a separate nation, under their own Law and Religion, till the coming of the MESSIAH; and to prepare things for his reception by preserving amongst them the doctrine of the Unity. Now, to judge whether the Theocracy or extraordinary Providence effected its end, we have only to consider, Whether this people, to the coming of Christ, did continue a distinct Nation separated from all the other tribes of Mankind, and distinguished from them, by the worship of the one true God. And on enquiry, we shall find, they not only did continue thus distinct and distinguished, but have so continued ever since. A Circumstance which, having no example amongst any other People, is sufficient to convince us, that there must have been some amazing power in 'that Theocracy, which could go on operating for so many ages after the extraordinary administration of it had ceased. Let us conclude therefore, that his Lordship having nothing to urge against the due efficacy of this extraordinary Providence, but that, the people rebetled at one time and repented at another, and that 'this Providence had only temporary effects, is the most ample confession of his defeat.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

P. 5. [A] YET

ET some writers against the Divine Legation

will have it, that from the very context (ver. 16, 17. To Abraham and his seed were the promises made, &c. The Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, &c.] it appears that St. Paul means, the Law was ADDED not barely to the Patriarchal Religion, but to the promise of the inheritance, the covenant that was confirmed before of God; and from thence, conclude that the Jewish Religion had the doctrine of a future state. This it is to have a retrospective view, and with a microscopic eye! For had they, when they went one step backward, but gone two, they would have seen, St. Paul could not possibly have had their meaning in view, for at ver. 15, he expressly says,--though it be but a man's COVENANT (much less if it be God's] yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or ADDETH thereto. The Law therefore mentioned as ADDED in the 19th verse, cannot be understood, in the Apostle's sense, as being added to the COVENANT that was confirmed before of God in Christ, or indeed to any thing, but to the Patriarchal Religion of the Unity.

P. 20. [B] –I1 [Ninus fils de Belus) ne peut être inventeur de l'idolatrie qui etoit bien plus ancienne; je ne dis pas seulement en Egypte, mais même au dela de l'Euphrate, puisque Rachel deroba les Te




raphims, &c.-Il faut aller en Egypte pour trouver sur cela quelque chose du mieux fondé. Grotius croit que, du temps de Joseph, l'idolatrie n'etoit point encore commune en Egypt. Cependant on voit des-lors dans ce pays un extrême attachement à la magie, à la divination, aux augures, à l'interpretation des songes, &c.

-Moyse defend d'adorer aucune figure, ni de ce qui est visible dans les cieux ni de ce qui est sur la terre, ni de ce qui est dans lès caux. Voilà la defense generale d'adorer les astres, les animaux, & les pois.

Le veau d'or etoit une imitation du dieu Apis. La niche de Moloch, dont parle Amos, étoit appa-, remment portée avec une figure du soleil. Moyse defend aux Hebreux d'immoler aux boucs, comme ils ont fait autrefois. La mort en l'honneur duquel il defend de faire le deûil, etoit le même qu'Osiris. Beelphegor, aux mysteres duquel ils furent entrainez par les femmes de Madian, étoit Adonis. Moloch cruelle divinité, à laquelle on immoloit des victimes humaines, étoit commune du tems de Moyse, aussibien que ces abominables sacrifices. Les Chananeens adoroient des moûches & d'autres insectes, au rapport, de l'auteur de la sagesse. Le même auteur nous parle des Egyptiens d'alors comme d'un peuple plongé dans toutes sortes d'abominations, & qui adoroit toutes sortes d'animaux, même les plus dangereux, & les plus nuisibles. Le

Le pays de Chanaan étoit encore plus corrumpu. Moyse ordonne d'y abbattre les autels, les bois sacrez, les idoles, les monumens superstitieux. Il parle des enclos, où l'on entretenoit un feu eternel en l'honneur du soleil. Voilà la plus

Voilà la plus indubitable epoque , qui nous ayons de l'idolatrie. Mais ce n'est point une epoque qui nous en inontre sa source & le commencement, ni même le progrès & l'avancement: elle nous présente une idolatrie achevée, & portée à son comble; les astres, les hommes, les animaux mêmes adorez comme autant divinitez; la magie, la divination, l'impieté au plus haut point où elles puissent aller : enfin le crime, & les desordres honteux, suites



ordinaires du culte superstitieux. & de regle: Calmet, Dissert. sur l'Origine de l'Idolatrie, tom. i. pp. 431, 432.16 Thus far this learned writer.' And without doubt, his account of the early and overbearing progress of idolatry is exact. Another writer, who would pass for such, is in different sentiments. He thinks its rise andi progress much lower. If we look(says he) anwong'st the Canaanites;we shall find no reason to imagine that there was a religion different from that of Abraham. ' Abraham travelled up and dowon many years in this country, and was respected by the inhabitants of it, as a person in great favouri with God, &c. And again, Abraham was entertain.. ed

i by Pharaoh without the appearance of any indis+? position towards him, '0'i any the least sign of their having a different religion from thut which Abraham himself professed and practised. [Connect. of Sac. and Prof. Hist: vôl. 1. pp. 309 & 312.] But here the learned author was deceived by more modern ideas. He did not reflect on that general principle of intercommunity, so essential to paganism, which made all its followers disposed to receive the God of Abraham as a true, though tütelary, Deity.” Josephus (the gejius of whose times could not but give him a right notion of this matter) saw well the consistency between the veneration paid to Abraham's God; and the idolatry of the venerators; as appears from his making that Patriarch the first who propagated the belief of one God, after the whole race of mankind was sunk into idolatry, and at the same time making all those with whom he had to do, pay reverence to his God. Of Abrahain he thus speaks, Ada Tšto azi φρονείν έπ' αρετή μείζων των άλλων ήρθμένG-, και την περί τα θεά δόξαν, ήν άπασι συνέβαινεν είναι, καινίσαι και μέλαβαλεϊν έξω. ΠρώτG εν τολμά Θεόν απoφήνασθαι δημιεργών Für ilawr y evolvi. Ć. 7. He makes the idolatious priests of Egypt tell Pharaoh at once, that the pestilence was sent from God in punishment for his rin tended violation of the stranger's wife': xalà miñwo ei


το δεινόν αυτό παρεϊναι απεσήμαινον οι ιερείς, εφ' οίς έθελησεν įvuspicavit Elvy Tmk yuvaixa. c. 8. And Abimelech, in the same circumstances, as ready to own the same alithor of this punishment. Ο Φράζει προς τις φίλες, ως ο Θεός αυτώ ταύτην επαγάγοι την νόσον υπέρ εκδικίας τα ξένα φυλάσσών ανύβριςον αυτώ την γυναίκα. c. 12. Αntig.


P: 28. [C] These considerations will lead us to a right apprehension of that part of the history of Jesus, where James and John, on the inhospitable "behaviour of a village of Samaria, say to their Master, in the Legal spirit of the Jewish economy, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume ther, even us Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. (Luke ix. 54. 553 561] i.e. You consider not that you are no longer under the Dispensation of Works (in which a severity of this kind was just and necessary), but, of Grace, in which all restraint and punishment of opinions would be mischievous and unlawful. Here we see the very disposition to intolerance in James and John is severely censured. Yet the same temper in Paul, even when proceeding into act, is passed over without reproof, when Jesús, after his resurrection, is pleased to reveal his truth to him in a miraculous manner. Our Lord, instead of condemning the nature of the practice, only assures him of the vanity of its effects, It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. [Acts ix. 5.) The reason of this different treatment is evident James and John had given their names to the Religion of Jesus, in which all force was unjust. Paul was yet of the Religion of Moses, where restraint was lawfut. On this account it is that this Apostle, when speaking of his merits as a Jew, expresses himself in this manner, For ye have heard of my conversation in time past; how that beyond measure I PERSECUTED the church of God, and wasted it:


« ForrigeFortsett »