l'iniquité de son père: il va même jusqu'à faire dire à Dieu, qu'il leur avait donné des preceptes qui n'étaient pas bons."-P. 133.

As for the precepts which were not good, the reader will see that matter explained at large, as we go along. What I have to do with M. Voltaire at present, is to expostulate with him for his ill faith; that when he had borrowed my argument for the divinity of the Mosaic mission from that mode of punishment, he would venture to invalidate it from an apparent contradiction between MOSES and EZEKIEL; when, in that very place of the Divine Legation which he refers to, he saw the two prophets reconciled by an argument drawn from the true natures of two approximating dispensations; an argument which not only removes the pretended contradiction (first insisted on by Spinosa, and through many a dirty channel, derived, at length, to M. Voltaire), but likewise supports that very mark of divinity which I contend for.

But it is too late in the day to call in question the religion or the good faith of this truly ingenious man. What I want, in this Discourse sur la Tolérance is his CIVIL PRUDENCE. As an ANNALIST, he might, in his General History, calumniate the Jewish people just as his passions or his caprice inclined him: but when he had assumed the character of a divine, to recommend toleration to a Christian state, could he think to succeed by abusing revelation? He seems indeed, to have set out under a sense of the necessity of a different conduct: but coming to his darling subject an abuse of the Jews, he could not, for his life, sustain the personage he had assumed, but breaks out again into all the virulence and injustice with which he persecuted this unhappy people in his General History; and of which the reader will see a fair account, in the beginning of book fifth of this work.

P. 332, M M. This is the precise character of the writings of the Old Testament. And this state of them (to observe it only by the way) is more than a thousand answers to the wild suspicions of those writers, who fancy that the Jews, since Christ, have corrupted their sacred scriptures, to support their superstitions against the gospel; and amongst other erasements have struck out the doctrine of life and immortality; which, say these visionaries, was, till then, as plainly taught in the Old as in the New Testament: for had these supposed impostors ever ventured on so bold a fraud as the adulterating their sacred writings, we may be well assured their first attempt would have been to add the doctrine of a future state, had they not found it there, rather than to take it away if they had: since the omission of the doctrine is the strongest and most glaring evidence of the imperfection of the law; and the insertion of it would have best supported what they now hold to be one of the most fundamental points of their religion. But this is not a folly of yesterday. Irenæus tells us that certain ancient heretics supported their wild fancies against scripture, which was against them, by the same extravagant suspicion, that it had been interpolated and corrupted. Notwithstanding, I am far from thinking these moderns borrowed it from them. They found it in our common nature, which always goes the nearest way to work, to relieve itself.

P. 333, NN. We shall now understand the importance of a remark, which the late translator of Josephus employs to prove the genuineness of a fragment or homily, given by him to that historian: "There is one particular observation," says he, "belonging to the contents of this fragment or homily, that seems to me to be DECRETORY, and to determine the question that some of this Jewish church, that used the Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nay rather, that Josephus himself in particular was the author of it. The observation is this, that in the present address to the Greeks or gentiles there are near forty references or allusions to texts of the New Testament; AND NOT ONE, TO ANY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT either in Hebrew or Greek; and this in a discourse concerning HADES; which yet is almost five times as often mentioned in the Old Testament as in the New. What can be the reason of this but that the Jewish church at Jerusalem used the Hebrew Bible alone, which those Greeks or gentiles, to whom the address is here made, could not understand; and that our Josephus always and only used the same Hebrew Bible?"-Mr Whiston's Dissert. prefixed to his Transl. of Josephus, p. 105.-What can be the reason, says he, of this mystery? He unfolds it thus: The Jewish church of Jerusalem used the Hebrew Bible alone, which those Greeks or gentiles, to whom the address is here made, could not understand. So that because the audience did not understand Hebrew, the preacher could not quote the texts, he had occasion for, in Greek. But he supposes the author could not quote the Greek, because it must needs have been that of the Septuagint; which the Jewish church at Jerusalem would not use. Now admit there were no other Greek to be had, or allowed of, can any man believe that if this Jewish preacher would turn himself to the gentiles, he could be such a bigot as to be afraid of quoting the Old Testament in a language they understood, because his church used only the original, which they understood not? Or if he had been such a bigot, would he have dared to preach to the gentiles at all? What then but the fondness for an hypothesis could make men ramble after such reasons, when so obvious a one lies just before them? Why did he this, do you ask? For this plain reason; his subject was a future state of reward and

punishment, and he had more sense than to seek for it where it was not to be found. O but HADES is almost five times as often mentioned in the Old Testament as in the New. Indeed! But the fragment is not about the word, but the thing. In the Old Testament it signified the receptacle of dead bodies; in the New, the receptacle of living souls. But though this learned writer can, without doubt, laugh at those who seek the Trinity in the Old Testament, yet he can in good earnest go thither in search of a future state. Yet this latter is not in any comparison so clearly hinted at as the other: and no wonder; a future state is circumscribed to the New Testament, as brought to light by the gospel; but the doctrine of the Trinity is no where said to be so circumscribed.

P. 334, O O. To all this Dr Stebbing has an answer ready. "The history of the persecution under Antiochus," says he, "is written by two historians, namely, the author of the first book of Maccabees, and the author of the second. This last writer has recorded the profession of the martyrs concerning their belief of the doctrine of the resurrection; but the first has entirely omitted it: nor is there one word about a resurrection or future state to be found throughout his whole history, though it is certain it was now the national belief. So UNSAFE a thing is it to rely upon the MERE silence of historians, when they undertake to write a history not of doctrines but of the transactions of men."-Exam. p. 116.

I will tell him of an unsafer thing: which is, venturing to draw parallel cases; as he has done here; for they may happen (as hath happened here) to be cases most unlike.

In a large and miscellaneous volume, composed by various writers of different times and states, and containing the law, the religion, and the history of the Jews, from Moses to the captivity, neither the doctrines of the resurrection nor a future state are ever once mentioned.

This is the fact. And to obviate my inference from it."That the Jews, during that period, were unacquainted with the doctrines," this able divine opposes the two books of Maccabees, containing the story of one short period, when, it is confessed, these doctrines were of national belief; in the first of which books, there is no mention of the doctrine, and in the second, a great deal: the reason both of the mention and of the silence being self evident. It is recorded in the second book, where there is a detailed account of the martyrs for the Jewish faith; it is omitted in the first, where there is no account of any such thing. Yet these are brought as parallel cases: let us therefore do them all honour. 1. Several volumes of the sacred canon contain a history of doctrines. The two books of Maccabees contain only a history of civil transactions.

2. None of the inspired writers of the canon before the captivity, ever once mention the doctrines of a resurrection or a future state.

Of the two books of Maccabees, one of them mentions the doctrines fully and at large. 3. The sacred canon comprises a vast period of time, and treats of an infinite variety of

matters.

The two books of Maccabees are small tracts of a uniform subject, and contain only the story of one revolution in the Jewish state.

Unconscious, as should seem, of all this difference, the learned Doctor concludes-So unsafe a thing is it to rely on the MERE SILENCE of historians, when they undertake to write a history NOT OF DOCTRINES, but of the transactions of men. In which, these THREE FALSEHOODS are very gravely and magisterially insinuated: that the writers of the two books of Maccabees are equally silent with the writers of the canon: 2. That all the writers of the canon are writers of a history, not of the doctrines, but merely of the civil transactions of men, equally with the writers of the two books of Maccabees: and 3. That the thing relied on by me, is the MERE SILENCE of historians. Which falsehood if the reader does not see from what has been said above, he may be pleased to consider, that mere silence is when a writer omits to say a thing which it was indifferent to his purpose whether he said it or not. But when he omits to say a thing, which it was much to his purpose to say, this is not a mere silence. It is a silence attended with a circumstance, which makes the evidence drawn from that silence something more than negative, and consequently, something more than mere silence. So much for Dr Stebbing.

A Cornish writer pursues the same argument against the Divine Legation; but takes his parallel much higher. "There is no one," says he, "who reads HOMER, that can doubt whether a future state were the popular belief amongst the Greeks in the times he writes of. And yet, by what I remember of him, I believe it would be difficult to produce six instances, in all his poems, of any actions either entered upon or avoided from the EXPRESS motive of the rewards or punishments to be expected in the other world.”

I infer it from a future state's NEVER being mentioned in the Jewish history, amongst the motives of men's actions (after it had been omitted in the Jewish law and religion), that it was not of popular belief amongst that people. Now here comes an answerer, and says, that it is not mentioned above SIX TIMES EXPRESSLY in Homer, and yet that nobody can

* Mr Peters.

doubt whether it were not the popular belief amongst the Greeks. The good cautious man! Had it been but ONCE EXPRESSLY mentioned in the Old Testament, I should no more have doubted of its being of popular belief amongst the Jews, than he does. Why then do we doubt so little, in the case of the Greeks, but for the same reason why we ought to doubt so much in the case of the Jews! HOMER (who gives a detailed account of a future state), this writer allows, has mentioned it about six times as a motive. The SCRIPTURES (which, together with the history, deliver the law and religion of the Jews, in which a future state is omitted) mention it not once as a motive. But this answerer would make the reader believe, I made my inference from the paucity, and not from the want, of the mention. The same may be observed of another expression of this candid gentleman's-express motive. Now much less would have satisfied me; and I should readily have allowed that the Jews had the popular belief amongst them, had the motive been once fairly implied.

But let us take him at the best, and suppose Homer did not afford one single instance. What, I pray you, has HOMER in common with MOSES? Suppose, I should affirm from the Greek history, that the ancient wORTHIES always proportioned their work to their strength and bulk; and that my answerer was not in a humour to let this pass; but, to confute me, would press me with the high achievements of TOM THUMB, as they are recorded in his. authentic story; who was as famed for his turbulence in king Arthur's court, as Achilles was in Agamemnon's: would not this be just as much to the purpose, as to put the Iliad and the Odyssey in parallel with the law and the prophets?

But Homer's poems have been so long called the bible of the pagans, that this answerer appears, in good earnest, to have taken them for religious history; otherwise how could it have ever entered into his head, to make so ridiculous a comparison? my reasoning with regard to SCRIPTURE stood thus:-As all good history deals with the motives of men's actions, so the peculiar business (as it seems to me) of religious history is to scrutinize their religious motives: of these, the principal is the consideration of a future state. And this not being so much as once mentioned in the ancient Jewish history, it is natural to conclude that the Jews of those times had it not. But now, what have Homer's poems to do in this matter? I apprehend they are no religious history; but compositions as far removed from it as possible, namely, a military and civil romance, brimful of fabulous trumpery. Now in such a work, the writer surely would be principally solicitous about the civil motives of his actors. And Homer, who is confessed to understand what belonged to every kind of composition, would take care to keep within his subject; and, to preserve decorum, would content himself with supplying his warriors and politicians with such motives as might best set off their wisdom and their heroism; such as the love of power, in which I comprise, revenge on their enemies; the love of plunder, in which is included their passion for fair captives; and the love of glory, in which, if you please, you may reckon their regard for their friends and their country. But in Homer's military and political romances there are hardly six instances in which a future state is mentioned as the express motive; therefore the perpetual silence on this point, in the religious history of the Jews, and the perpetual mention of it in the religious histories of the SUEVI and the SARACENS, conclude nothing in favour of the argument of the Divine Legation.

P. 334, PP. To this Dr Stebbing objects, that "it means no more than that man was not to be restored to his earthly human state."-Exam. p. 60. And, to confirm this, he appeals to the tenth verse of this chapter, which runs thus, He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more. But the learned Doctor should have reflected, that if Job says the dead man returns no more to his house, he gives a reason for his so saying, very inconsistent with the Doctor's interpretation of the 9th verse of the viith chapter. It was, because the dead man was got into the land of darkness and the shadow of death [chap. x. 21.] it was because he was not awake nor could be raised out of his sleep [chap. xiv. 12.] But the very subject which Job is here treating, confutes the Doctor's interpretation: "He is complaining that life is short, and that after death he shall no more see good, for that he who goeth down to the grave shall come up no more; he shall return no more to his house [ver. 7, 8, 9, 10.]; which at least implies that there was no good to be expected any where, but in this world: and this expectation is cut off in express terms.

P. 335, Q Q. To this sense of the text Dr Stebbing objects, and says, that by no reward is meant none in this world.-Exam. pp. 63, 64. And in support of his interpretation, quotes the words of the verse immediately following-neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. Now I agree with the learned Doctor, that these words are an explanation of the foregoing, of the dead's not having any more a reward: and from thence draw just the contrary inference, that the sacred writer, from the consideration of the dead's not returning to life to enjoy their reward, concluded that, when once death had seized them, they could have no reward at all; not even that imaginary one, the living in the memory of men, for the memory of them, says he, is forgotten. So again from the consideration in ver. 6. that the dead had neither love, hatred, nor envy, he had concluded, ver. 5, that THEY KNEW NOT ANY THING.-But the premises

and the conclusion not being in their usual order, our learned Doctor's logic did not reach to take the force of the preacher's.

P. 340, R R. To all this, it hath been said," Christians have the promise of the life that now is, excepting the case of persecution," Mark x. 30. The words of Jesus in the evangelist are, there is no one that hath LEFT house or brethren, &c., for my sake and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundred fold now in this time, houses and lands, &c., with persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life. But these words evidently allude to the first followers of Jesus, while the church was under an extraordinary providence, that is, during the age of miracles: and as that sort of dispensation is always aided by the course of natural and civil events, we easily see how it would be promoted by LEAVING & country doomed to the most horrid and exterminating destruction. But St Paul, where he assigns only the life which is to come to the followers of the gospel, is speaking of a different thing, namely, of the genius of the Christian dispensation in general, as it is opposed to Judaism. P. 341, S S. The serious reader, who considers all this, will not be a little surprised to hear that eminent scholar and divine, Dr Samuel Clarke, talk in the following manner, where, after having spoken of the doubts and uncertainties of the ancient philosophers concerning a future state, he concludes in these words." From all which it appears, that, notwithstanding all the bright arguments and acute conclusions and brave sayings of the best philosophers, yet life and immortality were not FULLY and SATISFACTORILY brought to light by BARE NATURAL REASON."-Evid. of Nat. and Rev. Relig. p. 146.—It would be very strange if they had; since scripture is so far from allowing any part of this discovery to natural reason, that it will not admit even the Mosaic revelation to a share, but reserves it all for the gospel of CHRIST: so that had natural religion brought life and immortality to light, though not fully and satisfactorily, the learned apostle would be found to have spoken much too highly of the prerogatives of the gospel.

The truth is, the very learned writer had two points to make out, in this famous work; the one was the evidence of natural religion; and, under that head, he is to show, that it taught life and immortality. His other point was, the evidence of revealed religion, and there, to show its use and necessity, he is to demonstrate that bare natural reason could not discover life and immortality. Thus the very method of his demonstration obliged him, in the former part, to give to natural religion an honour which, in the latter part, he was forced to take away: and to reconcile them with one another, was the purpose of the conciliating words above-yet life and immortality were not FULLY and SATISFACTORILY brought to light by bare natural reason: which indeed does the business; but it is at the expence of the learned apostle, who says it was not brought to light at all, till the preaching of the gospel.

P. 341, TT. To this it has been said, "that the mystery of the gospel here mentioned, is rather that which is meant by the word, chap. iii. ver. 3-9, namely, the calling in of the gentiles to be fellow-heirs with the Jews."-For a confutation of this absurd fancy, read -The Free and Candid Examination of the Principles advanced by the Lord Bishop of London, chap. i. p. 24. et seq., where the learned and most judicious author has sufficiently exploded it.

THE

DIVINE LEGATION OF MOSES

DEMONSTRATED.

BOOK VI.-SECT. I.

[I.] AFTER such convincing evidence that a FUTURE state did not make part of the religion of Moses, the reader would not have suspected, he must once more be stopped to hear a long answer to a set of texts brought from the Old and New Testament to prove, that the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment DID make the most essential part of the Mosaic dispensation: and this, not by a few fanciful allegorists, or outrageous bigots only, who will say or do any thing; but by many sober men of all sects and parties, of all times, and of all religions.

I. Several of the ancient CHRISTIAN writers were so persuaded of this point, that, not content to say, the doctrine of a future state made part of the Mosaic dispensation, they would be confident that the very pagans learned it all from thence. Some modern Christians have not been behind them in their faith, but have far outstripped them in their charity, while they treated the denial of this extravagant opinion as a new species of infidelity. It is true, they are all extremely confused and obscure about the way they represent it to have been taught: and there have not been wanting, at all times, men of the greatest eminence for parts and piety, who have not only doubted, but plainly denied this future state to be in the Mosaic religion; though, to be just to all, with the same inconsistency and embarrassment that the others have maintained it. However, the more current doctrine hath always been, that a future state of rewards and punishments was taught by the law of Moses.

As surprising as this may seem to those who have weighed the foregoing evidence, yet indeed no less could be expected from such a number of concurrent and oddly combined prejudices, which have served, till now, to discredit one of the clearest and most important truths of revelation.

1. The first was, that several patriarchs and prophets, both before and under the Mosaic dispensation, were certainly favoured with the

* See note A, at the end of this book.