€mul\ Winivmii^ | 
 
 Sitmg 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME | 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT 
 
 FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 
 Menrg M. Sagii , | 
 
 1S9X 
 
 a«f.J7 9^ 
 
 .i^.^LJL.a...lS: 
 
 
3 1924 102 766 098 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924102766098 
 
A N 
 
 EXAMINATION 
 
 O F 
 
 Mr. Warbtirtons Account 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 ConduSi o£ t[\t. Antient Legislators, 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Double DoBrine of the Old Philofophers, 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Theocracy of the Jews, 
 
 AND OF 
 
 Sir Ifaac Newton s Chronology. 
 By Arthur Ashley |ykes, I^,D. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. and P. K n a p t o n, at the 
 
 Crown in Lud^ate-Street, 
 
 M.DCC.XHV, 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 PAGE 31. ]. 19. for, He; read Or hi. 
 L, 20. dele, /y&y. 
 Page 36. 1. ttlt. for, 6soc iitt.ra.(p^.mtTi^ i read,. 
 
 ■9-eiBC KiLra,<p(jivmii. 
 Page 39. 1. pra. for bahetur; read, ^siJ^j. 
 Page 55. 1. I. for, ?K«:ff; read, hndmad/e. 
 Page 239. 1. 22. for, was; read ;V. 
 Page 263. 1. 19. f9r, badt read has. 
 
EXAMINATION 
 
 O F 
 
 Mr. Warburton^s- S^d 
 
 Reverend ,Sir/- 
 
 YO U deiSre fo earheftly, and 
 prefs ib'much to have mySen- 
 timehts^ about a late Book that 
 has been much read, and more 
 talked of, both in Town and Country, that 
 I know not how to withftand your Impor- 
 tunity any longer. I fend you therefore fome 
 of the Remarks which I made upon reading 
 over The Divine Legation fl/'Mofes ; enough^ 
 I hope, to fatisfy your Curiofity, and to 
 ihew my Readinefs to comply with your 
 Jiequefls. \ . 
 
 You knovv very well oiir old Frienti Mr; 
 p***. He calls Mr. Warburton\ Book a 
 learned Romance; and he fays wi£h foine 
 Huniour, that the Digreffions in it about 
 the Myjleriesj the Hieroglyphics i the Book 
 ki "^oBi are,' or niay be deemed,- fb mjariy 
 B ' iftgefiioB^sf 
 
2 fhe Conduct of the 
 
 ingenious Novels^ which ferve to relieve or 
 divert the Reader. But then, he goes fo 
 fcr as to doubtj whether Mr Warburton 
 writes for Utility or for Truth, * For he 
 
 * has told us fo much, fays he, about the 
 ' Praftices of thofe old Philofophers, and 
 ' how much they were wont to lie for the 
 
 * Publick Good; that they taught one Things 
 ' and believed another j that they made no 
 
 * Confcience of faying and teaching what 
 
 * tbey knew or thought to be falfe on the 
 ' moft important Subjects ; and he declares 
 ' himfelf to have come from the Schools of thefe 
 < Heathen Philofophers, that I cannot but 
 ' think he may reafonably be fufpefted, at leaft 
 « for fome time, till he has performed a ^a~ 
 ' rantine., to have received an InfeBion from 
 
 * them, and to have learnt to lie for the 
 ' Fuhlic Good, as his JVlafters did before him, 
 
 ' It is true, fays our Friend, that Mr. 
 ' Warburton does not think thofe Men to 
 ' be altogether fne from Blame ; and it may 
 
 * be faid in his Favour, that what he 
 
 * blames a //■///(? in them, he would not' do 
 
 * himfelf: But yet his Cenfure of tbem is 
 
 * fo very foft, and he islb tender of . their 
 
 * moral Chara<5ler, whilft he is fo ready to 
 
 ' flame 
 
Old Legislators '^^^rV. 3 
 
 * flame out againft, and to fhevsr no Mercy 
 
 * to others, who do not think as he does, 
 
 * diat one cannot help imagining, that in 
 
 * his Opittion i the gdod End they had in 
 
 * View did" fandify the Means they ufed, 
 ' and that it was no great Fault in them to 
 
 * have extemd mid internal DoBrines. 
 
 ' As to himfelf, he tells us, that he has 
 ' been " if»rj&^ Cabinet Council of the 
 
 * old Limgjvers ;" that he is *' lately come 
 
 * from the Schools of Heathen Philofophers" . 
 ' Vol. II. Pref. p. jciv. That as thofe 
 
 * Mafliers made a Diftindion between Truth 
 
 * and Utility, and were femous for having 
 
 * an EJbterica.ndExoteric'DoO^^r'me, foThey 
 ' were perpetualfy inculcating to the People 
 
 * what they did not believe themfelves. 
 
 * May one not therefore ' very reafonably 
 
 * doubt, 'whether Mr. Warhurton has not 
 
 * learnt in the Schools^ which He profefles 
 ' to be iatefy comefrom^ what They taught 
 
 * there? Whether any one, but a good 
 
 * Prafidcnt, would be admitted into the Cabi- 
 
 * w^^Coawc// of the Old Lawgivers? Whether 
 
 * He has not learnt their Secrets^ Whether 
 
 * therefore what He pubiifhes and inculcates 
 
 * to the People be not Exotgric f Whether 
 
 B 2 * it 
 
4 The Conduct of 'the 
 
 * it be not a .Dodlrine calculated only ior 
 ' the Public Good? And laftly, whether 
 ' He believes it to be 'Triiei more than 
 
 * Plato; as he fays, believed a future State 
 
 * of Rewards and Puniihments ?'' 
 
 You will think perhaps, that This is 
 pufhed too fair; and that our Friend ihould 
 not have prefled this Topic fo home. When I 
 fliew'd himi that Mr.^ WarburtonlnaA obferr- 
 ed in his third Edition, that " the Princi- 
 " pies, which induced the antient Sages, to 
 *' deem it lawful to lie or deceive for the 
 " Public Good, had no Place in the Pro^ 
 *' pagation of the Jemjh and Chrijlian Re- 
 " ligion." p. 336. 'Be it fo, faid hej 
 
 * do not miftake me. I defign no more 
 
 * than this J That if Sufpicions and Con- 
 
 * jeftures are to be admitted in Oppofition 
 
 * to exprefs Declarations, then it may as 
 
 * eafily be fhewn, that Mr. Warburtpn does 
 
 * not believe what He profefTes to demon- 
 
 * ftrate, as that P/<z/o, did not believe a fu- 
 
 * ture State of Rewards and Punifhrnents ? 
 
 If his Zeal for the Gharaifiers of the old 
 Philofophers, whofe Morality he fo much 
 admires, carried the good old Gentleman 
 
 • . ■ jto® 
 
OLi>f:LEGrsLAToRs eonfider'd, 5 
 
 too fat", orimade him exprefs himfelf with 
 too much Watmthj'You mujfl judge :.! 
 tell you the Fa<S^. ' 'At aiioither Cohverfation,' 
 He open'd-feiriifdf very freely upon the 
 Manner of Mr. "^^-^r/OT's treating his Ad- 
 v«rfaries. ' T ft'and amazed, faid he, at 
 '■'■ the. Adverfifmient lately publiifhed in the 
 ' ifecond Editioa of the fecdnd Volume of 
 'Mr. Warhuhon'% Bo6k. It is fo unbe- 
 ' coming, fo little like what ought to be 
 ' faid by any Man of Letters,' that it is not 
 ' eafy of late. Years to match it. He hath, 
 •- 1 know, , the Examples of fome of the 
 ^ mofl eminent Writers that ever Europe 
 *.:bred, tOijuftify himfelf in his pierfonal 
 * Abuies:., And he feems to follow their 
 VSteps in ej:4^ing his Thrond upon a Heap 
 ' of StoneSj as ^ great Scholar is faid to havd 
 ' done before him, } that he nfught have 
 •.one, always ready to throw at every Mart 
 •" that pafs'd by. him. He, tells us himfelf 
 ^ of an antient Writer, " whofe envioust 
 •i rabid Temper, and. perverfe Turu- of 
 ^^cMindi joirC d to his perpetual Delight in 
 *■':, ContradiStiony gained him th' great, 'Title 
 *Lof Epitimeeusj the Calwmiator." This 
 «^ Mixt, fays Mr. Warburtoriy Was remafk- 
 Tai 3 3 "able 
 
^ The C o Si D V c r of ihe 
 
 " able for a certain Mark of a l>afe and 
 « ia^V^MW,:{He was a&.^xg?ffive in hi& 
 " Flattery, , as in his Calumny". - To 
 
 * this Remark, ii He adds aij^^eaipn of 
 '.>Poly&ius on him, — " In.cefifuring the 
 ": Faults of others, he pufc^ dn fuch an Air 
 •5. of Seventy and Confidence,' as if himfelf 
 " were exempt from Failings, and flood in 
 "■ no need of Indulgence.",-. Vol. I. p. 113 
 ''' -14.5 Did the! angry Writers of the laft 
 ' Age, even the greateft.of them, efcape 
 Vthemfelves, when they took fiich Liber- 
 
 * ties with others ?'Did they efcape the fe- 
 
 * vereft Laflie^of Adverfarie&,'i who thought 
 ' they had a' Right to return -the Coin which 
 ' they had taken in the Republic of Letters? 
 
 ' It is hard toatcount for- this evil Spirit 
 
 * in fome that would appear, - and ftjri 
 
 * would be^'treated' as Gre^'e-Seho'lai^s. Mr. 
 
 * 'Tillardy who has the Chat'a^ex of a ftu- 
 
 * dious, honeft, good Man, in*a fecofld 
 
 * Treatife had owned hlnfdf to be the 
 ' Author of a Bo&k, upon which Mr. War- 
 
 * burton had very freely mkcfe'^his Remarks, 
 
 * Upon thisiA Mr. Warh^tim publifhes an 
 ' .-Advertiftimni in the fecoi!wi Edition of 
 ^ this fecond Volume. — " The Author of 
 
 U"' 'the 
 
Old Legislators con/tder'd. 7 
 
 the Pamphlet here examined hath lately 
 made a public Confeffion of his Author- 
 * Jhip^ fign'd with his own Hand, and 
 thereby faved bimfelf itovo. all further Cor- 
 reBion of this kind. For He who is fo 
 loji to Shame as a Writer to own what he 
 before wrote, and jo loji to Shame as a 
 Man to own what he hath now written, 
 muft needs be paft all Amendment, the 
 only View in Correffion." 
 ' Mr. Tillard had been treated, as Mr, 
 Warburton himfelf exprefles it, with very 
 little Ceremony^ in his Remarks^ becaufe; 
 He had not put his Name to his firft 
 Piece. " I had put my Name, fays Mr* 
 Warburton^ to what I wrote, and he at- 
 tacks me without any. Had either I con- 
 cealed mine, or he told his, he might then 
 have expedted (if in other Refpeds he 
 deferved it) what the ufual Commerce 
 of Civility demands between People iipon 
 equal Terms: But writing without a 
 Name in the Manner he has done, is leall 
 of all excufable. For when a Man's Per- 
 fon or Reputation is attack'd, I know 
 little Difference between the Ruffian^ and 
 « the Writer:, in the darkr Rem. p. ST^ 
 B 4 !! Thus 
 
8 The Con DV QT of the 
 
 Thus is Mr. 'Tillard treated for writing 
 
 without a. Name. Upon this Mr. Tillard 
 
 writes a feCond Book, owns the Former, 
 
 . and puts his Name in the Title as Mr. 
 
 WarburtonhsA 6.onQ; and thus far they 
 
 were now upon, equal Terms. WhatnoAV 
 
 ' is to be done ? Why, Mr. Tillard is lofi 
 
 \to Shame,' a.s a Writer, to own what' he 
 
 'had wrote before: And He is lo/l' to^ 
 
 ' Shame, as a Man, to own what he "has 
 
 ' now written." Let us fuppofe, that Mr, 
 
 Tillard had tol^ his Name at fifft : Mr, 
 
 Jfarburtori's Repiark muji have been, 
 
 th?.t He was "loft to Shame as a Writer-,'" 
 
 becaufe now, whgn he has put his Name 
 
 by publiqkly owning that firft Book, He 
 
 has this Imputation laid on him. HoW 
 
 then might he have expedted, or if he 
 
 had expedled would he have had, " What 
 
 ' the ufual Cbmrnerce of Civility demands 
 
 ' between People upon equal Terms ?" Or 
 
 is it the ufual Commerqe of Civility thus 
 
 to tell a Man He is " loft to Shame f" Mr. 
 
 Tillar;d's. firft Book was not thought ^5^- 
 
 neath Mr. Warburton's Pains to write 
 
 Tiemarks upon it. When the fecond 
 
 appeared,' it was wifhji Name f See how 
 
 ■ the 
 
Old LEGISLATORS con^iier'J. cf 
 
 * the Air with which this is treated. — " I 
 " fhall therefore, fays Mr. fFariuftON, but' 
 " do, what indeed (were it' any more 
 " than repeating what he himfelf hath' 
 " difcovfered to the Puialic) would be 
 
 • ' * '^ . - 
 
 " jtiftly reckoned the cricelkji of all 
 ** Things, tell the Reader the ..Name of 
 " this MISERABLE, which we find to be 
 " j. Tillard." ' Can you match this Piece 
 
 * of DW/zVj;? Rudenefs, and Ill-Manners, 
 
 * and Incivility is bad in every Bodyj fcut 
 
 * worfe in' a Clergyman' than in any other ;' 
 
 * arid no Man whatever fhould put on fuch 
 *' an Air of C()?i^ence ' and Severity, but 
 " he that is fure that' he is free frofn 
 <' Failings i" and even fuch a Man, if he' 
 
 * has a right Mind, will think that all 
 ' Jjlen ftand in need of " Indulgence,'' 
 
 I was with our old Friend Mr. P*** a 
 
 third Tiriie.; and then he afked me, Whe- 
 
 * ■• ■.-'.■-. ^ ^ 
 
 ther I had examined Mr. WdrburtorCs Quo- 
 
 ■- . . '.■',, '• ' '■ ^ ^'—^ ' 
 
 tations with any Care. Uppii' my replying,^ 
 
 that I had taken it for granted, that fo, 
 learned a Man would certainly not impofe 
 on his Readers, at leaft not willingly, He 
 bad me reach him Mr. Warburton's fecond 
 Volume, aijd bring with me Clet^em jilexrr 
 '^ndrinus. 
 
 •You 
 
ip Th^.C Q N D u c T of the 
 
 : f. ypui may reinem|jer, faid he, that ta 
 ^ give an Accaunt of the Hieroglyphics^ he 
 
 * cites from. Clemens a long Paflage; and 
 ' charges him with a Miftake, " in making 
 '^.fhe Epifiokry. Writing firft in'ORofR op 
 " Time, ■which -was indeed the- Laft." It is, 
 *^ in p. 99-102^ Now there is not in, 
 ' Clemens one Word, which figpifies which 
 ' was the Firjl, or which, was the La/l, io 
 
 * Order of Time, of thofe feveral Ways 
 
 * of Writing which the Egyptians ;ufed. 
 ' Which of, th.em was invented Firfl, oe 
 
 * which was Laji, muft appear from fome-^ 
 
 * thing elfe, or it cannot be fhewn at all, , 
 
 * Clemens is here fpeaking, not of the Order 
 ' of Invention, but of the Method of /^^f/^^ 
 ^<ing othe]|s what, had long enough beea 
 
 * invented before.: And he fays, {a) Thofi 
 \ who are inftrufted by the Egyptians, firji 
 
 * of all learn the Method o/'/z^r Egyptian 
 ' Letters, which is called Epi'ftolary,. or 
 ' Epiftolographic : T^e fecond is the Hie- 
 *■ ratic^' which the facred Scribes ufe : The 
 
 * laH andfinaj w //6^ Hieroglyphic. This 
 
 {a} /iCrim ^ ot Tcif A'lfwTTJioif TtuJ'iuof/.iyot wfulov 
 ^Av ■wa.vTav -rh AifvTrfiuv y^ctiAij.aTav jueffoiPoy tKiAttv- 
 f'i'y^^iy^Tnv 1-TK-oMffia^iK.m' iLAK»yi,k\!W . , J^(,\J]i^a.v <^s tot 
 
 i;<tiut.y tw li^oyw^Du^iu Clemens. Strom 5. ^ 
 
 * then 
 
Old L-egisi. at oks canftder^d. n 
 '■ then was their Manner of Teaching; but 
 as to the Order of Time in inventing 
 
 * thefe fe^^eral Methods of conveying tiseir 
 
 * Scntimtmsi there is not one ! Word. 
 
 * Whence therefore is it, -that Mr. fFar- 
 
 * burton could difcover a^Miftake in this 
 
 * Pafla^ of (Memnsf Mr. Warburtoris 
 *■• Words .ate, upon citing this Plafce.'--^ 
 " Th& firfi 'Mxftake common to both [Poir*, 
 " phyry; and Clemens] dfidi'£he natural Cosfj 
 "'fiquencelof.thaifalfe Princifik'ts rmUi^, 
 " the Epiftolary Writing /i^y? in. Order of 
 " Time, wSich. was Mes4 the I'aft?' . But 
 
 * how does rSt appear ^oia: this Paffiige,, 
 
 * that Clemens vf2& under ,^ny Miftake, or 
 S even fo tnildh as thought of iwhich was 
 
 * Firji or Lajl, as to Order of Time in 
 'which tbefeJiMethods ! were invented? 
 '-'Why, thus AMr. Warbiirtm'^ goeS o^,y*- 
 " For that iiias was their Sentiment ap^ 
 ^ pears: from Glemens'j r^z/Z/wj;' KBerc^lyphic. 
 **■ Writing, i^ktm ;^ -riKivfreuav )tke loji' and 
 " moji perfeB kind." Clemens is not in 
 ' thefe WoticJs'.fpeaking ■cff>ithe Hierogly- 
 'fbics, 2&'\h&laji zvvA. ii^perfeSi kind of 
 
 * wrking,' but a« ihclaj^ ^^i Jkal or Jini/h-* 
 
 : ' .. • * ing- 
 
12 ^e C o K D V c T of fbe 
 
 * /% Thing taught thofe who came > to be 
 
 '^ ' injiruBedy '■ •■: 
 
 He mentioned Several other Quptations^^ 
 (more tfian jou' would imagine) which- ap- 
 peared to me very. much miftaken,_ or naif-' 
 applied; and rfiade me read, the Book a* 
 leeohd time. .Arid fince you dfefire the Re' 
 marks I made;' I fend you now what occur 'd 
 to me in reading Three or Four of his prin- 
 cipal Pleads : And I fhall begin With what 
 he has faid on the Conduft of the. antient 
 Legiflators..i -s^fii ./ f' K,i 
 
 : 'The' Point to be proved by Mr. JVarbur- 
 tonki That -there is a certain: Difference be-' 
 tween Mofes- and . «^. other Lawgivers. . That 
 Mofes never -inJDulGated theDodrine of a' 
 fiiture State of Rewards and^Piinifhments ; 
 which yet is afefelutely neceffary to the Well- 
 beiijg of Society } and that J^/ other liegif- 
 latprs did. \ Hence he undertakes to demon^' 
 ftratf the Divine Legation a^ Mofes frorre 
 bis Omiffion ,of .this Dodtrinel ajnong' the" 
 Jews. \ .'^y!ij ' . ' •'. :\ -, '-■ 
 
 It is very ; remarkable, that .when Mr.^ 
 Warhirton firft publifhed his Firft Volume,* 
 he attempted ^td ;prove, that ; the Legiflators 
 of Old endeavoured to inculcate Religion, 
 
 by 
 
Old Legislators .faj^/^^^V. jg 
 
 by making the DoiSrine of a Provldfence 
 in its full Extent y .the grand SanBkn of 
 their Laws^ with which their Syftems of 
 Inftitutes ^t^^c prefaced 2ivA introduced. And 
 his Argument indeed required, that it fhould 
 J)e io^ fince if only a prefent Interpofition of 
 Providence was all that was inculcated by 
 them, Mofes and They would be at leaft 
 upon the Par. He therefore infifted that 
 the old Legiflators urged a Providence initi 
 full Extent t i. e. as it took in ^future State, 
 as well as the prefent, as the grand Sanation 
 of their Laws. In his laft Edition He has 
 changed the Words, and very much the 
 Senfe of his Propofition, by laying down 
 this as his Point to be proved. — The Legif- 
 lators endeavour'd " to propagate Religion 
 " by making the Dodtrine of a Providence, 
 " with which in its full Extent they pre- 
 " feced and introduced their Laws, the 
 " grand Sandion of their Inftitutions." In 
 the firft Edition, a Providence in its fuU 
 Extent was the grand Sandtion of their 
 Laws : In the laft, — a Providence is the 
 Sanation of their Inftitutions j and they only 
 prefaced and introduced their Laws with it 
 
14 'J^e Conduct of the ■ > > 
 
 in its full Extent. . But neither the one, 
 nor the other, of the Propofitions is true. 
 
 That fome of the old Legiflators ' intro- 
 duced their Laws with a Profeflion of the 
 Exiftence of Gods and Demons, and recom^ 
 mended a religious Obfervance of their In- 
 llitutes, is true : But that they all fo much 
 as prefaced their Laws with the Doftrine of 
 a Providence, either in its full Extent, or 
 not J either as it takes in a future State of 
 Rewards and Punifhments or not, is fo far 
 from being true, that fome of them never 
 introduced their Laws with any Thing about 
 a Providence ; and even the Prefaces of the 
 Three Legiflators which Mr. Warburton 
 cites, do not fo much as mention a Pro- 
 vidence in its full Extent. Maximus Ty- 
 rius has. obferved, as Mr. Warburton has 
 cited him, that neither did Solon, nor 
 the venerable Laws of Draco, take No- 
 tice of the Gods. This is charged with 
 being an egregious Miftake- in Maximus 
 Tyrius; and a Law of Draco's concern- 
 ing the Mode of wbrfhippirig the Gods is 
 mentioned, p. 107. Allowing this, the Point 
 to be proved was, that a Providence was the 
 Sanction of Solon'^ or Draco's Laws j or 
 
 that 
 
, Old Legislators ro^i/fr'i. ij 
 
 that their Laws were prefeced aiid introduced 
 with it in its full Extent. That they might 
 mention the Gods in their Laws, or provide 
 for the Reverence or Worfhip of the Gods 
 is one Thing ^ to make a Providem? 
 the SanSiion of their Laws is quite another; 
 it is ftiil a different Thing to preface their 
 Laws with a Providence in its fall Extent, 
 
 When Mr. Warhurton had mentionel 
 Zaleucus as an Inftance of one who had in- 
 troduced his Laws with the Dodtrine of a 
 Providence in its fall Extent, whether it wafe 
 owing to accidental Forgetfulnefs of what 
 he was to prove, or to real Want of Proo^ 
 or whatever elfe was the Reafon, — inftead 
 of producing clear and pofitive Evidence in 
 Confirmation of his Point, H« digrelTes for 
 fourteen Pages together to prove againft a 
 very judicious and able Critic, that the Pre- 
 face to Zaleucus'i Laws was no Forgery. I 
 enter not into that Difpute : Mr. Warburtm\ 
 Buiinefs was to prove, what Zaleucus is 
 quoted for, and not that it was no Forgery: 
 He was to have fhewn, that Zaleucus had 
 made the Dodrine of a Providence the 
 SanStkn of his Laws, or had prefaced them 
 with that Doftrine in its fall Extent. 
 
i6 _ ^e Con duct of the ,^j> 
 ■ It is true, that if any Lawgiver thought 
 proper to go to firfl: Principles, or defigne4 
 to teach his People the Foundations of good 
 Morals, and upon them to build his civil 
 Inftitutions : It was ufeful and much to the 
 Purpole, to enter fo deep into the Matter. 
 And thus did Cicero, in Imitation of Plato J 
 and thus did Plato in Imitation of Zaleucm 
 and Charondas. They prefaced or intro- 
 duced their Inftitutions with Diredlions how 
 Men ought to regulate their Lives j what ari 
 Advantage it was to themfelves and to the 
 Community to be virtuous j and they told 
 them how acceptable they would make 
 themfelves by this Behaviour to the Gods, 
 But this is not making a Providence the Sanc- 
 tion of their Laws : Or if it be, I apprehend 
 Mofes has done as much as this : No nor is 
 \t prefacing their Inftitutions with the Doc- 
 trine of a Providence in its full Extent. 
 
 " We are told indeed, that all the Le- 
 " giflators of Old unanimoufly agreed in 
 *' propagatiijg the Belief of a fiiture State of 
 " Rewards and Punifhments : but that thei-e 
 " was this very fingula^ Difference between- 
 *' Mofes' s Inftitutiori, and all the other In- 
 " ftitutions of Mankind, that tho' he like 
 
 " th©M 
 
Old Legislators con^Jer'd. 17 
 
 " them taught an over-rUling Providence, 
 " and a Religion, yet it was without the 
 " Dodirine of a future Stite of Rewards and 
 " PuniflimeRts." This is the Pofition in 
 the alliance 1^ Church and State. It can be 
 no difficult Matter, one would think, to 
 prove fo plain a Point, if the Fa.dt be tf ue. 
 The Words of the feveral Legiflators, or at 
 leaft of many of them, or fome old Tefti- 
 monies to fuch a Pradtice, may be produced 
 and compared with the Words of Mofes , 
 and if it appears that they have inculcated a 
 future State of Rewards and Punifhments; 
 either in their LawSj or in the Prefaces to 
 their Laws; more than Mofes has done, the 
 Evidence will foon appear. But th6 Mif- 
 chief is, that Mr. Warburfoh has not pro- 
 duced one fingle Inftance of any old Law- 
 giver, nor can he produce One, that has 
 made a Providence in its full Extent, either 
 the SanStion of his Laws, or has taught that 
 iDodtrine in the Preface of his Laws. 
 Let us defcend to F^articulars,-.: 
 Zaleums'% Laws had this ProcEmiuin'; 
 Which,- if' I tranflatd in manjr Places di#e- 
 rentfy frotti Mr/ Warburioni I do it to ex- 
 
iS 'the C o a D V c T of t^e 
 
 prefs the Original more nearly. (^) " All 
 " the Inhabitants, whether of City or Coun- 
 " try, fhould firft of all be firmly perfuaded 
 " of the Exijienee of the Gods. — ThefeGods 
 *' are to be worfhipped and honoured as the 
 ^' Caufe of all the real Good which we enjoy,— 
 " for which Reafon every one that defires to 
 " render himfelf/^^/o-y^i/ by the Gods, fhould, 
 
 {b) TbJ KaTOIKS/jat TMC '3-oA/C )^ TVIV Xa^OLV To/laf 
 
 TSTW «5 '■'A'?'''' *•* rt/TJKf oCTtff UTruvlav »fj!.7v d.fa,^£v — 
 cT/o Ixdiroy /^ s/j S^vvayLiv ayn&ov t>yai j^ v^d^u }^ 
 rr^odi^fei Tov //tlAAoi'7* 'iaiSnti ^to(piKn, )y ■TroKirtiv a/KSj- 
 vava. ovof/.a^iiv Tov rm (njfficLv *ion[/.ivov [jl£?\.Kov tS Kahou 
 s^ S'tx.itU. Oaoii /e (Ar\ fdS^iov ir^oi tSvto, thc offJi.»v 
 rn'jr^&Ai, Tw iS'i ^■'JX^' tx''"^"' iyx-ivnlo*' Tfo; dS'iMa.v, 
 aJ^' »iuv 'PTct^YiffiKSa^ tlS.(ri roli roiovToif ToAjva/j ^ 
 
 i'TTtwiyt.Tr'ovTKiv roj; aiT'tKOl!. )^ ri^lSat Wfo ofH/jLetray roir 
 xeufov tkIov, ly, a fivirat tv Ti>\.o( iucK-a' rn^ d'JrttA/^ety^s 
 Tn t^«v. TTOffi ya.^ ifi^'iTrjet uiTetfti^eto. roli iniKhno-i 
 
 TfAEt/]*!', y.if/.VVlJ.i.vdlf aV hi'lMK.a.aiV, id, OfjMW t? ?>iKiSia.t 
 
 Ikos-iip md^tv det ffufoueiSv fov koj^ov tTJov a( /« T«t- 
 fovJA: k7» yd^ S.V (xaAi^a. tk kclKou :y iS^imin ^ovjitiv. 
 Edli /e 5rtif«s->) /ai/xac ;ccSK.3f Tf ex(BC Tf jf dJ^/Ktitv, J^ia.- 
 Tei?>uv T^oi vctoii )^ ^eey.oi( >^ Ts/^bsfl-;, (piiyovlA rnit 
 dS'iMo.v, u( S^'i-msoivAV da-i^isdrm ■ i^ ;)(a.Ke7rtfl47iii'i hi- 
 Tivovlct TK! 0s«V (Tvmvoj^iTrup dvlm 'livcti M ^ ^rfdj 
 a.ViS'sa.! J'i^a.v i^oi'lay I'Tr'dvJ'fityABid duxff'oy.iva; Tiei 
 ivJitiy.ovO{ |3ib, ;^ Ketnav a.vJ'^m ri(Aupf\{ ha. darojfiwH 
 Tuv dS'i/.av i^ym, S'euriS'euuovuv S'diuovttt aA«rof«f'. 
 TldvTcti S'i riixSv'Tor^** ol KdToiKKfiet t»c toA/c, xJ 
 TolieLAKoti volt.'t(/Loti Toli '^af^ioif'Txf ■^ixf. — U'oKin Ji 
 ^iKcu-ri^cLv i/.hS'hs aKKtiv 4oiii&a rns dJIx TctreiJ^o;, bs 
 S-iav TOLT^aav vifafdyrav. Stob. Serm. 42. 
 
 I think this mutilous Place fliould be filled up with Come 
 fiichWordas Qutricuu and read thus» — ^<h^Af j'i rmZflo 
 
Old Legislators confider'd. 19 
 
 '' to thebeft of his Power, be good botK iii 
 " PradHce and Principle, and to efteem 
 " him a better Citizen who parts with his 
 " Subftance than with what is ~ right 
 ^ and juft. But as for thofe, whofe Appe- 
 " tites are fo violent J as not to be perfuaded 
 " to thefe Things, but have a Miiid eaiily 
 " moved to Evil [or Injuftice] we com- 
 " iiiindf thtis :. That all fiich Citizens, Men 
 " and Women, and all Sojourners, fhould 
 " keep in their thoughts the Gods, as ex- 
 " ijling, and fending Punijhments upon the 
 " tlnjuji ', zrtA. fhould fet before dieir Eyes 
 f ' that Time, when an End of Life fhall 
 "" happen to every one. x^or Repentance 
 "[ or Remotfe J happens to a;ll that are 
 " about to die,' who remember ivhat they 
 "have done knfujilj \ and they have a 
 *' ftrong Defire or Wifli, thk^they had 
 " heretofore done; every Thing as they 
 "-ought to have dOne. Every one there- 
 " fore ought in every A^ion always to fa- 
 " miliarize that Time, a^s if it were prefent; 
 "for by this Means -he will ketp up an 
 " ^3ai<a Regird - to Virtue and Goodtefs.' 
 '< But if the 'wicked Demon ftands near him, , 
 << influencing him to Wickednefsi he ought 
 :• € i ^' to/ 
 
20 The Conduct of the 
 
 " to frequent the Altars and- Temples ol* 
 " the Gods,, flying from Injuftice [or Evil] 
 " as the wickedeft and GruelLqft. Miftrcfs, 
 ". praying the Gods to help tq drive /hep 
 " away. Let him moreover have Recourfe 
 " to Men, who have a Reputation for Virr- 
 " tue, and hea.r theni Difepi^rfe abop^t a 
 " truly happy L.ifey and the Pp^iiflirnent of 
 " .wicked Men, that he may turn firpm a 
 " wicked Life." 
 
 'H.excMx.Warburton flops ; but he might 
 have gone^ on, — " That i\e niay turn from a 
 " wickaiLife, dreading the avenging De- 
 " mons, or, that always renieiBber wh^t is 
 " done. -Lft all that dweij in the City wor- 
 " ihm the Gods, according; to their Country 
 " Rites, — Let no Man love ^another State 
 *^ more than his own Country, beeaufe the 
 ", Gods of his own Country are difpleafed 
 " with, ;him for fo doing." roo t- 
 
 The Obfervations naturally arifing from 
 this Preface of Zaleucus ar§, ^ 
 
 I. He fp^aks of the Gods- with great 
 Reverence and Refpe<ft j, and he {c) begins 
 with inculcating on his People, that, every 
 
 TgSyii •jTiekr^ni'm^ai/ism^iStu Kod. Sic. 1. 12. p. .84. 
 
 Inhabitant 
 
Old LEGistATORS emfi^r'd. 21 
 
 fjnhabitant ought to be pervaded of their 
 " Exijleme" But here is not a Word of 
 Si future State of Punifhm^ts or Rewards, 
 as the SanSiioh of his Laws : No, nor are 
 his Laws (o much as prefaced or introduced 
 with any Notion of Providence " in its full 
 " Extent." He fays. That the Gods are 
 " the Authors of all the good Things 
 " which we enjoy :" By which he means 
 only xh&.prefent good Things, whatever 
 they are; the good Things, tw x«7« \'ayw 
 ^iyro[Aitay, which by any Means happen 
 to us. And with a View to the obtain- 
 ing thefe " Good Things," he fays, " He 
 " that iwould maike himfelf beloved by the 
 *' Go^j, fliQuld to the befl: of his Power be good 
 " both in Principle and Pradtice." Had he 
 defigned to Ipeak of a future State y or to fay 
 that God would punifh Men hereafter y He 
 would not have given this Reafon, why 
 Men Ihould keep their Minds pure and free 
 from all Evily " becaufe God is not honoured 
 " by a wicked Man-" but his Thought 
 would naturally have carried him to have 
 mentioned that Part of the Scheme of Pro- 
 vidence, which would have ftruck much 
 more forcibly on the Minds of Men. 
 
 C 3 2. He 
 
22 ■ "The Conduct of ih&' - 
 
 ?. He fays, thM wicked ■Men- fhould 
 *' dread the never-forgetting, or avenging 
 " Demons." Why they fhould do this, is 
 not pn account of any Notion of ay^^/z^fr? 
 State, but to avoid prefe^nt Temporal Evils, 
 fuch as aiffedt private Families, or public 
 Safety. And that this was the only Ufe that 
 was intended by inculcating the Fear of 
 avenging Demons, will appear, when we 
 come to confider C&aron^as's Preface. 
 
 3. When Zaleucus fpeaks of -the Piinifi- 
 ments which the Gods fend upon the Wicked, 
 he fpeaks of them as doing it in the^r^w? 
 Time ; not faying what the Gods would do 
 hereafter, or expreffing himfelf in Relation 
 to Futurity, but as \'jnmii/.'m'(,fi«>v , mm fend- 
 ing the Evils. y\x Warbiirton here mifleads 
 his Reader by tranflating this Paffage thus.- 
 ^he fudgments they always have in ST.OR-Efbr 
 wicked Men -, for by this he plainly means 
 fornething that is future : but Zaleucus 
 fpeaks not of Judgments ke^t in Store, but 
 immediately iifued out upon Gfienders. 
 When, 
 
 4. He fpeaks of the tutelar Gods of the 
 Country being angry with any one that pre- 
 fers or loves more any other Country than his 
 
 own. 
 
Old Legislators confider'd. 23 
 
 own, — It was not with any View to future 
 Punifhments or z future State j but it whol- 
 ly relates to their prefent State and Circum- 
 ftances, &« &iuv TiCl^uav viiit(Ta,v\av. The Tu- 
 telar Gods would at prefent be angry, and 
 not preferve them, nor take any care about 
 them. 
 
 Laftly, He adds, {d) that " after the Gods, 
 " and Demons, and Heroes ^ Parents and 
 " the La'jps and the Governors Jhould be 
 " next in Honour among fl Men that have 
 " Senfe and JJnderJlandtng, and that would 
 " be kept fafe." It is not any future Pu- 
 nishment, but a prefent one, the Safety of 
 the People or State, that is made the Ef- 
 fect of honouring the Gods and Demons, 
 and Laws that were inftituted for their great 
 Security. So that from Zal'eucus's Preface 
 to his Laws, nothing appears of any Notion 
 of a Providence in its full Extent j much 
 lefs is it made the Grand SanBion of his 
 Laws ; nor has Mr. Warburton proved, that 
 the Old Legiflators meant a Providence in 
 
 J^oi/« <«} 2Q0H2OME'NOIS. Stob. ibid. 
 
 C 4 its 
 
a4 '^he C o a nv c T of the 
 
 its. full Extent : but has taken for granted 
 
 what He was to prove. 
 
 And indeed if one confiders it with any 
 Accuracy, it is impoffible it fhould be prov^ 
 edj I would not wilUngly be difputing 
 about a Word, and therefore muft previoufly 
 obferve, That by the SanSiion of a Law is 
 ufually meant the Reward or Penalty an- 
 nexed to any Law, in order to enforce its 
 Obferyation upon the Subjedl. In order to 
 make a L,aw obtain its End, and to over- 
 <?ome the Pravity or the Obftinacy of Man- 
 kind by working on their Fears, it was 
 always cullomary for, and Legiflators have 
 thought it neceffary, Sancire p cents legiim 
 pbfervantiam, to enforce by Penalties the Ob-^ 
 fervation of Laws : And as Mankind have 
 other Pa^ions and ^ffeftions,. which may b^ 
 influenced as well as Fear, it has been 
 thought by all Legiflators. not improper to 
 lay hold, of them too 5 and by encouraging 
 Hopes by Promife of Rewards, to excite 
 their Subjedts to Rightnefs of Aftion. 
 
 Mr. Warburton I know has a Notion, 
 " That the Sandion of Rewards- neither 
 *' was, nor could be^, enforced by Society 
 ff for the Obfervance of its Laws." p. 15. 
 
 What 
 
Oj.n Legislators tfW2^^(?r' J. 95 
 
 What He means by this odd Language, to* 
 enforce the SanSiion of Rewards, I profefs I 
 know not. He elfewhere tells us, " Thai; 
 " Mi^es deliver 'd to the Ifraelites a com- 
 *^ pleat Digeft of Law and Religion, — and 
 " for the Obfervance of bis entire Inftitu- 
 " tion he added the Sandiipn of Rewards 
 " and Punifhments : Both which we have 
 :" fhewn to be neceflary for the Support of 
 ^' a Republic; and yet that Civil Society, 
 :" as fuch, can adminijier only one, namely 
 f Punifhments." Vol. IL p. 447. It is 
 not worth while to digrefs fo far as to en- 
 quire what is meant by thefe Paffages. It 
 is fufficient to obferve, that Civil Society 
 can reward Particulars for any eminent Ser^ 
 vices : nay it can by Law enadt Rewards for 
 fuch as fhall merit them by their good Be- 
 haviour, in particular Circumftances, whe^- 
 ther it be by ordering Honours, or Money, 
 or by any other Encouragement, which it 
 may think fit to propofe. This is what Po- 
 liticians mean, and all they mean, when 
 they talk of the Sanation of Rewards ; and 
 This, Society can give ; and if to this be add- 
 ed the Sanftion of Punijhmentsy Thefe are 
 
 properly 
 
£6 The Conduct of the 
 
 properly called " the two Pillars of Go- 
 " vernnjent." 
 
 But then if the Good or Evil propofed 
 bjr Legiflators in order to enforce their Laws, 
 be fbmething out of the Power of the Le- 
 giflator to put in Execution, it implies an 
 Abfiirdity in them to make fuch Reward or 
 Punifhment the SdnBim ■ of their Laws. 
 The Penalties therefore, or the Happineis of 
 2i future SfatCi can only be annexed to fuch 
 jLaws as God is the immediate Author of ; 
 becaufe God alone can put them in Execu- 
 tion : and accordingly the Law of Nature^ 
 and the Chrijiian Law, have a future State 
 of Rewards and Punifhments for their 
 Sandtian. ' But a Human Law, with, fuch a 
 Sanation annexed to the Obfervation or Vio- 
 lation of it, is the fame Thing as having no 
 SanBion to it at all, becaufe the Legiflator 
 cannot fecure 'Obedience by that which he 
 cannot execute. For, 
 
 Let us fuppofe, that Zakueus had been 
 the Inftkutor of a Body of Laws ; or any 
 other Legiflator of Old had inftituted fuch 
 •Laws as Zakueus did ; and had made a fu_ 
 tiire State the Sandtion of his Laws,r-r what 
 niul|: have been the Confequence ? Suppofe 
 
 that 
 
Old Leqislators cmjider'd. iji 
 
 thai a wicked Man among the Locriam 
 had been guilty of Murder, Theft, or any 
 other Crime condemn'd by Znleucus : The 
 Law mufl: t)e put in Execution. Bid then 
 the Man, as Zaleucus bids him, think of 
 Gfod as escijiing and fending his Judgments : 
 Tell him of a Change of Life, and of the 
 Repentance he now hath : Tell him how 
 much he now wifhes at the Hour of Death 
 to have adted a righteous, juft and honeft 
 Part : Tell him all that Zaleucus com- 
 mands. — And will not the Law be fully 
 executed, when its grand SanStion ia thus 
 adminiftred ? If this be the SanSiion of the 
 Law, it ftiews the Abfurdity of making 
 fuch a SanStion, and that Mr. Warburton 
 has invented a new Sort pf Language, which 
 the Writers on Politics are Strangers to. 
 
 Cicero very juftly calls the {e) Belief of 
 the. Gods, and o/'//&f?r Providence, their Go- 
 vernment of all 'Things, their Knowledge of 
 •whatever is done, and the DiJiinSlion that is 
 
 (e) Sit igitur hoc jam principio perfuafum civibus, "Do. 
 minos elTe omnium rerum ac moderatores Deos: eaque qux 
 geruntur, eorum geri vi, ditione atque numine : eofdemque 
 optime de genere hominum mereri : et qualis quifque fit, 
 quid agat, quid in fe admittat, qua mente, qua pietate colat 
 religienes, intoerl : piorum et impiorum hat^ere rationem. 
 Qic. de Leg, Lib. II. 
 
 to 
 
stS . TBe C o n d v c t of fhe-r ■■. - 
 
 faieput by tbemietwem Good and Evil Men 
 not the SowBion of a Law (which no Legif 
 lator ever did) btit the Protsmium of tb 
 Lwrn, He calls indeed thefe (f) Opinion 
 UsEFUtj Jince fo many Things are confirmet 
 and fettled by Oaths ; and he obferyes, tha 
 the Fear o/" Divine YnniGatsxtnts has. rejirai?v 
 ed many from aSling wickedly^ But he neve 
 looked upon thefe Opinions as the SanBion 
 of -his Laws j but as Principfes which h( 
 would have the People folly perfuaded of 
 as highly ufeful to make them good and juft 
 JNo Argument'^ or Reafon for obeying j 
 Law, is the Sanation of a Law, but onl) 
 foch Penalty or Reward as is annexed to th^ 
 Law to encouraige Obedience to it, anc 
 which the Legiflator can put in Execution. 
 You will tell me perhaps, that Cicero. 
 ipeaking particularly of Zakucus and Cha- 
 rondaSy mentions Plato, as {g) imitating 
 them, and thinking it to be the Bufmefs of a 
 Law to perfuadefomething, and not to di 
 
 (/) Utiles efle autem has Opiniones quis neget, cum in- 
 telligat quam multa firmentur Jurejurando, — quam multos 
 divini fiipplicii metus a fcelere revocarit.»^Habes Le^is Pro- 
 pmium ; fic enim hoc appellat Plato. Hid. 
 
 {g ) Qjjos imitatus Plato, hoc quoque Legis putavit effe, 
 ^rfuadere wliquid, non omnia vi ac minis cogere. ibid. ^ 
 
 every 
 
Old Le.cislators iCt^g/yirV. ^q 
 
 every "Thing by Force and 'J^fjr eats. 'i He does 
 fo : And if perfuafive Arguments are jpuC 
 into a Body; of Utopian^' or other. Laws, no 
 great Harm is done. But what Part of a 
 Law is Perjuafion t What Part of it is Ar- 
 gument and Reafoning? Is tKat, in any 
 Senfe, the SanBion of it ? No. Mr, Warr 
 burton has in ^ this very Sedtion,a where lie 
 is recommending )Zalmcui'% Preface as aii 
 ^idmmikkifRmain;* He,. I r^y, has made 
 »feT©£^otfeer .Term, I believe, lefs common 
 among 'Legifljitors than even Peffualion.^TTr 
 "uTo tbe c^maon run; fays he, of 7iw¥e:km 
 *' tr^Me md per^erfe spirits. He {Zaiep* 
 '.^leusji^preaches up the ISoSfy-ine of future 
 " Respards and PuWifiments;'" p, 128- Is 
 preaeidng up a Dodtrine .the fame as nakhsg 
 itdht Grand SanBim of ^ImwI^>1 ^iv: '■'■' 
 But where is it that Zakucus " preadies 
 *f, M^z, future State of Rewards and Pumjh^ 
 "^meHtf to the cornmon Run of intradabk 
 " and perverfe Spirits J" What he iays to 
 them i^; Thi^t' they Jhould. keep in their Minds 
 the Thought "of the Gdds, a^ exifting and fendr 
 ing^PiweSwipnts on the wicked: Not in» 
 future •S'^^^^y; as Ijhave obferved, but at 
 pifefenty ftol in the other .World, but;in this. 
 It ' H*: 
 
^ 6 The Conduct of the 
 He therefore never made either a Providenca 
 in its full Extent, the'^SanBion of his Laws ; 
 nor did he preface his Lzws with it in its 
 full Extent', and therefore we are difap- 
 pointedr in the Proof of' the very firft Thing 
 that is neceflary to Mr. Warburtoh's De- 
 monftration. rlj. 
 
 But perhaps Mr. WdrbuAon means by the 
 Word SanSiion, whatever in general may 
 work on the Hopes or Fears of Men to en- 
 gage them to obferve a Law. If therefore 
 the Dodtrine of a future State of Rewards 
 and Punifhments will moft effedtually work 
 upon Mens PalEohs, and make them ob- 
 ferve the Law,~This may be called the grand 
 Sandion of the Law. Be it fd. " The Step 
 " then which the Legiflators took to propa- 
 " gate Religion waS, by making the Doc- 
 " trine of a Providence, with which in its 
 " full Extent they prefaced and intrbdiiced 
 " their Laws, the- grand Sandlion of dieir 
 " Infiitutions." ' 
 
 I would obferve, i. That Mr. Warburtoh 
 muft mean that All the Legiflators, Mofes 
 excepted, did fo., Now that it was not cuf- 
 tomary for the Old Legiflators in general,^ 
 to preface their Laws with any Thing about 
 
 the 
 
Old Legislators cmjtder'd. 31 
 
 tile Godsi or a Providence, taking this in 
 its full Extent^ or not, feems plain enough 
 from what Cicerv has faid. He mentions 
 Plato J and the Two whom Plato follow 'd, 
 Zaleucus and Charondas, who prefaced their 
 Laws with Arguments to move People to 
 believe, that all Things were governed by 
 the Gods. Had this been cuftoniary to Ali. 
 Legiflators, Cicero would not have rhen- 
 tioned thefe Three, and only thfeft, whole 
 Method He approved ; but He would have 
 ufed fome univerfal Expreffion, thiat would 
 have implied that All were wont to make 
 the Divine Providence the Foundation of 
 their Laws. He approved therefore this 
 Method rather than that of Others, who 
 wrote Books of Laws or Politics without 
 taking any Notice at all of the Exiftence 
 of the Gods, or of a Providence: He ap- 
 proved, I fay, Plato'Sy Zaleucus's andChd- 
 rondas's Method ofLegiflation, who began 
 wkh inculcating a Providence, rather than 
 that of fbme others, who take Notice of 
 the Gods, ds it were only by Accident in 
 their Laws. 
 
 It does not then appear that All the 
 Old Legiflators did inculcate the Doflirine of 
 
 a Pro* 
 
32 ^he CoNDUCt of the 
 a Providence, whether in its foil Extent or 
 not, in order to induce their Subjedts to 
 obferve their Laws. It does not appear that 
 this was their conftant, uniform, univerfal 
 Method } rather, that it was peculiar tofome 
 onlytQufe this Method* But then; if All 
 did not do it, how will the Divine Legation 
 of Mofes be demonftrated from his Omif- 
 Jion of the DoSlrine 'of a future State, more 
 than the Divine Legation of others, who 
 have omitted it as vvell as He ? 
 
 I have; already confider'd the Prooemiuni 
 to Zakucu^'s Laws, and I think it may be 
 fairly aike4, where is it that He mentions a 
 future Staie? Or what Words will prove, 
 Ifchat he tayight z future State of Rewards and 
 Punifhmentts ? If the Words, which Mr. 
 War burton -pitches upon, viz. What " He 
 '^ preached up to thaic of a more intradtable 
 " and perverfe Turn of Mind," proves, 
 that He taught or inculcated the Dodlxine of 
 Providence m its full Extent ; then I am not 
 •without Hopes of deraonftrating (for now I 
 propofe to demonftrate. on fuch Data) that 
 Mofes made a future State of Rewards and 
 Puniihments the Sanftion ,of his Laws, ex- 
 
Old Legislators conjider'd. 33 
 
 aftly in the fame manner as Zaieucus did. 
 Let us compare them. 
 
 Mofes fpeaks of God not only as exijiing^ 
 and every where inculcates that Doctrine, 
 but he fpeaks of him as the righteous Judge 
 of all the Edrth, as the God of the Spirits 
 ofallFleJh. Gen. xviii. 25. Num. xxvii. 16. 
 xvi. 22. And he bids the Ifraelites fear 
 this glorious and fearful Name, the Lord thy 
 God. Deut. xxviii, 58. When God is 
 called by MofeSj the God of the Spirits of all 
 Flejhi in the loweft Senfe it iignifies, that 
 He is the Lord of the Life of all; He in 
 whofe Hand is the Soul of every living Thing, 
 and the Breath of all Mankind, as it is ex- 
 prefled, fob xii. 10. Do not thefe Pafla- 
 ges oi Mofes contain at leaft as much as Za- 
 leucus's do, where he bids wicked Men re- 
 member the Gods, and think upon their Na- 
 ture ? Mofes is not content with fuch low, 
 lifelefs Language as Zaieucus is, but he fays 
 with the utmofl Energy, — Behold the Heaven 
 and the Heaven of Heavens is the Lord thy 
 God's, the Earth alfo, and all that therein 
 if.— Be no more ftiff-necked ; for the Lord your 
 God is God of Gods and Lord of Lords, a great 
 God, a mighty and a terrible, which regard- 
 D eth 
 
34 'Thf Conduct of the 
 
 eth not Perfons, nor taketh Reward. He 
 doth execute the Judgment of the Fatherlefs 
 and the Widow. Deut. x. Zaleucus ttW^ the 
 wicked Man, thathejhould think ofthefudg- 
 ments which the Gods fend on fuch. And 
 has not Mofes urged this Topic in the jftrong- 
 eft manner through feveral whole Chapters ? 
 Is a future State proved from Zaleucus's 
 mentioning the Hour of Death F And does 
 not Mofes mention the Wifh to die the 
 Death of the Righteous ? Num. xxiii. i o. 
 Or when fudgments in general are men- 
 tioned by the one, may not they be inter- 
 preted by the fudgments which the other 
 has threatened, the terribleft Evils that could 
 happen to Mankind, till they were dejiroyed, 
 and periffi becaufe of the Wickednefs of their 
 Doings ? 
 
 I cannot therefore but conclude, that 
 whatever are the Words in Zaleucus, from 
 which Mr. Warburton concludes, that He 
 made a future State of Rewards and Pu- 
 nifhments the Sandlion of his Laws, fimilar 
 Expreffions in Mofes, or if Occafion be, 
 much ftronger, will prove that Mofes Hke- 
 wife did the fame. The Truth is, none 
 of the Legiflators of Old ever made the 
 
 Dodtrine 
 
Old Legislators conftder'd. 35 
 
 Doftrine of a future State the SanBion of 
 their Laws more than Mofes did : and con- 
 fequently all that is faid on this Subject about 
 SanSlions, is either a new undefined Lan- 
 guage of Mr. Warburton, or elfe it is pure 
 Miftake and Conflifion. 
 
 Be it then granted, that " Religion, 
 " which teaches an over-ruling Providence 
 " "of Good Men, and the Puniflier of ill, 
 " is neceflary to Society." Mofes has 
 " taught an over-ruling Providence, and a 
 " Religion," as well as Zakucus, and has 
 made it the SanBion of his Laws as much as 
 Zaleucus ; and has extended his Notion of 
 Providence as far as Zaleucus has done : And 
 if fo, he has eftablifhed a fiiture State of 
 Rewards and Puniftiments, as much as 
 Zaleucus has. But to proceed. 
 
 Charondas is mentioned by Cicero, as 
 well as Zaleucus : And one may wonder 
 that the Frocemium to his Laws is not ex- 
 prefsly cited by Mr. Warburton, as well as 
 Zaleucus" s Proeemium was. The One is 
 full as much to the Purpofe as the Other j 
 but neither of them will prove, that a Pro- 
 vidence /;z its full Extent was either the 
 D 3 San£lion 
 
36 The C o a D V c r of tbe 
 
 SanSiion of, or contained in the Preface tOj 
 their Laws. 
 
 In Charondas's Prooemium, there are thefe 
 InftruBions : That (h) in all Confultafion and 
 ABion Men ought to begin with the Gods : 
 for it is bejl to believe, that God is the Caufe. 
 of all thefe Things : That you ought to abfiain 
 from Evil Ad:ions, efpecially to Jhew your 
 Concord and Agreement with God j for God 
 has no Communion with any wicked Men. — 
 Let none behave impudently, but let every 
 one behave with Modejiy, as by that Means 
 likely to have God propitious, and to obtain 
 Secarity : for no wicked Man is beloved by 
 God. — Tou ought to Jhew to Governors the 
 fame Benevolence as you do to your Parents^ 
 obeying them, and paying them RefpeB. He 
 that is otherwife difpofed will Juffer Punijh.. 
 mentfrom the tutelar Demons of the ^tate, 
 
 tii^iv anm '!rav]u\i Ti"uv. "Eti J^i ipaiiKuv -rr^iL^im d-jri- 
 yi6iu, £, lAoXis-a. J^id t^v w^Oi riv ®iiv ^vn^nhlttv. 
 OuJ'iVof ya.^ eJ'iKii &ihii Koivavbiv. — M«J*fc)f l^u etroiJ'i,; 
 aKXSL aatp^wnla IvMvoi, a( Tfc7iM nv^'a^ivoi Qtov "thiciv A 
 
 jii a^x.<>v\a.i ^ivvoiAv J'ta.(pv\cL/leiv, «ct^«TSf •;ra^p/Ki)i/., 
 iv'TTbiStoylAi K) ai^o[AivH(. "Cii fin J'/avioviJiivet ovTa> 
 riffei J'm.w Ka.M4 ^-dKni S'axyLoirtv kii-)^ai(. "A,nov]'i yafl 
 
 KH/xfT,«, Qiov Ka.7a.(f^£ninfi &c. 
 
 for 
 
Old Legislators confider'd. 37 
 
 for his wicked Intention or Will. For thefe 
 Demons are the Governors and Patrons of 
 the City, and of the Safety of the Citizens. — 
 Let Contempt of the Gods be deem' d the great- 
 eji Wickednefs.-r-^ Thus far Charondas. 
 
 The Queftion here is, how far Charondas 
 made a future State the SanSlion of his 
 Laws : Or how much he taught the Doc- 
 trine of Providence in its full Extent in this 
 Prooemium ? And I anlwef, not at all. He 
 commands indeed, that all his People fhould 
 learn what he calls thefe Prefaces, T^ooi/jLia ; 
 but it is evident here is rio mention of a 
 future State in them. Nay, the Punifh- 
 ments, which the Patron Demons of the 
 State were to inflid: for any Crimes, were 
 all temporal, and prefent, fuch as affedled 
 the ffaJneiA, the Safety or Security of the 
 State. Thus e. g. One of his Laws is (/) 
 That a Wife Ought- to be chafle, and not to 
 admit any unlawful Converfe with other Men. 
 Why? Not that Adultery would-be punifh- 
 ed in 2i future State, but to prevent the An'- - 
 ger if the Demons, who turnd People out of 
 
 (i) TuvtuKA (ra^ovSv 5^fi7, i^ fiti :rfoa'/s%SiS'«u ffWHtriciy 
 j^cuy'oyefv x} Hoiiu^av i^ ix^ft-voiitr. Stobse. Ser. 42. 
 
 D 3 theif 
 
38 The Conduct of the < 
 
 their Houfes, a«^ caufed Enmities /?»^ Ha- 
 tred. Thefe avenging Demons were kiBX"'* 
 hares, Houjhold Gods, and punifhed as fuch } 
 and all the Punifhment he fpeaks of as 
 coming from them was temporal, and fuch, 
 as affed:ed <ru!neia,i'„ the Safety . of the .Body 
 politic, or particular Perfons. 
 
 Here we fee what is moft probably the 
 Meaning of ^Kka^a.^ J^ai/jLovett, the Demons that 
 do not forget -what is done by , any Body, in 
 Zaleucus. They were the fame as the 
 ki^X"'' the Houjhold Gods of Charondas ; 
 and thefe punifhed {k) by turning People out 
 of their Houfes, by occafoning.^arrels, Dif- 
 putes. Hatred, and Averfion^ So too, what 
 Zaleucus calls, yiiMffai/lay Osfoc, Charondas ex- 
 preiles by iTrttvl^ffm vi{j.i<riai •mt^^.j^MiJt.'ovav, Ven- 
 geance falling upon Men from thofe tutelar 
 Gods. AndVhat this Vengeance confifted 
 in, being exprefsly faid to be by turning. 
 People out of Doors, and creating Hatred, it 
 is plain here is nothing relating to a future 
 State in this Lcgiflator's Preface, 
 
 Let us next examine wht^ Cicero has faid 
 in the ProcEmium to his Bpoks of Laws ; 
 
 fjf) ^E^oi^is^uf ;^ lyi^^o'wotZv. ibid..',, 
 
 He 
 
Old Legislators CGnfider'd. 39 
 
 He wrote for an Utopian Commonwealth; 
 the Others whom he imitated, and made 
 his Patterns, wrote Laws for real States- 
 If therefore he goes no further than they 
 did, as to the Point now in Queftion, we 
 may be fure, that it was not ufual for the 
 Legiflators to make the Dodtrine of a Pro-* 
 vidence in its full Extent, the Sandlion of 
 their Laws. 
 
 Cicero's Prooemium was thus, (/) " Let 
 " the Citizens firft of all be firmly per- 
 " fuaded, that the Gods are Lords and 
 " Governors of all Things ; that whatever 
 " is done, is directed by their Power, — that 
 " they know what every one does, — and 
 " accordingly they make a DiJiinSiion be- 
 " tween Good and Evil Men, Minds tho- 
 " roughly imbued with thefe Things, will 
 
 (/) Sit igitur hoc a princlpio perfuafum civiSus, Dominos 
 efle omnium rerum ac moderaccres Decs, eaque quse ge-t 
 rnntar, eorum geri vi, ditione ac numine, — Et qaalis quifque 
 fit, quid agat iiitneri, pforumque et impiorum habere ra- 
 tionem. WiSttiiva. rebiu imbutae mentes, haad fane abhor- 
 rebunt ab utili et a vera fententia. — Utiles effe autem has 
 Opiniones, quisneget, cum intelligat, quam multafirmentur 
 jui^rafido ; quantas falutis fint fcederum religiones ; quam 
 multos divinj fupplicii metus a fcelere revocarjt ; quamque 
 fanSa iitfocieta's civium inter ipfos j Diis immortalibus intej- 
 pofitis turn judicibus turn teftibus ? Habetur Leeis Prooemium. 
 X)e Leg. ii. 
 
 D 4 " fcarce 
 
40 • The Conduct of the 
 
 *' fcarce ever avoid doing what is truly 
 " ufeful, and Right in itfelf. — That thefe 
 *' Opinions are ufeful^ who can deny, when 
 " he considers how many Things are con- 
 " firmed by the Religion of Oaths ; and how 
 " much Security the Sacrednefs of Treaties 
 ' ' affords ; How many the Fear of divine 
 ^' Punijhment does keep. from Wickednefs-, 
 " And how firm muft the Society and 
 *' Friendfhip of Citizens be betwixt one 
 " another, when the Gods are conceived 
 *' not only to interpofe themfelves, but to 
 " be Witneffes of what is done. You have 
 *' here the Pro^mium of the h^iw." — 
 
 The Laws themfelves have nothing to 
 the Purpofe, unlefs it be contained (m) in the 
 Manner in which he orders Men to approach 
 the Gods, or in the Declaration, that thofe, 
 who approach the Gods without Piety, God 
 himfelf will puni/k. 
 
 Which riow of thefe Words, or what 
 Propoftion contained in them, teaches the 
 Dodtrine of a Providence in its full Extent, 
 more than the Law of Mofes does ? The 
 Ufefiilnefs of the Notion of a Providence to 
 
 (m) Ad Divos adeunto cafte ; pietatem adhibento j ~-qui 
 fecus faxit, Deus ipfe vindex erit. ibid. 
 
 Society 
 
Old Legislators conjider'd. 41 
 
 Society is not the Point in Queftion : Mofes 
 has urged the facred Tie of Oaths, and the 
 Fear of God, and the Dread of his Funijh- 
 ments, in as ftrong Terms z% Cicero, or any 
 Legiflator whatever. Has Cicero faid, Let 
 thofe who approach the Gods be pure and un-^ 
 defiled: Let them he pious: God himfelf will 
 punijh the 'Tranfgrejfor f Mofes has faid the 
 fame Things as ftrongly, nay more fo, and 
 therefore fhould be underftood in the fame 
 Manner at leaft, and in the fame Extent^ as 
 Cicero : —r Tejhall be Holy, for I am Holy. 
 Lev. xi. 44. '^ou Jhalt love the Lord thy 
 God, with all thine Heart, with all thy Soul, 
 and with all thy. Might. Deut. vi. 5. The 
 Lord your God is God ofGodsi-r—r mighty and 
 texnhle, ferve him. Deut.x. 17.20. Does 
 Cicero ipeak of the Ties of Citizens to one 
 another, and the Ufeflilnefs of Religion to 
 band them together, and make them love 
 one another? Mofes has done the fame by 
 exprefs Law, enjoining them to love their 
 Neighbour as themfehes, Lev.xix. 18. and 
 not to treat one another with Rigor for this 
 Reafbn, I am the Lord your God, Lev. xxv. 
 43, 48. Does Cicero Ipeak of God as being 
 the fudge, as well as Witnefs of human 
 
 Adtions ? 
 
42 'T%e Conduct of tie. 
 Adions ? How frequently does M^fes fpeak 
 of God, as the ^^^^ of all the Earth; as 
 the Judge betwixt one and another ; as hik- 
 ing on and 'jiidging ? And if there be any 
 Stfefs to be laid upon the other Word, Wit- 
 Kefs, God is exprefsly faid to be Witnefs, 
 and ^appealed to under that Charader, Gen. 
 xxxi. $0. '. 
 
 T^ke now the ProcEmium of Zaleucm, 
 of Charondas, or of TuHy^ and whatever 
 Words in them are fuppofed to contain the 
 Dodirine of a Providence in its full Extent, 
 the fame Words in Mofes (efpecially when 
 they are much ftronger) muft be allowed to 
 contain the fame Dodtrine, and in the fame 
 Extent. And if- Mr. War burton will call 
 fuch Doctrine the SanSiion of Zaleucus% 
 or Charondas's, or Tully'& Laws (let that 
 Word fignify what he pleafes) it muft or 
 ought to iignify the fame Thing in Regard 
 to Mofes's Law. So that hitherto Mofes and 
 the other old Legiflators are at Jeaft upon a 
 P^r, fince no .Difference can be produced 
 in thefe RefpeSis, between them. It will ever 
 be asked,™ How does it appear, that Cha- 
 rondas, e. g. made the Dddrine of a Pro- 
 vidence in its full Extent, the SancSion of 
 
 his 
 
Old Legislators f(^i^der'd. <j.j. 
 
 his Laws? If the Anfwer be,— -.He men^- 
 tions the Duty ,©£ Beginr^ing every A^ion 
 with the Gods; that a Contempt, of them is the 
 higbeji Crime ; that they are the Caufe of all 
 Things ; that God has no -fiommunion with 
 wicked Men. — Thefe Opinions, as Cicero 
 well ^ys, are Useful to the State: Bv*lb 
 do they imply a Providence in its full E>c-; 
 tent J or only a Providenc^in- general ? Da 
 they relate to what will happen to Men. 
 after Death; or only to wha/;,,jconcern6 the 
 o;»JbjI<*, the Safety and Secitrity of the State ? 
 Let the Reader judge. It is certain, that^ 
 there is not a Word in the PrQ^emium to his^ 
 Laws, nor in that oi ZalgufitSi or of Tully 
 who imitated them, whei^e a. future State is, 
 exprefsly mentioned, or a Providence in its 
 full Extfnf; ai^d there are, fey^ral which: 
 confine th^, P,ii^ijl}ments .a£ ^!^e Gods or Dce- 
 mons,, to prefent Evils. So .^h^t hitherto no 
 Circumftance, np Fa6t, is produced, by Mr, . 
 War^iirtpn, which proves a Difference be-: 
 twixt MofeSf and. all other Legijlators ; at 
 leaft none ifuffi^iqpt to ,n^k!? the Founda- 
 tion of a Pemorjftration/ ^ .; ^ 
 
 My firft Objp,(Stipn thea to Mr. War bur-, ■ 
 ton's Schepe is. That no one qld Legillator, 
 
 that 
 
44 5^1? C o N D u c T of the 
 that ever made Laws for the Government 
 of any People, or that wrote even for an 
 Utopian Commonwealth, ever made & fu- 
 ture State the SanSlion of his Laws. My 
 fecond is, that from whatever Words Mr. 
 Warburton attempts to prove, that Zaleucus 
 or Charondas, in particular, mentioned a 
 future StaXt^ or a Providence in its full Ex- 
 tent, by the very fame it may be proved, 
 that Mofes has done the fame. When there- 
 fore He attempts to demonjirate (for nothing 
 fhort of Demonftration will content him) 
 the divijie Legation of Mofes by the Medium 
 of no future State of Reward and Punijh-: 
 ment in the Mofaic Difpenfatibn, He muft 
 equally dembhftrate the divine Legation of 
 Zaleucus and Charondas, and Cicero ; fince 
 noneof them,'^nor indeed anyoneelfe of the 
 old Legiflators ever made a Providence in 
 its full Extent, or z future State of Rewards 
 and Punifhments, ' the Sandtion of their 
 Laws. The moft they did was, to make 
 the Doftrine of Providence^ as all Things 
 were directed and governed' by it, as all 
 Things were taken Notice of by the Gods, 
 as they were the Avengers of wicked Ac- 
 tions, fpme Part of the Procemiunr or Pre- 
 
Old Legislators confidef'd. 45 
 
 amble to their Laws ; or perhaps inferted 
 this Notion into the Laws themfelves : But 
 how far they extended their Notion of Pro- 
 vidence, is no where faid. 
 
 But Mr. Warburton has " beg'd the 
 " Reader always to have in Mind, that 
 " when in the Sequel of his Difcourfe, he 
 " meets with antient Teftimonies for the 
 " Neceffity of Religion to Society, he may , 
 " be confident, that the Dodtrine of a _/»- 
 " ture State of Rewards and PuniJhmentSi 
 " was the chief Idea included in that Term." 
 p. 89. 3d Ed. 87. Let us comply with 
 this Requeft, and take it for granted, that 
 the Dodtrine of a fixture State of Rewards 
 and Puniihments is included in, or " muft 
 " be principally meant" by the Word Re- 
 ligion. (Though this is a Point which Mr. 
 Warburton ought particularly to have proved, 
 becaufe he has labour'd to (hew, that by the 
 yewijh Legiflator thefe two Ideas were in 
 Fad: kept diftindl :) But let it be granted him 
 for the prefent. Now, if the chief Idea 
 that is included in the Term, Religion, be a 
 fiiture State of Rewards and Punifhments, 
 and if it be a Dodtrine Ejj'ential to Religion 
 in general J if it be the very Fundamental of 
 
 Fundamentals, 
 
46 The C o N D V c T of the 
 
 Fundamentals, as he aflures us in the De- 
 dication of thefecond Volume, p. xxiii. then 
 the yews never had any Religion at all, be- 
 caufe they wanted what was ejjintial to Re- 
 ligion in general ; nay, what was the very 
 Fundamental of Fundamentals. Mofesthere- 
 fbre gave that People no Religion at all : 
 But all the Heathen World had Religion, 
 founded on and fupported by the Doftrine of 
 a, future State of Rewards' and Punifhments. 
 So much happier were the Heathens, than 
 thofe to whom Mofes was fent with a di- 
 vine Legation. 
 
 Mr. Warburtori has laid down this as an 
 Univerfal Truth. " That the People through- 
 " out the whole Earth, univerfally believed a 
 '^ future State of Rewards and Punifhments 
 * ' properly fo called . " Vol . I . p . 306. third 
 Edition, p. 332. Be this allowed; for I 
 cannot but think it to be true. Now the 
 Points he was to prove are, Firjiy That 
 there is a Difference between the Jews, and 
 3:11 the refl of Mankind ; or that the Jews 
 did not believe what all the World befides 
 nni'uerfaliy did believe. And Eecondly, that 
 there is a Difference betwixt the Lawgiver 
 of the Jews and Zakucus, and all other 
 
 Lawgivers 
 
Old Legislators confider'd. 47 
 
 Lawgivers whatever, in that Mojks did not^ 
 and all other Lawgivers ^d, make the Doc- 
 trine of a Providence in its fidl Extent, or 
 z future State of Rewards and Punifhments, 
 either the Preface to, or the SanBion of 
 their Laws. I own, I cannot but think, 
 from what I have yet feen, that Mofes may 
 be proved to have made a iiiturc State as 
 much the San^ion of his Laws, as any 
 other Old Legillator did ; and that all mufl 
 be equally condemned, or equally acquitted 
 by this Writer. Mr. Warburton ought not 
 to fuppofe, that the fews alone did :\ot be- 
 lieve a Dodtrine which all the World befides 
 is acknowledged univerfally to have believ- 
 ed, " even before Civil Policy was inftituted 
 " among Mankind." p. 91, or 92. He 
 owns too, that " Mofes did not difbe- 
 " lieve a future State." Vol. IL p. 449, 
 479. Say then that Mofes believed a future 
 State J and fay that Zaieucus did fo : The 
 SubjeBs too of both equaUy believed it, un- 
 lefs fomething very exprefs can be produced 
 to the contrary. Now Mofes has at leaft as 
 much of a future State in his Laws, as 
 Zaieucus or Charondas has in either of theirs. 
 If Mofes has not mentioned it exprefsly, 
 
 neither 
 
48 7^^ Conduct of tht 
 
 neither has Zaleucm or Charondas. Or if 
 you fay that thefe laft have mentioned it, I 
 fhall fay that Mofes has as much ; nay more, 
 as will appear prefently. Nor is it enough 
 in Mr. Warburton to fhew, that Mofes never 
 mentions 2i future State, for it may be fliewn 
 that neither have Zaleucus^ nor the other 
 Legiflators here cited j and if any one of 
 them has omitted to do it, the Demon- 
 llration taken from the mere Omifjion of a 
 future State, defign'd in Favour of a Divine 
 Legation^ will equally hold good for fuch 
 other JLegiflator. Should Mr. Warburton 
 fay, that thofe other 'L^giii'aX.oxs fuppofe a 
 future State as the Foundation and. Support 
 of Religion : I fhall fay the fame of Mofes. 
 In Truth, it was a Dodlrine univerfally re- 
 ceived and believed by Jews as well as Gen- 
 tiies : and therefore all the Old Legiflators - 
 eftablifhed their refpedtive National Re- 
 ligions upon Princi|)les already allowed and 
 admitted ; and therefore had no Neceflity to 
 mention that Notion particularly, either as 
 the SanBion of their Laws, or in any other 
 Manner. And that this was the Truth in 
 Relation to Mofes in particular will be feen 
 prefently. 
 
 Mr. 
 
Old Legislators confider'd. 49 
 
 Mr. Warburton has told us, that future 
 Rewards and Punlfhments were not only not 
 the SanSlion of the Mofaic Difpenfation, but 
 were not taught in it at all : and that in 
 Confequence of this OmiJJtonj the People had 
 not this DoSirine for many Ages. Vol. II. 
 p. 446. 
 
 This is a Confequence, which Mr War- 
 burton is much too hafty in Drawing. Sup- 
 pofe I fhould argue in the very fame man- 
 ner, — Future Rewards and Punifliments 
 were not the SanBion oi Zaleucus'^ or Cha- 
 rondas's Inftitutions : nay " were not taught 
 " in them at all." Therefore, " in Confe- 
 " quence of the Omifjion" the Locrians and 
 the Crotoniates had not this Dodlrine. They 
 muft have been without this Doctrine, as 
 well as the fews, if being without it is the 
 Confequence of their Legiflators not making 
 it the SanBion of their Laws. If therefore 
 Both thefe People had this Notion (as Mr. 
 Warburton afliires us, all had it univerfally 
 except the Jews) then by the fame Way by 
 which thefe People came by it, the Jews 
 might have had it, notwithflanding the 
 Omifjion of their Legiflator. 
 
 E But 
 
50 I'he Con d,u c r of the 
 
 But I am now enquiring into a Fadt. 
 
 " The People of the Jews had not this 
 
 " Doftrine for many Ages." How is this 
 
 proved ? Mr. Warburton grants, " That 
 
 " Mofes did mf dijheUeve a future State of 
 
 " Rewards and Puniihments." Vol. II. 
 
 p= 479. and hence he draws this Confe- 
 
 quence j " From my holding that Mofes did 
 
 " not difieMeve a future State j it follows, 
 
 '* that all fuch Texts of Scripture as are 
 
 " brought to prove, that the antient Jews 
 
 ** believed the Soul furvived the Body are no- 
 
 " thing at all to the Pur-pofe j but do, on 
 
 " the contrary, greatly fupport my Opinion." 
 
 ibid. Nay, He tells us, that " Mofes well 
 
 ** underjiood it", p. 44.9. Elfewhere we are 
 
 told, " That throughout all Antiquity we 
 
 ** do not find any civilized Country where 
 
 " the Dodtrine of a future State of Rewards 
 
 " and Punifhments_^ was not of National 
 
 « Belief." Vol. I. p. 88. 
 
 The yews then, Defcendants of fome 
 who had this " National Belief" are ac- 
 knowledged " to believe the Seul furvived. the 
 " Body" both here and p. 556. Mx. War- 
 burton grants too, that " Mofes being ne- 
 " ceffitated to mention Enoch's Tranflation 
 
 it 
 
 
Old Legislators ionftder'd. 51 
 
 ^' it could not bfe but that 2ifeparafe Exijience 
 •' might be infer'd, how obfcurely foever the 
 *' Story was deliver'd." There is then no 
 Occalion to produce Inftances from Mofis^ 
 which fhew very clearly, that the yews did 
 believe the Exiftence and Life of the Soul 
 after its Departure hence. However I will 
 add one Paflage, which Mr. Warburton has 
 overlook' d, and that is the Prohibition in 
 the Law to confult Necromancers., or Per- 
 fons that pretended to advife with the Dead, 
 which fiippofes atleaft a ^o^aA/r Notion pre- 
 vailing, that the Soul flirvived the Body ; 
 and not only furvived the Body, and con- 
 tinued in mere Exiftehee, but retained Con- 
 fcioufiiefs and Thought, and knew what 
 was doing and to be done on Earth. And 
 fo popular was this Notion, as to have a 
 Law direfted againft fuch Praftices. Since 
 Mafes therefore did not dijbelieve, nay, weH 
 ilnderflaod the Dodtrine of a future State of 
 Rewards and Punilhments -, and the People 
 Bilievedy that the Soul furvived the Body, in 
 the Manner I have mention'd : What Rea- 
 fon is there to think, that tiiey did not be- 
 lieve a fiiture State of Rewards and Punifh- 
 ments, which their Foctfalftiefs, and their 
 ;E 2 Guide 
 
52 The Conduct of the 
 
 Guide and Legiflator, and all the World, 
 befides believed f 
 
 I do not apprehend, that the People of the 
 Jews, or any other Nation, entered into the 
 Philofophical Notion of the Souls returning, 
 into God, or into the rl h, or rb irSLv, or 
 whateyer Whims much later , Ages than . 
 what we are now Ipeaking of, produced. 
 Nor can fuch a Notion be reconciled to the, 
 Necromancy pradlifed amongfl them. They^ 
 fuppofed therefore feparate Souls, feparately ^ 
 exifting, capable of \>€vs\^ call'd out, and 
 confulted, as knowing more than we Mortals, 
 know. If they proceeded thus far, it is, 
 impoffible to prove the Negative, that they, 
 did not beljteve a future State of Rewards 
 and Punifhments, unlefs ppfitiye, very clear. 
 Evidence could be produced to the contrary. 
 
 The Condu£t of the Legiflators in Re- 
 lation to their " making the Dodtrine of a 
 " Providence, with which in its full E^- 
 " tent th&Y ' prefaced and introduced their 
 " Laws, the grand SanBion of their Infti-* 
 " tutions," has been fufficiently coniider'd : 
 And if the Remarks I have made bejuf]t,> 
 the Confequence is plain. Before I have 
 done with the, Legijlators^ it will be proper 
 • , to 
 
Gld Legislators cQ^jider'4. j;^ 
 
 to confider tfae next Step which they took, 
 which was to " afErm and eftabliih the gene- 
 *' ral Do«Strine of a Providence, which they 
 " had dehvered in theii* Zi<z'zi;i, by a very par- 
 *' ticujar and popular Method of inculcating 
 >" the Belief of a future State of Rewards and 
 f' Punifhments." p. 133. or 3d Edit. p. 131. 
 The Attempt in the Third Seftion was 
 to fhew, that the Legijlators made the Doc- 
 trine of a Providence in its fall Extent ^ 
 either the Preface to, or the grand Sandtion 
 of their Laivs. Suppofing this j then. That 
 Do(3xine muft have been in every Legifla- 
 tor's Inftitutes, Mofes's excepted. The De- 
 fign of the Fourth Seftion is to fliew, that 
 '* the Nature and End of the Myfteries were 
 " all the fame, to teach the DoSirhie of a 
 " fature State." ^. 133, The Legislator 
 then taught, one would imagine, one and the 
 fame Dodtrine, both in his Laws, and in the 
 Myfteries ; and the only Difference was, in 
 the one it was taught openly, in the other, un- 
 der the Seal oj Secrecy, One cannot but think 
 too, that. The Legijlator^ is of the fame Ex- 
 tent in Both thefe Sedtions, and means All 
 Leg isL ATORs j and therefore that All took 
 both thefe Steps, That of their Laws, and 
 That of the ik^Sl^m^'x, to inculcate a future 
 E 3 State 
 
54 ^he Conduct of the 
 
 ture State of Rewards and Punifhment&. 
 
 Now that ^//Legiflators did not fo much 
 as meddle with the MyfterieSy or concern 
 themfelves about any fuch particular Me- 
 thods of inculcating a future State, as the 
 Myfteries taught, is indifputable. They had 
 not the Myfteries, e.g. zt Rome, in the Days 
 of Romulus or Numa \ nor probably till after, 
 (if Mr. Warburton tranflates Sacrificulus ef 
 vates right, which I much doubt) till after 
 that a " little Prieft andSouthfayer" brought 
 thtm into Etrun'a. p, 172. 
 
 But let us fuppofe that by the Legjsla- 
 TORis onlymeant soMELegiflators; what was 
 their Method of Proceeding? It was, itfeems^ 
 to " a^rm a certain ^^wer^/Dodtrine of aPro- 
 " vidence, and a fixture State, which they had 
 " deliver'd in their Laws." But this does not 
 feem to be the Cafe. The Myjieries were not 
 invented to affirm the GENERALDoftrine of a 
 Providence, but to explain zparticular'QvznQh. 
 of it : It was not to teach, or affirm, or efta- 
 blifli a Doftrine, which was already, by Sup- 
 pofition, in the Laws ; but it was to ex- 
 plain the PA]fiTicuLAR Dodtrine of a Pro- 
 vidence, as extending to Punilhments or 
 Rewards in a fiiture Life. The Myfteries 
 would have been in a great Meafuire ufe- 
 
 lefs. 
 
Old Legislators eonjider'd. 55 
 
 lefs, if the Legiflator made the Doftrme of 
 a Providence in its fiiU Extent public and 
 open in his Laws. And fince Mr. Warbur- 
 ton has proved the Ufefiilnefs of the Myfte- 
 ries beyond all Poubt, it cannot be imagi-r 
 ned, that the Legiflatof ftiould put into his 
 IjCws, which were open and common to all, 
 a Doftrine which was to be taught under 
 the reUgious Seal of Secrecy. This is my 
 Firft Difficulty. 
 
 My Second is This : The Legiflator infli-r 
 tufed the Myfteries j and He tells us, " the 
 " Myfteries were originally itvoenfed by 
 *' hegifiators." p. 177, or 18^. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus on the contrary ex-^r 
 prefsly afliires us, that the Myfteries were 
 invented by Phihfopbers. I fhall cite the 
 Pafl&ge, when I come to treat of the dou-^ 
 ble Dodlrine. But let us here admit them 
 to be not PhilofopherSy but Legijlators, 
 Mr. Warhurton then obferves, <' The Sages, 
 *' who brought them out of Egypty and 
 *' propagated them in ^at in Greece, an(J 
 " Britain, were All Kings or Lawgivers." 
 ibid. Now this is not fo certain ; unlds He 
 will fet up in Greece a Race of Women La-m)^ 
 E 4 pvers. 
 
56 The Conduct of the 
 
 givers. For Herodotus tells us, («) that 
 Danaiis's Daughters brought the Myjieries of 
 Ceres out of Egypt, and taught them to the 
 Pelafgian Women in Peloponnefus. And 
 thefe Pelafgian Women kept them up, , and 
 propagated them, till the Dorians drove 
 the Pelajgi out of Peloponnefus ; and then 
 they were all lofb except among the ^ca- 
 dians. 
 
 Again ; Who was it that introduced or 
 propagated the Myfteries in Italy t Was it 
 not, as Livy tells us, a piean, pitiful (0) Greeky 
 Sacrificulus et vates, a Prieft and Soothfayer. 
 Did not he propagate the Myfteries firft in 
 Etruria ; and this to a few only at firft, 
 which afterwards by the Allurements of 
 Drinking and other Pleafures fpread among 
 the People ? Was not the Progrels of thefe 
 Myfteries to Rome the Eifed: of Private 
 Perfons propagating them without the 
 Knowledge' or Privity of the Legiflator ? 
 
 («) Al AttvoM ^vyctTi^f '%<Tctv di rh t4X?t«V rttv^tiy \^ 
 A(Ju^7s i^a.yayxa-a.1, ^ J^iifa^airia roL^ jiihitayidiTiii'a.i 
 y\iviutA(. Herod. 1.' 2. c. 171. 
 
 (0) Grascus ignobilis in Hetruriam primum venit.—f Sa- 
 
 prificulus et vates, — Initia erant, quae primo paucis tradita 
 
 funt : deinde vulgari csepta per viros, mulierefque. Additje 
 
 yoluptates Religioni vini et epularum quo pluiium animi il- 
 
 ^erentur. Liv. 1. xxxix. 
 
 3. Let 
 
Old Legislators conjidet'd. 57 
 
 3. Let us allow that they were all Kings 
 or Legijlators that propagated thefe Myfte- 
 ries J and allow too, that thofe Legiflators, 
 who propagated the Myfteries, did by them 
 inculcate the Belief of a future State ; yet 
 ftill this is far from proving that this was the 
 Pradtice of all Legiflators ? What if fome 
 Legijlator, or Legiflators, invented the Myf- 
 teries in Egypt; and likewife that Jbnje of 
 the fame Sort of Men propagated them in 
 ji^, and other Parts? There are certain- 
 ly other Legiflators, fuch as Zaleucus and 
 Cbarondas, who have not Ipoken one Word 
 about either the fecret Way of teaching a 
 future State by the Myjleries, or the open 
 Way of making it the SanBion of their 
 Laws f Supppfe now that Mofes has not 
 laid a Word about a future State in his Law, 
 He is upon a Par with all fuch Legiflators 
 as thofe j and their Divine Legation from 
 the Omiffion of a fiiture State of Rewards and 
 Punifhments muft ftand or fall together. 
 
 Indeed were a Comparifon to be made 
 betwixt Mofes and the Legiflators^ who in- 
 vented, or propagated, the Myfieries, it 
 inuft ftand thus: Mofes openly and clearly 
 declared, and in his Law avowed the Doc- 
 frine of the Unity ; nor could any Myfteries 
 
 detedl 
 
58 ^the C o a D V c T of thf 
 deteft Polytheifm, or fhew the Follies and 
 Falfhood of it, fo exprefsly, or more fo, than 
 he did : He, as well as all Others, equally 
 omitted the Doftrine of z future State of 
 Rewards and Punijhments in his Laws, which 
 were defign'd for the Government of the 
 State : But then He openly taught his Sub- 
 jedts in his Laws, what the other Legifla- 
 tors never taught in their. Laws j viz. the 
 moft important Dodrine of the Unity, and 
 the Folly oi Polytheifm. It was an univer- 
 fally believ'd Notion, that there was a fu- 
 ture State of Rewards and Punifhments ; 
 and therefore neither He, nor the Legifla'- 
 tors that invented the Myjieries, deliver'd in 
 their Laws that Dodlrine : or if the other Le- 
 giflators had, they would have had not much 
 Occafion for that Part of the Myfteries, 
 where the famie Dodtrine was taught in the 
 ^fmoji Secrecy, And from the Invention of die 
 Myjieries this Conclufion may be drawn, 
 that the LiCgiflators never made a future State 
 die Sanftion of their Laws, nor prefeced 
 their Inflitutions with the Doctrine of a 
 providence in its full Extent. 
 
 But after all, who are the Perfons 
 that Mr. Warburton here means by th? 
 
 L?;gisj<ator ? 
 
Old Legislators Conjider'd. 59 
 
 Legislator ? It feems to be no more than 
 SOME Legislator ; Scmeiody, upon pro- 
 per Occafion, and at a proper Time (no 
 Body knows who or when) invented the 
 Aperies. The natural Way of comparing 
 the Condu(3: of Msfes and this Legiflator feems 
 to be this: The Doftrine- of a futore State 
 (when I, fay zjiiture State ^ I mean, that of 
 Rewards and Puniihments after the Soul is 
 gone out of this Body) This Dodtrine was 
 univerfaUy believed. Mr. Warburton ac- 
 knowledges it to be univerfally believed 1^ 
 all except the yews; and I maintain that 
 They, as well as the Heathen World, be- 
 lieved it ; and there are Paflages in the Law 
 ofMofes, which plainly enough intimate an 
 Opinion received and believed, that the Souls 
 of Men exifted after their Departure hence j 
 more plain and more exprefs than any that 
 can be produ(?ed from any Legiflators, which 
 Mr. Warburton has named to prove fuch a 
 Belief amongft their Subjefts. This Doc- 
 trine was univerfally believed. Now Mofes, 
 as zLegiJlator, was to lay down Laws, to 
 the Jews, and he was to incorporate their 
 National Religion into their Civil Law. This 
 was done, not by inculc^ng what was uni- 
 verfally 
 
6o The Conduct of the 
 
 verfally received and believed to be true by 
 ■them J but by inculcating fuch Points as 
 w^ere to make the National Religion of the 
 Jews, And in this he did exadly what 
 thofe other Legiflators did : What w^as ufeful 
 to the State, he admitted into the Body of 
 his Laws j and fo far as it was ufeful to 
 the State : But further than That, neither 
 He nor Zaleucus concerned themfelves. 
 
 Whether this be a fufficient Reafon or not 
 for Mofes's not infifting on, and inculcating 
 a future State of Rewards and Punifhments 
 more particularly, I fubmit to you. It is 
 enough for my Purpofe to have Ihewn, 
 that He made it as much the Grand Sanc- 
 tion of nis Laws, and has affirmed it as 
 much as the Inventors of the Myjieries did 
 in their Laws ; or as Others did, who did 
 not concern themfelves with the Myjieries 
 at all. The Cbnfequence is fo plain, that 
 I need not repeat it, viz. If a Divine Le- 
 gation can be proved by the Medium of no 
 future State of Rewards and Punifiments 
 mentioned in a Body of Laws, the Divine 
 Legation of all thofe, who have in their 
 Laws never mentioned fuch a State, will be 
 equally demonftrated, 
 
 Let 
 
Old Legislators confider'd. 6i 
 
 Let us now look back, if you pleafe, up- 
 on what Mr. Warburton undertook to prove, 
 and review the manner in which he has at- 
 tempted to prove his Point. The Thing to 
 be firft proved was, " that the inculcating 
 " the Doftrine of a fixture State of Rewards 
 " and Punifliments is necefiary to the Well- 
 " being of Society." The Proof of this is 
 taken from " the Condudt oi Legijlators and 
 " Inflitutorsof Civil Society." What now 
 is *their Condudl ? 
 
 I . They " , pretended an extraordinary 
 " Revelation from fome.God." That many 
 of the Heathen Legiflators did this, is cer- 
 tain : But if one may guefs at the Ends they 
 propofed by This, it was not for the Sake 
 of Religion^ but to gain the eafier Re- 
 ception of their InfHtutionsj and that the 
 People (hould not eafily throw off what was 
 contrived for their Good, (p) No, fays Mr. 
 Warburton^ Thofe Legiflators did not pre- 
 
 , (^) The Scholiaft on Homer, fpeaking of Minos Ody. t. 
 fays, (pmri S'l llifoi, at rcui ray Sttaihiay yveiaeu! i pu.- 
 J'ie»( Teid-ofTtu oi-\imr(JA'y[/.ifor ivi'oflct xv a,v\dv aV Ttiv 
 "IJ^MI' S'let ivviaMikf cytQetvcu v'o(/Ji(, ^ ifii^ovjet S'la.CiCeu- 
 s&eu, Q,( -usm t? A/o; Ziv J^iJ'ofjt.iitoi. Some fay that becaufe 
 SubjiaEbdonot eafily obey the Determinations of Kings, there- 
 fore he pretended his Laws were given by Jupiter . Plato gives 
 this Reafon for it, that thofe Laws were and oaght to be 
 looked iipon as facred a;id unalterable, lince th?y were made 
 by the Godst- De Leg. i . 
 
 tend 
 
62 The Conduct of thv 
 tend to extraordinary Revelation, " for the 
 *' Introdudtion and Reception of their 
 "Laws," p. 105. luttMr. War Burton vGz.- 
 fon as much as he pleafes upon this Head, 
 he contradicts it all by an expfefs and dear 
 Fadt, no farther than thirteen Pages off, 
 where he cites Pythagoras, as " teaching his 
 " Scholars as the mofi efficacious moizy of eftab- 
 " lijhirig Civil Juftice, to propagate the 
 " Opinion of the Gods having an intimate 
 " Intercourfe with Mankind," p. 118. 
 
 His next Aflertion is. That the Pretence 
 of having their Laws from feme God or 
 Goddefs " was not for perpetuating their In- 
 " flitutions." I admit that it was not de- 
 figned by all of them to perpetuate, or maktf 
 their Inflitutions continue for e^er ; and think 
 that it was principally that the People fhould 
 pay a decent regard to, and not wantonly 
 throw off what was defigned for their Bene- 
 fit. However, if Mr. Warburton means; 
 diat none of Thefe Legiflators did do it with 
 a Defign to perpetuate their Laws, He fays 
 this again at the Expence of a Contradiction, 
 fince he owns that LycurgUs did attempt to 
 make his Laws perpetual. So that we have 
 Pythagoras and Lycurgus pretending to Infjpi- 
 
 ratiori. 
 
Old Legislators conjider'd. 63 
 
 ration, or rathe» Revelation, iot Civil Pur- 
 pofes not Religious ones: and the Reafons 
 that induced them fo to aft, ntighf naturally 
 induce Others to ad: for the fame Ends. 
 
 The Second Step of Mr. Warhurton, is to 
 fhew. That the Legiflators " made the Doc- 
 " trine of a Providence, with which in its full 
 " extent they prefaced their Laws, xks&grand 
 " SanSiion of their InfHtutions." Upon 
 Examination, it appears that notOne of them, 
 not Zaleucus, not Cbarondas^ not Cicero (the 
 only ones whom he has appeal'd to for this 
 Fadt,) has done what he fays they all did, 
 Mofes has done it as much as any of themj 
 and yet he attempts to prove that Mofes has 
 never done it, 
 
 The Third Step is, "The Legiflator 
 " efiahlijhed the grand DoSirine of a future 
 " State of Rewards and Pun^fhments, by a 
 " isery particular and popular Method" of 
 inculcating the Belief of fuch a State, i;/z. 
 by the Myfteries. Who now is meant liy 
 The Legi&tor ? Or what is T h e Legifla- 
 tor, unlefs he fpeaks of AL^ifktor, Some- 
 body under that particular Circuxnftaace or 
 Quality. Somebody cm: other contrived the 
 Myfteries in Egypt : Some that liked them 
 
 brought 
 
64 The Conduct of the 
 
 brought them out of KgypUzxA propagated 
 them. But were Thefe all Legijlqtors that 
 did fo? No. This is contrary to certain Fadt, 
 , Does he mean, that all Legijlators incul- 
 cated the Belief of a future State of Rewards 
 and Punifhments ? This is contrary to Fad: 
 likewife; at leaft the Fadt has not been pro- 
 ved. Does He argue from this-Connedlioni 
 That They ALL taught the Exiftence of Godj 
 — therefore Religion — therefore a future 
 State ; and that this Connexion is neceflary ? 
 If fo, then this will be a conclufive Argu- 
 ment that. Mofes likewife taught a fiiture 
 State: If the Connedtion be not necejjarfy, 
 then how will it be proved that the Other 
 Legiflators taught or inculcated a Future 
 /State ? If then Mofes has done exactly the 
 lame that Other Legiflators did, the De- 
 monftration for his Divine Legation from the 
 Medium of no fiiture State, will be equally 
 ftrong for Them and for Him. 
 
 I intended once to have releafed you here 
 from any fiirther Remarks on the Condud 
 of the antient Legiflators. But I will pro- 
 ceed,- and obfervc. That neither Triptolemus 
 nor DracOy nor Soloriy as far as appears, ei- 
 ther prefaced, their X^aws with the Dodtrine 
 
 of 
 
Old Legistlators ^dii/ider'd. 65 
 
 of a Providence m its full extent -, nor can 
 any thing which they have faid be conftrued 
 fo as to infer ihat any of them made the 
 Doflrinc of a Providence the SanBion of ihfiir 
 Laws, or the grand Sancton o£ \hexn., more 
 dian Mofes did. The moft that any of rfiem 
 did, was, in general Teons, to commands 
 Reverence to the Gods, or to order in what 
 particular manner they fhould worfliip them. 
 e. g. There were theie three Laws of Trip- 
 taJewus, the moft antient Legiflator of the 
 j^^KmanSj whidi Xenocrates mentions as 
 remainifig at Ekujis. Tov/m Tip&>. ®iii ka^'ttoi! 
 iyShftHv. zSx. /AJi ffhiiKu. Honour Parents. Pay 
 worJMp to ihe ^Geds, with the Fruits of ti>e 
 Earth. Do not i)urt jinimals. Porphyry 
 has wetl oblfe^ved, (q) that the two firfl: ctf" 
 t^fe are very jujl and fitting j for we mght 
 to return Good to our Parerfts^ who have been 
 fitch BenefaBors to us-, and to pay our Firft 
 Fruits to the Gods out of tiofe ufeful Things 
 tiin-ch they have given us. Of the third 
 thtere is feme I>oubt of its Meaning j and St. 
 
 (2) Tis (Jih kv S'do, KAKai '^ra^a.if'oS-niieu. Aeiya,fTJg 
 liivyM^ia tvi^y'iTAi nfjiuv -yiy evniMvoui, avTsur^ajSv Ip' 
 o(Tar IctfejfSTeM : T»i ■^otf S'k, «p' eav iS'ax.eLv Hfx7r 
 <Spi\i(jtmv es 7h '^iov iTa^^a,; 'ttoiS&cu- Usei /e tk 
 
 f nJ7«\5r kifiyiSicu ruv ^<»W. Porph, de Abf. li. iv. 
 
 F ferom. 
 
66 Tbe C on Dv cr df the 
 
 Jerom c. Jmnian, 1. z. underftands It of 
 not (r) eafiftg Flejh. Now, is this Mode 
 ofWorfhip, exprefs'd in the Manner that 
 This is by Triptolemus^ any Sandion, or de- 
 figned as a SanSiion to his Laws ? Or can 
 you perceive in thefe Words any Thing about 
 a Providence in its full Extent f Solon does 
 not feem to have done fo much as Tripto- 
 lemus or Draco did : We know of no In- 
 froduBion to his Laws, about a Providence, 
 whether in its full Extent or not: And Mr, 
 Warburton only tells usj that He provided 
 for the due and regular Celebration of the 
 Myjleries^ p. 107. When Solon had made 
 his Laws, [s) all Draco's Laws ceafed to be 
 obferved, except only what related to Murder -j 
 as Mlian affures us : and confequently, if 
 Draco did make a Law to honour tl}e Gods 
 in fuch a particular Manner, and declared 
 it to he perpetual, havm, yet at this Time it 
 ceafed to be in Ufe. 
 
 But Solon provided for the regular Cele- 
 bration of the Myjieries. Granting this : 
 
 (r) Xenocrates Philofophus de Triptolemi legibus apud 
 Athenienfes tria tantum prxcepta in templo Eleuiinae refidere 
 fcribit : Honorandos Parentes ; venerandos Deos ; carnibas 
 non vefcendum. Hieron, adv. Jovinian. 1. 2. 
 
 (s) K<£/ 7-075 iTTAVVAVrO A^W/eUOt "^^dfiKVOI 701! AfO- 
 
 Kovlai -^ ij.ipis{ S^'i IfuKn^Av rif tfoytnis dv% jElian. 
 I. viii. c. 10. 
 
 What 
 
Old hEGiSh AT OKS cbn^der'd. 67 
 
 What is, this to the making the Dodtrine of 
 a Providencfe in its full Ejctent, either a Pre- 
 face to, or the grand SanSiion of his Laws? 
 The making a -Body oflnftitutions is one 
 Thing : the Provifion for a due and regular 
 Celebration • of the Myfteries is another : 
 And how " confiderable a Part foever of 
 Divme Wbrjhip thefe were," or of what 
 " Importance foever to the very Eflence 
 ** of Religion," yet thefe were not Prefeces 
 to Laws, nor declared to be the grand Sanc- 
 tions of them. 
 
 To go flill higher. Minos pretended to 
 an Intercourfe with Jupiter , and he con-. 
 fulted him (/) every ninth Year, as Hofher 
 tells us. This Legillator, defigning to cor- 
 red: and amend what was faulty or defec- 
 tive in his Inflitutions, was wont to retire 
 into a Cave at the End of eight Years, and 
 then pretended there to have had a Con- 
 yerfation with Jupiter. The Reafon of this 
 Pretence, («) Plato has truly given us j not 
 to procure by the Influence of any Notion 
 of a Providence in its full Extent , an Ob- 
 
 {/) 'Efyt^fif ^MiKivi J^ioi i*iyiUv 8«f/r«f. Horn. OJ. 
 
 r- 179,- , ' ^ ■ 
 
 (u) 'il( irdv\A KUKaf khvtm, •&tc7»C •3-£»y. Plato de 
 legib. J. I. p. 635. 
 
 F 2 fervation 
 
68 Ihe C !0 !N iD u c T ff the 
 
 fervatioH tf the X/aws^ IrM that aU .Laws 
 were fight and 'g6oi finm fhe Qodsganie 'bhem. 
 I'WGttiM iiCFe ask. Was ithene any Preface 
 to -his La-ws? Or if" tbeng 'was, did it con- 
 ta-inllifc D0(3a:'H!ie c^a FwD^videiice in \xsftM 
 EWent^ Thie Point is not, what any of 
 thefe liegiflatars '/i^Sa^? themfdves about a 
 folaire (State : fad: Mofes is ackaow^edged t© 
 hSe&e futfe'k SMcj as much as Minos, or 
 Triffdlemus, or Dnsppo : But, sw^at -did Mt- 
 «oj make tfe hfrodtiSfion to, ©r the ^mni 
 SanBion of his Laws ? It is alowed, that 
 fome «F the a-ntient Legislators ondered or 
 coflima*nded a Worfeip or 'Reverence of the 
 Oods-: That All did even That, is more, 
 I l3binlk, dian can %e proved. However 
 Ti^vs has done it vaftly more,, arrd more 
 par^cularly, than any di them tver did, or 
 Jrerhafps ^an al -of -thefta put 'tefge^flyer. Mr. 
 Warburton therefore fhould 'not -tdcfe it for 
 p'mited, l!hat-ALL thefe Legiflators^^cp^l 
 thear iMffiittfSons Wit% -fe Db^arine df a 
 Providence m "rts full Bxtertt-, and legs 
 fhould he do this in a DembniftratJon j when 
 he knows, that neither their Xawj, nor the 
 Prefaces to them (if ever they had any) 
 
 are 
 
Old Legislators cmjiier'd. 65 
 
 are extant, nor has any Body totd what 
 they contained. 
 
 But fet us foppofe, that Mr. Warhurion 
 w abfe to prove his Afiertions to> be true of 
 Tr^fokmuj, Drnes, Slskn, Zdemm and 
 CharondaSy and many others, — that alt thefe 
 prefeeed their Laws wkhtheDo^rineof a 
 Frovidenee in its fiM 'Extent j yet before 
 his Demof^atisn will be compleat and fe- 
 tisfaftory, Hemuftfhew the feme a( Za- 
 molaeisy, ZMhraufim, Lyeaon, and All the 
 reft of the Tribe of Legiflators, whofe 
 Names we know, and nothing elfe. It is 
 an eafy Thing ta fey, that " there never 
 " waSi in ai^ Age of the Workf„ from 
 " the moft early Accounts of Time to this 
 " prcfent Hour, any civil, polifh'd Nation; 
 " or People, who had a Religion, of whkh 
 " the chief Foundation and i&ippoft was not 
 " the Dodtrine of a future State <^ Rewards 
 " and Panilhments." p. 8&.. Be it grant- 
 ed : The Queftion now k,-- - Whether An 
 Legiflators have in their JjAws, or in their 
 Prefaces to them, urged this Do£trine as it 
 Motive to the People to obferve their Laws ? 
 Have they All laid it down as a Principle 
 that the Go<fc would puniltti. the refra^ry 
 F 3 and 
 
jQ The Conduct of:^ihe 
 
 and difobedient, either here or hereafter ? 
 Have they ^// urged upon the People the 
 Notion of a Providence in its fiill Extent ? 
 No, Mr. Warbiirton has not inftancefl ip 
 me that has done it exprejsly. But inftead of 
 this, a Confequence is drawn from the bare 
 mention of the Gods, either in the Laws 
 theimfelves of fome, or in the Prefaces of 
 Others J even where the Legiflator has ex- 
 prefsly confined his Thought to a prefenf 
 Interpofition of Providence for the frefent 
 Safety ^n^ Security of the People. 
 
 But you will fay perhaps, that the Con- 
 nexion ftands thus. Wherever there was a 
 Worj^ip of the Gods, there was a Religion ; 
 Wherever there was Religioiti, the chief 
 Foundation and Support of that was the 
 Dodtrine of a fiiture State of Rewards and 
 Punifliments, except only among the Jewijb 
 People: And therefore if any Legiflator 
 commanded the Worfhip of the Gods, That 
 "Vvas enough to fhew, that a Providence in 
 its full Extent was made, or taught, as the 
 grand- SanBion of their Laws, 
 
 I am not now enquiring into a Point of 
 ^eafon, but into a Matter of Fa^ : How 
 fax the old Legiflators did in FaSi inculcate 
 '! the 
 
Old hEGiSLATQKscon^der'd. 71 
 
 the Notion of a Providence in its full Ex-^ 
 tent in their Laws, or in the Introdu6iions 
 to them. Now Zaleucus and Charondas^ 
 (and for ought that appears to the contrary, 
 all the reft) extended their Notions of a 
 Providence in their Laws, or Prefaces, only 
 to the prefent Safety of their People. Their 
 avenging Daemons executed only a prefent 
 Punifhment, according to their Laws, or 
 the Preambles to them j and it is more na- 
 tural to believe, that the Sanations of Laws, 
 which are the politive Commands or Pro- 
 hibitions of a temporal Superior, fhould be 
 fuch as a temporal Superior could putr in 
 Execution. Here therefore Mr. Warburton 
 fliould have been foil in his Proofs, and 
 not have put his Reader off with a Sentence 
 of Mr. Bayle, 'That all the Religions of the 
 World, true or falfi, turn upon this Point, 
 that there is a fudge invifible, "who punijhes 
 or rewards after this Life, both the internal 
 and external ABions of Men. p. 87. 
 
 My firft Remark on thefe Words of Mr. 
 Bayle is. That He makes no Exception for 
 the Jewijh People, as Mr. Warburton has, 
 
 My fecond is. That fuppofing it to be 
 
 true, that All Religions turn uppn this, 
 
 F ^ th^t 
 
72 y/S^ C o N D u c T 6f the 
 
 that there is a future Slate of Rewards and 
 Punifhments, yet All Legiflators may not 
 from thence imagine, that their Laws haA'^^ 
 or ought to have, the grand San^iOH' of a 
 fiiture State of Rewards and Punishments to 
 enforce Obedience. And 
 
 Thirdly, If fome of the Legiflators fhould 
 have made a Providence in its full Extent, 
 the grand Sanftion of their Laws j Other s^ 
 might not confider a Providence m> its full 
 Extent neceflary to fecure Obedience frora 
 their People ; but only a Providence extend- 
 ing to Civil Affairs. 
 
 When Mr. Warburton immediately adds, 
 that Mr. Bayle, " thinks, that it was the 
 " Utility of that Dodrine, which fet the 
 *' Magijirate upon iiruenting a Religion for 
 " the State." p. 87. I cannot but take No- 
 tice,,that Mr. Bayle has faid no fuch Thing i 
 neither about the Magijirate ; nor his in- 
 venting a Religion ; nor his inventing it Jor 
 the State j nor its Utility to the State. But 
 do ypu confult his Article of Spnofa re- 
 fer'dto: Rem. E. I return to my Sub- 
 jeift. 
 
 We know more of the old Roman Law 
 and Legiflators, than we do of any other 
 
 Nation 
 
Old L.EGISI.ATORS ci3«/yfr'J. 7 J 
 
 Nation of the Worlds except the yenssx. 
 The Laws, of Rstmlm and Numa concern- 
 ing facred Things were not a few ; and 
 Both of Thofe Kings thoughti i£ right to 
 impreis and fix a Notion oiMeSgmn upon 
 that rude, uncivilized, fierce People. Ej>- 
 muhs order' d, that no pmfclic B^iinefa fliomld 
 be done without confiilting the uimfpicesy 
 that facred Afi^rs fhoiild be .mani^ed* or 
 tranfaited only by fiacli certain Perfons; 
 that no one feould give into any fiibulous 
 Stories of the Gods j that they £houid not 
 worfhip aay foreign Deities, Faanus ex-^ 
 cepted, &c. But not a Word appears of a 
 faiure State of Rewards and Punifhments, 
 or a Providence in its full Extent m all thefe 
 Laws; nor did He make any PrefacM of 
 that Kind to them. Numa^ as much as he 
 concerned himfelf aboot Religious Matters, 
 did not make any IntrodttSion to his Laws, 
 about a Providence in its full Extent. He 
 appointed a Flamen Dialis; Martialis, ^i- 
 rhmlis, a Pmtifex maximus, four V^l 
 Virgins, the Saliij and other facred Perfbffls. 
 But as to the Dodirine of Providence, he 
 left it as it was j and put no Preface about 
 it, as far as appears, to his Laws ; nor did 
 
 he 
 
74- '^he Conduct of the 
 
 he enforce Obedience to them by denoun- 
 cing Punifhments in a future Life. All that 
 he intended or defigned was only to teach, 
 the People, that ( x) the Gods took Notice of 
 human Affairs, and concerned themfelves 
 with them at prefent. 
 
 If we go on to the Laws of the XII Ta- 
 bles, which were principally taken from 
 the Laws oi Solon. — The eight firji Tables 
 contained the Laws about Private Right, the 
 Ninth contained what related to Public 
 Right : The Tenth was about Sacred Right. 
 In this one might expedt to find, if any 
 where, the Dodtrine of a Providence made 
 the Sanftion of thefe Laws. But inftead of 
 that, I do not fo much as find the Word, 
 Godsy or Providence, or any Thing that imr- 
 plied any Notion of them in all that remains 
 of the XII Tables ; unlefs you can infer any 
 thing from the Word, Oath : And let me 
 obferve, the Roman Lawyers fay, {y)The 
 Punijhment of Perjury from the Gods was 
 Destruction, from Man Ignominy and 
 Difgrace. 
 
 (x) Deos intereiTc rebus humanis. Li v. I. i. 
 
 Quod autem non Judex, fed Deas ipfe vindex conlticuitur, 
 trtefentis ppenae metu religio confirmari videtur. Cic. de 
 Leg. 1. ?. \ 
 
 [y) Perjurii poena divina exitium, humana dedecus. Ihid. 
 
 Mofn 
 
Old Legislators confidefd. y^ 
 
 Mofes is then upon the fame Footing at 
 leaft with all thefe antient Legiflators : His 
 Notions of a Providence are as extenfive 
 as theirs : His Words ought in common 
 Juftice to be conftrued as extenfively as 
 theirs ; or their Words reduced to the Ex- 
 tent of his. And if the bare Omiffion of 
 afiitwe §tate in any Body of Inftitutes be 
 iiifficient to prove the Divine Legation of 
 fuch Legiflator, Do you judge how many 
 ©f the antient Legiflators will have a Claim 
 to a Divine Miffion as well as Mofes. 
 
 Thus much for the Condudt of Legifla- 
 tors and Inflitutors of Civil Society. I fliall 
 next confider what Mr. Warburton has of- 
 fer'd about ^' the Opinions of all the Learn- 
 V ers ai^d Teachers of Wifdom in the 
 ff Schools of antient Philofophy." p. 86. 
 
 I do not defign by this to examine at 
 large what he has offered upon this Head, 
 but I fliall confine myfelf principally to 
 what He himfelf thinks may be deemed an 
 " unreafonable and licentious Paradox," 
 concerning the Double Doctrine of the an- 
 tient Pbilojpphen: In which I think him 
 
 as 
 
76 fhe Double Doctrine ef 
 
 as much miftakea a^ he was in the Cbn- 
 du<9; of the antienffe Legiiflartors. 
 
 That the Force of what I fhall fay- on 
 this Head may be the better feen. I fhalf 
 
 Firft lay down what the AnCieats them- 
 fclves have faid about the DeMe Bc^rim, 
 and ihew how they underfiood their own 
 Language and Practice ; and £haU enquire 
 whether what they did is fufficient to juf» 
 tify their Ufe of an Efoterie and Exoteric 
 Teaching. And then I will examine the 
 Reafons given by Mr. Warlmrton for his neiv 
 Notion. If you fee that the Antients de- 
 livered their Sentiments confidently and ra- 
 tionally, and that Mr. Warbnrton has not 
 made out his new Notion, I perfuade my- 
 felf that you will fee no Reafon in any 
 great Hafte to follow this new Light into 
 the Province of Paradox. 
 
 I niuft obferve, Firft, That 'Axji>*7«f is pro- 
 perly a Hearer ; and thence it is put for a 
 Difciple, or one that goes to any one as a 
 Majier to be taught by him ; and the team- 
 ing is called dK.^'oa.a-is. Auditio. Now thefe 
 Hearers or Difciples were of two Sorts, 
 Thofe who came to the Teacher as Scholars 
 ^nd paid for their Learning j 'and thofe that 
 
 werQ 
 
the PfliiL OOP HERS ca^fidered. 77 
 
 were iBAism^. i. e. All fuch as refbrted to 
 hear any Public Leftures j and thefe were 
 diftinguiflied from the Scholars properly fo 
 called. This gave occaiion for fuch Ex- 
 preffions as thefe, \^iSk^i*h Kiyoi, e|«>7sf 'Kfl^«pS<«9'/f, 
 exoterka jdudifio^ exoteric Difioiirfes^ exote- 
 ric Hearing or Learmt^., which were fuch 
 Le6bures as were read to all promifcuoufly 
 that t:ame to iiear them. 
 
 That the l^oliem-ii f^'oyot, exoteric Speeches, or 
 Dijcmrfei, were iuch Le<ftures, appears from 
 AndrBmcus, the Paraphraft of Arifiotle'% 
 Ethics ad Nicomachum. Arijhtle himfelf had 
 
 eigmivjas hta,, ^ .j^f ii«w «yjsw. Andronicus tpara- 
 
 phrafes this thus Heec 4"%'^ »' juac^c e« cvy- 
 
 yfOf/iimsiv, dM^ei ^ &» rijKtfToy -wjaf ri( ivTvy^aifatlaf, 
 
 a^Kvvlai aroiaiv svia.. . Arijiotk's Wordfi are 
 
 We}>ave [aid jbme things concerning the Soul 
 in our E)xoteric Difcourfes : Andronicus' % Pa- 
 raphrafeis,— ^ have faidjome things concern^ 
 tng the Soul not only in our Writings, or fet 
 Difcourfes, hut in what was delivered viva 
 voce, to all that happened to come to hear 
 us. So that in Andronicus'^ Kotion, <S<»7«f'- 
 Mt-Kayoi, or Exoteric DifcourfeSj were com- 
 mitted to Writings as well as delivered viva 
 
 voce; 
 
78 The Double Doctrine of 
 
 voce ; and then were called l^eSJipuA (ruyy^dix- 
 if-ATA, Exoteric Writings. 
 
 The Exoteric, Koym, Difcourfes, were fpo- 
 ken to thofe that were h "ila. Strangers, i. a 
 not profefled Scholars or Difciples; to all 
 hrvyx^tovla.?, all that chanced to give" their 
 Attendance upon theLedture. TheExoljric 
 ffy>3/p«M/i/*J«, Writings, were the fame Ledhires 
 put into Writing, and in courfe fuited to the 
 Hearers. 
 
 2. As sJKfoetTwf was properly a .Difciple or 
 Scholar, fo what was read to fuch was cal- 
 led Acroatic, and from xhc privatenefs of the 
 Ledlure, it was called E/ofmc: /. e. a Leflbn 
 or Difcourfe read to thofe that were l<r». 
 For Acroatic and Efoteric are the fame : both 
 oppofed to the Difcourfes read toii i^a, to 
 thofe without, /. e. to thofe that were not 
 Difciples, who paid for their learning. 
 Therefore (z) Clemens Alexandrinus makes, 
 Exoteric, and Common, the Same. Strom. 1. 
 5. which fhews how He underftood the 
 Word Exoteric. Whatever then Arijiotk 
 read or difcourfed to any, or all that came to 
 him ' in the Evening as he walked in the 
 Lycaumy be it on what Subje£t he would, 
 
 (x ) Ta,H. l|»T?f«« >^ Koifi. Clem. Mex. Stro. 1. V. 
 
 It 
 
^the Philosophers confider'd. 79 
 
 it was an Exoteric ; not that he did not be- 
 lieve every thing that he there faid j but it 
 was a Dodtrine that he taught «|«7e?iK9~j to all 
 that came to hear him. And if thefe Exoteric 
 Difcourfes were read to his Scholar s^ whom 
 he taUght in the Morning, they were tihen 
 acroatic Difcourfes or Lectures. 
 
 3. As there were iBal&^iKoi f^'oyoi, and ffvy- 
 yqAi/LfiarrA, Exoteric Difcourfes and WritingSy 
 {o Hkewife, there were «5«po«T/xo/ Kayai and 
 ttusoaTiKi <fvyy^imt<t{<t. This appears from 
 Alexander' sla&'O.CT to Arijiotky zxAJriJlotle*^ 
 Anfwer to him, which I fhall cite by and 
 by. Thefe were Difcourfes read in private 
 to the Scholars, and are the fame with Efote- 
 rics. Thefe were either viva voce Ledtures 
 read to them, or Writings upon any Subjeds, 
 well confidered, polifhed, finifhedj which 
 went to the bottom of the Subjed: and 
 therefore in many cafes fit pnly for fuch as 
 had Abilities, or had made a Progrefs fuf- 
 ficient to comprehend them. 
 
 The F/;;y? Reafon then of the Diftindtion 
 between Exoteric and Efoteric Dodtrines was 
 taken from the Perfons to whom they were 
 read: ^the Epioteric being read to all that 
 
 happened 
 
78 f^ DovBiE Doctrine of 
 
 happened to attend them, the Acroatic cmly 
 to proper Scholars. 
 
 AJSecoaJJRsafon was tafcen from ithe Metf- 
 ier treated of in thefe Difcourfes. Auhis 
 Gellim is very partacukr .as to ihis Point, (a) 
 " By ExDterki" 6.y6 he, " they meant 
 " fuch Difcburfes as relaited to Si}etoric, the 
 " Art, or Faculty f ^ fpmking acutely , and 
 *' th Kmnisdadge of Civil Affairs. Acroatics 
 " were calkd fuch Difcourfes in which the 
 " move fr^efisund and fubdle IP^h&^hj was 
 " eofiC-eniBd ; jRidh as related to the Con- 
 " templations of Natiaare, and Dialedical 
 « Difputes." 
 
 ~ When he had thus defined thefe Words 
 from the Matter, or &^V<^ of them, he 
 goes on to fliew the rDifference of Acroatk 
 amd EiXot£r,k from the Pprfms a^ I before 
 es^lain'fd it. Atijlstle fay« ,he, (b) " did 
 *' not indifferiimly admit every Body to his 
 
 {a) ^^jiifni-d dicebantur gus a,d RheHoricas medltationes, 
 facoltatem argutiarum, Civiliumque rerum notitiam comlu- 
 ctbant. 'AKfocLTiKd vocabantur in quibus Fbilofopfaia remo- 
 ttor fabtiliorque agitabatur, qusque ad naturs eontonplatio- 
 nes^iHoeptationefqae Dialefticas pertmebanc. Gef/iui. I. xx. 
 c 5. 
 
 (b) Nec ad earn X'v'X- iKpnajtw^ quemguam temere 
 niittebat, nili quotBto ^nte inga[iiiHn-ec«i>iiditiems«leinenta 
 atque .in idtfcendo fludium. Jabarc^nqne exploraiTet. Illaf vera 
 ii<i>lipKob; attditiones--vulgo Juveijibus fine deleSn praebebat. 
 itnd. 
 
 Acroatic 
 
the Philosophers confidered. %i 
 ^^ Acrontic LeBures, but only fuch whofef 
 " Learning, Induftry and Application to' 
 " Study He had tried and well knew. But 
 " his Exoteric Ledturds he publicly and 
 " openly read to young Men without any 
 « Diftindlioh." 
 
 A Third Difference obferved by Gellius 
 between the two Sorts of Doctrines is, that 
 (c) " the Exoterks were Ledlures read in 
 " the Evemf^, the Acroatics were read in 
 " the Mcrning." And Artfietle fo divided 
 his Books into thefe Sorts, that fome of 
 them were called Exoterics^ others Acroatics. 
 
 There may feem to fome, a difference 
 between t}a.e Exoteric and Acroatic Dodlrine 
 taken from the Manner in which the Books 
 were wrote. TuRy hzs made a Remark^ 
 which may feem to lead to this, though in 
 reality it does not* His Words are (d) —- 
 " There are two Sorts of Books concerning: 
 " the Summum Boniim^ the One wrote^in a 
 " popular Manner which they call Exoteric^ 
 
 ( c ) 'E?ft>7«f 'xaf aaditiones ej^^'citiulnque dicendi-^— vefperi 
 faciebat, atque eum d^m^ivov wspiVaJoc appellabat, ilium al- 
 terum fupra ledBr/oV ibid. Pomeridianis Scholis Ariftoteles 
 prsEcipere Arcem ofatoriani cospit. ^intil.-\. 3. c. i. 
 
 {d) De fummo' autem bono, quia duo Genera librorum 
 funt,.' anum populariter fcriptum, quod k^an^inhv appella- 
 bant, alterum liinatius,quod in comment^riisreliquerunt, non 
 femper idem dicere videntur. Cic. de finibut, 1. 5. 
 
 G «' th© 
 
82 'the Double Doctrin* of 
 
 " the Other more accurate and Jinijhed^ 
 " which they left in their Commentaries: 
 " And in thefe they do not feem always to 
 " fay the fame." It is certain thaX^j^iJiotle 
 wrote in Commentaries both his Exoteric and 
 Acroatic Difcourfes: " Librofque fuos earum 
 " omnium rerum Commentarios, feorjim di-^ 
 " vi^t i uf alii Exoterici dicer entur, partim 
 " Acroatici," fays Gellius. Does Cicero mean 
 then, that the popularly wrote Treatifes were 
 called Exotericsy and thofe that were more 
 polijhed or accurate only were left in Books 
 and call'd Efotericsf This can't be, be- 
 caufe we have Exoteric Difcourfes, fuch as 
 thofe in which Arifiotle treated about the 
 Soul, which himfelf exprefly calls Ettoteric^ 
 left in Books. Cicero I think, feems to mean, 
 that there were two Sorts of written Treati- 
 fes or Difcourfes. One popular^ containing 
 the Exoteric Ledtures, wrote in a plain, dif-* 
 fufe, copious Manner, fuited to common 
 Capacities and what every Body could ap» 
 prehend: The Other Sort of Ledures was 
 " wrote with Accuracy" and Care and Con- 
 cifenefs, fuited more to thofe [e) who had Parts 
 
 (t) Qaorum ingenium et eruditionis elementa atque in dif- 
 cesdo ftudium laboremque exploraflet. Gclliut, 
 
 % and- 
 
ti}e PttitosojPitfeRS eo^fidered. 8j 
 
 tnd Learning, ahd who Were Willing to ^W- 
 dy and fe take PainSk Thefe latter Treatifes 
 \vere not Hfually EkoUHc: but yfef they 
 might be fo, if th^y Were read to Pirfohs 
 abrdidi at the Ev^nihg Le6feure. Now C/- 
 l>ero here iraentions ovXj Exoteric Treitifes^ 
 whether pepularfy or more accurately Wrdte 
 concerning th^ fumtnum ^nkMi in which 
 there was not the Gonfiftency he defired: 
 and has not mentiohed the Other, or the 
 Acroatic Treatifes at all. This I take to be 
 his meaning: fiut let it be what it A;<^ill, 
 there iS no hint that the Exoteric cotitaitied 
 a t)o<5trine not ietieved by its Author : Nor 
 can his Word, Kmatius^ more pblijhedy more 
 BCcUraie^ fignify any thing more than that 
 he wrote in a more exaiSt and finifhed Hian-^ 
 nef what he faid Upon that Subjedt. 
 
 The Difference betweeh the Exoteric and 
 Efoteric Doftrines being thus founded on the 
 P^ffom, SubjeBs, 'Times^ and perhaps the 
 Mamef of Writing j I fnuft obferve furthdr^ 
 
 i'h^ we have extant a Letter of AkxaH- 
 der's to Arijiotki and Arijiotle's Anfwer ; in 
 both which,- mention is ittade of the HfoeClt- 
 lAtfJyyoi, CffAc3?oatici)i{eouries* (f)AJexi^der 
 
 (f) OiJk ifSS; \'7ritiitm,\it^x( tvf aiqattliKis tuv h'ayay. 
 
 2 Wfites 
 
§4 'I'he Double Doctrik(e of 
 
 writes to him a Reproof, that he had pub- 
 lifhed his Acroatic Difcourfes or Doftrines, 
 4hofe in which he had been inJiruSied by him ; 
 and asks. Wherein jhould he excell others, if 
 the Notions which he had received from him 
 were now common to all? And he adds, that 
 he had rather excell others in Knowledge of 
 the beft Things, , than in Arms. 
 
 AriJlotle'& Acroatics then contained the 
 .things in which he inftrudted young ^/(?x/z«- 
 der; and which his Pupil, in the midft of 
 his Vidtories and great Succefles, and grown 
 riper in Judgment, deemed unfit to be pub- 
 liihed, becaufe, if the Knowledge of them 
 were common to all, he Jhould have no partis 
 cular, Advantage in that RefpeSi over others. 
 He owns that he was indebted to thefe A~ 
 croatics for the Knowledge or Skill in the best 
 things. Plutarch will explain this : For 
 fpeaking of thefe very Letters, he tells us, 
 :(g) that Arijiotle taught Alexander " the 
 " Secret and weightier Inftruftions which 
 " Men pficuli<frly Jiyle Acroamatic andM^o^- 
 
 i'iv^ny.iv Koyxf vtoi rr^%v iiravldu koivo'i ; 'E>» J'i 3i- 
 Aoi'/xMi' ety TM( 'TTiet T«i Afi^a, iiAfraficLK, 8 reus S'vva.yLi^i 
 cT/a^epwi'. Getlius. 1. xx. c. j. 
 
 (g) Tuv ^fpriTaf )^ €a^v%fav S'tS'o.ttyi.a.Kiav, ag o/ aSc- 
 
 l^tfi^QY fcif ■TTohhii. Plut. Alex. p. 668. 
 
 2 tic. 
 
the Philosophers conjtdered. 85 
 
 " tic, and which they do not publijh to all the 
 " World" Are not thefefecref and weigh- 
 tier, or more momentous InJlruBions, the 
 very Depths, the full and whole that the 
 Mafter knew on any Subjeft ? They are in 
 matters of Philofophy what Gellius calls, (h) 
 the more deep andfuhtle Philofophy. Plutarch 
 fays, that Alexander wrote to Arijtotle v-rlg- 
 pKo(To(fiaf, in behalf of or abou't Philofophy : 
 and he plainly underftands by this Arijiotle'% 
 Metaphyfics. He exprefles himfelf indeed, 
 as Plutarch too often does, fo obfcurely, that 
 it may be hard to fix the exadt meaning of 
 every Word : However it is eafy to fee what 
 is not his meaning. It is not any thing re- 
 lating to believing or not believing the Doc- 
 trine taught, which diftinguifhed the Exo- 
 teric firom the Acroatic. His Words are, (i) 
 For in Truth the Affair of Metaphyficks, 
 (containing nothing ufefiil either to [com- 
 mon] teaching or learning) was wrote as a 
 fhort Specimen or Syflemfor thofe who had been 
 inftru5ied from the Beginning. As they were 
 wrote therefore in this manner, for the Ufe 
 
 (h} Philofophia remotior fubtiliorque. Gellius fapra. 
 (Q 'AKn^Si yof ti fjLila/pvaiKn vsay/jLoleia, irpof i'ti'ita- 
 
 imroiiJ^iVjji'^peis «t' dsx''^ yiyfifTricu,' Plut. Alex. 
 
 G 3 of 
 
80 ^e Double Doctrine of 
 
 of thofe who bad been mfimSlted already by 
 him, and only for thofe j He plight juftly 
 anfwer Alexander^ that his (k). Acroatics 
 iiaere publijhed and not publijhed, becauje tbey 
 were not intelligible , except to thofe only who 
 had heard him. Plutarch commends in the 
 fgpie place, Alexander' % (I) innate ?leal for 
 and defre of Philojbph^ nurfed up with him 
 from the beginning: which feems to intimate 
 that the Thilofophy taught him by Arifiotle 
 was the thing which fo greatly diftinguifhed 
 him fron> others. . He mentions likewife 
 that he learnt Bithici and Politics frorji Arif- 
 totle : and he was wont to pay his grateful 
 Acknowledgments to his Mafter, even pre-s 
 ferring him to his Father, to whom he was 
 indebted that he lived, but to the Other, 
 phat he was enabled to live well. 
 
 But be the Acrpatips either Phyfics or Me- 
 t^phyfics, be they Ethical or Political Dif? 
 <;ourf^ it is plain that Plutarch was in the 
 ;(a,me Sentiments about them that GeUius was, 
 that they were 'Do&^mes.profound,, deepyfid?,-^ 
 fe, weighty, fit for fuch as had been already 
 
 (k) "J&i aurxi >^ lnJ'iioi/.'im (^ //.ri o^J^iJ^oiiimr Sv- 
 Itilm yd^ eifft f/.'atoKTo'if iijMv ditivAO'iv- Gslijm. Pint. 
 
 (IJ rifSf (piKatopieu^ i[i'!ri((n)x.iii ^ a,yy'Ji'^iit[ji.iJt,iyof iii". 
 i^Jii oxnZ ^HKoi t^ w'i^a. Ibid. ' 
 
 inftrufted 
 
the Philosophers conjidered. 87 
 
 mftrufted in them. It is certain they were 
 jPo(ftrines committed to zyoung Pupils which 
 therefore one may be fure, were not Doc- 
 trines which related to the Non-belief of God 
 or the Godly or to the Non-exiftence of the 
 Soul in a proper State of Rewards or Pu- 
 nifhments. But further. 
 
 It is well enough known how zealous 
 the Fathers of the Church were againft the 
 Heathens j they charged them with every 
 Thing that could make the World have a 
 light Efteem for them, or their Notions, 
 Now what a noble Field would here have 
 been open'd, could they have charged their 
 Sages and Philofophers with the Diflimula- 
 tion, which Mr. Warburton has here done ? 
 Could they have loaded them with the 
 Cripae of believing one Thing, and teaching 
 another, with Lying, with impofing on the 
 Credulity of the People -, what a Difplay 
 of Rhetoric fhould we have had ? Could 
 there have been a more fit Occafion for 
 Satire, or for Declamation, than what fuch 
 Condudt would have aiForded ? They knew 
 of the double JDoffrine; but they were fo 
 far from imagining, that Plato or ^rijktle, 
 ^C, were- guilty of any Crime, or defcrved 
 G 4 <?»)> 
 
88 The Double Doctrine of 
 
 ^;?)' Blame, that they never reproach -them 
 on that Account J nay, they juftify their 
 Ufe of the Efoteric and KHoteric Doftrines. 
 They were fo far from thinking that they 
 deferved any Cenfure for theii: Manner of 
 teaching, that Clemens puts Mofes, and the 
 EgyptianSy and the Philofophers; upon a 
 Level in this Refpedr, and applauds the 
 Wifdom of them all for covering their 
 Doctrines v^^ith Veils, which the common 
 People could not fee thro'. He urges the 
 common Prailice of both Sacred and Pro^ 
 fane Writers to involve their religious No- 
 tions in Obfcurity : and he produces feveral 
 Reafons in ^Juftification of that Practice. 
 He fhews, that Mofes had a deep and myf- 
 tical View in the Contrivance of the Appa- 
 ratus of the Tabernacle ; and the Apdftles 
 too concealed the Myfteries of the Ghriftian 
 Faith. And whilft he was fetting out thefe 
 Things at large, he mentions the hr'u^nla, 
 the Secrets of the Philofophers, and their 
 double DoBrines. {m) Not only ^/^e Pythago- 
 reans, 
 
 {m) Ov fiovol a^d, 01 TJi^^ctfayioi .)^TlKctjav rA ttoKK^ 
 i'ri)i^uTf]ov\o/ahKa. j^ o'l E'ttik^^kh (pas'i tiva >^ ^raf' stujoTf 
 AnOPPHTA ^ca^, )^ ftvi -TTcffiv , k'fnp.'Treiv ivTv^xdve^y 
 Ti']oi< ToTj- y^a.U/j.ctffii'i Ak^o. )^ '^atKoi \i.ytS!Ti ZnvuVt 
 C"&) ■z^di]!/) yiy^oifdM Tim, * //i fo.i'iai iitnivm.isi to;; 
 ■ (/■a.^nTOjs 
 
the Philosophers co«^^i?rf^. 89 
 
 reanSj andPhXo, fays he, hid many Things^ 
 but the Epicureans too fay, that Tl}ey have 
 their Secrets, and do not permit every Body 
 to perufp thofe Writings. The Stoics too 
 teU us, thatfome Things were wrote by Zeno 
 the Firji, which they do not fuffer their Dif- 
 ciples eajily to read, unlefs they have Jirjl given 
 Proof, that they are of a true phil(fophic 
 Turn, or Difpoftion. The Followers of AriC- 
 totle too jay, that fome of their DoBrines are 
 Efoteric, Others are Common and Exoteric. 
 They alfo that injiituted the Myfteries, be- 
 /wCT- Philosophers [not Legislators, Mr. 
 Warburton on the contrary fays, they were 
 Legislators, not Philosophers] cover- 
 ed over their Opinions with Fables, thaPthey 
 might not be open or manifeji to all. 
 
 The Defign of Clemens was to juftiiy this 
 Method of concealing Notions from the 
 profane and unworthy ; but he never hints 
 at the Philofophers not believing what was 
 either covered, or concealed, or exprelTed 
 by Symbols, and in Allegory, or what was 
 
 (jittbvraii ivityiriifKeiv, [jA hvy) th^clv S^iS^uKofft Tf o7Efoc, 
 'fci yvfi^ia; aiKoso^oitv. Aiytari S'l j^ ol A^i^oj'iKvt, r£ 
 fAiv ia-esjitiita. HVai raf ffuy^^a.(Ji(AeiTav a.u%, ra J'i Mifi 
 Ts )^ \%eS\ieA.^. A\K<t ^ ol ra ^v^heAO. ■S-smwo/, px'aaoqioi 
 
 %/lii, TO. div]Zv i'ayfJLttla, TOli (/.V^OIJ KaTi^Vffitll, »V« /t/ti} 
 
 Sku TiMi in\a.. Cleqi. Alex. Strom. 1. 5. p. 680, 681. 
 
 common 
 
90 The DouBXE Doctrine of 
 
 frnmofi and exoteric, or laid before th^ 
 People. He goes on in a very remarkable 
 Paflage to obferve, (n) that- neither the Pyi- 
 thagorean Fables, nor what 'Phxofays in hisi 
 Republic concerning Armenius, nor in his. 
 Gorgias concerning ^acus and Rhadaman- 
 thtts, mr in his Phaedon concerning Tarta-r. 
 lust, mr in bis Protagoras concerning Pro- 
 metheus and Epimetheus, nor what he fay^ 
 ef the War between the Atlantines and 
 
 Athenians in the Atlantic Sea. Thefe^ 
 
 feys he, are not to be allegorizedy as 
 to every Wordy but only fuch Words as 
 are declarative of the general Sentiments. 
 He fuppofes the Things fignified by 
 thoie Words to be really true, and to be 
 believed, tho' they were covered over with 
 Symbolical, or Myjlical, or Jllegorical Veils j 
 iand that under thofe Veils, and by fuch 
 Terms, a real, beUeved Truth was intend- 
 pd. And hence it is that he makes the 
 
 TlKafavit ev TlaKi]eiA -^fof tk AfjuEcitf, ^ sc Tofyitf, 'Aiti'xx 
 
 vtKifM rSr ArKaJ]tit.Zv jd) tSv A^nveum \v t« Arf<.a,v\iKS, 
 ix' «'^>.Zi Ki^a. ■zivla. td iv'onn^Ta, dKMyofnr'iiii, aAA' ova, 
 
 fiiP «9 //« u-uwgoAsic vars 'ira.es^Ka.hvy.yi.a.Ti T« a'Mnycei* 
 nmviiJiVA. Ckm. Alex. St. j- 
 
 true 
 
the Phi?,osqphers ^m^dered. 91 
 
 true Diftinftion of the double Doftrine to 
 be, that (o) the one ivas fpoken out diorl/^^ 
 the other "was contend from the many, 
 
 Fropi thefe Remarks upon the double 
 Dodtrine it plainly appears, that tlie An- 
 tients were perfect Strangers to even the 
 Sttfpicioh of that which Mr. Warburton 
 calls his " New Opinion." Vol- 1, p. 351* 
 The Pradlice of the double Dctdtrine was a 
 Thing well known, and much approved 
 by them : But to fuppofe it to confift in 
 fpeaking what was not believed^ was as far 
 from their Thoughts, as it was froni every 
 Bodies elfe, when Mr. Warburton firft diC- 
 covered this Secret. 
 
 You'll tell me perhaps, that it is no-» 
 thing to the Purpofe to enquire what No- 
 tions the Antients had about the double 
 f^oSirine : That Mr. Warburton owns his 
 Opinion to be^" New ;" and therefore that 
 it is loft Labour to fearch in Antiquity for 
 what has been all along miftaken, or mif- 
 jinderftood. i 
 
 But this is the very Thing, which fhews 
 |iow unreafonable and " licentious his Para- 
 
 V0\hi{. clem. ibid. 
 
 « dox" 
 
9^ ^e Double Doctrine of 
 
 dox" is ; it is in EfFed to maintain that the 
 Antients did not underftand their own 
 Words, or their own Pradtiees. He has 
 not produced one PafTage that diredly proved 
 bis Point ; but he has firft invented an Hy- 
 pothefis about the double Dodtrine ; and 
 then He tries to accommodate his Schemes 
 to that. Is there one exprefs Paflage, which 
 proves, that the Exoteric Dodtrines were 
 not believed f Is it not by Way oi Confequence 
 only, that this Dijbeliefo? what they open- 
 ly taught is- charged upon them ? Has he 
 produced any Paflages from Plato, or Arif- 
 totk, or any of thofe who ufed the Diftinc- 
 tion of Efoteric and Exoteric, which come 
 up to his Point ? He has indeed found out 
 a Diftipdtion betwixt what Platd^s Words 
 are, and what he makes Socrates fay, in 
 order to eftablifh his Point, that Plato did 
 not believe, tho' he profefs'd, a future State 
 of Rewards and Punifhments. Remarks. 
 p. 65. But this Diftindtion was as much un- 
 known to the Antients as his Pai-adox itfelf 
 was. They tell us, that he ( /> ) gave us his 
 
 (p) Tiiei /J^ rav mirS J^oKivrav idzK^aivdcu tPiu tst?*- 
 
 j^ ToL Ti/join hAyuv UhuTccv' J^cynaji^ti. Piog. taerL 
 ,jta PJ^toni; . 
 
 own 
 
the Philosophers €onfid^ed. 9(3 
 
 own Sentiments under the. Perfons of Socrates,; 
 Timaeus, Gfr. And take away what- S'jmjfcjr, 
 Timeeus, the Athenian Stranger, and the 
 Eleatic Stranger fay, there wUl . remain but 
 little in Comparifoft, from whence one can 
 learn Plato's Opinions. But to return to 
 what I was qbfervjng about the Dodtirine of 
 Plato. 
 
 The Works of Plato were never. diiCtin- 
 guifhed by himfelf, or any other, into the 
 two general Claffes of Efoterics and Exote- 
 rics. The grand Diftindiion of them was 
 into other general Heads, which again were 
 fubdivided into the Phyjicd, under which 
 was ranged 'Timaus : Logical ; under which 
 Head was placed, Politicus, Cratylm, Par- 
 menides, Sophijtes. Ethical; : under which 
 was put his Apology, Criton, Pheedon, Phz-^ 
 drus, Sympojium, Menexenus, Clitophsn, Epif- 
 tles, Philebia, Hipparchiis, Anterajia, Po- 
 litical; under which Head were his Books 
 oi Republic, Laivs, Minos, Epinomis, At- 
 lanticus. Maieutic; which contains Alcibi- 
 ades, Theages, Lyfis,. and Laches. Pirajiic^ 
 or what was wrote to try to confound the 
 Arrogance of others ; fuch were Euthyphrm, 
 Menon-y Ion, Charmides, Theatetus. ' . Di- 
 
 ■monjirafive j 
 
94 7'/5<? Double DoctiirNfe of 
 mmjirafi'oey which has the Ptotagorau 
 And laft of all the Subverjive j in which 
 the Bufinefs was to confute and fubvert any 
 Notions 5 and in this Clafs were Euthyde^ 
 musy the Two Hippias'% and the Gorgias. 
 This is the Divifion of them in Diogenes 
 Laerttus : And there is the very fame Di- 
 vifion of them by Albinus : Only this laft 
 Author has placed fome of the particular 
 Treatifes under a different, general Head; 
 But Both of them place the Gorgias under 
 the Clafs of Subverfivet as it ought to be, 
 it being defign'd 16 confiite the Sophifts 
 about their falfe tJfe of Rhetoric. Neither 
 of thefe Writers ever thought of fuch a No- 
 tion, or fuch a Divifion, as of Books, which 
 contained what Plato taught, and did not 
 believe^ and what he taught^ and did be- 
 lieve. A Diftinftion ! which could not but 
 have naturally occurr'd, had fuch a Notion 
 been then known, or heard of, or had it 
 been the reputed Meaning of EfoteHcs and 
 Exof erics. The Gorgias then of Plato may 
 be deem'd an Exoteric Book, becaufe it con- 
 tained a Difcourfe upon the Subjedt of 
 Rhetoric, and the true and falfe Ufe jjf that 
 Art: But not becaufe it detailed out the 
 
 Dodtrine 
 
the PniLOSopMiRs conjUertd, 9^ 
 
 iDodtrine of a future State of Rewards and 
 Puniflimentsof which PlaU believed nothing 
 himfelf, tho* he taught it others as feri- 
 oully as if he had believed it. It may not 
 be amifs, 
 
 Laftly, to obferve that Spet^ppus^ the 
 t)ifciple of PUfOj firft publiflied what Ifo^ 
 crates called T<i etxappuT*. Thefe Secrets were 
 nothing but what ybcmtes made a great Se- 
 cret of ; not what he did not believe, but 
 what he did believe, and kept as a great Se- 
 cret to himfelf, which was the Art of turn- 
 ing a Period rightly. He was in high 
 Credit, and followed by the moft illuflrious 
 Scholars in Athens, where he taught Elo-^ 
 quence with the greateft Succefs and Ad- 
 miration J and as he had made particular 
 Obfervations on the Manner and Art of 
 Speaking, — Thefe were what He kept as 
 Secrets, and were what Speujippus publish- 
 ed, v. Laertius in Speufippum, and the 
 Commentators on that Place in Mena^ius's, 
 Edition. 
 
 From thefe Things I would obferve, 
 I. Suppofing thefe old Philofophers to be 
 Legiflators,and to have had in View thepublip 
 Utility. Nothing appears from what the 
 
 Antients 
 
96 l^e botJBLE DoCTRINfi of 
 
 Antients have faid (and we find the Word 
 often ufed by them) that by Exotericsj 
 Were meant Dodlrinesy which thofe, who 
 taught them, did not believe. Exoterics 
 were Dodtrines read to the Vulgar, and 
 iuited to vulgar Capacities, or the common 
 Ideas which the Vulgar had. Suppofing 
 then, that the Philofophers made ufe, irt 
 thofe Difcourfes, of Parables, or Fables, of 
 Allegories ; — This was done in order to 
 reprefent Things fo as the People could beft 
 apprehend them j and this Manner of teach- 
 ing ought not to be treated as Lyijig, or as 
 not. believing the "Things which they taught. 
 When any one ufes a Parable, in order to 
 convey his Sentiments, — is he to be charg- 
 ed with teaching v^'hat he does not believe .? 
 How will fuch a Notion agree with the 
 Manner of teaching in the New Teftament ? 
 Macrobius {q) (whofe Words I fhall have Oc- 
 cafion to confider by and by) has wrote a 
 particular Chapter to enquire, what Fables 
 Philofophy may allow of or admit, and 
 upon what Occafions Philofophers are wont 
 
 (q) Quid refpondendum Coloti Epicureo, putanti philofo- 
 pho non effe utendum fabulis: quafque febulas philofophia 
 recipiat, et qaando his Philofophi feleant uti. Macrob. in 
 Sotn. Scif. c. z, 
 
 to 
 
the Philosophers confider'i. pj^ 
 
 to ufe them^ He there mentions the Cafes 
 in which he thinks it lawful and right to 
 ufe Fable : and what he has faid on that 
 Head is applicable to other Manners of^ 
 conveying Inftrudion to the eornmoii 
 People. 
 
 Mr. Toland h^s made another tJie o/tlid 
 double Dodtrine than what Mr. Warburtort 
 haSj and has run into a very different Ex- 
 treme. He fays, that the Philofophers werd 
 " conflrained by the Holy Tyranny of the 
 *' Priejis to make ufe of a twofold Doc* 
 *' trine, the one popular ^ accommodated to 
 " the Prejudices of the Vulgar, and to 
 *' the received Cuftoms of Religions ; the 
 *' other philofophical, cohfortiiable to thd 
 " Nature of Things, and confequently to 
 " Truth, which, with Doors fajijhut, and 
 " under all other Precautions they commu^ 
 *' nicated only to Friends of kndwri Pro^ 
 *' bity. Prudence and Capatity. Thefe, 
 *' fays he, they generally called the Exote-^ 
 *' ric znd Efotertc, or the External ztid In-> 
 *' ternal tioQxine^." Toldnd's TetfadymuSi 
 p. 66. Mr. Toland had as much Right to 
 invent this Hypothecs, Which has not ond 
 Word in Antiquity to fupport it, as Mr, 
 H Jfarhurton 
 
0^ The Double DoctrinE of 
 
 Warburton has for his Paradox, which is^ 
 equally groundlefs. That which confutes 
 his Notion is, that the Ejoteric Ledures 
 were read in the Morning to their Scholars^ 
 and to thofe onlyj- the ExoterieSy or po- 
 pular ones, were read in the Evenjng : noi? 
 was the Exoteric Dodtrine accoMmodated to 
 the Prejudices of the Vulgar, but to the 
 Capacities of them, 
 
 2. Be it granted, that the Philofopheri- 
 had in View the Public Good, and that 
 they talked Exoterically upon Points where 
 popular Prejudices were concerned, — it does 
 not follow, that they therefore dijbelieved 
 the Truth, the real Truth,- of the Cafe 
 ^pon which they were fpeaking. Let us- 
 fuppofe, that they had Occafion to fpeak to- 
 the Vulgar concerning the Gods; they* 
 Alight fpeak of Hercules, Mfculapius, &c, 
 as Gods : Or if they had Occafion to fpeak 
 of a future State, they might fpeak of Macus 
 and Phadamanthus, and the Judges of Hell. 
 iSfoV as they who did not Believe Her- 
 ciiles and Mfculapius to be Gods^ did not for 
 that Reafon dtjbelieve the Exiftence of a go- 
 verning Mind, fo they that did not believe 
 Macus or Minis tcv be °Jttdges &J Hell, did 
 
 HOC 
 
^e PtiiiosoPtiERS confider'd. 99 
 
 hot for that Reafon dijbelie^ all future Rej 
 wards and Punifhments. The more profound 
 Philofophy was certainly concerned in the 
 iearching put thefe Points : and tho' thd 
 Philofophers, or forpe of them^ might find 
 Reafon to rejed the Poetical or Political 
 Gods J and to rejedt too the vulgar Noj 
 tions of StyXf and Acheron and Cocytus^ 
 yet in their Difeourfes to thofe who 
 .Could not enter into the Bottom of 
 Things, they .might talk of the fa Gods, or 
 Rivers, as really exifting. They meant to 
 convey to the People thefe Truths, — - that 
 there was a governing Being, or a Provi- 
 dence,- and a future State of Rewards and 
 Punifhments; Things which they believed 
 themfelvesi arid.defired to have the People 
 believe : and if they laid hold of their Pre-^ 
 jitdiceSi or their Capacities^ in order to in- 
 Cukate what they intended, it is too great 
 a Stride in Argument to infer, that the 
 Teachers did not believe either a God of 3 
 ftiture State of Rewards and PuniflimentS< 
 
 3i The Immortality of the $o\\\i and i 
 State of future Rewards or PunifhmentSy 
 was not in itfelf either an Efoteric or an 
 Exoteric Dodlrine, bilt flie Difcourfe oi 
 Writing oft that Subje<S rqeeived its Name? 
 H i from 
 
100 the DouBtfi Doctrine of 
 
 from the Perfons to whom, or the Manneri^ 
 O'f the Time in which it was delivered. Nor 
 can it be infer'd, that Plato did, or did not 
 believe, that the Soul would or would not 
 fuffer, or be rewarded hereafter, from the 
 t)ifcourfes being proved to be Efoterical or 
 Exoferical. For if he treated of this Sub- 
 jedl exoterically, it only follows, that he 
 treated of it in the popular Manner, and 
 agreeable to their Capacities ; and if he 
 treated of the fame Subjedl Efoterically, it 
 only follows, that then he treated of it 
 according to the ftrid Reafons of Things, 
 according to the Nature of the Soul ; in 
 Ihort, according to the Rules of the more 
 profound and fubtik Philofophy, in which 
 Efoteric Dodlrines GonMed. 
 
 4. If we admit the Accounts^ which the 
 Antients have given us, or, if they knew^ 
 any Thing of this Matter, it will follow^ 
 that fome, of the Books of Plato^ which 
 Mr. Warburton reckons among the Exote- 
 rics are in Reality Efoterical. The Phadon^ 
 e. g. is an M^teric, as containing the moft 
 profound and fubtik Philofophy about the 
 Soul. His Tenth Book of Laws contains 
 the moftfubljme Reafoning about the Soul, 
 2 adapted 
 
the Phi,losophers conjder'4. loi 
 
 adapted not at all to Vulgar Capacities : He 
 ipeaks of it as ^felf-moving Being : He en- 
 ters into the moft fubtile Reafoning about 
 Motion and Movers^ and whether there js 
 any other Beginning of Motion, befides the 
 Change of that, which moves itfelf : That 
 Soul exiiled truly and properly before 
 Body : That the Properties of Soul, its Af- 
 fedtions. Manners, Thoughts, true Opinions, 
 Memory, were before the Properties of 
 Body : That the Univerfe is governed by a 
 Mind or Soul : and thence he proceeds 
 to confider the Cafe of the good Succefs of 
 wicked Men, and to fliew, that the World 
 is governed by God. Can any Thing be 
 more in the profound ^nAfuhtik Manner of 
 Philofophifing than this ? 
 
 Thefe Books of Laws, it is true, relate 
 to the Knowledge of Civil Affairs, and 
 therefore may be faid in general to be of the 
 Exoteric Kind. But what can be more 
 Efoteric than fuch abftra<S Reafoning about 
 the Supreme Being ? Or did not Plato be- 
 lieve that which he .fo much lifted on tp 
 be the Nature of this Supreme fieing ? Or 
 njay there not be Efoteric Notions in Exo^ 
 tjric Books ? Suppofe in general, that what- 
 H 3 ever 
 
102 the Double Doctrine of 
 
 (Ever is Political in Plato was properly jEww 
 terical, — will that prove, that every Tning 
 contained now in fuch Difcourfes was afln* 
 ally read 7o1{^a, to thofe without. Or that 
 were pot his proper Scholars. Notions of 
 the more abjlrufe and profound Philofophy, 
 fuch as are properly Efoterical, might be 
 infer ted afterwards into Exoterical LedtureSj, 
 when he came to polijh and cprredt them, 
 and make them fit for the Reader : And this 
 niay be a good Reafon why his Books were 
 jiever divided into the general Clafles of 
 Exoteric , and Efoteric. 
 
 In the Phcedon, He fliews that Contra-t 
 ries muft arife fi-om Contraries j that the 
 Soul is not diJJ'ohed, hecauf^ npt compounded : 
 Th^t thqfe Things are f^ple and uncom^ 
 pounded^ which are' always the fame, in the 
 fame 'RefpeSfs, and the fame Manner :. That 
 the Soul is fomething indivifble .-That it isj 
 more like to "that, which is always the fame^ 
 thdn to 'That' which is not fo : That it is 
 therefore more like to That which is Divine ^ 
 fhari to That which is Mortal : That from 
 its Being.»20/? like to ' That which is divine^ 
 immortal, intelligible, uniform, and indijjblu- 
 ble, the Soul itfelf muji be indifoluble, and 
 Z not 
 
fhe Philosophers w^/^rVi xo% 
 
 mt like Body that hds quite contrary Pro- 
 perties. 
 
 It ia needlefs to cite more of this abftradl 
 .Reafoning from the Pheedon. There is 
 ^uch more of it, from whence the Immor- 
 tality of the Soul, and the Punifliments of 
 the different Sorts or Degrees of wicked 
 $ouls is irifer'd 5 and the Rewards of Good 
 and Holy ones is eftablifhed^ 
 
 Whether Plato ielieved, or not, what he 
 fays atiout the Immortality of the Soul, and 
 its futiare State, it is certain, that he ipeaks 
 Jfke, one that did believe it, and was per- 
 iUaded of its proper Rewards and Punifli-. 
 ihmentsj and he gives his Reafons for what 
 lie fays fo aceurately, and with fo much, 
 Judgment, that tho' all the {r) minute Philo- 
 fophers were to try their Arts^ they will never 
 explain thofe Matters fo elegantly j nor hofoe 
 they Capacities even to underjland, what he 
 has^ with fo much Acutenefs, inferred. Can 
 any Thing be more fubtile^ more in the 
 Way. oideep Phikfophyj than what is urged 
 
 (*•) Li'cet coacurrant plebeii omnes Philofophi (iic enim ij 
 ^ui a Platone et Sotrate, et ab ilia familia diffident appel- 
 landi videntur) non modo nihil unquam tarn eleganter . expli> 
 eabunt, fed ne hoe quidem ipfum qnam/ubtiliter concliifum 
 ^t, intelligent. Cic. Tuf. Qa. 1. i . 
 
 [ H4 - ,.by 
 
jo^ The DoupLE Doctrine of 
 
 by Plato in this Treatife, about the Soul ? 
 Is not this therefore all Efoteric, if Gelliu^ 
 knew any Thing of the Ufe of that Word 
 Are not thefe Notions fuch as required, 
 Ekmenta Eriiditionis atqiie in difcendo Sttcr- 
 diuM, The Elements of Knowledge or Injiruc- 
 tioHi and clofe Application to Learning ? If 
 fo, I cannot think, that Mr. Warburton 
 does Juftice to his Readers to call thefe and 
 fuch Books of PlatOj Exoterics, when in 
 Reality they are in the flrid:eft Propriety> 
 Efot erics. But 
 
 Fifthly, Upon what Reafon, or upon 
 what Grounds does He determine the Phce- 
 don, or the Criton, to be Exoterical ? The 
 only appearing Reafon is, That in thefe 
 Plato has treated of the Immortality of the 
 Soul, and of Rewards and Punifhments 
 adjufted to the moral Charafters of Perfons 
 in a future State. But how will' it appear 
 that a Book, containing thefe Notions, is 
 therefore of the Exoteric JCind ; fince we 
 are aiTured by good Authority, that the 
 Exoterics related to Rhetoric, to a Readinefs 
 infpeaking acutely, or to the Knowledge ofCi- 
 '^il Affairs: And accordingly I have obferv^4> 
 ^^tAriJiotle read his i^^f/ow«/Led:ures in the 
 ^ Evenings 
 
de Philosophers conJMer'd. 105: 
 
 Evenings or Afternoon Hours : Horis Po- 
 fneridianis. Now to which of thefe is the 
 Doftrine of a future State of Rewards and 
 Puriifhments reducible. You may as well 
 fey to either of the former, as to the lafti 
 lince it cannot relate to the Knowledge of 
 Civil Affairs, but very remotely, and fo it 
 may to any other Subjeft whatever. The 
 Old Platonijis therefore refer'd thefe Books 
 to the Clafs of Btbica/j not Political Treati- 
 fcs i ^Ibinus did fo, and fo it is in Diogenes 
 Laertius. 
 
 But in Mr. Warburton's Manner of treat- 
 ing this Subject, no fooner does any Thing; 
 appear about a fiiture State of Rewards and 
 Punilhments, however it be handled, or 
 whether it be treated in the more fubtik 
 and profound Manner or not, but the Trea- 
 tife, in which it occurs, is pronounced to be 
 an Exoteric : Nay it feems to be the Prin- 
 cipal, if not the Only Teft by which hc; 
 pronounces fome of Plato's Tradts to be of 
 that Clafs. For take away this, and tell 
 me why the Phcedon is an Exoteric ? By the 
 Rules of the Antients, if they knew the 
 Meaning of the Diftindion of the double 
 pQdrine, this Book of Pkto's h fo fer 
 
 .*• from 
 
jo6 The Double Doctrine' 0/ 
 
 fecftij being an Exoteric, that it is a dire^ 
 'Efateric : for it confifts of akftra0y phiik 
 Eeafonings in the profound Pbilofiphy, be- 
 yond vulgar Cai^citiefe. And what" was 
 feepnd: their Capacities, or Comprehenfiop,^ 
 was not at all fit to be read roit.'icbz. 
 
 Sixthly, Suppofe Mr. Warburton can,^ 
 prove, that Plflto did not belies what he 
 feys about Hades, Styx^ Acheron, the In,, 
 fernal Judges, and the Punifhments he de«- 
 fcribes ; ftill he is to prove (what he ha* 
 not yet done) that Plato did not believe at^ 
 future State of Rewards and Punifliments, 
 Has Mr. Warburton produced any pofitive 
 Proof of this ? Has he cited any Authority 
 from other Writers for it ? Or has he citfcd 
 any Faflage out of Plato's own Works that 
 will juftify this Charge ? No. All that he 
 has done is to fhew, that Plato has treated 
 of a fiiture State under fuch Reprefentations 
 as he coiild not, and did not, believe to be 
 true. Let this be allowed : What then ? 
 \^ Plato to be charged vv^ith difbelievihg ai 
 fiiture' Statp of Rewards and Punifhments, 
 becaufe-he did not believe, a9cording to the 
 Letter, his own Figurative, or as Clemens 
 calls it. Allegorical Reprcfentatioii of it ? 
 
 Would 
 
the Philosophers confider'd. Jof 
 
 Would not this be faying, that a Chriftian 
 does not believe a iliture State, either of 
 Heaven or Hell, becaufe he does not believe 
 the New JerUfakm to be built of Prettota 
 Stones, or the Flanies of Hell to be fed with 
 Brimftone in the literal Senfe? If iany one; 
 ufes fuch Language, this is not to be cen-» 
 fured, as faying one Thing and beUeving 
 finother j but it is ufing Metaphor or Alle- 
 gory to reprefent in the livelieft Manner the 
 Pleafures and Advantages of the Qne, and 
 the Terrors of the other, (Both which ara 
 ftriftly and firmly believed) from Images 
 moft agreeable or difagreeable to Manliin4 
 in their prefent Situation, and according to 
 their ufual prefent Ideas. But to return tq 
 the Notions of the Double Dodlrine. 
 
 Seventhly, Alexander learnt from Arifi(H 
 tie, Jiot only Morality and Policy, but the 
 more abflrufe P^ts gf Learning, whicl^ 
 were not ufually communicated to thq 
 Vulgar. So' Plutarch tells us ; and ac^ds, 
 that it was in J^ebalf of Philofophy, i^k iif^^ 
 eofiag, that Alexander wrote to him the 
 Letter that is flill extant. The Thing 
 that Alexander wrote about muft either re-j 
 Jate to what I>e was taught about the Art of 
 
 living 
 
loS The HouBLE Doctrine of 
 
 Jivmg m&elli or elfe to that Syftem of Philor^ 
 fbphy, which was above the Capacities of, 
 and therefore improper to be laid before^ the 
 Vulgar. This Latter feems plainly to have 
 been the Cafe, And if fo, then Efoterici 
 sire uncommon Dodtrines, which contained 
 the Depths if Philofophy : Exoterics were 
 lixch Notions' as were communicated roTf l|<w, 
 fo the Vulgar, in a plain, ^miliar Manner. 
 The very iame Notions treated in a different 
 Manner might, and very probably did, make 
 the Efoteric, or the Exoteric : Not that the 
 one was believed by the Perfon that taught 
 it, and not the Other; but that the one 
 entered much deeper into the Subjedt than 
 the Other : the One went to the Bottom of 
 the Quefiion, the Other not. And confe- 
 quentl^ Alexander might very juflly fay, 
 that he fhould not differ from Others, ij 
 thofe Principles that he had been inftruBed in 
 were made common to all. 
 
 Give me Leave to explain this by a flmilar 
 Cafe. Mr. Warburton has fomewhere com- 
 mended very much a late, ingenious, fub- 
 tile, abfb"a<3: Difcourfe upon the Immorta- 
 lity of the Soul : And no doubt Mr. Baxter 
 defgrves the highefl Commendation for his 
 
 accurate 
 
the Philosophers conjidered. logi 
 
 ftccurate and deep Treatife upon fo nice a 
 Subjeft. Let me fuppofe, that Mr. War- 
 burton had fome Pupil whofe Parts and 
 Study had qualified him to hear, and to 
 underftand abftradl and metaphyfical Lec- 
 tures upon the Nature and Properties of the 
 Soul j and let me farther fuppofe, that Mr. 
 Warburton had been the true Author of 
 that acute and fixbtiie Book. Let me fup- 
 pofe toOj that Mr. Warburton^ as a Clergy- 
 man, might have Occafion to preach to his 
 own, or any other Congregation, a "Sermon 
 upon that Subjeft. Would he preach to 
 the "People, i. e. toii Ifo, fuch Things as he 
 might and would read to his Pupil upon 
 that Subjeft at Home ? Or if he read and 
 explained in the moft accurate and abftrail 
 Manner the Chapters of Mr. Baxter's- Book 
 to his Pupil ; and preached to his People 
 according to their Capacities, in a more 
 loofe and open Manner, — would not one 
 of thefe Ledtures, or Treatifes, or Difcourfes, 
 be juftly called Exoterical, and the other 
 that enter'd into the Depths ai Metaphyfich^. 
 be called Efoterical .? Should any one arife 
 and charge Mr. Warburton with not believ- 
 ing the Exoterical Difcourfes, only becaule 
 
 they 
 
iio 71&^ t)oufiLE Doctrine o/" 
 
 they were called Exotericaly or becaufe i^ 
 l^ras known that He had ufed a Double Doc^ 
 trine, would it not be doing a real Injury to 
 the Gh^radier of, Mr. Warbiirion^ And 
 fhoiild his Pupil, who underftood, and could 
 enter into the Efoteric Le<3:ures, and theif 
 comprehenfive Principles^ exprefs his Con-* 
 cern that iueh a Book was publifhed, and 
 that all others, might now underftand and 
 know as much of that Matter as himfelf 
 who had paid fo much for his private In- 
 ftrudion. — Would not this fliUy account 
 for every Expreflion in Alexander's Letter^ 
 and for every Word in Ari/lotle's Anfwer ? 
 
 Eighthly, Mr. Warburton contends, that 
 f all the Legiflators, Sages, Priefts, and 
 .*' Philofophers publicly taught and propa-< 
 ." gated, and the People throughout the 
 " whole Earth univerfally believed" afiiturei ' 
 State of Rewards and Punifhments. p 306^ 
 and that this Notion was /or the good of Sock' 
 ty, and therefore only inculcated. Is it probabid 
 that Arifiotle fliould inftru(S his young Pu- 
 pil, that there was no fuch thing as a future 
 State of Rewards and Punilhments ? Would 
 this be one of thofe aj/r*. befi things^ which 
 Alexander was fo fond of, and which he 
 Y blamed 
 
ihe f'HiLo^cypHEks confider^i, lii 
 
 r 
 
 Warned his Maftcr for publilliing? Would 
 this have tended to make him live ^elk 
 which was one great thing which, he leamt 
 from Arifiotle^ Or would not this have ex-^ 
 pofed Arijiotle to the Charge of Athei&a or 
 Irreligion much better than what was objec-- 
 ted to him on Account of 'his Hymn in ho-» 
 Hour oiliermias, had he inftruAed his young 
 l^pil in what was contrary to " what aM 
 *' Legiflators, Sages, Priefts, PhUofophers' 
 ** publicly taught?" And yet it is certaia 
 that Arifistle taught Alexander the ^'ppnla, 
 th&fecret DoSrines, the Acroatky, the Efo" 
 Urus, 
 
 Laftly, This *' unreafonable licentious Pa;-' ' 
 •"' radox," a Title which Mr, Warhmim 
 has bellowed upon his "New Notion," p^ 
 304. gives us an Idea of the old Philofo- 
 phers as a Pack of ftrange People, believing 
 one thing andfpeaking another : it treats thoi^ 
 as grofs Liars, fo infincere, fe diflioneft, fo 
 impofing on the People, that were any Mass 
 to z£t fuch a Part mm^ he would be con- 
 ■demn'd as guilty of the wiekedeft Craftt 
 and would be detefted by all honeft Men, 
 as juftly chargeable with Cunning, Hypo- 
 crify, DifliHiuiation, and the Heighth of 
 if!* Wickedness 
 
112 '^e Double Doctrin£ of 
 
 Wickednefs and Immorality. Vices ! which 
 Plafo and the Heathen Philofophers in ge- 
 neral condemned, and from their Souls ab- 
 horr'd! Mr. Warburtan himfelf. acknow- 
 ledges this Pradlice not to be "altogether 
 ** free from blame:" So foft is his Cenfure 
 of fo much Difingenuity in the antientHea* 
 thens ; at the fame time that. he can k£h with 
 Severity all who happen not to be able to 
 run full fpeed with him into the " Province 
 of Paradox." 
 
 But fince in fadt the ancient Philofophers 
 had this Double Doftrine, ^cOixcPopulari 
 or ExoteriCy the other Secret or EfoteriCy let 
 us conlider what is' faid in Proof that the 
 old Philofophers taught what they did mf 
 believe y or that " they faid one thing wheti 
 they thought another." p- 307, or 33.3. 
 
 Several ^f«?r^/ Reafons are offered by Mr^ 
 Warburfon in Evidence for this. As, 
 
 I. They all maintained that (s) every one 
 Jhould adhere 'to the Religion of his Country : 
 and in^ Confequence of that, "That it was 
 lawful to deceive for the Public Good. To prove 
 this, he quotes a Saying of Scavola the Ro* 
 
 (s) Expedire exiftimat falli in religione Civitatcs. Aug. 
 de Civit. Dei. I. iv. c. lO. 
 
 man 
 
■ '■ - r I i ' ■ ■ 
 
 /j^ Phi|,Cjsopher$' conjidered, ;ij 
 
 manPonjilfi Thatit washisOpinioni " that 
 ** Cities ijaoyid be deceived in Religion." 
 To this lie adds, from St. 4^^"»> another Ci, 
 tation. (t) " Yarro fpeaking of Religions^ 
 " fays plainly; that there ^e many things 
 ** true, wjiich it is not ufefbl to the People 
 " to know ;' there are likewife many things 
 ^' which, though they are.falfe, yet it is ex- 
 '" pedient that the People ftiould not thinlc^ 
 " them foi" With thefe he cites a Paflage of 
 ^^^crobiits, to ftiew that th.e Philofophers 
 ijfed this " Licence of %,Ymci for the Public 
 " Goodf uTpbn thefe Subjeds, " tCtSmerning 
 /' the So\sv and the National Gods," p. 
 309.-- -lo. or p. 336. 
 
 I fhall quote the \Vords of Macrobius pre- 
 /ently : But I mail obferve,- 
 
 I. That Mr. Warburton tranflates the 
 Words of Scavolji not with that Accuracy 
 that he fliaild; S.cavola thought " that Ci- 
 ties fliould be deceived in Religion." Why 
 Cities? Why hpt, upon his Notion, 
 .Countries aS well as Cities f He certainly 
 meanty what Civitates properly meani^,'. 
 
 (ij Varro de Ileligionibus Icxiuens evidenter dicit, .liiolia 
 ^fie vera, qas volgo fcire non 0t urile ; multaque qus tam- 
 itii falfa fmt, alit^- exii^imare populum expediat. Aiigaf. 
 &CivJt. Dei. I.'iv.'C. io. 
 
 i svhole' 
 
114 '^^ 'Double Doctrine of' 
 
 whole Communities, whole States, all the 
 People under any Government, or that wer6 
 united in Society, and not Cities y which Cp- 
 vitas never fignifiesr But, 
 
 2. Let lis admit, that all the Philofopherg 
 maintained, that ever^ one Jhould adhere to 
 Ihe Religion of his Country ; and let us fup- 
 pofe too that they all thought it allowable 
 to deceive for the Public Good. "Will this 
 Confequence follow from thefe Premifes, 
 therefore they all dijbelieved a future State of 
 proper Rewards and Piinifhments ? It is 
 granted by Mr. War burton, that " the Peo- 
 " pie throughout the whole Earth univer- 
 " fally believed a future State of Rewards and 
 ■" Punifliments." But as to the Religion of 
 any one's Country, That confifted in the pay- 
 ing a peculiar Worihip to the patron God or 
 Gods of the Country, and in obferving the 
 Rites pradliifed in each State. The univer- 
 fal Belief of all Mankind, was quite a dif- 
 ferent thing from the particular National 
 Religion of any Place ; and therefore a fu^ 
 ture State made no part of a National Reli- 
 gion, as fuch, any where. National 'R.tYi^ion 
 was the particular Form of Religion of oiie 
 People diflindt from that of another ; and in 
 
 confequence 
 
//&f pHiLO'SOPkERS conJiJered. li^' 
 
 c5nfequence, a Man might adhere to any par-" 
 ticular National Religion, and yet not conT- 
 cErn hiniffelf with what was wat NatiOmJi 
 but Univerfal; i.e. ih other Word§, he 
 might niaintain that Aery Me Jfiould adheri 
 to the ReKgioTi.of his Country y and yet not at 
 all difielteve a dfuture State. 
 
 Siavofa znd Farro " faw the ffr6fs !§r-i 
 " rors df the National Keligiofns j" and yet 
 they thought it right that the People fliould 
 " every one adhere to the Religion of his 
 " Country". They thought that the Godsi 
 eftablifhed by Law fhould havd a religious 
 Regard paid to them: Perhaps tod they 
 thought the Priefts and Sacrifices, and the 
 uiual way of Worfhip, fbould be kept up ^ 
 that the People fhould be kept in awe by the 
 Religion eftablifhed by their Anceftors. 
 They knew well enough, I fuppofe, the Fol-- 
 ly and Abfurdity of the feveral AugUries^ 
 and Divinations of Succ^fs from looking in- 
 to the Entrails of Beaflsi the Shapci of Flame^^ 
 and fuch like Superflitions. They might 
 imagine a great many of the Gods received 
 by the Romans^ to have been mere Men, or*^ 
 to be mere Names or Qualities j which- yet * 
 fi nee they were admitted^ ih©ul4 beeonti*' 
 I a ftU©4 
 
ii6 ^he DotfBLE Doctrine ef 
 
 nuedj according to the Cuftoms of the Couiw 
 try. I am much miftaken, if the Notions and 
 Praftices of many political Chriftians are not 
 the fame in this refpeS with the Notions and 
 Eradiees of thefe political Heathens- No 
 Innovations are to be made, no not for the 
 fake of Truth ; Popery, when once it is ef- 
 tabliihed, and People are aceuftomed to 'it, 
 is to be adher'd to: Whatever Exceptions ^ 
 may be made, and however jufl, to certain 
 received Dogftia's or Practices, yet Altera- 
 tions may create Difturbances. Such a No- 
 tion in Varro or in Sca^ola, will fully ae* 
 eount for every Expreffion they tifed on this 
 pccafion : Nor ought any one to conclude 
 from their Words, that thefe Men imagined 
 ^// Religion to be falfe and groundlefs; or 
 that, in particular, they dijbelienjed a future 
 State of Rewards and Punifhments : Since 
 they might confiftently think, that the main 
 Points in Religion might be trucy and yet. 
 fome. things 'in the National Religions to be 
 falfe ; or that il was not tanti, or would b© 
 Wrong, to endeavour to remove the Peoples: 
 Prejudices in them^ 
 
 From thefe general Words therefore^ ufed^ 
 by the Roman Pantif, and by Varrot- no one 
 
 6aft 
 
fh^e PHILOSOPHERSMf^?i!?/^^^^. 11-7 
 
 «gninfer,"withcHitfurther|^ight, any ^^//ca^ 
 Mr Point liiat they difbelieved. It is certain 
 that they imagined fome-tljungs to be wrong^ 
 .but what they^ were in particular, we fhojald 
 be as im^h in the darl^ if we had no farther 
 'Intimations x>f thsk Sentiments, as if they 
 Md never declared any Sufpicions or Doubts. 
 And irvcjsnfequence, to aj^e that the Phij 
 lofpftmr^^^^elievedi in p^ticular, a future 
 State of Rewards and PimJhmentSy beraufe 
 they thought it allowable to fay one thingand 
 Shink amther in fome Cafes, i^ arguing a 
 0(l0e ad effci from the PoJJibilky io tbe^FaSi. ; 
 Bu.t we happen to know what were the 
 .particular Points which Scue^la thought 
 j-ight to have the People be deceived in. St. 
 ^fiin tells US, that (a) Sceevola argued tbaf 
 "there liiere 'Three forti of Gods ; one given us 
 J^y the Poets, a fe.cond hy< the Philpfophers, a 
 4hird by tbt Civil Magiftpatte. The Firfifort 
 -was alltrifliiig and idle : f^e Second was mt 
 
 t . ■ J ■ . ^ _ , - i . 1 ... 7 
 
 (u) Dofliflimum Pondiicetn Sceenjolam dilputafTe tria ge* 
 nera tradita Dec^um; nnum a Foecis, akeruih a Fhilbfoph'il, 
 tertiam a principibus Civitatis. Frimum genas nugateiium 
 
 dicit effe '■ Secundam non congraere -civitatibiis, quod ha- 
 
 '))eat aliqna qa^ oblic populis nolle. — Qas funt aut,em ilia 
 oflK prolata in maltitadinem nocent ? tisecinquic ; non efle 
 Decs Hereuleh, J^fctdafium, Cafttrem, Pollucem:' proditur 
 ^im a doflis, quod homines fuerint, & humana conditione 
 <Iefecerxnt. Aug. de Civ. Dei. 1. iv. c. zj. 
 
 J 3 fuited 
 
ii8 'fhe Double Doctrine of 
 
 fuited to Govefnrnents, hecaiije th£i>-e wert 
 fame things which it might be prejudicial to 
 the 'People to know. Now- 'What' are ihofe 
 things tbhich, if laid open to the common Peo- 
 ple ^ would be prejudicial to them ? Why, that 
 Hercules* iEfculapius, Caftor, Pollux, were 
 noVCods; for learned Men tell lis that they 
 •were Men. --- We knovy from hence, what 
 'Scavola meant by feying, that ^' People un- 
 *' der Government were to be deceived in 
 " Religions." ' Not that he difbelieved a fu- 
 ture State, or that he had any "Notion of its 
 beliig right to fay what he did not- thi"^k upoil 
 'that Subject of the Soul's Immortality, and 
 future Exiftence in Happinefs or Mifery. 
 \Fhis Saying therefore of his is fadly mifap- 
 plied by Mr. Warburton, when he brings it 
 in to prove, that the Philofophers did not 
 believe a fiiture State of Rewards and Pu- 
 niihnients ; or that they had a Double Doe^ 
 trine about this Matter. Since tHen we know 
 the, particular Notipn that Sc'a^Qlff^ had in 
 view, we can the eafier pafs pn to Macrobius. 
 Macrobius tells us, " on what Subjedls 
 f^ the Philofophers ufed this Licence of. 
 lying for the Public Good." H^ fays it 
 
was /x^ " concerning the jSo^/ and the Na- 
 " ttonalGods." Scegvola''s Nption extended 
 only to the Hero-Gods ; and ihefe he would 
 not have the People be andeceived in : But 
 MacrobivSi had added another Sutgedt, in 
 which, Mr. War burton fays, they thought it * 
 lawful to hfe for the Public Good, fuiz. the 
 Soul; and in confequence, ^ that the double 
 Dodlrine extended to thefe' two Points. It 
 will be neceflity. to explain to you the Intent 
 of Macrobius: 
 
 His De%n in this Chapter is to ihew, how 
 
 Truth may. be told under the Cover of a Fig- 
 
 jnint; and in what'fiarticulars a PhSofopher, 
 
 -ftridly philofophifing about divine Things^ 
 
 might fairly i'^dmit of FMe. Colota had 
 
 rtaifllained^ that a Philofopher' ought not to 
 
 invent or to viie' Fable at all ; and therefore 
 
 that Plato's Erus was an Abfiirdity, and by 
 
 tparity of "Reafon fo was Scipio'% Dream in 
 
 fully. Upon this he enquires, whether 
 
 Philofbphy either rejedls all, or admits all. 
 
 Fable 5 and he fliews (y) that if the manner 
 
 (x) Sciendujiiieft-taiften, non in oranem difputatioriem 
 
 philofophos admittere febulofd V e l Lidtaj fed his iiti folent 
 
 ■ cum vel de Amma,- ' vel de aeriis astherelfve ^^teftatibus, vel 
 
 .\ds csteris' Diis. lequuntar. Macrob. Somn.'Scip. li. i. c. 2. 
 
 (y) Nam cutri Veritas argumento rubeil,_ fdlaqae lit'naria- 
 
 110 ^bul(^> lion, aputreperitur modus, per figmentum vera 
 
 ' referendi. ibid. 
 
 X-- ,14 "/ 
 
120 ^f- IDOUBLE J>(3CTR"rN£ of 
 
 of {he t^ar ration only be fabulous, JtndTruth 
 /j really told under fuch Story, it may he rigbf-, 
 and that there is ptore than ope way of telling 
 Truth under a Figment, or die Veil of a Fig- 
 ment. Thisr he explains by Inftances , and 
 then adds, that, fince Et, difiovering what 
 he had Jeeh, or Sclpio, telling whflt he bad 
 dreamt y give octafionfor no Injury to the Peitit 
 in hand, bat the Dijcoiiery offntred'^ir^ 
 has. all its Dignity preferired,.Co\xAe.^ ought ta 
 Gcquiefce and dijlinguijh whapAs a fabulous 
 Narration ;/ro»2 Falfliddd' ;i :ainii theri imme- 
 diately follow the Word^ .wliich yh.'WM- 
 bitrtoH has quotfed. — ^Mwk . efi tamen. 
 non in omnem difputatiorieni Philsfophbs ad- 
 mitt ere fabuloip. vEL. lidiat^jfedhis utifolent, 
 aim vil de anirtiaj vel de aeriid'atheriifuepa- 
 • tejiatihus^ roel di cttteris Deis loquuntur. But 
 yet you muft undefjimd that Phi lofophers do.mt 
 'upon emry SubjeSi admit fabulous Narratienf , 
 ev|;n fuck as are lahiful' vn^ other Occ^!©> 
 hut they ufe the^when they tre^t either con- 
 cerning the Soul, or the Qerial or neUkftal 
 Powers, or concerning the Gods. But when 
 tbe Difcourfe is 'fbout the Great, the chief 
 of all God^ — or Mitid' — fi)h'en theyj^eak 
 (yf thefe, viz. the Great God, and Mind, 
 '^ ^ ■ ■' ' '" ''■''' they 
 
the Philosopher-s 'ear0erei, it\ 
 
 they never jh much as touch upon my Thing 
 fabulous. n,-i / ■ <\i> i 
 
 This r was flie OccaficMi of thefe Words- 
 and it is eafy to obferve/ iciL i 
 
 1. That Mr. Warburf on ftrangely mifre* 
 
 prcfents this i^flage of JSi^crobittSy and 
 
 iJaakes it fpeak what Macre^im nevef thought 
 
 of; for fherc is not one Word about a 
 
 ^ik l^firine concerning the Soul, or Tutr 
 
 iimal. Gadi. iHe is fpeaking^ only concern*- 
 
 ing the STibje£ts whereon the Phil,ofi>|)l}0fs 
 
 ufed i^rfifi jOT not ; but not a Word cofr- 
 
 jpttning PraniSiwhereon they faid one Thing, 
 
 ^d believed jaawther* A v) »> Ju'X 
 
 : 2i" Mr. W^rJfurion fuppofes that the co.- 
 
 Kfering Trmth'TWith the Veil of Fable is X/- 
 
 ingy or Lying for the Public Good ; concefri- 
 
 .ing whifchwthereis noibne Word in IM/- 
 
 frobius ; iot. he fuppofes real Truth to he 
 
 ^abverM ovej' by F^^/f^ and Fable to be^ 
 
 'Maimer of tellijig Truth* 1.. , .'vv >" 
 
 i; 3. Mr, Watbutfon has. corhipted liMcro^ 
 
 ■ (fius. Or very, rnuch mifreprefented him'j li 
 
 lOrder to make him ipeak what he wanted, 
 
 «He hgs changed in his laft Edition, thbfe 
 
 Werds, ^itikkja vei licitay which 'figniiies, 
 
 Naffiipo^t ^^^fuih as are lanifaJ, 
 
122 Hlbe liovBLE Doctrine ofi 
 
 or allowed, mto'Fabukfa velut licita. The 
 Philofophers, fays MacrobiuSy are allowed 
 In many Cafes to ofe Fable -, but npon fome 
 Points they never admit Fabulous Narrationsi 
 even fuch as are allowed in other Cafes. It 
 is lawful to ufe Pablei, when they Ipeak of 
 the Soul, or of Aerial Powers ; /'. e to drefs 
 ep their Difcourfes in Fables; but when 
 ^e3r ipeak o£ the Great God; theiirft Caufe 
 of all, or of M/W, which, the .Greeks call 
 vSsiy they never touch upon jf?i^3/<?. What is 
 there in all this, which; relates to the Philo- 
 -Ibphers-ufir^a Lirence " of lying for the 
 Public Good ?" As if it werei in any Senfe 
 'Ijftng, to ufe Fable; or Fabulous .Reprefen- 
 4afaQns,i iuch as Plato's Er, ot Scipio^s 
 Dream. 
 
 - Tl^us much to his F/?)!?^ general Reafon, 
 
 Aat "the Antient Sages held it allowable 
 
 . I" to lie for the: public Good'\ or " to lay 
 
 ** one Thing, whefi they thought anodid'.*' 
 
 His E?emii. general Reafon . advanices a 
 
 ■ little further : It is to prove, that . " the an- 
 
 . ** tient Sages '- did ;a£tually fay one Thing, 
 
 -;" when they thought another.-' p.. 310, 
 
 ,cr p. 336. When he firil propofed what 
 
 rtJ;ie intended to ^pcov0,,pf 307,v^ar 333* lie 
 
 .0 exprefled 
 
thfi Tnii.o&op'RERs :^fi}^^rf4- 123 
 
 e^preffed himfelf thus i— - ^ey perpetually 
 pra<ftifed what they thus prQfeJJed to be law- 
 ful. Surely this is diredly contrary to the 
 •Proof of his Jirjl general Reafon. For in 
 that he had proved, that they , never di4 
 this but upotv Two Poinds, the ^oul^ and the 
 National Gods ; and in this he undertakes to 
 prove, that they did it ^^r/'f/zif^//)'. Of; again, 
 when they J^Joke according to his own 
 Meaning of the Word Efoterfca/ly, then 
 they did notfpeak one Thing, and think ano? 
 ther-y and therefore they did. ixot^perpetuaHy 
 pra£tife what they thus profejed to. be 
 
 But be his Meaning of the Words ;>^r- 
 petually and aSiuaily what h^ pleafes, his 
 Proof of his Pofition is entirely taken from 
 " that general Pradtice in the Greek Philor 
 *' fophy of a Twofold Doftrine, the Ext err 
 .*' nal, and the Internal, a vulgar, ■axid^Jecr&t 
 ^^ one." p. 336, or 310. It is true, that 
 they had an Efoteric and an Exoteric Docc* 
 trine ; which Mr. Warburton here owns to 
 have been " but one and the fame thayt 
 " was handled thus differently, wz. popu- 
 " lar/y and fdentijically." . And is itowpe^ 
 at lail, that the Efqteric and E^xotprlc Doc- 
 trine 
 
124 ^^ Double D4>ct&ine of 
 
 trine was one and the fame, '^ only hatiMiddf* 
 
 *" ferently, popularly and fcientifeallf't Was 
 
 the Efoteric Dodtrine no more belieiiedy than 
 
 he fays the Exoteric was ? If they were one 
 
 md ike fame, zn^ the handling them diffe-i- 
 
 tently gave Occafion to the Diftindtioni of 
 
 Names, then no Argument can be drawh 
 
 from a Doftrine's being Exoteric, that it 
 
 was not heiiived, more than there can from 
 
 its being Efotericy that it was beUeved, 
 
 What Proof can now be produced, — that 
 
 in the twofold DoSirine they aSiuailyfaid om 
 
 '^ingy and.belte.ved another^ What Inftan<Sfe 
 
 is or can be produced of th^is Faft ?• Whal; 
 
 Declarations of any of the Philofophers can 
 
 imply that 'liich was their Pra<^ice? Under 
 
 this Head fbme Thing ought to have been 
 
 produced in Confirmation of this Fadl, mot'i 
 
 than was done under the laft Head : Bnt 
 
 inftead of that, even lefs is done: Here is 
 
 not {o much as .the Inftance of Fable err 
 
 ^j4lhgery produced. But inftead of a plaift 
 
 Fa^, that thofe who maintained the Double 
 
 Do&ine oBually cr perpetually- faid one 
 
 Thing, and believed another ; He has only 
 
 given us ^ a View of the iprogrcfs. of the 
 
 •' Greek 
 
/^ PillLoSoPttERS conjtdered. i2< 
 
 ** Creek JPMefophy j" which, whether true 
 or felfe, is nothing to the Point in Hand. 
 
 His Third general Reafon is as little to 
 the Point, and if it be made good, it will 
 «ot prove, that the Philofophers taught the 
 DojStrine of a future State of Rewards and 
 Punifhments without believing it. His 
 Reafon is ftated thus; — *' the Antient Sages 
 ** praBifed the double Dotftrine in the Point 
 *' in Queftion." Thus he Ipeaks pofi^ively 
 and exprefsi p. 307, or 333. But when 
 p. 319, or 346, he comes to prove, this 
 very Aflertion, How artfoUy are the Terms 
 changed ? inftead of faying. That " they 
 ** praBifed it with Regard to the very 
 ** Dodtrine in Queftion", which are his 
 Words iji die firft Place, he only fays, that 
 the antient Sages seemed to practise the 
 double DoBrine in the Pvint in ^efiitm. The 
 double Doctrine, as I have fh6wn, did not 
 conlift mfay^ing one 'Thing and believing ano- 
 ther : If therefore the antient Sages pradiied 
 the double DoBrine in th& Cafe of afattire 
 State of Rewards »and Punifhments, Mr. 
 Warburton will fail fhort ftill of the Point 
 to be proved, unkfs the double Doctrine be 
 proved to confirt is the Philofophers mt 
 
 heUevtng 
 
'ii6 'the Double Doc TRiNiE of 
 
 beliemng what they taught \ whereas he has 
 obferved, that the double Doftrine confifted 
 only in a popular or scientificAl Hand- 
 ling any iPoint. 
 
 Wheri, by fuch general ReafonS as thefe, 
 Mr. Warburtori had thought he had abated 
 the Readers Prejudices againft his new No- 
 tion, he defcends to Particulars : And heref 
 we may exped to have plain FaBs. But 
 does he produce one fingle Inftance of ^.^. 
 Plato^s not believing what he jays about a 
 future State of Rewards and Punishments ? 
 No : Efe produces iftdeed a Saying or two 
 of his, p. 35^, or 383. ^'■'fhat there ar^ 
 " fome truths it is not Jit the People Jhould 
 " hndw^—'That the World is not to be entruji^ 
 " ed with the true ]>7otion of God ; and that 
 " in his Laws, which were'of theExo/mc 
 *' Kind, he defends the popular Opinions of 
 " the Gods; but in his Cratylus, which was 
 " of the Efoteric Kind, he laughed at the* 
 *' Antients for worfhipping the Sun and 
 "Stars as God^/' ' ■ 
 
 Let this be all granted : Would Mr- 
 Warhurton from hence infer, that Plato ac- 
 tually dijbelie'ved the Exiftence of God, or' 
 that he fiid not believe, that a Soul per-<; 
 
 vaded 
 
tU Philosophers cmfiierei. \tf 
 
 Vaded tKe Univerfe ? Let him fpeafc for the 
 popular Opiniam at feme Times, and even 
 kugh at them at other Times, all that will 
 follow is, that Plato difbelieved the popular 
 Opimons of the Godsy not that he difbelieved 
 the Being of a. God: And fo in the other 
 Cafe, fuppofing that he did not believe the 
 popular Opinions of a future State of Re- 
 wards and Punifhments, that there Were 
 Three Judges in Hades, &c. it will not fol-r 
 low that he did Kot believe a future State of* 
 real proper Rewards and Punifhments. 
 
 Plato thought there were Jome Trutbi 
 which it was not fit the People Jhould know 7 
 e, g. that the World is not to be entruflted 
 with the true Notion of God. Scavola ia 
 like manner thought, that the People were 
 not to be entrufled with die Secret, that 
 HerculeSj Mfculapiusj Cajlory Pollux, were 
 not GodSf but had been mortal Men. In 
 this Point then they complied with popular 
 Prejudices, believing the Exiflence, of God 
 and his Providence, tbo' not believing the 
 popular Opinions of the National Gods. 
 And fo in the other Cafe, they complied 
 with popular Notions of HadeSy and its 
 Judges,, and its Rivers, ^c. believing the 
 
 Reality 
 
iiS 'Be DTouBLE Doctrine df 
 
 Re^Hty of a future State of Rewards anci 
 PunifhmentSj tho' not the popular Preju- 
 dices upon that Subjed:. liMx .Warburtoti 
 will call this, helie^ing one filing, and fay- 
 ''ing another y ot lying for the Public Good j 
 if fpeaking to the People, and complying 
 with their Ideas, and not to flrid philofophi-* 
 cal Truth, in Morals or Politics, be thus id 
 be branded, Iqueftion whether every Man's 
 Difcourfes, taken ftridily and literally, rauft 
 not have the infamous JVlark of Lyikg put 
 upon them. 
 
 But Mr. Warburton has affigned feveral 
 particular Reafons to fh6w, that Plato did 
 not believe this Notion of future Rewards 
 and Punishments, As 
 
 I . " The Platonic Philofophy being en- 
 " tirely Pythagorean in the Point in QueP 
 " tion, and this latter rejedting the Doc- 
 " trine of a future State of Rew^ards and 
 *' Punifhments, we might fairly conclude 
 " them Both under the fame Predicament." 
 p. 353, or 385. Now Mr. Warburton 
 himielfhath fhewn, that the P/«^omV Phi- 
 J^fbphy is not entirely Pythagorean in xhii' 
 -very Point, as will appear prefently. 
 
 Zi He 
 
the Philosophers confder'zli 129 
 
 2. He tells us, " That P;£z/o has argued 
 ** much for the Eternity, or tlie Immorta- 
 " lity of the Soul. But to know what Sort 
 *' of Immortality he meant, — his Argu- 
 " ments were natural and metaphyfical, 
 " fetch'd from the EfTence and Qualities of 
 " the Soul, which therefore concluded only 
 *' for its 'Permanency^ and this he really or 
 " certainly believed." ibid. He then , is 
 confeiled to believe the Permanency, Eter- 
 nity, Immortality of the Soul, from Argu- 
 ments drawn from its EJfence and ^alities. 
 Now are not thefe the Topics urged in his 
 Thcedon^ and his Tenth Book of La'Wi ? 
 How is it then that thefe Books are reckoned 
 by Mr. Warburtori Exoterical, fince it feems 
 they contained Dodtrines about the fliture 
 State of the Soul, which Plato believed to 
 be true ? Or is not this a more conelufive 
 Ar^ment, that thefe Books were EJoferi^ 
 calj than can be produced ta prove them, 
 in his Senfe,, Exoterical ? And if he believ- 
 ed the Soul to be immortal or permanent, 
 from Arguments taken from^ its Effence and 
 ^alities, what Sort of Proof is this, tha^ 
 He' did not believe a State of proper Re- 
 wards and Punifhments ? It is, or may be 
 j^' all&wec^y 
 
130 'the DoufeLJ; DocTRiNi of 
 
 allowed, that Plato did not ufe Moral Ar^ 
 guments to prove the Eternity of the Soul jf 
 but whilft he urged Natural and Metaphy- 
 fical ones, which proved its fixture Exiftence, 
 and he commonly /poke of the Rewards and 
 Punifhments it was to undergo in a future 
 State J and this in the fame Books ; a Man 
 muft diftinguilh vefy fubtilly to fay, that 
 one Paragraph is Exoterical, and not believed^ 
 another is Efoterkalf fiilly dettionftrative^ 
 and fcientifical, and fully believed by its 
 Author. Efpeeially if the Paflages not be^ 
 Jieved make the Book to be Exoterical ; the 
 TzGages believed have the fame Right to 
 make the fame Book Efoterical. 
 
 The Third Reafon is, what Mr. War^ 
 iurton muft principally depend on. It be- 
 gins thus,^ — " As the inventing Reafons for' 
 '^' the Immortality of the Soul,' was one 
 " Caufe of his [P/^z^o's] being efteemed the 
 " grand Patron of this Belief^ fb another 
 ■" was his famous Refinement (for it was in-^' 
 *' deed his) of the natural Metempfycbojis, 
 " the peculiar Dodtrine oi\}nsPythagoreansJ\ 
 p. 354, or 386. Now, 
 
 Is not this a dired Contradidliori tb thd 
 Firji Reafon here produced^ which aflertc# 
 
the PilttdsoPitERS ionjder'd. 1;jf 
 
 the Platim'c Philofc^hy to be b;<tireli^ 
 Pythagorean iri the Point in Queftion ? Or 
 how did Piato make his famous Refindnentj 
 one that laas indeed his, and y^t continue 
 ENTIRELY in the fame Notion with Pythago* 
 ras ? Or was his femdus Refinement of the 
 ft^arrfl/Metempfychofis, entirdy Pyt^agoreaRf 
 when he added a Moral Defignation to it? For 
 thus Mr. Warburion goes on^ " Plato on re- 
 " ceiving this Notion \yix. the Natural Me-* 
 " tempfychofis] fi-om his Mafter,' gave it 
 " this Additional Improvement, that thefe 
 " Changes and Tranfitions. were the Pur- 
 
 *' CATIONS of IMPURE MlNDS, Uttfit by 
 
 ** Reafon of the Pollutions they had con- " 
 *' trafted/ to re-afcend the Place from 
 */ v^hence they came,' and rejoin that Sub* 
 *' fiance from whence they were difcerped j 
 *' and cbflfequehtly that pure^ .immaculatt 
 " Souls were exempt from this Tranimigra- 
 « tion." ibid. . 
 
 ■ This dien. was Plato% fefoteric, Do<!irine i, 
 %xA Mr. War burton confeifes, " that this 
 feemed to have fomething of a moral 
 Defi^dation in it,' which his Mafter's had 
 not."_ 't'he natural Metempfychofis was,' 
 *^ that' the ftt(xeffivevTranfition of th^,Soi^ 
 k 2 « ihtg 
 
 u 
 
 ii 
 
 i> 
 
132 'The Double DoctrinB of 
 
 " into other Bodies was phyfical and ne^- 
 ** ceflary, and exclufive of all- moral Deftg- 
 " nation whatever." Plato gave this an 
 additional Improvement, by making the Tran- 
 fition of the Soul to^ in order to a Purga^ 
 tion : that impure Souls, by Reafon of the 
 Pollutions they had contracted, could not 
 te-afcend the Place from whence they came. 
 Now, 
 
 I. This State o^ Purgation was a State to 
 which impure Souls were condemned ; and 
 confequently was a State of future Punifli- 
 ment. It is not to the Purpofe, to enquire 
 in what the Punijhment of nsoicked Souls ac- 
 cording to Plats confiftedj or what were 
 the particular Rewards, which they might 
 enjoy : The only Point that here is in De- 
 flate, is. Whether Plato believed any future 
 State of Rewards and Punifhments at all ? 
 It is plain, that he added fomething to, or 
 made an Improvement upon the natural 
 Scheme of Pymagoras, and fo far as he add- 
 ed to his Matter's Notion, fo far his Notions 
 were not entirely Pythagorean. Now either 
 Plato' % Scheme had no more Moral Defig- 
 nation in it than Pythagoras'^ Scheme had, 
 or it had fome Moral Defignation. If it had 
 ' ' none. 
 
the Philosophers cmjider'd. 133 
 
 none, what was the Refinement^ what was 
 the additional Improvement^ grounded on 
 Impurities contracted. Pollutions, Immora- 
 litiies, Mifbehaviour, which caufed fuch 
 Souls to be uncapable to re-afcend to the 
 Place they came from ? If it had fome Mo- 
 ral Dejignationy then the Belief of a future 
 State of Rewards and Punifhments was con- 
 fiftent with Plato' ^ Scheme, and might be 
 Relieved by him. 
 
 But it feems, both Plato and Pythagoras 
 *' agreed in excluding the Notion of all 
 •' future State of Rewards and Punifh- 
 *' ments." ibid. 
 
 This fhould not be ailertcd without good 
 Proof. Pytbagoras's Notion was, " That 
 *' there was a neceflary and natural Tran- 
 " .fition of the Soul into Bodies, exclufive of 
 " ^//«?(3/-«/Confiderations whatever," p. 346, 
 •' or 378. . This was peculiarly his j an 
 *' Efoteric Doftrine, delivered to be believ' 
 *' ed." Plato'^ Addition was, *' that im- 
 *' pure Souls paiied into other Bodies by 
 *' Way of Purgation, as unfit to re-afcend 
 ** to the Place from whence they came, by 
 " Reafon of Pollutions." Now if pure, im- 
 maculate Souls immediately re-afcended to 
 
 K 3 the 
 
134 ^^^ rjoUBtE DoCTRINIi o/ 
 
 the Place from whence they came, and pok- 
 luted Souls were obliged to tranfmigraie till 
 they were purged j and this on Account of 
 the pollutions contradted, whilft they in.^ 
 foi-medithe human Body, — then there mu^ 
 be a Eliftindtion made betwixt Good' and 
 Evil Men after they die : Aiwi this is what 
 is meant by a future State 6f Rewards and 
 Puniihments ; and this muft be of a moral 
 DefignatiOn. If the Soul' of Cain (e.g.) is 
 condemned to animate the Body of a Lion, 
 Wolf, or any other wild Beaft, and to pail 
 from one to another for a thoufand, or ten 
 thoufahd Years, or longer, or ihorter, oh 
 account of thfe Pollutions it had coiptraded, 
 whilft it informed the Body of Cain; — This 
 is a Punijhment fiipppfed to be proportioned 
 to the Wickednefs of Cain : And if ^1)^1^ 
 Soul, pure and immaculate, prefently 2S- 
 cended to its Place of Happlnefs, This was 
 His Reward for his Virtue and Goodnefs. 
 ' Should you fay, that this Tranfmigratioil 
 and Re-afcent were natural and necejj'ary^ 
 exclufive of all mtiral Confideratipns what J' 
 ever, this would be abfurd ; beeaufe . the 
 Pollutiofis contradled thro' the immoral Be- 
 haviour of Perfofts here, make a Difference 
 '••'■' ' • " between 
 
the Philosophers confider'd. 13^ 
 
 |)etween impure ani4 pure Spuls. Thofe be- 
 came unjit to re-afcend to the Place from 
 whenqe they came, becaufe of the Vices 
 they had been guilty of: Thefe vftvtjit to 
 re-afeend, becaufe they had contrafted no 
 Vices, and therefore wanted no Purgation : 
 Or if any had contradled but a little Pollu- 
 tiotty. he was not to be continued in a State 
 of Purgation fo long, as if he had been very 
 much, polluted. The Unfitnefs therefore, oj: 
 the Fitnefs to re-afcend, depended on thp 
 Immorality^ or the Morality of the Man, 
 When therefore Plato made this additional 
 Improvement to, or Refinement upon Py- 
 thagoras'^ Scheme, He muft believe a Mo- 
 ral Defignatiou, or elfe he did not fee the 
 immediate Ufe or Defign of his own Im- 
 provement. 
 
 Mr. WarburtorC% fourth Argument is this. 
 *' Plato in his Writings much inculcates 
 " the Doctrine of a future State of Rewards 
 *' and Punifhments, — and with fo much 
 *' Serioufnefsj as fhews he had a Mind to 
 " be believed. But did he himfelf believe 
 " them ? We may be aflured he did not," 
 p. 354, or 387. Why ? " For being the 
 ^ moft fpiritualized of the Philofophers, 
 JC 4 !' b^d 
 
136 The Double Doctrine of 
 
 " had he really believed' a future State of 
 " Rewards and Punifhments, he would 
 " have refined and purified it, as he did the 
 " Dodtrine of the Eternity 6? the Soul, 
 " which he certainly believed'." This Argu- 
 ment goes entirely upon this Suppofltion, 
 that whatever Plato believed, he refined and 
 purified. Mr. War burton goes on : " But 
 " he has as good as told us, what he 
 " thought of it [a future State of Rewards 
 " and Punishments] in his Epinomis, where 
 " Writing qf the Condition of a good and 
 " wife Man after Death, he fays, Ofwhom, 
 " whether ^r be in Jeft, or in Earneft, I 
 *^ conftantly affirm, Gfc." p. 355. Here 
 he flops. What now is it that Flato con- 
 ftantly affirms ? Why ? {x) That ivhen a wife 
 Man dies. He Jhall be happy, blejfed, mofi 
 'wife ; and, (y) that it is notpojjible lutfor very 
 few Men to becorne perfeBly happy and blefj'ed. 
 
 [x) ''EuJ'cuif.ofet 'Iff cS-iw, 1^ S(i(fciTa.TOV S,y.et )^ (jutKelsior. 
 Plat. Epinom'is. 
 
 ( y) 'Clf oy J^wttrh ai/^^diroti riKias /xeuiaelo/! ts ^ 
 ivj^aifjioiri yiviSrcu 'jrKnn ohiyois. ibid. 
 
 The whole Paffage is thus ; ''Ov }^ J'li^veiC.oiJLcu irai^av 
 ^ tmaS'a^uv kiJ.a, ore •S-avarr^ Tif rfcc reiodTav t/hi euSlt 
 
 JSt^etv trt ■^oKhZv TOTS x.a.&a'pn^ cue ai&n(riii>i', (iiat js 
 
 El. tT^] iJLoig^( fjiiruMip'^a. [Ji'ovov ly \x, -ttowZv tvct yeyo- 
 
 PJat. Bpin. fub finem. 
 
 Thi^ 
 
the Philosophers cwi^er'd. 137 
 
 This Is what Tlato here fays ; and can any 
 one infer from thefe Words, that "Plato did 
 not beUeve a fiiture State of Rewards at 
 leaft? 
 
 But let us examine this Paflage of Plafo^ 
 iince it is produced at large in the third 
 Edition, p. 388. Mr. Warburton tranflates 
 it thus. Ofvohom \yiz.. the wife and good 
 Man] both in Jeft, and in-EarneJi, Icon-, 
 fiantly affirm, that whenfuch a one Jhall have 
 finijhed his dejiined Courfe by Death, he Jhall 
 at his Dijjblution bejlrift ofthofe many Smfes 
 which be here enjoy" d, and then only partici-^ 
 pate ofonefimple Lot and Condi tim, ^nd, 
 ^f MANY as he has here, being become One, 
 he Jhall be happy, wife and blejjed. . 
 - My firft Objcaion to Mr. WarburtorC% 
 Tranflation is, that he renders •xai^m^ m^Hr 
 '([av uy-tt, whether I be in 'Jeft, or in Earneji^ 
 or as it is fince correded, both in Jeji, and 
 inEarneJl, Plato never fpeaks of fuch Sub- 
 jects as the future State of good Men, in 
 Jejl ; nor is that the Meaning of the Phrafe, 
 
 •!raii[av Xj cansJ'a^ai/, in PlatO. 
 
 We fee when Parmenides was going to 
 treat of the moft abftradl and difficuh Sub- 
 jeft, the moflPhilofophicalthat is, I think, 
 
 in 
 
fjS fBfi Double Doctrine e/ 
 
 in all FlatOy he lays, he was going ^eri'i^t^ 
 VH 'xculiAv 'jraii^Hv : Not to talk in Je/i ; but 
 what we Should call, to piay a difficult 
 GamCy to undertake a hard Task, uei^av ^ 
 fssM^tii^m is a Manner of Exprelffion, which 
 Thts, fi-equently ufes j, and he means by it 
 ita more than eonjiantly.y at all Times. 
 
 In hi« firft Book of Laws, he fays, jF& 
 ■(Ma&^wojild became a gmd li^arty ought Jir ait 
 fcom bin Qaildhmd to medit^e and exereifi 
 bimfelf esn^antljy Tml^wld rs ^ car\iS'a(^av]<t, in 
 every. Ihing that relates to his Btt/^nefs, be it 
 mibat it •will.. Not in feji, but at all Times^ 
 pvenin hi& Relaxations, Plat. p. 643. So again 
 }ist ufes the Subfliantives> h 7 s T<«//«7f ^ h <mx-^ 
 imf, not for yeji and Earnefi, but for regur 
 jar Conflancy and Steadinefs, ibid. p. 647.. 
 In another Place in the fame Book of Laws, 
 fp€akiag: of the common Compotations or 
 Feaffings in Crete and Lacedeemop, and the 
 Confequeaces of them, that they had per- 
 verted natural Fleafures, he adds, hn ■^ai^ayla. 
 
 &c. Whether one ought to confider the^ 
 Things with Exadtnefs, or lefs carefoUyj you 
 piuft underftand, Q^c, /, e^you mjuji at alliimff 
 uader^nd, p. 636, Now tho* vv^^ifv may 
 
 ia 
 
the Philosopher^ coi^deit'd. i jo- 
 in itfelf fignify to jejty yet when it is put In 
 this Conftrudion, with the other Word, 
 mvlJil^M/y it does not fignify, in Jefiy in Op- 
 pofitiori to Earneji, but the Phrafe implies 
 a regular, uniform Conilancy in any Thing. 
 And this is what Plato here means, that he 
 at all Times conjiantly maintained and 
 proved by the ftrongeft Arguments, that 
 when any good or wife Man fhall finifh his 
 deftin'd Courfe by Death, He fhall " at hit 
 ** DiJJelution bejiripped of thofe many Senfis 
 *' which he here enjoy* d." As foon as he 
 dies, he Jhall not then any longer partake- of 
 many Senfes ai he does here^ (jan n'M^m li't 
 
 tiroKKav Tire **5aTSf vUv di&Wiov. He fhall not 
 
 any longer partake of many Senfes, which 
 are but the firft Principles or Entrances to 
 Reafon, but j^iaving partook of One only LiOt 
 or Condition J and being as it nsoere made om 
 out of many, he will be for the future, happy i 
 tmji wife, andUeJfed. 
 
 To underftand this, I muft obferve, that 
 j^fchytas the Pythagorean, Plato's Mafter, 
 had diftinguifhed very accurately in a fct 
 pifcourfe betwixt "Ai&wts and Noof,' Senfi 
 and Mind. A Fragment of it is ftill re- 
 maining 
 
f^ The Double Doctrine of 
 
 maining in Stohaus. " IMmdj fays he, m 
 " the Judge of the moft valuable Things : 
 " Seiife of the moft ufefol j for Senfe was 
 " made for the Sake of the Body, and to 
 ** ferve That, but Mind was made to re- 
 *' galate even thefe : Mind is the Principle 
 ** of Knowledge : Senfe of Opinion : Senfe 
 '* relates only to fuch Things as are Sen-> 
 " Jible : Mind to what is intelligible. What 
 '^ '\% Jenfhle is moved and changed, and 
 *' never ftable, and therefore is found to be 
 " more and leis, better, and worfe : but 
 *• Mindy being concerned only with InteU 
 " UgiMeSy is n,ever changed. Mind is in^ 
 ^* divifflble, Senfe not fo." This, and a 
 good deal more, is found in ArcbytaSy as 
 the Fragjnent is preferved in StobauSy Ec^ 
 log. 1, I, p. 92. No wopder therefore 
 that FlatQi lays, that we (hall in a future 
 State be ftripped of our many Senfes^ and by 
 that Means become mojl mfey and bleffed, an4 
 ^"^i^/jjfince Thefe [many Senfes\ being adapt- 
 ed tp pur prefent Circumftances only, and the 
 Service of the Bpdy, will ceafe at our 
 Dea|h, ^nd a more notjle Principle will takg. 
 Place, Jay Mc^jis of which we ih^U be, 
 
 come 
 
the Philosophers cm^sr'd. 14.^ 
 
 cxime moji 'wife. The Good Man there- 
 fore fliall not partake of many Senfes-, as 
 now he does j but being ftripped of thenji 
 and having partook of One only Lot or Con' 
 Stion^ and being as it leere made One out 
 of Many, he will be for the future happy, 
 m(fi 'ivife, and bkjfed. 
 
 What Foundation is here for the Ima- 
 gination that Phto " hsxcfecretly intimated, 
 " that when he was in "Jeji, he affirmed 
 ** the future Happinefs of good Men in a 
 " peculiar and difliniSt Exiftence, which is 
 " the popular Notion of a future States 
 ** But when in Earneji, that that Exiilence 
 " Was not peculiar or diftinfi, but a common 
 *' Life without particular Senfations." p. 
 388. P/tffo never intimates, that he main- 
 tained Two diflind Notions, one in fefl^ 
 and the other in Earneji : But he affirm^ 
 that he maintained One fingle Point, the 
 felf-fame Notion concerning the future State, 
 of a Good Man, conflantly, at all Times, 
 without any Variation, that fuch a Man 
 would become moJi Wife^ and Happy. What 
 ^ully fays of Socrates is true of Plato { 
 qui non turn hoc, turn illud, ut in plerifque^ • 
 fed idem dicebat iemper, atiimos hormnum ejfe 
 
 di'uims 
 
t'42 ^e DoufitE DoctRiNt of 
 
 aivimSy ijfque, cum e corpore excej^jjent^ re^ 
 ^itum ad caelum patere, optimoque etjujiijji^ 
 mo cuique expeditijjimum, quod idem Scipioni' 
 i^idebatur. Cic. de Amicit. He did not faj 
 fometimes bne 'Things fometimes another y as 
 man^ do, but he 2i[vf2iys faid the same Thing,' 
 that the Souls of Men were divine, and when 
 they went out of the Body, they returned to. 
 Heaven : and that every very Gtiod and fufi 
 Man went thither without any Difficulty^. 
 Scipio had the very fame Notion. 
 
 2. The many Senfes or Senfations^ iiSfliiriuVf 
 tvhich here a good and wife Man has, are' 
 fuch as are inconfiftent with, of contrary 
 to his being perfedlly happy, and perfeftly, 
 wife. He muft theirefore be deprived of 
 them, as foon as' ever he dies; and theii 
 he is to become happy, and nioft wife.' 
 The many Senfations therefore, which we 
 have here, will be inftantly removed, and 
 then we fhall partake of One only Condition^, 
 viz. Happinefs, free from that .Mixture of 
 Evils which here we partake of, and per^ 
 feSl Wifdom7 What has this to do with^ 
 the Good Man's " Refolution into th^ tJ Ik"? 
 Or is it not equally true, fuppofing the* 
 
 gOb«J 
 
the Philosophers mi^a^iL 143 
 
 good Man to continue in a feparate, di& 
 iindJ: Exiftence? 
 
 3, Plato goes on, and adds, 1^ Ik '!et\kay lv« 
 ■ytyavojtt^ whkh Mr. W^rburton ^ys may 
 fignify, *' that ef Ms many Smfiitions he hath 
 *' orily one lefi^ the feeling Ilappinefs," 
 which is the true and only confiftent 
 Senfe of Flato $ or elfe, ^' that from being 
 *' in the Number of many Indroiduais of das 
 ^^ fame Speeies, he is beccmie One^ by twe- 
 ^' ing join'd to, and united with the Uni- 
 ** verfal Nature," ibid. This laft cannot 
 be the Meaning of the Words, becaufe the 
 Wife and Good Man, by being ftw/Ve/wf/S 
 tbe Univerjal Nature:, would not by diat be- 
 come happy^ mofi wife^ bleJJ'ed, hut would 
 loofe xhsA Wifdom^ which he had already* 
 Or if he is fuppofed, when united to the 
 mnivetjkl Nature^ to acquire more itappinefs, 
 as Plato fays he will, and to be morb 
 IwriSE than he was before ; then, if he retains 
 his individual Knowledge* and his Wif^ 
 dom and Happinefs are much imprv^ed; 
 here is a proper State of future Re- 
 *vard ; the very contrary to which this Paf* 
 ^ge is produced to prove. If, by being ab- 
 ^srbed in univtriai Natu]ie> the Good Mati 
 
 lofe» 
 
^44 '^^ Double bocTRiNfi of 
 Ibfes all Confcioufnefs, He does not becom* 
 mojl Wife ; but the Perfon, the He, is loft^ 
 or fwallowed up in the to Ij-. He is not 
 more wife, but fomething compounded of 
 all Good and Wife Men, a diiFerent Perfon 
 made up of all thefe,- becomes moft wife^ 
 which is contrary to Plato's Senfe. But, if 
 he means, that the.feveral diftinft, indivi- 
 dual ConfcioufneiTes of Good Men continue 
 ftill, and are improved, then here is a proper 
 State of Reward, which Plato really meanti 
 
 As I am here fpeaking concerning this 
 .Paflage in the Epinomis, I would obferve. 
 one Thing further. 
 
 P/^jfo's Books of Laws are (it feems) affirm- 
 ed by Mr. Warburton to bfe Exoterical; but 
 the Epinomis to be an Efoterical Treatifcj 
 If this be fo J I ask, how comes Plato in his 
 eighth Book of Laws, where he treats of 
 Sacrifices, to do it fo flightly, as if he dif- 
 approved of that Practice, and this in an 
 Exoteric Book : And yet in his Epinomisi 
 which is an Efqteric Book, he advifes 
 to keep up to the Cujiqms of one's Coun^ 
 fry? Now juft the Reverfe of this 
 fliould have b^en his Conduct j and he 
 fliould have advifed to keep up the Cuilom 
 
 of 
 
the Philosophers confident. 145 
 
 of one's Country in an Exoteric Book, and 
 to have treated of Sacrifices ^/]g-/6f/)', or not 
 at all in an Efoteric. But this by the by. 
 
 Mr. Warburton's 5th and laft Argument 
 is," " that the moft intelligent of the Antients 
 V regarded what Plato faid of a future State 
 " of Rewards and Punifhments, as faid in 
 " the Exoteric vfny to the People, and not 
 " believed by himfelf." p. 355. or 388. 
 To confirm this, he cites Chryfippus^ Strubo 
 and Celfus; not one of which in terms, or 
 diredlly, affirms, that Plato did not believe a 
 future State of Rewards and Punifhments, 
 or even fays that he fpoke on this Subjedt 
 " in what Mr. Warburton means by the 
 ** Exoteric way to. the People." Thefe are 
 Cbnfequences drawn by Mr. Warburton from 
 their Words : and fuch Conlequences as any 
 one may fafely deny. Chryfippus, as Mr. 
 Warburton fays^ " condemiied Plato\ wrong 
 " yudgmentj not his. wrong Belief, in ima- 
 " gining fuch childifh Terrors could be ufe- 
 " fill to the Caufe of Virtue.'' Becaufe He 
 condemned his, wrong. Judgment in ufing 
 fuch Terrors as he did to feifve the caufe of 
 Virtue, therefore Mr. Warburton concludes 
 that Cbryjippus- thought that Plato did not 
 
 L at 
 
146 Tf^f'DouBLE Doctrine of 
 
 at all believe a future State of Rewards and 
 Puhifhments. Suppofe any one were to 
 condemn Mr. /^«r^2«r^o«'s- wrong Judgment, 
 for infifting on tehe Demonftration he brings 
 for the Divine Legation of Mofes^ would it 
 be right- to infer that fuch a one thought he 
 did nt)t believe the Divine Legation at all ? 
 
 Strabo too fays, " that the Indian Brak- 
 " mans invented Fables, as Plaio did,, con-- 
 " cerning the Immortality of the, Soul and a 
 " future Judgment." ibid.- Now Mr. War- 
 burton owns that Plato really believed the 
 Immortality ©f the Soul,, which yet Strabo 
 finds fault with as much as he does with the 
 future Judgment . Strabo' % Teftimony therefore 
 is nothing to the purpofe, fince in fadt Plato 
 believed the Immortality of the Soul, as is con- 
 feffed: And as to the other Point,, it does 
 not imply that Plato did not believe the State 
 of future Rewards and Punifhments itfelf, 
 whether he believed the Fables or not. 
 
 As to Celfus, " he owns that what Plato 
 " has faid about the future State, is not ea- 
 " fyf^''^ every one to find out : That you mufl 
 *' be able to underftand what he meant, by 
 " the Soul's inability and fluggijhnefs to get up 
 " to the highejl Region, and» what is the true 
 
 Heaven 
 
the Philosophers Itonjidered. i^'f 
 
 " Heeroen and true Light" But how does 
 this prove, that Celfus thought that Phfo 
 did not believe a prop'cr fliftire State df Re- 
 wards and Punifhments? 
 
 Arid now I am fpeaking of TIatOy you'll 
 dxcufe me if I examine Mr. Warburton's 
 Account of a remarkable Paflage in the 
 Gorgias, which has given him no fmall 
 Trouble, all arifing from a MiftaKe of his 
 owfi. His Trafiflatron is this, (z) " There 
 " was this Law concerning Mortals iri thd 
 " time of Saturh, and is ndw always infor- 
 " ced by the Gods, that he who hath lived 
 *• a juft and pious Life, fliould at his Death 
 " be carried into the lilands of the Bleffed, 
 *' and there pol^is all kinds of Happinefs, 
 " Untainted with the Evils of Mortality : but 
 *' that he who had lived unjujily dnd int'^ 
 *• pioUjly ftiould be thruft into a Place of 
 *• Punifhment, the Prifon of divine Jufticej- 
 " called Tartarus. Now iht Judges with 
 
 (a) '^ttt^ii/vi fo/Jttf, o/e Tiei «Vflf<»V»K cm Kiifii ^ iei^ 
 ^ v}jv ?T/ er/c \i Bioli. "for £v6feh-ov W fiSji J'luaia! tit 
 fiiar J^K\yoy}ct i^ altria(, iireiS'dv riMv%ffh, m (HtKeCpar 
 vnfovi awi'avla,, oitiSv h "Ttiayf ivJ'cufMiiii inilh KitrJiy,^ Tot 
 S-i di'tnai £ d^safi d( rhjni riffiaf n ^ i'uiif S'iffiAu- 
 rneiov, t JVi Tei{]a£fv KaJ^aivi Ytveu: Tbt^c J'i S'nitrai 
 
14-8 '^e DotlfiLE i)0CTAlNE of- 
 
 " whom the Execution of this Law was iit- 
 " trufled, were, in the time of Saturn, and' 
 '' under the Infancy of j'w^'s Government, 
 " living Men, fitting in Judgment on the 
 " hving, and decreeing and appointing the -aery 
 *' Day, on which every one Jhould die. This 
 " gave occafion to iniquitous and perverfe 
 5* Judgments." p. 209, or 226. 
 
 How hard is Mr. tVarburton put to it, to 
 account for fome Paflages in this Fable, ari- 
 iing from the "Judges pq/Jing Sentence in Life, 
 and PREDICTING the Day of the Criminal's 
 Death? He tells us of an old Eeclefiajiicat 
 furifdiBion, p. 214. and then tells us, that 
 " by p-REDiCTiNGjhe Day of the Criminats 
 ** Death, was meant the InJiiSiibn of a Capi- 
 '[ tal Punijhment y and by Prometheus' s ta- 
 " king the Gift from thefe fudges was meant, 
 " the Civil Magijtrate' s Abolition of the Ju-* 
 " rifdiSiion." ibid. What will not Fancy at 
 this rate get over ? 
 
 Firft, He tells us, that thofe which were 
 carried into the Iflands of the Blefled, up-,; 
 right and virtuous Men, thfere poffefs all 
 kinds of Happinefs, untainted with the Evils: 
 of Mortality. Plato's Words are \>tThi ki^kSv, 
 out of the reach of Evils-, not of Mortality, 
 but of all Evils whatever. The fable fup* 
 
 pofes 
 
the Philosophers cmjider^. 149 
 
 .pofes the Souls of Men to live in a future 
 State, and to fubfift in either Happinefs or 
 Mifery. Now good Men here were to be 
 happy hereafter, not " untainted with the 
 *' Evils of Mortality," but to diiaell in all 
 Happinefs out of the reach oj all Evils. 
 
 2. There is' not one Word in Plato about 
 living Men decreeing and appointing the very 
 Day on which every one Jhould die. Plato's 
 
 Words are, Tu'tsiv S'l J'uAfoi — l^^vltf n<ntv ^mluy, 
 lueiff »t>^i?tt S'ikH^cvIu, ^ f«4AAfl/si' TiKivjZe, The Jlld- 
 
 gei of rn^sE [viz. who had lived either 
 well or ill] were living Men fitting in Judg- 
 ment on living Mei^, upon the very Day on 
 which they were to die. Not, decreeing 
 and APPOINTING the very Day on which eve- 
 ry one Jhould die j but fitting in Judgment 
 and paffing Sentence upon the Day in which 
 Men were to die. 
 
 This Miftake was a little amended in the 
 latter Edition, and we have it thus, — living 
 Men, fitting in Judgment on the living, and 
 decreeing and appointing their Abodes on the 
 very Day in which every one fioould die. You 
 will fay perhaps, that the Miftake was ow- 
 ing to the Prefs, and thofe Words ~ their 
 Jbodes — were cafually dfopt. But how 
 then come we by thofe Phraf^s which are 
 
 L 3 left 
 
J59 '^^ Double Doctrine of 
 
 Igft in both Pditjqns of the Judges pqffing 
 Sentence in Life, an4 pret^ictihq the Day of 
 the Criminal's Death y p. 213. Third Edition, 
 p. 23 1 ? If they had the Power o^ decreeing 
 md appointing the very Day on which every, 
 one fhould die, they could eafily prediB th^ 
 Day of the Criminal's Death. But if they 
 were intrufted with the Power of decreeing 
 aitd appointing only the Abodes of Men in 
 the other Life, what has thi§ to do with 
 PREDICTING the pay of the Criminals 
 Peatht But, 
 
 3, TJiere is not a Word in flato about 
 PREDICTING theDay of theCriminal'sDeath, 
 The Judges did indeed foreknonv if, vvv >«? 
 •sr^oUacri ; and the Story fays, that thefp Jud- 
 ges pafled their Judgment ^n the very Day 
 of Death, l^ut th^y neither prediBed, nor 
 decreed, nor appointed it ; nor does Plato ufe 
 any Word that implies fiich Prediction. 
 The Judges at that Time had, as the Story 
 fays, a certain Forekncrwkdge of the Day 
 ^hen every Man was to die : And as they 
 had, and were to exercife a Jurifdidtion either 
 to acquit or to condemn a Man, they met 
 with great Difficulties from falfe Witnefles, 
 who were ready to teftify in favour of the 
 
 ' " "' llich 
 
the Philosophers conjidered. 151 
 
 B-ich and Powerful : Or ther:p werePr^udi- 
 cesj which warped the Judges themfelves, 
 arifing from Beauty, or fome kind or other 
 of real or imaginary Perfeftion. To put a 
 Stop therefore to wrong Judgments arifing 
 from thefe and fuch like Caufes, "Jupiter re- 
 folves to interpofe : and firft he puts a Stop 
 to Mcn's^eknowiTig the Day of any one's 
 Peatk, not to their prediSiing it^ for that 
 was foreign to the Purpofe. The Judges 
 were hy their Charter to judge on the Day 
 when any one was to die,, and only upoij 
 that. When therefore their Foreknowledge 
 of that Day was taken from them, their 
 Jurifdidion muft: necefladly ceafe. But, 
 
 4. Suppofe- thefe Judges could and did 
 PRE D I c T the Day of every Man's Death, 
 by a ^r^jige Stretch of Fancy, Mr. Warbur- 
 im interprets this thus — If iMs kejh, then 
 hy predicting the D^y of the 'Crimlnat s Death 
 •was meant the Inflidtion (f a Capital Punifh- 
 ment. To underftand this we muft go a 
 little back, and look into a Relation of Dio- 
 dorus Siculus. He tells us, " // was- a Cuf- 
 " torn in "Egypt, for fudges to be appointed at 
 *» e^ery one's Interment io eicamine his paji 
 ^ Jjife^ and to condemn and acquit according 
 L 4 ta 
 
152 The Double Doctrine cf 
 " to the Evidence. Thefe Judges were of the 
 *^ Triejihood," — and it feems " they grew 
 " very partial and iniquitous in procefs of 
 " time.'' This, fays Mr. Warhurton, " I 
 " fuppofe gave Birth to the general Fable. 
 " But there is one Circumftance vs'hich this 
 " does not fo tlearly account for, namely 
 " of the ]\idgespa^ng Sentence in Life and 
 " PREDICTING the Day of the Criminal's 
 " Death." It is true it does nbt at all ac- 
 count for, what is not in Plato, nor any 
 where elfe. See now how ftrongly Imagi- 
 nation will work to get over an imagined^ 
 Difficulty. " To underftand thefe things 
 " we muft conclude, what is very probable^, 
 '.* that die Cuftom mentioned- by Diodoms 
 " was only the Suceeffion of a more early 
 " one, where the Priejls judged' the living 
 " Criminal for thofe Crimes that the Civil 
 " Tribunal could not fo conveniently take 
 '^ notice of:" This you fee is mere Inven- 
 tim to get rid of the Difficulty. And then' 
 follow the Words — " if this be fo, then 
 " by prediSling the Day of- the Criminal's 
 " Death was rneant the ItifiiBion of a capital 
 " Punijhment." Firft, he invents " an' 
 " Eccleiiaftical Jurifdidtion with coa^ve 
 
 " Power, 
 
the Vmizosovii-E-Rscon^erea, 153 
 
 *.' Power;" and then, that coaSiive Power 
 extended to the Power of Life and Death ; 
 and then this imaginary EcckJiaJHcal Jurif- 
 diBion gave Birth to a Fable wherein no 
 mention is made or hinted at about Eccle- 
 Jiajiical yurifdiBion^ or Priejlsy and laftly 
 what is fuppofed to be in the Fable, and is 
 not, about predicting the Day of a Cri- 
 minal's Death, means, the infixing capital 
 Puriijhment, which likewife is not in the 
 Fable, nor any thing fimilar to it. 
 
 One would think this Fable, or fabulous 
 Govefing, was very natural and eafy : It was 
 to tell us that all Men were accountable to 
 God for all their Adions ; and that he would 
 not be influenced, as Men too often are, by 
 Riches andGrandeur in favour of the Power- 
 ful, nof by palumny and Contempt, againft' 
 the Poor and Miferable : That our Souls do 
 not die with our Bodies, but are to be re- 
 warded and punifhed hereafter : That the 
 Good and Virtuous here are to dwell In Hap* 
 pinefs, free from all Evils : That the Vicious 
 and Impious are to be thruft into a Place of 
 Punilhment. This might be drefs'd up in 
 Fable, or Emblem, or Allegory ; and nothing 
 could be more natural and ealy than the 
 Story> as it lies in Plato. But when this is 
 
 fuppofed 
 
f^4 ^^ Double Doctrine tf 
 
 fiippofedto be founded on an Ecclefiaftical 
 Jurifdi(fiion with co^dlive Power ^ and an 
 Abolition of fiidi Power by the Civil Ma- 
 giftrate, it is all incoherent, and all the 
 Symmetry and Beauty of the Fable is loft. 
 
 5. What Words in Tlato can be fo per- 
 v^ted as to imply that he meant the Civil 
 *' Magijirate's Abolition of Ecclejia[iical Ju- 
 ••' rifdiBiont'* Why it feems the Fable 
 ^nts on thus — Umng Men pajjei "Judgment 
 en Eving Men on the Day they were to die, 
 mfon Men that had handfome JBodieSy that 
 were of high Birth^ that had great Riches.^ 
 mid powerful RflftionSf 'Thefe things corrupt 
 ted the fudges^ and made thempafs uponfucb 
 ^s had wicked Souls a wrong Judgment : for 
 when the Judgment was to he^ many Witnefjes 
 came for them^ and witneffed for their good 
 Lifey however wicked they had been. Upon 
 Complaint of this^ Jupiter refohedto forre£i 
 this Evily and would not hofoe either Judges or 
 Judgment in this Wbrldy but in the next^ 
 where a Soul could fee a Souly and both Judge 
 end Criminal were Jiripp'd of all Dijguife, 
 lie therefore in the firft Place orders Prome- 
 theus to take away the Judges Prefcience of 
 tke Day of Merfs peath which they then ^ad. 
 
the Philosophers confidered. i^^ 
 
 Let us now fupppfe the Story which Z)/fe 
 ^orus tells us, and which I have juft now 
 mentione4, to be true. What now is Mr^ 
 
 Jfar&urton's Application ? Why " ff 
 
 " ibis be fo" — then by Prometheus' j taking 
 " away the Gift [of Prefcience] from them 
 \i. e. from the Judges mentioned in Plato\ 
 Fable] is meant, the Civil Magijirate's jSoH-^ 
 tion of the [Ecplefiaftical] JurifdiSiion. He 
 nMght as w?ll have iaid. King Henry VIII '^ 
 Abolition of the Papers Supremacy. For 
 the Fable relates as inuph to the one as the 
 other. 
 
 Laftly, His Interpretation of VirgiH rr-~ 
 falfo damnati crimine Mortis — for the lak§ 
 of which all this feems to be introduced, 
 is as extraordinary as the Interpretation of 
 Pl(ito*s Fable. He fays, it does not fignify 
 " Men falfly condemned, but wrongly fudged 
 " whethei* to ^quittal or ConviBion. For 
 " Condemnation being oftngft the Sentence 
 " of Juftice, the greater part is put for the 
 *' whole figuratively." p. 212, or 230. That 
 is, to condemn, may be put for to acquit: 
 Iby the fame Figure to hang a Man too, may 
 be put for to reprieve or pardon^ becaufe 
 jianging is pftner the Sentence of Juftice 
 
 fhan 
 
15^ ^e N A T u R p of the 
 
 than Rfeprieving or Pardoning. How Would 
 one Inftance, from any Author^ of this 
 Senfe of the- Word condemjt, put for to-free^ 
 GT Jet at Liberty y have cleared up this -Mat- 
 ter ? Could not one Author have fupplied ai^ 
 InftancCj where damnare is put for liber are ? 
 
 Mr» War bur ton knows too well» not to 
 l)e impofed on by any Miftakes, which a 
 lefs learned Man might poffihly have been 
 led into by fome Grkmmarians and Critics. 
 
 Buf enough of this. If I have fhewri 
 |VIr. Warburton to have been miftaken in 
 this Hoint of th.e double Do(9:rine of the 
 Antients, grieat Part of his T/^zV^ Book will 
 he nothing to the Purpofe. 
 
 I deiign in the Third Place to confidei" 
 ,what this Learned. Writer has undertaken to 
 fliew about the Nature of the "Jewijh Theo- 
 cracy y and its Duration^ Perhaps you may 
 think that \ might as well have left this 
 Subjedl, till his next Volume fhall appear^ ' 
 fince' in That He propofes to treat more 
 largely upon this Head. But Objedions to 
 what He. h^s already publifhed may be of 
 ;fome Ui&y eVeii to.himj and may tend to 
 make his further Difquiiitions more accu- 
 rate 
 
jEWisii Theocracy tmfidtr'L 15^ 
 
 tate, if evet they fhould appear j and 
 therefore I fhall confider what is already in 
 cVeryBody's Hands, 
 
 The firft Thing that ftruck me, upoA 
 this Subjed:, was his Attack upon Mr. 
 Bsylet for what he has faid about the Na- 
 ture of a certain penal Law in the yemjb 
 Republic. Mr. Bayle had ftated the Ob- 
 jeftion thus, as Mr. Warburton gives us his 
 Words. *' The Law oSMofes gi^cs no To- 
 *' leration to Idolaters and falfe Prophets, 
 *^ whom it puniflies with Death. — Frcan 
 " whence it follows, that all the Reafbns I 
 " have employed in the firft Paft of this 
 " Commentary prove nothing, becaufe they 
 " prove too much ; namely, that the lite- 
 " ral Senfe of the Law of Mofes^ as fer as 
 ** it relates to the Punifhment of Opinions, 
 *' would be impious and abominable. There- 
 ** fore fince God could, without violating 
 *' the eternal Order of Things, command 
 *' the Jews to put falfe Prophets to Death, 
 *' it follows evidently, that he could, un- 
 *' der the Gofpel alfo, cominand Orthcdox 
 *' Believers to inflidt the fame Pnnifhment 
 *' upon Heretics'\ Div. Leg. Vol. IL 
 p. 367-8. 
 
 Mr. 
 
158 ^be Nature of the 
 
 Mr. Bayle " ingenuoufly owns this Ob- 
 " jedion to be ftrong ;" and He declares^ 
 that He " knows fome, whoJiave no grcat- 
 *' er DifBculties to hinder their believing, 
 " that God Was the Author of the Laws of 
 " Mofesi and of aU thofe Revelations that 
 *' occafioned fo miich Slaughter and De- 
 " vaftation, than this very Btifinefs of In- 
 " tolerance, fo contrary to our cleareft Ideas 
 " of natural Equity." ibid. 
 
 What now is Mr. TFarburton's Remark 
 upon this ? Why, He hints as if Mr. BayU 
 was " one of thofe backward Believers, as 
 *' by fome of his Expreflions he gives us' 
 *' Reafon to fufpeSi" It is not my Defign 
 to enter into a Vindication of Mr. Bayle'i 
 Sentiments ; but yet I cannot but ask, which 
 are thofe Exprejtons in this Paflage, upon' 
 which Mr. Warburton is fo ready to ground! 
 his Sufpicions of Mr. Bayle's being one of 
 thofe backward Believers ? What have per- 
 fonal Reflexions to do in a Cafe that is to be 
 managed with Argument and Reafon ? But 
 
 Mr. Bayle " dwelt with Pleafure on this 
 " Circumflance, as he thought it favour'd 
 " his darling Scepticifm," ibid. Where 
 does it appear, that he dwelt with Pleafurd 
 
Jewish Theocracy confidered, i^g 
 
 on this Circumjlancef Or what is the Cir- 
 cum/iance he dwelt on ? If it be the Bu/mejs 
 of Intolerance^ — Surely, he ought to he 
 commended for dwelling on that Subjedi j 
 nor ought he to be/f/j^^^^f-// of being a iaci- 
 ward Believer on that Account. If the Or- 
 cujnfiance, on which he dwelt with Pleafure^ 
 be the removing a Difficulty taken from a 
 penal Law among the yews: — This too 
 deferves the Commendation of every Man, 
 Believer or not Believer, and is no Foun- 
 dation for any ill Sufpicions. Let Mr. Bayk 
 have been e'er fo great a Sceptic^ nothing <£ 
 that kind here appears": And why Mr. 
 Warburton (hould mention this, upon Occa- 
 fion of this Quofetion, unlefs it be to raiic 
 Envy or Prejudice againft the Man, whom 
 he did not like, I cannot conceive. 
 
 It is true, that Mr. Bayle has here ob- 
 ferved, " That it feems to be a Mark of 
 " God's Sovereign Pleafure, that we (hould 
 *' not arrive at Certamty in any Thing, fee- 
 *' ing he has given Exceptions in his holy 
 " Word to almoil all the commpn Notices 
 *' of Reafon," ibid. I will not prefume to 
 affirm what are the Exceptions he had in 
 View, This is certain, That there are Dif^ 
 
 Acuities* 
 
'l6d ^e N A T V Kz of ihg . ^ 
 
 ficultles, which have exerclfed the Wits of 
 the Beft and Trueft Friends to Revelation, 
 and of the ableft Writers, to refolve them. 
 This very Subjedt of 'Toleration^ and this 
 very Difficulty about the Punifhment of 
 Idolatry with Death, was never cleared up, 
 (if you will take Mr. Warburton'^ Word for 
 it,) till Mr. Locke wrote his Letter upon 
 Toleration. But fince Mr. Warbiirton af- 
 fures us, that " before he has done with In- 
 " fidelity, he hopes to fhew, that the 
 "Word of God contains no Exceptions to 
 " the common Notices of Reafon," ibid, 
 I fhall live in hopes to fee a compleat An- 
 fwer to all thofe Difficulties, which hither- 
 to have been raifed by Good and Honefl 
 Men, and I fhall heartily and fincerely 
 congratulate him on his fuccefsful Labors. 
 But let us proceed. 
 
 Mr. Warburton affirms, that " the Solu- 
 " tion of this Difficulty," i;/^;. of the ca- 
 pital Punifhment of Idolatry, " was above 
 " Mr, Bayle's Strength, had he been never 
 " fo willing to reconcile Scripture to R.ea- 
 " fon. The Truth is, Judea was a mere 
 " Terra incognita to this great Adventurer." 
 Here again we want Proofy and not mere 
 
 Alfertion j 
 
jf"Ewi.9H Thjeqcracy ionfieUfd. i6i 
 
 Affertion ; and what Reafon thqre is to call 
 for it, will appear prefently. He goes on j 
 " Our excellent Countryman Mf. Locked who 
 " wrote about this *rime on the fame 
 *'^ Subje<i, — Was much happier in his Ac- 
 " count of the Matter." flappy England^ 
 that Mr. Locke was born here t His Letter 
 concerning Toleration might have been fuf- 
 J)e<^ed to have come from fome Foreigner, 
 fince he publifhed his Book, not in his na- 
 tive Language, and printed it at Tergaw^ 
 and direfted it to a J^utch Divine, and fo 
 put his Name to it, that a thoufand may 
 look on its Title, and not know, that it 
 was the Work of an Englijh Man, or that 
 Mr. Locke wrote it* But let us fee what" 
 Mr. Locke 4ys. 
 
 " As to the Cafe of the Ifraelites, fay^ he, 
 " in the Jewifli Commonwealth, who being 
 " initiated into the Mofaic RiteSy and made 
 " Citizen?; of the Commonwealth, did af- 
 ." terwards afiofiatize from the Worjhip tf 
 " the God of Ifrael, Thefe were proceeded 
 " againji as Traytors ^«</ Rebels, guilt f 
 " of no kfs than High Treason. For 
 " fb^ Commonwealth of the jews, different 
 ^ in ^hat from M others^ was an abfilutd 
 
 M f TitBO»lk.A€Y j 
 
i6i ' file 1<i A t VR ^ of the 
 
 " Theocracy j nor was there, mt could 
 " theri be any DiJ^'erence bei'ween the Com- 
 " monwealth and the • Church . The Lwi&s 
 " ejiabtijhed there concerning the Worjhip of 
 '* the one invijibh Deity were the Civil Laws 
 " of the People, and a Part of their Politi- 
 " cal Government y in which God timjelf was 
 •^' the Legijlator. This he faid,. and /of 
 *' aught I can learn, he was die Fifjl that 
 " faid it. So that the Reittark t^as asr iieW 
 *' as it was folid," p. 369: ' 
 
 What I would obferve upon this rs, Firft, 
 Mr; Warburton fays, that our Countryman^ 
 IVIr. Loahy was the j?/;y? that gave this So- 
 lution** of this Difficulty ; and when Hfe 
 gave it, it was- iVf w. Secondly, Mr. Bayk 
 was not able to folve it, '^ it was aiove his 
 '* Stre'ngthy had he been m^er' fo willing" 
 I add, Thirdly, that" before Mt, W^af^lur^ 
 
 . . , - ' "... 1 
 
 ^ ton had feen the Solution in Mr. Locke'& 
 ^' Treatife, Or knew that He^ or any one 
 " elfe, had given it, He conceived it to be 
 ^* the only Anfwer to the Objeftion." ibid,- 
 Now Ffrjiy Mr. Bayk Wrote his Cofnmen- 
 ?s>-_y in theYear 1686. Mr. Locke' puhli^hc'^ 
 his Epiftle concerning Toleration not till 
 1689, and dien "ptrblilhed • it at Ifer^eW' 
 
 ' i» 
 
Jewish Theocracy £onffder'd. 16^ 
 
 in the fame Country, where Mr. Bayle had 
 publifhed his Commentary. Confequently 
 Mr. Bayle wrote Three Tears before Me, 
 Locke. Secondly Mr. Bayk gave the very 
 Solution that Mr. Locke gave to this Diffi-* 
 culty ; and confequently Mr. Lvc&e Was not 
 the Firji that gave the true Solution of this 
 Difficulty, ndr was his Solution Neieh 
 Thirdly, If therefore Mr, Locke's Solution 
 was '■' foh'd," and '■^ the only proper jiitfwer. 
 *' to the ObjeSiion-^' Mr. Bayle' s was as yS' 
 lid and proper ; and confeqliently agaiuv 
 " this Di£iculty was not above his Strength." 
 I have from Mr. War hurt on tranfcribed 
 Mr. Locke's Words ; it is- fit to tranfcribe 
 Mr. Bayle's, that You yourfelf may fee his 
 Solution. He has nientioned fome other 
 CdnfideraticHis relating to this Difficulty, 
 and then he proceeds thus, — " But where- 
 " fore, will fome fay, why put a Man to 
 " Death for perfuading his Neighbour 
 " -to worfhip another Divinity, which in 
 " his Jud^ent he believes to be true ? 
 " Becauft; by that particular Form of Co- 
 " 'uernment^ and in that Theocracy, under 
 " which the People of Ifrael liv'd, this 
 ** was an Overt- a^ of High Treafm f it \vas 
 
 M 2 " an 
 
tt 
 
 164 1/^ N At u R E of ihe 
 
 an Attempt of Rebellion agaifift the Sis'- 
 «f« vereign' Magijlmie. Now, fince Order 
 "eternal and immutable confers a Power 
 ^* on the Magrftrate of punifhing Tfeafoh 
 '• and Rebellion, and whatever tends to the 
 *^'bverthfonibiiig the Conjlitution •, it is plain, 
 " that God being once confiituted Head of the 
 *' |ewifli Commonwealth., whoever fhould 
 *' afterwards alienate his oimAllegidnce, or 
 *' endeavour to draw others away, defer ved 
 *' to die ds a Traitor and Rebel : Nor will it 
 ** avail him, that in fo doing he followed 
 " the Light of his Confcierice i this being 
 " a ; fingular Cafe, in which God by an 
 ''extraordinary Appointment, 'biz. That of 
 "a Theodratical Government among the 
 " fe'ois, derogates from the -Immunities of 
 •" Coiifcience, The Crime in this Cafe be- 
 •* comes punifhable by the (S^i-^/^r Arm, in 
 " Quality o£ 'T'reafon and '^^^^//^ow againfl 
 " the State,; a?<:." = - .; 
 
 The Point here is, only to confider thefe 
 
 "^Fa^s, whether Mr. LOckewAS tliefrji that 
 
 gave iht trite Solution of the Difficulty, aiid 
 
 "whethet his Solution was new, as Wdl ds 
 
 folid i and whether the Difficulty was above 
 
 M: BayleV Strength to arifwer. Now Mr, 
 
Jewish Theocracy cmfidefd. 165 
 
 'Boyle wrote three Tear$ before Mr. Loche, 
 Mr. Bayle^'s, Solution is taken from the 
 *Theocratical G<ivernment among the Jews : So 
 is Mr. Locked. In this State, %s Mr. 
 Bayle^ Idolatry was Treafon and Rebellion: 
 Idolaters were Traitors and Rebels y fays Mr. 
 Locke. In that Theoaacy, &ys Mr. Baylej 
 under which the People o/"Krael //suV, Idola- 
 try was an Overt- A£t of Hlgh-Treafon j it 
 •was an Attempt of Rebellion againji the 
 Sovereign Magiilrate : Such People were 
 guilty^, iays Mr. Locke, of no lefs than High 
 Treafon. The Crime, fays Mr. Bayle, wasi 
 funijhable- by xk\s, fecular Arm in polity of 
 Treafon ■ and Rebellion againfl the State : 
 The Worjhip of the One God, i&ys Mr. Locke,' 
 was a Part of their Political Government,T-r' 
 the Civil Laws of the People ; from whence 
 he argues, that Idolaters wefe proceeded 
 againfi as Traytors and Rebels. So then 
 theyJBoth account for this Difficulty on the 
 very fame Principles; they Both ufe the 
 fame Expreffions j they Both refplv.e it into 
 \}a.t Theocracy eflabliflied among the fews\ 
 they Both allow it to be owing to the par^ 
 ticular Conjiitution of that People, in which 
 pod WiiS the Sovereign Mfgijirate-: And 
 M 3 yet 
 
j&S fy&e N A T U ft ^ ef th 
 
 yet Mr. Lfftke'ws.s much happier in his Acr 
 cSimf of this Matter i than Mr. Bayls, Can 
 this be owing to any thing elfe but this, 
 Mr. Lotke Was our exidleni Countryman^. 
 Mr.\Si?y/(fwa8 not our Countryman,^ but was 
 a-'Bavkward Believer ^ 
 
 - But neither was Mr. hoeke^ nor Mr. Bayk^. 
 the firjl that had publifhed to the World 
 this Solution of thii Difficulty. Dr. Spencer 
 had done it before either of them. lie, in 
 a Diflertatioti, *rhich Mr. War bur ton has 
 treated as of littfe Efteem, ha§ fhewn, that 
 God, as King of the Jews, had given Laws 
 about the piinifliing Idolaters with Death, 
 f ntpvte rebellibus et majeft&tis imminuta 
 ^': maHifkfih" As JRtiels, and guilty ofTrea- 
 fm. This wafi publifhed by him in the 
 Year 1685. So that Mr. Locke was not the 
 Mrfl^ that gavt; ^t true Anfw^ to thp 
 Pll^tulty ; no not the Jirji of even our 
 Gomtryinen. And what is not a little re- 
 feai-IsaMej Dr. ^mcer easajliders- the wrong 
 Ufe tha^, mi^ht be tnade of this Law, as 
 Mr* Bajle iafid Mr. Le'cM di<J a^ser Jian. 
 f' E legibm. hifce perpiram colli gitur^ fwd 
 ** nobis eti<m in id<jl'olateas «^ hfereticDS jferra 
 *' St Jiumma favire liiint : nam ntOi^fi^mt 
 
Jewish Theocracy /5«/?i/i?r'//, 1^7 
 
 " e^ omnibusy nifi quQS. l^Kot vtK^h, occceca-" 
 " mt^ Ifraelitas Uges illi^ a Deo accepi^e, 
 *' non qmtenus Jehovah, fi4 quatenus Je- 
 *' hoy^Axflator effety et inter eos^ inflar regis 
 " politfci, mo^o vijihili et exterm ijerfarefur." 
 It is a great Miftake^ i^ys he, to conclude 
 frprn thefe Laws^ that it. is lawful for Us to 
 take aivay the Lilies of Idolaters and Here- 
 tics ; for it is manifefi to all^ except fuch as 
 f hitter Zeal has Jiark blinded, that God gave 
 t})e Jews thqfe Laws, not as the God of Heaven, 
 or Governor of the Uniyerfe, but as God 
 their King, and was amongfi them as their 
 Political Governor. De Theoa:at;ia 
 ^udaica, p, 254. 
 
 The Copimonwealth of Ifrael was cer- 
 tainly different from all other Common- 
 wealths, that either are, or ever were in 
 the World. Their Civil Laws were given 
 by God, and fo were the Laws relating to 
 their Religion and Modes of Worfhip. In 
 this They were diiferent from all other Peo- 
 ple, that no Diftinftion ought to be made 
 betwixt their Civil and Eoclefiaftical Laws j 
 "for inStridtnefs their whole Body of Law^h 
 ^nadp up .one Civil Body of Inftitutes, 
 whereof God was the proper Legiflator, 
 M 4 • whb 
 
i68 ' I'he Nature of the 
 
 who fpund^cl their Commonwealth, ' Ip alj 
 other States th? Society have fet up their 
 Commonwealth," and have arnie4 their Ma- 
 giftrates with Power, as they thought moft 
 neceflary or ilfeful to thernfelves : An^, if 
 they have thought fit. to embrace the Chrif- 
 tian Revelation, this has ihade no Altera^-- 
 tion in the Ciwl State. That has gone op 
 in its former Rout, changing, altering, re" 
 pealing, adding to, its Civil Laws, without 
 BlamCj and without Cenfure. Butamongft 
 the Jews it could not be fo, without rejedt- 
 ing Qod from being their King, and de^ 
 daring thernfelves difl&tisfied with the Laws 
 which he gave them. Now a Kiiig /«w*- 
 Jible, being their King, they had no Oppor- 
 tunity or Poffibility of having Accefs to 
 him, or confultipg with, or taking Direcr 
 tions from hm\, biit in the Manner pre- 
 fcribed : Either they were to confult his 
 Oracle ; or to follow the Direftions of Peir- 
 fons known to be inj^ired by him ; or there 
 muft have been fome extraordinary Inter- 
 poJitioHj from whence they could conclude 
 how they were to adi. 
 
 This Form of Government of the jfewSy 
 ."^eipg properly call'd a Theocracy^ there are 
 
Jewish Theocracy conjider'd. 169 
 
 Tijoo Points, which Mr. Warburton has 
 largely confider'd. The Firfi is, in Rela- 
 tion to the Origin, Continuation, and Du- 
 ration of this Theacracy. ^ The Other is, in 
 Relation to the Exercife of an extraordinary 
 Providence over particular Perfonsi as well 
 as over the State in general. 
 
 In Relation to the -Former of thefe Points, 
 He tells us, " that moft Writers fuppofe it 
 *' to have ended with the yudgesy but 
 " fcarce any bring it lower than the Capti^ 
 " inty : On the contrary,' I hold, that in 
 " ftrift Truth and Propriety it ended not 
 " till the coming ofCbrifi." p. 404. Here 
 it is, that He attacks Dr. Spencer's DilTer- 
 tatipn on the yenvijh Theocracy, " a Trea- 
 " tife by no Means in the Number of thole 
 " on which Spencer raifed his Reputation ; 
 " He goes on a wrong Hypothefis j he 
 *' ufes weak Arguments j and he is con- 
 " fufed, and.inconfiilent in his AfTertions." 
 p. 414. 
 
 Are we not now from hence to imagine, 
 that Dr. Spencer was one of thofe Writers 
 that fuppofed the Theocracy to have ended 
 with the JtidgeSy or at fiirtheft with the 
 Captivity ? And yet Mr. Warburton is forced 
 " ' to 
 
170 7S«? N A T u R je 1/ /^ ,,- T 
 
 tQcwnj that Spen^r "^ fuppofes" [I fay He 
 poiitively afferts] "that fome obfcufe Foot^ 
 " fteps of it remained to the Time oiChriJii* 
 yes, aad longer too^ for his Words are, a4 
 extretna ufque Voliticejua; tempray . i, e. quit? 
 tctthejflji'^imes of their Polity^ even to the 
 laft Times of expiring Judaifm^ 
 
 But fuppoiing Dr. Spemer to be fomewhat 
 •■* confufed and inconfiftent" in his Account 
 of the Theocracy j Surely he is pardonable^ 
 fince he tells us, that Nobody, had before en^ 
 Urd fully into that Jlffair .: if any ha^ 
 puahedupon ity it was mlf by the by. Let u^ 
 jfee if Mr. Warburton be more clear and 
 CQSifi^Dt in his Account of this Matter, 
 
 His firft Charge againil him is. That He 
 thought the Theocracy was eftabjiflied by 
 J}egreeSy and abrogated by Degrees.. . A 
 " Conceit highly abfurd, fays Mr.Watburr 
 *^ /iJK, as God was Legiflator." p. 415- Bujt 
 iwh^'ein lies the Abfurdity of this Gr^duaf. 
 Progrefi and Gradual Declenfon, even in 
 Cafes where God was. I/^^/j?r I . I fuppofe 
 he will lay, that tlae 'theocracy began ,«,t, the 
 Jk^ant of the Horeh Covenant ; and not 
 when the Children pf Jfrael were delivered 
 £tom Egypt, andwei-'e fiiij under the im- 
 
 ■ mediate 
 
Jewish Theocracy fo^(^^rV. 171 
 
 mediate Prateftion of Gpd. But Spencer \xw 
 tended by his Word Theocracy, all the Time 
 that the 'Jrms were under the direft Power 
 and immediate Pominion of Gpd j which 
 certainly began at the Peliverance of the 
 Jews from Egypty ^nd was compleated ia 
 the higheft and fuUeft Senfe, at the Hereb 
 Covenant, when God was ponftituted their 
 
 So when Dr. Spencer fpeaks of its ^^^r 
 cjim'ng gratbiallyy—Qf ibe Government of God 
 being leffmed^T-ir .q£ its making a jtigher Apy 
 proach to itjs ceafing j I think, if there be an 
 jSbJurdity or Xncmfifimcy in this Majnn^ of 
 ipeakmg, it may. be juftified by M^c^War- 
 burtan'& own Authority. He himfelf tells 
 us, that " indeed in the Period immediately 
 ^ precediiiig their [the Jews] Captivity, on 
 " the gradual mtbdrawing the extraordi-r 
 " aary Providence from them, — they be- 
 " gan to entertain Doubts concerning God's 
 ^^ further peculiar Regard to them, ashii 
 ?* ehf&n. PvcpJe" p. 400. So that he here 
 exprefsly owns a gradual withdrawing 
 ^ the extrwirMnary Providence from the 
 jews. And where is the Abfurdity of Dr. 
 1^mcer\ gradual Deckafimf or Imminution 
 
 •:.. ■ /■'■'■ of 
 
vjz the N A T u & E of the 
 
 of the Theoeracy, which Mr. Warhurton*&. 
 
 GRADUAL WITHDRAWING &f th CXtrCOr'^r 
 
 Snary Prmidence is nbt liable unto ? Or 
 was not the gradual mfbd^-aneing of the cxt. 
 freer dinary^ Previdencfy a, proipct, Tffiminuiion> 
 ef the Thetieracy? Dr. Spencer conceived, 
 ^at this ^adual DedenfiBn of the Theocracy- 
 began in the IfraeUtei Demand of^ a King ; 
 that it was more leflen'd when God called- 
 &ar/and David to the Head of AiFairSi that 
 under S&hmm it became nearer to its Cef?. 
 fetion. And in Proof of this he urges the 
 -Difiife oii^cUrimaind.'Tbufnmmt and fuch 
 other Arguments as fliew'd there was not. 
 foch frequent Interpofitions of an extr^ordi-. 
 KOry P residence t as were under the Judges ^ 
 or in yejhua\. or in Mefes'& Days : At the 
 feme time he contends, that fome obfcure 
 Fodtfteps of it continued to the laft Times 
 of their State. Now Mr. Warhurton hath 
 not fhewn, that the gradual Decknfan of 
 the Theocracy did not ^^-^/w, yahtn Spencer 
 feys it did j but only that it did not ceafi at 
 the Time when Spencer faid it began to de-, 
 dine. And fince he owns, that there was a 
 gradual mthdramng of the extraordinm^y 
 P'rcvidefice bcfgre the Captivityj he mi^ft 
 
 owa 
 
Jewish Theocracy W;^^V. 173 
 
 ©Wn a gradual Immmitlon, even whilft 
 God's Vuer&j continued upnu his Tbront: 
 And what will be the Abfiirdily or Incon* 
 fiftency in Spencer, that he himfelf is not 
 liable unto ? But, 
 
 2. I mufl: obferve flarther. Dr. SpaKsr 
 
 maintains, ** that fome obfojre Footfteps 
 
 " of the Theocracy reniaineA^ven to ike 
 
 « Time ^ Ghrift." And Mr. Warhurtm 
 
 •holds, that it " ended not till iJoe coming <sf 
 
 ^\ Chrift." p. 404, 417. Dr. Spencer is con- 
 
 fiftent : But it is' far from being clear, that Mr- 
 
 Warhurton is fo. For ile hath told us, 
 
 that in the Period, immedintely prcceMjtg 
 
 'the Capti'pityi there was a gradual iwkh- 
 
 ^ra^ing .of the extraordinary Providence. 
 
 ^p. 400. In another Place lie tells u^ that 
 
 " after their perfed Settlement, on thcar 
 
 *' Return from Captivity, {when we know 
 
 " from the Courfe and Progrefs of God's 
 
 " Oeconomy, the extraordinary Providence 
 
 " would ze^,) we hear no more of it a- 
 
 " mongft diem, nor did they make the 
 
 ," leaft Pretence to it, tho' they now a4- 
 
 ." heired'/much: more flri<3:ly to their Rc- 
 
 t** ligion, than they had ever done before. 
 
 ■^ They pretended not,— to. either Prophets, 
 
 « Oracles 
 
t74 5l5^ N A t tf s E V* '^^ 
 " Oracles, or extraordinary Difpenfatiohs,'* 
 p. 4.40.' Here Mr. Warhurtori mentions the 
 Misfortune at " Bethfura, caufed by the 
 *' Sabbatical Year j a Misfortune, 6i WhicK 
 " we have no Inftance before the Capti^ 
 " vity, and therefore a plain Proof, that the 
 *' extraordinary Providence was indeed with- 
 *' dravra." p. 440. Again/ "The extra-i 
 *' ordinary Providence kept gradually de- 
 " caying, till on their' fill Settlement after 
 " their Return it entirely ceased."*^ 
 
 P-445- • 
 
 'From thefe Aflertions of Mr. Warhurtm 
 
 I argue, i. That if the Extraordinary Pro- 
 vidence ENTIRELY CEASED, On the fiU 
 
 Settlement biiht.y^'ws, after their Return, it 
 ceafed fome Centuries at leaft before thfc 
 Diays o^ChriJi\ and confequently 'the 'theo^ 
 cracy mufl have ceafed fome Centuries be- 
 fore the Days oiChriJi. How then is Mr. 
 Warburton vapv& con&&.Q.nX a.bout \ht t)ura' 
 tion of the Theocracy, than OtKers are, fince 
 he pleads for its Cbntinudnce till' Chriji's Time, 
 and yet maintains, that it entirely ceafed fo' 
 long befdre his Time ? And, 2. The Affair 
 of Bethfura feeills to intimate, tliatGod did 
 not give to the Jews a double Portion of 
 
 Corn,- 
 
Jewish Thiocracy conjidcrd. 175 
 
 Corn, or of the Fruits of the Earth, the 
 Year before the Year of reft ; for they were 
 forced to make Peace with Antiochiis^ hecaufe 
 they had no Vidiiiah there to endin-^ the Siege, 
 it being a Year of reft to the Land, i Mace. 
 vi. 49, Now God had promifed his Blef- 
 Jing upon them in the Sixth Tea7\ that it 
 Jhould bring forth Fruit for three Years, 
 Lev, XXV. 2 1 . The People therefore want- 
 ing ' Vidluals at Bethfura ift the Sabbatical 
 Year, it may feem probable, that the imme- 
 diate extraordinary Providence was then 
 ceafed ; or elfe they would not have been 
 forced to fubmit to their Enemies for Want 
 tf ViSfuah, that Year more than another, I 
 only argue with Mr. Warkirton, that it may 
 feem probable, that the extraordinary Pro- 
 vidence had at that Time entirely ceafed : 
 And if fo, then it had ceafed 1 83 Years be- 
 fore Chriji at leaft. The Point then is to 
 prove, that notwithftanding this entire Cefr 
 fation, yet it continued fo long, as Mr- 
 Warburton tells us, it did continue. 
 
 3. Mr. Warburton taxes Dr. Spencer witji. 
 Abfurdity, for maintaining, that " the firft 
 " Step to the Abrogation" of the Theocra- 
 cy " was the Ifraelites Demand of a King : 
 
 " that 
 
176 'fbe "ii A T \j -B. -E of the 
 
 " that it was more impaired when Saulzsi^ 
 " David got , PofTefljon of the Throne : 
 " that it appfoached much nearer its End* 
 " when it became hereditary under Solomoh j 
 '' and yet foi; all this, that fome obfcure 
 " Footfteps of it remained even to the Time 
 « of Chnjir p. 415. 
 
 Let us now confider Mr. Warburfon'^ own 
 Words thirty Pages off. He is fpeaking of 
 the GRADUAL WITHDRAWING of the ex- 
 traordinary Providence. " Under the Judges ^ 
 " iays he, it was perfectly equal. And du- 
 " ring that Period of the Theocracy, it is 
 " remarkable we hear of no domplaints 
 *' at all. When the People had rebellioufly 
 *' demanded a King, and their Folly was fi) 
 *' far complied with, that God fufFered 
 "'the 'Theocracy to be adniiniiler'd by a 
 " Viceroy, there was as was fitting, a great 
 " .Abatement in the Vigour of this ex- 
 *' traordinary Providence, partly in natural 
 " Confequence,^ God being further retnoved , 
 ■" firom the inimediate Adminiflration; part-* 
 " ly in Punifhment of their Rebellion. And 
 '• foon after ti)is, it is that we firfl find them 
 " beginning to make their Remarks and 
 •• Complaints of Inequality. From hence 
 " ' " ter 
 
Jevs^ish Theocracy enf^der'd. ijj 
 
 *"' to the time of the GaptifiMty, the extraor- 
 " dinary Providence kept gradually de- 
 " CAVING, till on their full Setttement, 
 " after their returQ,' it entirely eeyed." p. 
 
 " 445- 
 
 What now is the DiiBference betwijtt 
 
 thefe two Great Men? Dr. Renter hss da- 
 ted '^e jibatenient of the Thedci^cy from 
 the End of the Titoes of the Ju^et : Mf. 
 Warburtm allows that " Under ^6 yiedgifi 
 *' it was perfeSly equal." Dr. Spencer feys,^ 
 that the Theocracy fiiffered fome Imminu- 
 tion under Daeaid: aaid Solomon : Mr. War- 
 burtm hySi " When the People demanded 
 *' a King — ■ — therfe was a great Jiiatement 
 " in the Vigour of this Extraordinary. Pro- 
 *' vMeme." At' laft Mr; Warbttrton owns 
 it TOTAL' Cessation upon the return q£ 
 ihe "Jewi from Captivity ; and to the time 
 k& the Gaptivitya Gradual Decay : Dr. 
 Spencer fays^^ there was a Gradual Imnmu-^ 
 tton of the Theocracy j but as for a total 
 Cessation before Clmfi'% time,'' he was nof 
 inconfi^ent ehou^ to- maintain That. 
 
 4; I cannot but obfervc, that Wt. War- 
 burton aiierts, and feems to knowapHori, 
 fiidfc this Extraordinary Prdvi'dence would 
 N ceafe-/ 
 
178 ^e 1<I AT VK-E of the . 
 
 ceafe, a great many Ages before Chnjt-, ancJ 
 notwkhftanding this, he maintains that the 
 Theocracy was to continue till the Days of 
 Chriji. His Words are, what I in part have 
 cited already, but which I muft again repeat. 
 " After their perfed Settlement on their 
 " return from Captivity, when we know 
 " from the Courfe andProgrefs of God' $ Oec^- 
 *• fiomyi the extraordinary Providence would 
 *• ceafcy &cc" p. 440. How does Mr. War- 
 burton know from the Courfe and Progrefs of 
 God's- Oesonomyy that at that time the extra- 
 ordinary Providence would ceafe? Did 
 God ever difcover beforehand, that it ihould 
 ceafe after their Return a.nd Settlement in 
 their own Land ? Or by what Rule does he 
 form a Judgment, that vvhat was gradu- 
 ALi^y DECAYING to the Captivity, was en^ 
 tirely to ceafe after their Return and fiiU Set- 
 tlement J and yet was to continue till 
 Chriji's time, even fome Hundred of Years 
 after their ftdl Setdement ? I fear Mr. Wdr-^ 
 burton has pronounced a certain lOiowledge, 
 where he has not fufEcient Principles ta 
 reafon on. 
 
 He owns, that the extraordinary Provi- 
 dence «* was long ceafed," when the Au- 
 . ' thoc 
 
JewisU Theocrasv conJi2er'd. lyg 
 
 thor df Ecclejiafiicus lived, p. 439. And 
 whilft the Jews were out of their own Lands- 
 it Was impollible that they fhould obferve 
 the Laws of their King: He had given them 
 up to Captivity,' and ia courfe the whold 
 Frame of their Republic was disjointed, if 
 not perfedly diffolved during thofe Seventj 
 Years. When They returned into their 
 own Land, and fo their national Laws and 
 Conftitutions, and were fettled; there does not 
 feem to be any Return, or at leaft Continuance 
 of an Extraordinary Providence. For the O- 
 racle of Godceafed; Prophecy and Prophets 
 foon ceafed; the promifed Bleffing of the 
 Sabbatical Year ceafed; in fhorty the Jews 
 then began to form a Plan of their own, they 
 mingled up with the Law given by'God, 
 an heterogeneous Compoiition of Human 
 Laws, which were more obferved by many 
 than the Law of God when Chriji appeared, 
 and which he condemned as fo many Addi- 
 tions, the Obfervance of which would not 
 entitle them to any extraordinary Bleflings. 
 
 But I am not enquiring into the Caufes of 
 
 iht, extraordinary Providence Ceafing, but 
 
 into the Fa^ itfelf. It had ceafed fome- 
 
 N z hwh^redr 
 
r8o T'z&e N AT V K^ of tkn. 
 
 hundred of Years before Chriji. camt', as 
 Mr. Warbuvton over g^d,. over cpnf^ff^s,.. 
 The Difficulty then is to {hew that the ^keo-^. 
 cracy continued, or " ended pot till .the 
 " coming of G6r^," p. 404. 
 
 Perhaps Mr. War burton will diffinguifl^ 
 feetweep the ceajfing of the Theocracy, and 
 the ceafing of the Bxtraojfdljtaify Provi-- 
 dence: H§ may fey, that die Theocracy cqb-; 
 tinued till the coming ofGkriji,'y. the Extra-' 
 ordinary Providence entirely ceafe4 at the- 
 full Settlement afiter the return of the Jeiii^si, 
 from their Captivity. Let us then grant that 
 the Theocracy *' revived after tl;ie return from, 
 ?• the Captivity," as he tells us p. 416. 
 And that " that Ptifpeniation of Providence 
 fopn- ceafed after the Re-eflablifhmen,t." 
 iJjid. We are ftill as much in the Dark as 
 ever J npr will this Diftinftion help th? 
 Matter, or free Mr. Warburton from great 
 felf-Contradidbion. For He tells us, " one 
 ^' NECESSARY confequencc [of a Th^qocracy} 
 *' was an Extraordinary Providence." 
 For the Afeirs of a People under a Theoqra- 
 cy being adminiflred '* by GOD as Kino; 
 ?' and his peculiar and immediate Admini- 
 ^* flration in human Afiairs being what we 
 
 " call 
 
Jewish Theocracy rtfo^JisferV. iSj 
 
 V call an Extraordinary Propsidencej it fol- 
 " lows that an ^Extraordinary Providence 
 t* muft NEEDS be exercifed over fuch a Peo- 
 *' ;ple. MyTMeaning is, that if the Jenffs 
 " were reaUy uq^er a 'Theocracy ^ they were 
 *' really under an Extraordinary Providence. 
 
 «' in a Word, they muft be either both 
 
 " true or both felfe, but ftill infeparabk. 
 
 ^ If this be the Cafe, then it is plain that a 
 Theocracy cannot be without an Extraordi- 
 nary Frffuid&nce, But then Mr. WdrburtQn 
 has fliewn, and at large ipfifts upon it, that 
 the Extraordinary Providence entirely 
 CEASED feveral hundi:ed Years before Chriji's 
 coming : Naji he fays, that he " knows from^ 
 ^' the Courfc and, Progref$ of God's Oeconomy^ 
 ," ^/&^/ ^iȣ' Ex|iraordinary Providence would 
 "seafe at /i^^" full Settlement oix^^fews after 
 _" thekreturnftomtheCaptivity." p,44o. He 
 .ha^^-likewife. proved by feveral Arguments, 
 ** that the theocracy continued even to the 
 *' comiag of C&rj/?." p. 417, 418. By this 
 means we are left in inextricable Difficulties: 
 For Firft, we have a Theocracy fubfifting 
 many hundred Years without an extraordi- 
 nary Providence, viz. from the Settlement 
 N 3 of 
 
r82 fhe Nature of the 
 
 pf the Jews, after their return, to the time 
 oiChriJi: And confequently, Secondly, a 
 Theocracy wherein an Extraordinay Provi- 
 dence NEEDS not be exercifed. ' Thirdly, We 
 have a Theocracy without a Necessary 
 Consequence of a Theocracy, i. e. with- 
 out an extraprdinary Providence. And 
 whereas he afferts that " the Theocracy and 
 " extraordinary Providence, muftbe either 
 *' Both true or Both falfe, but ftill infepa- 
 *' rable" He himfelf has fliewn then^ to 
 hefeparabJe, by Ihewing that the one did in 
 hh fubfift without the other for fo many 
 hundred Years, as were between the Settle- 
 ment of the Jews after their return from 
 Captivity and thd coming of C$riji. 
 •■ Mr. Warburton's fecond Objedtion againft 
 Dr. Spencer is-, " in his Argiiments fir the, 
 ** Abolition of the Theocracy, inftead of at- 
 *^ tempting to prove it on the great Princi- 
 *' pies of Civil Policy, the only way of der 
 " tcrmining the Queftion with certainty, he 
 »' infifts much on the Difufe of Ur/w and 
 *' Thummim, &c. He brings the E)efpotic 
 f Power of the Kings, as another Argtiment, 
 ff which I think proves the very contrary. 
 ?f For were thefe Kipgs the Viceroys ©f 
 ^ ' ^ ' " God, 
 
Jewish Theocracy confider^d. 183 
 
 *' God, whole Power was delpotic, their's 
 *' muft neceffarily be the fame j not fo, if 
 *' Monarchs in their own Right." p. 4.15. 
 
 *' In his Arguments for the Abolition of 
 *^ the theocracy f" — Has Dr. Spencer any 
 Arguments for the Abolition of the Theo- 
 cracy before the Days of Chrifi ? He 
 has no fuch Arguments; nor I dare lay 
 never thought of fuch a Topic j be- 
 caule he tells us that it continued to the lafi 
 times of their 'Polity. He has indeed a Sec- 
 tion alDOUt the T).urafion of the Theocracy, 
 in which he lays down four Thefes, about 
 the gradual declining of the Theocracy: 
 And in one of them, he Ihews that it was 
 not at an End in Saul and David^s Days, 
 becaufe in their time the divine Oracle was 
 conlulted-: that in Solomon's time, there was 
 a Difufe of the Oracle of Urim and l^um- 
 mimy which was the moft eminent Pledge 
 and Indication of the divine Government : 
 from this he concludes it nearer £<f«.vt9ii$, to 
 a diiappearing. But lince he allows it to 
 continiae for a tho^fand or eleven hundred 
 Years after this, how is it poffible for him 
 to bring Arguments for the Aiolition of the 
 Theocracy from the Difufe oiUrimzxidLThum- 
 jnim f He' could mean only an Abatement. 
 N 4 2. Sup- 
 
2. Suppofe he lifes an Argument takgn 
 from the. Defpotic Power of the Jewi^ 
 Kings. — ' Is this to prove an Abdition of the 
 Theocracy, which he owns to have conti- 
 nued to the End of th&^yemjh Polity ? A 
 Defpotic Power in a King governing all things 
 by hi? own Will and Pleafure, is quite a difr 
 ferent thing from an abfolute Power delega- 
 ted by God to his Vkeroy : This muft aU 
 ways be diredbed by Truth, Juftice an4 
 Goodnefs ; w'hejjeas the other is, or may be, 
 what cannot he delegated by God, nothing 
 but Humour, Caprice and pancy. Dr, Spen- 
 cer therefore never brings an Argiiment froni 
 the Defpotic Power of their Kings to prove 
 an AhUtiou of the' Theocracy, but . an Im- 
 minution, a lejfemng of it, a Declenjion of it. 
 God might, and Dr. Spencer thinks that, H^ 
 did, not fo visibly fhew himfelf . the imme- 
 diate King and Governor of Ifrml, after aSot 
 lqmoh'$ Days, as he did before : And he ipiar 
 gines that this appears from certain Circum* 
 ftances in and after thofe Tinies, where tl^ele 
 Viceroys made yfe of ' a Defpotic Power, no^ 
 according to Truth and Uprightnefs. But 
 s& to 2i total CeJJation, or as Mr. Warburton. 
 calls it, an Abolition of the Theocracy, Dr. 
 
 '■■■'' " ",; Speneer 
 
Jewish Theocracy po^j/Sl^rV. 185 
 
 fencer is not foinconfiftqnt as to fuppofe it 
 to continue to Chriji's tame at leaft, and yet 
 to pkad tliat it totally ceafcd either a thourf 
 Jfajid or five hundred Years befare that timci 
 
 The 'Bird Objedtion of Mr. Warburton 
 k, that though Dr. Spencer in one Place 
 *' fuppofes z gradual decay of the Theocra- 
 " x;y, and that even fome obfcure Footfleps 
 f of it remained to the time of Chriji, yet 
 f in the following Sedtion he all the way 
 *' argues upon the Suppofition of an abfo^ 
 " lute and entire Abrogation^ by the eftabr 
 • ' lifhment of the Kings," p. 416. 
 
 Here again is Dr. Spencer miich miire|M-e- 
 fented, fcom not confidering what he meant 
 by the Abrogation of God's Governmcfa. Nat 
 that the Theocracy entirely ceafed; but the 
 Government received an Alteration and 
 Abatement. And therefore Jhe ufes more 
 than once the Phrafe of, regiminis mu- 
 tatis in this very Section, and telk us, 
 that when the Ifraelites defired a King — 
 hoc in re I^eus ab arte regis politici non 
 recejjit. God did not recede from the Art of 
 tfPolitic^ Governor, but confented to their 
 Jlequefts in order to avoid a greater Evil. 
 Where is the Abfurdity or Inconfiflency 0/ 
 this way of Reafoning, unlefs Abrogation Is 
 
 made 
 
i86 7be Nature of tbe 
 
 made to fignify a tdtal Abolition j and Dura* 
 tion is conftnied to be Cejfation ? 
 
 But let me now proceed to the Second 
 Point, which relates to the Exercife of an 
 extraordinary Providence over Particular 
 Perfons as well as over the State in general* 
 
 The Scripture Reprefentation of the Theo^ 
 cracy, as Mr. Warburton afliires us, " was, 
 ** I . Over the State in general: And 2. Over 
 *^ private Men in particular." p. 434. I 
 have no Doubts about the former of thefe 
 Cafes : For where a Law was given by God, 
 and He condefcended to become the King of 
 a Nation ; aiKl a folemn Covenant was en- 
 ter'd into by the People, and by God, as 
 their King j and where Bleffings were fo- 
 lemnly promifed upon Obedience to the Law, 
 or Curfes were denounced upon Difbbe- 
 dScncej and this by one who was able to 
 execute whatever he engaged; no doubt 
 can be about the reciprocal Obligations, or 
 about God's performing his part of the Ob- 
 ligation, fince it is his property not to lie nor 
 deceive. Temporal Rewards and Punilhments 
 beihg then the SanBion of the Jewijh Law, 
 thefe mull be dilpenfed by God fo as to make 
 ^e State happ^ and flourilhing if they kept 
 ■ • the 
 
Jewish Theocracy eonfider'd, 187 
 
 the Law, or elfe mifcrable if they difobey'd 
 it. If they obferVed, and did all the 'Com- 
 mandments, which God commanded them, 
 God had engaged to make them Ugh above 
 all Nations y which he had made y in Praife^ 
 end in Namey and in Honour j and if Enet 
 mies rofe up againji them, the Lord would 
 eaufe them to befmitten. On the other hand, 
 if they grew negligent of their Law, or nvent 
 ajide from any of the Words commanded them, 
 — to ferve other Gods, then the Lord was 
 to fend Curfngy Fexationy and Rebuke in all 
 thoufetteji thine Hand unto for to doy until 
 thou be defirofdy and until thou perijh quickly. 
 The Bleffings and the Curfes were general^ 
 and nationaly agreeable to the Charadler of 
 a Kingy and to a Zrt?^«/Adminiftration: Such 
 as related to them as a People j and not to 
 Particular Perfons. 
 
 The Queftion then that now is to be con- 
 fider'd is. Whether an Extraordinary Pro- 
 vidence was adminifter'd to ParticularSy in 
 iiich manner, that " n^TranjgreJhr efcaped 
 " Punijhmerity nor any Obferver of the Law 
 *' mifed his Reward." This was the State 
 of the Jews under an Equal Providencey as 
 Mr. Warburton tells us, p-. 452, . and by 
 
 this 
 
1 88 I'be Nature of t^e . 
 
 fhis Means, " humaii Afeirs tnlght be kept 
 " in good drdjer v^khout the Do<Srine ibf ji_ 
 " futurt 3tate of ReWalrds aqd Pu&iflififi 
 *' ments." . • ^ 
 
 . That Go(l did btefs Particular Pefiblis, 
 ajnohgft the jf(?wj, as well as now he db©s, 
 in all Nations, is certain : but that he fa 
 difpenfed his Favours, as that "no Obferver 
 *• of the Law miffed his Reward, nor did 
 '* any Tranfgreflbr efcape Ptinifhmeht," i§ 
 fer from being clear. T\)&:Natmft^ con^ 
 Eder'd as a Nation, had this peculiar to itj 
 that when they. did. Eniil in the Sight of the 
 Iidrd, they were tkliver'J-info the Hands of 
 their Enemies : When they repented, and 
 pui away the firange Gdds from among thern^ 
 and ferve4 the Lord, they were deliver 'd,. 
 InftauceS of this are frequent in the Botok of 
 yadges^ and in the Hiftory of the Kings of 
 J^ifeL But if we defcend t<J an extraordi- 
 nary Providence over Particulars, even in 
 ithofe Times, I do not remenaber what will 
 ' amount to Proof. Soon after thefe Times, 
 " tiie Sacred Writers themfelves frequently 
 ■' ipeak of thp Inequality of Providence to 
 " Particulars, An fuch a Manner as Meji 
 ll living under a common Providence, are 
 
 , " ^^ccuftomed 
 
" aGi;ufto^^to fpeak." p. 442-3. They 
 
 eompl?iin of the Profperity of the^ Wicked, 
 
 ^nd the ill SiAceefs, of Qoipd Men, : Nay 
 
 fpmetin^ Thfiy fay^ Alt 'ThiH^s come nHh^ 
 
 tp all : there is one Event to the i?ightC0iU;& 
 
 a^d wiqked, to the good a/id clean, and t9 
 
 tpe unclean j to him that facrificethj and tn 
 
 him that' jfi^rifieetk not : As is theGooAtfi 
 
 AS the Sinner, tind^ hfi fhaf fwearethy as he 
 
 ^atfeareth ofi Oifthy, Eqcief^ ix. 2. If wc 
 
 go up lugher to JOfavid*^. Day?, Afit^ feys, 
 
 A^ 'peet were almfi' gone, — Ifmv the Prgf- 
 
 perity of the Wicked : They are not in th^ 
 
 Trquhk of ^ther Men^ vMiher me tk^ 
 
 plagmd Wthf other ]^n, iTfet^eJire' Brl^ 
 
 M^p^hth tbeM apout as a Chain, Violence co~ 
 
 ^.^eth, t^em as. a Garment- — Mehold thefe are 
 
 ^e \Ji!^^i<^y who profper iip the World, they 
 
 increafe in, Riches,. Pfal. xxiii- 2-12. Je- 
 
 rfw;^'s. Complaint is fo ftrong» that itjjs 
 
 unconceivable how he fl^oijld njake it» were 
 
 an ©xfeR<pitdi^i?y Providen<;e over Particii- 
 
 Jbrs, ejceiited. J^ighteoMS ^t thoiiy Lord^ 
 
 when Ipkadwth; thee, yfit let me taik with 
 
 thee di Ijfey Judgments : Wker^ore doth the 
 
 Way of the Wicfee^ pfofp*^ ? Wherefot^are 
 
 dl they happy i^at deal very tyeacherouHy ? 
 
 Thm 
 
tgo 'V the N A T u R I; of f&e 
 
 ^ou haft planted them y yea^ they have fake4 
 Root ; they grow, yea, they bring forth Fruit i 
 thou art near in their Mouth, and far front 
 their Reins. Jer. xii. i, 2. If from thefe, 
 and fUch general Complaints among the 
 Sacred Writers, one defcends to particular 
 CafeiSi -'-- Whence was it that, Jojiah was 
 fl'ain e'er he •wzsjbrty Years old, when like 
 unto him there was no King before him, thai 
 turned to the Lord mth all his Heart, and 
 •with all his Soul, and with all his Might, ac-' 
 cording to all\he. Law oiMofes, neither after 
 him drofe there any like him, 2 King, Xxiii,- 
 25. And in much earlier Days, when So- 
 lomon had forfaken God, and worfhipped 
 AJhtoreth, Chemojh, and Milcom, yet He 
 was continued Prince all the Days of bii 
 Life, and the Kingdom was taken out of 
 his Son's Hands, to be given to Jeroboam^ 
 1 King. xi. 33, 35. a Prince that was as 
 Idolatrous and Wicked, or more fo, rfian 
 ever v^s Solomon himihlf. And if we go up 
 higher ftill, to thofe early Days, when all 
 agree, th^t the Theocracy was in its full 
 Force, when Achan had ftolen the fFedge 
 of Gold, and had fnned againjl the Lord 
 God of Ifrael, the Forces of Jo^ua were 
 
 fmitteM 
 
Jewjsh TriEOGRACV mifider'd. 191 
 
 faaitten before the Men of ^'. The Crin^ 
 was Achan*% alone, but the Funijhnuni fell 
 on the difcomiked Army oilfreeL 
 
 This Objedtion, taken from the Com- 
 plaints made by the Sacred Writers, was fo 
 ^11 and ftrong, that tho' Mr. Warburtm 
 promifes to prove hereafter that an equal 
 Providence was anally adminifter'd, yet 
 for his Readers prefent SatisfoBiont He 
 would fhew, that " thefe Reprefentations 
 " of Inequality are very confijlent with that 
 " before given of the Equality of Provi- 
 ** dence." p. 443. I will ejamin^ with 
 as much Brevity as I can, what he has iaid ; 
 and leave you to judge, vvhether he has 
 faid enough to give his Reader prefent Sa-j 
 tiifaSiion. 
 
 Firfl:, He fays, " That when the Sacred 
 " Writers ipeak of the Inequality of Pro- 
 " vidence, and the unfit Diftribution of 
 *' Things, they fometimes mean that State 
 " of it amongft their Pagan Neighbours^ 
 *' and not in yudaa ; as particularly in the 
 " Book oiPfalms and Ecclejiafies" p. 443^ 
 
 Afaphy or whoever was the Author of 
 the P^/;% before cited, .complains heavily, 
 and was almofl; fbgger'd at the ^rofperity of 
 
 th^: 
 
iges ^ ' 'the Nature of tbi 
 
 tile wicked. Thefe wicked Men were not,' 
 it fcems, JewSi but t|ieir Pagan Neighbours'. 
 He then that lived under an equal Provi-; 
 dence, where the Wicked were conftantly 
 punifhed and the Good as conftantly re- 
 warded, was almoft loft, when he confi-^ 
 der'd, that where there was no equal Pro- 
 vidence, there the Wicked were profperous, 
 and the Good ftiffer'd. Did He not know 
 the Difference betwixt Ifrael, and its Neigh-' 
 boars ? Was not God the King of Ifrael f 
 And did. he ftand in that Relation to other , 
 Nations ? How then could he be furprifed fb 
 much at the- Profperity of the Wicked in 
 the Heathen World ? But fuppafing him to 
 confider God, as eminently Good to Ifrael-; ' 
 as the King and Governor of it, then He 
 m;ght well wonder at the Profperity of the 
 Wicked ^xQDr\^ God's People j and his Won- 
 der might be much greater than it ufually 
 has been in the World, where this Diffi" 
 eulty has been made a common Objedibn 
 againft Providence. 
 
 But let us examine the Pfalm itfelf. Truly 
 God ii Good to Ifrael: Much in the fame 
 Manner fays Jeremiah^ Righteous art thou, 
 O Lord. This is a- Principle fo certain, 
 
 tJiat- 
 
Jewish Theocracy conJiOer'd. igi 
 
 that it can never be given up^ let what Dif- 
 ficulties foevcr be raifed. Then the Pfal- 
 miji goes pn^ ,Asfor ine, my Feet were almoji 
 gone, — for I envied the foolijh, — thofe who 
 iaSed as if there were no God, — / Jaiv the 
 Prafperitj of the Wicked. Could the Pfal- 
 miliy under the immediate Providence of 
 God, and reaping the Benefits of his Good- 
 nefs upon Mr. Warburton'^ Scheme, envy 
 the foolifk Heathen ? For what fhould he 
 envy them ? Was not he as happy in the 
 Enjoyment of the good Things of Life, as 
 they were ? He .goes on to defcribe their 
 Profperity, and Wantonnefs^ and Slight of 
 God^ or his Knowledge ^ — And then fays, 
 Verily I have cleanfed my Heart in vain ^ and 
 siiajhed. my Han:d$^ in Innocency. v^ 1 3 . How 
 fo ? Does every particular Wicked Man 
 among the Gentiles incteafe in Riches, grow 
 great and powerful^ and have mere than 
 Heart can wijhf No fiirely; This is not 
 univerfally true among the Heathen, more 
 than it was among the ^ews : Bnt fame cer- 
 tain Perfons that were wickedj proffered in 
 the World': But whether they were Jewi or 
 Heathens^ the PJalmtft^^ not, hitherto de*; 
 elared* But that they were fews appears 
 
 o it0m. 
 
194 ^^. Nature of the 
 from what follows. If I fay, I imUfpeak 
 thus, viz. that I have cleanfed my Heart in 
 vain,— I Jhould offend againji the Generation 
 of thy Children : I fliould give jaft Offence 
 to them, by publifhing fo injurious a Falfe-' 
 hood among thy People; What then does 
 the Pfalmiji refolve on ? Why, to go into 
 the SanSiuary of God, and thence to learn 
 this Secret, and there to learn the End of 
 fuch Men. ^hou caftedft them into Dejiruc-^ 
 tion, furely ihou didf; fet them in flipper^ 
 Places : How are they brought into Defolationi 
 as in a Moment ? They . are utterly confumed 
 mith Terror Si &c. How would he havfe 
 offended againji the Jews, by publifhing, 
 that there was an Unequal Providence among 
 their Pagan Neighbours ? Would ' the Con- 
 fequence have been, that Then th© ye*^s 
 might live wickedly, and yet profper in the 
 World ? How would this follow, when the 
 ^ewskxitMv that God was their King, and 
 that every Tranfgreffor would be punijhed, 
 every good Man would be rewarded? 
 Whereas, if you fuppofe that the Pfalmifi 
 fpeaks of fews, • wicked fews that profper'd 
 in the World, all is eafy ; and He only 
 raifes the common Objedion againfl Pro^- 
 
 vidence. 
 
^ Jewish Theocracy confi4er'd. 195 
 
 yidence, aggravated indeed from the Coni^ 
 fideration of the Theocracy, and tells us 
 what gave hiin Satisfaftipa upon fp nice a 
 .$ubje<a. . 
 
 Much lefs ftill is the Jlefle(3:iQn.of tiift 
 Preachferin Ecdejafies defign'd to relate tp 
 his Pagan Neighbours. It is an Univerf^ 
 Ohfervation, that thje Work ef God is infcru- 
 table even to a IFife Map- On whiph Ac- 
 count the Author propofeg to declare, that 
 no Man could judge of either I^ove or Ha-^ 
 tred by what was before him, Jince all 
 ^ings come dike fa alh there is one Event 
 to the righteous f and to the nvicked, &c. This 
 nvas an Evil among all Things done under the 
 Sun, that there is one Event to all. Has he 
 inade any Exception for Ifraelf Nq : But 
 he maintains, that the Race is not to tb? 
 Sivift } nor the Battle to the Strgng j neither 
 yet Bread to the Wife ; nor yet Riches to Men 
 of XJnderfianding j nor yet Favour to Men of 
 Skill ; but Time and Chance happeneth to them 
 all. Ecclef ix. 11. Could a Wife Maij, 
 under an Extraordinary Providence hi^elf 
 talk in this Manner, thus Univerfally, and 
 niake no Exceptions for his own Natipa ? 
 Did he not fee a Inference betwixt the 
 O 2 People 
 
i^(> The Nature of ^e 
 
 People' of Ifraeli and all other People ? Or' 
 if there was fuch a Difference, as Mr. JVar- 
 burton contends for, could he fail taking 
 Notice of it ? Would not his own People bC 
 fed iSto" ■'^^^rong Notions by fuch univerfal 
 Aflertidhs ? 1 cannot therefore but think> 
 that this' Solution given by Mx. tVarhurion 
 is not only hot fufficiently well grounded ^ but 
 that it has no Poufidatidn at alf, viz. that the 
 PfaJmiJi, and the Son of David, fpoke of 
 their JPa^an Neighbours, and not of the 
 yewSy when they exprelfed themfelves fof 
 ftrongly about the Profperity of the Wicked, 
 and the Misfortune of good Men. 
 
 Mr. Warbnrton has given us a ftcond So- 
 lution of this Difficulty, no bettfer, I think, 
 than the former. ^' We fbmetimes find 
 " particular M.Qn corhplainirig o? Inequalities 
 " in Events, which were indeed the EffeSfs 
 " of a mbfl equal Providence. Such aS' 
 ** the Punijhment of Pojlerity for the Crimes 
 " of \}si€vc Forefathers \ arid oi SubjeBs for 
 " their Kings.'* p. 443. 
 
 Thefe are indeed remarkable Inftances of 
 ah extraordinary equal Providence, whert 
 " no TranfgrefTor could efcape Punifhment, 
 *• nor Good Man efcape Reward," to 
 
 tell 
 
Jewlsih Theocracy conjder'd. 1^7 
 
 tell us oi trMTifgreJJing Forefathers efcaping, 
 and their /»«oc^«^ Children being^»//Z>^(/; of 
 •wicked Kings under no Misfortunes, and in- 
 nocent Subjedts fuffering on their Account | 
 What is the Difference betwixt an Equals 
 and, an Unequal Providence, if Good Chil- 
 dren are punijhed for bad Fathers, or good 
 Subjects fpr had Kings i How is this to be 
 reconciled Xq Juftice, or Goodnefs, or Im- 
 partiality in an extraordinary Providence? 
 Or what is an extraordinary Providence^ but 
 the Difpl^ of Rewards and Puniflvments 
 here, according to the Merit or Demerit, 
 the good or ill Behaviour of particular Per- 
 fons ? It is thus, that Mr.. Warburton ,has 
 defined-it, and this is what He contends for. 
 Davids QuefUon, which Mr. Warburton 
 here mentions, — But tbefe Shefp., -what have 
 they done, — will require another Anfwer, 
 when an immediate and peculiar Admini- 
 ftration of God is fuppofed, than to fay^ 
 that " the Subjefts were puniflied for their 
 " King." Where there is no Guilt, there 
 can be no "Piinijhment due^ and if Kings 
 z.Qi wickedly, and their Subjears are inno- 
 cent, how can the Subjects he puniflied, or 
 £vqn fuffer, in a St^te where Rewards an4 
 O 3 Punifhment^ 
 
198 ^e N A T u R E of the 
 
 Punifliments are fuppofed to be fitly and 
 equally dilpenfed ? This would be punifh^ 
 ing Imocence, and letting the Guilty not 
 fufFer: It would be transfemng Guilt, whicK 
 Can never be the " EffeSi of the mofl equal 
 *' Providence. If David Vmhtdi, David 
 ought to fufFer for it, aiid not his innocent 
 Siubjeds, his innocent Sheep^ that no Ways 
 were concerned. Ahd if the Confequences 
 of fuch an Adminiftration as that of a Theo- 
 cracy are fiich, that the Innocent muft be 
 involved in the Crimes of the Guilty, nay 
 are punifhed for the Guilty, it feems im- 
 poffibleto find out a Difference betwixt an 
 eqUal and an unequal Providence. •• • ■ > 
 
 Mir. Warburton has observed, "that 
 
 " the great Purpofe of his Work is to 
 *' prove, that the Mefaic Religion wanting 
 " a Doftrine of a future State of Rewards 
 " and Punilhments, ikt' Jews mv^'v really 
 " have enjoy'd that equal Providence un- 
 *' der which Holy Scripture reprefents thepi: 
 *' to h^ve lived. And then, no Trnnfgrejfor 
 " efcaping Ptinijhment, nor any Objervef of 
 " the Law rd^ng his Reward j human Af^ 
 *' feirs. might be kept in good Order, with- 
 " out theDodrine of a future State of Re* 
 '■ "wajds 
 
Jewish Theoceacy ton^r'd. 199 
 
 " wiards and Punffliments." p. 452. The 
 Difficulty inftantly occurr'd, that the Law 
 had exprefsly declared, that God would in 
 certain Cafes vijit the Sim of the Fathers 
 upon the Children unto the third and fourth 
 Generation, Here the innocent Children are 
 made to fuffer for their finning Parents j and 
 this feems to be a direct Contradidtion to 
 the Law qf an Equal Providence, where 
 no Tranfgrejor could efcape Punijhment, nor 
 any Obfer^ers of the Law could mifs their 
 Reward. 
 
 To get. rid of this Difficulty, He obferves, 
 *' That the Violence of irregular Paffions 
 *' would make fome Sort of Men, of ilrong- 
 *' er Complexions, fuperior to all the Fear 
 " o£ perfenal 'Temporal Evil " Yes, and to 
 the Fear of all perfonal Future E'vils too, as 
 daily Experience fhews. But what if they 
 were of fuch audacious, vioJfent Spirits ? 
 Are there no perfonal temporal Evils fuffi- 
 cient to make them fenfible of their Folly ? 
 Would not Sicknefles, Difeafes, Calamities, 
 Diftrefles of many kinds, inftantly and con- 
 ftantly inflided, make them feel and own 
 the Hand that laid them on ? Or would not 
 inftant Death put an End to their Wicked"^ 
 O 4 nefs? 
 
200 ^be Nature of the 
 
 Wickednefs ? But inftead of" this, which 
 fhould feem the Way of an Equal Previa 
 dence, where no Tranfgreffor was to efcape, 
 Mr. Warhurton tells us, " That to lay hold 
 " ofthefe \yiz, who were fuperior to per7 
 " fonal teniporal Evils] and to gain a due 
 " Afcendant over the moft. determined, 
 " the Punifhments, in this Inftitution, are 
 " extended to the Pofierity of wicked Men, 
 " which the inftindtive Fondnefs of Parents 
 " to their 0£fepring would make terrible to 
 " thofe who have hardned themfelves into 
 'f an Infenfibility of perfonal Punifhments." 
 
 P-,453- 
 
 But be thefe hardned Wretches ever ib 
 
 infenflble oi perfonal Punifliments,^~Mufl: 
 the innocent Pofterity of thefe miferable, ob- 
 flinate Offenders be vifited for them, in an 
 Inftitution, where no IranfgreJJ'or is to ef^ 
 cape Punifhment, and no Qbferver of the 
 Law is to mifs his Reward ? Will it not al- 
 ways be asked, — But thefi Sheep, what have 
 they done ? Why are they to mifs their Re- 
 ward, when they have not tranfgreffed, but 
 are only unhappily defcendcd from a tranf- 
 greffing Parent three or four Generations 
 
 ■■■ It 
 
Jewish Theocracy conftder'd. 201 
 
 It is certain that the inftinftive Fondnefs 
 of Parents to their Offspring is oftentimes 
 fo great, that the fears of their Children's 
 Sufferings will very much reftrain them from 
 the purfiiit of irregular Paffions ; and ijiake 
 them obferve the Laws of their Country^ 
 and not engage in Pradtices detrimental to 
 the public Weal. And on this account in 
 all Countries the iEffcdts and Confequences 
 of fome Punifhments of Parents are extend- 
 ed to their Pofterity : And the Civil Law 
 that eftablifhes fuch Penalties is very juft 
 and natural, as it makes Men forfeit Honours 
 andEftates, and whatever Privileges fhould 
 defcend- to Children. But this is not the 
 cafe in Hand. The previous Suppofition is^ 
 that " no TranfgreJJor is to efcape Funijh'-. 
 " menti and every Obferver of the Law is 
 " never to mifs his Reward." The Quef- 
 tion then is, upon tbii Suppofition^ How a 
 guilty Parent's Crimes can ever be vifited 
 upon his innocent Children to the third or 
 fourth Generation ? It is no Anfwer, ei- 
 ther to talk of " inftindlive Fondnefs in Pa- 
 *• rents," or the ufual Pradtice in all Nations, 
 that Ae Titles and Eftates of Rebels fliall 
 ept defcend tq tJieir Poftefitieg. Th? gafe 
 
 in 
 
303: ^e Nature of the 
 
 in debate is, fbe vijiiing the Iniquities of the 
 Fathers upon the innocent Chtidren, at the 
 j&me time, that Iniquity cannot efcape, nor 
 Innoeency be punifhed. 
 
 It is allowed to 'be in many Inflances a 
 grievous Affliction to Parents to have theif 
 Children involved in their Crimes. And 
 therefof e the better to keep Subjefts in Obe- 
 dience to the Laws, it is very ufual to extend 
 to Pofterity the Confequences of a Parent's 
 Crimes. But the prefent Point is, how 
 this can be done confiftent with an equal 
 Providence. The Laws of Men cannot be 
 fo made, or executed, as not to bear hard on 
 Others befides Offenders ; and the unhappy 
 Few who happen to be SuiFerers muft fit 
 contented uiider their Difficulties for the 
 Sake of the whole. But where an Extra- 
 ordinary-Providence is fuppofed, and Inno- 
 cence is a fure Prote<3:ion, and Wickednefs 
 is attended with certain Suffering, the Re- 
 Verfe of this cannot be put in Pra<3:ice with- 
 out Contradiction, i. e. without deftroying 
 that £^/ Providence, which is all along 
 pre-fuppofed. 
 
 He goes on and obferves, " that this Pu- 
 <* nifbment [of vifiting the Iniquities of 
 
 " Fathers 
 
Jewish *rHE0CRACY conji^er'd. 203 
 
 *' Fathers upon Children] was only to fup- 
 *' piy the want of ^future Stete." ibid. But 
 how will this *' extraordinary Oeconomy'- 
 fupply this Want ? " The Children at prefent 
 fuffer for theii* ParentsCrimes ; and are fup- 
 pofed to be punifhed when they have no 
 Guilt. Is not this a plain aft of Hardship ? 
 And if there be no future State, no Com- 
 |)enfation made, the Hardfliip done muft 
 continue for ever a Hardfhip to the unhappy 
 Sufferer. So that to fupply the want ofaju- 
 ture State, Innocence is made to fuffer at 
 prefent, even in a State where Innocence can- 
 not ^1 of a Reward. A fad Supply of fo 
 great a Good! 
 
 ; Mr. Warburton had before him the Prac- 
 tice " of modern States in attaint of Blood 
 *' arid Confifcation," and he allows this to 
 be done with the higheft Equity : and fays, 
 " thus it muft needs be under a Theocracy i 
 ** God fupported the Ifraelites in Judea by 
 ** aii 'extraordinary Adminiftration of his 
 *' Providence : The Confequence of which 
 *' was great temporal Ble^ngs given them on 
 f" Condiiim, and to which they had fio na- 
 " tural Claim. Could any thing therefore 
 *' be mqre equitable, than on the Violation 
 "'' ■ . ' "of 
 
I04 lie Nature of the 
 
 *' of that Condition to withdraw thofe ex- 
 *' fraordinary Bleffings from the Children of 
 ** a Father thus oiFending?" p. 457-8. 
 
 It is true» that the Jews had no natural 
 Claim to great temporal Bleffings. But then 
 tbey had a Claim to them from exprefs Prs- 
 mife, which is as good a Claim in the pre-r 
 lent Cafe as any natural Claim whatever. 
 They had this Claim indeed ^ onCondition;" 
 A Condition of certain Behaviour, which if 
 they complied with, no Obferver was to mifs 
 his Renvard. The cafe is put of an innocent 
 Child fuffering on account of a guilty Father. 
 The innocent Child has a right to temporal 
 Blejfings by virtue of exprefs Promife -, and 
 no Sin iof the Father can deprive him of 
 Aefe Bleffings withmit a Violation of the 
 Covenant : For if it would, an Obferver of 
 the Law would mifs his Reward. It would 
 therefore in the prefent Cafe be fo far from 
 " equitable to withdraw, thofe extrao^-dinary 
 "Bleffings from the Children of an offend- 
 " ing Parent," that it would be a direift 
 Violation of Contract, and Engagement: 
 it would be a Breach of Promife in God, 
 and confequently a thing impoffible in itfelf '' 
 
 The 
 
Jewish ITheocracy conJider'J. 20'^ 
 
 The T^ird Solution of this Difilenlty, «y/5r.* 
 •* That the facred Writers themfelves fire- 
 ** quently fpeak of the Jniqudliiy of Provi- 
 ** dence to Farticulars" does not at ali clear 
 up the Matter ; nay, I cannot but think, 
 that it involves us in greater Diffictilties, 
 and Ihews how much perplexed this No- 
 tion is. It ftands thus. ** Admitting 
 " the reality of an equal Providence to Tar- 
 *^ ticulars in the Hebrew State, the Admi- 
 " nifbration of it must needs^ be attended 
 •^ with flich Cireumftances, as fometimes to 
 «' occafion thofe Obfervations of Inequality ^^ 
 p. 444. /• e. in plain Terms, an equal Pro- 
 vidence MUST NEEDS be obfervcd to be 
 Unequal. Is not this a plain Acknowledg- 
 ment, that an equal Providence cannot be 
 adminiftred at all, fince it mull needs be 
 attended with fuch Cireumftances as mufi: 
 appear unequal? But the Inftances he brings 
 to folve this Difficulty are fo many cleaf 
 Proofs againft the thing itfelf. For, 
 
 1 . " It appears, fays he, from the Reafod 
 *' of the thing, that this Adminiftration did 
 " not begin to be exerted in particular Cafes, 
 *• till the Civil Laws of the Republic had 
 *• fail 'd of their EfHcacy. Thus, where any 
 
 " Crime, 
 
2b6 The li at u k:e of the 
 
 " Crime, as for Inftance, Difobedience to 
 " Parents, vfzs public, it became the Object 
 " of the Civil .Tribunal, and is accordingly 
 *' ordered to be punilhed by the Judge., 
 " But whea private and fecret, then it be^ 
 " came the Objed of divine Vengeance." 
 Let this be admitted i Now, fays Mr. War-r 
 iurtorty " the Cbnfequence of this was, that 
 ** when the Laws were nemijl^ or corruptly 
 ** adminiftred, Gopd and 111 W(7aA/f©metimeS 
 " happen unequally to Men." 
 
 On the Contrary, J fay, that this is no 
 Confequence at all : For upon Suppofition 
 of an extraordinary Providence, equally ad- 
 miniftred, the guilty Perfons ought to fuf- 
 fer ty Divine Vengeance^ and the coirupt 
 and remifs Magiftrate too, a,s being guilty of 
 a Crime in not doing his Duty. In the pre-; 
 ient Cafe,^ God being God as well as King^ 
 and being juft, and true to his Promife, and 
 meafuring every one's Anions by the rule of 
 right, if he is obliged in virtue of the TheQ" 
 Qrafy to fee that no *IranJgrejj'ar efcapes Pu~ 
 nijhmenty it is certain, that He has Power 
 to make ^hem all fufFer ; and he has }Cnow-» 
 ledge, which no Magiftrate, more than ihe 
 difobedient Child, could efcape, He there- 
 fore 
 
Jewish Theocracy f«g^^(?rV. 207 
 
 fore with eafe could knpw whatever hap 
 pened in the State ; and by difplacing one 
 Viceroy, and putting in another, or by a 
 jjrevious Knowledge of who would be re- 
 mifs or corrupt, he could remedy this Evil, 
 But, fays Mr, W/fr^wtm, " We are not 
 *' tofuppofi that Providence in this Cafe ge_ 
 *' nerally interfered, till the corrupt Jldm- 
 *' nitration itfelfy when ripe for Vengeance 
 *' had been punijhed." ibid. The Interpo- 
 fition of an e^ai Providence muft be very 
 common, and vei^ q«ick, becaufe otherwife 
 fome 'Tranfgreffhn would efcape Punijhmeat^ 
 and fome good Men would not reap the pre- 
 fcnt temporal Fruits of their ^Goodnefs. For 
 which Reafon we cannot but fitppofe that 
 Providence would interfere conftantly and 
 ibon. In the Cafe of a corrupt or remifs 
 MagiftratCi numberlefs Crimes might be 
 committed, and the Offenders might eicape» 
 and profper in this World, and die in tbeic 
 Profperity. And if the wicked Magiilrate 
 continued very long, as Mmaffeh reigned 
 fifty and £ve Years in yemfalem, and a dif- 
 obedient Child efcaped during a great part, 
 or the whole of fuch a Reign, — would 
 not this long efcape be the. iame to all in- 
 tents 
 
^o8 ^e N A T tJ R E of the 
 
 tents and purpofes, as if the wicked Child 
 had lived under an unequal Providence ? So 
 that this excufe of Inequality is really fuch 
 a's proves not an e^ual Providence over "Par- 
 ticularSy fuch as Mr* Warburton contends 
 for, but an unequal one, founded on Necef- 
 fity and " the Reafon of th"e thing" 
 
 2i He fays, " in this extraordinary Ad- 
 *' miniftration one part of the w^^icked was 
 *' fometimes fufFered as a Scourge to thfe 
 " other." ibid. Allowing this j were thefe 
 Scourges themfelves certainly punifhed after- 
 wards ? Or did not thefe Scourges of the 
 Wicked fcourge the Righteous too ? The 
 Pfalmift ipeaks of the mighty that were ga^ 
 thered agdinft him, and begs to be deliviered 
 ftomthe Workers of Iniquity, and from bloody 
 Men. Were thefe Men only Scourges of 
 the Wicked, or did they not lie in wait for 
 the Soul of a good Man, not for his Tranfi 
 greffisn, or for his Sin? Pfa lix. z, 3. 
 
 Perhaps we may be told, that thefe Work- 
 ers of Iniquity were Pagan Neighbours and 
 not ^ews. Can it be faid, that thofe whom 
 David mentions as ready to Jwallow, him up, 
 Pf. Ivii. 2. were Heathens? Was it an 
 Heathen that David complains of, ivhofe 
 
 fiolenc^ 
 
JEWisri Theocracy (onjidir'd. 209 
 
 Violence and Strife he had Jeeri in the Dty^ 
 Pf. Iv. Was it not a wicked Man, who 
 was his Acqtunntancet and with inhom He 
 •walked into the Hakfe of God ? Thefe wicl&i 
 fed Scourges therefore of the Wicked flagued 
 the R^hteous too j and yet in this, extraor J 
 dinary Adminiftration they feem not to be 
 more reniarkably puniflied than they are 
 now, when all allow we are under an-?7»^j 
 ^ual Providence.' 
 
 3. Mr. PTafhurion tells us,' '* that: the 
 " extraordinary Providence to the State 
 " might fometiraes cla/h with that to Parj. 
 " ticularii as. in the Plague for mmbeHng 
 *^ the Pettier ibid. 
 
 Here again we have a Cafe put to pfove 
 an equal Providence fo adminiftrcd, as to 
 efccafion an Ob'fertatioh of Inequality, and 
 ftridly proving a elajhing of one Part of it 
 with the other. One woirld naturalWthink; 
 that what cannot be adminiffi-ed without an 
 Inconfiftency in itfelf, cannot tSe adthiniftred 
 by. a wife Being at all/ How can we admit 
 in any pofiible Cafe, that the extraordinai^' 
 Providence to the State fliould be incon- 
 fiftent with that to ParticUlarsi in the Han^ 
 P ^ 
 
lio The Nature of- ths . ; 
 
 of fo wife and good, and powerful a Beiffg 
 as God is ? 
 
 ' Aft Extraopdinaify Providence over the 
 State was certainly promifed by God when 
 he took upon himfelf the Government of 
 the Jews. Whether an Extraordinary Pro- 
 vidence over Particulars was then engaged 
 fo as that no TranfgrefTor ftiould efcape Pu- 
 nifliinent, no Obferver of the Law fhould 
 mifs prefent Temporal Bleffings, i? the Point 
 to be proved. When Mr. Warhurton in- 
 ftances in a Point wherein the extraordinary 
 Providence to the One might clajh with 
 That to the Other, He namesa Cafe where 
 Both, in his Opinion, cannot poffibly be ad- 
 miniftred. When therefore the Pl^ue was 
 fent for numbering the People, many inno* 
 ■ vent People fijfFered for David's Fault, 
 which ihews,^ that in that Inftance, an Z7«^- 
 ^2^^/ Providence was admiftiftred ; and con- 
 fequeatly, that .die Scriptures do in Fadt re- 
 prefent that Nation, not under the Notion 
 pf an Equal Providence, but of an Unequal 
 ,pne. 
 
 , Laflly, Mr, Warburton has Recqurfe to 
 
 a Sufpenfien of the Extraordinary Prpvidenoe 
 
 *at particular Times, or on certain Occafionsj 
 
 and 
 
Jewish 'THEockA'cY confider'd. iii 
 
 atid by tMt Means accbuitits for fome real 
 ^e^udlttiU; ' " Sometimes, fays he, the 
 " extraordiiikr^ Proviclence was fufpendetl 
 " for a Seafc^n tO' bring on a naftional Re- 
 " pentance ; but at the ferae time 6iis Suf~ 
 •^ penfion \Va^ Difjsiicly ddrtOttrtcedV And a 
 " very fevere Ptlhiflinient it Wa's, as kat)- 
 *' iiig Men ivbo had no futiire ^i ate of Re^ 
 " wards dnd Puriipiments hi a ve'ty diiconfoi- 
 " Tate Cotfdition; * And this was what oc- 
 « caficHied the Complaints of the impatient 
 " ^ffw^, who had been fo' much accitftomed 
 " to an extraordinary Adflriniflration.'' p. 
 
 444-5-^ 
 
 By " leaving Men who- had m future 
 
 i^- State of Flexlv^ards' and Funiihments," I 
 
 fiippofe is meant Men, who had no Notion » 
 
 Belief or Ibpe of a future' State of ReWai'ds 
 
 andPimifhrnehts; This Su^enfion:, he fays,- 
 
 was " pii^lidy denounced." But not- One 
 
 P'roof is produced of fuch a public Denuii- 
 
 tiation of a Sufpenfion o( the extraordinary 
 
 Providence to Particulars. The only Paf- 
 
 feges refer'd' to for this public Denuntiafion of 
 
 a Sicfpinfian of this equal Providence are,' 
 
 Ifaiah iii. 5. lix. 2. Ixiv. 7. In the firft 
 
 ofthefe, God' threatens to take aWay* from 
 
 P 2 Jerujakm 
 
212 Tbe N A T V K -E of ty 
 
 Jerufakm the Stay of Bread and Water ^ the 
 mighty Many the Judgey the ProphetSy the 
 Prudent and the jjntient ; and to give Children 
 to be their Princes, and Babes Jhall rule over 
 them. Then immediately follows the Verfe 
 refer'd to. — And the People Jhall be oppref- 
 fed, every one by another ^ and every one by his. 
 Neighbour : 'The Child Jhall behave himjelf 
 proudly againjl the Antienty and the Bafe 
 againfl the Honourable. Here is certainly a 
 great Evil threatned to Jerujalem and yudah-, 
 but as for a Sujpenfion of an Extraordinary 
 Providence, here is not one Word. If any 
 Thing is to be gather'd from Hence, 
 it is a total Deprivation of all Care and Con- 
 cern for an abandoned,, defolated People. 
 
 And fo it is in xhcjecend Place refer'd to^ 
 Ifa. lix. 2. Tour Iniquities have Jeparate^ 
 between you and your God, and your Sins 
 have hid his Face from yoUy that he will not 
 hear. How does this rekte to an Equal* 
 more than to an Unequal Providence over 
 Particulars f It is as true now, as it was theny 
 that Iniquities will feparatc between us and 
 God > and it has no Relation to any Sufpen- 
 Jion of an Extraordinary Providence for a 
 particular Time, As little to the Purpofe 
 
Jewish Theocracy confider'd. 213 
 
 ■is the third Paffage. c. Ixiv. 7. For thou 
 haft hid thy Face from us, and haft con- 
 fumed us, becaufe of our Iniquities. Is this 
 a public Denuntiation of a Sufpenjion of a 
 Providence^ a Time, or is it not a Decla- 
 ration of fomething paft ? Does this relate to 
 a Providence equally adminiftred to Parti- 
 culars, or to the People in general ? 
 
 But let us admit, that a Sufpenjion of the 
 extraordinary Providence was publicly de- 
 nounced in thefe Paflages of the Prophet: — 
 *' It was a 'very fever e Punijhment." To 
 whom ? Why, to fuch as it " left in a n^ery 
 " difconfolate Condition," Who were they ? 
 Why All the Jews j for all the Jews, it 
 feems, had no future State of Rewards and 
 Punijhments : All of that Nation, the Vir- 
 tuous and Wicked, the Good and the Bad : 
 For none of them believed, or had any 
 Hopes of a future State of Rewards an4 
 Puniftunents, as is all along pretended. All 
 of them then being left in a very difconfolate 
 Condition^ **this occafioned the Complaints 
 " of the Impatient Jews, who had been fo 
 ** much accuftomed to an extraordinary 
 " Adminiftration" Here again J muft ask, 
 Who were thcfe Complainants ? Should he 
 
 P3 %5 
 
214 ''fhe. fi AT V K^ of t,be 
 
 fay J ^11 \yKo had no future State of Re- 
 wards and Punifhments, ~- this again is 
 faying, that All the Jews GW and 5^i com- 
 plained. There are indeed Inftances of 
 -Good Mens complaining of Wicked Men, 
 who treated the Word of God , with Con- 
 tempt, and laughed at thp Threats uttered 
 by the Prophets. But there, is not an Iiir- 
 flance of any Evil Mens Complaints, that 
 an Extraordinary Providence was cither fuf- 
 pe}tded, or not adminiftred. 
 
 The "Jews had been much accuftomed 
 to an extraordinary Difpenfa.tion, and now 
 this Extraordinary Providence is fiifpended, 
 and publicly known to be fo. This was 
 •' a fevere Punifhment," certainly to all 
 Good Men, becaufe God was wont, and 
 had engaged himfelf to grant particular 
 Bleifings to all fuch ; whereas by this Suf^ 
 penfon, they were no longer entitled to any 
 of them. But here, methinks, it appears 
 ftrange, that Good Men fhall be deprived of 
 their Privileges, becaufe there happens to 
 be a Majority of Evil ones. The Wifdom 
 of an Admin iflration confiils in preventing 
 Wickednefs from fpreading, or in correcting, 
 and not fuffering it to get to too great a 
 
 Head. 
 
Jewis'h THEacRAS^ conftder'd. 2t§ 
 
 Head. Why then fliotty «ke Ooo/ fii^r, 
 on aceoiiot; of the Badt Why fliould the- 
 Good be piniflied in an lEqual" Providence .i 
 For as tO'the Wtthei^ the Sufpenfion of the 
 Exteai^dimry Providence was fo fer front 
 h€ia%..^ f&oere '^Ftmifiiaent^ or any Piinijh- 
 vie«t-2Lt all, that it was the greateft Hap-i 
 f)rne^ that'^ould befell them. They might 
 ftow go on in their Wickedntfs fecure and 
 iafe : They had. no Hopes or Fears of a fu-^ 
 ture Ssatef of Rewards or Punifhmeb^s : 
 They pro^ered in this World, and there-* 
 fete wer€ in no dfcot^idate Gond^iom The 
 Good might^>?ig&/*;» } but then they wouM 
 not change their Pradices: The Wicked 
 would not complain, nor change j and con- 
 feqaentlp-this very fevere Tunijhment was 
 inflidedland felt by only iitch as did not de- 
 ferve it ; whilft thofe, who fhbuld have 
 been reformed, were more encouraged in 
 Aeir Wickedsnefe from the Suffenjim of 
 that, which, only could have kept them ifl 
 ^^er. For no future State of Rewards- or 
 Piinifliments being- fuppofed to be known or 
 believed by this People, a prefent Impunity 
 was an adual Encouragement td them to go 
 on.in the Enjoyment of ^ip Sins.* - ' 
 P 4 In 
 
ai6 The Nature of the . 
 
 In all the Inftances, which IVfr, W'ar^i 
 
 burton has pro4jiped, from Jffiahi ^^remiab, 
 
 jimh ZephfiTiiab 9-nd MalacMf he tekes it 
 
 for granted, that either there is a Sufpen^n 
 
 ef the Extraordinary Providemei. ipuhlidy 
 
 denounced, or actually made. But has he 
 
 (hewn, that a Sti^en^m was afty^ally made 
 
 at any, or all thofe Times ? One canno^ 
 
 but obferve, that the Wicked are yery bold 
 
 at thofe Tim?s -, and they treated the Word 
 
 of the Lord with Difdain and Contempt, 
 
 and if the Prophets mentioned a ivoful Day, 
 
 or a Day of Accounts, they cried out, J^et 
 
 it come. The Prophets denounced their 
 
 Woes J and the Wicked defpifed , their 
 
 Threats; But hqv^f it appears frqm thefe, 
 
 pr fuch like Expreffibm, that the; entraor-^ 
 
 dinary Providence vjz.% fujpmdedf^ I know 
 
 not. The gfeat I^pint v?as firft ta hayg 
 
 teen proved, that eyer there was fuch aq 
 
 ]Extraprdinary Providence to Particulars^ as 
 
 that no Tranigreflbr ever efcaped Puniflir 
 
 ment, nor did any Obferver of the Law 
 
 piifs his prefent Reward. This^ I fay, 
 
 fhouldjf/;;^ have been/rowflfj which I ap- 
 
 prehepd has not been done ; Nor in Cour^ie 
 
 will any of thefe Paflages from the Proph^jg 
 
 prove 
 
Jewish TuzociLACYfcm/SdereJ. tij 
 
 prove 4 Sujpenjon of that equal Providence 
 over Particulars J which feems never to have 
 been exerted. 
 
 It is certainly ^ great Piificulty, that "Mi. 
 Warkuftm had to ilir^ioijnt, when h^ at* 
 tempted upoQ-his Scheme to account for the 
 Reprefentadmis of Inequality, which the 
 Scriptures fo plainly make. He does not 
 therefcrereft on the Solutions, which I have 
 mentioned : He (aw, I fuppofe, the Weak- 
 tiefs of them. He proceeds therefore in 
 fhe laft place to give zfull and general So- 
 lution of the DifHcul^. It ilands thus. 
 
 *' 5ut the full and general Solution of 
 f* the Difficulty is tl^is, — The common 
 ** Caufe of thefe Complaints arofe fi-om the 
 f* Gradual .withdramng the extraordinary 
 f Providence. Under the Judges it was 
 " perfedtly Equal. When the People had 
 *' rebellioufly denfanded a .King, and — 
 f* God fuffer'd the Theocracy to be admi- 
 f • niftoed by a Viceroy^ there was — a great 
 " Al^tement in the Vigour of this extra,- 
 y ordinary Providence. — From heme to th^ 
 "' Time of the Captivity, the extraordinary 
 .{* Providence kept gradually decayingy till on 
 " ^ ?' thoir 
 
^' ^their'IKl 'SeltlfemeiA, ^ dftei' their Retufn^ 
 '' it entM^K^eafe^. '•'•->; 4,|s5,^^^x;tNna v:v<.. 
 I have had Occafion to cite-fefeefe'Wei^ 
 befoce, 'andl-fl^w^4 you fottie Cdnfequertces 
 f^©na them.'' Dr. Speneeyl and Mr. ^^i"' 
 ^z*^f(j«ifeet}i t^eSfppefetkginfelveS fo exaSt^ 
 atifces about rt|ie- Jj^MW^w^Hof the 'Tl&f'Oi^ 
 frfl^r, ^afHie \<»0<»M woftdcr how jt'fllou-1^ 
 Jia|)penv -«haf ©r. 'Spene€r*s^ Notifeto- i&" i 
 ** CmaShig^fy a^fiii'd" ssod Mv". Warkir^ 
 l^^'s fheiM^i^be-fo-CGijfiftent, fend eafy, and 
 iia4vK?al;'f^5H't wkat I Would obferve here is^ 
 That what hei4 is- eaUed ' " a/a// SolutioA 
 **> (^'theDifficalty," leiavesus as -much in 
 the dark as i'amy .of "the Solutions before 
 given.- "BW,-- .^Jn'i^^^rxtf'j .^'vdi 1o-^ii^ v ^' 
 "'( I . Th© extraordinary Providence, 'which 
 was over particulars^ (by which is alWays 
 mean* fueh a Providertce,- that " Jnb Tranf- 
 ** greffor eica^d-PuttifhmeBt, noi» Obfei^ver 
 «« of the Law miffed his k'e^?d") kept 
 grddually decaying', or gradually withdrawing 
 •to the Time' of the Captivity. - After Sci- 
 muets Tirne,' there was a great Abatemerit 
 cf its>^ Vigour r and> frorp his Time/'fbV 
 ab0u4: five.hundred Years together itgradlf^ 
 nUy-decayed, What now was this Vigour. 
 
 
Jewish Theocracy confiderd. 219 
 
 or what did it confift in ? For this ought 
 particularly to be known, in order to judgf 
 of its Abatement. If it confifted in the 
 conftant, temporal Evils, which attendecj 
 every Tranfgreifor of the Law, till Sauf^ 
 Time, and the conftant Bleffings that at- 
 tended every Obferver of th-f Law till the 
 fame Time ; then as the Vigour confifted 
 in this, its Abatement muft be, in not in-r 
 flicfting conjiantly temporal Evils on the 
 One, or in not giving conftantly temporal 
 Bleffings to the Other : Or elfe, in not dif- 
 peofing conftantly fo great Evil or Good, 
 as was wont in the Time of the Judges to 
 be given. It cannot be the Former of thefe 
 Two Notions, becaufe, if the equalProvi-? 
 dence was not conftant, it would come to 
 be the fame as. Unequal. For what is the 
 Common Providence, or not extraordinary ^ 
 but vv^here Tranfgreflbrs are often not pu- 
 niftied here, but go on and prolper in their 
 Wickednefs ; and Good Men are often not 
 rey/arded, but fometimes fuffer ? 
 
 If Mr. Warburton means the latter ■ of 
 thefe Notions, that Good and Evil was not 
 difpenfed in fo great a Degree to Particu-^ 
 larsy after ^amueH Days, as before therr? ; 
 
 and 
 
J520 ^hf Nature ef fbe 
 
 and that the Difpenfation of Good and Erfl 
 %o Particulars gradually decayed for five 
 hundred Years together, till the Time of 
 the Captivity.— -This will require a partial- 
 la- Froof, which hitherto has not teen- fo 
 much as attempted. What Degrees of this 
 Diip^niation were left at the very Time of 
 the Captivity ? When the Return from the 
 Captivity came to pais, and the Extraordi- 
 nary Providence revived^ Was it iuch an 
 Equal Providence, as was in the Days of 
 the yudgesy when *' no Tranfgreflbr efcaped 
 ** Punifhment, or Obferver of the Law 
 *' mified his Rewafd," Or was it only' fUch 
 a Providence as was in any given Time 
 between the I^ysof iSW»/and Zedekiabf 
 
 But does not Mr. JVarhurton produce fbme 
 Evidence, that an Extraordinary Providence 
 revived after the Return? Yes,; he does. 
 He cites, Ha^ai^ i. 6-11, c. ii. 16-19. 
 ZecL viii. 12. Malac. iii. io, n. P' 4i7« 
 But none of thefe Places prove any Thing 
 more, than a promifed Bleffing to the JeWy 
 p^tionaUy eonjidered'j not fuch a Providence 
 over PdrticularSt as no Tranfgreflbr of the 
 Law was to ^fcape Punifhment. The 
 Words of Makcbi ^r-e, — Bring ye all the 
 
 Titit^ 
 
Jewish Theocracy cOnfider'd. 221 
 
 Tithes into the Storehoufe^ that there nur^ be 
 Meat in my Houfe^ and prcve me now here- 
 with^ faith the Lord of Hojis^ if I will not 
 open you the Windows of Heanien^ and pour 
 you out a Blefpng, that there Jhall not he room 
 enough is receive it. And Iivill rebiike tht 
 Devourer for your SakeSy and he Jhall not 
 dejlroy the Fruits of your Ground ; neither 
 fhall your Vine cajl her Fruit before the Tiiiie 
 in the Fields faith the Lord ofHoJis. Here 
 is certainly a great Bleffing promifed j but 
 that it was not an Equal Providencp to Par^^ 
 ticulars, but a National, general Pxomif^ 
 appears from the very next Words. — A3. 
 Nations Jhall call you blefTed, for ye Jhall be 
 a delightfome Land. And (o in the Other 
 Texts, a Promife is made by God to the 
 fewsy that the Ground Jhall give her En- 
 creafe, and the Heavens Jhall give their Dew, 
 and he will blefs them in their Seed, and 
 Vine^ and Fig Tree, and Olive Tree ; but 
 this dees not prove that Equal Providence, 
 for which it is brought It proves a very 
 ftrong Pron:ufe to blefs the Nation of the 
 Jews; and to protedt them againft the 
 Devourer, that he Jhould not dejlroy the 
 Fruits of their Ground. But as to a Proof 
 
 of 
 
±Z2 Str 1 s a"a c t^ E W t d n's 
 
 ^ Extraordinary Providence, in the Senfe 
 (hat no Tranfgreflbr was to efcape Punifh- 
 fiient, nor no Obfef vfei* of tiie Laiv mifs his 
 Reward, I cannot fee the Force of his Ar- 
 
 gument. 
 
 fhixs have I ccfnfidered, wh"a:t this great 
 Author has told us coficerning the "Jewijh 
 Theocracy. How far his Notibrts agree 
 to FaSi-i ox phim Hijiory, I muft leave you*' 
 to Judge. To me, what has been hithertot 
 publifhed, is all Confulion, and full of in- 
 extricable Difficulties. Bu;t as he has pro- 
 mifed us to clear up this Matter in his 
 Third Volume,' I fhall wait with Impa- 
 tierice^ till that is publifhed, when I hope 
 to fee all thefe, and fuch like Objedlions 
 ferhoved, and the whole fet in an intelligi- 
 ble Light. - 
 
 I now proceed to another Subjeft, on 
 which Mr. Warhuftoti has given us his Sen- 
 timent's vefy freely, I mean Sir Ifdac New- 
 tofC% Chronology, if on this Head I am 
 fomewhat mnger, than I have been' on any 
 of the formef, it is becaufe here are more 
 Materials, ifl which I differ froftl' him. 
 .Matters of Chronology, in thofe edrly 
 ■ Times, 
 
Ch ron-o t o G Yrvindihted, 225 
 
 Times, are certainly rery intricate T And Sk" 
 Ifaae^ has. {hewn fo very great Sagacity in ad- 
 juiHng and: reconciling the fabulond Stories 
 ef.the Antients^ . and in making 'them a0-< 
 cord,, that if he has not hit upon the Truth, 
 he has made the .whole fa vsxy prsAaMe, fo 
 confiilent widi the courfe of Nature, aaii 
 syilh. itfelf, and above all with fkred Hif- 
 tory, that it is not eafy to fliafce fo compacJi 
 and well united a Building,: At-lea^ I think 
 Mr. Warhurton has not done it,, even ^p* 
 pofing Sir Ifm€ to have been miftaken in his 
 42hrQnology of Egypt^ 
 
 Mr. Warhurton begins widi fome very 
 
 high ftcain-'d Compliments to fo great a Ge- 
 
 pius J " a Man, fays he, whom Science and 
 
 ^" Virtue feemed to be at Strife abouf, which 
 
 ,*' flipuld render him moft Hhlftrious, wWle 
 
 ** they equally concurred to make him the 
 
 " Ornament of human Kind." p. 206. Bat 
 
 jalafs^ " the moft' fubKme Undcrftaading lias 
 
 /* its Bounds, and wbatiamuch moce to be 
 
 ** lamented, the ftroipgefir Mind has itssFoii 
 
 J" bte. This Jii^raele of Saie^e^. who fo 
 
 *' opened the pcefcnt courfe M Nafawe to 
 
 .'" human View^ as if he had been ^mne*- 
 
 ^ diately. enlightned by the Almighty Au^- 
 
 -. 1 , thgr 
 
i24 Sir Isaac Newt o n's 
 
 " thor pf it, when he came to correB old 
 " ^itne in the Chronology of Egypt," — 
 
 Hold, Sir. Did this great GeniuS ever 
 attempt " to cbrre5l old Time" in the Chrd^ 
 nology of Egypt, or in the Chrcfnology of 
 any dther Place? No< No more than he 
 attempted to correSi the Laws of Gravitation. 
 His Defign was " to make Chronology fuit 
 " with the courfe of Nature^ with Aftro- 
 " nomy, with faered Hiftoiy, with Herc-^ 
 ^' dotus the Father of Hiftory,- and with iti 
 ** felf," as he tells us himfelf in his Intro- 
 duBion, p. 8. But he never attempted, that 
 I ever heard of till now, to " correSi oldlime" 
 in the Chronology of Egypt) or in any of 
 his Motions. Are Chronologerii diiagreeingi 
 jangling, difputing for ever, the fame as 
 old Time ? Or are not their Diiputes about 
 old Timey fuch as ought if poffible to be cor-^ 
 re£ted ? 
 
 Well. But let Mr. WarhUrtOn Jjf'oteed --i 
 " When he came to corredl old Time in 
 ^ the Chronology of Egypt, he fufFered 
 •' himfelf to be drawn away from the G6- 
 *' Jhen of Mofes' into the thickeft of the 
 ** Egyptian Darknefs, by little lying Greek 
 *^ Mythologifts, and Story Tellers." 
 
C :m ROifotoijY n^ndtcafed. 52 j; 
 
 - njsw are the mghty fallen i Does not Sir 
 Ijaac make ufe of every Author that Mr* 
 Warlmrlotf himfelf does? DoeS he prefer 
 any Mythokgijl.to a Good Hijiorian ? Does 
 he not ufe every .H6lp he can get ? With 
 what Confcience then, wit"h what Jujfbiccis 
 he charged with *' iufrering himfelf to be 
 drawn away" from Truth and Light " by 
 '' little lying Creek My^di^pSh and Story 
 *' Tellers ?" 
 
 But fo it was J He was drawn away by 
 &em. " For it is to be obferted, that Sir 
 *' IJaac'^ Egyptian Chronology was fafliion* 
 " ed ONLY to fuppdrt his Grecian 'y which 
 ," he eredted on one of thofe fublime Con* 
 " ceptions peculiar to his amazing Genius.". 
 p. 207. . 
 
 Behold Sir, and admire the Conlluenfcy of 
 FLATl'ERyl When "Science and Virtue 
 " were at Strife about which fliould render" 
 this great Man ** moft illuftrious," Virtue 
 contributed but. little to his Glory : For it 
 ifeeias, " He fafiiioned his Egyptian Chro- 
 " Bology," not to fearch out Truths not t^ 
 ceconcile it with the Courfe of Nature, or 
 thefiibley or any good Hiftory, but'*o«Lr 
 ^ to fuppoft his. Grecian Chronology." 
 n 0^ And 
 
226 Sir Isaac N e w t o n"« 
 
 Andtruly Scienu had as little Succefs in form- 
 ing this Great Man as Virtue had; for inftead 
 of conducing hito, as ftie ought^ fhe fuf- 
 fer'd him to be " drawn away by little lying 
 " Greek Story Tellers." At the fame time . 
 (for there is no End of Self-Contradi<aion) 
 Science did its Part ; for tho' * he was drawn 
 away by thefe "little lying Greek Mytholo- 
 " gifts," he " eredted his G;^m«» Chrono- 
 " logy on one of thofe fublime Conceptions 
 "peculiar to his amazing Genius." 
 '. One would think by thiSj that his Greek 
 Chronology was all true and right j* and 
 acknowledged fuch by Mr. War bur ton, how- 
 ever falfe his Egyptian Chronology may be. 
 " The fublime Conceptions peculiar to this 
 " amazing Genius" were fuch, were fo no- 
 ble, were fo fuperlatively ' grand j " as if he 
 " had been immediately enlightned" by the 
 Author of Nature. Who would not con- 
 clude, that a Chronology founded on thefe 
 " fublime Conceptions", was moft perfedt, 
 exadt, true? And yet, by a ftrange Reverfe 
 of Things, a Chronology, both Egyptian 
 end Greek, " eredted on thefe fublime Con* 
 " ceptions peculiar to this amazing Geiiius" 
 is all falfe. Never furely was Compliment 
 
 fo 
 
Chronology vindicated. 22^ 
 
 ip awkwar41y paid. Amazing Genius! 
 Fbrm'd by Science and Virtue ! Enlightiied 
 by the Author of Nature ! The Ornament 
 6f Human ifCihd! Mafter of the tiioft fub- 
 lime Conce|)tiohS ! What is hot to be ex-* 
 pedted from f\ich Cbtnpliments ? This Great 
 Man, What h^s he dOnfe? Whyi he has 
 formed a Scheme, or erefted one, dn one 
 of thofe ^' fublime Condeptions peculiar td 
 " him," that " contradicts facred Scripture, 
 " and the very Nature of Thingf^" irt 
 which " the Premifles," which he uies* 
 *' do not infer" what thdy &re brought 
 for. ifiis Syftem is " not dnly feptignant 
 " to the Bible, but to itfey^." It contains 
 ** fuch a flrange Mixture of BarJsarity and 
 " Politenefs, Strength arid ImpoteficCj, 
 " Riches and Poverty ; is fuch an JTicoin-s 
 " fiftency in the Charafitef of Age^^ ad 
 *' makes it only worthy the Wild Imagi^ 
 " nation of thofe poetic Pahutijl$, from 
 " whence it is coUeded." p. 280* " So 
 " peftilent a Mifchief in the Road to Truth 
 " isafevouriteHypothefis ! An Evil, which 
 " retarding' our Progrefs at aliftoft eVery 
 *' Step, we have had too Irequerit Ocdafiom 
 
228 Sir Isaac N e w t o n*s 
 
 " to lament in the Courfe of this Enquiry." 
 p. 207. 
 
 It is true, that when ^favourite Hypo^ 
 thefis has been indulged. Truth is feldom 
 purfuedas it ought j nay ufually it diverts 
 Men from the Road to Truthy and will 
 make them ufe not only Premifles, which 
 do not infer what they are defigned to fup_ 
 port J but even falfe Premifles, which being 
 fuppofed to be trup, will not, ev€n then, 
 infer the Conclufion they are delign'd for. 
 I apprehend this to be much more the 
 Cafe of Mr. Warhurton^ than of Sir IJaac 
 Newton. However, when all the high 
 ftrain'd Compliments upon that amazing 
 Genius end in fuch grievous Accufations, — 
 in his contradicting the Hiftory, nay, and 
 the Astronomy of the Bible > in his con- 
 tradidling himfelf, and the Nature of Things, 
 Mr. Warburton might furely have been con- 
 tented to let it " blaze andpafs away.''* But 
 he was willing to exprefs his Pears of fome 
 bad Ufe that might be made fome Time 
 or other of Sir tfaac's Syftem, and at the 
 fame time, I fuppofe, to pafs a great Com- 
 pliment upon the Bible : And let it be re- 
 peated here, " The Bible is Eternal liKc 
 
 the 
 
Chronology vindicated. 229 
 
 " the Sutiy the never-feiling Fountain of 
 " Light and Life." p. 208. Sounding 
 Words, but no Meaning. If he means 
 Eternal^ a parte ante^ the oldeft Part of 
 that Book was wrote a little above three 
 tboufand Years ago j and .this is as much 
 Eternal as the Sun, which was created 
 between five and fix thoufand Years ago : 
 Of if he means eternaly a parte poji, does*he 
 think the Sun wilt endure ftridtly j!^r ever ? 
 So that this Strain of Complirivsnt amounts 
 to no more than this. That a Thjng which 
 is not eternal^ is eternaly like another Thing, 
 which is in no Senfe eternal. Who can help 
 admiring fuch exceflive, fuch neat Compli- 
 ments ? But enough of this. ^ 
 
 Before Mr. Warburton attempts to con- 
 fxxXs. ^\x Ifaac Newton's Syftem, he premifes 
 Two Obfervations " concerning the Nature 
 *' of this Syftem, and the Quality of his 
 " Evidence." p. 2ji. 
 
 TheFirftis, " That this Syftem is h 
 " far from bemg a Support, Defence, or 
 " illuftration of the anUent Hiftory of 
 " thefe Two Heroes [Oftrjs and Sefoflris] 
 '* that it contradicts and fubverts allth^t is 
 ]^ clear and certain in that Hiftorf, ' aiid 
 
 9lz " ^^^ 
 
23° Sir Isaac Newton's 
 
 " adds new Confufion to all that is obfcurp." 
 ibid. In a Charge of this Nature againft a 
 Man, whom Virtue and Science were at 
 Strife to form, One ought to expedl very, 
 clear Evidence. Accordingly Mr, Warbur^ 
 ton tells us, — " The Annals of Egypt^ as 
 " may be feen by Herodotus^ Diodorus Si^ 
 " iulus, Strabo, Plutarch, arid others, who 
 " all copied from them, were as exprefs and 
 " U7ivariable for the real Diveriity of 
 " Ofiris and Sefojlris, as the Hiftory of 
 " England is for that of any Two of our 
 '' own Country Monarchs. For they were 
 " not vague Narhes of uncertain or adjoin- 
 " ing Times -, but one the mofl illuflrious 
 " of their Demigods ; and the other, of 
 *' their Kings, each fixed in prccife Periods; 
 " and thofe vaftly different from one ano- 
 ^' ther." ibid. 
 
 We have here an Obfervation delivered 
 ■with as rriuch Pofitivenefs and Precifion, as 
 if it were a Maxim indifputable. 
 
 Firji, Here is a diredt AfTertlon, that 
 Herodotus^ and the reft of the great Names 
 here mentioned, all copied the Annals 
 pi Egypt. Now, what Authority has Mr, 
 Warbiirton to prove, that Herodotus ever 
 '■ '' copied 
 
Chronology 'vindlcafed, 23 1 
 
 cc^d any jinnah of Egypt y before the Days 
 of Pfammitjchus ? Herodotus himfelf never 
 pretends to luch Authority ; no, nor does 
 he pretend to know the Truth from fuch 
 Annals i but only tells us, that what he 
 ikys, the Priefis told him. {s) He therefore 
 very rightly and judidoufly, and becoming 
 the Character of a faithful Hiftorian, diftin- 
 guifhes betwixt the Days befa'^ and after 
 Bfdmmticbus\ Tirfie. What he relates of 
 their old AfEfirs depends upon the Credit 
 oi^Q Egyptian Priejlsy thofe ^* Majiersin 
 *' the Trade" of Lying and Invention, 
 who told him what they thought fit. And 
 therefore he fays of thofe Times, x«9« wmt 
 as I have heard.^t When he copies to give 
 an AccowrA oi Pfammitichus, he, tells us, 
 how,.diis Garians zxA lonians came into 
 E^^j^, and how they were placed below 
 the CiiyBubafiis, i.\ n. c. 154. A proper 
 Place to give i^&GreekSy becaufethey could 
 the better fecureJ^^/ifirpniiuiy Incurious 
 from the Eaft. Thefe Canons and lonians 
 were the firft of a ftrange Language that 
 dwelt in E^pt j and they had Egyptian 
 ' ■. •'. , . I. 
 
 (a)JJj Herod, 1. 2. C. 3. J. 10. 12. 29. 5$. 79. 99. 
 leo. IQ2. ii6. izo. 122. 123. 127. i^c. 
 
 ■Qj. . Children 
 
232 Sir Isaac Newt o n^9 
 
 Children deliver'd to them to be inftrwed 
 in the Greek Tongue; from whom fprung 
 thofe, who in Herodotm's Time were the 
 Interpreters. Now 'iay^ he, from thefe, 
 who dwtsU 'in Egypt ^ and: have Commere? 
 with the Greeks we know of certainty, 
 *Tf5KSffl?j the Affairs of Egypt from Pf^t 
 mitichus's 'Time, and afiernbards. That is^ 
 from the ^ra of Nahnajar 64, : "W^'hen 
 Pfammitichus began to rtign, or of the iajne 
 iEra 118, when he ditfd. Ifow does thi? 
 Account of Herodotus' himfelf agree with, 
 Mr. Warhufton^ whb^ telfeus, he copied the 
 Annah oi Egypt t ori 
 
 2. Maneth, -who wrote (b)from the Saj 
 cred J^ooks, (x) refutes Herodotus in many 
 Things, as relating faljly the Egyptian Af" 
 fairs. So yo/^/te tells^us. . Did the JB|7/r- 
 tian Annals then differ from brie another \ 
 Or dix^Herodptus felfifythem, fine? he told 
 fo many Fal/hoods about the Egyptian Af- 
 fairs, in Miflake, or Cpptradidlion to Mah 
 netho's hnmk} ' .' '"^ 
 
 [h] 'E« 7&iM's{i<»c. Jofep. c, Ap. li I. -I 
 
 \-\iVff[tAVOV> Jof. c. Ap. 1. 1. 
 
 3, Di odor US 
 
Chronology 'vindicated. 133 
 
 3. Diodorus Si cuius is the next, who wc 
 are told copifd thefe Annals of Egypt. Now 
 He owns, that Ofiris was Serapis according 
 to fome ; Bacchus, Pluto, Ammon, Jupiter^ 
 according to others ; but moft think him to 
 be Pan. 1. i. i ij. Does He agree with He- 
 rodotus in the Number, or the Names of 
 the Old Egyptian Kings? No. Does He 
 agree in their Adions, or the Places they 
 built ? No. Does- He mention Nitocris^ 
 whom Herodotus has ? Or has Herodotus 
 Diodorus" s Bufiris and Uchoreus? Do they 
 agree even in the later Times ? How then 
 is it that Mr. Warburton tells us, that He 
 and Herodotus copied from the Aiinals of 
 Egypt ? 
 
 4. When he tells us with fo much Pre- 
 pifion, what thefe Annals of Egypt fay, and 
 adds, that they \Ofiris and Sefojiris'] are not 
 Names of uncertain Times ; — Can he- fay 
 from thofe Annals, when either of thefe 
 Men, fo diftind: as he pretends they werej 
 lived ? Where are theiib Annals of Egypt 
 that fix the " precife Periods," when either 
 Ofiris or Sefojiris lived ? Were thefe Annals 
 themfelves extant in H^rodotus's Days ? Or 
 
 were 
 
234 '^^^ I S A AC N E W T O N's 
 
 were not their ancient Records deftroy'd be- 
 fore his Time ? 
 
 But it is not yet Time to enter into this 
 Matter, till we have feen from Mr. Warbur" 
 tony himfelf;what Credit is due to thefe 
 Annals. He therefore thus goes on in bis 
 Obfervatiori^ ' . - . 
 
 « The Hiftory of Eppt was, hot, like 
 *• that of antient Greece and Sueviay to be 
 f* found only in the traditional Tales of 
 ** Bards and Mythohgifis-, nor yet, like 
 ** that of early Britain^ the Invention of 
 *' fidentary Monks, hut Confifted of the an- 
 *' nual and authentic Records of an aSiive 
 " and learned Priejibood." p. 2 1 2. 
 
 May we not nbw exped to meet with 
 Ibrnething fixt and certain, and much to be 
 depeqded o^ . from thefe annual, and ofttben^ 
 tic Records J thefe faithful Accounts wrote 
 by ** an adtive and learned Priefthood ?" 
 They were riot *? the Invention of Seden-^ 
 ** tafy Monks j" no,, nor ^' traditional Tales 
 *' of -Bards andlMythologifts •" nor corrupt 
 Storiesof we knownbt Who, but authentic 
 Accounts wrote by learned Priefts. . If Sir 
 Ifaac therefore has CQntradi<a:ed, or varied 
 from Thefe, it is eafy, without Doubt, to 
 confute him from fuch Eftabiifh'd Autho- 
 rity, 
 
Chronology 'vindicated 235 
 
 rity. But how foon are thefe annual and 
 authentic Records turned by Mr. Warhurton 
 himfelf into the rasxe Invention of Sedentary 
 Pnejis, a Set of Men, as bad to the full, 
 quoad hoc, as Sedentary Monks. The very 
 next Words, after he has told us,^ that thefe' 
 authentic Records came from an adtive and 
 learned Priejlhoody are thefe, — "In which 
 " the only Tranfgreffion againft Truth tfiat 
 *• has yet been difcbvered, is, that natural 
 " "Partiality common to all national Hifto- 
 " riogx2i^h.&[%,oi ektendin^ back Aeir Anrtah 
 *• to an unreafonable Length oj 'Ti^e." So 
 then the Hiftory of Egypt was noi Inven- 
 tion ; it was oiily extended back by in aftive 
 and learned Priefihood to zn unreafonable 
 hength ofTinre. Thefe Priefts could make 
 Authentic Records, ^^hlch Jedentary Monks 
 cotild not do without die Imputation oif 
 Invention. 
 
 Be it fo then, that thefe adive Priefts 
 extended'^back their 'Annals to an urtreafonable 
 Length of Time, the Bufinefs of a Good 
 Chronologer fhould be, one would thinle, 
 tO' corred thefe Corruptions or Mtftakes, tt> 
 bring down to their right Periods thofe 
 Accounts that were unreafinably extended 
 
 bcick'ward I 
 
2^6 5/r Isaac N e w t o fi's 
 
 iafkivard I Aad- if Ofirh was fijxedin any 
 Period of thdr IDemigpds^ how precifeV 
 and exactly foever thoie Forgers of Records. 
 Bad placed him, yet, if he was demonftra- 
 tly placed wrong, and no Circumstances 
 will agree to fuch a Period, it cannot hut he 
 right to bring him down to a Time, when 
 Circumftances will agree to him. 
 
 , *' The«NLY Tranfgrcffion againft Truth, 
 ^ in the. Hiilory- of Old E^ypt was, the 
 " EXTE'NpiNG BACK their Afinals to an, 
 ^^unreaioinahle Length of Tinae." This i^^ 
 ^rted p. ;^i2. If we go on to p, 245-6, 
 Thefe Egyptian Priefts, that could not be 
 charged with any Invention^ except the One 
 jisil rnentioned, are charged with " invent- 
 ^'■ING a Set of Fables^ and by a ilrong 
 \^ Effort of their Skills throwing a general 
 *.' Confufion over the History of the Ac- 
 " fions of their Heroes^ by bringing their 
 "' Births, e'aen lower down than the Times of 
 V their certainly recorded, Worjhip" Sq 
 thsX thefe Majlers in their Tt'dde^ thefe /zf- 
 tive and karned Priefis^ not, only eictended^ 
 back, their' Annals, hut corrupted and 
 brought lower, dmn the Anions of thei^ 
 Keroes, What now hecomes of the v4t^ 
 
 thenticity 
 
ChronoXogV vrnikated. 237 
 
 thenticity of Annals owned to be icbrrapted, 
 both hachwarh ^tA forwards f 
 
 Mr. Warhurton is endcavotiring to fhew^ 
 " from what Sources thofe Accounts arofe, 
 *' on which the hnv Date of the Egyptian 
 " Gods is founded." " The firft Source, 
 " iays he, was the -4^ir^ of tb.e Egyptian 
 " Priefts to fcreen their Hero Worfhip 
 " from the Inqutfition of the -Curious. We 
 ** have obfcrved above from a famous Fable, 
 " which. ih& Egyptian Pri^s invented to 
 •* record the Danger this Superftition in- 
 *' curr'd, and their Art in evading it, that 
 •* the Ori^nal -of their Hero^Gods was, a 
 ** Sul^e<9: malitiously pursued hy thi 
 *' Free Inquirers of thofe times. For 
 *' the Difcredit of'this Superftrtion was, that 
 *' thefe Gods had been Men ; and the Proof 
 *' of their Humanity was fetched from their 
 ** late Exijhnce. Now what did these 
 *' Masters in their Trade doto evade 
 *' this Proof? We ha^^e feen before what 
 " they did to obfiure the Inquiry. Why, 
 *' by an equal Effort of their Skill, they 
 " invented a Set of Fables, — which 
 '* brought their Births even lower dmvnthsn 
 ^' the Times of their certainly recorded 
 
 • II Worfhip. 
 
238 Sir. Is A. A c N E w T n's 
 
 ** Wqrfhip., What t^ey gained , by this 
 •' was confiderable ; it thr^w a general Con-^ 
 " fujionoyrex the Hiftory of their Anions." 
 p. 245-6. 
 
 Thefe Paffagesare fo curiousi that they 
 will aifFord fome confiderable Remarks. As 
 . I. It is granted, that the PrieJiSy the act 
 tive and learned Priefts, extended back their 
 Annals to an /' unreafdnable Length of 
 " Time : " And, then they brought the 
 Births of their Hero Gods " lower down than 
 " the Times of their certainly recorded 
 " Worfhip." Had they kept. within tole^ 
 rable Bounds either Way, fome Regard 
 might be paid to the Learning of thefe 
 Mafters in their Trade. But iheir Extra- 
 vagancy was fuch, as to extend their Annals 
 back thirty-twOj or thirty-three thousand 
 Years before the Creation. Now, how 
 Annals extended back thus much, and like-^ 
 vf lie forwards, can be of any Value towards 
 fettling the Time when any Man lived, I 
 do not apprehend. And which can beft 
 be relied on for fettling any Point of Ghro*. 
 nology, the little lying Greek Mythologifis 
 and Story Tellers, or the great lying Egyf'- 
 
 tian 
 
C H R N o L 6 G Y 'dndttafeJ. 23^ 
 
 iian Prie/k^ who had fo much addrefsy and 
 were fo much Majiers in their Uradet 
 
 2. A Hiftory of Thirty llymfand Years, 
 (nay fome mightily «ilarge the Number to 
 feveral Hundred Thoufand, but to take th^ 
 Imalleft number, Thirty Thoujdnd) fuch a 
 Hiftory of Kings, moft of whom are expref- 
 ly faid to have done nothing worthy of no- 
 tice, and not " the Irruention of Sedentary 
 " Pfiefts," muft be very curious; efpecially 
 as it is to be neither contr^-y to Scripture, 
 nor the Reafon of Things: And fuch were 
 the Old Egyptian Annals, thofe authentic 
 Records of an adiive Priejihood. 
 
 3. Manetho was an Egyptian Chief Priefti 
 who wrote the Hiftory of his own Country, 
 and was admitted to their Secret Books. Let 
 us fuppofe tliefe to be the Annals which 
 Herodotus copied. Now did Herodotus coi^j 
 authentic Annals, and did Manetho do the 
 fame, and yet condemn Herodotus oiFalJhsod? 
 It was well known that Manetho wrote at 
 the command oi (d)Ptolemy PhiladelpbuSt and 
 
 Ufa, j^i^Siit yiu.sfifia.-iair'i wfoxarofof t^iS^tyl^it^t^fM. 
 
 that 
 
240 Sir Isaac J^JeIvto n's 
 
 t3iat he had the Holy Books iv^-ote as isfaid 
 by the great Mercury before blm, Thefe he 
 ipterpreted, and afterwards, he wrote of their 
 Gods, Demig6ds, Heroes, and mortal 
 Kings, of which the Egyptians (e) have com- 
 piled a hng and trifling Mythology. Ths 
 E^ptimj then were Mythologijis and Story 
 telkrs^ as well as the little Lying Greeks j 
 and therefore to be as little depended on as 
 .tile Greeks for Hiftory of Fads done by 
 their Gods, Demigods, Heroes, ^c, Now^ 
 what Credit is' to be given to thefe very 
 Books that Manetho copied ? Mr. Warburton 
 tells us, that " the Ignorance of the Greeks a- 
 * ' bout Egyptian Affairs may fairly be collected 
 " firom their Age, and from the Authors of 
 *' their Intelligence. Thty all lived Jong after 
 *' the times inqueilion; and tho' "they re-» 
 •* ceived indeed their Information from 
 " =Egj// it felf, yet for the moft part, it was 
 " not till ^fter the DeJiruBion of that antir^. 
 " ent Empire, and when it was now be« 
 " come a Province in Succeffion, to Afa-^ 
 '' tick and European Conquerors j when 
 " their antient and public Records 
 y wejre destroyed, and their very leam^ 
 
 (^) litKhMf ^ ^Kia^oy cvvtrt^Mi [n.v^9Koyia,Y. ibid. 
 
 1 % 
 
CHRONat.oGY vifidicqteJ. 24 i 
 
 " 2fig and Genfus changed, to. a conformity, 
 " with their Grecuin Maikrs." p. 28. And 
 ^g^iflj Egypt " was long the Mart . of 
 '' Knowledge for the Eqfiern Jind the JVef- 
 " tern World, and as noticing- fo much re- 
 " commends this kind of Commodity as its 
 "^ Antiquity, th&y fit it off by foRG&d Re- 
 " CORDS, that extended to an icnreafonahfe_ 
 "" Length ofTUme : Accounts of which hgve 
 " been conveyed to us by Antient Authors^ 
 *' ^nd /i(l/y confuted by the Modern*'^ 
 p. 29. 
 
 If this were the Cafe, I ask thenj W^-* 
 ther the annual and authentic Records ■ (thofe 
 Labours of " the ailive and learned Prieft- 
 *' hood") were in Being at the Times of 
 Herodotus ox Manetho ; much more in the 
 Times of Strabo and Plutarch ? CambyfiSi 
 when he conquer'd Egypt^ carried away 
 with him the Records of Egypt 5 and con- 
 fequently Herodotus could copy none of themj" 
 but faithfully related what he co»ld learn 
 from the Priefts. If Herodotus cquld not, fuch 
 as came long after himi could not : They 
 could only writ^ froiu what Mr^ Warburton 
 allows to be, and calls forged Records, 
 And that they did do fo, appears from the 
 R great; 
 
2^i Sir I s A A c N B # ir o n's 
 
 great Difagrecriient amorig ^11 tliat are coiH 
 cerned in this Affair. 
 
 4. Btifebiui lawReafon to attack diefe (f) 
 idk trifling Records of Egypt i and. complain-' 
 ^^much of them I arid thtn comes Panp* 
 ioru&i a Monk oilEgypti and falls foul on 
 Eufebius for not rightly apprehending his 
 Authors. J 
 
 5. There is an Old Chronicon of Egypt ^ 
 which contained an Hiftory of Thirty-Six 
 Thoufand Five Hundred and Twenty-Five 
 Years, which ended in NeSianebui's Days, 
 i.e. fome Time before jikxander's ExTpe- 
 ditionj and this diifers -from Maneth&'s 
 Numbers. Without now mentioning Era- 
 tojiheneSi ov AJrieanus, ov Syncellus,-— From 
 which of all thefe can we learn the authentic 
 Annah of Egyp t 
 
 6. Since Mr. War bur ton tells tis, that 
 " the ONLY TranfgreffioH againft Truth in 
 ^' ih.t{& EgyptianVx'vs^ was their extendi}^ 
 *^ back their Annals to aii unreafonable 
 *' Length of Time j" I ask, — Did they 
 not invent Fables md Lies to fupport theiF 
 Idolatry? Did ihiey not invent ISfiory? Did 
 
 ; '0 O* 'Evfililif liiiJL^ums r'tt ^KvagMti. ibid. 
 
CitRoNoibcV lAniitaieL 124 j 
 
 thfey not dejigkedhf throw Confujion uj)dh all 
 their Hiftbry? It was thSEfFed! of a verf 
 €0ive Priejihoody tho* hot of d vdry Bdjieji 
 ©ne, thus to forge "Records to fet off thdir* 
 own Antiquity; ahd He himfelf owns, that 
 they tranfgrefled againft TTrath in many Re-» 
 fjjeds J thb' here/ he faysj they did it bvl! 
 in One ONtV* 
 
 7. 1 muft liof c[uit this 4nioUg Paffege of 
 Mr. War bur fori J- before I have made one 
 more Remark upon it. Ev6ty ohe fee's 
 with what Zeal and Warmth he treats thd 
 prefent Freethinkers. Now it happens that 
 He has aii Octafion to fpeak of the Bgyptiajl 
 Ltvention to evade an Obje^on made tcJ' 
 their Religion. The Objedioh waSj " That 
 " their Gods had been Men^ and the Proof" 
 " of their Humanity was fetched from thcif 
 «' late Exiftence." p. 245. *' This Sub* 
 " ]ei&i fays ht^ Was matitimj^ puriued by 
 ** the Pree Inquirer's of that k^gt." Why^ 
 I prayj does he call this a malitious Pitr^ 
 fuit? Ought it not to have been purfued 
 By every Lover of Truth ? Why rtiuft that 
 be imputed to Mtilidei which Was fo juft< 
 fo reafonable, fo unanfweral^le an Objeftiort 
 to thofe knavijh InventarSy who were fo re- 
 ft a folutely 
 
^44 5/r I S A A C N E W T Q ?^'sr. 
 
 folutely determined; at all Adventures t<3 ' 
 ipaintain their- fuperftitjous Piollies ? 
 
 Hero Godsk, -and their Worfhip implied 
 a manifeft Abfurdity. 'The Free- Inquirers, 
 of thofe antient Times faw this very dearly, 
 aiid objefted the Folly of paying Adoratb^ ; 
 to Men of latej Exiftence* The Egyptian-. 
 Priefts by " a firong Effort of their Skiti,'!:, 
 contrived to '^ throw a generab Confliflon 
 " over theHiflory of their Adtions," iri 
 order to blind Maoliind, and to " make- 
 " them as indifpofed to believe the Qld 
 " Stories of them, as thefe «ew Fables^- 
 M Whith it was impoffibic they fhould 
 *f credit." p. 246. I will not here ask,. 
 How* he could fay, that, the only Tranf-, 
 greffion againft Truth in thefe Egyptian 
 Friejis was their extending back their Annals j ' 
 But why . ig that, here imputed by him to* 
 Malice in the Free Inquirers- of thofe Times, ■ 
 fince ,they had Truth on their Sides, And~ 
 direct Knavery, and Forgery was on the' 
 Egyptian Pridls Side ? I do not Wonder, 
 that all who would freely enquire now-a- 
 days into Things, are treated by him as 
 Fools, or Knaves, or Bloekheadsj ignorant 
 in Hiftory, in Logic, in Latin^ or Greeks 
 
 in 
 
Chronology %in^cated. 245 
 
 ia-good ^toners, or in Politicks. Could 
 
 an Egp^tijlfi,JPrieJl two or three thou&nd 
 
 .Years ago, have better a«9:ed his Part? 
 
 -Could Jie h&ve ufed more Addrefs to 
 
 jgfj^evhis Adverfary odJoJis or contemptible ? 
 
 . Sopiebody liJakes Objedion to Hero Gods, 
 
 aod Hero .Worthap. Prefently, He is a 
 
 .Fne TnefUirtr : It is all Malice. As if the 
 
 -fault lay in the Free Inquirer, and not in 
 
 ikis. forging Prieji-j as if it were a Crime to 
 
 ;4ifcrcdit fo fcandalous a Superftition, or to 
 
 •attack what thofe " Mqft;^r5 in their Trade'' 
 
 -did, either fo eyade fo flrong a Proof, or to 
 
 obfcure the Enquiry. 
 
 Laftly, It may be worth obferving here, 
 -diat Ofiris and IJis were placed in the Dy- 
 Hafly of the-E^/»^/i7« Gods: And thefe had 
 jbeen Mortals deified. Now, if the Ac- 
 count here given of the Management of 
 thefe Priefts be true, Thefe Gods fliould pro^ 
 baMy have been placed higher in Antiquity 
 than Mz«^io has placed themj fince thefe 
 Priefb placed their Gods hwer doion than 
 the Times \of their ciaiTAiNLY recorded 
 Worjhij). Now the Sixteenth Dynafty of 
 Men began about the Days of jihraham. 
 ikad the oilier fi&een prior to this l^ed 
 R 3 above 
 
2'4^ Sir Isaac N e w t o n's 
 
 above 3500 ^ears j And before thefe wei« 
 the Detfiigods, for 2 1 4 Yeaf s j and before thefe 
 was the Dynafty of Gfli/j, in -which OJris is 
 placed. If then this God is placed lower 
 down than the Times of his certainly re-- 
 forded Worfhip ; he is certainly ftill placed 
 long before the Creation of the World y and 
 yet it feems he vs placed lower by thefe Priefts 
 than he ought to be. What Regard now 
 is to be paid to thefe Annals, thus abomina- 
 bly forged or corrupted, and which ares 
 extended fo unreafonably backwards ? Or 
 how" does it appear, that' thefe Heroes were 
 placed lower down than the Time? of their 
 certainly recorded Worjhip? 
 
 Thus much to \i\%firji Obfernkifion^ made 
 in order to weaken Sir Ifaac's Account of 
 ihs, Egyptian Chronology. His ^^row^ is taken 
 from the ^ality of the Emdence, which is 
 another " legitimate Prejudice" againft this 
 New Chronology, It is chiefly the ^'^ fabu-r 
 •' lous Hiftpry of Greece, as delivered by 
 ?' their Poets and Mythologijis." p. 212^ 
 How eafy is it here to declaim upon " that 
 ?' infinite Diforder, confounding all Suc^ 
 ?^ ceffion of Time,™ its difmember'dand 
 [I iU-jojn'd Parts of Time ?'' I admit, tb^t 
 
 the 
 
Chronol^ogy vindicated. 247 
 
 i&it fabulous Hiftory oi Greece is bad enough • 
 but forely the Fabulous^ Lying, Romantic 
 Hiftory of £^^/, is worfe, or at leaft as 
 bad. The Greek Mythtkgifts have faid very 
 felfe Things: but then they have faid 
 {bmethingtrue *. Whereas the ** adtivc leam- 
 ** ed Priefthood" of Eg^pt have invented z 
 whole Hiflory of thirty thoufand Years that 
 is all &he. The Fabulous Ages among 
 the Greeks are miferably con&fed; and 
 thofe, who have wrote about thofc Times, 
 have n^de very bad Work : But notwith- 
 ftanding that, if from fome Circumftances 
 mentioned by the Poets and Mythologifts, 
 a Man of Judgment and Sagacity can pick 
 out Materials agreeable to the Nature of 
 Things, to Sacred Hiftory, to the Courfe 
 of Nature, to the beft Hiftorians j and can 
 free what he fays from Repugnances, — 
 Surely it is abfurd to argue, that fuch Evi- 
 dence is not to be admitted. The Difficul- 
 ty is to find out in the fabulous Hiftory, 
 what is true, and to feparate it from what 
 is falfe : Now if fbme Circuipftances, which 
 the fabulous Writers mention, exa«ftly agree 
 with what true Piftory relates, and all fo 
 tally togeth^, a£ to confirm each other 3 no 
 .i . R 4 Reafon 
 
248 Sir Isaac N e w t o n's 
 
 Reafon can be given why a Man fhbuld 
 not make ufe of them to ferve the Purpofe 
 of Truth, ^ Nor muft any one argue, that 
 whoever relates any Fable Is not to be cre- 
 dited in what appears hot to be Fable, un^ 
 lefs you would deflroy all Hiflory univer- 
 fally. 
 
 What now is thp real Ufe made by Si^ 
 Ifaac of thefe Fabulous Writers ?. Why, he 
 has attempted from fome Fads recorded by 
 them, fuch as the Genealogies of many, the 
 Numbers of Generations pafled, and fuch 
 like Circumftances, to fettle, in fome Cafes, 
 the Diftances of Time from one to another ^ 
 and every Body mud own, that he has ob- 
 fsrved a great Go-incidence of Circumftances, 
 which had efcaped other Chronologers. He 
 has tried, by a Method little minded by 
 others, to determine the Years, or within 
 the Compafs of fome few Years, when cer-r 
 tain Fads we're done ; and this agreeable to 
 the Courfe of Nature, and to the Ilelps 
 which other Books could afford him. 
 
 It is granted, that " Fable naturally joins 
 " together later and former Times.' p. 213. 
 But does Sir Ifaac depend upon fabulous 
 ^riters alone ? Has he no other Supports 
 
 : ' ^ for 
 
C H R G N'O I. D G Y i^ndi^afed. 24.5 
 
 for his C^ff5tiei«igy ? Yes. W^^Warburton is 
 forced to own, tlmt tfee " ISflorian$ of 
 ** Greece ^ViA ^^pt are the lefi&^r Part of 
 •* Sir i/Spc's Evidence." ibid. What wcAild 
 he have more ? Would he have had him 
 make ufe of Mr. Warbfarton\ " ajftive and 
 " learned Priefthood," the greateft Liari 
 that ever fat down to invent Hiftory ? No. 
 But " Thefe Hiftorians ought to be hi^rJ 
 *' outy hut this he Will not do." I ask. Is 
 he to take wery Thing, for granted, tibat 
 thefe Hiftorians lay ? Mr. War burton himr 
 felf owns in this very Page, that *' antient 
 '" Hiftory falfely improved'' certain FaiSs 
 *f through Miftakes." Was he not theh 
 to take the Method he did ; not to give into 
 the Invehtimi of the Sedentary Friejh of 
 Egypt, thpfe Miners in. their Trade of Ly- 
 ing, but to follow what appears to agree to 
 Nature, to Aftronomy, to Hiftory, to the 
 Bible, and to fuch Chronological Marks as 
 flight ferve to diredt an4 .guide him through 
 that wild, ihipfafticable Foreft of Antient 
 Hiftory? 
 
 Mr. Warburton is pleafed to obfcrve, that 
 f * His Prodfs are taken from Greek Mytho- 
 f f logiite, cori^fting of Scraps |)icked up 
 
 *f prpmifcuoufly 
 
250 Sir Isaac N e w t o n's 
 
 " promifeuoufly from Fabulifls, Poets, 
 " Seholkfts, m." What an excellent Chro- 
 nology would he frame, were he to take irf- 
 to his Aid none o£ the Poefs, none of thS 
 Scboli^y none of all thofe Books, whicK 
 his extenfive, " &c" comprehends ? If 
 he refblvcs againft the Aid of all Poets, and 
 all Sdmliaftsj and all FabuliJiSy I know not 
 whether he would not give us as falfe a 
 Chronology, as his ' Sedentary Priefts of 
 E^pt did a Hiftory ; andj if the Greeks are 
 all to be rejedied as Liars^ I am apt to 
 think there will remain but litde Founda- 
 tion for true Chronology or Hiftory either. 
 Bat why (hould he be fo di^eafed with 
 the Poets, and the old Scholiajis ? Are they 
 of no Authority ? Or are they of Authority, 
 when he ufes them, and not when Sir Ifaac 
 does? How often hath he cited them in his 
 fevourite Account of the Myfteries ? In one 
 Page, I find CaUimacbus, and NonnuSi and 
 LucOfZj cited, p. 162. Euripides 2SiA. Arif- 
 tophanesy and Sophocles^ and Apollonius Rbo- 
 dtusy and Ovid^ and Virgil, Gff. very often. 
 And as to Scholiajis, in one Page 206,: he 
 cites thofe upon Euripidis, Pindar, Sff- 
 'es. How abfurd i§ it |br him to cob- 
 
Chronology liindicafed. z^i 
 
 demn that great Man for ufing Scraps pick' d 
 up promifcuoujly from Fabuliftsy Poets, S^cho^ 
 li^s, when he himfelf does the fan& 
 Thing in Confirmation of his darling DiG- 
 covery of the Myfteries ? 
 
 This was Mr, WarhurtorC% fecond Ob* 
 fervation ; and now I'll confider " the In* 
 '' ference he draws firom them." It is this. 
 ^* We have, in the Diverfity of OJiris and 
 ^' SefoftriSf a Circumftance of Hiftory de- 
 " livered in the fiiUeft, and moft unvaria- 
 ^' ble Manner, by Jnnalifis of the beji Au^ 
 *' tbority. AH fucceeding Ages agreed in 
 *• theFadl; and very ^rong^ collateral Evi-r 
 *' </^«f^ fupports it." p. 213. Now, 
 
 1. Thefe Jnmlifts of the befi Authority 
 are thofe Egyptian Priefts, whom all the. 
 World knows to be the greateft Liars^ and 
 meer Iwoentors of Hiftory for many thou- 
 fands of Years before the Creation. He 
 himfelf has accufed them c& forging Records, 
 and of defignedly /;&r«iw/aj|- Confujion over all 
 tbeir HSflory, Are Thefe the Men, whom 
 he would have had Sir Ifaac implicitly foL 
 low in their Chronolo^ ? 
 
 2. What is this " very ftrong, collateral 
 l» Evidence VI Wh^t Authors? How near 
 
 the 
 
252 jSz>- I S JL AC N E W T O n'S 
 
 thC: Time of QpFh did they li\^e? What 
 ©ffportunities, had they of knowing the 
 Truth ? Wiiat Grounds, had they for their 
 ASbrtMEis ? Hadithe Jkmxlz]is he refers ^W, 
 any Knowledge of even Letters in thofe 
 «Q% Dajrs near the Time that (%fr/j is pre- 
 tedidfid to have Hv'd? Have you any Chro- 
 nologer or HiftOrian now extint, either 
 IB^ptian or Greaky from whom yau can 
 fettle the Jihtttth of Egypt f Or is there any 
 that lived within a thoufarid', or many 
 Aoiiiands of Y.ears of OJiris Days, if we 
 follow theabftirdj wild Chronology of the 
 ^^^ms? The Prieils told Merddotns fomft 
 Storiesi, which he feems not to have fcc- 
 Beved» hecaiife he oppofes what might .feir- 
 fy be depended, upori aft^r Pfiimmtichm'-& 
 Reign to what he had hard: So that He 
 knew nothing of thefe Mnnnds., or Annor 
 ^s of.thebeji Authority. And then, as to 
 Mr. JVarhurton\ " ilrong collateral Evi- 
 *' dence," — "What is it, but that later Wri-* 
 tcrs have told the Story u|)oalas fmall Grounds 
 as former ones have done? 'For as to <re/z» 
 tempor-ary Writers, of the Pm Age with 
 Xijuis, or very j&iany -Ages after him, there 
 are none that meation jhi«h,' This then 
 
 is 
 
Chronology "VindicoUd.' 253 
 
 is what he means by laying '' all fucceeding- 
 *' Ages agree in the Fa<a:," — "viz. Writera. 
 not Egyptian^ but what came after the tiiiies 
 of Sejojiris (even fuppofing that he live4 as. 
 late as Sir Ifaac makes him) a great deal above 
 500 Years, relate feme things which they 
 ^ad learnt from other Authors, or from In- 
 fcriptions, or from Hearfay. Mr. Warburton, 
 at 2500 Years diftance, confideredasan£«^- 
 lij}:i Writer, may be deemed a collateral Eivi- 
 dence, as well as any Greek or Ro?mm Wri- 
 ter whatever. 
 
 This being premifed, let me next enquire 
 how he invalidates Sir Ifaac's Notion, that 
 Ofris and Sefojiris were the fame. Sir Ifaat'^ 
 Argument for their Identity of Perfon is this 
 „_<' OJirisy Bacchus y and Sefojiris lived about 
 " the fame time, and by the Relation o€ 
 " Hiflorians were all of them Kings of aU 
 " ^SyP^^ ^^^ reigned at Thebes, and adorned 
 " that City, and were very potent by Land 
 " and Sea : all three were great Conquerors, 
 " and carried on their Conquefts by Land 
 " through Afta as far as India; all three came 
 " over the Hellefponty and were there hi 
 " Danger of loiing their Army: All three 
 «^ tfonquered Thrace, and there put a Stop to 
 
 " their 
 
'^54 Sif Is'A AC N E W t N*^ 
 
 " their Vidories, and returned back frottl 
 " thence into Egypt : All tbree left Pillars 
 *' with Infcriptions in their Conquefts, and 
 ** therefore all three muft be on^ and the 
 " fame King : And this King can be no 
 ** other than Sefac. All Egypt including 
 *' Thebaisy /Ethiopia and Libya, had no 
 " common King' before the Expulfion of the 
 " Shepherds who reigned in the loweif 
 *' Egypt', no Conqueror of Syria, Indiai 
 *' AJia Minor, and Thrace before Sefac ; and 
 *' the facred Hiftory admits of no Egyptian 
 *' Conqueror of Palejline, before this King.'*, 
 Newton's Chronol. p. 193. This is ond 
 Argument of Sir Ifaac'Si and to fhew it of 
 no Force, Mr. Warburton has compared the 
 Adions of King ^thur and William the Con- 
 queror in thirteen Particulars, from whencci 
 he argues — " Here the Number of fimilar 
 *• Circumftances in the Lives of jirthur and 
 «* -William are evidently more Charaderiftic" 
 " of One than thofe in the Hiftory of OJi' 
 " ris and Sefojlris. Yet we know that Ar^- 
 ** thur and William were really Two Men 
 *' of Two very diftant Ages." p. 216* 
 
 Did not Mr. Warburton fee, or was he will- 
 ing to conceal, the Force of the Argument 
 
 which 
 
CHRONOtdGY innSeatedi i^§ 
 
 ■wihich Sir J^aac urges ? It doeis riot lie in this on- ■ 
 ly, that they did^/w/Z^r Aftions, which would 
 ak)ne be to no more puT|)ofe than if he had 
 &id they had eiach two Hands^ and each eat 
 when they were hungry^ as his two Pleroes 
 did iikewife. But in this particular Fad:, 
 that there was but One l^ptkai King that 
 Feigned over all Egypt ^ Mtbiopui and Lih^a^ 
 till after the Expulfion of the Shepherds, and 
 )ret all thefe 'Three are faid to have doA6 lb. 
 Suppofe now that Arthur and William had 
 agreed in fo many Inftances as Mr. Warhttr'^ 
 ton fays, and then it had been added, th^ 
 "Britain was never conquered but by Ontz 
 Would not it then have been true, that if 
 thefe two conquered Britain^ and yet Bri^ 
 tain was never but once conquered. — Arfim\ 
 and William would have been only different 
 Names of the fame Perlbn ? 
 
 Now Heroiktus tells us, . that Sefojiris was 
 the (g) ONLY Mgyptian thsit reigned over 
 Mtbiopia. Strah kys, that jS^^m was the 
 {hj First that conquered Mtiiopia : and in. 
 
 (g) MSref 'kiyWlw; 'hi^ifgini «??«• Herod. 1. z. t 
 no. , 
 
 (b) iaivfiau tSk Aiho-rUet, j^ THt- T^yMDvriKMr 
 'irfSroi ti.c{\iK'^k-^*l/iVO( ^. in'x. Stfifirit, Strait p. U14. 
 L t. Edit. Arof. aliai, p. 769, 
 
 another 
 
ISir I's A A- c N E W T o H% 
 
 another PJace he fpeaks of Him as (i) 6ve^^- 
 running aU. Ethiopia as Jar as i'fye CinnamoJi^ 
 Bearing[ Region. Now if Ofiris coaquere^, 
 and reigned over Mthioptay and Sefojiris was 
 ^ ^irjl and only, One, or the only /Egyptian 
 that ccfflqu:ere.d and \:e\gm&:Ovs,t Mthtopiffi. 
 tiiefe Two mirfl be One aad the ^sm Perfon« 
 ,: That 0/&-/J was an ^^^^^ft^;?,. and: reigned 
 over Ethiopia, Hiodorus Siculus fellius : For 
 He (k) appointed Bufiris to take care ,of thofe 
 Farts •which lay tonvards Phoeniciaj and thi 
 Sea [/. e. thelowet Egy.pt\ -, and he appointed 
 Antaeus to take care of Ethiopia and Libya* 
 He reigned therefore over all Egypt, and. 
 ovdr Ethiopia and. Li l)ya.^ jWhsjji he con- 
 quered £^j6//^/tf, (ljh.e taught thntAgricuk 
 ture, and he built i^amfiderMe Cities j and left 
 proper Perfom to take care of the Country i 
 and to gather the tributes. Thejice he (m} 
 marched through Arabia, by the Red Sea, to 
 
 (i) liffa^eii Tnt ^Aid-iewiimWit^'S'iv a,Trci.ae.v likyut^jf 
 mnttyLoifia^av. Strab. p. 1138. alias 790. 
 
 (k) Eninhnjai ■ tTt Ti^at tav jxiv Tg?; (pamvf xsuKir 
 [Avm (JLi^av )^ Tav ami &ei,hctJ7}j r'oisrm 'Bi(7i£iv, rair <f'i najtc. 
 Tw Ai^io-Tt'iAv 1^ Ki^vnv Aviaiov. Dhd. 1. i. p. 10. Ed. Sttfb- 
 
 (I) TL£lk J'e 'At^iam-tsLVf S'iictiav\ct. tx( ai/^f&V« rd 
 
 jh4i«<;. ibid; 5/ ««• ^ •■ f . . ^ 
 
 ^Vif' ibid. p. 12. 
 
 thg 
 
GijRoNotoGY vindicated, i ?7 
 
 the Indies, and the furthermoji Parts of the 
 Marth. Now thefe Adtions can agree only 
 to Sefojiris ; and are all founded on the Au- 
 thority of the beft Hiftorians j not pick'd up 
 flrom Poits; or any Mythlo^ijis. If the 
 ?roof be A^ahted that S'efojifh did thefe 
 things, Strabo and Herodotus are Evidences 
 jiift cited : and Lucan^ though a Poet,* Way 
 be added for his Weftern Conquefts. 
 t^enit ad occafum tnmdique exirema Sefoftris. ]. lo. 
 
 The Queftion now is, whether OJris and 
 Sefojiris are different Perfons, or are they on- 
 ly two Names of one and the fame Perfori ? 
 
 To prove them really diflindt Perfons^ 
 Mr. Warburton aflures us, '* Tfiat it was an 
 " old Egyptian Cuflom to call their earlier 
 , ** Heroes after the Name of their earlief 
 *' Gods." p, 217. This may account for' 
 iS^/^m's being called Ofris^ if ever that was 
 their Cuftomj tho* a much better, and mUcli 
 more natural Reafon might b6 affigned. 
 But here the Reader is fadly difappointed, 
 fince Mr. Warburton has not prdduced One 
 fingle Inflance of this. SefiJlHs; as far as' 
 I can find, was never called Ofris; as frofti 
 an earlier Perfon: Nay,- Mr. War hurt tiri 
 hiniifelf carries this'' Point no ftpthef/ tfeii 
 
 S ■ ^ 
 
2 5^. Sir Isaac N e w t o n's- 
 
 to, fay, " That it is highly reafonabfg to fitp- 
 ** pofgy, that this Namie was given him." 
 pr. 220. 
 
 The Argament, which Sir Ifaac ufes ta 
 prove, that OJiris and &efoJiris were not 
 difiitiB PerfonSy is, That they Both reign'd. 
 over ALL Eigypty Mthiopia and Libya : Now 
 Sefojiris was the One only, and the Firji 
 King that did fo. Therefore Ofiris was 
 only a different Name, not a diflindt Perfott 
 irom Sefiftris, To tell us, that it was an 
 Egyptian Cuftom to call later Heroes often 
 the Name of their earlier Godsy is nothing 
 to the Purpofe. For if Ofiris and Sefojiris 
 were diflin6t Perfons^ then Iwo reigned- 
 CNtt all Egypt y and Two conquer 'd Ethio- 
 pia and Libya -y contrary Xo Herodotus' and 
 Strabo'% express Assertions. 
 
 Mr. War burton had faid, — " It is highly 
 " reafonable to fiippofe, that this Name was 
 " given hiniy" viz. That the Name of O/?- 
 ris was given to Sefojlrisy " tho' they were 
 " leally diJiinSl Perfons." There are but 
 three Lines that come in between this Sup- 
 pofitioHy exprefsly fb called j and He goes on 
 to afTert the PaSly — "When now they 
 *^ HAD GIVEN them the fame Name„ not 
 
 " diHinguifhed 
 
C H R ON o i, G V vindicated. 259 - 
 
 " diftinguiftied by the Firji 2ivA Second^ Pof- 
 " ttiity /recently confoun^i them with one 
 " another, and in this Confufion gave the 
 ' ' Adtions of Ofiris to Sefofiris, and ofSeJa/irii 
 " to OJiris" ibid. And again, " I hone 
 ^^ Jhewn, that a Sarnenefs of Name was in 
 " FaB^ the only Caufe of that Conformity, 
 " and confequently that their Perfons were 
 " diftinft." p. 225. Has he proved, that 
 Stfoftris and OJiris were diftindt Perfons ? 
 No. It is but a Suppofition -, and then a 
 FaB is aflerted, grounded ftill upon a Sup' 
 ppfition ; by which we are not advanced 
 one Step. It is roundly indeed aflerted, 
 that " Pojierity frequently confounded" the 
 two Men > whereas the Truth is, Pofterity 
 made Two Men out of One, Two greac 
 Conquerors of Ethiopia, Afia, &c. where 
 there was but One j Two Kings oi all Egypt ^ 
 where there was but One j nor does the Sa- 
 cred Hiftory of the Bible admit of any 
 more thanOw. : 
 
 It is faid, That "if what 0emens Alexr 
 " andrinus tells us be true, that Sejojiris 
 " was fprung from Ofirh, there was ftiU a 
 " further Reafon to give the later Hero 
 " the Name of his great Progenitor." ibid- 
 S 2 "Wh» 
 
±6q Sir Isaac Newt* o n^s 
 
 Who now would not imagine, that Clemens' ' 
 tells us, that Sefoftris was fprung from Oii- 
 ris ? And yet Clemens only tells us, what 
 one (n) Athenodoriis, the Son of Bandon, ' 
 had faid, when he was endeavouring to give ' 
 as great Antiquity as he could to Sarapis ji 
 and Clemens condemns him for his Invention. 
 This Athenodoriis had invented a Story^ 
 purely to ferve his Purpofe, that Sefoftris 
 order d Sis Progenitor Oiiris to be curioujly 
 ■made ; and thus derives Sarapis, as if it 
 v^ere a Word compounded of OJiris and' 
 Apis, quaji Ofirapis, Sarapis. A Story in- 
 vented for the Sake of the Derivation. And 
 how many imaginary Perfons, mere Inven- 
 tions are in all Languages made, purely for 
 the fame Reafon ? From fuch a Story nd' 
 Gonclufion can 6e drawn, either that Ofiris 
 was a real P erf on, or that he was a Pro-* 
 genitor of Sefojiris. 
 
 The better th^n to make up his Syftem, 
 Mr. Warburton tells us, how this whol& 
 Affair was managed. *' Ofiris, becaufe 
 
 Ton "Zof^/inv ^BAD'S-ftf, k'« c(I/^ oT«f ■7nti-i''ri<fiv 6A4>^af 
 rty/oV a,yeLf\.y.A ttvcu yinlov. Clem. Alex. coh. ad Gentes. 
 
 P-43;- , , , ,, , 
 
 Xuii'^ilop ^ Te 'OfffefcTo; )^'AT/5f, yi/n^ivov 'Oaigy.iri{i, 
 ihid, 
 
 Z " Sefoftris 
 
.<c 
 
 t^*H R Q N o L OG Y vjitdtcafed. 261 
 
 ^* <SefoJiris ^yas fo, is njad^.a great >Cqnque- 
 " rqr, at a Time when Egypt was but ya^ 
 " emerging from a State of Barbarity in^o 
 ." civil Policy. — But this fqems to be one 
 ** of the lateji Corruptions in their IJi^ory^ 
 ;*' Herodotus ^xv'xn^ nont. of ;thefe Cqnquefts 
 *' to Ofiris, but to ,SefoJir.is only 5 whence 
 *' I cqlleft it was the Produdt of fome 
 4-ge between him and piodorus SiculuSf 
 ** who gives it Jthem J to Ofiris with all its 
 *.' J^jiheir] Circumftances, and fupported by 
 " the Evidence of A«tient Monuments." 
 p. 221. Does not Mr. War burton grant 
 then, that what Herodotus told of Sefoftrisy 
 was by the adlive Priefthood of E^jpt cor- 
 rupted, and the fame Conqi^eils .givpn tQ 
 Ofiris with 4?// their Circumfiances ? For 
 Ltiodorus, ^s Mr. Warburton owns, copied 
 from their Annals^ p. a 1 1 ; And therefore 
 jEf e was not the Author of this Corruption, 
 Nor is it likely to be a Grecian Addition, 
 becaufe the ]fijgyptians themfelvps were far 
 mou's for their " extravagant Chronology^' 
 and themfelves had invented a Hiftory of 
 above 30,000 Years, and they were obliged 
 tQ invent Names, as well as things, to fill 
 it up. It was not then^ as Mr- Warburton 
 
 S 3 calls 
 
262 Sir Isaac N e w t o m's 
 
 calls it, f ' Mijiake that g^ve Birth to this 
 Corruption in the Egyptian Hijiory." p. 223. 
 but it was a Nationdl Vanity that gave 
 JB/r/^ to it, and the fame Caiife fuppofted 
 it. They could not invent Nenv Coif^nfries 
 to be conquered; nor could they contrive 
 any Thing but what muft be taken from, 
 the Ordinary Occurrences of Life to enlarge 
 vpon. When therefore they imputed to 
 OJiris, ox Siris, or Sirius, or whatever was 
 the Egyptian Heroes Name, certain great 
 Adlions, they took their Plan from Sefo/iris's 
 real Aftions, and thus made a Difference in 
 ^ime, when there was none in Perfon ; and 
 this was the true Caufe of the Confiifion in 
 the Accounts of I/is and OJiris. They could 
 not form even in Imagination a more uni^ 
 verfal Empire than S«foJiris had made him? 
 felf Mafter of: Some therefore imputed to 
 Ofiris, who was to be a Hero, the Aftions 
 of the real Sefojlris, and thus indulged their 
 Vanity and Invention, by making Two 
 Perfons, with two Names, out of one ; 
 And upon this Scheme, the Egyptian Chror 
 nohgy may be reconciled to Truth. Where- 
 as, if you make OJiris and Sefojiris different 
 Perfons^ and attribute to each the feveral 
 
 Adlions 
 
C H R o N o L o G Y vindicated. 263 
 
 AQ:ions imputed td them by Hiftorians, 
 dl is Contradidiion and Confufion of Times 
 and Places, and Circumftances. 
 
 But Mr. Warburton fays, " that no one 
 ** can in good Earneft believe, that E-gypi 
 *' was indeed emerging out of a State of 
 " Barbarity, at the Time in which Sir l^aac 
 ** places Sefsftris" p. 226. Nor do I 
 know, that Sir Ifaac iuppofes, or ever 
 thought of, any fuch Thing. He fuppofes 
 indeed, that F.gypt was, and had been mi- 
 ferably harrafled with Wars ; conquer'd by 
 the Shepherds -f the Shepherds again drove 
 out of a great Part of Egypt by One King, 
 and quite drove out by his Succeffor j then he 
 fiippofes Amman to reign ; and this takes 
 up one hundred Years. Then comes Sefac^ 
 and he reigns to a great Age, and fets up 
 one of the greateft Empires that ever had 
 been. Here is nothing like Egypt' ^ *' emerg- 
 " ing out of Barbarity," but emerging out 
 of a Scene of Subjedtion to Foreigners, apd 
 acquiring a vafl: Extent of Dominion. When 
 ihexeSontyLv. Warburton thinks it unlikely, 
 that (Sf/^m -could " divide the Lands of 
 " Egypt amongft the People, referving an 
 « Annual Rent to the Crown ;" and imagines 
 S 4 it 
 
^64 Sir I s, 4. A c N E w T o n's 
 
 it improbable, " becaufe we are certain thi^ 
 " was done long before hipi by the Patri- 
 " arch Jofepb j" — Why might it not have 
 been done by Sefo^ris, as well as by Jofeph, 
 eipecially fince Egypt had fufTer'd fuch 
 great Alterations and Changes betwixt J(h 
 fepb:.s and Sefojiris'% Time ? But I fhall have 
 Occafion to conlider this Matter again by 
 ' and by. 
 
 From an Argument founded upofi a 
 mere Suppojition, Mr. War burton fays, " ij^ 
 *' the Cafe required, we fhould not want 
 " pofitive Arguments, fupported by thq 
 " foundeft Part of Antiquity, to prove their 
 '' Difference of Perfon." p. 227. which, 
 iince he has been fo good as. to oblige thq 
 World with, let us confider them. 
 
 His firfl is taken from the Time, when 
 Hero WorJJdip was iirll inilituted j and it is 
 to fhew, that Qfiris. was as antient ' ' as the 
 " fiber Cbronologijii fuppofe," It ftands 
 thus, — " Hero Worfhip was -as early as 
 " xhcjirjl Injiitution of a'vil Policy ; there,- 
 *' fore the ufing the Name of Ofiris to this 
 " Purpofe, is Demonjirationy that he was 
 " as early as iht fiber Chromlogijis fuppofe.'* 
 
 . He 
 
Chronology v^Msated. 26? 
 
 • He thpn .a4ds, that 'f Hero Wbiejhip was 
 \' fubftitiited, an4 came after Planet Wbr- 
 " JMp" JMow let me add, but " Hero 
 " Worfhlp was as early as the firft Inftitu- 
 " tion of. Civil Policy ; Xhe^elore Planet 
 ** Wormip was before ihefrfi InfUtUtion of 
 *' civil Policy." This I fuppofe may be 
 denied with great Juftice ; nor can Mr, 
 Warburton prove, that Hero Worjhip was as 
 early <7J the firft InHitntion of civil Policy -, 
 nor that Hero Worfliip came after Planet 
 Worfhip. 
 
 But this will deftrve a little further En- 
 quiry. It was conceived hy Epiphanius and 
 others, that the Beginning of Idolatry was 
 in Seriig's Time. What particular Evidence 
 they had for this, I know not j but it con- 
 fiffed then in having only pi£iurcc[ or cqlour- 
 ed OhjeBs : They had not arrived to Images 
 made of Wood, or Stone, Silver or Gold. 
 Epiphanius's Words are, fpeaking of Serug^s 
 Time, (0) " Then began Idolatry amongft 
 *• Men , as we have it by Tradition. For as yet 
 
 {a) K.ai ns^itre erf dr6s^Tns( » e/^^«^o^«Tei^s_J — ®f » 
 
 J^ it TOfHeuf tAdav » ^u\av n d,^yv£fTi\iKTav, n Yf uVkj » 
 
 i^ eM.t)f Tivoi v\»s ■Triwoiti/ji.iv'av : [i'om S'i J^iet x?*/^"^: 
 
 tav ^ ^Kovar » r? air9f«i-Tu S'lajio'.A i(^ ia.vj» iiiiej,(!¥A iwt 
 ietKial-. Epiphj Haeref. p. 7. 
 
 «' the 
 
a66 Sir Is A AC N e w t o n's 
 
 " the ■ Mind of Man had not difcovercd 
 " the Mifchief of carved Images and graven 
 ** or poliflied Stones, or Wood, or Silver 
 " or Gold, or any other Subftance, but 
 " only of what was made by Colours or 
 " painted Refemblances.'" Tw6 Genei^tions 
 after in Serug% Grandfon's Time, (l>) Ima- 
 ges of* Men vftre made ofClay hy the Fbtter*s 
 Art. 'Tharrd was the Inventor of this. So 
 that Painting, or Colouring of Things, was 
 the Beginning of Idotatry'j and in a little 
 Time after the Potter made Images of Clay j 
 and thefe were the firft Images of Gods^ 
 that we read of. 
 
 Eufelfius fipt^king of this very Serug, tho' 
 he makes him, by fome Miftake, of the Fa- 
 mily oijflpheti obferves, that he began the 
 wprfhip of many Gods (f ) " For He, and Thoft 
 
 (^) 'EfTivQiv y'vyai/iv iiiS^ta.vr(fVfi<tffi<t iira ttnh\s^yia.( 
 
 ibid. p. 8. ' ^ 
 
 ^'oy[/.Ato{ in( ^aKoKajTeittf. AJrif >«|, ^oi avv dvlv 
 Tsf rrtiKtu ysveiiivnt » w^Kefni^irti vyipAvaf, i^ ri ygjt- 
 ^ttvjctt dvS'.eia.i % i^ilnt a.^iav iv rS jSi'ia rtu p.vniJA»tiii^aT 
 
 i'i unA ravja ivBiavoi dyvoSiflu tw t^v -irgyyivvv 
 fyyaiM/Wy art a{ Tg^a'tfTo^f ^ arya^av si/fs7<« iTifiWtf 
 
 ^'j}oi{. Eufeb. Chron. 1. s.p.-ij, 
 
 **whqi 
 
Chronology vindicated: 267 
 
 " who lived in his Time, honoured thofe that 
 *' were before him, whether diey were 
 *' Warriors, or Governors, or did any 
 *• Thing valiantly or bravely, worthy in 
 ^' Life to be remembred ; and as being 
 " their Anceftors they honoured them wirfi 
 " Statues and Pillars, and paid a Refpefh 
 " to them, as if they had been Gods, and 
 *' facrificed there. But the Men that came 
 " after, not knowing the Meaning of their 
 *' Anceftors, that they honoured them only 
 " as their Anceftors, and as Inventors of 
 " Good Things, with only a Remembrance 
 " of them, they worftiipped them as Ce- 
 *' leJiialGodsy and facrificed /o them." He 
 goes on tp defcribe die Manner, and by 
 what Steps this Deification was brought to 
 Perfeftion : l^eir Names werejirjl ordered 
 to be put into their f acred Books ; then they 
 made Feafts at a certain Time in Memory of 
 them, and Jaid their . Souls were gone to the 
 IJles of the' Happy, and "were no mWe to be 
 judged or burnt 'with Fire : And that this 
 Cujlom continued down to the Time of Thaxrz^ 
 the Father o/* Abraham. 
 
 There may be fome Difficulty in ac- 
 f panting for, or reconciling thefe different 
 4. Accounts 
 
^68 Sir. Isaac N z w t o n's 
 
 Recounts of antient Idolatry: Epip^aniuf 
 aflerting it to be originally painting only ; 
 Eufebius laying it was owing to Pillar Sf 
 Perhaps ^piphaniwi only denied Cravings^ 
 and Curiofiti^s, or Niceties of Workmanr 
 iliip^ whilft the Otljer :^aks of rough, un- 
 ppl^'d Pillars. .And thus Petavius acr 
 counts for the Di^culty- 
 
 Tharra was an Image-maker by Profeff 
 lion 4 and if Syncellus teljs us T,ruthj (d) 
 *' Abraham burnt his Father's Idols j and 
 f ' Haran, his Brother, going to pjit put the 
 " Fire in the Night, w,as burrtt himfelf." 
 The Idols pf his FaJ:her were fuch as he 
 joaade and foldj and were the Images of 
 Men naade in Clay, and baked as Potters 
 Ao. Thefe were the Images which Rachel 
 Aole, the Teraphim-, the Gods that were her 
 Fathers, Gen. xxxi. 19, 30. And that 
 thefe 'Teraphim were Images of Men^ and 
 jiot of ^tars^ feems clear from hence, that 
 Michal made up a Teraphim^ an Image to 
 teprefent David in his Bed. 
 
 Epiphanius thinks, that it was (e) " long 
 " after" this Idolatry of Tharra, that Men 
 
 (J) ^EnTvuffiv Aggjfrf,!/ 7 a tlJ^fn^a, tk Tlalg); ^ftflt, 
 jfi «rucsKtti''c3-» avjolf o 'Afpay ^iKav ff^iffcu li wvf iv 
 fviili. Syncellus, p. 99. 
 
 (?) 'MiiiTTtiltt 'jskkS tS yfj:'(f. Epiph. ib. 
 
 ' ^ worfhipped 
 
Chronology vindidate^. 16'^ 
 
 -^orftnpped &r?^« and Jupiter ^ and Ops and 
 Juno; &C. and no doubt fo it was. As to 
 Planet Worfliip, not a Word of it is fi> 
 much as mentibnfed till a great while after 
 this J never till after the Departure of the 
 Children of Ifrael out of Egypt. So that 
 why Mr. Warburtm fhouid^ fo po^tiveljr fix 
 Hero Worfliip to be after Planet Worfliip, 
 when this is no where pientioned till fonier 
 htrndred Years after that, I yet can lee no- 
 Reafpn. 
 
 Mr. WarburtorC% next Point is, that Fla^ 
 net Worjhip was before the firft Inllitution of 
 <!^ivil Policy. This likewife is a Point that 
 fliould be proved from certain Fa^\ but 
 which Mr^ Warburttn has not "attempted to- 
 do. 
 
 A third Point',' which Mr. Warburton has 
 attempted to ftiew is, that Hero Worjhip was 
 poflerior to Planet Worjhip: but by what 
 means ? Ky the Authority of Men, not one 
 of which lived within fo much as thirteen 
 hundred Years after the times of Idolatry 
 were begun. Nor is their Authority of any 
 Sort of Weight, where we can go miich 
 nearer to the Fountain Head. But let us 
 fiappofe all thefc Points proved, did all Hei& 
 
 Worfliip 
 
^70, -^V, Isaac N e w t^ 6 n's ^ 
 
 Worfhip ' begin with Civil Policy f Did il 
 do fo in Egypt? If it did, then OJrh muft 
 have lived as early as the firft Inftitution of 
 Civil Policy in Egypt; i. e before at leaft 
 Jbraham'^ Journeys into Egypt ; for in his 
 time there was a Cm/ "Policy in that Country. 
 Now Which are the "fiber Chronokgijisy" ■ 
 whom we are to follow ? Thofe, who re- 
 gard the Annals of the Priefts oi Egypt, who 
 extended backwards, or brought dtyvbn their 
 Hiftory as they pleafed ; or thofe who have 
 rejedted all their febulous Accounts which 
 run out beyond the beginning of the World? 
 What if Hero Worfhip did bfegin with Civil 
 Policy ? Did it not continue after Civil Po- 
 licy was begun ? How then are we to fix 
 Oftris's Age, fince Hero Worjhip began be- 
 fore Graham' % time, and continued to the 
 Argonautic Expedition, i. e. upon the com- 
 mon Schemes of Chronology unrcdifyed, 
 at leaft feven hundred Years? Was Ofiris 
 l^tjirji that was deified in Egypt ? Might 
 he not be one of the laft? Or were not 
 Vulcan^ HeliuSj Agathodeemon and Saturn 
 before him ? And did not thefe reign 866 
 Years before Ofiris, if you follow Manetho^ 
 the Egyptian. Prieft's Account? Or might 
 
 not 
 
CHRONotOGY iMndkated.. a/* 
 
 not her or his SQja Orus be the laft ? Or might 
 not the Humour of deifying Men continue 
 there, to the tinaes when Men and Womea 
 brought the Trade into Eurtfej and flock'd 
 the Heavens with mortal Men ? What fort 
 of a Demonfiration then is this that Ofirk 
 lived as early as he is ufually placed by com- 
 mon Chronologers ? 
 
 We h^ve a Second, " a demon/irative Protf, 
 " of their [1/^s add OJHs,] beii^ the com^ 
 " man Bmefa&ors of all EgypH in the In>- 
 " vention of Corn, Wine, and Civil Poli- 
 " cy, as the Egyptian ^finals deliver. Their 
 " other Hero Gods, ^s particular and partial 
 " Benefactors^ being worfhipped varimjly^ 
 " But this fixes them in their high Anti- 
 " quity." p. 217, 18. Thefe great lying' 
 Egyptian jhnaki fhould not ht urged too 
 far, efpecially when a demnftrative Proof of 
 any fe<^ in Hift<?ry depends upon them. It 
 is true, that Herodotus tells us, Z&z/ no Gods 
 befides Ifis and Ofiris were worjhipped by all 
 the Egyptkns in the Jam unvaried Manner, 
 5ut nothing will hence follow, except that 
 tl^efe Perfpm reigned over all Egypt. Wt 
 now know that rfie Dynafties x^ Egypt were 
 not fucceflive, but contemporary : And that 
 
 *f all 
 
^72 Sir i s A AC N £ w t isi's 
 
 ** all Egypt had no common King before 
 *' theExpulfion of the Shepherds who reign- 
 " ed in the lower E^ypt" as Sir Ifaac ob- 
 ferved. The Shepherds were reduced by 
 Mtfphrag?kuthofis; and qtite expelled by 
 Amofis, who extended his Dominion ovef 
 all Egypt: His Son extended his Con- 
 quefts; and his Grandfon was the Con-" 
 queror of Mthiopia, Libyai Arabia^ and 
 all Afia, And he lived in an Age when 
 Deification Was the Fafbion. • He might 
 therefore be worfliipped by all Egypt in 
 the fame manner ; how diffefentiy foever' 
 they paid their Worfhip to their |)articular 
 Nomal Heroes: and in confequence, nei- 
 ther difference of Perfoii nor difference of 
 Time, nor high Antiquity is at all affedted 
 by this " demonjlrative Proof." 
 
 But after all, what are thefe Egyptiati 
 Annals here appealed to for the high Anti- 
 quity of OJiris'? Where are they to be 
 found ? Are they not Forgeries made after 
 that the Greeks were in Poffeffion of Egypt f « 
 Were they not " the Produdt of fome Age 
 *' between Herodotus and Diodorus Si cuius ^ 
 *' and fupported by. the Evidence of pre- 
 *' tended antient Monuments ?" Mr. War- 
 
 burtott 
 
CttRONOLOCjV vindicated, a^jj 
 
 turton imagines the Story of Q^rw's Expe-' 
 ditioils, as told by DivdoritS, to be fuch an 
 Invention, p; 221. and whether the Story 
 of his ^'' high Antiquity" might not come 
 out bf the fame Forge, or whether it were 
 the Invention of that adive and learned 
 Priefthood before that time^ I fhall leave tc^' 
 further Enquiry. 
 
 When we are told that their being " com-i 
 *' mon Benefadtors of all £gy^/ in the In-' 
 *- vention of Gorri, &c, fixes them in 
 " their high Antiquity," — Does high 
 Antiquity imply the Age that Manetho places 
 them in; i.e, before the Floods reckoning 
 his Sixteen Dyna/ties as (hort as you pleafe? 
 Or is it a time before Jofeph's Days, when 
 we know Corn was well known in £^^// and 
 ufed? Or how is it proved to be fo early as 
 the Death of jojhua f For it has not yet 
 been proved that the Egyptians had found 
 out that the Year confifted of 365 Days, fo 
 early as that; and OJiris was crvyymi »ws£5Sf; 
 not born l>e/dr^ the Day, but with the time 
 in which they added the additional five Day^ 
 to the Year. • 
 
 Mr; Warhurton produces a thir-d Argu- 
 ment: " The Calf and Ox are own'dto be 
 T " the 
 
174 ^^^ Isaac 1>l t v/. r o ^^^ 
 
 " the peculiar Symbols oi OJiris:. but \h.e 
 
 " Golden Calf I have prpved tp be, an, E- 
 
 " gyp.^i^n^^y^oly therefore 0/^m at leaft afr 
 
 " old as Mofes." p.' 228. That the Cal/os 
 
 Ox were Egyptian Symbols is true j and that^ 
 
 the Egyptians worfljip'd fome of their Kings j 
 
 or Benefedlors under that Reprefentation is. 
 
 certain:. And that the Golden Calf ftiight hex 
 
 made by Aaron ixovn. the Model of, Egypt, is 
 
 moft probable;, and eonfequently that the' 
 
 Egyptian Symbol of an Ox or Calf to repre-' 
 
 fent fome deified- Perfon was as old as Mofes, 
 
 is granted. The ,, only Points that fhpuM, 
 
 have been proved were, that thefe Symbols 
 
 were " peculiar tp OJiris ■" and that O/ii'is 
 
 lived as early as Mof^s.- A ;reafon is eafily 
 
 to be affigned why O/tr is (.fupp©fing him and'; 
 
 Sefojlris to be the fame) ,Wg5_ w^rfhipped ; 
 
 under that Syrnbol : but tha.t.it was " pe.cu- 
 
 " liar to Ofiris," fuppofedto be a diftindt 
 
 Perfon from Sejofiris^ to be fa wpjrfhipped j. 
 
 or that it did not denote fome other Bene- 
 
 fadtor different from and prior to Ofiris^ is. 
 
 the Point to be proved, ^^iks (j^/is ftrbng-? 
 
 ly of Opinion, that Jofeph was reprefented 
 
 by the Egyptian^ under that Figure ; and he 
 
 ^_/^ Voflias de Idolol. Lib., i.e. 2^. 
 
 ha& 
 
Cnkdi^oLOGY indicated. 27/ 
 
 Has with hitti feveral of the Antients that 
 were in that Notion : and he fliews by fe-i 
 Veral Arguments, that a more Jiroper Symbol 
 could not have been invented for fb great a 
 Benefi.>fl:ori fdmtich honoured by the King j 
 And h6 hafe very well obferved, that even 
 the Rrnndns expreliied their 'Senfe of Kindiiefs 
 don"e them" by theDiftribiitiori oiCo^n among 
 them, by giving Z>. Minucim a Golden Ox. 
 The Invention of the Symbol was certainly' 
 very ^ntieht; bu'f that it was " peculiar to' 
 " Ofiris" and thfence to draw an Argument' 
 of 0/^nVs Age^'a^d to make hirft as an- 
 tient at leiaft, as tftat Symbol, is too much td' 
 be taken for granted in this Place; The Ox^ 
 ieems at firft to have been the Symbol or 
 ^Hcickure ; thcit of the Perfon, whoever^ 
 he was that improved' Agriculture j after- 
 wards it was the Symbol of (g) Sefqftris or 
 OfiriSy who taught^ his conquer'd Subjcd:s/ 
 either Agriculture, ot to plough with Oxe/2.[ 
 The fourth Re^fon'is taken from a Con- 
 eeiiiofl ma^de by Sir Ifaac : — " Giir g^ealj' 
 ^' Author o'Wns,: that the King, who in- 
 *' vented A^icutture m^Egypf", feenis to' 
 
 Tec 'TTiii 7tiy y.iofyidy^ Diod. Sic. 1. i. p. 16. ■ 
 
 T 2 *' have 
 
276 Sir Isaac N e w t o n's- 
 
 " have been worfhipped by his Subjeds m 
 *' the dx or Calf for his Benefeftion. Now 
 " the Ox or Calf was the Symbol of OJiris. 
 " But Agriculture we certainly know was 
 " invented be^re the Time of yofephy 
 " which will bring us to feekfor Ofiris 700 
 *' Years higher than Sefae^ who is our Au^ 
 " thor's antient OJiris or Sefojiris." ibid. 
 
 Here again Mr. Warburpn takes for 
 granted, that the Ox or Calf were fo pecu- 
 liarly the Symbols of OfiriSy that they were 
 never applied to any one befides. Does he, 
 not fee, that Sir Ifmc, in the PafTage here 
 quoted, gueffes, that the King, ivho by bis 
 invention firji peopled the lower Part of 
 Egypt j and reigned over if, perhaps the King 
 of Mefir, where. Memphis was afterwards 
 built y feems to have, been worfhipped by his 
 SubjeBs after Death in the Ox or Calf for his 
 Benefa£lion?' The lower Part of Egypt be- 
 ing yearly overflowed by the M/f,. was little 
 ufeful to any Inhabitants, before it was 
 made capable of bringing forth Corn ; or 
 maintaining its own People. The Seafons 
 therefore were neceffary to be obfervedj, 
 the Overflowings, and the Abatements of 
 the Nile -, the Opportunities of Sowing and 
 
 Reaping^ 
 
Chronology vindicated, 277 
 
 Reaping ; the proper Pafturage of Cattle, — '• 
 Thefe, and fuch like Behefedtions, of Him 
 who difcover'd thefe Things^ ocxafioned 
 the Worfhip of fbme Kiijig of Lower Egypt 
 at firft. His Name, as a proper Name^ 
 feemed not to have been OJiris, for none 
 fuch was in Being j but an Ox, or Calf, 
 "ywi; was fet up, as the Symbol of fo good 
 a Benefedtor : And this Name long after- 
 wards was appropriated to him who was the 
 great Conqueror of the World, and who 
 taught the conquer'd Nations, Weft and 
 South, to plough with Oxen. Agriculture 
 therefore might have been 700 Years iji 
 the World, or twice as much, before Se-, 
 fojiris's Age j and yet that will not prove, 
 either that Sefojiris might not be wqrfhip-. 
 ped in an Ox j nor that Pofterity might not 
 appropriate that Symbol to Him, whic|i 
 had been before applied to others. 
 
 But let us fee at what Time thefe Maf- 
 ters of their Trade, have fixed their Dynafty 
 of Gods and Demigods^ and how long that 
 lafted. 
 
 Manethoy the Sebennyte, has given Ug 
 
 an Account of Sixteen Dynafties of Egypt -^ 
 
 tV b;it 
 
278 Sir Isaac N :e w t o ^'s 
 
 but before any of thefe began,, were the 
 Pynafties of their Gods and Demigods. 
 
 Vulcan reigned 724 Years 7, and 4 Days, 
 
 Helius, Son q{ Fulcan, 86 Years. 
 
 jigathodemon — — p,6^ Years \, and 10 Days, 
 
 Saturn — — — 40 Years and a half. 
 
 Ofiris and ^s 35 Years, 
 
 The Sixth is not named. 
 Typhon — — ^ — 29 \ 
 
 971 Years, 61V1. 14 Day?, 
 
 Orus, a Demigod — 25 Years, 
 Mars, a Demigod — 23 
 Jtiubis, a Demigod — 1 7 
 Hercules, a Demigod — 15 
 Apollo, a Demigod — 25 
 Amnion, a Demigod — 30 
 Tithoes, a Delnigod — 27 
 Sofus, a Demigod — 32 
 Jupiter, a Demigod — 20 
 
 214 
 
 All thefe, our Chronologers, (reckoning 
 them^ asthey muft be 4 or 59.00 Years be^ 
 fore the Flood ) have juftly placed to 
 the Account of the Fabulous Chronology of 
 
 Egypt. 
 
CmronologV vindicated. 279 
 
 Bgypt. Nor has the Exadiiiefs of Months 
 and Days, as well las Years, which the 
 Gods reigned^ made thefe Records of that 
 aSfive and learned Priejihood gain any ^ort 
 of Credit with the Judiciaits. OJiris and 
 Jfis are here fixed to a Time, when it is on 
 all Hands agretd they could not live. If 
 therefore they are reckon'd in the Number 
 of their Qods ; and it is certain, that they 
 4id not live at the Time^ where they placed 
 them 5 and it ie certain tbo, that they dei- 
 fied their deceafed Kings and Beriefadtors ;-r 
 muft we not look for them' at a Time, 
 when the, Deificatioji of Mortals was the 
 Pradtice of a Country ? And if wg can find 
 among their Kihgs, or great Men, any one, 
 whofe AdHons are the fame, or fimUar to 
 His who is deified, may we not conclude, 
 that the God and the Mortal were the 
 hme Perfon, And is it any Objedion, that 
 the Chronology docs not agree, when upon 
 all Schemes, either Ofiris is a mere fidlitiou^ 
 Perfon, or you muft place him where his 
 Adions will fuit with the Nature of Things, 
 and Circumftances of Hiftory, tho' it be a 
 thoufand, or 1500 Years later than the 
 Priefis of Eg^pt had placed him. And fup- 
 T 4 pofe. 
 
;^8o Sir Isaac N e,w t o n's 
 
 pofe,. that we are .allowed to look fo^- him 
 before Jofepb's Days ; or fuppofe, as l^tq aq 
 .yojhua's Days j whatever will juftify our 
 looking fo low, will juftify our defgending. 
 much lower, even as late as Sokmqn'^ or. 
 Mehoboam's Days ; if the Circumftanges of 
 Hiftory and Times will then agree to hjm^, 
 It is certain, that OJiris did not live at 
 the Time where the Egyptians placed him : 
 And the Names of the Gods that reigned 
 before him, Helium, and Agathadeemon^ are 
 Greek Names, which 'in thofe early Days 
 were not, cduld not, be giveji to Egyptian, 
 Gods. If ever therefore, by examining 
 Jliftory, we can find a Mortal that certain-: 
 ly did the Actions imputed to the God, we 
 ijiuft bring fuch God from his High Anti- 
 quity J efpecially fince we know the Prac^ 
 tice of the Egyptian Priefts, who were wont 
 to extend their Hiftory backwards, to fuch 
 an unreafonable Length of 'Time. OJiris ig 
 perhaps no more than a corrupt, ill pro- 
 nounced, Egyptian Word 5 and not the^ro-- 
 per Name of any one. Whether it was 
 derived from ivb-, an Ox, becaufe Sefojiris 
 taught his conquer'd People to plough with 
 Qxen ; or whether it is an Mthiopian Wprd^' 
 
 and 
 
Chronology vindicated. 28 1 
 
 and given to the Conqueror from his com- 
 ing from Egypt up the River Nile to in- 
 vade them ( for they called the Nile (a) 
 Siris) or whether it comes from any other 
 Words, I think we can hardly fay with any 
 Certainty. But if the Egyptians deified a 
 Hero of theirs, under the Title of 0/in\ 
 a Name by which he was called, either by 
 his Neighbours the Mthiopians^ or from 
 his Benefaction to his Acquifts, by teaching 
 them Agriculture, — this was a good Con- 
 trivance to conceal the Mortal under a Name, 
 which he obtained as a God ; and the only 
 Difficulty is to find out the Hero, who 
 was deified under fuch a Name. Now 
 when fo many Circumftances agree to Se- 
 fojiris, which Sir Ifaac has, with a peculiar 
 Sagacity, laid together, one cannot much 
 doubt, but Ofris was the Name of the 
 God, whom Mortals call'd Sefojiris. 
 
 But let us fuppofe with Mr. War burton, 
 that We are to look for OJiris before Jofepb's 
 Days, fhali we not then throw more Con- 
 ^fion upon alj that is tolerably clear, than 
 
 (a) "EvQev Tiordroia katX^'xito/ vJIata NelAs 
 
 Dionyf. Perieg. v. 221. 
 
 WQ 
 
282 Str Isaac N e w t o n's 
 
 we had before. It was but in p. 1 S'g, that 
 Mr. Warhurton agrees, that the Fable of the 
 Birth of the Five Gods, X)JiriSy Jfis, Typhoy 
 Orus, and Nephthe, " could not be invent- 
 " ed before the Egyptians had found out 
 " that the Year confifted of 365 Days;" 
 and this He fuppofes to be " a little after 
 " the Death ofjojhm:' The learned Mr- 
 Shiickfotd had atgued from that Fable, that 
 thefe Gods were not deified before they knew 
 that the Tear had ihefe five Days added to it. 
 But Mr. Warburtofi denies this Confequence^ 
 and pretends, that the five Gods were deified 
 before this Addition to the Tear, and fays, 
 the Fable was made to commemorate the In- 
 Jertion. of the five Jpays. But that which 
 feews, that Ofiris was not prior to the Ad- 
 dition of thefe iTTityttuivcu, or Addition of the 
 five Days, is, (if any Credit is to be given 
 to tiie Pillars faid to be found at Nyja in 
 Arabia) that in them. He is faid to be, 
 svyyivrii wVseaf, born at the very Time when 
 thefe Days were found neceffary to com- 
 pleat the Year ; and confequently long after 
 Jofeph\ Death ; nay, and after Mofes% 
 Death too:. 
 
 No 
 
Chronology 'uindicated 283 
 
 , No Time rfie;n being at aU agreed on, 
 wherein OJris lived, the Point is to en- 
 quire, who was the Man, to whom the 
 Egyptians gave that Name ? Who is it, and 
 when did he Uve, who was fo much talked 
 of in Egypt? Mr. Warburton has made a 
 Pigreffion to " difcover the general Caufe 
 " of all the miftaken Identities of Perfons, 
 "by tracing down tlie Religion of Greece 
 " from its Original." p. 229. But this an- 
 fwers not the Point. There v^^as fome One 
 Perfon in Egypt, called Bacchus or Dionyfus ; 
 and the fame Perfon was called OJirisy by the 
 Confenty as Sir Ifaac obferves ofaU Antiquity. 
 This is affirmed " by the Egyptians, as well 
 " as by the Greeks, and fome of the Antient 
 " Mythologifts, as Eumolpus and Orpheus, 
 " called Ofiris by the Name oi Dionyfus." 
 p. 193. How a Difcourfe, which traces 
 dowii the Origin of the Religion of Greece^ 
 can help us in this Affair, I own I do not 
 fee. Had the Queflion been, — whence the 
 Greeks derived their Bacchus j or Dionyfus, 
 then it would have been proper to hav© 
 f^wn, from whence the tutelary Gods, or 
 the Names of the tutelary Gods of Greece, 
 came. But here the Debate is. Who was 
 
 the 
 
284 S'/r I S A A C N E w T o n's' 
 
 the Perfon called in Egypt iDJiris, or Dio-> 
 nyfus, and when he liyed ? Sir ^^f thinks 
 him firom many Cireumftantes, all concur- 
 ring, that Sejcflris was the Perfon intended. 
 And to prove this, he fhews, that That 
 Bacchus (whoever he was) or Ojiris^ was' 
 femous for doing the very Things which 
 made Sefojiris famous : ** Bacchus, or OJiris,' 
 *' was contemporary with Sefijiris, and both 
 " were Kings of Egypt, potent at Sea,' 
 " great Conquerors, 'and carried on their 
 *' Conquefts into India and Thrace ; there- 
 " fore they muft be one and the fame 
 *.' Man." Let the Greeks then derive their 
 Bacchus from Egypt, or India j or let them 
 fetch thq. Name from whom you pldafe,' 
 Mr. Warburton owns, that Bacchus " was' 
 " but Two Generations earlier than die' 
 " Trojan War," and as he did all the Ac-' 
 tions of his Contemporary, and was King of 
 the fame Country, they muft be one, and 
 the fame Man. 
 
 The next Attack upon Sir Ifaac is ; That ■ 
 whereas " he [Sir ^(j^c] confiders the Ge. 
 " neahgies of their Gods and Heroes, anj 
 " finds them to co-incide with the Time " 
 ^^ ^f AS^m;i"--This he thinks to be. « a 
 
 ' " Confirmation J 
 
Ghronolqgy. vmdieaUd. 285 
 
 *' Confirmation y and further Evidence of 
 " the Truth of his Opinion." D. L. p, 244. 
 And is it not remarkable^ that there fhould 
 be inch zCo'-inddence f Is it not very fur^. 
 prifing,that at a Time, when fo many Fables 
 were invented and contrived to confound all 
 Truth and Knowledge ; when there was fo 
 much Confiifion and Contradiction, not on- 
 ly of Places, but of Times and Perfons ; 
 when fuch a Darkndfs as might be felt, 
 appeared on the Face of Antiquity ; yet 
 That great Genius found out a Clue that 
 guided him thro' that Labyrinth, and made 
 him able to (hew others, who were willing 
 to travel, how they might with. Pleafuri? 
 and Profit go thro' that unknown Land- 
 
 What is it now to the Purpofe to enquire 
 into the Caufes of all this Confufion ? Be 
 the Sources of it, all that Mr. Warburton 
 has labour'd to fhew; and let Antiquity, 
 as he exprefles it, " Jink and founder itfelf 
 "in the treacherous Spil of Mythology" 
 p^ 250, Yet if any Co-incidence of FadSj 
 unobferved by any Body before Sir IfmCj 
 will help us out of this Mire, and give us. 
 Footing upon a fure Bottom, the greata- 
 
 Honouir 
 
286 Sir Isaac N e w t* o i^*s 
 
 Honour is due to him who made the Dif^' 
 cbvery. 
 
 But it feeftis, " the greateft Part of Sir 
 " Ifaac's Reaioning from thefe Genealogies 
 " is on an Error of his own. Sir Ifaatj 
 " who fuppofed,---that the Gods and God- 
 " deffes left of getting and bearing Chil- 
 *' dren when they dieJ, concludes from 
 *' the Mythologic Account of their 0^- 
 " fpring, that they niuft needs have H'ved 
 " but two or three Generations before the 
 *' War of Troy. — It being notorious, that 
 " every Age of the Pagan Wbfld fwaimed 
 " with the Progeny of their Gods, Sir 
 " J/^^c's Conclufionfi-om the Time of their 
 " Sons and Grandfons to their own is alto-' 
 *' gether fallacious." p. 250, 251. 
 
 To prove this to have been the Cafe,' 
 we have this Affair traced Up to the " Ori- 
 " ginal," and all the Caufes affigned of 
 Pretences to Offspring from the Gods pro- 
 duced. The firfl Caufe was the Contri- 
 vance of Wives to hide their Adultei'ies, and 
 of Virgins to excufe their Incontinence. A 
 Second was the Ambition of this pretended' 
 Offspring themfelves, in order to fupport 
 their Authority amongfl their barbarous Fol-- 
 
 lowers^ 
 
Chronology vindicated. 287 
 
 lowers. A Third was the Flattery of Syco- ^ 
 phants. The Laft is, that it was a mere 
 Figure of Speech intheEaftern Phrafeo- 
 logy. Allowing now this to be all true : 
 Does, Mr. fi^arburton infer, that the Per- 
 fons worfhipped by the Pagan World were 
 not real Perfons, infamous for their perpe- 
 tual Intrigues ? Becaufe fome Wives or Vir- 
 gins migh-t contrive Excufes fbr their In- 
 continence, did not 'Jupiter of CretCy or 
 Bacchus, orany. fuch quondam Men or He* 
 roes, indulge themfelves in Amours ? And 
 if they did, may you not with Probability 
 argue from the Time of Sons or Grandfons, 
 to die Time, of Fathprs or Graaidfethers ? 
 Sir Ifaac finds, when he confiders the Ge- 
 nealogies of. the Gods and Heroes of the • 
 Antients, that.they foiwf/Vi? with the Time 
 oi^Sefopris,. — :This is one Ciraimftance : i 
 He finds all the. Asians reported of a God 
 Bofcbmt to. ^Jiee exa«Stly . with Sefojiris, — 
 T|iis is anpther Fadl: He finds, that the . 
 QiFspring o£Baccbus, his Sons, were Argo- 
 nauts, — This is a third Faft, Now the ^ 
 Argonautic Expedition, being one Genera- 
 tioa later thm. Sefpjiris, this is certainly a 
 good (o-incident .Circuinflance, which Jiejpa . 
 
 to 
 
288 Sir Isaac N e w t o k's 
 
 to fix the Age of Sefojlris or Bacchus. If 
 indeed the Plea of being the Son of a God 
 were to ftand iingle, and no other Circum- 
 jftances concurred to fix a Chronological Point 
 but that one, perhaps fome or other of the 
 Reafons here affigned by Mr. Warburton. 
 might be fufficient to deftroy all Depen- 
 dance upon an Argument deduced from the 
 Age of the Son, to the Age of the Hero, 
 iaid to beget him : As it might juftly be 
 urgedi that you could not fix the Age of 
 Mars from the fix'd Age of Romulus, But 
 yet, when Circumftances co-incide \ when 
 the Age of the Father, and his Circum-. 
 ftances agree very well, and tally with the 
 Age of the Son j when Times agree with 
 the reipeftive Ages of the Offspring, and of 
 the God or Goddefs ; and when you have 
 nothing befides that prevents or excludes 
 Aflent, there it may be very fafe to infer 
 the Time of the Father, fi-om the Time of 
 the Son. It is very well known, that Ko- 
 mulus was born oi Rhea Sylvia hy a. Fa- 
 ther unknown : There are feveral Ways of 
 laying or underftanding, that he was begot 
 by Mars 5 and confequently it does not fol* 
 low, that Mars the God was the certain 
 
 Father 
 
Chronology indicated. 28^ 
 
 Father of Romulus i or was but one Gene-» 
 ration prior to Ko'mil&s. But fiip^ofingi 
 thdt you are not led t)y any other Circum- 
 ftahces, to conclude a Child not to be the 
 Son of .any God or tfoddefs, but to be re-S 
 ally defb^ended from fu6h a Perfofn Wh6 has 
 been deified j fuch bfFspring, and a CKro^ 
 nology fixt upon fuch Principle, is not td 
 be rejeded, becaufe Tricks have been play'd^ 
 and Contrivances ufed,- to conceal Inconti-^ 
 nence ? A Son of Jlpolh may Be no mord 
 than a Poet, or a Muficianj as a Son of 
 iliforj may be no more than a Hero iri 
 hiartial Atchievements : A Son of Fenui 
 iiiay be no more than one begot in a Com-'' 
 inerce ftcret on any Girl. But vrhtn Mneai 
 is declared to be the Son of Venus by An- 
 cbifeSy and Venus appeJars to have been thd 
 Miftrefs or Wife' of Cihyras, , a Perfcui 
 who lived in thofe Times, no Reafon can 
 be given, why Venus Herfelf fhould not 
 be thought to have been the real, proper 
 Mother of Mneas; How odd would it 
 have been for the Oid Apologifts to havd 
 ufed this Argument agaih'ft the Pagans, if 
 they had not conceived the Pagati Godi 
 Jeally to have had fame Children I And- 
 U hofW 
 
bo^ fafily T^]ght the Pagans in th^ir Tprh^ 
 have anfwered this Argument, by urging th«^ 
 figuratiye %nf0 of fuch Expteffions, as the 
 Son of Fent/is, Bacckusy jlpollo, &c. ? Biit 
 both I^^tibens and Ghriftians undepftQp(4 
 |his ^iffair in a true* literal Senle -^ and theft 
 it is as eaf^, in: fueh C^fe,, ta-argi^e fron> 
 §ons Of prandfons tp the Tfiriigs theiif Siref 
 lived in^ as it is in a^y other Cafe to argue 
 frotn Father to Sbp or Grandfon, and thenc® 
 to compute the Diftance of their Ages. 
 
 I ki^ow not how it is with you, or with 
 others, but as foon as I ^ajVe reid over all- 
 ^hat yk.- Wqrbs4rtm has faid agami^i Sip 
 l^aac Neip^toifs. Chronology, and I look into^ 
 Sir Ifaac a feco^d Tirtie,, ijnagining, that I 
 had laid hold of fomething that would guard 
 me againft any Fallacies, I know not wha^ 
 is the Matter, but all A^flent is gone, and I anu 
 juft in the Conditioii I was bef9re I beg^n to 
 read. Mr, Warburton, charges his Adverfary 
 indeed with falfe Fads, miftaken Concluiions^ 
 Confufiop, Cpn^tradidion to the Hiftory 
 and Aftronomy of the Bible, to- the Nature 
 ©f Things, and to himfelf. But thefe are 
 meer Words which kave no Manner of 
 
 impreilion j- 
 
CHRQNOtOGY 'mndicatsd. 291 
 
 imprelfion; but vanifh a« foon as I begin 
 to look into Sir Ifaac'^ Book. I fee in 
 That none of the Coptradi^ions to Hiftor;^i 
 none to great Probability i and as to any 
 Contradiction to the Agronomy of the Bible^ 
 even Mr. W^rJ^urton ha§ not once attempted 
 to (Ikiw it, tho' it ftand& as an Aceufation 
 againft Sir Ifaac in the Beginning of thia 
 Chapter. 
 
 But 1 ihall p]foceed next to confider thei 
 Confequences with which Mr; Warburtori 
 chatges our great Author. Thefe are di-i 
 vided into what He iv^uld not venture to ad" 
 niitj and tbofe which he would. Now kotk 
 tbefey — direBly gontradict Scripture, and 
 the Nature o/" Things. So that, as we bejore 
 proved, the Erf-or of his Conclujion from tks 
 Faljhood oj his Premijhi we mm^ be^iti at 
 the other End, and JhaU prove th.e Falprnd 
 of his Premises from thf Error of his Cqji- 
 clufioni p. 255. 
 
 Firft then, Mr. Warburton confiders fome 
 Confequences, which Sir Ifaac, " for their 
 *' apparent Fallhoody was obliged tQ pafs 
 ^' over in Silence/' Now if they are " appa- 
 *' rently falfe," one would not be much 
 fia^prized^ tb^t Sir yaac paiTed them Qver 
 
 U 2 in 
 
292 Sir Isaac N e w t nV 
 
 in Silence. But what are' th^'fe? Why, 1^ 
 feems, ** thofe very HiftorieSy On- v^hiclt 
 " Sir Ifaae builds his Identity, tell us, that 
 ^' Q/fm invented the Culture of the Vine j 
 *' arid aboliflied the Cuftom his Savage Sub- 
 ** jeft's had oi eating one another : That his' 
 *' Wife and Sifter IJis taught- them to fow 
 ** Corn, and gave them their firft Syftem of 
 " Laws : That they were both the Patrons' 
 *' of Nafcenf Arts ; and that all the In^ 
 " ftrumtents' of Hufbaridry were found out? 
 " in their Time." Suppbfe how, that 
 thofe very Hiftories, vrhieh tell us Things 
 which are " apparently falfe," tell us other 
 Things which - are apparently true, — do 
 they not ftand upon the Foot that other 
 Hiftories, all Hiftories, do ? Suppofe one 
 were to appeal to Herodotus for the TTnith of 
 any Fadtj Would ilf be' ai Confutation of 
 that, to' cite any Miftake of HerodottK about 
 it J and then to fay, that That very Hifto- 
 ry tells us a falfe, idle, groundlefs Story, 
 which tells u? what is cited from him as 
 Truth? Hiftofiatns tell us ineonfiftent Things 
 about OfiriSi or any other Perfon. Is the 
 Confequence this, that nothing is at all to be 
 believed about him ? Or may not a Diftinc- 
 
 tion 
 
Chronology inndPcated. 29 j 
 
 €on. be made' betwixt what is apparently 
 true, and appafently falfe ? 
 
 The very Hiftorians; on ^ich Sir ykac 
 builds his Identity of OJiris and Sefojim^ 
 tell us the Inventions of Ofiris. V&ty true. 
 ^ But if Ojris were Sir Ifaac's SeJh/inX all 
 *' diefefine Diifcoyeries were made but two 
 *• Generations ijefore the 7r^i2» War, and 
 ** fiilt 500 Years after the ' Exodus, and 
 " then, T— What are we to think of the 
 « Bible?" The Queftion is not. What are 
 we to think vf'the Bible^ but what are we 
 to think ofthofe '" authentic Annals of that 
 *' a<fHve and leaiticd Priefthood," copiedhy 
 Diedorus f Are we obliged to believe Dio- 
 doTiis, or -any one in Things, "apparently 
 " felfe ?" But Sir Ifaac is obliged " either to 
 '" receive the Consequences he hasTeje£led, 
 ■" or to rejeft thofe he has received; of 
 " laftly, to {hew, that they ftand upon difi 
 *' ferent Authority.'* p. 257. All this goes 
 ifpon tiiis Su^ipofition, that Sir Ifaac had no 
 other Authoirily for what he had laid about 
 Stejbftris ?Sidk "Q^isy but only one Di&dorus, 
 How many other. Authors are cited for the 
 Pafts of Q^rw and /Se/^r/j, befides jP/c<fc- 
 /-«/? And the Point is to reconcile thefe 
 U 3 fevcral 
 
?94 ^^^ Isaac Ni; w t o h's 
 
 ffeksml, difcordant Stories. H'eradi)ttts tells 
 us of the Conqu6fi4 of' Stfojh-is : Dkdsrus 
 tdls of the"£rije Cbnquefts biOfiris, Sttizbo 
 tdb tells lis of the Cont|uefts of Eefojiris. 
 Wherfc apW re thte Iheanfiftency of i-ejefting 
 i^ftie Things feiicl^by'^wafcmj, which art 
 ** a{)|>arfentlyfaife," at the fetiie titnfe, thdt 
 <ine ?i4ni^'s otfecr things, "which are agree* 
 sMe to what the Bible and other Hiftorans 
 i^te? The jQoAiqwfls made by Q^Wi ai« 
 certainiy 'thfr .-very feme Conqiieflfs wMch 
 8'ef)Jirsi^^mkd[ty.inA aS thifey wdre but onct 
 made, Q^rii.^nd 5'^/5j/?ni;'nM!ift be the fanae 
 FetJcffl, Thus far tlieh IfeWdratj iri&y.be 
 tmflied. in his Atecniiit ofj^C^/^jj becauti 
 (Other ;Hrfl»fki?s^ve the hspcx Account 6f 
 the 0inq\lefi%; ofaily nfing a dij^tellt Na|nc> 
 But tfeen if' Dtodorus add? 'WhaJ:: ^afinbt be 
 tra^^ I do BDt iefe, that' any -©pfe is (©bliged 
 tb .admit flial^ thti' h^' ^©fsHadinit [.other 
 
 But Sir i^^af liiad thc'Misfertfinte to -a:^? 
 lnitMiittI^fei0FtIieiiS'/l:?^"fl»rt Aceoiimtj which 
 had thfc vsay Ibaft Foundation. " If ^bffle 
 '■^ P^tt df' the SkMm^s ApcEtmit be of ^^^sfejr 
 ** .AythoriSy ihan. the t)ifhcir, it is ihu wh«5fe 
 <' &ysj l^s mimitsd j^Ucmliktrt. Forit 
 
 ^ exprefsly 
 
C«RONOi;oGY vindkMed. ' 295 
 
 '^^ tscprefd^ feiis us, that this was found 
 "written' on a Isirge eoluhiri in Werogly-r 
 ^f phic ChaTadters, half confumed with Age» 
 '1 then ftaiiding in the Xity <jf iV^ ifl 
 
 - J^abid.^' p. 257. 
 
 - Ydu inuft not imagine from this pofitive 
 Alfertiofl of Mr. WdrburUn^ that Diodcrus 
 ever fa'W thisjColunari, or read the I«ifcrip- 
 tion, or " ^xp-^sfyjelk Us" ka.y fach Thing, 
 He tejlsf us only what others reported^ either 
 to be written on f he Pillar, (h* to be impof- 
 fible to be read, through Length of Time. 
 And as he " exprefsly tells" \h& Story in this 
 Manner; it is certain, Firft, That he never 
 
 faisfy nor pretends to have feen, the Pillar 
 itfelf. Secdfldly,. Siippofing fuch a Pillar 
 to be flaAding at Nyfa in Arabia fome time 
 <it other, this will prove Ofiris not to have 
 Jived before fome Egyptian King had con- 
 ^Uer'd Aritbin, And which of the Egyp^ 
 tian Kings did this before /the Times of iS"^- 
 fojirisy I leave you to find out. Thirdly,^ 
 "Mi. Warhurhn tells us, that thefe Pillars 
 were written "in Hteroglyphic CharetSiers.'* 
 I iidfpoit he (Esf this, becaufe the Pillars' 
 ^uld appearof very great Antiquity. But 
 his Authcw does not fay in HieNglypbii 
 U 4 CbaraBerSf 
 
296 SiT' Isaac N e w t o n's ~ 
 QsanaBerSy but h h^K yesr-H-iAnirty in Sacred' 
 Letters, that is m zn Alphabetic Char a£kr^-' 
 Now this Sort of Writing was not in OJris'9 
 Times in Egypt, if you place OJiris fo early 
 as Mr. War bur ton would place hini. Laft- 
 ly^ "As to OJirh 'himrelf, he is faid to be 
 (fvyfiiirii ^fjLtQK, bgrn at the fame time with 
 ^^E Day : That is, he was contemporary 
 with the Introduction of the ^ve Days, 
 which were found neceifary to complete the 
 Solar Year, oh one of which Oj^is was 
 brought forth by Z2^fd!; which fhews him 
 not fo early as Jnfeph, no, nor fo early as 
 yojhua ; and I think it was as late as Sok-. 
 OT(j«'s Days. 
 
 But what after all is the Sicilian"?. Acr 
 count that is of fuch Authority f Why, it 
 :ftands thus, *' I atn not ignorant, that fame- 
 ** Writers tell us, that the Sepulchres of thefe 
 *' Gods [Ifis and Gliris ] are in Nyfa, in 
 *' Arabia, from which Place DionyfUs is 
 " called Ny^xus. And that there is a Pillar 
 5' eredled to each, of thefe Gods, on which, 
 ^' in Sacred Gharaflers, is writteh, (^c." 
 Then he gives us th? Infcriptions, w^ich, 
 fdffi'iovk'&M di'ttyvmcu, they SAY Can he vc^d^ 
 poes He give into this Npttioo of thpfe 
 .' • ".- .\ Writers ? 
 
CiiRONOLO'G vvinJilafed: 2^f 
 
 Writers ? Does he credit the Story of thefe 
 Pillars? Does he approve, or fay a Word 
 in Approbation of diem ? What then is the 
 Sicilian's Account ? Or what is it that is of 
 fo much ietier Authority in this Place, for 
 ^j's Invention of Agriculture^ than for any 
 odier Piece of Hiftory, which Diot^hi^ 
 relates ? 
 
 Well, but what is reported to be faid 
 upon this Pillar concerning IJis? " (a) I 
 *' am ^een ^f AtL the Country. lam Wife 
 " and SiJIer of Jdng Ofiris. 1 am thefirfi 
 ** that found out Fruit for Men,'* When it 
 is affirmed of I/isy that fhe was Queen 
 qf all the Country, it mull be at a Time 
 wh^n Egypt at leaft, probably E^^'/f aad 
 Arabia too, was^//undfr one Gov?rnnjent ; 
 And in Courfe not before the feveral Kings 
 of Coptos^ JhebeSt This^ ElephantiSy and 
 other Places, were reduced under one Go- 
 vernment. She therefore did not live be- 
 fore the Shepherds were drove out of Egypt ; 
 and they reigned according to Jofephm up- 
 wards of five hundred Years. I think he 
 
 (a) '£>« ■'Iirw uiii » Ca^'i\t<a«. fraffYit X'^eS^.—'EyJ 
 
±^% &ifi I s A AC N E w r K's 
 
 llit rniieh etkS-eaifed the Number of Yearsi 
 th^t the Shdpherds reigned over the low^r 
 E^pi : Hdwever that is ndt the Point now 
 in Hand. IJiiy I fay, could not be Queen 
 of aU E^ypfi 4l\\ fome time aftet Mifpbrpg- 
 fmthdfis's 0ays ; nor could fhe iG,t. up a 
 Filkr in jdrabia^ )3tioi:b jdmbia was con- 
 quer'd by Egypt j which again coulld not 
 fe6 before BsJ^iMfk Days j dnd then Letters 
 weM kri6wj*> and ail is eonliileAt. thus:iar. 
 But what are we to fay to thofe Words. — / 
 dm the jfitji that found but Prmifor Ment Not 
 ctotainly, ttiat flk v^as the ^^ that found 
 6ut Ckrn: For f-HalJ was long enough knowft 
 tjeijre llcr Days. ^ Nor that She invfeMe<J 
 A^icukure : for that likewife ^as known 
 and pradifed before She was Queen df all 
 Egypt. This therefore was '* apparently 
 ^* falfe" of her, and confequtntly to be re- 
 jedted. When' therefor^ Diodortis fays, that 
 Sbi fdund 6ut Wheicl and Sarle^, 'which 
 grew as other Herbs did dbmt^ the Country^ 
 hut was unkmivn ot tindijiinguijhed before her 
 ^inre, and that 09^ns contrived the Method^ 
 ''forking and Jnanaging thefe Fruits. -— This, 
 I iky, muilbe owing to fome Miftake, per- 
 haps to fdmt double Mdaiiiing off a Word, 
 
 or 
 
Chronoj-ogy vindicated. 499 
 
 or to a Sirtiilkude of Words, or fome fuch 
 Caufe, which led them to impute the In- 
 vention of Ciar«-ira// to her, inftead c^ 
 the Thing "v^fhich flie really difcovered; 
 Perhaps I could make a probable Conjefture, 
 what her Pifcpvery 'Was, ■ confiilent with 
 her Time ; and with what She had a Right 
 to glory in. (h) But as it is but Conje6hire, 
 I fhall fay no more than this, — that it fe 
 *' apparciidy falfe," that Ifii mijentedAgn- 
 cuhttfe^ let Diodotus, or any one elfe, re^ 
 late fuch i. Story ; afid therefore it is td 
 be reje£bed $ and that She lived as late 
 as Sif9jiru'& Days, appears from thefe Pil- 
 lars, if they are of any Authoritjr j and 
 therefore tteis much might be ufed by Sir 
 IfaaCj as a proper Evidence, becaufe agree* 
 dbie and conM^nt. 
 
 The next things confidered by Mr. War^ 
 hnrtm «re, " the Confequences which Sir 
 
 (^} -J£s is fi^ to Iiate found out Fj^uU for Men. fruit is 
 'fID. There -^ and in the Plural, f>*TS, PherH. Su{)p6fe 
 now that ;^, fay fending down any Sfai{){>ing along the ^A 
 Sea, and then Jailing J^ftward, ha^ ^ifcovered that Coun.< 
 try, which is called ih Str^pftfre, iif the Phanridti 'bniiea, 
 f'l*^, i- I- the Iflaad ^ibiaaa^,, fftmoas for the fite^ 
 Gold, and Ivory, arri Peacoaa, i^c— The Word is the 
 -fanlle, m to lii^ ^e UMiSy tfaat the Millak« it V^y 
 
 «/ IJaae 
 
3od Sir Isaac Newton's' 
 
 " J^ac has thought fit to efpoufe, fome of 
 '* I which are thefe, that Inftruments of 
 " War, Hoi^fes for Military Service, Ani- 
 " mal Foodi theexadit Diftributjon of Pro- 
 " perty, Alphabetical Letters, and the well 
 *' peopling of iEgy//, were all the Produdl 
 " of the Age. cS Sefojiris" p.. 257-58. 
 . And has ?ix Ifaac really admitted, or eft 
 fottjed thefe Confequences ? You will be 
 ]«ftly furprifedi if il tell' you, that Sir Ifiidc 
 never has efpoufed feveral of theni ; npr is 
 there a Word in "^v: .Ifaa,c about thera.^.gr; 
 The very ^y^ Gonfcqueijce here men^ 
 tioned, That;; Sir, ^^<: efpoufes^^ is, that In- 
 Jiruments of War were the Produifl: of the 
 Age of Sejhjiris, Does Sir IJaac .elpoufe this p 
 IsTo. Mr. Warbtirtojt himfelf interprets thefe 
 Inftruments of War, not ^ivords,- i>ot Spearst 
 but " Armour'" which is very difierent from 
 what.thofe, Gomprehenfive Words, — " In- 
 " ftruments of War," may mean. And 
 fiipppfin'g ' "■ Inflruptent's of 'War" means 
 " Armour" has Sir Ifaac any where faidj 
 that ".Armour" \?as the FroduSi^oi the. Age 
 oi Sefojlrjsl. No,- He ppreffly fpeak? pf 
 Armour^' z^.. invented long before Sefo/iris's 
 time, nay before his Father Amman's time': 
 
 and 
 
Chronology vindicated, ^o i 
 tiid he ig not Wont to be gailty of Contra- 
 didtion. But let us exantiae the Grounds of 
 this Indentation. 
 
 " Vutcatii fays Sir Ifaae^ reigned in Cyprus 
 *' and Byhlui till a very great Age, living to 
 *' the times of the Trojan War -^- and after 
 " the Death of his Wife Calycopi^, he built 
 " Temples to her at PaphoSy and Amathut 
 " in Cyprus^ and at Byblus in Syria, and in- 
 " Aituted Priefts to her with facred Rites 
 •' and luftful Otgia, whence fhe became-thc 
 *' Dea Cypria and the Dea Syria. — Cinyras 
 ^* deified alfo his Son Gihgris by the Name 
 " of Adonis — and for ajjijling the Egyptians 
 " with Armour, it is probable that he himr 
 " felf was deified by his Friends the Egyp- 
 ** tians, by the Name of Baal Canaan or 
 " Vulcan : For Vulcan was celebrated prin- 
 " cipally by the Egyptians, and was a King 
 " according to Homer, and reigned in Lem- 
 
 nos: and Cinyras was an Inventor of 
 ** ,Arts, and found out Copper in Letnnos, 
 *' and the Smith's Hammer and Anvil and 
 " Tongs and Leaver, and employed Work- 
 " men in making Armour and other things 
 *• of Brafs and Iron, and was the only 
 *' King celebrated in Hiftpry for working 
 
 " in 
 
 (C 
 
302 St'r Isaac N e \*f t o n^s 
 
 " in Metals, and was King of hemms^ an4 
 *' the HufbPBd of Venm :, All which are 
 " the Charaders of Fulcan ; and the Egyip-* 
 ** tiam about the time of the E?eath c£ Ci~ 
 ** nyraii viz. ii\;:the Reign of their King 
 *' Amemphhy builtav^ryfumptuoiis Temple 
 *' at Memphis, to Fukan^ and near it a fmal- 
 ** ler Temple to Ferns Hojpiia — . Fidc&n'^a 
 *' Wife." Newton'^ Chronol. p. 224-25. 
 
 Mr. WarhurtotC^ Remark on thefe Words 
 Js, — " Here we have a Hero living till 
 *' the time of the Trojan War, not only 
 *' the Inventor of Arms, but likewife of 
 *' the very Tbo/^ employed in making them." 
 p. 258. Will not the moft carelefs Reader 
 alk, from what Words of Sir Ifaac could 
 Mr. Warburton draw this Confequence, that 
 Vulcan was the Inventor of Arms ? Hie 
 p faid indeed to be the Inventor of Arts, 
 which I could fancy Mr. Warburton read 
 Arms, and confirmed himfelf in. his Mif-' 
 take by feeing it faid, that he affijied thi 
 Egyptians mith Armour. 
 
 That (b) dnyras found out the Smith's 
 Hammer, Tongs, Leaver and Anvil, in Cyprus^ 
 
 (h}, Cinyra iijvenit — metalla aris — in InAila Cypro : 
 Ueav forcipem, maVculum, Vc£teia . Plin. vii- c. ;6. 
 
 . " Plin^ 
 
Chronology •vindicated. 303 
 
 PUny tells us : ButPA'w;; does not fay that Arms 
 could not be made without thefe Tools, It 
 is a groundlefs Remark of Mr. Warhurtony 
 that Cinyras found out the very Tools emphyed, 
 in making them j infinuating as MArmi could 
 never have been made without the Tools 
 invented by Cinyras j whereas Arms and Ar- 
 mour too were invented, as is agreed by all, 
 before Cinyras' s Days; nor is there one 
 Word in Sir Ifaac to the contrary. 
 
 Mr. Warburton goes on to obferve, that 
 *' Homer feems indeed to make Vulcan the 
 *' Inventor of Arms, but at the fame tlrrie 
 " makes both him and his Invention, the 
 " Produdl of a much earlier Age. By his 
 *' Poem of the Trojan War, it appears that 
 *' Military Weapons had been then long in 
 *' ufe." p. 259. And then he very truly 
 infers, " that if Military Weapons at the time 
 " of the Trojan War had been in long uft 
 " amongft the Greeks, it is impoflible they 
 " fhould have been but jujl invented in 
 " Egypt" p. 260, 
 
 But who is hei;e oppofed ? Has Sir Ifaac 
 ever faid, that Military Weapons, or Anm, 
 or Armour, were but jiiji invented either in 
 Egypt, or any where elfe ? Sir Ifaac has in- 
 deed 
 
§04 Sir I S A A C N E w T o n's 
 
 deed faid; that " if ii probable that Cmym^' 
 " or Vulcan laas deified by his Friends th6 
 " Egyptians_^r ajijlihg them with Artiionfi" 
 an excellent ufeful Defe'nfce againft jirins^. or 
 Military Weapons \ but when either ArniSi 
 or Armour Were iri'Qented^ is not fo much ad 
 remotely hinted at in this Paffagtf abolit VuU 
 can. 
 
 However,- let fne obfervfe, th^tt Eiifebius 
 has this Remark, as it is in Cedrenus^ that 
 Vulcan was deified by the Egyptians — as 
 Tlato fays, for fhewing thfem th6 Art of 
 making Warlike and Hujbandt-y Tools o^ 
 Iron } for before him they fought with Btones 
 
 and Clubs^ *A^« J^ «f o XlhJPiav, voKiiiiKSv ;^ ytai- 
 yiKav i^ya.Keiav rtjy an fftS'nft Kitjeiffitivriv talToii ■isitS'H- 
 ^dvltt, Ai'S-o/f ycip ^ foirdhoii ivoKifMy wet (Ujt*. No£ 
 
 that he invented Arms : but " he Jhenved 
 " them how to make certain Injiruments of 
 " Iron" as Plato obferved. 
 
 I cannot but take Notice, that in Homer 
 their Military Weapons were made of no 
 other Metal than Copper, though Iron was 
 the Metal that beft would refift fuch Wea- 
 pons. UiyJ'es's Spear was 'AixiA-n x^AxflV; 
 a Copper-headed Spear. And when with 
 that he had flain Democcsn, Apollo cries ©ut 
 
CH?.pNOJt.QGY vi.n4}cate^. 305 
 to theTrc^4«j, to come on againft: the Greeks^ 
 
 KoAso;' dvA^iSrat TA^jnai-^^odt. Iliad. /. 509, 510.' 
 
 becaufe their Bodies were not made of Stom or 
 Iron, to be able to rejiji Copper. They had 
 indeed found out the Art of heading Clubs 
 with Iron, and Areitbous was called the Club-=- 
 Fighter^ 
 
 i 'AKXa (TiS'n^^n Ko^uv^ f>iyvv(rKi (poKeiyyai. II. «. 140* 
 
 becaufe he did not fight with Arrows, or a 
 long Spear j bui broke whole Troops with an Iroa 
 pleaded Club. Iron was theil fo valuable a 
 Commodity, that it was reckon' d among the 
 Treafures or Riches that a Man had. Ac- 
 cordingly Adrafius reckons it as fuch, H. C- 
 And Achilles threatens to carry it awajr with 
 his Gold and Copper ^om Troy, to Phthia z 
 Iliad, i. 366. And afterwards when he waspro- 
 pqiing and giving Prizes to the chief Heroes 
 at Fatroclus\ Funeral, one of them was no, 
 more than a great heavy Coit of Iron. Now 
 if Vulcan had been the Maker of Arms or 
 Military Weapons of Irony it was certainly 
 a great Improvement, and for which he 
 might have, been much efteemed by the Men 
 of War, both for Oifence, and Defence, 
 
 X However,' 
 
3o6 Sir Isaac N e w t o nV 
 
 * However, 1 muft own that I do"" not find 
 that Vulcan made his Armour of Iron. To 
 make Achilles' s Armour Vulcan put into the 
 Fire Copper and Tin, Gold and Silvar. 
 
 Ket'i ^^va-hv niMfla, i^ioyv^oti. ir. 2. 47'4> 47?- 
 
 • His Sword was made of Copper, x'^'"^-'"- 
 the Gold and Silver were for Ornaments. 
 And though Firgil had made Iron a part of 
 the Metals ufed in furnifliing out Mneas to 
 Battle, yet it was only for his Sword. 
 Vulnificufque Chalybs vaftafornace liquefcit. 
 The reft were of Copper^ndj polifhed,, and 
 bright. 
 
 But as Sir Ifaac Has not faid that Vulcan was 
 the In'uentor of Arms, fo I do not remember 
 that in Homer he is made the Inventor of 
 them. He was famous for making excellent 
 Armour, fuch as Bucklers, Helmets, Breajl-^ 
 JPlates, Securities for the Legs', things which 
 he made for Achilles 2A the Requeft of Thetis^i 
 
 (n) Ks«/ actKdi KvnixlJ'a,!, c/mffqiuqioif A^fyiif^ 
 K«j ^«5«K,' Hi. 2. V. 458. 
 
 ,. (n): The 'Kvw^uJ'is were made of Metal. 
 jEneas'/ were, lisi/ei ecreas, ele3ro auroque recolio. Mn, viii. 
 j&ciiilles'j', retire S'l oi wniMJ^at e«c2 Kxcaijifoio. II. 2. 61 a- 
 Hercnles were, KcD/AjJ^as oj«p^«.'Axe/o fttavv. Heliod. Scut. 
 Here. V. 122. . . •' ' 
 
 - Thefe Fulcan gave to Hercules the Argenautie, as he did 
 )ik Shield. HpocVv km/2^ /«£$(.' ibiet. 
 
 And 
 
Chronology vindicated. 307 
 
 And the Breafl-plate that Agamemnon wore 
 
 was one that Cinyras gave hini. 
 
 ; 3-«)f»»« wsei ^n^icatv S/c/rs 
 
 ■ Th "jrili 0/ K/i/Uf »j cfltoxs ^ivri'iov iivtu. 
 
 'Eff Tf oini' vhi<atv tsfATKivtrA&eu %fiuiKKw. 
 
 Tsfsk* oi Tif tTcKS j(^a«^ofig»©- 3«a-MM/. Hi. a. 19*— 23.' 
 
 infitumenU therfefdre oiWavy of all kinds 
 were invented-^ Arms and Armour tooj be- 
 fore Vulcan'^ Days. But I fuppofe thd excel- 
 lency of his Workmanfhip was fuch, for 
 Sixength as well as Ornament and Ufe, as 
 might occafion his Deification. 
 
 Or if he found out in his latter Days," 
 the Art of working Iron well, and of mak- 
 ing Armour of that Metal, and taught the 
 Egyptians to make their 'Tools for War and 
 Hujbandry of that Metal in particular, he 
 might be deified on that Account. 
 
 Diodorus Si cuius tells us (f), that "Jupiter 
 Was the firft that found out Suits of Ar- 
 mour .^ and that he armed his Soldiers with 
 them: and that he granted the Honour of 
 this Invention to Mars ; at the fame time 
 
 (c) ITfaToV K»]iffiivfiffeu •jntvorKietr, j^ |s-£3:7'»T«f x«- 
 
 ^ottk'kku. Died. Sic. Edit. Hanov. p. 341- Scuta geftare 
 
 CBJretes prlmi invenerdnt. Setvius in Virg. ^O' ix. v. 505. 
 
 X 2 th^t 
 
j-oS Sir i s 4: A e N E w i" onV 
 
 0ia!t Vulcan had thg Honour pf the Invent- 
 ion of every rfiing worked by Firey: eitjier 
 in Iron,. Copper, 6old or Silver. But 
 whoever really Was the Inventor, Vulcm was- 
 the Peribn' famous in his time for making- 
 jlrmot^r only, not '* Ii^fuments of War" in 
 general:- and this Sk IJaac may and does 
 " .efppiife," \?^tnQt^^%.Infirument&ofW'ar 
 W^re'the Pr^qj^UCT of SefoJiris'S Age. 
 
 it pi^y not be improper tp take Notice^ 
 that tk^.«f(©-, t|ie Name by which Vulcan is 
 called, is derived from bik^ Ignk^^^ ^nd figni- 
 fies one that works at the Fire : as Ve/lar' 
 sdi*, comes from the farne Original, though 
 it allu4^.s tP gaother Ijteafan. But this by 
 the by. 
 
 Tp prove that Sir I/aac mennt tli^' Fulcan' 
 was the lNy4NToR of yirms, Mx^Warbur- 
 ipn fays,- " That this was our. Author's-' 
 " meaning is plain, from wh^ -he tells us 
 " «f the Egyptians fighting wi^h Qubs yaj 
 " the time pf Sefpjiris,. yviiich cerjiainly was 
 *' for ipant pf better Jym^ > an4 1^1) plainer' 
 " from what he tells of Fulcah'i being 
 " m^ade a God, which certainly was fpr a* 
 ^^ new Invention..'' p. 25,8. 
 
 Sic- 
 
■C f^ R « o f. o G y iMnikatei. ^^^ 
 
 Sir tfaac fays, that " Stfoftris invaded Li* 
 *' bja^ and fought the Africans with Clubs ^ 
 *' and thence is painted with a CM in his 
 •*' Hands J icx Hygimis, Afri et Mgyptil pri- 
 " mum fujitlms dimicdverUnt.'' Sir Jfaac 
 'might have added to this the Authority of 
 Pliny, who fays, Prceliuifi Afri <c.mlra M- 
 gyptibs primi fecere fuflibtes tpidls WcSnt (a) 
 Palangas. 1. vii. c. 56. Was this done fee- 
 fore the time when Sejhjiris in his Father's 
 Reign invaded Libya P Or when was it that 
 the Africans and Egyptians firfi: fought with 
 Clubs? Did the ^Egyptians invade Africa 
 isefore the time here mentioned ? If they 
 did hot, you have the Teftimony of Fliny 
 as well as Hyginus to the Fad:. But this, 
 lays Mn W^arburton^ " was terf airily for 
 *' want oi better ^ms." What if Copper, 
 " and iroh too, was found out &.nd Worked 
 in Crete^ and J^emnos^ and in other Places ? 
 Does it follow, that it was cafried thence in- 
 to Afridal Or was it carried in fuch Plenty^ 
 that all forts of MiUtntry Weapms were made 
 of thefii ? Yotj have a rcBSarkable Inftance 
 in Scripture of a Nation, but little before 
 
 (a) The Word from whence the Latin Term Phalanga tfr 
 ■Palinga is derived is .-"I^S. Phatac whidi fignifies a Club 
 or Stick. 
 
 X 1 the 
 
310 (S/r I s A A c N E w T o n's 
 
 the times we are now fpeaking of, I mean 
 of the y^wJ, going out againft the Philijiines 
 to Battle, •when there was no Sword or Spear 
 found in the Hand of any of the People, that 
 were with Saul and Jonathan, but with Saul 
 and with Jonathan tber^ was found, i Sam, 
 xiii. 22, What now was it that thefe People 
 were armed with^ but Clubs and fuch like 
 Milifary Weapons f 4-S late ^ jSexander's 
 Days, you find a confiderable part of the 
 Derbices in Darius's Army, armed no better 
 than with Stakes burnt, and by that means 
 hardned. ^idam, fays Curtius, lignum igni 
 duraverant. And when Charidemus the 
 Athenian was giving his Judgment about the 
 Forces of Alexander, and defcribing their 
 Hardinefs — I fuppofe, fays he. Ironically, 
 the Thejj'alian Plorfe, and the Acarnanians, 
 md ^tolians, a Body unconquered in War, 
 will be repelled with your Slings, and Stakes 
 hardned by Fire. Jam Thejfali Equites et 
 Arcananes, Mtolique, inviBa beUo manus, 
 fundis credo et hqftis igne duratis repellentur. 
 Curt. 1. iii. c. 2. It does not follow from 
 hence, that Weapons of Iron or Copper were 
 not found out, or in ufe, long before thefe 
 times : Npr does it follow that Arms, and 
 
 , Military 
 
Chronology %indkat£d, 3 1 1 
 
 Military Weapons made of Copper, were not 
 before Fukdn's Days, who excelled in mak- 
 ing Armour. In the Army of Xerxes, I 
 cannot but.obferve, that the Libyans had 
 not their Military Weapons armed with Iron, 
 or any other Metal j but they ufed Darts or 
 Ravelins burnt and hardned in the Fire, 
 tLiofjioifft hmKMiTOKn j^fsaJ/zsi'o/. Herod.l. vu. c. 71. 
 Not I fuppofe for want of better Anns, for 
 all other Nations thatcompofed that immenfe 
 Army had their Weapons made of Iron, or 
 at leaft headed with Iron, or Jharp Stone : 
 But the Libyans were ufed to this Sort, of 
 Weapons, and bell could ufe them againft 
 their Enemies. 
 
 Nor does it follow that the Africans 
 fought the Egyptians with Clubs, " for 
 " want" z.%y\x.Warburton{2iy%, ^^ oi better 
 " Arms" but becaufe they were ufed to 
 fight with Clubs. For Strabo mentions a 
 Nation of Mthiopians called Megabari, who 
 ufed Clubs headed with Iron, and likewife 
 ufed Spears and Shields too. Strab. 1. 16. p. 
 1 122. or 776. And when Mneas came to 
 Italy and was engaging with Turnus, we find 
 Ciffeus and Gyas in Virgil routing whole 
 Troops with Clubs — Sternentes agmina Ch\a, 
 ^ 4 Dejecit 
 
3 1 2 Sir Isaac NeWto n''s 
 
 pejecit kto. Nihil illos HercuUs arma, 
 Nilvalida juvere manus — &c, Mneis. 1. lo. v. 315, 
 
 So that much after the E)ays of Sefojrii, 
 it was not unlifual for Nations to fight with. 
 Cluis. Sefojiris therefore might be painted 
 with a Club in his Hand, for his conquering 
 the Africans that fought the Egyptians with 
 Clubs; or perhaps the Egyptians might fight 
 with Clubs as well as the Africans j and 
 thence thfe Conqueror was fo painted. It is 
 certain th^t Hyginus znd Pliny teftify theFadl : 
 and the time agrees to Sefojiris, whatever 
 was the reafon of the Fad, which at this 
 Diftance of time <ve can know nothing of, 
 but what Hiflorians or others tell us. But 
 be it what it will. Sir IJaac does not " ef- 
 '■^ poufe" this Confequence, that " Injirii- 
 *' me.->ts of War were the Product of the 
 " Age of Sefojiris r 
 
 The fecond Confequence, which Mr. 
 Warbiirton tells us, that Sir Ifaac efpoufes, 
 is, "■ That He makes Sefojiris'?, Conqueft 
 *' oi Libya the Occafion of fiirnifhing Egypt 
 " vj\\hHorfes."-<^. 26 1 . By this Mr. Warburton 
 means, not that Sefojiris' s Conqueft of Li- 
 bya was a particular, occafional Circumftance, 
 that furnifhed Egypt with Horfes at that 
 time, but it was ihtfrji Occafion of Egypt's, 
 i abounding 
 
Chj^onology vindicatei. q i -j 
 
 "■■■•-■ ■.■',.-■. 9 i>f 
 
 abounding with ttorfe. HThis is what h^ 
 charges Sir ijkac with eipoufingj and he 
 gj-ounds his Charge upon thefe Words. —- 
 " After the tonqueil df tjibya^ bjr which 
 ** £^jV// was furnifhed with Horfes, and 
 " furnifhei ^^olomon and his' Frieni^s, he 
 " prepared a Meet." Coui^ any Man 
 iriiftake thefe fTords^ except one that was 
 Sefiroijs or refolyed to find Fault ? Sir Ifaac 
 ■fays, that Libya fupplied Egypt with ttories, 
 and 'enabled the King of &gypi to fell fo 
 inany to Solomon and his Friends. Inftead 
 of this obvious, natural Meariing of hts 
 Words, Mr. iVdrburton tells us, That. Sir 
 Ifdac was " ipeaking here of the Original of 
 " thofe civil Advantages, for which ahtlerit 
 *' ^yf^ w&s fo much celelirated^" Sir 
 Ifadc was fpeafeihg. Here ? Where t Not in 
 this Page, nor near it. He is here ipeak- 
 ing of the 'Times of Sefoftris, df the "Con- 
 guejis of BeJoftrtSy and of nothing elfe. But 
 becaufe Sir Ifaac had in other Places^ np^tt, 
 other Occdjions, or iii Mr. PFdrburtdn's o^A 
 Words, " Before aiid AFTteji^ARiJS toM 
 ff m his Thoughts of theSr [Ac Egyftidh] 
 *' Aftronomy, I^aVigation, Letfefs, Names 
 ^ and Weapons of War, We cannbt 
 
 " THBREPO^S 
 
314 ^^^ Is A AC N E WTO n's 
 
 ** THEREFORE avoid . undcrftanding. what 
 ** he HERE fays of the Libyan Horfes, to 
 " mean, that the Conqueft of that Country 
 " wzs ihe Jirji Occa/ion of E^^^^'s abound- 
 *' ing with Horfes." p. 262. /. e. Becaufe 
 Sir Ifaac has beEore and afterwards told 
 us his Thoughts of the Origin of feveral 
 Things in Egypt : Therefore here he 
 has told us his Thoughts of the Origin of 
 the Abundance of Horfes. But why " can- 
 " not He avoid underftanding" a Paflage in 
 ^ Senfe, which He iays contradi6ii the 
 Scripture^ when Sir Ifaac is in Fa£t fpeak- 
 ing of a particular Circumftance of Time, 
 which enabled the Egyptians in a remarka- 
 ble Manner to fupply their Neighbours with 
 a particular Commodity ? 
 
 §ir Ifaac Newton was perhaps one of the 
 moft accurate and exadt Writers that ever 
 was ; dear, expreffive, and fo careful in 
 the Clipice of his Words, that fcarce can 
 you alter a Terrn, without hurting his 
 Meaning, He is fpeaking of a particular 
 ^imCy when Egypt was pnabled to fupply 
 Solomon and his Friends with a great Num- 
 ber of Horfes. Mx.Warburton underftand^ 
 this to mean, that, in Sir Ifaac' % Intention,, 
 
 tt'n 
 
Chronology vindicated. 315 
 
 f This was the first Occajion of Egypfs 
 " abounding in Horfe." He is fo juft as 
 to own, that in another Place, and when 
 Sir Ifaac was fpeaking on another Subjedl, 
 and not of the Empire of Egypt, He con- 
 fefles, " that Egypt abounded withi Horfes 
 " earlier than the Time he here affigns." 
 Why then does Mr. Warburton here declaFe, 
 that he " cannot avoid underftanding" S;r 
 JfaaCy in a Senfe contrary to his avowed 
 and exprefs Words in another Place, at the 
 Expence of a Self-Contradidtion in a Man 
 fo accurate as Sir IJaac was ? Efpecially too, 
 when he faw, that fuch a Meaning was a 
 dire6t Contradiftion to Scripture f But had 
 Mr. Warburton not put fuch a Meaning 
 Upon thefe Words of Sir Ifaac, as is con- 
 trary to his own exprefs Words, and to the 
 Scriptures top, he could not have pretend- 
 ed that Sir IJaac efpoufed the Cohfequence, 
 which here he charges him with. 
 
 At what Time Egypt began to abound 
 with Horfes, Sir Ifaac no where fays. He 
 obferves indeed, that " in the Days 0,1 Saul 
 " the Philijiines brought into the Field 
 " againft him thirty thou f and Chariots, and 
 f Jix thoufand Horfe ; and that the Canaanit^s 
 
 " had 
 
S i6 Sir Is A A c ^ t ^iv T o n^s 
 
 *' Md their Horfesfrom Egypt.'' This was 
 feveral Years btfore thfe Tifhes of Sefojlrist 
 and cohfeqilehtly it was liot bwirig to the 
 Conquefi of JLUya, that Egfpi at that Tittie 
 isibounded with Horfes. Egyf^ waS greatly 
 jtiow improved, and thuqh ahbundfed iij 
 Horfcj and was in a very difFererit Conr- 
 'ditipn from what it was at the Exodus of 
 the Children of Jfrael. For " in the Days 
 '' of Mofes all tbe Chariots of Egypt, wifh 
 *' which Pharaoh purfued Ifrael, were hut 
 " fix hundred." This was Sir ffaac" s Way 
 of Reafbhing, in his Chronology, p. 167^ 
 allowing Egypt very much to abound in 
 Horfe, and to have fupplied the Canaamtes 
 ^I'ith them long before the Conqueii of L'ihya. 
 But this Notion of Egypt's having but 
 fix hiJkdred Chariots at the Time of the 
 Ifraelites going out from thence, does not 
 favour the Opulence, Strength and high 
 JA.ntiquity of that Empire, which Mr. War- 
 ^atr/o«' contends for ; and theirefore he thus 
 iDppofes it. " The Purfuit of the Ifraelites 
 " is thus defcribed. ^nd Pharoah made 
 " ready his' Chariot, and took his People 
 *' with him. And he took Six Hundred 
 ." ckofe'n Chariots, and all the Chariots of 
 
 ' " Egypt. 
 
C H R o N L o- G Y vfndtcaied 317 
 
 ^' Egypt, and ^aptains im'er every one of 
 ^' them. — The Egyptians purfued after them, 
 " all the Horfes and Chariots of Pharaoh, 
 *' and hh Horfemeny and his Army. — And 
 " the "Egy^tizm purfuedy and went in after 
 *' theirt to the tnidfi of the Sea, even all 
 ^* Pharaoh'j Horfes, Jiis Chariots^ and his 
 *' Horfemen.- Exod. xiv. 6-23. Sir Ifatj^. 
 **' feempd to be aware of this Evidence 
 ^* againft him, and endeavours to turn it 
 " on the Side of his Hypothpfis. In the 
 ** Days of Afo/^j,. fays he, all the CJaaript^ 
 " of Egypt, with ^^^hich Pharaob purfjied 
 *' Ijfraely were b»t iSix Hundred." p. 262. 
 Upon this Mr. War hurt on cries out,— 
 *■' This is a jrange Mijiake. The Six 
 " IJundred, mentioned in the Place quqtpd^ 
 ** are exprefsly laid tp be the chifen ChariotSy 
 " that is, t|ie King'5 Guard, or a ftanding 
 *' Militia > for that over afid above thefe» 
 " all the Chariots of Egypt, an indefinite 
 " Number, ^ent on the Purfuit." ihid. J 
 muft obferve, 
 
 I. That %; Ifaqc makes the Remark, 
 riiat the Chariots of Egypt were but Six 
 ^ndrgd in tli|e I?^;^? qi i^ofin Up mkes. 
 
3 1 8 A^/r I s A A c N E w T o ilj'S 
 
 I fay, this Remarlc, whert life was fpeaklng 
 of the great Numbers of Hoffes. which the 
 Philijlines had, probably from Egypt, in, 
 the Days of Saul. Fifty Pages afterwards 
 he mentions Sefaftris, and his Conquest of 
 Libya, and there obferves, that That gave 
 Occafion to furnifti Solomon with Horiesj 
 Mr. Warburton lays, that in Confequence 
 of this laft Obfervation Sir Ifaac eipoufes, 
 that the Conqueft of Libya was " the Fiksx 
 " Occafion of Egypfs abounding with Mor- 
 *' les." A Thought ! which never feems 
 to have enter'd into "Sir Isaac's Head or 
 Heart ! Mr. Warburton then upon citing, 
 the Paflage of Scripture about Pharaoh's 
 Purfuit of the IJraelites, fays, " Sir Ifaac 
 " feems to have been aware of this Evi- 
 " dence againfl him." Evidence againji 
 him, in what ? Why, that the Conqueil of 
 Libya furnifhed Egypt with Horfes, by 
 which Means Egypt furnifhed Solomon. What 
 Evidence againji him is this Affair of Pha- 
 raoh ? For admitting Egypt to breed Horfes 
 in ever fo great a Plenty, the Addition of 
 Libyan Horfes might be the Occafion of 
 felling more, than otherwife they could or 
 would have done. 
 
 2. « Sir 
 
Chronology vindicated. 319 
 
 2. " Sir Ifaac feems to have been aware 
 " of this Evidence againji hira, and en- 
 " deavours to turn it on the Side of hii 
 *' Hypothejis." Mr. Warburfon fuppofes Sir 
 Ifaac to have an " Hypothefis" that the 
 Conqueft of Libya was xkcjirji Occafion of 
 Egypt's abounding with Horfe. Whereas^ 
 neither in the Place here refer'd to, which 
 is Chrmol. p. 167. where Sir Ifaac is fpeak- 
 ing of the Shepherds being drove out of the 
 greatcft Part of their Dominions in Egypt 
 by Mifphragmuthofii \ nor in the other 
 Place, where He is fpeaking of Sefojiris's 
 Conqueft oi Libya, has Sir Ifaac one Word", 
 or one Hint at the first Occqfon of Egypt's: 
 abounding with Horfes. 
 
 3. Sir Ifaac J when he occafionally menv 
 tions the Six Hundred Chariots of Egypt ^ is 
 ipeaking of the yaft Quantity of Chariots 
 and Horfemen, which the Philijiines brought 
 into the Field againft Sant. There- toere 
 thirty thoufand Chariots^, and ftx thouland 
 Horfe, and People, as the Sand which is on 
 the Sea Shore for Multitude. 1 Sam. xiii. 5. 
 Whence came this raft Body of Men, Hor- 
 fes, and Chariots ? This, Sir Ifaac with his 
 l(^al Sagacity and Modefty accounts for 
 
 thus. 
 
320 Sir i $ s AC N |: w T o I's 
 
 ^p, " I feem to gather from thg g^ea^ 
 " j^nvpy of the Philifiinii again^ I^^A and 
 *f thg great Number of tjieir Ho^fes, tjiat 
 " the [S&e^ker^s had neyly relinquiihed 
 *,* pgy^,ii an,3 join'd thepi." Newi^. Chro. 
 p. 167* This Solution feems natural, and 
 i§ onp In^ance pf ten thouland of that great 
 Man's, Sagacious Spirit/; „But what has Sir 
 Ifaac's Hypothefis^ which^ relates wholly, 
 whatever it is, to the Solu.tion pf this Phx- 
 ©onienoj^ of fuch an immerifp jirmy at th4f; 
 Time and Phfie. — What I fay has this, fiy- 
 pothefis to do with the fpbst Otchfion of 
 E^yP's abounding- with y,orfe? , 
 
 But bje Sir ^^zc's Hypothecs what you 
 pleaib : He fays (no Matter 01^ what Occa- 
 fion) that zV fbe Days of Mof^s, tf// f&e Cka-, 
 riots ofRgY^t, with which Pharaoh purfued 
 Ifrael, 'twere but Six Hundred. Mr. Warr 
 burton lays hold of this, an.4 cries out. 
 Strange Mijiake ! Hov^ fp? " '^he fix hun- 
 " dred m^fttiajf^d iji, the flac?i^ quoted qr^ 
 " expr^fs/y. /aid to, be chokn. Chariots, thajt 
 *• is, the JUi^'s .G/^<?/-i, or z fiand^ng I^~ 
 *' lijia,: FojBL that aver and ^O'^ thp-fe, 
 " AL^ thp Chariots ^f Egypt, an indefi- 
 ^ ,njte Nyjpaber, w^t pn the P^irjuit." 
 
 Thar 
 
C H S, o N 3L o <j Y iuindkaied. 3 2 f 
 
 ^ Tiiat Sir ^ac afirms, that the Purfuit 
 was «udp with hi Af Hmdred Qiariat?, is 
 true. And that this wa? the whpje of their 
 Strengda is pretty clear j for if you take 
 the Words in any ojitgr Conftrufltion thaji 
 that wiich. Sir Jfsific took them in^ it.SKill 
 hardly be poflible to make common SeoJfe 
 of the Pallage. He took fix hundred ekofeh 
 Cbardats, and iiJI 't^ Cbariofs-^^^pt.- Ai:c 
 not the Six flmdred Chariots contained in 
 that CQmpr-^enfive Word, all the Chatiots 
 of E^ypt f You kpDW, Sir, that the Mek'fip 
 Vau^ and fo is the Greek K*v, commoal^ 
 tranifeted E^txefi^ and then the Word^ are 
 eaiy. — Jle took Six Hundred Chariots, 5w« 
 all ^he. Chariots of Egypt. This mgkfes 
 good Senfe, ,^nd aijmits of jtiathing harfhi 
 ix uncouth, or improhabk- But to talk of 
 Six fiuH^^d, Chariots,^ and All the £>baf^s 
 f^^Egyptii " an indefinite -Number," is at 
 bqft, either ye^ odd Laaguage,^ or incon- 
 lifteBft withit^ Hiftory. Vw^'aUtbeCba- 
 riots '^ .Egypt, Signifies, AW of the Egyp-' 
 tianSy All that any Egyptian had, bejGides 
 the^ -of J^^Uraoki w|iece was the 'Time to 
 get thefe together ? Kk jf Fiamoh purfued 
 with fu^iiKi Army, as'j^/^toi^s.hedid, 
 
 Y 'would^ 
 
322 Sir I S A A C N E W f 0-N*S 
 
 would tTiree or four Days be fufficlent t& 
 get together fuch an immenfe Force, is 
 700 Chariots, 50,600 Horfe, and 200,000 
 Foot f No Wonder therefore that Sir Ifaac 
 interpreted the Words', as they may very 
 f)roperly, and indeed ought to be inter- 
 preted. 
 
 You will tell me perhaps, that the " Six 
 ''' Hundred Chariots are exprefsly faid to 
 ** bfe chofen Chariots, that is, the King's 
 ** Guard." This feems to me a New 
 JDifcovery. The Kings of E^pt had many 
 Horfemen, and many Foot y and Egypt 
 once Was famous for its liumerous Armies^ 
 and ^f its Chariot's that marched out of 
 Thebes. But that thefe were the King's 
 Guard, or ufed as fuch, I own I remem- 
 ber no fuch Cuftom. In Truth, by chofen 
 Chariots, he means no more than, ftout, 
 good, fit for the Purpofe, fit for Service ^ 
 and has no Relation to fuch as" were emi- 
 nently picked out from an indefinite Number, 
 buf^ contained ^// that were fit to be em- 
 ployed. 
 
 Shiould you now a^k me, hoW it couM 
 
 happen, that the King of Egypt could get 
 
 all the Chariots oi Egypt togethef ^^ - ar fo 
 
 '■ ' " imaH 
 
CkRONOLOGY vindicated. 323 
 
 fmall a Warnings to pitrfufe the Ifraelites ? 
 I muft anfwer, that fuppofing the Soldiery 
 were, in thofe early Days, all placed to-* 
 gether in the Lower E^pt, and lived at a 
 public Expence in a particular Spot of Land j 
 fuch a fmall Nuipiber might be drawn to- 
 gether at fmall NotifcCj tho' a m^hty Army 
 eould not. And if theCuftoms of later Times^ 
 which Herodotus defcribes, were; the fame as 
 their very antient Cuftoms were, (a) a Thou- 
 JhndCALAsiKiiy and as many HermotibiIj 
 annually guarded the King : And thefe were 
 (b) Sword-bearerSi y.^X'^eyi^esi. But Cha- 
 riots were never the King's Guard; 
 
 The feeond Gonfequence then, which 
 Mr. War burton tells us, that Sir Ifaac ef- 
 poufesj is imaginary and groundlefs, and {o 
 far from being admitted or efpoufed by him^' 
 that he fays not a Word about it. 
 . The Third Gonfequence faid to he ef- 
 poufed by Sir Ifaac , is founded upon much 
 the fame Bafis, upon mere Imagination 5 
 Only Mr^ Warburton exprelies himfelf with 
 
 (coi> hiitvjiv iKai-ov rh l^nathiA, H^rod. 1. i. «• i68. 
 {b) V. Herod. 1. 9. c. 31. 
 
 Y 2f feiH!ewha<t 
 
32'4 Sir Isaac NeWT o i4'& 
 
 femewhat more Caution. His Words are^ 
 , — " In Confcquence of the fame Syflem-, 
 ** our great Author seems to think, that 
 *' Animal Food was not in ,Ufe among the 
 " Egypfians till ahout this Time." p. 270.. 
 He means till shout Sefofiris's Time.. 
 
 What now has Sir IJm^ really faid, that 
 may lead Mr. War bur ton to draw fuch a 
 Confequence ? Sir Ifkac's Words are thefe,— ' 
 " The Egyptians originally- lived on the 
 " Fruits of the Earth, and fared hardly,. 
 " and abflained from Animals, and 
 ** THEREFOR^E abominated Shepherds : Me--- 
 " nes [the third from Sefojlris] taught them 
 " to adorn their Beds and Tables with rich 
 *' Furniture and Carpets, and brought in 
 "' among them a fumptuous, delicious, and. 
 ** voluptuous Way of Life ; and about; 
 *<" a hundred' Years aftei- his D^ath, G-ne^ 
 ** phaiiuSj: one of his Succellbrs, curfed him- 
 *' for it, and to reduce the Luxury ofEgypfy. 
 *' caufed the Curfe to be enter'd in the 
 " Temple of Jt^iter at 7^«." Chron. 
 p. 241-2^ 
 
 It is certain, that Sir Ifaac never fays di- 
 reflly or indiredtly, how long this Origi-aal 
 iard Way of living laftisd j nor does he fay^ 
 
 that 
 
Chronology vhSc«fed. 325 
 
 that Animal Feed began about Sejojiris'% 
 Time : But his Defigii was to relate a Cir- 
 cumftauce of the Introdudion of Luitury^ 
 which cbnfifled in rid) Furniture^ and a 
 ftempttioius, deUcims ■and vohipfuous Way of 
 Life. A natural Gonfequence of an. ex- 
 tended Empk-e raifed by Sefiftris, and of 
 great Power and Riches then flowing into 
 Egypt. 
 
 But let us fuppofe, that ^'tr Ifaac did ef- 
 ptnfe this Confcquence (which in Truth he 
 has faid nothing about) Mr. Wdrbnrton's 
 Attempt to confute him is very far from be-: 
 Jng fatisfaftory. He attempts to prove, that 
 the Egyptians were Flejh Eaten j before the 
 Days of Jofiph. The Reafon affigned by 
 Sir Ifaac, why the Egyptians abflained from 
 Animdl Food w^s, that Shepherds were an 
 Abomination to them, becaufe they eat it. 
 How long this Abomination lafted is no 
 where faid. If it continued till the Days 
 of Mifphragmuthofs, who made a long War 
 on the Shepherds, and cleared the Land of 
 Egypt of mofl: of them, and fhut up the 
 reft in Abaris, or Felujium ; or if it continued 
 fome Years longer, till they were totally ex- 
 pelled by Tethmejis : Then the Egyptians 
 Y3 did 
 
326 Sir Isaac Newton's 
 
 did not eat Flefh till the Days pf S^ul Op 
 David. Not that Flefh was not eat in 
 Egypt till thefe Times j for the Shepherds, 
 who had conquered the J^ower Egypt, and 
 reigned over it for many Years, eat Animal 
 Food J 1:hp' the original, natural l^gyptiatis 
 did not. The Shepherds reigned over the 
 Lower Egypt, if Manetho in Jofephus be 
 right, five hundred and eleven Years. But 
 this Period is certainly much too long : For 
 when he reckons up their Kings, and the 
 Years of their Reigns, they f^arce make up 
 (c) 260 Years. Salti s x^ign.^^ 19 Years, 
 B^eon 44. Apachnas 36 Years and feven 
 Months. Apochis 615 Janias 50 Years and 
 one Month. ^JJis 49 Years, and twq 
 lyionths. ^nd if you fuppofe the Shepherds 
 to have reigned five hundred and eleven 
 Years, as Manetho'^ Pfumbers are, and to 
 have been expelled by Thumofis or Tethmofis, 
 as Sir IJaac has i^xed it,. 1070 Years beforq 
 Qhrifi, add 5 1 1 Years , to that, and th^ 
 
 (/■) Saltis 19 Years. 
 
 Baon 44 
 
 Jpachnas 3 6 Years, and feven Month?. 
 
 Jlpochh 6 1 
 
 Janias ' 50 Years, and One Month. 
 
 J]ps 49 Years, and two Months. 
 
 *59 Years, and ten Months. 
 
 Sbepherdi 
 
C J9 R o N o L -0 G Y vindicated. 327 
 
 Shepherds came into Egypt fome time about 
 the Birth of Mofes. Now this could not 
 be, becaufe the Ifradltes were then in Pof- 
 feffion of the Land of Gojhen, and no men^ 
 tlon is made of any Conquefts or Diftur- 
 bances in thofe Parts before the Exodus ; 
 and yet the Shepherdsy when they invaded 
 Bgypti built and fortified Marh^ and muft 
 have palled through Gojhen^ in order to 
 conquer Egypt. Nor were the Shepherds 
 Lords oi Egypt in Jofeph'slLbxyt, as appears 
 .from the j^omlnatloriy which the Egyptians 
 had to eat Bread with the Hebrews. Gen. 
 xliii. 32. They muft therefore conquer 
 Egypt long after this j and therefore Mane^ 
 tAo's Numbers muft be corredted, fo as to 
 fuit with Truth. The Kings, which he 
 names, reigned 260 Years. Add to thefe 
 about 1 50 Years, for the Time which is to be 
 divided amongft thofe whom Jofephus calls 
 tU e| dviSv yiveiAviKy the JDejcendents of the 
 Pajior Kings, and for the long War, 
 iri)\vx€j>yiw, upon the Shepherds^ during Mif- 
 phragmuthojis' % Reign, and Ames's, and we 
 fhall fix the Conqueft of Egypt after Mofes 
 had brought the Children of Jfrael from 
 thence, when Egypt was depopulated, its 
 Y 4 Armies 
 
■jaS Sir Isaac N e w t o n's 
 
 •^ ■ ■ ■■ ,._■'. \ \ 
 
 Annies loft, and itfelf uncapable of making 
 Refiftance, If the Shepherds were the Ca-- 
 naanifes, and Arabian Shepherds flying from 
 Jojhuay th&rc will not be above loo Years, 
 or littre more, to be fo divided. 
 
 It may perhaps be imagined, that the 
 Averfion, which the genuine Egyptians had 
 to the Shepherds, ardfe from thte Iiwajion 
 and Conqueft, which the Shepherds had 
 made over all the Lower Egypt: And 
 iSnce we find the Averfion fo early as 
 yofeph's Days, it may feem probable, that 
 the Shepherds had overrun Egypt before thofe 
 Days ; and fo Chronologerst ufually fix this 
 Period of ahtient Tim6s. But 
 
 If this were true, then it is plain, that 
 this Period of the Shepherds reign in Egypt 
 was over before the Time of the Exodus of 
 the Children of Ifrael : For That Pharaohj 
 who- reigned in Mofes's Time, was certainly 
 a genuine Egyptian ; as appears fi-om Mofes's 
 telling him, that they were to facrifice the 
 Abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord. 
 Had this Pharaoh been a Shepherd, MofeS 
 could not have made this Speech, becaufe 
 the Religion of the Egyptians was fb con- 
 trary to that of the Shepherds, that wheri 
 ' they 
 
Chronology 'uindicafei. 329 
 
 ffaey invaded j%jl^/, we find, xhcfd^royed 
 their Temples, even to the Foundations. 
 
 T« isqJ rav ^iav x.(CT'i<rKA-\.AV. yofefibus, 1. I. c) 
 
 Jipton. To facrifice therefore the Abomi- 
 nation of the Egyptians would have been no 
 DifRculty, or Objedion to Pharaoh, or any 
 Reafon why they fhould not carry away 
 their Cattle with them, had Phardbh been 
 a Shepherd King. 
 
 Let us then go back to the Time of 
 Jofeph, and we find, that when he enter- 
 tained his Brethren, That King likewifc 
 could • not be a Shepherd. The Attendants 
 on yofeph were Egyptians ; and the Speech 
 he put into his Brethrens Mouths was, — . 
 that thy Servants "Trade hath been about Cat^ 
 tie from our Touth, even until now, — and 
 then it is added, — For every Shepherd is 
 an Abomination to the Egyptians. Gen. xlvi; 
 34. Some Time before this, when his 
 Brethren came down to Egypt, and he en-' 
 tertained them, the Egyptians eat by therfi- 
 fehes, becaufe the Egyptians might not eat 
 Bread with the Hebrews, for that is an Abo- 
 mination unto the Egyptians, c. xliii. 32. 
 At this Time therefore the genuine Egyptians 
 were in Power, and Pharaoh was an Egyp- 
 
 tian^ 
 
330 Sir Isaac N e w t o n's 
 
 tian, not a Shepherd. The Dynafty there-r 
 fore of the Egyptians was, either not yet be- 
 gun j or clfe it was quite over, and the 
 genuine Egyptians got into Power again by 
 the Expullion of the Shepherds. 
 
 The firft Remark from thefe Confidera- 
 tiofts is, that Jofepbus, and all thofe who 
 follow him in the Notion, that the Ifraelite^ 
 were the Paftors that reigned in Egypt, ar^ 
 ijuite piiflakep. The Ifraelites that enter'd 
 ilgypt were Friends ; thjs Shepberdf came to 
 conquer it : The Ifraelites never attempted 
 to reign ; the Shepherds had feveral Kings ; 
 The one came down thither few in Num- 
 ber, the other in immenfe Bodies. 
 
 2. If you make the Defcent of the Shep- 
 herds to be before the Days of Jofeph, and 
 their Reign over Egypt to have lafted any 
 Term of Years ; fuppofe 500, as Manet hf 
 ikpf or thereabouts, and that the Paftors 
 were ^pejled Egypt by Amojis, at or about 
 the Titne ^hen the Argive Mra began 
 in InachuSj this will bring the Reign of the 
 Paftors ivi Egypt within twenty Years of the 
 Flood. Archbifhop TJjher fixes Teti^mofs to 
 the Year of the World 2179, d^duft firom 
 hence ^n Years that the Shepherds reign'd 
 
 in 
 
Chronology •oindic^ted. 33 1 
 
 in Egypti and you. come within ejeven 
 Years of the Flood : And was Egypt thug 
 e^ly inhabited? and had built Temples io 
 fpon ? and was fo fgojt) (conquered by thg 
 Shepherds ? 
 
 3. The State of the World, and of Kings 
 in thefe early Days, makes it impoffible that 
 the Shepherds fhould invade E^pt at any 
 time before the Exodus of the Children of 
 Ifrael from thence. Genuine Egyptians all 
 reigned in Egypt till that tirne, as J have ob- 
 fervedj nor could fiic}i gn Inv^fion have 
 happened t?efore tnofe Days confiftent with 
 tjie Scriptures, becaufe we have fuch fure 
 Marks to' diredt us. 
 
 Befides, the firfl: King of thefe Shepherds 
 Salatis^ built Abaris, and fortified it with 
 Walls, and put a Garrifon of 240,000 Men 
 in it; a Force too great for thofe times, 
 when all the Kings of all thpfe Parts, as far 
 as appears, were no more than Governors of 
 fjngle Towns, and capable of raifing but 
 fmall Force. This is evident from there 
 being five Kings on no more Territory than 
 what is contained in the Salt Sea, i. e. about 
 Seventy Miles in length and Twenty in 
 brpadth. And graham beat the four Kings 
 
 which 
 
332' \Sir Isaac Newton's 
 
 which had conquered! thofe five Kings with 
 asn Artiiy of no more than 318 Men. 
 
 The Averfion then to the Shepherds did 
 not arife from the Itmajion and Conquefis made 
 by the Shepherds over the Egyptians: Nor 
 does it feem to have arifen from the dif-r 
 ference of Religion in thofe early times, 
 j^faham was civilly treated by the King of 
 Egypt in his time: and though abounding in 
 Cattle does not feem to have been mifufed, 
 or contemned or reproached on that account. 
 We know nothing of the Religidn oi Egypt 
 or of the Neighbour Nations in thofe times ; 
 but only that uSraham and the Patriarchs 
 offered Sacrifices, and made Leagues with 
 People, and eat Flefh together as Friends. 
 
 Now thegenuine Original Egyptians were 
 not Fl'ep eaters. And the Evidence for this 
 is — every Shepherd is an Abomination to 
 the Egyptians. Gen. xlvi. 34. This Aver- 
 fion ftill continued in Mofes's Days: for he 
 tells Pharoah, (who was no Shepherd^ as ap- 
 pears from Mofes's Speech, and confequently 
 the Shepherds were not then in Pofieffion of 
 Egypt) that they could not facrifice to God 
 in Egypt, for we Jhall facrijice the Abomina- 
 tion of the Egyptians to the Lord our Gq^^ 
 
 Lo! 
 
C ft R o N o L o G Y vindicated. 355 
 
 LiO ! Jhedl^me facrifice the Abomination ^/A^ 
 Egyptiifts befire their Bye^s, aad 'mill fk^ype^ 
 Jioneus? Exod. viU. 26. They were Do &-' 
 crifice to God Lambs and Bullocks, and 
 Goats, and they ufually eat of die Sacri- 
 fices which they ofFer'd. Had the meaning 
 of Mjfes been, that we (hall ^crifice C^wi 
 which are confecratai to i/?j, and which the 
 Egyptians did not racrifice ; or She^ whida 
 are not lacrificed in fome Provinces, — ht 
 would not have called duefe the Abominaiioif- 
 of the Egyptiansy but the reverfe, what they 
 deemed fo holy, as that they were not to ibe 
 facrijiced. If the jmeaning be this, — thait 
 which dit Egyptiajts a&bor to fee killed, — 
 This is a Langa^e that is not to be matchied, 
 to call that an Ahminatif/nt which is ib ef- 
 teem'd-SiS to make Men labominate thofc ^fip 
 hurt it. Whereas the natural and pUsji 
 Senfe is, that we are to fecrifice andtoieat 
 diat which die Eg^ti^fis 'zhhat ^ we^arcd) 
 facrifice to God Fkife, a»d to eat of that 
 Flefhj a diing which the E§-^/^i»»j abomi- 
 nate. If you fay that the Jbomination of the 
 Egyptiam^ is the feme as the ^omnatim of 
 'the Natiom, '/. g. not what the E^^ims 
 abominailed> more iJban what the Nations 
 
 abominatedi 
 
534 ^^^ Isaac N £ w t o n''s 
 
 {dominated, but what each of them praffifed 
 and liked, though abominated by God, --- 
 this Conftrudtioh will not do in the prefent 
 Cafe. For God approved what- waS offered 
 to him, both as to the matter and mannerj 
 which was not the cafe where the Scriptures 
 ipeak of the Abominations of the Gentiles^ 
 That the Egyptians were fuftained at 
 Jirji by Roots and Herbs, is expreflly told us 
 by jD/o^(?r2/J:Y^;^ that afterwards they eat 
 Fifh, and Flefh. too, is faid by the fame 
 Writer: But how long they continued in 
 their hard original way of Life, does not 
 appear. When the Shepherds conquered 
 Egypt they might introduce the Cuftom of 
 eating Animal Food. And if the Original 
 Egyptians learnt from them, it is very con- 
 liftent with all that Sir Ifaac has faid : Or if 
 they continued their Averfion till the Ex- 
 pulfion of them, nothing is produced by 
 Mr. Warburtori to refute it, e.gr. 
 
 He firft tells us, that " from the Dream 
 ^ of Pharaoh's Baker compared with Jo" 
 
 {a) Biijf TiTA\euiv A]yvirliovi^3.fi^f'S&iu TV (aIv «'f- 
 ytu'oTii\ov 'TToetv i&m1i(, ^ rZv ec to1( tKivt yive[jAv67 
 ris KAuhii x^ toi pixels rr- &iv}'iQt]/ /* Kiysriv ^wc //a^ 
 yay»v tkV Atyvjflm rm tSv ]^9'iav ^fSriv — oyLo'tat J'i 
 i^itiv ^QTmi>i.T»v hi* T«^^otfe.yii\i--'t)iQi. Sic. p. 46. 41. 
 
C ft R o N o L o.G Y liindicated. J35 
 
 " feph'^ Intserpretiation, it appears that they 
 ** Gat minimal Food ." p. 271. In the Dream 
 it feems, in the uppermoft Bafket there was 
 all manner of bak'd Meats for Pharaoh 
 and the Birds did eat out of the Balket. 
 In the Interpretation, it is, Pharaoh Jhdll 
 hang thee on a 'Tree^ and the Birds Jhall eat 
 thy ¥\dhfrom off thee. Gen. xl. 17. &c. Now 
 is not this an excellent Proof that the Egyp^ 
 tians did eat Flefli, faecaufe in the Interpre- 
 tation it is faid — ^the Birds fhall eat thy Flefli? 
 if this proves any thing, it would prove the 
 Egyptians tohc Anthrc^ophagi, errant Man- 
 Eaters. 
 
 Perhaps Mr. PTarburtpn may lay his Strefs 
 
 upon the Word, Bakemeats, fince he has 
 
 printed it in Capitals. He certainly has in- 
 
 . . ier'd from the EngUfio Word, that the Baker 
 
 : •■ prepared Plejh for the King : whereas in the 
 
 • . Original no more is meant, than what was 
 
 prepared by the Baker in thofe Days, what- 
 
 :: ever it^was. 
 
 So againy he refers to the " murmuriitg 
 
 " of the IfrdeUtes in the Wildernefs of Sin^ 
 
 " when they fajd, wou'd to God we hatd 
 
 " died by the Hand of the iLord in the 
 
 ,,*' Land of Egypt ^ when we fat by the 
 
 Flesh- 
 
33^ Sir Is A AQ Newton's 
 
 " Flesh Pots, and when we did eat Breati 
 " to the full.. Now w:e can never fuppofe 
 " the Egyptians would fufifer their Slaves,' 
 *' whom they kept in fo hard Opprellion, to 
 " riot in Flefhp&tSy if it was as Sir IfaoiC fup- 
 " pofes, that Animal Food was an Abomina- 
 " tion to them." p. 272. z. ip. Becaufe the 
 Jfraelites who^ were Shepherds, and did eat 
 Flejh irc^gypf., long'dtobe in.theLandof 
 Gojhen again, where they did eat Fleflj and 
 Bread to the full: thevtfore the EgyptJami 
 a different People frotn the JfraeliUs, and who 
 hated Shepberdsy did eat Flefh. 
 
 But the principal Argument is taken fromi 
 the Defcr^tion of j'a/^j&^'s.lEntertainmemt of 
 his -Brethren,. ;by which " it appears that a 
 " difference Ckf JDiet .with regard to fuch 
 " Food, was not the occafion of the Egyp^ 
 " tian .Enmity to SSiephcrds. The common 
 " Provifianfor the Entertainment was Ani-^ 
 *' mat Food', and no one can doubt whe- 
 " ther Jofeph conformed to the E^ypiari 
 " Diet. He -hi feigle out of .State,- with 
 " jregard to the Egyptians: The Egypt ans 
 " fat* apftTJ: with regard to the Shepherds ; 
 " and both, "were fupplied J&om the Gover-i- 
 
 " 4iors? 
 
CHRONOLOGY vindicated: 337 
 
 nor's Table, which was furnifhed from the 
 Stewards Slaughter-Hoiife. p. 272- 
 
 The plain Faft was this : Shepherds were 
 to be entertained 5 for which Reafon Jofeph 
 bids the Ruler of his Houfe, not barely to 
 make ready ^ but slay, and make ready. The 
 Egyptians fat apart by thenjfelveSj because 
 the Egyptians might not eat Bread with the 
 Hebrews, Jor that is an Abomination to the 
 Egyptians* Gen. xliii„ 32. Now what is it 
 that created that Abomination to the Her 
 brews, that the Egyptians would not eat 
 with them, except the Difference of Diet ? 
 The polite Egyptians could not abominate 
 the Stranger Hebrew, fo as not to fit at -the 
 lame Table with him, Were it not from a 
 perfedt Diflike and Abhorrence of his Food; 
 For I do not think, that fo early as thefe 
 Tiroes, Supe;rftition had prevailed fo far, ag 
 it certainly did afterwards, to make them 
 afraid (b) to ufe the Spit, or Pot, or Knife 
 of a Grecian, or taji the Flejh of a Bullock 
 that was cut with a Grecian I^ife, 
 
 Two therefore of the Confequences/ which 
 "Mx.' War burton charges d\t Jfaac vr'ixh. " ef' 
 
 'Ekkni/iil^ lAnyeu^i yivriTcu. Heiod. 1. a. c 4-*- „ 
 
338 Sir Isaac N e w t" o is''s 
 
 " poujingy' he never did ejpoufe. t)xts 
 Thirdi he is charged with only seeming^ 
 to eipoufe ; and for atiy thing which Mr^ 
 Warburt6n has faid to the contrary, he 
 rhight have openly avowed it ; and let it 
 have refted on the Authorities above cljgd^ 
 Let me now proceed to. 
 
 The Fourth Confequence charged upbii 
 Sir Ifaac. It is this^ as it lies in p. 258, 
 That " the eXaSi tHjiriblitmn of Property in 
 " Egypt was the Product of the j^t of 
 " Sefoftris." Fourteen Pages after, when 
 the Confequence, which Sir Ifam is faid to 
 have elpoufed, was to be refuted, Mr. War^ 
 burton ftates his Point thus, — "He [Sir 
 " lfaac\ flippoies,- that the exad Divifioh 
 '^ of the Land of Egypt into Property was 
 " FiRSl' made in thte Time oi Sejhjh-is'* 
 p. 272. Surely I need not obferve, that 
 thefe are Two very difierent Propofitions ; 
 and Sir j^'^i^f might maintain the firjft, and- 
 yet deny the fecond, with great Confifteney^ 
 But in Truth Sir Ifaac efpoufes neither of 
 them. It- is flirange,, that Mr. Warburton 
 fhould charge a Man of Sir Ifaac' % known 
 Accuracy, With Confequences as adhitied 
 and maintained^ and yet not keep to his 
 
 Wordss- 
 
CkftoSotoGY vindkahd. 33^ 
 
 Words, or attend to his Rfefoning. The 
 Evidence, which Mr. Warburtun brings to 
 juftify his ChargCj is this, — " Scfoftris ufon 
 " his returning home dvoided Egypt by Mca- 
 " fore amongji the Egyptians j and thisgcevi 
 *' a Beginning to Surveying and Geometry." 
 Does Sir Ifmc fay, that Sefojiris wa§ the 
 Firfl that divided the Land of Egypt into 
 Property? That He divided the Land by 
 Meafiire, and had a particular Reafon fo^ 
 fb doing, is indeed faid j but that He was 
 the FiRs-r that did foj iS no where faid^ nof 
 efpoufed. Sir Ifaac produces his Voucher^ 
 Herodotus^ for what he fays ; and Herpdcttis 
 afligns this Reafon for what Sefojiris did, (c) 
 That a certain Tax being to bepaidfi-om each 
 Manj if -the River waftied away his hand^ 
 it flmdd be meafuredj and a proportionaf>U 
 DedttSiion be made j and then he adds, that 
 thence Geometry wasj in his Opinion, found 
 out. What "fignifies what Jofeph did ^od. 
 or 6<3p Years before ? Egypt had fuffey'd 
 two of threb great. Re volutions betwixt ^0- 
 
 (f) 'E/ /i rrhii T? »x»f» »v*i>J*fioj rt Tua^f^oJl?! «A« 
 i^tiyStf^f i^lop, iHfidtPfti ytymiJiivoir. •oJ^^WsjUTg 
 
 j(S'g»s ^iyiiii tx.as tk Aowb Kojai Kayav rwi mteynivH 
 
 Biia-a.. Herda. 1. i. c. 109. 
 
34© Sir Isaac Newto n's 
 
 Jeph's znd Sefo/ins's Dgys. The Shepherds 
 had conquer' d it, and they had been ex- 
 pelled again. The very Exodus of the Chil- 
 dren of Ifrae/t and the Confequence of that, 
 the Lofs of Pharaoh's Army, muft occafion 
 great Alterations of Property in the Land. 
 Sejojlris therefore might meafure out, or di- 
 vide theLand, into private Property, not with- 
 ftanding what Jofeph had done before. Or he 
 might have much more to divide, as being 
 King of all Egypt, than that King in yofeph's 
 Days might have. Or he might divide it in 
 other Proportions ; and in another Manner. 
 Here therefore Mr. Warburton makes Sir Ifaac 
 efpoufe, what he never did admit, "viz. That 
 Sefojiris was the First that divided the Land 
 of Egypt into private Property ; and then 
 truly confutes him by the Inftance of Jojeph. 
 But Sir Ifaac has added a Remark jfrom 
 Herodotus, that " this gave a Beginning to 
 " Surveying ^nd Geometry" And here he 
 is guilty of a mariifcft Contradjdiiqn j for 
 *' in another Place He draws, ^o^n the Ori-> 
 " ginal of Geometry fiill lower. Maris, 
 ** fays he, for prefefving the pivifion of 
 " Egypt into equal Shares amongft the Sol- 
 '-! diers, -wvotk.^ Book of Surveying, which 
 ^' gave a Begin|iing to Geometry. Let the 
 
 " Reader 
 
Chronology vindicated. 341 
 
 ** Readernonv confider, hofw poffible it is to re^r 
 *' concile this with the following Account of 
 " jofeph's Adminijiration." p. 272. 
 
 There is no Occafion to reconcile what Sir 
 Ifaac has faid with the Scriptural Account of 
 Jofeph's Adminiftration. Had Sir Ifaac inti- 
 mated or efpoufed the Notion that Sefojiris 
 was the First that divided any of the Land 
 of E^pt amongft the People, it might have 
 j|f^/»i?^ impoffible to reconcile that, to what 
 Jofeph did fo long before. But this is a 
 mere Invention of Mr. Warburton^ who has 
 imputed to 'Six Ifaac what he has never 
 faid. And as to the Beginning of Geometry^ 
 if by the One, no more was meant than pro- 
 perly Surveying and Meafuring Land, and 
 in the other Place, Geometry^ in its fuller 
 Extient, occafioned firft by a Book of Sur- 
 veying, there is an End of this feeming 
 Difference. 
 
 What Sir ^aac has here faid, has been 
 
 obferved by others. Clavii^s obferved, (a J 
 
 Z 3 " that 
 
 (a) Cam Anniverfaria Nili inundatio agrorum terminos 
 ac limites ita coijfan^eret vaftaretque, ut nemo agruni dig- 
 nofcere poffet fuum, cceperunt ^gyptii animos ad rationem 
 menfurandorum agr^tam applicare, ut hoc ino4o cijilibet 
 quod'fiium erat redderetijr. Qua quid«i> ratio agros me- 
 liendi, quanquam tunc temporis, adhuc rjjdis admodum fue- 
 
 rit 
 
342 iSir Isaac N e w t o n's 
 
 ** that the anniveffary Inundation of the 
 ■*^ Nik fo confounded the Bounds of the 
 " Fields, thgt nb M^n could know with 
 " Certainty his own Land : This made the 
 " ^gypH^iis apply themfelves to a Mediod 
 <' of meafuring Land j that by this Means 
 *' each Man njight have and enjoy his own. 
 " That this Method of meafuring Fields, 
 *' tho' at that Time very rough, and not 
 
 *' exadt, was called Geometry. That 
 
 " by Degrees Geometry began to be more 
 " compleat, and not content within its own 
 *' Bounds, was applied to the Meafurement 
 " of Cslefiid Bodies^ and deliver'd the 
 " Principles of ^r(?«(7;K?y, PerfpeBhe, Cof- 
 «' mography, &c." Will not this fully ac- 
 count for the Ufe of the Word Geometry ^ 
 m a more ftrid: and proper, and in a more 
 large and co.mprehenflve Senfe ? 
 
 But fays Mr. Warburton, " how does it 
 *' appear from this fimple Fadt of Sef^is, 
 '' dividing the large Cjiampain Country of 
 
 rit-ac impolita, ab ipfotamen officio Geometria eft appellata. 
 Tiaf^{\^'ia(y.'u enim, five yiauej^ia, idem fignificac quod , 
 terrain toetior, Caterum paalatim deinde Geometria CBEfpta 
 eftexpbliri, & non corifentafuis finibus, fefe ad corpora etiam 
 tceleftia dimetienda *6nvert)-t tradiditque prsecepta universe 
 JSkftronomiae, Perfpeftivs, Cofmographite & alijs difciplinis' 
 qusm plurimis, quffi ex ipfa vdutradice dt^endenc. Ciaifiui 
 in Euclid. Prolegein. 
 
*c 
 
 C ji R o N o L-o G Y vindicated. 343 
 
 Egypt into Square Fields, by crofs-cut 
 " Canals, that it was a dividing Egypt by 
 " Meafure, ajad giving a Beginning to Sur- 
 *' veying gnd Geometry. If w^e examine 
 *' the Caufe and Effedt of that Atchieve- 
 " nient, we fhall find, that neither the 
 " one, nor the other Part of the Conclufion, 
 *' can be deduced from it. The Caufe of 
 ■" making thefe Canals was evidently to 
 *' drain the fwampy Marfhes of this vaft 
 *' extended Licvel, and to render the whole 
 *' Labourable." p. 274. 
 
 You have here a ftrong Aflertion of Mr. 
 
 Warburtm^i in flat Contradiftion to Jliftory. 
 
 Herodotus tells us not, that it was to " drain 
 
 " the fwampy Marihesj" but that every 
 
 one had a certain Portion of Land affigned 
 
 him, and if the River happened to wafh 
 
 away any Part of his Lot, the Man was to 
 
 fome and complain : XJpon this. Surveyors 
 
 were fent, whq having meafured how much 
 
 the Land was lefjmed, the Man was to pay 
 
 propQrtionably lefs of the Tax that was ap- 
 
 fsintedhim. Thus has Mr. Warburton mif- 
 
 taken the Caufe of this " Atchievement," 
 
 ^s he calls it : And as to the EffeSis of it, 
 
 Jie fays, "Ground once divided by fuch 
 
 Z 4 Canals 
 
344 '^^^ Isaac Newt o n's 
 " Canals was in no Da^iger of a Chapge of 
 " Land Marks, and confequently had fmall 
 " Oceafion for future Surveys." This like- 
 wife is contrary to Experience ; for Land 
 annually overflowed for Months together, 
 by a turbid River, muft neceflarily partly 
 be waflied away, and partly have its Boun- 
 daries fiU'd up, and in Courfe there muft be 
 Oceafion for frequent Surveys. But I guefs 
 where his Miftake lies. Sefojlris divided 
 Egypt into 3 6 Nomes or Counties, and dug 
 a Canal from the Nile to the tie ad City of 
 every Nome, and with the Earth dug out of 
 ity he caufed the Ground of the City to he 
 raifed. This was one AGi of Sefqftris j but 
 not that which gave Oceafion for the In- 
 vention of Geometry. Another Thing, which 
 Sefojlris did, was to divide Egypt amongft 
 his many Soldiers and People : And every 
 Man was out of his refpedive Portion, 
 which was meafured to him, to pay a cer- 
 tain T:ax proportionable to his Land. Now 
 Herodotus tells us, that this Divifion, not 
 the other Divifion of the Country. into Nomes^ 
 was the Oceafion of Geometry. And here 
 there might be frequent Oceafion for Sur- 
 veys; whereas in the other, there might he 
 
 no 
 
Chronology vindicated. 345 
 
 no great Danger of the Change of Land- 
 Marks. So that SxxIfaaQ is here too mifrepre- 
 fented by Mr, Warburton-, as well as charged 
 with efpoufing a Confequence, which he 
 does not efpoufe: for he never fays that 
 Sefojiris was the Firji that divided the Land 
 of Egypt into private Property. . 
 
 Pafs we next to the " Fifth Inference, 
 " which this great Writer makes from his 
 " Syftem, TOZ. That Z<?//^rj Were unknown 
 " in Egypt till the Time of JDavid:\ 
 p. 275. This is the fifth Confequence, 
 which Mr. Warburton charges Sir Ifaac 
 with efpoufingy whereas it is in Faft the 
 FirJi that he efpoufes, or owns. And it 
 appears to be fo true, and fo juft an Obfer- 
 vatron, that I am contented to have it ftand 
 or fall by his Judgment, that has examined 
 Sir Ifaac'?, Chronology with Care. 
 
 Mr. Warburton aflerts indeed, that " as 
 " to the precife Time of the Invention of 
 *' Egyptian Letters, it can never be fo 
 " much as gueJJ'ed at : Firft, becaufe Hiero- 
 " glyphics continued ftill in Ufe long after 
 " Letters had been found out ; and Se- 
 " condly. The Invention of Letters was 
 " given to the Gods." p. J38. 
 '^ ^ ' Mr. 
 
34^ Sif' Is A AC JJ E W T o ?j'$ 
 
 Mr. War bur ton' had "before him a Guefs 
 at the precife Time; ai^ that founded on 
 fiich Probability, that after all his Endea- 
 vours» he has not been a^e to difprove. 
 The Inventor oi Letters in Egypt is known 
 to" be Thotht Secretary tp OJirhi or Sefojiris^ 
 For that they were two Perfons has not 
 yet been proved. Thth therefore lived in 
 Sefi^ris's Days j aad as Sefoftris was deijfied, 
 and called OJk'iSy the Invention was in the 
 Days of the iGfl^j. ^Mx. War burton too, tho' 
 lie tells us, that the preeife Time of the 
 Invention of iIL.etters, can never be fo much 
 as guefied at, himfelf has " gue£e4 at th? 
 f^ prmfe'Timey' when Letters wereipventr 
 €d in Egyptf how wrongly foevcT' he has 
 gmfedy viz. when he feems to fix the 
 Times of Ofiris, according to the " extra- 
 " vagant .Cb'onology of Egypt." p. 222. 
 i. e. abouit 300 Years before uidam died, or 
 A. P. J. 1392- 
 
 The laft Inferianee, which Mr. War bur- 
 #o« pretends to be contrary to Sacred Anti^^ 
 quity is, " That Egypt was fo tliinly peopled 
 " fcefore the Birth of -Mofes, that Pharaoh 
 :** faid of the Ifraelites, Behold the People of 
 « the Children of Mrzel Qre jnore and mightier 
 
 " than 
 
Chronologv vindicated. 347 
 
 *' than we." — And to prevent their multi- 
 plying, and growing too ftrong, he caufed 
 their Male Children to be drowned, p. 276. 
 
 You muft give me leave to tranfcribe from 
 Sir Ifaac what immediately preceeded this 
 Obfervation, and then I leave you to judge 
 of its Truth. He had taken Notice, tiiat 
 every City of the Canaanites had its owa 
 King; and that in the Patriarchs Time, 
 the Fields of Pbanicia were not fully appro- 
 priated for Want of People. " The Coun- 
 *' tries, fays he, firft inJiabited by Man- 
 *' kindj were in thofe Days fo thinly 
 " peopled, that Foar Kings from the Coafts 
 " of Sbinar and Ekm invaded and fpoiled 
 " tiie Rephaims, and the Inhabitants of the 
 *• Countries of Moaby Amnion^ EdmUi and 
 " the Kingdoms of Sodom ^ Gomorrah^ 
 ^* Adimh and Zeboim; and yet werepur- 
 ^' fued and beaten by Abraham with aai 
 " armed Force of only 318 Men." — And 
 then follows the Obfervation about M^pt. 
 Chron. p. 186- 
 
 Mr. Warbitrton's Anfwer to this Obfer- 
 vation is, — " Yet this Country fo thinly 
 " peopled Ibefbre, oir at the Birth of jlfo/^j, 
 ** was, as we find from Scripture, fo vaftly 
 
 ^ populous. 
 
34^ Sir I s A A c N e w t o n*s 
 
 " populous, by that Time he was fent on 
 *' his Miffion, that it could keep in Slavery^ 
 " fix hundred thoufand Men, befides Chil- 
 " dren j at a Time too, when they were 
 " moft powerfully inftigated to recover their 
 *' Liberty." p. 276. As if one Mafter can- 
 not' keep in Subjediion many Slaves, or one 
 King many Subjefts : Or as if that Coun- 
 try might not be fbinly peopled com-" 
 paratively, fourfeore Years before it became 
 poifiulous, either by the Accefs of Strangers? 
 or its own prolific Virtue, (a) Strabo^ and 
 Ariftotky and 'Pliny -^ fpeak of a peculiar and 
 extraordinary Fcecundity in the Egyptian 
 Women ; and tell us, that they bring forth 
 two, three, four, and more, at a Birth; 
 and where there is fo very great, and re- 
 markable an Encreafe, in fourfeore or an 
 hundred Years, a Country from bein^ 
 thinly peopled may with Eafe grow very 
 pojAilons. 
 
 But , there was fomething particular in 
 this Cafe. Sir Ijaac obferved, that beforq 
 the Birth of Mojes, Pharaoh faid, — Behold 
 the Children of Ifrael are more and mightier- 
 
 IsKitaJi. StraboA.i^. p. icj^if. al. 695. ' 
 
 than 
 
CHRONOLdGY- 'oindkdted 345 
 
 than we. . Mr. Warburton cries out, " Ama-i 
 " zing Interpretation ! The Scripture Re- 
 " lation of that Matter is in thefe Words>— 
 *' And Pharaoh faid untp his People, Behold 
 *' the People of the Children o/Tfrael are more 
 " and mightier than we. Come cri, let us 
 " deal wifely with thenty lefi they multiply i 
 " and it come to pafs, that when there falktb 
 " out any War, they join alfo unto our Ene- 
 «' mies, andfghtagainjius, and fo get them 
 " out of the Land, therefore they fet over 
 " them Tafkmafiers to afflidl them with their 
 " Bur dens. -^■t'QxilX. the more they affliEled them, 
 " the more they grew and multiplied. By 
 " the whole Turn of this Relation, it ap- 
 •* pears, that more and mightier fignify more 
 '■^ prolific zxA healthy." 
 
 Mr. Warburton does well to cry out with 
 fo much Aftonifhment, againft Sir Ifaac^ for 
 fuppofing moreto fignify more. — " Amazing 
 " Interpretation." What then does the 
 Word more fignify? Why^ more prolific. 
 And what does the Word mightier fignify ? 
 Why, mpre healthy. Who will not cry out 
 on fiich Criticifm, " Amazing In terpreta- 
 " tion 1" Ought he not to have produced' 
 one Inftance at leaft of fuch Sighification 
 
 of 
 
350 &> , I S A A C N E Wt O N's- 
 
 of the Words ? Is it not Pharaoh's Defigft 
 to hinder them from growing and multt^ 
 plying^ And was not the Foundation of 
 the Fear, that they were already more and 
 mightier than the Egyptians^ However pro- 
 lific the Egyptian Women were, ytt the 
 Ifraelitijh Women feem to be more fo ; and 
 if from feventy Perfons, within the Com- 
 pafs of two hundred and fourteen or fifteen' 
 Years, could arife two Millions and a halfi 
 or near three Millions of People ; we are to 
 dedudt fourfcore Years for the Age of Mofis; 
 and fomc little Time more between this 
 formed Defign of Pharmhy and Mo/es'i 
 Birth, and thence deduct a proportionable 
 Nuinber, in order to know the Numbers 
 of the Ifraelites at that Time. If fo many* 
 more were born among them, than there 
 was among the Egyptians, FhAraoh might 
 have R^fon to apprehend a Revolt or a 
 Rebellion firom them, if a proper Occaiion 
 ofFer'd j and might have juft Reafon to fey, 
 that they were, of fooii would be, moreatd 
 mg^ier than his own Subjefls^ 
 
 You have the very fame Expreflioii, Oen* 
 
 xxvi. i6. Abimelech faid unto Ifaav^ fh 
 
 from m^ /or thou art mightier than we, ' Did 
 
 he 
 
G H RONotoGY •dn^catei* 3^1 
 
 he mean thou art more /ro^r, or mortf 
 healthy f Or do not the Words intimate, 
 that ^aac was more Jlrong than Ahimekcb, 
 from the Numbers of his Defcendartts ? This, 
 like that in Egypf, arofe from God's pfecu' 
 liar Bleiiing on Jliraham'^ Pofterity, which 
 was the very Caufe of that Might, which 
 Abimekch then, and Phdraob aftefwafds; 
 li^as fo much afraid of. 
 
 Six Inferences then afe produced, as ^ 
 fbufed by Sir Ifaac, all " contrary to SaCred 
 " Antiquity." Four of them are Mr. War^ 
 burton's own Imagiiiationis, never efpomfeJ^ 
 never admittedj never mentioned by the 
 Knight. The Other 7Ws» ^e vfpoufed: ih& 
 One is agfeeablie to Hiftory, the Other h 
 what the Bible itfelf fays. 
 
 Not content with the Gh^ge I have been 
 confideriAg, Mr. Warburtm kdds, that this 
 Syftem of the Gr^at Gmha whom he has 
 V(^im^f^d\ fo much, is " re]fmg?m^f fo if* 
 ^' fify" aiid " direB^ ^mtr&diBmg the 
 ** Naiure cf Things." Unhappy Sir Ifaac f 
 «* The Sublime Cbnp^tiohs peculiar to thy 
 " a;maz^ing Genius" are nov7 found to b« 
 " hot ctfily repiigmnf to the Bible, bvO. even 
 « to tbemfdves I" p. 277. ** Worthy only 
 
 " " the 
 
352 Sir Is A AC N e w t o n's' 
 
 *' the wild Imagination of thofe' Poetic Fa- 
 *' bulifts from whence they were coUedled !" 
 p. 280* 
 
 This Repugnancy to the Nature of Things 
 confifts in this ; that Sir Ifaac " makes this 
 "extraordinary Age oi Sefojiris to be dif^ 
 " tinguifhed from all others by an infepara-* 
 " ble Mixture of Savage and Poliflied Man- 
 " ners, which is fo unnatural, fo incredible, 
 " fo impoffible a Circumftance, that were 
 " there only this to oppofe againft his Syf- 
 ** tem, it would be a fufficient Demnjira- 
 " tion of its Falfhood." p. 278. , 
 
 The Charge you fee is home ; but how 
 is it -.proved? Why truly, " by fairly and 
 " honefily A2!ssa.% in these Confequences of 
 " his Syftemj our great Author has fubjedt* 
 " ed.it to this Difgrace." ibid. Has Sir 
 Ifaac ever " taken in" Four of thefe Con- 
 fequences f Or isit fair and hone^ in Mr. fFar^ 
 burton to charge him with Confequences thaC 
 he calls " fo unnatural, fo incredible, fo im- 
 " poffible?" Take fome imaginary Confe- 
 quences, incredible, inipoffible j and fay, that 
 if Sir Ifaac \i.-sA fairly and henejily taken them 
 in, he would have fubjedled his Principiaj 
 or his Treatife of Light aud Colours^ to the 
 
 Difgrace 
 
GhiSloUology 'indicated. 3 ^^^ 
 
 Difgrace of Bepugnancy to itfelf, and to'thS 
 Nature of lyings: What then? Woul'ti 
 this be any Obje<ftion to them ? Juft 'as 
 much as it is to his Syftem of Chronohigyj 
 or as it mighlt bie to Euclid himfelf. • 
 
 But Two Instances are produced, " The 
 *' one taken from- Sir IJaac'^ Account cf the 
 '' State of War ^ during' this Period ; the other 
 *' from his Account of the State of jh-chi- 
 y tenure." i^id. 
 
 You are noisN' to fuppofcy or take for grant- 
 ed, that Sir Ifaac has given *' an Account of 
 " the State of War" during this Period; 
 aS likewife that he has given an Account of 
 the State cf Arehite^ure. Who v^'ould 
 not imagine, that Sir tfaac had fome where 
 treated of thfe Levies of Soldiers 5 of the 
 antient Arms ufed in feveral Parts of the 
 "W oxXdi during this Period -j the Fortification 
 of Camps ; battering Engines, Sieges, Re* 
 wards, 54knner of dta-Wing up Armies, &'c. ? 
 And fo on the other Head, when Sir Ifaac'a 
 Account of the State of A^chiteBure in this 
 Period is ipoken of,> would you not imagine 
 that he has treated upon this Subjedt, fo 
 hx as t'Bis Period W2& concerned? that He 
 i A ^ had 
 
354 <S'/r I s A A c N E w T o n'S 
 
 had mentioned fomething of Froportions'i 
 Ornaments y Columns, Materials, and many 
 other Subjefts neceflary to be mentioned in 
 giving an Account of the State ofArchi- 
 teSiure, during any Period ? And is there 
 any Thing in Sir yaac\ Chronology that will 
 anfwer thefe Charafters, -^—his Account of 
 the State of War, and State of Architedlure, 
 during this 'Period^ No. But it feems our 
 Author " having made the Egyptian Her- 
 " cules to be Sefojirisy is forced to own, 
 " that the War in Libya was carried on 
 " with CMi." Allowing thisj Is this to 
 " give an Account of the State of War du-. 
 " ring this Period." If the Africans and 
 Egyptians fought with Clubs, other Nations 
 had, or might have. Cavalry, Chariots of 
 War, and many other Things which he 
 ought to mention, if he had defigned IOl 
 give an Account of the State of War during 
 this Period ? But as to the Fadt, He quotes 
 Hyginus, who fays, Afri et Egyptii primum. 
 fujiibus dimicaverunt : and He might have; 
 added the Authority oi Pliny, whom I have 
 before quoted for the fame Fad. But Mr. 
 War burton adds, That Sir Jfaac " makes 
 
 " Vulcan 
 
Chronology vindicated. 355 
 
 *' Vulcan, whom he fuppoied to have lived 
 " at this Time, the Ijiventor of Military 
 " Weapons." p. 279. I have already fhewn, 
 that Sir Ifaac never made Vulcan the Lrven- 
 tor of military Weapons j and if the Autho^ 
 fit}' of Hyginus and Pliny be fufficient to 
 juftify the Fa6t they are quoted for, what 
 is the unnatural, the incredible, the impojfible 
 Circumftance, that is of itfelf a fufficient 
 Denjonftration of the Falfhood of Sir Ifaac's 
 Syftem ? Here are Two Nations go out, and 
 fight with a particular Sort of Clubs, after 
 that Military Weapons, Swords, Spears, &c. 
 were known in other Parts of the World 
 and after that a Fleet was built on the Red 
 Sea. The beft and moft eminent Maker of 
 ^mour lived in thefe Times, and affifted 
 Sefojiris with Armour, or perhaps with Iron 
 Inftruments of War, inftead of what vras 
 made of fofter Metals ; and was therefore 
 deified by Him. Where is the Inconfiflen- 
 cy, or Incredibility, or Impoffibility of this? 
 Sefojiris firft fights the Africans with Clubs ; 
 then he invades other Countries; and re-, 
 qeives from Vulcan Ironhrvnowv , or Weapons. 
 Is tjiere any Abfurdity in all this? Sir 
 Aa 3 Ifaac 
 
.35^ Sir Isaac N e w t o n's 
 
 Ifaac ought " fairly and honeftly to have 
 "taken in" fome " abfurdConfequence," ^mdi 
 then indeed Mr. Warbur.ton jxiight have 
 triiujiphed. 
 
 The other Inftance is ftill more unlucky 
 in Relation to the State of Architedlure. 
 " Sir Jfaac tells us, that Toforthrus, or Mf- 
 " culapius, ?iU. Egyptian oiihtliircie. oi Se- 
 " fojiris, found out building with Square^ 
 " Stones" p. 279. He is called Seforthus 
 by Eufebius. ms^s-' Sj- gs^afflof, ?? 'AsKKn-^io! 5r«p' 
 
 A)yv/liotf iK\n^n J'/a, rnv 'icneiKvU. Oulos ;^ tmc //ci 
 ^sr«c ft-i^av iyg/lf. el\Kei )y y£ef.ipns iTny-iKn^n. In 
 
 the third Dynafty of the Memphitic Kings 
 was Necherochis. After him Seforthus, who 
 was called iEfculapius by the Egyptians y^r 
 his Skill in Surgery; He alfo found out the 
 Way of building with cut Stones, and took 
 Pains in the Art of Writing. The Confu- 
 tation of this is to be fought for in thefe 
 Words. " Yet his Contemporary, Sejof- 
 " tris, he tells us, divided 'Egypt into 36 
 " Nomes or Counties, and dug a Canal 
 " from the Nik to the Head of every Nopie-j 
 "and with the Earth dug out of it, he 
 '« caufed. the Ground of the City to be. 
 
 " raifed 
 
Chronology vpiikaied, |^^ 
 
 *' ■ raijJ5d higher, and built a Temple in eve- 
 " ry City for the Worlhip of the Nomh 
 ** &c. And foon after ypnemphts, the third[ 
 " from him, built Memphis, and ordered tlie 
 " Worfhip of the Gods of Bgypi, aB4 
 " built a Palace at Abydus, and the Mem-' 
 ." nonia at ^is and Sufa, and the magnifir 
 " cent Temple oi 'Vulcan in Memphis,^' 
 p. 279. I do not ask here, what Sir Ifaai; 
 fays about the State of ArchiteBure during 
 this Period, (of which he fays not one 
 Word, except the finding out building witk 
 Square Stones in Egypt) but what is Mr. 
 Warburton's Contradidtion to Sir Ifaac, or 
 what is his Proof, that That Sort of Build- 
 ing was found out in Egypt earlier? He 
 quotes Sir Ifaac for faying, that Sefojiris dug 
 certain Canals from the Nile : Were thef^ 
 Canals faced with Square Stone ? Or if they 
 were, Toferthrus had found out the Art, 
 What if Amenophis built Memphis, or the 
 Memnonia, or the magnificent Temple of 
 Vulcan ? He lived long enough after the 
 Days of Sefojiris, and after that Manner- of 
 building with Square Stones was found outj 
 for he was the Third from Sefojiris, 
 
 Mr, 
 
<{ 
 
 358 Sir Is A AC Newton's 
 
 Mr. WarburfOn has added a very remark-, 
 able Note, in which he tells us " Horner'^ 
 " Sentiments of this Matter," i. e. (if it 
 be to die Purpofe) of Toforthrus^s Invention 
 of building with Square Stones, " Homer 
 " fuppofes the Science of Architecture ar- 
 rived to great Perfedtion in the Time of 
 the frojan War. For fpeaking of th^ 
 " Palace of Pflm(whoriiashis great Tranfr 
 *' lator rightly obferves, he makes to be a 
 " Bel Efprit, and a fine Genius) he defcribes 
 " it in this Manner. 
 
 KAAA, Ta p itj]o{ tnv^i cw ai'<f£j:9"/c,.o( ror"'' A,£iTit ' 
 
 II Z. 312. 
 
 *' Here we fee a magnificent Palace, built 
 " by profeft Architedts with all its Suits of 
 " Apartments. As different from the De- 
 " fcription of He^or's Habitation, as were 
 " the Charadters of the Mafters : Of which 
 " laft he only fays it was a commodious, 
 " habitable Houfe. 
 
 ''A;4* '^' ^'^^^ "iKan Jl'aSMi Iv vtuiToioyjaf 
 
 Ek1o£?5. — — — 
 
 Hid. 497". 
 
 Is 
 
C H R o N o L d G Y vindkafcd. 3^9 
 
 Is it not a Matter of fome Wonder, that 
 Mr. Warburton fliould quote this Paflage of 
 Homer ^ as fomething oppofed to Sir IJaaCt 
 when there is not one Word about the Ma- 
 teriah with which this " magnificent Pa- 
 '' lace" was built ? Or could not " magni- 
 " ficent Palaces" be built, without build" 
 ing them of Square Stone f Or was not Paris 
 at leaft a hundred Years after the Tinjes of 
 Sefojiris? And was not Paris in Bgypt't 
 from whence He might learn the Art of 
 building with Stone? After all that Ho- 
 mer here fays, it is no more, than that Paris 
 had a tlbuje, and Bed-cbamber, and Porch to 
 it ; and that the beft Builders in I'roy built it. 
 But whether it was built ofWoodf or Brick, 
 or Flints, or what Materials, there is not 
 One Syllable J and ^o»/^r's Language would 
 encline one to think, that this Bel-Efprit 
 was not above working in the Building itfelf. 
 Nor in fhort is there any T,hing in the Ori- 
 ginal, like a magnificent Palace here de- 
 fcribed. Indeed if one were to look no 
 further than Mr. Pope's Tranflation, one 
 pould not well form too .great an Idea 
 
 o/it. 
 
 A a 4 He^r 
 
^6o Sir I J5 A A C N E W T d N't 
 
 Meilor to Paris, lefty Dome repairs' 
 Himfelf the Manfion rais'd, hom' every Part 
 KfTembling Architeiis df mat chiefs Art, 
 Near Priam's Court, and HeUor's Palace ftands 
 fhe Pompous Stru^ure, and the Town commands* - 
 
 Ililid.- 6. 1,3-89,— 393. 
 
 But the Simplicity of" Horner'^ Language 
 conveys to Us not any Thing o£ Grandeur 
 and Magnificence, nor his AjJembUng Ay- 
 chlteSisfrom all Parts. 
 
 But a real, magnificent Palace, and fome- 
 thing to the Purpofe, is not taken Notice of 
 by Mr. Warhurton, I Ya&^ That of Old 
 King Priamus : In whichT 
 
 ' TlivjmopT iPio'etv'S-afiitfjt.oi ^UToioKidoia 
 
 XlKvitriot a}\h.rthay S'lJ^/Aninpoi ' — ^ , 
 
 ' Iliad; ^. 244, 
 
 ^ere Fffty Chamhers all of Polifhed Stone, 
 
 Kk0?s)I' cT' ir'^ea^iv Ivm/Tiof tvS'o^iv cSvK»{ , ■» 
 
 '- ^i^i^if\^.-^-^ ■■ — ■■ — 
 
 iiid^ 
 
 On the other Btde mthih the PorCh ther^ 
 'Were twehe Chambers of polijh'd Stone built 
 Hear one another, fof his Sons in Law, and 
 
 their 
 
Chronology vindicated. 361 
 
 their Wives. Mr. Pope has tranflated thefe 
 five Lines of Homer ia a beautiful Man- 
 ner. 
 
 And now to Priam's Jlately Courts he came, 
 Raifed on arch'd Columns of _fiupendous Frame i 
 O'er thefe a Range of Marble Structure runs. 
 The rich Patiilliom of his fifty Sdns, 
 In fifty Chambers lodged ; and Rooms of State 
 Oppos'd to thefe, where Priam's Daughters fate : 
 Twelve Domes for them, and their loved Spoufes_/ia«f j 
 Of equal Beauty, and of poUJh'd Stone. 
 
 Iliad. 6. 1. 304, iic. 
 
 But how fine foever this Dcfeription of 
 Priam's Palace may be, it muft be owned^ 
 that it gives us the Idea of a much more 
 magnificent Building, than Homer's own 
 Words do. Homer tells us nothing o^ Rooms 
 of State j or oi Columns of Jiupendous Frame ^ 
 or of Ranges of Marble StruSiure. But 
 fiippofing all thefe to have been in Priam's 
 Palace, — What will this prove againft Sir 
 Ifaac Newton^ who has told us only, that 
 J'oforthrus had found out the: Art of Build-' 
 ing with Stone in Egypt, not in Troy or in 
 j^a Minor, where it might have been in, 
 Pradlice long before his Time. Let ^ri*- 
 canus and Eufebius anfwer for the Fadl. 
 
 Sir 
 
3'62 Sir 1 s A A-c fsf E w T o ii'k. 
 
 Sir J^ac depends on their Authority/ Oi' 
 fttppofing . that Afrkanus's Words are- to 
 be extended fo far as to imply, that Tofor- 
 thus was abfolutely the firft^ who, tmc </*/«' 
 
 - "jsrac Ai'5-i»|/ hx.oS'oiJi.riv 'ivgfio^ found OUt iJuUdtng 
 
 with Square Stones, S^ncel. p. 54. — This 
 may be true, for aught that Homer her& has 
 faid J for Old Priam did not Uve till neac 
 a hundred Years after Tojorthriis^ and his 
 Invention. 
 
 It rnight have been as much or more 
 to the Purpofe to have mentioned Solomon's 
 Temple, and. the hew'd or Squai'e Stones 
 made ufe of in That. The Times would 
 here havQ fuited-: But that which feems to 
 fliew, that cutting, and building with 
 Stone, was then a new Invention, may be 
 gathered from the Number of Hands em^ 
 ploy'd in that Work. No fewer tha« 
 feventy thoufand^ were eniploy'd in carry- 
 ing them, and eighty thoiifand in cutting 
 them in the Mountains j befides three thou-^ 
 jknd three hundred, which ru^ed the People 
 that wrought in the Work. Too many 
 Hands, had there been any great Skill or 
 Art in fuch Sort of Work ! But then This 
 
 Building 
 
GftRONOLOGX pndkafed. 36;^ 
 
 Building was not in Egypt% and confe- 
 quently no Objedtion to the 'ftcoA of 'To~ 
 forthui'^ Invention in Egypt. ^ 
 
 I have here fent you a few of the Re- 
 marks, which I made in perufing thi^ 
 *rreatife of Mr. Warburton. It is cer- 
 tainly the Wotk of a Man of Learning 
 and Abilities : However inconclulive his 
 Reafoning is. You will ask me perh^s. 
 Why I have not vindicated myfelf in Par- 
 ticular agaiafl: his Attacks? But what re- 
 lates to me in his Pojifcript is fufficientiy 
 replied to in fhefe Papers. As to what con- 
 terns me in the Body of his Book, where 
 he treats of the double Sfenfe of Prophet 
 ciesj — It wants no Anfwer to* fhew^ that 
 Allegories, or Allegorical' ReprefentatiojiSj 
 were never by me denied.- And as to his 
 Manner of introducing Perfonal Rcfledtions, 
 — it cannot be worth while to take No- 
 tice of them. I had ufed the Particle 
 *Theny as an illative Particle : We have Then 
 but one literal Senfe of any Prophecy. — His 
 Anfwer is, — " Then? When? Why, 
 " when aUthe Rules of Logic are reduced 
 « to this Author s Standard" As if, Then, 
 in the Place I ufed it, were a Particle of 
 
 Time* 
 
364 Sir Isaac N e w t o n's 
 
 Tme^ Let him glory in fuch Triumjphs uti-* 
 mblefteii I fliall conclude this Letter, with 
 an Obfervation of Mr. WarburtOTiy *' That 
 " Syftems, Schemes, and Hypothefes, all 
 " bred of Heat in the warm Region of 
 *' Gontroverfy," give me leave to add, or 
 of a wild Imagination, " will, like Me^ 
 *' teors in a troubled Sky, each have its 
 *' Turn to blaze and pafs away" Do you 
 judge, whether this Remark be moil ap- 
 plicable to Sir Jfaac Newton's Chronology/ 
 or to Mr. Warburton\ Demonftration of the 
 Divine Legation of Mofes from theOmiJion 
 of a future State of Rewards and Punijh* 
 mcnti in the Jewifli Difpenfation. I am. 
 
 Feb. 24, i^H- 
 
 Reverend Si'^t 
 lour &c. 
 A. A. S Y K E S; 
 
 F I HI S,