propitious. And in truth, they had a single instance of his ill neighbourhood, much to their cost; which brings me to the second reason. 2. The devastation he brought upon the Philistines, while the ARK rested in their quarters. For they having taken it from the Israelites in battle, carried it, as another Palladium*, to Ashdod, and placed it in the temple of their God Dagon; who passed two so bad nights with his new Guest, that on the second morning he was found pared away to his fishy stump : And this disaster was followed with a desolating pestilence. The people of Ashdod, who hitherto had intended to keep the Ark as one of their Idol-protectors, now declare it should not abide with them, for that the hand of the GOD OF ISRAEL was sore upon them, and upon Dagon their Godt. They sent it therefore to Gath, another of their cities; and these having carried it about in a religious procession, it made the same havoc amongst them §. It was then removed a third time, with an intent to send it to Ekron; but the men of that city, terrified with the two preceding calamities, refused to receive it, saying they had brought the Ark of the God of Israel, to slay them and their people. At length the Philistines by sad experience were brought to understand, that it was the best course to send it back to its owners: which they did with great honour; with gifts and trespassofferings, to appease the offended Divinity ¶. And from this time we hear no more of any attempts amongst the Gentile Nations to join the Jewish Worship to their own. They considered the God of Israel as a tutelary Deity, absolutely UNSOCIABLE; who would have nothing to do with any but his own + 1 Sam. v. 4, 5. Chap. vi. ver. 3. See note [F] at the end of this Book. + Ver. 7. § Ver. 9. || Ver. 10. People, People, or with such Particulars as would worship him alone; and therefore, in this respect, different from all other tutelary Gods; each of which was willing to live in community with all the rest. This, the historian Josephus understood to be their sentiment, when he makes the Midianitish women address the young men of Israel in the following manner: Nor ought you to be blamed for honouring those Gods which belong to the Country where you sojourn*. Besides, our Gods are COMMON TO ALL THE NATIONS, yours to NONE OF THEM T. And thus the matter rested, till occasion requiring that God should vindicate his property in that Country which he had chosen for his peculiar residence, as a tutelary Deity, He then drove the Pagan inhabitants of Samaria into his worship, just as he had driven the Philistines from it: and, in both cases, hath afforded to his servants the most illustrious proofs of divine wisdom, in his manner of conducting this wonderful economy to its completion. But from this circumstance of the inability of the Law to prevent the Israelites from falling thus frequently into idolatry, a noble Writer has thought fit to ground a charge of imposture against the Lawgiver. It would therefore look like prevarication to let so fair an opportunity pass by without vindicating the Truth from his misrepresentations; especially when the nature and causes of that idolatry, as here ex See what hath been said above concerning this imaginary ⚫bligation. + Μέμψατο δ' ἐδεὶς, εἰ γῆς εἰς ἣν ἀφῖχθε τὰς ἰδίως αὐτῆς Θεὸς προτρέποισθε· καὶ ταῦτα. τῶν μὲν ἡμετέρων κοινῶν ὅλων πρὸς ἅπανίας, τῆ δ ̓ ὑμελέςε πρὸς μηδένα τοιςτε τυγχάνοντα, Antig. Jud. l. iv. c. 6. Sect. 2. Lord Bolingbroke. F plained, " plained, tend so directly to expose all his pompous sophistry. "One of the most conceivable perfections of a law "is (says his Lordship), that it be made with such a "foresight of all possible accidents, and with such provisions for the due execution of it in all cases, that the law may be effectual to govern and direct "these accidents, instead of lying at the mercy of "them. Such a law would produce its effect, by a "certain moral necessity resulting from itself, and "not by the help of any particular conjuncture. We " are able to form some general notions of laws thus perfect; but to make them, is above humanity."To apply these reflections to the Law of Moses : "We cannot read the Bible without being convinced, that no law ever operated so weak and uncertain <6 an effect as the Law of Moses did. Far from "prevailing against accidents and conjunctures, the "least was sufficient to interrupt the course and to "defeat the designs of it; to make that people not "only neglect the Law, but cease to acknowledge the Legislator. To prevent this, was the first of these દ designs; and if the second was, as it was, no doubt, and as it is the design or pretence of all laws, to secure the happiness of the people, THIS DESIGN "" WAS DEFEATED AS FULLY AS THE OTHER; for "the whole history of this people is one continued "series of infractions of the Law, and of national calamities. So that this law, considered as the par"ticular law of this nation, has proved more ineffec"tual than any other law perhaps that can be quoted. "If this be ascribed to the hardness of heart and obi stinacy of the people, in order to save the honour "of the Law, this honour will be little saved, and its "divinity ill maintained. This excuse may be ad "mitted in the case of any human law; but we speak here of a law supposed to be dictated by "divine Wisdom, which ought, and which would have been able, if it had been such, to keep, in a " state of submission to it, and of national prosperity, even a people rebellious and obstinate enough to "break through any other. If it be said, the Law "became ineffectual by the fault of those who go"verned the people, their Judges and their Kings, let "it be remembered that their Judges and their Kings were of God's appointment, for the most part at "least; that he himself is said to have been their King during several ages; that his presence remained amongst them, even after they had deposed him; "and that the High Priest consulted him, on any emergency, by the Urim and Thummim. Occasional "miracles were wrought to inforce the Law; but this was a standing miracle, that might serve both to explain and inforce it, by the wisdom and authority " of the Legislator, as often as immediate recourse to "him was necessary. Can it be denied that the most imperfect system of human laws would have been ❝rendered effectual by such means as these * ?” " ແ I. The sum of his Lordship's reasoning amounts to this, "that the Jewish Law being ordained for a certain end, it betrays its imposture by never being able to attain that end. For, first, if infinite Wisdom framed the Law, it must be most perfect; and it is essential to the perfection of a mean, for a Law is nothing but a mean, that it attain its end. Secondly, if infinite Power administered it, that Power must have rendered even the most imperfect system effectual to its purpose." Lord Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iii. pp. 292-294. 4to. Edit. Thus, we see, his argument, when reduced to order, divides itself into these two branches; Considerations drawn, first, from the Wisdom, and, then, from the Power of the Deity, to discredit his workmanship. 1. We will take him at his best, with the improvement of order; and first examine his conclusions from the circumstance of infinite Wisdom's framing the Law. Let us admit then for a moment, that his representation of the end of the Law is exact; and that his assertion of its never gaining its end, is true: I answer, that this objection to the divine original of the JEWISH LAW holds equally against the divine original of that Law of Nature, called the MORAL LAW. Now his Lordship pretends to believe that the Moral Law came from God: nay, that He was so entirely the Author and Creator of it, that if he had so pleased, he might have made it essentially different from what it is. But yet the experience of all ages hath shewn, that this Law prevailed still less against accidents and conjunctures than the Mosaic. For if the Jews were always transgressing their Law till the Captivity, yet after that disaster they as scrupulously adhered to it; and in that attachment have continued ever since: whereas, from the day the MORAL LAW was first given to mankind, to this present hour, the least accident was sufficient to interrupt the course, and to defeat the designs of it. How happened it, therefore, that this acknowledged Law of God did not govern and direct accidents, instead of lying at the mercy of them? Was it less perfect in its kind than the Mosaic? Who will pretend to say That, who believes the Moral Law canie directly from GOD, and was delivered intimately to Man, for the service of the whole Species; while the |