1 i 
 
 ^> 
 
4^^^r/^'^/ 
 
 ^ 
 
 t H E 
 
 DIVINE LEGATION 
 
 MOSES 
 
 DEMONSTRATED, 
 
 IN NINE BOOKS* 
 The Fourth Editjon, Corrected and Enlarged* 
 
 — /^ — ■ 
 
 WCNr'blAT-A-orvB Y 
 William, Lord Bilhop of Gloucester. 
 
 Vol. V. 
 
 LONDON, 
 
 Printed for A. Millar, and J. and R. ToNSOtr, 
 m the Straad, MDCCLXV. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 FIFTH VOLUME. 
 
 BOOK VI. 
 
 CONTAINS an Examination of all the 
 Texts brought from the Old and New Tefta- 
 ment to prove a future State of Rewards and Pu- 
 nifhments did make part of the Mofaic Difpenfation, 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 States the ^ejlion, Jhews the Adverfaries of 
 
 this Work to have much mijiaken it. — And that the 
 true ft ate of the queftion alone is afufficient anfwer to 
 all chjeMions^ p. i — lo. 
 
 S E C T. II. 
 
 Enters on an examination of the 'Texts brought 
 
 from the Old Teftamenr -, firft from the hook of 
 
 Job which is proved to be an allegoric Poerriy 
 
 v'ritten on the return from the Captivity^ and repre- 
 fcnting the Circumftances of the People of that time. 
 — The famous words, I know that my Redeemer 
 liveth, ^^c. fhewn to fignify, in their literal fenfe, 
 
 the hopes of a temporal deliverance only, p. lo 
 
 126. 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 Contains an examination of the reft of the Texts 
 urged from the Old Teltament, p. 126— -161, 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 Contains an examination of -the 'Texts produced from 
 the New Teftament, in which the nature of the 
 ylpoftolic Reafonings cigainjt the Errors of Jewijh Con- 
 verts is explained and illujirated, p. i6i — 194. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 The agreement of the Propofition of no future State 
 in the Mofaic Bifpenfation, with the VIP' Article of 
 
 the Church of England evinced. That the Old 
 
 Fathers looked for more than tranfitory Promifes, 
 
 illujirated in the famous cafe of Abraham, where 
 
 it is proved that the command to offer Ifaac was merely 
 an information, in a reprefentative Albion injlead of 
 Words, of the Redemption of Mankind by the great Sa- 
 crifice 0/ Christ.' Shewn how this Interpreta^ 
 
 tion overturns all the infidel objections againjl the truth 
 of this part of Abraham's hiftory, p. 194—28 1 . 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 Tofupport the foregoing Interpretation, The Origi- 
 nal, Nature, and Ufe of typical Rites and se- 
 condary Senses z;« Prophecies are inquired into.--- 
 fn the courfe of which Inquiry, the Principles of Mr. 
 Collinses book concerning the Grounds and Realbns of 
 the Chriftian Religion are examined and confuted, 
 
 and likewife the Reafoning of Dr. Sykes againjl 
 
 all double Senfes of Prophecies in his book intituled. 
 The Principles and Connexion of natural and re- 
 vealed 'Relijrion, ^c. TheUfe and Importance 
 
 of thefe ^lejlious to the fubjc^ of the Divine Lega- 
 tion, explained. Ihe Conclusion of the argu- 
 ment,— with a recapitulation of it, p. 281 — to the 
 end. 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 
 DIVINE LEGATION 
 
 O F 
 
 MOSES 
 
 DEMONSTRATED. 
 
 * BOOK VI. 
 
 " " ' ' ■ ■ I I ■ I. . .. . ■■■ f i..,a .1 . II, , . 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 AFTER fuch convincing evidence tliat a 
 FUTURE STATE did not make part of the 
 Religion of Moses, the reader would not 
 have fufpedted, he muft once more be flopt to hear 
 a long Anfwer to a fet of texts brought from the 
 Old and New Teftament to prove, Thai the Doc- 
 trine of a future ft ate of reward and puni/hment did 
 make the moft ejfential part of the Mofaic Difpenfa- 
 tion: and this, not by a few fanciful Allegorifts, 
 or outrageous Bigots only, who will fay, or do any 
 thing J but by many fober men of all Se6ls and 
 Parties, of all Times, and of all Religions. 
 
 I. Several of the ancient Christian Writers 
 
 were fo perfuaded of this point, that not content to 
 
 Vol. V. B " %, 
 
2 ^c Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 fay, the doftrine of a Future ftate made part of the 
 Mofiic Difpenfation, they would be confident that 
 the very Pagans learnt it all from thence. Some 
 modern Chriftians have not been behind them in 
 their Faith^ but have far outftripped them in their 
 Charity^ while they treated the denial of this extra- 
 vagant Opinion as a new fpecies of infidelity. It is 
 true, they are all extremely confufed and obfcure 
 about the way, they reprefent it to have been taught : 
 And there have not been wanting, at all times men 
 of greateft eminence for parts and piety, who have 
 not only doubted, but plainly denied this Future 
 flate to be in the Mofaic Rehgion ; though, to be 
 juft to all, with thf fame inconfiftency and embar- 
 ras that the others have maintained it % However, 
 the more current do6trine hath always been. That 
 a future ftate of rewards and punifhments was taught 
 by the Law of Mofes. 
 
 As furprizing as this may feem to thcfe who have 
 weighed the foregoing Evidence, yet indeed no lefs 
 could be expefted from fi-ich a number of concur- 
 rent and oddly combined Prejudices, which have 
 ferved, till now, to difcredit one of the cleareft and 
 mofl important truths of Revelation. 
 
 I. The firft was, that feveral Patriarchs and 
 Prophets, both before and under the Mofaic Dif- 
 penfation, were certainly favoured with the reve- 
 
 * To give an example only in Biftiop Bull, whofe words, 
 in a latin traft, for a future ftate's not being in the Mofaic 
 Difpenfation I have quoted in the fourth fed^ion of this Vlth 
 book ; yet in an Engh/h pofthumous fcrnion, he fcems to fpeak 
 in a very different manner. — I fhould not have illullrated this 
 ccnfure by tlie example of (o rcfpeftable a Perfon, but for the 
 jndilcretioii of my Anfwerers, who, to fupport their own ill 
 io^tCj have expoffd his;;jc;«/;. 
 
 6 latioa 
 
Se£t. I, of Mo ST: 3 demt)72jirated. ^ 
 
 lation of man's Redemption •, in which the doflrlne 
 of a Future ftate is eminently contained : And they 
 think it utterly incredible that Thele fhould noc 
 have conveyed it to their People and Pofterity. 
 
 2. They could not conceive how a Religion 
 could be worthy of God, which did not propofe 
 to its Followers a Future ftate of rewards and pu- 
 nifhments ; but confined their views to the carnal 
 things of this life only. 
 
 3. The truth, here attempted to be eftablifhed, 
 had been received and abufed by the Enemies 
 of all true Religion and Godlinefs -, fuch as the 
 Sadducees of the old Jewiih church, the Gnoftics 
 of the old Chriftian, and Unbelievers in all 
 ChurcheSi 
 
 4. Laftly, men were kept faft within the error 
 into which thefe prejudices had drawn them, by 
 never rightly diftinguifhing between a Future ftate 
 of reward and punilhment, as taught by what men 
 call natural Religion^ and a future ftate as taught 
 by Chrifiian Revelation -, which is the clue, as 
 we ftiall fee hereafter, to conduft us through all 
 the errors and perplexities of this region of darknefs^ 
 till we come into the full and glorious light of the 
 Cofpel. 
 
 But in Religious matters, combinations much 
 lefs ftrange are fufficient to defeat the credit of the 
 plaineft Fadt. A noted inftance of what obsti- 
 nacy alone can do againft the felf-evidence of 
 Truth, will abate our wonder at the perverfity in 
 queftion; at leaft it may be put to ufe, in the ^//^ 
 tory of the human mind, towards which, will be 
 found materials, neither vulgar nor few, in the 
 
 B a ^ €Ouri^ 
 
?4 T^^e Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 courfe of this work. There is a fe£b, and that no 
 inconfiderable one, which, being effentially found- 
 ed in Enthuliafm, hath, amongft other of its 
 ftrange freaks, thrown out the Inftitution of wa- 
 ter-baptism from its Icheme of Chriftianity. It 
 is very likely that the illiterate Founder, while 
 rapt in his fanatic vifions, did not refledt that, of 
 all the inftitutions of our holy Religion, this of 
 .watcr-baptifiu was leail proper to be called in quef- 
 tion j being moft invincibly eflablifhed by the 
 practice boch of Paul and Peter. This latter 
 finding that the houfhold of Cornelius the Gentile 
 had received the holy Ghojl^ regarded it as a certain 
 diredion for him to admit them into the Church 
 of Chriil, which he did by the initiatory Rite of 
 water-baptifm. [Afts x. 47.] Paul, in his travels 
 through the lefler Afia, finding fome of the 
 Jewish Converts who had never heard of the Holy 
 Ghojlj and, on enquiry, underftanding they had 
 been only baptifed by water unto JohrCs Baptifmy 
 thought fit to baptife them with water in the name 
 of the Lordjefus, that is, to admit them into the 
 Church •, and then laying his hands upon them the 
 Holy Ghojt came upon them, and they /pake with 
 tongues and propheficd. [Ads xix. 4, 5, 6.] 
 
 In fpite of thefe two memorable tranfadions, 
 the Quakers have notwithftanding rejected water- 
 baptifm. What is the pretence ? " Water-baptifm 
 (it lecms) is John's baptilm, and only a type of 
 baptilm by the Holy Ghoft or by Fire ; fo that 
 when this lafl came in ufe, the former ceafed and 
 was abolifhed." Yet in the two hidorics given 
 above, both thefe fancies are reproved j and in fuch 
 a manner as \i tl\e (lories had been recorded for 
 no other purpofe : For in the adventure of Paul, 
 th<* ibater-baplifm ofjcfus is exprcisly diftinguifhed 
 ^" - ^^ from 
 
Sedl. I. of Moses demonJl7'ated, ^. 
 
 from the water-haptifm of John : And, in that of 
 Peter, it appears, that water-bapifm was neceflary 
 for admittance into the church of Chrift, even af- 
 ter the miniftration of baptifm by fire ^ or the coin- 
 municated power of the Holy Ghoft. It is further 
 obfervable, that thefe two Heads of the Mifiion 
 to the two great divifions of Mankind, the Jews 
 and Gentiles, here aded in one another's pro- 
 vince J Peter the Apoftle of the Jews adminifter- 
 ing baptifm to the gentile houlhold of Cornelius; 
 and Paul the Apoltle of the Gentiles, adminifter- 
 ing the fame rite to the Jewilh Converts. And 
 why v/as this croiTing of hands but to obviate that 
 filly evafion, that water-baptifm was only partial or 
 temporary. 
 
 But what is reafon, evidence, or truth, when 
 cppofed to religious Prejudice ! The Qtiakers do 
 not hold it to be clearer, that repentance from dead 
 works is neceifary for obtaining the fpiritual benefits 
 of the Gofpel-Covenanr, than that water -bap- 
 tism is aboliflied, and of no ufe to initiate into 
 the Church of Chrift. 
 
 IT. But to proceed. The error in queftion is, as' 
 we faid, not confined to the Chriftian Church. 
 The Jews too maintain it with equal obftinacy, 
 but not with equal indifcretion •, the Children of this 
 world are^ in their generation^ wifer than the Chil- 
 dren of light *'; their fatal adherence to their long 
 abolifhed Rites depending altogether upon this 
 fingle prejudice, that Mofes taught a future ftate 
 of rewards and punifhments : for if he taught it 
 not, the confequence is inevitable, his Religion 
 could hs only preparatory to one that did teach it. 
 
 ^ Lt'ke xvi. 8. 
 
 B 2 This 
 
6 T/je Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 This therefore is their great fupport ; and wifely 
 have they inforced it by all the authority and 
 power of the Synagogue \ But what Chriftians 
 gam by fo doing, I confefs I know not. What 
 they lole hath been feen in part, and will be more 
 fqlly fhewn hereafter : not one demonftration only, 
 of the truth of the Mofaic Miflion, but all true 
 conception of that divine harmony which infpires 
 every part, and runs through the whole of God*s 
 great Difpenfation to Mankind. 
 
 III. The error is ftill more extenfive ; and hath 
 fpread from true Religion to the falfe -, a litter foil 
 for its reception. For the Mahometans, who 
 hold the divine original of the Jewifh Law, are 
 as obftinate as t|ie bed, in giving it this miftaken 
 advantage : but, it mull be owned, under a modeller 
 pretext. Their expedient for faving the honour of 
 the Law is this : They confefs the Dodrine of a 
 future ftate is not at prefent to be found there : 
 
 ^UT THOUGH IT BE NOT THERE, IT OUGHT TO BE ^ 
 
 for that the Jews, in pure fpite to them, have in- 
 terpolated their Bible, and taken away all mention 
 cfit'. 
 
 Matters being in this odd fituation, the reader 
 will excufe me, if I turn a little to confider thofe 
 
 * See the Dedi-.ation to the Third Vplumc, 
 
 ** Taouraf — Les Mufiilmans difent, que c'eft I'ancicn Tefta- 
 jnent que Dieu revela a. Moyfe ecrit en langue Hebra'ique, livre 
 qui a (ite altere & corrunipu par le> Juifs. r-C'ell la le fenti- 
 ;rent aes Mufulmans qui a etc recueilli de plufieurs auteurs 
 ^rabes par Hagi Kha(fnb. Le meme aiiteur dit — que Ton 
 n'y trouve pas aufli aucun endroit ou il foit paric de I'autre vie, 
 j)! de la Refurrtdtion, ni du Paradis, ni de I'Enfer, k que cela 
 vient peut etre de cc que les fuifs out corrompu Iturs exem- 
 plairs. — Fcyex. la Bibhotl^que Orientqie de M. D'Herb'elcty Mot. 
 Xaooar r. 
 
 texts 
 
Sedt. I. ^ M OS E s demonjlrated. *f 
 
 texts of Scripture which Christian writers have 
 produced to prove, 'That a future jiate of rewards 
 and punifhments does indeed make part of the Mofaic 
 Religion, 
 
 II. 
 
 But here let me obferve, that the thing of moft 
 confequence in this part of my difcourfe will be 
 to ftate the queftion clearly and plainly. When 
 that is done, every common reader will be able, 
 without my help, to remove the objedtions to my 
 Syftem ; or rather, the queftion being thus truly 
 ftated, they will fall of themfelves. 
 
 I. My declared purpofe, in this Work % is to 
 demonftrate />^^ Divine Legation 0/ Moses, in order 
 to ufe it for the foundation of a projected defence 
 of Revelation in general, as the Difpenfation is 
 compleated in Chriftanity. The medium I employ 
 for this purpofe is, that there was no future fiate 
 of reward a?id punifhment in the Mofaic Religion. I 
 muft needs therefore go upon thefe two principles : 
 I. That Mofes did not difhelieve a future fiate of re- 
 ward and punifJoment. 2 . That his Religion was pre- 
 paratory to the Religion of Jesus 'ijuhich taught 
 fuch future fiate. Hence proceed thefe confe- 
 quences ; 
 
 I. From my holding that Mofes did not difhelieve 
 a future flate^ it follows, that all thofe texts of 
 Scripture which are bought to prove that the aneient 
 Jews believed the foul furvived the body^ are nothing 
 to the purpofe : but do, on the contrary, greatly 
 confirm my Thefis : for which reafon I have myfelf 
 
 * See the Appendix to the firll edit, of the /Alliance hetnueen 
 Church and State, 
 
 B 4 Ihewn 
 
S ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 ihewn that the early Jews did indeed fuppofc this 
 truth. ^^ 
 
 2. From my holding that the Religion of Mofes 
 was only preparatory to the Religion of Jesus, it 
 follows, that all fuch texts, as imply a Future fiate 
 of rewards and punijhments in their typical, fjcrni^ 
 fication^ only, a-e jtac as little to the purpofe. For if 
 Mofes's Religion was preparatory to one Future, it 
 is, as I fnave (hewn '", highly realonable tofuppofe, 
 that the eflential doftrineof that New Religion was 
 fhadowed out under the Rites, or by the^infpired 
 penmen, of the Old. But fuch texts are not only in- 
 concl.ufive, but highly corroborative of the opinion 
 they are brought to oppofe. For if future rewards 
 and punifhments were taught to the People under 
 the Law, what occafion was there for any typical 
 r^prefentation of them,' which neceflariiy implies 
 the throwing thii3gs, into Ihade, and f^^cretino- 
 them from vulgar knowledge? What ground was 
 there for that dlflinaion h-tween a carnal and a 
 fpintual meaning (ooth of which it is agreed the 
 Mofaic Law had, in order to fit it for the ufe of 
 twoDifpenfations) if it did not imply an ignorance 
 ot the fpiritual fenf.; during the continuanlieof the 
 firft ? Yet as clear as this is, the contrary is the 
 doanne of my Adverfaries ; who feem to think 
 that the^/>7/«^/and the carnal \tx\k. muft needs al- 
 ways go together, like the jewel and the foil in 
 Aaron's breaft-plate. 
 
 Both thefe forts of texts, therefore, conclude only 
 agamft Sadducees and Intfidels. Yet hath this 
 matter been fo little attended to, in the judgments 
 pait upon my argument, that both forts have been 
 
 ' See the M fed. of this vol. 
 
 2 urged 
 
Scifl. I. of Moses demonflrated, g 
 
 urged as confutations of it. I fpeak not here of 
 the dirty calumnies of one or two forgotten fcrib- 
 lers, but of the unequitable cenfures of fome who 
 better deferve to be let right. 
 
 II. But farther. As my pofition is, ihat a Fu- 
 turejlate of reward and puntjioment was not taught 
 in the Mofaic Difpenfatmi, all texts brouo-ht to 
 prove the knowledge of it after the time of David 
 are as impertinent as the reft. For what was 
 known from this rime, could not fupply the want 
 of what was unknown for fo many ages before. 
 This therefore puts all the prophetic Writino-s out 
 of thequeftion. 
 
 And now, when all thefe Texts are taken from 
 my Adverfaries, what is there left, to keep up the 
 quarrel ? Should I be fo fevere to infift on the corn-* 
 mon rights of Authors, of not being obliged to an-* 
 fwerto convi6l impertinencies, this part of my talk 
 would be foon over. But I fliall, in charity, con- 
 fider thefe Texts, fuch as they are. However that 
 I may not appear altogether fo abfurd as the In- 
 forcersof them, I (hall give the reader my reafons 
 for this condefcenfion. 
 
 1. As to the FUTURE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL,' 
 
 we Ihould diilinguilli between the mention of it 
 by Mofes, and by the following Writers. Thefe 
 might, and, as we have fnewn, did conclude for 
 its exiftence from the nature of the thing. But 
 Mofes, who, we fuppofe, intentionally omitted the 
 mention oi Future rewards and puniflments^ would 
 not, we muft needs fuppofe likewife, proclaim the 
 preparatory do6lrine of the Exiftence. Nor could 
 he, on the other hand, deny what he knew to be 
 
 the 
 
10 ^je Brohte Legation Book VI. 
 
 the truth. Thus, being neceflitated to fpeak of 
 Enoch's ^ranjlation^ it could not be, but that a y^- ' 
 ^arate exijievce might be inferred, how obfcurely 
 foever the llory was delivered. But had he faid 
 any thifig, in his account of the Creation, which 
 literally implied (as the words, of man's being 
 made in the image of God, and the breath of life beino- 
 breathed into his noftrils, are fuppoled to do) tha^ 
 man had an immortal foul, then muft Mofes be 
 fuppofed, purpofeiy, to have inculcated that Im- 
 mortality; contrary to what we hold, that he pur- 
 pofeiy omitted the dodrine built upon it, namely 
 a future ftate of reward and punifhment. It will 
 not be improper therefore to fhew that fuch texts 
 "have not this pretended meaning. 
 
 2. Concerning a future state of rewarij^ 
 AND PUNISHMENT ; fcveral texts are brought as 
 teaching it in a typical f erf e, which teach it°in no 
 fenfe at alF : feyeral as teaching it in a dired and 
 literal knic, which only teach it in a typical. Both 
 thefe, therefore, it may be proper to fet in a true 
 light. 
 
 3. Laflly, concerning the texts from the later 
 Prophets, which are without the period in queftion ; 
 I own, and it is even incumbent on my Argument 
 to prove, that thefe Prophets opened the firft dawn-' 
 ing of the doftrine of a Refurre5Iiofi, and confe- 
 quently of a Future ftate of rezvard and punifhment : 
 even thefe therefore Ihall in their proper place be 
 carefully confidered. At prefentlet mejuftobferve, 
 that the dark veil under which th^ firft fet of Pro- 
 phets delivered their typical rcprefentations was 
 gradually drawn afide by the later. 
 
 SECT, 
 
Sed. 2. of Mo sES demonjirated, 1 1 
 
 S E C T. II. 
 
 HAVING premifed thus much to clear the 
 way, and ftiorten the inquiry, I now pro- 
 igeed to my examination, 
 
 And firft, of the texts brought from the Old 
 
 Testament. 
 
 Now as the book of Job ^ is fuppofed to teach 
 both a SEPARATE EXISTENCE and a future state 
 
 OF 
 
 g Job's Life, by means of the Devil and his falfe Friends, 
 was an exercife of his Patience; and his Wjlory, by means of 
 Criticifm and his Commentators, has fmce been an exercife of 
 ours. I am far from thinking myfelf unconcerned in this mif- 
 chief ; for by a foolilh attempt to fupport his Name and Cha- 
 rafler, I have been the occafion of bringing down whole bands 
 of hoftile Critics upon him, who like the Sabeam and Chaldeans 
 of old, foon reduced him back to his Dunghill. Some came 
 armed in Latin, fome in Englilh, and fome in the language of 
 JBillingfgate. Moft of them were profefTedly written againft me ; 
 but all, in reality, bear hardeft on the good old Patriarch. 
 
 However, tho' I am, as I faid, to be reckoned, along with 
 thefe, amongft Job's Perfecutors ; yet I have this to fay for my- 
 jfelf, that the vexation I gave him was foon over. If I fcribbled 
 ten pages on his back, my Adverfaries and his, have made lovg 
 furro'ws and fcribbled ten thoufand. Now, tho* amongft all 
 thefe, Job found no favour, yet by ill-hap my Syftem did: 
 But to whom I am moft obliged, whether to thofe who attacked 
 it, or to thofe who efpoufed it, is not eafy to fay : for, by a 
 lingular event, the Aflailants have left me in pofleffion of all its 
 fupports, and the Defenders have taken them all away * : the 
 better, 1 prefume, to fit it to their own ufe. Learned Natura- 
 lifts tell us of a certain Animal in the watery wafte, which, for 
 I know not what conceit, they call Bernard the Hermit ; and 
 which, in courtefy, they rank with the teftaceous tribe, tho* 
 l^ature (fo bountiful to the reft of its kind) hath given This 
 no habitation of its own, but fent it naked and unhoufed into 
 
 • See Mr. G's, difgourfes on the book of Job. 
 
 / '^ the 
 
ir^ 77je Divine Legation Book VI*- 
 
 OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT; and is befidcs 
 thought by fome to be the firftof Moles's writings; 
 ^nd by others to be written even before his time, 
 and by the Patriarch himlclf, I fhall give it the pre- 
 cedence in this inquiry : which it delerves likewife 
 on another account, the fupericr evidence it bears 
 to the point in queflion ; if indeed it bear any evi- 
 clence at all. For it may be faid by thofe who thus., 
 hold it to be the earliell Scripture (allowino- the 
 •virord?, oijob^ IkWiV that my Redeemer liveth^ &c, 
 to.relp^d a future flat'.) that the Jewifh people 
 ^ult hot only have had the knowledge of a fu- 
 ture STATE cf rewards and puniJJments, but, what 
 iS; morCj of the resurrection of the body\ and 
 ihiU more, of the redemption of mankind by the 
 Son cf God : therefore Mofes had no need to incul- 
 cate the dodrine of a future ftate ''. But I much 
 fufpeft that the clear knowledge of fo fublime a 
 myftery, which St. Paul fays, had been hid from 
 diges, and from generations^ but was now (on the 
 preaching of the Gofpel) made manifefito the Saints', 
 was not at all fuited to the times of Job or Mofes. 
 The learned anci impartial Divine will perhaps be 
 rather inclined to think, that either the book of 
 Job was written in a much later age, or that this 
 
 the world. In recompence, fhe has enabled it to figure amongft 
 the beft of its tribe : for, by a noble endowment of inJhnd, 
 it 13 taught to make its way into the bell: accommodated, and 
 beft ornamented fliells of its brethren ; which it either finds 
 empty, or foon makes fo, to fit them up for its own eafe and 
 convenience. 
 
 ^ But if the reader would fee the abfurdlty of fuppofing the 
 book of Job to be written thus early, and at the fame time, to 
 teach the refurrei^ion and a future ftate, expofed at large, he 
 may read the 3d chapter o{ The free and candid examittation of the 
 3/ SHOP of LcndoHi P.rnf civics, 
 
 » Col. i. 26. 
 
 famous 
 
Se^l. 2. of Moses demonjl rated* XJ 
 
 famous paflage has a very different meaning, rfc 
 fhall endeavour to fhew, that neither of thefe fufpt^ 
 cions would be entertained witiiout reafon. 
 
 I. 
 
 Firft then concerning the book itfelf. 
 
 As to the Perfon of Jph^ the eminence of his 
 Charader, his fortitude and patience in affliftions, 
 and his preceding and fubfequent felicity, thefe are 
 realities fo unqueflionable, that a man muil have 
 fet afide facred Antiquity before he can admit a 
 doubt concerning them. But that the book which 
 bears Job's name was written by him, or in any 
 age near his own, a careful and capable examiner 
 will, I perfuade myfelf, be hardly brought to 
 believe. 
 
 In the order of this difcourfe therefore I fliall in- 
 quire. 
 
 I. What kind of Compofition the book of Job 
 really is. 
 
 II. In what Age it was written. And, 
 
 III. Who was its Author. 
 
 I. 
 
 Even thofe who are inclined to fuppofe this a 
 Work of the higheft Antiquity, and to believe it afl 
 exadl hiflory of Job's fjfferings and patience, 
 and of God's extraordinary difpenfations towards 
 him, recorded by his own hand, arc yet forced to 
 confefs that the Introduction and Conclufion are of 
 anotljer nature, and added, by a later hand, to 
 t9i\t give 
 
t4 ^^ Divine Legation Book Vt. 
 
 give that fulnefs and integrity to the Piece, which 
 works of imagination, and only fuch works, re- 
 quire. This is a large concelTion, and plainly in- 
 timates that he who wrote the Prologue and Epi- 
 logue, either himfelf believed the body of the work 
 to be a kind of dramatic Compofition •, or, at leaft, 
 intended that others Ihonld have that opinion of 
 it, I fhall therefore the lefs fcruplq to efpoufe the 
 notion of thofe who conclude the whole to be 
 DRAMATICAL. Fot the transferring the Prologue 
 and Epilogue to a late writer was only an expedient 
 to get rid of a circumftance which (hewed it to be 
 fuch a fort of work -, and which confequently 
 might bring it down to an age remote from that of 
 the fubje(5l. But thofe who contrived this expe- 
 dient feem tohave had but a (lender idea of the an- 
 cient Drama, which was generally rounded with a 
 Prologue and Epilogue of this fort •, to give, by way 
 of narrative, information of fuch fafts as fell not 
 within the compafs of the one entire Aftion repre- 
 fented\ 
 
 I am induced to embrace this opinion from the 
 caft of the STYLE, the sentiments, and composi- 
 tion ; all perfectly fuited to fuch a kind of Work, 
 and ill agreeing with any other. 
 
 I. As to the Style, it hath been obferved by the 
 Critics, even from the time of Jerom, that all 
 
 ^ Calmet makes the following obfcrvation, in his comment 
 on the ill verfe of chap, xxxviii. L'Ecrivain dc cct Ouvrnge a 
 obferve de ne point employer ce nom de Jehovah dans les dif- 
 cours direfls qu'il fait tenir a Job & a fcs Amis: mais dans leS 
 recits qui font au commencement, et a la fin du Livre, il ufe de 
 ce terme, comme font d' ordinaire les Ecrivains Hebreux. Ce 
 qui dtmoiitre que 1' Ouvrage a etc ecrit par un Juif, et depwis 
 Moyfe; puifque ce nom incommunicable nc fut connu que d*- 
 puis r apparition du Bui/Fon ardent. 
 
Setft. 2. of Moses demonflratsd. i^ 
 
 but. the introdudlion and conclufion is in meafure. 
 But as it was thecuftom ot Antiquity to write their 
 graved works of Religion, Law, and Hiftory, in 
 verfe, this circumilance alone fhould, I think 
 have little fliare in determining the nature of the 
 Compofition. And as little, I think, on the other 
 hand, ought the frequent ufe of the arabic dialed: 
 to be infifted on, in fupport of its high oricrinal 
 fince, if it be of the nature^ and of the date^ here 
 fuppofcd, an able writer would chufe to give his 
 Fable that air of antiquity and verifimihtude. 
 
 2 . But when we take xht fentiments along,and find 
 throughout the whole, not only verfe but poetry, 
 a poetry animated by all the fublimity of figures 
 .and luxuriance of defcription -, and this, on the 
 cooleft and moft abftrafled fubjed; we cannot 
 chufe but conclude it to be a work of imagination. 
 Nor is it fufficient to fay, that this is owing to an 
 eaftern genius, v/hofe kindling fancy heats ^11 his 
 thoughts into a glow of expreffion : for if the 
 two ends be his who wrote the middle, as we 
 have no reafon to doubt, they fhew him not unufed 
 to the plaineft form of narration. And as to that 
 eaftern genius itfelf, though dillinguiihingly fub- 
 lime when a poetic fubje6l has enflamed its enthu- 
 •fiafm, yet in mere hiilory, nothing can be more 
 cool and fimple-, as all acquainted either with their 
 ancient or modern writers can inform us. But, 
 what is more to our purpofe, the facred Prophets 
 themfelves, tho* wrapt in ecftafy of the divine im- 
 prefiions, when treating of the queftion here de- 
 bated, namely, Whether and wherefore the Good are 
 frequently unhappy and the Bad profperous, a qucf- 
 tion that came fometimes in their way, while they 
 were reproving their impious and impatient coun- 
 trymen, who by their repeated apoftafies had now 
 
 provokedi 
 
1 6 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 provoked God to withdraw from them, by degrees, 
 his extraordinary providence j when, I luy, they 
 touch upon this queftion, they treat the matter 
 with the utmoft piainnefs and fimplicity. 
 
 3. But the laft and moll convincing circum- 
 {tance is the form of the compofition. And here 
 I fhal! not urge, as of much weight, what hath 
 been obferved by fome who take this fide of the 
 queHion, the fcenical image of Job and his friends 
 fitting together on the ground feven days and feven 
 nig! its without a word fpeaking '. Becaufe we 
 reafonably fuppofe no more to be meant than that 
 excefsof mutual grief making them unfit to give, 
 and him to receive conlolation, they were fome 
 days "" before they entered on the fubjedt of their 
 vifit. 
 
 This rather is the thing to be admired, (if we 
 fuppofe it all hiftoric truth) that three cordial 
 friends fhould make a folemn appointment to go 
 mourn with Job and to comfort him " ; that they 
 Ihould be fo greatly affeded with his extreme dif- 
 treffes, as to be unable to utter a word for feven 
 whole days together •, and yet, after this, to be no 
 fooner fet in, than inrirely to forget their errand, 
 and (miferable comforters as they were) inftead of 
 mourning with him in the bitternefs of his foul, 
 to wrangle, and contradi6t him in every word he 
 fpoke ; and this v/ithout the leaft loftening of 
 
 * Chap, ii, 13. 
 
 •" — Eo quod ITclirsei foleant multiplicarc ^zx ftp tern (h. e. 
 feptenarium numerum pro inulliludinc poneie) Maimun. More 
 nivochim, p. 267, 
 
 ■ Chap. ii. 11. 
 
 Friendfhip j 
 
&eft. 2; of Moses demonftrated. iy 
 
 Friendfhip 5 but with all the fiercenefs and aeri- 
 if-nony of angry Difputants contending for a viftory* 
 It was no trifle neither that they infifted on, in 
 which indeed difputatious men are often the warm- 
 eft, but a contradiftion in the tendereft point. 
 They would needs have it, againft all Job's pro- 
 teftations to the contrary, that his misfortunes 
 came upon him in punifhment for his crimesi 
 Suppofe their Friend had been wrong in the judg- 
 ment he pafTed on things. Was this a time to ani- 
 madvert in fo pitilefs a manner on his errors ? 
 "Would not a fmall fhare of afFeclion, pity, or 
 even common humanity, have difpofed them to 
 bear one /even ^^jj longer with their old diftrefled 
 Acquaintance ? Human nature is ever uniform ; 
 and the greater paflions, luch as thofe of friend- 
 Ihip and natural affeftion, Ihew themfelves to be 
 the fame at all times : But we have an inftance in 
 thefe very times, in that amiable domeftic ftory of 
 Jofeph. This Patriarch had been cruelly injured by 
 his brethren. Providence at length put them into 
 his power ; and, in juft refentment of their in<- 
 hurnan ufage, he thought fit to mortify and 
 humble them : but no fooner did he find them 
 begin to be unhappy, than his anger fubfided, 
 violated affeflion returned, and he melted into 
 their bolbms with all the tendernefs of a fellow- 
 fufferer. This was Nature : This was Hiftory. 
 And fhall we fuppofe the feelings of true Friend- 
 fhip to be inferior to thofe of Family-afl^eflion ? 
 David thought otherwife^ where, fpeaking of Jo-* 
 iiathan, he declares their mutual love was wonder- 
 ful, furpafllng that of the ftrongeft natural affec- 
 tion, the palTion between the two lexes. The fame 
 have always been the Frieridfhips of good men, 
 when founded on virtue, and ftrengthened^ by a 
 fimilitude of manners. 
 
 Vol. V. C: So 
 
l8 T^he Divine Legatioji BookVI. 
 
 So that it appears, thefe three friends were of a 
 fino-ular complexion •, and defervedly gave occafion 
 to a proverb which lets them in no very honour- 
 able or advantageous light. 
 
 But fuppofe now the work to be dramatical^ and 
 we immediately lee the reafon of their behaviour. 
 For had they not *been indulged in their ftrange 
 captious humour, the Author could never have 
 produced a piece of that integrity of aftion, 
 which a fcenic reprefentation demanded : and they 
 might as well have held their tongue feven days 
 longer, as not contradift, when they did begin to 
 
 ipeak". 
 ^ This, 
 
 *> The Cornifli Critic thinks otherwife, " Thefe falfe friends, 
 «* (fays he) are defcribed as having io much fellow feeling of 
 *' lob's fufferings that they fit with hini feven days and nights 
 *' upon the ground without being able to fpcak to him. If 
 «' this be the dramatic way of reprefenting falfe friends, how 
 *' (hall we know the falfe from the true?" p. 19. Sempronius, 
 in the Play of Cato, is all along warmer than even Gato him- 
 felf in the caufe of liberty and Rome. If this h the dramatic 
 ivay of reprefenting^ falfe patriot (m?y our Critic fay) hoiM Jhall 
 nve knoiv the falfe from the true ? 1 anfwer, by obferving him 
 with his mafic off. And do not Job's falfe friends unmafk them- 
 felves, when they fo cruelly load their fuffering Acquaintance 
 with the moll injurious reflexions? Indeed the Critic dcferve* 
 our pity, who cannot fee that the formal circumftance of fmng 
 flctit fe-ven Jays was a dramatic embellifhment in the eallern 
 manner : The not knowing that the number/ir;; was a facred 
 number amongft the Jews, may indeed, be more exxufable. — 
 But he goes on, " 1 have been often llruck with furprifc to fee 
 •♦ him [the author of the D. L.] very eameftly endeavouring 
 *♦ to fupport his allegorical interpretation of the book of Job by 
 •' arguments drawn from the contradidion^, which he fanciet 
 *' he*" has there efpied, to the truth of the hiflory or tradition 
 " upon which his allegory is built. Than which, in my appre- 
 " henfion, there can fcarce be a greater abfurdity. 1 would dc- 
 *' fire him to confider attentively the allegorical ode in Horace, 
 *' O TMi'is, referent, &c. that tho' every thing therein may be 
 
 *' accommodated 
 
Sedl. t, o/' M o s E s demonjirated, 19 
 
 This, as to what the 'Drama in general required. 
 But had this been all we eould fay for their con- 
 
 ductj 
 
 ** accommodated to a republic, yet it is true in ihe Jite^I or 
 ** primary fenfe only of a fhip, and that there is not one fmgle 
 *' ftroke in it that can be underftood of a republic and not of 
 ** a fhip J and this might fhew him his miftaiie in applying 
 ** paflages in the book of Job to the Jewiih People, merelv 
 '* becaufe they caiinot be underftood of Job: which is direftly 
 " annihilating the allegory he would eftablifii. For it is as 
 ** plain that in an allegory two things or perfons muji be con- 
 " cerned as that two and two mull go to make four." p. 99, 
 100. — The inrdeiice, the fraud, the nonfenfe of this paffage ia 
 as much without example as it was without provocation. — 1 de- 
 iire to underftand, by what other means, except by revelation^ 
 an allegorical writing can be known to be allegorical, but by 
 circumrtances in it which cannot be reconciled to the ftory Qt 
 fable which ferveS both for a cover and vehicle to the moral ? 
 And yet this man tells us that to attempt to prove the nature of 
 ia writing to be allegorical from this circumftance is one of the 
 greatefl ahfurdities. When the allegory is of fame length, and 
 takes in the life arid adventures of a certain perfon, it can fcarce 
 be otherwife but that fome circumilances in it muft be varied 
 from the faft, to adapt it to the moral. In a fhorter, whertt 
 the objeft is rtior^ iimple, there may be no need for any varia- 
 tion. And this fliews the difingenuity of this man, in bringing 
 the ode Of Horace into comparifon. For which tod, the little 
 he knows, he is indebted to the author of the JO. h. And how 
 little that is we fhall how fee. 
 
 In the firll place, I have fnewn this Ode not to be of the 
 tiatnre of an allegory, where the ftory is only the cover and 
 vehicle to the moral : bUt of the nature of a relation contain- 
 ing a double fenfe, primarily and fecondarily : in which an in* 
 formation is conveyed in both fenfes : confequCntly there ought 
 not to be a fi"gle Jiroke in it that can be uvderfood of a republic 
 Sand not of a fhip : But this is a fpfecies of writing entirely di- 
 ftindt from the allegory in queftion ; fo that the urging it was 
 impertinent : and the follov/ing obfervation is made with his 
 ufual infolence ;' — tbis might fjeiv him his miftake in applying 
 pafjixges of the hook of Job to the Je-wip People MERELY becauft 
 they cannot be underfeed of fob I but not with infolence only, 
 but with fraud : For I do not apply paflages in the book of 
 job, MERELY for this reafon ; no nor principally j but only a» 
 •ne of many reafons. 
 
 C a However, 
 
20 • The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 du6b, we (hould needs confefs that the divine Wri- 
 ter had here done, what mere mortal Poets fo fre- 
 quently 
 
 However, contending for fuch diTcordant circuitiftances in the 
 vehicle-ftory, he fays, is direflly annihilating the allegory. Now 
 I underftood it was the eftabliftiing it ; as it is the only means of 
 getting to the knowledge of its being an allegory. He goes 
 on, — For it is as plain that in an alleg^ory t-ivo things or ferfons 
 fKuft be concerned, as that tnx,o and tixo muji go to make four. 
 What he means by this jargon of tijoo's being concerned^ I know 
 not. If he means that the fable and the moral mufl: go to the 
 making up the allegory, no body will difpute it with him. 
 But if he means, that all the perfonages in \}nQ fable muft have 
 all the qualities, attributes, and adventures of the perfonages in 
 the moral, all ^fop's fables will confute this profound reafoner 
 on allegories. However fomething, to be fure, he did mean: 
 He had a notion, I fappofe, that there was a right and wrong in 
 every thing : he only wanted to know where they lie : Therefore 
 to make thefe curfory notes as ufefui as I can, I will endeavour 
 to explain his meaning. It is certain then, that tho' the juftiee 
 of allegoric writing does not require that the fafts in the fable 
 do in reality correfpond exadlly with the fafls in the moral, yet 
 the truth of things requires lYic pojjibility of their fo correfpond- 
 ing. Thus, tho' the Afs perhaps never aftually covered himfelf 
 with a Lion's &in, and was betrayed by his long ears, as yEfop 
 relates, yet we have an example before us, fufficienc to convince 
 us that he might have done fo, without much expence of in- 
 llinft. But when Dryden made his Hind and Panther difpute 
 about the dodlrine and difcipline of particular Churches; as 
 thev never poffibly could have done fo, this (to take his own 
 words, inftead of better) // direSily annihilating the allegory he 
 twould efiablijh ; for it is as plain that in an allegory tnvo things 
 or perfons muJl he concerned^ as that tivo and tijuo muJl go to make 
 four. But 1 fancy I afcribe more to his fagacity than it de- 
 ferves, in fuppofing, that he underftood, what kind of allegory 
 the book of job muil needs be, if it be any allegory at all. I 
 now begin to fufpedt he took it to be of the fame kind with the 
 Ode of Horace, not indeed becaufe he compares it to that Ode ; 
 for fuch kind of Writers are accuftomed to make, as the Poet 
 fays, comparifons un'ike ; but becaufe this fufpicion may give 
 fome light to his cloudy obfervation, that tino things or perfons 
 mitjl be concerned : For in that fort of allegory, which is of the 
 nature of a relation containing a double fenfe primarily and. 
 fccondarily, every thing faid mult agree exadly both to the pri-. 
 mary and to the fecondary fubjedt. Which perhaps is what 
 
 thi$ 
 
Se(£t. 2. c/* Moses 4emonflrated. 21 
 
 quently doj that is, had -traqfgrefTed nature (in 
 fuch a reprefentation of friendlliip) for the fake of 
 his Plot. But we fliall fhew, when we come to ex- 
 amine the MORAL of the poem, that nature is ex^ 
 aftly followed : for that under thefe three jniferable 
 Comforters^ how true friends foever in the Fable^ 
 certain falfe friends were intended to be fhadowed 
 out in the Aff^r^/''. 
 
 But now the difpute is begun and carried on 
 with great vehemence on both fides. They affirm, 
 
 this man meana by his clumfy precept, of /oua things or perfons 
 concerned. The reafon of this diftinftion, in thefe two forts of 
 allegory, is this, — In that fort of allegosy which is of the 
 nature of the book of Job, or of the apologue, the cover has 
 vo moral import : But in that fort which is of the nature of a 
 
 KARRATIVE WITH A DOVBLE SENSE, Xh% QQ\^t bat a morol 
 
 import. 
 
 P To this, the Cornifh Critic, — <* What a happy way is 
 ^' here of reconciling contradidions ! It feems truth may be- 
 *' come fallhood, if it be neceffary to fupport the allegory. The 
 *' moral and the fable may difagree as widely as you pleafe, 
 *' and the conclufion by a new fort of logic have fomething in 
 
 *' it very different from the premifles." p. 19. If his kind 
 
 Reader knows what to make of this jargon of truth becoming 
 faljhood and the conclufion hawng more in it than the piemijfes, he 
 may take it for his pains. All that the Author of the D. L. 
 aflerts to be here done, and which may be done according to 
 nature and good fenfe, is no mofe than this, that a dramatic 
 Writer, when he fetches his fubje^ from Hiftoi:y, may alter cer- 
 tain of the circumflances, to fit it to his Plot ; which all dra- 
 matic Writers, antient and modern, have done. Much morj 
 reafojiable is this liberty, where the work is not only dramatic 
 but allegorical. Now 1 will fuppofe, that, together with Job's 
 patience under the hand of God, tradition had brought down an 
 account of his further fufferings under the uncharitable cenfur? 
 of three friends : Was not the Makej; of this allegoric work at 
 liberty, for the better carrying on his purpofe, to reprefent 
 them z.% falfe ones. Yet, this liberty, our wonderful Critic calls 
 reconciling contradidions, making truth become faifhood, and I can't 
 ;sU what nonfenfe befides, of premijjet and conduftons, 
 
 C a they 
 
22 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 they objeft, they anfwer, they reply -, till, having 
 cxhaufled their whole flock of arguments, and 
 made the niatter more doubtful than they found 
 it, the Author, in this embaras, has recourfe to 
 the common expedient of dramatic writers, to 
 draw him from his ftraits,— ©to? aVo /A5?;^av»!?. And 
 if ever that precept of the mafters of compofition, 
 
 l^ec Deus inter/it y nlji dignus Vindice nodus, 
 
 was well followed, it was here. For what can we 
 conceive more worthy the prefence of a God than 
 to interfere with his Authority, to filence thofe fri- 
 volous or impious difputes amongft men concern- 
 ing the MYSTERIOUS WAVS OF Provjdence ? And 
 that this interpofition was nothing more, I think, 
 is evident from hence : The fiibjeft, as we ob^ 
 ferve, was of the higheft importance, namely. 
 Whether^ and wby^ good men are unhappy, and the 
 evil profpercus ? The difputants had much perplex- 
 ed the queftion by various anfwers and replies ; in 
 which each fide had appealed to reafon and expe- 
 rience ; fo that there wanted a fuperior Wifdom to 
 moderate and determine. But, to the furprife of 
 all who confider this attentively, and confider it 
 as a ftrift Hiftory, they find God introduced to do 
 this in a fpeech which clears up no difficulties; 
 but makes all hopes of deciding the queftion def- 
 perate, by an appeal to his Almighty power''. A 
 
 plain 
 
 t jSJamcnides having given a fummary of the difpute, draws 
 this inference from it: Vi-^e ^ perpende, qua ratione hoc nego- 
 t'tum (onfufos reddiderit homines, (Sf ad fententias iUas de fro-vi' 
 dentin Dei ergo, creaturas quas expofuimus fermo'verii. Yet, when 
 he comes toipepk of the folution of thcfe difficulties, he could 
 find none. But not to fay nothing, (the thing moft dreaded by 
 Commentators) he pretends to <^i(covcr, from the cbfcurity in 
 Vv'hich things are left, the trae fcope of ihc book of Job ; Hie 
 
 fttit 
 
Scd. 2 . c/ M o s E s demonjlrafed. 2 3 
 
 plain proof that the Interpofition was no more 
 than a piece of poetical Machinery. And in that 
 cafe we fee thereafon why the knot remains untied : 
 for the facred Writer was no wifer [ when he fpoke 
 
 poeti-f 
 
 fuit fcoptts tofiui lihri Johi, ut fdlicet conftituaiur hie orticulus 
 fidei, i^ doceatur, a rebus naturalibus difctndum e]je, ut tion er- 
 remus, cut cogitemui fcientiam ejus [Dei fc] ila/e habere ut/cw.- 
 tiam nojiram ; intent ionem, pronjidentiam, ^ gubernationem ejus^ 
 Jicut intentionem, providentiamy & gtibernationem nofram, Mor,; 
 Kev. p. 3. c. xxiii, 
 
 •■ Here Dr. Grey exclaims — " How, Sir, tie nvifer ? Is God 
 ** introduced to unfold the myilerious ways of his Providence, 
 " and yet the knot is left untied, becaufe the Writer, though 
 «' fpeaking in the perfon of God, and by his infpiration, was 
 <' not lui/e enouih to untie it? Is that afpeech to the purpofe, 
 *' which in a Controverfy, as you will have it, where the dif- 
 " putants have much perplexed the queftion, and a fuperior 
 «* Wifdom -vjas nvanted to determine it, clears up no difficulties ? 
 ** Or is it language fit to be made ufe of, when fpeaking of 
 " a book diftated by the fpirit of God, that the writer of it 
 *' has recourfe to the common expedient of dramatic writers 
 «' to help him out of his ftraits ?" Jnfwer to remarks, p. 125. 
 Softly, good Doflor 1 In determining a difpute concerning the 
 ways of Providence, though God himfelf had indeed interpofed, 
 we can conceive but two ways of doing it: The one to satisfy 
 us, by explaining the end and means of that Providence, where 
 the explanation is ufeful to us, and adequate to our capacities : 
 The other, to silence us, by an argument to our modefty, 
 drawn from the incomprehenfible nature and government of the 
 Deity, where an explanation is not ufeful to us, and inadequate 
 to our capacities. Both thefe Determinations, the one by expla" 
 nation, the other by authority, attended by their refpeftive cir- 
 cumftances, are equally reafonable : and the laft is here employed 
 for the reafon hinted at, to put an end to this embarrafled difpute. 
 Let this ferve in anfwer to the Dodlor's queftion, Is that afpeech 
 (0 the purpofe, i^hich in a contro'verfy nvhire the difputants haijt 
 much perplexed the quejiion, and a fuperior 'wifdom, ix:as ivanted ia. 
 determine it, clears up no difficulties ? 
 
 Indeed, though there was no untying the knot, there was a 
 way to cut it, which would have done full as well ; and that 
 v/as by revealing the doftrine of a future Itate. Why it was 
 
^4 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 poetically in the Perfon of God, than when he 
 fpoke in the perfon of Job or his friends. 
 
 On thefe accounts, and on many more, which will 
 be touched upon in the courfe of this differtation, 
 byt are here omitted to avoid repetition, I con- 
 clude, that thofe Critics who fuppofe the book of 
 Job to be of the dramatic kind do not judge 
 amifs. 
 
 Nor does fuchidea of this truly divine Compofi- 
 tion at all detract from the proofs we have of 
 the real exiftence of this holy Patriarch, or of the 
 truth of his exemplary Story. On the contrary, 
 it much confirms them : feeing it was the general 
 pradlice of dramatic Writers, of the ferious kind, 
 to chufe an illuftrious Charadler or celebrated Ad- 
 pot done, I leave the learned Critic an^ all in his fentiments, to 
 give us feme good account, fince they are not difpofed to receive 
 that which the Author cf the D. L. has given. For this Dodor 
 tells us, it is but /mall comfort that anfes from refolmng all into 
 fuhmffion to the almighty pcnver of God. p. 107. St. Paul indeed 
 'tells us, it is the greateft comfort, as well as wifdom, to refolve 
 all into fubmiffion to the almipbty pouoer of God. — But Dodlors 
 differ. 
 
 From the m a-^ter of the D. L. the Doftor proceeds (as we 
 fee) to the language. — L it language ft to be made i-f of 
 iih,nf ecik:>ig cf n book di^cted by thefpjrit of God? — The lan- 
 guage hinted at, I fuppofe is what he had quoted above, that the 
 facred iK-Titer mas no 11 ifer -v. hen he/poke poetically in the perfon cf 
 GoJ, &c. J think it ni unfit, and for thefe reafons j a Prophet 
 fpeaking or writing by infpiration, is juft fo far and no further 
 cnl'g'.tcned thnn fuits the purpofe of his Miflion. Now the 
 flearing up the ipyrterious ways of Providence being referved 
 amongit the arcana of the Deity, a Prophet (tho' employed to 
 end the foolifh and hurtful difputes about it, among(t men, by 
 an appeal t) the incomprehenfible nature of the Deity) wriS 
 certain!)', when he made this appeal in the perfon of God, no ivifer 
 \\\ the knowledge of this arcanum, than ^vjhen he fpoke in the 
 ferjan of Job ot his friends. 
 
 Venture 
 
Sed. 2. c/" M o s E s demonjlrated, 2? 
 
 venture for the fubjed of the Piece, in order to o ive 
 their poem its due dignity and weight. And yet, 
 which is very furprifing, the Writers on both fides[ 
 as well thofe who fuppofe the Book of Job to be 
 dramatical, as thofe who hold it to be hillorical, 
 have fallen into this paralogifm, That^ if dramati- 
 cal, then the Perfon and Htjiory of Job are fi£litious. 
 Which nothing but inattention to the nature of a 
 dramatic Work, and to the pradice of dramatic 
 Writers, could have occafioned. Ladantius had 
 a much better idea of this fpecjes of compofition. 
 
 • Totum autem, quod referas, fingere, id ell, 
 
 ineptum efle, et Mendacem potius quam Poetam. ' 
 
 But this fallacy is not of late (landing. Mai- 
 monides, where he fpeaks of thofe whofe opinion 
 he feems to incline to, that fays the book of Job 
 is parabolical, expreffes himfelf in this manner ». 
 Ton know, there are certain men who fay, that fuck 
 41 man as Job never exified. And that his nisi: oky 
 is nothing elfe kit a parable. Thefe certain men were 
 (we know) the Talmudifls. Now, as, by his Hif- 
 tory, he means this book of Job, it is evident he 
 fuppofed the fabulofity of the book concluded 
 againft the exiftence of 'the Patriarch. Nay, fo in- 
 fenfibly does this inveterate fallacy infmuate itfelf 
 into our reafonings on this fubjed, that even Gro- 
 Tius himfelf appears not to be quite free from the 
 entanglement. Who, although he faw thefe two 
 things, (a real Job and a dramatic reprefentatioq 
 of him) fo reconcileable, that he fuppofed both ; 
 yet will not allow the book of Job to be later than 
 
 » N6JIi quo/Jam ejfe, qui dicunt Jobum nunquam fuijfe, ntque 
 cr eat urn ej/i i fed histqriam illitis nihil aliud ejjt quam Pa" 
 \abolam, -^ * 
 
 pzekiel. 
 
26 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Ezekiel, becaufe that Prophet mentions Job*. 
 "Which argument, to have any flrength, muft fup- 
 pofe Job to be unknown until this Book was writ- 
 ten ; confequently that his Perfon was fiditious i 
 contrary to his own fuppofition, that there was a 
 real Job Hving in the time of Mofes ". After this, 
 it is no wonder, that the Author of the Archaologia 
 Philofophide, whofe talent was not critical acumen, 
 Should have reafoned fo grofly on the fame fallacious 
 principle *. Thefe learned men, we fee, would 
 infer a vifionary Job from a vifionary Hiftory, 
 Nor is the miftake of another celebrated Writer 
 lefs grofs, who would, on the contrary, infer a 
 real hiftory from a real Job. Ezekiel and St. James 
 (fays Dr. Middleton, in his effay on the Creation 
 and Fall of Man) refer to the book of Job in the 
 fame manner as if it were a real hifiory. Where- 
 as the truth is, they do not refer to the boo^ oh 
 Job at all. 
 
 * Chap. xiv. ver. 14, " Vid. Grotii ?raf. in Lihrum 
 
 * This Writer endeavouring to prove the high age of Johy 
 or of the Book of Job, for thefe two things, after better reafoners, 
 he all along confounds, clofes his arguments in this manner, De- 
 Tiijue pojl format cim rempublicam f udaicotn, fecretamque a ceteris 
 gentihus, per injiituta propria Is legem a Deo datam : non facile ^ 
 fredoy banc fan^am gentem^ tjufdem temporit i^ faculi alienige- 
 vam, 'vel hominem Gentilem, in exemplum pietatis ptopofiturarKf 
 out ipfius nfla 13 hiftoriam in facros eorum eudices relaturam. Ar- 
 chjeol. Philof. p. 266. ed. 8vo, 1728. The Reader fees; all the 
 ftrength of the argument re(ls,on this falfe fuppofition, that the 
 book muft needs be as old as its fubjeft. For if Job were of the 
 Patriarchal time?, he was a fit example of piety, let his hiftory 
 be written when it would ; and, if written by a facred Author, 
 it was worthy to be inferted into the Canon of Scripture : and 
 was likely to be fo inftrted, if compofed (as we fliall fee it was) 
 by a Jewifli Prophet. 
 
 II. The 
 
Se(5t. 2. of Moses demonjirated, 27 
 
 II. The fecond queftion to be confidered, is in 
 what Age this book was compofed. 
 
 I. Firft then we fay in general, that it was writ- 
 ten fome time under the Mofaic Difpenfation. But 
 to this it is objefted, that, if it were compofed in 
 thofe Times, it is very ftrange that not a fingle 
 word of the Mofaic Law, nor any diftant allufion 
 to the Rites or Ceremonies of it, nor any hiftori- 
 cal circumflance under it, nor any fpecies of ido- 
 latry in ufe during its period, fhould be found in 
 it^ 
 
 I apprehend the objedlion refls on one or other 
 of thefe fuppofitions. Either that the book is not 
 a Work of the dramatic kind j or that the Hero 
 of the Piece is fi6i:itious. But both thefe fuppofi- 
 tions have been fhewn to be erroneous -, fo that the 
 objedion falls with them. For to obferve deco- 
 rum is one of the mod eflential rules of dramatic 
 writing. He therefore who takes a real Perfonage 
 for the fubjeft of his poem will be obliged to fhew 
 him in the cuftoms and fentiments of his proper 
 Age and Country \ unmixed with the manners of 
 the Writer's later Time and Place. Nature and 
 
 T Jobus Arabs OTo^l;«:^£lTo? kJ 'sjo^vfAx^rii, in cujus hiftoria multa 
 occurrunt antiqua fapientise veftigia, antiquior habetur Mofai 
 Idque multis patet indiciis : Primo, quod nullibi meminerit re- 
 rum a Mofe geftarum, five in iEgypto, five in exitu, five in de- 
 ferto. — Secundo, quod, cam vir pius & veri numinis cultor 
 fuerit, leg! Mofaicae contraiverit, in facrificiis faciendis. — Tertio, 
 ex astatis & vitae fiiae menfura, in tertio, plus minus, a Diluvio 
 feculo coliocandus eflTe videtur : vixit enim ultra ducentos an- 
 nos. — Cum de Idololatria loquitur, memorat primum ipfius 
 genus Solis & Lunae adorationem. — Neque Sabjjathi neque 
 pllius legis faftitiae meminit. — His omnibus adducor ut cre- 
 dam, Mofi Jobum tempore anteiffe. Archaol. Philof, p. 265, 
 
 a the 
 
2^ ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 the reafon of the thing fo evidently demand this 
 condud, and the negleft of it has fo ungracious 
 an efFeft, that the polite Roman Hiftorian thought 
 the Greek tragic Writers were to blame even for 
 mentioning the more modern name of ThefTaly, in 
 their pieces of the Trojan War, And he gives this 
 good reafon for his cenfure, Nihil enim ex Perfona 
 Poet a fed o»nnia fub eorum, ^ui illo tempore vixerunt, 
 dixerunt ^, 
 
 But to lay no greater ftrjpfs on this argument 
 than it will bear; I confefs ingenuoufly, that were 
 there not (as the objedtion fuppofes) the leaft dif- 
 tant relation or allufion to the Jewifh Law or Hif- 
 tory throughout the whole book, it might reafo- 
 nably create fome fufpicion that the Author lived 
 before thofe times. For though this rule of de^ 
 €orum be fo eflential to dramatic writing, yet, as 
 the greateft iVIafters in that art frequently betrayed 
 their own Times and Country in their fictitious 
 
 » Veil Pater. Hiji. 1. i. c. 3. Had Dr. R. Grey known 
 but juft fo much of the nature of thefe Compofitipns, he had 
 never fallen into the ridiculous miUake I am going to take 
 notice of. This learned Critic, to confute the fyftem I ad- 
 vance, that the fubj-efl of the argumentative part of the book 
 of Job was. Whether, and -ivhy, the good are /ometimes unhappy and 
 the bad profperoui ', and that the queftion was debated for the 
 fake of the Ifraelites in the time of Ezra ; obferves as follow^,. 
 *' Zopher fays, c. xx- 4, 5. Knoiueji thou not this of old, fine e 
 *' man ^was pieced upon earthy that the triumphing of the ivickei 
 *' /; foort^ and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment ? Now 
 •' lay your hand upon your heart, Sir, and afk yourfelf ferioufly, 
 *' whether this can relate to an extraordinary Providence over 
 *' the Jews only. p. 1 1 1." He is fo plcafed with the force of 
 this obfcrvation that he repeats it, p. 116. To which I need 
 only reply» Lay your hand, Sir, on your head, and reflefl upon 
 this rule of good writing, Nihil enim ex Perfona Poeta-y fed. 
 omnia fub eoium, qui illo ttmpore vixerunt, dixerunt, 
 
 [Works^ 
 
Se£l. 2. of MdSES demnftrated» ^g 
 
 Works % we can hardly fuppofe a Jewifh Writer 
 more exad in what only concerned the critical per- 
 fe6tion of his Piece. But as decorum is one of 
 the plaineft and fimplefl principles of Compofition^ 
 we cannot fuppofe a good writer ignorant of it ; 
 and fo are not to look for fuch glaring abfurdities 
 as are to be found in the dramatic writings of late 
 barbarous ages •, but fuch only as might eafily ef- 
 cape the moft exaft and beft inftrudted Writer. 
 
 Some flight indecorums therefore we may reafo- 
 nably expedt to find, if the Author were indeed a 
 -Jew: and fuch, if I am not much miflaken, we 
 fhall find. Job fpeakingof the wicked man, fays ^ 
 He that fpeaketh flattery to his friends, even the eyes 
 of his children fhall fail ^ — God layeth up iniquity 
 for his children \ ^. And in the courfe of the dis- 
 pute, 
 
 ; ' From amongft many i'nftances which might be given of 
 wiefe flips, take the following of Euripides, in his Iphigenia 
 in Aulis, A61. 3. where he makes the Chorus fay, Trof perijhes, 
 ylnd for 'whom ? For you, cruel Helen, ivho, as they fay, are 
 ihe daughter of Jupiter, ivho, under the form of a Snxsan hai 
 commerce vAth Leda. — So far is well : becaufe we may fuppofe 
 ihe Chorus alluded to the popular tale concerning Helen's 
 birth, fpread abroad in her life-time. But when the Chorus 
 goes on and fays, — If at leaf the n^riti?igs of the Poets be not 
 fabuloui, the Author had forgot himfelf ; for the Poets who era- 
 beliilhed her ftory, lived long afterwards. 
 
 ■ * Chap. Scvii. ver. 5. « Chap. xxi. ver. 19. 
 
 •^ Here the Cornifh anfwerer affirms, v that this method of 
 " punifhment was not peculiar to the Jewi(h Policy, but was 
 ". pbferved, in fome degree at leaf, with refped to all man- 
 ■*• kind." For which he quotes Ifaiah^s threatenings on the 
 Children of the king of Babylon, chap. 14, 20, ^y^y. That 
 is, in order to prove that God punifed the crimes of the fathers 
 on the children in fome degree at leaf, <ivith rejpea to all mi::kird, 
 he quotes an inilance, not of the general providence of God ta 
 ^!I naiikind, but a f«;//f*/<8r diJpenfajion to the Babylonians: 
 
 and 
 
56 'The Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 pute, and in the heat of altercation, this peculiar 
 difpcnfation is touched upon yet more precifely. 
 Job, in fupport of his dodlrine, paints' at laro-e 
 the happy condition of profperous wicked men 5 
 a principal circumftance of whofe felicity is, that 
 they fpend their days in wealth, and in a moment go 
 down to the grave", i. e. without ficknefs, or 
 the terrors of Qow-approaching death. The lot 
 which profperous libertines of all times, who be- 
 lieve no future reckoning, moft ardently wifh for. 
 Now in the declining times of the Jewifh CEcono- 
 my, pious men had always their anfwer ready. 
 The profperous wicked man (fay they) (hall be pu- 
 niihed in his Pofterity, and the afflicted good man 
 rewarded in them. To the firft part of the folu- 
 tion concerning the wicked, Job anfwers thus, 
 God layeth up his iniquity for his children : he reward- 
 .eth him, and he Jhall know it*. As much as to fay, 
 the evil man fees and knows nothing of the puniih- 
 ment •, in the mean time, he feels and enjoys his 
 own felicity, as a reward. To the fecond part, 
 concerning the good, he anfwers thus, His eyes Jhall 
 fee his deJiru5iion, and he fmll drink of the wrath of 
 the Almighty : For what pleafure hath he in his houfe 
 after him, when the number of his months is cut off in 
 the jnidjl^. i. e. The virtuous man fees and feels 
 nothing but his own miferies : for what pleafure 
 can the good things referved for his pofterity, af- 
 ford to him who is to tafte and enjoy none of it •, 
 being not only extindl long before, but cut off 
 Untimely? 
 
 and not a f articular punKhmcnt, which fele£ls out the children 
 of tranfgreffing parents, but a ^fwifra/ one, which in the nature 
 of things, necefTarily attends the total overthrow of a State or 
 Community. 
 
 * Chap, xxii ver. 13. ' Ver. 19. « Ver. 20, 2f* 
 
 la 
 
Sedt. 2. of Moses demonjlrafed, ^f 
 
 In another place, Job lays, 'That idolatry was 
 an iniquity to he ■punijhed by the judge ^. Now both 
 this and the former fpecies of punifliment were, 
 as we have Ihewn, peculiar to the Mofaic Difpenfa* 
 tion. But a Jew might naturally miftake them fof 
 a part of the general Law of God and nature : and 
 fo, while he was really defcribing the CEconomy 
 under which he lived, fuppofe himfelf to be re- 
 prefenting the notions of more ancient times : 
 which, that it was his defign to do, in the laft in- 
 ftance at leaft, appears from his mentioning only 
 the moft early fpecies of idolatry, the worlhip of 
 the Sun and Moon '. Again, the language of Job 
 with regard to 2l future Jlate is the very Tame with 
 the Jewifh Writers. He that goeth down to the 
 grave (fays this ^^nt^r) jhall come up no more : — they 
 Jhall not awake or be raifed out of their Jleep. Thus 
 tht Pfalmift, — In death there is no remembrance of 
 thee. — Shall the dead arise and praife thee ! — And 
 thus the author of Ecclefiafles, — The dead know 
 not any thing., neither have they any more <?-B.i, 
 WARD ^ And we know what is was that hindred 
 the Jews from entertaining any expeftations of a 
 future Hate of rewards and punifhments, which 
 was a popular doctrine amongil all their Pap-an 
 neighbours. ^ 
 
 But there is, befides this of Cujioms and Opinions, 
 another circumilance that will always betray a 
 
 ^ Chap, xxxl ver. 28. Mr. Locke thought this fo dedfive 
 'a proof that the book of Job was written after the giving thg 
 Law, that he fays, This place alone, were there no 
 •OTHER, is fuficient to confirm their opinion ^ho conclude thai 
 hook to be 'writ by a Je'vj.— Third Letter for Toleration, p. 8r-2 
 Let thofe Critics refled upon this, who think there is no foot- 
 ftep nor (hade w of allufion to any thing relating to the peopla 
 or Ifrael. r r " 
 
 ' Ver. 3^. k See Vol. IV, p. 354. 
 
 fcigneij 
 
gs The Divine Legation Book Vh 
 
 feigned Compofition, made in an age remote from 
 the fubjeft : and that is, the ufe of later phrafeSi 
 Thefe are more eafily difcovered in the modern, 
 and even in what we call, the learned languages : 
 but lefs certainly, in the very ancient ones jelpecially 
 in the Hebrew, of which there is only one, and 
 that no very large Volume, remaining. And yet 
 even here, we may detedt; an author of a later age. 
 For, befides the phrafes of common growth, there 
 are others, in every language, interwoven alike into 
 the current ftyle, which owe their rife to fome 
 fmgular circumilance of time and place ; and io 
 may be eafily traced up to their original: though, 
 being long ufed in common fpeech in a general 
 acceptation, they may well efcape even an atten- 
 tive Writer. Thus Zophar, fpeaking of the wick- 
 ed man, fays : He fiall not fee the rivers^ ihefloods, 
 
 the BROOKS OF HONEY AND BUTTER '. This ill 
 
 ordinary fpeech only conveyed the idea of plenty in 
 the abftraft ; but feems to have been firft made a 
 proverbial faying from the defcriptions of the holy 
 Land "". Again, Eliphaz fays, Receive, I pray thee, 
 THE Law from his moutH) and lay up his words 
 in thine heart"". That is, be obedient: but the 
 phrafe was taken from the verbal delivery of the 
 Jewifh Law from mount Sinai. The Rabbins were 
 fo fenfible of the exprefiive peculiarity of this 
 phrafe, that they fay the Law of Moses is here 
 Ipoken of by a kind of prophetic anticipation^ 
 Af^ain, Job cries out: O that I were — as I was 
 in the days of my youth, when the secret of God 
 "WAS UPON MY tabernacle % that is, in fidlfe- 
 curity : Evidently taken from the refidence of the 
 
 ' Chap. XX. ver. 17. " See Exod. ill. 8. — xiil. 5. 
 
 *— yxxiii. 3, 4. -r- Deut. XXxi. 20. — 2 Kings xviii. 32. 
 ■ Lhap. ,\xii. ver. 23. ° Ghap. xxix. ver* 4. 
 
 Divine 
 
Se'(St. 2. of IS/I &s ES demonjlrated. 33 
 
 Divine Prefence or She kin ah, in a vifible fornij 
 on the ark, or on the tent where the ark was placed. 
 And again — O that one would hear me ! Behold 
 my defire is that the Almighty zvoidd anfiver me, and 
 that mine Adverfary had written a hook. Surely I 
 would take it upon my Jljoulder and bind it as a 
 CROWN to me^. A phrale apparently taken from 
 the ufe of their Phylacteries ; which at leaft 
 were as ancient as their return from Captivity, and 
 coeval with their fcrupulous adherence to the 
 Law. 
 
 A third circumflrance, which will betray one 
 of thefe feigned compofitions, is the Auhor's being 
 drawn, by the vigour of his imagination, from 
 the feat of Adion and from the manners of the 
 Scene, to one very different •, efpecially, if it be one 
 of great fame and celebrity. So here, tho' the 
 Scene be the deferts of Arabia, amongft family- 
 heads of independent Tribes, and in the fimplicity 
 of primitive Manners, yet we are carried by a 
 poetic fancy, into the midft of Egypt, the beil 
 policied, and the moll magnificent Empire then 
 
 exifting in the word. Why died I not from the 
 
 womb (fays the chief Speaker) for now I fhould 
 havelien fill and been quiet, Ifoould have Jlept -, then 
 had I been at reft; with kings and counsellors 
 
 bF THE EARTH, which buHd DESOLATE PLACES f Of 
 
 themfehes '^. 1. e. magnificent buildings, in defd- 
 late places, meaning plainly the Pyramids, raiibd 
 in the midft of barren lands, for the burying 
 places of the kings of Egypt. — Kings and ccun- 
 fellors of the earth — v/as, by way of eminence, the 
 defignation of the Egyptian Governors. So Ifaiah 
 • — the counfel of the wife counfellors of Pharaoh is be- 
 
 f Chap. xxxi. ver. };-~6. 1 Chsp. Hi, ver, 13, 14, 
 
 Vol. \% I) come 
 
^4 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 come hrutijh. Hoiv Jay ye u?ilo Pharaoh, I am the 
 [on of the wife^ the [on of ancient kings ^ But it 
 may be obferved in general, that though the 
 Scene confined the Author to fcattered Tribes in 
 the midft of Deierts, yet his images and his ideas 
 are, by an infenfible allure, taken throughout, 
 from crouded Cities and a civil-policied People. 
 Thus he fpeaks of the Children of the wicked 
 being crujloed in the gate % alluding to a City taken 
 by ftorm, and to the dcftruclion of the flying in- 
 habitants prcfiing one another to death in the nar- 
 row pafTage of the City-gates. — Again, of the good 
 man it is faid, that he f jail be hid from the fcourge 
 of tongues ' •, thj.t peililent mifchief which rages 
 chiefly in rich and licentious Communities. But 
 there would be no end of giving inllances of this 
 kind, where they are fo numerous. 
 
 Hitherto the Author feems unwarily to have be- 
 trayed his Times and Country. But we (hall now 
 fee that he has made numerous aliufions to the mi- 
 raculous Hiftory of his Anceftors with ferious/;«r- 
 pcfe and deftgn. For this poem being written, as 
 will appecir, for the comfort and folace of his Coun- 
 trymen, he reafonably fuppofed it would advance 
 his principal end, to refrefh their memories with 
 fome of the more fignal deliverances of their Fore- 
 fathers. In the mean time, decorum, of which we 
 
 ' Isaiah ^i'C. 1 1. 
 
 * Chap. V. vcr. 4. The Septuagint renders it very exprct 
 
 * Vcr. :i. cvidcrtly takrn from thefe words of the Pfalmift, 
 Thou Jhalt hep ihem Jtcretly in a pavi ion /rem the firife of tongues, 
 IT. xxxi. 20. For" which was the copy and which the original 
 can here admit no doubt, (ince ihe inuiije was an obvious one in 
 the I'lamiil, who lived in a crcnt city, Irfs natural in Job who 
 livcJ in a dcfcit, as we have obferved abo\e. 
 
 find 
 
Se6t. 2. of yio%'t% demonjlrated^ ijr 
 
 find him a careful obferver, required him to pre- 
 ferve the image of very different and dillant times. 
 This was a difficulty: and would have been fo to 
 the ableft Writer. Both thefe were matters of im- 
 portance ; and neither one nor the other could be 
 omitted, without negleding his Purpofe, or deform- 
 ing his Compofition. How then can we conceive 
 a Ikillful Artift would ad: if not in this manner j 
 he would touch thofe ftories, but with fo flight aa 
 outline and fuch airy colouring, as to make them 
 pafs unheeded by a carelefs obferver ; yet be vifible 
 enough to thofe who fludied the Work with care 
 and attention. Now this artful tem.per our divine 
 Writer, we fay, hath obferved. The condud: was 
 fme and noble : and the cloud in which he was 
 forced to wrap his ftudied aliufions, will be fo far 
 from bringing them into queition, that it will 
 confirm their meaning •, as it now appears, that 
 if an able Writer would, in fuch a work, make al- 
 iufions to his own Times, Religion, and People, 
 it mult be done in this covert manner. Thus Job, 
 fpeaking of the Omnipotence of God, — which 
 fommandeth thefun^ and il rifeth not, andjealeth up 
 the flats ""y plainly enough alludes to the miraculous 
 hiftory of the people of God, in the Egyptian 
 Darknefs, and the flopping of the Sun's courle by 
 Jofhua. This appeared fo evident to a very learn- 
 ed Commentator, though in' the other opinion of 
 the book's being of Job's own writing, that he 
 was forced to fuppofe that his author fpoke pro- 
 lepticaily, as knowing by the gift of Prophefy, 
 what God in a future age would do \ So where 
 
 " Chap. ix. ver. 7. 
 
 * Hoc videtur refpicere hiftoriam Jofuae vel Ezechise, quan- 
 quam ante ilia Job extiterit. Sed hasc potiierunt per anticipa- 
 tionem dici, quod Jobum non lateret penes Deum effe id cfficere 
 quandocunque lubtret, Codurcus in locum, 
 
 D 2 Job 
 
'5 6 Th6 Dlnitne Legation Book VI. 
 
 Job fays, God dhndeth the fea with his power, and by 
 his underfianding he fmiteth through the proud '', he 
 evidently refers to the deftruftion of Pharaoh and 
 his hoji in the Red-fea. Again, in the following words. 
 He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of 
 the earth, and caufeth them to wander in a wildernefs 
 where there is no way % who can doubt but that 
 they allude to the wandering of the Ifraelites forty 
 years in the wildernefs, as a punifhment for their 
 cowardice, and diffidence in God's promifes ; Eli- 
 phaz, fpeaking of the wonderful works of God, de- 
 clares how he came to the knowledge of them, I will 
 Jheiv thee, hear me •, and what I havefeen I will de- 
 clare •, which wife men have told from their fathers^ 
 and have not hid it " : the very way in which Mofes 
 direfls the Ifraelites to preferve the memory of 
 the miraculous works of God. And v/ho are 
 thefe wife men? They are fo particularly marked 
 out as not to be millaken : tfnto whom alone the 
 earth was given, and no stranger passed 
 AMONGST THEM \ A circumftance ao-reeingr to 
 no People whatfoever but to the Ifraelites fettled 
 in Canaan. The fame Eliphaz, telling Job to his 
 face, that his misfortunes came in punilhment for 
 his Crimes, fays : 'Thou hafi taken a pledge from thy 
 hrothcr for nought, and ftripped the naked of his 
 cloathing \ And Job, I'peaking of the molt pro- 
 fligate of men, defcribes them, amongft other 
 marks of their iniquity, by this, that they caufed 
 . the naked to lodge without cloathing, that they have 
 no covering in the cold '' ; that they take a pledge of 
 the poor, and caufe him to go naked without cloathing ". 
 Who that fees this ranked amongft the greatelt enor- 
 
 y Chap. xxvi. ver. 12, * Chap. xii. ver. ZL* 
 
 * Chap. XV. ver. 17, 1 8. •* Ver. 19. *^ Chap. xxii. 
 
 ver. 6. '' Chap. xxlv. ver. 7. ' Ver. 9, 10. 
 
 ExoD. xxii. 26, 27. See alio Deut. xxiv. 12, and 17. 
 
 mities. 
 
Se<5l. 2. of Moses demotifirated, 37 
 
 mities, but will refleft that it muft have been v/rit- 
 ten by one well Itudied in the Law of Moses, 
 which fays : If thou at all take thy neighbours raiment 
 to pledge, thou jhalt deliver it unto him by that the fun 
 goeth down ; for that is his covering only, it is his 
 raiment for his/kin: Wherein Jh all he Jleep ? And it 
 jhall come to pafs, when he crieth unto me, that I will 
 hear, for I am gracious. Which Law, as the 
 learned Spencer obferves, v72iS peculiar to this infti- 
 tution^ Elihu, fpeaking of Good's dealing with 
 his fervants, fays : " That he may withdraw man 
 *' from his purpofe, and hidrc pride from man, he 
 *' keepth back his foul from the pit, and his life 
 " from perijhing by the fword. He is chaftened 
 " alio with pain upon his bed, and the multitude 
 *' of his bones with Itrong pain. His foul draweth 
 " nigh unto the grave, and his life to the deftroyers, 
 *' If there be a mejfenger with him, an interpreter^ 
 *' one amongji a thoufand to jhew unto man his up' 
 *' rightnefs, then he is gracious unto hrm, and faith, 
 *' Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have 
 *' found a ranfom. His flejh foall be freJJjer than a 
 *' child's, he foall return to the days of his youth, 
 *' He Ihall pray unto God, and he will be favour- 
 ** able unto him, and he fliall fee his face with 
 ^' joy \ for he will render unto man his righteouf- 
 ** nefs^." This is the moft circumftantial ac- 
 count of God's dealing with HeZekiah, as it is 
 told in the books of Chronicles and Kings. God 
 had delivered him from perifhing by the fword of 
 Sennacherib : " In thofe days Hezekiah vv^as ficly 
 
 ^ Leges illas in Dei tantum Pandedis inveniendse funt, 
 
 nempe, de 'vejiibus. pignori datis^ quibus de pecunia concredita 
 cavebant debitores, ante foils occafum, reflituendis. — De Leg^ 
 Uebr. Rit. vol. i, p. 263. 
 
 ? Chap, xxiii, ver. 17, y /eq, 
 
 D ^ 5' to 
 
38 72)^ Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 *' to the death, and prayed unto the Lord : and 
 " he fpake unto him, and he gave him a fign. 
 " But Hezekiah rendered not again, according to 
 " the benefit done unto him, for his heart was lifted 
 " up ^" But the ftory is told more at large in the 
 book of Kings: — " In thofe days was Hezekiah 
 " Jtck unto death : and the Prophet Ifaiah, the fon 
 '* of Amos came to him, and faid unto him, 
 *' Thus faith the Lord, Set thine houfe in order, 
 *' for thou fhalt die and not live. Then he turned 
 •' his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord.— ^ 
 *' And it came to pals, afore Ifaiah was gone out 
 " into the middle court, that the word of the 
 '* Lord came unto \\\m.f faying, 'Turn again, and tell 
 " Hezekiah, Thus faith the Lord, I have heard 
 *' thy prayer, I have feen thy tears : Behold I will 
 *' heal thee i on the third day thou fhalt go up unto 
 " the houfe of the Lord. And Ifaiah faid. Take a 
 ^' lump of figs j and they took and laid it on the 
 *' boil, and he recovered'." — The following words 
 as plainly refer to the deftruftion of the firft-born 
 in Egypt, and Sennacherib's army ravaging Judea: 
 In a moment fo all they die, and the people fhall he 
 troubled at midnight and pafs away, and the mighty 
 fioall he taken away without hand ''. Thefe likewife 
 clearly allude to the Egyptian Darknefs,— /rt?/;j the 
 wicked their light is withholden '. 
 
 No one, I think, can doubt but that the 
 following dcfcription of God's dealing with Mo- 
 narchs and Rulers of the world, is a tranfcript of, 
 or allufion to, a pafiage in the fecond book of Chro- 
 nicles. Elihu (who is made to pafs judgment on 
 the difpute) fays, He iwthdraweth not his eyes from 
 
 * 2 ChrON. XXxii. 24, 2J, ' 2 KiNCS XX, I. ^ flj* 
 
 ^ C'hap. xxxiv. ver. 20. ^ Chap, xxxviii. vcr, 15. 
 
 the 
 
Se(5t. 2. o/' M OS E s demonJlratCiL 39 
 
 the righteous : but^ with kings are they on the throne, 
 yea he doth eJlabliJJo them for ever and they are exalted^ 
 [This feems plainly to refer to the houfe of David, 
 as we fhall fee prefently.] He proceeds : And if 
 they he hound in fetters^ and he holden in cords of 
 aff,i5iion : then he Jheweth their work, and their 
 tranfgreffions that they have exceeded. He openeth 
 alfo their ear to difcipline, and commandeth that they 
 return from iniquity. If they obey and ferve him, 
 they fhall fpend their days in profperity and their years 
 in pleafure •, hut if they obey not, they fJiall perifh by 
 the fword, &c'°. Now hear the facred Hiftorian. 
 •^— " God had fald to David and to Solomon his 
 ** fon, In this houfe and in Jerufilem, which I 
 " have chofen before all the tribes of Ifrael, will I 
 " put my name for ever. Neither will I any more 
 *' remove the foot of Ifrael from out of the land 
 " which I have appointed for your fathers, fo 
 " that they will take heed to do all that I have 
 " commanded them. — So Manafleh made Judah 
 *' and the Inhabitants of Jerufalem to err. — And 
 <' the Lord fpake to ManaiTeh, and to his people : 
 *' but they would not hearken. Wherefore the 
 <' Lord brought upon them the captains of the 
 *' hoft of the king of AfTyria, which took Ma- 
 " nalTeh amongft the thorns, and bound him with 
 " fetters, and carried him to Babylon. And when 
 ** he was in afflidion, he befought the Lord his 
 *' God, and humbled himfelf greatly before the 
 *' God of his Fathers, and prayed unto him, and 
 *' he was entreated of him, and heard his fuppli- 
 " cation, and brought him again to Jerufalem into 
 " his kingdom. Then Manaffeh knew that the 
 ^' Lord he was God "," 
 
 "" Chap, xxxvi. ver. 7 — 12. " 2 Chron. xxxIH. 
 
 ver. 7—13. 
 
 P 4 But 
 
40 ^he Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 But the moft extraordinary allufion of all to 
 the JewiJJo Oeconomy, and the moll inconteltable, is 
 in the following words, where fpeaking of the 
 clouds of rain, our tranflation has it, He caufeth 
 it to come, whether for corre^ien, cr for his 
 LAND, or for mercy °. The Septuagint underflood 
 the facred text in the fame manner! Taura cwri- 
 
 T«y yyiv aurS, lai/ lU £A£(^ fJ^nVfi d\)-ov. The mean- 
 ing of which is, he bringeth it at fuch junftures, 
 and in fuch excefs, as to caufe dearth, [for cor- 
 re5!ion {\ or fo timely and moderately, as to caufe 
 plenty, [for mercy j] or laftly, fo tempered, in a long 
 continuL-d courfe, as to produce that fertility of foil 
 which was to make one of the bleffings of the pro- 
 mifed land, [for his land :] a providence as di- 
 llind from the other two, of corre^ion and r/iercy^ 
 as the genus is from the fpecies. This is a fufficient 
 anfwer to the learned Father Houbigant's criticifm 
 on this vcrle, who correds the common reading of 
 the Hebrew text, and thinks the words, or for the 
 land, LO be a marginal illuftration crept into the text. 
 Sc jerom, and the vulgar latin, inftead of,— 
 whether for correction, or for his land, trixn^iate, 
 five in UNA Trieu, Jive in terra fua. If this be the 
 true rendering of the Hebrew, then it plainly ap- 
 pears that the writer of the book of Job alluded to 
 
 the words of his contemporary prophet, Amos. 
 
 " And alio I have wuholden the rain from you, 
 *' when there were y?t three months to the harveft; 
 " and I caufed it to rain upon one city, and caufed 
 " it not to rain upon another city : one piece was 
 *^ rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained 
 *' nor, withered." Without controvcrfy, however, 
 ^he Writer fpeaks of a special providence upon 
 
 P Chap, xxxvii. 13. 
 
 God's 
 
Se£l. 2. o/' Moses demonjlrated, 41 
 
 God's own Land, the land of Judea -, which plainly 
 fhews that the 'peculiarity of the Jewijh Ouonomy wais 
 ftill uppermoft in his thoughts. In a word, this 
 CEconomy is defcribed by Moses ^ as altogether 
 different from that of other people. Job's account 
 of God's CEconomy exadly quadrates with it. 
 "What are we then to think, but that there is a con- 
 tinued allufion to the Law .'' in many places indeed 
 fo general, as not to be difcovered without the aflif- 
 tance of thofe which are more particular. Befides, 
 (which is the lafl obfervation I (liall make on this 
 point) in the management of thefe Allufions, we fee, 
 the Author has obferved a ftri6t decorum: and, ta 
 take off any offenfive glare, has thrown over them 
 a fober image of ancient manners. So that here we 
 have the plain marks of former times intermixed 
 ■with circumftances peculiar to the latter. What 
 are we therefore to conclude, but that the Work is 
 a fpecies of dramatic writing, compofed long after 
 the age of the fubjed ? 
 
 On the whole then it appears that this Obje6bioii 
 of no allufions, which, if well grounded, had 
 made nothing againft the low date of a poetic 
 Compofition, is not indeed fupported by fact: and 
 this will be feen yet more fully hereafter. 
 
 But had the Objeflion any real foundation. 
 They who make it, had been Hill much puzzled 
 to account for the Author's filence concerning the 
 fix days Creation^ and the inftitution of the Sabbatl% 
 as it muil reduce them to the neceffity of fuppof- 
 ing that thefe things were unknown to Job. And 
 confequently, that the Sabbath was not a mora^, 
 but a pofitive Law only of the Jews; tho' Mofes, 
 
 p Peut. IV. 32. 
 
 to 
 
42 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 to imprefs the greater reverence upon it, feems to 
 make it coeval with the Creation. How they will 
 get over this difficulty 1 know not. On the other 
 hand, They who, with the low date of this book 
 of Job, hold the Sabbath to be a pofitive Law,, 
 will find no difficulty at all. For, as they would 
 have put the mention of it, had it been mentioned, 
 on the fame footing with that of other things under 
 the Mofaic CEconomy ; lb, the filence they will 
 eafily account for, on the received opinion of that 
 time, that the Sabbath was a pofitive Law, infti- 
 tuted to feparate and diftinguilh the Ifraelites from 
 all others ; and that therefore the mention of a 
 thing fo well known to be a Rite peculiarly Jewiffi, 
 would have had an ill effed, in the mouths of 
 men who lived before the Mofaic Law was given. 
 
 After fuch clear evidence that the book of Job 
 was written under the Law, we have little need 
 of Grotius's argument, for the fupport of this 
 point, from the book's containing many paflages 
 limilar to what we find in the Pfalms. And it is 
 well we have not, becaufe I think his argument 
 very equivocal. For if the facred writers muft 
 needs have borrowed trite moral fcntences from 
 one another: it may be as fairly faid, that the 
 authors of the Pfalms borrowed from the book of 
 Job; as that the author of Job borrowed from 
 the book of Pfalms. But Mr. Lc Clerc would 
 mend this argument, by refining upon it, a way 
 that feldom mends any thing. He fays, one may 
 know an original from a copy, by the lattcr's having 
 lefs nature and force; and he thinks he fees this in 
 the book of Job\ Now admitting the truth of 
 
 the 
 
 *« — Grotiiis croit avec beaucoup plus de vrai-femb'ance, que 
 cet autpur cll pollc.icur k David U a Salomon, dont il fembic 
 
 qu'lt 
 
Sed, 2. of Mo SES demojiftrated. 43 
 
 the obfervation, it would be fo far from fupport- 
 ing, that it would overturn his conclufion. Mr. 
 Le Clerc feems to have been miiled into this cri- 
 ticifm by what he had obferved of writers of lefs 
 polifhed ages borrowing from thofe of more. In 
 this cafe, the copy will be always much inferior to 
 the original. But the effeCl would have beenjuft 
 the contrary in a writer of the time of David borrow- 
 ing from one of the time of Mofes. And as the 
 common opinion places the two books in thofe two 
 different periods, they are to be fuppofed rightly 
 placed, till the contrary be fhewn. This obfer- 
 vation we fee verified in the greek authors of the 
 Socratic age, and in the roman authors of the Au- 
 gultan, when they borrowed from their very early 
 country writers. But the matter of fadl is, I think, 
 juft otherwife. The advantage of the fublime in 
 the parallel palfages feems to lie on the fide of 
 Job. And from hence we may draw Mr. Le 
 Clerc's conclufion with much greater force. But 
 indeed, take it either way, the argument, as I 
 faid, is of little weight. But it is pleafant to hear 
 Schultens, and his epitomifer Dr. Grey, fpeak of 
 
 qu'il ait imite divers endroits, & remarque fort judicieuferaent 
 qu'il y a dans ce livre des manieres de parler, qu'on ne trouve 
 que dans Efdras, dang Daniel, & dans les Paraphrafes Caldai- 
 ques. Codurc, dans fon Commentaire fur Job, a auffi remarque 
 plufieurs Caldailmes dans ce livre, & quelques perfonnes favantes 
 foatiennent, que les Arabifmes qu'on y croit avoir remarque ne 
 font que des manieres de parler Caldeenes. On y trouve des 
 imitations de divers endroits des Pfeaumes. — Mais vous me de- 
 manderez peut-etre, comment on peut favoir, que c'eft I'auteur 
 du livre de Job, qui a imite ces Pfeaumes, & non pas les au- 
 teurs de ces Pfeaumes, qui ont imite le livre de Job ? 11 eft aife 
 de vous fatisfaire. On connoit qu'un auteur en imite un autre 
 a ceci, c'eft que I'imitation n'eft pas fi belle que Toriginal, qui 
 exprime ordinairement les chofes d'une maniere plus nette & 
 plus natiirelle que la copie. Scntimerts de quelques Ikol. de 
 fiol.p. 183. 
 
 the 
 
44 ^^ Divine Legation Book: VI. 
 
 the grandeur, the purity, and fublimity of the 
 language fpoken in the time of Job, as if the He- 
 brew had partaken of the nature and fortunes of the 
 two languages made perfeft by a long ftudy of elo- 
 quence, in the Socratic and Auguftan ages ; and 
 as if it was equally impolTible for a Hebrew after the 
 captivity (though infpired into the bargain) to 
 imitate thefe excellencies of ftyle, as for a writer 
 of the iron age of Latin to have expreffed the 
 beauty and'xeight of Ennius's elegance. We know 
 what Enthufiafm can do on every obje6t to which 
 it turns itfelf. There have been Critics of this 
 fort, who have found even in the Hebrew of the 
 Rabbins, graces and fublimities of ftyle to match 
 thofe in the beft Greek and Roman hiftorians; tho% 
 in reality, the graces it boafts, partake much of 
 thofe we fee in the Law-french of our Enghlli- 
 Reporters. The truth is, the language of the 
 times of Job had its grandeur, its purity, and fubr 
 limities : but they were of that kind which the 
 learned Mifiionaries have obferved in the languages 
 of certain Warrior tribes in North America. And 
 this language of the time of Job, preferved its 
 genius to late ages, by the afTiftance of that unifor- 
 mity of Charafter which makes the more fequef- 
 tered inhabitants of the Eaft lb tenacious of all their 
 ancient modes and cuftoms, 
 
 2. We now come clofer to the queftion; and 
 having proved the book of Job to be written under 
 the Mofaic (Economy^ We fay further, that it muft 
 ht fomewhere between the time of their approaching 
 captivity^ and their thorough re-ejlablijhment in Judea. 
 This is the wideft interval we can afford it. The 
 reafon feems to be decifive. It is this. That no 
 other poftible period can be alTigned in which the 
 GRAND QUESTION, dcbatcd in this book, could 
 
 ever 
 
St6l. 2b o/' Moses demonflrated, ^,^ 
 
 ever come into diipute. This deferves to be con- 
 iidered. 
 
 The queftion % a very foreign one to us, and 
 therefore no wonder it ihould have been fo little at- 
 tended 
 
 * The beft and ableft Critics are generally agreed, and 
 have as generally taken it for granted, that this que/iion is the 
 fubjeft of debate between the feveral difputants in the book 
 of Job. It would be abufing the reader's patience to produce 
 a long train of Authorities. Though it may not be improper 
 to give the fentiments of the lad, though not the leaf!- able of 
 them, on this head. — Opers pretium eil admonere te, amice 
 Leftor, quid nobis de tota hujus Libri materia cogitandum efle 
 videatur. Primum qiiidem amici Job iic ftatuuut, quando- 
 quidem tot tantifque cladibus Deus amicum ipforum Job 
 afflixit, ei Deum elfe iratum ; eum igitur poenas tales aliquo 
 fcelere, vel aperto, vel occuko commeruifle. Cujus Iuje fen- 
 tentiae teftes adhibent generationes hominuni priores, in quibus 
 inauditum eft, inquiunt, Deum 'vel integros 'viros afper/iatum, vel 
 impios manu apprehendijfe. Si quis noftrje astatis homo fie dif- 
 putaret, nemo efle quin ejus teraeritatem atque audaciam mi- 
 raijEtur, qui rem aperte falfam fumeret, cum fa^pilTime evenlat 
 €t fummas miferias experiri hac in mortali vita viros bonos, et 
 florentiflimam fortunam, flagitiofos. Tamen Job, id quod eji 
 maxime conjtderandum, redargutione tali non utitur. Non id 
 negat, quod fui amici, Patrum memoria tefte confirmabant ; 
 quod tamen Job, fi falfum id fibi videretur, uno verbo, Men- 
 tiris, poterat confutare. Atque etiam idem Job aiterum negans, 
 tales fe miferias crimine aliquo fuo fuiffe conimeritum, aiterum 
 tamen non diffimulat, Deum fibi adverfari ; in qua ipfa fanfti 
 viri confeflione adverfariorum cauia ex parte vincebat, cum fuas 
 clades Job lie acciperet, ut irse divinas confueta figna, cumque 
 inde non parum animo sftuaret. Qus cum ita fint, nos fie 
 exiftimamus, non falfos fuifle memorise teftes Job amicos ; 
 atque adeo, primis mundi temporibus, homines impios 
 fuifte, propter folitum naturse curfum, divina ira percufTos, 
 iifque acceptos plagis, quarum fandli homines efTent immunes; 
 Deo opt. max. humanas res ita moderante, ut Religionem ia 
 terris tueretur, et ut homines, cum talia exempla paterentur 
 cogitarent efte in ccelo Deum juftum, a quo morta'ies ut re<fte 
 faclorum przemium fperare deberent, fie fcelerum ultionera 
 limere. Houbicvnt in librum Joht USiorit 
 
 i But 
 
46 ^e Dhtne Legation JBook Vf* 
 
 tended to, is, Whether God adminijlers his govern- 
 ment over men here with an equal providence, fo as that 
 
 the 
 
 But fince the writing of my Di/Tertatiori, the language of the 
 i-abbinical men has been greatly changed. And, partly to 
 keep up the antiquity of the book, but principally to guard 
 againft an extraordinary Providence, feveral of them, in defiance 
 of tKeir fenfes, have denied that this, which this honeft Pried of 
 tne Oratory makes to be the fubjcil of the book of Job, has 
 indeed any thing at all to do with it. Amongft the foremoft of 
 thcfe is Dr. Richard Grey the epitomifer of Albert Schultens' 
 Comment on this book. In the preface to his Abllracl, amongft 
 other things, he has criticifed my opinion of the fcope of the 
 book in the following manner. — Nam quod dicit vir clariff. id 
 prscipue in hoc libro difceptari, nempe an bonis Temper bona, 
 malifque mala, an utrifque utraque promifcue obtingent; hanc 
 autem quxl^ionem (a nobis quidem alienam, minus ideo per- 
 penfam) nufquam alibi gentium prasterquam in Judaea nee apud 
 ipfos Juda:os alio quovis tempore, quam quod affignar, moveri 
 potuifle, id omne ex veritate fus hypothefeos pendet, et mea 
 quidem fententia, longe aliter fe habet. Pr<£f. p. 10 — 15. 
 For as to njjhat this writer [the author of the D. L.] fays, that 
 •the main quejiion handled in the book cf 'Job is nxhetber good hap- 
 fens to the good, and e-uil to evil men, or n.vkether both happen 
 «ot promifcuovf.y to both ; and that this quejiion (a very foreign 
 one 10 us, and therefore the Icfs attended to) could never be the 
 Jufjecl of difputation any ixhere but in the land cf "Judaa, nor 
 there neither at any other time than that nxihich he afpgns ; all this, 
 ■1 fay, depends on the truth of his hypothefs, and is, in my opinion^ 
 J'ar othcrivife, — That which depends on the truth of an hypotbejis 
 has, indeed, generally fpeaking, a very flender foundation t 
 •and I am partly of opinion it was the common prejudice againft 
 this fupport which difpofed the learned Prefaccr to give my 
 notions no better a name. But what I have (hewn to be 
 the fubjedl: of the book is fo far from depending on the 
 truth of my hypothefis, that the truth of my hypothcfis de- 
 pends on what 1 have fliewn to be the fubjccl of the book ; 
 and very fitly fo, as every reafonable hypoihrfii IhoulJ be fup- 
 poiicd on a faci. Now 1 might appeal to the Icained worlds 
 whether it be not as clear a i^.t\ that the fubjed of the book 
 of Job is 'ixhe-.htr good happens to the goad, and e-vil to e'vil men^ 
 or ixhether both haj^pen not protnifuo"jh to both ; as that the fub- 
 jeft of the firft book of 'Tufcu.an Deputations is de contemnenda 
 Morte. On this I founded my hypothefis, that the book of 
 Job muft have been written about the time of Efdras, be* 
 
 caufs 
 
Sed^ 2. of Moses demonfirafed. ^j 
 
 the' good are always profperous, a?id the had unhappy ; 
 cr whether, on the. contrary y there he notfuch apparent 
 
 inequali- 
 
 caufe no other affignable time could at all fuit the' fubje6t. 
 
 ' ^ But 'tis poffible I may miftake in what he calls my 
 
 hypothejis: for ought I know he may underftand not that of the 
 took of Job, but that of the Di-uitie Legation. And then, by 
 ■my hypothejis, he muft mean the great religious principle I en- 
 '^eavoured to evince, that the Jews were in reality 
 
 VNDER AN EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE. But it wil] bc 
 
 -paying me a very unufual compliment to call that my hypothefis 
 which the Bible was not only divinely written, but was like- 
 wife divinely preferved, to teftify ; which all Believers profefs 
 to believe ; and which none but Unbelievers and An/iverers to 
 the Divine Legation diredlly deny. However, if this be ths 
 hypothejis he means, I need defire no better a fupport. But the 
 truth is, my interpretation of the book of Job feeks fupport 
 from nothing but thofe common rules of grammar and logic ou 
 which the fenfe of all kind of writings arc or ought to be in" 
 terpreted. 
 
 He goes on in this manner. Nempe id unurn voluifle mihi 
 videtur facer Scriptor, ut iis omnibus, utcunque afflidtis, humi- 
 litatis et patientije perpetuum extaret documentum ex contem- 
 platione gemina, hinc infinite Dei perfedionis, fapientis & 
 potentise ; illinc humane, quae in fandtilfimis quoque viris ineft 
 corruptionis, imbecillitatis & igncrantise. For the sole /i«r- 
 pt>fe of the /acred ivriter feems to jne to be this, to compo/e a 
 nuork that Jhould remain a perpetual document of humility and 
 •patience to all good men in ajffiiSiion f)o?n this t^wofoli corfidera-^ 
 tion, as on the one hand of the infinite perfeSlion, poi.ver, and 
 nvifdom cf God ; fo on the other, of human corruption, imbeciliit\ 
 ■and ignorance, df.o'verable e'ven in the beji of men. Such talk 
 in a popular difcourfs, for the fake of a moral application, 
 might not be amifs : bnt to fpeak thus to the learned world 
 is furely out of feafon. The Critic will be apt to tell him* 
 he hath miftaken the Aaor for the S^uhjed ; and that he miffht 
 on the iame principle as well conclude that the purpofe^of 
 Virgil's poem is not the eftablilTiment of an empire in Italy, 
 •t)ut the perfonai piety of ^n^as. But to be a little mere ex- 
 plicit. The book of Job confifts of two diftinft parts; the 
 -narrati've, contained in the prologue and epilogue ; and the argu- 
 mentative, which compofes the body of the work. Now when the 
 queilion is of the fubjeft of a book, who means any other than the 
 body of it? yet the learned Doftor miftaking the narrative part 
 
 for 
 
^S The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 inequalities^ as that profperity and adverfity often hap- 
 pen indifferently to good and bad. Job maintains 
 
 the 
 
 fbr th5 argument aiive, gives us the fubjeft of the introdmSlion 
 and conclufion for that of the work itlelf. And it is very true 
 that the beginning and the end do exhibit a perpetual document 
 af humility and patience to all good 7?ien in nffliJiion. But it is cs 
 true that the body of the work neither does nor could exhibit 
 any fuch document. Firll it does not ; for, that humility and 
 patience, which Job manifefls before his entering into difpute, 
 is fueceeded by rage and ollentation when he becomes heated 
 with unreafonabic oppolition. Secondly, it could notj becaufe 
 it is altogether argumentative ; the fubjeft of which mufl: needs 
 be a propofition debated, and not a document exemplified. 
 A precept may be conveyed in hiftory, but a difputation can 
 exhibit only a debated queftion, 1 have fhewn what that 
 quellion is ; and he, inftead of proving that I have afligned A 
 wrong one, goes about to perfuade the reader, that there is no 
 queftion at alU 
 
 He proceeds. Quamvis enim in fermonibus, qui in eo 
 habentur, de religione, de virtute, de providentia, Deique in 
 mundo gubernando fapientia, juilitia, fanditate, de uno rerum 
 omnium principio, aliifque graviffimis veritatibus diflertetur, 
 hunc tamen quern dixi unicum efl"e libri fcopum, tarn ex initio 
 et fine, quam ex univerfa ejus ceconomia cuivis opinor mani- 
 feftum erit. Ea enim, ut rem omnem fummatim compleftar, 
 Jobum exhibet, primo quidem querentem, expoilulantem, 
 •ffrsni lu£lui indulgentem ; mox (quum, ut facri dramatis 
 natura poftulabat, amicorum contradidllone, iinillrifque fufpi- 
 cionibus magis magifque irritatus et faeeffitus ellet) impruden- 
 tius Deum provocantem, atque in juftitia fua gloriintem ; ad 
 debitam tandem fummiffionem fuique cognitionem revocatum, 
 turn dcmum, nee antea, intcgritatis fuse tam prrernium, quam 
 tellimonium a Deo reportantem. For although in the fpeeches 
 that occur, there be much talk of religion, ^virtue, and proi'idenct, 
 of God's ijiifdom, jujiice, and holine/s in the government of the 
 nvjrld, cf one principle of all things, and other mojl important 
 truths, yet that this ivhich I have xjjigned is the on'yfcope of the 
 beck 'ujill appear manifeft to every one, as ivell from the beginnirig 
 and the end as from the aconomy of the ^jule. For to fay all in 
 a Huord. it firjl prefents Job complaining, expoflulating, and itt- 
 dulitng himjelf in an ungovernable g^'if : but foon after (ivhen, 
 ^tf tic nolurt of the facred drama required, hy the confradiclien of 
 b; ft lends y and their jinijUr ffficioniy he became more and more 
 
 $e:xed 
 
Se(5t. 2. ^ M o s E s demojijlrated, 49 
 
 teized and irritated) rajhly challenging God, and glorying in his 
 won integrity : yet at length brought back to a due fubmijjion and 
 knonvledge of him/elf. The reader fees that all this is juft as 
 pertinent as if I fhould fay^ Mr. Chillingworth's famous 
 book againft Knot the Jefuit, was not to prove the religion of 
 Frotejrants a fafe ivay to falvation, but to give the pi£lure of 
 an artful Caviller and a candid Difputer. " For, although, 
 in the arguments that occur, there be much talk of proteftan- 
 tifm, popery, infallibility, a judge of controverfies, funda- 
 mentals of faith, and other moft important matters, yet that 
 this which I have afligned is the only fcope of the book, will 
 appear manifeft to every one, as well from the beginning and 
 the end, as from the CEconomy of the whole. For it firfi: of 
 all prefents the fophifl: quibbling, chicaning, and indulging 
 himfelf in all the imaginable methods of falfe reafoning : and 
 loon after, as the courfe of difputation required, refting on his 
 own authority, and loading his adverfary with perfonal calum- 
 nies ; yet at length, by the force of tritth and good logic, 
 brought back to the point; confuted, expofed, and put to 
 fiience." Now if I fhould fay this of the book of Chilling- 
 worth, would it not be as true, and as much to the purpo.'e, 
 as what our author hath faid of the book of Job ? The matters 
 in the difcourfe of the Religion of Protejlants could not \M 
 treated as they are without exhibiting the two charaders of a 
 Sophift and a true Logician. Nor could the matters in the 
 book of Job be treated as they are without exhibiting a good 
 jnan in affliftion?, complaining and expollulating; impatient 
 under the contradiftion of his friends, yet at length brought 
 back to a due fubmiffion, and knowledge of himfelf. But 
 therefore, to make this the fole or chief Scope of the book, (for 
 in this it varies) is perverting all the rules of interpretation. 
 But what mifled him we have taken notice of above. And he 
 himfelf points to it, where he fays, — the fubje£l I have affined 
 to the book of Job appears the true both from the beginning and 
 the i£.tiD. It is true, he adds, and from the Qecon^my of the ivholt 
 likewife. 
 
 Which he endeavours to prove in this manner : For it firji 
 prefents fob complaining, expojiulating, and indulging himfelf in 
 an ungovernable grief : but foen after (vohen, as the nature of 
 the fucred drama required, by the centradiHion of his friend s^ and 
 their fiwfler fufpicions, he became more and niore teixed and irrita- 
 ted) rajhly challenging God, and glorying in his onjon integrity : 
 yet at length brought back to a due fubmijfion and kno^w'edge of 
 himfelf; and then at la[i, and not before, receiving fro7n God both 
 the rcucard and tejlimony of his uprightnefs. This is Indeed a 
 fair account of the conduct of the drama. And from this it 
 
 Vol. V. £ appears. 
 
^o T^he Divine Legation Book YI, 
 
 appears, firrt, that that which he afligns for the sole scope- of 
 the br;ok cannot be the true. For if its defign were to give a 
 perpetual document of huii.il-.ty and patiencs, how comes it tO" 
 paG, that the author, in the execution of this defign, repre- 
 fents Job CLmplaiiiing, expojlulatingy atid indulging him/elf in an 
 ungoverna'-Ie grief, rajhiy challcngivg God, and g'orying in his 
 onvn integrity? Could a painter, think you, in order to rep re- 
 f. nt the eaie and fafety of navigation, draw a vefTel getting 
 with much p;.ins and difiicuhy into harbour, after having loft 
 all her lading and been mlferably torn and fliattered by a 
 tempell ? and yet you think a writer, in order to give a dccu' 
 ment of humilit'i and patience, had fufficiently difcharged his 
 plan, if he made Job conclude refgned and fibviijfixe, though 
 he had drawn him turbulent, impatient, and almoft blafphe- 
 mous throughout the whole piece. Secondly, it appears from 
 the learned Author's account of the conduct of the drama, that 
 that which I have afiigned for the fole Scope of the 'book is the 
 true. For if, in Job's diilrefsful circum (lances, the queftion 
 concerning an equal or unequal providence were to be debated : 
 His friends, if they held the former part, mull needs doubt of 
 his integrity ; this doubt would natuially provoke Job's indig- 
 naiion ; and, when it was perfilled.in, caufc him to fly out into 
 the intemperate exceffes fo well defcribed by the learned Doclor ; 
 yet coalcious innocence would at length enable patience to do 
 its office, and the conclufive argument for his integrity would be 
 ^is refignation and fubmilTion. 
 
 The learned Writer fums up the argument thus. Ex his 
 inquam apparet, non primario agi in hoc libro de providentia, 
 iive asquali, five incTquali, fed de perfonali Jobi integritate. 
 From all this, I fay it appears, thut the ferjunal integrity cf Jab, 
 and not the quejiion concerning an ^qual or -unecjual Prouide/ice is the 
 fr '• -ipal fubjeSi rf the book. He had before only told us his 
 inton ; and now, from his opinion, he fays it appears. But 
 the appearances we fee, are deceitful ; and fo they will always 
 be, when they arife only out of the fancy or inclination, of the 
 Critic, and not from the nature of things. 
 
 But he proceeds. Hanc enim (quod omnlno obfervandum 
 eft) in c^ubium vocaverant amici, non ideo tantum quod 
 affliflus efi'ct, fed quod afflidus impatientius fe gereret, Deique 
 jullitia; obmurmuraret : et qui ftrenuus videlicet aliorum hor- 
 tator fuerac ad fortitudinem ct conllantiam, quuni ipfe tcn- 
 taretur, vidus labafceret. Fur that [i. e. his perfonal inte- 
 grity] /'/ nx.a5 njohich his friends douhcd cf, not Jo tmch on ac- 
 count of his afficlion, as for the not bearing his offiiSiitn nuith 
 fatience, but murmuring at lie j'fUce of God. And that he, 
 
 iihe 
 
Sed. 2. c/* Moses demonjlrated, ^j 
 
 nv^o nvas a Jlrenuotis advifer of others ta fortitude and confancyy 
 fi>ould, %\;hen his ozvn trial came, Jink under the Jiroke of his 
 difajiers. — But why not on account of his afitnioiis ? Do not 
 We find that even now, under this unequal dillribution of 
 things, cenforious men (and fuch doubLlefs he will confefs 
 Job's comforters to have been) are but too apt to fufpecl orreac 
 aiHi£lions for the punifliment of fecret fins. How mucli more 
 prone to the fame fufpicion would flich men be in the time of 
 Job, when the ways of Providence were more equal ? As to his 
 impatience in hearing afiiB'.on, that fymptom was altogether am- 
 biguous, and might as likely denote wane of fortitude as want 
 of innocence ; and proceed as well from the pain of an ulce- 
 rated body as the anguifh of a dillradtd confcience. 
 
 Well, our Author has brought the Patriarch thus far on his 
 way, to expofe his bad temper. From hence he accompanies 
 him to his place of reft ; which, as many an innocent man's is, 
 he makes to be in a bad argument. Quum accefierat fandiilimi 
 viri malis, haec graviilima omnium tentatio, ut tanquam im- 
 probus et hypocrita ab amicis damnaretur, et quod unicum ei 
 fupererat, confcientije fuse teftimonio ac folatio, qunntum ipfi. 
 potuerunt, privandns foret, quid mifero faciendum erat ? Ami- 
 cos perfidise et crudelitatis arguit : Deum integritatis fus teftem 
 vindicemque appellat : quum autem nee Deus interveniret, 
 ad innocentiam ejus vindicandam, nee remitterent quicquam 
 amici de acerbis fuis cenfuris, injuftifque criminationibus, ad 
 
 SUPREMUM ILLUD JUDICIUM prOVOCat, in quo REDEMPTO- 
 
 RiiM fibi afFuturum, Deumque a fuis partibus ftaturum, fum- 
 ma cum fiducia fe novifTe affirmat. A'ocy luhen (fays the learned 
 Writer) the moji grievous trial of all teas added to the other 
 evils of this holy perfn ; to be condemned by his friends as a 
 profiigate, and an hypocrite, and to be deprived, as much as in 
 them lay, of his only remaining fupport, the Tejiimony of a good 
 confcience. What nuas left for the unhappy man to do ? He accufts 
 his friends of perfidy and cruelty ; he calls upon God as the vjit- 
 nffs and avenger of his integrity : But ivhen m it her God inters 
 pofed to vindicate his innocence, nor his friends fo> bore to urge 
 their harjh cenfures and unjuji acctfations, he cppeals ta that LAST 
 JUDGMENT, in vjhich imth the utmojl confidence he fjfirms that 
 he knevj that his redeemer, luould be prefent to him, and that 
 God vQOuld declare in his favour. To underftand the force of 
 this reprefentation, we muft have in mind tliis unqueltionable 
 truth ; " That, be the fubjed of the book v/hat it will, yet if 
 the facred Writer bring in the perfons of the drama difputincr^ 
 he will take care that they talk with decorum and to the pur- 
 pofe." Now we both agree that Job's friends had pretended 
 ai leaft to fufpeft his integrity. This fufpicion it was Job's 
 
 E 2 bufinefs 
 
52 The Dhbie Legation Book VI, 
 
 bufincfs to remove ; and, if the Doftor's account of the fub- 
 jeft, be right, his only bufinefs. To this end he offers va» 
 -i'ioas arguments, which failing of their eiFccl, he, a: lad, (as 
 tlie D :clor willhave it) appeals to the second coming of 
 THE Redeemer of mankind. But was thii likely to fatisfy 
 them ? They demand a prefent folution of their doubts, and 
 be iends ihcm to a future judgment. Nor can our Author fay, 
 (though he would infinuate) that this was fuch a fort of ap- 
 peal as difputants arc fometimes farced to have recourfe to, 
 when they are run aground and have nothing more to offer : 
 For Job, after this, proceeds in the difputej and urges many 
 other arguments with the utmofl propriety. Indeed there is 
 one way, and but one, to make the appeal pertinent : and 
 that is, to fuppofe our Author miftaken, when he faid that the 
 per/onal integrity of Job, and not the quejlion concerning an equal 
 or unequal Vro'vidcnce, n.vas the tnain fuhjeSl of the book : And we 
 may venture to fuppoie fo, without much danger of doing 
 him wrong : for, the doftrine of a future judgment affords a 
 principle whereon to determine the quejlion of an equal or 
 unequal Providence ; but it leaves the per/onal integrity of Job 
 juft as it found it. But the learned Author is fo litde felicitous 
 for the pertinency of the argument, that he makes, as we fhall 
 now fee, its impertinence to be one of the great fupports of his 
 fyftem. For thus he concludes his argument. Jam vero fi 
 cardo controverfia; fiiiiiet, utrum, falva Dei juftitia, fandi in 
 hac vita, adfligi poflent, ha;c ipfa declarati litem finire debuerat. 
 Sin autem de perfonali Jobi innocentia difceptetur, nil mirum 
 quod veterem canere cantilenam, Jobumque ut fecerant, con- 
 demnare pergerent focii, quum Dei folius erat, qui corda ho- 
 minum explorat, pro certo fcire ; an jure merito fibi Jobus hoc 
 folamen attribueret, an falfam fibi fiduciam vanus arrogaret. 
 But nonv if the hinge of the contro-verjy had turned on this. Whe- 
 ther or no, confijhntly ivith God's jufiicc, good men could be affiiBed 
 in this life, this declaration ought to have finifhed the debate : 
 but if the queflion luere concerning the perfoual innocence of yob, 
 it ^joas no ivonder that they fill fung their old f ng, and ivent 
 on as they had begun, to condemn their much aflicled J'ricnd ; fince 
 it ijjcs in th: pa-xver of God alone to explore the hearts of Tr.cn^ 
 anJ to incxv for certain ^whether it ivas foFs piety that rightly 
 applied a confolntion, or ixshether it ivas his 'vanity that arrogated 
 a fnlfc confidence to himfelf. This is a very pleafant way of 
 coming to the fenfe of a difputed paJTage : Not, as of old, by 
 fhfwing it fupports the Writers argument, but by (hewing it 
 fupports the Crisic's hy^othefis. I had taken it for granted that 
 Job rcafoned to the purpofe, and therefore urged this argu- 
 ment againll undcrAanding him as fpeaking of the RejurreBion 
 in the xixth ch.apter. " The dilputancs (fay I) arc all equally 
 
 " imbaraifcd 
 
Se<5l. .2c of "Mos^s {fe^iimjlr^ted, ^z 
 
 the Utter part % and his three friends the former^ 
 Tf'hey argue thefe points ' throughout the" whole 
 
 book,' 
 
 " imbara.Ted in adjufting the ways cf Providence. Job affirms 
 *• that the good man is fometimes unhappy 5 the three friends 
 ** pretend that he never, catx be fo ; becauie fuch a iituatioi> 
 •' would reflefl upon God's jullice. Now the dodlrine of a Re- 
 *' furreSlion fuppofed to be urged by Job cleared up all this em- 
 *' barras. \{ therefore his friends thought it true, it ended the 
 *' difpute ; if falfe, it lay upon them to confute it. Yet they 
 " do neither: They neither call it into queftion, nor allow it 
 ** to be decifive. But without the lead notice that any fuch 
 *' thing had been urged, they go on as they begun, to inforce 
 *' their former arguments, and to coiifute that which they 
 ** feem to underftand was the only one Job had urged a^-ainft 
 *' them, viz. the confcioufnefs of his own innocence.'' — Now 
 what fays our learned Critic to this ? Why, be fays, that if I 
 be miftaken, and he be right in his account of the book of 
 Job, the reafon is plain why the three friends took no notice 
 of Job's appeal to a Refurredlion ; namely, becaufe it deferved 
 rone. As to his being in the right, the reader, I fuppofe, will 
 not be greatly felicitous, if it be one of the confequences that 
 the facred Reafoner is in the wiong. However, before we 
 allow him to be right, it will be expefted he IhouM anfwer 
 the following queftions. If, as he fays, the point in the book 
 of Job was only his ferfonal innocence, and this, not (as I fay) 
 upon the principle of no innocent per/on being miferabk, I 
 would afk how it was poffible that Job's friends and intimates 
 fhould be fo obflinately bent on pronouncing him guilty, the 
 purity of whofe former life and convertation they were fo well 
 acquainted with ? If he will fay, the difputants went upon that 
 PRINCIPLE, 1 then aO; how came Job's appeal toa Refurreaion 
 not to filence his oppofers ? as it accounted for the juftice of 
 God in the prefent unequal dillribution of things'. 
 
 * This is one thing (fays Job) therefore I /aid it, he de- 
 
 STROYETH THE PERFECT WJTH THE WICKED, chap. ix. 22. 
 
 as much as to fay, this is the point or general queftion between 
 us, and I ftick to the affirniativc, and infill upon its truth. The 
 words which follow are remarkable. It had been objefted. 
 that when the good man fufFered it was for a tryal ; to this Job 
 replies: If the Jcourge Jlay fuddenlyy he iv'ill laugh at the trial of 
 the i7inoceut, ver. 27,. fu'dd,enly, or indifcrimifiately zs Schultens 
 rightly underftands itj as much as to fay, wheh the fword de- 
 vours the innocent and the wicked man withpui^ diUintlion, if 
 
'54 ^^'^ Dhine Legation Book VI. 
 
 book, and each party flicks firm to his firft opi- 
 
 nion. 
 
 Now this could never have been made matter of 
 diipute, from the moft early fuppofed time of Job's 
 exigence', even to ours, in any place out of the 
 
 land 
 
 the innocent wili diftinguifii his ill hap from the wicked man's 
 and call it a iryal, the wicked man will mock at him j and in- 
 deed not without fome ihew of reafon. 
 
 * " Suppofing (fays the Cornifh Anfwerer) we fhould allow 
 ** fuch an e<jual trci.idence to have been admin iRered in Jud/ea; 
 •' yet, fince he himfelf reckons it the utmoll extrai'agance 
 *• to iuppofe it any where elle ; what an idea does he give 
 *' us of the talents of Ezra ? who according to him ha» intro- 
 *• duced perfbns who were no Jews debating a queltion fo pal- 
 ** pably abfurd as that ic nevek entered into the head of any 
 *' axe vian living to make a qufjiian of it out rf the land of 
 ** fudaa? coniequently could not vvith the leaft probability 
 *' or propriety be hand.-rd by any bat Jews. Is this like one 
 *' who, he would make us to believe, was a careful ohfr-ver 
 ** of Decorum ? certainly the rule of Decorum would have 
 *' obliged him reJdere perfonae, &c. as Horace ipeaks — either 
 •' to look out for proper perfons to debate his Queftions, or to 
 " fit his queftion to the perfons," I fliould have reafon to 
 complain of this infolcnce of Language, fo habitual to thefe 
 Anfwercrs, did it not always carry its own punilhment along 
 with it. For, look, in proportion lo their rudenefs, is generally 
 their foliy, or ill faith. — Zup'^cflng (fays this man) lue pould 
 allo'JO fucb an equal Providdnce., &c. — Now, when the Reade!" 
 confiders I am only contending for the a8ual adminiflration of 
 fuch a providence as the Bible, in almoft every page, reprefents 
 to have been adminiflered, will he not naturally fuppofe this to 
 be fonie iniidel-writer making a gracious conceflion even at the 
 expence of his own caufe ? But when he is told that the writer 
 is a minifler of the Gofpel, will he not conclude that his head is 
 turned with the rage of Anfnuering? 
 
 He tells his Reader that I fay, " That the debated quef- 
 •' tion in the book of Job could never enter into the head 
 <' of any man living out of the land of Judea." Now, the 
 very words from whence he pretends to deduce this propo- 
 fition, coHvid liim of impollure. — l^his (fay J) could ne'ver 
 
 bu-vt 
 
SetH:- 2. of Moses demonjlrated. 55 
 
 land of Judea ; the adminlftration of Providence, 
 which, throughout that large period, all People 
 and Nations have experienced, being vifibly and 
 confefTedly unequal. Men, indeed, at all times, 
 have been indifcreetly- prone to enquire how this> 
 inequality could be made confiftent with God's 
 juftice or goodnefs : But, amidft the great variety 
 of human opinions, as extravagant as many^ of 
 thofe are which philofophic men have fome time 
 
 have been made matter of iifpuie, from the most early sup- 
 posed TIME OF Job's existence even to ours, iv any 
 place out of the land of Judea. Which furely implies it might 
 have been a queftion then ; or why did I reftrain the cafe to 
 the times fmce Job's exiftence ? Was it for nothing ? In fad 
 I was well apprifed (and faw the advantages I could derive 
 from it) that the queftion might as reafonably have been debated 
 at the time when Job lived, as at the time when, I fuppofed, 
 the book of Job was written. But as this was a matter re- 
 ferved for another place, I contented myfelf with the hint con- 
 veyed in this limitation, which juft ferved to lay in my claim to 
 the ufe I Ihould hereafter have for it. The truth is, the^flate 
 of God's providence in the moji early fuppofed time f Job's ex- 
 ijiaice is a fubjeft I ihall have occafion to confider at large in 
 the laft volume of this Work, where I employ it, amonott other 
 proofs, to illuftrate and confirm the conclufion of my general 
 argument by 'one entire view of the harmony which reigns 
 through all the various parts of the Divine Government as ad- 
 miniftered over man. Of this my Anfwerers have no concep- 
 tion. Their talents are only fitted to confider parts, and fuch 
 talents beft fuit their bufinefs, which is, to find fault. — Ti.ey 
 will fay, they were not obliged to wait. But who obliged 
 them to write ? And if tjiey fhoild wait longer, they will have 
 no reafon to complain : For the cloudy and imperfeft concep- 
 tion tljey have of my argument as it now Hands, is the moil 
 commodious fituation for the carrying on their trade. How- 
 ever whether they prefer the light of common fenfe to this datk- 
 nefs occafioned by the abfence of it, or the friendly twilight of 
 Polemics to both, I {hall not go out of my way to gratify their 
 humour. I have faid enough to expofe this filly cavil of our 
 Cornifh Critic, and to vindicate the knowledge of the writer of 
 the book of Job, and his obfervance of decorum, in opening a 
 beauty in the contrivance of this work, which thefe Anfwerers 
 were not aware ©f. 
 
 or 
 
 E 4 
 
 t 
 
56 The Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 or other maintiiined, we do not find any of them 
 ever held or conceived that God's providence was 
 equally adminijlered. This therefore, as we fay, 
 could be no queftion any where out of the land of 
 Judea. But we fay farther. 
 
 Nor in that land neither, in any period of the 
 Jewifh nation either before or after the time where- 
 in we place it. Not before, becaufe the difpenfa- 
 tion of Providence to that people was feen and 
 owned by all, to be equal : Not after, becaufe by 
 the total ceafmg of God's extraordinary admini- 
 ftration, the contrary was as evident. 
 
 Of this period then, there are three portions: 
 
 1. The time immediately /)rf^^^z;?^ the captivity; 
 
 2. Thtdttrction of it; and 3. The return from it. 
 
 To the opinions which place it in either of the 
 two firft portions, as fuppofmg it to be written 
 for the confolation of the people going into or 
 remaining in captivity, a celebrated Writer has 
 oppofed an unanfwerable objedion : " The Jews 
 « (fays he) undoubtedly fuffered for their ini^ 
 " quity ; and the example of Job is the example 
 " of an innocent man fuffering for no demerit 
 " of his own : Apply this to the Jews in their 
 « captivity, and the book contradidls all the Pro- 
 " phets before, and at the time of, their capti- 
 *' vity, and is calculated to harden the Jews in 
 *' their fuffcrings, and to reproach the Providence 
 ** of God ",'* 
 
 There 
 
 *» T/v U/e attif Tiftent af Pvophefy, 13 c. p. 208. 3d. ed. — 
 Cirotius thinks the book was written for the confolation of the 
 ■dei'cendants of Efau, carried away in the Babylonifti captivity ; 
 apparently, as the fame writer obferves, to avoid the abfurdity 
 
 arifing 
 
Se£l. 2. of Moses demonjirated, 57 
 
 There remains only the third portion ; that is 
 to fay, the time of their return, and fettlement ia 
 their own land. And this ftands clear of the above 
 objedion. For the Jews came from the Captivity 
 with hearts full of zeal for the Law, and abhor- 
 rence of their former idolatries. This is the ac- 
 count Ezra and Nehemiah " give of them : And 
 with thefe difpofitions, Jeremiah foretold, their ref- 
 toration Ihould be attended. / will hring Ifrael 
 again to his hahitation^ and he Jhall feed on Carmel and 
 Bajhan, and his fold Jloall be fatisfied upon mount 
 Ephraim and Gilead. In thofe days, and in that time^ 
 faith the Lord, the iniquity of Ifrael JJj all be fought 
 for, and there Jhall be none-, and the fins of Judab^ 
 and they f jail 'not be found ^. 
 
 3. We fay then (to come home to the queftion) 
 that the book of Job was written fome time be- 
 tween the return and the thorough fettlement of 
 the Jews in their own country. 
 
 Having fuited the I'ime to the People, let us try 
 if we can fuit the People to the Subje^-, and kc 
 
 arifing from the fuppofition confuted above ; and yet, as he 
 farther obferves, Groti'us, in endeavouring to avoid one diffi- 
 culty, has fallen into another. For, fuppofe if ivrit, (fays the 
 Author of The U/e and Intent of Prophecy, &c.) for the children 
 of Efau, they i^ere idolaters ; and yet is there no allujion to their 
 idolatry in all this hook, And luhat ground ii there to think they 
 nxierefa righteous as to defer've fuch an interpretation to he put 
 upon their fufferingSy as the book of Job puts on them, if fo be 
 it nx)as nuritten for their fakes ? Or can it he imagined, that a 
 hook 'writ about the time fuppofed, for the ufe of an idolatrous 
 nation, and odious to the Jei-vs, could ever have been received into 
 ihejeiuifl} canon? p. 208. Thefe are ftrong objeftions, and 
 will oblige us to place this opinion amongft the fingularities of 
 the excellent Grotius. 
 
 * Ezra, chapters iii. vi. Neh. chapters iii, viii, i*. 
 y Chap. 1. ver. 15, 20, 
 
 whether 
 
58 The D hi fie Legation Book VI. 
 
 whether this, which was foreign and unnatural to 
 every otlier period, was proper and fcafonable to 
 this here afTigned. 
 
 The Jews had hitherto, from their entrance in- 
 to the land of Canaan to their laft race of kings, 
 lived under an extraordinary, and, for the moft 
 part, equal Providence. For thefe two ftates muft 
 be diftinguifned, and indeed are diftinguifhed not 
 only throughout this difcourfe, but throughout the 
 whole Scripture hiftory, altho' the terms, in both, 
 be fomctimes ufed indifferently to fignify either one 
 ftate or the other, v^here the nature of the fubjed 
 leads diredly to the fenfe in v/hich they are em- 
 ployed. As their fins grew ripe and the time 
 of their Captivity approached, God fo tempered 
 juftice with his mercy, as to mix, with the pro- 
 phetic denunciations of their impending puniHi- 
 ment, the repeated promifes of a fpeedy Return ; 
 to be attended with more illuftrious advantages 
 for the Jewlih Republic than it had ever before en- 
 joyed. The appointed time was now come. And 
 their Return (predided in fo plain and public a 
 manner) was brought about with as uncommon 
 circumftances. Thofe moft zealous for the Law, 
 and moft confiding in the promifes of God, as in- 
 ftrufted by their parents in all his extraordinary 
 331fpenfations, embraced this opportunity of re- 
 turning to their own country, to promote the ref- 
 toratlon of their Law and Religion. And who 
 can doubt but that they expeded the fame 
 manifeftations of God's Providence in their Re- 
 cftabliftiment, th;it their Forefathers had experi- 
 enced in their firft Settlement ^ That they were 
 indeed full of thefe expcdations appears from the 
 remarkable account Ezra gives us of his diftrefs, 
 when about to- return with Artaxerxes's com- 
 
 miflionj 
 
Sc£l. 2. o/* Moses demonftrated, 59 
 
 tniflion, to regulate the affairs of Judea and Jeru- 
 falem. The way was long and dangerous ; yet the, 
 Jews had told the king fo much of their being un- 
 der the peculiar proteflion of their God, that he 
 was afhamed to afk a Guard for himfelf and his 
 companions i and therefore had recoufe to prayer 
 and falling: 'Then 1 -proclaimed a fafi there at the river 
 Ahava^ that we might affli5t ourfehes before our 
 God^ to feek of him a right way for us ^ and for our 
 little ones^ and for all our Jubjlance For I was ajlmm- 
 ed to require of the king a band of foldiers and horfe- 
 men^ to help us againji the enemy in the way •, becaufs 
 WE had fpoken unto the king^ fi^^y^^gt The hand of our 
 .God is upon all them for good that feek him^ but his 
 power and his wrath is againji all them that forfake 
 him \ But in thefe their expeflations of the old 
 extraordinary Providence, they were greatly de- 
 ceived j and the long traverfes they underwent 
 from the malice and perfecution of their idolatrous 
 neicrhbours, made them but too fenfible of the 
 difference of their condition from that of their 
 Forefathers, in their firft eftablifliment. What 
 then muft be their furprize and difappointment to 
 find their expeftations fruftrate, and their Nation 
 about to be reduced to the common level of the 
 People of the earth, under the ordinary providence 
 of Heaven ? At firfl it would be difficult for many 
 habituated to, and long pofTefTed of, the notion of 
 an extraordinary Providence, to comprehend the 
 true ftate of their prefent circumftances. This 
 aflonifhment is finely defcribed in the following 
 words of Job, As for me, is my complaint to man ? 
 and if it werefo, why Jhould not my fpirit be troubled ? 
 Mark me, and be astonished, and lay your hand 
 upon your mouth. Even when J retnember, I am 
 
 » Ezra viii, 21, 22, 
 
 afraid^ 
 
6q 1%e Bivine Legation Book VL 
 
 afraid-,: and tr^embljng taketh hold, of my flejh* 
 Wherefore' do ihe ivicked livCy hcome old, yea 
 iire mighty in p'u:er? &c \ — But otliers lefs pious 
 ■would fall into doubts about God's juftice -, as not 
 conceiving how he could difcharge the expectations 
 he had raifed, without fome v^ry fpecial regai'd to 
 the fafety of his chbfen People : . Nay there were 
 fome, as there always will be in national diftrefles 
 of this nature, fo impious as even to deny the moral 
 government of God. Whom the Prophet Zephaniah 
 thus defcribes, — " Men that are fettled on their lees; 
 that fay in their hearty the Lord will not do 
 
 GOOD, NEITHER WILL HE DO EVIL ''." All WOul^ 
 
 be in a ftate of anxiety and diforder. And this 
 greatly increafed, i. From the bad fituation of 
 affairs without : For, till the coming of Nehe- 
 miah, the Walls of Jerufalem were in many places 
 broken down •, the Gates taken away ; and the in- 
 habitants expofed not only to the infults and rava- 
 ges of their enemies, but to the reproach and con- 
 tempt of all their neighbours, as a defpicable and 
 abandoned People. 2. From the bad fituation of 
 affairs within: Several diforders contrary to the Law 
 had crept in amongd them ; as the marrying fir ange 
 wives, and pradifing iifury with one another. Add 
 to all this, (what would infinitely increafe the con- 
 fufion) that a future itate of Rewards and Punifli- 
 ments was net yet become a popular Dodlrine. 
 That this is a faithful account of their condition 
 ■will be feen when we defcend to particulars : That 
 it would have this effect on the religious fentiments 
 even of the better fort is evident from the expof- 
 tulation of Jeremiah, in whofe time this inequality 
 firfl ftruck their obfervation. Righteous art thou, 
 'O Z^rd, (fays he) when I plead with thee : yet let me 
 
 ■» Chap. xxi. vcr. 4, 5, 6, 7. *" Chap. i. ver. 12. 
 
 talk 
 
Sed. 2. (!f Mo ^'E^ demonjlrated, 6t 
 
 talk with tjpee of thy judgment:. Whe refor e doth the 
 way of the wicked proffer ? V/herefore are all they happy . 
 that deal very treacheroiifly " ? If it be faid, " that 
 the inequality could not now firft ftrike their obfer- 
 vation, in a Difpenfation where the equal Provi- 
 dence had been gradually declining from the time 
 of Saul i" I aflc, Why not ? Since there muft be 
 feme precife point of time or other, when the fadt 
 was firft attended to. And where can we find a 
 more likely one than this ? 
 
 Could any thing therefore be conceived more 
 feafonable and neceffary, at this time, than fuch 
 a confolation as the book of Job afforded ? In 
 which, on a traditional ftory, of great fame and 
 reputation over all the Eaft, a good man was re- 
 prefented as afflided for the trial of his virtue, and 
 rewarded for the well-bearing his affliftions: and 
 in which, their doubts concerning God's Provi- 
 dence were appeafed by an humble acquiefcence 
 under his almighty power. And, therefore, I 
 fuppofe it was, that in order to quiet all their 
 anxieties, and to comfort them under their pre? 
 fent diftreffes, one of their Prophets at this very 
 period, compofed the book of Job^. And here lee 
 me obferve, that, to the arguments already given 
 for fixing the date of the book of Job at this pre- 
 cife time of the Jewifh Republic, may be added 
 the following : Job fays, He knoweth the way that 
 I take: When he hath tried me^ I fhall come forth 
 as GOLD. But we have fhewn, in fpeaking of 
 what Maimonides calls the Chaflifements of Love^ 
 that they were unknown to the Jev/ifh religion 
 till the times of their later Prophets ^ Now here 
 the Chaflifements of Love are exprefsly. defcribed. 
 
 * Chap. xii. ver. i. • ^ Chap, xxiii. ver, lo. «= See p. 136. 
 
 3 To 
 
(52 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 To proceed. If fuch were the end of compofing 
 this poetic ftory, we cannot but believe that every- 
 thing in it would be fitted to the circumftances of 
 the Tin:ies. But this could not be done without 
 making the poem allegorical as well as drama- 
 tic. 1 hat is, without reprelenting the real per- 
 fons of that age under the perfons of the drama. 
 And this would be according to the exadteft rules 
 of good writing : For when fome general moral 
 fitted for all times is to be recommended, it is bell 
 fhewn in a fimple dramatic habit: but when 
 the author's purpofe is to convey fome peculiar 
 truths^ circumfcribed by time and place, they have 
 need to be inforced by allegoric Images. And 
 in fa6t, we Ihall find this poem to be wholly allego- 
 rical: The reafon is convincing. There are divers 
 circumftances added to each chara6ler, which can, 
 by no means, belong to \}[it^tx{QXi^reprejenting: 
 we conclude, therefore, that others arc meant under 
 thofe charadlers, namely, the perfons reprefented. 
 Nor did the Author feem much folicitous to conceal 
 his purpofe, while in his introduftion to fome of 
 Job's fpeeches he exprefleth himfelf inthis manner, 
 — morecver Job continued his parable and /aid J, 
 Which word parable properly fignifies in Scrip- 
 ture the reprefenting one thing by another. Jerom 
 in his preface to the book of Job, if I underftand 
 him right, feems to fay much the fame thing, 
 " Obliquus enim etiam apud Hebrasos totus 
 liber fertur, et lubricus, et quod Gr^ci Rhetores 
 
 j(r;^r]/xa7j(r,a£K^ S, DUM C^II ALIUD LOQUITUR, ALIUD 
 
 AG IT : ut fi velis anguillam vel murenulam llridlis 
 teneremanibus, quanto fortius prefleris tantocitius 
 elabitur." This defcription of the work, and the 
 comparifon by which Jerom illuftrates his defcrip- 
 
 ^ Chap, xxvii. ver. i. Chap. xxix. ver. i. t Aiy^. 
 
 tion. 
 
St6:. 2. of Moses demonf.ratei. 63 
 
 tipn, is a lively pidure of an allegory -, in which 
 the literal lenfe, when you begin to grafp it clofe- 
 ly, flips through your fingers like an eel. And 
 in this fenfe we Ihall find the Tpeeches of Job to be 
 extremely parabolical. For it is to be obferved 
 that, from this place, where Job is faid to continue 
 his Parable^ from ch. xxvii. to chap. xxxi. which 
 is the winding up of the controverly between him 
 and his friends, there are more allufions to the 
 Jewifh Itate than in all the reft of the book to- 
 gether. — But to leave no room for doubt in this 
 matter, let us now examine each charafter apart **. 
 
 I. In 
 
 ^ " Here, (fays the Cornlfh Critic) ta!:e the poem in th« 
 " other light, as an allegoric fiftion, and what could it poffibly 
 " afford befides a very od'd' «OT///}OTra/ /" for the truth of hiftory 
 *' is deftroyed : and we have nothing in the room of it, but a 
 " monllrous jumble of times and perfons brought together, 
 " that were in reality feparated from each other by the cfillance 
 ** of a thoufand or twelve hundred years. Had the author 
 " been able to produce but one precedent of this fort amongll 
 " the writings of the ancients, it might hare afforded Tome 
 " countenance to this opinion : but, Tbeiieve, it would be dif- 
 " ficult to find it.'* p. 47. What then, I befeech you, becomes 
 of Sclcmon's Song, if you will not allow it to be a precedent of this 
 yor?.^ Here, in the opinion of the Church, as appears by the 
 infertion of it into the Canon, or at lealt in the opinion of'fuch 
 Churchmen as our Critic, Solomon, under the cover of a love- 
 tale, or amorous intrigue between him and an Egyptian lady, has 
 reprefented Chrift's union and marriage with the Church. 
 Surely, the patience or impatience of Job had a nearer relation 
 in nature to the patience or impatience of the Jewifh People, 
 than Solomon's love intrigue had, in grace, to the falvaiion ob- 
 tained by Jefub Chrift. Yet this we are to deem no odd amufe- 
 ment for the wise man. But for a Prophet, to employ the 
 ftory of Job, to reprove the errors of the People committed to 
 hii, care, and to inform them of an approaching change in their 
 Difpenfation, is by no means to be endured. What ! has this 
 great Critic never heard that, amongft the writings of the ancienh, 
 t^here was a certain allegoric piece known by the name of the 
 Judgment of Hercules, written by a Giecian Sage, to excite the 
 youth of his time to the purfuit of virtue, and to withiland the 
 
 ahuie- 
 
64 7he Divine Legation BookVI. 
 
 I. In the perfon of Job we have a good man af- 
 flided, and maintaining his innocence ; equally im- 
 patient of pain and contradidion ; yet, at length 
 with all fubmifTion bowing to the hand of God ; 
 and finally rewarded for it. Had this been a fic- 
 titious Charatier in an invented llory we could have 
 only gathered this general moral from it, "That 
 virtue and fubmiiTion to the divine pleafure, not- 
 "withftanding the common frailties of humanity, will 
 alTuredly engage the care of Providence." But as 
 'this Hero of the poem was a real Perfonage ; and 
 fo greatly famed for his exemplary patience in 
 
 allurements of pleafure? Hercules was as well known by 
 hiltory and tradition to the Greeks, as Job was to the Jews. Did 
 that polite people think this an odd amufaner.t ? Did they think 
 the truth cf Hijiory dejiroyed by it ; and vothivg left in its room but 
 a fncnjirous ji'jn'jle of times and per/ons, brought together, that 
 Kvere in reality fcparated from each other by the dijiance of a thou- 
 fund or tivelve hundred years F for fo many at leaft there were 
 between the age of Hercules and the young Men of the time 
 of Prodicus. Or does this Cornilh Critic imagine, that the 
 Sages of Greece took the Allegory, for Hiftory : or believed 
 any more of a real rencontre between Virtue, Pleafure, and 
 young Hercules, than Maimonides did of that folemn meet- 
 ing of the Devil and the Sons of God be.^ore the throne of the 
 Almighty ? 
 
 Bat that curious remark of defraying the truth of Hijiory de- 
 ferves a little further canvaffing. 1 fuppofe, when Jefus tranf- 
 ferred the llory of the Prodigal and his fober Brother to the 
 Gentiles and the Jews, and when St. John transferred Babylon 
 to Rome, in allegory, that they deJiro\ed the truth of Wjiory. 
 When ancient and modern drapiatic Writers take their fuSjedl 
 from Hiftory, and make ix^c with fafli to adapt their plot to 
 the nature of their poem, Do they di/hoy the truth of Hfory P 
 Yet in their cafe there is only one bariier to this imaginary 
 mifchief, namely the Drama: In the book of Joli, there are 
 two, both t!ie Drama and the Allegory. But aitcr all, fome hurt 
 it may do, amongft Readers of the iize of thii Anfwerer, when 
 they miftake the book of Job for a piece of Biogr phy, like the 
 men Ben John/on laughs at, who, for greater exadncfs, chofe to 
 read the Hiilory of England in Shakefpear's Tragedies. 
 
 afflidions. 
 
Sed. 2. c/* M o s E s dentonftrated, 65 
 
 afflidions, that his cafe became proverbial '\ we can 
 never, on the common principles, account for his 
 behaviour, when we find him breaking out ever 
 and anon into fuch excelTes of impatience as border 
 nearly upon blafphemy ^. The judicious Calmet 
 
 cannot 
 
 i Ye have heard of the Patience of Job, Jam. v. 1 1. 
 
 ^ But the Corni(h Critic, who has no conception that eveft 
 a patient man may, on fome occalions, break out into impa- 
 tient heats, infills on the impropriety of Job's reprefenting the 
 Ifraelites of Ezra's time. " To reprefent the murmuring and 
 " impatient Jews, (fays he) it feems Ezra takes a perfon who 
 *' was exemplary for the contrary quality — and then to adapt 
 ♦' him to his purpofe, makes him break out into fuch exceffes 
 " of impadence as border on blafphemy." p. 50. I doubt there 
 is a fraall matter amifs in this fine obfervation. The Author of 
 the Di'vine Legation did not write the book of Job ; there- 
 fore whatever difcordancy there be between the Tradition of 
 his patience and the written Hiftory of him in this book, it is 
 juft the fame, whether Job or whether Ezra wrote it. After 
 To illuftrious a fpecimen of his critical acumen, he may lie in 
 bed, and cry out with the old Athlet, 
 
 Casftum artemque repono. 
 
 However he meant well, and intended that this fuppofed ab- 
 furdity fhould fall upon the Author of the Divine Legation, and 
 not upon the Canon of Scripture. In the mean time the truth 
 is, there is no abftrdity at all, but what lies in his own cloudy 
 pericranium. Whether the traditionary Job reprefented the 
 Ifraelites or not, it is certain, he might with much decorum 
 reprefent them. And this the following words of the Divine 
 Legation might have taught our Critic, had he had but (o much, 
 candour, as to do juftice to a Stranger, whom he would needs 
 make his Enemy.*— " It is remarkable, that Job, from the be- 
 ** ginning of his misfortunes to the coming of his three com- 
 *' forters, though greatly provoked by his wife, finned not wAtb 
 *' his lips; but, peifecuted by the malice and bitternefs of his 
 " falfe friends, he began to lay \'o much ftrefs on his innocence 
 " as even to accufe God of injultice. This was the very ftate 
 " of the Jews ot this time ; fo exaftly has the facred Writer 
 " conducted his allegory ; They bore their ibaits and difficulties 
 " with temper till their enemies Sanballat, Tobiah, and the 
 Vol. V. F " Arabians 
 
66 ile Divine Legatlo7i Book VI. 
 
 cannot forbear obferving on this occafion. " En 
 " effet Job avoit marque dans fes plaintes une 
 " vivacite que pouvoit etre interprctee en mauvaife 
 " part. II s'etoit plaint de la riguer de Dieu ; il avoit 
 " deplore fon malheur d'une maniere qui avoit 
 " befoin d'une interpretation benigne ^" And to 
 the fame purpofe Albert Schultens, " In eo exceflu 
 '' ut ne nunc quidem Jobum culpa liberare poffu- 
 "r mus, ita facile intelligitur, multo magis talibus 
 "■ didis offendi tunc debuilTe Elihuum, ignarum 
 " ha6lenus, quid Deus de Jobo ejufque caufa 
 " pronunciaturus elTet'"." Thus fofdy do thefe 
 Commentators fpeak, in their embarras to reconcile 
 this reprefentation of Job to his traditional Charac- 
 ter for patience. The JVriting then and the I'ra- 
 
 " Arabians gave them fo much dlflurbance; and then they 
 •' fell into indecent murmurs againfl: God." But leaft our 
 Anfwerer fhould again miftake this, for a defence of the Author 
 of the D. L. and not of Ezra, let him try, if he can reconcile 
 the traditional patience of Job with the feveral ftrokes of im- 
 patience in the written book, upon any other principle than 
 this. That the moll patient man alive may be provoked into 
 Harts of impatience, by a miferable Cavller, who, being let 
 upon Anfivering what he does not underftand, reprefents falfely, 
 interprets pcrverfely, and, when he is unable to make the DoSrine 
 odious, erideavours to make the Perfm fo, who holds it fn 
 conclufion however, thus much is fit to be obrcrved, that if the 
 fo!c or main intention of the Writer of the book of Job (be he 
 whom he will) were to exhibit an example of Patience, he 
 has executed his defign very ill ; certainly, in fo perverfe a man- 
 ner that, from this book, the fame of Job's exemplary Patience 
 could never have arifen. Hence I conclude in favour of an 
 Hypothefis which folves this difficulty, by difiHignifning between 
 Job's traditional and written ftory. But now comes a Cornifti 
 Critic, and makes this very circtanfiance, which I urged for the 
 fupport of my Hypothefif, an objedion to it. Ycx. he had 
 grounds for his obfervation, fuch as they were ; He dreamt, for 
 he could not be awake, that 1 had invtnttd the circumJJance, 
 whereas I only found it. 
 
 ' £ur cbap. xxxiij. ver. lo. "" On tlie fame place. 
 
 diiioit 
 
Se£l. 2. ^ Mos E s demonJl)'ated. ^J 
 
 dition being fo glaringly inconnflent, we muft needs 
 conclude, i. That the fame of fa great Patience 
 arofe not from this book. And 2dly, That fome 
 other Charafter, fhadowed under that of Job, was 
 the real caufe of the Author's deviation from the 
 seneral Tradition. 
 
 o 
 
 And this chara6ter, I fay, was no other than 
 the JEWISH PEOPLE. The fingularity of whofe 
 ■fituation as d.fele5fed Nation is graphically defcribed 
 in the beginning of the book, where Satan is 
 brought in fpeaking of the diftinguiilied honour 
 done to Job by his Maker. Hafi ihou not made a 
 HEDGE about him^ and about his houfe, and about all 
 that he hath, on every Jide''. The great point which 
 Job fo much infifts upon throughout the whole 
 book is his innocence: and yet, to our furprife, 
 we hear him, in one place, thus expoCculating with 
 God : 'Thou writeji bitter things agai'nfi me^ and ma- 
 keft me to pojfefs the iniquities of my youth **. 
 This can be accounted for no otherwife than by 
 underftanding it of the people : whofe repeated 
 iniquities on their firft coming out of Egypt, were 
 in every Age remembered, andpuniihed on their 
 Pofterity. Again, the twenty ninth chapter is an 
 exad and circumftantial dcfcription of the profpe- 
 rous times of the Jewifh People; feveral parts of 
 which can be applied with no tolerable propriety 
 to the condition of a private man: — " O that I 
 *' were as in the days when God preferved me, 
 " when his candle fnined upon my head, and when, 
 " by his LIGHT, I walked through darknefs: As 
 " I was in the days of my youth, when the secret 
 " OF God was upon my tabernacle : — When I 
 " wafhed my fteps with butter, and the rock 
 
 ^ Chap. i. ver. lo. " Chap. xiii. ver. 26. 
 
 F 2 " poured 
 
68 ^he Divme Legation Book VI. 
 
 " poured me out rivers of oil. — I put on righte- 
 " oufnefs and it clothed me: my judgment was 
 " as a robe and a diadem. — I brake the jaws of the 
 " v/icKED, and pluckt the fpoil out of his teeth. 
 " — 1 CHOSE OUT THEIR WAY, and fat chief, and 
 '' dwelt as a KING in the army p." In thefe words 
 the writer evidently alludes to the. pillar of fire in the 
 Wildernefs ; — The Schekinah in the tabernacle •, — 
 The land flozving with milk and honey, — The ad- 
 miniftration of the judges -, — The curbing the rava- 
 ges of the Philijiians ; — Ancl the glory of their firfl 
 Monarchs. Well therefore might the Writer, in 
 his introdu6lion to this fpeech, call it a parable. 
 
 This will lead us next to confider the Age^ as 
 well as People meant. Job, fpeaking of his mif- 
 fortunes, fays : For the thing which I greatly feared 
 is come upon me, and that -which I was afraid of is . 
 come unto me. I was not in fafety, neither had I refi^ 
 neither was I quiet, yet trouble came '^. But in other 
 places he fpeaks very differently. He wifhes he 
 were as in ^months pajl, for then (fays he) I Jhall 
 die in my neji, and 1 fhall multiply my days as the 
 fund '. And again, IFhen I looked for good, then 
 evil came upon me : and when I waited for light, there 
 came dnrknefs \ Thefe things are very difcordant, 
 if underllood of one and the fame perfon ; and 
 can never be reconciled but on the fuppofition of 
 an allegorical reference to another Chara6ler -, and, 
 on that, all will be let right. For this difquiet, 
 and fear of approaching trouble, was the very 
 condition of the Jews on their firft return from 
 the Captivity. Thus Ezra expreffeth it: And they 
 fel up the altar upon his hafes {for fear was upon 
 
 P Ver. 2, Is' fej. ^ Chap. iii. ver. 25, 26. ' Chap, 
 
 xxix. ver. 1 8. ' Chap. xxx. ver. 26. 
 
 them^ 
 
Sed. 2. of Moses demonftrated. 69 
 
 theniy becaufe of the people of thofe countries) and 
 they offered burnt-offerings thereon unto the Lord *. 
 And thus Zechariah, who prophefied at this 
 time : For before thefe days there was no hire for 
 man, nor any hire for beaji, neither was there any 
 peace to him that went out or came in, becaufe of the 
 affliction ; for I fet all men every one againjl his 
 neighbour ". Job, amongft his other diftreffes, 
 
 complains to God •, '■ — "Thou fcarejl me with 
 
 dreams, and terrifieji me with vifions"^ : this, I fup- 
 pofe, refers to the comminations of Haggai, Ze- 
 chariah, and Malachi, who all prophefied at this 
 time, and were very troublefome on that account 
 to the impatient Jews, to whofe circumftances 
 only, and fpirit of complaint, thefe obfcure words 
 of Job, expoftulating with God, can agree •, — 
 and why dojt thou not pardon my tranfgrefficn, and 
 take away mine iniquity ? For now 1 fhall Jleep 
 in the dufi, and thou fhalt feek me in the mornings 
 hut I foall not be ^. There is not a more difficult 
 paffage in the whole book of Job ; and yet on the 
 principles, here laid down, it admits and conveys 
 this natural and eafy meaning, " In thus punifh- 
 ing, thou will defeat thy own defign. It is thy 
 purpole to continue us a peculiar People j yet 
 fuch traverfes as we have met with, on our return, 
 will foon deftroy thofe already come into Judea, 
 and deter the reft from hazarding the fame for- 
 tune." Job goes on in the fame drain : Is it good 
 unto thee that thou fhouldefi opprefs ? that thou fhould- 
 ejl defpife the work of thine hands ? and fhine upon 
 the counfel of the wicked ^ ? The Jews of this time 
 made this very complaint. / have loved you, faith 
 
 * Ezra, iii, 3. 
 
 " ZiiCH. viii. 10. 
 
 « Chap. 
 
 Tii. ver. 14. 
 
 y Chap. vii. ver. z\. 
 
 * Chap. X 
 
 ver. 3. 
 
 
 
 F 3 thr 
 
^o The Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 the Lord^ yet ye fay, Wherein haft thou loved us ' ? 
 And again. And now we call the proud happy; yea 
 they t i at work zvickednefs are jet up ; yea they that 
 tempt God are even delivered ". — But Job goes on, 
 — O that thou wculdeft hide me in the grave, that 
 thou woiddeft keep me fecret, until thy wrath be paft \ 
 that thou zvouldeft appoint me afet time, and remember 
 me ^ By which words, the complaints of the Jews 
 of that time are again referred to^ which were, 
 as appears from the words of Job, to this effect : 
 *' \Vould to God we had ftill continued in Capti- 
 vity [the Grave, which was the very figure ufed 
 by the Prophets for the Captivity] expecting a 
 more favourable feafon for ourReftoration , or that 
 we might be permitted to return unto it, 'till the 
 remains of punifhment for our forefathers' fins are 
 overpaft, and all things fitly prepared for our re-^ 
 ception." And in thcfe cowardly andimpatient fen- 
 time nts were they, on their Return, as were their 
 Anceftors, on their firft coming out of the land of 
 Egypt; to which, this Return is frequently com- 
 pared by the Prophets. — Job goes on exprefling 
 his condition in this manner : His troops come to- 
 gether, and raife up their way againft me, and encamp 
 round about my tabernacle. He hath put my bre- 
 thren far frcni me, and mine acquaintance are verily 
 ejlranged from me. My kinsfolk have failed, a?id 
 my familiar friends have forgotten me^. The firll 
 part of this complaint evidently relates to the 
 Arabians, the Ammonites, and the Ajlododitcs', who 
 (^3 Nehemiah tells us) hearing that the walls of J eru- 
 falem were made up, and that the breaches began 
 to be ftopped, were very wroth, and confpired all of 
 them together to come and fight againft Jerufalcm and 
 
 ' Malac. i. 2. *' Malac. iii. 15. <= Chap. xiv. 
 
 ver. 13. ^ Chap. xix. vcr. \z, 13, 14. 
 
 to 
 
Sed. 2. of Mos-E^ demonjiraied. -ji 
 
 to hinder it '. The fecond part relates to their rich 
 Brethren remaining in Babylon, who feemed, by 
 Nehemiah's account, to have much negledted the 
 diftrefied Remnant that efcaped from the Captivity 
 to Jerufalem. ^ben Hanmii (fays he) one of my Ire- 
 thren came, he and certain men of Judaby and I ajked 
 them concerning the Jews that had efcaped, which 
 were left of the Captivity, and concerning Jerufalem. 
 And they faid unto me, ^he Remnant that are left of 
 the Captivity there in the Province are in great afflic- 
 tion and reproach : the wall of Jerufalem is alfo bro- 
 ken down, and the gates thereof are burnt with fire K 
 — Job goes on, that I knew where I might find him 
 [God] that I might come even to his feat. Behold I go 
 forward, but he is not there, and backward but I can- 
 not perceive him: on the left ba7id where he doth work^ 
 but I cannot behold hi?n : he hideth himfelf on the 
 right hand that I cannot fee him^. Could any thing 
 more pathetically exprefs the lamentations of a 
 People who faw the extraordinary Providence, un- 
 der which they had fo long lived, departing from 
 them ? — From God, Job turns to Man, and fays, 
 " But now they that are younger than I have me 
 " in derifion, whofe fathers I would have difdain- 
 " ed to have fet with the dogs of my flock. Yea, 
 " whereto might the ftrength of their hands pro- 
 *' fit me, in whom old age was periilied? For want 
 " and famine they v/ere folitary : fleeing into the 
 '' Wildernefs in former time defolate and wafte : 
 *' who cut up mallows by the bufhes, and juni- 
 " per- roots for their meat. They were driven 
 " forth from among men (they cried after them 
 " as after a thief) to dwell in the clifts of the val- 
 *' leys, in the caves of the earth, and in the rocks. 
 
 « Nehem. iv. 7, 8. ^ Nehem. i. 2, ?. B Cliap" 
 
 ixxiii. ver. 3) 8, 9. 
 
 F 4 *' Amongft 
 
*^2 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 " Amongft the buflies they brayed, under the 
 *' nettles they were gathered together. They were 
 " Children of fools^ yea Children of bafe men : 
 '' they were viler than the earth ''." This is a de- 
 fcription, and a very exa6t one, of the Cutheans or 
 Samaritans ; of their behaviour to the Jews ; and 
 the fentiments of the Jews concerning them. 
 Thefe had him in derijjon^ he fays, and fo Nehemiah 
 informs us : " But it came to pafs, that when 
 " Sanballat heard that we builded the wall, he was 
 *' wroth, and took great indignation, and mocked 
 *' the Jews. And he fpake before his brethren and 
 " the army of Samaria, and faid : What do thefe 
 *' feeble Jews ? will they fortify themfelves ? will 
 *' they facrifice ? will they make an end in a day? 
 " will they revive the (tones out of the heaps of the 
 ** rubbilh, which are burnt ? Now Tobiah the 
 '* Ammonite was by him, and he faid, even that 
 " which they build, if a fox go up, he fhall even 
 " break down their ftone wall. Hear, O our 
 *' God, for we are defpifed^ and turn their reproach 
 *' upon their own head^" And God, by the 
 Prophet Malachi, tells the Jews the reafon why he 
 fufFered them to be thus humbled : Therefore have 
 I alfo made you contemptible and bafe before all the peo- 
 ple, according as ye have not kept iny ways^ but have 
 been partial in the haw^. — Job fays he would have 
 difdainedto have fet thefe with the dogs of his floe k^ 
 that they were younger than him^ that they were children 
 of fools, yea of bafe men, viler that the earth. It is 
 well known in what fovereign contempt the Jews 
 held the Cutheans or Samaritans above all People. 
 The character here given of the bafenefs of their 
 Extraftion, without doubt, was very juft. For 
 
 * Chap. XXX, ver. i,i^/cg, * Neh. iv. i, ^ feg; 
 
 ~^ Mal. ii. g, 
 
 when 
 
Sed. 2. ^ Mo s E s demonjlrated, 73. 
 
 when a Conqueror, as here the king of Aflyria, 
 would repeople, with his own fubjeds, a ftrange 
 country entirely ravaged and burnt up by an ex- 
 terminating war, none but the very fcum of a Peo- 
 ple would be fent upon fuch an errand. And by 
 the account Ezra gives us of this Colony, as ga- 
 thered out of many diftant parts of the Affyrian 
 Emp!^re, we may fairly conclude them to be the ofr- 
 fcou rings of the Eaft. " Then wrote Rehum the 
 '* chancellor, and Shimlhai the fcribe, and the reft 
 *' of their companions, the Dinaites^ the Aphar- 
 *' fathchites^ the Tarpelites, the Apharfites, the 
 *' Jlrcheviies, the Babylonians^ the Sufanchites^ 
 " the Debavites, and the Elamites, and the reft 
 *' of the Nations whom the great and noble Af- 
 " napper brought over and fet in the cities of 
 *' Samaria V — Job defcribes them as being at 
 firft reduced to the utmoft diftreffes for food and 
 harbour, in a defolate and wajle wildernefs^ living 
 Upon roots, and dwelling in caves and clifts of the 
 rock : and alluredly fuch muft have been the firft 
 entertainment of this wretched Colony, tranfplant- 
 ed into a Country entirely v/afted apd deftroyed 
 by a three years inceffant ravage ". Nay, before 
 they could come up to take poffeffion of their de^ 
 folate places, the wild beafts of the field were got 
 before them, and a fcourge of Lions prepared to 
 receive them for their idolatrous pollutions of the 
 holy Land ". 
 
 Job has now ended his Parahle ; and God is 
 brought in to judge the Difputants; whofe fpeech 
 opens in this manner: Then the Lord anfwered Job 
 cut cf the whirlwind and faidy Who is this that 
 
 ' Ezra iv. 9, 10. ^^ 2 KiiNGs xvii. 5, " 2 Kings 
 
 jtvii. 25. 
 
 darkeneth 
 
74 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 dcrkeneth comtfel hy words ivithout knotvledge" ? 
 The charader which God here gives of Job is that 
 which the Prophets give of the People of this time. 
 Te have wearied the Lord with your words % fays 
 Malachi. And again : Tour words have been flout 
 cgainji me, faith the Lord'^. — But on Job's re- 
 ^peated fiibmiiTion and humiliation, God at leno-th 
 declares his acceptance of him. And thus he re- 
 ceived the People into grace, as we learn by the 
 Prophet Zechariah -.—Thus faith the Lord, I am 
 returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midfi cf Je- 
 rufaUm\ It is added, Alfo the Lord gave Job 
 TWICE as much as he had before ' : and in the fame 
 manner God fpeaks to the People by the Prophet : 
 Turn ye to the ftrong-hold, ye -pr if oners of hope, even 
 to day do I declare that I will render double unto 
 thee \ — Job's brethren now came to comfort him, 
 and every man gave hi?n a piece of money, and every 
 one an ear-ring of goW. This, without queftion, 
 alludes to the prefents which Ezra tells us the Jews 
 of Babylon made to their brethren in Judea : And 
 {ill they that were about them flrengthened their hands 
 with veffels of fdver, with gold, with goods, and 
 with beafts, and zvith precious things, beftdes all that 
 was willingly offered ". — The hiftory adds, .S";? 
 the Lord hleffed the latter end of Job more than the 
 beginning ^ : and thus the future piofperity of tlie 
 People was predifted by the Prophets of this 
 time : The glory of this latter hcufe fhall be greater 
 than the former, faith the Lord of IJojls : And in 
 this place will I give peace, faith the Lord of Hofls''-. 
 For I, faith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of 
 
 o Chap, xxxviii. ver. i, 2. p Mal. ii. 17. ^ Mal. 
 
 iii. 15. *■ ZtCH-viii, 3. ^ Chap, xlii vcr. lo. 
 
 ' Zecu. ix". 12. " Chap, xli'i. ver. 11. ^ Ezra i. 6. 
 
 y Chap. xlii. ver. 12. ^ IIacgai ii, 9. 
 
 fre 
 
Se£t. 2. of Moses demonftraf^. 7^ 
 
 fire round ahout^ and will he the glory in the midfi 
 of i?^r'.— The Book concludes with thefe words : 
 After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and 
 faw his fons, and his fons fans, even four generations. 
 So Job died being old and full of days " : this too v/as 
 the fpecific blelTing promiled by God to the Peo- 
 ple, in the Prophet Zechariah; '^hus faith the Lord 
 of Hojis, There Jhall yet old men and old women dwell 
 in the Jlreets of Jerufalera, and every man with his 
 fiaff in his hand for very age. And the Jlreets cf the 
 city Jhall be full of boys and girls playing in the Jlreets 
 thereof. 
 
 II. The next Perfon in the drama is Job's w^fe. 
 Let us take her, as flie is prefented to us, on the 
 common footing. She a6ls a (hort part indeed, 
 but a very Ipirited one. Thenfaid his wife unto him : 
 Doji thou Jiill retain thine integrity ? Curje God and 
 die '*. Tender and pious ! He might fee, by this 
 prelude of his Spoufe, what he was to expe6l from 
 his Friends. The Devil indeed affaulted Job, but 
 he feems to have got poffeflion of his Wife. Hap- 
 pinefs was fo little to be expeded with fuch a ¥/o- 
 man, that one almoft wonders, that the facred 
 Writer, when he aims to give us the higheit idea 
 of Job's fucceeding felicity, did not tell us, in ex- 
 press words, that he lived to bury his Wife. In 
 thefe modern ages of luxury and polifhed manners, 
 a Chara6ler like this is fo little of a prodigy, that 
 both the learned and unlearned are accuftomed to 
 read it without much refiedlion : But fuch a Wo- 
 man in the age of Job had been thought to need 
 a Luflration. In the hiftory of the Patriarchs we 
 have a large account of their Wives i but thefe are 
 
 '' Zech. ii. 5. •* Chap. xlii. ver. i6, 17, 
 
 P ZtcH. viii. 4, 5. ^ Chap, ii, ver. 9. 
 
 ail 
 
y6 The Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 all examples of piety, tendernefs, and obedience ; 
 the natural growth of old fimplicity of manners. 
 Something lower down, indeed, we find a. Delilah-, 
 but fhe was of the uncircumcifed, a pure pagan ; 
 as, on examination, I believe, tiiis Wife of Job 
 will prove : another very extraordinary circum- 
 ftance in her Charafter. For the Patriarchs either 
 took care to marry Believers, or, if haply idola- 
 ters, to inftrufl them in the true Religion ; as we 
 may fee by the hiilory of Jacob. — Then faid his 
 wife unto him, T)ofi thou Jlill retain thine integrity? 
 Thummah, perfe£iioy that is, Religion. This was 
 altogether in the Pagan mode ; Idolaters, as we 
 find in ancient flory generally growing atheiftical 
 under calamities ^ — Curfe God, barech, henedic' 
 
 maledic : 
 
 • The different fituations in which this Folly operated in ««- 
 tient and modern times, is very obfervable. In the fimplicity of 
 the early ages, while men were at their eafe, that general opi- 
 nion, fo congenial to the human mind, of a God and his moral 
 goiKynment, was too ftrong ever to be brought in quellion. It 
 was when they found themfelves miferable and in di'hefs, that 
 they began to complain ; to quellion the jiiltice, or to deny the 
 exiltence of a Deity : On the contrary, amongft us, difafterous 
 times are the feafon of refleftion, repentance, and reliance on 
 Providence. It is affluence and abundance v/hich now give 
 birth to a wanton fufficiency, never thoroughly gratified till it 
 have thrown off all the reltraiius of Religion. 
 
 I imagine it may not be difficult to account for fo ftrange a 
 contrariety in the manners of iVIcn. 
 
 In the ancient World, the belief of a mornl Providence was 
 amongft their rnofl ir.conteftcd principles. But concerning the 
 nature and extent of this Providence they had indeed very in- 
 adequate conceptions ; being milled by tl.e e>.iraoydinaiy man- 
 ner in which the full exertions of it v/cre manifclled, to ex- 
 peft more inflant and immediate proted\ion than the nature 
 of the Dif^ienfatton afforded. So that thefe men being, in 
 their own opinion, the moft worthy objed of Providence's 
 concern, whenever they became prclfcd bv civil or domedic 
 
 diilrclTe.-» 
 
Sedl. 2. o/' Moses demonjlrated, yy 
 
 maledic: here rightly *^ tranflated curfe. So the Syr, 
 and ^r«^. verfions, Conviciare Deotuo. This was an- 
 other pagan pradtice when they had implored or 
 bribed the Gods to no pnrpofe. Thucydides affords 
 us a terrible inftance : When the Athenians in the 
 height of their profperity went upon the Syracufiaii 
 Expedition, the Fleet fet fail amidft the prayers 
 and hymns of the Adventurers : but on its unhappy 
 ifllie, thefe very men, on the point of their fatal 
 difperfion, profecuted the fame Gods with the 
 direft curfes and imprecations^. — Curfe Gcd and 
 
 diftrefTes, fuppofed all to be loft, and the world without a 
 Governor. 
 
 But in thefe modern ages of vice and refinement, when every 
 bleffing is cbufed, and, amongil the firft, that greatefl of all, 
 LJEERTY, each improvement of the mind, as well as each, 
 accommodation of the body, is perverted into a fpecies of luxury ; 
 exercifed and employed for amisfement, to gratify the Fancy or 
 the Appetites, as each, in their turn, happens to influence the 
 Will. Hence even the first philosophy, the fcience of 
 Nature itfelf, bows to this general abufe. It is made to aft 
 againft its own ordinances, and to fupport thofe impieties it 
 was authorifed to fapprefs. — But now, when calamity, dif- 
 trefs, and all the evils of thofe abufed bleffings have, by 
 their fevere but wholefome difcipline, reftored recolleftion and 
 vigour to the relaxed and diffipated mind, the didates of 
 Nature are again attended to : the impious principles of falfe 
 Science, and the falfe conclufions of the true, are fhaken off 
 as a hideous dream; and the abufed Vidim of his vanity and 
 his pleafure flies for refuge to that only Afylum of Humanity, 
 
 RELIGION. 
 
 ^ Thus both Saoo and Sacer have, in Latin, contrary figni- 
 fications. The reafon is evident. Some things were corfecrated 
 and fome Je'voted to the Gods : thofe were holy ; thefe exe- 
 crable. So God being invoked fometimes to ble/s, and fome- 
 times to cur/e, the invocation was expreffed by one word, which 
 had contrary fenles. And this agreeable to the genius of lan- 
 guage in general, 
 
 To*i lyuvimi; l7r*pJi/K.icrf<.«,j-»» apo^-j^ao-Oai. Lib, vii. § 75. £d. Hud. 
 
 Pl£; 
 
^8 ^he Dhine Legation Book VL 
 
 DIE ; that is, offer violence to yourfelf. Another 
 impiety of Paganifm ; which, under irretrievable 
 misfortunes, deemed fuicide not only juft but 
 laudable. A crime much abhorred by the He- 
 brews, as forbidden by their Law •, till, in after- 
 times, they became corrupted by Gentile manners. 
 All this fhews the Woman to have been a rank ido- 
 later. But Job's reply feems to put this fufpicion out 
 of doubt: Thou fpeakejl as one of the foolish 'wo- 
 'm^n fpeaketh. What? Shall we receive good at the 
 , band of Gody andfhallwe not receive evil '^? yf fool- 
 ish WOMAN is a hebrew phrafe to fignify ?i foreign 
 'woman^ an Idolater, an Adult erefs^ for thefe quali- 
 fications were always joined together in their ideas. 
 On this account tlie Chald. Paraph, explains it, 
 Siciit una de mulierihtis quce operantur ignominiam in 
 domopatris fui. So David, fpeaking of the con- 
 dition of the Pagan world, fays : The fool hath faid 
 in his heart \ i. e. the Pagan; and in the charac- 
 ter Job gives of the Ciitheans, quoted above, he 
 calls them Children of fools'"; that is, of Gentile 
 cxtradtion, as indeed they were. Now can we fup- 
 pofe that Job would marry an Infidel, in a country 
 which abounded with true believers ? Job, who 
 thought idolatry a crime to be punifJjed by the Judge? 
 Thefe are difficulties not to be gotten over on the 
 received idea of this book ; and appeared ib great 
 to Cocceius and Schultens, the two mofl: elaborate 
 of Job's Commentators, that they are for glofling 
 the kind Woman's words into an innocent or excu- 
 fable fenfe ; tho* her Hufband's reply fo unavoid- 
 ably confines them to a bad one : Thou Jpeakeji 
 (fays he) as one of the fooliflj ijoomenfpeaketh. IVhat? 
 Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and fh all we 
 
 ^ Chap. ii. ver. lo. • Psal. xiv. i, — liii. i. 
 
 *•' Chap. XXX. ver. 8. 
 
 not 
 
Se<5t. 2. of Moses demonjlrated, y^ 
 
 7wt receive evil ? Befides, they did not confider that 
 Satan had, as it were, engaged that Job fhould 
 cut'fe God to his face ' j which impiety he was here 
 endeavouring to bring about by his agent, the Wo- 
 man. But now, on our interpretation, it will be 
 found that this characler was introduced with ex- 
 quifite ai't and contrivance. We have obferved 
 that this Remnant of the Captivity returned into 
 their own Country with hearts full of zeal for the 
 Law. Yet, with this general good difpofition, 
 there was one folly they were ftill infefted with^ 
 and that was the t^kmg fir ange wives of the ido- 
 latrous nations round about-, which, amongft other 
 had this terrible inconvenience, that the children 
 who in their more tender years are principally un- 
 der the care of the mother, would be early tainted 
 with Pagan principles : a mifchief fo general that 
 Hofea calls the children of fuch m2ivnzg&s, ftrange 
 children"", i. e. idolatrous. This foon became a 
 crying enormity. Their Prophets awaked them 
 with the thunder of divine menaces ; and their 
 Rulers improved their penitence to a thorouo-h re- 
 formation. Jtidah (faith the Prophet Mdachi) 
 hath dealt treacherotijly, and an abomination is com- 
 mitted in Jfrael and in Jerufalem : For Judah hath 
 profaned the holinefs of the Lord which he lovedy 
 and hath married the daughter of a firange God. Thg 
 Lord will cut off the man that doth this " . Nehemiah 
 informs us of his zeal againft this offence: In 
 thofe days alfo faw I Jews that had married wives 
 of AfJidod, of Ammon, and of Moab : And I con- 
 tended with the?n, and curfed them, and fmote certain 
 of them, and pluckt off their hair, and made them 
 J wear by God, faying, Te JhaU.no t give your daughters 
 
 _ ^ Chap. ii. ver. 5. » d^ap, v. ver. 7. « Mat 
 
 n. II, 12. 
 
 7 nnt» 
 
lo ^he Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 unto their fons^ nor take their daughters unto your fons, 
 cr for yourfelves". But Ezra gives us a very cir- 
 cumftantial account of the Crime and of the Re- 
 formation : Now when thefe things were done^ the 
 Princes came to me^ faying^ ^he People of Ifrael, and 
 the Priejts, and the Levites have notfeparated them,' 
 felves from the people of the lands, doing according to 
 their abominations : for they have taken of their 
 daughters for themf elves and for their fans ; fo that the 
 holy feed have mingled themf elves with the people of 
 thofe lands : Tea, the hand of the Princes and Rulers 
 hath been chief in this trefpafs^. Shechaniah then 
 encourages Ezra to reform this abufe **. Ezra 
 alTembles the people ' : they promife amendment ; 
 and propofe a method of Inquiry : Let now our 
 Rulers of all the congregation Jiand, and let all them 
 which have taken firange wives in our cities, come at 
 appointed times, and with them the Elders of every ^ city, 
 and the Judges thereof. Ezra approved of this 
 method, And they fet down in the firfl day of the 
 tenth fnonth to examine the matter. And they made an 
 end with all the men that had taken firange wives by 
 the firfl day of the firfi month'. The ftate and con- 
 dition of a weak and thin Colony, 'tis probable, 
 encouraged them in this tranfgrelTion : yet, as it 
 was fo exprefsly againft the law, they were alto- 
 gether without excufe : And indeed, the prohibi- 
 tion was an admirable expedient againft idolatry ; 
 firange wives inevitably drawing the wifeft, as it 
 did Solomon himfelf, into foreign idolatries. On 
 this account the Prophet quoted above, finely calls 
 them the daughters o/^ strange God. Jeremiah 
 gives us a remarkable inftance of their influence 
 over their hufbands in his time : 'Then all the men 
 
 • Nehem. xiii. 23, 25. P Ezra ix. 1,2. -J Chap, x, 
 ver. 2. ' Ver. 7. » Ver. 14. ' Chap. x. ver. 16, 17. 
 
 which 
 
Set5l. 2. of Moses demo?iJirated. 8i 
 
 which - knew that their wives had burnt incenfe unto 
 other Gods, and all the women that flood by^ a great 
 multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of 
 Egypt, in Pathros, anfwered Jeremiah^ f^^yi'ng-, As 
 for the word that thou hajl fpoken unto us in the name 
 of the Lord^ we will not hearken unto thee"^. And 
 Nehemiah had good reafon to tell thefe Tranfgref- 
 fors, — Did not Solomon king of Ifrael fin by thefe 
 things '^ Tet among many nations was there no king 
 like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made 
 him King over all Ifrael: Neverthelefs even him did out- 
 landifh women caufe to fin ". For Ezra exprefsly af- 
 fures us, that thofe who had t2k.Qn Jirange women 
 were drawn into the abominations of the people of 
 the lands K 
 
 The facred Writer, therefore, who compofed 
 his work for the ufe of thefe People reprefented 
 under the perfon of Job, could not better cha- 
 rafterize their manners, nor give them a more 
 ufeful lelTon, than by making Job's wife, the au- 
 thor of fuch wicked counfel, a Heathen, It was 
 indeed the principal ftudy of their Rulers to deter 
 them from thefe marriages, and to recommend the 
 daughters of Ifrael-, of whom the Prophet Malachi 
 thus fpeaks : Becaufe the Lord hath been witnefs 
 between thee and the wife of thy youth, againfl whom 
 thou haft dealt treacheroufly : yet isfhe thy companion^ 
 And the wife of thy covenant ^ \ This will help us 
 
 to 
 
 • Jer. xliv. 15. * Nhh. xiii. 26. ^ Ezra ix. i. 
 « Mal. ii. 14. 
 
 * The Cornilh Critic fays — " Above all, and to Tupoort 
 " ihe allegory in its moll concerning circumftances, as t}v&''jews 
 " were obliged to put away their idolatrous wives, fo Jot> 
 •• ftiould have put away his, in the upfhot of the Fjble. This 
 ** would CERTAINLY have been done had fuch an a!lerj;ory b-'en . 
 " intended as Mr. VV. fuppofss." p. 66. Let thi» man alone 
 
 Vol. V. G f^r 
 
82 72'6' Divine Legation Book VI^ 
 
 to clear up a difficulty in the conclufion of the 
 book which very much perplexes the Commenta- 
 tors : (where, let it be obrerved, his misfortunes are 
 called his Captivity *; which figure, of the fpe- 
 cies for the genus, could hardly be of ufe in the 
 Jewifli language till after their repeated punifli- 
 ments by Captivities.) So the Lord Ikjfed the latter 
 end of Job — He hctd alfo feven fons and three daugh- 
 ters. And he called the name of the firfi Jemima, 
 and the Jiame of the fecond Kezia, and the name of the 
 third Keren-happuch. And in all the land were 
 no women found fo fair as the daughters of Job, and 
 their father gave them inheritance among their bre- 
 thren ''. Albert Schultens fays "^ : " Men are wont 
 " to afl< why the names of Job's fons are fup- 
 " prefTed, and the names of his daughters only 
 " mentioned. The Ancients have recourfe to my- 
 *' ttery in this cafe, and trifle ftrangely with the 
 
 for his didributive juftice. I thought, when, in the conclufion of 
 the book, we have a detailed account of Job's whole family, 
 his fons, his daughters, and his cattle, and that we hear no- 
 thing of his wife, (and, I ween, fhe would have been heard of 
 had llie been there) the Writer plainly enough infinuated that 
 Job had fome how or other got rid of this Affliftion, with the 
 reft. But nothing elfe will ferve our Righter of wrongs but a 
 formal bill of divorce — Indeed I fufped, a light expreffion 1 
 chanced to make ufe of, gave birth to this ingenious objeftion. 
 See above, p. 75. 
 
 ■ Chap. ^lii. ver. io. •• Chap, xliii. ver. 12, l£ feq. 
 
 ^ '* Cur fuppreflis filiorum nominibus, filiarum ilia appofita 
 *' fint, quaeri folet. Ad n.yperiutn confiigiunt veieres, mire 
 *' lodentes in etymis.y^w/*-*', Ketzitr, Sc Kenn-happuchee, five 
 *' Diana vel Diet, CaJ/i^, Sc Ccrnu Jltbii, ut vulgato hffiC COn- 
 ** venire vifum. fn his inveniunt totidem chara(!:teres Ecrlejift, 
 *' qua; cutn fplendore lucis conjungat odorem fragrantiflimum 
 *' virtutis, ut tota pulchra fponfo fuo fillatur, &c. &c. Alii 
 " fymbolicas has faciunt appellationes, quibus familia: foa; re- 
 " divivam lucem, fainam, gloiiam rcprasfcntatam volucrit 
 " fortunatiflinius pater.'' 
 
 " etynao- 
 
Sed:. 2. of Moses demonllrated. 83 
 
 * etymologies of Jemima^ Kczia^ and Keren-hap- 
 pucb : which are commonly fuppofed to fignify 
 Diana or the day, Caffia, and the horn of an- 
 timony. In thefe, they find juil fo many cha- 
 raders of the church $ which to the fplcndor of 
 truth, joins the odour of virtue, that Ihe may 
 {land a perfeft beauty in prefence of her fpoufe, 
 &c. &c. Others make them fymbolical appel- 
 lations, by which the happy father would re- 
 prefent the former fplendor, fame and glory of 
 his family returned again unto it." And Mr. 
 
 Le Clerc on the fame place '*-, — " if it is afked why 
 ' the names of the daughters are recorded and not 
 ' the fons : Of this, no reafon can be given, un- 
 ' lefs, perhaps, the daughters were more illuftri- 
 ' ous. Thefe names are urged as a certain proof 
 ' of its being a true hiftory ? But who can. fay 
 ' how far the oriental writers were wont to go^ 
 
 * in dreffing out their Parables. In a Gofpel-pa- 
 ' rable we find the name of Lazarus •, which does 
 ' not on that account hinder us from confidering 
 ' the ftory as of that clafs. However we think it 
 ' bell to leave the matter juft as we found it." 
 
 But now all this difficulty is removed, and the paf- 
 fage is feen in its full force and beauty. It was the 
 writer's defign to recommend the daughters of Ifrael 
 as the moll defirable Parties, [^And in all the land 
 were no women found fo fair as the daughters of Job"] 
 and to commemorate the reformation now made 
 
 ^ ^luarilur eur Jint fill arum nomina memorata, non filiorum ; 
 tu'pis ret ratio reddi non poteft, ni ft forte illufr lores f»e>int fif^ 
 H.r£C nomina prof'Tuntur, ut argutnentum Qertum, quo cnjiet banc 
 tieram ejji hifioriam. StJ q:tis dicat quo uf^ue Qrienfales pnrabolas 
 tmari folebant ? In parabola E'Jan^eHcu ejl quidint nomen Lazari^ 
 auod non ohjiat q^ia minus Parabola habestur, Verum rern in medio 
 
 Q % amongft; 
 
§4 ^ke Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 amongft the peopky when they put away their 
 llrangc wrceSy and took an oath to fhare the holy 
 'inheritance, for the future, only with the daugh- 
 ters of Ifrael.— Ami tbcir fdtbcr gave them inherit 
 tance anmigfi their brethren: v/ords that have been 
 as troublelbme to the Commentators as the reft •, 
 and have occafioned many a learned Diflertation 
 de Jure SucceJJionis apud liehraos^ Arahas^ Graces, 
 Latinos, i^ quamplurimas Gentes. 
 
 III. We come next to Job's three friends. — 
 Their folemn appointment to go and comfort Job ; 
 the neglect of their errand when they came thither-, 
 their inhumanity and ftrange humour of contra- 
 diction, have been already taken notice of, and ex- 
 plained, and reconciled to decorum, on the nature 
 and principles of a dramatic compofition. But this 
 is not all -, We find, on the iffue of their debate, 
 fo many marks of infult, falfhood, and malice, 
 that we muft needs conclude their Friendlhip to 
 have been all pretence •, that they were enemies in 
 their hearts -, and that the true purpofe of their 
 vifit was to imbitter and aggravate his miferies. 
 This requires other principles to explain it ; for, 
 in the hifiorical part they are reprefentcd as real 
 friends : and this makes fuch a difficulty as nothing 
 but our idea of the work can remove. Who then 
 will doubt but that, as the people were repre- 
 fentcd under Job, thefe three friends were their 
 three capital Enemies, who fo greatly hindered and 
 obftruded the rebuilding Jerufalem and the tem- 
 ple, Sanballat, loBiAH, and Geshem ? Of 
 whom Nehemiah gives us this account : Then I 
 tame to the governors beyond the river, and gave them 
 the king's letters. When Sanballat the Horonite, and 
 Tobiah the fervant the Ammonite, heard of it, it 
 
 grieved 
 
Sed. 2. o/' M o s E s demonjlrated. 85 
 
 grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man 
 to feek the 'welfare of the children of Ifrael", And 
 again : But it came to p^fe that zvhen Sanballar, 
 and Tobiah, and the Arabians, aiid the Ammonites^ 
 and the Afhdodites heard that the walls of Jerufalem 
 ivere made up, and that the breaches began to be flopped^ 
 then they were "very wroth, and confpired all of them 
 together, to come and to fight againfi Jerufalem and to 
 binder it ^ When force would not do, they af- 
 I'ayed fraud : Now it came to pafs, when Sanball at, 
 and Tobiah, and Geshem the Arabian, and the 
 reji of our enemies heard that I had builded the wall, 
 and that there was no breach left therein, then Sanbal- 
 lat and Gefliem fent unto me, faying, Co?.ie, let us 
 meet together in fame one of the villages in the plain of 
 Ono : but they thought to do me mifchief^. The 
 Writer of the book of 'Tobit feems to have had this 
 idea of the three friends, where he fays : Nam 
 ficut heato Job infultabant Reges, ita ifti parentes ^ 
 cognati ejus irridebant vitam ejus*". But we are to 
 obferve this is now only to be found in the Latin 
 tranQation, which St. Jerom tells us, he made 
 from the Chaldee. But, what is ftill of more mo- 
 ment, is a paragraph at the end of the Septuagint 
 tranQation of the book of Job, which makes of 
 thefe three friends, two Kings and a Tyrant. 
 
 The marks of refemblance between the allege^. 
 ricalsind real perfons, are many and ftrong. 
 
 Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are delivered as 
 the allies and friends of Job: So Sanbaliat the Ho- 
 ronite had given his daughter to one of the fons of 
 Joiada the fon of Eliafhik^ the high prieft ' : And 
 
 • Nehem. ii. 9, 10. ' Chap. iv. ver. 7, 8. « Chap. 
 
 vL ver. I, 2. ' ToB. ii. 14.. ^ Neh£M. xiii. 28. 
 
 G 3 1'obiah 
 
86 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Tohiah had made two alliances with the Jews : his 
 fon Johanan had married the daughter of Meiliul- 
 1am the fon of Berechiah ; and he himfelf had 
 taken to wife the daughter of Shcchaniah the fon 
 of Arah ^ 
 
 Eliphaz^ Bildad, and Zophar came in a friendly 
 manner with offers of fervice and affiftance : So 
 did ihcfe enemies of the Jews, as we are informed 
 both by Ezra and Nehemiah: " Now when the 
 •' ADVERSAi'iES of Judah and Benjamin heard 
 " that the children of the captivity builded the 
 " temple unto the Lord God of Ifrael : Then 
 " they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of 
 " the fathers, and faid unco them, Let us build 
 " WITH YOU. But Zerubbabel and Jefhua and 
 " the reft of the chief of the fathers of Ifrael, faid 
 " unto them. You have nothing to do with us 
 " to build a houfe unto our God, but weourfelves 
 " will build unto the Lord God of Ifrael, as king 
 '* Cyrus the king of Perfia hath commanded us'." 
 And Nehemiah's anfwer to Sanhalkt, Tohiah^ and 
 Gejhem^ fhews, they had made this requeft : — " then 
 " anfwered I them, and faid unto them. The 
 " God of heaven he will profper us ; therefore we 
 " his fervants will arife and build, hit you have no 
 *' 'portion^ nor rights nor memorial in Jerufalem "".'* 
 And of Tcbiah in particular, he fays : Moreover in 
 thefe days the nobles of Judah fent many lei ters unlo 
 Tobiah : and the letters of Tobiah came unto them. 
 Alfo they reported his good deeds before me., and uttered 
 fny words to him. And TobiaJi fent letters to put me 
 infear^^ 
 
 ^ NtH. vi. 18. ' Ezra iv. 1, 2, 3. ■" Neh. ii. 
 
 ?p. " Neh. vi. 17, 19. 
 
 The 
 
Se(5t. 2. ^J y{^%^% demonjlrated, Sj 
 
 The three Friends of Job were worihipers of the 
 true God ; and fo were thefe Adverfaries of the 
 Jews': For when, in the place quoted above, they 
 alked to build with the Jews, they give this realbn 
 of their requeft: For we seek your God as yi 
 do^ and we do facrifice unto him fince the days cf 
 Eferhaddon king of JJJitr, which brctight us up 
 hither \ 
 
 The three-Friends were perpetually deriding and 
 upbraiding him for his fms :* And of this Job fre- 
 quently complains in the courfe of thedirputationP. 
 So Nehemiah tells us, that when Sanballat the Ho- 
 ronite, ajid Tobiah the fervant^ the Ammonite, a-nd 
 Gefhem the Arabian heard that they were fet upon 
 building the zvalls of Jei'ufilem^ they laughed them to 
 fcorn, and defpifed them^ andfaid, tVhat is this thing 
 I hat ye do ? Will ye rebel againji the king '^ ? And 
 again : But it came topafs that when Sanballat heard 
 that we builded the wall, he was wrath, and took 
 great indignation, and mocked the Jews. Now To- 
 biah the Ammonite was by him, and he faid. Even 
 that which they build, if a fox go up, he flmll even 
 break down their ft one wall'. God, by the Prophet 
 Malachi, tells them, Judah hath profaned the holinefs 
 of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the 
 daughter of aftrange God\ And it is remarkable 
 that they with whom the Jews had committed this 
 cvirn^;, cLS Sanballat, Tcbiah, and the Cut heans, were 
 made the inftruments of their punifhment. — Eli- 
 phaz the Temanite charges and upbraids Job with 
 the moft flagitious crimes : Is not thy wickednefsgreaty 
 
 * Ezra iv. 2.' r Chap, iv. 27. Chap. xii. ver. 4. 
 
 Chap, xiii* ver. 4. Chap. xvi. ver. i, 20. Chap. xvii. ver. z. 
 
 Chap. xix. ver. 2. Chap. xxi. ver. 3. Chap, xxvi. ver. 4. 
 
 ^ Neh. ii. 19. ' Chap. iv. ver, i, 3, * Mal. ii. 11. 
 
 G 4 and 
 
88 I'he Divine Legation Book VI 
 
 end thine iniqtHlies infinite^? And thus the Cu- 
 theans rcprelented the Jews, to Artaxerxes : *' Be 
 ** it known unto the king, that the Jews, which 
 " came up from thee to us, are come unto Jeru- 
 " faiem, building the rebellious and the bad city, 
 ** and have fet up the walls thereof. —Therefore 
 *' have v/e certified the king that fearch may be 
 *' made in the book of the records of thy fathers, 
 " fo Ihalt thou find in the book of the records, 
 *' and know, that this city is a rebellious city, and 
 " hurtful unto kings and provinces •, and that 
 *' they have moved fedition within the fame of old 
 " time ; for which caufe was this city dellroyed "."— 
 If their Adverfaries could accufe them thus unjuft- 
 ly, we are not to think they would fpare them where 
 there was more ground for condemnation. When 
 Nehemiah came to the adminillration of afi'airs, 
 the Rich had opprefled the Poor by a rigorous ex- 
 a(5lion of their debts : And there was a great, cry of 
 the 'people and of their wives, againji their brethren 
 the Jews. For there were that f aid , IVe, our fonsy 
 and our daughters are many : therefore we take up corn 
 for them, that we may eat and live. Some alfo there 
 were that faid. We have mortgaged cur lands, vine- 
 yards, and houfes, that we may buy corn becaufe of the 
 dearth. There were alfo that f aid. We have borrowed 
 money for the king^s tribute, and that upon our lands and 
 vineyards. Tet now ourfiefh is as thefiefh of our bre- 
 thren, our children as their children : and lo we bring 
 into bondage our fons and our daughters to be fervants, 
 andfome of our daughters are brought into bondage al- 
 ready, neither is it in our power to redeem them ; for 
 other men have our lands and vineyards ". This abufe 
 Nehemiah reformed ; and in reproving the oppref- 
 
 * Chap. xxii. ver. 5, " Ezra iv, tj^ i^, 15. 
 
 » NeH. V, I, ^ ftq, 
 
 fors, 
 
Se6t. 2. 0/ Moses dcmonjirated. 89 
 
 fors, he faid : // is not good that ye do : Ought ye twt 
 to walk in the fear qf our Lord, hecaufe of the re- 
 proach OF THE HEATHEN CUR ENEMIES^' ? whicl^ 
 
 reproach was intended to be reprefented in thefe 
 words of Eliphaz : For thou hafl taken a -pledge 
 from thy brother for nought ^ andfiripped the naked of 
 their cloathing'^. 
 
 But the three Friends are at length condemned 
 by God himfelf: the Lord faid to Eliphaz the 7>- 
 manite : My wrath is kindled againjl ihee, and ngainfi 
 thy two friends : For he have not fpcken of me the 
 thing that is right, as my fervant Job hath^. And 
 in the fame manner he fpeaks, by the Prophet, 
 concerning thefe Adverfaries of the Jews : And I 
 cm 'very fore difpleafed with the Heathen that art 
 AT EASE : For I was hut a litti^e displeased, 
 and they helped forward the affliction ^ — 
 His fentence againft the three Friends goes on ia 
 thefe words : Therefore take now unto you f even hiU 
 kcks andfeven rams, and go to my fervant Job, and 
 offer up for your f elves a burnt-offerings ayid my fer-, 
 vant Jobjhall pray for you, for him will I accept: Lefi 
 J deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not 
 fpoken of me the thing which is right, like my fervant 
 Job ^ This, I fuppofe, is defigned to reprefent 
 the defeat of their Adverfaries, in the decree which 
 the Jews, by the good providence of God, pror 
 cured from. Darius, commanding the Cutheans 
 (who had hitherto fo much hindered) now to afljft 
 the Jews to the utmoft of their power in rebuilding 
 the Temple : " Then Darius the king made a de- 
 " cree — Now therefore Tatnai, Governor beyond 
 " the river Shetharboznai, and your companions 
 
 ^ Ver* 9. ^ Chap. xxii. ver. 6. *■ Chap, xlii, 
 
 ver. 7. '' Zecu. i. 15. ' Chap, xlii, ver. 8. 
 
 « the 
 
go 'The Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 " the Apharfachites, which are beyond the river, 
 " be ye far from thence : Let the work of this 
 '*• houfe of God alone, let the governor of the 
 " Jews, and the elders of the Jews build this 
 *' houfe of God in his place. Moreover I make 
 **• a decree, what ye fhall do to the elders of thele 
 " Jews, for the building of this houfe of God : 
 " that, of the king's goods, even of the tribute 
 " beyond the river, forthwith expences be givea 
 " unto thefe men, that they be not hindered. 
 " And that which they have need of, both young 
 " bullocks and rams, and lambs, for the burnt- 
 *'^ OFFERINGS of the God of heaven, wheat, fait, 
 •' wine, and oil, according to the appointment of 
 ** the priefts which are at Jerufalem, let it be given 
 *' them day by day without fail; that they may of-' 
 *' fer facrifices of fweet favours unto the God of 
 *' heaven, and pray for the life of the king 
 
 " AND OF HIS SONS ^" 
 
 The reafon why the three Friends are condemned 
 as not having fpcken of God the thing that was right 
 was, I. Becaufe ufing the argument of an equal 
 Providence only to condemn Job with the heart of 
 an enemy, they made the honour of God a ftale 
 to their mahgnant purpofes. To underftand this 
 more fully we muft confider that the great conteft 
 was concerning an equal Providence: What occa- 
 fioned it was their fufpicion of Job's fecret iniquity, 
 confequently thefe two points take their turns occa- 
 {ionally in the courfe of the difputation. Job, 
 after many ftruggles, at laft gave up the general 
 queftion -, but the particular one of his own righte- 
 oufnefs, he adheres to, throughout, and makes 
 it the fubjedt of all he fays from chap, xxvii. to chap. 
 
 * Ezra vi. i, 6, iff /'q. 
 
Sc<f^. 2. o/" M o s E s demonjlrated, 9 1 
 
 xxxi. This ended thedifpute: for, in the beginning 
 of the next chapter % the writer tells us, — So thefe 
 three men ceafed to anfiver Job^ becaiife he ivas righ- 
 teous in hii own eyes: that is, they gave Job this con- 
 temptuous reafon why they would argue no long- 
 er with him. By this we may fee, how finely the 
 dilpute was conduced, to anfwer, what I fuppofe 
 was, the end of writing the book. .Job, who re- 
 prefented the People, was to fpeak their fentiments 
 concerning their doubts of an equal Providence -, 
 but he was at laft to acquiefce, to teach them a 
 lefTon of obedience and fubmiflion. 
 
 2. The fecond reafon of the condemnation of 
 thefe faife Friends was, becaufe they had fupported 
 their condemnation ot Job by a pretended Reve- 
 lation. — Now a thing was fecretly brought to me 
 (fays Eliphaz) and mine ear received a little thereof. 
 Jn thoughts from the vijions of the nighty when 
 deep Jleep falleth on men, fear came upon me, and 
 trembling, which made all my bones to /ioake : then a 
 Spirit pajfed before my face, the hair of myflejh food 
 up : I food Jlill, but I could not difcern the form 
 thereof : an image was before mine eyes, there was 
 filence and I heard a voice faying, " Shall mortal 
 '* man be more juft than God," l£c ^ This was 
 the charader, and condu6l, of the enemies of 
 the Republic, as the Prophet Ezekiel informs us ; 
 whofe words are fo very appofite, that we may 
 well think they were the original to thofe above in 
 the fourth chapter of Job. '^hus faith the Lord 
 God, Wo unto the foolifo Prophets that follow their 
 own fpirit and have feen nothing — 'They have feen 
 vanity and lying divination, faying, The Lord faith ; 
 iind the Lord hath not fent them. — Have ye not 
 
 » Chap, xxjcii. ^ Ch^p. iv. ver, 1 2, i^ /eq. 
 
 feen 
 
gi The Drohie Legation Book V] 
 
 feen a vain vifion^ und have ye not fpoken a lying 
 divination^ whereas ye fay ^ The hord faith it^ albeit 
 I have not fpoken? Therefore thus faith the Lord 
 God, Becaufe ye have fpoken vanity and feen lyes^ 
 therefore behold I am againft you, faith the Lord 
 CodK 
 
 IV. The laft Perfon in the Oppofition is the 
 Devil himfelf, Satan, the Author and Contriver 
 of all the mifchief. And now we are come to that 
 part of the Allegory , where the fable and the moral 
 meet, and, as it were, concur to throw off the 
 Malk, and expofe the true face of the Subjed j this 
 affault upon Job being that very attack which the 
 Prophet Zechariah tells us, Satan made, at this 
 time, on the People. The only diflference is, 
 that, in this Poem, it is Job-, in that Prophecy, it 
 it is Jofhua the high priefi, who (lands for the Peo- 
 ple. In all the reft, the identity is fo ftrongly mark- 
 ed, that this fingle circumftance alone is fufficient 
 to confirm the truth of our whole interpretation. 
 There needs only fetting the two paffages together 
 to convince the moft Prejudiced : — The Hiftorian 
 fays, " Now there was a day when the fonsof God 
 *' came to prefent themfelves before the Lord, and 
 *' Satan came alfo among them. And the Lord 
 " faid unto Satan : "Whence comeft thou ? Then 
 *' Satan anfwered the Lord, and faid. From going 
 " to and fro in the earth, and from walking up 
 " and down in it. And the Lord laid unto Satan : 
 *' Haft thou confidered my fervant Job, that there 
 " is none like him in the earth, a perfed and an 
 *' upright man, one that feareth God and efcheweth 
 ** evil ? Then Satan anfwered the Lord and faid : 
 ^* Doth Job fear God for nought ? But put forth 
 
 « EzEK. xili. ver. 3, ^'fep 
 
 8 " thine 
 
Se(fl.2. ^ Moses demonfirated. 93 
 
 " thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and 
 " he will curfe thee to thy face. And the Lord 
 " faid unto Satan : Behold all that he hath is in 
 *' thy power, only upon himfelf put not forth 
 *' thine hand. So Satan went forth from the pre- 
 *' fence of the Lord ''." — The Prophet's account is 
 in thefe words : " Be filent, O all flefh, before the 
 " Lord : for he is raifed up out of his holy habita- 
 " tion. And he Ihewed me Joshua the high 
 »' prieft Handing before the angel of the Lord, 
 ♦' and Satan {landing at his right hand to refift 
 " him. And the Lord faid unto Satan : The 
 •* Lord rebuke thee, O Satan, even the Lord 
 " that hath chofen Jerufalem, rebuke thee: Is 
 " not this a brand pluckt out of the fire ? Now 
 " Jo/hua was clothed with filthy garment Sy and flood 
 «' before the angel. And he anfwered and fpake 
 *' unto thofe that flood before him, faying, "Take 
 •' away the filthy garments from him. And unto 
 *' him he faid. Behold I have caufed thine iniquity 
 " to pafs from thee, and I will clothe thee with 
 ** change of Raiment. And I faid. Let them fet 
 ** a fair mitre upon his head •, fo they fet a fair 
 *' mitre upon his head, and clothed him with gar- 
 *' ments, and the angel of the Lord flood by '." 
 Job's whole dramatic life lies here in its flamina. 
 — Satan ftanding at the angel's right hand to refift 
 Jojhua is, (when drawn out more at length) his 
 perfecution of Job. — JoJJma clothed with filthy gar- 
 ments, is Job amidft the Afhes. — The clothing of 
 Jofhua with change of raiment and fetting a fair 
 mitre on his head, is Job's returning Profperity. 
 And the angel of the Lord flajtding hy^ is God's In- 
 terpofition from the Whirlwind. 
 
 ^ Chap. i. vcr. 6, l^ feq. * Zech. ii. 13. Chap. iii. 
 
 ?er. I. l^/tq^. 
 
 Bi;t 
 
^4 ^h^ Dhine Legation Book VI, 
 
 But we have not yet done with this Character. 
 The finding Satan in the fcene is a ftrong proof 
 that the Work was compofc^d in the age we have 
 afficrned to it. This evil Being; was little known 
 to the Jewilh People till about this time. Their 
 great Lawgiver, where he fo frequently enumerates, 
 and warns them of, the fnares and temptations 
 which would draw them to tranfgrefs the Law of 
 God, never once mentions this Capital enemy of 
 Heaven ; yet this was an expedient which the 
 wifeil: Pagan Lawgivers ^ thought of ufe, to keep 
 the Populace in the ways of virtue. Thus Zaleu- 
 cus, in the preface to his book of Laws, fpeaks of 
 en evil Demon tempting men to mif chief : And in the 
 popular Religion there was always a Fury at hand, 
 to purlue the more atrocious Offenders through 
 the world. Nay, when the end of that facred 
 Hiftory which Mofes compofed, obliged him to 
 treat of Satan's firft grand machination againft man- 
 kind, he entirely hides this wicked Spirit under the 
 Animal which he made his inftrument. (The rea- 
 fon of this wife condudl hath been in part explained 
 already, and will be more exadly treated in the 
 courfe of our general argument'.) But, as the 
 fulnefs of time drew near, they were made more 
 and more acquainted with this their capital Enemy. 
 When Ahab, for the crimes and follies of the Peo- 
 ple, was fuffered to be infatuated, we have this ac- 
 count of the matter in the firft book of Kings : And 
 Micaiah faidy Hear thou therefore the word of the 
 
 ^ See Div. Leg. Vol. i. p. xzS. 4th ed. 
 
 ' Divine WifJom procures mnny rtitis by one .nncf the (<ime 
 m(an\ fo Ik re, bt fides this ufe, of throwing the Reader's atV 
 tcntion entirely on the Sttpent. it had another, 'viz. to make 
 ihc Sfrfent, which was of the mod facred and venerable reg.'ird 
 in the Mvlicrious Rclit;ion of Egypt, the objcft of the Ifuicli.ei' 
 fitter abhofitncc and dcicllation. 
 
 Lord: 
 
Se6l. 2. cf Moses demonjlrated, g^ 
 
 Lord : Ifaw the Lord Jilting on his throne, and alt 
 the hojl of heaven Jlanding by him, en his right hand 
 and on his left. And the Lord f aid : fFho /hall per- 
 fuade Ahab that he may go up and fall at Ramoth- 
 Gilead? And me /aid on this maimer, and another 
 faid on that manner. And there came forth a spirit 
 and flood before the Lord, and faid, I will perfuade 
 hifn. And the Lord faid unto him: Where'-jjith? 
 And he faid, I will go forth, and I will be a lying 
 fpirit in the mouth of all his Prophets. And he faid^ 
 ihou fhalt perfuade him, and prevail alfo j Go forth 
 anddo fo ". Satan is not here recorded by name ; 
 and fo we muft conclude that the People were yet 
 to know little of his hijlory : However, this under- 
 taking fufficiently declared his nature. On the re- 
 turn from the Captivity, we find him better known \ 
 and things then are afcribed to him, as the imme- 
 diate and proper Author, which (while divine Pro- 
 vidence thought fit to keep back the knowledge 
 of him) were before given, in an improper fenfe, 
 to the firil and ultimate Caufe of all things. Thus, 
 in the fecond book of Samuel it is faid, that God 
 - moved David to number the people, — And again^ 
 the anger of the Lord was kindled againfi Ifrael, 
 and he moved David againfi them to fay. Go number 
 Ifrael and Judah ". But in the firft book of Chro- 
 nicles, which was written after the Captivity, 
 Satan is faid to have moved David to this folly. 
 And Satan ftood up againfi Ifrael, and provoked 
 David to number I/rael °. For, His hiftory having 
 an infeparable connexion with the Redemption of 
 Mankind, the knowledge of them was to be con- 
 veyed together : and now, their later Prophets 
 
 « I Kings xxii. jg, iy /q. ■'» z Sam, x^-iv. i, 
 
 • I Chron, ^xi. I. 
 
 had 
 
^6 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 had given lefs obfcure defcriptions of the Re- 
 deemer and the other attendant truths. 
 
 Here let me flop a moment, though I antici- 
 pate my lubjed, to adore the vifible fplendor of 
 the divine Wifdom, in this period of God's moral 
 Difpenlation : We have obferved that the fulnefs 
 ot time approaching, the writings of the Prophets^ 
 after the Captivity, had given lefs obfcure intima- 
 tions of the Redemption •, and that the Truths, which 
 had a neceflary connexion with it, were propor- 
 tionably laid open. Two of the principal of thefe 
 were the history of Satan and the doctrine 
 OF A FUTURE STATE •, which, foon after this time, 
 were conveyed to their knowledge. Now, befides 
 the ufe of thefe two truths to the general CEconomy, 
 they were of great advantage to the Jewilh people 
 at thofe very jundures when each was firft made 
 known unto them. The hijtory of Satan, it is evi- 
 dent, they were brought acquainted with in their 
 Captiiity ; and nothing could better fecure them 
 from the dangerous error of the two principles, 
 which was part of the national Rehgion of the 
 Country into which they were led captive. The 
 io5lrine of a future ftate they learnt fome fmall time 
 after their thorough Re-eft ablifhrnent-, and this being 
 at a time when their extraordinary Providence was 
 departing from them, was of the higheft advantage 
 and fupport to them, as a Nation and a People. 
 But this, as I fay, is anticipating my fubje6b, and 
 will be explained at large hereafter : The other is 
 the point we are at prel'ent concerned with, name- 
 ly, the knowledge of this wicked Spirit -, and the 
 fecurity this knowledge afforded, againft the error 
 of the two Principles: Which leads us to another 
 ufe the writer of the book of Job hath made of this 
 Peifonaze of the Drama. 
 
Secfl. 2. o/' Moses demovfirated, 97 
 
 We have obfervecl, that the principal defign of 
 the Author of this work was to remove all errors 
 concerning the supreme cause, from amongft a 
 People now about to come under the ordinary Pro- 
 vidence of Heaven, after having been long accuf- 
 tomed to the extraordinary. The common fault 
 which the Ancients were prone to commit, on fee- 
 ing good and bad happen indifferently to all men, 
 was to bring in queilion the goodness of their 
 Maker. And they were apt to fatisfy themfelves 
 in this difficulty, by another miftake as abfurd as 
 that was impious-, the belief of two principles, 
 a Good and an Evil. The Jews, of this time par- 
 ticularly, were moft obnoxious to the danger, as 
 coming from a place where this ftrange Dodrine 
 made part of the public Religion. It was of the 
 higheft importance therefore to guard againft both 
 thefe errors. And this the facred Writer hath ef- 
 feftually done, by fhewing that Satan, or the 
 evil Sprit (whofe hiftory, mifunderftood, or im- 
 perfectly told, in the firft Ages of mankind, much 
 favoured the notion of an evil Principle) was, like 
 all other immaterial Beings, even of the higheft 
 rank, a creature of God ; at enmity with him ; but 
 entirely in his power; and ufed by him as an in- 
 ftrument to punifh wicked men ; yet fometimes 
 permitted to afflid the Good, for a trial of their 
 patience, and to render their Faith and Virtue 
 more perfe6t and confpicuous. Hence we fee 
 (which d':;ferves our ferious refled:ion) how ufeful ic 
 was to this purpofe (what little light foe ver it gave to 
 the Queftion) torefolve all, when the difpute came 
 to be moderated and determined, into the omni- 
 potence of God, who is reprefented as the sole 
 Creator and Governor of all things. And, what 
 the Wiiclom of the Holy Spirit direded the Wri- 
 ter of the book of Job to do, in this point, on 
 
 VoL.V. H their 
 
q8 TZ'^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 their coming from the Land which held the belief 
 of TWO PRINCIPLES, the fame Wifdom directed 
 Il'aiah to do, on their going thither. This Prophet, 
 in the perlbn of God, addrefling his fpeech to 
 Cyrus, whom God had appointed to be the inftru- 
 ment of his People's Reitoration, fays : / am the 
 Lord, and there is none elfe^ there is no God befides 
 Vfie. I girded thee, though thou haji not knozvn 
 
 jfjC, — I FORM THE LIGHT AND CREATE DARK- 
 NESS, I MAKE PEACE AND CREATE EVIL: I the 
 
 Lord do all thefe things p. 
 
 This declaration of God by Ifaiah naturally leads 
 us, ere we conclude this head, to confider another 
 text of the book of Job, which confirms all that 
 is here faid of Satan and the two principles; 
 and, by confequence, the opinion here advanced, 
 of the time in which the book was written. Job, 
 fpeaking of the works of Creation and Provi- 
 dence, lays, He divided the sea with his pozver, 
 {ifid his underfianding fmiteth thro' the proud *'. — 
 This evidently alludes to the miracle of the Red- 
 fia, and the deftruftion of Pharaoh. From thefe 
 v/orks of Providence upon earth, the writer pro- 
 ceeds to fpeak of God's work of Creation above -, 
 both material and intelle^ual. — By his Spirit he 
 hath GARNISHED /^^ heavens -, his Hand hath formed 
 the crooked serpent '. i. e. He made the ma- 
 terial and intelledlual world •, and in this latter, 
 the evil Beifig himfelf, (that pretended Rival of 
 his power, and Oppofer of all his good) is equally 
 the work of his hands. The progrelTion and 
 connexions of the parts, contained in this whole 
 period, are extremely beautiful. His work ot 
 Providence, as Lord of Nature upon earth, led 
 properly to his work of Creation above, as th« 
 
 P Is. xlv. 5, 7. s Chan. xxvi. ver. 12. ' Ver. 13. 
 
 Maker 
 
Sefl. 2. ^ M OS E s d^monJlratccL 9^ 
 
 Maker and Governor of all things : and his 
 chaftifement of the proudeft and moft powerful 
 Monarch then on earth, in his charader of Gover- 
 nor of the Moral world, as naturally introduced 
 the mention of his creating, and his keeping 
 in fubjeftion, the evil Spirit, in his charafter of 
 the firft Caufe of all things. And, to conned thefe 
 two relations together with the greater juftnefs, the 
 writer with much elegance calls the evil Spirit by 
 that name wherewith the facred Writers, and efpe- 
 cially Ifaiah, (whom we fhall fee prefently the 
 writer of the book of Job had particularly in his 
 eye) denote the king of Egypt. In that day the 
 Lord, ijoith his fore and great and fir ong [word jlmll 
 punijh Leviathan the piercing ferpent^ even Levia- 
 than that CROOKED SERPENT, and he fioallflay the 
 Dragon that is in the fea \ Let us obferve, that 
 the Writer of the book of Job, in the laft verfe, 
 evidently alludes to, or rather paraphrafes thofe 
 words of Ifaiah quoted before. — I form the light and 
 create darknefs -, I make peace, and create evil: / 
 the Lord do all thefe things: For what is this but 
 garniping the Heavens, and forming the crook- 
 ed Serpent ? But the relation and connexion be- 
 tween the 1 2th and r^th verfcs ' not being ob- 
 ferved, feveral eminent Commentators, both Jews 
 and Chriftians, were inclined to underftand the 
 crooked ferpent as fignifying the great Conftellation 
 fo named, fituate near the ardic pole; or at leaR", 
 that enormous trail of light called the Galaxy or 
 Via ladea. And thofe Moderns who have been as 
 backward to find a Devil for their Tempter, as a 
 God for their Redeemer, thought it agreed bcft 
 with their focinian reafoning-fcheme -, the general 
 mention of the garniture of the Heavens, being well 
 
 • Chap, xxvii. I. * Job xxvi, 
 
 H 2 followed 
 
100 TZ't' Divhie Legation Book VI. 
 
 followed by a particular defcription of one of its 
 pieces of furniture. But whatever their force of 
 Logic may be, their tafte of Rhetoric feems none 
 of the bell. It is a ftrangc kind of amplification 
 to fay, " He made all the conftellations, and he 
 " made one of them." But that interpretation of 
 Scripture which receives its chief ftrengih from 
 the rules of human eloquence, and art of conipo- 
 fiiion, hath often but a (lender fupport. 1 fhall 
 go on therefore to fhew, that an Hebrew Writer 
 (and he who, after all that has been laid, will not 
 allow the Au:hor of the book of Job to be an 
 Hebrew, may grant or deny what he pleafes, for 
 me) to lliew, 1 fay, that an Hebreiv [Vriter^ by 
 the crooked Serpent could not mean a Conjlellation. 
 
 The Rabbins tell us, (v/ho in this cafe feem to 
 be competent Evidence) that the ancient Hebrews 
 in their Aftronomy, which the moveable Feafts of 
 their Ritual necelTitated them to cultivate, did not 
 reprefcnt the Stars, either fingle or in Conftellations, 
 by the name or figure of any Animal whatfoever ; 
 but diftinguifhcd them by the letters of their alpha- 
 bet, artificially combined. And this they afllire us 
 was the conftant pradice, till, in the later ages, 
 they became acquainted with the Grecian Sciences: 
 Then, indeed, they learnt the art of tricking up 
 their SPHERE, and making it as pidlurefque as their 
 neighbours. But ftill they did it with modefty and 
 referve -, and hefitated even then, to admit of any 
 human Figure. The reafon given for this fcrupu- 
 lous obfervance, namely, the danger of Idolatry, is 
 the higheft confirmation of the truth of their ac- 
 count. For it is not to be believed, that, when 
 the ASTROuMOMv and superstition of F.gypt 
 were lo clofely coUcagucd, and that the combina- 
 tion was fupported by this very means, the names 
 
 given 
 
Se(5l.2. ^MosES demonjlrated. loi 
 
 given to the Conftellations, it is not to be believed, 
 I fay, that Mofes, who, under the miniftry of God, 
 forbad the Ifraelites to make any likenefs of any thing 
 in Heaven above according to the old mode, would 
 fufrer them to make new likeneJJ'cs there : which, 
 if not in the firft intention fet up to be worfliiped, 
 yet, we know, never waited long to obtain that 
 honour. To corroborate this Rabbinical account 
 relative to the Hebrew Aftronomy, we may obferve, 
 that the Tranflators of the Septuagint, the Heads 
 and Do6lors of the Jewifh Law, who muft needs 
 know what was conformable to the pradlice derived 
 from that Law, underflood the Writer of the book 
 of Job to mean no more nor lefs than the Devil 
 by this periphrafis of the crooked Serpent ; and fo 
 tranflated it, APAKONTA AHOSTATHN, the apof- 
 tatc 'Dragon. 
 
 From all this it appears, that neither Moses nor 
 EsDRAs could call a Conftellation by the name of 
 the crooked Serpent, 
 
 V. The laft A6lor in this reprefentation, is 
 Job's fourth friend, Elihu the [on of Baraehc' the 
 Bwzite^ who is brought upon the ftage in the thirty 
 fecond chapter. He is made to reprove Job with 
 great afpcrrity ; and, like the other three, to have 
 his wrath kindled againji him : -and yet, to the 
 furprife of all the Commentators, he is not in- 
 volved in their Sentence, when God pafles judg- 
 ment on the Controverfy. Here again, the only 
 fokition of the difficulty is our interpretation of the 
 book of Job, Elihu's oppofition was the feverity of 
 a true friend ; the others' the malice of pretended 
 ones. His feverity againft Job arofe from this, that 
 jfob jiiflified himfelf rather than God ", that is, was 
 
 " Chap, xxxii. ver. 2. 
 
 H 3 more 
 
102 The Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 more anxious to vindicate his own innocence than 
 the equity ot God's Providence. For under the per- 
 fon of Elihu was defigned the {acred IVriter him- 
 fclf. He begins with the charafter of a true Pro- 
 phet, under which, as in the aft of infpiration, he 
 reprefents hinnfelf. I am full of matter, the Spirit 
 "Lvithin me ccnflraineth me. Behold tny belly is as wine 
 ivhich hatb no vent^ it is ready to hurji like new bot- 
 tles \ And this, he contrafts with the charadler of 
 the falfe Prophets of that time, — Let me not^ I pray 
 you^ accept any mayCs perfon, neither let me give flat- 
 tering titles unto man ^. But all this will appear 
 from the following confiderations, 
 
 Eliliu, on the entrance upon his argument, ad- 
 drefles the three friends in the following manner: 
 Nozv be hath net directed his words againjl u e ; nei- 
 ther will I anfwer him with your fpeeches''. This 
 fufficiently dilcriminates his caufe and charadler 
 from theirs. He then turns to Job : " My words 
 •"' (fays he) ihall be of the uprightnefs of my 
 *' heart ♦, and my lips {hall utter knowledge clearly. 
 *' "''he Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath 
 *' of the Ahnighty hath given me life. If thou 
 " canft anfwer me, fet thy words in order before 
 " me, and Hand up. Behold I am, according 
 " to thy wish, INT God's stead : I alfo am 
 " formed out of the clay %" i^c. This clearly in- 
 timates the character of God's chofen Servant : 
 Thefe were of approved integrity, they received the 
 divine infpiraiion, and were therefore in God's fiead 
 to the People. Elihu goes on in the fame ilrain. — 
 *' He excites Job to attention, — accufes him of 
 charging God with injviflicc, — reproves his impie- 
 
 * Chap, x.vxii. vcr, jS, 19. / Ver. z\. ' Chap. 
 
 ny.\\\. vcr. J 4. - ei'irfp. xxxiii. vcr. 3, Ir'/f. 
 
Sc(Sl. 2. of Moses demonjlrated. 103 
 
 ty^ — tells him that men cry in their affliftions, and 
 
 are not heard for want of faith: that his fins 
 
 hinder the defcent of God's blefli^gs; whole wif- 
 dom and ways are unfearchable." — But is this the 
 converfation of one private man to another ? Is it 
 not rather a public exhortation of an Hebrew Pro- 
 phet fpeaking to the People ? Hence too, we may 
 fee the great propriety of that allufion to the cafe 
 of Hezekiah ", mentiojied above, which the writer 
 of the book of Job, in this place, puts into the 
 mouth of Elihu. The Spirit with which Elihu 
 fpeaks is farther feen from his telling Job that he 
 defires to juftify him \ And yet he accufes him of 
 faying, It profit eth a man nothings that he Jloould de- 
 light himfelf with God^ ; and expoftulates with him 
 yet further; 'Thinkefi thou this to he right that thou 
 faidfij My rigbteoufnefs is more than Gods? For 
 thou faidfi, IVhat advantage zvill it be unto thee^ ajjd 
 what profit Jhall I ha^ue^ if I be cleanfedfrom my fin" ? 
 Here the Commentators are much fcandalized, 
 as not feeing how this could be fairly colle<5ted 
 from what had paffed ; yet it is certain he fays no 
 more of Job than what the Prophets fay of the 
 People reprefented under him. Thus Malachi : 
 " Ye have wearied the Lord with your words : yet 
 " ye fay. Wherein have we wearied him ? When ye 
 " fay. Every one that doth evil is good in the fight of 
 " the Lord, and he delight eth in them ; or. Where is 
 " the God of judgment^ F" And 2iga.\n : Te havefaid. 
 It is vain to ferve God : and what -profit is it, that 
 we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked 
 mournfidly before the Lord of hofts? And now we 
 call the proud happy : Tea they that work wickcdnefs ar^ 
 fet up; yea they that tempt God are even delivered^. 
 
 ^ Chap, xxxiii. ver. i8, ^ fiq. " Chap, xxxiii. ver. 32. 
 
 ^ Chap, xxxiv. ver. 9. • Chap, xxxv. ver. 2, 3. 
 
 -^ Mal. ii. 17. 2 Mal. iii. 14, 15. 
 
 H 4 It 
 
104 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 It was this which kindled Elihu's wrath againft 
 Job ; who, in this work, is reprefented to be really 
 guilty i as appears not only from the beginning of 
 God's fpeech to him " -, but from his own confei- 
 fion ', which follows. It is remarkable that Job, 
 from the beginning of his misfortunes to the com- 
 ing of his three comforters, though greatly pro- 
 voked by his Wife, finned not (as we are told) 
 with his lips^. But, perfecuted by the malice and 
 bitternefs of their words, he began to lay fuch 
 ftrels on his own innocence as even to accufe the 
 juilice of God. This was the very ftace of the 
 Jews at this time: So exadly has the facred Writer 
 conducted his allegory ! They bore their ftraits 
 and difhcukies with temper, till their enemies the 
 Cutheans, and afterwards Sanhallat, Tchiah^ and the 
 yfri-Z'<2«j confederated againit them ; and then they 
 fell into indecent murmurings againft God. And 
 here let us obferve a difference in the condu6l of 
 Elihu iind the three friends, a difference which well 
 diftinguifhes their characters : They accufe Job of 
 preceding faults ; Elihu accufes him of the prefent, 
 namely, his impatience and impiety : which evi- 
 dently {hews that his charge was true^ and that 
 theirs was unjuft'. 
 
 Again, Elihu ufes the very fame reafonlngs 
 againft Job and his three friends "", which are after- 
 
 •" Chap, xxxviii. * Chap. xlii. ver. i, i^ /eq» 
 
 ^ Chap. ii. ver. lo. 
 
 ' To this Dr. Grey fays, that the three friends likewife ac- 
 cufe Job of his prf/tnt faults. Well, and what then ? Does this 
 acquit them of injultice for falfely charging him with preceding 
 ones ? 
 
 "> From chap, xxxii. to xxxvii. 
 
 wards 
 
Sedt. 2. o/' M o s E s demonflrated, 105 
 
 wards put into the mouth of God Limfelf % refolv- 
 ing all into his omnipotency. ElihiCs fpeech 
 is indeed in every refpeft the fame with God's, 
 except in the fe verity of his reproof to Job. And, 
 in that, the Writer hath fhewn much addrefs in 
 conducting his fubjed. The end and purpofe of 
 this Work was to encourage the Jews to a perfe- 
 verance in their duty from the allured care and pro- 
 tection of Providence. At the fame time, as they 
 were growing imipatient, it was necefiary this temper 
 fhould be rebuked. But as the ordonance of the 
 Poem is difpoled, the putting the reproof into the 
 mouth of the Almighty would have greatly weaken- 
 ed the end and purpofe of the Work. This part 
 therefore is given to his fervant Elihu: and God's 
 fentence is all grace and favour on the fide of Job, 
 and indignation and refentment againft his falfe 
 Friends. For this event, the Writer had finely pre- 
 pared us, in making Job, in the heat of the difpu- 
 tation, fay to thefe friends. Wilt thou /peak ivickedly 
 for Cod? and talk deceitfully for him ? Will ye accept his 
 perfon ? will ye contend for God ? Is it good that he 
 fkould fearch you out ? or as one man mocketh another 
 do ye fo 'mock him? He will surely reprove you, 
 if ye do fecretly accept Perfons '^. The judicious rea- 
 der will obferve another artful circumftance in the 
 caft of Elihu's oration. The three friends, in the 
 grand queftion concerning an equal Providence, 
 went dire6tly over to one fide, and Job to another : 
 Elihu inclines to neither, but refolves all into fub- 
 miffion to the almighty power of God. For it 
 was yet inconvenient to acquaint the Jews, (who 
 were jult going to fall under a common Providence) 
 with the truth of their cafe. Hence, to obferve it 
 
 " From chap, xxxviii. to xJii. *> Chap. xiii. ver. 7, 
 
 by 
 
ic6 The Dhine Legation Book VI. 
 
 by the way, another circumftance arrfes to deter- 
 mine the date of the poem. We have fhewn that 
 the Subject fiiited only this time : We now fee that 
 the mamier of treating the Subjefb could agree to 
 no other. On the whole, this intermediate fpeech 
 of Elihu's was the fineft preparative for the de- 
 cifive one which was to follow. 
 
 Farther, The true character of Eiihu is feen 
 from hence, that Job replies nothing to thefe 
 words, as confcious of the truth of his reproofs •, 
 and that they were the reproofs of a Friend. And, 
 indeed, his fubmiffion, on this occafion, was to 
 reprefent the repentance of the Jews on the preach- 
 ing of their Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and 
 Malachi. 
 
 But laflly, Elihu's not being involved in the 
 condemnation of the three friends is the moft con- 
 vincing argument of his very different Charafter. 
 This, as we have faid, exceedingly perplexed the 
 Commentators. But where was the wonder, he 
 fliould be acquitted, when he had faid nothing but 
 what God himfelf repeated and confirmed .'' What 
 is rather to be admired is the fevere fentencepaflcd 
 upon the three friends i and that, for the crime of 
 iiupiety. A thing utterly inexplicable on the com- 
 mon interpretation. For let them be as guilty as 
 you pleafe, to Job, they are all the way advocates 
 for God •, and hold nothing concerning his Go- 
 vernment that did not become his Nature and Cha- 
 ra(fter. But let us once fuppofe, thefe three friends 
 to reprefent the Adverfaries of the Jews, and the 
 difficulty ccafcs. All their pretences are then hypo- 
 critical : and tlicy impiouHy affume the Patronage 
 of God only to carry on their malice to more ad- 
 vantage againfl: Job. Why the Writer of this 
 
 book 
 
Sed:. 2. o/" Moses demo7ijlrateA. 107 
 
 book did not openly expofe the wickednefs of their 
 hearts, as is done in the books of Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah, was becaufe the nature of the work would 
 not fuffer it ; the queftion in debate, and the ma- 
 nagers of the queftion, neceffarily requiring that 
 the part they took fhould have a fpecious outfide 
 of piety and veneration toward God. In a word. 
 Job is made to fay fomething wrong, becaufe he 
 reprefents the impatient Jews of that time : His 
 three falfe friends, to fay fomething right, becaufe 
 the nature of the drama fo required : And Elihu 
 to moderate with a perfect redlitude, becaufe he 
 reprefcnted the perfon of a Prophet. 
 
 But to fee the truth of this interpretation in its 
 befl light, one fhould have before one's eyes all 
 thofe difficulties with which the Commentators of 
 the book of Job are entangled at almoft every 
 ftep. A view of this would draw us into aa 
 unreafonable length. I fhall only take notice 
 of one of the moft. judicious of them, (who has 
 coUefted from all the reft) in the very cafe of this 
 Elihu. Calmet charafterifes the fourth friend in 
 this manner: Inhere was now none but Elihu the 
 yoiingefi and leafi judicious that held out againjt JoFs 
 arguments — Elihu here by a vain parade and over- 
 floz^ of words gives a reafon p, L'^c. Again : Elihu 
 was given to represent one who knew not how to he 
 Jflent^ a great talker "*. And again : It cannot he 
 denied hut that there is a mixture of ignorance and 
 prefumption in what Elihu fays ; and, above all, a 
 
 P II n'y eut qu'EIiu, qui etoit le plus jeune & le moins judici- 
 eux, qui ne fe rendit pas — par un vain etalage des paroles Elio 
 rend id raifon, &c. Sur C. xxxii. ver. i, 
 
 "5 Pour defigner un homme qui ne fe pent taire, un grand 
 caufeur. Sttr C. xxxii. ver. 48. 
 
 Jr^nge 
 
io8 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 ftrange prejudice and vifihle injufiice in mojl of the 
 accufations he brmgs againjl Job'. This he fays 
 indeed. But when he comes to find Elihu efcape 
 God's condemnation, in which- the other three are 
 involved, he alters his note, and uniays all the 
 hard things he had thrown out againft him. 
 j^lthough Elihu (fays he) had miftaken the fenfe of 
 his friend's ivords^ yet^ for all that., God feems., at 
 leaft^ to have approved his intention, becaufe when 
 be declares to JoVs friends that they hadfpoken amifs, 
 and commands them to offer up burnt -offerings for 
 themfehes^ he only fpcaks of Bildad, Eliphaz, and 
 Zophar., without menticning Elihu. Bejides, Job 
 anfzvers net a word to this laji, and by his filence 
 fecms to approve of his difcourfe\ Grotius, who 
 llrove to be more confiftent in his charadler of 
 Elihu, which yet his acquittal in God's fentence will 
 not Tuffer any Commentator to be, upon the received 
 idea of this Book, has run into a very ftrange ima- 
 gination. He fuppofcs Elihu might be a domeftic, 
 or retainer to one of the three friends, and fo be 
 involved in the condemnation of his principal*. — 
 But, now mark the force of prejudice to inveterate 
 notions ! It is vifible to every one who regards 
 
 '' On ne peut nier qu'il n'y ait & de I'ignorancc Sc de la pre- 
 fumption dans ce que dit Eliu, &, fur tout, une etrange pre- 
 vention & une injuflicc vifible dans la plupart des accufations 
 qu'il lorma centre Job. Sur C. xxviii. ver. 2. 
 
 • Quoiqu' Eliu eiit mal pris le fens des paroles de fon ami, 
 toutcfois Dieu fcmble approiiver au moins fon intention ; puif- 
 que lorfqu'il declare aiix amis de Job qu'ils ont m.il parle, Sc 
 qu'il ordonne qu'on ofFre pour eux des hobcaulles, il ne fait 
 mention que de liildad, d'Eliphaz, & de Sophar, fans parlcr 
 d'liliu. De plus, Job ne rcpond point a ce dernier, 6c par fon 
 filence il fcmble approuvcr fou difcours. 
 
 * Elihu hic non nominatur, ut ncc fupra ii. 1 1 . forte quod 
 aflccla eflet alicojus trium. /« C. xlii. vcr. j, 
 
 the 
 
Sedt. 2. cf Moses demonjlrated. 109 
 
 the two fpeeches of Elihu and God with the leaft 
 attention, that the dodlrine and the reaibning are 
 the fame. Yet Calmet's general character of Eiihu 
 is, that there is a vain parade and overfiow of words ; 
 that there is a mixture of ignorance and prefumptian^ 
 and a vifible injujlice, in mofc of the accufations he 
 brings againji Job. And yet of God's fpeech he 
 fays. Here we have a clear solution of the dif- 
 ficulties which had perplexed and embarraffed thefe 
 jive friends ". — Pity that this clear folution fliould 
 turn out to be vio folution at all. 
 
 III. Having thus fixed the date of the* book, 
 our next enquiry will be concerning its Author. 
 That it was compofed by an infpired writer is be- 
 yond all queftion. Not only its uncontrovertecl 
 reception and conllant place in the Canon, and its 
 internal marks of divinity, which this Expofition 
 has much iiluilrated and enlarged, but its being 
 quoted as infpired fcripture by St. Paul", will fuf- 
 fer no reafonable man to doubt of it. By this 
 time therefore, I fuppofe, the Reader will be be- 
 forehand with me in judging it could fcarce be any 
 other than Ezra himfelf-, who was a ready 
 fcribe in the Law of Mofes^ and had prepared- 
 his heart to feek the Law of the Lord, and to do it^ 
 and to teach in Ifrael ft.atutes and judgments ^ . For 
 he had the welfare of his People exceedingly at 
 heart, as appears from the books of Ezra and Ne- 
 hemiah. And this of Job, we have fhewn, was 
 written purpofely for their inftrudion and confola- 
 tion. He made a corred edition of the Scriptures, 
 
 " C'eft ici le denouement dela piece, & la folution des difH- 
 cultuz qui avoient eLe agitccs entre ces cinque amis. 
 
 ^ I Cor. iii. lo. He taketh the iv'/e in their oivr. craftin'fs. 
 Job v. 13. y EznA vii. 6, ic. 
 
 fettled 
 
no y/'^r Divine Legation Book VT. 
 
 fettled the Canon, and added in feveral -places 
 throughout the books of his edition^ -Uihat appeared 
 mcejfary for the illuf rating, conne^ing, or com- 
 pleating of them '\ He is reafonably fiippofed to 
 be the author of the two books of Chronicles and 
 the book of Either. It was a common tradition 
 too amongft the Jews that he was the fame with 
 Malachi. And his great reputation as^ ready fcribe 
 in the Law of Mofes, apparently gave birth to 
 that wretched fable of the dcflruction of the 
 Scriptures in the Babylonian captivity, and Ezra's 
 re-produftion of them by divine infpiration. 
 
 I'hus is our interpretation of the book of Job 
 fo far from taking away any dignity, or authenti- 
 city it was before pofieiTed of, that it eftablifhes 
 and enlarges both. The fliewing it principally re- 
 fpedted a whole People highly ennobles the fub- 
 jecl : and the fixing an anonymous writing on 
 one of the moft eminent of God's Prophets greatly 
 ftrengthens its authority. But the chief advantage 
 of my interpretation, I prefume, lies in this, 
 That it renders one of the mofl difficult and ob- 
 fcure books in the whole Canon, the moft eafy and 
 intelligible-, reconciles all the charadtersto Nature, 
 all the arguments to Logic, and all the dodrines 
 to the courfe and order of God's Difpenfations» 
 And thefe things fliewing it fuperior, in excellence, 
 to any human Compofition, prove, what univerfal 
 Tradition hath alv/ays taught, that it is of divine 
 Original. 
 
 II. 
 
 riavinor brouQ-ht down the date of this book (o 
 low, it is of little importance to our fubje^, whe- 
 
 * PriJeaux's Cenn. P. i. b^ 5. 
 
 thcr 
 
Sedl. 2. of ?vlos E s demonjlrated. in 
 
 ther the famous pafiage in the nineteenth chapter 
 be underftood of a Resurrection from the dead^ 
 or only of temporal deliverance from afflic- 
 tions^. Yet as our interpretation affords new 
 affiftance for determining this long debated quef- 
 tion, it will not be improper to fift it to the bot- 
 tom. 
 
 I make no fcruple then to declare for the opinioa 
 of thofe who fay that the words, [/ know that my 
 Redeemer liveth, and that he fhallfiand at the latter 
 
 ^ Indeed, had the book of Job the high antic]uity which the 
 common fyllem fappofes, the contending at the fame time fdr 
 lYit/piritual fenfe of this text, would be followed with infilpei*- 
 able difficulties : but thefe, let the fupporters of that Syftem look 
 to. The very learned Author of ibs argument of the Di'vine Le- 
 gation fairly fated, Jjfr. hath fct thefe difficulties in a light 
 which, I think, fhews them to be infuperable : " Thofe men, 
 *' (fays this excellent writer) who maintain this fyftem, [of 
 *' tiie high antiquity of the book, and the fpiriiuul fenfe of 
 '■ the text] muft needs regard the text to be direS and 
 " literal, not typical or figurative. But then this difficulty 
 " occurs, How came Moses (if he was the Author) to be (o 
 " clear in the hcok of Job, and fo obfciire in the Pentateuch? 
 " Plain expreifion and typical adumbration are the contrary of 
 " one another. They could not both be fit for the fame people, 
 " at the fame time. If they were a Ipiritualized People they 
 *' had no need of carnal covers, fuch as Types ; and if they 
 *• were a carnal-minded people, the light of fpiritual things 
 " would only ferve to dazzle, not to aid their fight. 
 
 " Nor is the matter mended, but made worfe, by fuppofing 
 " the book to be written by Job himfelf, or any other Patriarch 
 " earlier than Mofes: That wou'd be only transferring the 
 " Charge from ?,hfes, to the God of Mofes : For while the book of 
 " Job was defigned by Providence, for part of the Jeu^ijh Cavon, 
 " it is the fame unaccountable condiidl tho' removed thirher. 
 " The Resurrection is open and expofed to all in the book 
 ** 'f Jo^i ^nd it is hid and covered under types and figures 
 " in the Pentateuch, From whence arife^ this noble truth wor- 
 •*' thy of its ini'enters, Tbi't the fame doarine may, at ore and ths 
 " fame time, ie the proper objicl both of clear and manfefi, and of 
 " dark and uncertain conteniplatim, to the fame Pcrfov.s.'" p. 134. 
 
 9 day 
 
1 1 2 7Z'^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 day upon the earth. And though after myjkin^ worms 
 dejtroy this hody^ yet in my f.eflj Jhall I fee God. 
 Whom I fJjall fee for myfelf., and mine eyes fhall be- 
 hold., and not another ^] can fignify no more than 
 Job's confidence in a temporal deliverance •, 
 as all awree they may fignify. And therefore I 
 fliall the lefs infift upon a common obfervation, 
 " That our Tranflators, who were in the other 
 opinion, have given a force to their exprefiion 
 which the Original will by no means bear." 
 
 My reafons are thefe, i. To untferfland the 
 •words, of a Refurretlion^ is repugnant to the whole 
 tenor of the Argument: and to underlland them of 
 a temporal deliverance is perfectly agreeable thereto. 
 2. The end and defignof the Compofition, as ex- 
 plained above, abfolutely requires this latter fenfe, 
 and difclaims the former. 3. The former fenfe is 
 repugnant to Job's own exprefs declaration in other 
 places. 
 
 I. We mufl: obferve that the book of Job is 
 ftriftly argumentative : and though fententious, 
 and abounding Vv'ith poetic figures, yet they are all 
 fubfervient to the matter in difpute. In this re- 
 fpe6t, much unlike the writings of David and 
 Solomon, which treat of divine or moral matters 
 in fliorc and detached fentences. On which ac- 
 count, the ablefi; of thofe, who go into the i^n^c 
 of a Refiirre^ion^ have found the neceffity of recon- 
 ciling it to the Context. Thus much being grant- 
 ed, wc argue againll the fenfe they put upon it, from 
 thcfc coniiderations, i. Firft the Dilputants are all 
 equally embaralTed in adjulling'the ways of Provi- 
 dence. Job affirms tliat the Good man is fometimes 
 
 ' Chap. xix. ver. 25, U /tq^. 
 
 unhappy i 
 
Scifl:. 2. of Moses demonfiraUd. 11^ 
 
 unhappy : yet he appears to regard that Difpenfation 
 as a new thing and matter of wonder, upright men 
 Jhall he qftonijhed at this " ; which, our interpreta- 
 tion well accounts for. The three friends contend 
 that the Good man can never be unhappy, becaufe 
 fuch a fituation would refledl diihonour on God's 
 attributes. Now the dodrine of a Refurre5fion^ fup- 
 pofed to be here urged by Job, cleared up all this 
 cmbarras. If therefore his Friends thought it true, 
 it ended the difpute : if falfe, it lay upon them to 
 confute it. Yet they do neither : they neither call 
 it into queftion, nor allow it to be decifive. But, 
 without the leaft notice that any fuch thing had 
 been urged, they go on, as they began, to inforce 
 their former arguments, and to confute that which, 
 they feem to underfland, was the only one Job had 
 urged againft them, viz. The co?tfciouJnefs of his 
 own i?tnocence. But to be a little more particular, 
 it fell to Zophar's part to anfwer the argument con- 
 tained in the words in queftion, which! underftand 
 to be this- — " Take, fays Job, this proof of 
 *' my innocence, I believe, and confidently expefl^ 
 " that God will vifit me again in mercy, and re- 
 " ftore me to my former condition." To this 
 Zophar, in effed:, replies : But why are you fo 
 miferable now ? For he goes on, in the tv^rentieth 
 chapter, todefcribe the puniihment of the Wicked 
 to be juft fuch a ftate as Job then laboured under. 
 He does not diredtly fay, 'The Good are not miferable •» 
 but that follows from the other part of the Pro- 
 pofition, (which he here inforces as being a little 
 more decent) The had are never happy. Now fup- 
 pofe Job fpoke of the Refurre^Iion^ Zophar's anf- 
 wer is wide of the purpofe. 2. But what is ftill 
 more unaccountable. Job, when he refumes the 
 
 ^ Chap, xvii. ver. 8. 
 
 Vol. V, I difpute, 
 
1 14 7*^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 difputc, flicks to the argument he firft fet out 
 with ; and, tho' he found it gave his Friends little 
 latisfa(5lion, yet he repeats it again and again. 
 But this other argument of a RefurreSion, fo full 
 of Piety and Conviflion, which they had never 
 ventured to reply to, he never once refumes ; 
 never upbraids his Adverfaries for their filence ; 
 nor triumphs, as he well might, in their inability 
 to anfwer it. But, if ever it were the oh]tS: of 
 their thoughts, it pafTed ofi like a Dream or 
 Reverie to which neither fide gave any attention. 
 In a word, the Difpute between Job and his 
 Friends ftands thus : They hold, that if God 
 affli(5led the Good man: it would be unjuft; there- 
 fore the Good man was not afflicted. Job fays, 
 that God did afflidb the Good man ; but that Rea- 
 fon muft here fubmit, and own God's ways to be 
 infcrutable. Could he pofTibly reft in that anf- 
 wer, how pious foever, if he had the more fatif- 
 fadtory folution of a future state ? To this 
 let me add, that if Job fpoke of a Rcfurre5iicn, he 
 not only contradicts the g-eneral tenor of his arsu- 
 ment, maintained throughout the whole difputa- 
 tion, but likevvife what he fays in many places 
 concerning the irrecoverable dijfolution of the body **. 
 It is true, that even in the fenfe of a temporal deli- 
 verance he contradicts what he had faid, in his 
 defpair, in the feventeenth chapter : But there is 
 
 *■ See chap. vii. ver. 9, 21. Chap. x. ver. 21. Chap. xvi. 
 ver. 22. Chap. xiv. ver. 7, tsf feq. Could one who fiid. For 
 there is o pe of a tree, if it be cut <}oivn, that it ^K.i:ill fpiout aiain, 
 iiC. But man dieth, &c. could fuch a one (I fpeak of the per- 
 sonated charaflcr) think of the body like him who faid, But 
 foms vian tvill fay, IIoiv ere the dead rai/ed up, and luith ivhat 
 hndf do they ctme ? Thou fool, that ivhich thou fonvefl is not 
 qutckiied exceft it de. And that 'which thou Jo-iufjl thou/oi.v,J} 
 n.t thai body that p.^all be, but bare grain, it may chance of ivbeat 
 •rfcn:e oti.cr grain, Sec. 
 
 3 a man!- 
 
Sc<fl. 2. of Moses demonft rated, ii^ 
 
 a manifeU: difference between a contradidllon of 
 opinion and belief, as in the firft cafe ; and of pajjion 
 and affeofion only, as in the latter. And for this 
 contradiftion he feemsto apologife, when he comes 
 to himfelf, by defining that this confidence in his 
 Deliverer might be engrav^ed on a Rock, as the 
 opinion he would (land to. 3. But what is firang- 
 eft of all. When each party had confounded them- 
 felves, and one another, for want, as one would 
 think, of this principle of a RefurreBion, which 
 fo eafily unraveled all the perplexities of the dif- 
 pute, the fourth Friend, the Moderator, (teps in, 
 as the precurfor of the Almighty, who afterwards 
 makes his appearance as the great Decider of the 
 Controverfy. Here then we might reafonably ex- 
 pe6l the Do6trine of the Refurre5iion to be refumed 5 
 and that the honour of the folution which it affords, 
 was referved for Thefe ; but, to our great furprife, 
 they neither of them give us the lead hint concern- 
 ing it. — Thofe who contend for this interpretation 
 fuppofe that the notion was here delivered in order 
 to fupport its truth. What reafon then can they 
 give why neither the Moderator nor Decider lliould 
 employ it, to clear up difficulties, when Job him- 
 felf had touched -upon it before ? Elihu juftifies 
 God's conduft ; God bears witnels to Job's inno- 
 cence : yet both concur in refolving all into Power- 
 om.nipotent. This tends more to cloud than clear 
 up the obfcurities of the debate: Whereas the 
 doftrine of a Refurre5fion had rendered every thing 
 plain and eafy. In a word, no folution is given, 
 though a decifion be made. All this, on the 
 common Syftem, is quite unaccountable to our 
 faculties of underftanding. 
 
 Let us fee next whether my fenfe of the words 
 agree better with the tenor of the Difpute. Job, 
 
 I Z TlQSf 
 
!i6 ^he Dhvte Legation Boqk VL 
 
 now provoked paft fufFerance at the inhumanity 
 and malice of his pretended Friends, gives him- 
 felf up to defpair " -, and Teems, as we have ob- 
 ferved, to contradict that part of his pofition 
 which he had hitherto held \ " that God would at 
 '* length bring the Good man out of trouble." 
 For which being reproved by Bildad, {Shall the earth 
 be forfaken for thee? and pall the rock be removed 
 cut of his place "^ ? i. e. becaufe it is thy pleaiure fo 
 obftinately to maintain that God does govern by 
 equal Laws, fhall it therefore be fo ? The confe- 
 quence of which would be a fpeedy defolation. — 
 Shall the Rock ^ or Providence of God be removed 
 to humour your palTions ?) Job recolleds himfelf 
 in the nineteenth chapter, and comes again to his 
 former mind. He begins by complaining of their 
 cruel ufiige : Says, that if indeed he were in an 
 error, his cafe was fo deplorable that they ought 
 rather to treat him with indulgence : that this was 
 no feafon for feverity : begs they would have pity 
 on him •, and then retradls what had fallen from 
 him in the anguifli and bitternefs of his foul: and 
 laftly delivers this as his fixed fentiment, in which 
 he was determined to abide j (and in which he had 
 .indeed acquiefced, till made impatient and def- 
 
 * Chap. xvii. *" Chap. xiii. ver. 15, l6. — 
 
 Chap, xiv, ver. 15. s Chap, xviii. ver. 4. 
 
 •• By the Rock I fuppofe is meant the extracrd'mary Proui- 
 tlenct of Gnd\ this being the common name by which it went 
 anjongfl the Jewiih People. He is the Rock, his iiork is jer- 
 feci : For all his Ways are Judgment , Deut. xxxii. 4. The 
 Rock of his Sal-vationy ver. i >;. — Of the Rock that begat th;e^ 
 ver. 1 8. Except their Rock had fid them, vet. 30. Their 
 Rock is not as cur Rock, eveti our Enemies themfclv-s tein^ Judges, 
 ver. 31. Their Rock iu ivhm they t>vj}ed, ver. 37. Neither 
 is there any Rock like our God, I Sam. ii. 2. ^he Rock w/Ifraei 
 fptxke to me, 2 Sam. xxiii, 3. O Rock, thou haft eftahhfhei 
 tbtmy ll£B. i. 12. and a great number of other places. 
 
 perate 
 
Scd. 2. ^ M o s E s demonfirated. liy 
 
 perate by the harfhnefs of their treatment) namely, 
 that God would at length bring the Good man 
 out of trouble. I know that my redeemer 
 LivETH, &c. Which he introduces thus : Ob 
 that my words were now written. Oh that they were 
 pint ed in a book, that they were graven with an iron 
 pen and lead, in the rock for ever'. As much as to 
 fay, What I uttered juft before, through the difr 
 temperature of paflion, I here retrad, and defire 
 may be forgotten, and that this may be underftood 
 as my fixed and unfliaken belief ^ And in this 
 
 fentiment, 
 
 i Chap. xix. ver. 23, 24. 
 
 k Here the Cornifh Critx obferves, *' That it does not ap- 
 « pear that Job had any particular revelation of it, [i. e. his 
 •» future felicity] and therefore his confidence (if he had any 
 «* fuch) muft proceed upon fome fuch principle as this, That 
 *' God would at length infallibly deliver the good Man out 
 « of trouble. And again, this principle muft be founded on 
 « that other of an equal Providence : from whence otherwife 
 *« could it arife but from a perfuafion that God will moft cer- 
 *♦ tainly do what is equal and exaft in this life? And yet the 
 ** ingenious Author, as if fond of reconciling contradidions, 
 *' makes Job's Thefis to be this, that Pro'vidence is not equally 
 « adminiftered, at the fame time, that he afcribes to him a cou' 
 «* fidence which could not possibly arife but from the per- 
 ** fuafion of an equal Pronjidencey p. 156. 
 
 I make Job hold that Providence ivas mt equally adminijiered. 
 I make him to hold likewife, that he himfelf Jhould he reftored 
 to his former felicity : And this, our Critic calls a contradic- 
 tion. Hisreafonis, that this latter opinion could arife only 
 from his perfuafon of an equal Providence. This may be true, 
 if there be no medium between an equal Providence and no 
 Providence at all. But I fufped there is fuch a medium, from 
 obferving that it is not uncommon, even in thefe times, for 
 good men in afflidion, to have this very confidence of Job, 
 without ever dreaming of an equal Pro'vidence. 
 
 The truth is (and fo I have faid in the words which gave 
 
 Qccafion to tlus notable obfervation) that Job had through the 
 
 1 3 diftempera- 
 
ii5 Tke Divme Legation Book VL 
 
 fentiment, it is remarkable, he henceforward 
 perfeveres ; never relapfing again into the hke ex- 
 travagance of pafllon. Which conduft agrees 
 exaclly with his general Thefis, " that Providence 
 is not equally adminiflered -, for that the Good 
 Man is frequently unhappy, and the Wicked 
 profperous •, yet that, at laft, God will bring the 
 Good Man out of trouble, and punifh the Wick- 
 ed doers." 
 
 II. In thefecond place, if I have given a right 
 interpretation of the book of Job, a temporal de-t 
 liverance^ and not the refurrc5lion of the body, muft: 
 needs be meant : For the moral of the dramatic 
 piece was to allure the People^ reprefented under 
 the perfon of this venerable Patriarch, of thofe 
 great temporal bleffings which the three Prophets, 
 Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had predifted, 
 in order to allay that tumult of mind which arofe 
 
 diftemperalure of paffioo advanced foms ihings which on cooler 
 thoughts he; retraced. His argument againft an eqfal Praz/i- 
 iiiKce was fometimes puftied fo far as to have the appearance of 
 conclu.ling againll any Providence at all. But he, at length, 
 ccrrefts himfclf for this extravagance of expreffion ; and de- 
 liberately concludes, that though the ways of God were feme 
 how or other become unequal, yet that Providence had not de- 
 ferted the Cife o\ mankind, bat would at length bring the good 
 man out of trouble. Yet this is the cotifdenct, •uihich, this moft 
 confident of all Critics fays, could not possibly arife hut from 
 the per/uajion nf an equal Providence : And for this it is that he 
 charges me with z fondncfs fir reccn:Uitig contractilimts. Here I 
 fhall take my leave of this Difccurfcr on the book of Job, with 
 declaring, that a more contemptuous, difingenuous and ignorant 
 Writer never afTumed the honourable name of Answerer ; yet 
 I would not deny him his ftation amcnoft the Learned, I think 
 the fame apology may be made for him, that a namefake of his, 
 in his hiflory cf the Carthufians, made for their general Bruno, — 
 *' that doubtlcfs he could have wrote wtll if he would, for ho 
 '* printed a Miffal in an exceeding fair letter, and delicate fine 
 ** %wtitt^ pafier.^' Pet R El Bib. Caiih, fol. 35. 
 
 in 
 
Se(fl. 2. of Moses demonJirateJ. 119 
 
 in every one, on feeing the extraordinary Provi- 
 dence, which protected their Foreiathers, now juR" 
 about to be withdrawn from them. 
 
 III. Thirdly and laflly. To underftand thefe 
 words of a refurre^fion of the body^ exprefsly con- 
 tradifls Job's plain declaration againll any fuch 
 hope, in the following words, Js the cloud is con- 
 fumed and vanifheth away^ fo he that goeth down to 
 the grave^ fhall come up no more ^ Again, — • 
 So man lyeth down and rifeth not till the heavens be 
 no more, they JJjall not awake, nor be raifed out of 
 their fleep "". And again. If a man die, floall he 
 live again " ? Clarius and Drufius on the words, 
 //'// the heavens be no more, fay, IntelUge in ceterniim 
 — eft fenfus, nuUo unquam tempore, nam coelum 
 femper erit. It is not in human language to ex- 
 prefs a denial of the Refurre^iion of the body in 
 itrongeror plainer terms. So that it is no wonder 
 the Sadducees (hould, as they always did, urge the 
 firft of thefe texts as their palmary argument 
 againft the Pharifees; but as an argument ad ho- 
 mines only, for they refufed to have their opi- 
 nions tried by any thing but the Law of Mofes. 
 However to make it pertinent to the fupport of 
 their impiety, they underftood the book of Job to 
 be an infpired relation of a real conference between 
 •the Patriarch and his Friends. And give me leave 
 to obferve, that my Adverfaries v^ho have tiie 
 fame idea of this book will never be able to acquit 
 the Prophet of this impious Sadducean opinion. 
 Whereas the dramatic nature of it, here contend- 
 ed for, frees him entirely from the charge -, which 
 I defire may be accepted as another proof of the 
 truth of our general interpretation of the Work. 
 
 ' Chap. vii. ver. 9. «" Chap. xiv. ver. 12. 
 
 " Ver. 14. 
 
 I 4 Manaffah 
 
3 20 ^he Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 Manaffah Ben Ifrael, who holds that Job taught 
 the very contrary to a future State, (not appre- 
 hending the nature of the Compofition) has a 
 whole chapter againft the Sadducees, to fliew^ 
 that this makes nothing againft the reality of fuch 
 a State. 
 
 I cannot better conclude what hath been here 
 faid, on this famous paflage, or better introduce 
 what will be faid on others to come next under 
 examination, than with the judicious remark of an 
 ancient Catholic Bifhop, on this very book : It is 
 
 FIT WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND NAMES AGREEABLY 
 TO THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER ; AND 
 NOT MOLD AND MODEL THE TRUTH OF THINGS 
 ON THE ABUSIVE SIGNIFICATION OF WORDS". 
 
 This, though a maxim of the moft obvious rea-. 
 ion, can never, in thcologic matters efpecially, be 
 too often inculcated. How ufual is it, for in- 
 ftance, to have the following words of St. Paul 
 quoted as a proof for the general refurredbion of 
 the dead, by thofe who (as the good Bifliop fays) 
 tnold the truth of things on the ahufvve fignification of 
 words. " He that raifed up Chrift from the dead 
 *' fhall alfo quicken your mortal bodies by his fpirit 
 ** that dwelleth in you p." 
 
 III. But as the terjns^ in this paflage of Job, are 
 fup{)ofed, by me, to be metaphorical, and to allude 
 to the reftoration of a dead body to life, fome have 
 ventured to infer, that thofe who ufe fuch terms 
 and make fuch allufions mult needs have had the 
 
 ^ Tl\y)v K^ tu, !i»o[/,ail» vr^oo'yiKii vouv -cr^uj rr.t ru» wo nfjkivuv 
 Kzto-A^nii. Scrv. ;'« Catenu Graeca in Joh. 
 
 P Rom. viii, 1 1. 
 
 favi ng 
 
Se6t. 2 . o/" M o s E s detnonflr-ated. i -^ t 
 
 faving knowledge of the thing alluded to, Refur- 
 region of the Body : And the tollowing obfervation 
 has been repeated, by more than one Writer, with 
 that air of complacency, which men uliially have 
 for arguments they think unanfwerable — If the 
 Scriptures fpeak of temporal misfortunes and deliver^ 
 ance, in terms of death and a RefurreElion^ then the 
 do^rine of a refurreSlion mufi have been well known^ 
 or the language would have been unintelligible. And 
 here I will lay down this rule^ All words that are iifed 
 in a figurative fenfe, mufi be firfi undcrflood in a 
 literal ^ 
 
 This looks, at firfl fight, like faying fomethingj 
 but is indeed an empty fallacy •, in which two very 
 different things are confounded with one another; 
 namely, the idea of a Refurredion, and the i?elief 
 of it. I ihall fhew therefore that the very con- 
 trary to the firft: part of the learned Doftor's ob- 
 fervation is true, and that the latter is nothing to 
 the purpofe. 
 
 I. The Meffengers of God, prophecying for 
 the people'^s confolation in difaftrous times, fre- 
 quently promife a reftoration to the former days 
 of felicity : and to obviate all diftruft from un- 
 promifmg appearances, they put the cafe even at 
 the worft -, and affure the People, in metapho- 
 rical expreffions, that though the Community v/ere 
 as entirely diffolved as a dead body reduced to 
 dull, yet God w^ould raife that Community again 
 to life. Thus Ifaiah : 'Thy dead men fh all live ^ to- 
 gether with my dead body fhall they arife : Awake and 
 Jmgj ye that divell in the dufl : For thy dew is as (he 
 
 < Dr. TeltoTii fixQ Sermons htfore \ths Utiiver/ity of Oxford, 
 p. }8, 19, 
 
 deut) 
 
1 22 ^he Divine Legation I>ook VI. 
 
 dew of hei-hsy a7id the earth jJo all cajl out t Joe dead'. 
 And that we may have no doubt of the Prophet's 
 meaning, he himfclf explains it afterwards in the 
 following words ' : Jnd I will camp againft thee round 
 about ^ and I ivill lay ftcgc againft thee with a mounts 
 and Iwillraife forts againjl thee. And thoufhalt be 
 brought down, endfhalt fpeak out of the ground^ and 
 ihy fpeech fhall be low cut of the dufi, and thy voice JhalL 
 be as one that hath a familiar fpirit^ out of the 
 ground, and thy fpeech fhall whifper out of the dufi. 
 Nothing could be more plain or fimple than fuch 
 a metaphoric image, even amongft men who had 
 no knowledge that the natural body was indeed 
 to rife again j becaufe every man knowing what it 
 is- to live and to die, every man knows what it is to 
 revive, this being only an idea compounded of the 
 other two : So that v.^e fee there was no occafion 
 for the do£frine of the Refurreolion to make the lan- 
 guage intelligible. 
 
 Nay farther, this metaphorical expreflion muft 
 have there moft efficacy where the do5frine of the 
 Refurreciion was unknown.' For we have obferved 
 it was employed to infpire the higheft fentiments 
 of God's Omnipotency; but that always ftrikes 
 the mind moft forcibly which is as well ttew as 
 fuperior to its comprehenfion. Therefore life 
 from the dead was ufed, (and from the force with 
 which a new idea ftrikes) it became almoft pro- 
 verbial in the writings of the Prophets, to exprefs 
 the moft unlikely deliverance, by the exertion of 
 Almighty power. 
 
 The following inftance will fupport both thefe 
 ©bfervations •, and fhcvv, that the Dodrine was un- 
 
 ' Chap. XX vi. ver. 19. * Chap. xxix. 3, 4. 
 
 known j 
 
Se6t. 2 . of Moses demo?ifirafed, 123 
 
 known -, and that the Image was of more force 
 for its being unknown. The Prophet Ezekiei*, 
 when the Hate of things was mofl defperatej is 
 carried, by the Spirit, into a valley full of dry 
 bones, and afl<:ed this queftion, Son of man. Can 
 thefe dry bones live ? A queftion which God would 
 hardly have made to a Prophet brought up in the 
 knowledge and belief of a Refurre6lion. Butfup- 
 pofing the queftion had been made; the anfwer 
 by men fo brought up, muft needs have been, 
 without hefitation, in the affirmative. But we 
 find the Prophet altogether furprized at the ftrange- 
 nefs of the demand. He was drawn one way by 
 the apparent impofllbility of it to natural concep- 
 tions i he was drawn the other, by.his belief in the 
 Omnipotence of God. Divided between thefe two 
 fentiments, he makes the only anfwer which a 
 man in fuch circumftances could make, O Lord 
 Cod thou knowejl"^. This furprizing aft of Onini- 
 potency is therefore ftiewn in Vifion, either reM 
 -or imaginary. The bones come together ; they 
 are cloathed with flefti, and receive the hreath of 
 Ufe \ And then God declares the meaning of the 
 reprefentation. " Then he faid unto me. Son of 
 " Man, thefe bones are the whole houfe of Ifrael : 
 *' Behold, they fay. Our bones are dried, and our 
 " hope is loft, we are cut off for our parts. There- 
 *' fore prophefy and fay unto them. Thus faith 
 *' the Lord God, Behold, O my People, I will 
 " open your graves, and caufe you to come up out 
 *' of your graves, and bring you into the land 
 " of Ifraei. And ye fhall know that I am the 
 *' Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my 
 *' People, and brought you up out of your 
 " graves, and ftiall put my Spirit in you, and ye 
 *' lliall live; and I Ihall place you in your own 
 
 ^ Cbap. xxxvii. " V^er. 3, ^ Ver. 8, 10. 
 
 " Land. 
 
124 *^b^ Dhine Legation BookVI. 
 
 *« Land. Then fhall ye know that I the Lord 
 *» have fpoken it, and performed it, laith the 
 «* Lord'." 
 
 Here we fee, in a Prophecy delivered in Adlion 
 or Vifion, infteadof Words (the nature and origi- 
 nal of which has been difcourfed of elfewhere) and 
 afterwards explained by ivo/'ds, to afcertain its 
 meaning, that the figurative ideas of Death and 
 Rcfurredtion are ufed for temporal diftrefles and de- 
 liverance : and this, at a time when the Doolrine of 
 the Refurre^ion, from whence the metaphor is fup- 
 pofed to arife, was fo far from being well known, 
 that the figure could never have acquired its force 
 and energy but from the People's ignorance of 
 fuch a doctrine •, the fcenical reprefentation, without 
 all queftion, alluding to that proverbial Ipeecli 
 amongft the Jews : JVilt thou Jhezv wonders to the 
 dead? Shall the dead arife aiid praife thee'^ ? On the 
 whole then nothing was ever worfe grounded than 
 the obfervation, that if the Scriptures fpeak of tem^ 
 foral misfortunes and deliverance in the terms of death 
 a fid a refurreHion, then the doctrine of a refurrec-r 
 tion mujt have been well known^ or the language ixjould 
 have, been ufiintelligible. 
 
 11. And now for the general Rule which follows: 
 'All words that are ufed in a figurative fenfe mujl be 
 firji underjiood in a literal. If no more be meant 
 •than that every figurative fenfe has a literal, the 
 propofition is true, but trifling, becaufe/^z/r^Z/'y^ 
 is a relative term, and implies literal as its cor- 
 telative. If it means, that he who ufes words in 
 a figurative fenfe muft have an idea of the fiteral, 
 this is likewife true, but nothing to the purpofe, 
 
 y Vcr. 1 1, i3 feq% = Ps. Ixxxviii. lo. 
 
 becaufe 
 
Sed. 2. of M.o^'Ei demonjlrafed. 12^ 
 
 becaufe xht idea of a thing does not imply either 
 the truth or the belief oi it. But it* it meanSj than 
 a figurative propofition implies the Uler's belief of 
 its literal lenfe, this is to the purpofe, but not true^ 
 The People had an Idea of dry bones being clothed 
 again with flefh, and the breath of life infpired 
 into the carcafe ; but they were fo.far from believing 
 that was to be the cafe of all mankind, that they 
 did not know whether it was pofllble that thofa 
 bones in the valley could be rellored. 
 
 To conclude with the Answ!erers of this Dif- 
 fertation, the mifcellaneous Writers on the Book 
 of Job •, It may not be improper to remind them, 
 that they would have done their duty better, and 
 have given the learned and impartial Public more 
 fatisfa<5lion, if, inilead of labouring to evade two 
 or three independent arguments, though corro- 
 borative of my interpretation, they had, in any 
 reafonable manner, accounted. How this interpre- 
 tation, which they affedt to reprefent as vifionary 
 and groundlefs, fliould be able to lay open and 
 unfold the whole conduft of the Poem upon one 
 entire, perfed, elegant and noble plan, which 
 does more than vulgar honour to the Writer who 
 compofed it. And that it fhould at the fame time, 
 be as ufeful in defining the Parts as in developing 
 the Whole ; fo that particular texts, which, for 
 want of fufficient light, had hitherto been an eafy 
 prey to Critics from every quarter, are now no 
 longer aire«5led by the common opprobrium affixed 
 to this book, of its being a nofe of ivax, made to 
 fuit every religious Syfcem. Of which, amongft 
 many others, may be reckoned the famous text 
 juft now explained. All this, our Hypothefis, 
 (as it is called) has been able to perform, in a 
 Poem become, through length of time and negii- 
 
126 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 gcnce, fo deiperately perplexed, that Commen- 
 tators have choren, as the eafier taflc, rather to 
 find their own notions in it than to feek out thofe 
 of the Author. 
 
 For the reft. For any fuller fatisfaflion, He that 
 wants it is referred to third chapter of the Free and 
 
 candid examination of the Bijhop of London's * princi- 
 ples i^c. where he will fee, in a fuller light than 
 perhaps he has been accuitomed to fee fuch mat- 
 ters, the great fuperiority of acute and folid rea- 
 foning over chicane and fophiftry. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 THE book of Job hath engaged me longer 
 than I intended : but I fhall make amends, 
 by difpatching the remainder of the objections with 
 great brevity. 
 
 Thofe brought from the Old Testament are 
 of tv/o kinds. 
 
 I. Such as are fuppofed to prove the feparate 
 Exiftcnce, or, as it is called, the immortality oixhc 
 Soul. 
 
 II. Such as are fuppofed to prove a future ftate 
 of Rezvard and puntflomcnt^ together with a Refur- 
 re£iion of the body. 
 
 I. To fupport the firft point, the following 
 words of MoJes are urged, — " And God faid, 
 *' Let us make Man in our image, after our like- 
 •' nefs : and let them have dominion, i^c. — And 
 " God created man in his own image, in the image 
 
 =■ Dr. Sherlockr. 
 
 " of 
 
Se6t. 2. of Moses demonjlrated, 127 
 
 « of God created he him'' :" From whence it is in- 
 ferred, that Man was created with an immaterial 
 Soul. On the contrary, I fuppofe, that Mofes was 
 here giving intimation of a very different thing ; 
 namely its rationality. My reafons are thefe: — I 
 think indeed, it may be ftriiflly demonftrated thac 
 Man's foul is immaterial', but then the fame argu- 
 ments which prove his immateriality, prove like- 
 wife that the fouls of all living animals are imma- 
 terial-, and this too without the leaft injury to 
 Religion ^ An immaterial foul therefore being 
 common to him with the whole brute creation, 
 and it being fomething peculiar to man, in which 
 the image of God is faid to confill, I conclude 
 the Hiftorian did not hear teach any thing concern- 
 ing an immaterial Soul. The only two things pe- 
 culiar to Man are his Shape and his Reafon. None 
 but an AnthropomiOrphite will fay it was \\\sfjape ; 
 I conclude therefore it was his reason : And this 
 farther appears from hence. When God fays, Le( 
 lis make man in our image, after our likenefs, he im- 
 mediately adds. And let him have dominion over 
 the whole Brute Creation : Which plainly marks 
 in what the image ov M^/z*?/} confided: for what 
 was it that could inveft man with a Dominion de 
 fa£io, after he had it by this grant, de jure, but 
 his REASON only ? This Dominion too was apparent- 
 ly given for fome preeminence ; but man's pre- 
 eminence confifts not in his having an immaterial 
 foul, for that he has in common with all other ani- 
 mals : But in his Reafon alone which is peculiar to 
 him : The likenefs therefore or image confided in 
 REASON. And thus Phiio Jud^eus underflood the 
 
 '• Gen. i. 27. •= See Dr. Clarke againft Mr. Collins 
 
 en the Soul ; and Tht Enquirj into ths Nature of the human Soul^ 
 \y Mr. Baxter. 
 
 matter. 
 
128 ^he Divi/ie Legation BookVI. 
 
 matter, where alluding to this text, he lays, 
 Aoyoq iflv iiKuu 0s». Reafon is the image of God. So 
 much for the firfl Objedion. 
 
 2. The next is drawn from the following words 
 of the fame Writer : " And the Lord God formed 
 " man of the dull: of the ground, and breathed 
 " into his noftrils the breath of life^ and man be- 
 " came a living foul'^ •," that is, fay thefe Reafoners, 
 he had an immortal foul. But this is only building 
 en the ftrength of an englifh expreflion. Every 
 one knows that what the tranflation calls a living 
 fotil^ fignifies in the original, a living animal: Hence 
 the fame Writer fpeaks of a dead foul", as well as 
 a living foul. And indeed not only the propriety of 
 the terms, but the very fenfe of the Context re- 
 quires us to confine the meaning of living foul, to 
 living animal. God, the great plaftic Artilt, is 
 here reprefented as making and fliaping out a 
 figure of earth or clay, which he afterwards ani- 
 mates or infpires with life. He breathed, fays the 
 facred Hiftorian, into this Statue, the breath of kfe-^ 
 and the lump became a living creature. But St. 
 Paul, I hope, may be believed whatever becomes 
 of my explanation : who thus comments the very 
 text in queftion : — And fo it is written the firji man 
 Adam ivas made a living soul. The lafi was made 
 A QUICK.NING SPIRIT ^ Hcrc wc find the Apoftle 
 is fo fir from underltanding any immortality in this 
 account of Man's Creation, that he oppoies the 
 mortal animal Adam, to the immortal-making 
 Spirit of Christ. 
 
 3. Agairt, God in his fentence of condemnatiort 
 denounced againft all the parties concerned in 
 
 ^ Ges. ii 7. *■ Numb. vi. 6. Sec alfo Lev, xxi* 
 
 •1^1 II. * iCoK.xv. 45 — 49. 
 
 Adiim*i 
 
Sed. 2. of MosE Sf demonjlrated. tig 
 
 Adam's tranfgrefllon, fays to the ferpent, / will 
 put enmity between thee and the woman •, and between 
 thy feed and her feed: it JJjall bruife thy head, and 
 thou fhalt bruife his heel^. It will be allowed thac 
 even the moft early could not be fo ftupid as mo- 
 dern infidels would make them, to underftand 
 thefe words in their ftrift literal lenfe, that " fer- 
 pents would be apt to bite men by the heel, and 
 men, as ready to crufh their heads." But to en- 
 able them to underftand, by this part of the fen- 
 tence, that " man fhould be reftored to his loH 
 inheritance of immortality by the facrifice of Chrift 
 On the crofs," needed an exprefs revelation of this 
 myftery. "What then did the Jews underftaitd by- 
 it ? This certainly, and nothing but this, thac 
 *' the evil Spirit, who a6tuated the Serpent, would 
 continue his enmity to the human race ; but that 
 man, by the divine alTiftance, fhould be at length 
 enabled to defeat all his machinations." 
 
 4. Again^ the phrafe ufed by the facred Hifto- 
 j'ian to indicate the deaths of the Patriarchs is fur- 
 ther urged in fupport of the oppofition. — " He diedy 
 and was gathered to his People \ And dying is ex- 
 prefled by going down into the grave, or into Hell, 
 ScHEOL. — I will go down into the grave ffays Jacob) 
 [or into Heir\ to my fon mourning ' •, which phrafes 
 are fuppofed to intimate the foul's furviving the 
 body, and retiring, on the diffolution of the union, 
 to orte common Receptacle of Souls : for that it is 
 not only faid, the man died and was buried, but 
 like wife that he was gathered to his fathers : And 
 Jacob faid, he would go down into the grave to his 
 
 5 Gen. ill. 15. ^ Gen. xxv. 8 — 17. Chap. xxxv. 
 
 ver. 29. Chap. xlix. ver. 29, & 33. Numb. xx. 24 — 26 — 28. 
 Chap, xxvii. ver. 13. ^ Gen. xxxvii. 35. 
 
 Vol. V. K fen. 
 
130 ^he Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 yo«, who was luppofed to have been devoured by 
 wild beafb." But i. TheObjeftorsdo not reflefk 
 on the genius of the Eaftern ijpeech, which gives 
 aftion and motion to every thing •, in which to be 
 reduced to one common lot or condition is called 
 being gathered to their People ; in this fenfe 
 Jacob might properly fay, he would go down to 
 the grave to a dead fon, who was never buried, 
 i. e. that he Ihould find no eafe to his forrows till 
 he was reduced to the fame condition. 2. The 
 Objectors forget too the peculiar genius of the 
 Hebrew tongue, that delights fo much in Pleo- 
 nafms •, in which to die^ and to be gathered to their 
 people^ are but two different phrafes for the fame 
 thing. At the fame time, I am ready to allow 
 that this latter phrafe originally arofe, (whatever 
 People firft employed it) from the notion of fome 
 common Receptacle of Souls. But we know how 
 foon, and from what various caufes, terms and 
 ■phrafes lofe the memory of their original. 3. The 
 truth of this interpretation is confirmed by the 
 feveral contexts, where all thefe exprefTions occur *, 
 the Hillorian's purpofe being evidently nothing 
 elfe than to record the period of their exiflence 
 here on earth. 
 
 Thefe (except fuch as have been confidered 
 elfewhere) are all the texts I can find objefted to my 
 poiition, that immortality was not taught by the 
 LAW. How little they are to the purpofe is now 
 feen. But little or much, the Reader will remem- 
 ber they make nothing againfl my general argu- 
 ment, which maintains that the early Jews, (thofe 
 of them, I mean, and they certainly were but few, 
 who thought any thing of the matter) had at 
 leaft fome vague notion of the Soul's furviving the 
 I body. 
 
Se(5t. 1, ^ M s E s demon/! fated, 131 
 
 body. But the particular reafon I had to examine 
 them hath been given above. 
 
 II. We come next to thofe Scriptures which 
 are urged to prove, that a future Jiate of reward 
 and punijhment, or a refurre^tion of the body, was 
 taught by the mofaic Law. But before we proceed 
 to the particular Texts, it will be proper toconfider 
 the general argument brought from the genius of 
 the whole Jewifh Law : " which, as they fay, being 
 entirely typical, or, as the Apoftle fays, spiri- 
 tual, all the promifes and denunciations of tem- 
 poral good and evil, did denote and obumbrate a 
 future ftate of reward and punifhment ; for that 
 it was afhadow of things to come, but that the body 
 was of Christ ''." If the Objedors mean by this, 
 that the fandion of Temporal rcv/ard and punifh- 
 ment was no more than a mere reprefentation, in 
 figurative expreffions, of the Doftrine of 2. future 
 flate, without any real meaning in the then Provi- 
 dential difpofition of the things of this life': If, I 
 
 fay, 
 
 ^ CoLoss. ii. 17. 
 
 ' This wicked fancy fome early Chr'tjiian Writei-s fcem to 
 have gone far into; particularly Origen ; who, becaufe Cel- 
 fus had fuppofed, abfurdly enough, that the propagators of 
 the Gc'fpel had borrowed the Dodtrine of a/j//;^^ ^^/£ from 
 the Pagan Philofophers, was refolved not to be out-done, and 
 therefore tells his adverfary, " that where God fays in the 
 hook of Mofes, which was older than all the Pagan writings, 
 / am come do^jt;n to deliver them out of the hand of the EgyptianSf 
 and to bring them up out of that lund, unto a good lar>d and a 
 large ; unto a land floiving 'vjtth milk and hcney ; unto the place 
 of the Canaanites, and the Hittiies, and the AmonteSf and the 
 Perizzitesy and the Hivites, and the Jrhufites [ExoD. iii. 8<j 
 he did not mean, as ignorant men imagine, the country of Ju- 
 dea, but the kingdom of hea<ven; for that how good a land fo- 
 ever Judea might be, it was yet part of that earth which had 
 been pui under the curfe, and therefore, iif. /' — vs-^^ Ipui\ cVj 
 
1^2 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 lay, this be their meaning, the whole pretence to 
 Mofes's divine MifTion is irrecoverably given up. 
 Not to fay, that the vQxy pretence would be as abfurd 
 as it v/as falfe. For a Theocracy (from whence 
 flowed temporal rewards and punifliments) was no 
 ficrurative ExprcITion, as appears from the real and 
 fubftantial Laws made in fupport of the Thing. 
 In a word, 'tis a vile and impious imagination, 
 originally conceived by certain Jewijh AUegorifts 
 after the extraordinary Providence was departed from 
 them : and only to be matched by a like madnefs in 
 certain Mahometan AUegorifts, whofe early fuccelTes 
 made them fancy this extraordinary Providence was 
 come to them; and therefore fuppofed, on the 
 other hand, that Hell and Paradiie in the Alcoran 
 mean no more that the pleafures and afflidions of 
 this life ". In which, Both have been outdone by a 
 
 late 
 
 Mi.'yT>!?j 5 izriKKif xj tuv EWr,ny.M y^ufjiyMTUv a^^oaoTe^'^t £iV- 
 •nfctyi rov Qiov i7TX-/nX?i.6iA,ivov mw »y'ia.v yviv, tC/ clyuBr,v i^ laroTiXytVf 
 ^iaa-ccv yoCKcc kJ [t.i'hi, 7;r? x«la To» vi>^o» e3£t;1« ^tuicrcccnv' a^ <y? ollovloci 
 Tiv£? rnv ayacQriv, rvjn xcctu cofAiyja/vj^i/ la^aiav, Kni*,i\i-i)y x^ ccvrh h Tn 
 dpy(;rMiv zMrpxijiivri Iv toT? e^fai; t/j? 'ax^a.Qoujtuq rS Aox^ yn. Cont, 
 
 Celf. p. 3.';o. He tliat can rave at this ftrange rate mull needs 
 confider the whole fanftion of temporal vtvfZidi and puniftiment 
 fls a mere figurative reprefentation of future. But is not the 
 hearkening to fuch Interpreters expofiag divine Revelation to 
 the contempt and fcorn of Infidels and Free-thinkers ? And yet 
 perhaps we muft be obliged to hearken to them, if the endea- 
 vours of thefe Anfwerers become fuccefsful in proving the non- 
 FXiSTENCE of the extraordinary Providence (as promifed by 
 Mofes) againit the reafoning of the D. L. that it was actually 
 fidminirtered, in purfuance of that promife. For, by Origen's 
 Commentaries (published by Huetius) it appears, that he was 
 led into this ftrange opinion by taking it for granted, as Sykes, 
 Rutherforth, Stebbing, and fuch like writers have fincc done, 
 that under the Law, the belt and moft pious men were frequently 
 piiferable, and the wicked profperous and happy. 
 
 '" II y a parmi les fedlateurs d'AIi, une fefle qui prend fon nom 
 d'un Doitcur nomm» Alidiauhab, lequcl a enfeigne que les 
 
 delices 
 
Sed. 2. ^ M o s E s demonftrated. 133' 
 
 late Madman of our own, in his Difcourfes on the 
 Gofpel-Miracles. So odly perverfe is the human 
 underftanding when it has once forfaken the road 
 of common fenfe. 
 
 But if by the Law's being typical or spiri- 
 tual, no more be meant (as I think no fober man 
 can mean more) than that the temporal re- 
 wards AND punishments, equally and really dif- 
 tributed ; and the ritual w^orship, daily per- 
 formed, were typical orfignificative of the gospel 
 dispensation, and of the life and immortality 
 which that Difpenfation brought to light, I acknow- 
 ledge it for a truth : And, what is more, I require 
 nothing farther to prove my Propofition, That a 
 future flat e of rewards andpmiflments was not taught 
 to the Jewifh People by their Lazv. The Objeaors 
 fuppole, as I do, that the Jewifh and Chriilian 
 Religions are two parts of one entire Difpenfa- 
 tion. St. Paul telk us the order of thefe two 
 parts, THAT WAS not first which is spiri- 
 tual, BUT THAT which IS NATURAL; AFTER- 
 WARDS THAT WHICH IS SPIRITUAL ". Yct, at the 
 
 fame time, he tells us, the Law is spiritual °. 
 How is this to be reconciled ? No otherwife than 
 thus. That the Law was typical of the future 
 
 fpiritual part of the one entire Difpenfation. 
 
 Again, The Apoftles, in order to lliew the fuperior 
 excellence of the gospel, in their reafoning againft 
 Jews, and judaizing Chriftians, fet the Law in op- 
 pofition to it, under the titles of The Law of a carnal 
 Commandment; The miniflration of Death-, The Lam 
 
 delices du Paradis, & les peines de TEnfer ne font autre chofe 
 que les plaifirs & les afflif^ions de la vie. Herbelot Bibl. Qrien-. 
 ta'.e, iliV Akhrat & AicHRET. 
 
 " J Cor. XV. 46. o Rom, vii. 14. 
 
134 ^^'^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 of IVorks : and call fubjeftion to it, Subje5lion to the 
 Flejh. Yet thefc very Writers at the fame time 
 own t\\2ilthe Lawivas spiritual, or had a fpiritnal 
 meaning. But if by this they would teach that the 
 fpiritual meaning was generally underftood under 
 the Law, their whole argument had concluded in a 
 felf-con tradition. For then it was not a Law of 
 a carnal commandment, a minifiration of death; but, 
 indeed a Law of fpirit, a minifiration of life; only 
 under a dead and carnal cover ; which being clearly 
 feen through, or eafily taken off, ferved for no 
 more than a trick of hocus focus. The confequence 
 of all this would be, that the Law was of equal 
 dignity, and, tho* not of equal fimplicity, yet, in- 
 deed, eflentially the fame with the gospel. They 
 owned, we fee, that the Law had 2^ fpiritual fenfe ; 
 but when, and by whom difcovered, the Apoitle 
 Paul informs us, by calling that fenfe the newness 
 OF SPIRIT '' j which he oppofes to theoldnefs of the 
 letter, that is, the letter of the Law. In the former 
 part of the verfe, he fpeaks of the Law being dead-, 
 and, here, of its being revived With, a new fpirit, 
 in contradiftind:ion to the oldnefs of the letter... So 
 true was it, what, in another place he obferves, 
 that the Law was a ^•i\hT><y9f of things to come-, hut 
 the BODY was of Chrifi "^^ The fhadow not of a 
 body ihzn to be feen or underftood, as thefe Anfwer- 
 ers imagine, but of a body that was to come, and, 
 by its prefence, to explain the meaning and reafon 
 of t\\e fhadow. For tne Jews being, as the Apoftle 
 fays, in bondage under the elements of the world', 
 were as men fhut up in prifon, with their faces 
 Jcept turned from the light, towards the whited 
 wall of Ceremonies : on which indeed they faw 
 xn^ny fliadows ; but the body or oppofite fubft^nce 
 
 f Rom. vii, 6, Q Col. ii. 17, ' Gaj-. iv. 3. 
 
 9C 
 
Sed. 2. of Moses demonjirated. 135 
 
 at their backs, to which they could not turn, they 
 faw not. And in this ftate, fays the fame Apoftle, 
 they were kep jhut up unto the Faith^ which fhould 
 afterwards be revealed \ Therefore till that time 
 came, it appears that the great community of the 
 Jews had no knowledge of this Faith ; one of the 
 eflential articles of which is life e^erlafling. This, 
 we muft needs have concluded even tho' he had not 
 faid, that till that time came, they were in bondage 
 under the elements of the world. A proper character 
 truly of a People acquainted with the reveal'd 
 Do6trine of life and immortality. But the Objec- 
 tors pretend that the realbn why Mofes did not 
 PLAINLY teach a future ftate, in the manner 
 Christ hath taught it, was becaufe the Jews were 
 a carnal people, incapable of fpiritual things. 
 Now what is the confequence of this incapacity, 
 but that the fpiritual fenle was referved for better 
 times, when their minds fliould grow more pure 
 and defecated from carnal things •, which all along 
 continued fo grofs and bounded that even the 
 moft eafy of their typical informations, the calling 
 in of the Gentiles^ was never underftood by them ; 
 yet this truth the Prophets had, from time to time, 
 fo plainly cultivated, that the vail of typical em- 
 broidery feems often to have been drawn afide, 
 to aflift their weak fight. But farther, The bet- 
 ter part of the ObjeAors, I fuppofe, will allow 
 that temporal good and evil were not only propofed, 
 but actually difpenfed to the Jews, living for fome 
 time under an equal Providence. And \yhat was 
 the confequence of this but to confine xhtm to the 
 literal fenfe of their Sandlion, and ftop them from 
 looking farther ? Yet in defiance of Reafon, of 
 Scripture, of the order of things, nay even of 
 
 * Gal. iii. 23, 
 
 K 4 thfir 
 
1^6 ,^e piyine Legation Book VI. 
 
 their ownfyftems, thefe men will fuppofe, becaufe 
 the Law is faid to be fpiriiual^ or to have a fpiri- 
 tual fenfe, that therefore this fenfe always went 
 along with, and was infeparably attached to, the 
 literal^ in the underftandings of the Jewifh People. 
 Which is fo ftrangely abfurd, that it takes away 
 the very caufe and occafion of two fenfes. For, 
 Why, let ine aPK, had the Law a fpiritual fenfe' 
 under a carnal cover^ but for thig reafon, that the 
 |irft Jews were fo grofly minded as to be incapable 
 of fpiritual things ; and were therefore, in order 
 to_ dired and govern their affedions, prefented 
 with \.\\^ carnal, to repofe upon? i:\i-^tSchoolmafter, 
 as St. Paul calls the Lav/, which v/as to bring them 
 by degrees, through thofe carnal elements, to the 
 fpiritual and fublime Dodtrines of Christ.— Yet 
 fee the fcheme of thefe Objeaors. The early Jews 
 are fuppofed of fo fordid a tafte as to be. incapable 
 of a fpiritual Repaft, and therefore they had a carnal 
 Cover laid before them : yet were they, at the 
 fame time, fo quick fcented as to pierce throuah 
 this carnal flicll to which they were attached, in- 
 to the fpiritual fubllance, for which they had no 
 reliih. / w 
 
 This may be Reajm, fay thefe men ; but what 
 is human Reafon, when oppofed to Scripture ? 
 Juft what it was, fay I, before you fet them at 
 variance: and apparently for no other purpofe than 
 to filence and difgrace this modeft Hand-maid of 
 Revelation. 
 
 However, Scripture, it feems, informs us that 
 The figurative and literal, the fpiritual and carnal 
 fenfes of the Law always went together. This, they 
 fay, the Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews plainly 
 teaches. rkerc arc Priejis "jcho offer gifts ac- 
 cording 
 
6e<3^. 2. of M o s Es deinonftrated, 137 
 
 cording to the Law ; who ferve unto the exam-pie 
 and padow of heavenly things^ as Mofes was ad~ 
 moniped of God when he was ' about to make the 
 Tabernacle. For fee (faith he) that thou make all 
 'things according to the pattern pewed thee in the 
 mount \ But thefe Vv'ords will never do the bufinefs. 
 Could the Objeftors, indeed, find a Text whieh 
 tells us, that " as Mofes was admonifhed of God 
 '* about the fpiritual fenfe of the Law, fo he in- 
 " formed the People of it," this would be to the 
 purpofe. ■ As it is, it will hardly follow, that be- 
 caufe Mofes was admonifhed of the fpiritual fenfe, 
 that therefore the fpiritual and a carnal went to- 
 gether in the intelledls and Worfhip of the People, 
 Mofes's knowledge of this fecret 1 allow, as it 
 feems to follow from the privilege of his MifTion ; 
 for if Abraham defired to fee Chrift's day^ and f aw ity 
 and was glad., we are not to fuppofe that Mofes, 
 who had a higher office in the miniftry of God's 
 Difpenfations than Abraham had, Ihould be lefs 
 favoured than Abraham was. Yet tho' I believe 
 this, the text hej-e urged in fupport of it, does 
 in ftridnefs, prove little of the matter. The Ob- 
 jedors fuppofe the fenfe of the text to be this. — 
 " that the Priejisferved unto the example and padow 
 " of heavenly things., and that of this truth, Mofes 
 " was admonifoed, by God in the mount." But 
 the Apoftle is here inflrufting us in a very different 
 truth. The words — as Mofes was admonipoedofGod 
 —are a Similitude or Comparifon which conveys a 
 fenfe to this purpofe,—" The Priefts, who offer 
 gifts according to the Law, ferve unto the example 
 and fhadow of heavenly things, in as exa6t and 
 clofe a manner as that Tabernacle, which Mofes 
 vvas admonifhed to make, anfwered to the pattern 
 
 » Heb. viii, 4 — 5. 
 
 fhewed 
 
13S 'J'he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 (hewed him of it, in the mount." Not only the 
 Argument which the Apoftle is upon, but the 
 propriety of the word X^n/xar/^w points us to this 
 ienfe •, which fignifies to command or dire6t the 
 doing of a thing by an Oracle or Magiftrate j and 
 this X6v\y.scli(riJ.og or diredtion we find in the place 
 which the facred writer refers to — And look that thou 
 make them after this pattern, which wasjheived thee in 
 the mount °. But there is nothing thefe men will not 
 employ for the fupport of their abfurdities. They 
 will borrow aid even from a quibble or equivo- 
 cation : And the following words of the fame Apof- 
 tle have been urged to prove that the Law taught 
 its Followers the do<5lrines of the Gofpel. — Unto 
 us [Chrillians] -was the gospel preached as well, 
 unto them [Jews ".] 
 
 I. And now to proceed to the particular Texts 
 produced from the Pentateuch, in fupport of 
 this opinion, God fays to Abraham, In thee, Jh all all 
 the families of the earth he bleffed^. The Jews un- 
 derflood this to fignify z formulary, that men (hould 
 ufe, when they invocated the choiceft blefilngs on 
 their friends and families, to this effejft-. May 
 God hlefs thee as he hlefj'ed Abraham. And the firft 
 of Chriftian Interpreters, Hugo Grotius, under- 
 ftands it to fignify a promifed blefllng, which, in 
 time, fhould be derived to the whole earth, from 
 Abraham's care that his pofterity fhould continue 
 in the belief and worfliip of the one true God. 
 Indeed, when the fuinefs of time came, it v;ould 
 then be feen, both by Jews and Chrillians, that 
 this bleffmg ultimately centred in the holy Je- 
 fus, the only begotten fon of God, to whom the 
 Father hath delegated all power and dominion, 
 
 " ExOD. XXV. 40, * Heb. iv. 2, y Gen. xii. 3. 
 
 Again, 
 
Sedt. 2. ^ Moses demonft rated. 139 
 
 Again, " God fays to Abraham, I am thy exceeding 
 great reward \" And again : " -p-I will eflablilh 
 *' my covenant between me and thee, and thy feed 
 " after thee, in their generations, for an ^"yfr/^^m^ 
 " covenant -, to be a God tmto thee and to thy feed 
 " after thee. And I will give unto thee^ and to thy 
 " feed after thee, the land wherein thou art a 
 *' ftranger, all the land of Canaan, for an ever- 
 " lafting pofTefTion ; and I will be their God *." 
 " He repeats the fame promife to Ifaac and to Jacob 
 ferfonally\ yet he gave Abraham no inheritance 
 in the land though he promifed he would give it to 
 him and to his feed after him." — Thus have thefe 
 texts been urged by an excellent Writer '' againfl: 
 the Sadducean opinion, as containing a promife of 
 future rewards in another life : But urged by him, 
 I will fuppofe, as proving fuch zpromife in z-fecondary 
 or fpiritual fenfe only. Becaufe that fenle is fuf- 
 ficient for his purpofe : and becaufe in that fenfe 
 only, is it true, that they do contain fuch a promife. 
 For, I. in the literal fenfe it is a promife of the 
 land of Canaan to Abraham and to his pofterity ; 
 and in this fenfe it was literally fulfilled, though 
 Abraham was never perfonally in poffefliGn of it; 
 fince Abraham and his pofterity, put colleftively, 
 fignify the race of Abraham j and that Race 
 poffefled the land of Canaan. And furely, God 
 may be allowed to explain his own promife : Now 
 though he tells Abraham, he would give him the 
 land, yet, at the fame time, he alTures him that it 
 would be many hundred years before his posteri- 
 ty Ihould be put into poflTeffion of it: for when 
 Abraham defired to know whereby he might be 
 
 * Gen. XV. I. * Gen. xvii. 7, 8. 
 
 * Dr. S. Clarke in his Eqjiiifnce of Nat. and Rev. Religion, p. 
 
 ?4^ed, 6. 
 
 certain 
 
140 Ti'he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 certain that he, i. e. his feed fhould inherit the 
 land of Canaan % he is ordered to offer a facrifice-, 
 after which, God in a vifion explains to him the 
 import of his promife : That his feed fhould be a' 
 fir anger in the land that was 7tct theirs, and fJoould 
 ferve them, a}id that they fhould afflict them four 
 hundred years •, that afterwards they fhould ccme out 
 iDith great fubjtance, and in the fourth generation 
 Piould come into Canaan, for that the iniquity of 
 the Ammonites was not yet full '\ And as con- 
 cerning himfelf, that he fhould go to his fathers in 
 peace, and fhould he buried in a good old age ". Thus 
 \V€ fee, that both what God explained to be his 
 meaning, and what Abraham underftood him to 
 mean, was, that his Pofterity, after a certain 
 time, fhould be led into poflcfTion of the Land. 
 And left any miftake fhould remain concerning the 
 accomplifhment of this promife, the facred Hifto- 
 rian fums up the relation in thefe words: In that 
 fame day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, fay- 
 viig. Unto thy seed have I, given this land^i 
 But had the Hiftorian omitted fo minute an explana- 
 tion of the promife, yet common fenfe would inftruit 
 us how to underftand it. A whole Country is 
 given to Abraham and to his feed. Could it pof-" 
 Ably be God's defign, who does nothing in vain, 
 ^o place his Family in the land of Canaan, till they 
 were numerous enough to occupy and defend it ? 
 His Pofterity was his Reprefentative : and there- 
 fore the putting them into poffcfTion was the put- 
 ting him into it. Not to fay, that where a Grant 
 i^ made to a body of men colleftively, as to a Peo- 
 ple or a Family, no laws of contract ever under- 
 ftood the performance to confift in every individual's 
 
 = Gen. XV. 8. ^ Gcn. xv, 13, i^ fcq. « Ver. 15. 
 
 f Ver. 18. 
 
 5 t)eing 
 
Se6t. 2. of Moses demonJl7'afed. 141 
 
 being a perfonal partaker. 2. Secondly, the giv- 
 ing an heavenly Canaan to Abraham could not be 
 the literal fenfe of the text, becaufe an earthly Ca- 
 naan is ov/ned to be the dired immediate fubjedt of 
 the promife. The Jews indeed contend for this 
 literal fenfe, and with fome lliew of reafon ;, for 
 they hold, that xh^ future ft ate at the Refurreftion 
 will be pafled in the land of Judca, where Abra- 
 ham, they fay, is then to rife and take poffefTion ^ 
 This is confident however. But thefe Christian 
 Objectors, who hold no fuch opinion, muft be 
 content at iaft to find 2. future ftate only in the fpiri- 
 tual fenfe of the words : and that fenfe, we are- by" 
 no means ambitious of taking from them. 
 
 2. " The days of the years of my pilgrimage, 
 " (fays Jacob to Pharaoh) are an hundred and 
 " thirty years : few and evil have the days of the 
 *' years of my life been, and have not attained 
 *' unto the days of the years of the life of my fa- 
 *' thers in the days of their pilgrimage ''." — From 
 this fpeech it is concluded, that Mofes taught a 
 future ftate: and, efpecially fmce the Author of 
 the epiftle to the Hebrews hath brought ' it as a 
 proof that Jacob and the Patriarchs looked for a 
 better cauntry. That Jacob did fo, is unqueftion- 
 able ; but it can never be allowed that the words, 
 in their literal and obvious meaning, exprefs any 
 
 s Deus Abrahamo loquens ait : Dabo tibi, & femini tuo port 
 te, terrain peregrinationis tuee. Atqui conflat, Abrahamum, 
 & reliquos Patriarchas earn terram non pofledifTe : necefle er&o 
 eft, ut refufcitemur, quo bonis promifiis fruantur ; alioqui pro- 
 mifla Dei irrita & falfa forent. Hincitaque non tantum h-^\um 
 iMMORTALiTAS probatur, fed etiam ejfmtiale fundamentutn legis, 
 Resurrectio fcilicet mortuorum. ManaflVh Ben-Ifrael </? 
 RefurreBiom Mort. p. 7. 
 
 ** Gen. xlvii. 9. ' Chap, xi. ver. 13, 
 
 fuch 
 
142 77j^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 fuch thing. Pharaoh is here queftioning the Pa- 
 triarch, not of human life in general, but of his 
 own. Therefore, to make the reply pertinent, 
 Jacob mud be underflood to mean by his fil- 
 grimage^ the unfettled way of life, living in tents, 
 and removing from place to place, as the con- 
 venience of pafturage gave him invitation : and, 
 by the evil of his days, the ftraits he fuffered from 
 the fraud of Laban, and the hatred of his brother 
 Efau. As for the complaint of xhtfewnefs of his 
 days^ he himfelf explains it to be, not on account 
 of the Ihortnefs of human life in general, but, 
 becaufe he had not attained unto the days of the 
 years of the life of his fathers. The fenfe therefore, 
 which the writer of the epiftle to the Hebrews 
 puts upon thefe words, muft needs be ihc spiritual 
 fenfe. 
 
 3. The fame Patriarch, in his lad benediftion 
 of his fons, breaks in upon the prophetic blefilngs 
 with this pious ejaculation, / have waited for thy 
 falvation, Lord ^ : wliich is fuppofed to refped: 
 the falvation of mankind by Jesus Christ. I 
 grant it doth fo in sifpiritual fenfe y nay, for ought 
 I know, it may in a literal. But how Ihould an 
 early Jewifli Reader underftand it in this fenfe, 
 when the fame terms of iht falvation of God, or of 
 the Lord, are perpetually employed, throughout 
 the whole Bible, to fignify God's temporal mercies 
 to the Patriarchs and their Pofterity : and when 
 now, that tlie Myftery of the Gofpel hath been fo 
 long revealed, chriftian Commentators underftand 
 it in an hundred different fenfes ? 
 
 4. Balaam, under the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit, fays : Let me die the death of the Righteous, 
 
 ^ Gek, xlix. 18. 
 
 find 
 
Se6t. 2. of Moses demotiflrated. 145 
 
 and let my laft end he like his ' : Which is under- 
 ftood as a wifh that he might be partaker with the 
 Righteous in another life. Had the apoftate Pro- 
 phet faid, Let me live the life of the Righteous^ it 
 would have had a much fairer claim for fuch a 
 meaning. As it is, Both the force of the words, 
 and their relation to the context, reftrain us to this 
 literal meaning, — Let me die in a mature old 
 age, after a life of health and peace, with all njy 
 pofterity flouriihing about me : as was the lot of 
 the righteous obfervers of the Law." This vaim 
 wilh, Mofes, I fuppofe, recorded that the fub- 
 fequent account of his immature death in battle °* 
 might make the ftronger impreflion on the ferious 
 Reader, to warn him againft the impiety and folly 
 of expediing the laft reward of virtue for a life 
 fpent in the gratification of every corrupt appetite. 
 But if any one will fay, the words have befides, a 
 fublimer meaning, I have no reafon to contend 
 with him. 
 
 5. The next is a ftri6lure of the Law in Le- 
 viticus, urged by Dr. Stebbing in this manner, 
 
 * Mofes inforces the obedience of the Ifraelites 
 ' upon this conlideration, Te fhall therefore keep 
 
 * my Jlatutes and judgments, which if a man do he 
 
 * fhall live in them ". Here is a promife of life 
 made to thofe who fhould obferve the ftatutes 
 and judgments which God gave them by his 
 fervant Mofes ; which cannot be underftood of 
 this temporal life only, becaufe the beft men 
 were often cut off in the midft of their days, 
 and frequently fuffered greater adverfities than 
 the moft profligate finners. The Jews therefore 
 
 ^ Numb, xxiii. lo. 
 
 "" Chap. xxxi. ver. 8. 
 
 " Levit. 
 
 xi'Jii. 5. 
 
 
 *' have 
 
144 ^^-'^ Divine Legation Book Vf^ 
 
 *' have conflantly believed that It had a refped to 
 " the life to come. When the lawyer in the 
 *' Gofpel had made that moft important demand, 
 " Majter, what /hall I do to inherit eternal life °, 
 *' our bleffed Lord refers him to what was written 
 " in the Law ; and, upon his making a found 
 *' and judicious anfwer, approves of it -, and for 
 *' fatisfadion to his qucflion, tells him, This do, 
 ** and thou /halt live." 
 
 The Objedor would have the promife of life in 
 Leviticus to fignify eternal life. But St. Paul 
 himfelf had long ago decided this queftion, and 
 declared for the negative. A difpute arofe be- 
 tween him, and thejudaizing Chriftians, concern- 
 ing ivhat it was which jujiified before God, or intitl- 
 ed to that eternal life brought to light by the 
 Gofpel. They held it to be xhc works of the Law 
 (believing, perhaps, as the Objedor alTures us 
 they did, that this text, in Leviticus, had a rcfpecl 
 to the life to come:) St. Paul, on the contrary 
 affirms that it v^as, faith in Jefus the Mejfiah. And 
 thus he argues — " But no man is juitified by the 
 *' Law in the fight of God it is evident : for the 
 " Ji(Ji f:>all live by faith. And the Law is not of 
 *' faith, but the man that doth them (hall live in 
 •' them p." — As much as to fay — " That no man 
 can obtain eternal life by virtue of the Lap is 
 evident from one of your own Prophets [Hab] 
 who exprefsiy holds, that the jujl pall live by 
 FAITH*'. Now, by the Law^ no rewards are pro- 
 mifed to faith, but to works enly. The man that 
 DOTH them (fays the Law in Levit'.) Jhall live in 
 them." Here then we fee that this very text, 
 
 • Luke X. 25. ' Gal. iii U>'2. "i ii. 4. 
 
 .win. 
 
 3* 
 
 vyhich 
 
Se(5l. 3* ^f Moses demonjlrated. 14^ 
 
 which the Objector brings to prove that eternal life 
 was by the Law, St. Paul urges, to prove that it 
 was not by the Law, Let us attend to the Apoflle*s 
 argument. He is to Ihew that juftification, or 
 eternal life, is by faith. This he does even on 
 the conceiTion of a Jew, the Prophet Habakkuk ; 
 who exprefsly owns it to be by faith. But the 
 Law, fays the Apoftle, attributes nothing to /^/V/??; 
 but, to DEEDS only, which if a man do he fhall 
 live in them. Now, if, by life, be here meant, 
 as the objeftor fuppofes, eternal life, then St. 
 Paul's argument does not come out as he in- 
 tended it ; namely that faith and not the works 
 of the Law, juftifiss ; but thus, that both faith and 
 the works of the Law jujlify, which would have 
 fatisfied thefe Judaizers, as reconciling on their 
 own prejudices Mofes and Habakkuk ; but would, 
 by no means, have fatisfied our Apoflle ; whofe 
 conclufion on this queftion, where difcuffed ap 
 large, in his epiltle to the Romans, is, that a man 
 isjufiified by faith without the deeds of the Law ^ 
 The very drift of his argument therefore fliews us, 
 that he muft neceflarily underftand the life, pro- 
 mifed in this text of Leviticus, to be temporal 
 life only. But charitably fludious, as it were, to 
 prevent all poflible chance of our miftaking him on 
 \o important a point, He immediately fubjoins, 
 Chrijl hath redeemed us from the curfe of the Law \ 
 Now we know that our redemption by Chrift was 
 from that death which the firft man brought into 
 the world : the curfe which he entailed upon his 
 pofterity. Therefore the transferring this term 
 from Adam to the Law, fliews plainly that in the 
 Apoftle's fentiments, the Law had no more a fliare 
 in the redemption of fallen man than Adam him- 
 
 ^ Rom. iii. 28. * Gal» iii. 13. 
 
 Vol. V. L. felf 
 
1^6 I'he D'lvme Legation Book VI. 
 
 felf had. Yet it is certain, that if the Law, when 
 it laid, He zvbo keeps thefe ftatutes and judgments jhall 
 live in ihem, meant, for ever, it propofed the Re- 
 demption of mankind as compleatly as the bleffed 
 Jefus himfclf did, when he faid, he that believeth 
 in me JJjall have everlajiing life. This becomes 
 detr.onftrable, if St. Paul's reafoning will hold, 
 who furely had heard nothing of this prerogative of 
 theZ-^w, when he faid, If there had been a L. aw given 
 which could have given life, verily righteoufnefs Jhould 
 have been by the haiv. Where obferve, I pray you, 
 the force of the word ^wcTrotv^o-ai, which fignifies to 
 quicken, or to make alive j plainly intimating the 
 fame he had faid in the place quoted before, 
 that thofe in fubjeftion to the haijc were under a 
 ciirfe, or in the Rate of death. — Let me add only 
 this further obfervation, that if (as this Objedlor 
 pretends) by life in the text of Levit. be meant 
 eternal life; and if (as the i^poftle pretends) by 
 life, in the text of Hab.ikkuk, be meant eternal 
 life ; then will Mofes and Habakkuk be made direftly 
 to contradid: one another-, the firfc giving that 
 eternal life to works, which the latter gives to 
 FAITH. But Dr. Stebbing v/ould infinuate, that 
 Jefus himfelf feems to have affixed this fenfe to the 
 text in Leviticus ; however, that the plain infe- 
 rence is that eternal life was taught at leaft, if not 
 cbt (lined by the Law. " When the lawyer in the 
 *' Gofpel (fays he) had made that mod important 
 " demand, Majler, what fljall I do to inherit 
 ^ eternal life " ? our bleffed Lord refers him to 
 *' what was v/ritten in the Law, and upon his 
 *' making a found and judicious anfwer, approves 
 " of it-, and for fatisfadion to his queftion, tells 
 ** iiini, '■This do and thou fj alt //^'£'."— Would not 
 
 " LUKL X. 25. 
 
 any 
 
Sedl. 3- of Moses demonjlrated. i^y 
 
 any one now conclude, from the fenfe here put 
 upon the words of Jefus, that the foimd and ju- 
 dicious anjhver of the Lawyer mufl have been a 
 quotation of the text in Leviticus, — Tefiall keep 
 my Jlatutes, which if a man do he fhall live in them ; 
 — or at leaft fome general promife made to the 
 obfervers of the whole Law of Mofes ? No fuch 
 matter. On the contrary, the Lawyer's anfwer 
 was a quotation of only one precept of the Lav/, 
 I'hcujhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
 &c. and thy Neighbour as thy f elf . Now how much 
 foever we may differ about a future fiate's being 
 held out by the Law^ through a Meiliah to 
 come, I fuppofe we are both agreed that faith 
 in the Mejfiah, either adual or imputed, is ne- 
 ceffary to obtain xKis. future fate. There are but 
 two ways then of underilandihg this text of St. 
 Luke, neither of which is to his purpofe. The 
 iirft is the fuppofing that Jefus included faith 
 in himfelf in this precept of loving God with all the 
 heart, &c. which will appear no forced interpre- 
 tation to him who holds Jefus to be really and 
 truly God ; as, I im.agine, the Dodor does ; and 
 may be fupparted by a circumftance in the ftory 
 as told by St. Matthew % though omitted by St. 
 Luke, v/hich is, Jefus's faying, that on thefe two 
 commandments hang all the haw and the Prophets. 
 The fecond and exa6ler interpretation is, that 
 Jefus fpoke to a profeffing follower, who pretended 
 to acknowledge his Million, and v/anted only a 
 RULE OF LIFE. For Jefus was here preaching the 
 Gofpel to his difciples, and a Lawyer food up and 
 TEMPTED him, that is, on the falfe footing of a 
 difciple, required a rule of life. Nov/ in either 
 cafe, this reference of Jefus to the Law muft im- 
 
 * Matth. xxii. 40. 
 
 L 2 ply 
 
148 ^he Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 ply this, and this only, that ivithout righteoufnefs 
 and holinefs no man flmll fee the Lord. A point in 
 which, I fuppofe, we are agreed. — But ftill the 
 Do6lor will fay that thefe words of Jefus allude to 
 the words of Mofes. Admit they do. It will not 
 follow, as he feems to think, that they were given 
 to explain them. How many allufions are there in 
 the New Teftament to paflages in the Old, ac- 
 commodated to a fpiritual fenfe, where the texts 
 alluded to, are leen, by all but Fanatics, to have 
 only a carnal? And even in this very allufion, if 
 it be one, we find that the promife made to the 
 obfervers of the whole Law, is transferred to the 
 obfervance of one fingle precept, in the moral 
 part of it. But let us grant him all he would have-, 
 and admit that thefe words of Jefus were given 
 to explain the words of Mofes. What would 
 follow from thence, but that the promife in Le- 
 viticus had ^fecondary fenfe of 2. fpiritual and fub- 
 limer import ? Will this give any advantage to the 
 Do6lor and his Party ? Surely none at all. And 
 yet the ahufe of this conceffion is all they have to 
 fupport themfelves in their determined oppofition 
 to Common fenfe. 
 
 6. A Law in Leviticus is delivered in thefe 
 terms, — " Whoever he be of the children of 
 *' Ifrael, or of the ilrangers that fojcurn in Ifrael, 
 " that giveth any of his feed unto Molech, he 
 " (hall furely be put to death ^" Let me firft 
 explain the text before I fliew how it is perverted. 
 There were two cafes in which the offender here 
 defcribed might efcape punifhment : Either the 
 crime could not be 'legally proved. Or the Magi- 
 (Irate might be rcmifs in punifhing. The di- 
 
 y Lev IT. XX. 2. 
 
 vine 
 
Sed. 3. o/" M o s E s demonjlrated, 149 
 
 vine Lawgiver obviates both : and declares that 
 the Infanticide, in fiich cafe, fhall fuffer death by- 
 God's own hand in an extraordinary manner. 
 The fupplial of the firft defed, is in thefe words, 
 — " And I will fet my face againil the man, 
 " and will cut him off from amongst his 
 *' PEOPLE ^.'* The fupplial of the fecond is in 
 thefe : — " And if the people of the land do any 
 " ways hide their eyes from the man, when he 
 " giveth of his feed unto Molech, and kill him 
 " not, then I will fet my face againft that man 
 " and againft his family, and will cut himoff\'* 
 So much for the fenfe of the text. And now for 
 the nonfenfe of our Interpreter, a Profeflbr of • 
 Law and Divinity, the egregious Do6lor Ruther- 
 roRTH. This fage provifion for the execution 
 of the Law our Profelfor being totally unconfcious 
 of, he infifts " that cutting off from among ft his 
 *' People can only mean eternal damnation, the 
 " being configned to a ftate of punifhment in 
 " another life ".'* He is, as I fay, a dealer both 
 in Law and Divinity : but not having yet learnt 
 the ufe of his tools, he confounds Law by Theo- 
 logy, and depraves Theology by Law : And of 
 this, the reader hA already feen fome delegable 
 inftances. But at prefent, to regulate a little his 
 Law-ideas, let him turn to Exod. xii. 15. and 
 Levit. vii. 25, and he will find that the cutting 
 off from Ifrael, and the cutting off from the Peopky 
 are phrafes which fignify only capital punifhment 
 of a civiUcind. Unlefs he will fuppofe that what 
 is there threatened for eating leavened bread and pro- 
 bibiiedfat^ is eternal life in torments. 
 
 7. The Psalmist, in a holy confidence of God*s 
 mercies, fays, Thou wilt not leave my foul in hell, 
 
 ^ Ver. 3. * Ver. 4 — 5, »> Page 33. 
 
 L 3 neither 
 
150 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 neither ivilt thou fuffer thy holy one to fee corruption. 
 Thou ivilt foezv me the path of life \ in thy prefence 
 isfulnefs of joy ^ at thy right hand there are pica fur es 
 for evermore^. — The fcope of the whole Pfahn is 
 to implore the proteftion of God, from this con- 
 ficieration, that the Plalmilt himfelf not only fted- 
 fiiftly adheres to the Law of God, but is ready to 
 oive his aid and fupport to all thofe who do. — 
 That the vengeance of God purfues idolatry, 
 which he carefully avoids — That the God of Ifrael 
 is his portion^ and tlie land of Cafiaan a fair inhe- 
 ritance — That this fledfaft adherence to the Lord 
 is his confidence and peace — Then follow the words 
 in queftion, — That he is fure, God will not leave 
 his foul hi Hell, &c, &c. that is, fuffer him to fall 
 immaturely, as was the lot of the tranfgrcfibrs of 
 the Law: — And concludes, that walking in the 
 law of God is both the highefl: pleafure, and 
 ftrongeft fecurity. All which isexprefled in terms 
 fo magnificent, as to fl"iew, indeed, that this Pfalm 
 hath a fpiriiual as well as literal meaning. And 
 that fpiritual meaning St. Peter hath explained to 
 us*^: Indeed, if Dr. Stebbing's word were to be 
 taken, the Apoftle hath explained it in a man- 
 ner which overthrows all oudl^eafoning. " St. 
 ** Peter (fays the Dc(5lor) claims this paffage [Pf. 
 " xvi. 10, I I.J as relating to Chrift'srefurredion'.'* 
 But how does he claim it ? No otherwife than by 
 giving it <i fecondary fenfe. Now the learned Dcflor 
 himlelf contends that the fcccndary fenfe of the 
 Prophefies was purpofely concealed and fecreted 
 from the Jewifii Church : Confequently, the Re- 
 furrcBion, the very dcdlrine, which the feccndary 
 fenfe of this text conveys, was fecreted from it. 
 But then, the Do6tor fays, that" in x.\\t primary 
 
 * PsAt. xvi. 10, 1 1, ^ Acts ii. 25 — 29. ^ E.xam. p. 49. 
 
 *' fenfs 
 
Se<^. 3. of Moses demonjirated. 151 
 
 " fenfe David declares his expe£tation of a fu- 
 " ture ftate, not in confequence of any promife 
 " of the Law, but by faith in Jefus Chrift." 
 The refuk then of the Dodor's expofition is this. 
 That the fame text may ferve to prove that the fpiri- 
 tual fenfe of the Law was and was not revealed at 
 this time. The verfe has a primary {^vAt which 
 reveals a future ftate, and a fecondary fenfe which 
 hides and fecretes it. — But he infifts much upon 
 the following words of the text — In thy frefence is 
 fulnefs of joy ^ and at thy right hand are -pleafures 
 for evermore. " ExprefTions, fays the Dodtor, 
 " much too great to defcribe any v/orldly happi- 
 *' NESS^" — I readily confefs it was no worldly hap" 
 pinefs which is here defcribed : for to be in the 
 prefence of God fignified the fame as to appear be- 
 fore the Ark^ PL xvii. 15. and to enjoy pkafures 
 there for evermore^ the fame as dwelling in the hcufe 
 of the Lord for ever^ i. e. all his days, Pf xxiii. 6 
 a fpiritual happinefs, fure, though enjoyed in this 
 world. 
 
 But the texts of texts, the precious ones indeed, 
 are thofe where a hell is m.cntioned j as here — 
 thou Jhalt not leave my foul in Hell^. And of this 
 orthodox confolation there is no fcarcity in the Old 
 Teftament. Mr. Whifton affures us, it is almoji 
 five times as often mentioned as in the New. It may 
 be fo. Hov/ever inftead of examining into the juft- 
 nefs of this nice calculation, I fhall chufe rather 
 to confider what is to be underftood by the word, 
 than how often it is repeated. Now, I iuppofe nei- 
 ther I nor my Anfwerers can have any reafonable 
 objedion to St. John's authority in this matter ; 
 who fpeaking, in the book of Revelations, of the 
 
 f Exam. p. 49, « PsAL. xvi. lo. 
 
 L 4- ufclefs 
 
152 T^he Divi?7e Legation Book VI. 
 
 ufelefs old furniture of the law, fays — and death 
 and HELL were caji into the lake of fire : this is 
 the fecond death^. From hence it appears that the 
 hell of the Old Teftament was a very different 
 thing from the hell of the New, called, the lake 
 of Fire i fince the one is made the punifhment, 
 or at leaft the extinftion of the other. And to re- 
 move all doubt, the Apoftle, we fee, calls this 
 cajiing into the lake, 2l fecond death. Muft not then 
 the Lake itfelf be ?i fecond Hell? And if fo, could 
 the frji or the Old Teftament hell be any other 
 than the grave ? The next words tell us, that 
 whofcever was not found written in the book of life 
 ivas cajl into the lake of fire '\ So that the fenfe of 
 the whole feems to be this, that at the confumma- 
 tion of things (the fubjeft here treated of) all phy- 
 fical and moral evil Ihall be abolifhed. 
 
 8. Again, The Pfalmift fays, " Deliver my 
 ** foul from the wicked — from the men of the 
 " world — which have their portion in this life, and 
 " whofe belly thou filleft with thy hidtreafure.— As 
 " for me, I will behold thy face jn righteoufnefs : 
 *' Jfhall be fatisfied, when I awake, with thy like^ 
 " nefs ''." Many moral and myftical commenta- 
 tors (and perhaps our Englifh tranflators them- 
 felves, as one would think from the turn of their 
 language) underftood thefe words as literally 
 pointing, in one verfe, to 3. future ftate, and, ia 
 the other, to a refurreUion, And in this, the dif- 
 fenter, Leland, as I remember, in fome of his 
 things, feems much to triumph. But I Ihall lhe\v 
 that it means nothing lefs. 
 
 They have their portion in this ///>, fay ouf 
 tranflators, who, with great piety, had their heads 
 
 } XX, 14. » Ver. ic. ^ fs. xvii. li^ 15. 
 
$ed:. 3 . of Moses demonftrated, i ^^ 
 
 full of ANOTHER. Whcrcas the original word 
 literally fignifies in vitis^ the Hebrew being a plural 
 word and having no fingular : which, by the way, 
 let me obferve, is a convincing proof that the ideas 
 of the common ufers of this language were only 
 employed about this life-, had they been converfant, 
 like us, with another, they would foon have found 
 a fingular to their plural. This will be thought a 
 ftrange Paradox by thofe I have to do with, who 
 clo not know that plural nouns are often words of 
 amplification, not of number. As our tranflators 
 render it, in this life, fo the Chaldee par. p-oes a 
 (tep further, and renders it, in life eternal. The 
 Sept. tranflators, who bell underftood their own 
 idiom, interpret it better than either, h t^ ^m avruv 
 in this life of theirs. So that the true meaning of 
 what we turn, their portion in this life, amounts to 
 this — they are perfe^ly profperoiis. 
 
 And now, concerning the words in the other 
 yti{t, — I fhall be fatisfied, when I awake, with thy 
 likenefs. For the fenfe of thefe I Ihall tranfcribe 
 the following paflage of an excellent Critic, and, 
 what is more, a very orthodox Divine. — — " The 
 " Chaldee," fays Dr. Hammond, (and what fort of 
 interpreters they were we have feen juft above) 
 
 '■'■ apply this awaking to David ; -when I jhall 
 
 '* awake, I fhall he fatisfied with the glory of thy 
 " countenance. And fo it hath truth, in reipedl of 
 " the refurreftion of the juft. — But all the other 
 " interpreters agree to apply it to this glory : h tJ 
 *' o^0>)i/at Tfiv ^o^ccv (r», at the appearing of thy glory„ 
 *' fay the ISKYAl.—cum apparuerit gloria tua, fays 
 ♦'the Latin; (and fo the Arabic and -^thiopic) 
 « — JVhen thy fidelity fhall awake, faith the Sy- 
 S^ |-iac : And fo moft probably it is to be under- 
 
 " ftood. 
 
154 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 " flood. By [God's gkry azvaking] fignifying his 
 *' glorious and powerful interpoiition to David's 
 *■'- PRESENT refcue from his enemies hands. — And 
 " thus the learned Caftellio took it; turn fatiandus, 
 " cum tuaexperredlafueric imago; I Jhall be fatif- 
 " fed when thy likenejs pall be awaked \" Other 
 Interpreters, and thofe of the firft Clals, who make 
 the awaking to refer to David, fuppofe it to fignify 
 his morning adorations before the Ark, the fym- 
 bolic refidence of the divine Prefence "". But that 
 David was here fpeaking in the language of the 
 Lazv, and not of the Go/pel, I think, all but deter- 
 mined Bigots will confefs. 
 
 Q. And again : Surely goodnefs and mercy Jhall 
 follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in 
 the Houfe of the Lord for ever ". By the hoiife of the 
 Lord can be meant nothing elfe but the Tabernacle 
 or the Temple : So that, for ever, or as the Heb. 
 iays, to length of days, mull mean that mature 
 old age, which the Law promifed to its faithful 
 adherents. 
 
 10. In the xxxvi Pfalm, the facred Writer fays: 
 
 For with thee, is the fountain of life : in thy light 
 Jhall we fee light <'. Here, to prove the immortality 
 of Man, a text is produced, which teaches the 
 
 ' Annot. on the xviith P/alm. 
 
 •" V^idetur fignificare David arcam, qiiam fingulis tempo- 
 ribus matutinis Deu:n adoraturus adibat. Cleric, in locum. Pro 
 more Hebr. Poefeos, ipfum in Sandluario quotidie in pia;fentia 
 Dei ad arcam, quod divinas praefentia; fymbolum erat, i'tiQ velle 
 fifterc, quod illi ar.'.e omnia in votis fuit, fummoque gaudio 
 periudit. Hare in loc, 
 
 « Ps. xxiii. 6, " Ps. xxxvi, 9, 
 
 eternity 
 
Se(5t. 3. of Moses demonjirated, 155 
 
 eternity of God. But I know Some, who think 
 there is a necefTary connexion between thefe two 
 truths. 
 
 11. " Like flieep (fays the Pfalmift) they [the 
 " wicked] are laid in the grave, death fhall feed 
 " upon them ; and the upright fliall have domi- 
 '* nion over them in the morning, and their beau- 
 " ty Ihall confume in the grave, from their dwel- 
 " Hng. But God will redeem my foul from the 
 " power of the grave, for he lliall receive me p." 
 The literal meaning of v^^hich is, as appears by the 
 context, that " the wicked lliould be untimely cut 
 off and deftroyed, — in the mornings that is, by the 
 judgment of the Law, which was adminiftered in 
 the morning hours 'i; but that his life, and the 
 life of the upright, fhould be preferved and pro- 
 longed." Here, once for all, let me defire the 
 Objedors to confider. What it is that is ever op- 
 posed (in the many pafTages of this fort) to hife^ 
 Redemption^ &c. It is not Mifery^ Torments^ &c. 
 as it muft have been, did life literally fignify eter- 
 nal life in a future ftate -, but it is death, which 
 (hews it was a life here on earth. 
 
 12. 'Thou /halt guide me (fays he again) %viih thy 
 counfel^ and afterwards receive me to glory \ Or, 
 as an excellent Critic has it, Confilio tiio deduxijii 
 me^ ^ pojlea cum gloria excepijli me. " Thou waft, 
 
 P Ps. xlix. 14, 15. 
 
 1 See Jerem, xxi. 12. " O houfe of David, thus faith the 
 ** Lord, Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him 
 <• that is fpoiltd, out of the hand of the opprsfTor, left my 
 ♦' fury go out like fire, — becaufe of the evil of your doings." 
 
 ^ j?s. Ixxiii, 24. 
 
 or 
 
156 I'he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 or {halt be, always prefent with me in difficulties 
 and diftrefles ; and fhalt lead and conduft me to 
 better fortunes." This literal fenfe the context 
 requires. 
 
 13. " But the mercy of the Lord is from ever- 
 " lafting to everlafting, upon them that fear him, 
 " and his righteoufiiefs unto childrens children j 
 *' to fuch as keep his covenant, and to thofe that 
 ** remember his commandments to do them '.** 
 This is fo far from intimating 2. future fiat e^ that 
 it is the very temporal promife annexed to the 
 fecond Law of the Decalogue — Shewing mercy unto 
 thoufands of them that love me, and keep my command- 
 ments \ 
 
 14. — For THERE the Lord commanded the hUffing^ 
 even life for evermore ". — Where ? In the habi- 
 tation of brethren living together in unity. No- 
 thing elfe then can be meant, but that death and 
 dangers fliould not approach a houfe fo flrongly 
 united in itfelf. 
 
 15. In the book of Proverbs it is faid — • 
 " The wicked is driven away in his wickednels : 
 
 *^ BUT THE RIGHTEOUS HATH HOPE IN HIS 
 
 " DEATH ''." That is, " the righteous hath hope 
 that he Ihall be dehvered from the mod imminent 
 dangers." So the Psalmist — upon them that hope 
 in his mercy ; to deliver their foul from deaths and 
 to keep them alive in famine ^. — And again, 'Thou 
 hafi delivered tny foul from death j TVilt not thou 
 deliver my feet from fallings that I may walk before 
 Qodin the light of the living^ ? See Ps. xxxiii. 19. 
 Ivi. 13. 
 
 » Ps. ciii. 17, i3. * ExoD. XX. 6. " Ps. cxxxiii. 3. 
 
 ? Prov. xiv. 32, y Ps. xxxiii. 19. ^psjvi. j^. 
 
 16. And 
 
$e(ft. 3* of Moses dej7ioj2jlrated, 157 
 
 16. And again — "The way of life is above to 
 the wife, that he may depart from Hell beneath '. 
 That is, The wife man prolongs his days here on 
 earth, and efcapes that untimely death which at- 
 tends vice and folly. A Dodtrine perpetually in- 
 culcated throughout this book ; as at chap. x. ver. 
 2, 28. chap. xi. ver. 7. chap. xii. ver. 28. chap. 
 xxi. ver. 16. 
 
 And again, " When a wicked man dieth, his 
 *' EXPECTATION Ihall pcrilh j and the hope of un- 
 " juft men perifheth ^" And again, — " So fhall 
 " the knowledge of wifdom be unto thy foul: 
 " when thou haft found it ; then there fhall be a 
 *' reward, and thy expectation fhall not be cut 
 " off''." In the firft of thefe two places it ap- 
 pears by the context, (that is, by the whole tenor 
 of thefe moral precepts and aphorifms) that the 
 expectation which fhould deceive is that of worldly- 
 wicked men to eflablifh a houfe in their pofterity : 
 And in the fecond, the expectation which fhould not 
 deceive is that of wife and virtuous men in the fuc- 
 cefs of their honeft endeavours. But there is one 
 common fallacy which runs through all the reafon- 
 ingof thefe Anticritics: it is this, that having taken 
 the point in queftion [whether a future ftate be 
 taught in the Old Teftament] for granted, they con- 
 fine all cxprefTions, capable of either fenfe confider- 
 ed alone, to the fenfe which fupports their own opi- 
 nion. Whereas while the matter is in queftion, 
 fair reafoning requires, that fuch Texts be con- 
 fidered as indifferent to either fenfe, till determin- 
 ed by the Context, and according to the Analogy 
 of the Law and the Prophets. 
 
 * Chap. KV, ver. 24. " Prov. xi. 7. ' xxiv. 14. 
 
 17. Wc 
 
158 ^he Divifte Legation Book VT. 
 
 17. We conclude with the Preacher, who fays, 
 that Wifdom giveth to them that have it " : And fo 
 fays the Law of Mofes likcwife (which is here al- 
 luded to) and yet it gives nothing but the things 
 of this life. 
 
 18. Again : " Though a finner do evil an hun- 
 *' dred times, and his days be prolonged, yet 
 " fjrely I know that it fhall be well with them 
 *' that fear God '." What is meant by this, the 
 very following words declare: But it JJjall not be 
 well with the wicked^ neither jhall he prolong his 
 days, which are as a jhadow •, hecaufe he fearcth not 
 before God^. — That is, though the wicked be fuf- 
 fered to go on for fome time, yet for all that. Ven- 
 geance (hall overtake and arreft him in the middle 
 of his courfe ^. 
 
 19. And again " Rejoice, O young man, 
 
 " in thy youth, and let thy heart chear thee in the 
 " days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thy 
 " heart, and in the fight of thine eyes : but know 
 " thou, that for all thefe things, God will bring 
 *' thee into judgment. Therefore remove forrow 
 " from thy heart, and put away evil from thy 
 *' flelh, for childhood and youth are vanity \" 
 
 ^ EccL. vii. 12. « Chap. viii. ver. 12. ^ ver. 13. 
 
 s One of the AnAverers of this Work employs much pains 
 to prove that thefe words could not mean, Tu^it it avas to be nvell 
 nuith them th it fear God in the present like. Rutherforth, 
 p. 363. i. e. he will prove, the words could not bear a fenfe to 
 which ihey are limited and tied down by the words immediately 
 following, — But it Jhall not be ivell iv.th the ivickeJy neither 
 SHALL HE PROLONG HIS DAYS. — What \% tu bc doHC with 
 fuch a man i' 
 
 •• Chap. xi. ver. 9, ^ Jeq. 
 
 That 
 
Sed. 3. of Mo S'Es demonjlrated, 159 
 
 iThat is, " in giving an innocent and lawful indul- 
 gence to thy Youth, take heed left thou tranfgrefs 
 the bounds of virtue and piety. For know, that 
 God will certainly puniih thy offences, either in 
 thy own Perfon, or in thy Pofterity." 
 
 Thefe are all the paflages of moment (till we 
 come to the Prophets) which I could find have 
 been obje6led to the Opinion, 1^ hat a future fiat e 
 of reward and punifhment is not in the Mofaic Dif- 
 fenfation. By which it appears, that the Objec- 
 tors have been very inattentive to what an Inter- 
 preter of the Old Tefcament fnould have his 
 thoughts conftantly attached, namely to thefe three 
 things j to the context •, to the genius of the 
 EASTERN STYLE-, and to the CEconomy under 
 which the early Hebrews lived, that is to fay, an 
 
 EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE, But this laft 
 
 fault, though the moft inexcufable of all, they all 
 have in common with the late Jewifh Writers; who 
 confidering only the Difpenfation under which 
 themfelves lived, thought it harfli and unnatural to 
 interpret thefe Texts with reference to worldly good 
 and evil which they faw unequally diftributed. 
 
 On the whole therefore it appears, that all thefe 
 paffages, in their obvious and primary fenfe, re- 
 late to the things of this life •, and that fome of them 
 are exprelTed by the Holy Spirit in fuch a manner, 
 as makes it now evident, they had likewife ^.fpiri- 
 tual and fubhmer meaning, and do indeed refer to 
 the completion of the Law, by the Qofpel. 
 
 The Texts here examined are urged in common 
 both by Jews and Chriftians. But, befides thefe, 
 the Jews have a fet of Texts peculiar to them- 
 felves i which the Chriftians have never yet ven- 
 6 tured 
 
i6o ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 tured to put upon Duty. As they are mofl of 
 them of the nature of Riddles, Riddles, for me, 
 they fliall remain : only, for the curious Reader's 
 fatisfaftion, I fhall mark out what the Rabbins 
 bring from the Pentateuch to prove the immor- 
 tality of the foul, and the refurre5iion of the body, as 
 they are coUeded by the learned ManafTeh Ben- 
 Ifrael, in his trad De RefiirreSlione Mortuorum. 
 For the IMMORTALITY, 1 KiNGS i. 31. Ps. cxvi. 
 7, 8, 9. ExoD. xix. 6. — Chap, xxxiii. ver. 20. 
 Levit. vii. 25. Deut. xiv. i, 2.— Chap. xxii. 
 ver. 7. — Chap, xxxii. ver. 47. — For the re- 
 surrection, Gen. iii. 19. — Chap, xxxvii. ver. 
 10. ExoD. XV. 6. Levit. xxv. Numb. xv. 
 30. — Chap, xviii. ver. 28. Deut. iv. 4. — Chap, 
 xxxii. ver. 39. — Chap, xxxiii. ver. 6. But tho' 
 the reader will find many diverting things on this 
 head, in Manaffch Ben-lfrael ; yet they mud all 
 give place to the curious comment of Rabbi Tan- 
 chum on the following words of i Sam. xxv. 29. 
 — The foul of my Lord fhall be bound in the bundle 
 of life with the Lord thy God: and the fouls of 
 thine enemies, themfoall he fling out, as out of the 
 middle of a fling. Sententia ell omnium Interpre- 
 tum (fays this profound Rabbi) quod ad hunc 
 textum, efle ipfum per modum commonitionis 
 [qua declaratiir] quifnam futurus fit animas Ilatus, 
 et ad quid tandem devencura fit, poltquam a corpore 
 feparata fuerit ; atque oftendere duplicem elTe ipfi 
 llatum, viz. quibufdam animabus efle gradum 
 fublimem et locum ftabilcm, apud Dominum fuum, 
 dum vita immortali fruantur, nee morti nee per- 
 ditioni obnoxiae : aliis autem ludcre flu6lus naturae, 
 adco ut requiem et confiftendi locum non inve- 
 niant, verum dolores perpetuos et cruciatus continues, 
 cum aterna duratione, inftar lapidis, qui e funda 
 projedus circumrotatur in acre pro ratione virium 
 
 jacientis. 
 
gfedl. 4* of "M-O"^^^ demonjlrate^. i6i 
 
 jacientis, dein vi fua natural! gravitate in terram 
 decidit. Animse vero nee ineft gravitas quse ipfam 
 deorfum, nee levitas quas lurlum ferat; ideoque in 
 perpetua ell confufione, percurbatione, trifticia, et 
 dolore ufque in ceternum. Atque hasc revera len- 
 tentia eft sapientum et PHiLosoPKORURf. — How 
 profound a Do6trine ! and how noble an original ! 
 But this is not the firft, by a thoufandj which has 
 been raifed from a Metaphor, out of the hot-bed 
 of theologic wifdom and philofophy. An abufe, 
 that fome cooler thinkers of late have fancied they 
 could never get well rid of, till they had turned the 
 few Doofrines of true Chriftianity back again into 
 Metaphors. And they have fucceeded to admi- 
 ration. 
 
 SEC T. iV. 
 
 WE come at length to the texts of the New 
 Testament, which are urged to prove, 
 againfl itfelf, that Life and Immortality was brought 
 to light by the Old. 
 
 I. The firft is that famous argument of Jesus 
 againft the Sadducees : — Jefits anfwered and faid 
 unto them, Te do err, not knowing the Scriptures^ 
 nor the power of God. — But as touching the Refur- 
 re^ion of the dead^ Have ye not read that which 
 was fpoken unto you by God, faying , I am the God of 
 Abraham y and the God of Ifaac, and the God of 
 Jacob ? God is not the God of the dead, but of the 
 living ^\ Now this very Text, had it been impar- 
 tially conlidered, would alone have been fufficient 
 to convince thefe Anfwerers of the truth here con- 
 tended for. At leaft it convinced a m.uch v.dfer man, 
 the excellent Hugo Grotius, whofc words to his 
 
 ^ Matth. xxii. 29 — 32. 
 
 Vol. V. M friend 
 
1 62 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 friend Gcr. Voflius are as follow : " In Mofis lege 
 " (non dico in veteri Teftamento: nam de Pro- 
 " phetis, pr^fertim pofterioribus, res longe alia 
 " eft) aeternae vitae non fieri mentionem nifi per 
 " umbras, aut rationis confequentiam, certifTimum 
 " mihi videtur, Chrifti autoritate, qui Saducseos 
 " non verbis direSlis, fed ratiocinando refellit '.'* 
 There is not, I repeat it, any plain Text in the 
 whole Bible (and this is amongft the plaineft) fo 
 ftrangely miftaken and perverted : For i . The 
 appellation of the God of Abraham, ^c. is general- 
 ly underftood to be quoted by our blefled Lord, as 
 a diredt proof' of the Refurre^ion of the dead body^ 
 in the fame manner that St. Paul urges the cafe of 
 Jesus : — But now is Chrijt ri fen from the dead, and 
 
 * Ep. 130. ed. Am. 1687. Enscopius had the very fame 
 jc^ea of this argument. — " Et fane opinionum, quje inter Judasos 
 erat, circa vitam futuri fzeculi difcrepantia arguit promiffiones 
 Leae faftas tales effe ut ex iis certi quid de vita futuri fxculi 
 ron pofiit coHigi. Quod ct Servator nofter non obfcure innuit, 
 cum refurreflionem mortuorum colligit, Matt. xxii. non ex 
 prnmiffo aliquo Legi addito, fed ex generali tantum illo pro- 
 niiiTo Dei, quo fe Deum Abraham!, Ifjaci, k. Jacobi futurum 
 fpoponderat : qu?e tamen ilia colledio magis nititur cognirione 
 intentionis divins: fub gencraJibus iftis verbis occultata: aut com- 
 prehcnfr. de qua Chriito ccrto conlhbat, quam necefiaria con- 
 ffquentia five verborum vi ac virtut^i manifefta, qualis nunc et 
 in veibis Novi Teftamenti, ubi vita sterna et refurre£lio mor- 
 tuorum proiam et puppim faciunt totius Religionis Chriftianae, 
 e\ tam clare ac diferte promittuntur ut ne hifcere quidem contra 
 quis poflit." /«/. Vnol. lib. iii. § I. c. 2. 
 
 ^ Mr. J.e Clerc, in his Defe'fe ^es Sentimens fur /' H':Jloire 
 Critique, has fallen into this millake. — Notre Seigneur prefTe 
 ces termcs, en forte qu'il fuppofe qu'il ne faut qu'critendre la 
 langue dans laquelle I'Ecriturc parle pour reconnoitre la Refurrec- 
 tion. Matt. xxii. 31. — 11 ne faut que lire ce raifonnement 
 de Jffus Chiirt, pour fentir qu'il eft tire de cette exprcffion, clre 
 le Dieu de quelqiiun, que I'on ne pourroit appliquer a Dicu, fr 
 cclui. done on dit qu'il eft le Dieu, etoit mjrt/aiu devoir j,.mai$ 
 rtf'J'ater. p. 102, 103, 
 
 become 
 
Se£t. 4. ^ M s E s Bemonjlrated. 163 
 
 become the firjl fruits of them that Jlept '. But can 
 any thing be more irrational or abfurd ? The bodies 
 of Abraham and the Patriarchs were yet in duft, 
 and reduced to their primitive earth. So that 
 in this fenfe, the reafoning is fo far from proving 
 that God WAS not the God of the dead, that it 
 proves, he was. For Abraham's body continued 
 yet lifelefs at the very time when God was called 
 his God: Whatfoever was to be the future condition 
 of it, that could not influence the prefent appella- 
 tion of the God of Ifrael. What hath led men into 
 this miftake is the introdudlion to the argument, — • 
 But as touching the refurre^ion of the dead^ — which 
 they fuppofed an exordium to 3. dire ff proof: Where- 
 as it is an intimation only, to what an indirect proof 
 tended j namely, that the Refurre^ion of the body 
 might be inferred thro' the medium oi tht feparate 
 exiftence of the foul ', which was. the only point Jel us 
 propofed to prove direBly to them. The cafe Hood 
 thus : He was here arguing againft the Sadducees. 
 Now thefe fupported their opinion, of no refurrec- 
 tion of the body, on a principle that the foul had no 
 feparate exijience, but fell into nothing at the difTolu- 
 tion of its union with the body ; which Principle 
 once overthrown, they had nothing left to oppofe 
 to the writings of the Prophets, or the preaching 
 of Jesus. Againft this principle therefore our 
 blelTed Lord thus divinely argues : — " But as con- 
 cerning the Refurreftion of the dead, You ground 
 your denial of it on this fuppofition, that the foul 
 dies with the body, but you err as much in not 
 knowing the Scriptures, as in not rightly conceiv- 
 ing of the power of God. For the words of the 
 Law, which you allow to be a good authority, di- 
 redly prove that the foul doth not die with the 
 
 * I Cor. XV. 20. 
 
 M 2 body, 
 
J 64 ^^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 body, but hath a feparate exiftence. Now Moles 
 tells us, that God, long after the death of Abra- 
 ham, Ifaac, and Jacob, called himfelf their God: 
 But God is not the God of the dead, hut of the living -, 
 therefore the fouls of thofe Patriarchs are yet 
 exifting in a feparate ftate." — This is the force of 
 the Argument "» 
 
 2. The fecond mlflake is, that Jesus, by thefe 
 words infinuates that Mofes cultivated the Doc- 
 trine of a Refurre5fion, or a Future Jtate. But 
 here again the Objedors feem to forget, againit 
 whom the argument is addreffed, the Sadducees. 
 Now thefe not only held that Mofes did 7iGt teach^ 
 but that he did not believe that Doctrine. This 
 
 ""• Which, (to obferve it by the way) unanfwerably confutes 
 that Semipagan Dream of the foul's Jleepin^ till the refurreSlion 
 of the bsdy. And yet, what is itrange to tell, this very text, in 
 the courfe of difputation, which, like the courfe of time, bringi 
 things, ai the Poet fays, 
 
 — to their confounding contrariet, 
 
 hath been urged to prove ihatfeep, or no feparate life ; and this, 
 by no Ids confiderable a man than Mr. Hales of Eaton, 
 Chriji (faith he) pro^eth the future refurredion of the dead from 
 thence, that God is the God of Abraham, Ifuac, and "Jacob, hut is 
 not the God of the dead, but 0/ the li-ijing. Whence he concludeth, 
 that thef live to God, that is, s H a L L B E recalled to life by God, 
 that he may manifeji hinfelf to be their God or Benefactor. This 
 argument ivould be altogether fallacious, if before the RefurreSi ion 
 they felt hea'venly joy : For then God luould be their God or Bene- 
 fador, namily acarding to tbdr fu.'s, altho^ their bodies Jhould 
 ne'uer rife again*. All which is a mere complication of mif- 
 takes ; as is, indeed, his whole reafoning from Scripture, through- 
 out that chapter. — But they who hold the foul to be only a 
 quality, nnd yet talk of its Jleep between death and the refur- 
 reclion, ule a jargon which confounds all languages as well as 
 all realbn. For (uch a Jkep is an annihilation ; and the nuaking 
 a^aiii, a new creation. 
 
 • // brief Inquiry, chap. viii. 
 
 was 
 
Sed. 4. cf Mo SES demonflrated. 165 
 
 was the error, Jesus aimed to confute ; and only 
 this ; becaule the opinion that Mofes did not 
 teach or cultivate it, was no error at all, as appears, 
 amongft many other reafons, even from hence: 
 that the Jews might reafonably underfland the 
 title of the God of Abraham^ i^c. to mean the pecu- 
 liar tutelary God of Abraham's Family -, for the 
 terms Jacob and Ifrael are frequently ufed in Scrip- 
 ture for the whole nation of the Jews -, Aaron for 
 the whole order of the priefthood ; Dan^ Judah, (fjc, 
 for the whole body of each tribe : And as, in rea- 
 Ibn they might, fo by the Hiftory of the early 
 Jews, we find in fa6l, they did underlland it in 
 this fenfe. 
 
 The real force therefore of the Text, here urged, 
 amounts to this, From Jesus's argument it appears, 
 that the feparate exiltence of the foul might be 
 fairly inferred from the writings of Mofes : Which 
 inference I not only grant lome early Jews did 
 make, but have proved likewife ; though not in- 
 deed from thefe words, for the rcafon given above. 
 And fo much my Anfwerers might have under- 
 ftood, had they only obferved that this has all the 
 marks of a new Argument % unknown to the 
 
 Pharifees ; 
 
 " " Tho' this argument was a ne^v one, (fays Dr. Ruther- 
 *' forth) tho' the Pharifees had never made this inference, 
 ** and that therefore it does not appear from hence, that Mofes 
 *' inculcated the Dodtrine of a future ftate, yet as it was a con- 
 ** clufive argument, as it was an inference which might have 
 " been made, it will prove to us that Mofes was not Jiudious to 
 " conceal this doftrine, nor purpofely omitted every thing that 
 *' might bring his Reader acquainted with thofe notices of 
 •' Redemption and of another life, which the Patriarchs were 
 " favoured with." p. 318. This is a coupde Maitre, indeed : 
 as wittily urged as it was wifely meditatejl. — If Mofes bring a 
 ctnclujive argument for a doBriney it is plain he could not he ftii- 
 
 M 3 diovi 
 
1 66 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Pharifees •, as indeed both the dignity of our Lord's 
 character, and the impreflion he would make on 
 his Oppofers, feemed to require it (hould be. Ac- 
 cordingly, we find they are ftruck dumb j and the 
 multitude that beard this, ajionijhed at his do6irine ", 
 But would Eitiier of them have been fo affected 
 with an old foundered argument, long hacknied 
 
 iiious t3 conceal that doSlrine, fays our ingenious Profeflbr. — If 
 Roger Bacon, fay J, have given, in his writings, a true 'eceipt 
 to make Gun-Powder, he could not bejiudious to conceal the com- 
 pofition. And yet we know he was fludious to conceal it. 
 What reafons he had for fo doing, and how confiflent it was 
 with his giving the receipt, 1 leave to this profound Pbiio!' ;)her ; 
 and fhall coptent myfelf with (hewing how confiftca. Mofes 
 was in the conduft I have afcribed to him. — If both Mofes's 
 pretenficns and thofe of Jefus liliewife were true, the fornermuft 
 needs obferve this coridud, in his Inffitute, that is to fay, he would 
 omit the doftrine of another life, and, at the fame time, inter-. 
 weave into the Law fuch a fecret mark of its truth, that, when 
 the other InlHtution came, it might be clear to all, ihat he both 
 knew and believed the Doftrine. — If Mofe^ had not omitted xt^ 
 be had intruded on the province of Jefus ; if he had rot hid 
 the grounds on which it rifes, he had negledleJ to , r -vide for 
 the proof of that connexion between the two Diipenfation', 
 neceffary to fhcvv the harmony between their refpedlive ^Authors, 
 Mofes had done both : And from both I gather that he was^a- 
 dious to conceal the doSlrine. The omijjion will be aliowed to be 
 one proof of it; and I (hould think 'this ufe of a term, Tht 
 Cod of Abraham, Sec. is another proof For, the Jews, who, 
 from the ceafing of the extraordinary Providence, continued for 
 many ages with iix-'lfant 1 hour to ranfack thi \ i'ibles for a proof 
 of a future (late, '■ould never draw the inference from this text 
 till Jefus had taught them the way. No, fays the Dodor, How 
 pould an argumtiit vjed by Mc'es, for a future Jiate, be a proof 
 that L.'ifci nj.<as Jludious to conceal i! ?■ This Argument going, as 
 wc now fee, upon our Profe(ror"s utter ignormce of the nature 
 and genius of the iViolaic Difpenfation, (which required as much 
 that the grounds of z future flute (hould be laid, as that the 
 Struflure i:fclf (hculd be kept out of fight) I fhall leave it in pof- 
 fc(Gon of that admiration which it io well defervc?, 
 
 ** Matth. xxii, 33, 
 
 in 
 
Sed. 4* 9f Moses demonjlrated. 167 
 
 in the Schools and Synagogues ^ of the Pharifees > 
 Nay, how fliould it be otherwile than new? for 
 the words, I am the God of Abraham^ &:c. as deh- 
 vered by Mofes, were fuppofed, both by Pharifees 
 and Sadducees, to be fpoken of a national God ; 
 as in Gen. xvii. 8, 9. xxvi. 3. xxviii. 13. They 
 therefore could not fee how it implied the con- 
 tinued exiftence of the Patriarch Abraham, &c. 
 But Jefus, in ufing the word God, to fignify the 
 Maker and Lord of all things, rightly inferred that 
 the Patriarchs iHll continued to exift. I am not 
 ignorant, that the modern Rabbins employed this 
 arty u men t very familiarly for a Refurretlion ; but 
 they borrowed it from the gospel, as they have 
 done many other things ; the reafon of which, our 
 rabbinical Commentators, fuch as Lightfoot, not 
 apprehending, have fuppofed the borrowing to be 
 all on the fide of the lenders : but more of this 
 matter in its place. 
 
 Thus much for this celebrated Text. In which, 
 however, the learned Dr. Sherlock, the late 
 Biihop of London, finds enough to fupport him- 
 felf in his own opinion, That the Law of Mofes af- 
 forded a good -proof of a future fiate to the ancient 
 Jews \ But to whom did it afford this proof ? 
 To the ancient Jews, who underftood the words 
 in the text, in queftion, to relate to a national God^ 
 or to us Chriftians, who underftand them of the 
 Creator of the Univerfe ? Now though I cannot 
 
 P The learned Pocock fpeaking of this Argument, fays, 
 Kis e Lege depromptis cum Sadducasos ad filentium adegiffet 
 Chriftus, dicitur perculfam fuiffe turbam doarina ejus. Unde 
 patet luculentiori ipfum contra eos argumento ufum, quam ullo 
 adhuc ufi fuerant Pharifei. Nota mi/cell, ad Fortarn Mof.s, 
 cap. vi. 
 
 « Sermons by the Bifhop of London. 
 
 M 4 sgree 
 
1 63 ^^e Dh'me Legation Boojc VI. 
 
 a^ree with his Lordlhip in this conclufion, yet I 
 agree wich him in a better thing, which is, That 
 the Law of Mofes affords a gccd "prcof of its own di- 
 vintty ', indeed, by a medium, his Lordfliip never 
 thought of, natnely. That it afforded no proof of 
 a future ftale^ at all. But what if his Lordfliip 
 meant no more than y/hat his refpedtable Father 
 endeavoured to prove', viz. that .the extraordi- 
 nary Providence, (vyhich I hold to be the very 
 circurnftance which kept the Jews from the know- 
 ledge of a future ftate) indeed fhews that they had 
 the knowledge of it ? If this be the cafe, all I have 
 to fay is, that Their proof of a future flate from 
 the Law, begins juft vyhere my proof of its divi- 
 nity ends. 
 
 II. We conr^e next to the Parable of the rich 
 Man and Lazarus; where the former, being iri 
 Hell, defires Abraham, \yhom he faw afar off in 
 Paradife, to fend Lazarus to his father's houfe, to 
 teftify to his Brethren, and to lead them to repen- 
 tance, left they too fliould come into that place of 
 torment : To which Abraham replies : If they hear 
 not Mofes and the Prophets., neither will they be per- 
 fuaded., thcugh one rgfe froni the dead'. Hence it 
 is inferred, that both Mofes and the Prophets 
 taught a future flate of Rewards and Punifhmetits. 
 B<.it, here again, the Objeftors are quite befide the 
 
 matter. As, in the former cafe, they would 
 
 not fee, the argument was diredfed againft thp 
 Sadducees •, fo here, by as pcrverfe a connivance, 
 they will not refleft, that this Parable is addreffed 
 to the Pharisees. It is certain we muft judge of 
 
 ^ Sermon^, by the Dean of St. Paul's, on the immortality of the 
 /,ui end a future Jiate, p. 141. 
 
 ' Llmce xvi. 31. 
 
 ^ the 
 
pe6:. 4, * ^ M o s e s demonjlrated. \ 69 
 
 the drift and dcfign of every rational difcourfe 
 from theCharader of thofe to whom it is addrelTed. 
 Now had this Parable been told to the Sadducees, 
 whofe grand error it was, to deny a future ilate of 
 rewards and punifhments ; and had the rich man 
 been reprefented as a Sadducee, who was too late 
 convinced of his miftake, and wanted to undeceive 
 .his father's houfe, which his evil doctrines had 
 perverted ; had this, I fay, been the cafe, there 
 might have been fome ground for the Objedors* 
 inference, which I fuppofe to be this, That " it ap- 
 " pears as plainly from Mofes and the Prophets, 
 *' that there is a future ftate of rewards and punifh- 
 *' ments, as if one came back from that Itate to 
 «' tell us fo." On the contrary, the Parable was 
 particularly addreffed to the Pharifees, the great 
 patrons' of a future ftate, and who feduloufly 
 taught it in oppofition to the Sadducees. It is in- 
 troduced in this manner: And the Pharisees alfo^ 
 who were covetous [?i»x«f)/u^ot] heard all thefe 
 things : and they derided him '. For which they are 
 thus reproved : Te are they which jujlify yoiirfelves 
 hefore tnen : but God knoweth your %earts ". And 
 then prefently follows the Parable. Their capital 
 errors therefore were errors of practice, Avarice 
 and Luxury. And it was to reform thefe, that a 
 rich Pharifee is reprefented as without any compaf- 
 fion for the poor, living in all kind of delicacy, 
 and dying impenitent. This man, when he comes 
 in the other world, finds fo ill a reception there, 
 wants one to be fent to his brethren, (who be- 
 lieved, doubtlefs, as he did, the Do5lrine of a 
 future fiat e) to warn them of their evil ways, and 
 to afTure them, that luxury and inhumanity, unre- 
 pented of, would afTuredly damn them. Which 
 
 ^* Ver. 14. « V^er. 15. 
 
 infojma- 
 
fi^d 'The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 information, he thought, would be beft inforced by 
 a Miracle: If one went unto them from the dead^ 
 they ijcill repent ". (Where obferve, it is not 
 — they will believe.) To this common miftake, 
 Abraham's reply is extremely pertinent : If they 
 hear not Mofes and the Prophets, neither will they be 
 perfnaded, though one rofe from the dead : i. e. " If 
 they will not hear Mofes, and the Prophets, whofe 
 authority they acknowledge ^ and whofe raifnons 
 were confirmed by fo many and well attefred Mi- 
 racles, neither will they regard a new one, of the 
 refurreftion of a dead man. (Nor in fa6t, were 
 the Pharifees at all foftened into repentance by 
 the return of that Lazarus, the namefake of this 
 in the parable, whom Jefus raifed from the dead.) 
 Now Mofes and the Prophets have denounced the 
 moll fevere threatnings, on the part of God, 
 againft vice and impenitence." This is the force 
 of the argument ; in which v/e fee the queftion 
 of a future ftate is no more concerned, than thus 
 far only, that God will punilh, either here or here- 
 after. Mofes and the Prophets threatened the 
 punilhment here ; and, while here it was executed, 
 the Jews looked no farther : But when the extra- 
 crdiimry Providence, by which that punilhment 
 was adminiftered, had ceafed, the Jews began, from 
 thofe very promifes and denunciations, to entertain 
 feme hopes of an hereafter^ where all inequalities 
 
 ^ Ver. 30. 
 
 y Mere, the groundlcfs conceit of the learned Mofhcim [ite 
 reh. Chris, ante Con, p. 49] is fufEciently refuted. He fuppofes 
 a Sadducee to be reprefcntcd under the pcrfon of the rich Man. 
 But the authority of the Prophets, to which Abraham refers 
 his houifliold, was not acknowledged by the Sadducees, as of 
 weight to decide, in this point. And yet the very words of 
 Abraham fuppofc that their not hca'lng i! e PropUis did not pro- 
 peed from their not believing, but from their not re^ardin^, 
 
 4 Ihould 
 
Se<5t, 4* o/" Moses demonjirated, lyi 
 
 fhould be fet even, and God's threats and promifes 
 executed to the full : tho' ftill, with lefs confi- 
 dence, if they realbned rightly, than the Pagans 
 had to draw the fame conclufion from the fame 
 principles ; fince their Law had informed them of 
 a truth unknown to the reft of mankind ; namely, 
 that the whole Race was condemned to a ftate of 
 death and mortality, a return to duft from whence 
 Man was taken, for the tranfgreflion of Adam. 
 So that all which good logic or criticifm will au- 
 thorize the believers of a future ftate to draw from 
 this parable, is this, " that God is afevere punifher 
 " of unrepentant luxury and inhumanity." 
 
 But now admit the miftaken interpretation of 
 the Objeftors ; and what will follow ! That Mofes 
 taught a future ftate^ the Propofition, I oppofe ? 
 No ; But that from Mofes and the Prophets together 
 a future ,ftate might be collected. A Propofition, 
 I have no occafion to oppofe. For when the Pro- 
 phets are joined to Mofes, and have explained the 
 fpiritual meaning of his Law, and diveloped the 
 hidden fenle of it, I may well allow that from 
 both together a learned Pharilee might colledt the 
 truth of the do6lrine, without receding one tittle 
 from my Argument. 
 
 in. " When the Lawyer in the Gofpel (fay 
 " thefe Objectors) had made that moft important 
 " Demand ^, Majler, what fhall I do to inherit 
 " eternal life, our bleffed Lord refers him to what 
 " was written in the Law : and upon his giving a 
 " found and judicious anfwer, approves of it, and 
 " for fatisfadtion to his queftion, tells him. This 
 ^* do and thou fJoalt live J*^ This is the objedion, 
 
 * Luke x. 25. 
 
 And 
 
172 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 And to this. Saint Paul fhall give an anfwer. 
 
 Is the LAW then ag.ainst the promifes of God? 
 God forbid. For if there had been a Law given 
 'iihich could have given Life, verily right eoufnefs 
 ffjculd hwje been by the Law. But the Scripture 
 hath concluded all under fin ; that the promife by 
 FAITH c/ Jefus Chrijl might be given to them that 
 believe \ We mud tKerefore think that this Law- 
 yer was better at diilinaions than the Objeaor 
 who brings him into his Caufe, and inquired, (in 
 this moji important demand) of the agenda, not of 
 the CREDENDA, in order to falvation. And fo 
 his words bear witnefs — What floall I do to be 
 faved ? 
 
 IV. In what follows, I hardly think the Objec- 
 tors can be ferious. — Search the Scriptures (fays 
 Jesus to the Jews)/^r in them ye think ye have 
 
 eternal life, — on ^y.Hq Soy^un iVUvrxTg ^ocrivxi'Ji/iov i^uy 
 
 — and they are they which tefiify of me. And ye 
 'will not come to tne that ye might have life ". 
 The homicide ' Jews, to whom thefe words are 
 addrefied, thought they had eternal Life in their 
 Scriptures; — THER-EFORE (fay the Objeftors) they 
 had eternal Life. If I allow this therefore, they 
 muft allow me, another — therefore the Miffion 
 of Jesus was vain, being anticipated by that of 
 Mpfes, who brought life and immortality to light by 
 the Law. — And if righteoufnefs came by the Law 
 (fays the Apoftle) then is Chrijl dead in vain. This 
 is a neceflary confequence from the Objedors' in- 
 terpretation, and gives us, to be fure, a very 
 high idea of the realbning of the ever blefled 
 Jesus. — By the fame Art of inferring, I fiippofe 
 too they will conclude, that, when St. Paul fays 
 
 . ' Gal. iii. 21, 22. b jo„^, ^ j^^ ^Q^ , y^^^ jg^ 
 
 to 
 
Sed;. 4. o/' Moses dalionjlrated, 17^ 
 
 to the unbelieving Jew : — And thou art confident 
 that thou thyfelf art ti guide to the blind, a light of 
 them which are in darknefs, an inJiru£for of the 
 foolifJj, and a teacher of babes ^ ; they will conclude, 
 I lay, that therefore it was the Jew, and not 
 St. Paul, who was indeed, the guide of the blindy 
 a light of them which are in darknefs, an infini^or 
 of the foolijhj and a teacher of babes. In earneft, 
 if Jesus, in thefe words, taught, that the Jewifh 
 Scriptures gave eternal life, (and the, Jews could 
 not have what their Scriptures did not give) he 
 certainly taught a very different dodrine from St. 
 Paul, who exprefsly tells us. That if there had 
 been a Law given which could have given 
 
 LIFE, verily righteousness SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
 
 BY THE Law ^ All therefore that thefe words of 
 Jefus teach us is that the Jews thought they had 
 eternal life by the Mofaic Difpenfation. For the 
 truth of what is thus charged upon them, we Have 
 the concurrent teftimony of the Apoftles; Who 
 wrote large portions of their epistles to prove, 
 not only that they thought fo, but that they were 
 greatly miftaken in fo thinking. For the Author 
 of the epiftle to the Hebrews fays, that unto the 
 Angels [who delivered the Law to Mofes] hath 
 he [God] not put in fubje^ion the world to 
 COME, whereof v^-s. fpeak\ 
 
 But tho* we fliould fuppofe, the words— j)'<? think 
 ye have eternal life^ confidered feparately, did not 
 neceffarily imply that thefe were only their thoughts, 
 yet being oppoled to the following words, Te will 
 not come to me that ye might have life, (Kat ou 
 0£AeT? Ix^Civ TT^og ^£, tva, ^mv 'ix^ls,) they fhew, that 
 whoever thought fo befides, it was not Jesus, whofe 
 
 ^ Rom. ii. 19. * Gal. iii. 21. ^ Chap. ii. ver. 5. 
 
 argument 
 
174 ^'^^ Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 argument (lands thus ' " The Scriptures, 
 
 I affirm, and am ready to prove, do teftify of me. 
 "What reafon then have you to difown my charac- 
 ter ? it cannot furely be, becauie I preach up a 
 new Do6lrine of life and immortality. For you 
 yourfelves teach that doClrine : and what is more, 
 you underftand feveral paflages in your own Scrip- 
 tures, to fignify eternal life ; which I own, in their 
 fpiritual meaning do fo. Now that life, which you 
 think you have by your Scriptures, but have not, 
 do I here offer unto you, that ye might indeed 
 HAVE LIFE.'* But if men had duly confidered 
 this difcourfe of Jefus to the unbelieving Jews, 
 they would have feen the main drift and purpofe 
 of it was to redify this fatal miflake of theirs, in 
 thinking they had eternal life in their Scriptures. In 
 one place he tells them, that thofe who heard his 
 word bad faffed from death to life *". And again, 
 the hour is coming and now is, when the dead Jhall 
 hear the voice of the Son of God \ Where, by Death 
 and the Dead, is meant the condition of thofe 
 under the Law, fubje6t to the condemnation of 
 mortality. 
 
 V. The Objedors have produced St. Paul like- 
 wife to confute the Principle here laid down. This 
 Apoftle, in his epiflle to the Romans, fays — 
 " For as many as have fmned without Law fhall 
 " alfo perifli without law : and as many as have 
 *' fmned in the Law fhall be judged by the Law ''.'* 
 Now, fay the Obje6tors, " had the Law concealed 
 a future flate from the Jev/s, it is plain they were 
 not equitably dealt with, fince they were to be 
 judged in a future Hate." This brings to mind 
 an objection of Lord Bolingbrokc's againft the 
 
 '' John v. 24. * Ver. 25. ^ Chap, ii ver. 12. 
 
 divinity 
 
Se<?t. 4« o/" Moses demonjirated, ly^ 
 
 jdivinity of Mofes's Law ; and the anfwer which 
 this text enabled me to give to Him, will fliew, that 
 in thefe words of St. Paul, the Objectors have 
 chofen the moft unlucky text for their purpofe in 
 the whole New Teflament. His Lordfhip's ob- 
 jedion is in thefe words, " If Mofes knew that 
 " crimes were to be puniflied in another life 
 " he deceived the people [in not acquainting them 
 *' with the do6lrine of a future Jiate.l^ If he did 
 _V' not know it, I fay it with horror, that God de- 
 " ceived both him and them. — The Ifraelites had 
 " better things to hope, and worfe to fear, &c'.** 
 Now not to repeat what has been replied to this 
 impious charge, elfewhere *", I will only obferve, 
 that the words of St. Paul above are a full con- 
 futation of it, where he fays, that as many as 
 have finned in the Law fhall be judged by the Law, 
 that is, fhail be judged on the principles of a Law 
 which denounced punifhment to vice and reward 
 to virtue. Thofe who had already received the 
 punifhment which that Law denounced fhould be 
 judged to have done fo ; thofe, who in the times 
 of the gradual decay of the extraordinary provi- 
 dence had efcaped or evaded punifhment, fhould 
 have it hereafter. Nothing is clearer than this in- 
 terpretation. For obferve, I pray you, the diffe- 
 rence of the predication between wicked men with- 
 out the Law^ and the wicked men under the Laiv. 
 The fir&ifiall perijh, «VoA»i/7«j : the fecond Jbali be 
 judged, aci^jria-o'flxt, or brought to trial. For though t^»- 
 "w be often ufed in the New Teflament for 5«ai]a5t^»'uw, 
 yet it is plain, that it is notfo ufed here, both from 
 the fenie of the place, and the Apoftle's change 
 
 ' Vol. V. p. 194 — 5. 
 
 ■» See A'vievj of Li. B's. Phikfnphy, ^d ed, p. 225, ^J feq. 
 
 Ot 
 
175 ^he Divine Legation Book Vt. 
 
 of terms, for which I think no good reafon can b6 
 affigned but this, that x^tSriVovlaj is oppofed to 
 avoXvvlxi. From all this, I think, it appears, that 
 my Objeflors were as much miftaken in their urg- 
 ing this text againft my principles, as the noble 
 Lord in fuppofing that the reality of a. future ftate 
 was a condemnation of the equity of the Law. 
 But both took it for granted, and foolifhly enough, 
 that thofc who did not live under the fandtion of 
 a future ftate could never, confidently with juf- 
 tice, be fummoned before the Tribunal there 
 erefted. 
 
 II. 
 
 We are now got to the very P.illadium of the 
 caufe, the famous eleventh chapter to the Hebrews : 
 where it is faid, that by faith, Abel, Enoch, 
 Noah, Abraham, Ifaac, Jacob, Jofeph, Mofes, 
 
 &c. performed all their acceptable works. 
 
 That they looked for an heavenly city. That 
 
 they faiv the Promifes afar off^ and ivere perfuaded 
 of thenty and embraced them^ and deftred an heavenly 
 country.- -Thdt they all died in faith. — That Mofes 
 ejleemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than 
 the treafures of Egypt. — That by faith the Jewifh 
 leaders did all their great and marvelous vjorks.— 
 That their very women defpifed death in hopes to ob- 
 tain apart in the refurre^ion of the juji— Arid that all 
 thefe obtained a good, report through faith. ■ 
 
 This, fay the Objectors, plainly (hews, that a 
 future ftate of Rewards and Puniiliments, or more 
 properly, the Chriftian Doctrine of Life and Im- 
 mortality^ was taught by the Law.— To which I 
 anfwer, 
 
 I. That if this be true, the eleventh chapter 
 diredly contradifls all the reit of the Epiftle : In 
 
 which, 
 
3d<ft,-4. " of IViosE"^ demonfirated. 177 
 
 which, as we have- fhewn, there are more exprefs 
 declarations, that life and immortahty was not 
 known or taught by the Law, than in all the other 
 books of the New Teftament befides. And for 
 which, indeed^ a very good reafon may be afllgned, 
 as it was folely addrelTed to the Jews, amongft 
 whom this fatal prejudice, that a future jiate was 
 taught by the Law^ was then and has continued 
 ever fmce, to be the ftrongeft impediment to their 
 Converfion. For is it pofiible, that a Writer, who 
 had faid, that the Law made nothing per fe£f, but the 
 
 BRINGING IN OF A BETTER HoPE DID ; — That 
 
 Christ hath obtained a more excellent minijtry than 
 Mosss, by how much alfo he is-the Mediator of a 
 
 BETTER COVENANT, which is efiabUJhed UpOU BET- 
 TER PROMISES', — That the Law was only a 
 shadow of good things to come, and not the 
 very image i is it poflible, I fay, that fuch a Writer 
 fhould forget himfelf before he came to the end 
 of his Epiftle, and, in contradidlion to all this, af- 
 firm that Life and Immortality was known and taught 
 under the Law ? We may venture to fay then, that 
 this eleventh chapter muft have a very different 
 meaning. Let us fee if we can find it out : and 
 fure it requires no great fearch. 
 
 2. The whole argument of the Epiftle to the 
 Hebrews is dire<5led againft Jews and judaizing 
 Chriftians. The point in difference was this : The 
 Gofpei taught justification by faith : The 
 Judaizers thought it mufl needs be by works. 
 One confequence of which, in their opinion, was, 
 that the Law of Mofes was ftill in force. They 
 had no more conception than our modern Soci- 
 nians and Freethinkers, that there could be any^ 
 merit in faith or Belief, where the underilanding 
 was unavoidably determined by evidence. The 
 
 Vol. V. N Reader 
 
178 7he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Reader fees then, that the difpute was not whether 
 faith in Mofes or faith in Jesus made men accept- 
 able to God ; but whether ijuorks or the a£i of be- 
 lieving \ confequently, where the Apoftle fhews it 
 was faith or the a^ of believing^ he muft mean 
 faith in the generic fenfe, not in the fpecific, i. e. 
 he did not mezn faith in Jefus: for the Jews, even 
 that part of them which embraced Jesus as the 
 Mefliah, denied it to be any kind oi faith whatfo- 
 ever. On the contrary, had they he\d Jufiif cation 
 to be by faith in Mofes, and not in Jesus, then it 
 had been the Apollle's bufmefs to prove, that it 
 was xht fpecific faith in Jesus. But as the difpute 
 (lood, all he had to do was to prove that it was 
 the aR of believing^ 2XiA nox. works ^ which juftified. 
 And this we find he does with infinite addrefs ; by 
 fhewing, that that thing which made all the Patri- 
 archs before the Law, and all the Rulers and Pro- 
 phets under the Law, acceptable to God, was not 
 works^ hut faith. But then what kind of faith ? 
 Doubtlefs faith in God's prcmifes : for he is argu- 
 ing on their own concefTions. They admitted their 
 anceftors to have had that faith"-, they did not 
 admit that they had faith in Christ. For the 
 Apoftle therefore to aflert this, had been a kind 
 of begging the queftion. Thus we fee that not 
 only the pertinency, but the whole force of the 
 reasoning turns upon our underftanding faith, 
 in this chapter, to mean faith in the God of their 
 fathers. 
 
 But the Apoftle's own definition of the word 
 puts the matter out of queftion. We have faid, 
 the difpute between him and the Jewifti Converts 
 
 " Thus their Prophet Habakkuk had faid, Tbe juj? fiall 
 iive by htj faith. Chap. ii. vcr. 4. 
 
 ncceiTarily 
 
5e<5t. 4' g/" Moses demonjlrated. lyg 
 
 neceflarily required him to fpeak of the efficacy of 
 faith in the generic fenfe. Accordingly his defi- 
 nition of FAITH iSj that it is the substance of 
 
 THINGS HOPED FOR, THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS 
 
 NOT SEEN °. 'Hot oi faith in the Mejp.ah, but of 
 belief in general, and on good grounds. Indeed 
 very general, according to this Writer ; not only ^^- 
 lief of the future, but the paft. *Tis, fays he, the 
 fttbjlance of things hoped for \ and this he illuftrates 
 by Noah's reliance on God's promife to fave him 
 in the approaching deluge ''» 'Tis, again, the m- 
 dence of things not feen j and this he illuftrates by 
 our belief that the worlds were framed by the word of 
 God '^. Having defined what he means by faith, he 
 next proceeds to fhew its nature by its common 
 efficacy, which ftill relates only to faith in the gene*- 
 ric fenfe. — But without faith it is impoffihle to pleafe 
 him \Go'd'\ for he that cometh to God mufi believe that 
 he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently 
 feek him ' ; which wtxy faith he immediately illuft- 
 rates by that of Noah> Abraham, Sarah, Ifaac, Ja- 
 cob, Jofeph, and Mofes. And that no doubt 
 might remain, he farther illuftrates it by the faith 
 of the Jewifli People paffing the Red Sea, and en*- 
 compaffing the walls of Jericho ; and by xht faith 
 of Rahab the harlot. But was any of this, the 
 faith in Jesus the Meffiah ? or a belief of a future 
 ftate of rewards and piuniftimeiits ? 
 
 As here the Apoftle tells us of the great rewards 
 of faith, fo in his third chapter he fpeaks of the 
 punifhment of unbelief", which was the fhutting out 
 a whole generation from the land of Canaan, and 
 fuffering them to perifti in the Wildernefs : So we 
 fee (fays he) they could not enter in hecaufe of un* 
 
 *> Ver. I. !» Ver. 7*. 1 Ver. 3. ' Ver. 6. 
 
 N 2 belief 
 
i?.'o Tie Divine Legation Book Vf. 
 
 belief*. But was this unbelief want of faith in tlie 
 Me/Hah, or any thing but want of faith in the pro- 
 mife of the God of Ifrael, who affured them that 
 he would drive out the Canaanite from before 
 them ? Laflly, to evince it impollible xhzt. faith in 
 the Mefjiah Ihould be meant by the faith in this 
 eleventh chapter, the Apoftlc exprcfsly fays, that all 
 thofe to whom he afligns this faith, had not re- 
 ceived THE PROMISE *. Therefore they could 
 not h3.ve faith m that which was never yet propofed 
 to them for the objcft of faith : For how fhoidd they 
 believe in him of whom they have not heard ? fays 
 the Apoftle. 
 
 St. Paul had the fame argument to manage in 
 his Epiftle to the Galatians ; and he argues, from 
 the advantages oi faith or belief in God, in the 
 very fame manner. But of his argument, more 
 in the next fedion. 
 
 Let us obferve. farther, that the facred Writerc 
 not only ufe. the word /czz/i? in its ^^;;(fnV fenfe of 
 believing on reafonable grounds ^ but like wife the 
 word GOSPEL (a more appropriated term) fox good 
 ■tidings in, general. Thus this very Writer to the 
 Hebrews — For unto us was the Gos^-el. preached ai 
 well as unto them % i. e. the Ifraelites. 
 
 Having fhewn, that by the Faith, herefaidtobe 
 fo exrenlive amongft thq Jewifli People, is meant 
 faith in thofe promifes of God which related to their 
 own Difpenlation, all the weight of this objection 
 is removed. For as to the protnifes feen afar off 
 ^.nd believed and embraced, which gave the profpe^t 
 ot abetter cminiry, that is, an heavenly "", theic are 
 
 .'^ N'er, ig. t v^gr, 13 and 39. " Chap. iv. vcr. 2. 
 
 * V'. r. 13 — 16, 
 
 3 coni 
 
Se(Sl. 4. o/" M o s E s demonfirated, 181 
 
 confined to the Patriarchs and Leaders of the Jcwifli 
 People. And that they had this diflant proipedt 
 I am as much concerned to prove as my Adverfaries 
 themfelves. And if I fhould undertake to do it 
 more effedually, no body I believe will think that 
 I pretended to any great matter. But then let us 
 ftill remember there is a vaft difference beLween 
 
 SEEING THE PROMISES AFAR OFF and RECEIVING 
 
 THE Promise : the latter implying a 2;ifc bellow- 
 ed ; the former, only the obfcure and diflant prof^ 
 ped of one to come. This indeed they had: but as 
 to the other, the facred Writers allure us that,_ in 
 general, they had it not. — And thefe all having 
 obtained a good report through. iz\t\\ received not ■ 
 THE promise \ For tho' all the good Ifraelites 
 in general had faith in God, and the Patriirchs 
 and Leaders had the hope of a better Country, 
 yet neither the one nor the other received ihe Pre- 
 mife. 
 
 I have faid, that the hopes of a better country, 
 is to be confined to the Patriarchs and Leaders of 
 the ancient Jews : Nor is this contradicted by what 
 is faid of others who were tortured, not aicepting 
 deliverance, that they might obtain a better Rcfurrec- 
 tion % for this refers (as our Englifh Bibles fliew us) 
 to the hiflory of the Maccabees •, in whofe tim<;i 
 it is confefTed the Dodrine of a future fiate wa.s_ 
 become national. How the People get it,— of 
 what materials it was compofed, — and from what 
 quarters it was fetched, will be feen hereafter. 
 It is lufHcient to obferve at prefent, that all this, 
 the Jews foon forgot, or hid from themfelves,^ and 
 made this new flattering Doftrine a part of th? 
 Law. Hence the Author of the fecond book of 
 
 y Ver. 30. ^ Ver, 35. 
 
 ' N ^ Macca^ 
 
1 82 The B him Le gat ton Book VI. 
 
 Maccabees makes one of the Martyrs fay For 
 
 our brethren who now have fuffered a Jhort pain, are 
 dead unto God's covenant of everlasting life *. 
 But it may be a(ked, how came this Covenant of 
 everlajling life to lye fo perfeftly concealed from the 
 time of Moles to the great Captivity, that, as ap- 
 pears from their Hiftory, neither Princes nor Peo- 
 ple had the leaft apprehenfion or fufpicion of fuch 
 a Covenant? 
 
 But here a proper occafion offers itfelf to re^ 
 move a feeming contradiction between the Writer 
 of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and St. Paul, in 
 his fpeech to the fynagogue at Antioch, which will 
 give ftill further light to the fubjeft. The former 
 i'ays. And thefe all having obtained a good report 
 through faith, received not the promise ^ 
 And the latter. The promise which was made 
 UNTO the fathers, God hath fulfilled the fame 
 unto us their children, in that he hath raifed up Jesus 
 iigain'. But the contradiction is only feemino-. 
 The two texts are, indeed, very confiftent. The 
 Writer to the Hebrews is fpeaking of the condi- 
 tion of the heads and leaders of the faithful Ifrael- 
 ites in general -, who certainly had not the promife 
 of the Gofpel revealed unto them : St. Paul, in 
 his fpeech to the Synagogue, is fpeaking particu- 
 larly of their father Abraham: as appears from 
 his introductory addrefs. Men and Brethren, Child- 
 ren of the flock of Abraham^; and Abraham cer- 
 tainly had the promife of the Gofpel revealed unto 
 him, as appears from the words of Jesus himfdf. 
 Tour father Abraham rejoiced to fee my day ; and he 
 f aw it, and was glad. He faw the refurredion of 
 
 ' 2 Mace. vii. 36. 
 xiii 11, " Vcr. 26, 
 
 '' Heb, xi. ^cy. 
 
 ' Acts 
 
 Jefus 
 
Se<fl. 4. of Moses demonjirafed, 183 
 
 Jefus in the reftoration of his fon Ifaac. But of 
 this more hereafter. And to this folurion, the 
 Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews himfelf 
 diredts us ; who, tho* he had jfaid that the holy 
 men in general received not thepromife, yet when he 
 reckons up the diftind effefts of each particular 
 man's faith, he exprefsly fays, — who thro" faith fub" 
 dued kif7gdoms, wrought righteoufnefs^ obtained pro- 
 mises, flopped the mouths of lions, quenched the 
 violence of fire^, ^c. That is, fome hke David, 
 through f2iith,fubdued kingdoms ; others, like Samuel, 
 wrought right eoufnefs ; others, like Abraham, ob- 
 tained promises ; others, as Ti2,n\Q\, flopped the 
 mouths of lions •, and others, again, as his three 
 companions, quenched the violence of fire. From 
 whence I would infer thefe two conclufions : 
 
 I. That as the promife here faid to be ^^/^zW^, . 
 doth not contradift what the fame Writer fays pre- 
 fently after, that the faithful Ifraelites in general 
 received not the promife ; and as xht promife, faid by 
 St. Paul to be made to the fathers, means the fame 
 thing with the promises faid, by the Writer of the 
 epiftle to the Hebrews, to be obtained, namely 
 the promifes made to Abraham, who faw Christ's 
 day, and the oath fworn to David, that of the fruit 
 of his loins he would raife up Chrifi to fj on his 
 throne^', confequently, neither do the words of 
 St, Paul contradid the Writer of the epiftle to the 
 Hebrews, where he fays, thefe all received not the 
 promife. 2. As thefe gofpel Promifes are faid to 
 be obtained by faith, it follows that the faith men-^ 
 tioned in this famous eleventh chapter to the He- 
 brews, could not be faith in the Mejf.ah: becaufe 
 
 • Hbb. xi, 33, f Acts ii, 30. 
 
 N 4 the 
 
184 ^be Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 the promifes of a Mefliah are here faid to he the 
 conlequence of faith -, but faith in the Meffiab is 
 the confcquence of xht promifes oi a MeflTiah : For 
 how could they believe in H^n of whom they had not 
 heard? From whence it appears, that the faith 
 fo much extolled in this chapter "^as, faith in God's, 
 veracity^ according to the interpretation given 
 above. 
 
 III. 
 
 This is all, as far as I can learn, that hath been 
 objected to my Propofidon •, and this all is fuch a 
 confirmation of it^ that I am in pain left the reader 
 fhould think I have prevaricated, and drawn our 
 'the ilrongeft Texts in the New Teftament to fup- 
 port my Opinion, under the name of a Confu- 
 tation of it. But I have fairly given them as I 
 found them urged : and to fhew that I am no lefs 
 fevere, though a little more candid, to my own 
 notions, than my Anfv/erers are, I fhall pro- 
 duce an objeftion which occurred to me in reading 
 St. Paul's epiftles of more real moment than their 
 whole bundle of Texts weighed together. It is 
 this : 
 
 The learned Apoftle, in his reafoning againft 
 the Jews, argues upon a fuppofition, that " By 
 the Law they had eternal life offered to them or 
 laid before them, on condition of their exaft per- 
 formance of the Commandment ^ but that all 
 coniing fhortof perfe6t obedience, there was a ne- 
 ceflity of recurring to faith." — For zvhat the 
 Law could not do (fays he) in that it was weak 
 through the fiefhy God fending his own Son in the 
 likenefs of finful fleflj^ and for fin condemned fm in 
 ike ficflj : that the righteoufnefs of the Law might be 
 
 fulfilled 
 
5e(5t. 4» o/' Moses demonjlrated. 185 
 
 fulfilUd in us, who walk not after theflejh^ ht after 
 ihefpirit ^ 
 
 This general Argument, which runs through 
 the epiftles to the Romans and Galatians wears in-^ 
 deed the face of an Objeftion to what I have ad^ 
 vanced : but to underftand the true value of it, 
 we mull confider the Apoftle's end and purpofe im 
 writing. It was to redify an error in the Jewiih 
 Converts, who would lay a neceflity upon all men 
 of conforming to the Law of Mofes. As itrange- 
 ly fuperftidous as this may now appear to us, it 
 feems to have been a very natural confequence of 
 opinions then held by the whole Jewifli Nation, 
 asdodrines of Mofes and of the Law; namely a 
 future ftate of Rewards and Punifhments, and the 
 refurre^ion of the Body. Now thefe Doftrines, 
 which eafiiy difpofed the lefs prejudiced part of 
 the Jews to receive the Gofpel^ where they were 
 taught more direftly and explicitely, at the fam^ 
 time gave them wrong notions both of the Reli- 
 gion of MosES and of Jesus : Which, by th^ 
 way, I defire thofe, who fo much contend for a 
 future Jlate^s being in the Mofaic Difpenfation, to 
 take notice of. Their wrong notion of the Law 
 confifted in this, that having taken for granted, 
 that the reward of obedience propofed by Mofes 
 was Immortality^ and that this immortality could 
 be obtained only by the works of the Law, there-r 
 fore thofe works were, of neceflity, to be obferved. 
 Their wrong notion of the Gospel confifted in 
 this, that as Immortality was attached to Works by 
 the Law, fo it muft needs be attached to JVerks 
 \>y the Gofpel alfo. 
 
 e Rom. viij. 3, 4* 
 
 Thefe 
 
l86 7^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Thefc were fatal miftakes. We have feen in 
 our explanation of the eleventh chapter to the He- 
 brews how the Apoftles combated the lafl: of them, 
 namely Jufiification by Works. The fhewing now in 
 what manner St. Paul oppofedthe other, oi obligation 
 to the Law^ will explain the reasoning in queftion. 
 Their opinion of obligation to the Law of Mofes, 
 was, as we fay, founded on this principle, that it 
 taucrht 21, future fiat e, or offered immortality to its 
 followers. The cafe was nice and delicate, and 
 the confutation of the error required much addrefs. 
 What fhould our Apoftle do? Should he in dired 
 terms deny z future fiat e was to be found in the 
 Law ? This would have fhocked a general tradition 
 fupported by a national belief. Should he have 
 owned that life and immortality came by the Law? 
 This had not only fixed the-m in their error, but, 
 what was worfe, had tended to fubvert the whole 
 Gofpel of Jesus. He has .recourfe therefore to 
 this admirable expedient ; The later Jews, in fup- 
 port of their national Do6trine of a future fiate^ 
 had given a fpiritual fenfe to the Law. And this, 
 which they did out of neceflity, with little apparent 
 grounds of conclufion then to be difcovered, was 
 feen, after the coming of the MefTiah, to have the 
 hio-heft reafonablenefs and truth. 1 hus we find 
 there were two fpiritual fenfes,, the one fpurious, 
 invented by the later Dodlors of the Law, the 
 other genuine, difcovered by the Preachers of the 
 Gofpel ', and thefe coinciding well enough in the 
 main, St. Paul was enabled to feize z. fpiritual fenfe, 
 and from thence to argue on their own principles, 
 that the Law of Mofes could not now oblige ; 
 which he does in this irrefiftible manner. *' ^he 
 LaWy fays he, we know is fpiritual ^y that is, in a 
 
 ^ Rom. viii. 14. 
 ^ ~ fpiritual 
 
Se£l. 4. o/' M o s E s demonftrated. 1 S7 
 
 fpiritual fenfe promifes immortality : for it fays. 
 Do this and live \ Therefore he who does the 
 deeds of the Law Jhall live ''. But what then ? I 
 am carnal^: And all have finned, and come foort of 
 the glory of God"" : So that no flelh qan htjujlified 
 by the deeds of the Law ", which requires a perfect 
 obedience. fVorks then being unprofitable, we 
 muft have recourfe to Faith: But the Law is not 
 of faith": Therefore the Law is unprofitable for 
 the attainment of falvation, and confequently no 
 longer obligatory." — Never was an important ar- 
 gument more artfully conduced, where the er- 
 roneous are brought into the right way on their 
 own principles, and yet the truth not given up or 
 betrayed. This would have been admired in a 
 Greek or Roman Orator, 
 
 But though xht principle he went upon was com- 
 mon both to him and his adverfaries, and confe- 
 quently true, that the Law -^2^^ fpiritual, or had a 
 fpiritual meaning, whereby, under the fpecies of 
 thofe temporal promifes of the Law, the promifes 
 of the Gofpel were Ihadowed out •, yet the inference 
 from thence, that the Law offered immortality to 
 its followers, was folely Jewifh, and urged by St. 
 Paul as an argument adhominem only; which ap- 
 pears certain from thefe confiderations ; 
 
 I. This fpiritual {en{c, which St. Paul owns to 
 be in the Law, was not a fenfe which was con- 
 veyed down with the literal, by Mofes, to the fol- 
 lowers of the Law -, but was a fenfe invented or 
 4ifcovered long after j—the fpurious, by the later 
 
 » Lev, xviii. 5, Gal. iii. 12. ^ Rom. x, 5. 
 
 J Rom. viii. 14. m Rom. iii. 23. " GalI ii. 16. 
 
 Chap> iii, ver. 11, • Gal, iii. 12. 
 
 Jewilli 
 
iS^ 7he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Jewifh Doftors; and the genuine and real, by the 
 Apoftles ; as appears from thefe words of St. Paul ; 
 -— Bui now we are delivered from the Law, thai 
 being dead wherein we were held, that we Jhould 
 ferve in newness of spirit, andnot in the oldness 
 OF the letter p. We fee here, the Apollle 
 gives the letter to the Jewifli CEconomy, and the 
 fpirit to the Chriftian. Let me obferve how ex- 
 actly this quadrates with, and how well it explains, 
 what he fays in another place •, where having told 
 the Corinthians that he and his Fellow-Apoilles 
 were minijlers of the New Tejlament, not of the letter 
 hut of the fpirit, he adds, the letter killeth, but the 
 fpirit giveth life. The Jews had only the letter dt- 
 livered to them by the Law, but the Letter killeth; 
 the confequence is that the Law Cin which was 
 only the letter) had no future ftate. 
 
 2. Secondly, Suppofing St. Paul really to hold 
 that the Law offered immortality to its followers, and 
 that that immortality was attached (as his argu- 
 ment fuppofes it) to JVorks, it would contradict 
 the other reafoning which both he himfelf and the 
 author of the epiftle to the Hebrews urged fo cor- 
 dially againft the fecond error of the Jewifh Con- 
 verts i namely, of immortality's being attached to 
 works, or xh^itjufiification was by works under the 
 Gofpel : for to confute this error, they prove, as 
 we have (hewn, that it v/as faith which juflified, 
 not only under the Gofpel, but under the Law 
 alfo. 
 
 3. Thirdly, If immortality were indeed offered 
 through works, by the Law, then jtfflif cation by 
 faith, one of the great fundamental dodrines of 
 
 f Rom. vii. 6, 
 
 Chriltianity, 
 
Se6l. 4. of Moses demonjlrafed, 1 89 
 
 Chriftianity \ would be infringed. For then faith 
 could, at bed, be only fuppofed to make up the 
 defedb of works^ in fuch a fenfe as to enable works 
 to jujiify. 
 
 4. Fourthly, It would direftly contradid what 
 St. Paul in other places fays of the Law •, as that 
 it is a JhadoiD of things to come^ but that the body is 
 ^/Christ '. But the offer of immortality on one 
 condition, could never be called xh^/hadow of the 
 offer of it on another. I^hat it is thi fchoolmafier to 
 bring me?i to Chriji \ Now, by the unhappy dexte- 
 rity of thefe men, who, in defiance of the Apoftle, 
 .will needs give the do6lrines of grace and truths as 
 well as the do6trines of the Law, to Moses. His 
 appointed schoolmaster, the Law, is made toa6t 
 a part that would utterly difcredit every other 
 fchoolmajler, namely to teach his children, yet in 
 their Elements \ the fublime dodrines of manly 
 fcience. 
 
 5. Fifthly and lailly, if St. Paul Intended this 
 for any more than an argument ad hominem, he 
 contradided himfeif, and milled his difciple Timo- 
 tliy, whom he exprefsly aiTured, that our Saviour 
 Jefus Chriji hath abolished death, and hath 
 brought life and immortality to light through the Gof- 
 pel. And leaft, by this bringing to light, anyone 
 fhould miftake him to mean only that Jefus Chrift 
 had made life and immortality more clear and ma- 
 
 *i This I fliall fhew hereafter ; and endeavour to refcue it 
 from the madnefs of enthufiafm on the one hand, and the ab- 
 furdity of the common fyftem on the other, and yet not betray 
 it, in explaining it away under the fafhionable pretence of de- 
 livering the Scripture DoSrine of it. 
 
 ' Coi, iiu I J. • Gal. iii. 2^. ' Gal, iv. 3—19. 
 
 Difeft> 
 
190 'The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 nifeft, than Mofes had done, he adds, that ouf 
 Saviour had ahoUJhed of dejiroyed Deaths or that 
 ilate of mortality and extinftion into which man* 
 kind had fallen by the tranfgreffion of Adam j 
 and in which, they continued under the Law of 
 Mofes, as appears from that Law's having no 
 other fandtion than temporal rewards and punijh- 
 rnents. Now this ftate muft needs be abolifhed, 
 before another could be introduced : confequently 
 by bringing life and immortality to light, muft needs 
 be meant, the introdudion of a new fyftem. 
 
 I will only obferve, that the excellent Mr. Locke 
 was not aware of the nature of the argument in 
 queftion •, and fo, on its miftaken authority, hath 
 feemed to fuppofe that the Law did indeed offer im* 
 mortality to its followers : This hath run him into 
 great perplexities throughout his explanation of 
 St. Paul's epiftles. 
 
 Thus we have at length proved our third pro- 
 position, That the Doltrine of a future Jl ate of Re- 
 wards and Punifhments is not to be found in, nor did 
 make part of, the Mofaic Difpcnfation ; and, as we 
 preiume, to the fatisfadion of every capable and 
 impartial reader. 
 
 But to give thefe arguments credit with thofe 
 who determine only by authority, I fhall, in the 
 laft place, fupport them with the opinions of three 
 Proteftant Writers •, but thefe Three worth a mil- 
 lion. The firft is the illuftrious Grotius— " Mo- 
 " fes in Religionis Judaicce Inftitutione, fi diferta 
 " Legis refpicimus, nihil promifit fupra hujus 
 *' vitae bona, terram ubercm, penum copioium, 
 " vidloriam de hoftibus, longam & valcntem fc- 
 ** nedtutem, pofteros cum bona fpe fuperllltc?. 
 
 '* Nam, 
 
Se6t. 4. o/" M o s E s demonftrated, 19 1 
 
 " Nam, SI QUID est ultra, in umbris obtegi- 
 *' tur, autfapienti ac difficili ratiocinatione col- 
 *' ligendum eft." 
 
 The fecond is the excellent Episcopius.— " In 
 *' tota Lege Mofaica nullum vitas aeternas pras- 
 " mium, ac ne £cterni quidem prsemii indicium 
 *' VEL vestigium cxtat : quiequid nunc Judsei 
 *' multum de futuro feculo, de refurreftione mor- 
 " tuorum, de vita seterna loquantur, & ex Legis 
 " verbis ea extorquere potius quam oftendere co- 
 *' nentur, ne Legem Mosis imperfectam esse 
 " COGANTUR agnoscere cum Sadducaels ; quos 
 *' olim (&, uti obfervo ex fcriptis Rabbinorum, 
 *' hodieque) vitam futuri faeculi Lege Mofis nee 
 " promitti nee contineri adfirmalTe, quum tamen 
 " Judsei effent, certiflimum eft. Nempe non nifi 
 " per Cabalam five Traditionem, quam illi in 
 *' univerfum rejiciebant, opinionem five iidem 
 " illam irrepfifle afferebant. Et fane opinionum, 
 " quae inter Judsos erat, circa vitam futuri fjeculi 
 *' difcrepantia, arguit promifTioBes Lege facVas tales 
 " efle ut ex iis certi quid de vita futuri fseculi non 
 " poflit colligi. Quod & Servator nofter non ob- 
 *' fcure innuit, cum refurredionem mortuorum 
 *' colligit Mat. xxii. non ex promiflb aliquo Legi 
 *' addito, fed ex generali tantum illo promifTo Dei, 
 *' quo fe Deum Abrahami, Ifaaci, & Jacobi fu- 
 " turum fpoponderat : quse tamen ilia colled;io 
 *' magis nititur cognitione intentionis divinas fub 
 *' generalibus iftis verbis occultatas aut compre- 
 " henfas, de qua Chritto certo conftabat, quam 
 " neceffaria confequentia five verborum vi ac vir- 
 " rute manifefta, qualis nunc & in verbis Novi 
 " Teftamenti, ubi vita asterna & refurre<5lio mor- 
 " tuorum proram & puppim faciunt totius Reli- 
 
192 ■ The Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 '* gionis Chriftianas, & tam clare ac diferte pro- 
 *' mittuntur ut ne hifcere quidem contra quis 
 « poflit"." 
 
 And the third is our learned Bifhop Bull :— 
 " Prime quaeritur an in V. Teftamento nullum 
 <' omnino extet vits asternae promifTum ? de e6 
 «« enim a nonnuUis dubitatur. Refp. Huic quae^ 
 '* ftioni optime mihi videtur refpondere Augufli- 
 ^' nus, diftinguens nomen Veteris Teftamenti : 
 *< nam eo intelligi ait aut pa6tum illud, quod in 
 *' Monte Sinai fadum eft, aut omnia, quse in Mofe, 
 ** Hagiographis, ac Prophetis continentur. Si 
 *' Vetus Teftamentum pofteriori fenlu accipiatur, 
 «^ concedi forsitan pofTit, effe in eo nonnulla 
 «' futuras vitce non obfcura indicia ; praefercini ill 
 " Libro Pfalmorum, Daniele, & Ezekiele : quan- 
 " quam vel in his libris clarum ac difertum .'fiternaS 
 *« vitas promiflfum vix ac ne vix quidem repcriaS". 
 " Sed haec qualiacunque erant, non erant niH 
 " praeludia & anticipationes gratiae Evangelical; 
 
 «« AD LEGEM NON PERTINEBANT. — LcX Ctlilri 
 
 «' promifTa habuit terrena^ & terrena tantuM. 
 « —Si quis contra fentiat, ejus eft locum dare, 
 «* ubi astern SE vitae promiffio extat j quod cbrt^ 
 " iMPOSsiBiLE EST.— Sub his autem verbis [legr^ 
 <* ipfius] Dei intentione comprehenfam fuilfc vitaitl 
 " aeternam, ex interpretatione ipfius Chrifti ejuf- 
 *' que Apoftolorum manifeftum eft. Verum hafC 
 *' non lufficiunt ut dicamus vitam seternam in 
 " Fcedere Mofaico promiflam fuifle. Nam primo 
 •' promifia, praslertim Foederi annexa, dcbent elTd 
 " clara ac diferta, & ejufmodi, ut ab utraqucr 
 *' parte ftipulante intelligi poffint. PromifTa au- 
 
 " Injl. TheoL lib. iii, feft. i. c. 2. 
 
 *' teni 
 
Se£l. 4^ ^ M s E s demonfirated, 193 
 
 «« rem hsec typica &generalia, non addita aliunde 
 " interpretatione, pene impossibile erat, ut 
 
 *« QUIS ISTO SENSU INTELLIGERET\ 
 
 Thus thefe three capital fupports of the Pro- 
 teftant Church. But let the man be of what 
 Church he will, fo he have a fuperiority of under- 
 ftanding and be not defeftive in integrity, you fliall 
 always hear him fpeak the fame Language. The 
 great ARNAULD,that fhining ornament of the Gal- 
 lican Church, urges this important truth with 
 Hill more franknefs — " C*eft le comble de l'ig- 
 ** NORANCE (fays this accomplilhed Divine) de 
 " mettre en doute cette verite, qui eft une des plus 
 <' communes de la Religion Chretienne, et qui 
 
 " eft ATTESTEE PAR TOUS LES PERES, qUC ks 
 
 *' promejjes de l'a?tcien 'Tejiament n\toient que temporel- 
 *' les et terrejires, et que ks Juifs rCadoroient Dieu que 
 *« pour les kins charnels ^ \" And what more hath 
 
 been 
 
 * Harmoma Apoftolica, DlfTertat. pofterior, cap. x. fcft. 8. 
 p. 474, inter Opera omniay ed. 1 72 1, 
 
 y Apohgii de Port'Rcyal. 
 
 ^ But all are not Arnaulds, in the GalHcan Chureh. Mr, 
 Freret, fpeaking of the hifiory of Saul and a pail'age in Ifaiah, 
 concerning the invocation of the dead, fays — Ce qui augmaite 
 ma /urprije, c'eji de 'voir que la plus fart de ces Cofnnietitateurs Je 
 plaigvent de ne trowver dans /' Ecritiire aucvne preirce claire que k.s 
 Juifsy au temps c!e Moy/e, crvjjhit I' immortalite de /' atr.e. — I.a 
 pratique, interdite aux juifs, fuppofe que T exigence des ames, 
 leperees du corps, par la mort, etoit alors un opinion general© 
 & populaire. Memoires de /' Acad. Roya!e des In/crip, Sec. v. 
 23. p. 185. — The Gentleman's yir/zr//'^ arifes from his being un- 
 able to diltinguifh between the feparate cxijicncs cf the 6'o»/ccn- 
 fidered phyfically, and its immortality coniidered in a religious 
 fenfe : It is under this latter confideraticn that a future State of 
 reiKurd and punijhment is included. Had he not confounded 
 thefe two things io different in themfelves, he had never ventured 
 to condemn the Commentators ; who do indeed fay, they cannot 
 find this latter doftrine in the Pentateuch. But then, they do 
 
 Vol, v. O not 
 
194 ^'^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 been faid or done by the Author of the Divine 
 Legation ? Indeed, a great deal more. He hath 
 fhewn, " That the abfence or omiflion of a future 
 ft ate of rewards and punifhments in the Mofaic 
 Religion is a certain proof that its original was 
 from God." Forgive him this wrongs my reverend 
 Brethren ! 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 BUT though it appear that a future Jiate of Re- 
 ivards and puniJJjracnts made no part of the Mo- 
 JaicDifpenfation^yQi the Law had certainly a spiri- 
 tual meaning, to be underftood when the fulnefs 
 of time ihould come : And hence it received the 
 nature, and afforded the efficacy, of Prophesv. 
 In the interim, the mystery of the Gospel was 
 cccafionally revealed by God to his cholen Servants, 
 the Fathers and Leaders of the Jewifli Nation ;• 
 and the dawning of it was gradually opened by the 
 Prophets, to the People. 
 
 And which is exactly agreeable to what our ex- 
 cellent Church in its seventh Article of Reli* 
 gion tcacheth concerning this matter. 
 
 ARTICLE. VIL 
 
 Cftc ^{t! Ccltament 10 not fontracp to tge 
 fircii : J^or liotl) in tiie ^It) auti fitXn 'Ceffamcnt 
 rbedaflring ILife 10 off^reti to SanUinli bp Ciiritt, 
 toljo 10 tlje otilji aacliiatai* bcttoccn 60^ aim i^aiu 
 5i(ui|^Ei cforc tl)cp arc itot to ht SeattJ, toijiClj feign, 
 
 rot 'a'nrt't »r (otiphln of this want; bccaiiH; they faw, tlio' this 
 Acadc-mician docs not, thr.t the abfence of ihe Jodrine of a 
 future Si.-iir of rt-'v.ird and punijhmcnt in the Mosaic Law 
 evince, its impeifeflion, .nnd verifies th« enunciation of the 
 Go pel, that LiKL ANi) i.M.\;o:iT.^LH V ivcre brought to light 
 by Jesus Ciik]> i , 
 
I'M "^ '■• 
 
 Sed. $K ofMos^s dmmjlrated. 19^ 
 
 tSat tSe £Dlti i^atSeis? t»iti laali anl|i far tranStarp 
 ][aromife0. 
 
 The Old 'T eft anient is not contrary to the New, is 
 
 a propofition diredled againfttheManichean error, 
 to which the opinions of fome Sectaries of thefe 
 later times feemed to approach. The Manicheans 
 fancied there was a Good and an Evil Principle -, that 
 the Old Difpenfation was urider the Evil, and that 
 the New was the work of the Good, Now it hath 
 been proved that the Old Teftament is fo far from 
 being contrary to the New, that it was the Foun- 
 dation, Rudiments, and Preparation for it. 
 
 — For both in the Old and Neiv Teftament everlaft- 
 ing life is oftisred to mankind by Christ, who is the 
 only Mediator between God and Man. That the 
 Church could not mean by thefe words, that ever- 
 lafting life was offered to mankind by Christ in 
 the cSd Teftament in the same manner in which 
 it is offered by the New, is evident from thefe con- 
 fiderations : 
 
 I. The Church, in the preceding words, only 
 fays, the Old Teftament is not contrary to the 
 New ', but did ihe mean that everlafting life was 
 offered by both, in the fame manner, (he would 
 certainly have faid. The old Teftament is the same 
 with ihe New. This farther appears from the infe- 
 rence drawn from the propofition concerning everry 
 lafting life — wherefore they are 'not to be heard^} 
 which feign, that the old fathers did look only for 
 tranfitory promifes. But was this pretended fenfe. . 
 the true, then the inference had been, That ALL-'*i> 
 the Israelites were inftru^ed to look for more} 
 than tranfitory promifes. 
 
 O 2 2. The 
 
196 The Dlvtne Legation Book VI, 
 
 2. The Church could not mean that everlaftins; 
 life is offered in the Old and New Teftament in 
 the fame manner, becaufe we learn from St. Auftin, 
 that this was one of the old Pelagian herefies,' 
 condemned by the Catholics in the Synod of Diof- 
 
 polis,— OyOD LEX SICMITTAT AD REGNUM [COE- 
 
 lorum] quemadmodum et evancelium '. 
 
 What was meant therefore by the words . 
 
 both in the Old and Nevj Tejlamcnt cverlnfiing Life is 
 
 offered to Mankind by Christ, was plainly this 
 
 " That the offer of everlaftin^ Life to Mankind by 
 <« Christ in the New Teftament was shadowed 
 " out in the Old ; the spiritual meaning of the 
 " Law and the Prophets referring to thatlife and 
 " immortality, which was brought to light by Jesus 
 " Christ." 
 
 3. But laftly, Whate\^er meaning the Church 
 had in thefe words, it cannot at all affed our Pro- 
 pofition, that a future fate was not taught by the 
 Law of Mofes ; becaufe by the Old Teftament is ever 
 meant both the Law and the Prophets. Now I 
 hold that the Prophets gave ftrong intimations, 
 tho' in figurate language borrowed from the Jewilh. 
 Oeconomy, of the everlajiing life offered to man- 
 kind by Jesus Christ. 
 
 The concluding words of the Article which re- 
 late to this matter, hy,— wherefore they are not to be 
 heard, which feign, that the old fathers did look 
 only for tranfitory promifes; and fo fay I : becaufe 
 Jesus himfelf is to be heard, before all fuch ; and 
 he affirms the dired contrary of the Father of the 
 faithful in particular. Tour father Abraham (fays 
 
 » De GeJlU Ptlagii, c, xi. $ 24. 
 
 he 
 
Bed:, S. ' of Mo SES demor^/^rateJ, 197 
 
 he to the unbelieving Jews) rejoiced to fee my day^ 
 and he faiv it aiid was glad^ . A fad not only of 
 the utmoft certainty in itfelf, but of the higheft im- 
 portance to be rightly underftood. That I may 
 not therefore be fufpeded of prevarication, I chuie 
 this inftance (the nobleft that ever was given of the 
 HARMONY between the Old and New Teftament) 
 to illuftrate this confiftent truth, 
 
 I. 
 
 And I perfuade myfelf that the learned Reader 
 will be content to go along with me, while I 
 take occafion, from thefe remarkable words of 
 Jesus, to explain the hiftory of the famous com- 
 mand TO Abraham to offer up his son ; for to 
 this Hiftory I ihall prove, the words refer ; and by 
 their aid I fhall be enabled to juftify a revolting 
 circumftance in it, which has been long the ftum- 
 bling-block of Infidehty. 
 
 In the fenfe in which the Hiftory of the Com- 
 mand hath been hitherto underftood, the beft 
 apology for Abraham's behaviour (and it is hard 
 we ftiould be obliged, at this time of day, to 
 make apologies for an aftion, which, we are told, 
 had the greateft merit in the fight of God) feems 
 to be this, that having had much intercourfe with 
 the God of Heaven, whofe Revelations (not to 
 fay, his voice of Nature) fpoke him a good and 
 juft Being, Abraham concluded that this command 
 to facrifice his fon, conveyed to him like the reft, 
 by the fame ftrong and clear impreffion on the 
 Scnfory, came alfo from the fame God. How 
 rational foever this folution be, the Deift, perhaps, 
 would be apt to tell us it was little better than 
 Eledra's anfwer to Oreftes, who, ftaggering \x\ 
 
 •* John vili. 56. 
 
 O 3 his 
 
198 ^he Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 his purpofe to kill his mother by the command of 
 Apollo, fays : But if, after all, this fhould be an 
 evil DerAon, who, bent upon mifchief, hath ajfumed 
 the form of a God? She replies, What, an evil 
 Demon poffefs the f acred 'J'ripod? It is nottobefup- 
 pofed\ 
 
 But the idea hitherto conceived of this impor- 
 tant Hiftory has fubje6ted it even to a worfe abufe 
 than that of Infidelity : Fanatics, carnally as well 
 as fpiritually licentious, have employed it to coun- 
 tenance and fupport the moll abominable of their 
 Dodlrines and Praftices ^ Rimius in his Candid 
 Narrative hath given us a ftrange pafTage from 
 the writings of the Moravian Brethren, which the 
 reader, from a note of his, will find tranfcribed here 
 below. 
 
 However^ after faving and referving to ourfelves 
 the benefit of all thofe arguments, which have been 
 hitherto brought to fupport the hiftory of the com- 
 mand ; I beg leave to fay, that the fource of ^11 
 the difficulty is the very wrong idea men have 
 been taUght to entertain of it, while it was con- 
 fidered as given for a tryal only of Abraham's 
 
 ' O^. A^ am aAarwj tire wjrtixao-^it^ Cfji ; 
 
 JEurip. Ele^ra, ver. 9-9, 
 
 ^ *' He (the Saviour) can difpofe of life and foul ; he can 
 make the aconomy of Salvation, and change it every hour, 
 that the hindermolt be the foremoft : He can make laws and 
 abrogate them ; i;e can make that to be moral which 
 IS against nature; the greateft virtue to be the moft 
 villainous aflion, and the mod virtuous thoughts to be the 
 moft Criminal : He can in a quarter of an hour, make 
 Abraham willing to kill his Son, which however is the moft 
 abominable thought a man can have." 
 
 Ccunt Zinztndorf't Sfrm. in Rimius, p. ?;^. 
 
 faith i 
 
Sed. 5* ^f Moses demonjirated, 199 
 faith i and confequently as a Revelation unfouaht 
 by him, and unrelated to any. of thofe before" 
 vouchfafed unto him : Whereas, in truth, it was 
 a Revelation ardently desired, had the clo- 
 sest CONNECTION with, and was, indeed, the 
 
 COMPLETION OF ALL THE FOREGOING ', wMch 
 
 were all direfted to one end; as the gradual 
 view of the orderly parts of oneintire Difpenfation 
 required : confequently, the principal purpofe of 
 the COMMAND was not to try Abraham's faith, 
 althou<yh its nature was fuch, that, in the very 
 giving'^of it, God did, indeed, tempt or try Ahra- 
 
 In plain terms, the Adion was enjoined as the 
 conveyance of information to the A6tor, of fome- 
 thing he had requefted to know : This mode of in- 
 formation by Signs infteads of Words being, as we 
 have fhewn, of common praftice in thofe early 
 Ages : And as the force of the following reafoning 
 is founded on that ancient cuftom, I muft requeft 
 the Reader carefully to review what hath been faid 
 between the hundred and fifth and the hundred and 
 twenty-firft pages of the third volume, concerning 
 the origin, progrefs, and various modes of perfo- 
 nal converfe •, where it is feen, how the conveying 
 information, and giving diredions, to Another, 
 by Signs and Anions, inftead of JVords, came to be 
 of general pradice in the firfl rude Ages; and 
 how, in compliance therewith, God was pleafed 
 frequently to converfe with the holy Patriarchs 
 and Prophets in that very manner. 
 
 Laying down therefore what hath been faid on 
 this fubjla, in the place referred to, as a Poftu- ^ 
 
 c Gen. xxii. i, 
 
 4 latum 
 
2 CO He Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 latum I undertake to prove the following Propo- 
 l;;ion : 
 
 I. 
 
 That when God says to Abraham, TAKE 
 NOf^ THT SON, THINE ONLT SON ISAAC, 
 
 t^c\ THE COMMAND IS MERELY AN INFORMA- 
 TION BY ACTION, INSTEAD OF WORDS, OF THE 
 
 GREAT Sacrifice of Christ for the Redemp- 
 tion OF MANKIND, GIVEN AT THE EARNEST 
 REQUEST OF ABRAHAM, WHO LONGED IMPA- 
 TIENTLY TO SEE CHRIST'S DA}"--, and is, in 
 its nature, exactly the lame as thofe informations 
 to the Prophets, where to this Man, God fays, 
 Make thee bonds and yokes, and put them on thy 
 neck^; to another— Gt? take unto thee a wife of 
 whoredoms^, i3c. and to a third: — Prepare thee 
 fluff for removing', ^c. that is, an informa- 
 tion OF HIS PURPOSE BY ACTION INSTEAD OF 
 
 WORDS ; in the firft cafe, foretelling the conquefts 
 of Nebuchadnezzar over Edom, Moab, Ammon, 
 Tyre, and Sidon ; in the fecond, declarino- his 
 abhorrence of the idolatries of the Houfe of Ifrael; 
 and in the third, the approaching Captivity of 
 Zedckiah. 
 
 The foundation of my Thefis I lay in that 
 fcripture of St. John, where Jesus fays to the 
 unbelieving Jews, your father Abraham re- 
 joiced TO SEE MY DAY; AND HE SAW IT, AND 
 WAS GLAD ''. 
 
 I. If we confider Abraham's perfonal charac- 
 ter, together with the choice made of him for 
 
 * Gen. xxii. 2. s Jerem. xxvii. 2. »> Hosea i. 2. 
 
 ' Ezt^. xii, 3. t cjjap^ yjj-;^ yjj,.^ ^^^ 
 
 head 
 
Se&^. 5. c/' Moses demonftrated, 201 
 
 head and origin of that People which God would 
 feparate and make holy to himfelf i from whence 
 was to arife the Redeemer of Mankind, the ul- 
 timate end of that feparation, we cannot but con- 
 clude it probable, that the knowledge of this Re- 
 deemer would be revealed to him. Shall I hi4e 
 from Abraham the thing which I do^? fays God, 
 in a matter that much lefs concerned the Father of 
 the Faithful. And here, in the words of Jesus, 
 we have this probable truth arifmg from the na- 
 ture of the thing, made certain and put out of all 
 reafonable queftion — Abraham rejoiced, fays Je- 
 sus, to fee my day"", th'i/ -nfj/i^ocv mv ly-vv. Now 
 when the figurative word day is ufed, not to ex- 
 prefs in general the period of any one's exifience, 
 but to denote his peculiar office and employment, it 
 mufl needs fignify that very circumftance in his 
 life, which is chara5ierijlic of fuch office and 
 employment. But Jesus is here fpeaking of his 
 peculiar office and employment, as appears from 
 the occafion of the debate, which was his fay- 
 ing. If any man keep my commandments, he fhall 
 never tajie of death, intimating thereby the vir- 
 tue of his office of Redeemer. Therefore, by the 
 word DAY mufl needs be meant that chara^ierijlic 
 circumftance of his life : But that circumftance 
 was the laying down his life for the Redemption of 
 Mankind. Confequently, by the word day is 
 peant the great facrifice of Christ ". Hence we 
 
 may 
 
 ^ Gen. xviii. 17. ■" John viii. 52, 
 
 " Dr. Stebbing, in what he calls Conjiderations en the covt" 
 majid to offer up Ifaac, hath attempted to difcredit the account 
 here given of the Command : And previoufly aflures his rea- 
 der that if any thing can hinder the ill effects nxhich n.y inter- 
 pretation tr.uji have upon Religion, it muji be his expofmg the 
 abfurdity of the ctnceit. This is confidently faid. But what 
 
 then i 
 
202 ^he Dk'We Legation Book VL 
 
 may difrover the real or afFeded ignorance of the 
 Socinian Comment upon this place; which would 
 
 have 
 
 Aen ? He can prove it. So it is to be hoped. If not 
 
 However let us give him a fair hearing. He criticifes this 
 
 obrervation on the word day, in the following manner. 
 •' Really, Sir, I fee no manner of confequence in this rea- 
 *' foning. That Chrift's day had reference to his office, as 
 *' Redeemer, I grant. The day of Chrift denotes the time 
 •' when Chrill (hould come, i. e. when He fhould come, who 
 *' was to be fuch by office and employment. But why it mull 
 •* import alfo that when Chrift came he (hould be offered up a 
 •♦ Sacrifice, I do not in the leaft apprehend : Becaufe I can 
 •* very ealily underftand that Abraham might have been in- 
 *' formed that Chrift was to come without being informed that 
 *' he was to lay down his life as a Sacrifice. If Abraham 
 *' fav/ that a time would come when one of his Tons {hould 
 »' take away the curfe, he faw Chrift's day." [Confid. p. i 59.] 
 At firft fetting out, (for I reckon for nothing this blundering, 
 before he knew where he was, into a Socir.ian comment, the 
 thing he moft abhors) the Reader fees he grants the point I 
 contend for — — That Chriji^s Day (fays he) has reference to 
 his o^ce as Redeemer, I grant. Yet the very next words, em- 
 ployed to explain his meaning, contradidl it ; — The Day of 
 Chrift denotes the time wchen Chriji Jhould come. All the fenfc 
 therefore, I can make of his concefilon, when joined to his 
 explanation of it, amounts to this — ChrifCs Day has reference to 
 his OFFICE : — No, not to his Office, but to his time. He fets off 
 well : but he improves as he goes along. — But avhy it 7nuji im- 
 tort ALSO that ivhen Chriji came he jhould be offered up as a 
 Sacrifce, I do not in the leaji apprehend. Nor I, neither, I 
 aflure him. Had I faid, that the word Day, in the text, im- 
 ported the time, I could as little apprehend as he does, how 
 that which imports time, imports also the thing done in time. 
 Let him take this nonfenfe therefore to himfelf. I argued 
 in a plain manner thus, — When the word Day is ufed to 
 exprefs, in general, the period of any one's exiftcnce, then it 
 denotes time ; when, to exprefs his peculiar office and employ- 
 ment, ihcn it denotes, not the time, but that circumftance of 
 life charafteriftic of fuch office and employment ; or the things 
 done in time. Day, in the text, is ufed to exprefs Chrift's pe- 
 culiar office and employment. Therefore — But what follows 
 is ftill better. His want of apprehenfion, it feems, is founded 
 in this, that he can eafily underfland, that Abraham might 
 have hitn informed that Chf if ivai to comt j luithout being in- 
 
 fcrn\ei 
 
Se<3:. 5* of Moses demonjlrated. 203 ^ 
 
 have day only to fignify in general the life of 
 Christ, or the period of his abode here on earth. 
 
 To reconcile the learned Reader to the pro- 
 priety and elegance as well as to the truth of this 
 lenfe of the word, Day^ he may obferve, that as 
 Jefus intitles his great Work, in his ftate of hu- 
 miliation, the Redemption of Mankind, by the name 
 of HIS DAY ; fo is he pleafcd to give the fame ap- 
 pellation to his other great Work, in his trium- 
 phant ftate, the Judgment of Mankind. " For as 
 ^' the lightening (fays he) that lightneth out of the 
 ^' one part under heaven, — fo Ihall alfo the Son 
 *' of Man be, in his day"." But this figure is 
 indeed as ufual in Scripture as it is natural in it 
 felf. Thus that fignal cataftrophe in the fortunes 
 of the Jewifh People, both temporal and fpiritual, 
 their Rejloration, is called their day. — Then Jhall 
 the Children of Judah (fays God by the Prophet 
 Hofea) and the children of Ifrael^ be gathered to-^^ 
 
 formed that he nvas to lay doiun his life as a Sacrifice. YeSf 
 and fo could I likewife ; or 1 had never been at the pains of 
 making the criticifm on the word Day: which takes its force 
 from this very truth, that Abraham might have been informed 
 of one without the other. And, therefore, to prove he was 
 informed of that other, I produced the text in queftion, which 
 afforded the occafioji of the criticifm. He goes on, — If 
 jibraham fanv, that a time nvould come iiuhen one of his feed 
 Jhould take aivay the curfe, he fazv Chriji's Day. With- 
 out doubt he did. Becauie it is agreed, that Day may fignify 
 either time, or circumftance of adion. But what is this td 
 the purpofe ? The queftion is not whether the word may not, 
 when ufed indefinitely, fignify time; but whether it fignifies 
 time in this text. 1 have fliewn it does not. And what 
 has he faid to prove it does ? Why that it may do fo ia 
 another place. In a word, all he here fays, proceeds on 
 a total inapprehenfion of the drift and purpofe of the ar- 
 gument. 
 
 * Luke xvii. 24, 
 
 . - ^ither^ 
 
 i. 
 
204 T'/v Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 get her, and appoint themfehes one head^ and they Jhall 
 £ome up out of the land: for great Jhall be thz day 
 cf Ifrael K 
 
 2. But not only the matter, but the manner, 
 likewife of this great Revelation, is delivered in 
 the text — Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and 
 he SAVf it and was glad. — "voc IAH» tjiv 'fly.i^ocv rviv 
 ty.^v x) EIAE — This evidently fhews the Revelation 
 to have been made, not by relation in words, but 
 by REPRESENTATION in aftion. The verb uSo-i is 
 frequently ufed in the New Teftamcnt, in its 
 proper fignification, to fee fenfibly. But whether 
 ufed literally or figuratively, it always denotes a 
 full intuition. That the expreflion was as ftrong in 
 the Syrian language ufed by Jesus, as here in the 
 Greek of his Hiftorian, appears from the reply 
 
 the Jews made to him ^hou art not yet fifty 
 
 years old, and haft thou seen Abraham'^ '^ Plainly 
 intimating that they underftood the aflertion of 
 Abraham s feeing Chrift^s day to be a real beholding 
 him in perfon. We muft conclude therefore, 
 from the words of the text, that the Redemption 
 of Mankind was not only revealed to Abraham, 
 but was revealed likewife by reprefentation. A 
 late Writer, extremely well fkilled in the ftyle of 
 Scripture, was fo fenfible of the force of Jesus's 
 words, that, though he had no fufpicion they re- 
 lated to any part of Abraham's recorded hiftory, 
 yet he faw plainly they implied an information by 
 reprefentation — 'Thusalfo Abraham (fays ht) faw the 
 day of Christ and was glad. But this muji be in a 
 typical cr prophetical vifion \ The excellent Dr. Scott 
 
 is 
 
 Chap. i. ver. ii. "3 Ver. 57. 
 
 ' Daubuz. on the Revelations^ p. 251. Printed in the year 
 1720. To this rcafoning, Pr. Slebbing replies as follows, 
 
 " Yon 
 
Se£t. 5. of Moses demonJfraUJ, 20^ 
 
 is of the fame opinion. He fuppofes " the words 
 " refer to fome peculiar difcoveries, which the 
 
 " Spirit 
 
 ** Yoa are not more fucceftfal in your next point, Abraham re- 
 '* joked to fee my Day, and he/a^iu it, and nuas glad. l'v» lAH tkp 
 ** ^jtAegaf rnn £f(.r)> >t) EIAE — Tbh (fay you) enjideittly Jheius it 
 " [the FCvelation} /o have been made not by relation in nvords, 
 ** but by repre/entation in aSion^^ How fo ? The reafon fol- 
 *' lows. The 'verb 'L^u is frequently vfed in the Neiu Tejiament 
 
 *' in its proper fignfcation to fee fenjibly. > In the New 
 
 " Tcftament do you fay ? Yes, Sir, and in cwery Greek book 
 ** you ever read in your life. What you should have (aid 
 ** is, that it is fo ufed here ; and I fuppofe you would have 
 *' faid fo, if you had known how to have proved it." [Confid. 
 p. 139—40.] 
 
 The reafon follo-ws (fays he.) Where ? In my book indeed, 
 but not in his imperfeft quotation from it; which breaks off 
 before he comes to my reafon. One who knew him not fo 
 well as 1 do, would fufpeft this was done to ferve a purpofe. 
 No fuch matter : 'twas pure hap hazard. He miftook the 
 introduftion of my argument for the argument itfelf. The 
 argument itfelf, which he omits in the quotation, (and which 
 was all I wanted, for the proof of my point,) was, That the 
 werb e1%, ivhether ufed literally or figuratively, airways denotes 
 a full intuition. And this argument, I introduced in the 
 following manner, The -verb e'^u is frequently ufed in the Netu 
 Tefiament in its proper fignif cation, to fee fenfsbly. Unluckily, aa 
 I fay, he took this for the Argument itfelf, and thus correds me 
 for it, " What you should have faid, is, that it is fo ufed here; 
 " and I fuppofe you would have faid fo, if you had known 
 *' how to have prov'd it." See, here, the true origin both of 
 dogmatizing and divining 1 His ignora7ice of what I did fay, 
 leads him to tell me what I ftiould have faid, and to divine 
 what I would have faid. But, what I faid, I think I may 
 ftand to, That the verb e'I^hj ahvays deffotes a full intuition. This 
 was all I wanted from the text ; and on this foundation, I pro- 
 ceeded in the fequel of the difcourfe, to prove that Abraham 
 y^xy fenfibly. Therefore, when my lixaminer takes it, (as he 
 does) for granted, that becaufe, in this place, 1 had not proved 
 that the Word implied x.o fee fnfibly, I had not proved it at all ; 
 he is a fecond time miilaken. 
 
 *' But, he oions, that, if this was all, perhaps / fhouU tell 
 ** hitiit that it was a s%ty ftrange anfvs-er of the Jevjs, thou art 
 
 ** mt 
 
2o6 ^he t>hine Legation ' Book VL 
 
 " Spirit of God might make to Abraham, for 
 *' his own private confolation, tho* not recorded 
 " in Scripture'.'* 
 
 So 
 
 " ntt yet fifty yean old, and hc.Ji thou feen Ahraham?'* [Confid. 
 p. 140] He is very right. He might be fiire I would. In 
 anfwer therefore to this difficulty, he goes on and fays, " No 
 *' doubt, Sir, the yeivi anfwer our Saviour, as if he had faid, 
 *' that Abraham and he were cotemporaries ; in which, they an- 
 *• fwered very fooliflily, as they did on many other occafions ; 
 ** and the anfwer will as little agree with your interpretation 
 " as it does with mine. For does your interpretation fuppofe 
 *' that Abraham faw Chrift in perfon ? No ; you fay it was by 
 *' reprefentation only." [Confid, p. 140— i.] 
 
 7he yeivs attfivuered our Saviour as if he had faid that Abra- 
 ham and he ixiere cotemporaries. — Do they fo ? Why then, 'tis 
 plain, the exprejjion ivas as firong in the Syrian language, ufed by 
 Je/ui as in the Greek of his Hifiorian, which was all I aimed to 
 prove by it. But in this (fays he) they anf-jcered I'erf foolijhly. 
 What then ? Did I quote them for their wifdom ? A little com- 
 mon fenfe is all I want of thofe with whom I have to deal : 
 And rarely as my fortune hath been to meet with it, yet it is 
 plain thefe Jews did not want it. For the folly of their anfwer 
 arifes therefrom. They heard Jefus ufe a word in their vulgar 
 idiom, which fignified to fee corporeally ; and common fenfe led 
 them to conclude that he ufed it in the vulgar meaning: in 
 this they were not miftaken. But, from thence, they inferred, 
 that he meant it in the fenfe ol fseing ferfonally \ and in this, 
 they were. And now let the Reader judge whether ihc folly of 
 their anfwer fhews the folh of my Argument, or of my Ex- 
 aminer's. — Nay further, he tells us, they anfwered as foolijhly 
 on many other occafions. They did fo ; and I will remind him of 
 one. Jefus fays to Nicodemus, Except a man be born i gain, he 
 cannot fee the kingdom of Gid, &c *. Suppofe now, fiom thefe 
 words, I fliould attempt to prove that Regeneration and divine 
 Grace were realities, and not mere metaphors : For that Jefus, 
 in declaring the neceflity of them, ufed fuch ftrong exprellions 
 that Nicodemus underitord him to mean the being phyfically 
 born again, and entering the fecond lime into the ivomb : Would 
 it be lufficicnt, let me a(k my Examiner, to reply in this man- 
 ner, " No doubt. Sir, Nicodemus anfwered our Saviour as if 
 
 * Chriftian Life, vol. v. p. 194. * St. John iil, 3. 
 
 ** be 
 
Sedlr. 5« of Moses demonjlrated. 207 
 
 So far, then, is clear, that Abraham had indeed 
 this Revelation. The next queftion will be, whe- 
 ther we can reafonably expe6t to find it in the 
 hiftory of his life, recorded in the Old Tefta- 
 ment ? And that we may find it here, both the 
 words of Jesus, and the nature of the thing afTure 
 us. 
 
 •' he had faid, that a follower of the Gofpel mufi: enter a fecond 
 *' time into his mstker's n.i:omb nnd be bortt : in which he anfwered 
 " very foolifhiy ; and the anfwer will as little agree with your 
 *' interpretation as it does with mine. For does your inter- 
 " pretation fuppofe he fliouU fo enter ? No ; but that he 
 " Jhould be born of nvater and of tJ>e fpirit,''^ —- Would this, I 
 fay, be deemed, even by our Examiner himfelf, a fufficient 
 anfwer ? When he has refolved me this, I (hall, perhaps, have 
 fomething farther to fay to him. In the mean time I go on. 
 And, in returning him his lall words reftored to their fubjed, 
 help him forward in the folution of what 1 expert from him. — 
 The an/wer (fays he) 'will as little agree ivithyour interpretation 
 as it does nvith 7mne. For does your interpretation fuppofe that 
 Abraham fanxj Chrijl in perfon ? No ; you fay, it ivas by repre- 
 fentation only." Very well. Let me afk then, in the firft 
 place, Whether he fuppofes that what I faid on this occafion, 
 was to prove that Abraham faw Chrift from the reverend autho- 
 rity of his Jewifh Adverfaries ; or to prove that the verb C'^-jt 
 ligniiied \o fee literally, from their miftaken anfwer? He thought 
 me here, it feems, in the way of thofe writers, who are quot- 
 ing Atfthorities, when they fhould be giving Renfns. Hence, 
 he calls the anfwer the Jews iiere gave, a foolifh one : As if 1 
 had undertaken for its orthodoxy. But our Examiner is ftiU 
 farther miftaken. The point I was upon, in fupport of which 
 I urged the anfwer of the Jews, was not the feeing this, or 
 that perfon: But the feeing f5r/>9rf«//j', and not w£«/<2/.V. Now, 
 if the Jews underilood Jefus, as faying that Abrahain faw cor- 
 poreally, I concluded, that the exprelTion, ufed by Jefus, had 
 that import : And this was all I was concerned to prove. Dif- 
 ference, therefore, between their anfwer as I quoted it, and my 
 interpretation, there was none. Their anfwer implied that 
 Abraham was faid to fee corporeally ; and my interpretation fup- 
 pofes that the words employed, had that import. But to make 
 a diftindion where there was no difference, feeing in perfn, and 
 feing by reprefentation are brought in, to a queftion where they 
 have nothing to do. 
 
 I. We 
 
2o8 77v Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 I. We learn, by the hiflory of Christ's Mi- 
 niftry that in his difputations with the Jews, he 
 never urged them with any circumftance of God's 
 Difpenfations to their Forefathers, which they either 
 were not, or might not be, well acquainted with 
 by the ftudy of their Scriptures. The reafon is 
 evident. His credentials were twofold. Scrip- 
 ture and Miracles. In the (irll way there- 
 fore of confirming his Miflion, if inftead of ap- 
 pealing to the courfe of God's Difpenfation to his 
 chofen People, as delivered in Scripture, he had 
 given them an unknown hiftory of that Difpenfa- 
 tion, (as was one of the tricks of Mahomet in his 
 Alcoran) fuch a method had been fo far from fup- 
 porting his Charafter, that it would have heighten- 
 ed the unfavourable prejudices of Unbelievers to- 
 wards him: as looking like a confeffion that the 
 known hiftory v/as againft him ; and that he was 
 forced to invent a new one, to countenance his pre- 
 tenfions. He muft, therefore, for the neceflary flip- 
 port of his Character, appeal to fonie acknowledged 
 Fafls. Thefe were all contained in Scripture 
 and Tradition. But, we know, he always 
 ftudioufly declined fupporting himfelf on their 
 *Traditions^ though they were full of circumftances 
 favourable to the Religion he came to propagate, 
 fuch as the do6lrines of eternal Life^ and the Rc- 
 furre^ion of the Body : Nay, he took all occafions 
 of decrying their Traditions as impious cor- 
 ruptions, by which they had rendred the written 
 word of none effeul. We conclude, therefore, from 
 Jesus's own words, that the circumftance of 
 Abraham's knowledge of his Day is certainly to 
 be found in Abraham's hiftory : Not in fo clear a 
 manner, indeed, as to be underftood by a Carnal- 
 minded Jew, nor even by a Syftem-making Chrif- 
 tian, for reafons hereafter to be explained \ yet 
 5 certainly 
 
Setfl. 5' of Moses demonjlrated, 209 
 
 certainly There ; and certainly proved to be There 
 by the bell rules of logic and criticifm. 
 
 2. But though this did not (as it does) appear 
 from the words of Jesus, yet it might be collected 
 from the very nature of the thing. For admin 
 only the fad, (as we now muft) that Abraham did 
 fee Christ*^ Day, and it is utterly incredible that 
 lb capital a circumftance Ihould be omitted in his 
 Hiftory, a facred Record, preordained for one of 
 the fupports and evidences of Christ's Religion. 
 That it could not be delivered in the book of 
 Genefis, in terms plainly to be underftood by the 
 People, during the firft periods of a preparatory 
 Difpenfation, is very certain ; as will be feen here- 
 after : But then, this is far from being a reafon 
 why it fhould not be recorded at all : Great ends, 
 fuch as fupporting the truth of the future Difpen- 
 fation, being to be gained by the delivery of it 
 even in fo obfcure a manner. 
 
 Having thus far cleared our way, and Ihewn, 
 that the doSfrine of Redemption was revealed to A- 
 braham ; and that the hiftory of that Revelation 
 is recorded in Scripture ; we proceed to the proof 
 of thefe two points, 
 
 I. That there is no place, in the whole hiftory 
 of Abraham, but this, where he is commanded to 
 offer up his Son, which bears the leaft marks or 
 refemblance of fuch a Revelation. 
 
 II. That this Command to offer up his Son has 
 all the marks of fuch a Revelation. 
 
 I. On the firft head, it will be neceffary to c-jve 
 a Ihort abftrad of Abraham's ftory : in whiclTwe ' 
 Vol. V. P find 
 
2IO ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 find a resiular account of the courfe and order of 
 God's Dilpenfations to him, from the time of his 
 being called out of Chaldca, to the Command to 
 offer up his Son Ifaac •, the laft of God's Revela- 
 tions to him, recorded in Scripture. 
 
 The firft notice given us of this Patriarch is in 
 the account of his Genealogy, Family, and Coun- 
 try'. We are then told", that God called him 
 from his Father's houfe to a Land which hejhould 
 JJjeiv him : And to excite his obedience, he pro- 
 mifes to make of him a great Nation " ; to have 
 him in his peculiar protection, and to make all the 
 Nations of the Earth blejfed through him ^. The laft 
 part of this promife is remarkable, as it contains 
 the proper end of God's Choice and Separation of 
 him and his Pofterity -, and fo, very fitly made, 
 by the facred Writer, the foundation of the hif- 
 tory of God's Difpenfations to him ; and a mark 
 to dirc6l the reader to what, tiiey are all ultimately 
 to be referred. Which, by the way, expofes the 
 extreme abfurdity in Collins and Tyndal, who 
 would have the bleffing here promifed to be only 
 an caftern form of fpeech, honourable to the Fa- 
 tb.er of the Faithful. — When Abraham, in obedi- 
 ence to this command, was come into the land af 
 Canaan', God vouchfafed him a farther Revelation 
 of his Will-, and now told him, that this was the 
 Land (which he had before faid he -would Jhew him) 
 to be inherited by his Seed '. When he returned 
 from Egypt, God revealed himfelf ftill farther, 
 and marked o'M the bounds " of that Land, which he 
 iilfured him lliould be to him and his Seed for ever". 
 
 ' Gen. xI. ver. z;-, l^ feq. 
 
 " Chap. xii. ver. i. 
 
 " Ver. 2. y Ver. 3. 
 
 * Ver. 5. * Ver. 7. 
 
 '' Chap. xiii. ver. i^. 
 
 ' Ver, 15. 
 
 Which 
 
Se(5l. 5' g/' Moses demonfirated, 2ii 
 
 Which Seed (hould be as the duft of the earth for 
 number ^. After all thefe gracious and repeated 
 aflTurances, we may well fuppofe Abraham to be 
 flow grown uneafy at his Wife's barren nefs, and 
 his own want of ilTue to inherit the Promifes. Ac- 
 cordingly, we find him much difturbed with thefe 
 apprehenfions ^ -, and that God, to remove them 
 appeared to him in a njifion^ and faid. Fear not A- 
 bram^ I am thy Jhield and exceeding great reward* 
 Abraham, thus encouraged to tell his grief, con- 
 feffed it to be for his want of ifliie, and for that he 
 fufpe6ted the promifed bleffings were to be inherit- 
 ed by his adopted children, the fons of his fer- 
 vant Eliezer of Damafcus ^ To eafe him of this 
 difquiet, God was now pleafed to accquaint him, 
 that his defign was not, that an adopted fon Ihould 
 inherit, hut one out of his own bcweh'. And, for 
 farther affurance, he inftrufts him in the various 
 fortunes of his Poiterity.— 7^/^^/ his Seedffwuld be 
 a fir anger in a Land that was not theirs^ which Land 
 fhculd qffli^i them four hundred years, and that then 
 he would judge that Nation, and afterwards bring 
 them out with great fuhflance to inherit the Land of 
 Canaan '"". At the fame time God more particu- 
 larly marks out the bounds of the Promifed Land, 
 and reckons up the feveral Nations which then in- 
 habited it '. Things being in this train, and A- 
 braham now fatisfied that the Seed of his Ipins was 
 to inherit the Promifes ; Sarah, on account of her 
 fterility, perfuaded her Hufband to go in, unto 
 her Hand-maid Hagar, the Egyptian ". In this 
 (he indulged her own vanity and ambition -, flie 
 would have a Son whom fhe might adopt ; // 77jay 
 he (fays he) that I may obtain children by her ' j 
 
 ^ Ver. i6.« « Chap. xv. ver. i. *" Vcr. 2, 9. 
 
 e Ver. 4. h Ver. 13, 1 4. ' Vcr. 18, to the end. 
 
 ^ Qhap. xvi. 1 Ver. 2. 
 
 P 2 and 
 
212 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 and (he flattered herfelf with being, at the fame 
 time, an inftrument to promote the defigns of 
 Providence, Behold novj^ (lays Ilie) the Lord hath 
 rejlrained me from bearing. To this projeft Abra- 
 ham confented. Hagar conceived, and bare a 
 Son, called Iflimael"". The good Patriarch was 
 now fully fatisfied : He grew fond of Ilhmael ; 
 and reckoned upon him for the inheritor of the 
 promifes. To corredl this miftake, God vouch- 
 safed him a new Revelation" ; in which he is told, 
 that God would not only (as had been before pro- 
 raifed) blefs and multiply his Pofterity in an ex- 
 traordinary manner, but would feparate them from 
 all other Nations, and he would be their God, and 
 they fhould be his people ". And this national 
 f.doption requiring a mutual Covenant, the rite of 
 CIRCUMCISION is at the fame time enjoined as 
 the mark of the Covenant**. Laftly, Abraham 
 
 is 
 
 "" Ver. 15. " Chap. xvH. ° Ver. 7, l^ fcq, 
 
 P Ver. 10, y feq. By the account here given, of God*» 
 Difpenfations to Abraham, may be ken the folly of that ob- 
 je«^ion, brought with fuch infmuations cf importance, againft 
 the divine appointment of Circumcijion, from the time of its 
 inltitution. Sir John Marfham obfcrves, that Abraham, n>:hen 
 he luttit into Eo\j)f, ivas not circumciJeJ, nor for tvjcnt^ years 
 after hii return. Abramus, quando yEgyptum ingreffus ell, 
 iionduni circumcifus crat, neque per anncs amplius viginti pofl 
 redicuni, p. 73. Francq. Ed. 4:0. And further, that Circuir,- 
 cijion ivas a mofi ctncient rite cm-ingji the Esjptian:, thut I hey 
 had it from the beginnings and that it luas a principle ivtth them 
 >:ot to make vfe of the cufoms of other people. Apud ^gyp- 
 tios circumcidendi ritus vetuuifiimas fuit, & xtt a.^'^r.^ inltitu- 
 tiis. lili nullorum aliorum hominum inlliiutis uti volunt, p. 74. 
 — The noble Author of the Characteristics, who never 
 lofcs an opportunity of exprefling his goodwill to a Prophet or 
 a Fairiarch, takes up this pitiful fufpicion after Marfliam : " Be- 
 '■ fore the time that Ifrael was conllrained to go down to 
 *' Egypt, and fxe for maintenance, — the Ikly Patriarch /ibra- 
 " hum himfelf had been neccHitated to this compliance on the 
 
 ♦' fame 
 
Se^. 5. of Moses demonjirated. 2 1 3 
 
 is fhewn his fond miftake, and told, that it was 
 not the Son of the bond-woman^ but of his Wife 
 Sarah, who was ordained to be Heir of the Pro-, 
 mifes '^. But Abraham had fo long indulged him- 
 felf in his miftake, and confequently in his affec- 
 tion for Ifhmael, that he begs God would indulge 
 it too — that Iffomael might live before thee ^ 
 And God, in compaffion to his paternal fondnefs, 
 gracioufly promifes that the Pofterity of llliniael 
 fhould become exceeding great and powerful '. 
 but that, neverthelefsj his Covenant fhould be 
 
 ** fame acconnt, — 'Tis certain that if this H-Jy Patriarch, who 
 " firft inilituted the facred rite of Circumcifion within his own 
 " family or tribe, had no regard to any Policy or Religion of 
 *' the Egyptians, yet he had formerly been a Guell: and Inha- 
 " bitant of Egypt (where hiftorians mention this to have been 
 ** a national rite) long ere he had received any divine notice or 
 ** Revelation conceining this affair." Vol. iii. p. 52, 53. Thefe 
 great men, we fee, appeal to Scrifture, for the fupport of their 
 infinuation ; which Scripture had they but confidered with com- 
 mon attention, they might havefoimd, that it gives us a chrono- 
 logical account of God's gradual Revelations to the Holy Patri- 
 arch ; and therefore that, according to the order God was pleaf. 
 ed to obferve in his feveral Difpenfations towards him, the Rite 
 of Circumcifion could not have been enjoined before the time 
 Abraham happened to go into Egypt ; nor indeed, at any other 
 time than that in which we find it to be given; confequently 
 that his journey into Egypt had not the leaft concern or connec- 
 tion with this affair : Nay, had thefe learned Critics but attend- 
 ed to their own obfervation, that the Rite of Circumcifion was 
 inlHtuted twenty j-ears after Abraham's return from E^ypt, 
 they muft have feen the wealcnefs of fo partial a fufpicion. 
 For had this been after the model of an f^/z/awrite.^ Abraham, 
 in all likelihood, had been circumcifed in Egypt, or at leaft 
 very foon after his return : For in Egypt, it was zperfonal, not 
 3i family Rite. And we learn from prophane hiftory, that thofe 
 who went from other Countries to Egypt, with a dellgn to copy 
 their manners, or to be initiated into their VVifdom, were, as a 
 previous ceremony, commonly circumcifed by the Egyptian 
 Priefts themfelve . 
 
 *- Ver. 16. ' Ver. 18. « Ver. 20, ^/f, 
 
 P 3 with 
 
214 *The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 with Jfaac^ and with his Seed after him \ How.. 
 ever, this Revelation having been received with 
 fome kind of doubt, as appears by the words of 
 the hiflorian ", God was plealed to repeat the 
 promife of a Son by Sarah " : and even to mark 
 the time of his birth ^ ; according to which, Sarah 
 conceived and bore Abraham a Son '^. After this, 
 God revealed himfelf yet again to Abraham % 
 with a command to put away his Son Ifhmael; and 
 to alTure him, that the chosen posterity fhould 
 come from Ifaac : For Abraham was not yet 
 weaned from his unreafonable partiality for Ifh- 
 mael ; but ftill reckoned upon him as his Second 
 hopes^ in cafe of any difafter or misfortune, that 
 fhould happen to Ifaac. This appears from Ifh- 
 mael's infolent behaviour '' ; from Abraham's great 
 vinwillingnefs to difmifs him * •, and from God's af- 
 furing him, in order to make him eafy. That in 
 Jfaac his Seed fiould be called^. We now come to 
 the fam.ous Hiftory of the Command to offer up 
 his Son Ifaac. — And it came to pafs, (fays the facred 
 hiflorian) after these things, that God did 
 tempt Abraham^ and f aid: 'Take now thy Son, thine 
 ONLY son Jfaac, whom thou loveft, and get thee 
 unto the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a 
 burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will 
 tell thee of. And Abraham arofe ^ &c. This was 
 the laft of God's Revelations to Abraham — And it 
 fame to pafs after thefe things-^ And with this, the 
 hiftoryof them is cloftd. 
 
 Here we fee all thefe Revelations, except the 
 laft, are plain and clear, as referring to temporal 
 
 * Ver. 19. " Vcr. 17. * Chap, xviii. 
 
 y Ver. 10, 14. * Chap. xxi. ver. 2. * Ver. 12. 
 
 *> Ver. 9. '^ Ver. 11. " Ver, 12. ' Chap, 
 
 xxii, ver. i, 2, 3. 
 
 Fcjicitic5 
 
Se6^» 5. ^/ Moses demonflrated. 215 
 
 Felicities to be conferred on Abraham and his Pof- 
 terity after the flefh •, through whom, Ibme way 
 or other, a blessing was to extend to all Man- 
 kind. Not one of thefe therefore can pretend to 
 be that Revelation of the Redemption of the world. 
 The laft is the only dark and obfcure one of the. 
 whole; which, if indeed a Revelation of this grand 
 Mylleiy, mufl of necelTity, as we Ihall lliew, be 
 darkly and oblcurely recorded. 
 
 But to this perhaps it may be objeified, that the 
 famous Promife of God to Abraham, that in him 
 JJoould all the Fa/nilies of the earth be bkJJ'ed \ is that 
 Revelation; becaufeSt. Paul calls this the preaching 
 of the Gofpel unto him — Jnd the Scripture^ fore- 
 feeing that God would jtijiify the Heathen through 
 Faith^ preached before^ the Gofpel unto Abraham^ fay- 
 ing^ In thee fh all all nations of the earth be blejfed'. 
 To this I reply, that the Apoftle is here convinc- 
 ing the Galatians, that the Gofpel of Christ is 
 founded on the fame principle with that which 
 juilified Abraham, namely faith; — Abraham be- 
 lieved God, and it w/zs accounted to him for righte- 
 eufnefs ^ He then purfues his argument in this 
 manner, Therefore they which be of Faith are bkjfed 
 with faithful Abraham '. The realbn he gives is 
 from the promjfe in queilion, given in reward of 
 Abraham's Fmth, that in him fkotdd all Nations be 
 hleffed. This is the force of the argument ; and 
 it is very finely managed. But then the terms. 
 Faith and Gofpel, are here ufed, as they very often 
 are in the apoflolic writings '', not in their fpecific 
 
 f Gen. xii. 3. s Gal. iii. 8, ^ Ver. 6. 
 
 * Ver. 9. 
 
 ^ See what hath been faid on this fubjed in the preceding 
 cifcourfe on the xith chapter to the H ^vitf. 
 
 :^i P 4 but 
 
2i6 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 but generic fenfe, for confidence in any one^ and 
 glad tidings in general. For it is plain, Abraham's 
 Faith here recommended, was not that Chrijlia'ri 
 Fatth in Jesus the Messiah, but, faith in God, 
 who had promiled to make his Pofterity accord- 
 ing to the flefh, as numei^ous as the ftars of Hea- 
 ven, when as yet he had no offspring'. In a like 
 latitude of exprefiion, St. Paul ufes the word 
 TT^osvocyhXi^oiMixi, to preach the Gofpel beforehand-, 
 not the tidings of theMeffiah the Kedeemer, but 
 the effe5is of the Redemption wrought by him, a 
 BLESSING on the whole race of mankind. Tidings 
 which indeed referred to a future Difpenfation : and, 
 in this, differing from his ufe of the word Faith, 
 which did not. But then, this is very far from his 
 SEEING Christ's day -, of which indeed he fpeaks 
 in another place, as we fhall fee prefently. It is 
 true, this promifed BLESSING was the preparatory 
 Revelation, by which, we were to eftimate the ul- 
 timate end of all the following ; and on which, 
 we mud fuppofe them to be built : And fo much 
 we are concerned to prove it was. I conclude 
 therefore, that when Jefus fays, Abraham faro his 
 Day; and when St. Paul fays, that he had the 
 Gofpel preached before unto him, they fpoke of two 
 different Revelations. We come therefore, 
 
 II. To the fecond point ; which is to fhew, that 
 the COMMAND to offer up Ifaac was the very reve- 
 lation of Christ's day, or the Redemption of 
 niankind, by his death and fufferings. 
 
 1. We may bbferve, from this fhort view of 
 Abraham's hiftory, that all God's Revelations to 
 him, even unto this laft, open by degrees; and 
 
 ' Gen. XV, 6, 
 
 relate, 
 
Sedt. 5' of Moses demonjlrated, 217 
 
 relate, primarily indeed, to his Pofterity according 
 to the flelh, but ultimately, to the whole race of 
 Mankind : as appears from that mvstick Promife 
 fo early made to him as the foundation of all the 
 following, that in Himjhould all the Families of the 
 earth he blejj'ed. Thefe are the two great coincident 
 Truths, to which all thefe Revelations tend. But 
 the laft, the famous Command in quellion, which 
 one would naturally expeft to find the confirmation 
 and completion of the reft, hath, if the common 
 Interpreters underftand it right, no kind of rela- 
 tion to them, but is entirely foreign to every thing 
 that preceded. Hence we concluae, and furely not 
 unreafonably, that there is fomething more in the 
 Command than thefe Interpreters, refting in the 
 outfide relation, have yet difcovered to us. 
 
 2. But this is not all. The Command, as it 
 hath been hitherto underflood, is not only quite 
 disjoined from the reft of Abraham's hiftory, but 
 likewife occupies a place in it, which, according to 
 our ideas of things, it hath certainly ufurped. 
 The Command is luppofed to be given as a Trial 
 only ■". Now when the great Searcher of hearts is 
 
 pleafed 
 
 " To this Dr. Stebbing anfwers, '* You lay it down here 
 " as the common interpretation, that the command to Abra- 
 " ham to offer up his fon was given as a trial, only, which is 
 ** NOT TRUE." Why not ? becaiife " the common opinion is, 
 " that God's intention in this command was not only to try 
 " Abraham, but alfo to prefigure the facrifice of Chrift." 
 \Cor,Jid. p. 150.] Excellent ! I fpeak of the Command's being 
 given : but to whom ? To all the Faithful, for whofe fake it 
 was recorded ? or to Abraham only, for whofe fake it was re- 
 vealed ? Does not the very fubject confine my meaning to this 
 latter fenfe ? Now, to Abraham, I fay, (according to the com- 
 mon opinion) it was given as a Trial only. To the faithful, if 
 you will, as a prefiguration. — \^, to extricate himfelf from this 
 Wander or fophifm, call it which you will, he will fay it pre- 
 figured 
 
21 8 ^s Dhitie Legation Book VI. 
 
 pleafed to try any of his Servants, either for ex- 
 ample fake, or for feme other end favourable of 
 his Difpenfations to mankind ; as in this, he con- 
 defcends to the manner of men, who cannot judge 
 of the merits of their inferior Agents without Trial, 
 
 figured to Abraham likewife ; he then gives up all he has been 
 contending for; and eftablifhes my interpretation, which is, 
 that Abraham knew this to be a reprefentation of the great 
 facrifice of Chrift: I leave it undetermined whether he miftakes 
 or cavils : See now, if he be not obliged to me. Where I 
 fpeak of the common opinion, I fay, the command is fuppofed to 
 be GIVEN as a Trial only. He thinks fit to tell me, 1 fay not 
 true. But when he comes to prove it, he changes the terms of 
 the queftion thus, " For the common opinion is, that God's 
 " iMTENTiON in this command was," &c. Now God's inten- 
 tion of giviKg a command to Abraham, for Abraham's fake, 
 might be one thing ; and God's general intention of givitzg that 
 Command, as it concerned the whole of his Difpenfation, ano- 
 ther. But to prove further that I /aid not true, when 1 faid that, 
 according to the common interpretation, the Command was 
 given for a Trial only ; he obferves, that I myfelf had owned 
 that the refemblance to Chrift's facrifice was fo ftrong, that In- 
 terpreters could never overlook it. What then ? If the Inter- 
 preters, who lived after Chrift, could not overlook it, does it 
 follow that Abraham, who lived before, could not overlook it j 
 neither ^ But the impertinence of this has been fliewn already,' 
 Nor does the learned Confiderer appear to be unconfcious of it. 
 Therefore, inftead of attempting to inforce it to the purpofe for 
 which be quotes it, he turns, all on a fudden, to fhew that it 
 makes nothing to the purpofe for which I employed it. But let 
 us follow this Protean Sophifter thro' all his windings. — " The 
 •' refemblance (fays he) no doubt, is very ftrong ; but how 
 " this corroborates your fenfe of the command, J do not fee. 
 *^ Your fenfe is, that it was an a£lual information given to 
 *' Abraham, of the facrifice of Chrift. But to prefigure, and to 
 •• inform, are different things. This tranfaftion might prefigure, 
 ** and does prefigure the facrifice of Chrift ; whether Abraham 
 •' knew any thing of the facrifice of Chrift or no. For it does 
 " not follow, that, becaufe a thing is prefigured, therefore it 
 *' muft be feen and underftood, at the time when it is pre- 
 *• figured." [C:rfd. p. 150 — 1.] Could it be believed that 
 thefe words fhould immediately follo'v an argument, whofe 
 force, (the little it ha?) is founded on the principle, f/jat to 
 PREFIGURE and to INFORM are not. di/j'erent things. 
 
 fo 
 
Scdi. 5. 0/" M o s E s demonjlrated, 2 1 9 
 
 fo we may be affured, he would accommodate him- 
 felf to their manner likewife, in that which is the 
 material circumllance Ot a Trial : But, amongft 
 men, the Agent is always tried before he be fet on 
 work, or rewarded; and not after: becaufe the 
 Trial is in order to know, or to make it known, 
 whether he be fit for the work, or deferving of 
 the Reward. When we come therefore to this 
 place, and fee a Command only to tempt or try A.- 
 braham, we naturally expetft, on his anfweringto the 
 Trial, to find him importantly employed or greatly 
 rewarded. On the contrary we are told, that this 
 Trial was made after all his Work was done, and 
 all his Reward received •, — and it came topafs after 
 thefe things. — Nay, what is ftill more ftrange, af- 
 ter he had been once tried already. For the pro- 
 mife to him, when he was yet childlefs, his Wife 
 barren, and both of them far advanced in years, 
 that his feedfhoidd be as thefiars of Heaven for mul- 
 titude^ was a Trial of Mis faith ; and his believing, 
 againft all probability in a natural way, the facred 
 Hiftorian tells us, was accounted to him for righteouf- 
 nefs ". Such therefore being the method both of 
 God and Men in this matter, we muft needs con- 
 clude, that the Command was not, according to the 
 common notion, a 'Trial only., becaufe it comes 
 after all Gop's Difpenfations °. Yet as the facred 
 
 text 
 
 ■ Gen, XV. 6. 
 
 ° To this reafoning, Dr. Stebbing replies, *' Bat how can 
 *• you prove that, according to the common interpretation, 
 '' there was no reward fubfequent to the trial ?" [Confid. p. 
 151.] How fhall I be able to pleafe him ? — Before, he was 
 offended that I thought the Author of the book of Genefis 
 rnight omit relating the mode of a faft, when he had good rea- 
 fon fo to do. Here, where I fuppofe jio fa^, becaufe there 
 was none recorded vyhen no feafon hindered, he is as captious 
 
 on 
 
2 20 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 text afTures ns it was a Trial j and as a Trial ne- 
 ceflarily precedes the employment or reward of 
 
 the 
 
 on this fide likewife. " How will you prove it ?" (fays he.) 
 From the filence of the HiHorian, (fay J ) when nothing 
 hindered him from fpeaking. Well, but he will fhew it to be 
 fairly recorded in Scripture, that there were rewards fubfequent 
 to the trial. This, indeed, is to the purpofe : " Abraham 
 *' (fays he) lived a great many years after that tranfaftioa 
 *' happened. He lived to difpofe of his fon Ifaac in marriage, 
 *' and to fee his feed. He lived to be married himfelf to an- 
 *' other Wife, and to have feveral children by her : He had rot 
 '* THEN received all God's mercies, nor were all God's dif- 
 •* penfations towards him at an end ; and it is to be remem- 
 " bered that ic is exprefsly faid of Abraham. Gen. xxiv. i. 
 •' (a long lime after the tranfaflion in queftion) that Cod had 
 *' blejjed him in all things." [Conjid. p. 151-2.] The queftion 
 here, is of the extraordinary and peculiar rewards beftowed 
 by God, on Abraham ; and he decides upon it, by an enu- 
 meration cf the ordinary and common. And, to £11 up the 
 meafure of thefe bleffings, he makes the burying of his firll 
 wife and the marrying of a fecond to be one. Though un- 
 luckily, this fecond proves at laft to be a Concubine ; as appears 
 plainly from the place where fhe is mentioned. But let me afk 
 him ferioufly ; Could he, indeed, fuppofe me to mean (tho' he 
 attended not lo the drift of the argument) that God immediately 
 withdrew all the common bleffings of his Providence fiom the 
 Father of the Faithful, after the laft extraordinary reward beftow- 
 ed upon him, when he lived many years after? I can hardly, I 
 own, account for this perverfity, any otherwife than from a 
 certain temper of mind which I am not at prefent difpofed to 
 give a name to : but which, the habit of J>ifi.vering has made fo 
 common, that nobody either miftakes it, or is now indeed, much 
 fcandalizcd at it. Tho' for my part, I fhould eftecm a total ig- 
 norance of letters a much happier lot than fuch a learned depra- 
 vity. — " But this is not all," (fays he) — No, is it not ? I am 
 forry for it! — " What furprizes me moft is, that you (hould 
 " argue so weakly, as if the reward of good men had re- 
 " fpcft to this life only. Be it, that Abraham had received 
 " all God's mercies; and that all God's difpcnfations towards 
 " him, in this world, were at an end ; was there not ^ life 
 " yet to come, with refpcft to which the whole period of our 
 *' exiftence here is to be confidered as a ftate of trial ; and 
 *' where we are all of us to look for that reward of our vir- 
 «' tues which we very often fail of in iliis:" \ConfU. p. 152.] 
 
 Well, 
 
Sq&, 5. of Moses demonJlraUd, zzi 
 
 the perfon tried ; we mud needs conclude, that as 
 no employment, fo fonie benefit followed this trial. 
 
 Now, 
 
 Well, if it was not all, we find, at leaft, it is all of a piece. 
 For, as before, he would fophiftically obtrude upon us common 
 for extraoriiinary rewards; fo here, (true to the miftery of 
 his trade) he puts fo»z»zo« iox extraordinary trials. Our pre- 
 fent exijience (fays he) is to be conjid red as a Jiate of Trial, 
 The cafe, to which I applied my argument, was this; — " God, 
 determining to feleft a chofen People from the loins of Abra- 
 ham, would manifeft to the world that this Patriarch was worthy 
 of the diftin£lion fhewn unto him, by having his faith found fu- 
 perior to the hardeft trials." Now, in fpeaking of thefe trials, I 
 faid, that the command to offer Ifaac was the laft. No, (fays the 
 Examiner) that cannot be, for, ijoith refped to a life to come, 
 the iKihole period of our exi fence here, is to be confidered as a fate 
 of TRIAL." And fo again, (fays he) with regard to the re- 
 ward; which you pretend, in the order of God's Difpenfa- 
 tions, Ihould follow the trial : Why, we are to look for it in 
 another ivorld. — Holy Scripture records the hiftory of one, to 
 whom God only promifed (in the clear and obvious fenfe) tcm-^ 
 poral bleffings. It tells us that thefe temporal bleffings were 
 difpenfed. One fpecies of which were extraordinary Rewards 
 after extraordinary Trials. In the moft extraordinary of all, no 
 Reward followed : This was my difficulty. See here, how he 
 has cleared it up. Hardly indeed to his own fatisfaftion : for he 
 tries to fave all by another fetch ; the weakeft men being ever 
 moft fruitful in expedients, as the floweft animals have com- 
 monly the moft feet. *' And what (fays he) if after all this, 
 ** the wifdom of God fhould have thought fit, that this very 
 " man, whom he had fingled out to be an eminent example 
 " of piety to all generations; fhould, at the very clofe of 
 " his life, give evidence of it, by an inftance that exceeded all 
 •* that had gone before ; that he might be a patterr; of patient 
 *' fufFering, even unto the end? Would there not be sense 
 " in fuch a fuppofition ?" [^Confd. p. 153.] Jn truth, I doubt 
 not, as he hath put it : And I will tell him. Why. Abraham 
 was not a mere inftrument to ftand for an Example only ; but 
 a moral Agent likewife ; and to be dealt with as fuch. Now, 
 tho', as he fiands for an Example, we may admit of as many 
 Tria's of patient fuffering as this good-natured Divine thinks 
 fitting io impofe ; yet, as a moral Agent, it is required (if we 
 can conclude any thing from the method of God's .dealing 
 with his Servants, recorded in facred hiftory) that each Trial 
 be attended with fomc work done, or fome reward conferred. 
 
 But 
 
22 2 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Now, on our interpretation, a bimfit^ as we fhall 
 fee, did follow : We have reafon therefore to con- 
 clude that this interpretation is the true. 
 
 3. Having feen the difficulties arifing from the 
 common interpretation of the Command, let us 
 view it now on the other fide •, in the new light in 
 which we have adventured to place it. And here 
 we lliall find that every circumftance of the Story 
 concurs to fupport our interpretation. From the 
 view given of Abraham's hiftory, we fee, as was 
 faid before, how all God's revelations to him, to 
 this laft, ultimately related to that myftic funda- 
 mental Promife made to him, on his firft Vocation, 
 that in him JJjould all families of the earth be blejfed. 
 God opens the fcheme of his Difpenfations by exadl 
 and regular (leps ; and the Revelations follow one 
 another gradually and in order. — Abraham is firll 
 
 But thefe two parts in Abraham's character, our Conjlderer per- 
 petually confounds. He fuppofes nothing to be done for Abra- 
 ham's own fake ; but every thing for the Example's fake. Yet, 
 did the good old caufe of Arfwerhig require, he could as eafily 
 fuppofe the contrary. And to (hew I do him no wrong, I will 
 here give the Reader an inltance of his dexterity, in the coun- 
 ter-exercife of his arms. In p. 150. of thefe Cov.f.dcrations, (he 
 fays) " IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, that, becaufe a thing is pre- 
 *' figured, therefore it muft be feen and underftood at the 
 •' TIME when it is orefigured." Yet in the body of the Pamphlet, 
 at p. 1 12 — 13, having another point to puzzle ; he fays (on my 
 obfcrving that a future State and Refurre£lion were not national 
 Doilrines till the time of the Maccabees) " he knows I will 
 *' fay they had thefe dod^rines from the Prophets — yet the Pro- 
 *' phets were dead two hundred years before." — But if the 
 Prophets were dead their Writings were extant — " And what 
 *' then .'' is it likely that the fons Ihould have learnt from 
 *• the dead Prophets what the Fathers could not learn from the 
 •' living .' — Vk hy could not the Jews learn this Doftrine from 
 •' 1 HE VERY FIRST, as wcli as their Pofterity at the dillanceof 
 ** ages afterwards ?" In the firft cafe we find he exprefsly fays, 
 it does mt follow ; in the fecond, he as plainly fuppofes, that 
 it docs. 
 
 C0R>- 
 
Sed. 5. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated. 223 
 
 commanded to go into a Land which fhould be fhewn 
 ,-to him — then that Land, to be pofTeffed by his 
 numerous pofterity, is exhibited before him — Its 
 diftindt boundaries are afterwards marked out — 
 He is next affured, while yet childlefs, that his 
 pofterity, to which fo much was promifed, Ihould 
 not be from an adopted fon, but from one out of 
 his own loins — He is, then told that this fon fhould 
 be born of Sarah — which is followed by a formal 
 execution of the covenant confirmed by the feal 
 
 of Circumcifton After all this, the birth of 
 
 Ifaac is predicted : who being born at the ap- 
 pointed time, Ifhmael is ordered to be fent away ; 
 to defign with more certainty the fucceflion of the 
 fon by Sarah. Here we fee throughout, a gradual 
 opening, and fit preparative for fome farther Reve- 
 lation ; which, in purfuance of this regular fcheme 
 of progrefTive Difpenfations, could be no . other 
 than that of the redemption of mankind by 
 THE Messiah, the completion of the whole Oeco- 
 nomy of Grace, as it only is the explanation of his 
 firft and fundamental Promife, that in Abraham 
 jhould all the families of the earth be bleffed. But 
 now, the fole remaining revelation of God's Will 
 to Abraham, recorded by the facred Hiftorian, is 
 the Command to offer up his fon Ifaac. This com- 
 mand then, as there is no other that can pretend 
 to be the revelation in queftion, and as we have 
 fliewn it muft be fome where or other recorded in 
 Abraham's ftory, is the very revelation we feek ; 
 which perfedts all the foregoing, and makes 
 the whole feries complete and uniform. And the 
 place in which we find it is its proper ftation; for 
 being the completion of the reft, it muft needs be 
 the laft in order. 
 
 Such, in the intention of the Holy Spirit, doth 
 
 %t. Chrysostom, in his comment on the place, 
 
 I under- 
 
224 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 underftand it to be. t>i\ S\ 'HMEPAN hraZQct 
 
 fAOt donu Kiynv TYiV rti rau^a, riv iV tyi tm x^ib 7r^o(r(l>oox 
 
 xx\ TK 'iraajc Tr^oJ^ifTuVwo-f. And in this he is 
 joined or followed by Erasmus, in his pataphrafe. 
 Hoc senigmate Jefus fignificavit, Abraham, quum 
 pararet immolare filium Ifaac, per ProphetijE 
 ipiritum vidiflTe Dominum Jefum in mortem crucis 
 
 a patre tradendum pro mundi falute. But 
 
 thefe excellent men, not refleding on that ancient 
 mode of information, where the Inquirer is an- 
 fwered by a fignificative a^ion in ftead of fpeecb, 
 never conceived that this Command was an imparted 
 information of that kind, but rather a typical re- 
 prefentation unfought, and given in an enjoined 
 Rite -, of whofe import Abraham had then no 
 'knowledge ^. 
 
 4. Again, We find the Revelation of the re- 
 demption of mankind in that very place where, if 
 confidered only in itlelf, and not relatively, as the 
 completion of the reft, we fhould, according to 
 all the rules of plain fenfe, be difpofed to feek it. 
 We mud know then that this Revelation, as iliall 
 be proved from the words of Jesus, —Abraham re- 
 joiced to fee my day, and he faw it, and was glad, 
 was ardently defired and foug!:t after by the Pa- 
 
 P And yet an ingenious man, one M. Bouil!er, in a Inte Latin 
 Diflcrtation, accufes me of concealing, that ChrylbRom, Erafmus 
 and others were of my opinion, viz. that Abraham in the Com- 
 mand to faciifice his Son was informed, of what he earnelUy 
 defired to know, that the redemption of Mankind was to be 
 obtained by the facriiice of the Son of God. The Reader now 
 fees, whether the Author of the D. L. was guilty of a conceal- 
 e.l theft, or his Accufer of an open blunder, under which he 
 covers his orthodoxal malignity. Yet he thinks he attones for 
 aU, by calling the D. L. egrcgium opus: uLi ingenimn acerrimiim 
 cum cxiinia erudiiiine cerlat. — DifTiTtationum Sacrum Sylloge, 
 
 triarcii. 
 
Sefl. 5. of Moses demonfratcd, 225, 
 
 triarch. Now the happincfs or redemption of 
 mankind promifed, on Abraham's firil: Vocation, to 
 come thro' him, could not but make him more 
 and more inquifitive into the manner of its being 
 brought about, in proportion as he foiund himfelf 
 to be more and more perfonaliy concerned as the 
 Inftrument of fo great a bleffing. But every new 
 Revelation would Ihew him ftill farther interefted 
 in this honour : Therefore, by the timfe Iflimael 
 was ordered to be fent away^ and the promifed 
 Seed fixed in Ifaac, we m.uft needs fuppofe him 
 very impatient to underftand the Myftery of Re- 
 demption j and fo, fitly prepared to receive this laft 
 and fapreme Revelation. This^ in the like cafe% 
 \ve find to be the difpofition and ftate of mind 
 in the holy men of old. Thus Daniel, by the 
 ftudy of the Prophefies of Jeremiah, underftanding 
 the approaching reftoration of the Jews, applies 
 himfelf by falling and prayer for God's further 
 information •, and the Angel Gabriel is fcrit unto 
 him. So John anxious and felicitous for the fuf- 
 fering Church, being in prayers on the Lord's 
 day,, was favoured with aU his glorious Revela- 
 tions. 
 
 5. Again, The new light in which this Com- 
 mand is placed, difpels all that perplexity in the 
 Common interpretation (taken notice of above) 
 nrifingfrom our ideas of 2. trials where that which 
 fhOuld in ufe and reafon, go before fome extra- 
 ordinary favour, is made to come after all. But 
 now, according to our fenfe of the Cor/imand, the 
 trial, as is meet, precedes the laft and greatcll fa- 
 vour everbeftowed by God on Abraham. 
 
 6. To confirm all this, we may confider that 
 this interpretation of the Command is moft eafy and 
 
 Vol. V. Q^ natural, 
 
226 ^he iDivhie Legation Book VL 
 
 natural, as being intirely agreeable to the ancient 
 way of communicating information. We have 
 ihewn '^ it to have been the general cuftom of 
 Antiquity, in perfonal conferences, to inftrudl by 
 atlions inftead of zvords ; a cuftom begun out of 
 neceflity, but continued out of choice, for the 
 fuperior advantages it hath in making an impref- 
 fion. For motion^ imturally fignificative, which en- 
 ters at the eye, hath a much ftronger effedl than 
 articulate /fl«K^, only ^ri'//r^nfy fignificative, which 
 enters at the ear. We have fhewn likewife, by 
 numerous examples, that God himfelf vouchfafed, 
 in compliance to a general cuftom, to ule this way 
 of information, when he inftruded the holy Pa- 
 triarchs and Prophets in his Will. 
 
 7. Again, As the high hiiportance of this Re- 
 velation feemed to require its being given in the 
 ftrong and forcible way of adlion \ fo nothing can 
 
 be 
 
 •J See vol. iii. p. loj to 121. 
 
 * To this, the great Profeflbr replies, That " there are 
 *' but few geftures of the body more apt of thetnfelvts to fig- 
 " nify the fentiment of the mind than articulate found : The 
 *' force of which ariles not from the nature of things ; but 
 " from the arbitrary will of man : and common ufe and cuftt»m 
 " impofes this fignification on articulate founds, not on mo- 
 '• tions and geflares — Pauci funt motus corporis, qui ipfi per 
 " fe aptiores efle videutur ad motus animi fignificandos, quam 
 *' fonus qui ore et lingua in voccm formatur. Vis ipfa iwn eft 
 *' in natura rerum pofita, fed arbitrio hominum conftituta ; 
 " eamque mos et ufus communis non geftibus corporis tribnit, 
 " fed verbis et voci." RurntRFORTH ZJ^rfrrj. 
 
 The purpofe of this fine obfervation, tho* fo cloudily expre/Ted, 
 is to fliew thiit vwthn and gefture can have no fignification at all: 
 Not from nature, fince few g( ihires of the body are more apt 
 of ihemfi'lves to exprefs the mind than articulate found ; and 
 yet articulate found is of arbitrary fignification : Not from injiitw 
 
Sed. 5' of Mo^^^ demonjlrated, 227 
 
 be conceived more appofite to convey the informa- 
 tion required than this very atlion. Abraham 
 
 defircd 
 
 i'ton, fince it is not to geftare, but to articulate foiind^ that men 
 have agreed to affix a meaning. The confequence is, that 
 gejiure can have no meaving at all', and (o there is an end of all 
 Abraham's SIGNIFICATIVE action. The Divine would make 
 a great figure, were it not for his Bible j but the Bible is per- 
 petually dilbrienting the Philofopher. His general Thefis is, 
 *' That ailions can never become fignificadve but by the aid of 
 ixjords," Now I defire to know what he thinks of all the Ty- 
 pical Rites of the Lanv, fignificative of the Sacrifice of Chrift? 
 Were not thefe ASlions ? Had they no meaning which extend- 
 ed to the Go/pel? or were there any IVords to accompany them, 
 which explained that meaning : Yet has this man afTexted, in 
 what he calls a Determination, that in the inftances of expreflive 
 gefture, recorded in Scripture, 'words ivere alixays ufed tn 
 conjunction loith them. But to come a little clofer to him. As 
 a Philofopher he Ihould have given his Reafons for thofe two 
 affertions ; or as an Hiftorian he fhould have verified his 
 Fa£ls. He hath attempted neither; and I commend his pru-! 
 dence; for bqfh are againft him : His Fad, that gellures have 
 no meaning by nature is falfe : and his Reafoning, that the/ 
 have none by injiitutionj is millaken. The Spartans might in- 
 llrufl him iha.t ge/Iures alone ha've a natural meaning. Tliat fage 
 People (as we are told by Herodotus) were fo perfuaded of 
 this truth, that they preferred converfe by a^ion, to converfe 
 by /peech ; as aftion had all the clearnefs of fpeech, and was 
 free from the abufes of it. This Hiftorian, in his Thalia, in- 
 forms us that when the Samians fent to Lacedemou for iuccours 
 in diftrefs, their Orators made a long and laboured fpeech. 
 When it was ended, the Spartans told tliem, that the firji fart 
 of it they had forgotten, and could not camp'ehefid the latter. 
 Whereupon, the Samian Orators produced their empty Bread- 
 balcets, and /aid, they wanted bread. kFhat r^ecd of •^vordi^ 
 replied the Spartans, do not your empty Bread -bajietf fn^ciently 
 declare your meaning ? Thus we fee the Spartans thought noG 
 only that ^ejlures 'were apt of themfei'ves, (or by nature) to fig- 
 ttify the Jentiment of the mind, but even more apt than articulate 
 founds. Their relations, the Jews, were in the fame fentimenta 
 and praftice; and full as fparing of their words; and, (the 
 two languages confidered) for fomething a better reafon. The 
 facred Hiftorian, fpeaking of publick days of humiliation, tells 
 lus ftory in this manner — Jnd they gathered together to Mizpe!-^ 
 
 ANP DREW WATER AND POURED iT OUT BEFORE THE 
 0^2 LORP, 
 
22^ . ^he Divine Legation BaoK Vtl 
 
 defired earneftly to be let into the myftery of the 
 REDEMP.TiON. ; and God, to inftrud him (in the 
 
 beft 
 
 Lord, anJ fafted en that day, \ Sam. cnap. vli. vtx, 6. The 
 Hiftorian does not explain in ivordi the meaning of this dra-wm 
 ing of luater, Sec. nor needed he. Ic fufficiently exprefTed, that 
 a delude of tears 'was due for their offences. The Profeflor, per- 
 haps, will fay that words accompanied the aftion, at leaft precede 
 ed it. But what will he fay to the aftion of Tarquin, when he 
 ftruck off the heads of the higher poppies which overtopped 
 their fellows ? Here we are exprefly told, that all was done ia 
 profound filence, and yet the adlion was well underftood. But 
 further, I will tell our PiofefTor what he leaR fufpeiled, that 
 Geftures, befides their natural, have often an ar^/Vz-^ry figni-* 
 iication. " A certain Afiatic Prince, entertained at Rome by 
 Augiiftus, was amongft other Shews and Feftivities, amufed with 
 a famous Pantomime ; whofe adlions were fo expreflive, that 
 the Barbarian begged him of the Emperor for his Interpreter 
 between him and feveral neighbouring Nations, whofe languages 
 were unknown to one another." Pantomimic gellure was 
 amongft the Romans one way of exhibiting a Dramatic Story. 
 But before fuch geftures could be formed into a continued feries 
 of Information, we cannot but fuppofe much previous pains 
 and habit of invention to be exerted by the Aftors. Amongft 
 which, one e/pedient muft needs be, (in order to make the 
 expreffion of the Adors convey an entire connefled fenfe) to 
 intermix with the geftures naturally fignificative,' geitures made 
 fignificative by inflitution ; that is, brought, by arbiirary ufe t(^ 
 have as determined a meaning as the others. 
 
 To illiiftrate this by thatmoYe lafting information, the Hiero- 
 ^lyphics of the Egyptians and the real Charalers of the Chinefe j 
 which, as we have fhewn, run paraHcl with the more fleeting 
 conveyance of expi'eflive gefture, juft as alphabetic writing does 
 *vith fpcech. Now,", tho' the earlier Hieroglyphics were com- 
 pofed almoft altogether of marks «a/«/-a/Vi fignificative, yet when 
 the Egyptians came to convey continued anJ more precife dif- 
 courliis by this mode of. writing, ihey found a neceflity of in- 
 venting arbitrary fignifications, to intermix and conned with the 
 Other marks which had a naiurai. [See vol. iii. p. 8'9, ^ Jeq.^ 
 
 Now, to (hew that thefe arbitrary Hieroglyphic marks were' 
 #cal Cliaradlcrs like the other, let us turn to the Charadcrs of 
 the ChLixefe, which tho' (in their prcfen: way of ufe) moft of 
 
 theiu 
 
Se6l. 5. c/" Moses demonflratcd. 229 
 
 beft manner humanity is capable of receiving in- 
 ftruftion) in the infinite extent of divine goodnefs 
 to mankind, who /pared not his own fon, but de^ 
 liver ed him up for us (ill\ let Abraham feel, by 
 
 experience, what it was to lofe a beloved fon ; 
 
 ^ake now thy fon^ thine only fon Ifaac \ the Son bora 
 miraculoufly when Sarah was paft child-bearing, 
 as Jefus was miraculoufly borrt of a pure Virgin. 
 The duration too of the a6lion was the fame as 
 that between Christ's Death and Refurredion ; 
 both which were defigned to be reprefented in it : 
 and flill farther, not only the final archietypical 
 Sacrifice of the fon of God was figured in the 
 command to offer Ifaac, but the intermediate Typical 
 facrifice, in the Mofaic GEconomy, was reprefent- 
 
 them be of arbitrary fignificatlon, yet the Miffionaries aflure us 
 that they are underltood by all the neighbouring nation's of 
 different languages. This Ihews that the auguftan Pantomime 
 fo coveted by the Barbarian for his interpreter might be very 
 able to difcharge his funftion tho' feveral of his geftures had 
 an arbitrary lignification. And we eafily conceive how ic 
 might come to pafs, fmce the gefture of arbitrary iignification 
 only ferved to connedt the aftive difcourfe, by ftanding be- 
 tween others of a natural fignification, diretling to their fenfe. 
 
 Thus (to conclude, with our Determiner) it appears that 
 GESTURES ALONE are fo far from having no meaning at all, 
 as he has ventured to affirm, that they have all the meaning 
 which human expreffion can poffibly convey : all which is 
 properly their own, mmely - natural information; and evea 
 much of that which is more peculiar to fpeech, namely «r- 
 bitrary. 
 
 To illuftrate the whole by a domeftic inflance ; the folemn 
 Gefture of a Profeflbr in his Chair : which fometimes may 
 naturally happen, to fignify Folly; tho', by infiitution, it al- 
 ways fignifies Wifdom; and yet again, it muit be owned, ia 
 juftice to our Profeffor's fcheme, that fometimes it means no- 
 thing at all. 
 
 ■ Rom. viii. 32, 
 
 0.3 «^> 
 
2 ^^o ^bff Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 cd, by the permitted facrifice of the Ram offered 
 up inllead of Ifaac. 
 
 8. The laft reafon I fhall offer In fupport of this 
 point, that the Ccmmand concerning Ifaac was this 
 Revelation of Chrift's da)\ or the redemption of 
 mankind by his death and fufferings, is the aUufion 
 which Jefus makes (in thefe words, Jbraham re- 
 joked to fee my day^ i^c.) to the following wopds of 
 Mofes, in the hiflory of the command — And A- 
 braham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh : 
 as it is faid to this day. In the mount of the Lord it 
 fhall he feen, 
 
 To fhew that Jefus alluded to thefe words of 
 Mofes and had them in his eye, when he fpeaks 
 of Abraham'' s rejoicing to fee his day, it will be pro- 
 per to confider the true force and meaning of cither 
 text. The words of Jefus have been fully con- 
 fidered already \ 
 
 And, in the words of Mofes Abraham called 
 
 the name of that -place Jehovah-jireh : as it is faid to 
 this day. In the mount of the Lord itfjjall befeen, we 
 have the affertion of Jefus confirmed, that Abra- 
 ham fav) Chriffs day and was glad, i . Jehovah- 
 jireh fignifies, as feveral of the bcfl interpreters 
 agree, the Lord shall b£ seen ", But with 
 
 what 
 
 * Sec p. 204, i^ Jeq, 
 
 » *' Dominus <viJeb'ttur, (fays the le.irned Father Houbigant) 
 *' 1°. Non iiiJetur, ne ab future verbi abcrremus- 2". Non 
 « luideint, non raodo quia non addilur quid fit Deus vifurui, 
 " fed ctiam quia in tota ilia vifione, hominis elt 'videre, 
 " Domini, inderi\ propter qiiam caufam Deus locum i(tum 
 *' mox nomine •vifionis jnfigniebat. Nimiruxn Deus Abrahamo 
 i* jd pftendit, quod Abrahaft iti^t ii gavi/us efi." The near 
 
 relation 
 
Sc6l:. 5- of Moses dcmonjlrafed, 231 
 
 what propriety could this name be given to it by 
 Abraham if, in this tranfacflion, he had not feen 
 the reprefentation of the Lord's paflion, which 
 was to happen in a future age ? And if he did fee 
 it, how appofite was the name ! The Hiftorian 
 goes on — as it is /aid to this day^ In the mou7tt of 
 the Lord it Jhall he feen •, or more exaflly to the 
 Hebrew — for he faid^ In the mount the Lord 
 SHALL BE SEEN. In the firll part of the verfe the 
 facred Hiftorian tells us that Abraham called the 
 mount, The Lord fhall he feen \ and in the latter " 
 part he acquaints us with the manner how Abra- 
 ham impofed that appellation, namely by the ufe 
 of a proverbial fpeech implying the reafon of the 
 name.' — To day in the mounts the Lord fhall he 
 feen''. Proverbial fpeeches, before the general ufe 
 
 relation of thefe words of Jefus to thofe of Mofes, was too 
 ilrongly marked to be overlooked by this very judicious Critic, 
 the' he confidered the tranfaclion in no other light than as a 
 Type Cft ti\e death and paflion of Jefus. 
 
 " Atq.ue hoc illud eft (fays Father Houbigant) quod rremoriae 
 fempitefns Abraham confecrabat, cum ita fubjungeret ZW/> 
 in monte, Dominus <videbilur ; illud hodie fic accipiens, ut accepit 
 Paulus Ap. illud Davidis, hodie fi •vocem ejus audieritis; quod 
 ho^ie tamdiu durat, quamdiu fscula ilia durabunt, de quibus 
 Apoftolus donee hodie cognomivatur. Propterea Abraham ron 
 dicit hodie Dominus 'videiur. Nam id fpedlaculum nunc folus 
 videt Abraham, poftea omnes vifuri funt, et ad omnes perti- 
 ncbit iftud, 'videiitur, generatim di£l«m, cum omnes Unige- 
 iritum ill monie viderifit generis humani vidiniam fadam. Nee 
 aliam fententiam feries verborum patitur. Ex qua ferie illi 
 deviant qui hcec verba, dixit enim hodie in monte doininus — 
 Mofi fic narranti attribuunt/ro//«rfa dicitur hodie in monte Domi- 
 ni — q»afi renarret Moyfes ufurpatum fua setate proverbium. 
 Nam fi fic erit non jam docebit Abraham, cui huic loco no- 
 men fecerit Dominus videbitur; quam tamen nominum nota- 
 tionem in facris paginis non omittunt ii quicumque nomina 
 rebus imponunt. Quod contra plane docebit Abraham fi de eo 
 JVIoyfes fic narrat, •voccmit nomen loci kujus, deus videbjtur ; 
 Rojn dixit, in rnonie Deus *videhitur. 
 
 Q.4 of 
 
232 'TJoe JDiiiine Legation Book VI. 
 
 of recording abftraft names and things by writing, 
 being the beft and fafeft conveyance of the memory 
 of events to Poflerity. Conformably to this inter- 
 pretation of the i;ext, the Hiftorian on his enterance 
 pn the tranfadion calls the land of Moriah to which 
 Abraham went with Ifaac (according to Jerom's 
 interpretation) the Land of vision, which (hews 
 that the words of Jefus, Abraham saw my day and 
 was GLAD, evidently allude to this extraordinary 
 circumftance •, namely the difpofitiqn of Abraham's 
 mind on the occafion, exprelfed in his memorial of 
 a new name impofed on the fcene of a<lftion •, the 
 ancient way of commemorating joyful and happy 
 events. In a word, Jefus fays, Abraham faiv his 
 day i and Abraham, by the name he impofed upon 
 the mount, declares the fame thing. But as the 
 VISION was of a public, not of a private nature, he 
 exprefil^s himfelf in terms which fignify what man- 
 kind in general y??<';//yt'6', not what he himfelf had 
 Jeen — the Lord shall be seen. From a vague 
 allufion therefore, of the words of Jefus, to this 
 hiaory of the command in general, we have now fixed 
 them to the very words of Mofes, to which they 
 more particularly refer. 
 
 The fum then of the Argument is this — Jesus 
 exprefsly fays that Abraham faiv and rejoiced to fee ^ 
 yis day\ or the great Sacrifice for the fins of man- 
 kind by reprcfentation — The records of facred Hil~ 
 tory muft needs verify his affertion — But there is 
 no place in Scripture which prefents the leaft 
 traces of this Revelation, except the hiftory of 
 thf Command to offer Ifaac. — This hiftory not only 
 eafily and naturally admits of fuch a fenfe, but 
 even demands it — And reciprocally, this fenfe gives 
 all imaginable light to the Pliftory ; and removes 
 the e;reateft difficulties attendino; the common in- 
 
 terprctation 
 
Se6t. 5« of Moses demonfirated. 23^ 
 
 terpretation of it. Hence, we conclude with cer- 
 tainty, that the command to Abraham to off?r up his^ 
 Jon was only an information in action, which, 
 at Abraham's earneft requeil, God was graciouQy 
 pleafed to give him, of x.h.Q great facrifice of Chrifi 
 for the Redemption of mankind. The thing to be 
 proved. Two great ends feem to be gained by 
 this intrepretation : The one, to free the Com- 
 mand from a fuppofed violation of natural Law ; 
 The other, to fupport the connexion and depen- 
 dency between the two Revelations ; for this in- 
 terpretation makes the hiftory of the Command 
 a DIRECT Prophefy of Chrift as Redeemer of the 
 worlds whereas the common brings it, at moft» 
 but to a TYPICAL istimation. Now the Defenders'^, 
 of the common interpretation confefs, that " the 
 f ' evidence of dire^ Prophefies is fuperiour to that 
 ^« of Types:^' 
 
 The only plaufible Objeflion which can be made 
 to my explanation, I conceive to be the follow- 
 ing, — " That what is here fuppofed the principal 
 " and proper reafon of th© Command, is not at 
 *' all mentioned by the facred Hiftorian ; but ano- 
 •' ther, of a different nature ; namely, the Trial 
 " of Abraham's faith and obedience. — ^;?^ it 
 " came to pafs after thefe things, God did tempt Ahra- 
 ^' ham, and f aid, Take now thy f on, thine only fon Ifaac. 
 " —And when the affair is over, the fame rea- 
 " fon is again infinuated : — By myfelf have I 
 ^* fworn, faith the Lord, for hecaiife thou hafi done 
 *' this thing, and hafi not witheld thy fon, thine only 
 " fon, that in hleffing Iwillblefs thee %" ^c, 
 
 I. To the firft part of the Objection I anfwer. 
 That the knowledge of God's future Difpenfation 
 J Dr. Slabbing. ^ q^^ ^^^^^ 16, 17. 
 
 in 
 
234 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 in th€ redemption of mankind by the death of his 
 Son, revealed, as a fingular grace, to the Father of 
 the Faithful, was what could by no means be com- 
 municated to the Hebrew People, when Mofes 
 wrote this Hiflory for their ufe -, bccaufe they being 
 then to continue long under a carnal CEconomy, 
 this knowledge, of the end of the Law, would 
 have greatly indifpofed them to a Difpenfation, 
 with which (as a Schoolmajler, that was to bring 
 them by degrees, thro' a harfti and rugged difci- 
 pline, to the eafy yoke of Christ) God, in his 
 infinite wifdom, thought fit to exercile them\ 
 But he who does not fee, from the plain reafon of 
 the thing, the neceffity of the Hiilorian's filence, 
 is referred, for farther latisfaclion, to what hath 
 been already, and will be hereafter faid, to evince 
 the neceffity of fuch a condu<5l, in other momen- 
 tous points relating to that future Difpenfation. 
 
 In the mean time, I give him St. Paul's word 
 for this conduft of Mofes, who exprefsly tells us, 
 that he obfcured fome parts of his hiftory, or put 
 a veil over his face that the Ifraelites might not fee to 
 the end of that Law ivhicb nras to be aholifhed. And 
 what was that end^ if not the Redemption of man- 
 kind by the death and facrifice of Chrift? — Mofes 
 (fays he) pit a veil over his face^ that the Children of 
 Jfrael could notjiedfafily look to the end of that which 
 is abolifhed. But their minds were blinded : for until 
 
 ' Would the Reader now believe it pofflble, when thele 
 vvords lay before Dr. Stabbing, while he was anfwering my 
 Book, that he fliould venture to aflc me, or be capable of afk- 
 ing thcfe infulting queftions — M'^as there any giod ufe that 
 Jlbraham could make of this kuoivledge nvhich the rrfi of the 
 FiDpk of Cod might not ha've made of it as nvrll as He ? Or if 
 tt nvas unft for emery ho^'y e//}, "j/.w /V net unfit for Abraham 
 too f 
 
 this 
 
Sed. 5* o/'MosES demonfirated, 235 
 
 this day remaincth the fame "jeil untaken away-^ in the 
 reading of the Old Tefiament : which veil is done 
 away in Christ ^ 
 
 But it may be aflced, perhaps, *' If fuch Revela- 
 tions could not be clearly recorded, why were they 
 recorded at all?" For a very plain as well as weighty 
 reafon -, that when the fulnefs of time Ihould come, 
 they might rife up in Evidence againft Infidelity, 
 for the real relation and dependency betvv^een the 
 ;wo Difpenfations of Mojes and of Chrift " j when 
 
 from 
 
 ^ z Cor, iii. i3r— 14. But all I can fay, or all an Apof- 
 tle can fay, if I chance to fay it after him, will not fatisfy 
 Dr. Stebbing. He yet flicks to his point " That if any in- 
 '• formation of the death and facrifice of Chrifl had been in- 
 ** tended, it is natural to think that the explanation 
 " would have been Recorded with the tranfad^ion, as it is in all 
 *' other SUCH like cases." Now if this orthodox Gentle- 
 fnan will ihew me a fuch like cafe, i. e, a cafe where a Revela- 
 tion of the Gofpel Difpenfation is made by an exprefTive adion, 
 and the explanation is recorded along with it, I fhall be ready 
 to confefs, he has made a pertinent objsidlion. In the mean 
 time, I have fomething more to fay to him. He fuppofes, 
 that this commanded Sacrifice of Ifaac was a Type of the 
 Sacrifice cf Chrift. To this a Deift replies, in the Doctor's 
 own words, " \i any type had been here intended it is natu- 
 *' ral to think that the explanation would have been record- 
 *' ed with the tranfa6tion," Now when the Doctor has fatisfied 
 the objedlion, which he has lent the Deifts, againft a Type, I 
 fuppofe it may ferve to fatisfy himfelf, when he urges it againft 
 my idea of the Command, as an information by action. 
 Again, our Anfwerer himfelf affirms that the dodlrine of Re- 
 demption was delivered under Typet in the Law ; and that the 
 doftiine thus delivered was defignedly fecreted and concealed 
 from the ancient Jews. Now is it natural to think (to ufe his 
 own words) that Mofes would openly and plainly record 3 
 Doi^rlne in one book which he had determined to fecvete in an- 
 other, when both \yere for the ufe of the fame People and the 
 fame Age i 
 
 ^ " You muft give me leave to obferve (fays Dr. Stebbing) 
 *' that the tranfaftion in queftion, will have the fame efficacy 
 ' ■ ' - ■ , „ ^^ 
 
236 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 from this, and divers the like inftances it fhould 
 appear, that the firfi Dirpenfation could be but 
 very imperfeftly underftood without a reference ta 
 the latter. 
 
 *' to fhevv the dependency heiiveen the tivo difpenfations, whe- 
 *' tber Abraham had thereby any information ot the Sacrifice 
 *' of Chrift or not." [ConfiJ. p. 156.] This, indeed, is faying 
 fomething. And, could he prove what he fiys, it woold be 
 depriving my interpretation of one of its principal adv^tages. 
 Let us fte then how he goes about it, — " for this does not arife 
 •* from Abraham's knowledge, or anybody's knowledge, 
 *' at the time when the tranfadlion happened, but from the fimi- 
 *' litiidc and correfpcndency between the event and the tranfac- 
 " tion, by which it was prefigured ; which is exaiSlIy the fame 
 •' upon either fuppofition." [Ibid. p. 1 56-7.3 To this I reply, 
 I. That 1 never fuppofed that the dependency between the 
 two Difpenfations did arije from Abraharns knoivledge, or any 
 hody's knoiuledge^ at that, or at any other time ; but from God's 
 jNTENTiON that this commanded aftion fliould import or re- 
 prefent the Sacrifice of Chrift : And then indeed comes in the 
 cuellion. Whether that Intention be beft difcovered from God's 
 declaration of it to Abraham, or from zJimilituJe and correfpon- 
 dencv between this commanded aftion and the Sacrifice of Chrift. 
 Therefore, 2. I make bold to tell him, that a fimilitude and 
 (orrcjpondcncy between the e<vent and the tranfaHion ivhich pre- 
 figured it, IS NOT ENOUGH to fhew this dependency, to the 
 fatisfaftion of Unbelievers j who fay, that a likenefs between 
 two things of the fame nature y fuch as offering up two men 
 to death, in different ways, and tranfadled in two diftant 
 periods, is not fufiicient alone to Ihew that they had any rela- 
 tion to one another. With the fame reafo.n, they will fay, we 
 mif^ht pretend that Jeptha's daughter, or the king of Moab's 
 fon v/ho.Ti the father facrificed on the wall, 2 Kings iii. 27. 
 were the types of Chrift's facrific?. Give us, they exult, a proof 
 from Scripture that God declared or revealed his intention 
 of prefiguring the death of Jefus ; or feme better authority at 
 leaft than a modern Typifier, who deals only in Jimilitudes and 
 corre/po/idences, and has all the wildnefs, without the wit, of a 
 Poet, and all the weaknefs, without the ingenuity, of an Ana- 
 Ipgiil ! Now whether it be our Examiner, or the Author of 
 the Di'v. Leg. who has given them this fatisfadlion : or whether 
 they have any reafon to require it of ciihcr of us, is left JO the, 
 impartial Reader to confidcr. 
 
 Bi]5 
 
B6^. 5. ^ M o s E s denwijirafed, 237 
 
 But had not the facred Writer defignedly ob- 
 fcuredthis illuftrious Revelation j by an omifiion of 
 the attendant circumftances, yet the narrative of 
 fuch a convtrfe by a5iion was not, in its nature, fo in- 
 telligible or obvious, as that where God is fhevvri 
 converfmg by aBion to the Prophets, in the feveral 
 inftances formerly given "*. And the reafon is this. 
 Thofe informations, as they are given to the Pro- 
 phets for the inftru6lion of the People, have necef- 
 larily, in the courfe of the hiilory, their explana- 
 tions annexed. But the information to Abraham 
 being folely for, his own private confolation (as Dr; 
 Scott exprefles it above) there was no room for thac 
 formal explanation, which made the commanded 
 actions to the Prophets, fo clear and intelligible.-— 
 Yet, as if I had never faid this, Dr. Stebbing tells 
 the world, I make this adion of Abraham's 
 parallel to thofe of the Prophets, whereas (fays 
 he) it differs from them all in. a very material circmn- 
 ftance^ as they had their feveral explanations annexed^f 
 and this had 7iot. But to Ihew by example, as well 
 as comparifon, that obfcurity is naturally attendant 
 on the relation of converfe by a^ion^ where the in- 
 formation is for the fake of the A6tor only, I (hail 
 inftance in a cafe where no obfcurity was affedted 
 by the Hiftorian. It is the relation of Jacob's 
 wreftling with the Angel '^. The Patriarch, on 
 his return from Haran to his native Country, hear- 
 ing of his brother Efau's power, and dreading his 
 refentment for the defrauded Birthright, addreffes 
 himfelf for protedion in this dillrefs, to the God of 
 his Fathers, with all humility and confidence. God 
 l^ears his prayer ; and is pleafed to inform, him of 
 the happy ifilie of the adventure, by 2<ftgnificativi 
 ia^ion: The following night, he has a ftruggle with 
 
 *' See vol. ill. p. 109 to iij. ^ Guru xxxii. 
 
 an 
 
23 5 ^f^s Divine Legation Book VL" 
 
 an Angel, with whom he is fufFered to make his 
 part fogood, that from thence he colle6led God had 
 granted his petition. This is the circumftancein Ja- 
 cob's hiftory v/hich affords luch mirth to our ilhte- 
 rate Libertines : For this infcrmation by Avlion con- 
 cerning only the Adtor, who little needed to be 
 told the meaning of a mode of Inftrudlion, at 
 that time in vulgar ufe, hath now an oblcurity 
 which the Scripture-relations of the fame mode 
 of information to the Prophets are free from, by 
 reafon of their beino; g-iven for the ufe of the Peo- 
 pie, to whom they were explained. ^ 
 
 But it may perhaps be aflvcd, '' Why, when the 
 fulnefs of time "jjas come^ Scripture did not break 
 its long filence, and inftrud us in the principal and 
 proper reafon of the Command to offer Ifaac ?" I 
 anlwer, that it has done fo. The words of Jefus 
 are a convincing proof. Nay, I might go farther, 
 and fay that this is not the only place where the 
 true reafon of the Command is plainly hinted at. 
 The Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews, fpeak- 
 ing of this vtvy Command^ fays — By faith Abraham , 
 when he was tried, offered up Ifaac — accounting that 
 God was able to raife him up ei; en from the dead, from 
 whence alfo he received him in a figure^ EN 
 ITAPABOAHt, in a F arable: z mode of informa- 
 tion either by words or anions, which confifts in 
 putting one thing for another. Now, in a Writer 
 who regarded this commanded aftion as a reprefen- 
 tative information of the Redemption of mankind, 
 nothing could be more fine or cafy than this ex- 
 preffion. For though Abraham did not indeed re- 
 ceive Ifaac reftored to life after a real diffolution, 
 -y^i the Son being in this action to reprefent Christ 
 
 f Chap. xi. ver. 17 — ly. 
 
 fuffering 
 
Sed. 5. of Moses deTnonjlrated. 2 j^ 
 
 fuffering death for the fins of the world, when 
 the Father brought him fafe from mount Moriah 
 after three days, (during which the Son was in a ftate 
 of condemnation to death) the Father plainly re- 
 ceived him, under the charader of Chr i st's Repre- 
 fentative, as reftorcd from the dead. For, as his 
 being brought to the mount, there bound, and 
 laid upon the Altar, figured the death and fuffer- 
 ings of Christ, fo his being taken from thence 
 alive, as properly figured Christ's Refurreflion 
 from the dead. With the higheft propriety there- 
 fore and elegance of fpeech, might Abraham be 
 faid to receive Ifaac from the dead in a -parable^ or 
 in reprefentation ^ Bu^the nature of the command 
 
 not 
 
 8 Let us fee now what Dr. Stabbing has to fay to this reafon- 
 ing. — " By your leave, Sir," fays he, (which, by the way, 
 he never afks, but to abufe me ; nor ever takes, but to mif- 
 reprefent me) " if the Apoftie had meant by this expreffion, 
 *' to fignify that Ifaac Hood as the Reprefentative of Chrift, 
 " and that his being taken from the mount alive, was the 
 *' figure of Chrift's Refurreflion; it should have been faid, 
 *' that Abraham received Christ from the dead in a figure.'* 
 Should it fo ? What ? where the difcourfe was not concerning 
 Chriji, but Ifaac? Had, indeed, the facred Writer been fpeak- 
 ing of Abraham's knoujledge of Chrift, fomething might have 
 been faid; but he is fpeaking of a very different thing, his 
 failh in Cod; and only intimates, by a ftrong expreffion, what 
 he underftood that adion to be, which he gives, as an inftance 
 of the moil illuftrious aft oi faith. I fay, had this been the 
 cafe, fomeching might have been faid ; fomething, I mean, 
 juft to keep him in countenance ; yet ftill, notliing to the 
 purpofe, as I fhall now fhew. The tranfaftion of the Sacri- 
 fice of Chrill related to God. The y%«r^ of that tranfaftion, 
 in the command to offer Ifaac, related (according to my in- 
 terpretation) to Abraham. Now, it wa; God who received 
 Chrift ; as it was Abraham who received the type or figure of 
 Chrift, in Ifaac. To cell us then, that (according to my inter- 
 pretation) it SHOULD ha^e been faid, thn Abraham receivui 
 Christ from the dead in a figure, is. in effeft, telling us that he 
 knows no more of logical expreifion than of theological rea- 
 
 foniug. 
 
240 The T>ivine Legation fiooic VI. 
 
 hot being underftood, thefe words of the epiftle 
 have been hitherto interpreted, to fignify only that 
 
 Ifaac 
 
 fbning. It is true, could he fliew the expreflion improper, in 
 the lerife which I give to the tranfaflion, he would then ipcak a 
 little to the piupofe ; and this, to do him jiiflicc, is what he 
 
 tv'ould fain be at. " For. Chrift it was, accordinr; to your iit- 
 
 " terpretition, (fays he) that was received from the dead in 
 *' a figure, by Ifaac his Reprefentative, who really cr>.me alive 
 *• from the mount. If the reading had been, not U Tca^u^o^p, 
 *' but EK OTa^apoXviy, it woiild have fuited yoiir notion ; for it 
 *' might properly have been faiJ, that Ifaac came alive front 
 *' the mount aj a figure, or that he viight he a figure, of the 
 •" Refurreclionof Chrift." [Con fid. p. 147.] Miferable chicane 1 
 As, on the one hand, I might fay with propriety, that Christ 
 luas recei'ved from the dead in a figure, i. e. BY a reprefentative : 
 fo on the other, I might fay that Isaac ijuai received from 
 the dead in a figure, i. e. as a reprefentative ? For Ifaac, fuf- 
 taining the perfon of Chrift, who was raifed from the dead, 
 Tnight in afigure^ J. e. as that perfon, be faid to be received : 
 Yet this our Examiner denies, arid tells us, the Apoftle should 
 ha've faid that Abraham received Christ, and not Isaac. — 
 •' But (adds he) if the reading had been not ei- n«^aSoX? but 
 ** £K ^a§»So^11l', it would have fuited your notion." And the 
 tealbn he gives, is this : " For it might properly have been 
 " faid that Ifaac came alive from the mount as a figure, or 
 ** THAT HE MIGHT SE 3 figure of the refurrcftion of Chrift^'* 
 Strange ! He fays, this would have fuited ?7iy notion ; and the 
 reafon he gives, llievvs it fiiits only his o^un ; which is that the 
 exaftnefs of the refemblance between the two aflidns, not the 
 declaration of the Giver of the Command, made it a figure. 
 This is the more extraordinary, as I myfelf have here fhewn 
 that the old latin tranflator had turned the words into in para- 
 fiOLAM inftead of in parabola for this very reafon, becaufe 
 he underftood the command in the fenfe our Examiner contends 
 for; viz. That Ifaac, by the refemblance of the ailiohs, might 
 iE, or might become a figure. 
 
 Howevei", he owns at laft that " a reafon will ftill be want- 
 ** jng, why, inftead of fpcaking the fadt as it really was, that 
 *' Ifaac came alive from the mount ; tlie Apoftle chofs rathei' 
 •' to fay (what was not really the cafe) that Abraham received 
 *• \\\m frcni the deadJ^ [Confid. p. 1 47-8.] Well; and have 
 not I given a reafon ? No matter fur that : Dr. Stebbing is 
 turned Examiner^ and has cngroill'd the market. His reafon 
 
 follows 
 
 9 
 
Se6t. 5« of Moses demonjlrated. 2^1 
 
 ifaac was a type of Chriji^ in the fame renfe that the 
 old 'Tabernacle, in this epiftle ', is called a type — 
 
 follows thus, ** If Jfaac did not die (as it \s certain he did not) 
 *' Abraham could not receive him from the dead. And yet 
 ** the Apoftle fays, he received h.\m.from the dead. The clear- 
 *' ing up this difficulty will ftiew the true fenfe of the pafTage." 
 [Confid. p. 147-8.] What, will the clearing up a difficulty 
 of his own making difccver the true fenfe of another man's 
 writing ? This is one of his new improvements in Logic ; in 
 which, as in Arithmetic, he has invented a rule offal/e, to 
 difcover an unknown truth. For there is none of this difficulty 
 in the facred Text ; it is not there (as in our Examiner) faid 
 iimply, that Abraham recei-ved Ifaac from the dead, but that he 
 recdaied him from the dead \^ a figure, or under the aflumed 
 perfonage of Chriji. Now if Chrifi died, then he, who aflum- 
 ed his perfonage, in order to reprefent his paffion and refurrec- 
 tion, might fiirely be faid to be recei'ved fro7n the dead in a figure. 
 A wonderful difficulty truly ! and we fhall fee, as wonderfully 
 folved ; — by a conundrum ! But with propriety enough. For as 
 z real difficulty requires fenfe and criticifm to refolve it, an imagi- 
 nary one may be well enough managed by a quibble. Be- 
 
 cayfe the tranflators of St. Mark's Gofpel have rendered U 
 •aoia. 'aet^uQoM by, ^wiih nukat comparifan Jhall ive compare it, 
 therefore, h tBci^u^o>.y), in the text in queftion, fignifies com- 
 paratively SPEAKING. But no words can fhew him like 
 his own — — " The Apoftle does not fnyfimply and ai/olutsly, 
 " that Abraham received Ifaac from the dead; but that he 
 " received him from the dead, iv "cra^aSoAij, in a parableJ" 
 See here now ! Did not I tell you fo i There was no difficulty 
 all this while : The fentence only opened to the right and left 
 to let in a bluftering objedlion, which is no fooner evaporated 
 than it clofes again as before. // <was not fimply faid — No. " But 
 " that he received him — h -araga^c^ri, in a parable, i. e. in a 
 " compuriforty or by comparifon. Thu'^ the word is ufed, Mark 
 " iv. 30. Whereunto floall ijoe ltke,i the kingdom of God, or iviih 
 *' ifjhat COMPARISON [li/ "CToia rpuoc/QaT^i^ fimll ive compare it. 
 *' The meaning then may be, that Abraham's receiving Ifaac 
 •* alive (after his death was denounced) by the revocation of 
 *' the command; was as if he had received him from the dead. 
 " Thus feveral Interpreters underftand the place. Or it may^ 
 '* be, as others will have it, that the Apoltle here refers to 
 *' the birth of Ifaac; which was [Iv Ttu^xQoh}^ co-mparative- 
 
 * Chap. ix. ver. 9. 
 Vol. V. R " tv 
 
2^2 ^^^ Divine Legation BooK. VF» 
 
 ♦iTK IIAPABOAH, that is, a thing defigned by the 
 Holy Spirit to have both a prefent fignificancy and 
 a future. Which amounts but juft to this. That 
 
 " tr SPEAKING, a receiving him from the dead; his father 
 *' being old, and his mother pall ihe age of child-bearing, 
 " on which account the Apoftle ftj^les them both i/eaJ. Which. 
 •* interpretation, I the rather approve, becaufe it fuggefts the 
 " proper grounds of Abraham*s faith." [Confid. p. 148-9.] 
 
 He fayj, i> ■wajasCoX*}, fignifies, in or by eompari/on ; and that 
 the word is fo ufed in St. Mark ; to prove which, he quotes 
 the F.nglifti tranflation. Now I muft take the liberty to tell 
 him, that the tranflators were niiftaken ; and he with them. 
 Hx^xZcM, in St. Mark, is not ufed in the fenfe of a Jimilitud$ 
 or comparifon, but of a parable. The ancients had two ways 
 of illuftrating the things they inforced ; the one was by a 
 parable, the other by a fimple c«mpari/on or Jimile : how the 
 latter of thefe arofe out of the former I have fhewn in the 
 third Volume. Here, both thefe modes of illuftration are 
 referred to ; which Ihould have been tranflated thus, To luhat 
 /hall <u:£ COMPARE the kingdom of Go J, or ixiith nuhat PA- 
 R A B L E fiall toe illujlrate or parabolize it. — o/aowo-w/xev — 
 tcx^x'^a'hufjivj — which words cxprefs two different and well 
 known modes of illuftration.. 
 
 But now fuppofe, l» «ro»a -arajafoX^, had fignified ixjtth luhat 
 comparifon : How comes it to pafs that h TragafoX^ ftiould fjg- 
 rify by comparifon^ or as it <vuere, or comparatively speak.- 
 iNG .' in plain truth, his critical analogy has ended in a plea- 
 fant blunder. How fo ? you will aflc. Nay, 'tis true there's 
 no denying, but i\\zx fpeaking by comparifon is comparati'vely fpeak- 
 i7!g ; and, if men will put another fenfe upon it, who can help- 
 that ? they fay, comparatively fpeaking, fignifies the fpeaking 
 Joofcly, inaccurately, and incorredly. But was it for our Doc- 
 tor to put his reader in mind of fuch kind of fpeakers ? But the 
 charge of a blunder, an innocent miftiap, I am ready to retraft ; 
 for I obferve him to go into it with much artful preparation;' a 
 circumftance which by no means marks that genuine turn of 
 mind, which is quick and fudden, and over head and ears, in 
 an inftant : He begins with explaining, — in a comparifon, by— 
 6y comparifon : where you jult get the firft glimpfe, as it were, 
 of an enafcent equivocation ; and his, by comparifon is prefent- 
 ly, afterwards, turned into, as it nuere, or as if he had; and 
 then, comparatively fpeaking, brings up the rear, and clofes the 
 criticifm three deep. 
 
 Abraham. 
 
Seft. 5* of yiosE^ demonjlrated, 243 
 
 Abraham receiving Ifaac fafe from mount Moriah, 
 in the manner related by Scripture, he thereby be- 
 came a Type. An ancient Interpretation, as ap- 
 pears from the reading of the vulgar Latin— C/W^ 
 eum (ffiNPARABOLAM accepit, iov in parabola, as it 
 ought to have been tranflated conformably to the 
 Greek. However I defire it may be obferved, in 
 corroboration of my fenfe of the Command, that 
 the refemblance to Chrift's facrifice in all the cir- 
 cumftances of the ftory was fo ftrong that Interpre- 
 ters could never overlook the refemblance, in their 
 comments on the pafTage. 
 
 2. To the fecond part of • the Objedtion, I an- 
 fwer thus : It is the office of Hiftory to affign the 
 Caufes of the fadls related. In thofe fads there- 
 fore, which have feveral Caufes, of which the prin- 
 cipal cannot be conveniently told, the inferior come 
 in properly to take its place. Thus, in the cafe 
 before us •, though it be made, I prefume, very evi- 
 dent that the principal defign of the Command was 
 to reveal to Abraham, by a£iion inftead of words, 
 the Redemption of mankind ; yet as this was a 
 favour of a very high nature, and conferred on 
 Abraham at his earneft requeft, it was but fit he 
 Ihould approve himfelf worthy of it by fome pro- 
 portionable Trial -, agreeably to what we find in 
 Scripture to be God's way of dealing with his fa- 
 voured Servants. On this account, therefore, God 
 was pleafed, by the very manner in which this 
 Myflery was revealed, to tempt or try Abraham. 
 Where the making tht favour itfelf the trial of his 
 deferving it, hath all that fuperior elegance and 
 beauty which is to be conceived in the Difpenfations 
 of divine Wifdom only. Now, as the principai 
 reafon of the Command could hot be conveniently 
 told by the Hillorian, this inferior one of the Trial 
 R 2 is 
 
•-» 
 
 '^44 ^^'^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 is affigned w'^th great truth and propriety — And it 
 came to pafs after thefe -things God did tempt Abra- 
 ham,' mid /aid, 'Tah now. thy fon, i:'fc. And it is 
 to be obferved, that the very manner of recording 
 this reafon fliews it to be indeed what wefuppofc 
 it; an inferior one. For it is not faid that God 
 gave this Command in order to try Abraham, 
 which exprefles a principal reafon \ but that, in 
 giving the Command, God did try him, which at 
 moft only irnplies an hiferior one. We have laid, 
 that a Trial, when approved, implied a following 
 reward. Now as there may be more reafons than 
 one for giving a Command, fo there may be more 
 rewards than one attendant on a 'Trial. Thus it 
 was in the cafe before us. And it is remarkable 
 that the facred Hiftorian has oblerved the fame 
 rule with regard to the reward of the Trial as to the 
 reafon of the Command. The principal and pe- 
 culiar reward of Abraham's Trial here was the re- 
 velation of the myftery of Redemption : this the 
 Hiftorian couid not mention, for the reafons given 
 above : but befides this, God rewarded him with 
 a repetition of all the former Promifes. This tne 
 Hiftorian could, and, in purfuance of the rules 
 of Hiftory, does mention : — By myfelf have Ifivorn, 
 faith the Lord, for becaufe thou haft done this thing, 
 and haft not ivithheld thyfon, thine only f on, that in 
 tkffing I -Luil/ bkfs thee, and in multiplying, I will mul- 
 tiply thy feed as the flars of Heaven, and as the fand 
 ivhich is upon the fea fijore ; and thy feed fhall poffefs 
 the gate of his ene?nies ; and in thy feedjhall all the 
 nations of the earth be bleffcd^ becatife thou hafi obeyed 
 my voice ^. 
 
 On the whole. This Objeflion to the interpre- 
 tation, the only one I can think of, is fo far from 
 
 •^ Chap, x.\ii. vcr. i6, U ftq, 
 
 6 obfcuring. 
 
Se<9:. 5. of Moses demonjirated. 245 
 
 obfcuring, and weakening, that it adds great light 
 and ftrength unto it. For admitting the Tenfe here 
 propofed, to be indeed the true, w« fee the Story 
 itiuft of neceflity have been told in the very man- 
 ner we find it to be recorded =. 
 
 Before 
 
 * Dr. Stebbing goes on as ufual — — " In ftiort, Sir, I do 
 *' not underftand this Doctrine (with which your whole work 
 " much abounds) of revealing things clearly to Patiiarchs, 
 *' and Prophets, and Leaders, as a fpecial favour to thera- 
 " felves ; but to be kept as a fecret from the reft of Man- 
 
 ** kind." It is but too plain he does not underjland it : 
 
 for which I can give no better reafon than that it is the scripture- 
 dodtrine and not the dodrine of Summs and Syfteni5. " £ 
 *' have been ufed (fays he) to confider perfons under this 
 *' charafter, as appointed, not for themfelves, but for others ; 
 *' and therefore to conclude that whatever was clearly re- 
 *' vealed to them, concerning God's Difpenfations, was fo re- 
 *' vealed in order to be communicated to others *." This is 
 the old fophifm ; '* That, becaufe Perfons aft and are em- 
 ployed for others; therefore, they do nothing, and have no- 
 thing done for themfelves." When God faid, Shall I hide from 
 /^brahatn that thing ivhich I do ? was not this faid to, and for 
 himfelf .?' — But he has another to match it^ " That whatever was 
 clearly jeveakd to the Prophets, was fo revealed, in order to 
 be communicated to others." Here then, a little Scripture-doc- 
 trine will do him no harm. Did Mofes communicate all he 
 knew to the Jews, concerning the Chrijlian Di/fenfatian ; which. 
 the Author of the epiftle to the Hebrews tells us was clearly re- 
 vealed to him in the mount ? — Priejis (fays he) that offer gifts 
 according to the Laiv, luho fer've unto the example and Jhado-iu of 
 heavenly things, as Mofes icas admonif>ed of God 'when he ixas about 
 to make the "1 abernacle -f". Again, We find that Ezekiel, on hi;; 
 being called out, upon his milfion, faw, (what the author of Ec- 
 clefxafticus calk) the glorious --vifon ; and had (as appears from the 
 allegory of the roll of a book) a full interpretation thereof. Yet 
 jiotwithftanding all his iMumination, he was diredled by God to 
 fpeaJc fo obfctiiely to the People, that he found caufe to com- 
 plain, — Ah Lord, they fay of me ! Doth he 7iot f^eak parables %? 
 And now let him alk the Prophets in the fame magillcrial 
 language he is accuftomed to examine me. Was there ony good 
 ufe you could make ofyoKr km<vjUdge, that the Pecple of God anight 
 
 * Ccnfid. p. 155-6. f Heb. viii 4-5, J Ezek. xx. 49. 
 
 R 3 HOi 
 
246 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Before I conclude this part of the Difcourfe, I 
 ihaU but juft take potice how flrongly this inter- 
 pretation 
 
 not have made of it as nvell as you ? — But thjs very DiH" 
 penfation is alluded to, and continued, under the kingdom 
 of Chrill. And his Di/ciples ajked him faying. What might 
 this parable be ? And he faid, JJnto you it ts giien to inoiv the 
 my/ieriei of the kingdom of God : But to other Sy in parables ; that 
 feeing they night not fie, and hearing they might not under Ji and*. 
 Again, St. John in his vifions tells us, — Andnxihen the feven 
 thundirs had uttered their foices, I ivas about to ivrite. And I 
 heard a -voite from Heaver, faying unto me, seal up thofe thingt 
 nxihich the fen: en thunaers uttered, and write them not. Rev, 
 X. 4. And now, reader, I fhall try his gratitude ? — ** Jf you cai^ 
 " ftiew, (fays he) that I am miftaken in this, pray do it, and 
 *' I fhall be obliged to you f." You fee, I have taken him 
 at his word. And it 'twas well I did ; for it was no fooner out 
 of his mouth, than, as if he had repented, not of his candour, 
 
 but Jiis confidence, he immediately cries, Hold and tells 
 
 me " I might have fpafed myfelf in afking another queflioni 
 *' fVhy, if Revelations cannot he clearly recorded^ are they re- 
 *' corded at all X F" But, great Defender of the Faith ! — of the 
 ancient Jewifh Church, I mean, I afked that queftion, becaufe the 
 anfwer to it (hews how much you are miftaken ; as the intel- 
 ligent Reader, by this time, eafily perceives. But why does 
 he fay I might h^vt ffiared that quejlion? — Becaufe" if a Re- 
 ** velation is not clearly given, it cannot be clearly recorded ^.'* 
 pid I fay it could ? Or will he fay, that there are no reafbns 
 why a Revelation, that is clearly given, (hould be obfcurely 
 recorded ? To what purpofe then, was the obfervation made i 
 Made ? why to introduce another : for, with our equivocal 
 Examiner, the corruption of argument is the generation of 
 cavil. — '* And yet (fays he) as you intimate, there may 
 *' be reafons why an obscure Revelation fhould be record- 
 " ed, to wit, for the inftruftion of future ages, when the ob- 
 ** fcurity being cleared up by the event, it fhall appear, tha^ 
 *' it was forefeen and fore-ordained in the knowledge and ap- 
 ^* poiniment of God ||." If thou wilt believe me. Reader, 1 
 never intimated zny thing fp abfurd, 
 
 What I intimated was not ccncernilig an ohfcure Revelation, 
 but a Revelation obfcurely recorded. Thefe ar? very different 
 
 * Luke viii. 9-10, -f- Confid. p. 156, \ Ibid, 
 
 p. 156. \ Confid. p, 156. II Ibid. 
 
 things. 
 
Scd:. $. of Moses demonfiraud. 247 
 
 pretation of the Command concludes againft the 
 SociNiANS, for the realT^fn)?^-^ of Christ, and the, 
 proper Redemption of mankind. For if the Com- 
 mand was an information by cMion inflead of wcrdsy 
 the proof conveyed in it is decifive ; there being 
 here no room for their evafion of its being zfgu- 
 rative expreffion^ fmce the figurative a£iiott, the 
 original of fuch expreflion, denotes either a real 
 facrificCy or nothing at all. 
 
 IL 
 
 I come now to the other part of this Difcourfe, 
 viz. to fhew, that the interpretation here given in- 
 tirely diflipates all thofe bluftering objedions which 
 Infidelity hath raifed up againft the hiftoric truth of 
 the relation. 
 
 They fay, ** God could not giv€ fuch a Com- 
 tnand to Abraham, becaufe it would throw him 
 into inextricable doubts concerning the Author of 
 
 tilings, as appears from hence, that the latter may be a clear 
 Rfvelation\ the word being relative to him to whom the 
 Revelation was made. But this is a peccadillo only. How- 
 ever, he approves the reafon of recordings for that, thereby, 
 «* it Ihall appear, that it was forefeen and foreordained by 
 «* God." It, — What ? The oh/cure Re'velation, according to 
 .grammatical conftrudlion : but, in his Englifh, I fuppofe, it 
 Hands for th& fail re'vsalecL Well then; from the recording 
 of an objure revelation, he fays it will appear, when the fore- 
 told fail happens, that it was forefeen and preordained by 
 God. This too he tells the rtz^tr I intimated -, but fure, the 
 Reader can never think me fo filly : For every fad, whether pre- 
 figured and foretold, or not prefigured and foretold, muft needs 
 have been forefeen and pre-ordained by God. Now, whether 
 we are to afcribe this to exaftnefs, or to inaccuracy, of expref- 
 iion, is hard to fay. For I find him a great mafter in that 
 fpecies of compofition which a celebrated French Writer, in his 
 encomium on the Revelations calls, en darte mire. However, 
 think what we will of his head, his heart lies too open to be 
 misjudged of. 
 
 R 4 it. 
 
248 'T^he Divifie Legation Book VI, 
 
 it, as Whether it proceeded from a good or an 
 evil Being. Or if not fo, but that he might be 
 fatisfied it came from God, it would then miflead 
 him in his notions of the divine Attributes, and of 
 the fundamental principles of Morality. Becaufe, 
 though the revocation of the Command prevented 
 the homicide, yet the fpecies of the adion com- 
 manded not being condemned when it was re- 
 voked, Abraham and his Family mud needs have 
 thought Human Sacrifices grateful to the Al- 
 mighty: for a fimple revoking was not condemn- 
 ing j but would be more naturally thought a pecu- 
 liar indulgence for a ready obedience. Thus, the 
 pagan fable of Diana's fubftituting a Hind in 
 the place of Iphigenia did not make Idolaters be- 
 lieve that Ihe therefore abhorred Human Sacrifices, 
 they having before been perfuaded of the contrary, 
 from the Command of that Jdol to offer up the 
 daughter of Agamemnon." — This is the fubftance, 
 only fet in a clearer light, of all their dull cloudy 
 differt^tions on the cafe of Abraham '', 
 
 I, Let 
 
 ■• This infidel objefti'on, the Reader fees, coiififts of two 
 parts : the one, that Abraham muft needs doubt of the Author 
 of the Command : the other, that he would be mifled, by con- 
 ceiving amifo of his Attributes, to believe human facrifices were 
 grateful to him. Dr. Stebbing, who will leave nothing «na»- 
 fivered, wjll needs anfwer this, [Confid. p. 158-60.] To the 
 firft part he replies, partly by the aflillance I myfclf had given 
 him, (where I took notice of what might be urged by Be- 
 lievers, 2s of greaf iveight and n)alidity) and partly from what 
 he bad picked up elfewhere. But here I Ihall avoid imitating; 
 his example, who in fpite to the Author of arguments profef- 
 fedly brought in fupport of Religion, ftrives, with all his 
 might, to fh^w their invalidity ; an employment, one wopld 
 think, little becoming a Chriflian Divine. If the common ar- 
 guments againft the objedtion, here urged by him with great 
 pomp, have any weak parts, I fhall leave thenl to Unbelievers 
 to find out — 1 have the more reafon likewifc to truft them to 
 theif own 'iveight, t»oth becaufe they are none of his, and be- 
 
 ca\if^ 
 
Scft. 5. o/' M o s E s demonjlrated. 249 
 
 I. Let us fee then how this cafe ftood : God 
 had been pleafed to reveal to him his etexftal pur- 
 
 pofe 
 
 caufe I have acknowledged their validity. For which acknow- 
 ledgment, all I get is this — Whether you had o<wned this or not 
 (fays ^^e) 1 jhould have taken upon my/elf the proof. Whereas* 
 all that he has taken is the property of other Writers : made his 
 own, indeed, by a weak and an imperfeft reprefentation. — But 
 his anfwer to the fecond part of the infidel objeflion mull not be 
 paffed over fo flightly. " As to the latter part of the objeftioa 
 " (fays he) that from this command, Abraham and his family 
 ** tnujl needs have thought human facrifices acceptable to Gad j the 
 *' revoking the command at laft, was a fufficient guard againft 
 " any fuch conftruftion. To this you make the Unbeliever an- 
 ** fwer ; No; bee at fe the action having been commanded ought t9 
 *' have been condemned ; and a Jimple revocation ivas no condem- 
 ** nation. But why was not the revocation of the Command, 
 ** in this cafe, a condemnation of the adion? If I fliould 
 ** tempt you to go and kill your next neighbour, and after- 
 *• wards come and defire you not to do it ; would not this 
 ** after-declaration, be as good an evidence of my diilike to 
 ** the a<^ion, as the firft was of my approbation of it ? Yes, 
 ** and a much better, as it may be prefumed to have been the 
 '* refult of maturer deliberation. Now though deliberation, 
 . ** and after-thought are not incident to God ; yet as God in 
 ** this cafe condefcended (as you fay, and very truly) to aft 
 ** after the manner of men ; the fame conftruftion fliould be 
 *' put upon his adlions, as are ufually put upon the a£lions of 
 *' men in like cafes." {Confid. p. i6o-i.] Now, tho\ as 
 was faid above, I would pay all decent regard becoming a 
 friend of Revelation, to the common arguments of others, in 
 its defence, yet I mufl not betray my own. I confefled they 
 had great vjeight and validity ; yet, at the lame time, I an"ert- 
 ed, they were attended with infuperahle difficulties. And while 
 I fo think, I muft beg lesve to inforce my reafons for this 
 opinion. And, I hope without offence; as the arguments, I 
 am now about to examine, are purely this Writer's own. And 
 the Reader, by this time, has feen too much of him to be ap- 
 prehenfive, that the leflening his Authority will be attended 
 with any great diflervice to Religion. 
 
 I had obferved, that the reafonings of Unbelievers on this 
 •afe, as it is commonly explained, were not devoid of all plaufi- 
 bility, when they proceeded thus, — " That as Abral»m lived 
 anjonglt Heathens, whofe highell aft of divine worlhip was 
 
 human 
 
2^6 7%e Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 pofe of making all mankind blefled thro' him ? 
 and likewife to confirm this proniife, in a regular 
 
 courfe 
 
 huTtmn facrifxe\ if God had commanded that Aft, and, on 
 the point of performance, only remitted it as a favour, (and 
 fo it is reprefented;) without declaring the iniquity of the 
 praftice, when addrefled to Jdols ; or his abhorrence of it, 
 when direfled to himfelf ; the Family muft have been mifled in 
 their ideas concerning the moral reftitude of that fpecies of 
 religious worfhip : Therefore, God, in thefe circumftances, 
 had he commanded the aflion as a trial only ^ would have ex- 
 plicitly condemned that mode of wor/hip, as immoral. But 
 he is not reprefented as condemning, but as remitting it for a 
 favour: Confequently, fay the Unbelievers, God did not com- 
 mand the aftion at all." — To this our Examiner replies, — 
 But nuhy ? Was not the revocation of the command a condemna- 
 tion of the aSlion ? If I Jhould tempt you to go and kill your next 
 neighbour y and aftertuards tome and desire you not to do it^ 
 'would not this after-declaration be as good an evidence of my 
 difike to the aSiion^ as the frf tuas of my approbation of it ? 
 To this I reply ; That the cafes are, by no means, parallel ; 
 either in themfelves, or in their circumftances : Not, in them- 
 felves ; the murder of our next neighbour was, amongft all 
 the Gentiles of that time, efteemed a high immorality ; while, 
 on the contrary, human facrifice was a very holy and acceptable 
 part of divine Worfhip : Not in their circumftances : the deftre 
 to forbear the murder tempted to, is (in the cafe he puts) re- 
 prefented as repentance ; whereas the ftop put to the facrifice of 
 Ifaac, (in the cafe Mofes puts) is reprefented z% favour. 
 
 But what follows, I could wifti (for the honour of modem 
 Theology) that the method I have obferved, would permit me 
 to pafs over in filence. — Noiv tho^ deliberation and after-thought 
 (fays he) an not incident to God, yet, as God, in this cafe, con- 
 defcended (as you fay, and very truly) to aSl after the manner of 
 men ; the fame conftruSiion Jhould be put upon his aSions, as is ufu- 
 4illy put upon the ailions of men in like cafes, [Confid. p. 1 5 5-6. J 
 That is, tho' deliberation and after-thought are not incident to 
 'God ; yet you are to underftand his anions, as if they were 
 incident. A horrid interpretation ! And yet his reprefenta- 
 tion of the Command, and his decent illuftration of it, by 3 
 murderer in intention, will not fufFer us to underftand it in any 
 other manner: For God, as if in hafte, and before due deli- 
 beration, is reprefented as commanding an immoral adlion ; 
 yet again, as it were by an after-thought, ordering it to be 
 
 foreborn, 
 
Sed. 5. of M OSES demonjlrated, 2.51 
 
 courfe of fucceffivc Revelations, each fuller and 
 more explicit than the other. By this time we 
 
 cannoc 
 
 foreborn, by reafon of its immorality. And in what is all 
 this impious jargon founded ? If you will believe him, in the 
 principle I lay down, That God condefcendi to a£i after the 
 manner cf men. I have all along had occafion to complain of 
 his mifreprefenting my Principles; but then they were Prin- 
 ciples he dilliked : and this, the modern management of con- 
 troverfy has fanftified. But here, tho' the Principle be ap- 
 proved, yet he cannot for his life, forbear to mifreprefent 
 it: So bad a thing is an evil habit. Let me tell him then, 
 |hat by the principle of God^s condefcending to ail after the 
 manner of men, is not meant, that he ever ads in compliance 
 %o thofe vices and fuperrtitions, which arife from the depra- 
 vity of human Will : but in conformity only to men's indif- 
 ferent manners and cuftoms ; and to thofe Ufages which re- 
 fult only from the finite imperfeftions of their nature. Thus 
 tho', as in the cafe befoie us, God was pleafed, in conformity 
 to their mode of information, to ufe their cuftom of revoking 
 ^ Command ; yet he never condefcended to imitate (as our 
 Examiner fuppofes) the irrefolution, the repentance, and hor- 
 rors of confcience of a murderer in intention. Which (horrf* 
 ble to think !) is the parallel this orthodox Divine brings to 
 illuftrate the Command to Abraham. But he had read that Go4 
 is fometimes faid to repent ; and he thought, I fuppofe, it an- 
 fwered to that repentance which the flings of confcience fome- 
 times produce in bad men. Whereas it is faid, in conformity 
 to a good magiftrate's or parent's correption of vice ; firft tof 
 threaten punifhment \ and then, on the offender's amendment, 
 (0 remit it. 
 
 But he goes on without any figns of remorfe. — " Kor 
 *' nuill the Pagan fable of Diana s fubjiituting a Hind in the 
 ** place of Iphigenia at all help your Unbeliever. This did 
 ** not, fay they, or you for them, fnake idolaters be- 
 *• lieve that Jhe therefore abhorred huTr.an facrifces. But do 
 ^* not they themfelves, or have not you afligned a very pro- 
 " per and fufficient reafon why it did not, viz. that they had 
 ^' been before perfuaded of the contrary ? Where human facri- 
 ** fices make a part of the fettled ftanding Religion ; the re- 
 " fufal to accept a human facrifice in one inllance may, indeed, 
 " be rather looked upon as a particular indulgence, than as 
 '* a declaration againft the thing in grofs. But where the 
 ^' ;bing was coiDm^ndCd but in one fmgle inflance, and the 
 
 *• command 
 
252 1})e Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 cannot but fuppofe the Father t^ the Faithful, 
 muft, from the nature of the thing, be become 
 
 very 
 
 ** command revoked in that very inftance {which is our pre- 
 " fent cafe) fuch revocation, in all reafonable conllrudtion, is as 
 " eiF*£liial a condemnation of the thing, as if God had told 
 *' Abraham, in fo many words^ that he delighted not in hu- 
 *' man facrifices." [Confid. p. 161.] To come to our Exa- 
 miner's half buried fenfe, we are often obliged to remove, or 
 what is ilill a more difagrecable labour, to fift well, the rubbifh 
 of his words. He fays, the revocation was an cff'e£Iual coi- 
 Jemnation, This may either fignify. That men, now free from 
 the prejudices of Pagan fuperltition may fee that human facri- 
 fices were condemned by the revocation of the Command : or. 
 That Abraham's family could fee this. In the firft fenfe, I have 
 nothing to do with his propofition ; and in the fecond, I fhall 
 take the liberty to fay it is not true. I deny that the re^vocation 
 was an effeilual condemnation. With how good reafon let tlie 
 Reader now judge. 
 
 Abraham, for the great ends of God's Providence, was called 
 out of an idolatrous city, infefled, as all fuch cities then were, 
 with this horrid fuperftition. He was himfelf an Idolater, as ap- 
 pears from the words of Jofhua. — i'our Fathers dix:elt en the 
 ether fuie of the food in old time, e-ven Terah the father of Abra^ 
 bajn, and the father cf Ncchor : and rnzY fer^jed other Gods, 
 And I took your father Abraham*., C5V. God, in the aft of 
 calling him, inftruded him in the Unity of his Nature, and thg 
 error of Polytheifm ; as the great principle, for the fake of 
 which (and to prefervc it in one Family amidfl an univerfal 
 overflow of idolatry) he was called out. — That he mult be 
 prejudiced in favour of his Country fuperftitions, is not to be 
 doubted ; bccaufe it is of human nature to be fo : and 
 yet we find no particular inftrutlion given him, concern- 
 ing tJie fuperflition in queftion. The noble Author of the 
 CharaSleriJlics obferves, that " it appears that he was under 
 " no extreme furprife on this trying Revelation ; nor did he 
 " thii'k of expoftulating in the leait on this occafion ; when 
 " at another time he could be io importunate for the pardon of 
 " an inhofpitable, murderous, impious, and inccltuous city :" 
 Infinuating, that this kind of facrjfice was a thing he had 
 i)ecn accultcmed to. Now the noble Author obferves thi?, 
 ' upon the Examiner's, that is, the common, interpretation. 
 
 Josh, xjciv. 2, 3. 
 
 And 
 
Sed. 5. of Moses demonjirafeds 25;^ 
 
 very defirous of k-now^ng the manner how this 
 BlefTing was to be brought about : A Myftery, if 
 we will believe the Author of our Faith, that en- 
 gaged the attention of other holy men, lefs imme- 
 diately concerned than Abraham, and confequent- 
 iy, lefs Simulated and excited by their curiofity:— 
 And Jesus turned to his Difciples, and /aid pri- 
 vately , Blejfed are the eyes which fee the things which 
 ye fee. For I tell you that many Prophets and Kings 
 have DESiREi> to fee thcfe tJrv^s which ye fee^ and 
 have not feen them, and to hear thofe things which 
 ye hear J and have not heard them''. But we are 
 
 And I believe, on that footing, he, or a better writer, would 
 find it difficalt to take out the mnlicious (ling of the obferva- 
 ■ tion. But I have Ihewn that it falls together with the commoa 
 interpretation. 
 
 Well ; Abraham is now in the land of Canaan^ and again 
 furrounded with the fame idolatrous and inhuman Sacriiicers. 
 Here he receives the Commund : And, on the point of execu- 
 tion, has the performance remitted to him as a favour. A 
 circumilance, in the revocation of the Command, which I mufl: 
 beg the Examiner's leave to remind him of; eipecially when I 
 fee him, at every turn, much difpofed (o forget it ; that is, to 
 pafs it over in filence, without either owning or denying. And 
 indeed, the little fupport his reafoning has on any occallon, is 
 only by keeping Truth out of fight. But further, the favour 
 was unaccoT) pained with any inflruiSion concerning the moral 
 nature of this kind of Sacrifice; a pra^lice never pofuively 
 forbidden but by the Law of Mofes. Now, in this cafe, f 
 would a(k any candid Reader, the leaft acquainted with humaa 
 nature, whether Abraham and his Family, prejudiced as they 
 were in favour of Human Sacrifices, (the one, by his educa- 
 tion in his country- Religion ; the other, by their commu- 
 nication with their Pagan-neighbours, and, as appears by Scrip- 
 ture, but too apt of themfelves, to fall into idolatry) would not 
 be eafily tempted to think as -favourably of Human Sacrifices 
 as tbofe Pagans wert, who underftood that Diana required 
 Iphigcnia, tho' fhe accepted a Hind, in her ftead. And with 
 fuch Readers, I finally leave lU 
 
 * Luke x. 23, 24. 
 
 aflured. 
 
2^ '^he 'Divine Legation Book VI* 
 
 afTured, by the fame authority, that Abraham had, 
 \n fad, this very dejire highly raifed in him : Abra- 
 JtOfU rejoiced io fee my day (fays Jesus) and he faw 
 it, and was glad', or rather. He rejoiced that he 
 MIGHT SEE, INA IAHjj which implies, that the 
 ^period of his joy was in the fpace between the 
 . prorpife made, and the adlual performance of it by 
 .\the delivery of the Command i confequently, that 
 it was granted at his earneft requefl \ In the 
 fecond place, we fliall (hew from the fame words, 
 that Abraham, at the time when the Command 
 .was given, knew it be that Revelation he had 
 foearneftly requefted. This is of the higheft im- 
 portance for the underftanding the true nature of 
 -the Command. — Tour Father Abraham rejoiced to 
 fee my Day, and he faw it, and was glad. 'A^^aa/* 
 TS'oilnfi u[j.uv t^ycKXhixa-cclo INA I^Hi rriv viJ-i^av Ttjv 
 £/xiii/* xj ii^i, x^ s%af »)• We have obferved that 'Ivx 
 %, in flri6t propriety, fignifies /i?^/ ^^ might fee. 
 The Englifh phrafe,- -/<? fee, is equivocal and am- 
 bicruous, and means either the prefent time, that 
 he then did fee-, or the future, that he was promifed 
 he fhould fee : but the original 7vx Uri has only the 
 latter fenfe. So that the text plainly diftinguifhes 
 two different periods of Joy -, the firft, when it 
 was premifed he fhould fee ; the fecond, ^^htn he ac- 
 tually faw : And it is to be obferved ^ that, accord- 
 ing 
 
 f Thus all the Eajlern Verfions nnderftand it : Syr. Cupidiis 
 foil videndi. — Pirf. Cupidus erat ut videret, — /hah. Exopta- 
 vjt videre. — .€thiop. Dcfideravic, gavifus eft ut videret. 
 
 5 " Where are your Authorities for all this ? (fays Dr. 
 '• Stebbin?) you produce none. Wherever you had your 
 " Greek,! am very fure you had it not from the Nevj Tefia^ 
 '• ment, where thefe words are ufcd indifcriminately." [Confid. 
 p. 14Z-3.J li'here are y<ur /Juthoril-.es ? you produce none. 
 This IS to infinuatc, 1 hai none to jMOvluce. He dares not, 
 
 indeed, 
 
J9e<5t. 5« g/' Moses demonjlrated. 25-^ 
 
 ing to the exadt ufe of the word, in aya^jf.Mtofjkctt 
 is implied the tumultuous pleafure which the cer- 
 tain 
 
 indeed, fay fo; and in this I commend his prudence. How- 
 ever, thus far he is pofitive, that ivhere'wr 1 had my Greek, I 
 had it not from the Nezv Tejiament. The Gentleman is hard 
 to pleafe : Here he is offended that I had it not ; and, before, 
 that 1 had it from the New Teftament, Here I impofe upon 
 him ; there I triiled with him. But, in all this diverfity of ac- 
 ceptance, 'tis ftill the fame fpirit : The fpirit of Anfvoering. 
 
 I had faid, the two Greek words, in their exaSi ufe, lignify 
 fo and fo. Which furely implied an acknowledgment, that 
 this exadlnefs was not always obferved ; efpecially by the Writers 
 of the New Teftament ; who, whatever fome may have dream'd, 
 did not pique themfelves upon what we call, claffical elegance. 
 Now, this implication, our Examiner fairly confirms, tho' by 
 way of confutation. In the Ne-iv Teftament (fays he) thefe 
 \uords are ufed indifcriminately. I had plainly infinuated as 
 "much ; and he had better have let it reft on my acknowledg- 
 ment ; for the inftances he brings, to prove the words ufed in- 
 difcriminately in the New Teftament, are full enough to per- 
 itiade the Reader that they are not fo ufed. His fitft inftance 
 is, I Pet. iv. 13. " Rejoice [x^'^'^O inafmuch as ye are ■partakers 
 *' of Chrifi^s fufferings ', that ivhen his glory Jhall he revealed 
 ** Xyot-^i ayobKhMa^AAvoC^ ye may be glad ixjith exceeding joy. See 
 " you njot here (fays he) the direft reverfe of what you fay r 
 '* that %«i^ft; fignifies the joy which arifes upon profpeft, 
 *• and dyx>,?.ixoiJ.cci that which arifes from pofTeffion," [Conlid, 
 p. 143.] No indeed; I fee nothing like it. The followers 
 of Chrift are bid to rejoice, ^xi^Hu For what ? For being 
 partakers of ChrijTs fufferings. And was not this a blefling in 
 pofTeflion ? But it feems our Dodlor has but fmall conception 
 how fuffering for a good confcience can be a bleffing. Yet at 
 other times he muft have thought highly of it, when, in excefs 
 
 ■ ©f charity, he befpoke the Magiftrate's application of it on his 
 Neighbours, under the name of wholesom severities. He 
 
 ■ is juft as wide of truth when he tells us, that <xy*x>»<«oft«* 
 fignifies the joy ivhich arifes on poffejjion. They are bid to rejoice 
 
 now in fufferings, that they might be glad 'with exceeding joy 
 at Chrift's fecond coming. And is this the being glad for 2 
 good in pofleiTion ? Is it not for a good in profpedl ? The re- 
 ward they were then going to receive. For I fuppofe the ap- 
 ' pearance of Chrift's glory will precede the reward of his fol- 
 lowers. So that the Reader now lee;;- he has himfelf fairly 
 
 proved 
 
256 ^he Divine Legation \ Book VI. 
 
 tain expefbation of an approaching blefling, ^vin- 
 -derftood only in the grols, occafions ; and, .ifi 
 
 proved for me, the truth of my obfervation, T/yat in the exaSi 
 ufe of the njjords, «7aXXiao/x»» fignifics thit tvmultuous pUafurt 
 ^tuhich the certain erpeHalion of an approaching lUffing occajioni ; 
 and yjx\^u thi't calm and fettled Joy that arifes from our kno'wiedge, 
 in the foffefjion of it. 
 
 He goes on. " Rev. xix. 7. Let us he glad and rejoice 
 *• [%a'5^'fA£' "tj oi.yx».\ui\».i^-x\ — for the marriage of the Lamb is 
 *' come. Where both words (fays he) refer to bleffings in 
 *' pofleffion. Again, Matt. V. 12. Rejoice and be exceeding giad 
 *' [%«tf£T£ K^ ayaX^iac-S;] for great fs )0ur renuard in Heaven ; 
 *' where both refer to bleffings in profpefl." [Confid, p. 143-4.] 
 His old fortune ftill purfues him. The finl text from the 
 Rev. Be glad and rejoice for the marriaoe of the Lar.b is cone ; 
 bids the followers of Chrifl now do that, which they were bid 
 to prepare for, in the words of St. Peter, that, nuhen hit glory 
 fhall be rei'ea'ed, ye may he glad luith exceeding joy, I^ there- 
 fore, where they are bid to prepare for their rejoicing, the joy 
 is for a good in profpedl (as we have (hewn it was) then, cer- 
 tainly, where they are told that this time of rejoicing is come, 
 the joy muil ilill be for a good in profped. And yet he fays, 
 the lucrds refer to bleffings in pfpjjion. Again, the text from 
 St. Matt. — Rejoice and be exceeding gfad, f OR great is your rC' 
 nvard in heaven, has the feme relation to the former part of 
 St. Peter's words, [^Rejoice inafmuch as ye are partakers of 
 Chrijl's fiifferings'] as the text in the Revel, has to the latter. 
 £lefjed are ye (fays Jefus in this gofpel) ivhen mm fhall revile you. 
 and perfectite you, and Jhall fay all manner of e'vil againj} you falfly 
 for my fake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, FOR great is your 
 renji'ard in heaven. Rejoice ! for what ? Is it not for the per- 
 fecution* they fuffer for his fake ? A frefnt bleff.ng fure ; the' 
 not perhaps to our Author's tarte. The reafon why they fhould 
 rejoice, follows, for great is your re^Lard in heaven. And yet 
 here, he fays, the words refer to blejjings in prcfeQ, In truth, 
 what led him into all this inverted reafoning, was a pleafant 
 iniflake. The one text fays — Be glad and rejoice, for cVt — 
 The other. Rejoice and he exceeding glad, for otj — Now he 
 took the particle, in both places^ to fignify propter, for the 
 fake if; whereas it Signifies qucniam, quia, and is, in proof of 
 fomething going before. So that he read the text — Rejoice^ 
 J.r the marriage of the lamb is come ; — As if it had been — • 
 " Rejoice for the marriage of the Lamb, which is come:'* 
 
 Aj?d 
 
Sfe^. 5* o/' Mosfis demonjlrated. 257 
 
 X<*i^^ that calm and fettled joy which arifes from 
 our knowledge, in the poffeflion of it« But the 
 
 ^TrariQators, 
 
 And — rejoice, for great is yout reivard in heanien ; as if it had 
 been, — " Rejoice for your great reward in heaven.** 
 
 But now let us confider thefe texts irt another view, in order 
 to do juftice to his delicacy of Judgment. I had faid that, 
 nn the exa^ u/e of the two Greek words, they fignify fo and 
 fo i and applied that obfervation to a fact ; where a perfoa 
 was faid to have rejoiced, i^c. In order to difprove this cri- 
 ticifm, he brings three paflages, in which thofe Greek words 
 are ufed, where no fact is related ; but where men are, in 
 a rhetorical manner, called upon, and bid to fejoice, l^d Irt 
 which latter cafe, the ufe of one word for another, is aa 
 elegant converfion. Thole, in pofleffion of a bleffing, are bid 
 to rejoice with that exceeding joy, which men generally hnve 
 in the certain expedlation of one approaching ; and thofe in 
 expeftation, with that calm and fettled joy, which attends full 
 pofleffion. And who but our Examiner could not fee, that the 
 ufe of words is one thing, in an hiftorical affertion ; and quite 
 another, in a rhetorical invocation i 
 
 Having thus ably acquitted himfelf in one crlticifnl he falls 
 upon another. *' What Ihall we do with IVa ?'* — — What in- 
 deed ! But no fooner faid than done. " "ivct (fays he) is oftert 
 " put for oT£ or oTt, pofitive as you are, that it always refers to 
 •* a future time." [Confid, p. 144.] Now, fo far from being 
 pofitive of this, I am pofitive of the contrary, that there is not 
 One word of truth in all he fays. I obferved indeed, that "va. 'iht 
 in the text, refers onl^ to a future time. And this I fay ftill, tho' our 
 Tranflators have rendered it, equivocally, to fee. Yet he affirms, 
 that I fay, " I'ya [{landing alone] always refers to a future 
 " time." That I am pofitive of it, nay very pofitive, " pofi- 
 " tive as you are," fays he. And to fhame me of this evil 
 habit, he proceeds to (hew, from feveral texts, that Tva is often 
 put for oT£ or OTJ. " Thus John xvi. 2. T/je time cornet^ th at 
 . " [I'vcc] nxihofoever killeth you ijcill think he doth God fervice. 
 *• Again : i Cor. iv. 3. IFith me it is afmall thing that [IW] 
 *♦ / fhould he judged of you. And nearer to the point yet 
 *• 3 John 4. I have no greater joy [J'va «xaw] than that I hear, 
 *' or, than to hear that my children nualk in the truth. And 
 *' why not here, Sir; Abraham rejoiced [IV«5'J»)] when he 
 " faw, or that he faw, or (which is equivalent) to see my 
 *' Day." [Confid. p. 144-3 P^** *'^ ^'^ kindnefs, the bed 
 Vol. Y. S at- 
 
25 S ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Tranilators, perhaps, not apprehending that there 
 was any time between the Grant to fee, and the ac- 
 
 acknowledgment I can make, is to return him back his own 
 criticifm; only the Gr?^/^ words put into Latin. The Tu/gate 
 has renieieJ I'vx ':^r, by ut i-ic/eret, which words I will fup- 
 pofe the Tranflator to fay (ss without doubt, he would) refer 
 only to a future time. On whicl:, I will be very learned and cri- 
 tical . — " Pofitive as you are, Sir, that ut -':hvays refers to zfa- 
 «« Jure time, I will (hew you that it is fometimes put iorpojiquam 
 «' the /a/, 
 
 *' Ut vidi, ut peril, ut me mains ahjiulit Error ! 
 
 ** and fometimes (v/hich is yet nearer to the point) for quanta^ 
 *' — — Ut qui/que optime Grace fciret, ita ejje nequifjnmum, 
 *• And why not here, Sir, Abraham rejoiced \ut ijideret^ when 
 "he faw, or that he faw, or which is equivalent, to sej- my 
 ** day ?" — And row he fays, there is but one dff.cujiy thatjlands 
 in his ivay. And what is this, 1 pray you ? Why, that according 
 to his (Dr. Stebbing's) interpretation, " the latter part of the 
 V fentence is a repetition of the former. Abraham rejoiced to 
 *' fee my day, and he faiu it and ivas glad. i. e. Abraham re- 
 *' joicedto fee, and then fa^vo and rejoiced. But fuch kind of repeti- 
 ** tions are frequent in the facred Dialeft; and, in my humble 
 f opinion, it has an elegance here. Abraham rejoiced to fee, x.a.i 
 
 " Et^S, ;:a* £%ag>J. HE BOTH SAW AND WAS GLAD." \Confid. p. 
 
 144-5.] Before he talked o{ repetitions in the facred Dia/et^, and 
 pronounced upon their qualities, he fhould have known how to 
 diftinguifh between a pleonofm and a tautology ; the firfl of which, 
 indted, is often an elegance; the latter, always a blemilh in expref- 
 ^on : and, in the number of the latter, is this elegant repetition 
 pf the Dodor's own making. Where a repetition of the fame 
 thing is given in different words it is called a ple.nafm ; when 
 in the fame words, (as in the Doflor's tranflation of the text in 
 queftion) it is a tautolag\, which, being without reafon, has nei- 
 ther grace nor elegance. Nay the very pretence it has to common 
 fenfe arifes from our being able to underftand the equivocal 
 phrafe, to fee, in my meaning, of, that he might fee. Confine 
 it to the Doftor'f, of, — Abraham rejoiced ixiben he had/cen tny 
 da)\ and he fanu it and ivas glad, and the ahfurdity becomes ap- 
 parent. For the latter part of the fentence beginning with the 
 conjunflioo completive kx\, it implies a further predication. 
 Vet ill his tranflation there is none ; tho' he makes an effort to- 
 wards it, in dropping the fenfe of xa\ in the found of both. 
 
 2 ttial 
 
Sedl. 5. c;^ Moses demonjlrated, 2^() 
 
 tual feeing, turned it, he rejoiced to fee ; as if it had 
 bztn the Paraphrafe of the Poet Nonnus, 
 
 whereas this Hiflory of Abraham hath plainly 
 three diRinft periods. The firft contains God's 
 promife to grant Abraham's requeft, when lie r^- 
 joiced that he fljouldfee-, this, for reafons given above, 
 was wifely emitted by the Hiftorian : Within the 
 fecond period was the delivery of the Command, with 
 which Mofes's account begins : And Abraham's 
 Obedience, thro' which hefaw Christ's day and 
 was gladj includes the third ''. Thus the Pa- 
 
 •• Dr. Stebbing tells me, ** there is not one word, in the 
 ♦* hillory of the Old Teftament to juftify this threefold diilinc- 
 " tion :" and that I myfelf confess -is much. It is true, 
 I confefs that what is not in the Old Teftament is not to be 
 found there. And had he been as modeft, he would have 
 been content to find a future ftate in the New Teftament only. 
 
 But where is it, I would afk, that " I confefs there is 
 
 *' not one word, in the hiftory of the Old Teftament, to 
 *' juftify this three-fold diftindion r" I was fo far from any 
 fuch thought, that I gave a large epitome * of Abraham's 
 whole hiftory, to fhew that it juilified this three-fcU diflm:- 
 tion, in every part of it. His manner of proving my con- 
 feffion, will clearly deteft the fraud and falfhood of his charge. 
 For, inftead of doing it from my own words, he would ar- 
 gue me into it, from his own inferences. " You confefs it 
 *' (fays he) FOR you fay, that Mofes's hiftory begirs with the 
 *' fecond period, and that the firft was wilely omitted by the 
 " hiftorian," Let us apply this reaToning to a parallel cafe. 
 I will fuppofe him to tell me, (for, after this, he may tell me 
 any thing) " that I myfelf confefs there is not one word in the 
 V Jliad of Homer, to juftify me in faying that there were 
 *' three periods in the deftru6\ion of Troy; the firft, the rob- 
 " bery of Helen ; the fecond, the combats before the Walls ; and 
 ** the third, theftorming of theTown by the Greeks ; for that 
 ** I fay. that Homer's poem begins at the fecond period ; wifely 
 ** omitting the firft and the laft." Now will any one conclude, 
 from this reafoning, that I had made any fuch confeffion ? 
 
 * From p. 209 to 215, of this volume, 
 
 S 2 triarchy 
 
fi6o The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 trlarch, we find, had a promife that his requefl 
 fhoiild be granted J and, in regard to that promife, 
 an a^ion is commanded, which, at that time, was a 
 common mode of information •, Abraham there- 
 fore miift needs know it was the very information 
 fo much requefted, fo gracioufly promifed, and fo 
 impatiently expected. We conclude then, on 
 the whole, that this Command being only the Grant 
 of an earneft requeft, and known by Abraham, at 
 the time of impofing, to be fuch Grant, he could 
 not poITibly have any doubt concerning the Author 
 of it. He was folliciting the God of Heaven to 
 reveal to him the Myftery of Man's Redemption, 
 and he received the information, in a Command to 
 offer Ifaac ; a Revelation, that had the clofefl con- 
 nexion with, and was the fullefl: completion of, 
 the whole feries of the preceding Revelations. 
 
 2. For, (as we Ihall now fhew, in anfwer to 
 the lecond part of the objefkion) the Command 
 could occafion no miftakes concerning the divine 
 Attributes •, it being, as was faid, only the con- 
 veyance of an information by a5iion inftead oi words, 
 in conformity to the common mode of converfe in 
 the more early times. This a£lion therefore being 
 mere fcenery, had no moral import; that is, it 
 conveyed or implied none of thofe intentions in him 
 who commanded it, and in him who obeyed the 
 Command, which go along with a61:ions that have a 
 moral import '. Confequently the injun5iion and obe- 
 
 dience, 
 
 ' This (hews why God might fgy to Ho/ea, Go tide unto 
 thee a nxjife of ivhoreJoms, iffc. chap. i. ver. 2. — Tho' all anions 
 which have no mcral import are indifferent ; yet fome of this 
 kind (which would even be indifferent, had they a moral im- 
 port) may, on the very account of their having no marat im- 
 fort, be the objed of pleafure or difpleafure. Thus, in the 
 
 adventure 
 
->: 
 
 5* o/" Moses ciemonfirateih 261 
 
 diencCy in an aftion which hath no fuch import, can 
 no way afFed: theniorai charadlerof the perfons con- 
 cerned: and confequently, this Command could oc- 
 cafion no miflakes concerning the divine Attributes, 
 with regard to God's delighting in human facrifices. 
 On the contrary, the very information conveyed by 
 it, was the higheft aflurance to the perfon informed, 
 of God's good-will towards man. Hence we fee 
 there was not the leafl: occafion, when God remit- 
 ted the offering of Ifaac, that he ^oxA^formally con- 
 demn human Sacrifices, to prevent Abraham or his 
 family's falling into an opinion, that fuch Sacrifices 
 were not difpleafing to him % any more than for 
 
 the 
 
 adventure between EHfha and Joafli, we are told, that the 
 Prophet laid unto the King, "• Take bow and arrows ; and 
 " he took unto him bow and arrows. And he faid to the king 
 *' of Ifrael, Put thine hand upon the bow ; and he put his 
 ** hand upon it ; and Elifha put his hands upon the king's 
 ** hands. And he faid. Open the window eaftward ; and he 
 '* opened it. Then Elifha faid. Shoot ; and he fhot. And 
 *' he faid, The arrow of the Lord's deliverance from Syria : 
 *' for thou (halt fmite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have 
 *' confumed them. And he faid, Take the arrows ; and he 
 *• took them. And he faid unto the king of Ifrael, Saiire 
 " upon the ground ; and he fmote thrice and flayed. And 
 " the man of God loas -wrath luith him, and faid, Thoa 
 •*• Ihouldert have fmitten five or fix times, then hadll thou 
 *' fmitten Syria, till thou hadft confumed them, whereas now 
 " thou fhalt fmite Syria but thrice." 2 Kings xiii. 15 — 18. 
 Here it is not difficult to apprehend, that the Prophet, by God's 
 command, directed the King to perform a fignificative aflion, 
 whofe meaning God had beforehand explained to his MefTen- 
 ger : and, amongft the particulars of it, had told him this, that 
 the Syrians fhould be fmitten as often as the King fmote upon 
 the ground, when the Prophet fhould order him (only in gene- 
 ral words) to fmite it. Hence the Prophet's anger, occafioned 
 hv his love to his country, on the King's Hopping when he had 
 /,iotc thrice. 
 
 ''To this Dr. Stubbing aifwers, " lean eafily underfland, 
 " Sir, how the matter ilojd with Abraham; and that he 
 
 S3 "was 
 
262 7he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 " was in no danger of being miQed, as to- tjie nature of hu- 
 " man Sacrifices, who knew the fecret df the whole affair ; 
 " and tiiat it was nothing elfe but Scenery. But how this an- 
 " fwer will ferve for his Family; who are to be prefumed to 
 •' have kno\\;n nothing of this fcenical reprefentation, is ut- 
 *' terly pall my coraprehenfion ; — becaufe you have told us 
 *' from the very firrt, that the information to be conveyed by 
 *' it, was intended for Abraham's sole use ; and I do not 
 " fee how Abraham could opjcn to his family the fcenery of 
 *' the tranfatlion, without explaining the mj/iery. — — But is 
 " not your putting the Family of Abraham, in pofieflion of this 
 *' confequence ; a very plain declaration, that they Icnew the 
 •' myftery of Chrift's facrifice! Now therefore, Sir, take your 
 *' choice, and give up one part of your hypothefis, or the 
 *' ether, as beft pleafes you; for to hold both is impoffible. 
 *' If you fay that the family of Abraham were acquainted 
 *' with the myftery of Chrift's facrifice ; it will overturn all 
 *' you have faid concerning their ignorance of a future Hate : 
 ** It likewife overturns the lingle reafon you have given why 
 *' the explanation (ufual in all fuch cafes) to fhew the import,. 
 *' of the tranfailion was not added, viz. that it was a point 
 *' not ft for common kno^wled^e. But if you Ihall chufe to fay, 
 ** that the revelation of this myftery, was for the sole infor- 
 *' mation of Abraham, and that his family knew nothing of 
 " it, the objection will lie full againft you, unanfwered,'* 
 [Confid. p. 166.] 
 
 I had faid, that the command was for Abraham^sfcle ufs ; and 
 •' therefore (fays the Doftor) the Family of Abraham mufl be 
 *' prefumed to know nothing of this fcenical reprefentation :" 
 Notwithftanding this, I pre fume (he fays) that theydidkmiuit^ 
 Here he takes me in a flagrant contradidiion. But did he in- 
 deed not apprehend that where I fpoke of its being given for . 
 jibraham^s fote ufe, I was oppofing it, (as the courfe of my argu-. 
 ment required) not to the fingle Family which then lived under 
 his tents, but to the Jewifli People, when the hillory of the 
 tranfafiion was recorded ? — And now having fhewn his wrong 
 conclufion from my words, let us confider next the wrong 
 conclufion he draws from his own. — J do not fee (fays he) 
 i5»cti; Abraham could open to his family the fcenery of the tranfac- 
 tion njcithout explaining the fnyfery ? What does he mean by, 
 opening the fcenery of the traifadion ? There are two fenfes of 
 this ambiguous expieiiion ; it may fignify, either, explaining 
 the Vioral of the fcenery ; or fimply, telling his family that the, 
 iranfaaion ivas a fenical reprefentation. He could not ufe the 
 phiafe in the firll fenfe, becaufe \iQm3\iCs explaining tLemvfery 
 a thing different from opening the fcenery. He mull mean it 
 
 then 
 
Se<3:. 5. of Moses demG72jlrated, 263 
 
 then in the latter. But could not Abraham tell his Family, that 
 this wa,s z fcenicid reprefmtation without explaining the tnypery ? I 
 do not know what (hould hinder him, unlefs it was the fudden lofs 
 of Tpeech. If he had the free ufe of his tongue, I think, he 
 might, in the tranfports of his joy, on his return home, tell his 
 Wife, " That God had crder'd him to facrifice his Son. and that 
 he had carried this Son to mount Mcriah, in obedience to the 
 divine Command, where a ram was accepted in his ftead ; but 
 that the whoie was a mere fcenical reprefentation, to figure out- 
 a myfterious tranfadion which God had ordained to come to 
 pafs in the latter ages of the world." And I fuppofe when he 
 had once told his wife, the Family would foon hear of it. 
 Now could they not underftand, what was meant by 2i fcenical 
 reprefcntaticn, as well when he told them it was to prefigure' 
 a myftery, as if he had told them ic was to prefigure the 
 crucifixion of Jefus F Had I no other way of avoiding his dilem- 
 ma (for if 1 efcape his Contradidi-n^ he has fet his Dilemma-trap^ 
 which, he fr.ys, it is impoflible I (hould efcape) had I nothing 
 elfe, I fay, 'tis very likely I fhould have infifted upon this ex- 
 planation : But there are more fafe ways than one of taking 
 him by his Horns. " Now therefore (fays he) take your 
 '* choice, and give up one part of your hypothefis or the 
 " other, as beft pleafes you ;- for to hold both is impos- 
 " siBLE. 'If you fay that the family of Abraham were ac- 
 " quainted with the Myftery, it will overturn all you faid con- 
 *' cernir.g their ignorance of a Future ftate — but if you ftiall 
 " chufe to fay that the revelatiori of the Myftery was for the fole 
 " information of Abraham, and that his Family knew nothing 
 " of it, then — the conftruclion in favour of human Sacrifices 
 " muft have been the very fame as if no fuch reprefentation, 
 " as you fpeak of, had been intended." I defire to know 
 where it is that I have fpoken any thihg of the ignorance of 
 Mrakam's Famih, concerning a Future flate. But I am afraid, 
 fomething is wrong here again : and that, by Abraham's Fa- 
 7nilyy he means the Jfraclites under Mofcs's policy : for, with 
 regard to them, I did indeed fay that the grofs body of the 
 People were ignorant of a Future ftate. But then I fuppofed 
 them equally ignorant of the true import of the Command to 
 Abraham. But, if, by Abrahams Family, he means, as every 
 man does, who means honeftly, thofe few of his houfliold, I fup- 
 pofe them indeed acquainted with the true import of the Com- 
 mand ; but then, at the fame time, not ignorant of a Future ftate. 
 Thus it appears that what our Examiner had pronounced im- 
 possible, was all the while very poflible. And in fpite of 
 this terrible Dilemma, both parts of the hypothefis zr% at 
 peace. I can hardly think him fo immoral as to have put a de- 
 figned trick upon his Reader: I rather fuppofe it to be fome 
 
 S 4 confufcd 
 
264 ^he Divine Legation ^ Bo ok VI. 
 
 the Prophet Ahijah', when he had rent Jeroboam's 
 garment into twelve pieces to denote the enfuing 
 divifion in the tribes of Ifrael, to dehver a moral 
 precept againft the fin of delpoihng, and infult- 
 ing our neighbour: For the command having 
 no moral import^ as being only an information by 
 adion, where one thing flood for the reprefenta" 
 tive of another, all the coniequence that could be 
 deduced from it was only this, that the Son of God 
 Ihould be offered up for the iins of mankind: there- 
 fore the conceptions they had of human sacrifi- 
 ^CES, after the commatid, muft needs be juft the 
 fame with thofe they had before ; and therefore, in- 
 ftrudion, concerning the execrable nature of this 
 Rite, was not only needlefs, but altogether befidc 
 the queftion. 
 
 But this aflcrtion that a scenic al represe.n- 
 TATiON HAS NO MORAL IMPORT, having been mif- 
 
 cnnfufed notion concerning the Popifh virtue of tradition, 
 (that trurty Guardian of Truth) which led him into all this 
 abfurdity j and made him conclude, that what Abraham's houf- 
 hold once knew, the Pollerity of Abraham could never forget'L 
 Tho' the WRITTEN Word telh us, that when Moles was fent 
 to redeem this Pofterity from bondage, they remembered fo little 
 of God's Revelations to their Fore-fathers, that they knew no- 
 .thirgeven of his nature, and therefore did, a? men common- 
 ly do in the like cafe, enquire after his name. 
 
 ' <' And it came to pafs at that time, when Jeroboam went 
 *' outto Jerufalem, that the Prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found 
 ♦' him in the way ; and he had clad himfelf with a new gar- 
 •* n>ent, and they two were alone in the field. And Ahijah 
 *' caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in 
 •* twelve pieces, and he faid to Jeroboam, Take thte ten 
 ^* pieces, for thus faith the Lord the God of Ifrael, Behold I 
 ** will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and 
 " will give ten tribes to thee." i Kincs xi. 29. The circum- 
 ftance of the nezv garment was not infignificant : It was to denote 
 the powtr of (he kingdom at that time in its full ftrength and 
 
 underllood 
 
Sitfl:. 5. ' ^f M o s E s defnonjirated. 265 
 
 Bffderftood by many, and mifreprefented by more, . 
 ^ho' nothing, as I then thought, could be clearer 
 tamen-verled in moral matters) I fhall beg leave to 
 explain -myfelf. — He who affirms thsLtafcemcalre-i 
 pcefenlation has no moral import, cannot poffibly be 
 underftocid to mean (if interpreted on the ordinary 
 rules of Logic and Common fenfe) any thing elie 
 than -that the reprefentation or the feigned adion 
 has none of th^tfpedjic morality which is in the real 
 a(5tion. He can never be fuppofed to mean that 
 fueh/.a reprefentation could never even by accident, 
 give birth to a moral entity, of a different fpecies ; 
 tho* it kept within, much lefs if it trangrefled 
 the bounds, of its fcenical nature. Give me leave 
 to explain this by an in fiance or two. The Tragic 
 fcene we will fuppofe to exhibit a Pagan flory, in 
 which a lewd Sacrifice to Venus is reprefented. 
 Now I- fay this fcenical reprefentation has no fmral 
 import. -BMt do I mean by this, that there was no 
 immorality of any kind in the fcene ? Far from it. 
 Ipnljr'mean that thd.tfpecific immorality was abfent^ 
 which would have exifled there, had the action been 
 real and not feigned •, I mean idolatry. Again, an- 
 other fet of Tragedians reprefent the Confpiracy 
 againft Julius Caefar in the Senate-houfe. This, I 
 fay, has no moral import : for neither could the fol-. 
 lowers of Casfar's Caufe call thefe fiflitious Confpi- 
 rators, enemies to their Country; nor could the 
 ;Warmefl lovers of liberty call them Patriots. But if 
 ifl this reprefentation, the Adors, inflead of exhibi- 
 ting an imaginary affaffmation, Ihould commit a 
 real one, on the body of the perfonated Caefar, 
 Who ev?r fuppofed that fuch a dramatic reprefen- 
 tation continued flill to have no moral import? 
 The men who committed the aflion dropt their per- 
 fonated, and alfumed their real charadter, being 
 infligated by intereft, malice, or revenge; and 
 
 only 
 
256''^' l^e Divine Legation ^ook VI. 
 
 only waited a fit opporttTrtky to perpetrate their de- 
 licrns under the cover of a drama. Here indeed, 
 the parallel ceafes. The feigned Confpirators 
 tranfgrelTed the bounds of a reprefentation : while 
 the real death of Ifaac mud be iuppofed to make 
 part of the fcefiical reprefentation, in the Command 
 to Abraham. But it Ihould have been corifidered, 
 and was not, that I employed the principle of a 
 feigned reprefentation* s having no moral import^ to free 
 the Command from the infidel objedion that it was 
 an enjoined facrifice ; not from the obje6tion of its 
 being an injoined deaths /imply : For a human Sacri- 
 fice commanded was fuppofed to difcredit Revela- 
 tion, as giving too much countenance and en- 
 couragement to that horrid fuperftition -, whereas, 
 with regard to a fimple death commanded^ to juftify 
 this, I was ready to confide in the common argu- 
 ment of Divines, taken from God's fovereign 
 ric^ht over his creatures : Whofe power could in- 
 llantaneoufly repair the lofs, or whofe goodnefs 
 would abundantly reward the a6l of obedience. 
 Yet the fair and candid Dr. Rutherforth reprefents 
 my pofition of a fcenical reprefentation* s having no 
 moral import^ to be the fame with faying, that tho' 
 an a^ion b^' everfo vile in itfelf^ yet, if it be done io 
 reprefent fomewhat elfe, it lofes its nature and becomes 
 an indifferent one. — Had I the prefumption to be- 
 lieve, that any thing I could fay, would better 
 his heart or mend his head, I ftiould recommend 
 what hath been here faid to his fcrious confidera- 
 tion. 
 
 3. And now we fee the weaknefs of the third 
 and laft part of the Objeftion, which fuppofcs this 
 Command capable of nfi-ording a temptation to 
 tranfgrefs the fundamental principles of the Law of 
 Nature : one of which obliges us to cherifli and 
 
 prote(5l: 
 
Se<5t. 5« c/' Moses demonftrated. 267 
 
 proted- our OfFspring •, and another, not to injure 
 our Neighbour. For as, by the Command^ Abra- 
 ham underftood the nature of man's Redemption; 
 fo, by the nature of that Redemption, he muft 
 know how the fcenical reprefentation was to end. 
 Ifaac, he faw, was made the perfon or reprefenta- 
 tiveof Chrifi dying for us : The Son of God, he 
 knew, could not poflibly lie under the dominion of 
 the grave. Hence he mufl needs conclude one of 
 thefe twO' things j either that God would flop his 
 hand when he came to give the facrificing ftroker 
 or that, if the Revelation of this myftery was to 
 be reprefejited throughout in adiion, that then his 
 Son, facrificed under the perfon of Christ, was,, 
 under the fame perfon, foOn to be reftored to life : 
 accounting (as he well might) that God was able to> 
 r-aife him up even from the dead, as the Author of the 
 epiftle to the Hebrews ", who feems to have been 
 full of the idea here explained, aflures us he did 
 believe. 
 
 Now where was the temptation to violate any 
 Principle of Morality in all this ? The Law of Na- 
 ture commands us to cherifh and proteft our ofF- 
 fpring : Was that tranfgrefled in giving a ftroke 
 whofe hurt was prefently to be repaired ? Surely 
 no more than if the ftroke had been in .vifion. 
 The Law of Nature forbids all injury to our Fellow- 
 creature : And was he injured, who, by being 
 thus highly honoured, in becoming the reprefenta- 
 tive of the Son of God, was to ihare with his 
 Father Abraham in the rewards of his obedience ? 
 But though, as we fee', Abraham could have no 
 ftruggles with himfelf, from any doubts that he 
 might violate Morality in paying obedience to the 
 Command ; yet did the merit of that obedience, 
 
 ^ Chap. xi. ver, 19. 
 
 where 
 
^63 "The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 •where the natural feelings were fo alarmed, deferve 
 all the encomiums bellowed upon it in Holy Writ. 
 For, in exprefllng his extreme readinefs to obey, 
 he declared a full confidence in the promifes of 
 God. 
 
 From hence we may deduce thefe two corol- 
 laries. 
 
 I. That the noble Author of the Chara5lerijlics 
 hath fhewn as much ignorance as malevolence, 
 when he fuppofed that Abraham's fhewing no ex- 
 treme furprtfe on this trying Revelation viz% from the 
 favourable notion he had of Human Sacrifices, fo 
 common amongfi the inhabitants of the Palejline and 
 other neighbouring Nations ". For we fee the reafon, 
 
 why 
 
 ° '* To me (fays the noble writer) it plainly appears, that 
 *' in the early times of all Religions, when nations were yet 
 *' barbarous and favage, there was ever an aptnefs or tendency 
 ** towards the dark port of Superilition, which amongft many 
 " other horrors produced that of human Sacrifice. Something 
 " of this nature might poffibly be deduced even from Holy 
 *' Writ." — To this a note refers in the following words ■' 
 Gen. xxii. l. and'\\iX>G. xi. 30. Thefe places relating to Abra- 
 ham ia»d' Jephthah are cited only niitb rr/peii to the nstion luhich 
 thife primitinje ixiarriors may be J aid to hame entertained ccncfrning 
 this horrid encrmitu fo common amongji the inhabitants of the 
 Paleftine and other neighbouring nations. It oppean that even 
 the elder of thefe Hebrew princes ivas under no extreme furprtfe 
 en this trying re'velation. Nor did he think of exp-Jlu latino , in the 
 leaf J on this occafeon ; 'tx:hen ot another time he could he fo impor- 
 tunate for the pardon of an inhofpitable, murderous^ impious, and 
 hicefliious city; Gen. xviii. 23, iJc. Charaft, vol. iii. p. 124. 
 
 Dr. Stebbing will needs try his ftrength with the noble Author 
 of the Charaiterijlics. For, whether I quote tor approbation or 
 condemnation, it is all one ; this adlive Watchman of the Church 
 militant will let nothing, efcape him, thjt he finds in my fervice ; 
 nor leave any thing unpurified that has once pafTed through my 
 iiands. To this paflage of the noble Lord he replies, " The 
 
 " cafes 
 
5e(5t. 5. - of Mqse% demonjlrated, 269 
 
 why Abraham, infteac^ of being under any extreme 
 furprife, was (as Jesus aflures us) under an extreme 
 joy, was becaufe he underftood th^ Command to be 
 a communication of that Myftery in which, he had 
 fo earneftly requefted to participate; and, con- 
 fequently, that Ifaac muft needs, at length, come 
 fefe and unhurt from that fcenical reprefentation, 
 in which he bore the principal part. 
 
 2.-r-That Sir John Marlham's fufpicionof Abra- 
 ham's being llruck by a fuperftitious imagination** 
 
 is 
 
 ** cafes widely differ. God did not open precifely what he in- 
 *' tended to do with thefe wicked cities ; only laid, Judgment 
 *• was pafled. But what has this to do with Ifaac, who did 
 " not ftand as a finner before God; but as a Sacrifice, acknow- 
 " ledging God's fovereign dominion. For Abraham to inter- 
 '* ceed here would have inferred a reludancy to do homage, 
 •* which would have deftroyed the perfeftion of his refigna- 
 " tion." [Hift. of Abr. p. 41 — 42.] So, Ifaac's innocence 
 and his not ftanding a finntr before Gcd' when he was doomed 
 to death, makes him a lefs proper object of Abraham's inter- 
 ceffion and compaffion, than a devoted City, inhofpitable, mur- 
 derouif impious^ andincejiuous. This is our Doftor's humanity : 
 And a modeft petition of the Father of the faithful, like that 
 of the Saviour of the world, If it be poj/ible, let this cup pafs from 
 me, ne'verthelifs not as I nuill but as thou nuilt, would have de- 
 Jiroyed all the perfeiiion of his rejignation. And this is our Doftor's 
 divinity! Strange! that this Father of Orthodoxy could not 
 fee, that what might be done by the divine Antitype him- 
 felf, without defraying his perfeSIion of refignatiov, might like- 
 wife be done, without that lofs, in behalf of the 7ype^ After 
 fo fine a fpecimen of what great things he is able to do againft 
 this formiJable Enemy of Revelation ; what pity is it, he was 
 never fet on work by his Superiors, in a more avoiued and open 
 manner ? 
 
 '* -—Ex ijlis fatius eft colligere banc Ahrahami tenlationem tton 
 
 fttijfe )te)tciiviipfniJi,£inri\i ts^ot^i), aStionem innoijatam ; non recens ex- 
 
 cogitatam,fed adpriftinos Cananceorum mores def^nafam. Horrendi 
 
 facrijicii ufum apud Pbaenicesfrequentem indicat Porpkyrius : " Phffi- 
 
 •* nices, inquit, in magnis periculis ex bello, fame, peftilentia, 
 
 *♦ darif- 
 
270 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 IS as gronndlefs, as it is injurious to the holy Pa- 
 triarch. Nay, the very examples he gives might 
 have fhewn him the folly of fuch infinuations : 
 For, according to his inferences, Human Sacri- 
 fices were never offered but in cafes of great dif- 
 trefs : Now Abraham was at this time in a full 
 ftate of peace, fecurity, and affluence. 
 
 Thus, we prefume, it appears that this Command 
 was a mere information by action : and that, when 
 regarded in this view, all the objeftions againft 
 God's giving it to Abraham are abfolutely ener- 
 vated and overthrown. 
 
 For thus (lands the cafe. If the trial of Abra- 
 ham's faith and obedience were the commanding a 
 real facrifice, then was Abraham an Jgenf, and 
 not a bare Injlriiment j and then it might be pre- 
 tended that God commanded an human agent to 
 ad againft humanity. And, his right over his 
 Creatures cannot folve the difficulty, as it may 
 when he employs a mere inftrument to perform his 
 Will upon them. Butif the trial were only the com- 
 manding a fcenical reprefentation, the command 
 had no moral import \ and confequently, Abraham 
 was not put upon any thing morally wrong j as 
 is the offering up a human facrifice. 
 
 I have tranfcribed into the notes as I have gone 
 along, fome of the moft confiderablc Objedions 
 my Adverfaries have been able to oppofe to this 
 interpretation of the command to Abraham : 
 which, I prefume, when fairly confidered, will be 
 
 •♦ clarifilmorum aliquem ad id fuffragiis publicis deleftum, fa- 
 " crificabaiit Saturno. Et viclimarum talium plena eft Sanchu- 
 •« niathonis hiftoriu Phcenicice fcripta, quam Philo Biblius Giajce 
 " inteiprttatus eft libris odo." Canon. Chron, p. 79. 
 
 no 
 
Sed. 5. cf Moses demonjirated, 271 
 
 no light confirmation of it. But, as I have no 
 notions to advance, not founded in a fi nee re de fire 
 to find out, and do honour to. Truth, I would by- 
 no means take advantage of an Adverfary's weak- 
 nefs to recommend them to the public favour. I 
 hold it not honeft, therefore, to conceal the force of 
 an Objedion which I myfelf have to offer, by far 
 more plaufible than any that thefe learned Divines 
 have urged againft it. The objeftion is this, 
 ** That it is difficult to conceive why a circum- 
 stance of fuch importance to Revelation, which 
 removes one of the ftrongeft arguments againft 
 its truth, and at the fame time, manifells a real 
 CONNEXION between the two Difpenfations of it, 
 fhould never be dired:ly and minutely explained 
 and infilled on, by the Writers of the New Tefta- 
 ment, tho* Abraham's Hiftorian might have had 
 his reafons for concealing it." Now, to my own 
 Objedlion, I fuppofe, I may have leave to reply. 
 That many truths of great importance, for the 
 fupport of Religion againft Infidelity, were taught 
 by Jefus to his Difciples (amongft which, I reckon 
 this Interpretation to be one) which never came 
 down, by their conveyance, to the Church. But 
 being, by the affiftance of God's Holy Spirit, dif- 
 coverable by thofe who devote themfelves to the 
 ftudy of the Scriptures with a pure mind, have, 
 for the wife ends of Providence (many of which 
 are infcrutable to us) been left for the induftry 
 of men to find out: that, as occafion required, 
 every Age might fupply new evidence of God's 
 Truth, to put toftlence the ignorance of fooliJJj men : 
 and in proportion as the Powers of Darknefs pre- 
 vailed, fo might the Gofpel-light break out again 
 with frefh fplendor to curb and reprefs them. In 
 fupport of what is here faid, I beg the Reader to re- 
 
 fiea 
 
272 ^be Divine Legation BookVL 
 
 fle6t on what is told us by the Evangelift, of the 
 converfation between Jesus (after his Refurredlion) 
 and the two Difciples journeying to Emmaus j where 
 their Mafter fays unto them, fools, and flow of heart 
 to believe all that the Prophets havefpoken ! Ought not 
 Chrift to have fuffered tbefe things^ and to enter into 
 his glory P Jnd beginning at Moses, and all the Pro- 
 phets, HE EXPOUNDED UNTO THEM, the things Con- 
 cerning himfelf ^ Now, who can doubt but that 
 many things were at this time revealed, which, 
 had they been delivered down to Pofterity, ia 
 Writing, would have greatly contributed to the 
 improvement of Eufebius's Evangelical Demonflra- 
 ticn? Yet hath Providence thought lit to order 
 matters otherwife. But, that the Apoftles ufed, 
 and made a good ufe too, of thofe Expositions, 
 long fince forgotten and loft, we have great reafon 
 to beheve from their amazing fuccefs in the conver- 
 fion of the world, by fuch an application of Mofes 
 and the Prophets, to Chrift. And if I be not much 
 deceived, amongft the Truths thus inforced, that, 
 which I prefume to have difcovered in the Com- 
 mand to Abraham, held no inferior place. Let the 
 unprejudiced Reader judge. St. Paul, making his 
 Apology before king Agrippa, concludes his De- 
 fence in thefe words: Having therefore obtained help 
 of God, I continue unto this day witnejfmg both tofmall 
 and great, faying none other things than thofe which 
 the Prophets, and Moses did say should come: 
 that Chv'i^ Jhouldfuffer, and that he floouldbe thefirft 
 that fhould rife from the dead'^. The Greek is rather 
 ftronorer, in predicating this circumftance of 
 
 Mofes - «!/ Tf 0» VOQ^PnTAl iXoiKnCXV ^t-iXKoVTUV 
 
 p Luke xxiv. ver, 2^, 26, 27. ^ Acts xxvI. ver. 22, 
 
 23, and to the fame purpofe, chap. .viii. ver. 31.' 
 
Sed. 5- ' ?/^ MasES demonjirated. 273 
 
 yin<T^xi, KAI MnSHZ. Now where, let me afk^ 
 ih all his Writings, but in the Command to Abra- 
 ham^ is there the lead trace of any ilich cir- 
 cvimftance, as that Chrifi jJoould fuffer and that he 
 Jhould be the fir jl that jhould rife f torn the dead? Nor 
 is it to be found there, unlefs the Command be un- 
 derftood in the fenfe I have given to it.— — - 
 
 But this is the (late in which it hsth pleafed 
 Providence to place the Church of Chrifi : With 
 abundant evidence in hand, to fupport itfelf againfl 
 the attacks of Infidelity j yet much of this divine 
 Treafure left fealed up, to exercife our Faith and 
 (in time of need) to excite our Indujlry : for it 
 v^as not the intent of Providence that one of 
 thefe virtues fnould thrive at the expence of the 
 other; but that Induflry fhould as well be re- 
 warded by a fuccefsful fearch, as Faith^ by peace 
 in believing. Therefore when my learned Advef' 
 fary% in order, I will believe, to advance the 
 Ghriflian Faith, would difcourage Chriftian Induf- 
 try, by calumniating, and rendering fufpedled 
 what he is pleafed to call experiments in Reli- 
 gion, it is, I am afraid, at beft but a Zeal with- 
 out knowledge. Indeed, M. Pafcal alcribes this 
 contempt of experiinents to a different caufe. — 
 Ceux qui font capables de inventer font rares ; 
 (fays he) Ceux qui n' inventent point font en plus 
 grand nombre, & par confequent, les plus fortes ; 
 et voila pourquoi, lors que les Inventeurs cher- 
 chent la gloire qu' ils meritent, tout ce qu' ils y 
 gagnent, c'eft qu'on les traite de Visionnaires. 
 It is true, if men will come to the ftudy of Scrip- 
 ture with unwafhen hands, that is, without a due 
 reverence f6r the dignity of thofe facred Volumes, 
 
 ^ Dr. Stebbing. 
 
 Vol. V. T or. 
 
2/4 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 or, which is as ill, with unpurged heads ; that is, 
 heads ftuffed with bigot-fyitems, or made giddy 
 with cabbaliftic flights, they will delerve that title 
 which Pafcal obferves is lb unjuftly given to thofe 
 who deferve beil of the Public. 
 
 But to return to thofe with whom I have prin- 
 cipal concern. I make no queflion but my Free- 
 thinking Adverfaries, to whofe temper and talents 
 I am no ftranger, will be ready to objedl, 
 
 I. " That the giving a folution of a difficulty in 
 the Old Teitament by the aiTiftance of the NeWy 
 confidered together as making up one intire Dif- 
 penfation, is an unfair way of arguing againft an 
 Unbeliever : who fuppofing both the Jewifh and 
 Chriftian Religions to be fcilfe^ of confequence 
 fuppofes them to be independent on one another ; 
 and that this pretended relation was a contrivance 
 of the Authors of the later impofture to give it 
 llrength, by ingrafting the young flioot into the 
 trunk of an old flourifhing Supertlition. There- 
 fore, will they fay, if we would argue with fuccefs 
 againft them, we muft feek a folution of their 
 difficulties in that Religion alone, from which they 
 arife." — Thus I may fuppofe them to argue. 
 And I apprehend they will have no reafon to fay 
 I have put worfe arguments into their mouths 
 than they are accuftomed to employ againft Reve- 
 lation. 
 
 I reply then, that it will admit of no dlfpute, 
 but that, if they may have the liberty of turning 
 Judaism and Christianity into two Fantoms of 
 their own devifmg, they will have a very eafy vic- 
 tory over Both. This is an old trick, and has been 
 often tried with fuccels. By this flight-of-hand 
 
 con- 
 
Se(5t. 5. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated, 275 
 
 conveyance Tyndal hath juggled fools out of their 
 Religion. For, in a well known book written by 
 him againft Revelation, he hath taken advantage 
 of the indifcretion of fome late Divines to lay i-c 
 down as a Principle, that Chrijlianity is only a 
 republication of the Religion of Nature : The confe- 
 quence of which is, that Christianity and Ju- 
 daism are independent Inftitutions. But fure the 
 Deift is not to obtrude his own Inventions, in the 
 place of thofe Religions he endeavours to over- 
 throw. Much lefs is he to beg the quefiion of their 
 falfity, as the laying it down that the Jevvifh and 
 Chriftian are two independent Religions, certainly 
 is : becaufe Chriftanicy claims many of its nume- 
 rous Titles to divinity from and under Judaifm. 
 If therefore Deifts will not, ye: Cliriftians of ne- 
 ceffity muft, take their Religion as they find it. 
 Arfd if they will remove obieftions to either 
 CEconomy, they muft reafon on the Principle 
 of Dependency. And while they do fo, their rea- 
 fonings will not only be fair and logical, but every 
 folution, on fuch a Principle, will befides its 
 determination on the particular point in queftion, 
 be a new proof of the divinity of Both, in gene- 
 ral •, becaufe fuch a relation, connexion, and de- 
 pendency between two Religions of fo diftant timei=, 
 could not come about by chance, or by human 
 contrivance, but muft needs be the effed of Di- 
 vine previfion. For a Deift, therefore, to bid us 
 remove his objeflions on the principle of indepen- 
 dency^ is to bid us prove our religion true on a prin- 
 ciple that implies its falfhood% the Nev/ Tefta- 
 ment giving us no other idea of Chriftianity than 
 as of a Religion dependent on, conneded with, 
 and the completion of Judaifm. 
 
 T 2 But 
 
276 ^he Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 But now fuppofe us to be in this excefs of com- 
 plaifance for our Adverfaries •, and then fee whether 
 the ingenuity of their acceptance would not equal the 
 reafonablenefs of their demand. Without doubt, 
 were we once fo foolifh to fwallow their Chimeras 
 for the heavenly Manna of Revelation, we fhould 
 have them amongft the firft to cry out upon the 
 prevarication. 1 fpeak not this at random. The 
 fad hatk already happened. Certain advocates of 
 Religion, unable to reconcile to their notions of 
 logic, the fenfe of fome Prophecies in the Old 
 Teftament, as explained in the applicatiots of the 
 "Writers of the New, thought it belt to throw afide 
 the care of the Jewish Religion, (a burden which 
 they could as ill bear as the rebellious Ifraelites 
 themlelves) and try to fupport the Christian, 
 by proving its divine Original, independently and 
 from itfelf alone. Upon this Mr. Collins (fori 
 have chofen to inftance in thefe two general dealerg 
 in Free-thinking-, the fmall retailers of it vanifliing 
 as fail as they appear ; for who now talks of Blount 
 or Coward; or who hereafter will talk of Strutt or 
 Morgan ' ?) that the world may fee how little they 
 agreed about their own principles, or rather how 
 little regard they paid to any principles at all ; 
 Mr. Collins, I fay, wrote a book to exclaim againft: 
 our ill faith ; and to remind us of, and to prove to 
 us, the inleparable connexion between the Old and 
 New Teilament. This was no unfeafonable reproof, 
 howfoever intended, for lb egregious a folly. I 
 well endeavour to profit by it •, and manage this 
 Controverfy on their own terms. For whatever 
 
 • This man, not long fince, wrote againft the D. L. under 
 the name of a Society of Free- thinker i : by the fame kind of 
 figure, I fuppofe, that He in the Gofpel called himfclf Legion, 
 who was only the forwardclt Devil of the Crew. 
 
 pre- 
 
Sed. 5. c/" M o s E s demonjlrated. 2jj 
 
 prevarication appeared in the Objedlors, I conceiv- 
 ed they had demanded no more than what they 
 might reafonably expeft. But the advantages 
 arifing to us from this management foon made 
 them draw back, and retra6l what they had de- 
 manded ; and now they chicane with us for call- 
 ing in the afliftance of the New Teftament to 
 repel their attacks upon the Old ' ; while, at the 
 
 fame 
 
 * But I miftake. Unbelievers, I think, are not yet quite 
 fo fhamelefs. The objeftion, in form, comes from another 
 quarter. It is Dr. Stebbing, who for the honour of the Church, 
 makes it for them. He will not allow that the words of Jelus 
 are of any validity to fupport my interpretation of the Command 
 to Abraham, becaufe Unbelievers will not admit the infpiration 
 of the New Teftament. But what then ; they have not yet 
 difputed with me my interpretation of the Cotnmatiii. No body 
 hath done this but Dr. Stebbing. And I hope the Authority 
 of Jefus will ftand good againfl:him. He was in hafte to do 
 their bufmefs for them : and it mult be confefied by an argument 
 that does equal credit to his logic and his piety. 
 
 Fair reafoners of all parties will fee, tho' Dr. Stebbing will 
 not, that the queftion is not particular^ concerning the in/pira- 
 tion of the Old and New I'eftament ; but general, of the 
 connexion bet\veen.i^hem ; and thofe will not be fo unreafonable 
 to expeft 1 iliould prove this connexion, of which they afk a 
 proof, any otherwife than by applying each reciprocally to explain 
 and to fupport the other. If the two Teflaments be fhewn to 
 do this ; while on the other hand, when fingly confidered, and 
 without each others mutual afliftance, they are inexplicable, 
 the connexion between them is fairly made out. The objedlion 
 of Unbelievers ftands thu?. " You pretend (fay they) that 
 thefe two Difpenfations are two conftituent/>ar/j of God's great 
 moral CEconomy : If this be true, they mull needs have a ftrong 
 connexion and near relation to one another. Shew us this con- 
 nexion and relation : and amufe us no longer with proving the 
 divinity of this or that Diff-enfation feparately, as if each were 
 independent on the other." I comply with their demand : 
 And now Dr. Stebbing tells me, 1 take this or that Revelation 
 for granted which I fhould have proved. Whereas in truth I 
 take nothing for granted but what Unbelievers are ready to prove 
 againlt rae, if 1 did not ; namely, that between two Difpenfa- 
 
 T 3 tieas. 
 
27S ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 fame time they think themfelves at liberty to life 
 the afiillance of the Old to overthrow the New. 
 Le: the Friends of Revelation, however, conftantly 
 and uniformly hold the infcparable connexion be- 
 tween the two DifpenfatioRS ; and then, let our 
 Enemies, if they will, as they fairly may, take 
 all the advantages they fancy they have againft: us, 
 from the neccfiity we lie under of fo doing. 
 
 In a word, We give them, Judaifm and Chrifti- 
 anity as Religions equally from Heaven •, with that 
 reciprocal dependence on each other which arifes 
 between two things bearing the mutual relation of 
 foundation and fnperjlru£lure. They have it in their 
 choice to oppofe ourpretenfions, either by dilputing 
 with us that dependency, or raifing difficulties on 
 the foot of it. But while they only fuppofe it vi- 
 fionary •■, and then argue againft each Religion on 
 that iuppofition, they only beg the queftion. And 
 while they do that, we keep within the rules of 
 good logic, when we remove their objections on 
 that principle of dependency laid down in Scripture. 
 This reftriftive rule of interpretation being how- 
 ever flill obferved, That, in explaining any diffi- 
 culty in the Old Teftament, we never, on pretence 
 of fuch dependency^ forfake the genius and manners 
 of the times in queftion, and ferve ourfelves of 
 thofe of the later Chriftian period, as Collins (whe- 
 ther truly or no, let I'hem look to, who are con- 
 cerned in it) upbraids fom.e defenders of Chriftanity 
 
 t'ons the one pretended io be preparatory to the other, there 
 mull nceJ^ be a Ihong and near connexion and relation. And 
 jf, in the covirfe of evincing this connexion, 1 urge fome 
 ciiciimnanccs in the Jewilh to fupport the Chiiitian, and 
 othi?^i in the Chriftian to fupport the Jewilli, this, I fuppofe, 
 i? noi taking for urnniedxhe truth either of one Or the other, 
 \)<ix. fn'ving the divinity of both- 
 
 for 
 
Se6:. ^. of Mo SF.S demofjjrafe J. 279 
 
 fordoing. This rule is here, I prefume, obferved 
 with fufficient exadnefs ; the foundation of my in- 
 terpretation of the Command being that ancient mode 
 of converfe, fo much at that time in ufe, of ccnverf- 
 ing hy anions. 
 
 II. But the Adverfaries of Revelation, how 
 eafily foever they may be confuted, are notfoeafily 
 filenced. They are ready to obje6t, that we fly 
 to the old exploded refuge of a type, which the 
 Author of the Grounds and Reafons of the Chrijiian 
 Religion hath fhewn to be viftonary and fenfelefs -, the 
 mere illogical whimfy of Cabaliftic Jews. To this 
 I anfwer, 
 
 1. They are doubly miftaken. This interpre- 
 tation is not founded in any typical lenfe whatfo- 
 ever-, the perfon of Ifaac on the Mount being no 
 more a "Type of Chrift than the fix letters that com- 
 pofe the name are a ^ype of him -, but only an 
 arbitrary mark to ftand for the idea of Chrift^ as 
 that word does. So that their cry againft "Typjs, 
 "whatever force it may have, does not at all affeft 
 this interpretation. 
 
 2. But fecondly I fay, A type is neither ^'//7- 
 cnary^ nor fenfelefs^ notwithftanding the difgrace 
 ■which this mode of information hath undergone 
 by the mad abufes of Fanaticifm and Superilition. 
 On the contrary, I hold it to be a juft and reafonable 
 manner of denoting one thing by another : not the 
 creature of the imagination, made out of nothing 
 to ferve a turn •, but as natural and appofite a 
 figure as any employed in human converfe. For 
 "Types arofe from that original mode of communi- 
 cation, the cowjerfing hy actions : the difference 
 there is between thefe two modes of information 
 
 T 4 being 
 
2 8© ^t>e Divine Legation Bo(5k VI. 
 
 being only this, that, where the a6tion is /imply 
 fignificative^ it has no moral import : For example, 
 when Ezekiel is bid to JJjave his beard, to iveigh the 
 hair in . balances, to divide it into three parts, to burn 
 one, tojlrike another with a knife, and to fcatter ths 
 third part in the wind", this adlion having no moral 
 import is mejfcly Jignif eat ive of information given. 
 But when the Ifraeht^s are commanded to take a 
 male lamb without blemiJJj, and the zvhole ajjhnhly cf the 
 congregation to kill it, and to fprinkle the blood upon the 
 deer-polls'^, this adion having a moral import as be- 
 ing a religious Rite, and, at the fame time, repre- 
 jent^tive of Ibmething future, is properly typical. 
 Hence arofe the miftake of the Interpreters of the 
 CGvmiand to offer Ilaac. Thefe men fuppofing the 
 idlion commanded to have a moral import, as being 
 only for a trial of Abraham's faith-, and, at the 
 fame ,time, feeing in it the mod exa6l refemblance 
 of the death of Christ, very wrongly concluded 
 that aftion to be typical which w^s intxtXy fignijica- 
 five: and by this means, leaving in the adlion a moral 
 import, fubjeded it to all thofe cavils of infidelity, 
 which, by taking away all moral import, as not be^ 
 Jonging to it, are here entirely evaded. 
 
 But it being of the higheft importance to Reve- 
 lation in general, and not a little conducive to the 
 fupport of our arguments for the Divine Legation 
 of Mofes in particular, to Ihew the logical truth 
 and propriety of Types in a^ion, zridi Secondary fenfi\s 
 in fpeech, I (hall take the prefent opportunity to 
 fift this matter to the bottom. For having occafj- 
 cnally fh^wn, in feveral parts of the preceding Dif- 
 pourfe, that the references in the law to the cos- 
 f g|. are in typical reprefentations, znd fecondary fenfes j 
 
 » Ezp, V. ^ ExoD. xii. 5, 6, 7. 
 
 and 
 
Se(!t. 6. of 'b^lo^'E^ demonjlrated, 28 j 
 
 and the truth of Chriftianity depending on the real 
 relation (which is to be dilcovered by fuch refer- 
 ences) between the two Difpenfations, it will be 
 incumbent on me to prove the logical truth and 
 propriety of types in adtion, and secondary 
 SENSES in fpeech. 
 
 And I enter on this fubjeft with the greater plea- 
 fure, as one of the moft plaufibie books ever writ- 
 ten, or likely to be written, againft Chriftianity is 
 intirely levelled at them. In this enquiry I fhall 
 purfue the fame method I have hitherto taken with 
 unbelieving Writers ; examine only the grounds and 
 principles on which they go •, and having removed 
 and overthrown thefe, in as few words as I am 
 able, leave the fuperftrudure to lupport itfelf, as 
 it may. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 TH E book I fpeak of is intitled, A Bifcourfe 
 of the Grounds and Reafons of the Chrijlia» 
 Religion^ written, as is generally fuppofed, by Mr. 
 Collins ', a Writer, whofc dexterity in the arts of 
 Controverfy was fo remarkably contrafted by his 
 abilities in reafoning and literature, as to be ever 
 putting one in mind of what travellers tell us of 
 the genius of the proper Indians, who, altho' the 
 verieft bunglers in all the fine arts of manual opera- 
 tion, yet excel every body in flight of hand and 
 the delufive feats of adlivity. 
 
 The purpofe of his book is to prove that Jesus 
 v;as an impoftor : and his grand argument ftands 
 thus, — *' Jesus (as he (hews) claims under the pro- 
 mifed MelTiah of the Jews ; and propofes himfelf 
 as the Deliverer prophefied of ii) their facred 
 
 Books i 
 
282 ^he Dro'ine Legation Book VI, 
 
 Books ; yet (as he attempts to fhew) none of thefe 
 Prophefies can be nnderilood of Jesus but in a 
 fc con dary fell fe only ; now a fecondary fenfe (as he 
 pretends) is fanatical, chimerical, and contrary to 
 all fcholaftic rules of interpretation : Confequently, 
 Jesus not being prophefied of in the Jewifti 
 Writings, his pretenfions are falfe and groundlefs." 
 — His conciufion, the reader fees, Hands on the 
 joint fupport of thefe two Propofitions, That there 
 is no Jewjjh Prophecy zvhich relates /<? Jesus in a 
 frimary fenfe-, and That a fee or. dary fenfe is enthu- 
 fiaftical and unfcholaftic. If either of thefe fail, 
 hir, phantom of a conciufion finks again into nO' 
 thing. 
 
 Tho' I fhall not omit occafionally to confute the 
 firft, yet it is the falflioodof the fecond I am prin- 
 cipally concerned to expofc— That there are Jew- 
 ifh prophecies which relate to Jesus in their direft 
 and primary fenfe, hath been proved with much 
 force of reafon and learning: But, th-^t fecondary 
 Prophecies are not enthuftajlical and unfcholaftic, hath 
 not been ihewn and infifted on, by the Writers on 
 this queftion, with the fame advantage. The 
 truth is, the nature of a double sense in Pro- 
 phecies hath been fo little feen or enquired into, 
 that fome Divines who agree in nothing elfe, have 
 yet agreed to fecond this affertion of Mr. Collins, 
 and with the fame franknefs and confidence to 
 pronounce x.h2X2i double fenfe is indeed enthufiaftical 
 and unfcholaftic. To put a ftop therefore to this 
 growing evil, fown firft by Socinus, and fince be- 
 come fo peftilent to Revelation, is not amongft- 
 the laft purpofes of the following difcourfe. 
 
 I. It hath been fliewn, that one of the moft 
 ancient and fimple Modes of human convcrfe was 
 
 com- 
 
Sedt. 6. of Moses demonflrafed, 28 j 
 
 communicating the conceptions by an expreflive 
 Action. As this was of familiar ufe in Civil mat- 
 ters, it was natural to carry it into Religious^ 
 Hence, we fee God giving his inftrudions to the 
 Prophet, and the Prophet delivering God's com- 
 mands to the People in this very manner. Thus 
 far the nature of the attion, both in civil and re- 
 ligious matters, is exactly the fame. 
 
 But in Religion it fometimes happens that a 
 STANDING Information is necelTary, and there the 
 Adlion muft be continually repeated : This is done 
 by holding out the particular Truth, (thus to be 
 preferved) in a rehgious i?;V^. Here then the Ac- 
 tion begins to chaage its nature ; and, from a mere 
 fignificative mark, of only arbitrary import like 
 words or letters, becomes an ad;ion of moral import^ 
 and acquires the new name of type. Thus God, 
 intending to record the future facrifice of Christ 
 in Adion, did it by the periodic Sacrifice of a lamb 
 'without hlemijh. This was not merely and fo direct- 
 ly fignificative of Christ, (like the Command to 
 Abraham) but being a religious Rite and fo having 
 2l moral import^ it \J2i% typical^ tho' not directly 
 fignificative^ of him. The very fame may be faid 
 of the Temporal rewards of the Law ; they were 
 properly typical of the Spiritual rewards of the 
 Gofpel, and had a moral import of their ovvn, as be- 
 ing the real fandion of the Law. 
 
 Again, It hath been fhewn ^, how, in the gra- 
 dual cultivation of Speech, the expreflion by Ac^ 
 ;/^?; was improved and refined into an allegory 
 or Parable j in which the words carry a double 
 meaning i having befides their obvious fenfe which 
 
 y Vol. iv. p. 322, 323, 
 
 ferves 
 
^he Dhine Legation Book VI. 
 
 ferves only for the Envelope, one more material, 
 and hidden. With this figure of fpeech all the mo- 
 ral writings of Antiquity abound. But when this 
 figure is transferred from Civil ufe to Religious, and 
 cm_pk)yed in the writings of infpired Men, to con- 
 v<?y information of particular circumftances in two 
 diftiflft Difpenfations, to a people who had an equal 
 concern in both^ it is then what we call a double 
 SENSE ; and undergoes the very fame change of its 
 nature that an expreffive a^ion underwent when 
 converted into a Type; that is, both the meanings, 
 in the DOUBLE SENSE, are of msralimporl ; where- 
 as in the Allegory^ one only of the meanings is fo : 
 And this, (which arifes out of the very nature of 
 their converfion, from Civil to Religious matters) 
 is the only difference between expreffive anions and 
 TYPES J and between allegories and double senses, 
 
 •^ From hence it appears, that as types are only 
 rehoious expreffive Anions, and double senses 
 enly religious Allegories, and neither receive any 
 change but what the very manner of bringing thofe 
 Civil figures into Religion neceffarily induces, they 
 muft needs have, in this their tralatitious flate, the 
 fame logical fitness they had in their naturals 
 
 There- 
 
 * lienee we fee the vanity of Mr. Whifton*^s diftinflion, 
 vk ho is for retaining Tyfes (neceflitated thereunto by the exprefs 
 declarations of Holy Writ) and for rejeding double fenfes, 
 *' Mx. Whifton (fays the author of the Grounds, Is'c.) juftifies 
 **■ typical arguing /^e;w ibe ritual la<vji p/"]VIofes, and from paJJ'a- 
 V ges of H'Jlory in the Old Tejiament. — Indeed he pretends 
 f ibis lall to be quite anoiker thing from the odd (typical) appli^ 
 *' cation of prophecies. For (fays he) the ancient ceremonial in- 
 *' ftitutions were, as to their principal branches, at leaf in thetr 
 •* eiiin nature. Types and fhadows of future good things -»• 
 ** But the Cffe cf the ancient prophecies to be alled^ed from the old 
 ** Scriptures for the confirmation of Chriftanity is quite cf another 
 *' ,Mtitrey and of a more nice and ex a^ confidcratian" p. 227, 228, 
 
Se6l. 6. of Mos ts demonflraUd. 285 
 
 Therefore as expreffive A5iions, &nd .^llegmesy m 
 Civil difcoLirfes, are efteemed proper and reaToaa- 
 ble modes of information, fo muft types arad 
 DOUBLE SENSES in Religious ; for the end of botk 
 is the fame, namely, communication -of know- 
 ledge. The confequence of this is, that Mr. 
 Collins' propofition, that a fecondnry or double fenfe 
 is enthufiafiical and unfcholafiic, fthe necelfary fup- 
 port of his grand Argument) is intirely OV667. 
 thrown. 
 
 This is the true and fimple origin of types and 
 DOUBLE SENSES; which our Adverfaries, thro' ig- 
 norance of the rife and progrefs of Speech, a«d 
 unacquaintance with ancient Manners, have info- 
 lently treated as the idue of diftempered brains, and 
 the fondlings of Vifionaries and Enthufiafts. 
 
 II. Having thus Ihewn their logical -propriety, or 
 that they are rational Modes of information,;!-,- 
 come now to vindicate their Religious ufe, and to 
 Ihew that they are well fuited to that Religion in 
 which we find them employed. An Objedljon 
 which, I conceive, may be made to this ufe, will 
 lead us naturally into our Argument. The objec- 
 tion is this : " It hath been fhewn % that thefe ob- 
 lique Modes of converfe, tho' at firft invented 
 out of jtecej/ily, for general information, were em- 
 ployed, at length, 10 z.myJlerious fecretion of know- 
 It appears, indeed, they are of a more nut and exa8 <onfidera~ 
 tion, even from Mr. Whilton's fo much millalcing them, as ta 
 fuppofe they are of a 7iature quite d'tffe'-ent from Types, Bui in- 
 Head of telling us honelHy that he knew not what to m^ke of 
 them, he plays the courtier and difmijTes them, for a more nisi 
 a nd ex ail conjideration, 
 
 * Vol. iv. p. 323, i^ ft(i. 
 
 kdge-. 
 
2S6 7lje Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 ledge; which tho' it might be expedient, ufeful, 
 and even neceflary both in civil matters and in 
 
 FALSE RELIGION, COllld neVCF bc fo in MORAL MAT- 
 TERS and in the true Religion ; for this having 
 nothing to hide from any of its followers, Types 
 and Double fenfes (the fame my fterious conveyance 
 of knowledge in Sacred matters, which Allegoric 
 words or Anions are in Civil) were altogether unfit 
 to be employed in it." 
 
 To this I anfwer. The Jewish religion, in 
 which thefe Types and Secondatj fenfes are to be 
 found, was given to one fingle People only ; juft as 
 the Christian is offered to all Mankind : Now the 
 Chriftian, as Mr. Collins "^ hlmfelf labours to prove, 
 profeffes to be grounded on the Jewifli. If there- 
 fore Chriftianity was not only profefledly, but really 
 grounded on Judaifm (and the fuppofition is ftridly 
 logical in a defence oi Types and Double fenfes^ whole 
 reality depends on the reality of that relation) 
 then Judaifm was preparatory to Chriftianity, and 
 Chriftianity the ultimate end of Judaifm : But it is 
 not to be fuppofed that there fhould be an intire 
 filence concerning this ultimate Religion during the 
 preparatory, when the fiolice of it was not only 
 
 •> *' Chrijlianity is founded on Judai/m, and the New Tefta- 
 <* ment on the Old ; and Jesus is the perfon Hiid in the New 
 •* Teftament to be promifed in the Old, under the charadcr of 
 ** the Messiah of the Je-u^i, who, as fuch only claims the 
 «* obedience and fubmiffion of the world. Accordingly it is 
 *• the defign of the authors of the New, to prove all the parts 
 •^ of Chrijliatnty from the Old Tellamcnt, which is faid to con- 
 *• tain the mcordt of eternal life, and to reprefent Jesus and his 
 *' apgilles as fulfilling by their miflion, doftrines, and works, 
 *« the prediftions of the Prophets, the hiltorical parts of the Old 
 *' Tcftamenc, and the Jewilh Law ; which lalt is exprefly faid 
 *• to prophe/y of, or fjiij) Chrillianicy." Graunjs and Rcafons, 
 
 i^c. p. 4, 5. 
 
 highly 
 
Scd. 6. of Most. % demoiiflrated. 2S7 
 
 highly proper, but very expedient: i.firft, to draw 
 thole under the preparatory Religion, by juib de- 
 'grees to the ultimate •, a provifion the more necef- 
 fary, as the nature and genius of the two Religions 
 were different, the one carnal, the other fpiritual. 
 2. fecondly, to afford convincing evidence to fu- 
 ture Ages of the truth of that Ultimate Religion ; 
 which evidence, a circumftantial prediftion of its 
 advent and nature fo long before hand, effe6lually 
 does afford ^ The Ultimate Religion therefore 
 muft have had fome notice given of it, in the Pre- 
 paratory ; and nothing was better fitted for this 
 purpofe than the hyperbolical genius of the eailern 
 Speech. Thus, when Ifaiah fays. Unto us a child 
 is hortiy unto us a fon is given^ and the government 
 jhall be upon his Jlooulder : And his name jjj all he call- 
 ed^ Wonderful^ Councellor^ ^he mi'ghty Gody the ever^ 
 lafiing Father^ the Prince of Peace ^ Mr. Collins ob- 
 ferves, it is the eaftern hyperbole which prevents 
 our feeing that a Jewifh Monarch is literally and 
 direflly fpoken of. Should we allow this, yet we 
 Itill fee, thatfuch a language was admirably fitted 
 
 * The Bilhop of London, in his Di/courfes on the XJfe and Intent 
 cf Prophejy^ feemed to have but a {lender idea of this ufe when 
 he wrote as follows — " There was no occafion (fays he) to 
 ** lay in fo long before hand the evidence of prophecy, to con- 
 " vince men of things that were to happen in their own times : 
 *' and it gives us a lonu idea of the adminiji ration of Providence 
 *' in fending Prophets one after another in every age from Adam 
 ** to Chrift, to imagine that all this apparatus was for their fakes 
 ** who lived in or after the times of Chrift." p. 37. But 
 fuch is the way of thefe Writers who have a favourite dodlrine 
 to inforce. The truth of that dodrine (if it haf)pen to be a 
 truth) is fupported at the expence of all others. Thus his 
 Lordfhip, fetting himfelf to prove that Prophecv <v:as gi'ven prin- 
 cipally tojupport the faith and Religion of the World, tiiought he 
 could not iufficiently fecure his point without weakening and 
 xlifcrediting another of, at leaft, equal importance, — That it n.vas 
 gi'ven to affurd tejlimffny to the mijjion cf fefus, 
 
 ta 
 
288 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 to conneft together the Jirjt 3.ndfecond Senfes : the 
 hyperhle becoming a fimple fpeecB^ when transfer- 
 red from a Jewilli Monarch to the Monarch of the 
 world. 
 
 Our next inquiry will be, in ivhat manner this 
 notice muft needs be given. Now the nature of 
 the thing Ihews us it could not be direftly and 
 openly, fo as to be underftood by the People, at the 
 time of giving : becaufe this would have defeated 
 God's intermediate purpofe j which was to train 
 them, by a long difcipline, under his preparatory 
 Difpenfation. For, this being a Religion founded 
 only on temporal Sanations, and burdened with a 
 minute and tirefome Ritual^ had the People known 
 it to be only preparatory to another, founded on 
 better Promifes and eafier Obfervances, they would 
 never have born the yoke of the Law, but would 
 have Ihaken off their fubjedlion to Mofes before 
 the fulnefs of 'Time had brought their fpiritual De- 
 liverer amongft them-, as, without this knowledge, 
 they were but too apt to do, on every imaginary 
 profpe«5l of advantage. But St. Chrysostom will 
 inforce this obfervation with more advantage. 
 " Had the Jews (fays hej been taught from the 
 *' beginning that their Law was temporary and to 
 *' have an end, they would have certainly defpifed 
 *' it. On this account, it feemed good to the di- 
 *' vine Wifdom to throw a veil of obfcurity over the 
 " Prophecies which related to the Chriftian Dif- 
 *' penfation**.'* This information, therefore, was 
 to be delivered with caution ; and conveyed under 
 the covert language of their prefent QEconomy. 
 Hence arofe the fit and neceflary ufe of types and 
 SECONDARY SENSES. For the only fafe and laft- 
 
 *• Homilia prima, De prophetarum chfcuritate, 
 
 7 ^"S 
 
Sed. 6. of Mo s E s demonfirated. 289 
 
 ing means of conveyance were their public ritu- 
 al, and the writings of the prophets. 4-nd a 
 Speaking a£iion^ and d.n Allegoric fpeech^ when thus 
 employed, had all the fecrecy that the occafion 
 required. We have oblerved, that in the fimpler 
 ufe of fpeaking by A^ion^ the Adlion itfclf hath 
 no moral import : and lb, the information having 
 but one moral meaning, that which it conveys 
 is clear and intelligible. But where a Rite of 
 Religion is ufed for this Speaking allien, there 
 the adion hath a moral import ; and fo the informa- 
 tion having two moral meanings, that which it con- 
 veys is more obfcure and niyfterious Hence it 
 appears that this mode of fpeakmg by aRion^ called 
 a TYPE, is exadly fitted for the information in 
 queftion. Juft fo it is again with the secondary 
 SENSE : In the mere allegory^ the reprefenting 
 image has no moral import: mth^ fecojtdary fenfe^ 
 for a contrary reafon, (which the very terra 
 imports) the reprefenting image hath a moral im- 
 port J and fo, acquires the fame fitting obfcurity 
 with information by Types. For the typical Ritual, 
 and the double Prophecy, had each its obvious fenfe 
 in the prefent nature and future fortune of the 
 Jewifh Religion and Republic. And here we are 
 eafily led into the elTential difference (fo much to 
 the honour of Revelation) between the Pagan 
 Oracles or Prophecies, and the Jewilh, The 
 obfcurity of the Pagan arofe from the ambiguity^ 
 equivocation or jargon of expression i the obfcurity 
 of the Jewifh from the figurative reprefentation of 
 THINGS. The Firft (independent of any other Re- 
 ligion) proceeded from ignorance of futurity j the 
 Latter, dependent on the Chriftian, proceeded 
 from the necelTity that thofe to whom the Prophe- 
 cies were delivered Ihouid not have too full a know- 
 ledge of tlicm. 
 . Vol. V. U Or, 
 
290 ^he Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 Dr. Middleton, indeed, would fain perfuade us, 
 that the Oracles, or, as he chufes to call thetn, the 
 Prophecies of the Pythian Apollo, were neither bet- 
 ter nor worfe, but exadtly of the fame abfurd con- 
 ftrudtion with the Scripture Prophecies. He would 
 hardly venture to controvert what I have faid of 
 their logical fitnefs and propriety, as a mode of in- 
 formation in the abftra6t, becaufe this would fhew 
 him ignorant of the nature and progrefs of human 
 converle. Much lefs, I fuppofe, would he fay, that 
 this mode of information was not fuited to the 
 genius of the Jewifh Religion ; fmce he owns that 
 to be only a preparatory Syftem calculated to 
 open and to prepare the way for one moreperfe(ft; 
 and confeqnently, that it muft be ib contrived as 
 to connetl, and at the fame time to hide from the 
 vulgar eye, the two parts of the Difpenfation, and 
 the relation they have to one another. Now there 
 is no conceivable way of doing this but by types 
 and fccondary fenfes. What then occafioned this 
 infult upon them ? That which fupports all 
 our free Writers in their contemptuous treat- 
 ment of Religion, their miftaklng the abuse 
 of the thing for the thing itself ; and giving 
 the interpretations of men, or the Doctrines of 
 Churches, for Articles of faith or Scripture hiftory. 
 What hath been here faid will fhow the extreme 
 weaknefs of this ingenious man's parallel between 
 the Scripture Prophecies and the Oracles of the Py- 
 thian Apollo. — '' The PROPHECIES of the Pythian 
 *' Apollo (fays he) were indeed obibure, equivocal 
 *' and ambiguous, admitting not only different but 
 *' contrary fenfes ; lb that the charader here given 
 " of the Scripture Prophecies was undoubtedly 
 *' true of them, that no event could rejlraln them to 
 •* one deterniumte fenfe, when they zvere origi?ially 
 " capable of many. For if the obvious fcnfe failed, 
 
 as 
 
Se<fl. 6. g/^ Moses demonjl rated. i^gi 
 
 *' as it often did, to the ruin of thofe who adted 
 ** upon it," there was another always in referve, to 
 " fecure the veracity of the Oracle : till this very 
 ** charafter of its ambiguous and senigmatical 
 " lenfes, confirmed by conitant obfervation, gra- 
 " dually funk its credit and finally detec5led the 
 " impofture *"." The prophecies of the Pythian 
 Apollo were ohfcure, equivocal and ambiguous. And 
 this (fays he) was the character of the Scripture 
 Prophecies, Juft otherwife, as is ittn above. 
 Scripture Prophecies were ohfcure -, but the ob- 
 fcurity arofe neither from equivocation nor ambiguity 
 (which two qualities proceed from the expression) 
 but from the figurative reprefentation of things. 
 So that the obfcurity^ which the Pythian Oracle 
 and the Scripture Prophecies had in common, 
 arifingfrom the mod different grounds, the charac- 
 ter given of the Oracles, that no event could reflrain 
 them to one determinate fenfe when they were originally 
 capable of many^ by no means belongs to the Scrip- 
 ture Prophecies, whatever the men he writes 
 againft (who appear to know as little of the 
 DOUBLE SENSE of Prophccics as himfelf) might 
 imagine. For tho' equivocal and ambiguous expres- 
 sion may make a fpeech or writing, where the ob- 
 jedts are unconfined, capable of many fenfeSy yet 
 a figurative reprefentation of things can give no 
 more fenfes than two to the obfcureft Prophecy. 
 Hence it will follow, that while the expedient in 
 fupporting the Pythian Oracles, by having a fenfe 
 always in referve to fatisfy the inquirer, would gra- 
 dually fink their credit and fimally dete£l the inpofiure\ 
 the difcovery of a secondary sense of Prophe- 
 cy, relative to the completory Difpenfation, will 
 
 ' Examination of the Bifliop of London's Difcourfcs on Pro- 
 phecy, &c. p. 89-90. 
 
 U 2 necef. 
 
2<)i ^he 'Divine Legation Book. VI, 
 
 neceffarily tend to confirm and eftablifh the divine 
 origin of Scripture Prophecy. 
 
 Such was the wonderful ceconomy of divine 
 Wifdom, in connedting together two dependent 
 Religions, the parts of one grand Difpenfation : 
 by this means, making one preparatory of the 
 other; and each mutually to refle6t light upon the 
 other. Hence we fee the defperate humour of that 
 learned man, tho' very zealous chriftian \ who, 
 becaufe moft of the prophecies relating to Jesus, 
 in the Old Tellament, are of the nature defcribed 
 above, took it into his head that the Bible was 
 corrupted by the enemies of Jesus. Whereas, on 
 the very fuppofition of a mediate and an ultimate 
 Religion, which this good man held, the main 
 body of Prophecies in the Old Teftament relating 
 to the New, muit, according to all our ideas of fit- 
 nefs and expediency, needs be prophecies with a 
 DOUBLE SENSE. But it is the ufual fupport of 
 folly ro throw its ditlreiTcs upon knavery. And 
 thus, as we obfervcd, the Mahometan likewife, 
 who pretends to claim under the Jewifli religion, 
 not finding the doftrine of 2l future fiat e of rewards 
 and punifJjments in the Law, is as pofitive that the 
 Jews have corrupted tlieir own fcriptures in pure 
 fpite to his great Prophet ^. 
 
 III. Having 
 
 t Mr. Whlfton. 
 
 s This account of Typcn and fecondnry fcnfes, which fup- 
 pore=i they were intencled to conceal ths tlodrines delivered 
 under them, is To very natural, and, as would leem, reafonable, 
 that Dr. titcbbiii^; himfelf fubfctibes to it. And hence occafion 
 iias been taken by a moll acute and able Writer to expofe his 
 prt^arication, ia maintaining tiiat the lews had the rebelled Doc- 
 trine of a Future Siaic : For the Doftor not only confeiTes that 
 the DoiUine was revealed under Types, but tlwt Do.lrines, 
 
 thos 
 
Sfi(3:. 6. 5/' Moses demojijlrated. 293 
 
 III. Having thus fhewn the reafonable life and 
 great expediency of thefe modes of facred informa- 
 tion, under the Jewifli CEconomy ; the next que- 
 ftion is. Whether they be indeed there. This we 
 fhall endeavour to Ihew. — And that none of the ■ 
 common prejudices may lie againil our reafoning, 
 the example given fhall be of types and double 
 SENSES employed even in fubjeds relating to the 
 Jewijh dipenfation only. 
 
 I. The whole ordinance of the pajfover was a 
 TYPE of the redemption from Egypt. The ftriking 
 the blood on the fide-pofts, the eating flelh with 
 unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and in a po- 
 fture of departure and expedition, were all fignifi- 
 cative of their bondage and deliverance. This will 
 admit of no doubt, becaufe the Inftitutor himfelf 
 has thus explained the T^ype. — And thcufoalt Jhew 
 thy fon^ (fays he) in that day., [(^y'^'ng^ This is done 
 becaufe of that which the Lord did unto me, when 'I 
 came forth out of Egypt. And it fhall he afign unto, 
 thee upon thine hand., and for a memorial between thine 
 eyes ; that the Lord's law may he in thy mouth. 
 For with afirong hand hath the Lord brought thee 
 out of Egypt. 'Thou fhalt therefore keep this ordi- 
 nance in his feafon from year to year^. As there- 
 fore it was of the genius of thefe holy Rites to be 
 Typical or iignificative of God's paft, prefent, and 
 future Difpenfations to his people, we cannot in the 
 
 thu5 conveyed, were purpofely fecreted from the knowledge of 
 the ancient Jews. See the Argument of the Di'vine Legatiott 
 fairly Jlated', p. 125. And the free and candid Examination cf 
 Bijhop Sherlock's Sermons, &c. chap. ii. where the controverfy 
 on this point is fairly determined, as far as truth and lealbn c^ft 
 determine any thing. 
 
 ^ ExoD, viii. 8, iS feq. ^ 
 
 U ^ ?eaft 
 
294 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 leaft doubt, but that Mofes^ had he not been re- 
 trained by thofe important confiderations explain- 
 ed above, would have told them xh^LX. xht facrifice 
 of the lamb without blcmi/Ji was a Type, a fign or 
 memorial of the death of Christ. 
 
 2. "With regard to double senses, take this 
 inftance from Joel : who, in his prediftion of an 
 approaching ravage by Locujls, foretels likewife, 
 in the fame words, a fucceeding defolation by the 
 JJfyrian army. For we are to obferve that this 
 was God's method both in warning and inpunifh- 
 ing afinful people. Thus, when the /even nations 
 for their exceeding wickednefs were to be exter- 
 minated, God promifes his chofen people to fend 
 hornets before them, which fhould drive out the Hivite, 
 the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before them \ 
 Now Joel, under one and the fame Prophecy, 
 eoDtained in the firft and fecond Chapters of his 
 
 ' ExOD. xxif. 28. This, the author of the book called the 
 IVi/dim of Solomon admirably paraphrafes : — *' p'or it was thy 
 " will to deliroy by the bands of our fathers both thofe old 
 ** inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou hatedft for doinp- 
 ** mcrt odious works of witchcrafts, and wicked facrifices ; and 
 " alfo thofe mercilefs murderers of children, and devourers of 
 " man's flelh, and the fealls of blood, with their priefts out 
 " of the midft of their idolatrous crew, and the parents that 
 ** tilled, with their own hands, fouls dcftitute of help: That 
 ♦* the Lnd which thou efteemcdrt above all other might receive 
 •' a woriliy colony of God's children. Neverthelefs even thofe 
 " ihou fparedll as men, and didji fend 'nvafps, fcrerunners of 
 *' thine hoji, to deltroy them by little and little. Not that thou 
 *' waft ufiable to bring the ungodly under the hand of the 
 *' righteous in battle, or to dcftroy them at once with cruet 
 <' beajisy or vviih one rough word : But executing thy judg- 
 •' ments upon them by little and little, thou gavcft them place 
 •* of repentance, not being ignorant that they were a naughty 
 *' pcneration, and that their malice was bred in them, and that 
 *• their cogitation would never he changed," Chap. xii. ver. 3. 
 Cffeo. 
 
 books 
 
Sei5t.6. of Moses demojiflrated. 295 
 
 book, foretels, as w€ fay, both thefe plagues; the 
 locufis in the primary fenfe, and the JJjyrian army 
 in the fecondary—''^ Awake, ye drunkards, and 
 « weep and howl all ye drinkers of wine, becaufe 
 « of the new wine, for it is cut off from your 
 " mouth. For a nation is come up upon my 
 " land, ftrong and without number ; whofe teeth 
 " are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the cheek- 
 « teeth ofa great lion. He hath laid my vine wade, 
 " and barked my fig-tree •, he hath made it clean 
 " bare, and caft it away, 'the branches thereof are 
 " made white — The field is wafted, the land 
 « mourneth -, for the corn is wafted : The new 
 " wine is dried up, the oil languiftieth. Be ye 
 " aftiamed, O ye huft^and-men: Howl, O ye 
 *' vine-dreflers, for the wheat and for the barley ; 
 " becaufe the harveft of the field is periftied\— 
 " Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and found aa 
 " alarm in my holy mountain. Let all the inhabi- 
 « tants of the land tremble : for the day of the 
 « Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand. A day of 
 " darknefs and of gloominefs, a day of clouds 
 " and of thick darknefs, as the morning fpread 
 " upon the mountains : a great people and a ftrong, 
 *' there hath not been ever the like — A fire de- 
 *' voureth before them, and behind them a fiame 
 *' burneth : The land is as the garden of Eden 
 '' before them, and behind them a defolate wil- 
 " dernefs, yea, and nothing (hall efcape them. 
 " The appearance of them is as the appearance of 
 '* horfes, and as horfe-men fo (hall they run. Like 
 " the noife of chariots on the tops of mountains 
 <' fhall they leap, like the noife of a flame of fire that 
 " devoureth the ftubble, as a ftrong people fet in 
 ♦* battle array. Before their face the people ftiall 
 
 V Chsp. '. ver. 5, ^^feq. 
 
 U 4 ^^ 
 
296 ^he Divi?ie Legation Book. VI. 
 
 ** be much pained : all faces fhall gather blacknefs. 
 " They fhall run like mighty men, they fhall climb 
 " the wall like men of war, and they fliall march 
 " every one on his ways, and they fhall not break 
 *' their ranks i neither fhall one thruft another, they 
 " fhall walk every one in his path : and when they 
 <* fall upon the fword, they fhall not be wounded. 
 " They Ihall run to and fro in the city : they 
 *' fhall run upon the wall, they fhall climb up upon 
 ** the houfes : they fhall enter in at the windows like 
 " a thief. The earth fliali quake before them, the 
 *' heavens fhall tremble, the fun and the moon 
 " fhall be dark, and the ftars fhall withdraw their 
 ^« fhining'." 
 
 The fine converfion of the fubjedls is remark- 
 able. The prophecy is delivered in the firft chap- 
 ter, — ylwake, ye drunkards^ &cc. and repeated in 
 the fecond — Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, &c. In 
 the firfl chapter, the locusts are dcfcribed as a 
 people; — For a nation is come tip upon my land, ft^ong 
 and without number. But, that we may not be mif- 
 taken in the primary fenfe, namely the plague 
 of locufts, the ravages defcribed are the ravages 
 of infefts : I'hey lay ivajle the vine, they bark the fig- 
 tree, make the branches clean bare, and wither the 
 corn and fruit-trees. In the fecond chapter, the 
 hoftile PEOPLE are defcribed as locujls : — as the 
 
 MORNING SPREAD UPON THE MOUNTAINS. The 
 
 appearance of them is as the appearance of horfes, 
 and AS horfemen fo floall they run, as a firong peo- 
 ple fet in bat de array. They fjjall run like mighty 
 men, they fio all climb the wall like men of war. But 
 that we may not miflake the secondary fenfe, 
 nannely the invafion of a foreign enemy, they arc 
 
 ' Chap. ji. vcr. 1 to 11. 
 
 com-; 
 
SeA. 6:' 'of Moses demonjrated. 297 
 
 compared, we fee, to a mighty army. This art, 
 in the contexture of the Prophecy, is truly divine; 
 and renders all chicane to evade a double fenfe in- 
 effedual. For in fome places of this Prophecy, 
 dearth by infe^fs muft needs be underftood ; jn 
 others, defolation by war. So that both fenfes are 
 of neceffity to be admitted. And here let me ob- 
 ferve, that had the Commentators on this Pro- 
 phecy but attended to the nature of t\it double fenfe^ 
 they would not have fuffered themfelves to be fo em- 
 barralTed ; nor have fpent fo much time in freeing 
 the Prophet from an imaginary embarras (though 
 at the expence of the context) on account of the 
 f^me Prophecy's having in one part that fignifica- 
 tion ^m^^ry, which, in another, is fecondary. A 
 circumftance fo far from making an inaccuracy, 
 that it gives the higheft elegance to the difcourfe ; 
 and joins the two fenfes fo clofely as to obviate all 
 pretence for a divifion, to the injury of the Holy 
 Spirit. Here then we have a double sense, not 
 arifing from the interpretation of a fmgle verfe, 
 and fo obnoxious to miftake, but of a whole and 
 very large defcriptive Prophecy. 
 
 But as this fpecies of double prophecy, when con- 
 fined to the events of one fingle Difpenfation, takes 
 off the moft plaufible objedion io primary and fecon- 
 dary fenfes in general, it may not be improper to 
 give another inllance of it, which fhall be taken 
 from a Time when one would leaft expedl to find 
 a double prophecy employed, I mean, under the 
 Gofpel-Difpenfation. I have obferved, fomewhere 
 or other, that the CEconomy of Grace having 
 little or nothing to hide or to ihadow out, like the 
 Law, it had fmall occafion for typical Rites or 
 Celebrations, or for Prophecies with a double fenfe ; 
 ^nd that therefore they ^ve not to be expeded, 
 
 nor 
 
29^ '^'^^ D/i-w Legation Book Vf. 
 
 nor indeed, arc they to be found, under the Gof- 
 pel. 
 
 Yet the example I am about to give is an 11- 
 luftrious exception to this general truth. The ex- 
 planation of this example will rettify a great deal 
 of embarras and miilake concerning it, and, at 
 th.^ fame time, fupport' the general Truth. The 
 Prophefy I mean, is that in which Jefus foretels 
 his FIRST and second coming in Judgment, not 
 only under the fame ideas, but in one and the fame 
 Prediftion, as it is recorded, in nearly the fame 
 terms, by Matthew, Mark, and Luke; tho* omit- 
 ted by St. John, for the reafon hereafter to be 
 given. 
 
 But to comprehend the full import of this Pro- 
 phecy, it will be proper to confidcr the occafion of 
 it. Jefus after having warmly upbraided the Scribes 
 and Pharifees, whom he found in the Temple, 
 with their fuperftitious abufes of the Law -, — with 
 their averfion to be reformed j — and their obftinate 
 rcjeftion of their promifed Meffiah; left them 
 with a dreadful denunciation of the ruin "" then 
 hanging over their Civil and Religious Policy. 
 His Difciples who followed him thro' the Temple, 
 greatly affefled with thefe tiireats, and yet pof- 
 fefied with the national prejudice of the Eternity 
 of the Law. pointed, as he paffed along, at the 
 Temple Buildings, and defired him to obferve 
 the Itupendous folidity and magnificence of the 
 "Work. As much as to fay, " Here are no marks 
 of that fpeedy deftruftion which you have juft now 
 predicted : on the contrary, this mighty Mnfs feems 
 calculated to endure till the general diifolution 
 
 ■ Matt, xxiii. Mark xji. •;5. Lu-tiK x«i. 45. 
 
 of 
 6 
 
StGt, 6. o/' M s E s demonfirated. 299 
 
 of all things." To which, Jefus, underftanding 
 their thoughts, replied, that in a very little time 
 there Jliould not be left one ft one upon another^ of all 
 the wonders they faw before them. And from 
 thence takes occafion to prophefy of the fpeedy- 
 dcftrudion of the Jewilh Nation. But as the bare 
 prediftion of the ruin of that fplendid CEconoiny 
 would be likely to fcandalize thefe carnal-minded 
 men, while they faw nothing eredted in its Head, 
 by their Mefllah and Deliverer, it feemed good to 
 divine Wildom to reprefent this deftrudion under 
 the image of their MefTiah's coming to execute 
 judgment on the devoted City, and of his raifing 
 a new CEconomy on its ruin ; as was done by the 
 eftablifhment of the.Chriftian Policy °. 
 
 But yet, as this was to be unattended with the 
 circumftances of exterior grandeur. He relieves 
 the pidture of the Church-militant^ creeled on his 
 firft coming to judge Jerusalem, with all the 
 fplendours of the Church triumphant^ which were 
 to be difplayed at his fecond coming to judge 
 THE World. And this, which was fo proper for 
 the ornament, and ufeful for the dignity of the 
 Scene, was neceffary for the completion of the 
 Subjedl, which was a full and entire view of the 
 JOifpenfation of Grace, Thus, as Joel in one and 
 the fame defcription had combined the previous 
 ravages of the Locufts with the fucceeding de- 
 vaftations of the AfTyrians, fo here, Jesus hath 
 embroidered into one Piece the intermediate judgr 
 ment of the Jews, and the final Judgment of 
 mankind". 
 
 " See Julian, or a DJ/caur/e concerning his attempt to rebuild 
 the Temple. 
 
 • Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi. 
 
 Let 
 
30O The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Let us now fee what there was in the notions and 
 language of the Jewifh People that facilitated the 
 eafy introdudlion of t]\^ fecondary fenfe ; and gave the 
 ftyle, which was proper to that fenfe, an exprefTive 
 elegance when applied to the primary. 
 
 The Jews, befotted with their fancied Eternity 
 of the Law, had entertained a notion that the de- 
 ftrufbion of Jerufalem was to be immediately fol- 
 lowed with the deftrudion of the World. This 
 made the clofenefs in the connexion between the 
 primary and fecondary fenfe of the defcriptive pro- 
 phecy, eafy and natural •, and as it made the two 
 deftrudions fcarce dividual, fo it left no room to 
 diftinguifh, in any formal manner, between the 
 Jirfi ^and fecond coming in Judgment. 
 
 The old prophetic language was of equal ufe and 
 advantage to interweave the two fenfes into one 
 another, which the notion here mentioned had 
 drawn together and combined. The change of 
 Magiftracy, the fall of Kingdoms, and the revolu- 
 tions of States are defcribed, in the old language 
 of infpiration, by difafters in the Heavens, by the 
 fall of Stars, and by eclipfes of the greater Lu- 
 minaries. This admirably ferved the purpofe of 
 conveying both events under the fame fet of 
 images •, indeed, under one and the fame defcrip- 
 tion •, namely, the dellruftion of Jerufalem in the 
 FIGURATIVE Icnfc i and the dellrudion of the world 
 in the literal. — The fun Jhall he darkened and the 
 moon JJmll not give her light : and thejlars of heaven 
 Jhall fall, and the powers that are in heaven fJjall be 
 Jhaken. And they Jhall fee the Son of man coming in 
 the Clouds with great power and glory *, 
 
 r Mark xiiit 24— 5— ^. Matt. xxiv. 29—30. 
 
 So 
 
Se6t. 6. of Moses demo?iJirated, 301 
 
 So that we fee, the reprefentation of a </t?«^/ff 
 y^w/^ in this Prophecy hath all the eafe, and ftrength, 
 and art, which we can conceive pofllble to enter 
 into a facred information of this nature. And 
 the clofe contexture of its parts is fo far from ob- 
 fcuring any thing in the two great correlative pic- 
 tures, portrayed upon it, that it ferves to render 
 each more diilindt, and better defined. Different 
 indeed in this from mofc of the Jewilh Prophecies 
 of the fame kind: And the reafon of the difference 
 is obvious. In the Jewilh Prophecies, the fecon- 
 daryfenfe, relating to matters in another Difpenfa- 
 tion, was of neceffity to be left obfcure, as unfuit- 
 able to the knowledge of the time in which the 
 Prophecy was delivered. Whereas the Jirft and 
 feccndary fenfes of the Prophecy before us, were 
 equally objective to the contemplation of Chrift's 
 Difciples i as the two capital parts of the Dif- 
 penfation to which they were now become fub- 
 jea. 
 
 But it will be fald, " That before all this pains 
 had been taken to explain the beauties of the double 
 fenfe, we fhould have proved the exijience of it ; 
 ■ fince, according to our own account of the matter, 
 the magnificent terms employed, which are the 
 principal mark of a secondary fenfe, are the 
 common prophetic Language to exprefs the fub- 
 jed of the primary : And becaufe, when Jefus, 
 in few words, repeats the fubftance of this Pro- 
 phecy to the High-Prieft, on the like occafion for 
 which he delivered it at large to his Difciples, he 
 defcribes the deftruftion of Jcrufalem in thofe high 
 terms from whence the secondary fenfe is in- 
 ferred : for when Jefus was accufed of threatening, 
 or of defigning to deftroy the Temple, and was 
 urged by the High-Prieit to make his defence, he 
 
 lavs 
 
302 ^e Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 fays — Hereafter JhaU ye fee the Son of man Jit ting on 
 the right hand of po-u^er, and coming in the clouds 
 of heaven "^ ; which words the context necefTarily 
 confines to his Jirji coming in judgment on Jeru- 
 ialem." 
 
 To this I anfwer. That it was not for fear of 
 being put to the proof that it was taken for grant- 
 ed, that this Prophecy had a double fenfe, a pri- 
 mary and a fecondary ; becaufe it is only quoting 
 a paflage or two in it, to (hew that it mull necef- 
 farily be confefTed to have both. 
 
 I. That Jefus prophefies of the deflruflion of 
 Jerufalem appears from the concluding words re- 
 corded by all the three Evangelifts — Verily, I fay 
 unto you, that this generation j^^// not-pafs away 
 till KLL thefe things be done or fulfilled''. Hence, 
 by the way, let me obferve, that this fulfilling 
 in the primary fenfe being termed xhc fulfilling all, 
 feems to be the realbn why St. John, who wrote 
 his Gofpel after the deftru6lion of Jerufalem, 
 hath omitted to record this Prophecy of his Maf- 
 ter. 
 
 1, Thar, Jefus at the fame time fpeaks of the 
 deftrudion of the World, at his fecond coming to 
 Judgment, appears likewife from his own words 
 recorded by the fame Evangelifts — But of that, 
 day and hour, knozveth no man •, no not the Angels 
 of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father ' For 
 if the Whole be to be underftood only of one fingle 
 event, then do thefe two texts exprefsly contradidl 
 
 ^ Matt. xxvi. 64. Mark xiv. 62. Luke xxii. 6g. 
 ' Matt. xxlv. 34. Mark xiii. 30. Luke .\xi. 32, 
 * Mark xiii. 32. 
 
 one 
 
S©£1. 6. o/' Moses dcmonjlrated. 303 
 
 one another ; the firft telling us that the event 
 fhould come to pafs near the clofe of that very- 
 generation-, the latter telling us that the time is 
 unknown to all men, nay even to the Angels and 
 to the Son himfelf : — then does the lafl quoted texc 
 exprefsly contradid the Prophecy of Daniel \ that 
 veiy Prophecy to which Jelus all the way refers ; 
 for in that prophecy, the day and hour^ that is the 
 precife time of the deilruflion of Jerulalem is 
 minutely foretold. 
 
 Hence it follows that this famous Prophecy hath 
 indeed a double sense, the ont primary, and the 
 other, fecondary. 
 
 It is true, the infant-Church faw the deflru61:ion 
 of the world fo plainly foretold in this Prophecy 
 as to fufFer an error to creep into it, of the Ipeedy 
 and inftant confummation of all things. This, 
 St. Paul found neceflary to correct — Now I befeech 
 you, fays he, that ye be net foon Jhaken in mind, or 
 troubled, as that the day of Chrijl is at hand, &:c ". 
 And it was on this account, I fuppofe, that St. 
 Luke, who wrote the lateft of tl^e three Evangelifts, 
 records this Prophecy in much lower terms than 
 the other two, and entirely omits the words in the 
 text quoted above, which fixes the feccndary fenfc 
 to the Prophecy — of that day and hour, &c. 
 
 If St. Paul exhorted his followers not to be 
 Jhaken in mind on this account ; his fellow- labourer, 
 St. Peter, when he had in like manner reproved 
 the fcoffers, who faid, where is the promife of his 
 ceming? went flill further, and, to Ihew his fol- 
 lowers that the Church was to be of long conti- 
 
 » Chap. viii. 13 — 14. " z Thfss. ii ver. i, 'J frq. 
 
 nuance 
 
3^4 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 nuance here on earth, explains to them the nature 
 of that evidence which future times were to have of 
 the truth of the Gofpel •, an evidence even fuperior 
 to that which the primitive times enjoyed of mira- 
 cles * ; We have alfo a more fur e word <?/ prophecy; 
 whereunto ye do well that ye take heed^ as unto a light 
 which Jhineth in a dark place^ until the day dawn, 
 and the day-fiar arife in your hearts ^ This evidence 
 of PROPHECY isjuftly quahfied a more fur e word'', 
 when compared to miracles, whofe demonftrative 
 evidence is confined to that age in which the power 
 of them was beftowed upon the Church : whereas 
 the prophecies here meant, namely, thofe of St. Paul 
 and St. John"*, concerning the great apostacy, 
 were always fulfilling even to the lafl confumma- 
 tion of all things ; and fo, affording this demonf- 
 trative evidence to the men of all generations '. 
 
 How- 
 
 * 2 Ep. Peter chap. i. ver. 17. •> Ver. 19. 
 
 ' B£:3a»oT£fo», more firm, conftant, and durable. 
 
 ^ See Sir Ifaac Newton on the Prspheciest c. i. of his Oh/er- 
 vations upon the Apccal)'bje of St. "John. 
 
 * Mr. Markland has difcovered a new Tenfe in this paf- 
 fage of St. Peter (concerning the m-ire fure nxord 0/ prophecy ) 
 With which his brother-critic is fo enamoured, chat he fays, he 
 may prophecy there ^juiit be no more dif;>utci about it. Mr. Mark- 
 land's difcovery is very fimple, — " it is only placing a colon at 
 " the end of the 18th verfe, that the beginning of the 19th 
 " may connect vvith it ; and fo lead to the true and obvious 
 •' fenfe of a pafTige, which of late has in vain exercifed the 
 " pens of many learned Writers, viz This viice, fuyinj^, this is 
 *• my beloved Son in 'ujhom I am ijocll pic .pd, [taken from Jfaiah 
 " xlii. I.] 'vce heard in the mount, and we have by that means 
 •* (prophecy or) the <v:ords of the Frsphet more fully confirmed^* 
 
 This interpretation fuppofcs that Peter is here fpeaking of 
 the FIRST COMING of ihc MciTuh, and that the luovd of pro- 
 phecy 
 
Scd. 6. of Mb SES demonjlrated. 305 
 
 However, if from this prophecy the firfl Chrif^ 
 tlans drew a wrong conclufion, it was not by the 
 
 fault 
 
 phety refers to a Prophecy already accomplidied. Now, if it 
 can be fhevvn, that he is fpeaking of the second coming of 
 Jefus, and that the vjord of prophecy rthvs, lo n\ong feries of 
 predidions to be fulfilled in order, there is a fair end of this new 
 interpretation. 
 
 Firft, then, it is to beobferved, that the EpiUle, in which the 
 palTage in quellion is found, is a farewell-epil^e to the Churches. 
 St. Peter (as he tells them, chap. i. ver. 14.) knowing that 
 J}}ortly he muji put off this his Tabernacle. — Now the great topic of 
 confolation urged, by ihefe departing Saints, to their widowed 
 Churches, was the second coming of their M alter. And of 
 this coming it is that St. Peter fpeaks, in the words of the text 
 — For ive ha've not follc-ived cunningly denjifed fables ivhen ive 
 made knoi-vn unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jrfus 
 Chriji, He fubjoins the reafon of his confidence in this second 
 COMING, that he and the reft of the Difciples were eye-ixitnejjes 
 of the majefy of the first, ver. 16. 
 
 That \!titfecond coming is the fubjeft of the difcourfe, appears 
 further from the recapitulation in the concluding part of the 
 Epilile, where he reproves thofe fcffers of the lajl dr.ysy who 
 uouldyay, lohere is the promife of his COM iNC ? for fine e the Fa- 
 thers fell afleep all things continue as they ~^vere, &c. [chap. iii. ver. 
 3, 4.] The primitive Chriftians, as we have feen, liad enter- 
 tained an opinion that the second coming of their Mafter was 
 a: hand. And the caufe and occafion of their niiliake has 
 been explained. Thefe Scoffers the Apoftlc coiifutes at large from 
 ver. 5th, to the 13th. And recurring sgain, at ver. 15, to ihat 
 more fare icord of prophecy, mentioned chap. i. ver. 19. he refeis 
 evidently to thofe parts cf St. Paul's writings, where the Pro- 
 phecies in the Revelations concerning Antichrift are fummarily 
 abridged, of which writings he gives tiiis charadter — As alfo m 
 all his E fifties, f peaking in them cf thefe things, in ixhich are foine 
 things hard to be underftood, 'uhicb they that are unlearned ard ««- 
 Jiable ivreft, as they do all the other Scriptures, unto their cv:n de- 
 firuclion. [ver. 16.] In which words, we have the truefl. pi^flure 
 of thole indifcret Interpreters who fet up for Prophets in prcdiifiiog 
 the events of unfulfilled Prophecies, inftead of confir.ing thern- 
 idv&% to the explanation of thofe already accompliftied. 
 
 But not only the general fubjeft of the Epiftle, but the vtry 
 expreflion ufed in the text in queftion, fliews that this powkr. 
 
3o6 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 fault of the Divine Prophet, but their own. Jew- 
 ilh Tradition might at firft miflead the followers of 
 
 Jefus 
 
 AND COMING of our Lord Jefus Chr'ijl is V\.% fecond coming, — Tcr 
 nue have not fclloijced (fays he) cunningly devised fables 
 \ffiff<j(p^c^it<jiZ p.u9oi;] nuhen ive viade kno'wn unlo you the poifjer and 
 conmig of our Lord Jrfis Chrifl. Now, an attertation of a 'voice 
 from Heanjen at his frf coming, tho' it had been a figment of 
 the Relater, could with no propriety be called a cunningly de- 
 niifcd Fable. But fuppofe the ApoQle to fpeak of Q^ixVX! % fecond 
 coming, when according to the promife, there n.vas to be a nevj 
 Heaven and a neau Earth, ivherein ivas to dive/l ri^hteoufnffs, 
 after the old had been burnt up and dejfrcyed bj fervent heat [chap. 
 iii. ver. 12, 13.] if this awful fcene were an invention, it was 
 truly charatleriled by a cunningly devifed Fable, fuch as thofe in 
 which Paganifni abounded, where, in their mythologic rela- 
 tions, they fpeak of the Regions of departed Heroes, &c. 
 
 — locos Isetos & amoena vireta 
 Fortunatorum nemerum, fcdefque beatas. 
 Largior hic Campos aiher & iumine veftit 
 Purpurea : Soleniquc fuuni, fuafydera norutit, . 
 
 Ar.d, to afcertain his meaning, the Apoftle ufes a phrafe by 
 which only the mythologic fables of Pagan Theology can be 
 defigned — Iv yu^ ciKro<^KTiji.HHi MT0OIS i^xy.*>^ov^vaa\Ti<; — not 
 foUciiing or imitating the cunningly devijed f ablet of the Greek 
 Sophifs and Mjthologijis. 
 
 Secondly, it (hall be now fhewn, that, by the morefure ivord of 
 prophecy, tjie Apoltle does not mean, as Mr. Markland's inter- 
 pretation fuppofes, a Prophecy fulfilled, but a long feries of Pro- 
 phecies to he fulfilled in order, and in the courfe of many ages. 
 We may obferve then, that concerning this more Jure nxjord of 
 prophecy, the Churches are told, they do iMtll to take heed, as utito 
 a light that fineth in a durk place, until the day dan.vn and the day- 
 far arife in their hearts, [chap. i. ver. ig ] Now, from Pro- 
 phecy thus circumllanced, it plainly appears, that it could 
 not be a coinpleat Prophecy of any event fulfilled, fuch as 
 that of Ifaiab, chap. xlii. ver. 1, which Mr. Markland fuppofes 
 is the Prophecy here fpokeii of, becaufe it was not a light Join- 
 ing in a dark place until the day daivn ; fincc, with regard to the 
 Prophecy in queliion, the dat was not only da-.incd, but ad- 
 vanced ; yet ilic .Apoille fuppofes the darknefs to exift, and the 
 d'y dawn to be far dillant. i\ either, on the other hand, could 
 
 it 
 
Se^. 6. of Moses demonjlraied, 307 
 
 Jefus to believe that the deftruftion of the World 
 was very foon to follow the deftruclion of Jerufa-r 
 lem: But thefe men foon put off Tradition, with 
 the Law : And Scripture, which was then recom- 
 mended to them as their only ftudy, with the 
 DOUBLE SENSES with which it abounds, might 
 eafily have led them to a difiin^ion of times in this 
 
 It be a Prophecy totally unfulfilled, for fuch are totally dark and 
 unintelligible ; but this, here fpoken of, is a light ihining, tho' 
 in a dark place. 
 
 In a word, the charafler given of the morefure (word of Pro- 
 fhery, as being a light that shineth in a dark place, 
 can agree with nothing but the Prophecies of St. Paul and 
 St. John: and with thefe, it agrees admirably. Thefe Pre-- 
 diftions relating to one great event, the future fortum of the 
 Church, under the vfurpation of the Man of Si.'i, are emphati- 
 cally called the word of prophecy. They began ful.Glling 
 even before St. Peter wrote this Epiftle ; for St. Paul, fpeaking 
 of the MAN OF Sin, to the ThefTalonians, fays, the mystery 
 OF INIQUITY DOTH ALREADY WORK, [zd Ep. chap. ii. ver. 7.] 
 This Prophecy therefore, is, with the gre-^tcfl elegance and 
 truth, defcribed as a light fining in a dark place. Jull fo much 
 of the commencing completion was fecn as to exciie Men's at- 
 tention ; but this glimmering was ftill furrounded with thick 
 darknefs : And as the eager curiofity of man tempts him to 
 plunge even into obfcurity in purfuit of a light jufl: begin- 
 ning to emerge from it, he fubjoins a very necefTary caution. 
 — Knoiving this firf^ that no prophecy of Scripture is of any 
 private interpretation, [ver. 20. j As much as to fay, I ex- 
 hort you to give all attention to this moie fare ixord of prcphe(y\ 
 hut previoufly to guard yourfelves with this important truth, 
 that the Interpreter of Prophecy is not Man but God, and the 
 full completion of it, its only true interpretation. He fupports 
 this obfervation by a faft — For the Prophecy came not in old t'nne by 
 the ixiill of Man^ but hoh Men of God fake as they nxjere moved ty 
 the Holy Ghof, [ve-. zi.] i. e. the very Prophets themfelves, un- 
 der the old Law, often underftood not the true purport of what 
 they prediifled, being only the organs of God's Holy Spirit; 
 hiuch lefs are we to fuppofe the common miniilers of the word 
 qualified for the office of Interpreters of unfulfilled prophecies. 
 And in the jd chapter ver. 16, as has been obferved above, he 
 fpeaks of the mifchiefs attending this prefumption. 
 
 X 2 Prophecy, 
 
^oS I'he Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 Prophecy, a Prophecy formed, as they muft needs 
 fee, upon the ancient models. 
 
 But as Providence is always educing good out 
 of evil, (tho' neither for this, nor any other reafon, 
 is evil ever connived at by the Difciples of Chrift, 
 as appears from the condud of St. Paul, jutl 
 mentioned above) this error was fruitful of much 
 fervice to truth. It nourilhed and increafed a 
 fpirit of piety, ferioufnefs and charity, which 
 wonderfully contributed to the fpeedy propagation 
 of the Gofpel. 
 
 Before I conclujle, let me jufl obferve (what I 
 have always principally in viewj that this expla- 
 nation of the Prophecy obviates all thole impious 
 and abfurd infinuations of licentious men, as if 
 Jefus was led either by craft or enthufiafm, either 
 by the gloominefs of his own ideas, or by his 
 knowledge, of the advantage of inlpiring fuch 
 into his Followers, to prophecy of the fpeedy de- 
 ftrudion ot the World. 
 
 But by ftrange ill fortune even fome Belie- 
 vers^ as v/e have obfcrved, are come at length to 
 deny the very exiilence o\ double fmfes -indfecondary 
 prophecies. A late writer hath employed fome 
 pages to proclaim his utter difbelief of all fuch 
 fancies. I Hiall take the liberty to examine this 
 bold redifier of prejudices : not for any thing he 
 hath oppofed to the Principles here laid down ; 
 for I dare fay thefe were never in his thoughts; 
 but only to fhevv that all he hath written is wide 
 of the purpole: though, to fay the truth, no 
 wider than the notions of thofe whom he oppofes ; 
 , men who contend for Types and Secondary fenfes 
 lA ai extravagant a way as he argues againft them ; 
 
 that 
 
Se(5l. 6. of yio^'Eidemoiif.rated. 309 
 
 that is, fuch who take a handle from the Do<5trinc 
 of double fenfes to give a loofe to the extravagances 
 of a vague, imagination : confequently his argu- 
 ments, which are aimed againfl their very being 
 and ufe, hold only againfl their abufe. And that 
 abiife^ which others indeed have urged as a ^proof 
 againfl the ufe^ he fets himfelf to ^ confute : a 
 mighty undertaking !" and then miflakes his reafon- 
 ing for a confutation of the ufe. 
 
 His Argument againfl double fenfes in Prophe- 
 cies, as far as I underfland it, may be divided into 
 two parts, I . Replies to the reafoning of others for " 
 double fenfes. 2. His own reafoning againfl them. 
 With his Replies I have nothing to do, (except 
 where fomething of argument againft the reality 
 of double fenfes is contained) becaufe they are re- 
 plies to no reafonings of mine, nor to any that I 
 approve. I have only therefore to confider what, 
 what he hath to fay againfl the thing itfelf. 
 
 I. His firfl argument againfl more fenfes than 
 one, is as follov/s — " Suppofing that the opinion 
 " or judgment of the Prophet or Apoflle is not to 
 *' be confidered in matters of Prophecy more than 
 *' the judgment of a mere amanuenfis is, — and 
 " that the point is not what the opinion of the 
 " amanuenfis was, but what the inditer intended to 
 " exprefs •, yet it muft be granted, that if God 
 " had any views to fome remoter events, at the 
 *' fame time that the words which were ufed were 
 " equally applicable to, and defigned to exprefs 
 *' nearer events : thofe remoter events, as well as 
 ." the nearer, were in the intention of God : And 
 
 ^ The Principles and ConneHicn of Natural and Revealed Rt!i' 
 glotit difiinSily covjidertdy p, 221. by Dr. Sykes. 
 
 ^3 'y^ 
 
3 10 1^'he Dhine Legat'icn Book VI. 
 
 *' if both the nearer and remoter events were 
 " equally intended by God in any Propofition, 
 " then the literal sense of them is not the 
 
 " ONE NOR THE OTHER SINGLY AND APART, BUT 
 
 .*' BOTH TOGETHER muft bc thc fuU meaning of 
 *' fuch pafTages ^** 
 
 ■ — 'Then the literal fenfe of them is not the one nor 
 the other ftngly and apart, but both of them together^ 
 &c. i. e. if both together make up but one literal 
 fenfe, then there is neither a fecondary nor a double 
 fenfe : And fo there's an end of the controverfy. 
 A formidable Adverfary truly ! He threatens to 
 overthrow the thing, and gives us an argument 
 againft thc propriety of the name. Let him but al- 
 low his adverfaries that a nearer and a remoter event 
 are both the fubje6ls of one and the fame Predic- 
 tion, and, I fuppofe, it will be indifferent to them 
 whether he call it, with them, a Prophecy of a 
 double and fgurative fenfe, or they call it, with him, 
 a Prophecy of a ftngle literal fenfe : And he may be 
 thankful for fo much complaifance •, for it is plain, 
 they have the better of him even in t\\c propriety 
 of the name. It is confeflfed that God, in thefe Pre^ 
 diftions, might have views to Jtearer and remoter 
 events: now thefc nearer and remoter events were 
 events under two different Difpenfations, the Jew- 
 ifh and the Chriftian. The Prediftion is addreffed 
 to the Jews, who had not only a more immediate 
 concern with the fi.fl, but, ^t the time of giv- 
 ing the Prophecy, were not to be let into the fe- 
 crets of the other : Hence the Predi(ftion of the 
 vearer event was properly the literal or primary 
 fenle, as giv^n for the prefent imformation of 
 God's Servants j and thc more remote event for their 
 
 s Page 219. 
 
 future 
 
Sed. 6. of Moses deinonjlrated. 3 1 1 
 
 future information, and fo was as properly the 
 fecondary fenfe, called with great propriety figura-. 
 live, becaufe conveyed under the terms which pre- 
 dided the nearer event. But I hope a/r/? and a 
 fecond, a. literal and a figurative^ may both together 
 at leall, make up a double sense. 
 
 2. His fecond argument runs thus,—" Words 
 ** are the ligns of our thoughts, and therefore 
 " {land for the ideas in the mind of him that ufei 
 " them. If then words are made ufe of to fignify 
 " two or more things at the fame time, their figni- 
 *' ficancy is really loft, and it is impolTible to un- 
 " derftand the real certain intention of him that 
 " ufes them. Were God therefore to difcover 
 " any thing to mankind by any written Revelation, 
 " and were he to make ufe of fuch terms as 
 *' ftand for ideas in mens minds, he muft fpeak 
 " to them fo as to be underftood by them. They 
 " muft have in their minds the ideas which God 
 " intended to excite in them, or elfe it would be 
 *' in vain to attempt to make difcoveries of his 
 " Will i and the terms made ufe of muft be 
 " fuch as were wont to raife fuch certain ideas, or 
 *' elfe there could be no written Revelation. The 
 *' true fenfe therefore of any passage of Scrip- 
 " ture can be but one ; or if it be faid to con- 
 " tain more fenfes than one, if fuch multiplicity 
 " be not revealed, the Revelation becomes ufelcfs, 
 " becaufe unintelligible *"." 
 
 Men may talk what they pleafe of the obfcurity 
 of -Writers who have two fe?ifes, but it has been 
 my fortune to meet with it much oftner in thofe 
 who have none. Our Reafoner has here miftaken 
 
 ^ Page 222, 223. 
 
 X 4 the 
 
-2 12 The Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 the very Queftion, which is, whether a Scripture 
 Proposition (for all Prophecies are reducible to 
 Propofitions) be capable of two fenles •, and, to 
 fupport the negative, he labours to prove that 
 WORDS OR TERMS Can have but one. — If t.beti 
 WORDS are made life of to fignify two or more things 
 at the fame time^ their fignificancy is really loft — fuch 
 TERMS as Jiand for ideas in mens minds — terms 
 made ufe of mujl be fuch at are wont to raifefuch certain 
 ideas — All this is readily allowed -, but how wide of 
 the purpofe, may be feen by this inftance : Jacob 
 fays, I will go down into Sheol unto my [on mourning. 
 l<iow if SHEOL fignify in the ancient Hebrew, only 
 the Grave, it would be abufing the term to make 
 it fignify likewife, with the vulgsii' Latin in infernum, 
 becaufe if words (as he fays) be made to fignify two 
 cr more things at the fame time, theirfignificancy is lojl. 
 .— But when this proposition of the Pfaimift 
 comes to be interpreted, 'Thou wilt not leave my foul 
 in Hell [Sheol] neither wilt thoufufcr thy holy one to 
 fee corruption; tho' it literally iignifics fecurity from 
 the curfe of the Law upon tranfgreflbrs, viz. im- 
 mature death, yet it is very reafonable to under- 
 iland it in a fpiritual fenfe, of the refurredion of 
 Christ from the ciead ; in which, the zvords or 
 terms tranflated Soul and Hell, are left in the mean- 
 ing they bear in the Hebrew tongue, of Body and 
 Crave. 
 
 But let us fuppofe our Reafoner to mean that a 
 proposition is not capable of two fenfcs, as per- 
 haps he did in his confulion of ideas, for notwith- 
 ftanding his exprefs words to the contrary, before 
 he comes to the end of his argument, he talks of 
 the true fenfe of any. passage being but one; and 
 then his allertion mud be. That if one Propofition 
 have two SenfeSy its ftgnijicanfy is really loft ; and 
 
 : that 
 
Seel. 6. cfMosES demonjlrated. 313 
 
 that 'tis ijnpoffihle to underjiajtd the real certain in- 
 tentic7i of him that ufes thejn j conjeqtiently Revela* 
 Hon ivill become ufelefs^ becaufe unintelligible. 
 
 Now this I will take the liberty to deny. In the 
 
 foiiovv-ing initances 2.fingle Propojition was intended 
 by the writers and Ipeakers to have a double fenfe. 
 The poet Virgil fays, 
 
 — " Talia, pCx- ciypeum Vokani, dona parentis 
 ' " Miratur : rerumque ignarus, imagine gander, 
 
 *' AttOLLENS HUMERO FAMAMQUii ET FATA 
 
 The laft line has thefe two fenfes : Firft, that 
 iEneas bore on his flioulders, a ihield, on which 
 was engraved a prophetic pidure of the fame and 
 fortunes of his pofterity : Secondly, that under the 
 protedion of that piece of armour he eftablifhed 
 their fame and fortunes, and was enabled to make 
 a fettlement in Latium, which proved the founda- 
 tion of the Roman empire ^ 
 
 Here 
 
 ' JEneid, lib. viii. in fin. 
 
 " Hear what a very judicious Critic obferves of the line in 
 queftion. " The comment of Servius on this line is remark- 
 " able. Hunc 'verfum notant Critici, quafi fuperflue et inutiliter 
 " additum, nee convetiientem granjiiati ejus, namque eft magis 
 " neotericus. Mr. Addison conceived of it in the fame man- 
 " ner when he faid, this ivas the only 'v:itty line in the JEncis '; 
 " meaning fuch a line as 0-j.V would have written. We fee 
 *' they efteenied it a wanton play of fancy, unbecoming the 
 •* dignity of the Writer's work, and the gravity of his cha- 
 " racier. They took it, in fhorc, for a mere modern flouriih, 
 " totally different from the pure unaffeaed manner of genuine 
 *' antiquity. And thus far they unqueftionably judged right. 
 *' Their defefl was in not feeing that the ufeoi it, as here em- 
 " ployed by the Poet, was an exception to the general rule, 
 ** But to have feen this was not, perhaps, to be expe^ed even 
 
 " from 
 
314 ^^^ Divme Legation Book VL 
 
 Here then is a double fenfe, which, I believe, none 
 who have any tafte of Virgil will deny. The pre- 
 ceding verfe introduces it with great art. 
 
 *' Mirctur, rerumque ignarus imagine gaudet:" 
 
 and prepares us for Ibmething myfterious, and hid 
 behind the letter. 
 
 On Peter^s refufing to eat of clean and unclean 
 jneats promifcuoufly, in the vifion prefented to 
 hira, the Holy Spirit fays, IVhat God hath cleanfed 
 that call Jiot thou common '. The fingle propofition 
 isj That which God hath cleanfed is not common or 
 
 ♦• from thefe Critics. However from this want of penetra- 
 •* tion arofc a difficulty in determining whether to read faila 
 *'* or futa nepocum. And as we now underftand tliat Sertius 
 •* and his Critics were utter firangers to Virgil's noble idea, it 
 " is no wonder they could not refolve it. But the /^//fr is the 
 *• I'oet'a own word. He confidered this fhield of celeftial 
 •• make as a kind of Palladium, like the Ancile which fell 
 *• from Heaven and afed to be carried in procelTion on the 
 *• pouldgrs of the Salii. ^id de /cutis (fays Laflantius) jam 
 V 'vetvjlate putridis die am ? ^a: cum portant, Deos ipsos se 
 «' GESTARE HUMERis suis arbitrantur. [Div. JnlL lib. i. 
 *' c. 21.] Virgil, in a fine flight of imagination, alludes to 
 •• this venerable ceremony, comparing, as it were, the fhield 
 ** of his hero to thefacred Ancile ; and, in conformity to the 
 ♦* praOice in that facrcd praceilion, reprefents his hero in the 
 •* prieflly office of religion, 
 
 •* ^ttollem Hxs MZViO famamque et fata Ne pot urn.. 
 
 •' This idea then, of the facrcd fliield, the guard and glory of 
 
 •• Rome, and on which, in this ad-vanced {v..\i2i.i\on, depended the 
 
 *' fame and fortune of his country, the Poet with extreme ele- 
 
 " gance and fublimity, transfers to the Ihield which guarded 
 
 *' their great Progenitor, while he was laying the firft founda- 
 
 *' tions of the Roman Empire." Mr, Hurd — Notes on the £/, 
 
 So Augujiui, p. t)8 9. 3d edit. 
 
 * Acts x rj. 
 
 impure ; 
 
Se(5l. 6. of Moses demonjirated, 315 
 
 impire •, but no one who reads this ftory can doubt 
 of its having this double fenfe : i. T^hat the dijlinc' 
 tion between clean and unclean meats was to be abolijh' 
 ed. 2. And ^hat the Gentiles were to be called into 
 the church of Christ. Here then the true fenfe 
 of thefe PASSAGES is not one^ hut two : and yet the 
 intention or meaning is not, on this account, the 
 leaft obfcured or loft, or rendered doubtful or un- 
 intelligible. 
 
 'D* 
 
 He will fay, perhaps, " that the very nature of 
 the fubjeft, in both cafes, determines the two fenfes 
 here explained." And does he think, we will 
 not fay the fame of double fenfes in the Prophecies ? 
 But he feems to take it for granted, that Judaifm 
 and Chriftianity have no kind of relation to one 
 another : Why elfe would he bring, in difcredit of 
 a double fenfe ^ thefe two verfes of Virgil : 
 
 " Hi motus animorum, atque hsec certamina 
 
 " tanta 
 *' Pulyeris exigui jaflu compofta quiefcunt." 
 
 On which he thus defcants— 7"^^ words are de^ 
 terminate and clear. — Sn-ppofe now a man having oc- 
 cafion to fpeak of intermitting fevers and the ruffle of 
 a man's fpirits^ and the eafy cure of the diforder by 
 pdverized bark'^^i^c. — To make this pertinent, 
 we muft fuppofe no more relation between the 
 fortunes of the Jewifti Church and the Chriftian, 
 than between a battle of Bees, and the tumult of the 
 animal Spirits: if this were not his meaning it 
 will be hard to know what was, unlefs to Ihew his 
 happy talent at a parody. 
 
 " Page 225, 
 
 But 
 
3i6 ^be Dhine Legation Book \l. 
 
 But as he Icems to delight in claflical authorities, 
 I will give him one not quite 'io abfurd; where he 
 himfelf (hall contefs that a double meaning does in 
 fact run thro' one of the fineil Odes of Antiqui- 
 ty. - Horace thus addrelTcs a crazt fliip in which. 
 his friends had embarked for the /FT^ran fea : 
 
 O navis, referent in marc te. novi 
 Fluctus ! 6 quid agis ? fortitcr occupa 
 Portum : nonne vides ut 
 v' IS udum remigio latus ", &c. 
 
 In the firfl and primary fenfe he defcribes the dan- 
 gers of his friends in a weak unmanned veflel, and 
 in a tempeftuous fea : in x.\\z fecondary, the danger^. 
 of the Republic in entering into a new civil wars, 
 after all the loffes and difallers of the old. As to 
 the fecondary fenfe^ which is ever the mod quef-; 
 tionable and obfcure, we have the teftmiony of 
 early Antiquity delivered by Quintilian : As to 
 the primary fcnfe^ the following will not fuffer us ta 
 doubt of k ; 
 
 Nuper folicitum quss mihi t^cdium. 
 Nunc defiderium, curaquc non levis, 
 Interfufa nitentes 
 
 Vitcs aequora Cycladas. 
 
 But there being, as we have fhewn above, two 
 kinds of allegories ; (the firft, ivz, the /r^/^r alle- 
 gory -, which hath but one real fenfe, becaufe the 
 literal meaning, ferving only for the envelope, and 
 without a moral import. ", is not to be reckoned; 
 the iccond, the improper, which hath /it?!?; becaufe 
 
 * Hor. 0<i'. lib, i. Od. 14. • See p. 194. 
 
 the 
 
Sed. 6. of Moses demcjip-afed. 3 17 
 
 the literal meaning is of moral import \ and of this 
 nature are Prophecies with a double fcnfe) and the 
 Critics on Horace not apprehending the difterenc 
 natures of thefe two kinds, have engaged in very- 
 warm contefls. The one fide feeing fome parts of 
 the Ode to have aneceflary relation with a real fliip> 
 contend for its being purely hiftorical ; at the head 
 of thefe is Tanaquil Faber, who firft ftarted this 
 criticifm, after fifteen centuries peaceable poflef- 
 fion of the Allegory : the other fide, on the au- 
 thority of Quintilian, who gives the ode as an ex- 
 ample of this figure, will have it to be purely alle- 
 gorical. Whereas it is evidently both one and the 
 other J of the nature of the fecond kind of alle- 
 gories, which have a double fenfe -, and this double 
 fenfe, which does not in the lealtobfcure the mean- 
 ing, the learned reader may fee adds infinite beau- 
 ty to the whole turn of the Apollrophe. Had it 
 been purely hijlorical^ nothing had been more cold 
 or trifling-, had it been purely allegorical, nothing 
 lefs natural or gracious, on account of the enor- 
 mous length into which it is drawn. — Ezekicl has 
 an allegory of that fort which Quintilian fuppoies 
 this to be, (namely, a proper allegory with only one 
 real fenfe) and he manages it with that brevity and 
 expedition which 2. proper allegory demands, when 
 ufed in the place of a metaphor. Speaking of 
 Tyre under the image of a Ship, he fays, 'Thy 
 Rowers have brought thee into great waters : the ea/h 
 wind hath broken thee in the midji of the Seas ^. But 
 fuppofe the Ode to be both hijlorical and allegorical, 
 and that, under his immediate concern tor hi^ 
 Friends, he conveyed his more diilant apprehen- 
 fions for .the Republic, and then there appears fd 
 much cafe, and art, and dignity in every period," 
 
 7 Chap, xxvii. vzr. 26. 
 
3i8 I'he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 as make us juflly efteem it the moft finifhed com- 
 pofition of Antiquity. 
 
 "What is it then which makes the double fenfe fo 
 ridiculous and abfurd in, Hi motus animorum^ ^c, 
 and fo noble and rational in, O Navis referent, &e. 
 but this. That, in the latter cafe, the fubjeft of the 
 twofenfes had a clofe connexion in the interests 
 OF THE WRITER-, in the former, none at all? 
 Now that which makes two fenfcs reafonable, does, 
 at the fame time, always make them intelligible and 
 obvious. But if this be true, then a double fenfe 
 in Prophecies muft be both reafonable and intelli- 
 gible : For I think no Believer will deny that there 
 was the clofeft connexion between the Jewifh and 
 Chriftian fyftems, in the Difpenfations of the Holy 
 Spirit. — This will fliew us, with what knowledge 
 of his fubjed the late Lord Bolingbroke was en- 
 dovv'ed, when he endeavoured to discredit Types and 
 Figures by this wife obfervation, " That Scripture 
 " Types and Figures have no more relation to 
 *' the things fiid to be typified, than to any thing 
 *' that paifes now in France ''." 
 
 ^. .His next argument runs thus — " If God is 
 ^* ditpoled to reveal to mankind any truths — he 
 *' muft convey them in fuch a manner that they 
 " may be underftood — if he fpeaks to men, he 
 " muft condclcend to their infirmities and capaci- 
 " ties— Now if he were to contrive a Propofition 
 *' in fuch a manner — that the fame Propofition 
 *' ftiould relate to y^^rr^/ events ; the confequence 
 " would be, that as often as events happened 
 " whichagreed to any Propofition, fo often would 
 *' the Revelation be accompliflied. But this would 
 
 "^ Works, vol. ili. p. 506. 
 
 " only 
 
Sed. 6. of Mo s E s demonjlrated, 319 
 
 " only ferve to increafe the confufion of men's 
 " minds, and never to clear up any Prophecy : No 
 " man could i'ay what was intended by the fpirit 
 *' of God : And if many events were intended, 
 *' it would be the fame thing as if no event was 
 " intended at all '.'* 
 
 I all along fufpefled he was talking againfl what 
 he did not underfland. He propofed to prove the 
 abfurdity of a dcuble or fee ondary fenfe ' of Prophe- 
 cies ; and now he tells us of many fenfes ; and 
 endeavours to fhew how this would make Prophecy 
 ufelefs. But fure he fhould have known, what the 
 very phrafe itfelf intimates, that no prophetic Pro- 
 pofition is pretended to have more than two fenles : 
 And farther, that the fubjed of each is fuppofcd 
 to relate to tivo connedted and fuccefTive Difpenfa- 
 tions: which is fo far from creating any confufion 
 in men^s minds^ or making a Prophecy ufelefs^ that ic 
 cannot but flrengthen and confirm our belief of, 
 and give double evidence to the divinity of the 
 Predidion. On the contrary he appears to think 
 that what orthodox Divines mean by a fecond fenfi^ 
 is the fame with what the Scotch Prophets mean 
 by zfecondJight\ the feeing one thing after another 
 as long as the imagination will hold out. 
 
 4.. His lafl Argument is — " Nor is it any 
 *' ground for fuch a fuppofition, that the Prophets 
 " being full of the ideas of the Meffiah^ and 
 *' his glorious kingdom, made use of images 
 " taken from thence, to exprefs the points upon 
 " which they had occafion to fpeak. From tvhence- 
 •' foever they took their ideas, yet when the^ fpoke 
 •' of p-efmt faSfs^ it was p'^fint falls only that 
 
 r Page 2z6, • See p. 221. 
 
 *' were 
 
320 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 •' were to be underftood. Common language, and 
 
 *' the figures of it, and the manner of expreflion ; 
 
 «' the metaphors^ the hyperboles, and all the ufual 
 
 *' forms of fpeech are to be confidered : And if 
 
 *' the occafions of the exprelTion are taken from a 
 
 " future fiat e, yet ftill the Propofition is to be in- 
 
 *' terpreted of that one thing to which it is particu- 
 
 « larly applied V' 
 
 Orthodox Divines have fiipportedthe reafonable- 
 nefs and probability of double fenfes by this mate- 
 rial Obfervation, that the infpired Writers were 
 full of the ideas of the Chrifiian Difpenfation. That 
 is, there being a clofe relation between the Chrif- 
 tian and the Jewidi, of which the Ch; iftian was 
 the completion, whenever the Prophets fpoke of 
 any of the remarkable fortunes of the one, they in- 
 terwove with it thofe of the other. A truth, 
 which no man could be fo hardy to deny, who 
 believes, r. That there is that relation between 
 the two Religions : and 2. That thefe infpired men 
 were let into the nature and future fortunes of both. 
 See now in what manner our Author reprefents 
 this obfervation. // is no ground, fays he, for a 
 double fenfe, that the Prophets were full of the ideas, 
 of a Meffiah and his glorious kingdom, and made ufe 
 of images taken from thence; [that is, that they 
 enobled their (lyle by the habitual contemplation of 
 maf^nificent ideas.] For (continues he) isjhencefo- 
 ever they took their ideas, when they fpoke of pre- 
 fent fatls, prefent faofs alone were to be underfiood. 
 
 Common language and the figures of it, &c. 
 
 Without doubt, from fuch afulnefs of ideas, as 
 only railed and ennobled their llyle, it could be 
 no more concluded that they meant future fadls, 
 
 t Page 227, 
 
 wher^ 
 
Stdi, 6. ^ M o s E s demonfirated, %%t 
 
 when they fpeak of prefenr, than that Virgil, be- 
 caufe he was full of the magnificent ideas of the 
 Roman grandeur, where he fays, Priami Imperium 
 — Divum Domus, Ilium, & Ingens gloria T'eucrorum, 
 meant Rome as well as Troy. But what is all this 
 to the purpofe ? Orthodox Divines talk of afuhiefs 
 of ideas arifmg from the Holy Spirit's revealing the 
 mutual dependency and future fortunes of the two 
 Difpenfations ; and revealing them for the in- 
 formation, folace, and fupport of the Chriftian 
 Church: And Dr. Sykes talks of z-fulnefs of ideas 
 got no body knows how, and ufed no body knows 
 why, — to raife (I think he fays) their Jlyle and 
 enohle their images. Let him give fome good ac- 
 count of this reprefentation, and then we may be 
 able to determine, if it be worth the trouble, 
 whether he here put the change upon himfelf or 
 his readers. To all this Dr. Sykes replies, " It 
 ** was no anfwer, to fliew that there are allegories 
 " and allegorical ijTterpretations, for thefe werenevei* 
 *' by me denied." Exam. p. 363. Why does he 
 tell us of his never denying allegories^ v/hen he 
 is called upon for denying fecondary fenfes ? Does 
 he take thefe things to be different ? If he does, 
 his anfwer is nothing to the purpofe, for he is 
 only charged, in exprefs words, with denying fe- 
 condary fenfes. Does he take them to be the fame ? 
 He muft t\\tn dXlowf fecondary fenfes ', and fo give 
 up the queftion j that isj retraft the paflaged 
 here quoted from him. He is reduced to this di- 
 lemma, either to acknowledge that he firft writ, or 
 that he now anfwers, to no purpofe"* 
 
 From 
 
 •* The Reader fees however, by this, that he at length tak^s 
 ALLEGORIES a}id SECONDARY SENSES not to be the fame : Jrl 
 which I muft crave leave to tell him, he is miftaken. Religious 
 allegories (che only allegories in queftion) being no other than 
 
 .. Voi. V. y A 
 
322 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 From hence, to the end of the chapter, he goes 
 on to examine particular texts urged againft his 
 opinion ; with which I have at prelent nothing to 
 do: firfl, becaufe the proper fubjed; of this fe6tion 
 is the general nature only of types and double 
 fenfes : and fecondly, becaufe what room I have 
 to fpare, on this head, is for a much welcomer 
 Gueft, who I am now returning to, the original au- 
 thor of thefe profound reafonings, Mr. Collins 
 himfelf. 
 
 II. 
 
 We have fnevvn that types and fecondary fenfes 
 are rational, logical, and fcholaftic modes of in- 
 formation : that they were expedient and highly 
 ufeful under the Jewifh CEconomy : and that they 
 are indeed to be found in the Inflitutes of the 
 Law and the Prophets. But now it will be objed- 
 cd, " that, as far as relates to the Jewilh CEcono- 
 my, a double fenfe may be allowed -, becaufe the 
 future affairs of that ' Difpenfation may be well 
 fuppofed to occupy the thoughts of the Prophet ; 
 but it is unreafonable to make one of the fenfes 
 relate to a different and remote Difpenfation, never 
 furely in his thoughts. For the books of the Old 
 "Teftament (Mr. Collins tells us) feem the mofi plain 
 of all ancient writings^ and wherein there appears 
 7iot the leafi trace of a Typical or Allegorical inten- 
 tion in the Authors or in any other Jews of their 
 time \" 
 
 a fpecies o^ fecondary fttifa. This may be news to our Critic, 
 tho' he has written and printed fo much about allegories, 
 that is, dhoMt fecondary Jen/cs', as Monfieur Jordan ^vas fur- 
 prized to find he had talked profe all his lite-time, without 
 knowing it. 
 
 * G round} i p. 82. 
 
 I reply. 
 
Sed. 6. {)r Moses demonflrated, 323 
 
 I reply, that was it even as our adverfaries fug- 
 geft, that all the Prophecies, which, we fay, re- 
 late to Jesus, relate to him only in a fecondary 
 lenfe -, and that there were no other intimations of 
 the New Difpenfation but what fuch Prophecies 
 convey; it would not follow that fuch fenfe was 
 falfe or groundlefs. And this I have clearly fliewn 
 in the account of their nature, original and ufe. 
 Thus much I confcfs, that without miracles, in 
 confirmation of fuch i^n'LC^ fome ^ of them would 
 
 with 
 
 y Dr. Stebbing, of this some (by one of his arts of con- 
 troverfy) has made all. And charges me * with giving this 
 as the charaifter of double prophecies in general, that luithjut 
 J\liracles in their conformation they could hardly hwve the fenfe 
 contended for, njjell afcertained. On the contrary he afTures 
 his reader that no Prophecy can have its fenfe fupported by 
 Miracles. — That part which relates to the Morality of the 
 Doflor's condudt in this matter, 1 Ihall leave to himfelf: with, 
 his Logic I have fomething more to fay. The Miracles which, 
 the Reader plainly fees, I meant, were thofe worked by Jefus; 
 and the P^-o/iZif/zfj, fome of thofe which }efus quoted, as relating 
 to himfelf. But the Dodlor tells us, " That Miracles are not to 
 " be taken for granted in our difputes with Unbelievers." In 
 fome of our difputes with Unbelievers they are not to be taken 
 for granted ; in fome they are. When the difpute is, whether 
 the truth of Jefus' MiJJion appear from Miracles, it would be ab- 
 furd to take Miracles for granted : but when the difpute is, 
 whether the truth of his Mejfah-charader appear from Prophe- 
 fies, there is no abfurdity in taking his Miracles for granted ; be- 
 caufe an unbeliever may deny his Mejfah-charaiier, which 
 arifes from Prophefies, and yet acknowledge this MiJjion which 
 is proved by Miracles ; but he cannot deny the truth of his 
 mijjion, which is proved by Miracles, and yet acknowledge his 
 Miracles. But more than this — An Unbeliever not only may 
 tiUo^M US to fuppofe the truth of Miracles v^-ben the queilion is 
 about the proof of the Meffiah-charaSer from Prophefies, but 
 the Unbeliever, with whom I had here to do, Mr. Collins, does 
 aSlually allonjj us, in our difpute with hi.ai, to luppole the truth 
 of Miracles : For thus he argues, " Jefus, you lay, has proved 
 his Miili'ja by Miracles, in good time. But he had another 
 
 * See Hiji, of Ahr. p. 61 — 2,-3, ^"c, 
 
 y s Charaaer 
 
3^4 ^^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 with difficulty be proved to have it •, becaufe we 
 have fhevvn, that a commodious and defigned ob- 
 
 fcurity 
 
 Charai!\er to fupport, that of a promS/eJ MeJJiah, for which he 
 appeals to the Prophefies: Now, ift, thefe Prophefies relate not 
 to him, but to another. And 2dly, Miracles never can make 
 that rehite to him which relate to another." In anfwer to this 
 I propofed to (hew, that the firft propofition was abfolutely falfe, 
 and that the fecowd very much wanted to be qualified. In the 
 courfe of this difpute I had occafion to urge the evidence of 
 Miracles; and Mr. Collins, while denying the Mif/;/?i7/^-r^:«rfl^?^r, 
 had permitted me to fuppofe their truth. Unluckily, the Doc- 
 tor, who faw nothing of all this, takes what Logicians call the 
 ■point pjfumed, and the point to be proved, for one and the fame 
 thing. That Jefus was a divine MeJJen^er and worked Miracles 
 is the point ajfumed by me ; and Mr. Collins, over confident of 
 his caufe, permitted me to aflume it. That Jcfus was the Mef' 
 f.ah foretold is the point to he pronjed ; and I did not c.Vpein: 
 that any other than a follower ot Mr. Collins would deny 1 had 
 proved it. But I will be fair even with fo unfair an Adverfary 
 as Dr. Stebbing, and urge his caufe with an advantage with 
 which [ will fuppofe he would have urged it himfelf had he 
 knovn how. It may be queltioned whether it be ftrii^lv logical 
 to employ this topic (which Mr. Collins allows us to afiume) of 
 Jefus's divine mijpon in order to proved his Mefpabfmp ? Now all 
 that can be here objeded is, that we ajfume one Charafter, in 
 order to />roxi^ another, in the fame divine Perfon. And what 
 IS there illogical in this ? Whoever objetled to the force of that 
 rcafoning againll Lord Bolingbroke, which, from the Attributes 
 of God's povjer and idjdom which his Lord (hip allowed the 
 Author of tlie Fieiv of bis Philofophv to afTume, inferred and 
 proved God'sjujiice and gaodnefst which his Lordfhip denied. 
 
 But to fatisfy, not the Doftor, hut any more reafonable man, 
 J will fuppofe, it may be aflccd, " Of what ufe are Prophecies 
 thus circumltanccd, that is to f:y, fuch as require the evidence 
 of Miracles to afcertain their fenfe r" I reply, of very important 
 uie; ao they open end reveal more clearly the mutual depen- 
 dency and connexion of the two Difpenfations on one another, 
 :n many particulars which would otherwife have efcapcd otir 
 notice : And, by this means, ftrengthen feveral additional proofs 
 ot the M'JJjahjhip of Jefus, on which the Gofpel dodrine of 
 Redemption depends. But was there no more in it than this, 
 'i'he rclcuingy^/w prophecies quoted in tlie New Tertament a» 
 rciaiing lo Jefus, out of the hands of Unbelievers, who have 
 
 taken 
 
Se(ft. 6. g/' Moses demonft rated. 2^5 
 
 fcurity attends both their nature and their ufe. But 
 then, This let me add, and thefe Pretenders to 
 fnperior reafon would do well to confider it, that 
 the authority of divine Wifdom as rationally forces 
 the affent to o. determined meaning of an obfcure and 
 doubtful Propofition, as any other kind of logic4 
 evidence whatfoever. 
 
 But this which is here put, is by no means the 
 cafe. For we fay, i . That fome of the Prophecies 
 relate to Jesus in 2i primary fenfe. 2. That befides 
 thefe, there are in the prophetic Writings, the moft 
 
 taken an occafion, from their generality or obfcurity, to per- 
 fuade the people that they relate entirely to another matter, 
 this, I fay, would be no lefs than clearing the truth of the 
 MeJJiahJhip from inextricable difficulties. — — I will now take a 
 iinal leave of this AnJ^uerer ly profejjion \ an Anfwerer of fucll 
 eminence, that he may indeed be called. 
 
 Knight of the Shire 'who repre/ents them all. 
 
 !feut as he difplays at parting all the effrontery of his miferabie 
 trade, I will juft ftop to new burnifli his complexion. 
 
 I had called my Argument a Demonjlration, which one would 
 think, no one who could dillinguilh Morals from Phyfics could 
 miftake, or would venture to mifreprefent. Yet hear Do^or 
 Stebbing's laft words, — " That Mofes was the LegiHator of the 
 *• Jews, and that the Jews were ignorant of a Future State ; thefe 
 ,** fads muft be known by hiftory, which fpoils you for a Demon- 
 *' ftrator at once : For hiitorical evidence goes no further than 
 *' probability, and if this mull concur to make up the evidence, 
 ** it cannot be a DemonjJration ; For Demonllration cannot 
 " ftand upon probability. The evidence may be good and fuf- 
 " ficient, but Demonjhation it cannot be ; nvhich is ahuays 
 " fouti'ied upon felf-injident truths, and is carried on by a chain 
 ** or /tries of the moft fimple ideas hanging upon each other by a 
 " necej/ary ccnnexion,'" Letter to the Dean of Brijlol, p. 9 — 10. 
 And was ic for this, that this wonderful man hath written half 
 9 fcore Pamphlets againlt the Divine Legation, that he could not 
 find in it the fame fort of Demonjlration which he hath been told 
 inay be ieen in Euclid ? 
 
 y 3 clear 
 
326 ^he Dhine Legation Book VI. 
 
 clear and certain intimations of the Gofpel CEconomy, 
 which are alone fufficient to afcertain the reality of 
 the fccondary. 
 
 I. That SOME Prophecies relate to the Messiah 
 in 2i primary fenfe, hath been invincibly proved by 
 many learned men before me: I fhall mention 
 therefore but one •, and that, only becaufe Mr. 
 Collins hath made fome remarks upon it, which 
 will afford occafion for a farther illuftration of the 
 fubjeft. Jesus declares, of John theBaptift — 
 S^his is the Eli as that was for to come. " Where- 
 " in (fays the Author of the Grounds, &c.) he is 
 " fuppofed to refer to thefe words of Malachi, 
 *' Behold I will fend you Elijah the Prophet before 
 *' the comivg of the great and terrible day of the Lord-, 
 ♦' which according to their literal fenfe, are a 
 " Prophecy that Elijah or Elias was to come in per- 
 " fon, and therefore not literally but mysti- 
 " cally fulfilled in John the Baptifl^:' And 
 again, in his Scheme of literal Prophecy conftdered, 
 fpeakingof this pafiage oi Malachi, he fays, " But 
 *' to cut off all pretence for a literal Prophecy, I 
 ** obferve, firft. That the literal interpretation of 
 " this place is, that Elias, the real Elias was to 
 " come. And is it not a most pleasant literal 
 ** interpretation to make Elias not fignify Elias, 
 *' but lome body who refembied him in qualities? 
 *' — Secondly I obferve, that the Septuagint Tranf- 
 
 *' lators render it, Elias the T'ifhbite, and that 
 
 " the fews, fince Christ's time, have generally 
 ** undcrftood, from the paffage before us, that 
 " Elias is to come in per fon. — But John Baptifi him- 
 *' felf, who mull: be fuppofed to know who he was 
 ♦* himfelf, when the queftion was alked him, zvhc-^ 
 
 » Grounds, p. 47, 48, 
 
 <* ther 
 
Se<5l. 6. of Moses demonjlrated. 327 
 
 «< ther he was Elias, denied himfelf to be Elias -, and 
 
 « when aflced who he was, faid, he was the voice 
 
 " of one crying in the Wildernefs, &c. which is a 
 
 " paflage taken from Ifaiah %" 
 
 I. The firft thing obfervable in thefe curiout 
 remarks is, that this great Advocate of Infidelity 
 did not fo much as underftand the terms of the 
 queftion. The words, fays he, according to their 
 literal Jenfe, are a Prophecy that Elijah was to come 
 in perfon^ and therefore not literally hut myjiically 
 fulfilled in John the Baptift. He did not fo much 
 as know the meaning of a primary ^x\d fecondary 
 fenfe, about which he makes all this ilir. Afecon- 
 dary fenfe indeed implies 2i figurative interpretation ; 
 s^prir/iary implies a literal: But yet this primary 
 SENSE does not exclude figurative terms. The 
 primary or literal fenfe of the Prophecy in quefcion 
 is, that, before the great and terrible day of the 
 Lord, a m.eflenger Ihould be fent, refembling in 
 charafter the Prophet Elijah -, this meffenger, by 
 a figure, is called the Prophet Elijah. A figure 
 too of the moft eafy and natural import ; and of 
 efpecial ufe amongft the Hebrews, who were ac- 
 cuftomed to denote any charafter or adion by that 
 of the kind which was become moft known or ce- 
 lebrated. Thus the Prophet Ifaiah : " And the 
 " Lord ihail uterly deftroy the tongue of the Egyp- 
 " tian fea, and with his mighty wind (hall he 
 *' fhake his hand over the river, and fhall Imite it 
 " in the fevenjireams ".'? Here, a fecond paflfage 
 through the Red Sea is promifed in literal terms : 
 But who therefore will fay that this is the literal 
 meaning? The literal meaning, though the pro- 
 phecy be m figurative terms, is fimply redemption 
 
 » Page IZ7, ■ ^ Chap. xi. ver. 15. 
 
 Y 4 from 
 
328 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 from^ bondage. For Egypt, in the Hebrew 
 phrafc, fignihed a place of bondage. So again Je- 
 remiali fays, " A voice was heard in Ramah, la- 
 " mentation and bitter weeping: Rachel weeping 
 " for her children refufed to be comforted be- 
 • caufc they were not \" The primary fenfe of 
 thefe words, according to Grotius, is a prediftion 
 of the weeping of the Jewifn matrons for their 
 children carried captive to Babylon by Nabuzara- 
 dan. Will he fay therefore that this Prophecy 
 was not literally fiilrilled, becaufe Rachel W2is dead 
 many ages before and did not, that we read of, re- 
 turn to life on this occafion ? Does not he fee that, 
 by the moft common and eafy figure, the Matrons 
 of the tribe of Benjamin were called by the name 
 of this their great Parent. As the Ifraelites, in 
 Scripture, are called Jacob, and the pofterity of 
 the Ion of JeflTe by the name of David, So again, 
 Ifaiah fays, " Hear the word of the Lord, ye 
 " rulers of Sodom •, give ear unto the Law of 
 *' our God, ye people of Gomorrah '." Will 
 he fay, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are here 
 addrefll'd to in the />;7w^ry fenfe, and the people of 
 the Jews only in iht fecondary ? But the preceding 
 words, which fhew the people oi Sodom and Gomorrah 
 could not now be addrefied to, becaufe there were 
 hone left, fliew likewife that it is the Jewifh Nation 
 which is called by thefe names. Except the Lord of 
 Hojls had left us a very fmall remnant, we fhould 
 have been as Sodom, and ive fhould have been like 
 unto Gomorrah '. Would not he be thought an 
 admirable interpreter of Virgil who fhould criti- 
 cife the Roman Poet in the fame manner ^—Virgil 
 fecms the moji plain of all ancient writings : And he fays, 
 
 ' Chap, xxxi, ver. 15, ' Chap. i. ver. 10. 
 
 * Ver. 9, 
 
 " Jam 
 
Seft. 6. o/' M o s E s demo?iJlrated, 329 
 
 " Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna.'* 
 
 JVhich, according to its literal meaning, is, that the 
 Virgin returns, and old Saturn reigns again, in per- 
 fon; and therefore not literally, but mystic allv 
 fulfilled in thejujlice and felicity of Auguflus's reign. 
 And it is a most pleasant literal interpretation^ 
 to make the Virgin and Saturn not fignify the Virgin 
 and Saturn, hut fomebody who refembled them in 
 qualities. Such realbning on a Claffic, would be 
 called nonfenfe in every language. But Freethink- 
 ing fanftities all forts of impertinence. Let me 
 obferve further, that this was a kind of compound 
 blunder : Literal, in common fpeech, being 
 oppofed both to figurative and to fpiritual-, and 
 MYSTICAL fjgnifying both figurative a.nd fpiritual ^ 
 he fairly confounded the diftin6t and difFerenC 
 meanino-s both of literal and of mystical. 
 
 He goes on— I obferve, that the Septuagint 'tranf- 
 lators render it Elias the Tifhbite — and that the Jews 
 ftnce Christ's time have generally iinderfiood from this 
 paffage, that Elias is to come in per f on. And John 
 Baptift himfelf, ivho muft be fuppofed to know who he 
 was himfelf, when the quefrion was ajked him, denied 
 himfelf to be Elias — Why does he fay, Since 
 Christ's time, and not before, when it appears to 
 be before as well as fince, from his own account 
 of the tranQation of the Septuagint? For a good 
 reafon. We fhould then have feen why John the 
 Baptijl, when aflced, denied himfelf to be Elias ; 
 which it was not Mr. Collins's defign we fhould fee; 
 if indeed we do not afcribe too much to his know- 
 ledge in this matter. The cafe flood thus : At 
 the time of the Septuagint tranflation, and from 
 thence to the time of Christ, the dodtrine of a 
 ^ranfmigration^ and of a Refurre^ion of the hody^ 
 
 to 
 
330" ^'^ Drcine Legation Book VI, 
 
 to repcjjcfs the Land of Judeay were national opi- 
 nions •, which occafioncd the Jews by degrees to 
 underftand all thefe ibrts of 7?^«r^/rj^ expreflions 
 literally. ' Hence, amongft their many vifions, 
 this was one, that Elias ihould come again in per- 
 fon. Which fliews what it was the Jews afked 
 John the Baptift -, and what it was he anfwered, 
 when he denied himfelf to be Elias : Not that he 
 was not the Meflenger prophefied of by Malachi 
 (for his pretending to be that Meflenger evidently 
 occafioned the queftion) but that he was not, nor 
 did the prophecy imply that the MeflTenger fliould 
 be, Elias in per/on. 
 
 But to fet his reafoning in the fuUefl: light. Let 
 us confider a fimilar prophecy of Amos : Behold 
 ihe days come^ faith the Lord God, that I will fetid 
 a TAMit^E in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a 
 thirji of water, but of hearing the words of the 
 Lord '. I would afk, is this a Prophecy of a fa- 
 mine of the word in a literal, or in a tnyjtical fenfe ? 
 Without doubt the Deifl: will own (if ever he ex- 
 peds we Ihould appeal again to his ingenuity) in a 
 literal. But now ilrike out the explanation \_not a 
 famine of bread, nor a thirfl of water] and what is 
 it then ? Is it not ftill a famine of the word in a 
 literal fenfe ? Myjlical, if you will, in the meaning 
 of metaphorically obfciire, but not in the meaning 
 oi fpiriiual. But myjlical in this latter fignification 
 only, is oppcfed to literal, in the queftion about 
 fecondary fenfes. It appears then, that a want of 
 preaching the word is ftill the literal meaning of the 
 Prophecy, whether the explanation be in or out, 
 though the figurative term [^famine] be ufed to 
 exprcfs that meaning. And the reafon why the 
 
 ' Chap. viii. vcr. 11. 
 
 Prophet 
 
3e<£t. 6. c/' Moses demonfirated, 331 
 
 Prophet explains the term, was not, becaufe it was 
 a harfli or unnatural figure, to denote "jcant of 
 preaching, any more than the term Elijah to denote 
 a fimilar character, which Malachi does not ex- 
 plain •, but becaufe the Prophecy of Amos might 
 have been for ever miilaken, and the figurative 
 term uiiderftood literally •, the People being at that 
 time, often punifhed for their fms by 2l famine <f 
 head. 
 
 But this abufive cavil at figurative terms will 
 remind us of his obfervations on the following 
 Prophecy of Ifaiah — " Even them will I bring to 
 " my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my 
 " houfe of prayer : their burnt offerings and their 
 " facrifices lliallbe accepted upon mine altar; for 
 " mine houfe Ihall be called an houfe of Prayer 
 " FOR ALL PEOPLE^." This, he fays, muft needs 
 relate to JewiOi, not to Chriftian times. Why ? 
 Becaufe facrifices are mentioned. But how could 
 this truth be told the Jewifh People, that all nations 
 JJjouldbe gathered to the true God, otherwife than by 
 ufing terms taken from Rites familiar to them ; 
 unlefs the nature of the Chriftian Difpenfation had 
 been previouQy explained? A matter evidently 
 unfit for their inform.ation, when they were yet to 
 live fo long under the Jewiih. For tho* the Pro- 
 phets fpeak of the little value of, and fmall regard 
 due to, the ceremonial Law ; , they always mean 
 (and always make their meaning underftood) when 
 the ceremonial Law is fuperftitioufly obferved, and 
 obferved to a negleft of the moral \ which laft 
 they dcfcribe in the purity and perfedion of the 
 Gofpel. So admirable was this condudl ! that 
 w^hile it hid the future Difpenfition, it prepared 
 men for it. 
 
 K Chap. Ivi. ver. 7, 
 
 Thus 
 
332 ^hc Dhine Legation Book VI. 
 
 Thus then (lands the argument of this mighty 
 Rcaibner. There are 7w Prophecies, he fays, which 
 relate to Jesus but in a fecondary fenfe. Now a 
 fecondary fenfe is unfcholaftic and enthufiajiical. To 
 this we anfwer, that the Prophecy of Malachi about 
 Elijah, and of Ifaiah about bringing all people to 
 his holy mountain, relate to Jesus in a primary 
 fenfe. He replies. No, but in a r,iyjiicaly only. 
 Here he begins to quibble, the fure fign of an ex- 
 piring Argument : Myjlical fignifies as well fecon- 
 dary 2^s figurative. In the fenfe of fecondary, the 
 interpretation of thefe Prophecies to Jesus is not 
 tiiyfiical', in the fenfe of /^//r^/iw it is. But is the 
 ufe of a figurative term enthufiaftical or unfcho- 
 laftic, when the end is only to convey information 
 concerning a lefs known thing in the terms of one 
 more known? Now whether we are to charge this 
 to ill faith or a worfe underftanding, his Follow- 
 ers fhall determine for me, 
 
 2. But we will fuppofe all that an ingenuous Ad- 
 verfary can alk — " That moft of the Prophecies 
 in queftion relate to Jesus in 2i fecondary fenfe only ; 
 the reft in a primary, but expreffed in figurative 
 terms ; which, till their completion, threw a ihade 
 over their meaning, and kept them in a certain 
 degree of obfcurity." Now, to Ihew how all this 
 came about, will add ftill farther light to this very 
 perplexed queftion. 
 
 We have feen, from the nature and long dura- 
 tion of the Jewilh CEconomy, that the Prophecies 
 which relate to Jesus, muft needs be darkly and 
 enigmatically delivered : We have feen how the 
 filkgoric Mode of fpeech, then much in ufe, fur- 
 nifhed the means, by what wc call a double fenfe 
 in Prophecies, of doing this with all the requifite 
 
 obfcurity. 
 
SeO:. 6 . 0/ M 6 s e s Jenibnflrated, ' 333 
 
 obfcurity. But as fome of thefe Prophecies by 
 their proper light alone, without the confirmation 
 of miracles, could hardly have their fublimer fenfe 
 fo well afcertained ; to render all oppofers of the 
 Gofpel without excufe, it pleafed the Holy Spirit, 
 under the laft race of the Prophets, to give creden- 
 tials to the mifllon of Jesus by prediftions of him 
 in 2i primary and literal knk. Yet the Jewifh GEco- 
 nomy being to continue long, there (till remained 
 the fame neceffity of a covert and myfterious con- 
 veyance. That figurative expreflion therefore, 
 which was before employed in the propcfition^ was 
 now ufed in the terms. Hence, the Prophecies of 
 2ifingle fenfe come to be in highly figurative words : 
 as before, the earlier Prophecies of a double fenfe 
 (which had a primary meaning in the affairs of the 
 Jewifh State, and, for the prefent information of 
 that People) were delivered in a much fimpler 
 phrafe. 
 
 The Jewifli Doctors, whofe obftinate adherence^ 
 not to the letter of the Law, as this Writer igno- 
 rantly or fraudulently fuggefts, but to the my- 
 ftical interpretations of the Cabala, prevents their 
 feeing the true caufe of this difference in the lan- 
 guage, between the earlier and later Prophets, the 
 Jewifh Dodors, I fay, are extremely perplexed to 
 give a tolerable account of this matter. What 
 they befl agree in is, that the figurative enigmatic 
 fiyle of the later Prophets (which however they 
 make infinitely more obfcure by cabaliftic mean- 
 ings, than it really is, in order to evade the relation 
 which the Prediftions have to Jesus) is owingto 
 the declining fiate of Prophecy. Every Prophet, 
 fays the famous Rabbi, Jofeph Albo, that is of a 
 Jlrong, fagacious, and piercing underfiand/ng, ivill ap- 
 prehend the thing 7takedly liiithout any fimilitude; 
 9 "thence 
 
334 ^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 'whence it comes to pafs that all hisfayings are diftincl 
 and clear ^ ayid free from all obfciirity, having a literal 
 truth in them : But a Prophet of an inferior rank or 
 degree, his words are ohfcure, enwrapped in riddles 
 and parables \ and therefore have not a literal but alle- 
 gorical truth contained in them^\ And indeed our 
 fi(5titions Rabbi feems to have had as little know- 
 ledge of this matter as the other ; for in anfwer to 
 ■what Mr. Whifton, who, extravagant as he was 
 in rejefting all double fenfes, yet knew the difference 
 between ^fecondary and enigmatic prophecy, which, 
 we fhall fee, Mr. Collins did not, in anfwer, I fay, 
 to Mr. Whifton, who obferved that the Prophefies 
 [meaning the primary"] which relate to Chriftianity 
 are covered^ myfiical, and enigmatical, replies, This is 
 exa^ly equal myfticifm with, andjuji as remote from 
 the real literal fen fe as the myjiicifm of the Allcgorijls 
 [i. e. the Contenders for a double fenfe] and is al- 
 together as OBSCURE to the underftanding K His ar- 
 gument againft fecondary fenfes is, that they are 
 unfcholajiic and enthiifiaflicaL Mr. Whifton, to 
 humour him, prefents him with direti and prima)-y 
 Prophecies, but tells him, at the fame time, they 
 are expreifedin covered, myjlical, and enigmatic terms. 
 This will not fatisfy him ; it is no better than the my- 
 fiicifm of the Allegorijls. How fo .'' We may think 
 perhaps, that he would pretend to prove, be- 
 caufe his argument requires he fhould prove, that 
 enigmatical exprejfwns are as unfcholajiic and enthu- 
 fiafiical as fecondary fenfes. No fuch matter. All 
 he fays is, that they are as obscure to the under- 
 Jlanding. But obfcurity is not his quarrel v^\i\\ fecon- 
 dary fenfes. He objefts to them as unfcholaflic and 
 enthuftaflical. But here lay the difficulty, no man, 
 
 ^ Smith's ^eleSi Di/courfa, p. iSo. * The GrounJsy 
 
 ^\. p. 2^z. 
 
 who 
 
Se(5l. 6. cf Moses demonjirated* ^35 
 
 who pretended to any language, could affirm this, 
 oi figurative enigmatical exprcjfwns -, he was forced 
 therefore to have recourfe to his ufual refuge, ob- 
 scurity. 
 
 It is true, he fays, thefe myjiical enigmatic Pro- 
 phecies (as Mr. Whifton calls them) are equally re-' 
 mote from the real literal fenfe^ as the myjlicifm of the 
 Allegorifts. But this is Only a repetition of the 
 blunder expofed above, where he could not diftin- 
 guilh between the literal fenfe of a Tenn^ and the 
 literal lenfe of a Propojition. And how grofs that 
 ignorance is we may fee by the following inftance. 
 Ifaiah fays, "The Wolf alfo fJo all dwell with the Lamb, 
 and the Leopard fhall lie down with the Kid j and 
 the Calf, and the young Lion, and the Failing to- 
 gether, and a little Child fhall lead them ^. Now I 
 will take it for granted that his Followers under- 
 ftand this, as Grotius does, of the profound peace 
 which was to follow after the times of Senacherib, 
 under Hezekiah : but tho' the terms be myftical, 
 yet fure they call this the literal fenfe- of the pro- 
 phecy : For Grotius makes the myfiical fenfe to re- 
 fer to the Gofpel. Mr. Whifton, Ifuppofe, denies 
 that this has any thing to do with the times of He- 
 zekiah, but that it refers to thofe of Christ 
 only. Is not his interpretation therefore literal 
 as well as that of Grotius ? unlefs it immedi- 
 ately becomes odly typical, unfcholajtic, and enthu- ' 
 fiajiical, as foon as ever Jesus comes into the quef- 
 tion. 
 
 II. But now, befides the literal primary prophe- 
 cies concerning the person of Jesus, we fay, in 
 the fecond place, that there are other which give a 
 
 ^ Chap, xi, ver, 6, 
 
 primary 
 
33^ ^he Divine Legation Book VI* 
 
 primary and dire£i intimation of the change of 
 THE Dispensation. Ifaiah foretels great mercies 
 to the Jewifli People, in a future Age ; which, tho' 
 reprefented by fuch metaphors as bore analogy to the 
 bleflings peculiar to the Jewilh CEconomy, yet, to 
 Ihew that they were indeed different from what 
 the figurative terms alluded to, the Prophet at tlie 
 fame time adds, My thoughts are not as your thoughts, 
 neither are your ways my zvays, faith the Lord\ This 
 furely implies a different Dispensation. That the 
 chano-e was from carnal to fpiritual, is elegantly 
 intimated in the fubjoining words, ~ For as the 
 Heavens are higher than the Earth, /£> are my ways 
 higher than your ways^ and my thoughts than your 
 thoughts'^. But this higher and more excellent 
 Difpenfation is more plainly revealed in the fol- 
 lowing figure : Inftead of the thorn fhall come up 
 the fir-tree, and inftead of the brier fhall come up the 
 myrtle-tree " •, i. e. the new Religion (liall as far 
 excel the old, as the fir-tree does the thorn, or the 
 myrtle the brier. In a following Prophecy he 
 fhews the extent of this new Religion as here he 
 had (hewn its Nature ; that it was to fp read be- 
 yond Judea, and to take in the whole race of man- 
 kind,— •T'/^^ gentiles fhall come to thy light, and 
 kings to the hrightnefs of thy rifing °, ^c. Which 
 idea the Prophet Zephaniah exprelTes in fo ftrong 
 a manner, as to leave no room for evafion : The 
 Lord will he terrible unto them, for he will famish 
 all the Gods of the earth; andmen ffMll worfJoip 
 him everyone from his place, even all the ifies of 
 the Gentiles ^ The exprcffion is noble, and 
 alludes to the popular fuperftitions of Paganilm, 
 which conceived that their Gods were nourilhed 
 
 ' Chap.lv. ver. 8. "" Vcr. q. * Ver. 13. 
 
 « Chap. Ix. ver. 3. »» Chap. ii. ver. 11. 
 
 by 
 
Scd:. 6. ^ Moses demonjirated. 337 
 
 by the fteam of facrifices. But when were the 
 Pagan Gods thus famijhed^ but in the firft ages 
 of Chriftianity ? — Every one from his place \ that is, 
 they were not to go up to Jerusalem to worfhip. 
 — Even all the ijles of the Gentiles : but when did 
 thefe worfhip the God of Ifrael every one from his 
 place, before the preaching of the Apoftles? Then 
 indeed their fpeedy and general con^rerfion diftin- 
 guifhed them from the reft of the nations. This 
 he exprelTes yet more plainly in another place. 
 ** In that day fhall there be an altar to the Lord 
 " in the midft of the Land of ' Egypt '^J'* i. e. 
 the Temple-fervice fhall be abolifhed ; and the 
 God of Ifrael worfhiped with the moft folemn 
 rites, even in the moft abhorred and unfandified 
 places, fuch as the Jews efteemed Egypt. Which 
 Malachi thus diverfifies in the exprefTion, And in 
 everyplace incenfe fhall he offered unto my name^ and a 
 PURE OFFERING % /. 6. it fliall not bc the lefs ac- 
 ceptable for not being at the temple. 
 
 But Ifaiah, as he proceeds, is ftill more explicite, 
 and declares, in direcl terms, that the Difpenfation 
 Ihould be changed: Behold^ 1 create he^ Heavens 
 
 9 Chap. xix. 19. 
 
 ' Chap. i. 19. — Nothing can be more fimple than the prin- 
 ciple here inforced, or more agreeable to the rules of juft in- 
 terpretation than to fuppofe, that the Language of the L.-.it', in 
 the terms altar, sacrifice, &c. ii employed to convey thefe 
 prophetic intimations of the Gofpel. The ancient fathers of 
 the Church very improvidently continued the ufe of thefe terms, 
 when fpeaking of the Chriftjan Rites : For tho' they ufed them, 
 and profeffed to ufa them metaphorically, yet it gave counte- 
 nance to ftrange extravagance of Scripture-interpretation amongft 
 the Romanilh. The ingenious Author of the B7-incii>es de la 
 foi Chreiienne, Tom. i. p. 273. brings this prophecy of Malacht 
 for a proof of the divine inftitution of the Sacrifice of the 
 Mafs. 
 
 Vol. V. Z an4 
 
33^ ^hs Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 and a new .Earth •, and the former fiall not he re- 
 membered^ nor come into mind \ This, in the pro- 
 phetic ftyle, means a new religion and a new 
 Law; the metaphors, as we have fliewn elfe- 
 where, being taken from hieroglyphical expreflion. 
 He fpeaks in another place, of the confequence of 
 this change -, namely the transferring the benefits 
 of Religion from the Jewifh to the Chriftian Dif- 
 penfation. Is it not yet a very little while, " and 
 *' Lebanon {the ijles of the Gentiles'] fhall be turn- 
 " ed into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field {the 
 *' land of Judea] fhall be efleemed as a foreft'?" 
 To make it yet more clear, I obferve farther, that 
 the Prophet goes on to declare the change of the 
 SANCTION; and this was a necefTary confequence 
 of the change of the Difpenfation. — There fhall 
 he no more thence an infant of days, Jtor an old man 
 that hath not filled his days : For the child Jhall die an 
 hundred years old, hut thejinner heing an hundred years 
 oldfioall he accurfed"^ ; ;'. e. the Sanction of tem- 
 poral REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS fliall be DO 
 
 longer adminiftred in an extraordinary manner : 
 for we muft remember, that long life for obedience, 
 and fudden and untimely death for tranfgrcfTions, 
 bore an eminent part in the San6lion of the Jewifh 
 Law. Now thele are exprefsly faid to be abro- 
 gated in the Difpenfation promifed, it being de- 
 clared that the Virtuous, tho' dying immaturely, 
 fhould be as if they had lived an hundred years; 
 and Sinners, tho' living to an hundred years, as if 
 they had died immaturely. 
 
 The very fame prophecy in Jeremiah, delivered 
 in lei's figurative terms, fupports this interpretation 
 
 » Chap. Ixv. \'er. 17. ' Chnp. xxix. 17. 
 
 " Chap. ixv. 20. 
 
 . beyond 
 
S&O:, 6» of Moses demojijlrated, 339 
 
 beyond all poflibility of cavil: " Behold the days 
 " come, faith the Lord, that I will make a new 
 " COVENANT with the houfe of Ifrael^ and with 
 *' the houfe oijudah, not according to the Covenant 
 " that I made with their fathers, in the day that I 
 *' took them by the hand, to bring them out of 
 *' the land of Egypt. — But this Jhall be the Covenant 
 " that I will make with the houfe of IfraeU After 
 " thofe days, faith the Lord, / will put my Law 
 *' in their inward parts, and write it in their 
 '* hearts''."' 
 
 Whatlfaiah figuratively names 2i new Heaven and 
 a new Earth, Jeremiah fimply and literally calls a 
 new Covenant. And what kind of Covenant ? 
 Not fuch an one as was made with their Fathers. 
 This was declarative enough of its nature ; yet to 
 prevent miftakes, he gives as well a pofitive as a 
 negative defcription of it ; 'ThisJIoall he the Covenant^ 
 1 will put my Law in their inward parts, &'c. i. e, 
 this Law fliall be fpiritual, as the other given to 
 their Fathers, vj2is carnal: For the Ceremonial Law 
 did not fcrutinize the heart, but reftedin external 
 obedience and obfervances. 
 
 Laftly, to crown the whole, we may obferve, 
 that Jeremiah too, likelfaiah, fixes the true nature 
 of the Difpenfation by declaring, the change of 
 the SANCTION : " In thofe days they lliall fay no 
 " more, the fathers have eaten a four grape, and 
 " the childrens teeth are fet on edge. But every 
 " one fliall die for his own iniquity, every man 
 " that eateth the four grape, his teeth fliall be {tt 
 " on edge ^." For it was part of the Sandlion of 
 the Jewifli Law, that children fliould bear the ini- 
 
 * Chap. xxxi. ver. 31. y Ver. 29. 
 
 Z 2 c^'-'ity 
 
340 lie Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 quity of their fathers, (£c. a mode of punilhincr 
 which hath been already explained and juftified. 
 Yet all thefe Prophecies of the Gospel beincr de- 
 livered in terms appropriate to the Law,'' the 
 Jews of that time would naturally, as they in faft 
 did, underftand them as fpeaking of the extention 
 and completion of the old Difpenfation, rather 
 than the perfedion of it by the introdudtion of a 
 NEW. And thus their reverence for the prefenc 
 Syftem, under which they were yet to continue, 
 was prelerved. The neceflity of this proceedino-^ 
 for the prelent time ;— the effefts it would after- 
 wards produce thro* the perverfity of the fuper- 
 ftitious followers of the Law j— and the divine 
 goodnefs as well as wifdom manifefted in this pro- 
 ceeding, are all finely touched in the following 
 
 paffage of Ifaiah ^ « Whom lliall he teach 
 
 " knowledge ? and whom fliall he make to under- 
 " ftand doctrine ? Them that are weaned from the 
 " milk, and drawn from the breafts \ For pre- 
 " cept muft be [or hath been] upon precept, pre- 
 " cept upon precept, line upon line, line upon 
 " Imc ", here a little and there a little. For with 
 " Hammering lips and another tongue will he fpeak 
 " to this People =. To whom he faid, This is the 
 " reft, and this is the refrefiiing \ yet they would 
 •* not hear. But the word of the Lord was unto 
 
 * Chap, xxvili. 9, i^ feq. 
 
 ' J. e. Thofe who were moll free from the prejudices of the 
 
 Eternity of the Law. 
 
 ^ This reduplication of the phrafe was to add force and energy 
 to the fenfe. ^' 
 
 * i. e. Gofpel truths delivered in the language of the Law. 
 
 * i. e. The glad tidings of the Gofpel. 
 
 " them 
 
Sed. 6. of Mo SES demonftrated. 341 
 
 " them, precept upon precept, precept upon pre- 
 " cept, line upon line, line upon line, here a lit- 
 " tie and there a little -, that they might go and 
 " fall backward, and be broken and fnared and 
 «' taken S" 
 
 Notwithftanding all this, if you will believe our 
 Adverfary, Ike hooks of the Old ^ejlament feem the 
 mofi PLAIN of all ancient writings, and wherein 
 there appears not the least trace of typical 
 OR ALLEGORICAL INTENTION in the Authcrs, or in 
 my other Jews c/ their times^. He that anfwers a 
 Free-thinker will find employment enough.— iV<?/ 
 the leafi trace of a typical or allegorical intention ! 
 He might as well have faid there is not the leaji 
 trace of ^ottry in Virgil, or of eloquence in Cicero. 
 But there is none, he fays, either in the Authors, or 
 in any other Jews of their times. Of both which 
 Afiertions, this fingle Text of Ezekiel will be an 
 abundant confutation— y^/j Lord, they say of me, 
 DO^H HE not speak PARABLES ^ ? The Prophct 
 complains that his ineffeftual Miffion proceeded 
 fr6m his fpeaking, and from the People's conceiv- 
 ing him to fpeak, of things myfterioufly, and in a 
 mode of delivery not underftood by them. The 
 Author of the book of Ecclefiafticus, who is rea- 
 fonably fuppofed to have been contemporary with 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, reprefents holy Scripture as 
 fully fraught with typical and allegoric wifdom : 
 " He that giveth his mind to the Law of the 
 
 • i. e. Thi^ gradual yet repeated inftrudtion, which was given 
 with fo much mercy and indulgence, to lead them by flow and 
 gentle fteps from the Law to the Gofpel, being abufed fo as to 
 defeat the end, GoJ in punilhment made it the occafion of 
 blinding their eves and hardening their hearts. 
 
 f Groundty l^c. p. 82. ^ Chap. xx. ver. 49. 
 
 Z 3 " Moll 
 
342 "Tie Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 " Moft High, and is occupied in the meditation 
 *' thereof, will feek out the wifdom of the An- 
 " cients, and be occupied in Prophecies. He 
 *' will keep the fayings of the renowned men ; and 
 ** where subtile parables are, he will be there 
 " alfo. He will fcek out the secrets of grave 
 " sentences, and be converfant in dark para- 
 " bles \" Hence it appears that the Jewilh Pro- 
 phecies were not lb plain as our Adverfary repre- 
 fents them ; and that their obfcurity arofe from 
 their having Typical or AUegoiical intentions: which 
 figures too, related not to the prefent^ but to a 
 future Difpenfation, as is farther feen from what 
 Ezekifl fays in another place — Son of man, behold 
 < they of the houfe of Jfrael fay. The vision that 
 
 HE SEETH is for MANY DAYS TO COME, AND HE 
 PROPHESIETH OF THE TIMES THAT ARE FAR OFF '. 
 
 So that thefe People to whom the Prophecies were 
 k> plain ^ and who underftood them to refpeft their 
 own times only, without any Typical or Allegoric 
 tneaniiig, complain of ohfctirities in them, and con- 
 fider them as referring to very remote times. But 
 I am afnamed of being long-er ferious with fo idle 
 a Caviller. The Englifh Bible lies open to every 
 Free-thinker of Great Britain; Where they 
 may read it that will, and underitand it that can. 
 
 As for fuch Writers as the Author of the Grounds 
 and Reafons, To fay the truth, one would never 
 wilh to fee them other wife employed : But when fo 
 great and fo good a man asGROTius hath unwarily 
 contributed to fupport the dotages of Infidelity, 
 
 i\iv3-ilM — •' iv oav.ytA.xyt 'm»px'90?\uv dvar^a'pyia'PiXU Chap. XXXIX. 
 ver. I, 2, 3. 
 
 ^ Chap. xii. ver. zf. 
 
 this 
 
Sed. 6. o/^ M o s E s demonjirated. 343 
 
 this is fuch a mifadventure as one cannot but la- 
 ment. 
 
 This excellent Perfon, (for it is not to be dif- 
 guifed) hath made it his conftant endeavour 
 throughout his whole Comment on the Prophets, 
 to find a doiihk fenfe even in thofe dire^ Prophecies 
 which relate to Jesus ; and to turn the primary 
 fenfe upon the affairs of the Jewifh Difpenfation ; 
 only permitting them to relate to Jesus in difecon- 
 dary: and by that affeded flrain of interpretation, 
 hath done almoll as much harm to Revelation as 
 his other writings have done it fervice : not from any 
 ftrength there is in his Criticifms -, (for this, and 
 his Comment on the Apocalypfc are the opprobri- 
 um of his great learning) but only from the name 
 they carry with them. 
 
 The Principle which Grotius went upon in com- 
 menting the Bible, was, that it fhould be inter- 
 preted on the fame rules of Criticifm that men ufe 
 in the ftudy of all other ancient Writings. No- 
 thing could be more reafonable than his Prin- 
 ciple : but unluckily he deceived himfelf in the 
 application of it. Thefe rules teach us that the 
 GENIUS, PURPOSE, and AUTHORITY of the Writer 
 fhould be carefully ftudied. Under the head of 
 his authority it is to be confidercd, whether he be 
 a mere human or an infpired Writer. Thus far 
 Grotius went right : he examined that authority ; 
 and pronounced the Writers to be infpired^ and 
 the Prophecies divine : But when he came to ap- 
 ply thefe premifTes, he utterly forgot his conclufion ; 
 and interpreted the Prophecies by rules very dif- 
 ferent from what the confefllon of their divine origi- 
 nal required : for feeing them pronounced by Jew- 
 ilh Prophets, occupied in Jewifh Affairs, he con- 
 Z 4 eluded 
 
344 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 eluded their fole Objed was Jevvifh -, and confe- 
 quently that the proper fenfe of the Prophecies 
 referred to thefe only. But this was falling back 
 from one of the grounds he went upon. That the 
 Writers were infpired : for his interpretation was on- 
 ly reafonable on the fuppofition that thefe Writers 
 prophefied in the very manner which the Pagans 
 vinderftood their Prophets fometimes to have done, 
 by a statural fagacity : For, on the allowance of a 
 real infpi^ation, it was God, and not the Writer, 
 who was the proper Author of the Prophecy ; and 
 to underftand his piirpofe^ which the rules of inter- 
 pretation requires us to feek, we mufl examine the 
 nature, reafon, and end of that Religion wjiich he 
 gave to the Jews : For on thefe, common fenfe 
 aflTures us, the meaning of the Prophecies muft be 
 intirely regulated. Now if, on enquiry, it fhould 
 be found, that this which Grotius admitted for a 
 divine Difpenfation, was only preparatory of an- 
 other more perfect, it Vv'ould then appear not to 
 be improbable that fome of thefe Prophecies 
 might relate, in their literal, primary^ a.nd immediate 
 fenfe, to that more perfect Difpenfation. And 
 v/hether they did fo or not was to be determined 
 by the joint evidence of the context, and of the 
 nature of God's whole Difpenfation to mankind, 
 fo far forth as it is difcoverable to us. But Grotius, 
 inftead of making the matter thus reafonably pro-. 
 blematical, and to be determined by evidence, de- 
 termined ftrft, and laid it down as a kind of Prin- 
 ciple, that the Prophecies related direftly and pro- 
 perly to Jewifh affairs : and into this fyftem he 
 wiredrew all his explanations. This, as we fay, 
 was falfly applying a true rule of interpretation. 
 He went on this reafonable ground, that the Pro- 
 phecies fhould be interpreted like all other ancient 
 Writings : and, on examining their authority, he 
 
 foun4 
 
Se<3:. 6. o/" M o s E s demonjl rated. 345 
 
 found them to be truly divine. When he had 
 gone thus far, he then prepofteroufly went back 
 again, and commented as if they were confefTed 
 to be merely human : The confequence was, that 
 feveral of his criticifms, to fpeak of them only as 
 the performance of a man of learning, are fo forced, 
 unnatural, and abfurd, fo oppofed to the rational 
 canon of interpretation, that I will venture to 
 affirm they are, in all refpedls, the worll that 
 ever came from the hand of an acute and able 
 Critic. 
 
 III. 
 
 Having now proved that the Principles which 
 Mr. Collins went upon, are in themfelves falfe and 
 extravagant, one has little reafon to regard how 
 he employed them. But as this extraordinary 
 Writer was as great a Free-thinker in Logic as in 
 Divinity, it may not be improper to fhew the fa- 
 fhionable World v/hat fort of man they have chofen 
 for their Guide, to lead them from their Religion, 
 when they would no longer bear with any to direft 
 them in it. 
 
 His argument againft what he calls typical^ alle- 
 gorical, but properly, fecondary fenfes, ftands thus : 
 — ** Chriftianity pretends to derive itfelf from 
 Judaifm. Jesus appeals to the religious books of 
 the Jews as prophefyingof his MifTion. None of 
 thefe Prophecies can be underftood of him but in 
 a typical allegoric fenfe. Now that fenfe is abfurd, 
 and contrary to all fcholaftic rules of interpreta- 
 tion. Chriftianity, therefore not being really pre-- 
 difted of in the Jewifli Writings, is confequently 
 falfe.^' — The conteftable Propofition, on which the 
 \vhole argument rells, is, That a typical or allegoric 
 
 fenfe 
 
34^ 'The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 fcnfe is abfurd^ and contrary to allfcholajlic rules of in- 
 terpretation. 
 
 Would the Reader now believe that Mr. Collins 
 has himfelf, in this very book given a thorough 
 confutation of his own capital Propofition ? Yet 
 fo it isi and, contrary too to his iifual way of 
 reafoning, he has done it in a very clear and con- 
 vincing manner -, by (hewing, that the typical and 
 allegorical yf2iy oi writings was univerfally practifed 
 by Antiquity. — " Allegory (fays he) was much 
 " in ule amongfl; the Pagans^ being cultivated by 
 " many of the Philofophers themlelves as well as 
 ** Theologers. By some as the method of de- 
 " LivERiNG DOCTRINES; but by moft as the me- 
 " thod of explaining away what, according to the 
 "• letter, appear'd abfurd in the ancient fables or hif- 
 *' tories of their Gods. Religion itfelf was deemed 
 " a myfterious thing amonglt the Pagans, and not 
 " to be publicly and plainly declared. Wherefore 
 " it was never fmiply reprefented to the People, 
 " but was moll oblcurely delivered, and vail'd un- 
 " dtr Allegories, or Parables, or Hieroglyphics ; 
 " and efpecially amongll the Egyptians, Chal- 
 " deans, and the Oriental Nations. — They alle- 
 *' gorized many things of nature, and particu- 
 *' larly the heavenly bodies — They allegorized 
 " all their ancient fables and flories, and pretended 
 " to difcover in them the fecrets of natural Philo- 
 " fophy. Medicine, Politicks, and in a word all 
 *' Arts and Sciences. The works of Homer in 
 " particular have furnifhed infinite materials for 
 " all forts of allegorical Commentators to work 
 " upon. — The ancient Greek Poets were reputed 
 ♦' to involve divine, and natural, and hiftorical 
 " notions of their Gods under myftical and para- 
 
 " bolical 
 
Se6l. 6. ^ Moses demonjirated. 347 
 
 *' bolical exprefTions — The Pythagorean Philofo- 
 
 " phy was wholly delivered in myilical language, 
 
 " the fignification whereof was entirely unknown 
 
 ** to the world abroad— The Stoic Philofophers 
 
 " are particularly famous for allegorizing the whole 
 
 *' heathen Theology— We have feveral treatifes 
 
 " of heathen Philofophers on the fubjed of alle- 
 
 *' gorical interpretation "." — 
 
 If nov/ this kind of allegorizing^ which involved 
 the Proportion in z double fertfe^ was in ufe amongft 
 the pagan Oracles, Divines, Philofophers and Poets, 
 is not the underllanding ancient writings allegori- 
 cally^ or in a double fenfe^ agreeable to all rational, 
 fcholaftic rules of interpretation ? Surely, as much 
 fo as the underllanding mere metaphorical expfef- 
 lions in a tropical fignification ; whofe propriety no 
 one ever yet called in queftion. For the fenie of 
 Propofdions is impofed as arbitrarily as the fenfe of 
 words. And if men, in the communication of 
 their' thoughts, agree to give, on Ibme occafions, 
 a double fenfe to Propofdiom, as well as on others, 
 a fingle^ the interpreting the firfl in two meanings 
 is as agreeable to all fcholaftic rules, as interpret- 
 ing the other in one : And Proportions, with a 
 double and fingle fenfe, are as eafily diftinguifh- 
 able from each other, by the help of the context, 
 as IVords with a literal and figurative meaning. 
 But this great Philofopherfeems to have imagined, 
 that xht fingle fenfe of a Propofition was impoled by 
 Nature ; and that therefore, giving them a double 
 meaning was the fame offence againft Reafon as the 
 deviating from the unity of pure 'Theifm into Poly- 
 theifin : and, confequently, that the univerfal lapfe 
 
 ^ Grounds, ^c. p. 83, S4, 85, 86. 
 
 5 into 
 
348 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 into ALLEGORY and idolatry rendred neither the 
 one nor other of them the lefs abfurd '. 
 
 I fay, he feems to think fo. More one cannot 
 fay of fuch a Writer. Befides, he feems to think 
 otherwife, where, in another place, as if aware 
 that Ufe would refcue a double fenfe from his irra- 
 tional and unfcholajiic cenfure, he endeavours to 
 prove, that the Jews, during the prophetic period, 
 did not ufe this allegoric way of expreffion. Now 
 if we be right in this laft conjedure about his 
 meaning, he abufes the terms he employs, under 
 a milerable quibble j and, by fcholajlic and un- 
 fcholajiic rulesy only means interpreting in a ^ngk 
 or a double fenfe. 
 
 The Reader perhaps will be curious to know 
 how it happened, that this great Reafoner Ihould, 
 all at once, overthrov/ what he had been fo long 
 labouring to build. This fatal iffue of his two 
 books of the Grounds, &c. and Scheme, &c. 
 had thefe caufes : 
 
 ' It is wonderful to confider how little the Writers on either 
 fide the queftion, have underftood of the logical propritty and 
 moral ft ntfs of I'ypes, and fecondary feiifes of Prophecy. 
 
 Dr. Middleton and Dr. Sykes, who agreed with Mr. Collins 
 in laughing at thefe modes of information, agreed with him 
 likcwife, in laying down fuch principles and inculcating fuch 
 ideas of the Mofaic Religion, as moft efFeflually tended to 
 evince this logical propriety and moral Jit ne/s. 
 
 On the other hand, Biihop Sherlock, Dr. Stebbing?, and 
 other advocates for Types and fecondary fenfcs of Prophecy, 
 lay dvown fuch principles, and inculcate fuch ideas of the Mofaic 
 Religion, as would totally fupercede the ufe of thefe modes of 
 information, and confequently dellroy both their logical propriety 
 
 and moral f.tnrfs. See the Free and candid Examination of 
 
 P'Jhop Sherlock's Principles, Sec. chap. ii. 
 
 I. He 
 
St^. 6. of Moses demciiflrated. 349 
 
 I. He had a prefllng and immediate obje5iion to 
 remove. And as he had no great ftock of argu- 
 ment, and but fmall forecall, any thing, at a 
 plunge, would be received, which came to his 
 relief. 
 
 The obje6lIon was this — " That the allegorical 
 " interpretations of the Apoftles were notdefigned 
 *' for abfolute proofs of Chriftianity, but for argu- 
 " ments ad homines only to the Jews, who were 
 " accuftomed to that way of reafoning *"." 
 Thus, he himfelf tells us, fome Divines are ac- 
 cuftomed to talk. He gives them indeed a folid 
 anfwer -, but he dreams not of the confequence. 
 He fays, this allegoric reafoning v;as common to all 
 mankind. Was itfo .? Then the grand Propofitiori 
 on which his whole Work fupports itfelf, is en- 
 tirely overthrown. For if all mankind ufed it, 
 the method muft needs be rational and fcholaflic. 
 But this he was not aware of. What kept him 
 in the dark, was his never being able' to diftin- 
 guilh between the use and the abuse of this 
 mode of information. Thefe two things he per- 
 petually confounds, T^he 'Pagan Oracles delivered 
 
 themfelves in allegories \ this was the ufe : Their 
 
 later 'Divines turned all their Religion into allegory ; 
 
 «■ this was the abufe. I^he elder Pythagoreans 
 
 gave their Precepts in allegory this was the 
 
 ufe : T^he later Stoics allegorized every thing ; 
 
 this was the abufe. Homer had fome allegories \ 
 —this was the ufe : His Commentators turned all to 
 
 allegory; and this again was the abufe. But 
 
 tho' he has talked fo much of thefe things, yet he 
 knew no more of them than old John Bun van \ 
 whofe honefter ignorance, joined to a good mean- 
 
 "> Page 79. 
 
 ing. 
 
350 The Divine Legation Eook VL 
 
 ing, difpofcd him to admire that which the malig- 
 nity of our Author's folly inclined him to decry : 
 and each in the like ridiculous extreme. 
 
 2. But the other caufe of this fubverfion of his 
 own fyttem was the delight he took to blacken 
 the.fplendor of Religion. He fuppofed, we may 
 be fure, it would prove an effectual difcredit to 
 Revelation, to have it feen, that there was this 
 conformity between the Pagan and Jewiih method 
 of delivering Religion and Morality. His attempt 
 hath been already expofed as it deferves °. But 
 in this inftance it labours under much additional 
 folly. For the differeni reafons which induced 
 the Propagators of Paganifm, and the Author 
 of Judaifm to employ the fame method of infor- 
 mation, are obvious to the meanell capacity, if 
 advanced but fo far in the knowledge of nature 
 to know, that different ends are very commonly 
 profecuted by the fame means. The Pagans alle- 
 gorifed in order to hide the weaknefs and ahfurdi- 
 ties of their national Religions ; the Author of Ju- 
 daifm allegorized in order to pi'epare his follow- 
 ers for the reception of a more perfe£l Difpenfation, 
 founded on Judaifm, which was preparatory of it ; 
 and, at the fame time, to prevent their premature 
 rejection of Judaifm, under which they were Itill to 
 be long exercifed. 
 
 Thus we fee how this formidable Enemy of our 
 Faith has himfelf overturned his whole Argument 
 by an unwary anfvver to an occafional objedlion. 
 But this is but one^ of a Work fuUof contradidiions. 
 I have no occafion to be particular, after removing 
 his main Principles ; yet, for the Reader's diver- 
 
 " See Book iv, § i. at the end, 
 
 fion, 
 
Se£t. 6. of Moses demonjlrated. 351 
 
 lioD, I ihall give him a tafte of them. In his 81 
 
 page, he fays And there has been for a long time^ 
 
 and is at this time as little ufe of allegory in thofe re- 
 fpe5is amongji them [the Jews] as there feems to hai-e 
 been during the time the books of the Old 'Teflament 
 were written^ which feem the moji plain of all ancient 
 IVri tings, and wherein there appears not the leajl tra<e 
 of a typical or allegorical intention in the Authors^ or 
 in any other Jews of their times. Yet it is but at the 
 85 page that we find him faying — And in this \yiz. 
 in delivering his Philofophy in myftical language] 
 Pythagoras came up to Solomon's character of 
 wife men, who dealt in dark fayings, and aEled not 
 much unlike the mofi divine Teacher that ever was. 
 Our Saviour fpake with many parables, &c. Now 
 it leems, it was Solomon's charafter of wife men 
 that they dealt in dark fayings. But thefe wife men 
 were the Authors of the Jewifh Scriptures. And 
 yet he had but juft before affured us, 'That the 
 books of the Old Teflament feem the mofi plain of all 
 ancient Writings, and wherein there appears 7iot the 
 leafl trace of a typical or allegorical intention in the 
 Authors, or in any Jews of their times. 
 
 Again, in his 85 — 6 pages, he fays, " The '^y- 
 " thagorean Philofophy was wholly delivered in 
 " myllical language -, the fignification whereof was 
 *' intirely unknown to the world abroad, and but 
 " gradually explained to thofe of the fedt, as they 
 " grew into years, or were proper to be informed 
 *' — The Stoic Philofophers were particularly fa- 
 " mous for allegorizing — We have feveral treatifes 
 " of heathen Philofophers on the fubje6l of alle- 
 " gorical interpretation — And from Philofophers, 
 " Platonifts and Stoics, the famous Origen is 
 *' laid to have derived a great deal of his fldll in 
 " allegorizing tlie books of the Old Teflament." 
 
 This 
 
352 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 This he fays, and yet at the 94 page he tells us, — 
 *' That the Apottles, and particularly St. Paul, 
 " wholly difcarded all other methods of reafoning 
 *' ufed by Philofophers, except the allegorical: and 
 " fet that up as the true and only reafoning pro- 
 " per to bring all men to the faith of Christ : 
 " and the Gentiles were to be "wholly beat out 
 '* of the literal way of arguing, and to argue 
 " as became Jews. And the event of preaching 
 ** the Gofpel has been fuited to matters confidered 
 " in this view and light. For we know that the 
 *' WISE did not receive the Gofpel at firft, and 
 " that they were the lateft Converts : Which 
 " PLAINLY arofe from their ujing maxims of reafon- 
 " ing and difputing wholly oppq/ite to thofe of Chrif- 
 " tians.'* By thefe ivife^ can be meant none but 
 the pagan Philofophers : and thefe, according to 
 our Author, were altogether given up to myltery 
 and allegory. Yet St. Paul, and the reft of the 
 Apoftles, who, he fays, were likewife given up 
 to the lame method, could make no converts 
 amongft thefe wife men. Why ? It would now 
 methinks have fuited his talents as well as temper, 
 to have told us, it was becaufe two of a trade could 
 not agree: No, fays this incomparable Logician, 
 it was becaufe the Philofophers ufed maxims of reafon- 
 ing and difputingwholl^ oppofite to the Chrifiians. 
 
 What now but the name and authority of Free- 
 thinking could hinder fuch a Writer from becom- 
 ino- the contempt of all who know either how to 
 make, or to underftand an argument ? Thefe 
 men profane the light they receive from Revelation 
 in employing it to rob the treafures of the Sanc- 
 tuary. But Religion arreils them in the manner^ 
 and pronounces one common d»om upon the whole 
 
 race. 
 
 " — Ne 
 
Sc(5t. 6. of Moses demonjlrated. 353 
 
 << . — Ne IGNIS NOSTER facinori prasluceat, 
 *' Per quern colendos cenfuk Pietas Deos, 
 " Veto ESSE TALE luminis commercium*. 
 
 Hence the fate that attends them all, in the in- 
 feparable connexion hztw^^tn impiety 2iX\d blundering; 
 which always follow one another as the crime and 
 the punifhment. 
 
 If it be afked then. What it is that hath fo 
 ilrangely prejudiced our modern Reafoners againft 
 this ancient mode of information by typical and 
 SECONDARY fenfes ? I anfwer, the folly of Fana- 
 tics, who have abufed it in fupporc of the mofl 
 abominable nonfenfe. But how unreafonable is this 
 prejudice ! Was there ever any thing rational or 
 excellent amongft Men that hath not been thus 
 abufed ? Is it any difparagement to the method of 
 Geometers^ that fome conceited writers on Morality 
 and Religion have of late taken it up, to give an 
 air of weight and demonftration to the whimfies of 
 pedantic importance ? Is there no truth of nature, 
 or reafonablenefs of art, in Grammatical conftruc- 
 tion, becaufe cabaliftic Dunces have in every age 
 abufed it to pervert all human meaning ? We 
 might as well fay that the ancient Egyptians did 
 not write in Hieroglyphics, becaufe Kircher, who 
 endeavoured to explain them, hath given us no- 
 thing but his own vifions, as that the ancient 
 Jews had not types and fecondary fenfes^ becaufe 
 modern Enthufiafts have allegorized their whole 
 Story. 
 
 But I, from thefe ahitfes would draw a very contrary 
 conclufion. The rage of allegorizing in Religion 
 
 " Phad. I. iv. Fab. lO. 
 
 Vol. V. A a hath 
 
354 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 hath infeded all ages : Can there be a ftronger 
 proof that the original mode was founded in the 
 common conceptions of mankind ? The Pagans 
 began the abufe ; and the peftilent infedlion loon 
 Ipread amongft the followers of true Religion. 
 
 1. The early propagators of Paganism, in or- 
 der to hide the weakneis of the national Religion, 
 delivered many things in Types and Allegories. 
 But a growing Superftition, accompanied with an 
 equal advance in knowledge, made it at length 
 impoffible to fcreen the folly even of the lefs ob- 
 noxious parts, from common obfervers. Their Suc- 
 cefTors therefore, to fupport its credit, went on 
 where the others had left off; and allegorized 
 all the traditional ftories of their Gods, intonaturaly 
 moral, and dhini Entities. This, notwithftand- 
 ing the extravagance of the means, fully anfwered 
 the end. 
 
 2. The Jews ingrafted on their predecefTors, 
 juft as the Pagans had done on theirs ; and with 
 the fame fecular policy : For being pofiefTed with 
 a national prejudice, that their Religion was to en- 
 dure for ever, and yet feeing in it the marks of 
 a carnal, temporary, and preparatory Difpenfation, 
 they cunningly allegorized its Rites and Precepts 
 into a fpiritucil meaning, which covered every 
 thing that v/as a real deficiency in a Religion, which 
 they conlidered as perfe6t and perpetual. Both 
 thele forts of Allcgorifts therefore had reafon in 
 tlieir rage. 
 
 3. Afterwards came a fet of Christian Wri- 
 ters, brought out from amongllyif'ui'j and Gentilesy 
 and thcfe too, would needs be in the fafliion, and 
 allegorize their Religion likewiie. But with in- 
 finite!/ 
 
Sedt. 6. of iVTosES detnonjlrated. 355 
 
 finitely lefs judgment than the others ; tho' alas ! 
 with equal luccefs. In their hands, the ^;7c/proved 
 as hurtful to truth as the mtans were extravagant 
 in nature. And how fhould it be otherwife in a 
 Religion both divine and perfe£} ? For in fuch aa 
 one, there was nothing either to hide or to supply. 
 We have fhewn that types and fecondary fenfes were 
 employed in the Jewifh Religion for the fake of 
 the Chriftian, of which the Jewilh was the ground- 
 work and preparation. When therefore the Chri- 
 fiian was come, thefe modes of information muft 
 needs ceafe, there being no farther occafion, nor 
 indeed room, for them. As clear as this is to the 
 loweil underftanding, yet would Ibme primitive 
 Doctors of the Church needs contend with Jev/i(h 
 Rabbins, and pagan Philofophers, in all the rage 
 of allegorizing : Deaf to the voice of ReafoOi 
 which called aloud to tell them, that thofe very 
 arguments, which proved that there were, and 
 muft needs be^ types zndfeccndary fenfes in the 
 OldTeJiament, proved as plainly that there neither 
 were, nor could be any, in the Ne-zv. Thus, to 
 the inexprelTible damage of Chriftianity, they c*:- 
 pofed a reafonable Service, and a perfected Difpenfa- 
 tion (where nothing was taught but Truth, plain, 
 fimple, and open) to the laughter and contempt of 
 Infidels ; who, bewildered in the univerfal m.aze 
 of this allegoric mode of information, were never 
 able to know what it was in its original, nor how 
 to diitinguilh between the ufe and the ahife. 
 
 To CONCLUDE, Let not the Reader think I 
 have been all this while leading him out of the 
 way, while I have engaged his attention to the 
 hook (?/JoB-, to the Cafe of Aj:^ ah km -^ and to 
 Types and fecondary fenfes under the Jewifh Dif- 
 penfation. All thefe flridlly belong to the Argu- 
 ment : 
 
 Aa 2 I. Firft, 
 
356 The Divine Legation Bcok VI. 
 
 1. Firfl, as they greatly contribute to fliew the 
 HARMONY of Truth ; and how all the parts of the 
 Jewifh Difpenfation fupport and illuitrate one 
 another. 
 
 2. Secondly, as they contribute to fhew the uni- 
 formity of it i and how the Holy Spirit, quite 
 throughout God's grand CEconomy, from his firft 
 giving of the Law to the completion of it by the 
 Gofpel, obferved the fame unvaried method of the 
 
 CTRADUAL COMMUNICATION of 'TrUth. 
 
 3. Thirdly, as they contribute to Ihew the folly 
 of thofe who contend that the Chriftian Doctrine 
 of a Future ftate was revealed to the early Jews ; 
 fmce this opinion deftroys all the reafon of zfecon- 
 dary fenfe of Prophecies : and of how great impor- 
 tance the reality of this fenfe is to the truth of Chri- 
 ftianity hath been largely explained: For how can 
 it be known with certainty, from the Prophecies 
 themfelves, that they contain double fenfes^ but from 
 hence, that the old Law was preparatory to, and 
 the rudiment of the new? How (hall this relation 
 be certainly known, but from hence, that no fu- 
 ture ftate of Rewards and Punifhments is to be 
 found in the Mofaic Difpenfation ^ ? So clofe a de- 
 pendence 
 
 f M. BouiLLER, the ingenious Author of the Court Examen 
 de la Thfje de Mr, L'' Abbe de Prades et Ol>/fy-jatio>:s fur Jon 
 y]fc:cgie, having charged de Frades with taking his idea of 
 the iVIofaic CEconomy from this Work, withoiit owning it, 
 goes on, in his own way, to iTiew that the Argument of 
 the Di'uine Legation, as delivered in thcfe two Volumes, is 
 CONCLUSIVE. — " La Loi iVlofaique, coiifideree comme 
 fondcment d'un cfcabliflement national et ttmporel, n'avoit 
 Cjue dcs promeflcs ct des menaces, ne propolbit que des peines 
 dcs rccompenfes temporelles : aulieu qu'i confiderer /</_g-r^«^/^i 
 ■*uues de cet etablijfement, par rapport a V Eiiglje 7neme, Ja Loi 
 e;oit unc efpece de tableau emblematique, qui fous I'enve- 
 iogpe dcs objcts charnalsy^///-wV /Wy^/V//wA-i enfurte que, en 
 
 raifon- 
 
Sed:, 6. c/' M o s E s demonjlrated. 257 
 
 pendence have all thefe important Principles on 
 one another. 
 
 Reca- 
 
 raifonnant felon les pnncipes d'une jufte analogic, la fol des 
 IfratUtes eclaircs et pieux, irouvoit dans les promefTes de la Loi, 
 qui portoient uniquement fur les hiens pre/ens, un nouveau garand 
 de la certitude des biens avenir. Mais comme on doit bien fe 
 fouvenir, que dans cet:e Nation, les Fideles ne faifoient que le 
 PETIT NOM3RE, /'argument ^e W ARBV RT OS , tire dujilenc^ dt 
 la Loi fur um Oeconomie a^venir^ en faveur de la divinite de cette 
 Loi meme, confcrue toute fa force; car il demeure toojours vrai 
 qu'il n'a pas fallu moins que la vertu des miracles et I'efHcace 
 d'une impreffion furnaturelle, pour faire ployer le grofs de la Na- 
 tion, c'ell a- dire ies Juifs charnels, qui ne penetroient point ces 
 vues Myfterieufes, fous le joug pefant de la Difpenfation Mofa- 
 ique." [p. 94 ^.] And again, " Ce double Caraflere de la Dii- 
 penfation JVlofaique met fa divinite hors d'atteinte a tons les 
 traits les plus envenimes du Deifme qui I'attaque par deux bat- 
 teries oppofe'es. Quoi ? difent nos Libertins, une Religion qui 
 promet uniquement les biens de la Terre, peut-elle etre digne 
 du Dieu ! Et lorfque, pour leur repondre, ayant recours au fens 
 myftique, on dit que les promefTes Legales qui, prifes a la 
 lettre, n'ofFrent qu'un bonheur temporel, doivent s'entendre 
 fpiricuellement J ces Meffieurs fe retcurnent auffi-tot avec une 
 merveilleufe adreffe pour vous demander comment un Oracle 
 qui trompe les hommes, et qui n'a point d'accompliflement 
 dans le fens le plus clair, le plus propie et le plus Ijtteral de ce 
 qu'il promet, peut-etre regarde comme un Oracle divin ? 
 Queftion qui dans I'hypotheTe commune me paroit plus diffi- 
 cile a refoudre d'une fa9on fatisfaifante. Mais I'une et I'autre 
 objedion tombe, des qu'on envifage I'ancienne CEconomie telle 
 qu'elle eft ; c'eft-a-dire, tout a la fois comme Alliance nationale 
 et comme CEconomie religieufe. En qualite d'AlIiance na- 
 tionale, fes promeffes font toutes Charnelles, et s' accompliffent 
 a la lettre a fegard des Juifs. Mais en qualite d'CEconomie 
 religieufe, effentieUement Uee au plan de fE'uangile, elle ell pour 
 \t& Fideles, la figure et le gage des biens fpirituals. Double- 
 ment digne du Dieu de verite, et par I'accojnpUJJement Utter at 
 de fes promeffes, ct par leur ufage typique, le reunion de ces 
 deux rapports y annonce Touvrage de fon infinie fageffe." 
 Addition a r Article IV. p. 104.] 
 
 Thus far this ingenious Writer. But now a difficulty will 
 occur. He owns the Author of the Dinjine Legation hath 
 made ou.; his point, that the Law of Mofes is from God : 
 
 A a 3 He 
 
358 ^he Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 Recapitulation. 
 
 And now if the length of the Demonllration 
 have not tired out the Reader's patience, or, to 
 
 fpeak, 
 
 He contends that the Author's fyftem is tlie oily one t\\zi a^n 
 fupport this Revelation againll the objedions of Dei lis and 
 Lihcnines : Yet when he has done thi';, he has thought fit to 
 call tills very fyftem, a Prtrrtdi9.v ; tho' it goes upon his own 
 principle, ^hat the fno/aic Di/pe>i/atio}i had a double charader ; 
 th'it U ivas a national jJlliance, and nuas at the fame time 
 eji'cniially ut.i.'ed to the Grfjel flan ; that this double Charailer 
 iho" not apprehended by the body of the 'Jen.vijh People, yet luaj t^et'l 
 underjiood bv thofe feculiarly favoured of God, their Prophets and 
 Leaders, This cenfure, if it be intended for one, I fay, appears 
 t:> me a little myfterious. However the learned Writer's words 
 are thcfe — " Quand Mr. de Prades a dit que TCEconomie Mo- 
 faiquc n'etoit fondce que fur les peines et Ics recompcnfes tem- 
 porelles, et qu'il a foutenu que cela meme fournit une bonne 
 preuve de la divinite de cette Q'.conomie, il n'a fait autre chofe 
 que fuivre la trace du favznt IVarburton, qui avan^^a ce para- 
 roxE, il y a deja quelques annees, dans fon fameux Ouvrage de 
 la Divine Legation de Moife, et employa tour a tour pour le de- 
 fendre, le raifonnement et I'erudition. Notre Bachelier, auffi- 
 bien qce M. Hocke, qu'il cite pour fon garand, auroient bien du 
 faire honneur a I'illuftre Dodleur Anglois, d'une penfee que per- 
 fonne nedoutera qu'ils n'ayent puiiee chez lui." [p, 88.] Now, 
 ■I have fo good opinion of this learned Writer's candour as to 
 believe that either he ufed the word paradox in an indifferent 
 jenfe, or that he was mifled in his Judgment of the Di'vine Le- 
 ga:i:n by Mr. de Trades and Mr. Hooke : Who altho' they bor- 
 rosved what they have delivered concerning the nature of the 
 Mofaic CEconomy from that book, which they did not think 
 fit to confefs, yet it is as certain that what they borrowed they 
 either did not underltand, or at leall have mifreprefented. The 
 learned Sorbonift has fince publifhed his courfe of Theology, 
 intitlcd Rcligionis naturalis et rs-vulata Pri7ici/ia. In which, tho' 
 he has confulted his eafe and perhaps his reputation, in tranfcrib- 
 ing the reafonings of the Divine Legation on various points of 
 Theology, and generally without reference to the Book or the 
 Author ; yet his affairs with his Body have t'Ught him caution, 
 aiid obliged him to declare againft the Proposition, in fup- 
 port of which, thofe reafonings were employed by their original 
 Author. For when he comes to the quelHon concerning the 
 favilion of the Jsivip Laiv, he introduces it in the following 
 
 manner 
 
Sc£l. 6. of Moses demonjirated. 359 
 
 fpeak more properly, if length of time have not 
 worn out his attention to the Subjed, it may be 
 proper ( the Argument being here concluded ) 
 to take a retrolpedive view of the whole, as 
 it hath been inforced in this and the preceed- 
 ing Volume. For the deep Profeflbr, who 
 hath digefted his Theology into Summs and Sj^ 
 ftems, and the florid Preacher, who never fufFered 
 his thoughts to expatiate beyond the limits of a 
 pulpit-elTay, will be ready to tell me, that I had 
 promifed to demonstrate the Divine Lega- 
 tion OF Moses ; and that now I had written two 
 large Volumes on that fubjed, " all that they could 
 find in them were Difcourfes on the foundation of 
 Morality — the origin of civil and religious Society 
 
 — the Alliance betv/een Church and State — the 
 policy of Lawgivers,— the Myfteries of the Priefts, 
 
 — and the opinions of the Greek Philofophers— 
 The Antiquity of Egypt— their Hieroglyphics — 
 their Heroes — and their Brute-worfhip. That 
 indeed, at laft I fpeak a httle of the Jewifli policy j 
 
 manner — Qii?efl:ionem inchoamus difficilem, in qua explicanda 
 adhibenda ell iumma verborum proprieta?, ne Pelagianis ex una 
 parte non fatis fcedus Mofaicum & Evangelicum difcriminanti- 
 bus, aut contrariis recentiorum quorumdam erroribus 
 favere videamur. And fo, fortifies himfelf with Suarez and 
 St. Thomas. The confequence of which is, that the two 
 large Chapters in his fecond Volume (the firft. To prove that a 
 future (late was always a popular Doclrine amongft the Jews ; 
 and the fecond, That temporal rewards and punilhments were 
 really and equally diilributed amongil them under the Theo- 
 cracy) jull ierve to confute one another : Or more properly, 
 the fecond Chapter, by aid of the Arguments taken from the 
 Divine Legation, effeftually overturns all that he has advanced 
 in the firil. — See M. Hooke's fecond volume of his Courfe, 
 intitled, Religionis vatuialis et re^velates Principia, from p. 208 
 ■%o 236. For the rell, this juftice is due to the learned and 
 ingenious Writer, that thefe Principles of natural ami revealed 
 Religion compofe the beft rcafoned Work in defence of Revela- 
 tion which we have yet feen come from that quarter, 
 
 A a 4 luut 
 
360 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 but I foon break away from it, as from a fubjefl I 
 would avoid, and employ the remaining part of 
 the Volume on the Sacrifice of Ifaac — on the book 
 of Job — and on primary and fecondary Prophe- 
 cies. But whatf (lay they) is all this to the Divine 
 Legation of Mofes ? 
 
 DiCy Pojlhume ! de tribus Capellis." 
 
 To call, the Topic, I went upon, a Paradox, 
 was fiid, without doubr, to my difcredit; but not to 
 fee that I had proved it in form, will I am afraid, 
 redound to their own. Yet I had already befpoke 
 their beft attention in the words of Cicero, who, 
 I believe, often found himfelf in my fituation. 
 *' Video hanc primam ingreffionem meam non ex 
 Orv ATORis dil'putationibus dudam, fed e media Phi- 
 Icfophia repetitam, et earn quidem cum antiquam 
 tum fubobfcuram, aut reprehensionis aliquid, 
 aut certe admirationis habituram. Nam aut 
 mirabantur quid h^c pertineant ad ea qu^ 
 quzerimus: quibus fatisfaciet res ipfa cognita, ut 
 non fine caufa alte repetita videatur : aut repre- 
 hendent, quod inusitatas vias indagemus, 
 TRiTAS RELiNQUAMus. Ego autem me f£Epe nova 
 videre dicere intelligo cum pervetera dicam, fed 
 inaudita plerifque ^." 
 
 But as this Apology hath not anfwered its pur- 
 pole, and as the argument is indeed drawn out 
 to an uncommon length ; raifed upon a great va- 
 riety of fiipports ; and fought out from every quar- 
 ter of antiquity, -and fometimes out of corners the 
 moft remote and dark, it was the lefs to be admired 
 if every inattentive Reader did not fee their force 
 
 ^ Cicero, 
 
 and 
 
Sed. 6. of M OS -Es demonjlrated, 361 
 
 and various purpofe ; or if every attentive Reader 
 could not combine them into the body of a com- 
 pleated Syllogifm •, and flill lefs if the envious and 
 the prejudiced fliould concurr to reprefent thefe 
 Volumes as an indigefled and inconnetled heap of 
 difcourfes, thrown out upon one another, to dif- 
 burthen a common-place. For the fatisfadion 
 therefore, of the more candid, who acknowledge 
 the fairnefs of the attempt, who faw fomething of 
 the progrefs of the argument, but, miQed by the 
 notice of a remaining Fart, neglected to purfue the 
 proof to the Conclusion here deduced, 1 fliall en- 
 deavour to lay open, in one plain and fimple 
 view, the whole conduct of thefe myfterious Vo- 
 lumes. 
 
 Nor fhall I ncgled the other fort of Readers, tho* 
 it be odds, we part again as diflatisfied with one 
 another, as the Toyman of Bath and his Cuftomer. 
 Of whom the ftory goes, that a grave well-drefled 
 man coming into the fhop of this ingenious inven- 
 tor, and reliever of the diftrelTes of thofe who are 
 too dull to know what they want, and too rich to 
 be at eafe with what they have, demanded to fee 
 fome of his beft reading-glaffes ; which when he 
 had tried to no purpofe, he returned. The Toy- 
 man furprifed at fo ftrange a phasnomenon, gravely 
 afked him, whether ever he had karnt to read ? 
 to which the other as gravely replied, that if he 
 had been fo happy he fhould have had no need 
 of his afTiftance. Now, before I bring the diftant 
 parts of my Argument to converge, for the ufe of 
 thefe dim-fighted Gentlemen, may I aflc them, 
 without offence, a fimilar queftion ? They have 
 ANSWERED-, without afking i but not with the 
 fame ingenuity. 
 
 In 
 
o 
 
 62 T^e Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 In reading the Lav^ and History of the Jews, 
 with all the attention I could give to them, amonaft 
 the many circumftances peculiar to that amazino- 
 Difpenfation (from feveral of which, as I conceive^ 
 the divinity of its original may be fairly proved) 
 thefe two particulars moft forceably ftruck my ob- 
 fervation, the omission of the doctrine of a 
 
 FUTURE STATE, and THE ADMINISTRATION OF 
 
 AN EXTRAORDINARY Providence. As unaccount- 
 able as the firft circumftance appeared when con- 
 fidered feparately and alone, yet when let againfl 
 the other, and their mutual relations examined and 
 compared, the omijjion was not only well explained, 
 but was found to be an invincible medium for the 
 proof of the Divine Legation of Moses: which, 
 as Unbelievers had been long accuftomed to decry 
 from this very circumftance, I chofe it preferably 
 to any other. The Argument appeared to me 
 in a fupreme degree ftrong and fimple, and not 
 needing many words to inforce it, or, when in- 
 forced, to make it well underftood. 
 
 Religion hath always been held neceflary to 
 the fupport of civil society, becaufe human 
 Laws alone are inefreftual to reftrain men from 
 evil, with a force fufficient to carry on the affairs of 
 public regimen : and (under the common difpen- 
 fation of Providence) a future state of re- 
 wards and punilhments is confefled to be as ne- 
 ceffary to the fupport of Religion, becaufe no- 
 thing elfe can remove the objeftions to God's 
 moral Government under a Providence fo apparent- 
 ly unequal ; whofe phaanomena are apt to difturb 
 the ferious profcfibrs of Religion with doubts 
 and fufpicions concerning it, as it is of the effence 
 
 of 
 
Sed. 6. ^ M o 8 E s demonjirated. 363 
 
 of religious profeflion to believe, that God is a re- 
 warder of them that diligently feek him, 
 
 Mofes, who inftituted a Religion and a Re^ 
 PUBLIC, and incorporated them into one another. 
 Hands fingle amongft ancient and modern Law- 
 givers, in teaching a Religion, without the fanC' 
 tioity or even lb much as the mention of a future 
 
 STATE OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS. The 
 
 fame Mofes, with a fmgularity as great, by uniting 
 the Religion and civil Community of the Jews into 
 one incorporated body, made God, by natural con- 
 fequence, their fupreme civil Magiftrate, where- 
 by the form of Government arifing from thence 
 became truly and effentially a Theocracy. But 
 as the Adminifiration of Government iiecefTarily 
 follows its Form^ that before us could be no other 
 
 than AN EXTRAORDINARY OR EQUAL PrOVIDENCE. 
 
 And fuch indeed not only the Jewifh Lawgiver 
 himfelf, but all the fucceeding Rulers and Prophets 
 of this Republic have invariably reprefented it to 
 be. In the mean time, no Lawgiver or founder of 
 Religion amongft any other People ever promifed 
 fo fingular a Diftindion •, no Hiltorian ever dared 
 to record fo remarkable a Prerogative. 
 
 This being the true and acknowledged ftate of 
 the cafe; Vv'heriever the Unbeliever attempts to 
 difprove, and the Advocate of Religion to fupporr, 
 the divinity of the Mofaic Difpenfation, the ob- 
 vious queftion (if each be willing to bring it to 
 a fpeedy decifion) will be, " Whether the ex- 
 
 *' TRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE thuS prOphcticall/ 
 
 " promifed, and afterwards hiftorically recorded 
 " to be performed, was real or pretended 
 « only r\ 
 
 We' 
 
364 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 We Believers hold that it was p.e al : and I, as an 
 Advocate for Revelation, undertake to prove it 
 was lb •, employing for this purpofe, as my me- 
 dium, THE OMISSION OF A FUTURE STATE OF RE- 
 WARDS AND PUNISHMENTS. The argument (lands 
 ihus : 
 
 If Religion be neceffary to civil Government, 
 and if Religion cannot fubfift, under the common 
 difpenfation of Providence, without a future ftate 
 of Rewards and Puniihments, fo confummate a 
 Lawgiver would never have negle6led to inculcate 
 the belief of fuch a ftate, had he not been well af- 
 fured that an extraordinary providence was 
 indeed to be adminiftered over his People : Or 
 were it pofTible he had been fo infatuated, the im- 
 potency of a Religion wanting a future ftate, muft 
 very foon have concluded in the deftrudion of his 
 Republic : Yet neverthelefs it flouriflied and con- 
 tinued fovereign for many ages. 
 
 Thefe two proofs of the propofition, {that an 
 extraordinary providence was really adminijiered) 
 drawn from the thing omitted and the per- 
 son OMITTING, may be reduced to the following 
 Syllogisms. 
 
 I. Whatfoever Religion and Society have no fu- 
 ture State for their ftipport, muft be fupported by 
 an extraordinary Providence, 
 
 The Jewifh Religion and Society had no future 
 State for their fupport : 
 
 Therefore the Jewifh Religion and Society were 
 fupported by an extraordinary Providence. 
 
 And again, 
 
 II. The 
 
Sedt. 6. c/" Moses demonjirated. 365 
 
 II. The Ancient Lawgivers univerfally believed, 
 that a Religion without a future State could be 
 lupported only by an extraordinary Providence. 
 
 Mofes, an Ancient Lawgiver, learned in all the 
 "wifdom of the Egyptians, (the principal branch 
 of which wifdom was inculcating the doflrine of 
 a future ftate) inftituted fuch a Religion : 
 
 Therefore Mofes believed that his Religion was 
 fupported by an extraordinary Providence. 
 
 This is the argument of the Divine Lega- 
 tion ; plain, fimple and convincing, in the opinion 
 of the Author j a Paradox, in the reprefenta- 
 tion of his Adverfaries : Attempts of this nature 
 being ftiil attended with the fortune they have 
 long undergone. V/illiam of Newhourg^ fpeaking 
 of Gregory the VIII, tells us, that he was, " Vir 
 " plane & fapienti^e et vits fmceritate confpicuus, 
 " aemulationem dei habens in ommhus fecundum 
 " fcientiamytifuperjlitiofarum confueiudinum quarum 
 " in Ecclefia per quorundam rufticam fimplici- 
 ** tatem citra Scripturarum aufloritatem multi- 
 ** tudo inolevit, Reprehenfor acerrimus. Unde a 
 *' quihufdam minus difcretis putatus eft turbato per 
 *' nlmiam abftinentiam cerebro delirare." This 
 curious palTage fliews what hath been, and what is 
 likely to be, the fate of all oppofers of foolifh 
 and fuperftitious pra6lices and opinions, when 
 oppofers are moft wanted, that is to fay, to be 
 thought mad. Only one fees there was this dif- 
 ference between lVilliary^% age and our own. In 
 the time of good Gregory, they were the People of 
 leaft difcretion who palTed this judgment on every 
 Reformer's headpiece •, whereas in our times, they 
 are the 7}we difcrset who have made this difcovery. 
 
 Our 
 
366 The Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 Our Author's adverfaries proved to be of two 
 forts, Free-thinkehs and Systematical Di- 
 vines. Thofe denied the Major of the two Syl- 
 logifms •, Thefe, the Minor : yet one could not be 
 done without contradiding the univerfal voice of 
 Antiquity j nor the other, without explaining away 
 the fenfe, as well as letter, of facred Scripture. 
 Had it not been for this odd combination, my De~ 
 monjlration of the Divine Legation of Mofes had not 
 only been as jlrong but 2i%fhort too as any of Eu- 
 clid's : whofe theorems^ as Hobbes fomewhere ob- 
 ferves, fhould they ever happen to be conneded 
 with the paflions and interefts of men, would 
 Toon become as much matter of difpute and con- 
 tradiftion as any moral or theological Propofitiou 
 whatfoever. 
 
 It was not long, therefore, before I found that 
 the difcovery of this important Truth would encrao-e 
 me in a full dilucidation of the three followino- Pro- 
 pofitions 
 
 1. " That inculcating the do6lrine of a future 
 *' ftate of rewards and punifhments, is necelfary 
 *' to the well being of civil Society." 
 
 2. " That all mankind, efpecially the moft wife 
 *' and learned nations of Antiquity, have concurr- 
 «' ed in believing and teaching, that this dodrine 
 " was of fuch ule to civil Society." 
 
 3. " That the doclrinc of a future flate of re- 
 *' wards and puniiliments is not to be found in, 
 " nor did make part of, the Mofaic Difpeniation." 
 
 — Neither a fhort nor an cafy tajfk. The two 
 firft requiring a fevere fearch into the Religion, the 
 
 Politics 
 
Se£t. 6. of Moses demo^ijirated. 367 
 
 Politics and the Philofophy of ancient times : And, 
 the latter, a minute examination into the naiun 
 end genius of the Hebrew Confiitution, 
 
 To the firft part of this enquiry, therefore, I af- 
 figned the firft Volume of this work j and to the 
 other, the fecond. 
 
 I. The/;;/? Volume begins with proving the ma- 
 jor of the firll Syllogifm, that whatfoever Religion 
 and Society have no future State for their fupport^ mufi 
 hefupforted by an extraordinary Provide^ice. In or- 
 der to which, the first Proposition was to be in- 
 forced. That the inculcating the do^rine of a future 
 fiate of rewards and punifhments is necejfary to ths 
 well-being of Society, 
 
 This is done in the following manner — By fliew- 
 ino- that civil Society, which was inftituted as a 
 remedy againft force and injuftice, falls fhorr, in 
 many inftances, of its effedts— as it cannot, by its 
 own proper force, provide for the obfervance of 
 above one third part of moral duties -, and, of that 
 third, but imperfedtly : and further, which is a" 
 matter of ftill greater importance, that it totally 
 wants the firft, of thofe tv/o great hinges, on which 
 Government is fuppofed to turn, and without 
 which it cannot be carried on, namely Reward 
 and Punishment. Some other coadive power was 
 therefore to be added to civil Society, to fupply its 
 wants and imperfedions. This power is fnewn to 
 be no other than Religion -, which, teaching the 
 juft Government of the Deity, provides for all the 
 natural deficiencies of civil Society. But this go^ 
 ve-rnment, it is feen, can be no otherwife fup- 
 
 ported 
 
■368 I'he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 ported than by the general belief of z future Jiate -, 
 or of an extraordinary Providence^ that is, by a 
 Difpenfation of things very different from what we 
 fee adminiftered at prefent. 
 
 This being proved, the difcourfe proceeds to 
 remove objedions. — The Reader obferves, that 
 the fteps and gradations of this capital truth ad- 
 vance thus, — A future ftate is neceflary as it fup- 
 ports Religion — Religion is neceflfary as it fupports 
 Morality — And Morality as it fupports (tho' it be 
 reciprocally fupported by) civil Society, which only 
 can procure fuch accommodations of life as man's 
 nature requires. Hence I concluded, that the Doc- 
 trine of a future ftate was necelTary to civil Socie- 
 ty, under the prefent adminillration of Providence. 
 
 Now there are various kinds or rather degrees 
 of Libertinism. Some, tho' they own Morality 
 to be neceffary to Society, yet deny Religion to be 
 necelTary. Others again, deny it even to Mora- 
 lity. — As both equally attempt to break the 
 chain of my reafoning, both come equally under 
 my examination. And, opportunely for my pur- 
 pofe, a great Name in the firft inftance, and a 
 great Book, in the fecond, invited me to this en- 
 tertainment. 
 
 I. The famous M. Bayle had attempted to 
 prove, that Religion was not neceffary to Society -, 
 and that, fimple morality^ as diftinguiflied from Re- 
 lif^ion, might well fupply its place; which Mora- 
 lity too, an Atheist might compleatly pofTcfs. His 
 aro-uments in fupport of thefe propoficions I have 
 carefully examined : and having occafion, when 
 I came to the laft of them, to enquire into the true 
 foundation of Morality^ I ftate all its pretences, 
 
 confider 
 
Sed:. 6. of Moses deimnftrated, 369 
 
 confider all its advantages, and fhew that obliga- 
 tion properly fo called, proceeds from will, and 
 from WILL only. This enquiry was directly to my 
 point, as the refult of it proves that the morality of 
 the Athsifi mull be without any true foundation, 
 and confequently weak and unftable. It had a fur- 
 ther propriety, as the Religion, whofe divine ori- 
 ginal I am here attempting to demonftrate, has 
 founded moral obligation in Will only •, and had a 
 peculiar expediency likewife, as it is become the 
 fafhion of the times to feek for xKis foundation any 
 where but there where Religion has placed it. 
 
 I. But Mandeville, the Author of the Fable 
 of the Bees, went a large ftep further i and pretend- 
 ed to prove that morality was fo far from being 
 neceffary to Society, that it was vice and not virtue 
 which rendered dates flourifhing and happy. This 
 execrable Do6trine, that would cut away my Ar- 
 gument by the roots, was prefented to the People 
 with much laboured art and plaufible infmuation. 
 It was neceifary therefore to confute and expofe it. 
 This I have done with the fame care, but with bet- 
 ter faith than, it was inforced. 
 
 In this manner I endeavoured to prove the ma- 
 jOR Proposition of the firft Syllogifm : and with 
 this, the firft book of the Divine Legation of Mofe^ 
 concludes. 
 
 II. The fecond Book begins with eftablilhing 
 the MAJOR of the fecond Syllogifm, That the en- 
 cient Lawgivers univerfally believed that a Religion 
 without a future fl ate could be fupported only by an ex- 
 traordinary Providence. In order to which, the 
 SECOND Proposition was to be inforced, That all 
 mankind, efpecially the mojl wife and learned nations 
 
 Vol. V. B b «/ 
 
370 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 of Antiquity^ have concurred in believing and teaching, 
 that the Do^frine of a future Jtate was necefj'ary to 
 the well-being of civil Society. 
 
 The proof of this propofition divides itfelf into 
 
 two parts The conduB of the Lawgivers; 
 
 and the opinion of the Philosophers. 
 
 The firft part is the fubjefl of the prefe;it Book ; 
 as the fecond part is of the following. 
 
 In proving this propofition from the conducl of 
 the Lawgivers^ 1 (hew, 
 
 1. Their care to propagate Religion in general, 
 1. As it appears from the effeBs, the ftate of Reli- 
 gion every where in the civilized World. 2. As it 
 appears from the caufe, fuch as their iiniverfal pre- 
 tence to infpiration, in order to inftil the belief of 
 the Divine Superintendency over human aflairs ; 
 and llich as their univerfal praftice m prefacing their 
 Laws, in order to eftablifii the belief of that Su- 
 perintendency. And here it fhould be obferved, 
 that in proving their care to propagate Religion in 
 general, I prove their care to propagate the doclrine 
 of z future fate of Rewards and Punipments^ fince 
 there never was a formed Religion in the World, 
 the Jewifh excepted, of which this Dodrine did 
 not make an eflential part. 
 
 2. But I fliew in the fecond place, their care to 
 propagate this DoBrine, with more than common 
 attention and affiduicy. And as the moil effcc'lual 
 method they employed to this end was, the infti<^ 
 tution of the Mysteries, a large account is gi- 
 ven of their rife and progrefs, from Egypt in^to 
 Grcxx:e, and from thence, throughout the civilized 
 world. I have attempted to difcover the AnoP- 
 
Seft. 6. c/^ Moses demon jl rated. 371 
 
 PHTA, or hidden dodrines of thefe Myitcries, 
 whicli were the Unity of the Godhead and 
 the error of the grosser PolytheisiM, namely, 
 the Worfioip of dead men^ deif.ed. This dilcovery 
 not only confirms all that is advanced, concerning- 
 the rile, progrels, and order of the feveral fpecies's 
 of Idolatry, but clears up and redlifies much em- 
 barras and miftake even of the moll celebrated 
 Moderns, fuch as Cudworth^ StilUngfieet^ Pndeaux^ 
 Newion^ &c. who, contrary to the tenure of Holy 
 Scripture, in order to do imaginary honour to Re- 
 ligion, have ventured to maintain, that the one 
 true God was generally known and worJJnped in the 
 Pagcn JVorld ; for, finding many, in divers coun- 
 tries, fpeaking of the one true God, they conclud- 
 ed, that he muft needs have a national IVorJlnp. 
 Nov/ the Difcovery of the airoppnTx of the Myfieries 
 enables us to explain the perfedl confiflency be- 
 tween iac red and prophane Antiquity; which left 
 to fpeak for themfelves concur to inform us of 
 this plain and confident trudi, " That the Doc- 
 trine of the one true God, was indeed taught in 
 all places, but as a profound fecrer, to the few, 
 in the celebration of their myiberious Rites; while, 
 in the Land of Jud^a alone, he h.id 2.puhlic and 
 national IVorfljip.'^ For to the Hebrew People 
 alone, (as Eufebius exprefles it) was referved the 
 honour of being initiated into the knowkdge cf ths 
 Creator of all things. And of this difi^frence, G06. 
 himfelf Ipeaks by the Prophet, — I have not fpoken 
 IN secret, in a dark place of the earth'. 
 And the holy ApoFtle Paul informs us of the confe- 
 quence of that myfierious manner of teaching the 
 true God amongfi: the Pagan nations, that when, 
 
 ' Ifaiah xlv. 19, 
 
 B b 2 by 
 
3/2 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 by this means, they came to the knowledge of him, 
 they glorified him not as God\ 
 
 To confirm and illuftrate my account of the 
 Mysteries, I fubjoin a DifTcrcation on the Jixth 
 Book of firgiTs yEneis; and another on the meta- 
 morphof.s of Apuleius. The firft of which books, 
 is Ihewn to be one continued defcription of the 
 Eleitfmian Myflcries •, and the other to be purpofe- 
 ly written to recommend the ufe and efficacy of 
 tiie Pagan Myfieries in general. 
 
 And here the attentive Reader will obferve, 
 that throughout the courfe of this whole argument, 
 on the conduftof the ancient Lawgivers, it ap- 
 pears, that all the fundamental principles of their 
 Policy were borrowed from Egypt. A truth 
 which will be made greatly fubfervient to the fninor 
 of the fecond Syllogifm -, that Mofes^ tho' learned in 
 all the Wifdom of Egypt, yet inftitiited the Jez^ifh 
 Religion and Society 'u;ithout a future State. 
 
 From this, and from what has been faid above of 
 MORAL OBLIGATION, the intellig;ent Reader will 
 perceive, that, throughout the Divine Legation, I 
 have all along endeavoured to fele6t for my pur- 
 ppfe fuch kind of arguments, in fupport of the 
 particular queftion in hand, as may, at the fame 
 time, illuitrate the truth of Revelation in general, 
 or ferve as principles to proceed upon in the pro- 
 grcfs of the prefent Argument. Of which, will be 
 given, as occafion fervcs, feveral other inftances 
 in the courie of this review. — And now having 
 ihewn the Legidators care X.Q propagate Religion in 
 
 Rom. 
 
 J. 21, 
 
 general. 
 
Sq6:. 6. g/' Moses demonjlj-ated, 373 
 
 general, and the Doftrine of a future ftate of Re- 
 wards and Punifliments in particular, (in which is 
 feen their fenfe of the infeparable connexion be- 
 tween them) I go on, to explain the contrivan- 
 ces they employed to perpetuate the knowledge 
 and influence of them : by which it appears that, 
 in their opinion. Religion was not a temporary 
 expedient, ufeful only to fecure their own power 
 and authority, but a neccllary fupport to civil 
 Society itfelf. 
 
 1. The firfl inftance of this care was, as we 
 Ihew, their ESTABLISHING A national Religion, 
 
 prctecied by the Laws of the State, in all places 
 where they were concerned. But as Men, igno- 
 rant of /r«^ Religion, could hardly avoid failing into 
 miftakes in contriving the mode of this Efiahliflj- 
 ment, I have therefore (the fubjedb of my Work 
 being no idle fpeculation, but fuch a one as affedts 
 us in our higheft interefts, as Men and Citizens) 
 attempted to deliver the true Theory of the Alliance 
 between Church and State, as the beil defence of 
 the jufcice and equity of an established Reli- 
 gion. 
 
 2. The fecond inftance of their care, I fhew to 
 have been the allowance of a general tolera-^ 
 tion i which as it would, for the like reafon, be 
 as imperfedly framed as an EJiabliJJjrnent, I have 
 ventured to give the true 'Theory of that likewife. 
 The ancient Lawgiver contrived to ejlablijb one 
 mode of Religion, by allying it to the State, for 
 the fake of its duration : He tolerated other 
 modes of it, for the fake of their influence, for 
 a Religion forced upon man, has none ; and the 
 Lawgiver concerns himfelf with Religion only for 
 the lake of its influence. — Difcourfing upon this 
 
 B b 3 Subjeft, 
 
374 The Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 Subject, I was naturally led to vindicate true Reli- 
 gion from an afperiion of Infidelity : Where, I 
 fhew, that the firil perfecution for Religion was 
 not that which was cohimitted^ but that which was 
 undergone by (Yit Chriftian Church : And that the 
 ill fuccfcls atiending its propagation amongft barba- 
 rous Nations in our times, is altogether owing to 
 the prepouerous mttiiod employed for that pur- 
 pofe. — And v/ith this, the fccond Book of the 
 Divine Le2:ation concludes. 
 
 'D 
 
 : III. The third Book goes on in fupporting the 
 MAJOR of the fecond Syllogifm, by the opinions of 
 the Philosophers. For as the grtat wafte and 
 ravages of time have deilroyed moll of the Monu- 
 ments of ancient Legijlation^ I held it not impro- 
 per to ftrcngthen my pofition of the fenfeof their 
 Lawgivers, by that of their Sages and Philofo- 
 phers. In this is fliewn, 
 
 I. From their own words, the convicflion they 
 in general had of the neceflity of the dodlrine of 
 a future ft ate of Rewards and Punijhme7its to civil 
 focitty. And, to fet this convidion in the ftrongeft 
 light, I endeavour to prove, that even fuch of 
 them (viz. the feveral fe<fls of Grecian Philofo- 
 pJiers) who did not believe r. future flate of Re- 
 wards and PurajJjments, did yer, for the fake of So- 
 ciety, diligently teach and propagate it. — That 
 they taiigtoi it, is confelTed ; that they did not beliei-e 
 it, was my bufirx-fs to prove : which I have done by 
 Ihcwing, I. J'hat they all thought it lawful to 
 fay one thinr^- and think another. 2. That they 
 confcantly pradifed w!iat they thus thought to be 
 lawful : and, 3. That they pradifed it on the 
 very D;61rii)e in quefiion. — To explain and verify 
 the two lirit of thefe aiicrtions, I had occafion 
 
 to 
 
Se£l.-6. of Moses demcnjlrated, 27 S 
 
 tx) inquire into the rife, progrefs, perfcaion, de- 
 cline, and genius of the ancient Greek Philofoph)\ 
 under all its feveral divifions. In which, (as its rile 
 and progrefs are fhewn to have been from Egypt) 
 ftill mo?e materials are laid in for inforcing the 
 7«/;wrpropofition,of the fecond Syllogifm.— I then 
 proceed to a more particular inquiry into the fenti- 
 ments of each fed of Philofophy, on this point •, 
 and fhew, from the charader and genius of each 
 School, and from the Writings of each man, that 
 none of them did indeed believe the Doftrine of 
 a future Jiate of Rewards and Punifhments. At the 
 fame time it appears, from almoft every proof 
 brought for this purpofe, that they all thought ihe 
 Doftrine to be of the higheft utihty to the State.— 
 Here, in examining the philofophy of Pythago- 
 ras, the fubjea led me, to confider his fo cele- 
 brated MetempfychoftS', in which, I take occafion 
 to fpeak of the origin of the Pagan Fables, and 
 the nature of the Metamorphcfts of Ovid, here fliewn 
 to be a Popular Hipry of Providence, very regular- 
 ly and artfully deduced from the mod early times 
 to his own : From the whole I draw this conclulion, 
 <* that Pythagoras, who fo feduloufly propagated 
 this fpecies of a future ftate of Rewards and Pu- 
 nilhments (the Metemffychcfis) that he was thought 
 by fome to be author of it, confidered it only as 
 a commodious Fable to reftrain the unruly po. 
 pulace," 
 
 2. To fupport this fad, it is fhewn, in the next 
 place, that thefe Phiiofophers not only did not, but 
 that they cc^/^ not poffibly believe the Dodrine of a 
 future ftate of Rewards and Punifhments, becaufe 
 the belief of it contradifted two Metaphyfical prin- 
 ciples univerfally held and believed by them, con. 
 £ernin<T the nature of God and of the Soui. j which 
 "^ B b 4 were. 
 
376 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 were, that the Deify could not hurt any one \ and that 
 the foul was part of the fuhjlance of the Deity, and re- 
 fohable again into him. In explaining and verifying 
 their reception of this latter principle, I take oc- 
 cafion to fpeak of its original •, which, I prove, 
 was Grecian and not Egyptian j as appears from 
 the genius and chara6ler of the two Philofophies; 
 tho' the fpurious books going under the name of 
 Hermes, but indeed written by the later Piatonifts, 
 would perfuade us to the contrary. The ufe of 
 this inquiry likewife (i. e. concerning the origin of 
 this principle) v;ill be feen when we come to fettle 
 the charaher of Mofes, as aforefaid. — But, with 
 regard to the belief of the Philufophers on both 
 points, befides the direft and principal ufe of it, for 
 the fupport of the major oi the fecond Syllogifm, 
 it hath (as I faid before, it was contrived my ar- 
 guments fhould have) two further ufes •, the one, to 
 ferve as a principle in the progrefs of my general 
 Argument i the other, to illuftrate the truth of 
 Revelation in general. For, ift, it will be a fuf- 
 ficient anfwer to that folution of theDeills, (to be 
 confidered hereafter) th-5.t Mofes did not teach the 
 Do5lrine of a f Mure fiat c hecaufe he did not believe it, 
 fince it is fhewn by the ftrongeft evidence, that 
 the not believing a dodlrine fo ufeful to Society^ 
 was efteemed no reafon why the Legiflator fhould 
 not propagate it. 2. It is a convincing proof of 
 the expediency of the Gofpel of Jefus, that the fages 
 of Greece, with whom all the wifdom of the Wife 
 was fuppofed to be depofited, had philofophifed 
 themfelves out of one of the moll evident and ufe- 
 ful truths with which mankind has any concern ; 
 and a fuW jujtif cation of the feverity with which 
 the holy Apoftles always fpeak of the Philofophers 
 and the Philofophy of Greece^ fince it is hereby leen to 
 be directed only againft thefe pernicious principles ( 
 
 and 
 
Se£t. 6. ^ M o s E s demonjlrated, ^77 
 
 and nor, as Deijis and Fanatics concur to repre- 
 sent it, a condemnation of human learning in gene- 
 ra). 
 
 3. But as now, it might be objefted, " that by 
 this reprefentation, we lole on the one hand what 
 we gain on the other -, and that while we fhew the 
 expediency of the Gofpel, we run a rifque of difcredit- 
 ing its reafonahknejs ; for that nothing can bear har- 
 der upon this latter quality, than that the beft and 
 wifeft perfons of Antiquity did not believe that 
 which the Gofpel was fent to propagate, namely the 
 Dodtrine of a future ftate of Rewards and Punifh- 
 ments." As this, I fay, might be objedled, we have 
 given (befides explaining on what abfurd princi- 
 ples their unbelief refted) a further anfwer-, and, to 
 fupport this anfwer, fliewn, that the two extremes 
 into which Divines have ufually run, in reprefenting 
 the ftate and condition of revealed Religion^ are at- 
 tended with great and real mifchiefs to it ; while 
 the only view of Antiquity, which yields folid ad- 
 vantage to the Chriftian Caufe, is fuch a one as is 
 here reprefented for the true : Such a one as fliews 
 natural Reafon to be clear enough 10 perceive truth, 
 and the necefiary dedudtions from it when propofedy 
 but not gfi-{\tr:\\y Jircng enough to difcover it. He, 
 who of ail the Pagan World beft knew its force, 
 and was in that very ftate in which only a true judg- 
 ment could be pafied, has with the greateft inge- 
 nuity confeffed this truth, " Nam neque tam eft 
 " acris acies in naturis hominum et ingeniis, ut 
 " res tantas quifquam, nifi monftratus pofTit videre; 
 " neque tanta tamen in rebus obfcuritas, ut eas 
 *' peritusacriviringeniocernat, fimodoafpexerit.'* 
 In explaining this matter, it is occafionally fhewn, 
 that the great and acknowleged fuperiority of the 
 modern Syftems of Deiftical Morality above the 
 ancient, in point of excellence, is entirely owing 
 
 to 
 
37^ The Divine' Legation Book VI, 
 
 W'the unacknowledged, and perhaps unrufpe(5led, 
 aid of Revelation. 
 
 Thus the Reader fees, in vvliat manner we have 
 endeavoured to prove the major. Propositions of 
 the two Syilogifms, that zvbatfoever Religion and 
 Society have no future State for their jupfort^ mujl be 
 ftipported by an extraordinary Prcvidencf. And that, 
 Jhe amient Laivgivers ta:iverfally believed, that a 
 Jidigion 'without a future State could be fupported only 
 by an extraordinary Providence. For having ilicwn, 
 that Religion and Society were unable, and be- 
 lieved to be unable to fnpport themfelves under an 
 ordinary Providence, Vv^ithout a future State ; if 
 they were fupported without that Dodlrine, it 
 could be, and could be believed to be, only by an 
 ixtraordifiary Providence. 
 
 But now as the proof is condu<5ted through a long 
 detail of circumftances, fl^iewing the abfolute necef- 
 Jityof Religion to civil Society-, and the fenfe which 
 all the wife and learr.ed amongft the ancients had 
 of that necefiJiy ; left this Ihould be abufed to 
 countenance the idle and impious Conceit that Re- 
 ligion WAS THE INVENTION OF POLITICIANS, I 
 
 concludcc'. thc^ third Book and the Vokime together, 
 with proving that the Conceit is both imperti- 
 nent and FALSE. 
 
 I. Impertinent, for that, were this account of 
 the origin of Religion true, it would not follow, 
 that the thing itfelf was vifionary -, but, on the con- 
 -trary, moft real, evidently fo even from that univer- 
 fal utility, on which this" its pretended origin is fup- 
 ported. Indeed, againft this utility, paradoxical 
 men, or rren in a paradoxical humour, have often 
 reafoned-, fuch as Bayle, Plutarch, and Bacon : 
 Their arguments are here examined: And the 
 
 Maf- 
 
iSeA. 6. o/' Moses demonjirafed. '379 
 
 Mafier fophifm^ which runs through the reafoning; 
 of all three, is detedled and expofed. 
 
 2. Falfe; for that, in fa6t. Religion exited be- 
 fore the civil Magift rate was in being. In proving 
 this point, the matter led me to fpeak of the origin 
 cf Idolatry •, to diftinguilli the feveral fpecies of it; 
 to adjuft the order in which they arofe out of one 
 another ; and to detedb the ends of the later Plato- 
 nifts, in their attempts to turn the whole into an 
 ALLEGORY (in which the reafonings of a late Wri- 
 ter in his Letters concerning Mythology are confider- 
 ed.) Andbecaufe the rage of allegorising had 
 fpread a total confufion over all this matter. The 
 origin, and progrefs of the folly, and the various 
 views of its fe£tators in fupporting it, are here ac- 
 counted for and explained. 
 
 But my end and purpofe in all this, was not 
 barely to remove an objeftion againft the Truths 
 delivered in this place, but to prepare a reception 
 for thofe which are to follow : For if Religion 
 were fo ufeful to Society, and yet not the inven- 
 tion of the Magiftrate, we muft feek for its ori- 
 ginal in another quarter •, either from Nature or 
 Revelation, or from both. 
 
 Such is the fubjed-matter of the first Volume 
 of the Divine Legation : which, as it was thought 
 proper to publilh feparately, I contrived fhould not 
 only contain a part, of that general Argument, 
 but (hould likewile be a compleat Treatife of it- 
 felf, eftablifliing one of the moft important Truths 
 with which Man has any concern -, namely, the 
 necessity of Religion for the support of 
 civil Government. And if, in fupport of this 
 truth, I have entered into a long detail of fome 
 
 capital 
 
^So T^he Di'vine Legation Book VI. 
 
 capital articles of Antiquity, I prefumc I fliall not 
 need an apology. 
 
 11. 
 
 We come now to the second Volume of the 
 Divine Legation, which is employed in proving the 
 MINOR Proposition of the two Syllogifms ; the 
 Jjrft, that the JewiJ^j Religion aiid Society had no future 
 jiate for their fupport : the other,, that Mofes, an an- 
 cient Lawgiver, and learned in all the Wifdorn of Egypt, 
 furpofely i>.fiituted fuch a Religion, in order to which 
 the THIRD GENERAL PROPOSITION was to be in- 
 forced \ That the Dotlrine of a future Jiate of Re- 
 wards and Punifhments is not to be found in, nor did 
 make part of the Mofaic Difpenfation. But in 
 proving the minor, a method fomething different 
 from that obferved in proving the major Propo- 
 sitions was to be followed. Jhefe, in the firit Vo- 
 lume, were proved fuccejfively and in order. But 
 here the minor Propositions are inforced all the 
 way together. And this difference arifes from the 
 reafon of the thing ♦, the fads brought to prove 
 the dodrine to be omitted, do, at the fame timx, 
 accidentally fhew that the OmifTion was defigned : 
 And the reafons brought to prove the ufes in a de- 
 figned omifllon, necejfarily (hew that the Dodrine 
 was omitted. 
 
 To proceed therefore with the fubjed of the 
 SECOND Volume. 
 
 IV. I jufl before obferved, that the conclufion 
 of the firft Volume, which detedled the abfurdity 
 and falfity of the Atheiftic Principle, that Reli- 
 gion was an invention of Politicians, and a creature of 
 theJiatCj opened the v;ay to a fair inquiry whether 
 
 its 
 
Se(5b. 6. ^/ Moses detJionft rated* 38-1 
 
 its true original was not as well from Revelation 
 ^s from NATURAL Reason. 
 
 In the introdu6lion therefore to this fecond Vo- 
 lume, I took the advantage which that opening af- 
 forded me, of fhewing that the univerfal pretence 
 to Revelation proves fome Revelation muft be true: 
 That this true Revelation muft have feme charac- 
 teriftic marks to diftinguifh it from the falfe : And 
 that thefe marks are to be found in the Inftitutions 
 
 of MoSES. 
 
 But this was only by way of introduction ; and 
 to lead the Reader more eafily into the main road 
 of our inquiry-, by fhewing that we purfued no 
 defperate adventure, while we endeavoured to de- 
 duce the divinity of Mofes's Law from the cir- 
 cumftances of the Law itfelf. 
 
 I proceeded then to the proof of the minor Pro- 
 positions, that the Jewijh Religion and Society had 
 no future State for their fupport : and that Mofes^ an 
 ancient Lawgiver, and learned in all the wifdom of 
 Egypt, purpofely injlituted fiich a Religion. To 
 evince thefe truths with fufficient evidence, the 
 nature of that Inftitution was to be firft underilood ; 
 which, again required a general knowledge, at 
 leaft, of the manners and genius of the Hebrew 
 People J and of the character and abilities of their 
 Lawgiver. Now thefe having been entirely fa- 
 fhioned on Egyptian models, it was further expe- 
 dient that we fhould know the ft ate of Egyptian 
 fiiperftition and learning in that early period. 
 
 I . In order to this, the following propofition is 
 advanced, that the Egyptian learning cekhrated in 
 
 Scrip' 
 
382 ^e Divine Legiition Book VL 
 
 Scripture, and the Egyptian fuperjiit ion there condemn- 
 ed, were the very learning and fuperjiilion reprefented 
 hy the Greek PFt iters as the honour and opprobrium of 
 that kingdom. Where I firft ftate the queflion •, and 
 then fhew the equal extravagance of each of thofe 
 two parties amongll the learned, who have been 
 accuftomed to advance or to deprefs the high anti- 
 quity of Egypt. 
 
 I. I corroborate the Propofition, firft, by Fact, 
 the teftimony of holy Scripture, and of the an*- 
 cient Greek Writers, fet together and fupport- 
 ing one another; and both fupported by circum- 
 ftances regarding the peculiar fituation of the land 
 of Egypt. And here the ohjeSiions of the author 
 of the Sacred and Prophane Hijlory of the World con- 
 nected, frightened by the common panic of the 
 high antiquity of Egypt, are confuted and ex- 
 pofed. 
 
 Secondly, by Reason, in an Argument drawn 
 from the nature, origin and various ules of their 
 fo famed Hieroglyphics. Where it is fhewn, 
 
 1 . That this fpecies of writing was employed by 
 the Egyptians as the vehicle of learning, even after 
 the invention of letters : for which no good rea- 
 fon can be afligned but this, that they were appli- 
 ed to the fame purpofe before. Now letters were 
 in ufe amongft them before the time of Mofes. 
 
 2. Again, it is {hewn that the Onirocritics bor- 
 rowed their art of deciphering dreams from hierogly- 
 phic Symbols: but hieroglyphic Symbols were the 
 myfterious vehicle of the civil fcicnce and of the 
 Theology of the Egyptians. Now Onirocritic 
 
 or 
 
 2 
 
Sc(5l. 6. o/^ Moses demonjl rated, 38^ 
 
 or the art of interpreting of dreams was pradiied 
 in the time of Joleph. 
 
 5. And again. It is fhewn that ANi\fAL-woRSHip 
 in Egypt arofe from the myflerious ufe of thC' 
 lame hieroglyphic Symbols. Now animal-worship 
 was eftablillied amongft them before the time of 
 Mofes. 
 
 From all this, it appears., that Egypt was of that 
 high antiquity which Scripture and the beiL Greek 
 Writers concur to repreilrn: it. By which, we come 
 to underftand \y''.":L" were t.\\p: fpecijic manners and fu- 
 perfiitions cf Egypt in the time of Mofes ; thefe 
 being, as it now appears, id-^iiLically the fame with 
 what tliC Greek Writers have delivered to us. 
 
 In the courfe of this proof from Reafon, which 
 opens at large the nature, origin, and variouji 
 kinds of Egyptian EIieroglyphics, I interweave 
 (as the explanation of my fubjed: necefiarily re- 
 quired) a detailed hiftory of the various modes of 
 ancient communication amongft men, as well by 
 real and literary charafters, as by "jocrds and ai^iony 
 and Hatw how speech and writing ran parallel in 
 their progrefs j and influenced, and were influenced 
 by, one another. On the fame account, when I 
 come to the origin of Brute-worship, I give the 
 hiltory of the various modes of ancient Idolatry, in 
 the order in which they rofe, one out of another. 
 
 Thefe things I have not only made to ferve in 
 fupport of the queftion I am here upon, but like- 
 wife in fupport of one queftion preceding, and of 
 one which is to follow. 
 
 For in the hiftory of the various modes of ancient 
 fommunication was laid, as the Reader will find, the 
 
 foundar 
 
384 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 foundation of my difcourfes on the nature of an- 
 cient Prophecies in the fixth Book. 
 
 And, in the hiftory of the various modes of an- 
 cient Idolatry^ the Reader hath a neceflary fupple- 
 ment to what had been faid before on the fame fub- 
 jed, in the latter end of the third Book, againll 
 the Atheifl's pretended origin of Religion. 
 
 So ftudious have I been to obferve, what a great 
 mafter of Reafon lays down as the rule and tefi of 
 good order in Compofition, That every former part 
 may give firength to all that follow ; and every latter 
 bring light unto all before '\ 
 
 But the high antiquity of Egypt, tho' proved 
 from Atitiquity itfelf, feemed not to be enough fe- 
 cured, while the authority of ont great modern re- 
 mained entire, and his realonings unanfwered. 
 
 In the next place, therefore, I examine Sir Isaac 
 Newton's Chronology of the Egyptian Empire -y a 
 Chronology ereded on the fuppofed identity ofOfiris 
 and Sefoflris i which is a fancy that not only con- 
 tradids dllfacredsLS well as prophane antiquity, but, 
 what is ftill more, the very nature of things. 
 
 In the courfe of this confutation, the caufes of 
 that endlefs confufton in the early Greek hijhry and 
 Mythology are inquired into and explained: Which 
 ferves, at the fame time, to confirm and illuftrate 
 all that hath been occafionally faid in the latter end 
 of i\\t third book, and, here again, in this fourth, 
 concerning— the origin and progrefs of Idolatry, 
 — the gpnius of Pagan Religion, — the Gentile 
 
 * Hooker. 
 
 modes 
 
Scd. 6. ^ Moses demonJirateiL 38^ 
 
 modes of worfhip, — and their Theological opi- 
 
 nions. 
 
 Thus far concerning the high antiquity of Egypt. 
 Which, befides the immediate pnrpofe of leading 
 us into the true idea of the Jewifo Inftitution in 
 o-eneral, hath thefe further ufes : 
 
 We have feen in the foregoing Volume, that 
 Egypt, as it was moft famed for the arts of legifla- 
 tion, fo it moft of all inculcated the doftrine of a 
 future jiate of Rewards and Punifhments. Now, if 
 E»ypt were indeed of the high antiquity here af- 
 figned unto it, that dodrine muft needs be of na- 
 tional belief, at the time the Hebrews lived there 
 in flavery. But then they having, as we find in 
 Scripture, thoroughly imbibed the religious no- 
 tions of the place, muft needs be much prejudiced 
 in favour of fo reafonable and flattering a Doc- 
 trine : Confequently their Lawgiver, who likewife 
 had been bred up in all the learning of Egypt, 
 would, if he had aded only by human diredion, 
 have, in imitation of his Mafters, taken advantage 
 of this favourable prejudice to inake the dodrine 
 of a future ftate the grand Sanction of his Reli- 
 gion and Law. 
 
 Again, the proof of the high ■Antiquity of Egypt^ 
 was neceffary to wmd^iczt^facred Scripture-, which all 
 along declares for that Antiquity ; and which the 
 Deist having endeavoured to take advantage of, 
 in oppofing Mofes's pretence to infpiration,_ibmc 
 imprudent Believers were grown not unwilling to 
 explain away. Sir Ifiac Newton's Chronology 
 afforded them the aid they wanted : And while 
 it offered itfelf in fupport of the BiUe-divin iy. 
 
 Vol. V, C c t kv 
 
3^6 T'he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 they fcemed little attentive to the liberties it had 
 taken with the Bible-hijlcry. 
 
 2. In order to bring on this Truth of the high 
 antiquity of Egypt nearer to my purpoie, I pro- 
 ceeded to the /^-co;?^ Proportion. That thejcwiflj 
 People were extremely fond of Egyptian manners^ and 
 did frequently fall into Egyptian fuperjlitions : and that 
 many of the La"d;s given to them by the minijlry of 
 Mofes were injiituted partly in compliance to their pre- 
 judices^ and partly in oppofition to thofe fuperjlitions. 
 In the proof of the firft part of this Propofition, 
 I fhew the high probability that the Law was infti- 
 tuted with reference to Egyptian manners j and 
 through the proof of the fecond, is deduced a 
 demonjlration that it was actually fo framed. 
 
 For a further illuftration of this Argument, I 
 give an hiftorical account of the degeneracy of the 
 Hebrew People, and of their amazing propenfity to 
 imitate the manners of Egypt, from the time that 
 Mofes was firft fent upon his Miffion, to their 
 entire fettlement in the land of Judea : Which fully 
 Jliews (what will ftand us in ftead, hereafter) that 
 a People fo perverfe and headftrong needed, in the 
 conftruflion of their civil and religious Inftitutions, 
 all pofTible curbs to diforder : Now of all fuch 
 curbs, the doftrine of a future Jiate was ever held 
 the chief in ancient policy ; and as this doftrine 
 was fo peculiarly Egyptian, they muft needs have 
 the molt favourable prejudice towards it. 
 
 But then, as it might perhaps be objeded, that 
 while I am endeavouring to get this way, into the 
 interior of the Jewifli Conftitution, I open a back 
 door to the ravages of Infidelity : it was thought 
 
 necefiary. 
 
Se(5l. 6. of Mosses demonjlrated. 387 
 
 necefTary, in order to prevent the Deift's taking 
 advantage of the great Truth contained in the 
 preceding Propofinon, ('which is the fecond) to 
 guard it by tlie following, (which is the third) 
 viz. '^hat Mofes's Egyptian Learnings and the Laws 
 injiituted in compliance to the Peoples prejudices^ are 
 no reafoyiahle ohjeofion to the divinity of his Mijfion. 
 Where, in explaining the firft part, which fliews 
 what this learning was, and how well it fuited 
 with Mofes's MilTion, I had occafion to inquire 
 into the origin and ufe of the schools of the 
 Prophets : Which the Reader will find of this fur- 
 ther ufe, viz. To give ilrength andfupport to what 
 is faid in the fixth Book of the Nature of the 
 Jewish Prophecies -, and particularly to what is 
 there obferved of Grotius's fatal error, in his 
 mode of interpreting them. 
 
 And in explanation of the fecond part, having 
 proved the Propofition, That to inftitute Laws in 
 conipliance to popular prejudices is no reafonable 
 obje6lion to their divine original, having proved 
 this, I fay, from the nature of things, the Dif- 
 courfe proceeds to examine all the Arguments 
 which have been urged in fupport of the contrary 
 opinion, by Herman Witsius, in his learned 
 Treatife intitled Mgyptiaca, that Book having been 
 publickly recommended by Dr. Waterland, for a 
 difiinU and f olid confutation of Spencer* s De Legibus 
 Hehraonim ritualibus. 
 
 And the anfwer to Witfius's laft argument bring- 
 ing into queftion the intrinfic value of the ritual 
 Law, the famous chara6ler of it given by the 
 Prophet Ezekiel, of fiatutes that were not good, 
 and judgments whereby they fhould not live — is ex- 
 plained in a large analyfis of the whole Prophecy, 
 C G 2 againft 
 
388 ^he Divine Legcticn Book VI. 
 
 againft an old foolifh notion revived by Dr. Shuck- 
 ford, that thefe Statutes and Jiidg-uients here faid to 
 be grjen by Gcd, were the Pagan Idolatries, which, 
 in defiance of God, they took without leave. 
 
 But I go yet further in fupport of the fourth 
 Propofition, and prove, thd^ithefevery circumftances 
 cfMcfes's Egyptian Learnings and the Lais:s injiituted 
 in compliance to the People's prejudices, are a firong 
 confirraation of the divinity of his Mijfwn, 
 
 xft. For, that one bred up in the arts of Egyp- 
 tian Legiflation could never, on his own head, have 
 thought of reducing an unruly people to o-overn- 
 ment, on maxims of Religion and Policy,^funda- 
 fnentally oppofite to all the principles of Egyp- 
 tian WISDOM, at that time the univerfal Model on 
 which all the Legiflators worked, in reducing a 
 barbarous People to Society. Yet Mofes went 
 upon principles diametrically oppofite to that wis- 
 dom, when he enjoined the public worfliip of the 
 me true God onjy^ and omitted the dottrine of a fu- 
 ture fiats of Rewards and Punifimients^ in tlie inftitu- 
 tion of his Law and Religion. 
 
 2dly, For, that One v^hofalfely pretended to re- 
 ceive the whole frame of a national Conllitution 
 from God, would never have rifqued his preten- 
 fions by a ritual Law, which the people might fee 
 was politically inftituted, partly in co;nphance to 
 their prejudices, and partly in oppofition to Egyp- 
 tian fuperllitions. 
 
 Here, all the imaginable motives are inquired 
 into, which Moses, tho' a mere human Lawgiver^ 
 might have had to ad in the manner he did^^ and 
 thefe motives are fhewn to be inlufr;ticnt to induce a 
 
 wif« 
 
Se(5i. 6. ^ M o s E s demovjlrafed. 3S9 
 
 wife Legiflator thus to afl. — In conclufion, it is 
 made apparent, that a ritual^ contrrjsd to oppofe to 
 the reigning fiiperjiitions 'y and, at the fame time, to 
 prefigure^ by its typical nature^ all the elTential parts 
 of a future Difpenfation, contains a ftrong inter- 
 nal ARGUMENT THAT THE RITUAL LaW WAS 
 NOT A MERE HUMAN INVENTION. And with this 
 
 the fourth Book concludes. 
 
 V. What hath been hitherto faid, was to let the 
 Reader into the genius of the Jewifh Policy in 
 general^ in order, to his judging more exactly of 
 the peculiar nature of its Government •, that, from 
 thence, he might be enabled to determine, with 
 full certainty, of the matters in queftion, as they 
 are contained in the two Minor terms. 
 
 r . The fifth Book^ therefore, comes ftill nearer 
 to the point, and fhews, that the Government m- 
 ftituted by Mofes, was a Theocracy, properly 
 fo called, where God himfelf was the fupreme 
 civil Mamftrate. It begins with affio-nins; and fet- 
 tling the true reafon of the feparation of the pos- 
 terity of Abraham from the reft of mankind ; — • 
 becaufe this feparation has been greatly mifunder- 
 ftood — but principally becaufe the true reafon of 
 tho. feparation leads us into the ufe and necefTity 
 of a theocratic form of Government. 
 
 In evincing this neceflity, the juftice of the Law 
 for punijhi/tg Idol-'worfhip capitally, under a Theo- 
 cracy, is explained : And becaufe the Deift hath 
 been accuftomed to urge this haw againll the di- 
 vine original of the whole Inftitution, it is here 
 juftified at large, on the principles of natural 
 equity : Which ferves, as well a paft purpofe, viz. 
 the adding ftrength and fupport to what hath been 
 
 C g q fj^id 
 
390 The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 faid on the fubjeft of Toleration, in the fecond 
 Book i as it does at prefent, viz. To confirm the 
 reality of this Theocracy^ which a celebrated dilFent- 
 ing Minifter has prepofteroufly gone out of his way 
 to bring in queftion : whofe reafoning^ therefore, is , 
 examined and expofed. 
 
 • 2. This Theocracy, thus proved to be necef- 
 fary^ was likewife, of the moft eafy introduftion, 
 as I have Ihewn from the notions and opinions of 
 thofe times, concerning ttitelary Deities. And here, 
 fpeaking of the method of divine Providence, in 
 applying the prejudices and manners of men to 
 the great ends of his Difpenfations, I obferve, 
 that He is always accuftomed to imprefs on his in- 
 ftitution, fome charafteriftic note of difference, to 
 mark it for his own : which leading me to give 
 inftances in fome of thefe notes, I infift chiefly up- 
 on this, " that the Mofaic Religion was built upon 
 " a former, namely, the Patriarchal : v/hereas the 
 " various Religions of the Pagan World were all 
 ** unrelated to, and independent of, one another." 
 As this was a circumftance neceflary to be well at- 
 tended to, by all who would fully comprehend the 
 nature of the Mofaic Policy, I took the advantage, 
 which the celebrated Author of the Grounds and 
 Reafons of the Chriftian Religion had afforded me, to 
 fupport this chara6leriflic note, againft his idle at- 
 tempt to prove, that the Pagans, likewife, were 
 accuftomed to build one pretended Revelation on 
 another. 
 
 3. I proceed, in the next place, to fliew, that 
 thofe prejudices which made the introduction of a 
 Theocracy fo eafy, occafioncd as eafy a defection 
 from it. In which, I had occafion to explain the 
 nature of the 'ixorfhip of tutelary Gods \ and of that 
 
 Idolatry 
 
Se<5i;. 6. cf Moses demonjlrated, 391 
 
 idolatry wherewith the Ifraelites were fo obflinate- 
 ly befotted. 
 
 Both of which Difcourfes ferve thefe further pur- 
 pofes : tiie former^ to fupport and explain what 
 hath been faid in the fecond Book concerning the 
 Pagan intercommunity of worjlnp : and the /tf//i?r, (be- 
 fides a peculiar ule to be made of it in third 
 Volun-^e) to obviate a popular obj"6tion of Un- 
 believers ; wh'o, from this circumftance, of the 
 perpetual defection of the Ifraelites into idola- 
 try, would infer, that God's Difpenfation to them 
 could never have been fo convi6tive as their Hiilory 
 reprefents it; the Objectors having taken it for 
 grantt-d, on the allowance of Believers, that this 
 Idolatry confifted in renouncing the Law of Mo- 
 fes, and renouncing it as difi^atisfied with its truth. 
 Both which fuppolitions are here fiiewn to be falfe. 
 This affords an occafion to confute the falfe rea- 
 foning of Lord Bolingbroke; who, from this fre- 
 quent lapfe into Idolatry, infers fuch a defed and 
 political inability in the Law, as Ihews its pretence 
 to a divine original to be an impofture. 
 
 4.. The nature of the Theocracy, and the cir- 
 cumftances attending its ereElion being thus ex- 
 plained, we come next to inquire concerning its 
 duration. Here we fhew, that, in ftri6l truth and 
 propriety, it fubfifted throughout the whole period 
 of the Jewifh CEconomy, even to the coming of 
 Chrift: In which difcourfe, the contrary opinions, of 
 an earlier abolition, are all confidered and confut- 
 ed, and the above truth fupported and eftablilhed. 
 In the courfe of this reafoning, it is fhewn, that the 
 famous Prophecy of Jacob, of the Sceptre's not de- 
 parting from Judah till the ccming of Shiloh^ is a pro- 
 mife or declaration of the exiltence of the The- 
 
 C C 4 OCRACY 
 
392 ^he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 OCR AC Y till the coming of Chrift. And as the 
 truth of this interpretation is of the higheft im- 
 portance to Revelation, all the different fenfes given 
 to this Prophecy are examined, and (hewn to be 
 erroneous. And the lad of them being one bor- 
 rowed by Dr. Sherlock, Bifhop of London, and 
 received into his Book of the Ufe and Intent of Pre- 
 fhec)\ is particularly difcufled. 
 
 The ufe to be hereafter made of the duration of 
 ■the Theocracy to the coming of Chrifl, is to inforce, 
 by this circumltance, amongft many others, the 
 CONNEXION between the two Religions : a truth, 
 though too much neglecfled, yet incumbent on 
 every rational Defender of Revelation to fup- 
 port. 
 
 The Argument then proceeds to a confideration 
 of the peculiar confequcnccs attending the admini^ 
 flration of a Theocracy, which brings us yet nearer 
 ro'-our point. Here it is fliewn, that one neceflary 
 confecjMcnce was an extraordinary Providence. 
 And agreeably to this dedudtion from the nature 
 of things^ we find, that holy Scripture does, infa^, 
 exhibit this very reprefentation of God's Govern- 
 ment of Judea ; and that there are many favour- 
 able circumftances in the charader of the Hebrew 
 People, to induce us to believe the reprefentation 
 to be true. Here, many cloudy cavils of the three 
 Doctors, Sykes, Stebbing, and Rutherford, 
 are occafionally removed and difperfed. But the 
 attentive Reader will oblerve, that m.y Argument 
 <loes not require me to prove more in this place, 
 than that holy Scripture represents an extraordi- 
 'Aary Providence to have been adminiltered. The 
 proof of its real Adminiflration is eflablilhed by 
 \)xq MEDIUM of my ThefiSj the omiffion of the Doc- 
 
 p-iiXi 
 
Scd. 6. of Moses dc7nonfirated, 393 
 
 trine of a future flate of Rezvards and Tunifirments, 
 Which anlwers all objedions as to our inadequate 
 conceptions of fuch an adminiftration \ as well as 
 to certain pafTages of Scripture that Icem to clafli 
 with its general reprefentation of it. Yet both 
 thefe fort of objedions are, however, tonfidercd 
 €X abundanti. 
 
 As important as the fa6l is, to our prefcnt pur- 
 pofe of an extraordinary Providence thus repre- 
 fented, it has ftill a further ufe, when employed 
 amongft thofe diflinguifhing marks of the truth of 
 Mofes's divine Million in general : for it lliews 
 "US, the unnecefTary trouble and hazard to which 
 he expofed himfelf had that Miflion been feign- 
 ed. Had he, like the reft of the ancient Law- 
 givers, only pretended to infpiration^ he had then 
 no occafion to propagate the belief of an extra- 
 crdinary Providence ; a Bifpenfation fo eafy to be 
 confuted. But by deviating from their praftice, 
 and announcing to his People, that their tutehry 
 God was become their King, he laid himfelf under 
 a neceflity of teaching an extracrdinray Providence ; 
 a dead weight upon an Impoftor, which nothing 
 but downright folly could have brought him to 
 wndergo. 
 
 To proceed. After having laid this ftrong and 
 neceffary Foundation, we come at length directly 
 to the point in queftion. If the Jewifh Govern- 
 ment were a Theocracy, adminiftered, as it 
 muft be, by an extraordinary Providence^ the next 
 confequence is, that temporal rewards and 
 PUNISHMENTS, and not Future, were the sanc- 
 tion of their Law and Religion. Thus far, there- 
 fore, have our confiderations on the nature alone of 
 the Jewilh Government condu(rted us : and it is al- 
 
 moll 
 
394 ^^^ Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 mod to our journey's end : for it fairly brings us up 
 to the proof of our two minor Propofitions. So 
 neceflary, as the Reader now fees, is the long dif- 
 courfe of the nature of the Jewifh Government. 
 
 But, to prevent all cavil, the Argument goes on, 
 and proves in the next place, that the Do&ine of 
 a future fiate of Rewards and Punifhments^ which 
 could not, from the nature of things, be the Sanc- 
 tion of the Jewifh CEconomy, was not \nfa£l con- 
 tained in it at all : nay further, that it was pur- 
 posely OMITTED by the great Lawgiver. This 
 is proved from feveral pafTages in the Book ofGene- 
 fts and the Law. 
 
 And here, more fully to evince, that Mofes, who, 
 it is fcen, fludioufly omitted the mention of it, was 
 well apprifed oi its importance, I fhew, that the Pu- 
 nishment OF Children for the sins of their 
 Parents was brought into this Inftitution purpofe- 
 ]y to afford fome advantages to Government, which 
 the Dodtrine of a future fiate ^ as it is found in all 
 other Societies, amply fupplies. This, at the fame 
 time that it gives further flrength to thepofition of 
 no future fiate in the Mofaic Difpenfation^ gives the 
 Author a fair occafion of vindicating the jultice and 
 equity of the Law of punijhing Children for the fins 
 of their Parents ; and of proving the perfedl agree- 
 ment between Moses and the Prophets Ezekiel 
 and Jeremiah, concerning it ; which hath been, in 
 all ages, the ftumblihg-block of Infidelity. 
 
 But we now advance a ftep further, and fhew, 
 that as Mofes did not teach, yea forbore to teach 
 the Do6trine of a future State of Rewards and Pu- 
 nifhments, fo neither had the ancient Jews, that is 
 to fay, the Body of the People, any knowledge of 
 
 it. 
 
Se(fl. 6. of Moses demonjlrated, 39^ 
 
 it. The proof is ftriking, and fcarce to be refifted 
 by any Party or ProfefTion but that of the System- 
 maker. The Bible contains a very circumftantial 
 account of this People, from the time of Mofes 
 to the great Captivity ; not only the hiftory of 
 public occurrences, but the lives of private per- 
 fons of both itxts^ and of all ages, conditions, 
 chara6ters and complexions ; in the adventures of 
 virgins, matrons, kings, foldiers, fcholars, parents, 
 merchants, huibandmen. They are given too in 
 every circumftance of life ; captive, vidlorious, in 
 ficknels and in health ; in full fecurity and amidft 
 impending. dangers; plunged in civil bufinefs, or 
 retired ana fequeftered in the fervice of Religion. 
 Together with their ftory, we have their compofi- 
 tions likewife : in one place we hear their trium- 
 phal ; in another, their penitential llralns. Here 
 we have their exultations for bleffings received ; 
 there, their deprecations of evil apprehended: Here 
 they urge their moral precepts to their contempora- 
 ries \ and there again, they treafure up their Pro- 
 phecies and Predictions for the ufe of Pofierity ; 
 and on each, denounce the threatenings and pro- 
 mifes of Heaven. Yet in none of thefe different 
 circumllances of life; in none of thefe various cads 
 of compofition, do we ever find them adling on 
 the motives, or influenced by the profpe6t, of a 
 FUTURE STATE : or indeed, exprefTing the leaft 
 hopes or fears, or even common curiofity, con- 
 cerning it : But every thing they do or fay, re- 
 fpefbs the prefent life only ; the good and ill of 
 which are the fole objects of their purfuits and 
 averfions. 
 
 The ftrength of this argument is ftill further 
 fupported by a view of the general hiftory of Man- 
 kind : and particularly of thofe nations moil re- 
 
 I'embling 
 
39^ The Divine Legation Book VI, 
 
 fembling the Jewifi in their genius and circum- 
 flances : in which we find the Dodrine of a fu- 
 ture ftate of Rewards and Punirtiments, was al- 
 ways pulhing on its influence. It was their con- 
 flant viaticum through life ; it ftimulated them to 
 war, and fpirited their fongs of triumph j it made 
 them infenfible of pain, immoveable in danger, 
 and fuperior to the approach of death. 
 
 This is not all : We obferve, that even in the 
 Jcwijh Annals, when this Dodtrine was become 
 national, it made as confiderable a figure in their 
 Hiftory, as in that of any other nation. 
 
 It is ftill further urged, that this conclufion 
 does not reft merely on the negative ftlence of the 
 Bible-hiftory -, it is fupported on the poftiive decla- 
 rations contained in it ; by which the facred Wri- 
 ters plainly difcover that there was no popular ex- 
 peftation of a future Jiaie or Refurre^ion. 
 
 From the Old Tejlament we come to the Neiv, 
 By the Writers of which it appears, that the Doc- 
 trine of a future ftate of Jlewards andPunifhments, 
 DID NOT MAKE PART of" the Mofaic DifpenfatioH. 
 
 Their evidence is divided into two parts ; the 
 firfi^ proving that temporal rewards and punifh- 
 ments were the fanElion of the Jewifti Dilpenlation : 
 The feconJ, that it had no other. And thus, with 
 the moft diredl and unexceptionable proof of the 
 two MINOR propofitions, the fifth Book concludes. 
 
 VI. But to remove, as far as pofTible, all the 
 fupports of prejudice againft this important Truth, 
 the fixth and laft Book of this Volume is employ- 
 ed in examining all thofe texts of the Old and Ne'-j} 
 
 Tcftament, 
 
Seft. 6. o/" Moses demonjlrated. 397 
 
 Teftament, which had been commonly urged to 
 prove, that the Doflrine of a future ftate of re- 
 wards and punifhments, did make part of the 
 Mofaic Difpenfation. 
 
 And amongft thofe of the Old Teftament, the 
 famous paflage of the xix"* chapter of Job, con- 
 cerning a Refurre5imt (as it has been commonly 
 underftood) holding a principal place, it was judg- 
 ed expedient, for the reafons there given, to ex- 
 amine that matter to the bottom. This neceflarily 
 brought on an enquiry into the nature and ge- 
 nius of that Book ; when written, and to what 
 purpose. By the aid of which enquiry, a fair ac- 
 count is given of the fenfe of that famous Text, 
 confiftent with our general Proportion. 
 
 But the whole Difcourfe on the hook of Job hath 
 this further ufe : It provides a ftrong fupport and 
 illuftration of what will be hereafter delivered con- 
 cerning the gradual decay of the extraordinary 
 Providence from the time oi Saul, to the return from 
 the great Captivity. 
 
 Yet this is not all. The Difcourfe hath yet a 
 further ufe, with regard to Revelation in general. 
 For the explaining. How the principles of the 
 Gofpel-Dc^irine were opened by degrees, fully ob- 
 viates the calumnies of thole two leaders in In- 
 fidelity, Tyndal and Collins ; who pretend, 
 that the Heads and Governors of the Jews, refined 
 their old Doflrines concerning the Deity, and in- 
 vented new ones :. juft as the Priejls improved irr 
 knowledge, or the People advanced in curiofity ; 
 or as Both were better taught by the inftruftions 
 they received from their Mafters, in the country 
 ■whither they were led away captive. 
 .J ^ The 
 
-398 7he Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 The difcourfe of Job being of this importance, 
 we were led to fupport all the parts of it, from the 
 attacks of various Writers, who had attempted to 
 confute it. 
 
 The reft of the Old Teftament-texts are gone 
 thro' with greater difpatch, being divided into two 
 parts. I. Such as are fuppofed to teach the fe- 
 parate exiflence, or as it is called, the immortality 
 of the Soul. And 2. Such as are fuppofed to 
 teach- a future ft ate of rewards and punijhments^ to- 
 gether with a RefwreBion of the body. In the courfe 
 of which examination, much light, it is hoped, 
 has been thrown both on the particular texts and 
 on the general queftion. 
 
 From the texts of the Old Teftament, the Ar- 
 gument proceeds to examine thole of the New : 
 Amongft which, the famous eleventh Chapter of the 
 Epiftle to the Hebrews is not forgotten •, the fenfe of 
 which is cleared up, to oppofe to the inveterate 
 miftakes of Syftematical Divines : And here, occa- 
 fion is taken to explain the nature of St. Paul's rea~ 
 foning againft the errors of the Jewifto converts \ a 
 matter of higheft moment for a right underftand- 
 ing of this Apoflle's Letters to the feveral Churches ; 
 and for the further illuftration of the general Ar- 
 
 gument. 
 
 As in all this, nothing is taught or infinuated 
 which oppofes the dodrineof our excellent Church, 
 common decency required that this conformity 
 fhould be fully fhewn and largely infilled on. 
 
 Having therefore, all along, gone upon this Prin- 
 ciple, That " tho' a future State of rewards and 
 " punifhments, made no part of the Mosaic Dif- 
 4 ^' penfation, 
 
Sed. 6. of yio%^^ demonfirated. 399 
 
 " penfation, yet that the Law had a spiritual 
 " meaning -, tho' not feen or underftood till the 
 " fuUnefs of time was come. Hence the Ritual 
 *' Law received the nature, and afforded the effi- 
 *' cacy of PROPHECY : In the interim (as is fhewn) 
 " the myjlery of the Gofpel was occajionally revealed^ 
 " by God, to his chofen fervants, the Fathers and 
 " Leaders of the Jewifh Nation ; and the dawnings 
 *' of it gradually opened by the Prophets, to the 
 '* People." Having, I fay, gone, all the way, 
 upon this principle, I fiiew, from the seventh 
 ARTICLE of Religion, that it is the very Dodrine 
 of our excellent Church. 
 
 And in explaining that part of the Article 
 which fays, — T^hat they are not to be heard which feign 
 that the old Fathers did look only for tranfitory Pro- 
 mifes, I fupport this dodlrine by the cafe of Abra- 
 ham, who, our bleffed Matter tells us, rejoiced to 
 fee his day, and faw it and was glad. 
 
 Here, I attempt to prove, in ilUiftration of this 
 text, that the Cominand to Abraham to offer Ifaac, 
 was merely an information given, at Abraham's 
 earneft requeft, in a reprefentative a^ion, inftead of 
 words, of the Redemption of mankind by the 
 great Sacrifice of Chrift on the Crofs. Which in- 
 terpretation, if it be the true one, is, I think, the 
 noblefl proof that ever was given of the Har- 
 mony between the Old and New Teflament. 
 
 From this long Diflertation, befides the imme- 
 diate purpofe of vindicating the Dodrine of our 
 national Church, in its feventh Article, we gain 
 thefe two advantages, i. The firll of which is, 
 fupporting a real and eflential connexion between 
 the Mofaic and the Chriftian Religions. 2, The 
 
 other 
 
4c5o ^ke Di'vine Legation Book VL 
 
 other is, difpofing the Deifts to think more favoura 
 bly of Revelation, when they fee, in this inter- 
 pretation of the COMMAND, all their objedtions tu 
 this part of Abraham's ftory, overthrown. 
 
 The matter being of this high importance, it 
 was proper to fix my interpretation on fuch prin- 
 ciples as would leave no room for reafonable doubt 
 or objedtion : And this was to be done by explain- 
 ing the nature of thofe various modes of information 
 in ule amongft the Ancients -, for which explana- 
 tion, a proper ground had been laid in the difcourfe 
 on the Hieroglyphics in the fourth Book. To all 
 this (for the. reafon here given) is fubjoined a 
 continued refutation of all that Dr. Stebbing has 
 been able to urge againft this idea of the Com- 
 mand, 
 
 Nor is this all. This Differtation, which affords 
 fo many new openings into the truths of Revela^ . 
 iion in general, and fo many additional fupports 
 to the argument of the Divine Legation in parti- 
 cular, hath another very important ufe. It is a 
 neceffary introduction to the long Difcourfe which 
 follows, concernins: prophecy. 
 
 'C3 
 
 In this, (v/hich is the lad of the prcfcnt Volume) 
 I have attempted to clear up and vindicate the lo- 
 gical truth and propriety of Tj^^^ ina^ion^ 2ind fecon^ 
 ilary fenfes in fpeech : For on the truth and propriety 
 of thefe, depend.! the divine original of the ancient 
 Jewish prophecies concerning Chrift. A matter 
 much needing a ilipport : For tho' the greater pare 
 of thefe Prophecies confefTedly relate to Jefus only 
 in 2ifccondary fenfe, yet had fome men of name, 
 and in the interells of Religion, thro' ignorance of 
 the true origin and nature oi fuch fenfes^ ralhly 
 
 con- 
 
ge(5l. 6, 5/' Moses demonjlrat^ili 40 1 
 
 concurred with modern Jndailm and Infidelity, to 
 o-ive them all up as illogical and enthuftafiic^ to the 
 imminent hazard of the very foundation of Chri- 
 stianity. In theprogrefs of this inquiry, I had 
 occafion to examine, and was enabled, on the 
 principles here laid down, to confute Mr. CoHins's 
 famous Work of the Grounds and Reafons of the 
 Chrijiian Religion, one of the moft able and plau- 
 fible books ever written amongft us, againft our 
 holy Faith ; he having borrowed the Argument, 
 and ftolen all the reafoning upon it, from the raoft 
 fagacious of the modern Rabbins •, who pretend 
 that none of the Prophecies can relate to Jefus in 
 any other fenfe than -x [econdary, and that ^./econ- 
 daryfenfe is illogical and fanatical. — ^Had I done 
 no more, in this long work, than explain and clear 
 np, as I have done, this much embarrafled and mofl' 
 important queftion of the Jewiih Prophecies whici^ 
 relate to Chrift, and to the Chriftian Difpenfation; 
 I fhould have thought my time and labour well 
 employed ; fo necefTary to the very being of our 
 holy Faith, is the fetting this matter on its true 
 foundation. Thus much may be faid in favour of 
 this large dilTertation confidered in itfelf alone: 
 But, as part of the Argument of the Divine Le- 
 gation of Mofes, it has thefe more immediate 
 ufes; 
 
 I. To fliew, that thofe who contend, that the 
 Chriftian Doftrine of a future State was revealed 
 to the early Jews, deftroy all ufe and reafon of a 
 fecondary fenfe of Prophecies -, for how fhall it be 
 certainly known, from the Prophecies themfelves, 
 that they contain double fenfes, but from this ac- 
 knowledged truth, that the old Law was preparatory 
 i$o, and the rudiments of, the New ? Or how fliall 
 
 YOL, V. D d this 
 
40?. The Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 this relation between thefe two Laws be certainly- 
 known, but from the evidence of this conteftedivvLih, 
 that the Doctrine of a future Jlate of Rewards and 
 PuniJJjments, is not to be found in the Mofaic Difpen- 
 fation ? So clofe a dependence have all thefe capital 
 Principles, on one another. 
 
 2. The other more immediate reafon for this 
 Differtation on 'Types and fecondary Senfes was this : 
 As I had fhewn, that a future State of rewards and 
 punifhments was not revealed under any part of 
 the Jewifli CEconomy, otherwife than by thofe 
 modes of information, it was neceflary, in order 
 to fhew the real connexion between Judaifm and 
 Chriftianity (the truth of the latter Religion de- 
 pending on that real connexion) to prove thofe modes 
 to be logical and rational. For, as on the one 
 hand, had the dodtrine of life and immortality 
 been revealed under the Mofaic CEconomy, Ju- 
 daifm had been more than a rudiment of, and pre- 
 paration to, Chriftianity ; fo, on the other, had 
 no covert intimations, at all, been given of the 
 doftrine, it had been lefs : that is, the dependency 
 and connexion between the two Religions had 
 not been fufEciently marked out and afcertained. 
 With this Differtation therefore, fo important in 
 its ufe and application, the fixth and laft Book of 
 the fecond Volume concludes. 
 
 Thus the Reader, at length, may fee how re- 
 gularly, and intently, thefe two Volumes have been 
 carried on : For, tho' the Author (whofe paffion is 
 not fo much a fondnefs for his own conceived argument^ 
 as for the honour and fupport of Religion itfelf) 
 hath ncgledted no fair occafion of inforcing every 
 collateral circumltance, which might ferve to il- 
 
 lullrate 
 
Se(5t. 6. of M OS "ES demonjl rated, 403 
 
 luftrate the truth of Revelation in general; yet he 
 never lofes fight of his end, but as the precept for 
 conducing the moil regular works diredls. 
 
 Semper ad eventum fejiinat. 
 
 This Volume too, like the firft, I thought fit 
 to publilli alone : not merely for the fame reafon, 
 that it was a compleat and entire work of itfelf, 
 which explained the nature and genius of the Jewijb 
 Conjiituiion ; but for this additional one, that it 
 fairly ended and compleated the Argument, 
 
 For the firft Volume having proved the ?vIajor, 
 and the fecond Volume, the Minor Propohtions 
 of the TWO Syllogisms, my logic teaches me to 
 think, that the conclusion follows of courfe, viz. 
 That the Jewish Religion and Society 
 
 WERE supported BY AN EXTRAORDINARY PRO- 
 VIDENCE. 
 
 Or put it in another light,— Having proved my 
 three principal Propofitions, 
 
 I. « That the inculcating the Doftrine of a fu- 
 « ture State of rewards and punifiiments, ^^is ne- 
 « cefiary to the well being of civil Society." 
 
 II. « That all mankind, efpecially the mod 
 « wife and learned nations of Antiquity, have 
 « concurred in believing, and teaching, that this 
 « Dodrine was of fuch ufe to civil Society. 
 
 III. « That the Doftrine of a future State of 
 « rewards and puniftiments is not to be /ound 
 " in, nor did make part of the Mofaic Difpenla- 
 
 " tio"-" , The 
 
 D d 2 The 
 
404 1^^<'' Divine Legation Book VI. 
 
 The conclufion is, that therefore the Law of 
 Moses is of divine original. 
 
 A conclusion which neceflarily follows the pre- 
 mifles contained in thele three propofitions. Not- 
 withftanding all this, the evidence of their truth 
 proving fo various, extending fo wide, and having 
 been drawn out to fo great a length ; What between 
 inattention and prejudice^ the Argument, here 
 brought to its final jfTue, hath been generally un- 
 derftood to be left imperfedl •, and the Conclufion 
 of it referved for another Volume. Yet a very 
 moderate fhare of refieftion might have led the can- 
 did Reader to underfiand, that I had here eff'eftually 
 performed what I had nromifcd, namely, to de- 
 monstrate THE Divine Legation of Moses. 
 For if it be indeed proved, That the Doflrine of 
 a future ftate is necellary to the well being of civil 
 Society, under the ordinary government of Provi- 
 dence — That all mankind have ever fo conceived 
 of the matter — That the Mofaic Inftitution was 
 without this fupport, and that yet it did not want 
 it, — What follows but that the Jewifii affairs were 
 adminiilered by an extraordinary Providence, dif- 
 tributing reward and punifhment with an equal 
 hand -, and confequently that the Mission of Mo- 
 ses WAS divine ? 
 
 However, the complaint againfi; the Author, 
 for not having performed his Convention with the 
 Public, became pretty general. To which a great 
 deal might be.faid, and perhaps to little purpofe. 
 The following Tale will put it in the faireil light. la 
 a foiemn Treaty lately concluded between the Go- 
 vernor of one of our American Provinces and the 
 neighbouring Savages, it had, it feems, been ilipu- 
 lated, that the Settlement fliould fupply thofe 
 3 Warrior- 
 
Sedt. 6. o/* M o s E s demonjirated, 405 
 
 Warrior-Tribes with a certain number of good and 
 fervicable Mufkets. Which engagement was lb 
 ill performed, that at their next general meeting, 
 the Chiefs of the Barbarians complained, that, 
 tho' indeed the Colony had fent them the number 
 of Muflcets agreed upon, yet, on examination, 
 they were all found to be vjithout Locks. This mil- 
 chance (occafioned by the Mullvets and the Locics 
 being put into two different cargoes) the Gover- 
 nor promifed fhould be redreffed. It was redrcffcd 
 accordingly ; and the Locks fought out, and fenr.* 
 He now flattered himfelf that all cauie of umbrage 
 was effe6tually removed j when, at their next meet- 
 ing, he was entertained with a frefh complaint, 
 that the Colony had fraudulently fent them Locks 
 without Mufiets. The truth was, this brave Peo- 
 ple, of unimpeached morals, were only defedive 
 in their military Logic ; they had not the dexteri- 
 ty, till they were firlt fhewn the way, to put the 
 major of the Mufl^.et and the minor of the Mulket- 
 Lock together •, and from thence to draw the con- 
 cluding trigger. 
 
 But then it will be faid, " If, as is here pretended, 
 the PREMISSES have been indeed proved, in thefe 
 two Volumes, with all the detail which their impor- 
 tance required, and with all the evidence which a 
 moral fubjea; can fupply •, and the conclusion-, 
 therefore, eftablilhed with all the conviftion which 
 the Laws of logic are able to inforce j Why was 
 a other Volume promifed ? For no other end, as 
 ■^ aldfeem, than to miQead a well-meaning Rea- 
 diL-, in the vain purfuit of an Argument already 
 ended." 
 
 It was promifed for a better purpofe— STc remove' 
 
 ',11 conQsivahk objeSiions againji the conclusion, ani. 
 
 Dd 3 ^ 
 
4o6 T^he Divine Legation Book VL 
 
 to throw in every collateral light upon the premisses. 
 For it is one thing to fatisfy Truth, and another, 
 to filence her pretended friends. He who de- 
 fends Revelation has many prejudices to encounter ; 
 but he who defends it by Reafon only, has many 
 more. 
 
 The third and lafl Volume, therefore. Is diftlned 
 to SUPPORT what hath been already proved : not, as 
 has been abfurdly fuggefted, to continue and con- 
 clude an unfinifhed Argument. 
 
 It confifts of three Books, like each of the pre- 
 cedino; Volumes. 
 
 I. The feventh Book therefore is employed in 
 fupporting the major and the minor Propofitions 
 of the firfl: Syllogifm : in a continued Hiftory of the 
 Religious Opinions of the Jews, from the time 
 of the earlier Prophets^ who firft gave fome dark 
 intimations of a different Difpenfation, to the time 
 of the Maccabees, when the Dodtrine of a future 
 ftate of rewards and punifhments was become na- 
 tional. 
 
 2, The eighth Book is employed in fupporting the 
 MAJOR and minor Propofitions of the fecond Syl- 
 logifm, in which is confidered the personal cha- 
 racter of Mofes and the genius of the Law, as 
 far as it concerns or has a relation to the chara(f->^r 
 of the Lawgiver. Under this latter head, is c .i\- 
 tained a full and fatisfaftory Anfwer to thofe \ (\o 
 may objeifl, *' That a revealed Religion with a fu- 
 ture ftate of rewards and punifhments is unworthy 
 the Divine Author to whom it is afcribed." \ 
 
 3- Th( 
 
5e<fl« 6. of Moses demonjlratcd. 407 
 
 3. The ninth and lafl: Book, explains at large 
 the nature and genius of the Christian Dispen- 
 sation : For having towards the end of the eighth 
 Book, examined the pretended reasons (offer- 
 ed both by Believers and Unbelievers to evade 
 my conclufion) for omitting the Dodrine of a 
 future State of rewards and punilliments in the 
 Mofaic Difpenfation, I was naturally and neceffari- 
 ly led to inquire into the true. For now, it might 
 be finally objected, " That tho', under an extraor- 
 dinary Providence there might be no occafwn for 
 the doftrine of a future State, in fupport of Re- 
 ligion, or for the ends of Government j yet as 
 thlt Doftrine is a truths and confequently, under 
 every regiment of Providence, tifeftil^ it feems 
 hard to conceive, that the Pveligious Leader of 
 the Jew^s, becaufe as a Lawgiver he could do with- 
 out it, that therefore, as a Divine^ he would omit 
 it." The objeaion is of weight in itfelf, and re- 
 ceives additional moment from what hath been ob- 
 ferved in the fifth Book, concerning the Reafon of 
 the Law of funifdng children for the crimes of their 
 Barents. I held it therefore iniuHicient barely to 
 reply, " Mofes omitted it^ that his Law might there- 
 *' hy ft and, throughout all ages, an invincible Monu- 
 " ment of the truth of his pretences :" but proceed- 
 ed to explain the great and principal reafon 
 of the omiffion. And nov^^-'ventum ad verum 
 eft. 
 
 The whole concludes with one general but di- 
 flind view of the entire courfe of Gods univerlal 
 CEconomy from Adam to Chrift. In which it is 
 Ihewn, that if Mofes ' were, in truth, lent from 
 God, he could -not teach a future Stare •, that Doc- 
 trine being out of his Commiffion, and referved for 
 him who was at the head of another Diipenlation, 
 Dd 4 by 
 
^o8 The Divhie Legation, he. Book VI, 
 
 by which life and immortality was to be brought to 
 light. 
 
 This Difcourfe, befides the immediate purpofe 
 of fupporting and illuftrating the Argument 
 here compleated, ferves another end, which I had 
 in view, as to the general difpofition of the whole 
 work : which was to explain and difcriminate the 
 diftinct and various natures of the Pagan, the 
 Jewish and the Christian Religions : the Pagan 
 having been confidercd in the firft Volume, and 
 the Jeivipj in the fecond ; the Chrijlian is referved 
 for the third and laft. Let me conclude therefore, 
 in an addrefs to my Reverend Brethren, with the 
 words of an Ancient Apologift \ Qmd nobis 
 invidemus, fi Veritas Divinitatis, noftri temporis 
 ^tate maturuit ? Fruamur bono noftro, et redti 
 fententiam temperemus : cohibeatur superstitio 
 IMPIETAS expietur, vera RELiciorefervetur. 
 
 * Minucius fdix. 
 
 The End of the Sixth Book^. 
 
 A P P E N- 
 
I 409 ] 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Concerning the Book of J O B. 
 
 AN excellent Writer having /r-f^/y and candidly 
 examined the late Bifhop of London's collec- 
 tion of Sermons, and in page 165 of his Examina- 
 tion, afked this queftion. Where ivas Idolatry ever 
 ptnijlded hy the Magijirate, hut under the Jeiinjh 
 (Economy ? The Oxford Profeflbr, in the fecond 
 Edition of his Prelections, concerning the facred Poe- 
 try of the Hebrews, thinks fit to give the following 
 anfwer — " It was punilhed under the CEconomy 
 *' of the Patriarchs, in the families and under the 
 *' DOMINION of Abraham, Melchifedec and Job. 
 ** Idolatry fpreading wider and wider, Abraham 
 " was called by God from Chaldea, for this end, 
 " to be the father of a People, which, divided 
 *' from all others, might continue to worfhip the 
 *' trQe God •, to be fet up for an exemplar of 
 *■'■ true Religion, and to be ready to give tefti- 
 " mony againft the worfhip of vain Deities. 
 " Was not Abraham, therefore (exercifing the 
 *' SOVEREIGNTY in his own family) to punifh Ido- 
 " latry ? Were not Melchifedec and Job, and all 
 *' the Sovereigns of Tribes of that time, whollill 
 *' retained the knowledge and worfhip of the true 
 *' God, amidfl a general defection of all the fur- 
 *' rounding People, to take care that their own 
 f} did not backOide ? To curb offenders, and to 
 
 " infli6t 
 
4T0 APPENDIX. 
 
 *' infiid puniihment en the obftinate, the re- 
 *' BELLious, and on all thofe who fpread abroad 
 *' the contagion of this vice." — Ad qu^ellionem 
 refpondetur : Sub ceconomia Patriarcharum ; in 
 familiis, et fub Dominatu Abrahami, Melchi- 
 zedechi, Jobi c^terorumque. Ingruente Idolo- 
 latria divinitus evocabatur ex Chaldsea Abraha- 
 mus ; eum in nnem, ut fieret pater Gentis, quae 
 ab aliis omnibus divifa, verum Dcum colerct, pub- 
 licum proponeret exemplum purae religionis, con- 
 traque cultum vanorum numinum teftimonium 
 perhiberet. Nonne erat igitur Abrahami in fua 
 familia principatum exercentis proprium officium 
 & munus in Idololatriam animadvertere ? Nonne 
 Mclchizedechi, Jobi, omniumque tunc temporis 
 in fuis Tribubus Principum, qui veri Dei cogni- 
 tionem & cultum in communi fere gentium cir- 
 cumvicinarum defeftione adhuc retinebant, cavere, 
 ne fui deficerent; coercere delinquentes; obllina- 
 tos & REBELLES, ct fcclcris contagioncm propa- 
 gantes, fupplicio afficere ? — Supplementum ad pri- 
 mara Prakiiionum Editionem : Addit. Editionis fe- 
 cunda^ p. 312. 
 
 This is fo pleafant an anfwer, and fo little need- 
 ing the mafterly hand of the Examiner to correct, 
 that a few ftridures, in a curfory Note, will be 
 more than fufficient to do the bufinefs. 
 
 I . The Examiner^ to prove, I fuppofe, that the 
 book of Job was a dramatic work, written long 
 after the time of the Patriarch, afl'is, IVhere 'U)as 
 Idolatry e'ver punijijed by the Magistrate, but ujtder 
 the Jeioijh CEccnomy ? The Frofeffor anfwers, // was 
 puniJJoed under the Jobean CEconomy. And he 
 .advances nothing without proof. Docs not Job 
 himfclf fay, that Idolatry was an iniquity to be pii- 
 
 iiijhcd 
 
APPENDIX. 4,1 
 
 nijhed by the Judge ? The Examiner replies, that 
 the Job who fays this, is an airy Fantom, raif- 
 ed for other purpofes than to lay down the Law 
 for the Patriarchal times. The Profe£cr maintains 
 that they are all AlTes, with ears as long as Father 
 Harduin's, who cannot ke that this is the true and 
 genuine old Job. — In good time. Sub Judice lis 
 efi : And while it is {o, I am afraid the learned 
 Profejfor begs the question j when, to prove 
 that Idolatry was puniflied by the Magiftrate, out 
 of the land of Judea, he affirms that king Job 
 puniQied it. If he fay, he does not reft his aller- 
 tion on this pafiage of the book of Job alone, but 
 on the facred Records, from whence he concludes 
 that thofe civil Magistrates, Abraham and 
 Melchifedec, punifhed Idolatry ; I lliallown he a6ts 
 fairly, in putting them all upon the fame footing-, 
 and on what ground that Hands, we fliall now fee. 
 
 2. The Examiner fays, JiHoere ivas Idolatry ever 
 pmijhed by the Magiftrate^ but under the Jewiftj CEco- 
 nomy ? A queflion equivalent to this, — " Where 
 was Idolatry punifhed by the civil Magiftrate on 
 the eftablifhed Laws of the State, but in Judea r" 
 To which, the Profejfor replies, " It was puniUied 
 by all the Patriarchal Monarchs, by king Job, 
 king Abraham, and king Melchifedec." 
 
 Of a nolle race zvas Shenkin. 
 
 But here, not one, fave the laft, had fo much as a 
 nominal title to civil Magiftracy: And this lad 
 drops as it were, from the clouds, without lineage 
 or parentage i fo that, tho' of divine, yet certainly 
 not a Monarch of the true ftamp, by hereditary right. 
 The Critic therefore fiiils in his firii point, which is, 
 finding out civil Magillrates to do his hierarchical 
 drudgery, 
 
 cj. But 
 
412 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 3. But let us admit our Prof efforts right of in- 
 vetliture, to confer this high office, and then fee how 
 he proves, that thefe his Lieges punifhed the 
 crime of Idolatry by civil punifhment. Abra- 
 ham, and the Patriarchs his defcendants, come 
 firft under confideration. What! (fays he) was 
 tiot Abraham^ exercifing the sovereignty in his own 
 family, to punifh Idolatry ? Hobbes is, I believe, 
 the only one (fave our Profefibr) who holds that 
 •' Abraham had a right to prefcribe to his family 
 " what Religion they fhould be of, to tell them 
 *' what was the word of God, and to punifli thofe 
 *' who countenanced any Doftrine which he had 
 *' forbidden." Leviath. chap. 40. — But God fpeak- 
 ing of Abraham, fays, I know that he will command 
 his children and his houfhold after him, and they fh all 
 keep the way of the Lord, &c. Gen. xviii. 19. And 
 Hobbes and our ProfeJJ'or, I fuppofe, regard this de- 
 claration as a clear proof of the divine doftrine of 
 RESTRAINT in matters ofRcligion ; efpecially when 
 interpreted by their darling text of — force them to 
 enter in. On the contrary, thofe who have been 
 bred up in the Principles of 'Toleration, hold it to be 
 a mere teftimony (a glorious one indeed) of Abra- 
 ham's pious and parental care to instruct his fa- 
 mily in the Law of God. And it is well, it can go 
 for no more, or I fhould fear the learned Profefibr 
 ■would have brought in Ifaac asa backflider to Idola- 
 try i and his Father's laying him on the facrifical 
 Pile, as a kind of Auto de fe. Now, except in thefe 
 two places of Abraham's Hillory, of fuch wonder- 
 ful force to fupport intolerant principles, the Patri- 
 arch appears in all others fo averfe to this inquifito- 
 rial fpirit, that where God comes down to deftroy 
 Sodom, the father of the Faithful intercedes, with 
 the utmoll importunity, for that idolatrous as well 
 jis inceftuous City. The truth is this. The ufurped 
 
 right 
 
APPENDIX. 413 
 
 right of punifhing for opinions, was firft afiumed 
 and long ingrolTed by Idolaters. And, if tradition 
 may be believed, Abraham himfelf narrowly efcap- 
 ed the Fire for preaching againlt its Divinity. Buc 
 this is not all. From his own condu6V, and from 
 the condu6t of his pofterity, he feems to have made 
 one part of that fidelity in keeping the 'xay of the 
 Lord^ (for which he is lb nobly diftinguiflied by 
 God himfelf) to confift in inculcating the di- 
 vine dodrine of Toleration. When Jacob and 
 his family, v.'ithout leave-taking, had departed 
 from Laban, Rachel ftole away her father's Gods. 
 The old m.an followed and overtook them ; and 
 complaining of the theft, Jacob frankly anfwered. 
 With whomfoever thou findeji thy Gods, let him not 
 live. Now, I would afk, was this condemnation on 
 the offender denounced for Idolatry, or for the 
 I'heft ? The words of the Patriarch, which imme- 
 diately follow, determine this — Before our brethren 
 difcern thou what is thine, with me, and take it to thee. 
 Well, Rachel, by a female ftratagem, contrived to 
 keep her father's Gods ; for no better purpofe, we 
 may be fare, than that for which the good man em- 
 ployed fo much pains to recover them. The 
 thefts indeed, had it been difcovered, would have 
 been punifJud by the Judge : But, as for the Idola- 
 try, which, from its nature, could not be long 
 hid, the filence of Scripture fliews it to have been 
 coram ncn Judice, And fo far was Rachel from 
 being doomed to the fire, that we do not find, 
 even her Gods underwent this punifhment. 
 
 After the affair of the Shechemites, Jacob, by 
 God's command, goes to Bethel : and there, in 
 pious emulation of his grandfather's care to keep 
 the way of the Lord, the text tells us, he com- 
 manded 
 
414 A P P E N D I X. 
 
 manded his houjhold and all that were with him^ to 
 ■put away the Jlrange God's from amongfl them. They 
 obeyed, all was well •, and not a word of punijhing 
 hy the Judge. Indeed, thefe Patriarchal Judges 
 were much better employed, and more futably to 
 their office, in punifhing civil crimes and immo- 
 ralities, as appears from the adventure of Judah 
 and his daughter in law, Tamar. 
 
 Melchisedec's ftory is a fhort one ; he is jufl 
 brought into the fcene to blefs Abraham in his re- 
 turn from conqueft. This promifes but ill. Had 
 this King and Priejl cf Salem been brought in 
 curftng^ it had had a better appearance : for, I 
 think, punifhment for opinions, which generally 
 ends in a Fagot., always begins with a ciirfe. But 
 we may be mifled perhaps by a wrong tranflation. 
 The Hebrew word to hlefs^ fignifies likewife to 
 curfe^ and, under the management of an intolerant 
 Prieft, good things eafily run into their contraries. 
 What follows, is his taking Tythes from Abraham. 
 Nor will this ferve our purpofe, unlefs we interpret 
 thefe Tythes into Fines for non- conformity ; and then, 
 by the hleffng, we can eafily underftand ahfohition. 
 We have ^ttn much flranger things done with the 
 Hebrew Verity. If this be not allowed, I do not 
 fee how we can elicite fire and fagot from this ad- 
 venture •, for I think there is no infeparable con- 
 nexion between Tythes and Perfecution^ but in the 
 ideas of a Quaker. — And fo much for king Mel- 
 chifedec. 
 
 But the learned Profeffor, who has been hardily 
 brought up in the keen Atmofphere of whole- 
 some SEVERITIES, and early taught to diftinguifh 
 between de fablo and de jtire^ thought it ncedlcfs 
 to enquire into Fatis^ when he was fecure of the 
 7 Right. 
 
APPENDIX. 415 
 
 Right. And, therefore only flightly and fuperci- 
 liouQy ailcs, " What ? was not Abraham, by liis 
 " very princely office, to puniJJi Idolatry ? Were not 
 " Melchifedec and Job, and all the heads of 
 " Tribes to do the fame ?" Why, no : and it is 
 well for Religion that they were not. It is for its 
 honour that fuch a fet of perfecuting Patriarchs is 
 no where to be found, but in 2i poetical Prek^ion. 
 
 4. For in the laft place, let it be obferved, that 
 as thefe Patriarchs did not de faolo (which appears 
 from their hiftory) fo they could not de jure (which 
 appears from the laws of Nature and Nations) pu-^ 
 nijh Idolatry by the Judge. Becaufe, as hath been 
 fhewn. Idolatry is not amenable to civil Juftice, 
 but where it becomes Crimen Ufa Majeftatis. It 
 could not become the crime of lefe-majefty under 
 the Patriarchs, unlefs they had been Gods as well 
 as Kings. Indeed, they were as much one as the 
 other. However, it is not pretended that their 
 government, tho' Regal, was Theocratical likewife; 
 The Patriarchs, therefore, could not punift) Idola-* 
 try by the Judge. 
 
 From the Examiner, the ProfelTor (without the 
 leaft provocation given him) proceeds to the Au- 
 thor of the Divine Legation -, who, he will fnew, 
 is as ignorant, abfurd, and mad- brained as Father 
 Harduin himfelf. 
 
 The Author of the Divine Legation had faid, 
 that the Writer of the book of Job obferved de^ 
 corum, in imitating the manners of the early fcene 
 which he had propofed to adorn. To this, the 
 
 ProfelTor objeds, " I can never bring myfelf 
 
 ^' to allow to a semi-barbarous Poet, writing 
 
 " after 
 
4i6 APPENDIX. 
 
 •' after the Babylonian Captivity, fuch a piece oif 
 *' fubtilty and refinement." — A mighty piece of 
 refinement truly, for a Writer, who lays his fcene 
 in an early age, to paint, the beft he could, the 
 manners of that age.—" Befides (fays the Pro - 
 " fijfc^) which is the principal point, the ftyle fa- 
 " vours wonderfully of Antiquity, and its pecu- 
 " liar character is a certain primitive and noble 
 " fimplicity. So that they who degrade this Book 
 *' to the times pofterior to the Babylonian Capti- 
 *' vity, feem to judge almofl as infanely of //<?- 
 ** brew literature as Father Harduin did of the 
 *' Roman^ who afcribed the golden Poems of Vir- 
 *' gil, Horace, and the reft, to the iron ages of the 
 
 " Monks." < Verum Poetse femibarbaro poft 
 
 Captivitatem fcribenti tantam fubtilitatem ut con- 
 cedam, impetrare a me non pofliim. Porro vero 
 Stylus Poematis, quod vel maximum eft, prieci- 
 pue vetuftatem fapit; eft ejus peculiaris character 
 cc^y^a.'iTfj.og. Adeo ut qui id infra Captivitatem 
 Babylonicam deprimunt, non multo fanius in He- 
 braids judicare videantur, quam in Latinis Har- 
 duinusi qui aurea Virgihi, Horatii, Csterorum- 
 que poemata ferreis Monachorum Saeculis adfcrip- 
 fit. Idem ib. 
 
 The learned Profejfor is a little unlucky in his 
 comparifon. The age of Job, as fixed by him, 
 and the age of the Writer of his hiftory, as fixed 
 by me, run exa6tly parallel, not with the times of 
 Virgil and Frederic Barbarofla, as he would infi- 
 nuate, but with thofe of Ennius and Virgil. Job 
 the hero of the Poem, lived in an age when civil 
 Society was but beginning to ftiew itfelf, and what 
 is more, in a Country where it never yet was formed: 
 And Ezra (whom I fuppofe to be the Author of the 
 Poem) was an eminent Citizen in the moft perfect 
 
 civil 
 
APPENDIX. 417 
 
 civil government in the World-, which, he was 
 fent home, to reftore, laden with the literary trea- 
 iures of the Eaft •, treafures that had been Ions 
 accumulating under the warm influence of a large 
 and powerful Empire. From this fecond tranf- 
 plantation of the Republic, Science got footing in 
 Judea j and true Religion took deeper root in the 
 hearts of its Inhabitants. Henceforward, we hear 
 no more of their abfurd Idolatries. A ftri6t ad- 
 herence to the Law now as much diftinguifhed 
 them from others, as did t\iQ Jtngularity of the Law 
 itfelf. And a ftudious cultivation of the Lan- 
 guage, in which that Law was written, as na- 
 turally followed, as it did amongft the Sarazens, 
 who cultivated the Arabic, on the fame principle. 
 And to undcrftand how great this was in both, we 
 need only confider, that each had the fame aver- 
 fion to a tranflation of their Law into a foreign 
 language. It is true, that in courfe of time, 
 when the Jewifli Policy was abolilhed, and the 
 Nation was become vagabond upon Earth, while 
 the Arabs, on the contrary, had ereded a great 
 Empire, a manifeft difference arofe between them, 
 as to the cultivation of the two Languages. — Ycc 
 for all this, the Profeflbr calls Ezra, a Semi-bar- 
 barian i tho' we agree that he wrote by the in- 
 fpirarion of the Moft High ; amidft the lafl; blaze 
 indeed, yet in the full luilre of expiring Prophecy. 
 
 But the learned ProfeiTor has an internal argu- 
 ment from taste % full as good as the other from 
 Chronology. " The book of Job favours of Anri- 
 quity, and thofe who cannot relifh it, have as de* 
 praved a tafte as Father Harduin, who could not 
 diftinguilh Partridge from Horfe-fieih." 
 
 * See what hath been faid on this head in the .\2d, 43d and 
 44^^' pages of this Volume. 
 
 Vol. V, E e The 
 
4i8 APPENDIX. 
 
 The truth is, tlie Greek and Latin Languages 
 having, for many Ages, been the mother-tongues 
 of two of the greateft People upon earth (who 
 had Ihared between them the Empires of Eloquence 
 and of Arms) became daily more and more copious 
 by the cultivation of Arts ; and lefs and lefs pure 
 by the extenfion hi Commerce. In thefe two 
 lan^ua^es, there vet remains a vaft number of 
 writings on all forts of Subjefts. So that modern 
 Critics (in the foremoft rank of whom will alway 
 (land the incomparable Bentley) had by long ap- 
 plication to them, through their various and pro- 
 grefTive refinements and depravations from age to 
 age, acquired a certain fagacity, in pafTmg a toler- 
 able judgment concerning the time of the Writer, 
 by his ttyle and manner. Now Pedantry, which 
 is the ape of Criticifm, would mimic the fame 
 talent of difcernment, in the narroweft and mod 
 barren of all Languages ; little fubjeft to change, 
 both from the common genius of the Eaft, and 
 from the peculiar fituation of a fequeflered People. 
 Of this Language, long fmce become a dead one, 
 the only remains are in one fmall Volume ; the 
 contents of which, had not Providence been mercy- 
 fully pleafcd to fecure, while the Tongue was yet 
 living, by a tranflation into Greek, the Hebrew 
 VERITY, tranfmitted to us in the manner it was 
 found in the moft ancient MSS, where no vowel- 
 points are uled, nor fpace left to diftinguifh one 
 word from another, and where a great number of 
 terms occur only once, would at this day be a mere 
 arbitrary Cipher, which every Rabinical or Ca- 
 balifcic juggler might make the key of his un- 
 revealed Mylleries. — " Idem accidit etiam Maho- 
 metanis (fays Abraham Ekell.) ante inventa ab 
 Ali Abnaditalebo pundla vocalia: Tanta enim le- 
 oentium erat difTcntio, ut nifi Othomanni coercita 
 
 O ... 
 
 fuiifct authoritate, et determinata ledio pundhs, 
 
 qusB 
 
APPENDIX. 419 
 
 qu93 Ali'excogitaverat, jam de Alcorano actum 
 fessET." And if this had been the cale -of the 
 Arabic of the Alcoran, a copious and a living^ 
 language, what had become of the Hebrew of 
 the Bible? a very narrow and a dead one. Of 
 which an ancient Jewifh Grammarian gives this 
 charadler : " Lingua ifta [ Arabica] elegans eft, & \ 
 longe lateque fcriptis dilatata^ et qui earn loquitur 
 nulla di(5tione deficit : Lingua vero fanfta pauca 
 eft praa ilia, cum illius nihil extet nifi quod in 
 Libris Scripturae reperitur, nee fuppeditet omnes 
 di£liones lo^uendi necejpinas." Yet this is the lan- 
 o-uao-e whole peculiarities of ftyle and compofition, 
 correipondent to every age and time, the Profejfo^ 
 feems to think, may be as eafily diftinguillied as 
 thofe of the Greek or Latin ClafTics. So much 
 for the Author of the Divine Legation : and in- 
 deed too much, had not Mr. Locke's defence been 
 involved in his : that excellent perfon I-raving de- 
 clared (fpeaking of the words of Job, that Idola- 
 try was an iniquity to be punijloed by the Judge) 
 " This place aloke, were there no other, 
 " is fufficient to confirm their opinion who con- 
 " elude that book to be writ by a Jew." . 
 
 From the Divine Legation, the learned ProfefTor 
 turns again to the Examiner, who feems to fit hea- 
 vy on his ftomach.— This excellent Writer defired 
 to know of the learned, IVhere they could find a civil 
 or religious Conjiitution out of Judaa, which declared 
 that the Children Jhouldfuffer for the crime of their Pa- 
 rents. To which the Profeflbr replies in thefe 
 very words — In prsfens Horatiano illo verficulo 
 contentus abito Examinatorum omnium candidis- 
 BIMUS-— Fcr the prefefit, let this most candid of all 
 Examiners go about his biifinefs, and be thankful for 
 thisfcrap of Her ace, _ ,.^ 
 
420 APPENDIX. 
 
 " Deli6la majorum immeritus lues, 
 « Romane." 
 
 This is true Poetical payment: He is called 
 upon for his reckoning, and he difcharges it with 
 an old Song. But the Examiner is not a man to 
 take rhime for reafon. He afked for an oldfyjiem 
 of Laws; and the contemptuous ProfefTor gives 
 him an old Ballad: But a little more civility at 
 parting had not been amifs ; for he who did not 
 fpare the Bilhop, would certainly demolifh the 
 Profeflbr, fhould he take it into his head to ex- 
 amine the FrakSiions as he hath done the Sermons. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 T O T H E 
 
 WHOLE WORK. 
 
 N. B. For the regular chain of the argument, fee the 
 heads of the Se5iions prefixed to the Fohimes. 
 
 *^* The Rornan Numerals refer ■ to the particular Volumes y 
 and the Figures to the Pages, 
 
 ABRAHAM, the true meaning of the bleffing pronounc- 
 ed on him, pointed our, v. i 58. Expofuion of the 
 hiftory of the famous command to faciifice his fun 1/aaCy 197, 
 229. Reply to objedioas againft :he hillorical truth of 
 the relation, 247. The import of God s revelation to him 
 explained, Z14, 222. Summary of his hillory, 210, 252. ». 
 Three diftind; periods in his hiltory pointed out, 259. In 
 what fenfe faid by Chrill to have feen bis davj 230, 254. 
 An advocate for toleration, v. 412. See Action, Gud, 
 Lazarus. 
 
 Abraxas, Egxptian amulets, what, iii. 182. 
 
 Actions, fignal inftance of divine inllrudion conveyed by, in 
 the cafe of Abraham., v. 197. The eloquence of, illullrated. 
 by an anecdote from the Spartan hiftory, 227. «. Ditto, 
 from the Roman hiftory, 228. r. 
 
 Academies, of the Gr^f/' philofophers, how diftinguifhed, and 
 by whom founded, ii 116. Citero and Lucian, their ac- 
 counts of, 117. Whence named, 120. Diftinguilhed into 
 Scepiici and Dogmat'Jls, i 26. 
 
 Addison, his obfervations on jEneas's defcent into hell, i, 
 264. His fublime improvement of a pafTage in Ovid, 
 300. 
 
 Adoration, Prideaux's account of the ancient forms of, iii. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 ^'Emii-'Akus, cliaradler of, and his religion afcertained, 1.302. 
 
 ./^NEAS,\he charader of, intended to convey that of a perfedl 
 
 lawgiver, i. 218, 226. How his defcent into hell is to be 
 
 undcrllood, 226. Particular key to, 236, The clrcum- 
 
 flanccs of his return from the lower regions examined into, i, 
 
 281. His ftiield defcribed, 287. 
 
 ^NEis, an analyzation of that poem, i. 211. Who intended 
 
 \iy ^^neas, 212. A fyrtem of politics, 219. Contains a 
 
 compleat fyflem of future rewards and punilhments, 226. 
 
 uSscHYLus, his danger at hinting at the heathen myfleries in 
 
 one of his fcenes, i, 181, 
 Alc/eus, why confounded with fli?rfj(7«, iii. 264* 
 Alcieiades, probable expofition of his nofturnal riot, before 
 
 his expedition to Syrac.fe, i. 167. n. 
 ALEXANDER the GREAT, probable conjefture why he commu- 
 nicated to his mother the facred mylleries explained to him 
 by an E^ypiian hierophant, i. 158. n. 
 Allegory, a figure often attributed, where never intended, i. 
 326. Controverfial reflexions on the nature of, with re- 
 ference to Job, and the famous Ode of Horace, O Na'vis re- 
 ferunt, &c. v. 18, n. 
 Allegories, religious, diflinguilhed, v. 284, 321. ». Argu- 
 ment deduced from the general paffion for, 354, 
 Alliance between church and ftate, the influencing motives 
 to, ii. 9, 18. Advantages of the connexion, 11. The re- 
 ciprocal inducements to an union, 18. 
 Alphabet, origin of, accounted for, iii. 99, 148. Politi- 
 cal, 149. Sacred, 154. Reafons difcrediting the notion of 
 . its invention by the I/raelites, 162. Its invention prior 
 to the tivr.e of ih'c/es, ib. Hebre^w formed by Mofes, from an 
 improvement on i)\e Egyptian, 164. See Cadmus, Egyp- 
 tian, Hebrew, Language, Letters, Runic. 
 America, the falfe policy of the Europeans toward the natives 
 of, pointed out, as the caufe of the ill fuccefs of the mif- 
 fionaries, ii, 70. A pioper nurfery for free-thinkers, 74. 
 Americans, native, remarks concerning, by F. C^arZft;^;Ar, ii. 
 73. ;;. By M, de la Condamine, -jif. n. Remarks on their 
 languages, iii. 174. n. 
 Amos, a clear defcription of a particular providence quoted 
 
 from, iv. 293. 
 Anatomy, praclifed and fludied by the ancient Egyptians, iii. 
 
 52- 
 
 Animal worlhip, true original of, amongft the Egyptians, iii. 
 197, 255, 24:;. Images tirft worfliiped, 200. Afterward 
 the animals thcmfelves, 204. Various opinions of the an- 
 cients concerning the origin of, 211. 
 
 Ar.scHARiL's, St, anecdote of, ii. 52. wij 
 
 An 
 
 4 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Antients, unacquainted with the refined dillinaions of mo- 
 dern philofophy, ii 185. , , • , _, . 
 
 AntonInus, emperor, why defirous of admifllon to the, £/.;//- 
 man myfteries, ii. 144. -^is perfecution of chnftianity ac 
 counted for, ii. 53. j ^/- • - a^ 
 
 Apis, the fymbol of the Egyptian god Ofins, ui. 201. Ac- 
 count of bis worfhip from Diod. Sc 213. n. 
 
 Apologue, or fable, its ufe in oratory, hi. 113. Its analogy 
 to hieroglyphic writing, 1 17- Its improvement and con- 
 traaion in>«:V^ and meiaphor, 118. Its change to para- 
 
 Apot'heoTis, when bettowed on deceafed heroes among the 
 
 Egyptians, iii. 226. . . • . 
 
 Apuleius, opinions of the antients concernmg his metamor- 
 phofis, i. 296. Eftimated. C197. Account of, 298. hx- 
 amination of, 307. His fentiments concernmg the unchange- 
 able nature of God, ii. 19 S- ^ .. ^ »1,. 1o.,c«f 
 
 Appetites, human, the fource of oppofit.on to the laws o£ 
 
 aIITians',' why they have fo long preferved the purity of their 
 
 notions of the divinity, i- 94- i j j u , ; n.v ,0 
 
 Areopagus, addreflesto the paffions excluded by, u DeJ^ o. 
 
 In what charaaer St. Paul appeared before that court, 11. 57. 
 
 Who the founder of that court, 60. 
 Argument, internal, defined, iv. 314. 
 Aristophanes, why he triumphed oyer Socrates, u DeJ. 19, 
 Aristotle, his charaaer and principles, 11. 160. >93- 
 Ark, its fatal efFeas among the Phdijhnes, iv. 204. 
 Astronomy, J^z.;//^ obfervations on, v. iQO. 
 Artemidorus, fee Dreams. r- c 
 
 Article, VUth, of the Church of E.gl^nd, an expofuion of, 
 
 Athe?sm.. invites to fenfual gratifications, i. 70. Homer's opi- 
 nion of, 7C. n. And Polytheifm, compared, 36. ?/«- 
 Tank's parallel between, and fuperftition, u. 260. Bacons 
 
 ATHE°.s?,^^unable to arrive at a knowledge of morality, i, 
 44! Neverthelefs accountable and defervedly pumfhable at 
 the hand of God, 56. k. .. r 
 
 Atheists unfair c rcumftance attending the compar.fon of 
 thek moral condua, with that of prol^ffors of religion, 1. 
 71 No general argument to be eftabhmed from particular 
 
 A™Tns ^h^w thev drew the refentmemt of P/..7^ of ^U- 
 ""."agai^ll them, i. 269. Their behaviour in pVofpentir. 
 ^nd iij ad verfity inftan<ied,^v.^7 7. ^^ ^ ^ ^^^ 
 
index:. 
 
 Athens, remarks of its care for the eftabliftietl re'igion, ii. 27. 
 
 cy. No ftrange God tolerated there, till approved by the 
 
 court of Areopagus, ii. 57. 
 Augustus, t-iiiperor, advifed againft toleration, ii. 68. 
 AuRELius, Empeior, his opinion of the firmnefs of the Chrif- 
 
 iians, iii. Prif. 39. 
 Austin, St. his ingenious definition of language and letters, 
 
 iii. 105. 
 Author, the principal objeft of his attention, pointed out, i. 
 
 J>ed, 35. 
 
 B. 
 
 Bacchanals, decree of the ^o»z««fenate relating to the cele- 
 bration of, ii. 65. 
 
 Bacchus, his exploits in the ImUes, invented to aggrandize 
 the glory of Alexander, iii. i6i. His identity confounded 
 with that o^ Ofiris, 269. Reafons proving him to be Noahf 
 288. n, 1 he rites of, how charadlerized by Virgil, i. 292. 
 
 Bacon Lord, his parallel between Atheijm and Superjiition, ii. 
 278. 
 
 Balaam, his famous prophecy. Numb. xxiv. 17. evpounded, 
 iii. 177. His wi(h to die the death of the righteous, explain- 
 ed, V. 142. 
 
 Banishment, how far to be confidered as a punifliment, 
 i. 18. 
 
 Baptjsm, the importance of, eftablilhed, v. 4. fee Quakers, 
 
 Baucis and Philemon, the fable of, explained, ii. 134. 
 
 Bayle, miilaken in the tendency of Pomfonatius\ treatife, Dt 
 immortalitatc ammae, i. 26, 30. His character as a writer, 
 3^, 77. His arguments to prove reputation capable of in- 
 fluencing a man void of religion, to a virtuous conduft, 6i. 
 Difproved, 62. His argument of Atheifm not being deftruc- 
 tive to morals, examined into, i. 72. Miilaken in his cen- 
 furc of Vzr^ii^s placing infants in hell, i. 258. His reflexions 
 on toleration, iv. 159. 
 
 Bembine tables, a defcription of, contained in £«f^;Wj vl- 
 fions, h' 19. 
 
 Bennet, tjecrctary, how brought into contempt, i. Dee/. 21. 
 
 BoLiNGBROKE, an examination of his n^-tions concerning the 
 omiffion of the dodrine of a future ftate, in the M',fac dif- 
 penfation, iv. 381. His obfervations on tlie infuf»icicncy of 
 the Mc/uic law to reflrain the people, anlwcred, iv. 206. 
 Confequences of a law upon his principle, 210. 
 
 Brute-worship, opinions of the anticnts concerning the 
 origin of in E^ypt, ii. 43. iii, 311. The fymbolical nature 
 pf, explained, 111, 20Q, 
 
 • Buf« 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Buffoonery, its ufe in infidelity, i. Bed. 9. Inftances of 
 its niifchievous tendency, id. 20. Source of, id, 34. 
 
 C. 
 
 Cabirf, who were fignified by this name, i. 173. 
 Cadmus, whence he obtained his alphabet, iii. 164, 
 Cjesar Julius, his public declaration of his opinion of the 
 doctrine of a future ftate, ii. 82. His notion of death, 1 1 \. 
 
 His account of the religion of ancient Gaul, iii. 275. g. 
 
 Of ancient Germany, 279. ». 
 Calf, golden, what Deity reprefentcd by, iv. 11. 
 Calves of Dan and Bethel, why the Jexvs were fo invin- 
 cibly attached to, iv. 14. Why two of them erefted by 
 Jeroboam, 20. 
 Canadians and Mexicans, their religious notions compared, 
 
 i. 93. 
 Canaanites, why ordered to be exterminated, iv. 2. 
 Cato of Utica, his condufl in oppofmg C^sjAzrV epicurean 
 notions of death in the fenate, with the popular dodrine, 
 inquired into, ii. 112. A mirtaken notion relating to the 
 mention of him in Virgil^ reftified, i. 290. 
 Cavalry, what fituations proper and improper for the ufe 
 
 of, iii. 316. 
 Caylus, Count, his opinion relating to the^E'_0;//<2« charafters, 
 
 iii. 100. V. 
 Celsus, his recrimination on Orlgev, i. 199. His obfervations 
 on the tenacioufnefs of the "Jev^s, of their religion, ii. 49. 
 His opinion of Plato's reprefentations of a future llatc, ii. 
 T58. 
 Ceres, the hymns of Orpheus, pcrferrcd to thofe of Homer, \n 
 the rices of, i. 178. The .Athenians greatly indebted to, 185^ 
 Her temple at Eleufis defcribed, i. 285. 
 Chaos, how defcribed in f^irgil, i. 245. In Bercfus, ib. 
 Charlevoix, his obfervations on the natives of Canada, ii. 
 
 73' »• 
 Charon, the character of, whence derived, 1. 250. 
 
 Cheops, king of Bgypt, hovv^ he raifed money lor the ere<flion 
 of his pyramids, explained, iii, 29^. n. 
 
 Children, the punifhment of, for the crimes of their parents, 
 on what principle only to be vindicated, iii. Ded. w- 
 
 Chinese, their reverence for their ancient charafters, iii. 188. 
 
 ,».. Languace, an improvement of the ancient Egypian 
 
 hieroglyphics, iii. 85. Improvement of, to itsprefent ftate, 89. 
 its oppofite progrels from that of the Egyptian hieroglyphical 
 writing, to what owing, 91. To what the different accounts we 
 have received of it, is owing, 92, Account of by M. Freret, 
 ^ 93- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 f 3. Ditto by P. Parennin, 94. Ditto by P. MMgaillanSy ib. 
 The ancient characters of, greatly venerated by the natives, 
 97. «. Why not further improved, 103. Hieroglyphical ; 
 marks not for words but things, 1 29. Du HaUis obferva- 
 tions on, i8o- 
 
 Christ, remarks on the ufe he made of his twofold credentials. 
 Scripture and Miracles, V. 2o8. An expofition of his pro- 
 phecy of his fiift and fecond coming, 298. Important ar- 
 gument drawn from his converfation with two difciples in their 
 journey to Emmaus, after his refurreftion, 272. 
 
 Christian Faith, who its greateft enemies at the firll pro* 
 muigation, ii. 230. Religion, its dodlrine fhadowed under 
 the rites of the Mofaic law, v. 8. 
 
 Christians, primitive, the caufe of their perfecution by the 
 Pagans^ explained, ii. 53. Their noflurnal aflemblies vindi- 
 cated from the mifreprefentations of Dr. Taylor^ chancellor 
 of Lincoln, iii. Pref. 37. See Het^eri^e. 
 
 Christianity, wherein its eflence confifts, i. 3. How efteem- 
 ed by the ancient Pagans, 1. 302. ii. 50. Why neceflarily 
 founded on Judaifm, 47. Not a republication of the reli- 
 gion of nature, 241. The affirmative made ufe of, by infi- 
 dels, as an argument to fupercede the neceflity of fuch re- 
 publication, 242. An enquiry into the methods taken by 
 Providence to propagate it, iv. 54. The ignorance of the 
 propagators, the means of advancing it, 55. Its evidences 
 why not all difclofed by Providence, v. 273. and Judaifm, 
 infeparable, 274. The ultimate end of Judaifm, 286. 
 
 Chronology, Egyptian, a miftake of Sir I/aac Nenutons in, 
 illuftrated by a cafe Hated in fimilar circumftances, iii. 253. 
 
 Church and State, fee Alliance. 
 
 Cicero, his religious precepts, i, 136. His expofition of the 
 Pagan divinities, 159. His account of the academics, ii. 
 117, 122, ff. 124. His opinion o^ Plato's Phzedo, 153. 
 His true fentiments concerning a future ftate not eafy to be 
 difcovered, 166. His charafter analyzed, 169. His incon- 
 fiflences pointed out, 17O. where his real fentiments arq 
 moft likely to be found, 172. Inftances, 174. His reflec- 
 tions on the cafe of Regulus, 184. His account of the ori- 
 gin of brute-worfhip controverted, iii. 212. 
 Circumcision, when firft enjoined, v. 212. A patriarchal 
 
 inftitution, iv. 30. Why appointed, 77. 
 Civil Society, fee Society. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, his exclamation againfl: the cor- 
 rupters of the myfteries, i. 198. His account of a remark- 
 able fynibolical meflage fent to D-ar;«j, iii. 113. And Pcr- 
 phyry^ their accounts of the Egyptian charafters and writingx 
 
 121. 
 
 Clo-» 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Clodius, violates the rites of tlie Good Goddefs, i. 187. n. 
 CocYTUs, whence the notion of the gholts waiting there for 
 
 paflage, was derived, i. 248. 
 Collins, Mr. his ungenerous treatment of the memory of 
 his friend Locke, i. Ded. 24. The validity of his afleriions, 
 that new religions are always grafted on old ones, &c. ex- 
 amined into, iv. 177. Charadterifed as a writer, v. 281. 
 An examination of his difcourfe on the Grounds and Reafons 
 of the Chriftian Religion, ib. His obfervations on the allego- 
 rical writings of the antients, 346. Thefe obfervations 
 (hewn to refute his obje£tions againft chriftianity, 349. 
 Commentators on Scripture, points recommended to their 
 
 attention, v. 159. 
 CoNDAMiNE, his charaflcr of the native Americans, ii. 74. ». 
 Conformity, oaths of, among the antients, ii. 29. 
 Cretans, open celebrators of their myfteries, i. 182. Th» 
 
 P^Tg^a/j deities born among them, 1S3. 
 Critias, his Greek poem on the origin of religion, ii. 249. 
 Criticism, the proper conduft of, pointed out, i. 295. 
 Crocodile, why vvorlhiped by the Egyptians, iii. 200. 
 Cromwel, an inftance of the united efFefts of policy and en- 
 
 thufiafm, ii. 284. Notable obfervation of, 285. 
 Cudworth, Criticifm on a paffage in, relating to the opinions 
 of the philofophers concerning the human foul, ii. 215. 
 Miftakes Mofchus, for Mofes, 223. The hiftory of his InteL 
 le^ual Syjiem, iii. Pref. 29. 
 Cupid and Psyche, ftory of, i. 325. 
 Custom, capable of counter-adting the ftrongeft principles of 
 
 morality, i. 58. 
 Customs, a fimilarity of, obfervable among diftant nations, nar 
 argument of an adlual communication between them, iii. 
 99. «. Tvaduftive, an enquiry into, iy. 126. 
 Cyrus, his dream about young Darius, iii. 193. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dark-sayings, what that expreiTwn imports in fcripture, iii. 
 
 1 7 1 • 
 
 David, why appointed to fucceed S'fla/, iv. 45. His title of 
 man after God's own heart explained, ib. The chronology 
 of fafts relating to his introdudlion to Saul, redlified, ib. n. 
 
 Dead, three kinds of perfons who have no right to a place 
 among, according to Ftrgrl, i. 264. 
 
 Dedications, abfurdity of addreffing them to unfuitable per- 
 fons, i. Ded. I . , r i_ r ■ 
 
 Deification, when bellowed on any hero gf the Egyptians, 
 
 iii. 226. .^ 
 
I. N D E X. 
 
 DEtTtts Pagan, authorities proving them to be dead worthies 
 deified, i. 96. a. 104, 154, 168. Their fpurious offspring 
 accounted for, iii 297. Local and tutelary, their worftiip 
 always maintained, even by fojourners and conquerors, iv. 
 188. 
 
 DiAcoRAs, the confequence of his revealing the Orphic and 
 Eleujintan rayfteries, i, i8i. 
 
 Dialects, of ancient writers, how far evidences of their 
 genuinnefs, i. 117. 
 
 Dramatic writ i kg, remarks on, with reference to the book 
 of Job, V. i8, 27. 
 
 Drrams, Artemidorui\ diviiion of, into fpeculative and al- 
 legorical, iii. 190. Superrtitious interpretation of, 191. 
 Grounds of this fpecies of divination, 192. 
 
 Druids oi Britain, whence they derived many of their reli- 
 .^ious rites, i. 139. 
 
 Du Halde, his remarks on the ftyle of the Chine/e language, 
 • iii. 180. 
 
 Duties, of perfedt and imperfeft obligation, what, i. 14. 
 
 EARTHQtTAKKS, Pytbagoras^s method of prediding them juf* 
 tified by late experience, ii. loli. n. 
 
 Eastern Tales, origin of, traced, ii. 136. n, 
 
 ErcLEsiASTicus, a plain allufion to the Pagan myfteries in, 
 i. 281. n. - ^ 
 
 Egypt, origin of brute-worfhip in, ii. 43. The parent of 
 all the learning of Greece, 100. Rcforted to by the Grecian 
 legiflators, 103. By the Grecian naturalilb, 104. By the 
 Grecian philofophers, 105. Diftinftion between the learn- 
 ing of, and that of Greece, 106. An inquiry into the ftate 
 of the learning and fuperflition of, in the time of Mo/es, iii. 
 17. Why intitled to priority among civilized nations, 28. 
 Scripture account of, 29. The antiquity and power of, as 
 delivered in the Grecian writers, confirmed by Scripture, 33. 
 Civil arts of, 40. A critical inquiry into the military ufages 
 of, at the time of the Trojan war, 306. Abounding in 
 horfes before the conqueft of Lybia, 3 10. Why the Ijraelites 
 were prohibited carrying horfes from, 313. The laws of 
 Mofei, why accommodated to the prejudices of the 'Je\<:s in 
 favour ol, iv. 23. The ancient fchool of legillation, 1 10. 
 Fundamental maxims in the religious policy of, 111. Heie- 
 ditary defpotifm preferred there, 115. 
 
 EoyPTiAN Characters, Kirchey, and Count Caylus, their 
 opinions concerning, iii. 100. n. 138. 
 
 Egyptjam 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Egyptian Heroes, the reafon why the latter obtained the 
 names of their earlier Gods, explained, iii. 256. 
 
 — -Hieroglyphics, how they came to be, and to 
 
 conceal their learning, iii. 121, 131. Curiohyicfil and Tro- 
 pica/, 132. Symbolic, 140. The change of their ftyle effeded 
 by this latter application of them, 145. 
 
 Learning, that mentioned in Scriptnre, and that 
 
 mentioned in a correfponding manner by the Greek writers, 
 
 the fame, iii. 25. No diftindt divifion of the fciences in, 53. 
 
 How preferved from the knowledge of the people by the 
 
 priefts, 168. Summary of, 186. 
 
 Idolatrv, defcribed in EzekieVs vifions, iv. 17. 
 
 Mysteriej, Si. Ji'Jien's account of, i. 157. 
 
 Physicians, confined to diftinft branches of the 
 
 medical art, iii. 40, 48. Their preventive method of prac- 
 tice, 45. Their number accounted for, 46. Proved to 
 compofe an order of the priefthood, 52. 
 
 Priesthood, account of, from Diodona Siculusy iii. 
 
 34. Confirmed by yWc/i'j, 35, Their rites, 39. 
 Writing, the four kinds of, iii. 121. 
 
 Egyptians, celebrated for the culture of religion, i, 91, 96. 
 The firft who difcovered the knowledge of the divine nature, 
 165. 71. The fciences not carried to any great height by them, 
 ji. 221. In what their wifdom confided, 222. Among the firft 
 who taught the immortality of the foul, 228. Why fubjeft 
 to incurable difeafes, iii. 46. Their funeral rites, 65. Their 
 facred dialedl, 167. Origin of animal worfhip among, 197. 
 Worfhippers of plants, 198. Of chimerical beings, 199. 
 Local animal deities among, 200. Their charge againfl the 
 Grecians of ftealing their gods, with their mutual recrimina- 
 tions, 265. 
 Eleusinian Ceres, her temple defcribed, i. 28^, 
 — — ^^— Mysteries, the moft celebrated in antiquity, what, 
 i. 14c. Why the Emperor Kero was deterred from, and the 
 Emperor Antoninus was defirous of, being admitted to them, 
 144. Scandalous not to be initiated into them, 146. Two 
 forts, the greater, and the lefs, 149. Negative enquiry into, 
 151. Not the fecret doftrines of the fchools, 151. 1 he 
 rationale of the P<3^^« fyilem of theology, 154. Why con- 
 cealed, 156. Reafbns to conclude Sa'chotiatho's hitlory to 
 be thai narrated in the celebration of them, 171. By whom 
 founded, 174. The hymn fung at them, 177. End and ufe 
 of them, 180. The difclofin^ them fevercly punifhed, 181. 
 Abolilhed by Theodojius the elder, 189. Summary of, 286. 
 Caufes of their degeneracy, 191. Alluded to by Sr. Paul, 
 196. «. 
 
 EtlAS, 
 
 % 
 
INDEX. 
 
 iLtt AS, the fenfc in which he was prediftcd to come before thfi 
 
 day of the Mefliah, afcertained, v. 326. 
 Elihu, why dillinguilhed from the other friends of 7«3, v. lou 
 
 His charader, 106. 
 Elisha, expofition of the adventure between him and Joajh^ 
 
 V. 261. w. 
 Embalming, the Egyptian method of, iii. 49, 65. Tiiis 
 operation performed by the phyficians, and the reafon, 51. 
 The antiquity of the general pradlice of, proved, 67. 
 Enigmas, required in the nature of God's difpenfation to the 
 
 Jews, iii. 171. 
 Enoch, the difference between the account of his ttanflation 
 
 and that of ^/(/a/?', accounted for, iv. 322. 
 Enthusiasm and Policy, neceffary to, and always to be 
 found in, the antient heroes and legiflators^ ii. 281. How 
 fuccefsfully thefe two qualities co-operate, 283. Inllances of 
 illuftration, 284. Inllances of their infufhciency fmgly. ib* 
 Epic Poetry, the three fpecies of, i. 226. 
 Epictetus, his thoughts on death, ii. i52. 
 Establishment of Religion, the voice of nature ; juftified. 
 from hiflory, ii. 27. Meaning of the exprefTion as applied 
 to antient nations, afcertained, 30. Examination of the 
 leading caufes to, in the Pagan world, 31. Their conceptions 
 of, miftaken, 32. 
 Etrusci, remarks concerning that people, i. 222. How they 
 
 found their god Tflf^^f, iii. 241. «. 
 Euhemerus, his expedient to reveal without danger the P^t^^j^ 
 mylleries, i, 182. His artifice to difguife his difcovery of the 
 P^^a« myfteries, ii. 304.^ 
 Evidences, external and internal of revealed religion, com- 
 pared, i. 3. 
 Evil, its effeft on the feelings, ilronger than that of good on 
 
 the imagination, i. 12. 
 Euripides, his notions of the defcents of the heroes into hell, 
 
 i. 231. 
 Exodus, vi. 3. Expounded, iv. 5. 
 
 EzEKiEL, his famous vifions, chap. 8. Relating to Jeiuijh 
 idolatry, expounded, iv. 17. God's reproaches to the Jcwt 
 for their pcrverfenefs and difobedience, delivered by him, 
 78. The celebrated prophecy in his 20th chap, explained, 
 84. His vifion of the dry bones explained, v. 123. His 
 reprefentation of the yt-xtT/^ idolatry, iv. 195, 200. Quota- 
 tions from, in confirmation of a particular providence, 
 291. AnAjEremiah, the adions recorded to be performed 
 by them to illuftrate their prophecies accounted for, iii. 1 08. 
 Ezra, his writings pointed out, v, 109. 
 
 Fablesj 
 
INDEX- 
 
 F. 
 
 Fables, antient, enquiry into the origin of, li. 131; The 
 
 corruptions of civil hiftory, 132. 
 Faith, defineJ from St. Paul, v. lyH. Falfely condemned, in 
 
 Firgil's jEneid, critical examination of, i. 260. 
 Fate, what efFeft the opinion of it will have on morals, i. 
 
 Fathers, of the primitive church, accufe the Myfteries ofgrofs 
 impieties and immoralities, i. 197. And afterward adopt 
 them, 200. Their teftimony againft the antient fages, for 
 duplicity of doftrine, ii. lop. «. Some of them held the 
 foul to be mortal, 207. 
 
 Fiction, from what motive employed by the antient lawgivers, 
 iv. 112. «. 
 
 Figurative Expressions, origin of, iii. 173, 179. 
 
 Fool, its import in the Old Teftament language, v. 78, 
 
 Forfeitures, remarks on the laws of, in cafes of high treafon, 
 
 Jv. 334- 
 
 Fornication, why never adequately punifhed by flourifhing 
 communities, i. 14. The fuppreffion of, produdive of un- 
 natural lulls, ii. 13. 
 
 Foster, his notions of the "Jevoijh theocracy, examined, iv. 
 168. 
 
 Fourmont, M. his miftake of the identity of /^^ra/^aw with 
 Cronos, correded, iv. 8. n. 
 
 Free-thinkers, their arts in controverfy, i. Ded. 32. America 
 a proper nurfery for, ii. 74. 
 
 Funeral Rites, an indifpenfable part of the ftories of the 
 antient heroes, i. 249. Of the Egyptians, defcribed from 
 Herodotus, iii. 65, 
 
 Future State, the doflrlne of, deducible by natural realbn, 
 i. 24. iv. 407. The inculcation of, neceffary to the well 
 being of fociety, j. 25, 29. Its utility in the well governing of 
 fociety, confirmed by the opinions of all the antient fages, ii. 
 77. Though not believed by themfelves, 86, 162. Keafons 
 urged by the 5/wa againft, 183, 186. F/«/o*s view of, i. 260. 
 Plutarch'?, ditto, ii. 191. Of what points that dodlrine con- 
 fifted, in the Pagan theology, i. 142. ii. 87. Its univerfality 
 fhewn, i. 329. Strongly inculcated by the S//fw and Arabs, 
 iv. 348. The chief foundation of every religion except the 
 "Je^ijh, i. 88. Not contained in the Mofalc difpenfalion, 7. 
 This omiffion a proof of its divine origin, 8. v. 3f-;4. Pur- 
 pofely omitted in ditto, iv. 320. The want of, how fupplied, 
 324. Pofitive declarations againft the expectation of, inftanced 
 from the Je^j:iJJj writers, 353. Corroborated by the New 
 
 l^etta- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Teftaraent writers, 562. A review of the prejudices whicii 
 have induced to the belief that it was taught in the Mr/arc 
 difienfation, v, 2. A review of thofs paflages in Scrip- 
 ture, urged to prove that it was taught in the Me/aic 
 difienfation, 126. That taught by natural religion to be 
 diiiinguiihed from that taught by the chrillian revelation, 3. 
 Its mention by M-fes, and by the following writers, to le 
 dillinouiflied, 9. A lift of texts urged by the Rabbins in 
 proof of its being taught under the Mj/i/c law, 160. An 
 examination of the arguments founded on the i ith chapter of 
 the Hebrews, to (hew that it was taught by Mo/es, 176. That 
 it was not taught in the Mofaic law, confirmed by the authori- 
 ties of Gro//a/, Epifcopiusy Arnaud, and Bp. 5«//, 190. See 
 Law Mosaic, and IVIoses, 
 
 G. 
 
 Gaitl, antient, enquiry into the deities of, iii. 275. 
 
 Germany, antient, Ca/ar's account of the gods of, iii. 
 279, K. 
 
 Gesture, fee Action. 
 
 God, a favage the moft qualified to reafon to him, i. 94. The 
 acknowledgment of, beneficial to fociety, though difhonouied 
 by abfurd opinions, ii, 272. His immutability afferted by the 
 antient Theijiic philofophers, 183, 186, 195. His unity 
 taught in t\\Q Eleujiidan myfteries, i. 154, 170. The only 
 means of prefcrving the doftrineof his unity, iv. 136. 
 
 God of Israel, how confidered by the neighbouring nations, 
 iv. 174. Why he gave himfelf a name to the Jezi^s, 5. 
 "Why reprefented with human affedions, 166. His charafter 
 ^5 the God of Abraham, — oflfaac, — of Jacob, explained; and 
 the miflakes concerning this text pointed out, v. 161. The 
 relations in which he ftood to the Je^jjljh people, iv. 161. 
 Not lefs benign to man under the law, than under the gofpel, 
 iv. 167. 
 
 Gods, Pagan, deified worthies, i. 104, 154, 168. Born 
 amon<y the Cretans, 183. Account of the origin of local 
 tutelary ones in Greece from Plato, iii. 271. How fo many 
 immoralities came to be recorded of them, 229. An inter- 
 community of, univerfally tolerated among the Pagans, ii. 40. 
 approbation of, nece/Tary, previous to toleration, 57, 61. 
 
 Gospel, enjoins no moral obfervance beyond what natural 
 religion before pointed out, i. 83. No juftification by works, 
 under, v. 186. 
 
 Golden Ass of Apuleius, examination of, ?. 307. 
 
 GovERNMHNT, civil, an examination into the nature of, i. 17. 
 Its motives in infliding puniflimcnt, i./. 19. Not capable of 
 
 rewarding. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 tewarding, and why, /7. 20. The regal form of, among the 
 Jenx:s, explained, iv. 225. How tllablilhed, 231. Civil, 
 and religion, the objefts of compared, i. 14. 
 
 Grecian History, the confufed chronology of the early part 
 of, remarked, iii» 250. 
 
 > . Writers, an enquiry into the validity of their 
 
 teftimony concerning the antiquity of the Egyptian monarchy, 
 iii. 25. Their accounts no otherwife to be credited, than as 
 corroborated by Scripture, 27, 
 
 Greece, ignorant of the ufe of cavalry at the time of the Trojan 
 war, iii. 307. Whence it derived its learning, ii. 100. Di- 
 ftinftion between the philofophy of, and that of %;•/>/, 1 06. 
 The religion of, traced down to its original, iii. zbcj. What 
 it borrowed from Egypt, 273. The three dillinguiihed periods 
 in the religion of, 292. Charged by the Egyptians with 
 Healing their gods, 295. 
 
 Greenland Women, their language a refinement on that of 
 ' the men, iii. 141. ». 
 
 Grey, Dr. his notions concerning the book of Job, contro- 
 verted, V. 42, 
 
 Grotius, his fatal mifmterpretations of the y^u/}^' prophecies 
 Ihewn, V. 343. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hades, its different fenfes in the Old and New Teflaments point- 
 
 ed out, iv. 346. n. 
 Hagar, why Ihe named the angei who appeared to her, £,W, 
 
 iv. 3. 
 Hare, Bp. his cenfure of J'/ephvs, iv. 280. 
 Hebrew Alphabet, whence derived, iii. 164* When the 
 
 points were added to it, 166. 
 Hebrews, the only people, whofe public worflilp was addreffed 
 
 to the God of the univerfe, i. 163. The argument of St. 
 
 Pfl«/'s epiflle to, ftated, v. 177. 
 Hemopolis, the moll famous college of the antient £^///«« 
 
 priefts, iii. 35. The worfhip eltablilhed there, 38. 
 He ll, its different meanings in the Old and in the New Tefia- 
 
 ments, v. 149. 
 Hercules, ftory of his interview with Jupiter from Herodotus, 
 
 iii. 207. The antient E yptian account why there were fo 
 
 many of that name, 257. 
 Heresies, genealogy of, (rom TertulHan, ii. 238. 
 Hero-worship, the motives to, andufesof, i. 95> 106, 155, 
 
 Complicated in its rites, iii. 273. 
 Herodotus, his opinion of the origin of geometry, iii. 324; 
 Vol, V. F f Heroes, 
 
I N D E X. 
 
 Heroes and Legislators, always aftuated by craft and en- 
 thufiafm, ii. 28 1. 
 
 Het.-eri.'e, aflemblies of the primitive chriftians, the nature of, 
 explained ; when and by whom fupprefled, iii. fref. 75. 
 
 Hezekiah, the name he gave to the brazen ferpent, accounted 
 for, iv. 4. n. Detail of God's dealing with him, v. 37. 
 
 Hieroglyphics, the firft efTay toward the art of writing, iii. 
 ■70. Foimd in ufe among the Mexicans, by thz Spaniards, 71. 
 
 - Found in Siberia, 74. ft. This pifturefqoe method of ex- 
 prcflion abridged by the Egyptians, 75. Brief view of their 
 types and aliufions, ih. Mythologic account of the origin 
 of, 78. Improved in the Chinffe language, 85. Source of 
 the different genius of, from the Chine/e charafters, 91. Stood 
 for things, and not for founds, 80. ti. 95. n. How they 
 came to be applied by the Eg)ptians to conceal their learning, 
 121. The origin of brute worlhip, 197, 20^. 
 
 HiEROPHANT of the Myfteries, his office, i. 176, iii. 210. 
 
 Hippocrates, his opinion of the Cniduin fentences, iii. 5 J. 
 DedudioDS from, as to the antient pradice of ghylic, 59, 
 Author of the dietetic part of medicine, 63. 
 
 HoBBEs, his opinion of religion, i. 33. 
 
 Homer, his opinion of atheifm, i. 75. n. Why baniihed 
 Platans republic, 275. His reprefentations of the antient 
 Greek phyficians, afcertained and accounted for, iii. 55. 
 Whence he coUefted his materials, 308. «. 
 
 Hooker, his opinion of the political ufe of religion, ii. 321. 
 
 Horace, the double fenfe in his famous Ode, O nwvis rejerunt^ 
 l^c. pointed out, v, 316. 
 
 HoREB, confequences of the conira£l there, between God and 
 the ^^u/7;6 people, iv. 162. 
 
 Horses, 'Judea not a proper country for the ufe or breeding of, 
 iii. 315. 
 
 HvDE, Chancellor, how brought into contempt, i. Ded. zq» 
 
 I. 
 
 Jacob, his exprefTions to Pharoah, Grn. xlvii. 9. explained, v. 
 
 141. His vvreltling with an angel, what intended by, v. 
 
 237, Shewn to be of a tolerating difpofition, v. 413. 
 J4MBLICHUS, his apology for the corruption of the Pagan 
 
 myfteries, i. 328, His account of the origin of brute 
 
 worfhip, controverted, iii. 217. 
 Idolaters, the firft intolerants, v, 413. 
 Idolatry of the Gentiles, in what it chiefly confided, i. 
 
 95- 
 — — Sanchomathons fragment, tending greatly to account 
 
 for the rife and pro^refs of, i. 168. Not the firft religion, but 
 
 the 
 
t N D E X. 
 
 the corruption of it, ii. 2S9. The firft objefts of. 292; 
 The fecond fpecies of, 29O. The third fpecies of, 29-; 
 The Pagan apologies for the objefts of their worftiip, 299, 
 305. Newtoti, his account of the origin of, 290. Toland, 
 his account of the objcdts of it, 291. 
 
 Idolatr V.Jewish, the fources of, pointed out, Iv. 1S7. In what 
 it confifted, 19:;, 201. Never proceeding from matters of 
 confcience, 165. Under what figures reprcfentcd in the 
 prophecies, 2Z. n. The extent of that crime, and ho»v lar 
 legally punifhable Under the Je^ijh theocracy, 162; 
 
 ■ of the Assyrians tranfplanted into the Holy Land 
 
 in the room of the captive Jevjs, how puniftled, iv. 190. The 
 means of keeping a people from it, exemplified in the JeiMi/h 
 law, 60. View of the early fpread of, hy Cabiet, 153. n. 
 See Brute Worship. 
 
 Idols, arguments deduced froni the mod antlent fio-ures of, 
 
 concerning the objefts of the Pagan worfhip, ii. 302. 
 'Jehovah, explanation of that name, iv. 5. 
 
 Jeremiah, his reprcfentation of the y^ac//^ idolatry, iv. 191^; 
 PafTages quoted from, predidive of the new difpenfation, 328^ 
 
 V. 339- 
 
 • and EzEKiEL, the figns added by them to illuftrate 
 
 their prophecies, accounted for, iii. 108. 
 
 Jerusalem, the dellruftion of, as prophefied hy Chnji figMrs." 
 tively, in a literal fenfe importing the deftruftion of the world, 
 V. 298. 
 
 Jewish Poj-tcy, why feldonl underftood, iv. 134. 
 
 Jews, the folly of deriving all artsj la-.vs, and religion, front 
 them, or denying them the produflion of any, ii. 153. iii. 
 20. Their manner of exprefling numbers and muUitudei 
 explained, v, 16. ». In what light their feparation from the 
 refi of mankind to be confidered, iv. 136; Summary vievtr 
 of their deliverance from Egypt in ordei- to be feparated, 154; 
 Their expulfion front Egypt denied, 13. Their theocracy 
 
 , titablilhed, 157. How long their theocratic form of govern- 
 ment fubfifted, 225. When abolifhed, 243 Totally igno- 
 rant of a future (late under the Mofaic dilpenfation, v. 395. 
 How long they continued ignorant of a future ftate, iv; 344, 
 349. n. Their ignorance of a future Itate under the Mofaic 
 difpenfation iliuftrated by the New Tellament writers, 362. 
 Whether fubjeft to punilhment in a future rtate under the 
 Mofaic difpenfation, 407. The caufe of their frequent lapfea 
 into idolatry, ii. 47. Why ill treated by their Pagan neigh- 
 bours, 49. Their obftinate attachment to the Egyptian 
 cuRoms and fuperftitions, hiftorically traced, iv. 8. Reproached 
 in a fignal manner for their perverfenefs and difobcdience, 
 Ezekid, chap, zoth, 78. Explanation of this celebrated 
 F f « chapter. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 cliaptcr, 84. Tlieir propenfity to idolatry accounted for, 
 1 10. Their idolatry not a rejeSiion of the god oi I/raely 193. 
 T lie bad confequence of iheir propenfity toward marrying 
 idolatrous women, v. 7S. Reflexions on the moral difpenfa- 
 tions of God toward them, 96. A fummary view of their 
 hiuory, 58, Whence their obllinate adherence to their abo- 
 lifhed rites proceeds, 9. An examinaiion into the motives 
 which withhold them from receiving chriftianity, iii. Bfd. :;, 
 Arguments adapted to invalidate them, id. 6. The fubjtd 
 of their naturalization argued, id. 16, The repeal of, 
 juftified, id. 20, See Mosaic Dispensation. 
 
 Imagination', difordered, the fource of the antient metamor- 
 phofes, ii. 136. 
 
 Immortality of the Soul, univerfality of the doflrine of, 
 i. 91. 
 
 Infants, unnatural cuftom of expofing, univerfal among the 
 antients, i. 2 57. Difcountenanced in the antient myfteries, 
 ib. Guarded againfl: among the Arabians by Mahomet, ib. 
 
 Infidelity, remarks on the prefent propenfity toward, 1. 
 Ded. 2. The liberty of the prefs, liable to no reproach on 
 that account id. ib. 
 
 Ink I DELS, the injullice of their complaints of the want of liberty, 
 i. Ded. 4, 7. Their fcurrility againll the ellablilhed clergy, 
 id. 22. Their charge againft the intemperate zeal of tlic 
 primitive martyrs, retorted on them, id. 29. Their dif- 
 ingenuity, id. 31, 42. And bigots, compared, i, 8. The 
 proper method of difputing with, iii. 18. An indifcriminate 
 averfion tp ^// the principles advanced by, prejudicial to the 
 defence of true religion, 19. 
 
 Inspiration, pretended, its ufe to antient legiflators, i. 104, 
 
 Instinct, human, analyfed, i. 37. Not to be confounded with 
 brutal, 56. 
 
 Job, his real exiftence aflerted, v. 24. His exemplary patience 
 not founded on his written llory, 66. Reflexions on the cha- 
 radler of his wife, 75. On thofe of his friends, 84, 101. 
 On that of Satan, 92, 
 
 — — . Book of, a critical enquiry into, v. 13. A dramatic com- 
 pofuion, 14. When written, 27, 44, 57. Obfervations on 
 the imagery of, 33. A continual allufion to t\\c Mo/au Izwr 
 throughout, 41. The language of, compared to that of the 
 y^wmcajz Indians, 44. Critical divifion of the work, 47. r. 
 The purpofe of its compofuion pointed out, 61. Examina- 
 tion of the charafters in the piece, 64, 75, 84, 92, joi. 
 .Allegory of the Ilory explained, 67, The moral of, fhewn, 
 118. 
 
 Joel, the double fenfcs in his prophecy, pointed out, v. 294. 
 
 Joseph, prime miniltcr of f^}//, married to a daughter of the 
 
 pr^ti^ 
 
INDEX. 
 
 priefl: of 0//, iil. 37. An eminent infiance of the ftrength of 
 natural afFeftion, v. 17. Inference drawn from his cntcitain- 
 ment of his brethren, concerning the ufe of aninal food in 
 Egypt, iii. 321, Procures the property of all the land for 
 Pharoab, 322. Vindicated from the charge of rendering the 
 government of £j^y/>^ defpotic, 68. n. 
 
 Jo = EPHUs, defended from the charge of difbelieving the mira- 
 cles he relates, iv. 273. The circumftances under which he 
 wrote his hiftory, 278. His deviations from Scripture ac- 
 counted for, 2 So. The acknowledgment of Chriji in him, a 
 forgery, ii. 57. 
 
 Joshua, clear llate of the debate between him and the Jenvijh 
 people, on the article of worfhip, iv. 193. 
 
 Jotham's Parable, an inliance of inftruction by apologue, or 
 fable, iii. 115. 
 
 Isaac. See Abraham, Sacrifices, Stebbinc. 
 
 Isaiah, his denunciations againft the Ifraeiites for bringing 
 horfes from Egypt, in violation of the Mo/aic prohibition, iii. 
 
 314. His reprefentation of the Jevjip idolatry, iv, 195, 
 197. Double fenfes in his prophecies explained, v. 327, 
 331. His figurative predidion of the gofpel difpenfation, 
 
 337. 
 
 Is IS, why adopted by the Athenians, as the patronefs of their 
 myfleries, iii. 285. The feveral attributes and charadlers 
 afcribed to her, 286. 
 
 Isis and Osiris, the patrons of the primitive arts, iii- 304. 
 Under what limilitudes worfhipped, 42, Their myfteries de- 
 fcribed in Ezekui^ vKions, iv. 18. 
 
 Israelites, why fubjeft to few »,2/«rfi/ difeafes, iii. 48. For- 
 bid by their law to fetch horfes from Egypt, 312.. This law 
 violated by Solomon, and puniftied, 3i3._ Fleuris account of 
 the ftate of the arts among, in the time of Mofdy 163. n. 
 
 Judaism, its charaderiilic diitindion from all other religions, 
 
 iii. 8. , . ... 
 
 JuDEA, not a proper Country, for the ufe of cavalry in, 111. 
 
 315. ;V/^'Vf's account of, examined, iv. 146. 
 Jupiter, a local deity, iii. 12. Though a local deity, with 
 
 different adjur.as to his name, not feveral deities but the fame, 
 ii. 37. n. The Itories of his adulteries foimded in ttntli, iii* 
 ^29. 
 
 K.. 
 
 KiRCHER, his opinion concerning theEgyptlan charafters, iii\ 
 ICQ. n. 138, 184, ft. Charaaeriied as awriici, iii. 237. 
 
INDEX, 
 
 I^ACTANTius, his proof of a future judgment, ii. i86. Aflerts 
 the immutability of God, 192. 
 
 Lamb, Pafchal, a type of the future facrifice of Chriji, v. 283, 
 
 Language, a dedudioa of the origin of, iii. 105. Diodorus 
 Siculus, his account of, lo6. ». Firft taught by God, ib. 
 Upheld at firft by a mixture of words and figns, 108. Its 
 improvement, by apologue or fable, 113. Its advance to 
 elegance by t\iQ metaphor, 118. The revolutions of, traced, 
 169. 
 
 Law, the two great fandtionsof, i. 16. 
 
 ~— , Mosaic, the objections brought againft the fufEcIency of 
 it, in obtaining its end, equally valid againft the law of 
 nature, iv. 209. Its proviiion againft idolatry, 211. Cauie 
 of its inefficacy, 212. Its divine inftitution manifeft in the 
 difpenfations of Providence toward the J^^ac^ people, 219. 
 The primary intention of, 221. The temporal fandlions of, 
 not transferred into the gofpel, 307. Illuftrations from the 
 prophets of the temporal nature of its fandions, 318. Why 
 enforced by fo many promifes and threats, 393. Thechriftian 
 dodrine ftiadowed under the rites of, v. 8. In what fenfe 
 typical or fpiritual, 133. Not fuppofed by St. Paul to offer 
 a future ftate to its followers, 187. See Future State, 
 
 MoSES. 
 
 Laws, Civil, punifh paffions carried into adlion, but not re- 
 ward attempts to lubdue them, ii. 13. 
 
 Penal, to enforce opinions, only equitable under 3 
 
 theocracy, iv. 158, 166. 
 
 Lawgivers, atitlent, the ufe they made of religion, i. 87. 
 Illuftrated by inftanccs, 104. Enquiry into their motives, 
 107. Never found a people void of religion, ii. 319. 
 Obliged to adapt their fyftcms to the worftiip already in being, 
 320. Antient, unanimous in propagating the dodtrine of a 
 fjture ftate, 69. From what motive induced to have recoiirfe 
 to fiftion, iv. nz. r. Summary view of their conduft in 
 the propagation of religion, v. 370. The place afligned them 
 in Elyfiw^-.y i. 275. 
 
 Lazarus, paflages in the parable of, explained; with refer- 
 ence to arguments founded on them of a future ftate being 
 taught by Miy^/, v. 168. 
 
 Legislation, antient, a pretended miffion from fome God, 
 the firft ftep of, i. 104. 
 
 Legislatoks and HiRCES, always aftuated by craft and en- 
 thufiafm, ii. 281. 
 
 Let- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Letters, hiRory of, iii. 70. The antiquity of. among the 
 Egyptians, inferred from their mythologic derivation of them, 
 162,. Their right to the patronage of the great, inquired 
 into, i. Pre/. 48. 
 Lex Sacra, what, i. 222. ^ r • c ru 
 
 Liberty, civil, too great an attention to the fecurity ot, lub- 
 verfive of religion, iii.' Ded. to U. Mansfield. 
 
 _ Religious, the ill policy of infringing, li. 34. 
 
 of the Press, as favourable to the advocates of 
 
 religion, as to the infidel, i. Ded. 3. 
 Lidgus, the Cretan, moral of the tale of, i. 258. n. 
 Life, the promifes of, under the Mo/aic law, how to be under- 
 
 ftood, V. 14^, 152, 155. _ . 
 
 LivY, his obfervation on the rites ol Bqccbus, 1. 292. ». tti% 
 
 ^ccoant o£ Sc-fio J/'icanus, ii. 281. _ 
 
 Locke, his obfervations on the Je--wip theocracy, iv. ibi. 
 His memory infulted by his friend Collins, 1. Ded. z\. by 
 Sbaftejbury, id. 26. .. 
 
 Lucian, his opinion of the Academics, 11. 117. n. nis ac- 
 count of the origin of brute worfhip, controverted, 111. 215. 
 Luxury, defined, i. 81, 84. The dellruftive eftefts of, 85. 
 Lycakthropy, a diforder defcribed by the Greek phyficians, 
 
 fource of, ii. 136. c o - o 
 
 Lycurgus, his chief aim in the laws oi Sparta, u. uS. 
 
 M. 
 
 Magistrate, the propagation and prefervatlon of religion 
 depending on, and owing to him, 1. 92. 
 ^ eivir., why an alliance with the church neceflary for, 
 
 ii. 8. . 
 
 Magistrates, why appointed, I. II. ^ ,i,^ ^:nmr 
 
 Mahomet, the abfurdity of his imitating Mojes in the diftinc- 
 tion of meats, pointed out, iv. 63. In the union of evil 
 and religious policy, 162. n. The plan on which his religion 
 tas fmmed, 185, 223. To what his fucceffes were chiefly 
 
 owing, 316. , „ r • o 
 
 Mahometan Writers, a charaaer of. iv. 180. 
 MAmoNiDBs, his account of the 7.xc(/i?' ntual defended, iv. 
 
 124. n. I J • 
 
 Man, in a ftate of nature, defcribed, 1. 10. 
 Manasseh, detail ofGod's dealings with, ^..39- 
 Mandeville, his pofition of private vices being publu bene- 
 
 MEoic!:^ th; Us of. and when each obtained in ufe, iii. 
 
 61. Indication of the great antiquity ot 62. 
 Melchizedec, obfervation on the ftory of, v. 414. 
 F f 4 
 
INDEX, 
 
 MetAMORPHOSEs, of JpuUtus, particular examination of that 
 
 work. i. 307. 
 -^ of ihe antient Poets, rationale of, ii. 136. Pro- 
 ceeded from the Mftempfychofis, 138. 
 Metempsychosis, the intention of that dofirine, i. 141, 
 279. ii. 135. Efteemed peculiarly the dodrine of /'j/>6i7^or«;, 
 130. The utility of that do^rine pleaded, 143. Two 
 fyftems of, 144. The only vindication of Providence in the 
 introduftion of evil, accprding to Hierochs, 228. The doc- 
 trine of, not the origin of brute worfhip, iii. 213. 
 
 Mexicans, their uie of hieroglyphic writing illuitrated, by 
 their manner of painting their pra^yers, iii. 72. Account of 
 a Mexican hiftory in the fame ftyle, 73. 
 
 and Canadj^ns, their religious notions compared, 
 
 i. 93. 
 
 Mhhokek, the proper fignification of that word pointed out, 
 iv, 245. «. 
 
 MiDDLETON, his argument of the derivation of Popijh from 
 Pagan rites, examined, iv. 1 27. n. 
 
 Milesian Fables, what, i. 306. 
 
 Minerva, expofition of a famous hieroglyphical infcr'ption on 
 her temple at ^^ii, iii. 138. 
 
 Ministry, their chara£ler, in what refpedlfacred, i. Ded. 28. 
 
 Miracles, evidences of an extraordinary Providence over the 
 Jeiv'/h nation, iv. 273, 286. A neceflary confirmation of 
 the fecondary fenfes of the y^'iu//?' prophecies, v. 323. 
 
 Missionaries, catholic and pioteftant, why not attended with 
 good fuccefs, ii. 7c. Should Jirji civilize, and then convert, 
 71. Millaken policy of, 72. 
 
 Molech, the meaning of giving feed to him, v. 148, 
 
 Moraliiy, an enquiry into the firft principles of, i. 37. Re- 
 view of the feveral opinions concerning, 40. Capable of 
 being counter-a£led by cuiloni, 58. Not able to influence 
 mankind abllradcd from the confideration of reward and 
 punillimenr, 59, 70. No corapleat fyftem of, contained in 
 the New Teftament, S3. 
 
 Mosaic Dispensation, its divinity logically proved, v. 364. 
 
 403- 
 Moses, propofitions from which his divine legation is efta- 
 blifhed, i. 7, His account oi the E^ypti/m priefthood, a 
 confirmation of thole of the antient Greek hillorians, iij. 35. 
 Corroborates their account of the religious rites oi Egypt, 39, 
 Of the funeral rites of, 66. Of the divifion of the lands of 
 £iy?i, 67. His knowledge in the Egyptian learning, and 
 the laws by him inllituted, a confirmation of the divinity of 
 his milfion, iv. no. Anfwers to deifticnl objeftions againft 
 the divinity of his millioo, 115. His laws accommodated 
 
 to 
 
INDEX. 
 
 to the prejudices of the Jenut, in favour of the Egypnen 
 cuftoms, 23. This no objcftion to the divinity cf his 
 niiffion, 39* The reafon of his unwillingnefs to undertake 
 his miiTion, 7. The omiiTion of a future Hate in his law 
 intended, 320. Two periods obfervable in his liillory, ib. 
 The mention of a future ftate by him, and by fbllowin? 
 writers, to be diftinguilhed, v. g. The fejife of his expref- 
 fions relating the creation of man, afcertained. 126. His 
 injunctions to the Jews againlt the local idolatry of Canaan^ 
 iv. 189, 198. One intention of his laws, to prohibit all 
 intercourfe between the Hebreins and the Egy[:t:nns, i i. 312. 
 His motives explained, §13. Vindicated from the fuppofzcioa 
 of having had recourfe to liftion in certain cafes, iv, 112. *. 
 The difference between contradiding the ajlronom)', and the 
 h'Jiory, wrote by him, iii, 24.4. The former of the Hebre^v 
 alphabet by an improvement of the Eiypiian characters, 164. 
 Charadlers in the Pagan mythology fuppofed by fome, to be 
 intended for him, ii. 133. iii. 258. 
 
 Moses, Divine Legation of, fummary view of the oppofition 
 this performance met with, iii. Pref. 27. Recapitulation of 
 the argument proving his divine legation, v. 3 58. The 
 length of it accounted for, 366. See Future State, Law 
 Mosaic, Lazarus. 
 
 Mus^us, how employed in ^/r^iV's ^/z«V, i, 277. 
 
 Musc^uETS, humourous ftory of a parcel of, with a logical in- 
 ference, V. 404, 
 
 Mysteries, the mod facred articles of Pagan religion, i. 136. 
 The term explained, 137. Where, and to what gods, cele- 
 brated, 138. AH inculcated the dodrine of a future ftate, 
 ib. Common people fond of them, 148. The expediency 
 of, 149. Refemblance between initiation into, and death, 
 280. Alluded to by the fon of Sirach, 281. n. Enquiry 
 into the motives of jpu/eiui's defence of, 304. 
 
 . Pagan, their ufages adopted by the primitive fathers, 
 
 i. 200. Invented and upheld by lawgivers, 202. Marks of 
 their E^rp'ian original, 204. ii. 229. iii. 36. Of great ufe 
 to the ilate, i. 209. The betrayer of them, an infamous 
 charadter, 182, Antient opinions of, 185. Violatcrs of them, 
 how punilhed, 267. Summary view of, v. 37c, See 
 Eleusinian Mysteries. 
 
 Mythologists, antient, their tellimony not to be trailed, in 
 afcertaining times and fads, iii. 290. 
 
 Mythology, antient, fources of the confufion in, iii, 291. 
 
 N. 
 
 JJa-ture, ftate of, the miftaken prejiidice in favour of what 
 is fo called, iilullrat^d, ii. 7-j. 
 
 Na- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Nature, univerfal, the objeft of all the antlent myllcrics, I, 
 203, 209. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar, rational meaning of his transformationji 
 ii. 137. 
 
 NerO, Emperor, why deterred from attempting to fee the cele- 
 bracion of the Eleujiniau myfteries, i. 144. 
 
 New Testament, no compleat fyftem of morality contained 
 in it, i. 83. 
 
 Newton, Sir Isaac, his charadlerasa natural philofopher, iii. 
 243. Milled by Gr^f^ mythologifts, 244. The argument of 
 his Egyptian chronology, 245. His reafons for the identity 
 of Ojiris and S,J'oJiris, 246. His niiftake in this, illullrated 
 by a cafe flated in fimilar terms, 253. The fource of his 
 ' miftake, 260. His hypothefis fupported principally by two 
 mythologic fables, iii. 293. Miitakes the times of the Pagan 
 deities, compared with the sra of the 7ro;a« war, 296. His 
 fyftem of chronology contradidtory to Scripture, 303. His 
 chronology refuted by dedudion, 304. His account of l^ul- 
 cait, 306. Compared with that of Homer, 307. His affer- 
 tion of the conqueft of Ly^aa furnifhing Egypt with horfes, 
 invalidated, 310. His opinion of the time when the Egyptians 
 introduced animal food, refuted, 320. His period of the 
 divifion of.th^Jandsof ^^j//, difproved, 322. His account 
 of the firft introduftion of letters into Egypt, rejeded, 3Z5. 
 His obfervations relating to the populoufnefs of Egypt, exa- 
 mined, 326. Makes Sr/ojiris to ht Hercules, 329. Quotes 
 ^E/culapius as the firft who built with fquare ftone, 330. Sum- 
 mary view of the difpute concerning the identity of Ofiris 
 with Se/ofins, 335. 
 
 NiciAS, \\\e Athenian, fatal efFefts of his fuperftition, ii. 270, 
 
 Nile, the happy efFe^ls of its annual overflowings, iii. 28. 
 
 Noah, hisfharader found to anfwer that of the Indian RauhuSy 
 iii. 288. n. 
 
 Nocturnal Assemblies of the primitive chriftians, firft 
 occafion of, iii. Pref. 41. Their antiquity among Pagans 
 Pre/. 67. 
 
 ' Rites among the antients, fubjeft to great cenfure, 
 
 i. 186. n. Regulated by Solon, 6fc. 188. Aboliihed by 
 T/jeouOj'ius the elder, 189. 
 
 Nordek, Captain, his miilaken conclufion from a view of the 
 pyramids, concerning the antiquity of the Egyptian hierogly- 
 phics, correlated, iii. 133. «• 
 
 O. 
 
 Oath, Cicero's opinion of the obligation to fullfil it, ii. 184. 
 Oaths of conformity, amo.ig the antients, ii. 29. 
 
 Q Obelisks, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Obelisks, of the antient Egyptians, the public records of tKf 
 times, iii. 133. 
 
 Omens, the two kinds of, i. 214. 
 
 On, fome account of the priefts of, iii. 38. 
 
 Onirocritic art, explained, iii. 190. Whence the art of de- 
 ciphering borrowed, 196. 
 
 Opinions, in what inftances men frequently aft contrary to 
 thofe they entertain, i. 69. 
 
 Oracles, the original motive of confulting them, iii. 274. 
 
 Origen, his mifunderftanding of the promiles of \\it Jewjb 
 law, pointed out, v. 1 3 1 . w. 
 
 Orpheus, his hymns preferred to H:i7ier\, in the riles of 
 Ceres, i. 178. His defcent into hell, explained, 229. 
 
 Osiris who, iii. 259. His fymbols, 268. proof of hi* anti- 
 quity equal to Mo/es, ib. His fuperior antiquiry to Sefofiris 
 afcertained, ib. Account of, and his court, from Diodorus 
 Siculus, iii. 260. His various charadlers at different places, 
 as exprefied in an epigram of Aufonius, iii. 287. And Sefof- 
 tris, their identity controverted, againft Sir J/aac NeiAJtortf 
 248. Diflinguilhed, 259, 265. 
 
 Ovid, an examination into the merits of his Metamorphofes> 
 ii. 130. Contain a popular hiftory of Providence, 138. 
 Criticifm on, 140. His account of Tyfhufi war with the 
 Cods, iii. 206. 
 
 P. 
 
 Pagan Deities, vicious examples of, and the licentious rites 
 
 in their worfhip, infuperable obftacles to virtue, i. 153. 
 ^ ■ Mythology, the apology of the priefts and philo- 
 
 fophers, for the immorality of it, i. 176, n. 
 Paganism, antient, analyfis of, ii. 37. Not CQnfifting of 
 
 dogmatic points of belief, but of practical rites, 40. How 
 
 the antient philofophers attempted to uphold it, in its decline, 
 
 i. 303. 
 Pan, how painted by the Egyptians, iii. 208. 
 Pan TOM 1 ME, hillorical anecdote of the great expreffion of on^ 
 
 V. 228. r>. 
 Parable, the origin and nature of, iii. 169. 
 Paraguay, wife conduct of the Je/iiiti there, ii. 72. ». 
 Parmenides, his two theories of the Univerfe, ii. 95. 
 Passover, Jen.vijh, its typical meaning pointed out, v. 295. 
 Patriots, how fituated in Eyfium, i, 276. 
 Patriarchs, Jeiuijh, (hewn to be no punifhers for opinions, 
 
 V. 412. 
 Paul, St. for what purpofc called to the apoftlefliip, iv. 57. 
 
 In what charadler he appeared before the court of Anopagust' 
 
 ii. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 fi. 57. His fcntiments of perfecution, before, and after con- 
 verfion, iv. 164. n. Citations from, in proof that the doc- 
 trine of a future ftate was not known under the Mc/aic Dif- 
 penfation, 363, — that its fandions were all temporal, 371. 
 Kis definition of faith, v, 178. A feeming contradiction 
 in, between /ifis xiii. 32. and Heb. xi. 39. reconciled, 182. 
 An important pafTage in his EpilUe to the Romans, chap. viii. 
 ver. 3, 4. expounded, 184. 
 
 Pelasoians, account of their adoption of the names of the 
 Egyptian Gods, and application of them to their own deities ; 
 from Herodotust iii. 278. Communicate them to the Greeh, 
 280. 
 
 Pentateuch, its authenticity maintained, i. 117. 
 
 Peripatktics, in what refpedl different from the Platoiiijis, ii. 
 160. Deny a particular Providence, 193. 
 
 Persecution for religious opinions, the origin of, traced, ii. 
 48, 52, 68. iii. Tref. 3^. v, 413. How accounted for by 
 Voltaire, ii. 48. «. Difcouncenanced by the Gofpel difpenfa- 
 tion, iv. 164. 77. 
 
 Persian Superstition, defcribed in Ezekiels vifions, iv. 21. 
 
 Peter, his vifion of the clean and unclean beafts explained, 
 iv. 62. His double fenfe of, pointed out, v. 314. 2 Ep. 
 chap. i. ver. 19, explained, v. 304. n. 
 
 PiiAROAH, king of E^ypt, the Scripture account of, iii. jg. 
 Promotes Jc/epb, 37. His chariots and cavalry in the pur- 
 suit of the l/iaelitts, iii. 310. An illuflration of the Oniro- 
 critic art, drawn from Jofeph'h interpretation of his two 
 dream.s 105. 
 
 Pharmacy, general divifion of, iii. 63. 
 
 Phenician Superstition, defcribed in Ezekiel*^ vifions, iv, 
 21. 
 
 Pherecydes,. the firfl who taught the dodrine of the To en, 
 ii. 225. 
 
 Philemon and Baucis, the fable of, expounded, ii, 134. 
 
 Philip of Mac^don, his obfervation on feeing the bodies of 
 l\\e Sacred Band zK Ch^rotiea, i. 224. 
 
 Philosopher, antient, a chara(Ser compounded of Lawgiver 
 and Naturalift, ii. 105. In both, miliaken in their views, 
 i. 151. And citizen, diftinftion between, ii. 75. 
 
 PmLOfSOPHERs, antient, unanimous in the opinion that the 
 inculcation of the belief of a futupe ftate was neceffary to 
 tfie well-being of focicty, ii. 77, The opinion of its utility 
 flrengtheiied, by its not being an article of their private belief, 
 86. Taught confc;rnii!y to the Religion of the country, 89. 
 Hence infincerity juftificd by them, 91. Their external ana 
 internal doftrine wherein they differed, 95. Reproached b^ 
 jhe piimitive f,*thcrs for diiliiiiulation, top. u. Their two- 
 
 foldi 
 
INDEX. 
 
 fold do£lrlne applied to the fervice of fociet}', 103, 107, 
 143. Difference between thofe who added iegiflation to 
 their phyfics, and thofe who did not, icg. When they be- 
 gan to admit a future ftate of retribution, 216. Atheillic, 
 their particular motives to the prafticc of virtue, i. 73. 
 
 Philosophhrs, Grecian, charaifler of, ii. 106. — always men- 
 tioned by the Apoftles with contempt, 237. 
 
 Philosophy, Greek, true key to, ii. 99. Who formed by, 
 105. Analyfis of, 1 1 4. How received in //a/)', 165. Bar- 
 baric, not fyftematic ; but in detached precepts, 221. Mo- 
 dern, the antients unacquainted with the refined dillinflions 
 of, 185. 
 
 Phlegyje, in Virgil, who, i. 267, 
 
 Physic, a critical inquiry into the Hate of, in antient Fg-j/r, 
 iii. 40. 
 
 Planet- worship, the firft religion of Grffre, iii. 270. 
 
 Plato, his definition of facrilege, i. 133, His view of a 
 future flate, 260. His private opinion of an univcrlal 
 foul, ii. 94. His analyfis of the Grecian philofophy, 107. 
 His charafter afcertained, 122. n. His charafter as a lavir- 
 giver, 149, 162. His politics ridiculed by the antients, 
 150. What, the proper key to his writings, 152. His 
 Phaedo, Cuero\ opinion of, i 53. His notirn of the immor- 
 tality of the foul inquired into, 154. His refinement on the 
 Metempfychsfis, 155. Inculcates future lewards and puniOi- 
 ments in the popular fenfe of, 156. Tellimonies of his dif- 
 belief of, 157. Why he baailhed Homer from his rcpabU:, 
 
 Platonists, in what refpefl differing from the Peripnie'.ict 
 and Stoics y ii. 160, 193. Allegorize ttic dodrine of the refur- 
 reftion, 236. 
 
 Pliny the younger, his opinion of the ChriJIians, ii. 53. The 
 reafon of his perfecuting the Chrifliansy iii. Pre/. 37, 48. 
 
 Plutarch, his fentiments of a future llatc, ii. 179,191. His 
 account of the origin of atheifm and fuperllition, 260. His 
 parallel between, 261. His motives to this performance ex- 
 amined into, 266. n. Argues from unfair principles, 274. 
 His argument purfued by Loril Bacon, i-jj. The objeft of 
 his tratl on Ifis and Ofiris, 308, Accuies the Je<ws of woi- 
 ihipping fwine, iii, 212. n. 
 
 PococKE, his account of the Egyptian hieroglyphics confidered, 
 iii. 80. n. 
 
 Political Romances, an inquiry into a general, thougii 
 fundamental deviation from known faft, in, i. 20. 
 
 PoLvjJius, his encomium on the piety aad probity of the /Js- 
 fjians, ii. 79. 
 
 Poir- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Polytheism, the Elcufinian myfteries a deteftlon of, i. i^^, 
 170. 
 
 PoMPONATius, the intention of his ircBX\(e De immortalitate 
 animae miftaken by Bayle, \; 26, 3c. 
 
 Porch, the doftrine taught by t|ie philofophers of, ij. 161. 
 
 Porphyry, his account of the origin of brute-worlhip, con- 
 troverted, iii. 216. And Clemens Alexandrinus, their account 
 of the antient Egyptian charaders and writing, 121. 
 
 Posterity, why the punifliments of the Mojaic law extended 
 to then), iv. 326. The cafe argued, 332. 
 
 PosTHUMius, the conful, his exhortation to maintain unity 
 of public worfhip, ii. 29. Not inconfillent with toleration of 
 private religion, 35. 
 
 Priests, Pagan, not folicitous to teach the people virtue, i. 
 208. Pious, where placed in the Pagan elyfium, i. 276. 
 
 Primitive Christians, their nodurnal vigils abuied, i. 
 
 Principles, Good and Evil, the belief of, how guarded againft 
 by the writer of the book o!i Job, v. 97. 
 
 Prophecy. See Christ, Ezekiel, Horace, Jerusalem^ 
 Joel, Isaiah, Peter, Sykes. 
 
 Prophecies, what a neceffary confirmation <f their reference 
 to the Meffiah, v. 323. Their primary and fecondary fenfes 
 diftinguilhed, 327. Of the gofpel difpenfation, mifunder- 
 Itood by the Je^MSy and why /o ordained, 340. Scripture, 
 defended from the infinuations of Dr. MiddUton, 290. 
 
 Prophets, Jevsi/h, rational account of their illuftrating their 
 prophecies by figns, iii. 108. Reafon of the inllitution of a 
 Ichool for, iv. 42. 
 
 1*rovidence, the notions of the Thrjiical philofophers con- 
 cerningj ii. 193. Particular, denied by the Stoics and Peri- 
 ■pateticsy ib. Particular, affirmed by the Pythagoreans and 
 Flatonijis, ib. The difpenfations of, according to the Pa- 
 gans, adminiftered through the medium of inferior local tute- 
 lary deities, 194. How its difpenfations were jultified by the 
 ancients, 228. Remarks on the different reception of its 
 adveife difpenfations, in antient and modern times, v. 76. n. 
 
 im-. ^ — Extraordinary, a neceiTary confequence of the 
 
 'Je-\ijijh theocracy, iv. 267. Illulhatcd from Solomon s prayer at 
 the dedication of the Temple, 289. From Ezektel, 291. 
 YxQ'nx Amos, zcfy Evidences of its ceafing, 29S. The men- 
 tion of the inequalities of, by the facred writers, accounted 
 for, 302. 
 
 PsAMMiTicHus, his fchcmc to cilablilh an intercourfe between 
 Egypt and the Grecian ftates, iii. i6o. 
 
 Punishments, their ufes in. civil fociety, i. 15. 
 
 Purgatory, Pagan, what, i. 25^. 
 
 Pyra- 
 
I N D E X. 
 
 PvRAMiDS of E^pt, probable reafons wliy they exliibit no 
 hieroglyphic infcriptions, iii. 133. «. The Egy(>!ian iirchi- 
 tedture formed on the idea of, 134. Not temples, but 
 fcpulchres, 135. Alluded to in the book of Job, v. 35. 
 
 Pyrrhonians, their tenets, and wherein they differed from 
 the academics, ii. 116. Whence named, 120. 
 
 Pythagorus, his precept for ellablifhing laws, i. 121. His 
 good and evil Principle, 126. The firft in rank among the 
 Grecian lawgivers and philofophers, ii. 105. How he ac- 
 quired the learning of Egypt^ ib. More particular account 
 of, 126. Proofs illuflrative of his legiflative fame, 130. 
 Why he affigned Homer and Hcfiod penance in hell, 306. 
 His theory of earthquakes, 108. His predidion of them 
 jullified by late experience, 108. n,. 
 
 Quakers, their motives for rejeding the inftitution of baptlfm, 
 examined into, v. 4. 
 
 R. 
 
 Rainbow, firft creation and reafon of, iv, 32* n\ 
 
 Reason, human, able to perceive, but not to difcover, trutli, 
 ii- 243. 
 
 Regulus, Cicero s opinion of his obligation to return to Cw- 
 thage, ii. 184. 
 
 Religion, the external evidences of it how weakened j i. z- 
 Natural, not fufficient vnthout the aid of the civil magillratc^ 
 II. Only capable of fupplying thofe fandions which civil 
 fociety needs, but hath not, 22. How, ib. 23. Its neccf- 
 fity to fociety, 25. Its exiftence fecured by an alliance with 
 the civil power, ii. 9, 17. Confers refpeft and veneration on 
 the laws and magiftrate, 12, Receives a coaftive power, 13. 
 The only tribunal before which intentions are cognizable, 13. 
 Evil confequences of more than one being in a itate, 16^ 
 26. Its ufe in legiflation, i. 87. The confcrvation cf, de- 
 pending on the magiftrate, 92. Its truth in the general, 
 proved from its infinite fervice to fociety, ii. 247. The 
 notion of its being a political invention, examined, 248, 319. 
 The affirmative no proof of its falfity, 254, 287. Why the 
 magii^rate fo folicitous to inforce it, ih. Not the offspring 
 oi fear, 291. The abfurdliy of any human legiflature's in- 
 forcing it by penal laws, iv. 166. An eftablilhed one in 
 every of the antient nations, ii. I. Its ufe in fociety, 3. 
 Jts care limited to the foul, 8. Eftabliflied, falfe policy of 
 forcing people into conformity to it, 34.- Diftindion among 
 
 the 
 
INDEX. 
 
 the Pagans, between, and private or tolerated religion, 62 i tti 
 66. Conformity to that of the country, taught by the an- 
 tient philofophers, 89. Diftiniftion between true and falfe, 
 46. Chriflian, why necefiarily founded on the Jeixilh, i^j. 
 
 Religion, Jewish, not adopted by any of the neighbouring 
 nations, and why, iv, 203. 
 
 . (iF Names, zw Egyptian (vi^tr^Wxon, iv« 3. 
 
 OF Nature, confirmed by revelation, i. 83, 
 
 . Pagan, the genius of, indicative of the hand of the 
 
 magiflrate in its formation and fupport, i. 95. How it came 
 to be fo inierwoven with civil hiftory, loi* ». Myfleries the 
 moft facred articles in, 136. Confined to local deities, ii. 
 31. Utility and not truth, the end of, 91. Hence deception 
 expedient in, ib. National and that of philofophers, how 
 calculated, iii. 
 
 Religions, a comparifon of the many that have exifted in the 
 world, the clue to the true one, iii. 8, 
 
 .. • — — Pagan, apologetical fuggeilions to account for the 
 
 diverfity of, ii. 4:^. Not interfering with each other, iv. 
 182. 
 
 Christian and Mosaic, necefiarily dependant on 
 
 fome preceding religion, iv. 183. 
 Reljgigus Society. See Societv. 
 'Resurrection, dodirine of, allegorized hy i\it Platonijls, ii. 
 
 236. 
 Reward and Punishment, the proper meaning of, afcer- 
 
 tained, i. 16. How far capable of being enforced by civil 
 
 government, id. 19. Anfwer to the objetSlion againft them, 
 
 as inducements to virtue, id. 39. n. More powerful perfua- 
 
 livcs CO virtue, than any abftract contemplation on the loveli- 
 
 nefs of it, i. 59, 70. 
 Revelation, ChrilHan, not a republication of the religion of 
 
 nature, ii. 241. 
 Revelation?, fome one, embraced by all mankind, iii. I. 
 
 Natural inferences from this general propenfity, 2. Pagan, 
 
 one circumftance common to all, 11. Pagan, attributed by 
 
 the primitive fathers, to the Devil, ih. 
 Rhetoric, the arts of, prohibited in the court of Areopagus, i. 
 
 Ded. 10. 
 Riddles, propounded by ihc Hebrew fages, as mutual trials of 
 
 fagacity, iii. 171. 
 Ridicule, the favourite figure of fpeech among infidels, i. 
 
 Did. 9. Arguments in juftificntion of, id. 12. Refuted, id. 
 
 13. Not the tell of truth, but -vice 'ver/a, id. 15. IVIifchiefs 
 
 refulting from it, fd. 18. 
 Rites, legal and patriarchal, not to be confounded, iv. 28. 
 Ritual Law of the Jews, made in reference to the Egyptian 
 
 fuper* 
 
INDEX. 
 
 fuperftition, iv. 24. This no objeiflion to the divinity of 
 it, 58. Charaderifed in Ezekiel, 82. Explained, 88. 
 
 Rome, to what its declenfion was owing, i. 83. Antient and 
 modern, refecnblance between, in religioub modes, ii. 35. 
 Pagan, how it preferved its eftablifhed religion from foreioa 
 mixtures, 66. Chriilian, whether its fupcrllitions borrowed 
 from the Pagan city, examined, iv. 127. 
 
 Rose, what a fymbol of, among the antients, i. 317. 
 
 Runic Alphabet, when and why changed for tJie Roman, iii. 
 165. 
 
 RuTHERFORTH, Dr. his notion of the cfFeft the withdrawing 
 the fanftions of the yenxiijh law, had on the obligatory force 
 of that law, examined, iv. 269. His notions of the tem- 
 poral fanftions of the Jemcijh lasv being continued under the 
 gofpel, examined, 307. His notions of inefficacy of aclion 
 without fpeech, examined, v. 226. ». 
 
 S. 
 
 Sabbath, a pofitive inftitution, iv. 32. ». 
 
 Sacred Band, affedling anecdote of, i. 224. 
 
 Sacrifices, human, the command to Abraham to offer up his 
 fon Ifaac, vindicated from the objeiSlion cf giving a divine 
 fanftion to, v. 248, 266. 
 
 Sallust, his theological fentiments, ii. 197. 
 
 Samuel, his conduit in eftablilhing the regal form of govern- 
 ment in Judea, iv. 231. 
 
 Sanchoniathon, his genealogical account of the firft ages, i, 
 168. Reafons to conclude his hiftory to be that narrated at 
 the Eleujinian myfteries, i. 171. Whence he tranfcribed his 
 hiftory, 173. His hiftory when corrupted, 175. When he 
 lived, ib. 
 
 Sanhedrim, why inftituted, iv. 42. When eftablifhed, 53, 
 The motives of Je/us Chriji'% evafive reply to their interro- 
 gations, ib. 
 
 Satan, examination of his charafter as delivered in Job, 92. 
 
 Saul, the phrafe of his being among the prophets, explained, 
 iv, 44. Charafterifed, ib. 
 
 ScENicAL Representations, in what refpeft without moral 
 import, v. 265. 
 
 Sceptre of Judah, the common notions of that phrafe exa- 
 mined, iv. 246. True fenfe of, pointed out, 262. 
 
 SciPio Africanus, L/o/y's account of, li. 281. 
 
 Scriptures, facred, a fummary view of their contents, iv. 
 344. General rule for the interpretation of, V. 124. 
 
 Sectaries, reafons for excluding them from the public admi- 
 niftraiion, ii. 27. 
 Vol, V. G g Seneca, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Seneca, his fentiments concerning death, ii. 163. His account 
 of the origin of religion, 291. 
 
 Serpent, in the fall of man, the true meaning of, afcertained, 
 iv. 322. How the fentence pafTed on ir, is to be underftood, 
 V. 129. Crooked, in yj^ ^XiA Ij'aiahy the meaning of ex- 
 plained, 98. 
 
 Sesostris, account of, ixam Diadorus Siculusy iii. 32. Who, 
 259. Divides i'^/*^ by tranfverfe canals, 320. His motives 
 for, 324. 
 
 . and Osiris, arguments againft the indentity of, in 
 
 oppofitionto Sir I/aac Nexvlouy iii. 248, Diflinguilhed, 259, 
 265. 
 
 Shaftesbury, his application of ridicule, as a tell of truth, i. 
 Ded, 12. His treatment oi Locke y id. 26. His notions of 
 the antient Heathen religions, erroneous, ii. 41. Oppofes 
 the influence oUajU, to the belief of a future JiatCy 83, 
 
 Sherlock, Bp. his notion of the tribal fceptre of Judab, 
 examined, iv, 2;o. 
 
 Shuckford, Dr. his remarks on the antient 7J//W law, exa- 
 mined, iv. 28, 83. 
 
 Sibyl, the charafter fhe fullains in the jEneid, i. 234. 
 
 Signs, memorable inltance of divine inftruflion communicated 
 by, in r.\\& cz(q oi Abraham, v. 197. 
 
 Sins, diftinguiflied from crimes, and before what tribunal 
 amenable, ii. 14, 
 
 Sleeping Scheme, the principles of, examined, iv. 376. 
 
 Sociality, the benefits of, i. Ded. 35. 
 
 Society, civil, the advantages of, i. 12. Its infufficiency 
 againft moral dlforders, 13. Evils introduced by it, 15. 
 The two great fandions of, 16. The laws of, continually 
 affronted by the members of it, 75. Difference between, 
 and a ftate of nature, 76. Why inftituted, ii. ^.' Its care 
 limited to the body, 8. Independent on religious fociety, ib. 
 Why induced to unite with religious fociety, 15. See Alli- 
 ance, Religion. 
 
 Society, religious, its ultimate end, ii. 6. Independent on 
 civil fociety, /^. Why induced to unite with civil fociety, 17. 
 
 Socrates, Why he declined initiation into the Orphic and 
 Eleujinian myiXcnes, i. 181. His conformity to the religion 
 of his country, iuftanced, ii. 89. The firft who brought 
 philofophy from a fpeculation of nature, to the improvement 
 of morals, 115. This fcheme effeded by the principles of 
 doubt and uncertainty, 116, 120. Why not milled in his 
 judgment of a future llate, 235. 
 
 Socratic method of arguing, what, ii. i2i. 
 
 Solomon, his prayer at the dedication of the Temple, illuHra- 
 
 tive of the paiticular Providence over the ^i^wj//.' nation, iv. 
 
 3 289.. 
 
1 N D £ X. 
 
 289. And that the fanflions of the Mojaical law were mecrlv 
 temporal, 318. His violations of the ^/o^/V law, remarked, 
 iii. 313. How perverted to idolatry, v. <Si. 
 
 Sophists, fome account of, ii. 121. Unfavourably treated by 
 \}a.Q Romans, 166. 
 
 Soul, Pythagoras^ notion of an univcrfal one, ii. 208, 224. 
 Immaterial, common to the whole animal creation, v. 127. 
 Human, three fpecies of, diflinguifhed by the antients, i'. 
 190. Held to be fubftance, 199. Difcerped parts of God, 
 201. Pre-exiftent as well as polt-exillent, 203. Jllulhated 
 byafimile, 205, Believed to be mortal, by fome of the 
 fathers, 207. The mortality of it, argued from peripatetic 
 principles, i. 27. The fentiments of the Je^vs concerning, 
 iinder the law, iv. 375. Examination of the notion of the 
 fleep of, 376. The mention of its future exillence by M^fes 
 and by following writers, to be diflinguilhed, v. 9. Living 
 in what fenfe to be underftood as ufed in the hiftory of the 
 creation of man, 128. 
 
 Speech, the origin and hiftory of, iii. 105. 
 
 Spencer, an examination of the argument of his treat' fs Z?? 
 Theocratia Judaica, iv. 236. 
 
 Spinozism, the principle of, cherifhed in the antient myfteries, 
 and whence derived, i. 278. 
 
 Spiritual Courts, the ufe of, ii. 14. 
 
 State. See Alliance* 
 
 States, the two ways by which they come to ruin, ii, 80. 
 
 Statues, the firft rife of worlhipping, in human form, iii. 
 
 Stebbing, Dn his expofition of Zf-rrV. xviii. 5. examined, v. 
 
 I43. An examination of his confiderations on the command 
 
 to /Abraham to offer up Ifaac, 20i« «?» 219. «. His notions of the 
 
 trial of Abraham examined into, 233, 239. n. 248. n. 261. n. 
 Stillingfleet, his opinion of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, 
 
 iii. 139. 
 Stoical Renovation, what, ii. 164. 
 Stoics, the principle of that feft, i. 66, Ba\le^s reafoning 
 
 from it, invalidated, 67. In what refpcft different from the 
 
 Platonijls, ii. 160. Difbelieve the immortality of the foul, 
 
 i6z. Deny a particular Providence, 193. 
 Strabo, his divifion of the antient Pagan religion, i. 289. 
 
 Miftaken in his reprcfentation of the Mo/aic ve\\^\on, ii. 219. 
 Suicide, difcountenanccd in the antient myfteries, i. 254. 
 SuLPicius, his reflexion on the fight of the ruins ol Corinth ^ 
 
 i^c, i. Ded, 16. Burlefqued by Scarron, i.l. ib. 
 Sun and Moon, the various names thefe luminaries were wcr- 
 
 jhipped by, among the Pagans, ii. 301, 
 
 G g a Super* 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Superstition, diib'nguinied from religion, ii. 256. Plutarch's 
 
 account of the origin of. 260. 
 SvKES, Dr. his notion cf the Jeiv'Jh theocracy, examined, iv. 
 
 287. ». 291. »• 324. n. His notion concerning the double 
 
 fenfesof the Scripture prophecies, examined, v. 308. 
 Symbols, their revolution from being employed for contrary 
 
 purpofes, to their primitive defignation, pointed out, iii, 
 
 16S. 
 System and Hypothesis, the human mind naturally inclined 
 
 to, iii. 20. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tacitus, his opinion of the y^fif/}^ religion, iii. Pre/. 38, n. 
 His account of the antient Jhebaii monuments, 137. 
 
 Tages, x.he Etrufcan God, how found, iii. 241. n. 
 
 Talismans, greatly venerated by the Ma^ow^/aw/, iii. 183. 
 
 Taste, oppoled by Lord Shaftefiury to the influence of the be- 
 lief of a future ftate, ii. 83. 
 
 Taylor, Dr. examination of his account of the origin of 
 perfecution, iii. Pre/. 36. 
 
 Telemachus, why he refufed the horfes of Menelaus, iii. 315. 
 
 Test-law, the reafons of, traced, ii. 24. The obligation the 
 ftate is under to grant the church this iecurity, 25. Juftified 
 from hiftory, 27. 
 
 Test-oath, among the /Athenians, ii. 28. 
 
 "Theocratic- government of ihejeivs, the reafons and con- 
 veniencies of, iv. 136, 166. Why willingly received by 
 them, 172. Particular enquiry into the circumllances cf, 
 161, 215. Neceflarily including an extraordinary Providence, 
 267. Illuftrated from Solomon's prayer at the dedication of 
 the Temple, 289. From Ezekiel, 291. From Jmos, 293. 
 How long fublifting, 225. When aboliflied, 243. 
 
 Theocracy, every fubjtd a pi left under, iv. 157. ». 
 
 Theology, dopmatic. how introduced, ii. 46. 
 
 Theseus, expofition of his defcent into hell, i. 230. His 
 punifhment for violating the myileries, 26;, 
 
 TiMi€US, his charader by Polybius, i. 113. 
 
 Tindal's Chriftianity as old as the Creation, founded on a 
 miftakcn argument, ii. 242. 
 
 To LAND, his account of the origin of idolatry, ii. 310. 
 
 Toleration, the benefits of, ii. 27. Univerfal, allowed 
 amoncjallthe antient nations, and why, ii. 33. iii. Prtf. 61. 
 Religious impreffions ftrengthencd by encouraging new, and 
 foreign worfliip, 35. Antient, different from our modcru 
 ideas of, ih. 
 
 Toyman, d^iBath, pertinent Ilory of, v. 3!'.f. 
 
 Tradi- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Tradition, mlftaken prefumption to ftrengthen the auihority 
 
 of, by the church of 7?o/nf, iv. 359. 
 Trajan, Emperor, his perfccution of Chriftianity accounted for, 
 
 ^"- 5?. . 
 
 Treason, high, obfervations on the laws of forfeitures in cafes 
 
 of, iv. 334. 
 TaiSMtGisTus, the books that go under his name, forged, ii. 
 
 Truth andUriLiTY, proved to coincide, ii. 24.7, z:;6. 
 Types, the meaning of, afcertained, v. 270. Derivation of, 
 
 283. In Religion, argument deduced from the general 
 
 paffion for, 31^4. 
 TvPKON, the fable of, explained, iii. 206, 258. 
 Tyrants, antient, great encouragers of religion, and why, i. 
 
 107. 
 
 V. 
 
 Varro, his obfervation on the expediency of enthufiafm for the 
 effefling great enterprizes, ii. 286. 
 
 Virgil, his reformation oi Epic poetry, i. 212. n. His po- 
 litical views in (ksJEneis, 217. His inLrnal geography, i. 
 253. Millake in, noted, 263. Wherein he excelled /ifo^^r, 
 i. 274. His fcenes all accommodated to the myfteries, 277. 
 The purpofe of his writing, 282. Some criticifms againll, 
 obviated, 283. Exhibits an entire view of the P^gon reli- 
 gion, i. 2S9. His reprefentation of the rites of Bacchuj, 
 292. From whence he took the hint of his Silenus, ii. 139* 
 Criticifm on, 140. 
 
 Virtue, the various motives by which men are allured or drove 
 into the praftice of it, i. 28, 38 Anfwer to the objeAion 
 againft the view of rewards and punilhments, operating as 
 motives to it, i. 39. Why a uniform praclice of it, will not 
 generally contribute to human happinefs, i. 60. An enquiry 
 into the nature of, under a difpenfation of rewards and punifli- 
 ments, iv. 419. 
 
 Voltaire, his miftaken notion of the origin of religious per- 
 fccution, reel fied, ii. 48. t?. His account of the Mo/aic 
 difpenfation, examined, iv. 139. His mifreprefentation of 
 Judea, refuted, 146. Some miliakes in his trcatife on 1 olera- 
 tion, noted, iv. 341. ». 
 
 Vossius, his account of the origin of idolatry, refuted, iii. 
 218. 
 
 Utility, indicative of truth, ii. 247, 
 
 Vulcan, Sir //'v«,r AW/on's account of, iii. 306, Compared 
 with that of Homers 307. 
 
 G g 5 WAKTi, 
 
INDEX, 
 
 w. 
 
 Wants, real and fantaftic, the efFeds of, i. y^. Increafe with 
 
 the improvements in policy and arts, 76. 
 William of iVi?au.'o«r^, his charadler of Pope Gregory vin. v. 
 
 Witchcraft, the fuppofed effefts of, accounted for, ii. i^y, 
 WiTsiu s, his arguments for the Egyptian Ritual being borrowed 
 
 from the j^eivs, examined, Hv. 27. Critique on his ^gyptiaca, 
 
 67. 
 Wives, ftrange, or idolatrous, bad confequences of the fond- 
 
 nefs the Je'w had for them, fuewn, v. 78. 
 Works, no juftification by, under the Gofpel, v, 186. 
 Worship, intercommunity of, a fundamental point of Pa^a- 
 
 vjfm, ii. 4c, 53. 
 Writing, hiltory of the art of, iii. 70, 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zaleucus, his exiftence called in queftion by 7V/w^*Y/, i. irj. 
 Enquiry into the authenticity of his laws, 116. Prior to 
 Pythagoras, 120. His religious precepts, 127. 
 
 Zeno, his character, ii. 161, 193. 
 
 Zoroaster of /^'rt'^ and Pr/dV<2*^, difcredited, vt, j8o* 
 
 A N 
 
AN 
 
 ALPHABETICAL LISlT 
 
 O F' 
 
 AUTHORS, &c. 
 
 Quoted in the foregoing Work 3 which Quo- 
 tations are not referred to in the Index. 
 
 ACofta, iii. DeJ. 2, «. 71, 
 86. «. 99. «. 
 Addiibn, i. Det^. 12, 214. 
 ^lian, ii. loi, 108. iii!; 201. 
 
 262. 
 ^fchylus, ii. 60. 
 Agellius, ii. 120. 
 Ahijah, v. 264. 
 Albinus, ii. 152. 
 Albo, Rabbi Jofeph, v. 333. 
 Ammianus Marcellinus, iii. 
 
 136. iv. 10. 
 Amos, iv. 12, 90. V. 330. 
 Anaxagoras, ii. 271, 307. 
 Antoninus, Marcus, ii. 53, 55, 
 
 163, ^14. 
 Apion, iv. 204. ft. 278. «. 
 Apollodorus, iii. 54. n. 
 Apuleius, i. 146, 232, 238, 
 
 274., 291, 296. ii. 125, 195, 
 
 230. iii. ^6. w. 50, 147, 
 
 168, 286. 
 Arceiilaus, ii. ! 16. 
 Ariftides, i. 140, 190, 270, 
 
 275. /?. 286. 
 Ari(toj>iiaRes, i. 14:, 205. ». 
 
 Arirtotle, i. 12, 154, 212. ii. 
 
 5, 21 1, 222, ». iii. 262. 
 Arnauld, v. 193. 
 Arnobius, ii, 100. ». 206, 2ic» 
 Arrian, ii. 163, «, iii. 261. 
 Aitemidorus, i. 313. n. iii. 
 
 190. 
 Aflruc, iii. 162. ». iv. 6. 
 Aulus Gellius, i. 253. iii. 301, 
 
 w. 
 Aufonius, iii. 287. 
 Aiiftin, i. 100. //. IC2, 14J, 
 
 154. ». 157, 309. ii. 64. n. 
 
 91, loi. fi. 12 7. iii. 153. w. 
 
 Bacon, Lord, i. 10. ii. 132,259, 
 271. ». iii. Pre/. 8c. iv. 109, 
 
 Banier, ii. 134. tr. 142. 
 
 Barbeyrac, i. 2^6. 
 
 Baxter, iii. 192. 
 
 Bayle, i. 44, 88, ico, 114, 
 250. ii. 64, 220, 250. », 
 257. iv. I '^g. V. 368. 
 
 Beaufobre, ii. 233. iii. 182. /u 
 
 Bellarniine, i. 191. 
 g 4 Bcatlcy. 
 
ALPH ABETICA-L LIST 
 
 Bentley, i. 112. ii. 37. ». 
 
 Berkley, iv. 360. 
 
 Bernier, ii. 45. 
 
 B.'ackwell, i. 97. w. 219, 250. 
 
 ii. 223, 310. 
 Blount, ii. 248. 
 Bochart, iii. 207. ». 
 Bolingbroke, Lord, iii. 10. n. 
 
 iv. 38, 152, ». 215, 217, 
 
 343. V. 174, 318. 
 BofTu, i. 213. Ti. 
 Bouilier, v. 224. w. 356. «, 
 Boulainvilliers, i. 94. 
 Brown, i. Ded. 20. n. 
 Bull, Billiop, V. :. n. 192. 
 Bullet, iii. 175. n. 
 Bunyan, v. 349. 
 Burlamaqui, i. 54. 
 Burnet, ii. 103, 223. iii. 331. 
 
 iv. 32. n. 
 Butler, iii. 33 1» 
 
 Caecilius, iii. Pre/. 6z. 
 Callimacbus, i. 184. ». iii. 
 
 301. n. 
 Calmet, iv, 154, ?;. 338. ». y. 
 
 14. n. 
 Cardan, i. 26, 74, 
 Carneades, ii. 116. 
 Cafaubon, i. 200. ».'2o8. n, ii. 
 
 84. n. iii. 261. n, 
 Cafiiadoius, iii. 183. 
 Celfus, i. 139. ii. 189. iii. 
 
 Pre/. 53,48. ». 53. iv. 188. 
 ChasrcrtK/n, iii. 37. ;;. 
 Charlevoix, i. 233. n. iii 74. «. 
 Charondas, i. 112, 132. 
 Chillingworth, v. 49. 
 Cbryfippus i. 43. n. 163. ii. 
 
 Ill, 157, 161. 
 Chryibltom, ii. 57, n. v. 22'?, 
 
 288. 
 Chibb, iv. 305. ». 
 Cicero, i. Ded. 11, iJ. 34, 16. 
 
 ». 74. 9>' 9S' 'J6» '3i> 
 140, 171, 18^. 214. n, 223. 
 233> 254, 290. ii. 35, 61, 
 
 91, 109. «. 112, 115, 129, 
 148. «, 165, 201, 224, 245, 
 288. iii. Pre/, 69, 62, 102, 
 176, 241 . «. V, 360. 
 Clarke, i. 52. ». iii. 57. ». 
 iv. 368. n. 408. V. 127. ». 
 
 139; 
 Claudian, i. 24, 
 Cleanthes, ii. 213. 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, i. 114, 
 
 152, 163. 179. 195, 233. 
 
 11. 107. ;/. iii. 53, 1 22. 
 Cocceius, iii. 36, v. 78. 
 Codurcus, V. 35. n. 
 Collins, i. Ded. 36. id. ^g.id. 43: 
 
 iii. Ded. 6. iii. 115. «. iv, 
 
 43. w. 176. V. 276. 
 Condamine, iii. 174. k, 
 Condillac, iii. 152. w. 177. », 
 Craig, i. 2. n. 
 Crinitus, iii. 164, tr. 
 Critias, ii. 248, 293. 
 Cudworth, ii. 203, 211, 245. 
 Cumberland, iii. 22. n, 79. n, 
 
 291. 
 Cyprian, i. ijg. 
 
 Dacier, i. 255. «. ii. 148, 185. 
 Daniel, ii. 13;. iii. 172. v. 
 
 225. 
 Daubuz, iii. 192. ». 195. ». v. 
 
 204. 
 David, king, iii. 172, iv. 189, 
 
 291. », 302. 
 De Choifi, ii. 46. ti. 
 De la Croix, i. 105. ti. 
 Demetrius Phalareus, iii. loc. 
 
 Democritus, ii. 223. 
 
 Demollhenes, ii. 29. 
 
 Dcs Cartes, ii. 223, 245. 
 
 Diodofus Siculus, i. 104, io6, 
 138, 172, 182, 204. n. 264, 
 ii. 42, a8i, 295. iii. 32, 34, 
 54. w, 65, 136, 144, 175, 
 209, 257. 
 
 Diogenes Laeitius, i. 104. ii. 
 106, 
 
OF AUTHORS, &c. 
 
 106, 125, 128, 144, 233. 
 
 n. 307, iii. 293. 
 Dionyfius HalycarnafTus, i, 
 
 187. ». 289. ii. 47. ». 66, 
 
 68. 
 Dion CafTius, ii. 68. 
 Dion Chryfoftom, i. 238. 
 Dodwell, ii. 2c8. 
 Donatus, ii. 225. 
 Dudley, Paul, Efq; ii. 108. ». 
 Du Halde, iii. 86. ». 189. ». 
 
 Ebenezra, iii. 63. w, 
 Egede, iii. 141. ». 174. », 
 Elihu, V. 37. 
 Epiftetus, i. 144. ii. 213, 
 Epicurus, ii. 107, 149. 
 Epifcopius, V. 162. «. 
 Euhemerus, ii. 311, 
 Eupolemus, iii. 38. ». 
 Euripides, i. 146, 148. «. 230. 
 
 ii. 250. ». V. 29. «. ig8. «. 
 Eufebius, i. 97. «. 165, 176. 
 
 ii. 55, 100. «. 151, igo. ». 
 
 227. Tt. 294. iii. I. n. 6. n, 
 
 9, 79. «. i57» 227- 
 
 Euftathius, iii. 79. ». 
 
 Ezekiel, iii. 17, 109, 119. 
 170, 231. «. iv. 9, 136, 
 138, 202, 268, 289, 30Z, 
 329. V. 245. «. 280, 317, 
 341. 
 
 Ezra, V. 6S, 80, 86, 88. 
 
 Fabius Celfus, i. 264. 
 
 Fabricius, i. 195. 
 
 Felton, V. 121. 
 
 Fenton, iii. 302, 
 
 Fleetwood, Lieut. Gen. ii. 
 
 284. 
 Fleuri, iii. 163. n, 
 Fontenelle, ii. 99, 183, 283, 
 Fourmont, iii. 99. «. 198. », 
 
 236, 281. K. 
 Freret, iii. 93, 276. n. v. 193. 
 
 Gale, iii. 21. ». 128. ». 
 Galen, i. 164. ii. 94, no. iii, 
 
 60. 
 Garcillaflb, iii. 269, «. 
 GafTendi, ii. 206. 
 Gaubil, iii. 94. 
 Geddes, ii. 150, ». 
 GeofFry of Monmouth, iii, 
 
 175. «. 
 Gordon, iii. 76. ». 
 Gregory Nazianzen, i. 145, ii,' 
 
 Grey, v, 23. ». 28. ». 43, 46. 
 
 ft. 
 Gronovius, ii. 96. », 
 Grotius, ii. 9. iii. 173. iv. 335. 
 
 V. 25, 42. tr. 56. H. 10*, 
 
 138, 161, 190, 328. 
 Gruter, ii, 63. tt. 
 Guignes, iii. 98. tt. 
 
 Habakkuk, iii, 179. v. I45» 
 
 178. rr. 
 Haggai, iv. 241. 
 Hales, V. 164. », 
 Hammond, iii. 22. «. v. ijj," 
 Harduin, v. 415. 
 Hare, iii. 172. v. 154. «- 
 Heliodorus, iii. 157. 
 Heraclitus, i. 109. iii. 113. 
 Herbelot, v. 6. w. 
 Herbert, Lord, i. 24. 
 Hereclides, Ponticus, ii. 307. 
 Hermapion, iii. 135. 
 Herodotus, i. DeJ. 45, 92, 96, 
 
 173, 249, tt. ii, 128. iii. 17, 
 
 35» 39' 45» 49» 60, 65, 107. 
 
 w. 113. n. i<;s, 160, 193, 
 
 201, 207, 260, 278, 320, 
 
 339. v. 227. w, 
 Hefiod, i. 65. iii. 28. tt. 115. 
 
 «. 143. n. 
 Hezekiah, iv. 355, 
 Hierocles, ii. 216. tt, 228. 
 Himerius, i. 279. 
 Hieronymus, ii. zi,n. 
 
 Hip. 
 
ALPHABETICAL LIST 
 
 Julius Finnicus, i. i6i. 
 Julius Hyginus, i, 268. 
 Juflin, iii. 300. 
 Juftin Martyr, iv, 173, 
 Juvenal, ii. 41. 
 
 Hippocrates, ii. no. iii. 64. ». 
 Hobbes, i. 48, 107. ii. 288. 
 
 iv. 272. V. 412. 
 Holflenius, iii. 122. r. 
 Homer, i. 211. iii. 28. n. 116, 
 
 », 242. n, 330. n. iv. 351. 
 
 Hooke, V. 358. ». 
 
 Hooker, i. 9, i r. ». ii. 321. iv. 
 
 312. v._384. 
 Horace, iii. 316. 
 Horapollo, i. 147, «. ii. 229, 
 
 ». iii* 75, 131, 168. 
 Hofea, iv. 199, v. 79, 260. «. 
 Houbigant, iv. 106. », v. 40, 
 
 45.». 230. ». 
 Houteville, iv. 249. 
 Huet, ii. 133, 188. iii. 240. », 
 Huntingdon, iii. 147, 
 Hard, vi. 313. ». 
 Hutchinfon, iii. 307. «, 
 Hyde, iii. 9. n. 
 
 Jablonfki, iii. 303. », 
 Jackfon, iii. 140. «. 
 Jamblichus, i. 120, 273. ii. 
 
 lOo, 127, 153, 221, 231. 
 Jamefon, iii. 33. n. 42. w, 
 Jeremiah, iv. 23, 116. ». 189, 
 
 20^, 356. V. 80. 155. «. 
 
 328. 
 Jerom, i. 199. ii. 209, 282. iii. 
 
 41, 108, 147. ». 231. ff. 
 Ignatius, Loyola, ii. 284. 
 Job, iv. 355. 
 John, V. 225. 
 Jofephus, i. 141, 166. ii. 150. 
 
 iii. 37. «. 171. iv. 204. n, 
 
 219. 
 Jotham, iii. 169. 
 Ifciah, iii. 33, n. 193. ». iv. 
 
 202, 318. V. 33, 38, 98, 
 
 121, Z^"]. 
 Ifocrates, i. iSj, /I90. ii. 14. «. 
 
 1 10. 
 Julian, ij. 40. n, 56, 159. iii. 
 
 Frcf. 4c. 
 
 Kircher, iii. 70. n. 76. ». 85, 
 99. n. 222. iv. 19. 
 
 Laftantius, i. Ded. 30. ii. ico. 
 jr. 161, 186, 190, iv. 4. V. 
 
 tafateau, iif. io8. n. 
 Lambert, Gent. ii. 284. 
 Lambin, i. 131. «. 
 Lampridius, ii. 51, 52. w, 
 Lavaur, ii. 134. «. 
 Law, Mr, Wm. iii. Fref. 79. 
 Le Clerc, i. 180, 203. ii. 51, 
 
 148. iv. 228. V. 42, 83, 
 
 162. «. 
 Le Compte, iii. 87. n, 146. »« 
 Leland, v. 152-. 
 Leonard, iii. 32. v, 
 Leucippus, ii. 223. 
 Limborch, iii. Ded, 7. iv. 280. 
 
 «. 339. n. 
 Levy, i. 221, 269. ii. 29, 65, 
 
 281. 
 Locke, i. Bed. 24. id. 38, 60, 
 
 209, ii. 5. V. 31. ff. 190. 
 Lucan, iii. 184, 
 Lucian, i. 92, 159, 208, 24!. 
 
 ii. iiy.n. 164. iii. 217, 258. 
 Lucretius, ii. 85, 148, 175. 
 Lucullus, i. 195. ii. 125, 171. 
 Lycurgus, i. n i. 
 
 Mabillon, ii. 53- «, 
 Machiavel, ii. 12. 
 Macrobius, i. 171, 221, 227, 
 
 296. ii. 95. 
 Magaillans, iii. 95. 
 Mahomet, i. 222. ». ii. 284. 
 
 iii. 1 19. 
 Maimonides, iii. 20, 109. iv. 
 
 269. v. 16. ». 22. », 25. 
 
 Mala- 
 
OF AUTHORS, &c. 
 
 Malachi, v. 72, 79, 87, 326. 
 Manafleh Ben Ikael, v. 120, 
 
 141. ». 160. 
 Mandeville, i. 42. ». 79. v. 
 
 369- 
 Manetho, iii. 158, 166, iv. 
 
 119. 
 Mann, iii. 248. 
 Manutius, ii. 62. », 
 Marcas, Aurelius, i, 297^) 
 Marinus, ii. 92. n. 
 Mark, v. 242. n. 
 Markland, v. 304. 
 Marfham, i, (165) «. 249. iii. 
 
 21, 32, 165, 183, iv. 107. 
 
 V. V. 212. n, 269. 
 Martinius, iii. 89. 
 Matthew, iv. 309, 
 Mead, iv, 44, 
 Melampus, iii. 54. 
 Metrodorus, ii. 307. 
 Meuriius, i. 1 36, 206. 
 Micah, iii. 179. 
 Middleton, i. Ded. 22. ii. 1 19. 
 
 ». iii. Ded, 3. «. iv, 112. n. 
 
 V. 26, 290. 
 Milton, i. 225, 295. ii. 38, 
 
 199. iii. 285, 
 Minutius, Felix, v. 408, 
 Montefquieu, ii. 13. «. 
 Morgan, iii. Ded. 4, g. w, 
 Molheim, v. 170. «. 
 Muret, iii. 277, ». 
 
 Needham, iii. 96. w. 99. n, 
 Nehemiah, iv. 282. v. 72, 79, 
 
 86. 
 Newton, i. 98. ». ii. 222, 290. 
 
 iv. 29. ti. V, 385. 
 Nicephorus, Gregoras, i. 148. 
 
 n. 
 NyfTen, iii. io5. v» 
 Numenius, ii. 152. 
 
 Origen, i. 139, 192. «. 199, 
 245, a. ii, 5 o, H. 93* «. 1 20, 
 
 127, 162, 164, 200. «, iii. 
 
 Pre/. 53. iv. 339. 
 Orobio, iii. Ded. 1 1. 
 Orpheus, ii. i 26. • 
 Ovid, i. 203, 216. ». 229, «# 
 
 258. n. 300, ii, 130. 
 Outram, iv. 374. 
 
 Palaephatus, ii. 132, 141. 
 Parennin, iii. 94. 
 Pafchal, V. 273. 
 Paterculus, i. 214. », v. 28. 
 Paul, i. 21, 23, 42, 84, 141, 
 
 196, 257.. li. 55. t>. 235. 
 
 297. IV. 137, 280. «. 295, 
 
 308. V. 4, 120, 133, 145, 
 
 215, 234. 
 Paufanias, i. 140, 174, 178, 
 
 227, 252. 
 Pericles, i. 257. 
 Peter, iv. 308, 
 Peters, iv. 351. »; 
 Petit, ii. 63. ». 250. n. 
 Phaedrus, v. 353. 
 Pherecydes, Syrus, ii. 126, 
 Philo, iv. 285. n. 
 Philo Judaeus, v. 127. 
 Philollratus, i. 195, 252. 
 Photius, i. 141. w. 307. ii. 211, 
 Pindar, i. 271. 
 Plato, i. 58. «. 130. ». 153, 
 
 156, 185, 2^3. ii. 100. n. 
 
 189, 209, 224, 294, 32©- 
 
 iii. 102, 271, 296. w. 
 Plautus, i. 153. n. 
 Pletho, i. 273. 
 Pliny, the elder, ii. 85, 275. n, 
 
 iii. i;2, 55, 62. n. 
 the younger, ii. 53. iii. 
 
 Pref. -JS- 
 Pluche, i. 161. ii. 309. », iii, 
 
 239. r. 
 Plutarch, i. Ded, 10, 88, 90, 
 
 III, 12!^, «. 162, 167. //, 
 
 215, 224, 227. ii. 43. ». 
 
 102, III, 148, 162,;/. 165. 
 
ALPHABETICAL LIST 
 
 ». 189, 215, 227, 250. n, Schultens v. 43, 66, 78, 82. 
 
 320. iii. 189. n. 233, 274, Scipio Africanus, ii. 281. n. 
 
 298. Scott, V. 204, 237. 
 
 Pocoke, iii, 338, v. 167. n. Scriboniin Largus, ii. 90. «. 
 
 Folybius, i. 113. Seneca, i. De<:f. 35, 15. ii. 
 Pope, i. 212. iii. 228, 298, loi. «. 109, 145. «. 154, 
 
 308, ft. 163, 213. 
 
 Porphyry, i. log, 1 18, 123. «. ■ the Tragedian, i. 268. 
 
 145, I57««» 204, 235, 237. Servetus, iv. 146. 
 
 zf. 279, 328. ii. 130. ». 216, Servius, i. 233, 250, 260, 282, 
 
 134. iii. 122, 199. ii. 139. iii. 70. ». 
 
 Pofidonius, ii. 223. Severus, Alex. ii. 51. 
 
 Pofthumius, ii, 61. Sextus Empericus, i. 91. ii. 
 Frades v. 358. «, 119, 250. «, 
 
 Prideaax, iii. 9. ». 161. w. Shaftefbury, i. D^ij'. 12. rV. 25. 
 
 197, ». 219, 225, 232. V. zV. 33. 7J. 40, 41, 42, ii, 
 
 110. 36, 41, 83, 266. n. iv. 52, 
 
 PrQclus,!. 144, 257, ii. 307.iii. 417. v. 212. », 252. n» 
 
 107. ft. 137. 268. 
 
 Pfellus.i. 272. Shakefpeare, iii. 143. ». 180. 
 
 Purchas, iii. 73. «. 144. Shaw, iii. 189. ft. 
 
 Pyrrho, ii. iig. Sheringham, i. 105. iii. 165. 
 
 Pythagoras, i. 126. ii. 106, Sherlocke, Bp. iii. 316. «. iv. 
 
 221. iii. 122. 250. V. 167, 392. 
 
 Shuckford, iii. 21. ft. 42. 288. 
 Quintilian, ii. 131. iii. Pre/. v, iv. 28. ». 83, 154. w. 
 
 50, 119, 175. n. 177. ». V. Simon, F. i. 176. iii. 106. «. 
 
 317. iv. 228, 360. «. 
 
 Smallbrooke, iii. Pref. 26. 
 
 Rabelais, ii. 318. Smith, iii. no, iv. 53. 
 
 Renaudot, iii. 165, Socrates, ii. 89, 115, iii. 3. 
 
 "Rogers, iii. Ded, 3. «. Solomon, iv. 289. 
 
 Rowe, ii. 37. ». Solon, i. 188. ii. 320, 
 
 Rubriquis, ii. 45. n. Sopater, i. 210, 227. w. 272. 
 
 Rufinus, iii. 182. Sophocles, i. 141, 146. iv. 
 Rutherforth, iv, 269, 292. n. 188. 
 
 306. v. 149, 158. «. 16;. ff. Spencer, iii. ig. iv. 25, 83, 
 
 226, 266, 409. 123. «. 175. «. 236. V. 37. 
 
 Spinoza, i. 1 1 8. iv. 43, 46. 
 St. Evremond, i. 217. ». 273, 330, 338. n. 
 
 Salluft, ii. 197. Stanley, ii. 211. 
 
 Sanchoniatho, i. 168. ii. 298, Stebbing, iir. Ded. 8. v. iv. 
 
 3C0, 302. iii. 78, 193. 212. ' 114. «. 172. w. 313. 33i» 
 
 ». 127. 349. ». 353. «. V. 146,204. 
 
 Saxo, Grammaticus, iii. 276. w. ». 214. n. 292. 323. «. 
 
 Scaevola, i. 156. ». ii. 91. Stephen Martyr, iv. 39. 
 
 Scarron, i. Ded. \t. 27c. Stillingflect, iii. 159, 290. 
 
 Stobxus 
 
OF AUTHORS, &c. 
 
 Stobsus, i. 112, 280. ii. 28, Turbevil, iii. g6. n. 
 
 149,210. Turnebus, i. i3i.n. 
 
 Strabo, i. 108. n. 140, 164, Tyndal, i. Ded. z^. iil. 5, 
 
 174, 205. H. 11.84,158.111. l©7. ». 1 10. «. iv. 33. a. 
 
 35. 39' 76. ». 136, 261. 330, 167. n. V. 275. 
 
 Strahlenberg, ill. 74. ». 
 
 Suetonius, i. 228. ii. 38. n. Valerius Maximus, ii. 66. 
 
 Suidas, i. 114. ii. 227. k. 229. Vane, Sir Henry, 11. 284, 
 
 w. ill. 194. n. Vanini, iv. 317. n. 
 
 Swift, u Ded. 15,20. Varro, i. 149. ii. 91, 127, 
 Sykes, ii. 100. ». iSo.iv. 238. 180. iii. 257. ». 
 
 ». 267, 294. n. 295. «. 336. Vellelus, i. 161. 
 
 «. V. 309, 321. Virgil, i. 199, 211, 218. ii. 
 Symmachus, ii. 44. 229. 
 
 Syncellus, i. 245. «. ill. 52. Vitruvlus, i. 285. iil. 106. r. 
 
 Synefius, i. 148. 11. 95, 236. Voltaire, i. 219. iii. g. n. 
 Syrianus, i- 147. 103. w. 
 
 Voflius, il. 310. 
 
 Tacitus, i. 258. ii. 45. «. 50, Ujceus, Anthony, i. Ded. g. n, 
 
 68, 281. ill. 76. «. 104. n. 
 
 225, 231. n. 257, 275. ». Walker, iii. 112. ti. 
 
 iv. iS. Walter, 11. "jz.n. 
 
 Tanaqull Faber, v, 317. Waicrland, iv. 67. 
 
 Tanchum, Rabbi, v, 160. Webftcr, iii. Pref. 26. 
 
 Tatian, ii. 226. iil. 150. ». Whilton, iv. 281, 346, n. v. 
 Tavernier, 11.2. 151, 284, 334. 
 
 Taylor of Norwich, iv. 377. Whitby, iv. 284. 
 
 Terence, i. 58. w. 146. Wilkins, iii. 70, w. 
 
 TertuUian, i. 145, 178, 243. Witfius, iv. 26. v. 387. 
 
 ii. 210, 237. iii. 54. Wollarton, 1. 54. ii. 10. 
 
 Thales, ii. 227. Woolfton, \. Dtd. 11. 
 
 Themiftius, 1. 272, il. 44. Worceller, Bp. of, i, Ded. 38, 
 
 Themlftocles, ii. 92. n. Wycherley, i. Ded. 12. 
 Theodoret, i. 192. v. 
 
 Theopompus, ii. 139. - Xenophon, ii. no, 115, 151. 
 Thucyiides, v, j-j. 
 
 Tiberius, ii. 51. Zacynthus, ii. 99. ». 
 
 Timseus, ii. 78,143. Zateucus, 1. no. 
 
 Toiand, il. 99, 107, 219, 2S8, Zechariah, ill. n8. v. 93. 
 
 291. Zeno, 11. 161. 
 
 Torquatus, ii. 175. «• Zephaniah, v. 336. 
 
 Tournemine, iv. 248. Zeuxis, iv. 134. ». 
 
 Trajan, iil. Pre/. 49. Zinzendorf, Count, v. 198. n. 
 
 Trirmegillus, 11. 220,23c. Zofimus, i. 140, 18S. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 P. 49. 1. 31. for it varies, read, l^e varies, 
 
 P. 78. 1. 13. for fl« Adult erefs. r. a Projlitutc 
 
 P. 89. I, II. for hey X. ye. 
 
 P. 127. 1. 15. for hear, r. here. 
 
 P. 129. 1. 5. after early, r. mortals. 
 
 P. 169. 1. 31. for nx'ttiiis, r, /^a/ />f txants, 
 
 P' 255, J. I. for <iver</, r, njnords. 
 
V