1 '

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

From the
COLLECTION OF OXFORD BOOKS
made by
FALCONER MADAN
Bodley's Librarian

TWO ^
DISSERTATIONS: The FIRST on
The TREE of LIFE in Paradise,
With fome Obiervations on
The Creation and Fall of Man;
The SECOND on
TheOBLATioNS of CAIN and ABEL.

By Benjamin Kennicott, of Wadham College.
•  ^.$$ZfMiB tw Xoyw fteras aumjs •8%$<$VftiotG, it

ottqs. Act. Apost. 17. n.

-Plrr.

OXFORD, %^ifcX
Printed at the Theatre, for the Author: and Sold by
Mr. Clements, in Oxford; Mr. Birt and Meff. Rivingtoti, in
London ; Mr. Thurlbourn, in Cambridge ; Mr. Leake, in Bath j
and Mr. Score, in Exeter. MDCCXLVII.

Imprimatur, EUS. ISHAM,
Vice-Can.
Mar. 2. 1746-7.

T O
K.ELLOND COURTENAY Efqj
The Honourable Mrs Elizabeth Courtenay.
The Honourable Mrs Barbara Cavendish.
Ralph Allen Efq; HEN.FoWNEsLuTTRELLEfqj
John Andrew M. D. TheRev. Mr. Wm. Marshall,
TheRev. Mr. Ph. Atherton. Norton Nelson Efq;
TheRev. Mr. Archdn. Baker. William Neyle Efq;
The Rev. Mr. Aaron Baker. William Oliver M. D.
Hen. Langford Brown Efqj Thomas Taylor Elq;
Rev.Mr.Fr.CHAMPERNowNE. Mr. John Taylor.
TheRev. Mr. Geo. Costard. George Treby Efq;
The Rev. Mr. Will. Daddo. Browse Trist Efq;
Mr. Peter Gaye. TheRev.Mf.RoBERTWiCHT.
TheRev.Dr. Thomas Hunt. TheRev.Dr.GEo.WYHDHAM.

My Honoured Benefactors,
THERE is fcarce any Pleafure
more agreeable to the Human
Mind, than that which arifes
from reflecting on Favours received, when
there is a power of expreffing a propor
tionable Gratitude, But You have ren
dered that almoft impoffible, by the mea-
fure as well as nature of Your Conde,-?
a 2 fcenficwf

iv DEDICATION.
fcenfion and Liberality ; Condelcenflon
— fuch, as fhews that Pride is the far-
Itheft removed from true Nobility of Sourj
and Liberality — fuch, as not only re
lieves, but makes the Receiver happy.
Charity indeed is become the reigning
Virtue of our Country ; its tutelar de
fence, its brighter!: ornament. And there
fore every one, who has experienced the
benevolence of Britifh Virtue, and the
greatnefs of its Publick Spirit, fhould be
careful to encourage, by acknowledging
it, with a pious Gratitude. And if this
be a Duty incumbent upon all that are
obliged, 'tis peculiarly fo on Me ; who
have felt a very uncommon fhare of Fa
vour, and have found many Fathers,
where I could not prefume to expect
Friends. 'Tis to You I think my felf bound to
\ exprefs this fenfe of my prefent Happi-
nefs ; You, who have raifed the cha
racter

i> E D I C A T I O N, *v
racier even of Beneficence it felf — by
contending who fhould exert it in the
moft obliging manner, and yet confer
the leaft obligation. 'Tis to fome of
You I ftand indebted for that generous
Subfcription, which has placed me in
this Theatre of Learning ; and to others
of You for that Favour and Condefcen-
fion, by which my Situation here has
been rendered ftill more happy and de
lightful. I beg Your Acceptance therefore of
my warmeft Thanks, thus publickly of
fered, for the many inftances of Your
Goodnefe, (o publickly conferred ; and
iipecially for Your Leave to honour my
felf with the mention of Your Names,
in my prefent appearance before the
World. An Appearance this — arifing
only from the perfuafions of Some of
You, to whole Judgment I pay a pro
found Deference; and from the fond-
nels of an opportunity to make known

vi DEDICATION.
that Duty to You All, which ( if Kind-
nefs, if Charity can at all oblige ) You
have fo richly deferved ; and which will,
I hope, betheChara&erifticofmyLife,
'till Ingratitude become a Virtue.
You are entitled, by the ftrongeft
claim, to the Labours as well as the Ac
knowledgments of my Life ; and have
abundantly more Right to the Production
now before You, than to the Fruit of a
Tree tranfplanted into Your own Garden.
I have the greateft reafon to wifh there
may be found fomething ufeful, and
therefore agreeable, in the following Di£-
fertations ; on Your account, as well as
on my own. And as I doubt not of
their containing fome Miftakes, it may
be decent to oblerve — that many of You
have not yet perufed what is here pre-
fented You ; and therefore have conde-
fcended to be the Patrons of the Author
only, and not of his Performance. The

DEDICATION. vii
The Subje&s however will appear, I
prefume, of confequence ; and to be
worthy of a careful confideration. This
indeed is evident from the firft view of
them in themfelves ; and it may be far
ther ftrengthened and afcertained by ob-
ferving — that our great Countryman Mr.
Mede had minuted them both down for
his confideration ; but Death deprived the
World of his valuable explanation of them.
What this celebrated Writer propofed,
I have ventured to confider. The princi
pal Obfervations, on which the main part
of each Diflertation turns, occurred to me
in Gonfidering the Original Text j and I
humbly fubmit the whole, that is here
built upon them, to the Judgment of
Your Selves, and the reft of the Learned
World ; hoping for Your Favour, and
their Pardon.
May this little Prefent, offered only as
an Earneft of my grateful Wifhes, be
thought^

viii DEDICATION.
thought not unworthy Your Acceptance !
The Defign You will approve, from that
principle of Religion, which animates
Your Actions ; and forgive the Manner
of its Execution, from that principle of
Candor, which I have fo frequently ex
perienced in the Favours received from
You All. And may the Giver of every
good and perfect Gift, who alone is able
to recompenfe fuch a profufion of Good-
nefs, reward You an Hundred-fold for
Every Act of Generofity conferred on

Your very dutiful
and moft obliged
humble Servant,

Benjamin Kennicott.

###########«t###############

DISSERTATION

O N T H E

TREE of LIFE in Paradise,

With fome Obfervations on

The Creation and Fall of Man.

##*########################

[I ]

DISSERTATION The FIRST.

WHILE the Enemies of Reveal'd
Religion make it their bufinefs
and ambition to revile the Sa
cred Book, in which it is contain'd ; 'tis cer
tainly the duty of its Friends to ihew an equal
warmth in the vindication and defence of it.
And as the cavils of Unbelievers are frequently
founded on the Miftranflation of particular
Paffages, it may be proper for every one, who
( from his acquaintance with the Original
Languages) can folve any of thefe Difficul
ties, whether real or pretended, to contri
bute fo far his Mite to that great Work,
which has of late years been fo frequently
and fo fuccefsfully undertaken. A Glorious
Work this ! —To clear up the difficulties ofthe
Sacred Writings, and reconcile the inconfiften-
cies objectec) to the accounts which they con
tain -7 that fo the Word of God may mine forth
A in.

2 Dissertation I.
in its native and commanding fplendour, and
become the admiration of all the fons of Men.
This indeed mould be the bufinefs, becaufe
it is the duty of All ; 'tho, more properly, of
the Preachers of this Revelation. And thefe,
it muft be confefsd, have a task arduous in
deed ; not to be difcharg'd but with the
utmoft zeal, temper'd with the cooleft difcre-
tion. For they muft, in thefe days, like the
Workmen of old in Nehemiah a, build up
the Wall of Jerufalem with one hand, and hold
a weapon in the other to repel the Enemy of
their Labours.
The prefent then is an endeavour to vindi
cate fome part ofthe Hiftory of Mofes j and
Mofes, whether we confider him as the earlier!
Hiftorian, or as the Jewifh Legiflator, does
under both thefe characters lay a ftrong claim
to our refpect and veneration. For as from
him we have the only true account of the Crea
tion and Origin of the World, fo upon the
ftrengch of his Hiftory, and the Prophets which
fucceeded him, Chriftianity rifes like a fair
Superftructure , regular and beautiful j and
confequently every attempt to detract from, or
add to the credit ofthe former, is an attempt
to make, or eftablifh the honour ofthe latter.
Now among all the places pick'd out for ridi
cule and cenftire, we cannot eafily find one,
a Nehemiah IV. 17. that

Dissertation 1. 3
that has occafion'd more triumph to the in-
fulting Infidel, and more frequently efcap'd
the underftanding ofthe ferions Believer, than
the account of the Two peculiar and remark
able Trees in Paradife— The Tree of Life, and
the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.
The latter of thefe has been lately clear'd up,
(and the objections that might be made to his
folution of it confider'd) by the celebrated Au
thor of the Effay on Virtue b; and the bufinefs
of this undertaking is to attempt a rational ac
count alio ofthe former. It may not then be
improper firft to place together, in one view,
the account of Both from the Engtifh Tranfla-
tion, as it is from thence the objections have
been drawn j which done, I mall endeavour
to clear the facred relation from the abfurdity
imputed to it.
Gen. II. 8. And the Lord God planted a Gar
den eajlrvard in Eden ; and there he put the
Man, whom he had formed. 9. And out of the
ground made the Lord God to grorv every Tree
that is pleafant to the Sight, and good for Food-,
the Tree of Life alfo in the midft ofthe Garden,
and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
\$. And the Lord God took the Man, and put
him into the Garden of Eden, to drefs it, and to
keep it. 16. And the Lord God commanded the
b Dr. Rutherforth, page x73-
A 2 Many

4 Dissertation I.
Man, faying, Of every Tree of the Garden thou
mayeft freely eat. 17- But ofthe Tree ofthe IQtom-
ledge of Good and Evil, thou Jhalt not eat of it-
for in the day that thou eat eft thereof, thoujhalt
furely die. Chap. III. 1 . Norv the Serpent was
more fub tie than any beaft of the field, which the
Lord God had made ; and he faid unto the Woman,
Yea, hath God faid, Tejhall not eat of every Tree
of the Garden? 2. And the Woman faid unto
the Serpent, We may eat ofthe fruit ofthe Trees
ofthe Garden. 3. But of the fruit of the Tree,
which is in the midft of the Garden, God hath
faid, ye pall not eat of it, neither Jhall ye touch
it, left ye die. 4. And the Serpent faid unto the
Woman, Tejhall not furely die. j-. For God doth
know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your
eyes Jhall be opened ; and ye ftjall be Oi Gods,
knowing Good and Evil. 6. And when the Woman
farv that the Tree was good for food, and that it
was pleafant to the eyes, and a Tree to be dejired
to make one wife • Jhe took of the fruit thereof,
and did eat, and gave alfo unto her Husband
with her, and he did eat. — Then follows the
divine examination ofthe offenders, with their
feveral fentences ; after which we read, in
Verfe the 22.— And the Lord God faid, Behold,
the Man is become as one of us, to know Good
and Evil. And now left he put forth his hand,
and take alfo of the Tree of Life ^ and cat , and
live for ever. 23. Therefore the Lord God fent him

DlSiSERTA'TION I. r
pirn forth from the Garden of Eden to till the
'ground, from Tvhence he was taken. 24. So he
drove out the Man ; and he placed, at the eaft of
the , Gar den of Eden, Cherubims and a flaming
Sword, which turned every way to keep the way
ofthe Tree of Life.
Now tho' the objections, that have been
made to the Hiftory of Mofes, have fallen,
perhaps, more plentifully on this part than any
other; yet the principal intention of this Dif-
fertation (as before obferv'd ) is to obviate
thofe objections, which have frequently been
urg'd againft what is here faid with regard to
the Tree of Life.
It is agreed then, among the Friends of this
Hiftory, that the ufe of the Tree of Life was
— to render, or preferve the firft Pair immortal.
But in what manner this Immortality was to be
effected by their eating of it— whether theTree
was to communicate fo furprizing an effect by
being frequently, or by being once tafted — or
whether abfolutely, and by its own inherent
Virtue ; or conditionally, and by a virtue facra-
mentally convey d from God ;— thefe points
(with others on this head) have generally di
vided thofe, who haVe attempted to explain
themc. For whoever examines carefully into
c Well therefore might Mr. Salkeld obferve — That
tho' aimoft aU the Writers and Fathers of the Greek and
the

6 Dissertation I.
the whole of this matter will find an uncommon
diver/ity in opinion, among the wifeft Ex-
pofitors ; and that there are few, who agree
in any fingle method of interpretation, not-
withftanding fo many, with a laudable defign,
have attempted a rational illuftration of it.
From hence it is evident, that fome confider-
able difficulty, if not miftake, muft be at the
bottom, which occafions fuch remarkable un
certainty, and therefore it may be prefum'd,
that any new attempt to clear the Hiftory in
this particular will," if honeftly intended, be
pardon'd by fuch, as may think it to fall fliort
of the defign of it ; and be well receiv'd by
fuch (if there ihould be any fuch ) as may think
it a proper and well-grounded explanation.
I fhall therefore propofe fome of thofe ob
jections, which have been made, and feem to
lie againft the generally-receiv'd opinions about
the Tree of Life ; and that upon each of the
different interpretations before enumerated.
After which, in order to obviate the force of
fuch objections, I fhall endeavour at a rational
and confident fenfe of thofe texts, where the
Tree of Life is mention'd ; which, I imagine,
may be done by a careful attention to the Origi
nal Hiftory ,in a manner not yet attempted.— For
Latin Church agree, that the effect of this fruit was Im
mortality i yet in the manner, how, they do not agree.
See his Treatife on Paradife, p. 58. tho*

Dissertation I. y
tho' it has been taken for granted, that Mofes
tells us of one particular Tree of Life in Para-
dife ; yet, as the fuppofal of fuch a Tree exift
ing or not exifting feems to affect no other part
of the facred pages; as alfo the afferting its real
exiftence has been frequently objected to as ab-
furd, and is allow'd to be very difficult of ex
planation — it may be worth while to confider,
whether the account of Mofes may not be fairly
underftood, without admitting fuch a particular
Tree; by rendring the phrafe D*TT pr Trees
of Li fe, in the fenfe of Trees for food in gene
ral. If fo, all cavils about a Tree of Life difap-
pear of courfe j and alfo the character of
Mofes, which the Deifts attack with peculiar
bitternefs, will appear in this one refpect, as
it certainly is in all, invulnerable by their keen-
eft fatyr.
To begin then with the Objections to this
particular of the Mofaic Hiftory, as generally
underftood. And here it may be firft obferv'd
— that if there was in Paradife one Tree of
Life, which was to render the firft Pair im
mortal ; fuch an effect muft have been pro
duced either by their eating of its fruit fre
quently, or by their tailing of it once only.
That tb.e Immortality of the firft Pair was
not to be the confequence of their frequent
eating of this Tree, feems to appear from the
following confiderations . The Garden of Eden had

8 Dissertation I.
had been furnifh'd by God with all the various
forts of Trees, that were good for food ; and
Adam had receiv'd an order, or licence, to
eat of all, or each of them, as he pleas'd (ex
cepting only the Tree of Knowledge) for the
fupport of his animal life. But if there was in
the Garden one particular Tree, which by an
extraordinary operative quality was to be the
fupport of human life, or the antidote againft
mortality ; this had been fufficient to preferve
Adam from Death, while the ufe of all the
other Trees of food had been thereby fuper-
feded : and if fo, may not thefe be faid to
have been given in vain ? But we know that
God does nothing without the wifeft contri
vance ; and therefore it mould feem, as if the
Trees of food in Paradife (efpecially as every
fpecies of Fruit-Trees was planted together
in this one Garden) that thefe, I fay, were for
the nutriment and fupport of Adam's Life ;
fince there appears no other ufe arifing from
their being planted in Paradife.
Now if the Tree of Life was only — a Tree, >
whofe fruit being eaten frequently was to render
the eaters of it immortal j fuch an effect muft
have been produced either by its own Jingle and
feparate virtue, or by a virtue in conjunction with
that ofthe other Trees in the Garden. But if
we fay— It was by its own Jingle virtue, then we
make ufelefs the other Trees ; and if we fay
-By

£> I S S E R tf'A T I 0 it I. V ^
— By its virtue in conjunllion, then we bring tt
down from any pretentions to fuperior excel
lence, it fettles upon the fame level in ufe and
honour with the other Trees its companions,
and cbrifequentry all the Trees offbod in the
Garden become equally Trees of lift.
It was this difficulty, perhaps, Which has in
duced many d to afcribe the Irtirtiortality atifing
from this Tree to its beitig eaten of but once
only. Arid thus the celebrated Dr. Jehkin,
in his Reaforiablenefs of thd Chriftian Reli
gion e — Since Gbd has ettduCd our ordinary
food With a pWer of nourifhment, no man
can reafbnably doubt* but that he might endue
this fruit with fufi'h a virtue, that it fhould have
tnfde men iniirioYtal to tafte of it ; and we may
well fuppofe, fays he, that if they had one*
tafted of this fruit, they fhould have fuffer'd no
decay, but have liv'd in conftaht vigour here,
tho' partaking afterwards only of other nou-
fifhment. The Interpreters of this fort ground their
opinion on the reaibii* which God gives for
his driving Adato but of Paradife ,• namely,
-*Left he put forth his hand, and take alfo ofthe
Ttee of Lif^ arid eat, and live for ever {. It is
d Thus KfipeYfus affirms — Quod fructus arbofis vitae,
fim® furkpiui ,-¦ *Mdm' pra&ftitiflet- immortal em. Salkeld
on Paradife, p. 6%._
e Vol. II. p. 2,60,
f Gen. III. 11.
iv'A B certain,

io ; Dissertation I.
certain, that this text feems a better fupport
for the laft interpretation, than any other in
terpretation can be furnifh'd with from the
Hiftory it felf. This I fay, upon the common
acceptation of the words. For who, that reads
this clear and exprefs paffage, and fees God
banifhing Adam, after eating of the Tree of
Knowledge , left he fhould take alfo of the
Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever; who
can read this, and not conclude, that if Adam
had taken, and eaten of the Tree of Life, he
would have liv'd for ever ? This, according to
the receiv'd opinion, fe^ms the only conclufion
from the words ; and they are the words of
God himfelf. But this fenfe, however con-
firm'd by the prefent Verfions ofthe Text, will
probably foon appear indefenfible ; and if fo,
the Original Words will certainly yield us ano
ther interpretation.
But before we proceed to any arguments
againft this opinion, let us previoufly lay down
Two Obfervations ; which, as they are the
ground-work of the Hiftory it felf, muft be
alfo of all the Explications of it : and thefe are
—That of every Tree in the Garden, except
ing that of the Knowledge of Good and Evif^
God had given Man liberty to eat freely ; and
—That, upon the Fall, Man forfeited Immor- j
tality, and became fubject to Death. Firft

Dissertation I. n
Firft then ; fuppofing in Paradife a Tree of
Immortality, of which Adam was allow'd to
eat, we may reafohably fuppofe that he was
acquainted with fo extraordinary a Tree ; and,
if fo, that he made a ready ufe of it, as the
great fecurity and privilege of his condition.
But if Adam did eat of this immortalizing;
Tree, how came he prefently mortal? How
could he, who, on the prefent fuppofition,
had render'd himfelf immortal by eating ofthe
Tree of Life, become mortal by eating ofthe
Tree of Knowledge >
Secondly,- fuppofing Adam not acquainted
with the virtue of this Tree, yet as he had li
berty to eat of all the Trees, but one, in the
Garden, and this among the reft ; we muft
grant, that he might have tailed it. And there
fore, if the Tree was endued with a power of
conferring Immortality by being once tafted of,
the effect muft have been the fame, if Adam
had tafted it, whether he was preacquainted
with this virtue of it, or not.
Thirdly ; Adam was created either abfolute-
ly immortal, abfolutely mortal, or conditional
ly immortal. If he was created abfolutely im
mortal, he could not have died ; but die he
did. If he was created abfolutely mortal, he
could not but die ; and therefore was not a
Candidate for Immortality. But if he was crea
ted conditionally immortal, and this conditio-
B 2 nal

12 D I S S E R T A TION I.
nal Immortality hung (as we are aflur'd it did)
on his eating or not eating of the Tree of
Knowledge ; it feems irnpoffible he could be
allow'd by God free liberty to eat of a Tree of
Life, which would render him immoral, and
consequently not mortal in cafe of his violatjpg,
the divine command.
Fourthly; it feems as if fuch a Tree would
havp been altogether unneceffary, Adam, we
have feen, was created conditionally immortal;
in confequence of which, if he finn'd.) He wag
to die. But what if he did not fip ?, Was he ftill
to die ? No ; the contrary is certain, and in
general underftood in the fpilgwing manner
— th,at Adam was not to have had an E.ternity
of exigence on this Earth ; but that his Body
would have continued free from diffblution,
till God fhould have thought fit to tranflatq
him, without Death, to fome happier Region,
for the enjoyment of Eternity e, If Adam
then, while innocent, coujc] not have died;
what need was there for a Tree of Immorta*
lity to preferve his Life ?— It was by Sin (as we
are aflur'd by St. Paul h ) that Heath enter d into
the World ; and confequently all thofe Pain&
Difeafes and Decays of Nature, which are only
g Two Inftances of fuch a Tranflation from Earth to
Heaven, wjthout dying, we meet with in the cafes of
gnpch and Elijah, See z Kings II. a • and Qen.V. 24,
gKpUjn'd by Stf Pawl in Heb, XI, y,
h &prn?V, n, (the

Dissertation I. ,%*
(the Mortis pwtih&ina, or) the foretaftes of
our Diflblutipn, enter'd by the fame channel.
And as Adam, while innocent, could not have
known Death, or Difeafe* the fruits of the
Trees in general, which God gave him to eat,
certainly would, in their original perfe&ion,
have been a fuffjcient fupport to his animal
part ; without the intervention of a Miracle,
when he could not pofEbly ftand in need of it.
For tho' it mould be properly faid by Dr. John
Clarke ' -r- That Death, or the diflblution of
the Body, is the neceflary confequence of thofe
laws by which the Body is fram'd ; yet it is as
properly obfervd by A-Bp King k —That
from the neceflary Mortality of Bodies fince
the Fall no argument can be drawn for the
fame neceffity before the Fall. The reafon in
deed of fuch a difference this great Writer
leaves us unacquainted with ; but, poflibly,
that may appear hereafter.
And Fifthly; if the firft Pair had this fup-
pos'd liberty of rendring themfelves immortal,
it is fgarce poffible but the Serpent would have
put them in mind of it, as an effectual confir
mation of what he fo roundly 'aflerted — Te
Jhall not fujrely die. For we may reafonably
fuppofe a Tempter, of much lefs fubtilty than
the Old Serpent, would readily have faid— If,
i See his Serm. Boyle's Left. Vol. 3. p. 201.
k See his Origin of Evil; Ch. 4. Se£t, 3.
j when

14 Dissertation I.
when ye have tafted this Tree of Knowledge,
and are become equal to God l , ye imagine
Death will be the confequence ; ye have at
hand a Tree of Life : repair to that, and ye
fhall be then equal to God both in Knowledge
and Immortality. And it is ftill lefs poffible
to be conceiv'd, why Adam, ( fuppofing fuch a
Tree with fuch a virtue ) when he had broke
the divine injunction, when he faw his fhame,
and trembled under, the expectation of divine
Juftice ; why he had not then repair d inftantly
to the Tree of Life, to fecure himfelf from that
Death, which was the fandtion of the divine
reftraint. Whereas, inftead of thinking of
fuch a ready and obvious means of fafety, (had
there been any fuch) we find him going for
Fig-Leaves to twift round him, and conceal
his fhame.
Thefe Arguments then may fuffice to fhew,
that very confiderable difficulties attend the at
tributing Immortality to this Tree of Life,
confider'd as producing this effect by being once
eaten of. And the confideration of it, as pro
ducing fuch an effect by being frequently eaten
of, has been before fhewn to be attended with
no {lender objections. So that if thefe confi-
1 Cen. III. f . Drufius in locum — Moneo locum verti
jicut Deus • nam Elohim tarn Deum fignificat, qnam Deos :
Tom. I. pag. ao. See alfo Dr. Rutherforth, in his Effay
on Virtue, p. 179, derations

Dissertation I. k
derations are of weight, and fhould appear con-
clufive, as perhaps they may ,• then this Tree
of Life was not to communicate Immortality
abfolutely^ and by its own inherent virtue m.
And if thus much be allow'd, then ( fuppofing
it to convey fuch Immortality) it muft have
been defign'd to convey it conditionally, and
by way of Sacrament ; for this is a neceffary
confequence, and the only part ofthe Alterna
tive. This latter Opinion then is now to be con-
fider'd ; and I fhall introduce it in the words
ofMr.Willet, in hisHexapla on Genefis n— The
Tree of Life, fays he, was not fo call'd, be-
caufe it was able to give Immortality, and pre
ferve from Death for ever ; nor only becaufe
it was able to preferve Man from Death, till
fuch time as he fhould be tranflated to Immor
tality. For it is evident, that this Tree had
no power to give Immortality at all by the tafte
ofthe fruit of it — Firft ; becaufe no corrupti
ble food can make the Body incorruptible— Se
condly ; Man had, by his Creation, power gi-
m Le Clerc in Gen. III. zz. — Quis credat Arborem
fuifle ullam, quas nativa. virtute vitam in asternum homi-
nibus confervare potuerit ?
Lequien, in his Edition of Johannes Damafcenus, in his
Note on the Tree of Life, fays — Maximus utrumque
Lignum figurato fenfu intelligit, propter difficultates qua;
ex Scripturae Litera confequi videntur. Tom. i. Lib. z.
cap. ii-
n Page 17. ven

16 Dissertation I.
ven him not to die, if he had not finn'd; where*
fore Immortality was the gift of his Creatidh, f
not the effect of his eating of this Tree— Thirds
ly; if it could have given Immortality, it muft,
have had a power to preferve from Sin ; other-
wife it was no more the Tree of Life, in regard
of the effect, than any other Tree in the Gar^
den : for if he had not finn'd, he fhould not
have died, what fruit foever he had eaten of]
the Tree ofthe Knowledge of Good and Evil
only excepted. Our opinion then, fays he, is
this — that it was call'd the Tree of Life, not
fo much for the operation, (tho' it might give
ftrength and virtue alfo to the Body) but chiefly
for the Jignification, becaufe it was a Sign of
Life receiv'dfrom God. And herein we approve
rather the opinion of St. Auftin, who thinks it
was call'd the Tree of Life, not effectively, but
fignificatively; as a Sign of true Immortality*
which he fhould receive of God, if he conti
nued in obedience.
But I prefume, that this latter Opinion lies
expos'd to as confiderable opposition, as either
of the two before mention'd. For if the Tree
of Life was to communicate this uncommon
virtue, not inherently and primarily, but medi
ately and fecondarily ; or ( as it is, perhaps,
more generally exprefs'd on this occafion) if it
was not to communicate it abfolutely and natu
rally of it felf, but conditionally and fiiperna- turally

Dissertation I. j«
turaily from God ; then it muft have had the
nature of a Sacrament. And this is what fome
considerable Authors, leaving the other Expla
nation, (probably on account of the before-
mention'd difficulties) have determin'd and
adher'd to ; or, at leaft, have hung fluctuating
between the two, not determining for either,
but leaving the Reader to choofe which he
could relifh beft.
Thus A-Bp King affirms "—that the Tree of
Life was truly Sacramental, an outward and
vifible Sign, and means of Grace ; which, fays
he, is the true motion of a Sacrament. Thus
the famous Dr. Clarke p— The Tree of Life was
the ancient and original Emblem of Immorta
lity—By the ufe of the Tree of Life (whatever
is implied under that exprejjion) Adam was to
have been preferv'd from dying— By Sin Adam
was jufHy excluded out ofthe Paradife of God,
and put .out of the reach ofthe Tree of Life,
this miraculous means of being preferv'd from
Death. Mr. Taylor, in his Treatife on Origi
nal Sin % tells us — The Tree of Life can be
confider'd, with any fhew of truth, only as ei
ther a pledge and/grc of Immortality, or as an
appointed means of preventing the decay ofthe
human frame, fuppofing Adam had continued
o Page 78 ofthe Supplement to the Origin of Evil.
p .Serin. 135-. p. 113. Vol, z. EJit. Fol.
q Page 18. C obedient.

i8 Dissertation L
obedient. And Mr. Stackhoufe ', tho' with
the learning of the prefent and paft Ages be
fore him, is uncertain how much, and what kind
of power to afcribe to this Tree ; for he ac
quaints us — that the Body of Adam was to en
joy the privilege of Immortality, either by a
power continually proceeding from God ,
whereof the Tree of Life was the divine Sign
and Sacrament ; or by the inherent virtue of
the Tree it felf, perpetually repairing the de
cays of nature.
But in anfwer to thefe, and all Explanations
ofthe fame kind, it may be obferv'd firft— that
there is not the Ieaft ground in the text for
making the Tree of Life a Sacrament, or a
Tree defign'd to convey Life facramentallyr
Yet, not to urge the want of foundation for
this opinion, the opinion it felf feems eafy to
be refuted. For if the Tree of Life was a Sa
crament, it had the properties of a Sacrament ;
and if it had the properties of a Sacrament,
then the Fruit of it was appointed by God to
be the outward and vifible Sign to Man of
fomething inward and invifible, to be conferr'd
by the former on the latter. And as in all Sa
craments there are certain terms or conditions
neceflary to be perform'd by Man, in order to
his thus receiving benefits from God ; fo, upon
the very fuppofition, when thefe terms or con-
r Hift. of the Bible, Vol. I. pag. 36. and 44. ditions

Dissertation I. 19
ditions are either neglected or violated on the
part of Man, the benefits on the part of God
are fufpended : in fo much that if Man fhould
then continue to partake ofthe Sign, he could
no longer partake of the. thing originally figni
fied. This is evident ; let us apply it then to
the prefent cafe. The Tree of Life, we are
told, was a Sacrament; the Fruit of it the out
ward Sign ; a Life-giving Power to be commu
nicated by God to Adam the thing fignified j
and the Condition, on which thisPowerorVirtue
was to be thus communicated, was Innocence, or
Adam's continuing in his original Uprightnefs.
Hence it appears, that Adam, after his Fall,
could no longer receive Life or extraordinary
Support from the Sign ; becaufe the Condition,
on which he was to receive the thing fignified,
was broken s: and therefore, had he continued
in Paradife, this Tree of Life, in the prefent
view of it, could have been of no peculiar fer-
vice or affiftance to him. But this, we know,
is contrary to the exprefs meaning of thofe
words — And now, left he put forth his hand,
s Thus, in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, tho' a
Man receives the outward elements of Bread and Wine,
he cannot receive the inward or fpiritual benefits thereby
fignified — that is, the Bread will not be to him the Bread
of Life (John 6. 48.) nor will the Wine be virtually to
him the Blood ofchrifl (Matth. z6. z%.) unlefs he receives
with a proper Faith, and in fuch a difpofition of Mind, as
is neceflary on that folemn Occafion. C 2 (after

So Dissertation I.
( After his Tranfgrieflion ) and take alfa of the
Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever. Where*
fore we muft conclude, that the fame virtue or
ufe (whatever it be fuppos'd) continued in this.
Tree after, as before Adam's Tranfgreflion.
It would be as endlefs as it is unneceffary
to cite all the various Opinions, which have
appear'd upon this Subject ; it may not, how
ever, be improper to fubjoin two, of a diffe
rent kind from the foregoing. We'have al
ready then confider'd the Tree of Life, as con
ferring Immortality, by being frequently, and
by being once eaten of; as defign'd to preferve
the human Body from Death abfolutely of it
felf, and conditionally by a virtue deriv'd
from God after the manner of a Sacrament :
and fo far we haVe feen, that the explications
of this matter are attended with their feveral
difficulties. There are fome Writers then, who have
aforib'd other purpofes to this Tree of Life,
and among thefe Mr. Worthington, in his late
Eflay on Man's Redemption, tells us c — The
defign of the Tree of Life was to repair all
Decays, Natural and Moral • and tho' it feems
to have been capable of conferring Immorta
lity, after the eating of the Tree of Know
ledge, yet that it was defign'd only for repajr*
?ng Bodily Decays, is furely too low a notion
E Page i8? of

Dissertation I. 21
of it; its fanative virtue muft have reach'd alfo
to the Soul. This opinion, not at all appeai?-
ing to be fupported by the Hiftory, feems not
to require a particular confideration.
There are, laftly, others, and thefe a nume
rous Body, who have aflerted, that this Tree
of Life was not at all defign'd for the fupport
of Adam's Bodily or Prefent Life ; but have
refolv'd the whole ufe of it into Allegory, mak
ing it to reprefent the Future and Celeftial
Life, with which Adam was to be rewarded for
his Obedience u. Among the various Authors
of this figurative opinion, I fhall felect the fol
lowing teftimony of the learned Heidegger w,
— The Tree of Life was dignified by that name,
not becaufe it had implanted in it a power of
conferring Eternal Life on Man, or becaufe it
was healthy or fruitful beyond the other Trees
ofthe Garden ; but becaufe it was given Man
for a certain V ledge of that Eternal Life, which
he was to obtain, after a courfe ofperfecl Obedi
ence. For, fays he, as to / know not what phy-
fieal effeU, to afford Man a prefent Remedy a-
gainft Difeafes and Infirmity, which many at
tribute to this Tree— this is by no means to be
u Arbor vitse fignum & figillum vitaj cceleftis seternae,
Adamo ex fcedere operum promifliE, fub conditione per-
feveiantiae in obediential Cloppenburg, in Sacrif. Pa
triarchal. Schola Sacra; p. io.
w See his Hiftor, Patriarcharum ; Tom. i. Exercit. 4.
Se£t. 49, , . ,
admitted,

22 Dissertation I.
admitted. For if you imagine this done by the
force of the Aliment, then the other Trees
were in vain given to Adam for his Food ; and
if by a medicinal virtue, Adam, while inno
cent, had no internal principle or caufe of Dif-
eafe, which might want to be reftrain'd by the
power of Medicine. Wherefore (he concludes
that) it deriv'd its Name, not from the Tempo
ral Life, but the Life Celeftial and Eternal.
But to this may be oppos'd the more rational
and judicious opinion of Dr. Robinfon on this
Subject*; which feems fufficient to fet afide
not this only, but all other Allegorical y, Sym-.
bolical, and Myftic Interpretations ofthe Tree
of Life. Many of our Divines, fays he, will
have this Tree of Life to be a Sacrament ; but
a Sacrament of What, they themfelves are not
agreed — Some affirm it to have been a Sign
and Seal of the Life Prefent, which was to be
preferv'd, in cafe of continued Innocence — O-
thers of a better Life, to be exchang'd— Others
ofthe Life Eternal, to be given by Chrift — O-
thers of the Heavenly and Eternal Life, pro-
x Annales Mundi, p. 44.
y — Nil opus eflet, ut hanc cautelam interponerem,
nifi ut intra certos limites coercerem AUegori%andi licen-
tiam ; quas in immenfum exire folet, & feculis nonnullis
ipfam Legis Llteram prorfus obfcuravit — Multi nullum
quantumvis legis apicem prsetereunt, cui non allegori-
cum, forfan & anagogicum fenfum afluunt. Spencer de
legibus Heb. Tom. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. iy. Sec. a. mis'd

Dissertation I. 27
mis' d to Adam by the Covenant of Works— Others
of that Grace or Favour, by which Adam was
to live for ever, in cafe of his Obedience. But
as he obferves, all that has been faid of Sacra,-
ments, and of an allegorical and myftical fenfe
of this point, feems too obfcure to agree with
the perfpicuity, too labour d to be of a piece
with the fimplicity, fo remarkable thro' the
whole Mofaic Narration.
Thefe Opinions then may ferve to fhew, as
well the furprizirtg Oppofition and 'Uncertainty \
which have fo remarkably diftinguifh'd Inter
preters on this fubject ; as alfo the Difficulties,
to which their feveral interpretations ftand ex-
pos'd. 2 Dr. Burnet in his excellent Illuftration of the Mofaic
Hiftory, feems not: at all fatisfied as to the Tree of Life.
We are told of a Tree of Life, fays he, which we may rea
fonably think might be intended as a Prefervative againft
all Decays of Nature — if any fuch can be fuffos 'd in fo pure
and perfect a State ' of Being. And again — If the Tree of
Life was of fuch a Nature, as to keep from dying &c. See
Boyle's Led. Serm. Vol. 3. p. 431. 514.
The fame Uncertainty is remarkable in the firft Volume
of the Univerfal Hiftory ; for the celebrated Author,
(peaking of Paradife, fays — In the midft of this Garden
were two Trees of a very peculiar, and, it feems, con
trary nature ; one call'd the Tree of Life, the fruit of
which had the virtue of rendering thofe who eat it, m
fome degree at leafl, immortal &c. And — The Tree of
Life, it is faid, had the virtue to prolong life confiderably,
if not for ever. See Book I. Ch. 1. p. no. 114. Ed. 8vo.
See alfo Mr. Stackhoufe, Hift. Bible, at the bottom of
p. 44. And Dr.Sam. Clarke, whofe words are cited, p.17. But

24 Dissertation I.
But befides the Difficulties already taken no
tice of, as encumbring the fever al particular Ex
planations of the Tree of Life ; there are three,
which feem to lie againft the Exijlence of the
Tree it felf: and as thefe are not inconsiderable,
they may be properly added here, at the con
clusion of the Objections, which may be urg d
againft the prevailing Opinion.
The Firft of thefe Difficulties then arifes from
the neceflity we are laid under by the receiv'd
acceptation, of fuppofing God to have impart
ed fuch a virtue to the Tree of Life, as he
could neither recall nor alter ; and therefore
that he drove out the Man from Paradife, left,
by eating of it, he fhould (contrary to the di
vine will ) acquire Immortality ; which ( from
the prefent verfion of Gen. III. 22.) feems to
have been annex'd to the Tree of Life by an
irrevocable Decree a.
The Second Difficulty is— That if we fuppofe
only one Tree, by which human life was parti
cularly to have been fupported j how could
Adam's Pofterity ( fuppofing him and them to
have continued innocent) have been able to
come from the various parts ofthe Earth, and
gather Fruit from it ? Or how could this one.
Tree of Life have fufficed all Mankind >
a See A-Bp King's 2d Serrn. at the end of his Origin
of Evil.
The

Dissertation I. 25
The laft Difficulty which I fhall here take no
tice of, and which will b'e allow'd to be of fome
weight againft the receiv'd Opinion, is this
—On the fuppofition of one peculiar Tree of
Life in Paradife, and that the danger was only
on account of that one Tree ; why was the
Guard of Angels plac'd at the Extremity ofthe
Garden b, to fecure the Tree of Life in the
Middle of it ; when this Tree might have been
watch'd with much more fafety and conveni
ence, if the Guard had been ftation'd clofe by
the Tree it felf? This it feems no eafy matter
to account for upon the receiv'd Opinion ; but
if the Interpretation, here offer'd, be admitted,
the reafon will be evident.
And now, whoever fhall think the Difficul
ties before enumerated to be confiderable, and
the preceding Explanations of the Tree Of Life
to be not Efficiently rational or well-grounded ;
will readily excufe this farther Attempt to ren
der the Sacred Hiftory, in this refpect, more
defenfible. For fuch is the intention and de-
b That this was the cafe ig evident from the Hebrew
Text ; for in Gen. III. 14. we read CDIKH nX \0"U»1
yvr\r\ urh ron o*y«n ns py pVcnpa p«n
:cD"nn yv "fn nn iopS rosnnan it is the
more neceflary to attend to the Original of this verfe, be
caufe the LXX have evidently miftook the fenfe of it ;
rendring it— K«< g|eo«Ae rc> Affile, km nc/.t«Kmi cu/tc» ami/can ra
•Bnfat&c-iTls "mi tSu^tis' km «t«?J ia %l£8%ifA, km rLa Qhtyivla) |8f«-
$m#v, Tp r$$*flpv f vAfWW tU eh> th IvM -mi £«">? •
D fign

26 Dissertation I.
fign of thefe Papers ; and yet even the Inter-.
pretation, here propos'd, is offer'd only by way
of ConjeUure.
To be the more clear then in this important
Endeavour, let us ftep back to the Creation
of our firft Parents, and accompany the Hiftory •
down to their expulsion from Paradife ; for by
this method only we fhall be able to judge of
the confiftency of the prefent, or any other
Explanation of this matter. And after having
given what feems to be the meaning of the
whole (with fome new Obfervations inter-
fperfed) I fhall endeavour to anfwer the Ob
jections, that may be made to what is Nerv
with regard to the Tree of Life.
When God Almighty, in his infinite Good-
nefs, and the confequent complacency he muft
take in communicating Happinefs, had deter-
min'd upon the Creation of this World ; and
the World, in obedience to the Creator's Will,
arofe from Nothing — we learn from the ge?
nuine and only Hiftory of this mighty Opera
tion, that it was compleated in Six revolutions
of Night and Day c. A World ! form'd with
fuch perfect fymmetry, and adjufted in fuch
amazing beauty, as proclaim'd the hand of the
Divine Geometrician.
c Gen. I. 31. See alfo the Cofmogony, at the begin
ning of the Univerfal Hiftory ; p. 100. Edit. 8vo. But

D I S S E R T A T IO N I. 27
But as an Inanimate, or merely Animate
Creation could not be the narrow purpofe of
infinite contrivance, nor render the Tribute
of Wonder and Acknowledgment fo eminently
due to the Great Creator; Man was intro
duced to compleat the Scheme of Providence.
The World indeed, and all its magnificent Ap
paratus, were but for the accommodation of
this great Inhabitant, and his Pofterity ; the
Theatre wasprepar'd, with all the Decorations
that could improve the Scene, and then God
brought forth that Mafter-piece of his Works
^_to act the noble part of a Free and Rational
Agent— to offer up, as the High-Prieft of Na
ture, the Incenfe of Thanks for the lefs per
fect race of Beings— and by compleat Holinefs
to advance the Glory of his Maker, and fecure
the fruition of his own Happinefs. Here was
a Scheme, which none but a God, equally infi
nite in Goodnefs as in Wifdom and Power,
could firft meditate, and then carry into execu
tion. A Scheme ! which the more we contem
plate, the more we muft admire ; and the
more we admire, the more we muft adore:
efpecially when we consider Our Selves the
happy Beings thus wonderfully provided for.
—¦Lord, What is Man, that thoujliouldeft be fo
gracious unto him ! That thou Jhouldejl create
him but Uttle lower than the Angels, and thus
crown him with Glory and Honour d .'
d Pfalm VIII. 4, ?• D * What

28 Dissertation I.
What Man is, is now the point in which we
are concern'd ; and his original condition will
appear from the hiftory of his Creation in the
Book of Genesis. We read then in Chap. I.
2.6, 27. — And the Lord God faid, Let TJs make
Man in our Image, after our Likenefs ; fo God
created Man in his own Image, in the Image of
God created he him : Male and Female created he
them. And in Chap. II. 7.— And the Lord God
formed Man of the duft e of the ground, and
breathed into his nojlrils the breath of Life, and
Man became a living Soul. This is the concife,
but full Account of our Father Adams noble
Origination. But before we proceed to consider the Na-
ture of Man, in more particular terms, it may
be neceflary that fome notice be taken of that
peculiar form, in which the hiftory of his crea
tion is here introduced. For we find, that
God did not merely order Man to exift, and
he exifted ; in the method he had taken with
the other parts of his creation; but forms (as
e The Original words are 13>' lDIKH • on which
Heidegger has this Obfervation -*• Infinuare voluit divinus
Scriptor, non folum Terram efle Materiam, ex qua factus
homo ; fed etiam hominem nihil aliud efle quam Pulverem
de terra fumptum, qui infolefcendi proinde caufas nullas
habeat. Unde etiam xchu* pulverem primum hominem
Infignivit Apoftolus, 1 Corinth, XV, 47. Hift. Patriarch,
Esercitat, 4, Seft. 17,

it

Dissertation I. 29
it were) a Divine Confutation f, before he en-
ter'd on this nobleft part and finifhing ftroke of
his defign.
What this Consultation means, or of whom
it was intended by the Sacred Hiftorian, has
been matter of warm Controverfy. But if we
drop allprepofleflion and party-attachment (for
there is fuch a thing in Religion, as well as in
Politics; and in each of them, like a falfe
Light, it will certainly miflead the man, who
refblves to walk by its direction) it feems eafy
to find what Mofes would have us here under
stand. God, being about to create Man, is
introduc'd faying — Let Us make Man, in Our
Image, after Our Likenefs ; in confequence of
which the Hiftorian tells us — fo God created
Man in hU own Image, in the Image of God
created he him. It is evident then, that God
created Man in his own Image ; this is men,
tion'd thrice by way of Emphafis, and to pre
vent, if poffible, all pofiibility of mifcon-
ftrudiion. Now what God did, was certainly the fame
that he proposed to do ; God created Man in
his own Image, that is, in the Image of the
Godhead, and therefore God propos'd to create
him in the Image ofthe Godhead. But if God
propos'd to create him in the Image of the
f See the Cofmogofiy, at the beginning of the Univ.
Hiftory, p. 91. Edit, 8vo, Godhead,

30 Dissertation I.
Godhead,- the propofal muft have been made-
to the Godhead ; becaufe the words are— Let
*Vs make Man in Our Image. And if the pro
pofal be here made by God to the Godhead, it
is abfurd to fuppofe it made to the fame Per-
fon, that makes it; and confequently reafon-
able to think it made to the other two Perfons
in the Unity of the Godhead *. For we have
certain evidence from theNewTeftament, that
the Tfjree Divine Perfons are One God; and that
Each took upon himfelf a diftinct part, and
feparate character, in the grand fcheme of
Man's Redemption : and if interefted fo much
at his Redemption, we may fafely conclude them
not unconcern d at his Creation \
g See this important Point farther explained in Dr.
Knight's firft Serm. and Mr. Ridley's fecond Serm. at
Moyer's Lectures.
h That God did not here addrefs the Angels, appears
—from the words themfelves ; Let Us make Man in our
image, fo God created Man in his own image — from the
fame manner of expreflion in verfe the 2id of the third
Chapter, where the words are evidently confin'd to the
Deity— and from God's difclaiming any Confultation with
inferior Beings, in thefe words of Ifaiah XL. ia, 13, 14.
Who hath meafur'd the Waters in the hollow of his hand? and
meted out Heaven with the fpan, and comprehended the dufl of
the Earth in a meafure, and weighed the Mountains in fcales,
and the Hills in a balance ? Who hath directed the Spirit of the
Lord, or being his Counfellor hath taught him ? With 'whom
took he Counfel, and who inftrucled him ? — And that God did
not fpeak here, in the manner of Kings, of himfelf in the
plural number, is. plain ; becaufe thefe are given as the
very words of God, at the creation of the firft Man. Yet
To

Dissertation I. 31
To return now to the Nature of the firft
Man, who was form'd in confequence of this
Confultation. His Material part then was the
Duft ofthe Earth, work'd up into an organiz'd
Body, to be fuftain'd upon the common prin
ciples of Nutrition. And this Body was actu
ated by an Immortal Spirit • which was not
made, like the Body, out of pre-exifting Mat
ter, but created out of nothing by the great
Father of Spirits, and infufed or breathed into
the human composition ; and, by this, Man
became a living Soul, or was advanced into a
Being capable of Life and Immortality.
This Compound Being God created in his
own Image, after his Likenefs ; and as great
ftrefs is laid by the divine Hiftorian on God's
creating him in this manner, it may be proper
to attend to the meaning of the words, which
are evidently of fome importance. The word
oS'i is here rightly tranflated Image ; and fig-
nifies a juft picture or compleat reprefentation.
But left this fhould be too fublime a boaft for
any Creature, the Expreffion is immediately
foften'd by the word mO"T> which signifies
fuppofing Mofes to write here according to the cuftom of
his own times, the opinion of Kings fpeaking then of them-
felves in the plural number is without foundation ; for
Melchizedeck, Abimelech, Pharaoh, and Balak, fpeak
all in the Angular number ; and we find Saul, David, and
even Solomon in all his glory, delivering themfelves in
the fame ftile. See alfo Groflius Tom. I. 14.

32 Dissertation I.
likenefs or refemblance ; and this is render'd ftill
more faint by the prefix'd preposition, which
fignifies according to and in fame agreement with.
Man therefore was created in the Image of
God ; not indeed in the exprefs and full Image,
but after the Likenefs or according to the Re
femblance of that unequal'd and fupream Be
ing '. So that as Man was by his Body allied
to the Earth, and was to partake of the pro
ductions of that to envigorate his animal Na
ture ; fo by his Soul he was allied to Heaven,
and was blefs'd (in the degree a Creature of his
order can be blefs'd) with all the communica
ble Attributes of the Deity ; becoming, as it
were, the middle Creature in the fcale of Be
ings. The Original Likenefs or Refemblance
then, which Adam bore to God, was in the
enjoying fuch Excellencies in an inferior de
gree, as in God are abfolute and perfect— Wif-
dom, Goodnefs, Power, and Immortality.
The Body ofthe firft Man, fays Dr.Burnet^,
was perfect, not only in its integrant parts,
but in the moft vigorous conftitution and natu
ral firmnefs, the moft regular crafis and difpo
fition of the Blood, the moft equal motion of
the animal Spirits; and all this, in the moft
i Theodotion's Verfion of this paflage is — Faciamus
hominem in imagine noftra, quaji in fmilitudine noftra.
Orig. Hexapl. Edit. Montfaucon.
k Boyle's Led. Serm. Vol. 3. p. 423. finifh'd

Dissertation I. .33
finifh'd proportion, capable of living for ever
in its original Perfection. This then, with all
its Faculties and Powers., Appetites and Senfes
exactly fulted to their feveral Objects was the
Natural Perfection of the Body. And this Body
was aHb perfectly fubject to the Soul ; fo as not
to be naturally carried towards any thing that
Reafon difallow'd, nor in any other manner or
meafure than a6 Reafon approv'd ; and this was
its Mortal ,PerfeUion.
Butae all derivative Perfection is finite, it muft
be attended with fomexlegree of Imperfection •
and what is in fome degcee imperfect, muft be
capable jofmifcarrying. The State, as well as
Glory, of Human Nature was confequently
^me-Agency ; and, from the nature of Free-
Agency, Man feeing capable of choosing Good,
he muft be alfo capable of choofing Evil. 'Tis
this Power, and a wife enjoyment of it, that
conftitutes Virtue ; and as the Happinefs of
Man, however greaifi, was only to correfpond
with his Molinefs (fcetsween which there is an
infeparable connexion) fo his Holinefs or Obe
dience could not be made appear, but by fome
thing enjoin'd him, to which he might be dif-
Tobedient. It is alfo evident, that none can be
independent ibut'God ; Man therefore, being
neceflarily a dependent Creature, muft natu
rally expect fome mark of his Dependency.
This then God gave him, but in a Reftriction
E the

34 Dissertation I.
the moft mild and gracious ; and as the fame
thing was to be the Teft alfo of his Obedience,
it was couch'd in the cleareft and moft felf- evi
dent Terms. And here we may obferve, that
no Moral Precept could have been at all proper
on this occasion, as there was then fcarce a
poflibility of his tranfgrefling any fuch ; it
muft have been therefore fome indifferent
action, neither good nor evil in it felf, but fo
far only as it was commanded or forbidden *.
What then fo natural, what fo agreeable to the
ftate of our firft Parents, considering they were
to live all their Lives in a Garden, as the for
bidding them to eat of the fruit of a certain
Tree in that Garden ; a Tree, near at hand,
and therefore giving them a conftant opportu
nity of shewing Obedience to the divine Autho
rity, by their abftaining from it ra > This, the
Hiftorian tells us, was really the cafe ; and the
Tree, which God felected for this purpofe, was
remarkably situated in the very middle ofthe
Garden, the better to guard againft miftake.
This Tree, when chofen, God called— the Tree
of the knowledge of Good and Evil; not that its
fruit would make the eaters of it more know
ing, or that this appellation of it was intended
to imply any change, which, by their eating the
1 See Mr.Mede, Book I. Difcourfe 41. pageizz.
m See Univerfal Hiftory, Book I. Chap. 1. p. isr.
Edit. 8vo. •
fruit

Dissertation I. 35
fruit of it, would be made in their intellectual
faculties n. But the Original Words niHn YV
jm aiD may be tranflated — The Tree, which
is the Teft of Good and Evil — the Tree, by
which God would try them, and by which it
fhould appear, whether they would be good or
evil — whether or no they would own the So
vereignty of their Maker, and obey or difobey
his Commands. For in the verfes, which im
mediately follow the account of Man's forma
tion, we read — Gen. II. 8 . And the Lord God
planted a Garden eaftward in Eden ; and there he
put the Man, whom he had formed. After which
the hiftory proceeds to the firft mention of
what is call'd the Tree of Life ; and therefore
I fhall here lay before the learned Reader the
Text it felf. Verfe the 9.— D'nStf mrv nm^
bind? aioi ntnzh nam \v Sa nonari \a
: m am nmn ?jn pn Tina D"nn pn
Which words may be render'd thus— Ei germi-
nare fecit Jehova Deus e~ terra omnem arbor em de-
fiderabilem ad afpeblum, (£ bonam ad cibum G?
arhorem vita °; & in medio horti (or— in medio
horti etiam) arbor em cognofcendi bonum & malum.
In Englifh thus — And out of the ground made
theLordGodto grow every Tree that was defireable
n See Dr. Rutherforth's Effay on Virtue, p. 273.
o That thefe two Expreflions are fynonimous, or that
the latter is only exegetical of the former will appear
hereafter.
E 2 to

36 Dissertation I.
to the Sight, and that was good for Food and a Trees
of Life ; and in the middle ofthe garden the Tree
of the- knowledge of good and evil. Leaving the
vindication of this Construction to its proper
place p, I fhall proceed' regularly with the Hi
ftory. Accordingly, in Verfe the rtfth. we
read — And the Lord God commanded the Man,
faying, Of every Tree of the Garden thou may eft
freely eat. 1 7. But of the Tree ofthe knowledge-
of good and evil, thoujhalt not eat of that ; for in
the day thou eateft thereof, thoujhalt furely die.
Here then was the Teft of the Obedience of
our Firft Parents, and this the Covenant God
was pleas'd to eftabhfh with them in their ftate
of Innocence ,• the Condition was only one,
and on this hung their Happinefs and Immor
tality. For we may' reafonably maintain, fays the
learned and pious Dr.Stanhope % that not only
actual Death, or a neceffity of dying, but even
Mortality it felf, and the very capacity of dying,
was properly a Penalty, and introduced by oar
firft Parents Fall. Had they not fallen, it had
not been fo much as poflible for them to have
died. And with regard to this conditional Im*
poflibility, Man may be truly faid, in refpeet
of Body as well as Soul, to have been made
p See the Anfwer to the Laft Objection, at the con-
clufion of this Diflerration.
q Boyle's Left. Serm. Vol, 1. p. 696, after

Dissertation I. ?7
after the likenefs of the Immortal God. But
now, becaufe his Body was compounded of
Materials capable in themfelves of, tho' not ori
ginally liable to, Corruption ; and becaufe his
Soul was endued with a principle of Freedom,
which by making a good or bad choice might
determine him to the confequences ordain'd by
God for either ,• in this fenfe, and abfolutely
fpeaking, it was poffible for him to die, becaufe
it was poffible for him to fin : fo that Man ori
ginally might not, and, fuppofing him not to
have offended, never could have died. Thus
flood the Immortality of Adam, and his Inno
cence was the Tenure by which he held his
Happinefs. This was fuch a Scene as might naturally be
fuppos'd to move the envy and attention of
Satan, that Prince of the degraded Beings, the
Evil Angels. For thefe, being alfo created
Free- Agents of an higher order and capacity,
had, for fome act of Rebellion againft the
Higheft, been eaft down from their native Ha
bitations of Light and Joy r. Man therefore
being now created, and being with his Progeny
r See a Pet. II. 4. JudeVL The Cofmogony at the be
ginning of the Univerfal Hiftory, p. 10?. 8vo. Ifaiah
XIV. 12.— -How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, Son
ofthe Morning ! 13. For thou haft faid in thine heart I will
afcend into Heaven, I will exalt my Throne above the Stars of
God. 14. I will afcend above the Clouds, I will be like the
moft High. 1 j. Tet thou Jhalt be brought down to Hell. (if

38 Dissertation I.
( if found worthy) defign'd, perhaps, to fill up
the feveral Orders in the Celeftial Kingdom,
Vacated by thefe Apoftate Spirits ; what wonder
if thefe Spirits fhould contrive the Fall alfo of
thefe terreftrial Beings, in order to involve
them in equal blacknefs with themfelves, and
fo fruftrate the gracious purpofes of this New
Creation ?
But whatever other designs God might have
in creating Man, we may fafely conclude him
created for his own Happinefs, and his Maker's
Glory ; and thefe purpofes were too great and
important not to raife the fury of the Evil An
gels, and induce them to contrive his Ruin s.
Not that any Apoftate Spirit could act by com
mand or irrefiftible impulfe ; and confequehtly
be an independent fupream Principle of Evil.
No : the power of fuch was limited, and Temp
tation was all that was allow'd, or could pro
perly belong to it. And to have permitted the
temptation of our firft Parents, can be no im
peachment of the divine Goodnefs ; becaufe,
without a Trial, there had been no Virtue,-
nor could there, without an Attack, have been
a poflibility of Victory. 'Tis true, God per
mitted them to be tempted by the Devil, but
they had ftrength enough to withftand the force
of his Words ; efpecially as God did not per
mit him to tempt them under an Angelic Ap-
s TJniverfal Hiftory, Book I. Ch.I. p. 125. Edit. 8vo.
pearance,

Dissertation I. gg
pearance, that fo the Quality of the Speaker
might not recommend his Rhetoric '.
And now, what could have been done more to
this Vineyard of the Lord, that the Lord had not
done in it > —For this Vine, which his own right
handfo eminently planted, and tbe Branch that
he made foftrong for himfelf i But, when he look'd
(when he might reafonably expect) that it
Jhould bring forth Grapes, it brought forth Wild-
Grapes. What wonder then, if God look down
from Heaven, and behold, and vifit this Vine >
What wonder, if it be burnt with fire, and cut
down, andperijh at the rebuke of his countenance**
But, to drop from the loftinefs of prophetic
Language, let us take a literal view of this im
portant Tranfaction. —The Chief of the fallen
Spirits w (as we may infer from Scripture, and
the reafon of the thing ) having felected the
Serpent, as being the moft fubtle among the
Beafts of the Field x, and evidently therefore
t See Scripture vindicated ; p. 16.
u Pfalm LXXX. and Ifaiah V.
w In St. John VIII. 44. the Devil is faid by our Saviour
to have been a Murderer from the beginning; which is
plainly an allufion to this feduction of our firft Parents,
and the Mortality thereby introduced. In Rev. XII. 9.
the Devil is call'd the Old Serpent. And the Author of the
Book of Wifdom, who was well acquainted with the do
ctrines of the Jewifli Church, tells us —By the envy ofthe
Devil came Death into the World ; Wifd. II. 24.
x Gen. III. 1 . The Serpent was more fubtle than any Beafl
of the field. And our Saviour exhorts his Difciples to be
wife as Serpents ; but to be barmlefs as Doves. Matt. X. it>.
the

4Q Dissertation I.
the moft proper for his purpofe, makes that the
Inftrument thro' which he might form his at-!
tempt on the Virtue of our firft Parents v ; and
as their happy Immortality depended on the'
not eating of the Tree in the middle of the
Garden, there was of neceffity to be his Plot.
Having therefore got a proper opportunity, |
the Serpent began to queftion the Woman
about the nature of the divine Prohibition.
More words, perhaps, had previoufly pafs'd ;
which, not being material to the Hiftorians
brief defign, are omitted, and we are led di
rectly to the point. Chap. III. i. And the Ser
pent faid unto the Woman, Indeed I hath God faid,
Te Jhall not eat of every Tree in the garden .*
2. And the Woman faid unto the Serpent, We
may eat of the fruit of the Trees of the Garden.\
3. But ofthe Fruit of the Tree, which is in the
midft ofthe Garden, God hath faid, Tejhall not
eat of that, neither Jhall ye touch it, left ye die.
Here then was a fair acknowledgment of the
divine Prohibition ; and therefore theTempter|
had nothing left to do, but to endeavour to
y Milton IX. 91.  For in the wily Snake
Whatever Sleights none would fufpicious mark,
As from his Wit and native Subtilty
Proceeding- which, in other Beafts obferv'd,.^
Doubt might beget of Diabolic pow'r
Active within beyond the fenfe of Brute.
And in 2 Cor. XI. 3. we read — that the Serpent beguiled
Eve thro' his Subtilty.
perfuade

Dissertation I. 41
perfuade her of her having: been mifinform'd ;
and that fhe mould not die, whatever fhe might
have been threaten'd with to keep her in awe
and fubjection. Wherefore he immediately re
plies — 4. Tejhall not furely die : And, to give
weight to his affertion, he cunningly alludes to
the Expreffion of jm aiB njHn \V , made
ufe of by God in a very different fenfe ; and,
quite in Character z , perverts it to his own
purpofe in the following manner, y. So far
from dying, fays he, that God knoweth {he hath
told you himfelf in the very name of the Tree )
that in the day ye eat thereof, then your Eyes
Jhall be open'd; and ye Jhall be equal to God
jm aitO 'JH* knowing good and evil.
Thus artfully was the Bait prepar'd ; and we
find that it went down, after fome little deli
beration. The Woman probably was taken
with the beautiful appearance of the Serpent;
was agreeably furpriz'd to hear him fpeak arti
culately ; and was prejudiced ftrongly in his fa
vour, becaufe he had fo feeming a Concern for
her better welfare. 'Tis alfo probable, that
the Serpent eat of the fruit of this Tree firft
himfelf, and made that eating of his an argu
ment againft the Mortality they had been taught
to expect from eating it — I have eaten (he
2 John VIII. 44. — The Devil was a Murderer from the
beginning, and abode not in the Truth, becaufe there is no
Truth in him ; for he is a Liar, and the Father of it.
3F might

42 Dissertation I.
might fay) and you ftill fee me eat, but I die
not ; nay my capacity is enlarg'd : I fpeak! I
reafon ! How greatly then fhall Te be exalted !
Te fhall be like God, knowing all the principles
of <*ood and evil ; and fo be on an equality
with that Deity, who would invidioufly kee|J
you dependent on himfelf, and prevent your
greater Happinefs a.
From the Serpent's eating the fruit of this
Tree then the Woman takes encouragement^
and therefore Mofes lays down this as the firft
principle on which fhe reafons. The fecond is,
that it waspleafant to the eye ; and the laft, that
"it was ( as fhe was now inform'd ) a Tree defin
able to make her wife. 'Twas this, the laft in
ducement, that ftruck her deepeft •— to be on
a level with God — to know good and evil
_ were powerful incitements ; but had fhe gi*
ven due weight to the confideration of her
Creator's Prohibition (as doubtlefs it muft have
occurr'd frequently to her mind) fhe had been
effectually fecur'd. But, however fatal the con
fequence, equal to God fhe would be ,• and fo
a That the Serpent did eat of this fruit is probable be
caufe we read, that the Woman faw the Tree was goodfw
Food. Now as the word faw muft be underftood here as
an adt of the Mind, and is frequently fo us'd, it had been
better render'd conjider'd. But the Woman could not con-
fider, or form any inference, that this Tree was good for
Food, unlefs flie had feen it tafted by fome one ; and this,
in the prefent cafe^ could be no other than the Serpent.-
prefently

Dissertation I. a*
prefently eat, to put herfelf in polfefllon of ft.
perior greatnefs : tho' fhe had no farther assu
rance of obtaining it, than the word of a
Creature very inferior to herfelf, and that in
exprefs contradiction to the command of her
Creator b.
^ Hurried and heated by the rafh action, and
fo full of expectation as to leave no room for
reflection, fhe feeks her Husband; to make
him partaker of her New Food, that fo they
might fhare the imaginary Happinefs. The
Arguments, by which fhe had been captivated
were, no doubt, laid forth in all their forcible
engagements; but we have reafon to think,
that Adam, more cautious and cool, was better
fortify'd by the Command of his Creator. Yet,
however guarded he was, or whatever expoftu-
ktions he may be fuppos'd to have made with
his fallen Wife ; we are inform'd, that he alfo
eat with her, or asjhe had done before him ( for
the words will fignify either ) and by this fatal
conjunction in the Sin, became a neceflary com
panion in the Punifhment.
b Milton IX. 896.
O faireft of Creation, laft and beft
Of all God's Works ; Creature, in whom excell'd
Whatever can to Sight or Thought be found
Holy, Divine, Good, Amiable or Sweet !
How art thou loft ! how on a fudden loft !
Defac'd, deflowr'd ; and now to Death devote !
F a We

44 Dissertation I.
We might be induced to believe, that the
arguments of his Wife, with which fhe had been
furniih'd by the Serpent, had fome influence on
his compliance; and that the fubtle Tempter
chofe to attack him thus at fecond hand, by
making the Wife the feducer of the Husband;
as every word from one he fo dearly lov'd would
come with double force, and a much ftronger
probability of perfuafion. But there is a re»
markable assertion of St. Paul's, in his firft
Epiftle to Timothy c ; where, among the rea-
fons for the Superiority ofthe Man over the
Woman, he gives this —Eve, being deceiv'd,
was in the Tranfgrejfion ; but Adam was not de-
ceiv'd. Now, if Adam was not deceiv'd, he
muft have eaten with a full conviction of the
confequence, and out of love and affection for
his miferable Wife d. But it feems moft ratio
nal to fuppofe the Apoftle here to mean — that
Eve was firft deceiv'd, and that immediately by
the Serpent ; but that Adam eat, without fee
ing the Serpent, after the deception was fi-
nifh'd; and therefore that he was partly in
duced by the arguments, and partly by the foli-
citations of Her, with whom, as he had fha-
c i Tim, II. 14.
d Milton IX. 997,  ¦ — ^-He fcrupled not to eat
Againft his better Knowledge ; not deceiv'd,
But fondly overcome with female Charm,
jl(fy Who might have liv'd, and joy'd immortal Blifs,
Y§t wjUingly chofe rather Death with Thee. ref]

Dissertation I. 4*
red in Happinefs, he refolv'd alfo to fhare in
Mifery e. <
Thus fell the firft happy Pair, forfeiting at
once their title to Happinefs and Immortality ;
for the terms of the Covenant, as before ob-
ferv'd, were — that they fhould continue Im
mortal as long, and only as long as they con
tinued Obedient. How long indeed the golden
age of Innocence did continue, is not certain ;
nor, perhaps, relative to the cafe in hand. But
that they did not immediately tranfgrefs the
divine command, and efpecially on the day of
their creation (as has been fometimes imagin'd)
feems clear from this — that (besides the fhort-
nefs of one day for the fever al aUions done by
Adam before his FaU) God himfelf, after the
sixth day was paft, declared every thing to be
very good; which he could not have done, if
Sin, that greateft Evil, had then enter'd into
the world f.
But leaving the Time of their Uprightnefs,
which is impoflible to be determin'd, we are
aflur'd of this — that they fell ; and the firft
thing we read concerning them as fallen is an
e James I. 13, 14, If. Let no man fay, when he is tempt
ed, I am tempted 6f Qbd ; for God cannot be tempted with
Evil, neither tempteth he any man ; but every man is tempted,
when he is drawn away of his own Lufl, and enticed. Then
when Luft hath conceived, it bringeth forth Sin ; and Sin,
when it is finijhed, bringeth forth Death.
• f LJniverfal Hiftory, Book I, Ch. I. p. 121. Edit. 8vo.
obfervation

46 Dissertation I.
obfervation ofthe Hiftorian — that the Eyes of
them both were open'd 8. The Serpent, as we
have feen, had before told them, that their
Eyes fhould be open'd, and that they fhould be
equal to God ; and therefore the firft thing *
Mofes fays of them is— The Eyes of them both
(indeed) were open'd, but h they knew that they
were naked. And as this was. the only Know
ledge they acquir'd ; fo, in compliance with this
recent fenfe of Shame, they platted afewLeaves
of the Fig-Tree together, and made themjelvesi
Coverings. o
To account rationally for this fenfe of Bodily*
Shame, which we are exprefsly told they were
affected with now, and not before the Fall ¦ it
may ( perhaps) be properly obfervd — that this
Tranfgreflion of theirs was an undue Eledtion;
and that by this undue Election the Afcendant
or Over-Balance was gain'd by the natural Ap
petites and Affections, which had been now in-
dulg'd, above the powers of Reafon, which
had been arbitrarily controU'd, and brought in
to Subjection by a lawlefs Ufurpation. So that
we fee how the inward Rectitude of Man was
loft, as well as what is meant by Original Cor
ruption -} and may confeqiiently account, why
Adam fhould become fenfible of Shame, and
g Gen. III. 7.
h -The frequent necefllty of thus rendering the Parti
cle 1 appears from Noldius ; See his Partialis Hebrses
Part. 1 Signif. J9. be

Dissertation I. 4-7
be agitated with irregular Paffions, as foon as
his governing Power was dethron'd, and he had
loft that original influence, which before kept
all the faculties of the Body and appetites of
Nature in perfect order.
The next thing, and what we might natural
ly expect to follow, is the appearance of Jehova,
whofe Voice they heard, as it came ' louder and
louder thro' the garden, in the evening of the Day.
Upon the firft found of this awful voice ( for
'tis probable God call'd to them more than
once k ) the Criminals, not knowing readily
what to offer on their own behalf, hid them-
felves from the prefence of the Lord among the
Trees ofthe Garden. But tho' God, whofe
i That the word "] SnnD may be applied to the Voice
of God, is plain from its being ufed in Exod. XIX. 19. in
conjunction with the fame word Tip ; and that it muft be
fo applied here, appears from Gen. III. 10.
k This feems evident from Adam's own words, Chap.
III. 10. — I heard thy Voice in the garden, and I was afraid
— and hid my felf. The cafe then feems to be this — In
the evening of the day God calls upon Adam to appear be
fore him, and the Voice of God is faid (in the majefty of
the Hebrew phrafe ) to walk towards him in the garden ;
and perhaps C3Vn TT1TJ may be render'd— in the Wind
ofthe day, that is, the Voice of God came to him waving
in the wind or breeze of the day. But Adam, inftead of
anfwering, endeavours to conceal himfelf. Upon this,
God fummonshim again ; and now, left he fhould aggra
vate his guilt by a longer filence, he anfwers— that, upon
hearing God's voice at firft, he was ftruck with confufion ;
and had therefore endeavour'd to retire from him. Eye*

48 Dissertation I.
Eyes ( in the Prophet's Stile ' ) run to and fro
thro' the whole Earth, faw well the Subterfuge,
which Adam had weakly chofen, and the caufe
alfo of his flying thus unufually m from his prer
fence ; yet, to increafe his confufion, he calls
unto him—Where art thou > In anfwer to which
dreadful Summons the trembling Sinner reply'd
— . / heard thy Voice in the Garden, and I was
afraid, becaufe I was naked; and I hid my felf.
Here it may be obfervd, that Le Clerc, and
thofe who with him would have the word Naked
here to fignify— that he had finned, do not feem
to write confiftently with the Text. For how
ftrange would it appear, if, when Adam had
faid —I heard thy Voice in the Garden, and I hid
my felf, becaufe I have finned, that God fhould
anfwer — Who told thee that thou waft Naked*
Haft thou eaten &c. that is, ( if thefe Inter
preters are confiftent with themfelves ) after
Adam had confefs'd his having finned, God is
fuppos'd to fay — Who told thee that thou haft
finned* Haft thou finned ?— This certainly is in-
confiftent enough ; for God knew that Adam
could not want an information that he had
finned, efpecially when his fearful conduct fo
loudly proclaim'd it, and even Adam himfelf
had that moment confefs'd it.
1 Zech. IV. 10.
m Milton IX. 1080.  How fhall I henceforth behold
The Face of God or Angel, erft with Joy
And Rapture oft beheld ? < ¦ But

Dissertation I. 40
But the fenfe feems to be this— Adam, while
innocent, was naked and not afhamed • when
guilty, he became fenfible of Shame ,• which
was owing ( as before obferv'd ) to the Afcen-
dant which his Paffions gain'd over his Reafon,
at the time of his tranfgreflion. For then, as
thefe Paffions were become fuperior in him,
he began to feel the effects of their inftigation,
and fo from a fenfe of Shame cover'd his Waist
with Fig-Leaves. This fenfe of Nakednefs
then was the effebl of his Sin ; and therefore it
is no wonder he fled from the Lord among the
Trees of the Garden, to conceal (if poffible)
the FigrLeaveshe had twifted round him.
Let us now reconfider the Text. And the
Lord God faid— Where art thou ? Andhefaid—I
heard thy Voice in the Garden, and I was afraid
becaufe 1 was Naked; and I hid my felf He
feems here to bear off from the confejfion ofthe
Caufe, by acknowledging only the EffeU ; and
owns fo far, that he hid himfelf becaufe he
had found himfelf to be Naked. But God,
who knew that this difcovery, or fenfe of his
Nakednefs, could only arife from hisTranfgre£
fion, interrogates him again thus — Who told
thee that thou waft Naked* No one could fhew
thee this— this muft be thy own difcovery, and
isaftrongprefumption of thy lofs of Innocence.
— Haft thou then eaten of the Tree, whereof I
commanded thee that thou JJjouldeJt not eat * Or,
G as

50 Dissertation I.
as it is more fpirited in the Original n, What!
Ofthe Tree, which I commanded thee not to eat,
of THA T haft thou eaten * The Man, con
founded with the thunder of this enquiry, and
expecting inftant Death, if he could not offer
fomething in his ownExcufe, throws the blame
upon his Wife ; which, however, he did not
intend fhould reft there, but recoil back upon
his Creator. / have eaten, fays he, but tbe
Woman gave me ofthe Tree ; even the Woman,
whom Thou gaveft to be with me, or to be my
conftant Companion. Upon this God ad-
drefs'd himfelf to the Woman, faying, What ii
this that Thou haft done ? The Woman, who
had now ftill more to fear from the unexpected!
impeachment of her Husband, pafles her guiltl
off upon the Serpent ; the Serpent, fays fhe,
beguiled me, and I did eat.
The Criminals having thus confefs'd their
Tranfgreffion, with the only poor Plea which
each of them had to offer,- God proceeds to
pronounce their fevefal Sentences. That the
Tempter, the grand Criminal, was prefent is
very reafonable to fuppofe j whether we confi-
der his ftay as voluntary, to enjoy the fruits of
his Victory and Triumph, and overhear the
doom of the fallen Pair ; or whether we con*
fider it as involuntary, and that he was detain'd
n Gen. Ill, 11. SaS TV?!}1? -|TVW 1WK yVT\ fan
rnSaKWoa
•-... or

Dissertation I. «r i
or recall'd by almighty and omniprefent A-
gency. Yet tho' the Tempter was prefent
God does not interrogate him, but begins with
the denunciation of his punifhment. The Ser
pent indeed had been only the Inftrument
made ufe of; but as the Tempter had been a
Serpent in appearance, God, in his curfe upon
this Tempter, ufes fuch expreflions as fuited
entirely with the nature of the Serpent ; yet at
the fame time the Curfe was fuch as affected
the evil Spirit conceal'd under that appearance.
And this it feems reafonable to fuppofe our firft
Parents might have fome notion of, on the fol
lowing account — They had very fadly expe
rienced the ajfurances of this Creature to be
falfe, and inftead of a Friend they had met with
a moft deceitful Enemy ; wherefore they muft
fuppofe, from the power of his ajfault, that he
was fomething more than a Brute, and, from
the malice of his deception, that he was of an
evil Nature : and farther, perhaps, they could
not then reafon.
But even this is not certain. We know that
there was a neceflity for God's making Revela
tions to Adam in Paradife, and that a frequent
intercourfe between the Creator and Creature
muft have fubfifted before the Fall °. This then
o SeeDr. Burnet's Demonftration, Boyle's Led. Serm.
Vol. 3. p. 454. Mr. Stackhoufe, in the Apparatus to his
Hiftory, page 8. Bp Sherlock on Prophecy, Difccurfe
the Hid, p. 53. .
G a being

52 Dissertation!.
being granted, we may reafonably fuppofqi
that God had made known to the firft Pair fo
important a tranfaction as the Apoftacy andPu.
nijhment ofthe Rebel Angels. Efpecially as this
might be a very ufeful information, and be fet
forth before them for an Example, left they
alfo fhould fall under the fame condemnation ;
and they might thereupon reafon — If God
fpared not the Angels of Heaven, how much left
will he jpare ns the low inhabitants of Earth ? It
appearing then that fuch an information might
have been ufeful, we may prefume it was actu
ally made ; fince God certainly neglected no
information that might conduce to the Benefit
of his Creatures. On this fuppofition then all
the Inconfiftency, imputed by fome to this Sen
tence on the Serpent, will be taken away ; and
we fhall fee it fhine forth in the ftricteft con
formity with reafon. It is cloathed in the form
of a Parable or Similitude, in the manner ofthe
Eaftern ftile ; and as the necejfity ofthe prefent
cafe requir'd. The nature of a Parable or Si
militude is — to mean more than is expreft ;
and no juft Critic will condemn fuch a Parable
or Similitude, if it fhould not hold in minute
circumftances, fo long as the important parts
of it correfpond and mutually reflect Light
upon each other.
Being thus far prepar'd, we come now to the
Judgment of the Offenders, which is ( if any
thing

,DlS,S,E,RTATION I. 53
thing can be fuppos'd to be) folemn and auguft.
We fee aflembled together God, in his Shechi-
nah, as the Judge ; the Devil, veil'd under a
Serpent, as the Deceiver ; and the firft human
Pair, who thro' his deceit were become Tranf-
greflfars. The Serpent (in appearance) having
been the firft in mifchief, is doom'd firft, and
in the following words — Becaufe thou haft done
this, be thou cur fed above aU Cattle, and above
every Beaft of the Field ; upon thy Belly Jhalt
thou go p, and Duftjhalt thou eat all the Days of
thy Life : And I will put Enmity between Thee
and the Woman, and between Thy Seed and Her
Seed q ; this Jhall bruife thy Head, and thoujhalt
hruife his Heel.
Now if we consider this as a Sentence on the
Serpent only, it will appear trifling and ridicu
lous '; if as a Sentence on the Devil only,
there are fome circumftances fcarce applicable
to that signification. And if we fay it was a
Sentence upon both ( as it is very frequent in
Scripture-Prophecy to vail a more important
meaning under a lefs important meaning) then
we fhall be ask'd, how Adam could be fenfible
of that, when he knew nothing of the nature
of the Evil Angels ; and if he was not fenfible
p See Mr. Mede, Difcourfe the 41ft. p. 131.
q Galat. III. 16. — He faith not unto Seeds, as of many;
but as of one, and to thy Seed, which is Chrift.
1 See Bp Sherlock on Prophecy, Difcourfe 3d. p. 6z.
of

54 Dissertation I.
of that, the chief meaning in it could be of no
ufe or confolation to him. In fhort, it feems
only explainable, (and very rationally explaina
ble then) on the Supposition before laid down
— that Adam had, by way of caution and to
ferve other great purpofes, particularly the
prefent, been pre-acquainted with the nature
of the Fallen Angels ; and j aflifted by fuch an
information, he muft have easily apprehended
the full meaning of this Sentence.
In a Literal Senfe, he heard the Curfe pro
nounced in the cleareft terms upon the Serpent,
which had been the Inftrument in this decep
tion. And that this Creature was here a pro
per Object of punifhment appears from this
— that, fince all the Brute Creatures are and
were created for the Benefit of Man, the Benefit
of Man was intended by this punifhment on
the Serpent s ; as it was in all Ages to continue
a living vifible Evidence of God's difpleafure
againft Sin, and of the certainty of the Fall,
from the otherwife unaccountable Enmity fub-
fifting thro* the World between Man and the
Serpent '.
s See Mr. Mede, Difcourfe the 41ft. p. 130.
t Thcwifeft Naturalifts among the Heathens ( proper
Witnefles in the prefent cafe) have agreed that there is a
mortal Enmity between the Human and the Serpentine
fpecies. See, among others, Pliny, in his Natural Hi-'
ftory, YJLi; and Lucretius, IV. 641. In

Dissertation I. te
In a Parabolical Senfe the Curfe has been
fulfill'd with equal exactnefs, fo far as the juft-
nefs of a compleat Parable requires it : and in
this view we are now to confider it, as a Sen
tence alfo on the Devil a. The nature of this
evil Spirit we have fuppos'd Adam pre-acquaint-
ed with ; and therefore he muft infer, after
the event, that this was the Being which fe-
duced him, and confequently the Being to be
now fentenced before him. — The Devil then,
with his Adherents, was here curfed by God,
and became a greater object ofthe divine dif
pleafure and of human hatred, than all the
other Orders of Beings —he was probably con
demned to greater prefent anguifh, and more
dreadful expectations hereafter — he was al
ready become the profefs'd Enemy of the Wo
man and her Pofterity ; and therefore one, to
bebornof the Woman, was to enter the lifts
againft him, and with irreconcileable oppofi-
tion purfue him and all his black Aflbciates
—the effect of which grand conteft was to be,
the Devil's bruifing the Heel, or purfuing to
Death him that was to be born emphatically his
Enemy ; but that this Seed of the Woman was
to bruife his Head, break the power, and lay
wafte the kingdom of darknefs— and as the De
ceiver was only to touch the material and in
ferior part of his Adverfary, the Redeemer was
u See Mr. Mede, Difcourfe the 41ft, p. 22,9, to

56 Dissertation I.
to crufh the potency of his fpiritual Foe, and
bind him in everlafting Chains w.
To this Explanation I beg to add a paflage
from Dr. Burnet x. — Bruifing the Serpent's
Head, fays he, implies the defeating his con
trivances againft Mankind. For firft; as he
thought, by feducing the firft Pair, to have
brought on their Death, and fo have made an
end of the whole Species at once; God prd-
mifes that the Woman fhould live to have Seed.1
Secondly ; as he feduced the Woman under
the fpecious pretence of Friendfhip, while he
intended her Ruin; a War is declared againft
the Devil and his Party, which fhould end in
the ruin of them and their devices. And third
ly ; as the Devil thought by drawing them into
Sin and under the wrath of God, to bring them
under a certainty of Death, and deprive them
ofthe Happinefs they were made for ; God de
clares the Devil's Policy fhould be defeated by
the Seed of the Woman: in which is implied
a positive Promife— that Mankind, tho' by the
envy of the Devil become finful and therefore
mortal, fhould receive thro' the Seed of the
Woman Forgivenefs of Sins, the T^efurreUion of
the Body, and Life everlaftitig.
I have been the more minute in the Explica
tion of this firft and moft important Prophecyj
w See Bp Sherlock on Prophecy, Difcourfe 3d. p. 70.
x Boyle's Led;. Serm. Vol. Ill, p. 516. as

Dissertation I. ej
as it is the very Groundwork and Foundation-
Stbne, on which our Redemption is built. And
it has been prov'd by Bp Sherlock, in his very
excellent Book on Prophecy y, that Prophecy
muft have been an eflential part of fuch a Sin
ner's Religion. For, fays that great Author,
had our firft Parents been doom'd only to
Trouble and Mortality, without any well-
grounded .hope or confidence in God ; they
muft have look'd on themfelves as rejected by
their Maker, as deliver 'd up to forrow in this
world, and as having no hope in any other.
Upon this footing there could have been no
Religion ; for a fenfe of Religion without
Hope is a ftate of phrenzy and diftraction,
void of aU inducements to Love and Obedi
ence. They would (in the language of the
Pfalmift z) have fat down in darknefs and in the
Jhadow of Death, being faft bound in mifery and
iron ; becaufe they had rebell'd againft the word of
the Lord, and lightly regarded the counfel ofthe
moft Higheft. Then had their heart been brought
down thro' heavinefs ; becaufe, when they fell,
there was none to help them. If therefore God
intended to preferve them as Objects of his
Mercy, if he intended they fhould look upon
, him in a milder light than as an Almighty Being
\ cloathed with Terrour ; it was abfolutely ne*
y Difcourfe 3d. p. 53.
z Pfalm CVII. 10, 11, iz. H ceflary

58 Dissertation I.
ceflary he fhould communicate fo much hope
to them, as might be a rational foundation
for their future endeavours to reconcile them
felves to him by a better obedience. And this
was exactly the cafe here in this Prophecy and
Promife of a Redeemer d.
But probably one Objection may be ftill
rais'd here, which is this — Suppofing Adam,
from a pre- acquaintance with the nature ofthe
Fallen Angels, might fee the Devil fentenced
in the parabolical fenfe of this Prophecy ; how
could he possibly conceive fo clearly the oppo-
fite Character of the Redeemer, which, in the
nature of things, could not have been reveal'd
to him before ? I anfwer^ that the words of
this Prophecy will evidently fupport us in fay-
a That this Prophecy was meant of a Redeemer, and
was fulfill'd in Chrift alone, in the compleat fenfe, is
granted by all Chriftians except the Roman Catholicks.
For it may be proper to obferve here, that their Vulgate
Verfion makes it a Prophecy of the Virgin Mary, and in
oppofition to Senfe and Grammar reads it — Inimhitias
ponam inter te & Muliersm, & Semen tuum & Semen illius ;
IP S A conteret caput tuum , & tu injidiaberis calcaneo ejus.
But that the Original will not bear this, will appear to any
capable examiner ; and a concern for the honour of our
Redeemer fhould make us abhor fo blafphemous a Cor
ruption. For this Verfion is more than authoriz'd by Po-
pifli Infallibility ; and Epifcopius (Oper. Theol. z"j6.) is
favourable in his cenfure, when he fays — Concilium Tri-
dentinum perperam egifle, quando earn (Vulg. Verf.) au-
thenticam fecit, & ipfis Hebrads Graecifque fontibus pre-
ferendam efle judicavit. See alfo Grofllus, Tom. I. p. ??•
ing

Dissertation I. ro
ing — that Adam might certainly from them
infer and expect A Redeemer ; one, to be born
of the Woman, who fhould re-inftate them
in the pofleflion of Happinefs, and recover by
his victory what they had loft by being defeat
ed. And we may advance a ftep farther, and
fay— that Adam, probably foon after the divine
Sentences were pafs'd, was acquainted with the
very manner of this promis'd Redemption ; name
ly—that this Seed ofthe Woman fhould die, to
atone for the Sins of him and his pofterity ;
and by virtue of his Blood they fhould, tho"
now become mortal, rife again to everlafting
Life. For I hope to prove in the following Difler-
tation, that Sacrifice was inftituted by God juft
at this time ; and if Sacrifice, then certainly
the Nature and End of Sacrifice ; and if the
" Nature and End of Sacrifice ( which was the
Shadow of good things to come) was at that time
made known, certainly the Death of the Re
deemer was then actually promis'd. Tho' in
what Age this Sacred Power was to arife, . arid
with what peculiar circumftances his Birth and
Death were to be attended, the firft Pair might
not be inform'd ; it being more than probable
that they expected this Redeemer in the perfon
,of one of their own Sons. And had they
known this Happinefs was to have been poft-
pon'd for four thoufand Years, they would
H a probably

60 Dissertation 1.
probably (notwithftanding the encouragement
they had receiv'd) have funk into extream
defpair b.
I fhall now go on to the Sentences on our
firft Parents— And can a more interefting, a
more affecting Scene be difplay'd before us
their Children ? We fee our great Progenitors
ftand trembling to receive their doom ,- fome-
what however rais'd from the depth of fear by
that merciful vengeance, which God had ma-
nifefted in the Sentence on their Deceiver0.
And here we may conceive infinite Juftice de-
manding Satisfaction, and the Death of the
Offenders, while infinite Mercy interceded for
their Pardon ; and who but a Being equally in
finite in Wifdom could have acted here to the
Honour of all his Attributes ? — But fuch is
God ! He had already bid the human Pair, in
his Mercy, not to defpair under the prefent
evidence of bis indignation ; since one was to
be born of the Woman, who fhould bruife the
head of that Serpent, which had thus betray'd
them into Mifery. But that they might not go
b See Dr. Delaney's Revelation examin'd with can
dour ; Vol. I. p. 103.
c Bp Sherlock, on Prophecy, Difcourfe 3d. — It could
not therefore but be fome comfort to them to hear the
Serpent firft condemn'd ; and to fee, that however he
had prevail'd againft them , he had gain'd no Victory
ovet their Maker, who was able to aflert his own Ho
nour, and to punifli this great Author of Iniquity. unpunifh'd

Dissertation I. 6l
unpuniflfd for fo high a tranfgreffion, he, in
his Juftice, pronounces the following Sen
tences; which are weighty, and worthy the
mouth of him from whom they proceed.
To the Woman, firft in the tranfgreflion, he
fays—/ will greatly multiply thy Sorrow and thy
Conception, in Sorrow thoujhalt bring forth Chil
dren ; and thy Defire jhall be to thy Husband, and
he pall rule over thee. However flatly fome
may think of this Sentence, and treat it as im
material and of little confequence,- it is really
fo fevere, that (We are told by Naturalifts) the
Pains of a Woman arifing from bearing and
bringing forth Children are much greater than
thofe of any Brute Creature in the fame Cir
cumstances. This feems a Chaftifement great
indeed for one, who has a Sovereignty over
the Beads, and is of a far fuperior nature. And
the latter part ofthe Sentence has been gene
rally look'd upon, by theFemale part ofthe hu
man fpecies, as a Punifhment very grievous to
be born. The fenfe of this Sentence (which is
not a Curfe, as the Serpent's was) may, per
haps, be more properly given thus — Multiply
ing I will multiply thy Sorrow and thy Conception,
( or — the Sorrow of thy Conception d ) in Pain
Jhalt thou bring firth Children ; and to thy Huf
d An Hendyades, a figure very frequently made ufe of
in the Sacred as well as Profane Authors.

62 Dissertation I.
band Jhall be thy Obedience e, for { he Jhall rule
over thee. Or, perhaps, the latter part may
be more properly tranflated thus —In pain Jhalt
thou bring forth Children, yet s thy defire Jhall be
unto thy Husband ; and he Jhall rule over thee.
As to the conclufion of this Sentence on the
Woman, A-Bp King obfervesh, that it was
very equitable ; the Woman, fays he, had at
tempted to fhake off the Government of God,
and therefore God lays her under a double Sub
jection—to himfelf, and alfo to her Husband.
The Judgment clofes with the Sentence upon
Adam, which was as follows— Becaufe thou haft -
hearkened unto the voice of thy Wife , and haft
eaten of the Tree, of which I commanded thee,
faying, thoujhalt not eat of it ; Curfed is the
Ground for thy fake1 , in Sorrow Jhalt thou eat of
e See Le Clerc upon this place.
f See Nold. Heb. Partic. 1 Signif. 37.
g Ibid.  :  :  9 & 6?.
h See his Sermon at the end of the Origin of Evil,
Vol. II. p. 72.
i Hefiod thus defcribes the happinefs of the golden
Age, in his Efy. km Hf«ef. BiZx. «.
Xevftti [ia <ntanrit y&n {j/aqnmi) #&(emm.
Sl& &iot }' tZjuot, cmvihai ^vfiui %x»wii,
Uerpt «r!g re imm km qiXv®" }sh n JaAsi/
Tygctj iitlio, cuh it ng,y.m ix.-nSai cCT&a/Tar.

AwnfWrri, ot&m rs km ceypim 
And Virgil has given us the condition of the Earth after
the Curfe, in words that feem to be a Paraphrafe of the
Sacred Paflage before us-*> it

Dissertation I. 62
it all the days of thy Life. Thorns alfo and
Thiftles Jfjall it bring forth to thee, and thou
Jhalt eat the Herb ofthe Field. In the fweat of
thy face Jhalt thou eat Bread, 'till thou return
unto the ground, for out of it waft thou taken ; for
Duft thou art, and unto Duft Jhalt thou return
Let us now fee what is alfo obfervable in this
Sentence on our Father Adam ; the reafon of
whofe punifhment being previoufly laid down,
God proceeds to pronounce the Punifhment it
felf— Becaufe thou haft hearken'd to the Voice
of thy Wife, in direct contempt of my autho
rity, and haft eaten of the fruit of that Tree,
which I commanded thee not to eat of; Curfed
therefore fhall be the Ground for thy fake, and
the punifhment of thy tranfgreflion ; in for-
rowful reflection and with great labour fhalt
thou eat of that, all the days of thy future Life.
For it fhall bring forth Thorns and Weeds in
fuch abundance, as will ( unlefs rooted up with
Gebrg. 1. 1x7.  Ipfaque Ttllus
Omnia liberius, nullo pofcente, ferebat.
Ille malum virus Serpentibus addidit atris

Turn varia; venere artes, Labor omnia vincit
Improbus, & duris urgens in rebus Egeftas. 
Mox & frumentis labor additus, ut mala culmos
Effet rubigo, fegnifque hOrreret in arvis
Carduus ; intereunt Segetes, fubit afpera fylva,
Lappseque, Tribulique; interque nitentia culta
Infelix lolium & fteriles dominantur avena. 
 —Sic omnia Fatis
Jn pejus ruere, ac retro fublapfa referri. continual

64 Dissertation I.
continual pains) overfpread the Land, and leave
thee but little room for that which is hence
forth to be thy Suftenance. For know, that,
inftead ofthe luxuriancy of Paradife, and the
delicious Fruits of the Trees I here gave thee ;
thou fhalt now feed on the Herb of the Field*
and the produce of the Earth. The Ground,
thus become lefs fertil k, will call for fo much
culture and manuring to enable it to yield thee
Fruit • that thou fhalt not eat Bread, but in the
fweat of thy Brow. This henceforth fhall be
thy way of life, 'till thou return unto the
Ground, out of which thou waft at firft
created, For, tho' Death is not immediately
inflicted upon thee, yet thou art become mor
tal ; and as thy compofition is Duft, fo after a
period of days thou fhait return unto Duft
again. How fevere, how awful is this Sentence ;
and yet how mild, how mix'd with Mercy, in
comparifon to what Adam might reafonably,
and probably did expect from his offended
God ! Wherefore we may now fuppofe Adam,
with uplifted hands to Heaven, to have broke
k God made this Earth amiable and fweei, and the
World a Scene of Happinefs to a Creature that was to
continue in it ; but when Sin introduced Death, God in
his Goodnefs curs'd the Earth by a diminution of its
excellence, to make the World lefs defireable to a Crea
ture, who was now fo foon to leave it. Dr. Delaney?s
Revelation examin'd with candour. Vol. I. p. 77. forth

Dissertation I. 6 *
forth into strains of Gratitude like the follow
ing of the devout King David— Praifo the Lord,
0 my Soul ; and forget not all his Benefits / The
Lord is full ofCompaJJion and Mercy, long-fuffer-
ing, and of great Goodnefs 1 He hath not -dealt
with %)s after our Sins, nor rewarded 1)s accord
ing to our Wickednejfes ! For look how high the
Heaven is in comparifon ofthe Earth, fo great is
Ms Mercy ! Look how wide alfo the Eaft is from
the Weft, fo far hath he fet our Sins from 1)s !
In the multitude oftheforrows I had in my hearts
thy Comforts have refrejhedmy Soul ! Tlje Snares
of Hell overtook me ; but the Lord is become
my Salvation ! Thro' the greatnefs of thy power
JhaR thine Enemy be found a LiAr unto thee !
Who then is he among the Clouds, that Jhall be
compared unto the Lord ! The Right-Hand ofthe
Lord hath the Preeminence • the Right- Hand
Of the Lord bringeth mighty things topafsl The
Lord hath chaftened and correUed me, but he hath
not given me over unto immediate Death ! As
long then as I live, I will magnify thee on this
manner, and lift up my Hands in thy Name !
The Offenders being now fehtenced, we
might naturally expect to fee them inftantly
driven forth from Paradife. But there are two
things the Hiftorian mentions as previous to
that banifhment, which are well worthy our
confideration. The firft is — And Adam called
his Wife's name Eve, becaufe Jhe was the mother
I ./

66 Dissertation I.
of all living \ 'Tis a matter of fome furprize,
that Le Clerc fhould make this paflage a pre-
fumption ofthe Hiftorian's breaking the order
of time ; when nothing could poffibly come on
mote regularly, and ftrike us more agreeably.
than this Incident, in this place. God had
threaten'd Adam, that if he eat of the forbid
den Tree, he fhould furely die. He did eat,
and what could he expect ? Defpair, we know,
is the natural attendant upon Guilt ; and Adam
could not think to efoape Death, which is only
a Natural Evil, when he had introduced Sin,
that Moral Evil, into the World. How plea-
fing then muft be the furprize, when he found
that thro' the divine clemency he was ftill to
live for fome time ; and that his Wife was to
bring forth Children, one of which was to
break in pieces his Oppreflbr, and redeem the
World ! And confequently, what more natural
to follow, than that Adam fhould be entirely
reconcil'd to his Wife ; who, having been the
caufe of his Happinefs loft, was alfo to be the
caufe of his Happinefs regain'd ? He had be
fore call'd her Woman, as her common Name,
or a Name for her and all her Sex, becaufe fhe
was taken out of Man; and now he call'd her
Eve, becaufe he had found fhe was ftill to be
the Mother of all living. Or, as fome inter
pret it, becaufe in her Fall (and his confequent
1 Gen. III. 20. on

Dissertation I. 67
on hers) all Men being become mortal, in her
Seed all Men were to be made alive. This
Nomination of his Wife then may be look'd
upon as an Aft of Faith, exercis'd by Adam upon
the words of God juft deliver'd in the Sentence
on the Serpent. But the propriety of either
ofthe Names, given by Adam to his Wife, can
only appear to a perfon acquainted with He
brew Learning.
The other Incident previous to the Banifh-
ment of our firft Parents is — 1)nto Adam alfo,
and to his Wife did the Lord God make Coats of
Skins, and cloathed them ; or, as it may be ren-
der'd — Moreover the Lord God made for Adam
and fir his Wife Coats of Skins, and cloathed
them m. This, however unconcerning an In
formation it may appear to fome, would not
have been inferted in the middle of this folemn
Hiftory, unlefs fomething of moment were
contain'd in it. The Prophecy our firft Parents
had heard, in the fentence on the Serpent, was
doubtlefs, at the inftant of its delivery, like a
Light Jhiniftg in a Dark place -, juft fufficient to
banifh the Darknefs, and enliven the Breaft
with a gleam of Hope and Expectation. But
here the comfortable Dawn breaks forth, and
the Day-Star may be faid (with a beautiful pro
priety) to arife in their Hearts. For now, as
God knew the Prophecy abovemention'd could
m Gen. III. 21. I 2 not

68 Dissertation I.
not as yet be properly underftood, he inftituted
Animal Sacrifice, farther to illuftrate and un
fold this grand event— to be a continual vifible
Prophecy ofthe fame futureRedemption— that,
by the prefent vicarious Sacrifice, Man might
confefs the Death he himfelf had deferv'd to
fuffer — and laftly, as without Jhedding Blood
there was to be no Remiffion n, (and as, in con
fequence thereof, Adam's Repentance would
not have been fufficient without an Atonement)
that he and his Posterity might have recourfe
by Faith, for the remiffion of their Sins, to
this Inftitution ; as being typical of the Lamb of
God, virtually Jlain from the foundation of the
WorU°.
What appears indeed in this verfe, at firft
fight, is only this— that Adam and his Wife
were now cloath'd with Garments made ofthe
Skins of Beafts p ; which it would be abfurd to
n Heb. IX. 22.
o Rev. XIII. 8. See Bp Wefton's Serm. Vol.11, p. 191.
p There are fome, who will have the word TlJJ in this
place to refer to the Skin of Adam and his Wife, and the
meaning to be -r- And the Lord God made for the firft Pair
Coats, or- Coverings, of their Skin. But the Hebrew word
would probably have .been then CDI^, with the Pro
noun fuffix'd to it, Yet$ fetting afide this remark, when
we have prov'd Sacrifice to have been divinely inftituted,
and at this very time, (as will appear in the fecond Difler-
tation) I think there can remain no doubt about this paf-
fage. Efpecially as Cloppenburg (in his Sacrificiorum Pa
triarchal, Schola, p. 13,) has inform'd us that— InScrip-
fuppofe

D I S S E' R T A T I O N I. 69
fuppofe meant any thing more than that fuch
Skins were conveniently faften'd round their
Bodies q. But as they could not have ventur'd
upon this method of cloathing themfelves with
out an order or leave from God, (they having
naturally no power over the Lives of Animals r)
we are here told, that God made thefe Coats
for them ; that is, he gave them leave to kill
the Animals, and perhaps direction how to
adapt their Skins to the parts of their Bodies :
for it is certain, that God is frequently faid to
do that, which is done by his order and appro-
tura vox Heb. "lip nufyuam reperitur alia fignificatione,
quam pro externa animalium pelle ufurpata. To which he
fubjoins this Obfervation — Deinde videtur hie efle prima
origo legis illius, quae exftat Lev. VII. 8 ; qua. Sacerdos,
qui off'ert holocauftum, habebit pellem ejus ; ubi eft ea-
dem vox Tty. There is indeed one place, where the
word Tlj; feems to fignify the Skin of Man; Ex. XXII. 27.
: 33W» ~D3 "Dpi irOOW; Sin I fay feems, becaufe
All the Verfions are not agreed to give it that meaning
here ; the Samaritan referring the word to the Skin of a
Beafi , and rendring the place — Hue veftis ejus eft pro
Pelle fud m qua dormit. Yet if we underftand the word
to fignify in this place Human Skin, it is us'd here fo diffe
rently from what it is in Gen. III. 21. (having both the 7
before and the Pronoun after it) that but little Service can
arife from the Obfervation.
q Le Clerc obferves here — Ut verum fatear, hie non
Vefles, fed Tabernaculum pellibus conte&um intelligendum
fufpicor. But why care fhould be taken by God to make a
Tent or Habitation in Yaradife, when in the very next
words we read of God's turning the firft Pair out of Para
dife, feems very unaccountable.
r See Dr. Burnet, Boyle's Left. Serm. Vol. 3. p-447-
bation.

70 Dissertation I.
bation. Now the queftion is —Whence thefe
Skins, of which the Coats or Garments, here
mention'd, were made ? This has employ'd the
invention of former Interpreters, but feems
now to be almoft univerfally refolv'd into this
—that they were the Skins of Beafts offer'd up
in Sacrifice. For thefe Skins (as we cannot fup
pofe any Animals died of themfelves, fo foon
after their Creation ) were therefore moft pro
bably the Skins of Beafts flain; and if fo, thefe
Beafts were certainly flain either for Food, or
in order to make thefe Coats, or for Sacrifice.
For Food they could not be flain, becaufe the
Flefh of Animals made no part of human Sufte-
nance 'till after the Flood *. Neither is it pof
fible to fuppofe that Adam, after the Sentence
juft paft upon him for Sin, would have dared
to kill God's Creatures without his Order or
Permiflion ; which, it may be prefum'd, God
would not have given only for fuch a Ufe,
when there were yet fo few Creatures in the
world. Wherefore as they muft be flain for
Sacrifice, Sacrifice was then certainly inftitu
ted c. Thefe then feem to be eafy confe-
s This is clearly inferr'd from the Grant of Animal
Flefh to Noah in thefe words (Gen. IX. 3.) Every Moving
Thing, that liveth, ftoallbe Meat for Tou ; even as the green
Herb (which was your former food ) have I (now) given
you all things.
t Thefe Animals being Holocaufts, their Skins only
could fall to the fliare of Man ; and by giving thefe for
quences,

Dissertation I. 71
quences, and the Sacred Writer might think
them fufficient for the prefent, in this place •
where he is haftning on, with the Banifhment
of our firft Parents from Paradife full before
him. The account, which Mofes gives us of this
expulsion from Paradife, is ufher'd in, in a very
folemn manner u — And the Lord God faid, Be
hold ! the Man is become as One ofTJs ; or, as
the words may, perhaps, be better render'd
Behold ! the Man ( n*n ) hath been, or behaved,
as if he were equal to One of 'Us w, as to* the Teft
of Good and Evil. Thefe words, as Bp Patrick
obferves, plainly infinuate a Plurality of Per
fons in the Godhead j all other Explications
Coats to our firft Parents, God feems peculiarly to have
intended to remind them conftantly of their Sin— their de-
fert of Punifhment by Death— and the divine Goodnefs in
the fubftituted Satisfaction ; fo that Adam might have
faid, in the words of St. Paul (Gal. VI. 17.) — Henceforth
let no man trouble me, for I bear on my Body the marks of my
Redeemer. a Gen. III. 22.
w As if he were equal to one of us — that is, fays Dr.
Rutherforth, He hath difown'd our Authority, fet him
felf up for a proper Judge of Good and Evil, and put him
felf on a level with One of Us ; by throwing off our Go
vernment , and refufing fubmiflion to our Command.
That the particle 3 is us'd for equality in ftate and dignity
appears from Ruth II. 13. Eflay on Virtue, p. 229.
x That the particle S, here prefix'd to JTjn, fignifies
quod attinet ad is prov'd from that ufe of it in 1 Sam. IX.
20 ; and Pfalm XVII. 4. See more inftances in Nol-
dius, Partic. *? Signif. 30. feeming

72 Dissertation I.
feeming forced and unnatural: and this fa
mous Text, compar'd with that other in Gen.
I. 16 &c. (explain'd in page 28. ) will readily
aflift and throw light upon each other. It has
been frequently indeed afferted, that the words
Behold ! the Man is become as One of Us, to
know Good and Evil — are fpoken by way of
Irony or Sarcafm. But this is very ftrange, tho'
the reafon of fuch a refuge is evident ; namely,
the difficulty of rationally explaining the words
(as they ftand there) in a literal and plain
fenfe. But this difficulty, I prefume, is en
tirely removd by the different verfion before
given, and the fenfe of the words as here ex
plain'd. I fhall only, previous to this explana
tion, obferve — that God was at this time de-,u
termining the fate of a World ; that he had
juft before made his fallen Creatures the pro-
mife of a Redeemer, as an evidence of his
Mercy ; and was now about to drive them out
of Paradife, as an evidence of his Juftice : and
certainly this of all feafons was the moft unlike
ly for God to exprefs himfelf ( as obferv'd be
fore) in Irony or Sarcafm. On the contrary,
as we fhould be extreamly cautious of afcribing
fuch methods of expreflion to the Deity, efpe
cially on an occafion the moft important ,• let
us, confiftently with the dignity ofthe Subject
and the nature ofthe Text, underftand the
Addrefs here made, as made by one to the
other

Dissertation I. j*
other two Perfons fubfifting in the Unity of
the Godhead.
. And now, as the following Verfes feem to
give the faireft appearance of argument for
one real Tree of Life or Immortality, I fhall
infert fuch a Paraphrafe, as may help to take
away the prepoffeflion in favour of fuch an ac
ceptation, and at the fame time vindicate the
Tranflation here given ; which, tho' new in
fome parts, will ftill be found literally render'd
from the Original.
Verfe the 2 2d. —And the Lord God faid, Be
hold! The Man has been, ( or behav'd) like One
of Us, as to the Teft of Good and Evil. Behold !
the Man, whom we fo lately created in our own
Image, and in fuch happy Circumftances, has
fhook off our Authority, as to that Tree by
which it was to appear whether he would be
good or evil ; and by thus flighting our Prohi
bition, he has acted as if he were our Equal,
and fat up for Independency.
And now left he put forth his hand, and take
again of the Trees of Life, and eat, andfo live
on all his Days— -What then remains of his pu
nifhment for this high Tranfgreflion ? He has
been fentenced to Mortality, and to a Life of
Pain and Trouble for his future hard fubfiftence.
And now, that he may not live in oppofition to
this fentence, by ftretching forth his hands
with the fame eafe and happinefs as before, and
K take

74 Dissertation I.
take again of the fruit of thofe Trees of Life,
which I gave him here to feed upon ; left he
eat for the future, as in time paft, without
that Labour to which he ftands doom'd, and
fo live on happy all his days — Let us banifh
him from Paradife.
23. Therefore the Lord God font him forth
from the Garden of Eden, to till the Ground from
whence he was taken. In confequence then of
this divine deliberation, God fent forth, the
guilty Man from the Garden of Eden, that feat
of perfection and delight ; to till, for his fu>
ture maintenance, the accurfed Ground, which
might conftantly remind him both of his Ori
gin and Diflblution ; for from the Ground he
was but lately taken, and after fome time he
was to return thither.
24. So he drove out the Man, and placed at
the eaft ofthe Garden of Eden Cherubim and a
pointed Flame ?, which waved it felf to and fro,
to guard the pajfage to the Trees of Life. Thus
God expell'd the Man from Paradife ; and at
the eaft ofthe Garden x (on which fide proba*
bly was the only Accefs) he placed a Guard of
Angels. And thefe, being by their office Mi-
y Pfalm CIV. 4. He maketh his Angels Spirits, and hit
Minifters a flaming Fire. So that the Sacred Writer evi
dently exprefles himfelf here by an Hendyades ; ufing the
double ExprefOon oi Cherubim and a flaming Sword (or«
pointed flame) inftead oi Angels in a fiery Appearance.
z See page z$. nifters

Dissertation I. yr
nifters of the Divine Pleafure, took their ftation
there ; and patroll'd in a fiery Appearance, to
prevent the return of Man, from Labour and a
painful Subfiftence, to Paradife and the Trees
of Life.

AND now, if we look back, and think over
this important piece of Hiftory, it may
perhaps be allow'd to be rational and confi-
ftent ; without admitting the exiftence of a
fingle Tree of Life, or one particular extraor
dinary Tree, whofe Fruit was capable of ren-
dring the eaters thereof Immortal. But the
prefent Explication will be entitled to a more
favourable acceptance, when feveral Objecti
ons, which lie againft it, are removd ; and to
attempt this fhall be the bufinefs of the re
mainder of this Differ tation.
I. The firft then, and perhaps moft weighty
Objection with fome to the foregoing account,
may be this —That it does not yet fufficiently
appear, upon rational principles, how Adam
in Paradife was immortal, efpecially without
the ufe of a Tree of Life ; and how he became
naturally mortal, after he was expell'd Paradife.
This Diverfity in the Nature of Adam is in
deed the hinge on which the matter principally
turns ; and tho', with fome, enough may have
K 2 been

7.6 Dissertation I.
been already faid to eftablifh thefe two Propo^
fitiqns — that Adam was conditionally immortal
before the Fall — and naturally mortal after it •
yet I fhall here treat this cafe a little more at
large, beginning with a quotation from Dr.
John Clarke, who maintains the contrary opi
nion. Man, fays he*, was originally made
mortal, and the threatning of Death to him in
cafe of Difobedience does not at all imply, but
that he might have been mortal in his ftate of
Innocence; whether he fhould actually have
died or no, while innocent, the Scripture is
filent, and we have no natural means of know-
ing. To this determination the Dr. adds his
opinion of Mortality, on the following philo-
fophical principles —That fo long as the Nou-
rifhment is proper to aflimilate itfelf to the fe-
veral parts ofthe Body, as it approaches them
in its feveral channels; or fo long as the folid
particles, fuppofe of Salts, retain their form
and texture ; fo long Life is preferv'd and main-
tain'd : and when the Nourifhment becomes
unfit to aflimilate it felf, or the faline particles
lofe their power of attracting the Fluids ; in
either of thefe cafes all their motion will ceafe,
and end in corruption, confufion and death.
But that Mortality was not the condition of
human nature at firft, feems evident from the
words of St. Paul, and the nature ofthe Cove-
a Boyle's Led. Serm. Vol. 3d, p. 200. aant

D I S S E R T AT ION I. 77
nant made with Adam at his Creation. St.
Paul tells us— b By one man Sin entered into the
world, and Death by Sin ; confequently, if there
had been no Sin, there could have been no
Death; and where there is no poflibility of
Death, there can be no Mortality. Again ;
the Apoftle by an elegant Catachrefis calls
Death, which is the Punifhment, the Wages of
Sin ~cthe Wages of Sin is Death. But if there
be an infeparable connexion between Sin and
Death (as is extreamly evident) there muft be,
in the reafon andnature of things, the fame
infeparable connexion between Holinefs and
Life, or Innocence and Immortality.
The Covenant with Adam was— d In the day
thou eateft of the Tree of probation thou JJjalt
furely die. Now a Law, made with a punifh
ment annex'd to the violation of it, is an im
plicit Covenant, that none, but the difobedient
to that Law, fhall fuffer the Sanction or Penalty
of it. And does not Reafon write it with a
Sun-Beam, that, in the cafe before us, Adam,
while obedient to the divine Law, could not
have felt or fuffer'd Death, which was to be his
punifhment for the violation of that Law ? The
Threatnings as well as Promifes of God are
conditional, and imply their contraries ; and

b Rom. V. 12.
c Ibid. VI. 23.
d Gen, II. 17.

this

78 Dissertation I.
this with regard to the prefent point, is illu-
ftrated with eafe and beauty by Dr. Turner e,
in the following manner — Would not a Son
think, if his Father fhould threaten to difinhe-
rit him in cafe of Difobedience, that he fhould
prevent that misfortune, and fecure his Inhe
ritance by a continued and uniform Obedience?
The cafe is exactly fimilar ; and withal fo plain,
that to mention the contrary opinion feems to
confute it.
As the Immortality of Man before, and the
Mortality of Man after his Fall, appear there
fore plain from Scripture, and the reafon of
things ; let us now fee, whether this diverfity
can be accounted for on principles of Nature ;
and how it will appear, that as God governs all
things according to their Natures, fo here he
left natural caufes to produce natural effects.
Dr. Clarke has here affifted us with the folr
lowing Maxim in Phyfics— That fo long as the
Nourifhment receiv'd into the Body is proper
to affimilate it felf to the feveral parts of the
Body, fo long Life is preferv'd and maintain'd.
Now the Food, yielded by the Fruits of thofe
Trees which Adam was to eat in Paradife, was
doubtlefs the moft proper for Nutrition ; and
therefore the moft proper to affimilate it felf
to the feveral parts of the Body, for the fup
port of which it was intended ; confequently
e Boyle's Led. Serm. Vol. 2d. p. 35-7. as

Dissertation I. 70
as long as he had eaten of this Food, he had
upon the above principle, been immortal. For
we muft fuppofe, that his Inftinct as an Ani
mal, and much more his Reafon as an Intel
ligent Being, would have always induced him
to obey the call of Hunger, which is an effect
of meer fenfitive nature.
The Dr's Counter-pofition then is this— that
when the Nourifhment becomes unfit to aflimi
late it felf to the feveral parts of the Body,
the motion of the Fluids will in time ceafe, and
the confequence will be corruption, confufion
and death. Now we are aflur'd, that, imme
diately after the Fall, the nature of human
Food was alter'd for the worfe ; that the
Ground and its Productions were curs'd, for a
punifhment on Man ; and that he was, from
that time, to eat the Herb ofthe Field. This
feems to imply, that the fruits of Trees were
no longer to be his fuftenance ; frequent
changes being made in human food, by the ex
prefs command of God, during the infancy of
the world. And thus Grotius explains the mat
ter, in his comment on Gen. III. 18. — Herba,
quae & Frumentum in fe comprehendit, oppo-
nitur illis beatarum Arborum fructibus. But
fuppofing the fruits of the Trees did continue
to be eaten, they were to be now but Part of
human food ; and were certainly affected by
the Curfe upon the Ground, with which they
were

80 Dissertation I. .
were fo infeparably connected. So that we
may fairly conclude, that as our firft Parents
hadrender'd themfelves obnoxious to Death by
their Difobedience, this change made by God
in their food was to bring about their diflblu
tion in a natural way. And as the food they
were to make ufe of, immediately from the
date of their Sentence, was of a different and
worfe nature ; 'tis plain that the aliment, now
fo different from that before the Fall, would
not be productive of the fame but a different
effect ; and therefore being become lefs fit to
aflimilate it felf to the feveral parts ofthe body,
the motion of the Fluids would in time ceafe,
and confequently the ftrong original compofi
tion of Man would fink at laft into corruption^
confufion, and death.
With how critical an exactness then was ful-
fill'd the divine Covenant made with Adam in
Paradife, and couchd in thefe words — In the
day thou eateft thereof, thoujhalt furely die!
For tho' it is generally faid, that thefe words
were fulfill'd by Adam's then becoming mortal,
tho' he did not die in nine hundred Years after;
yet the words are exprefs— In the day thou eateft
thereof, thou Jhalt furely die . For this reafon
it feems preferable to render the words (which
are remarkably adapted to the cafe in hand) as
follows — In the day, thou eateft thereof, dying
thoujhalt die. This is the literal yerfion, and it

Dissertation I. 8 i
it is here ftrong and beautiful ; for we find
that in the very day he tranfgrefs'd, the Ground
was curs'd, his Food was alter'd and impair'd •
and, tho' his Life was not to expire till after
many years, he then began to die, and every
fueceeding day led him a ftep forward to the
Grave : fo that he might be truly faid, in the
language of St. Paul, to die daily f.
II. The Second Objection probably may be
— that the word \y a Tree, which is lingular,
is here ufed tfwice in the plural number ; being
rendered Trees, in explaining the 23d and 24th
verfes ofthe third chapter. To vindicate this
manner of tranflating it in thofe two places, it
feems fufficien* to obferve — that the fame
Noun, in the singular number irt the original
is by our Engl'ifh Tranflators themfelves twice
rendered Trees in this very chapter, and cannot
be render'd otherwife. The places are Verfe
the 2d, in which the Woman fays to the Ser
pent — We may eat of the fruit ofthe Trees in
the Garden Sec. And Verfe the 8 th, where we
read — that Adam and his Wife hid themfelves
from the prefence ofthe Lord amongft the Trees
ofthe Garden ; or more literally, in the middle
ofthe Trees ofthe Garden: No one, I fuppofe,
Will object to the propriety ofthe Tranflation
in thefe two places; the necefllty of it in both
f 1 Cor. XV. 31. , .
L being

82 Dissertation I.
being very clear and obvious. The truth is,
that the Noun pr fignifies more properly Lig
num than Arbor ; and thro' this hiftory ofthe
Creation and Fall is ufed plurally, or for the
whole Genus of Trees : unlefs where it is con-
fin'd by the emphatic article, or a neceflary re-
ftriction in the fenfe. And therefore, in Verfe
the fecond s above-mention'd, we firft find the
word evidently fignifying plurally ; and imme
diately after, when reftrain'd by the article,
properly tranflated in the singular number.
It may alfo be obferv'd, that in Chap. II. 9.
the word feems only brought forward a fecond
time, to introduce the word following it ; the
Hebrew Language having very few Adjectives.
And therefore the Hiftorian, inftead of a word
fignifying conducive to Life, probably call'd forth
the word Tree from the former part of the fen-
tence, and exprefs 'd himfelf thus — Out of the
ground made the Lord God to grow every Tree,
that was defireable to the Sight, and that was good
for Food and a Tree of Life — inftead of— and a
Tree conducive to Life. And we find the fame
word, meaning the fame thing, repeated in
Chap. III. 6. without any farther ufe than the
ftrength ofthe Sentence— And when the Woman
g Gen. III. 2. — *?3NJ Jjn YV '"130 We may ( et
Jhall) eat ofthe fruit ofthe Trees ofthe Garden. 3. HS81
Jjn ~)"in3 "1WX YV7\ But of ihe fruit of the Tree,
which is in the middle of the Garden — God hath faid, ye
/ball not eat thereof. faw

Dissertation I. 83
faw that the Tree was good for food, and that it
was pleafant to the Eyes, and a Tree to be de-
fired &c. And this may obviate any objection
to the verfion ofthe word in the above-men-
tion'd place ; as if there was a necessity for its
fignifying fomething different from the fame
word juft before it, becaufe of its being re
peated. III. A Third Objection may be made to the
prefent rendring of the word cbvh in Chap.
III. 22.— that it is made to fignify the days of
Adam's Life only, and not for ever. In anfwer
to this I obferve, that the word dW is ufed
as often, perhaps, finitely as infinitely ; and
that it can fignify nothing more than the Age
or Life of Man, in places where our Tranfla tors
have frequently render' d it for ever. Thus
Exod. XXI. 6.— Then his Mafter Jhall bring him
unto the Judges, and he Jhall bore his ear through
with an Awl, and he Jhall forve him for ever.
And 1 Sam. I. 22. — But Hannah went not up ;
for Jhe Jaid, I will not go up until the Child be
weaned; and then I will bring him, that he may
appear before the Lord, and there abide for ever.
IV. A Fourth Objection may be brought
againft the rendring the particle DJ, in Chap.
III. 22. by— Again. This conjunctive particle
is well known to have various fignifications ;
L 2 hut

84 D iis SER TATION I.
but among all that the Critics have given it,
none feems to flow more naturally from it, than
the tranflating it by— infuper, iterum, and etiam
atque etiam h. The radix of it is loft among
the Hebrew words, but the Arabians have pre
ferv'd it, and it is ^*^ multus fuit, abundavit,
auxit adjeblo cumulo^ &c. And therefore may
with the greateft propriety be render'd in
Englifh — again, or frequently. And thus we
meet with it, in 1 Sam. XXIV. 12 ; where Da
vid, having cut off the skirt of Saul's Coat,
while he lay in the Cave of En-gedi, brings it
forth to him after his going out of the CaVe,
and befeeches him to look upon it, and to look
upon it again, and to consider it well, as the
ftrongeft confirmation of his innocent inten
tions towards him ; and, in the midft of his
beautiful Address, he thus artfully befpeaks
him — H'3 ibvft *p3 DN 7®^ DJ r\H^ >3tfl
Et vide, mi pater, etiam atque etiam vide oram
pallii tui in manu mea.
V. A Fifth Objection may be made to what
has been before obferv'd ; namely, that the
only food of Man, before the Fall, feems to
have been the fruits of the Trees. But this is
not of confequence to the principal point;
however, as it carries probability with it, I
fhall offer a few obfervations in defence of it.
h See Koerber's Heb. Particles, p. 17.
We

.Dissertation I. $c
We read in Gen. I. 29. — And God faid, Bp-
hold I have given you every Herb bearing feed
which is upon the face of all the Earth ; and every
Tree, in the which is the fruit of a Tree yielding
feed, to Tou it Jhall be for meat. This, at firft
fight, may perhaps appear unfavourable ; but
let us take in the following verfe— And to every
Beaft ofthe Earth, and to every Fowl 0c have I
given every green Herb for meat ; and it was fo.
The fenfe now feems clear, — that Man was to
eat of the fruits ofthe Trees • and that Birds,
Beafts and Reptiles were to eat of the produce
ofthe Earth. The Englifh Verfion may there
fore be corrected thus —And God faid, Behold,
I have (indeed) given you every Herb bearing
feed, which is upon the face of all the earth : but
every Tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree
yielding feed, Jhall be to Tou for meat • and to
every Beaft of the earth have I given every green
Herb for meat ; and it was fo.
God feems here to have inform'd Adam of
fomething deferving his peculiar attention
*— Obferve, fays he, that I have given you the
Dominion over all the Creation, and confe
quently every Herb of the field is in your
power; but this is not to be Your Food : Your
food is to be from the Trees, and therefore
remember — that the Herb ofthe field is my
bounty to the Animal Creation, and of this
fiiftenance no power of Yours fhall deprive them :

86 Dissertation I.
them : and it was fo ; that is — this was the
original Conftitution of things, and fo it con
tinued 'till the Fall. For after the Fall we find
God condemning Adam, as a part of his punifh
ment, to the eating the Herb of the field; and it
does not appear likely, that God fhould con
demn Adam, when guilty, to eat the Herb of
the Field, if he had eaten that before, while
innocent. Perhaps then it may be allow'd, that Adam
at firft was to eat of the fruits of the Trees ;
and, after the Fall, ofthe Herb of the Field.
And the reafon of the divine Injunction, fo
different in thefe two refpects, ( if I may be
allow'd the liberty of a Conjecture ) feems to
to have been this — God might intend, that
Man in Paradife fhould eat nothing but from
on high, the fruits ofthe Trees oniy ; that fo,
while he was fuftaining his Body, he might be
hold the Heavens, whither, after an age of
Innocence, he was to be tranflated ' : but after
his Fall, being degraded in his food, he was
condemn'd to ftoop to the Earth for fuftenance ;
that fo he might not forget his original from
the Duft, and his fpeedy return thither.
VI. It maybe objected alfo — that if there
was in Paradife no Tree of Immortality, but
i Tull. de Nat. Deor. 2.— Cum cameras animantes ab*
jeciffet ad paftum, folum hominem erexit, ad Ccelique quafi
cognationis & Domicilii priftini con/peBum excitavit. all

Dissertation I. 87
all the Trees there were only for the fupport of
Life , in the way of common nourifhment •
why was a Guard placed, to prevent the return
ofthe firft Pair into Paradife ? To this feveral
Anfwers may be given, and I hope the follow
ing are fatisfactory. The Garden of Eden was
prepar'd with peculiar ornament and beauty,
as a worthy habitation for Beings of innocence
and virtue k. When God therefore had fo
richly furnifh'd this delightful Garden, it may
not be abfurd to fuppofe, that it continued
free from that Curfe, which, upon the fall,
affected all the future habitation as well as
food of Adam. And that when Man, for his
Sin, was expell'd this happy place, and driven
forth into a world render'd unfruitful for his
punifhment; Paradife, with its fruits, might
flourifh in its native perfection, till the Deluge
put an end to all diftinction between that and
other places, and made them equal in one ge
neral defblation '. Suppofing this, we prefent-
k For when the Sacred Writers would exprefs the ex
ceeding fruitfulnefs and pleafure of a Country, 'tis to Pa
radife they have recourfe for the fublime Idea. Thus
Gen. XIII. 10. — And Lot lift up his Byes, and beheld aU
the Plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where,
even as the Garden of the Lord. And Joel II. 3. The Land
is as the Garden of Eden before them, and behind them a defo-
late Wildernefs.
1 Salkeld on Paradife, p. 39. — It feemeth much more
probable, that Paradife was deftroy'd by the general De
luge. And thus Milton defcribes the Deluge, II. 824.—

8$ Dissertation I.
ly fee a reafon for reftraining Adam, under pu
nishment for his Rebellion, from re-entring
Paradife. I fay, re-entring Paradife ; becaufe
it is the opinion of fome men of the firft
ekfe m, that Adam was created out of Paradife,
atfd introduced into it by his Maker. Granting
this ( which is founded partly, on thefe words
1 — And the Lord God planted a Garden, and there
he put the man whom he had formed11) granting
this, we fhall fee the prefent folution in a
ftronger light. For if Adam was created out
of the Garden, and then, to influence his gra
titude, admitted into it, as a place very fupe-
rior in beauty to what he had before feen, and
yielding Fruits of a much richer flavour than
he had before tafted ; we may eafily account
for the Guard's being placed to prevent his en
joyment of it, after his tranfgreflion.
So that if we fuppofe, there were in Para^-
dife Fruits of a different kind and richer nature
than out of it, with other peculiar circum-
¦  All the Catarads

Of Heav'n fet open on the Earth fhall pour
Rain day and night, till Inundations rife
Above the higheft hills— then fhall this Mount
Of Paradife by might of waves be mov'd
Out of his place, pufli'd by the horned flood,
With all his Verdure fpoil'd, and Trees adrift.
m See Bp Patrick in his Commentary ; Dr. Delaney
in his Revelat. exam. Vol. I. p. 4 ; And Mr. Sale in the
Univerf. Hiftory, Book I. Ch. I. p, 121. Edit. 8vo.
n Gen. II. 8. ftances

Dissertation I. 89
fiances of happinefs ; or that the Curfe, which
affected the Trees and their Fruits out of Para
dife, might not extend to thofe within — I ap
prehend the prefent Objection may be folv'd
either way ; and both Suppofitions appear to
be of fome weight. For, as to the latter,-
God, we are aflur'd, does nothing in vain ; and
no end could have been anfwer'd by his curling
Paradife as a punifhment on Man, when he was
not to re-enter it, and confequently could not
be affected by the alteration. And if any one
fhould be ftill inclin'd to aflert, that Paradife
was curs'd with the reft of the Earth, I would
beg to ask in return— Why was a Guard placed
at Paradife ? For if the Ground and Fruits of
Paradife fuffer'd in one common Curfe with the
reft of the Earth, doubtlefs the Tree of Life
(above all things °) was impair'd with the reft,
and render'd incapable of producing its former
( fuppos'd ) extraordinary effects , for which
there was now no longer occafion.
And as to the former Supposition — that the
Trees in Paradife were preferable to all others,
and peculiar in ufe and beauty ¦ this is con-
firm'd from feveral paffages in Scripture, par
ticularly in that noble paflage of the Prophet
Ezekiel, Chap. XXXI. Speak unto Pharaoh,
o Becaufe ( as Mr. Sale obferves") it was now grown
not only vfelefs, but inconfiftent with the Curfe and Punifh
ment of Man. Univ. Hift. B. I. Ch. I. p.129. Ed. 8vo.
M and

90 ,D I S S E R T A T I O N I.
and unto his multitude, Whom art thou like in
thy Greatnefs * Behold! the Ajfyrian was a Cedar
in Lebanon with fair branches, of an high ftature ;
the waters made him great; the deep fet him up
on high ; his heart was exalted above all the Trees
of the field; the Cedars in the very Garden of God
could not overtop him ; the Fir-Trees were not
like his boughs, and the Chefnut-Trees were not
like his branches ; not any Tree even in the Gar
den of God was like unto him in his beauty-, I
have made him fair by the multitude of his branch
es, fo that all the Trees of Eden, that were in the
Garden of God, might envy him. The Gradation
here (in this beautiful illuftrationofGreatnefs)
from all the Trees of the Field to the Cedars
of Paradife in particular, and the infifting fo
much that the Trees in Eden, in the very Gar
den of God, were not only unequal to it but
might even envy its excellence— feems evident
ly to point out a fuperiority of nature in the
Trees of Paradife to all others in the world.
It may be alfo proper to remember here,
that Adam was now fentenced to hard Labour,
and condemn'd to eat ofthe Herb of the Field
in the fweat of his Brow ; and this confidera
tion is alone fufficient to account, why God
mould place a -Guard at Paradife — left Adam
fhould return to thofe Trees, planted together
by God in Paradife, of which he had fo happi
ly eaten before ; and which had fupported, and
would

Dissertation I. gj
would fupport him ftill, without the toil which
he was otherwife under a neceflity of experi
encing. VII. Another Objection may be — that Al-
lufions to this Tree of Life or Immortality are
made in other parts of Scripture, and therefore
fuch a Tree muft have exifted. But it may be
obferv'd, that meer probable Allufions will
prove nothing ; and unlefs we can find plain
references to the very Tree of Life faid to be
defcribed by Mofes, it will not affect the pre
fent argument. It may not however be im
proper to confider the places, where thefe Al
lufions are fuppos'd; and thefe are only, I
believe, in the book of Proverbs and the
Apocalypfe. We read in Prov. III. 18. — She is a Tree of
Life to them that lay hold upon her, and happy
is every one that retaineth her. Thefe words
are fpoken of Wifdom, under a beautiful, but
very ufual and eafy Metaphor. That Wifdom
is attended with Fruits, and to tafte the Fruits
of Wifdom— this was always, and continues to
be an approv'd method of expreffion. But
Solomon here carries the figure one ftep far
ther ; and as Wifclom yields the fweeteft and
moft defireable Fruits, he calls her a Tree:
and what kind of Fruit could he afcribe to
this Tree, fo charming and defireable as that
M 2 of

92 Dissertation I.
of Life. Wifdom then, he tells his Son, is a
Tree of Life p ; and that whoever lays hold on
her, will be improv'd in his Mind, in the fame
degree as his Body would receive benefit from
fuch Fruits, as envigorate his Animal Life.
But the Royal Writer could not here allude
to the fuppos'd Tree of Life in the Mofaic Hi
ftory, becaufe the allufion would have been in
jurious to his defign. For he tells us, that as
Wifdom is a Tree of Life to them that lay hold
upon her, fo happy ii every one that retaineth her-,
but Adam, upon the receiv'd opinion, would
have been unhappy, had he eaten and retaitid
the Tree of Life ; and therefore God is faid to
have drove him out of Paradife in Mercy, that
he might not be immortal in his mifery i.
As to the Revelation of St. John, it may be
obfervd — that an Argument from thence to
p That there is nothing peculiar here intended by the
Tree of Life is evident from confidering that in Solomon's
Language any thing that is defireable is call'd Life ; and
therefore we read Chap. X. n.—The Mouth ofthe righteous
is a Well of Life. — XIII. 12. 14 ; When Defre cometh, it is
a Tree of Life — The Law ofthe Wife is a Fountain of Life
— XV. 4 ; Awholejom Tongue is a Tree of Life — XVI. 22 j
Under/landing is a Well-Spring of Life Sec.
q God ( fays Dr. Delaney ) is reprefented by Mofes as
deliberating, and afligning the moft gracious reafon ima
ginable for removing our firft Parents from Paradife;
even left they fhould eat of the Tree of Life, and live fir
ever, which doubtlefs in their condition had been the
greateft curfe they were capable of. Revel, exam. Vol.1.
DifTertat. 6. prove

Dissertation I. g<>
prove or illuftrate any other part of the Sacred
Writings, will (without a direct reference) be
lefs readily admitted, than from the other
Books of the New Teftament. Thefe are all
written in a ftile clear and fimple, but yet noble
and fublime ; we read, admire, and confels
their Divinity ftamp'd in the moft fhining cha
racters. Not that we have reafon to doubt the
Authority of this book ofthe Revelation of St.
John ; as it was acknowledg'd genuine by the
Synod of Carthage, and eftablifh'd by the fun
ction of the Sixth General Council r. But the
argument of it is in general fo obfcure, and
its fignification fo myftical, that no proof can
be well drawn from it, to affect any other part
ofthe Bible, unlefs it refers clearly to the point
in queftion. That the places mentioning a
Tree of Life in this book of St. John, do not
refer to the Mofaic Hiftory, feems plain j be
caufe the Copy, fuppofing it fuch, would be
very unlike to the Original.
We read in Revelat.XXII. i, 2.— And he
Jhewed me a pure River of Water of Life, clear
as Chryftal £?r. In the midft of the Street of it,
and of either fide ofthe River was there a Tree of
Life, which bare twelve manner of Fruits, and
yielded ber Fruit every month ; and the Leaves of
the Tree were for the healing of the Nations.
But that this Image is not borrow'd from Ge-
r See Veneer on the 39 Articles, Vol. I. p. 187. nefis,

94- Dissertation I.
nefis, feems evident from hence — that here is
firft a River of Water of Life, which is not in
the Hiftory of Mofes — that here are at leaft
Two Trees of Life, one on each fide of the Ri
ver ; whereas in the Mofaic account there was
{upon the receiv'd opinion) but one, and no
River that we read of as running near it — that
each Tree here bore twelve manner of Fruits
is a circumftance certainly miraculous, and fuch
as we have not the leaft reafon for fuppofing in
the Garden of Eden; for in that all the Trees
were doubtlefs created fo, as to yield each one
peculiar kind of Fruit, according to its fepa
rate Law, and the nature of that Seed, which
it contain'd in it felf— and that the Leaves of
thefe Trees were for the healing of the Na
tions feems to confirm the contrariety. For
the fuppos'd Tree of Life in Genesis could not
be for the healing or cure of the firft Pair, to
recover them either from Difeafe, in a literal
fenfe ; or Misfortune, in a figurative -. the firft
they could not fuffer, while they continued in
nocent ; and as foon as they experienced the
fecond, they were cut off from what had been
( in fuch a cafe) their infallible remedy.
So that we may fairly conclude, that St.John
had not here, (and if not here, then not in
other places, where the fuppos'd allufion is lefs
particular ; efpecially as the whole is one conti
nued Vifion, and therefore certainly carried on
under

Dissertation I 9 r
under the fame Ideas ) that St. John, I fay
had not here any view to the Defcription of
Mofes. But the Allufion is here evidently made
to the Defcription given us by Ezekiel, in
which the Trees are exprefsly call'd Trees of
Meat, and not Trees of Life; tho' St. John
ufes the latter phrafe as fynonimous, and exe
getical of the former. This Opinion is con-
firm'd by Mr. Lowth, in his Commentary on
this Prophet — Ezekiel, fay he, being at Ba
bylon, is in this vifion made acquainted with
the form of the Second Temple, which was to
be built after their return from Captivity ; and
St. John, in the Revelation not only defcribes
the Heavenly Sanctuary by Reprefentations
taken from the Jewifh Temple, but likewife
tranfcribes feveral of Ezekiel's Expreffions
—and among thefe the Commentator mentions
particularly this place of Revelat. XXII. 1, 2.
That this is the cafe will immediately ap
pear, upon comparing the two places; and the
Comparifon will be greatly ferviceable to the
illustration ofthe prefent Argument. Ezekiel
XLVH. 1.— Afterward he (the Angel) brought
me again unto the door of the houfe ; and behold,
Waters issued out from under the threjhold
ofthe houfe eaftward. 7. And behold, at the bank
of the Payer were very many Trees, on the
one side and on the other. 9. — And every
thing pall live, whither the river cometh.
1 2. And

96 Dissertation I.
12; And by the River, upon the bank thereof,
on this side and on that side , Jhall grow
all Trees for Meat — or , as the words s
may be render'd— every Tree of Meat ; it
Jhall bring forth new Fruit according to its
months — the Fruit thereof JhaU be for Meat,
and the Leaf thereof for Medicine.
This then is part of the Vifion defcrib'd by
Ezekiel ; let us now fee how St. John has co
pied from it. Revel. XXII. i. — And he (the
Angel ) shewed me a pure River of Water
of Life, — proceeding out of the throne of
God and of the Lamb. 2. In the midji of 'the
Street of it, and of either side of the Ri*
ver, was there the Tree of Life— or, as the
words ¦ may be render'd— were there Trees of
Life ; which bare twelve manner of Fruits ,
yielding their fruit every Month ; and the
Leaves ofthe Trees were for the healing ofthe
Nations,
We fee then that St. John has tranferib'd al-
moft every remarkable Circumstance fet down
by the Prophet ; and there is the utmoft reafon
s taxa XV Sd
t s»Aw £*«. For that %«*», which anfwers exactly to
fy in fignification, may be conftrued plurally —appears,
not only from the Obfervations above laid down, but
from the LXX ufing it in that manner, Gen. III. 2.
— Arm njifTB ts gtA* ts wKf«JWa fceyDfttJu. And in verfe the
8th — K« ix{i/?ij<rai 0 n A.heu, km r, yni) eu/TH iv furu th %vXx t«
¦)m(xfnrl/, therefore

Dissertation I. 97
therefore to conclude — that the former had
the latter carefuUy in view, in this defcription.
From this Comparifon it may be proper and
ufeful to draw a few Obfervations. Firft ,¦ that
by St. John's ufing the words Tree of Life in
ftead of what Ezekiel calls Tree of Food, it is
evident that the Terms are fynonimous, and of
the fame signification. Secondly ; that in both
defcriptions there is a neceffity of underftand-
ing more Trees of Life, or Food, than one ; the
plurality is exprefsly mention'd by Ezekiel, and
muft be inferr'd from St. John, becaufe the
Tree in his defcription is on each fide of the
River. Thirdly ; the Prophet tells us of very
many Trees ; and therefore the Evangelift muft
defign the fame" very many Trees, as his ap
pears to be fo exact a Tranfcript. And laftly ;
if Ezekiel fhould be thought to have fetch'd
his defcription from Paradife ( as may be per
haps imagin'd from the parallel expreflions of
— Every Tree of Food, Ezek. XLVII. 1 2 j and
— Every Tree that was good fir Food, Gen. II. 9 ,•)
then from the words of Ezekiel explain'd by
St. John it will appear ftill in a ftronger light,
that there was not in Paradife One particular
Tree of Life, but that All the Trees of Food in
the Garden were called Trees of Life in general.
VIII. The laft Objection that is likely to be
made to what is before laid down, is this
N —that

98 Dissertation I.
— that, after all, the genius of the Hebrew
Language feems to require, that the words
C'»n \*y Tree (or Trees) of Life, in Ch. II. 9,
fhould be connected with the words pn lira
in the middle of the Garden. To this I anfwer,
that the conjunctive particle Vau [and) is fome-
times found in Scripture prefix'd to one word
in a fentence, when it muft neceflarily be tranf-
pos'd in tranflation, and be given in the fenfe
before two or more words which immediately
precede it: and iffo, the fame liberty of lan
guage will be allow'd here, of which there is a
neceffity in other places. An inftance of this
we find in Gen. XXII. 4. The third Verfe
runs thus — And Abraham rofe up early in the
morning, and faddled his Afs, and took two of
his young men with him, and Ifaac his Son, and
clave the wood for the burnt-offering, and rofe up,
and went towards the place of which God had told
him. After which it follows in the original
m tm w n» arm** am whvn on
j pmD DlpOn Which Words, literally render'd,
are— Tertio die & elevavit Abraham us oculos
fuos, & vidit ipfum locum e Ionginquo • And
muft be render'd in Englifh —And on the third
day Abraham lift up his eyes, and faw the place
afar off. Here then we fee a neceffity for con
struing the Vau, tho' prefix'd to the verb, be
fore the words preceding that verb. For the
two firft words cannot be join'd to the end of
the

Dissertation I. 99
the third verfe, this is evident ; and therefore
they muft be connected with the words follow
ing in the fourth verfe ; which they can only
be, by conftruing the particle at the beginning
ofthe firft word, tho' it is prefix'd to the third
word in the fentence.
This inftance then being exprefs, and the
force of it evident, there is already fufficient
authority for tranfpofing the fame particle, in
the fame manner, in any other place where the
Senfe requires it. But one inftance more has
occurr'd to me, which I fhall take notice of;
not doubting but many others may be found
ofthe fame nature. This is in Gen. XXVIII. 6.
— When Efau faw that Ifaac had blejfed Jacob,
and font him away to Padan-Aram, to take him
a Wife from thence; yVy W\ inN "Dim And
that, as he blejfed him, he gave him a Charge &c. u
u There is a remarkable paflage, in 2 Corinth. XII. 7,
which requires the fame tranfpofition of the particle ; and
this will clear up the Senfe, and free it from the innu
merable attempts that have unfuccefsfully been made for
want of it. It is E&Jij pei mcXc-fy tjj otsjk/ ttyyft.Qr Zxtki im fti
j»a«0<£». The general rendring of which words at pre
fent (fee, among other inftances, the Nova A&a Erudir.
Lipf.1743. p. 284.) is, that there was given to the Apoftle
a thorn in the flefh, the meflenger of Satan, to buffet
him. But furely as this exeXc-^ -m <myu was given by God,
it cannot well be call'd the meflenger of Satan ; and if
we attend to the hiftory, we fhall find it impoflible, be
caufe it was given for the glory of God, in oppofition to
Satan. St. Paul, having been receiv'd up into the third
Heaven, and honour'd more than all the Apoftles with
N 2 Thefe

100 Dissertation I.
Thefe two Examples being produced as Au
thorities, let us now take a view ofthe paflage
in queftion ; which is niD njHn Y^l pil fina
yy\ And in the middle of the Garden the Tree of
the Rnowledge of Good and Evil. So that it ap
pears there is nothing new attempted here, by
way of violence to the words ; but only a me
thod of Interpretation is applied, which muft
be obfervd in other places in the fame book of
Genefis. Thus much then may be fufficient,
by way of critical folution, in anfwer to the
prefent Objection.
But there are a few other things neceflary to
be obfervd in this place. And firft j if the
words in the middle of the Garden be taken in a
ftrict fenfe, they muft be connected with the
Tree ofthe Knowledge of Good and Evil. The
neceffity of this arifes from attending to Chap.
III. 3, where we find the Woman thus defcrib-
ing the Tree of Knowledge to the Serpent
— We may eat of the Fruit of the Trees of the
Garden ; but ofthe Fruit of the Tree, which is .
the abundance of Revelation ; God renders him con
temptible by fome bodily Infirmity — Firft, that the great-
nefs of the divine Power might be the more illuftrious in
the weaknefs of the Inftrument, and that the Apoftle's
pride might be prevented by the infults of falfe Teachers.
For the Meffenger of Satan means here a falfe Teacher, in
oppofition to a true Apoftle call'd the Meffenger of God;
(Gal. IV. 14.) and therefore the fentence fhould be ren
der'd «-. There was given me a thorn in the flefh, that fo the
Meffenger of Satan might infult me, in

Dissertation I. 101
in the midft of the Garden, God hath faid, ye
JhaU not eat thereof. So that the Tree, which
claim'd the Center of the Garden ( if we take
the words in a ftrict fenfe ) and was very pro
perly placed there to prevent Miftake, was the
Tree ofthe Knowledge of Good and Evil ; and
confequently, in verfe the ninth ofthe preced
ing Chapter, the words in the middle of the
Garden cannot be connected with the Tree of
Life, whatever is meant by that expreffion.
If it be faid, that the words in the middle of
the Garden are to be underftood in a laxe Senfe ;
as fignifying only in, or near, or about the mid
dle ofthe Garden ; then they may be applicable
to what goes before, and to what comes after,
in the following manner— And out ofthe ground
made the Lord God to grow every Tree that was
p leaf ant to the Sight, and good for Food; but the
Trees for Life (or, but every Tree of Life) in
the midft ofthe Garden, and alfo the Tree ofthe
Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The Argument then is fafe ftill. For tho'
the Trees, that were defign'd for ornament
and were defireable to the fight, might be dif-
pers'd thro* the feveral parts of the Garden, fo
as beft to anfwer the beauty and perfection of
the whole ; yet the Trees for Food might be
placed together in the middle, near each other,
for the readier fupport and more eafy choice of
thofe, who had free liberty to take of what fort

102 Dissertation I.
fort they pleafed. And if we grant this, the
Tree of Probation will appear ftill with greater
propriety in the Center, with all the other
Fruit Trees around it ; becaufe the firft Pair
could not then pafs thro' the choice of their
Food, without having in their eye that Tree,
which flood full before them, which way foever
they approach d it; and was therefore a con-
ftant teft of their Obedience or Difobedience.
— Of their Obedience, if they fhould eat of
all but that, in conformity to the divine Prohi
bition ,- and of their Difobedience, if they pre
fum'd to eat of that one Tree, when they had
around them fo many others equally conducive
to all the purpofes of eating, and differing only
in this that they were not forbidden.

Thus have I endeavour'd to vindicate this
remarkable particular in the Mofaic Hiftory
from infult and objection ; and to fix the fenfe
of it in a manner, not only rational, but con-
fiftent alfo with that Simplicity and literal
Plainnefs, which is the noble Characteriftic of
the Scripture Account of Paradife. I have alfo
confider'd what Objections may probably be
urg'd againft the prefent Explanation ; to
which are fubjoin'd fuch Anfwers, as feem to
folve their feveral Difficulties. And, I pre
sume, if the account here given of what is
generally

Dissertation I. 103
generally call'd the Tree of Life be thought fa-
tisfactory ; we are freed from all the Infidel
Wit hitherto fpent upon it, and from the
charge of accounting for Natural Things by
the introduction of Supernatural Agency. For
furely Divinity, as well as Poetry, will admit
this ftanding Rule—
Ne Deus interfit, nifi dignus Vindice nodus
Incident 
It may not be improper then, by way of
Conclufion, to give a regular Tranflation of
the Hiftory, fo far as concerns thefe Trees,
according to the prefent Solution ; freed from
the interruption of (what was before neceflary)
the feveral intervening Explanations. And,
by this method, the Confiftency of the Hiftory,
upon the Principles here laid down, may be
judg'd of at one View.
G E n. II. 8. And the Lord God planted a
Garden eaftward in Eden ; and there he put the
Man, whom he had formed. 9. And out of the
ground made the Lord God to grow every Tree
that was pleafant to the Sight, and that was good
for Food and a Tree of Life ; and in the middle
ofthe Garden the Tree ofthe knowledge of good
and evil. 1 6. And the Lord God commanded the
Man, faying — Of every Tree ofthe Garden thou
may eft freely eat, excepting the Tree of tbe know ledge

104 Dissertation I.
ledge of good and evil : thoujhalt not eat of that •
for in the day, thou eateft thereof, dying tbbti
Jljalt die. Chap. III. i. Now the Serpent was
more fubtle than any Beaft ofthe Field, which
the Lord God had made • and he faid unto the
Woman — Indeed ! Hath God faid, TeJhaU not
eat of every Tree of the Garden* 2. And the
Woman faid unto the Serpent— We may eat ofthe
fruit of the Trees of the Garden; 3. Excepting
the fruit of the Tree, which is in the middle of
the Garden : God hath faid, Te Jhall not eat of
that, neither JhaU ye touch it, left ye die. 4. And
the Serpent faid unto the Woman — Te Jhall not
furely die. f. But God knoweth, that in the day
ye eat thereof, then your Eyes JhaU be opened;
and ye JhaU be equal to God, knowing Good and
Evil. 6. And when the Woman confidered, that
the Tree was good for Food, and that it was plea
fant to the eye, and a Tree to be defired to make
them wife, She took of the fruit thereof, and did
eat ; and gave alfo unto her Husband with her,
and he did eat. 7. And the Eyes of them both
indeed were opened, but they knew that they were
naked; and they twift ed Fig-Leaves together,
and made themfelves Coverings.  22. And
the Lord God faid — Behold ! the Man hath be
haved, as if he were equal to One of 1)s, as to
the Teft of Good and Evil : and now, left he put
forth his hand, and take again of the Trees of
Ufe, and eat, and fo live on aU his days —
23. Therefore,.

Dissertation I. 105
2 3. 'Mere fore the Lord God font him forth from
theGarden of Eden, to till the Ground ; for from
thence he was taken. 24. So he drove out the
Man, and plated at the Eaft of the Garden of
Eden Cherubim and a pointed Flame, which turn
ed to and fro, to guard the paffage to the Trees
of Life.

O A Dis-

##&&#&#####&$&&#&$&###&#&$$

DISSERTATION

O N T H E

OBLATIONS

O F

CAIN and ABEL.

mm##m#it%%*#it#mmtt###%m

[ io9 ]

DISSERTATION The SECOND.

TH E Hiftory ofthe Oblations of Cain
and Abel, tho' concifely deliver'd by
the divine Hiftorian, has been always
look'd upon as deferving the clofe attention
of Mankind a. And yet, however interefting
the fubject, however Iabour'd the difquifition
of it has been, there feems to be one confidera-
ble article in the cafe of Abel remaining yet
unobferv'd ; and the other particulars of this
Hiftory have not been, perhaps, fo happily ex-
plain'd, as to render any farther attempt to
wards their illuftration needlefs.
This of Cain and Abel is the firft Act of
Worfhip, recorded in facred Scripture; and
was attended with a very remarkable contra
riety of event to the two Worfhippers — Ac-
a This piece of Hiftory (fays Bp Sherlock) is all the
account we have of the Religion of the Antediluvian
"yVorld. pifeourfe III. p. 7? . ceptance

no Dissertation II.
ceptance to the one, and Rejection to the
other. It muft be therefore matter of ufeful
{peculation to fee clearly into the caufe of fuch
a difference; which, as it was made by God,
had certainly for its foundation fome equitable
and important reafon. And in order to the
right underftanding this piece of Hiftory, there
feems to be requird a careful confideration of
the Offerers, the Time of their Offering, t and the
Nature of their different Oblations : all which
circumftances are regularly contain'd in the
following Verfes ofthe fourth Chapter of Ge«
nefis —
i . And Adam knew Eve his Wife ; and Jhe con
ceived, and bare Cain ; and faid, I have gotten a
man from the. Lord, 2 . And Jhe again bare his
brother Abel: and Abel was a keeper of Sheep,
but Cain was a tiller ofthe Ground. 3. And in
procefs of time it came to pafs, that Cain brought
of the Fruit of the Ground an Offering unto the
Lord. 4. And Abel, he alfo brought ofthe Firft-
lings of his Flock, and ofthe Fat thereof. And
the Lord had refpecl unto Abel, and to his Offer
ing, f. But to Cain, and to his Offering he had
not rejpetl.
In conformity to the method before pro
pos'd, and the regularity ofthe Hiftory, I fhall
begin with the confideration of the Perfons
offering:

Dissertation II. XII
offering : and thefe, we read, are Cain the Firft-
born, and Abel the Second Son ofthe Original
Human Pair; whofe circumftances, both be
fore and after their Fall, have been confider'd
in the preceding Diflertation.
, The third chapter of Genesis concludes with
the Expulsion of this firft Pair from the Garden
of Eden ; and down to that period we have
already accompanied the Mofaic Hiftory. Let
us now regularly proceed with it, from the be
ginning of this fourth chapter ; which opens
with the birth of Cain, the firft. Child that was
born into the World.
Concerning the diftance of time, from the
Creation to this birth of Cain, there are va
rious Opinions. But, as it is impoffible to de
termine how long the Parents continued in Pa
radife } fo it is, for that reafon, impoffible to
determine how long they had lived, when this
Son was born to them out of Paradife. That
he was born out of Paradife — is certain; and
that he was begotten out of Paradife too
—feems probable from the hiftory. Had this
Child been born, while the firft Pair were
happy, upright and immortal in Paradife, he
had been born in the fame rectitude and purity
of Nature he had receiv'd from his Parents ;
and confequently would have been (when ad
vanced in years) a Man in the fame situation,
and in the fame circumftances, as his Father when

112 Dissertation II.
when firft created. But we have Reafon, as
well as Scripture, to convince us, that he was
not born in the original Purity, but under a
Corruption of Human Nature. And God, by
permitting his wicked mind to operate fo
ftrongly, and his paffions to rife to that pitch
of turbulency and diforder, feems to convince
us — that Man did not come thus out ofthe
hands of his Creator ; but that fuch behaviour
was the effect of fome alteration, introduced
into the human composition by the defection
of our firft Parents from their innocence b.
This being premis'd, we come to the Name
of Cain, which has been varioufly accounted
for. But the reader of the Bible, by a little
acquaintance with the Original, muft have ob-
ferv'd the manner of deriving proper Names in
b Dr. Conybeare, in his Defence of Reveal'd Reli
gion, p. 112 — It is obfervable, and acknowledg'd by the
beft and wifeft men we know of, that there is, in the
prefent circumftances of our Nature, a ftrong tendency
and propenfion to things in themfelves wrong. Thofe
who have confider'd matters, with no better light than
human Reafon could give them, have been apt to con
clude, that our Nature was not always in the fame ftate^
in which we find it now ; — that as it came pure out ofthe
hands of our Maker, our Underftanding muft have been
clearer and more extenlive, and our Affections or Paf
fions more governable. Of this, which could only be
conje&ur'd by natural Light, the Sacred Writings have
given us a diftindt account ; informing us, that our Na
ture, originally upright, hath been deprav'd and corrupt
ed by the Tranfgreflion of our firft Parents. the

D'T S S E R T A T I Q N II. I 1 g
the firft ages of the world j how they frequent
ly are given from fome remarkable circumstance
attending the Birth or Life pf the perfon fo
nam'd, and generally have that meaning ex-
prefs'd in words near the place, where the
Name is firft mention'd. And this is evidently
the cafe with refpect to Cain; for we read in
Gen.IV. 1. wx TMp,na»m vp dk iSm nnrh
J ITliT T)H So that the Name Cain was certainly
deriv'd from the verb canithi ( I have gotten, )
and signifies Acquifition ; and this word canithi
(with the words following it to compleat the
Senfe) is exprefsly given by Eve, as the reafon
for her calling her Son by that name— And Jhe
conceived, and bare Cain; farcJhefaid,Ihayp
gotten a Man from the Lqrd.
The Name of Cain being thus afcertain'd,
let us attend to thofe other words, her^ ac
companying it, about which there has been fo
much warm difputation ; namely — jy'tf Wfy
TVffV DK which our Englifh Tranflators have
render'd — I have gotten a Man from the Lord.
The Critics, that have confider'd thefe words,
may be divided into two claffes ; into thofe
who imagine Eve to have expected the Re
deemer in this Son, and thofe who imagine the
contrary : and each of thefe clafles may be
varioufly fub-divided, according to the many
different expofitions, which each perfon has
c See Noldius, Partic. % Signif. 37.
P given

114 Dissertation II.
given to fupport his own determination. But
the learned world is fo well acquainted with
thefe various explanations, or rather attempts
towards an explanation, that I fhall only offer
that Opinion, which feems to come the beft
recommended by the words themfelves and the
circumftances ofthe hiftory.
In the fentence, which God before pafs'd
upon the Serpent, a Promife had been given
( for the punifhment of the Deceiver, and the
confolation ofthe fallen Pair) that the Seed of
the Woman Jhould bruife the Serpent's Head.
From thefe words then Adam and his Wife
might naturally expect A Redeemer ; one, who
was to be born of the Woman, and to recover
for them the Favour of God and that Happi
nefs, which by their Sin they had forfeited.
In what manner this mighty Operation was to
be accomplifh'd, they might not know ; other-
wife than that it was to be done by the Re
deemer's Death : and this, if Sacrifice was in
ftituted by divine command to Adam, they
muft know from the typical nature of that in
ftitution. Now as the Perfon and Time of this
Redeemer were not fpecified, they were at li
berty to expect him in the Perfon of their Firft
Son ; and, this being the moft obvious and na
tural acceptation of the Seed of the Woman, 'tis
probable they took the Promife in this fenfe. This

Dissertation II. ik
This being premis'd, let us confider the Text
—And Eve conceived and bare Cain; for Jhe faid,
I have, gotten a Man from the Lord. But the
original words may be render'd — I have gotten
a Man according to the Lord; and according to
the Lord is, by all the rules of fpeaking, equi
valent to — according to the word of the Lord.
And indeed the learned Tranflators of Queen
Elizabeth's Bible acknowledg'd this verfion,
having their marginal reading — According to
the Lords Promife. This rendring of the par
ticle ntt is authoriz'd by Noldius, and con-
firm'd by the following paffage. Hagg. II. 4, y.
1 am with you, faith theLordofHofts ("Din Jltf)
according to the<word that I covenanted with you.
Upon this interpretation then the whole verfe
will run thus — And Adam knew Eve his Wife,
and Jhe conceived, and bare Cain ; for Jhe faid, I
have gotten the Man, according to the word of
Jehova. Having offer'd this explication of the firft
yerfe, with refpect to Cain, let us confider the
fecond, with refpect to Abel ; and tho' there
have been ftill more opinions about this Name
than the former, yet a frefh folution may be
yet wanting here to give fatisfaction. The
Name Abel will admit various Interpretations
the more eafily, becaufe the fenfe of it is not
afcertain'd in the text : that it is not, is very:
remarkable in the prefent cafe ; fince his Mo-
p 2 ther's

n6 Dissertation II.
ther's two Names Woman and Eve, the Names
of his elder brother Cain and his younger bro-
ther Seth, are all clearly defin'd in the context,
where they are firft mention'd.
This Name of Abel has been generally faid
to fignify Vanity or Trouble ; but as thefe Sig
nifications feem only embraced for want of a
more apposite Etymology, I fhall offer a new
one, after previoufly laying down a few obfer-
vations. Firft, that Names were not always
impos'd at Birth. Or, fuppofing the contrary
to this to be true ; yet, Secondly, that another
Name was frequently fuperinduced from fome
extraordinary circumftance attending the Life
of the Perfon fo nam'd : which latter Name
abolifh'd the former, and became the only
Name, by. which fuch perfon was afterwards
fpoken of and recorded.
This being then frequently the cafe d, why
may we not imagine the Name of Abel to have
been fuperinduced alfo, on fome very remark
able occafion? Suppofing therefore that the
fame allowance may be made in this, as in
other cafes, I fhall at prefent take it for grant
ed — that Abel was the Name given to Eve's
Second Son, from fome extraordinary circum-
d To give a few Inftances — Eve, Abraham, Sarah,
Paul and Peter were Names, not given to thefe perfons at
their Births,, but fuperinduced perhaps about the middle,
or towards the decline of their Lives, ftance

Dissertation II. tij
ftance attending him, long after his nativity.
Now we know, that Abel was the firft ofthe
human fpecies that died; and that, as his Life
was remarkably pions, his Death was peculiarly
•unhappy ; being privately and infidioufly mur
der d by his own brother, in the bloom of his
life e, on account of the preference God had
given to his Oblation. It may be thought
very likely then, if a Verb can be found that
contains the idea of each of thefe particulars,
that Abel (or, as it fhould be writ Habel or
Hebel) muft be deriv'd from that root, and be
a Name given him in confequence of his un
fortunate end.
We have accordingly, in the Arabic Lan
guage, the verb J>a* habal, fignifying prima
rily— Orba natofuit Mater, & morte amifit eum ;
and alfo — que neceffaria effent qutefivit —prope-
rus fuit — machinatus, infidiatus fuit contra ali-
quem — obforvavit ut obruere poffet, (3 captavit
opportunitatem — Significations thefe, fo won
derfully applicable to the cafe of righteous
Abel, treacheroufly murder'd in his youth by
his own brother, and fo expreffive of the af
fliction of his Mother confequent on fuch a
Murder; that it feems to carry conviction at
e 'Tis generally imagin'd, that Abel was murder'd in
the 129th Year of Adam's Life, becaufe Seth was born in
the 1 30th ; and that Seth was born foon after the Death
of Abel feems eafily inferr'd frpm the Name oiSeth, and
the circumftances of the Hiftory. firft

118 Dissertation IL
firft fight. It being an Arabic Etymology can
be no objection to it, becaufe the Arabic Lan
guage is a Dialect of the Hebrew ; and many
entire verbs, with fome fignifications of other
verbs, having been loft in the fcantinefs of the
latter ( as the Bible is the only book pure in
that Language) have defcended to us in the
copioufnefs of the former f.
Thus then we may prefume the word Abel
was deriv'd ; and that, tho' it is ufed by the
Hiftorian as his name during his life, yet it was
given him immediately after his death, and be
came the only name by which he was thence
forth known and recorded. The cuftom of
doing, this in other inftances has been obferv'd
before, and it is confirm'd by a careful atten
tion to the hiftory in this chapter. For we
have no fooner read of the birth of the firft
Son, whom his Mother nam'd Cain, but we
read of the birth ofthe fecond Son, which the
Hiftorian tells us was Abel ; but we don't find,
that this was the name given him by either of
his Parents, in the form obferv'd as to the pre
ceding and fucceeding Son. On the contrary
(which is remarkable ) he is not call'd Abel in
any Speech made either of 'him, or to him dur-
f See Dr. Hunt's celebrated Oration on the Antiqui
ty &c. ofthe Arabic Language ; p. 5-3. Ockley's Intro-
du&ion to the Oriental Languages • p. 117. And Poly-
glott. Bible, Prolegom. 14; p. 94« M'ng

Dissertation II. no
ing his life. I fhall only obferve farther, that
when Eve had brought forth the third Son,
which the Scripture mentions, it is faid — She
caUed his Name Seth ; for God, fays fhe, hath
appointed me another Seed inftead of Abel, whom
Cainjlew ; or, as it fhould have been render'd,
for Cain hathftain him — Words ! fo remarkably
determining the meaning of Abel's Name in
the fenfe before given, ' that poffibly it may be
now admitted as a fatisfactory account of it.
The Names of thefe Brothers being thus
fettled, we come to the next thing obfervable
in their hiftory, which calls for no Explanation,
as the words carry their own determinate mean
ing — And. Abel was a keeper of Sheep, but Cain
was a tiller of the Ground. The care of Adam
is here remarkable, in his bringing up his two
Sons to the feparate offices of an Husbandman
and a Shepherd; Cain, the firft-born, being
appropriated to that employment which was
the moft neceflary, in order to raife Food from
the unfertil Earth ; and Abel to what was ufe
ful in the fecond place, whether we confider
Cattle with regard to their Wool and Skins for
Cloathes, or to their Bodies for the purpofes
of Sacrifice : and thus, fays the great Ld
Bacon, were thofe Brothers dedicated, the
one to the ablive, and the other to the con
templative fcenes of Life. But

120 Dissertation IL
But the care of Adam appears moft confpi-
cuous in his concern for their behaviour to
wards God ; and we fhall find, I hope, by what
will be offer'd hereafter, that he instructed
them (as they grew up) in the nature of their
obligations to the Being who had created them
—the nature alfo of his own Tranfgreffion, and
the univerfal confequences thence arising. It
is alfo very probable, that Adam and his Wife
were fo aw'd by reflecting on the greatnefs of
their firft Offence, and led fo sincerely to re
pentance by the goodnefs of God, that thro'
the remainder of their days they endeavour'd
to conciliate the favour of God by their own
pious behaviour, and a religious education of
their Children,
But as Children are not capable of perform
ing the higher Acts of Worfhip, which are
adapted to Men of age and confideration ; 'tis
probable that Sacrifice, which was inftituted
before this time ( as will be prov'd hereafter)
was conftantly offer'd up by Adam for himfelf
and family, 'till his Sons became qualified for
the Office, without his farther fuperintendency.
And as each of them had been probably a long
time married, they might be now firft advifed
to meet and offer for themfelves and their fa
milies ; as was the conftant Oeconomy of the
Patriarchal times. We may therefore reafona
bly fuppofe, that when Age and Circumftances appear'd

Dissertation II. 1 21
appear'd firft to require it, Adam appointed
that his Sons fhould, with a brotherly affection,
come together, and offer their Oblations to
the fame God> in the fame Manner, and at the
fame Time they had always feen him offer ; in
ftrict conformity to the divine Will, and the
nature of their own Neceffities.
As to the Time, which their Father had al
ways obferv'd for the folemnizing fuch facred
Services, it feems reafonable to conclude— that
it was fome Stated Time, regularly returning.
This, I fay, it is eafy to infer from Reafon \
and we aflert farther from Revelation — that
this Stated Time was the return of every Se
venth Day, from the finifhing the Creation;
which, by the exprefs command of God, Adam
was to fanctify and keep holy. For we read in
Gen. II. 1, 2, 3. — Thus the Heavens and the
Earth were finijhed, and all the Hoft of them.
And on the Seventh Day God ended his Work,
which he had made ; and he rejted on the Seventh
Day from aU his Work, which he had made. And
God blejfed the Seventh Day, and fanUified it ;
becaufe that in it he had reftedfrom aU his Work,
which God created and made.
• This Subject being very important in its
confequences, and the Second Point which I
have in view in the prefent Diflertation ; I
fhall here endeavour to prove the four follow
ing Frppofttions-- which, however foreign they
O^ may

122 Dissertation II.
may at firft fight appear to the Subject in hand)
will be found (I hope) to be of fome affinity ;
or, at leaft, be pardon'd, on account of fome
New Obfervations probably contain'd in them.
Proposition the I. That this Bleffing and
Sanctifying the Seventh Day contain'd an Order
from God to Adam and his Pofterity , to ob
ferve a Weekly Sabbath, or one day in feven
after an holy manner.
II. That tho' this Command was reinforced
by a more awful delivery of it from Mount
Sinai; yet it was exprefsly obferv'd by the Chil
dren of Ifrael, before that delivery of it from
Mount Sinai.
III. That this Obfervation of theirs muft
have been in obedience to fome pofitive Infti
tution ,- and as there is no intermediate or fe
cond Inftitution, it could be only in obedience
to this firft Inftitution, which confequently
continued in force down to the delivery of the
Law from Sinai.
IV. That the fame Inftitution was obferv'd,
during the Ante-Mofaic Oeconomy ; and that
this Sabbath was the Day, on which Cain and
Abel came together to offer their Oblations to
the Deity.
Firft then— that this Bleffing and Sanctifying
the Seventh Day contain'd an Order from God to

D I S S E R T A T I O N II. 123
to Adam and his Pofterity to obferve a Weekly
Sabbath, or one day in feven after an holy
manner. Let the words of the Inftitution be
here repeated — Thus the Heavens and the Earth
were finijhed, and aU the Army of them ; and on
the Seventh Day God had compleated his work,
which he made ( on the other fix,) and he refted
on the Seventh Day from all his work, which he
had made : and God bleffed the Seventh Day, and
fanUified it ; becaufe on that day he refted from
all his work, which God created and made. This
fecond chapter of Genefis begins with a review
of the preceding : and, as God, at the finifhing
his Creation, is defcrib'd as furveying the whole,
and pronouncing it very good, the Hiftorian
feems to copy his example ; and looking back
with pleafure on his account of fo wonderful
an Operation, he here enters on a more parti
cular detail of what moft concerns Man, at this
interefting conjuncture.
Thus then, fays he, in the number of Days
and the Order before fet down, were the Hea
ven and the Earth compleated, with the whole
Army that was ajfigned to each of them. But as
the hiftory of the other Planets of the Solar
Syftem (fuppos'd with good reafon, by fome h
to be part of the Creation defcrib'd in the pre
ceding chapter) was beyond the commiffion of
Mofes ; and as the Inhabitants of this Earth
g See the Uniyerfal Hiftory, p. 8,. Edit. 8vo.
Q^2 are

f 24 Dissertation II.
are only concern'd in the account of their own
Origin and Character — as Beings of fuch and
fuch an Order--- created under fuch and fuch
Circumftances — and whofe Happinefs was to
be the refult of fuch and fuch Services ; fo
Mofes feems only to hint at the Army or Inha
bitants of Heaven in the Planetary Worlds, and
confines his narration to his Companions here,
the Co-partners of Human Nature. He there
fore goes on to tell us, what was the next ad
of the Deity , after finifhing his Creation ;
namely — that, having ended his Work on the
Sixth day, he bleffed the Seventh day, andJanBi-
fied it.
And here let the original words be as dif
ferently render'd as they can be, without vio
lence to their meaning, they muft fignify thus
much — that when God had in Six days finifh'd
the Creation, he commanded the fucceeding,
or Seventh Day to be obferv'd by the firft hu
man Pair, as a day of peculiar holinefs. For
as no one, I fuppofe, will affert _ that this
Sanctification of the Seventh Day was to be
obferv'd by God ; or, that a Being effentially
(and therefore always) infinite in Holinefs,
could be more holy on this than the preceding
days ; this Act of Holinefs muft be referr'd to
Man. And how Man was to behave, in confe
quence of this injunction, will appear from the
Nature of the Words, and the peculiar Time of
their delivery. The

Dis s, e r t a t i o n II. 12$
The Words are 'y'ittfn DV DU &rba "pan
intf 2Hp>l the Englifh Verfion of which is— And
God bleffed the Seventh Day, and fanUified it.
The verb "pi carries with it a double Idea ;
firft of Bleffing, fecondly of Worjhipping, and
that in the particular manner of bowing on the
Knees. Thefe two fenfes may be united, when
fpoken of Man ; but the firft only can be un^
der flood, when confin'd to God. If then we
fuppofe this Verb to be in the Conjugation
Pihel h, the fenfe will be — God bleffed the Se
venth Day, or honoured it with peculiar marks of
his favour. But the word *p^l may be here
better underftood in Hiphil ; and then, from
the known power of that Conjugation (which
is to make, or order to do a thing .' ) it will
fignify— God ordered to blefs and worfhip by ado
ration. And as the Particle nK may, by the
authority of Noldius k, be render'd Upon, the
fenfe will be exprefsly thus — And God ordered
{Man) to blefs and worfhip on the Seventh Day.
The other verb enp»l may be alfo underftood
h Intenfivam fignificationem verba in Pi el habent, quse
in Kal funt a&iva; turn enim ftudium & continuatio
adionis hie fuperadditur. Glaffii Philol. Sacr. Lib. 3.
Trad. 3. Can. z6.
i Quae verba in Kal activa funt, in Hiphil tranflatio-
nem actionis in aliud fiibjedum agens fignificant ; &c (ex
Erpenio) Hiphil verbis Kal addit caufam, cujus virtute,
impulfu, jujfu, vel permiflione fit adio. Glaffii Philol.
Sacr. Lib. 3. Trad. 3. Can. 27.
k See Noldius, Partic. nX, Signif.10. in

126 Dissert ationIL
in Hiphil, and will then be — and ordered to
fahUify, or Jet apart for facred ufos ' ; and the
whole will confequently run thus — And God
refted on the Seventh Day from all his Work,
which he had made ; and God caufed ( Man ) to
blefs and worjlup on the Seventh Day, and order
ed [him) to fanilify it. This Interpretation, as
it feems conformable to Grammar, and ex-
prefles the Senfe beft (tho' the other amounts
to the fame, but with lefs ckarnefs) I humbly
offer to the judgment ofthe Learned.
But as this feems an Alteration of fome con
fequence, I beg to vindicate the liberty of
making it, before I leave this point. The
Reader, who is happily acquainted with the
Original Language, will grant it, I believe)
with little hesitation ; as he knows the words
may be construed either way, fo as to be moft
confiftent with the context; and as he knows
alfo, how frequently this Alteration fhould be
made in the Englifh Verfion of the Bible, to
imprpve the Senfe of it. One inftance of this
kind has occurr'd to me, which I fhall here ob
ferve; that, as the neceffity of correcting the
Verfion in that place feems evident, I may be
the better fupported in making the alteration
abovemention'd.
. 1 See this fenfe of the verb eftablifh'd by Mr. Mede,
Book I. Difc. 2.
The

Dissertation II. 127
The place is in Gen. XXIV. 35- — And the
Lord hath bleffed my Majter greatly, and he is
become great, and he hath given him Flocks and
Herds &c. How perplex'd is this Sentence
from the confufion of the nominative cafe He !
The Lord hath bleffed — he (my Matter) is be
come — he ( the Lord ) hath given him ( my
Matter) Flocks and Herds &c. But the Ori
ginal is clear of this ftrange mixture, and flows
fmoothly on in a beautiful uniformity of perfon
npm \mt T7 inn imn inn »rw nx *pi mm
which is — And the Lord hath bleffed my Mafter
exceedingly, and he hath made {him ) great, and
he hath given him Flocks and Herds &C. This
Sentence being produced as an Authority for
the preceding alteration, let us now fee how
this Injunction, for the fanctifying a Seventh
Day, flood, with refpect to the firft human
Pair. Adam and his Wife had been both created
on the Sixth Day ; and with them God finifh'd
the work of his Creation. It is therefore highly
reafonable to fuppofe, when God had, on the
remainder of that day, given them a view of
their Situation, their Circumftances, and their
Relation to himfelf and to each other, that he
fhould command them to devote the day fol
lowing (as the Firft-Fruits of their Time) to a
grateful acknowledgment of that Goodnefsj
which gave them fo happy an exiftence : and
that.

128 Dissertation II.
that, as he himfelf, after making the World in
fix days, refted on the feventh ; fo they, in a
devout remembrance of it, fhould then forbear
what was afterwards to be their Employment,
and give up that one day to Thankfgiving and
the Adoration of their Creator. After this
manner was the Day appointed ; and doubtlefs
it was carefully obferv'd, and kept holy to the
Lord. The obfervation of this firft Sabbath being
thus determin'd, with the Holinefs exercis'd
thereon by our firft Parents ,- it follows to be
prov'd — that this holy Obfervation of the Se
venth Day could not be confin'd to that fingle
day ; but that it was inftituted likewife to be
continued in the fame manner, upon every fuc-
ceflive revolution of Seven Days m. For it will
be allow'd a conclufive Maxim— that every wife
Inftitution muft be defign'd to Jaft as long as the

m De publico cultu Dei, cujus maxime causa creatus ,
eft, ut primum eft creatus, moneri hominem par fuit. Hie
autem quia peragi commode nifi ftatis quibufdam diekts
non potuit, ne hominibus fortafle vel non conveniret
omnibus de tempore, vel minus idoneum eligeretur ; Deo
ipfi placuit diem, qui futurus erat huic negotio aptiffimiis,
paulo poft principia rerum defignare. Cum enim poftu-
kret ipfa res, ut quam primum de Cultiis ejus Tempore
conftaret, propter quem & humanum genus praecipue
conditum, ipfeque Mundus videtur ; quis putet hoc a Deo
non nifi poft annos 2^00 demum uni traditum genti, quod
hom'mum intererat omnium cognofcere ? Anna!-. Mund.
Robinfon S.T.P. Lib. I. p. 58.

u,

Jefulnefs

DlS'SER'TATION II. i2&
ufofulnefo of that Inftitution continues •, confe
quently, if the ufefulnefs of a Sabbath conti
nued, the Sabbath muft have been defign'd to
continue alfo, and to be in force after its firft
Obfervation. Now the Ufe of the Sabbatical Inftitution,
no doubt, was — that Adam, by a regular re
turn of fuch a Sacred Day, might be reminded
ofthe divine Goodnefs and Mercy in his own
Creation— that, while innocent, he might em
ploy the Seventh part of his Time, in the
grateful tribute of Praife and Acknowledgment
^-and that, if guilty, he might not only con
tinue to remember himfelf as the Creature, or
vifible production of an invifible God ; but
under the eniarg'd Character of a neceffitous
and guilty Creature.
Befides : tho' Words, by divine appointment,
convey'd fix'd Ideas to the minds ofthe firft hu
man Pair and their Family ; yet Letters, under
the amazing brevity of an Alphabet, certainly
were not the invention of this firft Age of the
world. And therefore, as Oral Tradition was
then the only poffible method of conveying
down Informations ', the Inftitution of a Sab-
n And, confiderihg the longevity of the Patriarchs, a
true account of things was eafily handed down this way
from Adam to Mofes, the au:hor of the Pentateuch. For
A'dam died only 126 years before tbe birth of Noah;
Noah lived more than 50 years after the birth of Abra
ham ; Abraham is fuppos'd to have lived with Jacob ;
\ ' R bath

130 Dissertation II.
bath was greatly ferviceable in thefe farther
particulars— -That Adam, convening hisFamily
on the regular returns of that day, might de
clare the wonderful manner of the World's
Creation— that the Sea was God's, and he made
it ; and that his hands prepared the Dry-Land
—that it was He that made them, and not They
themselves ; and therefore to him they were
to pay their Thanks for being Human Crea
tures—that as all they enjoy'd was the effert of
his Bounty, a return of part was expected from
them by way of Eucharift and grateful Ac
knowledgment — that they were to confider
themfelves as endow'd with the principle of
Free-Agency, and confequently as accounta
ble for their Behaviour here— that all the /hin-
ing Beings they beheld above, and the beauti
ful Creatures furrounding them below, were
the Productions of Almighty Power — that he
himfelf was created in perfect Innocence, and
compleat Happinefs ; and tho' he had by Sin
forfeited the privileges of his Birth, yet God
had gracioufly promis'd him a Redeemer, one
who fhould recover the Happinefs of Mankind,
and triumph over their common Enemy— that
tho' he himfelf was become fubject to, and
they were born under, a depravation of Human
Jacob with Levi ; and Levi with his grandfon Amram$
who was the Father of Mofes. Bp Williams, Boyle's
Led. Serm. Vol. I. p. i6"j. Nature;

Dissertation II. 131
Nature, and (from the afcendancy of their
Paffions over their Reafon ) with a propenfity
to act amifs ; yet they had power to prevent,
and at the fame time a possibility of Pardon for
not preventing, fuch Misbehaviour— that there
fore they were to expect the reconciliation and
favour of God, upon a devout application for
Forgivenefs ; which was however only to be
obtain'd by virtue of their future Redeemer's
Death, a conftant Faith in which they were to
exercife and reprefent before God, by obferv-
ing the typical Inftitution of animal Sacrifice
— that this Sacrificial Service, inftituted by di
vine command, was to continue, 'till the Re
deemer fhould lay down his Life for them and
their Pofterity, by the Oblation of himfelf once
for all ° — And laftly, that each of his Sons
fhould afterwards, in their Families, difcharge
the fame threefold Character, as he, their Fa
ther had done before them ; i. e. of a I(ing,
to govern and regulate the behaviour of his
o Luke I. 68. Blejfed be the Lord God of Ifrael, for he
hath vifited and redeemed his people — 70. As he ffake by the
mouth of his holy Prophets, which have been SINCE THE
WORLD BEGAN. And Ads III. 18. — But thofe things
which God before hadjhewed by the mouth of all his Prophets,
that Chrift Jhould fuffer, he hath fo fulfilled— .20. And he Jhall
fend Jefus Chrift, which before was preached unto Tou —
21. Whom the Heaven muft receive, until the times ofreftttu-
tion of all things, which God hath ffohinby tl. e mouth of ALL
his holy Prophets, since the world eegan.
R 2 Children;

132 Dissertation II.
Children ; of a Prieft, to aflemble them, and
offer up their facred Oblations ; and of a Pro.
phet, to inftruct them in the great Events al-
ready paft, and the wonderful things reveal'd
by God, and remaining yet unaccomplifh'd p.
Thefe then are fome of the important Lef-
fons, which Adam may reafonably be fuppos'd
to have taught his Children, and which his
Sons were to teach their Children i ; in order
to preferve them all from Irreligion and Ido
latry. And as a Sabbath-day, or a Weekly
day of Reft from Labour, in order to aflemble
for the giving and receiving thefe Informa
tions, and to perform thefe Acts of Worfhip,
was the wifeft, and indeed ( as far as appears
" p Adamum eo fine condiderat Deus, ut virtutum ope-
rumque' fuorum teftis, praco, atque laudator eflet ; &, uti
communis humani generis magifter, filios nepotefque mo.
neret, quid in hac vita & poft earn fperandum metuen^
dumve habeant. Witfii iEgyptiac. Lib. II. cap. 15-.
q Fuei unt fane Patriarchs Doclores pubiici, qui cceleftis
dodrinas.veritatem tradiderunt fuis, &fedula repetitione
alte infixerunt : nee Dodores tantum fuerunt, fed etiam
Tropheta.-, latentes & abditos eventus divinarum rerum
confeia mente explicantes. Heidegger Exercit.j.Sec.y,
Immo mihi verum videtur, quod alicubi memini a CI.
Pearfono notatum efle, Noachum a S. Petro (in Epifiola
fecundall. 5.) QEtavum Pr<zdicatorcm fuftitia dici, quan-
qua,m Mofes nufquam dixerit quinam fuerint feptem Ju-
fjtiji« prsecones, qui illo fueiint priores : credendum eft
tamen, & Deum in terris femper habuifle Ecclefiam, & in
Ecclefia femper extitifle Juftit'ne Pracones, & feptem qui-
dem Noacho quadantenus fimiles. Bp Cumberland, de
Legibus Patriarcharum, p. 419. to

PljSSERTATlQNrH. 133
to us) the only method likely to accompltfh
fuch great Ends ; we may conclude from all
our ideas, of an infinitely wjfe and good Being,
that he inftituted the Sabbath- Day, in order
to a continual obfervation. So that the Pa
triarchs might have ufed Words like thpfe of
.the Pfalmift r, and: faid of the Sabbath — We
have heard and known, and our Fathers have told
us, , that we Jhould not hide it from the Children
ofthe Generations to come $ but to Jhew the
Honour ofthe Lord, his mighty and wonderful
Works that he hath done : he made a Cove
nant with Adam, and gave him a Law, which he
commanded that our Forefathers Jhould teach their
Children ; that their Pofterity might know it, and
the Children which were yet unborn ; to the intent
-that when they came up, they might Jhew their
Children the fame ; that fo they might not forget
the Works of God, but keep his Commandments.
It may be proper alfo to obferve— that there
feems to have been the fame neceffity for the
inftitution of a Sabbath under the Patriarchal
Oeconomy, as when the Ifraelites were gone
forth into the Wildernefs. The Argument,
wherein the great ftrength ofthe Objectors to
the Patriarchal Sabbath lies, is. this — that a
Sabbath was given to the Ifraelites at Sinai to
preferve them from Idolatry. This indeed is
conclusive for the Ifraelites ; but can it be ex-
r Pfalm LXXVIII. clufive

134 D'i ssertation II.
clufive of the Patriarchs ? The Ifraelites, it
may be faid, were going to inhabit among Ido
latrous Nations. True: but did not the Pa
triarchs dwell among fuch as were equally A-
poftates from the Worfhip of the True God ?
And was not the Religion of the latter equally
therefore in danger with that of the former?
And was it not, at fome times, as nearly per
verted ' ? It will be faid alfo, that the Ifraelites,
having liv'd in Egypt for many years, had given
into the Cuftoms of their Idolatrous Matters;
and therefore a Sabbath was inftituted to heal
them of that inveterate Diftemper. But is it
not more for the honour of God, that he be
fuppos'd to have inftituted a Sabbath, by way
of Prevention, rather than by way of Cure?
That, as he forefaw the future falling off of
Mankind from his Worfhip, he fhould rather
promulge a Law preventive of fuch Apoftacy ?
s Plerique quidem non dubitant, quin Idololatriam in
Patriarcharum domos invexerit primus Serugus filius Reil
feu Rhagau ; fie & Eufebius. Eutychi'us primordia Ido-
lolatrias refert ad tempora Kahtanis feu Jodanis, qui ffa-
ter Phalegi fuit ; & Idololatrise incrementum refert ad
tempora Serugi. Ut de origine Idololatriae ipfe dicam,
id certum eft, tempore Therachi falfis Diis litatum & in-
fervitum effe. "Nee Therachum ipfum audOrem efle dici
poteft, quum falfos Deos dicuntur coluifle ii, qui trans
flumen habitarunt chwQ a feculo : Quin igitur inter
Semum benedidum & Therachum in familias Patriarcha
rum irrepferit, ambigaum non eft. Heidegg, Hift. Pa
triarch. Exer. i. Sec. %z. And

Dissert at ion II. 13 e
And7 do we not find that this was actually the
cafe ? — Let us not then confine the Mercy of
God ; or difown his Goodnefs, as not extend
ed to afl his Creatures. The Sacred Hiftorian
has exprefsly aflur'd us, that, at the finifhing
the Creation, God commanded the obferva
tion of a Sabbath, in remembrance ofthe Crea
tor and his Works ; and certainly fuch a Com
mand muft extend, and muft have extended,
to all Mankind, becaufe they all are Creatures c.
It is indeed aflerted by fome— that the Text
in Gen. II, commanding a Sabbath, is a Pro-
lepfis ; and mention'd there only by way of An
ticipation of the Jewijb Sabbath, inftituted about
Two Thoufand Five Hundred Years after. But
the Uniformity of the Hiftory, and the Regu
larity of the Narration, are fufficient to fet
afide fo forced an Interpretation". I fhall,
t It may be obferv'd, that our Saviour tells us (Mark
II. 27.)" The Sabbath was made (or inftituted) im m ttfyonm,
for the fake of Man ; not for one particular Nation, but
for the benefit of Mankind. And therefore we may apply
St. Paul's words in Rom. III. 29 ; and fay — Was the Sab
bath then for the Jews only, or is it for the Gentiles
alfo ? Tea, for the Gent i l es alfo.
u — Mihi quidem hoc pro certo ftatuitur, ad Deftina-
tidnes atque Anticipationes non efle fugiendum in Scriptis
Divinis, nifi cum fenfus verborum occurrit impeditus,
qui ferat prae fe vel falfum aliquid, vel abfonum & alie-
pum : at nihil hie ejufmodi. Vera & perfpicua funt om
nia; & cur hie locus eodem quo narratur temporis ordine
non fit intelligendus, equidem nihil perfpicio. Annal.
Mund. a Robinfon, p. 57, however

136 Di S SER TATION II.
however, for a fuller confutation of it, draw
a few obferVatiOns from the Fourth Command^
ment it felf w.
The intent ofthe Firft Table of the'Oeca-
logue confeflTedly was to fecure the Worfhip of
the True God, -after a proper manner. But
tho' the Firft precept of this Table may be well
thought the moft important, as being the foun
dation ofthe reft ; yet the Fourth precept only
begins with the word Remember. Were not
the Ifraelites then equally, or rather more care
fully to remember, to have no other Gods but
one ? Were they not, at leaft equally, to re
member that this one God was not to be wor-
fhipp'd under any vifible Reprefentation ? Yes,
certainly ; and therefore as this Remembrance^
fo peculiarly prefix'd to the Fourth Command
ment, does not infer any Superiority in that
Commandment, it muft refer to the previous
Inftitution of the Sabbath, which it enjoin'd.
For God tells them by the whole tenour of that
Commandment, that it was only a Renewal of
what he had enjoin'd at his finifhing the Crea
tion, and what had been before obferv'd. And
therefore they were to remember— that the fame
facred. Inftitution was continued and incorpo
rated into that Syftem of Laws, which he then
gave them. For the words rQETI DV PiX TOt
IKHpS are not (as they are fometimes ren-
w Exod. XX. 8. der'd )

Dissertation II. 13-7
der'd) Remember that thou keep holy the Sab
bath Day ; but— Remember the Sabbath Day, to
keep that holy.
Thus God begins the Commandment with
referring them to a prior obfervation ; and
then he lays down the manner and extent of
the Obligation of it — Six days Jhalt thou la
bour, and do all thy work ; and the Seventh Day
is the Sabbath (not pf9 but) to the Lord thy God
( a Reft from Labour to attend upon the Wor
fhip of God ) on that thoujhalt not do any rvork ;
Thou, nor thy Son &f. nor the Stranger that is
within thy Gates. This mention of the Stran
ger's beipg to obferve a Sabbath is a Proof
that the Command of a Sabbath is not merely
Jewifh, as has frequently been afferted x. No
$tjranger could join in eating the Paflover,
without being firft circumeis'd, and thereby
initiated into Judaifm ? ; but a Stranger might,
nay was oblig'd (we find ) to keep the Sabbath,
tho' he had not been circumeis'd. The reafon
of which remarkable diftinctioa is — that Cir-
x The following Obfervation of Bp Cumberland con
firms this point—Sumo pro conceflb, feu manifefta veri-
tate, quod omnia Sacrificia qua; Peregrini e gentibus aliis
permittebantur offerre Deo, in lege Mofaica, ea omnia
licita fuerunt, virtute legum Patriarchalium ScNaturalium;
wullaque a Mofaicis legibas data ejfe iis Privilegia, praster ea^
quae ante legem ex jure gentium ad omnes homines pertine-
bant. De Leg. Patriar. in Orig. Gent, antiq. p.464-
y Exod- XII. 43, 44, S cumcifion

138 Dissertation II.
cumcifion was a National, and the Sabbath an
1)niverfal Inftitution ; the former given in
command to Abraham, and obligatory only on
his Defcendants ; while the latter was given in
command to Adam, the Father of all Mankind.
After this claufe concerning the Stranger,
follows the Reafon of the Command, exactly
the fame with what was deliver'd at its firft In
ftitution — Becaufe in Six Days the Lord made
Heaven and Earth, and refted on the Seventh
Day ; therefore the Lord bleffed the Seventh Day
and hallowed it ; or — therefore the Lordcaufed
Man to worjhip on the Seventh Day, and ordered \
him to fanUify it. Thus the very Letter of
the Precept tells us, that as the Sanctificatiohl
of one day in feven was (by way of Analogy to, j
and in Remembrance ofthe Creation) given in
command to Adam, the Parent of Mankind,
and only re-authoriz'd at Sinai ; all Mankind
muft have been, and muft be, oblig'd by virtue
of the Sabbatical Inftitution.
Thus much may be thought fufficient to
prove the Firft Proposition ; which will, how
ever, receive additional ftrength and confirma
tion from arguments that will be introduced
hereafter. The Second Proposition now offers it felf to
our thoughts j which is — that, tho' this Com
mand of a Sabbath at the Creation was rein
forced

Dissertation II. 130
forced by a more awful delivery of it from
Mount Sinai ; yet it was exprefsly obferv'd by
the Children of Ifrael, before that delivery of
it from Sinai.
We read in the hiftory of the Travels ofthe
Ifraelites, that they came to the Wildernefs of
Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the
fifteenth day of the fecond month after their
departing out of Egypt — that from the Wil
dernefs of Sin they went to Rephidim— and from
I Rgphidim they came to the Wildernefs of Sinai,
s in the third month \ The intermediate time,
, between the fifteenth day of the fecond month
and their arrival at Sinai in the third month,
t was fpent at Sin, where they murmur'd and
, were fed with Manna ; and, after that, at Re
phidim, where they murmur'd again, and were
f fatisfied with Water, and where they fought
the Amalekites. And therefore whatever was
done and obferv'd, in the Wildernefs of Sin,
muft have been done and obferv'd before they
came to Mount Sinai, and confequently before
the delivery ofthe Law from thence.
Now we read in Exod. XVI. 1 — And aU the
Congregation ofthe Children of Ifrael came unto
the Wildernefs of Sin. 2. And they murmured
againft Mofes in that Wildernefs. 3. And faid,
Tou have brought us forth into this Wildernefs, to
kiU this whole Affembly with hunger. 4. Then
Z Exod. XVI. 1. XVII. r. XIX. 1, ».
S 2 fa*

140 Dissertation II.
faid the Lord unto Mofes — Behold ! I wiU rain
Bread from Heaven unto you ; and the people JhaU
gather a certain rate every day. f. And on the
Sixth day they Jhall prepare that which they bring
in • it Jhall be twice as much as they gather daily.
,  22. And on the fixth day they gathered
twice as much Bread, two Omers for one Man ;
and all the Rulers of the Congregation came and
told Mofes. 23. And he [aid unto them, This
is what the Lord hath faid, To morrow being the
Reft of the Holy Sabbath unto the Lord^ bake
what ye will bake to day, and feethe what ye will
feethe •, and that which remaineth lay up until
the morning. 24. And they laid it up until the
morning, as Mofes bade. 2$. And Mofes faid,
Eat that to day ; for this day being the Sabbath
unto the Lord, to day ye JhaU not find it in the
field. 26. Six days ye Jhall gather it ; but on the
Seventh day, which is the Sabbath, on that there
JhaU be none. 27. Tet there went out fome on
the Seventh day to gather, but they found none.
28. And the Lord faid unto Mofes, How long re-
f ufe ye to keep my Commandments and my
Laws? 29. Seel Becaufe the Lord hath given
you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the
fixth Day the Bread of two Days, abide ye then
every man in his place ; let no man go out of his
place on the Seventh Day. 30. So the people
kept the Sabbath on the Seventh Day. This

Dissertation II. 141
This Chapter then, being exprefs, is abun
dantly fufficient to eftablifh the .Second Propo-
fition — that the Ifraelites obferv'd a Sabbath
Day before the giving ofthe Law from Sinai a.
And it is remarkable, that all the expressions,
mentioning a Sabbath in the above-cited verfesj
fpeak of it, not as a novel Inftitution, but as
an Inftitution the people were very well ac
quainted with. To morrow, fays Mofes to
the Rulers, is the Holy Sabbath unto the Lord ;
and therefore, as he knew them perfectly fen
fible of that, he only tells them, how they were
to act at that time with regard to the miracu
lous gift of Bread from Heaven ; which was
not to fall on the Seventh day, as it did on the
other fix, that fo the deftination of that one
a This then is a fufficient anfwer to that Objection,
drawn from a paffage in Nehemiah, which Dr. Spencer
and others infift upon as of great confequence in the argu
ment againft a Patriarchal Sabbath. The words are in
Nehemiah IX. ij, 14. Thou cameft down alfo upon mount
Sinai, and Jpakeft with them from Heaven, and gaveft them
right Judgments, and true Laws, good Statutes and Command
ments ; and madeft known unto them thy holy Sabbath. For
it appears that a Sabbath was actually commanded, and
obferv'd by the Ifraelites, before they came to Sinai ; and
therefore a Sabbath could not be firft commanded the If
raelites from Sinai. So that the word Hlmn fhould be
render'd agnofcere, animadvert ire, attendere, curare, curam
gerere eos fecifti. For thefe are its fignifications ; and the
word implies here that folemn and awful reinforcement
of the Sabbath, which God made at Sinai, punifhing the
violation of it with Death. Numb.XV. jf. day

142 Dissertation II.
day to facred ufes might not be render'd ufelefs
and ineffectual.
Having thus fhewn, that the Sabbath was ob
ferv'd by the Children of Ifrael, before the
delivery of the Fourth Commandment from
mount Sinai; I fhall proceed to prove the
Third Proposition ; which is— that this Obfer
vation of theirs muft have been in obedience
to fome Pofitive Inftitution ; and as there is
no intermediate or fecond Inftitution, it could
be only in obedience to the firft Inftitution
given in command to Adam.
I fhall introduce what I have to offer here
with a quotation from the celebrated Author of
the Religion of Nature delineated b. We fhall
find ourfelves bound, fays he, to worfhip God
in the beft manner we can. And to do this,
thefe things may in general be faid to be re
quird ,• an intent Mind , a proper form of
Words, a proper Posture, a proper Place, and
a proper Time. As to this laft Article it muft
be here obferv'd, that all times cannot be
equally proper ,• and therefore, for private
Worfhip, the compos'd hour and the fofter
feafon of Retreat and Silence ought to be
fought, and, as far as fairly maybe, contriv'd.
But there ought alfo to be a Publick Worfhip
of the Deity. For a Man may be confider'd as
b Sect. V. a

Dissertation II. 143
a Member of a Society ; and, as fuch, he ought
to worfhip God publickly, if he has Capacity
and Opportunity. Or, the Society may be
confider'd as One Body, that has common Inte-
refts and Concerns ; and, as fuch, is oblig'd
to worfhip the Deity, and offer up one common
Prayer. And farther, toward keeping Man
kind in order, it is neceflary there fhould be
fome Religion profeft and even eftablifh'd,
which cannot be without fome Publick Worfhip ;
and were it not for that fenfe of Virtue, which
is principally preferv'd (fo far as it is preferv'd)
by National Forms and Habits of Religion,
Men would foon lofe it all, run wild, and act
like the worft of Savages c.
If then there is a Neceffity for Publick Wor-
Jhipd, there muft be alfo a Neceffity for fixing
on fome Stated Time for the exercife of this
c The true Religion, notwithftanding the ten Perfec
tions and all the artifices of cruelty which Hell and Hea-
thenifm could contrive, grew and increas'd by means of
a Weekly Ajfembly, and the duties then perform'd ; and
this Julian the Apoftate was fo fenfible of, that, when all
his Wits had been at work for reftoring the Heathenifh.
Impiety, he could not think of any way more effectual,
than ordering all his Philofbphers to preach it up weekly to
the People. Dr. Prideaux's Connect. Part I. Book 6.
d Id fcilicet naturalis Ratio dictat, quum Homo fit ani
mal «^iAiimt9» kcu -mMTttQi non privatim folum Deum colen-
dum efle, fed & publice atque in ccetu : ad earn rem ne-
ceflariam efle defignationem certorum locorum, ubi con-
ventus fiat, & condictionem temporis quando. Porro qui
dies Numinis cultui facrati erant, iis hoc efle agendum, Publick

144 Dissertation II.
Publick Worfhip; and this, as it is a felf-evi-
dent Truth, the Oppofers of Religious Infti-
tutions have the ingenuity to aflent to, as the
voice of Reafon. The Author of the Leviathan
tells us e — Reafon directeth not only to wor
fhip God in Secret, but alfo, and efpecially in
Publick and in the fight of Men; for without
that, (what in Honour is moft acceptable) the
procuring others to honour him, is loft. And
the Author of Chriftianity as old as the Crea
tion fays f — It is the voice of Nature, that
God fhould be publickly worfhipp'd ; and that
Men fhould do this in the moft convenient way,
by appointing amongft themfelves Time, Place,
Perfons, and all other things which require
fpecial determination.
The conceflion, which this Writer found
himfelf oblig'd to make, holds strongly in fa
vour of the point before us ; but we muft
guard againft his inference— God muft be pub
lickly worfhipp'd, and in the moft convenient
way ; therefore Men fhould appoint among
atque huic uni rei operandum. Sic volunt Leges Atticae,
fie Romanse ; habebat tamen ilia meytm Lex fuam quon
dam exceptionem, quam dictabat aequitas : nam (apud Ma-
crobium eft) Umbro negabat eum poUui, qui opus vel ad
Deos pertinens Sacrorumve causa feciffet, vel aliquid ad
urgentem vita utilitatem refpiciens actitaflet. Witf. J£-
gyptiac. Lib. 2. Cap. 16. Sec. y.
e Chap. XXXI. p. 171.
f Page 117, 116. themfelves

Diss e r t a t i o n II. 143
themfelves Time &c. This deduction he was
neceffitated to draw from his disbelief of Re
velation ; for as God muft be publickly woi*
fhipp'd, and at fome ftated Time* if God has
not reveal'd that Time, Man. muft appoint it.
But ( Thanks be to God ! )' We have,' and
acknowledge a Divine Command, whereunto we
do' well that we take heed, as unto a Light that
Jbineth. in a dark place %) For had this Ap
pointment of the publick return of Divine
Worfhip been only of, and' from Man ; how
vague and Uncertain, how remifs or violent*
how wild and changeable had been the various
Inftitution in various places; 'ind how diftract-?
ed the:exereife of all. Publick Sacred Solemni*
ties ! The World had been a Theatre of Reli-
ligious Difcord ; or rather, Religion had been
loft in the tumult, .j The [different Forces, im-
prefs'd on all fides to give it each its peculiar
direction, would, when at once applied^ have
answer' d the fame purpofe, as the Principle in
herent in Matter ; which is remarkable for its
pppofition to Life and Motion. And there?
fore, to prevent fuch a Quiefcence of Publick
Worfhip, it was neceflary, that God fhouild
imprefs his Authority on fome Stated Time for
the obfervation of it, by the force of which the
World might uniformly agree in celebrating
the appointed time ; as the Planetary Bodies
.g a Pet. I. 19. T revolve

146 Dissertation II.
revolve in harmony and order, by the power
of thofe Principles, which are imprefs'd upon
them by the God of Nature.
; Human Wifdom then being too weak to afcer-
tain what portion of our Time fhould be de
voted to Publick Worfhip, and human Power
unable to eftablijh an uniform Obedience ; God,
the God of Order, has been pleas'd to make
known his Will, and fix the obfervation of an
holy Sabbath. One Day in Seven he has ap
pointed, on which Men may abftract themfelves
from Labour, and the common BufinefTes of
Life ; and be employ'd in the fublime Contem
plation of the Creator, and Themfelves his
Creatures ; and confequently exercife the pro
per Acts of Worfhip arifirig from fo interesting
a Relation h. The Words of this Inftitution
have been before confider'd ; and as a Weekly
Sabbath was evidently defign'd for a perpetual
Remembrance ofthe Creator, and was ufher'd
in at his compleating the Creation ; fo, from
-h Philo, on this Subject, has a Paffage which is truly
noble, and therefore very worthy of our Obfervation.
si. E*sA<st/«i» « ©6»5 t»j pi&etTccf ft %/art) 7ij mn-fKU -mXnaa £p, ngJitt-
Sng iv ins afoois, xtq i@,?u mi' tm&tcf Qia, a&t /dp t^jM itnn^/iiss
s<f>' flf«s?*« »|j omxtnpi; fo xaj QnXtmqismts -m tvh[t>>, x«f 5liw{<« (8p
ruv •ntstywi »"AJ«*"£«»r*»" immemsnus ii xctf a it (tit ngfafus u
this w&«gj!K t<ntct%fyr ^»p> xaf aOSuaces at ami )) tfyxcmv imf tcu/lut
¦ticti&tqo'Tit; %t iu •mi ^t>xvi $>s*.&mie/M' truuiSfdjarm x«/ <nw%\irn-
Yjmm rw itftui, «{ Tl tluj rat wajogjs^nrar ((stTtjJan*, xaj ns&f rlut
ris fttifoi ewht il#f&Sr*>e» €s&tj>u^Kxlui. De decern Oraculis
Tom. II. p. 197. the

Dissertation II. 14I
the reafon of the thing, it muft be commen-
furate to and of equal continuance with the
Creation. Where then is the Wonder, if no Second
Inftitution of this Sabbath be any where re
corded, when there evidently was no need of
it ; as the Firft continued, and ever will conti
nue, in full force and obligation? Upon the
coming up of his chofen People from Egypt in
deed, God incorporated this among the other
Laws he gave them, written with his own
Finger ; that fo he might (as it were) fet his
Seal to what he originally deliver'd in com
mand to Adam, the more ftrongly to enforce
their obedience. He alfo bound this Precept
upon them, with a ftrictnefs peculiar to that
People, and for a double reafon too — the re
membrance ofthe Creation, and the additional
bleffing of their Delivery from Egyptian Bon
dage. But that there is no Inftitution of the
Sabbath, between that to Adam and tjiis Con
firmation of it at Sinai, feems clear upon a due
Enquiry. The only place', which has been
fuppos'd to look that way, or which fome would
willingly have wrefted to that fenfe, is in Exod.
XV. 27 ; which I fhall therefore now carefully
confider. The Ifraelites were come forth from Egypt,
and having pafs'd the Red Sea were arriv'd at
Marah ; and there they murmur'd at the bit-
T 2 ternefs

148 Dissertation II.
ternefs of the Waters, For we read, Verfe
the 23d — And when they came to Mar ah, they
could not drink of the Waters ofMarah, for they
were bitter. 24. And the people murmured a-
gainft Mofes , faying , What JhaU we drink ?
25". And he cried unto the Lord, and the Lord
jljewed him a Tree, which when he had eaft into
the Waters, the Waters were made fweet ; there
he made for them a Statute and an Ordinance,
and there he proved them. 26. And faid, if thou
wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord
thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his
fight, and wilt give ear to his Commandments,
and keep all his Statutes ; IwiU put none of thofe
Difeafos upon Thee, which I have brought upon
the Egyptians ; for I am the Lord that healcth
thee. It is furprizing to obferve what an heap of
Commandments fome Jews, and fome Chri-
ftians too., have affirm'd to be contain'd in
thofe fsw words — there he made for them a
Statute and an Ordinance. In Seder Olam ' we
are afluf'd, that Ten Precepts were here given
to the Ifraelites, Seven of which were the Pre
cepts of the Sons of Noah ; and to thefe were
added the Sabbath, the Judgments, and the
Honour to be paid to Parents. Salomon Jarchi
tells us k — There was given at Marah to the
i Meyer's Seder Olam, p. ior.
k See Selden de Jure Nat. 6c Gent. Lib. I. Cap. 10.
Ifraelites

Dissertation II. 149
Ifraelites part of the Chapters of the Law, in
which they might exereife themfelves ; name
ly, concerning the Sabbath, the Red Heifer, and
the Judgments. But does not this method of
interpretation rather provoke our averfion,
than raife our approbation ? Certainly it does :
and therefore Manafleh Ben Ifrael, the cele
brated President ofthe Amfterdam Synagogue,
cenfures thefe Interpreters very freely —What,
fays he \ if fome of the old Writers do aflert
that the Precept of a Sabbath was given at
Marah > And what if they do produce thofe
words for their Authority ? Mr. Selden ob-
ferves, that he leaves the point undetermin'd ;
but fays that great man — Manafleh Ben Ifrael
was not the only Matter among the Jews, who
rejected the opinion of a Sabbatical Inftitution
at Marah.
The Truth feems to be, that fome Jews were
desirous at any rate to have the honour ofthe
Sabbath to themfelves, and fome Chriftians
were very ready to yield up their claim ; and
therefore Both feem to have been willing to
fix the Inftitution of it at Marah, to prevent
the Doctrine of its 1)niverfality ; which would
otherwife follow of courfe, becaufe it was ob
ferv'd before the giving of the Law. But the
Inftitution of a Sabbath is as difficult to be ex
tracted from the word Statute, as the form of
1 See Selden de Jure Nat. & Gent. Lib. 3. Cap. 9. the

15O D I S S E R T A T I' 0 N II.
the Jewifh Civil Government is from the word
Ordinance or Judgment ; tho' both have been
fo frequently afcrib'd to the virtue of thefe
two words.
Let us confider the place carefully, with the
context — There made for them a Statute and an
Ordinance — Who made > The Original gives
us no nominative cafe ; which it certainly
would have done, had there been foch mighty
confequences depending ; efpecially as the no
minative cafe generally abounds in the Hebrew
Language. Befides : there is not the appear
ance of a reafon for the Inftitution of a Sab
bath in this place, rather than another. The
Ifraelites were now very near to Sinai, from
whence they were to receive their Law ; and,
if a Sabbath was never yet inftituted, 'tis fcarce
poffible to think that God would promulge one
important precept of that Law, about a fort
night before the reft ¦, and that, when pro-
mulg'd, it fhould lie fo deeply conceal'd under
the word Statute.
But it may be proper to obferve, that the
words Statute, and Judgment or Ordinance are
us'd very indifcriminately thro' the Bible, and
frequently fignify nothing more than the word
of God in general m. Thus in Pfalm CXIX. f.
—Oh ! that my Ways were fo diretl, that I might
m See the Prolegom. to the Polyglott Bible, Idiotifm
the 14, p.4j. keep

Di s s er t a Tiio n II. rrj
keep thy Statutes — 20. My Soul breaketh out
for the very fervent defire it hath alway unto thy
Judgments — and 116. Oh. ! teach me thy Judg
ments. So that the Words ->- there he propofod
to them a Statute and an Ordinance, and, there he.
tried them — feem to fignify, that there either
God, or Mofes by his order, propos'd the fol
lowing general Covenant to the Ifraelites— that
if they, would obey him, he would be their God, and
preferve them from evil. And this he did to
try them, whether or no they were willing to
regulate their %future behaviour according to
his Will, and to receive him as their. Lawgiver;.
For it is- evident that the Words do not^of
themfelves k^ply^. either the Inftitution of a
Sabbath (which was inftituted before,) or of
their Civil. Government (which was inftituted
after ;) and therefore ,the fenfe of the place,
regularly cqnfider'd, will certainly determine
ns againft fuch a forced conftruction. The
Ifraelites were now come to Marah ; and com-
plain'd againft God and their Leader Mofes, on
account of the bitternefs of the waters. They
were apprehenfive, that fuch an apparent fear-
city of what was neceflary both for meat and
drink, in thofe Defarts of Arabia, would im
mediately reduce them to various Sicknefles,
and foon to Death. To abate, therefore,
their murmurings for the prefent, God works
a Miracle to fweeten the waters ; and to filence their

t$2 Dissertation II.
their complaints, and eafe them of future fears,
he takes occasion from the preceding circum
ftance to propofe the following tryal of their
Obedience — If thou wilt diligently hearken to
the voice of the Lord thy God, and do that which
is right in his fight, and wilt give Ear to his
Commandments, and keep aU his Statutes ; / iviU
put none of thofe Difeafes upon Thee, which I
have brought upon the Egyptians : for I am the
Lord that healeth thee (or, that am ready and
able to remove Plagues and Difeafes from
theen.) So that the Statute and Ordinance,
which he made, or rather propos'd to them at
Marah to try them, was exprefsly contain'd in
the words above-cited ; unlefs we will tear in
pieces the Sentence, by inferting what has not
the leaft agreement with the argument ; and
diffolve that Unity, by which it is fo firmly
connected — And when the Waters were made
fweet, there hepropofed to them a Statute and an
Ordinance, and there he tried them; for he faid,
Ifthoti wilt diligently hearken &c. I wiU put no
Difeafes upon thee *§c. lam the Lord &c. ° —
n See the Prolegom. to the Polyglott Bible, Idiotifms
the 57 and 58, p. 47.
o Dr. Shuckford tells us (Connect. Vol. III. p. 1.) that
this Statute and Ordinance was given to Mofes, and that
God here made trial of his Obedience, and not that of
the people of Ifrael : for this, he fays, muft be the fenfe of
the place. But, (with deference to fo great a Name) the
contrary feems evident from the tenor of the whole pair
But

D I S S E RT A T I O N II. I t«
But laftly ; what will put this point (and it is
a point of Moment ) out of all doubt, is the
following paffage from the Prophet Jeremiah,
which refers directly to this place. Chap. VII.
22, 23. I fpake not unto Tour Fathers, nor com
manded them, at the time that I brought them out
ofthe Land of Egypt, concerning the matters of
Burnt-Offering or Sacrifice; but only this very
thing commanded I them, faying ; Obey my Voice,
and I will be your God, and ye Jhall be my People ;
and walk ye in all the Ways, that I JhaU command
( not, as in our Englifh Verfion — that I have
commanded) Tou, that it may be well unto Tou.
The Prophet cannot, in this celebrated Paf
fage, refer either to the precife time of the
departure of the Ifraelites out of Egypt, or to
what was tranfacted at Sinai ; for at the firft
time he inftituted the Pajfover, which is fre-
fage, and in particular from the antithefis in it between
the Ifraelites and the Egyptians — I will put none of thofe
Difeafes on Thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians.
The Dr. indeed obferves, that the Affix ufed by Mofes
does not fignify them, but him ; and therefore Mofes was
here fpoken of, and not the Ifraelites. The obfervation
is true, but the inference from it can be of no force for
this undeniable reafon— becaufe God very frequently
fpeaks of the Ifraelites collectively, as one'Body, or Perfon,
and addreffes himfelf to them in the fngular number.
Among many inftances, one in Exodus (XX. 2.) will
eftablifh this affertion ; for God certainly there fpeaks to
all the Ifraelites, and yet the Affix is Angular — lam the
Lord thy God, who have brought thee out ofthe land of Egypt,
out ofthe houfe of Bondage,
U quently

154 Dissertation II.
quently term'd a Sacrifice ; and the fame He
brew Word, which the Prophet here makes
ufe of, is twice applied to the Paflbver by Mofes
himfelf p. Nor can he be underftood of what
pafs'd at Sinai ; for there God fpake to the
Ifraelites concerning the whole of Burnt-Offer
ings and Sacrifices : and therefore he muft refer
to this Tranfaction at Marah, which was juft
after their coming forth from Egypt ; when
God tried them, to know whether they would
agree to walk in all the ways, not which he did
then command them, but which (as Jeremiah
here explains it) he was foon to command them
from Mount Sinai.
Upon the refult then of this Enquiry it
feems fully to appear, that a Sabbath was not
inftituted in any part of thefe words ; and if
not in thefe words, I believe there is no other
intermediate place, between Gen. II. and Exod.
XX. that can, with any appearance of Argu
ment, be cited to that purpofe. And if this
be true, it will of confequence follow from the
whole — that as the obfervation of a Weekly
Sabbath, recorded of the Ifraelites in the Wil
dernefs of Sin, before they came to Sinai, was
in obedience to a divine pofitive Inftitution j
fo that muft have been the very Inftitution
given in command to Adam, becaufe there is
p Deut. XVI. f, 6. n3T Dr. Stanhope, in his Note
on Charron of Wifdom ; Vol. II. p. 728.
no

Dissertation II. 155
no intermediate Inftitution. And, laftly, it is
from hence evident— that that original Inftitu
tion was not valid for one day only, but con
tinued in force down to the delivery ofthe Law
from Sinai.
I proceed now to the Fourth and laft thing
propos'd upon this Subject, which was to prove
—That the Inftitution of a Sabbath was ob
ferv'd, during the Ante-Mofaic Oeconomy;
and that this Sabbath was the Day, on which
Cain and Abel came together to offer their Ob
lations to the Deity.
Before I offer any arguments on this head,
I fhall prepare the way, by anfwering a very
common Objection ; which is — That if the
Patriarchs had obferv'd a Sabbath, fome men
tion of it would have been found in the hiftory
of their times ; and therefore, as the Objectors
affirm there is no fuch obfervation mention'd,
they conclude againft the obfervation in their
Days. To this, I hope, a fatisfactory Anfwer
may be given, by obferving— That the Silence
of a Hiftory, as to the continuance of a Cuftom
once inftituted therein, is no Argument againft
the continuance of that Cuftom, provided the:
reafon of its obfervation ftill fubfifts. But that
there is mention made of fuch an obfervation
will, probably, appear hereafter. Yet, fup
pofing the contrary ; the Objection, deduced
U 2 from

156 Dissertation II.
from fuch a Silence in the Hiftory, may be en
tirely confuted by asking and anfwering the
following Queftion. — Was the Rite of Circum
cifion obferv'd by the Ifraelites, after they were
fettled in the Land of Canaan ? I fuppofe it
will readily be anfwer'd in the Affirmative;
becaufe Circumcifion was the great Sign of
God's Covenant with their Father Abraham,
and the Characteriftic Mark of the peculiar
people of God.
If this then be the Anfwer, as it indubitably
muft, I believe the Objectors will be unable to
find one Text recording the particular obfer
vation of Circumcifion, from the fettling of
the Ifraelites in Canaan down to the Circum
cifion of our Saviour Chrift ; which is from
JofhuaChap.V, toSt.LukeChap.il, and con
tains the fpace of one thoufand four hundred
and fifty Years. Wherefore, as Circumcifion
was conftantly obferv'd by the Ifraelites, tho*
not mention'd in the Sacred Hiftory ; fo might
the Sabbath by the Patriarchs, tho' we have no
continued information of it 1.
q Quptiefcunque publici conventus (inter Patriarchas)
agi poterant, confentaneum eft ut credamus, & Sabba-
tum fuifle toties rite celebratum ; quamvis de utroque
Mofes conticefcat' in primo fuorum ; quemadmodum in
libris, qui poft Mofen fequuntur fex, Sabbatum non legi-
mus obfervatum, nee inde tamen colligimus neglectum,
Annal. Mund. Robinfon S.T.P. p. 58.
The

Dissertation II. 157
The Reafon in thefe cafes feems to be this
—The Hiftorian, having once given the origin
and caufe of fuch and fuch an Inftitution, as
was always to be obferv'd, and therefore could
not be forgotten ; thought it needlefs to men
tion the repeated times of its obfervation,
which every one, from the words of the Infti
tution it felf, muft otherwife be well acquaint
ed with.After this previous Remark, I prefume, we
may fairly conclude— that tho' we have few, or
fhould have no notices, of the Patriarchs ob-
ferving a Sabbath ; yet that will not conclude
againft their obfervation of it. But, I hope,
we are not without Arguments, even here ;
which will appear, firft, by confidering the
early obfervation of Weeks among all Nations,
and the foundation of that Cuftom.
When Adam was at firft introduced into
Being, we may with reafon fuppofe him to
have look'd around, and admir'd the various
goodnefs difplaid over the face of the Crea
tion j the Earth, no doubt, won upon his love,
while the Heaven excited his wonder. He
might, nay he muft have obferv'd the two
great Luminaries, fhining with peculiar emi
nence in the canopy that cover'd him • the one
now riling, now fetting ,• the other now en-
creafing, now decreasing, in a regular and har
monious manner. From the apparent journey of

158 Dissertation II.
ofthe Sun, and the fuperior light confequent
on his appearance, he might meafure the boun
daries of Day ; and, from the milder radiance
ofthe Moon, he might fix the limits of Night :
or, rather, he might define Day to be the pre
fence, and Night the ab fence, ofthe Sun : and
thus, doubtlefs, the firft exiftence of Time was
meafur'd. But he might alfo compute by a
collective number of Days ; from a new to a
full, and from a full to a new Moon ; and fo
form a Lunar Month. And farther, 'tis poffi
ble, that he might fix upon the meafure of a
Tear alfo. But it feems probable, that, of
thefo, the Cuftom of meafuring Time by Days
only was all that took place in the firft ages of
the world. I fay of thefo, becaufe there was
another method of computation, i. e. by a re
volution of Seven Days, which prevail'd in the
infancy of the world, and afterwards travell'd
with mankind thro' the feveral parts of it.
That fuch a Revolution of Time was thus
obferv'd, is plain from Prophane as well as Sa
cred Hiftory. As to the former, the Teftimo-
nies fubjoin'd are very full and exprefs ; which
I have therefore deliver'd in the words of their
feveral Authors r.
r Grotius tells us ( De Verit. Chrift. Relig. Lib. I.
Sect. 16.)— Intra feptem dies peradti operis memoria fer-
vata non apud Grsecos tantum &c Italos, honore diei fep-
timi, quod ex Jofepho, Philone, Tibullo, Clemente Alex-
The

Dissertation II. 159
The Queftion here arifing then will be
— How early this obfervation of Weeks pre-
andrino & Luciano difcimus ( nam de Hebrseis notifH-
mum) fed & apud Celtas & Indos, quibus omnibus per
hebdomadas digefta tempora ; quod nos docent Philoftra-
tus, Dion Caffius, Juftinus Martyr, & vetuftiflima dierum
nomina. With this agrees the teftimony of Huetius,
( Demonftrat. Evangel. Prop. 4. Cap. n. p. 264.) — Per
hebdomadas dierum difcreta fuerunt iEgyptiis temporum
fpatia, Grascis, nee non & Brachmanibus Indis, & Gallis
noftris, & Germanis, nee non & Britannis, & ipfis etiam
barbaris Americanis. To thefe words of Huetius, Bud-
d^us (Selectajur. & Gent. p. 234.) gives his Confent,
and ftrongly confirms the validity of his Opinion. Sca
liger (De Emendatione Temp. p. 9.) informs us — Ex
diebus fiunt mrvf^Tci *«/ tH&fos, qux notationes temporum
conftituunt ; primum <mrvt4& ex diebus dicitur Septimana,
res omnibus quidem Oriemis populis ab ultima ufque an-
tiquicate ufitata. Josephus (In Lib. 2do contra Appion.
Cap. 29.) fays — Ov$' vnt a Tracts E»2w«» nfonFUv, xfo /3«fo«|®jJ
xfc t» s3-»©s tvjw fin ra -mt tZb> (&$©*¦) "» *fvxflp npeii, it &@* s
l^gna^u-mxi. This famous paffage, fo often brought to
prove the univerfal obfervation of a weekly Sabbath, is al
low'd by Selden (JusNat. & Gent. Lib 3. cap. 22.) to
prove the univerfal computation of Time by Weeks ; which
is fufficient to entitle it to a place among the Authorities
here produced. That the obfervation of Weeks was in
ufe among the Egyptians from remote antiquity, is allow'd
on all hands, and appears from thofe words of Herodo
tus (Lib. 2. Cap. 82.) — KafTith xS\a Aiyu7r]nm tsJ t^ivpi-
iSpac f«*s n ««/ jj^sgij e^m Jim ndj es» — Which words Com
mentators underftand of the Seven Days of the Week,
dedicated by the Egyptians to the Seven Planets. But
that the Egyptians (tho' they might be, and probably were
the firft inventors of the planetary title of each Day) were
not the firft who obferv'd a feptenary revolution of Days,
feems evident from the beft Authorities, and a due con-
vaifd

1 60 Dissertation IL
vail'd in the world. And here it muft be re-
member'd, that, with regard to the Heathen
Nations, the Origin of Weeks among them
( as Heathens ) is impoffible to be determin'd.
For fuch a method of computation appears in
fome of their oldeft Hiftories 5, and therefore
muft be fuppos'd to have been obferv'd antece
dently to the writing fiich Hiftories ; but how
long before is the point. And here it is alfo
to be remember'd — That whatever Cuftom has
prevail'd over the world, among Nations the
fideration of the Univerfality of the Obfervation. For
Mr. Selden affirms (Jus Nat. & Gent. Lib. 3. Cap. 22.)
—In Sinenfium ipforum paganifmi faftis, & civili tempo-
ris calculo, obfervationem vetuftiffimam, hodieque efle
hebdomadis recurrentis eodem modo ac ordine, quo apud
alias gentes.
s Their ancient Poets alfo afford us light, upon the
prefent Subject ; for thus jiEfchylus, in his Estt« vm e»Ztus,
fays — Tus i' iZhptts 0 eiftt©" EBAOMArETAS
ANAS AnOAAfJN ater  807.
The Scholiaft, on the word EZhf^yrets fubjoins — *»» AotA-
bmtt Asya, K, a tZfo/M) tifAlgct its plvj(& y.iiFfin, txhvfyl ES^^^t*}*
But this Birth of Apollo, or the Sun, on the Seventh day
of the month ( fo celebrated among the Heathens ) evi
dently took its rife at firft from the cuftom of computing
Time by feven days, of which the day ofthe Sun was the
principal. Indeed the word ~B£hng.y*r#s gives us the idea,
not only of the chief, but the firft ofthe Seven Days ; and
implies the day of the Sun flanding at the head of
the other fix, and leading them on in order. And Mr.
Selden aflures us, that Sunday was the firft day of the
Week, in the Eaft, from the remoteft antiquity. Jus
Nat. & Gent. Lib. 3. Cap. 22. moft

D I S S E R T A T I O N II. l6l
moft opposite in Polity and Cuftoms in general
Nations not united by Commerce or Commu
nication (when that Cuftom has nothing in na
ture or the reafon of things to give it birth,
and eftablifh to it felf fuch a currency) it muft
be deriv'd from fome Revelation ; which Reve
lation may in certain places have been forgot
ten, tho' the Cuftom, introduced by and found
ed on fuch Revelation, ftill continued. And
farther — this Revelation muft have been made
antecedent to the Difperfion at Babel ; when
all Mankind, being but one Nation, and living
together in the form of one-large Family, were
of one Language, and govern'd by the fame
Laws and Cuftoms ; which Laws and Cuftoms
were carried by the various Families of Man
kind into all thofe parts of the world, where
they feverally fettled upon their Separation,
and fo were deliver'd down regularly to their
Pofterity c.
t Abraham was the fifth from Peleg, and all mankind
liv'd together in Chaldea, under the government of Noah
and his Sons, until the days of Peleg : fo long they were
of one language, one fociety, and one religion : and
then they divided the Earth, being forced to leave off
building the tower of Babel : and from thence they fpread
themfelves into the feveral Countries which fell to their
fhares, carrying along with them the Laws, Cuftoms and Re
ligion, under which they had 'till thofe days been educated and
govern'd. Sir If. Newton's Chronology, p. 186.

162 Dissertation II.
This will certainly be found to have been the
cafe with the Cuftom of computing Time hy
Weeks. And the fingle, but celebrated Tefti-
mony of TheophUus Antiochenus, in his Epiftle
to Autolycus u, is fufficient to confirm the ap
plication— ETJ [Jk> KOj <S&t VJS t^efJLtlS iftsgois, nv
muvns' AiV ctv&pwmi ovopaQsmv' ot St vhetiss ayvbxciv,
en Trap E<epcueiff o KcbhttTtq 2ABBATON E&laJtsi tp-
pilwdjtTU\ EBAOMA2* j; tis a? imv $u©° cty^rpavw
evopictZ,tTtef (jdp , <A' qv Ss tunctv KebXnciv ewdui an
But here it may be faid, as it is by Le Clerc w
and fome others — that the Cuftom of com
puting time by Seven Days might take its rife
from the Seven Planets ; and therefore, having
its foundation in Nature, was not a Cuftom in
troduced by Revelation. This however feems
rather to have been faid for the fake of ferv-
ing a favourite Hypothefis, than for any real
ftrength the Argument contains *. For the day
ofthe Sun, the day ofthe Moon, the day of
Jupiter, Saturn &c. were certainly Names given
to the Seven Days of the Week, long after the
u Lib. II.
w See his Note on Grotius de Verit. Chrift. Relig.
Lib.I. Cap. 16. p. 42.
x Thus Bp Leng — The Reafon of the compofition of
Days intoWeeks, fetch'd from the feven Planets, feems to
be an invention of Idolaters long after the thing it felf
was fettled in practice, but the true reafon loft. Boyle's
Leet. Serm. Vol. 3. p. <$6.
Week

Dissertation II. 163
Week was form'd and obferv'd ; confequently
the Week was not form'd, and the Days of it
firft nam'd from the obfervation of thofe Pla
nets. It would be almoft as good an Argu
ment for the Year's not being divided into, or
obferv'd under the fucceffive revolution of
twelve Months, before the time of the Julian
Kalendar ; becaufe each Month then receiv'd a
new Name, which has continued among the
European Nations ever fince. No : the Tear,
we know, was a computation of time in ufe
every where long before ; and the computa
tion of time by Weeks alfo was in ufe long be
fore Mankind were acquainted with our Solar
Syftem, or (more properly) with the Planets
that for fome Ages were thought to compofe
it. We are told in a late learned Treatife, the
Author of which has made very deep Searches
into the Rife of Aftronomy y — That to fup
pofe the Obfervations of the Babylonians not
to go higher than Seven or Eight Hundred
Years before Chrift, has all the evidence that
can be expected in fo intricate a Subject, at
this diftance of time. But that Abraham in
troduced Aftronomy into Egypt ( as Jofephus ,
will have it) or that it was even known there
in his time, may very defervedly be queftion'd :
y A Letter to Martin Folkes Efq; on the Rife and Pro-
grefs of Aftronomy, by the Rev. Mr.Geo.Coflard ; p.20.
X 2 much

164 Dissertation II.
much lefs probable ftill is it, that the imme
diate Defcendants of Seth were the Authors of
this wonderful and complex Science. And S'
Ifaac Newton informs us z — that, in the Year
before Chrift 1048, the Edomites were con-
quer'd and difpers'd by David ; and fome of
them fled into Egypt : and that thefe Edomites
carried with them their Arts and Sciences,
among which were their Navigation and Aftro
nomy. The fame great Author tells us farther
— that, 14 years after this, Ammon reign'd in
Egypt, and was the firft that built long and
tall Ships ; for the enabling which to crofs the
Seas without feeing the Shore, the Egyptians
began, in his days, to obferve the Stars, and
from this beginning Aftronomy had its rife.
If then Obfervations upon the Planets were
not made till fo many Years after the Difper-
fion, the cuftom of computing by Seven Days
could not arife from the nice obfervation of
the Seven Planets ; if that cuftom was much
earlier, and obferv'd not only foon after, but
long before the Difperfion. That this was the
cafe will appear to any one that perufes the
beginning ofthe Book of Genefis ; from which
I fhall hereafter draw a ftrong confirmation, in
the hiftory of Noah.
But the World is, I believe, generally agreed
that the computation of Time by Weeks was
Z See his Chronology, p. 12. 14. 208. one

Dissertation II. 165
one certain method of meafuring it, before as
well as after the Difperfion. And therefore
as this computation could not be deriv'd from
any Planetary Obfervations, at a time when
Mankind muft be fuppos'd unacquainted with
the Number ofthe Planets in our Syftem ; and
as the calculating from one to feven Days,
and then recalculating from one to feven Days,
and fo on, has no more foundation in nature
than a calculation from one to fix, eight or
ten : therefore this Cuftom of meafuring Time
by Seven Days, fo very early in ufe, and fo
prevailing thro' the World, muft have owed
its birth to fomething out of Nature — that is,
to fome divine' Inftitution, which introduced
the Cuftom, when it had no inherent fitnefs to
introduce it felf a.
And here we are furnifh'd at once with an
Inftitution, coeval with theExiftence of Adam,
which will afford us the brighteft evidence, and
without which we fhall be ftill bewilder' d in
darknefs. It has been already obferv'd, that
a Nolim praefracte negare denominationem dierum a 7
Planetis jEgyptiorum efle &eit<& s ipfa tamen Septimanas
obfervatio originem longe fanctiorem atque antiquiorem
habet. Pulchre admodum Johannes Philoponus, aPhotio
laudatus ( de Mund. Creat. Lib. 7. Cap. 14. ) Exh» ye fli>
nifim<pati}Taf -muni ufyamis , wel* f*S'tK eacu tifMftts, ccivtit at tow ins
atxx.vx.Axfyjui vm «a«» mMa igtvtf m* *¦> txts Aojsk tm tixfutTifa,
* pzim o apixt Memns. Witf. iEgyptiac. Lib. III. Cap. 9.
Sec. 2. at

166 Dissertation II.
at the finifhing the Creation God commanded
the Seventh Day, from the beginning of the
Creation, to be kept holy ; and this on every
return of the Seventh Day. And it has, I
hope, been prov'd from Fact that it was ob
ferv'd afterwards , in obedience to this Com
mand. Wherefore the Origin of Weeks muft of
neceffity be owing to this Inftitution, and the
weekly celebration of an Holy Sabbath.
Having thus feen that the computation of
Time by Weeks was introduced by the inftitu
tion and obfervation of a Sabbath, we may ob
ferve here — that as the continued obfervation
of a Sabbath proves the origin of Weeks, fo the
origin of Weeks proves the continued obfervation
of a Sabbath. For a Sabbath muft have been
twice obferv'd at leaft, in order to constitute
the intermediate Six Days, and compleat a
Week. And from hence it alfo follows — that
the defign ofthe Command, given by God to
Adam, was not only for one day of Reft and
Holinefs (it being impoffible that Adam could
be faid to reft, when he had not yet began to
work) but for a weekly and continued obfer
vation of a Day, excepted from Labour, and
devoted to facred Employments ; a Day to be
obferv'd by all, as it concerns all, from the
beginning to the end ofthe World.
This then appearing to be the Defign ofthe
Inftitution, we may prefume that a proper ufe
was

Dissertation II. 167
was made of it by the great Fathers of the
Human Race, in a pious obedience to the di
vine Command. For it feems to be certain
that the Patriarchs had fix d Places b for aflem-
bling for Publick Worfhip — that they actually

b Gen. XII. 8. And Abram removed from thence unto a
mountain on the eaft of Beth-El — and there he builded an
Altar, and called upon the Name ofthe Lord. After this he
went down into Egypt ; and upon his return we read,
Chap. XIII. 3 — And he went on his Journeys from the South
even unto Beth-El, unto the place where his tent had been at
the beginning — unto the place ofthe Altar, which he had made
there at the firft ; and there Abram called on the Name of the
Lord. So that we find the Patriarch pitch'd again in the
fame Place, made ufe of the fame Altar, and perform'd the
fame Worjhip — by calling on the Name ofthe Lord; or, as
fome render it — by calling upon his Family and Servants
mrT CZ3W3 in the Name of the Lord. This laft fenfe feems
confirm'd from Chap. XVIII. 1 9 ; where God fays of A-
braham — I know him, that he {T\W) conftantly commands
his Children and his houfhold after him, and they Jhall ( or,
that they JhaU) keep the way of the Lord &c. That mjC>
may be thus render'd, fee Leufden's Edit, of Buxtorf's
Gram. p.49. This Place then, felected thus by Abraham,
we find remarkably diftinguifh'd in Chap. XXVIII. 17.
This is none other but the Houfe of God — 18. And Jacob took
the Stone that he had put for his pillow, and poured Oil upon,
the top of it. 19. And he called the name of that place Beth-
El. • 22. And faid — this Stone, which I, have fet for apillar,
Jhall be God's House. On thefe laft words Heidegger
obferves — Locus lapidem continens futurus fit Domus Dei,
fanctificatione & applicatione ; quia ibi Deus ab homini-
bus vult coli, & gratiofam fuam prsefentiam effectis te-
ftari. Rede igitur Abenezra notat hie infinuari Locum
fixum precibus. Exercit. 16. Sect. 23. held

1 68 Di ssertation II.
held Sacred Affemblies c — and that they had
Priefts d to officiate in thefe Affemblies. The
confequence of which is — that they muft alfo
have had a ftated Time • for When, as well as
Where, is abfolutely neceflary to be determin'd,
in order to form a regular Publick Aflembly.
And what time can we fo rationally conceive
c We read, for inftance, that Cain and Abel brought
their Offerings together to the fame place ; and, that
they offer'd in the prefence of a Company (which muft be
their own Families ) feems plain — Firft, becaufe Cain,
had he only been with his Brother, would certainly have.
flain him upon the fpot ; and not have ftifled his refent-
metit, till he had afterwards invited him into the fields,
and fo have murder'd him in cold Blood. And Secondly,
St. Paul ( Hebr. XI. 4.) tells us, that God gave a publick
teftimony, or called Witnejfes, that he accepted Abel's Of
ferings — p&gropxvT©' vm ten atiem cuits rts ©ss.
d The Sacerdotal Office was perform'd at the firft by
the Fathers and principal Perfons in the Patriarchal Fami
lies ; and the firft perfon we find diftinguifh'd by the title
of a Prieft was Melchizedek, the Prieft ofthe moft highGod;
Gen. XIV. 18. In Exod. XIX. 22. we find Priefts among
the Ifraelites, before the giving of the Law. . Jethro alfo
was a Prieft of the true God, as may be inferr'd from
Exod. XVIII. 1. 8, 9, 1 o, 11, 12. And in Gen. XLI. p,
we read that Jofeph married a daughter of Potipherah,
Prieft of On ; who was probably a Prieft to thofe in that
part of Egypt, who were as yet untainted with Idolatry.
Heidegger obferves of this Father-in-Law of Jofeph's
— Sacerdotem hunc efle liquet ex ufu verbi f H3 47. 22,
ubi legitur quod Jofephus pepercit CD'Ji"D7 Sacerdotibus,
Hacvoce Sacerdotes intellexeruntantiquiffimilnterpretes;
Grseci, qui reddunt <egas ; & Paraphraftes Chaldjeus On-
kelofus, qui pro O'JfO habet NHQ13 Hierophantas.
Exercit 20. Sect. 17. to

Dissertation II. 169
to have been appropriated to this ufe, as the
Day appointed by God himfelf ?
It may be proper now to confider— whether
fuch an obfervation of a Weekly Sabbath may
not be found in the hiftories of fome of the
Patriarchs, either exprefsly, or by a fair in
duction. Let the firft example then be that of holy
Job; which will appear, perhaps* to be cor
roborative ofthe prefent argument : efpecially
as we have the authority of Origen for afferting
Job's obfervation of a Sabbath Day e. For tho"
it is not agreed among the Learned, in what
age the divine Poem bearing his Name was
penn'd ; fome great Authorities appearing for
the Age before, or during the Egyptian Sla
very ; and others for the Age before, or during
the Babylon ifh Captivity : yet if, with Bp
Sherlock f, we approve the former opinion,
and fuppofe the Book of Job to be the oldeft
Book in the world — then an argument may be
drawn from the beginning of that Book, to
confirm Job's obfervation of a Sabbath as well
as of Sacrifice.
That Job was a Worfhipper ofthe true God,
is indubitable ; and that he held a regular Af-
fembly for Divine Worfhip, is plain from thofe
e Origen affirms that Job obferv'd a Seventh Day. See
Smith on the Lord's Day, p. 283-
f Diflertat. II. p. zo6-. Y places

170 Dissertation II.
places in which it is obferv'd— that himfelf, his
Family, and his Friends too came together to
prefent themfelves before the Lord— And that
hefentfor his Sons, after their days ofFeaft-
ing were expird, and fanctified them ; offer
ing Burnt Sacrifice for any Sins which they
might have committed in the days of their
Jollity. That by the Sons of God in Gen. VI. 2.
is meant Perfons profeffing tbe true Religion, is
granted by all ; except a few Commentators,
that will have them to be Angels, or Demons,
or Incubi, or any thing but what they fhould
be, confiftently with fenfe and reafon. The
fame phrafe feems to carry the fame fenfe
here s ; and , if St. Chryfoftom's aflertion be
g For if we allow, that the Ajfembly, here defcrib'd,.
was real ; and fhould affirm that by the Sons of God are here
meant the Angels of Heaven ; it will be difficult, perhaps,
to affign the Place of this Aflembly. If we fay — it was in
Heaven, it may be ask'd— how could Satan afcend thither,
and be readmitted among the Bleffed Angels, from whofe
company he had been banifh'd for ever, by a divine de
cree ? If we fay — it was on Earth ; it will not be eafy to
explain, or conceive the manner how, and the occafion
why, this Aflembly (of God, Angels and Satan) was held.
Whereas, on the Suppofition that the Sons of God mean
here Perfons profeffing the true worjhip of God, the Paffage
will, perhaps, be much clearer, and more agreeable to
Reafon as well as Scripture : for both thefe inform us
—that the Tempter is more diligent in his attempts upon
Mankind , at their folemn times of Devotion ; and
therefore the Son of Sirach advifes (Ecclus Chap. II. 1.)
My Son, if thou come to ferve the Lord (« <a&ti(Xn Hx^jm
Kv&h ®m. Sept.) prepare thy Soul for Temptation. true

Di s s e r t at i o n -II. 171
true h — that the Angels are no where call'd the
Sons of Godin Scripture, this muft be the fenfe
ofthe words in this place. And if fo, thefe
perfons cannot be the Sons of Job only ; be
caufe, after the deftruction of Job's Family,
the Sons of God affembled a fecond time to
perform their Religious Services '. So that
here we find a regular Aflembly of People, of
different Families, twice met to prefent them
felves before the Lord; or, for the folemn
performance of Publick Worfhip. And as Job
thus continued uncorrupted in his Religion,
and exprefs'd his fenfe of it by a careful obfer
vation of Sacrifice (which was then the great
inftituted means of conciliating the divine Fa
vour) he was, doubtlefs, equally careful to per
form thefe Sacred Services on the Sabbath
Day. For the Inftitution of that muft have
defcended to him with the Inftitution of Sacri
fice ; both being enjoin'd by the fame Autho
rity, and both obferv'd by thofe Patriarchs,
from whom his Religion was handed down.
In a word — we feem to find this very matter
fo recorded in the Text } for in Chap. I. <$. we
read mrr hv wnrb &rb&T\ >n iwi dvpi »m
nsmi ?*f «|M ©e* es&nip^tSOiit. K«/ <ntam jfy hi%an iris ctyytM 1"
0ss <a&<mp(^rxf ottftami fl/i ptf txxifyum* H'i ©«*> HV7^»J "
ttfokpuL Chryfoftom in Homil. 22 in Gen. cap. 6.
i Job II. 1. y 2 which

172 D I SSERTATION II.
which words may be render'd— And it was the
Day, md the Sons of God came to prefent them
felves before the Lord : which fignificant Phrafe
is repeated, in the fame words, upon the Se
cond religious Aflembly, related in the begin
ning ofthe Second Chapter.
From Job let us afcend to Abraham, the
Father of the Faithful ; and on him God be-
flows this ennobling Character k — Abraham
hath obeyed my Voice, and kept- my Charge, my
Commandments , my Statutes , and my Laws.
From thefe words is it not obvious to infer
—that, as God had commanded the Obfervation
of a Sabbath, and Abraham obforved aU God's
Commandments, therefore Abraham obforved the
Commandment of the Sabbath Day t Mr. Selden
informs us \ that moft of the Jews drew that
inference ; and he produces many Authorities
for his aflertion. Here then (fo far as this in
ference from the Text will lead us, and the
Teftimonies of fome of the moft confiderable
Jewifh Writers can be of Service ) we have
Abraham, the Friend of God, obferving the
Xaftitution of a Weekly Sabbath.
Let us now confider a part ofthe hiftory of
Noah. We read in Gen. VII. i. — And the
L$rd faid unto Noah, Come Thou; &c. into the
k Gen, XXVI, y,
\ De Jure Nat. Gent, Lib, III. Cap. 13 & 14. Arh%

Dissertation II, 173
Ark. Mr. Bedford obfeifves m> that all the fpe-
cial Communications, which Man held with his
Creator in the firft Ages of the World, were
probably made upon the Sabbath > or weekly
day of Holinefs ; and therefore that this Com
mand to Noah was given on the Sabbath-Day.
During the Six Days following the Sabbath
then he enters the Ark, and takes in with him
his Seven Human Companions, and the Beafts
and Fowls ; with Provifjons for the whole So
ciety. This being compleated, we read in
verfe the tenth bXc.—And it came to pafs, after
Seven Days, the Waters were upon the Earth ;
in the fix hundredth year of Noah's Life, in the
Jccond month, thefoventeenth day ofthe month;
the fame day were all the fountains of the Deep
broken up £sc.
The day then, on which the Deluge began,
being the Sabbath, Noah kept it in the Ark ;
for being clofe confin'd, and his Labour finifh'd,
he was at liberty to obferve it as a Day of Reft,
and had the utmoft reafon to devote it to holy
purpofes. In verfe the twenty fourth we read,
that the Waters prevail'd over the Earth, an
hundred and fifty Days; and therefore the
Ark refted on the feventeenth day of the fe-
venth Month. On the firft day of the tenth
Month were the tops ofthe mountains feen •
and this day happening, in a regular progref-
jn Scripture Chronology, p, 29 &c fion

174 Dissertation II.
fion of Weeks, to be the Sabbath Day, we may
prefume that God chofe on this day to give
Noah an Earneft of that Deliverance he was
then pioufly requefting.
At the end of forty days after this, which
was the twelvth day of the eleventh Month,
and the Day before the Sabbath, Noah font forth
the Raveri, to difcover, whether the Earth
was yet dry. And this, it is highly probable,
he did on that day, that he might the better
know how to adapt his Devotions on the day
foUowing ( which was the Sabbath ; ) either by
praying to God for fome farther Token of his
Loving-kindnefs , or by praifing him for the
Tokens already vouchfaf 'd him. At the end
of another Week, on the day before the Sab
bath, Noah fent forth a Dove ; and- the Dove,
finding no place to reft, return'd into the Ark;
by which Noah knew that the Waters were yet
upon the Earth, and therefore probably fpent
the next day (the Sabbath) in praying for their
abatement. Noah ftaid yet other Semen Days;
and again he fent forth the Dove, no doubt
with the fame view as before : and in the Even
ing, the beginning of the Sabbath, the Dove
return'd with an Olive-Leaf, that thenceforth
celebrated Emblem of Peace and Safety. Af-
this Noah ftaid yet other Seven Days, and fent
forth the Dove , on the day before the Sab
bath as ufual; but the Dove return'd not unto
him any more. Upon

Dissertation II. 17 c
Upon this, Noah, refolving to be an Eye-
Witnefs of the State of the World, pitches
upon the firft day ofthe New Year for this fur-
prizing Profpect ; and, removing the covering
of the Ark, he fees the Face of the Ground
dry. This furvival ofthe general deftruction
was fo wonderful a Difplay ofthe divine Mercy
to him and his Family, that he doubtlefs em
ploy 'd the next Day (which was the weekly
Sabbath) in acts of gratitude and praife : and
a noble opportunity he had to commemorate
at once the goodnefs of God, in finifhing the
Creation of the World at firft ; and the mercy
of God, in giving that World a miraculous
Re-exiftence. But tho' the Face of the Ground was dry,
on the firft day of the firft month, yet the
Earth was not dry 'till the twenty feventh day
ofthe fecond month; and on the next day,
which was again the Sabbath, God fpake unto
Noah, and gave him his command to leave the
Ark, as he had before to enter into it. And
as Noah fpent fix days, or the time between
one Sabbath and another, in going into the
Ark with all the Creatures ; fo probably the
fame time was fpent in bringing fhem out
again. Noah's labour being therefore again
ended on the day before the Sabbath, and him
felf fet afhore fafe upon the New World ; he,
the next day, put together a few ftones for an
Altar

X j6 Di S S E: R T A T I 0 N II.
Altar unto the Lord, and with a grateful heart
Offer'd a Sacrifice to God his Deliverer. And
God accepted the Burnt- Offering ofthe pious
Noah, and appear'd on the fame day to him
and his Sons, blefled them, made a Covenant
with them, and eftahlifh'd the Rainbow as a
Sign of that Covenant for ever.
This piece of Hiftory is fo important, and
the particulars of it fo conclusive — for Noah's
obfervation of a Sabbath, as well as his compu
tation of time by Weeks ; that the length of it
will probably be pardon'd ; efpecially as it
could not be eafily contracted.
'Tis time now that the cafe of Cain and
Abel be confider'd ; to which all that has been
before obferv'd on the Sabbath is only, tho"
neceflarily, introduetive. For, I hope, it has
been prov'd — that God's bleffing the Seventh
day in Genefis (Chapter the Second) contain'd
an Order to Adam and his Pofterity to obferve
One day in feven after an holy manner — that
tho' this Order was reinforced at Sinai, yet a
Sabbath was obferv'd by the Ifraelites before
they came to Sinai —that this obfervation of
theirs muft have been in obedience to this firft
original Inftitution — and that this Inftitution
was obferv'd during the Patriarchal Oeconomy.
It remains then only to infer from all the
above obfervations— that, in virtue ©f fuch an
Inftitution,

Dissertation II. 177
Inftitution, fo fet apart for facred ufos, fo ob
ferv'd by Job, Abraham, Noah &c Cain and
Abel alfo came together, and offer'd their Ob
lations to God, on the fame Sabbath Day.
But befides this prefomptive Proof, which
( all circumftances confider'd ) may poffibly be
thought convincing ; there is a strong pofitive
Proof to be here fuperaddedi the force of
which will, upon a due confideration, be pro
bably acknowledg'd.
Our Englifh Verfion tells us, Gen. IV. 3.
^— And in procefs of time it came to pafs that
Cain brought &c. But if we examine the Ori
ginal, we fhall find it D'O' fi30 ?iTl And it was
at the End of Days, ]ip ay\ And Cain brought Sec.
The Queftioa then is,— What is here meant by
this End of Days > And tho' the general Stream
of Interpreters runs for its implying no more
than after fome time, or in procefs of time ; yet
perhaps the Expreffion will appear more deter
minate in its meaning n.
. It has been obferv'd, that tbe firft Vau, with
the three words adjoin'd, is an entire Sentence
^-And it was at the End of Days ; and the next
Vau begins another entire Sentence— And Cain
brought Sec. — and that this, and fuch like Ex-
preffions refer always each to fome ftated time,
according to the times or things the Author is
n At the end of Days is at fome ftated Time. Mr. Ro-
maineJs Serm. before- the Lord Mayor, p. if.
t,.;. . Z then

I78 D'I SSERTATION II.
then fpeaking of. The Noun ^p, it is certain,
signifies the extremity by which any continued
quantity is feparated ; and, when applied to
time, the conclufion of fo much time, as the
word adjoin'd to it, fpecifies. And therefore
Fagius, commenting on this place, tells us— It
feems entirely rational, that by this phrafe
— the End of Days— be underftood fome certain
and appointed time, on which they met for
the Worfhip of God ; for there was always,
even before the Law, an Order in the Church
of God, by the means of diftinguifh'd times :
and this opinion, fays he, is confirm'd by the
word \*p, which does not fimply fignify an Endj
but an End certain, precife, and determinate.
The point then now is — What determinate
portion of time is meant by the word D>a*
Days ; and it feems neceflary that it fhould
here fignify either a Week or a Tear. The lat
ter is the opinion moftly, I believe, indulg'd ;
tho' perhaps without the greateft reafon, as
may appear from the following Considerations.
'Tis plain that the Hiftorian gives thefe as
his own words ; and therefore had he intended
to fignify — at the end of the Tear, he probably
would not have us'd the word D'D> Days, but
nity a Tear, which he fo frequently ufes in the
very next Chapter ; and which is us'd by God
himfelf, Gen. XVII. 21. Or he would have
us'd that other Phrafe rw XWil in the end of
the

Dissertation II. ijq
the Tear, which we meet with in Exod. XXIII.
i<f. But what may be urg'd with greater force
the very phrafe nyff VPS is us'd by this fame
Author in Exod, XII. 41 . Wherefore his not
ufing either of thefe expreflions, efpecially the
latter, but expreffing himfelf by the former,
feems to prove the one chofen in oppofition
to the others.
Befides : I don't find that the very phrafe
D»D» Vp» fignifies at the end of the Tear any
where in the Bible ; it occurs indeed but in one
other place, as in the text here difputed, and
that is in 1 Kings XVII. 7 ; and there is no
poffible reafon for confining the expreffion to
a Tear in that Place. Wherefore we may con
clude,, with the learned Guffetius ° — that nei
ther is there any reafon why we fhould think
a Tear intended in this place : for, fays he, on
the contrary rather, the revolution or courfe
ofthe Tear will fcarce agree with the affair in
hand ; for if you fhould begin the Year from
the month Tifri, thofe Oblations would have
been too late, and if you begin with Nifan they
had been too foon, there not being at that time
Fruits to offer.
•. As there is nothing then in the words im
plying the End ofthe Year, but ( if the obfer
vation of this laft Crjtical Author be juft) ra
ther the contrary ; let us fee, whether there be
0 Commentar. Ling. Ebraiex, p. 314.
Z 2 any

1 80 Dissertation H.
any reafon to determine us for the other fenfe
— that it came to pafs at, or after the conclu
fion of a Week ; that is, on the Sabbath Day.
It has been already obferv'd — that one day
in feven was commanded by God to be kept
holy— that in confequence of this Command to
Adam a Weekly Sabbath was kept holy — and,
it may be added, that the word CD'ID* fignifies
fuch a determinate ftated time, as beft agrees
with the circumftances of the context where it
occurs. Wherefore, as the Sabbath Day was
the Day on which Sacred Rites- were to be per
form'd, in the days of Cain and Abel ; there
can be no doubt but that this End of Days, on
which thefe Brothers came with their Obla
tions, was the Sabbath Day, at or after the
conclufion of the Week.
This will be farther ftrengthen'd by confi
dering how early in the world this was per
form'd ; it being the firft Ail recorded of the
firft Son of Adam ; at a feafon, when it is ex-
treamly probable there was no other computa
tion of time, than that of Days from Nature,
and that of Weeks from the Sabbatical Inftitu
tion and Obfervation p. Or, fuppofing Tears
then in ufe, the word rw was appropriated to
p ExSyncelliChronologia obfervavit Salmafius, priuf-
quam ratio computandi per Menfes & Annas ab Aftrologis
jnventa fuiflet, veteres illos Patres diftinxifle tantum per
SeptimaNAS. Witfii iEgyptiac, Lib. 3, Cap.9. Sec.i. that

Dissertation II. 1 8 1
that fignification y as we find in Gen. I. 14.
And therefore, as the word Dv (a Day) did,
in the plural number (when without a numeral
Adjective adjoin'd, to confine it to Days) fig
nify a Week, as the only collective body of Days
then in ufe, or known under the name of EPQi
Days ; fo we find the word plainly ufed for a
Week, in Gen. XXIV. ff-
For Abraham's Servant, having fucceeded
in his Journey, to take a Wife for Ifaac, at the
houfe of Bethuel ; is importunate with Re
becca's Parents to fet out with her immediately
on his return, after fo long an abfence. But
her Relations, being desirous of her company
for a fhort time, at leaft for a Week ( the ufual
time of celebrating the Nuptial Feaft 1 ) fay to
the Servant — mt^y IN ED»D» unit IJfin 2&n
which words may be well render'd by that very
apposite phrafe in ufe among us — Let the
q Gen. XXIX. 27. Fulfill her Week—thtt. is, as Abarba-
nel rightly explains it — Exple cum Lea. feptem dies nup-
tiales, & mox ego & uxor mea dabimus tibi etiam Ra-
cbelem : fie Syrus aliique Interpretes, convivium intelli--
gunt, neque in hiftoria hebdomadi annorum locus eft. Se
der Olam, p. 264. And to the fame purpofe Heidegger—
Hebdomadum Annorum mentio non eft nifi in Scriptis Poeticis
de rebus futuris, non item in hiftoricis & ubi de contradti-
bus agitur. Turn folennitatem nuptialem definitam fuiffe
tempore hebdomadae dierum, feu 7 dierum, fatis colligi
poteft ex Judic. XIV. 12 ; & ex ratione legalis conjugii,
& ex rerum geftarum ordine, & ex facra Chronologid.
Exercit. if, Seel;. ii»
Damfel

1 82 D I S S E R T A T I O N II.
Damfel abide with us a Week, or Ten Days. For
it is plain, that the word D*D* cannot in this
place fignify a Tear ; fince it would then be
— Let the Damfel abide with us a Tear, or Ten j
which, all things confider'd, had been a Re-
queft very ftrange and unaccountable. Neither
can the words fignify, as in our Englifh Verfion
— Let the" Damfel abide with us a few days, at
the leaft ten ; becaufe the particle in, as ap
pears by Noldius, never fignifies at leaft in the
whole Bible. So that the above — Let the
Damfel abide with us a Week, or Ten Days— is
the only rational explication that remains to be
given; and (confidering that a Week was the
ftated time of celebrating the Nuptial Feaft )
it is fo natural and eafy, as to want no farther
recommendation. To strengthen the force of this Inftance, I
fhall add another, of ftill greater weight, from
Gen. XXIX. 20 ; where we read yyjtt VH'l
CinN D'D*0 Etfuerunt in oculis ejus quafi dies
uni. The fenfe of the context is this — Jacob
agreed to ferve Laban feven years for Rachel,
Laban's daughter ; and Rachel's beauty was fo
great, and Jacob's love fo strong, that the
feven Years of fervitude for her fake were in
his eyes but as — What ? This is the point of
difficulty, if there be any in it • but notwith-
ftanding the different rendrings ofthe place,
the nature of theComparifon and the livelinefs of

Dissertation II. 183
ofthe Antithefis will oblige us to call it Seven
Days — And the Seven Years were in his opi
nion but as Seven Days, or (which is the fame)
as One Week. So that as DV in the plural
Number then fignified Seven Days, or a Week;
the word DHrtN, the plural of TriN (which
ftrictly anfwers to «? and unus, and effentially
fignifies One) is here added, and confines it to
One Week. For, I believe, it will be allow'd
to be an invariable rule in writing — that a
Noun Adjective, in fenfe unalterably lingular,
can in the plural number be only connected
with fuch a Subftantive, as in the plural number
fignifies Angularly, or collectively under a lin
gular denomination.
In Jhort then— As Adam was commanded to
devote every feventh day to facred offices, and
as his Pofterity were to do, and did the fame,
working the other fix days — and as the word
D'D» Days appears, from the two inftances juft
cited, exprefsly to have fignified a Week in
the infancy of the world ; certainly this End
of Days, after which Cain and Abel met to of
fer their Oblations, will be allow'd to fignify
the End of the Week, on the Seventh or Sabbath
day, after the other fix days were finifh'd, and
the Week from the laft Sabbath expir'd '.
1 There is a material Objection, or two, ftill remain
ing to the doctrine of a Patriarchal Sabbath, to which it
may be neceflary to fubjoin an Anfwer. And firft— as to
Haying

1 84 Dissertation II.
Having thus, with all the brevity I could on
fo extenfive a fubject, confider'd the Time, on
the Sabbaths being caUed a Sign to the Jews— it may be ob
ferv'd, that the word Sabbaths is a general name, includ
ing the other Jewifh Feftivals. But even the Sabbath, or
weekly day of Holinefs, might well be call'd a. Sign to the
Jews, without excluding the Patriarchs. For the Jewifh
Sabbath was a Sign, . as being founded on a double reafon ;
the fecond of which (the Egyptian deliverance) evidently
djftinguifh'd that people from all others ; and was there
fore, as a Sign, conftantly to remind them of the parti
cular care of Heaven, and what uncommon returns of
goodnefs they were to make for fo lingular a deliverance.
But there is great reafon to believe, that the Sabbath of
the Ifraelites was alter'd, with their Tear, at their coming
forth from Egypt ; and a fliort attention to this point may
not be here improper. The cafe then feems to be this
—At the finifhing the Creation God fanctined the feventh
day— this feventh day, being the firft day of Adam's Life,
was confecrated, by way of Firfi-Fruits, to God ; and
therefore Adam may reafonably be fuppos'd to have began
his computation of the days ofthe Week with the firft whole
day of his own exiftence. Thus the Sabbath became the
firft day of the Week. But when Mankind fell from the
worfhip of the true God, they firft fubftituted the worfhip
ofthe Sun in his place ; and, preferving the fame weekly
day of worfhip, but , devoting it to the Sun, the Sabbath
was thence call'd Su^-Da*. For that Sunday was origi
nally the firft day ofthe Week, and is fo ftill in the Eaft,
is prov'd by Mr. Selden, Jus Nat. & Gent. Lib. %. cap.22.
Thus the Sabbath of the Patriarchs continued to be the
Sunday of the Idolaters, 'till the coming up of the Ifraelites
out of Egypt ; and then, as God alter'd the beginning of
their Year, fo he alfo chang'd the day of their Worfhip
from Sunday to Saturday. The firft reafon of which might
be— that as Sunday was the day of Worfhip among the
which

Dissertation II. 1 8 c
which Cain and Abel came together to offer
their Oblations ; 1 proceed to the Third and
Idolaters, the Ifraelites would be more likely to join with
them, if they refted on the fame day ; than if they were
to work on that day, and ferve their God upon another.
But a fecond reafon certainly was— in order to perpetuate
the memory of their deliverance on that day from Egyptian
Slavery. For Mofes, when h,e applies the fourth Com
mandment to'the particular cafe of his own people, (Deut.
V. iy.) does not enforce it, (ajs in Exod. XX. i\.) by the
confideration of God's refting on the feventh day, which was
the Sabbath, of the Patriarchs.; but binds it upon them by
faying— -Remember that thou waft a Servant inEgypt, and
that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a
mighty hand, andbyaftretched-butArm; therefore the Lord
thy God hath commanded thee to keep this Sabbath Day.
Allowing then the preceding Obfervations, we^immedi-
ately fee how the Sabbath of the Chriftians naturally re
verted to Sunday, after the abolition of Judaifm, without
any exprefs Command for the alteration. Bp Cumber
land (Orig. Gent. Antiq. p. 400.) tells us— Gentes omnes,
poft Chrifti prsecipue tempora,' in eandem cum Patri-
archis Ecclefiam Catholicam fuerint vocandse. And that
^heChriftian and Patriarchal Sabbaths are the fame is evi
dently affirm'd by Juftin Martyr,' in the following paflage
. — Tiiv fo 7- a HAia r,ui(*> us in vntrits tlai ruvitAiat) »sf«3»' iiretfat*
vs%att\ !3> HjM^s, tl v 0 &i®- -n oxn©' xctf ttu> vhlui vSftytU KOSMON
nnivrt- koj Utxs Xe/.r<&- * tipiTlf®* ~Zm>i%, TH AtTH H.MEPA ix.
n*t,ai ettir*. Apolog. prim. Edit. Thirlby, p. 98.
But here it will be objected, that the Fathers in general,
and Juftin Martyr in particular, have afferted — that the
Patriarchs did not obferve a Sabbath. To this, tho' a
boafted Argument with fome, I hope the following ob
fervations from Justin Martyr will be a fufficient An?
fwer. He after, s indeed that the Patriarchs did not fab-
batize, or keep the Sabbaths (p. 17+;) but hs alfoafferts,
that neither did they make Oblations (p. 18 3 ,) or offer S.a-
A a Principal

1 86 Dissertation II.
Principal Point in view in this Differtation,
namely— the Nature of their Oblations, and the
Foundation of that Difference which God ma-
nifefted between them, by rejecting the one,
and accepting the other.
Firft then, let us take a view of the Offer
ing brought by the elder brother Cain. We
read in Verfe the 3d — nBIKH nfiO VP *0'1
mrrS nWO which the Englifh Tranflators
have render'd — And Cain brought of the Fruit
of the Ground an Offering to the Lord; but the
crifice (p. 222.) But he muft know that they did make
Oblations, and offer Sacrifice; and therefore can only
mean, that they did not offer or facrifice after the Mofaic
Ritual, and according to the form of the Jewifh Ceremo
nies. For his difpute with Trypho the Jew evidently turns
upon the Obligation, or Non-Obligation of the Jewifh
Law on Chriftians ; and therefore he muft fpeak of Jew
ifh Sacrifices ; and if of Jewifh Sacrifices, confequently of
Jewijh Sabbaths alfo : otherwife his argument againft the
neceffity of obferving the Jewifh Sabbaths and Sacrifices
among Chriftians, drawn from the non-obfervation of
them among the holy Patriarchs, had been of no force.
It may be added— that Trypho charges Juftin with not ob
ferving the Sabbath (p. 1 56 ;) and yet Juftin affirms, that he
obferv'd the Sunday Sabbath ; which, ,he fays, was the day
on which God had finifh'd the World (p. 98 :) fo that the
Sabbath meant by the Jew muft be the Saturday Sabbath,
which was peculiar to the Jewifh Nation ; and was en
join'd, as Juftin obferves (p. 175",) that the Jews might
know and remember that God had redeem' 'd them out of Egypt.
—So that, for any thing contain'd in thefe Objections to
the contrary, the doctrine of a Patriarchal Sabbath re
mains ftill upon a firm foundation. Original

Dissertation II, 187
Original is— And Cain brought ofthe Fruit of
the Ground a Mincha to Jehova. And here two
words offer themfelves for explanation — nfl
Fruit, and nmD Mincha ; the firft of which
would need none, had not Grotius made it
neceflary by a ftrange conjecture on its mean
ing in this place. For he tells us, that perhaps
nO^KHHSD of the Fruit of the Ground means
nothing more than what the Heathens, many
ages after, underftood by their Sagmen ; which
was a fort of Turf, cut out of facred ground,
and carried fometimes in the hand of a Roman
Ambaffador. But what poffible agreement can be difcern'd
between this cuftom, and the cafe of Cain ?—
Yet even fuppofing a parallel, the words can
never fignify any fuch thing. For the word
Hfl» when join'd with nftltt, has always the
fenfe of Fruit that is eatable and good for food ;
and certainly the Fruit of the Ground, efpe
cially when prefented for an Offering unto the
Lord, will be always thought to mean fome
thing more than a little Earth and Grafs. In
deed this thought of Grotius is fo very unac
countable, that I don't find he has been fol-
low'd by a single Commentator s ; and there-
s Grotius feems here to deferve the cenfure pafs'd on
him by the learned Heidegger — Sa^pe vir, csetera magnus,
ex paganis ritibus talia, obtorto collo, ad explicationem
rerum facrarum rapit; quse, fi propius intueare, nee
ccelum nee terram attingunt. Exerc. 5. 19.
A a 2 fore

1 88 Dissertation II.
fore we may conclude, according to the obvi
ous information ofthe words in the text— that
Cain's Offering was of the Fruit, or eatable
Fruits, of the Ground ; the particular fpecies
of Fruit indeed is not defin'd, and therefore
we muft be fatisfied with that general idea
which the words afford.us.
Let us now proceed to the other word
Mincha • which muft be carefully confider'd,
as great weight will be laid upon the fenfe of
that hereafter. A Mincha, fays Buxtorf,
when applied to Civil Life, fignifies a Prefent,
indeterminately • but when applied to things
Sacred, it fignifies determinately Sacrum Fru-
mentaceum, an Offering of Corn or Bread.
Gussetius tells usc— When a Mincha is
given by man to man, it denotes fome great
dignity in the receiver, of which fuch gift is an
acknowledgment ; and it denotes fubjection,
at leaft fubmiffion in the giver : but when a
Mincha is prefented by Man to God, it always
fignifies an TJnbloody Oblation, and there is not
one inftance of its being ufed for an Animal
Oblation, thro' the Bible. Re land, in his
Treatife of Sacrifices u, informs us — AH Obla
tions, which according to the divine will were
confum'd, after having been confecrated by
certain rites, are call'd by the general name of
t Commentar. Ling. Ebraioe, p. 473.
u Antiquitates Sacrse vet, Hebrxor. Par. 3. pag. 141.
Oblations ;

D I S S E R T A T I ON II. 189
Oblations j and as they, confift either of Ani
mals, or of Meal,, Oil, Wine and Frankincenfe,
they are divided into two forts, the Bloody and
the Unbloody. The Bloody or Animal Obla
tions are call'd Maclations, and the Unbloody
Oblations of Corn or Meal Minchas ; the reft
being call'd Libations ; and to the fecond fpecies
Reland himfelf refers the Oblation here brought
by Cain. Dr. Out ram agrees exactly with
thefe celebrated Authors, and obferVes w— that
the Oblations which were confiim'd in a facred
rite ( fuch only as were efteem'd Sacrifices by
the Jews ) were either of things inanimate or
animate ; that Offerings of the former kind
were in Scripture term'd Minchas ( in Latin,
Ferta, Dona or Dopes ;) and the latter MaUa-,
tions (in Latin, ViUimce or Hojtiee.) To thefe
human Authorities I fhall only add that of Mr.
Mede, who fays x — All the Offerings in the
Law were either holy or moft holy Oblations ;
the firft were call'd Terumoth, the fecond j^or-
hanim. Thefe laft were of two parts or kinds,
Zehach, and Mincha; the former being the
flaughter and fhedding the blood of Beafts, and
the latter the burning and afcending of inani
mate things, as Meats and Drinks ; and this
Mincha was for the moft part join' d to the Zf~
boch or bloody Sacrifice v.
w De Sacrifices, p. 84.
X See his Works, Fol. p. 286 and 287.
, 1W.  :  ,„. Bue

I90 D-I S S E R T A T 1,0 N II.
But a few paffages of divine Authority will
fix the meaning of this word Mincha, beyond
difpute ; by evincing — that, when applied to
a Sacred Oblation, it always fignifies an Un
bloody, and not a Bloody, Oblation. The firft
place, in which the word occurs, is the Text
before us, which exprefsly tells us — that Cain
brought ofthe Fruit ofthe Ground a Mincha to
Jehova. In Exod. XXIX. 38 &c. we have the inftitu
tion of the perpetual Morning and Evening
Oblation, in the following words— Now this is
that which thou Jhalt offer upon the Altar ; two
Lambs of the firft year, day by day continuaUy.
The firft Lamb thou Jhalt offer in the Morning,
and the other Lamb thou foalt offer at Even; and
with the firft Lamb a tenth deal of Flour
MINGLED WITH THE FOURTH PART OF AN H1N
OF beaten OIL; and the fourth part of an hin
of Wine for a Drink Offering. And the other
Lamb thou jhalt offer at Even , and Jhalt do
thereto, according to the Mincha (or Meat-
Offering ) of the Morning, and according to the
Libation ( or Drink-Offering ) thereof. So that
the Flour mingled with Oil is exprefsly call'd
the Mincha or Meat-Offering. But it muft be
here obferv'd, that as we now in general ap
propriate the word Meat to Flejh, the Mincha
fhould no longer be render'd the Meat-Offer
ing, but the Bread-Offering. In

Dissertation II. i§j
In Levit. II. i &c. we have a particular de
fcription of the word Mincha, and its invaria
ble meaning in things Sacred ; for we read— If
any wiU offer a Mincha to the Lord, his Offering
JhaU be fine Flour, and he JhaU pour Oil upon it,
and put Frankincenfo thereon— And if thou bring
an Oblation of a Mincha baken in the Oven, it
jhall be unleavened Cakes of fine Flour mingled
with Oil— And if thy Oblation be a Mincha baked
in a Pan, it JhaU be fine Flour unleavened, mingled
with Oil; thou Jhalt part it in pieces, and pour
Oil thereon : tfin nmD this is a Mincha. Here
then we have the very Definition, and precife
meaning of the Mincha, as exprefsly given us
as words can give it. And this determines the
fenfe of the word abfolutely, at leaft in the five
Books of Mofes ; becaufe the infpir'd Author,
wherever he mentions the word Mincha, as a
Sacrifical Term, certainly ufes it in the fame
fenfe : efpecially when he appears fo minutely
to have fix'd its meaning. And therefore, as
the Book of Genefis was undoubtedly writ by
Mofes in the Wildernefs, after the delivery of
the Law and the divine appointment of the
Sacred Rites contain'd in this book of Leviti
cus ; the word Mincha, when ufed facrifically,
muft be fuppos'd to carry the fame idea in Gene
fis, which had been fettled upon it by God himfelf ,
before Genefis was compos 'd. But

10,2 D I S:s E R T A T I O N II.
But there feerris to be no poffibility of mi-
ftakingrt; and therefore I fhall only obferve
farther— that the Firft- Fruits ofthe Ground are
included under the word' Mincha in this Chap
ter, Verfe the 12th ; and in Numbers, Chap,
V- if> an Offering of Barley-Meal, wjthout Oil
or Frankincenfe, is alfo called a Mincha. So
that from thefe Texts ( to which many others.
equally clear might be added) it is extreamly
evident— that the Mincha was Sacrum Frumen-
taceum, an Offering of the Fruit ofthe Ground,
in oppofition to an Animal Oblation, from
which it is carefully diftinguifh'd.
Cain then brought ofthe Fruit ofthe Ground a
Mincha to Jehova ; and Abel, he alfo brought of
the Firftlings of his Flock, and ofthe Fat thereof.
Grotius tells us, in his Commentary, that
Abel's Offering confifted of Wool and Milk, and
that it was not an Animal Sacrifice. For as
the word rTTDSO fometimes fignifies ofthe beft
in its kind, as well as of the Firft by birth, he
will have it to mean here — that Abel brought
of the beft of his Flock ; that is, fays he, of
the Wool of the beft of his Flock. But (be-
fides the impossibility of finding Wool in this
Word or Sentence) was ever Wool known to be
a proper Oblation to the Deity ? Yet fuppofing,
but not granting it, it will foon appear that
fuch an Interpretation is not only extreamly
harfh, but will never fuit the Words ; for if it
be

Di ssertation II. ten
be allow'd by all, that Cain's bringing of the
fruit ofthe Ground means his bringing the fruit
of the Ground; certainly Abel's bringing ofthe
firftlings ( or beft } of his Flock muft mean his
bringing the firftlings (or beft) of his Flock. For
if the remarkable Samenefs in the Original /
Phrafe be not preferv'd in the Senfe, and if
both parts be not construed by the fame rule ;
Words may fignify what every Iixpofitor choofes
to have them, and Accuracy in ftile is of no
farther fenrice. But there is no occafion to
dwell upon an Abfurdity, which it is fufficient
to have mention'd. — Abel then brought the
Firftlings of his Flock an Offering to the Lord ' j
and if for an Offering, certainly for a Sacrifice,
which was the only way of offering Animals to
the Lord. And if Abel brought Animals for
a Sacrifice, the following word pi^nDT can
not be render'd (as Grotius would have it) and
ofthe Milk thereof* ; but muft be render'd ( as
% Grotius pervertit fimplicitatem orationis Mofaicse.
Nam ubi de S'acrificio fermo eft, & oblatum dicitur
3'7fTffl, ne unus locus fcripturae oftendi potent, in quo
3^HT babeat fem%n L/t&it : turn talia Sacrificia in populo
Dei nuaquam fuerint ufkata. PrsctereaPaulus Sacrificium
Abelis vocit fynat; quid opus 5»n«,, facrificio maEtato, fi
Lac tantum & Lana offerri debuerinr? Aliud eft V»#,
aiiud <ss@<rtptyr; quae pofterior vox ufurpari fblet de obla-
tione rerum inanimatarum. Quod fi 2 ?D fit Lac, ubi
igitur mentio Lana ? Denique quam frivolum eft, eo loco
qui agit de Sacrificiis, quae potiflima laus fuit capere ex
Primogeninis, m"13D interpretari non de Primogenitis,
{¦ ^ B b in

194 Dissertation II.
in our Englifh Verfion ) and ofthe Fat thereof;
becaufe Milk was not, and the Fat always was
a part of a regular animal Sacrifice. But as
thefe Animals were Holocaufts, the word may,
perhaps, be better underftood here in the con
crete, than in the abftratl ; as fignifying — and
ofthefatteft, or beft of them. For it is fre
quently us'd in this manner in other parts of
Scripture a ; and the fenfe of the whole will be
then— And Abel, he alfo brought ofthe Firftlings
of his Flock, and ofthe fattejt of thofe Firftlings.
Perhaps there is foarce any fhort Hiftory in
the Bible, concerning which more irrational
Stories have been feign'd, and about the par
ticulars of which Interpreters are lefs recon
cile, than this of Cain and Abel.
There is however a general harmony in af
ferting— that this Offering of Cain's was the
Fruit ofthe Ground, and Abel's an Animal Sa
crifice ; that each brought a jingle and diftind:
Prefent, this a Bloody, that an Unbloody Obla
tion : and farther than this it does not appear
that any Expositor has gone. Yet if we confi
der the Original Text with clofenefs and at
tention , probably we fhall find reafon to be
lieve — that Abel's was a double Oblation ; an
fed de iis quse eximise funt magnitudinis ! Heidegger
Exerc. 5. Sect. 20.
a See Numb. 18. 12. Gen. 45-. 18. Pf. 147. 14 &c.
Oblation,

Dissertation II. 195
Oblation, not only of an Animal Sacrifice pecu
liar to himfelf, but of the Fruit ofthe Ground,
in common with his Brother. And this Obfer
vation, tho' I prefume it was never yet pub
lickly made, will poffibly help to fet this im
portant article of Sacred Hiftory in a more ad
vantageous point of view, than it has yet ap-
pear'd in.
Let us obferve the words of the Original
Text, which only can be decifive in the prefent
cafe ; and thefe it may be proper to produce
here at length, that the nature of the Argu
ment may be, the more conveniently deter
min'd. We read in the Third and following
Verfes — : nin>S nroo nbixn nso yp n.i>i
iraSnoi UKit nrono Kin dj K>an Sam
Ski i»P ^1 • vinJD. Ski San Sk mn» vw\
: nvtr kS inriJO WhichWords, literally ren
der'd, are — And Cain brought of the Fruit of
the Ground a Mincha to Jehova ; and Abel
brought, he alfo of the Firftlings of his Flock,
and of their Fat. And Jehova had refpeil to
Abel, and to his Mincha ; but to Cain, and to^
his Mincha he had not rejpecl. Here then we
« find, that the Lord had refpect to Abel, and
to his Mincha ; but if the Lord had refpect to
Abel's Mincha, Abel certainly brought a Min
cha ; and if Abel brought a Mincha, he cer
tainly brought of the Fruit of the Ground.
For Mincha, when applied to a Sacred Obla-
B b 2 tion,

ig6 Dissertation II.
tion, is found to be explain'd by, and put for,
an Oblation of the Fruit of the Ground ; or
an Unbloody, in Opposition to a Bloody, Sa
crifice. Mincha then having this determin'd
Signification, (as is evident from the Authority
of Scripture and thofe great Men before cited)
and Cain's Offering of the Fruit of the Ground
being exprefsly terrn'd a Mincha ; Abel's bring
ing a Mincha, at the fame time, muft have
been his bringing of the Fruit ofthe Ground,
in common with his Brother.
From hence it is evident, that Abel's was
truly and properly a Double Oblation — an
Animal Sacrifice^ exprefsly ; and the Fruit of
the Ground, by a neceflary deduction. -The
turning alfo of the Sentence favours us Very re
markably in the prefent cafe — Cain brought of
the Fruit of the Ground a Mincha to Jehova -, and
Abel brought, he alfo &cc. And -Abel brought
—what? No doubt, of the Fruit of the Ground,
juft before mention'd, is here underftood as if
repeated. y And thus the LXX very juftly ren
der this place — Key a€sa fihyxtj xcq mor®* am
toov neamToxw &c. In this Verfion the particle
xx;, being repeated, evidently fepafates the-
fentence ; and fo in the Original, the particle
EW cannot be join'd to the Verb immediately
before it, from the nature ofthe position, and
its connection with a fecond nominative cafe.
Neither will the Senfe fuffer us to fay— Cain.
br>

D i s s er tation II. 197
brought ofthe Fruit of the Ground, and AbH
brought alfo a Sacrifice; but the origihal words
are very remarkably placed, and the repetition
of the nominative cafe plainly demands a diffe*
rent rendring. , < , ,
The Words therefore are literally — Cam
brought of the Fruit of the Ground a Mincha to
Jehova; and Abel brought (the fame) he alfo
(brought) of the Firftlings of his. Flock, and of
their Fat. And the words being thus explain'd,
it very regularly follows — And. Jehova hadre^
fpeB. to Abel, and to his Mincha ;. but to Cain,
and to his Mincha he had not refpeid.
To this Obfervation — that Cain brought a
fingle, and Abel a double Oblation, the Au
thor of the Epiftle to the Hebrews ( generally
allow'd to be St. Paul b) gives an extraordinary
teftimony. For in Chap. XI. 4. we read— n^«
zfr&ovct fyftav A&A <s^j6 K6uv 'srC$si]HyM tu ®tcd, i\
r,s iflagTvptiJt] sivcu hntu®*, pctpwPisn©* im Tits Sa-
peiff CUIT H TH. 0iH' Kc/Jj ch' cwtvii cutijxvw STI AtfA«78f.
Our Englifh Verfion of which is -By Faith Abel
offered unto God a more acceptable Sacrifice than
Cain, by which he obtained Witnefs that he was
righteous, God teftifying of his Gifts • and by it
he being dead yet fpeaketh. But the words ¦zsA«ac«i
%<na,v may be better render'd — a greater, or
fuller Oblation (—a Sacrifice exceeding that of
Cain, fays Dr. Hammond ) — an Oblation that
' b See Chapman's Eufebius, Vol. II. Preface p. 19. was

198 Dissertation II.
was greater or more in Number, rather than in
Value. For tho' the positive mXvs does fome-
times fignify excellens, prteftans &c. yet none of
the beft Lexicographers c give it that fenfe in
the other degrees of comparifon ; but v&hw
has conftantly the fenfe of plus, amplior, co-
piofior G? numerofwr. And it appears from H.
Stephans's Greek Concordance, that «tA«wi/ has
not the fenfe of pneftantior thro' the whole
NewTeftament. Indeed the idea of Number
ftrikes us at once; and the modern Tranllators
have injur'd their tranflation in this place, by
not attending to the hiftory here alluded to.
I fay, the modern Tranflators ; for in Wickliff's
Tranflation in the thirteenth Century, we find
the proper meaning of the word here preferv'd
— bp feitft abel offribe a inpcb more fatrifice
than caput to gob, bp foh-icbe be gat toitncfTpng
to be juft, for gob bare ujitnefTpng to bile
gljiftte; anb bp tbat feitb be tizzo fpefcith. gbir.
But as a much more Sacrifice was found, upon
the improvement of the Englifh Language to
be a little uncouth ; in Queen Elizabeth's Ver
fion it was alter'd for— a greater Sacrifice, which
alfo preferves the true fenfe ofthe word -nhetw,
efpecially in this place,
There is another word in this Verfe, which
will farther confirm the Obfervation before
c See the feveral Lexicons of Budxus, Conftantine,
Gefner, Gilliu*, Hederic, Leigh, Scapula and Stephens. made,

Dissertation II. 199
made, and that is — Supois Gifts — Godtefti-
fying of Abel's Gifts — by which a plurality is
plainly and exprefsly confirm'd ; as this Ad: of
Abel, which we are confidering, can be the
only one here referr'd to by the Apoftle.
Thus much may fuffice to fhew the Nature of
the Oblations of Cain and Abel ; and to prove,
that the former brought the fingle Offering of
the Fruit of the Ground, and the latter the
double Oblation of the Fruit of the Ground
and an Animal Sacrifice.
The next point is to confider— What Induce
ment thefe Brothers had to the making their
Oblations ; after which, it will be proper to fix
the foundation of that difference, which God
manifefted between them, by rejecting the Ob
lation of Cain, and accepting that of Abel.
The Offering of Cain appears to have been
of the Fruit of the Ground — Cain brought of
the Fruit of the Ground an Offering to the Lord.
This fort of Oblation, tho' falling within the
meaning ofthe word Sacrifice, (as that, in its
original Senfe, is the offering a thing by Man
to God, or making that Sacred which before
was Common ) yet in general is now call'd an
Offering ; in oppofition to that fort of Obla
tion, which was of Animals, and is generally
term'd a Sacrifice. The

%QQ D I S& ERTATION II.
The firft Queftion then is — What Induce
ment Cain might have to bring fuch an Offer
ing, to the Lord. The Anfwer to this feems
clear ; as it is agreed that this Art of Cain's
might be in obedience to the voice of Reafon d.
For how widely foever the Learned have dif-
agreed about the origin of Animal Sacrifices;
and however warmly the Advocates for the Di
vine Inftitution infift upon the necessity of a
Revelation in this latter cafe ; they allow— that
Nature might inform Men of a duty incumbent
upon them to worfhip God— that the common
dictates of Gratitude might put them upon ap
plying part of their fubftance to the honour
and fervice of him, who gave them the whole
— and that, as Offerings of the Fruit ofthe
Ground were always accounted, and diftin-
guifh'd by the title of, Euchariftic Offerings e j
fuch an Euchariftic Offering might be made,
and probably therefore was made by Cain, out
of a conviction of the Divine Superin tendency,
and as an acknowledgment of the Divine Blef
fing. Had Cain been void of all religious fen^
timents, he had not brought an Offering ; but
bis. bringing a Mincha, and offering it up unto
the Lord, points out fome Gratitude in the
Offerer, and insinuates a Belief— that every
d See Dr. Nicholls, in his Conference with a Theift,
Part II. p. 297.
e See Deut. XXVI. 1— 12. Gift,

Dissertation II. 201
Gift, conducive to the happinefs of human
life, defcended from above.
But tho' this Offering of Cain's might be the
refult of rational deduction only, the Sacrifice
of Abel muft evidently be afcrib'd to another
and higher principle of Influence. For tho'
the Human Inftitution of Animal Sacrifice had
formerly many, in the laft Century fome, and
perhaps in this Age a few Advocates ; yet the
generality of the Learned are at prefent agreed
in afferting the Divine Inftitution : and the Ar
guments of the opposite fide have been fo ju-
dicioufly and fully anfwer'd, that there feerns
but little room for ftrengthning the force of
what tney have offer'd to the world,
I fhall therefore, for the more regular con
ducting the prefent defign, offer fome Argu
ments, which are ufually urg'd to vindicate the
Divine Inftitution of Animal Sacrifices ; and
which, receiving additional strength from
a few Obfervations here added, may perhaps
eftablifh that controverted and important point.
After which, I fhall endeavour to draw from
thence a proper illuftration of the hiftory be
fore us.
That Animal Sacrifices were not inftituted
by Man, feems extreamly evident — from the
acknmledgd Univerfality f of the Pradice —
f By the moft exact accounts taken from thofe who
C c from

202 Dissertation II.
from the wonderful Samenefs ofthe manner, in
which the whole World offer'd thefe Sacrifices
— and from that Merit and Expiation which
were conftantly fuppos'd in, and to be effeded
by them.
Now Human Reafon, even among the moft
ftrenuous Opponents of the Divine Inftitution,
is allow'd to be incapable of pointing out the
leaft Natural Fitnefs or Congruity between Blood
and Atonement, between the kiUing of God's
Creatures and the receiving a pardon for the vio
lation of God's Laws. This confequence of Sa
crifices, when properly offer'd, was the invari?
able opinion of the Heathens, but not the
whole of their opinion in this matter : for they
had alfo a traditionary Belief among them,
that thefe Animal Sacrifices were not only Ex
piations, but vicarious Commutations, and fub-
ftituted Satisfactions ; and they called the Ani
mals, fo offer'd, their avn-^/vx/*, or the Ran-
foms for their own Souls s.
But if thefe notions are fo remote from, nay
fo contrary to any leflbn that Nature teaches,
have liv'd upon the fpot with the Hottentots, and have
had the beft opportunity of knowing their cuftoms, we
learn, that they pray to a Being that dwells above, and
offer Sacrifice of the beft things they have, with eyes
lifted up to Heaven. And thefe people are by all allow'd
to be the moft degenerate of the Human Species, and to
have furviv'd the common inftincts of Humanity. Oving-
ton's Voyage to Surat, pag. 498.
g Dr. Stanhope's Serm. Boyle's Leet. Vol. I. p. 790. as

Dissertation II. 203
as they confefledly are ; how came the whole
World to pradife the Rites founded upon
them ? 'Tis certain that the wifeft Heathens
— Pythagoras, Plato, Porphyry, and others h,
flighted the religion of fuch Sacrifices; and
wonder 'd, how an Inftitution fo difmal ( as it
appeafd to them) and fo big with abfurdity,
could diffufe it felf thro' the World. They faw
that fo it was, but how it was — this was the
matter of their aftonifhment.
The difclofing this grand fecret then is fuffi
cient (one would think) to recommend the
Book of Revelation to fome honour among
Mankind ,• fince that Book only can teach us
why the Heathens do, and why their Forefa
thers did, offer up Animals in Sacrifice. And
further — it might foberly be expeded, that
the Men of Rgafon would ceafe to boaft of its
Sufficiency in Religious Matters ; when they find
a Religious Inftitution, obferv'd thro' the world,
inexplicable on the mere principles of Reafon ;
and only to be feen thro' by that light, which
( defcending from above to guide us into all
truth) is convey'd to us in the facred pages.
But thefe Unbelievers, finding their Oracle
of Reafon filenc'd in the prefent point, hit
luckily upon an expedient to clear themfelves
from this diftrefs ; and it came out at laft— that
Sacrifice was the Invention of Prieft -Craft. A
h See Spencer de Leg. Heb. Lib. 3. Cap, 1. Sec,?.
; C c z fad

204 Dissertation II.
fad refource this ! And fuch as difplays at once
the wretchednefs of that. caufe.. and the obfti-
ftinacy of its votaries. It has been allow'd by
one of the great Dodors of Infidelity ' — that
the firft Sacrifices were offer'd ( as they certain
ly were) by Fathers and Heads of Families ;
and — that the acceptablenefs of the Sacrifice
confifted in the dearnefs and value of it to the
Owner or Offerer.
But how came thefe Fathers and Heads of
Families, fo naturally interested in, and presi
ding over, the welfare of their feveral Fami
lies, fo willingly to part with their Flocks, to
create to themfelves fuch a conftant expence,
and to offer fo continued aq injury to their Fa
milies ? Where can be the Prieft-Craft here >
For either thefe Fathers of Families, who firft
inftituted fuch Sacrifices, were Priefts, or they
were not : if they were, then the Priefts pra-
dis'd their craft to their own fole detriment,
which was furely a very ftrange kind of policy ;
and if they were not Priefts, it is fomewhat
hard to place the invention of them to the
fcore of Prieft-Craft k.
Another Advocate for the Sufficiency of Rea
fon ' fuppofes — the AbftjrdUy prevail'd by de-
i The Moral Philofopher, p. 210 and 23?.
k Dr. Delaney, Revel, examin'd, Vol. I. p. 128.
1 Author of Chriftianity as old as the Creation, cited
by Mr. Ridley in his Treatife on the Chriftian Paffover,
p. 4. grees ;

Dissertation II. ,205
grees ; and the Priefts, who fhared with their
Gods and referv'd the beft Bits for themfelves,
had the chief hand in this gainful Superstition.
But it may be well ask'd— Who were the Priefts
in the Days of Cain and Abel ? Or what Gain
could this Superftition be to them, when the
one gave away his Fruits, and the other his
Animal Sacrifice, without being at liberty to
tafte the leaft part of it ? And certainly the
pradice of thefe Sons of Adam may be here
cited, upon the credit of Mofes, as an ancient
and valuable, if not a divine Hiftorian ,• and
'till older and better Evidence be produced a-
gainft him, the Fads, which he attefts, may
be infifted upon as produced by a great Autho
rity. But it is worth remarking, that what
this Author wittily calls the beft Bits, and ap
propriates to the Priefts, appears to have been
the Skin of the Burnt -Offering among the
Jews m, and the Skin and Feet among the
Heathens n.
Dr. Spencer obferves °, that Sacrifices were
look'd upon as Gifts, and that the general opi
nion was — that Gifts would have the fame ef-
fed with God, as with Man ; would appeafe
wrath, conciliate favour with the Deity, and
teftify the gratitude and affedion of the Sacri-
m Lev. VII. 8.
n See Potter's Antiquities, Vol. I, Book 2, Chap. 3.
o Lib. III. Ch. 3. Sec. 2. ficer :

2o6 Dissertation II.
ficer : and thatrfrom this principle proceeded
expiatory, precatory and euchariftical Offer
ings. This is all that is pretended from Na
tural Light to countenance this Pradice. But
how well foever the comparifon may be thought
to hold between Sacrifices and Gifts, yet the
opinion that Sacrifices would prevail with God,
muft proceed from an obfervation that Gifts
had prevail'd with Men ; an Obfervation this,
which Cain and Abel had little opportunity of
making p. And, if the Coats of Skins, which
God direded Adam to make, were the remains
of Sacrifices (as obferv'd in the preceding Dif-
fertation q) fure Adam could not facrifice from
this obfervation, when there were no Subjeds
in the World, upon which he could make fuch
obfervation. Befides : if Offerings to God
were made upon this Principle, then Cain and
Abel offer'd on the fame wrong Principle ; and
if upon the fame wrong Principle, tho' diffe
rently exprefs'd, why did God refped the latter,
and rejed the former ?
Yet even fuppofing Men to have inftituted
fuch a worfhip, and to have chofe fuch a fer-
vice for their Creator — fuppofing them fo fal
len from the true ideas ofthe Divine Being, as
to imagine him capable of being blinded by
gifts and corrupted by bribery, and that he
p Ridley on the Chriftian Paflbver, p. 6.
q Page 6% &c. would

Dissertation II. 207
would eat theflejh of Bulls and drink the blood of
Goats — ( which are certainly propositions as
wild as are eafily fuppofable ) yet can it be fup
pos'd — that God would have testified his ac
ceptance of fuch a fervice, by fire from Heaven
— that Abel, Noah Src. could have obtain'd
his favour by it — that he would have made it
a Sign of his Covenant with Abraham — that
he would have conftituted it as the Whole, al-
moft , of the Mofaic Service — and that he
would have fent down his own Son to die a
Sacrifice, in compliance with, and to compleat
fuch an unmeaning and fanguinary Inftitution?
Let it be added — that no Being has a right
to the Lives of other Beings, but the Creator,
or thofe on whom he confers, that right ; and
it is certain, that God had not given Abel a
right to the Creatures, even for neceflary food,
much lefs for unneceflary cruelty. And there
fore, if God had not empower'd him to take
away their Lives, and appropriate their Bodies
to the purpofes of Sacrifice ; Abel certainly
had not been accepted, and the imagination of
their Hearts, who facrificed after him, had been
only evil before the Lord continuaUy : or at leaft
God would have faid to fuch rafh Worfhippers
-» By what Authority do ye thefe things, and Who
gave ye this Authority > In vain do ye worjhip
Me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments
of Men. There

208 Dissertation II.
There are indeed fome paffages of Scripture,
which are generally cited to prove, that God
himfelf difowns the Inftitution of Sacrifices ;
and the chief of thefe are Ifaiah II. n, 12,
and Jeremiah VII. 21, 22, 23. The firft is
— To what purpofe is the multitude of your Sacri
fices unto Me, faith the Lord? I am fuU of the
Burnt - Offerings of Rams, and the Fat of fed
Beafts ; and I delight not in the blood of Bul
locks, or of Lambs, or of He-Goats. When ye
come to appear before me, who hath required this
at your hand to tread my Courts > Now this PaC-
fage is evidently intended for a reproof to the
Hypocrisy of the Jews r, and a Check to that
Confidence they repos'd in thofe ritual per
formances, tho' void of that real Devotion,
that fincere Repentance, and that inward Pu
rity, which alone are acceptable to God, and
to promote which thefe Rites were inftituted.
The Context— bring no more vain Oblations &c.
proves this to have been the defign of the Pro
phet ; and the want of comparative degrees in
the Hebrew Language will not fuffer great
ftrefs to be laid here on the negative form of
fpeech. The known inftances of— / wiU have
Mercy, and not Sacrifice — Whoever hat eth not
his Father &c. are a proper and fufficient Key
to this and the like paffages s. For thefe kind
r See Mr. Mede's Works, p. 3^2.
s See Polyglott Bible, Prolegom. Idiotifm 6.
of

Dissertation II. 209
of Negatives, in the Hebrew Idiom, do not
abfolutely exclude the thing denied, but only
imply a preference of the thing fet in oppofi-
tion to it. And the words of Samuel to Saul
(1 Sam. XV. 22.) are a beautiful Comment upon
this paffage of the Prophet Ifaiah — Hath th*
Lord as great delight in Burnt-Offerings and Sa
crifices , as in obeying the voice of the Lord .¦*
Behold! to obey is better than Sacrifice, and to
hearken than the Fat of Rams.
The paffage from Jeremiah is — Thus faith
the Lord of Hofts, the God of Ifrael ; put your
Burnt - Offerings unto your Sacrifices, and eat
Flejb : for Ijpake not unto your Fathers, nor com
manded them, in the Day that I brought them out
ofthe Land of Egypt, concerning Burnt-Offerings
or Sacrifices : but this thing commanded I them,
faying, Obey my Voice, and I witt be your God,
and ye JhaU be my People. But thefe words
cannot poffibly be underftood of God's difown-
ing the inftitution of Sacrifice, for reafons men
tion'd in page 1/3 ; and 'tis plain, that they
refer to theTranfadion at Marah, and thePro-
pofal there made by God to the Ifraelites, foon
after their coming forth from Egypt ; which
Propofal is couch'd in almoft the fame words
with thofe of the Prophet here appeal'd to.
And therefore, either this paffage has not the
leaft view to the original Inftitution of Animal
Sacrifices j or, at moft, it cannot be under-
D d flood

210 Dissertation II.
flood in the fenfe contended for by the Advo
cates for the Human Inftitution.
It may be proper, before I leave this point,
to fubjoin the following Argument, with which
Reafon furnifhes us againft the Human Inftitu
tion. — Whatever pradice has obtain'd univer-
fally in the World, muft have obtain'd from
fome didate of Reafon, or fome demand of
Nature, or fome principle of Inter eft ; or elfe
from fome powerful Influence or Injunction of
fome Being of univerfal Authority. Now the
pradice of Animal Sacrifice did not obtain from
Reafon ; for no reafonable notions of God
could teach men, that he could take delight in
Blood, or in the Fat of flain Beafts ; nor will
any man fay, that we have any Natural InftinH
to gratify, in fpilling the Blood of an innocent
Creature j nor could there be any temptation
from Appetite to do this in thofe ages, when
the whole Sacrifice was confum'd by Fire ; or
when, if it was not, yet men wholly abftain'd
from Flefh ; and confequently this pradice did
not owe its origin to any principle of Intereft.
Nay, fo far from any thing of this, that the
deftrudion of innocent and ufeful Creatures is
evidently againft Nature, againft Reafon, and
againft Intereft ; and therefore muft be found
ed in an Authority, whofe Influence was as
powerful as the Pradice was univerfal ; and
that could be none but the Authority of God the

Dissertation II. 211
the Sovereign ofthe World, or of Adam the
founder of the human race. If it be faid, of
Adam ; the queftion ftill returns — What mo
tive determin'd him to the pradice ? It could
not be Nature, Reafon, or Intereft, as has been
fhewn ; and therefore it muft have been the
Authority of his Sovereign. And had Adam en
join'd it to his Pofterity, 'tis not to be imagin'd
that they would have obey'd him, in fo extra
ordinary and expenfive a rite, from any other
motive than the Command of God1.
If then the ftrongeft arguments for the Hu
man Inftitution of fuch Sacrifices prove fo in-
conclufive, we may reafonably infer— that they
were inftituted not by Man but God. But let
us fee, what information Scripture affords on
this fide the queftion ; and whether we have
not evidence enough to give us fatisfadion
here. The Book of Genefis, indeed, diredly
favours neither the one nor the other opinion;
and this firft mention of Sacrifice, in the cafe
of Abel, is not to give us an account of Sacri
fice, how or when it was inftituted, much lefs
is it any evidence that there was none before ;
but is only occafionally related in the hiftory
of transferring the Seniority, or right of Pri
mogeniture (and fo theParentage of theMeffiah)
from Cain into a younger line ; which was ab-
•t Revelat. examin'd with candour ; Vol. I. Differ. 8.
Ddj folutely

212 Dissertation II.
folutely neceflary to be known ", The truth,
however, of the Divine Inftitution may with
great fafety be colleded from feveral pafTages ;
and particularly from thofe that regard Abel's
Sacrifice, with which at prefent we are more
immediately concern'd.
We read that Cain brought of the Fruit ofthe
Ground an Offering unto the Lord; and we have
feen that Abel was not behind in this expreffion
of his Gratitude, for he alfo brought an Offering
ofthe Fruit ofthe Ground. Yet Abel not only
equall'd, but excell'd his Brother ; for we read,
that he brought moreover ofthe Firftlings of
his Flask, and of their Fat. Upon this the Hi
ftorian informs us — that the Lord had reftet?
unto Abel, and to his Mincha ; but to Cain, and
to his Mincha he had not rejfeU.
There is in the Epiftle to the Hebrews a re
markable paffage ( before quoted ) which will
throw great light upon this place. For the
infpir'd Author of that Epiftle allures us, it
was by Faith that Abel offered a greater Sacrifice
than Cain; i.e. that Cain, having not Faith,
brought only ofthe Fruit of the Ground ; but
Abel, having Faith, brought of the Fruit of
fhe Ground, and an Animal Sacrifice. If then
Faith was the principle, that influenced Abel
to bring the Animal Sacrifice, he certainly did
not bring it from the didates of Reafon only.
« Mofes'? fine principio, p, zi5. For

Dissertation II. 213
For we have the exprefs teftimony ofthe A-
poftle— that Faith cometh by hearing, and hear
ing by the word of God w ; the confequence of
which is, that Abel offer'd this Sacrifice in obe
dience to the word of God, which evidently
means the word of God reveal d.
There is another definition of Faith, in the
firft Verfe of the Chapter before appeal'd to * ;
and of that very Faith, for which St. Paul cele
brates his lift of Worthies, at the head of whom
ftands Abel — Faith, fays he, is the fubftance
(or, as fome render it, the fubfiftence) of things
hoped for, and the evidence (or demonstration)
of things not feen. It has been very properly
remark'd y — that all the Heroes and pious
Men, produced as aduated by this divine prin
ciple, ofFaith, render'd themfelves thus re-
nown'd by a belief of fomething declar'd, and,
in confequence of fuch belief, the performance
of fome adion enjoin'd them by God. — By
Faith, Noah, being warned by God, prepared an
Ark j i. e. he belie v'd the warning which God
gave him, and obediently made the Ark which
he had appointed him to make. — By Faith,
Abraham, when caUed fo go into a ftrange Land,
which God promifod to give him for an inheri
tance, obeyed; i. e. he believ'd that God would
w Romans X. 17.
X Hebrews XI. 1.
y Shuckford's Connexion, Vol I. Book 2. p. %6. give

214 Dissertation II.
give him what he had promis'd, and, in con
fequence of that belief, did what God com
manded him. And thus it was, that Abel by
Faith offered a greater Sacrifice than Cain ; be
caufe he believed what God had promis'd, that
the Seed ofthe Woman Jhould bruife the Serpent's
head; and, in confequence of that belief, of
fer'd fuch a Sacrifice for his fins, as God had
appointed to be offer'd until the Seed fioould
come. St. Paul alfo tells us in the fame Chapter %
— that Abel died in Faith, not having received
(the completion a of) the Promifes b, but having
z Heb. XI. 13.
a A6ts XIII. 32, 33 — And we declare unto Tou glad
tidings, how that the Promise, which was made unto the
Fathers, God hath fulfilled the fame unto us their Chil
dren. b That thefe Promifes include the Promife ofthe MeJJiah,
is plain — firft, becaufe that is the Promife, peculiarly
and emphatically fo call'd throughout the Scripture— and
fecondly, that temporal Promifes, or the Afliirances of
God as to bringing the Seed of Abraham into the Land
of Canaan, (call'd frequently the Land of Promife) are not
entirely, if at all meant here, appears fully from this very
place ; for the Apoftle fays of all the Patriarchs, whom
he had mention'd in the beginning of this chapter— Thefe
All died in Faith, not having received the Promifes ; but
Abraham is one of the Patriarchs mention'd, and of him
it is exprefsly faid — that he fojoumed in the Land of
Promise. From all which it follows, that fome other
Promife muft be here intended. And as Abel, Enoch
and Noah (three ofthe Patriarchs included in the word
All) had not receiv'd the Promife of entering the Landfeen

Dissertation II. 215
feen them afar off; and was perfuaded of them,
and embraced them c. This belief then of Abel's
in fome Promife made before by God, but
then unaccomplifh'd, was Abel's Faith,- and
by the virtue of this Faith Abel was induced to
offer an Animal Sacrifice, thereby teftifying
his firm belief in the future completion of that
Promife, with which the offering of Animal
Sacrifice was intimately conneded. What this
Promife means will be foon feen at large ; but
-'tis previoufly to be here obferv'd — that the
» Apoftle's certifying, that Faith induced Abel
to offer an Animal Sacrifice, proves Abel's mo
tive to the obfervation of that Rite to have
been not from Reafon, but Revelation.
of Canaan, it muft have been fome otherVrondfe, made in
the firft Ages, and frequently repeated, to which the A-
poftle here alludes — and what Promife can that be, but
the Promife of a future Redeemer, made to Adam, and com
memorated in the Patriarchal Sacrifices ? — Blejfed be the
Lord God of Ifrael, for he hath vifited and redeemed his peo
ple, and hath raifed up an horn of Salvation for us — as he
fpake by the mouth of his Prophets, which have been fmce the
world began. Luke I. 62 &c
c Our Church, in the fecond part of the Homily on
Faith, makes this ufe of the nth Chapter of the Hebrews
— All thefe Fathers, Martyrs, and other holy Men, had
their Faith furely fix'd on God ; they look'd for all the
Benefits of God the Father, thro' the Merits of his Son Jefiw
Chrift, as we now do ; and altho' they were not nam'd
Chriftian Men, yet it was a Chriftian Faith, which they
had ; they look'd when Chrift Jhould come, and we be in
the time when he is come.
The

216 Dissertation II.
The fourth chapter of Genefis furnifhes us
with a very remarkable paffage, which proba
bly will give an additional illuftration to the
prefent Argument ; and it is the Expoftulation
of God with Cain, after the rejedion of him
and his Fruit-Offering— If thou doeft weU, Jhalt
thou not be accepted? And if thou doeft not well,
Sin lieth at the door d. Thefe words have re
ceiv'd as great a variety of Interpretations, as
moft paffages in the Bible ; but I fhall only
produce one, which feems to clear all the diffi
culty, and, for its harmony with the Context,
to merit our approbation. It has been very
rightly obferv'd — that the word ritfDn, here
render'd Sin, frequently fignifies a Sin-Offering,
or an Animal to be facrificedfor Sin ; and there
fore fhould be fo render'd in this place. The
neceffity and cuftom of this verfion ofthe word
will appear from the following paffages— Levit.
IV. 2r. 29 ; VI. 27. And from thefe and o-
ther paffages in the 0WTeftament, the Expref
fion is transferr'd into the New ; in 2 Corin.
V. 21; Heb. IX. 28 \
From thefe inftances it is evident, that the
word DNton muft be, and is, frequently ren
der'd a Sin-Offering ; and if we render it fo in
the place under confideration, we fhall imme
diately fee the Paffage clear and confiftent with
d Gen. IV. 7.
e See Chapman's Eufeb. Vol. I. p. 322. the

Dissertation II. 217
the Context. For— Cain had brought a Min
cha to the Lord — Abel had done the fame
adding an Animal Sacrifice— God rejeded Cain
and accepted Abel— Cain was therefore very
wroth — Upon which God expoftulates with
him thus — Why art t^ou mrpth &c. If thou
doeft well, Jjjalt thou not , be accepted. ? And if
thou doeft not well, a Sm-Offering lieth even at
thy door. As if he had faid— Why art thou fo
angry at the preference fhewn to thy Brother
as if it were an inftance of Partiality in me;
whereas it is only the effed of Laws, which I
had before declared: for knoweft thou not,
that if thou difthargeft thy Duty fully, thou
fhalt be accepted ; and that if thou faileft
therein, I have appointed an Atonement for
Sin, by the Sacrifice of an Animal, that is en
tirely in thy power, near at hand, and that
coucheth or lieth down even before thy door ?
— Here then we have God himfelf enforcing
the obfervation of Animal Sacrifice ; and com
manding it, as the known Remedy then pro
vided for the Lapfes of Mankind.
It may be proper to obferve, at the conclu
fion of this head, that no argument can be
fairly drawn againft the Divine Inftitution of
Sacrifice before the Law, becaufe fuch Inftitu
tion is not mention'd 'till the giving of the
Law. For whoever confiders carefully, will
find that the Law, is, in part, a Republication,
E e of

218 Dissertation II.
of antecedent Revelations, and Commands long
before given to Mankind. For how otherwife
came the diftindion of Beafts, into clean and
unclean, to be eftablifh'd in the days of Noah f ?
Nature did not teach it ,• and therefore, tho'
the Diftindion was not regifter'd till we come
down to Deuteronomy s, it certainly was intro
duced by God at the fame time that he infti
tuted Sacrifice. Another inftance will fuffici
ently confirm this Obfervation, and that is
— the Law of Leviration, as it is call'd ; or
that Law, by which one Man, upon the de-
ceafe of his Brother without Children, was ob-
lig'd to take his Brother's Wife. We find this
Law firft commanded by God in the book of
Deuteronomy h, but it certainly muft have been
inftituted, and by the fame Authority, long
before ; becaufe in Genefis ' we have an ac
count of a Man deftroy'd by God himfelf, for
difobeying it. Wherefore, as thefe Inftitu-
tions were before made, tho' not recorded; fo
might Sacrifice, as (I hope) it fully appears to
have been.
We have now feen, that Abel offer'd an Ani
mal Sacrifice, and that his motive to this kind
of Oblation could not be from Reafon or Na-

f Gen. VII. 2.
g Deut. XIV. 3 &c.
h Deut. XXV. ?.
i Gen. XXXVIII. io.

ture,

Dissertation II. 219
ture, becaufe the one acknowledges the Rite
abfurd, and the other cruel and inhuman.
And as it remains that the Sacrificing Animals
muft have been divinely inftituted, we have
feen that it abfolutely was fo — from feveral
Teftimonies of holy Scripture in the cafe of
Abel, and from the Expoftulation of God with
Cain. Let us proceed then to obferve why and
when God inftituted this Rite ; after which
the Foundation of that Difference, which God
made between the Oblations of the two Bro
thers, will eafily appear.
Adam was created happy and immortal, and
being a Free- Agent had it in his power to fe
cure the continuance, or incur the forfeiturej
of thofe Bleffings. Innocence preferv'd was
the tenure, by which he held his high privi-
ledges ; and to the prefervation of that Inno
cence God had contributed every thing he
could, confiftently with the freedom of human
adion. In his infinite wifdom he laid one po-
fitive and eafy reftraint on him, to preferve in
his mind a due fenfe of that dependency, which
muft be the charader, and indeed is the hap
pinefs of created Beings: and what in his wif
dom he thus propos'd, for the trial of human
duty, his holinefs was concern'd to prevent the
violation of. Hence that awful denunciation
E e 2 — In

220 Dissertation II.
— In the day thou eateft thereof, thou
furely die.
God having thus, by an eftablifh'd law, de
nounced Death to Sin, the execution of that
law, one way or other, became as neceflary to
the vindication ofthe divine Attributes, as the
firft enading it. For tho' the Mercy of God
is a gracious concern for his Creatures, and
their Welfare ; yet the Juftice of God is a jea
lous concern for Himfelf, and his own Glory :
and therefore it was become neceflary, that
the Punifhment fo threaten'd to Sin, fhould be
inflided, in cafe of Sin ; and no deliverance
granted , but on fuch conditions as the Deity
offended fhould think equivalent to the Punifh
ment of the Offender, and therefore worthy
his acceptance k. This is what Divines pro
perly call Satisfaction, Expiation and Atone
ment ; the neceffity of which arifes from the
neceffity of Punifhment, the neceffity of Pu
nifhment from the divine denunciation of Mi
fery and Death to Sin, and that denunciation
from the infinite Holinefs ( or, which is the
fame, the infinite Averfion to Sin) in the
Deity. Now Adam and his Wife fell — and there
fore, the Covenant being broke, their Happi
nefs loft with their Innocence, and their Lives
forfeited by their Tranfgreflion, the confe-
k See Dr. Turner, BoyleYLeft. Serm. Vol. II. p. 37?-
quence

Dissertation II. 221
quence might be reafonably expeded to be the
immediate destruction of the Offenders. But
God, whofe thoughts are not as our thoughts,
even here found a method to punifh, and yet
preferve; in the midft of Judgment remembring
Mercy. The Offenders loft their Happinefs,
yet did not become miferable ; they became
mortal, but did not die immediately.
For tho' the juft demerit of their Tranfgref-
fion was — that their Bodies fhould die, or be
immediately diffolv'd, without the poffibility of
a Refurredion ; and — that their Souls fhould
be confign'd over to Remorfe and Torment,
which for its greatnefs is term'd the Second
Death, and for its duration Eternal Death;
yet God (fo adoreable is his clemency !) was
pleas'd to fave the Offenders, as monuments
of his grace, and objeds even of his favour.
They had no fooner been feduced to Sin, but
he promis'd them a Saviour, to counter-ad the
ruinous defign of their hoftile Seducer ; a Savi
our — who, by refcuing their Bodies from the
Grave, fhould give them a Second and Eternal
Life, at the general Refurredion ; and, by re
deeming their Souls, fhould put it in their power
to make that Second and Eternal Life, a Life
of Eternal Happinefs.
But as the Life ofthe Firft Pair was thus ab
folutely forfeited ; and as, in the divine Ap
pointment of things, without Jhedding of Blood there

222 Dissertation II.
there was to be no Rgmifiion ; it became necef
lary, that Blood, which is the Life, fhould be
filed, in order to the Remiffion of their Tranf-
greffion : and this Blood or Life muft have
been either the Blood or Life of themfelves,
or of fome other in their ftead. The rigour
ofthe Law could have been only executed in
the very Letter ofthe Sandion ; and fince that
ordain'd the Malefador's own Death, all fhort
of that was the Lawgiver's departing from his
Right: and as God, the Lawgiver, was at full
liberty to depart fo far as he judg'd convenient,
he might choofe what Compenfation he pleas'd,
and upon what conditions ,• and why, and when
the effeds of his goodnefs fhould be ftill fuf-
pended. For any thing lefs than the abfolute
forfeiture ofthe Life of the Offender muft be
look'd upon as the ad of infinite grace and
mercy. This Compenfation then God firft promis'd
the Offenders themfelves, and in the fulnefs of
time accepted at the hands of his own Son ;
for the Son of God, voluntarily offering his
own Life a Vidim to the Divine Juftice, the
Father accepted it as a vicarious Ranfom. The
Equity of this Commutation, or Satisfaction, has
been often demonstrated ' ; and the Fitnefs
and Propriety of it are equally confpicuous.
For Death being the Punifhment of Sin, an
1 See Dr. Stanhope's Serm. Boyle's Led. Vol.1, p. 794.
Atonement

Dissertation II. 223
Atonement for Sin could not be made by a
Sinner, whofe Life (as fuch) was forfeited to
the Divine Juftice ; and, confequently, could
not have the leaft pretence to Merit and Ex
piation. Hence the impoffibility of our being
redeem'd by Man'. Chrift therefore, who did
no Sin, when he fuffer'd the Punifhment of Sin,
became a proper and meritorious Sacrifice for
Sinners. Again : as the Sins to be aton'd for
were not only thofe of our Firft Parents, but
ofthe whole Human Race ; and as every Sin is
the greatest affront to an infinitely holy Being j
fo the Atonement was requird to be of infinite
value, which could only arife from the infinite
Dignity ofthe perfon fo atoning. And hence
the impoffibility of our being redeem'd by An
gels. The Redeemer therefore, who appear'd
in behalf of Mankind, feems to have been the
only one that could cancel their Debts, and of
fer a plenary Satisfadion ; and being both God
from all Eternity, and becoming Man in the
fulnefs of time, he was partaker of the perfebl
Nature of thofe Beings for whom, and of that
Being to whom, he was to make Atonement ;
and confequently could clearly expiate the
Guilt of the former, and folly fatisfy the Ju
ftice ofthe latter m.
In this fhort view ofthe nature of our Re
demption , we fee all the Attributes of the
m See Dr. Turner's Serm. Boyle's Left. Vol. II. p.393.
Deity

224 Dissertation II.
Deity glorified ; Mercy and Truth meeting toge*
ther, Rgghteoufnefs and Peace kiffing each other:
the whole — a Scheme of the moft righteous
Mercy, and the moft merciful Vengeance ! We
fee the neceffity of a mighty Ranfom, and
(tho' we acknowledge and adore the Free Grace
of God herein difplaid ) we affert — that this
Ranfom was fuUy difcharg'd by the meritorious
Death of Chrift, the Lamb of God, that ex
piated the Guilt and took away the Sins of the
World. Not that this taking away Sin was
literaUy or in a natural fenfe true, fo that Sins
committed were render'd uncommitted, (which
is phyfically impoffible) but legally or in a judi
cial fenfe ; fo that the Offenders were abfolv'd
from the guilt, and freed from the punifhment
of their paft Sins; and remain'd, upon their
Repentance and future Obedience, fit Objeds of
the Divine Favour n.
Such then was the Redemption, which ref-
cued loft Mankind, and was promis'd our firft
Parents in thofe few but comprehenfive words
— The Seed of the Woman JhaU bruife the Ser
pent's Head. But tho' the infinite goodnefs of
God admitted the virtue of this Redemption
to commence and operate from the iEra of
this Promife ; his infinite wifdom decreed that
n See Dr. Turner's Serm. Boyle's Lectures, Vol.11.
P- 374- about

D.I SSERTATION II. 22 IJ
about four thoufand years fhould pafs away
before it was to be in fad accomplifh'd p.
Hence then arofe the Inftitution of Animal
Sacrifices ; namely— to keep alive in the world,
thro' this long fucceffion of ages, the belief of
and reliance upon the future Redemption; while
every innocent Animal, fo flain, was to be a
Handing Prophecy ofthe great immaculate Sa
crifice afterwards to be offer'd up once for all.
—An Inftitution this fo expreffive of the thing
o Heb. IX. 2?, 26. Nor yet that Chrift Jhpu Id offer him
felf often, as the High Prieft enter eth into the holy place every
year, with the Blood of others ; (for then mvst he often
have suffered since the foundation of the world : )
but now, once in the £»d ofthe world, hath he appeared tp put
away/ Sin .by the Sacrifice of himfelf. On thefe words Bp
Wefton obferves — that from the Oppofition prefs'd here,.
And elfewhere, between Animal Sacrifices and the Sacri
fice of Chrift, ( as to the Space to which their virtues
could be extended ) one may be determin'd to interpret
the Eternal Redemption obtained for us by Chrift (Heb.
IX. 12.) to be fuch as reaches to all Times and Ages of
Men ; fmce the Original does very well agree to it. We
conftrue it therefore (fays that learned Prelate ) the Re
demption of Ages, of All Ages and Generations ; available
to redeem them from their Sins thro' every period of each
;of them. For as to the Generations, which paffed before
the Blood of ithis Redemption .was fhed ; we fay, that
every Perfon of them, that obtain'd Forgivenefs, obtain'd
itfolely in virtue of that future Blood-fhedding ; and that
aU the Sacrifices for Sin ofthe Patriarchs, before, or after
the Wlood, .and thefe appointed by the Law, had no ao»
ceptance, .but for the, fake of that One Oblation, which
..they fliadow'd and forejhew'd. Serm. Vol. II. p. 189 &c.
:,: j F f thereby

226 Dissertation II.
thereby fignified, that it demands a wifdom
more than human to contrive it; and could
only be, as a Type, appointed by him, who
alone foreknew the nature ofthe Antitype.
Reafon indeed teaches us to maintain with
St. Paul — that the blood of Bulls and of Goats
could not take away Sin ; but then, what that
could not effed by any inherent fitnefs, might
be effeded by a divine pofitive appointment of
it, as a medium of conveyance : and therefore
the Blood of fuch Animals, when offer'd up to
God, was to be efteem'd by Men as expreffive
of, and typifying, for a time, the Blood of the
True Redeemer ; by the adual effufion of
which all its prophetic and fymbolical repre-
fentations were to be done away — Like the
Moon, which having no intrinfic brightnefs,
fhines only by a light borrow'd from a nobler
Body ; and difappears, at the riling of the
Sun, as being no longer of fervice to Mankind.
We have now feen that Animal Sacrifice was
inftituted by God, for what reafon, and at what
period of time ; but, with regard to the latter,
it may be proper to fubjoin a few obfervations
more. That this Rite was enjoin'd foon after
the Tranfgreffion of our firft Parents in Para
dife, appears evident now from various confi-
derations. In particular, it may be ask'd —
What was the end of fuch Sacrifice ? Was is notthe

"" '&» "&» -\

Dissertation II. 227
the inftituted means of procuring pardon for
Sin ? And was not Adam the firft Sinner ? And
was not the Tranfgreffion in Paradife the firft
Sin ? Certainly no point of time then can be
fix'd upon as more proper, rather none fo pro
per, for the inftitution of a Rite typifying the
future Death ofthe Redeemer of Mankind, as
when the Redeemer was firft promis'd, and
when Mankind began to want the benefits of
his Death, and the means of Reconciliation.
It has been already prov'd, that Abel brought
an Animal Sacrifice, when his Father was not
yet one hundred and thirty years old ; and
every reafon that can be given for the Divine
Inftitution in command to him at that time,
will be much ftronger for its being given in
command to his Father at tbe FaU. And that
his Father adually did Sacrifice feems now
clearly deducible from the divine hiftory, and
that remarkable paflagein it — of God's making
for the firft Pair Coats of Skins. But this has
been confider'd at large in the preceding Dif-
iertation p.
If then God commanded Adam to offer Ani
mal Sacrifice, and the pradice of this Rite was
defign'd to be of fuch eminent fervice as well
as confolation, not to him only, but his fons
after him ; we may reafonably fuppofe that he
was careful to inform his fons of the Divine In-
P Page *8 &c. p f ^ ft.tQt.onj

228 Dissertation II.
ftitution, Ufe, and Neceffity of it ; trjat fo they
alfo might be Heirs of the Prdmifo. But we
have not only probability for our fupport here •
for we read, that Abel, Adam's fecond fon,
did offer an Animal Sacrifice, and confequently
muft have been made acquainted with the In
ftitution by his Father ; and, no doubt, he had
feen his Father frequently perform the facred
folemnity. But if Abel was thus happy in the
leflons, and inftruded by the example of his
Father ; certainly his elder brother enjoy'd the
fame Opportunities, and had heard the impor*
tance ofthe Rite as frequently inculcated.
The queftion therefore is — Why did not
Cain alfo offer an Animal Sacrifice ? He had
been told, that God inftituted it— he had feen
his Father perform it — he faw his Brother per
forin it — and why did He himfelf neglect it ?
That there was a communication of Subftance
or Property between the two Brothers, is plain;
for if Abel brought ofthe Fruit of the Ground,
which Cain presided over, as being the Huf-
bandman ; certainly Cain might have brought
of the Firftlings of the Flock, which Abel had
the care of, as being the Shepherd. The rea
fon then, why Cain negleded it, muft be ei
ther— becaufe he did not think himfelf a Sin
ner; and fo had no need of a Sacrifice; or, be
caufe he did not believe the Ufo and Efficacy oi
that Divine Inftitution. But as there is no Man, who

Dissertation II. 229
who liveth, and firineth not ; fo no Man can
be infenfible; that Y he has fometimes finn'd.
Wherefore, as he could not n'egled this Rite
from a perfuafion of his being Sinlefs ; it re
mains, that he muft have negleded it, thro' a
disbelief of its Ufo and Efficacy. Tho", per
haps, both fuppofitions may be better united ;
and Cain will then appear to have' taken little
notice of his Sins, and lefs ofthe method infti
tuted by God for the expiation of them1.
The Offering, which Cain brought, has been
conftantly look'd upon as' an Ad of Piety, for
the time when offer'd ; and it is generally a-
greed, that it would have been accepted by
God, had the Offerer been unblameable in the
other circumftances of his Oblation "J. And if
this be true, St. John, when he tells us r, that
Cain's behaviour on this occafion voas evil, muft
be underftood to mean — that Cain finn'd, not
in bringing what he brought, but in negleding
what he fhould have brought ; evidencing
thereby a flagrant difrefped of the divine
goodnefs, in the violation of fo gracious a
command. Approach God he did, and with
an appearance of duty feem'd to exercife the
virtue of Gratitude; but, having not Faith, he
q Lege lata, Deus inftituit Oblationes ex Primitiis, mi-
nime id faclurus, fi iis rite peraftis nullo modo pbleda-
batur. Heidegger Exerc. 5:. Sec. 22.
r 1 John III.. 12. paid

230 Dissertation II.
paid no regard to the Inftitution of Animal
Sacrifice, tho' enjoin'd his Father by God him
felf And furely his Offering, tho' made as an
acknowledgment of dependence on God for
the good things of this life, cannot be fuppos'd
acceptable to God ; when the Sinner, that of
fer'd it, dar'd be confident of his Maker's fa
vour, tho' he defpis'd his Inftitution ; and to
appear as ferene as Innocence could make him,
when his Mind was corrupted by Pride, and
blacken'd by Infidelity.
Whereas Abel, with a decent gratitude and
humble piety, brings his Offering, as a depen
dent Creature ,• and a Sacrifice alfo, as a Sin
ner s .• and fo compleated what was afterwards
( under the Jewifh Law ) efteem'd as a perfed
and compleat Oblation — a Mincha, or un
bloody Offering, added to a Mallation, or
bloody Sacrifice l. Abel was deeply fenfible,
that all he enjoy'd was the gift of God ; and he
acknowledge! the beneficence of the Donor,
by confecrating a Part as a thankfgiving for
the Whole. Confcious alfo of his own frailty,
he acknowledg'd his Life forfeited by a de-
fedive obedience to the divine Will ; and there-
s In cultu Spiritual!, non debet a gratiarum actione ab-
efle fupplicatio pro beneficiorum continuatione ; neque a
Supplicatione gratiarum adtio. Cloppenburg Sacrif. Pa
triarchal. Schola Sacra, p. ?.
t Levit. XXIII. 10 &c fore

Dissertation II. 231
fore, in the full affurance of Faith, offer'd up
an Animal Oblation, to obtain Pardon for his
Mifcondud, and conciliate the divine Favour.
There is in the Epiftle of St. Jude ,] afhort
paffage, which has greatly perplex'd the Inter
preters of it; but which may probably receive
light from, and refled light upon the Subjed
we are now confidering. The words are— Wo
unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain.
Let us therefore fee, whether a meaning may
not be affix'd to the way of Cain, that will coin
cide with the Apoftle's argument, and illuftrate
the charader of Cain, agreeably to thofe ideas
we have juft been forming of him. It is plain
from the whole of the Epiftle, that St. Jude is
cautioning his Chriftian Brethren againft fuch
falfe Teachers, as then infefted the Church,
and perverted the dodrines of the Gofpel;
Teachers, that were at the fame time Mockers,
and denied with derifion that fundamental ar
ticle of Chriftianity — the Redemption ofthe
World by Jefus Chrift. For in Verfe the 3d
we read — Beloved, when I gave aU diligence to
write unto you of the common Salvation, it was
. needful for me to write unto you and exhort you,
that you contend earneftly for the Faith once deli
vered to the Saints. 4. For there are certain
'Men crept in unawares, ungodly Men, turning
the Grace of God into Lafcivioufnefs, and denying
u Verfe the nth. the

232 Dissertation II.
the only Lord. God, and our Lord Je jus Chrift— or,
as it may, perhaps, be render'd more confift-
ently with the Apoftle's Defign — And denying
Jefus Chrift, our only Mafter, God and Lord.
Now as it is againft Men of this Charader
that the Apoftle exerts himfelf, we may obferve
a propriety in his adding — Wo unto them, for
they have gone in the way of Cain. For Cain,
we have feen, flighted the Promife of a Re
deemer, which was reveal'd to his Father;
defpis'd the Inftitution of Sacrifice, which was
typical of that Redeemer ; and fo rejeded him
that was to come, even the Seed of the Woman,
that was to bruife the Serpent's Head. And as
Cain was too proud to acknowledge his own
Sins, and fo felf-fufficient, as to defpife and
mock at the dodrine of a Saviour ; he feems
to have preach'd the fame infidel and conceited
notions to his Children. For St. Jude here
affures us, that Enoch, who was the Seventh from
Adam (and whofe Prophecies were therefore
deliver' d on account of the impious principles
of the Sons of Cain ) prophejied, faying w —Be
hold ! the Lord cometh with ten thoufand of his
Saints to execute judgment upon all, and to con
vince all that are ungodly among them of aU their
w See Bp Sherlock's Opinion on this paflage, Differ-
tat. I. p. 189. And Bp Cumberland, Orig. Gent. Antiq.
p. 406. ungodly

Dissertation II. 233
ungodly deeds, and of all their hardfpeeches which
'iingpdly finners have fpoken againft him x. So
that we may fairly conclude — that the Apoftle
here confider'd the charader of Cain in the
fame light, in which we have before view'd it.
We have before us then, in thefe Brothers,
two Perfons efTentially diftinguifh'd in their cha-
raders by their different behaviour towards
God ; and therefore it is confonant to reafon,
that God fhould diftinguifh in his behaviour to
wards them : how otherwife is the honour of
God inviolate ? The Patriarch Abraham's ex-
poftulation with the Deity y may be here urg'd
with propriety — That be far from Thee, to treat
the Righteous as the Wicked ; and that the Righ
teous Jhould be as the Wicked, that be far from
Thee ! JhaU not the Judge of att the 'Earth do
right ? And what Equity can be greater, what
Jnftice fhine forth more illuftrioufly, than for
God to rejebl the Offering of an haughty Cain,
when he disbelieves the ufe, and defpifes the
benefit of Animal Sacrifice— a divine Rite, in-
x Quilibet autem haec examinans ratiocinetur accura-
tius — .an non Cain ita dura contra Deum fuerit locutus,
<juod contra hdfce ritus Sadrificiorum proterve egerit,
peccatum fuum non fatis agnowerit, non magnifecerit
ufum Pcenitentiae, non confirmationem Remiffionis pec-
"catorum, non Gratiam divinam in futuro Meffii pro-
miffam. Frarizii Schola Patfkrcharuna, p. 46.
y Gen.XVHL 2?. G g ftituted

234 Dissertation. II.
ftituted for his own Salvation ; and to accept
the fame Offering from an humble Abel, becaufe
accompanied with an Animal Sacrifice, in a
ready compliance with the divine Injundion ?
Righteous- is the Lord in all his ways, and juft in
all his dealings with the Children of Men ; and
therefore the Lord had refpect unto Abel, and
alfo to his Mincha, or Offering, becaufe accom
panied with a Sacrifice; but unto Cain, and to
his Mincha, or Offering, he had not resell, be
caufe he brought no Sacrifice.
The Foundation then of this Difference,
which God manifefted between thefe two Of
ferers, feems now clear and rational ; and to
be a Difference, not arifing from any arbitrary
decifion or Partiality in the Deity, but laid
deep in the very Nature of the Oblations, and
grounded upon Reafon and Equity. And this
Interpretation will, I hope, appear with fome
fmall advantage, after the various unfatisfado-
ry accounts already given ; the greateft part of
which have been thought to conduce but little
to, however calculated for, the Credit of the
Sacred Hiftory.
Such, for inftance, is the Opinion, which
commonly prevail'd of old, that the Difference
here fhewn by God was occafion'd by a different
kind ofDivifion, which the two Brothers made
of their Oblations. This notion, tho' ground
ed on the tranflation which the LXX have
given*

D i s s e r t a t i o n II. 235
given of the feventh Verfe in this fourth Chap
ter, does not feem to have a proper foundation
in the original account of this matter. And
therefore the Emperor Julian, that cunning
and avow'd Enemy of Revelation, laid hold of
this Opinion in order to expofe the Hiftory.
For he puts this very queftion to a Chriftian,
with whom he was difputing — Why, fays he,
did God accept Abel, and rejed Cain ? The
Anfwer was, that Abel divided his Offering
better than Cain. Upon which he asks, Where
in that better Divifion confifted— urging it with
an impious confidence, becaufe he knew fuch
an opinion could not be defended to fatif-
fadion : and indeed his Opponent took the
wifeft way of anfwering him — by filence ;
choofing to drop, what he had no rational
foundation for defending z. This then is one
ofthe many Opinions, which have difcredited
the Hiftory before us.
Such alfo is the Opinion— that God accepted
Abel, and rejeded Cain ; becaufe the one was
a good, and the other a bad Man. But, tho'
it is true that the Sacrifice ofthe Wicked is an
abomination to the Lord, yet 'tis evident that
the divine approbation and rejedion were here
occafion'd, not by the antecedent Lives ofthe
2,. See Julian's Words in Cyrill. contra Julian. Lib, X'
p. 347. Edit. Spanhem. Lipfia:.
. G 2 * O&erers,

236 Dissertation II.
Offerers, but the nature and concomitant cir
cumftances of their prefent Oblations.
For this reafon others ( and thefe indeed a
numerous body) have afferted, that this Diffe
rence was made, becaufe the elder Brother did
not bring of the Firft or Beft of his Fruits, as
the younger did of the Firftlings of his Flock.
But this Opinion feems alfo very weakly ground
ed, and inadequate to the explication of the
Hiftory ; for whether Cain did or did not bring
of his Firft-Fruits cannot be determin'd from
the Original, and therefore neither fuppofition
can fupport an argument on the cafe before
us. Befides : this account (fuppofing it better
grounded than it really is) cannot take place,
becaufe it oppofes the folution of it, which is
given by St. Paul.
It has been alfo faid— that Cain was rejeded,
becaufe he came with an intention againft his
Brother's Life ; but furely this is ftrange e-
nough, when it is as clear as the Sun, that his
refolution againft his Brother's Life was not
antecedent to, but the very confequence of his
being rejeded, when he found his Brother ac
cepted by God.
It would be as endlefs, as it is unneceffary, to
produce more ofthe ftrange accounts given of
the point before us ; becaufe it is not, fo im
mediately, the bufinefs of this Attempt to point
out the abfurd Comments upon it, as to fearch

Dissertation II. 237
after a rational Interpretation of it. There.
are indeed fome, whofe Obfervations on this
important piece of hiftory well deferve the
^Thanks of Mankind ; but it does not feem to
appear — that All the Particulars had been ob
ferv'd, and uniformly explain'd together.
This therefore the prefent Diflertation en
deavours to perform ; with what fuccefs, muft
be fubmitted to the Judgment of others. It
may, however, be prefum'd— that there appears
from the preceding Obfervations to arife a
proper foundation for the diftindion made by
God on this occafion : fince the grateful Of
fering and Thanks of Abel, accompanied with
the proper marks of his Repentance, and Obe
dience to the Divine Commands, muft be fup
pos'd acceptable to God ; when the fame Grar
titude of Cain might be rejeded, becaufe not
accompanied with Sorrow for his Sins, or Faith
in the Method inftituted by God for his For
givenefs. The New Teftament gives us two remarka
ble Charaders, which, for their similitude to
the two former, and the fame contraft in both,
may be here properly fubjoin'd ; efpecially as
they mutually illuftrate each other— and thefe
are the Charaders ofthe Pharisee and the
Publican, as defcrib'd by St. Luke. Thefe
Two, it feems, went up into the Temple toge
ther, as did Cain and Abelto their place of
Sacred

23$ -Dissertation II.
Sacred Aflembly. The Pharijee— a Man high
ly opinionated of his own Righteoufnefs, ad
vances, like Cain, to offer up not a Prayer, but
aThankfgiving— he could not ftoop to the low
acknowledgment of Sin ; but exalts his own
Charader, by dwelling on the guilt and wretch-
ednefs of his Companion. While the Publican,
like Abel, with a pious Penitence and a grace
ful Humility, dwells upon his own unfitnefs to
approach the Deity ; and, fmiting upon his
Breaft, utters this powerful Petition — God be
merciful to me, a Sinner ! Our Saviour's Infer
ence alfo is applicable to the cafe before us — /
teU you, that this Man went down to his houfe
juftified, rather than the other -, that is ( when
freed from the Hebrew Idiom) — this Man re
turned juftified (or efteem'd righteous) and not
the other. For the words of Solomon are ex
prefs — He that cover eth his Sins , jhall not
profper ; but whofo confeffeth and forfaketh them,
Jhall have Mercy. And let us alfo remember
that ftanding Rule in the Divine Oeconomy,
deliver'd by a greater than Solomon—///?, that
exalteth himfelf, Jhall be abafed ; but he, that
humbleth himfelf, Jhall be exalted.
St. Paul draws an Obfervation from the Be
haviour of Abel before confider'd, which is well
worth our notice ; namely — that Abel, being
dead, yet jpeaketh, And as Abel's Example is
i,„» '

Dissertation fi. * 239
held out to us by the Apoftle, to excite not on
ly our Praife, but our Imitation ; it may not be
improper to conclude with a few fhort, but
weighty Leffons, which this Preacher of Righ
teoufnefs fpeaketh to us from the Grave. And
thefe are  that with a decent Solemnity we
obferve the Weekly Return of an Holy Reft un
to the Lord — that we cultivate in our Minds,
and evidence in our Adions, a conftant Grati
tude to God and Man — that we reft not how
ever in the exercife of Moral Virtues, but pay
a dutiful and devout obedience to thofe Pofi
tive Inftitutions, which are enjoin'd by the
Word of God  that we exercife as lively a
Faith in the Redeemer now come, as he did
before his coming ; and let this divine Faith
equally influence our Condud  that True
Religion has always fubfifted upon the fame
Principles of Faith and Obedience ; tho' dif
ferently exprefs'd, according to the different
exigencies of different Ages  and that the
Holy Scriptures contain a regular and confiftent
Hiftory of Providence, fuperintending for the
Salvation of Mankind, and bleffing the World
with gradual difcoveries of Knowledge ; fo
that what in the firft Ages was a promising
Dawn brighten'd up into a glorious Morning,
and is now eftablifh'd in a perfed Day.
FINIS.