougli
Moses taught it not expressly to them ;" and then tell
me why Zechariah, when prophesying of the Gospel-
times, should chuse to express thesKjfc/tM rewards
and punishments under the image of the present ?
Indeed, were it not for the amazing prejudices which
have obtained on this subject, a: writer s pains to- shew
that a future^ state of rewards and punishments made
no part of the Mosaic Dispensation, would appear as
absurd to every intelligent reader, as his \vould be who
should employ many formal arguments -to prove that
Sir Isaac Newton s Theory of Light and Colours is
not ttf be found in -Aristotle s books dc &h : de
* Chap. vitf. ver. 13. 17. f Ghap.-xiv. vfcf. 17.
Sect. 5*] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. iOi
Coloribus. I will therefore for once presume so much
on the privilege of Common Sense, as to suppose, the
impartial reader may be now willing to confess, that
the doctrine of Life and Immortality was not yet
known to a people while they were sitting in darkness,
and in the region and shadow of death* , and goon
to other matters that have more need to be explained.
II.
I shall shew then, in the next place, that this OMIS
SION was not accidental ; or of a thing which Moses
did not well understand : but that, on the contrary, it
was a designed omission ; and of a thing well known
by him to be of high importance to Society.
I. That the doctrine of a future state of Rewards
and Punishments was studiously omitted, may appear
from several circumstances in the book of Genesis.
For the history of Moses may be divided into two
periods ; from the Creation to his Mission ; and from
his Mission to the delivering up his command to
Joshua : The first was written by him in quality of
HISTORIAN; the second, of LEGISLATOR; in both
of which he preserves an equal silence concerning the
doctrine of a future state.
i. In the history of the Fall of Man, it is to be ob
served, that he mentions only the instrument of the
agent, the SERPENT; not the agent himself, the
DEVIL: and the reason is plain; there was a close
connexion between that agency, The spiritual ef
fects of the Fall, the work of Redemption, and the
doctrine of a future State. If you say, the connex
ion was not so close but that the Agent might have
been mentioned without any more of his history than
the temptation to the Fall; I reply, it is true it might;
* Matt. iv. 16.
VOL.V. M but
162 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Eook V,
but not without danger of giving countenance to the
impious doctrine of Two Principles, which at this time
prevailed throughout the Pagan world. What but
these important considerations could be the cause of
the omission * ? when it is so evident that the know
ledge of this grand enemy of our welfare would have
been the likeliest cure of Pagan superstitions, as
teaching men to esteem of Idolatry no otherwise
than as -a mere diabolical illusion. And in fact we
find, that when the Israelites were taught, by the later
Prophets, to consider it in this light, we hear no more
of their Idolatries. Hence we sec, that the folly of
those, who, with Collins, would have a mere serpent
only to be understood, is just equal to theirs, who,
with the Cabalists, would have that serpent a mere
Allegory.
2. In the history of Enoch s translation f to Hea
ven J, there is so studied an obscurity, that several of
the Rabbins, as Abcn Ezra and Jarchi, fond as they
are of finding a future state in the Pentateuch, inter
pret this translation as only signifying an immature
death. And Enoch walked with God, and he was not,
for God took him. How different from the other
history of the translation of Elijah ! " And it came to
" pass when the Lord would take up Elijah into
" Heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with
" Elisha from Gilgal, c. And it came to pass as
" they still went on and talked, that behold there
" appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and
" parted them both asunder, and Elijah went up with
" a whirlwind into Heaven ." But the reason of this
difference is evident : When the latter history was
written, it was thought expedient to make a preparation
* See note [Z] at the end of this Book.
t Gen. v. 24. I lieb . xi. 5. 2 Kings ii. 1,11.
for
Sect. 5.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 163
for the dawning of a, future state of reward and pu
nishment, which in the time of Moses had been highly
improper. The reflections of an eminent Critic on this
occasion, will shew how little he penetrated into the
true design of this Economy. " Minim est Mosem
" rein fcmtarn, si modo immortalem Henochum factum
" CREDIDIT, tarn obiter, tamque obscure, quasi EAM
" LATERE VELLET, perstriiixisse. Forte cum haec
" ex antiquissimis monumentis exscriberet, nihil praeter
" ea quce nobis tradidit invenit, quibus aliquid adjicere
" rehgio fuit*." For Moses both knew and believed
the Immortality of Enoch, and purposely obscured the
fact, from whence it might have been collected. But
what is most singular in this reflection is, that the
learned Commentator, to aggravate the obscurity,
says it is as obscure, as if he purposely designed to hide
it, supposing such a design to be the highest impro
bability ; which was indeed the fact, and is the true
solution of the difficulty.
3. In his history of the Patriarchs, he entirely omits,
or throws into shade, the accounts of those Revelations,
with which, as we learn from the writers of the New
Testament, some of them were actually favoured,
concerning the Redemption of mankind. Of these
favours we shall give ere long a great and noble in
stance, in the case of ABRAHAM, who, as we are
assured by JESUS himself, rejoiced to see CHRIST S day,
and saw it, and was glad.
From whence therefore could all this studied caution
arise, but to keep out of sight that doctrine, which, for
ends truly worthy of the divine Wisdom, he had
omitted in his Institutes of Law and Religion ? This
shews the weakness of that evasion, which would re
concile the OMISSION, to the People s KNOWLEDGE
* Vid. Clericum in Gen. v. 24.
M 2 Of
164 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
t)f the doctrine, by supposing they had been so well
instructed by the Patriarchs, that Moses had u
occasion to say any thing farther on that subject.
Let me observe by the way, that these considerations
are more than a thousand topical arguments, to prove
that Moses was the real author of the book of Genesis*.
But the proof deduced therefrom will be drawn out and
explained at large hereafter.
II. That the importance of this Doctrine to Society
was well understood by Moses, may appear from a
particular provision in his Institutes (besides that
general one of an extraordinary providence), evidently
made to oppose to the inconvenient consequences of
the OMISSION.
We have shewn at large, in the first three books-,
that under a common or unequal providence, civil Go
vernment could not be supported without a Religion
teaching a future state of reward and punishment.
And it is the great purpose of this work to prove, that
the Mosaic Religion wanting that doctrine, the Jews
must REALLY have enjoyed that equal providence,
under which holy Scripture represents them to have
lived : and then, no transgressor escaping punishment,
nor any observer of the law missing his reward*, human
affairs might be kept in good order, without the doc
trine of a future State.
Yet still the violence of irregular passkms would
make some men of stronger complexions superior to
all the fear of personal temporal evil. To lay hold
therefore on These, and to gain a due ascendant over
the most determined, the punishments, in this insti
tution, are extended to the POSTERITY of wicked
men; which the instinctive fondness of Parents to
their offspring would make terrible even to those who
* See note [AA] at the end of this- Book.
had
Sect. 5.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 1%
had hardened themselves into an insensibility of per
sonal punishment : / the Lord thy God am a jealous
God, visit in g the iniquity of the Fathers upon the
Children unto the third and fourth generation of them
tiiat .hate me *.
Now that this punishment was only to supply the
v/ant of a Future state, is evident from hence f :
Towards the conclusion of this extraordinary Economy,
when GOD, by the later Prophets, reveals his purpose-
of giving them a NEW Dispensation^ in which a
Future state of reward and punishment was to be
brought to light, it is then declared in the most ex
press manner, that he will abrogate the Law of punish
ing Children for the crimes of their Parents. JE RE-
MI AIL, speaking of this new Dispensation, says : " In
" tJio.sc days they shall say no more, The Fathers
" have eaten a sour grape, and the Children s teeth
" are set on edge : but every one shall die for hisoivn-
" iniquity, every man that eateth the sour grape, his
" teeth shall be set on edge . Behold the days come,
" saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT
" with the House of Israel, NOT according to the
i Covenant that I made with their Fathers in the day
4f that I took them by the hand to bring them out of
" the land of Egypt ," &$c. And EZEKIEL, speaking
of the same times, says : " I will give them one-.
" heart, and \vill put a NEW spirit within you, c^cv
" But as for them, whose heart walketh after the
" heart of their abominable things / uill recompense"
" their icay UPON THEIR OWN HEADS, . saith the
" Lord God||." And again: " What mean ye, that
ft you use this Proverb concerning the land of Israel,
" saying, The Fathers have eaten sour grapes, and
* See Note [IiB.] f Note [CC.] : Note [1U)J at the end.
Chap. xxxi. 2933. [| Chap. xi. ver. 1921.
M * <<f the
166 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
u the Children s teeth are set on edge * ? As I live,
" saith the Lord God, Ye shall not have occasion any
" more to use this Proverb In Israel. Behold all souls
" are mine; as the soul of the Father, so also the soul
" of the Son is mine : the soul that sinneth, it shatt
And yet (to shew more plainly that the abrogation
of the Law was solely owing to this new Dispensation)
the same Prophets, when their subject is the present
Jewish Economy, speak of this very Law as still in
force. Thus JEREMIAH: " Thou she west loving-
" kindness unto thousands, and recompuisest the nil-
" quity of the Fathers into the bosom of their Children
" after them ." Arid HOSEA : " Seeing thoit hast
" forgotten the Law of thy God, I will also forget thy
" Children^
From all this I conclude, That, whoever was the
real Author of what goes under the name of the Law
of Moses , was at least well acquainted with the impor
tance of the doctrine of a future state of reward and
punishment ; arid provided well for the want of it.
But the blindness of Infidelity is here most deplor
able. The Deists are not content with condemning
this Law of injustice, bat will accuse the Dispensation
itself of inconsistence ; pretending that the Prophets
have directly contradicted Moses in their manner of
denouncing punishment.
It is indeed the standing triumph of infidelity. But
let us return (says SPINOZA) to the Prophets, whose,
discordant opinions we have undertaken to lay open
The xviiith chap, of EZEKIEL does not seem to agree
with the 7th ver. of the xxxivth chap, of EXODUS,
nor with the iSth ver. of the xxxiid chap, of JEKE-
* See note [EE] at the end of this Book, t Chap, xviii. ver. 24.
I Chap, xxxii. ver. 18. Chap. iv. ver, 6.
31 1 A IT,
Sect 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 167
BIIAH, $.*-<-" There are several mistakes (says
" TIN DAL) crept into the Old Testament, \vherc
" there s scarce a chapter which gives any historical
" account of matters, but there are some things in it
* ( which could not be there originally. It must be
" owned, that the same spirit (I dare not call it a
<c spirit of cruelty) does not alike prevail throughout
" the Old Testament; the nearer we come to the
" times of the Gospel, the milder it appears : for
" though God declares in the Decalogue, that he is
" a jealous God, milting the iniquity of the parents
" upon the children to the third and jourth Centra-
" tion, and accordingly Achan, with all his family,
<c was destroyed for his single crime ; yet the Lord
" afterwards says, The soul that sinneth it shall
" die\ the son shall not bear the iniquity of the
" fat her V &cj.
I. Let us see then what these men have to say on
the first point, the injustice of the Law. They set
out on a false supposition, that this method of punish
ment was part of an universal Religion given by God
as the Creator and Governor of mankind : whereas it
is only part of a civil Institute, <*iven by him to one
People, as their tutelary God and civil Governor.
Now we know it to be the practice of all States to
punish the crime of Lese Majesty in this manner.
And to render it just, no more is required than that it
was in the compact (as it certainly was here) on men s
free entrance into Society.
Sed ad Prophetas revertamur, quorum di^crepantcs
opiniones etiam notare suscepiiims. Cap. saitein xviii. Kzecb.
nou videtur convenire cum veisu 7. cap. xxxiv. Kxod. nee cum
ver. 18. Cap, xxxii. Jer. c. Tract. Theologico-PoI. pp. 27, 28.
f Christianity as old as the Creation, pp. 240, 241.
J See note [l- F] at the end of this Book.
M 4 When
168 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
When a guilty Posterity suffered for the crimes of
their Parents, they were deprived of their natural un
conditional rights; when an innocent, they, only
forfeited their, conditional and civil ; But as this
method of punishment was administered with more
lenity in the Jewish Republic, so it was with infinitely
more rectitude, than in any other. For although
God allowed capital punishment to be inflicted for the
crime of lese majesty, on the Person of the offender,
by the delegated administration of the Law ; yet con
cerning his Family or Posterity he reserved the
inquisition of the crime to himself, and expressly
forbid the Magistrate to meddle with it, in the common
course of justice. The Fathers shall not be put to
death for the Children, neither shall the Children be put
to death for the Fathers : every wan shall be put td
death for his own sin*. And we find the Magistrate
careful not to intrench on this part of God s jurisdiction,
We are told, that as soon as Amaziah the son of Joash
king of Judah became firmly established in the throne,
He slew his servants which had slain the King his
Father. But the CHILDREN of the murderers he slew
not : according unto that which is written in the book
of the law of Moses [Deut. xxiv. 16.] wherein the
Lord commanded say ing, The Fat hers shall not be put to
death for the Children -[, $c. Yet such hath been
the perversity or stupidity of Freethinking, that this
very text itself hath been charged with contradicting
the xxth chapter of EXODUS. Now God s appro
priating to himself the execution of the Law in question
would abundantly justify the equity of it, even
supposing it had been given by him as part of an
universal religion. For why was the Magistrate for
bidden to imitate God s method of punishing, but
* Deut. xxiv, 16. | 2 Kings xiv. 5, 6.
because
Sect. 5-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. io>
because no power less than omniscient could, in all
cases, keep clear of injustice in such an inquisition ?
. But God not only reserved this method of punish
ment to himself, but has graciously condescended to
inform us, by his Prophets, after what manner he
was pleased to administer it. YOUR INIQUITIES
(says he) AND THE INIQUITIES OF YOUR FATHERS"
TOGETHER, which have burnt incense upon the moun
tains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore-
will I measure their fanner work info their bosom*.
And again : " But ye say, Why ? doth not the Son;
" bear the iniquity of the Father ? When the Son hath
" done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept
" all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely
" live. But when the Righteous turneth away from
" his righteousness and committeth iniquity shall he
" livef?"
So much for that case in which the Posterity were
Iniquitous, and suffered punishment, in the strict and
proper sense of the word. But doubtless, an innocent
Posterity were sometimes punished, according to the
denunciation of this Law, for the crimes of their
wicked Fathers J : as is done by modern States, in
attaint of blood and confiscation : and this, with the
highest equity in both cases.
In our Gothic Constitutions, the throne being the 1
fountain of honour and source of property, Lands
and Titles descend^/mra iV, and were held as FIEFS of
it, under perpetual obligation of military and civil
services. Hence the LAWS OF FORFEITURE for high
* Isaiah Ixv. 7.
f Ezek. xviii. 19 24. And see note [GG] at the end.
I This appears from the rise of that proverb in Israel, T!tc
fut/itrs hui e eaten sour grapes, and the Children s teeth are set on
tt/jpr,
treason,
170 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
treason *, the most violent breach of the condition on
"which those fiefs were granted. Nor was there any
injustice in the forfeiture of what was acquired by no
natural right, but by civil compact, how much soever
the confiscation might affect an innocent posterity.
The same principles operated under a Theocracy.
God supported the Israelites in Judea, by an extra
ordinary administration of his providence. The
consequence of which were great temporal blessings
to which they had no natural claim ; given them on
condition of obedience. Nothing therefore could be
more equitable than, on the violation of that condition,
to withdraw those extraordinary blessings from the
Children of a Father thus offending. How then can
the Deist charge this Law with injustice ? since a
Posterity when innocent was aft rcted only in their
civil conditional rights ; and, when deprived of those
which were natural and unconditional, were always
guilty.
From all this it appears, that the excellent GROTIUS
himself had a very crude and imperfect notion of the
whole matter, when he resolved the justice of it in-
tirely into God s sovereign right over his creatures.
u Deus quidern in lege Hebraeis data paternam im-
" pietatem in posteros se vindicaturuni minatur: sed
" ipse Jus Dominii plenissimum habet, ut in res nos-
" tras, ita in vitam nostram, ut munus suum, quod
sine ulla causa & quo vis tempo-re auferrc cuivis,
" quando vult, potcstf-"
II. As to the second point, the charge of Gont ra
diation in the Dispensation, we now see, that, on ths
contrary, these different declarations of God s manner
* See note [HH] at the end of this Book,
f De Jure Bel. <% I ac, vol. ii. p. 593. E-d. Barbeyrac, Amst.
1720.
Of
Sect 5-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 171
of punishing in two so distant periods, are the MOST
DIVINE INSTANCE of constancy and uniformity in
the manifestations of eternal Justice: So tar are they
from any indication of a milder or severer Spirit, as
Tindal with equal insolence and folly hath objected
to Revelation. For while a future state was kept hid
from the Jews, there was absolute need of such a Law
to restrain the more daring Spirits, by working on
their instincts ; or, as Cicero expresses it ut caritas
liberorum amiciores Parentes Reipublicae redderet.
But when a doctrine was brought to light which held
them up, and continued them after death, the objects
of divine justice *, it had then no farther use; and
was therefore reasonably to be abolished with the rest
of the judicial Laws, peculiar to the Mosaic Dispen
sation. But these men have taken it into their heads
(and what comes slowly in, will go slowly out) that it
was repealed for its injustice ; though another reason
be as plainly intimated by the Prophets, as the circum
stances of those times would permit ; and so plainly
by JEREMIAH, that none but such heads could either
not see or not acknowledge it. In his thirty-first
chapter, foretelling the advent of the NEW Dispensa
tion, he expressly says, this Law shall be revoked:
IN THOSE DAYS they shall say no more, The Fathers
have eaten a sour grape, and the Children s teeth are
set on edge. But every one shall die for his ozcn ini-
qidty\. Yet, in the very next chapter, spdakingof
the OLD Dispensation, under which titey then lived, he
as expressly declares the Law to be still in force.
When I had delivered the evidence of the purchase
unto Baruc/i, I prayed unto the Lord, saying, Thou
shetcest loving-kindness unto thousands, ami recompcns*
est the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their
* See note [II] at the end of this Book. f ^ er - -9 3
children
172 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V,
children after them*. Is this like a man who had
iorgot himself, or who suspected the Law of cruelty
or injustice?
But the ignorance of Free-thinking was here unaf
fected ; and indeed the more excusable, as the matter
fcad of old perplexed both Je\vs and Christians. The
Synagogue was so scandalized at EZE KIEL S Decla
rations against this mode of punishment, that they
deliberated a long time whether he should not be
thrown out of the Canon, for contradicting MOSES in
so open a manner |. And Sentence had at last past
upon him, but that one Cliananlas promised to recon
cile the two Prophets. How he kept his word, is
not known, for there is nothing of his extant upon the
subject ; only we are told that he approved himself a
i*ian of honour, and, with great labour and study, at
length did the business .
OIIIGEN was so perplexed with the different asser
tions of these two Prophets, that he could find no
better way of reconciling them than by having re
course to his allegorical fanaticism, and supposing the
words of the first to be a Parable or Mystic speech ;
which, however, he would not pretend to decipher.
The learned Father, having quoted some pagan Ora
cles intimating that Children were punished for the
* Ver. iG & 18.
" -f Les Juifs disent qu Ezechiel etoit serviteur de Jeremie, &
(jue le Sanhedrin delibera long-terns, si Ton rejetteroit son Livre
tki Canon des Ecritures. Le sujet de leur chagrin centre ce Pro-
phete vient de son extreme obscuritc, & de ce qu il enseigne di-
verses choses contraires a Moise Ezechiel, disent-ils, a declare,
Que h fils ne porteroit plus I imquifc de son pere, coritre ce quc
]VIoise dit expressement, Que le Seigneur venge I lniquite des
Peres sur Ics Enfaus, juxqu a la tromc-me fy quatrieme generation.
Calinet, Dissert, vol. ii. p. 361.
J See note [KK] at the end of this Book.
Exod. xx. K^ek.-xviii,
crimes
Sect. 5.] OF AIDSES DEMONSTRATED. 173
crimes of their Forefathers, goes on in this manner :
" How much more equitable is what our Scriptures
" say on this point: The Fathers shall not he put to
" death for the Children, neither shall the Children
" he put to death for the Fathers: every man shall
" be put to death for his own sin, DEUT. xxiv. 16,
" $c. But if any one should object that this verse
" of the oracle,
" On the Children s Children and their Posterity ,
" is very like what Scripture says, that GOD m/A*
" the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children unto
" the third and fourth Generation of them that hate
" him, EXOD. xx. 5. he may learn from Ezckiel that
" those words are a PARABLE ; for the Prophets re-
" prove such as say, The Fathers have eaten sour
" Grapes, and the Children s teeth are set on edge ;
" and then it follows : As / live, saith the Lord,
" every one shall die for his oicn sins only. But this
" is not the place to explain what is meant by the
" PARABLE of visiting iniquity unto the third and
"fourth generation " : ." There could hardly be more
mistakes in so few words. The two texts in Deutero
nomy and Exodus, which Origcn represents as treat
ing of the same subject, treat of subjects very
different the first, as we have shewn above, concerns
the Magistrate s execution of the Law ; the other,
. * "Ogee, <5s ocu ?&?& j9iX&o)> TO, Oi/x. a.TrvQcMtiAa.i, fyc. lav $i rtf
Ojbtotoc Eivai ?iiy>j TU
E? tnat ^oav tau^va^ o\ t^ oTTioQev yivuv\ou t
TO, ATro^i^ij ctfjictgliots vacflfgut t iti TSX.VCC., ITT* Tglryv x^ ttlat^v ytvsetv
OTI l\i ra *Ifixr$X r|?aCo?^rJ TO TotTov tlvau
-air i u (At v & T? - X/yovIa?,- Oi zo-aT/? .. e^a/o* o/x^axa, Jt) o>
rexvwv tyUtf&MW fii i^^ll, Z lyw, Asy.t K^i^, M*
Jat/lS a^atplia. aTrotoec.vsl TUi. Ov K<\y, rov aratgotlx $1 xao>
n <R^T3 Tpr3 K^. rslslgTr t v yVa> .<i7roj*-
4. Coilt. CeU. p. 403,
that
174 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
that, which God reserves to himself. Again, because
the text of Exodus apparently occasioned the Proverb
mentioned by Ezckiel and Jeremiah, therefore by a
strange blunder or prevarication, the Eather brings
the Proverb in proof that the Law which gave birth
to it, was but a Proverb or parable itself *.
II.
We have now shewn that MOSES did not teach a
future state of reward and punishment ; and that he
omitted it with design ; that lie understood its great
importance to society; and that he provided for the
want of it. And if we may believe a great Statesman
and Philosopher, " Moses had need of every SAXO
~" TIOX that his knowledge or his imagination could
o O
" suggest to govern the unruly people, to whom he
" gave a Law, in the name of God |\"
But as the proof of this point is only for the sake
of its consequence, that therefore the people had not
the knowledge (jf that doctrine, our next step will be
to establish this consequence : Which (if we take in
those circumstances attending the Omission, just ex
plained above) will, at the same time, shew my argu
ment in support of this Omission to be more than
negative*
Now though one might fairly conclude, that the
People s not having this Doctrine, was a necessary
consequence of Moses s not teaching it, in a Law
which forbids the least addition J to the written Insti
tute; yet I shall show, from a circumstance, the
clearest and most incontestable, that the Israelites,
from the time of Moses to the time of their Captivity,
* See note [LL] at the end of this Book,
t Bolitigbrokes Ji r orks, vol.v. p. 513.
| Deut. ;v. 2. Chap, xii, ver. 32,
bad
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 175
had not the doctrine of a future state of reward and
punishment
The BIBLE contains a very circumstantial History
of this People throughout the aforesaid period. It
contains not only the history of public occurrences,
but the lives of private persons of both sexes, and of
all a^es, conditions, characters and complexions ; in
the adventures of Virgins, Matrons, Kings, Soldiers,
Scholars, Merchants, and Husbandmen. All these,
in their turns, make their appearance before us. They
are given too in every circumstance of life ; captive,
victorious ; in sickness, and in health ; in full security,
and amidst impending dangers ; plunged in Civil
business, or retired and sequestered in the service of
Religion. Together with their Story, we have their
Compositions likewise. Here they sing their triumphs;
there, their palinodia. Here, they offer up to the
Deity their hymns of praise ; and there, petitions for
their wants : hero, they urge their moral precepts to
their contemporaries ; and there, they treasure up
their Prophecies and Predictions for posterity ; and
to both denounce the promises and threatenings of
Heaven. Yet in none of these different circumstances
of life, in none of these various casts of composition,
do we ever find them acting on the motives, or in
fluenced by the prospect of future rewards and pu
nishments; or indeed expressing the least hope or fear,
or even common curiosity concerning them. But
every thing they do or say respects the present life
only; the good and ill of which are the sole objects
of all their pursuits and aversions *.
Hear then the sum of all. The sacred Writings
are extremely various both in their subject, style, and
Composition. They contain an account of the
* See note [MM] at tbe end of this Book.
Creation,
176 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book Vl
Creation, and Origine of the human race; the history
of a private Family, of a chosen People, and of ex
emplary men and women. They consist of hymns
and petitions to the Deity, precepts of civil life, and
religious Prophecies and Predictions. Hence I infer
that as, amidst ail this variety of writing, the Doc
trine of a future state never once appears to have had
any share in this People s thoughts ; it never did in
deed make part of their Religious opinions*. And
when, to all this, we find their occasional reasoning
only conclusive on the supposition that a future state
was not amongst the Religious doctrines of the Peo
ple, the above considerations, if they needed any,
would receive the strongest support and confirmation.
To give one example out of many. The Psalmist
says, For the rod of the ffficked shall not rest upon
the lot of the Righteous: lest the Righteous put forth
their hands unto iniquity^? That is, " God will
vigorously administer that extraordinary Providence
which the nature of the Dispensation required to be
administered, lest the Righteous, not seeing themselves
exempt from the evils due to wickedness, should con
clude that there was no moral Governor of the world ;
and so, by making their own private interest the rule
of their actions, fall into the practice of all kind of
iniquity." But this could never be the consequence
where an unequal dispensation of Providence was at
tended with the knowledge and belief of a future
state. And here I will appeal to those who are most
prejudiced against this reasoning. Let them speak,
and tell me, if they were now first shewn some history
of an old Greek Republic, delivered in the form and
manner of the Jewish, and no more notice in it of a
future state, Whether they could possibly believe that
* See note [NN] at the end of this Book, t Ps - cxxv - 3-
3 that
Sect. 5.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 177
that Doctrine was National, or generally known in it.
If they have the least ingcnukv, they will answer,
They could not. On what thru do they support their
opinion here, bat on religious Prejudices? Prejudices
of no higher an original than some Dutch or German
System : for, as to the BHH.F, one half of it is silent
concerning life and immortality ; and the other half
declares that the doctrine was brought to light
through the Gospel.
But to set this argument in its fullest light. Let us
consider the History of the rest of mankind, whether
recorded by Bards, or Statesmen; by Philosophers,
or Priests : in which we shall find the doctrine of a
future slate still bearing, throughout all the various
circumstances of human life, a constant and principal
share in the determinations of the Will. And no
wonder. We see how strong the Grecian world
thought the sanction of it to be, by a passage in
Pindar, quoted by Plutarch in his tract of Supo 8titicn^
where he makes it one circumstance of the superior
happiness of the Gods, over men, that they stood not
in fear of Acbd
But not to be distracted by too large a view, let us
select from the rest of the Nations, one or two niost
resembling the Jewish. Those which came nearest
to t-. ;!] and, if the Jews were only under human
guidance, i xtremely near), were the SUEVI of
the north, and the ARABS of the south. Both these
People were led out in search of new Possessions,
which they were to win by the sword. / :<! both, it
is confessed, had the doctrine of a Future tMe incul
cated unto them by their leaders, ODIX and MAHO
MET. Of the Arabs we have a large and circumstan
tial history : Of the Suevi we have only some few
fm laments of the songs and ballads of their Bards;
You V. N yet
178 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
vet they equally serve to support our Conclusion. In
the large history of the Saracen Empire we can scarce
find a page, and in the Runic rhymes of the Suevi
scarce a line, where the doctrine of a future state was
not pushing on its influence. It was their constant
Viaticum through life ; it stimulated them to war and
slaughter, and spirited their songs of triumph ; it made
them insensible of pain, immoveable in danger, and
superior to the approach of death*. For, what
Cicero says of Poetry in Rome, may be more truly
applied to the Doctrine of a Future state amongst
these Barbarians ; " Ceterae neque temporum sunt,
<c neque a?tatum omnium, neque locorum. Haec
" studia adolescentiam alunt, senectutem oblectant,
" secundas res ornant, ADVERSIS PERFUGIUM AC
" SOLATIUM PR^BENlf."
But this is not all. For we find, that when a future
state became a popular doctrine amongst the Jewish
People (the time and occasion of which will be ex
plained hereafter) that then it made as considerable
a figure in their Annals, by influencing their determi
nations J, as it did in the history of any other people.
Nor is it only on the silence of the sacred Writers,
or of the speakers they introduce, that I support this
conclusion; but from their positive declarations; in
which they plainly discover that there was no popular
expectation of a future state, or Resurrection. Thus
the woman of Tekoah to David : For we must needs
die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which can
not be gathered up again . Thus Job : As the cloud
is consumed, and vanisheth away: so he that goetli
down to the grave shall come up no more\\. And
* See note [OO] at the end of this Book,
t Pro Archia Pocta, 7. I See the 2d book of Maccabees.
$ 2 Sam. xiv. 14. )| See note [PP] at the end of this Book.
again ;
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 179
again : " There is hope of a tree, if it be cut down,
" that it will sprout again though the root thereof
" wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in
" the ground, yet through the scent of water, it will
" bud and bring forth boughs like a plant. But man
" dieth and wasteth away: yea, man givcth up the
" ghost, and where is he r As the waters fall from the
" sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up : so man
" lieth down and riseth not till the Heavens be no
" more, they shall not awake nor be raised out of
" their sleep*." Here the. Jewish Writer, for such
he was, as shall be shewn hereafter (and might, indeed,
be understood to be such from this declaration alone)
opposes the revival of a vegetable to the irrecoverable
death of a rational animal. Had he known as much
as St. Paul, he had doubtless used that circumstance
in the vegetable world (as St. Paul did) to prove ana
logically, the revival of the rational animal.
The Psalmist says, In death there is no remem
brance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee
thanks | ? And again : What profit is there in my
blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust
praise thee, shall it declare thy truth J ? And again :
Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? Shall the
" dead ARISE and praise thee? Shall thy loving kind-
1 ness be declared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in
( destruction? Shall thy wonders be known in the
" dark ? and thy righteousness in the land of forget-
" fulness ?"
The writer of the book of Ecclesiastes is still more
"express : For the living know that they shall die : but
the dead know not any thing 9 neither have they any
* Chap. xiv. ver. 7 12. f Psalm vi. 6.
I Psalm xxx. 10. Psalm Ixxxviii. 1113.
N 2 wort
iSo THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
more a REWARD, for the memory of them is for-
gotten *.
Ilezekiah, in his song of Thanksgiving for his mi
raculous recovery, speaks in the same strain : " For
" the grave cannot praise thce, death can riot celebrate
" tliee : they that go down into the pit cannot hope
" for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise
" tliee, as I do this day : The father to the children
" shall make known thy truth f ."
ily Jeremiah, in \\\$ Lamentations and complaints
of the people, says, OUR FATHERS HAVE six NED
A X D A RE X O T, A X D W E II A V E B O It X T ! I F. 1 11 J X t -
QUFTIKS ;j\ Which implies, that the fathers beini*;
dead bore no part of the punishment of their sins,
but that all was thrown upon the children. But could
this have been supposed, had the People been in
structed in the doctrine of future rewards and
punishments ?
Yet a learned Amwerer, in contradiction to all this,
thinks it sufficient to say, That * these passages may
" imply no more than that the dead cannot set forth
" Cod s glory before men, or make his praise to be
" known upon earth ." Now I think it must need*
imply something more, since the. dead are said to be
unable to do this under the earth as well as upon it.
For it is the Grave which is called the land (f forget-
fii/f.rw, or that where all things are forgotten. And
in another place it is said, 77/6 dead praise ndt the
Lord, neilher any thai go down into silence ||. Surely,,
a plain intimation that all intercourse of praise between
man and his Maker ceased on death, as well below
ground as above ; otherwise why did the sacred writer
* See note [QQ] at the end of this Book.
t Isaiah xxxviii. 18, 19. } Chap. v. \e.t. 7.
V Dr. Stebbing s Exam. &c. p. 64.. }[ Ps.-cxv. 17.
tell
Sect 5.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 181
tell us it was the Grave which was the place of silence
to the dead ? If the Answerer s interpretation be
ri;j;ht, this world, and not the other, was the place.
Had the Psalmist supposed, as the Doctor does, that
the dead continued in a capacity of reiiifmbi rhig the
goodie. of God, this rememlriMCX- could he no where
more quickly or forcibly excite in that World
where the divine goodness rly u:ivciled fc* the
xp trils oj jwt men made pcr/ccl v: . On die contrary,
the Grave is uniformly represented by all of them, as
the land of darjaiess, silence, and forget fulness.
But since, of all the sacred writers, the Psalmist is
he who is supposed by the adversaries of the D. L. to
have most eilect jally confuted the Author s system,
I shall quote a passage from his hymns, which, I
think, fairly enough decides the controversy. Hitherto
we have only heard him say, that the de-ndjorget God;
we shall now find him go further, and say that God
jforgets them. ** I am counted with them that go
down into the pit. FUI- -; amongst the dead, like the
slain that lie in the grave, \diom ihou rememberext no
Hi-ire: and THEY AUK ITT OFF FUO.M THY HA\JV|\
Let tlu roa-icv take notice of the last words,
thty (the ci-M.i) arc cut o// /rom thy hand, i.e. they arc
no longer ti;e obj-.-<:t of thy Providence or moral
Government. Oii this account it is, thi.t in the be
ginning of the sentence he calls these dead THKE; that
is, manumiscd, SL! id liiicrty ; in the same sen^e that
Uzziah the leper s Jrccdoin is s^-oken of by the sacred
historian- -And L^ Jali the kni^ was a Leper, and
(kcc(( In a several hoiw: [or, as the ruargin of our
translation tells us, it signifies in ihe Hebrew, a FREE
JIOUSK, or house ofj rceacw] hnng a Leper, /(/>
ci T ovi Jroni the Iw use of the Lord. The phrase of
* Ileb. xii. 23, f Ps . Ixxxviii. 4, 5.
cutting
iS2 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
cutting off, &c. signifying the same in both places, the
taking away all intercourse and relation between two :
And if that intercourse consisted in service on the one
side, and protection on the other, as between Lord and
Subject, Master and Servant, he who owed service is
with great propriety of figure said to be FREE or MA-
NUMISED. Hezekiah, as quoted above, delivers the
very same sentiment, though in a different expression
they that go down into the pit ca/moi hope for
THY TRUTH. What this truth is, the following
words declare, the living, the living, they shall praise
thce. THE FATHER TO THE CHILDREN SHALL MAKE
KNOWN THY TRUTH. As much as to say, " the truth
not to be hoped for by them who go down into the pit,
is The nature and the history of God s Dispensation to
his chosen people -" in which, by a particular precept
of the LAW, the Fathers were commanded to instruct
their Children, Thus the Psalmist and this other
Jewish Ruler agree in this principle, that the Dead
are no longer the object of God s general Providence,
or of his particular : which evinces what I was to
prove, " THAT THE BODY OF THE EARLY JEWS
HAD NO EXPECTATIONS OF A FUTURE STATE OF
REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS," And here let me
take notice of a passage which the contenders for the
contrary Doctrine much confide in. It is where
David, speaking of his dead child, says, I shall go to
him, but he mil not return to me. But whither was
he to follow his departed child? He himself tells you
into a land of darkness, silence, and forgctfulness,
where he was to be no longer in a capacity of remem
bering the goodness and mercy of God, or even of bang
remembered by him ; but was to be cut off from
his hand, that is, was to be no longer the object of his
Providence or moral Government.
To
Sect. 5.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 183
To proceed. If now we set all these passages to
gether, we find it to be the same language throughout,
and in every circumstance of life ; as well in the cool
philosophy of the author of Ecclesiastes, as amidst the
distresses of the Psalmist, and the exultations of good
Hezekiah.
But could this language have been used by a People
instructed in the doctrine of life and immortality ? or
do we find one word of it, on any occasion whatever,
in the Writers of the Isew Testament, but where it is
brought in to be confuted and condemned * ?
All this, to thoughtful men, will, I suppose, be
deemed convincing. Whence it follows that their
subterfuge is quite cut off, who pretend, that Moses
did not indeed propagate the Doctrine of a future state
of regards and punishments in writing, but that he
delivered it to TRADITION, which conveyed it safely
down through all the ages of the Jewish Dispensation,
from one end of it to the other. For we see, he was
so far from teaching it, that he studiously contrived to
keep it out of sight ; nay provided for the want of it :
and the people were so far from being influenced by it,
that they had not even the idea of it. Yet the writers
of the Church of Rome have taken advantage of this
silence in the Law of Moses concerning a future state,
to advance the honour of TRADITION : For, not
seeing the doctrine in the WRITTEN LAW, and tancying
they saw a necessity that the Jews should have it, they
concluded (to save the credit of the Jewish Church and
to advance the credit of their own) that Moses had care
fully inculcated it, in the TRADITIONAL. This weighty
point, Father Simon proves by the second book of
* " Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow tee die. Be not de
ceived : evil communications corrupt good manners/ &e. i Cor.
^v. 3-2.
N 4 Maccabees ;
iS4 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
JlJt/.ccabecs ; and triumphs over the Protestants and
Soeinians (as he caii..* them) lor their foil} 7 in throwing
that book out of the Canon, a.ui theivjh) jis.V;lin;v
themselves from proving a future state, from the Old
Testament*.
A very worthy protestant Bishop dots as much ho
nour to Tradition, in his way. In some Miscellanies
.of the Bishop of Cloyne, publi^ied in 1752, we find
these words---" Moses, indeed, doth not insist on a
* future stale, THE COAOIOX IJASIS OF ALL roLi-
" TICAL IXSTI i.oTioxs. The belki of a future state
," (which it is manifest the Jews were possessed of long
." bifore ike coining c / ) seems to have obtained
( aiuongst the Hebrews from primoival THADITIOX,
" which might render it unnecessary for Moses to
" insist on that article." p. (>8. Though the Bishop has
not the merit of saying this \\ ith a professed design ? like
Father Simon, pour upfuijcr la Tradition, yet the
Church of Rome has not the less obligation to him
,for assigning so much virtue to this their powerful
-assh.-trt.nl-, which has conveyed to them all they want ;
and ind: t of what they hr..ve. But if the tm-
-. --il. doclnii . of a future state prevailed amongst
the Jeus, in the time of Moses, and that he would
trust to the same conveyance for the safe delivery of it
.down to the times of Christ, how came it to pass that
* Mons. Simon avoit dit, pour appitycr la Tradition, que la
resurrection des corps ne pent be demontrer par le Vieux Testa
ment ces expressions plus claiies de la resurrection & du siecle
a venir, qui e trouvcnt duns le second Livfe jMaccabccs, sont une
pi-euve evidenle que les Juifs avoieut une Tradition touchant la
Resurrection, dont ils n cst fait iiucune mention dans les anciens
livres de 1 Kcriture. I.es Protestans & les Sociniens qui ne re-
yoivent point lea Slac^ub.ecs ne pourront pas la prouver solideinent
par le Vieux Testament. Pere Simon, Ueponse au Sentimens de
s Theologiens de Ilollande, $c. p. 39.
lie
Sect 5.] > DEMONSTRATED. 183
he did his best to we,;hv < th,- . , by studiously
contriving to draw men oil as it were, from the Doc
trine, ai; i always re ..penetrable
cover oi" temporal r ;ishmentsr
2. If a luli; : d by Truth I ion, \Vhat
occasion was there tor the Law of punishing the trans
gression of the parent upon the children?
3. If it obtain* u by Tradition, How happened it
that the Jews are not represented in their History
sometime.- . as acting on the motives, and in-
flit: ): v.pect of a future .rcate, and expressing
th- concerning it like the rest of mankind, who
hud it by T^ulhkn, or otherwise?
4. if it our.ained by Tradition, How camellEZEKiAH
to say, tliat they ic/io go cloicn into t lie pit cannot hope
for tlic truth : and DAVJD, to represent the dead as
going into the place of silence and forgetfulness,
where they were no longer to praise and celebrate the
goodness of God ? On the contrary, are there not pas
sages in the books of SOLOMON and JOB, which plainly
shew that no such tradition obtained in their respective
times ?
.5. If it obtained by Tradition, What occasion for the
administration of an extraordinary Providence under
the Law ? Or from whence arose the einbarras of
DAVJD and JEREMIAH (not to speak of the disputants
in the book of JOB) to account for the prosperity of
some wicked Individuals, in the present life? In a
word, to the maintainers of this Tradition may be very
appositely applied the words of Jesus to the Tntdhioniats
in general, when he toid them, they nuide the word of
6W of none effect through their traditions. For
certainly, if any thing can render that word of God
which brought life and immortality to light by the
Gospel, of none effect, it is the pretended PRIMEVAL
TRADITION
i 86 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
TRADITION which the good Bishop so much insists
upon.
The learned Prelate indeed observes, that the Jews
were possessed of a future state long before the coming
of Christ. But what is this to the purpose, if it can
be shewn, that the knowledge of it might be obtained
from a quarter very distant from the old Hebrew Tra-
dltlons\ and especially if from the colour and com
plexion of the Doctrine, it can be shewn, that it did,
in fact, come from a distant quarter ? namely, from
their Pagan neighbours ; patched up out of some
dark and scattered insinuations of their own Prophets,
and varnished over with the metaphorical expressions
employed to convey them. But not to anticipate what
I have to say on this head in the last volume, I pro
ceed in the course of my argument.
SECT. VI.
WHAT is yet of greatest weight, the inspired
writers of the New Testament expressly assure us that
the doctrine of a future State of reward and punish
ment did NOT make part of the Mosaic Dispensation.
Their evidence may be divided into two parts. In
the first, they prove that temporal Rewards and
Punishments were the sanction of the Mosaic Dis
pensation : and in the second, that it had NO OTHER.
I. St. PAUL, in his epistle to Timothy, enforcing,
against certain judaizing Christians, the advantages of
moral above ritual observances, says, " Bodily exercise
" profitcth little ; but godliness is profitable unto all
" things ; having the promise of the life that now is, and
" of that which is to come *." That is, though nume
rous ritual observances were enjoined by the Law,
* i Tim. iv. 8.
and
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 187
and some there must needs be under the Gospel
wherever there is a Christian Church, yet they are of
little advantage in comparison of moral virtue ; for
that, under both Religions, the rewards proper to each
were annexed only to godliness : that is to say, under
the Jewish, the reward of the life that now is ; under
the Christian, of that which is to come. This interpre
tation, which shews temporal regards to be foreign
to the nature of the Christian Economy, I support,
i. From other passages of the same Writer, where
he expressly informs us that Christians have not the
promise of the life that //<?iv is. For to the Corin
thians he says, speaking of the condition of the followers
of CHRIST, if in this life only ice have hope in CHRIST,
we are of all men most miserable *. To understand the
force of which words, we must consider, that they were
addressed to Jewish Converts tainted with 3adducism,
who argued from the Mosaic Dispensation to the
Christian : And holding that there was no future state
in the former, concluded by analogy, that there was
none in the latter. The argument on which they built
their first Position was, that the sanctions of the Law
were temporal rewards and punishments. Our Apostle
therefore argues with them, as is his usual way, oil
their own principles. " You deny, says he, a resur-
" rection from the dead, or a future state of reward
" and punishment. And why ? Because there is no
" such doctrine in the Law. How do you prove it ?
" Because the sanctions of the Law are temporal
" rewards and punishments. Agreed. And now on
" your own principle I confute your conclusion. You
" own that the Jews haJ an equivalent for future re-
" wards and punishments, namely the present. But
V Christians have no equivalent. So far from that,
* i Cor. xv. 19.
" they
iSS THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
>c they are, with regard to this vrorld only, of all men
< most miserable ; having therefore no equivalent for
" the rewards of a future state, they must needs be
" entitled to them." This shews the superior force
of tiie Apostle s reasoning. And from hence it ap
pears not only that Christians HAD NOT, but that the
Jews H A D the promise of the life that now is.
2. If we understand the promise of the life that
wow is to extend to the Christian Dispensation, we
destroy the strength and integrity of St. Paul s argu
ment. He is here reasoning against judaizing Chris
tians. So that his business is to shew, that godliness,
in every state, and under every Dispensation unto
ivhich they imagined themselves bound, had the
advantage of bodily exercise *.
The Author of the epistle to the Hebrews, speaking
of JESUS, says: After the iimililu.de of Melcliisedec
there arisetk another Priest, who is made not after
the LAW OF A CAUXAL COMMANDMEXT, but after
the pv:cer of an endless l\jf\. The Jewish Religion,
called a carnal commandment, is here opposed to the
Christian, called the power of an endless life. By carnal
commandment then must needs be understood a Law
promising carnal things, or the things of this life.
II. That the Mosaic Dispensation had ONLY the
sanction of temporal rewards and punishments, or that
it taught not future, let us hear St. John; who in the
beginning of his Gospel assures us, that the LAW zra-s
given h\i ^/O .VL .V, but that GKACE <w/Tiu TII came by
Christ ^. As certain then as the Law did not
come by Jesiib Christ, so certain is it, accord : ng to this
Apostle, that (trace uud Truth did not come by Closes.
This Grace and Truth cannot he understood gene-
c note [R : J at the end of this Book.
$ Chap. vii. ver. 15, 16. j Chap. i. ver. 17.
rically ;
Sect 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 189
rically ; for, the grace or favour of God was bestowed
on the chosen race, and truth, or the revealed will of
Cod, did come by Moses. It must therefore be some
specie* of grace and truth, of which the Apostle here
predicates; the publication of which species constitutes
what is called the Gospel. And this all know to be
redemption from death, and restoration to eternal life.
Again, to this part likewise, let us once more hear
the learned Apostle : As by one man sin entered Into the
world, and death by $iu; and to death pawed upon all
men, for that all have sinned: for until the Late, dn
was tit the world, hut Sin is not imputed where, there.
is no Law. Nevertheless Death reigned from Adam
to Moses*. It is St. Paul s purpose to shew, that
death came by ADAM through sin, and so passed upon
ail men; and that life carne by JESUS CHRIST : Bat
having said that Sin, which brings forth Death, is not
imputed where there is no Law, lest this should seem to
contradict what he had said of Death s passing upon
all men, he adds, "nevertheless death reigned froth Adam
ioj\ loses ; taking it for granted that his followers would
understand it must needs reign from Moses to Cu RIST,
as having maae Sins being IMPUTED to consist in
p _ ir>
there being a LAW given. Now I ask how the Apo.s-
tle could possibly say, that death rciqncd under the
Mosaic Dispensation, if that People had the knowledge
pf immortal life to be procured by a Redeemer to
come, any more than it can be said to reign m--w \\ith
the same knowledge of a Redeemer past ; since we
agree that the efficacy of his death extends to all pre
ceding as well as succeeding Ages ? Accordingly in his
epistle to the Corinthians he calls the Jewish LAW, the
MINISTRATION OT DEATH, and the MINISTRATION
OF CONDEMNATION f.
* Rom. v. 12, ct scq. \ 2 Cor. iii. 7, ct seq.
2. In
igo THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
2. In his epistle to the Galatians, he says, Before
FA IT n came, we were kept under the Law, shut up unto
the FAITH which should afterwards be repealed* ;
i. e. we were kept in subjection to the Law of Moses;
and, by that means, shut up and sequestered from the
rest of the Nations, to be prepared and made ready
for the first reception of the FAITH, when it should in
God s appointed time be revealed unto men. From
these words therefore it appears, that till that time, the
Jews had no knowledge of this FAITH. So much we
must have concluded though he had not said, as he
does afterwards, That till that time, the Jews were in
bondage under the elements of this world -\. Now
could men acquainted with the doctrine of life and
immortality be said, with any sense of propriety, to be
in such a state of bondage ? For though men in bond
age may have an idea of Liberty, yet of THIS LIBERTY
they could have no idea without understanding, at the
same time, that they were partakers of its benefits.
3. In his second epistle to Timothy he expressly
says, That JESUS CHRIST HATH ABOLISHED DEATH,
AND HATH BROUGHT LIFE AND IMMORTALITY TO
LIGHT THROUGH THE GOSPEL J. But HOW if Death
were abolished by JESUS CHRIST, it is certain it had
reigned till his coining : and yet it is as certain, that
it could reign no longer than while the tidings of the
Gospel were kept back; because we agree that
CHRIST S death hath a retrospect operation : therefore
those under the Law had no knowledge of life and
immortality. Again : If life and immortality were
brought to light through the Gospel, consequently,
till the preaching of the Gospel, it was kept hid and
out of sight . But if taught by Moses and tha
* Gal. iii. 23. t Chap. iv. ver. 3. J 2 Tim. i. 10.
* See note [SS] at the end of this Book.
Prophets,
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 191
Prophets, it was not brought to light through the Gos
pel: therefore the generality of those under the Law had
no knowledge of a future state. But Scripture is ever
consistent, though men s systems be not. And for
this reason we find that life and immortality, which is
here said to be brought to light through the Gospel,
is so often called the MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL*:
that is, a mystery till this promulgation of it by the
disciples of CHRIST : Which had been hid from ages
and from generations, but was then made manifest unto
the Saints f. The term was borrowed from those
famous Rites of Paganism, so named; and is applied
with admirable justness. For as the Mysteries were
communicated only to a few of the wise and great,
and kept hid from the populace : so life and immorta
lity, as we shall see, was revealed by GOD, as a spe
cial favour, to the holy Patriarchs and Prophets, but
kept hid from the body of the Jewish Nation.
4. The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says :
That THE LAW MADE NOTHING PERFECT, BUT
THE BRINGING IN OF A BETTER HOPE DID .
Now, that could not be said to be brought in, which
was there before. And had it been there before, the
Law, it seems, had been perfect ; and, consequently,
would have superseded the use of the Gospel. There
fore this better hope, namely of immortality in a future
state, is not in the Mosaic Dispensation. Let us
observe farther, that as the Gospel, by bringing in a
better hope, made the Law perfect, it appears, there
was that relation between the Law and Gospel which
is between the beginning and the completion of any
matter. From whence these two consequences follow :
* See note [TT] at the end of this Book.
f Col. i. 26. i Chap. vii. ver, 19.
1. That
192 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
l. That the Law wanted something which the Gospel
supplied : And what was that something but the doc-
trine of a future State? 2. That the Law must needs
make some preparation for that better hope which the
Gospel was to bring in. What it \va, the same writer
tells us, namely, That // had A SHADOW [o-xiav] of
goof! things to come, but not the \v.\\\ IMAGE [sixoi/*]
of the lfShb*: Hence it is evident that by this
shadow is meunt such a typical representation, so
faintly delineated, as not to be perceived by vulgar
eyes, intent only on a carnal Dispensation. This was
contrived for admirable purposes : For if, instead of
a shadow or faint outline of a design, the Image itself,
in full relief, had glaringly held forth the object in
tended, this object, so distinctly defined, would have
drawn the Jews from that Economy to which it was
God s pleasure they should long continue in subjec
tion : And had there been no delineation at all, to
becom e stronger in a clearer light, one illustrious evi
dence of the Dependency between the two Religions
had been wanting.
Again, the same Writer, to the same purpose,
speaking of CHRIST, says, But now hath he obtained
a more excellent Ministry, by hnv much also he is tlie
Mediator of a BETTER COVEN A XT, which was esta
blished upon BETTER PROMISES. For if the first
Covenant had bccnfaidih M, then .rt j;-.. d no place hare
been found for the Second \\ T-. We see that this
better Covenant was established by CHRIST, and not
by Moses. 2. If "the first Covenant had been fault
less, that is, had contained better promises., or taught
the doctrine of a future s&te, there had been no room
for a second.
.* Chap. x. ver. 1. t Chap. viii. ver. 6, 7.
To
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 193
To sum up all, This admirable writer gives in the
last place, the fullest evidence to both parts of the
proposition, namely, " That temporal rewards and
punishments were the sanction of the Jewish Dispen
sation ; and that it had no other." For in the second
chapter we find these remarkable assertions :
Ver. 2. For if the icord spoken by Angels was stcd-
fast, and every transgression and disobedience RE
CEIVED A JUST U EC OM PENCE OF HE WARD, II CW
shall we escape, c\
Ver. .5. For unto the Angels hath he not put in.
subjection the WORLD TO COME, whereof we speak.
Ver. 14, 15. lie [Christ] also himself likewise took
part of the same [flesh and blood] that through death
he might destroy him that had the power of death ;
that is, the Devil; and deliver them, who through fear
of Death were ALL THEIR LIFE-TIME subject to
bondage.
Let us lay these three texts together. And we shall
find, i. from vcr. 2. that the sanction of the Law, or
the word spoken by angels, was of a temporal nature
1 -every transgression received a just recompence*
2. From ver. 5. that the Law taught no future state- 1
the world to come not being put in subjection to these
augcls. And 3. from ver. 14, i,> that the people had
not the knowledge of such a state being all tJieir
life-time subject to bondage. For the Devil is here
said to have poiccr of death, as he brought it into the
Morld by the delusion of the FIRST MAN. There
fore, before death can be abolished. He, who had the
power of it, must be destroyed. But his destruction
is the work of the SECOND -\L\N. Till his coming
therefore, the Jeus, as we are here told, were through
Jear of death all their life-time subject to londage.
Christ then brought them into the glorious liberty of
Voju, V. O the
194 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V. 1
the children of God*, by setting before them life and
minortatiiy t-
To all this, I hope, the reader will not be so inat
tentive to object, " That what is here produced from
the New Testament, to prove that the followers of the
Law had no future state, contradicts w hat I have more
than once observed, That the later Jewish Prophets
had given strong intimations of an approaching Dis
pensation, with a future state." For the question is.
concerning a future state s being the Sanction of the
LAW, not of later intimations, of its being ready to
become the sanction of the GOSPEL.
As inconsiderate would be this other objection,
" That my point is to prove that this Dispensation;
had no future state of reward and punishment at ali^
and my evidence from the New Testament only shews
they had not the Christian Doctrine of it? For to
this I answer, i. That those I argue with, if they
hold any differen 2e between the Christian and general
Doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment*
it is only this, that the Christian Doctrine was revealed;
the other, a conclusion of natural reason. Now if
the Jews had this Doctrine, they must needs have if^
.as revealed , CGI wit-li the Christian.
2. That though 1 myself suppose the natural, and the*
Christian Doctrine of a, futr.rc sbite of reward and
punishment to be very different tilings ; yet I shall
shew, in due time, that if Moses were indeed God s
Messenger, and would teach a future state, it could
be no other than the Christian Doctrine of it. But
as those, I have to do with, may bo ready to tell me,
* Rom. viii. 21.
f For the further illustration of this mattcr, : I would recommend
4o the Reader s serious perusal the iirst chapter of The free and
wnijd Examination oftlm Bishop of London s Prwr^7c.y.
that
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, i^
that this due time,, like that of the Jaai 1 Messiah, is
cither past or will never come, they will, I suppose,
readily bear with me while I anticipate the subject,
and in a very fexv words prove what is here asserted.
Revelation teacheth that mankind lost the free gift of
immortal life by the transgression of Adam ; and,
from thence, became mortal, and their existence con
fined to this life. Revelation likewise teacheth that
the MEAY which Divine Wisdom thought fit to em
ploy in restoring man from death to his first state of
immortality, was the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Hence it appears to be a thing impossible,, that anv
Messenger from God, any Agent or Instrument made
use of for conducting tills grand Dispensation towr,:
its completion, could (were it in his choice or in his
^ffice to promulgate the doctrine of a future State)
speak of any other but that purchased by Christ, and
promulgcd and proclaimed in the Gospel, since in fact,
on the principles of Revelation, there is no other; and
to inculcate another, would be impeaching the veracity
of God, and the eternal stability of his council--.
To conclude, There is one tiling which plainly
evinccth, that if the Jews had the knowledge or belief
of a FUTURE STATE of rcwiird and punishment, they
must have had the knowledge of the REDEMPTION"
of man by the death and su tiering of Jesus Christ,
likewise. And it is this, That all the Sacrifices in
the Jewish Ritual regarded only temporal things. A
very competent judge in these mutters assures us,
Univcrsa Jvuhrorum simul congesta Sucrificia ad
as^equenda hujus vita^ commoda omnia facta crant*.
The consequence is this, That if the Jewish religion
taught its followers a future state of rewards and
punishments, it cither afforded them no means of
* Qytrani <.!<> Saer. p. 305.
O 2 attaining
iq6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
.attaining future happiness, or it instructed them in the
doctrine of the Redemption. To say the first, con
tradicts the nature of all Religion ; to say the latter,
makes the Jewish useless, and the Christian false, as
contradicting its repeated declarations, that life and
immortality, or the doctrine of the Redemption, was
frroyght to light through the Gospel.
But what was asked by St. Paul s Adversaries, will
perhaps be asked by mine, Ix the LAW then against
the PROMISES of God? Or does the LAW, because it
had no future state, contradict the GOSPEL, which
.hath? The Apostle s answer will serve me, God
far bid: For if there had been a LAW which could
have given Ufe 9 verily righteousness should have been
by the LAW*. That is, if the genius of the Law
had produced such a Dispensation as was proper to
convey to mankind the free gift of life and immorta
lity, this gift would have been conveyed by it. AM
this shews that the Law was not contrary to the Gos
pel, but only that it was not of sufficient excellence to
be the vehicle of God s last best gift to mankind.
.And it shews too (and it is a very fit remark, as the
result from the whole, with which to conclude this
fifth Boo lt) that a future state was not the Sanction of
the; Law of Moses, or, in the Apostle s more emphatic
words, that the Lais did not (because it coidd not)
Thus, I presume, it is now proved beyond all reason
able question, THAT TIIK DOCTHIXF. OF A FUTURE,
-STATE OF UKWAUD AND PUNISHMENT -IS NOT TO
BE FOUND IX, NOR DID MAKE PART OF,. T11K
^MOSAIC DISPENSATION.
It will be asked, then, " What were the real senti
ments of these early Jews, concerning the soul ? "
* Gal. iii. 21.
Though
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 197
Though the question be a little out of time, yet as the
answer is short, I shall give it here. They were doubt
less the same with those of the rest of mankind, who
have thought upon the matter; that IT SURVIVED
THE BODY : But having, from Moses s silence and
the establishment of another Sanction, no expectation
of future reuards and punishments, they simply con
cluded that it returned to him rr//; gate it *. But,
as to an in! resting speculations concerning its state
of survivorship, tis plain they had none. Indeed how
should they have any? when PERSONALITY did not
enter into the idea of this survivorship, that being
only annexed to the reward* and punishments of a
future state. Hence it was that those ancient Philo-
sopl^rs (almost all the theistical Philosophers of
Greece) who considered the soul as a SUBSTANCE
distinct from the body, and not a mere QUALITY of
it (for they were not such idiots as to conceive, that
thought could result from any combinations of matter
and motion\ those Philosophers, I say, who considered
the soul as a substance, and yet disbelieved a future
state of rewards and punishments, denied it all future
personality, and held the refusion of it into the TO IV, .
or the soul of the world (*. And just such INTEREST
ING SPECULATIONS concerning it had the lew philo
sophic Jews of the mo.st early times, as appears from
the book of Ecclesiastes, which speaks their sentiments.
Who knowth (says this author) the spirit of man that
goetli Kjiicardy and the spirit of the beast that gvctli
downward to the earth i? And again: " Then shall
the dust return to the earth as it was, AND THE
" M lIlIT SHALL RKTl RX UNTO Goi) WHO GAVE
IT." Yet this writer, perfectly conformable {:
* Kcclrs. xii. 7. f See Div. Leg. b. iii.
J fJh. iii. -2 i . Vid. CVtr. <5c Drus. in loc. Ch, xii, 7. Vid. Cler. in foe.
O 3 what
i()S THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
what I have delivered, says, at the same time : "But
the dead know not any thing, neither haw they ANY
MORE .A REWARD, jor the VlCmon/ (f lilCVl IS JOT-
gotten*.
And where was the wonder? that a ina-ttcr which
so little concerned them, namely, the iV.ture condition
of a portion of etherial Spirit divested of its Personality,
should only fio:;; idly in the brain, when we reflect that
even the knowledge of the FIRST CAUSE OF ALL
THINGS, while he made no part of the National Wor-
shipj was entertained by the Gentiles (as appears from
all Antiquity) with the utmost unconcern, neither regu
lating their notions, nor influencing their actions.
But from this uninteresting state, in which the
Doctrine, concerning the Soul, remained amongst the
early Jews, the S ADDUCE KS concluded that their
Ancestors believed the extinction of the soul on death.
Hence likewise came some late Revivers of this
.opinion, of the extinction of the AYAV/; though main
tained under the softer name: of its SLEEP between
death and the resurrection : For they go upon the
Sadducean principle, that the soul is a quality, only,
and not a substance.
In support of this opinion, the Revivers of it proceed
on the sophism, which Polytheists employ to combat
the unity of the Godhead. All Philosophical argu
ments (says the Reviver, after having quoted a number
of wonderful things from Scripture, to prove the soul
a quality, and mortal) draicn from our notions of
ymttcr, and urged against the possibility oj tjje,
thought and agency, being so connected with some por
tions of it as to constitute a compound Being or Person,
arc merely grounded on our ignorance \. Just so the
* Chap. ix. vcr. 5.
J Considerations on the Theory oflldigwH, p. 398. Ed. 3f>.
Polytheist,
Sect 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 199
Polytheist. " All arguments for the Unity, from
metaphysics, arc manifestly vain, and merely grounded
on our ignorance. You Believers (says he) must be
confined to Scripture: Now Scripture assures us,
THERE ARE GODS MANY," which, by the way, I think
a stronger text, certainly a director, against the unity
of the Godhead, than any this learned Writer has pro
duced for the sleep oj the Soul. But what say Believers
to this? They say, that Scripture takes the unity, as
well as the c.rixtence of the Deity, for granted ; takes
them for truths demonstrable by natural light. Just
so it is witli regard to that immaterial substance, the
Soul. Scripture supposes men to be so far informed
of the nature of the Soul, by the same light, as to know
that it cannot be destroyed by any of those causes
which bring about the extinction of the body. Our
Dreamers* are aware of this, and therefore hold with
.Unbelievers, that the Soul is no substance, but a quality
only ; and so have taken effectual care indeed, that
.its repose shall not be disturbed in this, which we may
emphatically call, the SLEEP OF DEATH. IVe can
never prove (says another of these sleepers f) that the
$oul of- liMDi is c/ suck a nature that it can and must
exist en id live, tkink, act, enjoy, $c. separate from,
and independent of, ilia body. All our present expe
rience $hc\cs the. contrary. The op&ttfiotts of l!-e
M(}<d depend CQ\^ A:\T\A and ix VARIABLY upon the
state of the body, of the brain ui particular. 1J some,
dying perxom It tree a lively itse of their rational facul
ties to the vc7\y la:;t, It /.v becnuM death, hax invaded some
other part, and tin: brain rewiinsswndandvtgor6U& $..
Tins is the long-exploded trash of Coward, Toland,
St. .hule sy/////// drc amirs only defiled the J?lcsh These d<jiU
t Spirit.
j Ta) lor of Norwich. J Ib. p. 401.
O 4 Collins,
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
Collins, c. And he who can treat us with it at this
time of day, has either never read CLARKE and
BAXTER on the subject (in which he had been better
employed than in writing upon it), or never understood
them. So far as to the abstract truth. Let us con
sider next the practical consequences. Convince the
philosophic Libertine that the Soul is a quality arising
but of matter, and vanishing on the dissolution of the
form, and then see if ever you can bring him to believe
the Christian Doctrine of the RESURRECTION ! While
he held the Soul to be an immaterial substance,
existing, as well in its separation from, as in its con
junction with, the body, and he could have no reason,
arising from the Principles of true Philosophy, to
stagger in his belief of this revealed Doctrine. Thou,
fcol, that which tkou sowest is not quickened except it
<-//*, is good philosophy as well as good divinity: for
if the body, instead of its earthly nature, were to have
a heavenly, it must needs pass through death and cor^
ruption to qualify it for that change. But when this
body died, what occasion was there for the Soul, which
was to suffer no change, to fall asleep?
But their sleep of the Soul is mere cant : and this
brings me to the last consideration, the sense and con-
<!"?
sistency of so ridiculous a notion. They go, as we
observed, upon the Sadduccan principle, that the Soul
is a quality of body, not a substance of itself, and so
dies with its substratum; Now sleep, is a modification
of Existence, not of non-existence ; so that though the
<-V-ep of a Substance hath a meaning, the sleep of a
qudlity is nonsense. And if ever this Soul of theirs
re-exerts its Acuities, it mtif-t be by means of a RE-
PRODUCTIOX, not by a mere AWAKING; and they
may as well talk of the SLEEP of a mushroom turned
* St. Paul, (i Cor. xv. 36.)
agam
Sect. 6.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 201
.again into the substance of the dunghill from whence
it ar --?, and from which, not the same, but another
mushroom shall, in time, arise. In a word, neither
Unbelievers nor Believers will allo\y to these middle
yntn that a new-existing Soul, which is only a quality
resulting from a glorified body, can be identically the
same with an annihilated Soul, which had resulted
from an earthly body. But perhaps, as JIudibras had
discovered the Receptacle of the ghosts of defunct
bodies, so these gentlemen may have found out the
yet subtilcr corner, where the ghosts of defiwct
"fifies repose.
OF THE FIFTH J30OK,
APPENDIX
3Q2 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
APPENDIX.
AIE noble and voluminous Author*, who
hath written with more than on Unary spleen
against THE RELIGION ov jus COUNTKY, as it is
founded in Revelation and established by Law, lialh
attacked with more than ordinary fury the Author of
The Divine Legation cf Moses demonstrated, and of
The Alliance between Church and Stale vindicated,
I shall shortly ijnd a fitter place to examine his
reasoning against the Alliance. At present let us see
what he has to urge against the argument of the Divine
Legation, which is founded on these two facts, the
omission of the Doctrine of a future Sfafe of Rewards
ami Punishments in the Mosaic Dispensation ; and the
edrninist ratio ft of an extraordinary Providence in the
same Dispensation.
tjis Lordship begins with the OMISSION, which he
acknowledges; and to evade the force of the argument
arising from it, casts about for a reason, independent
of the EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE, to aCCQUllt
for it.
His first solution is this, " MOSES DID NOT BE-
" LIEVE THE IMMORTALITY OF THE Soi L, 11O1* the
rewards and punishments uf another life, though it
" is possible he might have learnt these Doctrines
* from the Egyptians, WHO TAUQIIT THEM VERY
Lord Bolingbroke.,
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 203
" EARLY, perhaps as they taught that of the Unity of
" (rod. When I say, that Moses did not believe the
" immortality of the said, nor future rewards and pu-
" nishments, my reason is this, that he taught neither,
" when he, Lad to do with a people whom a Theocracy
" could net restrain ; and on whom, therefore, terrors
<; of Punishment, future as well as present, eternal
" as well as temporary, could never he too much
" multiplied, or too strongly inculcated *."
This reasoning is altogether worthy of his Lordship,
Here we have a DOCTIUXE, confessed to he plausible
in itself, and therefore of easy admittance; most
alluring to human, nut Live, and therefore embraced by-
all mankind ; of highest account among the Egyptians,
and therefore ready to be embraced by the- Israelites,
who were fond of Egyptian notions; of strongest
rfricaev on the minds of an unruly People, and there-
tore of indispensable use ; Yet, all this notwithstanding,
Moses did not bdlccc it, find, on that ace
vo leach //. Bui then, hud MOSES S integrity been
so severe, .llou e,i:ne he to write a History which, my
Lord thinks, in, in p:u*t at least, a iiction of his own ?
J)icl lie belhxe that? How came he to leave the
L-ruciitcs, us ir.y Lord assures us he did, in possession
of many of th: itious opinions of Egypt? did
he bi lieve the$c too? No, but they served his purpose ;
which was, The better governing an unruly People.
Well, but his Lordship tells us, the- doctrine of a future
.stitvj served this purpose best of all; for /urchig to da
;///( ,-/ . \choiii a Theocracy could not restrain,
terrors oj punishment, FUTUKK ax well as present,
K l Kkx A L as u c // ay temporary, could never be too much
multiplied, or too strongly inculcated. No matter for
that. MosKSj as other men may, on a sudden grows.
* Vol. iii. p. 289.
scrupulous ;
204 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
scrupulous ; and so, together with the maxims of
common politics, throws aside the principles of com
mon sense ; and when he had employed all the other,
inventions of fraud, he boggles at this, which best
served his purpose ; was most innocent in itself;
$nd was most important in its general, as well as par
ticular use.
In his Lordship s next Volume, this Omission comes,
again upon the stage ; and then we have another rea
son assigned for MOSES S conduct in this matter,
" MOSES would not teach the Doctrine of the im-
f< mortality of the son!, and of a future state, en
" account /,/ the many f>upc.rslitiort$ which this Doc-
" trine had begot in Egypt, as we must believe, or
fc * believe that he knew nothing of it, or ASS rax SOME
" WHIMSICAL REASON I Oli HIS O.*\I 1SSIOX * /
We have seen hcfure, that MOSES omitted a future
State, because he did not belicce it. This reason is now
cut of date; and one or other of Uic three follow-
ing is to be assigned 5 either because it begot AV//;CT-
sf; liens ; or because he knew nothing of it ; or if you
will allow neither of these, you must have recourse,
he tells you, to Warlnirton s WHIMSICAL UEASOX,.
that the Jcics iccre under an extraordinary Prtri-
ticnce.
Let us take him then, at his word, without expecting
however, that he will stand to it ; and having shewn
isis two first reasons not worth a nibh, leave the last,
established, even on his own concessions.
i. jlfoxcs, says ho, cyi.it ted a jut are state en account
of the mart]! stff^&fiticfi^ ichicii this doctrine had begot.
in .Egt/pf. But if the o;m$fiion stands upon this prin
ciple, MOSES must have omitted an infinite number of
tilings, which. Lord Boiingbrokc says, he borrowed of
* Vol. iy. p. 470.
the
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 205
the Egyptians ; part of which, in his Lordship s opinion,
were those very superstitions, which this Doctrhie had
begot; such as the notion of TUTELARY DEITIES:
and part, what arose out of that notion ; in the num
ber of which were distinction between things clean
find unclean: an hereditary Priesthood] sacerdotal-
habits; and Rites of sacrifice.
2. However, he has another reason for the omission :
MOSES might know nothing vf it. To which, if 1
only opposed his Lordship s own words in another
place, where (giving us the reasons why MOSES did
know something of a future state) he observes, there
arc certain rites, which seem to allude or hare a remote
relation to this very doctrine *, it might be deemed
sufficient. But I will go further, and observe, that,
from the very LAWS of MOSES themselves, we have an
internal evidence of his knowledge of this doctrine.
Amongst the Laws against C entile Divinations, there
is one directed against that species of them, called by
the Greeks, NECROMANCY, or invocation of the dead;
which necessarily implies, in the Lawgiver who forbids
it, as well as in the offender who uses it, the knowledge
of a future state.
3. This being the late of las Lordship s two reasons,
we are now abandoned by him, and left to follow our
awn inventions, or to ta ie up with SO;,IK v,*iii:vi>
KEASOX FOR THE OMISSION ; that i-\, to allow that,
as the Jews were under an extraordinary Providence,
MOSES in quality of Lawgiver had xo OCCASION" for
the doctrine of a future state.
However, his Lordship, dissatisfied, as well he
might, with the solutions hitherto proposed, return?
again to the charge; and in his Corona opens, the
book of FRAGMENTS, more openly opposes the
* Yol v. p. 239.
do;.:
2o6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
doctrine of the Divine Legation ; and enlarges and ex
patiates upon the reason before given for the omission ;
namely, the many superstitions this doctrine had
begotten in Egypt.
" OXE CAXX 7 OT SEE WITHOUT SURPRIZE (says
" his Lordship) a doctrine so useful to ALL Religion,
" and therefore incorporated into ALL the Systems of
" Paganism, left wholly out of that of the JEWS.
" Many probable reasons, might be brought to shew,
" that it was an Egyptian doctrine before the Exode,
lf and this particularly, that it was propagated from
" E^ypt, so soon, at least, afterwards., by all those
" who were instructed like MOSES, in the wisdom of
<c that People. lie transported much of his Wisdom
" into the scheme of Religion and Government,
" which he gave the Israelites ; and, amongst other
" thing-, certain Rites, which may seem to allude, or
" have a remote relation to, this very doctrine. Though
u this doctrine, therefore, h,ad not been that of ABRA-
" HAM, ISAAC, and JACOB, he might have adopted
" it with as liltlc scruple, as he did many customs and
" institutions merely Egyptian. lie had to do witli
* a rebellious, but a superstitious, people. In the
" first Character, they made it necessary that he
" should neglect nothing which might add weight to
his ordinance-;, and contribute to keep them in awe.
In the second, their disposition was extremely proper
to receive such a doctrine, and to be influenced by
it. Shall tt 6 say that an hypothesis of future rc-
icdi ds (tad puiushmerils, aw USELESS among a
People ic ho I rccd under a Theocracy, and that the
future Judge of other People, was their Immediate
Judge and King, who resided in the midst of them,
and wlio dculcd out rewards and punishments on
every cccv^ion ? Why then .were so many prccan-
"" " lions
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 207
li tions taken ? Why was a solemn Covenant made
" with God, as with a temporal Prince? Why were
" so many promises and threatenirigs of rewards and
" piihishnbents, temporal indeed, but future and con-
" tingent, as v;e find in tlic book of Deuteronomy,
" most pathetically held out by MOSES ? Would
" there have been any mere impropriety in holding
" out those of one kind than those of another, be-
<c cause the Supreme Being, who disposed and ordered
" both, was in a particular manner present amongst
" them? Would an addition to the catalogue of rc-
u wards and punishments more remote/ but eternal,
* c and iii all respects far greater, have had no effect ?
" I think neither of these things can be said.
" What shall we say then ? Plow* came it to pas?,
" this addition was not made? I will mention what
" occurs to me, and shall not be over solicitous about
" the weight that my reflections may deserve. If the
i; doctrines of the immortality of the soul and of a
" future state had been revealed to MOSES, that he
4i might teach them to the Israelites, he would have
** taught them most certainly. But lie did not teach
** them. They were therefore not revealed to him.
" Why they were not so revculjd 5om iv.iiT DIVINE
i; Oil OTHEil V. II.L 13 E JJ.KADY TO TLl.L YOU. For
" me, I dare net presume to guess. I>ut this, I may
" presume to advance, that since these Doctrines were
u not revealed by God to his servant MOSES, it is
" highly j)robable that this Legislator made a scruple
" of teaching them to the Israelites, how well soever
" instructed he might be in them himself, and ho\vso-
" ever useful to Government he might think them.
" The superstitious and idolatrous rites of the lvj;yp--
" tians, like those of other nations, were founded on
" the Polytheism, and the Mythology; that prevailed,
k and
2og THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
" and were suffered to prevail, amongst the Vulgar,
tc and that made the sum of their Religion. It
" seemed to be a point of policy to direct all these
" absurd opinion s and practices to the service of
" Government, instead of attempting to root them
" out. But then the great difference between rude
" and ignorant nations and such as were civilized and
" learned, like the Egyptians, seems to have been this,
" that the former had no other system of Religion
" than these absurd opinions and practices, whereas
" the latter had an inward as well as an outward
" Doctrine. There is reason to believe that natural
" Theology and natural Religion had been taught and
<c practised in the ancient Theban Dynasty ; and it i$-
" probable that they continued to be an inward doc-
" trine in the rest of Egypt; while Polytheism, Ido-
" latry, and all the MYSTERIES, all the impieties,
" and all the follies of Magic, were the outward
" doctrine. MOSES might be let into a knowledge
" of both ; and under the patronage of the Princess,
" whose Foundling he was, he might be initiated into
44 those Mysteries, where the secret doctrine alone
" was taught, and the outward exploded. But we
" cannot imagine that the Children of Israel, in ge-
." neral, enjoyed the same privilege, nor that the Mas^
" ters were so lavish, to their Slave?, of a favour sa
" distinguished, and often so hard to obtain. -No.,
" The Children of Israel knew nothing more than the
44 outside of the Religion of Egypt ; and if the doc-
" trine, we speak of, was known to them, it was
" known only in the superstitious rites, and with all
" the fabulous circumstances in which it was dressed
" up and presented to vulgar belief. It would have
" been hard therefore to teach, or to renew this Doc-
" trine iu the mkids of the Israelites, without giving
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 209
" them an occasion the more, to recal the polytheis-
" tical fables, and practise the idolatrous Rites they
" had learnt during their Captivity. Rites and Ce-
" remonies are often so equivocal, that they may be
" applied to very different doctrines. But when they
(C are so closely connected with one Doctrine that
" they are not applicable to another, to teach the
" Doctrine is, in some sort, to teach the Rites and
" Ceremonies, and to authorize the fables on which
" they are founded. MOSES therefore being at liberty
" to teach this doctrine of rewards and punishments
" in a future state, or not to teach it, might very well
" choose the latter j though he indulged the Israelites,
" on account of the hardness of their hearts, and by
" the divine permission, as it is presumed, in several
" observances and customs which did not lead directly,
" though even they did so perhaps in consequence, to
<c the Polytheism and Idolatry of Egypt *."
What a Babel of bad reasoning has his Lordship
here accumulated out of the rubbish of false and in
consistent Principles ! And all, to insult the Temple
of God and the Fortress of Mount Sion. Sometimes,
lie represents MOSES as a divine Messenger, and dis
tinguishes between what was revealed, and what was
not revealed, unto him ; and then, a future state not
hang revealed to MOSES teas the re a son he did not
teach it. Sometimes again, he considers him as a
mere human Lawgiver, acquiring all his knowledge
of Religion and Politics from the Egyptians, in whose
secret Learning lie had been intimately instructed \
and then, the reason of the omission is, lent the Doc
trine of a future stale should hare drawn the Israelites
into those Egyptian wp&^&titicns, from which, it way
* Vol. V. pp. 238, 9, 40, 41.
VOL, V, V
210 THE DIVINE LEGATION" [Book V.
MOSES S purpose to estrange them. All these incon
sistencies in Fact and Reasoning, his Lordship delivers
in the same breath, and without the least intimation of
any change in his Principles or Opinions.
But let us follow him step by step, without troubling
our heads about his real sentiments. It is enough,
o J
that we confute all he says, whether under his own,
or any assumed Character.
He -begins with confessing, that ONE CANNOT SEE
WITHOUT SURPRIZE a doc trine .so useful to ALL Rtll-
gions, and therefore incorporated into ALL the Systems
of Paganism, left wholly out of that of the Jews.
At length then it appears, that this OMISSION is no
light or trivial matter, which may be accounted for, as
he before supposed, by MOSES S disbelief of the doc
trine; his ignorance of it ; or the imaginary mischiefs
it might possibly produce. We may be allowed then
to think it deserved all the pains, the Author of the
Divine Legation of Moses has bestowed upon it:
whose WHIMSICAL REASONING, if it ended in a de
monstration of the truth of Revealed Religion, is
sufficiently atoned for, though it were a little out of
the common road : for in this case the old proverb
would hold true, that the furthest nc ay about is the
nearest way home.
His Lordship proceeds to shew, in direct opposition
to what he said before, that MOSES could not be ig
norant of the doctrine of a future state, because the
Egyptians taught it: His knowledge of it (my Lord
tells us) further appears from an internal circumstance.,
some of his rites seeming to allude, or to have a remote
relation to, this very doctrine. This I observe, to
his Lordship s credit. The remark is just and accu*
rate. But we are in no want of his remote relation :
I have shewn just above, that the Jewish Laws against
Necromancy
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 211
Necromancy necessarily imply Moses s knowledge of
the Doctrine.
He then goes on to explain the advantages which,
humanly speaking, the Israelites must have received
from this Doctrine, in the temper and circumstances
with which they left Egypt. MOSES, says he, had to
do with a rebellions and superstitious People. This
likewise I observe to his credit : It has the same
marks of sagacity and truth ; and brings us to the very
verge of the Solution, proposed by the Author of the
Divine Legation ; which is, that the Israelites were
indeed under an EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE,
which supplied all the disadvantages of the OMISSION.
Under a common and unequal Providence, RELIGION"
cannot subsist without the doctrine of a future state :
for Religion implying a just retribution of reward and
punishment, which under such a Providence is not
dispensed, a future state must needs subvene, to pre
vent the whole Edifice from falling into ruin. And
thus we account for the fact, which his Lordship so
amply acknowledges, viz. that the doctrine of a fu~
ture state was most useful to ALL Religions, and
therefore incorporated into ALL the Religions of Pa
ganism. But where an EXTRAORDINARY Providence
is administered, good and evil are exactly distributed ;
and therefore, in this circumstance, a FUTURE STATE
is not necessary for the support of Religion. It is not
to be found in the Mosaic Economy ; yet this Economy
subsisted for many ages ; Religion th; did not
need it; or in other words, it was supported by an
EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE.
This is the argument of the Divine Legation. And
now, let us consider his Lordship s present ailempt to
evade it.
Shall we say, that an Hj/pothesis offu 1 nrds
and punishments was useless amongst a people who I reed
p 2 under
212 THE DIVINE LEGATION FBookV.
i_
under a THEOCRACY, and that the future Judge, of
other People teas their immediate Judge and King, who
resided in the midst of them, and who dealt out rewards
and punishments on every occasion? WHY THEN WERE
so MANY P 11 E c A u T i o M s taken ? & c*
First, let me observe, that the PRECAUTIONS here
objected to, are intended for an insinuation against
the truth of Moses s Promise of an extraordinary
Providence. A kind of SOPHISM \vhich his Lordship
Advances, and only holds in common with the rest
who have written against the Divine Legation : and
<- O
which I shall here, alter much forbearance on my part,
expose as it deserves.
MOSES afiirms again and again, that his People
were under an extraordinary Providence. lie affirms
it indeed ; but as it is not a self-evident tiuth, it need*
to be proved. Till then, the Unbeliever is at liberty
to urge any circumstance in the Jewish Law or His
tory, which may seem to bring the reality of that
Providence into question : The same liberty too has
the Believer ; if, at least, he can persuade himself tt>
make use of it; as many, so professing themselves,
have done both in their Writings and Discoursing
against the Divine Legal ion. Things were in this,
train, when I undertook the defence of MOSES : And
to obviate all objections to- the Legislators credit,
arising from any doubtful or unfavourable circum
stance in the Law or History of the Jews concerning
this extraordinary Providence, I advanced the IN
TERNAL ARGUMENT of the OMISSION. An argument
which necessarily inferred " that an extraordinary
Providence was in fact administered in the Jewish
Republic." What change did this make in the state
of the case? A very great one. Unbelievers were
now indeed at liberty, and Believers too, if so per
versely inclined, to oppose, and, as they could, to
confute
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 213
confute the argument of the Divine Legation : But by
no rules of good Logic could they come over again
-with those scripture difficulties to Moses s credit,
which the argument of the Divine Legation had
entirely obviated, and which it still continued to ex
clude, so long as it remained unanswered. For while
a demonstrated truth stands good, no difficulties
arising ir^m it, however inexplicable, can have any
weight .. 6 i*mst that superior evidence. Not to admit
this fundamental maxim of common sense, would be
to unsettle many a physical and mathematical demon
stration, as well as this moral one,
I say therefore, as things now stand, To oppose dif
ficulties against the administration of an extraordinary
Providence, after that Providence has been proved,
and before the proof has been confuted, is the most
palpable and barefaced imposition on our understand
ing. In which, however, his Lordship is but one of a
hundred : and truly, in this, the least indecent and
inconsistent of the hundred ; as his declared purpose
is to destroy the credit and authority of the Jewish
Lawgiver.
I shall not, however, decline to examine the weight
of these objections, though they be so vainly and so-
pi listically obtruded.
If there was this J;XTHAOKTM\AKY Providence ad
ministered, says his Lordship, H hy so many precau
tion* taken ? IVhij :r/y,y a solemn covenant made i< v>// God
as with a temporal prince ? H hy were vo many promises
and threatening of reward* and punishttienis y temporal
indeed, but future and wntwgCJrt 9 ti.t ice Jind in the
Book of Deuteronomy, most J)(i1 helically held out by
Jl/oxex? This difficulty is not hard to be resolved.
\Yc rind throughout that Hook which vve Believers are
.vout to cull the History of Providence, but which his
a* 3 Lordsb
214 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
Lordship is pleased to intitle, Tales more extravagant
than those of Amadis deGaule, that God, in his moral
Government of the World, always employs human
means, as far as those means will go ; and never in
terposes with his extraordinary Providence, but when
they will go no further. To do otherwise, would be
an unnecessary waste of Miracles ; better fitted to con
found our knowledge of NATURE, by obscuring the
harmony of order, in such a control of its delegated
Powers, than to make manifest the presence of its
sovereign Lord and Master. This method in God s
^_>
moral Government, all our ideas of Wisdom seem to
support. Now when He, the great Director of the
Universe, had decreed to rule the Jewish People in an
extraordinary way, he did not propose to supersede
any of the measures of civil regimen. And this, I hope,
\vill be esteemed a sufficient answer to WHY so
MANY PRECAUTIONS TAKEN, &c. But the Reader
\vill find this argument drawn out more at large, in my
Remarks on the same kind of sophistry employed by
Dr. SYKES*
But (says his Lordship) would the hypothesis of a
future state hate been useless, c. ? Would there (as
his Lordship goes on) have been any more impropriety
in holding out those [sanctions] of one kind than those
of another, because the Supreme Being, who disposed
and ordered both, was in a particular manner present
amongst them ? JVould an addition of rewards and pu
nishments (more remote, but eternal, and in all respects
far greater) to the catalogue, have had no effect ? I
think neither of these things can be said. His Lord
ship totally mistakes the drift of the Argument of the
Divine Legation, which infers no more, from the fact
of the omission, than this, That the Jewish Economy,
administered by an extraordinary Providence, could;
do
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 215
do without the service of the omitted Doctrine ; not,
that that Doctrine, even under such a Dispensation,
was of no use, much less that it was IMPROPER. Hut
then one of his Followers will be ready to say, " If a
future state was not improper, much more if it was
of use, under an extraordinary dispensation, How
came M OSES not to give it?" I reply, for great and
wise ends of Providence vastly countervailing the use
of that Doctrine, which, in the last volume of this
work, will be explained at large.
Lord Bolingbroke proceeds next to tell us, what
occurs to Him, concerning the REASONS of the omission;
and previously assures us he is not over-solicitous
about their weight. This, I suppose, is to make his
Counters pass current: For then they become the
money of fools, as Hobbes expresses it, when we cease
to be solicitous about their worth ; when we try them
by their colour, not their weight ; their Rhetoric, and
not their Logic. However, this must be said with an
exception to the first, which is .altogether logical, and
very diverting.
I/" (says his Lordship) the doctrine of the immortality
of the soul and a future state had been revealed to
A f oses, that he might teach them to the Israelites, he
would have taught them most certainly. But he did
not teach them. They ice re, therefore, not revealed.
It is in mood and figure, you see ; and, I warrant you,
designed to supply what was wanting in the Divine Le
gation : Though, as the Author of that book certainly
believed these docl. . re not revealed, tis ten to
one but he thought Moses was not ;it liberty to teach
them : Unless you can suppose that his Lordship, who
believed nothing of Revelation, might believe Moses
to be restrained from teaching what God had not re
vealed to him ; and vet, that the Author of the Divine
p 4 Legation^
2i6 tHE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V,
Legation, who held Moses s pretensions to be true,
might think him at liberty to go beyond his Conv
mission. Thus far, then, we may be said to agree 1
But this good understanding does not last long. His
Lordship s modesty and my pert ness soon make the
breach as wide as ever. Why they were not so revealed
(says his Lordship) some PERT DIVINE or other will be
ready to tell you. For me, I dare not pretend to guess.
My forwardness, and his Lordship s backwardness,
are equally well suited to our respective principles.
Should his Lordship have guessed, it might have
brought him to what he most dreaded, the divine ori^
ginal of the Jewish Religion : Had I forborn to guess,
I had betrayed my cause y and left those DATA unem
ployed, which enabled me, I do not say to guess, but
to discover, and to demonstrate the Divine Legation
of Moses.
However, This, his Lordship will presume to advance,
that since these doctrines were not revealed by God to
his servant MOSES, it is highly probable, that the
Legislator made a scruple of teaching them to the
Israelites, howsoever well instructed he might be in
them himself, and howsoever useful to Government
he might think them^
Here, you see, he personates a Believer, who holds
MOSES to be an inspired Lawgiver : But observe how
poorly he sustains his part ! Either MOSES did indeed
receive the LAV/ from God, or he did not. If he did
not, Why are we mocked with the distinction between
what was revealed, and what was not revealed, when
nothing was revealed ? If MOSES did receive the
Law from God, Why are we still worse mocked with
the distinction between what was revealed, and what
was not revealed, when every thing regarding the Dis
pensation must needs be revealed ; as well, the direction
to
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 217
to omit a Future State, as the direction to inculcate
the Unity of the Godhead? Why was all this mockery?
the Reader asks. For a very good purpose : it was
to draw us from the TRUE object of our inquiry*
which is, What GOD intended by the wiimion, to
that FANTASTIC object, which only respects what
MOSES intended by it. For the intention of GOD
supposes the mission and inspiration of a Prophet;
but the intention of MOSES, when considered in con
tradistinction to the intention of God, terminates in
the human views of a mere politic Lawgiver; which
leads us back again to Infidelity.
But he soon strips Moses of his Mission, and leaves
him to cool, in Querpo, under his civil character as
before. And here he considers, What it was, which
under this character, might induce Moses to omit a
future state ; and he finds it to be, lest this doctrine
should have hurt the doctrine of the UNITY, which it
was his purpose to inculcate amongst his People, in
opposition to the Egyptian Polytheism.
Moses (says his Lordship), it is highly probable,
made a scruple of teaching these Doctrines to the
Israelites, howsoever well instructed lie might be in
them himself, and howsoever useful to Government he
might think them. The People of Egypt, li/ce all
other nations, were Ptdytheistt, but different from all
other* : there was in Egypt an inward an well as out
ward Doctrine : Natural Theology and natural Reli
gion were the INWARD Doctrine] while Polytheism,
Idolatry, and ALL THE MYSTERIES, all the impieties
and Jollies of magic, were the OUTWARD Doctrine.
Mo.se.it was initiated into those Mysteries where the
secret doctrine alone was taught, and the outward ex
ploded. For an accurate as well as- just Divider, com
mend me to his Lordship. In distinguishing between
the
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
the imcard and outward doctrines of the Egyptians,
lie puts all the mysteries amongst the outward:
though if they had an inward, it must necessarily be
part of those Mysteries. But he makes amends pre
sently (but his amends to truth is, as it should be,
always at the expence of a contradiction), and directly
says, that MOSES LEARNT THE INWARD DOCTRINE
IN THE MYSTERIES. Let this pass: He proceeds
Moses had the knowledge of both outward and inward.
Not so the Israelites in general. They knew nothing
more than the outside of the Religion of Egypt. And
if a future state was known to them, it was known
only in the superstitious rites, and with ail the fabu
lous circumstances, in which it was dressed up and
presented to the vulgar belief. It would be hard
therefore to teach or to renew this doctrine in the
minds of the Israelites, without giving them an occa
sion the more to recal the Polytheistical fables, and
practise the idolatrous rites they had learnt during
the Captivity.
The Children of Israel, it seems, knew no more of
a future state, than by the superstitious rites and fa
bulous circumstances with which it was dressed up and
presented to the public belief. What then ? MOSES,
lie owns, knew more. And what hindered MOSES
from communicating of his knowledge to the People,
when he took them under his protection, and gave
them a new Law and a new Religion ? His Lordship
gives us to understand that this People knew as little
of the UNITY; for he -tells us, it was amongst the
inward Doctrines of the Egyptians : yet this did not
hinder Moses from instructing his people in the doc
trine of the Unity. What then should hinder his
teaching them the inward doctrine of a future state,
divested of its fabulous circumstances : He had dir
vested
Appx.1 OP MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 219
vested Religious worship of the absurdities of Demi-
Gods and Heroes ; What should hinder him from
divesting a future state of Charon s boat and the
Elysian fields ? But the notion of a future state
would have recalled those fabulous circumstances
which had been long connected with it. And was
not Religious worship, under the idea of a tutelar
Deity, and a temporal King, much more apt to recal
the polytheism of Egypt? Yet Moses ventured upon
this inconvenience, for the sake of great advantages :
Why should he not venture on the other, for the sake
of greater ? for the doctrine of a future state is, as
his Lordship confesses, even necessary both to civil
and religious Society. But what does he talk of the
danger of giving entry to the fables and superstitions
concerning the Soul (superstitions, which, though
learnt indeed in the Captivity, were common to all the
nations under Polytheism) when in other places he
assures us, that Moses indulged the Israelites in the
most characteristic superstitions of Egypt ?
However, let us see how he supports this profound
observation. Rites and Ceremonies (says his Lord
ship) are often so equivocal, that they may be applied
to very different doctrines. But when they are so
closely connected with a doctrine, that they are not
applicable to another, to teach the doctrine is, IN SOME
SORT, to teach the rites and ceremonies. In some sort,
is well put in, to soften the deformity of this inverted
logic. His point is to shew that a superstitious Rite,
rcl.iting to, and dependent on, a certain doctrine, will
obtrude itself whenever that Doctrine is taught: and
his reasoning is only calculated to prove, that where
the Rite is practised, the Doctrine will soon follow.
This may indeed be true. But then it does not hold
in the converse, that the Rite follows the Doctrine :
because
220 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
because a Principal may stand without its Depen
dent ; but a Dependent can never subsist without its
Principal.
Under cover of these grotesque shapes, into which
his Lordship has travestied the Jewish Lawgiver, he
concludes, that MOSES being AT LIBERTY to teach
this doctrine of rewards and punishments in a future
state, or not to teas-It it, he might very well chuse the
latter Yet it was but at the very beginning of this
paragraph that he tells us, Moses teas XOT AT LI
BERTY to teach or not to teach. His words are these,
Since this doctrine was not revealed by God to his
servant Moses, it is highly probable that this Legis
lator MADE A SCRUPLE of teaching it. But his
Lordship very well knows that Statesmen soon get the
better of their scruples; and then, by another fetch
of political casuistry, find themselves more at liberty
than ever.
I had observed abore, that our noble Discourser,
who makes MOSES so scrupulous that he would, on
no terms, afford a handle for one single superstition
of Egypt to get footing among his people, has, on
other occasions, charged him with introducing them
in the lump. He was sensible that his Inconsistency
was likely to be detected, and therefore he now at
tempts to obviate it. Though he [Moses] indulged the
Israelites, on account of the hardness of their hearts,
and by the divine permission, as it is presumed, in se
veral observations and customs, wkick did not LEAD
directly, though even they did so perhaps ix cox SE
QUENCE, to the Polytheism and Idolatry of Egypt.
And could the teaching the doctrine of a future state
possibly do more than LEAD IN CONSEQUENCE (as
his Lordship elegantly expresses it) to the Polytheism
and Idolatry of Egypt, by drawing after it those
superstitious
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 221
superstitious Rites and fabulous circumstances, which,
he telle us, then attended the popular notion of such a
State ? If, for the hardness of their hearts, they were
indulged in several observances and customs, which
only led in consequence to Polytheism and Idolatry,
Why, for the same hardness of heart, were they not
indulged with the doctrine of a future state, which
did not lead, but by a very remote consequence, to
Polytheism and Idolatry ? Especially since this hard"
nesx of heart would less bear denying them a poc-
TRINK so alluring to the human mind, than denying
them a RITE, to which habit only and old custom had
given an occasional propensity. Again, those Rites
indulged to the People, for the hardness of their
hearts, had, in themselves, little use or tendency to
advance the end* of the Jewish Dispensation ; but
rather retarded them : Whereas a future state, by his
Lordship s own confession, is most useful to all Reli
gions, and therefore incorporated into all the Systems
of Paganism ; and was particularly useful to the
Israelites, who were, he says, both a rebellious and a
superstitious People : dispositions, which not only
made it necessary to omit nothing that might inforce
obedience, but likewise facilitated the reception and
supported the influence of the doctrine in question.
The Reader has here the whole of his Lordship s
boasted Solution of this important Circumstance of
the OMISSION, in the Mosaic Law. And he sees how
vainly this Resolver of doubts labours to elude its
force. Overwhelmed, as it were, with the weight of
so irresistible a Power, after long wriggling to get
free, he at length crawls forth ; but so maimed and
broken, so impotent and fretful, that all his remaining
strength is in his venom. And this, he now sheds in
Abundance over the whole Mosaic Economy. It is
pronounced
222 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
pronounced to be a gross imposture ; and this very
circumstance of the OMISSION is given as an undoubted
proof of the accusLition.
" Can we be surprised then (says his Lordship)
" that the Jews ascribed to the all-perfect Being, on
" various occasions, such a conduct and such Laws as
" are inconsistent with his most obvious perfections ?
" Can we believe such a conduct and such Laws to
" have been his, on the word of the proudest and
" most lying Nation in the world? Many other con-
" siderations might have their place here. But I shall
" confine myself to one ; which I do not remember to
" have seen nor heard urged on one side, nor ANTI-
" CIPATED on the, other. To shew then, the more
" evidently, how ABSURD, as well as IMPIOUS it is to
" ascribe these Mosaieal Laws to God, let it be con-
" sidered, that NEITHER the people of Israel, nor
a their Legislator perhaps, KNEW ANY THING OF
" ANOTHER LIFE, wherein the crimes committed in
" this life are to be punished. Although he might
" have learned this Doctrine, which was not so much
" a secret doctrine, as it may be presumed that the
" Unity of the supreme God was, amongst the Egyp-
" tians. Whether he had learned both or either, or
* neither of them in those schools, cannot be detcr-
" mined: BUT THIS MAY BE ADVANCED WITH
" ASSURANCE; If MOSES knew, that crimes, and
" therefore Idolatry, one of the greatest, were to be
u punished in another life, he deceived the people in
" the Covenant they made, by his intervention, with
" God. If he did not know it, I say it with horror,
" the consequence, according to thz hypothesis I oppose,
" must be, that God deceived both him and them. In
" either case, a covenant or bargain was made, wherein
" the conditions of obedience and disobedience were
" not.
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 223
" not fully, nor by consequence, fairly stated. The
" Israelites had better things to hope, and worse to
" fear, than those which were expressed in it : and
" their whole history seems to shew how much need
" they had of these additional motives to restrain them
" from Polytheism and Idolatry, and to answer the
" assumed Purposes of Divine Providence*."*
This argument, advanced with so much assurance,
his Lordship says, he does not remember to have seen,
or heard urged on one side, nor anticipated on the other.
A gentle reproof, as we are to understand it, of the
Author of the Divine Legation : for none but He, I
think, could anticipate an objection to an ARGUMENT
which none but He had employed. However, though
it be now too late to anticipate, we have still time
enough to answer.
Let it be considered (says his Lordship) that perhaps
Moses KXEW NOTHING of another life, wherein the
crimes committed in thk life are to be punished. Con-
.side red by whom ? Not by his Lordship, or his kind
Readers : for his former reasoning, which I will here
again repeat, had brought them to consider otherwise.
These are his words : " Many probable reasons might
" be brought to shew, that this was an Egyptian doc-
" trine before the Exode ; and this particularly, that it
" was propagated from Egypt, so soon at least aftcr-
" wards, by all those who were instructed LIKE
" MOSES, in the wisdom of that People. He trans-
" ported much of this wisdom into the scheme of
" Religion and Government which he gave the
Israelites ; and, among other things, certain Rites,
which SEEM TO ALLUDE, OR HAVE A REMOTE
" RELATION, TO THIS DQCTRlNEf." This possibly
Wight have recurred to his Lordship, while he was
* Vol. v. pp. 194, 195. f Vol. v. pp. 328, 9.
boasting
224 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V,
boasting of his new and unanticipated objection ; and
therefore, in the tricking it up amongst his FRAGMENTS,
to his perhaps, he adds, by a very happy corrective,
although Moses might have learnt this Doctrine, which
WAS NOT so MUCH A SECRET doctrine, as it may be
presumed that the Unity of the supreme God was,
amongst the Egyptians. But he had done better to
leave his contradictions uncorrected, and trust to the
rare sagacity of his Readers to find them out. He had
ever an ill hand at reconciling matters; so in the case
before us, in the very act of covering one contradiction,
he commits another. He is here speaking of a future
state, divested of its fabulous circumstances ; Perhaps,
says he, MOSES KNEW NOTHING OF ANOTHER LIFE
Which was NOT so MUCH A SECRET doctrine as
that of the Unity. Now, Reader, turn back a moment,
to the long quotation from his 239th page, and there
thou wilt find, that a future state, divested of its fabu
lous circumstances, WAS AS MUCH A SECRET DoctrillC,
as that of the Unity, " There is reason to believe,
u that natural Theology and natural Religion were
" INWARD doctrines amongst the Egyptians. MOSES
" might be let into a knowledge of BOTH by being
" initiated into those Mysteries where the secret doc-
* trine alone was taught. But we cannot imagine,
" that the Children of Israel in general enjoyed the
" same privilege. No, they knew nothing more than
" the outside of the Egyptian Religion : and if the
" Doctrine we speak of [A FUTURE STATE] was
" known to them, it was known only in the super-
< stitious Rites, and with all the fabulous circumstances,
" in which it was dressed up and presented to vulgar
" belief/ Is not this, now, a plain declaration, that a
future state, divested of its fabulous circumstances, wm
fis much a secret Doctrine as the doctrine of the Unity ?
But
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 225
But his Lordship s contradictions are the least of
my concern. It is his present Argument I have now
to do with : And this, he says, he advances WITH
ASSURANCE. It is fit he should. Modesty would be
very ill bestowed on such opinions.
lie thinks he can reduce those who hold no future
state in the Jewish Economy, to the necessity of
owning, that MOSES, or that GOD himself, acted
unfairly by the Israelites. How so, You ask ? Because
One qr Other of them concealed that state. And
what if they did ? Why then they concealed one of the
actual Sanctions of moral conduct, future punishment.
But who told him, that this, which, he confesses, was
no sanction of the Jewish Law, was yet a Sanction in
the moral conduct of the Jewish People ? Who, un
less the ARTIFICIAL TIIEOLOGER? the man he most
despises and decries.
And, even in artificial Theology, there is nothing
but the CALVIX i STIC A L tenet ot Original Sin, which
gives the least countenance to so monstrous an opinion j
every thing in- the GOSPEL, every thing in NATURAL
THEOLOGY, exclaims against it.
JESUS, indeed, to prove that the departed Israelites
still existed, quotes the title God was pleased to give
himself, of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ;
and this, together with their existence, proves likewise
the happiness ot their condition : for the relation they
are said to stand in with God, shews them to be of his
Kingdom. But we must remember, that the question
with his Lordship is, not of reward, but punishment.
Again, JESUS speaks (indeed in a parable) of the de
ceased rich man, as / ;/ a place of torment. But we
must remember that the scene was laid at a time when
the Doctrine of a future state was become national.
To know our heavenly Master s sentiments on the,
VOL. V. qur
226 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
question of subjection to an unknown Sanction, we
should do well to consider his words, " The servant
" which knew his Lord s will, and prepared not him-
" self, neither did according to his will, shall be
" beaten with many stripes ; but he that knew not,
" and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be
" beaten with few stripes*." Now the will of a
Master or Sovereign, declared in his Laws, never in
cludes in it more than the Sanctions of those Laws.
The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews expressly
distinguishes the sanction of the Jewish law from that
of the Gospel ; and makes the difference to consist in
this, that the one was of temporal punishments, and
the other of future. He that despised Moses s Law
DIED without mercy, tinder two or three witnesses :
Of h ow M u c ri s o R E R p u x i s H M EXT, suppose ye, $h all
he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the
Son of God}? Which appeal is without common sense
or honesty, on a supposition that the apostle held the
Jews to be subject to future punishments, before that
Sanction was promulged amongst them. From the
GOSPEL therefore it cannot be inferred, that the.
Israelites, while only following the Law of Moses, in
which the sanction .of a future state is not found, were
liable or subject to the punishments of that state.
Let us see next, Whether NATURAL THEOLOGY,
or natural Religion (as his Lordship is pleased, for
some reason or other, to distinguish the terms), hath
taught us, that a people, living under an extraordinary
Providence or the immediate government of God, to
whom he had given a Law and revealed a Religion,
both supported by temporal sanctions only, could be
deemed subject to those future punishments, unknown
to them, which natural Religion before, and revealed
* Luke xii. 47, 8, f Heb. x. 28, 9.
, Religion
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 227
Religion since, have discovered to be due to bad men.
living under a common Providence.
NATURAL RELIGION standeth on this Principle,
<c That the Governor of the Universe REWARDS and
" PUNISHES moral Agents." The length or shoi1>
ness of human existence comes not primarily into the
idea of Religion ; not even into that complete idea of
Religion delivered by St. Paul, in his general definition
of it. The Religionist, says he, must believe that
God AS, and that he is A REWARDER of those who
seek him.
While God exactly distributed his rewards and pu
nishments here, the light of reason directed men to
look no further for the Sanctions of his Laws. But
when it came to be seen, that He was not always a
Rewarder and a Punisber here, men necessarily con
cluded, from his moral attributes, that he would be so,
hereafter : and consequently, that this life was but a
small portion of the human duration. Men had not
yet speculated on the permanent nature of the Soul :
And when they did so, that consideration, which, under
an ordinary Providence, came strongly in aid of the
moral argument for another life, had no tendency,
under the extraordinary, to open to them the prospects
of futurity: because, though they saw the Soul un
affected by those causes which brought the body to
destruction, yet they held it to be equally dependent
on the Will of the Creator: Who, amongst the various
means of its dissolution (of which they had no idea),
had, for aught they knew, provided one, or more than
one, for that purpose.
In this manner was a FUTURE STATE brought, by
natural light, into Religion : a/id from thenceforth
became a necessary part of it. But under the Jewish
THEOCRACY, God was an exact Rewarder and
228 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
Punisher, here. Natural light therefore evinced that
under such an administration, the subjects of it did
not become liable to future Punishments till this sanc
tion was known amongst them.
Thus NATURAL and REVEALED RELIGION shew,
that his Lordship calumniated both, when he affirmed,
that according to the hypothesis he opposed, MOSES
DECEIVED the people in the Covenant they made, by
his intervention with God: Or that, if Moses did not
know the doctrine of a future state, then GOD DE
CEIVED both him and them,
Should it be asked, how God will deal with wicked
men thus dying under the Mosaic Dispensation? I
will answer, in the words of Dr. SAM. CLARKE, on a
like occasion. He had demonstrated a self-moving
Substance to be immaterial, and so, not perishable like
Bodies. But, as this demonstration included the Souls
of irrational animals, it was asked, " How these were
to be disposed of, when they had left their respective
habitations?" To which he very properly replies,
" Certainly, the omnipotent and infinitely wise God
" may, without any great difficulty, be supposed to
" have more ways of disposing of his Creatures *
[I add, with perfect justice and equity, and with equal
measure, to all his creatures as well accountable as
unaccountable] " than we are, at present, let into the
" secret of*." But if the Author of the Divine Z<>
(Cation has not promised more than he can perform
(as his long delay gives his well-wishers cause to suspect
and his ill-wishers to hope) this matter will be explained
at large, in his account of the SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE
"OF THE REDEMPTION, which, he has told us, is to
have a place in his last Volume.
* Octavo Tracts against Dodwell and Collins, p. 103.
Ngthing
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 229
Nothing now remains of this objection but what
relates to the sanction of future rewards : And I would
by no means deprive the faithful Israelites of these.
His Lordship therefore has this to make his best of:
and, in his opinion, the bestowing even of a reward,
to which one has no title, is foul dealing; for he joins
it with punishment^ as if his consequence, against
God s justice and goodness, might be equally deduced
from either of them. A covenant, says he, was made,
wherein the conditions of obedience and disobedience
were not FULLY, nor, by consequence, FAIRLY stated..
The Israelites had BETTER THINGS TO HOPE, and
worse to fear, than those which were expressed in it.
Though it be hard on a generous Benefactor to be
denied the right of giving more than lie had promised ;
it is still harder on the poor Dependant, that he is not
at liberty to receive more. True it is, that, in this case,
the conditions are not FULLY stated; and therefore,
according to his Lordship s Logic, BY CONSEQUENCE
NOT FAIRLY. To strengthen this Consequence, his
Lordship concludes in these words And tJieir whole
History seems to shew how much need they had of
these additional motives [future Rewards and Punish
ments] to restrain them from Polytheism and Idolatry,
and to answer the ASSUMED purposes of D rcine Pro
vidence.
Whoever puts all these things together " That
Moses was himself of the race of Israel was learned
in all the wisdom of Egypt and capable of freeing
his People from their Yoke that he brought them
within sight of the promised Land ; a fertile Country,
which they were to conquer and inhabit that lie
instituted a system of Laws, which has been the admi
ration of the wisest men of all ages that he understood
the doctrine of a FUTURE STATE; and, by his
Q 3 knowk
THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
knowledge gained in Egypt, was not ignorant of the
efficacy of it in general ; and by his full experience of
the rebellious and superstitious temper of his own
People, could not but see how useful it would have
been to them in particular." Whoever, I say, puts
all these things together (and all these things are
amongst his Lordships CONCESSIONS) and at the same
time considers, that MOSES, throughout his whole
system of Law and Religion, is entirely silent con
cerning a future state of Rewards and Punishments,;
will, I believe, conclude, that there was something more
in the OMISSION than Lord BOLINGBROKE could
fathom, or, at least, was willing to discover.
But let us turn from MOSES S conduct, (which will
be elsewhere considered at large) to his Lordship s,
ivhich is our present business.
1. First, he gives us his conjectures, to ac*
count for the Omission, exclusive of MOSES S Divine
Legation: but, as if dissatisfied with them himself
(which he well might be, for they destroy one
another),
2. He ilext attempts, you see, to prove, that the
Legation could not be divine, from this .very circum
stance of the omission.
3. But now he will go further, and demonstrate that
an EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE, such a one as is
represented by Moses, and which, the Author of the
Divine Legation has proved, from the circumstance
of the OMISSION, was actually administered in the
Jewish Republic^ could not possibly be administered,
without destroying free-will^ without making Virtue
servile ; and without relating universal benevolence.
4. And lastly, to make all sure, he shuts up the
account by shewing^ that an extraordinary Providence
could answer no reasonable end or purpose.
2 I
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 231
In his first and last order of evasions, he seems to
be alone ; but in the second and third, lie had the
pleasure of seeing many un orthodox AVriter against
the Divine Legation in CONFEDERACY with him, to
use his Lordship s language, when he speaks of the
good understanding between DIVIXES and ATHEISTS.
I have examined his first and second order. The
third and fourth remain to be considered; it is the
last refuge of his infidelity.
i. His principal objection to the administration of
an extraordinary Providence, such as MOSES promised
to his people, on the part of Gop, is, that it would
DESTROY FREE-WILL. But here let me observe, that
he affects to disguise the immediate Object of his
attack; and, in arguing against an extraordinary Pro
vidence, chuses to consider it in the general, as the
point rises out of an imaginary dispute between Him
self and the Divines ; who, he pretends, are dissatis
fied with the present order of things, and require, as
the terms of their acquiescence in God s government,
the administration of an equal Providence, here. But,
this ohliquity in disguising the true object of his at
tack, not being of itself sufficient to embarrass the
question, lie further supports it by a prevarication :
for it is not true, that Divines are dissatisfied with
the present order of tilings, or that they require a
better. All the -ground they ever gave his Lordship
for imputing this scandal to them, being only their
assertion, " That if die present state be the whole
of Man s existence, then the justice of God would
have more exactly dispensed good and evil here: but,
as he has not done so, it follows, that there will be a
state of Rewards -and Punishments hereafter?*
This premised, I proceed to his first objection :
* la good earnest (says his Lordship) is a system of
<i 4 " particular
232 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
" particular providences, in which the Supreme Being,
" or his Angels, like his Ministers to reward, and his
" Executioners to punish, are constantly employed in
" the affairs of mankind, much more reasonable ?"
[than the Gods of EPICURUS or the morals of Po-
LEMO], " Would the JUSTICE of God he more
" MANIFEST in such a state of things than in the
" present? I see no room for MERIT on the part of
" Man, nor for JUSTICE on the part of God, in such
" a state *."
His Lordship asks, whether the Justice of God
would be more rnrnKftist in such a state of tilings,
where good is constantly dispensed to the virtuous,
and evil to the wicked, than in the present, where good
and evil happen indifferently to all men? If his Lord
ship, by the present state of things, includes the rec
tification of them in a future state, I answer, that the
justice of God would not be more manifest, but equally
and fully manifest in either case. If his Lordship
does not include this rectification in a future state, then
I answer his question by another: Would the Justice
of the Civil Magistrate be more manifest, where he
exactly dispenses rewards to good men, and punish 4 -
inent to evil, than where he suffers the Cunning and
the Powerful to carve for themselves ?
But he sees no rcomjc-r merit on the part of Man,
nor Justice on the fart of God. If he does not see,
it is his own fault. It is owing to his prevaricating
both with himself and his Reader ; to the turning his
view from the Scripture-representation of an equal
Providence, to the iniquities of Calvinistical election,
and to the partialities of Fanatics concerning the fa
voured workings of the Spirit; and to his giving these
to the reader, in its stead. ^ How dexterously does he
* Vol. v. pp. 425, 6.
slide
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 233
slide /* m and Bvedestwatim into the Scripture
doctrine- of an equal Provident -ere
PI l w secret workings
of the Spirit, c. . ideed, u ; be so kind
to all<> that under an equal Providence, the
Will is -overruled, he will be able to shew you, there
is an er i merit and demerit. But this substi
tuting ARTIFICIAL Tf ; v (as he calls it when
1"; is in an humour to abuse it) in the place of Bible 1 -
theology, is his usual ieger-de-main. So again, /
can conceive xtill less, that mdrcniual Creatures before
they have dwie ciihf-r t-^c-d or cell, nay, before their
actual existence, can be the objects of predilection or
aversion, of love or hatred, to Hod. Who, of the
Gospel Divines, against whom he is here writing,
would have him conceive any thing of this at all ? It
is the ARTIFICIAL THEOLOGER, the depraver, as he
says, of the Gospel, who would draw him into so
absurd a system. But what has this exploded Theo
logy, that abounds only in human inventions, to do
with the extraordinary Providence, represented in
ho]y Writ ! To say, that this Providence takes away
mans merit and God s justice, is confounding ail our
ideas of right and wrong. Is it not the highest merit
of a rational creature to comply with that motive
which has most real weight?- And is not God s jus
tice then most manifest, when the order of things
present fewest difficulties and obscurities in our con
templation of it? His Lordship was plainly in these
sentiments, when, arguing against God s compliance
with the Jewish hardness of heart, he thought it more
becoming the Master of the Universe, to bend the
perverse stiffness of their Wills : and, when, arguing
ctguin-ft a future state from the present good order of
things, he will shew, he says, AGAINST DIVINES
AND
234 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V;
AND ATHEISTS IN CONJUNCTION, that there is little
or no irregularity in the present dispensations of Pro
vidence ; at least, not so much as the World commonly
imagine. And why was this paradox advanced, but
from a consciousness that the more exact the present
administration of God s providence appeared, the
more manifest it made his Justice ? But now his Lord
ship s followers may be apt to say, that their Master
has here done no more, indeed scarce so much, at
least not m so express terms, as a celebrated Prelate,
in one of his discourses at the Temple ; who tells us,
< That an immediate and visible interposition of
" Providence in Behalf of the righteous, and for the
" punishment of the wicked, would INTERFERE
" WITH THE FREEDOM OF MORAL AGENTS, AND
" NOT LEAVE ROOM FOR THEIR TRIAL*/ But
they who object this to us, have not considered the
nature of moral differences. For, as another learned
Prelate well observes, A little experience may convince
us, that the same thing, at different times, is not the,
same f . Nw if different times may make such alte
rations in identity, what must different men do ? The
thing said being by all candid interpretation to be
regulated on the purpose of saying.
2. Lord Bolingbroke s second objection against an
equal Providence is, that it would MAKE VIRTUE
SERVILE. " If the Good, besides the enjoyment of
" all that happiness which is inseparable from Virtue,
l were exempted from all kinds of evil, and if the
" Wicked, besides all those evils which are insepa-
" rable from Vice, and those which happen to all
" men in the ordinary course of events, were exposed
* Vol. ii. pp. 258, 9.
t Scripture vindicated f rein the misrepresentations of the Bishop
of Bangor, p. 165,
" tO
App*.] OP MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 235
" to others that the hand of God inflicted on them
" in an extraordinary manner, such good men would
" have VERY LITTLE MERIT ; they would have,
" while they continued to be good, no other merit
" than that of children, who are cajoled into their
* duty; or than that of Galley-slaves, who ply at the
" oar, because they hear and see and fear the lash of
" the boatswain *."
If the perfection of a rational Creature consist in
acting according to reason ; and if his merit rises in
proportion as he advances in perfection; How can
that state, which best secures him from acting irration
ally, lessen or take away his merit ? Are the actions
of the Deity of less worth for his moral incapacity
of being unjust or malignant? The motive which
induces to right action is indeed more or less excellent
according to the dignity or nature of the Agent : But
the question here is not concerning the excellence, but
the power of the motive to turn ACTION into PASSIOV ;
which is the only way I can conceive of destroying
merit in the subject Now I hold, that this fancy,
That motives exterior to the Being on which they
work, are able to turn an Agent to a Patient, is one of
the greatest of Physical absurdities ; and therefore
commonly goes about disguised, in the garb of Meta
physics. For while AGENCY remains, MERIT subsists:
the degrees of which do not depend on the less or
greater force which the motives have on the affections,
but on the more or less reason of the choice. In a
word, there is no other way of taking away the merit
and demerit of human actions, than by taking away
egency, and making MAN passive, or, in other terms,
A MACHINE.
But, to expose in a more popular way the futility
* Vol. v. p. 4-28.
of
236 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
of tins reasoning, it will be sufficient to observe, that
the objection holds equally against all religious Sanc
tions whatsoever. And so indeed it .was fairly urged
by Lord Shaftesbury : who pretended that every
motive regarding SELF, tended to servilize. Virtue.
Without doubt, one sort, just as much as another ; a
futur estate^ just as well as an equal Providence. Nay,
if we were to appreciate matters very nicely, it would
seem, that a future state without an equal providence
(for they are always to be considered separately, as
they belong to different Dispensations) would more
strongly incline the Will, than an equal providence
without a future state: as the value oi future above
present good is, in this case, immensely great. But
the human mind being so constituted, that the distance
of good takes off proportionally from its influence,
this brings the force of the two sanctions nearer to an
equality ; which at length proves but this. That the
objection to the merit of Virtue holds against all reli
gious sanctions whatsoever. In the use of which
objection, Lord Shaftesbury was not only more inge
nuous, as he urged it against them <?//, but more con
sistent, as lie urged it on his doctrine of a perfect
disinter csbednexs in our nature ; whereas Lord Boling-
broke is amongst those who hold, that self-love and
social, though coincident, are two essential principles
in the human frame.
" That two consistent motions act the Soul,
" And one regards ITSELF, and one the WHOLE."
But we might go further, and retort upon both these
noble Adversaries of Religion, that the charge of
making virtue servile affects all moral, as well as
religious sanctions ; as well that, whose existence they
allow, as those which they would persuade us to be
visionary ;
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 237
visionary; both these illustrious Patrons of infidelity
acknowledging that moral sanction which arises from
God s making the practice of virtue our INTEREST d$
well as duty *. Now interest and servility is, it seems,
the same thing, with these generous Spirits, as it was
with ths good old woman, Joinville ? peaks of, amongst
the Enthusiasts of Syria, who carried about a pan of
live-coals in one hand, and a dish of cold water in the
other,, to burn up Paradise and to extinguish Hell, that
men might be brought to serve God dispassionately,
without hope or fear. So near akin are Fanaticism
and Free-thinking, that their nature betrays them even
when they strive most to hide their common pa
rentage.
His Lordship s third cavil to an equal Providence
is, that it would RELAX GENERAL BENEVOLENCE.
" But would there not be, at the same time,
" some further defect in this scheme ? I think there
" would. It seems to me, that these good men being
" thus distinguished by particular providences, in their
" favour, from the rest of mankind, might be apt
fl< either not to contract, or to LOSE THAT GENERAL
" BENEVOLENCE, which is a fundamental Principle
* of the Law of Nature, and that PUBLIC SPIRIT,
" which is the life and soul of Society. God has
* c made the practice of morality our interest, as well
" as our duty. But men who found themselves con-
" stantly protected from the evils that fell on others,
" might grow insensibly to think themselves uncon-
6i cerned in the common fate : and if they relaxed in
" their zeal for the Public good, they would relax in
" their virtue; for public good is the object of Virtue.
" They might do worse ; spiritual pride might infect
" them. They might become in their own imaginations
Vol. v. p. 429.
" the
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
" the little Flock, or the chosen Sheep. Others have
" been so by the mere force of Enthusiasm, without
" any such inducements as those which we assume, in
" the same case ; and experience has shewn, that there
" are no Wolves like these Sheep *."
The case assumed, to which his Lordship objects,
and against which he pretends to argue, is that of an
equal Providence which exactly distributes good to
Virtue^ and to Vice, evil. Now the present objection
to such a state is, an please you, that this favourable
distinction of good, to the virtuous man, would be apt
to destroy his general benevolence and public spirit,
These, in his Lordship s account, and so in mine too,
are the most sublime of all Virtues ; and therefore, it
is agreed, they will be most highly rewarded : But the
tendency of this fa you rable distinction, if you will be
lieve him, may prove the loss of general benevolence
and public spirit. As much as this shocks common
sense, his Lordship has his reason. God has made the
practice of morality our INTEREST as well as duty.
But men) whojind themselves constantly protected from
the evils that fall on others, might grow imensibly to
think themselves unconcerned in the common fate.
God has made the practice of morality our INTEREST
as well as duty. Without doubt he has. But does it
not continue to be our interest, under an equal, as
well as under an unequal Providence ? Nay, is it not
more evidently and invariably so, in the absence of
those inequalities which hinder our seeing clearly, and
feeling constantly, that the practice of morality is our
INTEREST as well as duty ?
But men who found themselves constantly pro
tected from the evils that fall on others, might grow
insensibly to think themselves unconcerned in t tho
* Vol. Y. p, 429,
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 239
COMMON FATE. What are those evils, under an equal
Providence, which fall on others, and from which the
good man is protected? Are they not the punishments
inflicted on the wicked ? And how is the good man
protected from them ? Is it not by his perseverance in
Virtue? It is therefore impossible he should grow un
concerned to those evils which his Lordship calls the
common fate, when he sees his interest and his duty so
closely connected, that there is no way of avoiding
those evils but by persevering in virtue. But the name
of common fate, which he gives unto them, detects his
prevarication. He pretends to reason against an
equal Providence, yet slurs in upon us, in its stead, a
Providence, which only protects good men ; or rather
one certain species of good men ; and leaves all other
to their COMMON FATE. But admit it possible for
the good man to relax in his benevolence, and to grow
insensible to the common fate : there is, in the state here
assumed, a speedy means of bringing him to himself;
and that is, his being no longer protected from the
evils that fall on others : for when men relax in their
benevolence, his Lordship tells you, they relax hi their
virtue : and, give me leave to tell his Lordship,
that when men relax in their virtue, an equal Provi*.
dence relaxes in its protection ; or, to speak more
properly, the rewards of virtue are abated in pro
portion.
However, spiritual pride (he says) might infect the
virtuous, thus protected : And this he will prove
a fortiori, from the case of ENTHUSIASTS ; who only
imagine they have this protection, and have it not.
Now, what if we should say, it is this very enthusiastic
Spirit itself, and not the visions of Protection it is apt
to raise, which is the true cause of spiritual pride ?
ENTHUSIASM is that temper of mind, in which the
imagination
24Q THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
imagination has got the better of the judgment. In
this disordered state of things, Enthusiasm, when it
happens to be turned upon religious matters, becomes
FANATICISM : and this, in its extreme, begets the
fancy of our being the peculiar favourites of Heaven.
Now, every one sees, that SPIRITUAL PRIDE is the
cause, and not the effect of the disorder. For what
but spiritual pride, springing out of presumptive
holiness, could bring the Fanatic to fancy himself
exalted above the common condition of the Faithful ?
It is true, when he is got thus far, the folly which
brought him hither, may carry him further ; and then,
all to come will be indeed the effect of his disorder.
But suppose it were not the enthusiastic Spirit, but
the visions of protection, it is apt to raise, which is the
cause of spiritual pride; Is there no difference between
a vision and a reality ? Fancy may occasion those
disorders which Fact may remove. This, I persuade
myself, is the case here : The real communication of
Grace purifies those passions, and exalts them into
virtues, which the strong delusion of such a state only
renders more gross and violent. And here it may
be worth while to take notice, that his Lordship, in
this objection to an extraordinary Providence, from
the hurt it does to general benevolence, seems to have
had the Jewish People in his eye ; who in the latter
ages of their Republic were commonly charged, and
perhaps not altogether unjustly, with want of benevo
lence to the rest of mankind : a fact, which though it
makes nothing for his purpose, makes very much for
mine, as it furnishes me with an example to support
what is here said of Fanaticism : an infirmity pretty
general amongst the Jews of tho,*e Ages. They had
outlived their extraordinary Jrcv .1; nee; but not the
memory, nor even the effects of it ; nay, the warmer
tempers
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 241
tempers were hardly brought to think it had ceased.
This filled them with spiritual pride, as the elect of
God ; a disposition which, it is confessed, tends readily
to destroy or to relax general benevolence. But what
now arc the natural consequences, which the actual
administration of an equal Providence would have on
the human mind ? In this case, as in the other, a warm
temper, whose object was Religion, would be obnoxious
to the common weakness of our nature, and too apt
to disgrace itself by spiritual pride : but as this is one
of the vices which an equal Providence is always at
hand to punish, the cure would be direct and speedy.
The recovered Votary, we will now suppose to be re
ceived again into the number of the Good ; and to
find himself in the little ftock and chosen sheep, as they
are nick -named by this noble Writer. Well, but his
danger is not yet over ; the sense of this high prero
gative of humanity might revive, in a warm temper, the
still unmodified seeds of spiritual pride. Admit this
to be the case ; what follows ? His pride revives indeed,
but it is only to be again humbled : for punishment is
still closely attendant on vice and folly. At length,
this holy discipline, the necessary consequence of an
equal Providence, effectually does its work ; it purifies
the mind from low and selfish partialities, and adorns
the Will with general benevolence, public spirit, and
love of ail its fellow-creatures.
What then could support his Lordship in so perverse
a judgment concerning the state and condition of good
men under an equal Providence ? That which supports
all iiis other insults on Religion ; his sophistical change
of the question, lie objjcts to an equal Providence
(which, Religionists pretend, hath been administered
during one period of the Dispensation of Grace) where
good men are constantly rewarded, and wicked men as
VOL. V. R constantly
242 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
. constantly punished : and he takes the matter of his
objection from the fanatical idea of a favoured elect
(which never existed but in over-heated brains), where
reward and punishment are distributed, not on the
proportions of merit and demerit, but on the diabolic
dreams of certain eternal decrees of election and
reprobation, unrelated to any human principle of
justice.
But now, Reader, keep the question steadily in your
eye, and his Lordship s reasoning in this paragraph
discloses such a complication of absurdities as will
astonish you. You see an equal Providence, which,
in and through the very act of rewarding benevolence t
public spirit, and humility, becomes instrumental in
producing, in those so rewarded, selfishness, neglect of
the public, and spiritual pride.
His Lordship s last objection to an extraordinary
Providence is, that it would NOT ANSWER ITS END.
i 1 will conclude this head (says he) by observing,
" that we have example as well as reason for us, when
" we reject the hypothesis of particular Providences.
kl God was the king of the Jewish People. His pre-
"; sence resided amongst them, and his justice was
" manifested daily in rewarding and punishing by
" unequivocal, signal, and miraculous interpositions
" of his power. The effect of all was this, the
" People rebelled at one time and repented at another.
" Particular Providences, directed by God himself
".- immediately, upon the spot, if I may say so, had
* particular temporal effects only, none general
" nor lasting: and the People were so little satisfied
" .with this system of Government that they deposed
" the supreme Being, and insisted to have another
" King, and to be governed like their neighbours*.
* Vol. v. p. 430.
In
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 243
In support of this last objection, the Reader sees,
his Lordship was forced to throw off the mask, and
fairly to tell us what he aimed at; that is to say, to
discredit the extraordinary Providence mentioned
by Moses. An equal Providence, says he, will not
answer its end. What is its end ? Here, his prevari
cations bring us, as usual, to our distinctions. When
this Providence is administered for the sake of Parti
culars, its first end is to discipline us in virtue, and
keep us in our duty : When administered for the sake
of a Community, its first end is to support the Institu
tion it had erected. Now his Lordship, proceeding
from reason to example, gives us this of the Jewish
Republic, to prove that an equal or extraordinary
Providence does not answer one or other or both
these ends.
.But it is unlucky for him, that here, where he em
ploys the example, he cannot forbear, any more than
in numberless other places of his writings, to tell us
that he believes nothing of the matter. How long
this Theocracy may be said to have continued (says he)
/ aw quite unconcerned to knou\ and should be sorry
to mhpend my time in inquiring. The example then
is unreal, and only brought as an argument ad homi-
nem. But, the misfortune is, that no laws of good
reasoning will admit such an argument ad hominem on
this question, Of the EFFECTS of a REAL extraordi
nary Providence ; because the nature of the effects of
a REAL Providence can never be discovered by the
effects of a PRETENDED one. To say the truth, his
Lordship is at present out of luck. For had he in
deed believed the extraordinary Providence of the
Jews to be real, his own representation of tl*e case
would, on his own principles, have proved it but pre
tended. For tis a principle with him, that where the
R 2 means
244 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
means do not produce the end, such means (all pre
tences notwithstanding) are but human inventions.
It is thus he argues against the Divinity of the Chris
tian Religion ; which he concludes to he an imposture
from its not having effected that lasting reformation of
manners, which he supposes was its principal design to
accomplish.
So far as to the CHOICE of his example. He ma
nages no better in the APPLICATION of it.
We have distinguished, concerning the ends of an
extraordinary Providence. Let us suppose now, that
his Lordship takes the principal end of the Jewish
Theocracy to be the reformation of Particulars. He
refers to their history, and pretends to she\y they were
not reformed. Now, whatever other consequences
may attend this supposed Fact, the most obvious and
glaring is this, That his Lordship, in proceeding from
reason to ejawple, has given us such an example as
overturns or supersedes all his reasoning. According
to his reasoning, an extraordinary Providence would
tie virtue and good manners so fast down upon every
Individual, that his very Will would be forced, and
the merit of doing what he had not in his power to
forbear, absolutely destroyed. The Reader would
now perhaps expect his example should confirm this
pretended Fact ? Just otherwise. His example shews,
his fact to be a fiction, and that men remained as bad
as ever.
But I have no need of taking any artificial advan
tage of his Lordship s bad reasoning. For, when we
sec it so constantly opposed to truth, it is far from
being an additional discredit to it, that it is as con
stantly opposed to itself.
The truth indeed is, that the great and principal end
of the JEWISH THEOCRACY, was to keep that People
a separate ,
Appx.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 245
a separate nation, under their own Law and Religion,
till the coining of the MESSIAH; and to prepare
things for his reception by preserving amongst them
the doctrine of the UNITY. Now, to judge whether
the Theocracy or extraordinary Providence effected
its end, we have only to consider, Whether this people,
to the coming of Christ, did continue a distinct Na
tion separated from all the other tribes of Mankind,
and distinguished from them, by the worship of the
one true God. And on enquiry, we shall find, they
not only did continue thus distinct and distinguished,
but have so continued ever since. A Circumstance
which, having no example amongst any other People,
is sufficient to convince us, that there must have been
some amazing power in that Theocracy, which could
go on operating for so many ages after the extraordi
nary administration of it had ceased. Let us con
clude therefore, that his Lordship having nothing to
urge against the due efficacy of this extraordinary
Providence, but that, the people rebelled at one time
and repented at another, and that tlm Providence had
only temporary effects^ is the most ample confession
of his defeat.
R3 NOTES
246 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
NOTES
ON
BOOK V,
P- 5- [A]
YET some writers against the Divine Legation
will have it, that from the very context [ver. 16,
1 7. To Abraham and his seed were the promises made,
&c. The COVENANT that was coiijirmed before of
God in Christ, &c.] it appears that St. Paul means,
the Law was ADDED not barely to the -Patriarchal
Religion, but to the promise of the inheritance, the
covenant that was conjirmed before of God , and from
thence, conclude that the Jewish Religion had the
doctrine of a future state. This it is to have a re
trospective view, and with a microscopic eye ! For had
they, when they went one step backward, but gone
tzco, they would have seen, St. Paul could not possibly
have had their meaning in view, for at ver. 1.5, he
expressly says, though it be but a MAN S COVENANT
[much less if it be GOD S] yet if it be, conjirmed, no
man disannuUeth or ADDETJI thereto. The Law
therefore mentioned as ADDED in the i$th verse, can
not be understood, in the Apostle s sense, as being
added to the COVENANT that was conjirmed before (f
God in Christ, or indeed to any thing, but to the Pa
triarchal Religion of the Unity.
P. 20. [B] II [Ninus fils de Bel us] ne peut tre
inventeur de 1 idolatrie qui etoit bien plus ancienne ;
je ne dis pas settlement en Egypte, mais meme au
dela de TEuphrate, puisque Rachel deroba les Te^
raphims,
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 247
raphims, $c. II faut aller en Egypte pour trouver sur
cela quelque chose du tnieux tbnde. Grotius croit
quo, du temps dc Joseph, Fidolatrie n etoit point encore
commune en Egypt. Cependant on voit des-lors dans
ce pays u n extreme attachement a la magie, a la divi
nation, aux augurcs, a 1 interpretation des songes, c.
Moyse defend d adorer aucune figure, ni de ce qui
est visible dans les cieux ni de ce qui est sur la terre,
ni de ce qui est dans les eaux. Voila la defense
gcnerale d adorer les astres, les animaux, & les pois-
sons. Le veau d or etoit une imitation du dieu Apis.
La niche de Moloch, dont parle Amos, etoit appa-
remrnent portee avec une figure du soleil. Moyse
defend aux llebreux d immoler aux boucs, comme ils
ont fait autrcfois. La mort en I honneur duquel ii
defend de faire le deuil, etoit le meme qu Osiris.
Beelphegor, aux mysteres duquel ils furent entrainez
par les femnics de Madian, etoit Adonis. Moloch
cruclle divinitt , a laquelle on immoloit des victimes
humaines, etoit commune du terns de Moyse, aussi-
bien que ces aborninables sacrifices. Les Chananeens
adoroient des mouches & d autres insectes, au rapport
de Tauteur de la sagesse. Le meme auteur nous
parle des Egyptiens d alors comme (run pcuple plonge
dans toutes sortcs d abominations, ^c qui adoroit toutes
sortes d animaux, meme les plus dangereux. Sc les plus
nuisibles. Le pays de Chanaan etoit encore plus cor-
rumpu. Moyse ordonne d y abbattre les autels, les
bois sacrez, les icloles, les inonumens superstitieux. II
parle des cnclos, ou Ton erltretenoit un feu eternel en
1 honneur du soleil. Voila, la plus indubitable epoque
qui nous ayons de Tidolatrie. IVIais ce n est point
une epoque qui nous en montre sa source & le com
mencement, ni metne le progres & ravancement: elle
nous presente une idolatrie achevee, & portee a son
comble; les astres, les homines, les animaux inemes
adorez comme autant divinitez ; la magie, la divina
tion, Timpiete au plus haut point ou elles puissent
alier : cnfiii le crime, & les desordres honteux, suites
u 4 ordinaires
248 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
ordinaires du culte superstitieux & de regie. Calmet,
Dissert, sur FOrigine de Fldolatric, torn. i. pp. 431,
432. Thus far this learned writer. And without
doubt, his account of the early and overbearing pro
gress of idolatry is exact. Another writer, who
would pass for such, is in different sentiments. He
thinks its rise and progress much lower. If we look
(says he) amongst the Canaanites, we shall find no
reason to imagine that there was a religion different
from that of Abraham. Abraham travelled up and
* down many years in this country, and was respected
by the inhabitants of it, as a person in great favour
with God, &c. And again, Abraham was entertain
ed by Pharaoh without the appearance of any indis
position towards him, or any the least sign of their
having a different religion from that which Abraham
himself professed and practised. [Connect, of Sac.
and Prof. Hist vol. i. pp. 309 & 312.] But here the
learned author was deceived by mere modern ideas.
He did not reflect on that general principle of inter
community, so essential to paganism, which made all
its followers disposed to receive the God of Abraham
as a true, though tutelary, Deity. Josephus (the ge
nius of whose times could not but give him a right
notion of this matter) saw well tiie consistency be
tween the veneration paid to Abraham s God, and the
idolatry of the venerators; as appears from his mak
ing that Patriarch the first who propagated the belief
of one God, after the whole race of mankind was
sunk into idolatry ; and at the same time making all
those with whom he had to do, pay reverence to his
God. Of Abraham he thus speaks, At* THTO
iW. 1. i. c. 7. He makes the idolatrous
priests of Egypt tell Pharaoh at once, that the pesti
lence was sent from God in punishment for his in
tended violation of the stranger s wife : xal
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 249
TO feivov aJrw Eruptivxi a7rt<j"ri;ji.<x.wov 01 *(?, *$ 01$ ivzXvHrtTt
ivvfyiG-ou TZ %u* rw ywouY.3,. c. 8. And Abirnelech, in
the same circumstances, as ready to own the same
a ithor of his punishment. <fy# n ur^o? T*$- $iXx$, $
aurw T& jr?]j> nratyayd i TV j>&Vev UTTEO exJiXjaj ra ^sW
aura) TIIV yuvanca. c. 1 2. Antifj.
P. 28. [C] These considerations will lead us to a
rk i ;ht apprehension of that part of the history of Jesus,
where James and John, on the inhospitable be
haviour of a village of Samaria, say to their Master,
in the Legal spirit of the Jewish economy, Lord, wilt
thou that tre command Jire to come down from hare en
and consume them, ei cti as Ellas did ? But he turned,
and rebuked them, and said. Ye know not what manner
of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come
to destroy metis lives, but to save them. [Luke ix.
.54^ 55? S^.J i.e. You consider not that you are no
longer under the Dispensation of Works (in which a
severity of this kind was just and necessary), but, of
Grace, in which all restraint and punishment of opinions
would be mischievous and unlawful. Here we see
the very disposition to intolerance in James and John
is severely censured. Yet the same temper in Paul,
even when proceeding into act, is passed over without
reproof, when Jesus, after his resurrection, is pleased
to reveal his truth to him in a miraculous manner.
Our Lord, instead of condemning the nature of the
practice, only assures him of the vanity of its effects,
It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
[Acts ix. 5.] The reason of this different treatment is
evident. . James and John had ^iven their names to
the Religion of Jesus, in which all force was unjust.
Paul was yet of the Religion of Moses, where restraint
was lawful. On this account it is that this Apostle,
when speaking of his merits as a Jew, expresses
himself in this manner, For ye have heard of my
conversation in time past ; how that beyond measure
f PERSECUTED the church of God, and wasted it:
and
25> THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
and PROFITED in the Jew religion above many mi)
equals in mine own nation. [Gal. i. 13.] Here he
makes the persecution and the pro/fling to go hand in
hand. And again, Though I might also have confidence
m the flesh, If am/ other man thinketh thai: he hath
whereof he might trust in the Jlesh, I more : Cir
cumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the
tribe of Benjamin, an JI threw of the Hebrews ; .as
touching the Law^ a Pharisee-, concerning zeal,
PERSECUTING THE CHURCH; touching the righte
ousness which is in the law, blameless. But what
things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
[Phil. iii. 4.] Here he glories in the action, as plainly
meritorious. And so indeed it was in a Jew, as appears
from the commendations given to it in the case of
Phineas, and others. Yet where lie speaks of it, under
his present character of a Christian, lie condemns it as
horrid and detestable ; and this, in order to shew his
followers how it ought to be regarded in the Religion
of Jesus. To the Corinthians he says, / am the least
of the Apostles ; that am not meet to he called an
Apostle, because I PERSECUTED the church of God.
[i Ep. xv. 9.] And to Timothy , I thank Christ Jesus
our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted
me jaithjul, putting me into the ministry, who
was before a blasphemer, and a PERSECUTOR, and
injurious. But I obtained mercy, because 1 did it in
J&XORANCE and UNBELIEF, [i Ep, i. 12.] i.e. being
a Jew.
P. 34. [D] Dr.. Stebbing, though he differs from
Mr. Foster in most other matters, yet agrees with him .
in this, u That the justice and equity of the Jewish
" Law in punishing Idolaters with death, did not de-
" pend on the particular form of government." [Hist.
of Abraham.] In which he is much more consistent
than his dissenting neighbour. For the Doctor approves
of persecution for opinions; whereas the minister
tends to condemn it.
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 251
P. 37. [E] It is strange to consider how much Dr.
Spencer has mistaken this matter, where, in. his reasons,
of a Theocracy e.v parte scculi, as he calls them, he
gives the following: " Seculi moribus ita factuin erat,
" ut Dii sui principatiuri quendam inter servos suos
" obtinerent, et nomine rituque regio colcrentur.
<; Xam seculo illo Deos titulis iilis Mofeck, Elohim,
" Baalim, et bujusmodi aliis, regrbus et inagnatibus
" tribui solitis, insignire sole bant : eos imperil arbitros
{( plerumque pone bant, cum nee bella gerere, nee
" civitatem condere, nee regem eligere, nee grandius
^ aliquid nioliri soleront, priusquam Deos per oracula
" vel auspicia consuluisscnt." Dissert, de Theoc. Jud.
c. iii. p. 237. Ed. Chap. But these are no marks that
the Pagans attributed any kind of civil regality to their.
Gods. As to their regal titles, those were what they
had retained from the time of their real kingship in the
state of humanity. And as to the consulting their
oracles on all public affairs of moment, this was the
consequence of Pagan religion s having a public as well,
as private part. But, for an acknowledged God to
be chosen and received by any people as their real
Monarch or Civil Magistrate, was a thing altogether
unknown to Paganism. The learned Marsham, with
his usual bias, endeavours to insinuate, that the in
stitution of a* Theocracy was an imitation of Pagan
Custom : Moses pridem soxfcmai/ dcclaravit Ebnco-
rum Rempubiicarn ; ne sibi potestas regia defcrrctur :
Athenienses autern AioK/>aT/W siumi ab Apolline
retulerunt ; ut regis nomen Jovi cederet ; neque tain
titulus quam potestas regia imminueretur. Sec. xiii.
p. 340. But the question here is not about the name,
hut the thing. The Pagans might call their national
Gods by the name of Kings, and, by a bolder figure,
might call their Government, put under the protection
of a tutelary Deity, by the name of a Theocracy ; but
a real Theocracy is that only where the Laws of the
Institution have all a reference to the actual rule of a
tutelary God, whether the true God or false ones; and
such
252 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
such a Theocracy is no where to be found but in the
land of Judea.
P. 64. [F] For this was the only use the Pagans
ever thought of making of the Gods of their enemies
when they had stolen them, or taken them away by
force. Apion had mentioned one Zabidus an Idumean,
who, when .the Jews were warring against his country
men, made a bargain with the enemy to deliver Apollo,
one of their tutelary Gods, into their hands; and
Josepbus, when he comes to confute this idle tale,
takes it for granted that the only supposed cause of
such pretended traffic was to gain a new tutelary
Deity; and on this founds his argument against Apion :
How the??, says he, can Apion persist hi accusing us oj
not having Gods in common wit It others, when our
forefathers were so easily persuaded to believe that
Apollo was coming info their service ? T/
^tiv! TO*; aAAci; $ftef, fl
jtMW) rj^av rev ATroAAcoj/o.
vol. ii. p. 478.
P. 86. [G] I call them licentious, principally, for
the extravagant Reasonings concerning the authority
of the Pentateuch, and the divine inspiration of Scrip
ture. The first he retracted and confuted, when the
spirit of contradiction had given way to better prin
ciples; the other (which he had inserted into the
itf.ttc.rs as the work of another man) he never, that I
know of, atoned for, by any retractioft whatsoever.
P. 95. [H] Dr. Sykes has undertaken to confute the
censure hero passed upon Dr. Spencer. Here it iV
(says this Answerer) that Air. W. attacks Dr. Spencers
dissertation on the Jewish Theocracy. Are we not now
from hence to IMAGINE, that Dr. Spencer was one of
those writers that supposed the Theocracy to hai c ended
with the Judges? [An examination of Mr. Ws ac
count, &c. p. 168.] What demands of imagination
his
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 253
his trade of Answering may have upon him, I do not
know. Cut from my words, a fair reasoner would
imagine nothing but t.nat I meant to prove what I said : m
namely, that Dr. Spencer s discourse of the Theocracy
is weak and inconsistent.
His first charge (says lie) against Spencer is, that
he thought the Theocracy teas established by degree*,
and abrogated by degrees. " A conceit highly absurd,"
says Mr. 17. ~ Bat wherein lies the absurdity of this
gradual progress and gradual declension? [p. 170.]
The Absurdity lies here. When God is pleased to
assume the character of civil Magistrate, he must, like
all other Magistrates, enter upon his office at once, and
(as common sense requires) abdicate it at once. Now
the Government under such a Magistrate is what we
properly call a Theocracy. Therefore to talk of
the gradual progress and gradual declension of this
mode of civil relation, is the same as to talk of the
gradual progress and gradual declension of Patermtv,
or any other mode of natural relation; of which, I
suppose, till now, nobody ever heard.
lie goes on // there be any absurdity or incon
sistency in this manner vf speaking, it may e JUSTIFI
by Mr. W s own. authority. That is, my absurdity
will justify another Man s. But this b doing me an
honour which I do not pretend to. Well, but how
do I justify Dr. Spencer? Why, I say, it see; TO,
" That in the period immediately preceding the Jewish
" Captivity, on the gradual withdrawing the extraor-
" dinary Providence from them, they began to entertain
u doubts concerning God s further peculiar regard to
" them as his chosen People." So that here (says
Dr. Sykes) he e.epressly owns a GRADUAL WITH
DRAWING OF THE FX Hi AOKIMX A RY PROVIDENCE
from the Jews. And where Ls the absurdity of
Dr. Spencers G R A D u A L u i: c L K x s i o x o R i M M i N u -
TION OF THE THEOCRACY, wh icli Mr. ly s gradual
withdrawing of the extraordinary Providence is mt
liable
254 Tlffi DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
liable unto ? Or was not the gradual icithdrarcing of
the c.vtraordinay Providence a proper inmlnutmn of
the Theocracy? fp. 171.] He is so pleased with this
argument that he repeats it at p. 218. Yet who would
have suspected him of what he here discovers, a total
ignorance of any difference between the FORM of Go
vernment and the ADMINISTRATION of it? Now
Dr. Spencer talked of the gradual decline of ihejorm
of Government * which I thought absurd : I -spoke of
the gradual decline of the administration of it ; which,
whether it be equally absurd, let those determine who
have seen (unless perhaps the rarity of the fact has
made it escape observation) an administration of
Government grow worse and worse, while the form of
it still continued the same.
So much as to Spencer s absurdity. We come next
to his inconsistency^ in supposing some foot-steps of
the Theocracy till the time of Christ, and yet that it
was entire! v abrogated by the establishment of the
Kings. Of this inconsistency, Dr. Spencer is absolved,
by the dexterity of our Answerer, in the following
manner : Here again is Dr. Spencer much misrepre
sented, from not considering -\\-IIAT HE MEANT by the
ABROGATION of GocT# Government. Not that the
Theocracy entirely ceased , but the Government received
an ALTERATION and ABATEMENT. And therefore
he uses more than once the phrase of REGIMINIS
MUTATf, in this very section ; I V here is the absurdity
and inconsistency of this tcay of reasoning, unless abro
gation is made to signify a total abolition, and duration
is to be construed cessation ?
He asks, zchere is the absurdity of this way of
7 easoning ? I did not accuse Spencer of absurdity in
his iv ay of reasoning^ but of contradiction in his way
of expression. I see no reasoning there is, or can be,
in a man s delivering what he thinks a fact : such
as his opinion of the duration of a form of Govern
ment, liut he who cannot distinguish reasoning from
expression,
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 255
may be well excused for confounding the
form of Government, and the administration of Ga-
I cnuntnt uith one another.
However, Spencer (lie says) Ix much misrepresented^
he did not mean by ABROGATION a CEASIXG ; but an
ALTERATION" and ABATEMENT. It SCClllS tllCll, a
writer is much misrepresented if, when he is charged
with an inconsistent expression, his meaning may be
proved consistent. A good commodious principle for
the whole class of Answerers ! But he tells us that
abrogation [regimen abrogatum] does not signify
ceasing. Where did he get his Latin? for the Roman
writers use it only in the sense of dissolution, abolition,
or the entire ceasing of an office or command. What
then does it sanity? ALTERATION (he says) and
ABATEMENT. But now wlicrc did he get his English?
Our Country writers, I think, use the word alteration
to signify a change; and abatement^ to signify no
change; no alteration in the qualities of things, but a,
diminiition only in the vigour of their operations.
What the alteration of a Theocracy, or any other
form of Government is, we well understand ; but what
the abatement of it is, one is much at a loss to con-
ceive. .However, this I know, that Dr. Sykcs hero
confirms what I charge upon him, the confounding the
mode of Government with the administration of it:
Alteration being -applicable to the former, and abate
ment, only to the latter.
But his inference from this special reasoning, is
worth all the rest tfw/ TUKUK KOUK Spencer uses,
more than once, the phrase of regiminis MUTATT, in
this very section. Therefore! Wherefore? Why, be
cause by abrogati he meant only abated, therefore 1m
uses mutati, more than once to explain himself. That
is to say, " because, by tot inn, 1 mean /ws, THE HI: FORK
I use onuie more than once, to explain my meaning/
Well, if he did notclear it up before, he has done know.
- And u here (says he) is tJie absurdity or incon
sistency of this way oj reasoning? Nay, for that
matter,
256 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
matter, the reasoning is full as good as the Criticism.
But here he should have stopped ; for so tatal is his
expression, where the fit of Answering is upon him,
that he cannot ask quarter for one blunder without
commiting another Unless ABROGATION is made to
signify a TOTAL ABOLITION, and duration is construed
to be cessation. " I can find (says he) no absurdity
nor inconsistency in Dr. Spencer, without perverting
the common signification of words ;" without calling;
duration cessation. This is his Argument; and so far
was well. " But he goes on and abrogation a total
abolition. Here he sinks again ; for abrogation was
abolition, amongst all nations and languages, till
Dr. Sykcs first pleaded in abatement. Well, but our
Answerer will go farther: and having so ably vindicated
Dr. Spencer, he will now shew, though the Doctor bo
consistent, yet so am not I : for that I hold, the ex
traordinary Providence entirely ceased on the return
from the Captivity : From whence (says this subtle
logician) I argue thus, u If the EXTRAORDINARY
" PROVIDENCE entirely ceased on the full Settlement
" of the Jens after their Return, it ceased some
" centuries at least before the days of Christ ; and
" CONSEQUENTLY the THEOCRACY must have ceased
" some centuries before the days of Christ. How
" then is Mr. W. consistent about the duration of the
" Theocracy, since he pleads for its continuance till
" Christ s time, and yet maintains that IT entirely
" ceased so long before his time* r"
The argument, we see, gathers even as it rolls from
his mouth. In the beginning of the sentence, The
ceasing of an extraordinary Providence only implied
in consequence, the -ceasing of the Theocracy ; but,
before we get to the end, an extraordinary Providence
and a Theocracy are one and the same thing. "Mr. W.
pleads for its [a Theocracy s] continuance till Chris fs
time, and yet maintains that IT entirely ceased so long
before Jus time" Thus again to the same purpose
* Examination of Mr. W s Account, fyc. pp. 173, 174.
at
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 257
at p. 178 : " Or by what rule does he form a judg-
" inent that WHAT was gradually decaying to the
" Captivity, was entirely to cease after their Return
" and full Settlement; and yet WAS to continue till
" Christ s time ? "- Nay, if he begins to talk of Rules,
let me ask him by ivhat Rule he found out, " that a
Monarchy and an exact Administration of Justice are
one and the same thing ? " The truth is, our Examiner
was thus grievously misled by the ambiguity of the
English word THE GOVERNMENT; which signifies
either the MODE of Civil Policy, or the ADMINI
STRATION of it. But was this to be expected of a
man who had been all his life-time writing ABOUT
GOVERNMENT?
To conclude this long note, The charge against
SPENCER was of absurdity and contradiction in one
single instance amidst a thousand excellencies. Dr.Sykes
assumes the honour of his Defence. But with what
judgment, he soon gives us to understand, when he
could find no other part of that immortal Book to do
himself the credit of supporting, but the discourse
concerning the Theocracy ; much in the spirit of that
ancient Advocate of Cicero, who, while the Patriot s
character was torn in pieces by his Enemies, would
needs vindicate him from the imputation of a Wart
upon his Nose, against his Friends.
P. 128. [I] It was one of the principal Accusa
tions which Aphri, at that time, brought against the
Jews, that they would not have Gods in common
with other Nations ; as we learn from Joseplnts**
tract against him, rt <T ipw in Kafoyo/>r TO p$ xoii^,
%tiv ToTf aAXoi? 3-iaV Vol. ii. pp. 4/7, 478. And
Celsus calls that famous maxim, A man cannot serve
tico Masters (on which he supposed Christians found*
ed the same principle) THE VOICE OF SEDITION
when men are for breaking off all society and com
merce with the rest of mankind. *T \
Xt.<yoflot,<; -cr^oj TTJV mcnr opt/in*
Voj-. V.
258 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V,
SspotTrevziv on oux ot&i/ls JAEU#I/ TOV XITOP
<M1NHN, ruv (w? auro?
Ori. C0nt+
Cds. p. 380.
P. 129. [K] In his Tract against ^/j/ow he has
these remarkable words : JY ?,v becoming j\len of pru
dence and moderation carefully to observe, thtir oicn
Country Laws concerning Religious matters, and to
avoid calunmatmg the customs of others. But this
Man [Apion] abandoned his own Religion, and has
since employed himself in inventing lies of ours. AsT
\j$^ovxv\oe,<; TOK JM-EV oocstoK itopoig Trspl ryv
Vol. 11. p. 480.
This was carrying his complaisance to the Gentiles
extremely far. But the necessity was pressing ; and
he misses no opportunity of conciliating their good
will. Thus in his Antiquities^ a work, as w r e observed,
entirely apologetical, he tells the Reader. 1. iii. c. 6.
that the seven branches of the golden Candlestick
signified the seven Planets. But in his Wars of the.
O ff ^ /
Jews, 1. vii. c. 5. 5. he assures us they signity the
Reverence in which the Jews held the Number Seven.
But, Allegory for Allegory, he thought, I suppose, one
as good as the other, and therefore might be allowed
to use what best served his occasions.
P. 129. [L] The Jews succeeded in their endea
vours to distinguish Their case from the Christians.
So that while the storm fell upon the latter, the other
enjoyed a calm. As we may fully understand by that
passage in St. Paul to the Galatians; As many as
desire to make a fair shew in thejlesh, they constrain
you to be circumcised, only lest they should suffer per
secution for the cross of Christ, c.vi. ver. 12. On which
Limborch observes very justly, Qui non zelo pietatis,
aut pro lege Mosis, moti id urgebant ; sed tantum tit
, placerent
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 259
placerent Judasis ; quia nempe videbant persecutiones
quotidie magis magisque Christianis a Gentibus in-
ferri, Judtfos an tern ab Hits e*se immunes, hac ratione
eas, tanquain ipsi esseut Judasi, studuerunt declinare.
Amic. Cotlat iOy p. 164.
T. 130. [M] " There is, amongst many other
" things that Jascphuss copy appears to want, one
" omission of so important a nature the heinous
" Sin of the golden Calf. What makes it stranger is
" this, that JSpsephuis account is not only negative,
" by a bare omission, but positive, by affording an
" exact coherence without it, nay such a coherence as
" is plainly inconsistent with it. And what still
makes it more surprising is, that Josephus frequently
" professes, neither to add to nor to take away from
" the sacred Books." Dissert. II. p. xlv. Some other
Liberties, which Josephus took with Scripture for the
end above explained, made this learned Writer con
clude that the Historian had an earlier and more un-
corrupt copy of the Old Testament than any ice now
have : for that his accounts are more exact, consistent,
and agreeable with Chronology, with natural Religion,
and with one another, p. xxxv. Yet, after all, the
fatal omission of the golden Calf brings him to con
fess, that Josephus s copy appears to WANT many
things which are in ours. p. xlv. Thus sorely dis
tressed is this good man in the support of a wild ex
travagant hypothesis; while everyone else sees that
all the omissions and alterations (which sometimes
make his copy good, sometimes bad) were designed
deviations from the sacred Volumes to conciliate the
good -will of his masters.
P- *35- [N] Mere Dr. Sykes appears again upon
the stage. " The Scripture representation of the
" Theocracy, as Mr. Warburton (says he) assures us,
" was, i. Oiler the State in general: and 2. Over
" private Men in particular. 1 have no doubts about
s 2 " the
260 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
" the former of these cases : For where a law was
* given by God, and he condescended to become
(( King of a Nation, and a solemn Covenant was en-
" tered into by the People -and by God, as their King,
" and where blessings were solemnly promised upon
" obedience to the Law, or curses were denounced
" upon disobedience : and this by one who was able
" to execute whatever he engaged ; no doubt can be
" about the reciprocal obligations, or about God s
" performing bis part of the obligation, since it is his
" property not to lie nor deceive. Temporal Re-
" wards and Punishments being then the sanction of
" the Jewish Law, these must be dispensed by God
" so as to make the State happy and flourishing if
" they keep the Law, or else miserable if they dis-
" obeyed it. The Blessings and Curses were general
" and national, agreeable to the character of a King,
" and a legal Administration : such as related to them
u as a People ; and not to particular persons." [Exam,
of Mr. W. s Account, &c. pp. i8t>, 187.]
Here, he assures its, he has no doubts about the ex
traordinary Providence over the State in general.
And he tells us his reason, Because the Law was
given by God, and he condescended to become the KING
of the Nation, by a solemn Covenant made with the
People. Now if this very reason be found to hold
equally strong for an extraordinary Providence over
PARTICULARS, the point will be soon decided between
us. Let me ask him, then, what those reasons are
whereby he infers that, from (rocCs becoming King oj
a Nation, he must administer an extraordinary Pro
vidence over the State in general, which do not
equally conclude for God s administering it over
Particulars? Is not his inference founded upon this,
That where Gocl condescends to assume a civil cha
racter, he condescends to administer it in a civil
manner ? which is done by extending his care over
the whole. If our Doctor should say, his inference
fe not thus founded ; I must then beg leave to tell
2 him,
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 261
iiim, that he has no foundation at all to conclude from
God s being King, that there was an extraordinary,
Providence exerted over the State hi general. If he
confesses that it is thus founded; then 1 infer, upon
the same ground?, an extraordinary Providence over
Particulars. For the justice of the Regal office is
equally pledged to extend its care to Particulars as
well as to the general. It may he asked then, what
hindered our Doctor from seeing so selfrevident a
truth ? I reply, the mistake with which he first set
out ; and which yet sticks to him. I have observed
before, what confusion he ran into by not being able
to distinguish between the Form of Government and
the Administration of it. Here again he makes the
same blind work, from not seeing the difference be
tween a LEGISLATOR and a KINO. For where a
LAW (says he) zca$ given by God, and he condescended
to become the KING of a Nation, Sec. implying that
in his opinion, the giving a Law, and the becoming a
King, was one and the same thing. Hence it was,
that as the Legislative power, in the institution of good
Laws, extends its providence only over tl]e State in
general, he concluded, that the executive power, in the
administration of those Laws, does no more. Which
brings him to a conclusion altogether worthy both of
himself and his premises. Tl>e Blesiuigs and Curse*
(says he) ice re general and iwliamd, agreeable to the
character of a King and a legal Administration.
What ! Is it only agreeable to the character of a
King and a legal Administration to take care of the
Slate in general, and not of Particular*? So, ac
cording to this new system of Policy, it is agreeable
to the Constitution of England to fit out fleets, to
protect the public from insults, and to enact Laws to
encourage commerce ; but not to erect Courts of
Equity, or to send about itinerant Judges. What
makes his ignorance in this matter the more inexcus
able is, that I had pointed out to him this distinction,
in the following passage; the former part of which
s 3 he
62 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
he has quoted, but dropt the latter, as if determined
that neither himself nor his reader should be the better
for it. My words are these : It [the extraordinary
Providence] is represented as administered, i. Over
the State in general. 2 . Over private men in particular.
And such a representation wt should expect to jind
from the nature of the Republic; BECAUSE AS AN
EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE OVER THE STATE
NECESSARILY FOLLOWS GOD S BEING THEIR TUTE
LARY DEITY [in which capacity he gave them Laws],
SO AN EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE TO PAR
TICULARS FOLLOWS AS NECESSARILY FROM HIS
BEING THEIR SUPREME MAGISTRATE [in which
capacity he administered them].
P. 136. [O] To this it has been objected, "That
" Solomon here prays for scarce so much in behalf of
" his own People, as he doth, ver. 32, for every
" stranger that shall come and worship in the Tem-
" pie." But the Objector should have observed that
there is this difference, the prayer for the Israelites
was founded on a Covenant; the prayer for the
Stranger, on no Covenant. That for the Israelites
begins thus, O Lord God of Israel, there is no God like
thee, which KEEPETH COVENANT and as he pro
ceeds, the reason of his petition all along goes upon
their being possessors of the promised Land, the great
object of the Covenant, ver. 25-27-31. But the
prayer for the Stranger, ver. 32, is founded altogether
on another principle, namely, for the sake of God s
glory amongst the heathen. Moreover concerning the
Stranger [words implying a new consideration] if
they come and pray in this house, then hear from the
Heavens THAT ALL PEOPLE OF THE EARTH MAY
KNOW THY NAME AND FEAR THEE.
P. 136. [P] But the whole book of Psalms is one
continued declaration of the administration of an
extraordinary Providence to particulars, in the exact
distribution
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 263
distribution of rewards and punishments. See the
Argument of the Divine Legation fairly stated,
pp. 57 to 75, where the learned Writer has evinced
the truth in question beyond the possibility of a reply.
P. 137. [Q] To this testimony from Ezekiel, Dr.
Sykes objects, that " It is but a parabolical command :
" and no argument can be drawn from parables for
" an equal Providence over particulars, but at most
" for a particular and peculiar Dispensation." De
fence, p. 61. This is the pleasantcst of Answerers.
If this parabolical command does not mean what itself
says it does mean, namely, " that virtuous individuals
" should be distinguished from the wicked, in a general
" calamity ; ? what then does it mean ? Why, at most,
hit a particular and peculiar Dispensation. And in
what, I pray you, does a particular and peculiar
Dispensation consist, if not in a distinction between
the virtuous and the wicked, in a general calamity ? But
he had some confused notion that there was a difference
between a parabolical and a real representation : and
therefore he makes it to consist in this, that no argument
can be drawn from the former. Now, if from Jesus s
parable of the rebellious Husbandmen (who wounded
their Lord s Servants and killed the Heir, and for their
pains were ejected from their possessions, and the
vineyard let to other Husbandmen) I should conclude,
<c that he meant the Jews, who had murdered tne
Prophets which w^re sent unto them, and were ready
to murder the Messiah likewise, and that for this crime
they should be deprived of the blessing of the Gospel,
and the Gentiles received into the Kingdom of Christ,
in their stead, I make no doubt but, if it served our
Doctor s purpose of answering, he would reply, It is
but a parabolical tale, and no argument can be dntu ti
from parables, of Christ" s sufferings and the re-
^jection of the Jews, $c. but, at most, that the Jews
were rebels and murderers, and would be treated as
such*
s 4 Another
264 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
Another Answerer is yet more shameless. " As to
" the parabolical command in Ezekiel (says Dr.
" Rutherforth) the very same premises were exactly
" fulfilled to the Christians. Rev. vii. i, 2, 3." If
you ask when, where, and how, you would embarrass,
but riot disconcert him. Yet, as he assures us, these
promises were exactly fulfilled to Christians, he must
give us leave to assure him, that it could be only in a
spiritual sense : for St. Paul tells us, that the Jews had
the promise of the life that now is, and the Christians
of that which is to come. I doubt then the learned
Professor was a little disoriented when he called the
promises in Ezekiel and in the Revelations, the same.
There is a strange perversity in these men. The pro
mises under the Law, they tell us, are to be understood
SPIRITUALLY, and this, in order that they may bring
Judaism to Christianity: But then, to bring Christianity
back to Judaism, they tell us on the other hand, that
the promises under the Gospel are to be under
stood CARNALLY. But what is to be expected, or
rather what is not to be expected, from a man
who dares to assert, that there was no more an extra
ordinary Providence under the Jewish than under
the Christian Dispensation ; in open defiance of the
Prophets and the Apostles, of Moses and of Jesus
Christ.
P. 138. [R] Yet Dr. Sykes scruples not to say,
-" The passage from Amos does not prove an equal or
" unequal Providence, but a peculiar interposition
" OCCASIONALLY administered." Def. p. 61. As I
would be willing that every thing of this learned
Answerer s should be put to use, I would recommend
this observation to the reader as a paraphrase on
the words of the Apostle, where he says that, under
the Mosaic Dispensation, " the word spoken by
" Angels was STEDFAST, and EVERY transgression
" and disobedience received a just recompense of
" reward." Heb. ii. 2.
P. 139-
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 265
P. 139. [S] To this Dr. Sykes replies, "The equal
" providence over the Jews by his own confession had
" ceased some hundred of years, and therefore at the
" writing of this epistle, Tribulation was deemed by
" nobody more an opprobrium of the Jews, or a pu-
" nishrnent of their crimes, than it was of other
" people." Defence, p. 62. This great Divine did
not perceive that St. Paul is here speaking of the dif
ferent genius of the two Religions, Judaism and
Christianity, not of the condition of the two People at
the time he wrote : and consequently, as what was
once true would be always true, the Apostle considers
the nature of the two Dispensations as invariable.
P. 143. [T] The writer of the jfe;Y book of Mac
cabees appears to have lived in the times he wrote of;
and we find no wonders nor prodigies in his History.
But a long time after comes the Author of the second
Book, an Epitomizer of one Jason of Syrene ; and he
largely supplies what he thought the other wanted.
This Man is such a lover of prodigies, that, when he
lias made a monstrous lie, and so frighted himself at
the size of it that he dare not tell it out, he insinuates
it [as chap. xii. ver. 22. g x TK ?* Wi/1 ItypwvlQ?
tvi$mi{. Chap. xv. ver. 27. T? r5 @fa iiriQwtip.^
Nay he even ventures at an apology for lying Won
ders, [Chap. xv. ver. njand under this encourage
ment falls a lying to some purpose, [Chap. xii.
ver. 16.]
P. 147. [U] I will only observe at present, what
the least reflection on this matter so naturally suggests,
that this complaint of inequality never could have come
from good men, as it did even from Jeremiah himself,
wlio thus expostulates with the Almighty : Righteous
art thoa, O Lord, when I plead with tliee : yet let me
talk with thee of thy judgments : JVherefore doth the
way of the Wicked prosper ? Wherefore are all they
happy that deal very treacherously ? [Chap. xii. ver. i .]
It
266 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
It never, I say, could have come from such men, had
they been at all acquainted with the Doctrine of a
future state of rewards and punishments ; or had
they not been long accustomed to an extraordinary
Providence.
P. 148. [X] Mr. Chubb, in some or other of his
Tracts, has, as I remember, made an unusual effort;
an effort to be witty. He observes, that the Author
of the Divine Legation has done the Unbeliever s
business for him ; " by proving that an equal Pro
vidence was promised , while the] Bible shews that it
was not performed? But he might have known, that
the Author did not furnish Infidelity with this foolish
objection ; it lay open to them. And he might have
seen, that the folly of it was here effectually exposed.
However, Mr. Chubb was a very extraordinary per
sonage ; and might have said with the reasoning Rustic
in Mbliere, Oui, si j avois etudie j aurois ete songer
a des choses ou Ton n a jamais songe. As it was, he
did wonders. He began with defending the reason
ableness of Christianity, and carried on his work so
successfully, that, before he gave over, he had reasoned
himself out of Religion.
P. 158. [Y] The Atheist Vanim, indeed, seems to
rank Moses in the number of those Politicians, who,
he says, promised a future state that the cheat might
never be found out. In unica natuiTe lege, quam
natura^ qua? Deus est (cst enim principium mot us) in
omnium gentium animis inscripsit. C cetera s vero
leges non nisi figmenta & illusioncs esse asserebant,
non a cacodaemone aliquo ii\duct r d$,Jabulosum namque
iliorum genus dicitur a philosophis, sed a principibus
ad subdltorum ptfdagogiam excogitatas, & a sacrifjculis
ob honoris & auri aucupium confirmatas, non miraculis,
sed scriptura, cujus nee ojiginale ulllbi adbwcnitur,
qua mlracula facta recitet, & bonarum ac malarurn
actionum repromissiones polliceatu.r, in Jut ur a tamen
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 267
vita ne firaus detegi possit. De admirandis nature
arcanis.
P. 162. [Z] The miserable efforts of these men to
evade the force of a little plain sense is deplorable.
" Moses (says one of them) could not omit the men-
" tion of the Devil for the reason given by the author
" of the D. L. because he mentions him expressly,
" and represents him as the patron, if not as the
" author, of idolatry. Deut. xxxii. ver. 17." Ruther-
forth s Essay, p. 294. The words of Moses are
these, They sacrificed to DEVILS, not to God , to
Gods whom they knew not, to new Gods that came
ne\- 7y up, whom your fathers feared not. The Hebrew
word here translated Devils, is Schedim, which, the
best interpreters tell us, has another signification.
The true God being Schaddei, the omnipotent and
all-sufficient ; the Gentile Gods, by a beautiful oppo
sition, are called Schedim, counterfeit Gods. And the
context, where they are called new Gods, shews this
interpretation to be the true. But admit that, by
Schedim is to be understood evil spirits: by these
spirits are not meant fallen Angels, but the souls
of wicked men. These were the Demons of Paganism ;
but the Devils discovered by Revelation have a dif
ferent nature and original : Accordingly the Septuagint,
which took Schedim in the sense of the souls of wicked
men, translates it by t&
P. 164. [AA] Dr. Sykes in disputing with me, as
we have seen above, on this question, Whether the
extraordinary Providence was only over the State in
general, or whether it extended to Particulars, having
sufficiently puzzled himself and his reader; To recover
the ground he had lost, on a sudden changes the
question, and now tells us that it is, " JVh&h&r an
" extraordinary Providence was administered to
( Particulars IN SUCH A MANNER that no trans-
" gressor of the Law escaped punishment, nor any
" observer
268 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
" observer of the Law missed his reward? " which
" Mr. Warburton represents (says he) to be the state
" of the Jews under an equal Providence." [Exam,
pp. 187, 8.] Now what his drift was in this piece of
management, is easily understood. It was to introduce
a commodious Fallacy under an ambiguous expres
sion ; which would be always at hand to answer his
occasions. And indeed, the cautious reader (and I
would advise no other to have to do with him) will
suspect no less, when he observes that the words, \no
Transgressor escaped Punishment, nor any Observer
of the Law missed his Reward} quoted from me, are
not to be found in that place where I state the nature
of the extraordinary Providence; but here, where I
speak of the consequences of it, in the words above
We have shewn at large, &c. What now has this
ANSWERER done P He has taken the words [no
Transgressor escaping Punishment, nor any Observer
of the Law missing Ids Reward ] from their natural
place ; misrepresented their purpose ; and given them
to the reader as my DEFINITION of an extraordinary
Providence to Particulars. And not content with all
this, he has put a false and sophistical sense upon
them, viz. THAT NO ONE SINGLE PERSON, WITHOUT
EXCEPTION, ever escaped Punishment, or missed his
Reward. And in this sense, by the vilest prevarica
tion, he repeats and applies them, on every following
occasion, as the sole answer to all my reasonings on
the subject of an extraordinary Providence. Jt will
be proper then to shew, that the words could not mean,
by any rules of just construction, that every single
person, without exception, was thus punished and re
warded ; but only that this extraordinary Providence
over Particulars was so exactly administered, that no
one could hope to escape it, or fear to be forgotten
by it.
First then, let it be observed, that the words are no
absolute assertion; but a consequence of something
asserted. AND THEN no Transgressor escaping, etc.
which
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 269
which illative words the honest Examiner omitted.
What I had asserted was simply this, that the extraor
dinary Providence over the Jews was in Scripture
represented as administered over Particulars; but
that this very administration would of necessity be
attended with some inequalities. Must not then the
consequence I draw from these premises be as restrain
ed as the premises themselves ? Secondly, I said, that
God had promised an equal Providence to Particulars,
but that he had declared, at the same time, how it
should be administered, viz. in such a manner as
would occasion some few exceptions. If therefore
Dr. Sykes would not allow me, he ought to have al
lowed" God Almighty at least, to explain his own
meaning. Thirdly, had the words been absolute, as
they then might have admitted o f two senses, did not
common ingenuity require, that I should be under
stood in that which was easiest to prove, when either
was alike to my purpose? But there was still more
than this to lead an ingenuous man into my meaning ;
which was, that he might observe, that I used,
throughout my whole discourse of the Jewish Econo
my, the words extraordinary Providence and equal
Providence, as equivalent terms. By which he might
understand that 1 all along admitted of exceptions.
Fourthly, If such rare cases of exception destroyed
an equal Providence to Particulars, (which Provi
dence I hold) it would destroy, with it, the equal Pro
vidence to the State, (which Dr. Sykes pretends to
hold). But if not for the sake of truth in opinion,
yet for fair-dealing in practice, Dr. Sykes should have
interpreted my words not absolutely, but with excep
tions. For thus stood the case. He quoted two
positions from the Divine Legation, i . That there
was an extraordinary Providence over the State in
general. 2. Over private men in particular. He
grants the first ; and denies the second. But is not
the extent of that providence understood to be in botli
pases the same ? Now in that over the State, he un
derstands
THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
derstands it to have been with exceptions, as appears
from his own mention of the case of Achan, p. 1 90 ;
and of David, p. 197. Ought he not, then, by all
the rules of honest reasoning, to have understood the
Proposition denied, in the same sense he understands
the Proposition granted ? If in the administration over
the State in general, there were some few exceptions,
why not in That over private men in particular?
But if now the candid reader shall ask me, Why I
employed expressions, which, when divorced from the
context, might be abused by a Caviller to a perverse
meaning, I will tell him. 1 used them in imitation of
the language of the Apostle, who says that, under the
Jewish Economy, EVERY transgression and disobe
dience received a just recommence of reward*. And
if He be to be understood with latitude, why may
not I ?
P. 165. [BB] But as GOD acted with them in the
capacity of the Creator and Father of all Men, as
well as of tutelary God and King, he was pleased, at
the same time, to provide that they should never lose
the memory of the attributes of the Almighty : and
therefore adds, And skewing mercy unto thousands
of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Numb. xiv. 18. Deut. v. 10.
P. 165. [CC] " The Author of the D. L. (says
" Dr. Sykes) goes on, and observes that this punish-
e< ment [of visiting the iniquities of Fathers upon
" their Children] was only to supply the want of a
" future state. But how will this extraordinary eco-
" nomy SUPPLY this want? The Children at present
" suffer for their Parents crimes ; and are supposed
" to be punished when they have no guilt. Is not
" this a plain act of HARDSHIP? And if there be
" no future state or compensation made, the hardship
" done must continue for ever a hardship on the
* Heb. ii. a.
* unhappy
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 271
" unhappy sufferer." [Exam, of Mr. W. s Account,
pp. 202, 3.] For a Reasoner, it would be hard to
find his fellow, i . The question is, whether this Law
of punishing, was a SUPPLY to the want of a future
state ? If it laid hold of the passions, as he owns it
did, it certainly was a SUPPLY. However, he will
prove it was none. And how? Because it was a
HARDSHIP. 2. He supposes, I hold, that when Chil
dren were punished, in the proper sense of the word,
they were innocent ; whereas I hold, that then they
were always guilty. When the innocent were affected
by their Parents crimes, it was by the deprivation of
benefits, in their nature forfeitable. 3. He supposes,
that if Moses taught no future state, IT WOULD FOL
LOW, that there was none.
P. 165. [DD] To this it hath been objected " As
" to the proof, that visiting the iniquities of Parents
" on their Children was designed to supply the want
" of a future state, because in a new Dispensation,
" it is foretold, that this mode of punishing will be
" changed ; this argument will not be admitted by the
" Deists, who do not allow that a new Dispensation
" is revealed under the phrase of a new Covenant.
Here the Objector should have distinguished. The
Deists make two different attacks on Revelation. In
the one, They dispute that order, connexion, and de
pendency between the two Dispensations, as they are
delivered in Scripture, and maintained by Believers ;
In the other, they admit (for argument s sake) this
representation of revealed Religion ; and pretend to
shew its falsehood, even upon that footing. Amongst
their various arguments in this last method of attack,
one is, that the Jewish Religion had no sanction of a,
future state, and so could not come from God. [See
Lord Bolingbroke s Posthumous Writings.] The pur
pose of this work is to turn that circumstance against
them : and from the omission of the Doctrine, demon?
strate the Divine original of the Law. So that the
Reader
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
Reader sees, I am in order, when, to evince a designed
omission, I explain the Law of punishing the crimes
of Fathers on the Children, from the different natures
of the two Dispensations ; as going upon principles
acceded to, though it be only disputandi gratia, by the
Deists themselves.
P. 166. [EE] It hath been objected, " That the
" Prophet here upbraids the Jews as blameable in the
" use of this proverb." Without doubt. And their
fault evidently consisted in this, That they would insi
nuate that an innocent posterity were punished for the
crimes of their forefathers ; whereas we have shewn,
that when the children* teeth were set on edge, they
likewise had been tasting.
P. 167. [FF] Dr. Stebbing has thought lit to sup
port this charge of contradiction urged by Spinoza
and Tindal, very effectually. He insults the author
of the D. L. for pretending to clear up a difficulty,
where there was none. " He [the author of the
(l D. L.] has also justified the equity of another Law,
^ that of punishing posterity for the crimes of their
"forefathers. Though it is one of the plainest
" cases in the world, that God doth this EVERY DAY
" in the ordinary exercise of his Providence." Hist,
of Abr. p. 89. MOSES says, God will visit the ini
quity of the Fathers upon the Children. JEREMIAH
and EZEKIEL say as expressly, that God will not do
so. See, exclaim Spinoza and Tindal, the discoiv
dancies and contradictions amongst these Prophets.
Softly, replies the Author of the Divine Legation.
You mistake the matter; the contradiction is all a
fiction of your own brains : Moses speaks of the
Jewish Dispensation ; and Jeremiah and Ezekiel, of
the Christian. I deny that, cries Dr. Stebbing :
punishing posterity for the crimes of their Fathers is
done every day under the Christian Dispensation.
And thus the objection of Spinoza and Tindal, by
the
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 273
the kind pains of Dr. S tabbing, remains not only un
answered, but unanswerable. And yet this is the man,
\\hose zeal would not let him rest till he had rescued
Revelation from the dishonours brought upon it by
the Author of the Divine Legation.
P. 169. [GG] Yet Dr. Sykes modestly tells his
reader, that " there is not any ground or foundation
" for this distinction ; for that the innocent posterity
" were sometimes deprived of life for the crimes of
" their Parents in virtue of this Law." But here, as
the Doctor has not to <;o with me, but with the Pro
phet, I leave it to be adjusted between them, as the
Public shall think fit to arbitrate, Another has even
ventured to ask, u How the Posterity, if it suffer for
" its own guilt, can be said to suffer for the transgres-
" sions of its Parents?" As this doubt arises from
the Prophet s words, Your iniquity and the iniquities
of your fathers toother, &c. I think myself not
concerned to satisfy it, till these Writers have more
openly rejected the authority of the Prophets.
P. 170. [HH] It is observable that by our own
Constitution, no forfeitures attend capital condemna
tions in the Lord High Admiral s and Constable s
Courts. And why ? the reason is plain ; those Judi
catures proceed on the Roman, and not on the muni
cipal laws of a feudal Government. Not but that
the necessities of state frequently obliged other Go
vernments, which never had been feudal, to have
recourse to an extemporaneous confiscation. Even
Rome itself sometimes exercised the severity of this
punishment, even before it fell under the feet of its
Tyrants. Cicero, to excuse the confiscations decreed
against Lepidus, which atibctcd his children, the
nephews of Brutus, says to this latter : Nee vero me
fugit quain sit accrburn, parentium scelera iiliorum
poeuis lui. Sed hoc PK;FOLAHE LEGIBUS COMPA-
RATUM e*t, ut caritas liberoruui arniciores pareutes
Voj,. V. T
274 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
reipublicse redderet. Ep. ad Brutum liber, Ep. 12.
And again : In qua videtur illucl esse crudele, quod
ad liberos, qui nihil meruerunt, poena pervenit. SED
ID ET ANTIQUUM EST, ET OMNIUM CIVITATU5I.
Ep. 15. Again, the same necessities of State have
obliged Governments which had been originally feudal,
but were so no longer, to retain this Law of forfeiture,
essential to feudal Government even after all the feudal
tenures had been abolished. But he, who would see
the LAW OF FORFEITURES defended on the more ge
neral principles of natural justice and civil policy,
may have full satisfaction, in the very elegant and 1
masterly Discourse so intitled.
P. 171. [II] Here Dr. Sykes, who so charitably
takes the Deists part, all the way, against the Author
of the D. L. says, " It would have been well TO
" HAVE TOLD us what this doctrine was which was
" brought to light, and which held up these daring
" transgressors, and which continued them after death
" the objects of divine justice." Defence, p. 83. Can
the Reader, when he casts his eye upon the text, and
sees that / had told him, in so many words and letters,
that it was a FUTURE STATE, think the grave Doctor
in his senses? But this quotation from him will have
its use. It will serve for a specimen and example of
the miserable dispositions with which an Answerer by
profession addresses himself to confute Writers who
have taken some pains to consider their subject, and
to express their meaning.
He goes on objecting to this unknown doctrine. He
asks " how this doctrine did these things?" That is,
how the doctrine of a future state could extend be
yond the present life ? This shews at least, he was
in earnest in his ignorance, and perfectly well assured
that -I had not told him what the doctrine was.
He proceeds with his interrogations, and asks, Why
the, punishing Children Jor their Fathers faults, had
no further itse after the bringing in a future state?
\ had
Notes:] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 275
I had told him long ago, it was because the punishment
was employed only to supply the want of a future
state. But to this, he replies, nothing hindered its
Icing added to the doctrine of a future stale. It is
.very true: nor did any thing; hinder temporal .rewards
from being added to the doctrine of a future state
under the Gospel ; yet when a future state was brought
to light, by that Dispensation, both one and the other
were abolished. But is it not a little strange that the
Doctor, in thus insisting on its further me, on ac
count of its being able to restrain t more daring Spirits,
by laying hold of their instincts, at all times, as well
under an unequal as under an equal providence, should
not see he was .arguing against the DIVINE WISDOM,
who by the mouth of tiie Prophet declared it of no;
further use under the Gospel dispensation ?
P. 172. [KK] Ezechielis sentehtias adeo sententiis
Mosis repugnantes inyenerunt Rabini, qui nobis illos
(q li jam tantuin extant) libros Prophetaruin relique-
rurit, ut fere deliberaverint, ejus librum inter canonicos
non admittere, atquc cundom plane abscondissent,
nisiquklam Chananias in sesuscepisset ipsum cxplicarc,
quod tandem magno cum labore & studio (ut ibi nar-
ratur) aiunt ipsum fecisse, qua rationc autein non satis
constat. Splnozcc Tract. Theologico-PoL pp. 27, 28.
In the mean time it may be worth observing, that the
explanation which I have here offered, cuts off the
only means the modern Jews have of accounting for
their long Captivity upon the Principle of the LAW S
being still in force. Limborch urges Orobio with the
difficulty of accounting for their present dispersion any
other way than for the national crime of rejecting
Jesus as the Messiah; seeing they are so far from
falling into Pagan idolatries, the crime which brought
on their other Captivities, that they are IT:
tenacious of the Mosaic Rites. To which O
replies, " that they are not their own sins fur which
they now suffer, but the sins of the ir for
T 2
276 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
Now Ezekiel has declared (and I have reconciled that
declaration to the Law and the Prophets) that this
mode of punishment hath been long abolished.
P. 174. [LL] Having thus reconciled the two Pro
phets, Moses and Ezekiel, on this point, one may be al
lowed to wonder a little at the want of good faith even
in M. Voltaire, when it comes to a certain extreme.
This celebrated Poet has, like an honest man, written
in defence of RELIGIOUS TOLERATION : and to inforce
his argument, has .endeavoured (not indeed like a wise
one, who should weigh his subject before he undertakes
it) to prove, that all Religions in the world, but the
Christian, have tolerated diversities of opinion. This
common weakness of rounding one s System, for the
support of a plain Right winch requires no such finish
ing, hath led him into two of the strangest paradoxes
that ever disgraced common sense.
The one, that the Pagan Emperors did not perse
cute the Christian Faith : The other, that the Jewish
Magistrate did not punish for Idolatry.
In support of the first, his bad faith is most conspi
cuous ; in support of the latter, his bad logic.
If there be one truth in Antiquity better established
than another, it is this, That the Pagan Emperors did
persecute the Christians, for their faith ouly\ establish
ed, I say, both by the complaints of the Persecuted,
and the acknowledgement of their Persecutors. But
this being proved at large in the preface to this very
Volume % it is enough to refer the Reader thither.
The other Paradox is much more pleasantly sup
ported. He proves that the Mosaic Law did not
denounce punishment on religious errors (though in
direct words, it does so), nor did the Jewish Magistrate
execute it (though we have several instances of the
infliction recorded in their history). And what is the
convincing argument he employs? It is this, The.
~* See Preface to Books IV. V. VI. edit. 1758. Vol. IV. p.-35-
of this Edition. Ed.
frequent
Nates.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 277
frequent defections of t fie Jewish People into Idolatry,
in the early times of their apostasies. An argument
hardly so good as this, The Church of Home did not
persecute, as appears from that general defection f)
it, hi the sixteenth Century. I say, M. Voltaire s
argument is hardly so good as my illustration of it,
since the defection from the Church of Rome still
continues, and the Jewish defections into Idolatries
were soon at an end.
But we are not to think, this Paradox was advanced
for nothing, that is, for the sake of its own singular
boldness (a motive generally sufficient to set reason
at defiance), nor even for the support of his general
question. It was apparently advanced to get the
easier at his darling subject, THE ABUSE OF THE
MOSAIC RELIC jox, that Marotte of our party-
coloured Philosopher. Take this instance, which is
all that a cursory note will be able to afford.
M. Voltaire, speaking of the rewards and punish
ments of the Jewish Dispensation, expresses himself
in this manner : " Tout etait temporel ; et c est la
preuve que le savant Evequy War/burton apporte pour
demontrer que la Loi ^les Juifs, etait divine ; parce
que Dieu meine etant leur Roi, rendant justice im-
mediatement aupres la transgression on 1 obeissance,
jfsivoit pas besoin de leur reveler une Doctrine qi.fi I
reservait an terns, ou il ne governerait plus son pen pie.
Ceux qui par ignorance pretendent que Moyse enseig-
nait Fimmortalitede Tame, otentauNouveau Testament
un de ses plus grands a vantages sur 1 ancien." p. 132.
Would not any one now believe (who did not
know M. Voltaire) that he quote t r muniment as
what he thought a good one, for the divinity of the
Mosaic Religion? Nothing like it. h was only to
find occasion to accuse the Old Testament of contra
diction. For thus he goes on, " Cependant mulgre
re-nonce precis de cette Loi, malgre cette declaration
oxprcsse de Dicu, qif il punirait jus?qu a la quatrieme
T 3 generation ;
278 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Eook V.
generation; Ezechlcl annonce TOUT LE CONTRA IRE
aux Juifs, et leur dit, que le Fils ne portera point
Finiquite de son pere : il va meme jusqu a faire dire a
Dieu, qu il leur avail donne des precept es qui net client
pas bom." p. 133.
As for the precepts which were not good, the Reader
will see that matter ex plained at large, as we go along.
"What I have to do with M. Voltaire at present, is to
expostulate with him for his ill faith; that when he had
borrowed my argument for the divinity of the Mosaic
Mission from that mode of punishment, he would
venture to invalidate it from an apparent contradiction
between MOSES and EZEKIEL; when, in that very
place of the Divine Legation which he refers to, he
saw the two Prophets reconciled by an argument drawn
from the true natures of two approximating Dispen
sations ; an argument which not only removes the
pretended contradiction (first insisted on by Spuwsa,
and, through many a dirty channel, derived, at length,
to M. Voltaire), but likewise supports that very mark
of divinity which I contend for.
But it is too late in the day to call in question the
Religion or the good faith of this truly ingenious man.
"What I want, in this Discourse sur la Tolerance, is
his CIVIL PRUDENCE. As an ANNALIST, he might,
in his General History, calumniate the Jewish People
just as his passions or his caprice inclined him : But
when he had assumed the character of a DIVINE, to
recommend Toleration to a Christian State, could he
think to succeed by abusing Revelation ? He seems
indeed, to have set out under a sense of the necessity
of a different conduct : But coming to his darling
subject an abuse of the Je\vs, lie could not, for his
life, sustain the personage he had assumed, but breaks
out again into all the virulence and injustice with
\rhich~he persecuted this Unhappy People in his General:
History ; and of which the Header will see a fair
account, in this volume, p. 6, et. seq.
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 279
P. 175. [MM] This is the precise character of the
writings of the Old Testament. And this state of
them (to observe it only by the way) is more than a
thousand answers to the wild suspicions of those
writers, who fancy that the Jews, since Christ, have
corrupted their sacred Scriptures, to support their
superstitions against the Gospel ; and amongst other
erasements have struck out the Doctrine of life and
immortality; which, say these Visionaries, was, till
then, as plainly taught in the Old as in the New Tes
tament: For had these supposed Impostors ever
ventured on so bold a fraud as the adulterating their
sacred Writings, we may be well assured their first
attempt would have been to add the doctrine of a
future state, had they not found it there, rather than
to take it away if they had : since the omission of the
doctrine is the strongest and most glaring evidence of
the imperfect ion of the Law ; and the insertion of it
would have best supported what they now hold to be
one of the most fundamental points of their Religion.
But this is not a folly of yesterday. Ireriaeus tells
us that certain ancient Heretics supported their wild
fancies against Scripture, which was against them, by
the same extravagant suspicion, that it had been inter
polated and corrupted. Notwithstanding, I am far
from thinking these Moderns borrowed it from them.
They found it in our common Nature, which always
goes the nearest way to work, to relieve itself.
P. 176. [NN] We shall now understand the im
portance of a remark, which the late Translator of
Josephus employs to prove the genuineness of a frag
ment or homily, given by him to that Historian:
" There is one particular observation (says he)
" belonging to the contents of this fragment or homily,
" that seems to me to be DECHE IOUY, and to deter-
" mine the question that some of this Jewish church,
" that used the Hebrew copy of the Old Testament,
v nay rather, that Josephus himself in particular was
T 4 " the
28o THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV;
< the author of it. The observation is this, that in
<; the present address to the Greeks or Gentiles there
" are near forty references or allusions to texts of the
" New Testament ; AND NOT ONE, TO ANY OF THE
" OLD TESTAMENT either in Hebrew or Greek;
u and this in a discourse concerning HADES; which
" yet is almost five times as often mentioned in the
" Old Testament as in the New. What can be the
" reason of this ? But that the Jewish Church at
" Jerusalem used the Hebrew Bible alone, which those
(( Greeks or Gentiles, to whom the address is here
* made, could not understand ; and that our Josephus
" always and only used the same Hebrew Bible?"
Mr. JVhistoris Dissert, prefixed to his Transl. of
JosephuS) p. 105. What can be I he reason (says he)
of this mystery ? He unfolds it thus : The: Jewish
Church of Jerusalem used the Hebrew Bible alone,
which those Greeks or Gentiles, to whom the address:
is here made, could not understand. So. that because
the Audience did not understand Hebrew, tiie Preacher
could not quote the texts, he had occasion for, in
Greek, But he supposes the Author could not quote
the Greek, because it must needs have been that of
the Septuagini ; which the Jewish Church at Jerusalem
would not use. Now admit there were no other
Greek to be had, or allowed of, Can any man be
lieve that if this Jewish preacher would turn himself
to the Gentiles, he could be such a bigot as to be
afraid of quoting the Old Testament in a language
they understood, because his Church used only the
Original, which they understood not? Or if he had
been such a bigot ; Would he have dared to preach
to the Gentiles at all? What then but the fondness
for an hypothesis could make men ramble after such
reasons, when so obvious an one lies just before them ?
Why did he this, do you ask? 1 or this plain reason:
His subject was & future state of reward and punish-
went, and he had more sense than to seek for it where
it was not to be found. 0, but HADES is almost Jive
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 281
times as often mentioned in the Old Testament as in the
New. Indeed ! But the fragment is not about the
word, but the thing. Jn the Old Testament it sig
nified the receptacle of dead bodies; in the New, the
receptacle of living souls. But though this learned
writer can, without doubt, laugh at those who seek the
Trinity in the Old Testament, yet he can in good
earnest go thither in search of a Future state. Yet
this latter is not in any comparison so clearly hinted at
as the other: and no wonder; a Future state is
circumscribed to the New Testament, as brought to
light by the Gospel ; but the doctrine of the Trinity is
no where said to be so circumscribed.
P. 178. [OO] To all this Dr. Stebbing has an
Answer ready. " The History of the persecution
" under Antiochus (says he) is written by two His-
" torians, namely, the Author of the first book
tf of Maccabees, and the Author of the second.
" This last writer has recorded the profession of the
" Martyrs concerning their belief of the doctrine of
" the Resurrection ; but the first has entirely omitted
" it: nor is there one word about a resurrection or
" future state to be found throughout his whole
" History, though it is certain it was now the national
" belipf. So UNSAFE a thing is it to rely upon the
* MERE silence of historians, when they undertake to
write a history, mt of doctrines but of the trans-
" actions of men." EJLWH. p. 116.
I will tell him of an unsafer thing : which is, ven
turing to draw parallel cases; as he has done here ;
for they may happen (as hath happened here) to be
cases most imli/iC.
In a large and miscellaneous V.olume, composed by
various Writers of different times and states, and con
taining the Law, the Religion, and the History of the
Jews, from Moses to the Captivity, neither the
Doctrines of the resurrection nor a future state are
yer once mentioned.
This
38a THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
This is the Fact. And to obviate my inference from
it, " That the Jews, during that period, were unac-
" quainted with the Doctrines," this able Divine
opposes the two books of Maccabees., containing the
story of one short period, when, it is confessed, these
Doctrines were of national belief ; in the first of which
Books, there is no mention of the Doctrine, and in
the second, a great deal : the reason both of the men
tion and of the silence bein<? self-evident. It is recorded
O
in the second book, where there is a detailed account
of the Martyrs for the Jewish Faith : it is omitted
in the Jirst, where there is no account of any such
thing.
Yet these are brought as parallel cases: Let us there
fore do them all honour.
1. Several volumes of the sacred Canon contain a
history of doctrines.
The two books of Maccabees contain only a history
cf civil transactions.
2. None of the inspired Writers of the Canon, before
the Captivity, ever once mention the Doctrines of a
resurrection or a future state.
Of the two books of Maccabees, one of them men
tions the Doctrines fully and at large.
3. The sacred Canon comprises a vast period of
time, and treats of an infinite variety of matters.
The two books of Maccabees are small tracts of an
uniform subject, and contain only the story of one re
volution in the Jewish State.
Unconscious, as should seem, of all this difference,
the learned Doctor concludes So iwscrfe a thing it is
to rely on the MERE SILENCE of Historians, when
they undertake to write a history NOT OF DOCTRINES,
but of the transactions of Men. In which, these
THREE FALSEHOODS are very gravely and magisterially
insinuated: That the writers of the two books oi"
Maccabees are equally silent with the Writers of the
Canon : 2. That all the Writers of the Canon are
writers of a History, not of the Doctrines, but merely
of
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 283
of the civil transactions of men, equally with the
writers ot the two Books of Maccabees : And 3, That
the thing relied on by me, is the MERE SILENCE of
Historians. Which falsehood if the Reader does not
see from what has been said above, he may be pleased
to consider, that mere silence is when a Writer omits to
say a thing which it was indifferent to his purpose
whether he said or not. But when he omits to say a
thing, which it was much to his purpose to say, this
is not a mere silence. It is a silence attended with a
circumstance, which makes the evidence drawn from
that silence something more than negative, and conse
quently, something more than mere silence. So much
for Dr. Steobing.
A Cornish Writer * pursues the same argument
against the Dvcine Legation ; but takes his parallel
much higher. " There is no one (says he) who reads
" HOMER, that can doubt whether a Future state were
" the popular belief amongst the Greeks in the time*
" he writes of. And yet, by what I remember of him,
" I believe it would be difficult to produce Six in*
" stances, in all his poems, of any actions either enter-
" ed upon or avoided from the EXPRESS motive of
" the rewards or punishments to be expected in the
" other world."
1 inferred from a Future state s NEVER being men
tioned in the Jewish History, amongst the motives of
men s actions (after it had been omitted in the Jewish
Law and Religion), that it was not of popular belief
amongst that people. Now here comes an Answerer,
and says, that it is not mentioned above six TIMES
EXPRKSSLY in Homer, and yet that nobody can doubt
whether it were not the popular belief amongst the
Greeks. The good cautious man ! Had it been but
O.VCE EXPRESSLY mentioned in the Old Testament,
I should no more have doubted of its being of popular
belief amongst the Jews, than he does. Why then
flo we doubt so little, in the case of the Greeks, but
* Mr. Peters. .
for
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
for the same reason why we ought to doubt so much
in t!:c case of the Jews ! HOMER (who gives a detailed
account of a future state), this Writer allows, has men
tioned it about S LV times as a motive. The SCRIP
TURES (which, together with the history, deliver the
Law and Religion of the Jews, in which a future state
is omitted) mention it not once, &s a motive. But this
Answerer would make the reader believe, I made my
inference from the paucity, and not from the want,
of the mention. The same may be observed of another
expression of this candid Gentleman s express -motive-
Now much less would have satisfied me; and I should
readily have allowed that the Jews had the popular
belief amongst them, had the . motive been but once
fairly implied.
But let us take him at the best, and suppose Homer
did not afford one single instance. What, I pray you,
has HOMER in common with MOSES ? Suppose, I should
affirm from the Greek History, That the ancient
WORTHIES always proportioned their work to their
strength and bulk ; and that my Answerer was not in
an humour to let this pass \ but, to confute me, would
press me with the high achievements of TOM THUMB,
as they are recorded in his authentic story ; who was
as famed for his turbulence in king Arthur s Court, as
Achilles was in Agamemnon s : Would not this be just
as much to the purpose, as to put the Iliad and the
Odyssey in parallel with the Law and the Prophets?
But Homer s poems have been so long called the
Bible of the Pagans, that this. Answerer appears, in
good earnest, to have taken them for religious -History ;
otherwise how could it have ever entered into his. head,
to make so ridiculous a comparison? My reasoning
with regard to SCRIPTURE stood thus: As all good
History deals with the motives of men s actions, so
the peculiar business (as it seems to me) of religious
History is to scrutinize their religious Ale fives : Of
these, the principal is the consideration of a Future
And this not being so much as once mentioned
iu
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 285
in the ancient Jewish History, it is natural to conclude
that the Jews of those times had it not. But now,
what has Homer s poems to do in this matter? I ap
prehend they are no religious History, but composi
tions as far removed from it as possible, namely, a
military and civil Romance, brim-full of fabulous
trumpery. Now in such a work, the writer surely
would be principally solicitous about the civil motives
of his Actors. And Homer, who is confessed to un
derstand what belonged to every kind of Composition,
would take care to keep within his subject ; and, to
preserve decorum, would content himself with supply
ing his Warriors and Politicians with such motives as
might best set off their Wisdom and their Heroism ;-
gnth as the love of poicer, m which I comprise, re
venge on their Enemies ; the Ivve of plunder, in which
is included their passion for 1m r Captives; anil the
love of glory] in which, if you please, you may reckoit
their regard for their Friends and their Country. -----
Rut in Homer s military and political Romances there,
{ire hardly six instances in which a future state is
mentioned as the express motive ; therefore the perpe
tual silence on this point, in the religions History of
the J/-:v/s, and the perpetual mention of it in the reli
gious Histories of the SUF.VI and the SARACKXS,
conclude nothing in favour of the argument of the
Divine Legat tcn.
P. 178. [PP] To this Dr. Stabbing objects, that
" it means no more than that mm was- not to be re-
" stored to his eurchlv human state." Exam. p. (Jo.
And. to confirm this, he appeals to the tenth verse of
this chapter, which runs thus, He skull return no /.
to his house., neither shalt hi* place - ; any more.
But the learned Doctor should have rdlooted, that it*
Job-s-iys the dead man rcianis m itfe,
he Drives a reason for his so saving, very li
with the Doctor s interpretation of the qth verse of!
viith chapter. Jt was, b-jc:.;use the de;td niiva
into
286 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookV.
into the land of darkness and the shadow of death
[chap. x. 21.] it was because he was not awake nor
could be raised out of his sleep [chap. xiv. 12.] But
the very subject which Job is here treating, confutes
the Doctor s interpretation : He is complaining that
life is short, and that after death he shall no more see
good, for that he who goeth down to the grave shall
come up no more : he shall return no more to his house
[ver. 7, 8, 9, i o.] ; which at least implies that there
was no good to be expected any where, but in this
world : And this expectation is cut off in express
terms.
P. 180. [QQ] To this sense of the text, Dr. Steb-
bing objects, and says, that by no reward is meant none
in this world. Exam. pp. 63, 4. And in support of his
interpretation, quotes the words of the verse imme
diately following neither have they any more a por
tion j or ever in any thing thai is -done under the sun.
Now I agree with the learned Doctor, that these words
are an explanation of the foregoing, of the dead s not
having any more, a reward: and from thence draw
just the contrary inference, That the sacred writer,
from the consideration of the dead s not returning to
life to enjoy their reward, concluded that, when once
death had seized them, they could have no reward at
all ; not even that imaginary one, the living in the
memory of men, for the memory of them (says lie) is
forgotten. So again from the consideration in ver. 6.
that the dead had neither love, haired, nor circy^ he
had concluded, ver. 5. that THEY KNEW NOT ANY
THING. But the premisses and the conclusion not
being in their usual order, our learned Doctors Logic
did riot reach to take the force of the Preacher s.
P. 188. [IIR] To all this, it hath been said,
" Christians have the promise of the life that now is,
" excepting the case of persecution, Mark x. 30."
The words of Jesus in- the Evangelist &rc,-~ there in no
one
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 287
one that hath LEFT house or brethren, 8$c. for my
sake and the Gospel s, but he shall receive an hundred
fold now m this time, houses and lands, $c. with per
secutions, and in the world to come, eternal life. But
these words evidently allude to the first Followers of
Jesus, while the Church was- under an extraordinary
Providence, that is, during the Age of Miracles :
and as that sort of Dispensation is always aided by
the course of natural and civil events, we easily see
how it would be promoted by LEAVING a country
doomed to the most horrid and exterminating destruc
tion. But St. Paul, where he assigns only the life
which is to come to the followers of the Gospel, is
speaking of a different thing, namely, of the genius
of the Christian Dispensation in general, as it is op
posed to Judaism.
P. 1 90. [SS] The serious reader, who considers all
this, will not be a little surprised to hear that eminent
Scholar and Divine, Dr. S. Clarke, talk in the follow
ing manner, where, after having spoken of the doubts
?UK! uncertainties of the ancient Philosophers con
cerning a future state, he concludes in these words,
* From all which it appears, that, notwithstanding all
:c tiie bright arguments and acute conclusions and
o ^ o < ,
6 brave savings of the best Philosophers, yet life and
" immortality were not FULLY and SATISFACTORILY
4C brought to ligltt by BARE NATURAL REASON."
[Ev. of Nat. and Rev. Relig. p. 146.] It would be
very strange if they had ; since Scripture is so far
from allowing any part of this discovery to natural
reason, that it will not admit even the Mosaic Reve
lation to a share, hut reserves it all for the Gospel of
CHRIST : so that had natural Religion brought life and
immortality to light, though not fully and satisfacto
rily, the learned Apostle would be found to have-
spoken much too highly of the prerogatives of the
Gospel.
The
288 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V.
The truth is, the very learned Writer had two points
to make out, in this famous work ; the one was the
evidence of Natural Religion ; and, under that head,
lie is to shew, that it taught life and immortality. His
other point was, the evidence of Revealed Religion,
and there, (to shew its use and necessity) he is to
demonstrate that bare natural reason could not dis
cover life and immortality. Thus the very method of
his demonstration obliged him, in the former part, to
give to natural Religion an honour which, in the latter
part, he was forced to take away : and to reconcile
them with one another, was the purpose of the conci
liating words above yet life and immortality were not
FULLY and SATISFACTORILY brought to light by bare
natural reason : which indeed does the business; but
it is at the expence of the learned Apostle, who says
it was not brought to light at all, till the preaching of
the Gospel.
P. 191. [TT] To this it has been said, " that the
mystery of the Gospel here mentioned, is rather that
\vhith is meant by the word, ch. iii. ver. 3 9. namely,
the calling in of the Gentiles to be fellow-heirs with
the Jews." For a confutation of this absurd fancy,
rea( l The free and candid Examination of the Prin
ciples advanced by the Lord Bishop of London, chap. i.
p. 24. & seq. where the learned and most judicious
Author has sufficiently exploded it.
THE
DIVINE LEGATION OF MOSES
DEMONSTRATED.
BOOK VI.
SECT. I.
AFTER such convincing evidence that a FUTURE
STATE did not make part of the Religion of
MOSES, the reader would not have suspected, he must
once more be stopped to hear a long Answer to a set
of texts brought from the Old and New Testament to
prove, That the Doctrine of a future state of reward
and punishment DID make the most essential part of
the Mosaic Dispensation: and this, not by a few fan--
ciful Allegorists, or outrageous Bigots only, who will
say, or do any thing; biK by many sober men of all
Sects and Parties, of all Times, and of all Religions.
1. Several of the ancient CHRISTIAN Writers were
so persuaded of this point, that, not content to say,
the doctrine of.a Future state made part of the Mosaic
Dispensation, they would be confident that the very
Pagans learnt it all from thence. Some modern
Christifcns have not been behind them in their Faith,
but have far outstripped them in their Charity, while -
they treated the .denial of this extravagant Opinion as
VOL. V. U a new
*9<> THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
a new species of infidelity. It is true, they are all
extremely confused and obscure about the way, they
represent it to have been taught : And there have not
been wanting, at all times, men of greatest eminence
for parts and piety, who have not only doubted, but
plainly denied this Future state to be in the Mosaic
Religion ; though, to be just to all, with the same in
consistency and embarras that the others have main
tained it *. However, the more current doctrine hath
always been, That a future state of rewards and pu
nishments was taught by the Law of Moses.
As surprising as this may seem to those who have
weighed the foregoing Evidence, yet indeed no less
could be expected from such a number of concurrent
and oddly combined Prejudices, which have served,
till now, to discredit one of the clearest and most im
portant truths of Revelation.
1. The first was, that several Patriarchs and Pro
phets, both before and under the Mosaic Dispensation,
were certainly favoured with the revelation of man s
Redemption ; in which the doctrine of a Future state
is eminently contained : And they think it utterly in
credible tiiat These should not have conveyed it to
their People and Posterity.
2. They could not conceive how a Religion could
be worthy of GOD, which did not propose to its Fol
lowers a Future State of rewards and punishments;
but confined their views to the carnal things of this
life only.
3. The truth, here attempted to be established, had
been received and abused by the Enemies of all true
Religion and Godliness ; such as the Sadducees of the
old Jewish church, the Gnostics of the old Christian*
and Unbelievers in all Churches.
* See note [A] at the end of this volume.
4. Lastly,
Sect, i.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 291
4. Lastly, men were kept fast within the error into
which these prejudices had drawn them, by never
rightly distinguishing between a Future State of reward
and punishment, as taught by what men call natural
Religion, and a future state as taught by Christian
Revelation:, which is the CLEW, as we shall see here
after, to conduct us through all the errors and per
plexities of this region of darkness, till we come into
the full and glorious light of the Gospel.
But in Religious matters, combinations much less
strange are sufficient to defeat the credit of the plain
est Fact. A noted instance of what OBSTINACY alone
can do against the self-evidence of Truth, will abate
our wonder at the perversity in question ; at least it
may be put to use, in the history of the human mind,
towards which, will be found materials, neither vulgar
nor few, in the course of this Work. There is a sect,
and that no inconsiderable one, which, being essentially
founded in Enthusiasm, hath, amongst other of its
strange freaks, thrown out the institution of WATER-
BAPTISM from its scheme of Christianity. It is very
likely that the illiterate Founder, while rapt in his
fanatic visions, did not reflect that, of all the institu
tions of our holy Religion, this of water-baptism was
least proper to be called in question ; being most in
vincibly established by the practice both of PAUL and
PETER. This latter finding that the houshold of
Cornelius the GENTILE had received the Holy Ghost,
regarded it as a certain direction for him to admit
them into the Church of Christ, which he did by the
initiatory Rite of water-baptism. [Acts x. 47.] Paul,
in his travels through the Lesser Asia, finding some of
the JEWISH Converts who had never heard of the
Holy Ghost, and, on enquiry, understanding they had
been only baptised by water unto Johns Baptism,
u 2 thought
292 THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookVL
thought fit to baptise them with water in the name of
the Lord Jesus, that is, to admit them into the
Church ; and then toying his hands upon them, the
Holy Ghost came upon them,- and they spake with
tongues, and prophesied. [Acts xix. 4, 5, 6.]
In spite of these two memorable transactions, the
Quakers have notwithstanding rejected water-baptism.
What is the pretence ? " Water-baptism (it seems)
is John s baptism, and only a type of baptism by the.
Holy Ghost or by Fire ; so that when this last came
in use, the former ceased and was abolished." Yet in
the two histories given -above, both these fancies are
reproved ; and in such a manner as if the stories had
been recorded for no other purpose : For in the ad
venture of Paul, the water-baptism of Jesus is ex
pressly distinguished from the water-baptism of John:
And, in that of Peter, it appears, that water-baptism
was necessary for admittance into the church of
Christ, even after the ministration of baptism by jire v
or the communicated power of the Holy Ghost. It
is further observable, that these two Heads of the Mis
sion to the two great divisions of Mankind, the JEWS
and GENTILES, here acted in one another s province;
Peter the Apostle of the Jews administering baptism
to the Gentile houshold of Cornelius ; and Paul the
Apostle of the Gentiles administering the same rite to
the Jewish Converts. And why was this crossing of
hands, but to obviate that silly evasion, that water-
baptism was only partial or temporary ?
But what is reason, evidence, or truth, when op
posed to religious Prejudice ! The Quakers do not
hold it to be clearer, that repentance from dead works
is necessary for obtaining the spiritual benefits of the
Gospel-Covenant, than that WATER-BAPTISM is abo
lished,, and of no use to initiate into the Church of Christ.
II. But
Secti.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 293
II. But to proceed. The error in question is, as
\\G said, not confined to the Christian Church. The
Jews too maintain it with equal obstinacy, but not with
equal indiscretion ; the Children of this world arc, in
their generation, wiser than the Children of light * ;
their fatal adherence to their long abolished Rites
depending altogether upon this single prejudice, that
Moses taught a future state of rewards and punish
ments : for if he taught it not, the consequence is
inevitable, his Religion could only be preparatory to
one that did teach it. This therefore is their great
support; and wisely have they inforced it by all the
authority and power of the Synagogue f. But what
Christians gain by so doing, I confess I know not.
What they lose hath been seen in part, and will be
more fully shewn hereafter : not one demonstration
only, of the truth of the Mosaic Mission, but all true
conception of that divine harmony which inspires every
part, and runs through the whole of GOD S great Dis
pensation to Mankind.
III. The error is still more extensive; and hath
spread from true Religion to the false ; a litter soil for
its reception. For the MAHOMETANS, who hold the
divine original of the Jewish Law, are as obstinate as
the best, in giving it this mistaken advantage : but, it
must be owned, under a rnodester pretext. Their
expedient for saving the honour of the Law is this, :
They confess the Doctrine of a future state is not at
present to be found there: BUT THOUGH IT BE NOT
THERE, IT OUGHT TO BE ; for that the Jews, in pure
spite to them, have interpolated their Bible, arid taken
away all mention of it^.
Matters
* Luke xvi. 8, f See Vol. IV. Dedication to the Jews.
J Taourat.Les Musulmans disent, que c est Tancien Testa-
t, <jue Dieu reveU a Moyge ccrit eo langue Hebrai<jue, livre
V 3 qui
294 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
Matters being in this odd situation, the reader will
excuse me, if I turn a little to consider those texts of
Scripture which CHRISTIAN writers have produced to
prove, That a future state of rewards and punish
ments does indeed make part of the Mosaic Religion.
II.
But here let me observe, that the thing of most
consequence in this part of my discourse will be to
state the question clearly and plainly. When that is
done, every common reader will be able, without my
help, to remove the objections to my System ; or rather,
the question being thus truly stated, they will fall of
themselves.
I. My declared purpose, in this Work *, is to
demonstrate The Divine Legation o/ MOSES, in order
to use it for the foundation of a projected defence of
Revelation in general, as the Dispensation is com
pleted in Christianity. The medium I employ for this
purpose is, that there was no future state of reward
and punishment in the Mosaic Religion. I must needs
therefore go upon these two principles: i.That
Moses did not disbelieve a future state of reward and
punishment. 2. That his Religion was preparatory
to the Religion of JESUS which taught such future
state. Hence proceed these consequences :
i. From my holding that Moses did riot disbelieve a
future state, it follows, that all those texts of Scripture
which are brought to prove that the ancient Jews
believed
<jui a etc altere & corrumpu par les Juifs. C est la le sentiment
des Musulmans qui a etc recueilli de plusieurs auteurs Arabes par
Hagi Khalfah. Le meme auteiir dit que Ton n y trouve pas
aussi aucun endroit oil il soit parle de 1 autr.e vie, ni de la Resur
rection, ni du Paradis, ni de 1 Enfer, & que cela vient peut etre de
ce. que les Juifs out corrumpu leurs exemplairs. Voyez la Biblio-
theque Qrientale de JVJL Dllerbeiot, Mot. TAQUART.
* See Appendix to the iirst edition of the Alliance between
Church and State, Vol. VII. p. 297, of this Edit.
Sect, i.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 295
believed the soul survived the body, are nothing to the
purpose : but do, on the contrary, greatly confirm my
Thesis : for which reason I have myself shewn that the
early Jews did indeed suppose this truth.
2. From my holding that the Religion of Moses was
wily preparatory to the Religion <?/* JESUS, it follows,
that all such texts, as imply a Future state of rewards
and punishments in their TYPICAL signification only,
are just as little to the purpose. For if Moses s
Religion was preparatory to one Future, it is, as I
have shewn *, highly reasonable to suppose, that the
essential doctrine of that New Religion was shadowed
out under the Rites, or by the inspired Penmen, of the
Old. But such texts are not only inconclusive, but
highly corroborative of the opinion they are brought to
oppose. For if future rewards and punishments were
taught to the People under the Law, what occasion
was there for any typical representation of them,
which necessarily implies the throwing things into
shade, and secreting them from vulgar knowledge?
What ground was there for that distinction between a
carnal and a spiritual meaning (both of which it is
agreed the Mosaic Law had, in order to fit it tor the
use of two Dispensations) if it did not imply an igno
rance of the spiritual sense during the continuance of
the first ? Yet as clear as this is, the contrary is the
doctrine of my Adversaries ; who seem to think that
the spiritual and the carnal sense must needs always
go together, like the jewel and the foil in Aaron s
breast-plate.
Both these sorts of texts, therefore, conclude only
against SADDUCEES and INFIDELS. Yet hath this
matter been so little attended to, in the judgements
passed upon my argument, that both sorts have been
* See the last Section of this Book.
u 4 urged
29.6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
urged as confutations of it. I speak not here of the
dirty calumnies of one or two forgotten scribblers, but
of the -unequitable censures of some who better deserve
to be set right.
II. But farther, As -. my position .is, that a Future
state of reward and .punishment was not taught in the.
Mosaic Dispensation, all texts brought to prove the
knowledge of it after the time of David are as imper
tinent as the rest. For what was known from this
time, could not supply the want of what was unknown
for so many ages before. This therefore puts all the
prophetic Writings out of the question.
And now, when all these Texts are taken from my
Adversaries, what is there left, to keep up the quarrel?
Should I be so severe to insist on the common rights
of Authors, of not being obliged to answer to convict
impertinencies, this part of my task would be soon
over. But I shall, in charity, consider these Texts,
such as they are. However, that I may not appear
altogether so absurd as the Inforcers of them, I shall
give the reader my reasons for this condescension,
1. As tO the FUTURE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL,
we should distinguish between the mention of it by
Moses, and by the following Writers. These might,
and, as we have shewn, did conclude for its existence
from the nature of the tiling, But Moses, who, we
suppose, intentionally omitted the mention of Future
rewards and punishments, would not, we must needs
suppose likewise, proclaim the preparatory doctrine of
the Existence. Nor could he, on the other hand, deny
what he knew to be the truth. Thus, being necessitated
to speak of Enoch s Translation, it could not be, but
that a separate existence might be inferred, how ob
scurely soever the story was delivered. But had he
said any thing, in his account of the Creation, which
literally
Sect, i.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 297
literally implied (as the words, of man s being made
in the image of God, and the breath of life being
breathed into his nostrils, are supposed to do) that
man had an immortal soul, then must Moses be sup
posed, purposely, to have inculcated that Immortality;
contrary to what we hold, that he purposely omitted
the doctrine built upon it, namely, a future state of
reward and punishment. It will not be improper
therefore to shew that such texts have not this pre
tended meaning.
2. Concerning a FUTURE STATE OF REWARD AND
PUNISHMENT ; several texts are brought as teaching it
in a typical sense, which teach it in no sense at all :
several as teaching it in a direct and literal sense,
which only teach it in a typical. Both these, therefore,
it may be proper to set in a true light.
3. Lastly, concerning the texts from the later
Prophets, which are without the period in question ;
I own, and it is even incumbent on my Argument to
prove, that these Prophets opened the first dawning of
the doctrine of a Resurrection, and consequently of a
Future state of reward and punishment : even these
therefore shall in their proper place be carefully con
sidered. At present let me just observe, that the dark
veil under which \hejirst set of Prophets delivered
their typical representations was gradually drawn aside
by the later.
SECT. II.
HAVING premised thus much to clear the way,
and shorten the inquiry, I now proceed to my exami
nation.
And first, of the texts brought from the OLD
TESTAMENT,
Now
298 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
Now as the book of JOB * is supposed to teach both
a SEPARATE EXISTENCE and a FUTURE STATE OF
REWARD AND PUNISHMENT; and is besides thought
by some to be the first of Moses s writings ; and by
others to be written even before his time, and by the
Patriarch himself, I shall give it the precedence in
this inquiry : which it deserves likewise on another
account, the superior evidence it bears to the point in
question ; if indeed it bear any evidence at all. For
it; may be said by those who thus hold it to be the
earliest Scripture (allowing the words of Job, I know
that my Redeemer liveth, &c. to respect a future state)
that the Jewish people must not only have had the
knowledge of a FUTURE STATE of rewards and pu
nishment*, but, what is more, of the RESURRECTION
of the body., and still more, of the REDEMPTION of
mankind by the Son of God: therefore Moses had no
need to inculcate the doctrine of a future state f. But
I much suspect that the clear knowledge of so sublime
a mystery, which, St. Paul says, had been hid from
ages, and from generations, but was now (on the
preaching of the Gospel) made manifest to the Saints $ 9
was not at all suited to the times of Job or Moses;
The learned and impartial Divine will perhaps be
rather inclined to think, that either the book of Job
was written in a much later age, or that this famous
passage has a very different meaning. I shall endea
vour to shew, that neither of these suspicions would be
entertained without reason.
I.
First, then, concerning the book itself.
As to the Person of Job, the eminence of his
Character, his fortitude and patience in afflictions, and
* See note [B] at the end of this volume.
t See note [C] at the end of this volume* J Col. i. 26.
his
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 299
his preceding and subsequent felicity; these are
realities so unquestionable, that a man must have set
aside sacred Antiquity before he can admit a doubt
concerning them. But that the book which bears
Job s name was written by him, or in any age near his
own, a careful and capable examiner will, I persuade
myself, be hardly brought to believe. -In the order
of this discourse therefore I shall inquire,
I. What kind of composition the book of Job really is,
II. In what age it was written. And,
I 1 1. Who was its Author.
I.
Even those who are inclined to suppose this a Work
of the highest Antiquity, and to believe it an exact
history of Job s sufferings and patience, and of GOD S
extraordinary dispensations towards him, recorded by
his own hand, are yet forced to confess that the Intro
duction and Conclusion are of another nature, and
added by a later hand, to give that fulness and integrity
to the Piece, which works of imagination, and only
such works, require. This is a large concession, and
plainly intimates that he who wrote the Prologue and
Epilogue, either himself believed the body of the work
to be a kind of dramatic Composition ; or, at least,
intended that others should have that opinion of it.
I shall therefore the less scruple to espouse the notion
of those who conclude the WHOLE TO BE DRAMATICAL.
For the transferring the Prologue and Epilogue to a
late writer, was only an expedient to get rid of a cir
cumstance which shewed it to be such a sort of work";
and which consequently might bring it down to an age
remote from that of the subject. But those who con
trived this expedient seem to have had but a slender
idea of the ancient Drama, which was generally rounded
with a Prologue and Epilogue of this sort ; to give,
by
300 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
by way of narrative, information of such facts as
fell not within the compass of the one entire Action
represented *.
I am induced to embrace this opinion from the cast
of the STYLE, the SENTIMENTS, and COMPOSITION ;
all perfectly suited to such a kind of Work, and ill
agreeing with any other.
1. As to the Style, it hath been observed by the
Critics, even from the time of Jeroin, that all but the
introduction and conclusion is in measure. But as it
was the custom of antiquity to write their gravest
works of Religion, Law, and History, in verse ; this
circumstance alone should, I think, have little share in
determining the nature of the Composition. And as
little, I think, on the other hand, ought the frequent
use of the Arabic dialect to be insisted on, in support
of its high original, since, if it be of the nature, and of
the date, here supposed, an able writer would chuse to
give his Fable that air of antiquity and verisimilitude.
2. But when we take the sentiments along, and find
throughout the whole, not only verse but poetry, a
poetry animated by all the sublimity of figures and
luxuriance of description ; and this, on the coolest and
most abstracted subject ; we cannot chuse but conclude
it to be a work of imagination. Nor is it sufficient to
say, that this is owing to an Eastern genius, whose
kindling fancy heats all his thoughts into a glow of
expression : for if the two ends be his who wrote the
middle, as we have no reason to doubt, they shew him
not unused to the plainest form of narration. And as
to that Eastern genius itself, though distinguishingly
sublime when a poetic subject has enflarned its en
thusiasm, yet in mere history, nothing can be more
cool and simple ; as all acquainted either with their
* See note [D] at the end of this volume.
ancient
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 301
ancient or modern writers can inform us. But, what is
more to our purpose, the sacred Prophets themselves,
though rapt in ecstasy of the divine impressions,
when treating of the question here debated, namely,
Whether and wherefore the Good are frequently
unhappy and the Bad prosperous, a question that came
sometimes in their way, while they were reproving
their impious and impatient countrymen, who by their
repeated apostasies had now provoked GOD to with
draw from them, by degrees, his extraordinary pro
vidence ; when, I say, they touch upon this question,
they treat the matter with the utmost plainness and
simplicity.
3. But the last and most convincing circumstance
is \heform of the composition. And here I shall not
urge, as of much weight, what hath been observed by
some who take this side of the question, the scenicai
image of Job and his friends sitting together on the
ground seven days and seven nights without a word
speaking 1 *. Because we reasonably suppose no more
to be meant than that excess of mutual grief making
them unfit to give, and him to receive consolation, they
were some days f before they entered on the subject
of their visit.
This rather is the thing to be admired, (if we sup
pose it all historic truth) that three cordial friends
should make a solemn appointment to go mourn with
Job and to comfort him $ ; that they should be so
greatly affected with his extreme distresses, as to be
unable to utter a word for seven whole days together;
* Chap ii. ver. 13.
f Eo quod Hebraei soleant multiplicare per septcm J(h. e. sep-
tcnarium numerum pro nmltitudine potiere). Maimon. More
N#vochim. p. 267.
J Chap. ii. ver. 11.
and
302 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
and yet, after this, to be no sooner set in, than intirely
to forget their errand, and (miserable comforters as
they were) instead of mourning with him in the bit
terness of his soul, to wrangle, and contradict him in
every word he spoke ; and this without the least
softening of friendship ; but with all the fierceness
and acrimony of angry Disputants contending for a
victory. It was no trifle neither that they insisted
on, in which indeed disputatious men are often the
wannest, but a contradiction in the tenderest point.
They would needs have it, against all Job s protesta
tions to the contrary, that his misfortunes came upon
him in punishment for his crimes. Suppose their
Friend had been wrong in the judgment he passed
on things, Was this a time to animadvert in so pitiless
a manner on his errors ? Would not a small share of
affection, pity, or even common humanity, have dis
posed them to bear one seven days longer with their
old distressed Acquaintance ? Human nature is ever
uniform ; and the greater passions, such as those of
friendship and natural affection, shew themselves to be
the same at all times : But we have an instance in
these very times, in that amiable domestic story of
Joseph. This Patriarch had been cruelly injured by
his brethren. Providence at length put them into his
power ; and, in just resentment of their inhuman usage,
he thought fit to mortify and humble them : but no
sooner did he find them begin to be unhappy, than his
anger subsided, violated affection returned, and he
melted into their bosoms with all the tenderness of a
fellow -sufferer. This was Nature : This was History.
And shall we suppose the feelings of true Friendship
to be inferior to those of Family-affection? David
thought otherwise, where, speaking of Jonathan, he
declares their mutual love was wonderful, surpassing
1 2 that
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 303
(hat of the strongest natural affection, the passion be
tween the two sexes. The same have always been the
Friendships of good men, when founded on virtue,
and strengthened by a similitude of manners.
So that it appears, these three friends were of a
singular complexion ; and deservedly gave occasion to
a proverb which sets them in no very honourable or
advantageous light.
But suppose now the work to be dramatical, and
we immediately see the reason of their behaviour. For
had they not been indulged in their strange captious
humour, the Author could never have produced a
piece of that integrity of action, which a scenic repre
sentation demanded: and they might as well have
held their tongues seven days longer, as not contradict,
when they did begin to speak *.
This, as to what the Drama in general required.
But had this been all we could say for their conduct,
we should needs confess that the divine Writer had
here done, what mere mortal Poets so frequently do ;
that is, had transgressed nature (in such a representa
tion of friendship) for the sake of his Plot. But we
shall shew, when we come to examine the MORAL of
the poem, that nature is exactly followed : for that
under these three miserable Comforters^ how true
friends soever in the Fable, certain false friends were
intended to be shadowed out in the Moral )\
But now the dispute is begun and carried on with
great vehemence on both sides. They affirm, they
object, they answer, they reply ; till, having exhausted
their whole stock of arguments, and made the matter
more doubtful than they found it, the Author, in this
cmbarras, has recourse to the common expedient of
* See note [E] at the end of this volume.
f Set uote [F] at the end of this volume.
dramatic
304 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
dramatic writers, to draw him from his straits, *o?
d-no pvxaw;. And if ever that precept of the mas
ters of composition,
A r 6 c Deus intersit, nisi dignus Vindice nodus j
was well followed, it was here. For what can we con
ceive more worthy the presence of a GOD, than to
interfere with his Authority, to silence those frivolous
or impious disputes amongst men concerning the
MYSTERIOUS WAYS OF PROVIDENCE? And that
this interposition was nothing more, I think, is evident
from hence : The subject, as we observe, was of the
highest importance, namely, Whether , and why, good
men are unhappy, and the evil prosperous ? The dis
putants had much perplexed the question by various
answers and replies ; in which each side had appealed
to reason and experience; so that there wanted a
superior Wisdom to moderate and determine. But,
to the surprise of all who consider this attentively,
and consider it as a strict History, they find GOD in
troduced to do this in a speech which clears up no
difficulties ; but makes all hopes of deciding the ques
tion desperate, by an appeal to his Almighty power *.
A plain proof that the Interposition was no more
than a piece of poetical Machinery. And in that
case we see the reason why the knot remains untied :
for the sacred Writer was no wiser f when he spoke
poetically in the Person of God, than when he spoke
in the person of Job or his friends.
On these accounts, and on many more, which will
be touched upon in the course of this dissertation, but
are here omitted to avoid repetition, I conclude, that
those Critics who suppose the book of Job to be of
the dramatic kind, do not judge amiss.
* See note [G] at the end of this volume,
f See note [H] at the end of this volume.
Nor
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 305
Nor does such idea of this truly divine Composi
tion at all detract from the proofs we have of the real
existence of this holy Patriarch, or of the truth of his
exemplary Story. On the contrary, it much confirms
them: seeing it was the general practice of dramatic
Writers, of the serious kind, to chuse an illustrious
Character or celebrated Adventure for the subject of
the Piece, in order to give their poem its due dignity
and weight. And yet, which is very surprising, the
Writers on both sides, as well those who suppose the
Book of Job to be dramatical, as those who hold it to
be historical, have fallen into this paralogism, That, if
dramatical, then the Person and History of Job are
fictitious. Which nothing but inattention to the na
ture of a dramatic Work, and to the practice of dra
matic Writers, could have occasioned. Lactantius
had a much better idea of this species of composition:
<c Totum autem, quod referas, fingere, id est, ineptutn
" esse, et Mendacem potius quam Poetam."
But this fallacy is not of late standing. Maimo-
nides, where he speaks of those whose opinion he
seems to incline to, that say the book of Job is para
bolical, expresses himself in this manner *. You know
tit ere are certain men who say, that such a man as
JOB never existed. And that his HISTORY is nothing
else but a parable. These certain men were (we
know) the Talmudists. Now, as, by his History, he
means this book of Job, it is evident he supposed the
fabulosity of the book concluded against the existence
of the Patriarch. Nay, so insensibly does this inve
terate fallacy insinuate itself into our reasonings 017
this subject, that even GROTIUS himself appears not
to be quite free from the entanglement. Who, al-
* Noyti qitosdfim essc, qui dicunt Jobum nunqitam fuissc, nrque
Qrealum esse ; sed HibTQKi AM illius niltil aliud cssc qua in Parabolan].
VOL. V, X though
306 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI,
though he saw these two things (a real Job and a
dramatic representation of him) so reconcilable, that
he supposed both ; yet will not allow the book of Job
to be later than Ezekicl, because that Prophet men
tions Job *. Which argument, to have any strength,
Oiust suppose Job to be unknown until this Book was
written ; consequently that his Person was fictitious ;
contrary to his own supposition, that there was a real
Job living in the time of Moses f. After this, it is no,
wonder, that the Author of the Archceologue Philoso-
phiccfy whose talent was not critical acumen, should
have reasoned so grossly on the same iallacious prin
ciple J. These learned men, we see, would infer ^
visionary Job from a visionary History. Nor is ths
mistake of another celebrated Writer less gross, who
would, on the contrary, infer a real history from a real
Job. Ezekiel find St. James (says Dr. Middleton, in
his Essay on the Creation and Fall of Alan) refer t<*
the BOOK OF JOB in the same manner as if it were a
real history. Whereas the truth is, they do not refer
to the BOOK OF JOB at all.
II. The second question to be considered, is in
what Age this book was composed.
i. First then we say in general, that it was written,
some time under the Mosaic Dispensation. But to
this it is objected, that, if it were composed in those
Times, it is very strange that not a single word of the
Mosaic Law, nor any distant allusion to the Rites or
Ceremonies of it, nor any historical circumstance un
der it, nor any species of idolatry in use during its
period, should be found in it .
* Chap. xiv. ver. 14: f Vid. Grotii Praef. in Libruiu Job.
% See note [I] at the end of this volume*
Jobus Arabs croAi/jtAstTo? xj <nteXv0}j?, in cujus historic multa
occurrunt antiqnae supientiae vestigia, aritiquior habetur Mose,
Idque multis pa-tet indiciis : Primo, quod nullibi meminerit reruiii
3 a Mcse
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 307
I apprehend the objection rests on one or other of
these suppositions, Either that the book is not a Work
of the dramatic kind ; or that the. Hero of the Piece
is fictitious. But both these suppositions have been
shewn to be erroneous ; so that the objection falls
with them. For to observe DECORUM is one of the
most essential rules of dramatic writing. He there
fore who takes a real Personage for the subject of his
poem will be obliged to shew him in the customs and
sentiments of his proper Age and Country ; unmixed
with the manners of the Writer s later Time and Place.
Nature and the reason of the thing so evidently de
mand this conduct, and the neglect of it has so un
gracious an effect, that the polite Roman Historian
thought the Greek tragic Writers were to blame even
for mentioning the more modern name of Thessaly,
in their pieces of the Trojan War. And he gives this
good reason for his censure, Nlhll enmi ex Per song,
pQeta,sedomniasub eoru/n, qul illo tempore vijcerunl,
dlrcrunt *.
But to lay no greater stress on this argument than
k will bear ; I confess ingenuously, that were there
not (as the objection supposes) the least distant rela
tion or allusion to the Jewish Law or History through
out the whole book, it might reasonably create some
suspicion that the Author lived before those times. 1 or
though
o
4. Muse gefiluruiu, hive in /Egypto, sive in exitu, sive in deserto. -
Secuiulo, quod, cum vir plus & veri numinis cultor fuerit, legi
Mosaics contraiverit, in sucriSciis fajciendis.Tfirtio, ex ictatis
& vit& sux mcrjsura, in tertio, plus minus, a. Diiuvio sa-culr?
collocandus esse yidetur: vixit enim ultra ducentos annos. Cum
dc Idololatria loquitur, mcmornt. priinum ipsius genus Sulis <5c
Luna* adorationem. Notjne ^abb.ithi neijue ullins Ifsiis tactu ^
^neniinit. His omnibus atlducor ut credani. Mosi Jobun)
Mnteisse. Archaeol. i bilos. pp. 265, 266.
* See note [K] at the end of this volume.
X 2
So8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
though this rule of decorum be so essential to dramatic
writing, yet, as the greatest Masters in that art fre
quently betrayed their own Times and Country in
their fictitious Works *, we can hardly suppose a Jew
ish Writer more exact in what only concerned the criti
cal perfection of his Piece. But as DECORUM is one
of the plainest and simplest principles of Composi
tion, we cannot suppose a good writer ignorant of it ;
and so are not to look for such glaring absurdities as
are to be found in the dramatic writings of late bar
barous ages ; but such only as might easily escape the
most exact and best instructed Writer.
Some slight indecorums therefore we may reason-*
ably expect to find, if the Author were indeed a Jew ;
and such, if I am not much mistaken, we shall find,
Job, speaking of the wicked man, says, He that
speaketh flattery to his friends, even the eyes of his
children shall fail \ GOD layeth up iniquity for his
children . And in the course of the dispute, and in
the heat of altercation, this peculiar dispensation is
touched upon yet more precisely. Job, in support of
his doctrine, paints at large the happy condition of
prosperous wicked men ; a principal circumstance
of whose felicity is, that they spend their days in
^wealth, and in a moment go dowx to the grave , i.e.
without sickness, or the terrors Vf slow^approaching
death. The lot which prosperous libertines of all
times, who believe no future reckoning, most ardently
wish for. Now in the declining times of the Jewish
Economy, pious men had always their answer ready*
The prosperous wicked man (say they) shall be put
* Sec note [L] at the end of this volume.
f Chap. xvii. ver. 5.
J Chap.xxi. ver. 19. See note [M] at the end of this volume^
. Chap. xxi. ver. 13.
pished
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 309
nished in his Posterity, and the afflicted good man
rewarded in them. To the first part of the solution
concerning the wicked, Job answers thus, God layeth
tip his iniquity for his children ; he rewardeth him,
find he shall know it *. As much as to say, the evil
man sees and knows nothing of the punishment ; in
the mean time, he feels and enjoys his own felicity, as
a reward. To the second part, concerning the good,
he answers thus, His eyes shall see his destruction,
and he shall drink of the wrath of the Almighty : For
what pleasure hath lie in his house after him, when
the number of his months is cut off in the midst ? f
i. e. The virtuous man sees and feels nothing but his
own miseries ; for what pleasure can the good things
reserved for his posterity afford to him who is to taste
and enjoy none of it ; being not only extinct long be
fore, but cut off untimely ?
In another place, Job says, That idolatry was an
iniquity to be punished by the judge . Now both
this and the former species of punishment were, as we
have shewn, peculiar to the Mosaic Dispensation. IJut
a Jew might naturally mistake them for a part of the
general Law of God and nature : and so, while he
was really describing the Economy under which he
lived, suppose himself to l>e representing the notions
of more ancient times : which that it was his design
to do, in the last instance at least, appears from his
mentioning only the most early species of idolatry, the
worship of the Sun and Moon . Again, the language
of Job with regard to a future state is the very same
with the Jewish Writers. He that goeth down to the
grave (says this writer) shall come up no more : they
* Chap. xxi. ver. 19. f Ver. 20, 21.
i Chap, xxxi. ver. 28. See note [N] at the end of this velume.
* Yeiu 2<>.
x 3 shall
3io THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
shall not azcalce or be raised out of their sleep. Thus
the Psalmist, In death there is no remembrance of
tkee. Sfiall the dead ARISE and praise thee ! And
thus the author of Ecelesiastes, I7*e dead know not
any thing, neither have they any more a REWARD *.
And we know what it was that hindered the Jews
from entertaining an)/ expectations of a future state of
rewards and punishments, which was a popular doc
trine amongst all their Pagan neighbours.
But there is, besides this of Customs and Opinions,
another circumstance that will always betray a feigned
Composition, made in an age remote from the sub*
ject : and that is, the use of later phrases. These are
more easily discovered in the modern, and even in
what we call the learned languages : but less certainly,
in the very ancient ones; especially in the Hebrew,
of which there is only one, and that no very large
Volume, remaining. And yet even here, we may de
tect an author of a later age. For, besides the phrases
of common growth, there are others, in every lan
guage, interwoven alike into the current style, which
owe their rise to some singular circumstance of time
and place ; and so may be easily traced up to their
original : though, being long used in common speech
in a general acceptation, they may well escape even
an attentive Writer. Thus Zophar, speaking of the
wicked man, says, He shall not see the rivers, the
floods, the BROOKS OF HONET AND BUTTER^. This
in ordinary speech only conveyed the idea of plenty
in the abstract ; but seems to have been first made a
proverbial saying from the descriptions of the holy
Land J. Again, Eliphaz says, Receive, I pray thee,
THE LAW FROM HIS MOUTH, and lay up his words in
* Se the preceding Book, p. 178. f Chap. xx. ver. 17.
"J See Exod. iii. 8. xiii, 5. xxxii, 3. Deut. xxxi.
20.
*?. Kings xviii.
Sect*.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 311
thine heart*. That is, be obedient: but the phrase
was taken from the verbal delivery of the Jewish Law
from Mount Sinai. The Uabbins were so sensible of
the expressive peculiarity of this phrase, that they say
the LAW OF MOSES is here spoken of by a kind of
prophetic anticipation. Again, Job cries out, O that
1 iccre #6 I was in the days of my youth, when the
SECRET OF GOD WAS t POX MY TABERNACLED, that
is, in full security: Evidently taken from the residence
of the Divine Presence or SHEKINAH, in a visible
form, on the ark, or on the tent where the ark was
placed. And again -O that one would hear me!
Behold my desire in that the Almighty would answer
me, and that mine Adversary had written a book.
-Surely I would take it upon tny shoulder and bind it as .
>a CKOWX to me$. A phrase apparently taken from
the use of their PHYLACTERIES; which at least were
as ancient as their return from Captivity, and coeval
with their scrupulous adherence to the Law.
A third circumstance, which will betray one of
these feigned compositions, is the Author s Ix-ing
drawn, by the vigour of his imagination, from the seat
Df Action aful from tlie manners of the Scene, to one
very different; especially, if it be one of great llune
and celebrity. So here, though the scene be the de
serts of Arabia, amongst family-heads of independent
Tribes, and in the simplicity of primitive Manners,
yet we are carried by a poetic fancy, into the midst of
EGYPT, the best jyolicied, and the most magnificent
Empire then existing in the world. Jphij died / not
from the r*\v;// (says the chief Speaker) for IUKC f
should haw lien still and been quiet, I xhould h
slept; then had I been at rent , with KINGS and
* Chap. xxii. ver. 2-2. f Chap. xxix. ver. 4.
J Chap. xxxi. ver. 35, 36.
X 4 COUNSELLOR*
312 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
COUNSELLORS OF THE EARTH, which build DESO
LATE PLACES for t&emaefaes*-$ i.e. magnificent
buildings, in desolate places, meaning plainly the
PYRAMIDS raised in the midst of barren sands, for the
burying places of the kings of Kgypt Kings and
counsellors of the earth was, by way of eminence, the
designation of the Egyptian Governors. So Isaiah
the counsel of the wise counsellors of Pharaoh is
become brutish. How say ye unto Pharaoh, I am the
son of the wise, the son of ancient kings 1f. But it
may be observed in general, that though the Scene
confined the Author to scattered Tribes in the midst
of Deserts, yet his images and his ideas are, by an in
sensible allure, taken throughout, from crowded Cities
and a civil policied People. Thus he speaks of the
Children of the wicked being crushed in the gat e ^
alluding to a City taken by storm, and to the destruc
tion of the flying inhabitants pressing one another to
death in the narrow passage of the City-gates. Again,
of the good man it is said, that he shall be hid from the
scourge of tongues ; that pestilent mischief which
rages chiefly in rich and licentious Communities. But
there would be no end of giving instances of this kind,
where they are so numerous.
Hitherto the Author seems unwarily to have be
trayed his Times and Country. But we shall now
see that he has made numerous allusions to the mira
culous History of his Ancestors with serious purpose
and design. For this poem being written, as will
appear, for the comfort and solace of his Countrymen,
he reasonably supposed it would advance his principal
* Chap. iii. ver. 12, 13, 14. f Isaiah xix. 11.
J Chap. v. ver. 4. The Septuagint renders it very expressively
See note [O] at the end of this volume.
end,
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 313
end, to refresh their memories with some of the more
signal deliverances of their Forefathers. In the mean
time, decorum, of which we find him a careful observer,
required him to preserve the image of very different
and distant times. s This was a difficulty : and would
have been so to the ablest Writer. Both these were
matters of importance ; and neither one nor the other
could be omitted, without neglecting his Purpose, or
deforming his Composition. How then can we con
ceive a skilful Artist would act, if not in this manner ;
he would touch those stories, but with so slight an
outline and such airy colouring, as to make them pass
unheeded by a careless observer; yet be visible enough
to those who studied the Work with care and atten
tion. Now this artful temper our divine Writer, we
say, hath observed. The conduct was fine and noble:
and the cloud in which he was forced to wrap his
studied allusions, will be so far from bringing them
into question, that it will confirm their meaning ; as it
now appears, that if an able Writer would, in such a
work, make allusions to his own Times, Religion, and
People, it must be done in this covert manner. Thus
Job, speaking of the Omnipotence of GOD, which
comrnanckth the sun, and it riseth not, and sealeth up
the stars*, plainly enough alludes to the miraculous
history of the people of GOD, in the Egyptian Dark
ness, and the stopping of the Sun s course by Joshua.
This appeared so evident to a very learned Commen
tator, though in the other opinion of the book s being
of Job s own writing, that he was forced to suppose
that his Author spoke proleptically, as knowing by the
gift of Prophesy, what GOD in a future age would do f.
So
* Chap. ix. ver. 7.
t Hoc videtur respicere historian! Josuce vel Ezechise, quan-
quam ante ilia Job extiterit. Sedhirc potucrunt pcraiiticipationem.
dici.
314 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book Vi
So where Job says, God dirideth the sea with his
power, and by his understanding he smiteth through
the proud*, he evidently refers to the destruction of
Pharaoh and his host in the Red-sea. Again, in thfe
following words, He taketh away the heart of the
thief of the people of the earth, and causet h them to
wander in a wilderness where there is no way f, who
can doubt but that they allude to the wandering of
the Israelites forty years in the wilderness, as a punish
ment for their cowardice, and diffidence in GOD S
promises ; Eliphaz, speaking of the wonderful works
of GOB, declares how he came to the knowledge of
them, 1 will shew thee ; hear me ; and what I have
seen I will declare ; which wise men have told from
their fathers, and have not hid it J : the very way in
which Moses directs the Israelites to preserve the
memory of the miraculous works of GOD. And who
are these wise men? They ;)re so particularly marked
out as not to be mistaken : Unto whom alone the
earth was given, and NO STRANGER PASSED AMONGST
THEM . A circumstance agreeing to no People
whatsoever but to the Israelites settled in Canaan.
The same Eliphaz, telling Job to his face, that hifc
misfortunes came in punishment for his Crimes, says ;
Thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for naught,
and stripped the naked of his cloathing ||> And Job,
speaking of the most profligate of men, describes them,
amongst other marks of their iniquity, by this, that
they caused the naked to lodge without cloathing, that
they have no covering in the cold^; that they take a
pledge of the poor, and cause him to go naked without
cloathing.
dici, quod Jobum non lateret penes Deum esse id effieere quando-
*unque luberet. Codurcus in locum.
* Chap. xxvi. ver. 12. t Chap. xii. ver. 24.
;* Chap. xv. ver. 17, 18. Ver. 19.
f Chap. xxii. ver. 6. f Chap. xxiv. ver. 7.
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 31,5
cloathing *. Who that sees this ranked amongst the
greatest enormities, but will reflect that it must have
been written by one well studied in the LAW OF
MOSES, which says, Jfthou at all take thy neig hour s
raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by
that the sun goeth down ; for that is his cohering only,
it is his raiment for his skin : Wherein shall he sleep 9
And it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that
I will hear, for I am gracious. Which Law, as the
learned Spencer observes, was peculiar to this institu
tion f. Elihu, speaking of GOD S dealing with his
servants, says, " That he may withdraw man from
" his piwpose, and hide pride from man ; he keepeth
" back his souljrom the pit, and his life from perishing
" by the sword. He is chastened also with pain upon
" his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong
" pain. His soul draweth nigh unto the grave, and
" his life to the destroyers. If there be a messenger
" with him, an interpreter, one amongst a thousand
" to shew unto man his uprightness, then he is gracious
" unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down
" to the pit, I have found a ransom. His flesh shall
" be fresher than a child" s, he shall return to the days
" of his youth. He shall pray unto God, and he will
" be favourable unto turn, and he shall see his face
" with joy ; for he will render unto man his righteous-
" ness;];." This is the most circumstantial account of
GOD S dealing with HKZEKTAI-I, as it is told in the
books of Chronicles and Kings. GOD had delivered
him from perishing by the sword of Sennacherib:
* Ver. 9, 10. Exod. xxii. 26, 27. See also Deut. xxiv. 12, & 17.
t Leges ilia? in Dei tantum Pandectis invcnicndzcsunt, nempe,
de vestibus piguori datis, quibus de pecunia concredita cavebunt
^debitores, ante soils occasum, restituenUis. De Leg. Ilebr. Hit.
vol. i. p. 263.
^ Chap, xxx iii. ver. 17, & bcq.
" In
3i6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
^ In those days Hezekiah was sick to death, and
" prayed unto the LORD : and he spake unto him,
" and he gave him a sign. But Hezekiah rendered
* not again, according to the benefit done unto him,
" for his heart was lifted up *." But the story is told
more at large in the book of Kings: " In those days
" was Hezekiah sick unto death : and the Prophet
c Isaiah, the son of Amos, came to him, and said unto
" him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order,
" for thou shalt die and not live. Then he turned
" his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord.
" And it came to pass afore Isaiah was gone out into
" the middle court, that the word of the LORD came
" unto him, saying, Turn again, and tell Hezekiah,
: Thus saith the LORD, I have heard thy prayer,
" I have seen thy tears : Behold I will heal thee ; on
" the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the
" Lord. And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs ; and
" they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered] "
The following words as plainly refer to the destruc
tion of the first-born in Egypt, and Sennacherib s
army ravaging Judea : In a moment shall they die,
and the people shall be troubled at midnight and pass
azvay, and the mighty shall be taken away without
hand$. These likewise clearly allude to the Egyptian
Darkness, ^/r0;74 the wicked their light is with-
holden ,
No one, I think, can doubt but that the following
description of God s dealing with Monarchs and
Rulers of the world, is a transcript of, or allusion to,
a passage in the second book of Chronicles. Elihu
(who is made to pass judgment on the dispute) says,
He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous-:
* 2 Chron. xxxii. 24, 25. f 2 Kings xx. i, & eeq.
; Job xxxiv. ver. 20. <, Chap. *xxviii. ver. 15.
but,
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 317
but, with kings are they on the throne, yea he doth
establish them for ever and they are exalted. [This
seems plainly to refer to the house of David, as we
shall see presently.] lie proceeds ; And if they be
bound in fetters, and be holden in cords of affliction :
then he shcweth their work, and their transgressio7is
that they have exceeded. He openeth also their ear to
discipline, and cormnandeth that they return from
iniquity. If they obey and serve him, they shall
spend their days in prosperity and their years in
pleasure ; but if they obey not, they shall perish by the
itword, &c. * Now hear the sacred Historian : " God
" had said to David and to Solomon his son, In this
" house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before
ft all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for
" ever. Neither will I any more remove the foot of
" Israel from out of the land which I have appointed
* for your fathers, so that they will take heed to do
P all that I have commanded them. So Manasseh
" made Judah and the Inhabitants of Jerusalem to
" err. And the Lord spake to Manasseh, and to his
" people : but they would not hearken. Wherefore
44 the Lord brought upon them the captains of the
14 host of the king of Assyria, which took Manasseh
" amongst the thorns, and bound him with fet-
" ters, and carried him to Babylon. And when he
" was in affliction, he besought the Lord his God, and
" humbled himself greatly before the God of his
" Fathers, and prayed unto him, and he was entreated
* of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him
" again to Jerusalem into his Kingdom. Then Ma-
" nasseh knew that the Lord he was God |."
But the most extraordinary allusion of all to the
Jewish Economy, and the most incontestable, is in the
* Chap, xxxvi. ver. 7 12. t 2 Chron. xxxiii. ver. 7 13.
following
3i8 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
following words, where speaking of the clouds of rain y
our translation has it, He causeth it to come, whether
for correction, or FOR HIS LAND, or for mercy *,
The Septuagint understood the sacred text in the
same manner : T#yra a-vvrtTUxloM txot, aura ITT* T"/J?
lav T ftff TZ&tizv, ov sg r^v r t v aur av
oZvrn. The meaning of which is, he bringeth
it at such junctures, and in such excess, as to cause
dearth, [for correction ;] or so timely and moderately,
as to cause plenty, [for mercy ;] or lastly, so tem
pered, in a long continued course, as to produce that
fertility of soil which was to make one of the blessings
of the promised land, [FOR ins LAND :] a providence
as distinct from the other two, of correction and mercy %
as the genus is from the species. This is a sufficient
answer to the learned Father Houbigant s criticism on
this verse, who corrects the common reading of the
Hebrew text, and thinks the words, or for the land,
to be a marginal illustration crept into the text. St.
Jerom, and the vulgar Latin, instead of, whether for
CORRECTION, or for his land, translate, sive in UNA
TRIBU, sive in terra sua. If this be the true rendering
of the Hebrew, then it plainly appears that the writer
of the book of Job alluded to the words of his con"
temporary prophet, AMOS ; " And also I have
" withholden the rain from you, when there were yet
" three months to the harvest ; and I caused it to rain
* c upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon
tl another city : one piece was rained upon, and the
" piece whereupon it rained not, withered." Without
controversy, however, the Writer speaks of a SPECIAL
PROVIDENCE upon God s own Land, the land of
Judea ; which plainly shews that the peculiarity of the
Jewish Economy was still uppermost in his thoughts,
* Chap, xxxvii, 13.
In
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 31 g
In a word, this Economy is described by MOSES * as
altogether different from that of other people. JOB S
account of God s economy exactly quadrates with it.
What are we then to think, but that there is a continued
allusion to the LAW ? in many places indeed so general,
as not to be discovered without the assistance of those
which are more particular. Besides, (which is tha
last observation I shall make on this point) in the ma
nagement of tiiese Allusions, we see, the Author has
observed a strict decorum : and, to take off any
offensive glare, has thrown over them a sober image
of ancient manners. So that here we have the plain
marks of former times intermixed with circum
stances peculiar to the latter. What are we therefore
to conclude, but that the Work is a species of
dramatic writing, composed long after the age of the
subject ?
On the whole then it appears that this Objection of
no allusions, which, if well grounded, had made nothing
against the low date of a poetic Composition, is not
indeed supported by fact : and this will be seen yet
more fully hereafter.
But had the Objection any real foundation, They
who make it, had been still much puzzled to account
for the Author s silence concerning the six days
Creation, and the institution of the Sabbath ; as it
must reduce them to the necessity of supposing that
these things were unknown to JOB. And consequently,
that the Sabbath was not a moral, but a positive Law
only of the Jews ; though Moses, to impress the
greater reverence upon it, seems to make it coeval with
the Creation. How tl-ey will get over this difficulty
I know not. On the other hand, They who, with the
low date oi" this book of Job, hold the Sabbath to be a.
positive Law, will iind no difficulty at all. For, as
* Peut, iv. 39. thej
320 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
they would have put the mention of it, had it been
mentioned, on the same footing with that of other
things under the Mosaic Economy ; so, the silence
they will easily account for, on the received opinion
of that time, that the Sabbath was a positive Law,
instituted to separate and distinguish the Israelites
from all others ; and that therefore the mention of a
thing so well known to be a Rite peculiarly Jewish,
would have had an ill effect, in the mouths of men
who lived before the Mosaic Law was given.
After such clear evidence that the book of Job was
written under the Law, we have little need of Grotius s
argument, for the support of this point, from the book s
containing many passages similar to what we find in
the Psalms. And it is well we have not, because I
think his argument very equivocal. For if the sacred
writers must needs have borrowed trite moral sentences
from one another : it may be as fairly said, that the
authors of the Psalms borrowed from the book of
Job ; as that the author of Job borrowed from the
book of Psalms. But Mr. Le Clerc would mend this
argument, by refining upon it, a way that seldom
mends any thing. He says, one may know an original
from a Copy, by the latter s having less nature and
force; and he thinks he sees this in the book of Job*."
Now
* Grotius croit avec beaucoup plus de vrai-semblance, que
cet auteur est posterieur a David & a Salomon, dont il semble
qu il ait imite divers endroits, & remarque fort judicieusement,
qu il y a dans ce livre des manieres de parler, qu on ne trouve que
dans Esdras, duns Daniel, & dans les Paraphrases Caldai ques.
Codurc, dans son Commeritaire sur Job, a aussi remarque plusieurj
Caldaismes dans ce livre, & quelques personncs savantes soutien-
uent, que les Arabismes qu on y croit avoir remarque ne sont que
des manieres de parler Caldeenes. On y trouve des imitations de
divers endroits des Pseaumes. Mais vous me demanderez peut-
tre, comment on peut -savoir, que c eet 1 auteur du livre de Job
tyui a imite ces Pseaumes, & non pa,s les auteurs de ces Pseaumes
qui
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 321
Now admitting the truth of the observation, it would
be so far from supporting, that it would overturn his
conclusion. Mr. Le Clerc seems to have been misled
into this criticism by what lie had observed of writers
of less polished ages borrowing from those of more.
In this case, the copy will be always much inferior to
the original. But the effect would have been just the
contrary in a writer of the time of David borrowing
from one of the time of Moses. And as the common,
opinion places the two books in those two different
periods, they are to be supposed rightly placed, till
the contrary be shewn. This observation we see veri
fied in the Greek authors of the Socratic age, and in
the Roman authors of the Augustan, when they bor
rowed from their very early country writers. But the
matter of fact is, I think, just otherwise. The advan
tage of the sublime in the parallel passages seems to
lie on the side of Job. And from hence we may draw
Mr. Le Clerc s conclusion with much greater force.
But indeed, take it either way, the argument, as I said, .
is of little weight. But it is pleasant to hear Schultens,
and his epitomiser Dr. Grey, speak of the grandeur,
the purity, and sublimity of the language spoken in
the time of Job, as if the Hebrew had partaken of the
nature and fortunes of the two languages made perfect
by a long study of eloquence, in the Socratic and Au
gustan ages ; and as if it was equally impossible for a
Hebrew after the captivity (though inspired into the
bargain) to imitate these excellencies of style, as for
a writer of the iron age of Latin to have expressed the
beauty
qui out imile le livre de Job ? II est aise de vous satisfaire. On
conuoit, qu un auteur en imite un autre, a ceci, c est que 1 imitation
n est pas si belle que 1 original, qui exprime ordinairement les
choses d une maniere plus nette & plus naturelle que la copie.
Sentimens de quelques Theol. de Hoi. p. 183.
VOL. V. Y
322 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
beauty and weight of Ennius s elegance. We know
what Enthusiasm can do on every object to which it
turns itself. There have been Critics of this sort, who
have found, even in the Hebrew of the Rabbins, graces
and sublimities of style to match those in the best
Greek and Roman historians ; though, in reality, the
graces \ boasts partake much of those we see m the;
Law- French of our English-Reporters. The truth is,?
the language of the times of Job had its grandeur, its/
purity, and sublimities : but they were of that kind
which the learned Missionaries have observed in the
languages of certain Warrior-tribes kr North America.:
And this language of the time of Job preserved its-
genius to late agcsy by the assistance of that uniformity*
of Character which makes the more sequestered inha
bitants of the East so tenacious of all their ancient
modes and customs,
2. We now come closer to the question ; and having
proved the book of Job to be written under the Mo
saic Economy, we say further, that it must be some*
where between I lie time of their approaching captivitii,
and their thorough re-establishment in Judea. This
is the widest interval we can afford it The reason
seems to be decisive. It is this, That no other possi-
ble period can be assigned, in which, the GRAXD
Qur:.vrio\ r , debated in this book, could ever come into
dispute. This deserves fe) be considered.
The question *, a very foreign one to us, and- there
fore no wonder it should have been so little attended
to, is, Whether God administer his government over
men here with an equal providence, so as that the good,
are akcaip prosperous, and the bad unliappy ; or whe
ther, on the contrary, there be not such apparent
inequalities, as that prosperity and adversity often*.
* See note [P] at the end of Uiis volume.
hopper*
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 323
happen indifferently to good and bad. Job maintains
the latter part*, and his three friends the former.
They argue these points throughout the whole book,
and each party sticks firm to his first opinion.
Now this could never have been made matter of
dispute, from the most early supposed time of Job s
existence f , even to ours, in any place out of the land
of Judea ; the administration of Providence, which,
throughout that large period, all People and Nations
have experienced, being visibly and confessedly une-
equal. Men, indeed, at all times, have been indis
creetly prone to enquire how this inequality could be
made consistent with GOD S justice or goodness : But,
amidst the great variety of human opinions, as extra
vagant as many of those are which philosophic men
have some time or other maintained, we do not find
any of them ever held or conceived that God s provi
dence yeas equally administered. This therefore, as
we say, could be no question any where out of the
land of Judea. But we say farther,
Nor in that land neither, in any period of the Jewish
nation either before or after the time wherein we place
it. ^G\," before, because the dispensation of Provi
dence to that people was seen and owned by all, to
be equal : Not after, because by the total ceasing of
God s extraordinary administration, the contrary was
as evident.
Of this period, then, there are three portions; i . The
time immediately preceding the Captivity ; 2. The
duration of it ; and 3. The return from it.
To the opinions which place it in either of the two
first portions, as supposing it to be written for the
consolation of the people going into or remaining in
* See note [Q] at the end of this volume.
t See note [RJ at the end of this volume.
v 2 captivity,
3?4 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book Yf
eaptivity r a celebrated Writer has opposed an unan-*
sweraWe objection : " The Jews (says he) undoubted!);
"" suffered for their iniquity ; and the example of Job
" is the example of an- innocent man suffering for no*
" demerit of his own : Apply this to the Jews in
* their captivity, and the book contradicts all the-
" Prophets before, and at the time of, their captivity^
"" and is calculated to harden the Jews in their suffer- 1
" ings, and to reproach the Providence of GOD *."
There remains only the third portion ; that is to
sa V? the time of their return, and settlement in their
own land. And this stsands clear of the above objec
tion. For the Jews came from the Captivity with
hearts- full of zeal for the Law, and abhorrence of their,
former idolatries This is the account. Ezra- and Ne-
hemiah (* give of them :. And with -these dispositions-,
Jeremiah- foretold, their restoration should be attended,
I will bring Israel again to his habitation, and he.
xkall feed on Carmtl ami Bashan, and his soul shall be
satisfied upon mount Ephraim and Gilead. In those
days, and in that time, saith the Lord,, the iniquity of
Israel shall be sought jar, and there shall be none ;
and the s ms qfJudah, and they shall not be found \.
?,. We say tlten (to come home to the question*}
that the BOOK OF JO-B was written some time between
the return, and the thorough settlement of the Jews
in their own country.
Having suited the Time to the People, let us try if
we can suit the People to the Subject ; and see whe
ther this, which was foreign and unnatural to every
other period-, was proper and seasonable to this here
assigned.
* See note [Si at the end of this volume,
f Ezra, chapters iii. & vi. Nehemiah, chapters -iii . viH. & ix.
I Chap. 1. ver. 19.,. 20.
The
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 325
The Jews had hitherto, from their entrance into the
Jancl of Canaan to their last race of kings, lived under
an extraordinary, and, for the most part, equal Pro
vidence. For these two states must be distinguished,
and indeed are distinguished not only throughout this
discourse, but throughout the whole Scripture history,
although the terms, in both, be sometimes used indif
ferently to signify either one state or the other, where
the nature of the subject leads directly to tlic sense in
which they -are employed. As their sins grew ripe,
and the time of their Captivity approached, God so
tempered justice with his mercy, as to mix, with the
(prophetic denunciations of their impending punish
ment, the repeated promises of a speedy Return ; to
be attended with more illustrious advantages for the
Jewish Republic than it had ever before enjoyed. The
appointed time wus now 7 come. And their Return
(predicted in so plain and public a manner) was
brouglit abo&t with as uncommon circu instances.
Those most zealous fer the Law, and rnc^st confiding
in the promises of GOD, as instructed by their parents
in all his extraordinary Dispensations, -em-braced this
opportunity of returning to their -own country, to pro
mote the restoration .of their Law nd Religion. And
A\ ho can doubt but that they ex-pected the same mani
festations -of GOD S Providence in their Re-establish
ment, that their Forefathers had experienced in then
first Settlement ? That they were indeed full of these
expectations, appears from the remarkable account
Ezra gives us of his distress, when ahout to return
with Artaxerxes s commission, to regulate the affairs
of Judea and Jerusalem. The way was long and
dangerous ; yet the Jews had told the king so much
pf their being under the peculiar protection of their
God, -that he was ashamed to ask a Guard for himself
Y 3 and
326 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
and bis companions ; and therefore had recourse to
prayer and fasting : Then I proclaimed a fast there
at the river Ahava, that tee might afflict ourselves be*
fore our God, to seek of him a light way for us, and
for our little ones, and for all our substance. For I
teas ashamed to require of the king a band of soldiers
and horsemen, to help us against the enemy in the way :
because WE had spoken unto the king, saying, The
hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek
him, but his power and his wrath is against all them
that forsake him *. But in these their expectations of
the old extraordinary Providence, they were greatly
deceived ; and the long traverses they underwent from
the malice and persecution of their idolatrous neigh
bours, made them but too sensible of the difference of
their condition from that of their Forefathers, in their
first establishment. What then must be their surprise
and disappointment to find their expectations frustrate,
and their Nation about to be reduced to the common
level of the People of the earth, under the ordinary
providence of Heaven ? At first it would be difficult
for many habituated to., and long possessed of, the
notion of an extraordinary Providence, to comprehend
the true state of their present circumstances. This
astonishment is finely described in the following words
of Job, As for me, is my complaint to man ? and if it
were so, tchij should not my spirit be troubled? Mark
me, and be ASTONISHED, and lay your hand upon your
mouth. Even when I remember, I am afraid, and
TREMBLING takcth hold of my flesh. WHEREFORE
do the Kicked live, become old, ycu arc mighty in
power? <Sccf. But others less pious would fall into
doubts about GOD S justice; as not conceiving how
he could discharge the expectations he had raised,
* Ezra viii. 21, 22* t Cbap. xxi. ver. 4> 5-, 6, -7. , -
without
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 327
without some very special regard to the safety of Ins
chosen People : Nay there were some, as there always
iv ill be in national distresses of this nature, so impious
as even to deny the moral government of God. Whom
the Prophet Zephaniah thus describes, " Men that
tire settled on their lee.r, that say in their heart, THE
LOUD WILL NOT DO GOOD, NEITHER WJLL HE DO
EVIL *." All would be in a state of anxiety and dis
order. And this greatly increased, i. From the bad
situation of affairs without: For, till the coming of
Nehemiah, the Walls iof Jerusalem were in many
places broken down ; the Gates taken away ; and the
inhabitants exposed not only to the insults and ravages
of their enemies, but to the reproach and contempt of
all their neighbours, as a despicable and abandoned
People. 2. From the bad situation of Affairs zvitkih:
Several disorders contrary to the Law had crept in
amongst them; as the marrying strange wives, and
practising usury with one another. Add to all this
(what would infinitely increase the confusion), that a
future state of Rewards and Punishments was not vet
become a popular Doctrine. That this is a faithful
account of their condition, will be seen when we de
scend to particulars : That it would have this effect on
the religious sentiments even of the better sort is evi
dent from the expostulation of Jeremiah, in whose
time this inequality first struck their observation,
Righteous art thou, O Lard, (says he) when I plead
with thee : yet let me talk witJt thee of tin/ judgments.
WHEREFORE dotk the way of the wicked prosper ?
jyherefore are all they happy that deal very treache
rous!!] \ ? If it be said, " that the inequality could
hot now first strike their observation, in a Dispensa
tion where the equal Providence had been gradually
* Chap. i. ver. 1-2. -f- Chap. xii. ver. i.
y 4 declining
S2S THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
declining from the time of Saul ;" I ask, Why not ?.
Since there must be some precise point of time or
other, when the fact was first attended to. And where
can we find a more likely one than this ?
Could any thing therefore be conceived more sea
sonable and necessary, at this time, than such a
consolation as the book of Job afforded? In which,
on a traditional story, of great fame and reputation
over all the East, a good man was represented as
afflicted for the trial of his virtue, and rewarded for
the well-bearing his afflictions ; and in which, their
doubts concerning Gop s Providence were appeased
by an humble acquiescence under his almighty power.
And, therefore, I suppose it was, that in order to quiet
all their anxieties., and to comfort them under their
present distresses, one of their Prophets at this very
period composed the BOOK OF JOB. And here let me
pbserve, that, to the arguments already given for fixing
the date of the. book of Job at this precise time of the
Jewish Republic, may be added the following : Job
says, He knoiveth the way that I rake : When lie halli
TRIED me, I shall come forth as GOLD*. But we
have shewn, in speaking of what Maimonides calls,
the Chastisements of Love, that they were unknown
to the Jewish religion till the times of their later Pro
phets f. Now here the Chastisements of Lo^e are
expressly described.
To proceed: If such were the end of composing
this poetic story, we cannot but believe that every
thing in it would be fitted to the circumstances of the
Times. But this could not be done without making
the poem ALLEGORICAL as well as dramatic. That
is, without representing the real persons of that age
under the persons of the drama. And this would bc^
* Chap, xxiii. ver. 10. t See Book V.
according
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 329
according to the exactest rules of good writing : For
when some general moral fitted for ail times is to be
recommended, it is best shewn in a simple DRAMATIC
habit : but when the author s purpose is to convey
some peculiar truths, circumscribed by time and place,
they have need to be inforced by ALLEGORIC linages.
And in fact, we shall find this poern to be wholly alle
gorical : The reason is convincing. There are divers
circumstances added to each character, which can by
no means belong to the p,ersons representing: ivc
conclude, therefore, that others are meant under those
characters, namely, the persons represented. Nor did
the Author seem much solicitous to conceal his pur
pose, while in his introduction to some of Job s
speeches he expres.seth himself in this manner,
moreover Job continual his PARABLE and said*.
Which word parable properly signifies in Scripture the
representing one thing by another. Jerom in his pre
face to the book of Job, if I understand him right,
seems to s.ay much the same thing: " OBLIQUUS
" enim etiam apud Hebrseos totus liber fertur, ct
" lubricus, et quod Grraci Rhetorcs \<Fxpp.Qh\9$.u& j* f
" DUM QUI ALIUD LOQUITUR, ALILD AGIT; Ut si
" velis anguillam vel rnurcnulam strictis tenere ma-
" nibus, quanta fortius presseris tanto citius elabitur."
This description of the work, and the comparison by
which Jerom illustrates his description, is a lively pic
ture of an ALLEGORY ; in which the literal sense,
when you begin to grasp it closely, slips through your
fingers like an eel. And in this sense we shall find the
speeches of Job to be extremely parabolical. For it is
to be observed, that, from this place, where Job is
said to continue his Parable, from ch. xxvii. to
f hap. xxxi. which is the winding up of the controversy
* Chap, xxvii. ver. i. Chap, xxix. ver. u -f Aoyo?.
between
330 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
between him and his friends, -there are more allusions
to the Jewish state than in all the rest of the book to
gether. .But to leave no room for doubt in this matter,
let us now examine each character apart*.
. I. In the person of JOB we have a good man
afflicted, and maintaining his innocence ; equally im
patient of pain and contradiction ; yet, at length with
all submission bowing to the hand of GOD ; and
finally rewarded for it. Had this been a fictitious
Character in an invented story, we could have only
gathered this general moral from it, " That virtue and
submission to the divine pleasure, notwithstanding the
common frailties of humanity, will assuredly engage
the care of Providence." But as this Hero of the
poem was a real Personage ; and so greatly famed
for his exemplary patience in afflictions, that his case
became proverbial f ; we can never, on the common
principles, account for his behaviour, when we find him
breaking out ever and anon into such excesses of im
patience as border nearly upon blasphemy . The
judicious Calmet cannot forbear observing on this
occasion : " En effet Job avoit marque dans scs.
" plaintes tine vivacite que pouvoit etre interpre tee
". en mauvaise part. II s etoit plaint de la rigeur de
4i Dieu ; ii avoit deplore son malheur d une rnaniere^
" qui avoit besoin d une interpretation benigne.^
And to the same purpose Albert Schultens ; " In eo
" excessu ut ne mine quidern Jobum culpa liberare
** possimius, ita facile intelligitur, multo rnagis talibus
- : dictis offendi tune debuisse Elihuum, i^nar-um
" hactenus, quid Deus de Jobo ejusque causa pro-
* See note [T] at the end of this volume.
- ; r Yt hail- heard of the Patience of Job, James v. 11.
* See note [l>] at. the end of this velumcv
v Sur chap, xxxiii. ver, \o. .. ; .
i( nunciaturus
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 331
" nunciaturus esset*/ Thus softly do these Com
mentators speak, in their embarras to reconcile this
representation of Job to his traditional Character for
patience. The Writing then and the Tradition being
so glaringly inconsistent, we must needs conclude,
i. That the fame of so great Patience arose not from
this book. And, 2dly, That some other Character,
shadowed under that of Job, was the real cause
of the Author s deviation from the general Tradition.
And this Character, I say, was no other than the
JEWISH PEOPLE. The singularity of whose situation
as a selected Nation is graphically described in the
beginning of the book, where Satan is brought in,
speaking of the distinguished honour done to Job by
his Maker. Hast thou not made a HEDGE about hlii^
and about his house, and about all that he hath., on
even/ sick"\? The great point which Job so much
insists upon throughout the whole book is his innocence:
and yet, to our surprise, we hear him, in one place,
thus expostulating with GOD : Thou tvritest bitter
things against me^ and makest me to possess the INI
QUITIES OF MY YOUTH . This can be accounted for
no otherwise than by understanding it of the PEOPLE :
whose repeated iniquities on their first coming out of
Egypt, were in every Age remembered, and punished
on their Posterity. Again, the twenty-ninth chapter
is an exact and circumstantial description -of the pros
perous times of the Jewish People; several parts of
which can be applied with no tolerable propriety to
the condition of a private man : " O that I were as
" in the days when GOD preserved me, when his
" candle shined upon my head, and when by his
* LIGHT, I walked through darkness: As I was ia
. * On the same place.
j- Chap, i.ycT. 10- . j Chap. xiii. ver. 26,
" the
$3^ THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI
? the days of my youth, when the SECRET OF GOB
f was upon nay TABERNACLE : When I washed my
** steps with BUTT EH, and the rock poured me out
f rivers of OIL. I put on righteousness and it clothed
** me: niy judgment was as a robe and a diadem. I
" brake the jaws of the WICKED, and pluckt the spoil
" out of his teeth. I CHOSE OUT THEIR >VAY, and
" sat chief, and dwelt as a Kixo in the army *." I
these words the writer evidently alludes to the pillar
ef jire m the Wilderness ; The Schekinah in the
Labernacle; The Ict&d flowing icitli milk and homy ;
The administration of \\\QJudges ; The curbing the
ravages of the Philistians, And the glory of their
first Monarchs. Well therefore might the Writer,
in his introduction to, this speech, call it a PARABLE.
This will lead us next to consider the Age, as well
as People meant. Job, speaking of his misfortunes,
says, For the thing which 1 greatly feared is come
upon me, and that which I was afraid .of is come nntv
-me. I was not in safety, neither had I rest, milker
was I quiet, yet trouble came f. But in other places
iie speaks very differently. lie wishes he were as hi
months past, for then (says he) I shall dk in my nest,
and I shall multiply my days as the sand . And again,
IV hm I looked for good, then rcil came upon me: and
trfo// I ic a lied for light, there came darkness \. These
things are very discordant, it understood of one and
the same person ; and can never be reconciled but on
the supposition of an allegorical reference to another
Character; and, en that, all will be set right. For
this disquiet, and fear of approaching trouble, was the
very condition of the- Jews on their tirst return from the
{Captivity. Thus lii-tr^i cxpresseth it : And they set
* Ch..ip. xxix. ver. 2, & scq. .t Chap. iii. ver. 25, 26.
* Cluij>. xsix. ver. 18- Ciiap. x r \x..ycr. 2(4,
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 333
np the altar upon his bases (for fear was upon tfxm r
because of the people of those countries) and they-
offered burnt-offerings thereon unto the Lord*. And
thus Zeehariah, who prophesied at this time: For
before these days there was no hire for wan, nor aim
hire for beast, neither was there any peace to him
that went out or came in, because of the affliction ; for
I set all men every one agaimt his neighbour f .. Job,
amongst his otlier distresses, complains to God;
Thou nearest me with dreams, and tcrri/iest me rr///i
visions + : this, I suppose, refers to the conimuiatians*
of Haggar, Zechariah, and Malachi, wha all pfQphe$i04
at this time, and were very troublesome on that ac
count to the impatient Jews, to whose circumstances
only, and spirit of complaint, these obscure words ot
Job, expostulating with GOD, can agree; and why
dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take awan
mine iniquity? For now I shall sleep in the dust, and
thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be^
There is not a more difficult passage in the whole book
of Job ; and yet, on the principles here laid down, it
admits and conveys this natural and easy meaning;
In thus punishing, thou wilt defeat thy own design.
It is thy purpose to continue us a peculiar People ;
yet such traverses as we have met with, on our return,
will soon destroy those already come into Judea, and
deter the rest from, hazarding the same fortune." Job
goes on in the same strain : Is it good unto, thee that
thou shouldest oppress? that thou shouldest despise the
work of thine hands ? and shine upon the counsel of
the wicked^? The Jews of this time made this very
complaint. I have loved you, saith the Lord, yet ye
say, Wherein hast thou loved us ^ ? And again, And
* Ezra iii. 3. f Zech. viii. 10. J Ch. vii. ver. 14.
1 Cfc. vii. ver.aK jj Ch. x^ver.3, fl Alu ar.i. a.
334 t HE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VIY
KOW tec call tlie proud happy; yea they thai work
tejekcdfttes arc set up ; yea they that tempt God are
even delivered*. But Job goes on, O that thou
tcQiddest hide me in tlie CRAVE, that thou icouldest
keep me secret, until thy wrath be past ; that HIGH
wonkiest appoint me a set time, and remember me |-
By which words, the complaints of the Jews of that
time are again referred to ; which were, as appears
from the words of Job, to this effect : " Would to
GOD we had still continued in Captivity [the Grave,
which was the very figure used by the Prophets for
the Captivity] expecting a more favourable season for
our Restoration ; or that we might be permitted to
return unto it, till the remains of punishment for our
forefathers sins are overpast, and all things fitly pre
pared for our reception." And in these cowardly arid
impatient sentiments were they, on their Return, as
tverc their Ancestors, on their first coming out of the
land of Egypt; to which, this Return is frequently
compared by the Prophets. Job goes on expressing
his condition in this manner : His troops come together,
find raise up their way against me, and encamp round
about my tabernacle. lie hath put my brethren far
from me, and mine acquaintance are verily estranged
frcminc. My .hint folk have failed, and my familiar
friends I wee forgotten me . The first part of this
complaint evidently relates to the Arabians, the Am
monites, G$d the Adidodites ; who (as Neherniah tells
us) hearing that the walls of Jerusalem were made up,
tiu- i that the breaches- began to be stopped, were very
vroth, and conspired all of them together to come and
fight against Jerusalem and to hinder it ^. The se
cond part relates to their rich Brethren remaining iu
Malac. iii. 15. " t Chap xiv. ver. 13;
I Cbap six. ver. 12, 13, 14. Mehcmiah iv. 7, S.
Babylon,
Sect 2. j OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 53.5
Babylon, who seemed, by Nehemiah s account, to have
much neglected the distressed Remnant that escaped
from the Captivity to Jerusalem. Then Hanani (says-
he) one of mi/ brethren came, he and cert aim men of
Judah, and I asked them concerning the Jews that had
escaped, which were left of the Captivity, and concern
ing Jerusalem. And they said unto me, The Remnant
that arc left of the Captivity there in the Province
are in great affliction and reproach : the wall of Jeru
salem is also broken dozen, and the gates thereof are
burnt with fire*. Job goes on, O that I knew where
I might find him [God], that I might come even to
Ms seat. jBeho/d I go forward, but he is not there ;
find backward, but I cannot perceive him : on the left
hand where he doth work, but I cannot behold him :
he hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot sec
him f. Could any thing more pathetically express the
lamentations of a People who saw the extraordinary
Providence, under which they had so long lived, de
parting from them? From GOD, Job turns to Man,
and says, " But now they that are younger than I have
* me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained
" to have set with the dogs of my flock. Yea y whereto
" might the strength of their hands profit me, in whom-
4 old age was perished ? For want and famine they
" were solitary ; fleeing into the Wilderness in forme $
c time desolate and waste : who cut up mallows by
" the bushes, and juniper-roots for their meat
" They were driven forth from among men (they cried
" after them as after a thief) to dwell in the clifts of
" the valleys, in the caves of the earth, and in the
" rocks. Amongst the bushes they brayed, under
k the nettles they were gathered together. They were
* Children of fools, yea Children of base men : they
. ? * Ch^p. xxiii. ver. 3. 8, 9.
336 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI;
* werer/Yer than the earth *." This is a description, and
a very exact one, of the Cutheans or Samaritans ; of
their behaviour to the Jews ; and the sentiments of the
Jews concerning them. These had him in derision,,
lie says, and so Nehemiah informs us : " But it came
* to pass, that when Sanballot heard that we builded
4i the wall, he was wroth, and took great indignation,
" and mocktd the Jews-. And he spake before his
" brethren and the army of Samaria, and said : What
" do these feeble Jews ? will they fortify themselves ?
" will they sacrifice? will they make an end in a day?
<; will they revive the stones out of the heaps of the
" rubbish, which are burnt? Now Tob tah the Amirio-
* c nite was by him, and he said, Even that which they
" build, if a fox g;o up, he shall even break down their
" stone wall. Hear, O our GOD, for we are despised,
44 and turn their reproach upon their own lieadf."
And GOD. by the Prophet Malachi, tells the Jews the
reason why he suffered them to be thus humbled :
Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base,
before ail the people, according as ye have not kept my
ways, but have been partial in the Law . Job says
he would have disdained to have set these with the dogs
of his flock, that they were younger than liiw, that they
were children of fools, yea of base men, viler than the
earth. It is well known in what sovereign contempt
the Jews held the Cutheans or Samaritans above all
People. The character here given of the baseness of
their Extraction, without doubt, was very just. For
\vhen a Conqueror, as here the king of Assyria, would
jrepeople, with his own subjects, a strange country
entirely ravaged and burnt up by an exterminating war,
cone but the very scum of a People would be sent
upon such an errand. And by the account Ezra gives
* Ch.xxx. vcr. i, & seq. f Neh, iv. i, & seq. ; Mai ii. 9.
US
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 337
us of this Colony, as gathered out of many parts of
the Assyrian Empire, we may fairly conclude them to.
be the offscourings of the East. " Then wrote Rehum
o
9 the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the
lf rest of their companions, the Dinaites, the Aphar-
" sathchltes, the Tarpdltes, the Aphar sites, the Arche-
" vites, i\\e-Babyloniam, theSusanchites,theDehavites,
" and the Elamites, and the rest of the Nations whom
" the great and noble Asnapper brought over and set
" in the cities of Samaria *," Job describes them as
being at first reduced to the utmost distresses for food
and harbour, in a desolate and waste wilderness, living
upon roots, and dwelling in caves and clifts of the
rock : and assuredly such must have been the first
entertainment of this wretched Colony, transplanted
into a Country entirely wasted and destroyed by a
three years incessant ravage f. Nay, before they
could come up to take possession of their desolate,
places, the wild beasts of the field were got before,
them, and a scourge of Lions prepared to receive
them for their idolatrous pollutions of the holy Land J.
Job has now ended his Parable , and GOD is
brought in to judge the Disputants ; whose speech
opens in this manner : Then the Lord answered Job
out of the whirhcind, arid said, Who is this that dark-
eneth counsel by words without knowledge \? The
character which God here gives of Job is that which
the Prophets give of the People of this time. Ye
have wearied the Lord with your u-crds ||, says Mala-
chi. And again : Your words have been stout against
me, saith the Lord^\. But on Job s repeated submis*
sion and humiliation, GOD at length declares his ac
ceptance of him. And thus lie received the People
* Ezra iv. 9,10, f 2 Kings xvii. 5, J Id. il^.
| Chap, xxxviii.ver. 1,2. j| Mai. ii. 17, f[ Mai. iii. 13.
Voi.. V. Z
338 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI,
into grace, as we learn by the Prophet Zechariah : -
Thus saith the Lord, I am returned unta Zion, and
will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem*. It is added,
Also the Lord gave Job TWICE as much as he had
before t and in the same manner GOD speaks to the
People by the Prophet : Turn ye to the strong-hold,
ye prisoners of hope, even to-day do I declare that I
will render DOUBLE unto t/iee +. Job s brethren now
came to comfort him, and every man gave him a piece
of money, and ever if one an ear-ring of gold ^. This,
without question, alludes to the presents which Ezra,
tells us the Jews of Babylon made to their brethren in
Judea : Ami all they that were about them strength
ened their hands with vessels oj silver, with gold, with
goods, and with beasts, and with precious things, be
sides all that was willingly offered^. The history
adds, So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more
than the beginning ^ : and thus the future prosperity
of the People was predicted by the Prophets of this
time : The glory of this latter house shall be greater
than the former, saith the Lord of Hosts: And in
this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of Hosts**.
For I, saith the Lord, will be -unto her a wall of jire
round about, and will be the glory in the midst of
her^^. The Book concludes with these words : After
this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his
sons, and his sons sons, even four generations. So Job
died being old and full of days | : this too was the
specific blessing promised by GOD to the People, in
the Prophet Zechariah : Thus saith the Lord of Hosts,
There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the
* Zech. viii. 3. f Ch. xlii. ver. 10. J Zech. ix. 12.
Cb.xlii.ver.il. || Ezra. i. 6. fl Ch. xlii. ver. 12.*
** Haggaiii. 10. , ft Zech. ii. 5. JJ Ch.xlii. ver. 16,17.
streets
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 339
streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in
his hand for very age. And the streets of the city
shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets
thereof*.
II. The next Person in the drama is Job s WIFE.
Let us take her, as she is presented to us, on the com
mon footing. She acts a short part indeed, but a,
very spirited one. Then said his wife unto him, Dost
thou still retain thine integrity ? Curse God, and die f.
Tender and pious ! He might see, by this prelude of
his Spouse, what he was to expect from his Friends.
The Devil indeed assaulted Job, but he seems to have
got possession of his Wife. Happiness was so little
to be expected with such a Woman, that one almost
wonders, that the sacred Writer, when he aims to give
us the highest idea of Job s succeeding felicity, did not
tell us, in express words, that he lived to bury his
Wife. In these modern ages of luxury and polished
manners, a Character like this is so little of a prodigy,
that both the learned and unlearned are accustomed
to read it without much reflection : But such a
Woman in the age of Job had been thought to need
a Lustration. In the history of the Patriarchs, we
have a large account of their Wives ; but these are all
examples of piety, tenderness, and obedience; the.
natural growth of old simplicity of manners. Some
thing lower down, indeed, we find a Delilah*, but she
was of the uncircumcised, a pure Pagan ; as, on exa-r
mination, I believe, this Wife of J ob will prove :
another very extraordinary circumstance in her Cha
racter. For the Patriarchs either took care to marry
Believers, or, if haply idolaters, to instruct them in,
the true Religion ; as we may see by the history of
Jacob. Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou fiitl
. * Zech. viii. 4, 5. t Chap. ii. vcr. p.
7. 2
340 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
retain thine INTEGRITY ? THUMMAH, perfectio, that
is, Religion. This was altogether in the Pagan mode ;
Idolaters, as \ve find in ancient story, generally grow
ing atheistical under calamities*. Curse God, EA-
RECH, bencdianaledic : here rightly f translated curse.
So the Syr. and Arab, versions, Conviciare Deo tuo.
This was another Pagan practice, when they had im
plored or bribed the Gods to no purpose. Thucydi-
des affords us a terrible instance : When the Athenians
in the height of their prosperity went upon the Syra-
cusian Expedition, the Fleet set sail amidst the prayers
and hymns of the Adventurers : but on its unhappy
issue, these very men, on the point of their fatal dis
persion, prosecuted the same Gods with the direst
curses and imprecations ];. Curse God, and DIE;
that is, offer violence to yourself. Another impiety of
Paganism ; which, under irretrievable misfortunes,
deemed suicide not only just but laudable. A crime
much abhorred by the Hebrews, as forbidden by their
Law ; till, in after-times, they became corrupted by
Gentile manners. All this shews the woman to have
been a rank idolater. But Job s reply seems to put
this suspicion out of doubt : Thou speakest as one of
the FOOLISH WOMEN speakcth. What? Shall we
receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not
receive evil\? A FOOLISH WOMAN is a Hebrew
phrase to signify a foreign woman, an Idolater, a
Prostitute ; for these qualifications were always joined
together in their ideas. On this account the Chald,
Paraph, explains it, Sicut una de mulieribus qua
operantur ignominiam in domo patris suL So David,
speaking
* See note [X] at the end of this volume,
f See note [Y] at the end of this volume.
Lib. vii. 75 Ed. Hud*
Chap. ii. ver. 10.
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 341
speaking of the condition of the Pagan world, says,
The FOOL hath said in his heart*, i.e. the PAGAN ;
and in the character Job gives of the Cutheans, quoted
above, he calls them Children of FOOLS f ; that is, of
Gentile extraction, as indeed they were. Now can
we suppose that Job would marry an Infidel, in a
country which abounded with true believers? Job, who
thought idolatry a crime to be punished by the Judge f
These are difficulties not to be gotten over on the re
ceived idea of this book ; and appeared so great to
Cocceius and Schultens, the two most elaborate of
Job s Commentators, that they are for glossing the kind
Woman s words into an innocent or excusable sense ;
though her Husband s reply so unavoidably confines
them to a bad one : Thou speakest (says he) as one of
the foolish women speaketh. What ? Shall we receive
good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive
evil ? Besides, they did not consider that Satan had,
as it were, engaged that Job should curse God to his
face\\ which impiety he was here endeavouring to
bring about by his agent, the Woman. But now, on
our interpretation, it will be found that this character
was introduced with exquisite art and contrivance.
We have observed, that this Remnant of the Captivity
returned into their own country with hearts full of zeal
for the Law. Yet, with this general good disposition,
there was one folly they were still infected with, and
that was the taking strange wives of the idolatrous
nations round about ; which, amongst other, had this
terrible inconvenience, that the children, who in their
tender years are principally under the care of the mo
ther, would be early tainted with Pagan principles : a
mischief so general, that Hosea calls the children of
* Psal.xiv. i. liii. i. t Chap. xxx. ver. 8.
i. ver. 5.
2 3 such
342 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
such marriages, strange children*, i.e. idolatrous.
This soon become a crying enormity. Their Prophets
awaked them with the thunder of divine menaces ;
and their Rulers improved their penitence to a
thorough reformation. Judah (saith the Prophet Ma-
lachi) hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is
committed in Israel and in Jerusalem : For Judah
hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved,
and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
The Lord will cut off the man that doth this f. Ne-
hemiah informs us of his zeal against this offence : In
those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of
Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab : And 1 contended
with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them,
and pluckt off their hair, and made them swear by
God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto
their sons nor take their daughters unto your sons, or
for yourselves . But Ezra gives us a very circum
stantial account of the Crime and of the Reformation :
Now when these things were done, the Princes came
to me, saying, The People of Israel, and the Priests,
and the Levites, have not separated themselves from
the people of the lands, doing according to their abo
minations: for they have taken of their daughters for
themselves and for their sons ; so that the holy seed
have mingled themselves with the people of those lands:
Yea, the hand of the Princes and Rulers hath been
chief in this trespass^. Shechaniah then encourages
Ezra to reform this abuse ||. Ezra assembles the
people ^f : they promise amendment ; and propose a
method of Inquiry: Let now our Rulers of all the
congregation stand, and let all them which have taken
strange wives, in our cities, come at appointed times,
* Chap.v. v.er. 7. f jMal.ii. ii, 12. \ Nehem.xiii. 23, 25.
Ezra ix. i, 2 |j Chap* x. ver.2. ff Ver. 7.
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 343
and with them the Elders of every city, and the Judges
thereof*. Ezra approved of this method, And they set
dyuon in the first day of the tenth month to examine the
matter. And they made an end with all the men that had
taken strange wives by the first day of the first month \.
The state and condition of a weak and thin Colony, tis
probable, encouraged them in this transgression : yet,
as it was so expressly against the LAW, they were alto
gether without excuse : And indeed, the prohibition
was an admirable expedient against idolatry ; strange
wives inevitably drawing the wisest, as it did Solomon
himself, into foreign idolatries. On this account the
Prophet quoted above, finely calls them the daughters
of a STRANGE God. Jeremiah gives us a remarkable
instance of their influence over their husbands in his
time: Then all the men which knew that their wives
had burnt incense unto other Gods, and all the women
that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people
that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered
Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast
spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not
hearken unto thec ^. And Nehemiah had good reason
to tell these Transgressors, Did not Solomon king of
Israel sin by these things ? Yet among many nations
was there no king like him,, who was beloved of his
God, and God made him King over all Israel : Never
theless even him did outlandish women cause to sin .
For Ezra expressly assures us, that those who had
taken strange women were drawn into the abominations
of the people of the lands ||.
The sacred Writer, therefore, who composed his
work for the use of these People represented under the
person of Job, could not better characterize their
* Ver. 14. f Chap. x. ver. 16, 17.
J Jer. xliv. 15^. Neh. xiii. 26. || Ezra i*. i.
z 4 manners,
344 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
manners, nor give them a more useful lesson, than by
making Job s wife, the author of such wicked counsel,
a Heathen. It was indeed the principal study of their
Ilulers to deter them from these marriages, and to
recommend the daughters of Israel ; of whom the
Prophet Malachi thus speaks : Because the Lord hath
been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth,
against whom thou hast dealt treacherously : yet is she
thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant*. This
\vill help us to clear up a difficulty, in the conclusion
of the book, which very much perplexes the Commen
tators : (where, let it be observed, his misfortunes are
called his CAPTIVITY ) ; which figure, of the species
for the genus, couid hardly be of use in the Jewish
language till after their repeated punishments by Cap
tivities.) So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job.
He had also seven sons and three DAUGHTERS. And
he called the name of thejirst Jemima, and the name
of the second Kezia, and the name of the third Kcren-
Bappuch. And in all the land were no women found
so fair as the daughters of Job, and their father gave
them inheritance among their brethren^. Albert
Schultens says , " Men are wont to ask why the
" names of Job s sons are suppressed, and the names
" of his daughters only mentioned. The Ancients
" have
* Mai. ii. 14. And see note [Z] at the end of this volume.
f Chap. xlii. ver. 10.
I Chap, xliii. ver. 12, & seq.
" Cur suppresses filiorum nominibu?, filiarum ilia apposita
" sint, quaeri solet. Ad mysterium confugiunt veteres, mire
" ludentes in etymis Jemima!, Ktizitf, & Keren-happuduCj sive
" Diance vel Diet, Cassice, & Cornu stibii, ut vulgato haec convenire
u visum. In his inveniunt totidem characteres Eccltsice, quas cum
* splendore lucis conjungat odorem fragrantissimum virtutis, ut
" tota pulchra sponso suo sistatur, &c. &c. Alii symbolicas has
" faciunt appellationes, quibus familiae suae redivivarn lucem,
" faiuam, gloriam repra^sentatam voluerit fortunatissinius pater."
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 345
" have recourse to mystery in this case, and trifle
" strangely with the etymoligies of Jemima, Kezia^
" and Keren-happuch: which are commonly supposed
" to signify Diana or the day, Cassia, and the horn
" of antimony. In these, they find just so many
" characters of the Church ; which to the splendour
" of truth, joins the odour of virtue, that she may
" stand a perfect beauty in presence of her spouse,
" &c. &c. Others make them symbolical appellations,
" by which the happy father would represent the for-
" mer splendour, fame and glory of his family returned
" again unto it." And Mr. Le Clerc on the same
place * ; " If it is asked why the names of the
" daughters are recorded, and not the sons : Of this,
" no reason can be given, unless, perhaps, the daugh-
" ters were more illustrious. These names are urged
" as a certain proof of its being a true history. But
" who can say how far the oriental writers were wont
" to go, in dressing out their Parables ? In a
" Gospel parable we find the name of Lazarus ; which
" does not on that account hinder us from considering
" the story as of that class. However, we think it
" best to leave the matter just as we found it."
But now all this difficulty is removed, and the passage
is seen in its full force and beauty. It was the writer s
design to recommend the daughters of Israel as the
most desirable Parties, [And in all the land were no
women found so fair as the daughters of Job ;] and to
commemorate the reformation now made amongst the
* Qttcfritvr cur sint fdiarum nomina memorata, non Jiliorum ;
cujus rei ratio rcddi non potest, nisi forte illitstriores fuerint Jili-a:.
ficec nomina profernntw, ut argumentum certuw, quo constct hanc
veram essc hutoriam. Scd quis dicat quo usque Orientates parabola*
ornare solcbant ? In parabola Evangclica cst quidem nomen Lazari,
quod non obstat quo minus Parabola habcatur. Verum rein in media
relinquimut.
people,
346 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
people, when they put away their strange wmes t and
took an oath to share the holy inheritance, for the future,
only with the daughters of Israel. And their fa
ther gave them inheritance amongst their brethren:
words that have been as troublesome to the Com
mentators as the rest ; and have occasioned many
a learned Dissertation de Jure Successionis apud
Hebrtfos, Arab as, Gnecos, Latinos, < quamplnrimas
Gentes.
III. We come next to Job s THREE FRIENDS.
Their solemn appointment to go and comfort Job ;
the neglect of their errand when they came thither ;
their inhumanity and strange humour of contradiction ;
have been already taken notice of, and explained,
and reconciled to decorum, on the nature and princi
ples of a dramatic composition. But this is not all :
We find, on the issue of their debate, so many marks
of insult, falsehood, and malice, that we must needs
conclude their Friendship to have been all pretence ;
that they were enemies in their hearts ; and that the
true purpose of their visit was to imbitter and aggra
vate his miseries. This requires other principles to
explain it : for, in the historical part they are repre
sented as real friends : and this makes such a difficulty
as nothing but our idea of the work can remove. Who
then will doubt but that, as the PEOPLE were repre
sented under Job, these three friends were their three
capital Enemies, who so greatly hindered and obstructed
the rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple, SANBAL-
LAT, TOBIAH, and GESHEM? Of whom Nehemiah
gives us this account : Then I came to the governors
beyond the river, and gave them the king s letters.
When Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant
the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them exceedingly
that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the
2 children
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 347
children of Israel*. And again : But it came to pass
that when Sanballat, ami Tohiah, and the Arabians^
and the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites heard that the
walls of Jerusalem were made up, and that the breached
began to be stopped, then they were very wroth, and
conspired all of them together, to come and tojight
against Jerusalem and to hinder it \. When force
would not do, they assayed fraud : Now it came to
pass, when SANBALLAT, and TOBIAH, and GESHEM
the Arabian, and the rest of our enemies, heard that
I had budded the wall, and that there was no breach
left therein, then Sanballat and Geshem sent unto me,
saying, Come, let us meet together in some one of the
villages in the plain of Ono : but they thought to do
me mischief^. The Writer of the book of Tobit seems
to have had this idea of the three friends, where he
says, Nam sicut beato Job insult abant Reges, ita isti
parentes &; cognati ejus irridebant vitam cjus. But
we are to observe this is now only to be found in the
Latin translation, which, St. Jerome tells us, he made
from the Chaldee. But, what is still of more moment,
is a paragraph at the end of the Septuagint translation
of the book of Job, which makes of these three friends,
two Kings and a Tyrant.
The marks of resemblance between the allegorical
and real persons, are many and strong.
Eliphaz, Eildad, and Zophar, are delivered as the
allies and friends of Job : So Sanballat the Horonite
had given his daughter to one of the sons of Joiada the
son of Eliashib the high priest || : And Tobiah had made
two alliances with the Jews : his son Johanan had
married the daughter of Meshullam the son of
Berechiah ; and he himself had taken to wife the daugh
ter of Shechaniah the son of Arah^f.
* Nehem. ii. 9, 10. f Ch. iv. ver. 7, 8. J Ch. vi. ver. l, 2.
Tob. ii. 14. - j| Nehem. xiii. 28. f Neh. vi. 18.
Etiphax,
34$ THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
ElipkaZy Bildad, and Zopkar, came in a friendly
manner with offers of service and assistance : So did
these enemies of the Jews, as we are informed both by
Ezra and Nehemiah : " Now when the ADVERSARIES
" of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of
" the captivity builded the temple unto the Lord God
" of Israel : Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to
" the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, LET
" ,TJS BUILD WITH you. But Zerubbabel and Jeshua
" and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel,
" said unto them, You have nothing to do with us to
" build a house unto our God, but we ourselves will
" build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king Cyrus
" the king of Persia hath commanded us *." And
Nehemiah s answer to Sanballat, Tobiah, arid Geshem,
shews, they had made this request : " then answered
" I them, and said unto them, The God of Heaven
* he will prosper us ; therefore we his servants will
" arise and build, but you have no portion, nor right,
u nor memorial in Jerusalem f." And of Tobiah in
particular, he says : Moreover in these days the nobles
vf Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah: and the
letters of Tobiah came unto them. Also they reported
his good deeds before me, and uttered my words to him.
And Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear J.
The three Friends of JOE were worshippers of the
true God ; and so were these Adversaries of the JEWS :
For when, in the place quoted above, they asked to
build with the Jews, they give this reason of their re
quest : FOR WE SEEK YOUR GOD as ye do, and we
do sacrifice unto him since the days of Eserhaddon king
ef Assur, which brought us up hither .
The three Friends were perpetually deriding and
upbraiding him for his sins : And of this Job frequently
* Ezra iv. 1, 2, 3. t Neh. ii. 20.
t Neh.vi. 17, 19. Ezra iv. a.
< complains
beet. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 349
complains in the course of the disputation *. So Ne-
hemiah tells us, that when Sanballat the Horonite, and
Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the
Arabian, heard that they were set upon building the
walls of Jerusalem, they laughed them to scorn, and
despised them, and said, What is this thing that ye do ?
Will ye rebel against the king -\ ? And again : But if
came to pass that when Sanballat heard that ice
builded tlie wall, he was wroth, and took great indig-
?iation, and mocked the Jews. Now Tobiah the
Ammonite was by him, and he said, Even that which
they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down
their stone wall $. GOD, by the Prophet Malachi,
tells them, Judah hath profaned the holiness of the
Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter
of a strange GW. And it is remarkable that they
with whom the Jews had committed this crime, as
Sanballat, Tobiah, and the Cutheans, were made the
instruments of their punishment. Eliphaz the Te-
manite charges and upbraids Job with the most
flagitious crimes : Is not thy wickedness great, and
thine iniquities injinite \ ? And thus the Cutheans re
presented the Jews, to Artaxerxes : " Be it known
" unto the king, that the Jews, which came up from
" thee to us, are come unto Jerusalein, building the
" rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the
" walls thereof. Therefore have we certified the king
" that search may be made in the book of the records
" of thy fathers, so shalt thou find in the book of the
* records, and know, that this city is a rebellious city,
" and hurtful unto kings and provinces; and that
* Ch^p.iv. 17. Ch. xii. ver. 4. Ch f xiii. ver. 4. Ch. xvi.
?er. i, 20. Ch. xvii. ver. 2, Ch. xix. ver. 2. Ch. xxi. ver. 3.
Chap. xxvi. ver. 4.
f Neh.ii. 19. jCh.iv. ver. i, 3.
Mal.ii. 11. Jl Cb. xxii. ver. 5,
they
$50 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
" they have moved sedition within the fame of old
" time ; for which cause was this city destroyed *."
If their Adversaries could accuse them thus unjustly, we
are not to think they would spare them where there was
more ground for condemnation. When Nehemiah came
to the administration of affairs, the Rich had oppressed
the Poor by a rigorous exactioa of their debts : And
there mas a great cry of the people and of their wives,
against their brethren the Jews. For there were that
said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many;
therefore wt take up corn for them, that we may eat
and live. Some also there were that said, IVe have
mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we
may buy corn because of the dearth. There were also
that said, We have borrowed money for the king s
tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Yet
now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our chlh
dren as their children : and lo we bring into bondage
our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some
of our daughters are brought into bondage already,
neither is it in our power to redeem them ; for other
men have our lands and vineyards f. This abuse Ne
hemiah reformed : and in reproving the oppressors, he
said, It is not good that ye do : Ought ye not to walk
in the fear of our Lord, because of the REPROACH OF
THE HEATHEN OUR ENEMIES ? which reproach
was intended to be represented in these words of Eli-
phaz : For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother
for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing .
But the three Friends are at length condemned by
GOD himself; The Lord said to Ellphaz the Temanite,
My wrath is kindled against thee, and against the twa
friends ; For ye have not spoken of me the thing that
* Ezra iv. 12. 14, 15. t Neh.v.-i, & seq.
I Yer. 9, $ Ciiap, xxii. ver. 6
II
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 351
is right, as my servant Job hath *. And in the same
manner he speaks, by the Prophet, concerning these
Adversaries of the Jews : And I am very sore dis
pleased with the Heathen that are AT EASE ; For I
was but a LITTLE DISPLEASED, and they HELPED
FORWARD THE AFFLICTION f. His sentence against
the three Friends goes on in these words : Tharefm*
take now unto you seven bullocks and seven rams, and
go to my servant Job, and offer up yourselves a burnt*
offering, and my servant Job shall pray for you, for
him will I accept : Lest I deal with you after your
folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which
is tight, like my servant Job J. This, I suppose, is
designed to represent the defeat of their Adversaries,
in the decree which the Jews, by the good providence
of GOD, procured from Darius, commanding the
Cutheans (who had hitherto so much hindered) now
to assist the Jews to the utmost of their power in re
building the Temple : " Then Darius the king made
ft a decree Now therefore Tatnai, Governor beyond
" the river Shetharboznai, and your companions the
" Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye
4< far from thence : Let the work of this house of God
" alone, let the governor of the Jews, and the elders
" of the Jews, build this house of God in his place.
" Moreover I make a decree, what ye shall do to the
u elders of these Jews, for the building of this house
" of God : that, of the king s goods, even of the tri-
" bute beyond the river, forthwith ex peaces be given
" unto these men, that they be not hindered. And
" that which they have need of, both young bullocks
" and rams, and lambs, for the BURST-OFFERIXGS
" of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil,
" according to the appointment of the priests which
* CJ*..xlii. ver,7- f 2MM. 15- J Ci. xlii. ver. 8,
" are,
352 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
" are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day
* without fail; that they may offer sacrifices of sweet
" savours unto the God of heaven, and pray FOR THE
" LIFE OF THE KING AND OF HIS SONS *"."
The reason why the three Friends are condemned
as not having spoken of God the thing that was right,
was, i. Because using the argument of an equal Pro
vidence only to condemn Job with the heart of an
enemy, they made the honour of God a stale to their
malignant purposes. To understand this more fully,
we must consider that the great contest was concerning
an equal Providence: What occasioned it was their
suspicion of Job s secret iniquity ; consequently these
two points take their turns occasionally in the course
of the disputation. Job, after many struggles, at last
gave up the general question ; but the particular one
of his own righteousness, he adheres to, throughout,
and makes it the subject of all he says from chap, xxvii.
to chap. xxxi. This ended the dispute : for, in the
beginning of the next chapter f , the writer tells us,
So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he
was righteous in his own eyes ; that is, they gave Job
this contemptuous reason why they would argue no
longer with him. By this we may see, how finely the
dispute was conducted, to answer, what I suppose was,
the end of writing the book. JOB, who represented
the PEOPLE, was to speak their sentiments concerning
their doubts of an equal Providence ; but he was at
last to acquiesce, to teach them a lesson of obedience
and submission.
2. The second reason of the condemnation of these
false Friends was, because they had supported their
condemnation of Job by a pretended Revelation.
Now a thing was secretly brought to me (says Eliphaz)
. * Ezra vi. 1. 6, & seq. f Chap,
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DKMOySTflATfeb. 353
and mine ear received a little thereof. In thoughts
from tJic visions of the night, when deep sleep f edict k
on men, fear came upon me, and trembling, which made
all my bones to shake : then a Spirit passed before my
fdcc, the hair of my flesh stood up: I stood still, but I
could not disc v, > wr?n / hereof: an image was be
fore mine eyes, tnere wan silence, and I heard a voice.
sa)/wg, " Shall mortal man be more just than , God, *
$c*. This was the character, and conduct, of the
enemies of the Republic, as the Prophet Ezekiel in-
lorms us ; whose words are so very apposite, that we
may well think they were the original to those above
in the fourth chapter of Job. Thus saith the Lord God,
Wo unto the foolish Prophets that follow their oicn
spirit and hare seen nothing They have seen vanity
and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith ; and the
Lord hath not sent them. Have ye not seen a vain
vision, and have yt not spoken a lying divination,
whereas ye say, The Lord saith it, albeit I have not
spoken ? Therefore tints saith the Lord God, Because
ye have spoken vanity and seen lies, therefore behold
J am against you, saith the Lord Gcd |.
IV. The last Person in the Opposition is the Devil
himself, SATAN, the Author and Contriver of all the
mischief. And now we are come to that part of the
Allegory, where the fable and the moral meet, and, as
it were, concur to throw oft the Mask, and expose
the true face of the Subject; this assault upon JOB
being that very attack which, the Prophet Zechariah
tells us, Satan made, at this time, on the PEOPLE.
The only difference is, that, in this Poem, it is Job ;
in that Prophecy, it is Joshua the high priest, who
Stands for the People. In all the rest, the identity is.
0o strongly marked, that this single circumstance alone
* Gha# T iv. ver. ri, &, seq. f Ezek. xiii. 3> & se<j.
VOL. V* A A is
354 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
is sufficient to confirm the truth of our whole inter
pretation. There needs only setting the two passages
together to convince the most Prejudiced : The His
torian says, 6i Now there was a day when the sons of
" God came to present themselves before the Lord,
" and SAT AX came also amonir them. And the
O
" Lord said unto Satan, Whence coraest thou ? Then
" Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to
" and fro in. the earth, and from walking up and down
ce in it. And the Lord sard unto Satan, Hast thou
" considered my servant JOB, that there is none like
" him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one
" that feareth God, and cscheweth evil? Then Satan
u answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God
" for nought? But put forth thine hand now, and
" touch all that he hath r and he will curse thee to thy
" face. And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all
" that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself puf
" not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from
" the presence of the Lord*." The Prophet s ac-
count is in these words : " Be silent, O all flesh, before
" the Lord : for he is raised up out of his holy habi-
vtation. And he shewed me JOSHUA the high priest"
" standing before the angel of the Lord, and SAT A N
" standing at his right hand to resist him. And the
" Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O
" Satan ; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem,
" rebuke thee: Is not this a brand pluckt out of the
<: fire? Now Joshua wax clothed with filthy garment^
" and stood before the angel. And he answered and
" spake unto those that stood before him, saying,
". Take away the filthy garments from him. . And
"..unto him he" said, Behold, I \\SLVC caused thine Inl^
" quity to paw from thee, and I will clothe thee with
* Chap, i, yer.6, & seq.
i: change
Sect. 2.] CJF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 355
u change of Raiment. And I said, Let them set a
" fair mitre upon his- head ; so they set a fair mitre
" upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And
" the angel of the Lord stood by *." JOB S whole
dramatic life lies here in its stamina. Satan standing,
at the a)tgels right hand to rexixt Joshua, is, (when
drawn out more at length) his persecution of Job
Joshua elvtlied withjilthy garments, is Job amidst the.
Ashes The clothing of Joshua with change of rat-,
merit, and setting a fair mitre on his head, is Job s re*,
turning Prosperity And the angel of the Lord standing
by, is GOD S Interposition from the Whirlwind,
Hut we have not yet done with this Character.
The finding SATAN in the scene is a strong proof that
the Work was composed in the age we have assigned
to it. This evil Being was little known to the Jewish
People . till .about this time. Their great Lawgiver,
where he so frequently enumerates, and warns them
of, the snares and temptations which would. draw them
to transgress the Law of GOD, never once mentions
this Capital enemy of Heaven ; yet this was an expe
dient which the wisest. Pagan Lawgivers f thought of
use, to keep the Populace in the ways of virtue.
Thus Zaleucus, in the preface to his book of Laws,
speaks of an evil Doiox tempting men to mischief:
And in the popular Religion there was always a FURV
at hand, to pursue the more atrocious Offenders
through the world. Nay, w hen the end of that sacred
History which Moses compr.sod, obliged him to treat
of Satan s first grand machination against mankind, he
entirely hides this .wicked Spirit under . the Animal
which he made his instrument. (The reason of this
wise conduct hath been in. part explained already, and
* * Zech. ii. 13. Cbap.ili. ycr. i, & seq.
f See Divine Legation, vol. i. pp- 339, & seq^
A A 2 Will
356 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
will be more exactly treated in the course of our ge
neral argument*.) But, as the fulness of time drew
near, they were made more and more acquainted with
this their capital Enemy. When Ahab, for the crimes
and follies of the People, was suffered to be infatuated r
we have this account of the matter in the first book
of Kings : And Micaiah said, Hear thou therefore
the icord of the Lord : I scnv the Lord sitting on his
throne, and all the host of hetreen standing by him, OK
his right hand, and on his left. And the Lord said.
Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and Jail
at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said en this manner, and
another said on that manner. And there came forth
a SPIKIT, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will
persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, IFheve-
uith ? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his Prophet ft. Ami he said,
Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also : Go forth,
tind do so \* SATAN is not here recorded byname;
and so we must conclude that the People were yet to
know Iktle of his history : However,, this undertaking
sufficiently declared his nature. On the return fram
the Captivity, we find him better known ; ai>d things
then are ascribed to him, as the immediate and proper
Author, which (while divine Providence thought fit to
keep .back the knowledge of him) were before given,
hi an improper sense, to the first and ultimate Cause of
all tilings. Thus, in the second book of Samuel, it is
said, that GOD moved David to number the people,
And again, the anger of the Lord was kindled agaimt
Israel, and he moved David against them to say, G
number Israel and Jndah . But in the first book of
Chronicles,, whkk was written after the Captivity,
* See note [A A] at the end of this volume.
f- i Kings xxii. 19, & se<j, J i Sam. xxiv, i.
Satan-
Sect. :2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 357
Satan is said to have moved David to this folly. Anl
Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David
fr) number Israel *. For, II is history having an inse
parable connexkm with the Redemption of Mankind,
the knowledge of them was to be conveyed together :
and now, their later Prophets had given less obscure
descriptions of the REDEEMER and the other attendant
truths.
Here let me stop a moment, though I anticipate my
subject, to adore the visible splendour of the divine
Wisdom, in this period of GOD S moral Dispensation :
We have observed that the fulness of time approach^
ing, the writings of the Prophets, after the Captivity,
had given less obscure intimations of the Redemption ;
and that the Truths, which had a necessary connexion
with it, were proportkmably laid open. Two of the
principal of these were the HISTORY OF SATAN and
the DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE,* which, SOOU
after this time, were conveyed to their knowledge.
Now, besides the use of those two truths to the ge^
neral Economy, they were of great advantage to the
Jewish people at those very junctures when each was
first made known unto them. The history of Satan, it
is evident, they were brought acquainted \\ith in their
Captivity ; and nothing could better secure them from
the dangerous error of the TWO PRINCIPLES, which
WH.S part of the national Religion of tho Country into
which they were led captive. The doctrine of a fu
ture state they learnt some SUM! I time after their
thorough Re-establishment ; and this being at a time
when their extraordinary Providence was departed
from them, was of the highest advantage and support
to them, as a Nation and a People. But this, as I
is anticipating my subject, and will be explained
* l Chron. xxi. i.
A A 3 at
358 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book Y-L
at large hereafter: The other is the point we are at
present concerned with, namely, the knowledge of this
wicked Spirit; and the security -tlris knowledge
afforded, against the* error of the two Principles :
Which leads us to another use the Writer of the book
of Job hath made f this PC manage tf the Drama.
We have observed, that the principal design of the
Author of this work was to remove all errors , con*-
cerning the SUPREME CAUSE, from amongst a People
now about to come under the ordina-f-y Providence of
Heaven, after having been long accnst V.rhKl to the
extraordinary. The common fault \vhidi th e Ancients
were prone to comm - on seeing good and bad happen
iridiii orently to all men, was to bring in question the
GOODNESS of their Maker. And they were apt to
satisfy themselves in this diliieulty, by another mistake
as absurd as that was impious: the beliet of-xwo
PRINCIPLES, a Good and an Evil. The Jews, of
this time particularly, were most obnoxious to the
danger, as coming from a place where this strange
Doctrine made part of the public Religion. It was
of the highest importance therefore to guard against
both these errors. And this the sacred Writer hath
effectually done, by shewing that SATAN, or the evil
Spirit (whose history, misunderstood, or imperfectly
told, in the first Ages of mankind, much favoured the
notion of an evil Prmciplc) was, like all -other imma
terial Beings, even of the hi^he^t rank, a creature of
GOD ; - at enmity with him ; bat -entirely in his power ;
and used by him as an instrument to punish wicked
.men; yet sometimes permitted to a f Diet the Good, tor
a trial of their patience, and to render their Faith and
Virtue more perfect and conspicuous. Hence we -see
( which deserves our serious reflection) how useful it
Was to this purpose (\yhat little light soever it gave to
j 2 the
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 359
the Question) to resolve all, when the dispute came to
be moderated and determined, into tlic OMNIPOTENCE
OF GOD, who is represented as the SOLE Creator and
Governor of all things. And, what the Wisdom of
the Holy Spirit directed the Writer of the book of
Job to do, Iii tlus point, on their coming from the Land
which held the belief of TWO PRINCIPLES, the same
Wisdom directed Isaiah to -do, on their going thither.
This Prophet, in the person of God, addressing his
speech to Cyrus, whom God had appointed to be the
instrument of his People s Restoration, says : / am
the Lord, and there u none else, there ;$ no God
besides me : I girded thee, though thou hast not hnoicn
me. I ! O R M THE LIGHT, A N D C R E A T E D A RIv X E S S ;
I MAKE PEACE, AND CREATE EVIL; I the Lord do
all these things*.
This declaration of God by Isaiah naturally leads us,
ere w r e conclude this head, to consider another text of
the book of Job, which confirms all that is here said
of SAT AX and the TWO PRINCIPLES; and, by con
sequence, the opinion here advanced, of the time in
which the book was written. Job, speaking of the
works of Creation and Providence, says, He divided
.the SEA with hi* power, and hi* understanding smlteth
through -the PROUD f. This evidently alludes to the
miracle of the Red-sea, and the destruction of Pharaoh.
From these works of Providence upon earth, the writer
proceeds to speak of God s work of Creation above ;
both material and Intellectual. By his Spirit he hiiili
GARNISHED the heavens , his Hand hath formed the
CROOKED SERPENT ];; i. e. I Iii made the material
and intellectual world ; and in this latter, the evil J>ch/g
.himself, (that pretended Rival of his power, and
Opposcr of all his good) is equally the work of his
* Js. xlv. 5. 7. t C h xxvi - vcr 12 + Ver - J 3-
A A 4 hands.
S6o THE DJVINE LEGATION [Bpok VI,
hands. The progression and connexions of the
parts, contained in this whole period, are extremely
beautiful. His work of Providence, as Lord of Na
ture upon earth, led properly to his work of Creation
above, as the Maker and Governor of all things:
and his chastisement of the proudest and most powerful
Monarch then on earth, in his character of Governor
of the Moral world, as naturally introduced the men
tion of his creating, and his keeping in subjection, the
EVIL SPIRIT, in his character of the first Cause of all
things. And, to, connect these two relations together
with the greater justness, the writer with much elegance
calls the ei il Spirit by that name wherewith the sa,cred
Writers, and especially Isaiah, (whom we shall see
presently the writer of the book of Job had particularly:
in his eye) denote the king of Egypt. In that day the
JLord 3 with his sore and. great and strong sword, shall
funish Leviathan the piercing serpent, even Leviathan
that CROOKED SERPENT, ami he. shall 4ay the Drago/i
that is in the sea *. Let us observe, that the Writer
of the book of Job, in the last verse, evidently alludes
to, or rather paraphrases those words of Isaiah
quoted before I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and CREATE EVIL : I the Lord do all
these things: For what is this but sahufhifig the
Heavens, and FOIIMTXG THE CROPPED SERPENT ?
But the relation avid connexion between the itzth and^
13th verses | not being observed, several eminent
Commentators, boti* Jews and Christians, were inc.liged*
to understand tLe crooked serpent as stepuving the.
great Con .-.tciiation so named, situate near the arctic
pole ; or at least, that enormous trail of light called
the Galaxy or Via lactca. And those Alytjerys wlip.
ve been as backward to fiuci. a Devil fpr tjie tempter*.
* h. xxviii* f Job xxvi.
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, 3 (u
as a Ood for their Redeemer, thought U agreed best
with tiicir Socinian reasoning-scheme ; the general
^nention of the garniture of the //mtvv/.v, bein^ well
followed by a particular description of- one of its pieces
of furniture. Bat whatever their force, of logic nm$
be, their taste of Rhetoric seems nun .? of the best,
|t is a strange kind of amplification to say, <c He made
" all the constellations, and lie made one of them.*"
But that interpretation of Scripture which receives it*
chief strength from the rules of human eloquence,
and art of composition, hath often hut a slender sup
port. I shall go on therefore to shew, that an Hebrew
Writer (and he who, after all that has been said, will
not allow the Author of the book of Job to be an
Hebrew, may grant or deny what he pleases, for me)
to shew, I say, that an Hebrew Jl r riLci\ by the
crooked Serpent could not mean a Constellation.
The Rabbins tell us, (who in this case seem to be
competent Evidence) that the ancient Hebrews in their
.Astronomy, which the movable Feasts of their Ritual
-necessitated them to cultivate, did not represent the
Stars, either single or in Constellations, by the uumc or
figure of any Animal whatsoever ; but distinguished
them by the letters of their alphabet, artificially com
bined. And this they assure us was th<? constant
practice, till, in the later ages, they became acquainted
\\ith the Grecian Sciences: Then, iiufeed, tliey learnt
the art of tricking up their spin; UK, and making it as
|/ict!iresque as their neighbours. But still they did it
with modesty and reserve ; and hesitated even then,
to admit of any human Figure. Thp reason given for
this .scrupulous observance, namely, the danger of
Idol i try, is the highest confirmation, of the trujth oti thck
account. For it is not to be believed, that, when the
and SUPJSUSTITION of Egypt were so
closely
362 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
closely colleagued, and that the combination was sup
ported by this very means, the NAMES given to the
Constellations, it is not to be believed, I say, that
Moses, who. under the ministry of God, forbad the
Israelites to make any likeness of any thing in HE A VEX
above according to the old mode, would suffer them to
make mw likenesses there : which, if not in the first
intention set up to be worshipped, yet, we know, never
waited long to obtain that honour. To corroborate this
Rabbinical account relative to the Hebrew Astronomy,
we may observe, that the Translators of the Septuagint,
the Heads and Doctors of the Jewish Law, who
must needs know what was conformable to the practice
derived from that Law, understood the Writer of the
book of Jo!) to mean no more nor less than the DEVIL
by this periphrasis of the crooked Serpent ; and so
translated it, APAKONTA AIIOZTATHN, the apostatQ
Drag ox.
From all this it appears, that neither MOSES nor
ESDKAS -could call a Constellation by the n : amc of the
crocked Serpent.
V. The last Actor in this representation, is Job^
fourth friend, ELIHU the son of Bar acl id the Buzlfe %
v-ho is brought upon the stage in the thirty-second
chapter. He is made to reprove Job with great;
asperity ; and, like the other three, to have his icrath
Kindled against him : and yet, to the surprise of all the
Commentators, he is not involved in their Sentence,
\vhen GOD passes judgment on the Controversy.
Here again, the only solution of the difficulty is our
interpretation of the book of Job. Elilm s opposition
\vas the severity of a true friend; the others tiie ma-
lice of pretended ones. His severity egainst Job arose
from this, that Job justified himself rather than GW*,
*- Ch. xxxii. ver. 2.
that
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. ^363
that is, was more anxious to vindicate his own inno
cence than the equity of God s Providence. For
- under the person of KtlifU was designed tiie wcrcd
- Writer himself, lie begins with the character of a
true Prophet, under which, as in the act of inspiration,
he represents himself. I am full of matter, the Spirit
within me > const raineth inc. Behold, my belly is ax
iciiw which hath no *cznt* it is ready to burst like new
bottles*. And this, he contrasts with the character
of the false Prophets -af that time, Let me not, I pray
you, accept any mans person, neither let me grce fiat-
t ering -titles unto man \. But all this will appear
from the following considerations.
Eiihu, OP, the entrance upon his argument, addresses
the three friends in the following muunner: Now he
hath not directed his words agafast 3iE : neither will I
answer him with YOUR speeches .. This snfliciemly
discriminates his cause and character from theirs. Us
then turns to Job : " My words (says lie) shall be of
" the tipfigkffUSM of my heart ; and my lips shall
* -utter, knowledge clearly. The Spirit of God hath
" made me, and the breath r/f the Almighty \\-d\\\ i>;iveii
- fk me life. If thoti canst aiv-.ver me, set thy words m
"order before me, aiui ^snd up. BI:HOLJ>, I AM
l< ACCORDING TO THV WISH, IN (JOD.S STKAD:
<; I also am formed out of the ciayV c. Tills cbarly
intimates tlie character of Clod s chosen Servant :
These were of approved integrity, they received the
divine inspiration, and were therefore in (V t --/ .v stu .d
to t ic People?. Flihu goes on in the same strain.
44 Ue excites Job to attention, accuses him of charg
ing Gor v\ith injustice , reproves Lis hnpietj", tells
)mn that men cry in their afflictions, and are not heard
* Ch. xxxii, ver, 18, ij. t Vcr. *2i.
I \ v\\ ^4, Ch. xxxiii. ver. 3, & ^rj.
for
364 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book V*
for want of faith : that his sins hinder the descent of
GOB S blessings ; whose wisdom and ways are un
searchable/ But is this the conversation of one
private man to another ? Is it not rather a public
exhortation of an Hebrew Prophet speaking to the
People ? Hence too, w^e may see the great propriety
of that allusion to the case of Hezekiah *, mentioned
above, which the writer of the book of Job, in this
place, puts into the mouth of Elihu. The Spirit with
which Elihu speaks is farther seen from his telling Job
that he desires to justify him f. And yet he accuses
him of saying, It proftteth a man nothing, that he
should delight himself with God [: and expostulates
with him yet further ; Thinkcst thou this to he right
that tluiU sa ulsty My righteousness is more than God* a?
For thou saidst, IVhat advantage will it Irt unto thee,
end what profit shall I have, if I he cleansed from w//
$in\? Here the Commentators are much scandalized,
as not seeing how this could be fairly collected from
what had passed : yet it is certain he says no more of
Job than what the Prophets say of the People repre
sented under him. Thus Malachi : " Ye have wearied
* ; the Lord with your words : yet ye say> Wherein
" have we wearied him? When ye say, Everyone
4 tliat doth evil is good in the sight of the Lord> and
" he delighteth in them ; or, Where is the God of
* judgment I) ? " And again : Ye h-arce said, It is yam
to serve God: and what profit is it-, that we have kept
his ordinance, and that we have* walked Diournjully,
before the Lord of Hosts? And now we call the proud
happy : Yea they that work wickedness are set up ;
yea they that tempt God are even delivered,^. It was
* Ch.xxxiii. ver. 18, & seq. f Ch. xxxii. ver. 32.
J Ch. xxxiv. ver. 9. Ch. xxxv. ver. 2, 3.
fj Mul.ii, 17. f Maliii. 14, 15.
this
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED.
this which kindled Elilm s wrath against Job ; who, in
this work, is represented to be really guilty ; as appears
not only from the beginning of GOD S speech to him* ;
but from his own confession f , which follows. It is.
remarkable that Job, from the beginning of his mis
fortunes to the coming of his three comforters, though,
greatly provoked by his Wife, sinned not (as we are
told) zrith his lips . But, persecuted by the malice,
and bitterness of their words, he began to lay such
stress on his own innocence as even to accuse the
justice of GOD. This was the very state of the Jew*
at this time : So exactly has the sacred Writer con
ducted his allegory ! They bore their straits and diffi
culties with temper, till their enemies the Cuthcam.
and afterwards Scmballat, ToMak, and the Arabians^
confederated against them; and then, they fell into
indecent murmurings against GOD. And here let u*
observe a difference in the conduct of Elihu and t ie
three friends, a difference which well distinguishes
their- characters : They accuse Job of preceding faults;
Elihu accuses him of the present, namely, his impa
tience and impiety : which evidently shews that hi*
charge was true, and that theirs was unjust .
Again, Elihu uses the very same reasonings agamsfc
Job and his three friends jj, which are afterwards put
into the mouth of GOD himself*]", resolving all into
his OMNIPOTENT. Elihu s speech is indeed in every
respect the same tvith GOD S, except in the severity of
bis reproof to Job. And, in that, the Writer hath
shewn much address in conducting his subject. The.
end and purpose of this Work was to encourage the
Jews to a perseverance in their duty from the assured
* Ch. xxxviii. t Ch. xlii. ver. i, & seq. J Ch. ii. vci . ro,
See not [fefc] at the end of this vulr.me.
|J From ch. xxx-ji. to x*.xviu f i rom clu xxxviii. to xlii.
care
3(76 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI,
care and protection of Providence. At the same time*
as they were growing impatient, it was necessary this
temper should be rebuked. But as the ordonance of
ihe Poem is disposed, the putting the reproof into the
mouth of the Almighty would have greatly weakened
the end and purpose of the Work. This part there
fore is given to his servant Elihu ; and GOD S sentence,
is all grace and favour on the side of Job, and indig
nation and resentment against his. false Friends. For
this event, the Writer had finely prepared us, in making.
Job, in the heat of the disputation, say to these friends,
Wilt thou speak wickedly for God ? and tallc deceit-
fit Hi/ for him ? Will ye accept his person ? JV dl ye eon-,
tend for God? Is it good that he should search you
out? or as one man mocheth another do ye so mock
him? HE WILL SURELY REPROVE YOU, [f ye do se*
crethj accept Persons. The judicious reader will-
observe another artful circumstance in the cast of
Elihu s oration. The three friends, in the grand ques
tion concerning an equal Providence, went directly
over to one side, and Job to another : Elihu inclines
to neither, but resolves all into submission to the Al
mighty power of GOD. For it was yet inconvenient
to acquaint the Jews, (who were just going to fall
under a common Providence) with the truth of their
case. Hence, to observe it by the vvay, another cir
cumstance arises to determine the date of the poem.
We have shewn that the Subject suited only this time i
We now see that the manner of treating the Subject
could agree to no other. On the whole, this interme^
diate speech of Elihu s was the finest preparative for
the decisive one which was to follow.
Farther, The true character of Elihu is seen from
hence, that Job replies nothing to these words, as con-
* Chap: xiii. ver\ 7, 8, & seq.
SC10U3
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 367
scious of the truth of his reproofs ; and that ilicy were
the reproofs of a Friend. And. indeed, his submis
sion, on this occasion, was to represent the repentance
of the Jews on the preaching of their Prophets, Ilag-
gai, Zechariah, and Maiachi.
But lastly, Elihu s not being involved in the con
demnation of the three friends is the most convincing,
argument of his vevy different Character. This, as
we have said, exceedingly perplexed the Commentators.
But where was the wonder, he should be acquitted,
when he had said nothing but what GOD himself re
peated and continued ? What is rather to be admired
is the severe sentence passed upon the three friends ;
and that, for the crime of impiety. A thing utterlv
inexplicable on the common interpretation. For let
them be as guilty a,s you please, to Job, they are all the
way advocates for Gob ; and hold nothing concerning
his Government that did not become his Nature and
Character. But let us once suppose, these three
friends to represent, the Adversaries of the Jews, and
the difficulty ceases. All their pretences arc then hy
pocritical : and they impiously assume the Patronage
of GOD only co cany on their malice to more advan
tage against Job. Why the Writer of this book did
not LJ)I /." // expose the wickedness of their hearts, as is
clone in the book of Exra and Xehemiah, was because
the nature of the work would not suffer it ; the ques
tion in "debate, and the managers of the question,
necessarily requiring that, the part they took should
have a specious outside of piety and veneration touard
GOD. In a word, Job is made to say something
wrong, because he represents the impatient Jews of
that time: His three false friends, to say something
ri^ht ; because the nature of -the drama so required : And
Elihu
THE UVINE LEGATION [Book VL
Elihu to moderate with a perfect rectitude, because^ he
represented the person of a Prophet*
But to see the truth of this interpretation in its best
light, one- should have before one s eyes all those dif
ficulties with which the Commentators of the book of
Job are entangled at almost every step, A view of
this would draw us into an unreasonable length. I
shall only take notice of one of the most judicious of
them, (who has collected from all the rest) in the very
case of this Elihu. CALMET characterises the fourth
friend in this manner : There was now none but Eiihii,
the youngest and least judicious, that held out against
Job s arguments Elihu here by a vain parade and
overflow of words gites a reason*, c. Again;
Elihu tvas gttofh to represent one tcho knew not tune
to besilM, a great talker \. And again : It cannot
be denied but that there is d mixture of ignorance and
presumption in what Elihu says: and, above all, a
strange prejudice and risible injustice in most of the
accusations he brings against Job . This he says in
deed. But when he comfes to find Elihu escape GOD S
condemnation, in which the other three are involved,
he alters his note, and unsays all the hard things he
had thrown out against him. Although Elihu (says
Re) had mistaken the seme (yf his friend * words,
for all that, God seems y at least, to have approved
* II n y cut qu Eliu, qui etoit le plus jcunt & le moins judicicx
<jtfi ne se rendit pas pi-:r un vain etalage des paroles Eliu rend
jti raismi, &c. Sur C. xxxii. ver. l.
f Pour designer un homme qui ne se pent taire, un grand causeur.
ur C. xxxii. ver. 18.
J On ne pent nier, qu il n y ait & de Tignorance & de 1$ pre-
ftmptkHi dans cc qut dit Eliu, &, sur tout, une etrange prevention
A: une injustice visible dans la plupart des accusations, <ja il forma
Job. Sur C. xxviii. ver. 2*
intention^
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 369
intention, because when he declares to Job s friends
that they had spoken amiss, and commands them to
offer up burnt-offerings J or themselves, he only speaks
vf Bildad, Eliphaz, and Zophar, without mentioning
Elihu. Besides, Job answers not a word to this last,
and bij his silence seems to approve of his discourse *.
GROT jus, who strove to be more consistent in his
character of Elihu, which yet his acquittal in GOD S
sentence will not suffer any Commentator to be, upon
the received idea of this Book, has run into a very
strange imagination. He supposes Elihu might be a
domestic, or retainer to one of the three friends, and
so be involved in the condemnation of his principal f.
But, now mark the force of prejudice to inveterate
notions ! It is visible to every one who regards the two
speeches of Elihu and GOD with the least attention,
that the doctrine and the reasoning are the same. Yet
Calmet s general character of Eiihu is, that there is
a vain parade and overflow of words , that there is a
micture of ignorance and presumption, and a visible
injustice, in most of the accusations he byings against
Job. And yet of GOD S speech he says, Here we have
A CLEAR SOLUTION of the difficulties which had per
plexed and embarrassed thesejivejriends J. Pity that
"this clear solution should turn out to be no .solutio?i
at all.
* Quoiqu Eliu eftt mal pris le sens des paroles de son ami,
toutefois Dieu sernble approuver au moins son intention: puisque
lorsqu il declare aux amis de Job qu ils out mal parle, & qu ii
urdonne qu on offre pour eux des holocaustres, il ne fait mention
tjue de Bildad, d Eliphaz, <\r de Sophar, sans purler d Eliu. De
plus, Job ne. repond point a ce dernier, & par son silence il semble
approuver son discours.
t Elihu hie non nominatur, ut nee supra ii. 11. forte quod
assecla esset alicujus irium. In C. xlii. ver. 7.
t C tst ici b denouement de la piece, & la solution des difficul-
tez, qui avoiont etc agitces entre cos cinque amis.
VOL. V. 15 i* HI. Having
370 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI,
III. Having thus fixed the date of the book, our
next enquiry will be concerning its AUTHOR. That
it was composed by an inspired writer is beyond all
.question. Not only its uncontroverted reception and
constant place in the Canon, and its internal marks
of divinity, which this Exposition has much illustrated
and enlarged, but its being quoted as inspired scripture-
by St. Paul*, will suffer no reasonable man to doubt
of it. By this time therefore, I suppose, the Reader
will be beforehand with me in judging it could scarce
be any other than EZRA himself; who was a ready
scribe in the Law of Moses, and had prepared his heart
to seek the Laic of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach
in Israel statutes and judgments \. For he had the
welfare of his People exceedingly at heart, as appears
from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. And this of
Job, we have shewn, was written purposely for their
instruction and consolation. He made a correct edi
tion of the Scriptures, settled the Canon, and added in
several places throughout the books of his edition, what
appeared necessary for the illust rating, connecting, or
completing of than J. He is reasonably supposed to
be the author of the two books of Chronicles and the
book of Esther. It was a common tradition too
amongst the Jews, that he was the same with Malachi.
And his great reputation as a ready scribe in the Law
of Moses, apparently gave birth to that wretched (able
of the destruction of the Scriptures in the Babylonian
captivity, and Ezra s re- production of them by divine
inspiration.
Thus is our interpretation of the BOOK OF JOB so
far from taking away any dignity, or authenticity it
was before possessed of, that it establishes arid enlarges
* i Cor.iii. 10. He Lakcth thewscin their own craftiness. Job v. 13.
\ Ezra vii. 6. 10. J Prideaux g Conn. P. i. b. 5.
both.
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 371
both. The shewing it principally respected a whole
People highly ennobles the subject : and the fixing an
anonymous writing on one of the most eminent of
GOD S Prophets greatly strengthens its authority. But
the chief advantage of my interpretation, I presume,
lies in this, That it renders one of the most difficult
and obscure books in the whole Canon, the most easy
and intelligible: reconciles all the characters to Na
ture, all the arguments to Logic, and all the doctrines
to the course and order of GOD S Dispensations. And
these things shewing it superior, in excellence, to any
human Composition, prove, what universal Tradition
hath always taught, that it is of divine Original.
II.
Having brought down the date of this book so low,
it is of little importance to our subject, whether the
famous passage in the nineteenth chapter be under
stood of a RESURRECTION from the dead, or only of
TEMPORAL DELIVERANCE from afflictions*. Yet as
our interpretation affords new assistance for determin
ing this long debated question, it will not be improper
to sift it to the bottom.
I make no scruple then to declare for the opinion
of those who say that the words [/ know that my Re
deemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter
day upon the earth. And though after my skbt,
worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see
God. Whom I shall see J or myself] and mine eyes
shall behold, and not another -\^\ can signify no more
than JOB S confidence in a TEMPORAL DELIVERANCE ;
as all agree they may signify. And therefore I shall
the less insist upon a common observation, " That our
Translators, who were in the other opinion, have given
* See note [CC] at the end of this volume.
f Chap. xix. ver. 25, & seq,
B B 2 a force
3/2 THE DIVINE LEGATIOX [Book VI.
a force to their expression which the Original will by
HO means bear/
My reasons are these, i . To understand the words,
of a Resurrection, is repugnant to the whole tenor of
the Argument : and to understand them of a temporal
deliverance, is perfectly agreeable thereto. 2. The
end and design of the Composition, as explained
above, absolutely requires this latter sense, and dis
claims the former. 3. The former sense is repugnant
to Job s own express declaration in other places.
I. \Ve must observe that the book of Job is strictly
argumentative : and though sententious, and abounding
with poetic figure?, yet they are all subservient to the
matter in dispute. In this respect, much unlike the
writings of David and Solomon, which treat of divine
or moral matters in short and detached sentences. On
which account, the ablest of those, who go into the
sense of a Resurrection, have found the necessity of
reconciling it to the Context. Thus much being
granted, we argue against the sense they put upon it,
from these considerations: j. First the Disputants
are all equally embarrassed in adjusting the ways of
Providence . Job affirms that the Good man is some
times unhappy : yet lie appears to regard th it Dispen
sation as a nc:c thing and matter of wonder, upright
men shall be (ixicniyiitd at /to*; which, our interpre
tation well accounts for. The three friends contend
that the Good man can never be unhappy, because
such a situation would reflect dishonour on God s at
tributes. Now the doctrine of a Resurrecttwi, sup
posed to be here urged by Job, cleared up all this
embarras. If therefore his Friends thought it true, it
ended the dispute : if false, it lay upon them to con
fute it. Yet they do ncithei : they neither call it into
* Chap. xvii. ver. 8.
question.
Sect. 2.J OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 373
question, nor allow it to be decisive. But, without the
least notice that any such tiling had been urged, they
go on, as they began, to inforcc their former arguments,
and to confute that which, they seem to understand,
was the only one Job had urged against them, viz. The
consciousness of his own innocence. But to be a little
more particular. It fell to Zophar s part to answer
the argument contained in the words in question,
which I understand to be this " Take, says Job, this
" proof of my innocence : I believe, and confidently
" expect, that God will visit me again in mercy, and
" restore me to my former condition." To this
Zophar, in effect, replies : But why are you so mise
rable now ? For he goes on, in the twentieth chapter,
to describe the punishment of the Wicked to be just
such a state as Job then laboured under. He does
not directly say, The Good are not miserable ; but that
follows from the other part of the proposition (which
he here inforces as being a little more decent) The bad
are never happy. Now suppose Job spoke of the
Resurrection, Zophar s answer is wide of the purpose.
2. But what is still more unaccountable, Job, when he
resumes the dispute, sticks to the argument he first set
out with ; and though he found it gave his Friends
little satisfaction, yet he repeats it again and again.
But this other argument of a Resurrection, so full of
Piety and Conviction, which they had never ventured
to reply to, he never once resumes ; never upbraids
his Adversaries for their silence ; nor triumphs, as he
well might, in their inability to answer it. But, if ever
it were the object of their thoughts, it passed off like
a Dream or Reverie to which neither side gave any
attention. In a word, the Dispute between Job and
his Friends stands thus : They hold, that if GOD
afflicted the Good man, it would be unjust; therefore
B w 3
374 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI,
the Good man -was not afflicted. Job says, that GOD
did afflict the Good man : but that Reason must hero
submit, and own God s ways to be inscrutable. Could
he possibly rest in that answer, how pious soever, if
he had the more satisfactory solution of a FUTURE
STATE ? To this let me add, that if Job spoke of a
Resurrection., he not only contradicts the general tenor
of his argument, maintained throughout the whole
disputation, but likewise what he says in many places
concerning the irrecoverable dissolution of the body *.
It is true, that even in the sense of a temporal deliver
ance he contradicts what he had said, in his despair,
in the seventeenth chapter : But there is a manifest
difference between a contradiction of opinion and be-
lief, as in the first case ; and of passion and affection
onlv, as in the latter. And for this contradiction he
*/
seems to apologize, when he comes to himself, by de
siring that this confidence in his Deliverer might be
engraved on a Rock, as the opinion he would stand to.
3. But what is strangest of all, When each party had
confounded themselves, and one another, for want, as
one would think, of this principle of a Resurrection,
which so easily unravelled all the perplexities of the
dispute, the fourth Friend, the Moderator, steps in,
as the precursor of the Almighty, who afterwards
makes his appearance as the great Decider of the
Controversy. Here then we might reasonably expect
the Doctrine of the Resurrection to be resumed ; and
* See ch. vii. ver. 9. 21. Ch. x. ver. 21. Ch. xvi. ver. 22.
Ch.xiv. ver. 7, & seq. Could one who said, For there is hope of
a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, &c. But man
dieth, &c. could such a one (I speak of the personated character)
think of the body, like him who said, But some man will say, How
arc the dead raised up, and with what body do they come ? Thou fool,
that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. And that
which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but barz
grain ; it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain, <N:c,
4 that
Sect; 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 375
that the honour of the solution which it affords, was
reserved for These ; but, to our great surprise, they
neither of them give us the least hint concerning it.
Those who contend for this interpretation, suppose that
the notion was here delivered in order to support its
truth. What reason then can they give why neither
the Moderator nor Decider should employ it, to clear
up difficulties, when Job himself had touched upon it
before? Elihu justifies GOD S conduct; God bears
witness to Job s innocence : yet both concur in resolv
ing all into Power Omnipotent. This tends more to
cloud than clear up the obscurities of the debate :
Whereas the doctrine of a Resurrection had rendered
every thing plain and easy. In a word, no solution is
given, though a decision be made. All this, on the
common System, is quite unaccountable to our faculties
of understanding.
Let us see next whether my sense of the words
agree better with the tenor of the Dispute. Job, now
provoked past sufferance at the inhumanity and ma
lice of his pretended Friends, gives himself up to
despair * ; and seems, as we have observed, to con
tradict that part of his position which he had hitherto
held |y " that GOD would at length bring the Good
" man out of trouble." For which being reproved by
Bildad, (Shall the earth be forsaken jbr thee ? and
shall the ROCK be removed out of his place^.? i.e.
because it is thy pleasure so obstinately to maintain
that God does not govern by equal Laws, shall it
therefore be so ? The consequence of which would be
a speedy desolation. Shall the Rock^ or Providence
of
* Chap. xvii. f Ch.xiii. 15, 16. xiv. 13.
I Chap, xviii. ver. 4.
By the ROCK I suppose is meant the extraordinary Providence
of God i this being the common name by which it went amongst
B B 4 th*
376 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
of GOD be removed, to humour your passions?) Job.
recollects himself in the nineteenth chapter, and comes
again to his former mind. He begins by complaining
of their cruel usage : Says, that if indeed he were in an
error, his case was so deplorable that they ought
rather to treat him with indulgence : that this was no
season for severity : begs they would have pity on him ;
and then retracts what had fallen from him in the
anguish and bitterness of his soul : and lastly delivers
this as his fixed sentiment, in which he was determined
to abide ; (and in which he had indeed acquiesced, till
in ad 3 impatient and desperate by the harshness of
their treatment) namely, that GOD would at length
bring the Good man out of trouble. I KNOW THAT
MY REDEEMER LivETH, &c. Which he introduces
thus : Oh that my words were now written. Oh that
they were printed in a book! that they were graven
tvith an iron pen and lead, in the rock for ever * / As
much as to say, What 1 uttered just before, through
the disternperature of passion, I here retract, arid de
sire may be forgotten, and that this may be understood
as my fixed and unshaken belief f . And in this sen
timent, it is remarkable, he henceforward perseveres ;
never relapsing again into the like extravagance of
passion. Which conduct agrees exactly with his
general Thesis, " that Providence is not equally
administered ;
the Jewish People. He is the Rock, hi& work is perfect ; For all
his Ways are Judgment, Deut. xxxii. 4. The Rock of his Sab
nation, ver. 15. Of the Rock that begat thee, ver. 18. Except
their Rock had sold them, ver. 30. Their Rock is not as our Rock,
even our Enemies themselves being Judges, ver. 31. Their Rock in
whom they trmteJ, ver. 37. Neither is there any Rock like out-
God, i Sam.ii. 2. The Rock o/" Israel spake to me, -2 Sam. xxiii. 3.
Rock, thou hast established them, Heb. i. 10. and a great number
of other places.
* Chap. xix. ver. 23, 24.
^ See note [DD] at the end of this volume.
Sect 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 377
administered ; for that the Good Man is frequently
unhappy, and the wicked prosperous ; yet that, at last,
God will bring the Good Man out of trouble, and
punish the Wicked doers."
II. In the second place, if I have given a right
interpretation of the book of Job, a temporal d,
ance, and not the resurrection of the body, must needs
be meant : For the moral of the dramatic piece was to
assure the People, represented under the person of this
venerable Patriarch, of those great temporal blessings
which the three Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi, had predicted, in order to allay that tumult
of mind which arose in every one, on seeing the
extraordinary Providence, which protected their
Forefathers, now just about to be withdrawn from
them.
III. Thirdly and lastly, To understand these words
of a resurrection of the body, expressly contradicts
Job s plain declaration against any such hope, in the
following words, As the cloud is consumed and vanishcth
away, so he that goeth down to the grave, shall come
up no more *. Again So man lieth down, arid riscth
not till the heavens be no more: they shall not azcttkc,
nor be raised out of their sleep f . And again, If a
man die, shall he live again J ? Clarius and Drusius
on the words, till the heavens be no more, say, Intdligc
in (Eternum est scnsus, nullo unquam temporo, natu
coelum semper erit. It is not in human language to
express a denial of the Resurrection of the body in
stronger or plainer terms. So that it is no wonder the
SADDUCEES should, as they always did, urge the first
of these texts as the palmary argument against the
Pharisees ; but as an argument ad homines only, for
they refused to have their opinions tried by any thing
f Ch. yii. ver. 9, f Ch, xiv. ver. 12. J Ver. 14.
but
378 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
but the Law of Moses. However, to make it pertinent
to the support of their impiety, they understood the
book of Job to be an inspired relation of a real con
ference between the Patriarch and his Friends. And
give me leave to observe, that my Adversaries who
have the same idea of this book will never be able to
-acquit the Prophet of this impious Sadducean opinion.
Whereas the dramatic nature of it, here contended for,
frees him entirely from the charge; which I desire
may be accepted as another proof of the truth of our
general interpretation of the Work. Manassah Ben
Israel, who holds that Job taught the very contrary to
-a future State (not apprehending the nature of the
Composition) has a whole chapter against the Saddu-
eees, to shew, that this makes nothing against the
reality of such a State,
I cannot better conclude what hath been here said,
on this famous passage, or better introduce what will
be said on others to come next under examination,
than with the judicious remark of an ancient Catholic
Bishop, on this very book : IT is FIT WE SHOULD
UNDERSTAND NAMES AGREEABLY TO THE NATURE
OF THE SUBJECT MATTER; AND NOT MOLD AND
MODEL THE TRUTH OF THINGS ON THE ABUSIVE
SIGNIFICATION OF WORDS*, This, though a maxim
of the most obvious reason, can never, in theologie
matters especially, be too often inculcated. How
usual is it, for instance, to have the following words of
St. Paul quoted as a proof for the general resurrection
of the dead, by those who (as the good Bishop says)
mold the truth of things on the abusive signification
<>f words. " He that raised up Christ from the dead
ro ovo^oi/x. ttpocrvxsi voiv mpof T*/V T
> a ts>S T /JV KT2gi)?ty ruv >
iv. Serv. in Catena Graeca in Job.
" shall
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 373
** shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit
" that dwelleth in you*.
III. But as the terms, in this passage of Job, are
supposed, by me, to be metaphorical, and to allude to
the restoration of a dead body to life, some have ven
tured to infer, that those who use such terms and make
such allusions must needs have had the saving know
ledge of the thing alluded to, Resurrection of the
Body: And the following observation has been
repeated, by more than one Writer, with that air of
complacency, which men usually have for arguments
they ttyink unanswerable // the Scriptures speak of
temporal misfortunes and deliverance, in terms of death
and a Resurrection, then the doctrine of a resurrection
must have been well known, or the language would
have been unintelligible. And Jiere I will lay down
this rule, All words that are used in ajigurative sense,
must be first understood in a literal^.
This looks, at first sight, like saying something;
but is indeed an empty fallacy ; in which two very dif
ferent things are confounded with one another; namely,
the idea of a Resurrection, and the belief of it I shall
shew therefore that the very contrary to the first part
of the learned Doctor s observation is true, and that
the latter is nothing to the purpose.
I. The Messengers of God, prophesying for the
people s consolation in disastrous times, frequently
promise a restoration to the former days of felicity :
and to obviate, all distrust from unpromising appear
ances, they put the case even at the worst ; and assure
the People, in metaphorical expressions, that though
the Community were as entirely dissolved as u dead
* Rom. via. 1 1.
f Dr. Felton b two Sermons before the University <>f O\i<Ti.
pp. 18, ip.
body
3o THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
body reduced to dust, yet God would raise that Com
munity again to life. Thus Isaiah: Thy dead men
shall live, together with my chad body shall they arise :
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust: For thy
dew is as the detv of herbs, and the earth shall cast out
the dead*. And that we may have no doubt of the
Prophet s meaning, he himself explains it afterwards
in the following words f : And I mil camp against
ihce round about, and I will lay siege against thee
with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee. And
thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the
ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust,
and thy voice shall be as one that hath a familiar
spirit out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper
cut of the dust. Nothing could be more plain or
simple than such a metaphoric image, even amongst
men who had no knowledge that the natural body was
indeed to rise again ; because every man knowing
what it is to live and to die, every man knows what it
is to revive, this being only an idea compounded of the
other two : So that we see there was no occasion foy
the doctrine of the Resurrection to make the language
intelligible.
Nay farther, this metaphorical expression must have
there most efficacy where the doctrine of the Resur
rection was unknown. For we have observed it was
employed to inspire the highest sentiments of God s
Omnipotency ; but that always strikes the mind most
forcibly which is as well new as superior to its com
prehension. Therefore life from the dead was used,
(and from the force with which a new idea strikes) it
became almost proverbial in the writings of the Pro
phets, to express the most unlikely deliverance, by the
exertion of Almighty power.
f Ch. xxvi. ver. 19. t Ch.xxix. 3, 4.
The
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 381
The following instance will support both these ob
servations ; and shew, that the Doctrine was unknown ;
and that the Image was of more force for its being
unknoxvn. The Prophet Ezekiel *, when the state of
things was most desperate, is carried, by the Spirit,
into a valley full of dry bones, and asked this question,
Son of man, Can these dry bones live? A question
which God would hardly have made to a Prophet
brought up in the knowledge and belief of a Resurrec
tion. But supposing the question had been made;
the answer by men so brought up, must needs have
been, without hesitation, in the affirmative. But we
find the Prophet altogether surprised at the strange
ness of the demand. He was drawn one way by the
apparent impossibility of it to natural conceptions ; he
was drawn the other, by his belief in the Omnipotence
of God. Divided between these two sentiments, he
makes the only answer which a man in such circum
stances could make, O Lord God thou knowest-\. This
surprising act of Omnipotency is therefore shewn in
Vision, either real or imaginary. The bones come
together ; they are clothed with flesh, and receive the
breath of life $. And then God declares the meaning
of the representation. " Then he said unto me, Sou
" of Man, these bones are the whole house of Israel :
" Behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope
" is lost, we are cut off for our parts. Therefore.
" prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord
" God, Behold, O my People, I will open your graves,
" and cause you to come up out of your graves, and
<c bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall
" know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your
** graves, O my People, and brought you up out of
" your graves, and shall put my Spirit in you, and } t
* Ch. xxxvii. t Ver. 3. J Ver. 8. 10.
" shall
382 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
" shall live ; and I shall place you in your own Land.
" Then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it,
" and performed it, saith the Lord*."
Here we see, in a Prophecy delivered in Action or
Vision, instead of Words (the nature and original of
which has been discoursed of elsewhere) and afterwards
explained by words, to ascertain its meaning, that the
figurative ideas of Death and Resurrection are used
for temporal distresses and deliverance : and this, at
a time when the Doctrine of the Resurrection, from
whence the metaphor is supposed to arise, was so far
from being well known> that the figure could never
have acquired its force and energy but from the Peo
ple s ignorance of such a doctrine the scenical
representation, without all question, alluding to that
proverbial speech amongst the Jews : Wilt thou shew
wonders to the dead ? Shall the dead arise and praise
thee )" ? On the whole then nothing was ever worse
grounded than the observation, that if the Scriptures
speak of temporal misfortunes and deliverance in tht
terms of death and a resurrection, then the DOCTRINE
of a resurrection must liave been zcell known, or the
language would have been unintelligible.
II. And now for the general Rule which follows:
All Kurds that are used in a figurative sense must be
first under stood in a literal. If no more be meant
than that every figurative sense has a literal, the pro
position is true, but trifling, because figurative is a
relative term, and implies literal as its correlative.
If it means, that he who uses words in a figurative sense
must have an idea of the literal, this is likewise true,
but nothing to the purpose, because the idea of a thing
does not imply either the truth or the belief of it.
But if it means, that a figurative proposition implies
* Yer. 11, & seq. t Ps. Ixxxviii. 11.
the
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 383
the User s belief of its literal sense, this is to the
purpose, but not true. The People had an Idea of
dry bones being clothed a^ain with flesh, and the breath
of life inspired into the carcass ; but they were so far
from believing that was to be the case of all mankind,
that they did not know whether it was possible that
those bones in the valley could be restored.
To conclude with the ANSWERERS of this Disser
tation, the miscellaneous I Writers on the Book of Job;
It may not be improper to remind them, that they
would have done their duty better, and have given the
learned and impartial Public more satisfaction, if y
instead of labouring to evade two or three independent
arguments, though corroborative of my interpretation,
they had, in any reasonable manner, accounted, How
this interpretation, which they affect to represent as
visionary and groundless, should be able to lay open
and unfold the whole conduct of the Poem upon one
entire, perfect, elegant and noble plan, which does
more than vulgar honour to the Writer who composed
it. And that it should at the same time, be as useful
in defining the Parts as in developing the Whole ; sa
that particular texts, which, for want of sufficient light,
had hitherto been an easy prey to Critics from every
quarter, are now no longer affected by the common
opprobrium affixed to this book, of its being a nose of
waji\ made to suit every religions System. Of which^
amongst many others, may be reckoned the famous
text just now explained. All this, our Hypothesis
(as it is called) has been able to perform, in a Poem
become, through length of time and negligence, s^
desperately perplexed, that Commentators have chosen,
as the easier task, rather to find their own notions
in it than to seek out those of the Author.
For
34 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
For the rest, For any fuller satisfaction, He that
wants it is referred to the third chapter of the Free
and candid Examination of the Bishop ^of London s*
Principles, 8$c. where he will see, in a fuller light than
perhaps he has been accustomed to see such matters,
the great superiority of acute and solid reasoning over
chicane and sophistry.
SECT. III.
THE book of JOB hath engaged me longer than
I intended : but I shall make amends, by dispatching
the remainder of the objections with great brevity.
Those brought from the OLD TESTAMENT are of
two kinds :
I. Such as are supposed to prove the separate Ex
istence, or, as it is called, the immortality of the SouL
IT. Such as are supposed to prove a future state
of Reward and punishment, together with a Remrrec*-
ticn of the body.
I. To support the first point, the following words
of Moses are urged, " And God said, Let us make
" Man in our image, after our likeness : and let them
" have DOMINION, &&gt;c. And God created man in
" his own image, in the image of God created he
" him f :" From whence it is inferred, that Man was
created with a n immaterial soul. On the contrary, I
suppose, that Moses was here giving intimation of a
very different thing, namely, its rationality. My rea
sons are these : I think, indeed, it may be strictly
demonstrated that Man s soul is immaterial , but then
the same arguments which prove his immateriality,
prove likewise that the souls of all living animals
are immaterial ; and this too without the least injury
* Dr. Sherlock. f Gen. i. -27.
to
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 385
to Religion *. An Immaterial soul therefore being
common to him with the whole brute creation, and it
being something peculiar to man, in which the image
of God is said to consist, I conclude the Historian did
not here teach any thing concerning an immaterial SouL
The only two things peculiar to man are his Shape
and his Reason. None but an Anthropomorphite will
say it was his shape ; I conclude therefore it was his
REASON : And this farther appears from hence, When
God says, Let us make man in our image., after our
likeness, he immediately adds, And let him have DO~
MINION over the whole Brute Creation : Which plainly
marks in what the image or likeness consisted : for
what was it that could invest man with a Dominion
de facto, after he had it by this grant, dejure, but his
REASON only ? This Dominion too was apparently
given for some preeminence ; but man s preeminence
consists not in his having an immaterial soul, for that
he has in common with all other animals : But in his
Reason alone, which is peculiar to him : The likeness
therefore or image consisted in REASON. And thus
Philo Judoeus understood the matter, where alluding
to this text, he says, Aoyo? l?\v ilxw <5)e$, Reason is- the
image of God. So much for the first Objection.
2. The next is drawn from the following words of
the same Writer : " And the Lord God formed man
" of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
" nostrils the breath of li/ e, and man became a living
* soul f ;" that is, say these Ileasoners, he had an
immortal soul. But this is only building on the
strength of an English expression. Every one kno
that what the translation calls a livhig soul, signifies m
* See Dr. Clarke against Mr. Collins on the Soul ; arid The
Enquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul, by Mr. liaxUr.
f Gen. ii. 7.
VQL, V. C e the
386 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
the original, a living animal: Hence the same Writer
speaks of a dead soul *, as well as a living soul. And
indeed not only the propriety of the terms, but the
very sense of the Context requires us to confine the
meaning of living soul, to living animal. GOD, the
great plastic Artist, is here represented as making and
shaping out a figure of earth or clay, which he after
wards animates or inspires with life. He breathed,
says the sacred Historian, into this Statue, the breath
of life-, and the lump became a living creature. But
St. Paul, I hope, may be believed, whatever becomes
of my explanation : who thus comments the very text
in question : And so it was written, the jirst man
Adam was made A LIVING SOUL, The last was made
A QUICKENING SPIRIT f. Here we find the Apostle
is so far from understanding any immortality in this
account of Man s Creation, that he opposes the mor
tal animal ADAM, to the immortal-making Spirit of
CHRIST.
3. Again, God in his sentence of condemnation
denounced against all the parties concerned ii* Adam s
transgression, says to the serpent, / will put enmity
between thee and the woman ; and between thy seed
and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall
bruise his heel\. It will be allowed that even the most
early mortals could not be so stupid as modern infidels
would make them, to understand these words in their
strict literal sense, that " serpents would be apt to bite
men by the heel, and men as ready to crush their
heads." But to enable them to understand, by this
part of the sentence, that " man should be restored to
his lost inheritance of immortality by the sacrifice of
Christ on the cross," needed an express revelation of
* Numb. vi. 6. See also Lev. xxi. i, & 1 1.
f i Cor. xv. 45 49, \ Gen. iii. 15,
this
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 387
this mystery, What then did the Jews understand by
it ? This certainly, and nothing but this, that " the
evil Spirit, who actuated the Serpent, would continue
his enmity to the human race ; but that man, by the
divine assistance, should be at length enabled to defeat
all his machinations."
4. Again, the phrase used by the sacred Historian
to indicate the deaths of the Patriarchs, is further
urged in support of the opposition " He died, and
was gathered to his People *. And dying is expressed
by going down into the grave, or into Hell, SCHEOL.
- / will go down into the grave (says Jacob} [or into
ffell] to my son mourning f ; which phrases are sup
posed to intimate the soul s surviving the body, and
retiring, on the dissolution of the union, to one com
mon Receptacle of Souls ; for that it is not only said,
the man died, and was buried, but likewise that he was
gathered to his fathers : And Jacob said, he would go
down into the grave to his son, who was supposed to
have been devoured by wild beasts." But, i. The
Objectors do not reflect on the genius of the Eastern
speech, which gives action and motion to every thing ;
in which to be reduced to one common lot or condition
is called being gathered to their People ; in this sense
Jacob might properly say, he would go down to the
grave to a dead son, who was never buried, i. e. that
he should find no ease to his sorrows till he was re
duced to the same condition. 2. The Objectors forget
too the peculiar genius of the Hebrew tongue, that
delights so much in Pleonasms ; in which to die, and
to be gathered to their people, are but two, different
phrases for the same thing. At the same time, I am
ready to allow that this latter phrase originally arose
Gen. xxv. 8. 17. xxxv. 29. xlix. 29, & 33. Numb. xx
24, 26. 28. xxvii. 13. t Gen. xxxvii. 35.
c p 2
388 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
(whatever People first employed it) from the notion of
some common Receptacle of Souls. But we know
how soon, and from what various causes, terms and
phrases lose the memory of their original. 3. The
truth of this interpretation is confirmed by the several
contexts, where all these expressions occur ; the His
torian s purpose being evidently nothing else than to
record the period of their existence here on earth,
These (except such as have been considered else
where) are all the. texts I can find objected to my
position, that immortality was not taught by the LAW.
How little they are to the purpose- is now seen. But
little or much, the Reader will remember they make
nothing against my general argument, which maintains
o o / o
that the early Jews, (those of them, I mean, and they
certainly were but few, who thought any thing of the
matter) had at least some vague notion of the SouFs
surviving the body. But the particular reason I had
to examine them hath been given above.
II. We come next to those SCRIPTURES which are
urged to prove, that a future state of reward and pu
nishment , or a resurrection of the body, was taught
by the Mosaic Law. But before we proceed to the
particular texts, it will be proper to consider the gene
ral argument brought from the genius of the whole-
Jewish Law : " which, as they say, being entirely
TYPICAL, or, as the Apostle says, SPIRITUAL, all
the promises and denunciations of temporal good and
evil, did denote and obumbrate a future state of reward
and punishment ; for that it was a shadow of things
to come, but that the body was of CHRIST *." If the
Objectors mean by this, that the sanction of Temporal
reward and punishment was no more than a mere re
presentation, in figurative expressions, of the Doctrine
of a future state > without any real meaning in the then
* Coloss. ii.-i. Providential
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 389
Providential disposition of the things of this life * :
If, I say, this be their meaning, the whole pretence to
Moses s divine Mission is irrecoverably given up. Not
to say, that the very pretence would be as absurd as it
was false. For a THEOCKACV (from whence flowed
temporal rewards and punishments) was no figurative
Expression, as appears from the real and substantial
Laws made in support of the Thing. In a word, it
is a vile and impious imagination, originally conceived
by certain Jewish Allegorists after the extraordinary
Providence was departed from them : and only to be
matched by a like madness in certain Mahometan
Allegorists, whose early successes made them fancy
this extraordinary Providence, was come to them;
and therefore supposed, on the other hand, that Hell
and Paradise in the Alcoran mean no more than the
pleasures and afflictions of this life f. In which,
Both have been outdone by a late Madman of our
own, in his Discourses on the Gospel-Miracles. So
oddly perverse is the human understanding when it has
once forsaken the road of common sense.
But if by the Law s being TYPJCAI or SPIRITUAL,
no more be meant (as I think no sober man can mean
more) than that the TEMPORAL REWARDS AND PU
NISHMENTS, equally and realty distributed, and \
RITUAL WORSHIP, daily performed, were typical or
significative of the GOSPEL DISPENSATION, and of the
life and immortality which that Dispensation brought
to light, I acknowledge it for a truth : And, what is
more, I require nothing farther to prove my Proposi-
* See note [FF] til the eiul of this volume.
f II y a parini les sectatcurs cl Ali, une secte qui priul son nom
tl uu Doctcur nommc Alkhatthab, loquel a ensr-i^ne qtie les deli.
du Parudis & les peines de 1 Enter m> sonl autrc chu^o que les
plaisirs & les afflictions de la vie. llerbelot, Bill. Oriental, Mot
AKHEAT, & AKIIHET.
C C 3 tion.
390 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
tion, That a future state of rewards and punishments
was not taught to the Jewish People by their Law.
The Objectors suppose, as I do, that the Jewish and
Christian Religions are two parts of one entire Dis
pensation. St. Paul tells us the order of these two
parts, THAT WAS NQT FIRST WHICH IS SPFRITUALj
BUT THAT WHICH IS NATURAL; AFTERWARDS THAT
WHICH is SPIRITUAL *. Yet, at the same time, he
tells us, THE LAW is SPIRITUAL!. How is this to
be reconciled? No otherwise than thus, That the Law
was TYPICAL of the future spiritual part of the one
entire Dispensation. Again, The Apostles, in order
to shew the superior excellence of the GOSPEL, in
their reasoning against Jews and Judaizing Christians,
set the LAW in opposition to it, under the titles of The
Law of a carnal Commandment ; The ministration of
Death ; The Law of Works: and call subjection to it,
Subjection to the Flesh. Yet these very Writers at
the same time own that the Law was SPIRITUAL, or
had a spiritual meaning. But if by this they v>ould
teach that the spiritual meaning was generally under
stood under the Law, their whole argument had con
cluded in a self-contradiction. For then it was not a
Law of a carnal commandment, a ministration of death ;
but, indeed, a Law of spirit, a ministration of life ;
only under a dead and carnal cover ; which being
clearly seen through, or easily taken off, served for no
more than a trick of hocus pocus. The consequence
of all this would be, that the LAW was of equal dig
nity, and, though not of equal simplicity, yet, indeed,
essentially the same with the GOSPEL. They owned,
we see, that the Law had a spiritual sense : but when,
and by whom discovered, the Apostle Paul informs
us, by calling that sense the NEWNESS OF SPIRIT J;
* i Cor. XY. 46. -f Rom, vii. 14. J Rom. vii. 6.
which.
Sects-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 391
which he opposesx to the oldmss of the letter, that is,
the letter of the Law. In the former part of the
verse, he speaks of the Law being dead , and, here,
of its being revived with a new spirit, in contradistinc
tion to the oldness of the letter. So true was it, what
in another place he observes, that the Law was a
SHADOW of things to come; but the BODY was of
Christ *. The shadow not of a body then to be seen
or understood, as these Answerers imagine, but of a
body that was to come, and, by its presence, to ex
plain the meaning and reason of the shadow. For
the Jews being, as the Apostle says, in bondage under
the elements of the world f, were as men shut up in
prison, with their faces kept turned from the light,
towards the whited wall of CEREMONIES ; on which
indeed they saw many shadows ; but the body or op
posite substance at their backs, to which they could
not turn, they saw net. And, in this state, says the
same Apostle, they were kept shut up unto the Faith,
which should -afterwards be revealed ^.. Therefore
till that time came, it appears that the great commu
nity of the Jews had no knowledge of this Faith ; one
of the essential articles of whicli is life everlasting.
J o
This, we must needs have concluded even though he
had not said, that till that time came, they were in
bondage under the elements of the world. A proper
character truly of a People acquainted with the re
vealed Doctrine of life and immortality. But the
Objectors pretend that the reason why Moses did not
PLAINLY teach a future state, in the manner CHRIST
hath taught it, was because the Jews were a carnal
people, incapable of spiritual things. Now what is
the consequence of this incapacity, but that the spiri
tual sense was reserved for better times, when their
* Col. ii. 17. t Gal. iv. 5. J Gal. iii. 23.
C C 4 minds
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
rninds should grow more pure and defecated from
carnal things ; which all along continued so gross and
bounded, that even the most easy of their typical in
formations, the calling in of the Gentiles, was never
understood by them ; yet this truth the Prophets had,
from time to time, so plainly cultivated, that the vail
of typical embroidery seems often to have been drawn
aside, to assist their weak sight. But farther, The
better part of the Objectors, 1 suppose, will allow that
temporal good and evil were not only proposed, but
actually dispensed to the Jews, living for some time
under an equal Providence. And what was the con
sequence of this but to conjine them to the literal sense
of their Sanction, and stop them from looking farther?
Yet in defiance of Reason, of Scripture, of the order
of things, nay even of their own systems, these men
will suppose, because the LAW is said to be spiritual,
or to have a spiritual sense, that therefore this sense
always went along with, and was inseparably attached
to, the literal, in the understandings of the Jewish
People. Which is so strangely absurd, that it takes
away the very cause and occasion of two senses. For,
Why, let me ask, had the Law a spiritual sense, under
a carnal cover, but for this reason, that the first Jews
were so grossly minded as to be incapable of spiritual
things ; and were therefore, in order to direct and go
vern their affections, presented with the carnal, to
repose upon? That Schoolmaster, as St. Paul calls
the LAW, which was to bring them by degrees, through
those carnal elements, to the spiritual and sublime
Doctrines of CHRIST. Yet see the scheme of these
Objectors. The early Jews are supposed of so sordid
a taste as to be incapable of a spiritual Repast, and
therefore they had a carnal Cover laid before them :
yet were they, at the same time, so quick scented as
to
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 393
to pierce through this carnal shell to which they were
attached, into the spiritual substance, for which they
had no relish.
This may be Reason, say these men ; hut what is
human Reason when opposed to Scripture ? Just what
it was, say I, before you set them at variance : and
apparently for no other purpose than to silence- and
disgrace this modest Handmaid of Revelation.
However, Scripture, it seems, informs us that the 1
figurative and literal, the spiritual and carnal senses of
the Law, always went together. This, they say, the
Author of the epistle to the Hebrews plainly teaches.
There are Priests who offer gifts according to the
Law ; who serve unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when
he was about to make the Tabernacle. For see (saith
he) that thou make all things according to the pattern
shewed thee in the mount *. But these words will never
do the business. Could the Objectors, indeed, find a
Text which tells us, that "as Moses was admonished
" of GOD about the spiritual sense of the Law, so he
" informed the People of it," this would be to the
purpose. As it is, it will hardly follow, that because
Moses was admonished of the spiritual sense, that
therefore the spiritual and a carnal went together in
the Intellects and Worship of the People. Moses s
knowledge of this secret I allow, as it seems to follow
from the privilege of his Mission ; for if Abraham
desired to see Christ s day, and saw it, and was glad,
we are not to suppose that Moses, who had a higher
office in the ministry of God s Dispensations than
Abraham had, should be less favoured than Abraham
was. Yet though I believe this, the text here urged in
support of it, does in strictness, prove little of the
matter. The Objectors suppose the sense of the text
* Ileb. viii. 4, 5- to
394 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
to be this " that the Priests served unto the example
" and shadow of heavenly things, and that of this
" truth, Moses was admonished, by God in the mount."
But the Apostle is here instructing us in a very dif
ferent truth. The words -as Moses was admonished
%fGod are a Similitude or Comparison which conveys
a sense to this purpose, " The Priests, who offer
gifts according to the Law, serve unto the example
end shadow of heavenly things, in as exact and close
a manner as that Tabernacle, which Moses was ad<-
monished to make, answered to the pattern shewed
him of it, in the mount: Not only the Argument
which the* Apostle is upon, but the propriety of the
word XgvpoLTigu points us to this sense : which signifies
to command or direct the doing of a thing by an Oracle
or Magistrate ; and this X^o-Ii^o; or direction we
find in the place which the sacred writer refers to
And look that thou make them after this pattern, which
was shewed thee in the mount *. But there is nothing
these men will not employ for the support of their
absurdities. They will borrow aid even from a quibble
or equivocation : And the following words of the same
Apostle have been urged to prove that the Law taught
its Followers the doctrines of the Gospel Unto us
[Christians] was the GOSPEL preached as well as unto
them [Jews f-]
i. And now to proceed to the particular Texts
produced from the PENTATEUCH, in support of this
opinion, God says to Abraham, In thee, shall all the
families of the earth be blessed J. The Jews under
stood this to signify a formulary, that men should use,
when they invocated the choicest blessings on their
friends and families, to this effect ; May God bless thee
as he blessed Abraham. And the first of Christian
* Exod. xxv. 40. f Heb. iv. 2; J Gen. xii. 3.
Interpreters,
Seet.3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 395
Interpreters, Hugo Grotius, understands it to signify
a promised blessing, which, in time, should be derived
to the whole earth, from Abraham s care that his pos
terity should continue in the belief and worship of the
one true God. Indeed, when the fulness of time came*
it would then be seen, both by Jews and Christians,
that this blessing ultimately centred in the holy Jesus,
the only begotten Son of God, to whom the Father
hath delegated all power and dominion. Again,
" GOD says to ABRAHAM, I am thy exceeding great
reward* And again ; " I will establish my covenant
" between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in
" their generations, for an everlasting covenant; to be
" a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And
" I will give unto thce, and to thy seed after thee, the
" land wherein thou art a stranger> all the land
" of Canaan, for an everlasting possession ; and I will
" be their God f." " He repeats the same promise
to Isaac and to Jacob personally ; yet he gave Abraham
no inheritance in the land, though he promised he would
give it to him and to his seed after him." Thus have
these texts been urged by an excellent Writer J against
the Sadducean opinion, as containing a promise of
future rewards in another life : But urged by him, I
will suppose, as proving such a promise in a secondary
or spiritual sense only. Because that sense is sufficient
for his purpose : and because in that sense only, is it
true, that they do contain such a promise. For, i . in
the literal sense it is a promise of the land of Canaan
to Abraham and to his posterity ; and in this sense it
was literally fulfilled, though Abraham was never
personally in possession of it ; since Abraham and his
posterity, put collectively, signify the RACE OF ABRA-
* Gen. xv. i. t Gen. xvii. 7, 8.
J Dr. S. Clarke, Evid. of Nat. and Rev. Relig. p. 241. ed.6.
HAM;
396 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
HAM ; and that Race possessed the land of Canaan.
And surely, GOD may be allowed to explain his own
promise: Now though he tells Abraham, he would
give HIM the land, yet, at the same time, he assures
him that it would be many hundred years before his
POSTERITY should be put into possession of it ; for
when Abraham desired to know whereby he might be
certain that he, i. e. his seed, should inherit the land of
Canaan *, he is ordered to offer a sacrifice ; after
which, GOD in a vision explains to him the import of
his promise : That his seed should be a stranger in the
land that was not theirs, and should serve them, and
that they should afflict them four hundred years : that
afterwards they should come out with great substance,
and in the fourth generation should come into CA
NAAN, for that the iniquity of the Ammonites was
wot yet fillip. And as concerning himself, that he
should go to his fathers in peace, and should be buried
in a good old age J. Thus we see, that both what GOD
explained to be his meaning, and what Abraham un
derstood him to mean, was, that his Posterity, after a
certain time, should be led into possession of the Land.
And lest any mistake should remain concerning the
accomplishment of this promise, the sacred Historian
sums up the relation in these words : In that same,
day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, spying,
UNTO THY SEED HAVE I GIVEN this land^. But
had the Historian omitted so minute an explanation
of the promise, yet common sense would instruct us
how to understand it. A whole Country is given to
Abraham and to his seed. Could it possibly be GOD S
design, who does nothing in vain, to place his Family
in the land of Canaan, till they were numerous enough
to occupy and defend it ? 1 1 is Posterity was his
* Gen xv. 8. f Gen. xv. 13, & seq. J Ver. 15. Ver. 18.
Representative :
Sect 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 397
Representative : and therefore the putting them into
possession was the putting him into it. Not to say,
that where a Grant is made to a body of men collec
tively, as to a People or a Family, no laws of contract
ever understood the performance to consist in every
individual s being a personal partaker. 2. Secondly,
the giving an heavenly Canaan to Abraham could not
be the literal sense of the text, because an earthly
Canaan is owned to be the direct immediate sub
ject of the promise. The JEWS indeed contend for
this literal sense, and with some show of reason ; for
they hold, that the future state at the Resurrection
will be passed in the land of Judea, where Abraham,
they say, is then to rise and take possession *, This
is consistent, however. But these CHRISTIAN Ob
jectors, who hold no such opinion, must be content at
last to find a future state only in the spiritual sen.se
of the words : and that sense, we are by no means
ambitious of taking from them.
2. " The days of the years of my pilgrimage, (says
" Jacob to Pharaoh) are an hundred and thirty years :
c few and evil have the days of the years of my life
" been, and have not attained unto the days of the
" years of the life of iny fathers in the days of their
" pilgrimage f." -From this speech it is concluded,
that Moses taught a future state: and, especially
since the Author of the epistle to the Hebrews hath
brought
* Deus Abrahamo loqucns ait : Dabo tibi, & semini tuo post
te, terram peregrinationis tuse. Atqui const-it, Abraham urn, &
reliquos Patriarchas earn terrain non possedisse: necesse ergo est,
ut resuscitentur, quo bonb promissis fruautur; alioqui promissa
Dei irrita & falsa for.eijt. Umc itaqiie non iantum AXIMJE IM-
MORTALITAS probatur, sed etiam csscntiak fundamcntum legis,
RKSURRECTIO scilicet MORTUORUM. Manasseh Bon-Israel dt
llsurrccti(we.MGrt. p. 7.
t Gen. xlvii, 9,
398 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
brought * it as a proof that Jacob and the Patriarchs
looked for a better country. That Jacob did so, is
unquestionable ; but it can never be allowed that the
words, in their literal and obvious meaning, express
any such thing. Pharaoh is here questioning the
Patriarch, not of human life in general, but of his own.
Therefore, to make the reply pertinent, Jacob must be
understood to mean by his pilgrimage, the unsettled
way of life, living in tents, and removing from place
to place, as the convenience of pasturage gave him
invitation : and, by the evil of his days, the straits he
suffered from the fraud of Laban, and the hatred of his
brother Esau. As for the complaint of the fewness of
his days, he himself explains it to be, not on account of
the shortness of human life in general, but, because he
had not attained unto the days of the years of the life
of his fathers. The sense, therefore, which the writer
of the epistle to the Hebrews puts upon these words,
must needs be the spiritual sense.
3. The same Patriarch, in his last benediction of
his sons, breaks in upon the prophetic blessings with
this pious ejaculation, I have waited for thy salvation,
O Lord} : which is supposed to respect the salvation
of mankind by JESUS CHRIST. I grant it doth so
in a spiritual sense ; nay, for aught I know, it may in
a literal. But how should an early Jewish Reader
understand it in this sense, when the same terms of the
salvation of God, or of the Lord, are perpetually em
ployed, throughout the whole Bible, to signify God s
temporal mercies to the Patriarchs and their Posterity :
and when now, that the Mystery of the Gospel hath
been so long revealed, Christian Commentators under
stand it in an hundred different senses ?
4. BALAAM, under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, says, Let me die the death of the Righteous,
* Chap, xi. yer. 13. f Gen, xlix. 18. Otttf
Sect. 3-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 399
and let my last end be like his * : Which is understood
as a wish that he might be partaker with the Righteous
in another life. Had the apostate Prophet said, Let
me live the life of the Righteous, it would have had a
much fairer claim for such a meaning. As it is, Both
the force of the words, and their relation to the con
text, restrain us to this literal meaning, " Let me die
in a mature old age, after a life of health and peace,
with all my posterity flourishing about me : as was the
lot of the righteous observers of the LAW." This
vain wish, Moses, I suppose, recorded, that the sub
sequent account of his immature death in battle f
might make the stronger impression on the serious
Reader, to warn him against the impiety and folly of
expecting the last reward of virtue for a life spent in
the gratification of every corrupt appetite. But if any
one will say, the words have, besides, a sublimer
meaning, I have no reason to contend with him.
5. The next is a stricture of the LAW in Leviticus,
urged by Dr. Stebbing in this manner, " Moses in-
" forces the obedience of the Israelites upon this
" consideration, Ye shall therefore keep my statute*
" and judgments, which if a man do he shall live in
" them ;. Here is a promise of life made to those
* who should observe the statutes and judgments
" which God gave them by his servant Moses ; which
" cannot be understood of this temporal life only,
" because the best men were often cut off in the midst
" of their days, and frequently suffered greater adver-
" sities than the most profligate sinners. The Jews
" therefore have constantly believed that it had a
" respect to the life to come. When the lawyer in
" the Gospel had made that most important de-
" mand, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal
* Numb, xxii. 10. t Ch. xxxi. ver. 8. : Levit. xviii. 5.
400 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
" life*, our blessed Lord refers him to what was.
" written in the Law; and, upon his making a sound
" and judicious answer, approves of it ; and for sa-
" tisfaction to his question, tells him, This da, and
" thou shalt live."
The Objector would have the promise of life in
Leviticus to signify eternal life. But St. Paul himself
had long ago decided this question, and declared for
the negative. A dispute arose between him, and the
judaizing Christians, concerning what it was which
justified before God, or intitled to that eternal life
brought to light by the Gospel." They held it to be
the works of the Law (believing perhaps, as the Ob
jector assures us they did, that this text, in Leviticus,
had a res feet to the life to come :) St. Paul, on the
contrary, affirms that it was faith in Jesus the Mes
siah. And thus he argues But no man is justified
" by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident: for
" the just shall Irce by faith. And the Law is not
" of faith, but the man that doth them shall live in
" them f ." As much as to say " That no man caii
obtain eternal life by virtue of the Law is evident
from one of your own Prophets [Hab.] who expressly
holds, that the just shall LIVE by FAITH J. Now, by
the Law, no rewards are promised to faith, but to
works only. The man that DOTH them (says the Law r
in Levit. ) shall live in them." Here then we see
that this very text, which the Objector brings to prove
that eternal life was by the Law, St. Paul urges, to
prove that it was not by the law. Iet us attend to
the Apostle s argument. He is to shew that justifica
tion, or eternal life, is by faith. This he does even on
the concession of a Jew, the Prophet Habbakkuk ;
who expressly owns it to be by faith. But the Law,
x. 25, f Gal. iii, 1 1, 12. t Ch. ii. -f. Cfa. xviii. 5,
says
Sect, 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 401
says the Apostle, attributes nothing to faith , but, to
DEEDS only, which if a man DO he shall live in them.
Now, if, by life, be here meant, as the objector sup
poses, eternal life, then St. Paul s argument does not
come out as he intended it ; namely, that faith, and
not the works of the Law, justifies-, but thus, that both
faith and the works of t lie Law justify, which would
have satisfied these Judaizers, as reconciling on their
own prejudices Moses and liabakkuk ; but would,
by no means, have satisfied our Apostle; whose con
clusion on this question, where discussed at large, iu
his Epistle to the Romans, is, that a man is justified
by faith WITHOUT the deeds of the Law*. The very
drift of his argument therefore shews us, that he must
necessarily understand the life, promised in this text
of Leviticus, to be TEMPORAL life only. But chari
tably studious, as it were, to prevent all possible chance
of our mistaking him on so important a point, He
immediately subjoins, Christ hath redeemed us from
the curse of the Law f . Now we know that our
redemption by Christ was from that death which the
first man brought into the world ; the curse which he
entailed upon his posterity. Therefore the transfer
ring this term from Adam to the Law, shews plainly
that in tl*e Apostle s sentiments, the Law had no more
a share in the redemption of fallen man than Adam
himself had. Yet it is certain, that if the Law, when
it said, He who keeps thtxe statutes and judgments
shall live in them, meant, far ever, it proposed the
(Redemption of Mankind as completely as the blessed
Jesus -himself did, when he said, he that believeth in
me shall lurcc everlasting life. This becomes demon
strable, if St. Pauls reasoning will hold, who surely
had heard nothing of this prerogative of the ZL
* Rom. iii. 28. f Gal. lii. 13.
VOL. V. Dj) when
402 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
when he said, If there had been a LAW given which
could have given life, verily righteousness should have
been by the Law. Where observe, I pray you, the
force of the word ataftifowtj which signifies to quicken,
or to make, alive ; plainly intimating the same he had
said in the place quoted before, that those in subjec
tion to the Law were tinder a curse, or in the state of
death. Let me add only this further observation, that
if (as this Objector pretends) by life in the text of
Levit. be meant eternal life ; and if (as the Apostle
pretends) by life, in the text of Habakkuk, be meant
eternal life ; then will Moses and Habakkuk be made
directly to contradict one another ; the first giving that
eternal life to WORKS, which the latter gives to FAITH.
But Dr. Stebbing would insinuate, that Jesus himself
seems to have affixed this sense to the text in Levi
ticus ; however, that the plain inference is- that eternal
life was taught at least, if not obtained by the Law.
" When the Lawyer in the Gospel (says he) had made
" that most important demand, Master, what shall I
" do to inherit eternal life*? our blessed Lord refers
" him to what was written in the Law, and upon his
" making a sound and judicious answer, approves of
" it; and for satisfaction to his question, tells him,
" This do and thou shalt live" Would not any one
now conclude, from the sense here put upon the words
of Jesus, that the sound and judicious answer of the
Lawyer must have been a quotation of the text in
Leviticus, Ye shall keep my statutes, which if a man
do he shall live in them ; or at least some general
promise made to the observers of the whole Law of
Moses ? No such matter. On the contrary, the Law
yer s answer was* a quotation of only one precept of
the Law, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart y &c. and thy neighbour as thyself. Now
* Luke x. 25. hovy
Sects.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 403
how much soever we may differ about a future states
being held out by the Law, through a Messiah to come ;
J suppose we are both agreed that faith in the Messiah,
either actual or imputed, is necessary to obtain this
future state. There are but two ways then of under
standing this text of St. Luke, neither of which is to
his purpose. The first is the supposing that Jesus
included faith in himself vc\ this precept of loving God
with all the heart, &c. which will appear no forced
interpretation to him who holds Jesus to be really and
truly God ; as, I imagine, the Doctor does ; and may
be supported by a circumstance in the story as told
Ly St. Matthew *, though omitted by St. Luke, which
is, Jesus s saying, that on these tico commandments
hang all the Law and the PROPHETS. The second
and exacter interpretation is, that Jesus spoke to a
professing follower, who pretended to acknowledge his
Mission, and wanted only a RULE OF LIFE. For
Jesus was here preaching the Gospel to his disciples,
and a Lazcycr stood up and TEMPTED him, that is, on.
the false footing of a disciple, required a rule of life.
Now in either case, this reference of Jesus to the Law-
must imply this, and this only, that without righteous
ness and holiness no man shall see the Lord. A point
in which, I suppose, we are agreed. But still the
Doctor will say that these words of Jesus allude to the
words of Moses. Admit they do. It will not follow,
as he seems to think, that they were given to explain
them. How many allusions are there in the New
Testament to passages in the Old, accommodated to a
spiritual sense, where the texts alluded to are seen, by
all but Fanatics, to have only a carnal? And even in
this very allusion, if it be one, we find that the promise
made to the? observers of the whole Law is transferred
* Matt, xx ii. 40.
1) D 2 tO
404 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
to the observance of one single precept, in the moral
part of it. But let us grant him all he would have ;
and admit that these words of Jesus were given to ex
plain the words of .Moses. What would follow from
thence, hut that the promise in Leviticus had a secon
dary sense of a spiritual and sublimer import? Will
this give any advantage to the Doctor and his Party ?
Surely none at all. And yet the abuse of this conces
sion is all they have to support themselves in their
determined opposition to Common sense.
6. A Law in Leviticus is delivered in these terms r >
f< Whoever he he of the children of Israel, or of the,
u strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of
" his seed unto Molech, he shall surely he put to
" death*." Let me first explain the text, before I
shew how it is perverted. There were two cases in
which the offender here described might escape pu
nishment: Either the crime could not be legally
proved, Or the Magistrate might be remiss in punish
ing. The divine Lawgiver obviates both : and de
clares that the Infanticide, in such case, shall suffer
death by God s own hand in an extraordinary manner.
The supplial of the first defect, is in these words,
" And I will set my face against the man, and witt
" CUT HIM OFF FROM AMOXGST HIS PEOPLED."
The supplial of the second is in these : " And if the
" people of the land do any ways hide their eyes
" from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto
" Molech, and kill him not, then. I will set my face
* against that man arid against his family, and will
" CUT HIM OFF:}:." So much for the sense of the
text. And now for the nonsense of our Interpreter, a
Professor of Law and Divinity, the egregious Div
RUTHERFORD. This sage provision for the execution
* Levit. xx. 2, t Ver. 3. t Ver. 4, 5.
Of
Sect 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 405
of the Law our Professor being totally unconscious of,
he insists " that cutting off from amongst liis People
u can only mean eternal damnation, the being consigned
" to a state of punishment in another life." p. 33.
He is. as I say, a dealer both in Law and Divinity t
but not having yet learnt the use of his tools, lie
confounds Law by Theology, and depraves Theology
by Law : And of this the reader has already seen
some delectable instances. But at present, to regulate
a little his Law-ideas, let him turn to Exod. xii. 15.
and Levit vii. 2,"). and he will find that the cutting off
from Israel, and the cutting off from the People, are
phrases which signify only capital punishment of a
civil kind. Unless he will suppose that what is there
threatened for eating leavened bread and prohibited fat,
is ETERNAL LIFE IN TORMENTS.
7. The PSALMIST, in a holy confidence of God s
mercies, says, Thou wilt not leave my soul in HELL,
neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.
Thou wilt shew me t lie path of life; in thy presence is
fulness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures
for evermore *. The scope of the whole Psalm is to
implore the protection of God., from this consideration,
that the Psalnist himself not only stedfastly adheres
to the Law of God, but is ready to give his aid and
support to all those who do That the vengeance of
God pursues idolatry, which he carefully avoids
That the God of Israel is his portion, and the land of
Canaan a fair inheritance That this stedfast adherence
to the Lord is his confidence and peace Then follow
the words in question, That* he is sure, God w dl nqt
leave his soul in Hell, &c. &c. that is, suffer him to fall
iinmaturely, as was the lot of the transgressors of the
L aw ; And concludes, that walking in the law of God
* Psal. xvi. 10, 11.
D D 3 is
4o6 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI
is both the highest pleasure, and strongest security.
All which is expressed in terms so magnificent, as to
shew, indeed, that this Psalm hath a spiritual as well
as literal meaning. And that spiritual meaning
St. Peter hath explained to us * : Indeed, if Dr. Steb-
bing s word were to be taken, the Apostle hath explained
it in a manner which overthrows all our reasoning.
" St. Peter (says the Doctor) claims this passage
" [Ps. xvi. 10, ii.] as relating to Christ s resurrec-
" tion f." But how does he claim it ? No otherwise
than by giving it a secondary sense. Now the learned
Doctor himself contends that the secondary sense of
the Prophecies was purposely concealed and secreted
from the Jewish Church : Consequently, the Resur
rection, the very doctrine which the secondary sense of
this text conveys, was secreted from it. But then, the
Doctor says, that " in the primary sense David de-
" clares his expectation of a future state, not in
" consequence of any promise of the Law, but by
" faith in Jesus Christ." The result then of the
Doctor s exposition is this, That the same text may
serve to prove that the spiritual sense of the Law was
and was not revealed at this time. The verse has a
primary sense which reveals a future state, and a se
condary sense which hides and secretes it. But he
insists much upon the following words of the text
In thy presence is fulness of joy, and at thy right hand
are pleasures for evermore. "Expressions, says the
" Doctor, much too great to describe any WORLDLY
" HAPPINESS J." I readily confess it was no worldly
fytppiness which is here described : for to be in the
presence of God signified the same as to appear before
the Ark, Ps. xvii. 1,5. and to enjoy pleasures there
for evermore, the same as dwelling in the house of the
* Acsii. 25 29. f Exam. p. 49. J Id. ib.
* Lord
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 407
Lord for ever., i. e. all his days, Ps. xxiii. 6. a spiritual
happiness, sure, though enjoyed in this world.
But the texts of texts, the precious ones indeed, are
those where a HELL is mentioned.; as here thou shalt
not Jeave my soul in Hell*. And of this orthodox
consolation there is no scarcity in the Old Testament.
Mr. Whiston assures us, it is almost free times as
often mentioned as in the New. It may be so. How
ever, instead of examining into the justness of this
nice calculation, I shall chuse rather to consider what
is to be understood by the word, than how often it is
repeated. Now, I suppose neither I nor my Answerers
can have any reasonable objection to St. John s au
thority in this matter ; who speaking, in the book of
Revelation, of the useless old furniture of the LAW,
says and DEATH and HELL were cast into the LAKE
OF FIRE : this is the second death "\. From hence it
appears that the IIKLL of the Old Testament was a
very different thing from the HELL of the New, called,
the lake of Fire ; since the one is made the punishment,
or at least the extinction of the other. And to remove
all doubt, the Apostle, we see, calls this casting into
the lake, a second death. Must not then the Lake
itself be a second Hell 9 And if so, could tl\Q first or
the Old Testament HELL be any other than the GRAVE ?
The next words tell us, that whosoever was not found
written in the booh of life, was cast into the lake of
fire . So that the sense of the whole seems to be
this, that at the consummation of things (the subject
here treated of) all physical and moral evil shall be
abolished.
8. Again, The Psalmist says, " Deliver my soul
" from the wicked from the men of the world
" which have their portion in this life, and whose belly
* Psal.xvi. 10. f Ch.xx. 14. J Ver. 15.
D D 4
4oS THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
" thou iillest with thy hid treasure. As for me, I will
" behold thy face in righteousness : / shall be satisfied,
" when / awake, with thy likeness*" Many moral
and mystical commentators (and perhaps our English
translators themselves, as one would think from the
turn of their language) understood these words as
literally pointing, in one verse, to a future state, and,
in the other, to a resurrection. And in this, the dis
senter, Leland, as I remember, in some of his things,
seems much to triumph. But I shall shew that it
means nothing less.
They have their portion in THIS life, say our trans
lators, who, with great piety, had their heads full of
ANOTHER. Whereas the original word literally sig
nifies in vitis, the Hebrew being a plural word and
having no singular : which, by the way, let me observe,
is a convincing proof that the ideas of the common
users of this language were only employed about this
life ; had they been conversant, like us, with another,
they would soon have found a singular to their plural.
This will be thought a strange Paradox by those I have
to do with, who do not know that plural nouns are
often words of amplification, not of number. As our
translators render it, in this life, so the Chaldee Par.
goes a step further, and renders it, in life eternal. The
Sept. translators, who best understood their own idiom,
interpret it better than either, w TV fyy aJrwy, in this
life of theirs. So that the true meaning of what we
turn, their portion of this life, amounts to this they
are perfectly prosperous.
And now, concerning the words in the other verse,
I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.
For the sense of these I shall transcribe the following
passage of an excellent Critic, and, what is more,
a very orthodox Divine. " The Chaldee/ says
* Ps. xvii. 14, 15. Dr v
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 409
Dr. Hammond, (and what sort of interpreters they
were we have seen just above) u apply this awaking to
" David ; when I mail awake I -shall be satisfied with
" the glory of thy countenance. And so it hath truth,
" in respect of the resurrection of the just. But all
" the other interpreters agree to apply it to this glory ;
" lv TW afWjfKxt TTJV $$%& <rS, at the appearing of t/iy
" glory, say the LXX. cum apparuerit gloria tua,
" says the Latin ; (and so the Arabic and ^Ethiopia)
" When thy fidelity shall awake, saith the Syriac :
" And so most probably it is to be understood. Jjy
" [God s glory awaking] signifying his glorious and
" powerful interposition to David s PRESENT rescue
" from his enemies hands. And thus the learned
" Casteliio took it ; turn satiandus, cum tua experrccta
" fuerit imago ; / shall be satisfied when thy likeness
" shall be awaked* ." Other Interpreters, and those
of the first Class, who make the awaking to refer
to David, suppose it to signify his morning adorations
before the Ark, the symbolic residence of the divine
Presence f. But that David was here speaking in the
language of the Law, and not of the Gospel, I think,
all but determined Bigots will confess.
9. And again : Surely goodness and mercy shall
follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in
the House of the Lord for ever%. By the house <>f
the Lord can be meant nothing else but the Taber
nacle or the Temple: So that, for ever, or as the
Ileb. says, to length of days, must mean that mature
old
* Annot. on the xviith Psalm.
f Videtur significare David arcam, quain singulis temporibus
matutinis Deum adoraturus adibat. Cleric, in locum. Pro more
Ilebr. Poeseos, ipsum in Sanctuario quotidie in pvaisenlia Dei
ad arcam, quod divinae pra;senti;u symbolum erat, sese velle
sistcre, quod illi ante omnia in votis fuit, sunnnoque gaudio per-
fudit. Hare in loc. t Ps. xxiii. 6.
4io THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
old age, which the Law promised to its faithful
adherents.
10. In the xxxvi Psalm, the sacred Writer says :
For with thee is the fountain of life : in thy light
shall we see light*. Here, to prove the immortality
of Man, a text is produced, which teaches the eternity
of GOD. But I know Some, who think there is a
necessary connexion between these two truths.
11. " Like sheep (says the Psalmist) they [the
6 wicked] are laid in the grave, death shall feed upon
them; and the upright shall have dominion over
" them in the morning, and their beauty shall consume
" in the grave, from their dwelling. But God will
" redeem my soul from the power of the grave, for
he shall receive mef." The literal meaning of
which is, as appears by the context, that " the wicked
should be untimely cut off and destroyed, in the
morning, that is, by the judgment of the Law, which
was administered in the morning hours ; but that his
life, and the life of the upright, should be preserved
and prolonged." Here, once for all, let me desire the
Objectors to consider, What it is that is ever opposed
(in the many passages of this sort) to Life, Redemption,
&c. It is not Misery, Torments, &c. as it must have
been, did life literally signify eternal life in a future
state ; but it is DEATH, which shews it was a life here
on earth.
12. Thou shalt guide me (says he again) with thy
counsel, and afterwards receive me to glory . Or,
as an excellent Critic has it, Consilio tuo deduxisti
me, < postea cum gloria e,rcepisti me. " Thou wast,
* Ver. 9. f Ps. xlix. 14, 15. OF
J See Jerem. xxi. 12. " O house of David, thus saith the
" Lord, Execute judgment IN THE MORNING, and deliver him that
" is spoiled, out of the hand of the oppressor, let my fury go out
" like fire, because of the evil of your doing*."
Ps. Ixxiii. 24.
Sects.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 411
or shall be, always present with rne in difficulties and
distresses ; and shalt lead and conduct me to better
fortunes." This literal sense the context requires.
13. " But the mercy of the Lord is from everlast-
" ing to everlasting upon them that fear him, and
" his righteousness unto children s children ; to such
" as keep his covenant, and to those that remember
" his commandments to do them *." This is so far
from intimating djuture state, that it is t tem
poral promise annexed to the second Law or tae De
calogue Shewing mercy unto thousands of them
love me, and keep my commandments f.
14. For THERE the Lord commanded the
men life for evermore . Where? In the h abu .
of brethren living together in unity. Nothing * l>e
then can be meant, but that death and dangers should
not approach a house so strongly united in itself.
15. In the book of Proverbs it is said " The
" wicked is driven away in his wickedness : BUT THE
" RIGHTEOUS HATH HOPE JN HIS DEATH ." That
is, " the righteous hath hope that he shall be delivered
from the most imminent dangers." So the Psalmist
o
upon them that hope in his -mercy ; to deliver their
soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine^.
And again, Thou hast delivered my soul from death ;
Wilt not thou deliver my feet from falling, that I may
walk before God in the light of the living ^ ?
16. And again The wv/// of life is above to the
wise, that he may depart from Hell beneath * *. That
is, The wise man prolongs his days here on earth, and
escapes that untimely death which and
folly. A Doctrine perpetually inculcated throughout
"*" Ts. ciii. 17, 18. f Kxnrl.xx.fi. t Ps. rxxxiii. 3.
Ch. xiv. 32. || Ps. xx.xiii. 18, \y. 51 Ps. Ivi. 13.
* * Prov. xv. 24..
this
412 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book -VI.
this book; as at chap. x. ver. 2. 28. chap. xi. ver. 7.
chap. xii. ver. 28. chap. xxi. ver. i(i.
And again, " When a wicked man dieth, his EX-
" PECTATION shall perish; and the hope of unjust
" men pcrisheth *." And again, " So shall the
" knowledge of wisdom be unto thy soul ; when thou
" hast found it, then there shall be a reward, and
" thy EXPECTATION shall not be cut off f/ In the
first of these two places it appears by the con text (that
is, by the whole tenor of these moral precepts and
aphorisms) that the expectation u-hich should deceive
is that of worldly wicked men to establish a house in
their posterity : And in the second, the expectation
which should not deceive is that of wise and virtuous
men in the success of their honest endeavours. But
there is one common fallacy which runs through all
J O
the reasoning of these Anti-critics : it is this, that hav
ing taken the point in question [whether a future state
be taught in the Old Testament] for granted, they con
fine all expressions, capable of cither sense considered
alone, to the sense which supports their own opinion.
Whereas, while the matter is in question, fair reason
ing requires, that such Texts be considered as indif
ferent to either sense, till determined by the Context,
and according to the Analogy of the Law and the,
Prophets.
17. We conclude with the PREACHER, who says,
that Wisdom gweth life to them that have it J : And so
says the Law of Moses likewise (which is here alluded
to) and yet it gives nothing but the things of this life.
1 8. Again : " Though a sinner do evil an hundred
" times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know
" that it shall be well with them that fear GOD ."
* Prov. xi. 7. f Prov. xxiv. 14.
t Eccl. vii. 12. Ch. viii. ver. 12.
What
Sect. 2.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 413
What is meant by this, the very following words de
clare : But it shall not be well with the wicked, nei
ther shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow ;
because he feareth not before God*. That is, though
the wicked be suffered to go on for some time, yet for
all that, Vengeance shall overtake and arrest him in
the middle of his course f.
i(). And again " Rejoice, O young man, in thy
" youth, and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of
11 thy youth, and walk in the ways of thy heart, and
" in the sight of thine eyes : but know thou, that for
" all these things God will bring thee into judgment.
" Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put
" away evil from thy flesh : for childhood and youth
" are vanity |." That is, " in giving an innocent and
lawful indulgence to thy Youth, take heed lest thou
transgress the bounds of virtue and piety. For know,
that GOD will certainly punish thy offences, either in
thy own Person, or in thy Posterity.
These are all the passages of moment (till we come
to the PROPHETS) which I could find have been ob
jected to the Opinion, That a future state of reward
and puniskmeut is not in the Mosaic Dispensation.
By which it appears, that the Objectors have been
very inattentive to what an Interpreter of the Old
Testament should have his thoughts constantly attach
ed, namely to these three things ; to the CONTEXT ;
to the genius of the EASTERN STY LI;; and to the
economy under which the early Hebrews lived, that
is to say, an EXTRAORDINARY PUOVFDEM i:. But;
this last fault, though the most inexcusable of all, they
all have in common with the late Jewish Writers; who,
considering only the Dispensation under which them-
* Eccl. viii. 13. t See uote [GG] at the end of this volume.
J Chap. xi. V6f. 9, fy $ea.
selves
414 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
selves lived, thought it harsh and unnatural to interpret
these Texts with reference to worldly good and evil,
which they saw unequally distributed.
On the whole therefore it appears, that all these pas
sages, in their obvious and primary sense, relate to
the things of this life ; and that some of them are ex
pressed by the Holy Spirit in such a manner, as makes
it now evident, they had likewise a spiritual and sub-
limer meaning, and do indeed refer to the completion
of the Law, by the Gospel.
The Texts here examined are urged in common
both by Jews /and Christians. But, besides these, the
Jews have a set of Texts peculiar to themselves ;
which the Christians have never yet ventured to put
upon Duty. As they are most of them of the nature
of Riddles, Riddles, for me, they shall remain : only,
for the curious Reader s satisfaction, I shall mark out
what the Rabbins bring from the PENTATEUCH to
prove the immortality of the soul, and the Resurrec
tion of the bcdy, as they are collected by the learned
Manasseh Ben-Israel, in his tract I)e Resurrectione
Mortuorum. For the IMMORTALITY, i Kings i. 31.
"Psal. cxvi. 7, 8, 9. Exod. xix. 6. chap, xxxiii. ver. 20.
Levit. vii. 25. Deut. xiv. i, 2. chap. xxii. ver. 7.
chap, xxxii. ver. 47. For the RESURRECTION^
Gen. iii. 19. chap, xxxvii. ver. 10. Exod. xv. 6.
Levit. xxv. Numb. xv. 30. chap, xviii. ver. 28.
Dcut. iv. 4. chap, xxxii. ver. 39. chap, xxxiii. ver. 6.
But though the -reader will find many diverting things
oh this head in Manasseh Ben-Israel, yet they must
all give place to the curious comment of Rabbi Tan-
chum on the following words of i Sam. xxv. 29. The
soul of my Lord shall be bound in the bundle of life
with the LORD thy GOD : and the souls of thine ene
mies, them shall he sling out, as out of the middle of a
i sling.-
Sect. 3.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 415
sling. Sententia est omnium Interpretum (says this
profound Rabbi) quod ad hunc textum, esse ipsum
per modum commonitionis [qua declaratur] quisnam
futurus sit animae status, et ad quid tandem deventura
sit, postquam a corpore separata fuerit ; atque osten-
dere duplicem esse ipsi statum, viz. quibusdam anima-
bus esse gradum sublimem et locum stabilem, apud
Dominum suum, dum vita immortali fruantur, nee
morti nee perditioni obnoxias : aliis autem ludere
fluctus naturae, adeo ut requiem et consistendi locum
non inveniant, verum Mores perpctuos et cmtiatiis
continues, cum aterna duratione, instar lapidis, qui
funda projectus circumrotatur in acre pro ratione vi-
rium jacientis, dein vi sua naturali gravitate in terrain
decidit. Animae vero nee inest gravitas qua? ipsani
deorsum, nee levitas quae sursum ferat ; ideoque in
perpetua est confusione, perturbatione, tristitia, et do-
lore usque in sternum. Atque base revera sententia
est SAPIENTUM et PHILOSOPHORUM. How profound
a Doctrine ! and bow noble an original ! But tbis is
not the first, by a thousand, which has been raised
from a Metaphor, out of the hot-bed of theologic
wisdom and philosophy. An abuse, that some cooler
thinkers of late have fancied they could never get well
rid of, till they had turned the few Doctrines of true
Christianity back again into Metaphors. And they
have succeeded to admiration.
SECT. IV.
WE come at length to the texts of the NKw"IY.s-
TAMENT, which are urged to prove, against itself, that
Life and Immortality teas brought to light by the OJ.D.
I. The first is that famous argument of JESUS
against the Sadducees ; Jesus cui.xccrcd and mid unto
416 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the
power of God But as touching the Resurrection of
the dead, Have ye not read that which was spoken unto
you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? Gcd is not
the God of the dead, but of the living *. Now this
very Text, had it been impartially considered, would
alone have been sufficient to convince these Answerers
of the truth here contended for. At least it convinced
a much wiser man, the excellent HUGO GRGTIUS,
\vhose words to his friend Ger. Vossius are as follow :
" In Mosis lege (non dico in veteri Testamento : nam
" de Prophetis, praesertim posterioribus, res longe alia
" est) asternae vitse non fieri mentionem nisi per um-
" bras, aut rationis consequential!], certissimum mihi
" videtur, Christ! authoritate, qui Sadducaeos non
" vcrbis direct is, sed ratiocinando refellitf." There is
not, I repeat it, any plain Text in the whole Bible (and
this is amongst the plainest) so strangely mistaken and
perverted: For, i. The appellation of the GOD of
Abraham, c. is generally understood to be quoted by
our
* Matt. xxii. 29 3-2.
f Ep. 130. ed. Am. 1687. EPISCOPIUS had the very same idea
of this argument * Et sane opinionum, qua? inter Judaeos erat,
circa vitam futuri sa^culi discrepantia arguit promissiones Lege
fact as tales esse ut ex iis certi quid de vita futuri sa?culi non possit
colligi. Quod et Servator noster Ron obscure innuit, cum resur-
rectionem mortuorum colligit. Matt. xxii. non ex promisso aliquo
I.egi addito, sed ex general! tantum illo promisso Dei, quo se Deum
Abraham], Isaaci, & Jacobi futurum spoponderat : qua? tamen ilia
collect io magis nitilur cognitione intentionis divina3 sub generali-
bus islis verbis occultata? aut comprcbcnsa?, de qua Christo certo
constabat, quam necessaria consequentia sive verborum vi ac vir-
tute munifesla qualis nunc et in verb-is Novi Testament!, ubi vita
asterna & resurrectio mortuorum proram et puppim faciunt totius
Religionis Cbristiana?, et tarn clare ac diserte promittuhtur tit ne
biscere quidem contra quis possit." Inst. Theol. lib iii. i. c. 2.
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 417
our blessed Lord, as a direct proof* of the Resurrec
tion of the dead body, in the same manner that St. Paul
forges the case of JESUS : But now is Christ risen
from the dead, and become the first fruits of them
that slept t- But can any thing be more irrational or
absurd } The bodies of Abraham and the Patriarchs
were yet in dust, and reduced to their primitive earth.
So that in this sense, the reasoning is so far from prov
ing that God WAS XOT the Gcd of the dead, that it
proves, he was. For Abraham s body continued yet
lifeless at the very time when God was called his God:
Whatsoever was to be the future condition of it, that
could not influence the present appellation of the God
of Israel. What hath led men into this mistake is the
introduction to the argument, But as touching the
resurrection of the dead, which they supposed an
exordium to a direct proof: Whereas it is an intima
tion only, to what an indirect proof tended ; namely,
that the Resurrection of the body might be inferred
through the medium of the separate existence of the
soul} which was the only point Jesus proposed to
prove directly to them. The case stood thus : He
was here arguing against the SADDUCEES. Now
these supported their opinion, of no resurrection of the
body, on a principle that the soul had no separate ex
istence, but fell into nothing at the dissolution of its
union with tiie body ; which Principle once over-
* Mr. Le Clerc, in his Defense des Sentimens sur 1 IIistoire
Critique, has fallen into this mistake. \6tre Seigneur presse ces
tevraes, en sorte qu il suppose qu il ne faut qu entendre la langue
dims laquelle 1 Kcriture parle pour reconnoitre la Resurrection,
Matt. xxii. 31. II DC faut que lire ce raisonnement de Jesus
Christ, pour sentir qu il esttiie de cette expression, circle Dim de
tpielquun, que Von ne pourroit appliquer a Dieu, si celui, dont on
dit qu il cst le Dieu, etoit tnurt sans dtr-uir jamais resuscitcr.
pp. 10-2, 103. t * ^ ur> XV> 2( ?.
Vox.. V. E E thrown,
4i 8 tH DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
thrown, they had nothing left to oppose to the writings
of the Prophets, or the preaching of JESUS. Against
this principle therefore our blessed Lord thus divinely
argues : " But as concerning the Resurrection of the
dead, You ground your denial of it on this supposition,
that the soul dies with the body ; but you err as
much in not knowing the Scriptures, as in not rightly
conceiving of the power of God. For the words of
the Law, which you allow to be a good authority,
directly prove that the soul doth not die. with the body,
but hath a separate existence. Now Moses tells us,
that God, long after the deatli of Abraham, Isaac,
iind Jacob, called himself their God: But God is not
the God of the dead, but of the living ; therefore the
souls of those Patriarchs are yet existing in a separate
state." This is the force of the argument *.
2. The second mistake is, that JESUS, by these
words, insinuates that Moses CULTIVATED the Doctrine
of a Resurrection, or a Future state. But here again
the Objectors seem to forget, against whom the argu
ment is addressed, the SADDUCEES. Now these not
only held that Moses did not leach, but that he did
NOT BEI.H YE that Doctrine. This was the error
JESUS aimed to confute ; and only this ; because the
opinion that Moses did not teach or cultivate it, was
no error at all, as appears, amongst many other reasons,
even from hence : that the Jews might reasonably un
derstand the title of the God of Abraham, c. to mean
the peculiar tutelary God of Abraham s Family ; for
the terms Jacob and Israel are frequently used in
Scripture for the whole nation of the Jews ; Aaron for
the whole order of the priesthood ; Dan, Judah,
8$c. for the whole body of each Tribe : And, as in
reason they might, so by the History of the early
* See note [IIH] at the end of this volume.
Jews,
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 419
Jews, we find in fact, they did understand it in this
sen-
The real force therefore of the text, here urged,
amounts to this, from JESUS S argument it appears,
that the separate existence of the soul might be fairly
inferred from the writings of Moses : Which inference
I not only grant some early Jews did make, but have
proved likewise ; though not indeed from these words,
for the reason given above. And so much my An
swerers might have understood, had they only observed
that this has all the marks of a new Argument *,
unknown to the Pharisees ; as indeed both the dignity
of our Lord s character, and the impression he would
make on his Op-posers, seemed to require it should be.
Accordingly we find they are struck dumb ; and the
multitude that heard this, astonished at his doctrine f .
But would Either of them have been so affected with
an old foundered argument, long hacknied in the
Schools and Synagogues J of the Pharisees ? Nay,
how should it be otherwise than SEW ? for the words,
I am the God of Abraham, &c. as delivered by Moses,
were supposed, both by Pharisees and Sadducees, to
be spoken of a NATIONAL GOD ; as in Gen. xvii. 8, 9.
xxvi. 3. xxviii. 13. They therefore could not see how
it implied the continued existence of the Patriarch
Abraham, &c. But Jesus, in using the word GOD, to
signify the Maker and Lord of all things, rightly in
ferred that the Patriarchs still continued to exist. I
ran not ignorant, that the modern Rabbins employed
this argument very familiarly for a Resurrection ; but
* See note [II] at the end of this volume. f Matt. xxii. 33.
I l^he learned Pocock, speaking of this Argument, says, His e
Lege depromptis cum Sadduca?os ad silentium adegisset Christus,
dicitur perculsam fuisse turbam doctrind ejus. Uude patet lucu-
lentiori ipsum contra eos argurnento usum, quam ullo adhuc usi
fuerant Pharissi. Not miscall, ad Portam Mosis, cap, vi.
E 2 they
426 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
they borrowed it from the GOSPEL, as they have done
many other things ; the reason of which, our rabbinical
Commentators, such as Lightfoot, not apprehending,
have supposed ttie borrowing to be all on the side of
the lenders : but more of this matter in its place.
Thus much for this celebrated Text. In which,
however, the learned Dr. Sherlock, the late Bishop of
London, finds enough to support himself in his own
opinion, That the Law of Moses afforded a good proof
of a future state to the ancient Jews *. But to whom
did it afford this proof ? To the ancient Jews, who
understood the words in the text, in question, to relate
to a national God; or to us Christians, who understand
them of the Creator of the Universe? Now though I
o
cannot agree with his Lordship in this conclusion, yet
I agree with him in a better thing, which is, That the
Law of Moses affords a good proof of its oivn divinity ;
indeed, by a medium his Lordship never thought of,
namely, That it afforded no proof of a future state at
ail. But what if his Lordship meant no more than
what his respectable Father endeavoured to prove f,
viz. that the EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE (which
I hold to be the very circumstance which kept the
Jews from the knowledge of a future state) indeed
shews that they had the knowledge of it ? If this be
the case, all I have to say is, that Their proof of a
Jut ure state from the LAW, begins just where rny proof
of its divinity ends.
II. We come next to the Parable of the rich Man
and .Lazarus , where the former, being in Hell, desires
Abraham, whom he saw afar off in Paradise, to send
Lazarus to his father s house, to testify to his Brethren,
* Sermons by the Bishop of London.
t Sermons by the Dean of St. Paul s, on the Immortality of the
Soul.and a future State, p. 141.
and
Sect 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 421
and to lead them to repentance, lest they too should
come into that place of torment : To which Abraham
replies : If they hear not Moses and the Prophets,
neither will they be persuaded., though one rose from
the dead*. Hence it is inferred, that both Moses and
the Prophets taught a future state of Rewards and
Punishments. But, here again, the Objectors are
quite beside the matter. As, in the former case, they
would not see, the argument -was directed against the
SADDUCEES; so here, by as perverse a connivance,
they will not reflect, that this Parable is addressed to
the PHARISEES. It is certain we must judge of the
drift and design of every rational discourse from the
Character of those to whom it is addressed. Now had
this Parable been told to the Sadducees, whose grand
error it. was. to deny a future state of rewards and
punishments ; and had the rich man been represented
as a Sadducee, who was too late convinced of his
mistake, and wanted to undeceive his father s house,
which his evil DOCTRINES had perverted ; had this,
I say, been the case, there might have been some
ground for the Objector s inference, which I suppose
to be this, That " it appears as plainly from Moses
" and the Prophets, that there is a future state of
" rewards and punishments, as if one came back from
" that state to tell us so." On the contrary, the Pa
rable was particularly addressed to the Pharisees, the
great patrons of a future state, and Avho sedulously
taught it in opposition to the Sadducees. It is intro
duced in this manner: And the PHARISEES also, who
were COVETOUS [piAa^yt^oi], heard all these things:
and they derided him \. For which they are &us\"
reproved : Ye are they which justify yourselves before
; but God knowclli your heart s^. And then
9 Luke xvi. 31. t Ver. 14. J Ver. 15.
E E 3 presently
422 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
presently follows the parable. Their capital errors
therefore were errors of PRACTICE, Avarice and
Luxury. And it was to reform these, that a rich
Pharisee is represented as without any compassion for
the poor, living in all kind of delicacy, and dying im-.
penitent. This man, when he comes in the other-
world, finds so ill a reception there, wants one to be
sent to his brethren (who believed, doubtless, as he,
did, the Doctrine of a future state) to warn them of
tjieir evil ways, and to assure them, that luxury and
inhumanity, unrepentcd of, would assuredly damn
them. Which information, he thought, would be best
info reed by a Miracle : // one went unto t htm f row
the dead, they will REPENT*. (Where observe, it is
not they will BELIEVE.) To this common mistake,
Abraham s reply is extremely pertinent : If they hear
not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be per-
waded, though one rose from the dead: i.e. " If
they will not hear Moses, and the Prophets, whose
authority they acknowledge f, and whose missions were
confirmed by so many and well-attested Miracles,
neither will they regard a new one, of the resurrection
of a dead man. (Nor, in fact, were the Pharisees at
all softened into repentance by the return of that
Lazarus, the namesake of this in the parable, whom
Jesus raised from the dead.) Now Moses and the,
Prophets have denounced the most severe threatenings,
on the part of God, against vice and impenitence. 3>
This is the force of the argument ; in which we see
the question of a future state is no more concerned,
than thus far only, that God will punish, either here
or hereafter. Moses and the Prophets threatened the
punishment here ; and, while here it was executed,
the Jews looked no farther : But when the extraor*
* Ver, 30. f See note [KK] at the end of this volume.
dinary
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 423
dinary Providence, by which that punishment was
administered, had ceased, the Jews began, from those
very promises and denunciations, to entertain some
hopes of an hereafter, where all inequalities should be
eet even, and God s threats and promises executed to
the full: though still, with less confidence, if they
reasoned rightly, than the Pagans had to draw the
same conclusion from the same principles ; since their
Law had informed them of a truth unknown to the
rest of mankind ; namely, that the whole llace was
condemned to a state of death and mortality, a return
to dust from whence Man was taken, for the trans
gression of Adam. So that all which good logic or
criticism will authorize the believers of a future state
to draw from this parable, is this, " that God is a.
" severe pimisher of unrepentant luxury and inhu-
" inanity."
But now admit the mistaken interpretation of the
Objectors ; and what will follow ! That Moses taught
a future state, the Proposition, I oppose ? No ; But
that from Moses and the Prophets together a future
state might be collected. A Proposition, I have no
occasion to oppose. For when the Prophets are
joined to Moses, and have explained the spiritual
meaning of his Law, and developed the hidden sense
of it, I may well allow that from both together a
learned Pharisee might collect the truth of the doctrine,
without receding one tittle from my Argument.
III. " When the Lawyer in the Gospel (say thesa
" Objectors) had made that most important Demand *,
" Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life, our
" blessed Lord refers him to what was written in the
" Law : and upon his giving a sound and judicious
* answer, approves of it, and for satisfaction to his
* Luke x. 25,
E E 4 " question,
424 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
" question, tells him, This do and thou shalt live."
This is the objection. And to this, Saint Paul shall
give an answer Is the LAW then AGAINST the pro
mises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a
Law given which could have given Life, verily righ^
teousness should have been by the Law. But the
Scripture hath concluded all under sin ; that the
promise by FAITH of Jesus Christ might be green to-
them that believe ". We must therefore think that this
Lawyer was better at distinctions than the Objector
who brings him into his Cause, and inquired, (in this
most important demand) of the AGENDA, not of the
CREDENDA, in order to salvation. And so his words
bear witness What shall I DO to be saved?
IV. In what follows, I hardly think the Objectors
can be serious. Search the Scriptures (says JESUS to
the Jews)ybr in them YE THINK YE HAVE eternal life,
OTJ VfAllS ^OXciTE Iv Ct JTtz lS (^Uviv CclttVlOV tfttW and tlieij
are they which testify of me. And ye will not come
to me, that ye MIGHT HAVE LIFE t. The homicide J
Jews, to whom tliese words are addressed, THOUGHT
they had eternal life in their Scriptures ; THERE
FORE (say the Objectors) they had eternal Life. If
I allow this therefore, they must allow me, another
THEREFORE the Mission of JESUS was vain, being
anticipated by that of Moses, who brought life and
immortality to light by the LAW. And if righteous
ness came by the Law (says the Apostle) then is
Christ dead in vain. This is a necessary consequence
from the Objectors interpretation, and gives us, to be
sure, a very high idea of the reasoning of the ever
blessed JESUS. By the same Art of inferring, I sup
pose too they will conclude, that, when St. Paul says
\,o the unbelieving Jew And thou art confident that
* pal. iii. 21, 22. f John v. 39, 40. \ Ver. 16.
thou
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 425
thou thyself art a guide to the blind, a light of them
which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish,
and a teacher of babes * ; they will conclude, I say,
that THEREFORE it was the Jew, and not St. Paul,
who was indeed, the guide of the blind, a light of them
which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, and
a teacher of babes. In earnest, if JESUS, in these
words, taught, that the Jewish Scriptures gave eternal
life, (and the Jews could not have what their Scriptures
did not give) he certainly taught a very different
doctrine from St. PAUL, who expressly tells us, That
JF THERE HAD BEEN a LAW GIVEN WHICH COULD
HAVE GIVEN LIFE, VERILY RIGHTEOUSNESS SHOULD
HAVE BEEN BY THE LAW f. All therefore that these
words of Jesus teach us is, that the Jews THOUGHT
they had eternal life by the Mosaic Dispensation. For
the truth of what is thus charged upon them, we have
the concurrent testimony of the Apostles ; Who wrote
large portions of their EPISTLES to prove, not only
that they thought so, but that they were greatly mis
taken in so thinking. For the Author of the epistle
to the Hebrews says, that unto the Angels [who
delivered the Law to Moses] hath he [God] not put
in subjection the WORLD TO COME, ic hereof WE
.speak J.
But though we should suppose, the words ye think
ye have eternal life, considered separately, did not
necessarily imply that these were only their thoughts,
yet being opposed to the following words, Ye mil not
come to me that ye MIGHT HAVE LIFE, (Kl s S^T*
|A0V Tzr^c r pe, i va fyw f^lf,) they shew, that whoever
thought so besides, it was not JESUS, whose argument
stands thus " The Scriptures, I affirm, and am ready
to prove, do testify of me. What reason then have
* Kora.ii. 19, -j- Gal, iii. 21. J Chap. ii. ver. 5.
426 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
you to disown my character? it cannot surely be,
because I preach up a new Doctrine of life and im
mortality. For you yourselves teach that doctrine :
and what is more, you understand several passages in.
your own Scriptures, to signify eternal life ; which I
own, in their spiritual meaning do so. Now that life
which you think you HAVE by your Scriptures, but
HAVE NOT, do I here offer unto you, THAT YE MIGHT
indeed HAVE LIFE." But if men had duly considered
this discourse of Jesus to the unbelieving Jews, they
would have seen the main drift and purpose of it was
to rectify this fatal mistake of theirs, in thinking they
had eternal life in their Scriptures. In one place he
tells them, that those who heard his word had passed
from DEATH to life*. And again, the hour is coming,
and now it, when the DEAD shall hear the voice of the
Son of God f. Where, by Death and the Dead, is
meant the condition of those under the Law, subject
to the condemnation of mortality.
V. The Objectors have produced St. Paul likewise
to confute the Principle here laid down. This Apostle,
in his epistle to the Romans, says cc For as many as
" have sinned without Law, shall also perish without
" law : and (is mam} as have sinned in the Law, shall
" be judged by the Law J." Now, say the Objectors,
" had the Law concealed a future state from the Jews,
it is plain they were not equitably dealt with, since they
were to be judged in a future state." This brings to
jnind an objection of Lord Bolingbroke s against the
divinity of Moses s Law ; and the answer which this
text enabled me to give to Him, will shew, that in these
words of St. Paul, the Objectors have chosen the most
unlucky text for their purpose in the whole New
Testament. His Lordship s objection is in these words,
* John v. 24. t Ver. 25. I Chap. ii. ver. 12.
"if
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 427
(i If Moses knew that crimes were to be punished in
" another life, he deceived the people [in not ac-
" quainting them with the doctrine of & future state"].
" If he did not know it, I say it with horror, that
" God deceived both him and them. The Israelites
" had better things to hope, and worse to fear," &c.
Now not to repeat what has been replied to this im
pious charge, elsewhere*, I will only observe, that
the words of St. Paul above are a full confutation of
it, where he says, that as many as have sinned in the
Law, shall be judged by the Law : that is, shall bo
judged on the principles of a Law which denounced
punishment to vice, and reward to virtue. Those who
had already received the punishment which that Law
denounced should be judged to have done so ; those,
who in the times of the gradual decay of the extraor
dinary providence had escaped or evaded punishment,
should have it hereafter. Nothing is clearer than this
interpretation. For observe, I pray you, the difference
of the predication between wicked men without the
Law, and the wicked men under the Law. The first
shall perish, aVoAatfa* : the second shall be judged,
x9j?Voi/Ja*, or brought to trial. For though n^im be
often used in the New Testament for xojax^w, yet it
is plain, that it is not so used here, both from the sense
of the place, and the Apostle s change of terms, for
which I think no good reason can be assigned but
this, that vpfafoofot is opposed to ofa^wbt. From all
this, I think, it appears, that my Objectors were as
much mistaken in their urging this text against my
principles, as the noble Lord in supposing that the
reality of a, future state was a condemnation of the
equity of the Law. But both took it for granted, and
* See A Vie\y of Lord Bolingbroke s Philosophy, vol. xii.
pp. 260, &c. of this Edition.
foolishly
428 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
foolishly enough, that those who did not live under
the sanction of a future state could never, consistently
with justice, be summoned before the Tribunal there
erected.
II.
We are now got to the very Palladium of the cause,
the famous eleventh chapter to the Hebrews : where
it is said, that by FAITH, Abel, Encch, Noah, Abra
ham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, &c. performed all
their acceptable works That they looked for an hea
venly city That they saw the Promises afar of, and
were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and de
sired an heavenly country That they all died in faith
That Moses esteemed the reproach of CHRIST greater
riches than the treasures of Egypt That by faith
the Jewish leaders did all their great and marvellous
works That their very women despised death, in hopes
to obtain a part in the resurrection of the just And
that all these obtained a good report THROUGH FAITH.
This, say the Objectors, plainly shews, that a future
state of Rewards and Punishments, or more properly,
the Christian Doctrine of Life and Immortality , was
taught by the LAW. To which I answer,
i. That if this be true, the eleventh chapter di
rectly contradicts all the rest of the Epistle : In which,
as we have shewn, there are more express declarations,
that life and immortality was not known or taught by
the Law, than in all the other books of the New Tes
tament besides. And for which, indeed, a very good
reason may be assigned, as it was solely addressed to
the Jews, amongst whom this fatal prejudice, that a
future state teas taught by the Late, was then, and
has continued ever since to be, the strongest impedi
ment to their Conversion. For is it possible, that a
Ymter, who had said, that the Law made nothing
.4 perfect^
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 420
perfect, but the BRINGING IN OF A BETTER HOPK
DID; That CHRIST hath obtained a more excellent
ministry than MOSES, by how much aho he Is the
MEDIATOR OF A BETTER COVENANT, which is esta
blished upon BETTER PROMISES; That the LAW
WAS ONLY A SHADOAV OF GOOD THINGS TOT COME,
and not the very Image ; is it possible, I say, that suck
a Writer should forget himself before he came to th
end of his Epistle, and, in contradiction to all this,
affirm that Life and Immortality was known and
taught under the Law ? We may venture to say then>
that this eleventh chapter must have a very different
meaning. Let us see if we can find it out : and sure
it requires no great search.
2. The whole argument of the Epistle to the He
brews is directed against Jews and judaizing Christiana.
The point in difference was this : The Gospel taught
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH : The Judaizers thought
it must needs be by WORKS. One consequence of
which, in their opinion, was, that the Law of Moses
was still in force. They had no more conception than,
our modern Socinians and Freethinkers, that there
could be any merit in FAITH or Belief, where the
understanding was unavoidably determined by evi
dence. The Reader sees then, that the dispute was
not whether faith in Moses OK faith in JESUS made
men acceptable to GOD ; but whether works or the
act of believing ; consequently, w here the Apostle
shews it was faith, or the act of believing, he must
mean faith in the generic sense, not in the specific,
i.e. he did not wean faith in Jesus: for the Jew j,
even that part of them which embraced JESUS as the
Messiah, denied it to be any kind of faith whatsoever.
On the contrary, had they held justification to be by
Jaifh in Moses, and not in JESUS, then it had been
the
430 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book vl
the Apostle s business to prove, that it was the spectjic
faith in JESUS. But as the dispute stood, all he had
to do was to prove that it was the act of believing,
and not works, which justified. And this we find he
does with infinite address ; hy shewing, that that thing;
which made all the Patriarchs before the Law, and all
the Rulers and Prophets under the Law, acceptable
to GOD, was not works, but faith. But then what
kind of faith? Doubtless faith in God s promises:
for he is arguing on their own concessions. They
admitted their ancestors to have imti that faith*: they
did not admit that they had faith in CHRIST. For
the Apostle therefore to a?~ert this, had been a kind
of begging the question. Thus we see that not only
the pertinency, but the whole force of the reasoning
turns upon our understanding faith, in this chapter, to
mean faith in the God of their fathers.
But the Apostle s own definition of the word puts
the matter out of question. We have said, the dispute
between him and the Jewish Converts necessarily re
quired him to speak of the efficacy of faith in the
generic sense. Accordingly his definition of FAITH
is, that it is THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR,
THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN f . Not of
faith in the Messiah, but of belief in general, and on
good grounds. Indeed very general, according to this
Writer ; not only belief of the future, but the past.
It is, says he, the substance of things hoped for-, and
this he illustrates by Noah s reliance on GOD S pro
mise to save him in the approaching deluge J. It is,
again, the evidence of things not seen ; and this he
illustrates by our belief that the worlds were framed
* Thus their Prophet Hubakkuk had said, TJit just shall live
by his faith, chap. ii. ver; 4.
f Heb. xi. i. J Ver. 7.
by
$ect.4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 431
by the word of God*. Having defined what he means
by faith, he next proceeds to shew its nature by its
common efficacy, which still relates only to faith in the
generic sense But without faith it is impossible to
please him [G0D], t /0r he that comet h to God must be
lieve that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him f ; which very faith he immediately
illustrates by that of Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac,
Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. And that no doubt might
remain, he farther illustrates it by the faith of the
Jewish People passing the Red Sea, and encompassing
the walls of Jericho ; and by the faith of Raiiab the
harlot. But was any of this, the faith in JESUS the
Messiah or a belief of a future state of rewards and
punishments ?
As here the Apostle tells us of the great rewards of
faith, so in his third chapter he speaks of the punish
ment of Unbelief ; which was the shutting out a whole
generation from the land of Canaan, and suffering
them to perish in the Wilderness : So we see (says he)
they could not enter in because of unbelief $. But was
this unbelief want of faltfi in the Messiah, or any
thing but want of faith in the promise of the God of
Israel, who assured them that he would drive out the
Canaanite from before them ? Lastly, to evince it im
possible thai faith in the JMesitati should be. meant by
the faith in this eleventh chapter, the Apostle expne
says, that all those to \vhom he assigns this faith, HAI>
NOT RECEIVED THE PROMISED Therefore they
could not have faith in. that which was never yet pro
posed to them lor the object oifaitli: For how shouLi
they believe in htm of whom they hare not heard?
the Apostle.
* Heb. xi. 3. t Ver. 6.
, I Ver. 19. Ver. 13 & 39,
St. Paul
432 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
St. Paul bad the same argument to manage in his
Epistle to the Galatians ; and he argues, from the ad
vantages of faith or belief in God, in the very same
manner* But of his argument, more in the next
section.
Let us observe farther, that the sacred Writers not
only use the \\ordjaith in its generic sense of believing
on reasonable grounds , but likewise the word GOSPEL
(a more appropriated term) for good tidings in general*
Thus this very Writer to the Hebrews For unto us
was the GOSPEL preached as well as unto than , i.e.
the Israelites*
Having shewn, that by the Faith, here said to be so
extensive amongst the Jewish People, is meant faith
in those promises of God which related to their own
Dispensation, all the weight of this objection is re
moved. For as to the promises seen afar off and
believed and embraced, which gave the prospect of a
better country, that is, an heavenly "f , these are coiv
fined to the Patriarchs and Leaders of the Jewish
People. And that they bad this distant prospect, I
am as much concerned to prove as my Adversaries
themselves. And if I should undertake to do it more
effectually, nobody I believe will think that I pretend
ed to any great matter. But then let us still remember
there is a vast difference between SEEING THE PRO
MISES AFAR OFF and RECEIVING THE PROMISE!
the latter implying a gift bestowed; the former, only
the obscure and distant prospect of one to come.
This indeed they had : but as to the other, the sacred
Writers assure us that, in general, they had it not.
And these ALL having obtained a good report through
faith, RECEIVED NOT THE PROMISED. For though
all the good Israelites in general h&d faith in God, and
* Chap. iv. ver. 2. t Ver. 1316. J Ver. 39.
the
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 433
the Patriarchs and Leaders had the hope of a better
Country, yet neither the one nor the other received
the Promise.
I have said, that the hopes of a better country^ is to
be confined to the Patriarchs and Leaders of the an
cient Jews : Nor is this contradicted by what is said
of others who were tortured, not accepting deliverance,
that they might obtain a better Resurrection *, for
this refers (as our English Bibles shew us) to the his
tory of the Maccabees ; in whose time it is confessed
the Doctrine of a future state was become national.
How the People got it of what materials it was
composed and from what quarters it was fetched,
will be seen hereafter. It is sufficient to observe at
present, that all this, the Jews soon forgot, or hid from
themselves, and made this new flattering Doctrine a
part of the Law. Hence the Author of the Second
book of Maccabees makes one of the Martyrs say
For our brethren who now have suffered a short pain,
are dead unto God s COVENANT OF EVERLASTING
LIFE f. But it may be asked, how came this Cove
nant of everlasting life to lie so perfectly concealed
from the time of Moses to the great Captivity, that,
as appears from their History, neither Princes nor
People had the least apprehension or suspicion of such
a Covenant ?
But here a proper occasion offers itself to remove a
seeming contradiction between the Writer of the Epis
tle to the Hebrews, and St. Paul, in his speech to the
synagogue at Antioch, which will give still further
light to the subject. The former says, And these all
having obtained a good report through faith, RE
CEIVED NOT THE PROMISE J. And the latter, TH E
PROMISE WHICH WAS MADE UNTO THE FATHERS,
1 V T. 35. f -2 Mace. vii. 36. J Ileb. xi. 39.
VOL. V. r E Cod
434 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in
that he hath raised up JESUS again *. But the con
tradiction is only seeming. The two texts are, indeed,
very consistent. The Writer to the Hebrews is speak
ing of the condition of the heads and leaders of the
faithful Israelites in general; who certainly had not
the promise of the Gospel revealed unto them. St. Paul,
in his speech to the Synagogue, is speaking particu
larly of their father ABRAHAM : as appears from his
introductory address. Mm and Brethren, Children of
the stock of Abraham "\ ; and Abraham certainly had
the promise of the Gospel revealed unto him, as ap
pears from the words of JESUS himself. Your father
Abraham rejoiced to see my day ; and he saw it, and
teas glad. He saw the resurrection of Jesus in the
restoration of his son Isaac* But of this more here
after. And to this solution, the Author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews himself directs us, who, though he had
said that the holy men in general received not the pro
mise, yet when he reckons up the distinct effects of
each particular man s faith, he expressly says, who
through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteous
ness, OBTAIX ED PROMISES, stopped the mouths of
lions, quenched the violence of Jirc J, <-c. That is,
gome like David, through faith, subdued kingdoms;
others, like Samuel, wrought righteousness-, others,
like Abraham, OBTAINED PROMISES; others, ai
Daniel, stopped the mouths of lions ; and others, again,
as his three companions, quenched the violence of fire.
From whence I would infer these two conclusions :
l. That as the promise here said to be obtained, doth
not contradict what the same Writer says presently
after, that the faithful Israelites in general received not
the promise ; and as the promise, said by St. Paul to
* Acts xiii. 3*. t Ver. a6. j Heb. xi. 33.
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 435
be made to the fathers, means the same thing with the
PROMISES said, by the Writer of the epistle to the
Hebrews, to be OBTAINED, namely, the promises
made to Abraham, who yaw CHRIST S day, and the
oath sworn to David, that of the Jruit of his loins he
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne * ; conse
quently, neither do the words of St. Paul contradict
the Writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, A\here he
says, these all received not the promise. 2. As tnese
gospel Promises are said to be obtained by Jaith, it
follows that the FAITH mentioned in this famous
eleventh chapter to the Hebrews, could not be faith in
the Messiah : because the promises of a Messiah are
here said to be the consequence of faith; but faith in
the Messiah is the consequence of the promises of a
Messiah; For how could they believe in him of whom
they had not heard? From whence it appears, that the
FAITH so much extolled in this chapter wa&fafth in
God s veracity, according to the interpretation given
above.
in.
This is all, as far as I can learrt, that hath been ob
jected to my Proposition ; and this all is such a con
firmation of it, that I am in pain lest the reader should
think I have prevaricated, and drawn out the strongest
Texts in the New Testament to support my Opinion,
under the name of a Confutation of it. But I have
fairly given them as I found them urged : and to shew
that I am no less severe, though a little more candid,
to my own notions, than my Answerers are, 1 shall
produce an objection, which occurred to me in rending
St. Paul s epistles, of more real moment than their
\vhole bundle of Texts weighed together. It i> this :
The learned Apostle, in his reasoning against the
* Acts ii. 30.
F * 2 Jews,
436 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
Jews, argues upon a supposition, that " By the Law
they had eternal life offered to them or laid before
them, oil condition of their exact performance of the
Commandment ; but that all coming short of perfect
obedience, there was a necessity of recurring to FAITH.
; For what the Law could not do (says he) in that it
was weak through the fash, God sending his own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned
sin in the flesh ; that the righteousness of the Larv
wight be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh,
but after the Spirit *.
This general Argument, which runs through the
epistles to the Romans and Galatians, wears indeed
the face of an objection to what I have advanced :
but to understand the true value of it, we must con
sider the Apostle s end and purpose in writing. It was
to rectify an error in the Jewish Converts, who would
lay a necessity upon all men of conforming to the
Law of Moses. As strangely superstitious as this
may now appear to us, it seems to have been a very
natural consequence of opinions then held by the
whole Jewish Nation, as doctrines of Moses and of
the Law ; namely, a future state of Rewards and
Punishments, and the resurrection of the Body. Now
these Doctrines, which easily disposed the less pre
judiced part of the Jews to receive the Gospel, where
they were taught more directly and explicitly, at the
same time gave them vuxnig notions both of the Re
ligion of MOSES and of JESUS : Which, by the way,
I desire those, who so much contend for a future
states being in the Mosaic Dispensation, to take
notice of. Their wrong notion of the LAW consisted
in this, that bavins; taken for granted, that the reward
of obedience proposed by Moses w r as Immortality^
and that this immortality could be obtained only by
* Rom. viii. 3, 4.
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 437
the works of the Law, therefore those works were,
of necessity, to be observed. Their wrong notion of
the GOSPEL consisted in this, that as Immortality
was attached to Works by the Law, so it must needs
be attached to JVorks by the Gospel also.
These were fatal mistakes. We have seen in our
explanation of the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews,
how the Apostles combated the last of them, namely,
Justification by IVorks. The shewing now in what
manner St. Paul opposed the other, of obligation to
the Law, will explain the reasoning in question. Their
opinion of obligation to the Law of Moses, was, as we
say, founded on this principle, that it taught a future
state, or offered immortality to its followers. The
case was nice and delicate, and the confutation of
the error required much address. What should our
Apostle do ? Should he in direct terms deny a future
state was to be found in the Law ? This would have
shocked a general tradition supported by a national
belief. Should he have owned that life and immortality
came by the Law ? This had not only fixed them hi
their error, but, what was worse, had tended to subvert
the whole Gospel of JESUS. He has recourse there
fore to this admirable expedient : The later Jews, in
support of their national Doctrine of a future state,
had given a spiritual sense to the Law. And this,
which they did out of necessity, with little apparent
grounds of conclusion then to be discovered, was seen,
after the coming of the Messiah, to have the highest
reasonableness and truth. Thus we find there were
two spiritual senses, the one spurious, invented by the
later Doctors of the Law ; the other genuine, discovered
by the Preachers of the Gospel ; ancl these coinciding
well enough in the main, St. Paul was enabled to seize
a spiritual sense, and from thence to argue on their
F F 3
43S THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
own principles, that the Law of Moses could not now
oblige ; which he does in this irresistible manner.
" The Lati\ says he, zee know is spiritual* ; that is,
in a spiritual sense promises immmortality : for it says,
Do this and live f. Therefore, he who does the deeds
of the Law shall live J. But what then ? lam carnal^ :
And all have sinned, and come short of the glory of
God\\: So that no flesh can be justified by the deeds
of the Law ^[, which requires a perfect obedience.
Worsts then being unprofitable, we must have recourse
to Faith : But the Law is not of Faith** : Therefore
the Law is unprofitable for the attainment of salvation,
and consequently no longer obligatory." Never was
an important argument more artfully conducted, w r here
the erroneous are brought into the right way on their
own principles, and yet the truth not given up or
betrayed. This would have been admired in a Greek
or Roman Orator.
But though the principle he went upon was common
both to him and his adversaries, and consequently
true, that the Law was spiritual, or had a spiritual
meaning, whereby, under the species of those temporal
promises of the Law, the promises of the Gospel were
shadowed put ; yet the inference from thence, that
the LAW oj/crtd immortality to its followers, was
solely Jewish, and urged by St. Paul as an argument
ad huiiiinem only ; which appears certain from these
considerations ;
j. Fills spiritual sense, which St. Paul owns to be
in the Law, was not a sense which was conveyed down
wit!- tiie literal, by Moses, to the followers of the
J^aw ; but was a sense invented or discovered long
* lloin. vii. 14. f Lev. xviii. 5. Gal. iii. 12.
f lloui. x. 5. Rom. vii, 14. |] Rom. iii. 23.
f Gal. ji. 16. Chap. iii. ver. 1 1. ** Gal. iii. 12.
Sect. 4-] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 439
after ; the spurious, by the later Jewish Doctors ;
and the genuine and real, by the Apostles ; as appears
from these words of St. Paul: But now we are de
livered from the Law, that being DEAD wkerciriwe
ice re held, that ice should serve in NEWNESS OF SPIRIT,
and not in the OLDNESS OF THE LETTER*. We see
here, the Apostle gives the letter to the Jewish Eco
nomy, and the spirit to the Christian. Let me observe
how exactly this quadrates with, and how well it
explains, what he says in another place ; where having
told the Corinthians that he and his Fellow-Apostles
Avere ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter
but of the spirit, he adds, the letter killeth, but the
spirit giveth life. The Jews had only the letter
delivered to them by the Law, but the Letter killcth ;
the consequence is, that the Law (in which was only
the letter) had no future state.
2. Secondly, Supposing St. Paul really to hold that
the Law offered immortality to its followers, and that
that immortality was attached (as his argument sup
poses it) to J Forks, it would contradict the other
reasoning which both he himself and the author of the
epistle to the Hebrews urged so cordially against the
second error of the Jewish Converts ; namely, of im
mortality s being attached to work$> or ihatjite ttfcation
was by works under the Gospel : for to confute this
error, they prove, as we have shewn, that it \\asf ait h
which justified, not only under the Gospel, but under
the Law also.
3, Thirdly, If immortality were indeed offered
through works, by the Law, thenjusttficatiov by Jaith,
one of the great fundamental doctrines of Christianity f ,
would
* Rom. -rii. 6.
t This I shall shew hereafter; and endeavour to rescue it fronj
the madness of enthusiasm on the one hand, and the absurdity of
r F 4 Ilic
440 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
would be infringed. For then faith could, at best, be
only supposed to make up the defect of works, in sucli
a sense as to enable works to justify.
4, Fourthly, It would directly contradict what
St. Paul in other places says of the Law ; as that it is
a shadow of things to come, but that the body is of
CHRIST*. But the offer of immortality on one con
dition, could never be called the shadow of the offer
of it on another. That it is the schoolmaster to bring
men to Christ] . Now, by the unhappy dexterity of
these men, who, in defiance of the Apostle, will needs
give the doctrines of grace and truth, as well as the
doctrines of the Law, to MOSES, His appointed
SCHOOLMASTER, the Law, is made to act a part that
would utterly discredit every other schoolmaster,
namely, to teach his children, yet in their Elements^
the sublime doctrines of manly science.
5. fifthly and lastly, If St. Paul intended this for any
more than an argument ad hominem, he contradicted
himself, and misled his disciple Timothy, whom he
expressly assured, that our Saviour Jesus Christ hath
ABOLISHED DEATH, and hath brought life and immor
tality to light through the Gospel. And lest, by this
bringing to light, any one should mistake him to mean
only that Jesus Christ had made life and immortality
more clear and manifest, than Moses had done, he
adds, that our Saviour had abolished or destroyed Death,
or that state of mortality and extinction into which
mankind had fallen by the transgression of Adam ;
and in which, they continued under the Law of Moses,
as appears from that Law s having no other sanction
than temporal rewards and punishments. : Now this
state
the common system on the other, and yet not betray it, in ex
plaining it away under the fashionable pretence of delivering the
Scripture Doctrine of it.
* Col. iii. 17. f Gal. iii. -24. % Gal, iv. 3 9.
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 441
state must needs be abolished, before another could be
introduced : consequently by bringing life and immor
tality to light, must needs be meant, the introduction
of a new system.
I will only observe, that the excellent Mr. Locke
was not aware of the nature of the argument in ques
tion ; and so, on its mistaken authority, hath seemed
to suppose that the Law did indeed offer immortality
to its followers : This hath run him into great
perplexities throughout his explanation of St. Paul s
epistles.
Thus we have at length proved our THIRD PRO
POSITION, 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 ; and, as
we presume, to the satisfaction of every capable and
impartial reader.
But to give these arguments credit with those who
determine only by AUTHORITY, I shall, in the last
place, support them with the opinions of three Pro
testant Writers ; but these Three worth a million.
The first is the illustrious GROTIUS " Moses in
" Religionis Judaica? Institutione, si diserta Legis
" respicirnus, nihil promisit supra hujus vitas bona,
6 terram uberem, penum copiosum, victoriam de
" hostibus, longam valcntem senectutem, posteros
i cum bona spe superstites. Nam, si QUID ZST
ULTRA, in umbris obtegitur, aut sapienti ac DIFFI-
" CILI ratiocinatione colligendum est."
The second is the excellent EPISCOPIUS. " In tota
: Lege Mosaica nullum vitae aeternae praemium, ac ne
" aeterni quidem pnemii INDICIUM VEL VESTIGIUM
" extat : quiequid nunc Judsei multum de futuro,
seculo, de resurrectionc rnortuorum, de vita aeterna,
; loquantur, ex Lcgis verbis ea cxtorquere potius
442 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
* quam ostendere conentur, NE LEG EM Mosis
" IMPERFECTAM ESSE COGANTUR AGXOSCERE CUfifl
" Sadducaeis ; quos olim (&, uti observe ex scriptis
" Rabbinorum, hodieque) vitam futuri sa^culi Lege
" Mosis nee promitti nee contineri adfirmasse, quum
" tarnen Judasi essent, certissinium est. Nempe non
" nisi per Cabalam sive Traditionem, quam illi in
" universum rejiciebant, opinionern sive fidem illain
" irrepsisse asserebant. Et sane opinionum, quse inter
" Judaeos erat, circa vitam futuri saeculi discrepantia,
" arguit promissiones Lege factas tales esse, ut ex iis
" ceiti quid de vita futuri sa^culi non possit colligi.
li Quod & Servator noster non obscure innuit, cum
" resurrectionem mortuorum colligit Mat. xxir. non
" ex promisso aiiquo Legi addito, scd ex generali
" tantum illo promisso Dei, quo se Deum Abraham!,
14 Isaaci, & Jacobi futunyn spoponderat : quas tamen
" ilia collectio niagis nititur cognitione intentionis
w divince sub gencralibus istis verbis occultata3 aul
" comprehensae, dc qua Christo certo constabat, quam
" necessaria consequentia, sive verborum vi ac virtutc
c< manifest^!, qtialis nunc & in verbis Novi Testament!,
" ubi vita aeterna & resurrectio mortuorum proram
< & puppim faciunt totius Ileligionis Christiana?, &
<: tarn clar^ ac disertc promittuntur ut ne hiscere quN
** dem contra quis possit*."
And the third is our learned Bishop BULL : -
" Primo quaeritur an in V. Testamento nullum omnino
" extet vitec reterno3 promissum ? de eo enim a non-
t{ nullis dubitatur. Ilesp. Huic quaestioni optiine
" mihi videtur respondere Augustinus, distinguens
" nomen Veteris Testamenii : nain eo inteiligi ait
" aut pactum illud, quod in Monte Sinai factum est^
" aut omnia, quas in Mose, Hagiographis, ac Prophetis
* last. Tbeol. iih. iii. sect. i. c. 2.
" continentur.
Sect. 4.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 443
" continental-. Si Vetus Testamentum posteriori
" sensu accipiatur, concedi FORSITAN possit, esse in
" eo nonnulla futurae vitce non obscura indicia ;
" praesertim in Libro Psalmorum, Daniele, &Ezekiele:
" quanquam vel in his libris clarum ac discrtum
< seternre vitae promissum vrx AC NE vix quidem
" reperias. Sed haec QUALIACUXQUE erant, non
" erant nisi praeluclia & anticipationes gratiae Evan-
" gelicae, AD LEGEM xox PERTIXEBAXT. Lex
" enitn promissa habuit terrena, & terrena TAXTUM,
" Si quis contra sentiat, ejus est locum dare, ubi
" aeternae vitae promissio extat; QUOD CKRTE IM-
<c POSSIBILE EST, Sub his autem verbis [legis ipsius]
" Dei intentione comprebensarn fuissevitam aeternam,
" ex interpretatione ipsius Christi ejusque Apostolo-
<; rum rnanifestum est. Verum base non sufficiunt ut
" dicamus vitam asternam in Foedere Mosaico pro-
" missam fuisse. Nam primo promissa, prresertim
" Foederi annexa, debent esse clara ac diserta, Si
" ejusmodi, ut ab utraque parte stipulante intelligi
" possint. Promissa autem haec TYPJLCA & generalia,
" non addita aliunde interpretatione, PENE IM-
" POSSIBILE ERAT, UT QUIS ISTO SEXSU INTEL-
LIGERET *,
Thus these three capital supports of the Protestant
Church. Put let the man be of what Church he will,
so lie have a superiority of understanding and be not
defective in integrity, you shall always hear him speak
the same Language. The great ARXAULD, that
shining ornament of the Galilean Church, urges this
important truth with still more frankness " C est
" LE COAIBLE DE L lGNORAXCE (says this aCCOlll-
" plished Divine) de mcttre en doute cette verite, qui
* Haruionia Apostolica, Dissertat. posterior, cap, x. sect. 8.
p, 474. inter Opera omnia, ed. 1721.
" est
444 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
" est une des plus communes de la Religion Chre-
* tienne, et qui est ATTESTEE PAE TOUS LES PERES,
* f que Its promesses de I ancltn Testament rietoient
" que temporeiles et terrestres, et que les Juifs
fe nadoroient Dieu que pour les blem charnels*"
And what more hath been said or done by the Author
of the DIVINE LEGATION P Indeed, a great deal
more. He hath shewn, " That the absence or omission
of a future state of rewards and punishments in the
Mosaic Religion is a certain proof that its original
was from God." Forgive him this wrong, my reverend
Brethren !
* Apologle de Port-Royal. And see note [L.L] at the end.
f This BOOK is continued in the succeeding Volume*
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 441
NOTES
APPERTAINING TO THE
FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH
SECTIONS
O T
BOOK VI.
P. 290. [A]
TO give an example only in Bishop BULL, whose
words in a Latin tract, for a future state s not
being in the Mosaic Dispensation, I have quoted in the
fourth section of this Sixth Book ; yet in an English
posthumous sermon, he seerns to speak in a very dif
ferent manner. I should not have illustrated this
censure by the example of so respectable a Person,
but for the indiscretion of my Answerers, who, to
support their own / // logic, have exposed his moral*.
P. 298. [B] Job s Life, by means of the Devil and
bis false Friends, was an exercise of his Patience ; and
his History^ by means of Criticism and his Commen
tators, has since been an exercise of ours. I am far
from thinking myself unconcerned in this mischief;
for by a foolish attempt to support his Name and
Character, I have been the occasion of bringing down
whole bands of hostile Critics upon him, who, like
the Sabeanswd Chaldeans of old, soon reduced him
back to liis Dunghill. Some came armed in Latin,
some in English, and some in the language of Billings
gate. Most of them were professedly written against
me; but all, in reality, bear hardest oa the good old
Patriarch.
However,
440 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
However, though I am, as I said, to be reckoned,
along with these, amongst Job s Persecutors; yet I have
this to say for myself, that the vexation I gave him
\vas soon over. If I scribbled ten pages on his back,
inv Adversaries and his have made lcn& farrows and
scribbled ten thousand. Now, though amongst all
these Job found no favour, yet by ill-hap my System
did : But to whom I am most obliged, whether to those
who attacked it, or to those who espoused it, is not
easy to say : for, by a singular event, the Assailants
have left me in possession of all its supports, and the
Defenders have taken them all away * : the better, I
presume, to fit it to their own use. Learned Naturalists
tell us of a certain Animal in the watery waste, which,
for I know not what conceit, they call Bernard the
Hermit ; and which, in courtesy, they rank with the
testaceous tribe, though Nature (so bountiful to the
rest of its kind) hath given This no habitation of its
own, but sent it naked and unhoused into the world.
In recompence, she has enabled it to figure amongst
the best of its tribe : for, by a noble endowment of
instinct, it is taught to make its way into the best
accommodated, and best ornamented shells of its
brethren ; which it either finds empty, or soon makes
so, to fit them up for its own case and convenience.
P. 298. [C] But if the reader would see the ab
surdity of supposing the book of Job to be written
thus early, and at the same time, to teach the resur
rection and a future state, exposed at large, he may
read the third chapter of The free, and candid Excv--
mnation of the BISHOP of London s Principles.
P. 300. [D] Calmet makes the following observation,
in his comment on the 1st verse of chap, xxxviii.
L Ecrivain de cet Ouvragc a observe de ne point em
ployer ce nom de Jehovah dans les cliscours directs,
qu il fait tenir a Job et <\ scs Amis : mais dans les
recits, qui sont au commencement, et a la fin du Livre,
* See Mr. G s discourses on the book of Job. H
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 447
il use de ce terme, comme font d ordinaire les Ecrivains
Hebreux. Ce qui demontre que i Ouvrage a etc
ecrit par un Juif, et depuis Moyse ; puisque ce nom
incommunicable ne fut comm que depuis [ apparition
du Buisson ardent.
P. 303. [E] The Cornish Critic thinks otherwise.
4 These false friends (says he) are described as having
" so much fellow-feeling of Job s sufferings, that they
" sit with him seven days and nights upon the ground
<c without being able to speak to him. If this be the
* dramatic way of representing false friends, how
" shall we know the false from the true?" p. 19.
Sempronius, in the Play of Cato, is all along warmer
than even Cato himself in the cause of liberty and
Rome. If this be the dramatic way of representing
a fake patriot (m^y our Critic say) how shall we know
the fake from the true? I answer, by observing him
with his mask off. And do not Job s false friends un
mask themselves, when they so cruelly load their
suffering Acquaintance with the most injurious reflec
tions ? Indeed the Critic deserves our pity, who cannot
see that the formal circumstance of sitting silent seven,
days was a dramatic embellishment in the Eastern
manner : The not knowing that the number scvwi was
a sacred number amongst the Jews, may indeed be
more excusable. But he goes on, " I have been
" often struck with surprise to see him [the author of
* the D. L.] very earnestly endeavouring to support
" his allegorical interpretation of the book of Job by
" arguments drawn from the contradictions, which lie
" fancies he has there espied, to the truth of the his-
" tory or tradition upon which his allegory is built.
" Than which, in my apprehension, there can scarce
" be a greater absurdity. I would desire him to con-
" sidcr attentively the allegorical ode in Horace, O na-
" w, nferent, &c. thai though every thing therein
" may be accommodated to a republic, yet it is true,
" in the literal or primary sense only of a ship, anil
1.2 " that
448 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
" that there is not one single stroke in it that can be
1 understood of a republic and not of a ship ; and
" this might shew him his mistake in applying pas-
" sages in the book of Job to the Jewish People,
" M ERELY because they cannot be understood of Job;
" which is directly annihilating the allegory he would
" establish. For it is as plain that in an allegory two
" things or persons must be concerned, as that two
" and two must go to make four." pp. 99, 100,
The insolence, the fraud, the nonsense of this passage,
is as much without example as it was without provo
cation. I desire to understand, by what other means,
except by revelation, an allegorical writing can be
known to be allegorical, but by circumstances in it
which cannot be reconciled to the story or fable which
serves both for a cover and vehicle to the moral ? And
yet this man tells us that to attempt to prove the na
ture of a writing to be allegorical from this circum
stance is one of the greatest absurdities. When the
allegory is of some length, and takes in the life and
adventures of a certain person, it can scarce be other
wise but that some circumstances in it must be varied
from the fact, to adapt it to the moral. In a shorter,
where the object is more simple, there may be no need
for any variation. And this shews the disingenuity of
this man, in bringing the ode of Horace into compa
rison. For which too, the little he knows, he is in
debted to the author of the Divine Legation. And
how little that is we shall now see.
In the first place, I have shewn this Ode not to be
of the nature of an allegory, where the story is only
the cover and vehicle to the moral : but of the nature
of a relation containing a double sense, primarily and
secondarily : in which an information is conveyed in
both senses : consequently there ought not to be a
single stroke in it that can be understood of a republic
and not of a ship : But this is a species of writing
entirely distinct from the allegory in question ; so that
the urging it was impertinent: and the following
i o observation
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 449
observation is rnadc with his usual insolence : this
might ,s7/7r him ///.v Mistake in vpplying passage* of the
book of Job to the Jewish People IUKRELY becau.se
they cannot be underxtaod of Job ! but not with inso*
lence only, but with fraud : For I do not apply pas
sages in the book of Job, IMERELY for this reason ;
no nor principally ; but only as one of many reasons.
However, contending for such discordant circum
stances in the vehicle-story, he says, is directly anni
hilating the aUtgdry. Now I understood it was tlie
establishing it; as it is the only means of getting to
the knowledge of its being an allegory, lie goes on,
For it is as plain that in an a legory tico things or
persons must be concerned, as thai trco and frco must
go to make four. What he means by this jargon of
tir os being concerned, I know not. If he means that
tliejable and the moral must go to the making up the
allegory, nobody will dispute it with him. But if he
means, that all the personages in the fable must have
all the qualities, attributes, and adventures of the per
sonages in the moral, all JEsop s fables will confute
this profound reasoncr on allegories. However, some
thing, to be sure, he did mean : He had a notion, I
.suppose, that there was a right and wrong in every
thins;: he only wanted to know where they lie : There
fore, to make these cursory notes as useful as I can,
I will endeavour to explain his meaning. It is cer
tain then, that though the justice of allegoric writing
does not require that the facts in the fable do in rea
lity correspond exactly with the facts in the moral, yet;
the truth of tilings requires the possibility of their so
corresponding. Thus, though the Ass perhaps never
actually covered himself with a Lion s skin, and was
betrayed by his long ears, as yEsop relates ; yet we
have an example before us, sufficient to convince us
that he might have done so, without much ex pence of
instinct. But when Dn/den made his Hind ami
.Panther dispute about the doctrine and discipline of
particular Churches ; as they never possibly -could
VOL. V G G have
450 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
have done so, this (to take his own words, instead of
better) is directly annihilating the. allegory he would
establish ; for it is as plain that in an allegory two
things or person* must be concerned, as that two and
two must go to wake Jour. But I fancy I ascribe
more to his sagacity than it deserves, in supposing, that
he understood, what kind of allegory the book of Job
must needs be, if it be any allegory at all. I now
begin to suspeet he took it to be of the same kind
with the Ode of Horace, not indeed because he com
pares. it to that Ode; for such kind of Writers are
accustomed to make, as the Poet says, comparisons
wilikc\ but because this suspicion may give some?
light to his cloudy observation, that two things or
person* mux{ be concerned: For in that sort ot "allegory
which is of the nature of a relation containing ><*
double sense primarily and secondarily, every thing
said must agree exactly both to the primary and to the
secondary subject. AVhich perhaps is what this man
means by his clumsy precept, of two things or persons-
concerned. The reason of this distinction, in these.
two sorts of allegory, is this, In that sort of allegory,
which is of the nature of the book of Job, or of the
APOLOGUE, the cover has no moral import : But h*
that sort which is of the nature of a NARRATIVE
WJTH A DOUBLE SENSE, the cover has a moral import.
P- 33 [F] To this, the Cornish Critic" What
" a happy way is here of reconciling contradictions t
" It seems truth may become falsehood, if it be neces-
14 sary to support the allegory. The moral and tho
M table may disagree as widely as you please, and the
14 conclusion by anew sort of logic have something
" in it very different from the premisses." p. 19.
If his kind. Reader knows what to make of this jargon
of truth becoming falsehood, and the conclusion havwg
more in it than the premisses, he may take it for his
paius. All that the Author of the Divine Legation
to be here done, and which may be done
according
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 451
according to nature and good sense, is no more than
this, that a dramatic Writer, when he fetches his sub
ject from History, may alter certain of the circum
stances, to fit it to his Plot ; which all dramatic
Writers, ancient and modern, have done. Much more
reasonable is this liberty, where the work is not only
dramatic hut allegorical. Now I will suppose, that,
together with Job s patience under the hand of God,
tradition had brought down an account of his further
sufferings under the uncharitable censure of three
friends : Was not the Maker of this allegoric work at
liberty, for the better carrying on his purpose, to re
present them as jalse ones. Yet, this liberty, our
wonderful Critic calls reconciling contradictions, mak
ing truth become falsehood, and 1 can t tell what non
sense besides of premisses and conclusions.
P. 304. [G] Maimonides having given a summary
of the dispute, draws this inference from it : Vide $
perpendc, qua ratione hoc negotium confwsos reddiderit
homines, ad scntentias illas de provident id Dei ergct
creaturas (jiias e^posuitnus permoverit. Yet, when
lie comes to speak of the solution of these difficulties,
lie could find none. But not to say nothing (the
thing most dreaded by Commentators) he pretends to
discover, from the obscurity in which things are left,
the true scope of the book of Job : Hie fuit scopux
totius libri Join, ut scilicet constituatur hie articulus
Juki, $ doceatur, a rebus naturalibus discendam esse.
ut, mm er reruns, aut cogitemus scientiam ejus [Dei sc.j
if a se habere ut scientiam nostram ; intentionem, pro-
videntiam, gubernationejn ejus, sicut intentionem,
yroi-idetitiam, gubcrnationem nostram. Mor. Nev.
p. 3, c. xxiii.
P ; 3o4. [II] ILre Dr. Grey exclaims * How,
" Sir, no wiser ? Js God introduced to unfold tlie
" mysterious ways of his Providence, and vet the
" knot is left untied, because the Writer, though
o G 2 " speaking
.452. THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
" speaking in the person of God, and by his inspira-
" tion, was not wise enough to untie it? is that a
<c speecli to the purpose, which in a Controversy, as
" you will have it, where the disputants have much
" perplexed the question, and a superior Wisdom srav
" wanted to determine if, clears up no difficulties ?
" Or is it language tit to he made use ot* when
" speaking of a book dictated by the spirit of God,
" that the writer of it has recourse to the common
u expedient of dramatic writers to help him out of
" his straits ?" Anxiccr to Remarks, p. 125. Softly,
good Doctor! In determining a dispute concerning the
ways* of Providence, though God himself had indeed
interposed, we can conceive but two ways of doing it:
The one to SATISFY us, by explaining the end .and
means o that Providence, where the explanation is
useful to us, and adequate to onr capacities : The
other, to SILEXCE us, by an argument to our modesty,
drawn from the incomprehensible nature and govern
ment of the Deity, where an explanation is not useful
to us, and inadequate to our capacities. Both these
Determinations, the one by explanation, the other by
authority, attended by their respective circumstances,
are equally reasonable : and the last is here employed
for the reason hinted at, to put an end to this embar
rassed dispute. Let this serve in answer to the l)o.o
tor s question, Is that a speech to the purpose, which
a controversy where the disputants have muck per-
. pieced ike question, and a superior wisdom was wanted
to determine it, clears up no difficulties ?
Indeed, though there was no untying the knot, there
was a way -to cut //, which would have done full, as
\\ell; and that was by revealing the. doctrine of a
future stc.tc. Why it was not done, I leave the
-learned Critic and all in. his sentiments, to give us
: some good account, since they are not disposed to
r receive that which the author- of the Divine Legation
IMS <n. ,-n. Foi- this Doctor tells . us, it in hut^mall
\ wnjw! thai qrUes J]fiW&8otcwg all into submission
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 453
to the almighty poicer of God, p. 107. St. Pnol
in ccd tells us, it is the greatest coi/f/vrt, as well us
ivisdom, ^6> resolve all into -sahnnssion to the almighty
poicer af God. But Doctors differ.
From the MATTER of the I). L. the Doctor pro
ceeds (as we see) to the LANCJUACK. Is it -language
Jit to be made use ofichen speaking of a book dictated
by the spirit of God? The language hinted at, I
is; impose, is what he had quoted above, tliat the sacred
icriler nas no iciser zchen he spoke poetically in the
person of Gad, &c. I think it not unfit, and for these
reasons ; a Prophet speaking or writing by inspiration
is just so far and no further enlightened than suits the
purpose of his Mission. Now the clearing up the
mysterious ways of Providence being reserved amongst
the arcana of the Deity, a Prophet (though employed
to end the foolish and hurtful disputes ahoi.it it,
amongst men, by an appeal to the incomprehensible
nature of the Deity) was certainly, when he . made
this appeal in the person of God, no wiser in the know
ledge of this arcanum, than when he spoke in the
person of Job or his friends.
P. 306. [I] This Writer endeavouring to prove tho
high age of Job or of the .Book of Job. for these two
things, after better reasoners, he all along confounds,
closes his arguments in this manner, Demque post
format am tempwtttcatn Judaicaw, .xccrctiunqiu -:i CfCtc-
ra -genlihus* j;cr ins! i tut a propria &; legeni a J)t j o
tint am: ht.n facile, credo, hanc xanciani gcntcm, cjus-
dzm tewporis $ s<eatti aJict/igctMfi^ i el lioniniem i . /v-
tilcm, in ed i injjlLun pietalis I .ropoxilKni));, ant ipxius
act a cs, 1 hi#fwww in aacros conan codices relaiii-
M-chn- ol. -Philos. p. .>((>. oil. 8vo, 17^8. Hie
sees, ; i ,il liie strength of the argument rests .on
ipix.r-ition; tU.-it tlie book must needs he as
old as its subject. For if Job were of the Patriarchal
tiuics, he wns a fit example of piety, let his history, be
when it would: and, if uritien by a sacred
<- (; ;} Author,
454 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
Author, it was worthy to be inserted into the Canon of
Scripture : and was likely to be so inserted, if composed
(as we shall see it was) by a Jewish Prophet.
P. 307. [K] Veil. Paterc. Hist. 1. i. c. 3. Had
Dr. II. Grey known but just so much of the nature
of these Corn positions, he had never fallen into the
ridiculous mistake I am going lo take notice of. This
learned Critic, to confute the system I advance, that
the subject of the argumentative part of the book of
Job \vas, Whether, and why, the good arc sometimes
unhappy and the bad -prosperous ; and that the question
was debated for the sake of the Israelites in the time
of Ezra ; observes as follows : " Zopher says, ch. xx.
" ver. 4, 5. Knoicest thou not this of old, since man
" teas placed upon earth, that the triumphing of the
" wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for
%< a moment ? Now lay your hand upon your heart,
" Sir, and ask yourself seriously, whether this can
" relate to an extraordinary Providence over the Jews
" only." p. 111. He is so pleased with the force of
this observation, that he repeats it, p. 116. To which
I need only reply, Lay your hand, Sir, on your head,
and reflect upon this rule of good writing, AV///7 etiirn
ex Persona Poetce, sed omnia sub eorum, qui illo tern-
pore viwuni, diver unt.
P. 308. [L] From amongst many instances which
might be given of these slips, take the following of
Euripides, in his Jphigenia in Aulis, Act. 3. where he
makes the Chorus say, Troy perishes. Ami for u horn?
per you, cruel Helen, who, as they nay, are the daugh
ter of Jupiter, ic ho, under the Jorm of a Sic an, hud
Camrncrcemth Leda.- So far is well : because we may
suppose the Chorus alluded to the popular tale con
cerning Helen s birth, spread abroad in her life-time.
But when the Chorus goes on and says, Jf at least
the ie i it ings of the Poet* be mtjabulous, the Author
had i or^ot Himself; for the Poets who embellished her
iorv ; lived long alter wards.
o P. 308.
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 455
P. 308. [M] Here the Cornish answerer affirms,
" tlmt this method of punishment was not peculiar to
" the Jewish Polity, but was observed, in some degrees
li at /CY/.S/, with respect to all mankind." . for which
Jic quotes Isaiah s threnteuings on the Children of the
.king of Babylon, chap. xiv. ver. 20, & seq. That is, in
order to prove that God punished tke crimes of the
fatlfcrs on the children in some degree at least, with
respect to all nwikind, he quotes an instance, not of
the general providence of God to all mankind, but a
particular dispensation to the Babylonians : mid not a
particular punishment, which selects out the children
of transgressing parents, but a general .one, which in
the nature of things necessarily attends the total over?
Ihrow of a Sitajbe or Community..
P. 309. [X] Mr. LOCKE thought tlias o decisive a
proof that the book of Job xvas written after the giving
the Law, that he says, Tins PLACE ALONE, WERE
THERE NO OTHER, is sufficient to confirm their opinioji
who conclude that book to be writ by a Jew. Third
letter far Toleration, p. 81, 82. Let those Critics
reflect uyxsn this, wiio think there is no footstep nor
shadow of -Allusion to auy thing relating to the people
of Israel
P. 312. [O] Vcr. 21, evidently ta.kea from these
words <of -the Psalmist, -Thou shalt keep them secretly
hi a perdH toM from the stnfcoftojtgue*, Ps. xxxi. 20.
Tor which \\as the cony and which the original caw
here admit no doubt, since the image was an obvious
one in the Psalmist, who lived in a great city, lews
natural in Job who lived in u desert, as we have ob
served
P. 322. [P] The be: t and ablest Critics are generally
agreed, and have as generally taken it for granted, tluit
(this f/ucslicu is the subject of debate between the se
veral ili^puUuHs in the book of Job, Jt would be
G (i 4 abusing
4,56 THE DIVINE LEGATION -[Book VI.
abusing the reader s patience to produce a long train
of Authorities. Though it may not be improper to
give the sentiments of the last, though not the least able
of them, on this head. Op*. TIT? pretiimi cst admonere
to, amice Lector, quid nobisdetota hujus Libri materia
cogikiiidmn essc videatur. Priinom quidem amiei
Job sic statuunt, quandoqnidem- tot tantisque cladibus
Deus amieum ipsoriun Job aililxit, ei Deum csse
iratum, cumijritur poenas tales aliquo scelere, velaperto,
vel occulto commeruisse. Cujus sua? sentential testes
ndhibeut generationes hominum priores, in quibus
inauditum est, inquiunt, Deum rcl integros viros
aspernaiuffli vel iwpios inann appreheiidisse. Si qnis
fiostra?. a^tatis homo sie disputaret, nemo essct quin
cjus temeritatem atque audaciam miraretur, qui rein
aperte falsam sumeret, cum saepissinife eveniat et sum-
inas miserias experiri hac in mortali vita viros bonos,
ct ilorentissimam fortunam, iiagitiosos. Tamen Job,
id quod cst maxirm comidcrcwdmn, redar^utione tali
lion utitur. Non id negat, quod sui arnici, Pat ruin
rncnicria teste conrirmabant ; quod tamen Job, si
falsum icl sibi videretur, uno verbo, M&ntirlf) poterut
ooufutarc. Atque etiain idem Job altcrum negans,
tales.se miserias crimine aliquo suo iirissc commerituiii,
altcnun tamen non dissimulate Deum sibi adversari ;
in qua ipsa sancti viri coniessioue adversariorum
causa ex parte vincebat, cum suas clades Job sic
ncciperct, ut inv divina? consueta signa, ciunque indc
non paruin animo oestuaret. Quaj cum ita sint, nos
sic (^xibtiiiiaiuus, non lalsos tuisse memoriae testes Job
arnico:-; atf]ue adco, PJUMTS MUNDL TKMPOIU r,i s,
homines in; pics luisse, pra-ter solitum nature cursuin,
clivinTi \\i\ pcrcussos, iisquc.. acceptos plugia, quanun
saticti homines essent inanunes ; Deo Opt. Max. hu-
nsumi.s res ita modcranic, ut Ueligioncm in terris
ct ut I:o5iiines, cum talia exempla patcrentur
,i pssc m -juno DeiHii jubtum, a quo mortales ut
, toium .prix-jiniiiiii sperare deberent, ^icsceleruin
! n tiiiiLi p. lip i pic A X4 1 In ubrum Jt-b, Icct-c-ri,
.Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 457
But, since the writing of my Dissertation, the lan
guage of the rabbinical men has been greatly changed.,
Ami, partly to keep up the antiquity of the book, but
principallv to guani against un &vtMQijttui(UCtj Provi-
cx, several of them, in defiance ot their senses,
have denied that this, \\hieh tUig honest Priest of the
Oratory makes to be the subject of the book of Job,
has indeed any thing at ail to do with it. Amongst
the foremost of these is Dr. Richard Grey, the cpito-
iniser of Albert SclwHeiis Comment on this book.
In the preface to his Abstract, amongst other things,
he has criticised my opinion of the scope of the book
in the following manner. Nam quod dicit vir clari-s.
id pra cipue in hoe libro diseeplari, nempe an bgnis
semper bona, malisque mala, an utrisque utraque pro-
iniscue obtingent; lianc autein qiuestionem (a nobis
quidein alienam, minus ideo perpensa.ni) ni.squam alibi
gentium practcrquam in Jiukea nee apr.d ipsos Judiuos
alio quo vis tcmpore, quam quod assignat, moveri
potuisse, id omne ex veritate siuv hyputheseos pendct,
et mea quidcm sententia, longe aliter se iiabet. Pn.-i".
y>. 10 if). .For as toa lictt tliisicrikcr [the author of
the D. L.J -W//.V, that the uia ui question handled in the.
book ()f Job la a liether good happens to thc.goo^ and
cell to ci il wen. on whether both, happen not. promts-
cxoiislij to both ; and that this question (a vert/ /oreign
one to tt.v, and therefore the fey attended to) could
\er be I he xubject y/ disputation any irhere but in
the land a/ Judect, nor there neither at any other time
thun that ic/itch lie assigns ; all ////.?, / ,SY/J/, depends on
the. truth (if his /n/fiot/icx/x, c)td /.v, In my opinion, jar
(j:in:riiise.~-i\\\^i which depends, on the truth of an
hij]Hithe.xl; h:;s, indeed, generally speaking, a very
.ider foundatiosi : and I urn partly of opinion it \vas
the common prejudice against this support whicU
disposed the lenrned Preiacer to give my notions UQ
belter a name. 1-ut what I have shewn to be tho
-abject of the book is so far from depending on the
truth of.iny hypothesis, that the truth of my hypo
thec u
4.5 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
thesis depends on what I have shewn to be the subject
of the book : and very fitly so, as every reasonable
Hypothesis should be supported on a fact. Now I
might appeal to the learned work), whether it be not
tis clear a fact that the subject of the book of Job is
\cheiher good happens to the good, ami evil to evil
TnCii, or Whether both happen vvt promiscuously to
both ; as Unit the subject of the first book of Tit sen Ian
Disputations is de c.oulemnenda morte. On this I
ibmxled my hypothesis, that the book of Job must have
been written about the time of Esdras. because no
other assignable time could at all suit the subject-
But tis possible I may mistake in what he calls rny
hypothesis: for aught I know, he may understand not
that of the book of Job, but that of the Divine Le
gation. And then, by my hypothem^ he must mean
the great religious principle I endeavoured to evince,
THAT THE JEWS WERE IN RF.AL1TY UNDER AN"
EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDEXCE. But it Will be pay-
~ing me a very unusual compliment to call that rny hy
pothesis which the Bible was not only divinely written,
but M as likewise divinely preserved, to testify ; which
&\\ Believers profess to believe; and which none but
Unbelievers and Amicerers to the Divine Legation
directly deny. However, if this be the hypothesis he
means, I need desire no better a support. But the
truth is, my interpretation of the book of Job seeks
support from nothing but those common rules of gram-
mar and logic on which the scuse of all kind of writings
are or ought to be interpreted.
He goes on in this manner. Xenipe id unuin
voluisse inihi videtur sacer Scriptor, ut iis omnibus,
utcunque afflictis, liumilitatis et paticntia; perpetuum
cxtaret documentum ex contemplatione gemina, bine
infinita* Dei periectionis, sapiential & potentiar ; illinc
humana% qua?, in sanctissinris quoque viris inest, cor-
ruptionis, imbeciilitatis & ignorantia\ For the HOJ.E
purpose of the sacred writer seems to me to be this, to
com Dose a worktkut should remain a perpetual doeutn^
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 459
#/ humility and pathncc to all good men in affliction
from this twofold consideration, as on the one hand of
the infinite perfection, power, and wisdom of Ocftl
so on the other, of human corruption, imbecility, and
ignorance, discoverable even in the beat of men. Such
talk in a popular discourse, for the sake of a moral
application, might not be amiss :, hut to speak tl*us to
the learned world, is surely out of season. The
Critic will be apt to tell him, he hath mistaken the
Actor for the subject ; and that he might on the same
principle as well conclude that the purpose of Virgil s
poern is not the establishment of an empire in Italy,
but the personal piety of ^Eneas. But to be a little
more explicit. The book of Job consists of two dis
tinct parts ; the narrative, contained in the prologue
and epilogue ; and the argumeJitative, which composes
the body of the work. Now when the question is of
the subject of a book, who means any other than the
body of it? yet the learned Doctor mistaking the
narrative part for the argumentative, gives us the
subject of the introduction and conclusion for that of
the work itself. And it is very true that the begin
ning and the end do exhibit a perpetual document of
humility and patience to all good men in affliction^
But it is as true that the body of the work neiiher
does nor could exhibit anv such document First it
does not; for, that humility and patience, which Job
manifests before his entering into dispute, is succeeded
by rage and ostentation when he becomes heated with
unreasonable opposition. Secondly, it could not ;
IK cause it is altogether argumentative ; the subject of
which must needs be a proposition debated, and not a
document exemplified. A precept may be conveyed in
"history"; but a disputation can exhibit only a debated
question. I have shewn what that question is ; und he,
instead of proving that I have assigned a wrong one,
goes about to persuade the reader, that there is no
Question at all.
lie proeetds. Qiuunvi* cniin in seruionibus, qui
iu
460 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
in eo habcntur, dc rejigione, dc virtute, dc providentia,
Dciquc .in in undo guheniando sapientia, jtistitia, sanc-
titate, df3 uno rc ruin omnium -principle, aliisque
gravissimis veritatibus disscrtetur, hunc tair.en quern
dixi liritcuiii essc libri scopuni, tain ex initio et fine,
quain ex "univcrsu ejus oeconomia. cuivis opinor mani
fest!.! m er it. Ea cnim, ut rein otimem stimmntim
complectar, Jobum exhibet, prirno quidem querentein,
expostulanteii!, ci}ra" nolnctui indulgentem ; mox (quum,
tit sacri draniatis natura posttiiabat, amicoriuVi con-
tradictione, sinistrisque suspicionibus magis magisque
ivritatus et faccssitus cssct) imprudentilis Deuin pro-
vocantem, atque in jusfitia siia gloriantern ; ad dcbitam
tandem summissionein stiique coirnitionein rtvocatutn,
turn demum, nee antca, integritatis siia? tain prMnitlfti,
quain testiinoniiim a Deo reportantem. For allhmigk
in the speeches that occur , there he. much talk of reli
gion, virtue, and providence, oj God s wisdow, justice,
and ho 1; nets in the government of the world, of one
principle of allthui^, and other most important truths,
yet that this Khich I have aligned is the "only scope
of the hook will appear manifest to every one, as ice 1 1
from the .beginning and the end asftom the ecomnny
cf the whole. For to sen/ all in a word, it first presents
Job cowpLtining, expostulating, and hidulging himself
in ail ungovernable grief : but swa after (ulicn, as the
nature of the sacred drama > ijiiired, by the contra
diction of his friends, and their sinister suspicions, he
became more and more teamed and irrilared) rashly
challenging God, and glttityi tig in his oich integrity :
yet at length brought bach to a due subnii^ion and
IcMwledgc of Jiimsc f. The reader sees that all this
is just as pertinent as if I should say, Mr. C IIILT.I >, (-
V/OUTH S famous book against Knot the Jesuit, was
not to prove the religion of Protestants a safe icaii to
s ilvdlion, but to give the picture cf an arilul Caviller
and a candid Disputer. u Tor, although, in the argu-
nicnts that occur, there be much talk of protestantism,
popi-ry, inialiibility, a jutlge of controversies, funda-
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 4 fit
mentals, of faith, and other most important matters,
yet that this which 1 have assigned is the only scope
of the hook, will appear manifest to every one, as well
iVoin the beginning and the end, as from the economy
of the whole. For it first of all presents the sophist
.quibbling, chicaning, and indulging himself in all the-
imaginable methods of false reasoning: and soon after,
as the course cf disputation required, resting on his
own authority, and loading his adversary with per
sonal calumnies ; yet at length, by the force of truth
and good logic, brought back to the point ; confuted,
exposed,, and put to silence." Now if I should say
this of the bock of Chillingworth, would it not be a a
true, and as much to the purpose, as what our author
hath said of the book of Job r The matters in the
discourse of the Religion of Protestants could not be
treated as they arc without exhibiting the two charac
ters of a Sophist and a true Logician. Nor could
the matters in the book of Job be treated as they are
without exhibiting a good man in afflictions, complain
ing and expostulating; impatient under the contradic
tion of his friends, yet at length brought back to aduq
submission, and knowledge of himself. Jkit therc-foiv,
to make this the sole or chief Scope of the book, (for
in this he varies) is perverting all the rules of inter
pretation. But what misled him we have taken notice
of above. And he himself points to it, where he
says, the subject I Jurce assigned to the book of Job
appears the true both J rom I lie .BKGIXXI NC; and the
*:\r>* It is true, he adds, nudjrom the economy If
the ichole likewise.
Which he endeavours to prove in this manner: For
it Jirst presents Job complaining, &rpQsiiilating\
indulging himself in an un^o\:enn(ble grief: hut soon
after (ich en, as the nature of the sacred drama re-
quired, by the contradietion oj Iti* fricmk, and their
sinister suspicions, he became more and more teased and
rtislily challenging (rod, and glorying in hi$
c^rit)! : yet at length brought back tv a due
9 WT %/ *.V Z2 f
462 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
submission and knowledge of himself; ami then at
last, and not before, receiving from God Iwth the
reward ami testimony of his uprightness. This is
indeed a fair account of the CONDUCT of the drama.
And from this it appears, first, that that which he
assigns for the SOLE SCOPE of the book cannot be the
true. For if its design were to give a perpetual docu
ment of humility ami patience, how conies it to pass,
that the author^ in the execution of this design, repre
sents Job complaining, expostulating, and indulging
himself in an ungovernable grief, rashly challenging
God, and glorying in //w own integrity ? Could a
painter, think you, in order to represent the ease and
safely of navigation, draw a vessel ^getting with much
pains and difficulty into harbour, after having lost all
her lading and been miserably torn and shattered by a
tempest ? and yet yon think a writer, in order to give
a document of humility and patience, had sufficiently
discharged his plan, if he made Job conclude resigned
(tnd submissive, though. he had drawn him turbulent,
impatient, and almost l: ! >^nhemous throughout the
whole piece. Secondly, it appears from the learned
Author s account of the conduct of the drama, that
that which I have assigned for the sole Scope of the
book is the true. For if, in Job s distressful circum
stances, the question concerning an equal or unequal
providence were to be debated : His friends, if they
held the former partj must needs doubt of his integrity;
this doubt would naturally provoke Job s indignation ;
and, when it \vas persisted in, cause him- to fly out
into the intemperate excesses so well described by the
learned Doctor: yet conscious innocence would at
length enable patience to do its office, and the con-
elusive argument for his integrity would be his resigna
tion and submission.
The learned Writer gums up the argument thus.
Ex his inqtiam apparet, non prjmario agt in hoc libro.
de providentia, sive aequali, sive impquali, sed de per-
sonali Jobi iute^ritate. From all this, I say, it ap-
Notes] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 463
pears, that the personal integrity of Job, and not the
question concerning an equal or unequal Providence,
is the principal subject oj t lie book, lie had before
.only told us his opinion ; and now, from his opinion,
lie says it appear*. Hut the appearances, we see, are
deceitful ; and so they will always be, when they arise
only out of the fancy or inclination of the Critic, -and
not from the nature of things.
But he proceeds, I lane enim (quod oinnino oh-
servandum est) in dubium vocaverant amid, non idc o
tan turn quod afrl ictus esset, sed quod afHictus impa-
tientius se gereret, Deique justitiae obmurnuirarct : et
qui strenuus videlicet alionun hortator fucrat ad forti-t
tndinem et cofistantiam, quuin ipse tentaretur, victus
labasceret. For that [i.e. his personal integrity] it
was which his friends doubted of, not so much on ac
count of his affliction, ax for the not bearing his afflic
tion with patience, but murmuring at the justice of
God. And that he who was a strenuous adviser af
others to fortitude and constancy, should, when Jus
own trial came, sink under the stroke of his disasters.
But why not on account of his afflictions? Do not
\ve find that even now, under this unequal distribution
of things, censorious men (and such doubtless he will
confess Job s comforters to have been) are but too apt
to suspect great afflictions for the punishment of secret
sins. How much more prone to the same suspicion
would such men be in the time of Job, when the ways
of Providence were njore equal ? As to his impatience
in bearing affliction^ that symptom was altogether am
biguous, and might as likely denote want of fortitude
as want of innocence; and proceed as well from the
pain of an ulcerated body, as the anguish of a dis
tracted conscience.
Well, our Author has brought the Patriarch thu?
far pn his way, to expose his bad temper. From hence
lie accompanies him to his place of rest ; which, as
many an innocent man s is, lie inalies to be in a bad
argument. Quum acccsserat .s-uictissimi vifi mali<,
have
464 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
hcecgravissiina omnium tenlatio, tit tanquam improbus
et hypocnta ab amicis damn a ret my ct quod unieurn ei
supererat, conscientiiB suaj testimonio ac solatio, quan
tum ipsi potucrunt, privandus ioret, quid ntisero
faciendum erat ? Amicos perfidia- crudclitatis argtrit:
Deurn intcgritutis sua? testem vindicemque appellat :
quum autcui nee Deus intervenirct, ad iimocentiarn
ejus viudicandam, nee n mittereut quicquam amici de
acerbis suis ccnsuris, injustrsrjlie criminationibiis, ad
SUFIIEMUM ILLUD JUDICITM prOV OCat, iil qilO HK-
DEMPTOREM sibi afidturum, Dcumque a suis partibus
staturuin, sumina cum fiducia se novisse afiirmat.
j\67r n hcn (says the learned \Vritcr) the most grievous
trial of all icas added to tiic other evifa of this hc.ly
JjcrMn; to be condemned l>y hlsjriends a.v a profligate,
and an hypocrite, and to be deprived, as much as in
them lay, of his only remaining support, the Testimony
vf a good conscience, 11 hat was left for the ttnlwppy
man to do? lie accuses his friends of perfidy and
cruelty ; he calls upon God as the -idtness and avenger
of his integrity: But when, neither God interposed to
vindicate his innocence, nor his friends forbore- to urge
their harsh censures and unjust ticCtis&tioftS) he appeals
to that LAST JUDGEMENT, in ic/uch ivith I lie unnost
conjfdence lie af firms that he kit etc that his Ri;i)EE^r.i;n
would be present to him, and that God would declare
in liis jarour. To understand the force of tins re
presentation, we must have in miud this unquestion
able truth; " That, be the subject of the book what
it will, yet if the sacred Writer bring in the persons
of the drama disputing, he will take cave that they
talk with decorum and to the purpose." Now we both
agree that Job s friends had pretended at least to sus
pect his integrity. This suspicion it was Job s busi
ness to remove ; and, if the Doctor s account of the
subject be right, his only business. To this end lie
offers various arguments, which failing of their effect,
he at last (as the Doctor will have it) appeals to the
COMING OF Tilt REDLKMEIJ OF JUAX KTM).
Kut
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 465
But was this likely to satisfy them? They demand a
present solution of their doubts, and he sends them to
a future judgment. Nor can our Author say (though
he would insinuate) that this was such a sort of appeal
as disputants are sometimes forced to have recourse
to, when they are run aground and have nothing more
to offer : For Job, alter this, proceeds in the dispute ;
and urges many other arguments with the utmost pro
priety. Indeed there is one way, and but one, to
make the appeal pertinent : and that is, to suppose
our Author mistaken, when he said that the personal
integrity of Job, and not the question concerning an
equal or unequal Providence, was the main subject of
the book : And we may venture to suppose so, without
much danger of doing him wrong : for, the doctrine
of a future judgment affords a principle whereon to
determine the question of an equal or unequal Provi
dence ; but it leaves the personal integrity of Job just
as it found it. But the learned Author is so litt!e
solicitous for the pertinency of the argument, that he
makes, as we shall now see, its impertinence to be one
of the great supports of his system. For thus he
concludes his argument. Jam vero si cardo contro
versias fuisset, utriirn, salva Dei justitw, :ancti in hac
vita, adftigi possrnt, ha?c ipsa dedarati litem finire ck-
buerat. Sin autern de personal! Jobi innocenta
disceptet ir, nil niirum quod veteran canerecantilenam,
Jobumque ut fecerunt, condemnare pergerent socii,
quum Dei solius erat, qui corda homimim cxplorat,
pro certo scire ; an jure merito sibi Johns ho:: solamen
ttttribueret, an falsain sibi iiJuciam vanus arrogaret.
hut now if the hinge of the controversy had turned on
thin, It hcther or no, cotisisttntfy with Gods justice,
good men could be afflicted in thix life, thin declaration
vug lit to have finished the debate: but if the </ucstioM
were concerning the personal innocence oj Job, it srtf*
tw wonder that they still sung their old sjtig, aftdzcu-t
on rt-y the ii had begun, to condemn their wuch-afjlictcd
friend: xitice it was in the few of God alone to
VOL. V. H it
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
.explore the heart* of men, and to know for certain-
whether It was Job s piety that rightly applied a con-
solution, or whether it was his vanity that arrogated a
false confidence to himself This is a very pleasant
:way of coming to the sense of a disputed passage :
Not, as of old, by shewing it supports the flffttefis
firgument, but by shewing it supports the Critic s hy
pothesis. 1 had taken it for granted that Job reasoned
to the purpose,, and therefore urged this argument
against understanding him as speaking of the Resur
rection in the xixth chapter. " The disputants (say I)
" are all equally embarrassed in adjusting the ways
" of Providence. Job affirms that the good man is
" sometimes unhappy ; the three friends pretend that
" he never can be so; because such a situation would
:{ reflect, upon God s justice. Now the doctrine of a
* Resurrection supposed to be urged by Job, cleared
" up all this embarras. . If therefore his friends
* thought it. true, it ended the dispute; if false, it lay
" upon them to confute it. Yet they do neither;
11 They neither call it into question, nor allow it to be
" decisive. T!ut without the least notice that any
" such thing- had been urged, they go on as they began,
" to inforee their former arguments, and to confute
" that which they seem to understand was the only
" one Job had urged against them ; viz. the conscious-,
" ness of his own innocence." Now what says our
learned Critic to this? Why, lie says, that if I fxi
mistaken, and lie .be right ii> his account of the book
of Job. the reason is plain why the three friends took
no notice of Job s, appeal to a Resurrection; namely,
because it deserved none. As to his being in the right,,
the reader, I suppose, will not be greatly solicitous.
if it be one of the consequences that the sacred
. Keasoner is in the wrong. However, before we allow
him to be right, it will be expected he should answer
the following questions. If, as he says, the point ia
. the book of\fob was only ///.v personal innocence, and
this, not (as I say) upon the PIUSCIVLI; of no inno
cent
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 46}
cent person being miserable; I would ask how it was
possible that Job s friends and intimates should be so
obstinately bent on pronouncing him guilty, the purity
of whose former life and conversation- they were, so
well acquainted with ? If he will say, the disputants
went upon that PRINCIPLED I then ask how came
Job s appeal to a Resurrection not to silence his
Opposers? as it accounted for the justice of God in
the present unequal distribution of tilings.
P. 323. [Q] Tills is one thing (says Job) therefore
I said it, HE DESTROYETII THE PERFECT WITH THE
WICKED, ch. ix. 22. as much as to say, this is the
point or general question between us, and I stick to
the affirmative, and insist upon its truth. The words
which follow are remarkable. It had been objected,
that when the good man suffered, it was for a trial ;
to this Job replies : If the scourge slay - suddenly, he
will laugh at the. trial of the innocent, ver. 23. sud-
deulj/, or indischmutately, as Schultens rightly under
stands it ; as much as to say, when the sword devours
the innocent and the wicked man without distinction,
if the innocent will distinguish his ill hap from the
wicked man s, and call it a trial, the wicked man-
will mock at him ; and indeed not without some shew
of reason.
P. 323. fit] " Supposing (says Die Cornish An-
" swerer) we should allow such an e>]ual Pnrcidenec
" to have been administered in Jii(!a <i\ yet, since he
" himself reckons it the utmost extravagance to slip-
" pose it any where else ; uhat an idea dors he give
" us of the talents of Kzra ! who, according to him,
" has introduced persons who wore no Jews debating
" a question so palpably absurd us that it NEvrn
" entered into the head of any one man I rcing to
" a (juexticn <:j it cut of the land of Judtea
" qnently could i>c;t -with th.e le;^t probability or
" propriety be handled bv any but Jews. Is thi^
H ii -2 u like
4f>S THE DIVINE LEGATION [BookVL
( like ouc who, he would make us to believe, was a
if careful observer of Decorum ? certainly the rule of
" Decorum would have obliged him reddere persons,
" c. as Horace speaks either to look out for proper
i: persons to debate his questions, or to fit his question
fcV to the persons." I should have reason to complain
of this insolence of Language, so habitual to these
Answerers, did it not always carry its own punish
ment along with it. For, look, in proportion to their
rudeness, is generally their folly, or ill faith. Sup
posing (says this man) we should allow such an equal
Providence, &c. Now, when the Reader considers I
am only contending for the actual administration of
such a providence as the Bible, in almost every page,
represents to have been administered, will he not na
turally suppose this to be some infidel-writer making
a gracious concession even at the expence of his owu
cause ? But when he is told that tlie writer is a minis
ter of the Gospel, will he not conclude that his head
is turned with the rage of Answering ?
He tells his Reader that I say, ct That the debated
" question in the book of Job could NEVER enter
" into the. head of any man living out of the land oi
(i Judsea." Now, the very words from whence he
pretends to deduce this proposition, convict him of
imposture. This (say I) could never have been made,
matter of dispute, FROM THE MOST EARLY SUPPOSED
JOIE OF JOii s. -EXISTENCE EVEX TO OURS, 111 (inif-
place out of the land of Judea. Which surely implies
it might have been a question then ; or why did \
restrain the case to the titucs since Job s existence *
Was it for nothing? In fact I was well apprised (and
saw the advantages I could derive from it) that the
question might as reasonably have been debated at
the time when Job lived, as at the time when, I sup
posed, the book of Job was written. But as this was-
a matter reserved for another place, I contented my
self with the hint conveyed in this limitation, which
just served to lay in my claim to the use I should
her caller
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 4%
hereafter have for it. The truth is, the state of God s
providence In the most tarty supposed time of Job s
e.viattiii . is a subject i shall have occasion to consider
at large in the last volume of this Work, where I em*
ploy it, amongst other proofs, to illustrate and confirm
the conclusion of my general argument by oue entire
view of the harmony which reigns through all the
various parts of the Divine Government as administered
over man. Of this my Answerers have no conception.
Their talents are only iitted to consider parts, and such
talents best suit their business, which is, to find fault.
-- They will soy, they were not obliged to wait, But
who obliged them to write ? And if they should wait
longer, they will have no reason to complain : For the
cloudy ami imperfect conception they have of my ar
gument as it now stands, is the most commodious
situation for the carrying on their trade. However,
whether they prefer the light of common sense to this
darkness occasioned by the absence of it, or the
friendly twilight of Polemics to both, I shall not go
out of my way to gratify their humour. 1 have said
enough to expose this silly cavil of our Cornish
Critic, and to vindicate the knowledge of the writer of
the book of Job, and his observance of decorum, in
opening a beauty in the contrivance of this work, which
these Answerers were not aware of.
P. 324. [S] The i r sc awl Intuit of Prophecy, $c.
p. 208. 3d edit. Grotius thinks the book was written
for the consolation of the descendants of Esau, carried
away in the Babylonish captivity ; apparently, as the
name writer observes, to avoid the absurdity arising
from the supposition confuted above; and yet, as he
farther observes, Grotius, in endeavouring to avoid one
diitictjky, has fallen into another. l ; or, suppose //
uT/Y (says the Author of The Use and Intent of
Prophecy, &c.) for the children of >Jww, they iccrt
idolaters; and yet Is there no a Hits ) an to their idolatry
in ait this book. And lehat ground Is there to think
11 11 3 they
470 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI,
ilia/ zee re so righteous as to decree such an inter
pretation to be put upon their s%$w iugs, M the book of
Job puts on them, if so be it icas written for their.
Sttlict ? Or can it be imagined, that a book writ about
the time supposed, for the use of an idolatrous nation,
and odious to the Jeic* y could ercr If free been received
into the Jewish canon ?. p. 208. These are strong ob
jections, and xull oblige us to place this opinion
amongst the singularities of the excellent Grotius.
P. 330. [T] " Here (says the Cornish Critic) take
" the poem in the other light, as an allegoric fiction,
u and what could it possibly afford besides a very odd
" amusement ? for the truth of history is destroyed :
" and we have nothing in the room of it, but a inon-
" strous jumble of times and persons brought toge-
" ther, that were in reality separated from each other
" by the distance of a thousand or twelve hundred
" years. Had the author been able to produce but
" one precedent of this sort amongst the writings of
" the ancients, it might have afforded some eounte-
" nance to this opinion : but, I believe, it would be dif-
* ficult to find it/ p. 47. What then, I beseech you,,
becomes of Solomon s Song, if you will not allow it to
be a precedent oj this sort ? Here, in the opinion of the
Church, as appears, by the insertion of it into the
Canon, or at least in the opinion of such Churchmen
as our Critic, Solomon, under the cover of a love-talc,
or amorous intrigue between him and an Egyptian lady,
has represented Christ s union and marriage with the
Church. Surely, the patience or impatience of Job
had a nearer relation in nature to the patience or im
patience of the Jewish People, than Solomon s love
intrigue had, in grace, to the salvation obtained by
Jesus Christ. Yet this we are to deem no odd amuse
ment for the WISE MA?> . But for a Prophet, to employ
the story of Job, to reprove .the errors of the People
committed to his care, and to inform them of an
approaching change in their Dispensation, \6 by no,
mean*
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 471
means to be endured. What ! has this great Critic
never heard that, amongst the writ ings of the (indents^
tli ere wa^ a certain allegoric piece known by the name
of The Judgment of Hercules, written by a Grecian
SAO i-:, to excite the youth of his time to the pursuit
ef virtue, and to withstand the allurements of pleasure?
].!KIICI:LI;S was as well known by history and tradition
to the Greek*, as Jon was to the Jews. Did that
polite people think this an odd (imuseinent ? Did they
think the truth of History destroyed by it; and -nothing
left hi its room- hut a monstrous jur&bfe of times and
.person*, brought together, ttfatucktf&in reality Separated
jrwu each oilier hi] the distance of a thousand or
/.ice/re hundred years ? for so many at least -there were
between the a^e of Hercules arid the vonn-r iSlen of
T* . O
the .time of Prodicus. Or does this Cornish Critic
imagine, that the Sages of Greece took the Allegory for
History: or believed any more of u real rencontre
between Virtue, Pleasure, and young Hercules, than
Maunonides did of that solemn meeting of the Devil ana
the Sons of God before the throne of the Almighty?
Hut that curious remark of destroying the truth of
History deserves a little further canvassing. 1 suppose,
when Jesus transferred the story of the Prodigal and
his sober Brother to the G entiles and the Jews, and
when St. John transferred Baby] on te Ivome, in alle
gory, that they destroyed the t rut-It of Hilton). When.
ancient and modern dramatic Writers take their subject
from History, and make free with facts to adapt their
plot to the nature of their poem, Do they destroy the
truth of History? Yet in their case there is only one
lo/ .rricr to this imaginary mischief, namely the Druma :
In the book of J-ob, there arc two, both the Drama
and the Allegory. But after all, some hurt it may
<!o, amongst Readers of the size of this Answerer,
v,hen they mistake the book of Job for a piece .of Bio
graphy, like the men lien Jonson laughs at, who, for
gi eater exactness, chose to read the History of Knglaml
i\\ .Shakespear s Tragedies.
11 11 4 J P. 330.
472 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
P- 330. [U] But the Cornish Critic, who has no
conception that even a patient man may, on some
occasions, break out into impatient heats, insists on the
impropriety of Job s representing the Israelites of
Ezra s time. " To represent the murmuring and im
patient Jews (says he) it seems Ezra takes a person
who was exemplary for the contrary quality and
then, to adapt him to his purpose, makes him break
1 out into such excesses of impatience as border on
blasphemy." p. 50. I doubt there is a small matter
amiss in this tine observation. The Author of The
jyroine Legation did not write the book of Job:
therefore whatever discordancy there be between the
Tradition of his patience and the written History of
him in this book, it is just the same, whether JOB or
whether EZRA wrote it. After so illustrious a spe
cimen of his critical acumen, he may lie in bed, and
-cry out with the old Athlet,
Casstum artemque repono.
However, he meant well, and intended that this sup
posed absurdity should fall upon the Author of The
Divine Legation, and not upon the Canon of Scripture.
In the mean time the truth is, there is no absurdity at
all, but what lies in his own cloudy pericranium. Whe
ther the traditionary Job represented the Lsraelites or
not, it is certain, he "might with much decorum represent
them. And this the following words of The Dh itte
Legation might have taught our Critic, had he. had but
so much candour as to do justice to a Stranger, whom
he would needs make his Enemy. " It is remarkable,
^ that Job, from the beginning of his misfortunes to
f the coming of his three comforters, though greatly
" provoked by his wife, sinned not wit1 t i his tips ; but,
" persecuted by the rnalice and bitterness of his false
" friends, he began to lay so much stress on his inno-
" cence as even to accuse God of injustice. This was
" the very state of the Jews of this time ; so exactly
55 has the sacred Writer conducted his allegory ; They
6 " bore
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 473
" bore their straits and difficulties with temper till their
" enemies Sanhallat, Tobiah, and tiie Arabians, gave
" them so much disturbance ; and then they tell into
" indtc/jnt murmurs against God." But lest our An-
s were i should again mist-ike this, for a defence of the
Author of the Divine Legation, and not of Ezra, let him
try, if he can reconcile the traditional patience of Job
with the several strokes of impatience in the written
book, upon any oilier princi pie than this, That the most
patient riiiii alive may be provoked into starts of im
patience, bv a miserable Caviller, \vno, being set upon
-dmsLMWlg whut lie does not understand, represents
Y. inter]- aversely, and, when he is unable
to make the Dactrine odious, endeavours to makf- the
-Person so, who hold? it. In conclusion, however, thus
much is lit to be observed, that if the sole or main
intention of the Writer of the book of Job (be he
whom he will) were to exhibit an exam pie of Patience,
he has executed his design very ill ; certainly in so
perverse a manner that, from this book, the fame of
Job s exemplary Patience could never have arisen.
Hence I condade in favour of an Hypothesis which
solves this difficulty, by distinguishing between Job s
traditional and written story. But now comes a
Cornish Critic, and makes this very circumslance,
which I urged for the support of my Hypothesis, an
objection to it. Yet he had grounds for his observa
tion, such as they were; lie dreamt, for lie could not
be awake, that I had invented the circumstance,
whereas I G\\\\ found it.
P. 340. [X] The different situations in which this
] ; olly operated in ancient and modem times, is very
observable. In the simplicity of the early ages, while
men were at tlieir ease, that general opinion, so con-
gc ijinl to the humon rnird, of a Cr<:d and fps moral
government, was too strong over to be brought in
question. It was when they found themselves miserable
mid in distress, that they began to complain ; to ques
tion
474 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI
tiori the justice, or to deny the existence of a Deity:
On the contrary, amongst us. disastrous times arc
the season of reliction, repentance, and reliance on
Providence. It is a [ft u en re and abundance which
now give-hirt. n to a wanton sufiicieney, never thoroughly
gratiiied tiu it have thrown oil all the restraints of
I imagine it may not lie -difiicult to account for so
strange a contrariety in the manners of Men.
In the ancient World, the belief of a moral Pro
vidence was amongst their most ^contested -principles.
But c&ftperning the nature and extent of this Providence
they had indeed very inadequate conceptions ; being
misled hy the GxtTQ0rdmqvy manner in which the first
<>xertipns of it were manifested, to ex poet more instant
end immediate protection than the nature of the Dis-
P&is&ttpn afforded: So that these men beii^, in their
own opinion, the most worthy object of Providence s
concern, whenever they became pressed by civil or
domestic distresses, supposed all to be lost, aiul the
world without a Governor.
But in these modem ages of vice and refinement,
tvhen every blessing is abused, and, amongst the tirst,
that greatest of all, LIBERTY, each improvement of
the mild, as well as each accommodation of the body,
is perverted into a species of lujc-iiry ; exercised and
employed for amusement, to gratify the Fancy or the
Appetites, as each, in their turn, happens to influence
the Will. Hence even the FIKST PHILOSOPHY, the
science of Nature itself, bows to this general .abuse,
It is made to act against its own ordinances, and to
support those impieties it was authorized to suppress.
liiit now, when calamity, distress, and all the evils of
those abused blessings have, bv their severe .but whole
some disci pi tue, restored rccol lection and vigour to the
relaxed and dissipated mind, the dictates of Nature are
uiriiu attended to : the impious priiictples of false
&dena\ and the false coiidusions of the -true, are
shaken off as a hidcmis dream ; and dhe abused Victim
of
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 475
of his vanity and his pleasure files for refuge to that
or.iy Asylum of Huiuuiiily, RELIGION.
P. 340. [Y] Thus both Sacro and Sacer have, in
Latin, contrary significations. The reason is evident,.
Sonic things were cwtsccmttidwA sonic dccot-cd to the
c*
Gods: those were holy; these execrable. So God
beiiu: invoked sometimes to te, and sometimes to
l#r#, the invocation was expressed by one word, which
hail contrary senses. And this agreeable to the genius
of language in general.
P. 344. [Zj The Cornish Critic says " Above all,
11 and to support the allegory in its most concerning
" circumstances, as the Jews v.ere obliged to put
" away their idolatrous wives, so Job should have put
<c away his, in the upshot of the 1 ablc. This would
" CEUTAixLY have been done, had such an allegory
" been intended as Mr. W. supposes." p. 66. Let
this man alone for his distributive justice. I thought,
when, in the "conclusion of the book, we have a de
tailed account of Jobs whole family, his sons, his
daughters, and his cattle, and that we hear nothing of
Ins wife (and, 1 ween, she would have been heard of
had she been there), the Writer plainly enough insi
nuated that Job had somehow or other got rid of this
Affliction, with the rest. But nothing else will servo
our Righter ot wrongs but a formal bill of divorce.
Indeed I suspect, a light expression I chanced to
make use of, gave birth to this ingenious objection.
See above, p.. 339-
P. 356. [A A] Divine Wisdom procures inanycw/v
by one and the .^ame wcaii ; so here, besides this use,
of throwing the Reader s attention entirely on the
ticrpctif, it had another, r/c. to make the Serpent.
which was of the most sacred and venerable regard in
the Mysterious Religion of Egypt, the object of the
utter abhorrence and detestation.
r. 365-
THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
P. 365. [RB] To this Dr. Grey says, that the three
friends likewise accuse Job of his present faults. Well,
a IK! what then? Does this acquit them of injustice lor
falsely charging him with preceding ones ?
P. 371. [CC] Indeed, had the hook of Job the high
antiquity which the common system supposes, the con
tending at the same time for the spiritual sense of this
text, would he followed with insuperable diiieultks :
Jmt these, let the supporters of that System look to.
The very learned Author of the Argument of the Di
vine Legation fair Instated, c. hath set these difficulties
in a light which, I think, shews them to he insuperable :
" Those men (says this excellent writer) who maintain
" this system, [of the high antiquity of the book, and
" the .spiritual sense of the text] must needs regard the
<: text to he direct and literal, not typical orJigKratire.
" !>ut then this difficulty occurs, How came Most.s
* (if he was the Author) to be so clear in the booh of
ik Job, and so obscure in the Pentateuch ? Plain ex-
** prtssion and typical adumbration are the contrary
" of one another. They could not both be fit for the
" same people, at the same time. If they were a
" spiritualized People, they had no need of carnal
" covers, such as Types ; and if they were a carnal-
" minded people, the light of spiritual things would
" only serve to dazzle, not to aid their sight.
" Nor is the matter mended, but made worse, by
" supposing the t>ook to be written by JOB himself, or
" aw .other Patriarch earlier than Moses : That
<s would be only transferring the Charge from jl/osev,
" to the God of Moses : For while the book of Job
il was designed by Providence, for part of the JtatM.sk
i: CatHM, it is the same unaccountable conduct though
" removed thither. TheR-KSURRFCTiox is open and
" exposed to all in the IXH& of Job ; and it is hid and
* eovei-od under types and figures in the Pentateuch,
" I : iH-nH wlience arises this noble truth worthy of its
: ; inventers, That tlie same doclrbtc may, at om and
. the
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 477
" the same time, be the proper object both of clear
" and manifest, and of dark ami uncertain
" plation, to the same PersQtiti? p. 134-
P. 376. [DD] Here the Cornish Critic oh.-erves,
i; That it does not appear that Job had any particular
" revelation of it, [i.e. his future felicity] ; and there-
" fore his confidence (if lie had any such) must
" proceed upon some such principle as this, That
" God would at length infallibly deliver the good Man
u out of trouble. And again, this principle must bet
vt founded on that other of an equal Providence :
" from whence otherwise could it arise but from a
" persuasion that God will most certainly do what U
" equal and exact in this life r And yet the ingenious
" Author, as if fond of reconciling eorir .ciiclions^
" makes Job s Thesis to be this, that Pnrchiawe Is
" not equal/y administered* at the same time, that he
" ascribes to him a confidence which could XOT
" possniLY arise but from the persuasion of an equal
^ P residence" p. 156.
I make Job hold that Providence was not equally
administered. I make him to hold likeuiso, that he.
himwlf should he restored ID hixji rmcrjctici y : And
tliis, our Critic calls a COVTUADICTIOX. His reason
is. that this latter opinion could arise only from hi-*
persuasion oj an eintal Piwidence. This may ha
true, if there be no medium between an equal Provi
dence and no l^rovidcuce at all. But I suspect thu Q
is such a mediuni, Irum ob*efvitig that it is not
uncommon, evt-n in these rimes, for ^ood mt ii in
atiliction, to have thi^> verv conii .ienc e oi" Job, without
ever drcaminir of an equal PnrcidcRC&,
The truth is (and so I have sakl in the words which,
<-;-ivc occasion.to this notable observation) that Job \\i\-\
through the distemperature ol pus^ion advanced s-
t!:iii<r.s w.hich on cooler thoughts lie letracted. 11 is
argument against an eyiuil Pro cuicnee \\as sOmctiiitr^
pushed so far as to havj ti:e aj)pearance of concluding
l
47S THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VL
against any Providence at all. But he, at length,
corrects himself for this extravagance of expression ;
and deliberately con.cli.ules, that though the ways of
God were somehow or other become unequal, vet
that Providence had not deserted the case of mankind,
but would at length bring the good man out of trouble.
Yet this is the conjide.ncc, which, this most confident
of all Critics says, could NOT POSSIBLY arise but from
the persuasion of an equal Providence: Arid for this
it is that he charges me with a fondness for reconcH ui^
contradictions. Ilere I shall take my leave of tills
Discourse* on the book of Job, with declaring, that a
more contemptuous, disingenuous, and ignorant Writer,
never assumed the honourable name of ANSWERER j
yet I would not deny him his station amongst the
Learned. I think the same apology may be made for
him, that a namesake of his, in his history of the Car
thusians, made for their general Bruno, " that
" doubtless he could have wrote well if he would,
" for he printed a Missal in an exceeding fair letter,
" and delicate Jine writing paper. PETREI Bib.Caithl
&1. 35.
P. 389. [FF] This wicked fancy some early Chris*
fuui Writers seem to have gone far into ; particularly
ORIGKX ; who, because Celsus hud supposed, absurdly
enough, that the propagators of the Gospel had bor
rowed the Doctrine of & future state from the Pagan
Philosophers, was resolved not to be outdone, and
therefore tells his adversary, " that where GOD says
in the book of Moses, winch wjls older than all the
Pagan writings, I mn come down to deircor them out
of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them -up
out of that iandj unto a good laud and a lar^e ; unto
a lamljiowlng with milk and honey ; unto the ft lace of
the Cdnaanite$ 3 and the }littites, and th? Amoritcs^
and the Perizzites, and the Hirifcs, and- the Jkbusiief
[Kxod. iii. S.] he did not mean, as ignorant men "imagine^
tiie country rf Judea, but the kingdom of ke&ten ; ior
that
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 479
that how ood a land soever Judca might be, it was
yet part of that earth which had been put under the
curse, and there-lore, "c^cv 2% fyw on Mu\j<m; t o
jczi TW>
yzXz x,z ,w.iAt,
T>;V
yn. Cont. CeUv
p. 350. He tint can rave at thio strange rate must
needs consider the whole sanction, of temporal reward
and punishment a& a mere figurative representation of
future. But is not the hearkening to such Interpreters
exposing divine Revelation to ihe contempt and scorn
of Infidels and Free-thinkers ? And yet perhaps we
must he obliged to hearken to them, if the endeavours
of these Answerers become successful in proving the.
x ox -EXISTENCE of the extraordinary Providence (as
promised by Moses) against the reasoning of the
J). L. that it was ACTUALLY administered, in pur
suance of that promise. For, by Origen s Commen
taries (published by Huctius) it appears, that he \vas
led into this strange opinion by taking it for granted,
as Sykes, Hutherlorth, Stcbbing, and such like uriters
have since done, that under the Law, the best. ;uiJ
most pious men were frequently ini>er<.;h (:, and tiu*
wicked prosperous and hn^py.
P. 413. \(i G] One of these Answerers of this
Work employs much pains to prove that these words
could not mean, That it ic<is to he \\ dl icith than that
i?t r God. \w nit I KKSF.xT MFE. IlnthcrJoith, p. ;^<
i.e. lie will prove, the words could not bear a seftse
to which tlsey are limited and tied down by the wonh
immediately follow in o;, But it t v//:?// not he iall nitk
tfte iric ked, \r:rnjr;ti SHALL HE PROLONG tirs DA.YS.
\\ hat is to be done with such a nianr
P. 418. [Iinj Which (to observe it by the \\uy)
Uir:;i:3v\euib:y coa!u!-::s li^il Sciiil pa^.m Dream of ibc
> . ,
48o THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
sleeping till the resurrection of the body. And
yet, what is strange to tell, this very text, in the course
of disputation, which, like the course of time, brings
things, us the Poet says,
to their tofffbuniBxg contraries,
hath been urged to prove that sleep,, or no separate.
life; and this, by no less considerable a man than
Mr. HALES of Eaton. Christ (saith he) proveth the
future resurrect ion of the dead from thence, that God
is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but is not
the God of the dead, but of the living. Whence he
condudeth, that they live to God, thai is, SHALL BE
recalled to life by God, that he may manifest hltnself
to be their God or ^Benefactor. This argument would
be altogether fallacious, if before the Resurrection
they felt heavenly joy : For then Gad won Id be their
God or Benefactor, namely, according to their souls,
although their bodies should never rise again *. All
which is a mere complication of mistakes : as is, in
deed, his whole reasoning from Scripture, throughout
that chapter. But they who hold the soul to be only
& quality, and yet talk of its sleep between death and
the resurrection, use a jargon which confounds all
languages as well as all reason. For such a sleep
is an annihilation ; and the leaking again, a new
creation.
P. 419. [II] " Though this argument was a new
" one, -(says Dr. Kutheribrth) though the Pharisees
" had never made this inference, and that therefore it
" does not appear from hence, that Moses inculcated
u the Doctrine of a future state ; yet as it was a eon-
" elusive argument, as it was an inference which
" might have been made, it will prove to us that Moses
" was not studious to conceal this doctrine, nor pur-
" posely omitted every thing that might bring hra
" Header acquainted with those notices of Keclemp-
il lion "and of another lite, which the Patriarchs were
* A .brief Inquiry, cLap. viii.
" favoured
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 481
" -favoured with." p. 3 1 8. This is a coup de la
Maitre, indeed : as wittily urged as it was wisely me
ditated. If Moses bring a conclusive argument for
a doctrine, it is plain he could not be studious to con
ceal that doctrine, says our ingenious Professor. If
Roger Bacon, say I, have given, in his writings, a true
receipt to make Gunpowder, he could not be studious
to conceal the composition. And yet we know he
was studious to conceal it. What reasons he had for
so doing, and how consistent it was with his giving the
receipt, I leave to this profound Philosopher ; and
shall content myself with shewing how* consistent
Moses was in the conduct I have ascribed to him. If
both Moses s pretensions and those of Jesus likewise
were true, the former must needs observe this conduct,
in his Institute; that is to say, he would omit the
doctrine of another life, and, at the same time, inter
weave into the Law such a secret mark of its truth,
that, when the other Institution came, it might be
clear to all, that he both knew and believed the Doc
trine. If Moses had not omitted it, he had intruded
on the province of Jesus : If he had not laid the
grounds on which it rises, he had neglected to provide
for the proof of that connexion between the two Dis
pensations, necessary to shew the harmony between
their respective Authors. Moses had done both:
And from both I gather that he was studious to con*
ceal the doctrine. The omission .will be allowed to be
one proof of it; and I should think, this use of a
term, The God of Abraham, &c. is another proof.
For, the Jews, who, from the ceasing of the extraor
dinary Providence, continued for many ages with
incessant labour to ransack their Bibles for a proof
of a future state, could never draw the inference from
.this text till Jesus had taught them the way. No,
says the Doctor, How should an argument used by
Moses, for a future state, be a proof that MOMS was
studious to conceal it? This Argument going, as we
now see, upon our Professor s utter ignorance of the
Vofc. V. I i nature
482 THE DIVINE LEGATION [Book VI.
nature and genius of the Mosaic Dispensation, (which
required as much that the grounds of a future state
should be laid, as that the Structure itself should be
kept out of sight) I shall leave it in possession of that
admiration which it so well deserves.
P. 422. [KK] Here, the groundless conceit of the
learned Mosheim [de reb. Christ ante Const, p. 49.]
is sufficiently refuted. He supposes a Sadducee to bfe
represented under the person of the rich Man. But
the authority of the PROPHETS, to which Abraham
refers his houshold, was not acknowledged by the
Sadducees, as of weight to decide, in this point. And
yet the very words of Abraham suppose that their not
hearing the Prophets did not proceed from their not
believing, but from their not regarding.
/
P. 444. [LL] But all are not Arnaulds, in tlm
Gallican Church. Mr. Freret, speaking of the his
tory of Saul and a passage in Isaiah, concerning the
invocation of the dead, says Ce qui augment c m#
surprise, cest de yoir, que la plus part de ces Cowmen-.
tateurs se plaignent, de ne trouver dans rEcriture.
aucune preirce ciaire que les Juifs, ait temps de Moysc,
crussent riminortalite de Vame. La pratique, inter-
dite aux Juifs, suppose que 1 existence des ames,
separees du corps, par la mort, etoit alors un opinion
generate & populaire. Memoires de 1 Acad. Royale,
des Iriscript, &c,. v. 23. p. 185. The Gentleman s
surprise arises from his being unable to distinguish
between the separate existence of the Soul considered
physically, and its immortality considered in a reli
gious sense : It is under this latter consideration that
# future state of reward and punishment is included.
Had he not confounded these two things so different
in themselves, he had never ventured to condemn the
Commentators ; who do indeed say, they cannot find
this latter doctrine in the Pentateuch. But then, they
do not lament or complain of this want ; because they
6 saw,
Notes.] OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 483
saw, though this Academician does not, that the ab
sence of the doctrine of a future State of reward and
punishment in the MOSAIC LAW evinces its imperfec
tion, and verities llie enunciation ^ of the Gospel, that
LfFE AND IMMORTALITY were brought to light by
JESUS CHRIST.
EYD OF THE FIFTH VOLUME,
&CBCUW: Printed by Luke Hanard Sc Sous,
!i|.
/V^A
Y W A
rA
to
CO
LQ
s o
Oi >
,0! W
5 -a
University of Toronto
Library
DO NOT
REMOVE
THE
CARD
FROM
THIS
POCKET
Acme Library Card Pocket
Under Pat. "Ref. Index File"
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU
ll#%l$<
^MSAKll
