pliance to their prejudices, and partly in opposition to those superstitions. In the proof of the first part of this proposition, I show the high probability that the law was instituted with reference to Egyptian manners; and, through the proof of the second, is deduced a demonstration that it was actually so framed.

For a further illustration of this argument, I give an historical account of the degeneracy of the Hebrew people, and of their amazing propensity to imitate the manners of Egypt, from the time that Moses was first sent upon his mission, to their entire settlement in the land of Judea; which fully shows (what will stand us in stead hereafter) that a people so perverse and headstrong needed, in the construction of their civil and religious institutions, all possible curbs to disorder: now of all such curbs, the doctrine of a future state was ever held the chief in ancient policy; and as this doctrine was so peculiarly Egyptian, they must needs have the most favourable prejudice towards it.

3. But then, as it might perhaps be objected, that while I am endeavouring to get this way into the interior of the Jewish constitution, I open a back door to the ravages of infidelity; it was thought necessary, in order to prevent the deist's taking advantage of the great truth contained in the preceding proposition (which is the second), to guard it by the following (which is the third), viz. That Moses's Egyptian learning, and the laws instituted in compliance to the people's prejudices, are no reasonable objection to the divinity of his mission. Where, in explaining the first part, which shows what this learning was, and how well it suited with Moses's mission, I had occasion to inquire into the origin and use of the SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS: which the reader will find of this further use, viz. to give strength and support to what is said, in this sixth book, of the NATURE Of the Jewish PROPHECIES; and particularly to what is there observed of GROTIUS's fatal error, in his mode of interpreting them.

And in explanation of the seond part, having proved the proposition, That to institute laws in compliance to popular prejudices, is no reasonable objection to their divine original; having proved this, I say, from the nature of things; the discourse proceeds to examine all the arguments which have been urged in support of the contrary opinion, by HERMAN WITSIUS, in his learned treatise intitled Egyptiaca, that book having been publicly recommended by Dr Waterland, for a distinct and solid confutation of Spencer's De Legibus Hebræorum ritualibus.

And the answer to Whiston's last argument bringing into question the intrinsic value of the ritual law; the famous character of it given by the prophet EZEKIEL, "of statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live"-is explained in a large analysis of the whole prophecy, against an old foolish notion revived by Dr Shuckford, that these statutes and judgments, here said to be given by God, were the pagan idolatries, which in defiance of God, they took without leave.

4. But I go yet further in support of the fourth proposition, and

prove, that these very circumstances of Moses's Egyptian learning, and the laws instituted in compliance to the people's prejudices, are a strong confirmation of the divinity of his mission.

1st, For, that one bred up in the arts of Egyptian legislation could never, on his own head, have thought of reducing an unruly people to government, on maxims of religion and policy, fundamentally opposite to all the principles of Egyptian WISDOM, at that time the universal model on which all the legislators worked, in reducing a barbarous people to society. Yet Moses went upon principles diametrically opposite to that WISDOM, when he enjoined the PUBLIC WORSHIP of the one true God only, and OMITTED the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, in the institution of his law and religion.

2dly, For, that one who falsely pretended to receive the whole frame of a national constitution from God, would never have risked his pretensions by a ritual law, which the people might see was politically instituted, partly in compliance to their prejudices, and partly in opposition to Egyptian superstitions.

Here, all the imaginable motives are inquired into, which MOSES, though a mere human lawgiver, might have had, to act in the manner he did; and these motives are shown to be insufficient to induce a wise legislator thus to act.In conclusion, it is made apparent, that a ritual, contrived to oppose to the reigning superstitions; and, at the same time, to prefigure, by its typical nature, all the essential parts of a future dispensation, contains a strong INTERNAL ARGUMENT THAT THE RITUAL LAW WAS NOT A MERE HUMAN INVENTION. And with this the fourth book concludes.

V. What hath been hitherto said, was to let the reader into the genius of the Jewish policy in general, in order to his judging more exactly of the peculiar nature of its government; that, from thence, he might be enabled to determine, with full certainty, of the matters in question, as they are contained in the two MINOR terms.

1. The fifth book, therefore, comes still nearer to the point, and shows that the government instituted by Moses was a THEOCRACY, properly so called, where God himself was the supreme civil magistrate. It begins with assigning and settling the true reason of the separation of the posterity of Abraham from the rest of mankind;-because this separation has been greatly misunderstood-but principally because the true reason of the separation leads us into the use and necessity of a theocratic form of government.

In evincing this necessity, the justice of the law for punishing idol worship capitally, under a theocracy, is explained: and because the deist hath been accustomed to urge this law against the divine original of the whole institution, it is here justified at large, on the principles of natural equity: which serves, as well a past purpose, viz. the adding strength and support to what hath been said on the subject of TOLERATION, in the second book; as it does at present, viz. to confirm the reality

of this theocracy, which a celebrated dissenting minister has preposterously gone out of his way to bring in question: whose reasoning, therefore, is examined and exposed.

2. This THEOCRACY, thus proved to be necessary, was likewise of the most easy introduction, as I have shown from the notions and opinions of those times, concerning tutelary deities. And here, speaking of the method of Divine providence, in applying the prejudices and manners of men to the great ends of his dispensations, I observe, that he is always accustomed to impress on his institution, some characteristic note of difference, to mark it for his own: which leading me to give instances in some of these notes, I insist chiefly upon this, "that the Mosaic religion was built upon a former, namely, the patriarchal : whereas the various religions of the pagan world were all unrelated to, and independent of one another." As this was a circumstance necessary to be well attended to, by all who would fully comprehend the nature of the Mosaic policy, I took the advantage, which the celebrated author of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion had afforded me, to support this characteristic note, against his idle attempt to prove, that the pagans, likewise, were accustomed to build one pretended revelation on another.

3. I proceed, in the next place, to show that those prejudices which made the introduction of a THEOCRACY so easy, occasioned as easy a defection from it. In which, I had occasion to explain the nature of the worship of tutelary gods; and of that idolatry wherewith the Israelites were so obstinately besotted.

Both of which discourses serve these further purposes: the former, to support and explain what hath been said in the second book concerning the pagan intercommunity of worship; and the latter (besides a peculiar use to be made of it in the third volume*) to obviate a popular objection of unbelievers: who, from this circumstance, of the perpetual defection of the Israelites into idolatry, would infer, that God's dispensation to them could never have been so convictive as their history represents it; the objectors having taken it for granted, on the allowance of believers, that this idolatry consisted in renouncing the law of Moses, and renouncing it as dissatisfied with its truth. Both which suppositions are here shown to be false. This affords an occasion to confute the false reasoning of Lord Bolingbroke; who, from this frequent lapse into idolatry, infers such a defect and political inability in the law, as shows its pretence to a divine original to be an imposture.

4. The nature of the THEOCRACY, and the circumstances attending its erection, being thus explained, we come next to inquire concerning its duration. Here we show, that, in strict truth and propriety, it subsisted throughout the whole period of the Jewish economy, even to the coming of Christ: in which discourse, the contrary opinions, of an earlier abolition, are all considered and confuted, and the above truth sup* Concerning the volume here referred to, see note in first page of book vii.

ported and established. In the course of this reasoning, it is shown, that the famous prophecy of Jacob, of the sceptre's not departing from Judah till the coming of Shiloh, is a promise or declaration of the existence of the THEOCRACY till the coming of Christ. And as the truth of this interpretation is of the highest importance to revelation, all the different senses given to this prophecy are examined, and shown to be erroneous. And the last of them being one borrowed by Dr Sherlock, bishop of London, and received into his book of the Use and Intent of Prophecy, is particularly discussed.

The use to be hereafter made of the duration of the theocracy to the coming of Christ, is to enforce, by this circumstance, amongst many others, the CONNEXION between the two religions: a truth, though too much neglected, yet incumbent on every rational defender of revelation to support.

The argument then proceeds to a consideration of the peculiar consequences attending the administration of a theocracy, which brings us yet nearer to our point. Here it is shown, that one necessary consequence was an EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE. And agreeably to this deduction from the nature of things, we find, that holy scripture, does in fact, exhibit this very representation of God's government of Judea; and that there are many favourable circumstances in the character of the Hebrew people to induce us to believe the representation to be true. Here, many cloudy cavils of the three doctors, SYKES, STEBBING, and RUTHERFORTH, are occasionally removed and dispersed. But the attentive reader will observe, that my argument does not require me to prove more in this place, than that holy scripture REPRESENTS an extraordinary providence to have been administered. The proof of its REAL administration is established by the MEDIUM of my thesis, the omission of the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments. Which answers all objections as to our inadequate conceptions of such an administration; as well as to certain passages of scripture that seem to clash with its general representation of it. Yet both these sort of objections are, however, considered ex abundanti.

As important as the fact is, to our present purpose of an extraordinary providence thus represented, it has still a further use, when employed amongst those distinguishing marks of the truth of Moses's divine mission in general: for it shows us, the unnecessary trouble and hazard to which he exposed himself, had that mission been feigned. Had he, like the rest of the ancient lawgivers, only pretended to inspiration, he had then no occasion to propagate the belief of an extraordinary providence; a dispensation so easy to be confuted. But by deviating from their practice, and announcing to his people, that their tutelary God was become their KING, he laid himself under a necessity of teaching an extraordinary providence; a dead weight upon an imposture, which nothing but downright folly could have brought him to undergo.

To proceed. After having laid this strong and necessary foundation,

we come at length DIRECTLY to the point in question. If the Jewish government were a THEOCRACY, administered, as it must be, by an extraordinary providence, the next consequence is, that TEMPORAL REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS, and not FUTURE, were the SANCTION of their law and religion. Thus far, therefore, have our considerations on the nature alone of the Jewish government conducted us: and it is almost to our journey's end: for it fairly brings us up to the proof of our two MINOR propositions. So necessary, as the reader now sees, is the long discourse of the nature of the Jewish government.

But, to prevent all cavil, the argument goes on, and proves in the next place, that the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, which could not, from the nature of things, be the SANCTION of the Jewish economy, was not in fact contained in it at all: nay further, that it was PURPOSELY OMITTED by the great lawgiver. This is proved from several passages in the book of Genesis and the law.

And here, more fully to evince, that Moses, who, it is seen, studiously omitted the mention of it, was well apprised of its importance, I show, that the PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN FOR THE SINS OF THEIR PARENTS was brought into this institution purposely to afford some advantages to government, which the doctrine of a future state, as it is found in all other societies, amply supplies. This, at the same time that it gives further strength to the position of no future state in the Mosaic dispensation, gives the author a fair occasion of vindicating the justice and equity of the law of punishing children for the sins of their parents; and of proving the perfect agreement between MOSES and the prophets EZEKIEL and JEREMIAH, concerning it; which hath been, in all ages, the stumbling-block of infidelity.

But we now advance a step further, and show, that as Moses did not teach, yea forbore to teach the doctrine of a future, state of rewards and punishments, so neither had the ancient Jews, that is to say, the body of the people, any knowledge of it. The proof is striking, and scarce to be resisted by any party or profession but that of the SYSTEM-MAKER. The Bible contains a very circumstantial account of this people, from the time of Moses to the great captivity; not only the history of public occurrences, but the lives of private persons of both sexes, and of all ages, conditions, characters, and complexions; in the adventures of virgins, matrons, kings, soldiers, scholars, parents, merchants, husbandmen. They are given too in every circumstance of life; captive, victorious, in sickness and in health; in full security, and amidst impending dangers, plunged in civil business, or retired and sequestered in the service of religion. Together with their story we have their compositions likewise: in one place we hear their triumphal, in another their penitential strains. Here we have their exultations for blessings received; there, their deprecations of evil apprehended: here they urge their moral precepts to their contemporaries; and there again, they treasure up their prophecies and predictions for the use of posterity; and on each,