manner, as occasion required, have given him others also, which otherwise, through man's inexperience of the nature of things, he would have erred in investi gating for himself; until God's word having thus been a lantern to his feet and a light to his paths, man might, through it, have attained a right understanding, and having, as long as, and wherein-soever he might want them, been guided by God's counsels,' be thereby made gradually wise, meet, and fit to be received unto God in glory. But, on the other hand, man rejecting this, the counsel of God towards him, and taking upon himself to judge absolutely for himself; hence it came to pass, that not having a light of actual knowledge of his own, sufficient to preserve him from error, he would find, that however God had created him (yashar) able, under the directions designed him, to walk aright in the duties of his life; yet now, not keeping himself within this guidance, but following his own thoughts, he would become a creature full of error, and be in the end both wicked and vain. We must conceive that God not only sees us, but sees through us; knows us, and knows the point upon which the issue of our lives will turn. He thus knew the Israelites, when he commanded them to expel the Canaanites out of their land; that if this one thing was not carefully observed and performed by them, however they might resolve tot keep his law, yet they certainly would be drawn away into idolatry by the remains of that people. The Israelites would not apprehend this, but made the expe

Psal. Ixxiii. 24.

riment; and the event proved to the full what had been foretold." In like manner, how easy is it to see, that God might know, that the active and busy faculty he had given our first parents, which we call reason, not given in a greater measure than he had endowed them with, would never have been kept within its proper bounds, unless at first exercised under some such especial command as he thought fit to give them; and therefore gave such command, to be the standing inviolate memento of their lives, that whether they ate, or whether they drank, or whatsoever they did,' they should in nothing turn aside from what God commanded, either to the right hand, or to the left.*

CHAP. VIII.

Concerning the situation of the garden of Eden.

THE writers who contend, that Moses only designed an instructive apologue, and not a real history, would represent, that his very description of the situation of

"See Exodus xxiii. 33. Judges ii. &c.

* Motum istum celerem cogitationis, acumen, solertiam, quam rationem vocamus. Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. 3. c. 27.

1 Cor. x. 31.

Deut. v. 32.

a

the garden of Eden hints this to us. They set before us the variety of opinions, which different writers have had concerning the situation of this garden; and would thence argue, that most probably no such spot of ground ever really existed. Plato, they tell us, feigned As nov, a Jupiter's garden, wherein he relates how Porus and Penia became the parents of Eros." Plato formed a mythologic tale, of the origin of the principle which he termed Eros or Love; and supposes that a garden, which he calls Jupiter's, had been the scene of the fable narrated by him. Of this sort they would have Moses' garden of Eden a fictitious scene, the supposed place where Moses' mythological account of the origin of sin was transacted; no more a real spot of ground, than Jupiter's garden, in which Plato represented love to have had its origin. They say, divers of the early fathers of the Christian church understood Moses in this manner; and they cite a very learned one, Eusebius in particular, for this opinion. To this we may well answer, that what sentiments some of the fathers sometimes had of divers parts of Moses' writings, is not very material. Our inquiry is, what we may reasonably admit from the scriptures to inform us concern, ing the matter before us. However, I would observe, that Eusebius certainly did not mean what is inferred from him. We find in our editions of him these words,

a Dr. Middleton justly remarks, that it would be tedious to collect the strange variety of conceits which have been invented about the single article of a paradise; the reader may find enough of thein in Burnet's Theory, both the Latin and English. Plato in Sympos.

d

Μώσεως κατὰ τινας ἀπορρητες λόγες τίνα παράδεισον γεγονέναι pane. From hence it is said that Eusebius represents Moses as having written of his paradise mythologi cally; whereas I apprehend, that whoever will duly examine Eusebius, will see, that he here hinted Plato's sentiment of Moses, but not his own. Eusebius represents Plato as an allegorical writer, and the passage cited from him has some defect, or is obscurely worded; but it seems to me that he aimed to set himself angus Macsis; in a point of view over against Moses; to appear such a writer as he (Plato) took Moses to have been before him. Accordingly, though Plato changed the facts related by Moses; and did not narrate the very same which he read in Moses' writings, but adopted others; yet he thought he would write as elegantly of Porus and Penia, as he deemed Moses had written of Adam and Eve; reputing Moses, as well as himself, φαί κατὰ τινας ἀπορρητες λογος, writing not as a historian, but in the mythic style of allegory. The

e

• Vide Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. xii. c. 11. Hunc hortum Dei apud Mosem eundem esse volunt nonnulli ac Διος κῆπον, Jovis hortum apud Platonem, et eandem esse utrobique historiam vel allegoriam κατα τινας ἀπορρητες λογες Μωσέως, secundum arcanos sensus Mosis inquit Eusebius. Burnet's Archæol. p. 87.

d I should suspect that Eusebius wrote Mwσrwę ws nata Tiras åπoppytes doyus—pan. Mosis, quasi, secundum quosdam arcanos sensus loquentis. The meaning of the place would thus be clear, but perhaps the unskilful transcriber dropped the seconds, not seeing the meaning of it.

ε τὰ ρηματα μεταποιησας ὁ Πλάτων.

sentiment of the whole period cited from Eusebius, is different, if we understand Maows Parr to mean, that Moses really wrote in allegory, and that Eusebius so thought of him; from what it would appear, taking those words as referring to Plato, and intending only that Plato so thought of Moses. The Greek sentence may, I think, admit the latter sense; an English reader may be apt to catch the former: and Dr. Burnet hereupon endeavours, in a manner unworthy a scho lar, to palm the former upon us. We may fully see the opinion of Eusebius concerning Plato's imitating Moses in the chapter following what is cited. Eusebius tells us, how Plato formed his fable of the Androgynes, from what Moses had related of God's making the woman out of the man. Plato changed the fact related by Moses, and used a fiction, as he thought similar to it, and reputed it as warrantable; supposing that Moses herein, as well as himself, had written allegory. But Eusebius hereupon tells us expressly, that Plato did not understand Moses' intention," and was ig norant of his way of speaking. Here then we come to

The words of Eusebius, in our present copies of him, are, Μώσεως κατα τινας απορρητες λόγες ἐν τη αρχη της το Κοσμα συ τασεως θεα τινα Παράδεισον γεγονέναι φανα, κι' αν (κ' εν) τέτω τον ἄνθρωπον ήπατήθαι δια τῆς γυναικος προς τῇ Οφεως ἄντικρυς μονον χι τα ρήματα μεταποιησω. ὁ Πλατων ἐπιακέσον δια ἐν Συμποσία καὶ ἀντος αλληγορών τεθοικεν. Euseb. lib. xii. c. 11.

Euseb. lib. 12. c. 12.

συνῶς ὁ Πλατων όποια είρηται διάνοια. Euseb. ibid. 4. δηλο μεν ότιν ἐκ άγνοησας τον λογον. Euseb. ibid.