means do not produce the end, such means (all pretences notwithstanding) are but human inventions. It is thus he argues against the Divinity of the Christian Religion; which he concludes to be an imposture from its not having effected that lasting reformation of manners, which he supposes was its principal design to accomplish. So far as to the CHOICE of his example. He manages no better in the APPLICATION of it. We have distinguished, concerning the ends of an extraordinary Providence. Let us suppose now, that his Lordship takes the principal end of the Jewish Theocracy to be the reformation of Particulars. He refers to their history, and pretends to shew they were not reformed. Now, whatever other consequences may attend this supposed Fact, the most obvious and glaring is this, That his Lordship, in proceeding from reason to example, has given us such an example as overturns or supersedes all his reasoning. According to his reasoning, an extraordinary Providence would tie virtue and good manners so fast down upon every Individual, that his very Will would be forced, and the merit of doing what he had not in his power to forbear, absolutely destroyed. The Reader would now perhaps expect his example should confirm this pretended Fact? Just otherwise. His example shews his fact to be a fiction, and that men remained as bad as ever. But I have no need of taking any artificial advantage of his Lordship's bad reasoning. For, when we see it so constantly opposed to truth, it is far from being an additional discredit to it, that it is as constantly opposed to itself. The truth indeed is, that the great and principal end of the JEWISH THEOCRACY, was to keep that People a separate a separate nation, under their own Law and Religion, till the coming of the MESSIAH; and to prepare things for his reception by preserving amongst them the doctrine of the UNITY. Now, to judge whether the Theocracy or extraordinary Providence effected its end, we have only to consider, Whether this people, to the coming of Christ, did continue a distinct Nation separated from all the other tribes of Mankind, and distinguished from them, by the worship of the one true God. And on enquiry, we shall find, they not only did continue thus distinct and distinguished, but have so continued ever since. A Circumstance which, having no example amongst any other People, is sufficient to convince us, that there must have been some amazing power in that Theocracy, which could go on operating for so many ages after the extraordinary administration of it had ceased. Let us conclude therefore, that his Lordship having nothing to urge against the due efficacy of this extraordinary Providence, but that, the people rebelled at one time and repented at another, and that this Providence had only temporary effects, is the most ample confession of his defeat. NOTES ON BOOK V. P. 5. [A] ET some writers against the Divine Legation will have it, that from the very context [ver. 16, 17. To Abraham and his seed were the promises made, &c. The COVENANT that was confirmed before of God in Christ, &c.] it appears that St. Paul means, the Law was ADDED not barely to the Patriarchal Religion, but to the promise of the inheritance, the covenant that was confirmed before of God; and from thence, conclude that the Jewish Religion had the doctrine of a future state, This it is to have a retrospective view, and with a microscopic eye! For had they, when they went one step backward, but gone two, they would have seen, St. Paul could not possibly have had their meaning in view, for at ver. 15, he expressly says, though it be but a MAN'S COVENANT [much less if it be GoD's] yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or ADDETH thereto. The Law therefore mentioned as ADDED in the 19th verse, cannot be understood, in the Apostle's sense, as being added to the COVENANT that was confirmed before of God in Christ, or indeed to any thing, but to the Pa triarchal Religion of the Unity. P. 20. [B]-II [Ninus fils de Belus] ne peut être inventeur de l'idolatrie qui etoit bien plus ancienne; je ne dis pas seulement en Egypte, mais même au dela de l'Euphrate, puisque Rachel deroba les Te raphims, raphims, &c.—Il faut aller en Egypte pour trouver sur cela quelque chose du mieux fondé. Grotius croit que, du temps de Joseph, l'idolatrie n'etoit point encore commune en Egypt. Cependant on voit des-lors dans ce pays un extrême attachement à la magie, à la divination, aux augures, à l'interpretation des songes, &c. -Moyse defend d'adorer aucune figure, ni de ce qui est visible dans les cieux ni de ce qui est sur la terre, ni de ce qui est dans les eaux. Voilà la defense generale d'adorer les astres, les animaux, & les poissons. Le veau d'or etoit une imitation du dieu Apis. La niche de Moloch, dont parle Amos, étoit apparemment portée avec une figure du soleil. Moyse defend aux Hebreux d'immoler aux boucs, comme ils ont fait autrefois. La mort en l'honneur duquel il defend de faire le deûil, etoit le même qu'Osiris. Beelphegor, aux mysteres duquel ils furent entrainez par les femmes de Madian, étoit Adonis. Moloch cruelle divinité, à laquelle on immoloit des victimes humaines, étoit commune du tems de Moyse, aussibien que ces abominables sacrifices. Les Chananeens adoroient des mouches & d'autres insectes, au rapport de l'auteur de la sagesse. Le même auteur nous parle des Egyptiens d'alors comme d'un peuple plongé dans toutes sortes d'abominations, & qui adoroit toutes sortes d'animaux, même les plus dangereux, & les plus nuisibles. Le pays de Chanaan étoit encore plus corrumpu. Moyse ordonne d'y abbattre les autels, les bois sacrez, les idoles, les monumens superstitieux. Il parle des enclos, où l'on entretenoit un feu eternel en T'honneur du soleil. Voilà la plus indubitable epoque qui nous ayons de l'idolatrie. Mais ce n'est point une epoque qui nous en montre sa source & le commencement, ni même le progrès & l'avancement: elle nous présente une idolatrie achevée, & portée à son comble; les astres, les hommes, les animaux mêmes adorez comme autant divinitez; la magie, la divination, l'impieté au plus haut point où elles puissent. aller enfin le crime, & les desordres honteux, suites ordinaires R 4 ordinaires du culte superstitieux & de regle. Calmet, Dissert. sur l'Origine de l'Idolatrie, tom. i. pp. 431,. 432. Thus far this learned writer. And without doubt, his account of the early and overbearing progress of idolatry is exact.--Another writer, who would pass for such, is in different sentiments. He thinks its rise and progress much lower. If we look (says he) amongst the Canaanites, we shall find no reason to imagine that there was a religion different from that of Abraham. Abraham travelled up and down many years in this country, and was respected by the inhabitants of it, as a person in great favour with God, &c. And again, Abraham was entertained by Pharaoh without the appearance of any indisposition towards him, or any the least sign of their having a different religion from that which Abraham himself professed and practised. [Connect. of Sac. and Prof. Ilist. vol. i. pp. 309 & 312.] But here the learned author was deceived by mere modern ideas. He did not reflect on that general principle of intercommunity, so essential to paganism, which made all. its followers disposed to receive the God of Abraham as a true, though tutelary, Deity. Josephus (the ge nius of whose times could not but give him a right notion of this matter) saw well the consistency be tween the veneration paid to Abraham's God, and the idolatry of the venerators; as appears from his making that Patriarch the first who propagated the belief of one God, after the whole race of mankind was sunk into idolatry; and at the same time making all those with whom he had to do, pay reverence to his God. Of Abraham he thus speaks, Aid TTO xαi φρονεῖν ἐπ' ἀρετῇ μείζω τῶν ἄλλων ἠριμένῳ, καὶ τὴν περὶ τὰ θεῖ δόξαν, ἣν ἅπασι συνέβαινεν εἶναι, καινίσαι και μεταβατ λεῖν ἔνω. Πρῶτον ἔν τολμᾶ Θεὸν ἀποφήνασθαι δημιυργόν τῶν ὅλων ἕνα. l. i. c. 7. He makes the idolatrous priests of Egypt tell Pharaoh at once, that the pestilence was sent from God in punishment for his intended violation of the stranger's wife: xalà 42 |