Kii;i*i!;i: Wk CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 080 B Cornell University M Library The original of tliis bool< is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924102766080 A L E T T E R TO . The- Right Reverend Authw of -i T'i/e Divine Legation of Msfes Demonjlrate^fi • In Anfwer to THE APPENDIX To the Fifth Volume of that Work : \VI T H AN APPENDIX^ Qjntaining a former Literary Correfpondence j B Y A Late Profejfor In die UNIVERSITY of OXFO RD. Jtlud'vro ; _/? meam, cum in qmni 'vita, tum in dicendo^ moderatiamm modifliamque cegnafiis, ne me hodie, cum IJii ut pron)oce!Wt reffon- d&e, oblitumeffefutetis Tnei^ CiCERO. ' '^ II ■ ■ -■....-. The "THIRD EDITION. X, O N D O N, Ptinted for A, Millar, and. J, DoDSiEr, MD.CCLX\*I.' T O The Right Reverend Author O F ^he Divine Legation of Mafis Detmtt^rate4. Msf Lord, 1 Cannot but think myfelf much obliged to your Lor(ifliip. for the diftinguifced hoHour which you have done me, in raakiag me the fubjeflrof an Appendix to your great Work of The Divine I^g^ion of Mofes "Demonfirated : an ho- nour, which you h^ve hitherto cpnferred onnoon«, exc^t a lat? Boble Lord and myfelf. I heard in- deed frow every quarter, that you had taken it into your head, that I had affronted you ; and that this imagined affront lay rankling at your heart. You cxprefled your indignation, with much vehemence and loud menaces, to ,almoft every one whom yoa met : except to myfelf; whom you, at the fame time, received with fair vFOJcds and a ftqpoth coun- teaanee : infomuch that I was then really perfuaded, A 2 that C 4 1 that what I hzd heard of your refentment ivas a!i aA idle and groundlefe report. However, I did hot imagiae^ either that the fubjeci on which we difFered was fo important in itfelf, or the perfon who dif^ fered from you fo confideriabi^ ih your eftimation, as to merit fo formal a procefs, and fo folemn a chalHfement, I thought you might ^bffibly whip me at the cart's tail in a Note to Divine Legation^ the ordinary place of your literary executions : or pillory me in the Dunciad, another engine, which* as legal proprietor, you have very ingenioufly and judicioufly applied to the fame purpofe: or perhaps have ordered me a kind of Bridewell correfiion by one of your Beadles, in a pamphlet. I never flat- tered myfelf with the expeftation- of being exhibit- ed on a' fcaffold, erefied on purpofe for me, and in fo eonfpicuous a place. I eah do no lefs therefore than malcemy acknowledgments to your Lordfliip upon the occasion; as Sir John Owen * did to my Lord Prefident Bradfliaw, of infolent and brutal memory : having, together with feveral Peers, rd- ceived fentence of condemnation in the High Coutt of Jijllice, thehonefl Knight made a low reverence to '18s Block Lordfhip, and gave him humble thanks for the great honour done him in being condemned to lofe his head tike a noble Lordj for, being but a poor Gentleman of Wales, he fwore he was afraid Ife fliould have been hanged. ' Clarendon's Hift. VoI.iiL p. zQ-jitio*. Havli^ " Havlhg thus paid all due refpefts and acknow- iedgmeiits to your Lordfliip, I (hall proceed, with- out further compliments and with all proper free- jdom, to inquire into the grounds of your refent* ment, and the merits of the queftion in difpute-. '' You complain'', as if I had attacked you in a certain Note of mine. How , fo, my Lord ? My Note exprefsly referred to an anonymous book in- titled, A Free and Candid Examination of the Bijhop Mf London^s SemwHs, &c. in which I was feveral times called to account, with a peculiar air of in- iblence, that marks the controyerfial writings which come from a certain quarter. I anfwered fuch of the Candid Examiner's objeftions, as I thought at all worth anfwering : for as to the long Note of feven pages in the fame book "^, wholly founded upon the author's not being able to conftrue a plain fentence in Latin, I thought it would be offering an affront to the underftanding of my Readei-s to go out of my way to confute it. And pray, my -Lord, what is all this to You ? You will fay per- ■haps. They werCmy Arguments ? And pray, what . is /hat to me ? They were urged againft me by the Candid Examiner, and againft him I direfted my anfwer; if they had come immediately from You, I would have direfled my aftfwer to You. If I had taken the contrary method, and fallen upon You inftead of the Candid Examiner; you might then . with fome reafon have reprefented me as a petulant ^ Appendix, p. 415. ' ' P. ,278, Sic. 7 and I « 1 atid quartelfoitte fellow, who had attacked* you " without the lead provocation given." As it isy I leave it to the miprej4idiced to judge, whether you have any pretence at all for your coonplaiiat agaihft rac. ■' •■j .. Befides, my Lord, I may appeal to your own judgment in this cafe: you reprefent nae, ^s dif- puting with the Candid Examiner in the firft part of the Note ; you fay> that. then " I proceed to tlije " Author of the Div'ine Legation ;" and that at lafi: " I turn to the Examiner again." Now if any part of my Note relate to You, it muft be the firft and laft parts, rather than the middle part: for the argument from the punilhment of Idolatry by the Judge, is yours; or rather Mr Locke's, adopted by You, and taken up at third hand by the Candid Examiner : the argument from the punifhment of the Fathers crime upon the Children, is yours ; and from you retailed by the fame : the middle argu- ment from the antique caft of the Poem has lefs immediate relation to You, than either of the fore- going; it is a general defence of my thefis, or, if you pleafe, a general objeftion to yours, not op- pofed to any particular argument that you have ufed. Now you have plainly acquitted me of any ' refteftion upon You in the former inftances, for in thofe you take up the caufe as your clientf^, the Candid Examiner's, and not as your own ; there- fore, to be confiftent with yourfelf, you muft ac- quit me upon the other charge alfo. Well: f 7 } l^elh bat ihtT all you may fay, that tWs is a Jfiere evafion; atid that I mud know, that, in the J)re(fent cafe, to attack thq Candid Examiner, or You, was in efFe^ the fame thing. Why really, tny Lord, there is fome truth in this : I did indeed fuppofe> that there was an intimate union between You and the Candid Examiner. I could not but obfetve the fame caUfe managed much in the fame manner, and much of the fame fpirit breathing in both, His book came forth at leafl with your ap- probation : you clapt upon its head a Prokgus gale- atus, (for the Public, I believe, was not miflaken when it afcribed the Preface to You) ; and while little TeuG^r (hot at all the Leaders of Troy, and had the yaiu ambition to think of vanquifliing the great Heftor himfelf, he fculked behind the Ihade of the mighty Telamonian Shield, '"with feven thick folds o'ercart: « Of tough Bull-hides J of folid Brafs the iaft." • I pi'efume,'my Lord, that the Candid Examiner is the fame perfon whom your Lordfliip, in regard to his former fervices, fome time lince preferred to the honoutable ofEce of being your Literary Scavenger ; whofc Patent flands upon record at the efad of the Second Preface to the Second Part of Divine he- gsitisn. I applaud your choice : you could not eaGly have found a perfon more expert, not only in raking' up dirt, but (which is a ftill more ufeful qualification) in throwing it too, than this Candid Gentlemau: and it mull be fuppofed, that- your connexion [ 8 T fpnneftion with him is of the clofeft- nature/ Still further, my Lord ; I will confefs, that I think i% probable, as from other marks, fo in particular from a notion which very often pofTclTes this Writer's imagination, that all Authors whatever, while they are writing, think of no body but You j andj.what^ ever opinions they advance, or confute, they aim, at nothing but Divine Lepafion ^: from hence, I f^y, I think it probable, that You had fome hand in the book itfelf. But till you publickly acknowledge al^ this, and lay in youi- claim to your Ihare of the \ performance ; I fhall ftill think, that any one, wh^ has any matters to fettle with the Candid Examiner, is quite at liberty to do it in what manner he thinks proper, without being in the leaft .accountable tci your Lordfhip fot fo doingi. ' , .-j- •> So much for the cafe, as, it lies before the Public. I muft now remind^ yo.ur Lordfhip of what has. for-: merly paft between us in private, concerning thefe fame matters. In my Leftures on the Hebrew 4 For example, ", If they do," [no matter, who, or whatt] " how can he pretend, that the J'ewifh notion of a futurity " m^hs any thing againfi the doSlrine of D. L." Examin. p. 284. " Now, whether it would be worth while to give " up all thefe things," [that is, all the Prophecies both litei;al and typical] "for the fah of oppojing the principles of the D. " L. muft be fabmitted to^the judgment of others." P. 124. As for thefirft of thefe paffages, I can anfwer.for the Per0n there meant; that, in the place referred to, he never preten^d any fuch thing, nor had the doftrine of D. L. in his thoughts. And of the fecond of thefe paflages, I dare fay, the Learned Dr JoRTiN can give much the fame account. '• ' » 4 Poetry f9l , Poetry t treated df the Foem of jo^, as iiiy under- taking necefikrily required. I gave fny opinion of the age, ' the defign, and the nature of the Poem, •with fp^edom in refpeft to general femiments com- mon to a number of authors, but without any re- ference to any ofie particular author, or refleftion lipqn znf perfon whatever. I was not cbnfcbus of having given oifenee, nor could I fofpeft that of- fence was taken. You fignified to me,, that You were offfended ; and called upon me toanfwer to the charge of having diffented in opinion from You. I did not care to proteft againfl the authoritative man- ner in which you proceeded : or to queftion your inveftiture in the high office of Inquifitor General and Supreme Judge of the opinions of the Learned, which you had long before affumed; and had exer- cifed with a ferocity and a defpotifm without ex- ample in the Republic of Letters, and hardly to be paralleled among the difeiples of Dominic; exafting their opinions to the ftandard of your Infallibility, and profecuting with implacable hatred every one that pref\imed to differ from you. I knew, that fueh a protefr would lead immediately to what I was willing to avoid. I-iobeyed your fummons : I gave you by Letter the account of myfelf, which you demanded ; and, with due freedom, but, I hope, with civility and good manners, I afferted my right of thinking for myfelf ; and endeavoured to remove the grounds of your refentment. The debate ran out into forae length ; birt ended in an amicable manner, which was much to ray iiuisfaQion. You B perhaps [ 10 ] perhaps may ftill fuppofe, that I was afraid of ydtl» I will tell you fairly, what I was really afraid of j I Was afraid, that two Members of the fame Ec- clefiaftical Society, engaging in an open quarrel and a hoftile altercation, (for fuch I knew it mud be, when You were one of the parties) upon a difference of opinionj ia a point not only of na great importance, but fo dubious as to be incapable of being perfeftly fettled between them, would make a contemptible figure, and exhibit a ridicu- lous fpeftacle to the Public. If this fliould now be the cafe; I can only fay, that it was not of my feeking. And that thofe, who fhall at. all think it worth their while to inquire into the true origin and iperitsof this difpute, may be able to judge who. is the aggreffor ; I fhall fubjoin to this Addr^efs. the above-mentioned literary Correfpondence, at large- and exaftly as it paffed between us. But there is another circumflance relating to this Correfpondence of ours, which mufl be inquired into. While I was carrying on an amicable treaty with yjou, at your. own reqmfition ;.I knew nothing at all of the .proceedings of the Candid Examiner* His book was publifhed about two or three months before the time, whenyeu moved this affair : I had not feen it, npr had I the leafl notice of my being at all concerned in it. Can You, my Lord, fay the fame thing ? Did not You know, and approve of, his whole defign ? If you difclaim all connexion with him, and diibwn him as your confederate or .agent ; why are you angry ^t my taking him to taflc. { II ! tafk, for inftitting me ? Why will You interpofe, in oiir difpute ? If ypu cannot ^tny, that you had at that time feen his book,, then newly publifhed, and that you had feen it even before it was publifh- ed ; I think', I have reafon to complain, thfit you did not deal fairly and openly with me yourfelf. You called upon me to anfwer to a charge, under pain of being chaftifed by You : it was too late ; I had received my chaftifemeiit from another hand before, with your knowledge and approbation, per- haps by your orders. You drew me into a conr ference, a pretended treaty of peace ; while you knew, that your Cherokees and Iroquois were fall- ing at that very time upon my back. In fhort, my Lord, you muft have then known ; that, if I had been as well apprifed of the circumftances of the cafe as You were, I mufl have refufed to treat on fuch terms. I fliould certainly have broken off the treaty at once ; and have left you to continue open hoftilities in perfon, as you had in effeft begun them by your allies. Indeed, my Lord, I was afterwards much furprized; when, having been with great civility difmiffed from your prefence, I fouiid your Footman at your door armed with his Mailer's caiie, and falling upon me without mercy, Yourfelf looking on and approving, and having probably put the weapbn with proper orders into his hands, before you fent me the invitation to an amicable conference, which I accepted. You think, it feems, that I ought to have taken ray beating quietly and patiently ; in refpeft to the livery which B 2 ^ he I 12 3 liC) wore,, and the inflrument which he^made ufe «f r I was not of fo tame a difpofition ; I endeaToured to defend myfelf ; I wrefted the weapon from him, and broke h : your Lordfbip, it feems, by an obr lique blow in the fcuffle, got an pnlueky rap on the knnckles : 'tho' you may thank youf felf for it, jm lay the "blame on me ; you complain loudly of the injury iind the infult, and profecjate me in an ^^ipij of affault and battery. ^ This is a true ftate of my particular cafe, in this inftance. But indeed, my Lord, it is matter of common complaint, and a real hardlhip upon us free fubjefts of the Republic of Lettets in general; that we cannot go on quietly and peaceably in the public iroad, upon the ordinary bufinefs of our call-? ing, without meeting at every turn a flurdy bravo, who difputes our paflage, claims the highway as his own, and falls upon us with his cudgel, if we do not keep juft to the track in which he orders us to walk. You give yourfelf out as Demonftrator of the Divine Legation of Mofes : this fubjeft you look upon as your exclulive property ; by what title, I cannot fay : furely not as firft Occupier ; for the Divine Legation of Mofes had been often demon-? ftrated before ; and it would be no prefumptiOH even in a young Student in Theology to undertake to give a better, that is, a more fatisfaftory and irrefragable Demonflration of it in five pages, than you have done in five volumes. However, in qua- lity of Demonftrator General o'f the Divine Legation ' ' ' I ' pf L n I of MoifiSiyou lay.inafurtJij^r.Gkim as IjprdPara-, mount ia all the reali^s o£ Science. For. ihe Divine legation ^ Mofes, it feems, contajns.ia it all,know- k4ge divine and human, anient aad modem : it treats^ as of its proper fubjeft, de onwi fciiili, jif de qmiUbd ente ; it is a perfeft Encyctopaedia ; it in- dudesjn jtfelf all Hiftory, Chronology, Criticifrn, Piviaity, l^w, Polities, from the Law of Mofes down to the Igxe Jew-Bill, and from Egyptian Hier roglyphics to modern Rebus-writing ; and to it we are to have recourfe, as to an infallible oracle, for the refbltuijon of every queftion ,in Literature. It is like Lord Peter's brown loaf: it is mutton, and it is be-ef j it is fifh, and it is fleih ; it is meat, and it is drink : in it are contained hi,cliifnii all the necet faries of life ; and a dreadful anathema hangs over the head of the unbeliever and gainfayer. For whatever it ra^y pretend in theory ; it admits in faft Ibid. p. 366. artful [ 17 3 artful dlfguife, they will fay, thrown over ydlir real' defign. Befides, even this is only changing one unnatural crime for another: for your pretence, that Idolatry is but an Opinion, that the grofs Aft of adoration paid to falfe Gods is a mere Speculation; this is fuch a banter upon reafon and common fenfe, that you could never mean it in earneft. The ma- licious therefore will be apt to fay, that the Biftiop's argument for Toleration is all a Iham ; and cou^d be intended for nothing elfe but a libel on the good old Patriarch. Now I have been confidering of this matter; and there really appear to me fome circumftances in it that are a little untoward. If your Lordfhip is well warranted to affirm, that the fpecific crime, which drew down God's judgments upon Sodom, was Ido- latry (and indeed, without the full proof of this point, your argument is no argument at all) ; you n^ft have had your information from Holy Scrip- ture : for in this cafe there is no other evidence to be had, or none in the lead worth regarding. Now I have looked from the beginning of the Bible to the end, to fee if I could find any thing to this pur- ■pofe ; but in vain. Befide the hiftory of the de- ftruftion of that City ', which clearly enough marks the deteftable crime for which it was deftroyed, and fome other paffages ^ confirming the fame thing ; Sodom is often introduced as an image to exprefs either the feverity of God's judgments in the utter » Gen. xix. * Ifaiah iii, 9. Ezek. xvi, 49, 50. Jude 7. C deftruftioa I 18 J dfeftruflion of .abandoned Cnnera, or the heigJit of lice and iniquity in general, witfcout relation to tjip particular kind of it : nor can I jfind one place, wliere Sodom is charged with the' crime of Idolatry. i\nd as to the other medium of proof, that Idola- try is an Opinion ; I mufl own, I am not able to malce it out cleverly. But when your Lprd|hjp ftiall be pleafed to refume the (jueftion, and treat it in the round-about method of demonftratipn, which fifter all is Yonx fort, thefe difficulties wjll all Ta- nifh; and, I dare fay, from the fimple pofiiion> Abraham interceded for Sodom, you will be able not only to "deduce the' above-mentioned confe- quence, but moreover, and fulj a$ well tqoj any given conclufipn whatfoeyer. However, my Lord, there is anpthgr jgrnark, which I could fuggeft,"that would entirely obviate this invidious- infinuation ; "but then unfortunately -it will at the fame time wholly overthrow your ar- gument. It is this : it appears plainly from the narrative of Mofes, that Abraham's exception tp sGod's dealing with Sodom was not from an opinjop -of the undue rigour and feverity of it, but frpm a fcruple fplely refpefting the juftice of God in dcr' ftroying the righteous together with the wicked. His . concern was not for the wicked, but for thp righteous : he interceded for the wipked merely fqr the fake of the righteous ; and cannot properly bp laid to have interceded for the wicked on their own account at all. So that Abraham's interceffion had 2 no t i9 1 .., ^ no relation to the particular Crinlie',' tb the kind or the meafure of guilt, of the offenders. To inqtrire therefore, whether k were the one or the other, of the two unnatural crimes tiere liieaht; or whetiiel" j fh'd one or the other of them has moft the nature of a Speculative Opiniofi, Ivhich might be a hardmat-i ter clearly to determine : this would Be nothing at all to the purpofe. The only ipeculative point, t1ia;t Abraham's thoughts \vere engaged in, was> Whether it was agreeable to God's juftice to involvq the irighfeous and the wicked together iii the failie judicial definition/ This is the only quleftipui that arifes from Mofes's. plain ftate of the cafe; and this is tb'tally foreign to the prefent fubjefl: of debate. BM, I ha^ve not yet dotae with tM arguments it r^'fo cutidus a one, that it defertes to be examined bil all fides. And hefe I fliall lOok back a little, to dbferte hjovt' yoti u&er it iri : aihd, fioW I am about it, I fliall take TX^ retrofpeft ffom your firft paragraph'.- ': Yiflit Lordihip' fets out with faying, that I be^ THE QUESTioK. No^ as to tti'i laiatter J any of our Readers will be as able^ as Y6u< or I, to judge, whether I beg the queftion, or ofily ftopofe it : and to their judgment I fliall therefore leave it. Yet I i cjmhot: bat take notice, how foon you betray youf- diftrefs in this difpute. This formidable objeftiott yotfc p'lace in the van of -^avx forces ; and in tf uth it has as much ftrength in it, as any part of the whole CDr|)s :' but behdd, before you have ad^soieed lauch beyond the middle of the paragraph, you C 2 /. grow 1 fee the fame Gentleman is got in company with " Tpland, Tindal, Collins, and the whole tribe of "Free-thinkers"." You have, it feems, a fet of Names always at hand, a kind of infamous Lift, or black Calendar, where every oflFender is fure to find a nich ready to receive him : nothing fo eafy as the application, and flight provocation is fuflicient. A Gentleman, juftly refpeftable on account of his very eminent genius and learning, and ftill mo-rc 1 View of Bolingbroke's Philofophy, p. 1 3,7. * Div. Leg. Vol.iv; p. 272. "Ibid. p. 309. refp&ft- [ 21 3 refpcftable in his moral charafter ; wjiofe Name, for certain other reafons alfo, you have done very prudently not to difclofe, either by exprefs mention, or by reference: this very worthy perfon chanced to drop an expreiHon concerning Polemic Divinity, which You allow to be innocent and free from all malice, yet thought it looked a little difrefpeftfuUy towards a Profeffion in which You make fo great a figure : you therefore took the firft opportunity of falling upon him, as if he had been guilty of Blas- phemy : you treated him as an ignorant fmall-dealer in fecond-hand ridicule, and ftrung him up in pub- lic, as a Scoffer at things facred, with Collins, Tin- dal, Shaftesbury, and Bolingbroke °. But to return to Hobbes and bur Profeffor : for my part, my Lord, I have no fort of objection to Mr. Hbbbes's company, provided he behave decent- ly and properly, and talk like a learned and a fen- fible man ; and I had as lief fay a thing after him as after another, provided the thing be true. And really Hobbes was a man of great learning and abi- lities: You Yourfelf P have done him the juftice to fpeak of him, as "one of the firft men of his age " for a bright wit, a deep penetration, and a cul- " tivated underftainding ;" and have remarked (what had indeed occurred to me in reading him before I fav? your remark) that " Mr. Locke rc- " See DoSrine of Grace, p. 309. P Warburton's Mifcellaneous Tranflations in Pwjfe and Verfe, from Roman Poets, Oratois, and Hiftorians. London, J724.; izmo. Seep. 123. " ceived C i.2 1 ^' feeived ho ifitiall affiftance ffom Mf. Ilobbes's no> " tians." But ?ftef all ; kdW Js it that I and mf frierid Hobbes (who agree fo t^etl ?'» eddefft tertiot " in not having been bred up in'thie Frtecipl6S of « Toleration," and are fo fitly yoked together) con- cur in fentiment fo lovingly ? I fay, 'that Abraham bad a right to feftraiti his Family from Idolatry, f ronr a f^ecies of Falfe Wof fllip condemned by Na^ tural Religion, and pfbdtiftive of infinite Corrup- t"k)ns both religious and morai : HCtbbesy as yotf qnote him, " holds, that Abtihtim had a rigfit to « ptefcribe to his Family, what HehgiOtl they " fliould be of;" that is, whetheir true Or falfe, foi* here is no limitation. So that it appearis at laft, that there is-juft as much difference between Hobbes and pur Profeffor upon this point, as there is between a Iright of hnpofingf upon another a Falfe Keligion^ and a right, of reftraining anothdi: from praftices of ia Falfe Religion in themfelves immoral and finful. And' now fdf your argument from Abfaham^s fcondu£l^ at large, and in your own words. " But " God fpeaking of Abraham, fays, I know that Joe " witlcommand-his children and his hovfi)old after hiTfif "" and they Jhall keep the way of the Lord, Sec* Gen, " xviii, .19. And Hobbes aud our Vrofeffor, I fup- " pofe, regard this declaration as a clear proof of " tlie divine'do&ine of Restraint in matters of " Religion ; efpecially when^ interpreted by their " da'rBng text of — —^Force therk to efiter in. ,0a " the contrary, thofe who ha^e been bred up in ': "the E =3 ]' f the Priadples ef Toleraim, feold it to be a mere ♦' teftimpny (a- glorious one indeed) of Abraham'? « pious and paxeotal care to in$tjiuct his family « in the Law gf God. 4-nd it is well, it can go « for no more, pv I fliould fear the learned Profef- " for would have, brongiit. in Ifaac. a? a backflider- " to Idolatry ; and his Father's laying him on the « f^crifical Pijcj as a kind pfA-utodefe. Now, " except in thefe two places of .Abraham's Hiftory, "of fnch wonderfnl . force to fupport intolerant "■ principles, the Patriarch appears in all others fo " 3yerfe to this inquifitpridl fpirit, that where God " <:ome5 down to deftroy Spdom* the father-of the ' ^' Faithful intercedes, with the utmoft importonityi ." for that idolatrous as well as inceftuous City, The .'* truth is this. The nfurped rigljt erf" pnnifliing for ?' opinions, was firft affumed and long ingroffed 5' by Idolaters. And, if tradition may bq believed, -" Abraham himfelf narrowly efcaped the Mre for ? preaching againfl its Divinity p." *• The infolence, the fraud, the nonfenfe of thig f paflage 4" 1-^ I beg pardon, my Lord ; I have been juft reading in the Notes to Drnwe Lega- tion, and ere I was aware have fallen into the fame language. f Appendix, Div. Leg. Vo}. v. p. 41 2, 4 1 3- . >) Divine- Legation, VoJ. v. p. ig. The very learned and ingenious Paricm, of whom this decent language is ufed, is the Rev. Mr. Peters. I mention his name, becaufe the Readers of DMne Legintm wUJ hsrdiy know it from thence; where he p^ffea by the ftyle ajjd title of the Cornijh Critic. What the true meaning' and import of this title may be, I i cannot fay. I fuppofe it may allude to fome Proverbial fay- [ 24 3 language, 1 meant to fay, that I mufl beg leave to point out, in the foregoing paffage, the candid refleftions, the imputed principles, and the ingeni- ous eonfequence from the Profeffor's fuppofed way of reafoning with regard to the important point of the Sacrifice of Ifaac : and to obferve, how artfully the foreign term Idolatrous Aides into the main ar- gument; and with what eafe the tranfition is made to Opinions ; which term, though it could not well appear in the main argument, yet is brought up by way of re-inforcenient in the rear. " The ufurped •* right of punifhing for opinions," fays your Lord- ftirp, " was firft affumed by Idolaters." It may be fo ; but what this has to do with the Prpfeffor, who maintains no fuch right, I do not fee : however, you cite an antient Tradition to prove it. " As you think proper to: produce this Tradhion- in evidence; I fuppofe, it mufl: be of fome weight- and well fup- ported*^ 'And I find it is fo: it is delivered by a great number of .aiithors,- and has been as univer- fally received as any thing pf the kind perhaps ever was. It prevailed throughout the Eaft; it was ad- opted by"' Mahomet I jIMaimonides records h% ingrelatipg to Cornwall, perhaps like that as a private man he (according to the Tradition cited by your Lordfliip) fo laudably and * See Sale's Koran; p. 268: Hyde, ibid. p. 69. 71, 72: Maimonides, ibid. merito.v [ 27 J meritorioufly endeavoured to reclaim his country- men. So much for your Lordfhip's firft argument. I proceed now to your fecond ; which lies a good deal more open and unembarraiTed, and will give me much lefs trouble. This too arifes from a piece of Hiftory 7. Jacob and his Family depart from La- ban. Rachel fteals away her Father's Gods, and carries them off. The old man follows and over- takes them, and complains of the theft. Jacob, to give all poffible fatisfaftion, permits him to fearch the whole company, and among the reft his wife Rachel, of whom he has not the leaft fufpicion. Rachel by a female ftratagem conceals the Gods, and the theft remains undifcovered. And what, in the name of wonder, has this to do with Jacob's having, or not having, a right to punifla Idolatry ? Oh, fay you, " Rachel contrived to keep her Fa- " ther's Gods, for no better purpofe, we may be "fure, than that for which the good man einployed " fo much pains to recover them." Soft and fair, my Lord ; not quite fo fure neither : no begging of the queftion, I befeech you. You cried out upon me juft now, before you had the leaft reafon to be alarmed ; and now you make no fcruple of availing yourfelf of this poor fallacy in the moft open man- ner. Unlefs you are abfolutely fure, unlefs you prove beyond all doubt, that Rachel ftole her Fa- ther's Gods for Idolatrous purpofesj this whole cafe y Gen. xxxi. D 2 is [ 28 ] , Is totally foreign to the point in queftion : and has ,no more to do with Idolatry, than it has with mur- der or inceft ; or even than "the lafl cafe,' which yoii brought, had to do with it. And pr«iy, my Lord, how came You to be fo fure of Rachel's dtfign ? Mofes has not given the leaft hint of it: and in fuch a cafe, what fignify the conjeftures of his Expofi- tors? However, conjefture they will; and their conjeftures, as one may well expeft, are various and contradiftory. Some; fay ^, that flie took away her Father's Idols, left by confulting them he fhould find out which way they had fled : others *, thatlhe .ftole them merely for the valiie of the gold and fil- ver, of which they were made. Jofephus fays ^, flie took them not to worfliip them, " for her huf- " band had taught Jier to defpife fuch worfliip of " falfe Gods ; but that, if her Father fhould over- " take them, flie might betake herfelf to thefe Idols " for proteftion, and by their means obtain for- " givenefs." Others fuppofe ", that out of her great zeal againft Idolatry flie deprived her Father of his Idols, to prevent his continuing in that prac- tice ; and to draw him from it, by making him fenfible of the weaknefs of his Gods, who could not preferve themfelves. Others i again on the con- » R. Eliezer, Atep. Ezra, ^en. Nachman, De Muis, MenQ- chius, &c, ^ Afterius, Pererius, Ofiander, &c. I" Antiq. Lib. i, cap. 9. = Bafil. Horn, xii, iz. inPrincip. Proverb. Gregor, Nwanz. Orat. 42. & Nicetas in loc. Theodoret, &c, <" Chryfoftojn. Corn, a Lapide, ^lercerus, Rivetus, &c. trary [ «9 ] trary think, that fhe defigned to make the fame ufe of them herfelf that her Father had done. Of thefe uncertain conjeftures it is hard to determine which is the moft probable ; but it is not hard to de^ termine, which is the moft improbable of them all : for to that pre-eminence the laft, which your Lord- Ihip has adopted, has much the faireft cla^m : not only becaufe, as you obferved yourfelf, when you thought it fomething for your purpofe to make the obfervation ^, " that Jacob took <;are to inftruft *' his Wives in the true Religion ;" but alfo ber caufe it plainly appears from the preceding Chap- ter *', that Rachel, in particular, was a feriou? and faithful .Worfliipper of Jehovah^ the true and only God : a ftrgng prefumption at leaft in her favour, th£tt flie was not at this time addifted to any Idola- trous praftices. And fo, what becomes now of your Lordlhip's argument ? 1 • But let us fee how you will manage it, fuppofing we allow yoiji aH you want ; the very point, which you fliould have proved, but took for granted at firft. Be it fo then : Rachel ftole her Father's Gods, with a defign to worfliip them. Search was made, and nothing at all was difcovered : not even the theft ; much lefs the Idolatry, which was the fecret motive, and in time to be the confequence of the theft. So, as far as I can fee, we are not a whit the wifer, or the nearer to the refolution of the quef- « Div. Leg. Vol v ; p. 7$, - ^ Gen. xxx j 22—24. r. ',. tion [ 3° J tioD, Whether tdolatry was. punifhed by the Patrb- archs, or not. Rachel, you fay, was not punifhed for Idolatry : I anfwer, She was never proved guilty of it. But Jacob did not cYen denounce x:ondemn- ation on the , ofFcnder, for the Idolatrous intention, if it fhould be found out ; I anfwer, that it does, HOt appear, that he had the leafl fufpicion of any fuch intention. He certainly did not fufpeft his beft-beloved wife Rachel : this is plain from his anfwer to Laban, With whom/oe-ver thou jindejl. thy Gods, let him not live. Let us fee now how the cafe plainly ftands, and how your argument arifes from it. Rachel was not burnt alive, nor in any way paniftied, by the fentence of her hufband the Pa-, triarch Jacob, for Idolatry ; of which fhe was nei- ther convifted, nor accufed, norfo much as fufr. pefted: therefore Idolatry was not punifhed by the Patriarchs. A Highwayman efcapes hanging iri England, being never proved guilty, never com- mitted, never found out : therefore there is no law iii England againft robbery on the highway. Why my Lord, even that zealous affertor of juitiGe,.andi voluntary executor of law, the Mob, never difci- plines a pick-pocket, unlefs caught in the faft ; and do You fuppofe, that I take the Patriarchs for fuch intolerant zealots, as to condemn their people to the fire for Idolatry upon the leaft fufpicion, and even upon no fufpicion at all ? Oh but, fay you, • Rachel to be Jure was guilty of Idolatrous inten- ' tions ; and to be fur e, fhe would foon put her inten- ' tions in pradlice; and to be Jure, fuch praftices • from 4 t 31 J * from their natare could not be long hid ; , and i9> ' be/ure, if flie had been punifhed for it, the Scrip- * ture would have taken notice of it ; therefore, * the filence of Scripture fliews it to have been co-- * ram non judice. <^ E. D/ My Lord, I beg leave to fuggeft a fmall emendation of what I fup- pofe to be an error of the prefs, in the Conclufion of your Demonftration ; for coram non judice, read, non coram judice : that is the plain ttuth of the mat- ter; and that, I promife you, is. all that you will ever be able to make of it. "We have feen thai the two firfi: tafes, which you have produced from the Patriarchal Hiftory, are not at all to the purpofe : the third cafe, which imme- diately follows, is indeed very much fo; and quite determines the queftion againft your LordQiip. It is no uncommon thing for an experienced Pole- mic, when he is diftreffed by an untoward text, that lies in open view, full in the face of the Reader, and jull acrofs his argument, to flip it out of fighr, ■and convey it away, and keep it under cover with as much dexterity and flight of hand, as a Juggler employs with his cups and balls. But here, all is , fair aftd above board ; the cafe is plainly laid before us ; and we have nothing to do, but to fee which way it tends, and what is the coiifequence direftly refuhing from it. " Jacob at Bethel, in pious emula- « tion qf his Grand'-father's care to k^ the way of *' the Lord, commanded s his houjhdd, and all that ' 5 Gen. XXXV, 2. " luere C 32 1 " 'u)ere with lAmlto put away the ftrange Godsfrffh '*' dThdn^'thein" Now let us fee your deduflion froti it-''*" They "obeyed, all was well ; and not a wore "'oi' funlfh'tng by the Judge.^* Puniftung, my Lord for what, I befeech'ydu? For putting away the ftrange Gods, as they Were commanded to do I Juft now you were for having poor Rachel punifhed, for nothing at all but your own fufpicions ; here you ga ftill further, and exped that tbe people fhould be puniflied. even for their Obedience. " They obeyed, and: all was well." Btit, fuppofe they had not obeyed ; would all have been well then ? A Command iffued by a Superior, in an au- thoritative manner, and in due form, plainly im- plies a rightj and a power, and a will, to inforce obediehce to the command : the Patriarch iflues a Command againft Idolatry ; therefore the Patriarch had a right, and a power, to .punilh Idolatry ; and would have puniflied it in thofe, whom he fliould have fotind guilty of, the crime. Here then is the. example required : and thus Hands the Faft' attefted by Sacred Hiftory. Jacob, a Ruler of a Tribe, affumes, as fuch, a power of reftraining and prohibiting, and confequently of punifliing, Idolatry. " He forbids not only the pub- lic worfliip, but the private ufe, and.fecret, poffef- Con, of Idols : the people acknowledge this power by immediately obeying his command, by fur- Tendering to him their Idols, and every other marl^- arid adjunct of falfe worfliip: and I add, that his --■«; . " ' duty r 33 ] • duty ^ and engagements to God, his fituatlon a- mongft nations - addifted to the groffeft Idolatries,, and the difpofition of his own people, inclined to Idolatry (as appears by their having thefe aboipi-, nations in their hands), firfEciently juflify him in affuming and exercifing fuch a power. The three precediflg arguments are built upon a very extraordinary principle, quite of your own in- vention; namely, That clear proof arifes from a total want of evidence. How greatly is the learn- ed World obliged to your Lordfliip for the curious difcoveries, which you are perpetually communi- cating ; New Canons of Logic, as well as New Canmis of Criticifm ! ' After two paragraphs, one of the Ludicrous, the other of the Scurrilous kind, which I referve therefore for my Second and Third Heads; your Lordfliip proceeds to hint, or refer to, rather than to draw out in form, •an argument of another fort. " As thefe Patriarchs did not de/a&o (which ap- " pears from their hiftory) fo they could not de jure " (which appears from the laws of Nature and " Nations) funtjh Idolatry by the Judge" "We have feen how the Faft flands, as it appears from their Hiftory : and I muft obferVe, that th^ proof of theFaftisfufficientfor itiypurpofe, with-* out the juftiiication of it. The true job, or rather the Author of the Poem of Job, equal or prior ia •■ See Gen. xxviij; 2D — 12. E time [ 34 ] time to Mofes, might exprefs wliat was ihe, recejvdd, opinidn and praQice of his age, however iniquitoijs that opinion and praffice might be : he might fpeak of. Idolatry as punifhed by the Judge S ' though the Judges of . that age might exceed their commiffion in punifhing it. But as I think, not only that the Patriarchs did exercife their authority in reftraining Idolatrous Worfliip, but that they might alfo do it without being fuch inquifitors and perfecutors as - You would in that cafe rep refent. them to have been ; I fh^ll confider your argument from the Laws of. Nature and Nations, and fee, what may be pleaded in their hehalf uppn thofe principles. I fiiall confider the Law of Nature and the Li^w of Nations with regard to this cafe diftinftly. " Ido- " latry," you fay, , " is not punifliable by the, Law " of Nations," Granted: one Nation has no- right- to puniih another Nation for Idolatry j for one Na- tion has no iui-ifdiftion over; another Nation, nor any right to puniih, but vvhat arifes from the right. of felf-prefervation and felf-defence. Jacob there-, fore, as head of a tribe or natioij, had no right tq^ invade aiiother tribe or nation, becaufe they were Idolaters : the Ifraelites would have had no right to, extirpate the Canaanites for Idolatry, unlefs they " Job xxxi, 28. I do not snter into a Critical examination^ of this Text," which Tnany learned men explain otherwife ; ' as' not implying: any; Judicial Pjjiiifliraent. The prefent queftion: proceeds upon the "fenfe given in our Tranflation.; which' feenfs the moft obvious, and therefore is perhaps the moft-pi'o- isable.. | had C 55 ] hc^d been I'mpowered by a fpecial commiflion from God for that piirpofe. ■•'ii Again; "Idolatry," yoa fay, *»is not poni^ -" able by the Law of Natare." This is not quite fo clear. Idolatrjt is a crime againft the Ughc of Natore, and therefore againft the Law of Nature. That the Idolatry in qu'eftion, the antient Heathen Idolatry, was fuch, I prove from St. Paul. •' That ** which may be known of God (fays^ the Apoflle ^) " is manifeft in them, (the Gentiles); for God " hath fhewed it unto them. For the in-?ifible " things of him from the creation of the world are " clearly feen, being underftood by the things that '" ^e piade, even his eternal power and Godhead; " fo that they are without cxcufe : becaufe that, " whep, they kn?w God; they glorified him not as " Gbd";' but' changed the, glory of thp un- " corruptible God into an image made h"ke to cor- " ruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed f' beafts; andcrceping things." And the Analogy betAveen the crime and the punifliment of it, which the Apoftle urges with great force and ek'gance, arifes from this very cdnfid'eration, that their Ido- latry was a crime agal&il the La\t of Nature. God, who' caufeth the wicked " to eat of the fruit of " their' own way, arid' to be filled with their own « devices," punifhed thefe Sinners, fo ftupidly un- difcerning in refpeft to His Nature, with a mind as ftupidly undifceriiing in refpefl: of their, own. As, kRom.i; 1 9 — 23. E 2 ' againft [ ^6 3 againft the light of their reafon, they had changed the glory of Go4 into a lie ; fo, as much againft the fame light, they were given up to belie their own nature: as they unnaturally turned God into a beaft, fo they turned themfelves by unnatural abu- fes into worfe than beaft§. The fame Apoftle ^ .reckons Idolatry, the fame Heathen Idolatry, among the. works of the fleflo \ "Adultery, fornication, un- " cleannefs, lafcivioufnefsji^is/iX^ry and fuch " like." And Mr. Locke ,">, -making the fame enu- meration, which I have here expreffed, from the Apoftle, calls them all together "Immoralities, un- " becoming the name of a Chriftianj and fuch as " ought to be rooted out.'" t fliall add but one au- thority more, upon a point clear enough in itfelf ; and it fliall be one, which I am fure you will allow to be beyond all exception, that is, your own. In this very Volume ", you fpeak of antient B^eathen Idolatry, as a fpecies of Immorality. And I the ra- ther think this to be your real opinion, and true judgment upon the cafe, becaufe you give it by way of example and.ill.uftration, without any immediate view of ferving a caufe ; notwithftanding that juft now, iri the preceding page of the Appendix °, for the fake of your argument, you oppofed Civil Crimes and Immoralities to Idolatry, as of a nature totally different. The Idolatry then iu queftion be- ing an Immorality, and a crime againft the Law of, ' Gal. v; i^, 20. ' -""LetMrcdnceming Toleration, p, 34. Edit. 1765. 410.; ' " Vol. V, p, 265. ' P. 414. 4 " . . • Nature; t 37 3 JsTature ; it fliould feem, that it is punifliable by the Law of Nature, But, that this matter may fland in a ftill clearet iight; I flidH bring it forward, and piirfue it one ftep further. The Law of Nature may be confider- ed as operating either in a State of Nature, or in a State of Givll Society. Idolatry in a State of Na- ture is a crime againft the Law of Nature : but in a State of Nature one man is to another, as one in- dependent nation is to- another ; one man has no right to hurt another, except in the cafe of felf-de- fence ; in the repulfion, the prevention, or the re- 'paratioui' of injuries. The right of executing the Law of Nature, by punilhing c'firties icbmmitted ■againfl it, Which belongs to every man in a State of Nature, cannot be properly exerted in thei:eftrain- ing of criraies, which are indireftly, and by remote cpnfequence' only, detrimental to thp community; for every private perfon catinot be fuppofed to be a proper judge of fuch confequences. Idolatry there- fore, in a'State-of Nature^ though a crime againfl the Law of Nature, inuft yet be left taithejudg' ment of God ; feeing there is no human jurifdidion, which can properly interpofe: to reflraio it. But in a State of Civil Society, which is Tuppofed In this queftion, this 4efe£|: is fupplied : the Civil Law is fqperinduced, and comes in aid of the Na' tural La^v J and puts it in execution in many in- ftances, in which it could not be executed tefore. The Maglftrace becomes "the minifteii' of God, an ' "avenger " avienger to execute wrath upon' every one tliait " doeth evil ;" opon every vice, every immorality, «very crime a,gain{l the Law of Natiii-?, j as far as it may. have a pernicious efFe-i2, Rom, ij 26—32. words ^ords are tl\efe i: " But lie (Lord Bplingbroke) *' Iftiould have confidered, that the LAwaUa]oiig ** diftinguilhes tetween the crimes capable of legal " conv,l(Sionj, and fuch as Ayere infcrutable to all. "' hut Omnrfciencp. The latter God referves for " his own Juqiiifition : but the crime in queftiou "was an ovtrt-aM of Idolatrous Worjhip^ and there-, ** fore came reafonahlj and equitably before the Civil " Tribunal." You indeed niean hcrje the Mofaic Law, and the Civil Tribunal under the Mofaic Go- vernment ; but , the force or your reafoning extends to every Law, and to every Civil Government, up- on the face of the earth, .. I feb,your Lordftiip treats of this matter more at I'arge in another pla-ce ' ; to which, I fuppofe, you •would' here refer us. L have examined it attentive- ly ; but find, as little fatisfaftion there, as you give me here : for your whole reafpning. there is built upon the fame fallacy, with which you begin and, end upoa this fubjeft here; namely, that Idolatrous Worfhip is no more than a mere Speculative Opi- nion. Your, diftinftion of Idolatry into matter of, Cpnfcience:apd matter of Convenience, has no good foundation, ; and is of very little ufe. To the ob- j^e^ioHj that the rights of Confcience are in their nature fuch, that they cannot be furrendered \ and " that HO contraft to give them up can be bind- " ing ;" (an obj,eftion, which ftrongly. afFe£ls your ^ View of Bolingbroke's Phllofophy ; 3d E"dit. p. 187. *_ Ply. Leg. Bpc^ V J Sea. z. :. . / . .J .J.-J " ■ ' pofition. r 4^ 3 ^ofition, tliat Idolatry?' was jtiftly punifliable by the,, Mofaic Law and by no other, and which merits a good abfwer) ; you reply, by affirming it to be " ^, " plain and decijive fafl, that none of all the Idola* « trous' Wbrfliip the Jews ever fell .into, was matter " of Confcience." You call that a plain fad, which is not ^y^if?, biit a mere evapty Jpeculaiion ; and fa far from jS/ii/M, that it is neither at firft. fight pro- bable, nor in its nature capable of proof: yqu take upon you peremptorily to decide' a. qneSHon, which can be decidedhj no one, but God alone; and your lafferting, Without any authority, " that God fore* " knew that the cafe woul'd not happen," is' -only one more large ftride in prefumptiqn. But there is another point, upon which yoii lay a greater ftrefs,- and which therefore Ifhall examine more particu- larly, ' You fay, " that Civil Society mull have. one " particular, diftinft, and appropriated end ; and " that this end can be no other than fecurlty to the " temporal liberty or property of man;" and ' that ' aAy attainable good, that it is accidentally capable 'of producing, is not the legitimate' bufmefs of ' Civil Society.' Allbwing your pofltioti in its full force, it may indeed follow, that the Civil Magif- trate is not under an obligation to punilh every Im'-^ morality ; but it does by no means follow, that he- has not a right to' punilh any but fuch as are direft breaches of the peace, and infringements of liberty or property : for there are many Immoralities, which, tho' they do not immediately affeft liberty or property, yet are inconfiflent with public decen- cy. i 4t J] fey, atid pubKc order, "with the weH-belng and ge* neral'good of :the- Statiej ,;arid therefore; punifl.iat»lc: t>y the Magiftrate. This -Mr. Locke- admits ;t£» whof(? authority you refer us *, .for the principle aboTe;"nsfeMioii6d. • " The affiftance the MagiftrateJs " authcffity' can give to the true religion, Jays he ', *• is in -the fubduipg of L^s, in its being dir^^ed " againft prid^, injuftice, rapine, luxury, t&xid de- " bamhery, and thofe other imiporalaties, vt'hitih " come properly under l^s cognifance, and may be " correfted by pimifhrnents ; and not by the im- " pofing of creeds and ceremonies." Again ^ : " Here then thd Magiftrates afTiftance, is Ayanting : " here they may and oiight to interpofe their powers " and by feverities againfl(^rM»ii?««^, Iqfriyioujhejsi *' and all forts of debauchery ; by a Heady aiidun-^ •*' relaxed punifliraent of all the ways of fraud and -" injuftice,; apd by , their adminiftration, counte- " nance, and example, reduce the irregularities of " fnerCs manners into order, and bring fobriety, f peaceablenefs, and induftry, "and honfelly, into " fafhicosu .This is their proper bpfinefs every " tiphere^ and for this they have a ommiffion from " God, both by the light of nature and reyelatic^." This intefp©firion of the Magiftrate, for the puniih- ment of Immoralities in general, Mr. Locke did northink inoOnfiftent with what he had. bef or?, laid down * ; " that the whole juwfdi. 36. F •, " giftratp ' I 42 I " glftrate readies only to thefe civil ddncerhmentg/* (namely, life, liberty, and property^) " and that " all civil power, right, arid dominion is bounded " and confiiied to the oilly care of promoting thefe " thiilgs.'^ Btit You perfift in urging this general principle, in its litmbft rigour and without limita- tion. « The end of the Civil Conftitution of the " Jews," fay you, " was the fame with all other ; "namely, fecurity to men's temporal liberty and " property." Would you infer, that therefore it could not punifli any immorality, but what was a direft invafion of liberty or property ? Or will yoil wink fo hard, as not to fee immoralities in the old Heathen Idolatry ? But, " the ft^pori of morality ** you fay, " is an adulterate glofs, to juftify the ini- " quitous praftice of punifliing for opinions :" that js, the power of the Magiftrate has been, and may be, abufed ; and therefore it ought not to be exer- dfed at all. " But with regard to the poWer of the Magiflrate, in inforcing feveral dutiesj whether of imperfeft or perfeft obligation, and correfting the evils that arife from the breach of them; and inpuniihing immo* Talities indireftly affefting either private perfbns of the public ; in which there is really fome difficulty frpm the inflate defefts of Civil Society : this mat- t€r we {hall be able to clear up much bptter by having recourfe to the Principles of the Alliance be- tween Church and State; of which Convention, by the way, though io famous, I dare fay, Mr. Locke ne- l ver r 43 ] ver heard a word ; for if he had, he would certainly have had fomething to fay to it. Once upon a time thea, the Patriarchal Church met the Patriarchal State, by appointment: a folemn Congrefs was heldf in due form ; and, after much adroit negotiation, and no fmall political refinement, on one fide and on the other, matters were at lafl adjufted, and a Treaty of Alliance happily concluded between them. The Original Charter, or Record, of this antient Alliance between the Patriarchal Church and State is laid up in the fame Archive with that of the later ^^Uiance between the Chriftian Church and State ; of. which your Lordfhip has given us the hiftory at large : and whoever will but take the pains to exa- mine and collate the two Records, will find the lat- ter to be an exaft Copy or Counterpart of the for- mer. Now, by the Terms of the Alliance, it ap- pears, that the Church has a Coa6tive Power for Reformation of Manners. If it be a/ked, l^ow the Church came by it; it is anfwered, that the Church received this power or jurifdiftion from the State. (See Grants of State to Church ; Article ; m.) The State then was originally poffeffed of this Coa£Hve Power for Reformation of Manners, in as full and ample manner as the Church enjoyed it afterwards; or hbw could the State make a Grant of it to the Church ? Certainly: Why then would the State pari with it j* For fome people ^ n^ay be inclined to think, that the State might as fyell have kept it ftill in her own hands, and never F 2 have r 44 I have made a Grant of it to the Church at all. (ph, but it is much more fitly placed in the hand^' 6f the Church ,- for when the Church hath prepared the fubjeftfor its due application and reception, a Coaftive Power of the Civil kind, intruftdd to the Church, may be appHed to good' purpofe ; but not till then.' How Tour Lerdfliip Would apply this Coaftive Power to good purpofe in the prefen| fyflem of affairs ; I leave to you, or >yhomit may concern, to confider: be that as it may, the Patri- archal Church being as well provided with the fame Coa£tive Power for Reformation of Manners, and having come by it as fairly and honeftly, by gift or loan from the Patriarchal State ; I only pro^ pofe, that the Patriarchal Church flioyld apply it tQ a very good purpofe, namely, for her own Prcfer- yation, ' and for. the fervice of the State, and only fo far as is abfolutely lieceffary for this purpofe. I Would have no application of fire and faggot ; no capital punilhment ; no propagating of eftablifhed Religion by force; no impofmg of modes of feith, opinions, or ceremonies ; ra,ther the prevention than the punilhment of crimes, nor even fo much the Reformation of Manners as the Ptefervation of them in their prefent ftate of purity. In fliort, I would have hpr employ her power only in hinder- ing the importation of foreign Immoralities; par- ticularly in excluding a fpeciesr of Idolatry, not duly highly immoral in itfelf, but moreover attended with ' a train of the groffeft impurities, and' the'moft' abominably r 45 }: abon^inahle vices, that ever . difgraced hiimao nav mre : 'vvhiclj, if qnce admitted, would tptally dcr itroy the .(aid Patriarchal Church, and fpread like? wife a m,oral corruption through the, Patriarchal State; which no Coaftive Power whatsoever, in whatever hands it plight be placed, would after-, wards be- able to eradicate. •; . - ' Before I have done witli your Lord^hljp's argu- mentation, in the place'' above- men tion'd; I can- not help remarking, that, while You are pleading for 'Toleration, you treat aPerfon 1 of eminent cha- rafter and abilities with avowed Contempt, as a dijjentlng preacher ; and while you treat his reafoning as falfe, fallacious, and abfurd, you give him anj- pie xevenge in your own. Having confidered the queftion, in genera^ of the Patriarchs right of reftraining the Idolatry of their times; I fhall take a fhort view of it with re- gard to the particular circumftances attending it in the caffe of th6 Patriarch Abraham, which was what i" more efpecially infilled upon. He came out from bis own Idolatrous nation, by the fpecial call of * Div. Leg. Book v, Seft. z. y Dr. FosTE R ; of whom thus Pope : " Let modeft Fofter, if he will-, excel " Ten Metropolitans in preaching well. /Vnd thus his Commentator on the place : '-' This confirms an " obfervation which Mc. Hobbes made long ago. That there be "•very fenu B'Jhops that aB a Sermon fo tuell, as divers Pres- ''byte^ians and fanatic PreAchers can do. Hift. of '^^Civ.Wars, p.,62. ScRiBL." Gpd ; [ 4^ ] God; for this great end of his providence, that he might become the head and father of a nation which ■yvas to be kept feparate from all others, in order to maintain the pure worfliip of God, in oppofition to Idolatry then almof): univerfally prevailing. He fettled in jhe Southern parts of Paleftine, where he was furrounded with Idolatrous nations; on one fide, the Egyptians ; on another, the Chaldeans ; on a third, and neareft of all, th? Canaanites ; of whofe monftrous abominations, the concomitants and the effefts of their upnatural worfhip, we canr not read withovit aftqnifliment : part of his own Iioufehold perhaps flill retaining a tinfture of their former fuperftitions; and difpofed to retqrn, po thd firft opportunity, to , their native Religion, from which they might have been unwillingly drawn; We^now thcftrong propenfity to Idolatrous prac- ticesi which always poffeffed his defcendants, and which no reftraints could overcome ; his houfehold were now placed in more dangerous circumftance?, than his defcendants ever were afterwards, ■ypitl^ fewer checks to reftrain, or guards tp defend them. Temptations pf every kind, prejudice, authority, example, fafhion, fenfual incitements, were ready at hand on every fide to lay hold on them ; and, if left to themfelves, both the general corruption, and particular deluCon of the age, would have born them down, as with a ftrong tide, to the abyfs, frpm which they' had fo lately emerged. In thefe circumftances, would Abraham have fulfilled hi^ engagemenu with God, woul4 he haye performed the -[ 47 ] the pecdrai" Duty, mcumbent on hira by the charge of the Almighty; which was, " ^ to walk before " him, and to be perfect ;" and " to command « his children after him, that they Ihould keep the " Way of the Lord :" if he had connived at any . open attempt to fet up the worfliip of Falfe Gods among his people? when the leaft contagion would have run through the whole community ; when Idolatry, with all its concomitant; abominations, if once permitted, would foon have univerfally pre- vailed; and there would have been but one ftep between the free Toleration and the perfeft Efta- bliihment of it. It is agreed among the mofl: ftrenuous Advocates of Religious Liberty, that Toleration has its prd- per bounds; and that there are opinions, as well as praftices, which in a well regulated free State ought not to be tolerated. I flaall not attempt to define thefe limits; nor indeed do I think it poffible precifely to mark the very point, to which the power of the Civil Magiftrate may in every cafe of ihis nature be allowed to extend. It has been done in fome inftances by Writers of the firft authority on this fubjeift. Mr. Locke * excludes from the be- *Gen. xviii i : xviii, ig. The force of the expreffion in the former of thefe places, " Be thou perfed^," may be il- luftrated hy comparing it with Deut. xviii, 1 3 : where, after a charge to the Ifraelites not to learn the abominations of thofe nations, whom God had call out before them, it is immediately ^ddetl, "Thou ftialt be perfect (or entire) with the Lord *'thyQod.", * Letter concerning Toleration, p. £». &c. 4to« nefit i» ' hefit ti-f Toleration, all thofe " who hold Opini'dng *' contrary to human fbcietyj fuch as, that FaitTi *• is not to be kept with Heretics, ahd that Dotai- " nidri is founded in Grace ; thofe who deliver *' theinfHTes up to th^ proteftion and fetvice of ''another Pritice, by acknowledging a foreign jd " rifdiftiori ; and who deny the beiiig of a God. To thefe inftances Bifliop Ellys, in' fc^ excellent TfaQs; 6ti Spiritual Liberty ^, adds> that . *' thefts " who' hold errors direftly tending to weaken -and " fiibvert'atiy civil ftate; 'thofe, who maintain, that " Oaths are ufilawful to be taken on any Occafion; " that all, even defenfive War, ahd the bearing *' aniy !^I^gifl;racy, are things inconfiftent with the ** duty of a Chfiftian j that fuch perfons have not; " ftri^y-fp£aking, any right to Toleration: with •* a geherai exception likewife of errors in religiort, " whiclt jtiatiirally tefid to diftatb- the Civil -Stat^, " and which are hurtful anddetrimcntai to it." I ihall beg- leavp to add ^Ifo one or two examples, whicl^ X think rtiayjuftly be reckoned of this latter kind: ajjd;! hope it wiJljUpt offend your Lord(hip*5 moderation. If I exclude- from Toleration^ alJ thofe, who l^ajk^'praftices Ihackingta humanity,.? and, de- ftruftive of the human race itfelf, parts of their religious worlhip ; fuch " asf -mufderSj' proflitutiOns, . and impurities of all kinds ; the horrid facrifices of Moloebj in which pai*eHts offered Up their own children, and burnt them alive to -appeafe the rdol|; the obfcene rites- of Baal-poer, in which the moft fliamelefs [ 4^ .3 fiiamelefs proftitutidns Were pertnitted and:,encou- raged at leaft^ if riot neceffarily required. . Thefe, are fpecimens of the Idolatry, which; prevailed, bcfoife .the time of Mofes, in Canaan = and the Beigbbpuring countries ;. aiid which I fupppfe all 5Qyerei^ns and Heads of Tribes, wprfliippers g^ the true God, in thofe times, did reftrain; and had a right to, reftrain. Iconceivej that their duty to Gqdjai\d to their people demanded of them, that they (houki qppofe and -hinder the introduftipn of all fuch" j^bonainations ; and fhould punifli all thofe of their ;.dependeats,. who ihpuld attempt to intro-r duce th.em. . » I fliall conclude this fubjeft by prppofing the fen- tinients of another celebrated Authojr uppn it, one of kn.Qjyn candour and moderation, as well as great, judgnieQt, the very learned J. Albertus Fabricius, "^ LeViOcviii ; 21 and ^4. Deut. xviii; 16 and iz. Niim^ XXV : -and xxxi; 16, 16. See alfo Deut. xxiii. 17; where fi^lp, n{J^*Tp, properly a holy or confecrated perfpn.one fepa- rated to a religious purpofe, -fignifies a Proftitute of either fex i not becaufe Hebrew words have contradidory . fenfes, but be- Canfe in Canaan and the neighbouring nations, before the time of Mofes, Profiitution made a part of their Idolatrous Worlhip. If it be faidj'that there is no particular mention in Job of thefe abon), but of the wotfhip of the Sun and Moon only ; I obferve,ythat Mpfes has in the very fame manner exprefled Idojatry ip general, by the principal and leading fpecies of it, the- Worfliip oT the Sun and Moon', and of the Hoft bf Heaven : and this hejias done even in the enadting claufe of the Law, which inflidls "capital punifhment oil ' the crime ' of Idolat'ry. Deuf. ayii; 2 — 5, As to the horrid rite of Human Sacrifices ; ihe Author of Di-vine Legation holds, tha^ it prevailed among the Idolatrous nations bota of @haldeaand of Canaan in the time of Abraham. See Div. Leg. Vol. v; p. 252, 253. " G ' Your - 'I so 1 Your LdrdMp will be pleafed to note, itiai t iHi not make myfetf atifwerable for the juftnefs of thefei fentiments : for I am of opinion, that no general poGtiori* can well be laid down upon this delicate fubjeft, which may not, in their application to par-* ticular cafes, be liable to objeftions. However^ this exc'eUeut Perfon in his philological work on the Propagation of the Gofpel, having fet forth thtf arguments and teftimonies of ahtieilt authors in be- half of Toleration, and given an account of the feverat modern writers on the fubjisft, adds his owa judgment on the limits of Toleration, as follows *. ' " Ne quis autem inferat per hujufmodi sequani- " mitatis veluti mollitiem quibUflibet fdnteftrara " aperiri vefanis erroribus, non fovendis modo, fe^ " profitendis etiam palam & propagandis, tiirban- " daeqUe ecclefise, & ipfi etiam civili Keip. quiets " convellenda; : age limites toleraBitias emnis -pet " tria hascce capita, divinarum literarum fattseijue " rationis luce prseeunte, circumfcribamus. " I. Everfores religionis pmnis, hancque irreli-f, "giofitatem fuam profeffos, & aliis ut f^eum fiim^ " liter infaniant au£ix)res, non mpdo licet, fed de* " cet & o^ortet etiam, reprimere, & jubere procidl " effe ; nifi grayiorem animadverfionem, etiam in« " folentia fua (ibi in caput contraxerint.— — — — " 11. Errorura, qtios peflilehtes & falutr civium '' fuorum noxios effe Princeps vel MagiftratUs ju- ^ J. A. Fabricii Lux Salutaris Evangelii toti ofbi exorlens ; P-507- " dxcant. C SI 1 ** dicant, diffeminationem & propagationem in di* f tione fua, ne dum fcditiofa dogmata, .impedirCi " ejofque auftores, poft admonitionem obftinatosi " exilio afficcre, & jure polfutit, & ex officii & *' prudentise legibus funt obftriftil Poffunt jure id * q'uidem, cum Patri-familias etiam integrum fit *• & inCiimbat omnibus modis impedire, ne fe in- " vito doftrina, ijuam noxiam effe non dubitati *' liberis fuis aut familise inculcetur : officii auteni " hoc ab mis expofcit ratio, quia non minor Prin- " cipis & Magiftratuum in fubditos, quam bpni " Patris-familias in liberos familiamqije amor, noii " minor cura falutis debet effe : prudentia denique " ideni ab ,iifdem requirit, quoniam negleftum " iftpd in temp6re & in ipfis principiis officium, " quantis deinde turaultibus, periculis, & faepe " fortunis ac vita ipfa, vel omnium rerum con- " verfipne, Imperantibus conftiterit, hiftoriarum " mpnumenta paffim loquuntur. « ni. Si tacere vel emigrare jubeantur qui noxi- * OS errores diffeminare geftiunt, non poffunt ilK ■*' de injuria tel p6rfecutiohe conqueri; nam hoc * ipfo nemo ad religionem contra aninji fententianj " cogltur." ^— But your Lordfhip, by one parting ftrokc of your pen,, has rdemoliftied all our reafoniijg at once ; .which proceeded upon a fuppofition, that there was really fudi a thing formerly as Patriarchal Govern- mcHt. You fet out with afferting, that the Patri- Q 3 archs C 5? 7 ai'chs were not Civil Magiftrates, becaiife tliey Were, riot Kings. I was fomewhat furprized, both at the affertion, and the reafon bywhich it was fuppprted. You now repeat your affertion in, rather flronger terms ; you fay, " they were as much "Gods as " Kings." A Petty-Conflable, cqnfidered as . a perfpn in authority, is certajnly much more |ike a King, than like a God : therefore you muft niean, that the Patriarchs had no authority at alj, not eveq of the loweft kind ; and that Patriarchal Govern- ment according to the common fyftem, like moft other common fyflems, is all a mere Chimera. You do not vouchfafe to favour us with your reafons. I fuppofei they may be referved for another pcca- fion. I perceive your Loi'dlhip has for fomfc time born no good will to thefe old Patriarchs ; you have determined to allow them " no rights, either rela^ " tive to, or connefted with, ihofe of a Civil " kind^." You are afraid, it feems, left. Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarch, long fmce dead and forgotten, •fhould come again' and haunt us; and you think, it .'would. be making furer work, to annihilate the per- :ibri himfelf, both body afld foul, before-hand, than :to ftay to lay theGhofl of him, when he may ap- pear. Being under no fuch apprehenfions myf^lf, I fliall wait with patience, till you fliall be pleafed to fatisfy us. That Idolatry was the fpecific crime for which Sodoni was deftroyed, and that there' ne- ver Was ainy fiich thing as Patriarchal Goverrjment, will ferve as pretty fubjefts to furriifli two new Epi-^ « 'View of Bolingbrojke's Philofophy; p. 303. ■■ " ' ■ fodeg [ S3 1 fodes 'inDhhie Legation. Youi: Ldfdfliip will eafily intrpiduce them in any given place, and extend them to any given length, as may be moft convenient : and, I fuppofe, we may expeft them, when you givs us the Firft Part alfo o£ Divine Legation, a New Edition in Three Volumes. So much for the principal, and argumentative, part of the Appendix. When I called it Sophif-j try; I paid a compliment to much the greatell part of it, wl^ich it by no means deferyed. Sophiflry implies addrefs, and management, and artifice ; fomething fpecious, plaufibk, and impoiing j fome femblance, colour, or fliadpw of arguments even to this paltry merit Your argumentation has not the leafl pretenfionsj it is fuch argumentatiqq, as never was produced by any one bred uj> in thefrin' (.ifles ofLoGi'c, I proceed in the Second place to the Buffoonery of your Lordlhip's Appendix ; difplayed in two cu- rious paragraphs, in which you are difpofed to be very witty and ludicrous. The firft fets put with a fort of argumentation, which I do not well know whether we are to take as meant in earneft or in jeft. You amend the Candid Examiner's queftion by infertlng a new claufe j and you do it in forai, as a matter of 'great importance, thus: "The Ex- " aminer fays. Where was Idolatry ever punijhed by -" the Magijlrate, but under the JewiJhOeconomy? A "queftion equivalent to this:— "Where was Ido- "iatry C 54 I " latry pnniSied by the Civil Magiftrate on the effa'^ " hBfio&i Laws of the State, but in Judea ?" I can- not well conceive what the foxCe and intent of this ad^tto^i enthe'eflabliJbed'Ldwef'the State, may be ; HQleis you mean to put me to an infuperable difSculty, by challenging me to produce from the Patriarchal Code the enafting claufe, and the very words of the Law, by virtue of which Idolatry was to be punifhed by the Magiftrate. Well then, my Lord, to give you all the fatisfaftion in my power; tie pieafed to turn to Statut. Noach. cap. ili, in the Patriarchal Statute Book iptitl^d m: '^3 T\rit2> which yoa may find in the Gemara Babylpnica, ad Tit. Sanhedrim, cap. vii, fol. s^6,. I muft note how- ever, that this Chapter, which I quote^as Cap. iif, isCap. », in fome other copies : the Title of it i^ mt mi3V Sy, Offtrange Worjhip, or Idolatry. In- deed, my Lord, the Pmcepta Neachidarum have been-conCdered by the Learned, not ^s altogether an idle dream of the Rabbins, but as a fubjeft of foKie importance; being agreeable to floly Scri- pture, and in other refpe^s mach better founded than naoft that are accounted Traditionary doQrines. The very learned Selden has thought it worth while to treat of them at large ig a confiderable Work ^, of which they make the principal fubjeft: and it is ihg troiverfal opinion of the Jewilh Lawyers of / all ,^ges, derived perhaps chiefly from this Tradition, that Idolatry was punilhed under the Patriarchs, ' De Jure Natutali &• Geniiam, juxta Difeiplinam Hebrae- ciuin,, - And t 55 i And they, agrfeeable to their biiirn La#, malsaUt » Capital Crime. Their dedfidn on the poiati as ex- preffed iii the Gemara Babylonka, ibid, is this : " Ob violatioftem alicujus e feptem Pr^eeptis Noa-* **:ichidaruHa morte afficitur*|, De unifco (fc^honjiT * ddio^ apette effatus eft Deais ipfe* At(|iie ea- "defii ratio eft cunftorunii".- zoi , , J \- vV. .. You go on in ithe fame ;way ; and prpv? that I " fail in my firft^oin*, wWch is, finding oilt Ci^il " Magiftrates" afijong thefe Patriarchs. Your ar- gument is really a pleafmg one ; in propet form it ftands thus': All Ginil Magiftrates are Kings -, but the PatriajTchs were not Kings; therefore the Patri- archs were not Civil Magiftrates, The pcoof of the Major, I pfefume, can be no other than this: AH Kings are Civil Magiftrates ; therefore ail Civil Magiftrates are- Kings : which, according to the Old Canons of -Logic, is what, I think, we ufed to C2\\ z. Falfe GonverfioTt'. But, my Lord, though one ihould grants that real power neceffajrily de- pended on nominal title, and was always exaftly prog^ortionable to it ; will not the title kfelfof Pa-^ trior ch be iaflicjent for pay purpofe .'' Tho' Job and Abraham were not Kings; yet might they not be really and effectually Rulers of Tribes ? And tho' the celebrated Mr. Shjnkin was ntit King; ttor fo mtich as Prince of Wales ; yet might he not be the WorfliipfuJ !Davyth. ap SbiQkiH, Efii; one. of the Juftices of the Quorum for the Coutity of Mbnt-: gomery? Arujyet, if I h?t4 ataU ap.prefeieuded.Jt . - to [ 5'^ J lt> beiieceffary; I believe, J could have 6Stre& fome proof, that; thefe Patriarchs' were Kings. AS' thm; Abraham is called in the Book of ;GenefisS' OTIVn N'tyj. Now as thellEfeREw Verity, -with-' cut the Greek Tranflation df the-SfeveMty, would' bfe-'at tjiis day, accoi-ding tb ybur Lordfhip; a mere arbitrary Cipher; for ybur fatisfaaidn, I muft hays' recourfe to them : and they decipher tl^e words thus : BAXlAETg TO-«^*©£8;- So there' is at '-once both Divine! Righti'and Regal Tide. Thefe fame iiifal- lible Greek -Tranflators (I hope they are fuchj or we are, it feems^ ^ in a fad condition with regard to our Bible) have added'^O the end of the book of Job a iiote of their own; whifch moft of the Fa- thers; with Origeii a^ their head, held to be a por- tion of authentic Scriptu^. Part of it is a§ follows : Ob'toi bI BASIAEIS oj_BAZlAET5:ANtiE2' zv EJwf*, r,g Xa.'i avrog [iwS] H P H B- p^hoscg'-.zypccro^ BaA«)c" * JAlric iJe- BflsA-asjt', IwSwS o ytaXs/Asvog I fl B. ' - Oi o£ iTi&oi/Tff OTpof'" osuToi/ q>iXoif EAI#A'E twi/ -Htrau lywi*)' QaifAo^wv B A 2 1 A E r S, ' Bak^tsi? o l'oivX«K^v TTPAN- IsroS, -Xiiqixp o'MtMim BASIAETi:. Andfo here is for you,^ my Lord, not only King' Job, but King Eliphaz, ' King ■Bildad, and King Zophar ^: And 3c:i what 4 Chap; xxiii, 6: "^ Since I wrote the above, I have obferved that the Aythor bi Dl'vine Legation (Voi. v, p. ,85.) has paught ,at this Addfr dition of the Se\>enty to the book of J>ob, and ^reffed it into his fervice. ?' But, what is ftili.. of more moment, ; (fays he) is a " paragraph, at the end of th^ Septuagint tranflati'on of , the book !"of-Job;; Which .ihakes of thefe three friends, two- Kings and "a Tyrant." [ 57 1 what -if I .flipujd prove to you ftill further, xk^J. Job's Wife was a ^eeen f whether Queen Dinah", as the Jewilh ; or C)ueen Rhama, as the Moham- medan Doftors call her ; I will not pretend to de- termine. But fome of the Fathers', as they infift upon Job's being really a King, fo they mention his Wife, with equal title of dignity, as a Queen; Though your Lordflii'p is apt to be a little fevere- upon the Ladies, when they come in your way ; yet I am perfuaded," had you been aware of thisi you would have treated Her Idumean Majefty with a httle more rcfpeft ^. ) But after all, T neither the'n was, nor am at pre- fent, under any fort of neceffity of proving thefe Patriarchs to be Kings. I never called them fo. You think you~ are mighty ^itty upon me with King *• a Tyrant." In truth, it may be eafily of more moment thaiv the reft of the arguments, by which he drives his parallel be- tween the Three friends of Job, and Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Servant the Ammonite, and Gejhem the Arabian : but of what moment it is, or how it is in the leaft to his pur- pofe, I do not fee. If he means, that the Three Friends, be- , caufe they were fvjo Kings and a Tyrant, do therefore more properly reprefent in his Drama two No-Kings and a Sia've ; this, 1 muft own, is quite above my comprehenfion. Note, that "THy ( 5 &A05, LXX.) may be rendered a Sla^ve (in Nehem. ii, 10) with at leaft as much propriety, as Tt/fawo; (in the other place) is rendered a Tyrant. ' n^amrts x«i hitr^tq ii BA2IAI2 o's^6fw. BafiL in Catena. Grscc. Pati. in Job. colledlore Niceta. Lend. 1637, p. S9. To^airvi Ti; ccvrm ytyoviv iynarahet^in;, ui xai 1'»!>' BASIAIAA r'o« Kura yvvouKm. QtHiueti im fna-Su Olympiodorus, ibid. p. 605. ^ See Div. Leg. Book vi, Se£t, 2. ,*H " '"" " Mekhifedec, Ic [ 58 3 Melchifedec, and King Shinkiri. On me your jees glances ajlope; but it lights full upon Mofes and St. Paul. Your Monarch, though dr opt from the clouds, yet not of the true fiamp, by hereditary right ; your ludicrous interpretation, of the Tythes taken from Abraham into fines for Nonconformity, and the Blef- Jing into a Spiritual-Court Abfolution ; your fneer upon the original Scriptures of the Old Teftament under the title of the Hebrew Verity, " the " charafteriftic phrafe with an Ironical Emphafis, " which is your conltant formula," when yqu Tpeak of the Hebrew Scriptures ; your infmuation, that even the fimple terms 1 ufed in the Hebrew Verity are ambiguous VAs for his LordfliipTs Wit here upon Bleffing and Gurjing, let thofe mike any thing of it, that can ; I profefs, it is ■ paft my comprehenfion : but his Griticifm I fliall confider. " The " Hebrew word to hlefs fignifies likewife to cur/e:" i. e. to curfe, as in a folemn execration uttered by a Prieft; for that is the fenfe, which his Lordfhip's meaning, if he has any, requires in this place. But he will find no example of tBe word "l^i) in which it can be fappofed to be ufed in that fenfe; for wliich the Hebrew, though the moft barren (as he fays) of all languages, and though the idea is riot of the moft frequent, occurrence, has yet four or five other fynony- mous terms, n^N/IIK, i^pj, nip, 77p- And I will add, that the word "1^^ never does fjgnify to curfe at all. The feemingly difcordant fenles of this word have been long ago perfeftly well recoticiled. It fignifies properly to blefs ; or, which was originally the fame thing, to fay to a perfon fare you 'Well, or God he nuith you. But as we bid fare'well to a perfon, when we part with him as well with an ill, as with a good, difpofiticn towards him ; to bid fareivell to any one often figniiies to relinquifn, and to dcfert him, with a dciign of having nothing more to do with him. And this way of fpeaking, I believe, prevails in all tlie languages in , the v.0fld. It win be fufficknt to illuftrate it by a few examples C 59 3 imbigUous and contradiftory : all this has nbtbitig to do with mei nor has it the leaft relation to the fobjefi, from the Latiri^ " Varro in libris t/)giftoricis dicit, liiit . *• mortuis falye et vkle diet, nan qU6d valere aut falyj efle paf- "Jint, fid fuod._ ah, his recedimtts, eoi aunquam •vifitri. Hinc " ortum eft, ut etiam maledifti fignificationem in'terdum «> " Jeat obcineat ; ut Terentius : •bale'ant, qui inter nes difcidiuM V 'volunt : hoc eft, ita a nobis recedant, ut nunquam ad nof- " trum revertantur afpefium. Ergo tutti indrtuo dicitur " vaTe, rioti etymdlbgia confiderarida eft, fed confufetudo ; " quod nijllis wale dicitnus nifi a quibus recediftus," Ser- wus ad Virg. Ma. XI, 97. " Fi-vite', Syliie. Valete : non '' eniiii bene optaiitis eft, fed renunciands." Id. ad Eclog. viii, 58., Tbus too, a. man may be faid to h\A farewell to God; when he deierts him, and will ferve and acfiribwledge him no longer. " Si maxime talis eft Deus, ut nulla gratia, " nulla hoiiiinum Caritafe teneattir ; 'ualeat" Gicero de Nat. Dedr. lib i. And thus the Poet to his obfcehe Deity : *' VaU; Priape } debed tibi nihil : " Jacebis inter arva fqiialidiis iitil." TlBULL. Iv, iS. i t- . . , _ „ . . Now ^l"!^ can in no other way fignify malediSum, than 'bale does according to the glofs of Servius ; which fiirely is not the. proper interpretation ., of it. Naboth might apoftatize from Go(l> and throw oiF his allegiance to the Kingi a!nd Job's Sons niiglit renounce God fecretly ip, their hearts, and Job himfelf openly ; without any thing like a Curfe implied in aiiy of tbefe cafes. • l^he only place remaining, in which the ^ord has been j^ndered to curfe, is Job ii, ,9; whfch the Author of Di'vini Legation thus explains. " Cu^'God, barech, benedic, ma' "ledic: here rightly tranflated curfe :—— and iit, that is, " ofter violence to yourfelf." I apprehend, not rightly iranflated in the. former part, nor rightly explained in the latter. Cur^ God! {hockiag and improbable, whatever w9 may think of Job's Wifq. Why not iJeJi God", in the obvloa^ fefife of the, word? ]lS)i, and die, give up the, ghoft; fat to exprefs^ HI/ yourfelf, I apprehend, it ought have beeq Jimarin- " Then faid his Wife unto him, Doft thou ftill "retain thine integrity? Blefs dod, and die!" That is, H z Thou fubjeft. It Is all far-fetched conceit, and forced pleafantry; vord of wit, of meaning, af commoft decency, of common fenfe : it is low banter, and -illiberal burlefque, upon the Prophet, the Apoftle, and the Holy Scriptures. ' It is really to be la- ' mented ™, when we fee a Gentleman and a Scho- ' lar join the fmall-dealers in fecond-hand Ridicule, .• and with afFefted wit and real profanenefs, mere- * ly for the fake of exerting his little talent* of ,' drollery, treat the Holy Scripture as cavalierly, • as ever did Collins or Tindal, Lords Shaftesbury, ;' or Bolingbroke.' But when we fee You, my Thou feeft now what recqmpenfe thou receiveft for thy virtae and piety,, at the hand* of Gpd ; Go, ferve God, and perifh for thy pains ! To this interpretation Le Clerc {on the place) has aptly applied a •paflage of Ovid, expreffing the fame fentiment much in the fame manner ;. " Vive plus ; morjere' plus : cole facra ; colentem " Mors gravis a templis in cava bufta trahet." To this Irony Job thus replies : " Thou talkeft like, one of '' the foolifli women," in queftioning the juftice of God's difpeniations. " What, fliall we receive good at the hand of "God, and fliall we nbt receive evil ? In all this (adds the Author) Job did not fm. with his lips." In this trial likewife, as in the former, Job preftrved' his conftancy and moderation, and exprefled himfelf rightly and properly with regard to 'GodV juftice : though in the next trial, that of the provocation of his' £]riends, charging him with hypocrify and the greateft crimes, he' did not fupport himfelf with equal firmnefs of temper, hor keep fo ilrift a ga^rd uponhis lips. In this fenfe of the paflage. Job's r^ply is a direft anfwer to his Wife's fpe'ech : and the whole has a relation to the Queftion agitated at large in the Poem, Whether good and evil are atprefent difpenfed by Providence according to' t|ie_merits and demerits of men j and very properly prepares the way for the great debate on that Queftion. .' ' « See Doftrine of Grace ; p..309^. Lord, [ 6i ] Lord, a Clergyman, and — ■ but I for- bear, in regard to your rajik and charafter : it were well, if You had a proper regard to them Your- felf. From Buffoonery to Scurrility is an eafy tranfi- tion • which brings me, Thirdly, to the Scurrilous part of your Lordflii'p's Appendix. You are j-'eafed to reprefent me as a Zealot and a Bigot, a Propagator of the doftrine of Reftraint and Perfccution in matters of Religion, and one that has not been bred up in the Principles of To- leration. Pray, my Lord, unde petituni Hoe in me jacis ? You infer it as the cpnfequence of an argument, which I have occafionally ufed. Is this a candid, or a fair inference i" If, even upon your own principle, that the groffefl: Aft of Idolatrous Worflaip is no more than a mere Speculative Opi- nion, I had held, that it was neverthelefs the Duty of the Patriarchs, a Duty arifmg from their pecu- liar enagements with God, and from their parti^ cirlar fituation and circumftances, which I exprefsly infifted on, to reftrain Idolatry ; would it fairly be inferred, that I am an enemy to Toleration in ge- neral, and by habit and principle of an inquifitorial and perfecuting fpirit .'* Even in this cafe, the infer- ence would have been ungenerous and invidious : but as it is, it arifes from your own Sophiftry, and not from my Argument ; from which, however you might prefs and torture it for bad colifequenees, you might as well have, concluded, that I was a Jew, je^, of a Mahometan, as an Intolerant and a Pei"- fecutor. Or have you any other reafons for fixirrg thefe principles upon me ? Have you obferved any" thing in my actions, or converfation, that warrants the imputation? As it happens, Ihave never omit- ted any opportunity, that fairly offered itfelf, of bearing my teftimohy againfl thefe very principles ; and of expreffmg my abhorrence of them, both ia private and in public. Tho' I Caiindt fuppofe, that your Lordfhip ever condefcended to look into what I have publifhed ; except that once you dipped up and down in my Leftufes for offenfive paffage?, which you could neither find nor make : yet me- thinks you might have recdllefted, vsrhat I had writ- ten to yourfelf in private. Why then am I brand- ed, as an intolerant Zealot? And Ton, my Lord, is it You of all men living, that ftand forth td accufe another of Intolerance of Opinions ! •But the Abufe is not merely Perforial : it goes further ; it extends even to the Place of my Edu* cation. " But the learned Profejfor, who has been " hardily brought up in the keen Atmofphere of « WHOLESOME SEVERITIES, and early taught to « diftinguifli between de fa^o and dejure " Pray, my Lord, what is it to the purpofe, where I have been brought up ? You charge me with Principles of Intolerance, adding a gentle infinua- tion alfo of Difaffeftion to the Prefeiit Royal Family and Government: you infer thefe Principles, it feems, from the Place of my Education. Is this. 2 a neceffa- [ «3 3 . a neceflfery confequence ? Is it even a fair coticlu': fion? May not one have had the good fenfe, or thp good fortune, to have avoided, or to have gotten the better of, the ordinary prejudices of Education? Why then fliould you think, that I muft ftill neceC- farily labour under the bad influence of an Atmo- fphef e, which I happened tp breathe in my youth ? If I am not aftually chargeable with fuch Prin- ciples now ; furely it is rather matter of com- mendation to have efcaped, or to have fliaken off, a vice, to which you think I was unhappily expofed. To have made a proper ufe of the advantages of a good education, is a juftpraife; but to have over- come the difadvantages of a bad one, is a much greater. In fhort, my Lord, I cannot but think, that this inquifition concerning my Education is quite befide the purpofe. Had I not your Lord- ihip's example to juftify rae, I ihould think it a piece of extrepie impertinence to inquire, where You were bred; though one might juftly plead, in excufe for it, a natural curiofity to know where and how fuch a Phenomenon was produced. It is commonly faid, that your Lordfhip's Education was of that particular kind, concerning which it is a remark of that great judge of men and manners. Lord Clarendon, (on whom You have therefore \yith a wonderful happinefs of allufion, juftnefs of application, and elegance of expj-effion, conferred "the unrivaled title " of the Chancellor of Human " A Critical and Philofophical Enquiry into the Caufes of Pro digies and Miracles, as related by HiltoHans ; p.' 6i. "Neiturt,^') [ 64 ] "Nature") that it peculiarly difpofes men to • be Proud, Infolent, and Pragraatical °. Now, my Lord, as You have in your whole' behaviour, and in all your writings, remarkably diftinguiihed your- ■felf by your humility, lenity, meekneft, forbear- ance, candour, humanity, civility, decency, good •manners, good temper, moderation with regard to the opinions of others, and a modefl diffidence of your own ; this unpromifing circumftance of your ^Education is fo far from being a difgrace to Yoii, that it highly redounds to your praife. ; But, I am wholly precluded from all claim to fuch merit: on the contrary, it is well for me, if J can acquit myfelf of a charge that lies hard upon me; theJburthen of being refponfible for the great ■advantages^, which I enjoyed.. For, my Lord, I Vvas educated in the University of Oxfora. I enjoyed all the advantages' both public and pri- vate, which that famous Seat of Learniug fo large- ly affords. I fpeiit many happy years in that lUtifT trious Society, in a well-regulated courfe of ufeful difcipline and ftudies, and in the agreeable and imt ■proving commerce of Gentlemen and of Scholars : ° "Colonel Harrifon was thefon of a butcher near Nantwich " in Che(hire» and had been bred up in the place of a Clerk " under a Lawyer of good account in thofe parts ; which kind of " Education introduces men into the language and praftice of " bufinefs; and, if it be not refifted by the great ingenuity of the " perfon, inclines young men to more Pride, than any other kind " of breeding; and difpofes them to be Pragmatical apd Infolent." Clarendon's Hillory ; Vol. iii, p. 246 : 8vo. m f «5 1 in i Society wh^re emalation 'wirhbnt enVy, arii- bition without jealdafy, contention without ahimd- fity, incited indtiftryj and awakened genius ; where a liberal purftiit of knowledge, and a generbus free- dom of thought, %vsts raifed, encouraged, and ptifli- ed forward, by example, by cdiiSmfcildation, and by acMthority. I breathed the fame Atniofphere; that the Hookers, the ChilIingworths, and the Locke s, had breathed befdre i whbfe benevo- Jefice arid humanity were as extenfive as their vafl genius and their fcompreherifivfe knowledge; who always treated their adverfaries with civility and re- fpeft: who made candour, moderation, and liberal judgme'rit, as much the rule and law^i as the fubje^t of their difcourfe ; who did not amijfe their Readers with empty declamatiops and fine-fpun theories of Toleration^ whilfe they were themfeltes agitated with a ftirious Inquifitorial fpirit, feizing every one they cotfld lay hold ori, fdr pt-efamitrg to diffeiit from them in matters the ntoft indiiFerent, and drag- ging them through the fiery Ordeal of abufive Con- troterfy. And do yota reproach jne with thy edu- cation in This Place, and with iny rq:^lation to This ftiofl; refpeftable Body ; which I fhall always efteem my greatefl; advantage, and iriy higheft honour ? This, my Lord, . totild not be your defigti. The ftroke was not principally aimed at me ; your de- fign was, by a farrf etched conceit, tc ftrike through me at the Univerfity of Oxford ; a,nd to re* fleft on that eminent Seat of Learning, as a Nur- fery of bigotry, intolerance, perfecution, and dif- .'_ s I loyalty. [ 66 ] loyalty. I fliall not trouble myfelf to inquire into the grounds and reafons, which you may pretend for this " iniquitous and fcurrilous Refleftion on " fo illuftrious a Body :" the real motives of your Panegyric and Satire are not to be fought in the merits or demerits of the particular fubjefts of them; but in times, circumftances, and private biflory ; by which, it is well known, they are con- ,ftantly regulated, and with which they always vary. You fet out witTi favourable thoughts aiid high notions of the Univerfity of Oxford : and in one of your firft literary performances, at a time when your panegyric was not certainly better applied than it might have been now, you no fooner touched upon the fubjeft, than you took fire at the bright idea : rapt in the fpirit of prophetic enthufiafm, your Mufa Pedejiris immediately got on horfeback, and mounted on herPegafus away fhe.went in this high prancing ftylcj " majorque videri " Nee mortale fonaris :" " Methinksl fee her* like the mighty. Eagle, " renewing her immortal Touth, and purging " her opening Sight at th' unobftrufted Beams " of our benign Meridian Sun ; which feme " pretend to fay had been dazled and abufed " by an inglorious- peftilential Meteor; " while th' ill-aifefted Birds of Night would with [their envious Hootings, " prpgnoftibateaLengthof Darknefsanddecay p." 1* Prodigies and Miracles ; p. 136.. 2 " And [ 70 I contrary extreme, and is become to the fame per* fon a proper fubjeft of inveftive, as the Nurfkig Mother of Bigotry and Perfeciition ! But, my Lord, though, the Univerfity of Oxford, incapable of eftimating Merit of fuch uncommon fi^e, may have treated you with an ill-judged difregard, and unjuftly withheld thofe honours •which You thought your due ; yet why fhould your Lordfliip take fuch a difappointment fo much to heart, and hoard it up fo long in your refentment ? Surely You havfe philofophy enough, to confole yourfelf upon this, and much greater occaCons. What if one, as mean as I am, fhould have born away honours, which You folicited in vain ? What if Another, worthy indeed in all refpefts, unlefs compared with You, (and who can abide fuch a comparifonf) fliould have, been lately honoured with a Promotion, which You ought to have adorn- ed ? Your wifdom. Your experience, Your know- ledge of the world and of yourfelf, ftiould eafily teconcile all this, and much more than this, to Your perfeft acquiefcence. Confcious as You are of Your own fuperlative worth, You fhould rather confider thefe events on the favourable fide ; as a prefumptive proof of Your greit eminence ; as a kind of public atteftation of thofe tranfcendent ta- lents, lyhich ufually deprefs their envied pofTefToy: You, who fo well know, that " we often fee thofe " Honours conferred upon Medipciuty, whiph ? are due to Superior Merit i" and that " it [ ^9 ] f_ not been, lie^yd of fincc' - A poor Apology- at laeft ! Only Banijhm,ent, infilled by the private au- thority of the worthy Vice-Chancellor ; and the lUuJlrious Body had no concern in it at all, nor any claim of merit frqm this kudable exertion of WHOLESOME SEVERIXy. But here, alas ! at this period, end all the glo-: fies of the Two Univerfiues. Something was at this time depending at Oxford "i ; certain favours were folicited ; Academical Honours, out of the ordinary courfe, were exp^fted. And how thefe expeftatipns fucceeded, may be feen in a fubfequent pdition of the Preface ; where all thefe lofty ftrains of Panegyric are erafed and cancelled for ever. Ex illo fluere, ac retro fublapfa referri. Res Danaum ! -■ . « Academical Degrees, fo lately the objeft of Ambi- tion, foon degenerated into Profefforfliips " of the "Occult Sciences "i" " the Scene of Letters ' was " clofed, and every Science was retiring from its f Profejfors tq Diflionary-maJfers and Bookfellers ;" and the Univerfity of Oxford, whofe Moderation and Forbearance of late was fiich, as to put a zea- lous Apologift to great difficulties in clearing her of the fcandalous imputation, is now arrived at the 1 See Pope's Letters ' to Warburton ; Letters cxviii, cijr, and cxiv. ' Warburton's Preface to Shakefpeate j ,p. xxvL s 'Warburton's Remarks on Qccafional Refleftions ; Part II. p. 155. See alfo Note to Dunciad; Book iv. ver. 241. contrary I 68 ] In the Second Edition of this Preface, the- claufe Jaft cited came fprth attended with a curiou? Note, f The Author of the Weeify MifieUany had eyeij f then begun thi^ very Outrage ;' and had reflefted upon the Univerfity of Oxford, " for letting the f Methodifts alone, and permitting them to take « Degrees ; which was giving them encourage^ " ment." What now could one fuppofe fp proper, pr what fo obvious, for our profeft Pai^egyrift of the Univerfity pf Oxford, and ftrenuous Advocate for Toleratioq, to do in this cafe, as to turn this abfurd reproach upon the Univerfity to her praife ? No fuch thing. He is really fcandalized at it, and |:reats it as an " iniquitous and fcurrilous Reflec- f tion on fo illuftrious a Body:" he fets hirafelf to work in good earned, and endeavours with all his might to wipe off the pdious and unjuft afper- fion, and to defend them againfl: this grievous charge of Moderation and Tplerance. " The Ma- " giftrates of the Place did ufe all lawful means to " fupprefs them." The Laws had unhappily tied up their hands, fo that they could not have em- ployed fire and fagot, if they had beeti ever fp well inclined ; and how much foever the Zealots might have wiflied it : all the defence therefore their Apolpgift could make was, ' that the worthy Vice-Chancellor went and reprimanded Mr. Whit- field before a large Congregation, which he had gathered together about him, and obliged hini that very day to leave the Town, where he has ' not [ ces, and of all ages, " conditions; .charafters and complexions ; in the "adventures of virgins, matrons, kings, foldiers> " fcholars, parents, merchants, hufbandmen. They " are given too in every circumftance of life ; cap- *^ tive, vidtorious; in ficknefs' and in health ; ill " full fecurity and amidft : impend.ing danger's ; " plunged in civil bufinefs, or retired .and fecjuefl:- " ered in the^ferv-ice of Eeligion. Together with " their Ilory, we have their compoGtions likewiffc :. ' *> Div, Leg. Vol. V, p". 39 J, "1X3, i: 83 -3 *' in one place we hear their triunjphai j- In another, ■" their penitential ftrains. Here we have their ex- *• ultatiqns for bl&iBugs received ; there, their de- " precations of evjl apprehended : here they urge *' their moral precepts to their contemporaries; " and there again, they treafqre, up their Prophe- " cies and Prediffious for the ufe of poflerity; ." and on each, denounce the threatenings and pro- " njifes of Heaven," Now all thefe Writings, containing fo naany va;-ious matters, treated of by .various authors, in v-erfe and in profe, oj different kinds, and in diilerent manners of compofition ; or (to keep ftill to your own terms) " this 'large "and Mifcellaneous Volume '," one Would think ^ould have prefeirved fo much of the language, as would afford proper ^nd fufEcient materials to wor c apon : fo that, with the addition of many other helps, one might attain to a competent knowledge of it, and be able to form a tolerable judgment of thq different Styles of the feveral Writers. You quote an author, who fays of the Hebrew luar- guage, as contained in the Old Teftament, " non " fuppeditat omnes didiones loquendi neceffarias." No more does the Latin Tongue, as contained in the ClafTics. If Salomon's Botanical writings had been preferved ; they would have added conlider- ablj' to our ftock of Hebrew, and have been of great fervice in clearing up many particular palTages, wiilcli are now very obfcure: but I do not think, ' Divine Legation ; Vol. iv, p. 349 : note, -- - X 2 they [ 84 ] ^hcy wpuld have helped us much in acquiring A. clearer idea o£ the peculiar flyle and manner of compofition of the feveral Authors of the Old Teft tament. Again : if Vitruvius, and the Elder Pliny, and the Authors De Re Ruftica, had been loft ; pur ftock qf Latin would have been much leffened ; and fome few paflages in fome authors remaining might have been rendered very obfcure, and per- |iaps unintelligible : and yet, I believe, we fliould have been able full as well to have judged of the difference between, Salluft and Eutropius, and be- tween Hprace and Aufonius,as to their peculiar ftyle and manner of compofition, as we do now. And as to the Nature of the langiiage in itfelf, which you fay is the moft barren of all languages: I take this to be a charge, which you cannot prove. What, did the Hebrew Writers then want wordg and phrafes, to exprefs' properly and fully the fubr jefts of which they treated ? Far from it. I think, there might be produced from them examples of Amplification fet off with as great Copioufnefs of expreffion, as from almoft any Authors whatever. And, in feveral inftaijces, there are in Hebrew ^ as many fynqnymous terms and phrafes to exprefs the fame ideas, as perhaps can be produced, in a like number of inftances, taken at plpafure, e.ven in the Greek language itfelf. Your Lordfliip enters further into this fubj eft in another place; virhich I fhall therefore confider. ^ See Carpziovii Criiica Sacr? ; Par. I, Cap. \\ Seft. 4. " Amant [ 85 ] *« Armnt Hebrai^^ fays Grotius, as you quote him *, " verborum coplam ; itaque rein eandem multis verbis- " exprimunt. He does not tell us the reafon :" but your Lordftiip is fo good as to fupply it. " It; *• arifes from the narrownefs of the Hebrew lan- " guage, which is the fcantieft of all the learned " languages of theEaft: for when the fpeaker's '' phrafe comes not up to his ideas (as in a fcanty *' language it often will not) he naturally endea- ** vours to explain himfelf by a repetition of the "thought in other words; as he whofe body is " ftraitened in room is never relieved but by a con- " tinual change of pofture." A reafon fo very re- fined, that I much fufpeft it has no good founda- tion. " The Hebrews are fond of a copioufnefs " of words; and therefore exprefs the fame thing " in many words:" or, as you very rightly ex- plain it, " by a repetition of the fame thought in ^ other iK'ords." Now I think, they would never have been able to fatisfy this their fondnefs for a copioufnefsof wordsjby repeating the fame thought in other words; unlefs they had had at command diiFerent words, to exprefs the fame thought in : that is, unlefstheir language had been copious, and had abounded in fynonymous or parallel expref- fions. For example: the general fubjeft of the eXIX'»' Pfalm is the Bleffednefs of Keeping, the law; which ispurfued through Twenty Two Al- phabetical Stanzas, of Eight Diftichs each, with 'Divine Legation; Book iv, Seft. ^. i much T 85 ] -ftmch famcncfs of thouglit, but great Variety of expreffion. Inftead of twelve or fourteen fynony- faous terms to exprefs the Law, and at leaft four times aS many parallel phrafes to exprefs. the Keep- ing of it ; if you reduce the Pfalmift to a fingk term or two, you ftrikehim dumb : be he ever & fond of Pleonafm, and ever fo eager to exprefs himfelf copioiifly, he will neitl^.er be able to attain, nor fo much as to teftify his defire, unlefs you give him his free range in the natural copioufnefs of his language. Can it then poffibly be afcribed to the Narrownefc of his language, that the Pfalmift re- peats his thought fo often in other words? to his inability, and at the fame time his eag?rnefs, to ex- prefs himfelf to his fatisfaftion, that he fo often changes his pofture? On the contrary ; do we not evidently fee, that he fees out With a formed defign of amplifying his fubjcft to a furprifing extent, upon a plan, that neceffarily requited a Hundred and Seventy Six Diflichs, upon alrooft the fame thought, and in confidence of an ample ftock of words and phrafes to 'carry him through it ? This manner of repeating the fame thing in fynonymous or parallel terms prevails throughout the Hebrew Poetry; and is a principal Charafteriftic of the Po-' etical Style. The Charafter of the Poetical Style ifi general muftjarife from the Nature of the lan- guage; and the Pleonaftic Character in particular, Hiult arife from the Abundance of parallel terms and phrafes in the language. You conclude your reafoning thus : " the iixoft: fcanty language there- /.,, '*fore [ S7 1 " fore wilfbe always fulleft of repetitions;" that is, " of repetitions of the fanae thought in other "words™." This I take to be little better than a •contrad/ftion in terms : for a language, that ab- ounds in fuch repetitions, for that very reafon can- not be fcanty; and the Pleonaftic Charafter of the Hebrew language, which You fay arofe from its being the moft Scanty of all languages, is on the contrary a demonftration, that it was in a cpnflder,- able degiree Copious. Indeed, my Lord, you have aggravated this charge of narrownefs, fcantinefs, , and obfcurity, againft the Hebrew Language, to an extravagant and even dangerous degree. If the cafe fliould really be, as You have flaced it ; tliere is ari end of all certainty, and all authority, of the Holy Scrip- tures of the Old Teftamenc. But, I^hope.'it is far other.wife. , You fay, that in the mofl antlent MSS there was no fpace left to diftinguifli one word from another. I mufl obferve, that this opi- 4iion" was propagated by Elias Levita, who quotes the Cabbalifts as his authors. It .was a very con- venient principle for. them, whofe bufinefs it was to make as many diiFerent fe.nfes as poffible out of one ■ "That r Hiay h^' {RfilI ven- ture to lay, that he who pretends to fet up for a deep and critical Expofitor of the Writers of the old Teftamerit, and of fpme of the moft difficult of them in particular, with no knowledge, or at beft a very fuperficial' knowledge, of Hebrew, tho* he may amufe common readers with fanciful in- terpretations and ingenious hypothefes, yet will be efteemed by proper Judges, as no other than a Quack in Commeritatdrfhip, and a Mountebank in Criticifm. But if the Hebrew Verity is to be confidered at this day as a mere Cipher; I wifti yqu had fur- liiflied us with a better Key to it than the Greek M Verfiqn, [ 99 ] Vcrfion. For, befides that the Learned will hardly allow, what you affume as , incontefted, that ? the Hebrew was a living language in the time of Pto- lemy Philadelphus ; at which time too only the Pentateuch, that is, but one quarter of the Old Teftament, was tranflatgd into Greek; every one knows, that the Greek Verfiqn, called the Verfion of the Seventy, has come down to us in a miferable condition, greatly mutilated, interpolated, and cor- rupted : and it comes fo far fhort'of that accuracy, for which the genuine Septuagint Verfion was uni- yerfally celebrated by the Antients, that fome of the Learned % with Archbifliop Uflier at their Jiead, have made it a matter of doubt, whether the true Verfiqn of the Seventy be now extant. By a quotation from Abraham Echellenfis, you have made the cafe of the Alcoraij parallel to that of the p The beft Critics are of opinion, that Hebrew was no longer a living language after the return from the Babyloniih Captivity. Such are, ^ong the Jews, Kimchi, Elias Levita, Ephodaeus Grammaticus, &c. among the Chriftians, Walton, Bochart, Buxtorf, Hottinger, Simon, &c. Not but that there were fome few, the Priefls and the old men, who might ftill retain it. See Walton, Prolegom. iii, 24. Frideaux is much of the fame opinion, though he places this period a little lower : he fays, " the Hebrew Language certainly ceafed to be vulgarly " fpcken in the time of Ezra." Conneft. Vol. i, p. 279. See alfoVol. ii, p. 29. fol. "A diebus Efdrae, fays Maimo- " nides, (Tephil. Cap. 'xii, Sedl. 10) confueverunt habere " Interpretem, qui populo id interpretaretur, quod Ledtpr ex " lege prslegit, ut fenfum verborum intelligeret." If this was the cafe at, or foon after, the Return from the Captivity; what was it above two hundred and fifty years later, when the Pen- tateuch was firft tranflated into Greek ? . q See Walton, Prolegom. ix. Fabricii Bibl. Grjec. Lib. iii. Cap. xii, S' ' ' ' ' . , " Old t ?> ] Old Teftamerit : but it appears by it, thkt the Al- coran is fafe ; for it was pointed by proper author rity, 'While the Arabic was a livitig laiignagej oiherwife, jam de Alcorano Acxtrk esseT i but as the Old Teftament has not had the fame good fortune, to have been pointed by proper au- thority, while the Hebrew was a living language ; it follows from this judicious parallel, jah actum: ESSE i)E VfitERI TesTAM£NT0. In fliort, my Lord, thrbugh this whole paflagtf You have been urging the fanie arguments, that the Fathers Morittus " and Simon employed in or- der to lelien the authority of the Hebrew Scrip- tures, and fo to bring us under the yoke of Popifli Tradition : You have been urging the fame argu- ments, that Spinofa ' employed in order to deftroy the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to in* troduCe Infidelity and Atheifm ; You have carried the matter further than even Spinofa himfelf dared to do: to treat the Hebrew Verity as a mere Cipher, this was referved for your Lordlhip, and the Author of Sacerdbtiffn Difpiayed ', whom I think you fomewhere reprefent as the forwarded Devil of the whole Legion* And does our Chriftian and . ' Morini Exefcitationes Biblics i Lib. i^ Exetc. vi, Capt 2, Simon, Hift. Crit. du V. T. Liv. iii, Chap. 2, 3, et paffim. > Traftatus Theol. Polit. Cap. vii. ' See p. 6z oi A BHef Examination of the Di'vine Legation of Mo/es, hy a Society of Gentlemen; Lond. 1742: otherwifc intitled, in the body of the book, Sacerdotifm Di^layed; and fold to be written by a Seleil Committee of the fieifti «nd Free- thinkers of Great Britain, M 2 Proteflant C 92 ) Pwteflant Bifliap jpin with Papifts, and Infidels, and Atheifts — ■ Now, methinks, I .hear you crying; out aloud againft argumenta ad invidiam : but re- member Hpbbes and, our Prof effor; there's a Row- land for your Oliver. You, my Lord, are of ^11 the Writers of this age, except perhaps your Friend^the Candid Examiner, thcperfon who has the teaft right to complain of fuch arguments : yet you -Ihall fee, how generoufiy 1 will.deal with you. I fairly acquit you of all evil intent, in this fufpicious kind of argu- mentaMon, or rather this unguarded difplay of your Hebrew Griticifm: I impute it a.li, to your Lord-- Ihip's undertaking to treat of a fubjeflt, with whick, you appear to be very much unacquainted. Having obviated , t^edi^culties, which your Lordfhip has thrown in the way, I fliall now at- tempt to enter a little further into this fubjeft, and to give my opinion a little more particularly of the. charafters of fome of the principal Hebrew Writers,, and of the difference of ftyle and manner which| may, upon jufl groundss, be obferyed in them; yet only' fo far as may be neceffary to throw f<»me light upon th^ prefent queflion, concerning the Age ,o£^ the Book of Job. Setting afide then this Book at prefent as doubt- ful, Mofes flarids at the head of the Hebrew Wri- ters; not only in point of time, but in regard alfp of literary ]\!lerit, as an Hiftorian, as an Orator, and as a Poet. Whatever defefts may be noted ia his i; 93 1 his hiftory upon the Whole, when compared .with, the more regular and more laboured produftions of the poliftied Hiftorians of Greece and Rome; yet in many parts of it, he has given evident marks of fuperior abilities in the charafter of Hiftorian. The hiftory bf Jofeph, for ihftance, is an example of fimple, noble, elegant, interefting, pathetic narra- tion; of juftnefs, neatnefs, and perfpicuity of hif- toric corapofition; to which nothing equal, or ia any degree comparable, can be,prpduced from He- rodotus or Xenophon, Sallufl oir Livy. As an Orator; his exhortations in the Book of Deutero- nomy have a force, a fpirit, and an elegance, equal at ieafl: to any thing of the fame kind in the Pro- phets of a later age. As a Poet ; his Prophetid Ode is fuperior to every thing of its kind, except perhaps that of Ifaiah, Chap. XIV : and we have in this Ode of Mofes an excellent example of the Poetical Conflruftion, or the Sententious Style cha- rafterifllc of Hebrew Poetry. It appears here in its juft form, and full beauty ; though properly tempered and chaftifed, nor capried to its utmoft precifion, and moll laboured accuracy; which would not have been fo fuitable to the great fubli- mity of the fubjeft. And a like inftance of judg^ ment may be obferved in Ifaiah's Ode above-men- tioned: for though that Prophet is perhaps of all the Hebrew Poets the mofl elegant compofer in that ftyle; yet in this Ode he has not aimed at a ftudied exafinefs of the flwrt fententious conftruftion ", <■ See De Sacra Poefi Hebr. Prxl. xiii, xix, xxviif. but [ $i4 ] Ibut has chofen a more free and flowirig manner of compofition. It may perhaps be faid, that this per- feft accuracy of the feriteritlous ftyle was not yet ac- quired, but was the latfe effeft of progreffive refine- ment : and that for this reafon the author of Job, who k acknowledged to be very accurate in this man- ner of writing, was of a later age. That this is hot f9,wiil evidently appear from other examples of the earlieft times, which are moft perfe^ in the fenten- tious manner. Inlhort; Mofes's Writings, in va- rious forms and charafters of compofition, are in no refpeft inferior to the produftions of later ages of the' Jewifli. Republic: and the language of Mo- ies is "the very purity of the Hebrew tongue. How- ever fucceeding Writers may differ from him in ftyle and manner ; this difference is to be afcribed to the peculiar turn and .genius of thofe writers, not to any improvements of fcience, or fefinenients of language, in a more civilized and polilhed age. But further; in the Poetical ftyle Mofes has not only given fome excellent examples of his oWn fa- fculty, but lias likewife preferred feveral fpecimens of Poetry from other hafads aiid of a higher age. He has given us thfe Prophecies of Jacob ; which were in all probability delivered dov?n to pofterity in their genuine form, as taken from the mouth of the Patriarch : thefe are in the fame ftiort fenten- tious ftyle; which, as it is the moft diftinguifhing charafter of the Hebrew Poetry, fo it appear's by this, and the other examples, to have been the moft antient, [ 95 3 aatientj the gennine and original mark of it. He has given us the Prophecies of Balaam ; which are in this ftyle the moft perfeft, the mpfl: poliflied, the iji,oft eSccjuifite example?, that can be produced. There are certain Odes of Horace ; which, for their. exquifite tafte, the delicacy of cpmpofition, purity of diftion, and elegance of form, one might fafel)^ pronounce to be peculiar to the Auguflan age, and that no fucceeding age could pofllbly have produced them. The Prophecies of Balaam feem to me to have fomething of this kind of peculiar caft; a neatnefs, a purity, and precifion in the fententious manner, which the later ages feldom attained. I hardly know any thing in this kind, which can be jfet in competition whh them : except the CXIV*'* Pfjilm, pf a later age (not higher, I guefs, than, the time of David), and fome parts of Job, of an age, as I iuppofe, fomewhat earlier than that of Balaam. From thefe confiderations I prefume to mark the age of Mofes, as an age in which He- brew CQmppfition, both Profe and Verfe, was ar- rived at its full form of maturity and perfeftion ; and to conclude, that the Excellence of the com- pqfitipn of the Poem of Job is no bar to its being afcribed to that age, which You, my Lord, I think falfely, reprefent as uncivilifed and barbarous. And upon the moft drift examination of the ftyle, man- ner, language, and poetical compofition of that Poem, I believe it will appear to all proper judges to be more fuiuble to that age, the age equal or •,J fomewhat C 9« 1 fomewhat prior to the time of Mofes, than to aiiy other ■whatfoeyer. I Ihall very readily grant to your Lordfliip, that the Hebrew language varied very little from the time of Mofesto the Babylonifli Captivity : never- thelefe r think we may be allowed to form a judg- ment of the different ftyle and manner of different authors in that long period. The peculiar ftyle and manner of each of the three great Tragedians of Greece, though of nearly the fame age, is very diftinft and difcernible : and yet Sophodles, Euri- pides, and ^fchylus are not in any proportion fo different from one another in their ftyle and man- ner, as the three great Prophets of the Hebrews, of ages refpeftivdy not much more diftanr, Ifaiah, Jeremiali, and Ezechiel. But what is the difference between thefe, in comparifon of the difference.be- tween the Author of the Book 6f Job arid' Ezra? Let any one properly qualified to judge in' this matter read the plain hiftorical narrative in the two firft chapters of job: it is neat, concife-, clear in its order and method, pure" and elegant in its ex» preffion :. let him turn to Ezra, and find, if he can, a fingle Hebrew chapter, on which he can with a jfafe confcience beftow any part of this commenda- tion. Let him riioreover take into the accbunt this laft Author's barbarous terms ; and then let hira tell me fairly, whether he does not find as much difference between thefe two Writers, as betweeti $alluft arid William of Malmfbury. Let him next loofe { 97 1 Ibolc into the poetical. patts of Job, and let him compare them with any part of Ezra's undoubted writings ■* ; and I would then a/k him, whether he Would not as foon pitch upon GeofFry of Monmouth for the Author of the ^neid, if that were a doubt- ful point, as Ezra for the Author of the Poem of Job : and I fliould not much doubt of his anfwering in ihe affirmative. All this, your Lordfliip may fay, is gratis diSlum- all the. inere prefumption of Pedantry, the ape of ■" The Author of Divine Legation, (Book vi, Se£l. z,) gives his favourite Ezra credit as the Writer of the Books of Clironicles andEfther;, and has rotoarfe to the -tradition of the Jews, that he was the fame perfon with Malachi. If he could prove this latter poiflt, it inight be of ufe to hita : for I take the Writer of the Prophecy of vMalachi no be mnch-bettex qualified for his purpoJe than the Writer of the Book of Ezra. Bat leaving him to tnake good that point, as he raay ; why is Ezra " reafonably fuppofed »' to be the Author of the two books of Chronicles, and the book " of Efther?" Becaufe, forfoqth, the Jews have faid fo : that, I bdieve, is the beft reafen that can be given. The latter book indeed is much in the ftyle a.-id language of Ezra ; but the nar- ration feems of a better caft. But as for the former part of the fuppofiiion, that Ezra was Author of the Chronicles; nothing can well be more unreafonable. Eswa might poflibly be the Colledtor, and Editor, of tlie books of Chronicles ; but certainly was not the Author. For the books of Chronicles are evidently, like the books of Kings, a Colleftion from the Hillorical writings of the antient Seers and Prophets. They cite the Books, the Prophecies, and ■ ^'ifions of Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Iddo, &c. The Col- Jeftor copied the very words of the feveral Authors ; as is manifeft from hence, that the books of Kings and Chronicles frequently ap;ree with one another in words, for many fentences together. See §ir If lac Newton's pbfervations on Daniel ; p 8. Befides, it may be denioiiiUably proved, that fome parts of the books of Chroni- tles were written before the Babylonifh Captivity. See 2 Chron. V, 9 : viii, -Six. 1 9. N Criticifra. C 98 ] Gridcifiti. My Lord, I only give it, with all de^ ference, as my humblp opinion : I do j.io more thari exprefs my own fenfe, and my own feelings : I dq not pretend tp- give mere opinion and conjefture, my own fancies perhaps and furmifes/ for Demon- f):ra!;ipn. -However, upon this opinion, precarious as I acknowledge it to be, I will-venture to ftakq my credit : " nee recufo, quin, quantum de hac feii- " tentia, tantundem demeijudicii exiftimatione de- *.' trahatvjr." Your Lordfbip is very fliort upon the laft argu- ment, touched upon in my ofFenfive Note ; in which I fliall follow your example: for in trpth it doe? pot require much difcuffion. " This excellent " Writer" [to wit, the Candid Examiner ] " de- " fired to know of the Jearned, Where they could "Jind a Civil or Religious ConJlituti'On out of Judea, " which declared, that the Children Jhould fuffer for " the crime of their B.drents." As your Lordfliip has here improperly ftated the quefliion ; it is very eafily anfwered, but nothing to the purpofe : for; by the Laws of every Conftitution in the world the Children do, in many cafes, fuffer for the crimes of ' their Parents ; as in the cafe of Confifcation, -At- tainder, and the like ; and it cannot be otherwife. As the Candid Examiner himfelf has rightly ftated the queftion, it Hands thus: ".Where did God " ever declare, that h e would ufe this mode of " pqnifliment, but in the Jewifli Law ?" But this itfelf is very little more to the purpofe : for whe- ther t 99 r ttiei* Gdd ever declared, it, or not; or whether the opinion, that God would ufe this mode, of piinifh- ment, be in its nature : capable of being made a part 6f any. GitilConftitution befide that of the .Jews; or not; yet this opinion may have prevailed in every nation under heaveti :' which is fully fuf- ■ficient todeftroy your argiiment. That the fenti- ment occurring in Job, "that God layeth up" the ■ " Father's iniquity for his Children," is ncJ proof that the Poem mull have been written by a Jew, I fhewed by producing the fame fentiment from . Horace. Your Lbrdfhip faysj this is paying with an. oldfongi, ^Wivi^.rhime-for reafon ; or, in plain Englifli, taking it out of your facetious language, that it is nothing at all to the purpofe. What, my Lord, no more to the purpofe, than " Of a noble race was Shinhih !" i beg your pardon ; I think it not only to the pur- pofcj but even decifi^Ci For if that fentiment proves, that the Poem tf Job was written by a Jew; the fame fentiment proves, that the Ode.* of Horace was written by a JeW; and that another Ode, Commonly alfo fuppofed of the faine.Poet, in Which the fame fentiment likewife occurs; was alfo Writ- ten by a Jew; In truth, the fentiment in queftion (whether founded on experience, or reafon,- or re* . velatjon, whether true or falfe, it matters not to our purpofe) is a Popular Opinion, common to all nations, and all ages, of 'the world. I intimated * Carm. Lib.iii, Ode vi, i : and Lib. t>> Ode xxviii, 30. 1^ 2 plainly [ 100 ] plainly enoagb, that I eould give more examples of the fame fort, upon demand : and fince your Lord^ Ihip feeras not to be fatisfled with this,. I fliall add at the bottom of the page a few others y. And, if required, *" QS' (Dionyfius, • Syracufarum tyrannus) tametfi debita fup- plicia non exolvit,^ dedecore tamen filii mortuus pcenas rependit, ' quas vivus effugerat. Lento enim gradu ad vindiftam fui divina procedit ira, tarditatemque fupplicii gravitate compenfat. Vale- rius Max. Lib. i, Cap. i. . Satis jam pridem fanguine noftro Laomedontea luimus perjuriagentis. Virgil. Georg. i, 501. r— Di capiti ipfius generique refervent. Virgil, ^neid. viij, 484. Tos ruy nriiuitliiiv c^st^ficti £(; tS; exyovaj Oi ScoiTgETrso-t. . Euripides, ifr Excerptis Grotii j p. 423. YSptf a^eiv, XM crj fSTCiKrt yivoilo kcckoh. riai^E? y, oh aStKH 'sralf®^ rd ^xaia »o£t)i/1ej XIoiB?-!, KpoK^V), crov pgoXoi/ a^ofissot, ■ 'Exfeuya, TO xaxot ^ aAA^ ew«]« figf*. Thbognisj 729. 'Sl(r?rcf S«i7#' amp, yiyrslai o^uj^dTi^. Al« «TE Ae^^jSe ffiaciATTtptq holit; ctMpov ;am' required, I might j>erhaps uadertakc to prove, by the fame argument by which you have demoa- ftrated, that Job was written by a Jew, that half the writings of the Greeks and Romans were like- Wife written by the Jews. "The contemptuous Profeffor:" Yes, my Lord ; the Profeffor does avow a perfeft contempt for a miferable Caviller, who proflitutes his pen to do the drudgery of an imperious Talk-mafter. I fee, my Lord, you have intimated your orders to him to take the Preleftions in hand, once more : and may I not hope then for the honour of your Lord/hip's animadverfions ? In good time : when the Candid Examiner underftands Latin a httle better ; and when your Lordlhipl has a competent know- Aulot, fiTi^ ^Eut /Aoif Eirieaa mxP' Oi israthi Tbluv fiysjiotuii tieta^u, Solon; 25. OvS' * ofira^ati-^ot, a¥ « Ai®- lyfotoi ear. A>3\ oMuv xE^»Xi]tri, xai ev irCpslefOKrt rtmamt Oraculum Delph. apud ^lian. Var. Hill. Lib. iii, 43. Lege f. OuJe waspatljiTon. See al(b the Eleftraof Sophocles, ver. 50 j : and Jaftly, Plu- tarch's Treatife, intitled, De his qui/ero a Numine funiuntur ; the greaterpartof which (from p. 556. Edit. Francofurt. 1529, fol.} u upon the fame fubjefl. / ledge r 102 j Ifedge of Hfebre^. And a little more civility too ihajr not be timifs : for if he, who ha^ demlijhed the Ap- "ptndLixf Jhould take ii into his head to examine the Bock itfelf ; he might pofTibly make fome havock in The Divine Legation of Mofes Demonjlrated. In the mean time I reft. My Lordy Your Lordflaip's i- Moil humble Servant,' A late Profejfor in The University of OXFORD. Ju^J} 31, T765. A P P E N D I X. ■' ■ . .. . .1 .11. I 1 11 1 1 1 .1 I II » | LETTER I, To The Reverend Dr. W. Wincheftcr Sept. ^. 175^', Dear Sir, OU R good Friends Dr. G and Mr. S. have agreably to your defire communicated to pae fome particulars of the converfatipn, ^hich you h^ve lately had with them relating to me : from which I CQlleft, tha,t you think you. have rea- fon to be offended[ with ine on account of forac things which I have faid in my Preleftions on the fubjeft of the Book of Jdb. which you look uf)oa as aimed againft you ; and that you expeft that I ihould explain myfelf on this head. I am much obliged to you for the regard which you have been pleafed to exprefs for me, and for your candid and generous manner of dealing with me on this occa- fion : and I fliall endeavour to return it by dealing as fairly and as openly with you. The reafons for my treating of the Book of Job jn the manner which I have done, left they fliould be miftaken,.! have there given; and that I might . ; 2 not 104 L ,E T T E R I. not gw« offence, have prefaceel thofe Le5kirc»^ with an Apology, which was perhaps unneceffary. Ha- vi flg exam ined and con fidered the Subje^. as WsU as I was able, I found myfelf obliged to differ ia opinion from feveral Writers of great ^4-uthoi:ity in the Republic «f Lettei-s;- fuch as "Grotiti*, Le Clerc, Bifliop Hare, Yourfelf, and many others ; it was not ,my bufinefs, aad much lefs '^as it my defire, to enter into a formal difpute with any one ; all I had to dp w^s ,to xJeclare in a few words my o\Vn' fentiments, and to explain my Hypothefis, fo far as to make myfelf underflood, whea i came to treat of the fubjeft ; which it was abfolutely necef- fei-yfor me to treat of, a§ being, a principal and effeMiai-pait of my plan. I thbaght the Book of Job the mod antient extant, that it had ho Tdatjon to the aflSiirs of the Ifraelites, that it Ws neither Allegorical -nor properly Dramatic ; in all which I difagreed -not only with You, but with one, or other, 01* all, of .thp Authors above-mentiphed, and a htlndt-M others, virhota I need iiot^nanie to y'oii •no'9?;* ii6f was it at . all' more neceffary for me to name Ithem then. '' You :feem to think I ought to have quoted you^ or. referred to your Book : arid a friend of yours <:harges me with writing againft you, and being afraid jof you. Your Friend is mif- taken inboth thefe particulars ; and the ground of your complaint I cannot poffibly comprehend. Why fnould I fingle out you, and attack you for opi- nions, which were common to you with twenty ;pthex lAuthors of note ? would this have been a » Dr L. t© Dr W. 16$ »ln*rk of rcfpe£t to you ? would it not rather liate argued a bufy and ,a litigious fpirit in me ? Ther6 Were.feveral living Writers of great Learning and Eminence, wlio flood jiift in the fame fituatibn with jegard to me, that you did.' What ftiould I have doQq ? Should t have agreed with you ^U ? th^t was injpoffible. Should I tave tomplfmetited yoii all, or fliould I have contended with you all ? to have done either would have been equally unnecef-' fary and impertinent. I have never heard, that any" of.thofe Gentlemen have been offended with me, for .affing with refpeff to them jufl: in the fame planner as I have done with refpefl td yoii. But You.too it feerfiS thiilk, that I have writtert againfl: you; that is, that I have aimed at you irt particular, and attacked opinions that are peculiar-f ly yours. I have upoil this occafidri taken a review of your DilTertation, afid of my own Leftures, and cannot find iipon what it is that you ground this charge. I have marked the paffages in the lat-' ter which feemed moft likely to have given yoii umbrage,' and beg you would give yourfelf the; trouble to turn td them. Pag. 312. Nunquam iii dubii^m &c. this cannot polfibly be iinderftood of you, being plainly reftrairied to thofe who conclude, that if the Poem be Pkrabdlical, therefore rhe Story is Fiftltious ; the abfurdity of which you yourfelf expofe. In P. 319,- 1 reffer to the difpnte on the Text fu^fpofed to relate to the Refurreftion ; to the Bifliop of London, Dr. Hodges &c. Ibelieve, I O ' - had jo6 L E T T E R L had not you then in my thoughts; hotHTeyfer if t had, I fee nothing that fliould oiFqnd ydu Of any one. Pag. 320, obferve, that I fpeak of the opi- nion, that the Poem is Dramatic, as what has foi: fome time almoft uniyerfally prevailed aillong the JLearned. Befides, I do not fee how the queftibn, whether the Poem be fl:ri£i:ly Dramatic or nbt, at all affects your main argument. So that this Dif- courfe upon the whole cannot be fuppofed to ht direfted particularly againft' yoll. In the next page 1 point out more particularly the Authors whom I have in view, by ufing their own expt-effions : /*- quuntur enim Sic. To give you full fatisfaftion her^ and at the fame time to fave you and myfelf the trouble of a multitude of references, I beg leave to refer you only to two fhort paflTages : Bifliop Hare's note at the end of the CVIl'^ Pfalm; and Calmet's Preface to Job, about the middle, the Pa- ragraph begins with, Mais fans nier &c. where you will find enough to account for every thing I have there faid, and even for every expreffion which I have ufed. If there are any other parages which offend you as meant of you particularly, I affure you moft fincerely that they have efcaped my notice ; be fo good as to point them out to me, and I will endeavour, to give you further fatisfac* tion. Upon the whole, I did not mean 10 offend, nei- ther do I think I have given any caufe of offence. The fubjeft lay at leaft as touch in my Way, as it did In yours : I had as gbbd a right to purfue my I fubje£^ Dr L. to Dr W. 107 ^ubj.cfl:, and to deliver my fentiments with freedom, as you had. I could not h|ve. fpoken upon it at all without diffenting from you in coijjunftion with many others, and I don't know how I could have •iignified my diflent jnore inofienfively. I cannot have mifreprefented your particular notions, fori never intended to reprefent them ajt all, nor had .1 any thmg to do with thera. Nay, as far as I cap TecoUeQ:, J verily believe, that at the time when. J wrote thofe Lefliures I had not your book befor^ me; fo far was it from my intention to cavil at youf Difflertation. In a word, my Leftures, and every jexpreffic«i in them, might have flood juft as they .40 now, though your Diflertation on Job had never been written. I beg the continuance of that regard and eileeiri, which you have been fo kind as to exprefs towards me ; I will not now tell you how highly I fhall prize it : yonr Friend above-mentioned, the Au- thor of the Differtation on the Delicacy of Friend- fhip, has flopped my mouth, and makes me very putious of laying any thing that may be conftrued into flattery or fear of you. I call him your Friend, becaufe I fuppofe he pretends to be fo: what your oJ)inion of him Js, I cannot teH ; but I think you owe him little thanks for his pains. He has at leafl: fliewn more zeal than difcretion in the undertaking, and more malevolent wit than good fenfe or honeft intention in the performance j the manifefl tenden- cy of which is to fow flrife, and to foment difcordj and its natural efleft, if it has any, muft be to Icf- O 2 fen loS L E T T E R I. fen the number of thofe, who wifli well to you and your defigns : and I fay fo much of it in order to sffure you, that it will not have that effeft with me. As to my opinions, if they ftand at all in your way, and if you Ihould think them worthy of your notice, i ailc not your favour for them : you will treat them as you fliall think your own caufe and the caufe of truth requires. I do not as yet fee any reafon to depart from them ; but am not fo fond of |:hem, as to be inclined to enter into a difpute with any one in defence of them. I lliall be offended with no man merely for differing from me in fenti- ment upon any fubjeft ; much lefs upon points fo very doubtful, and upon which no two perfons, out of all that examine and judge for themfelves, either ever have agree4, or probably ever will perfeftly agree. As to the manner in which you fliall treat them, I leave it entirely to your own confideration; I fliall be very little concerned about it. If you ufe me otherwife than I deferve, your own charaftef will fuffer, and not mine. Lay afide all regard to me upon this occafion ; but refpefl Yourfelf and lU Fublip., I am, Dear Sir, Your mofl obedient liqmble Servant, / ■ _ L E T T E R IL ;, To The Reverend Dr L. ' Prior Park pept.] 17. 175(5,- Dear Sir, IH A D, this day, the favour of yonr Letter of the 9 th, and think my felfe much obliged to our two Brethren for this good oiEce, which I hope will have the defired efFeft; And to promote it, all I can, I will follow your example in the franknefs 'and opennefs of this eclaircifleraent. • My complaint was not for your differing from me ; nor yet for your manner of expreffing that difference ; but for, what I conceived to be, a mif- -reprefenting me You your felfe fhall be judge. P. 64 -non eo quod fermanere pojl mortem animos -non crederent, quod doftis quibufdam placuit ; fed . You won't deny that I am here meant. Yet you might have underflood by my book, that I "hold, " that the early, as well as later, Jews be- lieved the permanency of the Soul ; only, having nothing, in their Law, of a flate of future rewards and punifhments, the early Jews had no interefting reflections concerning that permanency, and paid UQ atfpntion tg it. P. 65, lid LET T E R IL P. 65 — neque eos hac in parte vel mimixiuia fecri codices adjuyere ; baud quia hatic iis cogni- tioneva invideret Dmna. ReTelatio,-fed quia— Was it not invidiousj to infinuate that I had reprefentedi divine Reyelatiffli i&fnvyiatg or grydging the Jews this blefling ? when I had fliewn the reafon to- be, that k did not belong to their GEconomy ; not for tba$itrange reafon, quia h^imanse mentis conditio cam omnino non recipiat, but becaufe the doftrinc «f life and immortality was referved for another' TeachcF. J call yoiar reafoa, 9 ftrange one, becaufe ,the mofl: ignorapt and unlettered are capable of .comprehendingall .that Chriftianjty teaches cpncern- liag this Kiatter. But I apprehend, in |he words I liere alkde to, you ejwixely rai{lak:e .the queftion you was upon-" — Qualis itaque ab anltnis a cor- pofe fejunftis vita viveretur, quis eorum locus, foriiia, conditioy H^brasi ^uxtu cum tdifris •moriali-' ■ius ^ iumma ignoratione T^sCabantur. For, the -queftion was not, Whether the reft ]Gf,n;ankind ha^ ^^er notions of xhe ftate and-coodittioa of the foul in a flatc of feparation ; but Whether they had nqt *he rataonal beliefe o'f a future t ate. qf .rewards an^ :puSiifhments in general, which the Jews wanted. Stisihia.alfoj-which is the proper fubj eft ios poetic -©rnameat., (the .thing you a,re upon) jnot the meta- phyfic truth of (hings, which is too meagre for this emertainroent ; (as you piay fee by the <$th B. ^ef Virgil) as welLas togi nbftrafted for the conditio^ ^f tbje haam. mind. Dr W. t» Dr L. tit T. 321.— .Cum Poema Jobi pro vetv zckgltimv Draraate cttjajmodi Juut Gracerum Tr&gcsdia minimc haberi poffe contenderem ■— — - Had the refle£Hon tnded here, I could not poffibly have gueffed whom you had in your eye : Becaufe,- 1 believe, no critic on this fide the cape of good hope ever laid or thought, the bode of Job to be of the fpedes of the greek Drama. But when! read the following words — Hoc autcm ut concedatous, vix erit fatis ; Sunt qui majus quiddam pbftulare vide&tur. Lo- quuntur enim de rcrum ioonftitutlone, de Ciataftro- phe dramatis, ®m «7ro ji*«;^«wff induci dicunt — — iifdem certe vocibus utuntur&c When I read this, I fay, I could no longer doubt, that I miy was meant j becaufe I fpeak of all thefe things 5 and of the God from the machin?, no one codd fpeak but me ; becaufe no one elfe, in their iaterprttatiohs of the book of Job, contended for 'the thing under- ftood by it. Yoii feem yoiir felfe to have been fen- fible that this needed a foftening, by your correc- tive, — iifdem certe voeibus utuntur. Perhaps tho', you may think, that my applying the terms of the Greek ftage, to this book, fairly inferred that I fuppofed the writing to be of the fame fpeciSs. If fo, give me leave to obferve, I could do no other, cho'l thoitght it of a different fpedfes. WhoeVer goes about to (hew that a work is of fuch or fuch a genus, if he would write intelligibly he cannot avoid Tifing the terms of that^^fcaf^of it, which is befl: iknown and underftood. Thus whe(n I fay, Re- ligion compofes a Society, and, in my account -o£ the 112 letter: ir. ■the nature of this Society, I make ufe of thewOrds,- Magiftrates, Laws, Sanftions (words which prtff perly belong to civil Society) am I to be underftood as holding, that Religion -is of that Species, called civil Society, or that it is of.the^^«MJ only of So- ciety ? But to prove, you' are difpofed to do as much honour to the book of Job as any oian, you conclude, by fliewing, that the book has not all the artifice of the Greek drama ; yet the Compofef was capable of giving it that advantage. — ' — Pro* fefto qui reputabit &c. is nunqiiam pcfterit fine fumma admiratione intueri tot ante faeculis natural . ^oeraa, tam pukhre mventum, tam folerter difpo- fitum, tam perfefte expletum, tam fingularis ex-* empli ; quod fimilitudinem atque imaginem quan- dam Dramatis ftatim arripuit, unde non difficile! fuiflet ad ipfum abfoluti operis exemplar afcenderef &e. Which would put one in mind of the religious' caution of good Sir R. Blackmore, who, in his pa-' iraphrafe of this famous book, afl'ures us, thaf tho* he will not pofitively affirm, that Job aftually w«y!^-? ed his feet in butter, yet he inakes it; plainly out/ that Job's Dairy alForded butter enough for that purpofe. And now. Sir, refleft a Httle without prejudice J and afk your felfe, Whether thefe pafiTages bear the kaft mark of good, or even of indifferent will, to-! wards me ; tho' I {houldallow (as I am very ready to do) that you had no formed intention of iriifre-' jrefenting me. ; Dr. W. to Dr. L. 11:3 If you flaould fay, your defign was that they ihould neither bear the marks of good, or of evil "Will, towards me (this neutrality being all, as your letter feems to hint, I had to expeft of you) then let me go on to a paffage or two, which feem to fpeak your difpofitioh fliil ftronger. P. 312 — nimirum carmen hoc in Ifraelitaruip folatium Gompofitura fuifle, eorumque res aliquo modo adumbrare; quam ipfum effe vanissimum arbitror : cum morum, rituum, rerum Ifraelitica- rum nulla vefligia, nuUam fpeciem, aut umbrara reperio. I dare appeal to your ingenuity, that I .rauft n^eds be here meant. And will your pOlite- nefs allow you to fay, that the vanijfimum was civil ; or your modefty, that the nulla vejiigia was decent, when I believe mofl competent readers are agreed, that there are infinitely more and ftronger marks that the affairs under the Theocracy are alluded to, than that Auguftus is fhadowed under Virgil's Hero. Nor can I well reconcile this dogmatical fentence with what you fay in your letter, of the fo doubtful nature of the queftion we are divided, about, where you attempt to fliew how little reafon I have to be offended with thofe who differ from me. Again you fay, Nunquam in dubiura vocata fu- iffet Hiftorias Qobi] Veritas, nifi Allegdrlarum (^onquifiroribus tantiim placuiffent fuas fifliones, ut nihil amplefti vellent quod non umbratile effet & commentitium. Now I will readily allow, thap if, , by thefe Allegorifcrs you mean thofe who annihi- P late ,14 L E T T E ft JI, late the/iit^eral fenfe, you could not mean mc ; ,:f)ecaufe, as you obferye, I have exppfed their fojly. But woilld it have been raqre jhan juftice, ■vj/heii you ufed fueh general expreffipns, to have diftin- guifbed my ^^legory from theirs? Again, If it fliould be aiked. Why fo much univillingnefs tp have the book of Job an AJlegory, and fo much readinefs to admitt" Solompri*s Spng to be an entire. Mlegory ? Could you give a better reafpn than this, fhatthe latter opinion is eftablifhed ortTioddxy, and the former, yet, a paradox ? But, ' a word in your ear ; Can you poifibly be feribus in faying, of Solo- mon's Song, omnino effe Allegorieim f' I pay- you a pompliment in this quefliqn ; thb' I made it only to fljevy, you, that I treat you in the freedom and confidence of a friendly Al.tercation *.. To proceed with your Letter. The general turn bf it is to ftiew me, that I am unreafonable in ex- pefiirig common civilities from you, in a book where I lay fo much in your way. Now give me kave to think, you, feem neither rightly to under;; lland your felfe, nor me. My fervices to religioR and Society feem to intitle me, to common refpeft, when my opinions are controverted and decried, from, every man of letters, engaged in the fame caufe, where no perfonal animofities have inter- ' The latter part of this Paragraphi as imparted^ in confidence, and the anfvfcr to it likewif?, would have been here fupprefled : but it was judged altogether mineceffary to do, fo, when it was obferved, that the &nie fecret had been whijiiered in confidence to she &^ of the Public, in Div. Leg, Vol. v, p. 63, Note. veried. M W. to Dn Li 115 teried. To tiegkA this, is tfot knowing tlie world : to dectme it iiiuft be froiii feat df giving offence. I? therefore the Author of the delicacy offriendjhip thought, a Writer of fo mtiCli caution jlnd referre, riught be ^s bjlckward to' giv6 offence to m^, asf to others, and for tTie fatfle prudential reafons, tfe Was very excufable, in his conjeflure: But yon tell me, you arS not aff aid of me ; and you affefit totfeU'riie fc<, again and again. All I Will fay to this k, that whoever injures me may not, at the long run, have reafoni to applaud his fitUa- tion. But rio itiaii need be afraid of him he has iiot injured. And I am very ready to believe, that it is a confeioujTriefs of that, which makes you fo bfave. Fo'r my own part, I am not fond of re- fenting that,- as an injury, which was never intended. Toil fpeak your fentiments of the Author and the Pamphlet on the delicacy offrietidjhif : allow me to tell you mine. You make it a kind of queftion, whether he be liiy friend. This is natural. Your notion of the commerce, amfengft learned men, in letters, may make you a little dazzlied with fuch a frieridlhip, 'in the commerce (tf life. The Aiithbr, (if i know who was the Author, for the pataphlet was publiflied before I had fo.much as heard of the contents) is a man of very fuperlor talents of ge- nius, learning, and virtue ; indeed a principal or-r nament of the age he lives in : fo that was I to wifli a bleffing to the mau I was mpft obliged to, I €Oiild not wifh him a greater than the friendfhip P 2 of ii6 L E T T E R n. of fucli a perfon. Aa^ I not 'only hold my felfe highly honoured, and obliged to him, for this mark of his good will towards me, but think, the difcourfe very ferviceable to men of Letters, if they would cpndefcend to make a proper ufe of it. He tries, in the fineft jrony in the world, to fliamc them out of that deteftable turn of mind whjch, either out of a low envy is unwilling to give moric its due, or put of mean and bafe- apprehenfions, dare not 'do it, for fear of its being unacceptable to . their Superiors : And it was imppffible for him to have chofen a properer objeft of his fatire than the man he has chofen. The only thing blamable, and which, by .the way, is the only real .grouiid of of- fence, is his extravagant commendation of me. And if the generofify and immoderate warmth of a friendly heart will nPt excufe him (as, it would be a wonder if fo unexperienced a thing, fliould) I know myfelfe fo well, as to be confcious, he has nothing better to urge.^ To draw to a conclufion.. You fay, I am at li- berty to purfue my own meafures, if your opinions ftand ai all in my way. . I will affure you, they do not. If I had. any purpofe of examining them, it was only while I thought my felfe inju'ripufly treat- ed, You aifure me I was not. The negligence of it, I can very well bear. ' - However, you advife me to refpeSl my felfe and' the 'Public. How ready I am to follow it, you may uiiderlland by my paft'conduft. Can more refpeft be Br W. to Dr. L. Hi be tliewn the Public, by .an Aiithor, than by never giving any thing to them but what he deemed of high importance to the jnterefts of Religion and Society ? And can jufter refpeft be fliewn to my felfe, than, when I have been attacked, in the moft injurious manner, by above a hundred Scribblers of all ranfes and profeffions, never to committ my felfe with above two or three ? not to mention that principal refpeft to ones felfe, the never beginning a literary altercation with any man. It would anfwer no .end to tell you, what I thought of the Author of the Hebrew Poetry, be- fore I faw him. But this I may fay that I was. never more furprjzed, when I did fee hiiii, than to find him of fo amiable and gentle manners, of fo. modeft, fenfible and difengaged a deportment. It would not have difpleafed me to find my felfe ill ufed by Pedants and Bigots ; but it grieved me to think, I had any thing to explain, with fuch a man. You have here, Dear Sir, a faithful pifture of my mind; frank but honeft; and, if plain, yet gene- rous ; above all, a Lover of Truth and good Men : Not the moft forbearing when I think myfelf ill treated ; but ready to be reconciled by the leaft fliadow of a fatisfaftion. Such as I am, I am at. your fervice ; that is. Your faithful and very obedient Servant,. W. W. C ii8 ] LETTER in. To The Reverend tyt W, , Winchefter 'da d. 175^= i)ear Sir,- I AM in the firft place to rfeturn y6uiny fiiiterer thanks for the candor of your fentimehts and expreffions with regard to me in feveral pilrt§ of the Letter with which I am favbuf ed : foV yoiif readi- nefs to allow that Ihad no formed intention of miP repreferititsg yoia; to believfi that I was corifciou?! had flot injtlred yoti; to admit of the leafl fhadoW of a fatisfaftion; and (if I do not flatter rtiy wiflie^ by interpreting your words too liiuch in ihy favoui") even tof honour me with your fr;end{hip.' Ifour re- maining ftill tinfatisfied with my expreffions,. tho' you abfblve me of any ill intention, is a circum- ftance that mates your prefeiit drfpofition towards me but the mor6 obliging : and I iliould make but ah ill return to it, urilels I ufed my be'ft endeavours to give you perfeft fatisfaflion. Tliis taik there- fore I refume very willingly, and with full confi- dence of fucceeding in it. I was not informed that your complaint extended to any part of my book befide the Lectures on Job ; 2 fo- Dr L. to Dr. W. 119 fo.could HOt thu)k of looking after auy Other pafr iages that might be liable to fufpicidn. But you begin with. p. 64 &c. As ypu have "totally mif- laken ray 4efiga throughout this paflage, and many pf my expreffions, the readied: way to fatjsfy you lyith regard to it, will be to afcectain my meaning. My purpofe was tp (hew, that the Sacred Poets in defer ibing the State of the Dead ma^e ufe of fen- fike Images taken from th^ir manner of Sepulture; amd to give thefrej^fons why they defcribe it in this manner, and in this only : namely, becaufe the fuh- jeft is really inexplipable in any other way; becaufe we have no idea^ of the metaphyfiqal nature of the Soul, of its form, fituation, and manner of exig- ence in a feparate ftate ; becaufe, from the nature pf the. human faculties, the Iufpired Writers could have no advantage above others in this cafe ; and becaufe they had no Syftcmatical Metaphyfics to help them out, aiid to enable them, to talk them- felves and others, as the modern Philofophers do, into a perfyafion that they really know fomething of the matter. Thefe I fay were the reafons for their invariably expreflmg themfelves in this way : not that they wanted the knowledge of the perma- nency of the Sonl after death, as certain Learned. perfons have held. —So much fpr the courfe of my reafoning in general : now for my particialar ejjpreffions. " Qualis itaque — baud quia hanc " cognitionem iis invideret Divina Revelatio, fed" &c. hanp cognitionem, nimirum, quails ab animis a corpore Tejunftis vita viveretur, quis &:c. riot the 120 LETTER m. the general Knowledge of a Future State, the plain Doftrinc of Life and Immortality ; tut the parti- icular Knowledge of the effence of the Soul, ' its manner of exiftence in a feparate ftate, its place, form, and condition. I had faid but juft before, that the Vates Sacri, the Infpired Writers, were -poffefs'd of the belief of the Immortality of the Soul, and of the Refurreftion of the Body : here I fay that the Hebrews in general, Infpired Writers and all, were in the fame cafe with all other" mor- tals, and wholly deftitute ofjhis Knowledge ; that is, not furely of the Immortality, but of the Me- taphyfical Nature of the Soul. I never fpoke of Divine Revelation's grudging the former to any : ' ' nor of the latter, as if it could be a blefTmg to any. Be fo good now as to review this paflage fairly, and fee if I am changeable with the abfurd reafoning, the miftaking the queftion, the mifreprefentations, and invidious refleftions upon you, which you im- pute to me. I have faid, that the Infpired Writers (and obferve that I confine it to them all along) believed the Immortality of the Soul ; tho' certain Learned perfons have denied, that they did believe it : are you one of thofe Learned perfons .'' have you not declared your fentiments upon that head, and in the affirmative, that the Infpired Writers had the knowledge and belief of a: Future State .'' have not you proved, that Mofes knew the Immortality of the Soul, and that it is deducible from his Wri- tings? that the Prophets gave ftrong intimations of it, and gi-adually revealed it .■* How then could you Dr. L. to Dr. W. lar you poffibly fuppofe, that you were here meant ? Have I faid one word of the national belief of the Jews, or of a Future State's being contained in, or making a part of the Mofaic difpenfation ; of its being or not being a Sanftion of their Law, or any thing elfe, which could lead you away fo total- ly out of fight of my meaning ? Have I exprefled myfdf vaguely, inaccurately, obicurely ? I think, I have not; at lead I profefs 'tis beyond my ability to do it better in a language not familiar to me. Did not you rather.read it with prejudice, with an unreafonable jealoufy and fufpicion, that determined you to take offence, whether it was giveii or no ? But enough of this, I hope. I fliall only add, in order to be as explicit.3vith you as poffible, that the Author whom I principally had in view was Le Clerc: fee his Comnient. Index ad Hagiogr. in voce Immortalitas. You infift tfpon the paffage P. 321, as meant of ydu, and of you only ; " becaufe you fpeak of the things there mentioned; and of the Go4from the Machine no one could fpeak but you; becaufe no one elfe, in their interpretations of t6e Book of Job, contended for the thing underftood by it." Now I had not only intimated to you before, that if my only defign had been to deflroy your Hypo- thefis, I fliould have bellowed my pains to little purpofe, by urging an argument that could not af- f eft it; for allowing Job to be, as I contend, not a jull Drama, but a mere Dialogue, youj All egos • O. ry. 122 LETTER III. ry, as far as'I can fee, ftatids jufl where it did be-- fore: but moreover, to give you full fatisfaftion on this head, I had referred you to two fliort paf- fages, in which alone you might have found enough to account for every expreffion I have there ufed. By your not being fatisfied, I conclude that yott have not looked on thofe paflages to which I refer- red you; perhaps you had not the Books at hand. I will therefore tranfcribe them for you. I Ihall add no more upon this article, and fliall expeft to hear no more of it from you. Calmet, Preface fur Job; he is recounting the fentiments of feveral Writers : " II s'efl: trouv? plufieurs Eeri^- Tains qui ont dome de la verite de Fhiftoire qu' il eontient. lis traitent de paij|iboles & d' allegories.' tout ce qui y eft raconte. lis veulent que Job, &c. foint de noms feints &• empruntez ; que tout ce? recit foit fait a plaifir; — une piece de Poefie;— . non ce qui etoit en efFet, mais ce qui pouvoit etre. Pour appuyer cette opinion on releve le m^rveil- leux <■ de cette hiftoire. Un Prince puiffant^ heureux,, &c. (a ftiort ^ account of the fubjeft ). ~ Dieu entre dans cette difpute, paroit dans uu tourbillon, comme 1' on dit : Deus e machina ; II juge en faveur de Job, condamne fes amis, & re- tablit le premier dans tout fes biens. Quoi de plus femblablc que tout cela a une Tragedie f Les Adte's, les Scenes, les Perfonnages, le Denmement, le Mar- veilleux, tons les Charaderes, y font admirablement bien obfervez. Les trois premiers Chapitres font comme le Prelude dz la piece. lis en expliquent le fujet; Dr. L. to Dr. W. i 123 fujet; \h font connoitre les perfonnages. Le pre- mier A^e commence au Chap. Ill, & finit au Ch. Xy. Le fecond Affe commence au Ch, XV, & finit au Ch. XXII. Le g*"* Acle commence an Ch. XXII, & finit au Ch. XXX. C eft en cet endroit qui Dieu fe fait voir, & fournit le Denouement de la Tragedie." ■ — Bifliop Hare, Note on Pf. CVII. 40. " Liceat hie obiter obfervare librum iftum (Jobi) non modo metro, ut Pfalmos, fcrip- tum effe, fed certiffime Drama facrum effe ; quod cum aliis argumentis, tum hoc maxime conftat ; quod fi totum librum in feptem sequales partes di- vidas, quatuor implent Johns & tres jimici ejus, primis capitibus connumeratis, quintam Johns fo- lus, fextam Elihuus, feptimam Dens." (He muft mean that thefe feven parts were ftriftly fpeaking feven Ads ; elfe how is this the ftrongeft argument, or indeed any argument at all, of its being a Dra- ma ?) " Elihuus Dei caufam in fe recipit ; Deus vero ipfe tandem introducitur ; — ut moeftiffi- mo Dramati K«1(»rjoip»i tandem f(?Iix obtingat," Pag. 312. Here you think I am wanting in de- cency and civility with regard to. you ; and charge me with talking dogmatically. I' had but juft be- fore, in the Paragraph immediately preceding, de- fired to be underftood as propofing what I had to fay, non quafi comperta ac plane percepta, fed in opinione pofita ; and p. 29.-1, ^^^ profeffed, that upon this Subjeft I Ihould rather give the opinions of others than my own. And here I deliver it as (^2 my 124 LETTER- III. my opifiion, in which as you well know I only fol* low many Authors generally efteemed to be as com-' petent judges iii this cafe as any whatever, that the Allegorical Interpretation of Job is entirely ground- lefs, or, if you pleafe,,falfe; for that for my.part I cannot find any traces in it of the manners, rites, or affairs of the Ifraelites. You fay, " you be- lieve moft competent readers are agreed, that there are mfinitely more andjlronger marks that the affairs under the Theocracy are alluded to, than that Auguftus is Ihadowed under Virgil's Hero." A very modefl: recounting of prefuraptive votes in your favour truly ! I am as fully perfuaded as I can be upon any fiich point, that there neither is, was, or ever will be, I do not fay fuch an agree- ment ©f moft competent readers, but any one com- .petent reader in the World of this opinion; nor can I believe that, with all the prejudice of hypothefis poffeffing you, you can upon recolleftipn poffibly think fo yourfelf. — \ But as for my cxpreffions which you objeft to; if you had ufed the fame up- on a like occafion in your writings, I believe they never would have been felefted as remarkably defi- cient, in point of civility and decency, ,nor as the moft flagrant inftance to be found there of the Dogmatical. The next paffage in the fame page you give up, and allow that it could not be meant of you ; but think that I ought to have diftinguiflied your Alle- gory from that of others, I {hould rather have ' reftrained Dr. L. to Dr. W. ^25 reftrained It, by my cxprefficm, as well as by the circumftan;ces, to thofe whom it only concerned : I ftiould have faid quibufdam AllegOrias conquifitori- bus ; and I will correal: it fo, if ever I have an op- portunity; As to my admitting Solomon's Song JO be an Allegory, at the fame time that I denied Job to be fuch ; it was, I affure you, neither out of perverfenefs with regard to you, nor for fear of appearing unorthodox. I think there is a material difference between the two cafes : if you deny Job to be an Allegory, I fee no ill confequence; it ftands juft where it did : but if you deny that Solo- mon's Song is an Allegory, you muft exclude it from the Canon of Holy Scripture; for it holds its place there by no other tenure. You may laugh at me, but I am really in earneft in faying, that I am inclined to think Solomon's Song to he alto- gether Allegorical : I have given my reafons for it; and do not yet think the difficulties that ftand in the way of the Allegorical Interpretation equal to that of fuppofing, that Ezra, or whoever they were that fettled the Canon of Scripture, would ever have admitted a loofe and profane Poem into the number and rank of their Sacred and Infpired Writings. You are pleafed to fay, " that the general turn of my Letter is to fhew you, that you are unreafon- able in expefting common civilities from me, in a book where you lay fo much in my way." Qive me leave to flate my defign, as I iiflagine, more I juftlj : 12^ L E *T T E R m. jpftly ! it was to fliew you, that you did not lie {o much in, my way, as to have made it either necef- fary, or proper, or indeed not even extremely iin- pertinent, for me to have entered into a diljpute with you. If I had really, as }^^u fay, neglefted pay- ing y.on common refpeS, or declined it for fear of giving oflFence, 'you might eafily have fuggefted to yourfelf a proper plea for the prudence and juftnefs of my coriduft. To profit by the experience of others is the beft ufe one can make of Knowledge of the world : the experiment of paying you a pro- per refpeft on a like occafion had not fucceeded well with others ; a fufEcient reafon why I Ihould not try it again. For inftance, and it is a cafe in point ; the Learned and Ingenious Dr. Grey gave an Edi- tion of Job, apd in his Preface had occafion, to fpeak of the feveral prevailing' opinions concerning thedefign of the Book; he found himfelf obliged to diffent from you ; he exprefled his diffent in a decent manner; he treated. you with candor, civi- lity, and refpeft. What was the confequence ? you were highly offended ; you looked upon him as an enemy, marked him as an objeft of your refentment, and treated him in a manner equally unworthy of him and yourfelf. After this you ought not to wonder, if no writer on Job fhoiild care to have any thing to fay to you. To have done with Job : I cannot help noting another paffage of mine upon that fubjeft, which you have Introduced for no other purpofe but to pervert Dr. L. to Df. W. 127 peifvert and ridicule it. I ajn raanifeftly fpeaking p'. 526, of ad improvetnent that might have been made in procefsof time and by a fucceffion of wri- ters ; as was the cafe with the Greeks, whofe ad- vances in this way I obferve were very flow : you dfexteroufly flip in the compofer, as if I had faid that He was capable of tnakSng it himfelf; and then laugh at me for an abfurdity qf which you are the author. I mention this as another inftance to Ihew, that you did not read me with that candor and equity which is every writer's due. I fuppofe fome friend of yours, who in the immoderate warmth of his aflTeftion refolves to keep you to himfelf by fet- ting you at variance with the reft of the world, had prejudiced you againft me, by informing you, that I had treated you with difrefpeft. In confequence of which, you read my book through with the fame fpirit, which you have fliewri in your glofs upon the parts produced in your letter ; and I need not be furprifed to find, that you thought the Au-i thor, as well as the Book, made up of perverfe- nels, abfurdity, and nonfcnfe. You guefs the true reafon of my not being afraid of you ; and I will give you the reafon, why I told you fo. After what your Friend had publiflied to the world, and what you had faid yourfclf (for your demand of an explanation was attended with a fort of denunciation of your refentment, in cafe of a refufal, or an unfatisfaftory account of my- felf ) I thought it iqeumbent upon me to tell you explicitly, and to repeat it, that I was not to be frightened. i^B LETTER IIL frighted. I {hottld not have thought of fetting forth my bravery, if I had not firll been called a Coward, and accordingly looked upon as one that was to be awed by menaces. I have now confidered all youf cbijlplaiflts ; and fince we are upon the bufinefs of expoftiilationj and as I hope for the laft time, you muft give me leave in my turn to make my own; It is not in be-' half of myfelf, but of one for whom I am much more concerned, that is, my Father. In your Julian you bring a heavy charge agaiiift him of Uncharitable- iaefs. I have feveral objedibns to the whole paffage, which I Ihall propofe to you as diftinftly as I cani I. In ch^ging him fo feverely, ypii do not quote his words; or fo much as fays wheii or wher6 thefe uncharitable refleftions were made : fo that not one in a hundred perhaps bf your readers will know, wherie to find what he has faid, and fo be able to ex- amine, whether you have charged him juftly or not. II. You fay, that thgfe refieftions ftand in the place of a confutation : whereas the confutation precedes them. Mr-. L. charges Bafnage with wil- fully fupprelEng the unexceptionable evidencepf an honeft contemporary Heathen, Ammian. Marcel- linus: which is as much to the purpofe in one line, and will go as far towards invalidating his judge- ment upon the cafe, as all that Criticifm which you' tiave difplayed through fo many pages. III. You mifreprefent what he has faid: I tnuft fet before you his werds-; "f?d.profefto", ut ob-^ fervat Dr *L. to Dr W. 129' fetVaf If. Voffius, " nuHos' religib diriftiana infen- "■fiores Habet hoftesf, quam ipfos Gliriftianos :" aUrfaltem qui nomine tenus Chriftihui'vidcri vo^ luat : quaies funt Tan. Faber, Jac. Tollius, -aliique iftius Commatis Critici. The words quales funp plainly relate to thofe only, qui nomine tenus Chri- ftiani videri volunt ; and neither of thefc claufes includes Bafnage. If Mr L. had iiitended to in- clude him, he ought to have faid, quaifesfunt ipfe B'afna^us, Tan. Faber, •&€.. or qiiales' ^Wfl^« funt T. Faber, &c. dr rather lie could not have ufedat all with any propriety thofe words of Voffius, v/ho fpeaks of 5/Hcer^.Chriftians doing differvice to th? caufeof Ch^ftianity: (De Sibyl. Orac;. Cap. XI.) Mr L. accordingly cenfures Bafnage, as a Chriftian and' a real friend, for his indifcretionand perverfe oppofition in this' particular dafe ; for a' condudl: which you allow to be mojl proDoktng, and fuch as cannot but give offence to' every fober' reader. His cen- fure upon him isicarried no further than- the words of Voffius, and really amounts to no more than what you have beftowed en him yourfelf; Your remarks onwhatMrL. has faid relate toBafnage only: Faber aird Tollius you leave to fliift for themfelves ; and they were not either of themMi&ifters of the Gofpel : io that your laboured amplification, by which you do all you can to aggravate the charge of unchari- tablenefs, falls intirely to the ground, as being built ■ only oti. your own^ uncharitable mifreprefemation. IV. It would have been morfe generous and jufl in you to have acknowledged yourfelf indebted- to 11 Mr J30 LETTER III. Mr L. for the Application of the meteoric appear- ance of Croffes from Cafaijbon's Adverfaria to this Subjeft; which, when it appeared in ydur more popular Volume, ^yas received with applajafe, as new and very ingenious ; an applaufp which, as yoi| ■ CQuId not but Icnow, belonged to him. I flatter myfelf that you ■vjrill apknowledge th? truth of thefe remarks ; and expe^j that when you give a nev Edition of your Julian you will do Mr L. common juflige by reftifying all the aboye par- ticular^. Yoti conclude your Letter with faying fomething of me and of yourfelf. What you fay of me ig much raoi-e than 1 defer ve ; but yoii qualify it by- intimating, that you found me the very reverfe of my book. Let us e'en compound the matter be- tween the Book and the Author : abate a good deal of one fide and of the other, and I flaall be fatis- fied. What you, fay of yourfelf, of your defigns apd your difpofition, I mod readily believe to be true : and affure yourfelf, that I always have been, and ftiall be, as ready to acknowledge upon all pro- per occafions the fuueriority of your Genius, your Learning, and your abilities. I dp but join with, many other fmcere well-wifliers to you in regret- ting, that you have not fomething more of the Spi- rit of Toleration in Literary matters ; that you arq fo hafty in taking up your refentments, and that you treat fuch as diifer from you in fo fevere, and fo contemptuous a manner. \ . , For Dr L. td Dr W. t^i For myfelf as a member of the Commonwealth tof Letters, I ain a true Lover of peace and quiet- iiefs, of mutual freedom, candor, and benevbleiite.' I deteft and I defpife the Squabbles that are perpe- tually arifiag fr6m 'the jealCJufy and peevifhnefs of the genus irritabile Scriptorum. I am a {launch Re- publican and a zealous TProteftant in Literature, nor "hHlll ever bear with a Perpetual Diftator, or an In- ffiUiblc Pope, whofe Decrees are to be fubmitted to without appeal, and to be received with implicit affent. Mams hat iftimicatyrannis. My favourite Principle is the Liberty of Prophecyingi and I will maintain it with my laft breath. ■ With regard to you in pafticalar, depend upon toy, fmcerity when I affurfc you, th,at I fhall not on* ly always hgnour you as a man of "the firft rank ia Letters, but fliall be heartily difpofed to cultivate your acquaintance, and to merit your good opi- nion; fhall be glad of every Opportunity of enjoy- ing the 'pleafiire and profit of your converfation ; and moft willing to enter into as near an iriter- courfe with you as you fhall be pleafed td permit, as a Neighbour, a Member of the fame Society, and a Friend. I am with great Truth arid Refpefif, Dear Sir, Your mbft obedient and Faithful humble Servant, R. L. i .132 ] L E T T E R ly. To The Reverend Dr L. Grofvener Square OQ. 12. n$6« Dear Sir, I HAVE this momefit received the favour ol^ your long letter of the 6''', it having beea fent me hither from Priorr Park, I had a great deal to fay to the contents. In fome places you have ftiewn I was ipiftaken, iu others you have convinced me I was not. And if you have fliewn me I. have here and there miflakea your meaning, I have my revenge very amply, if I eould take any pleafure in it, in feeing you are as totally miftaken in my moral charafter. But you have fliut my mouth for ever on the fubje^ of you? letter ; by the information you impart to me in the conclufion, namely that the Mr L. who fent a few notes to Reading the Editor of the Ecclefiaftical Hiftorians, was your E-athei". I had not the lead fufpicion of it, when I pretended to take your ufage of me unkindly in your Preleftions. . Had I known that, I fhould not only, have forborn complaining, but have applauded your piety. The injurer of your Father's memory (and fuch you took me to be Dr» W. to Dr. L. 133 be, as appears by what you fay here) dcferved no quarter from you. Aijd this but giVes me dae Kafon more to efteena you. And that I may not jcoQtiaue worfe ip your efteem than I deferve, give jne lej9.ve lio tell you I am no plagiary of your Fa- tiler's ojbferyjitions. By an odd fancy to a ftrange unequal writer, I had read Meric Cafaubon's wri- tings thfo' and thro'. And I had finiflied my book of Ju%Q, and it was half printed off, when Dn Jorten wrote me word of this note of Mr. L.'s» This is a point of honour in which I am particu- Jarly delic,ate, I will ^venture to boaft again to you in this, that I believe no Author wa? ever morci averfe to take to himfelfe any thing that belonged to another. However I owe fo much to your piety^ which is really edifying, as to ftrlke out that note againft your Father, the very firfl opportunity. It is to this likewife, that I am ready to facrifice every difguft that fbme parts of your laft might be natu- rally fuppofed to give me ; as where you leave the queftion between us, and diftate to me like a tutor or Pedagogue on my general ccnduft towards o-^' thers; in which it is not to be fuppofed you could be acquainted with the A^hole of the cafe, or know' my particular provocations, as in the cafe of Gray. I have faid to the world, (and they ought to be- lieve tae or difprove me) that I had treated no man roughly, who had not firft fallen upon me. But I thought it both below me, and impertinent in it felfe, to acquaint the public with the particulars. In a ward* I repeat it once again, that my ufmg your §54 L E f T- E i( IV. your Father with difrefpeft amply juftified you fSr every thing I complained of. But (for all I faid there, and when I faid it) I honoured his memory as one of the mofl: learned Perforis of a better Age, if he was, as I fuppofe he might be, the Author of the Comments &c. ' And be aflufed, I efteeA it not amongft theleafi: of his ferviceS tb the Pub- lic, that he produced yoii with the reft of hi's works. I accept with all coMiality the offer o'f your friendiliip. You know the worft of me, and perhaps have givefi credit to a great deal more thaini the worft, I meaii the calomriies of my Enemies j for the future yoti are to believe only as you find; I am, De^r Sir, Your very faithful and affeftioriate humble Servafit, W. w". , Si I am here in viraitiug. I mention it to you from a felfilli view. Regis of this month is dying. What fliOuld hinder your ftep- ping into his place ? it would furely be the eafier, for there are now three or four va- cancies amongft the Chaplains by deaths and removals, and it would be an acquifitioa to me to have you in this month. LETTER^ C 135 1 LETTER V. To The Reveren^ Dr. W. Dear Sir, Winchefter Oft. 14. 1756. I Cannot omit the firft opportunity of acknow-; ledging the favour of your very obliging Letter, ^hich is juft now come to my hands. . I was unwilling to qpen.my complaint to you re- lating to my Father, till I had, as I thought, totally removed the foundation of your exceptions againft me. You allow, that I had no reafon to go out of my way to pay you any particular compliment ; and you mull give me leave flill to aver, that oil the other hand I have not, upon that or any other acccount, gone outpf my way with defign to reflect upon you. To what I have already offered upon this head, I might add that the Argument and Sub- ftance of the XXXIl4 and XXXIIId Leftures, which feem chiefly to give you dilguft, were drawn up to the fame effeft, as they now appear, fome years before your* Julian was publiflied ; as I could ptove to you inconteftably, if required, by the ori- ginal papers, and by the teftimony of the Bifliops of Oxford, Rochefter, and Norwich, and feveral other learned Friends, whom I confulted upon my vs^hole Plan. I fimply ptirfued my plan, and differ- ed from you. no otherwife than I did from many other, eminent \Wfters, againft whom I could have no prejudice. I thought there was no need of being tender in delivering one's opinion upon a fubjeftof fuch doubtful difputation as Job : nul/i gravis ejl z ■ fercuffus 1^6 , L E T T E R V. fercujfuf, ■Acbiiles. However fince jr has happened contrary tQ my expectation, mretufn.for your very obU^^-Cortceffion in regardTto my father, I will vec.yj. I'eadily endeaVjOar to fof^en or ;alter ^ny ex- preffiotiSjXKliichilillQ^i^d yop, iad wliicb. ,you fliall- mark t^ ,ilie.-as fpcii, ji^far as I can do it confiftent- ly with my general 'llljefis. In excufe for what may offend you in my laft.l might alledge, that I have faid nothing but what, fbme palfages in yoar Letter ga^e t&efc, not only'sc .^ir opportunity,* but a- right to l^yi: -i lAit-Fim rmiviUing to iefiime "this fub- jeift;'an3 take much more pleafm'e in returning you my fincer'e'ft thanks for your, very obHging ex- preffions of all forts. Thofe of your Poft-fcript are particularly fo in every refpeft ; and the reafon you are fo kind as to give for your mentioning the thing, would' really be a great inducement to me to think of it. But my ambition is at an end ; and otherwife an attendance of this fort would be ex- tremely ilicfen^enient to me in niy, prefent fituation. I writi^this^. in a very gt^a* hurry, as you may w.ell unagne^ when Itell youjjT am , preparing to remove ':.-^jfh'ipyFai«ily to Durh^pithe beginning of ia^x|;^veek. I hop§.l fliajl^-there have frequent, opporcunjjjEies of improving' jlle friendfliip which youfogeperouflyofier me, and which I fliall highly ■ efteem ; asid of demoaiirating in every way which ■ lies in my power, the fincerity with which I am, ,5 Dear Sir, Your mod faitiiful and affeclionate hulnblc Servant, K,L. , ! 'I li I 1 h .i|i^