WAVk PBINCETON, N. J. Collection of Puritan Literature. Division >rrr ^"~ ""^*— : Section /LJ>T^^ Number h '" tyfafo? S^/^f V Hr^ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/twodissertationsOOkenn TWO DISSERTATIONS: The FIRST on The TREE of LIFE in Paradise, With fome Obfervations on The Creation and Fall of Man; The SECOND on The Oblations of CAIN and ABEL. _/ By BENJAMIN KENNICOTT, B.A. Fellow of Exeter College. eS&olvtv 7dv Kcyw (Mtu tkilovis 'zrofyfiicxt, tatta orms, Act. Apost. 17. ii. The Second Edition, with an Appendix. O X F O R D, Printed at the Theatre, for the Author: and Sold bf Mr. Clements, in Oxford ; Mr. Birt and MefT. Rivington, in London ; Mr. Thurlbourn, in Cambridge j Mr. Leake, mBatbi and Mr. Score, in Exeter. MDCCXLVIL Imprimatur, EUS. 1SHAM, Vice-Can. Mar. 2. 1745-7* T O Kellond Courtenay Efq; The Honourable Mrs Elizabeth Courtenay. The Honourable Mrs Barbara Cavendish. Ralph Allen Efq; Hen.Fownes LuTTRELLEfq; John Andrew M. D. TheRev.Mr.WM. Marshall. The Rev. Mr. Ph. Atherton. Norton Nelson Efq; The Rev. Mr. Archdn. Baker. William Nevle Efq; The Rev. Mr. Aaron Baker. William Oliver M. D. Hen. Langford Brown Efq; Thomas Taylor Efq; Rev. Mr.Fr.CHAMPERNowNE. Mr. John Taylor. The Rev. Mr. Geo. Costard. George Treby Efq; The Rev. Mr. Will. Daddo. Browse Trist Efq; Mr. Peter Gaye. TheRev.Mr.RoBERTWiGHT. TheRev. Dr. Thomas Hunt. TheRev.Dr.GEo.WYNDHAM. And to The Rector and Fellows of Exeter College. My Honoured Benefactors, THERE is fcarce any Pleafure more agreeable to the Human Mind, than that which arifes from reflecting on Favours received, when there is a power of expreffing a propor- a 2 tionable iv DEDICATION. tionable Gratitude. But You have ren- dered that almoft impoflible, by the mea- fure as well as nature of Your Conde- fcenfion and Liberality ; Condefcenfion — fuch, as mews that Pride is the far- theft removed from true Nobility of Soul; and Liberality — fuch, as not only re- lieves, but makes the Receiver happy. Charity indeed is become the reigning Virtue of our Country ; its tutelar de- fence, its brighteft ornament. And there- fore every one, who has experienced the benevolence of Britifh Virtue, and the greatnefs of its Publick Spirit, mould be careful to encourage, by acknowledging it, with a pious Gratitude. And if this be a Duty incumbent upon all that are obliged, 'tis peculiarly fo on Me ; who have felt a very uncommon mare of Fa- vour, and have found many Fathers, where I could not prefume to expecl: Friends, Tis DEDICATION. v 'Tis to You I think my felf bound to exprefs this fenfe of my prefent Happi- nefs ; You, who have raifed the cha- racter even of Beneficence itfelf — by- contending who mould exert it in the moft obliging manner, and yet confer the leafr. obligation. 'Tis to fome of You I ftand indebted for that generous Subfcription, which has placed me in this Theatre of Learning ; and to others of You for that Favour and Condefcen- fion, by which my Situation here has been rendered ftill more happy and de- lightful. I beg Your Acceptance therefore of my warmeft Thanks, thus publickly of- fered, for the many inftances of Your Goodnefs, fo publickly conferred ; and especially for Your Leave to honour my felf with the mention of Your Names, in my prefent appearance before the World. An Appearance this — arifing only from the perfuafions of Some of You, vi DEDICATION. You, to whofe Judgment I pay a pro- found Deference; and from the fond- nefs of an opportunity to make known that Duty to You All, which ( if Kind- nefs, if Charity can at all oblige) You have fo richly deferved ; and which will, I hope, be the Characteriftic of my Life, 'till Ingratitude become a Virtue. You are entitled, by the ftrongeft claim, to the Labours as well as the Ac- knowledgments of my Life ; and have abundantly more Right to the Production now before You, than to the Fruit of a Tree tranfplanted into Your own Garden. I have the greateft reafon to wifh there may be found fomething ufeful, and therefore agreeable, in the following Dif- fertations -> on Your account, as well as on my own. And as I doubt not of their containing fome Miftakes, it may be decent to obferve — that many of You have not yet perufed what is here pre- fented You ; and therefore have conde- fcended DEDICATION. vii fcended to be the Patrons of the Author only, and not of his Performance. The Subjects however will appear, I prefume, of confequence ; and to be worthy of a careful consideration. This indeed is evident from the firft view of them in themfelves ; and it may be far- ther ftrengthened and afcertained by ob- serving — that our great Countryman Mr. Mede had minuted them both down for his consideration ; but Death deprived the World of his valuable explanation of them. What this celebrated Writer propofed, I have ventured to confider. The princi- pal Obfervations, on which the main part of each Diflertation turns, occurred to me in considering the Original Text'; and I humbly fubmit the whole, that is here built upon them, to the Judgment of Your Selves, and the reft of the Learned World - y hoping for Your Favour, and their Pardon. May Vlll DEDICATION. May this little Prefent, offered only as an Earneft of my grateful Wimes, be thought not unworthy Your Acceptance ! The Defign You will approve, from that principle of Religion, which animates Your Actions ; and forgive the Manner of its Execution, from that principle of Candor, which I have fo frequently ex- perienced in the Favours received from You All. And may the Giver of every good and perfect Gift, who alone is able to recompenfe fuch a profufion of Good- nefs, reward You an Hundred-fold for Every Act of Generality conferred on Your very dutiful and moft obliged humble Servant, Benjamin Kennicott. ###########%###%##########& DISSERTATION O N T H E TREE of LIFE in Paradise, With fome Obfervations on The Creation and Fall of Man. ####tt#if#X#&####ttit$>###ttit#tt## [ l J DISSERTATION The FIRST. W H I L E the Enemies of Reveal'd Religion make it their bufinefs and ambition to revile the Sa- cred Book, in which it is contain'd ; 'tis cer- tainly the duty of its Friends to mew an equal warmth in the vindication and defence of it. And as the cavils of Unbelievers are frequently founded on the Miftranflation of particular PafTages, it may be proper for every one, who ( from his acquaintance with the Original Languages ) can fblve any of thefe Difficul- ties, whether real or pretended, to contri- bute fo far his Mite to that great Work, which has of late years been fo frequently and fo fuccefsfully undertaken. A Glorious Work this ! _ To clear up the difficulties of the Sacred Writings, and reconcile the inconfiften- cies objected to the accounts which they con- tain • that fo the Word of God may mine forth A 2 in 2 Dissertation I, in its native and commanding fplendour, and become the admiration of all the fons of Men. This indeed mould be the bufinefs, becaufe it is the duty of All ; 'tho, more properly, of the Preachers of this Revelation. And thefe, it muft be confefs'd, have a task arduous in- deed ; not to be difcharg'd but with the utmoft zeal, temper'd with the cooleft difcre- tion. For they muft, in thefe days, like the Workmen of old in Nehemiah a , build up the Wall of Jerufalem with one hand, and hold a weapon in the other to repel the Enemy of their Labours. The prefent then is an endeavour to vindi- cate fome part of the Hiftory ofMofes; and Mofes, whether we confider him as the earlieft Hiftorian, or as the Jewifh Legiflator, does under both thefe characters lay a ftrong claim to our refpect and veneration. For as from him we have the only true account of the Crea- tion and Origin of the World, fo upon the ftrength of his Hiftory, and the Prophets which fucceeded him, Chriftianity rifes like a fair Superftru&ure, regular and beautiful; and confequently every attempt to detract from, or add to the credit of the former, is an attempt to make, or eftablifli the honour of the latter. Now among all the places pick'd out for ridi- cule and cenfure, we cannot eafily find one, a Nehemiah IV. 17. that Dissertation I. 3 that has occafion'd more triumph to the in- fulting Infidel, and more frequently efcap'd the underftandingof the ferious Believer, than the account of the Two peculiar and remark- able Trees in Paradife — The Tree of Life, and the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. The latter of thefe has been lately clear'd up, ( and the objections that might be made to his folution of it confider'd ) by the celebrated Au- thor of the EfTay on Virtue b ; and the bufinefs of this undertaking is to attempt a rational ac- count alfo of the former. It may not then be improper firft to place together, in one view, the account of Both from the Englifli Tranlla- tion, as it is from thence the Objections have been drawn ; which done, I lhall endeavour to clear the Sacred Relation from the abfurdity imputed to it. Gen. II. 8. And the Lord God planted a Gar- den eaflward in Eden ; and there he put the Man, whom he had formed. 9. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every Tree that is p leaf ant to the Sight, and good for Food; the Tree of Life alfo in the midft of the Garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. if. And the Lord God took the Man, and put him into the Garden of Eden, to drefs it, and to keep it. 16. And the Lord God commanded the b Dr. Rutherforth, p. 173. Mafy 4 Dissertation I. Man, faying, Of every Tree of the Garden thou may efl freely eat. i 7 .But of the Tree of the IQiow- ledge of Good and Evil, thoujhalt not eat of it } for in the day that thou eatefl thereof thoujhalt furely die. Chap. III. i. Now the Serpent was morefubtle than any beafi of the field, which the Lord God had made ; and he faid unto the Woman, Yea, hath God faid, Ye Jhall not eat of every Tree of the Garden > 2. And the Woman faid unto the Serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the Trees of the Garden. 3. But of the fruit of the Tree, -which is in the midfi of the Garden, God hath faid, ye fiall not eat of it, neither pall ye touch it, left ye die. 4. And the Serpent faid unto the Woman, Te Jhall not furely die. f. For God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes Jhall be opened; and ye Jhall be as Gods, knowing Good and Evil. 6. And when the Woman Jaw that the Tree was good for food, and that it wasp leaf ant to the eyes, and a Tree to be defired to make one wife-, Jhe took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave alfo unto her Husband with her, and he did eat. - Then follows the divine Examination of the Offenders, with their feveral Sentences ,♦ after which we read, in Verfe the 22. - And the Lord God faid, Behold, the Man is become as one of Us, to know Good and Evil. And now left he put forth his hand, and take alfo of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever. 23. Therefore the Lord Godfent him Dissertation I. 5 him firth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground, from whence he was taken, 24. So he drove out the Man ; and he place d^ at the eaji of the Garden of Eden y Cherubim s and a flaming Swords which turned every way to keep the way of the Tree of Life. Now tho' the Objections, that have been made to the Hiftory of Mofes, have fallen, perhaps, more plentifully on this part than any other j yet the principal intention of this Dif- fertation ( as before obferv'd ) is to obviate thofe Objections, which have frequently been urg'd againft what is here faid with regard to the Tree of Life. It is agreed then, among the Friends of this Hiftory, that the ufe of the Tree of Life was — to render ^ or preferve the firfl Pair immortal. But in what manner this Immortality was to be effected by their eating of it— whether the Tree was to communicate fo furprizing an effect by being frequently ^ or by being once tafted — or whether abfolutely^ and by its own inherent Virtue ; or conditionally^ and by a virtue facra- mentally convey'd from God ; — thefe points ( with others on this head ) have generally di- vided thofe, who have attempted to explain them c . For whoever examines carefully into c Well therefore might Mr. Salkeld obferve — That tho* almoft all the Writers and Fathers of the Greek and the 6 Dissertation!. the whole of this matter will find an uncommon diverfity in opinion, among the wifeft Ex- positors ; and that there are few, who agree in any fingle method of interpretation, not- withftanding fo many, with a laudable defign have attempted a rational Iiluftration of it. From hence it is evident, that fome confider- able difficulty, if not miflake, muft be at the bottom, which occafions fuch remarkable un- certainty ; and therefore it may be prefum'd, that any new Attempt to clear the Hiftory in this particular will, if honeftly intended, be pardon'd by fuch, as may think it to fall more of the defign of it ; and be well receiv'd by fuch ( if there fhould be any fuch) as may think it a proper and well-grounded Explanation. I fliall therefore propofe fome of thofe Ob- jections, which have been made, and feem to lie againft the generally-receiv'd Opinions about the Tree of Life -, and that upon each of the different Interpretations before enumerated. After which, in order to obviate the force of fuch Objections, I mail endeavour at a rational and confident fenfe of thofe texts, where the Tree of Life is mention'd ; which, I imagine, may be done by a careful attention to the Origi- nal Hiftory,in a manner not yet attempted.— For Latin Church agree, that the effect of this fruit was Im- mortality ; yet in the manner, how, they do not agree. See his Treatife on Paradife, p. 58. tho" Dissertation I. 7 tho' it has been taken for granted, that Mofes tells us of one particular Tree of Life in Para- dife 5 yet, as the fuppofal of fuch a Tree exift- ing or not exifting feems to affecT: no other part of thefacred pages ; as alio the alTerting its real exiftence has been frequently objected to as ab- furd, and is al!ow"d to be very difficult of ex- planation — it may be worth while to confider, whether the account of Mofes may not be fairly underftood, without admitting fuch a particular Tree j by rendring the phrafe ED»n XV Trees of Li fe, in the fenfe of" Trees of Food in gene- ral. If fo, all cavils about a Tree of Life di£ appear of courfe ; and alfo the character of Mofes, which the Deifts attack with peculiar bitternefs, will appear in this one refpect, as it certainly is in all, invulnerable by their keen- eft Satyr. To begin then with the Objections to this particular of the Mofaic Hiftory, as generally underftood. And here it may be firft obferv'd — that if there was in Paradife one Tree of Life, which was to render the firft Pair im- mortal ; fuch an effecT: muft have been pro- duced either by their eating of its fruit fre- quently, or by their tailing of it once only. That the Immortality of the firft Pair was not to be the confequence of their frequent eating of this Tree, feems to appear from the following confiderations. The Garden of Ederv B had 8 Dissertation I. had been furnifli'd by God with all the various forts of Trees, that were good for food ; and Adam had receiv'd an order, or licence, to eat of all, or each of them, as he pleas' d ( ex- cepting only the Tree of Knowledge ) for the fupport of his animal life. But if there was in the Garden one particular Tree, which by an extraordinary operative quality was to be the fupport of human life, or the antidote againft mortality ; this had been fufficient to preferve Adam from Death, while the ufe of all the other Trees of food had been thereby fuper- feded : and if fo, may not thefe be faid to have been given in vain > But we know that God does nothing without the wifeft contri- vance ; and therefore it fliould feem, as if the Trees of food in Paradife ( efpecially as every fpecies of Fruit -Trees was planted together in this one Garden ) that tbefe, I fay, were for the nutriment and fupport of Adam's Life; fince there appears no other ufe arifing from their being planted in Paradife. Now if the Tree of Life was only — a Tree, whofe fruit being eaten frequently was to render the eaters of it immortal ; fuch an erTecl: muft have been produced either by its own [ingle and feparate virtue, or by a virtue in conjunction with that of the other Trees in the Garden. But if we fay — It was by its own Jingle virtue, then we make ufelefs the other Trees 5 and if we fay -By Dissertation I. 9 — By its virtue in conjunction, then we bring it down from any pretentions to fuperior excel- lence, it fettles upon the fame level in ufe and honour with the other Trees its companions, and confequently ail the Trees of Food in the Garden become equally Trees of Life. It was this Difficulty, perhaps, which has in- duced many d to afcribe the Immortality arifing from this Tree to its being eaten of but once only. And thus the celebrated Dr. Jenkin, in his Reafonablenefs of the Chriftian Reli- gion e — Since God has endued our ordinary food with a power of nourifliment, no man can reafonably doubt, but that he might endue this fruit with fuch a virtue, that it mould have made men immortal to tafte of it ; and we may well fuppofe, fays be, that if they had once tafted of this fruit, they fhould have fuffer'd no decay, but have liv'd in conftant vigour here, tho' partaking afterwards only of other nou- rifliment. The Interpreters of this fort ground their opinion on the reafon, which God gives for his driving Adam out of Paradife ; namely, — Left he put forth his hand, and take alfo of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever f . It is d Thus Rupertus affirms — Quod fruclus arboris vitse, femel fumptus , vitam praeftitillet: immortalem. Salkeld on Paradife^ p. 68. e Vol. II. p. z6o. f Gen. III. zi. B 2 certain, 10 Dissertation I. certain, that this text feems a better fupport for the laft interpretation, than any other in- terpretation can be furnifh'd with from the Hiftory it felf. This I fay, upon the common acceptation of the words. For who, that reads this clear and exprefs paflage, and fees God banifhing Adam, after eating of the Tree of Knowledge, left he mould take alfo of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever; who can read this, and not conclude, that if Adam had taken, and eaten of the Tree of Life, he tvould have liv'd for ever ? This, according to the receiv'd opinion, feems the only concluiion from the words ; and they are the words of God him felf. But this fenCe^ however con- firm'd by the prefent Veriions of the Text, will probably foon appear indefenfible ; and if fo, the Original Words will certainly yield us ano- ther interpretation. But before we proceed to any arguments againft this opinion, let us previoufly lay down Two Obfervations ; which, as they are the ground -work of the Hiftory it felf, muft be alfo of all the Explications of it : and thefe are — That of every Tree in the Garden, except- ing that of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God had given Man liberty to eat freely ; and — That, upon the Fall, Man forfeited Immor- tality, and became fubjeft to Death. Firft Dissertation I. n Firlt then j fuppofing in Paradife a Tree of Immortality, of which Adam was allow'd to eat, we may reafonably fuppofe that he was acquainted with fo extraordinary a Tree • and, if fo, that he made a ready ufe of it, as the great fecurity and privilege of his condition. But if Adam did eat of this immortalizing Tree, how came he prefently mortal ? How could he, who, on the prefent fuppofition, had render'd himfelf immortal by eating of the Tree of Life, become mortal by eating of the Tree of Knowledge ? Secondly ; fuppofing Adam not acquainted with the virtue of this Tree, yet' as he had li- berty to eat of all the Trees, but one, in the Garden, and this among the reft ; we mull grant, that he might have tailed it. And there- fore, if the Tree was endued with a power of conferring Immortality by being once tailed of, the effecl: mull have been the fame, if Adam had tailed it, whether he was preacquainted with this virtue of it, or not. Thirdly j Adam was created either abfolute- Iy immortal, abfolutely mortal, or conditional- ly immortal. If he was created abfolutely im- mortal, he could not have died - 3 but die he did. If he was created abfolutely mortal, he could not but die j and therefore was not a Candidate for Immortality. But if he was crea- ted conditionally immortal, and this conditio- nal 12 Dissertation I. nal Immortality hung (as we are aflur'd it did) on his eating or not eating of the Tree of Knowledge ; it feems impoffible he could be allow'd by God free liberty to eat of a Tree of Life, which would render him immortal, and confequently not mortal in cafe of his violating the divine command. Fourthly ; it feems as if fuch a Tree would have been altogether unneceflary. Adam, we have feen, was created conditionally immortal ; in confequence of which, ifhefinn'd, he was to die. But what if he did not fin ? Washeftill to die ? No ; the contrary is certain, and in general underftood in the following manner — that Adam was not to have had an Eternity of exiftence on this Earth ; but that his Body would have continued free from diffblution, till God mould have thought fit to tranflate him, without Death, to fome happier Region, for the enjoyment of Eternity &. If Adam then, while innocent, could not have died ; what need was there for a Tree of Immorta- lity to preferve his Life ? — It was by Sin (as we are alTur'd by St. Paul h ) that Death entered into the World « and confequently all thofe Pains, Difeafes and Decays of Nature, which are only g Two Inftances of fuch a Trauflation from Earth to Heaven, without dying, we meet with in the cafes of Enoch and Elijah. See a Kings II. n ; and Gen. V. 24, explain'd by St. Paul in Heb. XI. 5. h Rom. V. 12. , . (the Dissertation I, .13 (the Mortis pralibamina-, or) the foretaftes of our DiiToIution, enter'd by the fame channel. And as Adam, while innocent, could not have known Death, or Difeafe ; the fruits of the Trees in general, which God gave him to eat, certainly would, in their original perfection, have been a fufficient fupport to his animal part ; without the intervention of a Miracle, when he could not poffibly ftand in need of it. For tho' it mould be properly faid by Dr. John Clarke ] — That Death, or the diffolution of the Body, is the neceflary confequence of thofe laws by which the Body is fram'd ; yet it is as properly obferv'd by A-Bp King k — That from the neceflary Mortality of Bodies fince the Fall no argument can be drawn for th©» fame neceffity before the Fall. The reafon in- deed of fuch a diiference this great Writer leaves us unacquainted with • but, poffibly, that may appear hereafter. And Fifthly j if the firft Pair had this fup- pos'd liberty of rendring themfelves immortal, it is fcarce poffible but the Serpent would have put them in mind of it, as an effectual confir- mation of what he fo roundly aiTerted — Te pall not purely die. For we may reafonably fuppofe a Tempter, of much lefs fubtilty than the Old Serpent, would readily have faid — If, i See his Serm. Boyle's Led. Fol. Edit'. Vol. 3. p. 201. k See his Origin of Evil ; Ch. 4. Sect. 3. when 14 Dissertation I. when ye have tafted this Tree of Knowledge, and are become equal to God 1 , ye imagine Death will be the confequence -, ye have at hand a Tree of Life: repair to that, and ye ihall be then equal to God both in Knowledge and Immortality. And it is ftill lefs poflible to be conceiv'd, why Adam, (fuppofing fuch a Tree with fuch a virtue ) when he had broke *he divine injunction, when he faw his fliame, and trembled under the expectation of divine Juftice,- why he had not then repair' d inftantly to the Tree of Life, to fecure himfelf from that Death, which was the fan&ion of the divine reftraint. Whereas, inftead of thinking of fuch a ready and obvious means of fafety, (had there been any fuch) we find him going for Fig-Leaves to twift round him, and conceal his fliame. Thefe Arguments then may fuffice to fhew, that very considerable Difficulties attend the at- tributing Immortality to this Tree of Life, confider'd as producing this effecl: by being once eaten of. And the confideration of it, as pro- ducing fuch an effeel: by being frequently eaten of, has been before fhewn to be attended with no (lender objections. So that if thefe confi- 1 Gen. III. 5-. Drufius in locum — Moneo locum verti JicutDeus j nam Elohim tarn Deum fignificat, quam Deos : Tom. I. pag. 20. See alfo Dr. Rutherforth, in his EfTay on Virtue, p. 279. derations Dissertation I. 15 derations are of weight, and fhould appear con- clufive, as perhaps they may • then this Tree of Life was not to communicate Immortality abfolutely, and by its own inherent virtue m . And if thus much be allow'd, then ( fuppofing it to convey fuch Immortality ) it muft have been defign'd to convey it conditionally, and by way of Sacrament • for this is a neceffary eonfequence, and the only part of the Alterna- tive. This latter Opinion then is now to be con- iider'd ; and I fhall introduce it in the words of Mr. Willet, in his Hexapla on Generis n — The Tree of Life, Jays he, was not fo call'd, be- caufe it was able to give Immortality, and pre- ferve from Death for ever ; nor only becaufe it was able to preferve Man from Death, 'till fuch time as he fhould be tranflated to Immor- tality. For it is evident, that this Tree had no power to give Immortality at all by the tafte of the fruit of it— Firft ; becaufe no corrupti- ble food can make the Body incorruptible — Se- condly; Man had, by his Creation, power gi- m Le Clerc in Gen. III. za. — Qujs credat Arborem funTe ullam, qua; natlvd virtute vitam in asternum homi- nibus confervare potuerit ? Lequien, in his Edition of Johannes Damafcenus, in his Note on the Tree of Life, fays— Maximus utrumque Lignum figurato fenfu intelligit, propter difficultates quae ex Scripturse Uterd confequi videntur. Tom. i. Lib. a. cap. 11. n Page 27. C yen 1 6 Dissertation I. venhim not to die, if he had not finn'dj where- fore Immortality was the gift of his Creation, not the effect of his eating of this Tree— Third- ly ; if it could have given Immortality, it muft have had a power to preferve from Sin ; other- wife it was no more the Tree of Life, in regard of the effect, than any other Tree in the Gar- den : for if he had not iinn'd, he mould not have died, what fruit foever he had eaten of, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil only excepted. Our opinion then, adds he y is this — that it was call'd the Tree of Life, not fo much for the operation^ (tho'it might give ftrength and virtue alfo to the Body) but chiefly for the Signification^ becaufe it was a Sign of Life receivd from God: and herein we approve rather the opinion of St. Auftin, who thinks it was call'd the Tree of Life, not effectively, but fignificatively ; as a Sign of true Immortality, which Adam fhould receive of God, if he continued in obedience. But I prefume, that this latter Opinion lies expos'd to as confiderable oppofition, as either of the two before mention'd. For if the Tree of Life was to communicate this uncommon virtue, not inherently and primarily, but medi- ately and fecondarily ; or (as it is, perhaps, more generally exprefs'd on this occafion) if it was not to communicate it abfolutely and natu- rally of it felf, but conditionally and fuperna- turally Dissertation I. 17 turally from God ; then it muft have had the nature of a Sacrament. And this is what fome confiderable Authors, leaving the other Expla- nation, ( probably on account of the before- mentiond Difficulties ) have determin'd and adher'd to ; or, at Ieaft, have hung fluctuating between the two, not determining for either, but leaving the Reader to choofe which he could relifh belt. Thus A-Bp King affirms ° — that the Tree of Life was truly Sacramental^ an outward and vifible Sign, and means of Grace ; which, fays be, is the true notion of a Sacrament. Thus the famous Dr. Clarke p— The Tree of Life was the ancient and original Emblem of Immorta- lity — By the ufe of the Tree of Life (whatever is implied under that exprejfion) Adam was to have been preferv'd from dying — By Sin Adam was juftly excluded out of theParadife of God, and put out of the reach of the Tree of Life, this miraculous means of being preferv'd from Death. Mr. Taylor, in his Treatife on Origi- nal Sin 9 , tells us — The Tree of Life can be confider'd, with any fhew of truth, only as ei- ther a pledge and Jign of Immortality, or as an appointed means of preventing the decay of the human frame, fuppofing Adam had continued o Page 78 of the Supplement to the Origin of Evil. p Serm. 135-, p. 123, Vol, i. Edit. Fol. q Page j8. C 2 obedient. 18 Dissertation I. obedient. And Mr. Stackhoufe r , tho' with the learning of the prefent and paft Ages be- fore him, is uncertain how much, and what kind of power to afcribe to this Tree -, for he ac- quaints us— that the Body of Adam was to en- joy the privilege of Immortality, either by a power continually proceeding from God, whereof the Tree of Life was the divine Sign and Sacrament ; or by the inherent virtue of the Tree it felf, perpetually repairing the de- cays of nature. But in anfwer to thefe, and all Explanations of the fame kind, it may be obferv'd flrft— that there is not the lead ground in the text for making the Tree of Life a Sacrament, or a Tree defign'd to convey Life facramentally. Yet, not to urge the want of foundation for this opinion, the opinion it felf feems eafy to be refuted. For if the Tree of Life was a Sa- crament, it had the properties of a Sacrament; and if it had the properties of a Sacrament, then the Fruit of it was appointed by God to be the outward and vifible Sign to Man of fomething inward and invifible, to be conferr'd by the former on the latter. And as in all Sa- craments there are certain terms or conditions neceffary to be perform d by Man, in order to his thus receiving benefits from God ; fo, upon the very fuppofition, when thefe terms or con- r Hilt, of the Bible, Vol, I, pag. 36, and 44. ditions Dissertation I. 19 ditions are either negle&ed or violated on the part of Man, the benefits on the part of God are fufpended : infbmuch that if Man fhould then continue to partake of the Sign^ he could no longer partake of the thing originally Jigni- fied. This is evident; let us apply it then to the prefent cafe. The Tree of Life, we are told, was a Sacrament ; the Fruit of it the out- ward Sign ; a Life-giving Power to be commu- nicated by God to Adam the thing fignified ; and the Condition, on which thisPower orVirtue was to be thus communicated, was Innocence, or Adam's continuing in his original Uprightnefs. Hence it appears, that Adam, after his Fall, could no longer receive Life or extraordinary Support from the Sign ; becaufe the Condition, on which he was to receive the thing fignified, was broken s : and therefore, had he continued in Paradife, this Tree of Life, in the prefent view of it, could have been of no peculiar fer- vice or affiftance to him. But this, we know, is contrary to the expre fs meaning of thofe words — And now, lefi he put forth his hand, s Thus, in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, tho' a Man receives the outward elements of Bread and Wine, he cannot receive the inward or fpiritual benefits thereby fignified — that is, the Bread will not be to him the Bread af Life (John 6. 48. ) nor will the Wine be virtually to him the Blood of Chriji (Matth. %6. 28.) unlefs he receives with a proper Faith, and in fuch a difpofkion of Mind, as is neceflary on that iblemn Occafion. (after 20 Dissertation I. ( after his Tranfgreffion ) and take alfo of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever. Where- fore we muft conclude, that the fame virtue or ufe (whatever it be fuppos'd) continued in this Tree after, as before Adam's Tranfgreffion. It would be as endlefs as it is unneceflary to cite all the various Opinions, which have appear'd upon this Subject ; it may not, how- ever, be improper to fubjoin two, of a diffe- rent kind from the foregoing. We have al- ready then confiderd the Tree of Life, as con- ferring Immortality, by being frequently, and by being once eaten of; as defign'd to preferve the human Body from Death abfolutely of it felf, and conditionally by a virtue deriv'd from God after the manner of a Sacrament • and fo far we have feen, that the explications of this matter are attended with their feveral difficulties. There are fome Writers then, who have afcrib'd other purpofes to this Tree of Life ,♦ and among thefe Mr. Worthington, in his late Eflay on Man's Redemption, tells us c —The defign of the Tree of Life was to repair all Decays, Natural and Moral ; and tho' it feems to have been capable of conferring Immorta- lity, after the eating of the Tree of Know- ledge, yet that it was defign'd only for repair- ing Bodily Decays, is furely too low a notion c Page 18. of Dissertation I. 21 of it j its fanative virtue muft have reach'd alio to the Soul. This opinion, not at all appear- ing to be fupported by the Hiftory, feems not to require a particular consideration. There are, laftly, others (and thefe a nume- rous Body) who have aflerted, that this Tree of Life was not at all defign'd for the fupport of Adams Bodily or Prefent Life ; but have refolv'd the whole ufe of it into Allegory, mak- ing it to reprefent the Future and Celeftial Life, with which Adam was to be rewarded for his Obedience u . Among the various Authors of this figurative opinion, I fhall felecft the fol- lowing teftimony of the learned Heidegger w : —The Tree of Life was dignified by that name, not becaufe it had implanted in it a power of conferring Eternal Life on Man, or becaufe it was healthy or fruitful beyond the other Trees of the Garden ; but becaufe it was given Man for a certain Pledge of that Eternal Life, which he was to obtain, after a courfe o£ per feci Obedi- ence. For, fays he, as to / know not what phy- fical effetly to afford Man a prefent Remedy a- gainft Difeafes and Infirmity, which many at- tribute to this Tree — this is by no means to be u Arbor vita fignum 8c figillurn vita: coeleflis asternae, Adamo ex fbedere operumpromiflar, Tub condirione per- feverantioe in obedientia. Clop^cnburg^ ix Sacrlfic. Pa- triarchal. Schold Sacra j p. TO. w See his Hiftor. Pamarcharum ; Tom. i. Exercit. 4. Sedt. 49. admitted. 22 Dissertation I. admitted. For if you imagine this done by the force of the Aliment, then the other Trees were in vain given to Adam for his Food ; and if by a medicinal virtue, Adam, while inno- cent, had 110 internal principle or caufe of Dif- eafe, which might want to be reftrain'd by the power of Medicine. Wherefore (he concludes that) it deriv'd its Name, not from the Tempo- ral Life, but the Life Celeftiai and Eternal. But to this may be oppos'd the more rational and judicious opinion of Dr. Robinfon on this Subject x j which feems fufficient to fet afide not this only, but all other Allegorical f, Sym- bolical, and Myftic Interpretations of the Tree of Life. Many of our Divines, fays he, will have this Tree of Life to be a Sacrament : but a Sacrament of What, they themfelves are not agreed — Some affirm it to have been a Sign and Seal of the Life Prefent, which was to be preferv'd, in cafe of continued Innocence — O- thers of a better Life, to be exchang'd— Others of the Life Eternal, to be given by Chrifi — O- thers of the Heavenly and Eternal Life, pro- x Annales Mundi, p. 44. y — Nil opus effer, ut hanc cautelam interponerem, nifi ut intra certos limites coercerem AUegorlzand: licen- tiam ; quse in immenfum exire folet, & feculis nonnullis ipfam Legis Liter am prorfus obfcuravit — Multi nullum quantumvis legis apicem prsetereunt, cui non allegori- cum, forfan 6c anagogicum fenfum afluunt. Spencer de leglbus Hel>. Tom. 1. Lib. i. Cap. 1?. Sec. 2. mis'd Dissertation I, 23 mis d to Adam by the Covenant of 'Works —Others of that Grace or Favour, by which Adam was to live fur ever, in cafe of his Obedience. But, as he obferves, all that has been faid of Sacra- ments, and of an allegorical and myftical fenfe of this point, feems too obfcure to agree with the Perfpicuity, too labour d to be of a piece with the Simplicity, fo remarkable thro' the whole Mofaic Narration. Thefe Opinions then may ferve to fhew, as well the fuvprizing Oppojition and Uncertainty % which have fo remarkably diftinguifhd Inter- preters on this fubjed: ; as alfo the Difficulties, to which their feveral interpretations itand ex- pos'd. 2, Dr. Burnet, in his excellent llluftration of the Mofaic Hiftory, feems not at all fatisfied as to the Tree of Life. We are told of a Tree of Life, fays he, which we may rea- fonably think might be intended as a Prefervative againft all Decays of Nature— ifanyfuch can befup$os , d in fo pure and perfect a State of Being. And again — If the Tree of Life was of fuch a Nature, as to keep from dying &c. See Boyle's Led. Serm. Vol. 3. p. 431. 514. Edit. Fol. The fame Uncertainty is remarkable in the firff. Volcme of the Univerfal Hiftory ; for the celebrated Author, fpeaking of Paradife, fays — In the midft of this Garden were two Trees of a very peculiar, and, it feems, con- trary nature ; one call'd the Tree of Life, the fruit of which had the virtue of rendering thofe who eat v, in fome degree at leaf, immortal &c. And — The Tree of Life, it is faid, had the virtue to prolong life confidcrably^ if not for ever. See Book I. Ch. 1. p. no. ia4» Ed. 8vo. See alfo Mr. Stackhoufe, Hift. Bible, at the bottom of p. 44. And Dr. Sam. Clarke, whofe words are cited, p. 17. D But 24 Dissertation I. Bat, befides the Difficulties already taken no- tice of, as encumbring the fever al particular Ex- planations of the Tree of Life * there are three, which feem to lie againft the Exifience of the Tree it felf : and as thefe are not inconfiderable, they may be properly added here, at the con- clufion of the Objections, which may be urg'd againft the prevailing Opinion. The Firft of thefe Difficulties then arifes from the neceffity we are laid under by the receiv'd acceptation, of fuppofing God to have impart- ed fuch a virtue to the Tree of Life, as he could neither recall nor alter ; and therefore that he drove out the Man from Paradife, left, by eating of it, he mould (contrary to the di- vine will ) acquire Immortality ; which ( from the prefent verfion of Gen. III. 22.) feems to have been annex'd to the Tree of Life by an irrevocable Decree a . The Second Difficulty is —That if we fuppofe only one Tree, by which human life was parti- cularly to have been fupported ; how could Adam's Pofterity (fuppofing him and them to have continued innocent) have been able to come from the various parts of the Earth, and gather Fruit from it ? Or how could this one Tree of Life have fuffic'd all Mankind > a See A-Bp King's id Serm. at the end of fcis Origin of Evil. The Dissertation I. 25 The Iaft Difficulty which T mall here take no- tice of, and which will be allow'd to be of fbme weight againft the receiv'd Opinion, is this — On the fuppofition of one peculiar Tree of Life in Paradife, and that the danger was only on account of that one Tree; why was the Guard of Angels plac'd at the Extremity of the Garden b , to fecure the Tree of Life in the Middle of it ; when this Tree might have been watch'd with much more fafety and conveni- ence, if the Guard had been ftation'd clofe by the Tree it felf ? This it feems no eafy matter to account for upon the receiv'd Opinion - y but if the Interpretation, here offer'd, be admitted, the reafon will be evident. And now, whoever fhall think the Difficul- ties before enumerated to be confiderable^ and the preceding Explanations of the Tree of Life to be not fufficiently rational or well-grounded ; will readily excufe this farther Attempt to ren- der the Sacred Hiftory, in this refpedt, more defenfible. For fuch is the intention and de- b That this was the cafe is evident f) om the Hebrew Text j for in Gen. III. 24. we read 01KH P« WW1 a-inn urii nxi o>3"Dn ns py pS di~d ppn : o»nn yy "p~» nx "id^ 1 ? nasnnon it is the more neceffary to attend to the Original of this verfe, be- caufe the LXX have evidently miftook the fenfe of it ; rendring it — - K«/ e|io«At ?n Aebcpj *«/ tyTUKKn* turm gCTrtvooirt r» •sragalWa itii Tivipni' *«f *tk\i to Z*2*Zi(Aj *«/ rluu y Sd j m ma njnn pn pn Tim Which words may be render'd thus — if* germi- nare fecit Jehova Deus e terra omnem arhorem de- fiderabilem ad afpeclum, & bonam ad cibum (3 arhorem vita °; C$ in medio horti (or — in medio horti etiam) arhorem cognofcendi bonum & malum. In Englifli thus — And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every Tree that was defreable n See Dr. Rutherforth's EfTay on Virtue, p. 273. o That thefe two Expreffions are fynonimous, or that the latter is only exegetical of the former^ will appear hereafter. See p. $6, (9 $6 Dissertation I. to the Sights and that was good for Food and a Tree of Life ; and in the middle of the garden the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Leaving the vindication of this Conftru&ion to its proper place p, I fhall proceed regularly with the Hi- ftory. Accordingly, in Verfe the itfth. we read — And the Lord God commanded the Man, faying^ Of every Tree of the Garden thou may eft freely eat. 1 7. But of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil) thoujhalt not eat of 'that ; fir in the day thou eateft thereof thou JJjalt furely die. Here then was the Teft of the Obedience of our Firft Parents, and this the Covenant God was pleas'd to eftablifh with them in their ftate of Innocence ; the Condition was only one, and on this hung their Happinefs and Immor- tality. For we may reafonably maintain, fays the learned and pious Dr. Stanhope ', that not only a&ual Death, or a neceffity of dying, but even Mortality it felf, and the very capacity of dying, was properly a Penalty, and introduc'd by our firft Parents Fall. Had they not fallen, it had not been fo much as poffible for them to have died. And with regard to this conditional Im- poffibility, Man may be truly faid, in refpecl: of Body as well as Soul, to have been made p See the Anfwer to the Laft Obje&ion, at the con- clufion of thisDifTertation. q Boyle's Led. Serm. Vol* 1. p. 696. after Dissertation I. 37 after the likenefs of the Immortal God — Buc now, becaufe his Body was compounded of Materials capable in themfelves of, tho' not ori- ginally liable to, Corruption ; and becaufe his Soul was endued with a principle of Freedom, which by making a good or bad choice might determine him to the confequences ordain'd by God for either ; in this fenfe, and abfolutely fpeaking, it was pofTible for him to die, becaufe it was poffible for him to fn: fo that Man ori- ginally might not, and, fuppofing him not to have offended, never could have died. Thus ftood the Immortality of Adam, and his Inno- cence was the Tenure by which he held his Happinefs. This was fuch a Scene as might naturally be fuppos'd to move the envy and attention of Satan, that Prince of the degraded Beings, the Evil Angels. For thefe, being alfo created Free-Agents of an higher order and capacity, had, for fome acl: of Rebellion againft the Higheft, been caft down from their native Ha- bitations of Light and Joy r . Man therefore being now created, and being with his Progeny r See % Pet. II. 4. Jude VI. The Cofmogony at the be- ginning of the Univerfal Hiftory, p. 10?* 8vo. Ifaiah XIV. Iz. — How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, Son of the Morn'mg ! 13. For thou haft f aid in thine heart I will afcend into Heaven, I will exalt my Throne above the Stars of God. 14. I will afcend above the Clouds, I will be like the mofi High. 15. Tet thou fbalt be brought down to Hell. (if 38 Dissertation I. (if found worthy) defign'd, perhaps, to fill up the feveral Orders in the Celeftial Kingdom, vacated by thefe Apoftate Spirits ; what wonder if thefe Spirits fhould contrive the Fall alfo of thefe terreftrial Beings, in order to involve them in equal blacknefs with themfelves, and fo fruftrate the gracious purpofes of this New Creation ? But whatever other defigns God might have in creating Man, we may fafely conclude him created for bis own Happinefs, and his Maker s Glory ; and thefe purpofes were too great and important not to raife the fury of the Evil An- gels, and induce them to contrive his Ruin s . Not that any Apoftate Spirit could ad: by com- mand or irrefiftible impulfe ; and confequently be an independent fupream Principle of Evil. No : the power of fuch was limited, and Temp- tation was all that was allow'd, or could pro- perly belong to it. And to have permitted the temptation of our firft Parents, can be no im- peachment of the divine Goodnefs ; becaufe, without a Trial, there had been no Virtue ; nor could there, without an Attack, have been a poffibility of Victory. Tis true, God per- mitted them to be tempted by the Devil, but they had ftrength enough towithftand the force of his Words ; efpecially as God did not per- mit him to tempt them under an Angelic Ap- s Univerfal Hiflory, Book I. Ch. I. p. ia?. Edit. 8vo.. pearance, Dissertation I. 39 pearance, that fo the Quality of the Speaker might not recommend his Rhetoric c . And now, what could have been done more to this Vineyard of the Lord, that the Lord had not done in it ? — For this Vine, which his own right hand fo eminently planted, and the Branch that he made fo fir ong for himf elf > But, when he looked (when he might reafonably exped:) that it Jhould bring forth Grapes, tt brought forth Wild- Grapes. What wonder then, if God look down from Heaven^ and behold, and vift this Vine ? What wonder, if it be burnt with fire, and cut- down, and peri jh at the rebuke of his Countenance' 1 ? But, to drop from the loftinefs of prophetic Language, let us take a literal view of this im- portant Tranfa&ion.— The Chief of the fallen Spirits w ( as we may infer from Scripture, and the reafon of the thing) having fele&ed the Serpent, as being the moft fubtle among the Beafts of the Field x , and evidently therefore t See Scripture vindicated ; p. 16. u Pfalm LXXX. and Ifaiah V. w In St. John V1IL 44- the Devil is faid by our Saviour to have been a Murderer from the beginning ; which is plainly an allufion to this feduction of our firfb Parents, and the Mortality thereby introduc'd. In Rev. XII. 9. the Devil is call'd the old Serpe?it. And the Author of the Book of Wifdom, who was well acquainted with the doc- trines of the Jewifh Church, tells us — By the envy of the Devil came Death i?ito the Worlds Wifd. II. 14, x Gen. III. 1. The Serpent was more fubtle than anyBeaJl of the field. And our Saviour exhorts his Difciples to be wife as Serpents ; but to be harmlefs as Doves. Matt. X. 16. F the 40 Dissertation I. the moft proper for his purpofe, makes that the Inftrument thro' which he might form his at- tempt on the Virtue of our firlt Parents y j and as their happy Immortality depended on the not eating of the Tree in the middle of the Garden, there was of neceflity to be his Plot. Having therefore got a proper opportunity, the Serpent began to queftion the Woman about the nature of the divine Prohibition. More words, perhaps, had previoufly pafs'd ; which, not being material to the Hiftorian's brief defign, are omitted, and we are led di- rectly to the point. Chap. III. i. And the Ser- pent faid unto the Woman, Indeed] hath God f aid, Te Jball not eat of every Tree in the garden ? 2. And the Woman faid unto the Serpent , We may eat of the fruit of the Trees of the Garden. 3. But of the fruit of the Tree, which is in the midft of the Garden, God hath faid, Te Jhall not eat of that, neither Jhall ye touch it, left ye die. Here then was a fair acknowledgment of the divine Prohibition $ and therefore the Tempter had nothing left to do, but to endeavour to y Milton IX. 91.— ———For in the wily Snake Whatever Sleights none would fufpicious mark, As from his Wit and native Subtiky Proceeding ; which, in other Beafts obferv'd, Doubt might beget of Diabolic pow> Adfive within beyond the fenfe of Brute. And in z Cor. XL 3. we jread — that the Serpent beguiled Eve through his Subtilty. perfuade Dissertation I. 41 perfuade her of her having been mifinform'd; and that (he fhould not die, whatever fhe might have been threatend with to keep her in awe and fubjeclion. Wherefore he immediately re- plies— 4. Te jhall not fur ely die : and, to give weight to his afTertion, he cunningly alludes to the Expreffion of jm SID nym \*y, made ufe of by God in a very different fenfe ; and, quite in Character 2 , perverts it to his own purpofe in the following manner, y. So far from dying, fays he, that God hnoweth (he hath told you himfelf in the very name of the Tree ) that in the day ye eat thereof \ then your Eyes /hall be opened ; and ye Jhall be equal to God yy\ H")1D 'JH* knowing good and evil. Thus artfully was the Bait prepar'd ; and we find that it went down, after fome little deli- beration. The Woman probably was taken with the beautiful appearance of the Serpent ; was agreeably furprizd to hear him fpeak arti- culately j and was prejudic'd ftrongly in his fa- vour, becaufe he had fo feeming a Concern for her better welfare. 'Tis alfo probable, that the Serpent eat of the fruit of this Tree firft himfelf, and made that eating of his an argu- ment againft theMortality they had been taught to expect from eating it—- 1 have eaten (he % John VIII. 44. — The Devil teas a Murderer from the fogiy~mg, and abode not in the Truth, becaufe there is no Truth in hint j for he is a Liar, and the Father of it. V 2 might 42 Dissertation I. might Jay) and you ftill fee me eat, but I die not ; nay my Capacity is enlarg'd : I fpeak ; I reafon. How greatly then fliall Ye be exalted ! Ye (hall be like God, knowing all the principles of good and evil ; and fo be on an equality with that Deity, who would invidioufly keep you dependent on himfelfi and prevent your greater Happinefs a . From the Serpent's eating the fruit of this Tree then the Woman takes encouragement; and therefore Mofes lays down this as the firft principle on which (he reafons. The fecond is, that it was pleafant to the eye ; and the laft, that it was (as fhe was now inform'd ) a Tree dejire- able to make her wife. 'Twas this, the laft in- ducement, that (truck her deepeft j — to be on a level with God — to know good and evil — were powerful incitements; but had (he gi- ven due weight to the confideration of her Creator's Prohibition (as doubtlefs it mud have occurr'd frequently to her mind) (he had been effectually fecur'd. But, however fatal the con- fequence, equal to God fhe would be j and fo •a That die Serpent did eat of this fruit is probable be- caufe we read, that the Woman fav> the Tree teas good for Food. Now as the WordPro muft be underftood here as an act of the Mind, and is frequently fo us'd, it had been better rendered confider'd. But the Woman could not con- fider, or form any inference, that this Tree was good for Food, unlefs fhe had feen it tafted by fome one ; and this, in the prefent cafe, could be no other than the Serpent. prefently Dissertation I. 43 prefently eat, to put herfelf in poffeflion of fu- perior greatnefs : tho' fhe had no farther affu- rance of obtaining it , than the word of a Creature very inferior to herfelf, and that in exprefs contradiction to the command of her Creator b . Hurried and heated by the rafh a&ion, and fo full of expectation as to leave no room for reflection, [lie feeks her Husband ; to make him partaker of her New Food, that fo they might (hare the imaginary Happinefs. The Arguments, by which (lie had been captivated were, no doubt, laid forth in all their forcible engagements; but we have reafon to think, that Adam, more cautious and cool, was better fortify 'd by the Command of his Creator. Yet, however guarded he was, or whatever expoftu- lations he may be fuppos'd to have made with his fallen Wife ; we are inform'd, that he alfo eat with her> or asjhe had done before him ( for the words will fignify either;) and by this fatal conjunction in the Sin, became a neceflary com- panion in the Punifhment. b Milton IX. % 9 6. O faireft of Creation, laft and bell Of all God'sWorks ; Creature, in whom excell'd Whatever can to Sight or Thought be found Holy, Divine, Good, Amiable or Sweet ! How art thou loft ! how on a fudden loft ! Defac'd, deflowr'd ; and now to Death devote ! We 44 Dissertation I. We might be indued to believe, that the arguments of his Wife, with which fhe had been furnifh d by the Serpent, had fome influence on his compliance j and that the fubtle Tempter chofe to attack him thus at fecond hand, by making the Wife the feducer of the Husband ; as every word from one he fo dearly Iov'd would come with double force, and a much ftronger probability of perfuafion. But there is a re- markable affertion of St. Pauls, in his firft Epiftle to Timothy c j where, among the rea- fons for the Superiority of the Man over the Woman, he gives this — Eve^ being deceived, was in the TranfgreJJion ; but Adam was not de- ceived. Now, if Adam was not deceiv'd, he muft have eaten with a full conviction of the confequence, and out of love and afFe&ion for his miferable Wife d . But it feems moft ratio- nal to fuppofe the Apoftle here to mean — that Eve was firft deceiv'd, and that immediately by the Serpent ,- but that Adam eat, without fee- ing the Serpent, after the deception was fi~ nifh'd - y and therefore that he was partly in- due'd by the arguments, and partly by the foli- citations of Her, with whom, as he had fha- c i Tim. II. 14. d Milton IX. 997. ■ He fcrupled not to eat Againft his better Knowledge ; nor deceived, But fondly overcome with female Charm. 1 165. Who might have liv'd, and jcy'd immortal Blifs, Yet willingly chofe rather Death with Thee. red Dissertation I. 45 red in Happinefs, he refolv'd alfo to fhare in Mifery e . Thus fell the firft happy Pair, forfeiting at once their title to Happinefs and Immortality; for the terms of the Covenant, as before ob- ferv'd, were — That they mould continue Im- mortal as long, and only as long, as they con- tinued Obedient. How long indeed the golden age of Innocence did continue, is not certain; nor, perhaps, relative to the cafe in hand. But that they did not immediately tranfgrefs the divine command, and efpecially on the day of their creation (as has been fometimes imagin'd) feems clear from this— that (befides the fhort- nefs of one day for the feveral aclions done by Adam before his Fall) God himfelf, after the fixth day was pall, declar'd every thing to be very good; which he could not have done, if Sin, that greatefi Evil y had then enter'd into the world f . But leaving the Time of their Uprightnefs* which is impoffible to be determind, we are alTur'd of this — that they fell ; and the firft thing we read concerning them as fallen is an e James I. 13, 14, 15;. Let no man fay , when he is tempt" ed, I am tempted of God ; for God cannot be tempted with Evil, neither tempt ith he any man j but every man is t mpted y when he is drawn away of his own Luf, and enticed. Then when Lufi hath conceived, it br'mgeth forth Sin ; and Sin 7 when it is fnijhed, bringeth forth Death. f Univerfal Hiftory, Book I. Ch. I. p. 121. Edit. Svo. obfervation 46 Dissertation I. obfervation of the Hiftorian — that the Eyes of them both were opened^. The Serpent, as we have feen, had before told them, that their Eyes mould be open'd, and that they fliould be equal to God ; and therefore the firft thing Mofes fays of them is — The Eyes of them both (indeed) were opened, but h they knew that they were naked. And as this was the only Know- ledge they acquir'd j fo, in compliance with this recent fenfe of Shame, they platted a few Leaves of the Fig-Trec together, and made themfelves Coverings. To account rationally for this fenfe of Bodily Shame, which we are exprefsly told they were affected with now, and not before the Fall ,- it may ( perhaps ) be properly obferv'd — that this Tranfgreffion of theirs was an undue Eleclion ; and that by this undue Election the Afcendant or Over -Balance was gain'd by the natural Ap- petites and Affections, which had been now in- dulged, above the powers of Reafon, which had been arbitrarily controll'd, and brought in- to Subjection by a lawlefs Ufurpation. So that we fee how the inward Rectitude of Man was loft, as well as what is meant by Original Cor- ruption ; and may confequently account, why Adam mould become fenfible of Shame, and g Gen. III. 7. h The frequent neceffity of thus rendering the Parti- cle 1 appears from Noldius ; See his Tarticula Hebrxa^ Part. 1 Signif. 59. be Dissertation I. 47 be agitated with irregular Paflions, as foon as his governing Power was dethron'd, and he had loft that original influence, which before kept all the faculties of the Body and appetites of Nature in perfect order. The next thing, and what we might natural- ly expecl: to. follow, is the appearance pf Jehovah 5 ivhofe Voice they beard, as it came " louder and louder thro the garden, in the evening of the Day. Upon the firft found of this awful voice ( for 'tis probable God call'd to them more than once k ) the Criminals, not knowing readily what to offer on their own behalf, hid them- selves from the prefence of the Lord among the Trees of the Garden. But tho' God , whofe i That the word "jSnriD may be applied to the Voice of God, is plain ; for "pH is us'd in Exod. XIX. 19. in conjunction with the fame word Vlp ; and that it muft be fo applied here, appears from Gen. III. 10. k This feems evident from Adam's own words, Chap. III. 10. — I beard thy Voice in the garden^ and I was afraid — and hid my [elf . The cafe then feems to be this — In the evening of the day God calls upon Adam to appear be- fore him, and the Voice of God is faid ( in the majefty of* the Hebrew phrafe ) to walk towards him in the garden ; and perhaps CZDVH nVT7 may be render'd — in the Wind of the day^ that is, the Voice of God came to him waving in the wind or breeze of the day. But Adam, inftead of anfwering , endeavours to conceal himfelf. Upon this, God fummons him again ; and now, left he fhould aggra- vate his guilt by a longer filence, he anfwers — that, upon hearing God's voice at firft, he was ftruck with confufion • and had therefore endeavour'd to retire from him. G Eyes 48 Dissertation I. Eyes ( in the Prophet's Stile l ) run to and fro thro the whole Earth, faw well the Subterfuge, which Adam had weakly chofen, and the caufe alfo of his flying thus unufually m from his pre- fence ; yet, to increafe his confufion, he calls unto him— Where art thou ? In anfwer to which dreadful Summons the trembling Sinner reply 'd — / heard thy Voice in the Garden , and I was afraid, becaufe I was naked ; and I hid myfelf. Here it may be obferv'd, that Le Clerc, and thofe who with him would have the word Naked here to fignify — that he had finned, do not feem to write confidently with the Text. For how ftrange would it appear, if, when Adam had faid — / heard thy Voice in the Garden, and I hid my felf, becaufe I have finned, that God fhould anfwer— Who told thee that thou waft Naked? Haft thou eaten &c. that is, (if thefe Inter- preters are confident with themfelves) after Adam had confefid his having finned, God is fuppos'd to fay — Who told thee that thou haft finned? Haft thou finned . J —This certainly is in- confiftent enough ; for God knew that Adam could not want an information that he had finn'd, efpecially when his fearful conduct fq loudly proclaim'd it, and even Adam himfelf had that moment confefs'd it. 1 Zech. IV. 10. m Milton IX. 1080. How fhall 1 henceforth behold The Face of God or Angel, erft with Joy And Rapture oft beheld ? But Dissertation I. 49 But the fenfe feems to be this —Adam, while innocent, was naked and not afham'd ; when guilty, he became fenfible of Shame * which was owing (as before obferv'd ) to the Afcen- dant which his Paffions gain'd over his Reafon, at the time of his tranfgreffion. For then, as thefe Paffions were become fuperior in him, he began to feel the effects of their inftigation, and fo from a fenfe of Shame cover'd his Waift with Fig -Leaves. This fenfe of Nakednefs then was the effect of his Sin ; and therefore it is no wonder he fled from the Lord among the Trees of the Garden, to conceal (if poffible) the Fig- Leaves he had twifted round him. Let us now reconfider the Text. And the Lord God f aid— Where art thou ? And he faid~I heard thy Voice in the Garden^ and I was afraid becaufe I was Naked; and I bid my f elf. He feems here to bear off from the confejjion of the Caufe, by acknowledging only the Ejfecl -, and owns fo far, that he hid himfelf becaufe he had found himfelf to be Naked. But God, who knew that this difcovery, or fenfe of his Nakednefs, could only arife from his Tranfgref- lion, interrogates him again thus — Who told thee that thou waft Naked ? No one could (hew thee this —this muft be thy own difcovery, and is a ftrong prefumption of thy lofs of Innocence. — Haft thou then eaten of the Tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou Jljouldeft not eat ? Or, G 2 as 50 Dissertation I. as it is more fpirited in the Original n , What ! Of the Tree, which I commanded thee not to eat^ of T HAT haft thou eaten ? The Man, con- founded with the thunder of this enquiry, and expecting inftant Death, if he could not offer fomething in his ownExcufe, throws the blame upon his Wife ; which, however, he did not intend fhould reft there, but recoil back upon his Creator. J have eaten, fays he, but the Woman gave me of the Tree ; even the Woman^ whom Thou gaveft to be with me, or to be my conftant Companion. Upon this God ad- drefs'd himfelf to the Woman, faying, What- it this that Thou haft done ? The Woman, who had now ftill more to fear from the unexpected impeachment of her Husband, pafles her guilt off upon the Serpent ; the Serpent , fays fhe, beguiled me, and I did eat. The Criminals having thus confefs'd their Tranfgreffion, with the only poor Plea which each of them had to offer ; God proceeds to pronounce their feveral Sentences. That the Tempter, the grand Criminal, was prefent is very reafonable to fuppofe ; whether we confi- der his ftay as voluntary, to enjoy the fruits of his Victory and Triumph, and overhear the doom of the fallen Pair ; or whether we con- fider it as involuntary, and that he was detain'd n Gen. III. ir, S^N »rtoS 7n*U* ")WX yyn fOH : dSdk uoa or Dissertation I. 51 or recall'd by almighty and omniprefent A- gency. Yet tho* the Tempter was prefent, God does not interrogate him, but begins with the denunciation of bis punifhment. The Ser~ pent indeed had been only the Inftrument made ufe of; but as the Tempter had been a Serpent in appearance, God, in his curfeupon this Tempter, ufes fuch expreffions as fuited entirely with the nature of the Serpent ; yet at the fame time the Curfe was fuch as affe&ed the evil Spirit conceal'd under that appearance. And this it feems reafonable tofuppofe our firfh Parents might have fome notion of, on the fol- lowing account — They had very fadly expe- rienc'd the ajpirances of this Creature to be faife, and inftead of a Friend they had met with a moft deceitful Enemy -, wherefore they muft fuppofe, from the power of his ajjault, that he was fomething more than a Brute, and, from the malice of his deception, that he was of an evil Nature : and farther, perhaps, they could not then reafon. But even this is not certain. We know that there was a neceffity for God's making Revela- tions to Adam in Paradife, and that a frequent intercourfe between the Creator and Creature muft have fubfifted before the Fall °. This then o See Dr. Burnet's Demonflration, Boyle's Led:. Serm. Vol. 3. p. 454. Mr. Stackhoufe, in the Apparatus to his Hiftoiy, page 8. Bp Sherlock on Prophecy, Difcourfe the JIM. p. 53. being 52 Dissertation I. being granted, we may reafonably fuppofe, that God had made known to the firft Pair fo important a tranfadtion as the Apoftacy andPu- nijhmetit of the Rgbel Angels. Efpecially as this might be a very ufeful information, and be fet forth before them for an Example, left they alfo mould fall under the fame condemnation ; and they might thereupon reafon — If God (pared ?iut the Angels of Heaven, how much lefs ivill he Jpare us the low inhabitants of Earth? It appearing then that fuch an information might have been ufeful, we may prefume it was actu- ally made ; fince God certainly neglected no information that might conduce to the Benefit of his Creatures. On this fuppofition then all the Inconfiftency, imputed by fome to this Sen- tence on the Serpent, will be taken away ; and we (hall fee it fhine forth in the ftri&eft con- formity with reafon. It is cloath'd in the form of a Parable or Similitude, in the manner of the Eaftern ftile ; and as the neccjfity of the prefent cafe requir'd. The nature of a Parable or Si- militude is — to mean more than is expreft ; and no juft Critic will condemn iuch a Parable or Similitude, if it mould not hold in minute circumftances, fo long as the important parts of it correfpond and mutually reflecl: Light upon each other. Being thus far prepar'd, we come now to the Judgment of the Offenders, which is (if any thing Dissertation I. 53 thing can be fuppos'd to be) folemn and auguft. We fee affembled together God, in his Shechi- nah, as the Judge i the Devil, veii'd under a Serpent, as the Deceiver ; and the firft human Pair, who thro' his deceit were become Tran£ greffors. The Serpent (in appearance) having been the firft in mifchief, is doom'd firft, and in the following words -*- Becaufe thou haft done this, be thou cur fed above all Cattle, and above every Be aft of the Field ; upon thy Belly Jhalt thou go p, and Duft fualt thou eat all the Days of thy Life : And I will put Enmity between Thee and the Woman, and between Thy Seed and Her Seed" 1 5 thisjhall bruife thy Heady and thou Jhalt bruife his Heel. Now if we confider this as a Sentence on the Serpent only, it will appear trifling and ridi- culous T ; if as a Sentence on the Devil only, there are fome circumftances fcarce applicable to that fignification. And if we fay it was a Sentence upon both (as it is very frequent in Scripture -Prophecy to vail a more important meaning under a lefs important meaning) then we fhall be ask'd, how Adam could be fenfible of that, when he knew nothing of the nature of the Evil Angels ; and if he was not fenfible p See Mr. Mede, Difcourfe the 41 ft. p. a 31. q Galat. III. 16. — He faith not unto Seeds , as of many j but as of one, and to thy Seed, which is Chrifi. r See Bp Sherlock on Prophecy, Difcourfe 3d. p. 6z, Of 54 Dissertation I. of that, the chief meaning in it could be of no ufe or confolation to him. In fhort, it feems only explainable, (and very rationally explaina- ble then ) on the Suppofition before laid down — that Adam had, by way of caution and to ferve other great purpofes, particularly the prefent, been pre-acquainted with the nature of the Fallen Angels ; and, affifted by fuch an information, he muft have eafily apprehended the full meaning of this Sentence. In a Literal Scnfe, he heard the Curfe pro- nounc'd in the cleareft terms upon the Serpent y which had been the Inftrument in this decep- tion. And that this Creature was here a pro- per Object of punifhment appears from this — that, fince all the Brute Creatures are and were created fox. the Benefit of Man, the Benefit of Man was intended by this punifhment on the Serpent s ; as it was in all Ages to continue a living vilible Evidence of God's difpleafure againft Sin, and of the certainty of the Fall, from the otherwife unaccountable Enmity fub- fifting thro' the World between Man and the Serpent c . s See Mr. Mede, Difcourfe the 41ft. p. Z30. t The wifeft Naturalifts among the Heathens ( proper Witneffes in the prefent cafe) have agreed that there is a mortal Enmity between the Human and the Serpentine fpecies. See, among others, Pliny, in his Natural Hi- ftory, VII. z i and Lucretius, IV. 64.Z. In Dissertation I. 55 In a Parabolical Senje the Curfe has been fulfilld with equal exactnefs, fo far as the juft- nefs of a compleat Parable requires it • and in this view we are now to confider it, as a Sen- tence alfo on the Devil u . The nature of this evil Spirit we have f uppos'd Adam pre-acquaint- ed with j and therefore he mull infer, after the event, that this was the Being which fe- duc'd him, and confequently the Being to be now fentenc'd before him. — The Devil then, with his Adherents, was here curs'd by God, and became a greater object of the divine dif- pleafure and of human hatred, than all the other Orders of Beings — he was probably con- demn'd to greater prefent anguifh, and more dreadful expectations hereafter — he was al- ready become the profefs'd Enemy of the Wo- man and her Pofterity ; and therefore one, to be born of the Woman, was to enter the lifts againft him, and with irreconcileable oppofi- tion purfue him and all his black Ailociates — the efFecl: of which grand conteft was to be the Devils bruifing the Heel, or purfuing to Death him that was to be born emphatically his Enemy j but that this Seed of the Woman was to bruife his Head, break the power, and lay wafte the kingdom of darknefs— and as the De- ceiver was only to touch the material and in- ferior part of his Adverfary, the Redeemer was U See Mr. Mede, Difcourfe the 41ft. p. 229. H to 56 Dissertation I. to crufh the potency of his fpiritual Foe, and bind him in everlafting Chains w . To this Explanation I beg to add a paffage from Dr. Burnet x . — Bruifing the Serpent's Head, fays he, implies the defeating his con- trivances againft Mankind. For firft ; as he thought, by feducing the firft Pair, to have brought on their Death, and fo have made an end of the whole Species at once j God pro- mifes that the Woman mould live to have Seed. Secondly ; as he feduc'd the Woman under the fpecious pretence of Friendfhip, while he intended her Ruin ; a War is declar'd againft the Devil and his Party, which mould end in the ruin of them and their devices. And third- ly j as the Devil thought by drawing them into Sin and under the wrath of God, to bring them under a certainty of Death, and deprive them of the Happinefs they were made for j God de- clares the Devils Policy mould be defeated by the Seed of the Woman : in which is implied a poiitive Promife— that Mankind, tho' by the envy of the Devil become finful and therefore mortal, mould receive thro' the Seed of the Woman Forgiveness of Sins, the "RefurreUion of the Body, and Life everlafting. I have been the more minute in the Explica- tion of this firft and moft important Prophecy, w See Bp Sherlock on Prophecy, Difcourfe 3d. p. 70. x Boyle's Led. Serm. Vol. III. p. ?i(>. as Dissertation I. 57 as it is the very Groundwork and Foundation- Stone, on which our Redemption is built. And it has been prov'd by Bp Sherlock, in his very excellent Book on Prophecy y , that Prophecy muft have been an efTential part of fuch a Sin- ner's Religion. For, fays that Great Author, had our firft Parents been doomd only to Trouble and Mortality , without any well- grounded hope or confidence in God • they muft have look d on themfelves as rejected by their Maker, as deliver'd up to forrow in this world, and as having no hope in any other. Upon this footing there could have been no Religion ; for a fenfe of Religion without Hope is a ftate of phrenzy and diftra&ion, void of all inducements to Love and Obedi- ence. They would ( in the language of the Pfalmift z ) have fat down in darknefs and in the Jhadow of Death-, being faft bound in mifery and iron ; becaufe they had rebelled againfl the word of the Lord, and lightly regarded the counfel of the mojl Highefi. Then had their heart been brought down through heavinefs • becaufe, when they fell, there was none to help them. If therefore God intended to preferve them as Objects of his Mercy, if he intended they fhould look upon him in a milder light than as an Almighty Being cloath'd with Terrour ; it was abfolutely ne- y Difcourfe 3d. p. 5-3. z Pfalm CVII. io, 11, 12. H 2 ceffary 58 Dissertation I. cefTary he fhould communicate fo much hope to them, as might be a rational foundation for their future endeavours to reconcile them- felves to him by a better obedience. And this was exactly the cafe here in this Prophecy and Promife of a Redeemer a . But probably one Obje&ion may be ftiil rais'd here, which is this — Supposing Adam from a pre-acquaintance with the nature of the Fallen Angels, might fee the Devil fentenc'd in the parabolical fenfe of this Prophecy; how could he poffibly conceive fo clearly the oppo- fite Character of the 'Redeemer, which, in the nature of things, could not have been reveal'd to him before ? I anfwer, that the words of this Prophecy will evidently fupport us infay- a That this Prophecy was meant of a Redeemer, and was fulfilFd in Ckrift alone, in the compleat fenfe, is granted by all Chriftians except the Roman Catholicks. For it maybe proper to obferve here, that their Vulgate Verfion makes it a Prophecy of the Virgin Mary, and in oppofition to Senfe and Grammar reads it — Inimicitias ponam inter te & Mulierem, <& Semen tuum & Semen illius ; IPSA conteret caput tuum, & tu infidiaberis calcaneo ejus. But that the Original will not bear this, will appear to any capable examiner ; and a concern for the honour of our Redeemer mould make us abhor fo blafphemous a Cor- ruption. For this Verfion is more than authorized by Po- pifli Infallibility • and Epifcopius (Oper. Theol. 176.) is favourable in his cenfure, when he fays— ^Concilium Tri- dentinum perperam egifle, quando earn ( Vulg. Verf. ) au- thentkam fecit, & ipfis Hebrasis Grascifque fontibus pre- fer e?idam effe judicavit. See alfo Grojfius^ Tom. T. p, 35". ing Dissertation I. 59 ing— that Adam might certainly from them infer and expert A Redeemer ; one, to be born of the Woman, who mould re-inftate them in the poffeilion of Happinefs, and recover by his victory what they had loft by being defeat- ed. And we may advance a ftep farther, and fay— that Adam, probably foon after the divine Sentences were pafs'd, was acquainted with the very manner of this promis'd Redemptio?i j name- ly—that this Seed of the Woman fhould die, to atone for the Sins of him and his pofterity ; and by virtue of his Blood they mould, tho' now become mortal, rife again to everlafting Life. For I hope to prove in the following DifTer- tation, that Sacrifice was inftituted by God juft at this time ; and if Sacrifice, then certainly the Nature and End of Sacrifice ; and if the Nature and End of Sacrifice ( which was the Shadow of good things to come) was at that time made known, certainly the Death of the Re- deemer was then actually promis'd. Tho' in what Age this Sacred Power was to arife, and with what peculiar circumfiances his Birth and Death were to be attended, the firft Pair might not be inform'd ; it being more than probable that they expected this Redeemer in the pcrfon of one of their own Sons. And had they known this Happinefs was to have been poft- pon'd for four thoufand Years, they would probably 60 Dissertation I. probably (notwithftanding the encouragement they had receiv'd) have funk into extream defpair b . I fliall now go on to the Sentences on our firft Parents — And can a more interefting, a more affecting Scene be difplay'd before Us their Children ? We fee our great Progenitors Hand trembling to receive their doom ; fome- what however rais'd from the depth of fear by that merciful vengeance, which God had ma- nifefted in the Sentence on their Deceiver c . And here we may conceive infinite Juftice de- manding Satisfaction, and the Death of the Offenders, while infinite Mercy interceded for their Pardon ; and who but a Being equally in- finite in Wifdom could have acted here to the Honour of all his Attributes ? — But fuch is God ! He had already bid the human Pair, in his Mercy, not to defpair under the prefent evidence of his indignation • fince one was to be bom of the Woman, who mould bruife the head of that Serpent, which had thus betray'd them into Mifery. But that they might not go b See Dr. Delaney's Revelation examin'd with can- dour ; Vol. I. p. 103. c Bp Sherlock, on Prophecy, Difcourfe 3d.— It could not therefore but be fome comfort to them to hear the Serpent firft condemn'd ; and to fee, that however he had prevail'd againfl them, he had gain'd no Victory over their Maker, who was able to affert his own Ho- nour, and to punifh this great Author of Iniquity. unpumili'd Dissertation I. 61 unpunilli'd for fo high a tranfgreffion, he, in his Juftice, pronounces the following Sen- tences ; which are weighty, and worthy the mouth of him from whom they proceed. To the Woman, firft in the tranfgreffion, he fays — / will greatly multiply thy Sorrow and thy Conception, in Sorrow thoujhalt bring forth Chil- dren • and thy Defire Jhall be to thy Husband, and he Jhall rule over thee. However flatly fome may think of this Sentence, treating it as im- material and of little confequence j it is really fo fevere, that (we are told by Naturalifts) the Pains of a Woman arifing from bearing and bringing forth Children are much greater than thofe of any Brute Creature in the fame Cir- cumftances. This feems a Chaftifement great indeed for one, who has a Sovereignty over the Beafts, and is of afar fuperior nature. And the latter part of the Sentence has been gene- rally look'd upon, by the Female part of the hu- man fpecies, as a Punifhment very grievous to be born. The fenfe of this Sentence (which is not a Curfe, as the Serpent's was) may, per- haps, be more properly given thus— Multiply- ing! will multiply thy Sorrow and thy Conception y (or— -the Sorrow of thy Conception d ) in Pain Jhalt thou bring forth Children j and to thy Huf- d An Hendyadis, a figure very frequently made ufe of in the Sacred as well as Profane Authors. band 62 Dissertation I. band Jhall be thy Obedience e , for f he Jhall rule over thee. Or, perhaps, the latter part may be more properly tranflated thus— In pain Jhah thou bring forth Children, yet § thy defre Jhall be unto thy Husband ■ and he Jhall rule over thee. As to the conclufion of this Sentence on the Woman, A-Bp King obferves h , that it was very equitable ; the Woman, fays be, had at- tempted to (hake off the Government of God, and therefore God lays her under a double Sub- jection —to himfelf, and alfo to her Husband. The Judgment clofes with the Sentence upon Adam, which was as follows— Becaufe thou hafl hearkened unto the voice of thy Wife, and haji eaten of the Tree, of which I commanded thee, faying) thou Jhah not eat of it j Cur fed is the Ground for thy fake \ in Sorrow Jh alt thou eat of e See Le Clerc upon this place. f See Nold. Heb. Partic. 1 Signif. 37. g Ibid. 9 & 6%. h See his Sermon at the end of the Origin of Evil, Vol. II. p. 72. i Hefiod thus defcribes the happinefs of the golden Age, in his E^y. *«/ Hpp. B ui* J ecx-qoSoi fy/J&V tX,6V1t$ } Noo-tpiv amg rt vnvav x«y ««£&©■" aSt it ^«Aav K#g/TP» Jl' Kfiipi £«Aif©"' #g&f» And Virgil has given us the condition of the Earth after the Curfe, in words that feem to be a Paraphrafe of the Sacred Paffage before us— it Dissertation I. 63 it all the days of thy Life. Thorns alfo and Unfiles JJoall it bring forth to thee, and thou Jhalt eat the Herb of the Field. In the fweat of thy face Jhalt thou eat Bread, 'till thou return unto the ground, for out of it wafi thou taken • fur Dufi thou art) and unto Dufi Jhalt thou return. Let us now fee what is alfo obfervable in this Sentence on our Father Adam ; the reafon of whofe punifhment being previoufly laid down, God proceeds to pronounce the Punifhment it felf— Becaufe thou haft hearkened to the Voice of thy Wife, in direct contempt of my autho- rity, and haft eaten of the fruit of that Tree, which I commanded thee not to eat of; Curied therefore fhall be the Ground for thy fake, and the punifhment of thy tranfgreflion ; in for- rowful refledion and with great labour fhalc thou eat of that, all the days of thy future Life. For it fhall bring forth Thorns and Weeds in fuch abundance, as will (unlefs rooted up with Georg. I. \%-j. Ipfaque TeUus Omnia liberius, nullo pofce?ite^ ierebat. Hie malum virus Serpentibus addidit atris Turn variaj venere artes. Labor omnia vincit Improbus, & duris urgens in rebus Egefias. Mox <& frumentis labor additus y ut mala culmos Efler. rubigo, fegnifque horreret in arvis Carduus ; intereunc Segetes, fubit afpera fylva, Lappseque, Tribulique ; interque nitentia culta Infelix folium & fieriles dombiantur avenge. " ■■■ Sic omnia Fatis hi pejus ruere, ac retro fublapfa referri. I continual 64 Dissertation I. continual pains) overfpread the Land, and leave thee but little room for that which is hence- forth to be thy Suftenance. For know, that, inftead of the luxuriancy of Paradife, and the delicious Fruits of the Trees I here gave thee ; thou fhalt now feed on the Herb of the Field, and the produce of the Earth. The Ground, thus become lefs fertil k , will call for fo much culture and manuring to enable it to yield thee Fruit j that thou fhalt not eat Bread, but in the fweat of thy Brow. This henceforth mail be thy way of life, 'till thou return unto the Ground , out of which thou waft at firft created. For, tho' Death is not immediately inflicted upon thee, yet thou art become mor- tal ; and as thy compofition is Duft, fo after a period of days thou fhalt return unto Duft again. How fevere , how awful is this Sentence ; and yet how mild, how mix'd with Mercy, in comparifon to what Adam might reafonably, and probably did expedt from his offended God ! Wherefore we may now fuppofe Adam, with uplifted hands to Heaven, to have broke k God made this Earth amiable and fweet, and the World a Scene of Happinefs to a Creature that was to continue in it ; but when Sin introduc'd Death, God in his Goodnefs curs'd the Earth by a diminution of" its excellence, to make the World lefs deiireable to a Crea- ture, who was now fo foon to leave it. Dr. Delaney's Revelation examined with satidonr^ Vol.1, p. 77. forth Dissertation I. 65 forth into ftrains of Gratitude like the follow- ing of the devout King David — Praife the Lord y my Soul ; and forget not all his Benefits f The Lord is full of CompaJJion and Mercy, long-fuffer- ing, and of great Goodnefs ! He hath not dealt with TJj- after our Sins> nor rewarded 'Us accord- ing to our Wickednejfes ! For look how high the Heaven is in comparifon of the Earth, fo great is his Mercy ! Look how wide alfo the Eaft is from the Wefts fo far hath he fet our Sins from IJs / In the multitude of the forrows I had in my hearty thy Comforts have refrejhed my Soul ! The Snares of Hell overtook me ; but the Lord is become my Salvation ! Thro' the greatnefs of thy power Jhall thine Enemy be found a Ltar unto thee ! Who then is he among the Clouds, that Jhall be compared unto the Lord ! The J^ight-Hand of the Lord hath the Preeminence ; the Jfyght-Hand of the Lord bringeth mighty things to pafs ! The Lord hath chajlened and corrected me, but he hath not given me over unto immediate Death ! As long then as I live, I will magnify thee on this manner, and lift up my Hands in thy Name ! The Offenders being now fentenc'd, we might naturally exped: to fee them inftantly driven forth from Paradife. But there are two things the Hiftorian mentions as previous to that banifhment, which are well worthy our confideration. The firft is — And Adam called his JVife's name Eve-, becaufejhe was the mother I 2 of 66 Dissertation I. of all living K Tis a matter of fome furprize, that Le Clerc fhould make this paflage a pre- fumption of the Hiftorian's breaking the order of time ; when nothing could poffibly come on more regularly , and ftrike us more agreeably than this Incident, in this place. God had threaten'd Adam, that if he eat of the forbid- den Tree, he mould furely die. He did eat, and what could he expert? Defpair, we know, is the natural attendant upon Guilt; and Adam could not think to efcape Death, which is only a Natural Evil, when he had introduced Sin, that Moral Evil, into the World. How plea- fing then muft be the furprize, when he found that thro' the divine clemency he was (till to live for fome time ; and that his Wife was to bring forth Children, one of which was to break in pieces his Oppreflbr, and redeem the World ! And confequently, what more natural to follow, than that Adam fhould be entirely reconcild to his Wife ; who, having been the caufe of his Happinefs loft, was alfo to be the caufe of his Happinefs regain'd ? He had be- fore calfd her Woman^ as her common Name, or a Name for her and all her Sex, becaufe fhe was taken out of Man ; and now he call'd her Eve, becaufe he had found me was ftill to be the Mother of all living. Or, as fome inter- pret it, becaufe in her Fall (and his conlequent I Gen. III. ao. on Dissertation I. 67 on hers) all Men being become mortal, in her Seed all Men were to be made alive. This Nomination of his Wife then may be look'd upon as an Act of Faith, exercis'd by Adam upon the words of God juft deliverd in the Sentence on the Serpent. But the propriety of either of the Names, given by Adam to his Wife, can only appear to a perfon acquainted with He- brew Learning. The other incident previous to the Banifh- ment of our fir ft Parents is — Unto Adam alfo, and to his Wife did the Lord God make Coats of Skins, and cloathed them ; or, as it may be ren- der' d — Moreover the Lord God made for Adam and for his Wife Coats of Skins, and cloathed them m . This, however unconcerning an In- formation it may appear to fome, would not have been inferted in the middle of this folemn Hiftory, unlefs fomething of moment were contain'd in it. The Prophecy our firft Parents had heard, in the fentence on the Serpent, was doubtlefs, at the inftant of its delivery, like aLightJl)ining in a Dark place j juft fufficient to banifh the Darknefs, and enliven the Breaft with a gleam of Hope and Expectation. But here the comfortable Dawn breaks forth, and the Day-Star may be faid (with a beautiful pro- priety) to arife in their Hearts. For now, as God knew the Prophecy abovemention'd could m Gen. III. n. not 68 Dissertation I. not as yet be properly underftood, he inftituted Animal Sacrifice, farther to illuftrate and un- fold this grand event — to be a continual vifible Prophecy of the fame future Redemption— that, by the prefent vicarious Sacrifice, Man might confefs the Death he himfelf had deferv'd to fufFer — and laftly, as without Jhedding Blood there was to be no T^emijjion n , (and as, in con- fequence thereof, Adam's Repentance would not have been fufficient without an Atonement) that he and his Pofterity might have recourfe by Faith, for the remiffion of their Sins, to this Inftitution ; as being typical of the Lamb of God, virtually Jlain from the foundation of the World . What appears indeed in this verfe, at firft light, is only this — that Adam and his Wife were now cloath'd with Garments made of the Skins of Beafts p ; which it would be abfurd to n Heb. IX. 12. o Rev. XIII. 8. See Bp Wefton's Serm. Vol. II. p. 191. p There are fome, who will have the word Ity in this place to refer to the Skin of Adam and his Wife, and the meaning to be — And the Lord God made for the firft Pair Coats, or Coverings, of their Skin. But the Hebrew word would probably have been then CDT^ , with the Pro- noun fuffix'd to it. Yet, fetting afide this remark, when we have prov'd Sacrifice to have been divinely inftituted, and at this very time, (as will appear in the fecond Difler- tation) 1 think there can remain no doubt about this paf- fage. Efpecially as Cloppenburg ( in his Sacrificiorum Pa- triarchal. Schola, p. 13.) has inform'd us that — In Scrip- fuppofe Dissertation I. 69 iuppofe meant any thing more than that fuch Skins were conveniently faften'd round their Bodies q . But as they could not have ventur'd upon this method ofcloathing themfelves with- out an order or leave from God, ( they having naturally no power over the Lives of Animals') we are here told, that God made thefe Coats for them » that is, he gave -them leave to kill the Animals, and perhaps direction how to adapt their Skins to the parts of their Bodies : for it is certain, that God is frequently faid to do that, which is done by bis order and appro- tura. vox Heb. "PJJ nufquam reperitur alia fignificaticne, quam pro externa animalimn pelle ufurpata. To which he fubjoins this Obfervation — Deinde videtur hie effe prima origo legis illius, qua: exftat Lev. VII. 8 ; qua Sacerdos, qui offert holocauftum, habebit pellem ejus ; ubi eft ea- dem vox Ity. There is indeed one place, where the word "HJJ feems to fignify the Skin of Man ; Ex. XXII. 27. : DDV> HD2 Myi inSp^ K1H I fay feems, becaufe All the Verfions are not agreed to give it that meaning here ; the Samaritan referring the word to the Skin of a Be aft , and rendring the place — Hac vefiis ejus eft pro Pelle fud in qua dormit. Yet if we underftand the word to fignify in this place Hitman Skin, it is us'd here fo diffe- rently from what it is in Gen. III. 21. (having both the 7 before and the Pronoun after it ) that but little Service can arife from the Obfervation. q Le Clerc obferves here — Ut verum fatear, hie non Vefles, fed Tabernaculum pellibus contedtum intelligendum fufpicor. But why care mould be taken by God to make a Tent or Habitation for the firfb Pair in Paradife, when in the very next words we read of God's turning them tut ofParadife, feems a little unaccountable. r See Dr-Burnet, Boyle's Left. Serm. Vol. 3. p. 447. bation. yo Dissertation I. bation. Now the queftion is — Whence thefe Skins, of which the Coats or Garments, here mention'd, were made ? This has employd the invention of former Interpreters, but feems now to be almoft univerfally refolv'd into this — that they were the Skins of Beafts offer'd up in Sacrifice. For thefe Skins (as we cannot fup- pofe any Animals died, of themfelves, fo foon after their Creation ) were therefore moft pro- bably the Skins of Beafts flain ; and if fo, thefe Beafts were certainly flain either for Food, or in order to make thefe Coats, or for Sacrifice. For Food they could not be flain, becaufe the Flefli of Animals made no part of human Sufte- nance 'till after the Flood s . Neither is it pof- fible to fuppofe that Adam, after the Sentence juft paft upon him for Sin, would have dar'd to kill Gods Creatures without his Order or Permiflion } which, it may be prefum'd, God would not have given only for fuch Coats, when there were yet fo few Creatures in the world. Wherefore as they muft be flain for Sacrifice, Sacrifice was then certainly inftitu- ted r . Thefe then feem to be eafy confe- s This is clearly inferr'd from the Grant of Animal Flefh to Noah in thefe words (Gen. IX. 3.) Every Moving Things that liveth^ J/jall be Meat for Xou , even as the green Herb ( which was your former food ) have I (now) given you all things. t Thefe Animals being Holocaufts, their Skins only could fall to the (hare of Man ; and by giving thefe for quences, Dissertation I. 71 quences, and the Sacred Writer might think them fufficient for the prefent, in this place ; where he is haftening on, with the Banifhment of our firft Parents from Paradife full before him. The account, which Mofes gives us of this expulfion from Paradife, is ufher'd in, in a very folemn manner 11 — And the Lord God faid } Be- hold ! the Man is become as One of "Us ; or, as the words may, perhaps, be better render'd Behold! the Man (n*n) hath been y or behave d y us if he were equal to One of Us w , as to* the Tefi of Good and Evil. Thefe words, as Bp Patrick obferves, plainly infinuate a Plurality of Per- fons in the Godhead j all other Explications Coats to our firft Parents, Cod feems peculiarly to have intended to remind them conftantly of their Sin— their de- fert of Punifhment by Death— and the divine Goodnefs in the fubftituted Satisfaction ; fo that Adam might have faid, in the words of St. Paul (Gal. VI. 17.) — Henceforth let no man trouble me^ for I bear on my Body the marks of my Redeemer. u Gen. III. 22. w As if he -were equal to one of us — that is, fays Dr. Rutherforth, He hath difown'd our Authority, fet him- felf up for a proper Judge of Good and Evil, and put him- felf on a level with One of us ; by throwing off" our Go- vernment, and refufing fubmiffion to our Command. That the particle 3 is us'd for equality in fate and dignity appears from Ruth II. 1 5. Effay on Virtue, p. 229. x That the particle **?, here prefixed to ilJH, fignifies quod att'met ad is prov'd from that ui'e of it in 1 Sam. IX. 20 ; and Pfalm XVII. 4. See more inftances in Noldius, Partic. which is in the middle of the Garden — God hath faid, ye Jhall not eat thereof. Jam Dissertation I. 83 fan? that the Tree was good for food^ and that it was pleafant to the Eyes^ and a Tree to be de- fired Sec. And this may obviate any objection to the verfion of the word in the above-men- tion'd place j as if there was a neceility for its fignifying fomething different from the fame word juft before it, becaufe of its being re- peated. III. A Third Objection may be made to the prefent rendring of the word dS^S in Chap. III. 22. — that it is made to fignify the days of Adam s Life only^ and not for ever. In anfwer to this I obferve, that the word D^iy is ufed as often, perhaps, finitely as infinitely ; and that it can fignify nothing more than the Age or Life of Man, in places where our Tranflators have frequently render'd it for ever. Thus Exod. XXI. 6.— Then his Majler jhall bring him unto the Judges^ and he Jhall bore his ear through with an Awl, and he jhall ferve him for ever. And 1 Sam. I. 22 But Hannah went not up ; for Jhe faid-, I will not go up until the Child be weafied ; and then I will bring him^ that he may appear before the Lord) and there abide for ever. IV. A Fourth Objection may be brought againft the rendring the particle tDJ> in Chap. III. 22. by— Again. This conjunctive particle is well known to have various fignifications ; but 84 Dissertation I. but among all that the Critics have given it, none feems to flow more naturally from it, than the tranflating it by—infuper, iterum, and etiam atque etiam h . The radix of it is loft among the Hebrew words, but the Arabians have pre- ferv'd it, and it is ^^ multus fuit, abundavit, auxit adjeBo cumulo y &c. And therefore may with the greateft propriety be render'd in Englifh — again-, or frequently. And thus we meet with it, in i Sam. XXIV. 12 ; where Da- vid, having cut off the skirt of Saul's Coat, while he lay in the Cave of En-gedi, brings it forth to him after his going out of the Cave, and befeeches him to look upon it, and to look upon it again, and to confider it well, as the ftrongeft confirmation of his innocent inten- tions towards him ; and, in the midft of his beautiful Addrefs, he thus artfully befpeaks him — HO T^B *p DK PlNn DJl 7\m ONI Et vide , mi pater ^ etiam atque etiam vide or am pallii tut in manu med. V. A Fifth Obje&ion may be made to what has been before obferv'd ; namely, that the only food of Man, before the Fall, feems to have been the fruits of the Trees. But this is not of confequence to the principal point ; however, as it carries probability with it, I fhall offer a few obfervations in defence of it. h See Koerber's Heb. Particles, p. 15-. We Dissertation I. 85 We read in Gen. I. 2^ . — And God f aid, Be- bold I have given you every Herb bearing feed y which is upon the face of all the Earth ; and every Tree, in the which is the fruit of a Tree yielding feed, to Tou it Jhall be for meat. This, at firft fight, may perhaps appear unfavourable j but let us take in the following \erfe—And to every Beaft of the Earth, and to every Fowl (3c. have I given every green Herb for meat ; and it was fo. The fenfe now feems clear, —that Man was to eat of the fruits of the Trees j and that Birds, Beads and Reptiles were to eat of the produce of the Earth. The Englifh Verfion may there- fore be corrected thus — And Godfaid, Behold^ I have (indeed) given you every Herb bearing feed, which is upon the face of all the earth : but every Tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding feed, jhall be to Tou for meat ; and to every Beaft of the earth have 1 given every green Herb for meat ; and it was fo. God feems here to have inform'd Adam of fomething deferving his peculiar attention — Obferve, fays he, that I have given you the Dominion over all the Creation, and confe- quently every Herb of the field is in your power ; but this is not to be Your Food : Your food is to be from the Trees, and therefore remember — that the Herb of the field is my bounty to the Animal Creation, and of this fuftenance no power of Yours fhall deprive them: 86 Dissertation I. them : and it was fo ; that is — this was the original Conftitution of things, and fo it con- tinued 'till the Fall. For after the Fall we find God condemning Adam, as a part of his punljh- menty to the eating the Herb of the field; and it does not appear likely, that God fliould con- demn Adam, when guilty, to eat the Herb of the Field, if he had eaten that before, while innocent. Perhaps then it may be allow'd, that Adam at firft was to eat of the fruits of the Trees ; and, after the Fall, of the Herb of the Field. And the reafon of the divine Injunction, fo different in thefe two refpedts, (if I may be allow'd the liberty of a Conjecture) feems to have been this — God might intend, that Man in Paradife fliould eat nothing but from on high, the fruits of the Trees only ; that fo, while he was fuftaining his Body, he might be- hold the Heavens, whither, after an age of Innocence, he was to be tranflated ' : but after his Fall, being degraded in his food, he was condemn'd to ftoop to the Earth forfuftenance^ that fo he might not forget his Original from the Duft, and his fpeedy Return thither. VI. It may be objected alfo — that if there was in Paradife no Tree of Immortality, but i Tull. de Nat. Deor. Lib. a. — Cum cseteras animantes abjeajj'et ad pajium^ folum hominem crexit, ad Ccelique quafi cognationis 6c Domicilii priftini co??J]>eclim excitavit. all Dissert at i o n I. Sy all the Trees there were only for the fupport of Life, in the way of common nourifhment ; why was a Guard plac'd, to prevent the return of the firft Pair into Paradife? To this feveral Anfwers may be given, and I hope the follow- ing are fatisfa&ory. The Garden of Eden was prepar d with peculiar ornament and beauty, as a worthy habitation for Beings of innocence and virtue k . When God therefore had fo richly furnifh'd this delightful Garden, it may not be abfurd to fuppofe, that it continued free from that Curfe, which, upon the fall, affected all the future habitation as well as food of Adam. And that when Man, for his Sin, was expelld this happy place, and driven forth into a world renderd unfruitful for his punifhment ; Paradife, with its fruits, mighc flourifli in its native perfection, 'till the Deluge put an end to all diftin&ion between that and other places, and made them equal in one ge- neral defolation K Suppofing this, we prefent- k For when the Sacred Writers would exprefs the ex- ceeding fruitfulnefs and pleafure of a Country, 'tis to Pa- radife they have recourfe for the fublime Idea. Thus Gen. XIII. 10. — And Lot lift up his Eyes, and bekeld all the Plain of Jorda?i, that it Ttas well watered every where, even at the Garden of the Lord. And Joel II. 3. The Land is as the Garden of Eden Before them, and beh'mdthem a de fo- late Wildernefs. 1 Salkeld on Paradife, p. 39. — It feemeth much more probable, that Paradife was deftroy'd by the general De- luge. And thus Milton defcribes the Deluge, II. 814. — M Iy 88 Dissertation I. Iy fee a reafon for reftraining Adam, under pu- nifhment for his Rebellion, from re-entring Paradife. I fay, re-entring Paradife ; becaufe it is the opinion of fome men of the firft clafs m , that Adam was created out of Paradife, and introduce! into it by his Maker. Granting this (which is founded partly on thefe words — And the Lord God planted a Garden^ and there he put the man whom he had fortned n ) granting this, we fliall fee the prefent folution in a ftronger light. For if Adam was created out of the Garden, and then (to influence his gra- titude) admitted into it, as a place very fupe- rior in beauty to what he had before feen, and yielding Fruits of a much richer flavour than he had before tafted ; we may eafily account for the Guard's being plac'd to prevent his en- joyment of it, after his tranfgreffion. So that if we fuppofe, there were in Para- dife Fruits of a different kind and richer nature than out of it, with other peculiar circum- All the Cataracts Of Heav'n fet open on the Earth fliall pour Rain day and night, 'till Inundations rife Above the higheft hills — then (hall this Mount Of Paradife by might of waves be mov'd Out of his place, pufli'd by the horned flood, With all his Verdure fpoil'd, and Trees adrift, m See Bp Patrick in his Commentary ; Dr. Delaney in his Revelat. exam. Vol. I. p. 4 ; And Mr. Sale in the Univerf. Hiftory, Book I. Ch. I. p. iai. Edit. 8vo. n Gen. IL 8. ftances Dissertation I. 89 fiances of happinefs ; or that the Curfe, which affe&ed the Trees and their Fruits out of Para- dife, might not extend to thofe within — I ap- prehend the prefent Objection may be folv'd either way ; and both Suppofitions appear to be of fome weight. For, as to the latter; God, we are aflur'd, does nothing in vain ; and no end could have been anfwer'd by his curfing Paradife as a punifliment on Man, when he was not to re-enter it, and confequently could not be affected by the alteration. And if any one fiiould be ftill inclind to affert, that Paradife was curs'd with the reft of the Earth, I would beg to ask in return — Why was a Guard plac'd at Paradife ? For if the Ground and Fruits of Paradife fuifer'd in one common Curfe with the reft of the Earth, doubtlefs the Tree of Life (above all things °) was impair'd with the reft, and render'd incapable of producing its former ( fuppos'd ) extraordinary effe&s , for which there was now no longer occafion. And as to the former Suppofition — that the Trees in Paradife were preferable to all others, and peculiar in ufe and beauty j this is con- firm'd from feveral paifages in Scripture, par- ticularly in that noble paffage of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chap. XXXI. Speak unto Pharaoh^ o Becaufe (as Mr. Sale obferves) it was now grown not only vfelefs^ but inconjifient with the Curfe and Punifh- ment of Man. Univ. Hift. B. I. Ch. I. p. 1^9. Ed. 8vo. M 2 and 90 Dissertation I. and unto his multitude — Whom art thou like in thy Great nefs > Behold! theJjfyrian was a Cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, of an highfiature ; the waters made him great ; the deep Jet him up on high ; his heart was exalted above all the Trees of the field; the Cedars in the very Garden of God could not overtop him ; the Fir-Trees were not like his boughs, and the Chefnut -Trees were not like his branches ; not any Tree even in the Gar- den of God was like unto him in his beauty ; I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches, Jo that all the Trees of Eden, that were in the Gar- den of God, might envy him. The Gradation here (in this beautiful illuftration of Greatnefs) from all the Trees of the Field to the Cedars of Paradife in particular, and the infilling fo much that the Trees in Eden, in the very Gar- den of God, were not only unequal to it but might even envy its excellence— feems evident- ly to point out a fuperiority of nature in the Trees of Paradife to al! others in the world. It may be alfo proper to remember here, that Adam was now fentene'd to hard Labour, and condemn'd to eat of the Herb of the Field in the fweat of his Brow ; and this confidera- tion is alone fufficient to account, why God fhould place a Guard at Paradife— left Adam mould return to thofe Trees, planted together by God in Paradife, of which he had fo happily eaten before j and which had fupported, and would Dissertation I. 91 would fupport him ftill, without the toil which he was otherwife under a neceflity of experi- encing. VII. Another Objection may be— that Allu- fions to this Tree of Life or Immortality are made in other parts of Scripture, and therefore fuch a Tree muft have exifted. But it may be obferv'd, that meer probable Allufions will prove nothing * and unlefs we can find plain references to the very Tree of Life faid to be defcrib'd by Mofes, it will not affecl: the pre- fent argument. It may not however be im- proper to confider the places, where thefe Al- lufions are fupposd 5 and thefe are only, I believe, in the book of Proverbs and the Apocalypfe. We read in Prov. III. 18. — She is a Tree of Life to them that lay hold upon her, and happy is .every one that retaineth her. Thefe words are fpoken of Wifdom, under a beautiful, but very ufual and eafy Metaphor. That Wifdom is attended with Fruits, and to tafte the Fruits of Wifdom — this was always, and continues to be an approvd method of expreffion. But Solomon here carries the figure one ftep far- ther ; and as Wifdom yields the fweeteft and moft defireable Fruits^ he calls her a Tree: and what kind of Fruit could he afcribe to this Tree ? fo charming and defireable as that of g2 Dissertation I. of Life. Wijdom then, he tells his Son, is a Tree of Life p ,• and that whoever lays hold on her, will be improv'd in his Mind, in the fame degree as his Body would receive benefit from fuch Fruits, as envigorate his Animal Life. But the Royal Writer could not here allude to the fuppos'd Tree of Life in the Mofaic Hi- ftory, becaufe the allufion would have been in- jurious to his defign. For he tells us, that as Wifdom is a Tree of Life to them that lay hold upon her, Co happy is every one that retaineth her ; but Adam, upon the receiv'd opinion, would have been unhappy, had he eaten and retain d the Tree of Life • and therefore God is faid to have drove him out of Paradife in Mercy, that he might not be immortal in his mifery 'K As to the Revelation of St. John, it may be obferv'd — that an Argument from thence to p That there is nothing peculiar here intended by the Tree of Life is evident from considering than m Solomon's Language any thing that is defreable is caird Life ; and therefore we read Chap. X. u. — The Mouth of the righteous is a Well of Life. — XIII. 12. 14. ; When Defre cometh, it is a Tree of Life — The Law of the Wife is a "Fountain of Life. — XV. 4 ; A-wholefom Tongue is a Tree of Life. — XVI. 22. j Underftanding is a Well- Spring of Life Sec. q God (fays Dr. Delaney ) is reprefented by Mofes as deliberating, and aligning the moft gracious reafon ima- ginable for removing cur fir ft Parents from Paraciifc ; even left they fliould eat of the Tree of Life , and live for ever , which dcubtlefs in their condition had been the greateft curfe they, were capable of. Revel, exam. Vol. I. DifTeftat. 6. prove Dissertation I. 93 prove or illuftrate any other part of the Sacred Writings, will (without a direct reference) be lefs readily admitted, than from the other Books of the New Teftament. Thefe are all written in a ftile clear and fimple, but yet noble and fublime ; we read, admire, and confefs their Divinity ftamp'd in the moft mining cha- racters. Not that we have reafon to doubt the Authority of this book of the Revelation of St. John ; as it was acknowledg'd genuine by the Synod of Carthage, and eftablifh'd by the fan- d:ion of the Sixth General Council r . But the argument of it is in general fo obfcure, and its fignification fo myfticaJ, that no proof can be well drawn from it, to affect any other part of the Bible, unlels it refers clearly to the point in queftion. That the places mentioning a Tree of Life in this book of St. John, do not refer to the Mofaic Hiftory, feems plain ; be- caufe the Copy, iuppofing it fuch, would be very unlike to the Original. We read in Revelat. XXII. 1, 2. — And he jliewed me a pure River of Water of Life , clear M Chryflal &c. In the midjl of the Street of it, and of either fide of the River was there a Tree of Life, which bare twelve maimer of Fruits, and yielded her Fruit every month ; and the Leaves of the Tree were for the healing of the Nations. But that this Image is not borrow'd from Ge- r See Veneer en the 39 Articles a Vol. I. p. 187. nefis, 94 Dissertation I. nefis, feems evident from hence -+ that here is firft a J^ver of 'Water of Life , which is not in the Hiftory of Mofes — that here are at Ieaft Two Trees of Life , one on each fide of the Ri- ver j whereas in the Mofaic account there was ( upon the receivd opinion ) but one, and no River that we read of as running near it —that each Tree here bore twelve manner of Fruits is a circumftance certainly miraculous, and fuch as we have not the leaft reafon for fuppofing in the Garden of Eden ,- for in that all the Trees were doubtlefs created fo, as to yield each one peculiar kind of Fruit, according to its fepa- rate Law, and the nature of that Seed, which itcontain'd in it felf— and that the Leaves of thefe Trees were for the healing of the Na- tions feems to confirm the contrariety. For the fuppos'd Tree of Life in Genefis could not be for the healing or cure of the firft Pair, to recover them either from Difeafe y in a literal fenfe ; or Misfortune, in a figurative : the firft they could not furfer, while they continued in- nocent ; and as foon as they experiencd the fecond, they were cut off from what had been (in fuch a cafe) their infallible remedy. So that we may fairly conclude, that St.John had not here, ( and if not here, then not in other places, where the fuppos'd allufion is Iefs particular ; efpecially as the whole is one conti- nued Vifioiiy and therefore certainly carried on under Dissertation I. 95 under the fame Ideas) that St. John, I fay, had not here any view to the Defcription of Mofes. But the Allufion is here evidently made to the Defcription given us by Ezekiel, in which the Trees are exprefsly call'd Trees of Meat) and not Trees of Life ; tho' St. John ufes the latter phrafe as fynonimous, and exe- getical of the former. This Opinion is con- firm'd by Mr. Lowth, in his Commentary on this Prophet — Ezekiel, fays be, being at Ba- bylon, is in this vifion made acquainted with the form of the Second Temple, which was to be built after their return from Captivity ; and St. John, in the Revelation not only defcribes the Heavenly Sanctuary by Reprefentations taken from the Jewifh Temple, but likewife tranfcribes feveral of Ezekiel's Exprefjions : —and among thefe the Commentator mentions particularly this place of Revelat. XXII. 1, 2. That this is the cafe will immediately ap- pear, upon comparing the two places ; and the Comparifon will be greatly ferviceable to the illuftration of the prefent Argument. Ezekiel XLVII.i AftenvarduE (the Angel) brought me again unto the door of the houfe ; and behold. Waters issued out from under the threjhold of the houfe eaftward. 7. And behold, at the bank of the J^iver were very many trees, on the one side and on the other. 9.— And every thing Jball live , whither the river cometh. N 12. And 96 Dissertation I. 12. And by the River, upon the bank thereof ON THIS SIDE AND ON THAT SIDE, Jhall grow all Trees for Meat — or , as the words • may be render'd — every Tree of Meat ; it Jhall bring forth new Fruit according to its months — the Fruit thereof Jhall be for Meat, and the Leaf thereof for Medicine. This then is part of the Vifion defcrib'd by Ezekiel; let us now fee how St. John has co- pied frdm it. Revel. XXII. i.—And he (the Angel) shewed me a pure River of Water of Life, — proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2. In the midfl of the Street of it, and of either side of the Ri- ver, was there the Tree of Life— or, as the words r may be render'd — were there Trees of Life ; which bare twelve manner of Fruits, yielding their fruit every Month ; and the Leaves of the Trees were for the healing of the Nations, We fee then that St. John has tranfcrib'd al- moft every remarkable Circumftance fet down by the Prophet ; and there is the utmoft reafbn . t 2tMo» taw. For that IvMv, which anfwers exactly to XV in fignification, may be conftrued plurally — appears, not only from the Obfervations above laid down, but from the LXX ufing it in that manner , Gen. III. a. — A7T0 t^fz-is t» %vXa TV -jmytitint iv %v\x tx therefore Dissertation I. 97 therefore to conclude — that the former had the latter carefully in view, in this defcription. From this Comparifon it may be proper and ufeful to draw a few Obfervations. Firft; that by St. John's ufing the words Tree of Life ia- ftead of what Ezekiel calls Tree of Food, it is evident that theTerms are fynonimous, and of the fame fignification. Secondly • that in both defcriptions there is a neceffity of underftan-d- ing more Trees of Life, or Food, than one-, the plurality is exprefsly mention'd by Ezekiel, and muft be inferr'd from St. John, becaufe the Tree in his defcription is on each fide of the River. Thirdly ; the Prophet tells us of very many Trees ; and therefore the Evangelift muft defign the fame very many Trees, as his ap- pears to be fo exacl: a Tranfcript. And laftly; if Ezekiel mould be thought to have fetch d his defcription from Paradife (as may be per- haps imagin'd from the parallel expreffions of —Every Tree of Food, Ezek. XLVII. 12; and —Every Tree that was good for Food, Gen.ll. 9 j) then from the words of Ezekiel explain'd by St. John it will appear (till in a ftronger light, that there was not in Paradife One particular Tree of Life, but that All the Trees of Food in the Garden were call'd Trees of Life in general. VIII. The laft Objection that is likely to be made to what is before laid down, is this N 2 —that 98 Dissertation I. — that, after all, the genius of the Hebrew Language feems to require, that the words D»n p> Tree (° r Trees) of Life, in Ch.II. 9, mould be connected with the words |jin "pm in the middle of the Garden. To this I anfwer, that the conjunctive particle Vau (and) is fome- times found in Scripture prefix'd to one word in a fentence, when it muft necefiTarily be tranf pos'd in tranflation, and be given in the fenfe before two or more words which immediately precede it : and if fo, the fame liberty of lan- guage will be allow'd here, of which there is a neceflity in other places. An inftance of this we find in Gen. XXII. 4. The third Verfe runs thus — And Abraham rofe up early in the morning, and f addled his Afs, and took two of his young men with him, and Ifaac his Son, and clave the wood for the burnt-offering, and rofe up, and went towards the place of which God had told him. After which it follows in the original J pmD DlpDH Which Words, literally render d, are — Tercio die & elevavit Abrahamus oculos fuos, & vidit ipfum locum e longinquo ; And muft be render' d in Englifli— And on the third day Abraham lift up his eyes y and f aw the place afar off. Here then we fee a neceffity for con- ftruing the Vau, tho' prefix'd to the verb, be- fore the words preceding that verb. For the ;wo firit words cannot be join d to the end of the Dissertation I. 99 the third verfe, this is evident • and therefore they muft be conne&ed with the words follow- ing in the fourth verfe ; which they can only be, by conftruing the particle at the beginning of the firft word, tho' it is prefix'd to the third word in the fentence. This inftance then being exprefs, and the force of it evident, there is already fufficient authority for tranipofing the fame particle, in the fame manner, in any other place where the Senfe requires it. But one inftance more has occurr'd to me, which I fhall take notice of ; not doubting but many others may be found of the fame nature. This is in Gen. XXVIII. 6. — When Efau Jaw that Ifaac had blejfed Jacobs and fent him away to Padan-Aram, to take him a Wife from thence ; yhy V:T1 IDtf TSTpS And that, as he blejfed him y he gave him a Charge &c. u u There is a remarkable paflage, in z Corinth. XIL 7, which requires the fame tranfpofition of the particle ; and this will clear up the Senfe , and free it from the innu- merable attempts that have unfuccefsfully been made for Want of it. It is E^» AtS' <"«s*«'4 / fl #iz&ttm#*m%m*##*t'& A DISSERTATION O N T H E OBLATIONS O F CAIN and ABEL. #i*itit>tt>tt>##'tt####ttit1tit####m#### [ 10 9 ] DISSERTATION The SECOND. I ^ T | ^ HE Hiftoryof the Oblations of Caia and Abel, tho' concifely deliver'd by the divine Hiftorian, has been always look'd upon as deferring the clofe attention, of Mankind a . And yet, however interefting the fubjeft, however labour'd the difquifitioa of it has been, there feems to be one confidera- ble article in the cafe of Abel remaining yet unobferv'd • and the other particulars of this Hiftory have not been, perhaps, fo happily ex- plain'd, as to render any farther attempt to- wards their illuftration neediefs. This of Cain and Abel is the firft Adfc of Worfhip, recorded in facred Scripture ,• and was attended with a very remarkable contra- riety of event to the two Worfhippers — Ac- a This piece of Hiftory (fays Bp Sherlock) is all the account we have of the Religion of the Antediluvian World. Difcourfe III, p. 75-. ceptance no Dissertation II. ceptance to the one, and Rejection to the other. It muft be therefore matter of ufeful fpeculation to fee clearly into the caufe of fuch a difference ; which, as it was made by God, had certainly for its foundation fome equitable and important reafon. And in order to the right understanding this piece of Hiftory, there feems to be requird a careful confideration of the Offerers, the Time of their Offering, and the Nature of their different Oblations : all which circumftances are regularly contain'd in the following Verfes of the fourth Chapter of Genefis — i . And Adam knew Eve his Wife ; andJJje con- ceived, and bare Cain ; and f aid, 1 have gotten a man from the Lord. 2. And jhe again bare his brother Abel : and Abel was a keeper of Sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the Ground. 3 . And in procefs of time it came to pafs, that Cain brought of the Fruit of the Ground an Offering unto the Lord. 4. And Abel, he alfo brought of the Fir fi- lings of Ins Flock, and of the Fat thereof. And the Lord had refpetl unto Abel, and to his Offer- ing, s • But to Cam, and to his Offering he had not refpetl. In conformity to the method before pro- pos'd, and the regularity of the Hiftory, I (hall begin with the confideration of the Perfons offering : Dissertation II. in offering : and thefe, we read, are Cain the Firft- born, and Abel tho. Second Son of the Original Human Pair ; whofe circumftances, both be- fore and after their Fall, have been confider'd in the preceding DifTertation. The third chapter of Genefis concludes with the Expulfion of this firft Pair from the Garden of Eden ; and down to that period we have already accompanied the Mofaic Hiftory. Let us now regularly proceed with it, from the be- ginning of this fourth chaprer ; which opens with the birth of Cain, the firft Child that was born into the World. Concerning the diftance of time, from the Creation to this birth of Cain, there are va- rious Opinions. But, as it is impoffible to de- termine how long the Parents continud in Pa- radife ; fo it is, for that reafon, impoffible to determine how long they had liv'd, when this Son was born to them out of Paradife. That he was born out of Paradife — is certain ; and that he was begotten out of Paradife too — feems probable from the hiftory. Had this Child been born, while the firft Pair were happy, upright and immortal in Paradife, he had been born in the fame rectitude and purity of Nature he had receiv'd from his Parents ; and confequently would have been (when ad- vanc'd in years ) a Man in the fame fituation, and in the fame circumftances, as his Father P when ii2 Dissertation II. when firft created. But we have Reafon, as well as Scripture, to convince us, that he was not born in the original Purity, but under a Corruption of Human Nature. And God, by permitting his wicked mind to operate fb ftrongly, and his paffions to rife to that pitch of turbulency and diforder, feems to convince us — that Man did not come thus out of the hands of his Creator ? but that fuch behaviour was the effect of fome alteration, introduc'd into the human compofition by the defection of our firft Parents from their innocence b . This being premis'd, we come to the Name of Cain, which has been varioufly accounted for. But the reader of the Bible, by a little acquaintance with the Original, muft have ob- ferv'd the manner of deriving proper Names in b Dr. Conybcare, in his Defence of Reveal'd Reli- gion, p. 112. — It is obfervable, and acknowledg'd by the beft and wifeft men we know of, that there is, in the prefent circumftances of our Nature, a ftrong tendency and propeniion to things in themfelves wrong. Thofe who have confider'd matters, with no better light than human Reafon could give them, have been apt to con- clude, that our Nature was not always in the fame ftate, in which we find it now -—that as it came pure out of the hands of our Maker, our Underftanding muft have been clearer and more extenfive, and our Affections or Paf- fions more governable. Of this, which could only be conjectur'd by natural Light, the Sacred Writings have given us a diftinct account ; informing us, that our Na- ture, originally upright, hath been deprav'd and corrupt- ed by the Tranfgreflion of our firft Parents. , the Dissertation II. 113 the firft ages of the world i how they frequent- ly are given from fbme remarkable circumftance attending the Birth or Life of the perfon fo nam'd, and generally have that meaning ex- prefs'd in words near the place, where the Name is firft mention'd. And this is evidently the cafe with refpecl: to Cain ; for we read in Gen. iv. 1. trw TPipnoNrn |*p na iSnnnm l miT Dtt So that the Name Cain was certainly deriv'd from the verb canithi (1 have gotten,) and fignifies Acquifition -, and this word canithi (with the words following it to compleat the Senfe) is exprefsly given by Eve, as the reafon for her calling her Son by that name— And Jhe conceived^ and hare Cain ; for c Jhe /aid, I have gotten a Man from the Lord. The Name of Cain being thus afcertain'd, let us attend to thofe other words, here ac- companying it, about which there has been fo much warm difputation ; namely — K^tf *JVJj? miT HK which our Englifh Tranflators have render'd — / have gotten a Alan from the Lord. The Critics, that have confider'd thefe words, may be divided into two clalfes ; into thofe who imagine Eve to have expected the Re- deemer in this Son, and thofe who imagine the contrary : and each of thefe clafTes may be varioufly fub-divided, according to the many different expofitions, which each perfon has C See Noldiusj Partic. 1, Signif. 37. P 2 given ii4 Dissertation II. given to fupport his own determination. But the learned world is fo well acquainted with thefe various explanations, or rather attempts towards an explanation, that I fhall only offer that Opinion, which feems to come the beft recommended by the words themfelves and the circumftances of the hiftory. In the fentence, which God before pafs'd ifpon the Serpent, a Promife had been given (for the punifhment of the Deceiver, and the confolation of the fallen Pair) that the Seed of the Woman jljould hru'ije the Serpents Head. From thefe words then Adam and his Wife might naturally expecl: A Redeemer ; one, who was to be born of the Woman, and to recover for them the Favour of God and that Happi- nefsj which by their Sin they had forfeited. In what manner this mighty Operation was to be accomplifh'd, they might not know; other- wife than that it was to be done by the Re- deemer's Death : and this, if Sacrifice was in- ftituted by divine command to Adam, they muft know from the typical nature of that in- ftitution. Now as the Perfon and Time of this Redeemer were not fpecified, they were at li- berty to expecl: him in the Perfon of their Firft Son ; and, this being the moft obvious and na- tural acceptation of the Seed of the Woman, 'tis probable they took the Promife in this fenfe. This Dissertation II. 115 This being premis'd, let us confider the Text — And Eve conceived andbare Cain ; for JJje faid, I have gotten a Man from the Lord. But the original words may be render d — 1 have gotten a Man according to the Lord ; and according to the Lord is, by all the rules offpeaking, equi- valent to — according to the word of the Lord. And indeed the learned Tranflators of Queen Elizabeth's Bible acknowledg'd this verfion, having their marginal reading — According to the Lord's Promife. This rendring of the par" ticle ntt is authoriz'd by Noldius, and con- firm'd by the following paflage. Hagg.II. 4, y. Jam with you, faith the LordofHofls (mn ntt) according to the word that I covenanted with you. Upon this interpretation then the whofe verfe will run thus — And Adam knew Eve his Wife, andjhc conceived, and bare Cain j for JJoe fold, I have gotten the Man, according to the word of Jehovah. Having offer'd this explication of the firft verfe, with refpecl: to Cain, let us confider the fecond, with refpedt to Abel ; and tho' there have been ftill more opinions about this Name than the former, yet a frefh folution may be yet wanting here to give fatisfadtion. The Name Abel will admit various Interpretations the more eafily, becaufe the fenfe of it is not afcertaind in the text : that it is not, is very remarkable in the prefent cafe • fince his Mo- ther's n6 Dissertation II. ther's two Names Woman and Eve, the Names of his elder brother Cain and his younger bro- ther Seth^ are all clearly defin'd in the context, where they are firft mention'd. This Name of Abel has been generally faid to fignify Vanity or Trouble ; but as thefe Sig- nifications feem only embrac'd for want of a more appofite Etymology, I fhall offer a new one, after previoufly laying down a few obfer- vations. Firft, that Names were not always impos'd at Birth. Or, fuppofing the contrary to this to be true; yet, Secondly, that another Name was frequently fuperinduc'd from fome extraordinary circumftance attending the Life of the Perfon fo nam'd i which latter Name abolifh'd the former, and became the only Name, by which fuch perfon was afterwards fpoken of and recorded. This being then frequently the cafe d , why may we not imagine the Name of Abel to have been fuperinduc'd alfo, on fome very remark- able occafion ? Supposing therefore that the fame allowance may be made in this , as in other cafes, I mail at prefent take it for grant- ed—that Abel was the Name given to Eves Second Son, from fome extraordinary circum- d To give a few Inftances — Eve, Abraham^ Sarah, Paul and Peter were Names, not given to thefe perfons at their Births, but fuperinduc'd perhaps about the middle, or towards the decline of their Lives, fiance Dissertation II. 117 ftance attending him, long after his nativity: Now we know, that Abel was the fir ft of the human ipecies that died ; and that, as his Life was remarkably pious-, his Death was peculiarly unhappy ; being privately and infidioufly mur- der d by his own brother, in the bloom of his life % on account of the preference God had given to his Oblation. It may be thought very likely then, if a Verb can be found that contains the idea of each of thefe particulars, that Abel (or, as it fhould be writ Habcl or Hebel ) muft be deriv'd from that root, and be a Name given him in confequence of his un- fortunate end. We have accordingly, in the Arabic Lan- guage, the verb y** babal> fignifying prima- rily— 0r£tf nato fuit Mater y (3 morte ami/it eum • and alfo — qua neceffaria ejjent qimjivit — prope- rus fuit — machitiatusy infidiatus fuit contra ali- quern — obfervavit ut obruere pofet^ (3 captavit opportunitatem —Significations thefe, fo won- derfully applicable to the cafe of righteous Abel, treacheroufly murder'd in his youth by his own brother, and fo expreilive of the af- fliction of his Mother confequent on fuch a Murder i that it feems to carry conviction at e J Tis generally imagin'd , that Abel was murder'd in the 129th Year of Adam's Life, becaufe Seth was born in the 130th • and that Seth was born foon after the Death of Abel feems eaiily inferr'd from the Name of Seth, and the circumitances of the Hiftory. firft n8 Dissertation II. firft "fight. It's being an Arabic Etymology can be no objection to it, becaufe the Arabic Lan- guage is a Dialect of the Hebrew ; and many entire verbs, with fome fignifications of other verbs, having been loft in the fcantinefs of the latter ( as the Bible is the only book pure in that Language ) have defcended to us in the copioufnefs of the former f . Thus then we may prefume the word Abel was deriv'd ; and that, tho' it is us'd by the Hiftorian as his name during his life, yet it was given him immediately after his death, and be- came the only name by which he was thence- forth known and recorded. The cuftom of doing this in other inftances has been obferv'd before, and it is confirm'd by a careful atten- tion to the hiftory in this chapter. For we have no fooner read of the birth of the firft Son, whom his Mother nam'd Cain, but we read of the birth of the fecond Son, which the Hiftorian tells us was Abel • but we don't find, that this was the name given him by either of his Parents, in the form obferv'd as to the pre- ceding and fucceeding Son. On the contrary (which is remarkable) he is not calld Abel in any Speech made either o/him, or to him dur- f See Dr. Hunt's celebrated Oration on the Antiqui- ty &c. of the Arabic Language ; p. 53. Ockley's Intro- duction to the Oriental Languages ; p. 117. And Poly- glott. Bible, Prolegom. 14; p. 94. ing Dissertation II. 119 ing his life. I fliall only obferve farther, that when Eve had brought forth the third Son, which the Scripture mentions, it is faid — She called his Name Seth ; for God, fays fhe, hath appointed me another Seed injlead of Abel, whom Cain flew ; or, as it mould have been render'd, for Cain hath flam him —Words ! fo remarkably determining the meaning of Abels Name in the fenfe before given, that poflibly it may be now admitted as a fatisfac-tory account of it. The Names of thefe Brothers being thus fettled, we come to the next thing obfervable in their hiftory, which calls for no Explanation, as the words carry their own determinate mean- ing — And Abel was a keeper of Sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the Ground. The care of Adam is here remarkable, in his bringing up his two Sons to the feparate offices of an Husbandman and a Shepherd ; Cain, the firft-born, being appropriated to that employment which was the moft neceflary, in order to raife Food from the unfertil Earth ; and Abel to what was ufe- ful in the fecond place, whether we confider Cattle with regard to their Wool and Skins for Cloathes, or to their Bodies for the purpoles of Sacrifice : and thus, fays the great Lord Bacon, were thofe Brothers dedicated, the one to the aUive, and the other to the con- templative fcenes of Life. Ct But 120 Dissertation II. But the care of Adam appears moft confpi- cuous in his concern for their behaviour to- wards God ; and we mall find, I hope, by what will be offer'd hereafter, that he inftru&ed them (as they grew up) in the nature of their obligations to the Being who had created them —the nature alfo of hisownTranfgreffion, and the univerfal confequences thence arifing. It is alfo very probable, that Adam and his Wife were fo awd by reflecting on the greatnefs of their firft Offence, and led fo fincerely to re- pentance by the goodnefs of God, that thro* the remainder of their days they endeavour'd to conciliate the divine favour by their own pious behaviour, and a religious education of their Children. But as Children are not capable of perform- ing the higher A6ts of Worfhip, which are adapted to Men of age and confideration ; 'tis probable that Sacrifice, which was inftituted before this time (as will be prov'd hereafter) was conftantly offer'd up by Adam for himfelf and family, 'till his Sons became qualified for the Office, without his farther fuperintendency. And as each of them had been probably a long time married, they might be now firft advifed to meet and offer for themfelves and their fa- milies ; as was the conftant Oeconomy of the Patriarchal times. We may therefore reafona- bly fuppofe, that when Age and Circumftances appear'd Dissertation II. 121 appear'd firft to require it, Adam appointed that his Sons fhould, with a brotherly affection, come together, and offer their Oblations to the fame God, in the fame Manner, and at the fame Time they had always feen him offer; in ftricl: conformity to the divine Will, and the nature of their own Neceffities. As to the Time, which their Father had al- ways obferv'd for the folemnizing fuch facred Services, itfeems reafbnable to conclude— than it was fome Stated Time, regularly returning. This, I fay, it is eafy to infer from Reafon ; and we afTert farther from Revelation — that this Stated Time was the return of every Se- venth Day, from the finifliing the Creation ; which, by the exprefs command of God, Adam was to fandfcify and keep holy. For we read in Gen. II. 1, 2, $. — Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finijhed, and all the Hojl of them. And on the Seventh Day God ended his Work, which he had made ; and he rejied on the Seventh Day from all his Work, which he had made. And God blejfed the Seventh Day, and fanclified it ; hecaufe that in it he had refted from all his Work, which God created and made. This Subject being very important in its confequences, and the Second Point which I have in view in the prefent Diflertation ; I fhall here endeavour to prove the four follow- ing Propofuions— which, however foreign they Q^2 may 122 Dissertation II. may at firft fight appear to the Subject in hand, will be found (I hope) to be of fome affinity ; or, at leaft, be pardon'd, on account of fome New Obfervations probably contain'd in them. Propofition the I. That this Bleffing and Sanctifying the Seventh Day contain'd an Order from God to Adam and his Pofterity, to ob- ferve a Weekly Sabbath, or one day in fcwen after an holy manner. II. That tho' this Command was reinforc'd by a more awful delivery of it from Mount Sinai ; yet it was exprefsly obferv'd by the Children of Ifrael, before that delivery of it from Mount Sinai. III. That this Obfervation of theirs muft have been in obedience to fome pofitive Infti- tution ; and as there is no intermediate or fe- cond Inftitution, it could be only in obedience to this firft Inftitution, which confequently continu'd in force down to the delivery of the Law from Sinai. IV. That the fame Inftitution was obferv'd, during the Ante-Mofaic Oeconomy ; and that this Sabbath was the Day, on which Cain and Abel came together to offer their Oblations to the Deity. Firft then—that this Bleffing and Sanctifying the Seventh Day contain'd an Order from God to Dissertation II. 123 to Adam and his Pofterity to obferve a Weekly Sabbath, or one day in feven after an holy manner. Let the words of the Inftitution be here repeated — Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finijhed, and all the Army of them ; and on the Seventh Day God had compleated his Work, which he made (on the other fix,) and he refled on the Seventh Day from all his Work-, which he had made : and God blejfed the Seventh Day., and fanclified it ; becaufe on that day he rejtedfrom all his IVorky which God created and made. This fecond chapter of Genelis begins with a review of the preceding : and, as God, at the finifliing his Creation, is defcrib'd as furveying the whole, and pronouncing it very good, the Hiftorian feems to copy his example ,• and looking back with pleafure on his account of fo wonderful an Operation, he here enters on a more parti- cular detail of what molt concerns Man, at this interefting conjuncture. Thus then, fays he, in the number of Days and the Order before fet down, were the Hea- ven and the Earth compleated, with the whole Army that was ajjigned to each of them. But as the hiftory of the other Planets of the Solar Syftem (fuppos'd with good reafon, by fome s, to be part of the Creation defcrib'd in the pre- ceding chapter) was beyond the commiffion of ^lofes ; and as the Inhabitants of this Earth g See the Univerfal Hiftory, p. 85. Edit. 8vo. are 124 Dissertation II. are only concern'd in the account of their own Origin and Character— as Beings of fuch and fuch an Order — created under fuch and fuch Circumftances— and whofe Happinefs was to be the refult of fuch and fuch Services j fo Mofes feems only to hint at the Army or Inha- bitants of Heaven in the Planetary Worlds, and confines his narration to his Companions here, the Co-partners of Human Nature. He there- fore goes on to tell us, what was the next acl: of the Deity, after finifhing his Creation; namely — that, having ended his Work on the Sixth day, he blefied the Seventh day, andfanfti- fied it. And here let the original words be as dif- ferently render'd as they can be, without vio- lence to their meaning, they muft fignify thus much — that when God had in Six days finifh'd the Creation, he commanded the fucceeding, or Seventh Day to be obferv'd by the firft hu- man Pair, as a day of peculiar holinefs. For as no one, I fuppofe, will aflert — that this SancYification of the Seventh Day was to be obferv'd by God ; or, that a Being eflentially ( and therefore always ) infinite in Holinefs, could be more holy on this than the preceding days j this Acl: of Holinefs muft be referr'd to Man. And how Man was to behave, in confe- quence of this injunction, will appear from the Nature of the Words, and the peculiar Time of their delivery. The Dissertation II. 125 The Words are yy&n DV Dtt D'irW Tin»l intf BHpl theEnglifli Verlion of which is— And God blejfed the Seventh Day } and fanUified if. The verb "pn carries with it a double Idea; fir ft of Blejjing) fecondly of Worfhipping, and that in the particular manner of bowing on the Knees. Thefe two fenfes may be united, when fpoken of Man ; but the firft only can be un- derstood, when confin'd to God. If then we fuppofe this Verb to be in the Conjugation Pihel h , the fenfe will be — God blejfed the Se- venth Day-, or honoured it with peculiar marks of his favour. But the word -p^l may be here better underftood in Hiphil ; and then, from the known power of that Conjugation (which is to make, or order to do a thing ') it will fignify — God ordered to blefs and ivorjhip by ado- ration. And as the Particle iitt may, by the authority of Noldius k , be render'd 'Upon, the fenfe will be exprefsly thus —And God ordered (Man) to blefs and worjhip on the Seventh Day. The other verb tiHpn may be alfo underftood h hitenfivam figfiificationem verba in Piel habenr, quse in Kal funt adtiva • mm enim ftudium & continuatio adtionis hie fuperadditur. Glaflii Philol. Sacr. Lib. 3. Trad:. 3. Can. a6. i Qua* verba in Kal adtiva funt, in Hiphil rranflatio- nem adticnis in aliud fubjedtum agens fignificanc • & (ex Erpenio) Hiphil verbis Kal addit caufam, cujus virtute impulfu, jutfu, vel permiflione fie actio. Glaflii Philol. Sacr. Lib. 3. Tract. 3. Can. 27. k See Noldius, Partic. PX, Signif. 10. in 126 Dissertation IL in Hiphil, and will then be — and ordered to fanclify, or Jet apart for J acred ujes l ; and the whole will confequently run thus — And God rejled on the Seventh Day from all his Work, which he had made » and God caufed (Man) to blefs and ivorjkip on the Seventh Day, and order- ed (him) to JanBify it. This Interpretation, as it feems conformable to Grammar, and ex- preflfes the Senfe belt (tho* the other amounts to the fame, but with lefs clearnefs) I humbly offer to the judgment of the Learned. But as this feems an Alteration of fome con- fequence, I beg to vindicate the liberty of making it, before I leave this point. The Reader, who is happily acquainted with the Original Language, will grant it, I believe, with little hefitation ; as he knows the words may be conftrued either way, fo as to be moft confident with the context ; and as he knows alfo, how frequently this Alteration fliould be made in the Englifh Verfion of the Bible, to improve the Senfe of it. One inftance of this kind has occurr'd to me, which I fhall here ob- ferve ; that, as the neceffity of correcting the Verfion in that place feems evident, I may be the better fupported in making the alteration abovemention'd. 1 See this fenfe of the verb eftablifh'd by Mr. Mede, Book I. Difc. 2. The Dissertation II. 127 The place is in Gen. XXIV. 3? — And the Lord hath blejfed my Majter greatly , and he is become great, and he hath given him Flocks and Herds &c. How perplex'd is this Sentence from the confulion of the nominative cafe He I The Lord hath blefled— he (my Mafter) is be- come—he (the Lord) hath given him (my Mafter) Flocks and Herds &c. But the Ori- ginal is clear of this ftrange mixture, and flows fmoothly on in a beautiful uniformity of perfon ipni \m iS tn»i ^wi r\\m >rw ™ ^12 mm which is — And the Lord hath blejfed my Mafter exceedingly, and he hath made (him ) great, and he hath given him Flocks and Herds &c. This Sentence being produc'd as an Authority for the preceding alteration, let us now fee how this Injunction, for the fan&ifying a Seventh Day, ftood, with refpedfc to the firft human Pair. Adam and his Wife had been both created on the Sixth Day; and with them God finifh'd the work of his Creation . It is therefore highly reafonable to fuppofe, when God had, on the remainder of that day, given them a view of their Situation, their Circumftances, and their Relation to himfelf and to each other, that he fhould command them to devote the day fol- lowing (as the Firft-Fruits of their Time) to a grateful acknowledgment of that Goodnefs, which gave them fo happy an exiftence : and R that, 128 Dissertation II. that, as he himfelf, after making the World in fix days, refted on the feventh ; fo they, in a devout remembrance of it, fhould then forbear what was afterwards to be their Employment, and give up that one day to Thankfgiving and the Adoration of their Creator. After this manner was the Day appointed j and doubtlefs it was carefully obferv'd, and kept holy to the Lord . The obfervation of this firft Sabbath being thus determind, with the Holinefs exercisd thereon by our firft Parents ; it follows to be prov'd — that this holy Obfervation of the Se- venth Day could not be confin'd to that fingle day; but that it was inftituted likewife to be continu'd in the fame manner, upon every fuc- ceflive revolution of Seven Days m . For it will be allow'd a conclufive Maxim— that every wife Injiitution mult be defigridto lajl as long as the m De publico cultu Dei, cujus maxime causa, creatus homo e fti ut pTimutn eft creatus, mo?ieri hominem far fuit. Hie autem quia peragi commode nifi fiatis quibufdam diebus non potuit, ne hominibus fortafle vel non conveniret omnibus de tempore, vel minus idoneum eligeretur ; Deo ipfi placuit diem, qui futurus erat huic negotio aptiffimus, paulo poft principia rerum defignare. Cum enim poftu- laret ipfa res, ut quam primum de Cultiis ejus Tempore conftaret, propter quern & humanum genus prascipue conditum, ipfeque Mundus videtur ; quis putet hoc a Deo non nifi poft amios a^co demmn tint traditum genti, quod hominum intererat omnium cognofcere ? Anna!. Mund. Robinfon S.T.P. Lib. I. p. 58. ufefuhiefs Dissertation II. 129 ufefulnefs of that Inftitution continues ; confe- quently, if the ufefulnefs of a Sabbath conti- nued, the Sabbath muft have been defign'd to continue alio, and to be in force after its firft Observation. Now the Ufe of the Sabbatical Inftitution, no doubt, was — that Adam, by a regular re- turn of fuch a Sacred Day, might be reminded of the divine Goodnefs and Mercy in his own Creation — that, while innocent, he might em- ploy the Seventh part of his Time, in the grateful tribute of Praife and Acknowledgment — and that, if guilty, he might not only con- tinue to remember himfelf as the Creature, or vifible production of an invifible God • but under the enlarg'd Character of a neceffitous and guilty Creature. Befides: tho' Words, by divine appointment, conveyd fix'd Ideas to the minds of the firft hu- man Pair and their Family ; yet Letters, under the amazing brevity of an Alphabet, certainly were not the invention of this firft Age of the world. And therefore, as Oral Tradition was then the only poffible method of conveying down Informations", the Inftitution of a Sab- n And, considering the longevity of the Patriarchs, a true account of things was eafily handed down this way from Adam to Mofes, the author cf the Pentateuch. For Adam died only \iG years before the birth of Noah • Noah lived more than 50 years after the birth of Abra- ham j Abraham is fuppos'd to have lived with Jacob ; R 2 bath 130 Dissertation II. bath was greatly ferviceable in thefe farther particulars— That Adam, convening his Family on the regular returns of that day, might de- clare the wonderful manner of the World's Creation —that the Sea was God's, and he made it i and that his hands prepared the Dry-Land —that it was He that made them, and not They themselves ; and therefore to him they were to pay their Thanks for being Human Crea- tures—that as all they enjoy'd was the effecl: of his Bounty, a return of part was expected from them by way of Eucharift and grateful Ac- knowledgment—that they were to confider themfelves as endow d with the principle of Free-Agency, and confequently as accounta- ble for their Behaviour here — that all the min- ing Beings they beheld above, and the beauti- ful Creatures furrounding them below, were the Productions of Almighty Power— that he himfelf was created in perfect Innocence, and compleat Happinefs ; and tho' he had by Sin forfeited the privileges of his Birth, yet God had gracioufly promis'd him a Redeemer, one who mould recover the Happinefs of Mankind, and triumph over their common Enemy — that tho' he himfelf was become fubjecl: to, and they were born under, a depravation of Human Jacob with Levi ; and Levi with his grandfon Amram, who was the Father of Mofes. Bp Williams, Boyle's Lect Serm, Vol. I, p. 165, Nature $ Dissertation II. 131 Nature, and ( from the afcendancy of their Paffions over their Reafon) with a propenfity to adt amifs ; yet they had power to prevent, and at the fame time a poffibility of Pardon for not preventing, fuch Misbehaviour— that there- fore they were to expecl: the reconciliation and favour of God, upon a devout application for Forgivenefs ; which was however only to be obtain'd by virtue of their future Redeemer's Death, a conftant Faith in which they were to exercife and reprefent before God, by obferv- ing the typicai Inftitution of Animal Sacrifice — that this Sacrifical Service, inftituted by di- vine command, was to continue, till the Re- deemer mould lay down his Life for them and their Pofterity, by the Oblation of himfelf once for all °— And laftly, that each of his Sons mould afterwards, in their Families, difcharge the fame threefold Character, as he, their Fa- ther had done before them ; i. e. of a Kjng y to govern and regulate the behaviour of his o Luke I. 68. Blejfed be the Lord God of Ifrael, for he hath vifited and redeemed his people — 70. As he ff>ake by the mouth of his holy Prophets, "which have been SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN. And A&S III. 18. — But thofe things •which God before had Jhe-wed by the mouth of all his Prophets^ that Chrijl Jfjouldfujfer, he hath Jo fulfilled — 10. AndheJhaU fend Jefus Chrifi , "which before "was preached unto You — 2.1. Whom the Heaven mujl receive, until the times ofrefiitu- t ut ion of all things, "which God hath J^qken by the mouth of ALL his holy Prophets , since the world began. Children • 132 Dissertation II. Children; of a Prieft, to affemble them, and offer up their facred Oblations ; and of a Pro- phet, to inftru^t them in the great Events al- ready paft, and the wonderful things reveald by God, and remaining yet unaccomplilh'd p . Thefe then are fome of the important Lef- fons, which Adam may reafonably be fuppos'd to have taught his Children, and which his Sons were to teach their Children * ; in order to preferve them all from Irreligion and Ido- latry. And as a Sabbath-day, or a Weekly day of Reft from Labour, in order to afTemble for the giving and receiving thefe Informa- tions, and to perform thefe Ads of Worfhip, was the wifeft, and indeed (as far as appears p Adamum eo fine condiderat Deus, ut virtutum ope- rumque fuorum tefiis, prxco, atque laudator effet ; &, uti communis humani generis magifter, filios nepotefque mo- neret, quid in hie vita & port earn fperandum metuen- dumve habeant. Witfii TEgyptiac. Lib. II. cap. ij. q Fuerunt fane Patriarchs Do&ores fubtitt, qui cceleftis dodtrinas veriratem tradiderunt fuis, & fedula repetitione alte infixerunt : nee Doctores tantum fuerunt, fed etiam Prophet*, ktentes &c abditos eventus divinarum return confeia mente explicantes. Heidegger, Exerck.^. Sec. 7. Immo mihi verum videtur, quod alicubi pnemini a CI. Pearfono notatum effe, Noachum a S. Petro (in EpiiKla fecunda II. ?.) Otfavum Vradicatonm Juftitia: uici, quan- quam Mofes nufquam dixerit quinam fuerint feptem Ju- fritice prsecones, qui illo fuerint priores : credendum eft tamen, & Deum in terris femper habuiffe Ecclejiam, & in Ecclefia femper extitiffe Jvfiittjt Tr The Ifraelites, it may be laid, were going to inhabit among Ido- latrous Nations. True : but did not the Pa- triarchs dwell among fuch as were equally A- poftates from the Wbrftiip of the True God ? And was not the Religion of the latter equally therefore in danger with that of the former ? And was it not, at fome times, as nearly per- verted s ? It will be faid alfo, that the Ifraelites, having liv'd in Egypt for many years, had given into the Cuftoms of their Idolatrous Matters ; and therefore a Sabbath was inftituted to heal them of that inveterate Diftemper. But is it not more for the honour of God, that he be fuppos'd to have inftituted a Sabbath, by way of Prevention, rather than by way of Cure ? That, as he forefaw the future falling off of Mankind from his Worfliip, he mould rather promulge a Law preventive of fuch Apoftacy ? s Plerique quidem non dubitant, quin Idololatriam in Patriarcharum domos invexerit primus Serugus filius Reu feu Rhagau ; fie & Eufebius. Eutychius primordia Ido- lolatriae refert ad tempora Kahtanis feu Joctanis, qui fra- ter Phalegi fuit ; 6c Idololatriae incrementum rer'ert ad tempora Serugi. Ut de origine Idololatriae ipfe dicam, id certum eft, tempore Therachi falfis Diis litatum & in- fervitum efle. NecTherachum ipfum au&orem efle dici poteft, quum falfos Deos dicuntur coluifle ii, qui trans fiumen habitarunt CD 71J70 a feeulo : Quin igitur inter Semum benedictum & Therachum in familias Patriarcha- rum irrepferit, ambiguum non eft. Heidegg. Hift. Pa- triarch. Exer. i. Sec. 32. And Dissertation II. 135 And do we not find that this was a&ually the cafe ? — Let us not then confine the Mercy of God j ordifownhis Goodnefs, as not extend- ed to all his Creatures. The Sacred Hiitorian has exprefsly aflur'd us, that, at the finifhino- the Creation, God commanded the obferva- tion of a Sabbath, in remembrance of the Crea- tor and his Works; and certainly fuch a Com- mand muft extend, and muft have extended, to all Mankind, becaufe they all are Creatures c . It is indeed afferted by fome — that the Text in Gen. II, commanding a Sabbath, is a Pro- lepjis ; and mentiond there only by way of An- ticipation of the Jeivijh Sabbath^ inftituted about TwoThoufand Five Hundred Years after. But the Uniformity of the Hiftory, and the Regu- larity of the Narration, are fufficient to fet afide fo forced an Interpretation u . I mail, t It may be obferv'd, that our Saviour tells us (Mark II. 27.) The SaLbath was made or inftituted) &«. ™ xtjpanrsii, for the fake ofM A N ; not for one particular Nation, but for the benefit of Mank'md. And therefore we may apply St. Paul's words in Rom. III. 29 ; and fay — Was the Sab- Bath then for the Jews only, or is it for ^Gentiles alfo ? Tea, for the G E N T 1 L E s alfo. u — Mihi quidem hoc pro certo ftatuitur, ad Dejl'ma- tiones atque Anticipationes non effe fugiendum in Scriptis Divinis, nifi cum fenfus verborum occurrit impeditus, qui ferat prae fe vel falfum aliquid, vel abfonum & alie- num : at nihil hie ejufmodi. Vera & perfpicua funt om- nia j & cur hie locus eodem, quo narratur, temporis ordine non fit intelligendus, equidem nihil perfpicio. Annal. Mund. a Robinfon, p. 57. S however 136 Dissertation II. however, for a fuller confutation of it, draw a few obfervations from the Fourth Command- ment it felf w . The intent of the Firft Table of the Deca- logue confefTedly was to fecure the Worfliip of the True God, after a proper manner. But tho' the Firft precept of this Table may be well thought the moft important, as being the foun- dation of the reft; yet the Fourth precept only begins with the word Remember. Were not thelfraelites then equally, or rather more care- fully to remember, to have no other Gods but One ? Were they not, at Ieaft equally, to re- member that this one God was not to be wor- Ihipp'd under any vifible Reprefentation ? Yes, certainly j and therefore as this T{emembrance y fo peculiarly preflx'd to the Fourth Command- ment, does not infer any Superiority in that Commandment, it muft refer to the previous Inftitution of the Sabbath, which it enjoin'd. For God tells them by the whole tenour of that Commandment, that it was only a Renewal of what he had enjoin'd at his finifliing the Crea- tion, and what had been before obferv'd. And therefore they were to remember— that the fame facred Inftitution was continued and incorpo- rated into that Syftem of Laws, which he then gave them. For the words m&'n DV DH IIDt W\\h are not (as they are fometimes ren- w Exod. XX. 8. der'd) Dissertation II. 137 der'd ) Remember that thou keep holy the Sab- bath Day -but — Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep that holy. Thus God begins the Commandment with referring them to a prior obfervation ; and then he lays down the manner and extent of the Obligation of it — Six days Jljalt thou la- bour, and do all thy work j and the Seventh Day is the Sabbath (not of, but) to the Lord thy God (a Reft from Labour to attend upon the Wor- fhip of God ) on that thoujhalt not do any work ; Thou, nor thy Son (3c. nor the Stranger that is within thy Gates. This mention of the Stran- ger 's being to obferve a Sabbath is a Proof that the Command of a Sabbath is not merely Jewifh, as has frequently been afTerted x . No Stranger could join in eating the Paflbver, without being firft circumcis'd, and thereby initiated into Judaifm y ; but a Stranger might, nay was oblig'd (we find) to keep the Sabbath, tho' he had not been circumcis'd. The reafon of which remarkable diftindtion is — that Cir- x The following Obfervation of Bp Cumberland con- firms this point— Sumo pro conceflb, feu manifefta veri- tate, quod omnia Sacrificia, q^ as Peregrini e gentibus aliis permittebantur orFcrre Deo, in lege Mofaica, ea omnia licita fuerunt, virtute legumP atriarckalium & Naturalium • nullaaue a Mofaicis legibus data ejfc 'tis Privilegia^ prscter ea, quae ante legem ex jure gentium ad om?ies homines pertine- bant. DeLeg. Patriar. in Orig. Gent, antiq. p. 464. y Exod. XII. 43, 44. S 2 cumciflon 138 Dissertation II. cumcifion was a National, and the Sabbath an 1)niverfal Inftitution ; the former given in command to Abraham, and obligatory only on his Defcendants ; while the latter was given in command to Adam, the Father of all Mankind. After this claufe concerning the Stranger, follows the Reafonofthe Command, exa&ly the fame with what was deliver'd at its firft In- ftitution — Bccaufe in Six Days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, and refted on the Seventh Day ; therefore the Lord blefied the Seventh Day and hallowed it. The very Letter then of this Precept evi- dently informs us, that, as the Sanctification of one day in feven was (byway of Analogy to, and in Remembrance of the Creation) given in command to Adam, the Parent of Mankind, and only re-authoriz'd at Sinai ; all Mankind muft have been, andmuftbe, oblig'd by virtue of the Sabbatical Inftitution. Thus much may be thought fufficient to prove the Firft Propofition ;■— that Gen. II. 3. contains an Univerfal Command to obferve a Weekly Sabbath ; which will, however, be far- ther ftrengthen'd and confirmd by Arguments introduc'd hereafter. The Second Propofition now offers it felf to our thoughts; which is — that, tho' this Com- mand of a Sabbath at the Creation was rein- fore '4 Dissertation II. 139 forc'd by a more awful delivery of it from Mount Sinai ; yet it was exprefsly obferv'd by the Children of Ifrael, before that delivery of it from Sinai. We read in the hiftory of the Travels of the Ifraelites, that they came to the Wiidernefs of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the fecond month after their departing out of Egypt — that from the Wii- dernefs of Sin they went to fypbidim- and from J^ephidim they came to the Wiidernefs of Sinai, in the third month \ The intermediate time, between the fifteenth day of the fecond month and their arrival at Sinai in the third month, was fpent at Sin, where they murmur'd and were fed with Manna j and, after that, at Re- phidim, where they murmur'd again, and were fatisfied with Water, and where they fought the Amalekites. And therefore whatever was done and obferv'd, in the Wiidernefs of Sin, muft have been done and obferv'd before they came to Mount Sinai, and confequently before the delivery of the Law from thence. Now we read in Exod. XVI. 1.— And all the Congregation of the Children of Ifrael came unto the Wiidernefs of Sin. 2. And they murmured again ft Mofes in that Wiidernefs. 3. And f aid, You have brought us forth into this Wiidernefs, to kill this whole Affembly with hunger. 4. Then z Exod. XVI. 1. XVII. 1. XIX. i, 1. faid 140 Dissertation II. /aid the Lord unto Mofes — Behold ! I will rain Bread from Heaven unto you j and the people Jhall gather a certain rate every day. j. And on the Sixth day they pall prepare that which they bring in • it Jhall be twice as much as they gather daily. 22. And on the fixth day they gathered twice as much Bread, two Omers for one Man ; and all the Jailers of the Congregation came and toldMofes, 23. And he Jaid unto them,, This is what the Lord hath faid, To morrow being the J^efi of the Holy Sabbath unto the Lord, bake what ye will bake to day, and fee the what ye will feethe - 7 and that which remaineth lay up until the morning. 24. And they laid it up until the morning, as Mofes bade. 2?. And Mofes Jaid, Eat that to day ; for this day being the Sabbath unto the Lord, to day ye Jljall not find it in the field. 26. Six days ye jljall gather it ; but on the Seventh day, which is the Sabbath, on that there Jhall be none, 27. Tet there went out fome on the Seventh day to gather, but they found none. 28. And the Lord f aid unto Mofes, How long re- fufe ye to keep my Commandments and my Laws? 29. See ! Becaufe the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the fixth Day the Bread of two Days, abide ye then every man in his place ; let no man go out of his place on the Seventh Day. 30. So the people kept the Sabbath on the Seventh Day. This Dissertation II. 14.1 This Chapter then, being exprefs, is abun- dantly fufficient to eftablifh the Second Propo- rtion— that the Ifraelites obferv'd a Sabbath Day before the giving of the Law from Sinai a . And it is remarkable, that all the expreflions, mentioning a Sabbath in the above-cited verfes, fpeak of it, not as a novel Inftitution, but as an Inftitution the people were very well ac- quainted with. To morrow, fays Mofes to the Rulers, is the Holy Sabbath unto the Lord ; and therefore, as he knew them perfectly fen- fible of that, he only tells them, how they were to a£t at that time with regard to the miracu- lous gift of Bread from Heaven j which was not to fall on the Seventh day, as it did on the other fix, that fo the deftination of that one a This then is a fufficient anfwer to that Objection, drawn from a'paffage in Nehemiah, which Dr. Spencer and others infill upon as of great confequence in the argu- ment againfl: a Patriarchal Sabbath. The words are in Nehemiah IX. 13, 14. Thou catnefi down alfo upon mount Sinai, and fpakeft with tkcm from Heaven, and gaveji them right Judgments, and true Laws, good Statutes and Command- ments ', and madeji known unto them thy holy Sabbath. For it appears that a Sabbath was actually commanded, and obferv'd by the Ifraelites, before they came to binai ; and therefore a Sabbath could not be firft commanded the If- raelites from Sinai. So that the word ryV7\ mould be render'd agnofecre, animadvertere, attendere, curare, curam gerere eos fecifti. For thefe are its fignifications ; and the word implies here that folemn and awful reinforcement of the Sabbath, which God made at Sinai, punifhing the violation of it vmh Death. Numb. XV. 35". day 142 Dissertation II. day to facred ufes might not be render'd ufelefs and ineffectual. Having thus fhewn, that the Sabbath was obfervd by the Children of Ifrael, before the delivery of the Fourth Commandment from Mount Sinai ; I fhall proceed to prove the Third Proportion ; which is — that this Obfer- vation of theirs muft have been in obedience to fome Pofitive Inftitution ; and as there is no intermediate or fecond Inftitution, it could be only in obedience to the firft Inftitution given in command to Adam. I fliail introduce what I have to offer here with a quotation from the celebrated Author of the Religion of Nature delineated b . We fhall find ourfelves bound, Jays ke> to worfhip God in the beft manner we can. And to do this, thefe things may in general be faid to be re- quir'd ,• an intent Mind , a proper form of Words, a proper Pofture, a proper Place, and a proper Time. As to this laft Article it muft be here obfervd, that all times cannot be equally proper • and therefore, for private Worfhip, the compos'd hour and the fofter feafon of Retreat and Silence ought to be fought, and, as far as fairly may be, contriv'd. But there ought alfo to be a Publick Worfhip of the Deity. For a Man may be confider'd as b Sett. V. a Dissertation II. 143 a Member of a Society ; and, as fuch, he ought to worfliip God publickly, if he has Capacity and Opportunity. Or, the Society may be confider'd as One Body-, that has common Inte- refts and Concerns ; and, as fuch, is oblig'd to worfliip the Deity, and offer up one common Prayer. And farther, toward keeping Man- kind in order, it is neceffary there fliould be fome Religion profeft and even eftablifh'd, with cannot be without fome Publick Worfliip ; and were it not for that fenfe of Virtue, which is principally preferv'd ( fo far as it is preferv'd) by National Forms and Habits of Religion, Men would foon lofe it all, run wild, and adit like the worft of Savages c . If then there is a Neceffity for Publick Wor- Jhip d , there muft be alfo a Neceffity for fixing on fome Stated Time for the exercife of this c The true Religion, notwithstanding the tenPerfecu- tions and all the artifices of cruelty which Hell and Hea- thenifm could contrive, grew and increas'd by means of a Weekly Ajfemblj^ and the duties then perforrrrd ; and this Julian the Apoftate was fo fenfible of, that, when all his Wits had been at work for reftoring the Heathenifh Impiety, he could not think of any way more effectual, than ordering all his Philofophers to preach it up weekly to the People. Dr. Prideaux's Conned. Part I. Book 6. d Id fcilicet naturalis Ratio dictat, quum Homo fit ani- mal opAijTtxov *«/ 7tvXitix.6v non privatim folum Deum colen- dum eflfe, fed & publice atque in ccetu : ad earn rem ne- cefTariam efife defignationem certorum locorum, ubi con- ventus fiat, & condicliionem temporis quando. Porro qui dies Numinis cultui facrati erant, iis hoc efle agendum, T Publick 144 Dissertation II. Publick Worfhip ; and this, as ic is a felf-evi- dent Truth, the Oppofers of Religious Infti- tutions have the ingenuity to afTent to, as the voice of T^eafon. The Author of .the Leviathan tells us e — Reafon direð not only to wor- fhip God in Secret^ but alfo, and especially in Publick and in the fight of Men ; for without that, (what in Honour is moft acceptable) the procuring others to honour him, is loft. And the Author of Chriftianity as old as the Crea- tion fays f — It is the voice of Nature, that God fhould be publickly worfhipp'd ; and that Men fhould do this in the moft convenient way, by appointing amongft themfelvesTime, Place, Perfons, and all other things which require fpecial determination. The conceffion, which this Writer found himfelf oblig'd to make, holds ftrongly in fa- vour of the point before us ; but we muft guard againft his inference — God muft be pub- lickly worfhipp'd, and in the moft convenient way; therefore Men fhould appoint among atque huh uni rei operandum. Sic volunt Leges Atticae, fie Romanx y habebat tamen ilia «s^#j Lex fuam quan- dam exceptionem^ quam dictabat jequitas : nam (apud Ma- crobium eft ) Umbro negabat eum pollui, qui opus vel ad Deos pertinens Sacrorumve causa feciflet, vel aliquid ad urgentem vita utilitatem refpiciens adtitaffet. Witf. JE- gyptiac. Lib. z. Cap. 16. Sec. y. e Chap. XXXI. p. 171. f Page u^ D utf, themfelves Dissertation II. 145 themfelves Time &c. This deduction he was neceflitated to draw from his disbelief of Re- velation ; for as God muft be publickly wor- fhipp'd, and at fome ftated Time, if God has not reveald that Time, Man muft appoint it. But (Thanks be to God !) We have, and acknowledge a Divine Command, whereunto we do well that we take heed-, as unto a Light that Jhineth in a dark place s. For had this Ap- pointment of the publick return of Divine Worfhip been only of, and from Man • how vague and uncertain, how remifs or violent, how wild and changeable had been the various Institution in various places ; and how diftracT:- ed the exercife of all Publick Sacred Solemni- ties ! The World had been a Theatre of Reli- ligious Difcord ,• or rather, Religion had been loft in the tumult. The different Forces, im- prefs'd on all fides to give it each its peculiar direction, would, when at once applied, have anfwerd the fame purpofe, as the Principle in- herent in Matter ; which is remarkable for its oppofition to Life and Motion. And there- fore, to prevent fuch a Quiefcence of Publick Worfhip, it was neceflary, that God fliould imprefs his Authority on fome Stated Time for the obfervation of it, by the force of which the World might uniformly agree in celebrating the appointed time ; as the Planetary Bodies g 2 Pet. I. 19. T 2 revolve 146 Dissertation II. revolve in harmony and order, by the power of thofe Principles, which are imprefsd upon them by the God of Nature. Human Wifdom then being too weak to afcer- tain what portion of our Time fliould be de- voted to Publick Worfhip, and human Power unable to cftablijh an uniform Obedience ; God, the God of Order , has been pleas'd to make known his Will, and fix the obfervation of an holy Sabbath. One Day in Seven he has ap- pointed, on which Men may abftracl themfelves from Labour, and the common Bufineffes of Life j and be employd in the fublime Contem- plation of the Creator, and Themfelves his Creatures ; and confequently exercife the pro- per A&s of Worfhip arifing from fo interefting a Relation h . The Words of this Inftitution have been before confider'd ; and as a Weekly Sabbath was evidently defignd. for a perpetual Remembrance of the Creator, and was ufher'd in at his compleating the Creation ; fo, from h Philo, on this Subjed, has a PaflTage which is truly noble, and therefore very worthy of our Obfervation. mp Sv ita «X^ciS, xuf wm tsS - ' i-mStuj ia, /l*», ««/ ^lUftOK p)fj ra» 75js Mr. Selden ob- ferves, that he leaves the point undetermin'd; but fays that great man — ManalTeh Ben Ifrael was not the only Mafter among the Jews, who rejected the opinion of a Sabbatical Institution at Marah. The Truth feems to be, that fome Jews were defirous at any rate to have the honour of the Sabbath to themfelves, and fome Chriftians were very ready to yield up their claim ; and therefore Both feem to have been willing to fix the Institution of it at Marah, to prevent the Doctrine oiks T) niverfality -, which would otherwife follow of courfe, becaufe it was ob- ferv'd before the giving of the Law. But the Inftitution of a Sabbath is as difficult to be ex- tracted from the word Statute, as the form of 1 See Selden de Jure Nat. & Gent. Lib. 3. Cap. 9. the 150 Dissertation II. the Jewifh Civil Government is from the word Ordinance or Judgment ; tho' both have been fo frequently afcrib'd to the virtue of thefe two words. Let us confider the place carefully, with the context — There made for them a Statute and an Ordinance —Who made ? The Original gives us no nominative cafe ; which it certainly would have done, had there been fuch mighty confequences depending ; efpecially as the no- minative cafe generally abounds in the Hebrew Language. Befides : there is not the appear- ance of a reafon for the Inftitution of a Sab- bath in this place, rather than another. The Ifraelites were now very near to Sinai, from whence they were to receive their Law ; and, if a Sabbath was never yet instituted, 'tis fcarce poffible to think that God would promulge one important precept of that Law, about a fort- night before the reft ; and that, when pro- mulg'd, it fliould lie fo deeply conceal'd under the word Statute. But it may be proper to obferve, that the words Statute? and Judgment or Ordinance are us'd very indifcriminately thro' the Bible, and frequently fignify nothing more than the word of God in general m . Thus in Pfalm CXIX. y. — Oh ! that my Ways were fo direbl, that I might m See the Prolegom. to the Polyglott Bible, Idiotifm the 14, p. 45-. keep Dissertation II. 151 keep thy Statutes — 20. My Soul breaketh out fir the very fervent defire it hath alway unto thy Judgments — and 1 1 6. Oh ! teach me thy Judg- ments. So that the words — there he propofed to them a Statute and an Ordinance, and there he tried them — teem to fignify, that there either God, or Mofes by his order, propos'd the fol- lowing general Covenant to the Ifraelites_that if they would obey him, he would be their God, and preferve them from evil. And this he did to try them, whether or no they were willing to regulate their future behaviour according to his Will, and to receive him as their Lawgiver. For it is evident that the words do not of themfelves imply either the Inftitution of a Sabbath (which was inftituted before,) or of their Civil Government (which was inftituted after j) and therefore the fenfe of the place, regularly confider'd, will certainly determine us againft fuch a forced con ft ruction. The Ifraelites were now come to Marah; and com- plain'd againft God and their Leader Mofes, on account of the bitternefs of the waters. They were apprehenfive, that fuch an apparent fear- city of what was neceffary both for meat and drink, in thofe Defarts of Arabia, would im- mediately reduce them to various Sickneffes, and foon to Death. To abate, therefore, their murmurings for the prefent, God works a Miracle to fweeten the waters j and to filence U their 152 Dissertation II. their complaints, and eafe them of future fears, he takes occafion from the preceding circum- ftance to propofe the following tryal of their Obedience — If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and do that which it right in his fight, and wilt give Ear to his Commandments, and keep all his Statutes -, I will put none of thofe Difeafes upon Thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians : for I am the Lord that healeth thee (or, that am ready and able to remove Plagues and Difeafes from thee n .) So that the Statute and Ordinance, which he made, or rather proposed to them at Marah to try them, was exprefsly contain'd in the words above-cited j unlefs we will tear in pieces the Sentence, by inferting what has not the leaft agreement with the argument; and diflblve that Unity, by which it is fo firmly connected — And when the Waters were made fweet, there he propofed to them a Statute and an Ordinance, and there he tried them -, for he faid, If thou wilt diligently hearken &c. I will put no Difeafes upon thee (3c. I am the Lord &c. ° — n See the Prolegom. to the Polyglott Bible, Idiotifms the 57 and 58, p. 47. o Dr. Shuckford tells us (Conned. Vol. III. p. 1.) that this Statute and Ordinance was given to Mofes, and that God here made trial of his Obedience, and not that of the people of Ifrael: for this, he fays , muft be the fenfe of the place. Bur, (with deference to Co great a Name) the contrary feems evident from the tenor of the whole pak But Dissertation II. 153 But laftly; what will put this point (and it is a point of Moment) out of all doubt, is the following pafTage from the Prophet Jeremiah, which refers directly to this place. Chap. VII. 22, 23. I fpake not unto Your Fathers, nor com- manded them, at the time that I brought them out of the hand of Egypt, concerning the matters of Burnt-Offering or Sacrifice- but only this very thing commanded I them, faying ; Obey my Voice, and I will be your God, and ye Jhall be my People ; and walk ye in all the Ways, that I Jhall command (not, as in our Englilh Verfion — that I have commanded) Ton, that it may be well unto You. The Prophet cannot, in this celebrated Paf- fage, refer either to the precife time of the departure of the Ifraelites out of Egypt, or to what was tranfa&ed at Sinai \ for at the firft time he inftituted the Paffover, which is fie- fage, and in particular from the antithefis in it between the Ifraelites and the Egyptians — I "will put none of thoje Difeafes on Thee, "which I have brought upon the Egyptians. The Dr. indeed obferves, that the Affix us'd by Mofes does not fignify them, but him; and therefore Mofes was here fpoken of, and not the Ifraelites. The obfervation is true, but the inference from it can be of no force for this undeniable reafon — becaufe God very frequently fpeaks of the Ifraelites collectively, as one Body, or Perfon, and addreffes himfelf to them in the fngular number. Among many inftances, one in Exodus (XX. z.) will eftablifli this affertion ; for God certainly there fpeaks to all the Ifraelites, and yet the Affix is Angular — J am the Lord thy God, -who have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the houfe of Bondage. U 2 quently 154 Dissertation II. quently term'd a Sacrifice ; and the fame He- brew Word, which the Prophet here makes ufe of, is twice applied to the Paflbver by Mofes himfelf p. Nor can he be underftood of what pafs'd at Sinai; for there God fpake to the Ifraelites concerning the whole of Burnt-Offer- ings and Sacrifices : and therefore he muft refer to this Tranfa&ion at Marah, which was juft after their coming forth from Egypt j when God tried them, to know whether they would agree to walk in all the ways, not which he did then command them, but which (as Jeremiah here explains it) he was foon to command them from Mount Sinai. Upon the refult then of this Enquiry it feems fully to appear, that a Sabbath was not inftituted in any part of thefe words; and if not in thefe words, 1 believe there is no other intermediate place, between Gen. II. and Exod. XX. that can, with any appearance of Argu- ment, be cited to that purpofe. And if this be true, it will of confequence follow from the whole — that as the obfervation of a Weekly Sabbath, recorded of the Ifraelites in the Wil- dernefs of Sin, before they came to Sinai, was in obedience to a divine pofitive Inftitution; fo that muft have been the very Inftitution given in command to Adam, becaufe there is p Due. XVI. ?,&, rCf Dr. Stanhope, in his Note on Charron of Wifdom; Vol. II. p. 718. no Dissertation II. 155 no intermediate Inftitution. And, laftly, it is from hence evident— that that original Inftitu- tion was not valid for one day only, but con- tinued in force down to the delivery of the Law from Sinai. I proceed now to the Fourth and Iaft thing propos'd upon this Subject, which was to prove — That the Inftitution of a Sabbath was ob- ferv'd, during the Ante-Mofaic Oeconomy; and that this Sabbath was the Day, on which Cain and Abel came together to offer their Ob- lations to the Deity. Before I offer any arguments on this head, I mall prepare the way, by anfwering a very common Objection ; which is — That if the Patriarchs had obferv'd a Sabbath, fome men- tion of it would have been found in the hiftory of their times; and therefore, as the Objectors affirm there is no fuch obfervation mention'd, they conclude againft the obfervation in their Days. To this, I hope, a fatisfa&ory Anfwer may be given, by obferving— That the Silence of a Hiftory, as to the continuance of a Cuftom once inftituted therein, is no Argument againft the continuance of that Cuftom, provided the reafon of its obfervation ftiil fubfifts. But that there is mention made of fuch an obfervation will, probably, appear hereafter. Yet, fup- pofing the contrary ; the Obje&ion, deduc'd from 156 Dissertation II. from fuch a Silence in the Hiftory, may be en- tirely confuted by asking and anfwering the following Queftion.—Was the fyte of Circum- tifion obferv'd by the Ifraelites, after they were fettled in the Land of Canaan ? I fuppofe it will readily be anfwer'd in the Affirmative; becaufe Circumcifion was the great Sign of Gods Covenant with their Father Abraham, and the Chara&eriftic Mark of the peculiar people of God. If this then be the Anfwer, as it indubitably muft, I believe the Obje&ors will be unable to find one Text recording the particular obfer- vation of Circumcifion, from the fettling of the Ifraelites in Canaan down to the Circum- cifion of our Saviour Chrift; which is from Jofhua Chap. V, to S.Luke Chap. II, and con- tains the fpace of one thoufand four hundred and fifty Years. Wherefore, as Circumcifion was conftantly obferv'd by the Ifraelites, tho* not mention'd in the Sacred Hiftory; fo might the Sabbath by the Patriarchs, tho* we have no continued information of it**. q Quptiefcunque publici conventus (inter Patriarchas) agi poterant, ccnfentaneum eft ut credamus, & Sabba- tum fuiflfe toties rite celebratum; quamvis de utroque Mofes conticefcat in primo fuorum; quemadmodum in libris, qui poft Mofen fequuntur fex, Sabbatum non legi- mus obfervatum, nee inde tamen colligimus negledtum. Annal. Mund, Robinfon S.T.P. p. ?8. The Dissertation II. 157 The Reafon in thefe cafes feems to be this —The Hiftorian, having once given the origin and caufe of fuch and fuch an Inftitution, as was always to be obferv'd, and therefore could not be forgotten ,• thought it needlefs to men- tion the repeated times of its obfervation, which every one, from the words of the Infti- tution it felf, mull otherwife be well acquaint- ed with. After this previous Remark, I prefume, we may fairly conclude— that tho' we have f&w^ or mould have no notices, of the Patriarchs ob- ferving a Sabbath ; yet that will not conclude againft their obfervation of it. But, I hope, we are not without Arguments, even here * which will appear, fir ft, by confidering the early obfervatio?i of Weeks among all Nations, and the foundation of that Cuftom. When Adam was at firft introduc'd into Being, we may with reafon fuppofe him to have Iook'd around, and admir'd the various goodnefs difplaid over the face of the Crea- tion ; the Earth, no doubt, won upon his love, while the Heaven excited his wonder. He might, nay he muft have obferv'd the two great Luminaries, mining with peculiar emi- nence in the canopy that cover'd him - 3 the one now riling, now fetting ; the other now en- creafing, now decreafing, in a regular and har- monious manner. From the apparent journey of 158 Dissertation II. of the Sun, and the fuperior light confequent on his appearance, he might meafure the boun- daries of Day j and, from the milder radiance of the Moon, he might fix the limits of Night: or, rather, he might define Day to be the pre- fence^ and Night the abfence^ of the Sun : and thus, doubtlefs, the firft exiftence of Time was meafur'd. But he might alfo compute by a collective number of Days ; from a new to a full, and from a full to a new Moon ; and fo form a Lunar Month. And farther, 'tis poffi- ble, that he might fix upon the meafure of a Tear alfo. But it feems probable, that, of thefe, the Cuftom of meafuring Time by Days only was all that took place in the firft ages of the world. I fay of thefe, becaufe there was another method of computation, i. e. by a re- volution ©/"Seven Days, which prevail'd in the infancy of the world, and afterwards travell'd with mankind thro' the feveral parts of it. That fuch a Revolution of Time was thus obferv'd, is plain from Prophane as well as Sa- cred Hijiory. As to the former, the Teftimo- nies fubjoin'd are very full and exprefs ; which I have therefore deliver'd in the words of their feveral Authors r . r Grotius tells us (DeVerit. Chrift. Relig. Lib. I. Sedt. 16.) — Intra feptem dies pera£U operis memoria fer- vata non apud Grsecos tantum & Italos, honore diei fep- timi, quod ex Jofepho, Pbilone, Tibullo, Clemente Alex- The Dissertation II. 159 The Queftion here ariling then will be -—How early this obfervation of Weeks pre- andrino & Luciano difcimus ( nam de Hebraeis notiffi- mum) fed & apud Celtas & Indos, quibus omnibus per hebdomadas digefta tempora ; quod nos docent Philoftra- tus, Dion Caffius, Juftinus Martyr, & vetuftiflima dierum nomina. With this agrees the tetlimony of Huetius (Demonftrat. Evangel. Prop. 4. Cap. n. p. 264.) — Pe r hebdomadas dierum difcreta fuerunt iEgyptiis temporum fpatia, Graecis, nee non & Brachmanibus Indis, & Gallis noftris, & Germanis, nee non & Britannis, & ipfis etiam barbaris Americanis. To thefe words of Huetius, Bud- DjEUS ( Sele&a Jur. & Gent. p. Z34. ) gives his Confent, and ftrongly confirms the validity of his Opinion. Sca- liger (De Emendatione Temp. p. 9.) informs us — Ex diebus hunt avrvf^ra xuf ofmfosj quas notationes temporum conftituunt ; primum ovr»f& ex diebus dicitur Septimana, res omnibus quidem Orientis populis ab ultima ufque an- tiquitate ufitata. Josephus (In Lib. ado contra Appion. Cap. 2.0.) fays — Ovfr' vsn a mXi? E^liouMihvriifj ah fixgZxg®' ah t* &><&'j vjz* py re 777J tZhfyid(!&' i aj» xgyitfdp mpm, ro j5(^ a S^mpmKi. This famous paffage, fo often brought to prove the univerfal obfervation of a -weekly Sabbath^ is al- low'd by Selden (Jus Nat. & Gent. Lib. 3. cap. 22.) to prove the univerfal computation of Time by Weeks ; which is fufficient to entitle it to a place among the Authorities here produe'd. That the obfervation of Weeks was in ufe among the Egyptians from remote antiquity, is allow'd on all hands, and appears from thofe words of Herodo- tus (Lib. 2. Cap. 82.) — K«/ Txh «»« Aiyi7f\isun i&[&)**** fubjoins — m Amx- Auitc teyet, »i 3 it tZh[xn tfMfnc t* (aIw®> >«jj9-«?, t*A»»9-j) ES&^jtlas* But this Birth of Apollo, or the Sun, on the Seventh day of the month (fo celebrated among the Heathens) evi- dently took its rife at firft from the cuftom of computing Time by [even days, of which the day of the Sun was the principal. Indeed the word EZh/^^rxs gives us the idea, not only of the chief, but the firft of the Seven Days ; and implies the day of THE Sun ftand'mg at the head of the other fix, and leading them on in order. And Mr. Selden aflures us , that Sunday was the firft day of the Week, in the Eaft, from the rcmoteft antiquity. Jus Nat. & Gent. Lib. 3. Cap. zz. molt Dissertation II. 161 moft oppofite in Polity and Cuftoms in genera!, Nations not united by Commerce or Commu- nication (when that Cuftom has nothing in na- ture or the reafon of things to give it birth, and eftablifh to it felf fuch a currency) it muft be deriv'd from fome Revelation ; which Reve- lation may in certain places have been forgot- ten, tho' the Cuftom, introduc'd by and found- ed on fuch Revelation, (till continued. And farther— this Revelation muft have been made antecedent to the Difperlion at Babel j when ail Mankind, being but one Nation, and living together in the form of one large Family, were of one Language, and govern'd by the fame Laws and Cuftoms; which Laws and Cuftoms were carried by the various Families of Man- kind into all thofe parts of the world, where they feverally fettled upon their Separation, and fo were deliver'd down regularly to their Pofterity \ t Abraham was the fifth from Peleg, and all mankind liv'd together in Chaldea, under the government of Noah and his Sons, until the days of Peleg : fo long they were of one language, one fociety, and one religion : and then they divided the Earth, being forced to leave ofF building the tower of Babel : and from thence they fpread themfelves into the feveral Countries which fell to their {hares, carrying along with them the Laws, Cuftoms and Re- ligion, under which they had 'till thofe days been educated and govern d. Sir If. Newton's Chronology, p. 186. X a This 162 Dissertation II. This will certainly be found to have been the cafe with the Cuftom of computing Time by Weeks, And the fingle, but celebrated Tefti- mony of Theophilus Antiocbenus^ in his Epiftle to AutoIycus u , is fufficient to confirm the ap- plication ETJ ^V tttf/ 'SjB< TV? doJofJtYjf VjfAtpotS, n\v Tntoms £$p av&pooTidi ovcfjtaJ^xcnv' 01 <^g •zthetxe ayvoxaiv, 6Tt imp e£ocuoi? o K0tXet7Oj 2ABBATON Eftslwm ip- plwdjniq E B A O M A 2' v\ns «? imv $p®* ctv^-panrm cvofAo.^7Uj (a^j, ii v\v Si cuticlv Kct>\af $> ovf*mipmnTccf 7m ' mx at tutu hopv e«» hvhi i^ef, »» fl$*** o» et^Kt M*>m;. Witf. /Egyptiac. Lib. III. Cap. 9. Sec. *, at 1 66 Dissertation II. at the finifhing the Creation God commanded the Seventh Day, from the beginning of the Creation, to be kept holy • and this on every return of the Seventh Day. And it has, I hope, been prov'd from Fad: that it was ob- ferv'd afterwards, in obedience to this Com- mand. Wherefore the Origin of Weeks muft of neceffity be owing to this Inftitution, and the weekly celebration of an Holy Sabbath. Having thus feen that the computation of Time by Weeks was introduc'd by the inftitu- tion and obfervation of a Sabbath, we may ob- ferve here — that as the continued obfervation of a Sabbath proves the origin of Weeks , fo the origin of Weeks proves the continued obfervation of a Sabbath. For a Sabbath muft have been twice obferv'd at leaft, in order to conftitute the intermediate Six Days, and compleat a Week. And from hence it alfo follows — that the defign of the Command, given by God to Adam, was not only for one day of Reft and Holinefs ( it being impoffible that Adam could be faid to reft, when he had not yet began to work) but for a weekly and continu'd obfer- vation of a Day, excepted from Labour, and devoted to facred Employments ; a Day to be obferv'd by all, as it concerns all, from the beginning to the end of the World. This then appearing to be the Defign of the Inftitution, we may prefume that a proper ufe was Dissertation II. 167 was made of it by the great Fathers of the Human Race) in a pious obedience to the di- vine Command. For it feems to be certain, that the Patriarchs had fixd Places b for aflem- bling for Publick Worfhip — that they actually b Gen. XII. 8. And Abram removed from thence unto a mountain on the eajl of Beth-El — and there he builded a7i Altar , and called upon the Name of the Lord. After this he went down into Egypt ; and upon his return we read, Chap. XIII. 3 — And he went on his Journeys from the South, even unto Beth-El, unto the place where his tent had bee?i at the beginning — unto the place of the Altar, -which he had made there at the jirft ; and there Abram called on the Name of the Lord. So that we find the Patriarch pitched again in the fame Place, made ufe of the fame Altar, and performed the fame Worflolp — by calling on the Name of the Lord; or, as fome render it — by calling upon his Family and Servants mn* CZ3EO in the Name of the Lord. This laffc fenfe feems confirm'd from Chap. XVIII. 19; where God fays of A- braham — I know him, that he (Hli'') conflantly commands his Children and his houfloold after him, and they JJjall (or, that they fhall) keep the way of the Lord &C. That T\V£ * may be thus render'd, fee Leufden's Edit, of Buxtorf's Gram. p. 49. This Place then, felecled thus by Abraham, we find remarkably diftinguifh'd in Chap. XXVIII. 17. This Is none other but the Houfe ofGod—1%. And Jacob took the Stone that he had put for his pillow, a?id poured Oil upon the top of it. 19. And he called the name of that place Beth~ El. ax. And J aid— -this Stone, which I have fet for a pillar, Jliall be God's House. On thefe 1 aft words Heidegger obferves— Locus lapidem continens futurus fitDomusDei, fan&ificatione & applicatione • quia ibi Deus ab homini- bus vult coli, & gratiofam fuam prasfentiam effectis te- ftari. Recte igitur Abenezra notat hie infinuari Locum fixum precibus. Exercit. 16. Seel:. 2.3. Y held i68 Dissertation II. held Sacred Affemblies c — and that they had Priefts d to officiate in thefe Affemblies. The confequence of which is — that they muft alfo have had a fiated Time; for When, as well as Where, is abfolutely neceflary to be determind, in order to form a regular Publick Aflembly. And what time can we fo rationally conceive c We read, for inftance, that Cain and Abel brought their Offerings together to the fame place; and, that they offer'd in the prefence of a Company (which muft be their own Families) feems plain — Firft, becaufe Cain, had he only been with his Brother, would certainly have (lain him upon the fpot ; and not have ftifted his refent- ment, till he had afterwards invited him into the fields, and fo have murder'd him in cold Blood. And Secondly, St. Paul (Hebr. XI. 4.) tells us, that God gave a publick teftimorty, or called Witneffes^ that he accepted Abel's Of- ferings — MAPTTPOTNTOS vm twj ab^t ouuth tx Qat. d The Sacerdotal Office was perform'd at the firft by the Fathers and principal Perfons in the Patriarchal Fami- lies; and the firft perfon we find diftinguifh'd by the title of a Prieft was Melchizedek, the Prieft of the mo ft high God, Gen. XIV. 18. In Exod. XIX. 22. we find Priefts among the Ifraelites, before the giving of the Law. Jethro alfo was a Prieft of the true God, as may be inferred from Exod. XVIII. 1. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. And in Gen. XLI. 50, we read that Jofeph married a daughter of Potipherah, Prieft of On ; who was probably a Prieft to thofe in that part of Egypt, who were as yet untainted with Idolatry. Heidegger obferves of this Father-in-Law of Jofeph's — Sacerdotem hunc efle liquet ex ufu verbi f!"D 47. 22, ubi legitur quod Jofephus pepercit CD'jrD^ Sacerdotibus. Hac voce Sacerdotes intellexerunt antiquiffimi Interpretes; Graeci, qui reddunt4*/>«j; & Paraphraftes Chaldseus On- kelofus, qui pro C3>jrQ habet NHQD Hierophantas. Exercit.20. Sect. 17. to Dissertation II. 169 to have been appropriated to this ufe, as the Day appointed by God himfelf? It may be proper now to confider— whether fuch an obfervation of a Weekly Sabbath may not be found in the hiftories of fome of the Patriarchs, either exprefsly, or by a fair in- duction. Let the firft example then be that of holy Job,- which will appear, perhaps, to be cor- roborative of the prefent argument: efpecially as we have the authority of Origen for afferting Job's obfervation of a Sabbath Day e . For tho' it is not agreed among the Learned, in what age the divine Poem bearing his Name was penn'd ; fome great Authorities appearing for the Age before, or during the Egyptian Sla- very; and others for the Age before, or during the Babylonifh Captivity: yet if, with Bp Sherlock f , we approve the former opinion, and fuppofe the Book of Job to be the oldeft Book in the world — then an argument may be drawn from the beginning of that Book, to confirm Job's obfervation of a Sabbath as well as of Sacrifice. That Job was a Worfhipper of the true God, is indubitable ; and that he held a regular Af- fcmbly for Divine Worfhip, is plain from thofe e Origen affirms that Job obferv'd a Seventh Day. See Smith on the Lord's Day, p. 283. f DifiTertat.il. p.zotf. Y 2 places 170 Dissertation II. places in which it is obferv'd — that himfelf, his Family, and his Friends too came together to prefenc themfelves before the Lord— And that he fent for his Sons, after their days of Feaft- ing were expir'd, and fanctified them ; offer- ing Burnt-Sacrifice for any Sins which they might have committed in the days of their Jollity. That by the Sons of God in Gen. VI. 2. is meant Perfons prof effing the true Religion^ is acknowledged; except by a few Commentators, that will have them to be Angels^ or Demons^ or Incubi, or any thing but what they mould be, confidently with fenfe and reafon. The fame phrafe feems to carry the fame fenfe here s • and, if St. Chryfoftoms afTertion be g For if we allow, that the Ajfembly, here defcrib'd, v/asrea/; and fliould affirm that by the Sons of God are here meant the Angels of Heaven ; it will be difficult, perhaps, to affign the Place of this Affembly. If we fay — it was in Heaven, it may be ask'd— how could Satan afcend thither, and be readmitted among the BleiTed Angels, from whole company he had been banifrYd for ever, by a divine de- cree ? If we fay — it was on Earth ; it will not be eafy to explain, or conceive the manner how, and the occafion •why, this Affembly (of God, Angels and Satan) was held. Whereas, on the Suppofiirion that the Sons of God mean here Perfons profeffing the true ttorfhip of God, the Paffage will, perhaps, be much clearer, and more agreeable to Reafon as well as Scripture: for both thefe inform us e—rhat the Tempter is more diligent in his attempts upon Mankind, at their folemn times of Devotion ; and therefore the Son of Sirach advifes (Ecclus Chap. II. 1.) My Son, if thou come to ferve the Lord (« «r©«g^jj dtsX&mv %.v&a £>$», Sept.) prepare thy Soul for Temptation. true Dissertation II. 171 true h — that the Angels are no where call'd the Sons of God in Scripture, this muit be the fenfe of the words in this place. And iffo, thefe perfbns cannot be the Sons of Job only ; be- caufe, after the deftru&ion of Job's Family, the Sons of God alTembled a fecund time to perform their Religious Services'. So that here we find a regular AfTembly of People, of different Families, twice met to prefent them- felves before the Lord ; or, for the folemn performance of PublickWorfhip. And as Job thus continu'd uncorrupted in his Religion, and exprefs'd his fenfe of it by a careful obfer- vation of Sacrifice (which was then the great inftituted means of conciliating the divine Fa- vour) he was, doubtlefs, equally careful to per- form thefe Sacred Services on the Sabbath Day. For the Inftitution of that muft have defcended to him with the Inftitution of Sacri- fice -, both being enjoin d by the fame Autho- rity, and both obferv'd by thofe Patriarchs, from whom his Religion was handed down. In a word — we feem to find this very matter fo recorded in the Text • for in Chap. I. 6. we read mn> by zvmb D'nStfn on ijon ovn tin h Q>xm pxf en a mgt ewJpuTiuv ran Hfvrctf, ecfcx -my ttyyt\*»' TXTifs yap v t n$ ®ix ustSoyip^Ajrt. K«/ m%uTx» ftp $h%uoi ttv etyytXoi ^i Ota i/ but an End certain, precife, and determinate. The point then now is — What determinate portion of time is meant by the word D'D* Days ; and it feems neceflary that it mould here fignify either a Week or a Tear. The lat- ter is the opinion moftly, I believe, indulg'd ; tho' perhaps without the greateft reafon, as may appear from the following Confiderations. 'Tis plain that the Hiftorian gives thefe as his orvn words -, and therefore had he intended to fignify — at the end of the Tear, he probably would not have us'd the word && Days, but rw a Tear j which he fo frequently ufes in the very next Chapter ; and which is us'd by God himfelf, Gen. XVII. 21. Or he would have us'd that other Phrafe rOP riNVi in the end of the Dissertation II. 179 the Year, which we meet with in Exod. XXIII. 16. But what may be urg'd with greater force, the very phrafe rw \*pD is us'd by this fame Author in Exod. XII. 14.: Wherefore his not ufing either of thefe expreffions, efpecially the latter, but expreffing himfelf by the former, feems to prove the one chofen in opposition to the others. Befides : I don't find that the very phrafe CD* VP<2 % n ifi es at th e en d of the Tear any where in the Bible; it occurs indeed but in one other place, as in the text here difputed, and that is in 1 Kings XVII. 7 ; and there is no poflible reafon for confining the expreffion to a Tear in that Place. Wherefore we may con- clude, with the learned Gujfetius — that nei- ther is there any reafon why we mould think a Tear intended in this place : for, fays he, on the contrary rather, the revolution or courfe of the Tear will fcarce agree with the affair in hand; for if you mould begin the Year from the month Tifri, thofe Oblations would have been too late, and if you begin with Nifan they had been too foon, there not being at that time Fruits to offer. As there is nothing then in the words im- plying the End of the Year, but (if the obfer- vation of this laft Critical Author be juft) ra- ther the contrary; let us fee, whether there be o Commentar. Ling. Ebraicae, p. 314. any 180 Dissertation II. any reafon to determine us for the other fenfe — that it came to pafs at, or after the conclu- fion of a Week; that is, on the Sabbath Day. It has been already obferv'd — that one day in {even, was commanded by God to be kept holy— that in confequence of this Command to Adam a Weekly Sabbath was kept holy — and, it may be added, that the word DV2* fignifies fuch a determinate dated time, as beft agrees with the circumftances of the context where it occurs. Wherefore, as the Sabbath Day was the Day on which Sacred Rites were to be per- form'd, in the days of Cain and Abel; there can be no doubt but that this End of Days, on which thefe Brothers came with their Obla- tions, was the Sabbath Day, at or after the conclufion of the Week. This will be farther ftrengthend by confi- dering how early in the world this was per- form'd; it being the firft AU recorded of the fir ft Son of Adam; at a feafon, when it is ex- treamly probable there was no other computa- tion of time, than that of Days from Nature, and that of Weeks from the Sabbatical Indica- tion and Obfervation p. Or, fuppofing Tears then in ufe, the word rW was appropriated to p ExSyncelli Chronologia obfervavk Salmafr.is, priuf- quam ratio comnurandi per Mmfes & Annos ab Aftrologis inventa flailer, vereres illos Parres diftinxiffe tanttim per Septimanas. Wiifii iEgyptiac. Lib. 3. Cap. 9. Seel. 1. that Dissertation II. 181 that fignification; as we find in Gen. I. 14. And therefore, as the word DV (a Day) did, in the plural number (when without a numeral Adjective adjoin'd, to confine it to Days) fig- nify a JVeek y as the only collective body of Days then in ufe, or known under the name of fcb*2p Days-, fo we find the word plainly us'd for a Week, in Gen. XXIV. f$ • For Abraham's Servant, having fucceeded in his Journey, to take a Wife for lfaac, at the houfe of Bethuelj is importunate with Re- becca's Parents to let out with her immediately on his return, after fo long an abience. But her Relations, being defirous of her company for a fliort time, at leaft for a Week (the ufuaf time of celebrating the Nuptial Fea/h) fay to the Servant -1W IK D*23* unit n^n 1W which words may be well render'd by that very appofite phrafe in ufe among us — Let the q Gen XXIX. zj. Fulfill her Week—thzt is, as Abarba- nel rightly explains it — Exple cum Lea feptem dies nup- tiales, & mox ego &c uxor mea dabimus tibi etiam Ra- chelem : fie Syrus aliique Interpretes convivium intelli- gunt, neque in hiftoria hebdomadi annoruvi locus eft. Se- der Olam, p. 164. And to the lame purpofe Heidegger Hebdomadum A?rrtcrum mentio non eft nili in Scriptis Poeticis de rebus futuris ', non item in hiftoricis & ubi de contracti- bus agitur. Turn folennitatem nuptialem definitam fuifle tempore hebdomadas dierum, feu 7 dierum, fatis colligi poteft ex Judic. XIV. lz; & ex ratione legalis conjugii, & ex rerum geftarum ordine, 6c ex facra Chronologia, Exercit. 15. Se&.n. Damfel 1 8 2 Dissertation II. Damfel abide with us a Week, or Ten Days, For it is plain, that the word d*o» cannot in this place fignify a Tear., fince ix would then be — Let the Damfel abide with us a Tear, or Ten-, which, all things confider'd, had been a Re- queft very ftrange and unaccountable. Neither can the words fignify, as in our Englifh Verfion — Let the Damfel abide with us a few days, at the leaft ten; becaufe the particle itf, as ap- pears by Noldius, never fignifies at leaft in the whole Bible. So that the above — Let the Damfel abide with us a Week, or Ten Days — is the only rational explication that remains to be given; and (confidering that a Week was the Hated time of celebrating the Nuptial Feaft) it is fo natural and eafy, as to want no farther recommendation. To ftrengthen the force of this Inftance, I fhall add another, of (till greater weight, from Gen. XXIX. 20; where we read yj»yi vm CDHntt D*fiO Et fuer unt in oculis ejus quafi dies unu The fenfe of the context is this — Jacob agreed to ferve Laban feven years for Rachel, Laban's daughter; and Rachel's beauty was (b great, and Jacob's love fo ftrong, that the (even Years of fervitude for her fake were in his eyes but as — What? This is the point of difficulty, if there be any in it ; but, notwith- ftanding the different rendrings of the place, the nature of the Comparifon and the livelinefs of Dissertation II. 183 of the Antithefis will oblige us to call it Seven Days — And the Seven Years were, in his opi- nion, but as Seven Days, or (which is the fame ) as One Week. So that as DV in the plural Number then fignified Seven Days, or a Week; the word DHrttt, the plural of nntf ( which ftri&Iy anfwers to «*■ and wius, and efTentially fignifies One) is here added, and confines it to One Week. For, I believe, it will be allow'd to be an invariable rule in writing — that a Noun Adjective, in fenfe unalterably lingular, can in the plural number be only connected with fuch a Subftantive, as in the plural number fignifies Angularly, or collectively under a An- gular denomination. In fhort then— As Adam was commanded to devote every feventh day to facred offices, and as his Pofterity were to do, and did the fame> working the other fix days — and as the word ED*D* Days appears, from the two inftances juft cited, exprefsly to have fignified a Week in the infancy of the world } certainly this End of Days, after which Cain and Abel met to offer their Oblations, will be allow'd to fignify the End of the Week, on the Seventh or Sabbath day, after the other fix days were finifli'd, and the Week from the laft Sabbath expir'd r . r There is a material Objection, or two, ftill remain- ing to the do&rine of a Patriarchal Sabbath j to which it may be neceffary to fubjoin an Anfwer. And firfl: — as to A a Having 184 Dissertation II. Having thus, with all the brevity I could on fo extenfrve a fubject, confider'd the Time^ on the Sabbaths being called a Sign to the Jews — it may be ob- ferv'd that the word Sabbaths is a general name, includ- ing the other Jewifh Feftivals. But even the Sabbath, or weekly day of Holinefs, might well be call'd a Sign to the Jews, without excluding the Patriarchs. For the Jewifli Sabbath was a Sign, as being founded on a double reafon ; the fecond of which (the Egyptian deliverance) evidently diiUnguifh'd that people from all others ; and was there- fore, as a Sign, conftantly to remind them of the parti- cular care of Heaven, and what uncommon returns of goodnefs they were to make for fo lingular a deliverance. But there is great reafon to believe, that the Sabbath of the Ifraelites was alter'd, with their Tear, at their coming forth from Egypt ; and a fhort attention to this point may not be here improper. The cafe then feems to be this At the finifhing the Creation God fanctified the feventh day— this feventh day, being the firft day of Adam's Life, was confecrated, by way of Firft -Fruits, to God ; and therefore Adam may reafonably be fuppos'd to have began his computation of the days of the Week with the firft whole day of his own exiftence. Thus the Sabbath became the firft day of the Week. But when Mankind fell from the worfhip of the true God, they firft fubftituted the worfhip of the Sun in his place ; and, preferving the fame weekly day of worfhip, but devoting it to the Sun, the Sabbath was thence call'd Sun-Day. For that Sunday wis origi- nally the firft day of the Week, and is fo ftill in the Eaft, is prov'd by Mr. Selden, Jus Nat. & Gent. Lib. 3. cap. it. Thus the Sabbath of the Patriarchs continued to be the Sunday of the Idolaters, 'till the coming up of the Ifraelites out of Egypt ; and then, as God alter'd the beginning of their Year, fo he alfo chang'd the day of their Worfhip from Sunday to Saturday. The firft reafon of which might be — that as Sunday was the day of Worfhip among the which Dissertation II. 185 which Cain and Abel came together to offer their Oblations ; I proceed to the Third and Idolaters, the Ifraelites would be more likely to join with them, if they rcfted on the fame day ; than if they were to work on that day, and ferve their God upon another. But a fecond reafon certainly was — in order to. perpetuate the memory of their deliverance on that day from Egyptian Slavery. For Mofes, when he applies the fcurth Com- mandment to the particular cafe of his own people,(Deut. V. I 1 ).) does not enforce it, (as in Exod. XX. u.) by the confideration of God's refting on the fevetith day, which was the Sabbath of the Patriarchs ; but binds it upon them by faying — Remember that thou ivaji a Servant in Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence , through a mighty hand, and by a fir etched- out Arm ; therefore the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to keep this Sabbath Day. Allowing then the preceding Obfervations, we immedi- ately fee how the Sabbath of the Chriftians naturally re- verted to Sunday, after the abolition of Judaifm, without any exprefs Command for the alteration. Bp Cumber- land (Orig. Gent. Antiq. p. 400.) tells us — Genres omnes, poff. Chrifti prascipue tempora, in eandem cum Patri- archis Ecclefiam Catholicam fuerint vocandze. And that theChriftian and Patriarchal Sabbaths are the fame is evi- dently affirm' d by Juftin Martyr, in the following paffage — T«v £i tx HA/8 ntAifcu/ n^tty wavnt tIm crum\<&av 7rviSfMju' vpvh^uv V^COTyj t?it 1>lAl(Z ttl*l mrrS nm» which the Englifh Tranflators have render'd— And Cain brought of the Fruit of the Ground an Offering to the Lord-, but the crifice (p. iz*.) But he muft know that they did make Oblations, and offer Sacrifice ; and therefore can only mean, that they did not offer or facrifice after the Mofaic Ritual, and according to the form of the Jewifh Ceremo- nies* For his difpute with Trypho the Jew evidently turns upon the Obligation, or Non-Obligation of the Jewifh Law on Chriftians ; and therefore he muft fpeak of Jew- ifh Sacrifices ; and if of Jewifh Sacrifices, confequently of Jewifh Sa^aths alfo : otherwife his argument againft the neceffity of obferving the Jewifh Sabbaths and Sacrifices among Chriftians, drawn from the non-obfervation of them among the holy Patriarchs, had been of no force. It may be added — that Trypho charges Juftin with not ob- ferving the Sabbath (p. 156 ;) and yet Juftin affirms, that he obferv'd the Sunday Sabbath ; which, he fays, was the day on which God had finifh'd the World (p. 98 :) fo that the Sabbath meant by the Jew muft be the Saturday Sabbath, which was peculiar to the Jewifh Nation ; and was en- join'd, as Juftin obferves ( p. 175-, ) that the Jews might know (tnd remember that God had redeem'd them out of Egypt. ■«« So that, for any thing contain'd in thefe Objections to the contrary, the doctrine of a Patriarchal Sabbath re- mains, fall upon a firm foundation. Original Dissertation II. 187 Original is — And Cain brought of the Fruit of the Ground a Mincha to Jehovah. And here two words offer themfeives for explanation — &fa Fruity and nnJD Mincha y the firft of which would need none, had not Grotius made it neceflary by a ftrange conjecture on its mean- ing in this place. For he tells us, that perhaps nD"?Nn HUD of the Fruit of the Ground means nothing more than what the Heathens, many ages after, understood by their Sagmen-, which was a fort of Turf cut out of facred ground^ and carried fometimes in the hand of a J^omart Ambaffador, But what poffible agreement can be difcern'd between this cuftom, and the cafe of Cain? — Yet even fuppofing a parallel, the words can never fignify any fuch thing. For the word nfl, when join'd with nDltf, has always the fenfe of Fruit that is eatable and good for food; and certainly the Fruit of the Ground, efpe- cially when prefented for an Offering unto the Lord, will be always thought to mean fome- thing more than a little Earth and Grafs. In- deed this thought of Grotius is fo very unac- countable, that I don't find he has been fol- low* d by a fingle Commentator s $ and there- s Grotius feems here to deferve the cenfure pafs"d on him by the learned Heidegger— Ssepe vir, castera magnus, ex paginis ritibus talia, obtorto collo, ad explicationem rerum facrarum rapitj quse, fi propius intueare, nee ccelum nee terram attingunt. Exerc.^.it?. fore 188 Dissertation II. fore we may conclude, according to the obvi- ous information of the words in the text— that Cain's Offering was of the Fruit, or eatable Fruits, of the Ground j the particular fpecies of Fruit indeed is not defin'd, and therefore we muft be fatisfied with that general idea which the words afford us. Let us now proceed to the other word Mincha - y which muft be carefully confider'd, as great weight will be laid upon the fenfe of that hereafter. A Mincha, fays Buxtorf, when applied to Civil Life, fignifies a Prefent, indeterminately; but when applied to things Sacred, it fignifies determinate^ Sacrum Fru- mentaceum, an Offering of Corn or Bread. Gussetius tells us z — When a Mincha is given by man to man, it denotes fome great dignity in the receiver, of which fuch gift is an acknowledgment; and it denotes fubje&ion, at leaft fubmiffion in the giver : but when a Mincha is prefented by Man to God, it always fignifies an Vnbloody Oblation, and there is not one inftance of its being us'd for an Animal Oblation, thro' the Bible. R el and, in his Treatife of Sacrifices «, informs us — All Obla- tions, which according to the divine will were eonfum'd, after having been confecrated by certain rites, are call'd by the general name of t Commentar. Ling. Ebraicie, p. 473. u Antiquitates Sacrae vet. Hebrccor. Par. 3. p. 141. Oblations ; Dissertation II. 189 Oblations; and as they confift either of Ani- mals, or of Meal, Oil, Wine and Frankincenfe, they are divided into two forts, the Bloody and the 'Unbloody. The Bloody or Animal Obla- tions are call'd MaBations^ and the Unbloody Oblations of Corn or Meal Mincbas; the reft being call'd Libations • and to the fecondfpecies Relandhimfelf refers the Oblation here brought by Cain. Dr. Out ram agrees exa&Iy with thefe celebrated Authors, and obferves w — that the Oblations, which were confum'd in a facred Rite, ( fuch only as were efteem'd Sacrifices by the Jews) were either of things inanimate or animate j that Offerings of the former kind were in Scripture term'd Mificbas (in Latin, Ferta, Dona or Dapes-,) and the latter MaBa- tions (in Latin, ViBimce or HoJUce.) To thefe human Authorities I fhall only add that of Mr. Mede, who fays x — All the Offerings in the Law were either holy or moil holy Oblations; the firft were call'd Terumotb, the fecond I(or- banim —Thefe laft were of two parts or kinds, Z.ebach-, and Mmcha ; the former being the flaughter and fhedding the blood of Beafts, and the latter the burning and afcending of inani- mate things, as Meats and Drinks; and this Mincha was for the raoft part join d to the J^e- bach or bloody Sacrifice >'. w De Sacrifices, p. 84. x See his Works, Fol. p. 286 and 287. y Ibid, ■ 358. But 190 Dissertation II. But a few paflages of divine Authority will fix the meaning of this word Mincha, beyond difpute • by evincing — that, when applied to a Sacred Oblation, it always fignifies an 'Vn- bloody, and not a Bloody, Oblation, The firft place, in which the word occurs, is the Text before us, which exprefsly tells us— that Cain brought of the Fruit of the Ground a Mincha to Jehovah. In Exod. XXIX. 3 8 Sec. we have the inftitu- tion of the perpetual Morning and Evening Oblation, in the following words— Norn this is that which thou jhalt offer upon the Altar \ two Lambs of the firft year, day by day continually. The firft Lamb thou Jhalt offer in the Morning, and the other Lamb thou Jhalt offer at Even\ and with the firft Lamb a tenth deal of Flour MINGLED WITH THE FOURTH PART OF AN HIN of beaten OIL; and the fourth part of an bin of Wine for a Drink Offering. And the other Lamb thou Jhalt offer at Even, and Jhalt do thereto, according to the Mincha (or Meat- OfFering) of the Morning, and according to the Libation (or Drink-OfFering) thereof So that the Flour mingled with Oil is exprefsly call'd the Mincha or Meat-Offering. But it muft be here obferv'd, that as we now in general ap- propriate the word Meat to Flejh, the Mincha fhould no longer be render 'd the Meat* Offer- ing, but the Bread-Offering. In Dissertation II. 191 In Levit. II. 1 Sec. we have a particular de- fcription of the word Mincba, and its invaria- ble meaning in things Sacred j for we read— If any will offer a Mincba to the Lord, his Offering Jball be fine Flour, and be jhall pour Oil upon it y and put Frankincenfe thereon— And if thou bring an Oblation of a Mincba baken in the Oven, it Jhall be unleavened Cakes of fine Flour mingled with Oil— And if thy Oblation be a Mincba baked in a Fan, it Jhall be fine Flour unleavened, mingled with Oil ; thou Jhalt part it in pieces, and pour Oil thereon : Kin ffilJD this is a Mincba. Here then we have the very Definition and precife meaning of the Mincba, as exprefsly given us as words can give it. And this determines the fenfe of the word abfolutely, at leaft in the five Books of Mofesy becaufe the infpir'd Author, wherever he mentions the word Mincba, as a Sacrifical Term, certainly ufes it in the fame fenfe : efpecially when he appears fo minutely to have fixd its meaning. And therefore, as the Book of Genefis was undoubtedly writ by Mofes, in the Wildernefs, after the delivery of the Law and the divine appointment of the Sacred Rites contain'd in this book of Leviti- cus ; the word Mincba, when us'd facrifically, muft be fuppos'd to carry the fame idea in Gene- fis, which bad been fettled upon it by God bimfelf before Genefis was compos d. B b But 192 Dissertation IL But there feems to be no poffibility of mi- ftaking it; and therefore I mall only obferve farther— that the Fir ft- Fruits nf the Ground are included under the word Mincha in this Chap- ter, Verfe the 12th; and in Numbers, Chap. V. if, an Offering of Barley-Mealy without Oil or Frankincenfe, is alfo call'd a Mincha. So that from thefe Texts (to which many others equally clear might be added) it is extreamly evident — that the Mincha was Sacrum Frumen- taceum, an Offering of the Fruit of the Ground^ in oppofition to an Animal Oblation, from which it is carefully diftinguifhd. Cain then brought of the Fruit of the Ground a Mincha to Jehovah-, and Abel^ he alfo brought of the Fir filings of his Flochy and of the Fat thereof Grotius tells us, in his Commentary, that Abel's Offering confifted of Wool and Milky and that it was not an Animal Sacrifice. For as the word rpfDSS fometimes fignifies of the beft in its kindy as well as of the Firft by hirthy he will have it to mean here — that Abel brought of the be ft of his Flock; that is, fays he, of the Wool of the beft of his Flock. But (be- fides the impoffibility of finding Wool in this Word or Sentence) was ever Wool known to be a proper Oblation to the Deity? Yet fuppoling, but not granting it, it will foon appear that fuch an Interpretation is not only extreamly harlli, but will never fuit the Words ; for if it be Dissertation II. 193 be allow'd by all, that Cain's bringing of the fruit of the Ground means his bringing hue fruit of the Ground; certainly Abel s bringing of the fir flings (or belt) of his Flock muft mean his bringing the fir filings (or beft) of his Flock. For if the remarkable Samenefs in the Original Phrafe be not prefervd in the Senfe, and if both parts be not conftrued by the fame rule* Words may fignify what every Expofitor choofes to have them, and Accuracy in ftile is of no farther fervice. But there is no occafion to dwell upon an Abfurdity, which it is fufficient to have mention'd. — Abel then brought the Firftlings of his Flock an Offering to the Lord ; and if for an Offering, certainly for a Sacrifice, which was the only way of offering Animals to the Lord. And if Abel brought Animals for a Sacrifice, the following word *n^Sn^1 can- not be render'd (as Grotius would have it) and of the Milk thereof 7 - • but muft be render'd (as 2 Grotius pervertit fimplicitatem orationis Mofaicse. Nam ubi de Sacrificio fermo eft, &c oblatum dicitur 3^?riDj ne unus locus fcripturae oftendi poterit, in quo 2^H habeat fenfum Latlis: turn talia Sacrificia in populo Dei nunquam fuerint ufitata. Prseterea Paulus Sacrificium Abelis vocat fynet* • quid opus >«*, aliud «3€9s-<^«2jt ; quae pofterior vox ufurpari folet de obla- tione rerum inanimatarum. Quod ft ^H fit Lac, ubi igitur mentlo Lana; ? Denique quam frivolum eft, eo loco qui agit de Sacrificiis, quae potiffima laus fuit capere ex Primogenitis, m*133 interpretari non de Primogenitis, B b 2 in 194 Dissertation II. in our Englifh Verfion) and of the Fat thereof: becaufe Milk was not, and the Fat always was a part of a regular Animal Sacrifice. But as thefe Animals were Holocaufts, the word may, perhaps, be better underftood here in the con- crete^ than in the abflracly as fignifying — and of the fattefl, or heft of them. For it is fre- quently us'd in this manner in other parts of Scripture a ; and the fenfe of the whole will be then— And Abel, he alfo brought of the Firfilings of his Fleck, and of the fattefl ofthofe Firfilings. Perhaps there is fcarce any fhort Hiftory in the Bible, concerning which more irrational Stories have been feign d, and about the par- ticulars of which Interpreters are lefs recon- cil'd, than this of Cain and Abel. There is however a general harmony in a£ ferting — that this Offering of Cain's was the Fruit of the Ground, and Abel's an Animal Sa~ crifce- 3 that each brought a jingle and diftindt Prefent, this a Bloody, that an Unbloody Obla- tion: and farther than this it does not appear that any Expofitor has gone. Yet if we confi- der the Original Text with clofenefs and at- tention, probably we fhall find reafon to be- lieve — that Abel's was a double Oblation-, an fed de iis quas eximias funt magnitudinis ? Heidegger Exerc. ?. Se&.ao, a See Numb, 1 8. i z. Gen, 45-, 18, Pf.147. 14 &c. Oblation, Dissertation II. 195 Oblation, not only of an Animal Sacrifice pecu- liar to himfelf, but of the Fruit of the Ground^ in common with his Brother. And this Obfer- vation, tho' I prefume it was never yet pub- lickiy made, will poflibly help to fet this im- portant article of Sacred Hiftory in a more ad- vantageous point of view, than it has yet ap- pear'd in. Let us obferve the words of the Original Text, which only can be decifive in the prefent cafe ,• and thefe it may be proper to produce here at length, that the nature of the Argu- ment may be the more conveniently deter- min d. We read in the Third and following Verfcs— j'mrA nroa r\tr\^r\ nsD pp arm jnnSnDi ukx nronB >on dj koh tarn ?Ki vp Ski : mms Ski San Sk nw tm% l r\V& i acq cwr@' cim 7uv neuTOTMtev &c. In this Verfion the particle acq, being repeated, evidently feparates the fentence ; and fo in the Original, the particle OJ cannot be join'd to the Verb immediately before it, from the nature of the pofition, and its connection with a fecond nominative cafe. Neither will the Senfe furTer us to fay — Cain brought Dissertation II. 197 brought of the Fruit of the Ground, and Abel brought alfo a Sacrifice ; but the original words are very remarkably plac'd, and the repetition of the nominative cafe plainly demands a diffe- rent rendring. The Words therefore are literally — Cain brought of the Fruit of the Ground a Mi?icha to Jehovah i and Abel brought (the fame) he alfo (brought) of the Fir filings of his Flock, and of their Fat. And the words being thus explain'd, it very regularly follows —And Jehovah had re- Jpetl to Abel, and to his Mincha ; but to Cain y and to his "Mincha he had not refltetl. To this Obfervation — that Cain brought a fingle, and Abel a double Oblation, the Au- thor of the Epiftle to the Hebrews ( generally allow'd to be St. Paul b ) gives an extraordinary teftimony. For in Chap.XI. 4. we read — m%6vav vn ActA«r«f. Our Englim Verfion of which is — By Faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained Witnejs that he was righteous, God teftifying of his Gifts ; and by it he being dead yet jpeaketh. But the words TzhetovA fycutv may be better render'd — a greater, or fuller Oblation (—a Sacrifice exceeding that of Cain, fays Dr. Hammond) — an Oblation that b See Chapman's Eufebius, Vol. II. Preface p. 19. was 1 98 Dissertation II. was greater or more in Number, rather than in Value, For tho' the pofitive m\v$ does fome- times fignify excellens, praflans &c. yet none of the belt Lexicographers c give it that fenfe in the other degrees of comparifon ; but tzXetm has conftantly the fenfe of plus, amplior, co- piojior or numerojior. And it appears from H. Stephans's Greek Concordance, that vfoetw has not the fenfe of praftantior thro' the whole NewTeftament. Indeed the idea of Number ftrikes us at once ; and the modern Tranflators have injur' d their tranflation in this place, by not attending to the hiftory here alluded to. I fay, the modern Tranflators ,• for in Wickliff's Tranflation in the fourteenth Century, we find the proper meaning of the word here preferv'd — ftp feitj afcel offrifoe a mpc|* more faerifice ttjan tapm to gob, fcptmjicije Je gat foitneflpitg to fce f&&, for got* Bare foitneffpttg to Jjife gijjiftis ; au& ftp t jat feitj Je fceefc fpefeit^ gjiit. But as a much more Sacrifice was found, upon the improvement of the Englifh Language to be a little uncouth ; in Queen Elizabeths Ver- lion it was alter'd for— a greater Sacrifice, which alfo preferves the true fenfe of the word «A««y, efpecially in this place. There is another word in this Verfe, which will farther confirm the Obfervation before c See the feveral Lexicons of Budaeus, Conftantine, Gefner, Gillius, Hederic, Leigh, Scapula and Stephens. made Dissertation II. 199 made, and that is — fapote Gifts — God tefti- fying of Abel's Gifts — by which a plurality is plainly and exprefsly confirm d; as this Act of Abel, which we are confidering, can be the only one here referr'd to by the Apoftle. Thus much may fuffice to (hew the Nature of the Oblations of Cain and Abel; and to prove, that the former brought the fingle Offering of the Fruit of the Ground, and the latter the double Oblation of the Fruit of the Ground and an Animal Sacrifice. The next point is to confider— What Induce- ment thefe Brothers had to the making their Oblations; after which, it will be proper to fix the foundation of that difference^ which God manifested between them, by rejecting the Ob- lation of Cain, and accepting that of Abel. The Offering of Cain appears to have been of the Fruit of the Ground— Cain brought of the Fruit of the Ground an Offering to the Lord. This fort of Oblation, tho' falling within the meaning of the word Sacrifice, (as that, in its original Senfe, is the offering a thing by Man to God, or making that Sacred which before was Common) yet in general is now call'd an Offering; in oppofition to that fort of Obla- tion, which was of Animals, and is generally term'd a Sacrifice. C c The 200 Dissertation II. The firft Queftion then is— What Induce- ment Cain might have to bring fuch an Offer- ing to the Lord. The Anfwer to this feems clear; and it is agreed that this Acl: of Cain's might be in obedience to the voice of Reafon H - For how widely foever the Learned have dif- agreed about the origin of Animal Sacrifices ; and however warmly the Advocates for the Di- vine Infiitution infift upon the neceflity of a Revelation in this latter cafe ; they allow— that Nature might inform Men of a duty incumbent upon them to worfhip God—that the common di&ates of Gratitude might put them upon ap- plying fart of their fubftance to the honour and fervice of him, who gave them the whole — and that, as Offerings of the Fruit of the Ground were always accounted, and diftin- guifh'd by the title of, EuchariJUc Offerings e - fuch an Euchariftic Offering might be made, and probably therefore was made by Cain, out of a conviction of the Divine Superintendency, and as an acknowledgment of the Divine Blef- fing. Had Cain been void of all religious fen- timents, he had not brought an Offering j but his bringing a Mincha, and offering it up unto the Lord, points out fome Gratitude in the Offerer, and infinuates a Belief— that every d See Dr. Nicholls, in his Conference with a Theift, Part II. p.z9f. e See Deut.XXVl. I— ia« Gift, Dissertation II. 201 Gift, conducive to the happinefs of human life, defcended from above. But tho' this Offering of Cain's might be the refult of rational deduction only, the Sacrifice of Abel muft evidently be afcrib'd to another and higher principle of Influence. For tho' the Human Inflitution of Animal Sacrifice had formerly many, in the laft Century fome, and perhaps in this Age a few Advocates; yet the generality of the Learned are at prefent agreed in arTerting the Divine Inflitution : and the Ar- guments of the oppofite fide have been fo ju- dicioufly and fully anfwer'd, that there feems but little room for ftrengthning the force of what they have offer'd to the world. I (hall therefore, for the more regular con- ducting the prefent defign, offer fome Argu- ments, which are ufually urg'd to vindicate the Divine Inflitution of Animal Sacrifices; and which, receiving additional ftrength from a few Obfervations here added, may perhaps eftabhfh that controverted and important point. After which, I fhall endeavour to draw from thence a proper illuftration of the hiftory be- fore us. That Animal Sacrifices were not inftituted by Man, feems extreamly evident — from the acknowledge! "Vniverfality f of the Practice — f By the moil exact accounts taken from thofe who C c 2 from 202 Dissertation II. from the wonderful Samenefs of the manner, in which the whole World offer'd thefe Sacrifices — and from that Merit and Expiation^ which were conftantly fuppos'd in, and to be effe&ed by them. Now Human Reafon, even among the molt ftrenuous Opponents of the Divine Inftitution, is allow'd to be incapable of pointing out the leaft Natural Fitnefs or Congruity between Blood and Atonement, between the killing of Gods Creatures and the receiving a pardon for the vio- lation of God's Laws. This confequence of Sa- crifices, when properly offer'd, was the invari- able opinion of the Heathens, but not the whole of their opinion in this matter: for they had alfo a traditionary Belief among them, that thefe Animal Sacrifices were not only Ex- piations, but vicarious Commutation .r, and fub- ftituted Satisfablions ; and they called the Ani- mals, fo offer'd, their wn^vxpt or the Ran- foms of their own Souls s. But if thefe notions are fo remote from, nay fo contrary to any leffon that Nature teaches, have liv'd upon the fpot with the Hottentots, and have had the beff, opportunity of knowing their cufloms, we learn, that they pray to a Being that dwells above, and offer Sacrifice of the belt things they have, with eyes lifted up to Heaven. And thefe people are by all allow'd to be the moft degenerate of the Human Species, and to have furviv'd the common inftindb of Humanity. Oving- tons Voyage to Surat^ p. 498. g Dr. Stanhope's Serm. Boyle's Lect. Vol.1, p. 790. as Dissertation II. 203 as they confefTedly are ; how came the whole World to pra&ife the Rites founded upon them ?< Tis certain that the wifeft Heathens — Pythagoras, Plato, Porphyry, and others h , flighted the religion of fuch Sacrifices ; and wonder'd, how an Inftitution fo difmal ( as it appear d to them ) and fo big with abfurdity, could diifufe itfelf thro' the World. They favv that fo it was, but how it was — this was the matter of their aftonifhment. The difclofing this grand fecret then is fuffi- cient (one would think) to recommend the Book of Revelation to fome honour among Mankind ; fince that Book only can teach us why the Heathens do, and why their Forefa- thers did, offer up Animals in Sacrifice. And further — it might foberly be expected, that the Men of J^eafon would ceafe to boaft of its Sufficiency in 'Religious Matters ; when they find a Religious Inftitution, obferv'd thro' the world, inexplicable on the mere principles of Reafon; and only to be feen thro' by that light, which ( defcending from above to guide us into all truth ) is convey'd to us in the facred pages. But thefe Unbelievers, finding their Oracle of Reafon filenc'd in the prefent point, hit luckily upon an expedient to clear themfelves from this diftrefs ; and it came out at laft— that Sacrifice was the Invention of Priefi- Craft. A h See Spencer de Leg. Heb. Lib. 3. Cap. 1. Sec. fad 204 Dissertation II. fad refource this ! And fuch as difplays at once the wretchednefs ofthatcaufe, and the oblti- nacy of its Votaries. It has been allow'd by one of the great Doctors of Infidelity J — that the firft Sacrifices were offer'd ( as they certain- ly were ) by Fathers and Heads of Families ; and — that the acceptablenefs of the Sacrifice confifted in the dcarnefs and value of it to the Owner or Offerer. But how came thefe Fathers and Heads of Families, fo naturally interefted in, and prefi- ding over, the welfare of their feveral Fami- lies, fo willingly to part with their Flocks, to create to themfelves fuch a conftant expence, and to offer fo continu'd an injury to their Fa- milies ? Where can be the Prieft- Craft here? For either thefe Fathers of Families, who firft inftituted fuch Sacrifices, were Priefts, or they were not : if they Were, then the Priefts pra- <5tis'd their craft to their own fole detriment, which was furely a very ftrange kind of policy ; and if they were not Priefts, it is fomewhat hard to place the invention of them to the fcore of Prieft-Craft k . Another Advocate for the Sufficiency of Rea- fon l fuppofes — the Abfurdity prevail'd by de- i The Moral Philofopher, p. aio and 135". k Dr. Delaney, Revel, examirfd, Vol.1, p. 118. 1 Author of Chriftianity as old as the Creation, cited by Mr. Ridley in his Treatife on the Chriftian Paffover, p. 4. grees j Dissertation II. 205 grees ; and the Priefts, who fhar'd with their Gods and referv'd the beft Bits for themfelves, had the chief hand in this gainful Superftition. But it may be well ask'd— Who were the Priefts in the Days of Cain and Abel ? Or what Gain could this Superftition be to them, when the one gave away his Fruits, and the other his Animal Sacrifice, without being at liberty to tafte the leaft part of it ? And certainly the pradice of thefe Sons of Adam may be here cited, upon the credit of Mofes, as an ancient and valuable, if not a divine Hiftorian j and 'till older and better Evidence be produc'd a- gainft him, the Fa&s, which he attefts, may be infilled upon as produc'd by a great Autho- rity. But it is worth remarking, that what this Author wittily calls the beft Bits, and ap- propriates to the Priefts, appears to have been the Skin of the Burnt -Offering among the Jews" 1 , and the Skin and Feet among the Heathens n . Dr. Spencer obferves °, that Sacrifices were look'd upon as Gifts^ and that the general opi- nion was — that Gifts would have the fame ef- fect with God, as with Man ; would appeafe wrath, conciliate favour with the Deity, and teftify the gratitude and affe&ion of the Sacri- tn Lev. VII. 8. n See Potter s Antiquities, Vol.1. Book 2. Chap. 3. o Lib. III. Ch. 3. Sec. 2. ficer: 206 Dissertation II. ficer : and that from this principle proceeded expiatory, precatory and euchariftical Offer- ings. This is all that is pretended from Na- tural Light to countenance this Practice. But how well foever thecomparifon maybe thought to hold between Sacrifices and Gifts, yet the opinion that Sacrifices would prevail with God y muft proceed from an obfervation that Gifts had prevaii'd with Men ; an Obfervation this, which Cain and Abel had little opportunity of making p. And, if the Coats of Skins, which God directed Adam to make, were the remains of Sacrifices (as obferv'd in the preceding Di£ fertation and at what period of time- but, with regard to the latter, it may be proper to fubjoin a few obfervations more. That this Rite was enjoin'd foon after the Tranfgreffion of our firft Parents in Para- dife, appears evident now from various confi- derations. In particular, it may be ask'd — r What was the end of fuch Sacrifice ? Was it not ^nciiu:. the Dissertation II. 227 the inftituted means of procuring pardon for Sin? And was not Adam the firfi Sinner ? And was not the Tranfgreffion in Paradife the firfi Sin ? Certainly no point of time then can be fix d upon as more proper, rather none fo pro- per, for the inftitution of a Rite typifying the future Death of the Redeemer of Mankind, as when the Redeemer was firft promis'd, and when Mankind began to want the benefits of his Death, and the means of Reconciliation. It has been already prov'd, that Abel brought an Animal Sacrifice, when his Father was not yet one hundred and thirty years old ; and every reafon that can be given for the Divine Inftitution in command to him at that time, will be much ftronger for its being given in command to his Father at the Fall. And that his Father actually did Sacrifice feems now clearly deducible from the divine hiftory, and that remarkable pafTage of it — of God's making fir the firfi Pair Coats of Skins. But this has been confider'd at large in the preceding Dif- fertation p. If then God commanded Adam to offer Ani- mal Sacrifice, and the practice of this Rite was defign'd to be of fuch eminent fervice as well as confolation, not to him only, but his fons after him ; we may reafonably fuppofe that he was careful to inform his fons of the Divine In- p Page 68 £cc. ftitution. 228 Dissertation II. ititution, Ufe, and Neceflity of it ; that fo they alfo might be Heirs of the Promt fe. But we have not only probability for our fupport here ; for we read, that Abel, Adam's fecond fon, did offer an Animal Sacrifice, and confequently muft have been made acquainted with the In- ftitution by his Father j and, no doubt, he had ihcn his Father frequently perform the facred Solemnity. But if Abel was thus happy in the leflbns, and inilru&ed by the example of his Father; certainly his elder brother enjoy'd the fame opportunities, and had heard the impor- tance of the Rite as frequently inculcated. The queftion therefore is— Why did not Cain alfo offer an Animal Sacrifice ? He had been told, that God inftituted it— he had feen his Father perform it — he faw his Brother per- form it — and whv did He himfelf neglect it? That there was a communication of Subftance or Property between the two Brothers, is plain j for if Abel brought of the Fruit of the Ground, which Cain prefided over, as being the Huf- bandman -, certainly Cain might have brought of the Firftlings of the Flock, which Abel had the care of, as being the Shepherd. The rea- fon then, why Cain neglected it, muft be ei- ther — becaufe he did not think himfelf a Sin- ?ter y and fo had no need of a Sacrifice-, or, be- caufe he did not believe x.\\Q~Vje and-Eficacy of that Divine Injfitution. But as there is no Man, who Dissertation II. 229 who liveth, and finneth not j fo no Man can be infenfible that he has fometimes finn'd. Wherefore, as he could not negled: this Rite from a perfuafion of his being Sinlefs ; it re- mains, that he muft have negle&ed it, thro' a disbelief of its Ufe and Efficacy. Tho', per- haps, both fuppoiitions may be better united ; and Cain will then appear to have taken little notice of his Sins, and lefs of the method infti- tuted by God for the expiation of them. The Offering, which Cain brought, has been constantly look'd upon as an AcT: of Piety, for the time when offer'd ; and it is generally a- greed, that it would have been accepted by God, had the Offerer been unblameable in the other circumftances of his Oblation f." And if this be true, St. John, when he tells us r , that Cain s behaviour on this occafion was evil y muft be underftood to mean — that Cain finn'd, not in bringing what he brought, but in neglecting what he mould have brought ; evidencing thereby a flagrant difrefpecl: of the divine goodnefs, in the violation of fo gracious a command. Approach God he did, and with an appearance of duty feem'd to exercife the virtue of Gratitude; but, having not Faith, he q Lege lata, Deus inftituit Oblationes ex Primuiis, mi- nime id fa&urus, fi iis rice peraclis nullo modo oble&a- batur. Heidegger Exercit. *. Sec. 22. r 1 John III. ii. paid 230 Dissert at i on II. paid no regard to the Inftitution of Animal Sacrifice, tho' enjoin' d his Father by God him- felf. And furely his Offering, tho' made as an acknowledgment of dependence on God for the good things of this life, cannot be fuppos'd acceptable to God ; when the Sinner, that of- fer'd it, dar'd be confident of his Maker's fa- vour, tho' he defpis'd his Inftitution ; and to appear as ferene as Innocence could make him, when his Mind was corrupted by Pride, and blacken'd by Infidelity. Whereas Abel, with a decent gratitude and humble piety, brings his Offering, as a depen- dent Creature ; and a Sacrifice alfo, as a Sm- ner s : and fo compleated what was afterwards (under the Jewifh Law) efteem'd as a perfect and compleat Oblation — a Mlncha , or un- bloody Offering, added to a Maclation, or bloody Sacrifice r . Abel was deeply fenfible, that all he enjoy'd was the gift of God ; and he acknowledg'd the beneficence of the Donor, by confecrating a Part as a thankfgiving for the Whole. Confcious alfo of his own frailty, he acknowledg'd his Life forfeited by a de- fective obedience to the divine Will j and there- s IncultuSpirituali, non debet a gratiarum a&ione ab- eflfe fupplicatio pro beneficiorurn continuatione ; neque a Supplicatione gratiarum actio. Cloppenburg Sacrif. Pa- triarchal. Schola Sacra, p. 7. t Levit. XXIII. 10 &c. fore Dissertation II. 231 fore, in the full afTurance of Faith, offer'd up an Animal Oblation, to obtain Pardon for his Mifcondud:, and conciliate the divine Favour. There is in the Epiftle of St. Jude u a fhort pafTage, which has greatly perplex'd the Inter- preters of it ; but which may probably receive light from, and reflecl: light upon the Subject we are now confidering. The words are— Wo unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain, Let us therefore fee, whether a meaning may not be affix'd to the way of Cain, that will coin- cide with the Apoftle's argument, and illuftrate the character of Cain, agreeably to thofe ideas we have jnft been forming of him. It is plain from the whole of the Epiftle, that St. Jude is cautioning his Chriftian Brethren againft fuch falfe Teachers, as then infefted the Church, and perverted the doctrines of the Gofpel ; Teachers, that were at the fame time Mockers^ and denied with derifion that fundamental ar- ticle of Christianity — the Redemption of the World by Jems Chrift. For in Verfe the 3d we read — Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common Salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you 9 that you contend earneftly for the Faith once deli- vered to the Saints. 4. For there are certain Men crept in unawares, ungodly Men, turning the Grace of God into Lafcivioufnefs, and denying u Verfe the nth, 3lol G g the 232 Dissertation II. the only Lord God, and our Lord Jefus ChriJl—or y as it may, perhaps, be render'd more confid- ently with the Apoftle's Defign — And denying Jefus Chrifl, our only Mafter, God and Lord. Now as it is againft Men of this Character that the Apoftle exerts himfelf,we may obferve a propriety in his adding — Wo unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain. For Cain, we have feen, flighted the Promife of a Re- deemer, which was reveal'd to his Father ; defpis'd the Inftitution of Sacrifice, which was typical of that Redeemer ; and fo rejected him that was to come, even the Seed of the Woman, that was to bruife the Serpent's Head. And as Cain was too proud to acknowledge his own Sins, and fo felf-fufficient, as to defpife and mock at the do&rine of a Saviour; he feems to have preach'd the fame infidel and conceited notions to his Children. For St. Jude here aflures us, that Enoch, who was the Seventh from Adam (and whofe Prophecies were therefore deliver'd on account of the impious principles of the Sons of Cain) prophejied, faying w — Be- hold ! the Lord cometh with ten thoufand of his Saints to execute judgment upon all, and to con- vince all that are ungodly among them of all their w See Bp Sherlock's Opinion on this paflage, Differ- tat.I. p. 189. And Bp Cumberland, Orig. Gent. Antiq. p. 406. ungodly Dissertation II. 233 ungodly deeds , and of all their hardfpeeches which ungodly [inner s have fpoken againfi him x . So that we may fairly conclude — that the Apoftle here confider'd the character of Cain in the fame light, in which we have before view'd it. We have before us then, in thefe Brothers, two Perfons effentially diftinguifh'd in their cha- racters by their different behaviour towards God; and therefore it is confonant to reafbn, that God fhould diftinguifli in his behaviour to- wards them : how otherwife is the honour of God inviolate ? The Patriarch Abraham's ex- poftulation with the Deity y may be here urg'd with propriety — That he far from Thee, to treat the l^ghteous as the Wicked; and that the Righ- teous Jloould he as the Wicked^ that he far from Thee ! Jhall not the Judge of all the Earth do right > And what Equity can be greater, what Juftice mine forth more iiluftrioufly, than for God to rejetl the Offering of an haughty Cain, when he disbelieves the ufe, and defpifes the benefit of Animal Sacrifice— a divine Rite, in- x Quilibet autem haec examinans ratiocinetur aceura- tius — an non Cain ita dura contra Deum fuerit locutus, quod contra hofce ritus Sacrificiorum proterve egerit, peccatum fuum non fatis agnoverit, non magnifecerit ufum Poenitentiae, non confirmationem Remiffionis pec- catorum, non Gratiam divinam in futuro Meflia pro- mifTam. Fran^ii Schola Patriarcharum, p. 46. y Gen. XVIII. if. G g 2 ftituted 234 Dissertation II. ftituted for his own Salvation ; and to accept the fame Offering from an bumble Abel, becaufe accompanied with an Animal Sacrifice, in a ready compliance with the divine Injunction ? Jfygbteous is the Lord in all bis ways, and jufl in all his dealings with the Children of Men ; and therefore the Lord had refpeU unto Abel, and alfo to his Mincha, or Offering, becaufe accom- panied with a Sacrifice ; but unto Cain, and to his Mincha, or Offering, hehadnotrejpeU, be- caufe he brought no Sacrifice. The Foundation then of this Difference, which God manifefted between tbefe two Of- ferers, feems now clear and rational; and to be a Difference, not arifing from any arbitrary decifion or Partiality in the Deity, but laid deep in the very Nature of the Oblations, and grounded upon Reafon and Equity. And this Interpretation will, I hope, appear with fome fmall advantage, after the various unfatisfadto- ry accounts already given; the greateft part of which have been thought to conduce but little to, however calculated for, the Credit of the Sacred Hiftory. Such, for inftance, is the Opinion, which commonly prevaild of old, that the Difference here fhewn by God was occafion'd by a different kind ofDiviJion, which the two Brothers made of their Oblations. This notion, tho' ground- ed on the tranflation which the LXX have given Dissertation II. 235 given of the feventh Verfe in this fourth Chap- ter, does not feem to have a proper foundation in the original account of this matter. And therefore the Emperor Julian, that cunning and avow'd Enemy of Revelation, laid hold of this Opinion in order to expofe the Hiftory. For he puts this very queftion to a Chriftian, with whom he was difputing — Why, fays he, did God accept Abel, and rejed: Cain ? The Anfwer was, that Abel divided his Offering better than Cain. Upon which he asks, Where- in that better Divifion confifted— urging it with an impious confidence, becaufe he knew fuch an opinion could not be defended to fatif- faclion : and indeed his Opponent took the wifeft way of anfwering him — by filence ; choofing to drop, what he had no rational foundation for defending *. This then is one of the many Opinions, which have difcredited the Hiftory before us. Such alfo is the Opinion—that God accepted Abel, and reje&ed Cain ; becaufe the one was a Good, and the other a Bad Man. But, tho* it is true that the Sacrifice of the Wicked is an abomination to the Lord, yet 'tis evident that the divine approbation and rejection were here occafion'd, not by the antecedent Lives of the 2. See Julian's Words in Cyr/U. contra Julian. Lib. X. p. 347. Edit. Spanhem. Lipfue, Offerers, 236 Dissertation II. Offerers, but the nature and concomitant cir- cumftances of their prefent Oblations. For this reafon others (and thefe indeed a numerous body) have afferted, that this Diffe- rence was made, becaufe the elder Brother did not bring of the Firft or Bed of his Fruits, as the younger did of the Firftiings of his Flock. But this Opinion feems alfo very weakly ground- ed, and inadequate to the explication of the Hiftory ; for whether Cain did or did not bring of his Firft-Fruits cannot be determind from the Original, and therefore neither fuppofition can fupport an argument on the cafe before us. Befides : this account (fuppofing it better grounded than it really is ) cannot take place, becaufe it oppofes the folution of it, which is given by St. Paul. It has been alfo faid— that Cain was rejected, becaufe he came with an intention againft his Brother's Life ; but furely this is ftrange e- nough, when it is as clear as the Sun, that his refblution againft his Brother's Life was not antecedent to, but the very confequence of his being rejected, when he found his Brother ac- cepted by God. It would be as endlefs, as it is unneceffary, to produce more of the ftrange accounts given of the point before us ; becaufe it is not, fo im- mediately, the bufinefs of this Attempt to point out the abfurd Comments upon it, as to fearch after Dissertation II. 237 afcer a rational Interpretation of it. There are indeed fome, whofe Obfervations on this important piece of hiftory well deferve the Thanks of Mankind ,• but it does not feem to appear — that All the Particulars had been ob- ferv d, and uniformly explain'd together. This therefore the prefent Differtation en- deavours to perform 5 with what fuccefs, muft be fubmitted to the Judgment of others. It may, however, be prefumd— that there appears from the preceding Obfervations to arife a proper foundation for the distinction made by- God on this occafion : fince the grateful Of- fering and Thanks of Abel, accompanied with the proper marks of his Repentance, and Obe- dience to the Divine Commands, muft be fup- pos'd acceptable to God; when the fame Gra- titude of Cain might be rejected, becaufe not accompanied with Sorrow for his Sins, or Faith in the Method instituted by God for his For- givenefs. The NewTeftament gives us two remarka- ble Characters, which, for their fimilitude to the two former, and the fame contraft in both, may be here properly fubjoin'd ; efpecially as they mutually illuftrate each other — and thefe are the Characters of the F h a r i s e e and the Publican, as defcrib'd by St. Luke. Thefe Two, it feems, went up into the Temple toge- ther, as did Cain and Abel to their place of Sacred 238 Dissertation II. Sacred Aflembly. The Pharijee — a Man high- ly opinionated of his own Righteoufnefs, ad- vances, like Cam, to offer up not a Prayer, but aThankfgiving — he could not ftoop to the low acknowledgment of Sin ; but exalts his own Character, by dwelling on the guilt and wretch- ednefs of his Companion. While the Publican, like Abel, with a pious Penitence and a grace- ful Humility, dwells upon his own unfitnefs to approach the Deity ; and, fmiting upon his Breaft, utters this powerful Petition — God be merciful to me, a Sinner ! Our Saviour's Infer- ence alfo is applicable to the cafe before us — 1 tell you, that this Man went down to bis houfe juflified, rather than the other ; that is ( when freed from the Hebrew Idiom ) — this Man re- turned juflified ( or efteem'd righteous ) and not the other. For the words of Solomon are ex- prefs — He that cover eth his Sins , Jhall not profper ; but who jo confejjeth and forfaketh them y Jhall have Mercy. And let us alfo remember that ftanding Rule in the Divine Oeconomy, deliver'd by a greater than Solomon— //