But why all this ftrife for or against the one or other hypothefis? for affuredly it would no more follow,

which way foever the queftion be decided, the truth of the mofaic account will be nothing affected by it; for the Scripture no where fays, that Abraham was the firft man, circumcised; nor is the prior ufe of this rite amongst men, any argument against God's enjoining him to obferve it. The pious bishop Cumberland little thought he was differving religion, when he followed an interpretation of the fragment of Sanchoniatho, which led him to conclude [Remarks on Sanchon.'s Phan. Hift. p. 150.] that whole nations had practised circumcifion before Abraham but I quote this great man not for the weight of his opinion in a matter fo unconcerning, but as an example of that candour of mind and integrity of heart, without which the pursuit of truth is a vainer employment than the pursuit of butterflies. A lefs able and a lefs ingenuous man, with not a tenth part of this noble writer's invention, would have had a thousand tricks and fetches to reconcile the firft inftitution of this rite in Abraham, to the high antiquity he had given to Cronus. Another example of a contrary conduct, in a writer of equal account, will fhew us how much this ingenuity is to be efteemed in men of learning. The excellent Dr. Hammond, mifled by the party-prejudices of his time, had perfuaded himself to believe, that the prophefies of the Apocalypfe related only to the firft ages of the chriftian church; and that the book was written not, as Irenæus fuppofed, about the end of Domitian's reign, but, as Epiphanius affirmed, in Claudius Cæfar's. To this, there were two objections; First, that then the prophefy, which, on Hammond's fyftem, related to the deftruction of Jerufalem, would be of an event paft: while the prophefy speaks of it as a thing future. To this he replies, That it was customary with the Prophets to Speak of things paft as of things to come. So far was well. But then the fecond objection is, That if this were the time of writing the Revelations, Antipas, who is faid, c. ii, ver. 13. to have been martyred, was yet alive. No matter for that, it was cuftomary with the Prophets, as he tells us on the other hand, to Speak of things to come as of things paft. And all this within the compass of two pages. 2. The other reafon for my not entering into this matter is, because it is not my intention to examine (except occafionally) any particular queftion of this kind. This hath been done already. What I propofe is to prove in general, that many of the pofitive inftitutions of the Hebrews were enjoined in oppofition to the idolatrous customs of the Egyptians; and that fome bearing a conformity to thofe customs,

follow, from this of our adversaries, that the jewish Religion was false, than from a lately revived one of our friends, which supposes all the Gods of Egypt to have come out of Abraham's family, that the egyptian was true,

It must indeed be of use to true religion, where or whatever it be, to trace up things to their original: and for that reason alone, without any views to party, I shall endeavour to prove the four fol. lowing propositions.

1. That the Egyptian learning, celebrated in Scripture, and the Egyptian superstition there condemned, were the very learning and superstition represented by the Greek writers, as the honour and opprobrium of that Kingdom,

2. That the jewish people were extremely fond of egyptian manners, and did frequently fall into egyptian superstitions: and that many of the laws given to them by the ministry of Moses, were instituted, partly in compliance to their prejudices, and partly in opposition to those superftitions.

3. That Moses's egyptian learning, and the laws he instituted in compliance to the people's prejudices, and in opposition to egyptian superfti. tions, are no reasonable objection to the divinity of his mission. And,

5

1

customs, and not liable to be abused to fuperftition, were in. dulged to them, in wise compliance with the prejudices which long use and habit are accustomed to induce.

Voyez Reflexions Critiques fur les Hifoires des Anciens Peuples,

4. That thofe very circumftances are a strong confirmation of the truth of his pretenfions.

The enquiry, into which the proof of these points will lead us, is, as we faid, very neceffary to the gaining a true idea of the nature of the jewish Difpenfation: as that idea will enable the reader to form a right judgment of the force of those arguments I am preparing for the fupport of my THIRD PROPOSITION, That the doctrine of a future ftate is not to be found in, nor did make part of the jewish Difpenfation. But the enquiry has ftill a further ufe. I fhall employ the refult of it to ftrengthen that general conclufion, THAT MOSES HAD REALLY A DIVINE MISSION, which I have promifed to deduce thro' the medium of this third propofition: fo that the reader must not think me in the humour to trifle with him, if this enquiry fhould prove longer than he expected.

And here, on the entrance, it will be no improper place to explain my meaning, when, in my firft fetting out, I promised to demonftrate the truth of the jewish revelation, ON THE PRINCIPLES. OF A RELIGIOUS DEIST. Had I meant no more by this, than that I would argue with him on common principles, I had only infulted the reader's understanding by an affected expreffion, while I pretended to make that peculiar to my defence, which is, or ought to be, a circumftance common to all: or had I meant fo much by it, as to imply, that I would argue with the deift on his own falfe principles, I had then unreafonably bespoke the reader's long attention to a mere argument ad hominem, which, at beft, had only proved the freethinker a bad reafoner; and who wants to be convinced of that? but my point was not fo much

to

to fhew that the Infidel was in the wrong, as that the Believer was in the right: the only remaining fenfe then of the deift's own principles is this, Thofe true principles of his, which because they are generally held by the enemies of Religion, and alm it as generally rejected by the friends of it, have got the title of deiftical principles. Such, for intance, as this I am going upon, the high antiquity of the egyptian wisdom; and such as that, for the fake of which I go upon it, the omiffion of the doctrine of a future ftate in the mosaic difpenfation. And these are the principles by which I promise, in good time, to overturn all his conclufions.

TH

SECT. III.

HE firft propofition is,―That the Egyp tian learning, celebrated in Scripture, and the egyptian fuperftition there condemned, were the very learning and fuperftition reprefented by the Greek writers as the honour and opprobrium of that kingdom.

them to have been most polite and powerful.Thus ftands the grecian evidence.

But to this it may be replied, that the Greeks are, in all respects, incompetent witneffes, and carry with them fuch imperfections as are fufficient to difcredit any evidence; being, indeed, very ignorant, and very prejudiced. As this made them liable to impofition; fo falling, as WC fhall fee, into ill hands, they actually were impofed

on.

Their ignorance may be fairly collected from their age, and from the authors of their intelligence. They all lived long after the times in queftion; and, tho' they received indeed their information from Egypt itfelf; yet for the most part, it was not till after the entire deftruction of that ancient empire, and when it was now become a province, in fucceffion, to afiatic and european conquerors: when their ancient and public records were destroyed; and their very learning and genius changed to a conformity with their grecian masters: who would needs, at this time of day, feek wisdom from Egypt, which could but furnish them with their own; tho', because they would have it so, disguised under the stately obfcurity of an eaftern cover.

Nor were their prejudices lefs notorious. They thought themselves Autocthones, the original inhabitants of the earth, and indebted to none for their advantages. But when knowledge and acquaintance with foreign nations had convinced them of their mistake; and that, fo far

• See Div. Leg. vol. i. book iii, fect. 4

from

5