aiming to keep the people unmixed; the former, to keep`r them pure from idolatry. Now, in both cases, where the People are dealt with as free agents, some compliance to their prejudices will be necessary. But as, in the Institutions of a human Lawgiver pretending only to inspiration, such compliance in the RITUAL would be subject to the danger here spoken of; and as compliance in the FUNDAMENTALS, such as the object of Worship, a future State, and mode of civil Government, would not be so subject; and, at the same time, would win most forcibly on a prejudiced people, to the promoting the Legislator's end; we must needs conclude that these would be the things he would comply with and espouse. On the other hand, as a divine Lawgiver could not comply in these things; and as a RITUAL, like the Mosaic, was the only means left of gaining his end; we must conclude that a divine Lawgiver would make his compliance on that side. 1. Let me only add one corollary to our BELIEVING ADVERSARIES, as a farther support of this part of the propositions "That allowing the Ritual-law to be ge nerally instituted in reference to Egyptian and other neighbouring Superstitions, the divine wisdom of the contrivance will be seen in redoubled lustre. One reason, as we have seen above, of the opposition to the notion of such a reference is, that the RITUAL LAW WAS TYPICAL, not only of things relating to that Dispensation, but to the Evangelical. This then they take for granted; and, as will be shewn hereafter, with good reason. Now an Institution of a body of Rites, particularly and minutely. levelled against, and referring to, the idolatrous prac tices of those ages; and, at the same time, as minutely typical, not only of all the remarkable transactions under that Dispensation, but likewise of all the great and constituent parts of a future one, to arise in a distant age, and of a genius directly opposite, must needs give an attentive considerer the most amazing idea of divine wisdom. And this I beg leave to offer to the consi+ deration Hear what the learned Spencer says on this occasion: “ Atque "hac in re Deus sapientia sure specimen egregium edidit, et illi non "absimile quod in mundo frequenter observamus: in eo enin, notante Verulamio, dum natura aliud agit, providentia aliud elicit deration of the unprejudiced Reader, as another strong INTERNAL ARGUMENT THAT THE RITUAL LAW WAS NOT OF MERE HUMAN CONTRIVANCE. 2. Let me add another corollary to the UNBELIEVING JEWS. We have seen at large how expedient it was for the Jews of the first ages, that the Ritual or ceremonial Law should be directed against the several idolatries of those ages. It was as expedient for the Jews of the later ages that this Law should be TYPICAL likewise. For had it not been typical, God would have given a Law whose reason would have ceased many ages before the Theocracy was abolished: and so have afforded a plausible occasion to the Jews for changing or abrogating them, on their own head. 3. Let ne add a third corollary to the UNBELIEVING GENTILES. The Law's being typical obviates their foolish argument against Revelation, that the abolition of the Mosaic religion and the establishment of the Chris tian in its stead, impeaches the wisdom of God, as implying change and inconstancy in his acting; for by his making the Law typical, the two religions are seen to be the two parts of one and the same design. The great Maimonides, who first * explained the CAUSES of the Jewish Ritual in any reasonable manner (and who, to observe it by the way, saw nothing in the LAW but temporal sanctions), was so struck with the splendour of divinity, which this light reflected back upon the law, that in the entry on his subject he breaks out into this triumphant boast, EA TIBI EXPLICABO UT PLANE NON AMPLIUS DUBITARE QUEAS ET DIFFEREN TIAM HABEAS QUA DISCERNERE POSSIS INTER ORDI NATION ES nam frondibus quas natura, consuetudinem suam retinens, parit, "utitur providentia ad cœli injurias a fructu tenello propulsandas. "Pari modo, cum Hebræorum natio, consuetudinem suam exuere "nescia, ritus antiquos impense desideraret. Deus eorum desiderio "se morigerum præbebat; sed eorum ruditate & impotentia puerilig "ad fines egregios & sapientia sua dignos utebatur. Sic enim ritus antiquos populo indultos, circumstantiis quibusdam demptis aut "additis, immutavit, ut rerum cœlestium schema repræsentarent, "oculis purgatioribus facile percipiendum; adeo ut Deus puerilibus& "Israelitarum studiis obsequens, divina promoveret." De Leg. Heb. Rit. p. 218. * In his More Nevoch. Par. III.-And see note [G the end of this Boe d NATION ES LEGUM CONDITARUM AB HOMINIBUS ET INTER ORDINATIONES LEGIS DIVINÆ. Thus the Reader sees what may be gained by fairly and boldly submitting to the force of evidence. Such a manifestation of the divinity of the Law, arising out of the Deist's own principles, as is sufficient to cover him with confusion ! And what is it, we lose? Nothing sure very great or excellent. The imaginary honour of being original in certain Rites (considered in themselves) indifferent; and becoming good or bad by comparison, or by the authority which enjoins thein, and by the object to which they are directed. The Deist indeed pretends that, in the things borrowed from Egypt, the first principles of Law and Morality, and the very tritest customs of civil life, are to be included. The extravagance of this fancy hath been exposed elsewhere. But as it is a species of folly all parties are apt to give into, it may not be amiss to con sider this matter of TRADUCTIVE CUSTOMS a little more particularly.22 There is nothing obstructs our discoveries in Antiquity (as far as concerns the noblest end of this study, the knowledge of mankind) so much as that false, though undisputed Principle, that the general customs of men, whether civil or religious, (in which a common likeness connects, as in a chain, the Manners of its inhabitants, throughout the whole globe) are traductive from one another. When, in truth, the origin of this general similitude is from the sameness of one common Nature, improved by reason, or debased by superstition. But when a custom, whose meaning lies not upon the surface, but requires a profounder search, is the subject of inquiry, it is much easier to tell us that the users borrowed it from such or such a people, than rightly to inform us, what common principle of REASON or SUPERSTITION gave birth to it in both. How many able writers have employed their time and learning to prove that Christian Rome borrowed their superstitions from the Pagan city! They have indeed * See book ii. shewn " shewn an exact and surprising likeness in a great variety of instances. But the conclusion from thence, that, therefore, the Catholic borrowed from the Heathen, as plausible as it may seem, is, I think, a very great mistake; which the followers of this hypothesis might have understood without the assistance of the principle here laid down since the rise of the superstitious customs in question were many ages later than the conversion of that imperial city to the Christian Faith: consequently, at the time of their introduction, there were no PAGAN prejudices which required such a compliance from the ruling Clergy. For this, but principally for the general reason here advanced, I am rather induced to believe, that the very same spirit of superstition, operating in equal circumstances, made both Papists and Pagans truly originals. But does this take off from the just reproach which the Reformed have cast upon the Church of Rome, for the practice of such Rites, and encouragement of such Superstitions? Surely not; but rather strongly fixes it. In the former case, the rulers of that Church had been guilty of a base compliance with the infirmities of their new converts in the latter, the poison of superstition is seen to have infected the very vitals of its Hierarchy *. But then, truth will fare almost as ill when a right, as when a wrong principle, is pushed to an extravagance. Thus, as it would be ridiculous to deny, that the Roman laws of the Twelve Tables were derived from the Greeks, because we have a circumstantial history of their traduction so it would be equally foolish not to own, that a great part of the Jewish ritual was composed in reference to the superstitions of Egypt; because their long abode in the country had made the Israelites extravagantly fond of Egyptian customs: but to think (as some Deists seem to have done) that they borrowed from thence their com mon principles of morality, and the legal provisions for the support of such principles †, is, whether we consider the Israelites under a divine or human direction, a * See note [HHHHH] at the end. See Marsham. |