be OBJECTIVE to the pagan superstitions; and the second, that it should be TYPICAL of their great deliverer. Now the coincidences of these two ends, not being sufficiently adverted to, hath been the principal occasion of that obstinate aversion to the truth here advanced, That much of the ritual was given, PARTLY in compliance to the people's prejudices, and PARTLY in opposition to Egyptian superstitions: these men thinking the falsehood of the proposition sufficiently proved in showing the ritual to be typical; as if the one end excluded the other: whereas we see they were very consistent; and hereafter shall see, that their concurrency affords one of the noblest proofs of the divinity of its original.

And now, to go on with our subject: the intelligent reader cannot but perceive, that the giving a RITUAL in opposition to Egyptian superstition, was a necessary consequence of the people's propensity towards it. For a people so prejudiced, and who were to be dealt with as free and accountable agents, could not possibly be kept separate from other nations, and pure from foreign idolatries, any otherwise than by giving them laws IN OPPOSITION to those superstitions. But such being the corrupt state of man's will as ever to revolt against what directly opposeth its prejudices, wise governors, when under the necessity of giving such laws, have, in order to break and evade the force of human perversity, always intermixed them with others which eluded the perversity, by flattering the prejudice; where the indulgence could not be so abused as to occasion the evil which the laws of opposition were designed to prevent.* And in this manner it was that our inspired lawgiver acted with his people, if we will believe Jesus himself, where, speaking of a certain positive institution, he says, Moses for the HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS wrote you this precept.† Plainly intimating their manners to be such, that, had not Moses indulged them in some things, they would have revolted against all. It follows, therefore, that Moses's giving laws to the Israelites, in compliance to these their prejudices, was a natural and necessary consequence of laws given in opposition to them. Thus far from the nature of the thing.

Matter of fact confirms this reasoning. We find in the law a surprising relation and resemblance between Jewish and Egyptian rites, in circumstances both opposite and similar. But the learned SPENCER hath fully exhausted this subject, in his excellent work, De legibus Hebræorum ritualibus et earum rationibus; and thereby done great service to divine revelation: for the RITUAL LAW, when thus explained, is seen to be an institution of the most beautiful and sublime contrivance. Which, without its CAUSES (no where to be found but in the road of this theory)

* See this reasoning enforced, and explained more at large in the proof of the next proposition. + Mark x. 5. and Mat. xix. 8.

† This is still farther seen from God's being pleased to be considered by them as a local tutelary deity: which, when we come to that point, we shall show was the prevailing superstition of those times.

must lie for ever open to the scorn and contempt of libertines and unbelievers. This noble work is no other than a paraphrase and comment on the third part of a famous treatise called More Nevochim, of the Rabbi MOSES MAIMONIDES: of whom only to say (as is his common encomium) that he was the first of the rabbins who left off trifling, is a poor and invidious commendation. Thither I refer the impartial reader; relying on his justice to believe that I mean to charge myself with no more of Spencer's opinions than what directly tend to the proof of this part of my proposition, by showing, that there is a great and surprising relation and resemblance between the Jewish and Egyptian rites, in circumstances both opposite and similar.

I ask nothing unreasonable of the reader, when I desire him to admit of this as proved; since the learned HERMAN WITSIUS, in a book professedly written to confute the hypothesis of Maimonides and Spencer, confesses the fact in the fullest and amplest manner.*

What is it then (a stranger to controversy would be apt to inquire) which this learned man addresses himself, in a large quarto volume, to confute? It is the plain and natural consequence of this resemblance, namely, that the Jewish ritual was given partly in compliance to the people's prejudices, and partly in opposition to Egyptian superstitions; the proposition we undertake to prove. Witsius thinks, or is rather willing to think, that the Egyptian ritual was invented in imitation of the Jewish. For the reader sees, that both sides are agreed in this, that either the Jews borrowed from the Egyptians, or the Egyptians from the Jews; so strong is the resemblance which forces this confession from them.

Now the only plausible support of Witsius's party being a thing taken for granted, viz. that the rites and customs of the Egyptians, as delivered by the Greeks, were of much later original than these writers assign to them; and my discourse on the ANTIQUITIES OF EGYPT, in the preceding section, proving it to be entirely groundless; the latter part of the proposition, viz. that many of the laws given to the Jews, by the ministry of Moses, were instituted partly in compliance to their prejudices, and partly in opposition to Egyptian superstitions, is sufficiently proved.

But to let nothing that hath the appearance of an argument remain unanswered, I shall, in as few words as may be, examine this opinion, that the Egyptians borrowed from the Israelites; regarding both nations in that very light in which holy scripture hath placed them. The periods then in which this must needs be supposed to have happened, are one or other of these: 1. The time of Abraham's residence in Egypt; 2. of Joseph's government; 3. of the slavery of his, and his brethren's descendants; or, 4. Any indefinite time after their egression from Egypt.

Now not to insist on the utter improbability of a potent nation's borrowing its religious rites from a private family, or from a people they held in slavery; I answer, that of these four periods, the three first are beside the question. For the characteristic resemblance insisted on, is that which we find between the Egyptian ritual, and what is properly called MOSAICAL. And let it not be said, that we are unable to distinguish the rites which were purely LEGAL from such as were PATRIARCHAL:* for Moses, to add the greater force and efficacy to the whole of his institution, hath been careful to record each specific rite which was properly patriarchal.

Thus, though Moses enjoined CIRCUMCISION, he hath been careful to record the patriarchal institution of it with all its circumstances Moses gave unto you circumcision (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers) says JESUS.† So again, where he institutes the Jewish sabbath of rest, he records the patriarchal observance of it, in these words: In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, &c. and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.‡

The last period then only remains to be considered, namely, from the egression. Now at that time and from thenceforward, we say, the Egyptians would not borrow of the Israelites, for these two plain and convincing reasons. 1. They held the Israelites in the greatest contempt, and abhorrence, as SHEPHERDS, SLAVES, and ENEMIES, men who had brought a total devastation on their country: and had embraced a religion whose ritual daily treated the gods of Egypt with the utmost ignominy and despite. § But people never borrow their religious rites from those towards whom they stand in such inveterate distance. 2. It was part of the religion of the old Egyptians to borrow from none: || most certainly, not from the Jews. This is the account we have, of their natural disposition, from those ancients who have treated of their manners. While, on the other hand, we are assured from infallible authority that the Israelites, of the time of Moses, were in the very extreme of a contrary humour, and were for BORROWING all they could lay their hands on. This is so notorious, that I was surprised to find

* See note PPPP, at the end of this book.

† 1 John vii. 22. See note QQQQ, at the end of this book.

‡ Exod. xx. 11. And see note RRRR, at the end of this book.

See Spencer, De Leg. Heb. Rit. vol. i. p. 296.

|| Ægyptii detestari videntur quicquid οἱ γονεῖς οὐ παρίδειξαν, parentes non commonstrarunt, Witsii Ægyptiaca, p. 6.- Πατρίοισι δὲ χρεώμενοι νόμοισι, ἄλλον οὐδένα ἐπικτέωνταιHerodot. lib. ii. cap. 78. Ελληνικοῖσι δὲ νομαίοισι φεύγουσι χρᾶσθαι τὸ δὲ σύμπαν εἰπεῖν, μηδ' ΑΛΛΩΝ ΜΗΔΑΜΑ ΜΗΔΑΜΩΝ ἀνθρώπων νομαίοισι οἱ μὲν νῦν ἄλλοι Αἰγύπτιοι οὕτω τοῦτο Φυλάσσουσι. - Cap. 91.

the learned Witsius attempt to prove, that the Egyptians were greatly inclined to borrowing :* but much more surprised with his arguments; which are these: 1. Clemens Alexandrinus says, that it was the custom of the barbarians, and particularly the Egyptians, to honour their legislators and benefactors as gods. 2. Diodorus Siculus confirms this account, where he says, that the Egyptians were the most grateful of all mankind to their benefactors. And 3. The same historian tells us, that when Egypt was become a province to Persia, the Egyptians deified Darius, while yet alive: which honour they never had done to any other king.†-This is the whole of his evidence to prove the Egyptian genius so greatly inclined to foreign rites. Nor should I have exposed the nakedness of this learned and honest man, either in this place or in any other, but for the use which hath been made of his authority; of which more hereafter. But Witsius, and those in his way of thinking, when they talk of the Egyptians' borrowing Hebrew rites, seem to have entertained a wrong idea of that highly policied people. It was not in ancient Egypt, as in ancient Greece, where every private man, who had travelled for it, found himself at liberty to set up what lying vanity he pleased. For in that wary monarchy, religion was in the hand of the magistrate, and under the inspection of the public: so that no private novelties could be introduced, had the people been as much disposed, as they were indeed averse, to innovations; and that any public ones would be made, by rites borrowed from the Hebrews, is, as we have shown above, highly improbable.

Hitherto I have endeavoured to discredit this proposition, (that the Egyptians borrowed of the Israelites) from the nature of the thing. I shall now show the falsehood of it, from the infallible testimony of GOD himself: who, upbraiding the Israelites with their borrowing idolatrous rites of all their neighbours, expresses himself in this manner, by the prophet Ezekiel: The contrary is in thee from other women, WHEREAS NONE FOLLOWETH THEE TO COMMIT WHOREDOMS: and in that thou givest a reward, and no reward is given to thee, therefore thou art conThe

trary. The intelligent reader perceives that the plain meaning of the metaphor is this, Ye Jews are contrary to all other nations: you are fona of borrowing their rites, while none of them care to borrow yours. But this remarkable fact, had it not been so expressly delivered, might easily have been collected from the whole course of sacred history. reason will be accounted for hereafter. At present I shall only need to observe, that by the words, whereas none followeth thee to commit whoredoms, is not meant, that no particular gentile ever embraced the Jewish religion; but, that no gentile people took in any of its rites into their own national worship. That this is the true sense of the passage appears from hence, 1. The idolatry of the coMMUNITY of Israel is here spoken of: and this, as will be shown in the next book, did not consist in renouncing the religion of Moses, but in polluting it with idolatrous mixtures. 2. The embracing the Jewish religion, and renouncing idolatry, could not, in figurative propriety, be called committing whoredom, though polluting the Jewish rites, by taking them into their own superstitions, gives elegance to the figure thus applied.

The reader, perhaps, may wonder how men can stand out against such kind of evidence. It is not, I will assure him, from the abundance of argument on the other side; or from their not seeing the force on this; but from a pious, and therefore very excusable, apprehension of danger to the divinity of the law, if it should be once granted that any of the ceremonial part was given in compliance to the people's prejudices. Of which imaginary danger Lord Bolingbroke hath availed himself, to calumniate the law, for a COMPLIANCE too evident to be denied.

The apprehension therefore of this consequence being that which makes believers so unwilling to own, and deists, against the very genius of their infidelity, so ready to embrace an evident truth; I seem to come in opportunely to set both parties right: while I show, in support of my THIRD PROPOSITION, that the consequence is groundless; and that the fears and hopes, built upon this supposed compliance, are vain and fantastic: which, I venture to predict, will ever be the issue of such fears and hopes as arise only from the religionist's honest adherence to common sense and to the word of God.

[III.] Our THIRD PROPOSITION is, that Moses's Egyptian learning, and the laws he instituted in compliance to the people's prejudices, and in opposition to Egyptian superstitions, are no reasonable objection to the divinity of his mission.†

The first part of the proposition concerns Moses's Egyptian wisdom. Let us previously consider what that was. MOSES, says the holy martyr Stephen, was LEARNED IN ALL THE WISDOM OF THE EGYPTIANS, and mighty in words and deeds. Now where the WISDOM of a nation is spoken of, that which is characteristic of the nation must needs be meant: where the wisdom of a particular man, that which is peculiar to his quality and profession. St Stephen, in this place, speaks of both. † See p. 686, of vol. i, ‡ Acts vii. 22.